An Alleged Paraphrase of Babrius Vaio, John Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1970; 11, 1; ProQuest pg. 49

An Alleged Paraphrase of Babrius 
John Vaio 

A SMALL SCRAP of papyrus owned by A. M. Hakkert (PHak. 1, 
see PLATE 1) has recently been published by P. J. Sijpesteijn.1 

The editor assigns the fragment to the third century after 
Christ, citing Schubart, Griechische Palaeographie, Abb. 90. PHak. 1, 
however, is closer in style to Abb. 80 and appears to belong rather to 
the middle or even first half of the second century after Christ.2 A 
diplomatic transcription follows.3 

1 J ... [ J.[ 
2 ]v'\OL7Tov[ 
3 ]V7"OOlP[ 
4 ]wava,81J!'[ 
5 ] ~ayr}V7Jv . [ 
6 ]p,cf>wV7Jca[ 
7 ]f.LaV7"o[ 
8 ].[4 

The editor restores: 7"o]v '\OL7TOV (2),7"0 oifi[ ov (3), and ava,8fjv [a£ (4). 
Three hypotheses are offered concerning the identity of our frag­

ment. (1) Lines 3ff are a version of the "famous fable of the flute­
playing fisherman."5 (2) This version is based on Babrius 9. (3) Lines 
1-2 paraphrase the end of Babrius 8. 

1 Studia Papyrologica 6 (1967) 8-10. 
2 The revised date was suggested to me by Professor W. H. Willis. 
3 The transcription is based on the photograph at PLATE 1 opposite. My thanks are due to 

Mr A. M. Hakkert for generously providing this excellent photograph. 
4 The following are divergences from Sijpesteijn's report. Line 1: lambda cannot be read. 

Line 4: the final nu, not the eta, might be dotted. Line 5: no accent appears over the first 
eta, but there is a trace of a letter after the final nu. Line 6: I can offer no explanation for the 
apparent bar over the mu. Sigma and alpha should be printed without dots. Line 7: a dotted 
mu rather than a dotted pi should be read before alpha. Line 8: a trace of ink appears under 
tau (7). 

5 B. E. Perry, Aesopica I (Urbana 1952) fable 11 (p.326) (henceforth: Aes. l1)=Aesop fab. 
11 Hsr (CFAes 1.17)=fab. 24 Ch (1.73f). Other versions of this fable in Greek are: Hdt. 
1.141.1-2, Babrius 9, Aphth. 33 (CFAes 2.148), and the "Aesopic" versions of the Vindo­
bonensis and the Accursiana (CFAes 1.17f). 

4+ G•R •B•S• 49 



50 AN ALLEGED PARAPHRASE OF BABRIUS 

These hypotheses merit examination since, if they are sound, PHak. 
1 becomes a document of considerable importance. For we would 
then have a second-century version of Aes. 11 different from any 
known version, testimony for the date of Babrius earlier than POxy. 
1249,6 evidence for an ancient paraphrase ofBabrius independent of the 
later paraphrastic tradition,' and proof that the order of fables in the 
tenth-century Athoan Ms. coincides at least in part with that of an 
early collection of Babrian fables. 8 

Sijpesteijn's only argument for his first hypothesis follows: 
« ... looking at the sequence of the words 'TO ()ifov. avaf3fjvcu and cay~VYJv 
one is immediately reminded of the famous fable of the flute-playing 
fisherman." He never explains precisely what this «sequence" is, nor 
does he assign a meaning to avaf3fjvat. In a context concerning haleutika 
the verb would most naturally mean 'to go on board [a boatJ'.9 But 
no version of Aes. 11 refers in any way to 'going on board'. The Augus­
tana in fact explicitly sets our fisherman on land. Thus the natural 
meaning of avaf3aivw here militates against Sijpesteijn's identification. 
To support his suggestion he must take avaf3fjvat to refer to the fish's 
coming out of the sea. For the only sequence that would apply is: the 
fisherman hopes that the fish will come out of the sea to the sound of his 
flute; his music fails, and he resorts to his net. Now although avaf3alvw 
can have this meaning,lO there is nothing in our fragment to rule out 
the possibility that it means 'to board'.u Moreover, the vocabulary of 
lines 3 and 5 is altogether common in any passage concerning haleutika, 
so the «sequence" in 3-5 cannot be held to support identification with 
Aes. 11. 

6 On the Significance of this fragment for the date of Babrius see Grenfell-Hunt, POxy. 
10.1249 (pp.133ff); and B. E. Perry, Babrius and Phaedrus (Cambridge [Mass.] and London 
1965) xlviii. 

7 Sijpesteijn oddly underestimates the value of a paraphrase of Babrius containing 
fables 8 and 9. "This is nothing exceptional because we know many prose paraphrases of 
the fables of Babrius ... " But none of these contains either fable 8 or fable 9. For a general 
account of these paraphrases see A. Chambry, Aesopi fabulae I (Paris 1925) 17-19, and 
Perry op.cit. (supra n.5) 299f. 

8 Such coincidence is nowhere else attested in pre-Athoan witnesses for the text of 
Babrius. For details see Grenfell-Hunt, loc.cit. (supra n.6); PAmh. 2.26 (pp.26ff); and D. C. 
Hesseling, ]HS 13 (1892/93) 293ff. On the Athoan (the principal Ms. of Babrius) see esp. 
w. G. Rutherford, Babrius (London 1883) lxvii ff. 

II LSj s.v. A.n.I. 
10 NT, Matt. 17.27. See also Blass-Debrunner-Funk, p.165. 
11 Note too that the editor obscures his interpretation of &vaf3-qvw. by restoring exempli 

gratia J),7Tlcac ~e",]v in line 3. 



JOHN VAID 51 

Is it possible then to find in Jj.L<pwV7]ca[ (6) evidence for Sijpesteijn's 
view? He comments: "In line 5 some form of the aorist participle of 
the verb cVPcPWV€'iv (possibly acvpcPwv€'iv) should be read. I suppose that 
the fisherman speaks to the fish that do not show a reaction in har­
mony with their present situation (perhaps it is better to suppose that 
the fisherman abuses the fish who now are dancing although they did 
not respond before. After all an aorist participle has been used)." 

Against Sijpesteijn the following may be noted. In a context in­
volving a musical performance, cVPcPWV€'iv would naturally mean 'to 

sound together'.1 2 To use it even metaphorically offish that refuse to 
dance to the fisherman's tune is exceedinglyawkwardP And since 
there is only one musician in our fable, cVPcPWV€LV cannot have its 
literal meaning. Moreover, the common meaning of the verb in 
Kaine and later prose ('to agree', 'to make an agreement') cannot be 
ruled out at line 6, for there is nothing elsewhere in the fragment to 
suggest a musical reference. 

As for acvPcPwV€LV, the verb is very rare and unlikely heret' and is 
in any case subject to the same objections as cvpcPWV€'iv. Finally, 
eJpcPwV7]ca [, which offers no support for Sijpesteijn's hypothesis, may 
be restored at line 6.15 In sum, the preserved text of PHak. 1 offers 
evidence too uncertain to permit identification with Aes. II. 

The editor's second and third hypotheses fall with his first, but it is 
well to consider the arguments on which they are based. He examines 
three versions of the fable, those of Herodotus (1.141), Babrius, and 
the Augustana. "Aesop and Herodotus use the word LXOVC [sic] instead 
of oi/Jov in their version, the former uses 'T<X O{KTva and the latter 
apcPlf3i1:TJCTPOV instead of cay~VTJ' "OI/Jov and cay~VYJ are used by Babrius. 
I think Babrius' version of the fable has been paraphrased ... " 
Against this argument we may note that other collections of Aesopic 
fables existed in imperial times.16 Second, oi/Jov is a conjecture of the 
editor. For all we know, ol/JapLOv or oi/Joc may have been the form at 

12 LS) s. v. 1. 

13 To maintain the editor's first hypothesis one would have to restore along the follow­
ing lines: avAw]fL <pwvfjc &[KOVwTu/-caVTu or perhaps avAw]fL <pwJJfj<&> ca[Y1/VEV£tV. 

14 LS), Stephanus-Dindorf TGL, and Sophocles Lex. offer only one instance, Plotinus 
1.1.12. 

IS Lampe, Stephanus-Dindorf, and Sophocles (s.v. JfL<pwvlw) cite three passages from 
Patristic writers. One of these (Clem. AI. Paed. 1.5) is in fact a paraphrase of Biblical haleutika 
(NT,John 2l.1ff). Unfortunately PHak. 1 can be identified with neither passage. 

16 See Perry, op.cit. (supra n.6) xiii ff. 



52 AN ALLEGED PARAPHRASE OF BABRIUS 

PHak. 1.3. Third, ol/Jov (vel sim.) and cayrJJI1} are common enough in 
such a context that nothing may be inferred from them as to author­
ship. Thus even if the first hypothesis could be accepted, Babrian origin 
would remain wholly uncertain. 

The third hypothesis is even less plausible. In the Athoan Ms. of 
Babrius, fable 9 is preceded by the fable about the Arab and his camel 
(= Aes. 287). When asked whether he chooses to go upwards or down­
wards, the latter asks in turn, ~ yap op()~ T<lJV o8wv a,7TEKAELC()1J; Accord­
ing to Sijpesteijn, "with AOL7Tck the remaining possibility could be 
expressed." But how could this be done with what is presumably the 
masculine gender (TO]V AOL7TOV D? Furthermore, to assume without 
convincing and independent evidence that the order of fables in the 
Athoan is reflected in a second (or third) century paraphrase goes con­
siderably beyond what little we know about the text of Babrius in 
this period.17 

In conclusion, the available evidence is too uncertain to support the 
identification of PHak. 1.3-7 as a version of Aes. 11. Even less will it 
permit us to accept the view that this fragment paraphrases Babrius 
8 and 9. Thus no argument regarding the date of Babrius or the 
textual history either of his fables or of the Aesopic collections can be 
based on PHak. 1. 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY and 
THE CENTER FOR HELLENIC STUDIES, WASHINGTON 

February, 1970 

17 See especially the discussions of POxy. 10.1249 and PAmh. 2.26 cited in n.S. Perry, 
op.cit. (supra n.6) lviii with n.1, suggests that the selection and arrangement of the fables 
in the Athoan (A) can be traced back to "an ancient edition of Babrian fables ... which 
antedates the fourth century." His evidence, however, is only that variants are shared by A, 
PAmh. 2.26, and two mediaeval Mss. (G and B) at 3.1-3 and 11.7. Such coincidence may be 
held to prove these variants ancient but tells us nothing about the antiquity of the selection 
and order of the fables in A.