Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus 9781442671515

Citation preview

BOOKROLLS AND SCRIBES IN OXYRHYNCHUS

This page intentionally left blank

BOOKROLLS AND SCRIBES IN OXYRHYNCHUS William A.Johnson

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

www.utppublishing.com © University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2004 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-3734-8

(ffi) Printed on acid-free paper

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Johnson, William A. (William Allen), 1956Bookrolls and scribes in Oxyrhynchus /WilliamA.Johnson. (Studies in book and print culture) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-3734-8 1. Oxyrhynchus papyri. 2. Books and reading — Greece - History. I. Tide. II. Series. Z5.J63 2004

091

C2003-903965-X

Plates are reproduced by permission of the University Library, Cambridge (plate 1); the Egypt Exploration Society, London (plates 2,4-5,8—13); the Bodleian Library, Oxford (plates 3,18); and the British Library, London (plates 6-7,14-17). University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).

D.W.P.

fG.P.G.

aocpov TOI TO aa9£} to fill out the line, or the occasional use of an overbar to signal nu at line end. Of more interest for the purposes here is the punctuation system. In both 3882+PS/XI 1195 (Thucydides) and PSI XVII Congr. 12 (Demosthenes), the scribe uses a dot in the middle position (accompanied by space and evidently part of the original copying) to mark full stops as well as a few lighter pauses. The medial dot (as opposed to a dot in the high position) is itself unusual, but very striking is the fact that the paragraphus is not added to mark periods, as is the norm, but is reserved only for points of major division in the text (akin to our idea of a 'paragraph'): thus the use of paragraphus at 3882 ii.2, and (not noticed by the editor, but apparent in the plate) PSIXVII Congr. 12 ii.6. (2466 lacks punctuation, since by happenstance there is little or no occasion for it.) Here at least it is unlikely that the scribe is taking over the punctuation from his antigraph. Other points of scribal convention are less clear. While the trema is generally added by the scribe, the apparent inconsistency in 2466 relies on only three opportunities. Similarly, iotaadscript appears consistently added in 3882+PS/XI 1195, but there are only three examples; the adding or not of adscript is decidedly inconsistent elsewhere. The other papyri identified for this scribe have been questioned. Papyrus 2630 is probably in the same hand, but is too exiguous (a mere scrap) to add useful information one way or the other. I feel more certain that 3894 is in the same hand (the editor, M.W. Haslam, is not quite committed), but if so the only yield is an estimated column width that, at *7.85, roughly approximates that observed for the other witnesses to this hand (and, as we will see, a column width this great is fairly rare). After long consideration, I join with Funghi and Savorelli 1992a, 86—8 in judging that 3319 is probably not in the same hand as 2466, and almost certainly not from the same bookroll. The height of column measures 15.1 cm (col. i) and 14.9 cm (col. ii) for 3319, but the column in 2466, which is incomplete, measures at least 16.0 cm; we will see in §2.4 that, pace S. West ad 3319, so great a variation is unusual. Given that 3319, in addition to a slight but noticeable difference in the script (on which see Funghi and Savorelli 1992a), shows differences in convention (no use of overbar for final nu, a different punctuation system) and in column width (6.7 cm; column-to-column width of 8.2 cm), and given the uniformities noted above for this scribe, I think it best to assume a different hand. The fact of so similar a hand and so rare a text (the

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

29

Sesonchosis romance) may, however, suggest rolls that are in some sense related, as for example rolls written by two scribes working in the same 'shop.'

2.1.16 Scribe #B1 (1174 Sophocles, Ichneutai; 1175 Sophocles, Eurypylusj late 2nd cent. AD. In their introduction to 1174 Grenfell and Hunt point out that while the greater part of 1174 and 1775 were discovered in different excavation seasons, minor fragments of 1174 were found close by 1175. I follow Grenfell and Hunt in assuming that the two plays are from sister rolls rather than from a single roll, but, given the physical exigencies, that assumption is by no means assured (see further at §3.7). That the two plays are written to match in format is in any case certain. Both are written on very good papyrus, similar in appearance, with the sheets of the manufactured roll all roughly the same size at 23—6 cm (and thus of the same 'grade': see §3.1.1). For both plays the scribe adds only diaeresis, paragraphus, and forked paragraphus; the last is, however, different in form between the two plays, which implies that the exact shape of this less frequent siglum is copied from the antigraph. In both plays, the same annotator later added scholiastic comments and corrections, and apparently is also responsible for punctuation (including high, middle, and low dots), accents, breathings, apostrophe, diastole, coronis, and occasional notae personarum. The column layout for the two plays is also identical. For both, the column height is 11.5 cm or just under (1174:-11.0 [v],~11.3 [vi], 11.5 [vii],-11.3 [ix], 11.3 [xiv]; 1175: —11.5 [fr. 5]); and the margins seem to be of a piece (in 1175, fr. 8.ii, the lower margin is intact and measures 3.5 cm; in 1174, the lower margin is probably intact in columns vi and ix, measuring 3.4 and 3.5 cm). Both plays use two levels, as it were, of indentation (not rigorously deployed, however, and not necessarily meaningful): 1174 uses eisthesis of 1.2—1.3 cm at cols, iv and vii, but 1.8—2.0 at cols, iii, v, viii, x, xiii; 1175 uses eisthesis of both 1.1 and 1.7 cm in fr. 5.ii. The differing levels of indentation cause some confusion for the scribe in measuring the column-to-column width, but that 13.6 cm is the rule he intends can scarcely be doubted: the lone column-to-column "width in 1175 measures 13.6; in 1174, columns iv, v, vi, ix, x measure within a couple of millimetres of 13.6, while columns ii and vii measure 13.6 to the point of eisthesis; only column xii (measuring 15.5 from the eisthesis and 17.1 cm overall) deviates in a basic way from the pattern.The fact that the scribe occasionally gets confused about what he should be measuring from or to (that is, from the left of the trimeter or from the left of the indented choral lines) is itself a precious detail, since it strongly implies that the scribe measures one column at a time as he goes along.

2.1.17 Scribe #B2 (26 Demosthenes, Exordia [plate 6]; 2549 Demosthenes, Epistula 1; ?2548 Demosthenes, in

30

Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity of the Literary Roll

Timocratem,) 2nd cent. AD. Despite the editor's confidence, the identification of 2548 with the writer of 26 and 2549 is not certain. The two scripts, for all their likeness, vary considerably in details and idea (the writer of 26 and 2549, for instance, uses a double base line, one for (x v, the other for a x e c 8, but in 2548 all these characters have the same notional base). As for 26 and 2549, the identification of the script is secure enough, but it is possible that the fragments all derive from a single roll. (In medieval codices, the Exordia is usually followed directly by the Epistulae.) The fragments of 2548 and 2549 are insufficient to allow firm conclusions, but the following is worth remark. All three pieces are written in a similarly sized script with 17—18 characters per line, resulting in a roughly equivalent width of column. Papyrus 2548 is, however, slightly more cramped horizontally, and thus has a somewhat narrower column, perhaps *4.7 cm as opposed to 5.2-5.6 cm for 26 and *5.1 for 2549. 2548 shares with 26 several characteristics: a strong slope leftward of the text at the left margin (4—5°), use of expungement dots above letters to delete characters, use of dots above the line, and no spacing to signal punctuation. (The latter two features may in both cases be later additions. The remains of 2549 are too exiguous to reveal how such details were handled.) Overall, I would say that such details, though hardly conclusive, support the case for identification of 2548 with the other two pieces. But 2548 was in any case not, probably, part of the same roll, for the leading (5.0 mm) is markedly distinct from the others. On the other hand, the similar leading of 26 (6.1—6.3 mm) and 2549 (6.45) lends some support to the hypothesis that these two may be pieces from a single roll. All three fragments are written on good to very good quality papyrus with a somewhat to noticeably coarser back; but the papyrus lacks any striking correspondence. 2.1.18 Scribe #B3 (2485 Hesiod, Catalogus mulierum; 2639+PSI XI 1191 Hesiod, Theogonyj 3rd cent. AD. That these fragments derive from two separate rolls is suggested, but not proved, by the full colophon preserved for the Theogony, and by the different size and spacing of the writing. The script of 2639 is significantly smaller, more laterally compressed, and on tighter leading than 2485. The column of text was therefore noticeably narrower, but as the intercolumn is not preserved for 2639, the column-to-column widths cannot be compared. The height of 2485 at least approached the *21.1 cm estimated for 2639, but nothing definite can be said. Mid-line punctuation is indicated by a short blank space in 2485,10 by space with accompanying dot in 2639; but as the dot is possibly by a different pen, this may reflect the same original system. Diacritics are extensively added to both texts, but by different hands; 10 The space used as internal punctuation in 2485 is neglected by the editor in fr. 2, lines 19,22,24. Only the first of these is at all doubtful.

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

31

those in 2639 may be by the text hand, but, as usual, certainty is not possible. Both texts often write the adscript, but with erratic omissions (rather more in the remains of 2485).

2.1.19 Scribe #B4 (3436 Dinarchus, in Demosthenem; 3437 Dinarchus, in Philoclemj late 2nd or early 3rd cent. AD, So like is the physical format — a written column of 5.0 x 19.5 cm with 35—6 lines per column and a 2.0 intercolumn — that one might naturally assign these two short speeches to one roll. In light of the Aeschylean rolls written by scribe #A3, however, the possibility of rolls in twin format remains. The papyrus itself gives perhaps slight support to the latter hypothesis, for the surface of 3437 is noticeably coarser. The identical format makes the difference in punctuation systems all the more striking. In 3436, full stops are marked by paragraphus and middle dot, all apparently by the original hand; in 3437 there is no punctuation at all. I infer then that the punctuation in 3436 is taken over from the exemplar. Of possible significance for what else was or was not part of the paradosis: diaeresis is consistently written in both texts; adscripts in both texts are sometimes written, sometimes not, even for simple datives; 3436 contains three itacistic spellings, whereas 3437, despite at least one example where it might be expected, contains none.

2.1.20 Scribe #B5 (2100+3891+4109 Thucydides, 4-5, 8) middle 2nd cent. AD. Fragments from books 4 and 5 agree noticeably in number of lines per column (32—3) and leading (5.6—6.3 mm) when compared to the line count (37-9) and leading (4.75-5.1 mm) of fragments from book 8. Yet none of this translates into a markedly different physical format. All measurable columns, of which there is one in book 5 and three in book 8, are within a couple of millimetres of 5.5 cm in width. The height of column for the book 8 fragments (18.35— 18.65 cm) is somewhat less than those from books 4-5 (~19.7 cm), but, given compensating variation in margin size, one need not presume much difference in overall height for the rolls.The intercolumn is consistent at 1.5 cm for all books. The strong similarities noticed above in books 4 and 5 tempt one to suggest a roll division different from the books we are familiar with. Alternative divisions were certainly known in antiquity.11 Still, the uniformity may, of course, be the result merely of copying the books in close succession; the much-remarked agreement between the medieval codices and papyri of the Roman era will predispose us to assume the usual divisions in a papyrus of this date unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. 11 Marcellinus, Life ofTliucydides 58:'Some divide his work into 13 books, and others make other divisions,' though, he goes on to say, the division by Asklepiades into 8 books has prevailed. Diodorus Siculus 12.37, cf. 13.42: 'Thucydides wrote in 8 books, or as some divide it, in 9.'Alternate points of book divisions are also re-marked in theThucydidean scholia (ad 4.135.2,2.78.4,3.116.3,4.78.1,4.135.2): details in Hemmerdinger 1948.

32

Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity of the Literary Roll

Lectional signs are used or not in uniform fashion among the fragments, with no discernible difference by roll. The papyrus itself is very similar among all the fragments.

2.1.21 Scribe #B6 (3376 Herodotus, 1, 2) 2nd cent. AD. The small scrap of book 1 contains somewhat more widely spaced letters and a markedly different leading between lines: in book 1, the leading measures about 7.0 mm, whereas the fragments from book 2 vary from 5.0 to 5.4 mm.The strong difference suggests that the fragments derive from two rolls. Column width, from what one can tell, was more or less constant between the two books. Little more can be added, except that the fragment of book 1 uses a high dot for punctuation in a manner consistent with the fragments from book 2. The assignment of the fragment from book 1 to the same hand as the others, though very probable in my view, is not quite certain due to the common style of script and different location of the find.12

2.2 Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls: Summary and Evaluation Let me first emphasize that such a small amount of evidence inevitably leads to some distortion and, moreover, that the method of selection skews the results in a specific way. A scribe tends to be recognizable precisely because his script is idiosyncratic. Thus, this group of scribes contains many somewhat unusual scripts, and is underrepresented, for example, in the so-called Severe Style common in the second and third centuries. The preponderance of less usual scripts is perhaps related to another striking feature of this group of papyri, namely, the presence of'scholarly' annotations in the text. The fragments of over half of the group (scribes #A3, #A5, #A6, #A7, #A17, #A19, #A20, #A24, #A28, #A30, #B1) contain either sigla or scholiastic comments in the margins; several of the remainder contain variant readings. On the other hand, common school works are rare: the group contains only one Homeric papyrus, for example. The sample appears to be heavy in texts custom-made for serious readers.13 Though often assumed, however, it does not follow that 'scholarly' texts of this sort were privately produced (on which question, see further at §3.9). In none of the texts is it clear that the annotator has the same hand as the 12 Brunner 1987 advances the hypothesis that the fragments from book 2 derive from two identical rolls written by the same scribe. His view is untenable, however, since it is based on an erroneous join in one of the fragments: see Johnson 1992b. 13 Turner 1956,144 asserted that instances 'where more than one work has been transcribed by a single scribe in a workaday hand' can be assumed as scholars' texts.Yet it is hard to see what exactly he intends by 'workaday,' since his examples are for the most part unusually neat, often decorated, and sometimes (as with scribes #A1, #A2) rather formal scripts. Turner backs away from this point somewhat in Turner 1980, 92-3, but he maintains the position that multiple copies by a single scribe imply a scholar's text. The logic of his assertion escapes me. For detailed studies of 'scholar's texts' see McNamee 1981a, forthcoming, and Johnson forthcoming.

Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls: Summary and Evaluation

33

copyist of the text (though that may be true of #A6); in three cases the annotator is the same for more than one roll (#A19, #A20, #B1); but the texts of scribes #A7 and #A17 (and cf. #A30) have different, in one case multiple, annotators. Since the 'scholarly' user or users are generally different from the copyist, one might venture the suggestion that the 'scholar,' presumably the owner, in some cases repeatedly used the same copyist; and that in some cases different 'scholars' are involved, though whether because of a shared library or because there were different owners is not clear. There is nothing, however, to infer about the copyist himself. All of these texts in any case appear to be the products of competent and experienced copyists. With regard to formats, it is important to note that the identity of a scribe is sometimes confirmed or rejected on the basis of the layout.Thus, 1806 Theocritus and 3325 Moschus (scribe #A28) were thought different scribes by the editor, wrongly in my view, partly on the basis of a difference in column height (see §2.1.12). Many of the formats are nonetheless strikingly homogeneous. Wherever it is possible to compare the column width of different prose texts, the width agrees either exactly (scribes #A5, #A7, #A33) or very nearly (scribes #A1, #A24).The same is true of the lone verse text where the column-to-column measurement can be compared (scribe #A30). In one remarkable example (scribe #A33), it is possible to compare column, intercolumn, and column-to-column widths across three prose texts written in three different genres, all of which have identical measurements. Under scribe #A5 there is also a case of disagreement, but it is the exception that proves the rule: for there the two classical texts agree exactly in column width, while the commentary (a 'subliterary' text) is written to a somewhat wider format. A given scribe's copies of different works of the same author similarly agree in column width (scribes #A3, #B2, #B4, #B5; #B1 for a verse example), and such rolls usually agree in height of column as well (scribes #A3, #B1, #B4; and #B5 approximately). But rolls from different authors, in all cases where one can take a measure, show marked disagreement in column height (scribes #A5, #A24, #A28, #A33); in all these cases, the discrepancy is wide enough to preclude (scribe #A5) or argue against (scribes #A24, #A28, #A33) an equivalent roll height with variously sized margins.14 From the agreement in column widths I draw the following inference: in a well-executed literary roll, column widths seem to be measured before the writing of a column. (Moreover, the scribe seems to have measured the columns one by one as he went along: see §2.1.16 and 3.1.3.) The combination of two facts suggests that measurement is at work here and not estimation by eye: (1) the size and spacing of the writing can vary considerably from roll to roll even while the column width remains constant; (2) the agreement in width is in most cases exceedingly exact. Nothing too sophisticated is required by way of a 14 1093 and 1182 (scribe #B7, both works of Demosthenes) offer, according to the editor of 1182, another example of rolls written to the same width but of different column and roll height.

34

Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity of the Literary Roll

tool. Before writing the next column, the scribe could, for instance, use a notched stick to position the top left of the new column at a fixed distance from the top left of the last column, and a second notch could fix the column's right edge; there would of course need to be a separate set of notches to fix the column-to-column width of verse texts. Ruling marks on the papyrus itself seem at any rate uncommonly employed; the evidence for ruling dots exists but is slim (details at §3.1.2), and only one example appears among the fragments surveyed in the scribal study. The reader will note that this result is not what we expect. Though never, to my knowledge, supported in any detail, a common rule of thumb among papyrologists holds that especially narrow columns are characteristic of oratory, wide columns of commentaries, with history and philosophy occupying the middle ground.15 Commentaries, as indicated above, can be reasonably viewed as a different level of formality in book production, and may well be written to different standards and by different methods; scribe #A5 offers an instance of this. Yet the evidence presented here clashes directly with the notion that the column width of classical texts varies by genre. Scribe #A1 writes Isocrates and Thucydides to the same width; scribe #A7 Demosthenes and Herodotus; scribe #A33 Thucydides, romance, and Demosthenes. A scribe could, in theory, use one measure for oratory and another for philosophy and history even as he uses one measure to fix column widths for prose, and another to fix the width of a verse text. But nothing in the evidence here suggests it. I will return to the relationship between format and genre again in the next chapter (§3.8). Before leaving the subject of column width, let us look briefly at an example outside of the survey, the extraordinary case of 881. On the front (along the fibres) is written Plato's Euthydemus in a tiny, neat, semi-formal script; on the back, in a small, clumsy, informal script, Plato's Lys/s.The editor assumes that the script on the back is about a half-century later than that on the front, but the scripts of themselves do not compel this opinion. Both sides are written the same way up in the manner of an opistograph; that is, the Lysis begins at the edge that contains the end of the Euthydemus (thus one can speak confidently of front and back).16 What is extraordinary is that the column width for the front, at 5.0—5.2 cm, measures to exactly the same size as the column width of the back. (The intercolumn is known for only one of the sides.) Coincidence is of course possible. Still, as the columns do not align between front and back, a tool of measurement seems once again the natural inference. That the measurement agrees may suggest a standard tool, or one standard to a particular group (such as a master scribe and his apprentices); but the most economical explanation will be that the scribe of the Lysis shared or inherited the tools (as well as the papyrus) from the scribe of the Euthydemus. 15 Turner and Parsons 1987,7, with characteristic caution, state the common opinion. 16 See 881 in Appendix 2A.

Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls: Summary and Evaluation

35

As regards column height, there is little evidence for any practice that would result in a general uniformity among rolls written by a given scribe. As mentioned, there is an apparent effort to write works of a given author on papyrus of similar height (or to cut it to size) so as to create a matched set; the height of written columns at any rate concurs in such texts, and in one case (#A3) the measured roll height is very close. Yet roll and column height otherwise vary considerably, and it seems a fair inference that heights correspond to the papyrus stock available. In this context, one may recall the general agreement noticed in the quality of papyrus used by a given scribe. Front and back usually conform to the same standard, and the papyrus is sometimes strikingly similar in appearance (scribes #A3, #A6, #A7, #A17, #A19, #B1). In only two cases (scribe #A3, but only for the Babrius fragment, and #B4) was there a noticeable difference in the quality of the papyrus used. The natural supposition is that, for a given clientele, a scribe tended to buy papyrus of a given grade; but the corollary must then be that the standards governing the surface quality did not apply to roll height. This conclusion accords with the fact (and it is a fact that has disturbed commentators) that the Elder Pliny, in his detailed discussion of papyrus grades, says nothing of roll height even while enumerating measurements for sheet widths in the various types (Nat. Hist. 13.78). I will return to this point in the next chapter when we turn to consider the anatomy of the manufactured roll in more detail (§3.1.1). Punctuation in the papyri is complicated by the problem that it is so often impossible to know what hand is responsible, but there is nonetheless considerable evidence that a given scribe used different punctuation systems for different texts. Particularly striking is scribe #B4, who wrote two speeches of Dinarchus in the same column format, possibly even in the same roll, but with different systems of punctuation. A lone example arguing in the opposite direction is scribe #A33, where the scribe seems to substitute his own, somewhat idiosyncratic, system for whatever he found in his respective models; but even here the specific placements for the punctuation may well be inherited. I infer that punctuation, in some sense, was usually copied along with the text. Given the dates in the sample, all of which fall in the second or early third century, the data seem for the most part to validate Turner's assertion that 'during the Roman period in Egypt (especially in ii AD) the view seems to have taken root that if punctuation was present in the exemplar it was the scribe's duty to copy it.'17 The use of punctuation is, however, a more complicated situation than that. We have seen repeated indications throughout the survey that, whatever the scribal practice, readers added their own points of distinction routinely as they made use of the book. In fact, in many of these manuscripts a majority of the punctuation dots are plausibly attributed to a later reader or readers. An interesting question to ask is then whether, once a reader's punc17 Turner and Parsons 1987, lO.Turner 1980, 92 puts forward, however, the exact opposite opinion:'Punctuation, even in the best texts, tends to be regarded as not forming part of the paradosis; it is what the scribe inserts.'

36

Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity of the Literary Roll

tuation had been added, a subsequent copyist felt the duty to copy these marks as well. Since there is no sign of gradual elaboration of punctuation over time, but rather the continuing sense of a bare-bones punctuation system to which readers added marks as necessary, I infer that the scribes generally ignored readers' marks when copying. In practice, this most likely means that the scribe copied the main periodic points of distinction (i.e., those marked by paragraph! in the papyri, including the rare cases where the paragraph! are added in correction by a reader), but felt free to attend to or ignore lesser divisions of the syntax as seemed fit or expeditious.18 The survey yields only the sparsest evidence on other aids to lection. Still, a few tidbits may be worth mentioning, as they lend further, if inconclusive, support to the view that some lectional signs were often considered part of the paradosis. Thus, the texts written by scribe #A7 show differences in the use of elision marks and in the placement of diaeresis (and in the deployment of accents in general), as though these features came from the exemplar; scribe #A24 offers, similarly, an interesting example of difference in the addition of iota-adscript. By this I do not mean to deny that later readers often added elision marks, breathings, accents, and adscripts, just as they added punctuation; accents and breathings in particular, if abundant, are normally the addition of a later hand or hands. The question before us, however, is whether, in the usual case, a lectional sign apparently by the original hand is likely to be a mark added at the scribe's own initiative, or a mark copied from the exemplar. That is, are we studying scribal habits or are we tracing the progress of the paradosis? From the (admittedly thin) evidence here, it appears that, in the Roman period at least, the tendency was to copy from the exemplar at least some lectional marks. Since, as is the case with punctuation, there is no sense of a gradual elaboration or accumulation of such marks, it is likely that here too lectional aids were copied only under certain circumstances, such as when they appeared part of the original copy (and not a readers addition), or when the marks seemed particularly useful. Once again, we see here surprisingly broad discretion residing in the hands of the copyist, even while recognizing that, in general, this seems to have been a discretion of elimination. In the case of both punctuation and lectional aids, it seems that the scribe copied from his model the essentials, but remained attentive to the need to reproduce a clean, unencumbered text. Before leaving the survey, a final note. The small number of identified scribes among the literary texts from Oxyrhynchus is worth remark. True, the common scripts are far less likely to be securely identified (compare for instance disagreements over the identity of scribe #A23, a relatively distinct script), and the totals are no doubt lower than they would 18 As usual, one cannot be dogmatic.The Hellenica Oxyrhyndlia (842, not part of our survey) shows that even in the case of the demarcation of the main period, scribal choice can come into play. A second hand writes col. v and the top half of col. vi of that papyrus, and seems to follow a different set of principles for the addition of thepamgraphus (from the introduction to 842:'A paragraphus is found in vi.10 marking a transition which the first hand would have ignored').

Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls: Summary and Evaluation

37

otherwise be. Still, less than fifty identifications, comprising only a bit more than 100 of the 1500 published Oxyrhynchus literary papyri (most of which belong to a two-century span), are still fewer than one might expect. Turner's assertion that 'a limited number of scribes has been engaged in writing the texts of Greek literature' at Oxyrhynchus,19 barring future evidence to the contrary, must be ruled out of court.

2.2.1 Excursus: Format changes in mid-roll Against the conclusion that column width was determined by a scribal tool, and was thus uniform for a given scribe, may be placed a few examples where a substantial shift in format is discernible within the roll. The first eight columns of Iliad 5 survive intact in 223+PKoelnV 210 (plate 18), and while the last seven are approximately to one size from column to column, the first column is much narrower: roughly 16 cm20 against about 21 cm for the rest. This text, written on the back of a document in a good-looking, but bold and hardy severe-style script, is neither formal nor terribly neat, and in general the scribe is none too painstaking in his attention to matters of format. Thus, the column-to-column measurement at the top rarely matches that at the bottom (due to a slope at the left margin that is not parallel from column to column), and the height of the written column shifts considerably over the extent of the columns preserved (see further under §2.4). In general the column widths do match, though with minor variation; column one, by contrast, is significantly more narrow. The circumstance is easily explained by the surmise that the column-to-column width proved, by column 2, too narrow for the longest hexameters, and that the scribe thus immediately adjusted the target width. If so, however, he is not then working to a preset measurement for all hexameter texts in the way that the earlier examples seemed to imply. A second example of an initial column to a different size may be found in 2750 if we agree with Turner that the hand matches that of 2101.21 In 2750 we find preserved the first column of Xenophon's Cyropaedia, and in 2101 several columns from later in the first book (4.15ff., plate 8). But here, if this is in fact one roll, the initial column is wider: roughly *7.1 cm for the column in 2750 as against about 5.6 in the four intact columns of 2101, with also a wider intercolumn (2.65 cm versus about 2.0).The hands have very much the same feel; but the script is formal ('Biblical majuscule'), with several minor differences between the fragments. These differences may be the result of a tiring hand and duller pen, or they may indicate two different scribes writing this script in the canonical fashion. On

19 Turner 1956,143. 20 At some point in the life of 223, the initial column was torn vertically, and the first part of the column was replaced by new papyrus, with the first few letters of each line rewritten in a crude hand. This damage complicates any statement about the exact measurement of the original column, but that the first column was substantially narrower than the rest is not in doubt. 21 See the introduction to 2750, with references there cited.

38

Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity of the Literary Roll

the other hand, the differences in format are profound, for not only does the column width differ, but the scribe of 2750 writes a larger script than 2101 (3.5+mm versus 3.0) on considerably wider leading (5.2 mm versus 4.45). Either column 1 is written to a substantially different aspect, or the pieces belong to two rolls; overall, I find the evidence too ambiguous for secure judgment. More striking will be the mid-roll shift in format that appears in PHarr 12+3666 (Plato, Ale. 1). I have seen the PHarr fragment only in photograph, but there can be little doubt that the fragments are written by the same hand; the identification is fairly guaranteed not only by striking agreement in particulars and the feel of the script, but by the unusual text (Aldbiades 1, otherwise unexampled among the papyri). The column widths, however, differ substantially between the two papyri. The two columns of PHarr 12, perhaps columns 13 and 14 of the roll, have fewer than 14 letters in each line, which calculates to a width of about *5.35 cm. The fragments of 3666, a dozen or so columns later in the roll, contain on average about 20 letters per line, and the column width can be measured (fr. 3) at 7.3 cm.The intercolumn also differs, at roughly 2.0 cm in PHarr and 1.6 in 3666; the column-to-column widths thus measure *7.35 as opposed to 8.9 cm.The POxy editor (H.M. Cockle) attributes the shift from 14 to 20 letters per line to gradual compression by the scribe:'No doubt the scribe feared he would run out of space and became less generous in spacing his letters.' But this position is untenable: not only do the physical measurements of column width differ, but, if the scribe's concern was to fit more into his space, why does the leading shift from 5.05 mm (PHarr) to 6.35 (POxy, all fragments) and the lines per column from 37-8 to 34?22 Moreover, the shift is not gradual: 3666 fr. 1 follows only 11-15 columns after the PHarr fragment, yet already a dramatic shift in letters per line is apparent (14 to 18.5); 3666 fr. 3, however, follows at a considerable distance from 3666 fr. 1 (40—55 columns), yet shows only a small change (from 18.5 to 20.5 letters per line).The latter variation is the sort found commonly enough between columns, and need not imply any difference in physical width (see §2.4.1). The three fragments of 3666 show then substantial agreement among themselves but disagreement with the PHarr fragment in column width, intercolumn, and leading between lines, and perhaps also in height of column (this last difference is not certain, since both are estimated and, at *21.2 and *18.4—9, less considerable).The script is handsomely executed, the text is good; nothing suggests an inferior or casual production. It is hard to know what to make of this example. One could of course suppose that the two papyri belong to different rolls produced by the same scribe.23 But even should this be so, the strong variation between 22 Such is the best reconstruction. The number of lines per column, and thus the height of the roll, is however somewhat problematic. See comments under 3666 in Appendix 2A. 23 Powell, in his introduction to PHarr 12, notes that 'punctuation is by a later hand in brownish ink.' If he intends to include paragraphus and dicolon, the fragments exhibit yet another difference, for paragraphus and dicolon are written in black ink by the original hand in the fragments of 3666. (Unfortunately, no high dots survive in

How Did the Scribe Copy the Text?

39

rolls remains contrary to the previous evidence. Here, clearly, is an example of a scribe writing in two different formats, be it one roll or two.This example will at the very least stand as a strong corrective to any thought that scribes were altogether uniform in practice. Finally, let us examine two examples that are both interesting in their own right and that shed perhaps a little light on this set of problems. In 2092 (Pindar, Olympian 2) a change of scribe occurs in the lacuna between line 46 and line 54. The second scribe writes to a different leading (5.15 to 5.65 as against 4.75), but not enough survives to allow a comparison of physical height or width of column. This example serves, however, to remind us that the writing of a text proceeds over considerable time and might easily be interrupted, with concomitant changes when the work was resumed. In this case, the scribe changed; in another case, though, the change might well be one of instruments, which, under the current hypothesis, would imply a change in format. A confusion in measurement may also account for a similar circumstance that arises in the case of a nonOxyrhynchite papyrus, the British Museum de pace roll (MP 1272, PLondLit 131). In this casually written papyrus, columns are not always painstakingly regular: column 39, in particular, is wider than any of the rest. Yet with fair consistency columns 1 to 28 are clearly meant to be written to a narrower width (of slightly under 6 cm), and the later columns to a wider width (7 cm). Interestingly, the column-to-column width for the earlier columns is also 7 cm, and fairly exact (at least at the top of the column). It is unclear whether one scribe is at work (so Bell, Mandilaras, and I am inclined to agree), or two scribes are writing in a similar script (so Kenyon, Milne). Either way, however, the shift to a wider column, unless simply owing to a change of instrument, may well be the result of confusion in the measure, with the scribe mistaking the 7 cm mark, earlier used to define the left of the next column, as the mark intended to define the right edge of the current column.

2.3 How Did the Scribe Copy the Text? Implicit examples for and against line-by-line copying In trying to think through how scribes went about copying literary texts, scholars often — too often — fall into debating the hypothesis that dictation was a common component in professional copying.24 The debate has centred on supposedly 'aural' or supposedly 'visual' scribal errors. Yet both of these constitute a difficult proof, since the circumstances giving rise to one or another error may vary. 'Aural' errors, for example, may be influenced by

3666.) In my view, this would tip the scale towards the conclusion that the fragments originate from separate rolls. Attempts to investigate the point have, however, been frustrated by the inability of the library staff at Birmingham to locate the PHarr fragment. 24 The classic statement of the dictation hypothesis is Skeat 1956, much debated ever since; further discussion and bibliography is found in Pettimengin-Flusin 1984.

40

Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity of the Literary Roll

subvocal murmuring of the scribe; a supposedly 'visual' error like haplography25 could result from clipping the text through inattention, including aural inattention, rather than from literal parablepsy. A collection of 'aural' and 'visual' errors in the Oxyrhynchus samples seems therefore at best difficult, at worst pointless, and I do not propose to take that path here. Rather, I wish to focus attention on a different aspect of scribal copying (and a critical question for the study in chapter 3), namely, whether in producing a literary text, the scribe copied line by line from his model. E.G.Turner, in his 1956 article 'Scribes and Scholars of Oxyrhynchus,' argued against the dictation hypothesis by adducing 'the way in which scribes will write smaller at the end of a line or alternatively will space out their letters widely in order to produce a certain line length.This seems more natural when explained as due to the scribe following the lay-out of his exemplar by eye than to his writing down a dictated oral section that must often have required a break in the middle of a word.'26 Clearly, then, Turner sees the scribe copying his exemplar, line by line, to the same number of letters per line. (The physical width of column in the copy will naturally differ, however, inasmuch as the script of the copy is horizontally more or less compact than the original.) For evidence, Turner presents in a footnote a transcription of two lines from an unpublished historical text that shows the final letter squeezed above the first line, and the last three letters of the next line widely spaced. I have not seen the example, but anyone who has studied the literary papyri will be familiar with scribes' constant efforts to adjust the horizontal spacing of a prose text to regularize the right margin. Adjustments of this kind can be quite clumsy on occasion, and though sometimes a cause is evident (accommodating a lengthy syllable, correcting a mistake in copying, skipping over an irregularity on the papyrus surface), often it is not, and the slip must be put down to awkwardness — unless, with Turner, we suppose these slips to be evidence of the copying procedure. Do irregularities in horizontal spacing imply line-by-line copying from the model? The question is not, in my view, strictly answerable. For any given example of irregular spacing, one can imagine some circumstance, including inattention or whim, that might govern the irregularity. I at any rate have not found examples that unequivocally suggest line-by-line copying on the basis of the horizontal spacing alone. Nor must one suppose line-by-line copying an inevitable procedure, despite obvious benefits. Potential difficulties arise as well: how, for instance, does the scribe keep an even right margin when copying in a 'mixed' script with a large differential between wide and narrow letters from an exemplar written in a regular, round script (where the horizontal spacing is more uniform)? And 25 So argued as early as Schubart 1921,83-4.There are errors that seem indisputably visual: e.g., at MP 1433 (PRyl 1.60, Polybius, 2nd-3rd cent. AD) the scribe writes eyOyovei for eyeyovet (line 20); at MP 1148-2 (PBerol 21224, Odyssey 22,2nd cent. BC) the scribe writes oiocoi.[oi for 01 S'otot. (line 250); at MP 852 (PVindob G26753, Iliad 10,1st cent. BC) o]u8e rap for ouSe yap (line 25).The last example will, however, show how difficult such judgments are, for the same scribe in just the previous line makes what gives every appearance of aural (mixed with visual?) error, writing ov^o .. . . [ • ] . TLt}e[r]e 7toTep[o]v Y] TioXic eXe£!,[v]o-

2.3.2 Copying the Text: Examples of scribal error that imply an exemplar of different line length 227, col. iv line 14 (Xenophon, Oec. 8.23). The scribe omits four letters by haplography, writing [xou] TOUT ouSev for xoa TOUTOU au ouSev.The resulting line is not noticeably short. The full text, at 16 letters per line, is unlikely, but not however impossible, at this column width. (The column averages under 13 letters per line; 15 letters is the maximum in col. iv, but one of the other columns preserves an odd line with as many as 16.) 231, line 9 (Demosthenes, de Cor. 229, plate l).The papyrus reads To[t.au-] |TTQC urtapXOUCYJC u7toX7)4i£10.0

C. AD 1 l o I s

8XJ

i" 83

9 . 0 ...

73

lo

83

9.0...

>10.0

7^0

73

8^0

83

9.0...

>10.0

63

7^0

73

8^0

83

9.0...

>10.0

10

63

To

73

8^0

83

9.0...

>10.0

53

lo

63

lo

73

lo

83

9.0...

>10.0

53

6jO

63

~LQ

73

lo

83

9.0...

>10.0

4^0

43

l o 5 3

6 X J 6 3 7 X ) 7 3

4^0

43

lo

53

6X)

63

Io

4^0

43

lo

53

lo

63

43

15

53

6J3

4XJ

43

10

53

41)

43

lo

43

10

>10.0

C. AD 50

m lo

33

m

••

•,

•

•

c. ^D 100

15

33

C. AD 150

lo

33

4^0

c. AD 200

15

33

c. AD 250

lo

33

c. AD 300 lo

33

4^0

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

107

Chart 3.2.1g Prose column width, by composite date Oxyrhynchus sample, 181 examples (The date is composite in the sense that each papyrus can appear several times if the date range is greater than 50 years; thus, the squares at 8.5 cm for 50-1 BC and AD 1-50 are a single papyrus dated to 50 BC-AD 50. Each square represents one papyrus.)

50-1 BC 3.0

3.5

9.0 ...

>10.0

4 ~ 0 4 ~ 5 ~ l o 5 5 6 ~ 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 X ) 8 5 9 . 0 . . .

>10.0

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

AD 1-50 l o 3 l

AD 51-100

l o 3 5 4 1 )

4 5 l o 5 5 l o 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 1 ) 8 5 9 . 0 ...

>10.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0 ...

>10.0

4~5

Io

5^5

6^0

6^5

7^0

75

8^0

8^5

9.0...

>10.0

AD 101-150

3.0

3.5

4.0

AD 151-200

3J3

Is

41)

AD 201-250 m

3X)

3~5

4^0

4k5

5^0

Is

6^0

6^5

70

75

lo

85

9.0...

>10.0

45

lo

55

10

65

70

75

lo

85

9.0...

>10.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0 ...

>10.0

AD 251-300

lo

15

4^0

AD 301-350 3.0

35

4.0

108

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

that is, fully 72% have narrower columns.33 As we reach the third century, the balance begins to shift towards a wider format (showing an evenness of narrower and wider formats in the chart at AD 200), and in the latter part of that century, wider examples prevail: in the median date chart at c. AD 250,9 examples fall within 4.5—5.9 cm and 20 examples within 6.0—7.5 cm; that is, 69% exhibit wider columns. Though I am well aware of the difficulties that plague the dating of literary texts, the tendencies here seem too strong for coincidence.34 In any century of the Roman era, it was acceptable that a scribe choose to write at any point within the boundaries of the normative range (4.5—7.5 cm). But the diagrams above do seem plausibly to chart a seesaw of fashion: from a preference for narrower columns in the second century to a preference for wider columns in the third. The comparison sample is too sparse in prose texts to graph meaningfully over the centuries. Still, the Ptolemaic subset of the comparison sample, though not statistically viable, is suggestive. All five of the measurable Ptolemaic prose examples are wider than 6 cm (all in fact fall within 6.5 and 7.2 cm), as are all but one of the 12 prose examples collected by Blanchard in his study of third-century BC bookrolls.35 To the seesaw of fashion we can therefore add, speculatively, that somewhat wider columns were preferred in Ptolemaic times. This accords with the Oxyrhynchus data for the first and early second centuries AD, where the chart displays an evenness of distribution that may well reflect the intrusion of a newfangled preference for narrower widths into the oldfashioned staple of the somewhat wider column. I propose, then, an analysis of prose column widths into three classes. Prose column width class I (narrow), which measures from c. 4.5 to 6 cm, is common throughout the Roman era; but this class seems to have been particularly fashionable in the second century. Class II (somewhat wide), which measures from c. 6 to 7.5 cm, is also common throughout the Roman era; but this class seems to have become particularly fashionable in the third century; and — so far as present evidence allows — may well have been the dominant class in Ptolemaic times. Class 111 (wide), which measures c. 8 to 9 cm, is uncommon, and too sparsely represented to localize temporally. Examples beyond the bounds of these classes are very exceptional.

33 In my analysis on the more preliminary sample at Johnson 1992a, 172,1 had omitted this observation, because the tendency seemed not quite definite given the size of the sample. But this surely was overcaution: the tendency is strong even in that more limited sampling, with 24 of 35 (69%) falling within the narrow group (Johnson 1992a, 243). 34 The proportions also remain remarkably stable as evidence is added. The sample here contains half again as many prose examples as the preliminary sample presented in my dissertation, and yet the ratios are unchanged: for AD 150, the narrow widths comprise 69% in the dissertation, 72% here; for AD 250, wide widths comprise 71% in the dissertation, 69% here. 35 Blanchard 1993, 35. A couple of his examples are exceptionally wide.

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

109

3.2.2 Intel-column and Column-to-column Width in Prose Texts A curiosity at once presents itself when we compare column widths to widths measured from column to column in prose texts. The conspectus, displayed in chart 3.2.2a, is more or less predictable. Though more diffusely distributed than the column widths, the Chart 3.2.2a Prose column-to-column width, undifFerentiated Oxyrhynchus sample, 99 examples (each square represents one papyrus) •

•

l

5 3 6 l ) 6 7 5

' T O 7 3 8 i 6 8 3 9 i O

9 3 1 O O

103>11.0

(in 0.1-cm intervals)

column-to-column widths retain a strong sense of normative boundary: in broad terms, from 6.3 to 9.0 cm, with particular denseness in the area from 7—8.4 cm; the small cluster at 9.5-10 cm will be seen as a reflex of aberrantly wide column width class III. But - and here is the curiosity — analysis by date shows surprisingly little definition within this broad normative range. Charted by median date, the widths look as displayed below. Now if we Chart 3.2.2b Prose column-to-column width, by median date Oxyrhynchus sample, 99 examples

c. AD 50 63

7X)

73

8^0

83

9X)

93

1CKO

103

>11.0

5 3 6 ~ 0 f c s

7^0

73

8^0

83

9^

93

1OO

1O5

2:11.0

6 3 7 ^ 0

7^5

8^0

83

9jO

93

1OO

1O5

• >11.0

8 1 ) 8 T 5 9 X )

^5

1OO

1O5

>11.0

53

6^0

c. AD 100

c. AD 150 t

5 3 6 1 )

c. AD 200

5.5

6.0

6J5

7 X ) 7 ^ 5

110

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

c.AD 250 5 3 £ 6 6 3 7 l ) 7 3 8 l ) 8 3 £ 6 9 3 1 O O

103>11.0

c.AD 300 5 3 6 X )

63

7l)73

8 X ) 8 3

9 X J 9 3

1OO

103

>11.0

attempt (as the chart visually encourages) a division at about 7.8 cm, examples falling to either side of this boundary are roughly equivalent as the chart moves through the centuries. The seesaw of fashion that has column widths move from (perhaps) broad in Ptolemaic times to narrow in the second century to broad in the third is simply not reflected among the column-to-column widths. The only significant movement is a tendency to avoid the most narrow widths — those below about 7.2 cm — as the turn is made into the third century. This tendency mirrors the broader column widths characteristic of the third century, but is at best a partial reflection of that fashion; and the tendency to more narrow column widths in the second century is only weakly evidenced if at all.36 Why the column-to-column widths do not fall into distinct classes in the manner of the column widths will become apparent from a study of the intercolumns. Chart 3.2.2.C summarizes the evidence on intercolumn widths. Examples appear to split broadly into Chart 3.2.2c Prose intercolumn width, undifferentiated Oxyrhynchus sample, 99 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

LO

L5

2 X J Z 5

3XT

(in 0. i-cm intervals)

two groups, one at or slightly above 1.5 cm, the other at or slightly above 2.0 cm.The thin groupings at the edges (at c. 1.2 cm and 2.5 cm) are probably best analysed as the ragged 36 Isolating the c.AD 150 group that bunches at 8 cm and comparing that with the group from 6.5-7.5 cm will yield impressive numbers — 10 'narrow' vs. 19 'wide' examples — but is hard to justify; a straight split of the data at 7.8 cm, aberrant examples to one side, yields the ratio 20 to 17.

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

111

edges of the two main classes. (The analysis at §2.4.1 does not support the notion of a significant difference over an interval of only 2-3 mm.) The split between the groups becomes more evident if we chart — see 3.2.2d — how the narrow and wide intercolumn groups divide over time. We look in vain, however, for definite associations between Chart 3.2.2d Prose intercolumn width, by median date Oxyrhynchus sample, 99 examples

c. AD 50 LO

1 3 2 X J 2 3 3 X T

c. AD 100

t o L 5

2 l ) 2 3

3lT

2^0

23

3lT

2LO

23

~3^0~

10

23

3^0~

^0

23

3^0"

c. AD 150

TO

L5

c. AD 200

to

13

c. AD 250

LO

L5

c. AD 300 LO

L5

narrow or wide intercolumn and any given era. The slight preference for the narrow intercolumn in the c. AD 250 group might tempt one to the hypothesis that, even as it became fashionable in the third century to widen the column size, the intercolumn tended to contract. The column-to-column width would thus exhibit no distinct movement, as the narrower intercolumn would compensate for the wider column. Still, the tendency is

112

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

slight and based on thin evidence; moreover, no such tendency shows up elsewhere, and there is in particular no tendency to wider intercolumns in the second century as a counterbalance to the narrow columns characteristic of that century. A safer position, and probably closer to the truth, is simply to note that the absence of any tendency of a narrow or wide intercolumn to associate itself consistently with a narrow or wide column will naturally tend to flatten the curve of the graph. Chart 3.2.2e, which omits examples at the borders between the width classes, makes the point. Chart 3.2.2e Column and intercolumn associations (Oxyrhynchus sample) Intercolumn width narrow (1.2-1.7 cm) narrow (1.2-1.7 cm)

+ +

Column width narrow (4.2-5.7 cm) wide (6.0-7.5 cm

Examples 15 17

wide (2.0-2.7 cm) wide (2.0-2.7 cm)

+ +

narrow (4.2-5.7 cm) wide (6.0-7.5 cm)

23 19

Worth note at this juncture is, however, one fairly strong association with the intercolumn. In chart 3.2.2f the intercolumn widths are charted by script formality. Study of this chart shows a fair preference among better-written manuscripts for a wide intercolumn (22 examples fall at or above 2.0 cm, 13 below); note also that in better-written Chart 3.2.2f Prose intercolumn width, by script formality Oxyrhynchus sample, 99 examples (1) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 35 examples

LO

L5

2JQ23

3XT

(2) Informal and unexceptional, 56 examples

LO

L5

2 J 3 2 7 5 3 X T

(3) Substandard or cursive, 8 examples

LO

ll

2^0

23

3^0~

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

113

papyri exceptionally narrow intercolumns, of under 1.5 cm, are avoided. Similarly, of papyri written in fine majuscules, fully eight of nine have wide intercolumns.Yet how the wide intercolumn - seemingly a deliberate design preference - maps to the column-tocolumn width is telling. Taking the majuscules as examples: in four cases (25 Demosth., 844 Isoc., 2750 Xen., 3447 Strabo), a somewhat wide column combines with the wide intercolumn, yielding quite a wide column-to-column measure; but in four other cases (227 Xen., 2101 Xen., 3327 Thuc., 3685 Plut.), the wide intercolumn joins with a narrow column (three of four quite narrow) to create a middling column-to-column measure, since the two in effect cancel one another out. This sort of interaction seems characteristic of the relationship, or lack thereof, between intercolumn and column width for the sample as a whole. The comparison set is thin in examples where a full intercolumn is preserved (only 16 prose examples), but seems to accord with the Oxyrhynchus data: certainly the same sense of normative range (falling wholly within 7.0 and 8.9 cm for column-to-column widths; and almost wholly within 1.3-2.5 cm for the intercolumn). In particular, the comparison set shows the same strong tendency (four of five examples) for well-written papyri to prefer a wide intercolumn. Ptolemaic examples are too few to allow much comment. Perhaps worth mention — but the numbers are tiny — is that Ptolemaic examples seem to prefer narrow or very narrow intercolumns (all five fall below 2 cm, and two, at 1.0 and 1.3 cm, are among the narrowest intercolumns to survive; prose examples in Blanchard's study [1993, 35] seem to confirm this tendency). I propose, then, an analysis of intercolumns into two groups: prose intercolumn width class I (narrow), which centres around 1.5 (1.2—1.8 cm); and class II (wide), which centres slightly above 2.0 (1.9-2.5 cm).These classes tend to associate neither with a particular date nor with any column-width class; in fact the only association seems to be a tendency among editions de luxe to favour a wide intercolumn, and to avoid an exceptionally narrow one. The reader may be interested to learn what associations do not help define classes in the analysis of widths. Perhaps unexpectedly, I find no discernible tendencies among literary texts written on the verso (though the examples are few); a study of texts author by author shows no discernible patterns;37 a study of text by genre shows discernible tendencies only among, perhaps, philosophical texts, a point to which I will return at §3.8.

37 Table 3.1 has some interesting conjunctions whose significance is, however, doubtful. Most striking among these is a fair-sized group of manuscripts of Plato written to similar or very similar widths, all except one dated to the second century; suggestively, four of seven contain marginal scholia of some sort. These are:

114

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

3.2.3 Letter Counts in Prose Texts Finally, let us briefly consider the letter counts per line in prose texts. Since the letter count is a function of the horizontal spacing of the script and the width of the column, we will expect some normative range. Chart 3.2.3a does show some sense of a 'normal' range, at Chart 3.2.3a Letter counts for prose texts Oxyrhynchus sample, 183 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

91)

TTO

131)

15XJmi

19iO

2U)231)25XJ27X)29X)>39.0

(in 0.4-cm intervals)

roughly 13 to 24 letters per line, but it is quite rough indeed, with the edges of the norm considerably more ragged than for the physical width. Why this is so can be seen immediately from a look at table 3.1.Taking the narrow physical range from 4.25—4.7 cm, we see that the number of letters per line varies dramatically, from about 10 to 24. There is in short no consistent correlation between width of column and letter counts. Yet no one will suppose that the scribes counted letters as they went along, so perhaps none of this is to the point; the issue raised in chapter 2 was whether letter counts might reflect consistent line-by-line copying of a text. Since, as demonstrated, multiple volumes of an author are at least sometimes copied to the same format, one might hope that the letter counts cluster in such a way as to suggest descent, in copies made line by line, from a common omnibus edition. Chart 3.2.3b will dispel any such fancy for all authors but Plato, for in general the letter counts range widely for a given author. Letter counts do not show significant clustering by script type or date. Col. (cm) 4.75 *4.8 2W2+PTurner 7 4.85 -4.9 229 1809 4.9 4.9 3326 4.9 3672

POxy 1808 3678

Col.-col. 6.75 *7.0 7.15 -6.7 7.0 7.0

-7.2

Intercol. 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.3

Respublica (scholia) Phikbus Phaedrus Phaedo (scholia) Phaedo (scholia) Respubliai (scholia) Leges (3rd cent.)

None of the scripts show particular likeness. It could nonetheless be that we have here a local fashion, or the product of an associated group of scribes, for the example of 2092 Pindar Ol. (where both scribe and style change in mid-column) will prove that scribes working side by side wrote in different styles of script. The conjunction may, for all that, be no more than coincidence, and thus its relegation to this footnote.

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

115

Chart 3.2.3b Prose letter counts, by author (each square represents one papyrus) Aeschines, 26 examples

9:0

11.0

13.0

TSX)

m > 1 9 X J 2 L O

23^0

25JD

27^0

29.0

5:39.0

2TO23XJ

Ko

27^0

29^0

>39.0

Demosthenes, 26 examples 9 X ) 1 U J m ) l i T o m j 1 9 i O Herodotus, 21 examples 15^0

17^0

19^0

21.0

23.0

25^0

ZAO

29^0

, >39.0

T^O

17^0

191)

2LO

Ko

25^0

27^0

29^0

>39.0

15^0

17^0

19^0

21.0

23^0

25^0

27XJ

29^0

>39.0

17.0

19XJ

2LO

Ko

25^0

27^0

29^0

>39.0

nio

i9io

2^0

23^0

25^0

27^0

29^0

>39.o

19^0

2U)

23^0

25^0

271)

29^0

>39.0

{

9.0

11.0

mJ

Isocrates, 7 examples 9X)

1LO

13.0

Plato, 37 examples

9^0

iTo

iJo

Thucydides, 46 examples

9^0

1LO

13^0

T^O

Xenophon, 7 examples

9^0

ITo

m)

is!o

Miscellaneous authors, 13 examples

9^0

Ho

13iO

15.0

17^0

3.2.4 Column and Intercolumn Widths in Verse Texts The account of widths for verse texts will be much briefer, and we should take a moment to reflect on why that is. First, there are some limitations to the data. Column and intercolumn width for a verse text will be a rather rough statistic; even where measurable, the figure will represent no more than a crude estimate, since the line ends are irregular. Column-to-column widths will be of more potential interest (see §3.2), but are

116

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

unfortunately both few and often based on very rough calculation. Only 9 of 134 verse examples allow even an approximate measurement for the column-to-column width. Second, given our dependence on the column widths, there is the obvious problem that the width results predictably and necessarily from the verse length and the horizontal spacing of the script. How can one sensibly speak of types or fashions when the size of the written block is not fully under the control of the scribe? Thus, the theoretical basis on which we might expect division into meaningful types is slim. In the event, discernible groupings are usually explainable on more or less mechanical grounds. Chart 3.2.4a presents some promising possibilities for type definition, particularly around 8-10 and 11-13 cm. Examination of chart 3.2.4.b shows at once, though, that the two subgroups probably reflect little more than the fact that trimeter and other verses average significantly fewer letters than a hexameter verse, and thus tend to a smaller width. The shorter trimeter verse usually translates to c. 8—11 cm, the longer hexameter usually to c. 11—14. There remains a small but not tiny group of hexameter verses written to the smaller width (chart 3.2.4b), but this says no more or less than that some hexameter verses are written in a small script. Other aberrations likewise simply reflect scripts that are unusually small or large. Chart 3.2.4a Verse column width, undiflferentiated Oxyrhynchus sample, 130 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

6.0

T O 8 : 0

9 X ) 1 O O F T 6 m j 1 3 l ) U i O

1 5 1 ) 1 6 X J m ) 1 8 . 0

==19.0

(in 0.2-ctn intervals)

Chart 3.2.4b Verse column width, by genre Oxyrhynchus sample, 130 examples (each square represents one papyrus) Epic (hexameter), 77 examples

6.0

7:0

s!o

5!o

100

TTo

mj

iTo

ITo

is^o

i6io

mj

is.o >i9.o

TTO

12^0

110

ITo

IfTo

1AO

T^O

18.0

Drama (trimeter), 37 examples

6.0

7^0

8^0

9^0

TOO

>19.0

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

117

Other, i 6 examples 6.0

T i O 8 1 ) 9 l ) T O O

T i l ) 1 2 1 ) m J 1 4 j 6

151)16^0

m J 1 8 . 0 >19.0

Chart 3.2.4c presents another pattern of seeming interest, which again can be explained as a function of the script size. We see there a noticeable correlation between the more formal scripts and the wider column widths. But this, on reflection, is no surprise, Chart 3.2.4c Verse column width, by script formality Oxyrhynchus sample, 130 examples (each square represents one papyrus) (1) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 52 examples

6.0

7 l ) 8 X J 9 X ) 1 O O

T O 1 2 1 ) m ) H i o m ) 1 6 X ) m )

18.0 >19.0

(2) Informal and unexceptional, 52 examples

6.0

T!O

8 X D 9 ^ 0

1OO

TTO

12^0

13iO

141)

15X)

16^0

VLQ

18.0

>19.0

121)

131)

1AO

15^0

16^0

17^0

18.0

>19.0

(3) Substandard or cursive, 26 examples

6.0

71)

8jO

9^0

1OO

TTO

since many of the more formal scripts are also unusually large. The pool of examples is smaller, but even so there is a remarkable lack of obvious groupings among the column-tocolumn and intercolumn widths (charts 3.2.4d, e).At first the narrowness of the columnto-column measurements may seem striking: since verse intercolumns are generally Chart 3.2.4d Verse column-to-column width, undifferentiated Oxyrhynchus sample, 39 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

sTo

9^0

Too

TLO

12^0

110

H!O

Ts^o

i6li

r/To

Tsxi

19^0

200

21.0 >22.o

(in 0.2-cm intervals)

c. 2—4 cm, and verse columns are c. 8—14 cm, one expects the column-to-column measure to range more or less evenly over c. 11-17 cm, with greatest density in the area about 13— 16 cm. Instead, there is (in addition to some density at 15—17 cm) a principal group ranging from 10—14 cm, with particular denseness centring around 12—13 cm.Yet this too turns out to be mechanistically deter mined. What is not predictable is that the percentage

118

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

of dramatic texts is much higher in the column-to-column, sample than among column measurements (almost half as opposed to less than a third); thus, the shorter verse category is overrepresented in the chart. What is more predictable is the survival rate: for very broad examples — since the papyrus is more likely to have broken away — the chance of adequate survival is much less than for narrower examples, and thus narrow widths show up more often in the column-to-column chart. Chart 3.2.4e Verse intercolumn width, undifFerentiated Oxyrhynchus sample, 38 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

TO

1310

2 3 3 J O

3 3 £ 6 4 3 5 1 )

5 3 6 X ) 6 5

>7XT

(in 0.1-cm intervals)

In a manner analogous to prose intercolumns, there does however seem to be a tendency for poorly written texts to prefer quite narrow intercolumns (of under 3 cm), perhaps for reasons of economy. Contrarily, the two widest intercolumns (6 cm) both appear in an edition de luxe; and there may be some slight tendency for better-written manuscripts in general to prefer the wider intercolumn (8 of 12 are 3 cm or above). But the sample here (chart 3.2.4f) is thin. Chart 3.2.4f Verse intercolumn width, by script formality Oxyrhynchus sample, 38 examples (each square represents one papyrus) (1) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 12 examples iTO

1 3 2 J Q 2 3 3 X ) 3 3 4 i O

4 3 5 7 ) 5 3 6 ^ 0

63

>7lT

(2) Informal and unexceptional, 17 examples

to

L5

2^0

23

3^0

33

4^0

43

5XJ

53

feo

63

>7.0

33

4^0

43

5X)

53

6^0

63

>7.0

(3) Substandard or cursive, 9 examples

LO

13

2^0

23

3^0

The comparison sample (displayed in chart 3.2.4g), which is rich in verse texts, requires but a few comments, since in the main the tendencies are as noted above. Column widths in the comparison set occur with denseness at c. 11-14 cm very like that in the

Dimensions of the Column: Height

119

Oxyrhynchus sample, but differ in a noticeable sparseness below 11 cm. Still, this circumstance serves only to confirm an earlier point, that the group at 11—14 cm is a reflex of the hexameter, since the comparison set by happenstance almost entirely comprises hexameter texts (86%). Chart 3.2.4g Verse column width, undifferentiated Comparison sample, non-Oxyrhynchite, 64 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

6.0

?!0

8^0

9^0

1OO

FTo121)110

14~015^0

161)

mJ

18.0

>19.0

(in 0.2-cm intervals)

Finally, a word on examples in the comparison set predating the Roman era. With the exception of the oddTimotheus papyrus (MP 1537, late fourth century BC, a verse text written as if prose to a width of 23.1 cm!), all Ptolemaic papyri in the sample have a column-to-column width falling strictly within the range 11—15 cm, and 8 of 13 fall in the range 12—13 cm. Ptolemaic examples also show unusually narrow intercolumns: Timotheus to one side, 15 of 18 have intercolumns of 2 cm or less (and the three exceptions are all from the first century BQ.Yet in both cases, the ranges are also particularly dense among Roman-era papyri, and the seeming uniformity here may, given the small number of examples, be coincidental. Examination of the verse widths with attention to genre, author, date, and texts written on the verso reveals no discernible patterns. Table 3.2 at the end of the chapter provides a full list of widths associated with verse texts. 3.3 Dimensions of the Column: Height The height of the column could vary tremendously. In the Oxyrhynchus sample (chart 3.3a), the extremes sweep from 10.8 to 29.3 cm (and from 10.05-28.2 cm in the comparison set), while the normative range encompasses a fairly continuous set of examples from about 12 to 27 cm, with particular denseness over what remains a broad range, roughly 14 to 24 cm.

120

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Chart 3.3a Column height, undifferentiated Oxyrhynchus sample, 151 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

TOO

12^0

14XJ

feo

18^0

2OO

2TO24^0

261)

28X)

30.0

(in 0.2-cm intervals)

To determine what groups within the range may in fact be significant, I will follow the now familiar course of testing the data against other parameters. (Full details on column heights will be found in table 3.3 at the end of the chapter.) The separation of prose and verse examples causes a more intelligible pattern to emerge at once: Chart 3.3b Column height, by prose and verse (each square represents one papyrus) (1) Prose, 97 examples

lOO

12161416

1616

1816

2616

2216

2416

2616

281630.0

22X)24XJ

26^0

281)30.0

(2) Verse, 54 examples

1OO

12X)1AO

UTO1JT62OO

A large group at 16 to 20 cm is almost entirely dominated by prose examples (except at its lower edge), and in the area above 16 cm generally prose examples outweigh verse far in excess of the 2:1 ratio of the sample. For the moment, I would like to focus on a corollary observation, which is that verse examples concentrate elsewhere, namely, in the region from 16 cm and below. Nearly half of the verse examples fall within this region (25 of 54; as against less than one-fifth of prose examples). Now it is useful in and of itself to recognize that verse texts tend to a shorter height of column. But the observation can be refined in three ways. First, among verse examples with shorter heights, 11 of 27 are dramatic texts. Moreover, these shorter dramatic texts constitute most of the drama in the sample: 11 of a total 15 texts of tragedy and comedy fall within the region from 16 cm and below. Second, verse texts with shorter column heights seem to tend generally to an earlier date (see chart 3.3c). From c. AD 100 or before, 63% (10 of 16) have a short column (16 cm or below);

Dimensions of the Column: Height

121

second-century verse texts are roughly even; from c. AD 200 or later, only 33% (6 of 18) have a short column. Interestingly, the comparison set does not support the Oxyrhynchus Chart 3.3c Column height, verse texts only, by median date Oxyrhynchus sample, 54 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

c. 50 BC 1OO

12X)

14X)

16^0

1^0

2OO

12X)14iO

16iO

DT62OO

22^0

24X)

26X)2JT630.0

c.AD 1 1OO

22J3247)26^0

281)

30.0

c.AD 50 1OO

127)147)167)18iO

2OO

2ZO

247)267)287)30.0

c.AD 100 TOO

12^0

14iO

16JD

18^0

2OO

22^0

24^0

26^0

28^0

30.0

14.0

feo

feo

2OO

221)

24J3

26^0

feo

30.0

14iO

16iO

18JO

2OO

22X3

24^0

26^0

28^0

30.0

14~0

feo

18^0

2OO

221)

24X)

26^0

feo

30.0

14^0

16X)

ISiO

2OO

22^0

2TO

26^0

28^0

30.0

c.AD 150 1OO

12^0

c.AD 200 TOO

12iO

c.AD 250 1OO

12l)

c.AD 300 TOO

12^0

evidence: Roman-era examples from that sample, though few (14), show no tendency towards shorter height at all. The thin sample makes it unclear, however, whether statistical caprice or a local fashion is responsible. The comparison set does, however, allow a third, related observation. Three verse texts with short column height from Oxyrhynchus are among the earliest literary texts found at that site (first century BC).The comparison set shows a similar tendency among very early texts. Of 19 texts predating the Roman era, more than half are at or about 16 cm or below, and none exceed a column height of 22 cm. The tendency is especially marked among texts of the first century BC: five of six papyri from the comparison set (and all three Oxyrhynchus examples) fall at 16 cm or below. The

122

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

prevalence of short columns among verse examples appears to result, then, from (1) a general tendency among Ptolemaic verse texts; (2) a general tendency among early Roman-era texts (though this tendency may, perhaps, be idiosyncratic to Oxyrhynchus); and (3) a tendency in all periods to write texts of tragedy and comedy with shorter columns (at least at Oxyrhynchus; the comparison set does not have enough examples). The configuration of prose and verse texts seen in chart 3.3b encourages one to think that prose examples below 16 cm may also be a definable class apart from the norm. Now this need not be so, since these examples may be no more than spillover from the main group. But as it happens, the group, though small (14 examples, plus several clustering at the boundary), shows definable characteristics. First, once again the examples tend to cluster by date, with the second century an attribute of all but two. Second, the group is particularly dense in finely written examples (10 of 14 fall within the pretentious-to-formal classification). It seems, then, that in the second century one idea of an elegant prose manuscript included the shorter column as a prominent feature. Though the preference among better-written manuscripts for a short column is particularly marked among prose texts, chart 3.3d will bear witness to the generality of the proposition. Better-written manuscripts seem to prefer overall a shorter range of column height, of roughly 11—21 cm (with scattered examples at 23—5), as opposed to a normative Chart 3.3d Column height, by script formality Oxyrhynchus sample, 151 examples (each square represents one papyrus) (1) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 55 examples

TOO

12XJ14X)16iO

OT62OO

2ZO

24^0

2^0

28^0

30.0

2TO24XJ26XJ28^0

30.0

221)2TO26JQ283

3OCT

(2) Informal and unexceptional, 76 examples

TOO

12XJ14XJ

16XJ

181)

2OO

(3) Substandard or cursive, 20 examples

1OO

12X)1TO

range among distribution of the noticeable (37%), and the

16i618XJ2OO

other manuscripts of about 14-26 cm. Of particular interest is the the taller manuscripts. The better-written class contains 7 examples above break at 21-2 cm (13%), while the everyday class contains 28 examples substandard class 7 (35%). Closer examination of the very tallest examples

Dimensions of the Column: Height

123

shows that three of four are written on the back of reused papyrus, two in rather crude hands. In fact, none of the tallest dozen in the sample qualify for the broadly defined class of finely written papyri. This set of observations is of particular interest since it flies in the face of what we might presume from modern aesthetics of book production. Thus, the editor of 1806 Theocr. Id. speaks of a 'handsome manuscript' with 'tall columns,' which seems presumptive, since my reconstruction suggests a middling height of 19 cm; the editor of 2694 Ap. Rh. suggests that the 'extreme length of column' as well as the script shows this to be a roll of'outstanding sumptuousness;' and the editor of 3376 Hdt. suggests 'a tall imposing roll' for this well-written example, as though tall and imposing were ideas that necessarily go together. In fact, the column of 3376, at 23.5 cm, is unusually tall for an elegant manuscript.38 The plain fact is that the height of finely written examples tends to stay within what is normative for professional copies; where that principle is violated, the clear tendency for such manuscripts is to prefer a shorter column, and to avoid a taller. There remains only to examine the overall change in column heights by date. Examination of chart 3.3e will show that while a shorter column seems somewhat more prevalent earlier (the examples are sparse), a taller format apparently takes hold in the second century and comes to predominate in the third. Just as the tendency towards shorter columns (under c. 16 cm) is driven primarily by verse texts, as discussed above, so the tendency Chart 3.3e Column height, by median date Oxyrhynchus sample, 151 examples

c. 50 BC TOO

12X)

1TO

16X)18l)

2OO

2TO24XJ26~028.0

2OO

221)

30.0

c.AD \ 1OO

12X)

14iO

teo

18X)

24XJ

26XJ

2JT630.0

l£618l)

2OO221)24X)

26^0

28X)30.0

161)

2OO

261)

287)30.0

c.AD 50 TOO

12J314X)

c.AD 100

1OO

12X)

14XJ

181)

ZLO

24XJ

38 Schubart 1921, 59 supposes that taller rolls were more expensive, and links the tall height of roll to his assertion that finely written rolls showed a proportion of 2:3 for column height: roll height (on which see below, §3.5, esp. chart 3.5d).The evidence here does not accord with his claim, which Schubart supports with a lone ancient example together with examples drawn from modern book production.

