Saturday, 11 May 2019

The rest of Sappho

OK guys, strap yourselves in 'cos we got a loooooooong way to go here. Today we end Sappho. I mean, we see all that is left of Sappho. And boy is that a lot of stuff. Let me try to list all the fragments in some sensible order. Below, I group them in my own way, separating 7 groups, with 10 categories in group 1, 4 in group 2, groups 3-4 are not subdivided, 3 categories in group 5, 3 in group 6, and a three fragments in group 7. The orderings in group 1's categories and of the categories themselves are pretty much random: I had a list with an order whose origins I have no clue about, and I followed that, save for rearranging category 1.A so that the two lines of inc. 24 were consecutive. The categories of group 2 are listed in order of intelligibility, and the ordering is based on the Bibliotheca Augustana ordering and, where B.A. didn't have the fragments, the Lobel-Page ordering and, when Lobel-Page didn't either, the Voigt ordering, and when they were only in Campbell the Campbell ordering, and for the P.GC. inv. 105 that were nowhere, the ordering of the numbers of the papyrus fragments. Group 3 should be ordered according to Lobel-Page ordering as far as I can recall. Group 4 goes by Lobel-Page, then Voigt, then Campbell, then Edmonds, then Bergk ordering, and finally there is a safopoemas-only colophon to wrap it up. Group 5 is based entirely on Edmonds, ordering of fragments within categories included. The categories themselves are given in order, so to speak, of creativity: first the e.g.s, where he basically invents everything; then the outdated transcriptions and/or many extra letters read; then the "simply reconstructs very differently". The ordering in the categories of group 6 should follow the Lobel-Page ordering, or rather the ordering in the anthology. The ordering of the categories is in decreasing order of novelty, let's say: fusions first, which are completely new, bigger changes to follow in the differences that make it into a separate version in the editions, and finally notices of completions that don't warrant a separate version. The four in group 7 are new combinations / completions, ordered in order of how I discovered / came up with them. Let's see the list.
  1. The first group of fragments is the rest of what I translated poetically, plus a couple new findings found while browsing Bergk, Campbell, and Edmonds to establish my comparative numbering table.
    1. The first category in this group is that of wannabe epithalamians (marriage songs) that did not make it into the dedicated post because it was not evident enough, IMO, that they really were epithalamians.
      1. The first such fragment is Edmonds 157, Lobel-Page 108, and Campbell 108, and is hidden in the note to Bergk 94 (the γλυκύμαλον fragment from this category), because Bergk appears to think this is part of that fragment. It is a quote from Himerius's Orations which runs thus: «Φέρε οὖν, εἴσω τοῦ θαλάμου παραγαγόντες αὐτὸν ἐντυχεῖν τῷ κάλλει τῆς νύμφης πείσομεν. ὦ καλά, ὦ χαρίεσσα· πρέπει γάρ σοι τὰ τῆς Λεσβίας ἐγκώμια», or, in Campbell's translation, «Come then, we shall lead him away within the bedroom and urge him to come face to face with the beauty of the bride. [Quote]: for the praises of the Lesbian woman [aka Sappho] are fitting for you». This is definitely ascribed to Sappho, and may or may not be part of a longer epithalamion with other fragments. I keep it separate. It seems the fragment should only be ὦ κάλα, ὦ χαρίεσσα, but I found it with an extra κόρα on Bibliotheca Augustana (I think) and translated it thus. It's a good thing that Lobel-Page says «Sapphus esse Bergk suspicatus est; nobis persuadet Theocritus xviii 38 imitatus, unde fortasse etiam κόρα addase licet», that is «Bergk suspected this was by Sappho; we are persuaded that Theocritus's idyll 18 at l. 38 is imitating this, whence perhaps one may also add κόρα». The mentioned line reads «ὦ καλὰ ὦ χαρίεσσα κόρα, τὺ μὲν οἰκέτις ἤδη», «O beautiful o graceful maiden, you [are] already the mistress», and that is where the κόρα comes from. Edmonds had his own phantasy by adding σοὶ instead and eliding κάλα to form the glyconian Ὦ κάλ' ὦ χαρίεσσα σοὶ, and then from an extra part of the quotation he goes on to reconstruct, in his e.g. fashion, two and a half other lines.
      2. Then we find Lobel-Page 103 and Campbell 103, which is neither in Bergk nor in Edmonds, and may actually well be a list of initial lines in the fashion of Campbell 213C. I place it here because εὔποδα νύμφαν does fit well in an epithalamian. What can be metrically analysed of this tatter of a fragment (P.Oxy. 2294) fits the meter xxuu––uu––uu–u–x, and this is what I translated it as being back in the days. Given that Lobel-Page and Campbell agree as to the completion, and Lobel-Page's raw transcription has critical notation that could match Campbell's with a few underlined letters (and a vanishing underdot IIRC, but there are two vanishing from LP's raw transcription and LP's reordered one), I'll just take the critical notation off that transcription, and impose it on Bibliotheca Augustana's text, checking it matches Lobel-Page's. Just a few notes: a) the small lines are bibliographical information about a book of Sappho's poems, and in fact may appear again in category 4, b) this is usually indented but doing that in HTML is a pain in the bleep I don't want to go through, c) βέλτιον near the end has an extra deleted epsilon before the iota, d) l. 2 of the pre-commentary and l. 3 of the post-commentary completed by me, but cfr. Campbell and his translation, e) l. 1 of the pre-commentary appears to have two vestiges, the second of which gets written as an uncertain omega, possibly due to width, as Lobel-Page has a critical note suggesting there may be in fact three vestiges in that line.
      3. Then there is Bergk 103 Edmonds 159 Lobel-Page 107 Campbell 107. This fragment was quoted by two different sources: in Apollonius's treatise on conjunctions we read «Ἆρα· οὗτος κατὰ πᾶσαν διάλεκτον ὑπεσταλμένης τῆς κοινῆς καὶ Ἀττικῆς ἦρα λέγεται· Ἦρ' ἔτι παρθενίης ἐπιβάλλομαι, Σαπφώ» (Ἆρα: this one is said as ἦρα in all dialects except Koinè and Attic; [quoted line], Sappho), and in a Scholiast on Dionysius of Thrace we read «Ὁ ἆρα ἐρωτηματικὸς ὢν μηκύνει τὸ ᾱ, συλλογιστικὸς δὲ βραχύνει· τρέπεται δὲ ἑκατέρου τὸ ᾱ εἰς η̄, τὸ μὲν μακρὸν παρ' Αἰολεῦσιν οὕτως· Ἦρ' ἔτι παρθενικὰς ἐπιβάλλομαι» (The interrogative ἆρα lengthens the ᾱ, the inferential one shortens it; the ᾱ of both turns to η̄, the long one being thus in Aeolic: [quoted line]). Now, παρθενικὰς is only an adjective, and if the grave accent is to be trusted (I don't know how the sources report it, the papyri I'm used to typically don't have accents, or have very few and basically no grave ones) it would be an accusative plural feminine, which begs the question: what would it refer to? Maybe some locution of time? But then why not just παρθενίας? The other option, παρθενίης, makes more sense in abstract terms, being a noun, but of course is not Aeolic, not even Attic, just Koinè. That is why there is no controversy on the text of this line, universally rendered as you will see below. The meter appears to be –uu–uu–uu–ux, which is what I kept in Latin, and imitated as –uu–uu–uu–u– (– stressed, u unstreesed) in the other languages.
      4. Then we have Lobel-Page and Campbell 106, which Bergk and Edmonds put together with Campbell 111 to form Bergk 93 and Edmonds 148. I probably considered doing so myself at some point, did so in fact in the all-Sappho posts 1 and 2, but I couldn't do it in the post because I translated this separately and the rhyme scheme would have been violated by just joining the two translations – admitting the joining had been possible despite me translating the first part as rhyming couplets of half-lines and this one as a simple "hexameter" line, which would have meant I needed to split the translations, possibly causing problems of line splits in the middle of words. The source is Demetrius De Elocutione, which reads «Ἐκ παραβολῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐξέχοντος ἀνδρὸς ἡ Σαπφώ φησι· Πέῤῥοχος ὡς ὅτ' ἄοιδος ὁ Λέσβιος ἀλλοδάποισιν. Ἐνταῦθα γὰρ χάριν ἐποίησιν ἡ παραβολὴ μᾶλλον ἢ μέγεθος· καίτοι ἐξῆν εἰπεῖν, πέῤῥοχος ὥσπερ ἡ σελήνη τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων, ἢ ὁ ἥλιος ὁ λαμπρότερος, ἢ ὅσα ἄλλα ἐστὶ ποιητικώτερα» (By comparison, Sappho also says this of a man that stands out: [quoted line]. For here the comparison makes more grace than greatness: indeed it is also possible to say superior like the moon to the other stars, or [calling] the brightest one the sun, or all the other rather poetic [metaphors]). The text is uncontroversial, though it is clearly not a complete sentence as is. I would personally suggest to emend ὄτε to ποτε or better τότε, but I will refrain from doing so because there is no valid argument that this should be a complete sentence. It is a hexameter, which is what I kept or imitated in the translations.
      5. Then there is Bergk 94 Edmonds 150 Lobel-Page 105(a) Campbell 105(a). This is a triplet of hexameters that was quoted twice and mentioned several other times. The two quotations were by a Scholiast on Hermogenes, who wrote «καὶ ὄσαι (sc. ἰδέαι τὰ ταῖς αἰσθήτεσιν ἡδέα ἐκφράζουσιν, ὄψει, ἀκοῇ, ὀσφρήσει, γεύσει, ἀφῇ, ὡς Ὅμηρος (Il. 8 377-378)· καὶ Σαπφώ· "Ἀμφὶ δὲ ὕδωρ ψυχρὸν κελάδει δι' ὄσδων μαλίνων" Σαπφώ· καὶ "Οἶον τὸ γλυκὺ μᾶλλον/μήλῳ/μῆλον ἐρεύθεται/εὑρέθεται/εὑρίσκεται ἄκρῳ ἐπ' ὄσδῳ ἄκρον ἐπ' ἀκροτάτῳ λελάθοντο δὲ μαλοδρόπηες/μελαδροπῆες οὐ μὰν ἐκλελάθοντ' ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐδύαντ' ἐπίκεσθαι"» (And such (sc. kinds of style) describe things sweet for the senses, sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, like Homer (Iliad VIII 377-378), and Sappho: [part of Idyll with Aphrodite], and: [the quote in a slightly corrupted form, corruptions and codex oscillations deduced from Bergk's critical note and Lobel-Page's]), and one by a Scholiast on Theocritus, who wrote «τὸ γλυκύμαλόν ἐστι καὶ μήλου γένος. Σαπφώ· "γλυκύμαλον ἐρεύγεται ὡς ἄκρῳ ἐπ' ὄσδῳ"» (The "sweet apple" is also a type of apple. Sappho (says): "Like the sweet apple belches out on the high branch"). Obviously the second quote sets the variation in γλυκὺ μᾶλλον (the sweet rather) / γλυκὺ μήλῳ (the sweet in the apple) / γλυκὺ μῆλον (sweet apple in a different two-word form) straight. ὄσδῳ clearly needs more Aeolicization, as some sort of gloss which also went into the text of the Idyll tells us, and the verb… welp, ἐρεύγεται as in quote 2 clearly makes no sense, εὑρίσκεται (is found) is the most far-off one and is probably an attempt at making sense of a corrupt verse by some copyist, εὑρέθεται doesn't even seem to exist (Perseus doesn't have it) and probably inspired the previous, and was maybe born from an accidental letter switch and breathing error, so we settle for ἐρεύθεται. The rest seems to have no controversies whatsoever. The text I argued for is supported by all my sources, and results in three hexameters, kept or imitated in translation. I also like Edmonds' translation very much, so I'll "advertise" it by including it here: «Like the pippin blushing high / On the tree-top beneath the sky, / Where the pickers forgot it – nay, Could not reach it so far away;».
      6. Next is Bergk 95 Edmonds 151 Lobel-Page 105(c) Campbell 105(c). This is from a nameless quote by Demetrius's treatise De Elocutione, where we read «Τὸ δὲ ἐπιφώνημα καλούμενον ὀρίζοιτο μὲν ἄν τις λέξιν ἐπικοσμοῦσαν· ἔστι δὲ τὸ μεγαλοπρεπέστατον ἐν τοῖς λόγοις· τῆς γὰρ λέξεως ἡ μὲν ὑπηρετεῖ, ἡ δὲ ἐπικοσμεῖ. ὑπερετεῖ μὲν ἡ τοιάδε· Οἴαν τὰν ὐάκινθον ἐν οὔρεσι ποίμενες ἄνδρες πόσσι καταστείβουσι. ἐπικοσμεῖ δὲ τὸ ἐπιφερόμενον τό· χαμαὶ δέ τε πόρφυρον ἄνθος. ἐπενήνεγκται γὰρ τοῦτο τοῖς προλελεγμέοις κόσμος σαφῶς καὶ κάλλος», or in Campbell's translation «The so-called "epiphoneme" might be defined as a phrase which adds ornamentation, and it is the most impressive feature in prose. Some phrases help the sense, other ornament it; one that helps the sense is "Like the hyacynth which shepherds tread underfoot in the mountains"; what follows ornaments it: "and o the ground the purple flower". The addition to the foregoing words clearly adds ornament and beauty». Bergk ascribed this to Sappho for some reason, and suggested the next line might have started with κάππεσεν, "fell down", or something like that («vel simile quid»). Lobel-Page was skeptical about the ascription: «Maxime dubium est num Sapphus sint versus et iure restituatur dialectus», «It is extremely doubtful if these are lines by Sappho and the dialect is rightly reestablished» (i.e. if the Aeolicization is appropriate). I blindly trust the ascription, and will just comment on the text. Now, besides οὔρεσι needing Aeolicization (it is a Ionic form after all), and καταστείβουσι sharing the need, the main controversy is δέ τε πόρφυρον ἄνθος. Reading this article, it appears that, for quite some time, the "double and" which is δέ τε was deemed incorrect and strange, and variously amended: we have Edmonds' δ' ἔτι (and still), oh well Bergk has δέ τε, I definitely wasn't expecting that :), there's Bibliotheca Augustana's δὲ τὸ, which I ended up following for that reason, and Greek Wikisource's tampered δ' ἐπιπορφύρει (and reddens), which takes in πόρφυρον as well. Then the δέ τε was proven to be a Homerism and accepted as correct, and Lobel-Page and Campbell have it. Actually, Lobel-Page is very doubtful on it: «suspicionem movet δέ τε, ut de universa verborum constructione sileamus. aliquantulum iuveris χάμαι 'πέτε coniiciendo, sed in re obscurissima nihil tentandum censuimus», «δέ τε is suspicious, to stay silent about the whole construction of the words. One would help a little with the conjecture χάμαι 'πέτε (fell to the ground), but in this very obscure situation we deemed that nothing was to be tried». I have no idea why those two conjunctions would be juxtaposed that way, but oh well. I'll stick to my original text anyway, though the translations wouldn't be affected, but I'll keep the Homerism in the all-Sappho posts, if I don't forget about this before transferring the texts over there :). Edmonds has his own creative emendations which got his version of this into category 5. I will just say something about οὔρεσι. Now, the Attic form is ὄρεσι, but we need a long first syllable. Most of my sources, following Ahrens' suggestion, emend this to ὤρεσι. Edmonds opted instead for ὄρρεσι, the rho being doubled for idk what reason.
      7. Then we have Bergk 110 Edmonds 164 Lobel-Page 114 Campbell 114. This comes from a quotation by Demetrius's De Elocutione, where we read «Αἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν σχημάτων χάριτες δῆλαί εἰσι καὶ πλεῖσται παρὰ Σαπφοῖ· οἶον ἐκ τῆς ἀναδιπλώσεως, ὅπου ωύμφη πρὸς τὴν παρθενίαν φησί· "Παρθενία, παρθενία, ποῖ με λιποῦσα οἴχῃ;", ἡ δὲ ἀποκρίνεται πρὸς αὐτὴν τῷ αὐτῷ σχήματι· "Οὐκ ἔτι ἥξω πρὸς σέ, οὐκ ἔτι ἥξω". Πλείων γὰρ χάρις ἐμφαίνεται ἢ εἴπερ ἅπαξ ἐλέχθη καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ σχήματος. Καίτοι ἡ ἀναδίπλωσις πρὸς δεινότητος μᾶλλον δοκεῖ εὑρῆσθαι, ἡ δὲ καὶ τοῖς δεινοτάτοις καταχρῆται ἐπιχαρίτως», or in Edmonds' translation «The charm which comes from the use of figures of speech is obvious and manifold i Sappho; for instance, from repetition, where a bride says to her virginity: [Line 1 in a slightly corrupted version], and it replies in the same figure: [An inmetrical version of l. 2 which is the crux of this poem]. For there is more charm in it put thus than if the figure were not employed and it were said but once. Now repetition would seem to have been invented more with a view to an effect of energy or force, but Sappho employs even what is most forceful in a charming way». Note that the tradition has ἐπὶ χάριτος, "for gracefulness" (probably), instead of ἐπιχαρίτως, "gracefully", or as Edmonds put it "in a charming way". That said, l. 1 is simple enough: only two edits are needed, one being λιποῦσα to λίποισα, plain and simple Aeolicization, and Bergk goes half way with λιποῖσα while all other sources do it complete, and the second one could be -α οἴχῃ to -' ἀ‹π›οίχῃ, which everyone does without the angled brackets, except Lobel-Page who puts a crux before the οἴχῃ, which IMO is unnecessary since the verb exists and the meter is stil respected, though the hiatus is somewhat unpleasant. Line 2 is a mess. Line 1 is clearly –uu– –uu– –uu– u–x in terms of meter, and line 2 doesn't fit that scheme at all. The prudent approach, taken up by Lobel-Page and Campbell (as well as Greek Wikisource and The Complete Poems of Sappho), is to put the whole thing in cruces as is, simply changing οὐκ ἔτι to οὐκέτι. Bergk tries putting his hand to it with «Οὐκέτι σ' ἥξω, <> ὦ πάρθενέ σ' οὐκέθ' ἥξω». Back in the days I definitely would have discarded this unless a fitting completion came to my mind. Right now, I could accept it, but with some psilosis: it's Aeolic, for heaven's sake, ἥξω (rough breathing) cannot exist. Then we have the more risky approaches. Edmonds, for example, has Οὐκέτι, νύμφα, προτὶ σ' ἴξω, προτὶ σ' οὐκέτ' ἴξω, where I absolutely have no clue why he would amend ἥξω that way, and προτὶ is AFAIK a Doric word, not an Aeolic one, so this one is discarded, despite being metrical. Bibliotheca Augustana has «οὐκέτ᾽ ἤξω πρὸς σὲ πάλιν, νῦν πάλιν οὐκέτ᾽ ἤξω», which is obviously inmetrical. Back in the days, when I tackled this, I had only GW and BA and TCPOS, so I tried to rework BA. FIrst, I unelided the first word. Second, I changed πρὸς to ἐς to be able to fiddle with vowels. Actually, to εἰς. Third, synaeresis. Of course, I could have made a crasis or an elision. In fact, an elision probably is best. So I'll change the text from the original ἤξω ͜‹εἴ›ς σε to ἤξ' ἔς σε, because the translations wouldn't be affected by that. One option from Bergk would be Οὐκέτι σ' ἤξ', ὦ σὺ κάλα πάρθενέ, σ' οὐκέτ' ἤξω, though why would virginity call the bride "virgin" when she is leaving her to never come back? Perhaps, inspired from Edmonds, we could do Οὐκέτ' ἐσήξ', ὦ σὺ κάλα νύμφα, σε οὐκέτ' ἤξω, except νύμφᾱ has a long alpha AFAIK, so maybe Οὐκέτ' ἐσήξω σέ νυ, νύμφα, σέ νυν οὐκέτ' ἤξω, or better ...νύμφ', οὐκέτι νῦν σ' ἐσήξω. I guess I'll use this for the all-Sappho posts.
      8. Then we have Bergk 98 Edmonds 153 Lobel-Page 109 Campbell 109, which I place here by guessing it refers to a bridal gift. This is quoted by Cramer's Anecdota Græca, where we read «Ἠσί· "Δώσομεν, ἦσι πάτηρ", φησὶν ἡ Σαπφώ, ᾽τὶ δὲ λέγει Ἀλκμὰν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠσίν» ([Fragment], Sappho says ἦσι, and Alcman says ἠτί instead of ἠσίν, "says"). No controversies whatsoever here, couldn't be more starkly different from the previous fragment :). Meter –uu–uux, rendered as –uu–uu– (≠ stressed, u unstressed) in English and Italian.
      9. Then we find Bergk 23 Edmonds 21 Lobel-Page 152 Campbell 152. This is a quote from a Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius, who wrote «Ἐρευθήεσσα ἡ τοῦ Ἰάσωνος δίπλας, ἀντὶ τοῦ πυῤῥά, ὑπέρυθρος, καὶ ἔστι παρὰ τὸ Σαπφικόν· ††» (The double-folded mantle of Iason [is desribed as] ἐρευθήεσσα, red, instead of πυῤῥά, flame-colored, [or of] ὑπέρυθρος, ruddy, and [this] is against Sappho's description: [the quote in some form]). Given that it is as of now impossible to reconstruct how this looked in the tradition, I leave the note to this SX post for the moment, and proceed to tell you that I blindly trusted Bibliotheca Augustana (or was it Greek Wikisource? Ah but it's fragment ay, so it wasn't in GW) and read this as xx(–uu)–uu–uu–ux which I kept or imitated in the translations. I will however restore what seems to have been the tradition for the second word, μεμιγμένα, since AFAIK that is the correct participle of μίγνυμι, which I'm sure is where I thought the word was from, and indeed I cannot understand why, with Bergk leaving it that way, we have Edmonds with μεμειγμένα and Lobel-Page Voigt and Campbell with μεμειχμένα, though it does remind me of Hector and Andromacha, where the verb appeared and a similar oscillation was observed…… except Campbell had ὀνεμίγνυτο which would parallel μεμιγμένα… WTF guys, make your minds up about this verb…
      10. Next we have Edmonds 25 Lobel-Page 168 Campbell 168, don't ask me why this quote is not in Bergk because I have no clue. This was quoted by Marius Plotius Sacerdos, who wrote «Adonium dimetrum dactylicum catalecticum a Sappho inventum, unde etiam Sapphicum nuncupatur, monoschematistum est: semper enim dactylo et spondeo percutitur: ὦ τὸν ἄδονιν» (The Adonian catalectic dactylic dimeter, invented by Sappho, whence it's also called Sapphic, is monoschematic: indeed it's always composed of a dactyl and a spondee). Firstly, I assume "spondee" means –x, since the given example ends in –u which would be a trochee. Secondly, why does no-one tell me the manuscript reads ἄδονιν except Voigt? In any case, once the illustrious "nescio quis" (I don't know who) made that correction, this fragment was controversy-free, whether it was actually by Sappho (to whom it was attributed by Santen, apparently on the basis of something Terentianus Maurus said, or maybe just since she is known to have written wedding songs – in fact, maybe Terentianus Maurus was the one who mentioned the «libro qui inscribitur Ἐπιθαλάμια», book titled Epithalamians?), or an invented example by the quoter himself.
      11. Next up is Bergk 108 Edmonds 136 l. 1 Lobel-Page inc. 24 l. 1 Campbell inc. 24(a). This is one of two lines from a quotation by Marius Plotius Sacerdos, who wrote «Hymenaicum dimetrum dactylicum Sapphicum monoschematistum est: sempre enim duobus dactylis constat: ††» (The hymenaeic dactylic Sapphic dimeter is monoschematic: indeed it's always composed of two dactyls: [quote in incredibly corrupted form]). Now, how did this look in the tradition? Let's listen to the critical notes. Bergk has «…μήνιον. τὸν Καλυδώνιον. Sed codex ΥΕϹϹΕΡ𝓨 ΙΑΗ ΝΙΟΝ ΩΤΟΝ ΑΔΟΝΙΟΝ», and yes I had to look up that weird cursive y, which is U+1D4E8 MATHEMATICAL BOLD SCRIPT CAPITAL Y, and trial-and-error the font size to make it look like the Bergk version. Edmonds says «reading doubtful, but context shows lines belong together: E, cf. τεσσεράβοιος: mss indicate τεσσερυμήνᾰον 'four times wedded' or 'to whom we cry Hymenaeus four times' but?: mss υεσζερυμηνιον, υεσσερυιαηνιον», this being the note to line 1, with line 2 having a totally uninteresting note. Lobel-Page has «υεσζερυμηνιον των αδωνιον (litt[eris] uncial[ibus]) cod. A, υεσσερυιαηνιονωτον αδονιον cod. B, corr[exit] (=corrected) Bergk. ϝέσπερ' coni[ecit] (=conjectured) Buecheler». Campbell has «(a) υεσζερ- cod. A, υεσσερ- cod. B, em[endavit] (=emended) Diehl[;] -υμηνιον cod. A, -υια ηνιον cod. B, em[endavit] Neue», (a) being l. 1, where l. 2 is (b). From all this, it seems there were two codices: a cod. B, represented in Bergk, which, erasing all spaces (because I have no way to reconstruct those given the wild differences in the way they are reported), read υεσσερυιαηνιονωτοναδονιον, and a cod. A, which most editions say read υεσζερυμηνιοντωναδωνιον, again erasing spaces, and Bergk represents as …μηνιον τὸν Καλυδώνιον. Ignoring the Bergk version of cod. A for the moment, which seems like Bergk's invention or perhaps not even cod. A, let's work on this mess. First of all, we are given the meter: hymenaeic dimeters, i.e. –uu–uu. This means that, of course, ἀδόνιον is not possible, being 4 short syllables, and thus must be amended to ἀδώνιον, aka we must follow cod. A for that part. This gets us a u–uu, so to complete one line we need –u and no more. This tells us there are at least two lines hiding here. Therefore, cod. A is evidently wrong in its των, so we follow cod. B, and complete a line as ὦ τὸν Ἀδώνιον. And that is the easy part, aka l. 2, aka the next fragment, which will redirect you here for a critical note. What about l. 1 then? We have cod. A with its υεσζερυμηνιον and cod. B with its υεσσερυιαηνιον. Cod. A suggests the ending may have been ὐμήνιον, which strongly reminds us of ὐμήναον, a word already seen in Sappho (see post on marriage songs). There is, however, a vowel to change… are there other options? Well, ὐμήνιον as is cannot, AFAIK, be construed as meaningful, and before we discuss other change options, let's get to the bottom of this path. First of all, safopoemas (and thus probably Reinach) just reports the cod. A version in cruces for this line, and Lobel-Page stops here and leaves the rest as a blank space in cruces. Campbell (and my first source, which I, as always, blindly followed) proposes Ἔσπερ' here, possibly because Sappho is known to have written songs addressed to Hesperus. Wait a minute: Sappho? Who says this was Sappho? Marius doesn't appear to say this is by Sappho, only that the line scheme is called Sapphic. Then again, this appears to be a wedding song, and we know Sappho wrote some, so it's plausibly Sappho. And with that, we get our conjecture. Quite a drastic change, eh? Delete leading upsilon, turn sigma/zeta into pi. Well, wait until you see Bergk's Ὕμεν'. Uh, 'xcuse me? Where exactly is that? Like, turn rho to nu and turn that bunch of letters in the middle to a simple mu? No way! So if we impose ὐμήναον, it seems we're stuck with Campbell. Or are we? Edmonds is, so far, out of the picture. He follows a radically different path: this is, to him, a single word. With that, he notices how -εσσερ- could be τέσσερ-, and -μήνιον could have to do with months (indeclinable noun μήν), and so changes the upsilon to an alpha, and reads τεσσεραμήνιον, "[He] of the 4 months['s sojourn]". As for his critical note, I'd chuck the context part in the bin: excuse me, what context? The "This meter is monoschematic" sentence? That only tells you they're the same meter, not that they're together, and not even that they're actual lines: they could be invented! Why the manuscripts (mss) would point to τεσσερυμήναον is also obscure: it's literally the same number of changes away from the manuscripts as your printed text! But maybe it fits better with a wedding song. So here is your other υμήναον option by the way. Now, what do we make of this mess? Clearly, σζ is wrong, because such a cluster did not exist, though its appearance may suggest that the letters were originally different – weak argument IMO though. So we either correct the zeta to e.g. a pi, or follow the other codex. The υια of cod. B clearly doesn't fit the meter, so it must needs be discarded. We are then left with υεσ*ερυμηνιον, the * indicating any letter could be there. υε is, again, inmetrical, so either the upsilon ended a previous line that was lost in copying for some reason (which sounds like a big fuckup, too big to posit honestly), or some scribe thought it wise to turn a digamma to an upsilon to clarify the pronunciation, or perhaps a pronunciation guide by a scribe was interpreted as a correction by a copyist and we got the guide instead of the actual digamma. This is probably what Bücheler's conjecture, reported by Lobel-Page, had as a back-thought. With that, read the * as pi, fix the ending, and you get Ϝέσπερ', ὐμήναον, which is almost the text I followed, and means exactly the same, so I will adopt this here. However, it's just two unlinked words, which makes the line basically nonsensical. This would make me inclined to adopt the Edmonds take, so I'd have a nice dilemma for the all-Sappho posts – if it weren't Edmonds' version. Since it is, I just relegate it into category 5, which will be reflected in the all-Sappho posts, and keep the text here in the all-Sappho posts too :). As for the translations, the Latin uses the scheme –uu–ux, and the Italian and English use –uu–u– (– stressed, u unstressed), because I was convinced the last one was anceps (as happens basically always), and placed an ictus on it as I do in glyconians and expanded glyconians too.
      12. Then there is Bergk 109 Edmonds 136 Lobel-Page inc. 24 l. 2 Campbell inc. 24(b). This has been discussed with the previous fragment, so I'll just add I followed whatever first source I had, probably Bibliotheca Augustana, and rendered it as –uu–ux (Latin) or –uu–u– (Italian and English).
      13. Then we have Bergk 161 Edmonds 191 Lobel-Page 192 Campbell 192. This comes from Pollux, who wrote «μεσόμφαλοι δὲ φιάλαι καὶ βαλανειόμφαλοι τὸ σχῆμα προσηγορίαν ἔχοθσι, χρυσόμφαλοι δὲ τὴν ὕλην, ὡς αἱ Σαπφοῦς χρυσαστράγαλοι» (Mid-bossed and bath-stopper-bossed goblets are named from their shape, the gold-bossed from their material, like Sappho's gold-knobbed ones). The only word directly quoted here is the adjective χρυσαστράγαλοι, gold-knobbed, but I believe the context strongly suggests that φίαλαι was also present, and besides, the translations followed Bibliotheca Augustana which had it, so I will keep it there. By the way, φίαλαι is a false friend, and I fell for it so hard back in the days. It does't mean "vials", but according to LSJ as reported by Perseus it's a word for something like a saucer or a bowl or pan used for boiling liquids, Campbell gives "goblets" and Edmonds "cups", so there is some confusion on what it meant. My translation went with "vials", which is decidedly wrong. ἀστράγαλος seems to mean knucklebone, perhaps referring to the shape of the goblet/cup's handles? I used astragali in the translations anyways :). There is kind of a problem with this though, given by Athenaeus 11 saying «ἐκαλεῖτο δέ τις καὶ βαλανωτὴ φιάλη, ἧς τῷ πυθμένι χρυσοῖ ὑπέκειντο ἀστράγαλοι. Σῆμος δ᾽ ἐν Δήλῳ ἀνακεῖσθαί φησι χαλκοῦν φοίνικα, Ναξίων ἀνάθημα, καὶ καρυωτὰς φιάλας χρυσᾶς. Ἀναξανδρίδης δὲ φιάλας Ἄρεος καλεῖ τὰ ποτήρια ταῦτα. Αἰολεῖς δὲ τὴν φιάλην ἀράκην καλοῦσι» (Some φίαλαι were also called acorn-adorned (βαλανωτή), when golden ἀστράγαλοι lay under their bottoms. Semos says a bronze phoenix was laid up in Delos, a votive offering to the Naxians, and golden nut-bossed (καρυωταί) φίαλαι. Anaxandrides calls those drinking-cups Ares's φίαλαι. The Aeolians call φίαλαι ἀράκαι). Apart from the question of ἀράκην (Wikisource) vs. ἄρακιν (Lobel-Page), which I posed on Stack Exchange, the last sentence can be construed in two ways: either it means the Aeolians don't use φίαλαι at all, or they use both that and the other term. The former interpretation would be false because φίαλαι appears undoubtedly on P.Oxy. 2076, and thus in Hector and Andromacha, so we must conclude the latter. Or maybe there was dialectal variation and some Aeolians used φίαλαι (e.g. Sappho and probably Lesbians in general) and others didn't. In any case, that doesn't throw a shadow on our reconstruction. The first sentence suggests that βαλανωτή was an alternative to χρυσαστράγαλος (which didn't inflect for feminine apparently) when describing φίαλαι with golden ἀστράγαλοι on… the bottom? Um, Campbell? Aren't knobs like handles? Or maybe he thought of knobs on the bottom instead of on the top as props to grab the goblet/cup? Yeah probably. Welp, the meter was analyzed as ––uu–uux (ionic a maiore + choriamb), and rendered consequently.
      14. Second-last is Bergk 13 Edmonds 121 Lobel-Page 155 Campbell 155. This comes from a quotation by Maxymus Tyrius, who wrote «καὶ ὅτιπερ Σωκράτει οἱ ἀντίτεχνοι, Πρόδικος καὶ Γοργίας καὶ Θρασύμαχος, τοῦτο τῇ Σαπφοῖ Γοργὼ καὶ Ἀνδρομέδα· νῦν μὲν ἐπιτιμᾷ ταύταις, νῦν δὲ ἐλέγχει καὶ εἰρωνεύεται αὐτὰ ἐκεῖνα τὰ Σωκράτους. "Τὸν Ἴωνα χαίρειν" φησὶν ὁ Σωκράτης· πόλλα μοι τὸν Πολυάακτος παῖδα χαίρειν Σαπφὼ λέγει», or in Edmonds' translation «And what his rivals Prodicus and Gorgias and Thrasymachus were to Socrates, that were Gorgo and Andromeda to Sappho: at one time she chides these rivals, at another she refutes them in argument and uses the very same forms of irony that Socrates does. For instance, Socrates says "A very good day to Master Ion", and Sappho begins: A very good day to a <son> of many kings». Actually, the "very" should only be in the quote, and Edmonds had "daughter" for "son" for reasons we shall discuss in a second. OK, so, let's amend this quotation. FIrstly, χαίρειν isn't Aeolic, so we turn it to χαίρην, the respective Aeolic form. The παῖδα is obviously one of those two, who were both women, so it must be τὰν, hence Edmonds' "daughter". In fact, there is a codex that reads this correct, and it also reads Πολυανάκτιδα instead of Πολυάνακτος. With a little amendation, this reading can get us to –uu–uu–u–x as a meter, so we pick it up and do the emendation… but which one? From Lobel-Page on, πωλυανάκτιδα is the way, but Edmonds has πολλυανάκτιδα. Now, besides the usual "I followed Bibliotheca Augustana" argument, which is worthless here anyways because the meaning is totally unchanged, I feel like a metri causa long vowel is more plausible than a metri causa gemination, but it might be just me having never seen that, feeling it's weird because Italian distinguishes geminates phonematically but not vowel quantity, and ultimately not trusting Edmonds due to his excessive creativity, which I know by many more examples. So I will follow Lobel-Page and co. Before we leave, we must comment on the great absent from the discussion: Bergk. Now Bergk has a curious take: he adds in an omicron, gets Πολυανακτίδαο (long last alpha, where we would have it short), and makes that into part of a Sapphic stanza. From Edmonds' translation, it seems this must be the beginning of a poem, so we would be inclined to follow Bergk since the other option gives πόλλα μοι τὰν as non-beginning – or maybe we should just read the meter as –u– – –uu–uu, but that sounds weird. However, I have no clue why λέγει should be "beginning", when it just means "says", so screw you Edmonds for confusing us this way, screw Bergk with his phantasy (which leaves the meter limping and in need of the same emendation to Πολυανακτίδαο as discussed for Πολυανάκτιδα anyways), and we stick to Lobel-Page and co. Besides, the hole could easily be filled with some verb in a "iubeo XX valere" fashion, right? I'll think about it and maybe I'll come up with a clever completion for the all-Sappho posts. Also, why should πολυανακτίς mean "child of very many kings"? Surely Πολυάναξ is a name and that is just the patronymic? Again, screw Edmonds. Screw me as well though for not taking the context into account at all and translating this as a generic wish instead of the "good morning" it probably is. The completion happened in the dead of night after writing this note, and will be shown below, if translations present themselves readily. And they did, though the English involved swapping "she" and "may" in the original translation, and the Latin added an out-of-brackets "m'" that wasn't in the original. Translation done in the morning of the day after writing this note, which was written 2/10/18.
      15. Last in the category we have Bergk 96 Edmonds 149 Lobel-Page 104(a) Campbell 104(a). OK, this is a huge mess. I already kind of knew that before I actually looked things up for this note, but it's way, waaaay, worse than I thought. For starters, it has 10 (yes TEN) sources, which I will try to reconstruct all below as far as Voigt allows me to, even in the oscillations of the different manuscripts for those sources. There is every sort of weird oscillation here.
        1. In Voigt's order, source one is Demetrius's treatise De Elocutione, where he wrote «χαριεντίζεται δέ ποτε (sc. ἡ Σαπφώ) καὶ ἐξ ἀναφορᾶς, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἑσπέρου, "Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρεις", φησί, "φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα"· καὶ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἡ χάρις ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς λέξεως τῆς "φέρεις" ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀναφερομέης», or in Campbell's traslation «Sometimes, also, Sappho makes charming use of repetition as in the description of the Evening Star: "Hesperus, you bring everything", she says, "you bring the wine, you bring the goat, you bring the child to the mother": here the charm lies in the repetition of the word "φέρεις" (bring), always with the same reference», that is with the same subject Hesperus. The translation of the quote is mine, for Campbell's text is amended. And here already we have a problem: what is the meter? The first part could be the first half of a hexameter with pentemimeral (is that the term?) caesura, but the rest oesn't fit the hexameter meter, it's like u–––u––uu––uu–u. Welp, let's leave the discussion for below, and just note that φέρεις is probably to be Aeolicised to φέρῃς, which Lobel himself corrected according to Voigt, though Lobel-Page and Campbell both keep φέρεις.
        2. Source two is a scholiast on Euripides' Orestes, who wrote, in Voigt's quoting cut, «ἑσπέρα [...] ἀπὸ τοῦ πάντας εἰσφέρειν [...] καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ [...] τὸν ἕσπερο ἀστέρα εἶπε [...] ἐτυμολογοῦσα [...]· ἕσπερε πάτα φέρων ὄσα φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ' αὔως» (ἑσπέρα, evening, [is called thus] from [its] εἰσφέρειν, bringing, everything […] and Sappho […] called Hesperus a star […] explaining the etymology […]: Hesperus, bringing everything which shining Dawn scattered). This source has its own oscillations, since a cod. B for this has φαινόλης, which is either a paenula (thick upper garment) or a doric form for the plural of φαινόλις, therefore we discard it and keep the other codices' form, with Aeolic barytonesis applied, to produce φαίνολις. Also, cod. M for this source has αὔων, but that is accusative AFAIK, and we don't want an accusative here, so we follow the other code. Said codex also has ἔσπειρε at the beginning, which could be construed as the imperfect of σπείρω, thus meaning "he/she/it sowed", which is out of place, so we discard it. We thus give this line the form Ἔσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως. And now it's a hexameter.
        3. Source 3 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] A, a passage more or less the same as one from the Etymologicum Magnum, where we read «Σελεύκου· ἕσπερος· [...] ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔσω περᾶν πάντα τὰ ζῷα [...] καὶ Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φενόλις ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως» (Of Seleucus: Hesperus: [called thus] from all the animals going inside […] and Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which (shining?) Dawn scattered), where Seleucus may be the author of this particular entry (the Etymologica are essentially etymological dictionaries), and φενόλις is probably a corruption of our friend φαινόλις, obviously to be Aeolically accented. So the same form is given to l. 1 as in source 2.
        4. Source 4 is the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] B, the only other source with l. 2. It reads «Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι παῖδα», oh my God what happened to l. 2? The thing translates to «Sappho: Hesperus bringing everything which shining Dawn scattered you bring the lonely man you bring the wine you bring the goat you bring the absent child to the mother». Apart from amending φαινόλης the usual way, all we will do is fix φέρεις, again as usual, and to Aeolicise μητέρι to μάτερι.
        5. Source 5 is the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], where we read much the same as in source 3, except for having the line as Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς in terms of accent getting the same old form for the line as all sources save for 1.
        6. Source 6 is another passage of the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], again similar to source 3, and it reads «ἑσπέρα ἀπὸ τοῦ σαφῶς εἰς πέρας πάντα φέρειν, καὶ Σαπφώ· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρειν ὄσα φαινολὶς ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως, where we amend φαινολὶς as usual, and don't know what to do with φέρειν: φέρων or φέρῃς? The former is less distant, so we'll go with that, getting the same old form for l. 1.
        7. Source 7 is the Etymologicum Gen[uninum] A, bearing the exact same passage as the Etymologicum Magnum (not the one above though), which reads «Σαπφὼ [...]· Ἕσπερε πάντα φέρων ὄσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως», simply "Sappho said" and the quote, and you know the drill by now, and nothing new comes from here. Note that only the E.G. and cod. V of the E.M. have φαινόλης, while other codices have φαινολὶς.
        8. Source 8 is Cramer's Anecdota Or., which reads «ἠώς· ἤτοι [...] ἢ ἀπὺ τοπυ διεξιέναι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· Σαπφώ· ὅσα φαινώλης ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως» (ἠώς, Dawn: either […] or from men going out; Sappho: all which shining Dawn scattered», and you know the drill. Except the line is not complete, but whatever.
        9. Source 9 is again the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], which reads «Σαπφώ· Φέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρα ἐσκέδασ' ἡώς» (Sappho: Hesperus I bring everything which the rather bright Dawn scattered). That is some change. The leading phi is obviously spurious, and may indicate the presence of a digamma in the original. φέρω is an interesting variation, but it creates a hiatus which seems unlikely, especially since that would probably cause a shortening of the vowel which would be inmetrical, so we amend it as usual. φαινοτέρα is inmetrical, and we'd surely like to amend it as usual, but as far as this source is concerned, a more conservative thing is to elide it to φαινοτέρ'. The last word is obviously non-Aeolic, so we Aeolicise it as usual. And so we get Ϝέσπερε πάντα φέρω ὄσα φαινοτέρ' ἐσκέδασ' Αὔως.
        10. Source 10, finally, is another passage of the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], which reads, without an author name, «ὅσα φαινόλης ἐσκέδασ' ἄνθρωπος» (which shining man scattered), where the last word is obviously a spectacular corruption, as it is inmetrical and "shining man" is just nonsense. So after the usual fix to φαινόλης we're back to the usual point.
        So l. 1 is pretty much undoubted, except for the outsider of source 9, which we promptly reject, φέρῃς vs. φέρων. The tradition seems to indicate the latter, since only source 1 has the former, but the former would strengthen the anaphora Demetrius praises. This is probably why everybody outside Edmonds and safopoemas has the former. I beg to differ. I mean, an overwhelming majority of sources indicates the latter, so what is more likely, that the anaphora was only in l. 2, or that 8 sources out of 10 made the same mistake? However, I followed Bibliotheca Augustana for the translations, so I'll have to keep the former for this post, but the all-Sappho posts will get the latter. Line 2, however, is a huge mess. We have two sources, and they give us «φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις μάτερι παῖδα» (I) and «φέρεις οἶον φέρεις οἶνον φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄποιον μητέρι παῖδα». What do we make of all this? Bergk, who is btw the only one to keep the digamma in l. 1 (I won't either, because only one source has a hint to it), raises his hands and says «quæ frustra restituere conantur» (which in vain people try to reconstruct). Lobel-Page, Campbell, and Voigt all do more or less the same: φέρεις ὄιν φέρεις αἶγα φέρεις ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, with Voigt having no cruces, treating this as a iambic meter + xx–uu–uu–uu–x (pherecratean with two dactyls inserted), and amending to φέρῃς all times, Lobel-Page wraps the whole thing up to and including ἄπυ in cruces, and Campbell putting the closing crux after the second φέρεις. Bibliotheca Augustana and Greek Wikisource and The Complete Poems of Sappho do the same, disregarding φέρῃς-φέρεις oscillations, with the first two breaking l. 2 into two lines with the breaking point after ὄιν. Edmonds writes φέρεις ὄιν, / φέρεις αἶγα, φέρεις ἀπὺ ϝὸν μάτερι παῖδα, suggesting perhaps ἀπὺ ϝϝὸν on the basis of some Homeric quotes where a third-person adjective/pronoun with no consonant at the start (like ἕο) lengthens the omicron in the preceding ἀπὸ. This is just turning a metrical problem into a worse one, since l. 2 (or ll. 2-3) is still not a hexameter, and the meter is even less recognizable than before. The double digamma is just weird. So screw Edmonds. Finally, safopoemas has the whole thing as «/έσπερε πάντα φέρων δσα φαΐνολις ¿σχίδασ' αδως φέρρες δϊν, φέπες αίγα, φέρες (δ') α"πυ μάτερι παΐδα.». Apart from observing φέρων and the slash that could be a digamma in l. 1, let's look at l. 2. It is now a hexameter, presumably reading «Φέρρες ὄιν, φέρες αἶγα, φέρες ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα». This makes it a past action, an imperfect, to be precise. While this is nice because we have a hexameter with the anaphora, the doubled rho in the first word is totally unjustified AFAIK, though I will ask Stack Exchange about it. I mean, why would it be double? And on the other hand, the absence of a critical note seems to suggest Reinach had that text, so what reason did he have for that? So I'll put it on standby for the all-Sappho posts until Stack Exchange answers me. In this post, however, I must follow the text I translated, and I dismissed this reading, both because of the unjustified double rho, and because I felt like this must be a present action, a habitual one. Now obviously I didn't know anything about the above mess, so I just reordered Bibliotheca Augustana a little, getting the hexameter Αἶγα φέρῃς τε σ' ὄιν τε, φέρῃς ‹δ'› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, the δ' addition being kept because it sounded good. Maybe τ' would be better. Yeah, I'll change it, the translations are left unaffected. I'm not the only one who tried this: in Voigt's words, «hexam[etrum] restit[uere] conatus est Bowra l.c.: αἶγα φέρῃς καὶ ὄιν τύ, φέρῃς τ' ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα, sed anaphoram destruxit» (Bowra tried to reconstruct a hexameter in the quoted place: [reconstruction], but destroyed the anaphora). Floyd also tried, and got Αἶγα φέρεις ἔπερόν τε, where I can't find what the second-last word is and I'll have to guess it's a synonym of ὄιν. Now, while the anaphora is certainly weaker, I wouldn't say it's "destroyed". Not sure why τύ and not σύ. I'll keep my version, despite Bowra's translating much the same, because the anaphora is stronger. Finally, some names to emendations: ὄιν instead of (οἶον φέρεις) οἶνον is "Fab[ricius?] Benevolentius ap[ud] Ursin[um]", probably arguing that φέρεις οἶον was an accidental and slightly corrupted repetition of φέρεις οἶνον and that -ον again was an accidenta and corrupted repetition of just οιν; also, sheeps and goats fit together and are brought back in the evening, wine is an intruder and how is it brought back in the evening? ἄπυ is "Bgk.", and seeing Bergk amend this surprises me: if you think it's a vain effort to try reconstructing this, why amend it? The recessive accentuation is probably justified since this is an adverb and not a preposition, which even in Aeolic is accented on the final syllable. The addition of δ' is by Sitzler, and the breaking found in B.A. and G.W. is by Wilamowitz. Wow that took forever! Oh look, I had the τ' addition already! I wonder why…
    2. The next categories is that of the exaggerated hyperboles.
      1. The first such fragment, which may surprise the knowledgeable, is Bergk 52 Edmonds 95 Lobel-Page 178 Campbell 178. This is a quote from Zenobius's proverbs, which reads «Γέλλω παιδοφιλωτέρα· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀώρως τελευτησάντων, ἤτοι ἐπὶ τῶν φιλοτέκνων μέν, τροφῇ δὲ διαφθειρόντων αὐτά· Γελλὼ γάρ τις ἦν παρθένος, καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἀώρως ἐτελεύτησε, φασὶν οἱ Λέσβιοι αὐτῆς τὸ φάντασμα ἐπιφοιτᾶν ἐπὶ τὰ παιδία καὶ τοὺς τῶν ἀώρων θανάτους αὐτῇ ἀνατιθέασι. Μέμνηται ταύτης Σαπφώ», or, in Campbell's translation, «[Quote], a saying used of those who died prematurely, or of those who are fond of children but ruin them by their upbringing. For Gello was a girl, and since she died prematurely, the Lesbians say her ghost haunts little children, and they attribute premature deaths to her. Sappho mentions her». Now, if you say someone is fonder of children than such a ghost, that is definitely a big hyperbole, just like «golder than gold» or the others from this category. Pretty spooky start for our category, but worry not, things get sweeter from here :). Now, the manuscripts for this quote seem to have a nominative instead of the genitive which would make the hyperbole. Bergk comments thus: «Rectius Suidas Γελλοῦς, itaque Ahrensius Γέλλως scripsit», «Suidas is more correct with Γελλοῦς, so Ahrens wrote Γέλλως». Now, if Suidas is "more correct", then obviously we Aeolicize to Γέλλως like Ahrens, but the nominative could still fit, with the absolute comparative referring to it, so that the ones described by this would be called "Very children-loving Gellos". It is of course more extreme, and more natural, to have a comparison, and I keep it, otherwise this wouldn't make this category.
      2. Then we find Bergk 112 Edmonds 62 Lobel-Page 167 Campbell 167. This is a quote from Athenaeus, who wrote: «Σαπφὼ τὸ ᾠὸν τρισυλλάβως καλεῖ· Φασὶ δή ποτε Λήδαν ὤϊον εὑρεῖν, καί· ὠΐου πόλυ λευκότερον» (Sappho says ᾠόν, egg, in three syllables (ὤϊον): They say Leda once found an egg, and: much whiter than an egg), where the first quote is the Leda fragment here, and the second quote is the fragment at hand. This is very easy and uncontroversial: just Aeolicise that genitive to ὠΐω as Ahrens did, and you're golden. Unless you're a weirdo like safopoemas who, not happy with reporting it alone, smashes it into the Leda fragment «después de punctos suspensivos» (after an ellipsis), obtaining «φαΐσι δη ποτά Λήδα ν ύαχίν / θωι ώ'ίον πολύ λευχότεραν», where no such ellipsis is seen, and which is translated to «Dicen que Leda encontró cierta vez un huevo oculto / entre los tallos del jacinto. . . más brillante que cualquier otro.», «They say Leda once found an egg hidden / Amongst hyacynth stalks … much brighter than any other.», when the text, if properly amended, blatantly reads «They say Leda once [found?] an egg much whiter than hyacynth», but maybe the text was supposed to read «Φαῖσι δή ποτα Λήδαν ὐακινθίνων / Εὔρην ὤϊον ἄνθεων πεπυκάδμενον / [...] / ὠΐω πόλυ λευκότερον», except the two fragments have incompatible meters, the Leda one being in lesser asclepiads when the second one is a partial dactylically expanded glyconic. Good job, safopoemas. Just like when you smash together a billion P.Oxy. 1787 fragments into your fr. 88 and tell me the mishmash, together with fr. 89, comes from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45, when only fr. 89 does. Really good job. Anyways, the meter was –u–uu–uuu, which I read as xx–uu–uux and kept or imitated.
      3. Next up is Bergk 122 Edmonds 59+60 Lobel-Page 156 Campbell 156. This is a quote from Demetrius De Elocutione, who wrote «Ἐκ δὲ ὑπερβολῶν χάριτες μάλιστα αἱ ἐν ταῖς κωμῳδίαις, πᾶσα δὲ ὑπερβολὴ ἀδύνατος, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης [...] τοῦ δὲ αὐτοῦ εἴδους καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτά ἐστιν· "ὑγιέστερος καλοκύντης" καὶ "φαλακρότερος αὐδίας" καὶ τὰ Σαπφικά· "πόλυ πάκτιδος ἀδυμελεστέρα", "χρύσω χρυσοτέρα"», or in Campbell's translation «The charms of comedy in particular are due to hyperbola, and every hyperbole involves an impossibility, cfr. Aristophanes […] Of the same kind are such phrases as: "healthier than a pumpkin", "balder than a cloudless sky", and Sappho's: "Far more sweet-sounding that a lyre", "More golden than gold"». This obviously begs the question: why are these together? Especially given the second one was separately mentioned by another passage of that treatise: «Τὸ δὲ "Χρύσω χρυσοτέρα" τὸ Σαπφικὸν ἐν ὑπερβολῇ λέγεται καὶ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀδυνάτως, πλὴν αὐτῷ γε τῷ ἀδυνάτῳ χάριν ἔχει, οὐ ψυχρότητα. Ὃ δὴ καὶ μάλιστα θαυμάσειεν ἄν τις Σαπφοῦς τῆς θείας, ὅτι φύσει κινδυνώδει πράγματι καὶ δυσκατορθώτῳ ἐχρήσατο ἐπιχαρίτως», or in Campbell's translation «Sappho's phrase "More golden than gold" is certainly expressed as a hyperbole and involves an impossibility, but it does not fall flat: rather it derives charm from the impossibility. Indeed one of the most amazing characteristics of the divine Sappho is that she uses with charm a device that is of itself hazardous and difficult». So were they in the same poem? We don't know. The meters are compatible (the first could be the end of a glyconic expanded with two dactyls, and is Edmonds 59, while the second one, Edmonds 60, could start one), and both are from the same passage, as Bergk 122 illustrates by keeping a reduced version of said passage (starting at "Of the same kind") as a raw quote. In any case, both are controversy-free and Aeolic right off the bat, so nothing to discuss here.
      4. Then we have Bergk 54 to wrap up this category, which I was unable to find in Edmonds or Campbell, and which has the following critical note in Bergk: «Grammat. Crameri Anecd. T. I. p. 413: ἔνθεν σημειοῦται τό· ναρκίσσου τερενώτερον. Sapphonis haud dubie est, scripsi tamen ναρκίσσω», «From Cramer's Anecdota Graeca: Thence this is marked: more tender than narcissus. It's undoubtedly by Sappho, I wrote ναρκίσσω however», aka he rightly Aeolicised the genitive ναρκίσσου. It's curious how he puts this one as an actual fragment and the previous two hyperboles as mere quotes at the end. In any case, this is the only case where I made new translations into poetry, and yes, this is a fragment I had no knowledge of prior to Bergk, which I downloaded just for this blog. The Latin translation dates 16/8/18, the other two to 4/10/18, and they descend from the obvious meter of this: glyconic.
      OK guys, I should be including Edmonds 61 here too, but that has half a billion hyperboles, and besides having to fit them all to a meter, which is complicated per se, translating them all metrically is too long, so these take their rightful place in the final category of New Findings. When you only have a single glyconian, it's manageable, when you have like 10 hyperboles, nope, not doing that.
    3. Category three is that of fragments where "everyday items" are used. I purposefully worded it a little ambiguously so it could be quite broad to avoid having too many leftover fragments.
      1. The first such fragment is Bergk 34 Edmonds 139 Lobel-Page 143 Campbell 143. This was quoted twice, once by Athenaeus, who wrote «ἐρέβινθοι [...] Σαπφώ· Χρύσειοι ἐρέβινθοι ἐπ' ἀϊόνων ἐφύοντο» (ἐρέβινθοι, chickpeas […] Sappho: [the line]) in Book 2 of his Deipnosophistæ, and once by Eustathius, who wrote «ἐρεβίνθων μνεία καὶ παρὰ τῇ Σαπφοῖ ἐν τῷ "Χρύσειοι δ' ἐρέβινθοι ἐπ' ἀϊόνων ἐφύοντο". Λέγει δέ, φασί, χρυσέους ἐκείνη ἐρεβίνθους τοὺς κατὰ πύξον ὠχρούς […]» (There is memory if chickpeas in Sappho too, in "[the line]". She calls, however, she asys, those pale chickpeas under the boxwood "golden"). Now, I would think this line is fine as in Athenaeus, except maybe for a correption of the -oi in the word for golden. That correption is uncertain, but better add in a δ' to make sure it can't happen, especially given a similar one happens with the -oi in the word for chickpeas. I'm not sure of how I read the Estathius quote, because Voigt alone quotes it, and just has [1] in the place of the quote, so I put the δ' there because Bergk says he «addidi δέ, cf. Eustathius» (added δέ, compare Eustathius), but that seems untrustworthy given both Voigt and Campbell tell me the addition is due to Hermann. In any case, this is a hexameter, and was rendered as such in Latin, but in Italian and English I was short on syllables so I went with hendecasyllabics instead of the imitation I did in e.g. the Latona fragment here.
      2. The second one is Bergk 56+82 Edmonds 56+57 Lobel-Page 46 Campbell 46, an extremely corrupted quote. This guy (or these guys?) were quoted by Herodianus, who wrote «Ἀναδράμωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ προκείμενον, παραθέμενοι τὸ τύλη, ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν παρ' Ἀττικοῖς, ἀλλὰ μέμνηται Σαπφὼ ἐν δευτέρῳ· "Ἐγὼ δ' ἐπὶ μαλθάκαν τύλαν σπολέω μέλεα· κἂν μέν τε τύλαγκας ἀσπόλεα"· οὐ γὰρ ὁ "τε" σύνδεσμος» (Let's get back to what we were discussing, we were explaining τύλη, cushion, which didn't exist for Attic people, but Sappho remembers it in [book] 2: "I will place [my] limbs on soft cushions: [great corruption, untranslatable part]": for the τε is not a conjunction).
        At first glance, the first part (before the colon) suggests two glyconics, the first of which has lost its first syllable and would be [–] ἔγω δ' ἐπὶ μολθάκαν, where ἔγω is barytonized as happens in Aeolic and μολθάκαν for μαλθάκαν was corrected by Lobel, on the basis, I take it, of P.Berol. 9722 where «καὶ στρώμναν ἐπὶ μολθάκαν» is read (see here for more), whereas the second one needs a syllable addition to scan, and while mostly everyone else follows Hermann's suggestion of κα-, Edmonds begs to differ and says ὀ-=ἀνα-. Now while this doesn't change the meaning much, why ἀνα-, which IIRC means "up", instead of κα-=κατα- which means down? Surely you don't put your limbs up onto the cushions, but down onto them, right? SO I'll definitely follow the mass. Another reason to follow the mass is that, while σπολέω could be construed as a form of στελῶ, future of στέλλω, put, κασπολέω is actually glossed by Hesychius. Alright, this part is done, and was the easy part. In fact, it's the only one I had in my translations file, the κα- being taken metri causa from Bibliotheca Augustana, whilst ignoring part 2 there, and the rest coming from Greek Wikisource. Is it done though? It seems perfect, except Athenaeus says "in book 2", and book 2 was entirely written in xx–uu–uu–uu–ux, not glyconics. So l. 1 is to be left uncompleted (which I didn't, so I'll have to keep the completed version here, but not in the all-Sappho posts), because it should scan [xx–uu–u] ἔγω δ' ἐπὶ μολθάκαν, and l. 2 cannot be construed as having a synaeresis of the last two vowels and must therefore be taken to either need an elision (like Hermann, who suggested μέλε' αἰ) or as being followed by a word with two consonants or a xi or psi at its start. Now that part is done.
        Part 2, however, is a Gibberish mess. μὲν and τε are clear: one is the usual particle typically matched by a following δὲ, and the other is not the conjunction, as Athenaeus tells us, but the pronoun "you" in the accusative singular (=σε, cfr. τοι for σοι in the partial line of the libation). κἂν seems to be a crasis of καὶ ἂν, but should be one of καὶ ἐν because ἂν is κε(ν) in Aeolic. It is therefore a problem because "in the cushions" you do not go – ignoring the fact that, AFAIK, ἐν only takes the dative and this quote has no datives). The other two words, however, are just incomprehensible. So one can easily amend κἂν to κὰμ=κατὰ, but what then? Also, are these one or two fragments? Bergk thought they were two: «Apparet hæc postrema ex alio quo fragmento petita esse», «It seems these last [words] have been taken from some other fragment», and indeed keeps the first part as glyconics (shame on him) in his fr. 56, and amends this to Κὰμ μὲν τὲ τύλαν κασπολέω, «I will put you down on cushions», which seems to be part of a lesser asclepiad (again, shame on him). Since those, or this, is all from book 2, both amendations are to be rejected. Edmonds is of the same opinion, but, while part 1 remains pretty much as in the source (no amendation of μαλθάκαν, the ὀσπολέω we rejected before, and μέλε(α) at the end) in his fr. 56, his fr. 57 takes a drastic approach at part two, which, with proper angled brackets to indicate editorial additions, gives us Κα‹ίνα›ν μέν τε τύλα‹ν› κα‹τὰ› σὰ σπολέ‹ω μέλε›α, where τύλαν is from τύλαγκας with the gamma turned to a nu. This comes to mean «I will put you down on new cushions relatively to your limbs» (what a horribly literal translation :) ), or «I will lay you down on new cushions», which he translates to «You shall lie on new cushions». The grammar of this is explained here, where the non-literal translation is also justified. I placed that (fr. 57) in category 5 though, so it's out of the question here. Wilamowitz came along then and decided these were a single fragment, whose l. 2 may have run τύλαν κασπολέω μέλε' αἴ κε κάμῃ τέα, which if compared to the sources would look something like this: τύλαν ‹κα›σπολέω μέλε' α‹ἴ› κ‹ε›{ἂν} ‹κά›μ‹ῃ›{ὲν} τέ{ τύλαγκας ἀσπόλε}α, a very drastic amendment, and it means «[I on soft] cushions will lay down your limbs, if you are weary», κάμῃ being from κάμνω, "to work", or as a consequence "to be tired, weary", or even "to toil, labor, suffer". From Lobel-Page on, this part 2 is in cruces. More precisely, Lobel-Page starts the cruces at μέλεα, reports Wilamowitz's proposal, adds «alii alia, sed corruptelam omnem ex litteris μολθακαντυλανκασπολεω ortam credideris», «others [suggest] other things, but you'd believe the whole corruption to have sprung from the letters μολθακαντυλανκασπολεω». Campbell has the same text, but stops at «alii alia». Voigt also has the same text, except τετύλαγκας is one word. Now, besides this being no findable perfect, if it were a perfect tense of some obscure verb, why would Athenaeus care to specify "τε" is not a conjunction? Maybe it was an obscure dialectal term which even native non-Aeolic Greeks couldn't uderstand and he wanted to avoid them thinking the τε was detached? I don't know. I have asked about «alii alia» and about possibilities of less drastic amendments here, and if something pops up, I will update the note or the fragment below.
        For now, I just report the two glyconics. Note that, while I may seem to have mistranslated this, the word τύλη appears to have meant "cushion", "mattress", and "pillow", so both the "cushions" above and the "mattresses" of my translations are correct. Perhaps this is why the "I wish to have died" poem I linked to above uses στρώμνα instead, which apparently referred to a whole bed, hence also the mattress and not just the pillow. Also, the cushion/mattress ends in -αν which, being a feminine noun in Aeolic, could be both accusative singular and genitive plural, which is why I have used the plural throughout this note but use the singular in all translations. I had, however, made a mistake in the English, which read «x And on a soft mattress I / Down my limbs now am going to lie», which confused "lay" and "lie" and was amended on 5/10/18 at 00:41.
      3. Next up is Bergk 5 Edmonds 105 Lobel-Page 100 Campbell 100. This is a quote from Pollux, who wrote «Ἐν δὲ τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν Σαπφοῦς μελών ἔστιν εὑρεῖν· ἀμφὶ λάβροις λασίος εὖ ἐπύκασσεν· καί φασιν εἶναι ταῦτα σινδόνια ἐπεστραμένα» (In book 5 of Sappho's poems we can find: [He/she/it] covered [who/what?] with violent shaggy [what?]; and they say these turned(?) pieces of linen). First off, let's try to say something about the meter. We are told this is in book 5. Sapphic stanzas are in book 1, so Bergk's emendation «Ἀμφὶ δ' ἄβροις εὖ λασίος πύκασσεν», which makes it l. 1 or 2 or 3 of a Sapphic stanza (i.e. a Sapphic hendecasyllabic), is definitely to be rejected. What we see is –ux–uu––uu–u, where x is because muta cum liquida often allows optional lengthening of the previous vowel, and said vowel is known to be short by nature, and the final syllable may have been lengthened by a following consonant we lost. The uu––uu–u smells of ionic a minore meter, with the last syllable being the final anceps. So we need to amend the beginning to be uu––uu–– or a part of it (meaning lacunas will be posited). What is that part? ἀμφὶ λάβροις. I think the most obvious thing to do is to take these two -οις as datives, and write the latter as λασίοσ', and the former as λάβροισ‹ιν›, thus fixing the meter. Obviously, we can posit a lacuna after this word, and read λάβροισ' ‹›. Why Lobel-Page, Voigt, and Campbell all follow this idea instead of the former, proposed by Hoffmann, is unknown to me, but may be related to the problem of lengthening a vowel with a euphonic nu, which, as we've already seen elsewhere (I don't remember where), is a problem for some reason. So the line is metrically sound as «[uu–] ἀμφὶ λάβροισ‹ιν› λασίοισ' εὖ ἐπύκασσεν. However, as the quote translation shows, here are a couple missing bits, and a weird adjective. Describing shaggy cloth as "violent" (λάβρος) sounds out of place, unless you mean it makes you itch terribly, but it's still a bit odd. That is why Sedler thought of amending that to δ' ἄβροις, with the particle δέ and ἄβροις, "tender, soft". Then we have both object and subject missing. This is why Bergk (says Voigt, which surprises me given the amendation I mentioned before, maybe he did it in an article separate from his Sappho edition?) proposed to add ϝ' after εὖ, to give an object to the sentence, and probably implying a reflexive action. The specific location was probably chosen to avoid a hiatus and a possible "Hey, wouldn't that cause a correption of εὖ and screw the meter up?" reaction. So we have ἀμφὶ ‹δ'› άβροισ‹ιν› λασίοισ' εὖ ‹ϝ'› ἐπύκασσεν, and that is it. The original text I translated was this modulo the Campbell-style post-ἄβριοσ' lacuna, but since having that or having my version doesn't change the meaning, I'll change the text. A couple last things to mention before we end the note. Edmonds has this text, except he has ἄβροις without a lacuna after it, and I wonder what meter he had in mind. Why do both Campbell and Edmonds think this is talking about a female when the pronoun ϝ' they're adding is gender-invariant? And finally, for the lols, safopoemas spectacularly corrupts this to «άμφΐ δ' S^povow taetovs' i», making one wonder where the translation «Y toda la cubre perfectamente con estolas delicadas.». And again, the one covered is a girl. Who knows why… I think I took that to be a male i my translations. Stack Exchange, come to the rescue! :) Remember how I said ionic a minore? Well, for some reason I took it for ionic a maiore, perhaps because without a complete line you can't really tell, and not knowing this is in book 5 I had no info :). In fact, I analyzed it as if it were book 4. Whatever :).
      4. Then we have Bergk 46 Edmonds 96 Lobel-Page inc. 5 l. 3 Campbell inc. 5(c). This is quoted, along with the other parts of inc. 5, by Herodianus, who wrote «Τὸ γὰρ "α", εἰ ἔχοι ἐν ἐπιφορᾷ διπλασιαζόμενον τὸ "λλ" ἐν μιᾷ λέξει, συστέλλεσθαι φιλεῖ, χωρὶς εἰ μὴ τροπή τις εἴη τοῦ "η" εἰς "α" παρὰ διαλέκτῳ [...] ἐφυλαξάμην δὲ διαλέκτους διὰ τὸ "ἀλλ' ἄν μοι μεγαλύννεο δακτυλίῳ περὶ"· καὶ "ἄλλαν μη καμεστέραν φρένα"· καὶ "ἄβρα· δεῦτε πάγχης πάλαι ἀλλόμαν", ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠλλόμην» (For the alpha, if followed by a double lambda in the same word, likes to be reduced, unless there is a change of eta to alpha in a dialect […] I kept the dialectal forms for "But don't brag for a ring", and "[see discussion at 1.H.iv below]", and "Tender again I jumped once [πάγχης unfindable]", where ἀλλόμαν is for ἠλλόμην, "I jumped"). As you can see, there are three fragments here. The first one is the ring poem here. The second one is at 1.H.iv below, apparently another mess of a reconstruction. The third one is the one at hand. All of these are of uncertain authorship because, while being Aeolic, no author name is given, so they may be Alcaeus, though nobody conjectures that. The given form of the quote in the tradition is from Bergk, and it matches Voigt's "cod. H" very well, except Voigt says it has πάχης, not πάγχης. Though she does say «πάχης s[upra]scr[iptum]», «πάχης written above» (as if an editorial correction), so maybe there was πάγχηςπάχης on cod. H? I'll assume so. In any case, πάγχης is unfindable so I must reject it. Voigt's cod. V seems to have had «ἄβρα- δ' εὖτε πάσχης πάλαι ἀλλόμαν», where πάσχης is again unfindable. So we keep the suprascriptum and wind up with ἄβρα δεὖτε πάχης πάλαι ἀλλόμαν. The second word is typically seen as δηὖτε, to which Bergk went ahead and amended it, and we'll follow suit. The verb is in first person, and not predicative, so πάχης, a noun meaning «fleshy, stout», cannot fit here. The first thing that springs to mind is to make it πάχῃ, dative singular feminine of παχύς, "thick", perhaps implying some feminine-gender garment and describing the speaker's jump which happened while she (yes, it's a she, the feminine ἄβρα makes that clear) was wearing said thick garment. Bergk goes one step further and turns -σ πάλαι into σπόλᾳ, so the garment's name is explicit. The more prudent Voigt, Lobel-Page, and Campbell all stop one step earlier, putting δεῦτε πάσχης πάλαι in cruces. Speaking of Voigt, I don't get why she writes «sub ἀλλ[όμαν] latere verbum adhuc ign[otum] cum ἆλλος cognatum veri sim[ile] est e H[ero]d[ia]n[i] test[imonio]» (It seems plausible from Herodian's testimony that under ἀλλόμαη there hides a hitherto unknown verb cognate to ἆλλος): I mean, he says it's for ἠλλόμην, and we know that verb ever since Homer's ἆλτο χάμαζε, where ἄλλετο=ἤλλετο is contracted to ἆλτο! What Edmonds does is discussed in 5.C.xvi, where he amends the everliving f**k out of this. Safopoemas has «βραι, δεΟτε (τάχος), πάλαι αλλόμαν», probably meant to be «ἄβραι, δεὖτε τάχεως, πάλαι ἀλλόμαν», «Oh tender [friends], quick, [come] again, [only] long ago did I jump», translating to «Vamos, amigas, ea, hace tanto que no juego», with "jump" turned to "play". That is a viable option, I guess, though positing synaereses isn't very clean. I think I'll keep this as version B for the all-Sappho posts. What I found, however, apparently only on "Peithô's web", though I now know it's in Bibliotheca Augustana too, is a step further from Bergk. Now, παχῇ is the contracted Attic form, and simply applying barytonesis seems a bit like an Aeolic patina over Attic more than actual Aeolic. So someone (who knows who) thought it was a good choice to uncontract that into παχήᾳ, thus ending up with ἄβρα δηὖτε παχήᾳ σπόλᾳ ἀλλὀμαν, «Tender again, in a thick dress, I jumped», with that ᾳ being shortened by the following ἀ. This radically changes the meter, since from a glyconic expanded with one dactyl we move to a lesser asclepiad.
      5. Next we have Lobel-Page inc. 21 + inc. 17 Campbell inc. 21 + inc. 17, which curiously seem not to be in Bergk or Edmonds despite being in Hephaestion's handbook on meter and in Etymologicon Generale and Etymologicon Magnum. In the first one, we read «τετράμετρον δὲ καταληκτικὸν ἐπιωνικόν, ὃ τὴν μὲν πρώτην ἔχει ἰαμβικὴν [...], τὴν δὲ δευτέραν ἰωνικὴν ἢ δευτέραν παιωνικήν, τὴν δε τρίτην τροχαϊκὴν [...], εἶτα τὴν ἐκ τροχαίου καὶ τῆς ἀδιαφόρου κατάκλειδα, οἶον "Τέουτος εἰς Θήβας πάϊς ἀρμάτεσσι ὀχήμενος" "Μᾶλις μὲν ἔννη λέπτον ἔχοισ' ἐπ' ἀτράκτῳ λίνον"», or, in Campbell's translation (the text in Campbell is only a few minor amendations away from the given one, «The epionic tetrameter catalectic has the first metron iambic […], the second an ionic or second paeon, the third trochaic […], then the ending with a trochee and a doubtful syllable (i.e. x–u–|x–uu|–u–x|–ux), e.g. "Such was the boy who [came] to Thebes riding on a chariot", "Malis was spinning with a fine thread on the spindle"». The text I gave for the two lines is from cod. M for l. 1 and cod. C for l. 2, since cod. M seems to disappear for l. 2. This is the text I had, and probably the one I would choose now, if not just to follow Lobel-Page Voigt and Campbell. Oscillations now. Cod. A has τεοῦτος and codd. I and H have τοιοῦτος, all Attic forms which must be accented recessively, and τοίουτος exists in Aeolic so I have no arguments to discard this. εἰς naturally needs to be corrected to ἐς to be Aeolic, as Wilamowitz pointed out. The Aeolic form is Θήβαις, as Blomfeld noted. To respect the metric analysis, ἀρμάτεσσι must be elided. Unless of course you choose to follow codd. A I H which have ἀρμάτεσσι χήμενος. I can find neither though, so I'll stick to my original text but maybe the alternative is also valid, who knows. AFAICT, the other sources only report l. 2, as «καὶ ὁ παρατακτικός (sc. τοῦ νῶ), μάλιστα μὲν ἔνη λέπτον ἔχοισ' ἐπ' ἀτράκτῳ λίνον», where μάλιστα and ἔνη are corruptions since thay violate the meter, and what comes before the line reads «And the paratactic form of νῶ, "to spin"», whatever that means. Oscillations now. Hephaestion's codex C is the given text above. Cod. A had μάλις and cod. I μόλις, where the Etymologycum Magnum has μάλιστα, the Etymologycum Genuinum A μάλλιστα, the E.G. B ...τα (is what comes before τα totally unreadable?). E.G. A and B and cod. V of E.M. have ἔνη, the rest of the E.G./E.M. codices have ἔνει, an Attic form. Cod. I of Hephaestio had ἀπ' for ἐπ', which may be why Bergk (says Voigt) conjectured the genitive ἀτράκτω instead of the dative ἀτράκτῳ. So the corrections are straightforward. There is only one thing to note: what does μᾶλις mean? Well, Hesychius glosses it as Ἀθηνᾶ, Athena, so that's who was spinning. Unfortunately, back in the days, I had no idea of that, and I was also kind of fed up after 1.5 years of Sappho, so I found "malanders" and somehow managed to translate the verb as "entered", possibly from another verb that contracts to νῶ. The translations thus don't make much sense, but I don't have time to rethink them now. Maybe one day I will.
      6. We continue with Bergk 116 Edmonds 131 Lobel-Page 119 Campbell 119. This is a quote from a scholiast on Aristophanes, who wrote «ἡμιτύβιον· ἀντὶ τὸ σουδάριον· ῥάκος ἡμιτριβὲς λινοῦν τι, οἶον ἐκμαγεῖον· καὶ Σαπφώ· "ἡμιτύβιον σταλάσσων"», translated by Campbell as «ἡμιτύβιον: for sudarium, a half-worn linen cloth, like a napkin; cfr. Sappho: "a dripping napkin"». This is already metrically perfect: a nice and simple trochaic dimeter. One thing that must be corrected is definitely the participle: ἡμιτύβιον is neuter (assuming the reported form is a nominative, as this quote, which looks like a glossary entry, seems to suggest), so we'll need στάλασσον there, as Hemsterhuis pointed out. Bergk stops there. However, we then definitely need psilosis, so we need to at least correct to ἠμιτύβιον. Safopoemas stops there, or perhaps even at Bergk's stage, the corruption of the document makes it impossible to determine whether we have a rough or smooth breathing there. Edmonds goes one inexplicable step further, and reads στέλασσον, but why? The verb is σταλάσσω after all, and why would Aeolic turn an alpha into an epsilon when it's constantly turning etas to alphas? Rejected. The other thing seen in editions, and also in my text which probably just followed Bibliotheca Augutana, is αἰμιτύβιον. That should just be a dialect form, so no meaning change, but since the change is more plausible (cfr. φημὶ -> φαῖμι, ἀνέμνησε -> ὀνέμναισ'), I will keep it, and ask Stack Exchange about it.
      7. We approach the end with Bergk 22 Edmonds 20 Lobel-Page 39 Campbell 39. This is quoted by both Pollux and a scholiast on another work of Aristophanes. The former writes «Τὰ μέντοι Τυρρηνικὰ (sc. ὑποδήματα) εἴη ἂν ὁ Σαπφοῦς μάσλης· "ποικίλος μάσλης ἐκάλυπτε, [Λύδιον] καλὸν ἔργον» (indeed the Tyrrhenian sandals would be Sappho's μάσλης: [the quote, without l. 1]). Apart from a few minor amendments (mostly barytonesis), and following cod. C as I did, avoiding the κακὸν of cod. A and the μάσθλης of cod. A, we already have the last two lines of a Sapphic stanza. Except we already recovered an omitted Λύδιον from the schliast. Let's see the scholiast now: «διαφέρουσι γὰρ αἱ Λυδικαὶ βαφαί· [...] καὶ Σαπφώ· "Πόδα δὲ ποίκιλος μάσθλης ἐκάλυπτε Λύδιον καλὸν ἔργον"», or in Campbell's translation «Lydian dyes are superior; […] and Sappho: [quote]». Apart from recovering the Λύδιον and chucking away the μάσθλης (which some surprisingly don't do, despite Hephaestio giving us the form μάσλης for μάλης with the sigma inserted "κατὰ πάθος"), we get the ending of another line, which we ust amend to πόδας δὲ to make it fit the meter, as Seidler pointed out. Wait what? The dictionary has μάσθλης as "leather (strip)" and μάλης has nothing to do with shoes? WTF Hephaestio? Stack Exchange, WTF is going on here? And that would be it, except Edmonds has to invente an ἐπέτεννε instead of ἐκάλυπτε on the basis of a "mss εἶπε" in Pollux, where Voigt doesn't report a thing. Mah. Oh, and safopoemas omits l. 1, but has it in the translation. Whatevver man :).
      8. We wrap up this category with the super-controversial Bergk 50 Edmonds 87 Lobel-Page 101 Campbell 101. This one is a bastard. Let me give you a flashback to back in the days, when I first met it. Here is what I wrote about it in the Paracritical Note. Note that this is fr. 44 in Greek Wikisource, and that GW is referred to as Vikiþíki, where þ is pronounced as the th in thumb, making that name the Modern Greek prounciation of Βικιθήκη, the name GW is given in Greek.

        Fr. 44 is reported by Vikiþíki as:

        χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων
        πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,
        καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀτιμάσεις,
        ἔπεμψ᾽ ἀπὺ Φωκάας
        δῶρα τίμια λαγγόνων.

        while Bibliotheca Augustana reports it thus:

        Κεττόμακτρα δὲ +Καγγόνων
        Πορφύρα καταΰτμενα,
        τά τοι Μ7lt;ν>ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας
        Δῶρα τίμια +Καγγόνων.

        The Vikiþíki version makes the meter detector go off at full blast, telling me: lacuna of an anceps in l. 4 and out-of-place line at l. 3, looks like a glyconic like the others but it's – –uu u–u–, looks like a ionic a maiore foot plus an a minore with anaclasis [or rather a iambic meter] or a spondee-tribrachus-trochaic meter catalectic. The Bibliotheca Augustana version instead, besides being clearly composed of a triplet of lines (two glyconics and an Aeolic dactylic meter of the kind seen above [fr. 40-41 is Lobel-Page 130-131] with two dactyls between xx and –ux [i.e. xx–uu–uu–ux]) and a glyconic left over from a half-lost triplet, corresponds to the meter of another fragment that passed under my eye, tĕthnákēn d’ adŏ́lōś thĕ́lō [i.e. Lobel-Page 94], reasons due to which I opt for this last version. Let's now translate into prose. Vikiþíki: «Drapes of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), and these you will not respect, [he/she] sent them from Phocea, precious gifts of the (inexistent)», Bibliotheca Augustana: «(Inexistent) of the (inexistent) purple dye (unfindable perfect participle), which (neuter) Mnasis sent you from Phocea, doni precious gifts of the (inexistent)». This is thus a very problematic fragment. First of we recover χειρόμακτρα from Vikiþíki. Καγγόνων is after a + in Bibliotheca Augustana, that is the equivalent of something enclosed in cruces, thus an unknown even for Bibliotheca Augustana. Κάγγονος doesn't exist. Supposing a truncation of κατὰ from a κατάγονος, with κατα->κατ->καγ, typically Aeolic, I don't find κατά-γονος, but κατά-γομος, overloaded, totally out-of-context here. Even separating κὰγ from γόνων: "down from the lineages", what the heck would that mean. [Apparently I didn't know Aeolic had γόνα, γόνων as the plural of γόνυ, knee, see below.] The only thing left is to think of an irremediable corruption or of the name of a people of which no news reached us, Κάγγονες, Καγγόνων, the Cangones, and that is what I hypothized. Mnasis must be a queen of that people, probably from Phocea (l. 3). Or maybe a king. Who knows? Καταΰτμενα is also unfindable. It is evident, by the ending -μενα, that it's a medio-passive perfect participle, but the verb is unfindable. Καταΰτω (or deponent -τομαι) doesn't exist. Καταΰσσω (or deponent) doesn't exist. Καταϋτάνω (or deponent) doesn't exist. No verb with a similar root is found in Rocci [the standard Greek dictionary in Italy, at least AFAIK]. A polythematic verb, perhaps? The Greek Word Study Tool of the Perseus Digital library finds nothing, not even if the barytonesis is undone by bringing the accent over to the ending. In another fragment [Lobel-Page 44, perhaps?] the same word pair is found, but the French translation I have of it [no idea where I found it] doesn't match the Greek at all, at least as far as I can make it match. Let's try to eliminate the κατ-. Same result. The only thing left is to eliminate the tau from the root. Thus I find αὔω, to essiccate, Attic αὕω, and καταύω, same meaning. The perfect isn't reported [by Rocci, I assume] for either. Let's try to create it. It could be αὔκα, αὔσμαι. It derives indeed from «cf sscr çúskah ; lt. sudus, al. haurio, uro», all words that make me think of a possible lost intervocalic sigma preserved in the past. One must however hypothise a diaeresis from αὔω to ἀΰω, besides the lack of reduplication. Indeed the initial alpha must be short by meter, while reduplication would bring it to an eta or, in Aeolic, to a long alpha while it's short here. The idea is a bit bold, but I can't find anything better. We must however correct ἀΰτμενα to ἀΰσμενα. When I get to the last fragment [probably LP 44, it was the last on Vikiþíki after all], the one with the same two words, I'll see how to behave there. For now this satisfies me. From these observation I obtain the text:

        Χειρόμακτρα δὲ †Καγγόνων†,
        Πορφύρα καταϋσμένα,
        Ἄ τοι Μ<ν>ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,
        Δῶρα τίμια †Καγγόνων†.

        that is «Drapes of the Cangones, essiccated purple, things which Mnasi sent you from Phocea, precious gifts of the Cangones». This will be very hard to translate with rhymes, because what do I rhyme with Cangones? NB for who hasn't understood, it's Cángoni, not Cangóni. [That is, the stress is on the a, not the o.] I will try, but I fear I won't manage.

        But it doesn't end there. Let's go back one step further: where does this come from? Athenaeus, Deipnosophistæ, book 9, where we read «Σαπφὼ δὲ, ὅταν κέγῃ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν μελῶν πρὸς τὴν Ἀφροδίτην· χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων πορφυρᾶ καταυταμενἀτατιμασεις ἔπεμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας δῶρα τίμια καγγόων, κόσμον λέγει κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα, ὡς καὶ Ἑκαταῖος δηλοῖ [...] "γυναῖκες δ' ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχουσι χειρόμακτρα", Ἡρόδοτος δ' ἐν τῆ βʹ φησί [...] δῶρον ἔχοντα παρ' αὐτῆς (sc. Δήμητρος) χειρόμακτρον χρύσεον», that is «And Sappho, when in book 5 of the poems she says to Aphrodite: [super-corrupted quotation], is saying handcloths are an adornment for the head, as Hecataeus also makes clear […] "The women have handcloth on their heads", and Herodotus in book 2 says […] "Having a golden handcloth as a gift from Demetra"». So these handcloth clearly should be on Aphrodite's head in this vision Sappho is describing (whence Edmonds reconstructed a whole other 4 lines before the quotation). So let's discuss this. First word, χειρόμακτρα, the famous handcloths, should really be in its Aeolic form χερρόμακτρα, as Ahrens pointed out: an easy fix. Then δὲ, perfect. Then καγγόνων. WTF is that? We have leeway with spacing and accents, so the first obvious option is κὰγ γόνων, which I dismissed as "down from the lineages", i.e. nonsense, but can actually be construed as "down from your knees", a fact I overlooked. However, going at such great lengths to state the handcloths are for the head while quoting a passage where they are on the knees would make Athenaeus come off like an idiot, so we have to reject that. Analyzing the word as is yields no result, hence the hypothesis in the above passage, which I must needs keep in the translations. To avoid positing that, we'll need to tamper with that. That definitely suggests a truncated κὰτ=κατὰ, as is Aeolic's habit of truncating it and assimilating the t with whatever comes after it. But remember: no knees ere. So what do we make of this? It's supposed to be the head, so κόμων, or rather κόμαν (or is it κομᾶν?) are pretty plausible options, giving "falling down on your hair", imagine a towel on Aphrodite's head falling down with her long hair. Or it could be γένυων, cheeks, as proposed by Edmonds. Seidler started the κόμων idea with κὰκ κόμων, which Bergk changed to κὰγ κόμων (why would the tau get voiced in front of a voiceless kappa though?), and Ahrens thought the Aeolic first-declension genitive would be κομᾶν, and I say it should be recessively accented, but I may be misguided in that, and that huge thesis on Aeolic is still waiting to be studied. I'll go with this choice for the all-Sappho posts, because γένυων should really be γενύων and has us posit a synaeresis, which I don't really like to do. There is also Neue, who just deleted this as if accidentally repeated from below, but nope, not buying that. If anything, the last one should be the deleted one. But I'll treat it the same as the first one. πορφυρᾶ, or recessively accented as πορφύρα (not πόρφυρα as Ahrens suggested because I believe we need a long alpha there, which that accentuation would contrast) should be a contraction of πορφύρεα, or probably an Aeolic form *πορφύραα, otherwise the alpha wouldn't be explained. I strived so hard to make it "purple dye", thus feminine, because I was convinced the final alpha of the neuter would be short, and ended up with "dried purple dye", which I think I misinterpreted as "essiccated murex" (murex is the mollusk whence purple dye is extracted), but is rather some kind of dye powder, I think. Of course, it sounds better to make the handcloths purple than to introduce another gift in an unspecified place. But then again, back in the days, I had that people idea for the καγγόνων, so the problem jut didn't exist. Speaking of people idea, someone (I think Diehl but the phrasing and punctuation of Voigt's note is puzzling) proposed Μαιόνων and Lobel tentatively suggested Ἰαόνων, so I'm not alone in this idea. And then, the big big mess. καταυταμενἀτατιμασεις. W.T.F.?! Is this even the form in the tradition? Edmonds suggests it is, but then Voigt has an extra acute in καταυταμενἀτατιμάσεις, and Bergk says we read καταυτα μὲν ἀτατιμήσεις ἔπεμψα πυφωκάας. At least what comes after this mess is undoubtful: everyone agrees on ἔπεμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας, suggested by Neue (or in Bergk's words "Neuius"), and δῶρα τίμια needs no discussion, and the final καγγόνων is similarly doubtful to the first one, though different people delete either this one or the other one. But back to the big mess. Looking at the letters alone, it looks like it should be καταυτάμενα τὰ Τῖμας εἰς, making the whole thing "Purple handcloths (καταυτάμενα) on your cheeks/hair, which Timas sent from Phocea". Now, firstly we have εἰς which is AFAIK not Aeolic but Attic, the Aeolic form being ἐς. Secondly, we would like to know to whom they were sent, probably to Aphrodite, hence we add τ' after ἐς, thereby also making it long, as we'd probably expect at line beginning when the meter is not descending. Thirdly, καταυτάμενα still doesn't exist. But καταρτάμενα, from καταίρω, means "hanging", and fits perfectly here. So why not do that? The only thing that bugs me with this reconstruction is the meter: what is this –u–u–uuuu–u line? I mean, we have χερρόμακτρα δὲ κὰγ κόμαν and ἔς τ' ἔπεμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας and δῶρα τίμια κὰγ κόμαν, three glyconics, and that thing is… what? Three trochees, a tribrachus, and another trochee? Brachycatalectic trochaich dimeter, tribrachus, brachicatalectic trochaic meter? Perhaps. Stack Exchange may or may not enlighten us there. But this is just Edmonds, with a few touch-ups. For some reasons, NONE of my other sources does this. We have the drastic amendment of Bergk, reading πόρφυρα [...] / ταῦτα μή μοι ἀτιμάσῃς / ὄσσ' ἔπεμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας / δῶρα τίμια καγ κόμων. The ὄσσ' is Ahrens's addition. The line after πόρφυρα is vastly tampered with by (AFAICT) Bergk himself, and gives me the occasion to give an argument against Edmonds: what is that smooth breathing doing there, if we should read καταυτάμενα? But the argument doesn't hold, because I just looked at Edmonds again, and it wasn't a smooth breathing, but a grave accent. Which is actually even more perplexing: what was it there for? Probably just a wrong accent mark. OK, dismissed. And Bergk obviously tampered too much with this thing. From Lobel-Page on, what happens is the α of τάμενα gets taken out, we wind up with καταυτμενα, which gets posited as καταΰτμενα, and that is where I send you back to the Paracritical Note extract above, where I took this form and tried my best to make it meaningful. By some miracle, Theander interpreted it as "odorata", "perfumed", and that just stuck. Where does this come from? What verb is it? Well, the same Stack Exchange link as before also asks this question. And then the rest is just left in cruces, with Wilamowitz suggesting τά τοι Μνᾶσις, so we get the same meter of I want to have died. And this is the text that reached me via B.A, and which I worked on. So the discussion of the text I translated was in the extract, while the discussion of the all-Sappho posts text is the one I just terminated. And boy is it long! In fact, that Stack Exchange link also asks where Vikiþíki got its version, and if it was Reinach directly or someone else Reinach followed who proposed safopoemas's version Μ(ν)ᾶσις πέμψ' ἀπὺ Φωκάας. Oh, and note how I amended the relative pronoun to ἄ, while now I know τά also worked for that purpose in Aeolic. Funny how the text in my file had τά… probably forgot to correct that from B.A.'s copypasted text. UPDATE Reading through the Paracritical Note, I apparently construed that partciple in Edmonds as feminine, due to meter, but it does fit, since that could be a middle voice, not a passive one, meaning she (Aphrodite) is described as supporting those handcloths on her cheeks. Meter solved.
    4. The fourth category is that of invocations to divinities.
      1. The first invocation is Bergk 69 Edmonds 68 Lobel-Page 53 Campbell 53. This is quoted by a scholiast on Theocritus, where we read «Γέγραπται δὲ Αἰολίδι διαλέκτῳ παρὰ τὸ Σαπφικὸν ἑκκαιδεκασύλλαβον τό· Ῥοδοπήχεες ἄγναι Χάριτες δεῦτε Δίος κόραι» (The following has been written in the Aeolic dialect with the Sapphic hekkaidekasyllabon). This is an easy one: the meter is given by the quote (Sapphic 16-syllable line, or xx–uu––uu––uu–ux, or greater Asclepiad for that matter), and it matches the line as is perfectly, so we just have to Aeolicize the first word. Concerning that, we know from the δυσπάχεα in the tradition for one of the poems here that the eta there needs to be a long alpha, and Hesychius says «βρόδα· Αἰολεῖς ῥόδα», which means the beginning has to be βροδ-, giving us our final βροδοπάχεες, to which every edition I have agrees. Kept the rhythm in English and Italian, and the meter in Latin.
      2. The second invocation is Bergk 65 Edmonds 101 Lobel-Page 128. This was quoted by four sources: Hephaestio, a scholiast on Hephaestio, Choeroboscus, and Fortun[atus] gramm[aticus]. The first one wrote «τετράμετρα δὲ (sc. χοριαμβικά), ἃ καὶ συνεχέστερά ἐστιν, οἷα ταυτὶ τὰ απφοῦς· Διῦτε νυν ἁβραὶ Χάριτες καλλίκομοί τε Μοῖσαι» (and the choriambic tetrameters, which are also found in longer sequence, like these lines by Sappho: [quote]). Cod. A alone reads Μοῦσαι, but that is of course non-Aeolic. The second one has «Δεῦτε νυν ἁβραὶ Χάριτες καλλίκομοί τε Μοῖσαι», that is the quote alone. The third one gives us «Δεῦτε νῦν ἁβραὶ Χάριτες καλλίκομοί τε Μοῖσαι· ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι βραχύ ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα τὸ 'νυν' ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ [some fragment by someone else which Voigt denotes Ψ 485]» ([quote]; it must be known that the νυν is short there, like also in the line […]). This clearly tells us that the makorty of the codices is wrong in that νῦν, which cod. K alone gives us without the circumflex accent. Cod. U also gives αἱ μακραὶ for ἁβραὶ, but this looks like a choriambic meter, and that option doesn't fit choriambs, and plus it's an odd-one-out, so we reject it. The fourth and last source reads «Sappho sic Δεῦτε νῦν ἁβραὶ Χάριτες καλλίκομοί τε Μοῦσαι» (Sappho wrote so: [quote]), with cod. B giving the unaccented form alone correctly, and cod. B balancing that out with τι for τε, again an odd-one-out which is also out of place, so we reject it. Therefore, all sources point, with a few Aeolicization, to an easy and uncontroversial reconstruction, which is what I got and translated. The Italian translation didn't manage to keep the choriambic rhythm, and the English one barely did.
      3. The third invocation is Bergk 86 Edmonds 129 Lobel-Page 127 Campbell 127. This is quoted by Hephaestio and a scholiast on Hephaestio. The former wrote «Καὶ τὸ ἐξ ἰθυφαλλικῶν δύο ἡ Σαπφὼ πεποίηκε· Δεῦρο δηὖτε Μοῖσαι χρύσεον λίποισαι» (Sappho also wrote the line made by two ithyphallics: [quote]», and the only Aeolicization necessary is χρύσεον->χρύσιον. The scholiast wrote «"Δεῦρο δεῦτε" δοκεῖ δὲ τὸ Σαπφικὸν μὴ εἶναι ἀσυνάρτητον· δύο γὰρ τροχαϊκά εἰσι» (Δεῦρο δεῦτε shows this Sapphic [line] isn't an ἀσυνάρτητον: for there are two trochees». So this merely tells us this doesn't go in book 5, where the ἀσυνάρτητα were. So this is an easy one, and the meter is –u–u–x–u–u–x. One last thing to observe: Edmonds proposed to add δῶμα, "house", to which "golden" would be referred, as a start of l. 2, and safopoemas, messing up the linebreaks, followed him.
      4. The fourth and final invocation is Bergk 84 Edmonds 127 Lobel-Page 124. This is quoted again by hephaestio and the scholiast. The former wrote «δύναται δὲ καὶ εἰς τρίτον ἀνάπαιστον διαιρεῖσθαι, εἰ ἀπὸ σπονδείου ἄρχοιτο, οἶον τὸ Σαπφοῦς· Αὐτὰ δὲ σὺ Καλλιόπα, τοῦ προσοδιακοῦ ὂν καὶ τοῦτο εἶδος» ([The length x–uu–uu–] ca be divided to form three anapests if it starts with a spondee, as in Sappho's line: [line], which is also a type of prosodiac). This is as easy as it gets: just shitf an accent on the first word, and you're there! Apparently there is a doubt on whether the last word is an adjective or a Muse's name, but Hephaestio says it must end with a long syllable (or the length would be x–uu–uuu and not form even two anapests), which Voigt says makes it a name. That's all. But these easy ones are destined to end, and very sooon too :).
    5. Our next category is of fragments containing proper names, whether they be of divinities or of people.
      1. The first such fragment is Bergk 79 Edmonds 117 Lobel-Page 81(b) Campbell 81 part 2, which Campbell joins with a P.Oxy. 1787 which makes his 81 part 1 and Lobel-Page 81(a), not in Bergk or Edmonds because it was published after their editions, which I kept separate in the UnTransLatable group which is group 2 below. Firstly, let me give you what I did back in the days, starting from Greek Wikisource, in the words of my Paracritical Note: «Il 78 è una sfida. Nel v. 1 ho tirato un accidente a pĕ́rthĕsth’, che sembra pĕ́rthō, ma in realtà è pĕr(i)títhēmi. Oltretutto è un uso dell’infinito che si incontra una volta ogni mille testi, l’infinito desiderativo, che ho capito solo grazie alla traduzione di safopoemas. Dopo questo è tutto facile. A questo punto il problema è pŏtŏ́rēn, a prima vista un accusativo assolutamente fuori posto. Altrove si dà prŏtŏ́rēn o prŏtĕ́rēn, in cruces. In seconda battuta, parrebbe un infinito da pŏtŏ́rēnai, forma ibrida dorica (pŏtì per prŏ̀ś, che peraltro alcuni sostituiscono a pŏt-) e eolica (ŏ́rēmi per ŏráō) che significa prŏsŏráō, guardare. Ora, qui o sottintendiamo un verbum voluntatis o di desiderio, tipo bŏýlŏintŏ́ ke, che con mãllon dà un “preferirebbero guardare”, oppure l’infinito non è retto da nulla e aleggia nello spazio immenso. La mia idea era di vederlo come imperfetto, con kĕ sottinteso, “guarderebbero piuttosto (esse), e da chi non ha ghirlande sono fatte rivolgere altrove”, ma mi accorgo che di fatto la terza plura sarebbe pŏtŏ́rēsan, non pŏtŏ́rēn. Quindi penso che lo prenderò come infinito sottintendendo quanto sopra detto, taanto la traduzione è più libera e non necessita mutamenti con questo cambio d’interpretazione per quanto riguarda l’italiano, per il latino corrisponde anche di più», that is «Fragment 78 is a challeng. In l. 1 I shot a curse on πέρθεσθ', which looks like πέρθω, but is actually περ(ι)τίθημι. On top of that it's a use of the infinitive that is encountered once every thousand texts, the desiderative infinitive, which I figured out only thanks to safopoemas's translation. After this it's all easy. At this point the problem is ποτόρην, at first sight an absolutely out of place accusative. Προτόρην, or ποτέρην in cruces, are given elsewhere. On second thoughts, it would look like an infinitive from ποτόρηναι, a doric (ποτὶ for πρὸς, which some moreover replace ποτ- with) and Aeolic (ὄρημι for ὀράω) hybrid form meaning προσοράω, to look at. Now, here we either imply a verbum voluntatis or verb of wish, like βούλοιντό κε, which with μᾶλλον gives “would prefer to look at”, or the infinitive isn't governed by anything and hovers in boundless space. My idea was to view it as an imperfect, with an implied κε, “they'd rather look at [the well-flowery], and by those that have no garlands are made to turn elsewhere”, but I realize that in fact the third person plural would be ποτόρησαν, not ποτόρην. So I think I'll take it for an infinitive implying what said above, the translation is anyway freer and needs no changes for this interpretation change as far as Italian is concerned, while for Latin it matches even better». And that kind of justifies the translations, whereas the text is just Greek Wikisource / Bibliotheca Augustana. But let's step back and look at the sources. First of all, P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 33 could join in and give us bits of three lines above the quotation, but I had no idea of that back in the days, and besides, the overlap is little, and doesn't help settle any issue, so I reject the insertion, and leave that fragment as an untranslatable in group 2. So the only source here is Athenaeus, who wrote «Ἐστεφανοῦντο δὲ καὶ τὰ στήθη καὶ ἐμύρουν ταῦτα, ἐπεὶ αὐτόθι ἡ καρδία. Ἐκάλουν δὲ καὶ οἴς περιεδέοντο τὸν τράχηλον στεφάνους ὑποθυμιάδας ὡς Ἀλκαῖος ἐν τούτοις· [Alc. Voigt 362 ll. 1-2]. Καὶ Σαπφώ· [Sappho 94 ll. 15-16]. Καὶ Ἀνακρέων· [Anacreon Page 52]. [...] Σαπφὼ δ' ἁπλούστερον τὴν αἰτίαν ἀποδίδωσιν τοῦ στεφανοῦσθαι ἡμᾶς, λέγουσα τάδε· "Σὺ δὲ στεφάνοις ωδικα παρθεσθ' ἐράταις φόβαισιν ὄρπακας ἀνήτῳ συνέρραισ' ἀπαλλαγίση χέρσι εὐάνθεα γὰρ πέλεται καὶ Χάριτες μάκαιρα μᾶλλον προτέρηνα στεφάνω τοῖσι δαπυστρέφονται. Ὡς εὐανθέστερον γὰρ καὶ κεχαρισμένον μᾶλλον τοῖς θεοῖς παραγγέλλει στεφανοῦσθαι τοὺς θύοντας», that is «They also adorned with garlands and anointed their chests, because the heart is there. And those garlands that were tied around the neck were called hypothymids, as Alcaeus [says] in the following: [Alc. Voigt 362 ll. 1-2]. And Sappho: [Sappho 94 ll. 15-16]. And Anacreon: [Anacreon Page 52]. […] But Sappho expresses more simply the reason for our practice of wearing garlands when she says: [quotation]. She urges those offering sacrifices to garland themselves since what is more adorned with flowers is more pleasing to the gods», where from "But Sappho" is Campbell's translation, while the rest is not reported by Campbell. OK, so what is going on here? The beginning suggests the book 4 meter x–uu––uu––uu–u–x, with just ὦ Δίκα and probably πέρθεσθ' (cfr. Sappho 94's περεθήκαο from the papyrus's παρέθηκας) to amend. Going on till χέρσιν we have a good beginning, then a missing short syllable between ἀνή- and -έρραισ', a tradition report mismatch in the ἀπαλλαγίση, which Voigt reports as universal while Bergk reports as unus cod[ex] variant of ἀπαλλαγείσῃ, both of which don't respect the meter anyways, so a drastic emendation is needed, and given the ἀπαλ- we (Casaubonus first of all) think of ἀπάλαισι, and that's it, so we just need to decide on that missing short syllable. Now, firstly, cod. A reports ἀννητωι, which obviously doesn't fit the meter, and the dative is probably wrong given you definitely don't pick sprouts up with dill, but you can pick up dill sprouts. That being said, we can either use a Homeric ἀνήτοιο or change συνέρραισ' to συναέρραισ'. Given what the tradition's form yields on Preseus, I'm gonna call it as incorrect, thus saying screw Bergk and Edmonds (and Ahrens who first suggested it), and follow Lobel-Page Voigt and Campbell. So two lines are OK. Let us recall what the rest looks like: «εὐάνθεα γὰρ πέλεται καὶ Χάριτες μάκαιρα μᾶλλον προτέρηνα στεφάνω τοῖσι δαπυστρέφονται». The end is easily respaced as ἀστεφανώτοισι δ' ἀπυστρέφονται, as Casaubonus pointed out, –uu––uu–u–u, and the preceding μᾶλλον προτέρην fits the meter perfectly, so that one line is found, and the rest must be one line. Indeed, only one long syllable is missing after γὰρ (or just before it). Now for the meaning. Surely μάκαιρα ust be with Χάριτες, thus μάκαιραι. The easy way out is to add δὴ near γὰρ and the line is overl. Now for προτέρην: what verb, and what form, and what meaning? Obviously not from πρότερος, that is pure Ionic and we're in Aeolic. This would seem to be a Doric form though, for προσέρειν, "speak to, address" or "stand before". That last meaning really makes me wonder why postly everyone amends that to προτόρην or προσόρην: why force "look at" when "stand before" is just as contextual? I naturally need that change for this post, but I will keep προτέρην in the all-Sappho posts. And with the interpretation notes of the Paracritical Note extract we are done. Or are we? Well, apart from Bergk's phantasy «Εὔανθες ἅπαν γὰρ πέλεται κεὔχαρι ταῖς μακαίραις / μᾶλλον προτόρην· ἀστεφαώτοισι δ' ἀπυστρέφονται», «It happens that the blessed ones look rather on all that is well-flowered and well-graceful; they are made to turn away by what is without garlands», coupled with a possible ἀστεφανώτοις γὰρ ἀπυστρέφονταιν in the note, and a printed συνέῥῥεισ', with contra dialectum rough breathings on the rhos, which seems to not exist (at least Perseus doesn't know it), which we promptly reject as drastic and unnecessary, we have our friend Edmonds with an interesting idea: add παρ- to get παρπέλεται=πάρεστι, which doesn't change the meaning much, but then Χάριτας μακαίρας, which makes the sentence flow smoother and not need to imply what I said in the Paracritical Note. So kind of a Bergk 2.0, revised and improved. You know what? The only argument against this, apart from «Wait, Doric! Halt!» which holds for everyone anyways, and «Why change to προτόρην?», which I will undo, the only argument against this idea is «But the source…», and yeah, we changed the source elsewhere, so why not here? One letter for another, easy mistake in copying, right? So the all-Sappho posts will follow Edmonds for this. Edmonds also changes πέρθεσθ' to πέρθεσσ', an imperative, but with the desiderative infinitive interpretation that change is unnecessary, so I reject it. As a final note, safopoemas can't even properly research its sources here, resulting in its "papiro oxirrinco" text having all the athenaeus words and the micro-bits actually in the papyrus, so that it gives two texts, "oxyrhynchus papyri" «]άπύθεσθ[αι / ]χιστα λ[ 0      0      τ. / ]· μ«[ / συ δε στεφάνοις, ώ Δ(χα, πέρθεσθ' έράταις φόβαισιν δρπακας άννήτοιο // συνέρραισ' άπάλαισι χέρσιν / εύάνθεα (μεν) γαρ· πέλεται κ' εύχάριτον μαχαίραις μδλλον προσόρην· // άστεφανώτοισι δ' άπυστρέφονται», the // indicating linebreaks possibly due to the document's margin, and "athenaeus" «συ δΐ στεψάνοις, ώ Δ(χα, παρθέσθ' έραταΤς φόβαισιν 8ρπαχας αννητωι // συνέρραισ' άπαλλαγιση χέρσιν εύάνθεα γαρ πέλεται χαΐ Χάριτες μάχαιρα // μδλλον προτερην άστεφανώτοισι δ' άπυστρέφονται». Oh my. So much corruption, it hurts my eyes…
      2. The second one is Bergk 78 l. 2 Edmonds 116 Lobel-Page 91 Campbell 91, which Bergk for some reason joins with our fourth fragment below, and he was aware of how weird this joining was since he writes «Dubito an hi versus recte conjugantur», «I doubt these lines are correctly joined». This is quoted by Hephaestio and by Choeroboscus discussing Hephaestio. Hephaestio simply has the line in a more or less corrupt form, while Choeroboscus notes Hephaestio «παραφέρει τοῦτο τὸ Σαπφοῦς» (reports this line by Sappho), glossing it as follows: «ὃ δὲ θέλει εἰπεῖν, τοιοῦτόν ἐστι· βλαβερωτέρας οὐδαῶς πού ποτε, Εἰρήνη, σοῦ ἐπιτυχοῦσαν» (what she wants to say is: never once having met you, Irene, more harmful than you). Then he goes on to comment on the words, but that is irrelevant to us. I will refrain from commenting on the corrections made to the tradition on Choeroboscus's intro and gloss, and concentrate on just the quotation. This is a one-liner in the same meter as the previous fragment. Cod. I of Hephaestio apparently has ἀσσαροτέρας, but it's an odd one out and the majority form exists (I found it back in the days, since the Paracritical Note doesn't say anything about this fragment), so we reject this intruder. The name gets pretty garbled: οὐδάμαπ' ὤρανα in cod. I and "simm. cod. A" of Hephaestio, οὐδάμ' ἀπώρανα in cod. K of Choeroboscus, οὐδάμάπα εἰρήνα in cod. U of Choeroboscus, and who knows what in the other codices, perhaps Voigt's οὐδάα πω Εἴρανα. From the gloss, πω=που seems inevitable, as suggested by Arnaud as οὐδ' ἄμα πω, whough Edmonds thinks of ποι which appears to mean "whither" (WTF Edmonds?). As for the name, if we trust Choeroboscus, it should be Εἴρανα or rather Εἰράνα, unless -να in Aeolic shortens, which actually is suggested by χέλυννα… thus accented by whom? Not the sources. Hmm… Actually it could be Εἴρηνα, as taken up by Edmonds, but the tradition definitely points to two alphas, since that is universal across codices, so I'll go with that. Bergk thought of Εἴραννα, but why the double nu? Maybe like χέλυννα for χελώνη? Others also considered Ἔραννα before Bergk. In any case, once you choose the name, we have a terrible synaeresis here. Do we keep it? Do we make a crasis? Do we elide or prodelide? I go against Voigt and Edmonds here, because the plain synaeresis is too many vowels in a row for me. Bergk's prodelision seems weird, and I'd be alone in the elision route AFAIK, so I'll choose the crasis πΩἴρανα found in Lobel-Page and Campbell. And we are done.
      3. Next up is Bergk 76 Edmonds 73 Lobel-Page inc. 11 Campbell inc. 11. Now apparently this is from a quoted quote, where Choeroboscus or Aldus or someone decided to quote Herodian's Περὶ κλίσεων ὀνομάτων, On the Declension of Nouns. Said quote reads «Τὴν δὲ αἰτιατικὴν οἱ Αἰολεῖς καὶ μόνοι προσθέσει τοῦ "ν" ἐποίουν τὴν Λητώ‹ν›, ὡς καὶ ἡ χρήσις δηλοῖ· ἡρὼν ἐξεδίδαξε Γυάρων τὴν ἀνυοδρόμον· αἰτιατικῶς γάρ ἐστιν ἀπὸ εὐθείας τῆς Ἡρώ», that is «As for the accusative, the Aeolians alone formed Λητών by the addition of a nu, as the example also shows: [quote]; for it is the accusative from the nominative Ἡρώ». First correction: psilosis and recessive accentuation of the first word. Next: meter seems to be a greater asclepiad yet ἐξεδίδαξε ends with a short where a long should be, so we need to lengthen it. The easiest thing to do is to separate the verb from the epsilon, and read the epsilon as a preposition, either ἐκ like Bergk, or ἐγ like Edmonds, and the meter is respected. Oh, and obviously that τὴν should be τὰν. So we get Ἤρων ἐξεδίδαξ' ἐ‹γ› Γυάρων τὰν ἀνυόδρομον, with another recessive accetuation for the last word. And this is B.A.'s text and the one I translated. From Lobel-Page on, the preference is to not do the meter amendation and place Γυάρων in cruces, probably also because of the oscillation which has one code offer γύρων and some other critics offer γυάλων or Γυάρω, and because of an interpretation problem. Let me flash that one out. I will start at the end: what does ἀνυόδρομον mean? Looks like a compound, δρομ is a root for running (τρέχω, to run, has forms with δρομ and δραμ as the stem, e.g. δεδρόμακεν in the Ode to Anactoria), but what is ἀνυό-? It is virtually impossible to find, and the adjective itself is found only here, with no gloss AFAIK. Lobel-Page was AFAIK the first to suspect that this apparent "Ero" was in fact Ajax Oileus, elsewhere referred as ἤρων τανυσίδρομον (apparently "swiftly-running hero"), who happens to have died near Gyaro, which could be hiding in that Γυάρων. Oh wait: Bergk has that emendation to the final adjective, so maybe it wasn't Lobel-Page who first thought of Ajax? Anyways, that is two changes, and different critics display all the four options for making each change or not. However, we are told by the quoter that Ἤρων is in fact the accusative of Ἡρώ, which is preceded by the feminine τῆς showing it as a feminine name (or at least noun), and the line itself has a τὴν, so this debate seems a little trumped-up to me. Still, the problem of the adjective stays: even ταυσίδρομον, as far as I can see, is just a doubtful conjecture for this fragment. One Google search later, I find τάνυμαι, to be stretched, which would give τανύδρομον, recorded here, as «den Lauf streckend od[er] ausdehnend, weit laufend» (stretching or lengthening the run, running far), so not quite quickly-running, but far-running. This is reported in Aeschylus, but is none of our hypothised forms. However, this place lists τανυσίδρομος as a synonym for τανύδρομος for «αυτός που τρέχει πολύ γρήγορα» (he who runs very fast), so the meaning is wrong, can we trust the synonym? And where would the -σι- appear from? This also gives us "swiftly-running". Here we see another case of -σι- appearing in τανυσίπτερος=τανύπτερος, long-winged, recorded in the Odyssey, in Hesiod, in Alcaeus, and more. So the -σι- was a thing, and amending to τανυσίδρομον seems best. Back in the days, I may somehow have found the original form, so I kept it, and that is what I'll do here, since the changed form has a different meaning. However, in the all-Sappho posts, I will do the emendation.
      4. Then we have Bergk 78 l. 1 Edmonds 115 Lobel-Page 82(a) Campbell 82(a), which Bergk has as l. 1 with l. 2 being the second fragment above. This is quoted by four sources, which I will flesh out below.
        1. The first source is Hephaestion, who (apparently only in codices AHI of his work) says «Καὶ τετράμετρα δὲ ἀκατάληκτα (sc. ἰωνικὰ τὰ ἀπὸ μείζονος) διαφόρως συνέθεσαν· ἢ γὰρ τρισὶν ἰωνικαῖς μίαν τροχαϊκὴν τὴν τελευταίαν ἐπήγαγον - καλεῖται δὲ Αἰολικόν, ὅτι Σαπφὼ πολλῷ αὐτῷ ἐχρήσατο - οἶον· Εὐμορφοτέρα Μνασιδίκα τᾶς ἀπάλας Γυρίννως», or in Campbell's translation «And they composed (sc. Ionic a maiore) acatalectic tetrameters in various ways: either they added a single final trochaic to three ionics – this is called Aeolic because Sappho often used it – like: [quote]», and no comment needs to be made here;
        2. Source 2 is "Longin[us] Proll[egomena?] Heph[aestionis?]", as Voigt puts it, whose cod. A seems to just have the quote without a name, in the form Εὐμορφοτέρα Μνασιδίκα τᾶς ἀπάλας Γυρίννω, where the last word should clearly be the term of comparison and thus in the genitive, and back to the form of source 1 we go.
        3. Source 3 is Choeroboscus citing Hephaestio in codd. KUR, where we find the quote in the form Ἀσσαροτέρα Μνασιδίκα τᾶς ἀπάλας Γυρίννω, though one codex (or a version of one?) has γυρίνης. The same comment as source 2 holds, and the first adjective seems to have been mistakenly imported from LP 91 (aka 1.E.ii), which was perhaps quoted shortly afterwards, but whatever the case, it's the odd one out, so we reject it. And source 1 wins again!
        4. Source 4 is a quoted quote analogous to that of the previous fragment. In it, we read «Οἱ δὲ Αἰολεῖς [...] προσθέσει τοῦ "σ" ποιοῦσι τὴν γενικήν, οἶον ἡ Σαπφώ, τῆς Σαπφῶς [...] καὶ δηλοῦσιν αἱ χρήσεις [...] καὶ πάλιν παρ' αὐτῇ τῇ Σαπφοῖ· [LP 144], καὶ πάλιν· Ἀμορφότερον Μναΐδος καὶ τᾶς ἀπάλας Πῡριν(ν)ῶς· ἔστιν ἡ Μναΐς αὕτη καὶ ἡ Πυρινὼ ὀνόματα κύρια», that is «Aeolians […] form the genitive by the addition of a sigma, like Σαπφώ, Σαπφῶς (Sappho) […] and the examples prove this: […] and again in Sappho herself: [LP 144], and again: More shapeless that Mnais and gender Pyrin(n)o; this Mnais and Pyrino are important names». Now that is some wild variation. The meter doesn't work precisely because of Μναΐδος, which makes the whole Mnais business a strange event, because the explanation refers to Mnais, yet Mnais can't be in the line without emendation. Ahrens tried Μνᾶις, Δίκα, but this is again inmetrical. Lobel suggested Μνᾶσι, Δίκα, which could be, but doesn't have Mnais. Maybe Μνᾶι, Δίκα? Then again, everyone else agrees on Μνασιδίκα, so this is the rejected odd one out. And Bergk's suggested Μνᾶσι, δόκεις is just… why TF man? Also, it's not in his edition, so where did he suggest it? And again, Voigt doesn't say anything about τᾶς ἀπάλας in this source, so I took it to be that way in the source, but Bergk says it appears as τῆς ἁπλῶς, which may suggest an extra long syllable before Μνάιδος to fix the meter! Still, odd one out it remains, thus rejected, unless we're looking at two distinct but very similar lines, in which case this one could be Εὐμορφότερα σὺ Μνάιδος καὶ τᾶς ἄπλας Πυρίννως, «You are more beautiful than Mnais and the simple Pyrinno». Scratch that: τᾶς is long in a short position, and ἄπλας seems to be a later form, ἀπλόας being the older one. Maybe ... καὶ ἀπλόας Πυρίννως though. I'll keep that as "Versión de Choeroboscus" in the all-Sappho posts. In fact, I'd better have Ἀμορφοτέρα there.
        So the text is pretty much undoubted. Two last remarks must be made. Firstly, Bergk says some "libri" give Γυρίνω and Ἀργυρίννω, again outliers, and both inmetrical too. Finally, there is the possibility that we have a fifth source in P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 34, which I saved for 2.C.viii, joins with this line. Now, this is rather doubtful, since the overlap is only one word in l. 5 of the papyrus, and that the papyrus only offers ]μορφο[, which can be completed to something other than Εὐμορφοτέρα. Thus, I keep them separate, and the fragment ends up in the untranslatables below. The meter is of course ionic a maiore, as we have see many.
      5. Next we have Bergk 63+64 Edmonds 125+126 Lobel-Page 133 Campbell 133(a)+(b). Both are quoted by Hephaestio, who wrote «Ἀνακλωμένου δὲ ὄντος αὐτοῦ (i.e. τοῦ ἰωνικοῦ), προταχθεῖσα ἰαμβικὴ ἑξάσημος ἢ ἑπτάσημος ποιεῖ τὸ τοιοῦτον, οἶον παρὰ Σαππηοῖ· Ἔχει μὲν Ἀνδρομέδαν καλὰ ἀμοίβαν, Ψάπφοι τί τὰν πολύολβον Ἀφροδίταν». This appears to be the form of cod. A. In the second line, cod. H agrees, while cod. I has Σάπφοι. In the first line, cod. I agrees, while cod. H gives Ἀνδρομέδα καλὰν. Bergk conjectured with doubts the form Ἀνδρομέδαν καλὰν ἀμοίβα, while Hoffmann had them all as accusatives. None of those is metrically preferrable, since all give the same meter as suggested by Hephaestion, whose intro reads «When the ionic has anaclasis (i.e. uu––uu–– becomes uu–u–u––), the hexa- or heptamoraic iambic length (x–u–) makes the following result, as in Sappho». I had no idea of the discussion, and indeed only learnt of l. 1 at a later stage, which is why I have number 59 for l. 2, and number re-59 for both joined. Therefore, I just took the form in Bibliotheca Augustana. I had even misinterpreted the meter of l. 2 as a double-anaclasis ionic a maiore (––uu––uu–u–u->––u–uuu–u–u->––u–uu–u–u–u), giving an alternate Italian version «Saffo, perché Afrodite d' molte gioie…?». Making Andromeda the object of "have" while the ἀμοίβα is made the subject seems bogus to me, so I'll keep the nominative on her. As for the adjective, I don't have strong arguments for either, but, perhaps partly because of my bias towards the text I translated, and definitely because I don't like hiatuses like καλὰ ἀμοίβα, I keep the accusative on it. Of course, one or two Aeolicizations are clearly necessary, and then we're done. Wow that was short! :) Well, one last thing: Bergk and Edmonds split these, as does safopoemas, but all my other critical editions join them, and to avoid having extra numbers, I keep them together. More on this from Voigt: «vv. 1 et 2 seiunxit Blomf[eld], carminum initia fuisse cens[it] B[er]gk; veri sim[ile] esse Heph[aestionem] v. 2, quem propter varietatem metri adducit, ex eodem carm[ine] sumpsisse iudic[avit] Blass '74, 151», that is «Blomfeld joined ll. 1 and 2, Bergk believed them to be starts of poems; Blass '74 151 judged it verisimile that Hephaestio took l. 2, which he brings in for the variety of meter, from the same poem», and the Bergk part is confirmed by his own crit «Diversorum carminum exordia videntur haec esse», «These seem to be the starts of different poems». Oh, and Edmonds, adds an ἀτίμασας, "did you dishonor", as a start of l. 3, to complete the sentence left verbless in l. 2.
      6. Then there is Bergk 89 Edmonds 122 Lobel-Page 135 Campbell 135. This is essentially a quote by Hephaestio, who wrote «Καὶ ὅλα μὲν οὖν ᾄσματα γέγραπται ἰωνικά, ὥσπερ Ἀλκμᾶνι [fr. 46. P.M.G.], Σαπφοῖ δέ· Τί με Πανδίονις ὠράνα χελίδων, Ἀλκαίῳ δὲ πολλά», «And whole songs were indeed written in ionic meter, like Alcman's [fr. 46 P.M.G.], and Sappho's: [line], and many by Alcaeus». Now, unless you're a dum-dum like I was back in the days, this will not look like a weird uu–́ uúu u–́– uu–́ I took it to be then and imitated in the translations, but the rather more sensible (and matching the description by Hephaestio) uu––uu––uu––, ionics a minore. There is only one problem though: ὠράνα has –u– as a length pattern, and we need ––u there. Since we're talking about swallows (χελίδων), and this appears to mean "sky-dwelling" (=οὐράνιος, which is where the u comes from in the –u– pattern), it seems like a fitting adjective. But this comparison brings up another problem: where did the ι from οὐράνιος vanish to in this hypothetical ὤρανος? So the guess is that it turned to a jod, and then assimilated into the nu, thus actually giving ὤραννα, with the short alpha we've seen elsewhere (Εἴρανα a few fragments ago, χέλυννα). So ὠράνιος>*ὠράνϳος>*ὠράννος, plus recessive accentuation. And that is probably the path whoever gave me the text I translated was following. A similar path is Edmonds', where he writes ὄρραννα χελίδω for reasons unknown to me. However, the majority goes down a very different path: remember our friend Εἴρανα? What if she appeared here too? We could be looking at ὦ Εἴρανα with synaeresis, says Voigt, or maybe we make a crasis Ὤιρανα like Lobel-Page and Voigt, or even a prodelision ὦ ῎ραννα like Bergk. But why suppose this weird situation just to avoid doubling a nu, when the swallow is still there in all its skyly glory anyways? I'll give both versions in the all-Sappho posts, but I support the first one. There kind of is, however, another source to this: a Hesychius gloss, which in the tradition reads ὠράνα· χελιδόνων ὀροφή, seeming to gloss our weird word as "roof of the swallows". I will not detail the various emendations proposed for this, which you can find here, and (when I put them there) also at 2.E.v, but the one I find most convincing is that part of the glossary was lost, and this gloss actually read ὤραν‹ν›α χελίδων· ‹οὐρανία χελίδων· ὄροφος›· ὀροφή, especially since the equivalence of ὄροφος and ὀροφή is attested elsewhere. Of course, not amending could lead to "smell" (or in Lobel-Page's word "odorari") a word by Sappho in that ὀροφή, perhaps ὀροφαία, "dwelling (or nesting?) in reeds", as Fick suggested. Apparently a certain "Is. Voss." (damn abbreviations!) has ὠραννὰ χελιδόν as a margin note, which seems to support reading our word as "oh <name*gt;" (we would have it as ὦ ἐραννά), but who TF is this person? Oh here he is, just yet another critic from around two centuries before Bergk who tried to interpret this. Not buying it man.
      7. We continue with Bergk 131 Edmonds 75 Lobel-Page 159 Campbell 159. This is a quotation by Maximus Tyrius, who wrote «Λέγει που καὶ Σαπφοῖ ἡ Ἀφροδίτη ἐν ᾄσματι· σύ τε καλὸς θεράπων Ἔρος», «Aphrodite also tells Sappho somewhere in a poem: You and the beautiful servant Eros». First off, I want to reject the outlier Bergk here, who amends this to read «Λέγει που καὶ Σαπφὼ τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ· Σοί τε κάλος θεράπων Ἔρως», «And Sappho also tells Aphrodite somewhere in a poem: And you have Eros, a beautiful servant». This definitely seems to be unecessarily drastic, and was indeed rejected by all my other sources. But it does give something: we'd expect a nomiative for Eros, to pair up with "you", but we find what seems to be a vocative. So it seems sensible to amend it to Ἔρως, nominative. Also, it points our eyes to a metrical problem: we have uuu–uu–ux, three shorts in a row is (says Edmonds) not found in Aeolic meters. This is why he amends to σοί, and the domino falls and he has to tamper with the preceding sentence by Maximus. But the best thing to do is in fact to listen to a subscript mu found in the codices, which would turn καλὸς to καμὸς, or more likely κἆμος, as suggested by Fick, which gives us a long instead of a short. Surprisingly, Voigt says Bergk himself suggested κἄμος at one point, as if he realized it was best… or maybe it was his first idea and then he verschlimmbesser'd it. Who knows. In any case, now we have uu––uu–ux, perhaps the end of a greater Asclepiad, which would put it in book 3, but let's not be too certain about that, it could also be part of a ionic a maiore tetrameter of those found in book 4. Edmonds strangely puts this in book 4 despite completing it with Ὦ Ψάπφοι (Oh Sappho) at the beginning, thus making it a greater Asclepiad. Anyways, I don't remember the exact text I had, but the al-Sappho posts wil have σύ τε κἆμος θεράπων Ἔρως, without Edmonds' completion. I don't remember what I did for the translations' meter. Whatever :). Oh PS: I'm starting to believe that, when Voigt near the beginning of TEST lists codices, the list is exhaustive: I mean, here we have RMNHαφ, how many more codices could there be for the same work? And fun fact: safopoemas, despite the complete translation «. . .tú y Eros, mi sirviente», only reports Έρος as the Greek text.
      8. Then we find Bergk 53 Edmonds 55 Lobel-Page 144 Campbell 144. This is from the same quote as source 4 of 1.E.iv above, and cutting it up another way, we look again at that passage of Herodian's On declension of nouns quoted by Choeroboscus, fiding «οἶον ἡ Σαπφώ τῆς Σαπφῶς καὶ ἡ Λητώ τῆς Λητῶς· καὶ δηλοῦσιν αἱ χρήσεις οὕτως ἔχουσαι· [P.M.G. 979], καὶ παρ' αὐτῇ τῇ Σαπφοῖ· μάλα δὴ κεκορημένοις Γόργως», «Like Σαπφώ Σαπφῶς, Sappho, and Λητώ Λητῶς, Leto; and the examples being as follows prove this: [P.M.G. 979], and in Sappho herself: Indeed having (they masc. pl.) had enough of Gorgo». Now I am honestly having trouble figuring out what the tradition actually looked like here, because there is Vossius involved, but from Voigt's CRIT I think I can infer that the form I gave above, which is Voigt's text, was actually proposed by Hoffmann, while the codex read κεκορημένου στόργος or similar, but Bergk says the codex reads κεκορημένου στοργᾶς, which modulo a gender mismatch seems to mean "having the affection being satisfied", and Ursinus read κεκορημένος στόργος, where the latter word is unfindable to me, and going back to Voigt it seems it was Toup who thought, one day, "Oh! Gorgo here, for sure!", just like this out of the blue for no apparent reason. Technically, now that I think about it, this incomprehensible word may be the result of a spacing error, and respacing we get κεκορημένους τόργος, where the first word Aeolicizes to κεκορημένοις, whence probably Voigt's text, while the second one means either vulture or swan, and seems completely unlinked to the rest of the quotation. But now 4 of 6 letters match Γόργως, so Toup's thought is no longer that much out of the blue. This accusative plural seems to imply a mention of a mysterious group of people, either of mixed genders or all males, and that sounds weird, so Wolf suggested κεκορημένη (and I assume also Γόργω, unless we assume this refers to Sappho or a friend of hers?), and Bergk suggested κεκορημένας, which is what I found and translated. So I guess I'll have three versions in the all-Sappho posts: the amended (by me) μάλα δὴ κεκορημένας στόργας as "versión de la tradicción", the Edmonds and onwards version as "versión de Edmonds y siguientes", and the Bergk version as "versión de Bergk". Except safopoemas (and probably Reinach) follow Bergk… Whatever :). That tradition version is definitely corrupted though, because this is meant to discuss the genitive, and there is no genitive of the kind being discussed in that version. Still, in any case, the meter is definitely a glyconian with perhaps dactylic expansions, which might put it in book 2, but having no complete line (unless it's pure glyconians) we can't know for sure. I asked on Stack Exchange about the confusing tradition reports. Let's see what comes up there, if anything. Update: It seems my very old Bergk edition may have had a typo on that στοργᾶς, given all sources say στόργος. If that word is clarified, Ursinus's emendation may become my "versión de la tradicción", otherwise scratch that idea. Update 2: Yeah, scratch it, στόργος doesn't exist in Greek, unless you take it for a woman's name, as editors in the distant past have done. So we anyway have to invent a name, but then we'd best just respace this to κεκορημένους Τόργος, Aeolicise that accusative, fix the genitive to match what the intro says this exemplifies, and then fix the name entirely to a name that we know from other sources, ending up with κεκορημένοις Γόργως, Lobel-Page's text.
      9. We approach the end with Edmonds 133+134, whose l. 1 is Campbell 168C. Campbell notes «Sa. dedit Wilamowitz», so Wilamowitz, who wrote before Bergk, ascribed this to Sappho. So one would expect this to be in all editions. Yet Bergk and Lobel-Page don't have it. Now, Campbell also notes «Lobel and Page dissent» on the English side of things, and Voigt informs us that the γαῖα found in the line isn't Aeolic, which is why Lobel-Page didn't have it. I assume the same holds for Bergk. Weirdly enough, Voigt tells us that it was Bergk who constituted l. 2 from the two sources I will detail below. Probably this refers to something newer than the 1843 Bergk edition I'm looking at – perhaps one of the three editions he curated afterwards. Jeez this guy did a lot. Anyways, Edmonds includes l. 1 as 133 and l. 2 as 134. L. 2 is only found in Edmonds. I found both in a single fragment on Bibliotheca Augustana, and the "culprit" for this is Wilamowitz, who decided these were lines of a single poem and that it was by Sappho. L. 2 was Aeolicized to be assigned to Sappho, l. 1 has this γαῖα problem. Also, the lie division and meter is unclear. But let's look at the sources, shall we? L. 1 is from a Demetrius De Elocutione quote which reads «Τὸ μὲν γὰρ εὔχαρι μετὰ κόσμου ἐκφέρεται καὶ δι' ὀνομάτων καλῶν, ἃ μάλιστα ποιεῖ τὰς χάριτας, οἶον τό· ποικίλλεται μὲν γαῖα πολυστέφανος», «For charm is produced together with ornamentation and by using beautiful words, which above all contribute to the grace, like: the many-garland earth is embroidered». No dialectal problem, except for that γαῖα which should be γᾶ in theory. However, γαίας pops up in Alcaeus 45 l. 3 and in Alcaeus 355 (LP numbering). The former is from a papyrus and I don't know how it was ascribed, the Sappho fragment at hand is quoted without any indication of the author, but Alcaeus 355 is quoted as an example of an adverb used "by the Aeolians", so either we assume that line is fictitious and the constructor went wrong, and that Alcaeus 45 is by someone else (neither of which Lobel-Page seems to do, given those are both in the Alcaeus part of LP), or γαῖα must have existed in Aeolic, perhaps (as Voigt suggests) as an epic form. So I see no reason not to believe this is by Sappho, but also no reason to believe it is, given the only "abnormal" element is γαῖα which could be an epic form in any dialect. Another problem is: what meter is this? If we treat it as a single line, we see ––u–––uu–uux, which could be from x–u–x–uu–uux, which seems like a hypercatalectic iambic meter (x–u–|x) + a hypercatalectic dactylic dipody aka hemiepes (–uu|–uu|x). For some reason, Voigt and Campbell treat it as two lines, breaking them after μὲν. So we do still have the same parts, but they are the end and the start of two lines. If we find a way to turn the hemiepes into… um, how did Voigt see an Alcaic stanza here exactly? I mean, three lengths don't match! If you want an Alcaic stanza the best way is to take the iambic meter and all but the last syllable of the hemiepes as l. 1, and leave the last syllable to start l. 2, but that would create a synaphia in a place one wouldn't expect it. So nope, no division. But let's get to l. 2. This is partially quoted by the Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle and by Hesychius, where we find respectively «ἡ δ' ἐπιθυμία καθάπερ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην φασίν "δολοπλόκου γὰρ Κυπρογενοῦς" and «Κυπρογενέος πρόπολον· προαγγόν», the former translating to «Wish, just like Aphrodite, is called "of the deceitful Cyprus-born"», the latter being hardly intelligible, even of the second word is amended to προαγωγόν as Voigt and Edmonds do, because the first part is "servant of the Cyprus-born", and the second part, which should explain it, is either "leading on", "providing", or "pimp", whether literally or "metaph[orically] in a good sense". But wasn't the Cyprus-born just Aphrodite? How come now Aphrodite is "of the Cyprus-born"? In what sense "of"? And how does Wikisource's translation «but the nature of appetite is illustrated by what the poets call Aphrodite, 'guile-weaving daughter of Cyprus', and by Homer's words about her 'embroidered girdle'» (including the following καὶ τὸν κεστὸν ἱμάντα Ὅμηρος) come out of the Greek? Maybe "But wish [is] according to what they say relative to Aphrodite", and then the quote, but still Aphrodite should be the Cyprus-born, not "of" the Cyprus-born… And what is up with the gloss? I mean, is Hesychius seriously explaining "servant of Aphrodite" as "pimp"? Maybe Aphrodite is the personification of love in some sense, and a servant of love is… yeah, well, maybe not just a pimp. Or maybe he's glossing only πρόπολον as "promoter". I'll go for that. Anyways, it appears Bergk put those together and came up with my text, while Edmonds, down the same path, decided Κυπρογένεος had to be feminine so that the first word had to be δολπλόκας, except (a) adjectives with no separate feminine form exist, (b) there is AFAIK no reason to suppose δολόπλοκος wasn't one of those (c) he already tampered with a δολόπλοκε referred to Aphrodite in the Hymn to Aphrodite, where besides the unnecessary tampering why should that alpha ever be short?, (d) was Κυπρογένεος feminine at all? Yeah, maybe, like Σαπφώ… but then the genitive should be Κυπρογενεῶς which isn't what we have. OK I'm messing up. The nominative should be Κυρπογενεύς, not the usual Κυπρογένηα, and the -ευς ending is weird to me, because adjectives in -ευς are usually masculine with feminine in -εια=-ηα, so Idk what is going on. Anyways, I have the Bergk text, and reject Edmonds' tampering because it's pointless and may even be wrong. In both versions, the meter is the same as l. 1: x–u–|x||–uu–uu|x.
      10. We wrap the category up with Bergk 21 Edmonds 19 Lobel-Page 123 Campbell 123. This is a quote from Ammonius's On Similar but Different Words, where we read «Ἄρτ καὶ ἀρτίως διαφέρει. Ἄρτι μὲν γάρ ἐστι χρονικὸν ἐπίρρημα, τὸ δ' ἀρτίως ἐπὶ τοῦ απηρτισμένου ἔργου τελείως. Ὥστε ἁμαρτάνει ἡ Σαπφὼ λέγουσα· Ἀρτίως μὲν ἀ χρυσοπέδιλος Αὔως, ἀντὶ τοῦ χρονικοῦ ἐπιρρήματος», translated by Campbell as «There is a difference between ἄρτι and ἀρτίως. For ἄρτι is an adverb of time, while ἀρτίως is used of something which is finished completely. So Sappho is wrong when she says: Golden-sandalled Dawn had lately…, using ἀρτίως instead of an adverb of time». At first sight, the line looks like cr+hipp, or –u–||xx–uu–u–x. Many have tried to fix it to the first line of a Sapphic stanza: Wolf deleted μὲν, Neue ἀ, Sedler conjectured μ' ἀ, which is what Bergk and Edmonds followed, and what came to me via Greek Wikisource (or perhaps Biliotheca Augustana). And that is all. Oh wait, Edmonds adds ἦλθε καὶ as the start of l. 2 to complete the sentence to «Golden-sandalled Dawn recently came to me and…», the addition being "came" and "and". Also, Ahrens doubled the lambda, which is weird since sandals are πέδιλα not πέδιλλα, and the iota is long; and Diehl conjectured this started a poem whose last line was Lobel-Page 157 (3.i here); and Ursinus read αὖ ὠς at the end.
    6. The next category consists of four fragments containing references to sleep, dreams, or eyes.
      1. Number 1 is Bergk 47 Edmonds 141A Lobel-Page 151 Campbell 151. This is quoted by the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] A and B and the Etymologicum Magnum, where we read «Ὦρος, καὶ ἄωρος, κατὰ πλεονασμὸν τοῦ "α" μηδὲν πλέον σημαίνοντος· ὦρος γὰρ ὁ ὕπνος· Καλλίμαχος· πόλλακι καὶ κανθῶν ἤλασα ὦρον ἄπο, καὶ Σαπφώ· ὀφθάλμοις δὲ μέλαις νύκτος ἄωρος», that is «ἄωρος: a lengthened form of ὦρος, which has the same meaning, 'sleep'; cfr. Callimachus: "And often [he] drew sleep away from the corner of his eyes", and Sappho: [quoted line]», in Campbell's translation (except the Callimachus line, translated by me). And then there is a Hesychius gloss reading «ἄορος· ἄυπνος Μηθυμναῖοι», «ἄορος: Methymnian form of ἄυπνος, sleepless», which obviously contrasts with what the Etymologica say. Voigt doesn't try to explain this discrepancy, she raises her hands and says «discrepantia quae inter EM et Hsch. verba exstat nemodum explic[atur]», «The discrepancy between the Etymologicum Magnum and Hesychius's words cannot be explained in any way». Campbell only mentions the gloss with a "(!)" after the ἄυπνος, without translation. My only speculation is that, just like ἀποφέρω can mean "bring away" and "bring back", so ἄωρος can mean both "sleep" and "sleepless". Yeah, ἄωρος: pretty sure the form ἄορος with two omicrons is wrong. Anyways, tradition oscillations. μέλαις is rendered thus in EG A, as μέλ'' ('' being a ditto for an αις above, I assume) in codd. D and P of the EM, as μέλασιν in cod. Vind. of the EM, and as μέλας in all other codices. μέλας isn't Aeolic, so we'd amend it to μέλαις anyways, and μέλασιν is the outlier which we promptly reject. νύκτος is seen as νυκτὸς in EG A and in codd. D and P of EM, and in cod. Aug. of EM, one recessive accentuation away from the correct form, as νύκτα in cod. Vind. of EM, which we reject both as an outsider and as coming from cod. Vind. which we know as untrustworthy from before, and (apparently) as χύτο in cod. Va of (I assume) EM. Now, I'd reject this as an outlier, but it could be that it was lost in the other sources, and that this source lost νύκτος, thus ending up with Edmond's text found below in 5.C.xii. Accepting χύτο and rejecting νύκτος, besides forcing an elision for metrical reasons, is just against the tradition IMO, so Bergk, get your ὀφθάλμοις δὲ μέλαις χύτ' ἄωρος away with. From Lobel-Page on, the χύτο was rejected and νύκτος accepted, and that is what got in GW and BA and in my files. The meter is thus a pherecratean expanded with a choriamb, i.e. xx–uu––uu–x, which I correctly recognized back in the days (at least in terms of meter, maybe not with this terminology). Edmonds' text would have a pherecratean expanded with two dactyls instead. But there are more oscillations in the tradition. Apparently cod. Aug. of EM also has ἄωρον for ἄωρος, thus making the phrase subjectless. Being it the outlier, we promptly reject it. Finally, it seems one codex (if Bergk isn't lying) has ὀφθαλμοῖς, which suggests this might be a dative, but obviously is to be accented recessively. Now a little thing about the interpretation. Back in the days, I read the eyes as an accusative, not a dative, beause -ois in Aeolic is accusative, and interpreted it as a Greek-style relation accusative (whatever the English name is), which with "black" meant black-eyed. So this was all a big noun phrase starring "black-eyed sleep, [son] of the night". However, it seems critics generally read that as a dative, so that "black sleep of the night" was <something>ing onto <someone's> eyes. Both are possible interpretations, but given Aeolic has the dative in -oisi(n) and the accusative in -ois, I'd tend toward my accusative interpretation, and the codex with the circumflex is heardly a conclusive piece of evidence. Fun fact: safopoemas has three texts for this: «όφθάλμοισ(ι) μέλαις χύτ'(Χώρος... // VARIANTES // όφθάλμοις δΐ μέλαις χυτό νυκτός ¡Χώρος. (BERGK) // * όφθάλμοις δε μέλαις νυκτός άωρος.». Obviously, version 1 does the emendation to get the dative going, and suppresses a δὲ, so nope, unlikely. The "Bergk" variant is actually Edmonds' text, so thanks for the BS safopoeams, and finally we have what the tradition actually suggests.
      2. Number 2 is Bergk 88 Edmonds 123 Lobel-Page 134 Campbell 134. This is a quote by Hephaestio, who wrote «Τῶν δὲ τριμέτρων (sc. ἰωικῶν ἀπ' ἐλάσσονος) τὸ μὲν ἀκατάληκτον· ζαελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογενείᾳ, παρὰ τῇ Σαπφοῖ», «Of the trimeters (that is, ionic a minore), the acatalectic one: [quoted line], in Sappho». A scholiast about Hephaestio also commented this passage, giving us «Τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς τὸ "προσελεξάμαν" δύναται καὶ ἀνακλώμενον εἶναι, δύναται καὶ ἐπίμικτον», «The following προσελεξάμαν can also be overlapping, or mixed in», whatever that is supposed to mean. Anyway, I see absolutely no reason to touch this up in any way – except I may already have. Let's go over the tradition's oscillations. The form I gave for the first word is only in cod. A of Hephaestio, while all others have προσελεξάμαν, and the scholiast also suggests that was the correct form. So why does no-one adopt this and reject outlier ζαελεξάμαν, especially given they want to amend that anyways? That form, in its unamended shape, reached me too, but I will change it to προσελεξάμαν, for the translations are unaffected and so is the meter, and the tradition IMO indicates this form. That being said, amendations. We have Bergk in his fourth edition (the one I refer to is number 1 from 1843) giving an unexplained ζά τ' ἐλεξάμαν, Ahrens giving ζὰ δ' ἐλεξάμαν, which doesn't fit what seems (why?) to be the start of a poem, and Edmonds giving διελεξάμαν, justifying the overwhelming ζαελεξάμαν as a "metrical emendation of a hyper-aeolising ζαλ[εξάμαν]", and giving no explanation for all the προσελεξάμανs. Oh, and Maas gave ζά τ' ἐλεξάμαν with τ'=τοι. Codd. I and H of Hephaestio give Κυπρογενεία, cod. A gives Κυπρογέννα (inmetrical), Bentl. suggested my form, and Diehl opted for a nominative Κυπρογένηα, which in effect matches the tradition better. So for this post I must stick to the form I gave, which is what I found on GW or BA, but for the all-Sappho posts I think I'll follow Maas and Diehl. One last fact: a Greek group aiming to "imitate classical music" took this fragment and one or two others and smashed them together into music, and the composition ended up getting very wrong lyrics and another fragment mishmash, as the link details. And said second mishmash made its way into The Complete Poems of Sappho as "Wharton 12", and "Bergk 15" is part of that mishmash.
      3. Number 3 is Bergk 48 Edmonds 141 Lobel-Page 149 Campbell 149. This is a quotation from Apollonius's treatise on pronouns, where we find «[Σφι] σὺν τῷ "α" λέγεται παρ' Αἰολεῦσιν· ὄτα πάννυχος ἄσφι κατάγρει», that is «[Σφι, "to them",] is said with an alpha [i.e. ἄσφι] by the Aeolians: [quote]». As far as I can tell, the tradition is unanimous on this one, and since ὄτα is a known Aeolic form, πάννυχος is clear, ἄσφι is explained as σφι, κατάγρει is glossed as καθαιρεῖ, καταλαμβάνει (takes) by Hesychius, and the meter is clearly a dactylically expanded pherecratean, probably xx–uu–uu–x, that is expanded with one dactyl, we have nothing to discuss, except that this is missing a subject and an object, which we will take, as I did back in the days and Volger proposed, to be ὔπνος ὄππατα. Volger proposed φρένας as an alternate object, giving φρένας ὔπνος as a possible start of l. 2, Bergk in his latest edition suggested ὄππατ' ἄωρος, maybe taking this for hexameters which is also possible, and then in his first edition he wrote «fortasse scribendum ὄππατα πάννυχος ἄσφι κατάγρει», thus suggesting that maybe ὄτα should be ὄππατα, but there is no reason that I can see to make that change.
      4. Number 4 and the last one is Bergk 160 Edmonds 132 Lobel-Page 162 Campbell 162. This is quoted by three different sources: Choeroboscus commenting "Theod. I", Choeroboscus comenting "Psalt.", and the Etymologicum Magnum. Source one reads «Οἱ Αἰολεῖς ἀναπληροῦσι (sc. τὸ "τίς") "τίος" λέγοντες, ὡς παρὰ Σαπφοῖ· τίοισιν ὀφθάλμοισι, ἀντὶ τοῦ "τίσιν"», or «The Aeolians lengthen τίς, "who", saying τίος, as in Sappho: "With what eyes?", with τίοισιν instead of τίσιν». I honestly cannot tell if ὀφθάλμοισι did or didn't have the final euphonic nu in any of the sources. Source two offers «Οἱ μέντοι Αἰολεῖς τοῖος φασί· τοίοισιν ὀφθάλμοισιν, ὡς παρὰ Σαπφοῖ», or «Indeed the Aeolians say τοῖος: "With what eyes?", thus in Sappho». Clearly τοῖος is an error, as source 1 and (as we shall see) source 3 both have τίοισιν. Source 3 has "eadem", which I assume means the same as source 2, only with τίοισιν, so we reject the τοίοισιν in source 2 and the line is already over with, a nice hypercatalectic iambic meter.
    7. The following category consists of 5 fragments containing special Aeolic forms of pronouns (personal pronouns at that, though one is actually an adjective).
      1. First we have Bergk 115 Edmonds 127 Lobel-Page 38 Campbell 38. This is quoted by Apollonius Dyscolus on Pronouns, who wrote «Δοριεῖς ἁμέ [...] Αἰολεῖς ἄμμε· ὄπταις ἄμμε, Σαπφὼ πρώτῳ», that is «The Dorians [say] ἁμέ, "us", […] the Aeolians say ἄμμε: "You burn us", Sappho in book 1». I can't figure out what the tradition really looked like for the quote, since I only see suggestions in Voigt (Wolf and Volger ὀπτᾶς, Koen ὀπτᾷς, Ahrens ὄπταις, Hoffmann ὄπταισ', the former two being indicative presents and the latter two being the masculine and feminine singular nominative of the present participle), and no "original is given". If Bergk is to be trusted, the tradition had ὀπτᾷς, which needs at least recessive accentuation AFAIK. A bolder thing would be ὄπτησ', making this verb athematic in its conjugation as Aeolic does sometimes. I'd assume the uncontracted form would be ὀπτάης, and the contraction would lead to ὄπτας, or to Wolf and Volger's suggestion if not recessively accentuated. Why everybody goes for the other form, I don't know. But I'll stick to it.
      2. Then we see Bergk 117 Edmonds 69 Lobel-Page 164 Campbell 164. This is quoted by Apollonius Dyscolus on Pronouns, who wrote «Αἰολεῖς (τὴν ὄς) μετὰ τοῦ ϝ κατὰ πᾶσαν πτῶσιν καὶ γένος· τὸν ἑὸν παῖδα καλεῖ, Σαπφώ», or «The Aeolians say ὄς with a digamma in all cases and genders: whom he calls his son, Sappho». Start of a glyconian, probably, once you (like Heyne did) fix the glaring mistake that is "Yeah, they say it with a digamma, but I'll put an epsilon with rough breathing, cos I don't understand a thing here, and I don't know Aeolic is psilotic". Seriously, copyist, get your shite together. Also, recessive accentuation on καλεῖ if you please, and the text is settled, easy-peasy.
      3. We continue with Bergk 111 Edmonds 26 Lobel-Page 165 Campbell 165. Can you guess who quoted this? Yep, Apollonius Dyscolus in his treatise on Pronouns: «Αἰολεῖς (τὴν οἶ) σὺν τῷ ϝ· φάινεταί ϝοι κῆνος, Σαπφώ», «Aeolians say οἶ, "to him/her/it", with a digamma: He seems to himself, Sappho». In the margin we have φαινεται μοι κηνος, which made some suppose that the Ode to Anactoria begins with this quote instead of φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος, but Catullus's imitation definitely dispels that claim. Naturally, this still is the start of a Sapphic hendecasyllabic, which suggests it should be in book 1.
      4. We approach the end with Edmonds 49, which is in none of the other sources. Yet again, it's Apolloius Dyscolus quoting, this and the next one: «"ὑμεῖς" [...] Αἰολεῖς ὔμμες· "οὔ τί μοι ὔμμες", "ἂς θέλετε ὔμμες", ἐν δευτέρῳ Σαπφώ», «Aeolians say ὔμμες for ὑμεῖς, "ye": [this fragment], [the next one], Sappho in book 2». It is objectively questionable whether both are by Sappho in book 2 or not, and the fact book 1 of the Iliad has exactly this phrase in line 335 doesn't play in Sappho's favor as far as the attribution of the fragment goes. I'll go the first route, since I trust Apollonius wouldn't confuse us with an Alcaeus line and a Sappho line with one name only, though the first name may have been lost to copying. Only Edmonds doubtfully goes this way, all other sources (outsid safopoemas which, with a spectacular fuckup, shows 49-50 / ας θέλετ' / * / ΰμμες», when the translation reveals 49 is the fragment at hand and 50 is the next one) exclude this fragment from Sappho. Edmonds decide to elide μοι, just to force this to be a line starter, or maybe to avoid positing an epic correption here, but I keep it unelided and then this will be a middle part, since it's –uu–u.
      5. We wrap the category up with Bergk 26 Edmonds 50 Lobel-Page 45 Campbell 45. The source is given above, and the only necessary change is the elision of θέλετε, else the meter is violated.
    8. The next category is a broader one consisting of poems containing references to emotions or to the heart.
      1. The first such fragment is Bergk 32 Edmonds 119 Lobel-Page 137 Campbell 137. I thought this would be a quick one, but boy was I wrong. So this was quoted by none less than 5 different sources:
        1. First and foremost, we have Aristotle's Rhetoric, where we find «Τὰ γὰρ αἰσχρὰ αἰσχύονται καὶ λέγοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες καὶ μέλλοντες, ὥσπερ καὶ Σαπφὼ πεποίηκεν εἰπόντος τοῦ Ἀλκαίου· "Θέλω τί τ' εἰπεῖν ἀλλά με κωλύει αἰδώς" "Αἰ δ' εἶχες ἐσθλῶν ἴμερον ἢ κάλων καὶ μήτιτειπην γλῶσσαι κυκᾶι κάκον αἰδώς κέν σε οὐκ εἶχεν ὄμματα ἀλλ' ἔλεγες περὶ τῶ δικαίω"», «For both those saying, and those doing, and those meaning to do shameful things are ashamed, as Sappho made clear when Alcaeus said: "I want to tell you something but shame impedes me", "If you had a wish for good or beautiful things, and [your tongue didn't stir something bad to say ?], shame would't have your eyes, but you would speak about what's just». This sounds like parts of two Alcaic stanzas. To be more precise, the part attributed to Alcaeus, though some have tried seeing other rare-ass meters in it by forcing a synaeresis between κωλύει and αἰδώς, which is an awkward synaeresis too, seems to be the first line plus one word of the second line, while the part attributed to Sappho could be a full stanza, though there is some corruption going on. The first line would read Αἰ δ' ἦχες ἔσθλων ἴμερον ἢ κάλων, though the ἔσθλων is typically stripped of its theta for some reason I am unaware of (sounds like μάσθλης->μάσλης all over again), and that one is easy, just a few recessive accentuations and the aeolicization of εἶχες. But wait, I was almost forgetting codex oscillations. First of all, how many codices are there? There seems to be A, A2, Arec (because changing letter is apparently not an option), then Π Θ mentioned only in the TEST, then Q Yb and Zb only mentioned by Lobel-Page… WTF? Anyways, what I gave should be the form of cod. A, which Lobel-Page seems to call cod. Ac. It seems the Alcaeus part is unanimous, except a "recens. ε" mentioned only in Voigt's CRIT having κωλύει ἡ αἰδώς with that extra article. As for l. 1 of the Sappho part, codd. A2 and Arec have ἦκες, "(if you) had reached", others ("dett.", says Voigt) have ἶκες or ἶκ' ἐς, the former being still "had reached", probably, the latter being "(if your tongue) had come to", and then Lobel-Page has cod. Ac say ἦκες ἐς, same meaning as Voigt's A2, and WTF man. Anyways, ἦκες/ἶκες seem to lack a preposition, ἦκες ἐς is inmetrical, so we are left with εἶχες (Aeolicized as ἦχες) or ἶκ' ἐς, which would have the tongue as the wisher. Now I personally prefer people to wish, not tongues, and having the subject only way later as would happen with ἲκ' ἐς also doesn't agree with me, so I'll choose (as basically everyone has) ἦχες. I cannot make sense of the info on the variation of Αἰ δ': it seems that some codices may have dropped the δ', others having Αἴθε/Αἴθ', but whatever. I mean, I'd discard the latter since that particle seems not to be in the other sources, and avoid a hiatus by choosing Αἰ δ' ἦχες. The tradition appears to be unanimous on ἐσθλῶν, whether with or without ἐς before it, so I cannot see why to remove the theta. Bergk mentions "alii (libri)" have ἴμερος whereas "plerique libri" have ἴμερον. Naturally the nominative is out of place here. Unless of course we amend this to Αἰ δ' ἶκέ σ', "If it had come to you", i.e. the wish, which is less in line with the general picture of the tradition IMO. So we wind up with "Θέλω τί τ' εἴπην, ἀλλά με κωλύει / Αἰδώς·" "Αἰ δ' ἦχες ἔσθλων ἴμερον ἢ κάλων". This agrees (modulo the ἔσθλων which all my editions have as ἔσλων) with all my editions, save for Edmonds and the identical safopoemas, who have ἴμμερον, but the double mu is against the tradition and totally unnecessary, so we reject it. And this was one line, in one source. Yeah, that's gonna be a long one. Line 2 is corrupt. First of all, whether μήτιτειπην as Voigt seems to imply, or μητιτειπῆν as Lobel-Page writes, that part needs some diacritics and spaces, so it becomes μή τί τ' εἴπην. Codd. A2 and Arec have μήτιτ' εἶπεῖν, as do most others, except for "recens. F" which has μήτ' εἰπεῖν, and we would emend all of these to the same result. For the following, we take the form from A2 and Arec, where we have the γλῶσσ' ἐκύκα on which my translation is based. And we get Καὶ μή τί τ' εἴπην γλῶσσ' ἐκύκα κάκον. We reject Edmonds' and Bergk's ϝείπην as an unnecessary emendation. The next line sees the tradition unanimous on the inmetrical αἰδώς κέν σε οὐκ εἶχεν ὄμματα. Apart from Aeolizing a couple things and eliding the final word, getting to αἰδώς κέν σε οὐκ ἦχε ὄππατ', the middle is guesswork, which is why Lobel-Page, Voigt, and Campbell avoid touching it, and leave cruces there. Several conjectures are available: Ahrens's κε νῦν σ' οὐκ ἦχεν (identical to mine basically), Volger's τε νῦν σ' οὐκ ἦχεν, "Scal. ad Euseb."'s κέ νύ σ' οὐκ ἦχεν (still inmetrical!), and Schnw.'s κέ σ' οὐ κατῆχεν, which sounds best to me now that I hear it. I'll keep that for the all-Sappho posts, but keep mine for this post. So we have αἰδώς κέ νύν σ' οὐκ ἦχεν ὄππατ' for the post and αἰδώς κέ σ' οὐ κατῆχεν ὄππατ' for the all-Sappho posts. The last line is fine as is, and Edmonds' τῶ δικαίως and Bergk's ϝῶ δικαίως are completely unjustified to me – except the latter probably originates from "cod. Q Zb (Θ)"'s ὦ for τῶ, at least for the ϝῶ, and A2 and Arec also have that, so maybe Bergk has that right, let's see what other sources give. Oh PS, Bergk had αἰδώς κέν σ' οὐκ ἂν ἦχεν ὄππατ', where the ἂν sounds like the Attic equivalent of κεν to me, so I just don't get the point of that.
        2. Next up is a scholiast on Aristotle, who wrote «Πεποίηκε γὰρ ἡ Σαπφὼ λέγοντα τὸν Ἀλκαῖον· "Θέλω τί τ' εἰπεῖν ἀλλά με κωλύει αἰδώς", ἤτοι αἴθε ἦλθες ἐς ἵμερον τῶν ἀγαθῶν, εἶτα πάλιν ἕτερον ἔπος· "Αἴθ' ἢκες ἐς ἐσθλῶν ἴμερον ἢ κάλων καὶ μήτιτ' εἰπεῖν γλῶσσ' ἐκύκα κάκον αἰδώς κέν σε οὐκ εἶχεν ὄμματ' ἀλλ' ἔλεγες περὶ ὦ δικαίω", τινὲς δὲ οὕτω λέγουσιν· "αἰδ' ἦκες". ἐὰν δ' ἦκες ἐς ἐσθλῶν ἵμερον καὶ μὴ ἐκύκα γλῶσσά σού τι κακὸν εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἂν εἶχέ σου τὰ ὄμματα αἰδώς», «Sappho made Alcaeus say [in a poem of hers?]: [Same Alcaeus part as above], if only truly you had come to the wish of good things, then again another word: "If only you'd come to a wish of good and beautiful things, and your tongue didn't stir up something bad to say! Then shame wouldn't have your eyes, but you'd speak of what is just", some say it thus: "If you'd come". In case you'd come to a wish of good things and your tongue didn't stir up something bad to say, shame would not have your eyes». The Alcaeus part is the same as before, except maybe this is entirely said by Alcaeus in this source? The Sappho part has essentially the same comments as before, it seems even when this was written there was oscillation in the text of Αἰ δ'. The last sentence is a reformulation. Note that this supports the form ϝῶ, though what does it refer to? I guess I'd better amend it to τῶ because otherwise we're forced to amend δικαίω to an adverb.
        3. Source 3 is "Steph. in Rh.", apparently a commentary on the Aristotle passage of source 1. It offers «Εἴτε ὁ Ἀλκαῖος ὁ ποιητὴς ἤρα κόρης τινὸς ἢ ἄλλος τις ἤρα, παράγει οὖν ὅμως ἡ Σαπφὼ διάλογον· καὶ λέγει ὁ ἐρῶν πρὸς τὴν ἐρωμένην· "Θέλω τι εἰπεῖν πρὸς σέ, ἀλλὰ ἐντρέπομαι, αἰδοῦμαι, αἰσχύνομαι", εἶτ' αὖθις ἀμοιβαδὶς ἡ κόρη λέγει πρὸς ἐκεῖνον· "Ἀλλ' ἐὰν ᾖς ἀγαθὸς καὶ ὁ ἔμελλες πρὸς μὲ εἰπεῖν ἦν ἀγαθόν, οὐκ ἂν ᾑδοῦ καὶ ᾐσχύνου οὕτως, ἀλλὰ μετὰ παρρησίας ἔλεγες ἂν βλέπων πρὸς μὲ ἀνερυθριάστως"», «Either the poet Alcaeus or someone else was in love with a girl, whatever the case, Sappho therefore brings forth a dialogue; and the lover says to the loved one: "I want to tell you something, but I am made to turn back, I am ashamed, I feel shame", and in turn the girl speaks back to him: "But if you were good and what you meant to tell me was good, you wouldn't thus be ashamed, but with frankness you would speak looking at me without blushing"». Now that is a change. It is an indirect quote, or rather a paraphrasis. The πρὸς σέ in the Alcaeus part supports τί τ' εἴπην with τ'=τοι, so I reject the ϝείπην some have suggested. Nothing more except a totally different context for the dialogue can be taken away from here.
        4. Source 4 is Anna Comnena, who wrote «ἀλλά με κωλύει καὶ αἰδώς, ὥς πού φησιν ἡ καλὴ Σαπφώ», «But shame also impedes me, as the beautiful Sappho says somewhere». Apart from a spurious καὶ, this is a part of the Alcaeus part, in the form we have seen all the time.
        5. The last soure is "vet. tansl. Arist. Rh. G. de Moerbeka p. 211 Spengel", which is probably a translation of Aristotle's Rhetorics, of which Voigt quotes nothing and Lobel-Page quotes "nequid diceretur lingua malum turbabatur" ("nec quod" perhaps, thus translating to "nor the evil said by the tongue was stirred up", presumably l. 2 of the Sappho part), "verecundia quae non habet oculos" ("the shame that has no eyes" or "the eyes shame doesn't have", a very corrupt version of l. 3 of the Sappho part I guess), and "sed hoc dicit / sed dicis clamando de proprio iusto" ("but he says this / but you say shouting about his/your own justness", presumably an incredibly corrupt version of the last line). Nothing to be taken from here.
        OK, so the text is already settled, I think. I just forgot to mention Edmonds' αἰδώς κεν οὐκί σ' ἦχεν ὄππατ' for the Sappho part, l. 2, which is OK, but I still prefer the one I chose in the comments to source 1 above.
      2. The second one is Lobel-Page and Campbell 60. This is the exact opposite of the one before: one of the quickest possible :). It comes from P.Halle 3, apparently only published after Edmonds, so I'll take Lobel-Page's critical notation as is, since I have no image to transcribe. Comparing Lobel-Page and Campbell, I see:
        1. L. 2 is θέλ' ὦν τ' †ἀπαίσαν in LP and θέλ' †ωνταπαισαν in C, I have LP's text with no cruces;
        2. In l. 4, the κάλημι of C is amended (with angled brackets) to κάλημμι, which feels like an unnecessary correction I will reject;
        3. In l. 6, LP has θελήση[ις and Campbell has θελήση[ς, I guess the LP form is more matching of the Attic standard conjugation, but I can't choose between them for good reasons, so I'll stick to whatever I had in Bibliotheca Augustana :);
        4. In l. 7, LP keeps just πίθεισα[, C proposes the accusative πίθεισα[ν, and again, having no criterion for a choice, I'll just keep the BA text :);
        5. In the penultimate line, I originally had α[.].λλε . ., but that hole is just not there, so I'm removing it;
        6. In the last line, the lambda could be a mu, hence the underdot, but the kappa, though it has lost its vertical left, is very different from other sigmas, so cannot be one.
        Also, there are two lines before what I counted as l. 1 in the notes above, which were not in LP's text, but are definitely there, and which I'm therefore reinstating. And that is it.
      3. Then we find Bergk 91 Edmonds 135 Lobel-Page 102 Campbell 102. This is found in no less than four sources:
        1. Source 1 is Hephaestio, who wrote in his treatise on metres «Ἔστι δὲ πυκνὸν (sc. ἐν τοῖς ἀντισπαστικοῖς τετραμέτροις καταληκτικοῖς) καὶ τὸ τὴν δευτέραν μόνην ἀντισπαστικὴν ἔχον, ᾧ μέτρῳ ἔγραψεν ᾄσματα καὶ Σαπφὼ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ἑβδόμου· Γλυκεῖα μᾶτερ οὔ τοι δύναμαι κρέκειν τὸν ἴστον πόθῳ δάμεισα παῖδος βραδίναν δι' Ἀφροδίταν», «Among the catalectic antispastic tetrameters, the one having only the second unit antispastic is also common, and in this meter Sappho wrote songs on the [end?] of [book] 7: [the quote]». Codex A is the only one to have γλυκῆα and κρέκην, more correct than the other codices. The meter is analysed by Hephaestio as x–u–|u––u|x–u–|x–x, i.e. iambic + antispastic + iambic + catalectic iambic, and it fits the bill perfectly. Only a couple minor Aeolicizations are to be made: γλύκηα (as suggested by Edmonds) and κρέκην, already in cod. A.
        2. Source 2 is the Etymologicum Gud[ianum], where we find «κρέκω [...] οἶον· Γλυκεῖα μᾶτερ, καὶ οὔτι δύναμαι κρέκει τὸν ἴστον [...] παρὰ τὸ κρέκειν, ὅ ἐστιν ἠχεῖν», «κρέκω "I weave" […] like: [l. 1] […] derived from κρέκειν, which is to have managed». Apart from the dubious gloss, καὶ οὔτι is clearly inmetrical, and deleting καὶ doesn't fix the problem, nor does deleting οὐ, and deleting τι contrasts with other sources too much, so we revert it to the form in source 1 (or maybe οὔτοι).
        3. Source 3 isthe Etymologycum Gen[uinum] A and B and also the Etymologycum Magnum, apparently giving much the same as source 2, with l. 1 in the form Γλυκεῖα μᾶτερ ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι κρέκειν τὸν ἴστον in Et.Gen. A, Γλυκεῖα μᾶτερ ὅτι δύναμαι κρέκειν τὸν ἴστον in Et.Gen. B, Γλυκεῖα μᾶτερ οὔτι δύναμαι κρέκειν τὸν ἴστον in E.M. outside cod. D, and Γλυκείου μᾶτερ, οὔτι δύναμαι κέρκειν τὸν ἴστον in said cod. D. All those forms are to be amended back to the form of source 1, of course.
        4. Source 4, finally, is "Zonar.", apparently a glossary, which offers «κερκίς· παρὰ τὸ κρέκω [...] κρεκὶς καὶ [...] κερκίς, ἡ ἠχοῦσα. Γλυκεῖα μᾶτερ οὔτι δύναμαι κρέκειν τὸν ἴστον», «κερκίς: derived from κρέκω […] κρεκὶς and […] κερκὶς, the pealer. [l. 1]». Again, a mysterious gloss, and the same amendations apply.
        So apart from possibly wanting to support Brgk's conjecture of βραδίνω in l. 2, which seems plausible, but I'll err on the conservative side (and stick to my translated text, obviously :) ), there is nothing to comment on this. Also, we have team οὔτοι, starring Lobel-Page, Campbell, and Bergk, and team οὔ τοι, starring Voigt, Edmonds, and safopoemas. No comment on that.
      4. Next up is Bergk 45 Edmonds 93 Lobel-Page inc. 5 l. 2 Campbell inc. 5(b). This is quoted, along with inc. 5(a) aka Poem 11 here and inc. 5(c) aka 1.C.iv above, by Herodian in Περὶ μοναδικῶν λέξεων (On Anomalous Words), which offers «Τὸ γὰρ "α", εἰ ἔχοι ἐν ἐπιφορᾷ διπλασιαζόμενον τὸ "λλ" [...] συστέλλεσθαι φιλεῖ, χωρὶς εἰ μὴ τροπή τις τοῦ "η" εἰς "α" παρὰ διαλέκτῳ [...] ἐφυλαξάμην δὲ διαλέκτους διὰ τὸ "δ' ἀλλ' ἄν μοι μεγαλύνεο δακτυλίω πέρι" καὶ "ἄλλαν μὴ καμετέραν φρένα" καὶ "ἄβρα- δ' εὐτε πάσχης πάλαι ἀλλόμαν" ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠλλόμην», «For the alpha, if immediately followed by a doubled lambda […] likes to be shortened, except if there has been a change of eta to alpha in dialects […] and I kept the dialects for "[Poem 11]" and "[our fragment in a corrupt state]" and "[1.C.iv]", with ἀλλόμαν instead of ἠλλόμην, "I jumped"». The fragment is in a very corrupt state, and cod. H looks even worse, with ἄλλαν μὴ καμεστιτέρα φρένα. It's hard to even make sense of it. καμετέραν suggests the crasis κἀμετέραν = καὶ ἡμετέραν, which should be κἀμμετέραν = καὶ ἀμμετέραν in Aeolic, suggests "L.-P." according to Campbell, except Lobel-Page doesn't suggest that in the edition, maybe some other source? Or maybe "p. 336" is not the page of the fragment? Weird thing to suggest a correction outside the critical note, right? Anyways, to ἄλλαν. The most natural reading to me is either ἀλλην or ἀλλῶν, acc. sing. femm. or gen. plur. femm. of "other". Taking the crasis path and reading this as an accusative would put this with the soul at the end of the quote, and maybe make this mean «Even our soul [is] not other [i.e. different]», supposing this apparent infinitive clause lacking the infinitive once had all it is missing in other lines of the poem. Crasis and genitive plural is probably the path taken by Ahrens to amend this to Bergk's text ἄλλαν μή τι κατ' ἀμμετέραν φρένα, «Nothing is in our soul about the other [females]», which Bergk says «Sapphoni vindicavi, Ahrensius correxit» (I ascibed this to Sappho, Ahrens corrected it), and which is what reached me, and what I terribly translated because I was fed up with Sappho when I got to it :). Note also that the τι appearing in this version is somewhat justified by the ruby text in cod. H, though it is a bit too far IMO for it to mean τι should be inserted after μὴ. But wait: Voigt informs me that Ahrens interpreted ἄλλαν as genitive of ἆλλα=ἠλεή, which should really be ἠλεά since, IIRC, feminines with ε ι ρ before the ending vowel end in alpha, not eta. So we have two more options: ἠλεῶν and ἠλεάν, from ἠλεός, "crazing", which fits with the soul/heart at the end. Indeed, Campbell reads ἄλλαν †μὴ καμετέραν† φρένα and translates «do not … a crazed heart». This reading as a form of ἆλλος=ἠλεός stems from comparing with an Alcaeus fragment where ἄλ]λαισι appears with an interline gloss μ̣αταίαις, from μάταιος "empty, foolish" or "rash, irreverent, profane". Codex H then suggests perhaps *καμτι *εστεραν, which could be construed as κάμπτε στέραν, as Edmonds does, making the line "Do not bend a stubborn crazed heart", though Edmonds removes the nu in the first word, getting Ἆλλα, μὴ κάμπτε στέραν φρένα, "Foolish girl, do not try to bend a stubborn heart". This looks plausible but somewhat far-fetched. So what do we make of this? I have the Bergk version (versión de Bergk in the all-Sappho posts) translated, then the Edmonds version is in group 5, the Edmonds-with-nu version will be "versión mía audaz" aka ἐκδοκὴ ἡ ἐμὴ ἡ τολμερὴ, and what about a non-daring version of mine? I guess ἄλλαν μὴ κἀμμετέραν φρένα will do, "our soul is also not crazed". Now, given that this is not placed in a book, putting it in book 2 as safopoemas does requires an amendement to make it scan, otherwise it's a bull… err, tauricopria placing. And translating the version of cod. H without Edmonds' amendement as «un alma ruin no se esfuerza», «a stingy soul is not to be encouraged», is just more tauricopria.
      5. Then we have Bergk 20 Edmonds 17+18 Lobel-Page 37 Campbell 37. This is actually two separate quotations joined. The first one, being l. 1, comes from the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] A and B and the Etymologicum Magnum, which all read «Μελεδῶναι· αἱ τὰ μέλη ἔδουσαι φροντίδες· ὅθεν Ἡσίοδος γυιοκόρους αὐτὰς λέγει [...] καὶ οἱ Αἰολεῖς σταλαγμὸν τὴν ὀδύνην λέγουσιν· Σαπφώ· ξὰτ ἔμον στάλαγμον. Ἀποστάζουσι γὰρ καὶ ῥέουσιν», «Μελεδῶναι: the thoughts that eat your limbs; whence Hesiod calls them γυιόκοροι, "satiated with limbs" […] and the Aeolians call pain στάλαγμος; Sappho: Concerning my pain. For they drip and flow». Metrically, this is the end of a Sapphic hendecasyllabic as is. The last word is dubious: Et. Gen. A has the given form, Et. Gen. B has στέλεγμον, which Edmonds follows, but this form is not supported elsewhere, whereas the Et. Gen. A is supported by the verb σταλάσσω, and there is even a form στάλυγμον, conjectured by Bergk, supported by ἀνασταλύζω and the Hesychius gloss "νεοστάλυγες· νεοδάκρυτοι" (weeping afresh). And Lobel-Page posits a chi: στάλαχμον. No idea why. I'll just stick to the Et. Gen. A form, which is what I had back then. The meaning wouldn't change one bit. Etymologicum Magnum apparently has all 3 lines. The other two are reported by Herodianus and the Et. Gen. B (I thought that one only had line 1?). The former offers «Εἴπομεν/Παρασησόμεθα δὲ Αἰολίδα διάλεκτον διὰ τὸ πτάζω, "ἔπταζον ὠς ὄρνιθες ὦκυν αἴετον ἐξαπίνας φάνεντα". Ἐκ δὲ τοῦ κοινοῦ ἦν [τοῦ ἔπτησσον / τὸ ἔτησαν]· τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πλάζω· "Τὸν δ' ἐπιπλάζοντες ἀν ἐμόι φέροιεν καὶ μελέδοναι", ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπιπλήσσοντες», «[We said / We set before us] the Aeolic dialect with πτάζω, [Lobel-Page inc. 10 found below]. [It comes form the common ἔπτησσον, "they scared" / From the common dialect it would be ἔπτησαν, "they scared"]. The same happens to πλάζω, "to smite": "May striking winds and cares bring it away from me", with ἐπιπλάζοντες for ἐπιπλήσσοντες». Metrical problem here. Either we follow source 3, or we suppose a weird contraction ἄμοι=ἄνεμοι as Wharton apparently did, or we can drop the ἂν, which seems out of place anyway, and have ἐπιπλάζοντες ἔμοι. Now for oscillations in the manuscripts. The form I gave is cod. H (with the square brackets having cod. V / cod. H in the first case, and who knows what vs. codd. H&V in the second one), while cod. V ended with ἄνεμοι φέροιεν καὶ μελεδωναι. The accusative μελεδώναις was proposed by Neue, and it seems that pain and cares would go together, and that cares wouldn't really take pain away. Seidler's μελεδῶνα is an unjustified sigular in my eyes. Now for source 3. In it we find «Τὰ γὰρ δύο "σσ" εἰς "ζ" τρέπουσιν Αἰολεῖς· τὸ γὰρ ἐπιπλήσσω ἐπιπλάζω. Σαπφώ "Τόνδ' ἐπιπλάζοντα ἄνεμοι φέροιεν"», «For Aeolians change two sigmas into a zeta: ἐπιπλήσσω, "to strike", is ἐπιπλάζω. Sappho "[l. 2]"». The form given is cod. Haun., while "ed. Gaisf." elides the participle, as the meter requires. So the line is settled, and why Edmonds amends it to ἄνοαι=ἄνοιαι, "follies", is totally a mystery to me. For the all-Sappho posts, three versions: the version here, the source 2 version, and the Wharton version, respectively "versión 1", "versión 2", and "versón del Wharton" aka "Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ τοῦ Οὐόρτον".
      6. Next we see Bergk 19 Edmonds 16 Lobel-Page 42 Campbell 42. This is quoted by a scholiast o Pindar, who wrote «ὁ ἀετός [...] κατακηλούμενος ταῖς [...] ᾠδαῖς εἰς ὔπνον κατάγεται, ἀμφοτέρας χαλάσας τὰς πτερύγας [...] ἡ δὲ Σαπφὼ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐναντίου ἐπὶ τῶν περιστερῶν· "Ταῖσι ψυχρὸς μὲν ἐγένετο θῦμος πὰρ δ' ἴεισι τὰ πτέρα», «The eagle […] being charmed by the […] songs is brought to sleep, letting both wings fall […] and Sappho, to the contrary, says of the doves: [the fragment]». The way it's written, a couple of amendments seem in order for this to start a Sapphic stanza: recessive accentuation on the second word, a missing sylable after Ταῖσι, whether Neue's δὲ, Diehl's δὴ, or safopoemas's (Reinach's) ταῖσιν αὖ, and I'd go with either Neue or Diehl since adding the -n is a second change, and finally ἔγεντο (as Bergk and Edmonds) or ἔγεντ' ὀ (as Lobel-Page and onwards), and I'd have the article there. Changing ψυχρὸς to ψαῦκρος à la Edmonds is just nonsense: just why? And what does it even mean? I mean, Perseus doesn't really define this…
      7. We proceed with Bergk 27 Edmonds 23 Lobel-Page 36 Campbell 36. This is quoted by the Etymologicum Gen[uinum], the Etymologicum Magnum, and the Etymologicum Gud[ianum]. The former two give the quotation as «καὶ ποθήω καὶ μάχομαι/μάομαι/??», with the oscillations being E.M. cod. P vs. Et. Gen. A + E.M. codd. D&M vs. Et. Gen. B + E.M. cod. V, this last version being "vers. om." in Voigt. Et. Gud. offers «Οἱ Αἰολεῖς [...] ποθέω ποθήω· καὶ ποθήω καὶ μάομαι/μάχομαι», «The Aeolians say ποθήω for ποθέω, "I wish": [quotation]». With "I wish", "I fight, I struggle", seems more out of place tan "I crave", so I'll follow the most codices as everyone does. Deleting the first καὶ as safopoemas seems to do is just nonsense. This seems to be the start of a Sapphic hendecasyllabic, missing the final u–x.
      8. We continue with Edmonds 34 Lobel-page 4 Campbell 4. This is from P.Berol. 5006, which I transcribed, so the notation is from there, and the completions should be widespread. I don't recall adding in any completion myself back in the days, though πέρ]θε θῦμον seems kind of tempting.
      9. We wrap up the category with Lobel-Page inc. 27(1) Campbell inc. 27. This comes from P.Vindob. 29777a fr. 1 recto, which I transcribed, so the notation is from there.
    9. The next category should actually be called the rest of what I translated poetically, but unless new translations or missed translations pop up, it consists of fragments mentioning sweet or beautiful things. Up until that one-liner pops up from the paracritical note to spoil the party :).
      1. The first of these is Bergk 42 Edmonds 138 Lobel-Page 136 Campbell 136. This is quoted by a scholiast on Sophocles and by Suidas. The former has «"Διὸς ἄγγελος" (sc. ἡ ἀηδών) ὅτι τὸ ἔαρ σημαίνει· [...] καὶ Σαπφώ· "Ἦρος ἄγγελος ἱμερόφωνος ἀήδων», «The nightingale [is called] "messenger of Zeus" because it signals [the coming of] spring; and Sappho: "The sweet-voiced messenger of spring, the nightingale"». Metrically, this is a perfect xx–uu–uu–uu–x, i.e. a pherecratean with two dactyls inserted. Linguistically, it seems we are one psilosis away from being good to go. Except we have Edmonds and safopoemas writing ἀήδω and Lobel-Page and Campbell putting all but the first word in cruces, with Lobel saying «Aut ἀήδω aut ἄγγελον ἰμερόφωνον scribendum» (at least of those corrections is necessary), and Voigt saying that is «praeter necessitatem» (beyond necessity). Stack Exchange, what do you have to say? I won't amend anyways. Suidas only has the author name and the line, with ἡμερόφωνος like codd. G&H, whereas the form I gave was that of codd. F&L.
      2. The second one is Bergk 113 Edmonds 106 Lobel-Page 146 Campbell 146. This is quoted by 4 sources:
        1. First up "Trypho Trop.", where we read «παροιμία [...] ὡς παρὰ Σαπφοῖ· Μήτ' ἐμοὶ μέλι μήτε μάλιστα», «proverb […] as in Sappho: To me neither the be nor above all». Metrically, this is a pherecratean with one dactyl, or perhaps it continued. I mean, we have –u–uu–uu–u, the final –u could be the –x end of an expanded pherecratean, but it could also be part of a dactyl. This is an incomplete sentence, and since it's supposed to be a proverb, it seems more sensible to follow cod. R's μέλιττα instead of the other two codices (M&A)'s μάλιστα, which I only gave as the majority version. Of course, we need to de-Atticize it to μέλισσα. Moreover, Lobel's correction to μήτε μοι sounds sensible: I think the emphasis should be on the two nominatives rather than the pronoun, so the emphatized non-enclitic form seems out of place. Thus, this source points to Μήτε μοι μέλι μήτε μέλισσα. Oh wait, another codex "cod. Med." gives μήτε καὶ μέλι μήτε μάλιστα. Well, rejected as outlier, or as discussed above. Oh by the way, this is the only source which ascribes this to Sappho.
        2. Then we have "Diogenian." and several analogues, where we find «Μηδὲ μέλι μηδὲ μελίσσας, ἐπὶ τῶν μὴ βουλομένων παθεῖν τι ἀγαθὸν μετὰ ἀπευκτοῦ», «Neither the honey nor the bees, about those who don't want to experience something good with something abominable», note to self, use the τι φαῦλον μετὰ ἀγαθοῦ (something bad with something good) version for the all-Sappho posts :). Well, that is quite the variation. What even is the meter here? –uuu–uu–– with three short syllables is probably not Aeolic meter. Either we drop the δε and read Μὴ μέλι, or we add a μοι. So we get Μηδέ ‹μοι› μέλι μηδὲ μελίσσαις, with the Aeolic accusative plural.
        3. "Diogenian. epit." (an epitome of "Diogenian."?) seems to just have the line as Μηδὲ μέλι μηδὲ μέλισσα, same amendation as above, no accusative though.
        4. Finally, "Apostol." has «Μήτε μέλι μήτε μελίσσας, ἐπὶ τῶν μὴ βουλομένων παθεῖν τι εὐκταῖον μετὰ πόνου», «[quote], about those that don't want to experience something auspicable with sufferance». That was codices DERV, whereas KNA have μηδὲ both times. Modulo μηδὲ/μήτε, the amended version is the same as source 2.
        So the beginning is settled to Μήτε μοι μέλι, or μηδὲ, I guess there is no argument pro or contra either, except the only ascriber has μήτε so we choose to follow him. The doubt is whether to have a nominative or an accusative: μέλισσα or μελίσσαις? The majority of editions goes with the lone ascriber, and that is what I translated. However, it seems "I want" could be implied, so that the two (honey and bee(s)) should be objects, wanting the accusative. This is why I choose to follow Edmonds for the all-Sappho posts.
      3. Next we have Lobel-Page Campbell Alcaeus 347(b) Edmonds 94, included in Bergk Alcaeus 39. This is what is technically referred to as a bloody mess :). Let's first deal with the text I translated. Back in the days, all I looked at was Bibliotheca Augustana, which gave me:

        πτερύγων δ᾽ ὔπα κακχέει λιγύραν ἀοίδαν,
        ὄπποτα φλόγιον +καθέταν ἐπιπτάμενον καταύληι.

        I analysed l. 1 as uu–uu–u–uu–u–x, some kind of anapaestic rhythm with some iambs to create "slowdowns" and a final anceps. Then I reordered l. 2 as ὄποτα φλόγιόν κ' ἐπιπτάμενον καταύλῃ / καθέταν» to make it fit the meter. Then for some reason καταύλῃ didn't agree with me and I turned it to καταύδῃ which I could interpret. All of this is from memory and files, because the Paracritical Note surprisingly has nothing to say about this. The text I ended up with was then:

        Πτερύγων τ' ὐπακακχέει λιγύραν ἀοίδαν | [It] pours down a screeching song of wings
        Ὄποτα φλόγιόν κ' ἐπιπτάμενον καταύγῃ | When a little flame shines flying down
        Καθέταν | Vertically

        Apparently I found αὐγέω, "shine", subjunctive third person singular present αὐγέῃ, and assumed καταυγέω meant the same, except it means "to be occulted" in the passive, but seems to be an alternate form of καταυγάζω, "shine brightly", so OK, that's fine. What was that about though? I thought it was about Ball Lightning, IIRC, where the ball was taken for a flame and it made some kind of noise, think static electricity but louder, which was compared to wings. Except the source clearly states this is about cicadas, so sorry, past me, but nope, that ain't right. Also, λιγυρὸς seems to mean "clear, shrill", not "screeching". Let's hear the source, Demetrius De Elocutione: «Πολλὰς δ' ἄν τις καὶ ἄλλας ἐκφέροι χάριτας. Γίγνονται δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ λέξεως χάριτες ἢ ἐκ μεταφορᾶς, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ τέττιγος· Πτερύγων δ' ὑποκακχέει ληγυρὰν ἀοιδάν, ὅτι ποτ' ἂν φλόγιον καθέταν ἐπιπτάμενον καταυδείῃ», «One could also bring forth many other graces. Graces can also come from word choice or from metaphors, like [this one] about cicadas: But it pours down a (clear?) song of wings, which it sometimes may speak as it's flown (vertically?) to a wallflower», where ληγυρὰν definitely needs to be amended to λιγυρὰν, and I assumed φλόγιον is used as the diminutive of φλόξ, "flame" but also "wallflower", and καθέταν is actually the adverb καθέτως, as found in one codex apparently, and finally that ἐπιπτάμενον is masculine to go with an implied τέττιξ, meaning cicada. The meter is undecipherable. Also, at least one codex has πτερύγων δ' ὑπὸ, "under its wings", so the cicada would be pouring down a clear song from under its wings, which seems more persuasive. From a meaning perspective, I would read this as Πτερύγων δ' ὐπὰ κακχέει λιγύραν ἀοίδαν ὄ(π)ποτα φλόγιον καθέτως ἐπιπτάμενος καταυδείῃ», «And it pours down a clear song from under its wings when it speaks after having flown (down) vertically to a wallflower». Two issues remain: what is the metaphor this is quoted for, and what is the meter. The metaphor might be the wallflower for any summertime flower, or if we read καταυλείῃ, "pipes" instead of "speaks", the piping might be the metaphor, describing the cicada's song as the sound of a flute. As for the meter, you know the phrase "Quot capita, tot sententiae" (As many heads, that many opinions)? Well, we're very close to that here, because Bergk, Bergk other edition, Edmonds, Lobel-Page, and Voigt all offer different restorations, with Bergk other edition matching (I think) safopoemas and Lobel-Page matching Campbell. Well, technically there are only 3 or 2 options for meter, but the others have varying levels of emendation. Let's go over them.
        • Firstly, Voigt amends very little and views this as «fort. gl||hipp||», possibly couplets of a glyconian and a hipponactean;
        • Then we have Edmonds, which with several amendations ends up with ll. 3-4 matching Voigt's meter, l. 1 possibly also matching, and l. 2 being totally out of it, and I don't get what he was going for;
        • All the others are for greater asclepiads; the most conservative is Lobel-Page, with πτερύγων δ' ὔπα / κακχέει λιγύραν ἀοίδαν, ὄπποτα φλόγιον †καθέταν ἐπιπτά- / μενον καταυδείη, which now that I look at it doesn't even fit the meter even outside the cruces, and only suggests amendations in the critical note;
        • Campbell takes up those suggestions, at least partly, to get πτερύγων δ' ὔπα / κακχέει λιγύραν πύκνον ἀοίδαν, θέρος ὄπποτα / φλόγιον †καθέταν ἐπιπτάμενον καταυδείη†;
        • Bergk joins this with LP Alcaeus 347(a), a joining which is the motivation for the greater asclepiads in all cases, and reads Τέγγε πνεύμονα ϝοίνῳ· τὸ γὰρ ἄστρον περιτέλλεται, / ἀ δ' ὤρα χαλέπα, πάντα δὲ δίψαισ' ὐπὰ καύματος. / ἄχει δ' ἐκ πετάλων ϝάδεα τέττιξ, πτερύγων δ' ὔπα / κακχέει λιγύραν πύκνον ἀοίδαν ** ὄπποτα / φλόγιον καθέταν ἐπιπτάμενον καταυδείη. / ἄνθει δὲ σκόλυμος· νῦν δὲ γύναικες μιαρώταται, / λέπτοι δ' ἄνδρες, ἐπεὶ καὶ κεφάλαν καὶ γόνα Σείριος / ἄζει, «Wet your lung with wine: for the star is coming around, / the hour is painful, and everything is in thirst under the burning heat. / The sweet cicada sings from the leaves, and under its wings / It pours down a clear song continuously ** when / it sings after flying to a vertical (?) wallflower. / The artichoke is in flower; and now the women are most repulsive, / But men are weak, because Sirius both the head and the knees / Dries up»;
        • Bergk other edition continues from the above, fixing the καθέταν line and the one before to κακχέει λιγύραν πύκνον ἀοίδαν θέρος ὄπποτα / φλόγιον κατὰ γᾶν πεπτάμενον πάντα καταυάνῃ, «It pours down a clear song continuously, when summer, / Burning, having flown down to the earth, dries up everything».
        Now, on one side, the other Alcaeus fragment does mention cicadas, so the fit is nice, although the emendations required are pretty drastic. On the other hand, Demetrius quotes two Sappho fragments, then this one, so one would expect him to attibute it if it wasn't Sappho. Therefore the attribution question is unsolved, and so is the meter. So for the all-Sappho posts I will put in several versions: my original one, Voigt's, my revision of Voigt, Edmonds', and Bergk 2's, complete with extra lines in brackets.
      4. Then we have Bergk 121 Edmonds 107 Lobel-Page 122 Campbell 122. This is quoted by Athenaeus, who wrote «Φυσικὸν γὰρ δή τι τὸ τοὺς οἰομένους καλοὺς καὶ ὠραίους ἀνθολογεῖν. Ὅθεν αἵ τε περὶ τὴν Περσεφόνην ἀνθολογεῖν λέγονται καὶ Σαπφώ φησιν ἰδεῖν "ἄνθε' ἀμέργουσαν παῖδ' ἄγαν ἀπαλήν"», «For it is natural that those who think themselves beautiful and ripe should gather flowers. This is why Persephone and her companions are said to gather flowers, and Sappho says she saw "a very tender girl picking flowers"», as Campbell translates it (fragment translated by me). So this is –uu––– –u–uu–, a weird meter I can't recognize, but if amending just to παῖδα τὰν ἀπάλαν is held satisfactory this meter must be OK, so I see no reason to do anything but Aeolcise things. Many critics disagree here, having a crutch with that ἄγαν. Bergk leaves this as a raw quote, and Edmonds invents his own reconstruction, which is in group 5 below. Whatever :).
      5. Next up is Edmonds 32 Lobel-Page 104(b) Campbell 104(b). This is quoted by Himerius twice, once writing «ἀστὴρ οἶμαι σύ τις ἑσπέριος, "ἀστέρων πάντων ὀ κάλλιστος"· Σαπφοῦς τοῦτο δὴ τὸ ‹ἐς› ἕσπερον ᾆσμα», «I think you are an evening star, "most beautiful of all stars": this song to Hesperus is indeed by Sappho», and the other time «Ἐφάνης τοίνυν οὗτος ἐκεῖνος "ἀστέρων πάντων ὀ κάλλιστος"· σὲ γὰρ Ἀθηναῖοι καλοῦσιν Ἕσπερον», «Indeed you appeared thus (?) "most beautiful of all stars": for the Athenians call you Hesperus». So the tradition is unanimous, though the meter is a strange –u–––u––u, so making it the start of a Sapphic hendecasyllabic by amending to κάλιστος, as suggested by Bergk apparently, seems in order.
      6. We approach the end with Bergk 12 Edmonds 12 Lobel-Page 160 Campbell 160. This is quoted by Athenaeus, who wrote «Καλοῦσι γοῦν καὶ αἱ ἐλεύθεραι γυναῖκες ἔτι καὶ νῦν [...] τὰς συνήθεις καὶ φίλας ἑταίρας, ὡς ἡ Σαπφώ· "τάδε νῦν ἐταίραις ταῖς ἐμαῖς τέρπνα κάλως ἀείσω", καὶ ἔτι· "Λάτω καὶ Νιόβα μάλα μὲν φίλαι ἦσαν ἔταιραι"», «Even free women still now call […] same-age dear women "hetairai", like Sappho: "To my hetairai I will now sing these delightful things", and still: "Lato and Niobe were very dear hetairai"». The way it's written on the codex suggests we are looking at a dative, but Aeolic would have ταὶς ἔμαις ἐταίραις as an accusative. Plus, the meter here seems to be a Sapphic stanza, but a syllable is missing. This brings to "Ien." suggesting ἔμαισι τέρπνα, Hoffmann ἔμαις τέρποντα, and Sitzler ἔμαις τέρποισα, all fixing the meter. Apparently, the only correction interpreting this as a dative is the first one, whereas the others think of an accusative, either of object (τέρποισα), or of relation (τέρποντα). I personally report all versions. Now, from Lobel-Page on, a crux is left at τέρπνα, whereas up to Edmonds the choice fell on ἔμαισι, and safopoemas and "the doc" chose τέρποισα, whereas some unlocatable source back in the days provided me with τέρποντα.
      7. We wrap up this category with Bergk 66 Edmonds 102 Lobel-Page 153 Campbell 153. This is quoted by Atilius Fortunatianus, who is giving a series of quotes illustrating a meter, and quotes this in the form πάρθενων ἀδύφωνων (cod. A) or πάρθενον ἀδύφωνον (cod. B), and given the meter is the same as LP 142, which has no cretic, we follow cod. B.
      8. Actually, reading random bits of the Paracritical Note, a line popped up which I have no clue how I found, except I already mentioned it at the Idyll with Aphrodite, to which I leave the discussion of the source. This is basically scholars trying to reconstruct a line out of words that are evidently tampered with and appear after Athenaeus's quotation of the last stanza of the poem. I should probably not include it, but since I have translations I will include it anyways.
    10. The last category in this group is that of new findings, which are fragments I would probably have translated poetically had I known of them back in the days, but I only found them while browsing Edmonds Bergk and Campbell to make the comparative numbering table so they will only be given a literal English translation.
      1. We start with Edmonds 113A+113B Lobel-Page inc. 18 Campbell inc. 18(b)+(c). These two partial lines were quoted by an anonymous metrician found on P.Oxy. 20, where in col. ix one reads «Πάσας ἀφελών τις τὰς ἐκ τῆς πρώης χώρας παρὰ μίαν βραχεῖαν ἀποτελέσει τὸ μέτρον ὁμοίως· σκόπει γοῦν τάδε καταλελοιπότα τὰς πρώτας συλλαβάς· μεν εφαινεθ α σελανα· ονιαν τε και υγιειαν· σα φυγοιμι παιδες ηβα», where the intro is translated by Campbell as «If one removes the syllables of the first unit (of the Praxillean) except for one short, one will equally well produce the (Anacreontic) metre (uu–u–u––): consider the following lines which have been docked of their first syllables (x–)». The first line, with diacritics μὲν ἐφαίνεθ' ἁ σελάνα, is recognizable as l. 1 of Poem 2 here, which reads Πλήρης μὲν ἐφαίνετ' ἀ σέλαννα / Αἰ δ' ὠς περὶ βῶμον ἐστάθησαν. The second line is non-extant. Edmonds proposes to complete it to Εὐδαιμονίαν τε κὐγιείαν, but why would the anonymous divide syllables as Εὐδαιμ-ονίαν? So that is to be rejected. Also, ὀνίαν is an Aeolic word, and is basically the only good reason to think this line is Aeolic, so better keep it like this. I will follow Leo's suggestion and complete it to Πέμπων ὀνίαν κτλ. By the way, τε και is clearly counter-metrical, given the meter is stated by the anonymous and that part doesn't match it. That explains the crasis, a metrical amendment. Line 3 is also non-extant. Edmonds here proposes Γῆρας ζαφύγοιμι κτλ, but seriously, if you are given a sigma, why would you turn it to a zeta without even mentioning it? I'm more for Blass's θάνοισα here, which I will follow. Also, ἤβα is probably to be Aeolicized to ἄβα, judging from the Campbell text. Why Sappho? Probably because, with these being Aeolic (ἤβα is half-Aeolic half-Attic, Attic would be ἤβη, or maybe non-psilotic), they are either Sappho or Alcaeus, and Sappho is known to have written about old age and grief. Of course, the attribution is up for debate.
      2. We continue with Bergk 28 Lobel-Page inc. 14 Campbell inc. 14. This was quoted by Cramer's Anecdota Graeca in two different passages quoted from "Homeric Parsings", one on the Odyssey and one on the Iliad. The former reads «Τὸ δὲ "υ" πρὸ τοῦ διπλοῦ οὐδέποτε εὑρίσκεται, εἰ μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ ὔψος· ἔνθα οἱ Αἰολεῖς ἀναλογώτεροί εἰσιν ἴψος λέγοντες καὶ "κὰτ ἰψήλων ὀρέων"», «The letter upsilon is never found before a double letter except in ὔψος; there the Aeolians are more consistent in saying ἴψος, "height", and "down the high mountains"». The former offers «Τὸ ὑψοῦ ὑψοῖ λέγουσιν Αἰολεῖς τροπῇ τοῦ "υ" εἰς "ι" [...]· ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ κατ' ἀρχὴν Αἰολεῖς τρέπουσι "υ" εἰς "ι"· καιτ' ἰψήλων ὀρέων», «The Aeolians say ὑψοῖ for ὑψοῦ, changing the upsilon to iota […]; and at the beginning of the word also they change upsilon to iota: "down the high mountains"». Version 2 has καιτ', which is either a corruption of κατ'=κὰτ or one of καὶ κατ'=καὶ κὰτ. I'll go for the latter, since that makes this into a recognizable meter: the beginning of a Sapphic hendecasyllabic.
      3. We then have Bergk 71 Edmonds 70 Lobel-Page and Campbell 349(b). This is quoted by Priscian's grammar, where we read «Et contra tamen in quibusdam es productam terminantibus fecerunt Graeci poetae, eus pro es proferentes. […] Ἄρευς pro Ἄρης ut Sappho: ††», which Edmonds renders as «Conversely, in certain names ending in ēs the Greek poets -eus for -ēs, as […] Ἄρευς for Ἄρης, for instance Sappho: ††». I cannot reconstruct the form of this in the tradition, because, from what Voigt says, it would have looked something like ὀ δ' Ἄρευς φαισει κεν Αφεστον ἄγην βίᾳ, whereas Bergk prints it as ὁ Δαρεὺς φησαι κεναφης τοναγηνεβια, even giving the intro as Δαρεὺς pro Δάρη. In any case, the emendations are straightforward, and the result is the end of a greater Asclepiad or ionic a maiore tetrameter. While this does allow to join it with the other 349 fragments in Lobel-Page, from a poem about Ares, Priscian says this is Sappho, and why would we posit he was misinformed or lying?
      4. We proceed toward the end with Bergk 90 Lobel-Page inc. 22 Campbell inc. 22. This was quoted by Hephaestio, who wrote «(Τῶν ἰωνικῶν τριμέτρων ἀκαταλήκτων) ἔνια δὲ ἐκ μιᾶς ἰωνικῆς καὶ δύο τροχαικῶν, οἶον· τριβώλετερ· οὐ γὰρ Ἀρκάδεσσι λώβα», «(Of the ionic a maiore acatalectic trimeters) some are also made from one ionic and two trochaic meters, like: [quote]». I gave the form of codd. AH, while cod. I has τριβώλετερ'. The problem is more of interpretation. The first word was interpreted by Bergk as τριβόλων ὀλέτηρ, "destroyer of thorns", where τρίβολοι is glossed as ἀκάνθης εἶδος (kind of thorn) by Hesychius, and ὀλέτηρ is a known word, presumably from a verb, I guess. For the rest, Ἄρκαδες ἔσσαν βαλανωφάγοι (the Arcadians were acorn-eating), says I don't know who, and what acorns have to do with thorns is really unknown to me, so why did Voigt mention this in the CRIT for this fragment? Whatever :). The meter is ionic a maiore trimeter with two trochaic meters, says Hephaestio, that is x–uu–u–x–u–x.
      5. We wrap up the category with Campbell's second 117A, the first one being an excerpt of another author without a clearly extractable quotation. This comes from a Hesychius gloss reading ξοάνων προθύρων· ἐξεσμένων. Figuring out the words is a challenge. Thanks to Stack Exchange, I found out ξοάνων here is the only attestation of the adjective ξόανος, from the verb ξέω, "scrape smooth, polish, carve", and that ἐξσεμένων is the perfect medio-passive participle of that verb, which, combined with προθύρων being easily identified as the genitive plural of "front door, doorway", justifies Campbell's translation, which I report below.
      6. Oh wait, there are still the seven hyperboles from Edmonds 61, was almost forgetting those. These are in a passage from Gregory of Corinth's commentary on Hermogens, where we read «Αἰσχρῶς μὲν κολακεύει τὴν ἀκοὴν ἐκεῖνα ὅσα εἰσὶν ἐρωτικά, οἶον τὰ Ἀνακρέοντος, τὰ Σαπφοῦς, οἶον γάλακτος λευκοτέρα, ὕδατος ἁπαλωτέρα, πηκτίδων ἐμμελεστέρα, ἵππου γαυροτέρα, ῥόδων ἁβροτέρα, ἱματίου ἑανοῦ μαλακωτέρα, χρυσοῦ τιμιωτέρα», translated by Campbell as «The ear is basely flattered by erotic phrases such as those of Anacreon and Sappho, whiter than milk, more gentle than water, more tuneful than lyres, haughtier than a mare, more delicate than roses, softer than a fine robe, more precious than gold». Lobel-Page has this mentioned in the CRIT to 156, Voigt has this in the TEST to 156, Campbell has this as part 3 of his 156, Bergk has it as a raw quote in 123, safopoemas isolates the hyperboles. Honestly, it's hard to tell which of these are by Anacreon and which by Sappho, so I'll just keep them all, Aeolicizing them. Edmonds 61 e.g.s the penultimate hyperbola to ἰάνω μαλακωτέρα, on the basis of Hesychius's ἴανον· ἱμάτιον gloss. It seems like a tempting option, but I'll be more conservative and print the hyperbole as is.
      7. And also the in-cruces part of Lobel-Page and Campbell 46, which is Edmonds 57 and Bergk 82. I will use Bergk's text here, and leave Edmonds to category 5. I send you back to 1.C.ii for the discussion of this mess. Edmonds' version is 5.C.ii below, Bergk's is to be rejected, Wilamowitz joins it with 1.C.ii so I can't use that… what do I do? Forced cruces, I guess. Missing syllable at the beginning, κὰμ and τύλαν, cruces for the rest. Maybe I'll think some more, but that is it for now. One option is x κὰ‹μ› μέν τε τύλα‹ν ἄρα› κασπολέω, where the ἄρα was either not quoted or lost to copying, and ασ was duplicated by miscopying.
      8. And Bergk 81, which Edmonds e.g.'d to his 91, and Lobel-Page and Campbell left a raw quote in their 201. This was quoted by both Aristoteles and Gregory of Corinth's commentary on Hermogenes. Both report «Φησὶν ἡ Σαπφὼ ὅτι τὸ ἀποθνήσκειν κακόν· οἱ θεοὶ γὰρ οὕτω κεκρίκασιν· ἀπέθνῃσκον γὰρ ἄν», «Sappho says dying is bad; for the gods have thus judged: they would die», and Gregory adds «εἴπερ ἦν καλὸν τὸ ἀποθνήσκειν», «if it were good to die». Indirect quote then. Though with a couple Aeolicizations we get Ἀποθναίσκην κάκον· οἰ θέοι γὰρ οὔτω κεκρίκαισιν·, which seems like part of an Alcaic stanza, perhaps continuing with θάνον αὖ κε γὰρ, though the first γὰρ breaks the meter and needs to be replaced (wonder what Bergk was going for then… ionic a maiore tetrameter? But then the omicron in ἀποθναίσκην must count as short, and yet it's long by position, because θν doesn't count as muta cum liquida, right?), so οὔτω κεκρίκαισιν γὰρ·, and then? Of course, following Edmonds' e.g. strat is also viable, but why tamper so much when with much less you get something metrically sound? That strat is seen in group 5 anyways. How do we continue here? οὔτω κεκρίκαισιν γὰρ αὖ· θα- / νον κε γὰρ is all that comes to mind, but the synaphia puts me off quite a bit. Or maybe ... γὰρ αὖ· θναί- / σκον κε γὰρ αἰ κάλον ἦν.
      9. And a number of incerta, starting from Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 1. This is quoted by a scholiast on Homer, who wrote «Ἔδει χωρὶς τοῦ "ν" ζαῆ, ὡς "ἀκραῆ Ζέφυρον". Ἔστιν οὖν Αἰολικὸν τὸ μετὰ τοῦ "ν", καὶ ἔδει αὐτὸ Αἰολικῶς βαρύνεσθαι, ὡς τὸ "Αἰνοπαθῆ πάτριδ' ἐπόψομαι" παὰ Ἀνακρέοντι», «It should have been written ζαῆ without the nu, "ἀκραῆ Ζέφυρον", "strongly-blowing Zephyr". The form with nu is Aeolic, and it should have been marked with a grave accent (ζάην), as "I shall look at my direly suffering homeland" in Anacreon». So this guy is going "Oh look at this Aeolic form in XXX", and the form is non-Aeolic, and the XXX is Anacreon who didn't write in Aeolic. WTF? Bergk apparently Aeolicizes to αἰνοπάθην but leaves this in Anacreon, yeah sure, that's correct :). Wilamowits suggests Ἀνακρέοντι was originally Ἀλκαίῳ, which fits the little I know about Alcaeus's poetry, and is the closest to Anacreon amongst Aeolic poets, in terms of letters. To avoid risking incompleteness, I will include it here, but the attribution to Alcaeus is indeed likely IMO.
      10. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 2. This is quoted by the Etymologicum Gen[uinum] A and B, and by the Etymologicum Magnum, all of which read «μέτερρα· τοῦτο τὸ πάθος τῆς Αἰολικῆς ἐστὶ διαλέκτου· οἶον· αἰτιάο τὰ μέτερρα. Ὁ γὰρ μέτριος μέτερρος παρ' αὐτοῖς εἴρηται», «μέτερρα, "moderation": this form is of the Aeolic dialect; like: "Give credit for (?) moderation". For μέτριος is said as μέτερρος by Aeolians». Metrically, this would seem to have at least three short syllables in a row, which is too many, but a synaeresis on αἰτιά͜ο would solve that and give us xx–uu–x or an incomplete xx–uu–ux or perhaps an expanded form of this. The τἀμέτερρα of EM cod. D and the τ' ἀμετερρα of cod. M are clearly to be rejected for the E.G. form given above, because this is about μέτερρα, not ἀμέτερρα. What is αἰτιάο though? Seems to be a form of αἰτιάομαι, which can also mean "give credit for". I guess it means "call out" as a basic meaning, then in the positive it becomes "give credit for", and in the more common negative it becomes "accuse". To be an imperative, it should be αἰτιάου in Attic and maybe αἰτιάω in Aeolic, so I'll amend it like that. No need to write αἰ τίῃς, which I can't even understand because I can't figure out what form τίῃς is, though Campbell seems to translate it as "If you respect". LP 29(2) reads ]μετριακα[, making this whole μέτερρα thing seem like a hoax, though maybe both forms existed.
      11. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 3. This is quoted by Apollonius Dyscolus in his treatise on Pronouns, where we read «Αἰολεῖς ἄμμι· ἀλλά τις ἄμμι δαίμων», «The Aeolians say ἄμμι, "to us": but some god […] to us». Nothing to say here.
      12. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 4. This is quoted in Homeric Parsings: «Τὸ γὰρ ὁρῶ δευτέρας μὲν ὡς πρόδηλον ἀλλὰ καὶ πρώτης, ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τῆς Αἰολίδος διαλέκτου· ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ οἰκῶ ἡ μετοχή, οὕτω ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁρῶ "Ἀλλ' ὀ πάντ' ἐσορας αλαἐφόρεις Ἄλιε"», «ὁρῶ, "see", obviously belongs to the second cojugation (in -άω), but it can also belong to the first (in -έω), as is clear from the Aeolic dialect: for as the participle from οἰκῶ is οἴκεις (Alc. 328), so the participle from ὁρῶ is ὄρεις, "seeing", as in [quote]». Translation by Campbell. The scribe himself corrected the corruption, but given Aeolic psilosis we must have ἐπόρεις=ἐφορῶν. And on the basis of Sappho Lobel-Page 79 we correct to Ἀέλιε.
      13. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 6. This is Bergk Alc. 28. It was quoted by an anonymous grammarian, who wrote «Ζητοῦμεν καὶ τὴν τοῦ Ἄρης Ἄρεος γενικήν, πῶς εὕρηται διὰ διφθόγγου· λέγομεν Ἄρευος Ἄρευι· "μείξαντες ἀλλήλοις Ἄρευι"· ἡ κλητικὴ "Ἄρευ δι' ὁ φόβος διακτὴρ"», translated by Campbell with some tweaks by me «We are enquiring also how Ἄρης Ἄρεος, "Ares", is found with the diphthong: we say Ἄρευος Ἄρευι: "Having mixed each other with Ares" (LP Alc. 330); the vocative: "Oh Ares, Fear the murderer(?)"». The codex itself has the first δι' deleted, says Lobel-Page, so Bergk's δαΐφοβος, whatever it was supposed to mean, is to be rejected. The raw text would then be Ἄρευ ὀ φόβος διάκτηρ, metrically unclear, and with an unfindable last word. Cramer suggested δαΐκτηρ, murderer, which is what my translation comes from. The meter could be xx–uu–u–x, i.e. a hipponactean, with the first anceps being lost, or maybe a hagesichorean, so it would be complete.
      14. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 8. This was quoted by he usual Etymologicum trio, with EM cod. V omitting it. The quote reads «Γέλαν, οἶον· "γέλαν δ' ἀθάνατοι θέοι". Κατὰ συστολὴν λαμβάνεται, ὡς ἡ μετοχὴ δηλοῖ. "γέλαντος" γὰρ ἡ γενικὴ κατὰ συστολὴν τοῦ "α". Τὰ δὲ ἐδέοντα συλλαβῇ τρίτα πρόσωπα τῶν πληθυνικῶν καταλήγουσιν εἰς τὴν παραλήγουσαν τῆς γενικῆς τῶν μετοχῶν. Οὕτω Ζηνόδοτος», «γέλαν, "they laughed", like: "The immortal gods laughed". It is taken for the shortening, as the participle shows. For the genitive γέλαντος is taken for the shortening of the alpha. The third faces of the plurals binding into the syllable are left off to the terminaton of the genitive of the participles. Thus enodotus». Whatever that comment meant, this is undoubted in its form. The attribution isn't so certain: Ahrens says Sappho, Diehl says Alcaeus and puts it with the other LP-C-V 349 fragments, because when Ares said he'd bring Hephaestus away with force the gods laughed at him. The meter fits (part of an asclepiad, thee ending, perhaps, but could also be a glyconic), and the story told also does, so this attribution and joining seems convincing, but with such a small fragment caution is advised, hence me reporting it here.
      15. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 10. This is quoted by Herodian in Περὶ μοναδικῶν λέξεων (on anomalous words), where the lines are given without attribution and wthout any context Voigt reports, with the errors ὡς τὸ ὄρνιθες and ἐξαπτήνας. Campbell reports the context «Εἴπομεν δὲ Αἰολίδα δάλεκτον διὰ τὸ πτάζω·», «We mentioned the Aeolic dialect because of πτάζω:». This is clearly Aeolic, and it is often ascribed to Alcaeus, it's the end of an Alcaic stanzas, and I have no arguments for attribution.
      16. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 12. This is quoted in Homeric Parsings: «Τοῦτο παρ' Αἰολεῦσιν θηλυκῶς λέγεται [...] εἶτα ἡ γενικὴ "ἴδρως ἀμφοτέρα" ἀντὶ τοῦ ἱδροῦς, ὡς [...] αἴδως ἄξιος ἀντὶ αἰδοῦς», «This is said as feminine by Aeolians […] next the genitive [quote] with ἴδρως instead of ἱδροῦς, as […] αἴδως ἄξιος, "worthy of shame", with αἴδως for αἰδοῦς», where the first lacuna apparently included a mention of l. 13 of the Ode to Anactoria (ἀ δέ μ' ἴδρως κακχέεται or a similar form), and the last quote being LP Alc. 331. While ἴδρως is clearly the genitive of… itself :), so it means "of sweat", ἀμφότερα is left untranslated and in cruces by Campbell. It apparently means "both", maybe "both (kinds) of sweat"?
      17. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 15. This is controversial because two different quotes give two forms to the proverb, using two different words for "sea", namely θάλασσα and πόντον. The first one is from Zenobius: «Ὁ Κρὴς τὴν θάλατταν· ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν οἷς διαφέρουσι ταῦτα φεύγειν προσποιουμένων ἡ παροιμία ἐστίν· ἐπειδὴ ναυτικώτατοι οἱ Κρῆτες ἐγένοντο. Μέμηται ταύτης Ἀλκαῖος», «"The Cretan and the say"; the proverb is applied to people who pretend to run from a situation in which they excel; since Cretans proved themselves excellent seamen. Alcaeus mentions this proverb». The secon one is a scholiast in Aelius Aristides: «Ὁ Κρὴς δὴ τὸν πόντον [...] παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν εἰδότων μέν, προσποιουμένων δ' ἀγνοεῖν [...] Ἀλκμὰν δὲ ὁ λυρικὸς μέμνηται τῆς παροιμίας», «"The Cretan and the sea" […] a proverb used of people who know but pretend not to known […] The lyric [poet] Alcman mentions this proverb». Both translations by Campbell. It appears that the implied verb is φεύγει or ἔφυγε, so "The Cretan [flees/fled] the sea" is the literal rendition. This is really here only because it was an incertum as opposed to an Alcaeus fragment, because neither of the quotes attributes this to Sappho, so there is no evidence she ever used this proverb. Too late to delete it now I already discussed it :). Both forms will be given. The πόντον form could start a hexameter, the other one may want a γε (matching δὴ) to also do so.
      18. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 19. This is quoted both by Apollonius Dyscolus's treatise on adverbs and by Herodian's Περὶ μοναδικῶν λέξεων. The former reads «Ἀνάλογος (sc. τῷ πρῶϊ) γὰρ καὶ ἡ παρ' Αἰολεῦσι βαρεῖα τάσις, λέγω δὲ τοῦ "ὄψι γὰρ ἄρξατο"», Analogous to πρῶϊ is the Aeolic recessive accentuation, I mean that of ὄψι, "late", in "For (s)he began late"». The latter has «Ἐπεὶ κἂν ἔτρεπε (sc. τὸ ὀψέ) τὸ "ε" εἰς "ι". Ἤδη μέντοι Αἰολεῖς καὶ ἐν ἁπλῇ προφορᾷ διὰ τοῦ "ι" αὐτὸ ἀποφαίνονται· "ὄψι γὰρ ἀρξάτω", ἴσως ἀναλογώτερον», «Because ὀψέ changes its epsilon to iota. The Aolians indeed already even in a simple appearance show it with a iota: "May (s)he indeed begin late", perhaps more consistently». The form of source 2 is evidently out of place, that imperative with γὰρ, so we follow source 1, and that is it.
      19. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 20. This is quoted by Zonaras's lexicon in the entry for ἀνέῳγε: «Οἴγω καὶ ἀοίγω, ὃ καὶ διΐστησιν ὁ Αἰολεὺς λέων· πάτας ὀΐγων θαλάμοις», «Οἴγω and ἀνοίγω, which the Aeolian separates saying [ὀίγων and ἀνοΐγω, like]: opening all chambers». From "separates", and from the tradition, it seems the correct for is ὀΐγων, as I wrote, and as Campbell writes. However, Lobel-Page and Voigt, following "GDI 214 44", correct to ὀείγων, but why would the vowel change from iota to epsilon-iota, which back then was AFAIK a long /e/? Even an Alcaeus papyrus has ὀΐ̣[γ]ο̣ντ'! No reason to add that epsilon at all! Oh wait: it's "because Lobel said so", apparently. Because that can override the tradition on two separate fragments and the observation that the correction would imply a vowel change from Attic to Aeolic which is undocumented and contrary to expectations, AFAICT. Three short syllables in a row is too may, so I guess we break the line after the first word and read this as xx–uu–x.
      20. The the non-Lobel-Page incerta, like Voigt and Campbell 25A. This is quoted by the Etymologicum trio, giving «Καὶ ὥσοερ τὸ κλαίην διῃρήκασιν (sc. οἱ Αἰολεῖς), καὶ γίνεται κλαΐην οἶον· κλαΐην δάκρυσιν», «And thus the Aeolians have separated κλαίην and it becomes κλαΐην, like: to cry with tears». Only the E.M. cod. V reads the infinitive with the Attic -ειν ending, so we have double reason to follow the overwhelming majority. Ahrens says this is Sappho, and given Sappho is very well-known for writing about pain it is likely, but that is all I have to say about attribution.
      21. And V&C (Voigt and Campbell) 25B. This is quoted in the Etymologicum Magnum: «Μετὰ γὰρ τὸ "α" φωνήεντος ἐπαγομένου προστίθεται Αἰολικῶς τὸ "υ", ὡς [...] ἀάταν, τὴν βλάβην· καὶ τὰν ἀκόρεστον ἀυάταν», translated by Campbell as «For after alpha, when a vowel follows, upsilon is added in Aeolic, e.g. ἀάταν becomes ἀυάταν, "harm": "and insatiable Ate (Harm)"». The tradition has no doubts. The meter is quite ucertain, featuring 4 short syllables in a row. I think it should really be αὐάταν, making that uuuu into a u–u, and rendering this as ––uu–u–u–, perhaps the same as πλήρης μὲν ἐφαίνετ' ἀ σέλανα, but Voigt and Campbell both write ἀυάταν consistently, so either I'm missing something as to the vowel lengths, which would make adding something between ἀυάταν and ἀκόρεστον a valid metrical solution, or that problem stays.
      22. And V&C 25C.1, also found in group 4. This is quoted by Eustathius, who wrote «Ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ῥηθέντος Ἀδμήτου σκόλιόν τι ἐν Ἀθήναις ἦν ᾀδόμενον, ὡς καὶ Παυσανίας φησὶν ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ λεξικῷ, λέγων ὡς οἱ μὲν Ἀλκαίου φασὶν αὐτό, οἱ δὲ Σαπφοῦς, οἱ δὲ Πραξίλλης τῆς Σικυωνίας. Ἀρχὴ δὲ τοῦ μέλους αὕτη· Ἀδμήτου λόγον, ὦ 'ταῖρε, μαθὼν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς φίλει, τῶν δειλῶν δ' ἀπέχου», translated by Campbell as «A drinking song sung in Athens was based on this Admetus, as Pausanias says in his Attic Lexicon, mentioning that some attribute it to Alcaeus, some to Sappho, others to Praxillas of Sicyon. This is the beginning of the song: Learn the story of Admetus, my friend: love the good and keep away from the worthless». A couple easy Aeolicizations, and we're golden. Of course, attribution is uncertain because so it was even back in the days of the Ancient Greeks. Sappho is known to give advice (a lot of such fragments are collected here), so this could be Sappho, but it could be Alcaeus or Praxilla, AFAIK.
      23. And finally a fragment found only in the edition of Παναγής Λεκατσάς (Panagís Lekatsás), where it is inc. 6. This is from P.Oxy. 220 col. viii, where an anonymous metrician says «Εἴ τις τῆς πρώτης διποδίας πάντα τὰ σχήματα πρίσ[αι]· καὶ [κ]αταλίποι μόνον αὐτῆς βραχεῖαν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ στίχου τελειώσει τοῦτο τὸ δίμετρον· ἴδε γοῦν ἔστω τάδε [φ]αλαικε[ῖα]· "η λημνος το παλαιον ει τ[ις] αλλη"· "[εὐξά]μην τάδε το[ῖ]ς θεοῖς ἄπασι" "πτέρα δ' ἄγνα πὰρ ἔρωτος ἀφροδείτα"·», which vol. 2 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri translates as «If from the first two feet all the component parts are removed, and only a short syllable and the rest of the verse are left, the dimeter will be effected. For example, these are phalacean verses: "Lemnos, foremost, in olden times, of cities", "Thus entreated I all the gods of heaven", "From Eros wings Aphrodite holy goddess"». The meter that is being discussed is [u]u–[u]–u–x, as found on top of col. vii. What is being said is that this meter results from chopping off "extras" from phalaceans, and leaving only a short syllable in their place. Indeed, from xx–uu–u–u–x, chopping off xx–u and leaving only u in its place, the result is uu–u–u–x. So the phalecians is derived from this meter here. None of the three lines given here is of known authorship. I'm having a hard time figuring out the grammar of the first one and how it relates to the translation. The second one is probably not Aeolic, because the dative ends in -οις instead of Aeolic -οισι(ν), but that is just an excuse not to comment on it :). Lekatsás takes number three as his inc. 6, amending it to [...] Ἀφροδίτα, which is obviously correct, but why should this be Sappho? I mean, just because it mentions Eros and Aphrodite it doesn't have to be Sappho, right? Well, give the ἄγνα is definitely Aeolic or Doric, the likelihood is increased, but I don't know if Doric writers are likely to have mentioned Aphrodite, though I have the impression that Alcaeus, the only other Aeolic writer, isn't. The weird thing is, this is not even a phalecian, since it has one syllable too many at the start. The metrician probably got confused, since the phalecian and the Ionic a minore trimeter were considered "equivalent" in ancient times. Let me just give literal translations to all lines, and put diacritics to the first one, or at least try: ἦ Λῆμνος τὸ πάλαιον εἴ τις ἄλλη, If Lemnos was (ἦ) another one (i.e. greater) in the past, I prayed to all the gods for these things, Holy Aphrodite [gets?] wings from Eros.
      24. The fusion of Lobel-Page 10 (P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 5) and P.Sapph. Obbink is our wrap-upper. The Lobel-Page tatter alone would have been 2.D.iv, and indeed it was UTL 6, but thanks to the many complete stanzas found in P.Sapph. Obbink it's definitely traslatable now. Since said papyrus was found after I did my translation, it's a good wrap-upper for this category. I transcribed both sources and the combined text, which yields the text I give here, is here.
      25. Actually we have to end with Bergk 55, a quote from Athenaeus, who wrote «Σαπφὼ δ' ὁμοῦ μέμνηται τοῦ τε βρενθείου καὶ τοῦ βασιλείου λέγουσα οὕτως: Βρενθείω βασιληίω», «Sappho mentions both the costly and the kingly anointment saying thus: costly (and) kingly», that being the version of the codices while the "vulgo" has βρενθίω βασιλείω. Now, while this was included into I want to have died ever since Edmonds, the parchment (P. Berol. 9722 fol. 2) doesn't allow direct inclusion, as you need to complete as "Brentheíō [] Exaleípsao kaì basilēíō". Thus, I feel it is appropriate to include this separately here, adding it at the end to avoid having to locate two points where to put the original and the English transation.
      Note that a bunch of other Voigt-only incerta were left out, probably either out of laziness, or out of them being in other groups. A ton of group 2 fragments come from there, for example.
  2. The second group is that which I named ἈμετάΦραστα, UnTransLatable, back in the days: those that I deemed too holey for a poetic translation, but that I nonetheless was aware of. These, like the last category's fragments, will be given only literal English translations. My general rule is that I don't give the numbers I have in my old files for the fragments. For this group, I will make an exception, and give my number in the form "UTL <number>". Each category will list its UTLs first, then its LP fragments, then its Voigt-only fragments. The fragments in Lobel-Page will be given as LPC <number> if they are in both Lobel-Page and Campbell, since then the numbers coincide, and as LP <number> if they are not in Campbell. Indeed, it appears Campbell is following the Lobel-Page numbering exactly, save for skipping some totally untranslatable fragments and including some fragments from Voigt as either extra numbers or numbers with letters (e.g. 44A, as opposed to 44(a) which would be a 44(a) found in Lobel-Page). The only exception is the last one, which is ad hoc for stuff from another edition, and only has stuff from that edition that I cannot recognize as something from one of the other editions. Some of the fragments were transcribed and published directly in Lobel's edition of Sappho, Σαπφοῦς μελῶν, which I will denote LSM. All of these (or most of them) are from material (papyri or parchment) that postdates Bergk, so Bergk has none of these. Edmonds should have them, but chooses to omit them, unless he pulls off crazy inventive reconstructions, which happens IIRC only for UTL 76 which is in D and LP 93 which is in C. The standing assumption is that, unless otherwise specified, I follow the LP text.
    1. The first category, dubbed "Gibberish", consists of fragments that do not suggest any word completion.
      1. The first such fragment is UTL 9 LP 13. It is from P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 10. I transcribed the fragment a little sloppily, so let me do a little critical note. L. 1 shows sings I can retrace two ways. The IMO more likely way (and the one LP seems to have gone for) is that we have the right half of the mu, and then almost all of the alpha, and then an extra minuscule trace of ink to the far right, so we'd have «Μ̣Α̣.». What I seem to have gone for in my transcription is that part of the alpha of the other interpretation is actually the right half of the mu, then we have the left half of said mu, and a trace of the alpha which could even extend as far as that extra vestige. This last way is less likely because the two halves of the mu wouldn't reach the same height. As for l. 3, the letters are a half-pi, then two "inverted breves" (՞-like, but without the extra thickness on the right). Given the acute, the first one is a vowel, but upsilons iotas omegas etas and alphas have no arcs in this papyrus, so this is an epsilon or an omicron. For letter two, we have the same options as before, plus theta, rho, sigma, phi, and perhaps beta, though the top is not really just an arc because the vertical leg should have its end visible.
      2. The next one is UTL 10 LP 14. It is from P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 11.
      3. Then we have UTL 18 LP 28(b). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 26. Here is my transcription of the fragment: «]Ζ[.]Δ[ / ]Τ€ϹΧθ . [ / ] . θ' . [. .] ϹΙ[ / ] . ΑϹ[ / ]Κ[». At the end of l. 2, if I moved a bit of papyrus up-left, I'd get an omicron. However, the way the papyrus parts align is too good to be wrong, and the motion would generate a spurious dot. As is, we have two halves of an omicron that don't join. In l. 3, after the theta, we need a vowel, as the apostrophe is in the papyrus. The only vowel fitting the trace is ε. I have no idea why I originally put it in B: no word here is complete enough for a conjecture IMO.
      4. Next up is UTL 19 LP 28(c). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 27.
      5. Then there is UTL 20 LP 29(1). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 4.
      6. Next up is UTL 26 LP 29(6b). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 6B.
      7. Then there is UTL 33 LP 29(13). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 38.
      8. The following one is UTL 37 LP 29(17). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 45.
      9. Next we have UTL 38 LP 29(18). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 48.
      10. Then we have UTL 39 LP 29(19). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 49.
      11. Then there is UTL 41 LP 29(21). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 29 + 42 + P.Oxy. 2081(c) fr. 1. LP text, except I mark the omega in l. 3 as uncertain because we basically see only the right upward curve which could be the right vertical leg of a nu, and I drop the empty first line because what's the point of keeping it anyways. Splitting fragments, I agree with the Grenfell-Hunt transcription of 1231 fr. 29, which has a line of 4 vestiges to start, except the omega is uncertain to me; assuming my joint lines are correct, I would probably not be too certain about l. 2 in fr. 42, especially since the epsilon appears as basically a colon which could easily be a sigma; As for the 2081(c) fragment, my only reference is LP, so one empty line and two lines with two certain letters per line; note that this fragment is on the top-left, fr. 42 on the top-right, and fr. 29 on the bottom.
      12. Then we have UTL 46 LP 29(25b). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 7B.
      13. Next up is UTL 47… actually UTLs 47-48 are skipped numbers for some reason, so next up is UTL 49 LP 29(26). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 8. The χαρ[ could be completed as a form of χαρίεις or one of χάρις (including a capitalized plural forms), so I refrain from conjecturing and this ends up in category A here.
      14. Then we have UTL 50 LP 29(27). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 9. I transcribed the papyrus as «] . Ο̣Χ̣ . [ / ]€̣Ν·Ο . [ / ] . . [», and have the following reading notes:
        • In l. 1, the uncertain chi is treated as a certain lambda by LP IIRC; though it could be a lambda, IMO the traces leave the possibility of a chi; the omicron may just be the margin darkening, though one trace is undoubted; the final vestige might be an epsilon falling into the margin, or again just the margin darkening; the first vestige looks like a rounded bottom, perhaps yet another epsilon;
        • In l. 2, we see what could be the three "tips" of the epsilon, that is the ending of the three segments you'are left with if you take the lunate epsilon and cut the left half away; the other vestige is just a dot at the margin; the omicron seems to have an extra dot above it, so perhaps NÖ is the right transcription;
        • Pretty sure there is nothing to say about the vestiges in l. 4: no reasonable guesses from the tattery traces.
        The text below, of course, is the consequence of the transcription. Upon reidentifying the Oxy. 1231 fragments, I mis-reidentified this as P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 43, which LP transcribes «] . [ / ]νω[ / ] [», but there are definitely three traces in l. 1, and probably traces in l. 4. Oh, l. 3 is blank indeed.
      15. Next up is UTL 51 LP 29(28). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 10.
      16. Then there is UTL 54 LP 29(31). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 13.
      17. Then we have UTL 55 LP 29(32). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 14.
      18. Next up is UTL 56 LP 29(33). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 15.
      19. Then we find LP 66(b). It is from LSM IV fr. 7A(b).
      20. Then we find LP 66(c). It is from LSM IV fr. 7A(c). This is transcribed here with reading notes, and LP suggests it should be joined to P.Oxy 1787 fr. 4, which gives 2.D.xx here.
      21. Then there is LP 73(b). It is from LSM IV fr. 13.
      22. Next up is LP 74(c). It is from P.Oxy. XXI addenda p. 135, one of many numberless fragments referred to by the page of the volume.
      23. Then we find LP 74(d). It is from P.Oxy. XXI addenda p. 135.
      24. Next up is LP 77(c). It is from LSM IV fr. 17(c).
      25. Then we find LP 85(a2) joined to part of LP 85(a3). It is from part of P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 35 and a P.Oxy. XXI add. p. 136. I transcribed the papyrus fragments, so the text comes from there.
      26. Then we find the rest of LP 85(a3). It is the rest of P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 35, division of these explained here where I transcribed the papyrus fragments.
      27. Then we have part of LP 87(1). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 frr. 21+31, where fr. 31 is the two-column bottom fragment in the image and fr. 21 is the top one joining into col. ii. That col. ii has a coronis, so we have this first part, which comprises col. i, "[fortasse explicit]", because a poem end could have been there, and l. 1 of col. ii, and the rest, which comes after a coronis.
      28. Then we have the rest of LP 87(1), cfr. above.
      29. Then we have LP 87(3). It is from the two-column fragment P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 20. I will refrain from putting in the single blank link of col. ii which carries only a coronis.
      30. Then we have LP 87(4). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 22.
      31. Then we have LP 87(5). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 23. The only difference from LP will be that I have no reason to doubt the omicron in l. 1, which will be upgraded from underdot to certain.
      32. Then we have LP 87(7). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 25 + P.Oxy. XXI addenda p. 135. LP reports l. 1 as ].ιν[ and notes «ante et supra litt[eram] ι ad sinistr[am] punctulum, velut trematis punt[um] sin[istrum]; aliud atramenti vestigium ante ι nullum», «before and above the letter iota on the left [there is] a little dot, like the left dot of a trema (i.e. diaeresis); there is no other trace of black ink before the iota», based on which I choose to drop the vestige, as that dot just doesn't seem enough for a vestige. For the rest, the text is LP. Also, what is up with those brackets? It's evident to me that these are line beginnings, so why start them with ]s as if anything was lost before the first letters? I ain't gonna do that, that's for sure.
      33. Then we have LP 87(9). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 39.
      34. Then we have LP 87(10). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 42. In l. 1, the first letter could, IMO, be an epsilon too, so I downgrade it to underdot kappa. In the last line, I see no trace of the vestige at the beginning, so I drop it. The rest of the text is LP.
      35. Then we have LP 87(12). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 2.
      36. Then we have LP 87(13). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 3. Apparently the fragment is two-column, but col. ii is completely lost, so I will refrain from putting any trace of it in my text below.
      37. Then we have LP 87(14). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 4. Same note as above for apparent two-column.
      38. Then we have LP 87(15). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 5.
      39. Then we have LP 87(16). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 6.
      40. Then we have LP 87(17). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 7.
      41. Then we have LP 87(18). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 8.
      42. Then we have LP 87(19). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 9. Actually it appears there are two fragments, 9(a) and 9(b), which are separated by "[Possible lost lines]" in my text. I don't want to tamper with numbering again so I keep them together. Also, LP says "inter (a) et (b) fort[asse] versus nullus", "between (a) and (b) perhaps [there's] no line".
      43. Then we have LP 87(20). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 10.
      44. Then we have LP 87(21). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 11.
      45. Then we have LP 87(22). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 12.
      46. Then we have LP 87(23). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 13.
      47. Then we find the mess of LP 90(1), which I split as described in the transcription of the papyrus, and this item covers fr. 1(a1) col. i of P.Oxy. 2293.
      48. Next up is LP 90(5). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 5. Again, apparent two-col with second column entirely lost, only keeping [s not preceeded by spaces.
      49. Next up is LP 90(6). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 6. In l. 3 I add a space because the sequence νγ is not a thing in (Ancient) Greek AFAIK.
      50. Next up is LP 90(7). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 7.
      51. Next up is LP 90(8). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 8.
      52. Then we find LP 90(10b). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 10b.
      53. Then we find LP 90(11). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 11.
      54. Then we find LP 90(13). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 13.
      55. Then we find LP 90(14). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 14. In l. 3, the leading epsilon was downgraded to underlined because only the end of the horizontal stroke is left. The rest is LP text.
      56. Then we find LP 90(15). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 15.
      57. Then we find LP 90(16). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 16.
      58. Then we find LP 90(17). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 17.
      59. Next up we have LP inc. 27(2). It is from P.Vindob. 29777 fr. i(b) verso. The text is from my transcription of the papyrus.
      60. Then we find LP add. 3 (aka 214[3]). It is from P.Oxy. 2357 fr. 3.
      61. Then we have LP add. 5 (aka 214[5]). It is from P.Oxy. 2357 fr. 5.
      62. And LP Alc. 256(b) Voigt inc. 31b. Attribution problems, oh yeah. So this is P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 2, and fr. 1 is attributed to Alcaeus by LP. Due to the tattery nature of both, I cannot grasp enough meaning to see any reason for attributing it to Sappho or Alcaeus, and maybe Voigt made it incertum for that reason. LP text.
      63. And LP Alc. 259(b) Voigt inc. 34b. Attribution problems, same situation as above. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 8(b). I presumably put col. i of fr. 8(a) in category C (as one of like two "Ends" fragments) and col. ii in category D because it's not beginnings but seems to have complete words.
      We would then have Voigt 213A (a)-(k), but the first one is marked as a commentary, and I'm sick of these fragments, and I don't want to class them, so I just assume they were all commentaries.
    2. The second category, dubbed "Conjectures", consists of fragments where the only intelligible words need to be completed because they are only partly present.
      1. The first such fragment is UTL 7 LP 11. It is from P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 7. I'll just note that the traces in l. 1 are a horizontal stroke («velut γ sive τ pars dext[era]», like the right part of a gamma or tau), and what may be read as a iota (I did that originally) but is more likely to be a sigma because it curves left. The nu is separated from ment because nu-mu isn't a valid sequence AFAIK. nu-tau is, which is why I didn't separate men from t. I'd guess either μέντοι or μὲν, which is why I leave the line untranslated.
      2. The second one is UTL 8 LP 12. It is from P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 8. In l. 5, the alpha was degraded to underdot because it's hardly certain, especially since a later identical trace was deemed a vestige by LP. In l. 8, the second vestige is identical to the aforementioned alpha, so it will be an alpha underdot, and the first vestige may well be a chi, so I'll make that guess.
      3. Then we have UTL 14 LPC 24(b). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 17. In lines 5 and 9, two alphas (one per line) were downgraded to unreadable vestiges, but one was guessed (l. 9) because it forms a word. In l. 9, the pi is barely visible, so double underdot it shall be.
      4. Next up is UTL 15 LPC 24(c). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 frr. 22+25. Alphas downgraded to unreadable in l. 1 and l. 2.
      5. Then we find UTL 16 LP 25. It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 18. The text comes from the Italian edition, which is consistent with LP, and only adds a couple diacritics, spaces, and supplements.
      6. Then there is UTL 22 LP 29(3). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 6.
      7. Next there is UTL 23 LP 29(4). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 7.
      8. Then we find UTL 27 LP 29(7). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 20.
      9. Then we have UTL 31 LP 29(11). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 31. My transcription: «]Δ̣ . Ϲ̣[ / ][ / ] . θ€ / ] . Ν».
      10. Next up we see UTL 32 LP 29(12). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 35. In the last line, there is a vertical trace which leads into diffused "light blackness", which indeed suggests a phi, but I'll double-underdot it.
      11. Then we find UTL 34 LP 29(14). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 41.
      12. Then there is UTL 35 LP 29(15). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 43.
      13. Next, UTL 36 LP 29(16). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 44.
      14. Then we have UTL 40 LP 29(20). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 55. Donwgraded the omicron in l. 1 to uncertain because it could be an alpha too. In l. 3, that eta is pretty messed up, and the epsilon only has the bottom, but the only vowel consistent with that is indeed an epsilon, and we need a vowel after sigma+mu, so underlined epsilon it shall be.
      15. Then we find UTL 58 LP 29(35). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 17. The first letter of the last line has only a mid-height horizontal stroke, making it consistent with epsilon only, so underlined epsilon it shall be.
      16. Next up is UTL 67 LP 76. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 12. The text is from the Italian edition, reinserting the vestige at the end of l. 6 from LP.
      17. Then we see UTL 69 LP 87(2). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 14. In l. 2, the kappa looks like an ypsilon connected to the alpha, but such connections don't exist in this papyrus. In l. 4, where are the kappa and lambda? All I see is what could be the bottom slanted stroke of the kappa, so I'll have kappa-underdot, then epsilon, no lambda.
      18. Next up is UTL 80 part 1 Voigt 103Ca, which Campbell has as part of his 214 (C214=UTL80). It is from P.Oxy. 2357 fr. 1. Lobel-Page has this split as 214[1] at the end of the book in the "Fragmentis addenda" section, which is why I formerly thought LP numbering stopped at 213 and LP 214 as reported by Campbell was BS. I see no reason to join the two parts of the UTL, so I split them. The other fragmentis addenda will be in other categories.
      19. Next is, of course, the rest of UTL 80, aka Voigt 103Cb, aka LP 214[4], from P.Oxy. 2357 fr. 4.
      20. We then forsake UTLs and have LP 74(a), from LSM IV 14(a) (giving ll. 1-3) + P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 16 (giving the rest).
      21. Next is LP 74(b), from LSM IV 14(b).
      22. Then there is LP 75(a), from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 29. I follow the P.Oxy. text, with some things from LP (minor things like extra vestiges).
      23. Then we have LP 75(b), from LSM IV 15(a).
      24. Then we find LP 75(c), from LSM IV 14(c) + P.Oxy. XXI add. p. 136.
      25. Then there is LPC 81(a), from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 33, which should probably be joined with the Dika fragment from above so that that fragment's first two lines have their middles covered by this fragment's last two lines. I keep them separate to avoid mixing a fully translatable 4 lines with the gibberish of the extra lines from here. In l. 3, I seem to see an extra vestige before the epsilon. Supplements from Italian edition.
      26. Next up is LP 85(c), from LSM IV 25(d).
      27. Then we have LP 87(6), from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 24. In l. 2, the final letter looks more like a complete alpha than like the half-mu LP has.
      28. Then we find LP 87(8), from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 30.
      29. Then we have LP 87(11). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 43. I complete l. 2 as τόλμαν so this is category B.
      30. Next up is LP 90(2). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 2. The conjecture here is splitting that νῦν from the rest.
      31. We approach the end with LP 90(9), from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 9.
      32. We then find LP 90(12). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 12. In l. 1, the nu has left only a |, so I'll leave it underlined, and the two sigmas of l. 2 have left barely anything, so again underlined, the rest is LP text.
      33. We approach the end with LP 99 col. ii. It is column 2 of P.Oxy. 2291. Cfr. item 2.D.xxxiii for this. I repeat: that papyrus is too horrible for me to compare it to the LP text. The Italian edition splits col. ii at l. 3 and drops the rest, sticking the three lines with part 2 of col. i, which it splits at l. 9, possibly due to metrical reasons (cfr. other item again). It also changes the ὤνηρ in col. ii l. 3 to ὦνερ. About that correction, screw the anthology, LP is right with four certain letters, one of which is an eta and definitely not an epsilon. I'll take the supplements, but not that correction.
      34. Oops, not the end yet! Or maybe LP Alc. 265 Voigt inc. 39 is? Yes indeed, from P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 14.
    3. The third category, dubbed "Beginnings or Endings", results from merging "Endings", which had like two fragments, into "Beginnings", and consists of poems that we only have either line beginnings or line endings of, and such that those parts have at least one complete word, or they fall into the above categories. I must note that P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 usually is given as "col. ii", which makes no sense to me because I have a picture and fr. 3 is a one-column fragment. I get that it is placed within col. ii of a scroll where col. i is in fr. 1, but fr. 3 col. ii means column 2 of fragment 3 which doesn't exist, so I'm dropping it.
      1. The first such fragment is UTL 1+2 LPC 6(a)+6(b). It is from P.Oxy. 2289 frr. 1(a)-1(b). It so happens that the fragment separation does not line up with the stanza breaks visible on the papyrus fragments, so splitting the two fragments of papyrus apart doesn't make any sense. UTL 1 and LPC 6(a) are fr. 1(a), and UTL 2 and LPC 6(b) are fr. 1(b). Fragment 1(a) has 4 lines, the rest are fragment 1(b). The coronis splits the poems at l. 6. The papyrus fragment apparently had a col. i where, of 10 lines, only n. 4 ended with ]ε and n. 6 with ]., so I'm dropping that, and keeping only col. ii.
      2. The second one is UTL 59 LPC 62. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 ll. 3-14. In l. 9 of the text, the papyrus would have τέαυτ[.]ν̣ δὲ, which is inmetrical, so we suppose the nu is spurious and the lost letter is an alpha, getting τέαυτ[α]. In the last line, I see no trace of the final underdotted alpha, so I drop it (modulo supplements).
      3. Then we find UTL 60 LPC 63. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 ll. 15-24.
      4. Then there is UTL 76 LPC 92 Edmonds 82. It is from P.Berol. 9722 p. 12. I transcribed the parchment, it's took ages, and produced my own version, mostly somewhere between crazy Edmonds and prudent LP, though a couple of spots came out incompatible with both, and 4 more lines emerged with respect to Edmonds.
      5. The last UTL in the category is UTL 77 LP Alcaeus 304 col. ii Campbell 44A(b). It is from P.Fuad. 239 col. ii.
      6. Then we have LP 61. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 col. i ll. 1-2. I guess the vestige at the end of l. 1 is an omicron to complete the word, also on the basis of the Italian edition's merging of this with LP 71 and LP 87(14).
      7. Then we have LP 82(b). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 34. It could be that the Mnasidica line from above is the last line of this.
      8. Then we find LP 85(a1), an "Ends" fragment. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 40, which I transcribed.
      9. We approach the end with LP 93, the only other "Ends" fragment (see why I merged Beginnings and Ends?). It is from P.Berol. 9722 p. 14. I also transcribed this parchment, ending up compatible with Lobel-Page, but with a lot more text, which is mostly Edmonds-compatible, after dropping a bunch of nonsense letters.
      10. We wrap up this category with LP 97. It is from somewhere in P.Berol. 9722. I chose not to transcribe this, because it's too damn faint, I'm sick of those faint-ass papyri (err, parchments), and there's no crazy Edmonds forcing me to transcribe the thing to get a critical notation that's not randomly chosen between two radically different options as happened in LP 92 and LP 93.
      11. Nope, we still have LP Alc. 259(a) col. ii C 259(a) Voigt inc. 34a. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 8a, Voigt text. LP reports some lines with leading ] even though they could well be beginnings. Some lines are missing like two letters, and those are easily guessable, so I'll just leave this here.
      12. And LP Alc. 259(a) col. i. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 8(a), should be in Gibberish but I'm sick of tampering with numbers, counts as Ends fragment, LP text.
      13. And LP Alc. 261(b) col. ii Voigt inc. 36a. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 10b col. ii, Voigt text.
      14. And LP Alc. 262 Voigt inc. 36b. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 11, Voigt text.
      15. And finally we have Campbell 213C. P.Mich. inv. 3498r. Records first words of poems by Sappho, Alcæus, and Anacreon. I will use black for Sappho, red for Alcaeus, green for uncertain Aeolic, brown for possibly Aeolic, and pink for non-Aeolic, giving numbers for the Sappho / uncertain Aeolic fragments that are on this blog. One thing I immediately notice is that Κύπρι κα[ is assigned to what we now know to begin with πότνιαι Νηρήϊδες. L. 2 appears to be matchable with l. 5 of 2.B.xxii, but I apparently trusted the GH text (lambda-upsilon-rho) more than the LP text (delta-upsilon-vestige), and that l. 5 doesn't seem to be a beginning as far as LP and GH are concerned, so… nah.
    4. The fourth category, dubbed "Rest", consists of fragments that don't fit any categories. I considered splitting it into "Middles", containing fragments we only have line middles of, and "Randoms", where the line portions we have are randomly placed in the lines, but I'm too lazy to do so. For the sake of brevity, I will say LP+ to mean "I follow the LP text with extra supplements/spaces/diacritics from the Italian edition".
      1. The first such fragment is UTL 3 LPC 7. It is from P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 2. LP+. The το·[ which would end the last line is probably an annotation, given the μα extends to the end of the line 3 above which should be just as long. So I'm dropping the το·[ like the Italian edition did.
      2. The second one is UTL 4 LPC 8. It is from P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 3. In l. 3, the first letter was downgraded to a vestige, but read as a tau because the other possibilities lead to the invalid clusters γθ, ζθ.
      3. Then we have UTL 5 LPC 9. It is from P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 4 + P.GC. inv. 105 fr. 1. I transcribed the papyrus fragments, so the text comes from there, plus as many supplements as I can take from the Italian edition. Now that I've inserted the text and found a transcription error, I'll say that what the anthology has as the omega of l. 9 is, IMO, more likely to be an upsilon, which is why I didn't take the relative supplement, and that I have no idea why they stop at l. 10 when there's a whole host of other lines on the P.GC.s. Plus, they ignored the P.GC.s for l. 10! WTF? Anyways, I have Obbink with me, which is where the length marks for the missing parts come from.
      4. Next up we have UTL 12 LPC 19. It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 2. LP+.
      5. Then we find UTL 13 LPC 22 part 1. It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 12. This is usually put together with the Gongyla poem. I have no idea why those two fragments would join, given there is no physical joint, and moreover even Lobel-Page states that «Fort[asse] initium novi carminis v[ersu] 9 statuendum» (perhaps the start of a new poem must be established at l. 9), which is where fr. 12 ends, so I kept this separate. I transcribed the papyrus. Looking at it, the purported certain tau of l. 2 is uncertain between tau and gamma, but more likely to be a gamma, since the top doesn't extend much to the left of the bottom. The following epsilon has the famous middle stroke clearly visible, so that's undoubted. The mysterious form on l. 5 is translated to "spiacevole" (unpleasant) on the Italian anthology, and written ἀυάδην. Googling that yields this, and looking for this word reveals it's ἀ- + ἡδύς the latter having an alternate form ϝαδύς, so it would seem that the anthology interpreted the form as ἀ + ϝάδην. Hence my reading, with the correction of the upsilon into a digamma.
      6. Then we have UTL 17 LP 28(a). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 21. P.Köln inv. 21351 fr. 1b seems to have a possible joint with this because νοείσαι appears on it (or can be completed from it), but then this seems to have πο (half a pi and an arc from the omicron), while the Köln fragment has a clear πημ, so it is very unlikely that they join, since that would involve the eta having a very round left leg on the Oxyrhynchus fragment, which is too weird to posit IMO.
      7. Then we have UTL 21 LP 29(2). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 5.
      8. Then there is UTL 24 LP 29(5). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 11.
      9. Then we have UTL 25 LPC 29(6a). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 19 + P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 4B. I transcribed those. Then I looked at Campbell, and he had Γόργοι in l. 9, and I recognized that my purported certain iota could have been a gamma, so uncertain gamma it was, and the rest was completed to match Campbell. That is probably where τοὶς ὄρμοις comes from.
      10. Next we have UTL 28 LP 29(8). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 23.
      11. Then there is UTL 29 LP 29(9). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 28. In l. 1 I underdotted the epsilon because the middle horizontal stroke is nowhere to be seen. In l. 2 I underdotted the barely-present sigma. In l. 3, the gamma is certain because the horizontal top stops slightly before the left vertical leg, whereas a pi would have that top go beyond the leg.
      12. Then we find UTL 30 LP 29(10). It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 30. I added a vestige at the start of l. 1 and one at the end of l. 2.
      13. Next there is UTL 42 LP 29(22). It is from P.Oxy. 2081(c) fr. 2.
      14. Then we see UTL 43 LP 29(23). It is from P.Oxy. 2081(c) fr. 3.
      15. Then there is UTL 44 LPC 29(24). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 1. I transcribed the papyrus.
      16. Then there is UTL 45 LP 29(25a). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 7. It should have been integrated in the Tender women poem here, but I did not do that back in the days, and I want to keep Edmonds' restoration. I transcribed the papyrus.
      17. Then we get UTL 52 LP 29(29). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 11. In l. 2, the eta is weird because the right leg is curved like a semicircle pointing left, and the left leg is gone, which with the slanted middle stroke makes it look a lot like an upsilon, but the other upsilons in these papyri look different, with the vertical part much more centered in the caret-like top; in l. 4, that slightly slanted stroke at the far left could be an acute, so I say vestige, not certain kappa or uncertain kappa.
      18. Next up is UTL 53 LP 29(30). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 12.
      19. Then we have UTL 57 LP 29(34). It is from P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 16. The last letter in l. 2 looks like it could be any of ΑΔΚΛΠΧ, hence the downgrading from underdot delta to vestige.
      20. Then there is UTL 61 LPC 65. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 4. P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 6 gives the impression that it should be joined here, since the overlap is almost complete. «I would really like to see the image to verify how likely that vestige at the end of l. 4 of that scrap is to be a lambda», I thought. But then I realized that scrap actually skips a line. Indeed, it would seem to have parts of ll. 5-7 and then l. 9, skipping l. 8. Therefore it cannot be joined to this one. My picture sticks this fragment together with a smaller scrap which I cannot identify, which seems to read «]MNĀ . [ / ] . KAN̤T€Ι[ / ] . Ϲ̣Ḳ[». I StackExchanged it, and hopefully will get an answer. I don't see any reason for the sticking though, since no extra meaning can be grasped from it, it would anyway join with a gap, and it definitely doesn't join physically. L. 1 of the scrap joins with l. 6 of the bigger fragment. I identified the papyrus myself: it's the source of LP 66(c), which is 2.A.xxi. That the joint is correct is "clear" ("liquet") to Lobel-Page, but is a mystery to me. Also, the transcription is to be revised as per my answer to that Stack Exchange question. L. 1 of LPC 65 is not really LP text, but as discussed in the fusion of it with 67(a) et al., cfr. an item in group 6.
      21. Next up is UTL 62 LPC 67(a). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 5. LP+. Actually, in l. 4, thge first letter was downgraded to a vestige because seriously, how is this a certain omicron? I mean, it does suggest an omicron because of how much it bends back toward the margin, but then it would be shorter than the other letters, so I'll keep omicron vestige here, but then I'm more for a sigma as in the Italian anthology's fusion below (still underdot though). In the final line, the last thing seen is IMO most definitely an acute accent, with no trace of a breathing. The next-to-last line is also discussed in that fusion. The ὀλόφῳ in l. 3 is from the Italian anthology. Now, this anthology takes two different transcriptions of the fragment, strips one of its last line to incorporate it into a big fusion (see below), and keeps the other one standalone. The supplement is from the fusion, whose translation doesn't match the text, so the best I can do is guess it was meant to match "astuti" (shrewd, astute) in the translation, but this word is nowhere to be found, either on Perseus, Woodhouse, or Rocci. The standalone version has ὀλοφώιος, which is hardly metrical (actually, it's a subscript iota, so it can be metrical), but at least it is found on Perseus. For the moment, I keep the fusion's supplement, leaving it as "(??)" in the translation, and waiting for someone to shed light on this on Stack Exchange. Turns out the edition mangled the supplement, which was an incomplete word in the original combination. This is not the only mangling the edition did to the fusion of this and other fragments. The word was an unspecified form of ὀλόφῳος to the original combined text.
      22. Then we have UTL 63 LPC 68(a). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 7 + LSM IV fr. 9 + P.Oxy. XXI add. p. 135. After starting a critical note here, I realized I should just make a transcription and collage, because there are 7 fragments of papyrus here. In l. 5, I miscollaged. I'm pretty sure the vestige at the end was the arc-ish near the joint, and the vestige starting the joining fragment was right below said arc-ish, meaning that, in the collage, they form a single vestige, giving us ν̣[.] . αξ. In l. 7, the lacunas are always an estimate, so squeezing in more letter can (and in both cases here is) possible, and the three vestiges becoming two letters is because the first two were the tops of the mu.
      23. Then we find UTL 64. This is apparently neither in Lobel-Page nor in Voigt nor in Campbell. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 9, or so says Bibliotheca Augustana. More at this question. Basically the story goes as follows. Once upon a time, a bunch of fragments were found, and assigned to P.Oxy. 1787. There were also a fr. 8 and a fr. 9 there. Then came Lobel, and said "Wait! A bunch of those are not Sappho, but Pindar! TAKE THEM OUT OF 1787!". And thanks to Nick Nicholas's answer to that question I linked, I was able to locate fr. 9 and fr. 8, which were among said "bunch", in the middle of P.Oxy. 2242, where they have been given the numbers 87 and 86 respectively. So we can say this is P.Oxy. 2242 fr. 87, and the GH text corresponds fine with the image, so I'll take that and adjust my old Bibliotheca Augustana text.
      24. Next up is UTL 65 LP 78. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 10.
      25. Next up is UTL 66 LPC 73(a). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 11. In l. 1 I'm sure the first gap is of two letters, because it's definitely too wide to be just one. In l. 6, we see Ĭ (the bottom is lost, the breve isn't, the only vowel with that shape that could be marked short is iota), and then a dot near the margin, no chance in heck that that could be identified as any underdot letter, then you guess sigma because it ends a word after a iota. In l. 7 the epsilon has lost its bottom, but again, mid-height horizontal stroke. So we upgrade it from underdot to certain. In l. 8, the alpha is just a small slanted stroke on the right, so a lambda would be possible, but not in that letter context (three lambdas isn't a thing), so downgrade to underdot-alpha. Italian edition gives supplements.
      26. Then we have UTL 68 LPC 70. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 13.
      27. Then we find UTL 70 LP 80. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 15.
      28. Next is UTL 71 LP 77(a). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 26. L. 2 has 3 letters, and no trace of a fourth at the end, no idea where LP see that alpha.
      29. Then we get UTL 72 LP 83. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 36. In l. 2, the final letter looks more like an alpha than an epsilon, and I can hardly argue that potential trace further right is the famous middle-height horizontal stroke, so vestige it shall be. In l. 4, the final tau has lost its vertical stroke, but since no trace of it is found and the horizontal top is quite long, gamma and pi are impossible.
      30. Then we find UTL 73 LPC 84. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 frr. 37+41. These are joined, AFAIK, only on the basis of two lines joining into a verb form (with a correction posited). fr. 37 reads «]ω̣ΝΚ[ / ]ΤΟΝÓΝ€ . [ / ] .́ΒΡΟΙϹ€ΠΙΧ[ / ]ΑΝΑΡΤ€Μ̤Ị[ / ]ΝΑΒΛ[», and fr. 41 reads «] . ΑΙϹ[ / ] . ΙΚΙΠ[ / ]ÍΝΑ[ / ] . ΟϹϹ̤[ / ]Η̣Μ[», the final letter in the penultimate line being basically an arc, without sufficient traces of a middle-height stroke to give it the status of an underdot epsilon as LP does. Italian edition gives supplements, and btw that is not a verb forms, but ἐπὶ χείμονας that we get by correcting the eta in the last line of fr. 41 to ει. A very weak combination argument IMO, but everyone agrees, I believe. Actually, we can read ει instead of η, so I'll read that with underdots. Still a weak combination argument, if a little stronger than I thought.
      31. Then there is UTL 74 LPC 85(b). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 38. In l. 2 the apostrophe seems to continue into a horizontal top, but I leave a vestige instead of an underdot-tau there. In l. 3 there is actually .́ at the end, and thus it shall stay, for no argument I see toward an omicron in that spot.
      32. Next up is UTL 75 LPC 88(a)+(b). It is from P.Oxy. 2290. There are three fragments here. One is detached from the rest, and gives 88(b), or the beginnings of ll. 9-18 here. The other two have a pretty snug fit which makes the one below complete the first alpha of the last line of the one above, which is l. 18, if we don't count the single sigma this top fragment adds to what is l. 19 of this poem. In l. 3, I formerly couldn't see the nu at all, then I realised omegas are shaped like downward-pointing semicircles, basically, so the omega I saw was actually Νω. The rho at the end of l. 19 (excluding the sigma from the top fragment) is the combination of three hard-to-see traces: one at line bottom, giving the descender, one on top of that one, and one to the right of this last one, and these two would be part of the round top of the rho. At the start of l. 21, I see two traces that are not joined to each other, then a one-letter hole, then a faint-ass but pretty solid tau, and traces of a hardly solid alpha, then the high dot. Alpha gets double underdot. Italian edition gives supplements and spaces.
      33. Then we have UTL 78 LP 99 col. i Campbell 99(a)+(b). It is from P.Oxy. 2291, a two-column fragment of which col. i is the widest (which is why Campbell omits the other one). I have no clue why Campbell splits the column into two, with the second part (99(b)) starting at l. 10 of the column. Looking at Voigt, who has this as Alcaeus 303A (a)+(b), it seems there are metrical reasons to do so. Indeed, the first part (ll. 1-9) could fit telesillean | telesillean + iambic meter (where a telesillean is x–uu–ux, and these could be glyconics too, with some fiddling as in the anthology). Said Italian anthology gives supplements and word divisions, and also the Campbell split and another split which, if LP lined the interline marginalia correctly, is motivated by κόρωνις written after the line it splits at, which is l. 3 of col. ii, and then they drop what follows. They also assume there are no missing lines between the two columns. I opened the image, and this papyrus looks so horrible I decided not to compare LP with it. I simply verified the seemingly meter-screwing epsilon in l. 3 is indeed certain. In the meantime, I also recognized BAIO in l. 1 without doubts. In l. 7, the uncertain sigma of προσανέως can be read as a sigma besides as the tau LP has there. In l. 9, the anthology's text seems to ignore a blatant chi at the end, so I assume they drop it and whatever follows, and before the lacuna a rho can be read as well as the uncertain epsilon of LP. In l. 11, after the zero-letter hole, we have a circle, with a possible trace below, and inside at the top. If the trace below is considered, we get the uncertain beta of LP. However, given how faint it is, we might as well take it as a quirk and posit a thingy inside to get a theta, double underdot. Two omicrons are not convincing, though this letter would indeed seem an omicron. To me, l. 13 starts ΤΟ̣Ν̣Χ̣Ρ̣ ., and an epsilon for that omicron seems quite unlikely. Coming to the second part, part (b) here, the second line ends more like . ν[ than with an uncertain alpha there, so we can read ὄργιον, which matches the translation. Even the other ὀργίαν in l. 8 can be ὄργιον, though an alpha is definitely more suggested since there appears to be a trace of the slanted stroke, although that trace could (less convincingly IMO) be explained as a connection to the next letter. I'll leave that as is.
        Now that the uncertainties are dealt with, some glossary:
        • It appears ὀλισβ . was interpreted as part of a form of ὄλισβος, interpreted as "plectrum" as suggested by West. Now, this seems to be the only thing to go with περκαθθώμενος (see below), so it has to be ὄλισβος, and thus I will integrate, although the anthology wrongly translates it as plural.
        • I suspect δόκοισι is a verb form, probably from δοκέω, to expect, though the translation seems to wrongly map it to "receive" (the "accolgono" in there), which should be δέκεσθαι in the infinitive. Except this would be a plural form or a participle, so we have a problem.
        • περκαθθώμενος is a mysterious suggestion by Ferrari. It seems to mean "banqueting". I'd guess περὶ + κατὰ + θώμενος but that would, in my mind, yield περκατθώμενος, and I can't figure out the θώμενος anyway. καταθῶμαι would seem to be the subjunctive aorist of κατατίθημι, which can mean "to dish up", but aorist is unwelcome, I'd say.
        • τεούτοισι means "with such", and I assume the implication is "people".
        • ἐλελίσδεται < ἐλελίζω, whirl around, not quite "resonate" as it is translated, but almost.
        • προσανέως is translated to "lovably" but actually means "gently", from προσηνής, "gentle".
        • εὔφωνος is an adjective, not "the sound", but "the sweet-sounding" (probably implying "tune").
        • μυάλω < μυελός, "medulla, marrow".
        • ἔπιθ' is meant to be ἔπιθι<ἔπειμι, "go to", not ἔπιθε<πείθω.
        But now I've found this paper, where I read that the marginalia read οὐκ ἦν κορωνίς, apparently the scribe warning us something above was a paragraphos and not a coronis. It seems the second split has some mysterious (to me) reasons, but I can't fathom them at all. The point of splitting is apparently also shrouded in mystery. Moreover, the plectrum line starts with ὀλισβοδόκοισι, which is from ὄλισβος + the o-grade of the stem of δέκεσθαι and means "olisbos-receiving", possibly referring to the strings. However, περκαθθώμενος is still not addressed, so what verb it's from is still unknown to me. The translation "banchettando" (banqueting, feasting) is given in the paper too. Hence my translation. I asked Stack Exchange about those. The paper seems to accept the reading προτανέως, but that is a Doric form in the middle of an Aeolic poem, which seems to make no sense to me.
      34. Then we get UTL 79 LPC inc. 26 but Campbell also has it as 103B because Voigt. It is from P.Oxy. 2308.
      35. The last UTL we get is mysterious UTL 81. This is not in Lobel-Page or Campbell, and I'm too lazy to Voigt this. It seems it comes from a Milanese papyrus, precisely «P. Mediol. ed. Vogliano, PRIMI I (1937) nr. 7». In effect, Bibliotheca Augustana, which gave me the fragment, splits it in an (a) and a (b), the latter of which consists only of the last line. I finally found this as Voigt 103Aa col. ii, col. i being at the end of this category. Actually, Ill have xxxv(a) for col. i and xxxv(b) for col. ii, leaving the slot previously taken by col. i for 103Ab, which was previously unplaced for some reason.
      36. Then we have LP 64(a). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 17 + LSM IV fr. 6(a). From the text I give, ll. 10-15 are due to P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 17, while the rest is from the LSM fragment. It seems that there is reason to join fr. 20 with this, so that the coronis in its col. ii splits this fragment into two parts, the first of which ends at l. 7. The coronis would be between l. 8 and l. 9, and explain the two blank lines as a way to fit it between texts. By the way, col. i is in category A here (if the numbers don't change since now, it's 2.A.xxxiii). Note that the τε in l. 15 is written above the τι, so it could be meant as a correction to it. The Italian edition here only gives the supplemented sigma in l. 14, and the reading of μοῖ as Μοῖ[σ-. Voigt lined this up with the folloiwing so that αιγα in the following falls one line above α]λικεσσι on this one, stating, however, that the following was supposed to be below this one in P.Oxy. 1787 according to Lobel, and not beside it. Carson copied the lineup and translated the two together as if combined. I don't know if this constitutes a proposition of joining, since the Greek fragments are numbered separately anyway, but I will refrain from commenting on it further or including it here.
      37. Then there is LP 64(b). It is from LSM IV fr. 6(b).
      38. Then we find LP 66(a). It is from LSM IV fr. 7A(a). This has a complete word separated from the rest by an apostrophe in the papyrus, so it cannot be category A.
      39. Next up is LP 67(b). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 18.
      40. Then there is LP 68(b). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 19. For some reason this is sellotaped to fr. 7 a few items above, though no physical joint seems to exist. Given the sellotaping, it's a mystery why the poems would be separate. No coronis is visible AFAICT. I anyways transcribed this papyrus fragment together with those above.
      41. Then we find LP 69. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 32. In l. 1, we have a mid-height horizontal line, therefore an undoubted epsilon, then two vertical legs, which I read as a pi, then a trace, then a wide gap which I think should fit two letters, then a tau that has mostly lost its top, hence the uncertainty, then some readable letters, and finally what cannot be most of a nu because it's too tight so it's half a mu. First vestige in l. 2 is a down-right slanted stroke which looks more like an alpha than a lambda, but will be downgraded to uncertain. It does have to be a vowel given the following clear sigma, but still. Supplements from the anthology.
      42. Then we get LP 72. It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 28. In l. 1, I'm pretty sure I see a mu as a second letter, not a nu. The third one is either an € or an Ó, or maybe even €́.
      43. We then continue with LP 77(b). It is from P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 27.
      44. We proceed with LPC 86. It is from P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 1. LP+.
      45. Then there is LP 90(1). This is from P.Oxy. 2293 frr. 1(a)+1(b), split as described in their transcriptions. This item covers fr. 1(a1) col. ii, fr. 1(a2), and fr. 1(b) col. i. The Italian anthology seems to drop my last line (unless it ends up in their other fragment) and move my l. 19 to the end, for some bizarre reason.
      46. And we end this mess with fr. 1(b) col. ii. Supplements from the anthology, as in the transcriptions post.
      47. We move on to LP 90(3). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 3. The supplement οὐ γὰρ ἔ]γω τὸ κάλλος ἐπετ[ίμαν ποτα is from the anthology's translation, but doesn't satisfy me because I expect x–uu––uu––uu–u–x and this would make a line end just before two short syllables (right after κάλλος, that is), making this perhaps uu––uu––uu–u–x. Maybe this was actually a ionic a minore tripody catalectic with anaclasis? It's striking how they put this in the translation when it's nowhere in the text, and they don't even put a note. The idea seems to be Ferrari's, who published it in his book Una mitra per Cleis, again only in the translation, without a hint at a supplement that could make it work. It's book 4 though, so it should be x–uu––uu––uu–u–x, not ionic a minore.
      48. We continue with LP 90(4). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 4. In the last line, I see an extra trace, hence the vestige before the gamma.
      49. Then we have LP 90(10a). It is from P.Oxy. 2293 fr. 10(a). In ll. 9-11, the papyrus has blank gaps to start, a three-letter gap for each line, hence my +...+s.
      50. We wrap the Lobel-Page fragments in this category up with LP inc. 27(3). It is from P.Vindob. 29777 fr. ii. I transcribed the papyrus.
      51. The category is finally wrapped up with Voigt 103C(a), again reported as LP 214 by Campbell, and indeed it's 214[1] in the addenda after the indices. It is from P.Oxy. 2357 fr. 1.
      52. Now for the forgotten fragments. First thing, LP 79, from LSM IV 19.
      53. Then Lobel-Page 214[2], from P.Oxy. 2357 fr. 2.
      54. We end Lobel-Page with Lobel-Page 213 Campbell 213, a papyrus commentary with a little Sappho extract, possibly. It's from P.Oxy. 2292, and I don't have an image, so I'll just trust Campbell's text, which writes the commentary part in a smaller font. basically it seems some three lines of a poem were quoted to illustrate the use of σύνδυγος, an Aeolic variant of σύνζυξ. Supplements from Una Mitra per Cleis. I tried to guess the meter of those supplements, and it seems they were going for x–uu––uu––uu–u–x. I indicated the possible original line ends and what seems to be a missing long syllable at the beginning of a line.
      55. Actually, we have Voigt 103Ab still. What those macrons mean, the world may never know. Were they in the papyrus? Do they indicate meter? If so, what meter is this?
      56. And LPC Alc. 253 Voigt inc. 28. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 2. Gonna LP all those Alcaeus fragments, no intention of looking for an image.
      57. And LPC Alc. 254 Voigt inc. 29. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 3.
      58. And LPC Alc. 255 Voigt inc. 30. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 4
      59. And LP Alc. 256(a) C 256 Voigt inc. 31a. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 5(a). 5(b) gives LP Alc. 256(b) Voigt inc. 31b and is in category A.
      60. And LPC Alc. 257 Voigt inc. 32. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 6, LP text. L. 2 was incorrectly written ] πρόσσδθε[ and corrected in l. 6a, i.e. in an interline correction between l. 6 and l. 7. I just use the correction in place of l. 2.
      61. And LPC Alc. 258 Voigt inc. 33. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 7.
      62. And LP Alc. 261(b) col. i C 261(b) Voigt inc. 35. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 10(b). The obvious integration to ἀκέφαλος or an allied form is inmetrical in l. 3.
      63. And LPC Alc. 263 Voigt inc. 37. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 12.
      64. And LP Alc. 264 Voigt inc. 38. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 13.
      65. And LP Alc. 266 Voigt inc. 40. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 15.
      66. And LP Alc. 268 Voigt inc. 41. P.Oxy. 2299 fr. 17.
      67. And Campbell-Voigt inc. 42. It's from P.Oxy. 2378 fr. a, with fr. b being, according to Lobel, a scholion relevant to ll. 8-10. Voigt text.
      68. And Campbell 214B; It's from P.Colon. 5860, which consists of a single-column fr. 1 and a two-column fr. 2, and seems to be a commentary with some quotations. Not sure how to find an image, taking Campbell's text as is.
      69. And finally two new fragments found in none of these critical editions. The first one being from P.GC. inv. 105 fr. 3 col. i and ll. 1-9 of col. ii, but it actually joins with LPC 18, which was formerly in category C but was relocated here to avoid too much number havoc in the Comparative Numbering table. The joint is as Obbink thinks it should be. It makes sense that they join, because P.GC. and P.Oxy. 1231 both have the same sequence of poems, and the two joint pieces come after the same poem, Divine Hera. Arranging the fragments so that beginnings and endings of lines from different fragments match up, one sees that "Divine Hera" has two lines missing at the end. After those two lines, the roll could well have ended, leaving the start of the following poem, the one at hand, to a new column, which has 4 lines lost and then the beginning of this thing. The same fragment, in col. ii, has three vanished lines and a barely readable one, which shows there was something in those lines, and the roll ended a little further up. Since this gives the roll more or less the expected dimension for something to be held in hand and read, it is safe to assume that we are right, and thus the first line on the papyrus is actually the fourth of the poem. I just realized I didn't transcribe col. ii at all. I will soon. col. i and col. ii may not be a single poem, but I'll make them a single fragment with "[fortasse explicit]" in the middle. Here is the note I'd written for LPC 18. «The second one [it was 2.C.ii] is UTL 11 LPC 18. It is from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 col. ii. The text is from LP + Italian edition. The letters that start ll. 1-2 are usually in angled brackets, but from LP's crit «spatio […] unius litt[eræ] relicto», «being there left the space for a single letter», it would seem my +…+ are the appropriate mark». LPC 18 was a beginnings fragment, P.GC. added ends to a number of lines.
      70. The second and last one being from same P.GC. fr. 4. Both of those depend solely on my own transcription of the image, and I have no idea if anyone discussed their ascription to Sappho, but since the P.GC. is a single scroll with Sappho Book 1 on it (AFAIK), these should belong there too. Hopefully those aren't doublets of other poems already present elsewhere on this blog. Warn me in the comments if you think otherwise :).
      The rest of P.Oxy. 2299 are, for some reason, not among Voigt's incerta, but can be found as LP Alc. 267 & 269-282. I won't include them because noone even mentions them in a Sappho or incerti auctoris section AFAIK.
    5. The fifth and last category, dubbed "SPU" or "SafoPoemas Unidentifiables", needs some introduction. I believe I mentioned this document in other posts, but let me assume I didn't. Back in the days, along the long and winding road of my first reconstruction and translation of Sappho, I found a document called safopoemas.doc. This contained a Spanish edition of Sappho whose Greek texts were unbelievably garbled, in the sense that they had typos galore, and weird typos too, the kind that might come from a lousy OCR software, combined with horribly wrong linebreaking which probably inspired by the line breaks in the verso libre translations. All in all, something you would hope never to be printed. This document followed Reinach's edition of Sappho, which was by then fairly outdated, added some variantes from Edmonds and other editions, and had a final section of no recopilados en la edicción de Reinach (not included in Reinach's edition). Most of the garbled texts could be identified with others from readable editions, but some, I just couldn't. These are what this category consists of. They will probably mostly be Gibberish, but I wanted to be sure to avoid not including anything from SP that was not elsewhere in my sources. While carefully matching everything I could to other editions, I figured out that two of the "unidentified" fragments were actually several identifiable ones smashed together: I'm talking about fr. 40, which contains cut-out versions of several fragment of P.Oxy. 1231 smashed together and separated by ||, with each fragment starting by its P.Oxy. fragment number. Similarly, P.Oxy. 1787 fragments were smashed into fr. 88. This means two things. Firstly, a notational issue, which I resolved by indicating the place a fragment appears in with [], so "40[11]" is the 11th fragment in fr. 40. Secondly, that some are actually not unidentified any more, since I have the volumes for both P.Oxy. 1231 and P.Oxy. 1787. So maybe this category should be dubbed SPNIOE, "SafoPoemas Not In Other Editions", or something to that effect. But I want to keep the original name.
      1. The first such fragment is Safopoemas 40[11]. It's from P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 24, and I'll use the Grenfell-Hunt text.
      2. Then we have safopoemas 40[16]. P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 37, again GH text.
      3. Then safopoemas 40[17]. P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 39, again GH text.
      4. Then there is safopoemas 88[1]. It's from P.Oxy. 2242 fr. 86 olim 1787 fr. 8, and I'm taking the GH text. For more on fr. 8 (and its cousin fr. 9), see item 2.D.xxiii.
      5. And finally safopoemas 207, our last one. This is an entry in the Hesychius lexicon. For extended discussion on this, see this Stack Exchange question. I honestly don't get what this gloss aims to tell us: is it actually glossing ὠράνα or Ὤρραννα χελίδον as "roof"? Was Hesychius out of his mind when he wrote it? How does "heavenly (swallow)", whose meaning is evident after a little exposure to Aeolic, get glossed as "roof"? Now that I've misread 123 as 122 in 5.C.ix and done a note for it that is wrong, I've seen Edmonds' suggestion that «οὐράνια χελίδων | ὤροφος·» fell off just before ὀροφή, and it seems to be the solution, even more than the most amended version I gave before this. ὤροφος would be neuter, like λῶπος=λώπη as we will see (well, I already have :) ) in 5.B.ii. Time to add it – and redo the note for 5.C.ix, of course.
      safopoemas 89 is in group 4, and that concludes this category, and the whole group. I expected more, but managed to identify more fragments than before :).
  3. The third group is that of quotations of one or max two single words, that is when other author say "Sappho used <word(s)> (which means <meaning>)".
    1. The first such quote is Lobel-Page 157 Campbell 157 Edmonds 177, extracted from the raw quote of Bergk 146. That's a quote from Etymologicum Genuinum, where we read «αὔως· ἡ ἠώς, τουτέστιν ἡ ἡμέρα. Οὕτως λέγεται παρ' Αἰολεῦσι, Σαπφώ· πότνια Αὔως», that is «αὔως: dawn, that is day. Thus it is called by the Aeolians, as in Sappho: [quote]». The only objection to this quote is the hiatus. Voigt mentions cases in which the hiatus exists in other poets (πότνια Ἤρη, πότνια Ἤβη), and cases where an elision avoids it (πότνι' Ἤρα in another Sappho poem). This explains why Edmonds elides this. I will stick to tradition. I think this might have been integrated into a P.Oxy. 1231 fragment with a δ' to avoid the hiatus.
    2. The second one is Lobel-Page 169 Campbell 169 Edmonds 183, coming from Bergk's raw-quote 151, which is wider than just this word. This is from a commentary on the Iliad, and specifically on the optative ἐπισχοίης, where we read «τῷ δὲ χαράκτηρι γενόμενον ὅμοιον τῷ ἰοίην καὶ ἀγαγοίην παρὰ Σαπφοῖ ... εἰκότως ἐβαρυτονήθη τὸ ἐπισχοίης», which Edmonds translates to «resembling in type the forms ἰοίην, "I might go", and ἀγαγοίην, "I might lead", in Sappho … the word ἐπισχοίης was rightly accented paroxytone». Of course, another word is in the quote, which is item xiv in this list. One might object that only the second word is clearly marked as Sappho, and only put that one as a Sappho quote, as Edmonds does, but I want to be sure anything ever attributed to Sappho is on this thing, and that first word is in Lobel-Page, so I include it. Naturally, the two words are verb forms of ἄγω and εἲμι.
    3. Then there is Lobel-Page 170, from the raw quote in Campbell 170 Edmonds 166 Bergk 129. This is a quote from Strabo's Geography, which I will only partly report. In my excerpt, we read «ὕστερον δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ ἀκρωτήριον Αἰγᾶ †κεκλῆσθαι†, ὡς Σαπφώ», «in the end that promontory was called Αἰγᾶ, Aegā, as Sappho called it». So this is a disquisition about the name of that promontory, which some call "the goat" (Αἶγα), but should, says Strabo, have a long final syllable, i.e. Αἴγα. That is the quoted word, modulo barytonesis. The name, whose Attic form is Αἴγη, seems to be shared by several mythological characters (says Wikipedia), and to be connected with either αἶξ (goat) or ἄιξ (gale of wind).
    4. Then Lobel-Page 171 Campbell 171 Edmonds 173 from the raw quote in Bergk 142. This is from Photius, who writes «ἄκακος· ὁ κακοῦ μὴ πεπειραμένος, οὐχ ὁ χρηστοήθης· οὕτω Σαπφώ», so «ἄκακος, innocent: the one who hasn't tried to work evil, not the one who is virtuous. Thus Sappho». So just a note on the use of this word, which is literally "unbad", so the explanation isn't entirely superfluous.
    5. Then there is Lobel-Page 172, part of Edmonds 28, and coming from the raw quote in Bergk 124. This is from Maxymus of Tyre, who wrote «ἡ Διοτίμα λέγει ὅτι θάλλει μὲν Ἔρως εὐπορῶν, ἀποθνήσκει δὲ ἀπορῶν· τοῦτο ἐκείνη (sc. ἡ Σαπφὼ) ξυλλαβοῦσα εἶπεν γλυκύπικρον καὶ ἀλγεσίδωρον», «Diotima says love blooms in abundance but dies in scarcity; gathering this, she (sc. Sappho) called (love) "sweet-sour" and "giver of pains"». Again, two words, but only one I decided to include. Well, I'll upturn that, since I have them both in distinct poems, and this item contains and (a) for γλυκύπικρον and a (b) for ἀλγεσίδωρον, both in the neuter casus recti form.
    6. Then we have Lobel-Page 173 Edmonds 174, coming from the raw quote in Campbell 173 Bergk 143. In this case, we have two quotes. The first one is from Choeroboscus commenting on Theodosius, where we read «ἀμαμάξυς ἀμαμάξυος (σημαίνει δὲ ἄμπελον ἀναδενδράδα), τὸ γὰρ παρὰ Σαπφοῖ ἀμαμάξυος παράλογὀν ἐστιν», that is «ἀμαμάξυς ἀμαμάξυος (means a tree-climbing grape-vine), for the genitive ἀμαμάξυδος in Sappho is irregular», and this is what Campbell offers first. Edmonds, instead, gives us Campbell's comparandum: «Σαπφὼ δὲ διὰ τοῦ δ ἀμαμαξύδες λέγει», «Sappho says ἀμαμαξύδες, with a delta», from Etymologicum Genuinum, so nominative plural. I'll give both forms separated by a slash. Why Edmonds would purposefully put the stress at the end in Aeolic is beyond me. I mean, even in Attic it's barytonetic, why make it oxytone in Aeolic when Aeolic is known to barytonize its words? My sources don't give me an etymology. The best I can do is guess ἀμάμαξυς < ἄμα + μάσσω, but "knead, press into a mould" doesn't seem to fit into this word. P. 383 here says the origin is unknown.
    7. Then Lobel-Page 174 Edmonds 175, coming from the raw quote in Campbell 174 Bergk 144. This is Orion's lexicon saying «ἀμάρα· ... παρὰ τὸ τῇ ἄμῃ αἴρεσθαι καὶ ὀρύττεσθαι· οὕτως ἐν ὑπομνήματι Σαπφοῦς», or in Edmonds' translation «ἀμάρα, conduit, from its being raised (αἴρεσθαι) or thrown up by means of a spade (ἄμη). So the Notes on Sappho». These "Notes on Sappho" were some commentary, "perhaps Chamaeleon's", says Campbell. In any case, the Etymologicum suggests ἀμάρα < ἀμ-+ἀρ-, the latter being a zero-grade of the stem of αἴρω. Makes sense. And then it was made feminine singular by adding -ᾱ.
    8. Then there is Lobel-Page 175 Campbell 175 Edmonds 176, from the raw quote in Bergk 145. This is Apollonius Dyscolus On Adverbs, where we read «ὃν τρόπον καὶ ἐπ' ὀνομάτων μεταπλασμοὶ γίνονται καθάπερ τὸ ἐρυσάρματες, τὸ λῖτα, τὸ παρὰ Σαπφοῖ αὔα», that is «In this way metaplasms happen also with nouns, just like ἐρυσάρματες (drawing chariots), λῖτα (linen cloth), and Sappho's αὔα (dawn)». So apparently this is a metaplasm, an invented nominative from which inflected forms are derived. Except Etymologicum Gudianum and Etymologicum Magnum report it as an actual word, by giving the accusative αὔαν as a synonym for the accusative ἠώ. Whatever the case, the word is reported below in this nominative form. This would appear to be an Aeolized Boeotian form, since ἠώς is ἄα in Boeotian, and adding the digamma from Aeolic αὔως into ἄα gives our form.
    9. Then we have Lobel-Page 176, from the raw quote in Campbell 176 Edmonds 178. We have two sources here. One is Athenaeus, where we read «τὸν γὰρ βάρωμον καὶ βάρβιτον, ὧν Σαπφὼ καὶ Ἀνακρέων μνημονεύουσι, καὶ τὴν μάγαδιν καὶ τὰ τρίγωνα καὶ τὰς σαμβύκας ἀρχαῖα εἶναι», which Campbell translates to «For, says Eyphorion, the bárōmos and the bárbitos, which Sappho and Anacreon mention, as well as the mágadis, the trígōnon and the sambȳ́ka, are all ancient instruments». Athenaeus also says, in book XIV (this was book IV), «βάρβιτος ἢ βάρμος, as though bárbitos and bármos were synonyms. There is then a couple Etymologica saying «οἱ Αἰολεῖς βάρμιτον αὐτὸ διὰ τοῦ 'μ' φασί», so the Aeolians call the bárbitos bármitos, with a mu. So what do we gather from this? Two words, for sure: one, (a), is bárōmos, and the other one, (b), is either bármitos (why would Sappho have used bárbitos if the Aeolic form was bármitos?) or bármos. Btw this also implies that the bárbiton in the Köln extras of Beautiful gifts of the Muses should be amended to bármiton. Luckily this doesn't involve correcting a papyrus since the word is a supplement. I suspect βάρμος is a contraction of βάρμιτος, but can't find an etymology for either that or βάρωμος. Wiktionary says they are all alternate forms of each other, and are of «uncertain, probably Phrygian» origin.
    10. Then we find Lobel-Page 177 Campbell 177 Edmonds 179, from the raw quote of Bergk 147. This one is easy: Pollux, in his Vocabulary, informs us that «βεῦδος, ὡς Σαπφώ, κιμβερικόν. ἔστι δὲ τὸ κιμβερικόν διαφανής τις χιτώνισκος», that is that Sappho calls a kimberikón, that is a transparent dress, beỹdos. Can't figure out where it comes from.
    11. Then we have Lobel-Page 179 Edmonds 180, from the raw quote in Campbell 179 Bergk 148. This is Phrynichus in his Introduction to learning telling us that «Σαπφὼ δὲ γρύτην καλεῖ τὴν μύρων καὶ γυναικείων τινῶν θήκην», so a grýta in Sappho is a container for womanly things like ointments. Campbell translates the word as vanity-bag, Edmonds as hutch. The latter is a display for things, which θήκη, "case, chest", doesn't seem to match. The former contains "bag", which is a definite mismatch. So what to make of this? It would seem to be the Sappho equivalent of a "makeup case", you know, that thing you open and you find lots of makeup items in and a mirror on the lid. The etymology is untraceable so that won't help. I guess I'll go with "makeup case" until I come up with a better option. It would seem the word also meant "trash", worthless things, like γρυμέα, which it is apparently related to, and is also related to Latin grumus, traced back to PIE by Wiktionary. Moreover, γρυμέα could mean chest but also bag, so maybe vanity-bag isn't that mismatching. Of course, this needs to be Aeolized, so we will have γρύταν, accusative as in the text.
    12. Then there is Lobel-Page 180, from the raw quote in Campbell 180 Edmonds 181 Bergk 149. This is a Hesychius gloss reading «ἕκτορες· πάσσαλοι ἐν ῥυμῷ, Σαπφὼ δὲ τὸν Δία, Λεωνίδης τὸν κροκύφαντον», which Edmonds translates to «ἕκτορες, "holders", the pegs on a carriage-pole; but Sappho calls Zeus "the Holder", and Leonidas uses "holder" to mean a hair-net». The word comes from ἐχ- + -τωρ, and means "those who hold something fixed". What Lobel-Page meant with «confundi videntur ἕστωρ et ἵστωρ», which means those two words are being confused here, is beyond me. Neither is mentioned in the quote. The latter means "one who knows" or "witness", trusting Wiktionary. the former means "peg", and it seems to be related to the word at hand. So is Lobel-Page suggesting Hesychius mixed up ἕκτωρ/ἕστωρ and ἵστωρ, and Sappho actually called Zeus ἵστωρ? Whatever the case, Hesychius quotes Sappho as calling Zeus Hector, so I'll have to have Δία Ἕκτορα in the quote, and add the surrounding text into the editions.
    13. Then we have Lobel-Page 181 Campbell 181 Edmonds 182, from the raw quote in Bergk 150. This is a commentary on Dionysius of Thrace telling us that «καὶ ἀνάπαλιν παρὰ τοῖς Αἰολεῦσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ 'δ' 'ζ' παραλαμβάνεται, ὡς ὅταν τὸ διάβατον ἡ Σαπφὼ ζάβατον λέγῃ», or in Campbell's translation «On the other hand among the Aeolians zeta is found instead of delta, e.g. when instead of διάβατον Sappho says ζάβατον, fordable». So this is straightforward.
    14. Then we find Lobel-Page 182 Campbell 182, part of the raw quote in Bergk 151 and of the pre-quote to Edmonds 183 which we saw above. Discussion at the related item, which is ii.
    15. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 183, used as an integration to Edmonds' version of Lobel-Page 47, and found in the raw quote of Bergk Alcaeus 131. This is Porphyrius in his Homeric Questions telling us that «Ἀλκαῖος δέ που καὶ Σαπφὼ τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνεμον κατώρη λέγουσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ κατωφερῆ τὴν ὁρμὴν ἔχειν», or in Campbell's translation «Alcaeus and Sappho call such a wind κατώρης, down-rushing, because of its downward motion». Then you look at Voigt, and Eustathius, in a sentence very similar to this, has ἄνεμον κατάρη. Two more sources support the omega though, so I'll keep the alpha option as a question-mark bracketed option. Edmonds takes this option, assumes the alpha is short, and integrates it into the "Love has shaken my heart" fragment. In effect, etymologically, κατάρης<κατὰ+ἀρ (from αἴρω) is very convincing, whereas κατώρης<κάτω+-ρης has an unexplained suffix, but 3 out of 4 sources corrupting the word the same way is way too unlikely IMO.
    16. Then we see Lobel-Page 184, from the raw quote in Campbell Edmonds 184 and Bergk 153. This is Choeroboscus in a commentary on the Canons of Theodosius, telling us «κίνδυν κίνδυνος· οὕτως δὲ ἔφη Σαπφὼ τὸν κίνδυνον», that is Sappho makes κίνδυνον, which should be second-declension, a third-declension noun. I'll have both the genitive and the nominative.
    17. Then there is Lobel-Page 185 Campbell 185 part 1 Edmonds 30 (e.g.) contained in the raw quote of Bergk 128. Here we have two quotes. One is from Philostratus's Imagines, going «μελίφωνοι· Σαπφοῦς τοῦτο δὴ τὸ ἡδὺ πρόσφθεγμα», that is «honey-voiced: this is indeed Sappho's delightful epithet». The other one is from Aristænetus's Love Letters, and reads «μελλιχόφωνοι· τοῦτο δὴ Σαπφοῦς τὸ ἥδιστον φθέγμα», «gentle-voiced: this is indeed Sappho's most delightful word». So it seems we have two words, unless we argue that the first quote was corrupted down to its present state from having the same word as the second one. Meh, not going to do that. And of course Edmonds does his thing, reconstructing an end of Sapphic stanza for this. See you in group 5 for that. So I'll say (a) and (b) here. Oh and former item xxvii gets thus swallowed into this one, since Campbell 185.2 becomes this item's (b).
    18. Then Lobel-Page 186 Campbell 186 Edmonds 185, from the raw quote in Bergk 154. This is a quote of Iohannes Alexandrinus in his Rules of Accentuation, where we read «τὸ γὰρ Μήδεϊα παρὰ Σαπφοῖ πεπονθὸς παραιτούμεθα, ὅτι τὴν 'ει' δίφθογγον διεῖλεν», that is, «we exclude the form Μήδεϊα in Sappho as corrupted, since she resolved the ει diphthong». And I perfectly agree, since that makes the word to be accented on the fourth-to-last syllable, which is too far back for Greek. As for the meaning, the immediate intuition is that it means Medea, but apparently some think it's a form of μήδεις, "no-one", most notably Voigt. Let's have a look at what she says. «Non esse nom[en] propr[ium] sed fem[ininum] voc[ativum] μηδείς cognovit *Maas», so it was Maas who suggested that this is a feminine vocative (singular, I guess) of μηδείς. I assume that would come from μηδὲ + ἴα, and get accented as μηδεΐα? Oh pardon me, the form is ἴᾰ, so by barytonesis we'd get μηδέϊα. Why would you conjecture a form like this though? I mean, yes, she resolves the diphthong, but that happens in Ἀτρεΐδαι too, so why not here? I'm sticking to Medea.
    19. Then there is Lobel-Page 187 Campbell 187 Edmonds 186, from the raw quote in Bergk 156. Thi s is from the Homeric Parsings: «καὶ ἡ γενικὴ τῶν πληθυντικῶν (sc. τοῦ Μοῦσα) Μωσάων παρὰ Λάκωσι, παρὰ δὲ Σαπφοῖ Μοισάων», «and the genitive of the plural (of Μοῦσα) is Μωσάων to the Laconians, and Μοισάων to Sappho». An archaic form before it contracted to Μοίσᾱν, I assume.
    20. Then we find Lobel-Page 188 Campbell 188, part of Edmonds 28, and extracted from the quote in Bergk 124, which has more than just that word, given it has both of Edmonds 28's two words. Actually, though, this is the continuation of item v, which reads «τὸν Ἔρωτα Σωκράτης σοφίστην λέγει, Σαπφὼ μυθόπλοκον», «Socrates calls love a sophist, Sappho a weaver of tales», and that is the word we'll have here.
    21. Then Lobel-Page 189 Edmonds 187, from the raw quote of Campbell 189 Bergk 157. This is Phrynicius telling us that «νίτρον· τοῦτο Αἰολεὺς μὲν ὰν εἴποι, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ διὰ τοῦ 'ν', Ἀθηναῖος δὲ διὰ τοῦ 'λ', λίτρον», «nítron: this is what an Aeolian would say, just like Sappho did too, with a nu; an Athenian would say it with a lambda, lítron». It appears there are Semitic cognates (or ancestors, perhaps) with an n-sound, so the original form should be the nu one, which is also the form we got in the nitro- prefix. Why the nu changed to lambda in Herodotian and Attic is beyond me, and what's weirder is that the lambda form is reported by the LSJ entry on Perseus as "older", which seems to be incorrect. Whatever the case, the word means "soda".
    22. Then we see Lobel-Page 190 Campbell 190 Edmonds 188, from the raw quote in Bergk 158. This is a commentary on the Iliad, specifically on the word ἄιδρεϊ, another word which would have spelling nazi John of Alexandria from a few items above tear his vest, apparently the dative of ἄιδρις, "unknowledgeable". The commenter says «ἀλλ' ὡς τὸ ἔχις, πόσις, ὄφις, οὕτως ὀφείλει κλίνεσθαι. ὥστε ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου ἁμάρτημα τὸ παρὰ τῇ Σαπφοῖ τὸ πολυΐδριδι, εἰ μὴ ἄρα ὁμοίως τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς ἐκλίθη. ὁ γὰρ Σοφοκλῆς ἴδριδα ἔφη», that is, «But like ἔχις, πόσις, ὄφις: thus it must be declined. Therefore from what we just said Sappho's πολυΐδριδι, "very knowledgeable", is an error, unless of course it was declined in a way similar to the Attics. Indeed, Sofocles said ἴδριδα, knowledgeable». So yeah, we have a word labeled as an error, and if it had not been, we wouldn't have it. Our quoter would have Sappho say πολυίδρει instead.
    23. To wrap up the category, we see Lobel-Page 191 Edmonds 64 (e.g.), from the raw quote in Campbell 191 Bergk 127. This is Pollux's Vocabulary telling us «Ἀνακρέων δὲ καὶ μύρτοις στεφανοῦσθαί φησι ... καὶ ἀνήτῳ, ὡς καὶ Σαπφὼ καὶ Ἀλκαῖος. οὗτοι δ' ἄρα καὶ σελίνοις», that is «Anacreon also mentions garlanding with myrtles … and dill, just like Sappho and Alcaeus. Those also mention celery». So what do we make of this? Do we keep σελίνοις as is? Do we restore the nominative? Do we also make it singular? Do we e.g. a possible context? That last thing is Edmonds' "privilege", so see you in group 5 about that. Moreover, it seems Choeroboscus knew that Aeolians say the word with a double nu, so σέλιννον, σέλιννα, σελίννοις. I think I'll keep the dative, in Aeolic form though.
    24. Or not, we still have the very problematic Lobel-Page 210, whose separate parts in category 4 are different versions of the quote giving the word / the two words. We have Photius, talking about a kind of wood called θάψος, who says Sappho called it "Scythian wood" (Σκυθικὸν ξύλον, uu–uu). Then a scholiast on Theocritus says Sappho called it σκυθάριον, presumably from Σκυθικός so uuuu, but then says she also used Σκυθικὸν ξύλον. So what is going on here? 4 short syllables in a row is not Aeolic meter, so either we discredit the scholar, or we assume Sappho also wrote prose at some point, or we have to fix that word. The change ρι>ρϳ>ρρ seems plausible, hence Edmonds' σκύθαρρον. I'll have both, one as Photius's version, the other as Edmonds' version.
    25. And Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 7, Edmonds Alc. 101. What we read in this Hesychius entry is «αυεουλλαι· ἄελλαι. παρὰ ἄκλω». This is very mysterious. It is a word for "winds" (ἄελλαι) found in some author. The word and author, however, are corrupt. Switching the kappa and lambda to read ἀλκω, we might interpret this as an abbreviated dative, for e.g. Ἀλκαίῳ. Not sure if there is another poet or writer with a name starting akl- or alk- and belonging to the second declension. So it seems this is Alcaeus, but I included it because it was incertum and I leave it because changing zillions of numbers in the Comparative Numbering table is way too boring and if this is Aeolic who knows if Sappho used the word. What word, by the way? ἄελλα<ἄημι, which had a digamma originally: ἄϝημι. Thus, a form ἄϝελλαι isn't implausible. One could even imagine the digamma vocalizing to give αὔελλαι. But what on earth is that extra ου? Let me add an items list for an Edmonds mess.
      • Edmonds amends this to αὔϝολλαι, commenting «E, =ἀϝέολϳαι cf. σπολέω and στελώ, ἀόλλης and ἀέλλης, Αἴολος=ἄϝϳολος for ἀϝέολος: for υϝ cf. 33: mss αὐεοῦλλαι».
      • His 33 is «Αἰολεῖς νάεσσι· κἀπιπλεύϝην νάεσσιν Ἀλκαῖος» (Aeolians say νάεσσι: "and to sail on ships", said Alcaeus), with note «νάεσσι E: mss A.O. νέασσι: -πλεύϝην E, cf. on 2. 2: mss -πλεύσειν: Β. -πλεύσῃ», with Campbell reading κἀπιπλεύσαις, which isn't weird but has two letter changes… oh wait, Edmonds changes the sigma to digamma and the ei to eta, so he's the further one here. Campbell wins.
      • In his 2 l. 2 we find αὔϝαις at the end, with note «αὔϝαις=ἀϝίαις E, cf. ἄημι, Hesych. ἄος· πνεῦμα, Theocr. 30. 5 παραύϝαις (ms παραύλ.)=παρηΐαις: mss αὐγαῖς, ἄγναις», and Campbell reads κορύφαισ' ἐν αὔταις instead of κορύφαισιν αὔϝαις, and Edmonds also amends μίγεισα, which is perfectly fitting the context, to μάεισα, oh but the manuscripts had μαεία / μεγίστα, and apparently Edmonds is closest to tradition on both counts… what a mess.
      It seems to me he is arguing for a ϝϳ>ϝϝ>υϝ sound change… except every etymology he gives is a different change or something. This guy is crazy, that's my final answer :). Lobel-Page is also puzzling: «vulgo αὔελλαι (contra litterarum ordinem) corrigunt, debebant ἄυελλαι (ubi ου pro υ=ϝ accipi poterat), sed in re et auctore incert[is] nihil tentandum», or «"vulgo" corrects this into αὔελλαι (against the order of the letters), they should have made it ἄυελλαι (where the ου could have been taken as a υ=ϝ), but with form and author uncertain nothing must be attempted». Campbell takes this up, and Voigt straight-up refuses to deal with this monster: OMISSUM. So LP's idea would be: drop the first upsilon, take the oy for a digamma, swap it with the epsilon, and get ἄυελλαι/ἄϝελλαι. Um, 'xcuse me, how exactly is this not "contra litterarum ordinem"? Or are you saying ἄυεϝλλαι which isn't even acceptable in terms of accent (John of Alexandria do you see this?)? Let me try being etymologically bold. αἤμι, we know, comes from *h₂weh₁-, "to blow". There is then a root *welH-, "to turn". ἄελλα means whirlwind, so "turn" isn't extraneous. Let's try sticking those roots together: *h₂weh₁-welH-. In Hellenic, such a combination would seem to evolve to *ǝwē-well-. Maybe ἀϝέϝελλαι, then? Maybe the result was actually *ǝwe-well > ἀϝεϝελλ, which was then made into a noun of the first declension, somehow getting a short -ă ending *ǝwewellă > ἀϝέϝελλα, then one ϝε dropped out and the stress shifted back, but Aeolic somehow retained both, and had αὐέϝελλαι, which corrupted to αυεουλλαι? Seems plausible to me, and isn't "contra litterarum ordinem" in any way. Until a linguist points out something that doesn't work here, this is my guess for this mysterious word. I asked about this on Quora, awaiting an answer.
    26. Then we have Campbell 169A, included in Edmonds 66's critical note. Thanks to Hesychius, we know that ἀθρήματα means «δῶρα πεμπόμενα παρὰ τῶν συγγενῶν ταῖς γαμουμέναις παρθένοις παρὰ Λεσβίοις», «gifts sent by the parents to the maidens that are getting married among the Lesbians», so it's a Lesbian term for bridal gifts.
    27. Then we find Edmods 63, which Lobel-Page and Campbell see as integrated in their 44, and Bergk has as a raw quote in his 155. This is Antiatticist telling us «μύρραν τὴν σμύρναν Σαπφὼ δευτέρῳ», that is Sappho called myrrh μύρρα instead of σμύρνα in her book 2. This was, of course, integrated into Sappho 44 aka Hector and Andromacha, but let us not forget we were told this.
    28. Then we have Edmonds 88. This is Hasychius giving us «Τιμαδία· μικρὰ Τιμάς», so a diminutive of Timas. I guess it should be barytonized though. Why do LP and followers not include this, I wonder? Well, whatever.
    29. Then there is Bergk 141, which mentions the fact Sappho used a word seen in Lobel-Page 136. This is a raw quote from the Suidas saying «Ἀηδὼν καὶ ἀηδοῦς ὡς Σαπφὼ κατὰ Μιτυληναίους», «ἀηδών ἀηδοῦς, as Sappho said in the fashion of the Mitylenians». A nominative and a genitive, then, which need barytonesis.
  4. The fourth group consists of quotations from other authors with references to Sappho which have no clearly extractable quotations. These will not be included because I am too lazy to copy them all (the excerpts are way longer than the average Sappho fragment), but I want to give the comparative numbering. When I say "Edmonds L<number>.<number2>", it means it's found in the "Life of Sappho" section, on page <number>, and is number <number2> on that page. Campbell's Testimonia will be denoted by prefixing a T to their number.
    1. First up is Lobel-Page 105(b). Himerius in his orations tells us «Σαπφοῦς ἦν ἄρα μήλῳ μὲν εἰκάσαι τὴν κόρην ... τὸν νυμφίον τε Ἀχιλλεῖ παρομοιῶσαι καὶ εἰς ταὐτὸν ἀγαγεῖν τῷ ἤρωι τὸν νεανίσκον ταῖς πράξεσι», or in Campbell's translation «It was Sappho who compared the girl to an apple … and likened the bridegroom to Achilles and put the young man on a par with the hero in his achievements».
    2. Then we have Lobel-Page 110(b). Demetrius, in his On Style, aka De Elocutione, tells us «Ἄλλως δὲ σκώπτει (¨η Σαπφὼ) τὸν ἄγροικον νυμφίον καὶ τὸν θυρωρὸν τὸν ἐν τοῖς γάμοις εὐτελέστατα καὶ ἐν πεζοῖς ὀνόμασι μᾶλλον ἢ ἐν ποιητικοῖς», which Campbell translates as «In different vein (than fr. 195, which is item vi in this group) Sappho makes very cheap fun of the rustic bridegroom and the door-keeper at the wedding, using prosaic rather than poetic language».
    3. We then find Lobel-Page and Campbell 140(b) Edmonds 104. Pausanias, while describing Greece, says «Σαπφὼ δὲ ἡ Λεσβία τοῦ Οἰτολίνου τὸ ὄνομα ἐκ τῶν ἐπῶν τῶν Πάμφω μαθοῦσα Ἄδωνιν ὁμοῦ καὶ Οἰτόλινον ᾖσεν», «And Sappho, having learned the name Oitolinus from the hymns of Pamphos, sang of Adonis and Oitolinus together».
    4. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 193 Edmonds 11 (e.g.). This is an excerpt of Aristides' orations, which will be quoted in full when we get to Edmonds' fr. 11, which is an e.g. reconstruction of part of this, so I send you over there for more.
    5. We continue with Lobel-Page Campbell 194. This is an excerpt of Himerius's orations. I wanted to summarize it, but I can't, so I think I'll just copypaste Campbell's translation: «The rites of Aphrodte were left (by other poets) to the Lesbian Sappho alone to sing to the lyre and form into the epithalamium. After the contests she goes into the bridal chamber, garlands the room and makes up the bed, then she (gathers?) the girls into the bridal room and brings in Aphrodite herself on the Graces' chariot with her chorus of Loves to join in the fun. She binds Aphrodite's hair in hyacinth except for what is parted by her brow; this she lets ripple in whatever breezes may blow. She adorns the Loves' wings and tresses with gold and urges them on in procession before the chariot waving their torches in the air».
    6. Then we have Lobel-Page Campbell 195 Edmonds 165. Demetrius On Style again: «Διὸ καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ περὶ μὲν κάλλους ᾄδουσα καλλιεπής ἐστι καὶ ἡδεῖα, καὶ περὶ ἐρώτων δὲ καὶ ἔαρος καὶ περὶ ἀλκύονος, καὶ ἅπαν καλὸν ὄνομα ἐνύφανταιν αὐτῆς τῇ ποιήσει, τὰ δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ εἰργάσατο», «Due to this Sappho, singing of beauty, is beautiful-worded and sweet, as when she sings of loves and spring and the halycon, and every beautiful word is woven into her poetry, and some of them she created herself».
    7. We proceed with Lobel-Page Campbell 196 Edmonds 90 (e.g.) Bergk 126. Aelius Aristides' Orations, and since this originated an e.g. in Edmonds, it will be quoted in full down at the relevant item of group 5.
    8. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 197 Edmonds 84A (e.g.). Libanius' Orations, «Εἰ οὖν Σαπφὼ τὴν Λεσβίαν οὐδὲν ἐκώλυσεν εὔξασθαι νύκτα αὐτῇ γενέσθαι διπλασίαν, ἐξέστω κἀμοί τι παραπλήσιον αἰτῆσαι», «If then nothing prevented Sappho the Lesbvian from praying that the night be made double (in length) for her, let me also be allowed to ask something similar». This, as I realized while copying the Greek, originated an Edmonds e.g., which will therefore have a shorter note down in group 5.
    9. Then we find Lobel-Page Campbell 198.1 Edmonds 31.1 (e.g.) Bergk 130.1. Scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes, again an e.g., so despite being short, I'll send you down to group 5 for this too.
    10. Then Lobel-Page Campbell 198.2 Edmonds 31.2 Bergk 130.2. Scholiast on Theocritus, «Ἀλκαῖος (τὸν Ἔρωτα εἶπεν) Ἴριδος καὶ Ζεφύρου, Σαπφὼ Ἀφροδίτης καὶ Οὐρανοῦ», «Alcaeus said Eros was the child of Iris and Zephyr, Sappho that he was the child of Aphrodite and Heaven», well, I guess she didn't have a clear idea of godly genealogies then :).
    11. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 198.3 Edmonds 31.3 Bergk 130.3. Pausanias, Description of Greece, «Σαπφὼ δὲ ἡ Λεσβία πολλά τε καὶ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντα ἀλλήλοις ἐς Ἔρωτα ᾖσε», «Sappho the Lesbian sang many things and not agreeing with each other about Eros», welp, I guess I wasn't the only one to think so then :).
    12. Then we find Lobel-Page Campbell 199 Edmonds 167 Bergk 132. This is a quote from a scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius. It's pretty short, so I can just quote it directly: «λέγεται δὲ κατέρχεσθαι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ ἄντρον (sc. τὸ Λάτμιον) τὴν Σελήνην πρὸς Ἐνδυμίωνα. περὶ δὲ τοῦ τῆς Σελήνης ἔρωτος ἱστοροῦσι Σαπφὼ καὶ Νίκανδρος ἐν βʹ Εὐρώπειας», this is Campbell's text, which he translates as «The story goes that Selene comes down to this cave (on Mt. Latmios) to meet Endymion. Sappho and Nicander in Europia Book 2 tell the story of the love of Selene (the Moon)». The text is not uncontroversial, however. Indeed, Edmonds, LP, and safopoemas have «περὶ δὲ τοῦ τῆς Σελήνης ἔρωτος ἱστοροῦσι Σαπφὼ καὶ Νίκανδρος ἐν δευτέρῳ Εὐρώπης· λέγεται δὲ κατέρχεσθαι ἐς τοῦτο τὸ ἄντρον (LP τὸ Λάτμιον) τὴν Σελήνην πρὸς Ἐνδυμίωνα», which basically swaps the two sentences, and changes Εὐρωπείας to Εὐρώπης. And Bergk is even worse: «περὶ δὲ τὸν τῆς Σελήνης ἔρωτα ἱστοροῦσι Σαπφὼ καὶ Νίκανδρος ἐν δευτέρῳ Εὐρώπης· λέγεται δὲ κατέρχεσθαι ἐς τοῦτο τὸ ἄντρον τὴν Σελήνην πρὸς Ἐνδυμίωνα καθεύδοντα ἐν τῷ Λάτμῳ τῷ ὄρει». So Bergk has an accusative instead of a genitive for the love, which I would correct to a genitive myself since AFAIK the topic construction is περὶ + genitive, not accusative; he also has an extra bit of sentence at the end, as will often happen in testimonia, because everyone includes what they want. The extra bit is «(Endymion) sleeping on Mt. Latimos», and btw it should be Λατμίῳ instead of Λάτμῳ. So that's Bergk. Of the changes from LP to Voigt, I can only justify the title change, because probably the book that was referred to is actually called Europia instead of Europa. Why the sentences would be swapped, no idea. Oh btw, Edmonds has an extra sentence in square brackets at the beginning: «οὐκ ἄρ' ἐγὼ μούνη μετὰ Λάτμιον ἄντρον ἀλύσκω», which is a hexameter, and is probably the passage the scholiast is commenting on in this quote. Edmonds translates it to «So I am not the only visitant of the Latmian cave».
    13. Then Lobel-Page Campbell 200 Edmonds 33 (e.g.) Bergk 133. This is a scholiast on Hesiod telling us that «Σαπφὼ δέ φησι τὴν Πειθὼ Ἀφροδίτης θυγατέρα», «Sappho calls Peitho "daughter of Aphrodite"», and Edmonds reconstracted a Sapphic hendecasyllabic out of that, as you shall see in group 5.
    14. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 202.1 Edmonds L140.2. This is Herodotus telling us Rhodopis (aka Doricha, it seems, from the following) was brought to Aegypt by Xanthes the Samian, but then Charaxus, Sappho's brother, paid lots to free her, and was "roundly abused" (Campbell's translation) by Sappho upon coming home. The abusive poem is lost as far as I know. The P.Sapph. Obbink poem somewhere in group 1 (ἀλλ' ἄϊ θρύλησθα) doesn't seem to abuse him, Κύπρι καὶ Νηρήϊδες does neither, and wasn't written with him in Mytilene, and Αἰ κλύτων, assuming Edmonds' restoration is right, mentions ἔμ' ὄνειδος, my reproach, as a factor of sadness for Charaxus, so it must have been written after this poem was. Can't think of anything alse addressed to her brother. Oh well, the Curse. I wonder if the stanzas above were the famous "abuse"…
    15. Then we find Lobel-Page Campbell 202.2 Edmonds L140.4. This is Strabo, telling us in his Geography that «Λέγεται δὲ τῆς ἑταίρας τάφος γεγονὼς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐραστῶν, ἣν Σαπφὼ μὲν ἡ τῶν μελῶν ποιήτρια καλεῖ Δωρίχαν, ἐρωμένην τοῦ ἀδελφῦ αὐτῆς Χαράξου γεγονυῖαν οἶνον κατάγοντος εἰς Ναύκρατιν Λέσβιον κατ' ἐμπορίαν, ἄλλοι δ' ὀνομάζουσι Ῥοδῶπιν», or in Campbell's translation «It [one of the pyramids near Memphis] is called the tomb of the prostitute, and it was built by her lovers; the lyrics poetess Sappho calls the woman Doricha, and she was the mistress of Sappho's brother Charaxus, who imported Lesbian wine to Naucratis; other writers call her Rhodopis», like Herodotus, it would seem.
    16. Then we get Lobel-Page Campbell 202.3, part of Edmonds L148.2. Athenaeus comes again to the topic of Doricha, saying she was one of the "famous prostitutes" of Naucratis and she became Charaxus's mistress, and Sappho was mad as hell with her and talked mad shit in her poems, «on grounds that she robbed him of large sums», as Campbell translates. I start to understand where Edmond's κύνν' ἐρέμνα restoration in Κύπρι καὶ Νηρήϊδες comes from.
    17. We then continue with Lobel-Page Campbell 202.4. Photius and Suda, again about Rhodopis. «(Ἡ Ῥοδῶπις) ἦν δὲ Θρᾷσσα τὸ γένος, ἐδούλευσε δὲ σὺν Αἰσώπῳ Ἰάδμονι Μυτιληναίῳ, ἐλυτρώσατο δ' αὐτὴν Χάραξος ὁ Σαπφοῦς ἀδελφός· ἡ δὲ Σαπφὼ Δωρίχαν αὐτὴν καλεῖ», or as Campbell would have it «Rhodopis was Thracian by birth; along with Aesop she was the slave of the Mytilenaean Iadmon; she was ransomed by Charaxus, the brother of Sappho; Sappho calls her Doricha», always the same story. Is that Aesop the Aesop, or another Aesop?
    18. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 202.5. Appendix to the proverbs, whatever that is, tells us that «Ἡ Ῥοδῶπις ἑταίρα ἦν περὶ Ναύκρατιν τῆς Αἰγύπτου, ἧς καὶ Σαπφὼ μνημονεύει καὶ Ἡρόδοτος», «Rhodopis was a b**ch near Naucratis of Egypt, whom both Sappho and Herodotus mention».
    19. Then we have Campbell T1, including both Lobel-Page 202.6 and Lobel-page 203.3. This is a sort of biography of Sappho, from P.Oxy. 1800 with a billion supplements which must come from somewhere else, presumably the sum of the other testimonia put togehter to fill up the gaps in this P.Oxy., which seems to have been quite a tatter. Image unavailable, but from the Grenfell-Hunt transcription (or whoever publish The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. XV) it would seem it's a two-column fragment whose first column is initially ends of lines, then a left-side segment starts and eventually joins with the right to give full lines, whereas column 2 is line beginnings. Anyways, Sappho was Lesbian, from Mytilene, her father was Scamander or Scamandronymus depending on who you ask, she had three brothers, Erigyius, Larichus, and Charaxus, the eldest, then we have the usual Doricha yada-yada, Sappho was more fond of young Larichus, both her mother and her daughter were called Cleis, she was accused of being "irregular in her ways and a woman-lover" (which is why "Lesbian" is now commonly used to mean something different from "person coming from Lesbos"), she was apparently quite ugly, dark-skinned, and about as dwarf-small as Alcaeus (or whatever name was lost in that passage), she wrote using the [Aeolic] dialect, 8/9 books of lyric poems, and one more of elegiacs (and more?). General info.
    20. We then find Lobel-Page 203.1 Campbell 203.1 Edmonds L142.1. Athenaeus tells us «Σαπφώ τε ἡ καλὴ πολλαχοῦ Λάριχον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἐπαινεῖ ὡς οἰνοχοοῦντα ἐν τῷ πρυτανείῳ τοῖς Μυτιληναίοις», «The beautiful Sappho often praises her brother Larichus because he poured the wine for the Mytilenaeans in the town-hall».
    21. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 203.2. Scholiast on the Iliad, says «Ἔθος γὰρ ἦν, ὡς καὶ Σαπφώ φησι, νέους εὐγενεῖς οἰνοχοεῖν», «It was customary, as Sappho also says, for handsome young noblemen to pour wine».
    22. We then get Lobel-Page Campbell 204.1 Edmonds 110 (e.g.) Bergk 135.2. Scholiast on Pindar, «ἄφθιτον δὲ αὐτὸ εἶπε καθὸ χρυσοῦν ἦν· ὁ δὲ χρυσὸς ἄφθαρτος. καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ ‹ › ὅτι Διὸς παῖς ὁ χρυσός, κεῖνον οὐ σὴς οὐδὲ κὶς δάπτει, βροτεᾶν φρένα κράτιστον φρενῶν», the text being Edmonds' save for the lacuna which is Edmonds', apparently this is about a passage where Pindar says ἄφθιτον στρωμνάν, "imperishable coverlet", as Campbell translates it, that is the golden fleece, and the scholiast comments «he called it "imperishable" because it was golden: and gold is indestructible. And Sappho (says) gold is the son of Zeus, and neither moths nor weeviles devour it, (but it seduces) the thought which is the best thought of mortals». OK, so the lacuna seems like it should only contain a verb like "says", which could even be implied, yet Campbell seems to assert there should be other names in there among which at least Pindar, and in fact that the Sappho passage this refers to should be there, whereas this "gold is the son of Zeus" is Pindar. But why? Voigt says «S(apphonis) verba intercidisse, proxima recte Pi(ndaro) adsignare Schol(iasta) Hes(iodi) Op(era et Dies) 428 [Op(era et Dies) 430-436 p. 149 Pert.] vid(it) Schneider, Pindari Fragm(enta), p. 94. – prim(um) rec(te) Steph.», «Schneider saw that the words of Sappho had fallen off and the following ones were assigned to Pindar by the Scholiast on Hesiod, Works and Days, 428 [W. and D. 430-436 p. 149 Pert.], in his Fragments of Pindar, p. 94 – Steph. first had that right». So apparently another scholiast assigns these words to Pindar, and we even have the original passage (or do we? Not sure if Schneider just quoted the scholiast as a testimonium or had the actual passage on p. 94). Weeeel… so what? Maybe both said this? Why does the fact Pindar said this prevent Sappho from having said it? It is a bit strange that this scholiast would quote Sappho about saying something that Pindar also said, when he was commenting on Pindar, sure. But still.
    23. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 204.2 Edmonds 109 (e.g.) Bergk 135.1. Pausanias in Description of Greece, «κεράτινα δὲ καὶ ὀστέϊνα, σίδηρός τε καὶ χαλκός, ἔτι δὲ μόλιβος καὶ κασσίτερος καὶ ἄργυρος καὶ τὸ ἤλεκτρον ὑπὸ τούτου σήπεται τοῦ ὕδατος· τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ μετάλλοις τοῖς πᾶσι καὶ ὁ χρυσὸς πέπονθε· καίτοι γε καθαρεύειν γε τὸν χρυσὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰοῦ, ἥ τε ποιητρία μάρτυς ἐστὶν ἡ Λεσβία καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ χρυσὸς ἐπιδείκνυσιν. ἔδωκε δ' ἄρα ὁ θεὸς τοῖς μάλιστα ἀπερριμμένοις κρατεῖν τῶν ὑπερηρκότων τῇ δόξῃ», in Edmonds' text (Campbell drops the γε after καίτοι), and Edmonds' translation reads «Things of horn and of bone, iron and copper, lead and tin and silver and electrum, all are corroded by the water; and gold suffers like other metals; and yet, that gold remains pure of rust is both declared by the Lesbian poetess and proved by our own experience. It seems that God has given the least-considered of things power over those that are deemed to be of great price».
    24. Then we have Lobel-Page Campbell 205 Edmonds 168. Aulus Gellius in Attic Nights, «Homerus pueros puellasque eius (sc. Niobæ) bis senos dicit fuisse, Euripides bis septenos, Sappho bis novenos, Bacchylides et Pindarus bis denos, quiidam alii scriptores tres fuisse solos dixerunt», «Homer says her (i.e. Niobe's) children were twice six, Euripides that they were twice seven, Sappho that they were twice nine, Bacchylides and Pindar that they were twice ten, some other writers have said that they were only three», and the only passage we don't have is Sappho's.
    25. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 206 Edmonds 169 Bergk 136. Servius on Virgil Aeneid book 6 line 21, «Quidam semptem pueros et septem puellas accipi volunt, et Plato dicit in Phaedone et Sappho in lyricis et Bacchylides in dithyrambis et EUribides in Hercule, quos liberavit secum Theseus», «Some think seven boys and seven girls are meant (as the victims of the Minotaur), as Plato has it in the Phaedo and Sappho in her lyric poems and Bacchylides in his dithyrambs and Euripides in the Hercules. Theseus freed them along with himself», and again the only passage we have lost is Sappho's.
    26. Then we have Lobel-Page Campbell 207 Edmonds 170 Bergk 137. Servius on Virgil Eclogæ VI 42, «Prometheus […] post factos a se homines dicitur […] ignem furatus, quem hominibus indicavit. Ob quam causam irati dii duo mala immiserunt terris, mulieres et morbos, sicut et Sappho et Hesiodus memorant», «Prometheus […] is said to, after he created men, […] have stolen fire, which he revealed to men. For this reason the gods, angered, sent two evils to earth, women and diseases, as both Sappho and Hesiod remind us», whoa there with the sexism, and of course, Hesiod's passage is available in the Theogony, Sappho's is lost.
    27. Then we have Lobel-Page Campbell 208 Edmonds 172 Bergk 139. Himerius Orations, telling us Sappho describes Apollo, the leader of the Muses, as a golden-haired lyre carrier, when they «send him drawn by swans to Mount Helicon to dance there with the Muses and Graces» (translation by Campbell), just like Pindar in his third Pæan.
    28. Then we have Lobel-Page Campbell 209 Edmonds 92 (e.g.) Bergk 140. Eustathius in a letter, writing, as Edmonds reports, «Τούτους σου τοὺς κατασκόπους οὐ πόρνη κατὰ τὴν ὑμνουμένην Ἱεριχουντίαν ἐκείνην τῷ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τόπου καλῷ παρενέρριψε, φιλία τις δηλαδὴ πολυρέμβαστος καὶ καλὸν δοκοῦσα, εἴποι ἂν ἡ Σαπφώ, δημόσιον, ἀλλὰ καὶ καθαρά, καὶ κατὰ τὴν παρ' Ἡσιόδῳ Δίκην παρθένος, καὶ ‹τοῖς› πολλοῖς ἀνομίλητος», translated by Edmonds to «These spies were introduced into my estate by no harlot like her of Jericho, a friendship I mean of a vagrant sort which deems, as Sappho would say, a public thing beautiful, but a pure one and as virgin as Hesiod's Justice, unapproachable to the many».
    29. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 210.1 Bergk 159. Photius in his lexicon entry on θάψος says «ξύλον ᾣ ξανθίζουσι τὰ ἔρια καὶ τὰς τρίχας· ὁ Σαπφὼ Σκυθικὸν ξύλον λέγει», so the "fustic" is «a wood with thich they dye wool and hair yellow; which Sappho calls Scythian wood». This, and 210.2(b) below, is the source of the Σκυθικὸν ξύλον version of one of the single-word quotes above.
    30. Then we have Lobel-Page Campbell 210.2(a) Edmonds 189. Scholiast on Theocritus, «σκυθάριον, ὥς φησι Σαπφώ», «skythárion, as Sappho says». Let's get more from Edmonds: «[καί μευ χρὼς μὲν ὅμοιος ἐγίνετο πολλάκι θάψῳ]· χλωρὸς ἢ ξανθός· θάψος δέ ἐστιν εἶδος ξύλου ὃ καλεῖται σκυθάριον, ὥς φησι Σαπφώ· τούτῳ δὲ τὰ ἔρια βάπτουσι. Τινὲς τὸ Σκυθικὸν ξύλον», «[And my body often became similar to thápsos]: green or yellow; thápsos is a type of wood which is called skythárion, as Sappho says; with this they dye wool. Some (call) it Schythian wood». This would definitely point to Sappho having used the word skythárion, perhaps even saying that thápsos is called skythárion. The problem is these are all short vowels, and three shorts in a row is not Aeolic meter. So what do we do? Do we assume this guy mixed some stuff up and Sappho actually said Schythian wood, or do we assume he just wrote an Attic form where the Aeolic form, otherwise unattested, was σκύθαρρον? I kept both above.
    31. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 210.2(b). Hesychius entry for θάψος, glossed as «Σκυθικὸν ξύλον, ὥς φησι καὶ Σαπφώ», «Scythian wood, as Sappho also says».
    32. Then there is Lobel-Page Campbell 211(a). Pseudo-Palæphatus On Incredible Events, talking about Phaon, the supposed lover of Sappho, or rather the man whom Sappho threw herself off a cliff out of love for. A simple fisherman, apaprently, fishing in a strait with his boat, and taking money only from the rich. Noone complained about him, in fact people marvelled at his way of life. Legend has it Aphrodite approved of him, so put him to the test by appearing to him as a woman and asking him to carry him across the strait, which he promptly did for no reward, and she was happy with that and rewarded him with youth and beauty, and Sappho's love too apparently. Except someone els, a scholiast on Libanius (we shall see), says the Sappho who threw herself off a cliff for Phaon was not the poetess, but another Lesbian.
    33. Then Lobel-Page Campbell 211(b.i). Aelian in Historical Miscellanea, saying «Τὸν Φάωνα κάλλιστον ὄντα ἀνθρώπων ἡ Ἀφροδίτη ἐν θριδακίνοις ἔκρυψε», «Being he the most beautiful of men, Aphrodite hid Phaon among lettuces». Whence the story of finding babies under cabbages. Nah, just kidding here :).
    34. We then see Lobel-Page Campbell 211(b.ii). Athenæus, our longtime friend, saying that Callimachus reports the legend in the above item, while Eubulus in "The Impotent Man" says «Ἐν τῷ λαχάνῳ τούτῳ γάρ, ὡς λόγος, ποτὲ | Τὸν Ἄδωνιν ἀποθάνοντα προὔθηκεν Κύπρις», a couple nice iambic tetrameters saying Aphrodite (the Cypris) laid out dead Adonis in "these vegetables", so apparently Adonis and Phaon end up being identified or confused, and then there is Cratinus, reporting she hid Phaon, whom she loved (that's how beautiful this guy was), among "fair lettuces", while Marsyas says it was among green barley. So a lot of variations of this story.
    35. We continue with Lobel-Page Campbell 211(b.iii). Comes Natalis, Mythology, «Scriptum reliquit Sappho Adonim mortuum fuisse a Vener inter lectucas depositum», «Sappho has left a written record that the dead Adonis was laid out among lettuces by Venus», as Campbell translates.
    36. We proceed with Lobel-Page Campbell 211(c). This is from book XXII of Pliny the Elder's Natural History. Campbell and Voigt's text reads «portentosum est quod de ea (sc. erynge) traditur, radicem eius alterutrius sexus similitudinem referre, raro inventu, set si viris contigerit mas, amabilis fieri; ab hoc et Phaonem Lesbium dilectum a Sappho», which he translates to «The story about the erynge ('sea-holly') is remarkable: its root, they say, takes the shape of either the male or the female sex-organ; it is rarely so found, but if men find the male shape, they become sexually attractive; it was this, they say, that made Sappho fall in love with Phaon of Lesbos». Compared to the LP text, we have LP's "amabiles" turned to "amabilis", and LP's "raro invento" turned to "raro inventu". Now the second change I agree with, because "rare to find" would seem the thing here, hence the "inventu". I would even change "raro" to "rarum", but maybe it goes with "inventu" to form some kind of complement all in the ablative. The first change, however, is unjustified to me. I mean, it would seem the adjective refers to "viris", plural, so why make it nominative singular? Unless Campbell was going for archaic -is plural, but why? Maybe it pairs with "set" for "sed" though… Idk.
    37. We end Lobel-Page with Lobel-Page Campbell 212. Comes Natalis Mythology, like two items above, «Memoriæ prodit Sappho primum Acheloum vini mistionem […] invenisse», «Sappho records that Achelous first invented the mixing of wine».
    38. We open the Voigt testimonia with Campbell's first 117A, which is Voigt 194A. Michael of Italy saying this, basically a praise of Sappho's songs, and a mention of her comparing «bridegrooms to prize-winning horses» and «brides to the tenderness of roses», and their voice more tuneful than the lyre. This sounds like πόλυ πάκτιδος ἀδυμελεστέρα. I wonder if it came from here…
    39. We continue with Voigt 203b. Eustathius, «Σαπφὼ δὲ ἡ καλὴ τὸν Ἑρμῆν οἰνοχοεῖν φησι θεοῖς [...] ἡ δ' αὐτὴ Σαπφὼ καὶ τὸν Λάριχον ἀδελφὸν αὐτῆς ἐπαινεῖ ὡς οἰνοχοοῦντα ἐν τῷ πρυτανείῳ τῆς Μυτιλήνης», «And the beautiful Sappho says Hermes poured wine to the gods […] and the same Sappho also praises her brother Larichus because he poured wine in the town-hall of Mytilene». For the first statement cfr. "Even gods celebrate marriages" (a post title), for the second one, cfr. 4.xx.
    40. Then there is Voigt 205.2. Aelius, «Ὅμηρος μὲν ἓξ λέγει ἄρρενας καὶ τοσαύτας κόρας (τοὺς τῆς Νιόβης παῖδας), Λάσος δὲ δὶς ἑπτὰ λέγει, Ἡσίοδος δὲ ἐννέα καὶ δέκα [...] Ἀλκμὰν δέκα φησί, Μίμνερμος εἴκοσι, καὶ Πίνδαρος τοσούτους», «Homer says (the children of Niobe) were six boys and just as many girls, Lasos says they were twice seven, Hesiod that they were nine and ten […] Alcman says they were ten, Mimnermus twenty, and Pindar just as many», so this is just a comparandum to 4.xxiv.
    41. And Voigt 210(II.2). This is another Hesychius gloss related to thápsos/skythárion, where he glosses θάψινον, "thaps-ine, thápsos-like", as "yellow", and tells us it comes from thápsos, glossing that as seen above.
    42. And Voigt 210(II.3). Another Hesychius gloss about thápsos/skythárion, «Σκυθικὸν ξύλον· τὴν διάπυρον· ἔνιοι δὲ θαψίαν», so "Scythian wood" means "embers" or "firewood", and some use it for the "deadly carrot", Thapsia. So this becomes even more confusing…
    43. And Voigt 210(II.4). Hesychius glossing "Scythian" telling us that women turn themselves blonde and dye wool with that wood.
    44. Then we have Voigt 211a.2 Campbell T23 Edmonds L150.1. Strabo telling us that at the Leukata there is a sacred temple of Apollo and the famous cliff whence lovers threw themselves to end their loves, as it was believed. Menander is quoted as saying Sappho isn't said to have been the first to jump, because some "more skilled in antiquarian lore" would have that honor go to Kefalon of Deion who loved Pterela.
    45. Then Voigt 211a.3. Alciphr(astes?), Epistles, «ἢ τούτῳ μιγήσομαι ἢ τὴν Λεσβίαν μιμησαμένη Σαπφὼ οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς Λευκάδος πέτρας, ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τῶν Πειραικῶν προβόλων ἐμαυτὴν εἰς τὸ κλυδώνιον ὤσω», «Either I will mix myself with this man, or, imitating the Lesbian Sappho, may I thrust myself into the ripples, not from the stone of Leukas, but from the jutting rocks of Piræus».
    46. Then Voigt 211a.4. Plutarchus, "Proverbs", «Μιχθοφορῶν· αὕτη λέγεται ἐπὶ τῶν ἐρασμίων διδάσκαλος καὶ ὑπερηφάνων, ὥς φασι καὶ τὴν Σαπφὼ ἐρασθῆναι· μὴ φέρουσαν δὲ τὸ πάθος ῥῖψαι αὑτὴν κατὰ τῶν ἐν Λευκαδίᾳ πετρῶν», «μιχθοφορῶν: this is said to have been a teacher of lovely and magnificent things, like they say that Sappho too fell in love; but she, not able to bear the grief, threw herself down the rocks of Leukadia». Translation mine, and kind of doubtful in the first part. The word seems to mean "carrier of mixed things", so maybe "magnificent" was in fact to be translated as "arrogant", as the positive sense is rare according to LSJ.
    47. Then Voigt 211a.5. «Schol. Berol. in Lib. Ep. 257 = Sud Φ 89 = Phot s.v. Φάων», says Voigt, so basically three sources saying virtually the same words. Same shtick, Sappho fell in love with Phaon and threw herself off a cliff, «οὐ τὴν ποιήτριαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν Λεσβίαν ‹τινά›», «not the poetess, but the Lesbian / some Lesbian», so a plot twist, though we will see some dismiss this as the invention of scholars who wanted to save Sappho's reputation. I wouldn't know.
    48. Then we find Voigt 211a.6 Campbell T3 Edmonds L146.1. Suda, Sappho (second notice), «Σαπφώ, Λεσβία ἐκ Μιτυλήνης, ψάλτρια. Αὕτη δι' ἔρωτα Φάωνος τοῦ Μιτυληναίου ἐκ τοῦ Λευκάτου κατεπόντησεν ἑαυτήν. Τινὲς δὲ καὶ ταύτης εἶναι λυρικὴν ἀνέγραψαν ποίησιν», which Campbell translates as «A Lesbian from Mytilene, a lyre-player. This Sappho leapt from the cliff of Leucates and drowned herself for love of Phaon the Mytilenæan. Some have said that she too composed lyric poetry».
    49. Then there is Voigt 211a.7 Edmonds L150.2. A long spiel by Servius commenting on the Aeneid, regarding a temple in Leucas, apparently of Venus (wasn't it of Apollo though?), which Varro says was founded by Aeneas (hence the spiel), while Menander and Turpilius say it was founded by that famous Phaon we're so tired of hearing about, who was apparently given by Aphrodite a magic ointment with which he «feminas in sui amorem trahebat», drew ladies to his love. And thanks to that, "some woman" threw herself off the cliff (and we know who it was, right?), «unde nunc auctorare se quotannis solent qui de eo monte lanciantur in pelagus. Quidam id fieri propter Leucaten puerum dicunt, quem cum Apollo vellet rapere, in mare se proiecit montemque cognominem sibi fecit», «whence now each year people offer to throw themselves off the cliff. Some say that this was because of a child named Leucas, who, since Apollo wanted to abduct him, threw himself into the sea and gave his name to that mountain». Welp, that's news. People offer to get paid to throw themselves off the cliff? These guys were crazy… Also, "abduct" is "rapere", imagine what I thought seeing that verb :).
    50. Then we have Voigt 211a.8. Luc(ianus?) in "DMort.", «μῶν καὶ σύ τινα ὥσπερ ὁ Φάων τὴν Ἀφροδίτην ἐκ Χίου διεπόρθμευσας, εἶτά σοι εὐξαμένῳ ἔδωκε νέον εἶναι καὶ καλὸν ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς καὶ ἀξιέραστον;», «Is it not that you too, having, like Phaon with Aphrodite, carried someone from Chios, then received from him to be young and beautiful from the beginning and love-worthy?».
    51. Then we have Voigt 211a.9. Scholiast on "DMeretr.", again by the Luc. above, «ὁ Φάων οὗτος πορθμεὺς ὢν διεπόρθμευσέ ποι τὴν Ἀφροδίτην καὶ γέρων ὢν εἴληφε μισθὸν παρ' αὐτῆς ἀνηβῆσαι», «This Phaon, being a ferryman, carried Aphrodite at some point, and being old obtained, as a reward from her, to grow young again».
    52. Then we have Voigt 211a.10. Hesychius gloss, «Φαῶν· εὐμόρφων, ἐγένετο ἐρέσθην», «Phaon: being beautiful, happened to be lifted up», or something like that, my Greek is kind of shaky. Btw, Phaon here is stressed on the o, Phaõn, whereas it's usually stressed as Pháon. Wonder if it's supposed to be a genitive plural, like the following word could be…
    53. Then we find Voigt 213Aa Campbell 213A(a). From P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 8, this was deemed a commentary, though all that can be made out of the few letters is "Gongy", beginning of the name "Gongyla", in l. 4.
    54. Then we find Voigt 213Ab Campbell 213A(b). P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 42(a). It would seem that «]ναν ἔσλος̣ [ / ]η̣ν σχέθε . [» ("noble" and "have" being the only full words) are Sappho's, and considering ἔσλος is Aeolic for ἔσθλος and recalling the form περσκέθοισα in Sappho 16, I find it plausible. I guess I will add these to the editions, in a separate group. Campbell attributes the line before "noble" to Sappho as well, παῖ Πολυα[νακτι-, "child of the house of Polyanax". Higher up, we also have Charaxus making an appearance.
    55. Then we find Voigt 213Ac Campbell 213A(c). P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 43 col. ii, not much to say here.
    56. Then we find Voigt 213Ad Campbell 213A(d). P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 44 col. ii, ditto to above. Wonder why we're only getting second columns…
    57. Then we find Voigt 213Ae Campbell 213A(e). P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 45. Ditto to above. Just a couple mentions of Charaxus.
    58. Then we find Voigt 213Af Campbell 213A(f). P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 47, just a mention of Sappho in Campbell's text, marked as l. 4.
    59. Then we find Voigt 213Ag Campbell 213A(g). P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 48 col. ii, I'll delegate this job to Campbell up till I investigate the very puzzling image of this P.Oxy. 2506, where nothing seems to match any of these. P.Oxy. 2506 appears to be a bunch of fragments deemed part of a scroll with info on various poets. The reasons for assigning these to Sappho are usually clear (though in one case a supplement is the whole reason), but I wonder about why the others were excluded from this group… Of all the ones here, the image has only the first, because the image has frr. 1-17 (well, let's say a bunch of random letters supposed to number fragments-1 and fragments-5 because giving a number to each fragment is too sensible, and then 2-4 and 6-17). I sure hope someone on CONLOQVIVM (the Latin SE chat) sends screenshots of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. XXIX, which is not online, so I can wrap my head around this nonsense numbering and perhaps figure out what the rest of P.Oxy. 2506 is not here.
    60. Then there is Voigt 213Ah Campbell T14. P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 48 col. iii. Here too we have a long Sappho bit, 'twould appear. Image of this in Campbell.
    61. Then we find Voigt 213Ai Campbell 213A(i). P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 59. Again, we can only make out a mention of Sappho, and perhaps οὐδ' ἴαν δοκίμωμι in mutilated and partially Atticized form (see post "Back to reality").
    62. Then we find Voigt 213Ak Campbell 213A(k). P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 60. «]ν̣ . . ανδ̣ . [ / ]μεδαν[», l. 2 possibly Ἀνδρο]μέδαν[, "Andromeda" (accusative).
    63. ----I had a look at those papyri, and here are some reading notes, in a spoiler Just to have them somewhere, and avoid a full transcription over at the transcriptions post. The text, which besides this note is Voigt's, will be added to the editions at some point.----
    64. Next up Voigt and Campbell 213B, which is a papyrus commentary on the Ode to Anactoria which is actually transcribed and translated at the transcriptions post.
    65. Then Voigt 215. Demetrius On Style, «Εἰσὶν δὲ αἱ μὲν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι χάριτες, οἶον νυμφαῖοι κῆποι, ὑμέναιοι, ἔρωτες, ὅλη ἡ Σαπφοῦς ποίησις», «There are the graces in things, like gardens sacred to the Nymphs, weddings, loves, all of Sappho's poetry».
    66. Then we get Voigt 216 Edmonds 171 Bergk 138. Philostratus in his epistles, «Ἡ Σαπφὼ τοῦ ῥόδου ἐρᾷ καὶ στεφανοῖ αὐτὸ ἀεί τινι ἐγκωμίῳ τὰς καλὰς τῶν παρθένων ἐκείνῳ ὁμοιοῦσα, ὁμοιοῖ δ' αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς τῶν Χαρίτων πήχεσιν», «Sappho loves the rose, and garlands it always with some praise, comparing beautiful virgins to it, and compares it also to the arms of the graces», which is evidently a reference to βροδοπάχεες ἄγναι Χάριτες, wherever I put it on the blog.
    67. Next up is Voigt 217. We get a little more of the Philostratus Imagines quote found in 3.xvii: «Ἁμιλλῶνται (παρθένοι) ῥοδοπήχεις καὶ ἑλικώπιδες καὶ καλλιπάρῃοι καὶ μελίφωνοι· Σαπφοῦς δὴ τὸ ἡδὺ πρόσφθεγμα», «There compete rosy-armed and lively-eyed and beautiful-cheeked and honey-voiced (maidens): and this is indeed Sappho's sweet word».
    68. Next up is Voigt 219. Something tells me I failed to identify this with Campbell T20, despite it being virtually the same, except with a little bit cut away at the end. This is a huge quote from Maximus of Tyre, of which we have seen pieces in 1.A.xiv, 3.v, in Poem 5 here, in Poem 3 here, in Poem 1 here, in 1.E.vii, 3.xx, and in Poem 2 here, and those are all the Sappho mention. Basically it's a long comparison of the "Ars Erotica" of Socrates with Sappho.
    69. Next up is Voigt 220. Himerius Orations, «Σαπφὼ καὶ Ἀνακρέων ὁ Τήιος, ὥσπερ τι προοίμιον τῶν μελῶν, τὴν Κύπριν ἀναβοῶντες οὐ παύονται», «Sappho and Anacreon from Teus, like some introduction to a book of songs, do not cease to call on the Cypris».
    70. Then we have Voigt 221 Campbell T50. Himerius in another Oration, «Σαπφὼ δὲ μόνη γυναικῶν μετὰ λύρας ἐρασθεῖσα <καλῶν>, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Ἀφροδίτῃ καὶ τοῖς Ἔρωσι ὅλην ἀνιεῖσα τὴν ποίησιν, παρθένου<ς> καὶ Χάριτας τῶν μελῶν ἐποιεῖτο τὴν πρόφασιν», «And Sappho alone, loved by beautiful women thanks to the lyre, dedicating because of this all her poetry to Afrodite and to the Loves, made maidens and the Graces the occasion of her songs».
    71. Then there is Voigt 222 Campbell T47. Menander On Display Oratory, telling us invocation hymns are most of Sappho and Anacreon's hymns, and blabbing on about them, tangentially mentioning the Idyll with Aphrodite found in Two Divine Epiphanies among other poems.
    72. We proceed with Voigt 223 Campbell T21 Edmonds L156.1. Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana, at a point where that guy is speaking and tells us about Damophyla, who «is said to have associated with Sappho» and «have gathered a circle of girls about her», and how she copied Sappho's hymns to Artemis.
    73. We proceed with Voigt 224 Campbell T18 Edmonds L156.2. Excerpt from Horace's Odes, last line of an Alcaic stanza and first line of the following, «Æoliis fidibus querentem / Sappho puellis de popularibus», «Sappho companing to her trusted Aeolian (lyres) about the girls of her city».
    74. We proceed with Voigt 225 Campbell T51 Edmonds L156.3. An Alcaic stanza from Horace's Odes: «Nec si quid olim lusit Anacreon, / delevit ætas; spirat adhuc amor / vivuntque commissi calores / Æoliæ fidibus puellæ», or in Campbell's translation «nor has time destroyed Anacreon's playful poems; the love of the Aeolian girl still breathes, and her hot passions, entrusted to the lyre, still live».
    75. We continue with Voigt 226.1. Scholiast on meter, telling us the first book of Sappho's poems was «entirely written» in the «Sapphic hendecasyllabic», when we know that's essentially BS because Sapphic stanzas made up that book, which are three hendecasyllabics and an Adonian.
    76. We continue with Voigt 226.2. Sacerd. Gramm (a grammarian?) telling us Sappho wrote her whole first book in a kind of «asynartetum», which I believe means any kind of over-two-line stanzas not composed of identical lines, but I'm not sure here.
    77. We continue with Voigt 226.3. The many times (or just one?) that Apollonius Dyscolus in his On Pronouns tells us something is from Sappho book one.
    78. We continue with Voigt 226.4. The colophon found after "Let's sing for the couple!" on the P.Oxy. fragment it's from, telling us the whole book are ΧΗΗΗΔΔ lines, which Voigt glosses as 330 strophes, thus about 66 poems.
    79. We continue with Voigt 227.1. Hephaestio, telling us the second book of Sappho was entirely written in Sapphic tesserakaidekasyllabics, which are the meter we know and love, xx–uu–uu–uu–ux.
    80. We continue with Voigt 227.2. Any occurrence of "Sappho in book 2" found in Herodian.
    81. We continue with Voigt 227.3. Ditto, but for Apollonius Dyscolus On Pronouns.
    82. We continue with Voigt 227.4. Ditto, but for Athenaeus's mythical Deipnosophistae (it's been a while since I last heard that name :) ).
    83. We continue with Voigt 227.5. Ditto, but for "AB", whoever this was.
    84. We continue with Voigt 227.6. Ditto, but for "Eren. 107 ap. Ammon. Diff. 301", whoever that was.
    85. We continue with Voigt 227.7. Colophon for book 2 on P.Oxy. 2076 (see papyri post). This indicates that Hector and Andromacha was the last poem in book 2. P.Oxy. 1232, though bearing the same poem, did not survive with a colophon.
    86. Then we have Voigt 228.1 Campbell T30. Hephaestio, saying books 2-3 of Sappho are written in "common stanzas", which means stanzas with only one type of line. Were they written with stanzas as units, as the paragraphoi suggest, or with lines as units, having even numbers of lines only by accident? The world may never know. Hephaestio certainly doesn't answer that.
    87. Then there is Voigt 228.2 Edmonds L180.3. Basically a repetition of the same thing, by Hephaestio again.
    88. We continue with Voigt 229. Hephaestio again, «τὸ δὲ ἀκατάληκτον (ἀντισπαστοκὸν τετράμετρον) καλεῖται Σαπφικὸν ἑκκαιδεκασύλλαβον, ᾧ τὸ τρίτον ὅλον Σαπφοῦς γέγραπται, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ Ἀλκαίου ᾄσματα», «The acatalectic (antispastic tetrameter) is called Sapphic ekkaidekasyllabic, in which the whole of Sappho's third book is written, and many of Alcæus's songs are written», so a 17-syllable line, which should be the greater Asclepiad… except that has 16 syllables, so did Hephaestio mess up?
    89. Then we get Voigt 230.1 Campbell T31. "Bass. gramm." (a grammarian) saying «(hendecasyllabum phalæcius) apud Sappho frequens est, cuius in quinto libro complures huius generis et continuati et dispersi leguntur», «(the phalaecian hendecasyllabic) is frequent in Sappho, in whose book 5 several (lines) of that kind can be read, both continued and scattered», which I assume means both poems written entirely in that kind of line, and poems where that line is used within stanzas containing also other lines – like "O Atthis!", where the stanzas have 3 lines, and only the third is of this kind.
    90. We continue with Voigt 230.2. Mar(cus?) Victorin(us?) gramm(aticus?), «initium autem ab eo versu (phalæcio) sumimus, cui Sapphico nomen est, non ut ab ea invento, sed iugiter usurpato», «we begin from that (phalaecian) line, which bears the name of Sapphic, not because she invented it, but usurped straightaway».
    91. We continue with Voigt 231.1. Fortunatianus gramm(aticus), «Sappho hoc integro usa est libro quinto», «Sappho used this integrally in book 5», referring to the Asclepiad meter (lesser or greater?), presumably meaning she used the line without splitting it in some way, because we know book 5 wasn't wholly Asclepiads.
    92. We continue with Voigt 231.2. Pollux, «Ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν Σαπφοῦς μελῶν», «in book 5 of Sappho's songs».
    93. We continue with Voigt 231.3. Athenaeus, virtually the same as the above.
    94. We continue with Voigt 232. Hephaestio, «Ἔστι δὲ πυκνὸν (ἐν τοῖς ἀντισπαστικοῖς τετραμέτροις καταληκτικοῖς) καὶ τὸ τὴν δευτέραν μόνην ἀντισπαστικὴν ἔχον, ᾧ μέτρῳ ἔγραψεν ᾄσματα καὶ Σαπφὼ ἐπὶ τ<ελευτ>ῆς τοῦ ἑβδόμου», «(among catalectic antispastic tetramenters) the one that only has an antispastic as the second foot is also common(?), a meter in which Sappho also wrote songs in the end of her book 7».
    95. The we find Voigt 233 Campbell T32 Edmonds L178.6. Photius Library, telling us book 2 of Sopater the Sophist contains excerpts of a lot of authors, including book 8 of Sappho.
    96. We proceed with Voigt 234.1. Servius on the Georgicon, «Sappho … in libro qui inscribitur Ἐπιθαλάμια ait», «Sappho … says in the book titled Epithalamia (wedding-songs)».
    97. We proceed with Voigt 234.2. "D.H. Rh." (Diogenes of Halicarnassus in his Rhetorics?), «τινὰ ... καὶ παρὰ Σαπφοῖ τῆς ἰδέας ταύτης παραδείγματα, ἐπιθαλάμιοι ... ἐπιγραφόμεναι ᾠδαί», «(there are) some … examples of this idea also in Sappho, songs titled … epithalamia».
    98. We proceed with Voigt 234.3. These are the last lines of 1.A.ii, actually lines 16-17.
    99. We proceed with Voigt 235. Suda, «Σαπφώ: ... ἔγραψε δὲ μελῶν λυρικῶν βιβλία θʹ. Καὶ πρώτη πλῆκτρον εὗρεν. Ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ ἐπιγράμματα καὶ ἐλεγεῖα καὶ ἰάμβους καὶ μονῳδίας.», «Sappho: … wrote 9 books of lyric poetry. And invented the plectrum. She also wrote epigrams and elegiacs and iambs and solo songs».
    100. We proceed with Voigt 236. Hephaestio, telling us the paragraphos marked the end of strophes, the koronis the end of a poem, and the asterisk a change of meter, at least in the Aristophanean editions, though in the Aristarchean ones the asterisk was also used for poem changes.
    101. We proceed with Voigt 237. Diogenes of Halicarnassus On Composition, «οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀρχαῖοι μελοποιοί, λέγω δὲ Ἀλκαῖόν τε καὶ Σαπφώ, μικρὰς ἐποιοῦντο στροφάς, ὥστ' ἐν ὀλίγοις τοῖς κώλοις οὐ πολλὰς εἰσῆγον μεταβολάς, ἐπῳδοῖς τε πάνυ ἐχρῶντο ὀλίγοις», «Thus the early lyrics, I'm speaking of Alcaeus and Sappho, made their strophes short, so that in few clauses they made not many changes (of meter), and used few epodes».
    102. We proceed with Voigt 238. Fortunatianus gramm(aticus?), «tetrametrum ionicum a minore anaclomenon, quod heteromeres Sapphicum nominatur, hoc modo: "docuit patens labellum bifido iugare rictu"», «The anaclastic ionic a minore tetrameter, which is named "Sapphic heteromer", as follows: "He taught how to subjugate an open lip with a bifurcate opening"», whatever that line is suppsed to mean.
    103. We proceed with Voigt 239. Mar. Victorin(us?) gramm(aticus?), «hoc (versu hendecasyllabo alterius formæ) frequenter usa est Sappho, quod ita copulatur "sic fatur lacrimans", ex alio "labitur oris"; item "postquam res Asiæ quærere terras"», «Sappho frequently used this (hendecasyllabic line of different form), which is thus put together "thus he says shedding tears", from another one "slips through the hours"; similarly "ask for the lands of Asia after its things"».
    104. Then we have Voigt 240 Edmonds L180.2. Scholiast on Hephaestio, «Σαπφικὸν δέ ἐστι (τῶν ἡρωικῶν στίχων) τὸ ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ σπονδείου καὶ λῆγον εἰς σπονδεῖον, οἶον· [Hom. B 1]», «(Of the heroic lines) the Sapphic one is the one starting with a spondee and ending on a spondee, like: [Hom. B 1]». Now, "heroic lines" means hexameters, so I guess that means the line we're missing is by Homer. I'd guess "B 1" means "book 2 line 1", but of which epic poem? Odyssey book 2 l. 1 is «Ἦμος δ' ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς,», which does start and end wirth a spondee. But so is Iliad book 2 line 1, «Ἄλλοι μέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ». The only thing I can do is note that the Iliad has capital letters marking books on Greek Wikisource, whereas the Odyssey has lowercase letters, so it seems likely that "B 1" means "Iliad book 2 l. 1". That line reads «The other gods and the chariot-arranging men».
    105. We continue with Voigt 242. Mar. Victorin(us?) gramm(aticus?), «si ex duobus iambicis, quæ penthemimere vocantur, versus unus formetur, fiet Sapphicum huius modi: "Meat per æquor Inoa proles"», «If from two iambic (units), which are called penthemimers, a single verse is formed, it will be a Sapphic (line) of this kind: "The offspring of Ino passes through the say"». Now, this seems to make no sense, because there is one x– too many. Let's scan that line: u–u–u––u––. With an anaclasis, it might be read as u–u–u–u–––, which might come from x–u–x– + x–u–… except not. Two longs at the end? Nonsense! Well, maybe x–u– + x–u–x– with anaclasis. Is that whan he meant?
    106. We continue with Voigt 243. Serv(ius?) gramm(aticus?) telling us there is a sapphic line which is a brachycatalectic trochaic trimeter, i.e. –u–x–u–x–x, as in "rex paterque Iuppiter deorum", "Jupiter king and father of the gods", or the too long "splendet aurum, gemma fulget, forma sed placet", "Gold shines, a gem glistens, but the form is liked", which is actually –u–x–u–x–u–xx, three meters plus a syllable, hypercatalectic as he says when introducing the line, but with one meter too many… or does hypercatalectic mean with an extra syllable? Yep, it does, so problem solved. So I guess Sappho used both tje brachycatalectic –u–x–u–x–x and the hypercatalectic –u–x–u–x–u–xx.
    107. Then there is Voigt 244 Campbell T22 Edmonds L148.1. Seneca Epistles, saying Didymus grammaticus wrote «quattuor milia libri» (4000 books) of worthless BS, among which things «an Sappho publica fuerit» (whether Sappho was a prostitute), which I assume is influenced by her using ἑταῖραι in a sense different from "prostitute" and being misinterpreted?
    108. Then we have Voigt 245 Campbell T41. Strabo, «καὶ Ἑλλάνικος δὲ Λέσβιος συγγραφεὺς καὶ Καλλίας ὁ τὴν Σαπφὼ καὶ τὸν Ἀλκαῖον ἐξηγησάμενος», «And Hellanicus the Lesbian author and Kallias who interpreted Sappho», where "who" is only Kallias, not Hellanicus.
    109. We proceed with Voigt 246. Plu(tarchus?) on Music saying «Ἀριστόξενος δέ φησι Σαπφὼ πρώτην εὕρασθαι τὴν μιξολυδιστί, παρ' ἧς τοὺς τραγῳδοποιοὺς μαθεῖν», «Aristoxenus says Sappho invented the mixolydian mode, and tragedy writers learned from her».
    110. Then we get Voigt 247 Campbell T38. Athenaeus telling us Menaechmus reports Sappho was said to have invented the pēktis, a type of lyre identical to the magadis.
    111. Then there is Voigt 248 Campbell T40 Edmonds L178.5. Suda entry, «Δράκων, Στρατονικεύς, γραμματικός ... Περὶ τῶν Σαπφοῦς μελῶν καὶ Περὶ τῶν Ἀλκαίου μέτρων», «Dracon, of Stratonicea, grammarian, (wrote) … On Sappho's Songs and On Alcæus's Meters», apparently two books, I wonder if either have survived…
    112. Then there is Voigt 249 Campbell T6 Edmonds L142.6. Eusebius telling us that «Sappho et Alcæus poëtæ clari habebantur» (Sappho and Alcæus were considered famous poets) during the 45th Olympiad.
    113. We then find Voigt 250 Campbell T8, containing Edmonds L144.1 and L144.2. Long Athenaeus quote. It starts with an elegiac poem, «Λέσβιος Ἀλκαῖος δὲ πόσους ἀνεδέξατο κώμους / Σαπφοῦς φορμίζων ἱμερόεντα πόθον / γιγνώσκεις· ὁ δ' ἀοιδὸς ἀηδόνος ἠράσαθ', ὕμνον / Τήϊον ἀλγύνων ἄνδρα πολυφραδίῃ. καὶ γὰρ τὴν ὁ μελιχρὸς ἀφημίλλητ' Ἀνακρείων», which Campbell translates as «As for Lesbian Alcaeus, you know how many revels he took part in, singing to the lyre of his yearning love for Sappho. The bard loved the nightingale, vexing the man of Teos (sc. Anacreon) by the eloquence of his songs. For honey-sweet Anacreon was a rival for her love». The poem is by Hermesianax, and Athenaeus is like, nope, you're wrong man, Sappho and Anacreon were not contemporaries. And by the way, says Athenaeus, those who say Anacreon and Sappho exchanged poems at some point are clearly wrong, if not only because the poem they claim Sappho replied to Anacreon with is blatantly not Sappho. But we've already heart that part, haven't we now? On the other hand, sais Athenaeus, if Diphilus made Archilochus and Hipponax lovers of Sappho (which was a joke), maybe this Hermesianax statement is also a joke.
    114. Then there is Voigt 251 Campbell T5 Edmonds L142.5. Parian Marble, «ἀφ' οὗ Σαπφὼ ἐγ Μυδιλήνης εἰς Σικελίαν ἔπλευσε φυγοῦσα [    ἄρχο]ντος Ἁθήνησιν μὲν Κριτίου τοῦ προτέρου, έν Συρακούσσαις δὲ τῶν γαμόρων κατεχόντων τὴν ἀρχήν», «(? years) after Sappho from Mytilene sailed in exile to Sicily, the earlier Critias was archon at Athens, and in Syracuse the "Gamoroi" (Landowners) held political power». Dang, we lost the year number. We know, however, that it must be between 605/4 (the date of the previous (Parian Marble?) entry on Alyattes) and 591/0 (that of the following entry).
    115. Then we get Voigt 252 Campbell T1. How I failed to notice this was the same as 4.xix, I have no idea. Welp, go back there for this item, I guess.
    116. Then we find Voigt 253 Campbell T2 Edmonds L144.5. We have the Suda, who starts an entry about Sappho (some kind of Wikipedia article of old, I believe) with a long list of possible names for Sappho's father: Simon, Eumenus, Eerigyius (Ἠερίγυιος), Ecrytus, Semus, Camon, Etarchus, Scamandronymus. Well, mater semper certa est, pater numquam, I guess. Mother Cleis. Sappho "flourished" (which would mean she started to be famous) or was born (we can't tell for sure from the γεγονυῖα of the text) in the 42nd Olympiad (612-608 BC), when Stesichorus, Alcaeus, and Pittacus were also alive – and the last two have a history of being opponents, and Alcaeus talks mad shit about him in his poem, and got himself exiled for that, and Sappho got exiled in the process, but that is from another testimonium. Brothers Charaxus, Larichus, and Eurygius – and why Erigyius was supplemented in the item above is unclear, maybe they did some kind of retracing and couldn't fit the single iota of the papyrus with the one in Eurygius? – and she was married (surprise!) to a wealthy man called Cercylas, who traded from Andros, and begat her daughter (cfr. above, and also a couple of fragments). Companions and friends (which curiously is the same word used to describe Rhodopis in the Greek - what a word that was :) ) Atthis (oh what a familiar name!), Telesippa (who TF was that?) and Megara (oh yeah, heard that name once, in one of the group 2 fragments), got a bad name for "impure friendship" with them (aka tribadism, as someone else says explicitly). Pupils Anagora of Miletus, Gongyla of Colophon (there's another familiar name – waiting for Andromeda, Gorgo, and Archeanassa now…), and Eunica of Salamis. Wrote nine books of lyric poems, invented the plectrum (or was it the pẽktis, a kind of lyre?), also wrote epigrams, elegiacs, iambics, and solo songs. Oh btw, that husband seems to be a pun, since Andros is the genitive of Man, and Cercylas (says Campbell) means Prick, so she was married to Prick who traded from the Isle of Man – you mad lads, comic poets :).
    117. We continue with Voigt 254e. And we're back on Rhodopis with this Suda quote: «Ἄισωπος ... οἰκέτην δὲ γενέσθαι Ξάνθου τοῦ Λυδοῦ, ἄλλοι ἀνδρός τινος Σαμίου Ἰάδμονος, οὗτινος καὶ ἡ Ῥοδῶπις δούλη ἦν· ἣν ἑταίραν γενομένην, Θρᾷσσαν τὸ γένος, Χάραξος ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σαπφοῦς ἔλαβε γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς γεννᾷ», «Aesop […] (some say) was a slave of Xanthos the Lydian, others of some Samian man called Iadmon, of whom Rhodopis was also a slave; being she a prostitute, Thracian by birth, Charaxus the brother of Sappho took her as his wife and had sons from her».
    118. We continue with Voigt 254g. "Tz Proll Com", whatever this is (Tzetzes Προλεγόμενα to Comic poets? Can't find such a work by Tzetzes in the Wikipedia references…), telling us stuff we've already read elsewhere about Sappho and Charaxus and Rhodopis.
    119. Then there is Voigt 255 Edmonds L142.4. "Schol. Pl. Phdr." (Scholiast on Plato's Phaedrus, I assume), «Σαπφὼ λυρικὴ ποιήτρια, Σκαμανδρωνύμου. Μυτιληναία», «Sappho lyric poetess, (daughter) of Scamandronymus. Mytilenian».
    120. We proceed with Voigt 256. Ael(ianus?), «Τὴν ποιήτριαν Σαπφώ, τὴν Σκαμανδρωνύμου θυγατέρα, ταύτην καὶ Πλάτων ὁ Ἀρίστωνος καλὴν ἀναγράφει. Πυνθάνομαι δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἑτέρα ἐν τῇ Λέσβῳ ἐγένετο Σαπφώ, ἑταίρα, οὐ ποιήτρια», «Sappho the poetess, the daughter of Scamandronymus, Plato also records as beautiful. I'm persuaded that there was also another Sappho in Lesbos, a prostitute, not a poetess». The other Sappho once more.
    121. We proceed with Voigt 257. Suda, «Ἤριννα, Τεΐα ἢ Λεσβία, ὡς δὲ ἄλλοι Τηλία ... ἦν δὲ ἑταίρα Σαπφοῦς καὶ ὁμόχρονος», «Erinna, from Teos or Lesbos, others say from Telos(?) … and she was a companion and contemporary of Sappho». Not sure about Telos, the adjective matching "from Telos" only appears to mean "board" according to Perseus. Erinna was another lyric poetess.
    122. We proceed with Voigt 258. Maximus of Tyre, «ἦ που Σαπφοῦς τῆς καλῆς (οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὴν ὀνομάζων χαίρει διὰ τὴν ὤραν τῶν μελῶν, καίτοι μικρὰν οὖσαν καὶ μέλαιναν) ἢ Ἀνακρέοντος», «Surely by the beautiful Sappho (he like to call her thus for the grace of her poems, though she was small and black) or of Anacreon». Couldn't find the text online, so what this is about, we may never know.
    123. Then we have Voigt 259 Edmonds L160.4. "Schol. Luc. Im." (Scholiast on Lucianus's Imagines?), Sappho was small and black but «what other than the nightingale is wrapped around those unsightly suffering in a small body?», he says.
    124. Then there is Voigt 260a Campbell T34 Edmonds L166.3. Horace Epistles, «Temperat Archilochi Musam pede mascula Sappho, / Temperat Alcæus, sed rebus et ordine dispar», «Masculine Sappho tempers Archilochus's muse with her foot, / Alcæus also tempers (the muse), but different in subjects and order».
    125. Then we have Voigt 260b Campbell T17.1. «Mascula autem Saffo … vel quia tribas diffamatur fuisse», says Porphyrius, «But "masculine" Sappho … perhaps because she was accused of being a tribas», that is of engaging in female homosexual acts.
    126. Then we have Voigt 260c Campbell T17.2. "Schol. Dion. Lat." (apparently Dionysius Latinus commenting on the previous passage), «Non mollis nec fracta voluptatibus nec impudica», «not soft (i.e. not homo), nor a dissolute voluptuary, nor unchaste» (basically Campbell's translation).
    127. We continue with Voigt 261. Ovid's Loves, «Mota sit et Sappho: quid enim lascivius illa?», «Let Sappho also be moved: for what is more lascivious than her?».
    128. We continue with Voigt 262. Tatian(us) Or. ad Graec., «Καὶ ἡ μὲν Σαπφὼ γύναιον πορνικὸν ἐρωτομανές, καὶ τὴν ἑαυτῆς ἀσέλγειαν ᾄδει», «And Sappho sings of a love-maddened harlot-ish little woman, and of her own licentiousness», whoa there with the harsh words.
    129. We end Voigt with Voigt 264 Campbell T7 Edmonds L142.2. Strabo Geography, «Συνήκμασε δὲ τούτοις (sc. Ἀλκαίῳ καὶ Πιττακῷ καὶ ἡ Σαπφώ, θαυμαστόν τι χρῆμα· οὐ γὰρ ἴσμεν ἐν τῷ τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ τῷ μνημονευομένῳ φανεῖσάν τινα γυναῖκα ἐνάμιλλον οὐδὲ κατὰ μικρὸν ἐκείνῃ ποιήσεως χάριν», which Campbell translates as «At the same time as these men (sc. Alcaeus and Pittacus) flourished Sappho, a marvellous creature: in all recorded history I know of no woman who even came close to rivalling her as a poet».
    130. Then we have Voigt inc. 25C.1, Campbell inc. 25C. This is the quote in 1.J.xxii.
    131. Then Voigt inc. 25C.2. "Ar. V.", quoting l. 1 of the 1.J.xxii, and saying virtually nothing about it.
    132. Then 25C.3, quoted as a comparandum in Campbell inc. 25C. Scholiast on the above, saying it's neither Sappho nor Alcaeus, but is among the drinking songs of Praxilla», as 25C.1 said "others" had it.
    133. And 25C.4. Cratin(us), «Κλειταγόρας ᾄδειν, ὅταν Ἀδμήτου μέλος αὐλῇ», «Clitagoras sings, when (he?) plays the Admetus song on the flute».
    134. And finally 25C.5. Two Hesychius glosses, one for Ἀδμήτου λόγον and one for Ἀδμήτου μέλος, both saying it refers to a scolion, a "song which went round crookedly at banquets", as Perseus translates the word.
    135. Then we have a quotation in the TEST section of Voigt inc. 42. Lobel says this P.Oxy. 2378 fr. b must be joined to fr. a and concerns ll. 8-10 of the latter. It is a scholia going «.[.]εν γ̣ὰ̣ρ τῇ φυ[γῇ / ]ἐ̣στιν ᾐτιμαισω[ / Λ]έ̣σ̣βον τὸν δὲ Μά[καρα / ]ν συνιστ[.», «for in the ex[ile / is … / L]esbos and Ma[kar / ??», Makar ruled in Lesbos at some point.
    136. Then Campbell T4 Edmonds L146.2. Back to the other Sappho with Aelianus, «τὴν ποιήτριαν Σαπφὼ τὴν Σκαμανδρονύμου θυγατέρα· ταύτην καὶ Πλάτων ὁ Ἀρίστωνος σοφὴν ἀναγράφει. πυνθάνομαι δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἑτέρα ἐν τῇ Λέσβῳ ἐγένετο Σαπφώ, ἑταίρα οὐ ποιήτρια», «The poetess Sappho, daughter of Scamandronymus: even Plato records her as wise. I'm persuaded, though, that there was also another Sappho in Lesbos, a courtesan, not a poetess», and again ἑταίρα, which should mean "prostitute" but Campbell translates to "courtesan", maybe because it sounds better.
    137. Then we find Campbell T9 Edmonds L140.3. Herodotus, «...κατὰ Ἄμασιν βασιλεύοντα ἦν ἀκμάζουσα Ῥοδῶπις...’, ‘under the reign of Amasis there flourished Rhodopis». Amasis was a pharaoh.
    138. Next there is Campbell T10 Edmonds L140.1. Aelianus quoted by Stobæus, says Solon once heard his nephew sing a song by Sappho and told him to teach it to him, and when the nephew asked why he was eager about it, he replied «ἵνα μαθὼν αὐτὸ ἀποθάνω», so that I may die having learnt it.
    139. Next up Campbell T11 Edmonds L158.3. Pollux Vocabulary, «Μυτιληναῖοι μὲν Σαπφὼ τῷ νομίσματι ἐνεχαράξοντο», «The Mytilenaeans engraved Sapppho on their coinage».
    140. Then Campbell T12 Edmonds L142.3. Strabo Geography, «Ἐξ Ἐρέσου δ' ἦσαν Θεόφραστός τς καὶ Φανίας οἱ ἐκ τῶν περιπάτων φιλοσόφοι», translated by Campbell as «Theophrastus and Phanias, the peripatetic philosophers, came from Eresus», and comments on with the following note «He would have mentioned S(appho) if he had believed she was born there; in test. 7 he includes her among famous Mytilenaeans. But see testt. 2, 58; also Athen(aeus) 13. 596e on 'the courtesan S(appho) from Eresus'. Richter ibid(em) lists two coins from Eresus and a herm, now lost, inscribed Σαπφὼ Ἐρεσία (Sappho of Eresus). Possibly S(appho) was born in Eresus and lived in Mytilene». Test. 2 is 4.cxv, test. 7 is 4.cxxviii and test. 58 is 4.clxviii. As for Athenaeus, in case I don't have it as another testimonium, I found it on Greek Wikisource as follows: «καὶ ἡ ἐξ Ἐρέσου δὲ τῆς ποιητρίας ὁμώνυμος ἑταίρα Σαπφὼ τοῦ καλοῦ Φάωνος ἐρασθεῖσα περιβόητος ἦν, ὥς φησι Νυμφόδωρος ἐν Περίπλῳ [p. 216] Ἀσίας.», «And the Sappho of Eresus homonymous to the poetess, who fell in love with Phaon, is talked a lot about, as says Nymphodorus in the Periplus of Asia».
    141. Continuing we have Campbell T13 Edmonds L144.3. Ovid Heroides, Sappho to Phaon, an elegiac couplet: «Sex mihi natales ierant cum lecta parentis / Ante diem lacrimas ossa bibere meas», «Six birthdays of mine had passed when the bones of my parent, gathered from the pyre, drank before time my tears». Might have been sourced by a poem by Sappho. Campbell refers to Howard Jacobson, Ovid's Heroides, pp. 279-280 about which parent it was.
    142. And Campbell T15, part of Edmonds L148.2. Athenaeus book 13, probably just before the above quotation, «Ἡρόδοτος δ' αὐτὴν Ῥοδῶπιν καλεῖ, ἀγνοῶν ὅτι ἑτέρα τῆς Δωρίχης ἐστὶν αὕτη, ἡ καὶ τοὺ περιβοήτους ὀβελίσκους ἀναθεῖσα ἐν Δελφοῖς, ὧν μέμνηται Κρατῖνος διὰ τούτων ... εἰς δὲ τὴν Δωρίχαν τόδ' ἐποίησε τοὐπίγραμμα Ποσείδιππος, καίτοι καὶ ἐν τῇ Αἰσωπίᾳ πολλάκις αὐτῆς μνημονεύσας. ἐστὶ δὲ τόδε' "Δωρίχα, ὀστέα μὲν σ' ἁπαλὰ κοιμήσατο δεσμῶν / χαίτης ἥ τε μύρων ἔκπνοος ἀμπεχόνη, / ᾗ ποτε τὸν χαρίεντα περιστέλλουσα Χάραξον / σύγχρους ὀρθρινῶν ἥψαο κισσυβίων· / Σαπφῷαι δὲ μένουσι φίλης ἔτι καὶ μενέουσιν / ᾠδῆς αἱ λευκαὶ φθεγγόμεναι σελίδες. / οὔνομα σὸν μακαριστόν, ὃ Ναύκρατις ὧδε φυλάξει / ἔστ' ἂν ἴῃ Νείλου ναῦς ἐφ' ἁλὸς πελάγη"», which Campbell translates as «But Herodotus calls Doricha Rhodopis, not realizing that Doricha is not the same woman as the Rhodopis who dedicated at Delphi the famous spits which Cratinus mentions in these lines […] Posidippus wrote the following epigram on Doricha, although he often mentioned her also in his Aesopia. It goes thus: "Doricha, your bones fell asleep long ago… the bands of your hair, and the perfume-breathing shawl in which you once wrapped the handsom Charaxus, and, joining him to your flesh, grasped the wine cup in the small hours. But the white ringing pages of Sappho's dear songs abide and will still abide. Happy your name, which Naucratis will preserve thus as long as a ship from the Nile goes upon the wide salt sea"». σ' ἀπαλὰ doesn't scan, and the translation seems to follow from a suggested amendment σὰ πάλαι. In a footnotes, Campbell suggests Doricha might have been her real name and Rhodopis, "rosy-face", her professional name (as a prostitute) or a nickname.
    143. Then Campbell T16. I'll leave this Ovid quote about Charaxus and Doricha to this picture of how it appears in Campbell.
    144. Then Campbell T19. Ovid Heroids again, «Nec me Pyrrhiades Methymniadesve puellæ / Nec me Lesbiadum cetera turba iuvant. / Vilis Anactorie, vilis mihi candida Cydro, / Non oculis grata est Atthis ut ante meis / Atque aliæ centum quas non sine crimine amavi. / Improbe, multarum quod fuit, unus habes! […] Lesbides, infamem quæ me fecistis amatæ, / Desinite ad citharas turba venire meas!», which Campbell translates as «Neither the girls of Pyrrha or Methymna delight me, nor the rest of the throng of Lesbian women. Naught to me is Anactoria, naught the fair Cydro; Atthis is not pleasing, as before, to my eyes, nor a hundred others whome I have loved, not without reproach. Shameless man, what once belonged to many girls, is yours alone! […]Women of Lesbos, whose love has made me infamous, throng no more to hear my lyre!». Those would be two well-known towns of Lesbos, the famous Anactoria from Sappho's songs who is often identified with the Milesian Anagora of Campbell T2, an otherwise unknown woman (Cydro), and Phaon.
    145. Then Campbell T20. I somehow failed to see this was Voigt 219, so this is a double. Go back there for more.
    146. Continuing we have Campbell T24 Edmonds L170.3. […]
    147. We then see Campbell T25 Edmonds L152.4a. Athenaeus, «Ἐν δὲ Σαπφοῖ ὁ Ἀντιφάνης αὐτὴν τὴν ποιήτριαν προβάλλουσαν ποιεῖ γρίφους τόνδε τὸν τρόπον, ἐπιλυομένου τινὸς οὕτως», «In Sappho Antiphanes makes the poetess herself propound riddles in this manner, while someone solves them thus». Apparently a single word is left of the play, quoted by Pollux. Or is "Kock 2. 94-6" a reference to the play which has survived? It seems the riddle has survived
    148. And Campbell T26. Athenaeus quoting something said by Diphilus in his play Sappho: «Ἀρχίλοχε, δέξαι τήνδε τὴν μετανιπτρίδα / μεστὴν Διὸς σωτῆρος, Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος», «Archilochus, accept this brimming after-dinner cup in honour of Zeus Saviour and of the Spirit of Good Luck».
    149. Then there is Campbell T27 Edmonds L158.4. Palatine Anthology, Antipater of Sidon, On Sappho. See this Campbell picture which includes the following item as well.
    150. Then Campbell T28. Palatine Anthology, Tullius Laurea, On the Same. See pic above.
    151. Then Campbell T33. Marius Victorinus, Grammar, «… sapphicum metrum … quod quamvis sit ab Alcæo inventum, sapphicum tamen hendecasyllabum a numero syllabarum nuncupatur, ideo quod eo frequentius usa sit Sappho quam Alcæus repertor. Huius mensura quarto colo concluditur. Tres enim, qui sunt pares, hendecasyllabi existunt ita: (Hor. Carm. 1. 2. 1-3). Vides sensum non esse, nisi epodo claudatur», Campbell translated as follows, «Although the Sapphic stanza was invente by Alcaeus, it is called the Sapphic hendecasyllabic because of the number of syllables and because Sappho used it more frequently than Alcæus its inventor. The stanza is concluded by a fourth line. For you see that the three equal hendecasyllabic lines (Horace, Ode 1. 2. 1-3) are not complete in meaning unless concluded by an 'epode' or shorter line».
    152. Then Campbell T35. Palatine Anthology, presumably a poem in elegiac couplets of which we have a couplet here, «Σαπφὼ δ' Ἠρίννης ὄσσον μελέεσσιν ἀμείνων, / Ἤριννα Σαπφοῦς τόσσον ἐν ἑξαμέτροις», «As much as Sappho is better than Erinna in lyrics, / So much is Erinna better than Sappho in hexameters».
    153. Then Campbell T36. Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Composition, «Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀρχαῖοι μελοποιοί, λέγω δὲ Ἀλκαῖόν τε καὶ Σαπφώ, μικρὰς ἐποιοῦντο στροφάς, ῞ψστ' ἐν ὀλίγοις τοῖς κώλοις οὐ πολλὰς εἰσῆγον μεταβολάς, ἐπῳδοῖς τε πάνυ ἐχρῶντο ὀλίγοις», or in Campbell's translation «The ancient lyric poets, I mean Alcaeus and Sappho, made their stanzas short, so they did not introduce many variations in their few colons, and they used the "epode" or shorter line very sparingly». This overrides all I said in 4.xcix about this same passage found as Voigt 237, and I wonder how I missed they were the same.
    154. Then there is Campbell T37 Edmonds L178.2. Plutarch On Music, «Κὰι ἡ Μιξολύδιος (ἁρμονία) παθητική τίς ἐστι τραγῳδίας ἁρμόζουσα. Ἀριστόξενος δέ φησι Σαπφὼ πρώτην εὕρασθαι τὴν Μιξολυδιστί, παρ' ἧς τοὺς τραγῳδοποιοὺς μαθεῖν», «And the Mixolydian (harmony) is emotional, and suited to tragedy. [Voigt 246, 4.cviii]».
    155. Then there is Campbell T39 Edmonds L176.4. Athenaeus book 14, «Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν δευτέρῳ Ἐρωτικῶν τὰ ἐρωτικά φησιν ᾄσματα καὶ τὰ Λοκρικὰ καλούμενα οὐδὲν τῶν Σαπφοῦς καὶ Ἀνακρέοντος διαφέρειν», «Clearchus, in the second book of his Treatise on Love Poetry, declares that the love-songs of Gnesippus and his Locrian Dillies, as they are called, are quire as good as Sappho's or Anacreon's», in Edmonds' translation.
    156. Then there is Campbell T42 Edmonds L172.1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, would seem to be the point just before where he quotes Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite, I'll leave this to a picture because it's long AF and I don't quite know how to summarize it. Basically, it's describing a certain kind of style, of which Sappho's Hymn is an example (and not the only one he presents).
    157. Then Campbell T43. Another elegiac couplet excerpted from the Palatine Anthology, «Πολλὰ μὲν ἐμπλέξας Ἀνύτης κρίνα, πολλὰ δὲ Μοιροῦς / Λείρια, καὶ Σαπφοῦς βαιὰ μὲν ἀλλὰ ῥόδα», «weaving into the garland many lilies of Anyte, many white lilies of Moero, and of Sappho few flowers but these few roses», as Campbell translates. From the introductory poem to Meleager's The Garland, the flowers are poems in that collection.
    158. Then Campbell T44. Ovid Heroids 15 ll. 29-30, «Nec plus Alcæus consors patriæque lyræque / Laudis habet, quamvis grandius ille sonet», an elegiac couplet translated as follows by Campbell «Nor does Alcaeus, my fellow-countryman and fellow-poet, receive more praise, although he resounds more grandly», envisaged as Sappho's words to Phaon.
    159. Then there is Campbell T45 Edmonds L172.2. Another missed identification: this is Voigt 215, 4.lxiv. Let's see if Edmonds has some more to this… yep. So, before the Voigt bit, we have «Τὰ μὲν οὖν εἴδη τῶν χαρίτων τοσάδε καὶ τοιάδε», and after it, «Τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα κἀν ὑπὸ Ἱππώνακτος λέγηται, χαρίεντά ἐστι καὶ αὐτὸ ἱλαρὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν ὑμέναιον ᾄδοι ὀργιζόμενος, οὐδὲ τὸν Ἔρωτα Ἐρινὺν ποιήσειεν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ ἢ Γίγαντα, οὐδὲ τὸ γελᾶν κλαίειν», and the whole quotation is translated by Edmonds as «The forms, then, of literary charm are many and various. But charm may also reside in the subject. For instance, it may be the Gardens of the Nymphs, a wedding, a love-affair, in short the entire subject-matter of the poetry of Sappho. Such themes are charming even if treated by an Hipponax, the subject being pleasing in its nature. It is as impossible to sing a wedding-song in a rage, or make Love a Fury or a Giant by mere choice of expression, as it is to turn laughter into tears».
    160. Then Campbell T46. Menander on Display Oratory, «Πολλὴ δὲ ἱστορία τοιαύτη παρὰ ποιηταῖς καὶ συγγραφεῦσι, παρ' ὣν καὶ λήψῃ τὴν χορηγίαν· ἐπιφωνήσεις δὲ καὶ τῶν Σαπφοῦς ἐρωτικῶν καὶ τῶν Ὁμήρου καὶ Ἡσιόδου», translated by Campbell as «There is a great deal of such investigation in the poets and historians, where you will find abundant supply, but you will quote also from Sappho's love poetry, from Homer and from Hesiod», "investigation" being footnoted as «I.e. concerning the love affairs of the gods», and another footnote refers to "e.g. frr. 198-200", which are 4.ix-4.xiii here.
    161. Then there is Campbell T48 Edmonds L164.1. Apuleius Apology, «Fecere tamen et alii talia, etsi vos ignoratis: apud Græcos Teïus quidam et Lacedæmonius et Cius cum aliis innumeris, etiam mulier Lesbia, lascive illa quidem tantaque gratia ut nobis insolentiam linguæ suæ dulcedine carminum commendet», «And yet other people have done the same (i.e. composed amatory verses), although you may not be aware of the fact: among the Greeks, a Teian, a Lacedaemonian, a Ceian, and countless others, and a woman of Lesbos too, who wrote wantonly indeed, and so gracefully that she reconciles us to the strangeness of her dialect by the sweetness of her song», the poets being Anacreon, Alcman, and Simonides, and "wantonly" having references to Ovid Ars Amatoria, "Rem.", and Tat(ianus) Or(ationes) ad Gr(æcos?).
    162. Then there is Campbell T49, more or less Edmonds L146.4. Ovid Tristia, «Quid, nisi cum multo Venerm confundere vino, / Præcepit lyrici Teïa Musa senis? / Lesbia quid docuit Sappho, nisi amare, puellas?», one and a half elegiac couplets translated by Campbell as «What instruction, except how to mingle love with much wine, / Did the Teian Muse of the old lyric poet (i.e. Anacreon) give? / What did Sappho of Lesbos teach her girls, except how to love?».
    163. Then there is Campbell T52 Edmonds L178.1. Themistius Orations, «Σαπφοῖ μὲν γὰρ καὶ Ἀνακρέοντι συγχωροῦμεν ἀμέτρους εἶναι καὶ ὑπερμέτρους ἐν τοῖς ἐπαίνοις τῶν παιδικῶν· σωμάτων γὰρ ἤρων ἰδιωτικῶν ἰδιῶται καὶ οὐδεὶς κίνδυνος ἐπῆν εἰ χαυνωθεῖεν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπαίνου αὐτοῖς οἱ ἐρώμενοι. Ἐνταῦθα δὲ βασιλικὸς μὲν ὁ ἔρως, βασιλικὸς δὲ ὁ ἐρώμενος», translated by Campbell as «We allow Sappho and Anacreon to be immoderate and excessive in the praises of their beloved, for loved and loved were both private individuals, and there was no danger in it if the loved ones should become conceited by their praise. But this love is kingly, and Kingly is the beloved».
    164. Then there is Campbell T53 Edmonds L168.4. Aulus Gellius Attic Nights, telling us Antonius Julianus, after a meal, wished for «excellent singers and lyre-players of both sexes», as Campbell translates, to be brought in, and they were summoned and performed Anacreon and Sappho, and «also some sweet and charming erotic elegies of modern composers».
    165. Then Campbell T54. Plutarch Virtues of Woman, saying poetry is not two different arts, one for men and one for women, but only one and the same, see how Sappho and Anacreon, or Sibyl's oracles and Bacis' (a Boeotian prophet), are the same kind of thing.
    166. Then Campbell T55. Hexameter excerpted from the Palatine Anthology, «Εἰ δ' Ὀπικὴ καὶ Φλῶρα καὶ οὐκ ᾄδουσα τὰ Σαπφοῦς», «If (she is) an Oscan and a Flora, and doesn't sing the songs of Sappho».
    167. Then there is Campbell T56 Edmonds L166.1. What seems to be two half-lines from a poem in phalecian hendecasyllabics by Catullus, «Sapphica puella / Musa doctior», «a girl more learned than the Sapphic Muse». Addressed to the girlfriend of a contemporary poet.
    168. Then there is Campbell T57 Edmonds L164.2. Palatine Anthology, Antipater on Sappho, «Οὔνομά μευ Σαπφώ, τὀσσον δ' ὑπερέσχον ἀοιδῶν / θηλειᾶν ἀνδρῶν ὄσσον ὁ Μαιονἰδας», «My name is Sappho, and as much I surpassed female / Singers, as the Maionid surpassed men», where the Maionid is Homer, whose comparison with Sappho seems to have echoes in several other authors.
    169. Then there is Campbell T58 Edmonds L162.4. Palatine Anthology, Dioscorides on Sappho, lleaving this to a picture from Campbell because it's very long and all in elegiacs, and I wouldn't want to summarize this apparent epigram of Sappho, nor to copy it integrally, long as it is (5 elegiac couplets). The picture also includes the previous item, because I had missed the "58" when I took the picture.
    170. Then there is Campbell T59 Edmonds L174.2. Palatine Anthology, Anonymous on Sappho, another picture for the same reasons, though this time it's just 3 couplets.
    171. Then there is Campbell T60 Edmonds L162.2. Palatine Anthology, Plato on the Muses, «Ἐννέα τὰς Μούσας φασίν τινες· ὡς ὀλιγώρως· / Ἠνίδε καὶ Σαπφὼ Λεσβόθεν ἡ δεκάτη», sounds so familiar but isn't elsewhere, I probably read it while browsing through Campbell as I inserted these testimonia, «Some say the Muses are nine: how carelessly! Look: there's also Sappho from Lesbos, the tenth». A single elegiac couplets.
    172. Then Campbell T61. Tzetzes on the meters of Pindar, «Ἐπειδὴ παρανάλωμα τοῦ χρόνου ἐγεγόνει / καὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ λαὶ τὰ Σαπφοῦς, ἡ λύρα καὶ τὰ μέλη, / φέρε σοι πρὸς παράδειγμα θήσομεν στίχους ἄλλους», can't figure out the meter, Campbell's translation «Since the passage of time has destroyed Sappho and her works, her lyre and songs, I will set other lines before you as examples».
    173. And Campbell 214A. P.Oxy. 2637 frr. 35 and 38, Campbell chops them off at will, «fr. 35 l. 1 ]π̣(ερὶ γήρ̣[ως l. 5 ἢ περὶ Γογγ[ύλης l. 6 μήλῳ βα̣λ̣[] . . [ 7 κα̣ὶ ἡ Σαπφὼ[ 11 Καλ]λ̣ι̣όπης fr. 38 ἀπὸ Μυτ̣[ιλήνης», «fr. 35 l. 1 about old a[ge l. 5 or(?) about Gong[yla l. 6 (strike?) with an apple l. 7 and Sappho l. 11 of Cal]liope fr. 38 from Myt[ilene». Apparently a commentary on lyric poetry, this part clearly about Sappho. In fr. 38, l. 3 is ΟΥ€Ψ / ΟΥ€Φ plus a vestige, l. 1 is .[.].στα, possibly ἀρίστα, «the best», with an unexcpected Aeolic/Doric form. In fr. 35, l. 1 is barely readable and ll. 2-4 are blank, ll. 8-10 read ] . . . ΟΤΑΥ̣Ρ[ / ] . Φ[.]€̣ΝΑϹ€ . [ / ] . €Μ[, l. 8 suggesting the Minotaur to me (though what would it be doing here?), and l. 10 some form of ἄνθεμος, "flower", then ll. 12-13 seem to read «] . πάθεσι τ[ / ] . μ . τ[, the only complete word meaning «with calamities/emotions».
    174. And Campbell 214C, ending Campbell for the group. P.Colon. inv. 8, another picture for you.
    175. We start a series of 32 Edmonds testimonia (plus two fragments which I class as testimonia) with Edmonds L144.4. Scholiast on Pindar, 3 elegiac couplets, yet another picture, but this time from Edmonds.
    176. We continue it with Edmonds L146.3. This is the quote at, where the chopped-off part reveals itself as καὶ αἱ παρθένοι, which means the full translation is «Even free women and maidens still now call same-age dear women "hetairai", like Sappho».
    177. Then we have Edmonds L152.1. Suidas on Phaon, pic for you, I really wanna get through these quick.
    178. Then we have Edmonds L152.2. Athenaeus in book 2, «Κρατῖνος δέ φησι Φάωνος ἐρασθεῖσαν τὴν Ἀφροδίτην ἐν "καλαῖς θριδακίναις" αὐτὸν ἀποκύψαι, Μαρσύας δ' ὁ νεώτερος ἐν χλόῃ κριθῶν», «Kratinos says Aphrodite, in love with Phaon, hid him among "beautiful lettuces", and Marsyas the younger says it was among growing barley.
    179. Then we have Edmonds L152.3. Ovid Epistles, one elegiac couplet, «Nunc tibi Sicelides veniunt nova præda puellæ; / Quid mihi cum Lesbo? Sicelis esse volo», «Now to you the Sicilian maidens come as new prey; / What have I to do with Lesbos? I want to be Sicilian». Sappho to Phaon.
    180. Then we have Edmonds L152.4b. Athenaeus in book 13, «Ἔφιππος ἐν Σαπφοῖ φησιν», «Ephippus in his Sappho says».
    181. Then we have Edmonds L152.4c. Him again in book 8, «καὶ Τιμοκλῆς δ' ἐν Σαπφοῖ φησιν», «and Timocles says in his Sappho», so Sappho was a popular title for theatrical works.
    182. Then we have Edmonds L154.1. This thing again? This is Campbell T20, Voigt 219, and 4.lxvii.
    183. Then we have Edmonds L158.2. Aristotle Rhetorics, «Πάντες τοὺς σοφοὺς τιμῶσιν· Πάριοι γοῦν Ἀρχίλοχον καίπερ βλάσφημον ὄντα τετιμήκασι, καὶ Χῖοι Ὅμηρον οὐκ ὄντα πολίτην, καὶ Μυτιληναῖοι Σαπφὼ καίπερ γυναῖκα οὖσαν, καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι Χίλωνα τῶν γερόντων ἐποίησαν ἥκιστα φιλόλογοι ὄντες», «All honour the wise: the Parians have then honoured Archilochus thou he was blasphemous, the Chians Homer though not of their city, the Mytilenians Sappho though a woman, and the Spartans elected Chilon into the Senate, though they were not lovers of learning».
    184. Then we have Edmonds L158.5. Plato Phaedrus, pic 1 and pic 2.
    185. Then we have Edmonds L160.1. Maxymus of Tyre, «Σαπφοῦς τῆς καλῆς…», wait, that's Voigt 258 4.cxxi, back there you go. Note thagt "black" is translated to "dark" by Edmonds, so perhaps she wasn't full-on black but rather brown-ish.
    186. Then we have Edmonds L160.2. Ovid Heroids, Sappho to Phaon, 5 elegiac couplets, I bet you see it coming, but pic for y'all.
    187. Then we have Edmonds L160.3. Lucianus Imagines (aka Portraits), «Δεύτερον δὲ καὶ τρίτον παράδειγμα Θεανώ τε ἐκείνη καὶ ἡ Λεσβία μελοποιὸς καὶ Διοτίμα ἐπὶ ταύταις, ἡ μὲν τὸ μεγαλόνουν ἡ Θεανὼ συμβαλλομένη εἰς τὴν γραφήν, ἡ Σαπφὼ δὲ τὸ γλαφυρὸν τῆς προαιρέσεως», Edmonds translated to «For a second and a third model (after Aspasia) we might take Theano and the Lesbian lyrist, and for a fourth Diotima, Theano contributing to our picture greatness of mind and Sappho refinement of character», on an ideal picture of Wit and Wisdom, as Edmonds translates, or in the original περὶ τὴν σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως εἰκόνα.
    188. Then we have Edmonds L160.5. Porphyrio on Horace Satyres 2 1 30, where he says «ille velut fidis arcana sodalibus olim | credebat libris», «He (Lucilius) once entrusted secrets to books like to trusted companions», and Porphyrio comments «Aristoxeni sententia est; ille enim in suis scriptis ostendit Sapphonem et Alcæum volumina sua loco sodalium habuisse», «It is an idea of Aristoxenus; for he, in his writings, shows Sappho and Alceaus treated their volumes as companions».
    189. Then we have Edmonds L162.3. Maximus of Tyre, quoting Discorides to Sappho which is 4.clxviii, so back there for the poem, and the introduction by Maximus reads «Διοσκορίδου εἰσ Σαπφὼ τὴν Μυτιληναίαν, τὴν μελοποιόν, τὴν ἐν τῇ λυρικῇ ποιήσει θαυμαζομένην», that is «By Dioscorides to Sappho the Mytilenaean, the lyric poetess, the one marveled at in lyric poetry».
    190. Then we have Edmonds L164.3. Palatine Anthology, Antipater to Sappho, a panegyric (ἐγκωμιαστικόν), says the Anthology, «Μναμοσύναν ἕλε θάμβος, ὅτ' ἔκλυε τᾶς μελιφώνου / Σαπφοῦς, μὴ δεκάταν Μοῦσαν ἔχουσι βροτοί», «Astonishment took over Memory, when she heard of the sweet-voiced / Sappho, astonishment at how mankind possesses a tenth Muse».
    191. Then we have Edmonds L164.4. Palatine Anthology, Anonymus on the Nine Lyrics, 4 elegiac couplets, so guess what, pic 1 and pic 2.
    192. Then we have Edmonds L166.4. Palatine Anthology, Pinytus to Sappho, «Ὀστέα μὲν καὶ κωφὸν ἔχει τάφος οὔνομα Σαπφοῦς· / Αἱ δὲ σοφαὶ κείνης ῥήσιες ἀθάνατοι», «[This] tomb has the bones and the dumb name of Sappho: / But her wise utterances are immortal».
    193. Then we have Edmonds L166.5. Palatine Anthology, Tullius Laurea to Sappho, this is Campbell T28 4.cxlix.
    194. Then we have Edmonds L166.6. Plutarch Pythian Oracles, «"Οὐχ ὁρᾷς", εἶπεν, "ὅσην χάριν ἔχει τὰ Σαπφικὰ μέλη κηλοῦντα καὶ καταθέλγοντα τοὺς ἀκροωμένους;"», «"Don't you see", he said, "what charm the songs of Sappho have that they enchant and bewitch the listener?"».
    195. Then we have Edmonds L168.1. Plutarch Symposium, pic, including the next item as well.
    196. Then we have Edmonds L168.2. Plutarch Amatorius, see pic above.
    197. Then we have Edmonds L168.3. Plutarch Symposium, «Πῶς εἴρηται τὸ "ποιητὴν δ' ἄρα Ἔρως διδάσκει κἂν ἄμουσος ᾒ τὸ πρίν" ἐζητεῖτο παρὰ Σοσσίῳ, Σαπφικῶν τινῶν ᾀσθέντων», Edmonds translated to «One day at Sossius's, after the singing of some songs of Sappho's, a discussion arose of the line "Love makes a poet of the veriest boor"».
    198. Then we have Edmonds L170.1. Lucian Loves, yet another pic, including the next item as well.
    199. Then we have Edmonds L170.2. Lucian on Paid Companions, see pic above.
    200. Then we have Edmonds L174.1. Himerius Orations, over half a page, possibly partly elsewhere, pic for y'all. Yep, the final part is LPC 194 aka 4.v.
    201. Then we have Edmonds L176.1. Iulianus Epistles, pic again.
    202. Then we have Edmonds L176.2. Pausanias, «Ἀνακρέων ὁ Τήϊος, πρῶτος μετὰ Σαπφὼ τὴν Λεσβίαν τὰ πολλὰ ὧν ἔγραψεν ἐρωτικὰ ποιήσας», «Anacreon from Teus, who, first after the Lesbian Sappho, mad all the many (poems) he wrote love poems».
    203. Then we have Edmonds L176.3. Athenaeus in book 13, «κἀγὼ δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ἐπικράτους Ἀντιλαΐδα "τἀρωτίκ' ἐκμεμάθηκα πάντα παντελῶς / Σαπφοῦς, Μελήτου, Κλεομένους, Λαμυνθίου"», which Edmonds translates as «I, too, to quote Epicrates' Anti-Laïs, "am letter-perfect in all the love-songs of Sappho, Meletos, Cleomenes, and Lamythius"», the quote being two iambic trimeters.
    204. Then we have Edmonds L178.3. Athenaeus in book 14, «καὶ τὴν Σαπφὼ δέ φησιν οὗτος (ὁ Μέναιχμος ὁ Σικυώνιος ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Τεχνιτῶν) ... πρώτην χρήσασθαι τῇ πηκτίδι», «And he (Menaechmus of Sicyon in his On Artists) says that Sappho … was first to use the pēctis», which is a kind of lyre.
    205. Then we have Edmonds L178.4. Him again in book 13, «Χαμαιλεών δὲ ἐν τῷ Περὶ Σαπφοῦς…», «Camaeleon in his On Sappho…».
    206. Then we have Edmonds L180.1. Hephaestio Handbook of Meter, «Ἐπιχοριαμβικὸν μὲν οὖν τὸ Σαπφικὸν καλούμενον ἑνδεκασύλλαβον πἷον (fr. 1) … ἔστι δὲ καὶ παρ' Ἀλκαίῳ - καὶ ἄδηλον ὁποτέρου ἐστὶν εὕρημα, εἰ καὶ Σαπφικὸν καλεῖται», Edmonds translated to «First the epichoriambic, called the Sapphic eleven-syllable, as (fr. 1) … It occurs also in Alcaeus – and it is uncertain which of the two poets invented it». "fr. 1" is supposed to be the Hymn to Aphrodite, I didn't know Hephaestio also quoted it integrally…
    207. Then there is Edmonds 154.3. Synesius Epistles, «Ὁ δὲ ἀδικούμενος Ἁρμόνιός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ θυρωροῦ πατήρ, ὡς ἂν εἴποι Σαπφώ· τὰ μὲν ἄλλα σώφρον καὶ μέτριος ἐν τῷ καθ' ἑαυτὸν βίῳ γενόμενος, ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ εὐγενείας ἀμφισβητῶν τῷ Κέκροπι διετέλεσεν», «The one that is wronged is Harmonius the father of the doorman, as Sappho would say: despite having been sound-minded and moderate about everything else in his life, but brought it to an end having disputed with Cecrops about nobility», which "readily" Aeolicizes into the added lines in 5.A.xxiii w.r.t. The Porter. And with this, I'm done adding testimonia – the last 4 below were added before many others.
    208. Next up is Edmonds 1a. Now, Edmonds treats this as a Sappho fragment, perhaps given the source, which is a vase where Sappho is holding a book, but the content suggests it might just be a preface to an edition of Sappho which has the book itself speaking, which is why I have it here. It's the second line of an elegiac couplet, reading «Ἀερίων ἐπέων ἄρχομαι ἀλλ' ὀνάτων», «I start from aerial, but harmless, words», where Edmonds interprets "harmless" as "harmless to the ears", thus "pleasant to listen to". Now, This person doesn't agree with Edmonds' reading of the vase, and seems to imply there are more lines on that vase, and that this particular line was aeolized by Edmonds from an original ἠερίων. On this basis, I guess the vase could have read «ἠερίως ἐπέων ἄρχομαι ἀλλ' ἀνάτων», probably without accents because they didn't exist yet at the time. My point is that ὀνάτων is another Aeolic word. The problem, though, is that ἀνατός seems to feature an alpha privative, and not an ἀνα- prefix which would Aeolize to ὀν-. So my translation above, depending on this guess, may be flawed. I cannot trace that word in any way. I wish I could see the vase… Anyway, if Edmonds' reading is correct, this might suggest that there was another edition of Sappho, besides the Alexandrian one we well know about, that was arranged according to content and not meter. Or at least, so says Edmonds. After asking this, it seems I have been deceived by the meter. The alpha in that adjective is supposed to be short, it being the Aeolic form of ὀνητός, "profitable". Moreover, I was pointed to this article by Edmonds, where he convincingly argues that this is Sappho. I'd really like to know who dropped this from Sappho, and why. In any case, this seems to scan –uu–uu–||–uu–u–x.
    209. Then there is a quote that Lobel-Page hides in the critical note to his 147, as does Campbell, while Edmonds e.g.'s it to his 77, and Bergk apparently simply omits it. It reads «'Μνάσεσθαί τινα φαῖμι καὶ ὔστερον ἀμμέων'· πάνυ γὰρ καλῶς εἶπεν ἡ Σαπφώ· καὶ πόλυ κάλλιον Ἡσίοδος· 'Φήμη δ' εὔτις πάμπαν ἀπόλλυται, ἥντινα πολλοὶ | λαοὶ φημίξωσι· θέος νύ τίς ἐστι καὶ αὐτὴ'. Ἐγώ σε ἀναστήσω παρὰ τῇ θεῷ, ὅθεν οὐδείς σε μὴ καθέλῃ, οὐ σεισμός, οὐκ ἄνεμος, οὐ νιφετός, οὐκ ὄμβρος, οὐ φθόνος, οὐκ ἐχθρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ νῶν σε καταλαμβάνω ἑστηκότα. Λάθα μὲν γὰρ ἤδη τινὰς καὶ ἑτέρους ἔσφηλε καὶ ἐψεύσατο, γνώμη δ' ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐδένα, ᾗ κατ' ἄνδρα μοι ὀρθὸς ἔστηκας», or «"I say someone will remember us even later" [quoted from Sappho]: for Sappho has said it very beautifully; and Hesiod much more beautifully: "No fame is ever completely destroyed, which many | men spread: for it is now a god in itself". And I will place you up in the temple of the goddess [fame, I guess?], whence nobody may remove you, not an earthquake, not a wind, not a snowstorm, not a thunderstorm, not malice, not an enemy – but I already consider you placed there. For forgetfulness already tricked and deceived some and others, but the opinion of good men (deceived) no-one, and it it already you have stood up straight like a man». For the Edmonds e.g. version, probably motivated by the Aeolic/Doric form λάθα starting the version of the e.g. found in the quotation, have a look at group 5.
    210. Then we have Bergk 134. Quote from Pausanias, which says «Κατιοῦσιν ἐς τὴν Ἀκαδημίαν περίβολός ἐστιν Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ ξόανα Ἀρίστης καὶ Καλλίστης, ὡς μὲν ἐγὼ δοκῶ καὶ ὁμολογεῖ τὰ ἔπη τὰ Σαπφοῦς, τῆς Ἀρτέμιδός εἰσιν ἐπικλήσεις αὗται. Λεγόμενον δὲ καὶ ἄλλον ἐς αὐτὰς λόγον εἰδὼς ὑπερβήσομαι», which I translate as «To those who go down to the Academy, there is a precinct of Artemis and statues of Arista and Kallista, as I believe the words of Sappho also acknowledge, these are appellations of Artemis. The other tales that are told about them [the names?] I will, knowing them, gloss over».
    211. And we wrap this group up with the mysterious apparent book 4 colophon of safopoemas 89. Actually, the colophon, reading «Σαπ[φοῦς / με[λῶν δʹ(?)», that is «Sap[pho's / Po[ems IV(?)», is identified (thanks to a wrong critical note which places fr. 88, a smashing (see cat 2.E), together with it) as an uncertain completion of P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45, which is completed as book IV only because several P.Oxy. 1787 fragments were from book IV. However, given Lobel apparently classed several of those papyrus fragments as by Pindar, there is no hard evidence that this is even a colophon: it may be the start of a poem, by Sappho, or by Pindar, who knows? Given Lobel-Page doesn't have this, I'd assume it's one of those he ascribed to Pindar. How he decided they were Pindar is beyond me.
  5. The fifth group is a later addition, and consists of "Edmonds fantasies", that is, fragments where Edmonds reconstructed way too much and that are not adopted by me as readings.
    1. The first category in this group is that of the Edmonds "e.g."s, that is, where he takes some source, and entirely reconstructs the fragment it comes from, putting "e.g." on the left of the Greek text.
      1. The first such fragment is Edmonds' version of Lobel-Page and Campbell 30, that is Edmonds 47 (e.g.). Honestly, if it wasn't for the new fragment joined in with P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 56, I would probably have taken up Edmonds' completion. However, the new fragment renders that completion impossible. The uncertainties I mark are a partial adaptation to my transcription of the papyrus, I won't bother completely adapting it. Edmonds had no underdots or editorial corrections at all, the only critical notation he used were square brackets.
      2. The second fragment is Edmonds 54, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 47 and Bergk 44. Lobel-Page, followed by Voigt Campbell et al., takes the quotation, and fiddles with it as little as possible, treating almost as a direct quote with a minimal amount of change. Bergk considers a smaller part of the text as the quote. Edmonds says «The Bergk part was probably a direct quote with some atticization, the surroundings are possibly fiddled with, I prefer to start with a complete line and end with a half one that doing viceversa». You judge which choice sits best with you. I have no arguments to support any of these choices, or "devalue" them.
      3. Then we have Edmonds 84, where Edmonds reads way more than, and e.g.'s the fuck out of, Lobel-Page 93, which is so tattery that Campbell omits it as untranslatable. This one is obviously not what Sappho wrote, because, as I detailed in the transcription of the source, besides skipping the first line, he:
        1. Skipped a trio of letters in l. 2 which everybody seems to have missed;
        2. Misread l. 3;
        3. Skipped l. 4, which everybody seems to have done.
        That said, most of what he reads, I found in the parchment, so a big chunk of his text might actually be correct. A couple glosses:
        • ὄδδον is a hypothised Aeolic form of ὀδόν, meaning "threshold". This hypothesis was based on the attested forms οὐδός and ὠδός, which, says LSJ reported by Perseus, «point to ὀδϝός», which Edmonds thought would assimilate the digamma to a double delta. I say I'd rather expect compensatory lengthening into ὠδός, as a gut feeling, probably because of ὠράνω, an attested form.
        • ὠρρώδων is a form of ὀρροδέω with an augment. This should be an imperfect. I'm not sure how ὠρρώδεον would contract in Aeolic, but Edmonds suggesting this should perhaps be ὠρρώδην has me suspect he thinks it should be εο>η. εο>ω seems also plausible to me, via distraction εο>οο>ω.
        • Ἠΰφραν' = ηὔφρανα, aorist of εὐφραίνω.
        • οὐ μὴ, as per οὐ15 on Perseus, is mostly attested with indicative future to express strong prohibition. Here we have a subjunctive future (?), a strange form on its own since the future should be τεύξομαι (only middle-passive, subjunctive apparently not attested) and the aorist subjunctive τύχω, for τυγχάνω, and would have an eta after the chi in both forms for ἀτυχέω, and plus, we'd want second-person singular, so a final -s – a strange form per se, I was saying, and the wrong mood. Oh but wait, future middle-passive second-person singular would be τεύξῃ, so it's not that strange, I guess – except it would be from *ἀτυγχάνω, which I've never heard of. Edmonds' translation «neither have you, dear maid, anything to fear» doesn't help me figure out what this verb was supposed to mean. I suppose I'll take the meaning of "gain success" from τυγχάνω and negate it.
      4. We then find Edmonds 85, where Edmonds e.g.'s the everliving fudge out of Lobel-Page and Campbell 95. I took a lot from this, reformulating to fit an intelligible meter, which in Edmonds' version is absent AFAICT. At the end, he is vastly contra papyrum, cfr. my transcription. A few linguistic notes.
        • There are too many ways to un-elide ἦρ' for me to translate it on its own.
        • δῆρα doesn't appear on Perseus. Oh wait, there's δηρός, "long".
        • Edmonds had more in mind, since he translates ll. 1-2 as «['It cannot be] long now', [said I.».
        • ἄγρεσε looks like it should be an unaugmented aorist of ἀγρέω, except that should be ἄγρησε, unless perhaps if we go into a conjectured ἄγρημι which would not lengthen the epsilon of the stem in the aorist.
        • ἄγρον may seem to be a verb, but it's actually a noun meaning "field", paired with δροσόεντ', "dewy".
        • στᾶσ'=στᾶσαι=στῆσαι<ἵστημι, second-person singular aorist middle imperative.
        • λῶ would seem to be "verb 2nd sg pres imperat mp doric contr" of λάω, "seize".
        • I don't get the σε. I'll assume it's meant to be some kind of vocative (unattested AFAIK), because I can't fit an accusative in there.
        • ταἴρητον = τὸ αἰρητόν, the latter being, I assume, the -τος adjective of αἰρέω, used in the sense of "to choose", which is attested for the middle forms of the verb.
      5. Then we see Edmonds 157, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 108. Now, the passage where this is quoted, as reported in 1.A.i, conveniently stops way before what Edmonds' reports. Let's go ahead a bit: «Σοὶ μὲν γὰρ ῥοδόσφυροι χάριτες χρυσῆ τ' Ἀφροδίτη συμπαίζουσιν, Ὧρα δὲ λειμῶνας βρύουσι», and Edmonds stops here. This part translates to «For with you the rosy-ankled Graces and the golden Aphrodite play, look at the meadows, they are full of […]». This more than justifies Edmonds' e.g. lines, which are a straightforward Aeolization of it. The question is: is that part a part of the quotation, or is the quotation limited to ὦ κάλα ὦ χαρίεσσα? It seems everyone from Lobel-Page on decided for the latter, whereas Edmonds opted for the former. As for me, I don't know. I can only say that we are not sure about this last part, but we have another reference to the part kept by Lobel-Page and followers, as I stated in 1.A.i.
      6. Then there is Edmonds 107, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 122 and coming from the raw quote in Bergk 121. Besides the ἔγω at the end, which is completely superfluous, the beginning addition is justified by the quoter's word. Some would be adverse to εὔιδον, and ἔϝιδον wouldn't scan since we're talking (I believe) of –u–x–uux lines, that is, trochaic meter + choriamb. At least this would give two metrically identical lines, rather than the –uu–ux –u–uux of Lobel-Page et al., where l. 2 has an anaclasis. Whatever.
      7. Then we find Edmonds 29, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 163 and coming from the raw quote in Bergk 125. Again, the others restrict the quotation to the part that is found in both quoters, but it isn't too implausible that the surrounding of that in one quoting passage could be a paraphrase of Sappho too. Converting περιπτύξωμαι to περπτύγω is fiddling with the passage to produce what I believe is an otherwise unattested form… wait, scratch that, the perfect subjunctive πτύγω is reported by Wiktionary so I guess it's attested(?), and then περπτύγω is just adding περ-, a known Aeolic form of περι-. Still, a bit shaky, as you're including extra bits but amending them. Plus, why subjunctive perfect when the source has a future? Hmm…
      8. Then there is Edmonds 30, matching Lobel-Page 185 Campbell 185 part 1. Edmonds wants to add a noun to this adjective (why? Can't you just keep it as a single word?), and chooses maidens. Why not lyres or harps? Very shaky grounds to say the least.
      9. We proceed with Edmonds 64, matching Lobel-Page 191, extracted from the raw quote in Campbell 191 Bergk 127. This was in 3.xxiii, where the full quotation is found. Edmonds decides to try reconstructing a bit more than just celery: it's supposed to mention garlands of celery, so we make celery into an adjective, σελίνινος, but wait, Choeroboscus mentions Aeolians have celery with two nus, so this will be σελίννινος, which scans as u–ux in any inflected form that doesn't add an extra syllable; now, what known Sappho meters end like that? Well, that of book 2, i.e. xx–uu–uu–uu–ux, the one with one dactyl less, i.e. xx–uu–uu–ux, the glyconian, i.e. xx–uu–ux, and the asclepiads, i.e. xx–uu–(–uu–)–uu–ux; we need to put στέφανος or some form thereof in, and this is uuu; this suggests it would be easier to opt for one of the dactylically expanded glyconians, or maybe just a single glyconian, achieved by the dative: στεφάνοισι σελιννίνοις, as he reconstructed. Plausible, but nowhere near certain: if we put the garlands after the adjective, we can fit it to asclepiads by assuming there was a linebreak between the words: xx–uu–(–uu–)–u σελιννίνοις / στεφάνοισι u–(–uu–)–uu–ux.
      10. Then there is Edmonds 11, matching the raw quote in Lobel-Page Campbell 193 (4.iv). This comes from a passage in Aristide's On the Extemporaneous Addition, which reads «Οἶμαι δέ σε καὶ Σαπφοῦς ἀκηκοέναι πρός τινας τῶν εὐδαιμόνων δοκουσῶν εἶναι γυναικῶν μαγαλαυχουμένης καὶ λεγούσης ὡς αὐτὴν αἱ Μοῦσαι τῷ ὄντι ὀλβίαν τε καὶ ζηλωτὴν ἐποίησαν, καὶ ὡς οὐδ' ἀποθανούσης ἔσται λήθη», Edmonds translated to «I think you must have heard how Sappho, too, once boasted to certain women reputed prosperous, that the Muses had given herself the true happiness and good fortune, and even when she was dead she would not be forgotten». He proceeds to reconstruct two and a half Sapphic hendecasyllabics (or perhaps two S.h.s and an adonian, thus an end of Sapphic stanza), by greatly fiddling with the text, though most of the words are Aeolizations of words in the text. This seems a bit too bold to be a correct guess, but it is not implausible.
      11. Then we have Edmonds 90, from the raw quotes of Lobel-Page Campbell 196 (4.vii). This is another passage from Aristides, this time from his Praise of Smyrna, where he says «Τὸ ὑπὲρ πάσης τῆς πόλεως ἑστηκὸς γάνος οὐ διαφθεῖρον τὰς ὄψεις, ὡς ἔφη Σαπφώ, ἀλλ' αὖξον καὶ στέρον καὶ ἄρδον ἅμα εὐθυμίᾳ· ὑακινθίνῳ μὲν ἄνθει οὐδαμῶς ὅμοιον, ἀλλ' εἷον οὐδὲν πάποτε γῆ γαὶ ἥλιος ἀνθρώποις ἔφηναν», Edmonds translated to «the glamour that is upon the whole city, not as Sappho said, blinding the eyes, but magnifying it and wreathing it and moreover watering it with joyfulness – not indeed "like a hyacinth flower", but such as earth and sun never have shown to men». OK, I bet he meant "eye" or all those "it"s were meant as "they"s. Anyways, it is clear that the words of Sappho should paraphrase to γάνος [...] διαφθεῖρον τὰς ὄψεις, "brightness […] blinding the eyes". He manages to get an anaclastic Sapphic hendecasyllabic missing two syllables at the end out of that, more specifically –u–––u–uu–x. I don't remember ever seeing an anaclasis in a Sapphic stanza by Sappho, so this choice is quite unconvincing to me.
      12. Then we find Edmonds 84A, from the raw quote in Lobel-Page Campbell 197 (4.viii). The possibilities the passage leaves open are manifold, and Edmonds' is only one of them. Plus, –u–u–uu– / ––u–u–uu–u switches from glyconian to iambic, which doesn't seem a convincing meter choice to me.
      13. Then Edmonds 31.1, from the raw quote in Lobel-Page 198.1 (4.ix). Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius tells us «Ἀπολλώνιος μὲν Ἀφροδίτης τὸν Ἔρωτα γενεαλογεῖ, Σαπφὼ δὲ Γῆς καὶ Οὐρανοῦ», «Apollonius makes Eros the son of Aphrodite, Sappho that of Earth and Heaven». So one could plausibly reconstruct Γαίας γένος Ὀρράνω τε, or maybe Ὦ γένος Γαίας τὺ καὶ Ὀρράνω γε, or even Ὦ τὺ παῖ Γαίας τε καὶ Ὀρράνω δή, or the likes. Edmonds decides to start with Φϊλτατον, which is completely made up. So there is no reason to think it was there in Sappho's original text.
      14. Then we find Edmonds 33, from the raw quote in Lobel-Page Campbell 200 (4.xiii). Again, he imvents an adjective θελξίμβροτον which, though plausibly referred to Peitho, isn't in the source, so why not just go with Ἀφροδίας ὦ θύγατερ u–x, thus also using the same word for "daughter" instead of switching to γένος? Mah…
      15. We proceed with Edmonds 91, matching Bergk 81, from the raw quote of Lobel-Page Campbell 201. This was 1.J.viii. Edmonds' rendition is quite convincing, perhaps even more than mine, though it doesn't include Gregory's addition, and it removes all the apo- prefixes, which, being consistently used by Gregory, suggest they were in the source.
      16. Then we have Edmonds 110, matching the quote in Lobel-Page Campbell 204.1 and Bergk 135.2. This was 4.xxiii. The Aeolic form κόθαρος is apparently attested, so the rendition is quite convincing, if an incomplete line xx–uu–uu–[(uu–)ux].
      17. Then there is Edmonds 109, matching the quote in Lobel-Page Campbell 204.2 and Bergk 135.1. Edmonds seems to take the passage, Aeolize it quickly, langthen one verb a bit, and add a δάμναται which presumably fell away, leaving what appears to be an incomplete sentence at the end. So, if this passage is Sappho, the reconstruction is convincing. However, the experts have concluded it must be Pindar (sounds like some P.Oxy. 1787s, but it wasn't Lobel who made the call – see 4.xxii), and there is something that points to it, but until I see Pindar's passage, the argument is a bit weak.
      18. We then have Edmonds 92, matching the quote in Lobel-Page Campbell 209 and Bergk 140. This was 4.xxviii. L. 3 is straight out the text with minimal Aeolicization, l. 2 has that made-up verb at the end, l. 1 is totally made up. Meter, uu–u–uu–u–x / –u–u––u–uux, which I can't understand. So that already has me hum-ho-hum-ing. μέμειξαι would be the second-person singular perfect indicative middle-passive of μίγνυμι, which should be μέμιξαι according to Wiktionary, so we have controversies – but then again, it's not the first controversy we find about this verb, we have ὀνεμίγνυτο / ὀνεμείχνυτο in Hector and Andromacha. It would seem φιλίαν and correlated words are here in a relation accusative, so «With whom / You have been mingled in relation to a vagrant friendship / Which considers beautiful a public thing». A bit strange to use that here, why not a dative?
      19. Then Edmonds 24, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 23. Welp, why Hecate? We just have "the goddess", and not even complete. This was Poem 5 here btw. Edmonds' reconstruction is quite daring, and it would probably be best to keep the text as is, even though it is a paraphrase.
      20. Then Edmonds 77, matching a quote in the critical note to Lobel-Page and Campbell 147. This is commentary to Poem 1 here, saying «Πάνυ γὰρ καλῶς εἶπεν ἡ Σαπφώ· καὶ πόλυ κάλλιον Ἡσίοδος "Φήμη δ' οὔτις πάμπαν ἀπόλλυται, ἥντινα πολλοὶ | λαοὶ φημίξωσι· θέος νύ τίς ἐστι καὶ αὐτή". Ἐγώ σε ἀναστήσω παρὰ τῇ θεῷ, ὅθεν οὐδείς σε μὴ καθέλῃ, οὐ σεισμός, οὐκ ἄνεμος, οὐ νιφετός, οὐκ ὄμβρος, οὐ φθόνος, οὐκ ἐχθρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ νῦν σε καταλαμβάνω ἑστηκότα. Λάθα μὲν γὰρ ἤδη τινὰς καὶ ἑτέρους ἔσφηλε καὶ ἐψεύσατο, γνώμη δ' ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐδένα, ᾗ κατ' ἄνδρα μοι ὀρθὼς ἕστηκας», see 4.ccviii for the translation. The Aeolic/Doric form λάθα definitely points to this being another paraphrased/quoted passage, and since no author was mentioned since Sappho that would use such a form, it seems this should be Sappho. With Edmonds' amendation of the poem in the other post to be a lesser Asclepiad, using the same meter for this is natural, and with that choice, the reconstruction is pretty straightforward, save for dropping ἔσφηλε.
      21. Then there is Edmonds 87, matching Lobel-Page Campbell 101, but with the e.g. lines reconstructed to precede the part we have. Edmonds doesn't say at all where he got the idea for these lines. εἴσαο is translated as "appearedst" but should mean "sat". Maybe "sat with me" (without a preposition to govern the dative μ'=μοι), so by extension "appeared to me"?
      22. Then Edmonds 147, which I would expect to find as a raw quote in other editions, but surprisingly seems to not be there. This is a passage from Himerius' Orations, saying «Εἰ δὲ καὶ ᾠδῆς ἐδέησεν, ἔδωκα ἄν καὶ μέλος τοιόνδε· Νύμφα ῥοδέων ἐρώτων βρύουσα, νύμφα Παφίης ἄγαλμα κάλλιστον, ἴθι πρὸς εὐνήν, ἴθι πρὸς λέχος, μείλιχα παίζουσα, γλυκεῖα νυμφίῳ. ἕσπερός σ' ἑκοῦσαν ἄγοι, ἀργυρόθρονον ζυγίαν Ἤραν θαυμάζουσαν», Edmonds translated to «And if an ode were needed I should give such a song as this: Brid that teemest with rosy desires, bride the fairest ornament of the Queen of Paphos, hie thee to bed, hie thee to the couch whereon thou must sweetly sport in gentle wise with thy bridegroom. And may the star of Eve lead thee full willingly to the place where thou shalt marvel at the silver-thronèd Lady of Wedlock». Except he skipped translating the reconstructed part of the quote and prceeded with the reconstruction, which added "Queen" (original "fairest ornament of the Paphian (what?)"), and the original was "go to the bed, playing gently, sweetly with the groom". Also, both the paraphrase and the reconstruction have "Hera the Lady of Wedlock". All in all, the reconstruction doesn't change the text that much, save for a few rearrangements of words and some Aeolicization. There is παῖγνα, an AFAICT invented form for παίγνια. θαυμανέοισαν is no problem, just a future participle, from the future θαυμανέω of θαυμαίνω. The only problem is: where is it written that this is Sappho? It seems we have to read all of the Epithalamy of Severus to see it. Maybe I'll StackExchange that.
      23. Then we have Edmonds 154, which is Lobel-Page 110(a) plus Edmonds' extras which double the length. The extras are a sorta-kinda straightforward Aeolicization of 4.ccvi, where "sorta-kinda" is because, once you drop the parts of the quotation he dropped, it becomes straightforward.
    2. The second category is that of fragments where he reads way more than Lobel-Page or where he uses transcriptions that became obsolete by the time of Lobel-Page.
      1. The first such fragment is Edmonds' version of the Gongyla poem, which is part 2 of Lobel-Page and Campbell 22 and Edmonds 45. This is perfectly within the realm of possibility as far as my reading of the papyrus is concerned, though the completion of stanza 3 is quite risqué.
      2. Then we have Edmonds 82, where Edmonds read a billion letters more than Lobel-Page and Campbell 92 and adds his own fantasy for the reconstruction. As detailed in the transcription of the parchment, a lot of those letters are entirely made up and find no matching traces on the parchment. The critical notation is as in Edmonds, without bothering to add underdots and stuff (which probably would be unaddable anyways since a lot of his letters are contra papyrum). A few language notes:
        • λυῖε in l. 2 is untraceable for me. The translation «set free» seems to point to λυῖε=λῦε, but nothing about this verb suggests there could be an alternate form with an extra iota.
        • ἀπύσχοισα=ἀποσχοῦσα<ἀπέχω, though the aorist participle is unexpected for me here, I'd want a present;
        • σάων=σῶν, genitive plural feminine, an archaic uncontracted form, which surprises me in Sappho, but is actually visible in the parchment;
        • γρύτᾱν (long alpha assumed) is the word in 3.xi, presumably in the genitive plural, with σάων agreeing with it;
        • ἐββάλη written thus is, I assume, missing a subscript iota, and thus equivalent to ἐκβάλῃ, active aorist subjunctive;
        • λώπεά, translated as "smock", seems to have to do with λώπη, "mantle", as if clipped from some kind of *ὑπολώπεος, "under-mantle", given "smock" is an undergarment or a blouse; maybe he invented an Aeolic form for λώπιον, "small mantle", diminutive of λώπη? What leaves me perplexed is that this would be plural, which contrasts both the singular πέπλον πορφύριον in the following line and Edmonds' translation "purple smock" (singular, not "smocks"); goshdang word inventor…;
        • καββεβλημμένᾳ=καταβεβλημένῃ<καταβάλλω;
        • ἐξακρισάντων is the plural third-person aorist imperative of ἐξακρίζω, "fly high", which I assume is taken w.r.t. the mantle;
        • δέθεντες has nothing to do with τίθημι but is rather the aorist passive participle of δέω, "to bind";
        • μαίνης=μαίνεις, a present active form of μαίνομαι which is attested in a causal sense "first in Orph. H.", which I suppose are the Orphic Hymns;
        • φρῦσσον seems to be a conjectured variant of φρῦξον<φρύγω, an aorist imperative of "roast";
        • Πραξίνω, I would suppose to inflect as Πραξίνω Πραξίνως Πραξίνοι Πραξίνω Πραξίνοι, but I guess not, because it has to be a vocative (it even has an ὦ before it), so maybe Πραξινόα contracted to Πραξίνω;
        • ἀπύβην seems to have to match "return", but it doesn't seem to be an infinitive or to mean "return"; no, actually, it would be an aorist infinitive, if it was ἀπύβηναι, but with πεδ' directly afterwards we cannot elide; it would be from ἀποβαίνω, which can mean "disembark", and perhaps by extension "return"; but the infinitive thing is still not OK; and plus, it cannot govern προτὶ=πρὸς, which is btw a Doric form in the middle of Aeolic, because "disembark towards a place"… well, maybe.
        I asked about the untraceables on Quora, and Nick Nicholas answered, informing me that a neuter form λώπος, λώπεος is attested, hence λώπεα is explained, and that λυῖε appears to be grammarians "getting it into their heads that Aeolic added random iotas" and correcting a perfectly fine and metrical λῦε to this untraceable λυῖε. While I'm here again, I should note that, though I read λώπεα as «λω̣[]ορε .», the word appears as: , making the lambda and omega decently clear, then there's that hole, which may or may not fit a letter, hence my [], then the first black thing looks like half an omicron and the other two would form the rho, the epsilon is fine, and the next thing is a garbled mess, but one could use papyrus quirks to dismiss the last black thing (the top-right of the rho) and the top-left of the wannabe half-omicron, so that the ex-half-omicron, now more like 丁 without the horizontal top, could be the left vertical leg of a pi, whose right legt would then be what once was part of the rho, and the top would be lost to the hole just above, thus giving us «λω̣[]πε .», at which point the vestige would be an alpha (and nothing prevents it in what I retraced), and the hole would not fit a letter, and lo and behold, we have our λώπεα. So in that, Edmonds might actually be right. When I figure out why dumb blogger keeps putting borders on my images…
      3. Then there is Edmonds 46, where the transcription was altered due to a collage that led to Lobel-Page and Campbell 27. The transcription problems here were:
        • In l. 2, the nu in τινες seemed convincing enough, since we have |\, which looks like half a nu, and the \ seems to go back up; however, the collage basically revealed this to be incorrect; two options remain: either a kappa, as in the text I translated here, or a lambda, as in the Anthology (see you below for that);
        • Again in l. 2, after that not-a-nu, we have basically a mid-line upper-left corner ⌜ where the joining point doesn't have the vertical line; to me, this suggests an eta rather than an epsilon, but the epsilon is also possible; Grenfell and Hunt went with the epsilon for some reason, and Edmonds started from their transcription; the collage revealed… not really much;
        • At the end of the part of l. 2 in the papyrus, a / that bends downward, think of _/ but with a curve; this could be either a mu or a lambda, not an alpha because that's not part of an alpha's belly; Grenfell and Hunt went with mu for some reason, and Edmonds started from there; the collage joined it with πεσθ, thus forming the word μέλπεσθ' and revealing it's a lambda.
        So this poem definitely didn't exist because, besides being very daring (perhaps a bit too daring, in fact), it is based on a wrong transcription. And Edmonds also tampered with that transcription, inventing the forms ζαλέξᾱ in l. 2 and χαρίσσᾱ in l. 3 whereas at least the former had an -αι ending in the papyrus. These forms appear to be invented, because the only -α form I can trace is the first-person singular aorist ending in -ᾰ, and here we are supposed to have -ᾱ and a second person. I guess the idea was -αο>-ᾱ in the middle-passive aorist. Still, contra papyrum, unacceptable.
      4. Then we have Edmonds 118, where "obsolete transcription" becomes "obsolete absence of linebreaking leading to arbitrary linebreaking". This is the Athenaeus couplet that ends Lobel-Page Campbell 58 and coincides with Bergk 80. This was a couplet of x–uu––uu––uu–u–x, but was tampered with when Athenaeus quoted it in his Deipnosophistae, and the line breaking was lost, leading to different scholars proposing different line breaking. This one has 3 lines: l. 1 has only the final u–u, so we can't say much about its meter, l. 2 is u––uu–u–u–u, which looks jank to me, we start with an antispast and end iambic, or maybe it's xx–uu–u–u–x, so Aeolic base + choriamb + hypercatalectic iambic meter, and l. 3 is xx–uu––uu–u–x, basically a lesser asclepiad but with a –x ending, so the same kind of expansion on a different basis. Meh, not too convincing to me metrically. But then again, that isn't surprising in Edmonds.
      5. The wrap-upper for this group is Edmonds 83, his version of I want to have died, where he has his own transcription and lots of supplements. Comparing with my transcription, what happens is that:
        • He didn't have the bottom-right part;
        • He read l. 18 as καὶ πόλλω ν[έαρο]ν σὺ χρῶ which is actually plausible;
        • He had l. 19 ending with an omega, which I kind of see but it seems unlikely because it's floating in mid-line. I'll discuss this after the list;
        • He read γλυ]κίων where I had κρ]οκίων; now, the omicron is uncertain, but it is a rightward arc in mid-height, so it's hard to see an upsilon there;
        • He read κὰπ π[λόκων where I have a very uncertain κάρᾳ [σῷ, and his reading is also plausible;
        • He amended παρέθηκας more than my παρεθήκαο into a περεθήκαο, which is a sensible choice, though if my choice is fitting, why alter the text more than needed?
        • He read ἐκ where I have ἐρ, but my rho is a vestige, so this is possible;
        • He read l. 22 as starting with ἀπάλαν πὰν where I read ἀπάλαν παρ', but my rho was a vestige and just a |, so a nu is just as likely.
        Coming back to l. 19, I'm having trouble finding my own transcription, so here's a zoom-in of the area of the papyrus:
        Now, Edmonds didn't have the bottom, and only got to that hole where a line is split into two, so the only retracing he could possibly have done was:
        Well, he should probably have seen a vestige just before that, but whichever way you look at it, that is a no-doubt omega, so his reading is completely justified. With the new fragment, however, we can do something like this:
        Note: since I'm stupid and can't distinguish the cropped version from a zoomed in full image, this might be a different crop. In any case, this vindicates my completion, basically. However, my original transcription probably depended on a mental retracing like the following:
        The green areas are vestiges, and the cyan area is a vestige that should really have been a +.+. With that, we do not get my completion, and we ignore some traces. So I'm switching retracings right here, and saying this reads ] . ΟΜΑΝΚ[.]Λ++, at least as letters. Let me see about uncertainties. The mu and alpha of κόμαν are pretty sound. The following nu and kappa are very faint and half-height, so I'll have them uncertain. The lambda is sound. The omicron is just a bottom, could be a sigma or epsilon, so uncertain. In the end, I go with ] κό̣μαν̣ κ̣[ά]λ+αν+, which contradicts Edmonds. Edmonds' omega is puzzling though. I guess the best I can do is explain it away as a weird papyrus quirk. Or parchment quirk, actually. I mean the red one, which was anyway a bit too close to the previous line: the blue one below formed the top of the mu. But there is a big problem here: the gap is too wide for just τε. And since there was a vestige on the left, it would be just an epsilon. So this retracing is garbage. Being a little more liberal in whagt we dismiss as quirks, we can get the following:
        So in the end, we find a trace too faint for me to dare give it uncertainty status, an alpha which acknowledges a very faint trace, a lambda, and the an from before. So ] κά̣λαν̣. However, ignoring a darker trace to acknowledge a fainter one (dropping part of the mu-top and acknowledging the side of the alpha) isn't a sound choice IMHO, so I'll revert to ] κό̣μαν̣, and just regard the apparent κ[α]λ as quirks. Whoa that was a long job… so in the end βρενθείῳ τ[ε κάλαν] κό̣μαν̣, which is almost my completion, just switching a noun with its adjective. At least one gloss is needed: πεδήπομεν=μεθεῖπομεν<μεθέπω, "cherish". I'm pretty sure πλόκων should be πλόκαν, genitive plural of πλόκα=πλοκή, used here to mean "tress". Finally, ὀνηάτων=ὀνειάτων<ὄνειαρ, which in the plural (and in the poem we have a genitive plural) means "food".
    3. The third and last category is that of fragments where he just reconstructs things way different from Lobel-Page.
      1. The first fragment here is Lobel-Page 15(b) Edmonds 37, part of Campbell 15 which also includes Lobel-Page 15(a), and the only complete stanza of the fragment I dubbed The Curse on this blog. Now, here we have a transcription disagreement: Grenfell-Hunt says χαυχάσα̣ν̣το with no hole, Lobel-Page says χαυχάσ[α]ι̣το with a hole, and neither says a word about that line. If this weren't enough, Edmonds is sloppy on the bracketing, leaving several lost letters out of them. I would say more about whether his restoration is possible, but the only difference between GH and LP, besides the hole issue, is the nu-slash-iota next to the hole-not-hole, and without an image, I cannot comment on that. I do prefer LP's restoration though, as a curse on Doricha, rather than a sad recollection of a past event involving Charaxus (who becomes the subject of l. 1 of the complete stanza, whereas in LP's text it would be Doricha).
      2. We then have Edmonds 57, the Edmonds version of Bergk 82 and the in-cruces part of Lobel-Page and Campbell 46. Cfr. 1.C.ii and 1.J.vii for the critical note.
      3. We then find Edmonds 58, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 50 and Bergk 102. In light of ἔον on the Cologne papyrus in beautiful gifts of the Muses, I'd expect the masculine participle to be ἔων, not εἴς as Edmonds used. Plus, his version forces an amendment of πέλεται to πέλει in l. 1. For these reasons, I deem it not likely, and worthy of rejection.
      4. Then there is Edmonds 53, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 52 and Bergk 15. I like the idea, but adding a whole word and amending another one seems a bit too much. Also, wasn't the feminime participle ἔοισα rather than ἔσσα? Well, if you ask Edmonds, my ἔοισα memory has a rather different shape, but again, after ἔον, I can hardly accept ἔσσα, right?
      5. Then we find Edmonds 117, matching Lobel-Page 81(b), the complete lines of Campbell 81, and Bergk 79. The amendation of the last two lines is perfectly useless, as they make perfect sense as they are. Plus, προτόρην is Doric, not Aeolic, AFAIK. πέρθεσσ', he says, is for πέρθεσσο, which appears to be aorist middle second person singular imperative. θέσο from τίθημι, then contracted to θοῦ, is attested, but the double sigma doesn't seem justified to me. If it were, the Attic form would be περίθου. συνέρραισα is the aorist active of συνείρω, "tie together", which could be a valid emendation.
      6. Then we have Edmonds 151, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 105(c) and Bergk 95. That is definitely too many amendations. The translation matches more a ἔτι πορφύρει, which is close to the ἐπιπορφύρει I've seen somewhere. In any case, no amendation is necessary, and if you really want to amend, just limit yourself to avoiding the funny δέ τε combination.
      7. We then find Edmonds 164, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 114 and Bergk 110. L. 1 is just like mine. L. 2 has the famous προτί I always frown upon as AFAIK-Doric-not Aeolic, but it's otherwise a good take. My idea may be a little more clumsy (and Edmonds would probably have stuck in a synairesis, like he so often does), but it's just as faithful to the tradition, and avoids that προτί, so I definitely stand by it.
      8. Then there is Edmonds 160, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 117 and Bergk 104. Well, if you have to do something like that, the Italian anthology win: the short alpha in the article isn't convincing at all, which is probably why the anthology moved it to the beginning, since syllable 3 has to be short while syllable 1 is an anceps. So boo on him.
      9. Then we have Edmonds 123, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 134 and Bergk 88. He says the manuscripts give ζαελεξάμαν and προσελεξάμαν, the former being a metrical emendation of a hyper-Aeolizing ζαλεξάμαν, which should be διελεξάμαν since ζά and διά were both in Aeolic. I know about ζά, and finding two exact synonyms in a dialect sounds strange, but what do I know. Those who know seem to agree that this is BS, though, and amend in various different ways.
      10. Then there is Edmonds 120, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 138 and Bergk 18. I suspect θᾶ would be from *θάομαι, "to admire, marvel at", which LSJ calls «a form needlessly invented to expl. the foll. Dor. forms of θᾱέομαι (q.v.), in which θᾱ- is contr. fr. θᾱε(ο)- and θᾱη-: 1pl.», hmm, Doric? Anyway, it would probably be θαέο>θαῶ>θᾶ, I guess.
      11. We then have Edmonds 100, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 148 and Bergk 83. The meter is a bit inconstant, xx–u–uu– | –uu–u–x | xx–u–uu– | –uu–x–ux, but apart from that, sounds fine, even with εὐ- stripped off of δαιμονίαν, justified by a Hesychius gloss δαιμονίαν ἄκραν· μακαρίαν θειοτάτην, "super-divine bliss", "the most divine of blisses".
      12. Then we have Edmonds 141A, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 151 and Bergk 47. I refer you to 1.F.i for the note. I'll just add that χύτο falling off in all but one source seems unlikely, and it seems more likely that someone insterted it as a gloss or something.
      13. Then there is Edmonds 75, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 159, and coming from the raw quote in Bergk 131. Sounds like a good supplement, as it gives a clear meter (which puts it in book 3, however, not 4 as Edmonds did – shame on him), and is in line with the introduction (cfr. 1.E.vii). Indeed, I accepted it (I think) as the default in the editions.
      14. Then Edmonds 97, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell 166 and Bergk 62. I refer you to the myths post for discussion. I would, perhaps as an outlier among critics (if I dare call myself thus), reject the idea of a hyacinth-colored egg, because seriously, a purple egg? Why would a goddess make an egg purple when all eggs are white? Apart from that, we could take it to be couplets of lesser asclepiad + glyconic, thus giving a semi-sensible meter, and then the emendation would be agreeing with me.
      15. Then we have Edmonds 93, matching Lobel-Page inc. 5 l. 2 Campbell inc. 5(b) Bergk 45. Cfr. 1.H.iv.
      16. Then there is Edmonds 96, matching Lobel-Page inc. 5 l. 3 Campbell inc. 5(c) Bergk 46. Cfr. 1.C.iv. At first sight, it would see he took the codices, replaced a few etas with alphas, and made sense of that. Now, ἄγκα he explains as ἀγκύλας, "bends of the arms, wrists" (acc. pl.), saying to compare with ἀγκάς and ἀγκάσι, and I suppose he meant compare with ἀγκή=ἀγκάλη, but that won't justify the gender change, since these are all feminine, and ἄγκα needs to be accusative so it should be neuter plural – and it does have to be plural to fit the translation and the context, since you don't go back to the "arm" of someone, but to their "arms", plural. So ἄγκον conjecture. Doesn't seem too far-fetched, with all the neuter variants of feminine nouns we have seen lately (well, λῶπος=λώπη and possibly ὤροφος=ὀροφή in Edmonds' version of 2.E.v. But ἀλλόμαν=ἠλεόμην? Excuse me, but a) Herodian says otherwise, b) what is that, classical Aeolic athematic variations of thematic verbs? could be, but then c) What IS that verb? Oh there we go: ἀλέομαι, "to shun". But if Herodian says it's ἠλλόμην, whatever else you propose is wrong. And ἆς on its own when you need a genitive in the main clause and an accusative (as far as LSJ goes) in the relative clause isn't convincing at all, even assuming that's the form of the relative pronoun and not τᾶς.
      17. We continue with Edmonds 136, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell inc. 24 and Bergk 108+109. This is 1.A.xi.
      18. This next item is a bit of an odd one, because the only difference between Edmonds 7+8 and Voigt 40 Lobel-Page 40 + inc. 13 is the extra reconstructed line in between the two quoted fragments.
      19. Then we have Edmonds 94, matching Lobel-Page and Campbell Alcaeus 347(b) and part of Bergk Alcaeus 39. Cfr. 1.I.iii. His meter seems to be xx–uu–ux | xx–u––uu–ux | xx–uu–ux | xx–uu–u–x, glyconian + something + glyconian + hipponactean, the something being possibly Aeolic base + cretic + double-dactyl, which sounds like a mishmash to me. That said, if the meter is sensible, the emendation looks plausible, the grammar is clear, except κατέτᾳ is unfindable to me. Would seem to be a subjunctive present/aorist third person singular, but I cannot trace the base form of the verb. Also, the grammar doesn't really work, because that κατέτᾳ is actually unplaced as the verb I was thinking of using it as is the final καταύγῃ.
      20. Then we have Edmonds 48, where he adds a line between the two lines of Lobel-Page and Campbell 49. This seems a sensible addition, but someone challenges joining the two extant lines, a topic I'll leave to their article.
      21. Then there is Edmonds 89, a fiddled-with version of two quotations in the same text, the first of which is Lobel-Page and Campbell 48. Definitely too much fiddling. The meter seems to be –u–xx–uu–ux | –u–xx–uu–ux | –uu–u–u–u–x | –u–xx–uu–ux | –––uu––u–u–, which has a last line that doesn't fit at all with the previous. So boo to you.
      22. Then we find Edmonds 156, a different rendition of l. 4 of Lobel-Page 112. So, the source for this line has two codices, one starting the line with μελλιχρά, ἔρος, and the other with μελλίχροος. Neither suggests Edmonds' μελλίχιος, so this is BS.
      23. Then we have Edmonds 158, where Edmonds fiddles a lot with ll. 3-5 of 112. So much fiddling when you got most of it in the right meter in the previous fragment, and the rest only requires a supplement to fit. Nope, that's BS for sure.
      24. We conclude with Edmonds 36, his version of Cypris and Nereids, where he fantasizes on the final stanza. There are two places, I think, where his text doesn't agree with the possibilities in my reading notes here. One is ἔ]χην, but the letters are so mutilated that even that is possible, since what I call "right semicircle (not complete at the top)" may in fact be the top of a chi, and a following eta was already suggested by the notes. The other is κύνν[' ἔ]ρε[μ]να, or rather κύν[ν' ἔ]ρε[μ]να, where κύνν' is possible (the pi is just a |), and putting a mu and half a nu in the lacuna is just about as stretched as my ταἲνα, maybe a little bit more, but I'd say still plausible. I'll just point out that, as far as I can tell, νῆ comes from νέω, "swim", and πεδάγρη=μεταγρεῖ is from μεταγρεύω.
  6. And the sixth group is even more recent, and stems from finding an Italian anthology containing some (most actually) poems of Sappho online dated 2015, which provides interesting alternative versions. I'll have three categories: that of notices of completions that may make it into the all-Sappho posts but won't get an extra version here, that of very different versions of poems already found elsewhere, and that of fusions of fragments that are kept distinct elsewhere on this blog. Regarding the fusions, this article will be referred to as "the newfound link". While I was doing the above groups, I looked into these, and found this article, was pointed to this link of a translation of a book, and found a reference to Enzo Puglia's 2007 article Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787), which I then reference-requested on Stack Exchange, and was emailed by a user through one of the mods. Let me take some observations from that paper:
    • P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 29+ (LP 75(a)) and fr. 13 (LP 70) present similar woodworm bites to each other;
    • Ferrari had, for some reason (convincing supplements? Cfr. the newfound link I guess), linked LP 70 with P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 7+ (LP 68(a));
    • Now that LP 75(a) was with LP 70, convincing supplements emerged between LP 68(a) and LP 75(a), confirming the collage;
    • Lobel-Page already thought fr. 19 (LP 68(b)) and fr. 32 (LP 69) were from the same part of the papyrus as 68(a), with an uncertain interval; he also put fr. LSM IV 14(c) + P.Oxy. XXI add. p. 136 (LP 75(c)) into the mix, and Puglia states LSM IV 15(a) (LP 75(b)) could also be put here; all of these are unjustified AFAICT, and the last two aren't even in the collage given at the end.
    With this, he offers the following collage:
    This collage is responsible for fusions iii and iv. But the article doesn't end here.
    • P.Halle 3 = P.Oxy. 1787 and P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 join very nicely, so that what was l. 1 of the former matches l. 1 of the latter; this completes a couple lines of the former, since the latter has a column 1, of which very few letters are preserved, a couple of which complete those lines – actually completing on P.Halle, more specifically forming the last eta of what was l. 6, and the final alpha of what was l. 5;
    • The reason I'm saying "what was l. x" instead of just "l. x" is that whoever transcribed the papyrus before has missed two lines at the top of the fragment, which were the "mysterious line endings" that motivated my whole search endeavour (besides a few mangled supplements, but we'll get to that);
    • Those endings were looked for because the line matching what was l. 1 of P.Halle wasn't the first one of the other fragment's second column, or rather, was the first preserved line, but was showed to not be the original first line by a paragraphos over it; they were then found by zooming into the image – a thing I do all too much myself :);
    • P.Halle 3 and P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 5 (LP 67(a)) once again show similar woodworm bites, which suggests those woodworms were biting through superimposed sections of the papyrus;
    • They have similar width and similar content;
    • If they were superimposed, there must have been a section between them, so the sequence is either 60 - s - 67(a) or 67(a) - s - 60, where s is the unknown section;
    • But 60 is next to 3, which has line beginnings as does 67(a), so the sequence 60 - s - 67(a) is unlikely; therefore, we conclude 67(a) probably contains the beginnings of the lines of 60;
    • This is not in the article, but while we're at it, we'll put it in: 67(a) seems to join nicely with fr. 4 (LP 65), allowing us to complete a couple letters in the mutilated l. 1 of 65; I'll come back to that when discussing the resulting collage;
    • P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 45, despite being ignored by Lobel-Page and Voigt, definitely looks like a subscription; moreover, it occupies a full column, and is bigger in font size than the other columns; this and the fact that all P.Oxy. 1787 fragments can be in the same meter suggests it was the final colophon, so safopoemas in 4.ccx had it right;
    • P.Oxy. 2166(d) fr. 3 (LP 87(13)) and fr. 4 (LP 87(14)) are very likely to be joined with 1787 fr. 45, because they join quite snugly in several places; note that the numbers have been swapped in the collage I will present;
    • Lobel writes «inter 3 et 4 spatium solito latius, versui tamen non sufficiens» (between ll. 3-4 there is a space wider than usual, but not enough for a line) in his 87(14); Puglia thinks it was enough for a line, so that an extra line must be calculated there; the collage will convince you – it has convinced me at least;
    • The sign on what would be l. 9 is certainly (says Puglia) not a letter, but a sign that probably denoted the end of the book;
    • Fr. 3, with its line beginnings that could end in 87(13+14), its ending with the end of a poem as denoted by a coronis, and its more "relaxed" writing style in the last two lines, plausibly connected to the scribe nearing the end of the scroll, make it likely that this is the beginning of the column of 87(13+14);
    • To join it, we observe four things: 1) 87(13), the lower fragment, has a blank margin, so no words of fr. 3 must go there; 2) 87(14)'s last line with preserved ink ends with a high dot, which could mean the end of a poem, so we should match it to a coronis on fr. 3; 3) 87(13) also ends with a high dot, which could mark the book's end; 4) The famous horizontal stroke from two items ago is the end of the book; with all of this, fr. 3 starts at l. 2 of 87(14) and ends at that final high dot of 87(13);
    • But there's more: P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 6 (LP 71) could be the top of the column; indeed: 1) it's a column top since it has a blank top margin; 2) it's similar to fr. 3 in color; 3) the top border can be located to match that of fr. 45 (the one with the colophon); 4) its lines and line spacing are compatible both with fr. 3 on the left and with 87(14) on the right; 5) Convincing supplements abound.
    With all of this, we get the following collage (not including LP 75 which wasn't mentioned in the article):
    With this, we observe that P.Halle 3 must have lost 3 lines at its top, matching the 3 extra lines found in LP 71 in that collage. This collage justifies all the other fusions, namely i ii v vi. Or almost, but we shall see.
    That said, I give you my old notes to the fusions, and then proceed to write them anew with this new information.
    1. We start from the fusions.
      1. We start with the fusion of LP 62, LP 71, and part of LP 87(14) (precisely ll. 3-14).
        Before I give my typical colorful collage, I'd like to note that the anthology follows the LP text for 62 exactly, except they put 6 letters in the hole LP judges to be of 4 in l. 6. I tried some retracing, and can fit 5 in there, and then the first trace is consistent with a sigma, so I'm going to put 5 in the hole, and the final sigma as a guessed unreadable letter.
        It's weird how only l. 8 of LP 71, which AFAIK is supposed to be a single poem, goes in here, the rest is before (see fusion v), but the papyrus collage doesn't leave any choice.
        The anthology has mangled l. 2 to end with ]αι, ἄηται, but that doesn't exist, because 87(14) l. 4 only has «. AI», so the winds do not appear here, unless they are to be completed as «ἄη]ται». However, the vestige is «circuli pars dex[era]» (right half of a circle), so says Lobel and I agree now that I have the image in that collage, which would exclude a tau, so the appearance of the winds here seems to be definitively dispelled.
        Speaking of transcription of 87(14), the nu that ends l. 5 in the fusion is uncertain to my eyes, and not certain like Lobel had it, and the rest of 87(14) is LP text. As discussed in the collage, what were l. 3 and 4 of the LP text have become 3 and 5, because a space formerly treated as «versui tamen non sufficiens» (not enough for a line) has been revealed as an actual line. Hence why the ]αι ends up in l. 2 here, and not l. 1.
        Besides the papyrus collage discussed above, the newfound link gives convincing hypothised supplements as an argument to join 87(14) with 71, and the Italian edition shows there exists a way to supplement l. 8 of 71 with l. 1 of 62 so that they form a full sentence.
        So for the collage, I take my text for 62 (reinstating that dropped underdot alpha in the last line), I take mostly the text I used for LP 71, and 87(14) is discussed just above. 62 is black, 71 is red, 87(14) is blue.
        I also dug deeper into the newfound link, and found more supplements to include.

        ἐπτάξατε̣ [μέν, παῖδες, ὐπ' ἔρνη] δροσ[ό]εσσα[ν ἄγνας]
        δάφνας ὄτα̣ [                  ] . αι
        πὰν δ' ἄδιον [– –uu– –uu–u οὐδ' ἒν]
        ἢ κῆνον ἐλο[ίμαν
        καὶ ταῖσι μὲν ἄ[λλαισι u– ἄκτισι –u–u]ν
        ὀδοίπορος ἄν[θρωπο]ς . [
        μύγις δέ ποτ' εἰσάϊον· ἐκλ̣[
        ψύχα δ' ἀγαπάτα σὺν [μοι
        τέαυτ[α]{ν} δὲ νῦν ἔμμ̣[ατ' ἔχοισαι
        ἴκεσθ' ἀγανα[ –uu– –uu–u–u] .
        ἔφθατε· κάλαν [
        τά τ' ἔμματα κα̣[ὶ –uu– –uu–u–]ον

        The supplements seem to be mostly either word completions or guesses as good as any, except for οὐδ' ἔν which is suggested by ἤ in the following line, and in fact one would add μᾶλλον before it as well.
        L. 1 has some pretty puzzling grammar: the translation suggests ἔρνη δροσόεσσαν should mean "dewy branches", but the adjective is in the singular feminine accusative while the noun is neuter plural… Fixing this would give δροσόεντα ἄγνας, which is against the papyrus and has a nasty hiatus, so either I'm missing something, or this supplement doesn't work grammatically. Hum-ho-hum…
        Oh stupid edition, Puglia suggested ἄκτισι, if ya gonna invent ἄλλαισι, at least have the decency to drop the other word, or space it away. I'm following Puglia.
      2. The fusion of LP 63 and LP 87(13) comes next. Besides the collage above, this combination is justified by convincing supplements, which is a pretty valid argument in this case IMO, sufficient to validate the joining on its own. In l. 3 of 87(13), there would be ε̣σθα according to LP, but given the notes in LP say «apex tantum litt[eræ] ε» ([there is] just the top of the letter epsilon), and this portion of the line looks like this, there was so little that it should have been underlined, and could be an eta as well, so I'll make it an underlined eta for this. As for 63, they have exactly the LP text, just like me. Be it noted that 87(13) would go on two more lines, which are actually the blank margin as mentioned in the collage discussion. It's pointless to do the collage, since 87(13) only gives little bits of line ends, and the critical notation makes it clear which ends come from a papyrus fragment and which are supplements.
      3. Then we have the fusion of LP 68(a), LP 70, and LP 75(a). Let's just jump into the collage and then comment. Naturally, I try to use the texts I used as much as possible. 68(a) is black, 70 is red, 75(a) is blue.

        ] . . [.] . [      κα]ὶ̣ γάρ μ' ἀπὺ τᾶς ἔμ[ας γᾶς]
        ἄ̣μι[λ]λ' ἀ̣[πεκίν]ησ' ἀδο[κητ –u ] μως δ' ἔγεν[το
        μ]νᾶμ[' οὐ [      ἀλ]λ̣ὰ . [      ] ἴσαν θέοισιν
        [νῦ]ν̣ δ' εἶμ' ἐ]πὶ      ὀ]νίαν [      ]ασαν ἀλίτραν
        [ἐπο]ρ̣σομέν[α, σὺν δ' ὀ]δ̣ύν[αισ' Ἀν]δρομέδαν̣ [ὐ]πάξ[ει
        ἀπά]λικ' ὐπ' ἄ[ρμ' ὐψ]ιμέδο̣[ισ'] Ἄρ[τεμι]ςμάκα[ιρ]α·
        [ἀ δ'] οὐκ [ἀ]βά[κην] μὰ‹ν› στέ̣[ρ]εον δὲ τρόπον α[ἰσ]χύνη[ται
        οὔτι]ς̣ γὰρ ἔ̣παυ[σ'      ] . κ[      ] κόρον οὐ κατίσχει
        [ἦ] μάν κ' ἀπυθυσ[' ]κ̣α[. . . . .]. Τυνδαρίδαι[σιν ἄρνων]
        ] ἀρμονίας δ' ἀσυ[χ]ίαι κὰ[τ] χαρίεντ' ἀρ[έσκοι
        γ]άθην χόρον, ἆ, α[ἴ] κ' ἄδολον [μ]ηκέτι συν[
        πᾶκτιν] δ̣ὲ λίγηαν Μεγάραν [τὰ]ν̣ ἀ[κάλ]α[ν λάβοισαν
        δύν]ατόν σφι̣[
        ]επ[.] . [

        Some text notes:
        • L. 5 of 68(a) should really have ended with N[. .] . ΑΞ[, or even N[.] . ΑΞ[, hence the above notation.
        • The LP 70 part of l. 2 here probably had α̣μ . λ . in my text, but instead of that first vestige, Ι[.] was also possible, quoth LP, and I agree, hence the text above.
        • Apparently they completely forgot that 75(a) had anything beyond l. 4, and then there's uncertain letters in lacunas (!), in short the critical notation in the Italian edition is a bloody mess.
        • I guess δυν is also possible where I had λυρ in l. 5, though I still think my λυρ matches the traces better.
        • The LP 75(a) part of l. 6 ends with just a down-left arc, looks a bit more like the belly of an alpha, but could be part of an omicron too, hence my notation.
        • L. 3 is supplemented by me.
        Why the joints? Well, I guess convincing supplements, especially for red+black, throwing in blue needs a little more creativity to be supplemented, but still. And of course, the papyrus collage discussed above.
      4. Then there is the fusion of LP 68(b) and LP 69. Why these are joined together is beyond me: there is literally ONE letter in common, the first epsilon of ἐπεί in l. 6, whose top is in 68(b) and whose bottom is in 69. No point doing a collage. No convincing supplement argument can be made for this tatter. It seems the joint, just like the one of the previous fusion, is justified by the hypothesis that this and the above are poems about Sappho's exile. While this is defensible (kinda) in the above, it's really hard to see any reference to an exile in this tatter here, at least for me. Even the papyrus collage discussed above is very unconvincing in this part.
      5. Next we have the fusion of LP 61, LP 71 ll. 1-7 (all but the last one), and LP 87(14) ll. 1-3. The remaining parts of 87(14) and 71 have been joined with LP 62, which comes right after LP 61 on the papyrus, as discussed in item 1 above.
        Let's see the collage, then we'll discuss the reasons for the joining. LP 71 is black, LP 61 is red, LP 87(14) is blue.
        I have no idea why these guys and Bibliotheca Augustana read ἀ̣λ̣λά where there's clearly NO TRACE of the first two letters of that word, so I'll switch to LP text for that.
        Also, here is my transcription of l. 4 of LP 71: «ΔΑΚ . [ . . . ]ΤΡΟΠ€·ΑΜΜΑ̣». One could squeeze in an extra letter in there, perhaps, but not two, so their supplement is AFAICT contra papyrum. Actually, scratch that: estimating lacuna sizes is tough, and I probably picked a very wide letter as my basis for letter width. I just retried, and, though a bit squeezed, their supplement could fit, and the lacuna is actually 5-6 letters long (vestige to its left included). The vestige before the lacuna is just a dot, so it could be virtually anything, including a nu and an alpha (old text with παῖ]δα κα[κό]τροπ' vs. new text with δάκν[ε πολύ]τρπ'The epsilon before the high dot is eliminated because the high dot is so high it's actually a deletion dot.

        [x–uu– –uu– οὐδὲ θέ]μις σε Μίκα
        [x–uu– –u γ]έλα[ν, ἀλ]λά σ’ ἔγωὐκ ἐάσω
        [x–u γυναίκω]ν̣ φιλότ[ατ’] ἤλεο Πενθιλήᾱν̣
        [φρένας uu– –uu–] δάκν[ε πολύ]τροπ’, ἄμμα̣[ις,
        κήναισι μέν, οὐκ ἄμμι,] μέλ̣[ος] τι γλύκερον χ]ρ[ίσδῃ]
        ἔγεντ̣ο [δὲ νῦν ἀρμονί]α μελλιχόφων[ον] αὔραν
        οὐ γὰρ κ[άλαμος ταῦτα μελίσ]δει, λίγυραι δ᾽ ἄη[τα]ι

        Besides the papyrus collage discussed above, we have very convincing supplements that the joined fragments give to LP 71, so the joint is perfectly justified.
      6. And we wrap the category up with the fusion of LP 60, LP 65, LP 86, LP 66(c), LP 67(a), and P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 col. i, which I omitted because it had only a couple letters and wasn't found anywhere in my sources. The anthology mangled the fusion in several ways:
        • For starters, it forgot to list the last two;
        • It mangled the supplements ὀλόφ[ῳ() and ἐπίκει[ρ() in lines 3 and 2 respectively into ὀλόφ[ῳ and ἐπικεῖ[ρεν respectively;
        • It completely ignored the blue part of l. 8 after the lacuna, which got me to reread that line in the image and give a new transcription when that wasn't supposed to happen because the ideators of this combination didn't do it;
        • It messed up l. 7 by just joining its blue and red parts as they were, whereas joining the respective papyri demands different action (see below); in fact, it seems to have seen the combined text, and taken up the double vestige after πόλυ from there, but then reinstated the red part, not understanding where it had disappeared to;
        • It didn't get the memo of P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 col. i joining in here at all;
        • It mangled ἀμφιβάσκει into ἀμφιβιβάσκει, not realizing the latter was inmetrical;
        • It did some pretty blatant bracketing errors both in the Greek and in the translation.
        The story of the combination is as follows:
        1. Eduard Fraenkel recognized LP 86 and LP 60 could be joined into a prayer that developed in a way typical of Greek prayer and similar to the Hymn to Aphrodite;
        2. Lobel-Page and Voigt, and all the translators I know of, dismissed the combination;
        3. Ferrari, in this article, supported Fraenkel's combination, and added LP 65 on ground of convincing supplements, and LP 66(c) because it was essentially already considered to be together with LP 65, and then again convincing supplements; he thought the first line of LP 86 could have been from a separate poem, a conclusion he reached (I believe) because he posited no lacuna between 86 and 60; well, there may have been some line count argument, but the main argument was, I believe, that a parallel exists with a Pindar pome which starts with a line containing λαχοῖσαι;
        4. Puglia did the mega-collage above;
        5. Ferrari published the combined text with translation in this book of his; he noted that the extra two lines in P.Halle, plus the three missing from it (see collage discussion above), mean we must have at least 5 lines between the former l. 1 of LP 60 and what we have from LP 86; he then posited that the lacuna was exactly that much, presumably because LP 86 ends in a blank margin, meaning it was the bottom of a column, and so assuming more means a whole lost column, making this poem far too long compared to the ones on P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3;
        6. The edition ruthlessly mangled it as described above;
        7. I came to the edition, and, bit by bit, reconstructed this story.
        Let's come back to that l. 7 now. Here is how I joined the papyrus fragments with my computer:

        WIth this, what was once πόλυ [.] . and basically . | | | /\ (which was transcribed as π̣υ̣φ̣α, IMHO unjustifiedly, and was «. . . α» in Lobel-Page) join to form what looks like πόλυ πά[, the top fragment giving πόλ, the upsilon's top, part of the top of the pi, and an acute on the alpha, and the bottom fragment giving the rest and an additional dot at the bottom-right of the lambda. So πόλυ will be blue, and the rest, coming mostly from the bottom, will be red.
        OK then, so let's do the collage. I'll use black for LP 60, blue for LP 67(a), red for LP 65, green for LP 66(c), pink for P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 col. i, and purple for LP 86. I will also include the missing lines of fr. 3 col. i way below the big portion.

        ] . ακάλα . [
        xxuu– – Δίος ἐξ] α̣ἰ̣γιόχω λά[χοισα
        xxuu– – ] . Κ̣υ̣θέρη' ε̣ὐχομ[ένᾳ μ' ἄρηξον
        xxuu– –uu– πρόφρ]ο̣ν ἔχοισα θῦμο̣[ν
        xxuu– κλ]ῦθί μ̣' ἄρας αἴ π[οτα κἀτέρωτα
        xxuu– –uu– ]ας π̣ρ̣ολίποισ̣α Κ[ύπρον
        xxuu– –uu ἦλθε]ς πεδ' ἔμαν ἰώ[αν
        xxuu– –uu– –] . ν χα̣λέπᾳ μ[ερίμνᾳ
        [Three lost lines]

        ] . ν
        θέ]ων μακ[άρων –uu– –uu– ] τύχοισα
        [κ]αὶ τοῦτ ἐπίκει[ρ() uu– –u] θέλ' ὦν τ' ἄπαισαν
        [δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[ῳ() –uu– – τέ]λεσον νόημμα
        οὐ μὰν ἐφίλης̣ [–uu– –u]έτων κάλημ‹μ›ι
        νῦν δ' ἔννεκα [ – –uu– μοι] πεδὰ θῦμον αἶψα
        τόδ' αἴτιον οὔτ' [αἶσχρον, ἔφα, κὤ]σ̣σα τύχην θελήσῃς
        οὐδὲν πόλυ πά[–uu–– γὰ]ρ ἔμοι μάχεσθαι      7
        ο]ὐδ' [νδ]ρομέ[δα – u δίαιται χ]λιδάνᾳ 'πίθεισα
        - οὐ] λελάθ̣[ην ἀθανάτοις ἔστ]ι, σὺ δ' εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα
        κρότ̣ην Νέμε[σιν κῆνον ὂς αἶσχρ' οἶδε κρ]έτει τ' ἀ[ό]λλεων
        Ψάπφοι, σε φίλ[εισ' ἀμφ' ὀχέεσ' ἤρμοσε κύ]κλ̣α σ[οί τε]
        Κύπρῳ β̣[α]σίλ[η' ἦλθ' ἰκετεύοισα Δί' αἶψα σέ]μνα
        κ̣αί τοι μέγα δ[ρον Κρονίδαις ϝο] κατέν̤[ευσ' ὀπάσδην
        ὄ]σσοις φαέθων̣ [Ἀέλοις φέγγεσιν ἀμφιβ]άσ̣κ[ει
        πάντᾳ κλέος [ἔσλον
        καί σ' ἐνν Ἀχέρ[οντος
        . . [. . . . . .]ν̣π̣[

        [6 lost lines]

        Now, I refer you to the spoiler for more reading notes to l. 8 of 67(a), and how I attributed the anthology's δεῖ σ' to it. The wannabe acute I noticed over the upsilon, I will now take to be a paragraphos. Except it can't… what is it then? Lobel-Page doesn't even acknowledge it… Could it have been ούδ' in origin?
        In l. 26, the final letter on 66(c) (where this fragment gives κατέν̤) seems more of a gamma to me than a sigma, hence the double underdot.
        In the following line, the papyrus is hard to read. We have a vestige, and OK, then a dot and an arc, then a kappa, OK, the vestige even looks like an alpha perhaps (but a kappa is also justified), but that dot-and-arc? We could dismiss it as a papyrus quirk, but the space is still strange. Their three certain letters are another good reason to say eff them :). They seem to have assumed the space was an accident, the dot a papyrus quirk, the vestige an alpha and the arc a sigma. The arc could well be a sigma, but also an epsilon. Well, whatever.
        I also added a few of my own supplements to this, based on the suggestions in Ferrari's translation, as discussed here. One line was left unsupplemented because the acute on έτων is on the papyrus, so that epsilon can't be from a clitic, I don't think. Note that ἐπορσομένα is the feminine singular middle aorist participle of ἐπόρνυμι.
    2. We continue with the version-worthy differences.
      1. We open this category with their version of Cypris and Nereids, which is included more as an excuse to give a translation of a version integrated with P.GC. than anything else. Now, apart from fixing glaring typos, I'd like to point out:
        • The sigma of μέσδονος is most definitely nowhere to be seen on the papyrus, so either they forgot the brackets, or I disagree with them;
        • The delta they purport in κὠνίαν δ' ἔχθροισι simply doesn't exist, and I have no idea why they would even want it there;
        • They're missing the last letter of P.GC. inv. 105 fr. 3 col. ii, the omicron in παρλύοιτο, which is definitely there;
        • They are also missing the first letter in the other GC fragment, and I wonder if they're dismissing both this and the previous as papyrus quirks; I'll reinstate them as I have them in the other version;
        • In ll. 13-15, the first P.Oxy. 7 letters are invariably short low backslashes, so the mu of ὀνείδισμ' is possible, as is the lambda of their ἦλλ', while my rho in ἔκερρ' is actually implausible, so I guess I'll have to make that καί μ' ἔπηλλ', and both my lambda in ἄλλως and their alpha in κάλως are possible;
        • The beginning of l. 15 has something that looks like a chi, then ποτο; now, splitting the chi as right half = sigma and left half = half-omega seems very plausible; trying to see αι there, however, seems highly implausible; so their text is probably incorrect here;
        • I am convinced of the trace of mu left at the end of the P.GC. part of l. 16;
        • I hereby retract my transcription of l. 18, which is actually «. ΝωϹ€̣+.+», the epsilon having a clear high slash and the rest is very faint so one could take it for a sigma; hence, I read Γνώσε̣+τ+';
        • I already discussed the beginning of P.Oxy. 7 l. 18 in depth at the transcriptions post, rendering both my completion and theirs possible;
        • The epsilon of δὲ in l. 18 is definitely not outside the hole;
        • I don't know where I saw a vestige after the nu in l. 19, so they're right on this front;
        • The hole on l. 19 is definitely too tight to fit (from κατθεμένα) half a mu, an epsilon, and a nu, as they'd have it; but I probably said that also in the transcriptions post;
        • Now for their supplements; παρλύοιτο / ἐκλύοιτο is "part from" / "set free from": both nicely fitting, though I prefer the former if I have to choose;
        • Why exclude Sappho from her brother's grief with that αὖτος supplement? Why would a sister who's praying for her brother not participate in his grief? Wouldn't it be more fitting if she was suffering too, if it was her heart (κἆμον ἐδάμνα / κῆρ) also being overwhelmed? He's already suffering with ἀχεύων, no need to stress it with αὖτος! In short, I definitely prefer the completion I gave for l. 12.
        And that's it for this one.
      2. Then we have their version of LP 15 (aka The Curse). The main differences are πικροτέραν for πικροτάταν and πόθεννος / ἄψερον for πόθεννον / εἰς ἔρον. I guess each is as good as the other, there isn't really any strong argument for or against either that I can see. The rest is supplements – you might want to put in σὺν κάλᾳ] τύχᾳ there, my guys. Also, damn Lobel retranscription.
      3. We continue with both their and my P.GC.-integrated version of Divine Hera. Let's give some text notes:
        • In l. 1, the GC fragment starts very faint; I can see what seems to be a mu, and to the left of it a possible round stroke for epsilon, and a rho exactly on the margin which I could actually dismiss as a papyrus quirk; however, looking again, the wannabe mu seems more likely to be two letters, the last of which a lambda, the first probably an omicron, and then to the left we have a trace of a possible pi, which vindicates their reading (or almost);
        • In l. 2, just before ἐόρτα, the faint trace could be both a tau and a sigma, though honestly ϹΤ seems more likely than ϹϹ, as the left sigma would then be rotated clockwise; at the end, after the alpha, there is a trace, which we could take as a high dot, or a letter vestige; well, there's three high dots, so Ν· seems likely, but the second two are faint and could be dismissed as quirks;
        • Looking again at the 2289 fragment integrated into this poem, after περ there seems to be an actual modern non-lunate epsilon, which is weird as heck for this papyrus, but leaves me with my hands tied: Ε[ἴλιο]ν be it; moreover, there is a trace before the alpha of ἄψερον, but it could easily be a high dot, more likely so in fact than a nu vestige;
        • There are actually traces of the delta in ὄδον, so another point for them;
        • Why I instated a double mu in l. 10 is beyond me; there is just a high dot for that vestige that would be my second mu, so it's totally plausible that it was actually an epsilon;
        • In l. 11, I guess they're arguing what I saw as a pi is half a pi plus a trace; my pi is almost twice as wide as the one in πεδέλθην, but there is no trace of the left leg in the middle, so I guess both readings are possible;
        • In l. 12, Lobel has παλ̣[ like them, GH has no lambda; nothing is said by Lobel about this; nor by GH; so I have nothing to say;
        • There is actually a trace that could be a chi in l. 13, but we could also treat it as a quirk;
        • They appear to have forgotten that P.GC. gives beginnings for ll. 14-15 too, and have taken the Lobel transcription (dubium utrum . [.] . an [. .] .; ante ν, fort. ω vel η; then νιλ) for the end of P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 1 col. ii, which is different from the Grenfell-Hunt one ( . . α̣νιλ) which I took up; if only I had the image…;
        As for the different supplements, they are mandated by the different reagins, essentially.
      4. Then we find their version of LP 21, which is rather far from Edmond's version, which is what I adopted for the translations. The only text incompatibility between me and them is where they have a final epsilon and I end the line with a supplemented ποήσῃ, but that epsilon could be my subscript iota, says Lobel. As for the supplements, well, they are supplements. Well, I actually ended it with ποήσε[ι, so no problem. The actual incompatibility is again Lobel's fault, where the alpha materializes outside the hole on its right on l. 3. Note that, for ὄλοφυν, they used a Hesychius gloss that reads «<ὀλόφυς>· οἶκτος. ἔλεος. θρῆνος», «ὄλοφυς: lamentation; pity; lament».
      5. Then we have a new look at our friend Gongyla, from the "Gongyla is the object of the song" point of view, with yet a new addressee proposed. They have that first part I split off, but any difference there is Grenfell-Hunt vs. Lobel. Or maybe I addressed it in my transcriptions post. For the Gongyla part, the differences with LP are in supplements, and in not including Ἄβανθι but only saying «-anti», and suggesting Cleanthis and Melanthis in a note.
      6. Then we have their version of LP 26, that poem where two quotes were inserted until P.Sapph. Obbink removed one of them, which they complete rather differently from what I took from Obbink. Text notes:
        • In l. 3, I have χάλασσαι, they have a kappa for that chi; now, that chi should be uncertain, like their kappa, because, while there is a trace to the left that suggests it split off from the once-chi due to part of its bottom-left fading, said trace could be a quirk, leaving us with a kappa; before that, there is a space with the following traces: a probably quirky omicron whose bottom is the only vaguely certain part, which could be omicron or alpha, a sort of /|, and a high dot over that wannabe-part-of-chi I mentioned a while ago; I previously missed all of that apparently, so my text will require an edit; anyway, to keep my completion, the round bottom is a belly and the / a rather unusual extension of the belly line, the | and the wannabe-part-of-chi join to form a nu, and then the chi is all the more uncertain; to get their πάθος, the bottom is from an omicron, the /| is nothing, and then we have a sigma; as you can see, this is unlikely; in fact, πάθοις, if it existed, would be more likely than their πάθος;
        • LP and GH agree on one thing: there is no ωιμ in l. 6; and as far as I know, it's pointless, since ὦμ' = ὦ ἐμὲ is probably what they were going for;
        • The initial lambda in l. 7 is invented; the sigma in λαίλαπας is quite likely; my first mu should be uncertain as the possible combination of an alpha and an iota, and the alpha before it could actually be a phi; there is no trace of περήσ anywhere that I know of;
        • I already discussed l. 8;
        • The last stanza is GH for me and LP for them; LP admits that it could be στοις or οτοις, and where I have a high dot says it could be a beta, and gives it as a vestige; and he says the first letter of the last line could be an epsilon, and I wonder where the [.]. come from….
        I guess that ends the discussion. The rest is supplements.
      7. We continue with their version of LP 27. The only significant non-supplemental difference is κἀφίλης / ἐξίκης, and the uncertain kappa I have could well be a lambda, or even the nu GH took it for. I'll add to that that λαιγ / καιπ are both plausible due to the mutilation of the first and last letters. There are also two traces I missed on P.Oxy. 2166(a) fr. 5b that give their extra vestiges. Finally, in l. 8, there is no trace of the epsilon of the first word.
      8. Then a different version of LP 30 (Let's sing for the couple!). The only non-supplemental difference is ἀείδοιεν / ἀείδοισιν, but we have αειδοι, a high dot on the margin, a hole, and a half-nu, so both readings can be given.
      9. Then we have their completions of the pre-῎Υμμες πεδὰ Μοίσαν part of P.Oxy. 1787. Text notes:
        • They seem to have forgotten a small papyrus fragment giving the beginning of ll. 1-3;
        • In l. 5, while having «. [. .] . .» might be correct (the end has two vestiges, not sure about a two-letter hole there), the following hole has waaaaaaaay more than just 5 letters; taking the widest letter, an alpha, as the basis for estimation, and leaving room for the last trace to complete into a letter, I get 7 letters; put in any other letters, and you'll have more letters; so I'll keep the supplement, but indicate 5 more letters in there, because 10 letters look like a good estimate;
        • Line 6 features reading havoc; after the χυθ we have a blank space, a hole, what seems to be an epsilon falling into the hole with its middle, an iota slanting into the margin, a one- or two-letter hole, \/\/ with the last / bending a little back downward, big hole, and a definite ύταν at the end; now, the \/\/, which I read as omega, could be αλλ, the alpha having lost the belly and the lambda being half cut-off; however, θέοι is BS: it's ει over there, I'll make it certain actually;
        • The vestige after χθο in l. 7 is nonexistent; the end has either a superscript omicron or an epsilon;
        • The omega of πολυώνυμόν has left its acute accent and what I deemed to be another letter but could potentially be a letter tie;
        • For the final line I originally had «χρόνω̣‹ι› π̣[ό]λιον̤ γ̤ῆ̤ρα⌝⌟ς ἔ⌞[χοντ'] ⌟ἀθ⌞[α]⌟ν↵άταν ἄκοιτιν⌞.[», but relooking I see what I probably took as a half-pi was more likely the iota, the pi ending up in the lacuna, and the o being quite convincing on the other side, and there are traces of letters in ἔχοντα I had previously missed – the omicron is still not there though – and finally the second alpha of ἀθανάταν also left a trace, which I only saw when rezooming in.
        The rest is more-or-less justified supplements. However, the way they translate the last line, «(with the hope) to make a more appreciated performace with his/her mouth», is positively wrong. τίθημι πρόκοψιν may mean προκόπτω, I advance, I make progress, but a) κρέσσονι can't go with πρόκοψιν because of a case mismatch, and must therefore be an adverb, or go with the dative στύματι, and b) θῆται is no infinitive, so no verb of hope can be implied, at most a ἵνα. It appears these guys took κεκλομένα from Di Benedetto's article here (p. 11 aka 5), where I guess πρόκοψιν as "progress, advancement, improvement" was stretched to mean "better performance", added κρέσσονι of their own mind, and forgot to update the translation. This means this new κρέσσονι is either adverbial (but that sounds weird because usually adverbs are in -ως or neuter plurals) or goes with στύματι, perhaps as a comparative absolute. κεκλομένα is the aorist middle participle of κέλομαι, nothing to do with καλέω/κάλημμι.
      10. Next up is ῎Υμμες πεδὰ Μοίσαν, itself completed rather differently, and even with a somewhat different base text for the line starting with ἔρῳ. Aside from supplements, the main difference is their ἔρωι δέπας εἰσανβάμεν vs. my ἔρωι δα[. .]αθεισαν. Now, my theta should be uncertain because it's half-cut and the middle stroke… oh no, it's clearly there, so their text is wrong. Moreover, even the δε appears less likely, though still plausible.
      11. Then there is the post-῎Υμμες πεδὰ Μοίσαν part of the P.Oxy., which they very heavily complete. I believe they were inspired by one of the testimonia, an oration quotation somewhere up there. Indeed, 4.ccviii. Or maybe the Hesiod line quodet in the testimonium, which Sappho herself may have been imitating. Why these guys dropped the final lines after the Athenaeus couplet… LP, I guess, who had them split off for some reason. Perhaps he thought that sign under the ΤΟΛΑ from Athenaeus in the papyrus could have been a coronis, but it could just as well have been a pargraphos, so we can't really know if the poem ended there.
      12. Then we find the pre-῎Υμμες πεδὰ Μοίσαν part of the Köln papyrus, completed rather differently than what I had over at the post. Text notes:
        • The OY in l. 1 is undoubtable;
        • There is definitely a vestige in l. 3 before νῦν, and an iota fits it; as for the end, the way I saw it is made clear at the transcriptions post; as for them, I think they might somehow have treated the first vestige and half of the first nu as the first nu, seen an upsilon of a very weird shape just right of that, had it tie to a following nu, then the theta was free from superimposition wirth the nu, then alpha-lambda like me, iota in the hole… and the rest is definitely not three letters, so that reading is nonsense; well, actually, there are two dots on the margin, one of which very small and possibly a quirk, so one could either read those as the bottom of a pi, or a gamma and another trace… let's see this mess:

          That lambda is almost invisible, but I finally found it, which means the iota is on the margin, the alpha leaves its messy bottom for us, going into the hole for the rest, the horizontal line is either a pi or a gamma (Jürgen Hämmerstadt says «there is no papyrological evidence» to decide), and the other bottom trace could be either part of a pi or another letter, and then the other dot… quirk, I say;
        • γένωμαι in l. 4 is plausible, though I kind of do see the right leg of the pi going down from its top, which would exclude a gamma;
        • I have no idea why I had the nu of ἔχοισαν in l. 5 be a correction, probably I read just the left leg and thought it was an iota, but that's not the only option;
        • In l. 7, there really is a trace of an iota going into the hole, so [α]ἴ is warranted;
        • Their reading of l. 8 is also plausible; in fact, χέλνναν seems kind of unlikely given that the wannabe lambda has a horizontal inner stroke, thus making it much more of an alpha, and a lambda only if we dismiss that as a quirk, which is not really feasible actually; So my text was wrong; the following upsilon is possible, though potentially a tau or pi; then we have an infinity sign, which could be quirks or a nu with weirdness; then we have either OI . or OK; actually, that kappa is more of a nu, so I'd conclude ΟΝ \, the final trace being almost over the alpha.
        And that's it, besides supplements. If I catch the idiot who managed to put a high dot between φαίνην and δὸς when the latter governs the former (as is made evident by the translation)…
      13. Then we find a different completion of LP 23. Reading differences are LP's fault. My version of l. 1 is also possible, says LP. There is definitely no trace of either alpha or omicron before θοις. The word "expert", which doesn't seem to be in the text, is commented on here, and appears to be ἐπαβόλα, where ἐπάβολος (or rather the Attic equivalent ἐπήβολος) is glossed to that effect By hesychius.
      14. Then LP 24(a), which they integrate with the other Oxyrhynchus scrap which I rejected to keep my Edmonds version, and I keep it in this category because of that. Um, no, really. The only difference is ending l. 3 with πάντα instead of λάμπρᾳ, resulting in "we did all these things in youth" instead of "we did these things in (our) shining youth". What is WAY more version-worthy is their treatment of LP 94 aka I want to have died. Text notes:
        • It's hard to say if the epsilon in the middle of κατελίππανεν (I mean the augment) is there as a trace or is wholly lost to the hole;
        • It's hard to tell what the traces of ink around the hole are supposed to be to the μοι; I guess one could dismiss them as quirks; however, the final iota has two traces that match, so it's really convincing;
        • Well, yeah, there is a trace that could be the alpha of οἶσθα, and I guess if the theta ain't a quirk the alpha ain't either, better correct that in the editions;
        • In the ὄμναισαι τὰ σὺ λάθεαι line, after the first word, there is this mess:

          First trace in the pic is the alpha in the final diphthong, then the iota right on the margin, then lots of uncertainty; I probably saw the top of a tau right after the first "gulf", though it could well be the top of a sigma, since it's either slanted or curved; next up is a smudge which I probably took as part of the top of an alpha, but could well be part of an upsilon, giving the anthology's σὺ; then another faint curved marginal smudge which could be a quirk, or the top of a letter, delta and sigma being options; then what could be either the top of an upsilon or that of an eta, or even the top of €Δ; then a 1 or 2 letter hole, a trace that looks like ˥ or perhaps a pi, could be an alpha as in the anthology, or my theta, though I have to say that is a bit less likely; actually, that might be two traces: the alpha/theta/whatnot, and a vertical smudge which could be half a rho, thus supporting their text; except the following trace has the famous middle stroke, so it has to be an epsilon;
        • Next line, my editorial correction on the sigma is bollocks – I probably took the boldish almost-closing top for a middle stroke, thus making an epsilon out of a sigma –, the beginning is definitely OC, perhaps the next trace is a sigma, which would fit a more Aeolic version of my text; to be fixed in editions; then we have a trace, which could be an alpha, completing ὄσσα or starting an ἄμμες; oh wait: there is a trace of ink under my sigma, but maybe it was an acute on the omicron in the line below? Anyways, I guess the editorial correction stays; after the possible alpha, there are tops of, I'd say, 3-4, maybe 5, letters, which could be ΜΜ€, but also Τ€ΡΠ, though the pi seems very unlikely; then a 6-8 letter hole where the tops of the previous line seem to be from this one, definitely more than the four of the anthology, but even my 5 are a bit too few, especially considering one is an iota;
        • There isn't the slightest hint of a βρ, but there is a marginal trace, which could be a quirk, but as an arc could be an omicron;
        • Apparently editorial corrections are not a thing to be indicated; tuts to you, anthology;
        • The ἀμπ' seems to be Schweigenhäuser's invention, I see no reason it should be like that, except αντια παλαι being more easily explained as a corruption of αμπαπαλαι than αμφαπαλαι;
        • The trace that gave my rho in ἐράτων may be a quirk (I have difficulties locating a single trace sign), but there is definitely room for a one-letter blank, so I'll go with +.+;
        • Next line, here's the start:

          And here are two possible retracings:

          On the left, what I think gave my reading; on the right, what could give the anthology's; and I have to admit, their text looks more likely than mine, despite Lobel taking up mine in his Σαπφοῦς μελῶς (but reading π . . . . in the Lobel-Page edition);
        • The only way to get σὸν μύρωι as an option is to take what looks like an evident sigma as the left leg of a mu with a quirky closing, which is very unlikely IMO, so I stand by my reading;
        • The vestige is definitely there, but could also be a lambda; that's probably what should have become of that apparently spurious dot they have after βρενθείω; and naturally, the end is a friggin' mess; I already rediscussed this end in 5.B.v, with the final nu being certain, then maybe others saw my traces of lambda and alpha as quirks (besides, they could also fit δο, though less plausibly), before those there is something that could be an upsilon, with quirk wrestlings analogous to those that gave me my alpha, but before that a rho seems unlikely, maybe a half rho with quirk wrestlings;
        • I see where I was coming from in the βασιληΐῳ line, but where they are coming from is a bit more likely;
        • It is possible that my nu was the sum of a delta and an iota, so ΝωΝ becomes ΔΙωΝ as they have; my first two traces are probably quirks, though the other one is more likely a letter trace, possibly an omicron; so both my ὀπαυόνων and their ]δίων are possible;
        • My ending ον is so faint it could be two vestiges, but it's there; can't just ignore it; and the first one has a round top, so omicron would fit;
        • Their χόρος is an LP suggestion; but that split letter on a dark margin could also be an alpha.
        And the rest is supplements.
      15. We continue with their completions of LP 214[1]. Uuuuh… why on earth is this here? It's identical to LP! I'll make a crazy guess: I saw their version of 102, noticed the different line breaking, wrote down 102, but made a typo and wrote 103, then the space got a c before it since I was using my mobile, and then 103c in their numbering is LP 214[1]. Whatever the case, I'll do 102. The only difference is the line breaking: mine yields two lines with meter u–u–u––uu–u–u–u, possibly x–u–x–||–uu–x–u–x, so a brachycatalectic iambic dimeter plus a trochaic dimeter with a fixed dactyl in spot 1, whereas theirs gives two couplets of u–u–u––|uu–u–u–u, possibly x–u–x–x|uu–u–x–x, so catalectic iambic dimeter + catalectic iambic dimeter with fixed anapest at the beginning. Looking at it, it's kind of more uniform this way. However, the quoter Demetrius says "antispastic tetrameter catalectic with an antispast only in the second meter", antispast is u––u, with anaclasis we get u–u–, so the meters might split as u–u–|u––u|u–u–|u–x, and that would fit the analysis perfectly. Therefore, their line breaking is incorrect, or Demetrius is with his analysis.
      16. Then we have their version of the second Gongyla poem. Text notes:
        • In the first line, the tau could be a gamma, because what would distinguish it from one is partly in the hole, partly on a dark margin;
        • My vestige in l. 3 could be an omicron;
        • In l. 4 I probably saw a big fat vertical leg of tau with a part of top, whereas they saw a curved stroke for a sigma; both are plausible, though my reading requires the big fat bottom to have a blank hole in it;
        • The sigma they have to end the next line, which I don't, definitely left its bottom, and cannot be a lambda, but I was trying to follow Mr. HallucinEdmonds; well, unless what I see now as a sigma was the bottom-right of said lambda, which continued leftward to where I saw the epsilon, and the epsilon were pseudo-superscripted in between theta and lambda, which is weird, but I guess not totally implausible, meaning the lambda comes out the brackets with an underdot;
        • Definitely a trace ending the following line, perhaps a mu, perhaps their gamma, who knows;
        • My certain first omicron in ἔπορος was superscript, so I guess I can't blame them for leaving it as a vestige;
        • There are definitely traces of the pi and tau of ἐπτατόνω;
        • I have μακάραν out of an editorial correction for meter, but I saw μάκαιραν as they have;
        • The trace of the nu of ἄγαν can be dismissed as a quirk;
        • Ditto for epsilon of ἔχει;
        • Αἴδα may well end with two vestiges, but what precedes it has the middle stroke of an epsilon, so the editorial correction stands; before the two deltas, the margin is too dark to say vestige; my first delta could be treated as a vestige;
        • Both δευο and δετο are possible; my νέκρο]ις is too long and requires a correction, reading like them would have been wiser;
        • In the last line, we have a mu-like faint trace, a 1-letter hole, then the ΜΗΤΙ, then the top of what could be a sigma or a pi or possibly other things, then something I'd call dark margin rather than vestige.
        And that's it.
      17. Next up is their version of the poem addressed to Kleis (LP 98). Text notes:
        • I confirm l. 2 has a trace of that alpha, but the nu is grammatically required;
        • The editorial corrections in l. 3 are one necessary, since iota subscripts are normally adscripted on this papyrus (cfr. πορφύρωι in the line below), the other one more plausibly blamed on wrongly reading the final vestige as a sigma when it was an iota;
        • Trace of final eta in l. 5 definitely present;
        • In l. 12 I hate to admit CI is more likely than M at the beginning;
        • While I agree with Kamerbeek that, once thus supplemented, the line doesn't accept the form πόλεις readily since Aeolic would have the inmetrical πόλιας, so that an editorial correction into the Homeric form πόλῑς is warranted, ἴκανε is inmetrical since the alpha is long, whereas the meter would demand a short vowel, so even lengthening the iota by augment we still have an inmetricality; by the way, that article would have μιτράναν ... ποικίλαν be genitive plural; integrating instead Κλ[έι μαίεαι allows the accusative there;
        • In l. 15 the papyrus definitely writes the wrong Μιτυληνάῳ, so editorial corrections necessary;
        • In l. 17, it's παι . απειον, the vestige most likely a sigma; that wannabe trace of lambda is probably too high to be one, perhaps a deletion dot;
        • In l. 18 there is no trace of their chi, which I had as a nu;
        • In l. 19, I agree to three final traces, but then the papyrus ends, so no [.][;
        • In l. 20 my ταύτας was wrong, the sigma isn't there; or is it? Well, it's either the tau of τᾶς extending its top leftward and curving it down, or a mini-sigma, you choose which you prefer;
        • In l. 21, their reading requires some corrections; my λαισα started with two letters which could both be either alpha or lambda, so their αλ is possible, but the theta? Nope, no way, it neither closes nor has the middle stroke; plus, they're swapping words; ἄλιθ'=ἤλιθα;
        The rest is supplements.
      18. Then we are back with the extra-corrupted handcloths (χερρόμακτρα), i.e. we have a brand-new version of LP 101. I stand by my text, though the repeated κὰκ κόμαν makes amending to Μαόνων at the end more pleasant, a people's name is more fitting. Also, we finally get some idea of that καταΰτμενα, where ἀΰτμενα is an epic singular accusative of ἀυτμή, "breath" or "odour, scent" (and here is Theander's "odorata") – and Voigt's CRIT confirms the anthology's ἀΰτμνενα, present both in the text and in the footnote, is a typo: Lobel suggested ἀΰτμενα, without the nu before the epsilon.
      19. We continue with their version of LP 114. Well, I guess a meter change can happen when a different persona speaks, but what is that meter? –uu–x–u–x|–uu–x–x? I guess it makes sense: brachycatalectic trochaic tetrameter with two fixed dactyls starting meters 1 and 3.
      20. We wrap up the category with their version of LP 150, which goes so far as to place in book 3 while my (or rather Edmonds') version places it in book 4. My version was influenced by Edmonds' correction in l. 2, so l. 2 was originally probably a lesser asclepiad, and one syllable can easily be added in l. 2 to make it a lesser asclepiad too; their making it greater asclepiads isn't really warranted, except for the fact that whoever quoted this says it was addressed to her daughter, so they wanted the name in there – or rather, Ferrari did.
    3. We end with the completion notices. For those, when I copy lines, I won't bother with underdots, but I will include square and angled brackets.
      1. In Sappho 44, we have:
        1. L. 2 completed to read κάρυξ ἦλθε θέ[ων τε μέσος τ'] ἔλε[γε στ]άθεις, «the messenger of the gods came and, having sat in the middle, said»; this won't get into the editions, but IIRC Edmonds' (which was also mine) had too few letters in the first hole, and this is one letter closer to fitting the estimate.
        2. L. 4 completed as τᾶς τ' ἄλλας Ἀσίας τ[ό]δε γᾶν κλέος ἄφθιτον, «and of the lands of the rest of Asia this (was) an indestructible glory». I prefer Edmonds' version, because it doesn't force me to read an implied "to be".
        3. Ll. 8-9 reading κἄμματα / πορφύρ[α] κὰτ ἀΰτ[με]να, which they translate to «e vesti purpuree al soffio dei venti», «and purple robes blowing in the winds». Now IIRC this was contra papyrum, but at least it gives a suggestion for this bitch of a καταΰτμενα, relating it to αὐτμή, "breath", I believe. So, ἄημι comes from ἄϝημι, and I suspect this weird form can conjecturally be explained as the root αϝ developing to ἀυ and being conjugated athematically as Aeolic is wont to do. But wait, the -t- is unexplained. In any case, this will come back for the above discussion of their version of the χερρόμακτρα, so I leave you this way until I deal with that.
        4. δίφροις, "chariot-boards", instead of δᾶμος in l. 19, which doesn't allow any full completion, I think.
        So none of these go into the editions.
      2. LP 103
        • In l. 1, we have the completion ἔννεπε [δ]ὴ προβ[ίβαισά μοι, «say (it) indeed, having come near to me». This is a bit strange, since all other lines are x–uu––uu––uu–u–x and this is xx–uu–uu–uu–ux with this completion.
        • L. 2 is completed to start with ἀεί]σατε, «sing ye».
        • L. 4 is completed to start with ἐκ φρέν]ος, «from the soul». Completing the end to read Aphrodite makes it too long though, so that translation which supposes that completion (or seems to) is unacceptable unless we put it in another line. Instead, I'll make that ἄ[βρα, «tender».
        • L. 5 is completed with δεῦτέ ν]υν, based on another quoted line.
        • L. 6 has the extra completion φρέν' [ἔμ]αν ἔ[θελξαν, «seduced my soul».
        • L. 8 is completed to end with the nominative plural ὐμάλικ[ες, while I think I put a dative ὐμάλικ[εσσιν in place.
        I think I'll add all those to the edition when I get back here.
      3. LP 112, where the last line is modified and integrated to read [καί σε κόραν] τετίμακ' ἔξοχ‹ον› Ἀφροδίτα, «and among girls Aphrodite honoured you the most», but I stand by my version which doesn't tamper with the quoted part.
      4. LP 117, which gets reordered to ἀ νύμφα χαίροις, «Oh bride, rejoice». I think I may make this an alternate version.
      5. LP 122, where the end is amended to παῖδα ‹π›αναπάλαν, a very dainty maid. Since this doesn't fix the metrical problem, and the original version is already perfectly sensible, I see no reason for any correction here.
      6. Zuntz completion to O Atthis!.
        • In the beginning, we have ἀπὺ] Σαρδ[ίων, "from Sardis", which is as good as Edmonds' version.
        • Then there is the Arignota thing, where the anthology has ἔχεν / σὲ θέα‹ι›σ' ἰκέλαν Ἀρι- / γνώτα, «believed you to surely be equal to the gods, Arignota», but I found Edmonds' digamma idea satisfactory back then, and that is my final answer. Also, why suppose a new name nowhere else attested when we can suppose Anactoria, found in another poem, to have fallen off?
        • The idea of adding κε to fix the inmetricality of the papyrus's μήνα is insteresting, but I don't feel like implementing it in the editions.
        • Why περρέχοισ' and ἐέρσα are marked as if they were corrected is beyond me.
        • Pretty sure I've discussed their version of ll. 17-20 either on the transcriptions post or on the post about this poem.
        • L. 25 is completed to end δι' αἴ]θερος, and that will go into the editions if it's not yet there.
        • And dulcis in fundo the main item that stuck out to my eye: the Zuntz completion of l. 27, κἄμ[μι κάλπιδος] νέκταρ ἔχευ' ἀπὺ / χρυσίας, «and to us (she) poured out nectar from a golden pitcher», which definitely goes into the editions.
        And that ends this group.
  7. And finally, group 7.
    1. Firstly, as discussed at the related papyrus transcription, I came up with a completion to Remember: we did those things in the combined papyrus text. It has two versions depending on how you complete l. 2 of stanza 2. I give them both here.
    2. Going on, we have, as discussed here, I recently found an article where P.GC. inv. 105 fr. 4 is joined into the combination of P.Sapph. Obbink and P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 16, and I present my text of that combination, heavily inspired by the article.
    3. We then have a completion of the pre-P.GC. but post-P.Oxy. 2289 fr. 6 text of Cypris and Nereids. I thought about this starting 3/9/19, and came up with the following:
      1. … αἴ κε τέοισι θύμοις / Αὔτ' ἔγω ποτ' ἦν (or ἔγωγ' ἔνην), by 19:35 of 3/9;
      2. … αἴ κε νέοις μέλεσσι / Σοὶ φρέν' ἴαινον, ditto for timestamp;
      3. … αἴ κε τέοις ποτ' αὔτα / Ἐν φρένεσσ' ἔνην (or ἔγ' ἦν), ditto;
      4. … αἴ κε τέοις φρένεσσιν / Αὔτ' ἔγω ποτ' ἦν (or ἔγωγ' ἔνην), ditto;
      5. … αἴ κε τέοις ποτ' αὔτα / Ἐν φρένεσσ' ἔνην, by 4:16 that night;
      6. … αἴ κε τέον ποτ' αὔτα / Πω (or Δὴ) φρέν' ἴαινον, by 4:24, which I realized next morning around 11:03 was actually αἴ κε τέον μέλεσσι.
      As I realized by 4:27, πω is enclitic, so it can't start a line, which discards half of 6. The plural for "heart" is probably unwarranted, so we are left with 6, and all those ending with αὔτα are contra papyrum since P.Oxy. 7 ends in CI, so we choose the μέλεσσι version of 6. Except φρήν is feminine, so I have to replace it, and end up with κῆρ ποτ' ἴαινον.
    4. And finally, it is time to rediscuss the two lines of I loved you, Atthis and see them for the separate poems they are. Sources:
      1. Hephaestio 4.lxxviii, quoting "ἠράμαν μὲν ἔγω σέθεν ἅτοι πάλαι πόκα" (l. 1) as a Sapphic tesserakaidekasyllabic line;
      2. Scholiast A about Hephaestio, similar to the above (ἅτοι);
      3. Scholiast B about Hephaestio, again similar (ἅτε);
      4. M(arcus) Plotius Sacerdos grammaticus, again similar (ατοι cod. A, ατει cod. B, τόρα for πόκα);
      5. Arsenius = Apostolius, ditto (ἅτε);
      6. Maximus of Tyre oration 18, «οὐ προσιέναι φησὶν ὁ Σωκράτης Ἀλκιβιάδῃ, ἐκ πολλοῦ ἐρῶν, πρὶν ἡγήσατο ἱκανὸν εἶναι πρὸς λόγους· "σμικρά μοι παῖς ἔτι φαίνεο καὶ χαρίεσσα" Σαπφὼ λέγει», «Socrates says (he) didn't approach Alcibiades from his great love (for him) before he came to be ready for (his) words; "You seemed to me still a small child and graceful (!)" [l. 2], says Sappho»;
      7. Scholiast on Pindar, «χαρίζεσθαι γὰρ κυρίως λέγεται τὸ συνουσιάζειν, ὥσπερ ... Σαπφώ· "σμικρά μοι πάις ἔμμεναι φ λϊεοχάρις" (l. 2) ἡ μήπω δυναμένη χαρίζεσθαι», «"Keeping company" (or having sexual intercourse) is mostly called χαρίζεσθαι, "giving favors", just like … Sappho: [l. 2] she who cannot yet "give favors"» (thus cod. E, the others have μικρά, codd. D G omit μοι, cod. F omits πάις, for the ending: †φησὶ λίεο χάρις cod. D, G, φη(σιν) λεοχάρης cod. F, φλιεοχαρις cod. Q);
      8. Plutarch Ars Amatoria, «χάρις γὰρ οὖν ... ἡ τοῦ θήλεος ὕπειξις τῷ ἄρρενι κέκληται πρὸς τῶν παλαιῶν .. καὶ τὴν οὔπω γάμων ἔχουσαν ὤραν ἡ Σαπφὼ προσαγορεύουσά φησιν ὅτι· "σμικρά μοι παῖ ἔμμεναι φαίνεαι κἄχαρις" (l. 2)», «For thus the yielding of the female to the male was called … "grace" by the (writers) of old … and addressing (her) who hadn't reached the time of wedding yet Sappho says: "You seem to me, o child, little and graceless" (l. 2)»;
      9. Hesychius, «κἄχαρις· ἡ χαρίζεσθαι μὴ δυναμένη ἢ οὐκ εὔχαρις», «κἄχαρις: the one who cannot "give favors" or the not graceful»;
      10. Terentianus Maurus, «Cordi quando fuisse sibi canit Atthida / Parvam, florea virginitas sua cum foret», «When she sings of how Atthis was in her heart, / The little girl, when her own virginity still was in bloom».
      Now, it appears Hephaestio mentions Atthis very near l. 1, and it's not corrupted there, so copyists seem to have known the name… so why did they mangle it in this line and not in the other place? Also, the line makes perfect sense with ἄτε<ὄστε, though incomplete, and that word is easily corrupted into all the other forms found in the manuscripts. So that settles line 1: Atthis was never there.
      L. 2 is a bit of a mess. Maximus seems to quote an incomplete exameter: «(–) σμικρά μοι παῖς ἔτι φαίνεο καὶ χαρίεσσα», and also upturns the last adjective, but apparently he is a very untrustworthy source, so we may as well reject him. This settles the beginning, or almost, we have παῖς/παῖ/πάις, but the latter is likely the one, given it allows for glyconics. The scholiast on Pindar was hopelessly corrupted, so let's ignore him. Plutarch, if we contract the verb, records one and a half glyconics. Also, he doesn't name Atthis, despite her being very famous: all he says is this "child" Sappho was addressing wasn't ready for wedding yet. If it were Atthis, why not mention it? Conclusion: not Atthis. Since neither of the lines mentions Atthis, the only reason to keep Terentianus in the mix is the word "parvam", which is a very weak argument. Moreover, joining the two lines, even in their standard form, makes for a bit of nonsense, especially considering Sappho says she "loved" this girl in l. 1, where ἠράμαν means sexual attraction, and then describes her as ἄχαρις, χἀρις being attractivenes, love charm: so she was attracted to someone she recognized was unattractive? Um, what? Also, Terentianus usually refers to poets very vaguely, except in exactly one case where he clearly translates Theocritus, so those lines should be taken as a vague reference to a Sappho poem, not a translation of one. To quote the article where these, and more arguments (in particular details about how maximus is untrustworthy), are found, «Bergk introduced the two fragments, Lobel engaged them, and the translators have married them off». Now that the articles have been done with, I will mention that Bergk also proposed two glyconics as Σμίκρα μοι πάις ἔμμεναι / Ἄττθι φαίνεο κάχαρις, suspecting the ἔτι might conceal Atthis's name. Given the contraction φαίνῃ is nowhere reported, and that φαίνεαι might have been corrupted from φαίνεο, I will take up Bergk, but remove Atthis. I will also keep the article's version, also because φαίνῃ might have been uncontracted by whatever copyist for whatever reason, and then corrupted into the imperfect only in Maximus – and maybe in the scholiast, giving φλιεο out of more corruption.
As you can see, this is a tremendous lot of stuff. I had all of group 1 ready by the start of my Maths PhD starts, then I added in everything up to 2.C.iii, with 2.C.iv getting me stuck for like forever because of transcribing the damn parchment. Once that was done, I kept adding stuff bit by bit, and as of uptading the WIP notice on 29/8/19 around 0:48, I just inserted the testimonia up to 134 (4.cxxxiv), meaning I have 72 more testimonia (the last 4 are already in, so 206-134=72) to add, and then there are groups 5-7. Group 6 already has category C inserted, and the collages for category A. And I kept on adding, until, at 15:29 on 15/9/19, I came to update this notice, and write that the post is finally complete! It's been a long job, but now it's finally done! WHOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Time to migrate everything to the editions and check the Comparative Numbering Table has everything right…

Group 1

Group 1, category A

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.i

ὦ κάλα, ὦ χαρίεσσα κόρα

Frammento 1.A.i

Bella͜ e graziosa fanci͜ulla inver

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.ii

] . ω [
ἦ]σαν ἐ̣ν τῶι . [
] . δὲ ιʹ κ(αὶ) ἐκάστης ὀ αʹ[

] . εν τὸ γὰρ ἐννεπε[.]η πρό̣β̣[ατον
] . ατε τὰν εὔποδα νύμφαν [
]τ̣α παῖδα Κ̣ρ̣ο̣νίδα τὰν ἰόκ[ολπ]ον [–x
] ἐ̣ς ὄργαν θεμένα τὰν, ἰόκ[ολ]π̣ος α[
] . . ἄγναι Χάριτες Πιέριδέ[ς τε] Μ̣ο[σαι 5
] . [ . ὄ]ππ̣οτ’ ἀοιδαι φρέ̣ν[ . . .]αν . [
]ς̣ ἀΐοισα λιγύραν [ἀοί]δαν
x–uu, – γά]μβρον, ἄσαροι γρ ὐ̣μαλι̣κ[ες x
x–uu x– ]σε φόβαισι, θεμέν̣α λύραν [x
] . . η χρυσοπέδι̣λ̣‹λ›[ο]ς Αὔως 10
] .ʹ στίχ(οι) ρλ[.]ʹ
15 ] μετὰ τὴν πρώτην̣ [
x–uu, – –u ] φέρονται ἐπιγεγρα[μμένοι
] βυβλίου, κα βέλτι̣ο

]ρ̣οπ . . . . [    ] . ε . [

Frammento 1.A.ii

fu]rono nel [
] decim[.] e di ciascuna il primo [

x–uu – –uu – –] il best[i͜ame]͜ infatti
[x–uu – –u] la ninfa da͜i be͜i pi͜edi [–x
x–u] la figlia [sen] di viola del Cronide [–x]
Fattala arrabbiare, la ragazza s[en] di viola [–x
x–uu –] le sante Grazi͜e ͜[e] le Pïeri͜e Muse 5
x–uu – – q]uando͜ i canti͜ il petto [–u–x
x–uu – – u] sentito un armonioso [can]to
[x–uu – sp]oso, sdegnosi͜ i coëtane͜[i] ’nfatti
[x–uu – –uu] chioma, la sua lira posta
[x–uu – –u] l’A͜urora co͜i suo͜i sandali͜ a͜ure͜i 10
] versi 13[]
] dopo la prima [
] si dicono scri[tti
] del libro, e megli[o

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.iii

Ἦρ' ἔτι παρθενίας ἐπιβάλλομαι;

Frammento 1.A.iii

Verginità i͜o davvero disi͜o ancor?

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.iv

Πέρροχος, ὠς ὄτ’ ἄοιδος ὀ Λέσβιος ἀλλοδάποισιν…

Frammento 1.A.iv

Superïor, come quando͜ agli esteri ’l Lesbi͜o cantore…

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.v

οἶον τὸ γλυκύμαλον ἐρεύθεται ἄκρῳ ἐπ’ ὔσδῳ,
ἄκρον ἐπ’ ἀκροτάτῳ, λελάθοντο δὲ μαλοδρόπηες·
οὐ μὰν ἐκλελάθοντ’, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐδύναντ’ ἐπίκεσθαι…

Frammento 1.A.v

Come dolce la mela͜ arrossisce ’n la vetta del ramo,
Alta in cima alla pianta,͜ e scordòlla chi coglier doveva,
No, luï non la scordò: non seppe raggiungere͜ il ramo…


Οἴαν τὰν υάκινθον ἐν ὤρεσι ποίμενες ἄνδρες
πόσσι καταστείβοισι, χάμαι δὲ τὸ πόρφυρον ἄνθος...


Quale͜ il fior di giacinto sull’alte montagne͜ i pastori
Pestano co͜i lor piedi,͜ ed a terra͜ i purpureï fiori…

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.vii

-Παρθενία, παρθενία, ποῖ με λίποισ' ἀποίχῃ;
-Οὐκέτι ἤξ' ἔς σε πάλιν, νῦν πάλιν οὔκετ’ ἤξω.

Frammento 1.A.vii

Verginità, verginità, me͜ abbandonando u’ vai?
Mai i͜o verrò͜ ancora da te, da te verrò͜ ancor mai

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.viii

δώσομεν, ἦσι πάτερ.

Frammento 1.A.viii

Il padre dice: “Darem”.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.ix

xx παντοδάπαισ‹ι› μεμιγμένα
χροίαισιν uu–uu–ux

Frammento 1.A.ix

xx ad ogni specïe di color
Mista –uu–uu–ux

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.x

ὦ τὸν Ἄδ‹ω›νιν

Frammento 1.A.x

Povero Adone!

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.xi

‹Ϝ›έσ‹π›ερ’, ὐμήν‹α›ον

Frammento 1.A.xi

Vespero, imene͜o

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.xii

ὦ τὸν Ἀδώνιον

Frammento 1.A.xii

O per l’Adonio

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.xiii

χρυσαστράγαλοι φίαλαι

Frammento 1.A.xiii

Fiale dagl’astragali d’or

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.xiv

Αὔτ' ἐφίημί νυ] πόλλα μοι τὰν
Π‹ω›λυανάκτιδα παῖδα χαίρην

Frammento 1.A.xiv

M'auguro ora che] molto possa
La Poli͜anattide ser felice.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.A.xv

Ἔσπερε, πάντα φέρῃς, ὄσα φαίνολις ἐσκέδασ’ Αὔως·
Αἶγα φέρῃς τε ὄιν τε, φέρῃς ‹τ’› ἄπυ μάτερι παῖδα.

Frammento 1.A.xv

Vespero, tutto tu porti, ch’Aurora disperse lucendo:
Pecora porti e capra,͜ il bambino alla mamma rendendo.
Fragmentum 1.A.i

Pūlchră quĭdēm grătĭōsă pŭēll’

Fragment 1.A.i

O pretty, o very graceful young maid

Fragmentum 1.A.ii

f]uere in [
] autem X et cuiuslibet primus [

x–uu, – –uu –] nām pĕ[cŭs –u–x
x–uu] spōnsām pĕdĭbūs pūlchrăm [u–u–x
Sĭnū] vĭŏlām fīlĭăm īlli͞us Crŏnĭdǣ [u–x]
Mōtā ĕ’ ăd īr’, īllă sĭnū vi͞olă pŭēllă [–x
x–uu] sānctǣ Grătĭǣ Pīĕrĭdǣquĕ Mūsǣ 5
[x–uu] cāntūs [c]ŭm [u] pēctūs [uu–u–x]
Dūlcēm [uu] cāntūm cŭm ĕ’ a͞udīssĕt [u–u–x
[Spō]nsūm [u] cŏǣtān[ĕ’] ĕn’ īrā [uu–u] mōtī
[x–u] căpīllīs, [uu] lȳrā [uu] pōsĭtā [x
x–uu, – –uu] A͞urōrăquĕ sāndăl’ a͞ure͞o 10
] versus CXXX[
] post primam [
] feruntur scrip[ti
] libri, ac meliu[s

Fragment 1.A.ii

w]ere in the [
] 10th and of each one the 1st [

x–uu, – –uu, – –] for the ca[ttle –x
x–uu, – – u] the nymph with pretty feet [u–x
x–uu, – –u] the vi͜olet-[bosomed] daughter of the Cronid [–x]
Th’ vi͜olet-bos[omed], having made her angry, [–x
x–uu, –] th’ Pierid Muses [and] the Holy Graces 5
[x–uu, – –uu, – –uw]hen songs the bosom
[x–uu, – –uu] having a melodious [so]ng heard
[x–uu bri]degroom; for the angry same-age friend[s u–x
x–uu, – –uu, –] hair, having placed her lyre
[x–uu, – –uu, –] the golden-sandall[e]d Dawn 10
] 13[.] lines
] after the first [
] are said to have been writ[ten
] of the book, and bette[r

Fragmentum 1.A.iii

Vīrgĭnĭtāt’ ĕquĭdēm cŭpĭō n’ ădhūc?

Fragment 1.A.iii

Virginity do I really still wish I had?

Fragmentum 1.A.iv

Īs sŭpĕrāns, quĭd’ ŭt ēxtērnīs cūm Lēsbĭŭ’ cāntŏr…

Fragment 1.A.iv

Superïor, like when t’ foreign people the Lesbian singer

Fragmentum 1.A.v

Mālūm dūlcĕ ŭtī rāmō sūmmō rŭbrŭm a͞ugĕt,
Sūmmā ārbŏrĕ sūmm’, ārrēptōrēs mĕmĭnēr’ ha͞ud,
Nōn quĭdĕm ōblītī, sēd rāmūm nōn tĕtĭgērĕ…

Fragment 1.A.v

As the sweet juicy apple doth blush on th top of the branch,
High oh the highest branch, and the pickers about it forget,
No, they do not forget, but they could not reach to the branch…


Flōs hy̆ăcīnthĭnŭm ūt pāstōrēs mōntĭbŭs āltīs
Īncālcānt pĕdĭbūsqu’, hŭmĭqu’ īllūd pūrpŭrĕūm flōs…


As the hyacinth flowers the shepherds on mountains do crush
With their feet to the ground, where the flowers, all purple in blush…

Fragmentum 1.A.vii

Vīrgĭnĭtās, vīrgĭnĭtās, mē ăbĭēns ăbīs quō?
Ūmquăm ădīb’ ītĕrŭm ha͜ud t’, ha͜ud t’ ĕgŏ rūrs’ ădībō.

Fragment 1.A.vii

Virginitỳ, virginitỳ, whither goest thou, me leaving?
Never will I come back to you, ne’er will I back be coming.

Fragmentum 1.A.viii

“Dābĭmŭ;” – vērbă pătrĭs.

Fragment 1.A.viii

Th’ father doth say: “We shall give”.

Fragmentum 1.A.ix

xx mīxtă cŏlōrĭbŭs ōmnĭŭm
Gĕnĕrūm uu–uu–ux

Fragment 1.A.ix

xx mixèd with colours of any kind

Fragmentum 1.A.x

Mīsĕr’ Ădōnĭn!

Fragment 1.A.x

Woe for Adonis!

Fragmentum 1.A.xi

Vēspĕrĕ, hȳmēnæ͞um

Fragment 1.A.xi

Hesperus, hymenæ͞um

Fragmentum 1.A.xii

Īllŭm Ădōnĭŭm

Fragment 1.A.xii

O the Adonium

Fragmentum 1.A.xiii

A͞urāstrălăgœ̄ phĭălǣ

Fragment 1.A.xiii

Vïals with astragali gold

Fragmentum 1.A.xiv

Dēsĭdĕrō] m' [ĕgŏ] mūltă pu͞ellăm
Pōly̆ănāctĭd’ hăbērĕ lǣtē

Fragment 1.A.xiv

I am now wishing that] she may glad, the
Polyanactid maid, be for long time

Fragmentum 1.A.xv

Vēspēr, t’ ōmnĭă fērs, lūcēns qu’ A͞urōrăquĕ iēcĭt:
Cāprām, ŏvēm quŏquĕ fērsquĕ rĕfērs pŭĕrūmqu’ ĕiŭ’ mātrī.

Fragment 1.A.xv

Evening, all you do bring, which Dawn did scatter a-shining:
Goat and sheep back you bring, to the mother you bring back the youngling.

Group 1, category B

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.B.i

Γέλλως παιδοφιλωτέρα.

Frammento 1.B.i

Bimbi ch’ Gello più ami tu.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.B.ii

ὠίω πόλυ λευκότερον

Frammento 1.B.ii

Di un uovo più bianco assai

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.B.iii

πόλυ πάκτιδος ἀδυμελεστέρα,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
χρύσω χρυσοτέρα.

Frammento 1.B.iii

D’arpa͜ in canto più dolce assai lei è,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A͜ure͜a più che non l’or.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.B.iv

Ναρίσσω τερενώτερον

Frammento 1.B.iv

D'un narciso più tenero
Fragmentum 1.B.i

Gēllōd pu͞erû̆m ămāntĭŏr

Fragment 1.B.i

More than Gello you children love.

Fragmentum 1.B.ii

Mūltŭm ālbĭŭs ōv’ ĭd ădēst

Fragment 1.B.ii

Than an egg it’s much whiter indeed

Fragmentum 1.B.iii

Cănĭtāns plŭ’ sŭāvĭŏr hārp’ ĕā’st,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aurō aurĭŏr ēst.

Fragment 1.B.iii

Much much more sweet in singing she’s than a harp,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
She is golder than gold.

Fragmentum 1.B.iv

Nārcīsō tĕnĕrēllĭŭs.

Fragment 1.B.iv

Tender more than a daffodil

Group 1, category C

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.C.i

Χρύσεοι ‹δ'› ἐρέβινθοι ἐπ' ἀϊόνων ἐφύοντο.

Frammento 1.C.i

Dorati ceci nacquer sulle sponde.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.C.ii

[Νῦν] ἔγω δ' ἐπὶ μαλθάκαν
τύλαν ‹κα›σπολέω μέλε͞α.

Frammento 1.C.ii

Le mie membra ͜[ora] poserò
Su materasso morbido.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.C.iii

[x] ἀμφὶ ‹δ᾽› ἄβροισ‹ιν› λασίοισ’ εὖ ‹Ϝ᾽› ἐπύκασσε.

Frammento 1.C.iii

[x] Ruvidi panni delicati lo coprivan tutto.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.C.iv

Ἄβρα δηὖτε παχή‹ᾳ› σπ‹ό›λᾳ ἀλλόμαν.

Frammento 1.C.iv

Delicata saltai, in veste spessa,͜ ancor.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.C.v

τέουτος ἐς Θήβα‹ι›ς πάϊς ἀρμάτεσσ‹’› ὀχήμενος
. . . . . . . . . . .
Μᾶλις μὲν ἔννη· λέπτον ἔχοισ’ ἐπ’ ἀτράκτωι λίνον

Frammento 1.C.v

Un tal ragazzo a Tebe dai carri trasportato vien
. . . . . . . . . . .
Malandra͜ entròvvi;͜ avendo sul fuso lino inver sottil


‹–u–x–uu–› Πόδας δέ
ποίκιλος μάσλης ἐκάλυπτε, Λύδι-
ον κάλον ἔργον.


‹–u–x–uu–› E͜ i piedi
Ricco calzare nasconde͜a, de’ Lidi
opera bella.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.C.vii

αἰμιτύβιον στάλασσον

Frammento 1.C.vii

Pannilino gocciolante

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.C.viii

Χε‹ρ›ρόμακτρα δὲ Καγγόνων,
Πορφύρα καταϋ‹σ›μένα,
Τά τ‹ο›ι Μ‹ν›ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,
Δῶρα τίμια Καγγόνων.

Frammento 1.C.viii

Drappi belli de’ Cangoni,
Molta porpora secca͜ in più,
Ch’un dì dalla Foce͜a Mnasi ti mandò,
Doni ricchi †de’ Cangoni†.
Fragmentum 1.C.i

Nātī sūnt cĭcĕrēs a͞ure͞i mărĭs īllĭŭs ōrīs.

Fragment 1.C.i

Golden chickpeas upon the shores were born.

Fragmentum 1.C.ii

Īpsă cūlcĭtăm īn mōllĕm
Dēpōnām mĕă mēmbră [nūnc].

Fragment 1.C.ii

x And on a soft mattress, hey,
I'm [now] going my limbs to lay.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.C.iii

Pānnīs rŭvĭdīs sēd dĕlĭcātīs bĕnĕ sē tĕgēbăt.

Frammento 1.C.iii

With delicate shag he himself cover’d. [uu–u–x]

Fragmentum 1.C.iv

Spīss’ īn vēst’ ĕgŏ sālta͞i tĕnĕr’ ītĕrŭm.

Fragment 1.C.iv

In thick robe I did jump delicatelỳ once more.

Fragmentum 1.C.v

Tālīs pŭēr Thēbās vĕhĭtūrquĕ cūrrŭbŭs
. . . . . . . . . . .
Mălāndră vēnīt; fīnĕm hăbēns sŭpēr fūsō lĭnŭm

Fragment 1.C.v

A kid like that one is with the chariots carried off to Thebes
. . . . . . . . . . .
Malanders got there; having thin linen on the spindle there


‹–u–x–uu–› Pĕdēsquĕ
Dīs cĕlābāt sāndălĭ’ ēiŭ’, Lȳdĭ-
ǣ ŏpŭ’ pūlchrŭm.


‹–u–x–uu› And beneath
A beautiful rich sandal hid his feet,
A Lydian work.


Līntĕ’ ēmānānsquĕ stīllās


Little cloth so wet it's dripping

Fragmentum 1.C.viii

Sērĭcī quŏquĕ Cāngŏnŭm
Ēssīccātăquĕ pūrpŭră,
Ā Phōce͞a tĭbĭ mīssăquĕ Mnāsĕĭ,
Dōnă dīvĭtă Cāngŏnŭm.

Fragment 1.C.viii

Pretty cloths of the Cangones,
Lots of purple dried out as well,
From Phocæa by Mnasis were sent to you,
Precious gifts of the Cangones.

Group 1, category D

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.D.i

‹Β›ροδοπ‹ά›χεες ἄγναι Χάριτες, δεῦτε Δίος κόραι.

Frammento 1.D.i

Grazie braccia rosate, pure, figlie͜ in verità di Ze͜us.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.D.ii

Δεῦτέ νυν, ἄβραι Χάριτες, καλλίκομοί τε Μοῖσαι.

Frammento 1.D.ii

Di nuovo͜ or, dolci Grazie,͜ e Muse bella chioma.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.D.iii

Δεῦρο δηὖτε Μοῖσαι, χρύσιον λίποισαι…

Frammento 1.D.iii

Qui di nuovo, Muse, l’aurëo lasciato…

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.D.iv

αὔτα δὲ σύ, Καλλιόπα…

Frammento 1.D.iv

Ma tu stessa, Calliopè…
Fragmentum 1.D.i

Rŏsātǣ Grătĭǣ brāchĭă, pūr’ ēt Iŏvĭ’ fīlĭǣ.

Fragment 1.D.i

Graces, o rosy-armed, o truly pure, verily born of Zeus.

Fragmentum 1.D.ii

Nūnc dĕlĭcātǣ Grătĭǣ, pūlchrĭcŏmǣquĕ Mūsǣ.

Fragment 1.D.ii

Delicate Gracès, now again, and pretty-hairèd Muses.

Fragmentum 1.D.iii

Hūcquĕ rūrsŭ’, Mūsǣ, aurĕ’ ābs ĕūntēs…

Fragment 1.D.iii

Hith’r again, o Muses, having left the golden…

Fragmentum 1.D.iv

T’ īps’ āt mĭhĭ, Cāllĭŏpē…

Fragment 1.D.iv

You yourself, o Calliopè…

Group 1, category E

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.i

σὺ δὲ στεφάνοις, ὦ Δίκα, πέρθεσθ᾿ ἐράτοις φόβαισιν
ὄρπακας ἀνήτ‹ω› συν‹α›έρραισ᾿ ἀπάλαισ‹ι› χέρσιν·
εὐάνθεα γὰρ ‹δὴ› πέλεται, καὶ Χάριτες μάκαιρα‹ι›
μᾶλλον ποτόρην, ἀστεφανώτοισι δ᾿ ἀπυστρέφονται.

Frammento 1.E.i

Ma tu, Dica,͜ adorna con ghirlande la tu’͜ amabil testa,
Con man delicate fior d’aneto͜ intreccïando͜ a festa;
Di be͜i fiori infatti fatte son, le Grazie po͜i, bëate,
Lor più che chi non le͜ ha guarderebber, da cu͜i son fugate.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.ii

ἀσαροτέρας οὐδάμα πΩἴρανα σέθεν τύχοισαν.

Frammento 1.E.ii

Te ma͜i non avendo incontrata,͜ Irene, pi͜ù sdegnosa.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.iii

Ἤρων ἐξεδίδαξ᾽ ἐ‹γ› Γυάρων τὰν ἀνυόδρομον.

Frammento 1.E.iii

Alla Gìara Ero insegna͜i che corre celere.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.iv

Εὐμορφοτέρα, Μνασιδίκα, τᾶς ἀπάλας Γυρίννως.

Frammento 1.E.iv

Bella tu, Mnasidica, se͜i più ch’ la tenera Gurinno.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.v

Ἔχει μὲν Ἀνδρομέδα κάλαν ἀμοίβαν,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ψάπφοι, τί τὰν πολύολβον Ἀφροδίταν. . .;

Frammento 1.E.v

Andromeda un assai bell’affare ha fatto…
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O Saffo, ché Afrodite d’ molte gioie…?


Τί με Πανδίονις ὤραν‹ν›α χελίδων


La celeste Pandïoníde ché me or

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.vii

. . . σύ τε κἆμος θεράπων Ἔρος.

Frammento 1.E.vii

… tu con il mio servitor, l’Amor.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.viii

xx– μάλα δὴ κεκορημέν‹α›ς
‹Γ›όργ‹ω›ς –uu–uu–ux

Frammento 1.E.viii

xx - poi che ben soddisfatta s'è
Gorgo -uu-uu-uu-ux

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.ix

ποικίλλεται μὲν γαῖα πολυστέφανος
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
δολοπλόκω γὰρ Κυπρογένε͜ος πρόπολον

Frammento 1.E.ix

Ghirlande molte͜ adornan la terra͜ oggidì
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Della Ciprigna͜ il servo͜ ingannevole ché

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.E.x

Ἀρτίως ‹μ'› ἀ χρυσοπέδιλος Αὔως

Frammento 1.E.x

Or ora ‹me› l’Aurora sandali d’oro

Fragmentum 1.E.i

Sēd tū, Dĭcă, cīrcūmdă ădōrābĭlĭbūs cŏmīs tu͞is
Cōrōnăm, ănēt’ īnquĕ plĭcāns flōscŭlă mōllĕ mānū;
Nām flōr’ ĕă pūlchr’ āffăcĭūnt, ēt Grătĭǣ bĕātǣ
Māllēnt spĕcĕr’ e͞a, sīnĕqu’ ĕīs sī quĭs ădēst, ăbībūnt.

Fragment 1.E.i

But you, Dica, decorate with garlands do your head so lovely,
Putting many dill-springs all together with your hands so tender;
For of pretty flowers they are made, and the so happy Graces
Them prefer to see, and turn away from those who don’t wear garlands.

Fragmentum 1.E.ii

Īrātă măgīs c’, Īrănă, nūmquām mĭhĭ vīsă fu͞erĭs.

Fragment 1.E.ii

As I never saw you, o my Irana, in greater anger.

Fragmentum 1.E.iii

Hērōn ēdŏcŭī ēx Gy̆ărīs cūrsĭcĕlērrĭmăm.

Fragment 1.E.iii

Of the Gyars I taught t’ Hero who can run very fast indeed.

Fragmentum 1.E.iv

Fōrmōsĭŏr, ō Mnāsĭdĭc’, ēs quām tĕnĕrā’st Gy̆rīnnō.

Frammento 1.E.iv

Prettïer, Mnasidica, you are than so tendèr Gyrinno.

Fragmentum 1.E.v

Āc gēssĭt Āndrŏmĕdā nĕgōti͞um pūlchrŭm,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sāpphō, quĭd e͞am plŭrĭgaudĭ’ Āphrŏdītēn… ?

Fragment 1.E.v

Andromeda has a quite good bargain made…
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O Sappho, why Aphrodite of many joys… ?


Mē cǣrŭlĕ’ hĭrūndō Pāndĭŏnīs


Why did Pandi͞on’s skyly seed, the swallow, me now

Fragmentum 1.E.vii

… mĕŭ’sērvūs quŏquĕ tēc’ Ămŏr.

Fragment 1.E.vii

… you together wi’ my servant, Love.

Fragmentum 1.E.viii

xx - bene cum sati’ facta sit
Gorgo -uu-uu-uu-ux

Frammento 1.E.viii

xx - having Gorgo well satisfied
Been x -uu-uu-uu-ux

Fragmentum 1.E.ix

Sē tērr’ ădōrnāt plūrĭcŏrōnĕă nūnc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dŏlīfĭcī nām Cȳprĭdĭ’ sērvŭm ux

Fragment 1.E.ix

The many-garland Earth is now getting adorned
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For the deceiving Cyprus-born’s servant ux

Fragmentum 1.E.x

Sāndăli͞is A͞urōră mŏd’ a͞urĕīs ‹mē›

Frammento 1.E.x

Just now ‹me› did the golden-sandalled Dawn

Group 1, category F

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.F.i

Ὀφθάλμοις δὲ μέλαις νύκτος ἄωρος.

Frammento 1.F.i

Sonno occhi neri͜ e figlio di Notte.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.F.ii

Προσελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογενήᾳ.

Frammento 1.F.ii

Alla Cipride narra͜i il sogno mio.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.F.iii

ὄτα πάννυχος ἄσφι κατάγρει
[ὔπνος ὄππατα]

Frammento 1.F.iii

Quando tutta la notte richiude
[Gl’occhi ’l sonno] a lor

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.F.iv

τίοισιν ὀφθάλμοισιν;

Frammento 1.F.iv

Usando quali occhi?
Fragmentum 1.F.i

Ŏcŭlīsquĕ nĭgēr sōmnĭŭ’ nōctĭs.

Fragment 1.F.i

And the son of the night, Sleep, the black-eyed one.

Fragmentum 1.F.ii

Ĕgŏ Cȳprĭdīquĕ sōmni͞um bẽnĕ dīxī.

Fragment 1.F.ii

And I told the Cypris then what I’d been dreaming.

Fragmentum 1.F.iii

Tōtā nōct’ [ŏcŭlōs] cŭm ăd īllōs
Cla͞udīt [sōmnĭŭm]

Fragment 1.F.iii

When their [eyes] are kept closèd by [slumber]
All night long

Fragmentum 1.F.iv

Quĭbūsnăm ōclīs ūsă?

Fragment 1.F.iv

Whatever eyes by using?

Group 1, category G

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.G.i

ὄπταις ἄμμε.

Frammento 1.G.i


Ἀπόσπασμα 1.G.ii

τὸν ‹Ϝ›ὸν παῖδα κάλει.

Frammento 1.G.ii

Chi͜amal lu͜i “su͜o figli͜ol”.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.G.iii

φαίνεται Ϝοι κῆνος . . . . . . . . . .

Frammento 1.G.iii

Quello a se stesso sembra……………

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.G.iv

οὔ τί μοι ὔμμες

Frammento 1.G.iv

Nulla mi si͜ete.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.G.v

ἆς θέλετ’ ὔμμες

Frammento 1.G.v

Fin che ’l volete.
Fragmentum 1.G.i

Nōs quĭd’ ūrĭs.

Fragment 1.G.i

Us you’re roasting.

Fragmentum 1.G.ii

“Fīli͞um” quēm rĕvŏcăt.

Fragment 1.G.ii

Whom he calleth his son.

Fragmentum 1.G.iii

Īs sĭbī vĭdētŭr………………

Fragment 1.G.iii

That man seems to himself……………

Fragmentum 1.G.iv

Mī nĭhĭl ēstĭs

Fragment 1.G.iv

To me you’re nothing.

Fragmentum 1.G.v

Dūmquĕ vĕlītĭs.

Fragment 1.G.v

Long as you wish.

Group 1, category H

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.H.i

εἰπόντος τοῦ Ἀλκαίου·
θέλω τί τ’ εἴπην, ἀλλά με κωλύει
[ἀντιέλεξεν ἡ Σαπφώ·]
αἰ δ᾽ ἦχες ἔσλων ἴμερον ἢ κάλων,
καὶ μή τί τ’ εἴπην γλῶσσ’ ἐκύκα κάκον,
αἴδως κε ν‹ῦν› σ‹’› οὐκ ἦχεν ὄππατ’,
ἀλλ’ ἔλεγες περὶ τῶ δικαίω.

Frammento 1.H.i

Avendo detto Alceo:
I’ voglio dir qualcosa, ma mi frena
[Rispose Saffo:]
Se fossi͜ un che disï̀a buono͜ o bello,
No͜ avesse lingua͜ a dir destato fello,
Vergogna gl’occhi non t’avrìa,
Di giusta vìa parlar t’udrìa.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.H.ii

. . . . . . . . . . .] . ν
. . . . . . . . . . .] α̣
. . . . . . . . . . ] τύχοισα
. . . . . . . . ]θέλ᾽ ὦν τ᾽ ἄπαισαν
. . . . . . τέ]λεσον νόημμα
. . . . . . . . ]έτων κάλημι
5 . . . . . . . . ] πεδὰ θῦμον αἶψα
. . . . . . . ὄ]σσα τύχην θελήσῃ[ς
. . . . . . . . ]ρ ἔμοι μάχεσθα[ι
x–uu, – –uu, – – χ]λιδάναι ’πίθεισα[
. ]ι, σὺ δ᾽ εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα
10 . ]έτει τα . λλε . .
. ]κλ̣ασ[

Frammento 1.H.ii

[x–uu – –uu –] poi c’ho per caso͜ avuto
[x–uu – –uu –] e quindi vogli͜o tutta
[x–uu – –uu – il tüo] pi͜ano [co]mpi
[x–uu – –uu – –uu –u] chi͜amo
[x–uu – –uu – –] verso ’l cu͜or di nu͜ovo
[x–uu – –uu – – q]uanto͜ aver tu vogli͜a 5
[x–uu – –uu –] per me combatter [–x
x–uu – –uu] posta sulla [d]elicata
x–uu – –uu – –] tu ben saï ’nfatti
[x–uu – –uu – –uu –u–x
x–uu – –uu – –uu –u–x ] 10

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.H.iii

Γλύκηα μᾶτερ, οὔτοι δύναμαι κρέκην τὸν ἴστον
πόθῳ δάμεισα παῖδος βραδίναν δι’ Ἀφροδίταν.

Frammento 1.H.iii

O dolce madre, più tesser non so la tela͜ invero,
Per brama d’un ragazzo da͜ Afrodite molle vinta.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.H.iv

ἄλλαν, μή ‹τι› κα‹τ’› ἀμ‹μ›ετέραν φρένα

Frammento 1.H.iv

Altra, ni͜ente ci vi͜en gi͜ù nell’anima

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.H.v

‹–u–x–› κατ' ἔμον στάλαγμον·
Τὸν δ ἐπιπλάζοντ’ ἄνεμοι φέροιεν
καὶ μελεδώναις.

Frammento 1.H.v

‹–u–x› Secondo͜ il pianto mìo:
Sel portin vi͜a li venti, i͜o disìo,
Con ogni cura.


ταῖσι ‹δὲ› ψῦχρος μὲν ἔγεντ' ὀ θῦμος,
πὰρ δ᾽ ἴεισι τὰ πτέρα [–u–x]


A coloro allora gelòssi ’l cuore,
E giù l’ale lascian cader [u–x]

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.H.vii

καὶ ποθήω καὶ μάομαι u–x

Frammento 1.H.vii

E ricerco e bramo u–u–x

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.H.viii

]θ̣ε θῦμ̣ον
]μι πάμπ̣αν
] δύναμαι·

] ἆς κεν ἦ μοι
]ς̣ ἀντιλάμπην
κά]λον πρόσωπον

] . γχροΐσθεις
] .́ [ . . ]ρ̣ος̣̣

Frammento 1.H.viii

[–u–x–uu–u] cuore
[–u–x–u] del tutto [–x
–u–x–uu] posso [–x
–uu–x 4

–u–x] fin ch’io avrò [u–x
–u–x] splendere indietro [–x
–u–x–uu–] bel volto
[–uu–x] 8

Sulla superficie toccato [–x
–u–x–uu–u–x + 2 versi]

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.H.ix

κ]αδδέκεται μέλαινα̣[
πόλλ]ων̤ ἀχέων̣ ἐπαύσθη[
Ἀ]̣τρεΐδαι τε̤λ̤έ̣σ̣θη̤[ν

Frammento 1.H.ix

[–u–x e]gli accetta nera
[–u– di mol]ti dolor fin’era
[–u–] gl’Atridi͜ esser fatta ver[a
–uu–x] 4
Fragmentum 1.H.i

Cum dixisset Alcaeus:
Vŏlō lŏquī nūnc, īmpĕdĭōr tămĕn
[Respondit Sappho:]
Sī bōnû̆m a͞ut pūlchrû̄m cŭpĭdūs fŏrĕs,
Dēstāssĕs ha͞ut lŏcūt’ ălĭquīd mălī,
Pūdōr tĕnērēt nōn ŏclīs tē,
Āt lŏquĕrērĭ’ sŭpēr iūstīs tū.

Fragment 1.H.i

Having Alcaeus said:
Something I want to say, but I get blocked
By shame.
[Sappho answered:]
If thou for good or beautiful wished now,
And had your tongue not stirred some bad to say,
Shame would not hold your eyes and brow,
But thou wouldst say ’bout righteous way.

Fragmentum 1.H.ii

x–uu, – –uu, –] c’ īpsă căsū hăbu͞erĭm
[x–uu, – –uu] ērgō vŏlŏ tōtăm [–x
x–uu, – –uu, –] cōnsĭlĭūm tŭ’ [ē]xplĕ
[x–uu, – –uu, – –uu, –] vŏcō [x
x–uu, – –uu, – –uu] rūrsŭs ād cŏr 5
[x–uu, – –uu, – q]uāntă vĕlī[s] hăbērĕ
[x–uu, – –uu] pūgnār[e] mĭhī [u–x]
Sŭpēr [d]ĕlĭcātā [uu–] pōsĭtă[–u–x
x–uu, – –uu, – –] bĕnĕ scīsquĕ t’īpsă
[x–uu, – –uu, – –uu, –u–x
x–uu, – –uu, – –uu, –u–x]

Fragment 1.H.ii

[x–uu, – –uu, –] since I by chance have gotten
[x–uu, – –uu, –] therefore I want all of it
[x–uu, – –uu, –] you make your plan [com]e real
[x–uu, – –uu, – –uu, –u] I call
[x–uu, – –uu, – –] once again to my heart
[x–uu, – –uu – as] much as you’ll be wantin[g
[x–uu, – –uu, – –] figh[t] for me [u–x
x–uu, – –uu, – –] placed upon the [s]oft [x
x–uu, – –uu, – –] for you well do know that
[x–uu, – –uu, – –uu, –u–x
x–uu, – –uu, – –uu, –u–x] 10

Fragmentum 1.H.iii

Ō dūlcĭ’ mātēr, tēlām fĭĕrī mĭh’ ha͞ud pŏtēst quĭd’,
Ōb stūdĭūm rĕvīnctǣ pŭĕrī ŏb Āphrŏdītēn.

Fragment 1.H.iii

Sweet mother I indeed cànnot continue with my weaving,
Subdued by Aphrodite th’ soft for a boy through th’ craving being.

Fragmentum 1.H.iv

Ālj’, ha͞ud dēvĕnĭt ūll’ ănĭmō mĕō

Fragment 1.H.iv

Other, nothing doth come in our heart a-down

Fragmentum 1.H.v

‹–u–› Flētūmquĕ mĕūm sĕcūndŭm:
A͞ufĕrānt cūrās ĕt ĕūm cădēntĕm
Hīnc mĭhĭ vēntī.

Fragment 1.H.v

‹–u–x› According to my tears:
May there be wind that them away all bears
With all my cares.


Fāctŭm ēst ĕīs frĭgĭdūm quĭdēm cŏr,
Āc cădūnt ālǣ [uu–u–x]


Then their tender hearts all did turn to ice,
And they drop their tender wings [–u–x]

Fragmentum 1.H.vii

Īpsă quǣrōqu’ ēt cŭpĭō u–x

Fragment 1.H.vii

I do crave indeed and I seek u–x

Fragmentum 1.H.viii

[–u–x–uu–u–] cŏr
[–u–x–uu] ūnĭvērsō
[–u–x–uu–u] pōssŭm
[–uu–x 4

–u–x–uu] dūm mĭhī sĭt
[–u] cōntrālūcĕrĕ [–u–x
–u–x–uu] vōltŭ’ pūlchĕr
[–uu–x] 8

Tāctŭs īn sŭpērfĭcĭē [u–x
–u–x–uu–u–x +2 versus]

Frammento 1.H.viii

[–u–x-uu–u] heart
[–u–x–uu] every part
[–u–x–u] I can [u–
–uu– 4

–u–] so long as I have [u–
–u–x–uu] shining back
[–u–x] beautiful face [u–
–uu– 8

–u–x–] on the surface touched
[–u–x–uu–u– + 2 lines]

Fragmentum 1.H.ix

[–u–x ā]ccĭpĭt īllĕ nīgră
[Mūl]tă dēsīvītquĕ pătī [u–x]
Fāctăm Ātrīdǣ hăbŭīssĕ [–x

Fragment 1.H.ix

He [a]ccepts black things [uu–u–x
–u– of ma]ny a pain end made
[–u–] the seed of Atreus tru[e] made

Group 1, category I

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.I.i

Ἦρος ἄγγελος ἰμερόφωνος ἀήδων.

Frammento 1.I.i

Dulcicanente͜ usignol, primavera͜ egli annunzia.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.I.ii

Μήτε μοι μέλι μήτε μέλισσα.

Frammento 1.I.ii

Per me né͜ il mi͜ele né͜ invero l’ape.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.I.iii

πτερύγων δ᾽ ὔπα κακχέει λιγύραν ἀοίδαν,
ὄποτα φλόγιόν ‹κ’› ἐπιπτάμενον καταύ‹γ›ῃ

Frammento 1.I.iii

Essa d’ale riversa stridulo canto gi͜uso
Quando scende fiammella͜ in cielo volando gi͜uso

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.I.iv

ἄνθε’ ἀμέργοισαν παῖδ’ ἄγαν ἀπάλαν

Frammento 1.I.iv

Una ragazza che, bella, coglie de’ fior

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.I.v

ἀστέρων πάντων ὀ κάλιστος

Frammento 1.I.v

Degli astri tutti ’l più bello


Ἐκδοκὴ αʹ
‹–u–x–› Τάδε νῦν ἐταίραις
Tαῖς ἔμαισι τέρπνα κάλως ἀείσω.

Ἐκδοκὴ βʹ
Τάδε νῦν ἐταίραις
Tαῖς ἔμαις τέρποισα κάλως ἀείσω.

Ἐκδοκὴ γʹ
Τάδε νῦν ἐταίραις
Tαῖς ἔμαις τέρποντα κάλως ἀείσω.


Versione I
‹… › Alle mi’͜ amiche ora
Questi diletti canterò con cura.

Versione II
Alle mi’͜ amiche ora
Ciò con diletto canterò e con cura.

Versione III
‹… › Alle mi’͜ amiche ora
Questi diletti canterò con cura.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.I.vii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . πάρθενον ἀδύφωνον

Frammento 1.I.vii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vergine dolce voce

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.I.viii

Tαῖσδε ταῖς ἔμαις ἐτάραισι καὶ σαῖς

Frammento 1.I.viii

A queste mie amiche, ed alle tue.
(oppure A queste amiche, mie ed anche tue.)
Fragmentum 1.I.i

Lūscĭnĭ’ ādnūnti͞us vĕrĭ’ vōcĕ sŭāvĕ.

Fragment 1.I.i

Spring’s sweet-singing announcer, the nightingale.

Fragmentum 1.I.ii

Nĕquĕ mēl mĭhĭ āpĭ’ nĕqu’ īpsă.

Fragment 1.I.ii

For me neither the bee nor the honey.

Fragmentum 1.I.iii

C’ ĕă dēvŏlĭtāns pĕr ǣthĕrĕm īgnĭ’ pārvă
Nĭtĕt āc sŏlŭm ēxplĕt āb strĭdŭlō quĭd’ ālû̆m

Fragment 1.I.iii

When a little bright flame doth shine as it flyeth downwards
It pours down from the sky a screeching of wings. u–x

Fragmentum 1.I.iv

Flōră pŭēllŭlām quǣ lĕgīt tĕnĕrăm

Fragment 1.I.iv

Gathering flowers there such a dainty young maid

Fragmentum 1.I.v

Ōmnĭūm pūlchērrĭmŭs āstĕr

Fragment 1.I.v

Of all stars the most full of beauty


Versio I
‹–u–x–u› Mĕa͞is ămīca͞is
Nūnc cănām iucūndă bĕn’ hǣcqu’ ĕt īllă.

Versio II
‹… › To my girl friends right now
These little joys I’m gonna sing and show.

Versio III
‹–u–x–u› Mĕa͞is ămīca͞is
Nūnc cănām iucūndă bĕn’ hǣcqu’ ĕt īllă.


Version I
‹… › To my girl friends right now
These little joys I’m gonna sing and show.

Version II
To my girl friends right now
These things with joy I’m gonna sing and show.

Version III
‹… › To my girl friends right now
These little joys I’m gonna sing and show.

Fragmentum 1.I.vii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dūlcĭvŏcēm pŭēllăm

Fragment 1.I.vii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . maiden so sweet in voice

Fragmentum 1.I.viii

Hīs mĕīs tŭīs ĕquĭdēmqu’ ămīca͞is

Fragment 1.I.viii

To these here friends, of mine indeed and yours

Group 1, category J

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.i

‹Πέμπων› ὀνίαν τε κὐγιείαν
‹Θάνοι›σα φύγοιμι, παῖδες, ἄβα

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.ii

Καὶ κὰτ ἰψήλων ὀρέων

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.iii

Ὀ δ' Ἄρευς φαῖσί κεν Ἄφαιστον ἄγην βίᾳ

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.iv

Τριβώλετερ· οὐ γὰρ Ἀρκάδεσσι λώβα

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.v

Ξοάνων προθύρων


Γάλακτος λευκοτέρα
῎Υδατος ἀπαλωτέρα
Πακτίδων ἐμμελεστέρα
Ἴππω γαυροτέρα
Βρόδων ἀβροτέρα
Ἰματίω ἐάνω μαλακωτέρα
Χρύσω τιμιωτέρα

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.vii

x κὰ‹μ› μέν τε τύλα‹ν ἄρα› κασπολέω ux

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.viii

x– Ἀποθναίσκην κάκον· οἰ θέοι
Οὔτω κεκρίκαισιν γὰρ αὖ· θναί-
σκον κε γὰρ αἰ κάλον ἦν u–x

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.ix

xx Αἰνοπάθην πάτριδ' ἐπόψομαι

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.x

Αἰτιά͜‹ω› τὰ μέτερρα

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xi

–u–x ἀλλά τις ἄμμι δαίμων

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xii

Ἀλλ' ὀ πάντ' ἐπόρεις Ἀέλιε ux

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xiii

Ἄρευ, ὀ φόβος δ‹αΐ›κτηρ

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xiv

Γέλαν δ' ἀθάνατοι θέοι

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xv

Ἔπταζον ὠς ὄρνιθες ὦκυν
αἴετον ἐξαπίνας φάνεντα

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xvi

Ἴδρως ἀμφότερα

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xvii

Ὁ Κρὴς τήν ‹γε› θάλατταν
Ὁ Κρὴς δὴ τὸν πόντον

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xviii

Ὄψι γὰρ ἄρξατο

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xix

ὀΐγων θαλάμοις

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xx

Κλαΐην δάκρυσιν

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xxi

Καὶ τὰν ἀκόρεστον αὐάταν

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xxii

Ἀδμήτω λόγον, ὦ 'ταῖρε, μάθων τοὶς ἀγάθοις φίλη,
τῶν δειλῶν δ' ἀπέχου.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xxiii

Πτέρα δ' ἄγνα πὰρ Ἔρωτος Ἀφροδίτα

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xxiv

[Lines missing, 1 or 5]
]σεμ .[

Ἀλλ' ἄϊ θρύλησθα Χάραξον ἔλθην
νᾶϊ σὺ‹ν› πλ‹ή›ᾳ· τὰ μὲν̣ οἴο̣μ̣αι Ζεῦς
οἰ δὲ σὔμπαντές τε θέοι, σὲ δ' οὐ χρὴ
ταῦτα νό‹η›σθαι·

ἀλλὰ καὶ πέμπην ἔμε καὶ κέλεσθαι
πόλλα λί̣σσεσθαι βασι̣λ̣ήαν Ἤ̣ραν
ἐξίκεσθαι τυίδε σάαν ἄγοντα
νᾶα Χάραξον·

κἄμμ' ἐπεύρην ἀρτέμεας· τὰ δ' ἄλλα
πάντα δαιμόνεσσ̣ιν ἐπιτρόπωμεν
εὔδια̣ι ‹γ›ὰ̣ρ̣ ἐκ μεγάλαν ἀήτα̣ν̣
αἶψα̣ π̣έλονται·

τῶν κε βόλληται βασίλευς Ὀλύμπω
Δαίμον' ἐκ πόνων ἐπάρωγον ἤδη
περτρόπην, κῆνοι μάκαρες πέλονται
καὶ πολύολβοι·

Κ̣ἄμμες, αἴ κε τὰν κεφά̣λ̣α̣ν ἀέρρ̣η
Λάριχος, καὶ δή ποτ' ἄνηρ ‹γ›ένηται,
καὶ μάλ' ἐκ πόλλαν βαρυθυ̣μίαν̣ κεν
αἶψα λύθειμεν.

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.xxv

Βρενθείω βασιληίω
Fragment 1.J.i

‹Sending› both distress and health
‹Having die›d I would flee, children; youth…

Fragment 1.J.ii

And down the high mountains

Ἀπόσπασμα 1.J.iii

Ares says he might bring Hephaestus away with force

Fragment 1.J.iv

Thorn-eater! For it is not an insult to Arcadians

Fragment 1.J.v

Smooth doorways


Whiter than milk
More tender than water
More harmonious than lyres
More disdainful than a horse
Prettier than roses
Softer than a fine dress
More precious than gold

Fragment 1.J.vii

And you down on cushions indeed I will put

Fragment 1.J.viii

Dying is bad; for the gods
Have indeed thus judged:
For they would die if it were good.

Fragment 1.J.ix

I shall see my direly suffering homeland

Fragment 1.J.x

Give credit for moderation

Fragment 1.J.xi

But some god to us […]

Fragment 1.J.xii

But the Sun that sees everything

Fragment 1.J.xiii

Ares, Fear the murdered…

Fragment 1.J.xiv

And the immortal gods laughed

Fragment 1.J.xv

They crouched for fear as birds for a swift
Eagle that has suddenly appeared

Fragment 1.J.xvi

Both (kinds?) of sweat

Fragment 1.J.xvii

The Cretan man verily [flees/fled] the sea

Fragment 1.J.xviii

For (s)he began late

Fragment 1.J.xix

All chambers

Fragment 1.J.xx

To cry with tears

Fragment 1.J.xxi

And insatiable harm

Fragment 1.J.xxii

Having learned, o friend, the story of Admetos, love the good,
and keep away from the bad.

Fragment 1.J.xxiii

And holy Aphrodite [gets?] wings from Eros

Fragment 1.J.xxiv

[Lines missing, 1 or 5]

] (queen?) [

But you always chatter for Charaxus to come
With a full ship. I think Zeus
And all other gods [know] this, but it's not necessary for you
To think of it;

But you should send me away and beseech me
To pray queen Hera many many times
So that Charaxus may come here, leading
A safe ship,

And find us safe and sound; all of the other things
Let us entrust to the gods:
For fair weather out of huge gales
Swiftly ensues;

Those of whom the King of Olympus wishes
A helping divinity to turn them
From heaven now, those stay happy
And richly blessed;

And we, if ever Larichus lifts
His head up, and becomes a man,
We too may again be freed from
Our hearts' many weights.

Fragment 1.J.xxv

Costly, kingly

End of group 1

Group 2

Group 2, category A

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.i

]π .́ .[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.ii

] . '[
] . . ω[
] . ίᾱμ̣[
] ῀ισι . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.iii

]τες χθ . [
] . θ' . [. .] σι[
] . ασ[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.iv

] . . . [
] . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.v



] . εο . [
προ . [
. βρο̣[
. . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.vii


Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.viii

]τ̣ε . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.ix


Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.x

] . ν̣λ̣[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xi

]ος· [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xii

. [
τ̣ο̣ . [
γ̣α[.] . . [
] . αι . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xiii

] . ι̣ρ̣α . [
] .· χαρ[
]ε̣τοπλ̣η . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xiv

] . ο̣χ̣ . [
]ε̣ν· ο . [
] [
] . . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xv

] . εδ[
]ν[.] . π[
] . . . . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xvi

[4 blank lines, a coronis between l. 4 and l. 5]
]ετ̣[ ] . . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xvii

] . λ[
]δ̣ύ πο[
] π . . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xviii

] . [
] ικα[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xix

] . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xx

]μνᾱ [
] . κατεγ[
] . ε̣κ[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxi

]ω . [
]ισ' ἐ[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxii

] . [
] . υζ̣ᾰδ . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxiii

] . [.] . ε[
]ν̣πο . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxiv


Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxv


[Possible lost lines]

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxvi


Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxvii

] . ς·
[Possible lost lines and end of poem]

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxviii

[Possible lost lines and end of poem]
ζα[ ὐ̣ . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxix



τ . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxi


Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxii

ή . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxiii

] . ο̣ιπλυ . [
] . .' ά[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxiv

ύσ . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxv

] . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxvi

] .
] _

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxvii

] .
] .́ . ραν
] .
] . αι

] .

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxviii

]ρασθα . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xxxix

]εφι̣ . [
]α̣σιλη̣ . [
]εγαδ . [
] . οσ . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xl

] .́δη[
] .́κ̣ωσα[
]ν· σοι[
] . δηκ . [
] . α̣λ . [
] . εσσα[
] . [.] . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xli

] . . . [
]ζα . [
]υδά . .μα .́ [
]οῖδ . [
.] .́ τ[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xlii

] . κη[
] . [
[Possible lost lines]
]α . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xliii

] . ω . [
] . υπ . [
] . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xliv

]σ̣ον . [
] .́ λ̣ . [
]μ̣α . [
] . ν̣[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xlv

] . εν̣[
] . εικ . [

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xlvi

] .ψᾰ̣́μ[
] . α[

Ἀπὀσπασμα 2.A.xlvii



Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.xlviii

] . . ι̣
] . οσ̣τη[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.xlix

] . ειλ[
] . ειφ . [
] . . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.l

] . ουκαι . [
]ον γα[
]οτ̣ . . [


] . ηναρ̣[
] .·
] . γ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lii

] . [
]σ̣ . . . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.liii

]ναν· χ . [
] . πλ̣η̣ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.liv

] . νρ̣[
] . αιγι̣[


] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lvi

]αν . [
]στη . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lvii

]υν' οτ̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lviii

] . ρα[
]εσθ . [
]τελ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lix

] . ον
] . σοτ¯

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lx

] . . [] . [
]επ' ισ[
] . ν . [
] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lxi

]λυ̣ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lxii

] . . . [
] . φ̣α̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.A.lxiii

]ει̣ . [

Group 2, category B

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.i

] . α . [
]ν̣ μεντ̣[
] . κάλ . [
] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.ii

] . . . [
]σ̣θε . [
] ν̣ό̣ημ̣[μα
] . α̣πεδ[
] .́ . ηνεο[
] χ̤ά̣ρ̣ις . [
] . ι̣φ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.iii

]ω̣· ν . . [
] ἐνάντ[ιον
] . πάππ[
τ]όλμαν [
] ἀνθρω[π-
] ὀνέχ[ην
] π̤αῖσα [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.iv

] . ἔδαφ[ος ] . ικατε[
] . [] . αι
] . εα̣ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.v

]γμε . [
] προλίπ[
]νυ' ἆς ἐπ[
ἐ]γλάθαν' ἐσ̣̣[
]ν̣̣ῦν θαλα[μ



Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.vii

] . ἀκα[λ-

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.viii


Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.ix

]δ . σ[
] . ν

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.x

[. .] . [
ο̣ . . [
τ̣οῦ [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xi

] . . [
]α τάδ̣[(ε)

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xii

] . [
ἄ]νω [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xiii

] π̣εδ['
] τι̣ [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xiv

]' ἐδό̣νη[σ'
]α̣ πάμ̣[παν
]ρ̣ῆσμε . [
] .́ δαιζαφ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xv

] αἶγο̣[ς
]σα . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xvi

]αν̣ πα̣[
τε]λέσειε κ̣[
]ίη λελᾱ[
]ε θέλω [
] ἔχην [
]η̣· ἔφα . [
] ἀλίκ[εσσι

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xvii

]ι̣κα . [
]κ̣̣ . εηδον̣[
] . πλοκαμ[
]ε̣σ δ' ἄ̣μα [
] ἀνθρώπ[
] . υμαιν[
]τ̣ε κ̣αὶ π̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xviii

] φ̣έρην̣ [
] .ἶδε θέλ[οισι
]δήποτ' ὄνα[ρ
]εν ἐπηρατ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xix

]α . [
ἔ]κλυον ε̣[
Κ]ρ̣ανν̣ί̣α̣δες δ[
πα]ρθενίκαις . [
] . μ[
] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xx

]ων ἔκα[
]μ . [
] βροδο[
] . νθ[
] φ̣αῖμ['

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxi

] πόθο̣[
] . ώβα̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxii

] . . [.] . [
] . σὰδ . [
]λ̣α . [
ὀ]νίᾱν [
] λ̣ύρ̣[
]ιμεδ . [
] . κ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxiii

] . πιτα̣[
] τῶ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxiv

] . [
]δέ . . . [
] μμι . [
]ταμέ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxv

] ἀπύθεσθ[αι
ὄττι τά]χιστα λ̣[
] .́ [. .]αισ̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxvi

] φώνα[
] πρόσθ' . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxvii

μή ἀ̣[
δώ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxviiu

]γ̣ην [
]αι [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxix

[.]δω . [


] . υσα̣ . [
] . νῦν ἀ[
] . λαγητ̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxxi

] . [. .] . [
] αὔτα [
]πιαπ . [
] . τια̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxxii

]ρ̣ι αν̣η̣κ . [
] . ω̣ . ναιγ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxxiii

στ̣' ὄ̣σσ
ϝῶν πα[ίδων
ὤνηρ [
καὶ φαι . [
ταῖς παῖ[σι
ἄκρω δ['
φοιται . [
.] . τ̣αῖς ἐ[
] . . [
αὔταν ἐ[
ἐκ παῖσ' ὀ[
τὰν [
αἲμ' ὀ . [
πίκ . [
. .]σ . [
ευο[.]δα . [
κὰκ πτ . [
ὦ παῖ Δ[ίος
ημαν . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.B.xxxiv

] . ν̣οσ̣ . [
ν]ῦ̣ν ὄργαι[ς
] κύδρ . [
]ανει . . [
Fragment 2.B.i

] beautiful[

Fragment 2.B.ii

] thoug[ht

] grace [

Fragment 2.B.iii

] in front [of

s]uffer [
] ma[n
] lif[t] up [
] whole [

Fragment 2.B.iv

] . groun[d …


Fragment 2.B.v

] having abandon[ed
] as long as [
m]ade forget[

] now thala[mus



Fragment 2.B.vii

] not beaut[iful

Fragment 2.B.viii


Fragment 2.B.ix


Fragment 2.B.x

Of the [

Fragments 2.B.xi

] thos[e things

Fragments 2.B.xii

ab]ove [

Fragment 2.B.xiii

] wit[h
] something [

Fragment 2.B.xiv

] shoo[k
] at a[ll

Fragment 2.B.xv

] of a goa[t

Fragment 2.B.xvi

] may (s)he [com]plete [
] to have forg[otten
] I want [
] to have [
] said [
] [to] companions [

Fragment 2.B.xvii

] hairloc[k(s)
] and at the same time [
] man [

] and [

Fragment 2.B.xviii

] to bring [
] they want [
Ar]cheanassa [
]ever a drea[m

Fragment 2.B.xix

l]istened [
N]ymphs of the spring maidens [
ma]idenly [

Fragment 2.B.xx

] rose[(s)

] I say [

Fragment 2.B.xxi

] wis[h

Fragment 2.B.xxii

g]rief [
] lyr[e(s)

Fragment 2.B.xxiii

] of the . [

Fragment 2.B.xxiv

] to us [

Fragment 2.B.xxv

] pu[t] away [
as f]ast [as possible

] pu[t a]round [

Fragment 2.B.xxvi

] voic[e(s)
] previously [

Fragment 2.B.xxvii

Not [

Fragment 2.B.xxviiu

w]orry [[

Fragment 2.B.xxix



] now [

Fragment 2.B.xxxi

] she [

Fragment 2.B.xxxii

ha]ving stood fi[rm

Fragment 2.B.xxxiii

So that all thing[s
His/her child[ren
The man [
And [
To the child[ren
An[d] of the highest [

] to the [

Her [

From (? ?ed) for the children [
The [
An[d] so that [
Blood [

Down [
O son of Z[eus

Fragment 2.B.xxxiii

N]ow passion[s
] renowned [

Group 2, category C

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.i

ὠς δα . [

κτα̣ . [
] . [
ὠς ἴδω[
τ̣ᾶς ἐτ . [
πότνια δ[' Αὔως

ταν μ[
κ̣ᾶρα . [

] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.ii

ἐπτάξατε̣ [
δάφνας ὄτα̣ [
πὰν δ' ἄδιον [
ἢ κῆνον ἐλο[ίμαν
καὶ ταῖσι μὲν ἀ̣[
ὀδοίπορος ἄν[θρωπ]ος [
μύγις δέ ποτ' εἰσάϊον· ἐκλ̣[
ψύχα δ' ἀγαπάτα σὺν [μοι
τέαυτ[α]{ν} δὲ νῦν ἔμμ̣[ατ'
ἴκεσθ' ἀγανα[
ἔφθατε· κάλαν [
τά τ' ἔμματα κ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.iii

Ὄνοιρε μελαίνα[ς διὰ νύκτος
φ[ο]ίταις ὄτα τ' ῎Υπνος [
γλύκυς̣ θ̣[έ]ο̣ς, ἦ δεῖν' ὀνίας μ[ανύματ'
ζὰ χῶρις ἔχην τὰν δύναμ[ιν
ἔλπις δέ μ' ἔχει μὴ πεδέχη[ν
μηδὲν μακάρων ἔλ̣[πομ' ἔχην
ο̣ὐ̣ γάρ κ' ἔον οὔτω[.] .́ [
ἀθύρματα κα [
γένοιτο δέ μοι [
τοὶς πάντα[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.iv

Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ ἐμή
ὦ φα̣ί̣ν̣' ἄ̣μ̣μ̣ι̣ κἠ‹ξ› ε̣ναν̤ λ̤υῖε †εγεονα†
Ψά̤πφ̣' ἦ̣ μὰν . ο+.+ . π . φιγε . . .
πέφα̣ν' ἰν̣[. . .]ρ̣ν . +σ+χ+υ+ν ὔδα̣τι δὲ
κρ̣ίνο̤ν . . [. . . .] . μ̣ήρ̣ . . ἔ̤πε' οἶα . . αι
πέπλ̣ον̣ . ιφ̣+. .+χν . ι̣ι̣ . γ . ο[. .]ια
κα̣ὶ Κ̣λε̣ῖις σάω̣‹ν› +ἔ+λο{.}ισα +. .+ ὠ̣ς
κρο̣κόεντ̣α λω̣[]ορε . σ' ἐ+β+βάλη κ‹α›ὶ
πέπ̣λον̣ πορ̣φύ̣[ρ]ιον +.+ . . ἐνδέξω +. . . . . . . .+
χ̤λαίνᾳ πέρ σ̣' [ἐξα]ρισάν‹τ›ων . ν+. . . . . . .+
στέφ̤αν̣[ο]ι πε̣ρ̣[ὶ . . . .]+. . .+θ+.+νε[.] θέον̣ ἦν
κἄ̣λθ' σσ̣α̣ μα+. . .+[ 12 letters ]ονε .
φρ̣ῦσσον ὦ πρ[ 12 letters ]κ̣α
πα̣ρθ+έ̣+νω̣ν πο[ 12 letters πο]ή̣σω {.}
τυνα̣κκ+. .+ιπ+.+[ 6-7 letters ]+. . . τ+έ̣κνο̣‹ν›
+. . . .+νν̣ο̣δ̣ . μ[]+. . . . . . .+
. +8 letters+[. . . .]+. . . . .+
γυ̣να̣ί[κω]+ν . .+[. . . .]+. . .+η δό̣ν' ἔμοι
ἔδα̣εν ἰ+. . . . .+]. . . . .]+.+σε+.+ . . φφ . π
+11 letters+[. . . .]+. .+ τ̣ὰ ἔμ̣α +. . .+ ὠ̣ς +. . .+ δ̣
+9 letters+[ 6 letters ]+. .+ ποττὰ τοπ
+10 letters+[ 6 letters ]+. δ+άμνατ̣ο . ἐπὶ
+10 letters+[ 6 letters]+. .+ ἀνθεμ‹›
+βά+θηά σ+. . +α̣[]+. . .+ ποη+τ+έον
+7 letters+[. . . . .]+7 letters+οεσε̣

Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ τοῦ Λοβέλ-Πείδζ
κρ[. . . . . . . . .]περ[
πέπλον [. . .]π̣υ̣σ̣χ̣[
καὶ Κλ̣ε̣[ΐς] σάω[ν
κροκόεντα [
πέπλον πορφύ[ριον . . . . .]δ̣έξω̣[.]
χλαίνᾳ πέρ σ̣' [
στέφανοι περ[ὶ
κἄλ[θ] ὄ̣σ̣σ̣α̣ μ̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.v

Μοίσαν ἄγλα[α δῶρα
πόει καὶ Χαρίτων̣ [
βραδίνοις ἐπεβ . [
ὄργας μὴ 'πιλάθεσ[θαι
θ̣ν̣άτοισιν· πεδέχ[ην


ἔγεντ̣ο [
οὐ γάρ κ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.vii

καίτ' ἐ[
μήδ' ἒν [
νῦν δ' ἀ[
μὴ βόλλε̣[ται

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.viii

]. .
] λβον
] αὔταν

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.ix

β]άρ̣υ [. .]ω
] . παρθέ̣νων
] ἀ̣λλ' ἴαν ἦ̣χον
] . παρθέν̤ω̤ν
]ν ὠρρ̣ώδων̣ ὐπὲρ ὂν
ἐπέσκ]ηψ' Ἦ̣ρ̣α βάλεσθ‹α›ι
ἠ]ΰφ̣ρα̣ν' ἄρ' ὠ̣ξυ+βό[ων]
] παρθέη̣ι +.+ ἔν̣‹ν›επ̣ε β̣α̣+...     +
]πω ἔμ̣‹μ›εν ὤσ̣τ' ἀν̣ε̣ν+    +

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.x

[Στίχοι αʹ-ιβʹ οὐ δύνανται ἀναλέγεσθαι]
σὺ δ' . .[
τ̣ο̣ῦ . .[                  υπνου
[Στίχοι ιθʹ-κγʹ οὐ δύνανται ἀναλέγεθαι]
περὶ πτέρα [
πό]ρ̣πας κ̣α̣ [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.xi

. . . . [.] . [
κ̣άλαις, ὠς̣ [
τοῦτό τοι φ̣[
γ̣ένεσθαι . [
ὠ̣ς̣ γάρ κε[ν
ὄ̣π̣ποι νυν [
μωσαμμ . [
. δοσο̣[. .] . . . [
σ̣ομε . [.]ποτ .[
ο̣ὐκ αὖ ἀδέεσ[σιν
α]ὔτα γ̣ὰ̣ρ πάρο̣[ιθ'
ἴ]π̣ποις ἦχες [
α] δ' ἄλλαι παρέ̣β̣αν [
κ̣ό̣σ̣μ̣ω κῦδος ἐχ[ην
νῦν δεῖ̣ κῆνα με[
βεβά . . . . [. .] . .́ . . . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.xii

[Οὐδὲν γράμμα ἐκ τῶν στίχων αʹ-ζʹ ἔμεινε]
] . ὼ
] . ενα
[Οὐδὲν γράμμα ἐκ τῶν στίχων ιαʹ-ιδʹ ἔμεινε]
]      .̄

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.xiii

].[. .]κυπ[
ἄγλαοι . [
βῶμος [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.xiv

. υμμ[
νυν [
θαῦμα . [
κ . . [.] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.xv

δεῦτ̣[έ] μοι νᾶσον
δ̣ύ' ἔ̣ρ̣ω̣τ̣ές με
ἔσταμε̣ν εὐχ̣ῆι
ὦ δεξαμένη[[ι]] κε̣[
σεμνὰ πολυκλ . [
πότνι' ὠράνω
Ἔρως̣ ἐπεξενώ[θη
δεῦτ' ὄλβιαι
τίς̣ ἔ̣ρ̣ω̣τος
ἤδη [μ'] ὄ̣νηαρ
χαῖρε̣ [Κ]υ̣λλάν̣ας
ὁ μέ[γα]ς̣ πόντο̣[ς
θύω[με]ν Ἀφροδ̣[ίτι
ἐπὶ Δάν̣α̣όν τι̣[
ἀγνὴ μῆτ[ερ
Κύπρι κα̣[ὶ
ἐγρ̣έσθω μ̣ο̣[
αἰόλον φών[αν
ἄπεχ' ο̣ὖ̣ρ̣ον [
γλυκὺ μ̣ε̣[
χαῖρε χ̣α̣[ῖρε
εἶδον [] . [
νέον τ̣[
ὦ π̣αῖ̣ κ̣[
ἴθι μ . [
ωπ̣ . [
Fragment 2.C.i

So that [

Go [
So that [I/we] may see [
Of the [
And Queen [Dawn

The Golden-A[rmed

(Of?) the [
Head [

Fragment 2.C.ii

You cowered [
Of the sweet bay-tree when [
And all is sweeter [
Or [I'd] seize that [
And to them [
A wayfaring man [
I hardly ever heard; [
And the beloved soul with m[e
And now such cl[othes
To come [] gentle [
You came first; beautiful [
And the clothes [

Fragment 2.C.iii

Oh dream [through the] black [night
You g[o] to and fro when Sleep [
Sweet god, indeed terrible e[vocations] of grief [
To keep the pow[er] separate [
But hope fills me not to hav[e
Not at all of the lucky ones [am I caused to] hop[e to have
For not being so [
Adornments and [
But may it happen to me [
Those (that?) every[thing

Fragment 2.C.iv

My version
Oh appear to us and set free from the bed
Sappho, indeed …
Appear for good … strength … but with water
White lily … such words …
Robe …
And Cleis … of your … having taken … so that
((S)he) may put around you a crocus-hued (mantle?) and
A purple robe … I will accept …
With a mantle around you … may
Garlands around (you) contend … god … was
And come … all which …
Roast thou, o …
Of maidens … I will do
… child

Of women … shakes to me …
(S)he learnt …
… my … so that …
… of what quantity
… subdued … on
… flower(s)…
Deep … must be made

Lobel-Page version

Robe …
And Cleis of your …
Crocus-colored …
Purple robe … I will accept …
With a mantle around you …
Garlands arou[nd
And come … all which …


Fragment 2.C.v

Gloriou[s gifts] of the Muses …
Makes … and of the Graces …
Slender …
Not to forg[et] the rage …
Mortals; to ha[ve] …


Became …
For not …

Fragment 2.C.vii

Either …
Nothing …
And now …
Doesn't wan[t …
Bea]utiful …

Fragment 2.C.viii

… happiness
… hear
… her

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.C.ix

… heavy …
… wedding-chambers
… of maidens
… but I had only one
… of maidens
… fearing … beyond which
… Hera bid to cast away
… I heartened indeed, crying aloud
… place beside … tell …
… to be … so that …

Fragment 2.C.x

[Ll. 1-12 are illegible]

And you …
Of the (sleep?) …
[Ll. 19-23 are illegible]

Around the wings …

Cl]asps and …

Fragment 2.C.xi

Beautiful … and …
This … to you …
Become …
Thus indeed …
Of what sort now …

… (once?) …
Not indeed with sweet …
For [s]he former[ly …
You had [h]orses …
And [t]he others passed beyond …
Ha[ve] the glory of order …
Now one must … these things …

Fragment 2.C.xii

[No letter left from ll. 1-7]

[No letter left from ll. 11-14]

Fragment 2.C.xiii

Shining …
Altar …
Dark …
Silvery …
Gold(en) …

Fragment 2.C.xiv

Y'all …
Now …
Marvel …

Fragment 2.C.xv

(Come) again to me (leaving) the island
Two loves me
We were in prayer
O you who have received
Queen (?)
Queen of the sky
Love was estrang[ed]
Happy again
Who … of love
Profit already [me]
Greetings, (ruler) of Cyllene
The g[re]at sea
Let us sacri[fi]ce to Aphrodite
For Danaus …
Holy moth[er]
Cypris an[d]
May Aphro[dite] let go
Awaken (for me?)
Nimbe voi[ce]
Keep the oỹron away
Sweet …
Greetings gree[tings]
I/They saw
[I] bese[ech]
New(ly) …
Oh boy …
Go thou …

Group 2, category D

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.i

Δωρί]χᾱς̣ . [. . . . .] . [
]κην κέλετ', οὐ γὰρ [

ὀφλισ]κᾰ́νην ἀγε̣ρωχίᾳ̣ [
ἔ]μμεν ὄαν νέ̣ο̣ισι [
] . αν φ[ί]λ[. . . . . .] . [
]μ̣ᾱ . [.]

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.ii

] . ν . ο̣ . [
]ὰ̣μφ . [
Ἄ]τθι· σο [
] . νέφ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.iii

π]α̣ρκάλεισ̣ι τὰς ἐλ̣[
πάμ]παν· οὐκ ἔχη[σθα, πόθεν δυναίμαν,
μ]ᾶ̤τερ, ἐόρταν

φαιδί]μ̣αν ὤρᾳ τέλε[σαι; τὸ δ' ἐστὶ
χάρμ' ἐ]παμέρων· ἔμ[ε δ' εὔφρον' εἴη
τυγχά]ν̤η̣ν̤, θ̣ᾶς ἄμ[μι θέοι δίδωσι
φθόγγ]ο̣ν ἄκουσαι

–u]υ̣ν' οὖτος δὲ[u–u–x
–u] ἢ νῦν̣ ἀ̣βλ̣α̣[β u–u–x
–u]α̣ς δίδων τα[u–u–x
–u π]όησεν·

. . . . .
–u– ἄ]ν̣υστον· ε̣[–u–x
κῆ]νο τελέσθ̣η[ν

–] δ̣' ἔ̣γω πάμπ[αν uu–u–x
–u] . αν . γλώσσα [uu–u–x
–] . τα̣πυγνώ[–uu–u–x
–] ρ' ὀφέλλης̣

–] ἔρων ε . . [–uu–u–x

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.iv

–u–x–uu–] μένοισα
[–u–x–uu]θ' ἐν θύοισι[
–u–x–u] ἔχοισαν ἔσλ[α

–u–x–uu]ει δὲ βαῖσα
[–u–x–uu ε]ὖ γὰρ ἴδμεν
[–u–x–uu–]ιν ἔργων

–u–x–uu–] δ' ὐπίσσω
[–u–x–uu κ]ἀπὶ κῦδ[ος
–u–x–uu–] τόδ' εἴπη[ν

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.v

]βλ̣α . [
–u] ἔργον· ἀ+λ+λ̣' ἄ̣γ̣ε [–u–x
–u–] ρέθος δοκί̣[μ –u–x

–]ν̣ ἀ‹ϝ›άδην χ . [–uu–u–x
αἰ δ]ὲ μ̣ὴ χείμω̣ν [uu–u–x
–u]τ̣οισαν ἄλγεα . [-u–x

] . [


]ν̣[. .] . [
]. ιτασαδ[
ταῦ]τα νόεισαι


Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.vii

] . ι̣ω̣ν[
] μ̣έτρια κα̉[ὶ
β]ά̣θυ δ' οὐ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.viii

] . ι̣ πὀτνια[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.ix

] πέπλ[ον
τ]οὶ+ς+ ὄρ̣μ̣οις [.]τ̤ε̣[
] . . . . . . +. .+ [.] ω̣ [
] . αλ̣ +. . .+ . [. .]α̣π̣οι̣[
] +. . . .+ . ω̣[. . . .]τ̣[
] αἶ̣γ̣ο̣[ς]+. .+ . . +.+ . +. . . .+ .[
] .·
] . [.] λμ̣[.] +. .+ [.] +. . .+ || +.+ [.] . [.] . [
] . ιτε Γ̣+ό+ργοι +. . + . . [
]δε[. . .] . . [ . . ] . [
] . μ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.x

]δ̣' ἔμ' αὔ̣[τ
]ν' ίψοι̣ [
]ντ̣ι̣ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xi

] πρός̣ τε̣ το̣[
]τ̣ισ̣ιν· κα[ὶ
] . γο̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xii

] . μάλι[στα
] ἐν πυρ [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xiii

] . . [
] ν̣ᾶϊ σ̣ὺ̣[ν
] ἔ̣γνως ἰ . [
] ἄνδρας β[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xiv

] ἴν̣α σδ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xv

] . οισε̣[
] . αὔτα̣ν
]σ' ἐοίσαι̣ς̣

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xvi

κ]αὶ γ̣ὰρ ἄ[
ταῦ̣τ' . . [
πό̣λ̣λ̣α̤ [
. δ . η .[
] . . [.] . . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xvii

]ν̣δημεν . [
] . αβασκο . [
] κ̣[ῆ]να . [
] . [.] . . .̄ [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xviii

. [
. [
σοὶ [
οὐκ [
π . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xix

] σ̣ὺ δ[
] [
] . [ ][

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xx

. . . . .] . π̣ . α̣[
. . Ἀνδ]ρομέ[δα
. . . . .] . ελασ̣[
κρότ̣ην Νέμε[σιν
Ψάπφοι, σὲ φίλ[
Κύπρῳ β̣[α]σίλ[
κ̣αί τοι μέγα δ[ρον
ὄ]σσοις φαέθων̣ [
πάντᾳ κλέος [
καί σ' ἔνν Ἀχέρ[οντ
. . [. . . . . .]ν̣π̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxi

θέ]ων μακ[άρων
κ]αὶ τοῦτ' ἔπικεν [
δ]αίμων ὀλόφ[()
οὐ μὰν ἐφίλησ̣[
νῦν δ' ἔννεκα [
τόδ' αἴτιον οὔτ[
ο̣ὔδ' ἒν πόλυ [.] . γ̣ [
σ]ὺ δ' .́[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxii

κα]ὶ̣ γάρ μ' ἀπὺ τᾶς ἔμ[ας
] ὔμως δ' ἔγεν[το
] ἴσαν θέοισιν
]ασαν ἀλίτραν[
Ἀν]δρομέδαν̣ [ὐ]πάξ[ει
] Ἄρ[τεμι]ςμάκα[ιρ]α·
]ἔον δὲ τρόπον α[ἰσ]χύνη[ται
] κόρον οὐ κατίσ{[.]}χει [
]κ̣α[. . . . .] . Τυνδαρίδαι[σιν
] ἀσυ[χ]ίᾳ κα[ὶ] χαρίεντ' ἀ . [
] κ' ἄδολον [μ]ηκέτι συν[
] Μεγάραν [τὰ]ν̣ ἀ[κβάλη]α[ν

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxiii

]οδερ̣κεν ἐπ̣ώ̣μοσσ[
]ν̣ ἔτι· τὰν παῖδα δὲ [
α]βρ[ό]ταν κἀν̣ χέρι θ[
]εν[. . . . .] παρε[δωκ

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxiv

] . οναυ[
]ην οὐδὲ [
]ης ἴμερ[
] . αι δ' ἄμα[
] . ἄνθος· [
] ἔτερπ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxv

]ν̣β . [. .] . [.]υ.

]αν Ἀφροδί[τα
ἀ]δύλογοι δ' Ἔρ[ωτες
α]ἲς ἔχοισα
] . ένα θαασ[σ
κάλ]ας ἐέρσας[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxvi

] ἄ̣μιλλ
νῦ]ν̣ δ' εἶμ' ἐ[
x–]λικ' ὐπα[
x?] . . . [.]βα[
x ὠ]ς̣ γὰρ ἔ̣παυσ[θ
οὐ] μάν κ' ἀπύ̣θ̣υσ̣[θ
x] ἀρμονίας δ̣[(ὲ)
]άθην χόρον ἄα[
x–] δ̣ὲ λίγηαν [
x– δύν]ατόν σφι̣ [
] πάντεσσι [
]επ[.] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxvii

]. τ̣οσεσ .[
] πάντα[
]ι̣ δ' ἀτέρα[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxviii

]α . [
]υ̣μαι . . [
] . τεχαρα̣[
]ι̣δι δοισ[
]δεν ἀμεσ[
]ος σύ γ' ἀ[
] . λονα[
] . δαλ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxix

] . αι . [
]λ' αὖθι μα . [
]νώμεθ' ὀ[
] δηὖτ' ἐπιτ[
] . α γὰρ ἐκά[


] . αισ[
ἄ]λικι π[
]ω̣νκ[] ἴνα [
]τονόνε . [] . οσσ̤[
λ]άβροις ἐπὶ χ[]ε̣ί̣μ[ονας
]αν Ἄρτεμ̤ι̣[ς

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxi

].' ὤστ' ὀ πέλη[ς
]ακανσ̣ .́ [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxii

]ν̣ πρ̣ο̣ . . [
]νως πρὸς πότ̣[
] . ατον χάλα[
] . θέλοις . οὐδυ̣[
ὀ]πάσδοις ὀλίγα[ις
] . ένα φέρεσθα[ι
] . φι̣α̣ τις̣ . . . [
ἐμ[                  ] . δ' ἄδιον εἰσορ[
το̣ῦ̣[                  ο]ἶσθα καὔτα·
κ[                  λέ]λ̣αθ' ἀλλονιά[
σε[                  ] . αν· τι̣ραδ[
ἠ[                  ]α̣ί̣ τις εἴποι
α[                  ] . σαν· ἔγω τε γάρ [σε
φιλη̣[ν                  ]μ̣' ἆς κεν ἔνηι μ' [ἀΰτμα
κᾶλ . [                  ]α̣ι μελήσην·
ἐστ . [                  ] φίλα φαῖμ' ἐχύρα γέ[νεσθαι
.]χ̣α̣[                  ]ενα[.]αις· ἀτ̣[
] . . δ' ὀνίαρ̣[ο]ς̣ [
] . πίκρος ὔμ[
]. .[.]τα̣ . θᾶδ̣[
] . α̣ τόδε δ' ἴσ̣[θι
] . ὤττι σ' ἐ . [
]α φιλήσω [
]τ̣ω τι̣ λο[
κρέ]σσον γὰρ . [
]σ̣θαι βελέω[ν
]. .[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxiii


.] . γα . πεδὰ βαῖο̣[ν ] . α
. [.]οῖ Πωλυανάκτ[ιδ]α . . [
. . . αισ Σαμία‹ι›σιν ι̣ε . [.]το̣ισ . . . . [.] []      Κορω̣νίςσ̣υκ̣ ν  
‹ἐν› χόρδαισι διακρέ̣κην
ο̣λ̣ι̣σ̣β̣οδόκο̣ι̣σ̣‹ι› περκαθθώμενος
τεούτ[οι]σι φιλοφ[ό]νως
πᾶ]κτις δ' ἐλελίσδ[ε]ται προσ̣ανέ̣ως
εὔφ]ωνος δὲ δι' ο[στί]ων
ἔρπει] μυάλ̣ω δ' [πε]ί κ' ἔ̣νη̣ τ̣ρ̣[έχε]ι {χ . .}


Λάτως] τε κα̣ὶ Δ̣ί̣[ος] πάϊ[ς]
] . . ε . . . [.] ἔπι[]θ̤' ὀ̣ρ̣γίον[
Γρύνη]α[ν] ὐλ̣ώδ̣η λίπ̣ων
καὶ σὸν κλύ]το̣ν̣ χ̣ρ̣η[σ]τ̣ήριον
].[          ] . ε̣υμες̣[. .] . [.]ων
] . . . . [. . . . .]
] . . . . . . ἀ[μ]έ̣ραις
]ρ̣σανον[.] . τ[    ]ργία̣ν
]υ̣σομεν [    ]
]νϋμνε[          ]
κ̣α̣[          ]ε̣να̣[.]φο . [. . .]ν . ἀδελφέαν
ὠς πάϊ[ς      ] . ιο̣ . [. . .] . [      ]
οὔτις δε̣[. . .]κει̣ . θέ̣λ̣η[ι          ]
δεί̣χ̣ν̣υσ[ι . .]ε δηὖτε Πωλ̣υ̣ανακτίδαν
τὸν μάρ̣γον̣ ὄν̣δε̣ιξα̣ι̣ θέλω

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxiv

]ρηον θαλάμω τ̣ωδεσ̣[
]ις εὔποδα νύμφαν ἄβ̣[ραν
] . νῦν δ[(ὲ)
]ν μοι· [
]ας γε̣ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxv(a)


Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxv(b)

τὰν σφ[
πόλλα [
πρὶγ γα̣[
πόλλαις̣ [
τὼν σφῶ[ν

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxvi

]νί . [
ἀ]λίκεσ̣σι [
] παίδων [
] - [Τέλος ᾄσματος?]
] . θέοισ̣[
]ν αἰσχρ[
]α Μοῖ[σ

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxvii

] . α[
] αἶγα [
] . δο . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxviii

ζ̣ὰ τὰν [
ἄμ' ἐξα[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xxxix

] . οὐδὲ[ν
] τ̣αῦτα . [
]λαισι μ[
] πλήον' . [
]' ἀμφ[ὶ
] . σθεο . [
] .́ ρως . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xl

] . . . . φ[
] . [.]' θύρα . [
] .οι χαλέπ[
] . οπάλην ὀ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xli

] ἐπε[ὶ σ]τ̣έγα μ[ε
]α̣ς ἀλίτρα[
]έτ' αὐ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xlii

] ἄμμε̣[
]τες· τ̣[
] . ωνω[
] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xliii

] . [
] μήτε̣ [
]δίαισα [
]ες· ἀλλ[
] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xliv

] . ἀκάλα . [
Δίος ἐξ] α̣ἰ̣γιόχω λ̣ά[̣χοισα
] . Κ̣υ̣θέρη' ἐ̣ὐχομ[ένᾳ μ' ἄρηξον
πρόφρ]ο̣ν ἔχοισα θῦμο̣[ν
κλ]ῦθί μ̣' ἄρας αἴ π[οτα κἀτέρωτα
]ας π̣ρ̣ολίποισ̣α Κ[ύπρον
ἦλθε]ς πεδ' ἔμαν ἰώ[αν
] . ν χα̣λέπᾳ μ[ερίμνᾳ

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xlv

χ̣ .
] . ντι
ν[      ] . ες ει
να[      ] . οντων
εν . [      ] Κυθερήας τρό-
φος[      θρέ]πτη
· ἐν ἄλλοις
δὲ θυ̣γ[ατέρα (τῆς) Ἀφρο]δίτης εἴρηκε τὴ[ν
Πειθὼ [      ]ησε φω̣νείη μ[
τας ἀλλη[      ] . ἑαυτῆς π̣ρ[οσα-
γόρευε· ὐμ[      ] . +.+ θ̣έλοισα[
θικονετ . [      ]ασιν χ[
ἄμμι ἀγγ[ελίαν      ]τινα[
δαίμ+ω+ν ἀ̣θ[άνατος      ] . ο̣συν[
ἵνα η . . πε . [
λέγ' {ο} ὔ̣μμε [
μεν +.+. ιε[
δηεπ . σ . [      ] .
θέλετο̣ [      ] . . φι
ον τε κ[      ] . του
. δύνατ[      ] ε̣ιμαι'
χέρρες̣ [      ] καὶ κα-
τ' ἰδίαν [      ] . ς καὶ
πρὸς τὴ[ν      μο]χ̣θ̣οῦν[
τ[.]ς προ . [      ] τανυ[
πτέρυγ[ες Ἔρωτες
     ] . ατο̣[
]ο̣φησ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xlvi

. [      ἀγε-
τὰς ἄγαν ἐχού-
σας γέρας· . [
Καὶ Γυρίνν[
τὰς τοιαύτας . [      x–uu––uu– οὐ γὰρ ἐ-
γὼ τὸ κάλλος ‹x–?› ἐπετ[ίμαν ποτα·
μέ‹σδ›ον τι γὰρ ἦν ἔμοι
εἶναι καὶ ἀρετῆς̣ πο̣[      ἀλ-
λὰ μήποτ' ἔλεγε{ι} ὅτι ὄ [
κάλλ‹ε›ι εὐφημεῖσθα[ι
μοι Ζεφύρ̣ω πνεῦμα [
σοι δ' ἀν+εμ+οφόρητο
]ε̣· παῖ τᾶς μ[      πρὸς
Ἀνδρομέ]δη̣ν γέγρα[πται
] ὑπὸ Ἀνδ[ρομέδης
] . ι οὐκ εὐν̣[
]ω̣αρρε . [
] χ̣ῆτις [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xlvii

] . [
] . [
]ο̣υ̣τ̣ι̣ . [
]π̣οι̣η . . τ̣ . [
βο]ήθ̣εια̣ν . [
]ειν· φ[
] . . ηβ . [
ἔ]σλον [
]δ̣ . [.]ε̣[[μ̣ον]][
]θ̣ω̣σα . [
] . ωμ[
]· σουαν̣[
] ἄπαξ τοῦτ[ο
] ο̣ὔ πάντα 7[
] πρῶτον [
] . [.]οις προα[
]θ̣άνειν [
] κρ̣έσσον γὰ[ρ

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xlviii

]νομε[.] . [
] . ταπυ̣ν̣ . [
]μενον ϊ[
] ν̣όημμα ἀ[
]ε̣ φέροι'̣ [
] . . . [
] . γ̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.xlix

] . ς γὰρ [
μ]ήκετι [
] Λάτως . [
] . περὶ σα[
] . τοτη . . . [
]ο̣ς φησιν α [
]νυ̣ποτου [
] . ι[
] . α μένην [
] καὶ χάριε . [
ἐν ταύτῃ] τ̣ῇ ᾠδῇ λέ[γει ὅτι
] Ἄτθιδος̣ [
] αὐτῆς̣ [
] . η β̣α̣θυ̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.l

]α̣ισοεμαε . οατέρυ[
] . . νόημα
]μὲν̣ ἀφίκετ' ἀ[
] . . ο̣υ̣σ̣ . . [


] φέρην̣ [
] . ιδε θέλ[
] δήποτ' ὀνα[
]εν ἐπηρατ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lii

]το . [
]τ' αὖτ̣ον . [
]ω̣ πέλετ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.liii

] . . [
] . αιδεκό . [
] . σπελ̣[.] . [
] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.liv

] . . [.] . τ . Γο[γγύλα δὲ / (–?) αἶ-]
ψ' ἰ̆ᾰχ[ηθ]ήσε‹τ'› ἔμᾱ κἈρχ̣εάνα[σ-
σα Γόργω‹ς› / σύνδῡγο(ς)
· ἀν̣τὶ τοῦ
σ̣[ύν]ζυξ· ἡ Πλειστοδίκη
[τ]ῇ̣ Γ̣[ο]ρ̣γ̣οῖ σύνζυξ μ̣ε-
τ̣ὰ τ̣[ῆς] Γ̣ογγύλης ὀν[ο]μασθή-
σετ[αι· κ]οινὸν γὰρ τὸ ὄν̣ο-
μ[α δ]έ̣δοται ἢ κατὰ τῆς̣ [ο]ἰκί-
α̣[ς, διὸ] Πλ[ε]ι̣σ̣τοδ̣ίκη [μὲ]ν
αὕτη ὀνομ]α̣σθήσ̣ετ̣[αι] κυ-
ρίως ]η̣[    ] . ατ̣ε̣τ̣ουτ
] . νο̣ αν


εἰ̣ς̣ Κύπ[ρον
ι̣ - - . [
- - - τ[
- - - ωγ̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lvi

] . [
ἐξ] ρχας μεμ̣[φ
]κναɔ.λ          [
]                  [
] ὠς ἀήδων [
]                  [
][[νι]] φώναι̣[
] . . γ̣αo[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lvii

. . . [.] . . [
κήνᾱ με[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lvii

] ἀ̣νθε̣ί̣α̣ς ἀπυ̣[
]ες κίβισιν δ . [
]κ̣ατο κἀκ φίλ . π̣ . [
ἐ]κ̣ δ' ἔλε μ' ὄστια̣ [
]ς· περέτε . [
] . μ̣αβο . [
]ερε . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lix

] . λων . [
] ἔ̣μον νό[η]μ̣μ' ἀργα . [
]α̣ΐα σὸν θ̣[ερ]ά̣πον[τα
] . ον ἀλλα . []η̣να[
Ἀ]τθι̣δήαν κεφάλαν [
] πάϊς τόνδε τελεσ . [
]ωδ̣εφ[          ]σοκ[
]οσπ[          ]ε̣ . υ[
]θ̣ριας[.] . [
]ησθε̣γα . [
] . . [[λ]]οισιν . [
]κ̣ται μελα . [
] . το γάρ κ' εἰς . [
]ι̣νον̣ . . . ω . [
] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lx

] ὠς ὄ̣τ' ἐπα[ .
] πρόσθεν εμευδα[
]λ̣αμπο . [
] πάντ' ἐπιχ[
] ὠς τὸ μέλι̣ [
] ἦρ' ἔτι πᾱ́στ[
μ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxi

ἄ]μμιν ἦτ' ἀρή̣ω[ν
] ὄ̣ττι̣νά τοι σὺν ἀ[
] . αι Κρόνω

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxii

]ακεφα . . . . [
] .́ αν λύθεισα·
] . [    μαλ]ο̣πάραυε, σοὶ μὰν
] .́ δε . β[      ]ν γυναίκων
] . . . οισαν μ̣[ ] . ζάεισαι
] . ι̣ν ὄρχησθ' [ἐρό]εσσ' Ἄβανθι·

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxiii

] . . [
]φονε . [
]αρμ' ἐρο̣[
] . . ος̣ σίμαν̣[
] . ' αἴθερος ὀν[
]ε ὤσδ' ἔνα [
θα]υμάσιον μὲν . [
] . . πέφυκε δ' . [
] . ε κάλος [
] ἔφα̇ντ[ο
] . ασδελ[
]λ̣ος· ἀμφὶ̣ [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxiv

] . σ̣ηδ . [
] ἄοιδαι θ[
] . υιλειψε̣[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxv

] . ν̣ος̣ . [
]υ̣ν ὄργᾳ [
]κύδρ . [
]ανει . . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxvi

] μήτ̣[
] λβι . [
]ξοισ . [
] παιδ . [
] ὦ̣μ' ω[
] πόλλα[

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxvii

] . ι̣η̣π̣ . [
] . ερο . [
] . ινδη . [
] ἀμφέβ[α-
Ζε]φύρω φ . [
]χος μ' ἄλ[
δολοπ]λόκω Κύ[π]ρ̣ι̣δ[ος
προσ]ανέως πυκιν[
κλ]εέννας Δίος ἀγ[γ]έ̣λω . . [.] . [
]ος Μ̣άκαρος ἔπελθε νᾶσ̣ο̣[ν
] σέ̣μνας μέγαν ὄρκον ε . [. .]ε[
] . [[ι]]σθ . νατ . . φορωθ . [.] . [.] . [
] . [.]αρ̣οπ̣[.] λάμπρον ὤς [
] ὐπίσσω      [
-πέ]διλλ' ἐ̣πεί      [
]    [    ]

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxviii

(fr. 1)
2 ὀ μ̣εν
6 κρατοῦσι
7 (πολέ?)μων· ἡ δ' ἐφ' ἡσυχία[ς]
παιδεύουσα τὰς ἀρί-
στας οὐ μόνον τῶν
10 ἐγχωρίων ἀλλὰ καὶ
τῶν ἀπ' Ἰωνίας· καὶ
ἐν τοσαύτῃ παρὰ
τοῖς πολίταις ἀποδο-
χῇ ὤστ' ἔφη Καλλίας
15 ὁ Μυτιληναῖος ἐν
[.] . . . [      ] Ἀφροδι-
(fr. 2 col. i)
8 ]λω κε μόρραν
]νεχες παρευ
10 ]ων μοισάων
ων ἔω[ς] τοῦ η
]νην ἀπὺ τῶδε
τως ἀπο]φαίνει τὰς ἐπὶ
15 βασι]λ̣ικὸν οἶκον φοι-
τώσ]ας καὶ περὶ πολ-
λοῦ π]οιουμένας
διεν]εχθῆναι καὶ
(fr. 2 col. ii)
10 νακτιδω̣[
ἡ παῖς κ[
ρους με . [
καὶ ὠνει̣[δι-
15 πρὸς μα[
εὐγένεια . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxix

+π+άν κε δ[εῖνον
+ἐ+ννέπην [
γλῶσσα μ[

κἆνδρι . [          ] ἄρ̣ιστ̣α
μέσδον [          ] . . .
         ] . . σαν
         ] . .

         ] θ̣ῦμον
         ] γ̤ὰρ
         ] . ρμω̣ς
         ] ·

         ] α̤ιν
σ̤ῶς τε ρ . [

καὶ γὰρ ε . [
δεύετ' ὤρ̣[αν
νύξ τε καὶ̣ [
. . οστ . [

. . ασω . . [
. . α . . α . . [
{μο} μύρ̣ι' ἄ̤σ̤τ[ρα
+αὖ+το̣ν ἀ . . . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxx

Fragment 2.D.i

… of [Dori]cha …
… begs, for … not …

… become [a debtor] for arrogance …
… [t]o be like for the youths …
… dear …

Fragment 2.D.ii

… (around?) …
… [A]tthis; to you …

Fragment 2.D.iii

[T]hey call the …
[At a]ll; don't you ha[ve ways I could,
M]other, a [radi]ant

Feast celeb[rate] in due time? [And this is
The joy] of those who live day-by-day; [may it happ]en
To be happy], as long as [the gods grant] m[e] | [to] m[e
To hear [a voice

–u] this person [u–u–x
–u] may now be unhar[med u–u–x
–u] giving [u–u–x
–u d]id;

–u– p]racticable [–u–x]
That [th]is be compl[eted

–] but I at al[l uu–u–x
–u] tongue [uu–u–x

–] indeed you ought

–] of loves [–uu–u–x

Fragment 2.D.iv

–u–x–uu–] staying
[–u–x–uu] in cytrus-woods
–u–x–u] having goo[d

–u–x–uu] but having gone
[–u–x–uu] for [we]ll we know
[–u–x–uu–] of works

–u–x–uu–] but may I place under
[–u–x–uu And] for glo[ry
–u–x–uu–] sa[y] this

Fragment 2.D.v

… (damaged?) …
… work; but come, …
… face … try …

… unpleasant …
If] not, winter …
… pains …


Think of these things

Fragment 2.D.vii

… moderate an[d …
… d]eep … not …

Fragment 2.D.viii

… divine …

Fragment 2.D.ix

… ro[be …
… t]he neclaces …

… oh Gorgo …

Fragment 2.D.x

… myself …
… upwards …

… 2.D.xi

… and towards the …
… an[d …

Fragment 2.D.xii

… above a[ll
… in the fire …
… (safe?) …

Fragment 2.D.xiii

… wi[th] the ship …
… you knew …
… men …

Fragment 2.D.xiv

… so that …

Fragment 2.D.xv

… G]yrinno
… her
… being
… h]aving taken

Fragment 2.D.xvi

A]nd indeed …
These things …
Many things …

Us …

Fragment 2.D.xvii

… (river Abascus?) …
… these things …

Fragment 2.D.xviii

To you …
Not …

Fragment 2.D.xix

… and you …

Fragment 2.D.xx

… And]rome[da …

That Neme[sis] prevails …
Oh Sappho, (I?) lo[ve] you …
Q[u]een to Cyprus …
And to you a great g[ift …
Shining over [w]hich …
Everywhere glory …
And you at (the banks of?) Acher[on …

Fragment 2.D.xxi

Of the blis[sful g]ods …
A]nd reached this …
Deadl[y g]od …
Indeed didn't love …
And now because of …
This reason … nor …
Nothing much …
And [yo]u …

Fragment 2.D.xxii

An]d indeed from m[y (land?)
… happen[ed] nonetheless
… equal to the gods
… sinful
… will l]ead [An]dromeda
… Ar[temi]s the bli[ss]ful
… may (it?) be mad[e] u[gl]y in (its own?) way
… doesn't hold back satiety
… [to] the sons of Tyndar …
… in the quietness … and graceful …
… no longer guiltless (with?) …
… Megara [th]e pe[acef]ulgentle

Fragment 2.D.xxiii

… swore …
… still the child …
… h]o[l]y, and in the hand …
… ga[ve …

Fragment 2.D.xxiv

… nor …
… wish …
… they together …
… flower …

… delighted …

Fragment 2.D.xxv

… Aphrodi[te
… Lo[ves of s]weet words
… may (s)he throw …
… having [th]em
… sat …
… b]looms …
… of the pre]tty dew

Fragment 2.D.xxvi

… contes[t …
M]emory …
No]w I go …
… (under?) …

… th]us was freed …
Not] indeed … be offered up …
… and of harmony …
… place …
… but sweet-voiced …
… pos]sible to them …
… to all …

Fragment 2.D.xxvii

… all
… but other …

Fragment 2.D.xxviii

… giving …
… (nothing?) …
… you indeed …

Fragment 2.D.xxix

… straightaway …

… again …

… because …


… to him [of] the same age …

… (those things which?) …
… during [f]urious sto[rms
… Artemi[s

Fragment 2.D.xxxi

… like the old man …

Fragment 2.D.xxxii

… towards …

… you'd want … (nor?) …
… you would [m]ake few to follow …
… be brough[t …
… who …
… sweeter …
… you too [k]now …
… [have] forgotten …

… someone would say …
…; and indeed I [thee
(Mean?) to love … as long as I'll have [breath
… will take care;
… I say I['ve] been a sure friend

… painful …
… bitter … (equally?) …

… and kn[ow] thou this …
… whatever you …
… I will love …
… something …
… for it's better …
… of arrow[s

Fragment 2.D.xxxiii


… after shor[t] …
… Polyanact[id …
… to the Samian women …      a coroniswasn't
Make to resonate on the strings
That receive the plectrum, (banqueting?)
With such (people) friendlily,
And the [h]arp whirls around gently
And the [sweet-s]ounding (melody?) through the b[on]es
Slowly moves], and, when it's in the medulla, r[un]s.


So[n] of [Leto] and Ze[us]
… com[e] to the secret rites …
Having left the wooden [Grynea
And your fam]ous oracle

… days
… secret rites

… (sing?) …
… sister
Like a child …
No-one … may ((s)he) want …
They show … again of the Polyanactids
The greedy one I want to show.

Fragment 2.D.xxxiv

… of the wedding-chamber …
… good-footed, te[nder] bride
… but now …
… to me …
… indeed

Fragment 2.D.xxxv(a)


(Oh Gorgo?)

Fragment 2.D.xxxv(b)

Small …
The …
Much …
Before …
Many times …
Of thei[r …

Gorg[o …

Fragment 2.D.xxxvi

… (many times?) …

… with those of the same age …

… of children …

… – [End of poem?]

… gods …
… reproachful …

… Mu[se(s) …

Fragment 2.D.xxxvii

… goat …


Fragment 2.D.xxxviii

Because of the …
Together with …

Fragment 2.D.xxxix

… nothin[g …
… these things …

… more …
… arou[nd …

Fragment 2.D.xl

… door …
… grievou[s …
… (but Cypris?) …

Fragment 2.D.xli

… because the roof me …
… wicked …

Fragment 2.D.xlii

… us …

Fragment 2.D.xliii

… nor …

… (but?) …

Fragment 2.D.xliv

… peaceful …
… hav[ing] obta[ined from Zeus] aegis-bearing …
… aid me as I] pray, oh Cytherea …
… having a [zeal]ous hear[t …
… li]sten to my prayers, if ev[er even sometime else …
… having left C[yprus …
… you [cam]e to my cr[ies …
… because of the painful c[are …

Fragment 2.D.xlv

… [      ] nursling of the Cytherea
…[      adopted] foundling
; and in other (poems)
she called Peitho "dau[ghter of
Aphro]dite [      ]… may (s)he produce sound …
…[      ] . her own … ad[dre]ssed:
…[      ] wanting
…[      ]…
To us the mes[sage      ] (someone?) [
Im[mortal] god [      ] (prudence?) [
So that …
I say to you

Was wanted [      ]…
… and …[      ] (of the?)
Can [      ] I sat
Hands [      ] and according
To her own [      ] … and
To th[e      ] (grieve?)
…[      ] spread[-
wing[ed Loves

Fragment 2.D.xlvi

. [      high-
those that have excessive
privilege; …
And Gyrinn[o
Such [      for never
Did] I bl[ame] beauty:
For what did I have greater?

To be … also of virtue [     
But she never said that the …
To be celebrate[d] for beauty …
To me the breath of Zephyrus …
But to you was brought by the wind

… child of the [      against
Androme]da it was wri[tten …
… by And[romeda …
… not …

… want …

Fragment 2.D.xlvii

… h]elp …

… n]oble …

… once thi[s …
… not all …
… first …

… die …
… fo[r] (it is) better …

Fragment 2.D.xlviii

… thought …
… may (s)he bring …

Fragment 2.D.xlix

… because …
… n]o more …
… of Leto …
… around …
… w]ish[…

… says …

… and graceful …
In this] song (she) sa[ys that
… of Atthis …
… of hers …
… deep[-?

Fragment 2.D.l

… thought
… arrived …
… (not?) …


… (abandon?) …
… bear …
… wan[t …
… Ar]cheanassa …
… at some time …

… lovel[y …

Fragment 2.D.lii

… (the?) …
… it …
… remain[ …

Fragment 2.D.liii

… (those girls?) …

Fragment 2.D.liv

… [and] my Go[ngyla sudden-]
ly and Archeanassa will be proclaimed
yoke-mates of Gorgo
: σύνδυγος instead of σ[ύν]ζυξ,
"yoke-mate"; Pleistodike
wi[l]l [be] called "yoke-mate"
o]f G[o]rgo with Gongyla:
for the nam[e (Archeanassa) w]as given
either as a [c]ommon name or because of the
kinship, [hence] "Pl[e]istodike"
[she] will be [name]d by pr[oper] name


To Cyp[rus

Fragment 2.D.lvi

From] the beginning bl[ame-

… like a nightingale …

… with the voice …
… (earth?) …

Fragment 2.D.lvii

She …

Fragment 2.D.lvii

… of (Hera?) Anthea(?) …
… pouch …
… and from … dear …
… take the bones [fr]om me …

Fragment 2.D.lix

… my th[o]ught (painful?) …
… your attendant …
… but(?) …
… head of Atthis …
… child … this … (complete?) …

… indeed it … to …

Fragment 2.D.lx

… like when … (stopped?) …
… before …
… (shining?) …
… (rejoice over?) all …
… like honey …
… indeed still …?

(My?) …

Fragment 2.D.lxi

… to [u]s indeed … of the stouter …
… whoever to you with …
… of Kronos …

Fragment 2.D.lxii

… Aphr]odit[e …

… having been freed
… appl]e-cheeked, to you indeed
… of women
… blowing through
… to dance, [lov]ely Abanthis

Fragment 2.D.lxiii

… (lovely?) …
… snub-nosed …
… of air …
… thus … one …
… mar]vellous …
… is by nature …
… handsome …
… they sai[d …

… in …
… (flute?) … around …

Fragment 2.D.lxiv

… songs …
… (abandoned?) …

Fragment 2.D.lxv

… because of rage …

Fragment 2.D.lxvi

… no-one / nor …
… happy …

… child(ren) …
… alas …
… many things …

Fragment 2.D.lxvii

… went around …
… of [Ze]phyr …

… of [guile-w]eaving Cy[p]ri[s …
… gen]tly … compact …
… of the [fa]mous mes[s]enger of Zeus …
… come thou to the islan[d] of Makar …
… the great oath of the queen …

… as bright as
… placed above
… gold?-san]dalled … because …

Fragment 2.D.lxviii

(fr. 1)
2 He
6 They are strong
7 of the wars; and she in peace and quie[t]
educating the best
not only of the local women
10 but also of those
from Ionia; and
in such big favour
among the citizens
that Callias
15 the Mytilenian said in
[.] . . . [      ] Aphrodi–[te]
(fr. 2 col. i)
8 … (μοῖραν, fate?)

10 … of the muses
… as lo[ng] as …
from him …
… f]ated;
she re]presents those who
15 fre[que]nt the [roy]al hous
and set
gr[eat] store on
st]icking [out] and
(fr. 2 col. ii)
10 …
Cleanactid(s) …
The child …

And repro[ached …
15 To …
Nobility …

Fragment 2.D.lxix

Everything … terrible …
Say …
Tongue …
[To] tell mythical tales.

And to the man … the best things
Greater …

… heart
… indeed

Safe and …

And indeed …
Lack(ed) ti[me …
Night and …

Thousands of sta[rs …
Him …

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.D.lxx

All …
Took …
(Much?) …
Whatever …

Group 2, category E

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.E.i


Ἀπόσπασμα 2.E.ii

] . ατ . [
]ς̣ λέγεται . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.E.iii

] ἔ̣γ̣ω . [
] κατὰ [

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.E.iv

] ἀθανα[τ-
]ερα, σε[
] .̄ λον [
] αἰ γίνη[ται

Ἀπόσπασμα 2.E.v

Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ τοῦ χειρογράφου Ἡσυχίου

Ὠράνα· χελιδόνων ὀροφή

Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ ὀρθώσασα

ὦ 'ράννα χελίδων· ὀροφή

Ἐκδοκή ἡ τοῦ Σαφοποέμας (?)

ὠράνα· χελίδων ἐν ὀροφῇ

Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ τῇδε

Ὤραννα χελίδον· ὑπωροφία

Ἐκδοκή ἡ τοῦ Ἔδμονδζ

ὠράνα χελίδω· ‹οὐράνια χελίδω
ὤροφος·› ὀροφή
Fragment 2.E.i

Fragment 2.E.ii

… is said …

Fragment 2.E.iii

… I …
… under …

Fragment 2.E.iv

… immort[al …

… if it should hap[pen …

Fragment 2.E.v

Version from the manuscript of Hesychius

Ὠράνα (heavenly?): roof of the swallows

Corrected version

ὦ 'ράννα χελίδων (Oh heavenly swallow?): roof

Version of Safopoemas (?)

ὠράνα (heavenly?): swallow in the roof

Version from here

Ὤραννα χελίδον (Oh heavenly swallow): roof-dweller

Edmond's version

ὠράνα χελίδω· ‹heavenly swallow
ὤροφος·› roof

End of group 2

Group 3

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.i

Πότνια Αὔως

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.ii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.iii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.iv


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.v

(a)· γλυκύπικρον
(b)· ἀλγεσίδωρον



Ἀπόσπασμα 3.vii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.viii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.ix

(a)· βάρωμος
(b)· βάρμιτος/βάρμος

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.x


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xi


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xii

Δία Ἕκτορα

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xiii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xiv


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xv

κατώρη (κατάρη?)

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xvi

κίνδυν κίνδυνος

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xvii

(a)· μελίφωνοι
(b)· μελλιχόφωνοι

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xviii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xix


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xx


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxi


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxiii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxiv

Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ τοῦ Ἔδμονδζ

Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ τοῦ Φωτίου
Σκυθικὸν ξύλον

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxv

αυεουλλαι (ἀϝέϝελλαι?)

Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxvi


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxvii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxviii


Ἀπόσπασμα 3.xxix

ἀηδών ἀηδοῦς
Fragment 3.i

Divine Dawn

Fragment 3.ii

I might lead

Fragment 3.iii

Aegā (promontory)

Fragment 3.iv


Fragment 3.v

(a)· Bittersweet
(b)· Pain-giver


Of the tree-climbing vine / Tree-climbing vines

Fragment 3.vii

Channel, conduit

Fragment 3.vii


Fragment 3.ix

(a)· Bárōmos
(b)· Bármitos/Bármos

Fragment 3.x

Beỹdos, transparent dress

Fragment 3.xi

Vanity-bag, makeup case

Fragment 3.xii

Zeus the Holder

Fragment 3.xiii


Fragment 3.xiv

I might go

Fragment 3.xv


Fragment 3.xvi

Kíndyn kíndynos, danger

Fragment 3.xvii

(a): honey-voiced
(b): sweet-voiced

Fragment 3.xviii

Medea (or "oh no-one!"?)

Fragment 3.xix

Of the Muses

Fragment 3.xx


Fragment 3.xxi


Fragment 3.xxii

To the very knowledgeable one

Fragment 3.xxiii

With celery

Fragment 3.xxiv

Edmonds' version
Skýtharrum (skytharium)

Photius's version
Scythian wood

Fragment 3.xxv


Fragment 3.xxvi

Bridal gifts, dowry

Fragment 3.xxvii


Fragment 3.xxviii

Little Timas

Fragment 3.xxix


End of group 3

Group 5

Group 5, category A

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.i

νὺ‹ξ› . [...] . [....]

πάρθενοι δ[ὲ ταίσδεσι πρὸς θύραισι]
παννυχίσδομ̣[εν, πολύολβε γάμβρε,]
σὰν ἀείδοι[σαι φιλότατα καὶ νύμ-]
φας ἰοκόλπω

ἀλλ' ἐγέρθ‹ε›[ις εὖτ' ἐπίησιν αὔως]
στεῖχε, σοὶς [δ' ἄγοι πόδας αὖτος Ἔρμας]
ἤπερ ὄσσον ἄ[μμορος ἔσσε' ὄσσον]
ὔπνον [ἴ]δωμε̣[ν].

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.ii

Ἔμοι δ' ὠς ἄνεμος κατάρης δρύσιν
ἐτίναξεν Ἔρως φρένας.          [ἐμπέτων

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.iii

[. . . . . καὶ ταῦτά σ' ἀμειβόμαν ἔγ]ω·
['Νὴ θέαν ἔγω σοι τόδ' ὀμώ]μοκα,
[ὠς οὐδ' αὔτα πόλλαις, ἀ]λλ' ἴαν ἦχον
[μόναν ὰπ τῶ Δίος τὰν] παρθενίαν,
[ὔμως δ' οὐκ ὄδδον] ὠρρώδων ὐπὲρ ὂν
[ἀπύ μοί ϝ' ἐπεσκ]ηψ' Ἦρα βάλεσθαι'.
[ταῦτ' ἔγω σ' ἠ]ΰφραν' ἄρ' ὠξυβόων δ'·
['Ἄμμι μάν,] πάρθεν', ἀ νὺξ οὐκὶ βάρυ
[φαίνετ]' ἔμμεν· ὤστ' οὐ μὴ σύ γ' ἀτύξη'...

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.iv

ἦρ' ἀ[
δῆρα τό[
Γογγύλα τ' [ἔφατ'· "Οὔ τι πᾳ τόδ' ἔγνως:]

ἤ τι σᾶμ' ἐθέλ[ης δεικνύναι τέαις]
παῖσι:" "Μάλιστ'", ἀμ[ειβόμαν ἔγω.͜ ἕρ-]
μας γ' εἰσῆλθ'· ἐπὶ [δὲ βλέποισ' ἔγω ϝε]

εἶπον· "Ὦ δέσποτ᾽« ἔπ[παν ἀπωλόμαν·
ο]ὐ μὰ γὰρ μάκαιραν [ἔγω θέαν
ο]ὖδεν ἄδομ' ἔπαρθ' ἄγα[ν ἔτ' ὄλβῳ,]

κατθάνην δ' ἴμμερός τις ἄ[γρεσέ με·]
λῶ στᾶσ' εἰς δροσόεντ' ἄγ[ρον σέ μ' οἶ]
Ἀτρῄδαν Ἀγαμ[έμνον' ἄγαγες πρὶν

πά]ν τε ταἴρη[τον ἄνθος Ἀχαιΐων.
χ]ρῆ δὲ τοῦτ' [ἀπυλιππάνην με φαῦ-
ο]ς, ἄτις ὀ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.v

Ὦ κάλ', ὦ χαρίεσσα, σοὶ
αἰ βροδόσφυροι Χάριτες
χρύσια τ' Ἀφρόδιτα
συμπαίζοισι ...


Εὔιδόν ποτ' ἄντθε' ἀμέρ-
γοισαν παῖδ' ἄγᾱν ἀπάλαν ἔγω.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.vii

–u–x Ὤς τε, μέλημα τὦμον,

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.viii

... παρθένοισι

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.ix

... στεφάνοισι σελιννίνοις

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.x

Ἀλλ' ἔμ' ὀλβίαν ἀδόλως ἔθηκαν
χρύσιαι Μοῖσαι͜ οὐδ' ἔμεθεν θανοίσας
ἔσσετα λάθα.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xi

Ζάφθερον ταὶς ὄψιας γάνος –x

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xii

Τοῦτο δ' ἴσθι, διπλασίαν
κήναν ἄρασθαί μ' ἄμμι γένεσθαι

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xiii

Φίλτατον Γαίας γένος Ὀρράνω τε

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xiv

Ὦ γένος θελξίμβροτον Ἀφροδίτας

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xv

Τὸ θναίσκην κάκον· οἰ θέοι γὰρ οὔτω
Κεκρίκαισι· θάνον κε γὰρ. [u–x]

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xvi

Κόθαρος γὰρ ὀ χρύσος ἴω.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xvii

Διὸς γὰρ πάϊς ἐστ' ὀ χρύσος·
κῆνον οὐ σέες οὐδὲ κῖς
δαρδάπτοισ'· ὀ δὲ δάμναται
καὶ φρένων βροτέαν κράτιστον.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xviii

... ᾆ
πολυρέμβαστον φιλίαν μέμειξαι
καὶ κάλον δόκεισαν τὸ δαμόσιον.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xix

Χρυσοφάνης ὦ Ϝεκάτα θέραπνα

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xx

Λάθα μέν τινας ἐψεύσατο κἀτέροις,
ἀ δ' ἄνδρων ἀγάθων οὔδενα πώποτα

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xxi

[Νύκτι τᾷδε σύ μ' εἴσαο,
Ὦ χρυσόστεφαν' Ἀφροδίτ'
Ὄναρ ἀθαάτω τέω πλέκοισα

Κρᾶτος ἀμβροσίαν κόμαν,]
Χε‹ρ›ρόμακτρα δὲ κὰγ γ‹έ›ν‹υω›ν,
Πορφύρα κατα‹ρ›ταμένα, τὰ Τῖμας

Ἔς ‹τ›' ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,
Δῶρα τίμια κὰγ γ‹έ›ν‹υω›ν.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xxii

Ὦ βρύοισ' ἔρων βροδίων
νύμφα, τᾶς Παφίας ἀνάσσ-
ας ἄγαλμα κάλιστον,

πρὸς εὔναν ἴθι, πρὸς λέχος,
ὦτε μέλλιχα παίσεαι
παῖγνα γλύκηα γάμβρῳ.

Ἔσπερος δ' ἔκοισαν ἄγοι σ'
ἀργυρόθρονον ζυγίαν
Ἦραν θαυμανέοισαν.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.A.xxiii

Θυρώρῳ πόδες ἐπτορόγυιοι,
τὰ δὲ σάμβαλα πεμπεβόηα,
πίσυγγοι δὲ δέκ’ ἐξεπόνησαν.
[κὠ πάτηρ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα μέτερρος
ὐπὲρ δ' εὐγενίας βίον ἀμφισ-
βάστεις τῷ Κέκροπι ζατέλεσσεν.]
Fragment 5.A.i


[We] maidens [before these doors]
Spend the whole night, [o very happy bridegroom,]
Singing [the love] of you [and of the]
Violet-bosomed [bride].

But, having gotten up [when dawn arrives,]
Go, [and may Hermes himself lead] your [feet]
Where [you will be] just as much [ill-fated as we]
Will see sleep.

Fragment 5.A.ii

Like a down-blowing wind falling onto the oaks, my
Heart Eros hath shaken.

Fragment 5.A.iii

[… and this did I reply to you:
"By your head, I] swore [this to you,
That I not many,] but one did have,
[Only one] maidenhood [from Zeus,
But still I didn't] fear [the threshold] beyond which
Hera commanded [that I] throw [it away]".
Crying [these things] out loud [I] cheered [you] up:
["To us,] o maiden, night doesn't [seem] to be
A heavy thing, thus may you never indeed not have your

Fragment 5.A.iv

Long …
And Gongyla [said: "You had no way of knowing this,]

Or did you want [to show] some sign [to your]
Children?" "Surely", [I answered.]
Hermes came; [and I, having seen him,]

Said: "Oh Master, [completely I have been destroyed:
Indeed, by the blessed [goddess, I]
I do not at all [still] enjoy being raised up [to joy,]

But some desire to die [hath seized me:]
Seize [thou me], and place [me] on the dewy [field where]
The son of Atreus, [Agamemnon, you once led,]

And [all] the chosen [flower of the Achaeans.]
But it is necessary [that I abandon this light,]
(I) who…

Fragment 5.A.v

O beautiful, o graceful, with you
The rosy-ankled Graces
And the golden Aphrodite
Together play ...


I once saw a very dainty
Maid gathering flowers.

Fragment 5.A.vii

–u–x So that thee, my care,
I may embrace.

Fragment 5.A.viii

... to gentle-voiced

Fragment 5.A.ix

... with garlands of celery

Fragment 5.A.x

But the golden Muses made me
Really happy, and even when I'm dead
There won't be forgetfulness of me.

Fragment 5.A.xi

Splendor blinding the eyes –x

Fragment 5.A.xii

Know thou this: I pray that this
Night be made twofold for us.

Fragment 5.A.xiii

Dearest Offspring of Heaven and of Earth

Fragment 5.A.xiv

Oh mortal-enchanting offspring of Aphrodite

Fragment 5.A.xv

Dying is bad; for the gods thus
Have judged; for they would die (otherwise) [u–x]

Fragment 5.A.xvi

For gold is pure of rust.

Fragment 5.A.xvii

For gold is the son of Zeus:
Neither moths nor weevils
Devour it; and it seduces
Even the best of mortal hearts.

Fragment 5.A.xviii

... With whom
In a vagrant friendship you are mingled,
And one that considers beautiful a public thing.

Fragment 5.A.xix

Oh Hecate, golden-shining attendant
Of Aphrodite

Fragment 5.A.xx

Forgetfulness has deceived some and others,
But the opinion of good men never [deceived]
Anyone ever yet,

Fragment 5.A.xxi

[In this night with me you sat,
Oh golden-garlanded Aphrodite,
In a dream, plaiting the immortal

Hair of your immortal head,]
Hanging purple handcloths
Down your cheeks, which Timas

Sent to you from Phocea,
Precious gifts, (hanging) down your cheeks.

Fragment 5.A.xxii

Oh bride teeming with rosy
Desires, fairest ornament
Of the queen of Paphos,

Go to the bed, to the couch
Where gently you will play
Sweet games with the groom.

And may Hesperus lead thee, full willing,
So that you admire Hera,
The silver-throned Lady of Wedlock

Fragment 5.A.xxiii

The feet of the porter were seven cubits long,
His sandals were made from five ox-skins,
And ten cobblers had worked on them.
[And the father, moderate in all other things,
Having disputed with Cecrops about birth nobility,
Brought his life to quite an end.]

Group 5, category B

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.B.i

Τ]ὰν τ[αχίσταν, ὦ κ]έλομαι σ[' ὄνελθε,
Γο]γγύλα̣ β[ρόδα]νθι, λάβοισ̣α̣ μά[νδυν
Γλα]κ̣τίνα[ν·] σ̣ε δηὖτε πόθος̣ τ[ις ἆμος]

Τὰν κάλαν· ἀ γὰρ κατάγω̤γις αὔ[τ]α
Ἐπτόαισ' ἴδο[ι]σαν, ἔγω δὲ χ̣α̣ίρω.
Καὶ γὰρ αὔτα̣ δ̣ή π[οτ'] ἐμέμφ[όμαν τὰν

[Τ]ς ἄρ̣αμα[ι μὴ χάριν ἀβφέρην μοι]
Τοῦτο τὦ[πος, ἀλλά σε, τὰν μάλιστα]
Β]όλλομα[ι θνάταν κατίδην γυναίκων
Ἂψ πάλιν ἔλκην.]

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.B.ii

'Ψάπφ', ἦ μὰν οὔτως ἔγω͜ οὔ σε φιλήσω.
ὦ φαῖν' ἄμμι κἠξ εὔναν λυῖε τέαν

πεφιλημμ[έν]αν ἴσχυν, ὔδατι δὲ
κρίνον [ὠς ἀ]κήρατον παρὰ κράναν
πέπλον Χῖον ἀπύσχοισα λούεο·

καὶ Κλεῖϊς σάων καβφέροισα γρῠ́ταν
κροκόεντα λώπεά σ' ἐββάλῃ καὶ
πέπλον πορφύριον· κἀββεβλημμένᾳ

χλαίνᾳ πέρ σ' ἐξ[ακ]ρισάντων ἄνθινοι
στέφανοι περ[ὶ κρᾶτά σοι] δέθεντες,
κἄλθ' ὄσᾳ μαίν[ης μ' ἄδεα καλλ]όνᾳ.

φρῦσσον, ὦ Πρα[ξίνω, κάρ]υ' ἄμμιν, ὠς
παρθένων πό[τον ἀδίω π]οήσω·
ἔκ τινος γὰρ θέων [ταῦτ' ἄ]μμι, τέκνον·

ἦ μὰν τᾷδ' ἀμέρ[ᾳ προτὶ] φιλτάταν
Μυτιλάνναν π[ολίων η]ὔξατ' ἤδη
γυναίκων ἀ κα[λίστα Ψ]άπφ' ἀπύβην

πεδ' ἀμμέω[ν, ἀ μάτ]ηρ πεδὰ τῶν τέκνων'.
φίλτα[τ' Ἄτθι, μῶν ἄρα] ταῦτα τὰ πρὶν
ἐπι[λάθεαι πάντ' ἢ]͜ ὀμμναίσα' ἔτι; …

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.B.iii

[–u] καὶ γὰρ [οὖδεν ἄεικες ἦσκεν
αἴ τ]ι̣ν̣ε̣ς̣ μέμ̣[φοντό σ' ἄ μοι προσῆλθες
ἢ] ζ̣αλέξᾱ, κα[ἴστισι μὴ πρόσηκεν
ἄ]δ̣ρα χαρίσσᾱ̣·

[σ]τ̣είχομεν γὰρ [πάτοσ'· ἔγω δὲ φῶμεν
κα]ὶ̣ σὺ τοῦτ'· Ἀλλ' [ἦ δύνατον βρότοισι
πα]ρ̣[θ]ένοις ἄπ[εμμεν ἔκας γυναίκων
αἴς κ]εν ἔχοιε̣ν̣;

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.B.iv

...ἔγω δὲ
φίλημ' ἀβροσύναν, καί μοι τὸ λάμπρον
ἔρος ἀελίω καὶ τὸ κάλον λέλογχε·

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.B.v

[Ἄτθιδ' οὔποτ' ἄρ' ὄ]ψ[ομαι,]
τεθνάκην δ' ἀδόλως θέλω.
ἄ με ψισδομένα κατελίππανεν

πόλλα, καὶ τόδ' ἔειπέ μ[οι·]
ᾬμ', ὠς δεῖνα πεπ[όνθ]αμεν·
Ψάπφ', ἦ μάν σ' ἀέκοισ' ἀπυλιππάνω.

τὰν δ' ἔγω τάδ' ἀμειβόμαν·
Χαίροισ' ἔρχεο κἄμεθεν
μέμναισ'· οἶσθα γὰρ ὤς ‹τ'›ἐπεδήπομεν.

αἰ δὲ μὴ͜, ἀλλά σ' ἔγω θέλω
ὄμναισαι τ[ὰ σ]ὺ λάθεαι,
ὄσσ' ἄμμ[ες φίλα] καὶ κάλ' ἐπάσχομεν·

πό[λλοις ἂ στεφάν]οις ἴων
καὶ βρ[όδων γλυ]κίων γ' ὔμοι
κὰπ π[λόκων] πὰρ ἔμοι περεθήκαο,

καὶ πόλλαις ὐπαθύμιδας
πλέκταις ἀμφ' ἀπάλᾳ δέρᾳ
ἀνθέων ἔκ[ατον] πεποημμέναις,

καὶ πόλλῳ ν[έαρο]ν σὺ χρῶ
βρενθείω πρ[οχόῳ μύρ]ω
ἐξαλείψαο κα[ὶ βασιληΐω,]

καὶ στρώμν[ας ἔπι κημένα]
ἀπάλαν πὰν [ὀνηάτων]
ἐξίης πόθο[ν ἤδε πότων γλυκί͜ων]...
Fragment 5.B.i

Oh] I beg you, [come back] as [fast] as you can,
[Rosy-]bloom Gongyla, having worn [the milky]-white
Gown]; again [a] desire [of ours]
Flies around you,

The beautiful one; for that robe
Fills (me) with passion when (I) see it, and I rejoice.
For I myself also [once] blamed
[The] Cyprus-born;

Whom I pray [that] this word [may not take her grace
Away from me, but that it thee, whom the most]
I wish [to see among mortal women,
May bring back again.]

Fragment 5.B.ii

"Oh Sappho, indeed this way I will not love you.
Oh appear to us, and from your bed set free

(Your) beloved strength, and with water,
[Like] a pure lily beside a spring
Keeping your Chian robe away, wash yourself;

And may Cleis, bringing (them) down from your makeup-
Saffron smocks take out for you and                              [cases,
A purple robe; and high above a mantle that has been made

To fall down around you, may garlands of flowers
Tied around [your head] fly,
And come, [sweet with the beauty] you madden me with.

Roast thou, o [Praxinoë, nuts] for us, so that
That I may make the maidens' [drinking sweeter]:
For [these things] (come) to us from a god, oh child;

Indeed in this day that [towards] Mytilene,
Dearest [of cities], she will diesmbark
Sappho, [fairest] of women, has vowed,

(And return) with us, [the mother] with the children".
Dearest [Atthis, then] the things before
[You (will) not all forget, but rather] still remember? …

Fragment 5.B.iii

[–u] For [it would have had nothing inappropriate
If] some [blamed you who came to me
Or] talked (to me), and [to those (=me) whom it didn't befit]
You gave many favors;

For we walk [everywhere; but let and] you
[Say] this: "But [could it be possible for mortal]
Maidens [to be far away from the women
Whom] they have (as loved ones)?".

Fragment 5.B.iv

...and I
Love delicacy, and to me brightness
The love of the sun, and beauty has gotten;

Fragment 5.B.v

[I will never see Atthis,]
And I really wish I were dead.
She left me weeping

A lot, and said this [to me]:
Ay me, how terrible things we have gone through:
Sappho, indeed unwillingly I leave you.

And to her I replied thus:
Leave in joy, and of me
Remember: for you know I cherished you.

And if (you remember) not, then I want
To remind you what you will forget,
And how many [dear] and beautiful things
                                                                 [we've experienced:
[(You) who many garlands] of violets
And indeed also of sweet [roses]
You placed down around you [tresses] by my side,

And many woven hypothymids
Around your dainty neck
Made with [a hundred] flowers,

And with many [a jar of unguent]
Both costly and [regal
You anointed your youtful body,

And [lying on] a mattress
Of soft [foods
Or sweet drinks] you satisfied all your wishes...

Group 5, category C

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.i

[Κύ]πρι, κα[ί σ]ε πι[κροτέρ]α̣ν ἐπεύ[ρε
οἰ] δὲ καυχάσ[αν]το τόδ’ ἐννέ[ποντες·
Δ]ωρίχα τὸ δεύ[τ]ερον ὠς πόθε[ννον
εἰς] ἔρον ἦλθε.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.ii

Κα‹ίνα›ν μέν τε τύλαν κα‹τὰ› σὰ σπολέ‹ω μέλε›͜α.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.iii

Ὀ μὲν γὰρ κάλος ‹εἲς κάλος› ὄσσον ἴδην πέλει,
ὀ δὲ κἄγαθος αὔτικα καὶ κάλος ἔσ‹σε›ται.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.iv

Ψαύην δ' οὐ δοκίμωμ' ὀράνω͜ ‹ἔσσα› δ‹ι›πάχεα.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.v

Σὺ δὲ στεφάνοις, ὦ Δίκα, πέρθεσσ' ἐράταις φόβαισιν
ὄρπακας ἀνήτοιο συνέρραισ' ἀπάλαισι χέρσιν·
ταὐάνθεα γὰρ ‹παρ›πέλεται καὶ Χάριτας μάκαιρα‹ς›
μᾶλλον προτόρην· ἀστεφανώτοισι δ' ἀπυστρέφονται.


Οἴαν τὰν ὐάκινθον ἐν ὄρρεσι ποίμενες ἄνδρες
πόσσι καταστείβοισι, χάμαι δ' ἔτι πορφύρα ἄνθη...

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.vii

-Παρθενία, παρθενία, ποῖ με λίποισ' ἀποίχῃ:
–Οὐκέτι, νύμφα, προτὶ σ' ἴξω, προτὶ σ' οὐκέτ' ἴξω.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.viii

Χαίροι τ' ἀ νύμφα, χαιρέτω τ' ὀ γάμβρος·

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.ix

Διελεξάμαν ὄναρ Κυπρογεήᾳ.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.x

[Ὄ]σταθι κἄντα ‹θᾶ με φίλαν› φίλος,
καὶ τὰν ἐπ' ὄσσοις ὀμπέτασον χάριν.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xi

Ὀ πλοῦτος ‹δ'› ἄνευ ἀρέτας
οὐκ ἀσίνης πάροικος·
ἀ δὲ κρᾶσις ἀμφοτέρων
δαμονία‹ν› ἄκρ‹α›ν ἔχει·

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xii

Ὀφθάλμοις δὲ μέλαις χύτο νύκτος ἄωρος.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xiii

[Ὦ Ψάπφοι,] σύ τε κἆμος θεράπων Ἔρος.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xiv

Φαῖσι δή ποτα Λήδαν ὐακίνθινον
πεπυκάδμενον ὤϊον

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xv

Ἄλλα, μὴ κάμ‹π›τε στέραν φρένα

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xvi

Ἄβρα δηὖτ' ἐπ' ἄγχ' ἆς πάλαι ἀλλόμαν.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xvii

Ὦ τὸν Ἀδώνιον

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xviii

Σοὶ δ' ἔγω λεύκας ἐπὶ βῶμον αἶγος
[Πίονα καύσω,]

κἀπιλείψω τοι...

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xix

πτερύγων δ' ὔπακακχέει
λιγύραν ἀοίδαν, ὄποτα φλόγι
ὀ ‹θέος› κα‹τ›έτᾳ ‹γάα›ν
ἐπι‹πε›πτάμενον καταύ‹γ›η

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xx

Ἠράμαν μὲν ἔγω σέθεν, Ἄτθι, πάλαι πότα.
[ἆς ἔμ' ἀνθεμόεσσ' ἔτι παρθενία, σὺ δὲ]
Σμίκρα μοι πάϊς ἔμμεν ἐφαίνεο κἄχαρις.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xxi

Ἦλθες· κεὖ ἐποίησας· ἔγω δέ σε
μαόμαν, ὂν δ' ἔφλαξας ἔμαν φρένα
καυομέναν πόθῳ· χαῖρ' ἄμμι, ‹χαῖρε›
πόλλα καὶ ϝισάρῑθμα τόσῳ χρόνῳ
ἀλλάλαν ἀπελείφθημεν. –u-

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xxii

Ὄλβιε γάμβρε, σοὶ μὲν δὴ γάμος, ὠς ἄρᾱο
ἐκτετέλεστ', ἔχεις δὲ πάρθενον, ἂν ἄραο·
μελλίχιος δ' ἐπ' ἰμμέρτῳ κέχυται προσώπῳ.

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xxiii

Σοὶ χάριεν μὲν εἶδος
κὤππατα μελλιχόχροα
‹νύμφ'›, ἔρος δὲ ‹τέῳ› κάλῳ
περκέχυται προσώπῳ,
καί σε τέτικεν ἐξόχως
Ἀφροδίτα –uu–

Ἀπόσπασμα 5.C.xxiv

[Χρύσιαι] Νηρήϊδες, ἀβλάβη[ν μοι
τὸν κασί]γνητον δότε τυίδ' ἴκεσθα[ι,
κἂ μὲν] ᾦ θύμῳ κε θέλη γένεσθαι,
[ταῦτα τε]λέσθην·

[ὄσσα δὲ πρ]όσθ' ἄμβροτε, πάντα λῦσα[ι,
καὶ φίλοι]σι ϝοῖσι χάραν γένεσθαι
[κὠνίαν ἔ]χθροισι· γένοιτο δ' ἄμμι
[δύσκλεα μ]ήδεις.

[τὰν κασιγ]νήταν δὲ θέλοι πόησθα[ι
ἔμμορον] τίμας· ὀνίαν δὲ λύγραν
[καὶ λόγοις] ὄτοισι πάροιθ' ἀχεύων
[ἄμμον ἐδά]μνα

[κῆρ, ὄνειδο]ς εἰσαΐων, τό κ' ἐν χρῷ
[κέρρεν, ἀλ]λ' ἐπ' ἀγ[λαΐ]ᾳ πολίταν
[ἀββάλην ἄ]λλως, [ὄτα] νῆ κε δαῦτ' οὖ-
[δεν διὰ μά]κρω·

καὶ συνάορ]ον, αἴ κ[ε θέλη, ἀξίοι]σι
[ἐν λέχεσσ' ἔ]χην· σὺ [δέ], κύν[ν' ἔ]ρε[μ]να,
[ρῖνα πρὸς γάᾳ] θεμ[έν]α κακάν[θην
ἄλλα πεδάγρ]η.
Fragment 5.C.i

[Cy]pris, an[d th]ee he fou[nd more] bit[ter],
And [they] bra[g]ged say[ing] this:
"How des[ired] a love hath [D]oricha a sec[o]nd time
Come [to]!".

Fragment 5.C.ii

And thy limbs I shall put down on new cushions.

Fragment 5.C.iii

He who is beautiful, ‹being beautiful›, only remains (thus)
He who is also good will straight      [when he's to be seen,
                                                 [away be also beautiful.

Fragment 5.C.iv

I do not try to touch the sky, me, a thing of two arms.

Fragment 5.C.v

And put thou garlands, o Dica, around your lovely hair,
Tying anetus saplings with your tender hands:
Pretty-flowered things, it happens that even the blissful Graces
Prefer to see (them); and they turn away from the ungarlanded.


Like the hyacinth, when on the mounts the shepherds
Trample it with their feet, and the flowers, still purple
                                                                                 [on the ground...

Fragment 5.C.vii

-Virginity, virginity, where are you going, having left me?
–Never, o bride, will I come to you, to you I never will come.

Fragment 5.C.viii

May the bride rejoice, and may the groom also rejoice;

Fragment 5.C.ix

In a dream I told the Cyprus-born (Aphrodite).

Fragment 5.C.x

Stand up, and ‹gaze at me›, as a friend ‹at a friend›,
And unfold the grace that is in thy eyes.

Fragment 5.C.xi

‹But› money without virtue
Isn't a safe neighbor;
But the use of both
Possesses a divine bliss;

Fragment 5.C.xii

Night's black sleep was poured over (their) eyes.

Fragment 5.C.xiii

[O Sappho,] you and my servant Eros.

Fragment 5.C.xiv

And they say that once Leda found
A covered hyacinth-colored

Fragment 5.C.xv

Foolish girl, do not humble a stubborn heart.

Fragment 5.C.xvi

To the tender arms of her whom I have once shunned.

Fragment 5.C.xvii

Four months long / Four times wedded
Oh poor Adonis!

Fragment 5.C.xviii

And to you on the altar of a white goat
[I will burn the fat,]

And I will libate to you...

Fragment 5.C.xix

And of wings he pours down
A clear song, when the god,
Having spread his flame,
Shines upon the earth

Fragment 5.C.xx

I loved you, Atthis, long ago.
[When I still had flowery virginity, and you]
Seemed to me to be a small child and graceless.

Fragment 5.C.xxi

You came; and you did well; and I
Craved for you, and you burned up my heart
Which was burning with desire; rejoice for us, rejoice
For many things and equal in number to the time
We have been separated from each other.

Fragment 5.C.xxii

Oh happy bridegroom, to you the marriage you desired
Has happened, and you have the maiden that you desired.
And, honey-sweet, has been poured onto your lovely face.

Fragment 5.C.xxiii

You have a graceful body
And honey-sweet eyes,
‹Oh bride›, and love on your beautiful
Face has been poured,
And outstandingly has Aphrodite
Honoured you

Fragment 5.C.xxiv

[Oh golden] Nereids, grand that unscathe[d to me
My bro]ther may com[e] here,
[And what] in his heart (he) may wish to happen,
That [those things] may [ha]ppen;

[And what be]fore he erred, may he all amen[d,
And to his love]d ones may he be a joy
[And a grief] to his [e]nemies; and may [n]o-one to us
Become [a dishonour].

[And his sis]ter may he want to giv[e
A share] of honor; and the terrible pain
[And the words], due to which he once, grieving,
He [overp]owered [our heart,]

Being [reproache]d, which thing even in the flesh
[Wounded (me)], (all this) for the j[o]y of his fellow citizens
[May he throw away el]sewhere, [when] he will swim(?) back
Not [at all after lo]ng;

And a bri]de, if [he shall want, may he in du]e
[Wedlock h]ave; [but] you, di[sg]us[t]ing [she]-dog,
[Your] evil-bri[nging nose to the ground] ha[vin]g set,
[Hun]t [for other prey].

End of group 5

Group 6

Group 6, category A

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.A.i

ἐπτάξατε̣ [μέν, παῖδες, ὐπ' ἔρνη] δροσ[ό]εσσα[ν ἄγνας]
δάφνας ὄτα̣ [                  ] . αι
πὰν δ' ἄδιον [– –uu– –uu–u οὐδ' ἒν]
ἢ κῆνον ἐλο[ίμαν
καὶ ταῖσι μὲν ἄ[κτισι u––uu–u–u]ν
ὀδοίπορος ἄν[θρωπο]ς . [
μύγις δέ ποτ' εἰσάϊον· ἐκλ̣[
ψύχα δ' ἀγαπάτα σὺν [μοι
τέαυτ[α]{ν} δὲ νῦν ἔμμ̣[ατ' ἔχοισαι
ἴκεσθ' ἀγανα[ –uu– –uu–u–u] .
ἔφθατε· κάλαν [
τά τ' ἔμματα κα̣[ὶ –uu– –uu–u–]ον

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.A.ii

Ὄνοιρε μελαίνα[ς διὰ νύκτος
φ[ο]ίταις ὄτα τ' ῎Υπνος [
γλύκυς̣ θ̣[έ]ο̣ς, ἦ δεῖν' ὀνίας μ[ανύματ' ἄμμι φαίνῃς
ζὰ χῶρις ἔχην τὰν δύναμ[ιν
ἔλπις δέ μ' ἔχει μὴ πεδέχη[ν      ]η̣σθα
μηδὲν μακάρων ἔλ̣[πομ' ἔχην δὶς πολύκα]ρπον ἄβαν·
ο̣ὐ̣ γάρ κ' ἔον οὔτω[.] .́ [      ὤστε
ἀθύρματα κα [      μά]εσθαι·
γένοιτο δέ μοι [γῆρας
τοὶς πάντα [

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.A.iii

] . . [.] . [      κα]ὶ̣ γάρ μ' ἀπὺ τᾶς ἔμ[ας γᾶς]
ἄ̣μι[λ]λ' ἀ̣[πεκίν]ησ' ἀδο[κητ –u ] μως δ' ἔγεν[το
μ]νᾶμ[' οὐ [      ἀλ]λ̣ὰ . [      ] ἴσαν θέοισιν
[νῦ]ν̣ δ' εἶμ' ἐ[πὶ ταύτᾱν ὀ]νίᾱν [δὴ καὶ] ἄσᾱν ἀλίτραν
[ἐπο]ρ̣σομέν[α, σὺν δ' ὀ]δ̣ύν[αισ' Ἀν]δρομέδαν̣ [ὐ]πάξ[ει
ἀπά]λικ' ὐπ' ἄ[ρμ' ὐψ]ιμέδο̣[ισ'] Ἄρ[τεμι]ςμάκα[ιρ]α·
[ἀ δ'] οὐκ [ἀ]βά[κην] μὰ‹ν› στέ̣[ρ]εον δὲ τρόπον α[ἰσ]χύ-
οὔτι]ς̣ γὰρ ἔ̣παυ[σ'      ] . κ[      ] κόρον οὐ κατίσχει      [νη[ται
[ἦ] μάν κ' ἀπυθυσ' [ὦ]κ̣' ἀ[γέλα]ν Τυνδαρίδαι[σιν ἄρνων]
] ἀρμονίας δ' ἀσυ[χ]ίᾳ κὰ[τ] χαρίεντ' ἀρ[έσκοι
γ]άθην χόρον, ἆ, α[ἴ] κ' ἄδολον [μ]ηκέτι συν[
πᾶκτιν] δ̣ὲ λίγηαν Μεγάραν [τὰ]ν̣ ἀ[κάλ]α[ν λάβοισαν
δύν]ατόν σφι̣[
]επ[.] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.A.iv

] . . . . φ[
] . [.]' θύραμ[εν
] .οι χάλεπ[αι μέριμναι
]δε Κύ[πρ-
ἰ]σοπάλην ὀ . [
]ἐπε[ὶ σ]τ̣έγα μ[ε
]α̣ς ἀλίτρα[
]έτ' αὐ[

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.A.v

[x–uu– –uu– οὐδὲ θέ]μις σε Μίκα
[x–uu– –u γ]έλα[ν, ἀλ]λά σ’ ἔγωὐκ ἐάσω
[x–u γυναίκω]ν̣ φιλότ[ατ’] ἤλεο Πενθιλήᾱν̣
[φρένας uu– –uu–] δάκν[ε πολύ]τροπ’, ἄμμα̣[ις,
κήναισι γάρ, οὐκ ἄμμι,] μέλ̣[ος] τι γλύκερον χ[α]ρ[ίσδῃ]
ἔγεντ̣ο [δὲ νῦν ἀρμονί]α μελλιχόφων[ον] αὔραν
οὐ γὰρ κ[άλαμος ταῦτα μελίσ]δει, λίγυραι δ᾽ ἄη[τα]ι


] . ακάλα . [
x–uu– – Δίος ἐξ] α̣ἰ̣γιόχω λά[χοισα
x–uu– – ] . Κ̣υ̣θέρη' ε̣ὐχομ[ένᾳ μ' ἄρηξον
x–uu– –uu– πρόφρ]ο̣ν ἔχοισα θῦμο̣[ν
x–uu– κλ]ῦθί μ̣' ἄρας αἴ π[οτα κἀτέρωτα
x–uu– –uu– ]ας π̣ρ̣ολίποισ̣α Κ[ύπρον
x–uu– –uu ἦλθε]ς πεδ' ἔμαν ἰώ[αν
x–uu– –uu– –] . ν χα̣λέπᾳ μ[ερίμνᾳ
[Three lost lines]
] . ν
θέ]ων μακ[άρων –uu– –uu– ] τύχοισα
[κ]αὶ τοῦτ ἐπίκει[ρην, ἄγ', ἐμον πῆμα] θέλ' ὦν τ', ἀπαίσᾱν
[δ]αίμων ὀλοφ[ῴα φρένας, ὦμοι τέ]λεσον νόημμα
σ̣ὺ μὰν ἐφίλης̣ [–uu– –u]έτων κάλημ‹μ›ι
νῦν δ' ἔννεκα [τοῦτ' ἄρκεσον ὦμοι] πεδὰ θῦμον αἶψα
τόδ' αἴτιον οὔτ' [αἶσχρον, ἔφα, κὤ]σ̣σα τύχην θελήσῃς
οὐδὲν πόλυ πά[σασθαι, ἀλάθως γὰ]ρ ἔμοι μάχεσθαι      7
ο]ὐδ' [νδ]ρομέ[δ' οἶ', ὄσσα δίαιται χ]λιδάνᾳ 'πίθεισα
δράσ', οὐ] λελάθ̣[ην ἀθανάτοις ἔστ]ι, σὺ δ' εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα
κρότ̣ην Νέμε[σιν κῆνον ὂς αἶσχρ' οἶδε κρ]έτει τ' ἀ[ό]λλεων
Ψάπφοι, σε φίλ[εισ' ἀμφ' ὀχέεσ' ἤρμοσε κύ]κλ̣α σ[οί τε]
Κύπρῳ β̣[α]σίλ[η' ἦλθ' ἰκετεύοισα Δί' αἶψα σέ]μνα
κ̣αί τοι μέγα δ[ρον Κρονίδαις ϝο] κατέν̤[ευσ' ὀπάσδην
ὄ]σσοις φαέθων̣ [Ἀέλοις φέγγεσιν ἀμφιβ]άσ̣κ[ει
πάντᾳ κλέος [ἔσλον
καί σ' ἐνν Ἀχέρ[οντος
. . [. . . . . .]ν̣π̣[
[6 lost lines]
Fragment 6.A.i

You cowered, [children, under the] dewy [branches]
Of a [holy] laurel when …
And all (is) sweeter [… nothing]
Rather than that [I'd] take…
And to the r[ays …
A wayfaring m[an …
Once I hardly listened; …
And (you), beloved soul, with m[e …
Having] suc[h] garments …
With coming (here?), oh tender …
Ye were first; beautiful …
The garments an[d …

Fragment 6.A.ii

Oh dream [through] the blac[k night …
You l[u]rk when Sleep …
Oh sweet g[o]d, indeed [you show us] terrible o[mens] of grief
To keep the powe[r] separate …
Hope I have not to have …
Not at all [do I] hop[e to have] fruit[ful] youth [twice] from
For I wouldn't be so (foolish?) [… that]      [the blissful (gods):
I'd [s]eek dowry an[d (pastimes? again)]
May I have [an old age (free from evils?)
Those who everything …

Fragment 6.A.iii

For from my l[and]
A conf[l]ict [chas]ed (me) away sudd[enly …] but anyways
Was not [… b]ut […] equal to the gods.      [the [m]emory
And [no]w the culprit of [this] grief and vexation [indeed] I'm going
To [at]tac[k, and with p]ain[s] Ar[temi]s the blissful will [s]ubjug[ate]
[Eld]erly [An]dromeda under (her) ch[ariot], (she) who rule[s] from [abo]ve;
[And she]'ll fe[el] asha[med] of her character, not indeed [g]en[tle], but stu[b]born
For [no-on]e stop[ped …] (she) doesn't hold back (her) satiety
[One could] indeed [qui]ckly offer up a h[er]d [of lambs] to the Tyndarid[s
… it would be] pl[easant] to [d]elight in the q[u]iet of a melody
In a graceful dance space, ah, i[f] really [n]o more …
And Megara [th]e m[il]d, [having taken] the melodious [harp…
… pos]sible to them …
… to everyone …

Fragment 6.A.iv

… we delight[ed …
… (to me?) because of painful grief …
… Cy[prus …
… w]ell-matched …
… becau[se a r]oof m[e …
… culprit …

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.A.v

… nor is it li]cit for you, Mika,
… l]aug[h, b]ut I won't let you
… of the wome]n of the house of Penthileus you chose the lov[e
Ou[r hearts] (this) has wound[ed, oh moo]dy, …
For to them, not to us,] you g[ift] a sweet son[g,
But now] a sweet-voic[ed harmon]y of winds has been produced
For not the r[eed-pipe these notes modul]ates, but the whistling


… peaceful …
… (You who) have] ob[teined from Zeus] the aegis-bearer …
… Cytherea, [aid me], who pr[ay] to you,
… having a [graci]ous hear[t
… he]ar my prayers, if e[ver even in another time
… having left C[yprus
… you cam]e to my sc[ream
… (now?) because of painful grief
[Three lost lines]

Having obtained … from the bliss[ful go]ds …
Be thus willing to cut d[own a]lso this [misery of mine], you,
Amidst all the cunn[ing-hearted g]oddess, [oh, fu]lfil [my] thought
Indeed you liked (to aid me in all for which?) I invoked (you),
And now to [this end, oh, come aid me] forthwith according
"This reason isn't [shameful", said she, "and wh]at you want      [to my wish
Isn't much [to get] at all, [fo]r to [truly] fight me      [to obtain
[N]ot even A[nd]rome[da is capable, (and) what she did] trusting a [v]oluptuous
Lifestyle ca]n [not] esca[pe notice of the gods], for well you know
Neme[sis] strikes [him who knows shameful things, and dom]inates everyone
Oh Sappho, lov[ing] you [she fit the wh]eels [to the chariot, and] for y[ou]
The [rev]ered q[u]ee[n] of Cyprus [went forthwith to beg Zeus],
And for you a great gi[ft Zeus son of Cronus to he]r nodded his a[ssent:
A]ll whom [the Sun] shining [surro]und[s with his rays      [to allow
And everywhere (your) [good] fame …
And you in (the banks?) of Acher[on …

[6 lost lines]

Group 6, category B

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.i

Πότνιαι Νηρήϊδε̣ς, ἀβλάβη[ν μοι
Τὸν̣ κ̣ασίγνητον δ[ό]τε τυί̤δ' ἴ̤κε̤σ̣θα[ι
Κὤττι ϝῷ θύμῳ κε̤ θέλη γένεσθαι
Κῆνο τελέσθην·

Ὄσσα δ̤ὲ πρό̣σθ' ἄμβροτε πάντα̤ λῦσ[αι
Καὶ φίλ̣οισι ϝοῖσι χάραν γένεσθαι
Κὠνίαν ἔχ̤θροισι, γ̣ένοιτο δ' ἄμμι
Μ̣ή̣δαμα μήδεις

Τὰ̣ν̣ κασιγνήταν̣ δὲ [θ]έλοι πόη̤σθα[ι
Μέ]σδονο[ς] τίμας, [ὀν]ίαν δὲ λύγραν
Παρλύ]ο[ιτ]ο τ̣οῖσι [πάρ]οιθ' ἀχε̣ύων
[Αὖτος ἐδά]μνα

Κῆρ, ὀνείδισ]μ̤' εἰσαΐω[ν], τ̣ὸ κ' ἐγ χρῷ
] μ̣⌝' [      ἦ]λ' ἐ̤παγ[ορί]ᾳ πολίτ̤αν
Αἴ ποτ' οὐ̣ [κ]άλω̣ς̣, [ἐσύ]νηκε δ' αὖτ' οὐ
δεν διὰ μ[ά]κρω

Καί τι μ[λλ]ον αἰ κ[λ]έο[ς ἐν βρότοι]σ̤ι
Γνώσε̣+τ+' [ἂψ] ο[ἶο]ν, σὺ [δὲ,] Κύπ̤[ρ]ι σ[έμ]να,
Ο̣ὐκ ὄ̤ν̤[εκτα καττθε]μέν̣α κάκ̣αν [

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.ii

. . . . . ]α̣ μάκαι[ραι . . . . .
. . . . . ] εὔπλοι[α . . . .
. . . . .] . ατοσκα[ . . . .
. . . . . ]

[ὄσσα δὲ πρ]όσθ’ [ἄμ]βροτε κῆ[να λῦσαι]
. . . . . ναυβ]άταις̣ [ἀ]ν̣εμ̣[. . . . .
[ σὺν] τύχᾳ λίμε̣νος κλ[. . . . .
. . . . . ].[. . . . .

[Κύ]πρι, κα[ί σ]ε πι[κροτέρ]α̣ν ἐπεύρ[οι
μη]δὲ καυχάσ[α]ιτο τόδ’ ἐννέ[ποισα
Δ]ωρίχα, τὸ δεύ[τ]ερον ὠς πόθε[ννος
ἄψ]ερον ἦλθε.

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.iii

Πλάσιον δὴ μ[οισο]πόλοισ' ἀ[ήσθ]ω,
Πότνι' Ἦρα, σὰ χ[άρις ἔ]ς τ' ἐόρτ̣αν
Τὰν ἀράταν Ἀτρ[εΐδα]ι π̤ό̤ησαν-
τ' οἰ βασίληες

Ἐκτελέσσαντες μ̣[εγά]λ̣οις ἀέθλοι[ς
Πρῶτα μὲν πὲρ Ε[ἴλιον]· ἄψερον δὲ̣
Τυίδ' ἀπορμάθεν̣̣[τες· ὄ]δον γὰρ ε̣ὔρ̣η
Οὐκ ἐδύναντο

Πρὶν σὲ καὶ Δί' ἀντ̤[ίαον] π̣εδέλθην
Καὶ Θυώνας ἰμε[ρόεντα] παῖδα̣
Νῦν δὲ κ[      ] . . . π̣όημεν
Κὰτ τὸ πάλ̣[αιον

Ἄγνα καὶ κα̣[λ'· εἶσι δὲ τυίδ' ὄδ' ὄχ]λος
Παρθε[νων τ' ἄμ' εὐχομέναν γ]υναίκων·
Ἀμ̣φὶ σ̣ . [
Μέτρ' ὀλ[ολύγας

. [.] . νιλ[
Ἦ]ρ̣', ἀπίκε[σθαι.

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.iv

] . ἐπάβολησ[
]αν δ' ὄλοφυν [. . . .]ε
] τρομέροις π . [. .] ἄ̣λλα
] 4

πάντα μοι κάρφει] χρόα γῆρας ἤδη
[κὠνία x– νόο]ν ἀμφιβάσκει
[κἄμεθεν πόθο]ς πέταται διώκων

]τας ἀγαύας
]εα· λάβοισα
[δ' ἀδύφωνον πᾶκτιν] εισον ἄμμι
[τὰν ἰόκολπον.

μακά]ρων μά̣λ̣ιστα
ἐπὶ γ]ᾶς π[λά]ναται̣

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.v

.] . ε . [ κ]έλομαι σ[' ἀείδην
Γο]γγύλα̣ν, [. . α]νθι, λάβοισ̣α̣ν α[βραν
Πᾶ]κ̣τιν, [ς] σ̣ε δηὖτε πόθος̣ τ[έουτος]

Τὰν κάλαν· ἀ γὰρ κατάγω̤γις αὔ[τ]α[ν
Ἐπτόαισ' ἴδο[ι]σαν· ἔγω δὲ χ̣α̣ίρω·
Καὶ γὰρ αὔτα̣ δ̣ή π[οτ'] ἐμέμφ[ετ' ὔμμε

ς ἄρ̣αμα
Τοῦτο τῶ[
… ]


Πῶς̣ κε δή τις οὐ θαμέω̣ς ἄσαιτο,
Κύπρι, δἐσπο̣ι̣ν̣'; ὄττινα̣ +δ+ὴ φίλ̣[ησθα,
ὠς] θέλοι μάλιστα πάθος κ̣άλ̣[υψαι,
μηδ'] ὀνέχησθα.

Σὺν σ]άλοισί μ' ἀλεμάτ̣ως δαΐσδ[ης
ἰμέ]ρ‹ῳ› λύ{ι̣}σαντ̣ι̣ γόν', ὤμ' [ἔγω δὲ
λάιλ]απας {[ .]} φα̣ῖ̣μ' οὐ προ̣[τόνοις περήσην
]νεερ . [.]αι

]σέ· θέλω[
τοῦ]το πάθη[ν
]λ̣αν· ἔγω δ' ἔμ' αὔτᾳ
τοῦτο σύνοιδα

] β̣[ρ]ό̣τοισ[. . .] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.vii

. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . ]καιπ[. . . . .
. . . . . ] . [.] . [.]ν̣οσ[. . . . .
– ^ ^ – ]σι·[. . . . . 4

ἦσθ]α καὶ γὰρ δὴ σὺ̣ πάϊς ποτ' [ἄβρα
κἀφ]ί̣λ̣ης μέλπεσθ' ἄγι ταῦτα [πάντα
σοὶ] ζ̣ἄλεξαι κἄ̣μμ' ἀπὺ τῶδε κ[ῆρος
ἄ]δρα χάρισσαι·

σ]τείχομεν γὰρ ἐς γάμον· εὖ δέ [δέρκῃ
κα]ὶ σὺ τοῦτ'· ἀλλ' ὄττι τάχιστ̣ά [παίσαις
πα]ρ[θ]ένοις ἄπ[π]εμπε, θέοι [δ' ἄτιμον
μηδὲ]ν ἔ̣̣χοιεν̣

ἀστίβης] ὄ̣δος μ[έ]γαν εἰς Ὄλ̣[υμπον
ἀ]νθρώ[πῳ ]αίκ . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.viii

. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
νύκτ[. . . ]. [ ]

πάρθενοι δ[ὲ –uu–u–x]
παννυχίσδοι[σ]α̣̣ι[, uu–u–x]
σὰν ἀείδοισ[ι]ν φ[ιλότατα καὶ νύμ-]
φας ἰοκόλπω.

ἀλλ᾽ ἐγέρθε̣ı̣ς, ἠϊθ[έοις καλέσσαις]
στεῖχε σοὶς ὐμάλικ̣[ας, ὠς ἐλάσσω]
ἤπερ ὄσσον ἀ λιγ̣ύφω̣[νος ἄμμες]
ὔπνον [ἴ]δωμ̣εν.

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.ix

. . . . . . κά]λ̣εσσα [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] . δα [–x
. . . .] ̣πέρι̣[
. . .] ̣εικε ̣[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] . α [
x–uu––uu––uu– φ]ύγοισα̣[
x–u ἐχίδνας] ̣[.] ̣[uu––u ὄδοντ]ι ̣δάχθην̣
x–uu– πάγ]χ̣υ̣ θ[έ]ο̣ι· [Κ]α̣λλ̣[οόπα, σὺ δ' α]ὔτα̣ν
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ] . χ̣θο[. .]ατι . [......]ε̣ισα
x–uu– κεκλο]μένα τὰν [πολυ]ώ̣νυμόν σ̤ε̤
x–uu– κρέσσο]ν̤ι θῆται στ̣[ύ]μα̤[τι] πρ̣όκοψιν̣

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.x

ὔμμιν φίλα Μοίσαν ἰο]⌟κόλ̤πων κάλα δῶρα, παῖδες,
πρέπει δὲ λάβην τὰ]⌟ν φιλἄοιδον λιγύραν χελύνναν·[
ἔμοι δ' ἄπαλον πρίν] ποτ' [ἔ]οντα χρόα γῆρας ἤδη
αἰκίσσατο, λεῦκαι δ' ἐ]γένοντο τρίχες ἐκ μελαίναν,
βάρυς δέ μ' ὀ θμ[ο]ς πεπόηται, γόνα δ' οὐ φέροισι,
τὰ δή ποτα λαίψηρ' ἔον ὄρ̣χησθ' ἴσα νεβρίοισιν.
τὰ ‹μὲν› στεναχί‹σδ›ω θαμέως, ἀλλὰ τί κεν ποείην;
ἀγή̣ραον ἄνθρωπον ἔοντ' οὐ δύνατον γένεσθαι·
καὶ γάρ π[ο]τα Τίθωνον ἔφαντο βροδόπαχυν Αὔων
ἔρῳ δ̣έ̤[π]ας̣ εἰσανβάμεν εἰς ἔσχατα γᾶς φέροισα+ν+
ἔοντα [κ]ά̤λ̤ο̤ν καὶ νέον, ἀλλ' αὖτ̣ον ὔμως ἔμαρψε[
χρόνω̣ι [π]όλιον̤ γ̤ῆ̤ρας ἔχ[ο]ντ' ἀθανάταν ἄκοιτιν⌞.[

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xi

θάνοισαν ἄοιδον τὸ πὰν οὐδεὶς φθ]ίμέναν νομίσδει
ἄλλοισι τύχην ὄσσα θέλωσι Κρονίδ]αις ὀπάσδοι.
ἔγω δὲ φίλημμ' ἀβροσύναν, [ἴστε δὲ] τοῦτο· καί μοι
τὸ λάμπρον ἔρ‹ω›ς ‹τὠ›ελίω καὶ τὸ κάλον λέλογχε

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xii

] . οὐ[
] ε̣ὐχο̣μ̣[
ἔμαισιν ἐταίραις ἄμ' ἔμο]ι νῦν θαλία̣ γ̣ε[νέσθω
ἐπεὶ δέ κε γήραισα θάνω,] νέρθε δὲ γᾶς γ̣έν[ωμ]α̣ι
καὶ μοισόπολων ἔσλ]ον ἔχοι̣σαν̣ γέρας ὠς̣ [ἔ]ο̣ικε̣ν
οὔ κέν μ' ἔτι θαυμά]ζοιε̣ν̣ ἆς νῦν ἐπὶ γᾶς ἔοισαν·
φαίνην δὸς ἀοίδαν] λιγύρ̤α̤ν [α] κεν ἔλοισα πᾶκτιν[
ἔμαισι φίλαισι(ν) ] . . . . α . κάλα, Μοῖσ', ἀε̣ίδω

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xiii

–u–x-u] ρωτος ἤλπ̣[x

–u ὠς γὰρ ἄν]τ̣ι̣ον εἰσίδω σ[ε
Φαίνεταί μ' οὐδ'] ρμιόνᾳ τεαύ[τα
Ἔμμεναι,] ξάνθᾳ δ' Ἐλένᾳ σ' ἐΐσ[κ]ην
[Οὖδεν ἄει]κες,

Ὠς θέ]μις θνάταις· τόδε δ' ἴσθι̤ τᾷ σᾷ
[Καρδίᾳ] παίσαν κέ με τᾶν μερίμναν
[–u–]αις' ἀντιδ[u–u]θοις δὲ̤
[–uu–x] .

[–u–x– δροσόεν]τας ὄχθοις
[–u–x–uu παν]νυχίσ[δ]η̣ν

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xiv

τεθνάκην δ’ ἀ̣δόλως θέ̣λω».
Ἄ με ψισδομένα κατ̤ελί‹μ›πανεν·

πόλλα καὶ τόδ' ἔειπέ [μο]ι·
«ᾮμ' ὠς δεῖνα πεπ[όνθ]αμεν
Ψάπφ' μάν̣ σ̣' ἀέκοι̣σ̣' ἀ̣πυλιμπάνω»

Τὰν δ' ἔγω τάδ' ἀμειβ̣ό̣μαν
«Χαίροισ' ἔρχεο κἄ̣με̣θεν
μέμναισ̤'· οἶσθα γὰρ ὤς ‹σ›ε πεδήπομεν.

Αἰ δὲ μή,͜ λλά σ' ἔγω θέλω
ὄ̣μναισαι – σὺ δὲ δ[ὴ φ]ρασ̣αι –
ὄ̣σσ̣α τέρπ[να τε] καὶ κάλ' ἐ̣πάσχομεν·

πό̤[λλοις γὰρ στεφάν]οις ἴων
καὶ [βρόδων κρ]ο̣κίων τ̣' ὔμοι
κ̣ά̣ρ̣ [σῷ] πὰρ ἔμοι π‹ε›ρεθήκα‹ο›,

καὶ πόλλαις ὐπαθύμιδας
πλέκταις ἀμφ' ἀπάλᾳ δέρᾳ
ἀνθέων ἔ̣+β+[αλες] πεποημμέ̣ναις,

καὶ πάντα χρ[όα σὺ]ν μ̣ύρῳ
βρενθείῳ λ[ιπάρῳ] ῥύ[δο]ν
ἐξαλείψαο κα[ὶ βασ]ιλη̣ΐῳ,

καὶ στρώμν̤[αν ἐ]πὶ μολθάκαν
ἀπάλαν παρ[ὰ Σαρ]δ̣ί̣ων̤
ξίης̣ πόθο̣[ν –u νε]ανίδ̣ων,

κωὔτε τις [γάμος οὔ]τ̣ε τι
ἶρον οὔδ' ὔ[u–u] . .
πλετ' ὄππ̣[ποθεν ἄμ]μες ἀπ̣έσκομεν,

οὔκ ἄλσος . [uu– χ]όρος
[xx– κροτάλων] ψόφος,
[xx–uu–] . . . οίδιαι».

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xv

Γλύκηα μᾶτερ, οὔ τοι
δύναμαι κρέκην τὸν ἴστον
πόθῳ δάμεισα παῖδος
βραδίναν δι’ Ἀφροδίταν.

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xvi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
γ̣ου[x–uu–u–u–x] 3

ἦρ’ α[– xx–uu–ux]
Γογγύλα σ[uu–u–u–x 6

ἦ τι σᾶμ’ ἔθεσ̣[πισδε u–ux
παῖσι μάλιστα γ[–u Ἔρ-]
μα‹ι›ς̣ γ’ ἔσηλθ᾽ ἔπ . [–u–u–x] 9

εἶπ̣ο‹ν›· “ὦ δέσποτ᾽ ἔπτ[ακον οὐδαμῶς
ο] μὰ γὰρ μάκαιραν [ἔγωγ'
ο]ὔδεν ἄδομ᾽ ἔπαρθ᾽ ἀγα[ν ἄσαισι,] 12

κατθάνην δ᾽ ἴμερός τις [ἔχει με καὶ]
λωτίνοις δροσόεντας [ὄ-]
χ[θ]οις̣ ἴδην Ἀχερ[οισίοις u–x 15

.] . . δε‹σ›αιδ' . [u–uu–ux
.] . . δε̣τ̣ο . [xx–uu–ux]
. [.] μητισ[–uu–u–u–x]”. 18

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xvii

] . θος ἀ γάρ με γέννα̣[τ' ἔφα ποτά·

σ]φ̣ᾶς ἐπ' ἀλικίας μέγα
κ]όσμ̣ο̣ν αἴ τις ἔχη‹ι› φόβαι[ς]
π̣ορφ̣ύρῳ κατελιξαμέ[να πλόκῳ]

ἔ̣μμεναι μάλα τοῦτο δ̣ή̣ 5
λλ' ἀ ξα̣νθοτέρα‹ι›ς ἔχῃ
τ̣α‹ὶ›ς κόμα‹ι›ς δάϊδος, προ[φέρει πόλυ

σ]τεφάν̣οισιν ἐπαρτία[ν
ἀ]νθέων ἐριθαλέων·
μ]ι̣τράνᾱν δ' ἀρτίως κλ[έος ἴκᾰνε 10

π]οικίλᾱν ἀπὺ Σαρδίω[ν
Εἰ]ς̣ Ἰ̣αονίας πόλεις

[Στρῶφαί τινες δύνανται τῇδε ἀπολωλεκέσθαι.]

Σοὶ δ' ἔγω, Κλέϊ, ποικίλαν
οὐκ ἔχω πόθεν ἔσσεται
μιτράν‹αν› ἀλλὰ τῷ Μ‹υ›τ‹ι›ληνάῳ

[Στρῶφαί τινες δύνανται τῇδε ἀπολωλεκέσθαι.]

] . [
†παι . απειον† ἔχην πο . [
αἴ κ' ἔ[χ]η‹ι› ποικιλασκ . . . [

Ταύτα τᾶς Κλεανακτίδα
φύγας ἄ̣λ̣ι‹θ›' {α} ἔχει πόλῑς 5
μνάματ'· οἴδε γὰρ αἶνα διέρρυε

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xviii

Χε‹ρ›ρόμακτρα δὲ †καγγόνων†,
Πορφύρα κὰτ ἀΰτμενα,
Τά τ‹ο›ι Μ‹ν›ᾶσις ἔπεμψ’ ἀπὺ Φωκάας,

Δῶρα τίμια ‹Μ›αόνων.

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xix

-Παρθενία, παρθενία, ποῖ με λίποισ' ἀποίχῃ;
-Οὐκέτι ἥξω πρὸς σέ, ‹νύμφα›, οὔκετι ἥξω ‹πρὸς σέ›.

Ἀπόσπασμα 6.B.xx

[xx–uu] οὐ γὰρ θέμις ἐν μοισοπόλων ‹δόμῳ›
θρῆνον ἔμμεν' ‹ἄπαυστον, Κλέι,› οὔ κ’ ἄμμι πρέποι τάδε.

Fragment 6.B.i

Oh queen Nereids, g[r]ant [me] that unscathe[d]
My brother may com[e] here,
And what in his heart he may wish to happen,
Make it happen;

And may he ma[ke] amends for all that he did wrong before,
And be a joy for his beloved ones,
And a grief for his enemies, and may no-one
Ever be (a grief) for us.

And may he [w]ish to mak[e] his sister
(A woman) of [gr]eate[r] glory, and from the tormenting [g]riefs
[M]a[y] he [set free] those whose heart, suffering
[For himself], he used to [cru]sh,

Hearin[g the reproac]h, which even in the flesh
… could have [bit]ten him due to the re[proa]ch of the fellow
No[t b]eautifully, if ever, but he [unde]rstood it not      [citizens,
At all l[o]ng afterwards.

And mo[r]e yet if he will know [again] how imp[ort]ant go[od
(Is) [among morta]ls; [and] you, q[ue]en Cyp[r]is,      [r]epu[te
Having [buried] the not be[arable things] … from evil …

Fragment 6.B.ii

… bliss[ful …
… protecto[r] of navigation …

[And what be]fore he did [wr]ong, th[at to cancel
… to [seaf]arers the [w]ind …
[With (good?)] luck … of the harbour …

[Cy]pris, an[d th]ee [may] she find [more] bi[tt]er,
No]r may she boas[t] say[ing] this
D]oricha: that a se[c]ond time desi[red
He came [ba]ck.

Fragment 6.B.iii

Close indeed may your f[avour b]e bl[own,
Oh queen Hera, to the servants of the M[uses] and
Which the At[rid] kings for themselves      [[t]o the festival

Having completed g[re]at struggle[s
First around I[lium], and once more
Hav[ing] set sail hither: for they could not
Fin[d] their [w]ay

Before invoking you and Zeus protector of s[uppliants]
And the lov[ely] son of Thyone;
And now … we make,
As in the d[ays] of old,

Holy and beau[tiful; and a cr]owd [make their way here]
Of maid[ens together and praying w]omen:
Around …
The measures of lo[ud cries.

All(?) …

To be …
He]ra, [to] return.

Fragment 6.B.iv

… expert(?) …
… and lament …
… trembling … other

Old age already [withers up my whole] body,
[And grief x–] surrounds my [min]d,
[And wis]h [from me] flies chasing

… (of the?) glorious
…; [and] having taken
[The sweet-voiced harp] sing to us
[Of the violet-bosomed one.

… above all of the [bliss]ful
… on the e]arth w[a]nders

Fragment 6.B.v

… I [b]eg you [to sing
Of Go]ngyla, [-a]nthis, having taken the t[ender
Ha]rp, unt[il] again s[uch] a wish
Flies around you,

Beautiful (woman); for (your) dress used
To dumbfound her when she s[a]w it; and I rejoice:
For the [C]yprus-bo[rn] herself indeed o[nce]
Blam[ed you;

How I pra[y …
This …
I w]ant …


How could one indeed not frequently torment themselves,
Oh queen Cypris? Whomever [you] truly love,
As much as] they may above all wish to hi[de] their passion,
You [don't] hold them back.

[You] tear me apart idly [with to]ssing motions
(And) wi]sh that has melted my knees, ay me! [But I]
Say that [sto]rms [will] not [pierce through] the fore[stays
… (if?)

… thee; I want …
… to suffe[r th]is …
…; and I for myself
Know this.

… to the mortals …

Fragment 6.B.vii

For you too once [wer]e a [delicate] child
[And l]oved to sing; come, [all] this
Tell [thyself], and to us from that h[eart
Ab]undant favours grant;

For we're [g]oing to a wedding; and well you [to]o
[See] this; but as fast as possible [all
Ma]i[d]ens [s]end away, and may the gods [nothi]ng
[Dishonorful] have.

Untrodden] is the road to the g[r]eat Ol[ympus
… for [m]an …

Fragment 6.B.viii

Night …

An[d] maidens …
Staying away all night …
A[r]e singing the l[ove] of you [and of the bri]de,
The violet-bosomed one.

But having awoken, [having called] your you[ng]
Same-ag[e] (friends), go, [so that we] may [s]ee
[Less] sleep than what
The sweet-voice[d] one (will).

Fragment 6.B.ix

… I called …
… around …

… having [f]led …
… of a viper] … by the [toot]h to have been bitten
… whol]ly the g[o]ds; [K]all[iope, you … h]er

… invok]ing you of [many] names
(In order to?) improve (the performance) [with] (whose?)
                                                                 [[rather go]od mo[u]th.

Fragment 6.B.x

To you], oh children, the beautiful gifts of the [violet]-bosomed [Muses
Are dear,] and it is fitting to pick up th]e song-loving harmonious lyre;
To me] the body, once [before tender], old age already
Has mistreated, and white] (my) hairs from black have [b]ecome,
And my hea[r]t has turned heavy, and my knees don't keep me up,
Which indeed once were nimble in dancing and equal to fawns.
I often lament this, but what could I do?
It is impossible for him who is a man to become immmune to aging:
For it is even said that o[n]ce rosy-armed Dawn out of love
Went up to (Helios') go[b]let, carrying Tithonus to the ends of the earth,
As he was yong and [ha]ndsome, but nevertheless old age took hold
Of him, [g]ray because of time, despite him having an immortal spouse.

Fragment 6.B.xi

No-one] considers [a singer who has died totally de]stroyed
May the [s]on [of Cronus] grant [to others what they want.
But I love delicacy, [and you know] this; and to me
Love of the sun has brought splendour and beauty.

Fragment 6.B.xii

… I pray …
May there] ta[ke place for my companions and me together] a feast now
After, having grown old, I die,] nd below the ground I [shall] be,
And] they will [no longer marve]l [at me] when I have, as [i]s fit, the [nob]le
Reward [of the servants of the Muses] as (they do) now that I'm on earth;
Grant] that I may [perform] a [harmonious] gons, [wh]en, having taken the harp,
For my beloved ones …] beautiful things, oh Muse, may I sing.

Fragment 6.B.xiii

… of love (hoped?)

–u for as s]oon as I see y[ou be]fore me
[It seems to me that even] Hermione [was not] suc[h,
And comp[ar]ing you to the blonde Helen
[Is not at all unbec]oming,

As is li]cit for mortal women; and know this in your
[Heart:] of all (my) worries I

… dew]y banks

… stay awa[k]e for the [who]le night

Fragment 6.B.xiv

And I truly wish I were dead».
She left me crying

Many things and this she told me:
«Ay me, what terrible things we have p[ass]ed,
Sappho: indeed unwilling I leave you»

And I replied to her thus:
«Leave with joy, and about me
Remember: for you know we cherished you.

And if not, I want you
To remember – and you will indeed point (them) out –
All the delig[htful] and beautiful moments we've had:

[For] ma[ny garla]nds of violets
And [of roses] and [of cr]ocuses together
You placed around [your] head beside me,

And many hypothymid
Wreaths around (your) delicate neck
[You] th[rew], made of flowers,

And (your) whole bo[dy wi]th ointment
Costly and a[bundant], an[d re]gal
You cop[io]usly anointed,

And [o]n a soft mattr[ess
Fro[m] delicate [Sar]dis
You satisfied your wis[h … for yo]ung women,

And neither a [wedding feast no]r a
Tempre nor a …
Was there [from] which [w]e were far,

Not a wood … (nor) a place of [da]nce
… (nor) sound [of clappers],

Fragment 6.B.xv

Sweet mother, indeed I cannot
Weave the cloth,
Overpowered by desire of a boy
Because of the delicate Aphrodite.

Fragment 6.B.xvi

Gongyla …

Surely some sign ((s)he) proph[esised …
Above all to everyone …
[Her]mes indeed came…

I said: «Oh lord, [I wasn'r] sc[ared at all]
For indeed, by the blissful one, [I
Do[n]'t at all like to swell up too muc[h because of torments,]

And a certain desire to die [has me, and
To see the lotus-blooming dewy [b]a[n]ks
Of Acher[on …

…». 18

Fragment 6.B.xvii

… the one who generat[ed] me [once said]

In [h]er time it was indeed
Indeed a grea[t o]rnament
If someone wore their hai[r]

Tie[d] with a purple [garland;]
But she who had hair
More blonde than a torch, it [was much] better

To dec[k] her with [g]arlands
Of flourishing [f]lowers;
But just now the fa[me] of the [m]any-colored [m]itras

From Sardi[s] arrived
[T]o the cities of Ionia

[Strophes may have been lost here.]

But to you, Kleis, I don't know
Whence I can get a many-colored
Mitra, but to the Mytilenian

[Strophes may have been lost here.]

(Child?) … have …
If (s)he has (many-colored?)

These memories of the fleeing
Of the Cleanactid[s] the city conserves very much:
For they we[re] horribly dispersed

Fragment 6.B.xviii

And handcloths …,
Purple, (moving) in the wind,
Which Mnasis sent you from Phocea,

Precious gifts of the Maeonians.

Fragment 6.B.xix

-Maidenhood, maidenhood, where are you going, having left
-Never again will I come to you, ‹oh bride›, never again will I [me?
                                                                                     [come ‹to you›.

Fragment 6.B.xx

[xx–uu] For it is not licit for there to be in the house
Of the servants of the Muses an ›incessant lamentation, Kleis›,
                                             [and such things would not become us.

End of group 6

Group 7

Ἀπόσπασμα 7.i

Αἶσ' ἔγων ἔ]φα̤ν· ἄγα[ναι γύναικες,
Ο][α μ]εμνάσεσθ' ἄ̤[ϊ μέχρι γῆρας,
κ]αὶ γ̣' ἄρ' ἄμμες ἐν νεό̣[τατι λάμπρᾳ
Ταῦ̣τ' πόημ̣μεν.

Πό̣λ̣λ̣α̤ [μ]ὲν γὰρ γαὶ κά[λα κἄγν' ἐν αὔτᾳ
[Ἐκ]πο̣νήσ[α]μεν· πόλι[ν αὖ λιποίσαις
῎Υ]μμε̤ ὀ[ξ]είαις δ[άκε μοι βλεποίσᾳ
Θ]ῦμ[ο]ν [σαισι


Ἀπόσπασμα 7.ii

Πῶς̣ κε δή τις οὐ θαμέω̣ς ἄσαιτο,
Κύπρι, δἐσπο̣ι̣ν̣', ὄττινα̣ +δ+ὴ φίλ̣[ησι
κωὐ] θέλοι μάλιστα πάθ+αν+ χάλ̣[ασσαι;
πῶς] ὀνέχησθα

πᾷ [σ]άλοισί μ' ἀλεμάτ̣ως δαΐσδ[ης]
εἰ̣μ̣έρ‹ῳ› λύ{ι̣}σαντ̣ι̣; γόνωμ' ἄνα[σσα,]
πόλ[λ]α· πάμ[π]α‹ν› μ' οὐ προ̣[τέρᾖσθ' ἀπέχθης,
οὔ̣τ' ὀνέ̣ερξαι

Νῦν με. ]σέ· θέλω[
τοῦ]το πάθη[ν
]λ̣αν· ⌟ἔγω δ' ἔμ' αὔτᾳ
τοῦτο σύνοιδα⌞

]· [.]σ̣τοισ[. . .] . [

Ἀπόσπασμα 7.iii

Κύπρι καὶ] Ν̤ηρήϊδε̣ς, ἀβλάβη[ν μοι
τὸν κασί]γνητον δ[ό]τε τυί̤δ' ἴ̤κε̤σ̣θα[ι
κὤσσα ϝο] θύμῳ κε̤ θέλη γένεσθαι
πάντα τε]λέσθην·

ὄσσα δὲ πρ]ό̣σθ' ἄμβροτε πάντα̤ λῦσ[αι
καὶ φίλοισ]ι ϝοῖσι χάραν γένεσθαι
κὠνίαν ἔ]χ̤θροισι, γ̣ένοιτο δ' ἄμμι
πῆμά τι μ]ήδεις

τὰν κασιγ]νήταν̣ δὲ [θ]έλοι πόη̤σθα[ι
ἔμμορον] τίμας, [ὀν]ίαν δὲ λύγραν
ἐκλύοιτ'] ὄτ̣οισι [πάρ]οιθ' ἀχε̣ύων
κἆμον ἐδά]μνα

κῆρ, ὀνείδισ]μ̤' εἰσαΐω[ν], τ̣ὸ κ' ἐγ χρῷ
κέρρε πόλ]λ' ἐ̤παγ[ορί]ᾳ πολίτ̤αν
καὶ βρόχυ ζ]άλε̣ı̣π̤[ον ὀ]νηκε δ' αὖτ' οὐ
μὰν διὰ μά]κρω

ἀλλ' ἄκουσ]ον αἰ κ[ε τ]έο[ν μέλεσ]σ̤ι
κῆρ ποτ' ἴαι]νον, σὺ [δὲ,] Κύπ̤[ρ]ι, τ[αἶ]να
νύκτι πάντα κατθε]μέν̣α, κακ̣αν[θε'
ἄμμιν ἀλάλκο]ις̤

Ἀπόσπασμα 7.iv


ἠράμαν μὲν ἔγω σέθεν, ἄ τε πάλαι ποτά


Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ ἐκ τοῦ Μαξίμου διορθώσασα

Σμίκρα μοι πάϊς ἔμμεναι
ἔτι φαίνεο κἄχαρις

Ἐκδοκὴ ἡ τῇδε

Σμίκρα μοι πάϊς ἔμμεναι
φαίνῃ κἄχαρις –ux
Fragment 7.i

To them] I sai[d]: oh deli[cate women,
S]uc[h things as] are [r]emembered alw[ays near old age,]
We [t]oo indeed in our [bright] you[th]
Did these things.

Ay, for many beau[tiful and holy things during it
[We w]orked hard; [and indeed, seeing y]ou
[Had left] the ci[ty, by desire] with s[h]arp
P[ains my h]eart

[Was] b[itten].

Fragment 7.ii

How could someone not frequently torment himsalf,
Cypris, queen, for the one (s)he tryly lov[es
And not] want above all to [be] fre[ed] from the pains?
How] do you bear it?

To what end [do you] idly tear me apart with [to]ssing motions
And desire that has melted (me)? I beg you, oh que[en,]
A l[o]t: yester[day you were] not at a[l]l [hostile] to me,
Do not restrain

Me now. …] you; I want …
… to suffe[r th]is …
… and I for myself
Know this.

Fragment 7.iii

Cypris and] Nereids, g[r]ant [me] that unscathe[d
My bro]ther may com[e] here,
And what] he in his heart wishes to happen to [hi]m,
May [all ha]ppen;

And what be]fore he did wrong, may he all ato[ne for,
And to his love]d ones be a joy
And a grief to his e]nemies, and to us may
[N]o-one be [a calamity];

And [hi sis]ter may he [w]ish to mak[e
A partaker] of glory, from the mournful [pa]ins
[May he be set free], due to which [bef]ore suffering
He [ove]rpowered [also my

Heart,] hearin[g reproac]h, which up into the flesh
[Wounded him a lo]t because of his fellow citizens' accus[ati]on,
[And l]eavi[ng for a short time] it [c]ame back not
[At all after lo]ng.

But list]en, if [with song]s [once
Y]ou[r heart I war]med, [and] you, Cyp[r]is, these [horr]ible
[All with night bury]ing, [keep fa]r [from us                  [things
All that brings evil].

Fragment 7.iv


I loved you, who long ago …


Version corrected from Maximus

To be a little child
You still seemed to me, and a graceless one

Version from here

To be a little child
You seemed to me, and graceless. …

No comments:

Post a comment