{"tema_id":"172","string":"\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2","created":"2016-06-17 16:57:05","code":null,"notes":[{"@type":"variants","@lang":"en","@value":"var. \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (pap.)\nlat. \/\nCognates of medical relevance: \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 (V); \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae (N)"},{"@type":"GENERAL DEFINITION","@lang":"en","@value":"Compound adjective belonging to the specialized language of obstetrics. It pertains to the surgical procedure of cutting the foetus to pieces in the womb. The operation was performed in order to save the mother\u2019s life in extreme cases of delivery complications or dystocia. The adjective is a hapax attested in P.Oxy. LXXIV 4972,16-7, a papyrus cathechism of the II-III century CE describing the divisions of surgery."},{"@type":"A. LANGUAGE BETWEEN TEXT AND CONTEXT","@lang":"en","@value":"1. Etymology \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The hapax \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 is a derivative adjective from the o-grade stem of the verb \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9, which constitutes the semantic core of the action. In addition to its generic value, the verb, derived from the IE root*temh1 (\u00abto cut\u00bb),[1] can also mean \u00abto cut (up)\u00bb, \u00abto operate\u00bb in surgical context (cf. LSJ9 471 s.v. I 3). The adjective is quite complex in structure since it is formed by several elements. The stem -\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc- is preceded by a double prepositional prefix (\u1f10\u03bd + \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac), which conveyes specific shades of meaning (for discussion see infra, A 2), and is followed by the suffix -\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. This suffix of Indo-European origin (< *-ikos,formed by the i-stem suffix *-i- + the adjectival suffix *-ko-), usually expressing relationship and carrying the sense \u201ccharacteristic of\u201d, \u201cpertaining to\u201d, has been productive along the entire history of the ancient Greek.[2] Widely used in the creation of a scientific and technical terminology, it has become particularly common in Greek medical language (vd. infra, A 2).[3]\n\u00a0\n2. General linguistic commentary\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The orthographic variation \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd in [3], without the assimilated form -\u03b3\u03ba-, reflects a phenomenon widespread in the papyri of the Roman period. Unassimilated spellings, indeed, predominate in documents of the II and III centuries CE, more or less contemporary to this medical text. The phenomenon occurs in all phonetic conditions in compound words, so that the nasal \u03bd is often left unassimilated before the velar stop \u03ba, like in the present case.[4]\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The adjective \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 belongs to a family of medical terms that are scantily attested and quite problematic (vd. infra, C 1). Its cognates are the verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 and the noun \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae, meaning respectively \u00abto cut up the foetus in the womb\u00bb and \u00abcutting up of the foetus in the womb\u00bb (cf. LSJ9 471 s.vv.). Both of these words seem to be attested in texts of the late IV-early V cent. BCE (see [1] and [2]), so the adjective is the latest to appear in a written text. The words of this family have a double prepositional prefix. The basic compound verb \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9, \u00abto cut in pieces, to cut up\u00bb (LSJ9 916 s.v.), has several occurences in medical context,[5] whereas its only other complex compound form \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9, \u00abcarry the workingsof a mine beyond one\u2019s boundaries\u00bb (LSJ9 637 s.v.),[6] has evidently no medical meaning. The combination \u1f10\u03bd + \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac entails specific semantic nuances. The preverb \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac might convey several connotations: a distributive sense, i.e. the division of a unit \u2013 the foetus \u2013 into segments; a sort of iterative value, i.e. the succession of actions required to complete the operation; the direction downwards, i.e. the movement of the surgical instrument, such as the knife called \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, sinking down into the foetus to cut it up;[7] the idea of performing the cutting-up action in straight or regular lines.[8] The first preverb \u1f10\u03bd- further details the action expressed by the verb, specifying that the action is carried out inside a confined inner space, viz. the uterus of a woman.\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to the proper sense of the suffix -\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, the adjective \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 expresses what is characteristic of the procedure, usually known as embryotomy, consisting in the dismemberment of the foetus in the womb in order to effect its removal. It is worth mentioning that the compound adjectives of -\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 have a prepositional prefix only in other two cases: \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u00abrelating to anatomy\u00bb (LSJ9 123 s.v.), and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u00abcompendious\u00bb (LSJ9 667 s.v.).[9] More often -\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 is preceded by a nominal first member, sometimes producing technical derivatives pertaining to the medical field. Valuable examples are \u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u00abof herniotomy\u00bb (LSJ9 947 s.v.), and \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u00abof lithotomy\u00bb (cf. LSJ9 947 s.v.), denoting, like \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, what is characteristic of specific operations. These words have a single attestation in a passage by Galen, Thras. 24,5-7 (V 846,5-7 K.) \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd, where they are referred to the related \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7.\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Suffixation and composition are strategies widely productive in the creation of a technical vocabulary and contribute to the coinage of new terms.[10] The compounds of this word family, that represent three \u201cmedical neologisms\u201d, are extremely specialized. Through the combination of their components, they ensure precision of meaning and describe an entire action in a single word, features that are typical of the medical language.[11] Thus, the formation of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 and its cognates, whose medical use was restricted and circumscribed to the procedure of embryotomy, efficaciously summarizes the dismembering process through repeated incisions of the foetus while still in the womb. Their high degree of technicality, as well as their complexity in structure, might have been the reason for the disappearance of these words and for such a limited impact in Greek medical vocabulary. More transparent, although equally technical terms, such as \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 and \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03c9, which seem to appear in the written sources from the II century CE\u00a0(see s.v.), were likely preferred to denote the same destructive operation. Other examples, taken from Soranus, one of the main authors writing on embryotomy (cf. Gyn. IV 9-12 [CMG IV 140,1-144,8 Ilberg]), are the use of derived nouns (e.g. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae)[12] and compound forms of \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9 (e.g. \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9).[13] Only once he employs \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 that is significantly placed in close relationship with \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd.[14] Neverthless, the emergence of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 many centuries after the isolate attestations of its cognates might even suggest that the terms of this family were less rare in the language of medical practice than their actual occurences in the extant sources would induce one to believe nowadays.\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the Latin of Celsus, who devotes a long passage to the excision and extraction of the foetus (cf. Med. VII 29 [CML I 356,5-358,16 Marx]), two compounds of caedo may be considered as semantic counterpart of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9, i.e. absc\u012bdo, \u00abto cut off, to cut away piecemeal\u00bb,[15] and conc\u012bdo, \u00abto cut up, to cut to pieces\u00bb.[16]\n\u00a0\n3. Abbreviation(s) in the papyri\nNo abbreviated forms had appeared, as yet.\n\n\n[1] For etymological discussion, see CHANTRAINE, DELG II 1104 s.v.; FRISK, GEW II 875-6 s.v.; BEEKES, EDG I\u0399 1466 s.v.\n\n\n[2] Cf. BUDENZ 1858, especially pp. 4-32; DEBRUNNER 1917, 197-200; CHANTRAINE, FN 385-93.\n\n\n[3] Cf. LIPOURLIS 2010, 1110-2 and SCHIRONI 2010, 341.\n\n\n[4] Cf. GIGNAC, GGP I 165-8.\n\n\n[5] An interesting example is Hp. Fract. 11,12-3 (III 454,2-3 L.) \u1f22\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 (scil. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u1f41\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2, \u00abbut if, as some have it, the skin be thick and hardened, it is to be pared down smoothly\u00bb (transl. C.D. Adams [New York 1868] 181). Cf. LSJ9 916 s.v. 6. See also Gal. In Hipp. Fract. comment. II 18,2-3 (XVIIIb 449,3-4 K.). On the contrary, the derivative noun \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae, \u00abincision, [\u2026] mutilation, [\u2026] circumcision\u00bb (LSJ9 916 s.v.) has no attestation in medical writings.\n\n\n[6] The only attestations are in D. XXXVII 36,4 and Poll. III 87,1-2.\n\n\n[7] For the surgical instruments used in this kind of operation, vd. s.v. \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 C 2. For the specific case of the \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, probably \u00aba straight two-edged blade\u00bb, see MILNE 1907, 43.\n\n\n[8] This aspect can be deduced from some non medical usages of the basic compound verb \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 and is sometimes emphasized by the object of the verb, see e.g. Hdt I 180,9 (scil. \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 (\u00abhas its street cut straight\u00bb) and II 86,24 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (\u00abwith regularly cut bandages\u00bb). Cf. LSJ9 916 s.v.\n\n\n[9] But \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 is the only one recorded in the etymological dictionaries. Vd. CHANTRAINE, DELG II 1103 s.v. \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9; FRISK, GEW II 875 s.v. \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9: \u00abnur mit \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1-\u00bb; BEEKES, EDG I\u0399 1465 s.v. \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9: \u00abonly with \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1-\u00bb.\n\n\n[10] See for example SCHIRONI 2010, 340-2.\n\n\n[11] See for example DOMINIK 2012, 128.\n\n\n[12] Cf. Gyn. IV 11, 2,4-5 (CMG IV 142,9-10 Ilberg) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n\n[13] Cf. respectively ibid. 11, 6,2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76  \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 and 12, 1,2 (CMG IV 142,25 and 143,6 Ilberg) \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n\n[14] Cf. ibid. 12, 4,1-2 (CMG IV 143,17-8 Ilberg) \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c2.\n\n\n[15] Cf. ibid. 29, 8,6-7 (CML I 358,1-2 Marx) si pes alter iuxta repertus est, alter retro cum corpore est, quicquid protractum, paulatim abscidendum est.\n\n\n[16] Cf. ibid. 29, 9,1-2 (CML I 358,4-5 Marx) aliaeque etiamnum difficultates faciunt, ut, qui solidus non exit, concisus eximi debeat.\n\n"},{"@type":"B.  TESTIMONIA - A selection of representative sources","@lang":"en","@value":"1. Hp. Foet. Exsect. title and 1,1-4 (VIII 512,1-5 L.) \u2013 late V-early IV BCE[1]\n\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u0399 \u0395\u0393\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u039c\u0397\u03a3 \u0395\u039c\u0392\u03a1\u03a5\u039f\u03a5.\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u1f79\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03ca\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u1f73\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u1f73\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\u0387 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u1f79\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f71\u03b6\u03c9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u1f73\u03c1\u03c9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f7b\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u1f79\u03bd\u03b9, \u1f45\u03ba\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1f75\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\nEXCISION OF THE FOETUS:\nConcerning pregnancies that do not proceed in the normal way, but which are cut to pieces inside (sc. the uterus), the matter is as follows. First place a cloth over the woman, girding it above each breast, and also you must cover her head with a cloth, so that she will not see what you are doing and become frightened.\n(Transl. P. Potter [London 2010] 369)\n\u00a0\n2. Pl. R. 565d,9-e,1 \u2013 late IV BCE\n\u1f41 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\nHe who tastes human entrails cut up among those of other victims inevitably becomes a wolf.\n\u00a0\n3. P.Oxy. LXXIV 4972,16-8 (LDAB 119317, MP3 2354.01, SoSOL 2015 476) \u2013 II-III CE\n[\u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u0323\u03b1\u0323|\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9]\u03ba\u0323\u1f78\u03bd (l. \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, sc. \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1) \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u0323\u03c2\u0323 | [\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5]\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\nThe obstetric surgical (sc. form) is that concerned with what is known as embryotomy.\n(Transl. LEITH 2009b, 63)\n\n\n[1] On the date of this Hippocratic work, see CRAIK 2015, 104.\u00a0\n\n"},{"@type":"C.  COMMENTARY","@lang":"en","@value":"1. \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 and its medical sources\nAs a hapax legomenon, the adjective \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 occurs only in P.Oxy. LXXIV 4972,16-7 ([3]), a medical papyrus in question-and-answer format that \u00abpreserves a systematic exposition of surgery, unparalleled in scope and complexity, consisting in divisions firstly into its \u2018forms\u2019 (\u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), which may be understood as the forms or categories of knowledge that surgery encompasses, and secondly into different classes of surgical operations distinguished primarily by their therapeutic or cosmetic aims\u00bb, according to LEITH 2009, 60, editor princeps of the text. Since the left edge of the column is lost, the very beginning of l.17, corresponding to the central part of the word, falls in lacuna, but \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u0323\u03b1\u0323|\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9]\u03ba\u0323\u03cc\u03bd seems to be a plausible restoration. It must also be noted that, checking the digital image of the papyrus,[1] it is possible to see a trace at the end of l.16 that, though very faded, might be compatible with the sloping vertical of a \u03c4. This might mean that the actual word division was \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u0323\u03b1\u0323\u03c4\u0323[\u03bf|\u03bc\u03b9]\u03ba\u0323\u0323\u03cc\u03bd, also because the sequence \u03c4\u03bf would seem to fit the space considering both the width of the right margin where it is preserved and the usual size of the sequence \u03c4\u03bf in the papyrus. So, the adjective \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 is concerned with a term that is undoubtedly a derivative noun from \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 (l.18 ]\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). \u2018Embryotomy\u2019 is itself a restoration, yet the fact that the word family to which \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 belongs is semantically connected to that kind of surgical procedure makes convincing both [\u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u0323\u03b1\u0323|\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9]\u03ba\u0323\u03cc\u03bd and [\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5]\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Thus, the derivative \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 in association with the noun \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, which is explicitly mentioned only in l.7, even though it applies to all types of surgery outlined from that point forward, is concerned with embryotomy defining the most characteristic aspect of the operation, namely the technique performed to dismember the fetus. One might even ask whether the juxtaposition \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 designates the \u201cobstetric surgical form\u201d in general, as it is translated in the editio princeps of the papyrus, or whether such a specialized expression means something more specific, such as \u201cthe surgical form of cutting the fetus to pieces inside the uterus\u201d. In the former case, the most emblematic obstetric procedure would be used to define the obstetric surgery as a whole, as if it was a sort of metonymy. The prominence of embryotomy and related operations in obstetric field might be indirectly confirmed, for example, by the fact that in Celsus\u2019 De Medicina Book VII, which deals with surgical procedures, after a brief mention of some troubles which are peculiar to females in chapter 28 (CML I 355,16-356,4 Marx), the extraction of the fetus, described in the entire chapter 29 (CML I 356,5-358,16 Marx), is actually the only obstetric procedure to which the author devotes his attention. Furthermore, according to some scholars, \u00abembryotomy was the greatest achievement of ancient obstetrics\u00bb,[2] while others state that embryotomy is one of the oldest \u2013 if not the oldest \u2013 operation in obstetrics and possibly in the written history of medicine.[3]\nAnother relevant aspect concerns the word-formation of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 as an adjective in -\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (see supra, A 2). It is noteworthy that all the adjectives defining the \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in the papyrus end with the suffix -\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. Maybe this is the reason why the term was used in this text, as well as another hapax, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (ll.7-8 \u03c4\u03bf\u0323|[\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd]), which is connected with the appropriate type of incision required by each surgical procedure, i.e. \u00abthe incision-based form\u00bb. In two other cases, already existing words acquire a more specific meaning that does not seem to be attested in any other source, and thus they represent two semantic neologisms: \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd (sc. \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1, l.3), \u00abthe position-based (sc. form)\u00bb concerned with appropriate patient positioning, and \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd (sc. \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1, l.11), \u00abthe stage-based (sc. form)\u00bb regarding the post-operative measures to be taken. Furthermore, it is interesting that the other unnamed forms referred to at ll.18-20 and probably listed before each \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1 was individually explained in the surviving passage (ll.1-18) are said \u00abto be recognizable from the names\u00bb (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u0323[|\u00a0 \u0323\u00a0 \u0323\u00a0 \u0323\u00a0 \u0323\u00a0 \u0323]\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc|[\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1] \u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 [l. \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9], transl. LEITH 2009b, 63), and one might even speculate that these \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 were perhaps other terms in -\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. In addition, the isolate presence of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 in this catechism might lead one to question whether the term reflected a \u201cconcrete\u201d, though highly technical use of it in the communication among physicians during the practice of their profession and whether, more in general, the catechistic texts reflected features of the medical language used in the \u201cconcrete\u201d context in which they were copied or produced.[4] The fact itself that \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 seems to appear only in a papyrus points to the significance of the vocabulary attested in the Greek medical papyri. A study of the word is important also because, given the recent publication of P.Oxy. LXXIV 4972, the adjective has not been included yet in any existing dictionary of ancient Greek.\nIn the second section of the fragment preserved by the Oxyrhynchus papyrus (ll.21-42) the author deals with the aims of different categories of surgical operation and the mention of \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7|[\u03c1\u03af\u03b1] at ll.39-40 would seem to suggest that this aim concerns the preservation of the patient\u2019s life. So, embryotomy and related procedures intended to save the mother when her life was threatened due to delivery complications can be considered a good example of what \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 may have meant.\nAlso the cognates of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, the verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 and the noun \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae, are quite problematic, as well as the only medical source in which they seem to be attested: the Hippocratic text De exsectione foetus (see [1]). The main difficulty that the analysis of these terms entails is due to the state of the manuscript tradition. The nature of the text is indeed uncertain. It might originally have been either \u00aba short collection of obstetrical notes unknown in the extant ancient literature\u00bb (POTTER 2010, 367) or a piece \u00abnot intended to stand indipendetly\u00bb but \u00abbelonged in a wider context\u00bb (CRAIK 2015, 104), as seems to be suggested by the instruction \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 (ibid. 1,19 [VIII 514,3 L.]), \u00abaccording to what has been said (sc. elsewhere)\u00bb.[5] The only trace that this short text leaves in ancient sources is the gloss \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03b7\u03bd, \u00abdried fish skin\u00bb, in Gal. Ling. s. dict. exolet. expl. \u03b9 (XIX 107,1-4 K., cf. Foet. Exsect. 1,7 [VIII 512,7 L.]). This might suggest that the text was considered part of the Corpus Hippocraticum at the time of Galen, although neither Galen makes any explicit mention of it nor Erotianus includes the title in his list of Hippocratic writings. Much of the material contained in this snippet is paralleled, with some differences,[6] in other Hippocratic works, notably Mul. I 70 and III 249 (VIII 146,19-148,23 and 462,16-8 L.) and Superf. 7 (CMG \u0399 2,2, 74,28-76,6 Lienau). According to some scholars,[7] it might be possible that the short collection known as De exsectione foetus followed on directly Mul. III 249 (VIII 462,18 L.), where the treatise breaks off while dealing with the expulsion of a dead fetus.\nThe noun \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae appears in the title given in the manuscript tradition, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5. The usual English translation On excision of the fetus relies on the Latin De exsectione (or excisione) foetus , \u00abthough the sense conveyed is rather the process of cutting the fetus to pieces inside (sc. the uterus)\u00bb (CRAIK 2015, 103),[8] according to the proper meaning of the Greek compound. But this title fits only the first chapter, on embryotomy, since the subject of the following chapters actually covers a miscellaneous series of obstetrical topics,[9] such as the case of women who expel their waters before the fetus (ibid. 3 [VIII 514,11-3 L.]), succussion aimed at securing birth presentation by the infant\u2019s head (ibid. 4 [VIII 514,14-516,9 L.]), treatment of the uterine prolapse (ibid. 5 [VIII 516,10-518,2 L.]). Thus, given the likely nature of the text as a fragment, it seems reasonable to wonder at what stage of the manuscript tradition the title was inserted. A fact is that the title is already present in the earliest manuscripts that preserve the text, dating back to the X-XII centuries, such as the Marcianus Venetus Graecus 269 (M, X cent.) and the Vaticanus Graecus 276 (V, XII cent.).[10] However, it is highly probable that the title is not contemporary to the text. This leads to the further question of whether the term \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae is original or later. Even though it is difficult to determine when the word was formed, it must be noted that a minor part of the manuscript tradition has the incipit \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2[11] instead of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u1f79\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03ca\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u1f73\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u1f73\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, which is commonly accepted in the modern editions. The De exsectione foetus appears twice in some of the manuscripts containing it and the alternative reading \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. is often found in the second version of the text in recentiores from the XIV century onwards,[12] but also in the second version in the aforementioned M of the X century.[13] The possible presence of the noun \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae in the first line would so exclude the occurrence of the verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 in the Hippocratic text. Anyway, accepting the incipit commonly printed, it must be stressed that the formulation \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u2026 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 appears to be unusual as an opening sentence and does not seem to reflect the usus scribendi of the Hippocratic writers. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af is used to open a book only in a few instances and is usually followed by the genitive of a noun[14] rather than of a substantive participle like in the present case. Indeed, the construction \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af + genitive of a noun or pronoun is always within a context, often at the beginning of a section preceded and followed by another section. Also \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 ending a sentence introduced by \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af never seems to occur at the beginning of a book but always within a context, such as in Carn. 3,31 (VIII 588,9 L.)\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2. Even these aspects might strengthen the impression that the short text known as De exsectione foetus represents a fragment, an extrapolation from a collection or treatise dealing with obstetrical topics.\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The only other extant attestation of the verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 is found in Plato\u2019s Republic (see [2]). The passage mentions a legend concerning the cult of Zeus Lykaios and his sanctuary in Arcadia. According to the legend, the participants in a secret sacrifice ate portions of a \u201cmystery meat\u201d containing not only animal entrails, but also a piece of a human victim, and the person who tasted the human entrails was transformed into a wolf.[15] In the passage the verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9 means \u00abto cut up among a number\u00bb (LSJ9 471 s.v. II): the human entrails are cut and minced up[16] with those of other victims. Of course the meaning is not technical, but it literally reflects the semantic components of the compound with the first preverb \u1f10\u03bd- specifying that the verb applies to an inner part of the body, the entrails, while \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac expresses the iterative sense of the action of cutting something up in small pieces.\n\n\n[1] See at the webpage http:\/\/163.1.169.40\/gsdl\/collect\/POxy\/index\/assoc\/HASH0137\/034fdc7f.dir\/POxy.v0074.n4972.a.01.hires.jpg.\n\n\n[2] Cf. DIEPGEN 1937, 272 and DO SAMEIRO BARROSO 2013, 85.\n\n\n[3] Cf. THIERRY-GOOSSENS 1993, 90.\n\n\n[4] On the practical nature of the papyri in question-and-answer format, see in particular ANDORLINI 1999, 7-9 and LEITH 2009a, 122.\n\n\n[5] The text is included in a group defined by LITTR\u00c9 1839, 412 as \u00abune classe distincte de plusieurs trait\u00e9s ou fragments ou compilations que les anciens critiques n\u2019ont pas mentionn\u00e9s\u00bb, cf. also p. 415: \u00abceci est un fragment comme on ne trouve pluiers dans la Collection hippocratique; il est fort difficile de dire d\u2019o\u00f9 il vient\u00bb.\n\n\n[6] According to LITTR\u00c9 1853, 510 \u00abces diff\u00e9rences font l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat essential de l\u2019opuscule; car elle montrent des remaniements, des essais varies de r\u00e9daction, nous font assister aux efforts de ces anciens auteurs, et aident aussi, par la compareison, \u00e0 comprendre plus compl\u00e9tement ce qu\u2019ils d\u00e9crivent\u00bb.\n\n\n[7] See for example LITTR\u00c9 1839, 416 and CRAIK 2015, 104.\n\n\n[8] See also POTTER 2010, 369 n. 1 and DIMITRAKOS \u039c\u039b V 2213 s.v. \u1f41 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u1fb3, \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1.\n\n\n[9] A similar case is another obstetrical work, the compilation of practical obstetrical knowledge entitled De superfetatione (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2). Also here the title is taken from the subject matter of the first chapter, whereas the text deals with several topics.\n\n\n[10] V and other manuscripts have the variant \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\n[11] A shortened form in nominative (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5) is found in V.\n\n\n[12] For a list of these manuscripts, see LITTR\u00c9 1853, 512 ad l. and ID. 1839, 511-39 for a description of the manuscript tradition of the Corpus Hippocraticum.\n\n\n[13] In this manuscript the text appeared once on fol. 297r-298r (MI) and once on lost leaves originally situated between the leaves now numbered 408 and 409 (MII). The last one may be reconstructed from a copy in the manuscript Parisinus Graecus 2140 (III) made before MII was lost in the XIV century, cf. POTTER 2010, IX and 367.\n\n\n[14] See e.g. the general statement introducing the first section in Hp. Judic. 1,1-2 (IX 276,1-2 L.) \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f05\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b3\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, where \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af is deleted by some editors (cf. POTTER 2010, 277 n. 1); Morb. III 1,1 (VII 118,1 L.) \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9; Morb. Sacr. 1,1 (VI 352,1 L.) \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f67\u03b4' \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9; Nat. mul. 1,1 (VII 312,1 L.) \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9. In some of these cases (Judic. 1,1 [IX 276,1 L.], Morb. Sacr. 1,1 [VI 352,1 L.], Nat. mul. 1,1 [VII 312,1 L.]) the same construction \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af + noun in genitive is used in the title of the treatise.\n\n\n[15] On this aspect of the cult of Zeus Lykaios, see for example LARSON 2007, 17-8.\n\n\n[16] \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 occurs as a variant in the manuscript tradition, cf. ThGL IV 70B.\n\n"},{"@type":"D.  BIBLIOGRAPHY","@lang":"en","@value":"1. Lexicon entries\n\/\n\u00a0\n2. Secondary literature \nLEITH 2009b, 64"},{"@type":"E.  CPGM reference(s)","@lang":"en","@value":"P.Oxy. LXXIV 4972,16-7 \u2013 SoSOL 2015 476"},{"@type":"AUTHOR","@lang":"en","@value":"Isabella Bonati, Carlos Hern\u00e1ndez Garc\u00e9s"}]}