124

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

c.AD 150

TOO

m)14XJ16XJ18^0

2OO

22XJ24.0

26.0

28~030.0

c.AD 200

100

12XJ141)16l>

18XJ2OO

22J32T626^0

28^0

3OO~

1AO161)18l)2OO

2ZO

28l)30.0

14X)16X)18l>2OO

22~024^0

c.AD 250

1OO

121)

241)26^0

c.AD 300 too

teo

26X)28l)30.0

towards taller columns (over c. 21-2 cm) in the later period results almost entirely from prose texts (compare chart 3.3e with chart 3.3c). For the second century, shorter columns seem characteristic for a group of prose texts, as I have discussed, but the fashion appears to have faded by the third. Verse texts also seem no longer to prefer shorter columns by the third century (chart 3.3c), but the tendency, given the few examples, is less clear. Middling heights (16—21 cm) are fairly constant across the sample, except for a noticeable drop in the third century in which, to repeat, some preference for quite tall columns comes into play. Most of what the comparison sample adds to the discussion has been remarked along the way, but it may be worth observing that the Roman-era examples, though sparse, seem to confirm a shift towards tall columns (over 21—2 cm) beginning in the second century. To summarize. I propose three broad classes of column height. Column height class I. Under 16 cm. This format is particularly common among verse examples (especially drama, or especially early) and well-written prose examples of the second century.39 Height class II. From 16—21 cm. Common in all periods. Height class III. Over 21 cm. This format is avoided among Ptolemaic texts, and among well-written manuscripts of all periods; but seems to have become fashionable among unexceptional prose texts of the second and, especially, the third century. I have already (§2.5) presented reasons for attending to measured height and not lines per column. Examination of the lines per column in both samples shows a continuous range from 25 to 50, with no noticeable tendency to particular

39 Blanchard 1993,31-2 presents convincing evidence for the prominence of column heights shorter than 16-17 cm among 3rd-century BC cartonnage (17 of 23 examples, by his measurements). Most, but not all, of these are verse.

Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height

125

groups within that range; extreme examples are 18 and 64 (details in table 3.7 at the end of the chapter). Perhaps worth mention is how abrupt the edges of the normal range are: under 25 lines and over 50, examples become suddenly sparse. The low end of the range (25 and below) is dominated by verse examples, in keeping with the analysis just above. 3.4 Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height We now come to consider the written area as a block, and to ascertain whether the conjunction of width and height is meaningful. Since at every step prose and verse texts have divorced themselves from each other in matters of format, the two will be considered separately. 3.4.1 Width X Height: Prose texts Among prose texts there seems little to recommend an overall arrangement of column blocks by height, width (column or column-to-column), or proportion of width to height. Ordering the data by column width or height gives a general impression that shorter heights tend to associate with narrower columns, and taller heights with wider columns, but more detail to the pattern is difficult to see. Arranging heights by the classes of width defined in section §3.2.1, however, throws much into relief, and I have therefore chosen this arrangement for table 3.4 at the end of the chapter. The width classes differentiate themselves strongly for both short and tall height classes. About a third of narrow columns (width class I) are also short (height class I), whereas only one-twentieth of wide columns (width class II) are short. Conversely, fully one-half of wide columns are tall (height class III), whereas only a fifth of narrow columns are tall (and of that fifth, half the examples are at the upper edge of the class definition, at 5.5 cm or above). For columns of medium height (class II), the results are more mixed, but a similar tendency dominates: most narrow columns fall in the lower (i.e., shorter) half of that class (16 of 22), but most wide columns fall in the upper (i.e., taller) half of the class (10 of 17). In sum, then: a short column, particularly one below c. 16 cm (class I), was very likely also to be narrow; a tall column, particularly one above c. 21 cm (class III), was likely also to be wide, and very unlikely to be more narrow than 5.5 cm. Now we may think it natural to combine a narrower column with a shorter height and a wider column with a taller. But the example of verse (where a shorter column is most frequent though the lines are necessarily long) should persuade us that convention, and not nature, is at work here. The exceptionally consistent association between narrow width and short height merits closer attention. As Chart 3.4.la shows, 13 of 15 Oxyrhynchus examples with short columns also fall within the narrow width class. The comparison set has few examples, but seems to verify this tendency. The chart also makes obvious the strong link between these narrow, short columns and script style. In 9 of 13 examples from Oxyrhynchus, and in all

126

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Chart 3.4.la Short columns (up to 16 cm, height class I, by width) Col. width Style

(cm)

Col.-to-col.

Col. height

Plutarch Xenophon

1 1

3.2 -4.5

5.7 -6.1

**10.8

Isocrates Aeschines

2 1

4.6 4.7

~7.2(?)

-6.7

*13.5 13.6

1 1? (2?) 1 2 1 2 1 1? (2?) 2 2? (1?) 1

*4.7 4.75 4.8 4.85 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.45 -5.6 6.5 7.0

*7.4 6.75 >6.3 7.1 7.7 *7.1 7.6 7.85 -8.1 8.1 9.6

*14.8 *15.1 13.2 15.1 14.7 *16.0 *14.8 *15.5 *12.9 14.6

4.8 4.95 5.5

-7.3 6.95 7.0

POxy Contents 1. Oxyrhynchus set, 15 examples 3685 0226+PSIXVII Congr 8 + PSI 11.1197 0704 2404+ PLaur HI/278 3327 1808

4047+4051 2102+PTwmer7 4041

0463 2749 0026 4035 3435 3895

Thucydides Plato Aeschines Plato Aeschines Xenophon Thucydides Demosthenes Aeschines Demosthenes Thucydides

*11.5

**12.9

2. Comparison set, Roman-era, 4 examples 1566 1233 1564

0478

Xenophon Hyperides Xenophon Herodotus

1 1 1 1

**6.3

**8.2-8.6

14.4

15.9-16.3 *14.25 *14.5

3. Comparison set, early Ptolemaic, 2 examples 0088 (3rd cent. BC) 1388

(3rd cent. BC)

Anaximenes

3

Plato

2

(-6.0-7.0)

(7.1-7.9)

7.5

10.0-10.1

-6.5

7.9

14.4

-6.5

(-5.9—7.1)

of the (few) examples in the comparison set, the script style falls into the top class. The earlier observation that better-written manuscripts tend towards shorter height can now be refined: in the Roman era one design style with pretensions to elegance made use of a noticeably short column with narrow lines. That this set of conventions did not obtain before the Roman era is, however, also suggested by the comparison set. The two early Ptolemaic examples diverge from the Oxyrhynchus set in these respects: (1) the script style is by no means elegant; (2) the short column has a wide width. That at least the latter may have been general is suggested by Blanchard s study of third-century papyri from

Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height

127

cartonnage: the three other examples he lists with a column height of 16 cm or less are also wide (i.e., 6 cm or more).40 In general, the evidence does not tempt one to subdivide the papyri further into smaller groups. Since column width, intercolumn, and column height all fall within fairly strict ranges, certain coincidences of agreement are statistically likely. A good example can be found in width class II at a height of c. 25-6 cm.There, four papyri have column widths of 6.3-6.5 cm, and a column-to-column measure of 8.0-8.2 cm; moreover, all four carry the text of either Herodotus or Thucydides. Still, assigned dates range from the first to the third centuries, without much overlap, and script styles range from very fine to quite poor; the likelihood that this 'subgroup' has significance seems slim. Two groups in table 3.4A nonetheless press themselves upon our attention. Among class I widths, a group of five manuscripts share a height of 16.7-17.3 cm, a width of 4.7-4.9 cm, and a column-tocolumn width of 7.0-7.2 cm (227 Xen. Oec., 3326 PL Resp., 1809 PI. Phd., 3672 PL Lg., 2550 Lycurg. in Leocr.; 881r,v PL Euthd., Ly. might also be claimed for this group); with the exception of 3672, all of these could plausibly be assigned to the early second century.41 A second group, which is perhaps less certain, appears in the middle of the list of class II columns, measuring 6.4-7.1 cm wide, 8.4-9.0 from column to column, and 20-1 cm high (460 Demosth. de pac., 698 Xen. Cyr., 3447 Strabo, 1619 Hdt., 3679 PL Resp.; 3156+ 3669 PL Gorg. and 27 Isoc.Antid, might also be included); to this one may add a smaller set with the same column and intercolumn parameters, but a somewhat shorter height of 17 to 19 cm (3837 Ach.Tat., 2751 PL Resp., 1250 Ach.Tat.). Examples from this group date mostly from late second to early third century. In both of these groups, the match of column dimensions is, then, striking. Yet if the two groups are significant, what in fact is being signified? If the conclusion to chapter 2 is correct, the agreement in widths should mean that the scribal tool of measure was the same. Possibilities include then that the tool was inherited and shared; or that a given group of scribes (such as master and apprentices) cut the tool to same standard; or that the tool of measure (since the parameters were restricted) simply happened to be the same for unrelated scribes. We may then have here evidence of a scribal group; but — especially since the hands bear so little resemblance within the groups — the wiser course may be to chalk these up to chance.

40 Blanchard 1993,35.The widths listed there for the Phaedo piece (MP 1388,Blanchard #14) are not right; though column width is unusually variable, the columns fall roughly in the bounds of 5.9-7.1 cm, with an average of about 6.5 cm. 41 Some of these we have seen before (above, n. 37) in a collection of seven Platonic manuscripts, mosdy second century, with similar column and intercolumn widths. If the current analysis is correct, one of these (2102+ PTurnerl) must now be struck from the earlier list (the column height cannot be ascertained for the other three). One can also now suggest at least two non-Platonic additions to that group (227 Xen. and 2550 Lycurg.). Neither of the two new texts has the scholia suggested as a possible attribute of the earlier group; and one (2550) is possibly to be excluded since it is an incomplete manuscript (perhaps then a writing exercise).

128

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

A final group, or rather set of subgroups, is to my mind somewhat more persuasive, since it accommodates to a known phenomenon. By way of example, consider 2095 and 3383. These papyri, both containing Herodotus, are written to near exact agreement in column width, intercolumn width, and column height. The match of author as well as column dimensions recalls the example, already discussed (§2.1.3), of the matching set of Aeschylean rolls that survive under the rubric of 2159-64,2178-9, and 2245-55.Though many plays, and presumably at least several rolls, are represented among the fragments, all these Aeschylean rolls are written to an identical set of dimensions. The point cannot be proved, but one wonders whether 2095 and 3383 (one of Herodotus, book 1, the other of book 8) were similarly written as two rolls of a set designed to match. Chart 3.4.1b summarizes all reasonably exact pairings among the Oxyrhynchus sample (and cf. §2.1.19 on 3436 Dinarch. in Dem. + 3437 Dinarch. in Phil,both by scribe #B1 and possibly from the same roll). Chart 3.4.1b Rolls possibly from a matched set Pairs showing agreement in widths, height, and author Col. height (cm)

Col. width

Col-to-col.

*23.5 **23.5

-7.5 7.5

-9.45 *9.5

5.5 *5.4

7.45 *7.4

POxy 2095 3383

Contents Herodotus, 1 Herodotus, 8

Date 101-200 151-250

3376 3382

Herodotus, 1-2 Herodotus, 8

101-200 151-250

3841

Demosthenes, adv. Lept. Demosthenes,

101-200

**22.0

*7.3

*9.0

151-250

*22.8

7.3

*8.9

Plato, Phd. [Plato], Ale. ii

151-200 201-300

*21.7 *23.25

*10.1 *10.1

*11.9 **11.7

1808 Plato, Resp. 8 2102+PTurner 7 Plato, Phdr.

151-200 151-200

*15.1 15.1

0232

23.5 *24.25(?)

in Tim.

2181 3667

4.75 4.85

6.75 7.1

In sum, the papyri show the following tendencies: (1) a short column is almost always narrow, and a large percentage of short, narrow columns are also written in fine scripts; (2) a tall column is usually wide (and is rarely written in a fine script); (3) groups with matching column dimensions are mostly lacking or fortuitous, but a few may be significant. So much is true for the Roman era. For the early Ptolemaic period, design conventions seem to be different. On present evidence, one can define: (4) early Ptolemaic papyri with short columns seem to have a wide, not narrow, width.

Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height

129

3.4.2 Width X Height:Verse texts Verse manuscripts will arrange themselves differently. In the analysis of column heights verse examples strongly divided themselves in almost every possible way from prose examples despite the fact that column height has no obvious dependency on whether the example is prose or verse. In another sense, of course, a dependency does exist, for verse examples are as a group distinctly wider in their column than prose manuscripts, and the aesthetic effect cannot be the same (see §3.0). One expects a different set of conventions, and indeed this is what the papyri show. Once again, the analysis will be partly frustrated by the sparseness of column-tocolumn measurements in the sample. Even with the small number in front of us, however, certain tendencies are recognizable. In table 3.5 (at the end of the chapter), I have listed verse examples by proportion of column-to-column width to height, beginning with those examples whose width significantly exceeds their height.This fact — that a significant number of examples have a width larger than the height — should alert us to how different is the look of the verse column. None of the prose examples exceeds a proportion of 1:2 for width to height of column, and the most exaggerated prose examples exhibit a proportion of 1:5. Verse examples, by contrast, are rarely so tall and thin as to fall below the 1:2 proportion. The groups that are most likely significant are those most noticeably distinct to the ancient reader, namely, those papyri with columns that are oblong (in the sense that the column-to-column width exceeds the height), or roughly square, or noticeably tall and thin (for a verse text, that is). In short, here as elsewhere trends are mostly discernible at the extremes, precisely because the areas away from middle ground are more marked as design styles, and hence the ones most likely to go in and out of fashion. The first group, where the column-to-column width exceeds the height, would have been the most striking to the ancient reader, and is most strictly definable here. Almost all examples (10 of 12) are written in fine scripts (2226 Call. Hymn, could also be urged as such), and almost all are dated to some part of the second century. In the comparison set, the lone Roman-era example is also in a fine script and from the second century. Setting aside 223+PKoeln 210 //. (an extraordinary verso text we have encountered before; see §2.2.1, §2.4.1), the uniformity is such that a distinct fashion seems more than usually likely.42 The second group, of columns that are roughly square, serves by contrast to confirm the first group: for columns with the appearance of a square (an appreciable visual difference) no longer share the character of the oblong group, containing a preponderance neither of fine scripts nor of a 42 An objection may be lodged that the preponderance of fine scripts is predictable from the width of the column, since a fine script is often larger, and thus in a verse example necessarily results in a longer line.That the scribe intentionally exaggerates the width for these short columns is, however, suggested by the very wide intercolumns, which are consistently among the largest. Still, the fact that writers of fine, large scripts choose a short column format is in any event exactly to the point.

130

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

second-century date. The square group does show some tendency towards an early date (4 of 7 are from the first century BC or AD, and similarly for the comparison set), but the number of examples is small. At the other end of the visual spectrum are verse columns that are noticeably tall and thin (exhibiting a width to height ratio of 1:2).This group is, like the first group, almost entirely from the second century, but, unlike the first group, contains no fine scripts and a large proportion of substandard examples. It seems reasonable to infer that, at least in the second century, noticeably short and wide verse columns had particular cachet, whereas a tall and rather narrow verse column seems to have had an inelegant feel. Note too how these conventional associations differ from those attaching to prose columns, where, for example, short columns of especial narrowness were the height of elegance in the second century. The fairly rich set of Ptolemaic examples in the comparison sample is for the most part evenly distributed among the various formats (see table 3.5B). An exception may be the tall and thin group (with a width to height ratio of 1:2), which contains a striking group of early Ptolemaic Homeric texts, all written in unexceptional hands. The group is surprising, since (1) the long hexameter line means that the script must be exceptionally compact and the column height exceptionally tall for the 1:2 ratio to obtain; which dovetails with a second observation: (2) tall column height (of over 21 cm) is generally avoided among Ptolemaic texts, and in fact these six examples constitute most of the tall Ptolemaic columns in the sample.That tall and thin Homeric texts are a distinct and deliberate design type seems, then, very likely. In summary, then, the column-to-column block of verse texts seems less well defined than the column block of prose texts. Still, at the extremes, some tendencies are definable: (1) oblong columns where the width exceeds the height are strongly associated with elegant manuscripts, especially of the second century; (2) the converse case, where the verse column is noticeably tall and thin, is associated with inelegant manuscripts in the second century; (3) that same case, of tall and thin columns, seems however commonly chosen as a design for unexceptional Homeric manuscripts in early Ptolemaic times. 3.5 Upper and Lower Margins Upper and lower margins are a vexed topic, more so than seems generally recognized. The extremities of a papyrus fragment are almost always broken, and the researcher will find it difficult to decide which edges are original and which are not. Even a clean edge might be the result of later trimming, particularly if the text shows signs of reuse. I have used as guides the following considerations: (1) extent of a (more or less) continuous edge, (2) recurrence of a given depth over more than one column, and (3) a clean, apparently original, edge with the topmost (or lowest) horizontal fibre unbroken (this last is rare, and can only be applied where the papyrus has not been reused). At the end of table 3.3 I set

Upper and Lower Margins

131

out more specifically the criteria I have used in deciding whether a given margin is fairly certainly, probably, or possibly complete (in the tables, probably complete margins are marked with '?,' possibly complete with '??').The criteria are conservatively applied; time and again I question a margin that the editor assumed to be full, and in the end only three papyri from the Oxyrhynchus sample (and seven from the comparison set) are allowed as certain examples where top and bottom edge both remain intact. Even so the judgments will be decidedly fallible, and I offer here a couple of examples to help the reader feel the problem more keenly. The intermittent upper margin of 844 Isoc. Pan. measures as follows: 844 col. 7 col. 8 col. 9

3.1 cm 3.2 cm 3.1 cm

col. 10 col. 29

3.0 cm 3.2 cm

Now had these columns been the only ones preserved, I would have marked down 3.0-3.2 cm as the probable upper margin. As it happens, though, other columns survive whose upper margins measure as follows:

844, col. 1 col. 31

4.4 cm 4.0 cm

col. 32 col. 47

4.3 cm 4.0 cm

I consequently believe, but cannot even now be certain, that the full upper margin was probably closer to 4.0—4.4 cm. Even more disquieting is the example of 3663 II. Here one finds, in column 6, a lower margin of 3.4 cm fairly continuous over a 9-cm extent, and, in column 7, a 3.0-cm margin over fully 11 cm. It might seem safe to conclude a probable lower margin of somewhat over 3 cm for this papyrus. In column 12, however, I measure a margin of 4.1 cm. The evidence for margins is therefore even more uncertain than usual, and, as it is also less bountiful, one must be extremely careful. Still, I do believe that the 'certain' and 'probable' categories are generally very probable indeed. As there are questions one would dearly like to answer, I will at least make the attempt. The first question concerns the commonly held view that the lower margin is uniformly greater than the upper in a well-written roll.43 Some editors have also seen fit to invoke the 2:3 rule of upper to lower margin advanced by Turner as a rough guide to the margins of codices.44 I have argued on aesthetic grounds that such a transference is

43 E.g.,Kenyon 1951, 60; Lameere 1960, 134-5. 44 E.g., the editors of 3550 and 4028 (in both cases inappropriately, as the margins are not intact).This principle is unfortunately sometimes invoked in reconstruction of the roll height.

132

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

unfounded (§3.0). What does the evidence show? (See chart 3.5a.) Now only three of the Oxyrhynchus examples are confidently held to be intact at top and bottom. Of these, two (233 Demosth. in Tim., 2101 Xen. Cyr. (plate 8), the former written on the back of a document) show a lower margin that is larger than the upper margin, though neither is very close to the proportion 2:3 (one is 6:7, the other 3:4). The other secure example (2102+PIwmer 7 PI. Phdr.) has a lower margin that is smaller than the upper. If we consider examples where an intact upper and lower margin is at least very probable, ten examples have a larger lower margin, and three do not. None of the examples, however, shows a ratio under 7:10. Spreading the net wider to include all possible examples shows a similar distribution (the lower margin is larger for 18, not for 7). The comparison set shows the same tendencies: 4 of 10 examples have a lower margin of same or greater size than the upper, all as it happens Ptolemaic and all certainly intact; only 2 examples, neither certain, show a ratio under 7:10. Note also that several very handsome rolls appear to have a lower Chart 3.5a Ratio of upper to lower margin (The list includes all rolls where the full roll height is possibly ('??'),probably ('?') or definitely extant; the percentages give, respectively, the ratio of upper to lower margin and the ratio of column height to roll height. Under 'r/v' texts marked with V are those written on the verso, and texts marked with 'r x' are recto texts whose verso was later reused.) POxy

Contents

r/v

Column height (cm)

Upper margin

Lower margin

Upper + lower

Col. -r roll ht.

1. Oxyrhynchus sample, 25 examples 4047+4051

Aeschines

13.2

1.8(??)

3.1(??)

58%

73%

0021

Uiad

15.8

1.5(??)

2.5(?)

60%

80%

0230

Demosthenes

24.2

1.4(??)

2.2(??)

64%

87%

2100+3891+ 4109

Thucydides

18.5

3.9(?)

5.6(?)

70%

66%

4030

Aeschines

1.9(??)

2.7(??)

70%

80%

2101

Xenophon

16.2

3.9

5.3

74%

64%

2223

Euripides

16.2

2.8(?)

3.8

74%

71%

3882+ PS/11.1195

Thucydides

*18.2

3.1(?)

4.2(??)

74%

71%

0020

Iliad

17.7

4.4(?)

5.8(?)

76%

63%

0844

Isocrates

21.9

4.35(?)

5.5

79%

69%

3437

Dinarchus

-19.5

3.5(?)

4.3

81%

71%

2181

Plato

*21.7

3.0(??)

3.6(?)

83%

77%

2335

Euripides

1.0(?)

1.2(?)

83%

88%

v

rx

v

-18.4

15.7

Upper and Lower Margins

133

Chart 3.5a - concluded Upper + lower

Col. + roll ht.

Column height (cm)

v

18.1

3.6

4.25

85%

70%

Iliad

*18.0

3.5

4.1(?)

85%

70%

1183

Isocrates

-16.25

5.1(?)

5.8(?)

88%

60%

1092

Herodotus

-16.6

3.0(??)

3.3(?)

91%

72%

4041

Aeschines

14.7

5.1

5.5(??)

93%

58%

0445

Iliad

24.4

3.0(?)

3.0

100%

80%

1017

Plato

24.2

2.0(??)

2.0(??)

100%

86%

1377

Demosthenes

23.5

2.5(?)

2.5(??)

100%

82%

1806

Theocritus

4.5(?)

4.5(??)

100%

68%

2102+ PTurner 1

Plato

15.1

5.3

4.8

110%

60%

1250

Achilles Tat.

18.7

3.0(?)

2.7(??)

111%

77%

3444

Isocrates

16.2

3.2(?)

1.7(?)

188%

77%

r/v

Column height (cm)

Upper margin

Lower margin

Upper + lower

Col. + roll ht.

v

-24.0

1 .?(??)

3.3(?)

52%

83%

Contents

0223+ PKoeln 5.210

Iliad

3663

rx

Upper margin

Lower margin

r/v

POxy

*19.4

2. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite), 10 examples a. Roman era MP

Contents

0486-3

Hesiod

1039

Odyssey

20.2

5.95

7.5

79%

60%

1233

Hyperides

16.2

6.6

8.2

80%

52%

Upper + lower

Col. + roll ht.

b. Ptolemaic era Column Height (cm)

Upper margin

Lower margin

1.1(?)

1.7(?)

65%

78%

2.9

4.0

73%

68%

2.4(?)

2.5(?)

96%

81%

2.1

100%

83%

2.3

2.3

100%

82%

18.4

3.4

3.4

100%

73%

Iliad

16.0

3.9

3.8

103%

68%

Hyperides +

15.0

3.5

5.4(?)

