Preface VII

Table of Papyri XI

Concordances XII

List of Contributors XIII

List of Plates XIV

Numbers and Plates XV

Abbreviations XVII

I. Homer and Homerica (1-8) 1

II. Miscellaneous Verse Texts (9-13) 67

III. Miscellaneous Prose Texts (14-20) 105

Indexes 193

Plates 199

This volume collects Greek and Latin literary papyri, all of them previously unpublished except for 3 and 16. They are housed in several collections. By far the largest group belongs to the Bodleian Library, Oxford. The Library’s acquisitions of papyri began in 1810, when four carbonized rolls from Herculaneum were presented by the Prince of Wales (later to become King George IV), and lasted until 1935, when Lucy E. Hunt, the widow of Arthur S. Hunt, donated her husband’s collection to the Library. The history of the Bodleian Library papyrus collection was briefly described by R.W. Hunt in a short essay written for the catalogue of an exhibition organized for the XIV International Congress of Papyrologists (Oxford, 24-31 July 1974),1 and also by R.P. Salomons in P.Bodl. I (1996), pp. VII-IX. A clear picture of the Library’s acquisitions can be gleaned from the monumental volumes of the Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, which were compiled by F. Madan and H.H.E. Craster from the end of the nineteenth century to the first decades of the twentieth.

Three of the artifacts are kept in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence. They are part of a group of papyri which Girolamo Vitelli purchased in Cairo since his first visit to Egypt in 1903; they represent the core material of the ‘Papiri Laurenziani’ on which Professor Rosario Pintaudi has for several decades worked. On the origin of the Florentine collection the reader may consult the documentation published by Pintaudi, I Papiri Laurenziani.

This volume also includes fragments housed in the Bibliothèque de Genève, in Columbia University, New York, and in the Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo.

The variety of the institutions holding the papyri is matched by the rich diversity of contents, book formats, and scripts.

The first section of the volume focuses on Homer and Homerica. It comprises fragmentary texts illustrating some aspects of the reception of the Ilias and the Odyssey in Egypt over the centuries. There are fragments of the poems: 1 comes from Il. 4, 2 and 3 from Od. 17, a book relatively underrepresented among the published papyri from Egypt. There are also examples of the ‘textual tools’ used in antiquity to learn and elucidate the Homeric poems: a commentary (4), some glossaries (5-7), and a writing exercise (8). They once more underscore the pervasive presence of Homer in ancient education.

The second section collects fragments of verse texts. It includes hexameters, both early and late (9-10), composed in different centuries and on different subjects, although they might be fragments of poems dealing with the Theban saga, or with Theban characters. There is a lyric fragment in which episodes of the Odyssean nekyia are set in a different metre and language (11); it is an additional fragment of a roll to which previously published fragments in London and Heidelberg belong. There is also a fragmentary anthology containing iambic trimeters from a lost tragedy as well as a number of passages from Philemon (12). Finally, we publish some fragmentary verses, possibly from an Attic (old) comedy (13).

The third section contains prose. It opens with a parchment leaf carrying the remains of a lost historical work on the second Athenian expedition to Sicily (14); the text has much in common with what is known of Philistus’ Sikelika. Then our attention turns to philosophy and erudition. There is an early Ptolemaic papyrus containing a set of explanatory notes on Plato’s Phaedo (15), joining previously published fragments in Heidelberg and Munich. Then we publish a short fragment of a Latin grammatical treatise in which rhetorical figures are explained (16). Finally, the volume offers editions of texts relating to yet another aspect of Graeco-Roman culture in Egypt, viz. fascination for oracular practices and astrology. One of the texts is a parchment bifolium with parts of an elaborate work used for lot divination, an early version of the Byzantine Rhiktologion (17). Another text contains an astronomic table related to the idea of the anthropomorphic quality of zodiacal constellations (18). Two more fragments come from treatises on medical astrology (19-20), in which the study of astral movements was used for understanding illnesses, or for predicting the outcomes of clinical disorders.

The manuscripts carrying these multifarious texts come from a wide geographical area in the Egyptian chora, including the Fayum, Al-Hibah, Hermopolis, Deir el-Bahari, and the monastery of Bala’izah, not far from Asyut. They range in date from the early Ptolemaic period to Late Antiquity – a large part of the ‘papyrological millennium’.

This collection of texts therefore represents a good example of the ‘textual treasure’ still awaiting publication, and of the contribution which the study of papyri offers to the reconstruction of our literary heritage.

* * *

Some of the texts published in this volume were studied over several years, but their final editions were prepared within the framework of the Italian PRIN Project “Greek and Latin Literary Papyri from Graeco-Roman and Late Antique Fayum: Texts, Contexts, Readers”, directed by Lucio Del Corso. Other texts, namely 1, 4, 6, 10, and 18-20, were edited by Professors A. Benaissa, N. Gonis, R. Hatzilambrou, and Dr M. Zellmann-Rohrer; we thank them all most warmly for contributing to this book.

There are other debts to record. Special gratitude is due, first and foremost, to the institutions which granted permission to publish new material, and provided excellent photographs, allowing them to be reproduced here, both in print and in open online access. In particular, we are grateful to Dr B. Barker-Benfield and Dr P. Toth, Bodleian Library, Oxford University; Dr I.G. Rao, Dr A.R. Fantoni, and Dr F. Gallori, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana; Dr E. Runde, Columbia University; Dr P. Hochuli Dubuis, Bibliothèque de Genève; Mr A. Essam and Dr C. Larcher, Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Professor G. Cavallo supported our project from inception. Several friends and colleagues also provided assistance and advice in many ways: in particular, we warmly thank Professors A. Benaissa, E. Esposito, N. Gonis, L. Lulli, A. Stramaglia, Dr R. Carlesimo and Dr R. Villa. Two anonymous reviewers for FUP most kindly undertook the laborious task of reading the whole manuscript, and made a number of valuable comments and suggestions, for which we are grateful. Furthermore, we are indebted to Professor F. Maltomini, editor of the Edizioni dell’Istituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli’, for publishing our book in this series.

And, last but not least, we wish to remember the late Professor John Lundon, a good friend, a kind person, and a learned colleague who long ago spent time and effort studying the Bodleian papyri. This book is a tribute to his memory.

Lucio Del Corso

Raffaele Luiselli

AB Amin Benaissa

LDC Lucio Del Corso

NG Nikolaos Gonis

RH Rosalia Hatzilambrou

RL Raffaele Luiselli

MZ-R Michael Zellmann-Rohrer

I. 1

II. 2

III. 3

IV. 4

V. 5

VI. 6

VII. 7

VIII. 8

IX. 9

X. 10

XI. 11

XII. 12

XIII. 13

XIV. 14

XV. 15

XVI. 16

XVII. 17

XVIII. 18

XIX. 19

XX. 20

XXI. Par. gr. 2510, f. 94v

XXII. Par. gr. 2091, f. 5v

XXIII. Par. gr. 2510, f. 97r 

XXIV. Barocc. 111, f. 205v

XXV. Par. gr. 2091, f. 1r

1 I

2 II

3 III

4 IV

5 V

6 VI

7 VII

8 VIII

9 IX

10 X

11 XI

12 XII

13 XIII

14 XIV

15 XV

16 XVI

17 XVII

18 XVIII

19 XIX

20 XX

Barocc. 111, f. 205v XXIV

Par. gr. 2091, f. 1r XXV

Par. gr. 2091, f. 5v XXII

Par. gr. 2510, f. 97r XXIII

Par. gr. 2510, f. 94v XXI 

The editorial conventions adopted in this book follow those used in the Edizioni dell’Istituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli’. Thus, Greek authors and titles are cited by the abbreviations listed in the GI and GE dictionaries, though some of them have been slightly adapted for the sake of clarity. The abbreviations of Latin authors and texts conform to TLL (https://thesaurus.badw.de/tll-digital/index/a.html, last access July 2024).

The abbreviations for papyrus publications, papyrological journals, and papyrological instrumenta (including grammars and collections of facsimiles) are cited according to the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets (available online at https://papyri.info/docs/checklist, last access July 2024), and will not be repeated below (a very few exceptions have been admitted). The abbreviations for non-papyrological journals are identical with those in L’Année philologique and in P. Rosumek (ed.), Index des périodiques […] et index de leurs sigles, Paris 1982 (Suppl. à L’Année philologique LI).

Modern works cited more than once, as well as some cited only once, are abbreviated according to the following list:

ALG II2 = E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, II2, Leipzig 1942.

Bastianini, PSI XIII 1364 = G. Bastianini, PSI XIII 1364, hermeneiai al Vangelo di Giovanni, in P. Davoli - N. Pellé (edd.), Πολυμάθεια. Studi classici offerti a Mario Capasso, Lecce 2018, pp. 125-138.

Bataille, Memnonia = A. Bataille, Les Memnonia. Recherches de papyrologie et d’épigraphie grecques sur la nécropole de la Thèbes d’Égypte aux époques hellénistique et romaine, Le Caire 1952 (Publications de l’IFAO, Recherches d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire XXIII).

Bearzot, Filisto = C. Bearzot, Filisto di Siracusa, in R. Vattuone (ed.), Storici greci d’Occidente, Bologna 2002, pp. 91-136.

Bibliothèque de Genève, Catalogue = Bibliothèque de Genève. Catalogue des manuscrits – Papyrus de la Bibliothèque de Genève, Genève 2023, online, URL: https://archives.bge-geneve.ch/archive/fonds/papyrus [last access July 2024].

Bilabel, Neue Funde = F. Bilabel, Neue literarische Funde in der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung, in Actes du Ve Congrès international de Papyrologie. Oxford, 30 août - 3 septembre 1937, Bruxelles 1938, pp. 72-84.

BNJ = I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby online, URL: scholarlyeditions.brill.com/bnjo/.

Burkert, Cults = W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, Cambridge (MA) - London 1987.

Buzi, Miscellanee e florilegi = P. Buzi, Miscellanee e florilegi. Osservazioni preliminari per uno studio dei codici copti pluritestuali: il caso delle raccolte di excerpta, in P. Buzi - A. Camplani (edd.), Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends. Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi, Roma 2011, pp. 177-203.

Buzi, Sentenze di Menandro = P. Buzi, Le Sentenze di Menandro e l’ambiente culturale greco-copto, in CPF II.2, pp. 271-286.

CAF III = Th. Kock (ed.), Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta, III, Lipsiae 1888.

Canart-Pintaudi, Oracles chrétiens = P. Canart - R. Pintaudi, PSI XVII Congr. 5: un système d’oracles chrétiens, ZPE 57 (1984), pp. 85-90.

Carlini, Dottrina = A. Carlini, La dottrina dell’anima-ἁρμονία in un papiro di Heidelberg, PP 30 (1975), pp. 373-381.

Catalogue of Western Manuscripts = A Catalogue of Western Manuscripts at the Bodleian Libraries and Selected Oxford Colleges, online, URL: medieval. bodleian.ox.ac.uk/ [last access July 2024].

Cavallo, Calamo = G. Cavallo, Il calamo e il papiro. La scrittura greca dall’età ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio, Firenze 2005 (Papyrologica Florentina XXXVI).

Cavallo, Scrittura = G. Cavallo, La scrittura greca e latina dei papiri. Una introduzione, Pisa - Roma 2008 (Studia erudita 8).

Cavallo - Maehler, HB = G. Cavallo - H. Maehler, Hellenistic Bookhands, Berlin - New York 2008.

CCAG = Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum, Bruxellis 1898-1953.

Chartes = Chartes, Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi, online, URL: chartes.it/ [last access July 2024].

Childers, Divinatory Bible = J.W. Childers, “You Will Find What You Seek:” The Form and Function of a Sixth-Century Divinatory Bible in Syriac, in L. Ingeborg - H. Lundhaug (edd.), Snapshots of Evolving Traditions. Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology, Berlin - Boston 2017 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 175), pp. 242-271.

Childers, Divining Gospel = J.W. Childers, Divining Gospel: Classifying Manuscripts of John Used in Sortilege, in L. Ingeborg - M. Maniaci (edd.), Bible as Notepad. Tracing Annotations and Annotation Practices in Late Antique and Medieval Biblical Manuscripts, Berlin - Boston 2018 (Manuscripta Biblica 3), pp. 66-84.

Clarysse, Greeks = W. Clarysse, Greeks in Ptolemaic Thebes, in S.P. Vleeming (ed.), Hundred-Gated Thebes. Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period, Leiden - New York - Köln 1995 (P. L. Bat. XXVII), pp. 1-19.

CLGP = G. Bastianini et al. (edd.), Commentaria et lexica Graeca in papyris reperta, Leipzig (Berlin - Boston) 2004–.

Coll.Mus.Louvre = Collections du Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités égyptiennes, online, URL: collections.louvre.fr [last access July 2024].

Colomo, Glossary = D. Colomo, Glossary to Odyssey VIII in a New Papyrus Fragment from the Leipzig Papyrus- und Ostrakasammlung, in M. Ercoles - L. Pagani - F. Pontani - G. Ucciardello (edd.), Approaches to Greek Poetry: Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Aeschylus in Ancient Exegesis, Berlin - Boston 2019 (TiC Suppl. 73), pp. 61-80.

Costanza, Corpus = S. Costanza, Corpus palmomanticum Graecum, Firenze 2009 (Papyrologica Florentina, 39).

CPF = Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini, Firenze 1989–.

CPG II = E.L. von Leutsch (ed.), Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, II, Gottingae 1851.

Cribiore, Writing = R. Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt, Atlanta 1996 (American Studies in Papyrology 36).

Criscuolo, Greci = L. Criscuolo, I Greci in Tebaide, in L. Gallo - B. Genito (edd.), «Grecità di frontiera». Frontiere geografiche e culturali nell’evidenza storica e archeologica. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Università degli Studi di Napoli «L’Orientale». Napoli, 5-6 giugno 2014, Alessandria 2017 (Studi di storia greca e romana 14), pp. 209-223.

Crum, Coptic Manuscripts = W.E. Crum, the Coptic Manuscripts, in W.M.F. Petrie, Gizeh and Rifeh, London 1907, pp. 39-43.

Delattre, L’oracle de Kollouthos = A. Delattre, L’oracle de Kollouthos à Antinoé. Nouvelles perspectives, SMSR 79 (2013), pp. 123-133.

Del Corso, Dalla Grecia arcaica all’età romana = L. Del Corso, Dalla Grecia arcaica all’età romana, in E. Crisci - P. Degni (edd.), La scrittura greca dall’antichità all’epoca della stampa. Una introduzione, Roma 2011, pp. 35-75.

Del Corso, Libro antico = L. Del Corso, Il libro nel mondo antico. Archeologia e storia (secoli VII a.C. – IV d.C.), Roma 2022.

Del Corso, Scrittura greca = L. Del Corso, La scrittura greca di età ellenistica nei papiri greco-egizi. Considerazioni preliminari, AnalPap 18-20 (2006-2008), pp. 207-267.

Del Corso, Scritture = L. Del Corso, Scritture “formali” e scritture “informali” nei volumina letterari da Al Hibah, Aegyptus 84 (2004), pp. 33-100.

Denniston, GP2 = J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, Oxford 19502.

Dorandi, Commentaire = T. Dorandi, Le commentaire dans la tradition papyrologique: quelques cas controversés, in M.-O. Goulet-Cazé (ed.), Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l’Institut des traditions textuelles (Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999), Paris 2000, pp. 15-27.

Drexl, Losbuch = F. Drexl, Ein griechisches Losbuch, ByzZ 41 (1941), pp. 311-318.

Dubischar, Typology = M. Dubischar, Typology of Philological Writings, in F. Montanari - S. Matthaios - A. Rengakos (edd.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, I, Leiden - Boston 2015, pp. 545-599.

Erbse, Schol. vet. = H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), I-V, Berolini 1969-1988.

FCG IV = A. Meineke (ed.), Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, IV, Berolini 1841.

FGE = D.L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams, Cambridge 1981.

FGrHist = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin - Leiden 1923-1959.

Filimon, Prediction Method = F. Filimon, The Prediction Method by Means of the Holy Gospel and the Psalter: A Late Byzantine Case of a Reassigned Geomantic Text, in P. Magdalino - A. Timotin (edd.), Savoirs prédictifs et techniques divinatoires de l’Antiquité tardive à Byzance, Seyssel 2019, pp. 235-301.

Fischer-Bovet, Army = C. Fischer-Bovet, Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt, Cambridge 2014.

Fontanella, Iliasglossare = V. Fontanella, Die Iliasglossare auf Papyrus. Untersuchungen zu einer Textkategorie, Paderborn 2023 (Papyrologica Coloniensia XLVII).

Gentili - Lomiento, Metrica = B. Gentili - L. Lomiento, Metrica e ritmica, [Milano] 2003.

GL V = D.A. Campbell, Greek Lyric, V: The New School of Poetry and Anonymous Songs and Hymns, Cambridge (MA) - London 1993 (Loeb Classical Library 144).

GMAW2 = E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 2nd ed. by P.J. Parsons, London 1987 (BICS Suppl. 46).

Grossmann, Ruinen = P. Grossmann, Ruinen des Klosters Dair al-Balaiza in Oberägypten. Eine Surveyaufnahme, JbAC 36 (1993), pp. 171-205.

Gundel - Gundel, Astrologumena = W. Gundel - H.G. Gundel, Astrologumena: Die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte, Wiesbaden 1966 (Sudhoffs Archiv, Beihefte 6).

GVI = W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften, I. Grab-Epigramme, Berlin 1955 (repr. Chicago 1988).

Hatzilambrou, Strabo = R. Hatzilambrou, A New Papyrus of Strabo’s Geographica (12.3.1), Pylon 2 (2022), https://doi.org/10.48631/pylon.2022.2.92971 [last access July 2024].

Heid.Pap.Dig. = Heidelberger Papyrussammlung - digital, online, URL: ub.uni-heidelberg.de/helios/digi/hd_papyrus.html [last access July 2024].

Heyne, Ilias = G.C. Heyne, Homeri Ilias, cum brevi annotatione, Oxonii 1834.

Hirschberger, Katalogos = M. Hirschberger, Gynaikōn Katalogos und Megalai Ēhoiai. Ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten zweier hesiodeischer Epen, München - Leipzig 2004 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 198).

Hordern, Timotheus = J.H. Hordern, The Fragments of Timotheus of Miletus, Oxford 2002.

Hornblower, Commentary = S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, III, Oxford 2008.

Houghton Library Pap. = Papyri at Houghton Library, online, URL: library.harvard.edu/collections/papyri-houghton-library.

Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes = W.A. Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Toronto - Buffalo - London 2004.

Kahle, Bala’izah = P.E. Kahle, Bala’izah. Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt, London 1954.

Keyes, Fragments of Homer = C.W. Keyes, Two Papyrus Fragments of Homer, AJPh 4 (1929), pp. 386-389.

Klingshirn, Divination = W.E. Klingshirn, Divination and the Disciplines of Knowledge according to Augustine, in K. Pollmann - M. Vessey (edd.), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, Oxford 2005.

Kovarik - Zellmann-Rohrer, Two Letters = S. Kovarik - M. Zellmann-Rohrer, The Lady, the Radish Oil, and the Bishop: Two Letters from the Bodleian Library, Pylon 4 (2023), https://doi.org/10.48631/pylon.2023.4.101699 [last access July 2024].

Kühner - Gerth, Grammatik = R. Kühner - B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, I-II, Hannover - Leipzig 18983.

Łajtar, Deir el-Bahari = A. Łajtar, Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods: A Study of an Egyptian Temple Based on Greek Sources, Warszawa 2006 (JJP Suppl. IV).

LSSE = G. Cavallo, Libri, scritture e scribi a Ercolano, Napoli 1983 (CErc 13/1983, primo supplemento).

Lucchesi, Les recensions = E. Lucchesi, Les recensions sahidique et bohaïriques d’une prière attribuée à Sévère d’Antioche, Aegyptus 90 (2010), pp. 119-142.

Luijendijk, Forbidden Oracles = AM. Luijendijk, Forbidden Oracles? The Gospel of the Lots of Mary, Tübingen 2014 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum / Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 89).

Luijendijk - Klingshirn, Lot Divination = AM. Luijendijk - W.E. Klingshirn, The Literature of Lot Divination, in AM. Luijendijk - W.E. Klingshirn (edd.), My Lots are in Thy Hands: Sortilege and its Practitioners in Late Antiquity, Leiden - Boston 2019 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 188), pp. 19-59.

Lundon, The Scholia Minora = J. Lundon, The Scholia Minora in Homerum. An Alphabetical List, Leuven 2012 (Trismegistos Online Publications 7).

McNamee, Annotations = K. McNamee, Annotations in Greek and Latin Texts from Egypt, Chippenham 2007 (American Studies in Papyrology 45).

McNamee, Sigla = K. McNamee, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri, Bruxelles 1992 (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 26).

Minutoli, Protovangelo = D. Minutoli, Il protovangelo di Giacomo e l’Apocalisse di Elia in un codice miscellaneo da Hermoupolis (PSI I 6 + PSI I 7), S&T 14 (2016), pp. 75-98.

Montana, Greek Scholiastic Corpora = F. Montana, The Making of Greek Scholiastic Corpora, in F. Montanari - L. Pagani (edd.), From Scholars to Scholia. Chapters in the History of Ancient Greek Scholarship, Berlin - New York 2011 (TiC Suppl. 9), pp. 105-161.

Morpurgo Davies, The Greek Notion of Dialect = A. Morpurgo Davies, The Greek Notion of Dialect, Verbum 10 (1987), pp. 7-27, repr. in Th. Harrison (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh 2002, pp. 153-171.

Nenci, Erodoto = G. Nenci (ed.), Erodoto, Le storie, libro V, Verona 1994.

Neugebauer, Melothesia = O. Neugebauer, Melothesia and Dodecatemoria, OA 3 (1959), pp. 270-275.

Nicole, Les scolies genevoises = J. Nicole, Les scolies genevoises de l’Iliade, I-II, Genève 1891.

Nocchi Macedo, Textes sur les signes = G. Nocchi Macedo, Textes sur les signes: les sources latine, in G. Nocchi Macedo - M.C. Scappaticcio (edd.), Signes dans les textes, textes sur les signes. Actes du colloque international. Liège, 6-7 septembre 2013, Liège 2017, pp. 203-228.

Oxyrhynchus Papyri Online = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, website, URL: https://oxyrhynchus.web.ox.ac.uk/ [last access July 2024].

Ozbek, Riedizione = L. Ozbek, Per una riedizione e una nuova analisi testuale di PSI 1283 (Filisto, Περὶ Ϲικελίαϲ), RAL s. 9, 19 (2008), pp. 599-622.

PCG = R. Kassel - C. Austin - S. Schröder (edd.), Poetae Comici Graeci, Berolini - Novi Eboraci 1983 –.

Perale, APHex I = M. Perale, Adespota papyracea hexametra Graeca. Hexameters of Unknown or Uncertain Authorship from Graeco-Roman Egypt, I, Berlin - Boston 2020 (Sozomena 18).

Pfeiffer, History = R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford 1968.

Pintaudi, I Papiri Laurenziani = R. Pintaudi, Per una storia della papirologia in Italia: i Papiri Laurenziani (PLaur), in R. Pintaudi (ed.), Miscellanea Papyrologica, Firenze 1980 (Papyrologica Florentina VII), pp. 391-409.

PMG = D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford 1962.

Pordomingo, Antologías = F. Pordomingo, Antologías de época helenística en papiro, Firenze 2013 (Papyrologica Florentina XLIII).

Pordomingo, Scriptio plena vs. élision = F. Pordomingo, Scriptio plena vs. élision dans les papyrus littéraires: les papyrus ptolémaïques avec des textes poétiques, in Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology. Warsaw, 29 July - 3 August 2013, II, Warsaw 2016 (JJP Suppl. XXVIII), pp. 1113-1135.

Prodi, Guests = E.E. Prodi, Polycrates’ Guests: Extraneous Text and Ancient Conservation on P.Oxy. 1790, S&T 17 (2019), pp. 1-14.

PSI online = URL: https://psi-online.it [last access July 2024].

Russo, Odissea = Odissea, vol. V (Libri XVII-XX). Introduzione, testo e commento a cura di J. Russo. Traduzione di G. Aurelio Privitera, Milano 1985.

Sampson, The David G. Hogarth Papyri = C.M. Sampson, The David G. Hogarth Papyri, Pylon 2 (2022), https://doi.org/10.48631/pylon.2022.2.92971 [last access July 2024].

Scappaticcio, Artes = M.C. Scappaticcio, Artes Grammaticae in frammenti. I testi grammaticali latini e bilingui greco-latini su papiro. Edizione commentata, Berlin - Boston 2015 (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 17).

Schironi, Mega Biblion = F. Schironi, ΤΟ ΜΕΓΑ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ. Book-Ends, End-Titles, and Coronides in Papyri with Hexametric Poetry, Durham (NC) 2010 (American Studies in Papyrology 48).

Schironi, Tautologies = F. Schironi, Tautologies and Transpositions: Aristarchus’ Less Known Critical Signs, GRBS 57 (2017), pp. 607-630.

Schubart, Griechische Palaeographie = W. Schubart, Griechische Palaeographie, München 1925 (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft I.4.1).

Schwartz, Papyrus homériques = J. Schwartz, Papyrus homériques, BIFAO 46 (1947), pp. 29-71.

Sedley, Phaedo = D. Sedley, Plato’s «Phaedo» in the Third Century B.C., in M.S. Funghi (ed.), ΟΔΟΙ ΔΙΖΗϹΙΟϹ. Le vie della ricerca. Studi in onore di Francesco Adorno, Firenze 1996, pp. 447-455.

SH = H. Lloyd-Jones - P. Parsons (edd.), Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berolini - Novi Eboraci 1983 (Texte und Kommentare 11).

SLG = D.L. Page, Supplementum Lyricis Graecis, Oxford 1974.

Smyth, Ionic = H.W. Smyth, The Sounds and Inflections of the Greek Dialects: Ionic, Oxford 1894.

Spooner, Nine Homeric Papyri = J. Spooner, Nine Homeric Papyri from Oxyrhynchos, Firenze 2002 (Studi e Testi di Papirologia n.s. 1).

Summary Catalogue VI = F. Madan - H.H.E. Craster, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, VI, Oxford 1924.

Tagliapietra, Scholia Minora = L. Tagliapietra, Scholia Minora to Iliad 2.212-225 and 272-295, BASP 54 (2017), pp. 9-30.

Threatte, Grammar = L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I-II, Berlin 1980-1996.

Trapp, Lexicon = E. Trapp (ed.), Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität besonders des 9.-12. Jahrhunderts, I-VIII, Wien 2001-2017 (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik VI).

TrGF = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, edd. B. Snell – R. Kannicht – S. Radt, Göttingen 1971 –.

Turner, Bookhands = E.G. Turner, Ptolemaic Bookhands and Lille Stesichorus, S&C 4 (1980), pp. 19-40.

Turner, Typology = E.G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex, University of Pennsylvania 1977.

Vandorpe, City = K. Vandorpe, City of Many a Gate, Harbour for Many a Rebel: Historical and Topographical Outline of Greco-Roman Thebes, in S.P. Vleeming (ed.), Hundred-Gated Thebes. Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period, Leiden - New York - Köln 1995 (P. L. Bat. XXVII), pp. 203-239.

van Haelst = J. van Haelst, Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens, Paris 1976 (Université de Paris IV Paris-Sorbonne, Série “Papyrologie” 1).

van Thiel, Scholia D = H. van Thiel, Scholia D in Iliadem, proecdosis aucta et correctior, Köln 2014 (Elektronische Schriftenreihe der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek 7).

Veïsse, Révoltes = A.-E. Veïsse, Les «Révoltes égyptiennes». Recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolémée III à la conquête romaine, Leuven 2004 (Studia Hellenistica 41).

Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents = A. Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism, Stockholm 1960.

Wee, Virtual Moons = J.Z. Wee, Virtual Moons over Babylonia: The Calendar Text System, Its Micro-Zodiac of 13, and the Making of Medical Zodiology, in J.M. Steele (ed.), The Circulation of Astronomical Knowledge in the Ancient World, Leiden 2015 (Time, Astronomy, and Calendars 6).

M.L. West, Greek Metre = M.L. West, Greek Metre, Oxford 1982.

M.L. West, Ilias = M.L. West, Homerus, Ilias, Stutgardiae - Lipsiae 1998.

M.L. West, Odyssea = M.L. West, Homeri Odyssea, Berlin - Boston 2017.

M.L. West, Studies = M.L. West, Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Berlin - New York 1974 (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 14).

S. West, Ptolemaic Papyri = S. West (ed.), The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer, Wiesbaden 1967 (Papyrologica Coloniensia III).

Wilcken, Fragment = U. Wilcken, Ein Fragment aus der älteren Akademie (?), APF 1 (1901), pp. 475-479.

Wilkinson, Hermeneiai = K. Wilkinson, Hermeneiai in Manuscripts of John’s Gospel: An Aid to Bibliomancy, in AM. Luijendijk - W.E. Klingshirn (ed.), My Lots are in Thy Hands: Sortilege and its Practitioners in Late Antiquity, Leiden - Boston 2019 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 188), pp. 101-123.

Wyttenbach, Animadversiones = D. Wyttenbach, Animadversiones in Plutarchi librum De virtute et vitio, in Id. (ed.), Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, id est opera, exceptis vitis, reliqua, VI.2, Oxonii 1810, pp. 685-693.

Zimmermann, Dithyrambos = B. Zimmermann, Dithyrambos: Geschichte einer Gattung, Göttingen 1992 (Hypomnemata 98).

(1-8)

Bodleian LibraryPl. I

MS. Gr. class. f. 110 (P) verso

Hermopolis? 13.4 x 13.1 cm 3rd cent. CE

This copy of Iliad Book 4 is written on the back of 4, a commentary on Iliad Book 1 dating from at least a century earlier. On its acquisition history and possible provenance, see 4 introd.

Parts of 17 lines are preserved, written against the fibres the same way up as the text on the front. They belong to the top left of a column, with an upper margin at least 1.9 cm deep and a wide blank space to the left measuring 4.8 cm at its greatest extent1. A gradual shift of the column to the left, known as ‘Maas’s Law’, is clearly observable2.

Since 70 lines are lost before the surviving column, one may surmise that two columns of 35 lines preceded. As 10 lines and the interlinear space beneath them are 6.7 cm high, 35 lines would have occupied a height of 23.5 cm, which would sit in the upper end of the range of column heights surveyed by Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes, pp. 119-125. Under this hypothetical reconstruction, the 544 lines of Book 4 will have taken up 16 columns. It is possible, however, that the roll held more than one book of the Iliad.

The hand is a medium-sized standard specimen of the Severe or Formal Mixed Style comparable to P.Oxy. I 23 and XVII 2098 = GLH 19b, both objectively datable to the third century on the basis of the documents on their backs. The letters, however, are unusually widely spaced, by up to 0.3 cm in places.

The only lectional sign in evidence is the diaeresis at 78 εικυϊ ηϊξε[ν] and 86 ϊκελ[η. Iota adscript is not written where we would expect it (76 ναυ̣τηϲι, 78 τω). Elision is regularly effected but not marked by apostrophe. There are two interlinear corrections at 75 and 80, but it is unclear whether they are due to the original scribe or a second hand.

The text has been collated with M.L. West, Ilias. The papyrus overlaps in part Π4 (MP3 697), Π69 (MP3 713), Π171 (MP3 712), Π371 (MP3 710-11), and Π950 (MP3 711.001). It presents five new variants, three of them careless mistakes (71, 76, 79), one with a superfluous final ν (72), and one uncertain but potentially valuable (75).

(margin)

[πε]ιραν δ ωϲπερ Τ[ρ]ωεϲ υπερ[κυδανταϲ Αχαιουϲ]

α̣ρξωϲιν προτε[ρ]οι υπερ ο[ρκια δηληϲαϲθαι]

[ω]ϲ ειπων ωτρυ[ν]ε παροϲ [μεμαυιαν Αθηνην]

βη δε κατ Ουλυμποιο καρ[ηνων αιξαϲα]

̣[ ]

75 οιον δ αϲτερα ·ε ̣[ ̣]ε Κρονο[υ παιϲ αγκυλομητεω]

η ναυ̣τηϲι τερα[ϲ] ηε̣ν̣ ϲτ[ρατω ευρει λαων]

λαμπρον του δ[ε] τε [πολλοι απο ϲπινθηρεϲ ιενται]

τω εικυϊ ηϊξε[ν] επ̣[ι χθονα Παλλαϲ Αθηνη]

καδ δ εθορ εν μ[εϲϲω θαμβοϲ δ εχεν ειϲοροωνταϲ]

80 Τρωαϲ θ ιπποδαμ[ουϲ και ευκνημιδαϲ Αχαιουϲ]

ωδε δε τιϲ̣ ειπε[ϲκεν ιδων εϲ πληϲιον αλλον]

η ρ αυτιϲ πολεμ[οϲ τε κακοϲ και φυλοπιϲ αινη]

εϲϲε̣ται η φιλοτ̣[ητα μετ αμφοτεροιϲι τιθηϲιν]

[Ζευϲ οϲ] τ̣ ανθρωπω[ν ταμιηϲ πολεμοιο τετυκται]

85 [ωϲ αρα τιϲ] ειπεϲ[κεν Αχαιων τε Τρωων τε]

[η δ ανδρι] ϊκελ[η Τρωων κατεδυϲεθ ομιλον]

[Λαοδοκω Α]ντη[νοριδη κρατερω αιχμητη]

– – – – –

71. ωϲπερ: a new reading for ὥϲ κε(ν) in the other manuscripts (for the movable-nu cf. M.L. West, Ilias, pp. xxv-xxvi). ὥϲπερ provides no sense and must have been the result of an absent-minded substitution of the original reading by the more familiar particle combination.

72. α̣ρξωϲιν: ἄρξωϲι Ω. The final ν was added by I. Bekker in his second edition of 1858, but it is unnecessary when a princeps is followed by a stop and liquid; see again M.L. West, Ilias, pp. xxv-xxvi.

75. αϲτερα ·ε ̣[ ̣]ε: ἀϲτέρα ἧκε Π4 t (= Sch. T Il. 17.547b) Z Ω: ἀϲτέρ’ ἕηκε Barnes (avoiding hiatus), an emendation approved by Bentley and adopted by Bekker in his edition of 1858. The initial epsilon was apparently deleted with expunction dots, only the left one of which is clearly visible (a punctuation stop would be unexpected at this point). There follows an addition above the line, a short upright with a horizontal join in the middle, then a shorter vertical trace level with the letter-tops. It is unclear whether the latter trace belongs to the interlinear addition or to the following letter on the line. Perhaps the papyrus initially had the perfect form ει̣[κ]ε (εἷκε), only found in compound verbs, and the scribe or a corrector restored the aorist ἧκε by deleting ει and adding η above the line. Alternatively, the papyrus’ original reading could correspond to Barnes’ emendation in an exemplar written in scriptio plena (αϲτεραεηκε). On the form ἕηκα (Il. 1.48), cf. P. Chantraine, Grammaire homérique. Tome I: Phonétique et morphologie, Paris 1948, p. 481, and E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik Bd. I, München 1939, p. 653. In that case, the interlinear trace may be simply a rough breathing in Turner’s form 1.

76. ηε̣ν̣: a new reading for ἠὲ in the rest of the manuscripts. Presumably ἢ ἐν ϲτρατῷ was meant, but the preposition is of course inappropriate with the simple dative of reference.

77. δ[ε] τε with Π4 and Ω: δὴ t (= Hsch., τ1199 Hansen - Cunningham).

78. εικυϊ with Π4 Ω: εἰκὼϲ t (= Epimerismi Homerici ι 70 Dyck): ἱκέλη Z (cf. l. 86). The diaeresis is strictly speaking incorrect, but it was a common scribal habit to add it to this diphthong; see Gignac, Gram., I, p. 205.

79. εθορ εν μ[εϲϲω: a new reading for ἔθορ’ ἐϲ μέϲϲον in the rest of the tradition, probably by recall of ἐν μέϲϲῳ in the same position at Il. 3.69, 90. Another, less likely possibility is that the scribe intended ἔθορεν μ[έϲϲον. The transitive use of καταθρῴϲκω is attested in Hdt., 6.134 καταθρῴϲκοντα δὲ τὴν αἱμαϲιήν, but its object there is the thing over which one jumps, not the goal of motion as here. ἐϲ μέϲϲον is otherwise commonly found with verbs of motion in Homer, e.g. Il. 3.77 ἐϲ μέϲϲον ἰών, 266 ἐϲ μέϲϲον … ἐϲτιχόωντο, etc. Od. 14.300 ἡ (sc. νηῦϲ) δ’ ἔθεεν … | μέϲϲον ὑπὲρ Κρήτηϲ, ‘the ship sped through the open sea beyond Crete’ (see A. Hoekstra ad loc.), is not comparable, since the accusative there denotes the space traversed; cf. P. Chantraine, Grammaire homérique. Tome II: Syntaxe, Paris 1953, p. 45.

Amin Benaissa

Bodleian LibraryPl. II

MS. Gr. class. e. 134 (P), fr. 2

? 2.5 x 13.2 cm 1st/2nd cent. CE

A tall and narrow papyrus strip, written along the fibres; the back is blank. It is glazed with other fragments: one (fr. 2) contains a glossary to Il. Book 2 and is included in this book as 6, while another (fr. 3) is the only Egyptian manuscript witness of Strabo, Book 12 (ed. in Hatzilambrou, Strabo). The fragments, which now share the same inventory number, once belonged to the private collection of A.S. Hunt and were donated to the Bodleian Library by his widow, Lucy Hunt, on 13 March 1935 (see Hatzilambrou, Strabo, § 7; Sampson, The David G. Hogarth Papyri, § 20, with n. 53); other papyri donated by L. Hunt include 1/4 and 14 (see resp. p. 21, with further remarks on the overall acquisition history, and 107).

2 contains the ends of eleven lines from the bottom of a column broken off on the top and on both sides; the lower margin survives, to a depth of 5.5 cm. The few extant letters can be identified as Od. 17.317-327. The text has been collated with M.L. West, Odyssea (whose sigla have been adopted); the only relevant textual feature is the reading πάτρηϲ at l. 2 = 17.318, accepted by many modern editors but rejected by West, who prefers the less common γαίηϲ (see comm. ad loc.). There are no breathings, accents, or lectional signs, but punctuation (a low dot) is added, apparently by the same hand, at the end of l. 9 = 17.325 and l. 11 = 17.327, where it is needed for a better understanding of the text; moreover, a speck of ink at the end of l. 7 = 17.323 is possibly the only trace of an original mese stigme (added at the end of a direct speech).

It is impossible to reconstruct the original dimensions of the column, nor other features of the original roll. The wide margin anyway points to a luxury product, and this impression is confirmed by the script: a carefully written, calligraphic majuscule (a ‘formal round script’, according to Turner’s general cathegory: see GMAW2, p. 21), with neat, round traits and slight ‘chiaroscuro’. Bilinearism is observed (as far as it is possible to judge). Letters are tall, rectangular and well spaced, and they show decorative elements at their ends, which are especially marked at the bottom (see e.g. ypsilon). Alpha has the obliques sometimes joined in a loop; in epsilon the horizontal is moved on the upper part; kappa has the upper oblique almost horizontal; in my the middle strokes are joined in an ogival curve; omega has high middle element. Assigning a date to this script is not easy, due to the lack of direct parallels. As Guglielmo Cavallo suggests to me, the form of alpha is common in calligraphic scripts from the 1st cent. BCE to the 1st cent. CE, but it becomes rarer during the following century; indeed, other letters, as my and omega, recall the ‘rounded majuscule’, which is well developed from the middle of the 2nd century (see Cavallo, La scrittura, pp. 95-98; Del Corso, Dalla Grecia arcaica all’età romana, pp. 71-72). Overall, the script of PSI IX 1091, assigned to the end of the 1st or the first decades of the 2nd cent. CE (Cavallo, Calamo, pp. 118-119 and tav. XXVII), offers a comparison, even if the papyrus in Florence does not show the same decorative elements, and the letters are almost square. The similarity of the two papyri suggests to assign 2 to the same span (late first or early second century).

Book 17, though not one of the best represented in manuscript evidence from Egypt, is attested by 28 other papyri, according to the list in West’s edition: P.Oxy. IV 781 + IV 782 (Π16 + Π92: MP31123; see C. D’Agostino, P.Oxy. IV 781 + 782: due frammenti di un codice dell’Odissea, AnPap 31 [2019], pp. 7-17), P.Oxy. IV 783 (Π17; MP3 1130), P.Par. Acad. Inscr. s.n. (Π93; MP3 1124.1), P.Oxy. VI 955 (Π95; MP3 1131), P.Cairo inv. JdÉ 45620 + P.Oxy. XV 1820 (Π96; MP3 1130.01), PSI XIII 1299 + XVII 1659 (Π123; MP3 1113.110), P.Hib. II 194 (Π128; MP3 1129), BKT IX 4 (Π148; MP3 1130.1), P.Berol. inv. 13222 (Π205; MP3 1125.1), P.Oxy. XLIX 3443 (Π206; MP3 1129.1), P.Med. inv. 71.86b (Π207; MP3 1130.11), P.Duk. inv. 767 (Π224; MP3 1125.11), P.Köln XIII 497 (Π240; MP3 1130.020), Π484-497 (unpublished P.Oxy.); finally, Od. 17 is copied also on 3 (P.Col. VIII 201 + P.IFAO inv. 75 = Π94 + Π127; MP3 1127-1128). The text of 2 does not overlap with any on them.

– – – – –

[κνωδαλον οττι διοιτο και ιχνεϲι γαρ π]ε̣ρ̣ι̣η̣[ιδει

[νυν δ εχεται κακοτητι αναξ δε οι αλλο]θ̣ι̣ πατ̣ρ̣[ηϲ

[ωλετο τον δε γυναικεϲ ακηδεεϲ ου κο]μεουϲ̣[ι

[δμωεϲ δ ευτ αν μηκετ επικρατεωϲιν ανα]κτεϲ

321 [ουκετ επειτ εθελουϲιν εναιϲιμα εγραζεϲ]θαι

[ημιϲυ γαρ τ αρετηϲ αποαινυται ευρυοπα Ζ]ε̣υϲ

[ανεροϲ ευτ αν μιν κατα δουλιον ημαρ ελη]ϲιν⸱

[ωϲ ειπων ειϲηλθε δομουϲ ευ ναιεταον]ταϲ

[βη δ ιθυϲ μεγαροιο μετα μνηϲτηραϲ αγ]α̣υουϲ .

326 [Αργον δ αυ κατά μοιρ ελαβεν μελανοϲ] θανατο[ιο

[αυτικ ιδοντ Οδυσηα εεικοϲτωι ενιαυτ]ωι .

(margin)

318. πατ̣ρ̣[ηϲ Differently from Allen and most of the other editors, West prefers the reading γαίηϲ, which is found in M, because of the similarity with the formulaic end of β 131; but πάτρηϲ is used in the same position in other formulaic verses (see e.g. β 365, as suggested by West himself), and it is even better attested in Byzantine mss.: according to West’s apparatus, it is the reading of Z, a primary source, as well as of several of the mss. grouped as Ω; πάτρηϲ is also found as a varia lectio of M. The text of the papyrus is a further confirmation of the diffusion of the reading.

325. αγ]α̣υουϲ : the traces of alpha are pretty uncertain, but there are no alternatives to the word.

Lucio Del Corso

Fr. a: Columbia University,Pl. III

P.Col. inv. 514

Fr. b: IFAO, pap. inv. 75

? Fr. a: 4.2 x 16.8 cm 1st cent. CE

Fr. b: 6.1 x 7.4 cm

The fragments, here joined as 3, are kept in two different institutions. Fr. a is P.Col. inv. 514, first published in Keyes, Fragments of Homer, pp. 387-389, and then re-edited as P.Col. VIII 201 (West, Π94; MP3 1128; reprr.: P.Col. VIII, pl. 10, and online, papyri.info/apis/columbia.apis.p236). It is a papyrus strip, broken off on both sides, which contains the middle part of a column where it is possible to read Od. 17.331–355. Fr. b is kept in the Institut français d’archéologie orientale, inv. 75, and was previously published in Schwartz, Papyrus homérique, nr. 19, pp. 66–67 (West, Π127; MP3 1127; repr. McNamee, Annotations, pl. XIII). It keeps the upper part of two columns, broken on the sides and on foot, which contain Od. 17.331-335 and 356-364.

The two papyri are clearly written by the same hand (description of the script below): the letters have the same forms and dimensions, and even interlinear spaces are always the same. This strongly suggests that they were originally part of the same roll, as it is confirmed by the physical characteristics of the fragments: both have the top of the same column of text, and the verses on fr. b are the exact continuation of those on fr. a; so, fr. a represents the beginning, and the continuation, of the first column of fr b, even if a few letters are missing between them.

Considering the two fragments as a whole, it is possible to reconstruct some of the features of the roll they belonged to. Its original height was around 18 cm (the margin of fr. b is better preserved, to a depth of 1.9 cm). The better preserved column (fr. a) has 25 lines; its length (complete text + intercolumnar space, given by fr. b) can be reconstructed as c. 12 cm (estimate made starting from the reconstruction of 17.331-335, of similar extension). In order to copy the 606 verses of Od. 17, around 24 such columns were needed: so, the roll had to be at least 288 cm long. The proposed column length follows the measures commonly found in poetry books (see in short Del Corso, Libro antico, p. 137), while the overall extension of the roll seems rather short (see the figures in Johnson, Bookrolls, pp. 100-119): this may suggest the possibility that the roll contained more than a single Book of the poem, an eventuality that is attested also in the Roman period (see the discussion in Schironi, Mega Biblion, pp. 41–44).

The text has been collated with H. van Thiel, Homeri Odyssea, Hildesheim -Zurich - New York 1991, and M.L. West, Odyssea, whose sigla are here adopted (but other modern editions have been considered as well, as recorded in the commentary). It has several interesting philological features, partially discussed by previous editors (see esp. Keyes, Fragments of Homer, pp. 388-389; P.Col. VIII, p. 46), which help to establish the antiquity of medieval variants (see in general M. Haslam, Homeric Papyri and Transmission of the Text, in I. Morris - B.B. Powell [edd.], A New Companion to Homer, Leiden - New York - Köln 2011, pp. 55-100: 92-99, with references to both poems).

At 354 there is a unique reading: δόϲ instead of μοι, universally attested by the codices Ω; it should be considered anyway a lectio facilior (contra P.Col. VIII, p. 46). Other textual variants include:

335. πρ]ο̣τίθει with Z M B N, ἐτίθει Ω* (not accepted by modern editors)

336. ἐδύϲατ̣[ο with B G; ἐδύϲετο Ω* (accepted by van Thiel and West)

347. κεχρημένῳ ἀνδ[ρί with Ω*(accepted by van Thiel and West); κεχρημένον ἄνδρα G

352. αἰδὼϲ δ’ οὐκ ἀγαθ]ή̣ with F G P; αἰδῶ δ οὐκ ἀγαθήν Ω* (accepted by van Thiel and West)

355. γένοιθ’ ὅ]ϲ̣ϲα with N U; γένοιτο ὅϲα P Hac (accepted by van Thiel and West).

Another remarkable feature is the varia lectio φρεϲὶ ϲῇϲι / φρεϲὶν ᾗϲι at v. 355, signalled by the same hand, which writes ν over the original ϲ without erasing it: the first alternative is wrong, but attested also in M; the second is found in all the other main manuscripts.

There are no other similar interventions, nor any annotations, on the two extant fragments: so, it is not possibile to ascertain whether the text had been properly collated with another exemplar. Anyway, the copyist shows an erudite attitude, as he adds two diacritical signs on col. ii: a diple to the left of 359, a line suspected and athetized by Aristarchus; and a φρ monogram, a rare sign mentioned in the Anecdotum Parisinum, which has been interpreted as an equivalent of διο(ρθωτέον) (McNamee, Annotations, p. 282), but which may generally indicate a potential textual problem, eventually joined to a varia lectio (see comm. ad loc.). Apart from these, there are no other signs, and no breathings or accents; iota adscript is written.

The script is square and rounded; bilinearism is rarely broken (especially by phi and sometimes rho), and sometimes it is even emphasized by serifs, short horizontals or bullets added at the end of the uprights (see e.g. iota ora tau). Alpha is written in three strokes, with the second horizontal, and can have a curved ascender; similarly, a curved ascendant can be seen on delta as well; beta has the second belly larger than the first; epsilon has the middle trait detached from the body; zeta in written in three strokes; the saddle of my is written in a single, curved stroke that descends to the base-line; finally ypsilon can be written in three strokes or in two, with the obliques fused in a curve. Previous editors have proposed various dates for it. The Cairo fragment has been dubiously assigned to the first half of the 1st cent. CE (Schwartz, Papyrus homériques, p. 66, after comparison with P.Oxy. XV 1790; Schubart, Palaeographie, pp. 115-116, Abb. 75). The fragment in Columbia has been first dated to the 2nd cent. CE (Keyes, Fragments of Homer, p. 388, adducing the parallel with BKT V.1, pp. 28-30 = P.Berol. inv. 9739; repr. in Schubart, Papyri Graecae Berolinenses, nr. 19a), then, more correctly, it has been assigned to the 1st cent. CE (P.Col. VIII, p. 46, esp. footnote 26, which states the analogies of the script with an array of handwritings from the 1st BCE to the 1st cent. CE, including PSI II 122 and P.Fay. 6 and 7); all the editors, moreover, stress the elegance of the hand (Keyes, Fragments of Homer, p. 388: ‘round and formal’; P.Col. VIII, p. 46: ‘an attractive book hand’). It is true that the regularity of the script gives the impression of a professional product, but the thickness of the traits is not always uniform and letters may seem even clumsy (see esp. beta). Such features do not point to a ‘calligraphic’ book, but to an average product. The comparison with P.Fay. 6, anyway, seems more striking than others: it allows to relate the handwriting of 3 to other formal scripts mostly used for book production around the Augustan era, as described by Cavallo, Calamo, pp. 115-117; consequently, it can be assigned to the period ranging from the end of the 1st BCE to the beginning of the 1st cent. CE.

For a short discussion of other papyri containing Od. 17 see the introduction to 2; 3 overlaps P.Par. Acad. Inscr. inv. 2 (Π93; MP3 1124.1), only for vv. 330-332.

Col. i

(margin)

[κειμενον ε]ν̣θα δε δαι[τροϲ εφιζεϲκε] κ̣ρεα πολλα

[δαιομενοϲ μ]νηϲτηρϲ[ι δομον κατα δαι]ν̣υμενοιϲι

[τον κατεθηκ]ε̣ φερων πρ̣ο̣[ϲ Τηλεμαχοιο] τ̣ραπεζαν

[αντιον ενθα δ α]ρ αυτοϲ εφεζετ̣[ο τωι δ αρα κ]η̣ρυξ

335 [μοιραν ελων πρ]ο̣τιθει κανε̣ο̣υ̣ τ̣ [εκ ϲιτον α]ε̣ιραϲ

[αγχιμολον δε] μετ αυτον εδυϲατ̣[ο δωματ Οδυϲϲευϲ]

[πτωχωι λευγαλ]εωι εναλιγκιοϲ̣ η̣[δε γεροντι]

[ϲκηπτομενο]ϲ̣ τα δε λυγρα π̣ε̣ρι χ̣[ροι ειματα εϲτο]

[ιζε δ επι μελινο]υ ουδου εντοϲ[θε θυραων]

340 [κλιναμενοϲ ϲταθ]μωι κυπαριϲϲ[ινωι ον ποτε τεκνων]

[ξεϲϲεν επιϲταμ]ενωϲ και επι [ϲταθμην ιθυνεν]

[Τηλεμαχοϲ δ επι] ο̣ι καλεϲαϲ προ[ϲεειπε ϲυβωτην]

[αρτον τ ουλον ελ]ω̣ν περικα[λλεοϲ εκ κανεοιο]

[και κρεαϲ ωϲ οι χειρ]εϲ εχαν̣δ̣α̣[νον αμφιβαλοντι]

345 [δοϲ τω ξεινω ταυ]τ̣α φερων αυτον τ̣[ε κελευε]

[αιτιζειν μαλα πα]ν̣ταϲ εποιχομε[νον μνηϲτηραϲ]

[αιδωϲ δ ουκ αγαθη] κεχρημενωι ανδ[ρι παρειναι]

[ωϲ φατο βη δε ϲυφ]ορβοϲ επει τον μ̣[υθον ακουϲεν]

[αγχου δ ιϲταμενο]ϲ̣ επεα πτεροεντ̣ [αγορευεν]

350 [Τηλεμαχοϲ τοι ξ]εινε διδοι ταδε κ̣[αι ϲε κελευει]

[αιτιζειν μαλα παν]ταϲ εποιχομεν[ον μνηϲτηραϲ]

[αιδωϲ δ ουκ αγαθ]η̣ φηϲ εμμεναι αν̣[δρι προικτηι]

[τον δ απαμειβομ]ενοϲ προϲεφη π̣[ολυμετιϲ Οδυϲϲευϲ]

[Ζευ ανα Τηλεμαχο]ν δοϲ εν ανδραϲ[ιν ολβιον ειναι]

355 [και οι παντα γενοιθ ο]ϲ̣ϲα φρεϲι`ν´ ϲηιϲι μ[ενοινα]

(margin)

Col. ii

η ρα κ[αι αμφοτερηιϲιν εδεξατο και κατεθηκεν]

αυθι π[οδων προπαροιθεν αεικελιηϲ επι πηρηϲ]

φρ() ηϲθιε [δ ειοϲ αοιδοϲ ενι μεγαροιϲιν αειδεν]

> ευθ ο̣ δ̣εδ[ειπνηκειν ο δ επαυετο θειοϲ αοιδοϲ]

360 μνηϲτηρε̣[ϲ δ ομαδηϲαν ανα μεγαρ αυταρ Αθηνη]

αγχι παριϲτ̣[αμενη Λαερτιαδην Οδυϲηα]

[ωτρ]υν ω[ϲ αν πυρνα κατα μνηϲτηραϲ αγειροι]

[γνοι]η δ οι[ τινεϲ ειϲιν εναιϲιμοι οι τ αμθεμιϲτοι]

[αλλ ο]υ̣δ̣ ω̣[ϲ τιν εμελλ απαλεξηϲειν κακοτητοϲ]

– – – – –

Col. i

331. ε]ν̣θα δε : the reading is found also in Π93 and in the main medieval mss.; Beck corrected it as ε]ν̣θα τε, which has been accepted by West but not by van Thiel.

332. δαι]ν̣υμενοιϲι : West prefers the form with movable ny, δαινυμένοιϲιν, following the general rules explained in M.L. West, Ilias, pp. xxv-xxvi. Previous editors, as Allen and Bérard, generally opt for the shorter form.

334. δ α]ρ : The proposed reconstruction follows West’s edition, but it is not certain, since instead of δ’ ἄρ’, the reading περ is found in some of the main Byzantine mss., as B and H. Both variants would fit the missing space in 3.

335. πρ]ο̣τιθει : extant traces clearly point to ο, even if half of the letter is missing and the other quite abraded. Most mss. have ἐτίθει, which is adopted by West and other contemporary editors; προτίθει anyway is attested as well in relevant codices, as Z, M, B, N.

336. εδυϲατ̣[ο : most of the mss. have the form ἐδύϲετο, generally accepted by editors; once more, the reading of 3 is found also in B and H (where the form ἐδύϲετο, anyway, is added super lineam: see M.L. West, Odyssea, app. ad loc.).

338. δε : corrected from a previous γε by the same hand.

340. κυπαριϲϲ[ινωι : as stated in the introduction of P.Col. VIII 201, the letters υπα are crossed by a tiny horizontal stroke. This was one of the usual ways to delete letters or words (examples in C. Martis, Sistemi di correzione nei papiri letterari greco-egizi, PapCongr. XXVII, 2, pp. 1201-1229, esp. 1209, 1215 and 1220 for the Roman period). But an eventual deletion would hardly find a justification: other manuscripts offer no alternatives, and the passage is pretty clear, so that extant scholia have only a plain explanation of the meaning of the adjective. Some testimonies omit the verses, probably because they are found also in other sections of the poem, due to their formulaic nature (Od. 17.337-338 corresponds to 17.202-203 and 24.157-158, and 17.340-341 to 21.43-44): this is the case of a late ms. as Vat. Reg. 99, where 17.338-339 are not transcribed (not recorded in West’s app.): but if the copyist, or a reader, suspected and wished to erase them on 3, he would have probably used a marginal sign. Therefore, since the other interventions on the papyrus text seem to follow a stricter logic, we may suppose that the mark was just unintentional.

347. κεχρημενωι ανδ[ρι : the papyrus confirms the reading of most of the best manuscripts; the tradition anyway is not univocal: an early codex as G has a rather different κεχρημένον ἄνδρα κομίζειν, which recalls Hes., Op. 317. The Hesiodic parallel is quoted also in Sch. ad loc. (ed. Dindorf, p. 646), where anyway the Homeric text is assumed to have the dative; see also M.L. West, Odyssea, app. ad loc.

352. [αιδωϲ δ ουκ αγαθ]η̣ : the traces point to η, even if the surface of the papyrus is much abraded. West prefers αἰδῶ δ οὐκ ἀγαθήν, a choice which he does not explain in his apparatus, but well supported by manuscripts of the vulgata Ω (see also the readings recorded in van Thiel, app. ad loc.); the nominative is found at least in F, G (where another hand added the alternative reading in the low margin, at f. 171v) and P; see also P.Col. VIII, p. 48, comm. ad loc.

354. δοϲ : this verbal form is never found in mss., which universally have the pronoun μοι. The text of Ω has an ‘infinitive for imperative’, a form well attested in the poems: see e.g. P. Chantraine, Grammaire homerique, II, Syntaxe, Paris 1953, pp. 316-317. In comparison, the text of 3 represents a lectio facilior, even if δόϲ is used for prayers also in other passages of the poems: list of occurences in Keyes, Fragments of Homer, p. 389; see also Russo, Odissea, p. 179 (ad loc.)

355. γενοιθ ο]ϲ̣ϲα : modern editors prefers the orthography γένοιτο ὅϲα, which is found among the others in P and in H, ante correcturam. The reading of 3 – which probably represents a simplification, from a metrical point of view – is found at least in N and U.

φρεϲι`ν´ ϲηιϲι : the ν is added supra lineam by the scribe; it is not a correction but rather a way to introduce the varia lectio φρεϲὶν ᾗϲι besides the previous φρεϲὶ ϲῇϲι. Byzantine mss. offer here different solutions, which modern critical appartuses record only in part.

West does not mention alternative readings, as most of the codices prefer φρεϲὶν ᾗϲι (or φρεϲὶν οἷϲιν, as in G), which is coherent with the grammar of the phrase (as the adjective is referred to Telemachus); considering the phrasing, φρεϲὶ ϲῇϲι cannot be correct, but besides 3 it is attested at least by M. The intervention of the scribe shows that the two versions already run parallel in the first phases of the transmission of the text.

Col. ii

358. The scribe added a monogram φρ to the left of the verse. Schwartz, Papyrus homériques, p. 67, rightly identified it as a phi et ro, a sign described in the Anecdotum Parisinum, p. 537 Keil, and later in Isid. Siv., Etym. I, 211, but not included in the ‘standard’ list of the A­necdotum Romanum. Latin sources explain that it is added when the text does not seem to be clear, and a correction might be necessary (Anecdotum Parisinum, p. 537-12-13 Keil: quotiens vel emendatio vels sensus sollicitius est inspiciendus; see Nocchi Macedo, La terminologie, p. 210). According to McNamee, Annotations, p. 282, the same sign is found also in P.Oxy. LII 3686 (Sophocles, Antigone), and probably P.Oxy. XXXII 2617 (Stesichorus, Geryoneis); in her view it should be here considered as an equivalent for διο(ρθωτέον), ‘it needs to be corrected’. In 3 its proper function cannot be safely established, due to the loss of most of the corresponding verse. According to the scholia ad loc. and the readings recorded in the apparatuses of the main editions, the only textual issue of the verse was related to the conjunctions after the verb ἤϲθιε, which is problematic also for modern editors: ἕωϲ ὅτε in Z Hm and Mgl (accepted by van Thiel), ὡϲ ὅτ’ in Ω* and in the scholia ad loc., where it is explained as μέχριϲ οὗ, ἕωϲ ὅτε; but in order to restore an orthographic variant consistent with the metre of the verse, modern corrections have been proposed as εἷοϲ (Lachmann, accepted by West), or ἧοϲ (Knight, accepted by Allen). The sign possibly focused on this part of the verse, and we might wonder if it was used for a real correction, or simply to signal a problematic passage, as the Anecdotum Parisinum explains. We could even speculate that the textual problem indicated in this way consisted not of a correction, but of a varia lectio, as at 385, above.

Other occurences of the sign, collected by McNamee, Annotations, p. 282, are also unclear, but they do not seem to refer to necessary corrections. In P.Oxy. LII 3686 it is added at the right of the column by a second hand, and is followed by the letters πο.[ and joined to a paragraphos; it has been tentatively explained as an abbreviation for φ(έ)ρεται, but no alternative lections starting with πο- are attested; or as part of a ‘stylistic’ annotation, φρ(άϲιϲ) ποιητική (a suggestion by P.J. Parsons: P.Oxy. LII, p. 123). In neither cases can it be considered as an equivalent for διο(ρθωτέον). In P.Oxy. XXXII 2617 the sign is added at fr. 13 a, on the left of l. 12, where it is accompanied by a single letter between two dots, ·υ·: for the editor it ‘appears to be a variant’, even if it is impossible to even make guesses on its meaning. The interpretation of the sign as a way to indicate a varia lectio, or similar, would be a further hint of the philological attitudes of the scribe.

359. On the left margin, a diple is found, written by the same hand. The sign could have different purposes: see e.g. Schironi, Tautologies, p. 609. In this case, its presence should be connected with a critical intervention attributed to Aristarchus, who considered the verse γελοῖοϲ, and therefore athetized it: see Sch. A Il. 22.329 (Erbse, Schol. vet. I, p. 329); H. van Thiel, Aristarch, Aristophanes Byzantios, Demetrios Ixion, Zenodot. Fragmente zur Ilias gesammelt, neu herausgegeben und kommentiert, III, Berlin - Boston 2014, p. 403 (ad Il. 22.329); Russo, Odissea, pp. 179-180 (ad loc.).

360. According to Schwartz, Papyrus homériques, p. 67, the last letter before the lacuna should be ϲ: this would employ a peculiar reading that is never found in Medieval mss. (and which would be difficult from a grammatical point of view, as a dative, here, does not fit the general meaning of the verse). Considering that in this handwriting epsilon and sigma are pretty similar, the extant traces do not seem to support such an abnormality.

363. δ οι[ τινεϲ : H P N have θ’ οἵ τινεϲ, generally accepted by modern editors; δ’ is found at least in B F G M P U.

Lucio Del Corso

Bodleian LibraryPl. IV

MS. Gr. class. f. 110 (P) recto

Hermopolis? 13.4 x 13.1 cm 1st/2nd cent. CE

A fragment of a papyrus roll with writing on both sides. The side with the writing running along the fibres preserves a commentary on some lines of Iliad Book 1. The reverse side carries a copy of Iliad Book 4 (1). Palaeography suggests that up to a century or more may have separated the writing of the two sides. Since the commentary on the front concerns lines from near the end of Book 1 and the column on the back is from near the beginning of Book 4, it is reasonable to infer that the full roll contained a commentary on the whole of Book 1 on one side and a complete copy of at least Book 4 on the other.

The upper parts of two columns are extant: 20 line-ends from the first column, reduced to only a handful of letters from line 8 onwards, and 14 lines from the second column, with an intercolumnar space 1.8 to 2.4 cm wide. The reconstruction of the text shows that the lines of the second column are almost complete and implies a column width of c. 6.8 cm. The upper margin is 3.3 cm deep at its greatest extent. The surface of the papyrus is badly rubbed and stained, which hinders decipherment in places.

The writing is in a smallish and informal but neat round bookhand. It is only roughly bilinear. ι, κ, and the first upright of η sometimes have tall ascenders with hooks at their upper ends (e.g. ii 1, 2, 4). The first oblique of λ can descend well below the level of other letters, but ρ tends to stay within the bilinear framework. α is usually rounded but occasionally angular (e.g. ii 1, 9). β and δ have broad bases. The upper half of ε can be either open (e.g. ii 1, 10) or closed (e.g. i 2, 5, ii 8). The bar of π extends beyond the uprights. υ is generally v-shaped but can also have a stem (e.g. ii 1). Blobs and serifs decorate the ends of some uprights. Lobel compared the hand to that of P.Oxy. I 8 (Plate II), a lyric fragment assigned to the end of the first century or the second century. It has some broad affinities with P.Fay. 110 (GLH 11b), a letter dated to 94 CE, and the principal hand of the London Hyperides (GLH 13b), which has been assigned to the first half of the second century on the basis of its cursive titles and subscriptions1. In view of these parallels, 4 may be ascribed to the late first century or the first half of the second century.

Lemmata are set off from the preceding and following commentary by blank spaces (i 3-4, ii 9). An additional comment within the same entry is separated by a short blank space from the preceding one (i 5, ii 2). The only lectional signs are an overline to highlight a letter under discussion (ii 3) and an organic diaeresis (ii 10). Iota adscript is regularly written where expected (ii 11, 12) and is once added incorrectly in a Homeric quotation (ii 11 ἐ]|πέϲ̣τηι). At i 10 ]ωια ̣ and 14 ]η̣ιεν, the word division is uncertain. Elision is effected but not marked (i 1, ii 2). There is an abbreviation by suspension at ii 2.

The commentary comprises a mixture of brief simple glosses and more detailed notes. Its character is mainly lexical-semantic: there are no exegetical, text-critical, or mythographic comments in the extant portion. It provides a new gloss on καθάπτεϲθαι (Il. 1.582) and newly attributes a known gloss to Seleucus Homericus. The comment on the form τεταγών (Il. 1.591) is unparalleled in the scholia and expands on the etymologies offered in the grammatical literature. A more accurate version of Aristarchus’ definition of the word βηλόϲ (Il. 1.591) is given, which is also newly associated with Lysanias of Cyrene. The new title cited for Lysanias’ work, περὶ ποιητ̣[ικῆϲ] λέξ̣ε̣ωϲ, suits well the fragments of Homeric scholarship attributed to him in other sources.

The commentary must have been quite extensive. Col. i concerns Il. 1.582 and 584, while col. ii begins with the continuation of a comment on 591. It appears to have proceeded linearly, but not in strict order: in col. i, the comment on δέπαϲ at 584 precedes the explanation of line 582. For another commentary with dislocated lemmata, cf. P.Würzb. 1 = CLGP I.2.5.1 16 (6th cent.) on Euripides’ Phoenissae. The phenomenon is commoner in the so-called ‘scholia minora’2. If these two columns can be considered typical of the whole commentary, one may infer that a column covered about 8-10 lines of Homeric text and that the entire commentary on Book 1 (611 lines) consisted of at least 60 columns. One may compare the length of the commentary on Book 2 in P.Oxy. VIII 1086 (1st cent. BCE), which ‘when complete may be very roughly estimated at something over 5 m’ (M.W. Haslam, P.Oxy. LXV, p. 28).

Some twenty-six commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) on the Iliad (18) and the Odyssey (8) on papyrus have been published to date, ranging from the third century BCE to the fifth/sixth century CE. For a list, see J. Lundon, Homeric commentaries on papyrus: a survey, in S. Matthaios - F. Montanari - A. Rengakos (edd.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts, Berlin - New York 2011, pp. 159-179, and L. Pagani, Papyrus Commentaries on the Iliad, in S. Boodts et al. (edd.), Sicut dicit: Editing Ancient and Medieval Commentaries on Authoritative Texts, Turnhout 2019, pp. 331-362, to which add the text published in M. De Kreij - D. Colomo, Patroclus undressed: a Yale papyrus with Homerica on recto and verso, BASP 56 (2019), pp. 9-37 (cf. p. 10 n. 4). Only a few of these are erudite and detailed commentaries comparable to 4; cf. especially P.Oxy. II 221, VIII 1086, 1087, LIII 3710, LXV 4452.

As often, it is difficult to tell whether the commentary is a compilation from various sources by a learned individual or a transmitted work by an established scholar. The dislocation of linear order in col. i, with the comment on Il. 1.584 preceding that on 1.582, might suggest the former possibility. In any event, the terminus post quem of composition or compilation is the age of Tiberius given the mention of Seleucus in i 5-6.

According to the Bodleian’s internal records, the papyrus was bought by A.S. Hunt in Cairo and is said to be ‘from Eshmunein’, that is, ancient Hermopolis Magna. It was presented to the library by Lucy Hunt in 1935 after her husband’s death in the previous year.3 No information is given on its date of acquisition by Hunt or the identity of the seller, and there is nothing to corroborate the Hermopolite provenance.4 Relatively few scholarly texts from Hermopolis have been published, but note the anonymous commentary on Antimachus (MP3 89; LDAB 221; CLGP I 1.2.3; 2nd cent.), Didymus’ commentary on Demosthenes’ Philippics (MP3 339; LDAB 769; 2nd cent.), Aristarchus’ commentary on Herodotus (MP3 483; LDAB 337; CLGP I.2.6; 3rd cent.), and the Homeric lexicon derived from Apollonius Sophista (MP3 1216.1; LDAB 299; late 4th cent.).5 In a letter from Hermopolis (SB XII 11084; 5th cent.), the sender requests the return of a commentary on Demosthenes and treatises by Menander Rhetor.

A draft transcript with skeleton commentary by Edgar Lobel is kept in the Bodleian. I thank Dr Bruce Barker-Benfield, former Senior Assistant Librarian at the Department of Special Collections & Western Manuscripts, for kindly allowing me to consult this material. Lobel’s supplements are acknowledged in the notes below, but I do not indicate divergences from his transcript. I am grateful to Dr W. Benjamin Henry and Dr Konstantine Panegyres for comments on earlier drafts.

δέπαϲ· οἱονεὶ]Il. 1.584

Col. i

]αμ̣ε̣νοϲδοινοιο ̣ ̣ [δέχαϲ. καὶ “πληϲ]άμενοϲ δ’ οἴνοιο δ̣έ̣-Il. 9.224

]χιλληακαιδεικα [παϲ δείδεκτ’ Ἀ]χιλλῆα” καὶ “δεικα-Il. 15.86

]ν επε ̣ϲϲικα ̣ ̣ [νόωντο δέπαϲϲι]ν”. ἐπέε̣ϲϲι καθ̣ά̣-Il. 1.582

]ν̣ επι̣θιγγ ̣ [πτεϲθαι μαλακοῖϲι]ν· ἐπιθιγγά̣-

5 ] ̣ ̣γ̣οιϲ ϲελευ [νειν c. 10 ] λ̣ό̣γοιϲ. Ϲέλευ-

] ̣ραυνειν [κοϲ δὲ c. 10 ]π̣ραΰνειν

]δεινμετ̣[] [ ]δειν μετ[]

] [ ]

]κ̣υπε ̣ [ ]κύπελ̣-Il. 1.584/596

10 ]ωια̣ ̣ [λον ]ωια ̣

] ̣ν ̣ [ ] ̣να̣

] ̣ατο ̣ [ ]τ̣ατον̣

]κ̣αι [ ]και

] ̣ιεν [ ]η̣ιεν

15 ]αρχει [ ]αρχει

] ̣ι̣ε [ ] ̣ι̣ε

]ερ̣ ̣ [ ]ερο̣

] ̣ε [ ] ̣ε

] ̣ ̣ [ ] ̣ ̣

20 ] ̣ [ ] ̣

– – – – – – – – – –

1 ο ̣ ̣: a thick dot at line-level, then darkened surface; a horizontal trace at line-end 3 ε ̣: a lower arc   α ̣ ̣: a left arc with a horizontal join in the middle; after a small crack, the end of a descending oblique (hardly distinguishable on the dark surface) 4 γ ̣: the top of a descending oblique touching the bar of γ and the foot of an ascending oblique below it at line-level 5 ] ̣ ̣: a descending oblique and a circular letter 6 ] ̣: a horizontal level with the letter-tops   7 τ̣ may be the last letter of the line, but the surface after it is too dark to tell   9 ε ̣: a descending oblique (hardly distinguishable) 10 α̣ ̣: possibly α̣ν̣   11 ] ̣: a right curve ν ̣: traces suggestive of the contour of α 12 ] ̣: the end of a horizontal touching the top of α ο ̣, after a small crack an upright 14 ] ̣: an upright slightly curving to the right 16 ] ̣: an upright 17 ρ̣ ̣: a small left arc (ο?) 18 ] ̣: a gently descending oblique touching ε in the middle 19 ] ̣ ̣: two specks of letter-tops 20 ] ̣: an extended horizontal (e.g. ε)

Col. ii

τικοναοριϲτονεϲπαϲθαιουτω[

κ ̣ ̣τετ̣ ̣ ̣ω̣ν̣κ̣α ̣ ̣κταϲ̣ αττικοι[

μετ̣απ ̣ ̣[] ̣ ̣ ̣υ ̣ου υ̅ τευταζ ̣[

γουϲ̣ι̣ν [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣τετ̣αϲ̣θαιηγ ̣[

5 κ ̣ϲινδ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ϲλεξεωϲδηλ̣ου[

ουκαπω[ ̣]ε̣νδετουπρωτοτυ ̣[

καιτ̣ανυωρημακα̣ι̣τιτ̣αινω ̣[

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣οϲκαιτανυτα̣ιδετεπαϲ̣[

προ βηλου αριϲτ ̣ ̣χοϲτου[

10 τηϲθυραϲβαθμουθ ̣ουϲα̣δεϊρ[

πε ̣τηιβηλωιεπιλιθεωιω ̣[

λυϲανιαϲ̣εντωιπεριποιη ̣[

λε ̣ ̣ω̣ϲπεποιηταιδεπ̣α̣ρα ̣ ̣[

βη[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣τ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ο̣[

– – – – –

2 κ ̣ ̣: indeterminate traces of one or two letters τ̣ ̣ ̣: a right arc and a speck at two-thirds height α ̣ ̣: a short upright with some faint traces on top, then possibly part of a left arc 3 π ̣ ̣[] ̣ ̣ ̣: after π, only the tops of the letters remain, all rounded like ε ο ϲ etc. υ ̣: a short upright   ̣[: a small left arc above line-level 4 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣: first, the end of a thin horizontal at mid-height (ε?); second, a speck at mid-height; third, a thick upright; fourth, two parallel uprights (e.g. ν)    ̣[: after the thick serif on the end of the bar of γ, two vertically aligned specks, one at mid-height, the other level with the letter-tops   5 κ ̣: a dot at line-level and a horizontal trace at two-thirds height  ] ̣: the perpendicular junction of a horizontal and an upright at two-thirds height followed by a connecting stroke with ϲ 6 ̣[: π or τ 7 ̣[: the upper tip of an upright 8 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣: first, a short upright with a horizontal join at the top right (τ?); second, indeterminate traces; third, an upright joined to a short horizontal at the top right; fourth, specks and a horizontal touching ο at one-thirds height (ε or θ?) 9 τ ̣ ̣: indeterminate traces, then a small upper arc 10 θ ̣: a short vertical trace followed by an upper arc 11 ε ̣: a mostly abraded surface   ̣[: a left arc 12 a trace in the shape of a descending oblique is visible above the second α of λυϲανιαϲ̣ (a grave accent? accidental ink?)    ̣[: a speck at line-level followed by a speck a mid-height 13 ε ̣ ̣: first, the tip of a horizontal level with the letter-tops and a speck at mid-height; second, a speck level with the letter-tops    ̣ ̣ [: an upright with a horizontal join at the top right, then the left-hand tip of a lower arc 14 ] ̣: an upright, possibly with a join from the bottom left   τ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣: an upright trace, indeterminate traces, and a short stroke inclined downwards level with the letter-tops (possibly a connecting stroke)

τὸ ἐνεργη-] Il. 1.591 (τεταγών)

Col. ii

τικὸν ἀόριϲτον ἐϲπάϲθαι οὕτω[ϲ]

κα̣ὶ̣ τετα̣γ̣ὼν κατ̣’ ἔ̣κταϲ(ιν). Ἀττικοὶ [δὲ]

μετὰ πε̣ρ̣[ι]ϲ̣ϲ̣ο̣ῦ τ̣οῦ υ τευτάζω̣ [λέ-]

γουϲιν [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τετάϲθαι ηγ ̣[ ̣ ̣]

5 κ ̣ϲιν δ[ιὰ τ]ῆ̣ϲ λέξεωϲ δηλοῦ[ται.]

οὐκ ἄπω[θ]ε̣ν δὲ τοῦ πρωτοτύπ̣[ου]

καὶ “τ̣ανύω” ῥῆμα καὶ “τιταίνω” ̣[ ̣ ̣]

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣οϲ καὶ “τάνυται δέ τε πᾶϲ[α δια-] Il. 17.393

πρό”. βηλοῦ· Ἀρίϲτα̣ρ̣χοϲ τοῦ Il. 1.591

10 τῆϲ θύραϲ βαθμοῦ “θέ̣ουϲα δὲ Ἶρ[ιϲ ἐ-] Il. 23.201-202

πέϲ̣τη{ι} βηλῶι ἐπὶ λιθέωι”, ὡϲ̣ [καὶ]

Λυϲανίαϲ ἐν τῶι περὶ ποιητ̣[ικῆϲ]

λέξ̣ε̣ωϲ. πεποίηται δὲ παρὰ τ̣ὸ̣ [βε-]

βη[κέναι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣τ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ο̣[

– – – – –

(col. i) … depas (‘cup’): (accented) like dékhas (‘receptacle’), (as in) ‘filling his cup with wine he greeted Achilles’ (Il. 9.224) and ‘they raised a toast with their cups’ (Il. 15.86) … ‘accost (him) with soft words’ (Il. 1.582): (meaning) ‘touch (him) with flattering (?) words’. But Seleucus … ‘mollify’ …

(col. ii) … The active aorist was derived in this way, and tetagôn by extension. Attic speakers say teutazô with a superfluous upsilon … tetasthai (‘to have been stretched’) … is made clear from their speech (?), and both the verb tanuô (‘I stretch’) and … titainô (‘I stretch’), (as in) ‘and the whole (hide) is stretched out’ (Il. 17.393), are not distant from the original form. bêlos: Aristarchus (defines it as) the threshold of the door, (as in) ‘Iris ran and stood on the stone threshold’ (Il. 23.201-202), as does Lysanias in the (work) On poetic diction. It is formed from bebêkenai (‘to have walked’) …

In the commentary below, the scholia D are quoted according to van Thiel, Scholia D; the text of the scholia vetera follows Erbse, Schol. vet.

Col. i

1-3. Cf. Sch. AT Il. 1.584c δέπαϲ· οἱονεὶ δέχαϲ. καὶ “πληϲάμενοϲ δ’ οἴνοιο δέπαϲ” (Il. 9.224) καὶ “δεικανόωντο δέπαϲϲιν” (Il. 15.86), with some minor variants between A and T. The papyrus gives a longer quotation of Il. 9.224. Orion 43.5 has a similar note without the Homeric quotations (δέπαϲ· δέχαϲ τί ἐϲτι, δι’ οὗ δεχόμεθα τὴν πόϲιν), whence derive similar entries in the medieval etymologica.

4-6. Suppl. Lobel.

4-5. The equation of καθάπτεϲθαι with ἐπιθιγγάνειν is not found in the Homeric scholia, but similar equivalences are attested elsewhere, e.g. Hsch., ε4806 Latte - Cunningham ἐπιθιγγάνει· ἐφάπτεται, Sch. Aeschl. Th. 258j θιγγάνουϲ’· ἁπτομένη. In the lacuna there presumably stood a synonym of μαλακοῖϲιν agreeing with λ̣ό̣γοιϲ. Sch. D gloss the adjective with κολακευτικοῖϲ, πραέϲιν.

5-6. ‘That Seleucus was responsible for the interpretation “mollify” is new, if that is what our text said’ (Lobel). Similar glosses appear in Sch. D Il. 1.582 καθάπτεϲθαι· καταπραΰνειν, ἔπεχειν and Hsch., κ82 Latte - Cunningham καθάπτεϲθαι· λοιδορεῖϲθαι, ὀνειδίζειν. πραΰνειν. Seleucus, dubbed Ὁμηρικόϲ, was a wide-ranging Alexandrian scholar active in Rome under Augustus and Tiberius; he was supposedly killed by the latter emperor sometime before 37 CE (Suet., Tib. 56). He wrote several treatises on Homer (κατὰ τῶν Ἀριϲτάρχου ϲημείων and διορθωτικά, cited respectively in P.Oxy. II 221 xv 17 and 25) and possibly a commentary on the Iliad, and he was the author of a general collection of γλῶϲϲαι in at least two books. The present gloss may derive from one of the last two works. The standard study remains that of M. Müller, De Seleuco Homerico, Diss. Göttingen 1891, but his collection of fragments is incomplete and contains questionable attributions to Seleucus; cf. B. A. Müller, RE IIA (1923), cols. 1251-1256 s.v. Seleukos (44). A fuller study and collection of fragments by Elizabeth A. Duke, The Grammarian Seleukos of Alexandria: An Edition of the Fragments, DPhil thesis, Oxford 1969, is unfortunately not publicly available but can be consulted in the Bodleian Library.

9-10. ]κύπελ̣[λον: either ἀμφι]κύπελ̣[λον (Il. 1.584), for which Sch. T provide the interlinear gloss ἀμφίκυρτον, ἐξ οὗ τὸ περιφερέϲ (cf. also Sch. D ἀμφοτέρωθεν κοῖλον καὶ περιφερέϲ), or ἐδέξατο χειρὶ] κύπελ̣[λον (Il. 1.596), which is quoted by Sch. A and Sch. T in the comment on Il. 1.585 ἐν χερϲὶ τίθει to support the Aristarchean variant ἐν χειρί. If the latter, perhaps restore a form of Ἀριϲτάρχειοϲ in 15-16 ]αρχει | [ ; cf. Apoll. Dysc., Synt. p. 223.15 Uhlig καὶ ἕνεκα τούτου προκέκριται ἡ Ἀριϲτάρχειοϲ ἀνάγνωϲιϲ, ‘and for this reason the Aristarchean reading has been preferred’.

Col. ii

1-9. This note appears to follow the standard derivation of the participial form τεταγών (Il. 1.591) from present *τάζω but also newly relates it to Attic τευτάζω as well as τανύω and τιταίνω. The word is a Homeric dis legomenon recurring at Il. 15.23 and is related to Lat. tango, tetigi by modern lexica: see LSJ s.v.; R.S.P. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden 2010, s.v.; P. Chantraine, Dictionaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots, Paris 1968-80, 2nd ed. with Suppl. 1999, s.v. On reduplicated aorist forms in Homer, see P. Chantraine, Grammaire homérique. Tome I: Phonétique et morphologie, Paris 1942, pp. 395-397.

There is no comment on the form in the scholia apart from the glosses ἐκτείναϲ, τινάξαϲ in Sch. D; similarly Apoll. Soph., p. 151.16 Bekker, Hsch., τ572 Hansen - Cunningham (with διατείναϲ instead of ἐκτείναϲ), etc. For the derivation from *τάζω, cf. Philoxenus fr. 303 Theodoridis (1st cent. BCE) = Orion 153.19: τόξον· τάζω ἐϲτὶ ῥῆμα, ἀφ’ οὗ ἔταγον δεύτεροϲ ἀόριϲτοϲ καὶ ταγὼν μετοχὴ καὶ κατὰ ἀναδιπλαϲιαϲμὸν τεταγών, ὡϲ πείθω <ἔπιθον> πιθὼν καὶ πεπιθών. (…) Φιλόξενοϲ ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ἰάδοϲ διαλέκτου; ‘toxon (“bow”): tazô is a verb from which (is formed) the second aorist etagon, the participle tagôn and by reduplication tetagôn, like peithô, epithon, pithôn and pepithôn. (…) Philoxenus in the (work) On the Ionic dialect.’ Similarly Ps.-Herod., Schematismi Homerici 107 Egenolff, Choer., Prol. 70, Eustath. 1.242.7, Et. M., 753.40.

1. τὸ ἐνεργη]|τικὸν ἀόριϲτον ἐϲπάϲθαι οὕτω[ϲ]: presumably a reference to the derivation of the aorist form ἔταγον from *τάζω.

2. κατ̣’ ἔ̣κταϲ(ιν): in grammatical writings, the term ἔκταϲιϲ usually refers to the lengthening of vowels, but in this context it must mean reduplication (ταγ- → τεταγ-) and is equivalent to κατὰ ἀναδιπλαϲιαϲμόν in Philoxenus fr. 303 (supra cit.); cf. DEG s.v. II.2: ‘alargamiento morfológico, aumento verbal … gener. de formas que presentan algún alargamiento.’

[δέ] Lobel.

3-4. τευτάζω̣ [λέ]γουϲιν: τευτάζε̣[ιν λέ]γουϲιν Lobel. The link between τεταγών < *τάζω and τευτάζω is new. The latter is usually glossed with πραγματεύομαι, ϲτραγγεύομαι, or equivalents; see A. Pellettieri in Supplementum Grammaticum Graecum III, Leiden - Boston 2020, pp. 344-346 (I thank Prof. Lucia Prauscello for this reference). The import and reconstruction of what follows escape me.

4-5. ηγ ̣[ ̣ ̣]κ ̣ϲιν: ἠγν̣[οή]κα̣ϲιν, ‘they (i.e. Attic speakers) did not know’? But neither ν nor α can be confirmed.

5. δηλοῦ[ται]: δηλοῦ[ντεϲ] vel sim. would be too long.

6. ἄπω[θ]ε̣ν Lobel.

9-10. The scholia (A, D) here ‘quote the followers of Aristarchus for the accentuation of βηλόϲ and the meaning τὸν τῶν θεῶν βαθμόν but give τὸν οὐδὸν τῆϲ θύραϲ as the common acceptation of the word’ (Lobel).6 Sch. AD Il. 1.591: τῷ δὲ τόνῳ καθάπερ οἱ Ἀριϲτάρχειοι βηλὸν ὡϲ χωλὸν προφερόμενοι, ἀποδιδόντεϲ τὸν τῶν θεῶν βαθμόν. ἕτεροι δὲ βηλὸν εἶπον τὸν ἀνωτάτω πάγον, καὶ περιέχοντα τὸν πάντα ἀέρα· ἄλλοι τὴν περίοδον τοῦ αἰθέροϲ καὶ τῶν ἀϲτέρων· κοινῶϲ δὲ ϲημαίνει ὁ βηλὸϲ τὸν οὐδὸν τῆϲ θύραϲ, ὃν καλοῦϲι φλιάν· ὁ δὲ ποιητὴϲ ὑποτίθεται τὸν οὐρανὸν πύλαϲ ἔχοντα. εἴρηται δὲ βηλὸϲ ἀπὸ τοῦ βαίνεϲθαι, ὡϲ καὶ ὁδὸϲ ἀπὸ τοῦ διοδεύεϲθαι. The definition βαθμὸϲ θύραϲ recurs in Apoll. Soph., p. 51.15 Bekker, Et. Gen., β105 Lasserre - Livadaras, Εt. Μ., p. 196.20; cf. also Sch. T Il. 15.23b1 ἀπὸ βηλοῦ· βαθμοῦ, παρὰ τὸ βήϲω. If the papyrus’ report is correct, it would appear that the tradition from which the medieval scholia derive became confused at some stage and substituted τῶν θεῶν for Aristarchus’ τῆϲ θύραϲ, or perhaps the fuller definition was originally βαθμὸϲ τῆϲ τῶν θεῶν θύραϲ.

11-13. ‘Lysanias is not elsewhere quoted in this connection’ (Lobel). He was a scholar from Cyrene and is known from about a dozen citations. Some relate to the interpretation of Homeric words, the rest are on Simonides (Ath., 14.620c = F 1 Dettori) and Hipponax (Ath., 7.304b = F 2 Dettori) from a work entitled περὶ ἰαμβοποιοιῶν, on Herodorus (Ath., 11.504b = F 10 Dettori), and on Euripides (Sch. Eur., Andr. 10 = F 9 Dettori). For the most recent collection of his fragments and further bibliography, see E. Dettori, Supplementum Grammaticum Graecum I: Antidorus, Dionysius Iambus, Epigenes, Lysanias, Parmenon, Silenus, Simaristus, Simmias, Leiden - Boston 2019, pp. 86-172 (henceforth SGG I). The Suda’s entry for Eratosthenes (ε2898 = T 1 Dettori) says that his teachers were the philosopher Ariston of Chios, the grammarian Lysanias of Cyrene, and the poet Callimachus, which has naturally led scholars to place Lysanias in the third century BCE. It is worth noting, however, that the Suda is often unreliable as regards teacher-pupil relationships. Eratosthenes could have been connected to Lysanias simply on the basis of their common Cyrenean origin. The Suda’s claim that Callimachus was another of Eratosthenes’ teachers has similarly been doubted; see R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginning to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford 1968, pp. 153-154; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, II, Oxford 1972, pp. 490 n. 205; K. Geus, Eratosthenes von Kyrene, München 2002, pp. 18-19.

If the traditional dating of Lysanias is correct, Aristarchus was cited first probably because he was considered the greater authority. The two scholars are sometimes mentioned together or in relation to the same passage. Herodorus and Apion disagreed with Lysanias on the interpretation of ἐϲήλατο at Il. 16.558, siding instead with Aristarchus (Eustath. ad Il. 1075.45-54 = F 6b Dettori). The identity and period of activity of Herodorus are unknown;7 Apion lived in the first half of the first century CE (see P.Oxy. LXXIX 5202, with further bibliography). Lysanias and Aristarchus are cited in connection with the same problem in Sch. A Il. 16.558b = F 6a Dettori (Aristarchus first, then Lysanias). Porphyry cites Lysanias alongside Aristophanes and Aristarchus – in that order – on the form καρόϲ in Il. 9.378 (F 5 Dettori). We can also infer from Sch. Od. 23.3 and Et. M., 779.10 etc. = F 8 Dettori that both Lysanias and Aristarchus dealt with the interpretation of the hapax verb ὑπερικταίνοντο, although these sources do not cite them together.

The new title of Lysanias’ work raises a problem. Tzetzes in his prolegomena to Hesiod’s Works and Days refers to a work περὶ ποιητῶν by Lysimachus of Cyrene: Ἑλικῶν δὲ καὶ Κιθαιρὼν ἀπὸ Ἑλικῶνοϲ καὶ Κιθαιρῶνοϲ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐκλήθηϲαν, οἵτινεϲ καὶ πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ ἐπολέμηϲαν, καθὼϲ ὁ Κυρηναῖοϲ Λυϲίμαχοϲ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ περὶ ποιητῶν ἱϲτορεῖ, ‘(the Boeotian mountains) Helicon and Cithaeron were named after the brothers Helicon and Cithaeron, who fought against each other, as Lysimachus the Cyrenean records in the first book on poets’ (Prol. Hes. Op. 29-30 Gaisford = F 3a Dettori). Cf. also Tz., Hist. 6.913-916 = F 3b Dettori: ὁ Ἑλικὼν καὶ Κιθαιρὼν ὄρη τῆϲ Βοιωτίαϲ / ἐξ Ἑλικῶνοϲ ἀδελφῶν ὄντων καὶ Κιθαιρῶνοϲ, / οἵπερ ἀλλήλουϲ ἔκτειναν, ὡϲ οἱ Οἰδίπου παῖδεϲ, / ὡϲ ἔγραψε Λυϲίμαχοϲ ἀνὴρ ὁ Κυρηναῖοϲ. Lysimachus is otherwise better known as the name of an Alexandrian mythographer of the Hellenistic period, and no other source identifies him as being from Cyrene. Scholars have therefore long ago suspected that Lysimachus in Tzetzes is a mistake for Lysanias,8 although A. Gudeman, RE XIII.2 (1927), cols. 2508-2511 s.v. Lysanias (8), and XIV (1930), cols. 32-39 s.v. Lysimachos (20), has vigorously defended retaining the identification with Lysimachus. If the title of Lysanias’ work in the papyrus were περὶ ποιητ̣[ῶν] λέξ̣ε̣ωϲ, it would seem to vindicate the earlier scholars, with the qualification that the full title was truncated by Tzetzes or his source. Such a hypothesis, however, would imply that Tzetzes erred in recalling both the name of the author and the title of the work, which is uneconomical. Furthermore, περί-titles beginning with dependent genitives are relatively uncommon, especially in grammatical and literary scholarship; in other genres, cf. e.g. the Hippocratic treatises περὶ ἄρθρων ἐμβολῆϲ, περὶ ὀϲτέων φύϲιοϲ, περὶ ὑγρῶν χρήϲιοϲ, Aelian’s περὶ ζώων ἰδιότητοϲ, Galen’s περὶ ψυχῆϲ παθῶν. There are no attested titles in the form περὶ ποιητῶν + noun to judge from the list of works entitled περὶ ποιητῶν vel sim. given by Dettori, SGG I, p. 114. It is therefore more likely, as Konstantine Panegyres suggests, that the work cited here for Lysanias was called περὶ ποιητ̣[ικῆϲ] λέξ̣ε̣ωϲ. The construction is commonplace: compare e.g. Didymus’ περὶ παρεφθορυίαϲ λέξεωϲ (Ath. 9.5.24), Ammonius’ περὶ ὁμοίων καὶ διαφόρων λέξεων, Herodian’s περὶ μονήρουϲ λέξεωϲ9, etc. For other works on λέξιϲ, see Dettori, SGG I, p. 5. Such a title would better suit the fragments of Lysanias’ Homeric scholarship, which mostly concentrate on the interpretation of specific words; cf. Baumstark, loc. cit., p. 716: ‘die Homerischen Studien des Lysanias … scheinen sich wesentlich auf dem Gebiete der niederen Kritik und der Worterklärung gehalten zu haben’; A. Ludwich, Homerica, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 151 (1895), pp. 1-17, at p. 11: ‘dass seine hauptsächlichste Forscher­thätigkeit bei Homer auf die Prosodie gerichtet war’; Dettori, SGG I, pp. 89-91. Whether Lysanias was also the author of a different work entitled περὶ ποιητῶν on the authority of Tzetzes’ problematic passage must remain an open question. On balance, the source for the aition of Helicon and Cithaeron in Tzetzes is more likely to be Lysimachus’ ϲυναγωγὴ τῶν Θηβαικῶν παραδόξων in thirteen books given its subject matter, as Gudeman argued, but this leaves several problems unaddressed regarding his ethnic and the title of the work (for some hypotheses, see the articles of Gudeman cited above).

13-14. πεποίηται δὲ παρὰ τ̣ὸ̣ [βε]βη[κέναι: this derivation is found also in Sch. Α and Sch. D preceding the mention of the accentuation and definition of the word by Aristarchus’ followers: ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ βεβηκέναι τοὺϲ θέουϲ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τοὺϲ ἀϲτέραϲ ἐκεῖθι βαίνειν εἴρηται (εὕρηται in van Thiel’s edition of Sch. D is an error).

Amin Benaissa

Bodleian Library Pl. V

MS. Gr. class. e. 76 (P) verso

Fayum 21 x 13.2 cm 2nd cent. CE

A fragment of a papyrus roll, written on both sides. According to Summary Catalogue VI, where it is recorded as no. 32462, it belongs to a group of papyri ‘given by mr. F.C. Conybeare or bought from B.P. Grenfell’ in 1896, and comes from the Fayum (Summary Catalogue VI, p. xxii). As it is clear from the kollesis on the back, the actual fragment, broken on the left and on the right, was assembled by joining parts of two other papyrus pieces (extant dimensions: the first 13.5 x 13.4 cm, the second 7.5 x 13.2), which had been previously written along the fibres, by two different hands. Because of this, it is not possible to ascertain if the fragment comes from a composite roll or from a sheet not too bigger than what it is extant.

The writing surface is badly damaged and full of holes. Moreover, the two kollemata already had many missing fibres when pasted together; this badly affects the integrity of the verso, especially close to its right border, where a whole layer of vertical fibres is missing (a 2 cm wide section, at the middle of col. iii), though the writing runs over it. In order to strengthen the newly obtained sheet, a small papyrus tag (measuring 5.7 x 3 cm) was cut from another document and glued on the side with the horizontal fibres, so as to cover the first two lines of the text previously transcribed on the sheet; the strip is recognizible also because its script runs in a different direction (it is turned by 180 degrees). Strips from previously written papyri were not infrequently used to repair deteriorated rolls: for a detailed list of examples, mostly from Oxyrynchus, see lastly Prodi, Guests, pp. 6-9 (with further bibliography). Differently from most of other cases, the strip was probably added to 5 soon after the sheets had been joined, because of the bad quality of the assembled kollemata.

The side with writing along the fibres is much abraded and stained. On the right part it is possible to see the traces of a column written in a script similar to that on the other side; the few barely legible words may point to a document (e.g. l. 1, ] ̣α πρὸϲ πάϲαν ; l. 3 ]αρξαντ[ ; l. 4, ] ̣μετὰ π ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ). On the left part there is also a single column, which comprised at 19 lines; the right margin is uneven, and the line length can considerably vary, reaching cm 13 (the very end of the kollema). The text was divided in two sections by a continuous line; though most of the words are illegible or faded away, some elements might point to a collection of grammatical notes (l. 18: ] ̣ανω βαρύν⟨ε⟩ται; cf. e.g. Ps.-Herod., De pros. cath., 3.1, p. 451.10 Lentz: τὰ διὰ τοῦ ανω ὑπερδιϲύλλαβα βαρύνεται).

The text on the side with the writing across the fibres is a glossary to Iliad’s first book, which surely includes lemmata from vv. 14-23 (Fontanella, Iliasglossarie, nr. *006.1; for a definition of the cathegory of ‘glossary’ see Montana, Greek Scholiastic Corpora, pp. 105-115). Due to the composite nature of the papyrus, it is impossible to ascertain whether the glossary began with the first verse of the book, as it is quite plausible, and especially if it included lemmata from Il. Book 1 alone. Three columns are extant (occasional traces at right are all that remains of a putative fourth column), broken off on the top and with a lower margin of 3.2 cm at its greater extent. They actually comprise 16 lines (of the first only tiny traces); according to the sequence of the lemmata, the missing text, from the end of a column and the beginning of the following one, would have been not too long: because col. ii ends with the discussion of the final part of v. 18 and col. iii starts with the explanation of the beginning of v. 19, it is possible that only a single line is missing from the top of the columns, even if, due to the unsystematic nature of the glossary, it is not possible to infer how many verses were originally discussed. In any case, one may surmise an original column height of 16-18 cm, and anyway not greater than 20 cm (dimension that are well attested for Homeric glossaries: see Fontanella, Iliasglossare, p. 180). Of the first column only a few final letters survive, while the other two have a width of c. 5 cm (starting from the beginning of the lemma), with an intercolumnar space c. 2 cm wide.

The layout aimed to help the reader, with a clear distinction between the lemmata and the glossae: the former are clearly divided from the latter with a dot; moreover, the explanations are indented, at a distance from the left that changes according to their length (as e.g. in P.Haun. I 3: see the evidence collected in Fontanella, Iliasglossare, pp. 181-182, ‘Mise en Page 2a’). When the glosses are distributed across several lines, each is marked by a large dot, on the left margin on the column, though they are sometimes not well aligned with the text they should signal (see esp. col. ii 1-3). The dots were evidently intended to help the reader to distinguish between lemmata and glossae (a rather unparalleled feature).

The script is a quick and coarse uninformal majuscule, tall and narrow, with long uprights projected over the line (see esp. eta and kappa) or under it (as esp. rho and phi, as well as the left element of kappa and pi); the traits are rounded but inaccurate and with varying thickness; letters size can vary: omicron is sometimes smaller, while epsilon (written in two strokes, with middle horizontal detached or joined to the extremity of the arc) and sigma can be markedly enlarged, especially at line end or beginning. Other notable letter forms include: alpha, written either in two strokes, sometimes with two loops, or in three stokes, as a ‘wedge’, especially at line beginning; eta, with the first upright much longer than the second; kappa, with a long upright detached from the shorter obliques; pi, with a short and curved second upright. The ductus determines pseudo-ligatures, especially between alpha or epsilon and iota. The most apparent characteristic is, anyway, the axis inclination: the letters are markedly sloping to the left, a pretty unusual feature in a literary text, even if attested at least in some Christian papyri from Oxyrhynchus (see e.g. the apocryphal Gospel P.Oxy. LX 4009, assigned to the 2nd cent. CE). Indeed, it was a distinctive trait of a a chancery style well developed in the age of the Antonines, attested by official documents as P.Brem. 6, letter to the strategos Apollonios by the epistrategos Thebaidos Flavius Filoxenos, written in the age of Hadrian (Cavallo, Calamo, tav. 1), and in exercises by hands which were practicing bureaucratic scripts, as those who wrote the (Greek) upper lines on the verso of PSI XII 13071 and the verso of P.Ryl. I 59 (see the discussion in L. Sardone, Novità dal riesame di P.Ryl. I 59, recto e verso, S&T 17 [2019], pp. 35-45: 39-42, with reproduction of P.Ryl. I 59 as tav. 2). The script of 5 is quicker and less formalized than the chancery hands of P.Brem. 6 or PSI XII 1307, but the letters morphology is similar, though the rounded traits of varying thickness can give a different impression. Such features suggest an assignment to the 2nd cent. CE, and probably to the central decades of the century, slightly later than the earliest example of that chancery script (but before the age of the Severans).

The glossae are short explanations, mostly aimed to make clearer some rare words, usually with a single synonym or a short paraphrase; mythological notes are limited to their relevance for understanding the literal meaning of the texts. In at least one case (ii 5, κοϲμήτορε), the lexical information is joined to a trivial etymological clarification which is not present in Byzantine scholiastic corpora, and in another, a term is chosen with a different nuance compared to that used in later erudition (iii 12-14, ἐπευφήμηϲαν). Some lemmata are not included in Sch. D for Book 1 (according to a collation with van Thiel, Scholia D, whose sigla have been adopted in the following remarks), but they consist of words used also in other Homeric books, which are included in the respective scholiastic corpora: see esp. ii 10, ἐϋκνήμιδεϲ; ii 11, δοῖεν. The most interesting difference from Sch. D, anyway, is the comparative discussion of the different meaning of ἅζομαι and ἄζω (not aspirated) at col. iii 9-11 (lemma ἁζόμενοι): see comm. ad loc.

The text has several itacistic mistakes and hypercorrect spellings (see iii 11, ἐ̣ν̣τραιπόμενοι for ἐντρεπόμενοι, and iii 13, εὐφ̣η̣μ̣ε̣ί[α]ϲ for εὐφημίαϲ). One lemma is misplaced (i 9: see comm. ad loc.) and in another case the phraseology of the explanation is unclear; in one point, anyway, the scribe corrects a mistake by roughly cancelling two letters with ink lines (iii 2). Apart from the dots which distinguish the lemmata from the glossae, and one diairesis at ii 10 (εϋκνημιδεϲ), all written by the hand of the scribe, there are no other signs.

Book 1 is well represented in extant glossaries to the Iliad. Fontanella, Iliasglossare, pp. 274-284 lists thirty other papyri with this kind of exegetic material; seven of them contain lemmata from the same section as 5, for a period ranging from the early Roman age (P.Mich. inv. 1588; 1st cent. CE) to Late Antiquity (P. Berol. inv. 5014, 5th cent. CE).

Besides Sch. D (according to van Thiel’s edition), the text has been collated with other papyrus glossaries, starting from the information collected by Lundon, The Scholia Minora. I thank Valeria Fontanella and Serena Perrone for their suggestions.

Col. i

– – – – –

]ω̣

]α

]α̣

]υ̣

5 ]

]ια

]

]

]

10 ]υ̣

]α̣

]ια

]

]του

(margin)

1 ] ̣ ̣ : the end of a high horizontal, and then the beginning of a vertical      ω̣ : only the left part is missing      2 ] ̣ ̣ : indeterminate traces of two letters      3 ]α̣ : part of a left arc; on the top part of a curve oblique      4 ] ̣υ̣ : two specks of a descending oblique (α or λ possible), then two converging obliques      5 ] ̣ ̣ : specks ot two letters      8 ] ̣ : an ink dot, then part of a curved, descending oblique, as of α̣      9 ] ̣ ̣ indeterminate traces of two letters      10 ] ̣ : traces of two converging obliques      11 ] ̣α̣ : the beginning of a vertical, then a curved oblique preceded by traces of a small left arc      12 ] ̣ : the foot of a descending oblique      13 ] ̣ : a right arc; ο̣ and ω̣ both possible      ] ̣: an ink dot

– – – – –

]ω̣

]α

]α̣

]υ̣

5 ]

]ια

]

]

]

10 ]

]α̣

]ια

]

τοξ]ό̣του Il. 1.14

(margin)

Col. ii

– – – – –

] ̣[

· δεαγαμ[

· μνονακ̣[

· μενελαον

5 κοϲμητορε · τουϲη

· γεμοναϲα

· ποτουκοϲ

· μειν · οεϲ

· τινδιαταϲιν

10 ενθα̣ · τοτε

εϋκνημιδεϲ · ευο

· πλοιαπομ̣ερουϲ

· τηϲκνημιδοϲ

δοιεν · παραϲχοιεν

15 ο̣λυμπιαδωματε

χοντεϲ · οιτονο

(margin)

1 ̣[ : the last part of a curved, descending oblique or upright      3 κ̣[ : the last part of the upright      11 ϋ : one dot of the dieresis can be clearly seen, while the other is very faint

– – – – –

][ Il. 1.16 (Ἀτρείδα δὲ μάλιϲτα δύο)

· δὲ Ἀγαμ[έ-

· μνονα κ̣[αὶ

· Μενέλαον

5 κοϲμήτορε · τοὺϲ ἡ- Il. 1.16

· γεμόναϲ ἀ-

· πὸ τοῦ κοϲ-

· μεῖν · ὅ ἐϲ-

· τιν διατάϲιν

10 ἔνθα̣ · τότε Il. 1.22 (?)

ἐϋκνήμιδεϲ · εὔο- Il. 1.17

· πλοι ἀπὸ μ̣έρουϲ

· τῆϲ κνημῖδοϲ

δοῖεν · παράϲχοιεν Il. 1.18

15 Ὀ̣λύμπια δώματ’ ἔ- Il. 1.18

χοντεϲ · οἱ τὸν Ὄ-

(margin)

8 διατάϲιν : l. διατάϲϲειν

Col. iii

– – – – –

] ̣[ ] ̣[ ] ̣[ ] ̣ ̣[

]ι̣⟦τη⟧ν Ιλιον

]ικαδε · ειϲοικονδε

]κεϲθαι · πα̣ρ̣α[.]ενεϲθαι̣

5 π̣αιδα · θυγατερα

]υϲαιτ̣ε · λυτρωϲαιτε

]ιλην̣ · προϲφιλην

δ̣εχεϲθαι · λαμβ̣ανιν

αζομ̣ε̣νοι · ϲεβομε

10 · νοι · εα̣νδ̣ε̣ψι

· ̣ ̣ϲξ̣ηραινομενοι

επευφημηϲαν · με

· τευφ̣η̣μ̣ε̣ι̣[.]ϲϲυ̣ν̣

καττο

15 αιδειϲθ̣αι · εντρεπεϲθαι

(margin)

1 ][ ][ ][ : indistinct traces      [ a dot, then a low arc      2 ]ι̣ : a left arc, then a speck; finally the beginning and the end of an upright       ⟦τη⟧ : the two letters are erased with ink traits      4 ι̣ : the upper part of an upright      5 π̣ : an upright , then the end of another upright      8 β̣ : part of an upright and part of a low horizontal, joined to a curve      10 α̣ : the left part of an arc, then a curved oblique      δ̣ : only part of the base is missing      ε̣ : a left arc joined to a horizontal in the middle      11: a low dot and, on the upper part, traces of an arc or of the beginning of a curved oblique, followed by a low dot; then, a low curve      ξ̣: a high horizontal, curved at the beginning and joined to an upright in the middle      13 all the line is stained and rubbed, but the readings are certain      14: specks of a left and a low arc, followed by a high ink dot; then part of a lower arc and of a middle horizontal, followed by traces of another arc; finally the end of an upright and traces of another upright      15 θ̣ : only the right part of the letter is extant

– – – – –

] ̣[ ] ̣[ ] ̣[ ] ̣ ̣[

π]ό̣λ̣ι̣⟦τη⟧ν ῎Ιλιον Il. 1.19

ο]ἴκαδε · εἰϲ οἶκον δὲ Il. 1.19

ἱ]κέϲθαι · πα̣ρ̣α[γ]ενέϲθαι̣ Il. 1.19

5 παῖδα · θυγατέρα Il. 1.20

λ]ύϲαιτ̣ε · λυτρώϲαιτε Il. 1.20

φ]ίλην̣ · προϲφίλην Il. 1.20

δ̣έχεϲθαι · λαμβ̣άνιν Il. 1.20

ἁζόμ̣ε̣νοι · ϲεβόμε- Il. 1.21

10 · νοι · ἐὰ̣ν δ̣ὲ̣ ψι-

· λῶϲ ξηραινόμενοι

ἐπευφήμηϲαν · με- Il. 1.22

· τ’ εὐφ̣η̣μ̣ε̣ί[α]ϲ ϲυ̣ν̣-

· κατέ̣θ̣ε̣ν̣το

15 αἰδεῖϲθ̣αι · ἐντρέπεϲθαι Il. 1.23

(margin)

6 λυτρώϲαιτε : l. λυτρώϲατε      7 προϲφίλην : l. προϲφιλῆ      8 λαμβάνιν : l. λαμβάνειν        13 εὐφ̣η̣μ̣ε̣ί[α]ϲ : l. εὐφημίαϲ      13–14 ϲυ̣ν̣κατέ̣θ̣ε̣ν̣το : l. ϲυγκατέθεντο

Col. i

14. A possible integration which fits extant letters is τοξ]ό̣του, to be intended as part of a glossa to Il. 1.14, ἑκηβόλου. Cf. Sch. D Il. I 14: ἑκηβόλου·ἕκαθεν, ὅ ἐϲτι πόρρωθεν, βάλλον­τοϲ τὰ βέλη, εὐϲτόχου τοξότου. It is possible that 5 had a more concise explanation, which anyway could not be contained in a single line. If we read ]ο̣ at l. 13, one of the possible reconstructions would be [ἑκηβόλου· εὐϲτ]ό|[χου τοξ]ό̣του (the latter indented); but longer versions are also possible.

Col. ii

2-4. The explanation is clearly referred to Il. 1.16, Ἀτρείδα δὲ μάλιϲτα δύο. Sch. D (ZQX) offer a slightly different phraseology: μάλιϲτα δὲ τοὺϲ Ἀτρέωϲ παῖδαϲ, Ἀγαμέμνονα καὶ Μενέλαον. The glossa in 5 had to be shorter; a possible restitution could be e.g.

[Ἀτρείδα δὲ μάλ-]

1 [ιϲτα· ] μ̣[άλιϲτα]

· δὲ Ἀγαμ[έ-]

· μνονα κ̣[αὶ]

· Μενέλαον.

This would imply that on the top of the column only two lines are missing.

5-9. The Sch. D have a shorter remark, deprived of etymological suggestions: κοϲμήτορε · διατάκτοραϲ, ἡγεμόναϲ (ZQX), similar to the explanation offered by Hsch., κ3767 Latte - Cunningham, and found also in other glossaries on papyrus (see esp. P.Achm. 2, 33, and P.Oslo II 12, iii 16); nor is etymological information provided by the larger corpus of the scholia vetera. A connection between κοϲμήτορεϲ and the verbs κοϲμεῖν and διατάϲϲειν can be found, indeed, in Apollonius’ Lexicon Homericum, s.v. κοϲμῆϲαι (Bekker, 103), but in a refined, allusive way which is far from the concise formulation of 5: κοϲμῆϲαι · διατάξαι. ὅθεν καὶ ὁ κόϲμοϲ, ἀπὸ τῆϲ τάξεωϲ ἧϲ ἕχει, ὠνόμαϲται, ὅι τε διατάϲϲοντεϲ βαϲιλεῖϲ κοϲμήτορεϲ. It is worthwhile mentioning that later Etymologica record the obvious connection with κοϲμεῖν, but do not mention any link with διατάϲϲειν (see e.g. Et. Gud., s.v. κοϲμήτοραϲ, p. 340 Sturz: κοϲμήτοραϲ, ἡγεμόναϲ, διὰ τὸ κοϲμεῖν τὸν λαόν). On the complex relationships among the exegetic material of papyrus glossaries, the Sch. D and Apollonius see at least M.W. Haslam, The Homer Lexicon of Apollonius Sophista. I. Compositions and Constituents, CPh 89 (1994), pp. 1-45.

10. The lemma is misplaced, as the first occurence of the word is at Il. 1.22 (nor is it plausible to postulate that the scribe had a copy with an unattested plus-verse). ἔνθα is included in Sch. D and at least in one furter glossary (P.Oslo II 12, iii 1).

11-13. Not in Sch. D ad loc., according to the edition by van Thiel, but the word is glossed e.g. in Sch. gen. Il. 5.668 (ed. Nicole, Les scolies genevoises, I, p. 91); moreover similar explanations are found in other papyrus glossaries: see esp. P.Oslo II 12, iii 17 (where we have to read εὔοπλοι, as correctly established in the new edition by V. Fontanella, Neuedition von P.Oslo II 12: ὀνομαϲτικὸν Ὁμήρου?, ZPE 217 [2021], pp. 37-52, instead of the previous εὔϲτολοι, listed in Lundon, The Scholia Minora, p. 99, s.v. ἐυκνήμιδεϲ, in accordance with the ed. pr.).

14. Sch. D ad loc. offers to the reader the whole pericope (ὑμῖν μὲν θεοὶ δοῖεν· ὑμῖν μὲν θεοὶ παράϲχοιεν, ZQX); other papyrus glossaries discuss only the verb: see e.g. P.Oslo II 12, iii 18 (where the explanation is slightly different: δοίηϲαν, παρέχοιεν) or, for a different verse, P.Amh. II 18, xiv 180, ad Od. 15.316.

15. The general meaning of the missing part of the explanation can be easily restored by comparison with Sch. D ad loc.: οἱ τὸν Ὄλυμπον κατοικοῦντεϲ θεοί (ZQXU). Considering the number of the required letters, a similar pericope would occupy two lines, which is consistent with the proposed restoration at the beginning of col. ii. Unfortunately, the extant traces of the first line of col. iii are too faint to allow a reliable, proper reconstruction.

Col. iii

2. A simplified version of the lemma and the glossa found in Sch. D: Πριάμοιο πολιν · Πριάμου δὲ πόλιν τὴν Ἴλιον περιφραστικῶϲ. A similar glossa for the formula is found in P.Oxy. LXVII 4630, i 17, ad Il. 2.37.

3. In Sch. D we read a slightly different expression: εἰϲ τὰ οἰκεῖα (ZQX), which is more accurate, but also less familiar to common readers.

4. Again, a simplified version of the lemma and the glossa found in the D-scholia: παῖδα δέ μοι · τὴν δὲ θυγατέρα μου (ZQX). Extant glossaries offer no comparison.

5. λ]ύϲαιτ̣ε : part of the tradition has the form λύϲατε, which is found, among the others, in Z, where it is glossed with a rather different phraseology (λύϲατε · λύτρα λαβόντεϲ ἀπόδοτε, whereas other codices, as Q and X, have the same glossa, but using the verb λύϲαιτε). Λυτρώϲαιτε (l. λυτρώϲατε) has no comparison, even if it offers as well a valid explanation for the Homeric lemma.

6. προϲφίλην : a ‘simplified’ form for προϲφιλῆ. In Sch. D there is the more emphatic προϲφιλεϲτάτην (ZQX); the form προϲφίλην is used, anyway, to explain the formula παῖδα φίλην in Sch. D ad Il. 1.447 (ZYQ).

7. Sch. D prefer here the imperative (λαμβάνετε, ZQX), which explains more clearly the proper meaning of the Homeric word. Extant glossaries on papyrus do not offer comparison for this passage.

9-10. ἀζόμ̣ε̣νοι … ϲεβόμενοι : in Sch. D (ZQX) the participle ἀζόμενοι is explained with two, almost synonymous terms: ϲεβόμενοι and ἐντρεπόμενοι, as we read also in Hsch., α1476 Latte - Cunningham; similarly, the verb ἅζομαι is explained as ἐντρέπομαι, ἢ ϲέβομαι, ἢ ὑποχωρῶ (the latter far from the Homeric meaning) in Et. Gud. (s.v. ἄζομαι, p. 29.14 de Stefani), while in the glossary P.Achm. 2, l. 36, we find only ϲεβόμενοι, as in 5.

10-11. ἐὰ̣ν δ̣ὲ̣ ψι|λ̣ῶ̣ϲ ξηραινόμενοι : ‘but if (it is) without the aspiration, being withered’. I owe the correct reading of this passage to Valeria Fontanella. As far as now, this is the only glossary which comprises a comparative reflection on the different meaning of ἅζομαι from the ‘psilotic’ ἄζω (both attested in Homer), regarding Il. 1.21. The presence or absence of the aspiration is taken into account in specific discussions on either of the two terms: so in Sch. AbT Il. 1.21a (Erbse, Schol. vet. I, p. 15) we read that the participle ἁζόμενοι δαϲύνεται (‘is aspirated’) διὰ τὸ ϲημαινόμενον, and on the contrary in Sch. D Il. 4.487 ἀζομένη – from ἄζω – is explained as ξηραινομένη (same verb as in 5) with the supplementary note for the reader: ψιλῶϲ ἀναγνωϲτέον · ἐϲχημάτιϲται γὰρ παρὰ τὴν ϲτέρεϲιν τοῦ ζῆν (ZYQIm). Such reflections had their origin in the grammatical tradition: Erbse attributes to Herodian the remark on the ‘semantic’ value of the aspiration in the scholium ad Il. 1.21a. Under this point of view, it is worth noting that a comparative discussion of the meaning of the two verbs is found in Apoll. Soph., Lex. Hom., s.v. ἄζετο, p. 11.19-33 Bekker (Apollonius quote first Il. 4.487 and then Il. 1.21).

12-14. ἐπευφήμηϲαν … ϲυ̣ν̣|κατέ̣θ̣ε̣ν̣το : ‘epeuphemesan: they agreed with favourable words’. The formulation is slightly different from the D-scholia, which have the verb ἐπεβόηϲαν; extant papyri do not offer any comparisons (but in P.Oslo II 12, which preserves the same lemma, the glossa is not preserved). By choosing it, the commentator emphasizes the assembly’s endorsement of Chryses’ words instead of the clamour that is inherent in ἐπιβοάω.

15. The glossa corresponds to the explanation in Sch. D, which is found also in Apoll. Soph., Lex. Hom., s.v., p. 15, l. 3 Bekker, and in Hsch., α1764 Latte - Cunningham.

Lucio Del Corso

Bodleian LibraryPl. VI

MS. Gr. class. e. 134 (P),

frs. 4-5 Fr. 4: 5.8 x 15.8 cm After 136/137 CE

? Fr. 5: 6.3 x 17.9 cm

Two fragments separated from the same papyrus sheet, preserving scholia minora to the second book of the Iliad. They are glazed with other fragments of different contents, under the same inventory number: one, containing Strab., 12.3.1, has been published as Hatzilambrou, Strabo; another is presented in this volume as 2. Their provenance is unknown: they belonged to a batch of papyri given to the Bodleian Library by Lucy E. Hunt, widow of Arthur S. Hunt (see Sampson, The David G. Hogarth Papyri, § 20), which included also 1/4 and 14 (see resp. p. 21 and 107).

The pieces belonging to the Glossary have suffered considerable damage. The right margin is hardly preserved to a maximum of 0.6 cm (ll. 13-14).

This glossary is listed as number 025.5 in Fontanella’s catalogue of papyri preserving scholia minora to the Iliad1. It becomes the 17th fully edited papyrus witnessing scholia minora to the second book of the Iliad.

The scholia are written across the fibres on the back of a still unpublished document of uncertain character (a common practice: see Fontanella, Iliasglossare, pp. 58-60). Line 4 refers to the ‘21st year of deified Hadrian’, which suggests that the writing of the glossary postdates 136/137.

The text of the glossary is written in an ‘informal round’ (on this category see GMAW2, p. 21), rapidly executed and practiced, medium-sized, sloping to right hand. Bilinearity is observed with the common exception of ρ, which extends below the baseline, φ, which extends below and above it, and the tall β, which projects above. Other notable letters are looped α made in one movement, small o, curved μ with deep saddle touching the baseline, φ with triangular loop. The hand displays cursive elements: see e.g. the forms of ν, and ε with no middle horizontal, often touching each other and forming ligatures. In this respect, the hand bears affinities to documents of the late second century, such as P. Oxy. XLVII 3339 and SB XIV 12171, both dated to 191. Digital images of these documents can be seen online, respectively on Oxyrhynchus Papyri Online and papyri.info.

The glossary was not copied carefully: it was presumably intended for private use, given also its informal script (see in general Spooner, Nine Homeric Papyri, pp. 7-8, and Fontanella, Iliasglossare, pp. 90-95). Omissions of letters are observed in two Homeric lemmata (ll. 3 and 8) and one gloss (l. 9). In the last case, the scribe omitted the third in sequence ο of ὁμονοήcωμεν, but initially he had written ο instead of ω in the ensuing syllable, which he himself corrected. The only lectional sign in evidence is the apostrophe between the double consonants in line 7. Elision is tacitly effected in line 13.

Expectedly, the lemmata are arranged by the order and form of their appearance in the Iliadic text. The layout of the glossary clearly belongs to type 2b in Fontanella’s classification2. Specifically, each line contains a single pair lemma + gloss. The glosses are not aligned in a clearly marked different parallel column, since they vary in their position with the length of the corresponding lemma. The lemmata are plainly separated from the glosses by a simple blank space varying somewhat unevenly from 1.0 to 1.5 cm. When a gloss occupies more than one line, the following line(s) is/are written in eisthesis (ll. 1-2, 3-4, 6-7, 8-9, 10-11, 13-14, 15-17), and when two equivalent glosses are supplied, they are simply juxtaposed (ll. 1-2, 10-11; parallels in Tagliapietra, Scholia Minora, p. 11 n. 8).

In this papyrus both single words and collocations/phrases are lemmatised. The tendency to gloss groups of words is mostly attested in the earlier glossaries (as already observed by A. Calderini, Commenti ‘minori’ al testo di Omero in documenti egiziani, Aegyptus 2 [1921], pp. 303-326: 315; see also Fontanella, Iliasglossare, p. 96). This piece has some lexicographical interest. Four out of nine of its glosses, namely to Il. 2.373, 374, 378, 379, are unparalleled and betray scholarly pretensions.

The Bodleian papyrus overlaps in subject matter with P.Harris I 10 (ed. M. Gronewald, ZPE 46 [1982], pp. 95-96; TM 60417; Fontanella 026) of the second century; the overlap concerns the two lemmata of Il. 2.381 and 382 (inferred from their preserved glosses), however the overlapping might be proved more extensive, if P.Harris I 10, ll. 1-5 could be fully read. Additionally, P.Aphrod.Lit. II (TM 61011, Fontanella 027) of the fourth/fifth century may overlap with the Bodleian glossary with respect to a single lemma of Il. 2.379. Thus, 6 is the first ancient manuscript of scholia minora hitherto published to cover verses 373-381 (partly) of Iliad 2.

I cordially thank Prof. N. Gonis for drawing my attention to this papyrus and for his advice. I am also sincerely indebted to Prof. S. Matthaios for reading a draft of this edition. Special thanks are due to Dr. V. Fontanella for providing me with a copy of her 2023 monograph.

Frr. 4+5

– – – – –

]ηκα̣τ̣α ̣[

] ̣πορθουμενη

αλουcατε[ ]μεντε εκ̣

παρα[]  ] ̣πορθηθειc ̣

απρη[]του ̣ απρακτου[ 5

χαλ ̣π[]ι̣νω[ χαλεπω ̣

][ πρατ’των

εγεμιανβο[ ]υcομεν ̣[

π[ ]μονηcωμε[

αναβληcιc αναβοληυπ ̣ρ̣ 10

̣εcιc

ηβαιον ]κρον

δειπνον ]αριcτονυφη

μ[ ]λεγομενον

̣ ̣[ ̣]α τ[ ]πολεμονοτεδ[ 15

τ[ ]δηρ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣]δε

̣[ ]θεο̣[

θ̣αcθ ̣[ ] ̣[

] ̣μ̣α̣[

– – – – –

1 α ̣[ : upright      2 ] ̣ : trace at line-level      4 ] ̣ ̣ : traces likely belonging to two letters: first, extremity of left-hand descender; second, bottom part of two uprights, probably part of the same letter      ] ̣ : ascending oblique c ̣ : trace at line level      5 υ ̣ : tiny trace at mid-letter height      6 λ ̣: dot at edge high in the line      ω ̣ : small trace at line-level      7 ].[ : lower part of an upright      8 ̣[ : left-hand part of a curved letter      11 ̣ε : small stroke at the top of the line      15 ̣ ̣[ : top of an arc and scattered traces below it suggest a triangular letter, followed by part of a vertical      16 ρ ̣ : top of a letter      ] ̣ : upper part of vertical joining a left-hand side horizontal at top line-level      17 ̣[ : trace at top line-level      18 θ̣ ̣ ̣ : short vertical stroke and separate dot high in the line, followed by three small dots forming a diagonal      ] ̣ : a tiny speck of ink      19 ] ̣ : faded remains of an upright curving leftwards at line-level

– – – – –

ἠμύϲειε κλιθεί]η κα̣τ̣α̣π̣[έ- Il. 2.373

cει]ε̣ πορθουμένη

ἁλοῦcά τε [περθο]μέν<η> τε ἐκ̣ Il. 2.374

παρα[λ]λ̣ή̣(λου) πορθηθεῖcα̣

5 ἀπρή[κ]του[c] ἀπράκτου[c Il. 2.376

χαλε̣π[α]ί̣νω[ν] χαλεπῶc̣ Il. 2.378

][ ]πράτ’των

ἔ<c> γε μίαν βο[υλε]ύcομεν ἐ̣[άν Il. 2.379

π[οτε ὁ]μον<ο>ήcωμε[ν

10 ἀνάβληcιc ἀναβολή ὑπέ̣ρ̣- Il. 2.380

θ̣εcιc

ἠβαιόν [μι]κρόν Il. 2.380

δεῖπνον [τὸ] ἄριcτον ὑφ’ ἡ- Il. 2.381

μ[ῶν] λεγόμενον

15 ἄ̣ρ̣[η]α τ[ὸν] πόλεμον ὅτε δ[ὲ Il. 2.381

τ[ὸν cί]δηρο̣[ν] ὅ̣[τε] δὲ

τ̣[ὸν] θεό̣[ν

θ̣η̣ξ̣άcθω̣ ] ̣[ Il. 2.382

] ̣μ̣α̣[ ?

– – – – –

The following abbreviations and sigla have been used in the commentary below:

PsAp: A. Ludwich, Über die homerischen Glossen Apions, Philologus 74 (1917), pp. 209-247; 75 (1918), pp. 95-103 (= K. Latte - H. Erbse, Lexica Graeca minora, Hildesheim 1965, pp. 287-334) [cited by page and line number].

ApS: Apollonii sophistae Lexicon Homericum, ed. I. Bekker, Berlin 1833 [cited by page and line number].

Cyr: U. Hagedorn, Das sogennante “Kyril”-Lexikon in der Fassung der Handschrift E (Codex Bremensis G 11), Köln 2005, https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/1813/ [cited by entry number].

EGen: Etymologicum magnum genuinum. Symeonis etymologicum una cum magna grammatica. Etymologicum magnum auctum, ed. F. Lasserre - N. Livadaras, I-II (α-βώτορεc), Roma 1976 [cited by entry number].

EGud: Etymologicum Gudianum, ed. E.L. de Stefani, I-II (A-Z), Leipzig 1909-1920 [cited by page and line number]; Etymologicum Graecae linguae Gudianum et alia grammaticorum scripta e codicibus manuscriptis nunc primum edita (for ζειαί - ω), Leipzig 1818 [cited by column and line number].

EM: Etymologicum magnum, ed. T. Gaisford, Oxford 1848 [cited by column and line number].

EpHom: Epimerismi Homerici. Pars 2, epimerismos continents qui ordine alphabetico traditi sunt. Lexicon “Aimōdein” quod vocatur seu verius “Etymologiai Diaphoroi”, ed. A.R. Dyck, Berlin 1995 [cited by entry number].

ESym: Etymologicum Symeonis (Γ-Ε), ed. D. Baldi, Turnhout 2013 [cited by entry number].

Eust: M. van der Valk, Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, I, praefationem et commentarios ad libros Α-Δ complectens, Leiden 1971 [cited by page number and line].

Hsch: Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, ed. K. Latte - I.C. Cunningham, I-II (α-ο), Berlin-Boston 2018-2020 [cited by entry number].

LexHom: Lexeis Homericae, ed. H. van Thiel, Köln 2002, http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/1815/ [cited by entry number].

Or: Orionis Thebani Etymologicon, ed. F.G. Sturz, Lipsiae 1820 [cited by column and line].

PB: Παράφραcιc τῆc Ὁμήρου Ἰλιάδοc, in Scholiorum in Homeri Iliadem appendix, ed. I. Bekker, Berlin 1827, pp. 651-811.

Philox: C. Theodoridis, Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos, Berlin - New York 1976 [cited by entry number].

Ph: Photii patriarchae Lexicon, ed. C. Theodoridis, i-iv (α-φ), Berlin 1982-2012 [cited by entry number].

PW: Homeri Iliadis liber I et II, cum paraphrasi Graeca huc usque inedita, et Graecorum veterum commentariis magnam partem nunc primum in lucem prodeuntibus. Edidit notas in paraphrasin scholiorum emendatorum specimen et alia quaedam adjecit E. Wassenbergh, Franeker 1783.

SchAb: Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia vetera), ed. H. Erbse, i, Berlin 1969 [cited by reference to the Homeric verse].

Sch. D: H. van Thiel, Scholia D in Iliadem, proecdosis aucta et correctior, Köln 2014 [cited by reference to the Homeric verse].

SchGen: J. Nicole, Les scolies genevoises de l’Iliade, I-II, Genève 1891 [cited by reference to the Homeric verse].

SchMosch: Man. Moschopuli Byzantini scholia ad Homeri Iliados librum I et II adhuc inedita, cum notis et animadversionibus J. Scherpezeelii; accedit commentarius J. Camerarii, Utrecht 1719 [cited by reference to the Homeric verse].

Su: Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, I-V, Lipsiae 1928-1938 [cited by entry number].

Syn: Synagoge. Cυναγωγὴ λέξεων χρηcίμων. Texts of the original version and of Ms. B, ed. I.C. Cunningham, Berlin 2003 [cited by entry number]

PsZo: Ioannis Zonarae Lexicon, ed. I.A.H. Tittmann, I-II, Lipsiae 1808 [cited by page and line number].

+ The plus sign indicates that the parallel in question provides more material than cited.

[ ] Square brackets indicate that in the parallel the lemma and the gloss are the same, but in a form different from that of the text of the papyrus entry.

1-2. Probably an unparalleled gloss to ἠμύϲειε (v. 373). κα̣τ̣α̣π̣[έcα]ι̣ or even κα̣τ̣α̣π̣[έcο]ι̣ could be another option instead of κα̣τ̣α̣π̣[έcει]ε̣. Relevant material to be compared is: κλιθείη, πέcοι Sch. D Il. 2.373: ἐπικληθείη LexHom η92: κλιθείη, πέcειεν Hsch η561: κλιθείη PB: ἂν ἔπεcεν PW. Cf. also ἤμυcε. ἐκλίθη ApS 84.12: ἠμύει. κλίνει Cyr η226: ἠμύειν. ἐπικλίνεcθαι καὶ καταπίπτειν Eust I 366.32-367.1: ἠμύω. κλίνω Su η365+: ἠμύω. ἐπικλίνω καὶ καταπίπτω EGud υ541.45-46+: ἠμύει. ἐπικατακλίνει EM 390.62+: ἠμύω. ἐκκλίνω PsZo 995.1+.

3-4. ἁλοῦcά τε [περθο]μέν<η> τε = ἐκ̣ παρα[λ]λ̣ή̣(λου) πορθηθεῖcα̣ (v. 374). A unique case in the scholia minora published so far, where one word glosses two synonyms cited in juxtaposition. The ascending oblique, visible before πορθηθεῖcα̣, should indicate an abbreviated word; see N. Gonis, Abbreviations and Symbols, in R.S. Bagnall (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, Oxford 2009, pp. 170-178: 174. On the use of abbreviations in the scholia minora, which observe the documentary typology, see Fontanella, Iliasglossare, pp. 73-75. The collocation ἐκ παραλλήλου is a terminus technicus, denoting two words with the same meaning used pleonastically (see LSJ s.v. παράλληλοc, 2), frequently attested in the scholia to Homer, grammatical and lexicographic works. For the idea expressed in this line of the glossary, cf. Eust I 366.31-32: ὡc δὲ ταὐτολογεῖται τὸ ἁλοῦcά τε περθομένη τε. Comparable material is provided: a) for ἁλοῦcα by: P.Aphrod.Lit. II Fo 5 →, 17 on Il. 4.291 ληφθ̣[ειϲ]α̣ .[…].ο̣[ : ληφθεῖcα Sch. D Il. 2.374+, PB, PW, Syn α340, Ph α1050: ληφθεῖcα, χειρωθεῖcα Hsch α3257; b) for περθομένη by: P.Aphrod.Lit. II Fo 5 →, 18 on Il. 4.291 περθ̣ο̣μ̣ενη· πορθ[ηθειϲα: πορθηθεῖcα Sch. D Il. 2.374+, Cyr π279, PB, PW. Cf. πέρθαι. πορθηθῆναι Hsch π1560 : πέρθετο. ἐπορθεῖτο Hsch π1561: πέρθω. τὸ πορθῶ ΕGud ε513.3+, ΕΜ 601.41+, PsΖο δ541.8-9+, δ550.10 and π1542.1.

5. ἀπρή[κ]του[c] = ἀπράκτου[c (v. 376). So Sch. D Il. 2.376+, [LexHom α626], Hsch μ1047, [Hsch α6828], PB, PW. Cf. ἄπρηκτον. μηδὲν καταπραξαμένην ApS 41.3-5+.

6-7. χαλε̣π[α]ί̣νω[ν] = χαλεπῶc̣[ ][ ]πράτ’των (v. 378). This also appears to be an unparalleled gloss. It is not possible to estimate its length. One could tentatively suggest χαλεπῶc φέρων/χαλεπῶc ἔχων καὶ πράττων for the reconstruction of the gloss. Relevant comparative material is: ὀργιζόμενοc Sch. D Il. 2.378, LexHom χ5, Cyr χ170, PB: δυcχεραίνων PW: δεινὰ ποιῶν καὶ θυμούμενοc SchMosch on Il. 2.378: χαλεπαίνει. ἀγανακτεῖ, ὀργίζεται Syn χ6, Ph s.v. χαλεπαίνει (citation offered by S. Matthaios, editor of the forthcoming Photii patriarchae Lexicon, V (χ-ω): χαλεπαίνει. δυcχεραίνει, ἀγανακτεῖ Hsch χ33: χαλεπαίνει. ὀργίζεται PsZo 1845.8.

8-9. ἔ<c> γε μίαν βο[υλε]ύcομεν = ἐ̣[άν] π[οτε ὁ]μον<ο>ήcωμε[ν. The (reconstructed) pair lemma + gloss is unattested. Admittedly, there is no rich comparable material available. What is more, it is not certain that P.Aphrod.Lit. II covers this verse, while some of the comparanda gloss only ἔc γε μίαν. Specifically: βουλευϲομεν]ε̣μ̣φρονηϲ̣ο̣μεν P.Aphrod.Lit. II Fo 1 ↓, 1 on Il. 2.379 (?): ἔc γε μίαν. εἰc μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκκληcίαν, καὶ cυμβουλήν Sch. D Il. 2 379: εἰc μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκκληcίαν cυμβουλεύcαιμεν PB: εἰc μίαν βουλὴν βουλευοίμεθα PW: εἰc μίαν βουλὴν βουλεύcομεν Eust I 367.30: ἔc γε μίαν. κατὰ τὸ αὐτό Hsch ε6175: βουλεύcομεν. βουλευcόμεθα LexHom β78.

10-11. ἀνάβληcιc = ἀναβολή ὑπέ̣ρ̣θ̣εcιc (v. 380). So Sch. D Il. 2.380+, Cyr α825, Hsch α4201, EpHom α95+, EGen α761+, EGud α129.2+, ΕΜ 87.39+, PsΖο 179.11, SchMosch on Il. 2.380+: ἀναβολή LexHom α500, PW: ὑπέρθεcιc PB: ἀναβολὴ καὶ παράταcιc [Eust I 367.30-31].

12. ἠβαιόν = [μι]κρόν (v. 380). So [EGud η234.41+]: μικρόν, ὀλίγον EGen β11+, Syn η10, Ph η6, Su η15, PsΖο 971.5+: μικρὸν ἢ ὀλιγοχρόνιον Hsch η11+: ἐλάχιcτον καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνιον Cyr η230: τὸν ἐλάχιcτον καὶ ὀλίγον χρόνον Sch. D Il. 2.380: ὀλίγον καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνιον EM 378.16+: τὸ ἐλάχιcτον PB: πρὸc βραχύ PW. ἠβαιόν is glossed in P. Oxy. XLV 3238 fr. 3, 2.3 on Il. 2.386, however, the gloss is lost.

13-14. δεῖπνον = [τὸ] ἄριcτον ὑφ’ ἡμ[ῶν] λεγόμενον (v. 381). The gloss is not attested verbatim in any of the parallels cited, but the same meaning is imparted in: Sch. D Il. 2.381+, Hsch δ525+, Hsch α7252+, Or 44.15-45.1-2, [ESym δ101+], EGud δ340.8-9+, [EM 258.35+]. Cf. also τὸ ἑωθινὸν ἄριcτον schAb on Il. 2.381+, Eust I 369.21+: τὸ πρωϊνὸν ἄριcτον Cyr δ167, Syn δ77, Ph δ137, Su δ358+, [PsΖο 476.4+ and 482.7+]: ἄριcτον PW. See also: δεῖπνον παρὰ τοῖc ἀρχαίοιc τὸ παρ’ ἡμῖν γεῦμα SchGen.+: δεῖπνον PB.

15-17. ἄ̣ρ̣[η]α = τ[ὸν] πόλεμον ὅτε δ[ὲ] τ[ὸν cί]δηρο̣[ν] ὅ̣[τε] δὲ τ̣[ὸν] θεό̣[ν (v. 381). The gloss is not paralleled in identical form anywhere, but the idea contained in it is found in: [SchGen on Il. 2.381+], Sch. D Il. 2.381+, [PsAp 301.18-302.6+], [ApS 41.11-14+], [SchMosch on Il. 2.385+], [ΕGen α1160+], [ΕΜ 127.16-44+], [PsΖο 289.7-19+]. The lemma is glossed only as πόλεμον in P.Harris I 10, l. 6 (π]ολεμον), [Cyr α741], Hsch o952+, PW, PB; only as cίδηρον in P.Amst. I 5.3 on Il. 5.289 (το]ν ϲιδηρον), P.Mich. inv. 2720 fol. 5 verso, 4+ on Il. 5.289 (ν]υν τον ϲιδηρο(ν)), [LexHom α742+]; also in Philox fr. 46+. The variety of glosses attested for this particular lemma is expected due to its occurrence in different Homeric lines.

18. θ̣η̣ξ̣άcθω̣ = ] ̣[ (v. 382). The trace is too meagre to allow an identification of the gloss. To judge from relative comparable material, one would expect ἀκονηcάcθω or ἀκονηcάτω. Specifically: ακ]ονηϲαϲθω P.Harris I 10, l. 7: ἀκονηcάτω, ἀκονηcάcθω Sch. D Il. 2.382: ἀκονηcάτω Cyr θ209, PB, PW. Cf. θήγοντεc. ἀκονῶντεc Syn θ69, Ph θ155, Su θ325: θήγειν. ἀκονᾶν, ὀξύνειν Hsch θ457: θῆξαι. ὀξῦναι, ἀκονῆcαι Hsch θ507: θήγω. ἀκονῶ Philox fr. 661, EGud θ262.18+ and μ394.36+, ΕΜ 408.15+, PsΖο 1043.10+.

19. ] ̣μ̣α̣[. Given the exiguous traces, both lemma and gloss remain uncertain. To judge from other papyri and relevant sources the lost lemma may have been: i) εὖ δ’ ἀcπίδα θέcθω (v. 382), possibly glossed in P.Aphrod.Lit. II Fo 1 ↓, 3 as ] ̣η ̣ ̣̣̣ ̣[τ]ὴ̣ν ἀcπίδα, and Sch. D Il. 2.382 as εὐτρεπιcάτω αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀcπίδα; ii) ὠκυπόδεccιν (v. 383), glossed in P.Harris I 10, l. 8 as τ]αχινοιc; iii) ἀμφὶc ἰδών (v. 384) glossed in Sch. D Il. 2.384 as περιcκεψάμενοc καὶ ἀκριβῶc καταμαθών; Hsch α4110 as φανερῶc; iv) μεδέcθω (v. 384) glossed as φροντιζέcθω in P.Harris I 10, l. 9 (φ]ροντιζεϲθω̣), and LexHom μ68; Sch. D Il. 2.384 as ἐπιμέλειαν ποιείcθω, φροντιζέτω: Cyr μ91 as φροντιζέτω: Hsch μ510 as φροντιζέcθω, βαcιλευέτω: PB as ἐπιμέλειαν ποιείcθω: PW as βουλευcάcθω. Cf. also μέδεcθαι. φροντίζειν Syn μ62, Ph μ176. If the two letters in the Bodleian glossary are correctly read, I would opt for the reconstruction of κατ]α̣μ̣α̣[θων glossing (or being part of the gloss to) ἀμφὶc ἰδών (Il. 2.384).

Rosalia Hatzilambrou

Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Pl. VII

PL II/28 Fr. a: 4.5 x 9.5 cm

? Fr. b: 4.7 x 12.7 cm IIIp

7 consta di due frammenti conservati nella Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, appartenenti al gruppo di papiri acquistati da Girolamo Vitelli durante il suo primo viaggio in Egitto, presso gli antiquari Farag Ismaïn e Ali el-Arabi1. Come altri reperti arrivati a Firenze per lo stesso tramite, furono depositati presso la Biblioteca nel 1906 e vennero restaurati e inventriati solo tra il 1955 e il 1957 da Teresa Lodi, che, con riferimento al contenitore in cui erano stati riposti, assegnò loro il numero di inventario ‘scat. zinco n° 28’, ancora visibile sull’etichetta originaria. Non sono disponibili indicazioni sul loro luogo di ritrovamento. I papiri del primo acquisto di Vitelli hanno provenienze diverse: il nucleo principale comprende una parte dei documenti dell’archivio di Eronino, ritrovati com’è noto a Theadelphia2; alcuni documenti conservati proprio nella ‘scatola di zinco’, tuttavia, risultano scritti ad Ossirinco, come ad esempio PL II/13 = P.Laur. III 60 e PL II/51 = P.Laur. III 73, e su queste basi si è avanzata l’ipotesi di una provenienza ossirinchita anche per altri reperti letterari conservati secondo modalità analoghe, quali PL II/30 (Pintaudi - Orsini, AnPap 18-20, 2006-2008, pp. 15-22)3. È possibile, dunque, che anche 7 provenisse da Ossirinco o dal Fayum, ma allo stato attuale della documentazione non è possibile formulare ipotesi più circostanziate.

I due frammenti appartenevano in origine a due diversi bifogli di un codice papiraceo; sono mutili in alto e sui lati, mentre resta parte del margine inferiore, ampio cm 2. Ciascun bifoglio reca ancora tracce ben visibili della piegatura, lungo la quale si individuano piccoli fori allineati, evidentemente funzionali alla cucitura del fascicolo; un confronto è offerto da PSI I 6+7, in cui è ancora visibile anche la cordicella utilizzata per tenere insieme i fogli: cfr. la riedizione, con studio codicologico, in Minutoli, Il Protovangelo.

Entrambi sono scritti dalla stessa mano, in una scrittura informale caratterizzata da tratti sottili, non chiaroscurati, ductus sciolto, contrasto modulare non esasperato (epsilon, omicron e theta sono di forma ogivale; omicron inoltre talora viene ulteriormente ridotta e spostata sulla parte superiore del rigo; le altre lettere sono iscrivibili piuttosto in un quadrato). Tra le forme degne di nota: alpha, di tipo occhiellato ed eseguita in un unico movimento oppure ‘a cuneo’, in due tempi; epsilon, con tratto superiore spostato verso l’alto, talora proteso verso la lettera successiva; my, con tratti mediani fusi in una curva sul rigo e vistose occhiellature. L’impostazione complessiva consente di avvicinare la scrittura a quella di documenti vergati in scritture di ufficio non esenti da elementi cancellereschi, come ad es. quella di testi quali P.Berol. inv. 7216 (poco dopo il 215 d. C.) o PSI X 1148 (210 d. C.): queste analogie consentono di riferire il codice alla prima metà del III secolo.

Il testo contenuto può essere identificato come un glossario (secondo la definizione di Montana, Greek Scholiastic Corpora, pp. 105-115) all’Iliade, libri IV (vv. 103-118; 133-139; 171-191; 226-259?) e V (5-16; 81-88). Una prima trascrizione era stata già effettuata da Teresa Lodi al momento del primo restauro, ma senza indicazioni sulla natura dell’opera; l’idea di verificare se le poche sillabe leggibili potessero essere ricondotte a glosse omeriche si deve a Guido Bastianini, che ha avanzato questa ipotesi nel corso di una discussione sui frammenti all’interno del Forum papirologico ospitato dal sito web dell’Accademia Fiorentina di Papirologia (maggio 2016).

Sulla base di un esame delle liste in Lundon, The Scholia Minora e Fontanella, Iliasglossare, e del sito web aristarchus.unige.it, gli unici altri codici papiracei ad aver restituito glosse a questi libri iliadici risultano essere P.Aphrod.Lit. II, P.Mich. inv. 2720 e P.Ryl. III 537, tutti vergati in scritture ben diverse da quelle del frammento fiorentino; di questi, inoltre, solo i primi due contengono glosse a versi commentati anche in 7, sia pur in forma apparentemente ancor più stringata.

Il glossario era disposto a tutta pagina, su una sola colonna; non possiamo escludere, tuttavia, che su uno stesso rigo figurasse anche più di un lemma, separato da uno spazio bianco. Le glosse, in linea di massima, dovevano limitarsi per lo più a spiegazioni lessicali stringate, con poche osservazioni ulteriori; in ogni caso, in alcuni punti la spiegazione risultava più articolata e occupava più righe, disposte in rientranza per consentire distinguerle dall’inizio del lemma successivo (cfr. ad es. III, rr. 7-9; lo stesso si può vedere, ad es., in P.Oxy. LXVII 4635, su cui cfr. J. Spooner, Nine Homeric Papyri, pp. 117-129)4. Non è possibile giudicare l’accuratezza ortografica del testo; l’unico segno visibile è la dieresi, aggiunta almeno sulle vocali iniziali (cfr. ad es. I, rr. 3 e 6; III, r. 3, etc.).

L’asistematicità nella scelta dei lemmi e la mancanza di elementi che consentano di ricostruire con certezza il testo del commento rende vana qualsiasi ipotesi ricostruttiva sulle dimensioni originarie dei bifogli o sul numero delle righe di ciascuna pagina, per tacer dell’organizzazione del fascicolo. Possiamo formulare, tuttavia, alcune osservazioni relative a determinati aspetti particolari.

Il primo lemma identificabile, riferito ad Il. IV 103, e l’ultimo (ad Il. V 88) sono contenuti entrambi nel fr. a (risp. col. 2 ↓ e col. 2 →); il fr. b contiene a sua volta versi di entrambi i libri: i due bifogli, dunque, appartenenvano a uno stesso fascicolo, caratterizzato, ad apertura, da pagine con alternanza di fibre (una pagina con fibre orizzontali risulta accostata a una pagina con fibre verticali). Poiché fr. a, col. 1 → si chiude con riferimenti a Il. IV 138 e fr. b, col. 1 ↓ parte (apparentemente) da Il. IV 171 per arrivare a dopo IV 191, è possibile (ma tutt’altro che certo) che le pagine fossero consecutive; la col. 2 → del fr. b si apre, tuttavia, con Il. V 5: se si considera che il libro IV dell’Iliade contiene 544 versi, è probabile che fosse caduto almeno un foglio, secondo questo schema:

Non possiamo escludere, tuttavia, nemmeno un’altra possibilità, e cioè che i 23 versi del libro IV non commentati tra fr. a, col. 1 → e fr. b, col. 1 ↓ occupassero due pagine intere; in tal caso, dovremmo schematizzare così la struttura della parte di fascicolo ricostruibile:

Per quanto riguarda le dimensioni delle pagine, a giudicare dal testo superstite (e in particolare dalle pericopi ipotizzabili a II, 2 ss.) il codice doveva avere una larghezza approssimativamente di cm 15 (ipotizzando un margine esterno di cm 2). Se ipotizziamo la perdita di due bifogli tra il fr. a e il fr. b, l’altezza complessiva doveva essere di poco superiore ai 20 cm; il suo formato, in tal caso, potrebbe forse rientrare nel group 1 Turner (cfr. Turner, Typology, p. 19), comprendente codici papiracei riferiti per lo più al III o IV secolo; vale la pena notare, inoltre, che tra gli aberrants annessi al gruppo vengono annoverati codici di 13-15 x 20-22 cm, tra cui almeno un ‘libro di scuola’ (SB XII 10769; Turner, Typology, num. 416a; Cribiore, Writing, num. 390). Alternativamente, se fosse caduta soltanto una pagina ci troveremmo di fronte a un codice fortemente oblungo, quali quelli contenuti nel group 8 (Turner, Typology, p. 20), comprendente reperti che spaziano dal II-III al VI secolo, larghi 13-15 cm ed alti 27-30 cm.

Per ricostruire il contenuto delle glosse si è preso in considerazione soprattutto il testo stabilito in van Thiel, Scholia D, di cui si adottano anche i sigla; per gli scholia vetera si è fatto riferimento, invece, a Erbse, Schol. vet. Ringrazio Guido Bastianini e Rosario Pintaudi per osservazioni su punti specifici della prima trascrizione.

I (fr. a, col. 2 ↓)

– – – – –

ζε[

εϲ[

ϊξ[

4 δε[

π[

ϋ̣[

ε[

8 α[

κ[

(margine)

1[ : parte iniziale di un tratto obliquo ascendente      6 ϋ̣[ : tratto obliquo e parte del tratto verticale

I (fr. a, col. 2 ↓)

– – – – –

Ζελ̣[είηϲ Il. IV 103

ἐϲ[ύλα Il. IV 105

ἰξ[άλου Il. IV 105

4 δε[δεγμένοϲ Il. IV 107

π[ροδοκῇϲι Il. IV 107

ὕ̣[πτιοϲ Il. IV 108

ε[

8 ἀ[βλῆτα Il. IV 117

κ[ατεκόϲμει Il. IV 118

(margine)

II (fr. a, col. 1 →)

– – – – –

]ρ̣μα

]νειχο(ν)

]π̣ηντα

4 ]υν

]ον

]

]ϲ

8 ] φυλα`γμα´

]λ̣θεν

(margine)

1 ]ρ̣ : un punto in basso sul rigo e traccia in alto, forse di tratto orizzontale, poi parte finale di un tratto verticale; di ρ restano la parte finale del tratto verticale e l’occhiello      3 π̣ : parte finale del tratto orizzontale e del secondo tratto verticale      5 ]: traccia indistinta sul bordo della frattura      9 ]λ̣ : parte del secondo tratto obliquo

– – – – –

]ρμα

ϲύνεχον· ϲυ]νεῖχο(ν) Il. IV 133

ἤντετο· ἀ]π̣ήντα Il. IV 133

4 ]υν

] ̣ον

]

]ϲ

8 ἔρυμα χροόϲ·] φύλαγμα Il. IV 138

διὰ πρὸ δὲ εἴϲατο· διῆ]λθεν Il. IV 139

(margine)

III (fr. b, col. 2 ↓)

– – – – –

πο ̣[

μν̣[

ϋπ[

[

5 πυ ̣[

τοτ ̣[

[

[

χα̣[

10 δε̣[

κα̣[

ει ̣[

πα[

χα[

(margine)

1 ̣[ : tracce di inchiostro lungo la frattura, come di tratto verticale      2 ν̣ : tratto verticale, poi parte finale del tratto obliquo e del secondo tratto verticale      5 ̣[ : traccia indistinta lungo il bordo      7 [ : parte iniziale di tratto curvo, alto sul rigo      9 α̣ : parte inferiore di un occhiello e parte iniziale di tratto obliquo alto sul rigo      10 ε̣ : parte inferiore del corpo circolare e del tratto mediano      11 α̣ : piccola parte di un occhiello      12 ̣[ : tracce di tratto verticale      14 ̣[ : un punto, parte iniziale, bassa sul rigo, di tratto obliquo, come di λ

– – – – –

πο[λυδίψιον Il. IV 171

μν[ήϲονται Il. IV 172

ὑπ[ερηνορεόντων Il. IV 176

[

5 πυ ̣[

τότε̣ [μοι χάνοι εὐρεῖα χθὼν Il. IV 182

[

[

χά[νοι Il. IV 182

10 δε[ιδίϲϲιεο Il. IV 184

κά̣[μον Il. IV 187

εἴ̣[η Il. IV 189

πα[ύϲῃϲι Il. IV 191

χαλ̣[κοχιτώνων Il. IV 199

(margine)

IV (fr. b, col. 1 →)

– – – – –

]

]

]

] ̣εν ι̣

5 ]

] )

]ιν

]

]

10 ]

]προ̣ν

] ̣

]κερα̣`ι̣ϲ̣ι´

(margine)

4 ] ̣ : parte finale di un tratto obliquo      ι̣ : sono bene visibili le estremità del tratto e un punto di inchiostro al mezzo      11 ο̣ : visibile solo la parte sinistra      12 ] ̣ : tratto verticale     13      α̣ : della lettera sono visibili la parte inferiore dell’occhiello e il tratto obliquo      ` ̣´ : tratto verticale, ricurvo alle estremità, e tratto orizzontale sulla parte alta del rigo, più sottile, seguito da una curva ripiegata su se stessa (possibile ε)

V (fr. b, col. 2 →)

– – – – –

οπ[

[

πα[

4 λελ[

[

τοιον̣[

κλον̣[

8 ϊρευ̣[

μαχ̣[

[

αποκ̣[

12 [

ω̣ρμ[

]κω[

(margine)

6 ν̣[ : parte iniziale di tratto verticale      7 ν̣[ : tratto verticale e parte iniziale di tratto obliquo      8 υ̣[ : parte iniziale del primo tratto obliquo e parte terminale del secondo      11 κ̣[ : della lettera manca il secondo tratto obliquo      13 ω̣ : visibile solo parte della seconda ansa

– – – – –

ὀπ[ωρινῷ Il. V 5

[

πα[μφαίνῃϲι Il. V 6

λελ[ουμένοϲ Il. V 6

5 [

τοῖoν̣ [ Il. V 7

κλον̣[έοντο Il. V 8

ἱρεύ̣[ϲ Il. V 10

μάχ̣[ηϲ Il. V 11

10 [

ἀποκ̣[ρινθέντε Il. V 12

[

ὡ̣ρμ[ηθήτην Il. V 12

[ἀ]κω[κή Il. V 16

(margine)

VI (fr. b, col. 1 ↓)

– – – – –

]

]

]

4 ]

]

]

]

8 ]

]

]

]

12 ]

]

]τε

(margine)

VII (fr. a, col. 2 →)

– – – – –

][

ηλαϲ̣[

αποδ̣[

4 αιμα[

π̣ορφ̣[

ομι̣[

θυν̣[

8 πλ ̣[

εκε[

(margine)

1 ̣ ̣ : parte finale di tratto ricurvo, poi traccia di tratto orizzontale a metà del rigo      ϲ̣[ : parte inferiore di una curva      3 δ̣[ : estremità di tratto obliquo      5 π̣ : della lettera si individua la parte iniziale del tratto orizzontale, il primo tratto verticale e tracce delle estremità del secondo      φ̣[ : una curva e parte finale di un tratto verticale      6 ι̣[ : minima traccia sul bordo della frattura      7 ν̣[ : tratto verticale e tratto obliquo      8 ̣[ : tratto verticale

– – – – –

][

ηλαϲ̣[

ἀπὸ [δ’ ἔξεϲεν Il. V 81

4 αἱμα[τόεϲϲα Il. V 82

πορφ[ύρεοϲ Il. V 83

ὁμι[λέοι Il. V 86

θῦν̣[ε Il. V 87

8 πλή̣[θοντι Il. V 87

ἐκέ[δαϲϲε Il. V 88

(margine)

VIΙI (fr. a, col. 1 ↓)

– – – – –

]νον

]

]

4 ]

]

]υ

]

8 ]

]

(margine)

I

1. Ζε[λείηϲ : il nome della città era discusso in Sch. T Il. IV 103, ἱερῆϲ εἰϲ ἄϲτυ Ζελείηϲ: τοῦτο πρὸϲ τὸ ἐπᾶραι Πάνδαρον· ἢ b(BCE3)      ἐπεὶ χρηϲτήριόν ἐϲτι τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκεῖ. b(BCE3E4). Si veda anche Sch. D Il. IV 103, νοϲτήϲαϲ: ὑποϲτρέψαϲ, ἐπανελθὼν εἰϲ τὴν θαυμαϲτὴν Ζέλειαν. Ἡ γὰρ ὑπὸ τῇ Ἴδῃ Λυκία, Ζέλεια ἐκαλεῖτο, διὰ τὸ τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα ἐν αὐτῇ λίαν εὐϲεβεῖϲθαι. Un parallelo più preciso per la ricostruzione della glossa è offerto da Hsch., ζ107 Latte - Cunningham, Ζέλεια· πόλιϲ Τροίαϲ (riferito propriamente a Il. II 824).

2. ἐϲ[ύλα : cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 105: ἐϲύλα: ἐγύμνου, ἐξέλαβε τῆϲ θήκηϲ e, similmente, Hsch., ε6432 Latte - Cunningham, ἐϲύλα· ἐγύμνου. ἀφῃρεῖτο.

3. ἰξ[άλου : il termine viene illustrato estesamente in Sch. D Il. IV 105, ἤτοι τελείου, ἢ πηδητικοῦ καὶ ὁρμητικοῦ. Παρὰ τὸ ἱκνεῖϲθαι. Ἢ, ὡϲ ὁ Πορφύριοϲ λέγει, τὸν τομίαν. Ϲυμβαίνει γὰρ πολλάκιϲ, τῶν ἀγρίων αἰγῶν τοὺϲ τελείουϲ, διωκομένουϲ ἐν ταῖϲ θήραιϲ, κατὰ παράτριψιν ἀποβάλλειν τὰ γεννητικὰ μόρια. Nel glossario laurenziano la spiegazione doveva essere assai più contenuta, come del resto vediamo in Hsch., ι706 Latte - Cunningham: ἰξάλου· πηδητικοῦ, ὀξέοϲ· ἀπὸ τοῦ ἶξαι καὶ τοῦ ἅλλεϲθαι. Δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ ὀξέωϲ ἁλλομένου.

4. δε[δεγμένοϲ : cfr. Sch. D ad Il. IV 107, δεδεγμένοϲ: ἐπιτηρήϲαϲ, ἐκδεχόμενοϲ (ripreso anche in Hsch., δ362 Latte - Cunningham).

5. π[ροδοκῇϲι : cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 107, ἐν προδοκῇϲι: τόποιϲ πρὸϲ ἐνέδραν ἐπιτηδείοιϲ προϲκοπεῦϲαι. Ἀπὸ τοῦ δοκεῖν. Più sintetico Hsch., π3385 Hansen, in cui l’accenno etimologico non compare (προδοκῇϲι· προενέδραιϲ, προϲόδοιϲ, riferito proprio a questo verso).

6. Le tracce di ypsilon appaiono chiare, e tali da non inficiare l’identificazione del lemma. La parola manca in Sch. D (come del resto in Esichio e in altre opere lessicografiche omeriche), ma è chiosata in Sch. T Il. IV 108: ὕπτιον δὲ λέγει πεϲεῖν, ἵνα τὸ καίριον τῆϲ πληγῆϲ δηλωθῇ, ὃ αὐτὸν ὑπτιάζει. b(BCE3E4); cfr. inoltre Etym. Gud., s.v. ὕπτιοϲ (p. 545.31 de Stefani): ὁ ὑψηλόϲ, καὶ ὕπτιοϲ ὁ ἀνὰ ϲκέλα πεϲών.

7. È possibile che qui fosse commentata l’espressione ἐϲύλα πῶμα (cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 116, ἐϲύλα πῶμα: ἀφῄρει τῆϲ βελοθήκηϲ τὸ πῶμα) o il verbo εἵλετο (cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 116, ἕλετο: εἵλετο, ἔλαβεν).

8. ἀ[βλῆτα : cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 117, ἀβλῆτα: μή πω ἐπιβεβλημένον. καινόν; simile la spiegazione in Hsch., α143 Latte - Cunningham, ἀβλῆτα· […] ἄλλοτε βεβλημένον.

9. κ[ατεκόϲμει : cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 118, κατεκόϲμει: κατετίθει, κατέταττε, ἥρμοζε τῇ νευρᾷ.

II

2. Per la ricostruzione cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 133, ϲύνεχον· ϲυνεῖχον, ἔϲφιγγον.

4-5. Forse una chiosa a Il. IV 137, μίτρηϲ, a quanto si può presumere sulla base del confronto con Sch. D Il. IV 137, μίτρηϲ: ζώνηϲ. Μίτρα δὲ ἐλέγετο τὸ ἐϲώτερον τῆϲ λαγόνοϲ εἵλημα ἐρεοῦν χαλκῷ ἔξωθεν περιειλημένον. Potremmo avere, ad esempio:

[μίτρηϲ· τῆϲ λαγόνοϲ εἵλημα ἐρεο]ῦν |

[χαλκῷ ἔξωθεν περιειλημέν]ον.

Anche in tal caso, tuttavia, sarebbe difficile spiegare lo spazio bianco nel rigo seguente e identificare il lemma contenuto al r. 7, dal momento che nel verso omerico dopo μίτρηϲ l’unica espressione potenzialmente bisognosa di spiegazione (e non a caso discussa negli scholia D) è ἔρυμα χροόϲ, glossata nel papiro a r. 8.

8. Per la ricostruzione del testo cfr. almeno Sch. D Il. IV 137, ἔρυμα χροόϲ: φύλαγμα καὶ ἀϲφάλεια τοῦ ϲώματοϲ, e Hsch., ε6092 Latte - Cunningham: ἔρυμα· ὀχύρωμα. φυλακή. κάλυμμα. φύλαγμα.

9. Cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 138, διὰ πρὸ δὲ εἴϲατο καὶ τῆϲ: διῆλθε δὲ καὶ διὰ ταύτηϲ, seguito del resto anche in Hsch., δ1249 Latte - Cunningham.

III

1. πο[λυδίψιον : l’aggettivo, riferito nel verso omerico alla città di Argo, è chiosato in Sch. D con l’aggiunta di un ampio excursus mitologico, volto a spiegare l’origine del curioso abbinamento, che tuttavia non poteva trovare posto nel papiro fiorentino; la spiegazione doveva limitarsi dunque al mero dato letterale, come ad es. in Esichio (π2845 Hansen - Cunningham): πολυδίψιον: ἄνυδρον ἢ πολλὰ βεβλαμμένον ; cfr. anche Et. Magn., 681, 4-5 Gaisford: Πολυδίψιον Ἄργοϲ. Πολλὴν δίψαν ἐκφέρον· ἢ τὸ πολλοῖϲ ἔτεϲι διψῆϲαν.

2. μν[ήϲονται : cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 172, μνήϲονται: μνείαν ποιήϲονται.

3. ὑπ[ερηνορεόντων : cfr. sch. D Il. IV 176, ὑπερηνορεόντων: ἤτοι τῶν ὑπερεχόντων τῇ ἠνορέῃ, τουτέϲτιν ἀνδρείων.

5. πυ ̣[ : nonostante la lettura inequivocabile, individuare il lemma è complesso, perché tra ὑπ[ερηνορεόντων (Il. IV 176) di r. 3 e τό[τε μοι (Il. IV 182) non c’è alcun termine che comincia in questo modo. Potremmo forse ipotizzare che il copista abbia effettuato un errore di disposizione, inserendo qui erroneamente πύ[ϲει (Il. IV 174), presente anche in sch. D Il. IV 174, πύϲει: ϲήψει. In alternativa, bisognerebbe pensare a un errore: ad es. si potrebbe ipotizzare la presenza di τύμβῳ (Il. IV 177, a sua volta glossato negli scholia D, con il più usuale τάφῳ), ma si tratterebbe di un fraintendimento troppo grossolano.

6-8. Per il lemma e il relativo commento cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 182, τότε μοι χάνοι εὐρεῖα χθών: τότε γῆϲ χάϲματι δεχθείην. Οὐ γὰρ ἐπιθετικῶϲαὐτὴν λέγει εὐρεῖαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν εὐρὺ τῇ διαϲτάϲει χάϲμα ποιήϲαϲαν. Nel papiro è possibile che la spiegazione fosse più condensata, pur snodandosi, in ogni caso, fino a tutto il r. 7 (disposto in rientranza per distinguerlo dai lemmi successivi). Cfr. anche Hsch., τ1194 Hansen - Cunningham, τότε μοι χάνοι εὐρεῖα χθών· εὐρὺ καὶ μέγα μοι χάϲμα γῆϲ γένοιτο, ἵνα με δέξεται· ὅπερ ἐϲτὶν ἀποθάνοιμι.

9. χά[νοι : Negli scholia D non è raro che la discussione di una pericope più complessa sia seguita da una spiegazione supplementare su un termine o un’espressione specifica: cfr. ad es. (per citare un passo poco distante da quelli qui presi in esame) Sch. D Il. IV 277, in cui viene esaminata prima una frase ripartita in realtà su due esametri, τῷ δέ τ’ ἄνευθεν ἐόντι μελάντερον ἠΰτε πίϲϲα | φαίνετ’ ἰὸν, e subito dopo si aggiunge una breve notazione per spiegare il significato specifico di ἄνευθεν ἐόντι. D’altro canto, anche in Esichio troviamo sia il lemma χάνοι: χάϲμα ποιήϲαι sia, proprio in riferimento alla formula omerica, il lemma χάνοι εὐρεῖα χθών: εὐρὺ χάϲμα ποιήϲειεν ἡ γῆ (risp. χ 161 e 162 Hansen – Cunningham).

10. δε[ιδίϲϲεο : cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 184, δειδίϲϲεο: εἰϲ δέοϲ καὶ φόβον ἄγε.

11. κά̣[μον : cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 187: κάμον: ἔκαμον, κατεϲκεύαϲαν.

12. εἴ[η : gli scholia vetera contengono una lunga discussione in corrispondenza della prima parte di Il. IV 189, αἰ γὰρ δὴ οὕτωϲ εἴη. Εἰκότωϲ θαρϲυνθεὶϲ οὐ μηκύνει τὸν λὸγον. Οὐδέποτε δὲ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ τὸ αἴ ἄντὶ τοῦ εἴ. Qui, tuttavia, era quasi certamente glossato solo il vergo εἴη, come vediamo in P.Mich. inv. 2720, Fol. 1 verso, 8 (ad Il. III 410): εἴη· [ὑπάρχοι] e in Hsch., ε790 Latte - Cunningham, εἴη· γένοιτο, ἔϲτω.

13. πα[ύϲῃϲι : cfr. Sch. D Il. IV 191, παύϲῃϲι: παύϲῃ, θεραπεύϲῃ. ZYQX.

14. Quasi certamente il lemma era χα[λκοχιτώνων (Il. IV 199), non lemmatizzato in Sch. D in corrispondenza di questo verso, ma presente ad es. ad Il. II 47 e III 131 nella forma χαλκοχιτώνων: ϲιδηροθωράκων. Ulteriori paralleli sono offerti da sc. T I 371, (χαλκοχιτώνων: λαμπρὸν ἢ πορφυροῦν ἐχόντων χιτῶνα Til) e da Hsch., χ115 Hansen - Cunningham (χαλκοχιτώνων· χαλκοθωράκων, ἢ ἰϲχυροθοράκων). Non si possono escludere, tuttavia, altre soluzioni, come ad es. χα[λκῆεϲ (IV 216), che pare tuttavia molto meno probabile, per via della sua distanza dalla parola precedentemente chiosata e per il fatto che il termine non è discusso nelle altre sillogi scoliastiche.

IV

4. Per quanto evanido e distaccato dalle due lettere che precedono, lo iota si può leggere con chiarezza. È possibile – per quanto molto difficile – che si trattasse dell’iniziale di una parola che continuava sul rigo successivo (in tal caso dovremmo pensare a un lemma, e le possibilità non mancherebbero: ad es., Il. IV 210, ἵκανον; IV 232, ἴδοι; IV 242, ἰόμωροι…), ma vista l’irregolarità della scrittura impiegata non possiamo escludere nemmeno che si trattasse di una lettera finale tracciata troppo a destra nel corso del processo di scrittura, caratterizzato da ductus sciolto.

6. Il tratto curvo visibile in finale di rigo, analogo a una parentesi tonda, non pare riconducibile a parte di una lettera o di un segno diacritico; è difficile, inoltre, considerarlo un riempitivo troppo esuberante. Possiamo pensare piuttosto – come giustamente suggerito da Rosario Pintaudi – che si trattasse di un segno utilizzato per segnalare un’espunzione, secondo una prassi comune nei documenti sin dalla tarda età tolemaica: parentesi tonde utilizzate per segnalare la cancellatura di singole cifre e di righe intere si possono vedere, ad esempio, in P.Pintaudi 20, registro dell’episkepsis di terreni del II-I a.C. (sul verso di PSI II 120), rr. 22-23 e 26-29. L’utilizzo del segno (definito talora περιγραφή: GMAW2, pp. 16 e 148) è ben attestato anche nei papiri letterari, come si può vedere, ad es., in PSI VIII 982, verso, rr. 8-9 (scritto peraltro in grafia spiccatamente corsiva), P.Oxy. XX 2256, fr. 3, rr. 4-5, e P.Berol. inv. 13411, fr. c, r. 14, come indicato da G.B. D’Alessio, Su di un papiro berlinese di lirica corale (P. Berol. inv. 13411 = Pind. fr. 52N S.M.), ZPE 126 (1999), pp. 15-25: 24; su questa pratica cfr. anche R. Barbis Lupi in Pap.Congr. XXI, p. 57.

7. In via del tutto ipotetica si potrebbe pensare παραϲχέμεν· παραϲχε]ῖν, come in Sch. D Il. IV 229.

11. La più plausibile tra le integrazioni ipotizzabili è sicuramente λαμ]πρόν, ma è molto difficile formulare ipotesi sulla parola glossata. Una prima proposta di integrazione potrebbe essere è αἴθοπα (Il. IV 259)· λαμπρ]όν, che comporta tuttavia due difficoltà difficilmente superabili. Innanzi tutto, se si accetta che la glossa al r. 7 fosse relativa a Il. IV 229, ci troveremmo di fronte a un salto di trenta versi; inoltre, anche se l’aggettivo chiosato rimanda effettivamente alla sfera semantica della luminosità e ha in generale il significato di «scintillante» (o «vivido», secondo la traduzione di Rosa Calzecchi Onesti), in questo contesto è riferito al vino e pertanto, nel materiale esegetico posteriore, viene di solito glossato in un altro modo: in Sch. D Il. IV 259 leggiamo, ad esempio, αἴθοπα οἶνον: μέλανα ZQ | ἢ θερμαντικόν Z = A 462D; il riferimento al valore originario dell’aggettivo si può leggere, in ogni caso, almeno in Et. Magn., 32, 43-45 Gaisford, Αἴθοπα. Οἶνον τὸν μέλανα, ἢ τὸν ποιοῦντα ἐρυθρούϲ· ἢ τὸν καυϲτικόν. Ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν χαλκὸν, ϲημαίνει τὸν λαμπρὸν καὶ αἰθομένην ὄψιν ἔχοντα e in generale era ben presente ai grammatici alessandrini, a quanto emerge da un altro scolio, questa volta a Od. X 152, αἴθοπα. Ἀρίσταρχοϲ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἴθεϲθαι, ὅ ἐϲτι καίεϲθαι, ἀναδιδόμενον (p. 458 Dindorf; peraltro, nel contesto odissiaco l’aggettivo sarebbe riferito addirittura al fumo). Più difficile pensare a χαλκοχιτώνων (Il. IV 285) ἐχόντων χιτῶνα λαμ]πρόν, sul modello (già menzionato) di Sch. T Il. I 371, χαλκοχιτώνων: λαμπρὸν ἢ πορφυροῦν ἐχόντων χιτῶνα Til. Una glossa di questo tipo comporterebbe una ripetizione antieconomica e, in aggiunta, implicherebbe un salto di versi ancora più considerevole.

13. Le ultime lettere sono scritte supra lineam, come a II, 8, e fanno riferimento dunque all’ultima parola del rigo. La superficie abrasa, e la mancanza di un contesto, rende arduo proporre integrazioni. Le lettere κερα̣ fanno pensare a una forma da κέραϲ, ma (anche ipotizzando eventuali errori del copista) sfugge un possibile contesto in cui inserire il termine. La parola, in ogni caso, viene impiegata negli scholia vetera – al genitivo singolare – all’interno della dettagliata spiegazione dedicata alla breve descrizione dello schieramento dei Pilii in Il. IV 297-299 (τινὲϲ δὲ τὸ ἔμπροϲθεν καὶ ὄπιϲθεν ἐπὶ τοῦ δεξιοῦ καὶ ἀριϲτεροῦ κέρατοϲ λαμβάνουϲιν); tuttavia, anche solo per la distanza del passo in questione dagli altri sicuramente glossati, pare difficile che le lettere superstiti possano essere ricondotte a pericopi testuali anche soltanto analoghe.

V

2. ὀπ[ωρινῷ : il termine non è glossato da solo negli scholia D, ma si ritrova in Hsch., ο1082 Latte - Cunningham, ὀπωρινῷ· τῷ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τῆϲ ὀπώραϲ (con riferimento proprio a Il. V 5). Altre fonti forniscono spiegazioni diverse sulla pericope completa ἀϲτέρ’ ὀπωρινῷ. In Sch. D Il. V 5 si legge, dopo l’identificazione della stella con il Cane, un riferimento specifico al termine qui glossato: ὀπώρα δὲ καλεῖται ὁ μεταξὺ θέρουϲ καὶ φθινοπώρου καιρόϲ. Si considerino inoltre Apoll. Soph., p. 45, 17 Reimer, Ἀϲτέρ’ ὀπωρινῷ. Τῷ κυνὶ λέγει τῷ κατὰ τὴν ὀπώραν φαινομένῳ; schol. vet. Il. V 5, b1 ἀϲτέρ’ ὀπωρινῷ. Τὸν Ἀρκτοῦρον ἢ τὸν Κύνα. b2 ἀϲτέρα δὲ ἐνταῦθα τὸν Ἀρκτοῦρον λέγει. T. ἀϲτέρ’ ὀπωρινῷ. Ἰϲτέον ὅτι διαφέρει ἀϲτὴρ ἄϲτρου – καὶ νότιοϲ καλεῖται. A. Impossibile stabilire quale fosse il contenuto esatto della glossa contenuta nel papiro, che comunque doveva continuare anche nel rigo successivo (in rientranza).

3. πα[μφαίνῃϲι : il termine non risulta glossato in van Thiel, scholia D, ad loc., ma è contenuto, ad esempio, nella silloge aggiunta da Heyne in calce alla sua edizione dell’Iliade: Παμφαίνῃϲι. Πανταχοῦ φαίνει (Heyne, Ilias, I, p. 232, ad Il. V 6) e figura in P.Ryl. III 537 e P.Aphrod.Lit. II, in entrambi i casi in corrispondenza di Il. V 6. Il verbo, all’infinito, è commentato anche in Hsch., π280 Hansen, παμφαῖνειν· λάμπειν, ϲτίλβειν, ἀϲτράπτειν; e infine la pericope completa (παμφαίνῃϲι λελουμένοϲ Ὠκεανοῖο) viene chiosata così in Sch. A Il. V 6, ὅτι ἀντὶ τοῦ παμφαίνει. Πλεονάζει δὲ Ἴβυκοϲ τῷ τοιούτῳ. Ἐλλείπει δὲ ἡ ἔξ (A).

4. λελ[ουμένοϲ : come i termini precedenti, il lemma non è incluso in van Thiel, scholia D, ad loc. ma si ritrova tanto in P.Ryl. III 537 quanto in P.Aphrod.Lit. II, più precisamente nella forma λελουμένοϲ Ὠκεανοῖο (ad Il. V 6); lo stesso lemma ricorre, inoltre, in Sch. gen., dov’è possibile leggere Λελουμένοϲ Ὠκεανοῖο. Νεωϲτὶ ἀνατέλλων (ed. Nicole, Les scolies genevoises, II, p. 63); spiegazione analoga nella raccolta scoliastica di Heyne: Λελουμένοϲ Ὠκεανοῖο. Νεωϲτὶ ἀνατέλλων ἐξ Ὠκεανοῦ. Τὰϲ γὰρ ἀνατολὰϲ τῶν ἄϲτρων ἐντεῦθεν ὁ Ποιητὴϲ ϲυνιϲτᾷ. Ὠκεανὸϲ δὲ ποταμὸϲ, καθ’ Ὅμηρον, περιῤῥέων κύκλῳ τὴν γῆν, ποταμῶν πάντων πατὴρ ὤν (Heyne, Ilias, I, p. 232). In 7 la spiegazione del termine continuava nel rigo successivo (in rientranza).

6. τοῖον̣ : negli scholia vetera ad Il. V 7 la pericope τοῖόν οἱ πῦρ δαῖεν viene commentata in questo modo: a1 ἀντὶ τοῦ λαμπηδόνα τῶν ὤμων αὐτοῦ ἀπολάμπειν ἐποίει ὡϲ {ἀπὸ} πυρόϲ. T. Similmente, in Sch. gen. Il. V 7 si legge: τοῖόν οἱ πῦρ δαῖε. Τοιοῦτον αὐτοῦ πῦρ ἀνῆπται (ed. Nicole, Les scolies genevoises, II, p. 63). P.Ryl. III 537, invece, reca più semplicemente τοῖον· τοιοῦτον, ed è probabile dunque che anche in 7 ricorresse una formulazione analoga, presente del resto anche in Hsch., τ1069 Hansen - Cunningham.

7. κλον̣[έοντο : glossato nella silloge di scholia raccolta da Heyne, ad Il. V 8, in questo modo: Κλονέοντο. Διεταράϲϲοντο (Heyne, Ilias, I, p. 232) Spiegazione analoga in Esichio, con riferimento anche al verso omerico; cfr. κ3034 Latte - Cunningham, κλονέοντο: ἔθορυβοῦν­το, *⌊ἐταράϲϲοντο Sgn. καὶ τὰ ὅμοια (Il. V 8). Anche in P.Ryl. III 537, ad Il. V 8, si legge semplicemente κλονέοντο· ἐταράϲϲοντο.

8. ἱρεύ̣[ϲ : Cfr. Sch. D Il. V 10, ἱρεύϲ: ἱερέυϲ (ZYQ) | θύτηϲ (Q~A 62D).

9. μά[χηϲ : Il lemma era probabilmente più lungo, come si può evincere dal confronto con Sch. D Il. V 11, μάχηϲ εὖ εἰδότε πάϲηϲ: πάϲηϲ μάχηϲ ἐπιϲτήμονεϲ (ZYQ). Il commento continuava nel rigo successivo (in rientranza).

11. ἀπο[κρινθέντε : cfr. Sch. D Il. V 12, ἀποκρινθέντε: ἀποχωριϲθέντεϲ· τοῦ οἰκείου δηλονότι πλήθουϲ (ZYQ). Il commento continuava nel rigo successivo (in rientranza).

13. ὡρμ[ηθήτην : cfr. Sch. D Il. V 12, ὡρμηθήτην: ὥρμηϲαν (ZYQ).

14. [ἀ]κω[κή : cfr. Sch. D Il. V 16, ἀκωκή: ἡ ἐπιδορατίϲ.

VII

2. ηλαϲ̣[ : forse errore per ἔλαϲ’ (Il. V 80), così chiosato in Sch. D: ἔλαϲεν: ἔπληξεν.

3. ἀπὸ [δ’ ἔξεϲεν : cfr. Sch. D Il. V 81, ἀπὸ δ’ ἔξεϲεν: ἀπέξεϲεν δέ, ὅ ἐϲτι ἀπέκοψεν.

4. αἱμα[τόεϲϲα : negli scholia vetera viene parafrasata la pericope completa αἱματόεϲϲα δὲ χεὶρ πεδίῳ πέϲε, senza soffermarsi tuttavia sull’aggettivo, che è comunque glossato in Esichio (Aἱματόεϲϲα. Aἱματώδηϲ, α1949 Latte - Cunningham) e nella silloge di Heyne, sia pur in riferimento a Il. II 267 (cfr. Heyne, Ilias, I, p. 99: Αἱματόεϲϲα. Αἱματώδηϲ).

5. πορφ[ύρεοϲ : cfr. Sch. D Il. V 83, πορφύρεοϲ: μέλαϲ (= Ts, ~ Ak.). Ἢ ὁ δι’ αἵματοϲ (ZYQ).

6. ὁμι[λέοι : cfr. Sch. D Il. V 86, ἠὲ μετὰ Τρώεϲϲιν ὁμιλέοι: ϲυναναϲτρέφοιτο.

7. θῦν̣[ε : il ny può essere considerato sicuro, nonostante la sua forma (con il tratto obliquo spostato in alto sul rigo) sia diversa da quella che la lettera assume altrove. Per quanto riguarda il senso della chiosa qui contenuta, cfr. Sch. D Il. V 87: θῦνε· ἐμμανῶϲ ὥρμα (ZYQ), con analoga formulazione in Hsch., θ901 Latte - Cunningham, θῦνε· ὥρμα. ἤγαγε.

Lucio Del Corso

Bibliothèque de Genève Pl. VIII

P.Gen. inv. 325

? 6 x 7 cm 1st cent. CE

A tattered papyrus fragment, broken on three sides; part of a margin is preserved, for an extent of c. 3 cm. It is kept in the Bibliothèque de Genève; no information on its provenance nor on the circumstances of its purchase is available through the online inventory (Bibliothèque de Genève, Catalogue, pp. 153-154).

Along the fibres seven faded lines can be read, while the other side, actually glued on cardboard, is reported to be empty. In the catalogue of the Bibliothèque the text is correctly identified as Homeric verses: Il. 4.306-307 and IV 308-312. The first two verses are written in the opposite direction to the others, and by a different hand. They also seem partly washed away, apparently by the second hand, which transcribes Il. 4.312 in correspondence with Il. 4.307. As there are traces of erasure even above (see l. 2 = Il. 4.309) it is probable that the second hand re-used a papyrus sheet, washing previous writing and turning it 180 degrees.

The two hands are very similar and can be clearly considered as contemporany. They both use a square majuscule, strictly bilinear, with thin and rounded strokes, without ‘chiaroscuro’. Letters have the same size; noteworthy are the forms of alpha, written as a ‘wedge’; epsilon, with middle stroke detached from the others; my with the obliques joined together in a curve; finally, ypsilon with curve upright. Such characteristics are typical of a group of handwriting called by G. Cavallo ‘Stile P.Fay. 6’ (Cavallo, Calamo, pp. 115-117; Cavallo, Scrittura, pp. 71-72); more specifically, 8 seems similar to some of the later examples of this group, as P.Lond.Lit. 6 (Cavallo, Calamo, tav. XXIV), which is assigned to the second half of the 1st cent. CE, not only on palaeographic ground. Therefore, it is possible to assign also 8 to the same century, and probably to the second half (differently from the suggestion of Bibliothèque de Genève, Catalogue, where it is dated to the 2nd cent. BCE).

The two hands seem to be uncertain when they write, even if they try to be accurate: so the strokes are not uniform, letter sizes are different and the lines are not parallel. Such features, together with the peculiar way the writing material has been re-employed, suggest that the text is a writing exercise, and probably a copy exercise, considering that the two hands both make mistakes omitting some letters (see m1, l. 1 = Il. 4.306, corrected by the same hand; m2, l. 1 = Il. 4.308). 8 is not the only example of papyrus sheet used for writing exercises after washing previous writings: another example is P.Köln III 125 (2nd/1st cent. BCE; Cribiore, Writing, nr. 250), a palimpsest sheet where the scriptio superior consists of a copy exercise from Il. Book 10, followed by adespota trimeters and anapestic dimeters from Aeschylus’ Psychagogoi.

Il. Book 4 is attested at least by other 84 papyri, but it was apparently less read at school than other passages of the poems (see R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton 2001, pp. 194-197). The text has been collated with the editions of M.L. West and H. van Thiel and does not show any textual peculiarities, apart from the misunderstanding of the verb ἐπόρθεον (m2, r. 1), which has different forms in manuscript tradition. I wish to thank Dr L. Sardone, who checked the original in Genève.

m 1

οϲ δε κ’ ανηρ απο ων ετ]ερ αρμαθ ικηται 306

εγχει ορεξαϲθω επει η πολυ φερτ]ερον [ουτω

1 ικηται : corr. ex ικηαι by the same hand

m 2 (opposite direction)

ωδε και οι προτεροι πολεα]ϲ̣ κ̣α̣[ι τειχε επ]ο̣ρθεν 308

τονδε νοον και θυμον ενι ϲτηθ]εϲϲιν εχοντεϲ

ωϲ ο γερων οτρυνε παλαι πολε]μ̣ων ευ ειδωϲ·

και τον μεν γηθηϲεν ιδων κρει]ων Αγαμεμνω[ν,

και μιν φωνηϲαϲ επεα πτερ]οεντα π̣ρ̣ο̣ϲ̣η̣[υδα 312

m 2

308. επ]ο̣ρθεν : the reading of the papyrus is surely wrong, as the subject requires a plural, but the manuscript tradition is not univocal. Most contemporany editors accept the variant ἐπόρθεον, transmitted by papyri as P.Lond.Lit. 11 and some of the most relevant Byzantine mss. (see e.g. Marc. gr. 822, and London, British Library, Burney 86); other mss. have the less usual form ἐπόρθευν (Vat. gr. 1315), but in most testimonies we read the easier, contracted form ἐπόρθουν. It is possible that the model had the uncontracted form, which the student did not recognize.

Lucio Del Corso

(9-13)

Bodleian Library Pl. IX

MS. Gr. class. g. 63 (P)

Deir el-Bahari c. 3.5 x 6.1 cm Early 1st cent. BCE

This papyrus was presented to the Bodleian Library by the Egypt Exploration Fund in June 1918. On the Fund’s excavations at Deir el-Bahari see W.V. Davies, Thebes, in T.G.H. James (ed.), Excavating in Egypt: The Egypt Exploration Society 1882-1982, London 1982, pp. 51-70.

What survives is a small fragment, written along the fibres, with remains of ten verses from the upper part of a column that is broken on left, foot, and right. The upper margin is preserved to a depth of 1.6 cm. The back is blank.

The scribe wrote a carefully-formed rounded upright bookhand of small size. It is strictly bilinear: even ρ and υ do not descend below the notional baseline; and φ projects very little below (with the foot of its vertical resting on a flat serif), but considerably above the upper line. Βilinearity is emphasized by the generous use of well-marked flat serifs at the feet and tops of vertical strokes as well as at the lower extremity of the leftward-descending oblique of λ. There are further serifs, or finials, at the upper extremities of obliques (υ, ν) and on either end of horizontals (especially τ). Note α with cross-bar usually flattened but occasionally bowed (8); υ stands on a short vertical equipped with a flat-serifed base. The script belongs in G. Cavallo’s ‘Stile P.Berol. 9775’ (Cavallo, Calamo, pp. 111-112), which comprises specimens from both Herculaneum (group K in LSSE, pp. 36-37) and Egypt. In particular, in view of its somewhat heavy tracing 9 compares with P.Herc. 697 (LSSE, pl. XXXII) which Cavallo, Calamo, p. 111 assigned to the second century BCE. While being less formal, less regular, and more fluid, the handwriting of a deed of loan of 99 BCE, P.Ryl. IV 586 (P.Ryl. IV, pl. 1; Roberts, GLH, 8a; Cavallo - Maehler, HB, 59; digital image on the Manchester collection website), is also relevant in that it bears a certain similarity in general impression, heavy tracing, morphology (υ, τ, φ), bilinearity, and serif usage. The hand of this Rylands papyrus has been viewed as an early specimen of ‘scrittura bilineare ad apici’ in which, as in 9, bilinearity is underscored by the use of flat serifs; cf. Del Corso, Scrittura greca, esp. pp. 241-242. On balance, I should assign 9 to the early first century BCE. So far as I can tell, there is no external evidence for dating.