This paper presents the results of a reexamination of Column V verse 8 of the British Museum Papyrus 134 (Hypereides against Philippides). On the basis of the seemingly unquestioned previous readings (Kenyon, Blass, Jensen) there has developed a more than one-hundred-years-long debate on the dating of the speech in question. But the crucial word, the starting point of the different interpretations (ύπείληφας) cannot be read as it was. All we can see is: [[o]]†προσφας†. By considering some possible emendations any reconstructed verbum finitum is likely to be in the past tense, which determines the questioned date of origin, i.e. post mortem Philippi.
A passage in Diogenes Laertius (VII 150–151) is of considerable importance for the reconstruction of Chrysippus’ physics; but the text is corrupt. This note proposes three emendations, each of them palaeographically simple, which together produce a satisfactory sense.
It is widely accepted that the former emendation of chapter 27 of the lex Salpensana concerning the intercessio of the quaestors is superfluous in the light of the same chapter of the lex Irnitana. But the explanations of the commentaries about this lack are wrong and the text itself shows that the quaestors originally had the ius intercedendi. Additionally, its accidental omission in all three copies can be easily explained. Therefore, the emendation is correct.
This article presents eighteen glosses and emendations borrowed from Turkic dialects into the Slavonic-Russian Pentateuch edited according to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (in manuscripts from the 15th–16th centuries). The first group of these words — including proper names — has Arabic or Persian origins; they came into East Slavonic with obvious Turkic mediation (Skandryja ‘Alexandria’, Bagadad ‘Baghdad’, Misurʹ ‘Egypt’, Šam ‘Damascus’, Isup ‘Joseph’, sturlabʹ ‘astrolabe’, soltan ‘sultan’, olmas ‘diamond’, ambar ‘ambergris’, and brynec ‘rice’). The second group is proper Turkic: saigak ‘saiga antelope’, ošak ‘donkey’, katyrʹ ‘mule’, kirpič ‘brick’, talmač ‘interpreter’, čalma ‘turban’, and saranča ‘locust’. The author agrees with the hypothesis that this glossing/emendation was made for the East Slavonic Judaizers. Furthermore, the author suggests that there was participation of a group of merchants interested in a new and mysterious knowledge promulgated by learned rabbis.
When seeking for the possible emendation of the errors in a map based on Ptolemy's co-ordinates, we have to understand the measuring process of his sources first. Ptolemy possibly used the official formulae provinciae, which were created with the help of gromatic surveys carried out with due precision, but the author had to deal with different formulae, in Pannonia possibly four, which were not consistent with one another. Carefully examining the actual deviations, we can restore the ways and the starting-points of the surveys, and so the methods of eliminating the inconsistencies can be identified.