Advertisement

P. Mich. inv. 1316 verso

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

Abstract

The fragments1published below for the first time is apparently from a commentary on an Argonaut story or a treatise on literary criticism. Several episodes from that story (none of which is found in Apollonius of Rhodes) are discussed, among them Heracles’ rescue of Hesione (with a citation of Dionysius Scytobrachion, lines 5–8) and Aphrodite’s intervention with Aietes(line 23 ? known from theNaupactia)Although both Dionysius and Apollonius are mentioned by name, it seems unlikely that either is the main subject of the text. Lines 9–17 evidently contained an estimate of the arrangement (oixovoμiα)of a work (presumably on the Argonauts), but here too the precise subject is unclear, and perhaps there is a comparison between two works.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Refeience

  1. 1.
    The first transcript of this papyrus was made by Prof. Albert Henrichs, to whom (as elsewhere in this study) I owe many readings and suggestions. I collated the papyrus in Ann Arbor in 1976; for assistance then (as well as for checking several readings subsequently) I am indebted to Professor Ludwig Koenen. For permission to publish the text here I am grateful to the Hatcher Library of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evidently several documents were cut and joined to make a roll, the verso of which could be used for a literary text. P. Oxy. VI. 853 (Commentary on Thucydides) is similar. But a final decision must await publication of the recto.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parsons suggests however that the traces of ink in the right margin may have contained the author’s name, work title, and book number.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    In lines 5–8, for example, the name of Heracles is nowhere preserved, although it probably occurred more than once.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1971) p. 8 (cf., e.g., the papyrus commentary on Antimachus [Wyss p. 76ff]).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See above, Chapter ii p. 41, and p. 57 n. 15 below.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    This assumes a reading such as rj µiv S7j (Pf.)] ?eze lily (Lobel) dAeydarixoç Maas (addenda to Pfeiffer vol. I p. 499) preferred to abandon the punctuation of the papyrus, and take d)cy6crexoç with ôµnvta eeauo eoç (i.e., Philitas’ poem zbyzi i) On the word see Pfeiffer ad loc and R. Schmitt, Die Nominalbildung in den Dichtungen des Kallimachos von Kyrene (Wiesbaden, 1970) 6, n. 14.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See the scholia Florentina ad loc with Pfeiffer’s apparatus, and Pfeiffer, Hist. Class. Schol. I 89, n. 3. I follow Pfeiffer on the interpretation of these lines, but they are still somewhat controversial; see Fraser, Ptol. Alex. II 1058, n. 287.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See Pfeiffer, Hist. Class. Schol. I 137, Brink CQ 40 (1946) 17–18; the latter correctly emphasizes the impossibility of defining precisely Callimachus’ views on poetic arrangement.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Polybius is probably criticizing the view of Ephorus, as preserved by Diodorus 16.1 (K. Meister, Historische Kritik bei Polybios [Palingenesia 9, Wiesbaden, 1975] 77–80); especially noteworthy is the way in which the argument from çn nç in Diodorus is reversed by Polybius.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Meister, Historische Kritik 63–65, and the similar criticisms of Theopompus’ digressions by Dionysius of Halicarnassus ad Pomp 6.11 = FGrHist 115 T 20 a, Theon Prog 4 (11.80, 27 Sp) = T 30, and Photius Bibl 176 p. 121 a 35 = T 31.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thucydides is criticized in the same passage for his infrequent use of such civanavascç In P. Oxy. VI.853 (Pack2 1536) Dionysius’ criticisms of Thucydidean arrangement in his separate monograph on Thucydides are rejected, but it appears that the present passage in the letter to Pompey was discussed there as well, in the more fragmentary col. II. 9–12 (Jr ovd’ dig `H9ddolt[oç ca. 11]vzov avvexck 1r[ca. 17]vç rocxaov[),col. III. 10–15, and col. IV.4–6 (`O,u,QLx[), pace Grenfell and Hunt. The argument that Thucydides does indeed use such digressions may lie behind the statement in Marcell. Vita Thuc 35 that in his arrangement (oixovouia) Thucydides was C712w* `O z, Qov Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Apollonius was presumably the author whose narrative was avvex4ç and noHcrrixoç,discussed in lines 15–17; but it is perhaps unwise to attempt to anticipate the views of an ancient critic, particularly since the ancient estimates of Apollonius’ style (Quint. X.1.54, [Long.] de Subl 33.4) are so uninformative.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    That both works are poems and not prose works is suggested by line 32 evµéeovç and line 35 rd noe,, saga Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frs. 7–21, 108–109 Pfeiffer. According to a scholiast on Vergil Georg 1.502 (_ Callim. fr. 698 Pfeiffer), Callimachus also told of the rescue of Hesione and the double perjury of Laomedon; as Pfeiffer notes, there is no necessary reason to connect Callimachus’ story with the Argonauts or Scytobrachion (as did Robert, Heldensage 555). Lloyd Jones (ZPE 13 [1974] 209ff) suggests that Callimachus’ account of Hesione is preserved in the Archebulean verses of P. Mich inv. 3499.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Callimachus fr. 398 (= Antim. T 19 Wyss), fr. 589 (= T 1), the scholia on Hor. A.P. 136, 137, 146 (= T 12 a-e), Catullus 95.10 (= T 23), Quint. 10.1.52 (= T 28), Plut. De garrul 21 p. 513 (= T 30). But if lines 15–17 refer to Apollonius (above n. 13), then there is no place for Antimachus in 11–14, as the latter can hardly be avvaquoç Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    frs. 56–65 Wyss.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    This is hardly the place to review modern views on the “quarrel” between Callimachus and Apollonius (see Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 382), and whether the Prologue “against the Telchines” and Hymn Apoll 105–113 were directed against the latter; I see no compelling reason to regard this papyrus as evidence on the question, since the passages of Polybius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus cited above show that such literary criticism occurs independently of Callimachus as well.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    For oixovogia in the Iliad scholia see the index of Baar (Deutsche Beitr. z. Altertumsw. vol. 15, 1961), for the term in the scholia to tragedy and comedy see Rutherford, A Chapter in the History of Annotation (London, 1905) 405 n. 9. On rhetorical comments in the Apollonius scholia see H. Fränkel, Einleitung zur kritischen Ausgabe des Apollonios (Göttingen, 1964) 106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey S. Rusten

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations