Advertisement

P. Oxy. 2812

  • Jeffrey S. Rusten
Chapter
  • 17 Downloads
Part of the Papyrologica Coloniensia book series (ARAW, volume 10)

Abstract

In volume 37 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London 1971, pp. 39–44, with pl. VII) Edgar Lobel has edited and interpreted a somewhat puzzling fragment of a commentary from the first century after Christ. He assumed, evidently correctly, that it is a commentary on a tragedy; yet most of the preserved text gives us no information on the tragedy itself, but rather a detailed discussion of the roles of Poseidon and Apollo in the service of Laomedon, with illustrative quotations from Homer, a certain Dionysius, and Nicander. Although he noted a resemblance between a sentence in this discussion and schol. (Genev.) Il. 21.446–449, a direct quotation from Apollodorus’ \(\Pi \varepsilon \varrho {}^\backprime \iota \vartheta \varepsilon \tilde{\omega }\nu\) (FGrHist 244 F 96), Lobel came to the conclusion (p. 39) that “Apollodorus was evidently not directly used” in the commentary. To the extent that we do not have here the ipsissima verba of Apollodorus, he is certainly correct. Yet it seems probable that lines 1–36 of the second column consist almost entirely of a paraphrase from the section of \(\Pi \varepsilon \varrho {}^\backprime \iota \vartheta \varepsilon \tilde{\omega }\nu\) dealing with Apollo (FGrHist 244 F 95–100). In this paraphrase the copious citations and methods of argument characteristic of Apollodorus are still preserved, so that P. Oxy. 2812 provides one of the most detailed testimonia known to this part of \(\Pi \varepsilon \varrho {}^\backprime \iota \vartheta \varepsilon \tilde{\omega }\nu\); it makes possible a more precise analysis of the fragments already known, and indicates that more Apollodorean material has been preserved in the Geneva scholia on Il. 21 than had been thought.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C. Robert, De Apollodori Bibliotheca (Diss. Berlin, 1873), cf. Van der Valk, REG 71 (1958), 100–168.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    R. Münzel, De Apollodori Hepl iewv libris (Diss. Bonn, 1883), Quaestiones Mythographae (Berlin, 1883 ).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    E. Hefermehl, Studia in Apollodori Heel ûewv fragmenta Genavensia (Diss. Berlin, 1905); K. Reinhardt, De Graecorum Theologia Capita Duo (Berlin, 1910 ).Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    Archiv für Papyrusforschung 16 (1956) 115–117, cf. R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968) 262. ‘ Collectanea Papyrologica: Texts published in honor of H. C. Youtie (Papyrologische Texte and Abhandlungen 19) I, 3–26, Henrichs, Cr. Erc. 5 (1975) 5–38. The ascription to Apollodorus is confirmed by the discovery that Philodemus’ De Pietate (whose dependence on Heel leOiv was already established) cites the Meropis for the same story, see Henrichs, Cr. Erc. 7 (1977) 124–125.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    FGrHist 244 F 353.11, with Jacoby’s Commentary pp. 756–757; Pfeiffer Hist. Cl. Schol. I, 262; Henrichs Cr. Erc. 5 (1975) 25.Google Scholar
  6. 34.
    See Klaus Nickau, Untersuchungen zur textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von Ephesos (Berlin, 1977) 178–180 (whose text I follow) and Erbse ad locc. (Minor variants and corrections are not noted here.)Google Scholar
  7. 46.
    suppl. Brinkmann, Rh. Mus. 60 (1905) 159. This fragment of Hellanicus is clearly the source of [Apollod.] Bibl. 2. 103.Google Scholar
  8. 58.
    See Robert, Bild und Lied 193, Bethe Homer: Dichtung und Sage II (Berlin, 1922) 254–255.Google Scholar
  9. 62.
    cf. Bibl. 2.103, where he sends a plague, and Poseidon’s argument at Il. 21.458–460; cf. also schol. Lycophr. 34 (p. 28.35f Scheer), where Apollo receives a wage of sorts, but Poseidon does not.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey S. Rusten

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations