Abstract
The early Ptolemaic papyri of extant authors tend to differ markedly from the traditional text in a way which cannot be explained by the processes of merely mechanical corruption : this is most obvious in the case of Homeric papyri, but similar deviations are observable in the papyri of Plato1, Euripides2, Thucydides3 and Xenophon4. The peculiarity of the Ptolemaic texts is obvious when we compare them with Roman papyri of the same authors, which differ little from the text of the mediaeval MSS. These papyri are usually described as “wild” or “eccentric”, though this terminology is slightly unsatisfactory, since it presupposes that there already existed a standard text, an ancient Vulgate. Yet there is no evidence that at the date when they were written there was anything abnormal about these texts — indeed, the lengthier quotations in Attic writers, in particular in Plato and Aeschines, shew that they used very similar texts5. The term “non-vulgate” is no better: though it looks precise, the criteria for its application are extremely vague, since there is considerable variety within the post-aristarchean tradition. We cannot simply designate these papyri as “early” or “pre-aristarchean”, since a few were written after the death of Aristarchus, and it would be undesirable to introduce some such term as “early-type” or “pre-aristarchean-type”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
P. Petrie 1, 5–8; 2, 50; the fragment of the Sophist (P. Hibeh 228) published by E. G. Turner in RhM 98, 1955, pp. 97 f. differs little from the traditional text, but is so slight that its evidence is worth little. Cf. G. Jachmann, Der Piatontext, NGG Philol.-Hist. Kl. 1941, 7.
Many of the Ptolemaic papyri of Euripides are so exiguous that their evidence is difficult to evaluate, or are school texts, and hence peculiarly liable to corruption. The following are interesting: P. Heidelberg 205, P. Sorbonne 2252, P. Lit. Lond. 73, P. Hibeh 24, P. Columbia Inv. 517, P. Rainer 8029 (cf. Turner, Two unrecognised Ptolemaic papyri, JHS 76, 1956, pp. 95f., G. A. Longman, The musical papyrus of Euripides, Or. 332–340, CQ N. S. 12, 1962, pp. 61 ff.), P. Strasb. Inv. WG 304–7, P. Berol. 9772, P. Hibeh 7. Cf. P. Collart, Les fragments des tragiques grecs sur papyrus, RPh 17, 1943, pp. 5ff.,
A. Pertusi, Selezione teatrale e scelta erudita nella tradizione del testo di Euripide, Dioniso 20, 1957, pp. 18ff.,
W. S. Barrett, Euripides, Hippolytos, Oxford, 1964, pp. 45ff., 438f.
P. Hamb. 163: cf. Turner, op. cit. pp. 96 ff.
P. Heidelberg 206: cf. R. Merkelbach in Studien zur Textgeschichte u. Textkritik G. Jachmann gewidmet, hrsg. von H. Dahlmann u. R. Merkelbach, Köln, 1959, pp. 157 ff.
Cf. Ludwich, Homervulgata, pp. 71 ff., Gilbert Murray, The Rise of the Greek Epic 4, Oxford, 1934, pp. 289 ff.,
M. H. A. Van der Valk, Researches on the text and scholia of the Iliad, II, Leiden, 1963, pp. 264ff.
When the first eccentric papyri were published, it was suggested that the obscure edition called the πολύστιχοσ was a similar text: thus J. Menrad, SBBayAkW 1891, p. 551. The πολύστιχοσ is mentioned only three times in the Scholia (on A 258, 340, Δ 335) and it is not certain that it was used by Aristarchus : see Ludwich, AHT I, p. 7. Theories that it was anything other than an edition containing more lines than other texts can be disregarded; the possibility that all eccentric texts are apographs of a single πολύστιχοσ recension is excluded by the fact that Iliad P 121 and P 432, which both cover M 128–131 and 189b-193, do not entirely agree. The name at least must be later than Aristarchus; there would be no point in designating one text as πολύστιχοσ when all texts differed from one another in the number of their lines. The theory of Sengebusch is attractive (Homerica dissertatio prior, Lipsiae, 1873, p. 203) : “ή πολύστιχοσ foetus grammatici videtur fuisse, qui omnes versus spurios, et eos, quos criticorum principes obelis notaverant, et eos, quos ne scripserant quidem illi, in unum quasi corpus coniunctos simul exhibere studeret.” In that case, the edition itself, as well as its name, would be later than Aristarchus.
It may be that if a papyrus were discovered which preserved so substantial a deviation, we should fail to identity it. But certainly there is nothing among the unidentified Ptolemaic hexameter texts in Pack’s Catalogue which looks as if it could be fitted into the framework of either poem.
P 121 and 342 are in fact fragments of one roll.
The Hibeh papyri, I, London, 1906, pp. 67 ff.
This was wrongly assigned by the editor to the first century A.D. : see p. 33.
As originally published, Iliad P 92, part of a fifth century codex, appeared to be an isolated eccentric survival; but Collart (Homère et Bacchylide dans les papyrus d’Oxyrhynchos, RPh 42,1918, pp. 42ff.) shewed that some lines had been misread and wrongly identified: the text is the Vulgate. Unfortunately the incorrect readings of the ed. pr. are reproduced in the apparatus of the O.C.T. and of Allen’s editio maior (A 637–640).
On Strabo’s quotations, see H. Bidder, De Strabonis studiis homericis, Königsberg, 1889, on Plutarch and the author of the Consolatio,
H. Amoneit, De Plutarchi studiis homericis, Königsberg, 1887: the author of the Consolatio quotes two plus-verses after Ψ 223, one of which appears in P 12 (see p. 186);
on Polyaenus, see G. M. Boiling, The quotations from Homer in Polyaenus I Prooem 4–12, CPh 24, 1929, pp. 330ff.;
on Galen, T. W. Allen, Homer, the origins and the transmission, Oxford, 1924, pp. 261 ff. * But see Addenda, pp. 286 f.
Cf. Plut. de aud. poet. 26 F, Ath. 180 C.
See The archetype of our Iliad and the papyri, AJPh 35, 1914, pp. 125 ff., The latest expansions of the Iliad, AJPh 37, 1916, pp. 1ff., The latest expansions of the Odyssey, ib., pp. 452ff., Vulgate Homeric papyri AJPh 42, 1921, pp. 253ff., On the interpolation of certain Homeric formulae, CPh 17, 1922, pp. 213 ff., The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer, Oxford, 1925, pp. 16ff.; cf. B. P. MacCarthy, Line omissions in Homeric papyri since 1925, TAPhA 62, 1931, p. xxii, CPh 27, 1932, pp. 151 ff.,
S. T. Vandersall, Line omissions in Homeric papyri since 1932, CPh 37, 1942, pp. 299 ff.
The Study of Homer in Greco-Roman Egypt, Akten des VIII internationalen Kongresses f. Papyrologie in Wien, 1955, Mitteil. aus d. Papyrussamml. der Oesterr. Nationalbibl., V. Folge, Wien, 1956, pp. 51 ff., A Companion to Homer, ed. A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings, London, 1962, pp. 223ff.
Über Aristarchs Iliasausgaben, Hermes 87, 1959, pp. 275 ff.
Storia della tradizione e critica del testo2, Firenze, 1952, pp. 210ff.
Cf. Allen, Homer, origins and transmission, chap. 13; on the dangers of equating ἔϰδοσισ with a modern edition, see B. A. van Groningen, εϰδοσισ, Mn., Ser. IV, 16, 1963, pp. 1ff.
Les papyrus de l’Iliade, RPh 7, 1933, pp. 52ff.
Cf. R. Werner, H u. ει vor Vokal bei Homer, Freiburg i. d. Schweiz, 1948, pp. 2, 8, 9.
Cf. Pasquali, op. cit. p. 239, Wilamowitz, Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie, 2. Aufl., Berlin, 1910, p. 144.
Cf. Boiling, Movable nu at the end of Homeric Verses, CPh 40, 1945, pp. 181 ff.
Cf. E. G. Turner, L’érudition alexandrine et les papyrus, CE 37, 1962, pp. 135ff.
Cf. Wilamowitz, Einleitung, pp. 121 ff.
The topic has most recently been treated by Lameere, Aperçus, pp. 37ff., where references to earlier discussions are given.
Cf. Carsten Höeg, Notules sur l’histoire du livre grec, Studi e testi, 124, 1946, pp. 1ff.
So Wilamowitz, HU, p. 369, n. 47.
See note (13) above.
So Mazon, Introduction à l’Iliade, Paris, 1942, pp. 139ff. Cf. G. S. Kirk, The songs of Homer, Cambridge, 1962, pp. 305 ff. The use of the Ionic alphabet (instead of the decimal-alphabetical system) is strange (though the books of Theophrastus’ νόμοι seem to have been numbered in this way: see H. Usener, Kl. Schr. I, Berlin, 1912, p. 114), but intelligible if the twenty-four-fold division was canonical.
This view derives from Birt’s misunderstanding (Das antike Buchwesen, Berlin, 1882, pp. 444–5) of the singular “librum” in Aulus Gellius, N.A. XVIII, 9, 5: “Offendi enim in bibliotheca Patrensi librum verae vetustatis Livii Andronici, qui inscriptus est ‘οδύσσεια”; this does not necessarily mean, as Birt supposed, that the work was not divided into books. But it is true that the normal method of citation is “Livius in Odissia”, without a book number. Still, even if the translation was not divided into books, Livius may have known a system of division, but ignored it as irrelevant to his purpose: cf. Lameere, Aperçus, pp. 49ff.
ϰράτησ τιμοκράτουσ μαλλώτησ.... συνέταξε διόρϑωσήν ίλιάδοσ καί όδυσσείασ ἐν βιβλίοισ ϑ′ Suda. B. Hemmerdinger, REG 61, 1948, pp. 104ff., revives the theory that this means an edition of the poems in nine volumina. Much more probably it refers to a critical commentary: see Kroll, R-E XI 2, 1634–5, and, on the meanings of διόρϑωσισ, Erbse, Hermes 87, 1959, pp. 275 ff.
On this subject, see W. Schubart, Das Buch bei den Griechen u. Römern 3, Leipzig, 1961, pp. 133ff.,
F. G. Kenyon, Books and readers in Greece and Rome 2, Oxford, 1951, pp. 20ff.,
E. G. Turner, Athenian books in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., London, 1952,
J. A. Davison, Literature and literacy in ancient Greece, Phoenix 16, 1962, pp. 219ff.
Cf. J. A. Notopoulos, Studies in early Greek oral poetry, HSPh 68, 1964, pp. 1ff.
The earliest example comes from Herodotus (2.116), who says that Z 289–292 come from the διομήδεοσ ἀριστείη. In view of the date, this presumably reflects rhapsodic practice rather than booksellers’ conventions, and it suggests that E and at any rate the earlier part of Z were often recited together. Thucydides refers to σκήπτρου παράδοσισ (1, 9, 4) and νεῶν κατάλογοσ (1, 10, 4); Aelian (VH13, 14) gives a list of titles. Cf. G. Capone, L’Omero Alessandrino, Padova, 1939, pp.71 ff.
On the date, see p. 108.
Ed. pr. U. Wilcken, SBBerlinAkW 1923, pp. 160–183.
Ed. pr. H. Diels, Abb. BerlinAkW 1904.
Ed. pr. K. Kunst, Rhetorische Papyri, Berliner Klassikertexte VII, Berlin, 1923, pp. 13–34.
K. Ohly, Stichometrische Unter suchungen, Leipzig, 1928, pp. 45 ff., gives a list, which is still worth consulting, of papyri which shew how the division between books or between separate works, was marked at different periods: a trend towards greater elaboration is observable.
Its evidence is well discussed by J. Bingen, in his review of Lameere’s work, CE 36, 1961, pp. 215 ff.
Until recently, the use of these so-called reclamantes was thought to be a purely mediaeval practice : cf. C. Wendel, Die griechisch-römische Buchbeschreibung verglichen mit der des vorderen Orients, Halle, 1949, p. 102, n. 70. Lameere, op. cit. pp. 263 f. gives a list (incomplete) of instances in papyri. There are four examples from Homeric papyri of the first century B.C.: 1) Iliad P 474: the end of H is marked by a coronis; below is written ϑ 1 ; 2) Iliad P 449 : a coronis marks the last line of X, which is followed by T 1, 2; the rest of the column is blank; 3) Odyssey P 138: the end of ß is marked by a paragraphos: below y 1 the column is blank; 4) Odyssey P 143: the left margin is lost, but the reclamans evidently began further to the left than the rest of the column. In none of these instances is there a title. In Iliad P 4 (I A.D.) the end of A is marked by a narrow space, followed by E 1 ; below this is the title. P. Oxy. 698 (III A.D.) perhaps represents a survival of this practice: it preserves the end of Xenophon, Cyr. Bk. I, and the opening sentence of Bk. II τοιαῦτα μὲν δή... τῶν ὀρίων τῆσ περσίδοσ followed by coronis and title. See Scriptorium 17, 1963, pp. 314f.
It is however only fair to admit that while we can often infer from columniation or stichometry that a roll must have begun at the beginning of a particular book, we could shew that the beginning of a roll did not coincide with the beginning of a book only if the beginning were actually preserved, i.e. not only the first lines of the text, but also part of the title, or, if the title were written only at the end, of the preceding blank σελίσ.
Dindorf, Scholia in Iliadem I, p. xlv ; the Anecdotum Romanwn omits παρὰ τῶν παλαιῶν, but has the correct reading ἥνωντο where the Anecdotum Venetum has ηὐδῶντο, which looks like an attempt to emend a text which was misunderstood. The text is discussed in detail by Lameere, op. cit. pp. 42ff., 244ff.: he would read the imperfect ἡνοῦντο.
παλαιόσ and ἀρχαῖοσ do not guarantee any great antiquity: Aristonicus includes Callimachus among οἰ ἀρχαῖοσ (Sch. A ad γ 371, ξ 214; cf. Pfeiffer on fr. 43, v. 53).
Erbse, Gymnasium 69, 1962, pp. 75 ff. maintains that ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδενί means “and by no other sign”. But the only other sign suitable would be a paragraphos, which is used instead of a coronis in Odyssey P 138: if this is what the author meant, he was wrong. In any case, the presence or absence of a title is a matter of much more obvious interest than this. Lameere thinks that the grammarian wishes to call attention to the fact that no space was left blank between one book and the next; again, this seems a less conspicuous feature than a title.
Ed. pr. F. G. Kenyon, Classical Texts from papyri in the British Museum, London, 1891, pp. 42–62.
The proportion of rolls which originally contained more than one book seems to be much higher in the Ptolemaic period than later : Davison, Akten d. VIII. internationalen Kongresses f. Papyrologie, p. 57, gives some figures, now out of date. The validity of such statistics is perhaps questionable, since it is often uncertain whether we are dealing with fragments from a single roll containing several books, or from several rolls written in the same hand; moreover, in Ptolemaic papyri the columniation or the stichometry sometimes shews that the roll must have contained more than one book, even where fragments of only one are preserved; similar inferences are impossible in Roman papyri, since a new book always begins in a fresh column, and the scribe does not carry over the stichometric count from one book to the next. In the following list the sign * marks those instances in which it is certain that the
Similar conclusions in Jachmann, Vom frühalexandrinischen Homertext.
On Aristarchus’ MSS. see Ludwich, AHT I, pp. 3ff., Allen, op. at. pp. 271 ff.
The pre-aristarchean papyri provide no support for Boiling’s theory that the Alexandrian critics athetised lines only when they were omitted in some of their MSS. The only omission which corresponds to an ancient athetesis is that of Ψ 92 in P 12, and we already knew from the Scholia that the line was missing from some copies.
Cf. Ludwich, AHT II, pp. 78–94, P. Cauer, Grundfragen der Homerkritik 3, Leipzig, 1923, pp. 51 ff., Pasquali, op. cit. pp. 223–240, Van der Valk, op. cit. pp. 1–263 passim.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1967 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
West, S. (1967). Introduction. In: West, S. (eds) The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer. Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-20347-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-20347-6_1
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-663-19996-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-663-20347-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive