42 COL. IV
I 2. 6eov peyav (3ap£av [3ovfiap£av vap£a(ov£av (3apga(3ov£a6
13. 7]\lov avairepTov poi ev tt] vvktl ravrrj tov ap^ayye-
Xov aov
14- ovpOavvrjv y^prjpaTLaov en aXijOeLas aXrjdcos a\jsev-
8a>$ av-
15. apcpLXoyco? nept TOvSe npaypaTOS otl e£opKi(oo ere kcltcl tov
eU TT]
16. 7TvpwT) yXapv8i KaOrjpevov em rrts1 apovpeas KecpaXrjs tov
aya-
I 7. 6ov Saipovos iravTOKpaTopos TeTpanpoaconov Saipovos v\Jsi-
CTTOV CTKO-
18. tlov Kai \f/v^aovyeov (pcog pi] pov napaKOvai7? aXXa ava-
nep\j/ov
19. ra^o? Tr\ vvktl TO.VTT) eiiLTCL . anjv tov deov tovto etnas y
20. hr 5r-f sze wbe-k n r-f wbe r-k 11 mt-t mc-t hr lib nb
e°r-k wh-f e-f wh e-f se n-f cn
21. hr 7r-k wh wc pyngs n cs wne-t(?) hr n tbe-tw(?)
nte-k wh n syw-vv hr M-f nte-k sh pe-k cs-shne a wc zcm
nmy
22. nte-k wh-f hr p pyncks hr 7r-f t 7w ne-k syw-w n-k
e-w wz hr pe-k (s-shne
23. n wz hyb e-f znt swh n hr hi hy t a
yr-t-k n'm-f hr 'r-k wz hyb-t
24. k-t cn tpe hnc snf n *ROTKOTn(?)eT* 6>-h-w(?) nte-k
5r-w n phre swy smt yr-t-k n'm-f hr nw-k ar-w cn
1. 16. apovpeas. Mr. Kenyon suggests that this may possibly be a
corruption of apyvpeas.
1. 18. yj/vxanvyeov. Mr. Kenyon, who has kindly looked at this passage
in the original MS., writes: 'I think the fourth letter is a, not X, . . . and
the only thing I can think of is xfrvyaycoyov. In this case we should again
have y and o confused (as in apovpeas = apyvpeas ?). This leaves cp(o£
unaccounted for, but a nominative (and from its termination it could be
nothing else) is out of place here, so that the corruption must in any case
be rather extensive. I do not think anything but enirayairiv can be read
in 1. 19. Probably in it ay $ is meant.' The word \frvxayayov is probably
to be taken as associated with the idea of necromancy.
I 2. 6eov peyav (3ap£av [3ovfiap£av vap£a(ov£av (3apga(3ov£a6
13. 7]\lov avairepTov poi ev tt] vvktl ravrrj tov ap^ayye-
Xov aov
14- ovpOavvrjv y^prjpaTLaov en aXijOeLas aXrjdcos a\jsev-
8a>$ av-
15. apcpLXoyco? nept TOvSe npaypaTOS otl e£opKi(oo ere kcltcl tov
eU TT]
16. 7TvpwT) yXapv8i KaOrjpevov em rrts1 apovpeas KecpaXrjs tov
aya-
I 7. 6ov Saipovos iravTOKpaTopos TeTpanpoaconov Saipovos v\Jsi-
CTTOV CTKO-
18. tlov Kai \f/v^aovyeov (pcog pi] pov napaKOvai7? aXXa ava-
nep\j/ov
19. ra^o? Tr\ vvktl TO.VTT) eiiLTCL . anjv tov deov tovto etnas y
20. hr 5r-f sze wbe-k n r-f wbe r-k 11 mt-t mc-t hr lib nb
e°r-k wh-f e-f wh e-f se n-f cn
21. hr 7r-k wh wc pyngs n cs wne-t(?) hr n tbe-tw(?)
nte-k wh n syw-vv hr M-f nte-k sh pe-k cs-shne a wc zcm
nmy
22. nte-k wh-f hr p pyncks hr 7r-f t 7w ne-k syw-w n-k
e-w wz hr pe-k (s-shne
23. n wz hyb e-f znt swh n hr hi hy t a
yr-t-k n'm-f hr 'r-k wz hyb-t
24. k-t cn tpe hnc snf n *ROTKOTn(?)eT* 6>-h-w(?) nte-k
5r-w n phre swy smt yr-t-k n'm-f hr nw-k ar-w cn
1. 16. apovpeas. Mr. Kenyon suggests that this may possibly be a
corruption of apyvpeas.
1. 18. yj/vxanvyeov. Mr. Kenyon, who has kindly looked at this passage
in the original MS., writes: 'I think the fourth letter is a, not X, . . . and
the only thing I can think of is xfrvyaycoyov. In this case we should again
have y and o confused (as in apovpeas = apyvpeas ?). This leaves cp(o£
unaccounted for, but a nominative (and from its termination it could be
nothing else) is out of place here, so that the corruption must in any case
be rather extensive. I do not think anything but enirayairiv can be read
in 1. 19. Probably in it ay $ is meant.' The word \frvxayayov is probably
to be taken as associated with the idea of necromancy.