65%

52%

17.0

3.3

3.6

92%

59%

MP

Contents

r/v

0088

Anaximenes

rx

1388

Plato

14.4

1409

Plato

21.0

0265-1

Demosthenes

*20.9

2.1

0998

Iliad

20.9

1255

Isocrates

0980 0337+1234

Demosthenes

10.05

134

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

margin not much or at all larger than the upper, including 1017 PL, 1806 Theoc., 4041 Aeschin.; MP 980 //.The sample is not extensive (35 examples for both sets, including possibly intact margins), but even so the mixed tendencies seem clear enough. Though the lower margin appears more often larger than not, a substantial minority shows no such tendency. What little evidence we have lends no support to the hypothesis that a larger lower margin was characteristic of better- written examples. We should perhaps revise the rule to state merely that literary papyri often have a lower margin that is larger than the upper. (The overall tendency for lower margins to exceed upper also finds some statistical support, as seen in chart 3.5b below.) More positively one can assert, even on the basis of these few examples, that the 2:3 rule from codices appears mistakenly applied. Even where the lower margin is larger, a ratio of 4:5 (80%) or 6:7 (86%) is more usual. I also note in passing that several papyri apparently have upper and lower margins that are exactly the same size. In general the margins appear far closer in size than is the rule among codices. Detailed sorting out of trends, such as by date, must await the gathering of more evidence. Still, early texts, though examples are few, do seem likely to have tended toward shorter margins: of eleven Ptolemaic examples in the comparison set, for instance, only one lower margin can be shown to exceed 5 cm (MP 337). Chart 3.5b Upper and lower margins (in cm), undifferentiated (In the following charts, • represents a certainly complete margin, a a probably complete margin, * a possibly complete margin, and o a vestigial margin ^5 cm; the two latter must be viewed with circumspection)

A. Oxyrhynchus sample (1) Upper margins, 63 examples

1.0

TS

ZO

2l

3 X ) 3 J 5

4 l ) 4 l

5^0

5^5

6^0

6^

7^0

7^

(2) Lower margins, 59 examples

TO

L5

2^0

Z5

3iO

I5

4^0

4^5

5^0

^5

6^0

6^5

7.5 >8.0

7^0

B. Comparison sample (non-Oxyrhynchite) (1) Upper margins, 15 examples •

D

1.0

T5

2^0

25

3iO

3l

4^0

4^5

5^0

5^5

6^0

6^5

7X)

?T

f2j Lower margins, 26 examples lO

L5

2^0

2!5

3iO

15

4^0

4^5

5^0

5l

6.0

6^5

?!o

7.5 >8.0

Upper and Lower Margins

135

Schubart advanced the rule of thumb that the amount of margin could be used as a gauge of the fineness of a roll.45 The most stately rolls exhibit, according to Schubart, a proportion of 2:3 for column height to height of roll, or, put the other way around, the margins taken together account for one third of the total height. Less-deluxe examples are said to exhibit progressively less margin, ranging from a quarter down to a sixth of the total height of the roll. Schubart cites a couple of examples by way of support, but much of the force of his argument rests on the analogy of modern books (that is, codices), which I have already attacked as specious reasoning (§3.0). By the time Schubart's observation passed through a couple of generations, it not only had become law, but had acquired additional articles along the way. In a 1971 publication we read of a fragment of the Iliad: 'The height of the column (16 cm) amounts to about two thirds of that of the fragment (23 cm). This ratio of column height to roll height is, as is well-known, an important factor in determining the quality and destination of literary papyri. A ratio of two to three is typical of very carefully made copies intended for the market or for libraries.'46 But did the ancients share this feeling that the 2:3 proportion was best, with less careful or expensive copies degenerating from that ideal? I should first like to consider in isolation the observation that finer manuscripts have larger margins than less fine manuscripts. This is a rather different, and considerably less detailed, formulation than Schubart's, but it will provide a secure first step. Chart 3.5c tabulates surviving upper and lower margins by formality of script. Chart 3.5c Upper and lower margins (in cm), by script formality (Oxyrhynchus sample; for use of sigla, see chart 3.5b)

A. Upper margins, 63 examples (i) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 32 examples TO

Tl

2XJ

2l

3 ! 6 I 5

4iO

4 7 5 S I ) 5 ^ 5

6^0

6^5

71)

75~

3^5

4^0

4^5

5XJ

5^5

6^0

6^5

7^0

75"

3l

4^0

43

5^0

5l

6^0

6l

70

75~

(2) Informal and unexceptional, 25 examples

1.0

T5

lO

I5

3iO

p^ Substandard or cursive, 6 examples TO

TS

16

2l

10

45 Schubart 1921,58-9. 46 Wouters 1971,56, citing both Schubart and Martin 1954,17-18. Neither of these mentions the 'destination' of the roll.

136

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

B. Lower margins, 59 examples (1) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 23 examples

LO

T5

2 3 2 3

10

3^5

4^0

4~5

5^0

55

6^0

6J5

7^0

7.5 >8.0

(2) Informal and unexceptional, 3 i examples

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

(3) Substandard or cursive, 5 examples TO

T5

2 X J 2 5

3 ~ ! 6 3 ~ ! 5 4 ! 6 4 ~ 5 5 J O i f s ( T o 6 7 5 T ! ) T i l "

The chart makes clear that the largest margins do in fact tend to associate themselves with better-written manuscripts, and the comparison set confirms this tendency (among Roman-era examples, all upper margins above 4 cm are from fine manuscripts, as are all lower margins above 5.5 cm). Still — what we should by now recognize as a very general hhhhtendency — the finely written manuscripts are not so entirely distinct from their inf Rather, the better manuscripts often conform to normative practice, as exemplified by papyri written in unpretentious scripts. In this case, that will mean an upper margin of perhaps 3—4 cm and a lower margin of roughly 3-5 cm. Nevertheless, more ample margins, which are rarely found in everyday specimens, are common among the betterwritten papyri. I next move onto more uncertain turf. In chart 3.5a was included a tabulation of the ratio of column height to roll height for all examples where both margins are (possibly) full, but that list, though useful, is not entirely satisfactory for at least two reasons. First, the examples are few, and secondly, among these examples are several that qualify only as 'possible' full margins. I have made do with such data when there was no other choice, but here another strategy will prove more helpful. I have already observed that the upper and lower margins do not generally vary from one another as substantially as do examples from codices. In fact, review of the data shows that an upper or lower margin very rarely differs from its counterpart by much more than 1.5 cm; considerably less than 1.5 cm is usual. On this basis, one can construct a list of examples where one margin is at least very probably intact, and, wherever the other margin is missing, one can estimate a range for the lost margin by assuming a variation of ±1.5 cm from the value of the extant margin. Where the column height can be measured or calculated, we will be able therefore to extrapolate an approximate range for the total height whenever one margin (probably) survives. These data are collected in table 3.6 at the end of the chapter and summarized in chart 3.5d.

Upper and Lower Margins

137

Chart 3.5d Ratio of column height to roll height

POxy Contents A. Oxyrhynchus sample

Column height (cm)

Estimated roll height

Column + roll height

(1) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 2 1 examples

27.9

Thucydides

**16.4

31.1-34.1

48-53%

0227

Xenophon

-16.7

30.2-33.2

50-55%

2096+3374

Herodotus

16.8

30.1-32.7

51-56%

2404+PLawr HI/278

Aeschines

13.6

22.1-25.1

54-62%

3447

Strabo

-20.2

33.0-35.7

57-61%

2098

Herodotus

*18.0

28.5-31.5

57-63%

1183

Isocrates

-16.25

27.2

3326

Plato

16.9

26.7-28.2

60-63%

1808

Plato

*15.1

21.6-24.6

61-70%

2699

Apollonius Rhod.

-18.4/20.6

25.9-30.1

61-71%

0020

Iliad

17.7

27.9

3721

Theophrastus

20.9

30.0-33.0

2101

Xenophon

16.2

25.4

1806

Theocritus

*19.4

0844

Isocrates

3663

2333

Aeschylus

4107

28.4-29.9

60%

63%

63-70% 64%

65-68%

21.9

31.8

69%

Iliad

*18.0

25.6

70%

3901+PYa/e 2.99

Thucydides

*25.2

33.1-36.1

2223

Euripides

16.2

22.8

0021

Iliad

15.8

19.8-22.3

71-80%

2224+3152

Euripides

*20.9

25.6-28.6

73-82%

70-76% 71%

(2) Informal and unexceptional, 24 examples 0228

Plato

16.1

27.6-30.6

53-58%

1819

Odyssey

15.8

26.0-27.7

57-61%

4035

Aeschines

*12.9

19.4-22.4

58-66%

2102+PTwmer 7

Plato

2225

15.1

25.2

Callimachus

*21.1

30.6-33.6

63-69%

3435

Demosthenes

14.6

20.1-23.1

63-73%

1809

Plato

*17.3

23.8-26.8

65-73%

2100+3891+4109

Thucydides

18.5

28.0

1092

Herodotus

-16.6

22.9-24.7

67-72%

3879

Thucydides

**26.5

36.2-39.2

68-73%

60%

66%

138

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Chart 3.5d — continued

Column height (cm)

Estimated roll height

Column -r roll height

POxy

Contents

3673

Plato

*18.3

23.8-26.8

2546

Manetho Astrol.

-22.0

>31.8

2097

Herodotus

*25.1

33.6-36.6

0223+PKoeln 5.210

Iliad

3882+PS/11.1195

Thucydides

*18.2

25.5-25.9

3437

Dinarchus

-19.5

27.3

1250

Achilles Tatius

18.7

24.4-26.2

71-77%

2181

Plato

*21.7

28.3-30.4

71-77%

3444

Isocrates

16.2

21.1

1376

Thucydides

26.5

32.3-34.2

77-82%

0232

Demosthenes

*22.8

26.7-29.7

77-85%

1377

Demosthenes

23.5

28.5-30.0

78-82%

0027

Isocrates

**21.8

25.0-27.7

79-87%

0445

Iliad

18.1

10.0

5^0~

6^0

7^0

81)

8.5

9jO

2:10.0

(b) Oratory, 60 examples

3.0

33

4 l ) 4 3

(c) Philosophy, 42 examples

3.0

3.5

4X)

43

53

63

73

2. Comparison sample, non-Oxyrhynchite, 178 examples (each box represents a papyrus) (a) History, 8 examples 3.0

33

4^0

43

5^0

53

6^0

63

7^0

73

8^0

83

9^0

>10.0

5^0

53

6.0

63

7^0

73

8^0

83^

9^0

>10.0

5^0

53

6X)

63

7^0

73

8^0

83

9^0

>10.0

(b) Oratory, 11 examples , 3.0

33

41)

43

(c) Philosophy, 10 examples

3.0

33

4^0

43

154

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Chart 3.8b Prose column width, by genre (summary by percentage)

(grouped by 0.5-cm intervals;Oxyrhynchus sample)

no oratory occurs among the rare examples below 4.5 cm.77 At widths between 4.5 and 4.9 cm (inclusive) reside about 10% of the oratorical texts, 21% of philosophical texts and 8% of the historical. Of the examples of oratory 12% lie between 5.0 and 5.4 cm, as compared to 19% of the philosophical texts and 12% of the historical. Indeed, as one moves along the frequented part of the scale, there is plainly no suggestion that one or another part of the distribution favours oratory. In fact, the only noticeable tendency seems to be for philosophical texts slightly to prefer more narrow widths, and strongly not to prefer wider widths of 7—9 cm; that is, philosophical texts seem to avoid class III widths altogether, along with the upper edge of class II (though there are also three aberrant examples above 10 cm). The slim sample of the comparison set, so far as it goes, confirms this conclusion. As a general proposition one can state, then, that the sample as a whole lends no statistical support whatsoever to the notion that oratory tends to a more narrow width; but that philosophical texts do seem to tend towards avoidance of wider widths. The picture does not change if one takes into account other parameters, like date or quality of script. The slight difference here noted among philosophical texts is interesting, since philosophical texts (almost all of which are Socratic dialogues) have repeatedly divorced them77 Turner and Parsons #67 (=1182), which Turner offers as a typical example of oratory written to a narrow column, will not be included here since the papyrus is in Cairo, a collection I have not been able to visit.Turner lists the column as 3.5 cm wide, but (assuming the photograph is in fact 1:1) I measure approximately 3.8 cm.

Editions de luxe

155

selves from the general conclusions: philosophical texts have a distinct method of punctuation (unique in the use of dicolon, usually in a 3-point system, for which cf. e.g., the discussion of scribal practice at §§2.1.4, 2.1.5), a tendency toward predefined letter counts (§3.2.3), a seeming tendency to distinct width x height groupings (§3.4.1), and now a tendency to avoid wider column width. One hesitates to make too much of this, since most of these conclusions are tentative. Still, it does begin to look as though philosophical texts, at least in Oxyrhynchus, had a distinct tradition, though it is hard to say whether that means special treatment in the copying (e.g., line-by-line copies) or a common locus (e.g., one library, or one copyist's shop, over time). Study of other features of the mise en page, such as the column height or margins, does not turn up further points of distinction among texts of different literary genres. 3.9 Editions de luxe A number of presuppositions attaching to the idea of a 'deluxe' roll have already come under attack. That the finer rolls were taller overall, or had taller columns, or showed an ideal 2:3 ratio of written column to total height — all of these have been rejected. We have also seen that editors have tended to underestimate the size of a truly deluxe margin (that is, one large enough to differentiate itself from those found in everyday productions). What should we imagine in place of what has been set aside? A number of details have accrued along the way, but before drawing these together, let us first attend to a couple of final questions relating to the image of an edition de luxe. Frequently in the course of these inquiries I have commented that elegant scripts tend towards a larger size. Crudely written scripts can also of course be sometimes rather large, but the huge majority of very large scripts will be elegant, and, to put it the other way around, the majority of elegant scripts will be rather large. Chart 3.9a demonstrates that Chart 3.9a Letter heights, by style (Oxyrhynchus sample, percentages by column)

-1-2.4 mm Elegant Everyday Substandard

-2.5-2.9 mm

-3.0-3.9 mm

-4.0+ mm

24 (27%)

31 (24%)

42 (50%)

11 (73%)

55 (63%)

77 (60%)

27 (32%)

2 (13%)

9 (10%)

21 (16%)

15 (18%)

2 (13%)

100%

100%

100%

100%

these statements are correct. Roughly half of examples in fine or pretentious scripts are 3mm or above, as opposed to less than a fifth of those written in everyday hands. Moreover, despite fewer examples overall, fine scripts account for well over half of all scripts over

156

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

3 mm, and for three-quarters of those over 4 mm. Interestingly, the great majority of these are verse texts; of those 4 mm or taller, 9 of the 11 are verse. How does all this relate to the line spacing? It has sometimes been asserted that generous leading is a sign of a deluxe edition.78 Is this in fact true? Spacing between lines (that is, leading less letter height) is surprisingly stable regardless of script size or style, with few examples falling out of the range from 2-4 mm. The following chart will make the point: Chart 3.9b Line spacing (leading minus letter height), by style (Oxyrhynchus sample, percentages by row) ~1.5-1.9 mm

-2.0-2.9 mm

~3.0-3.9 mm

~4.0-6.0 mm

Elegant

7 (6%)

58 (54%)

35 (32%)

8 (7%)

= 100%

Everyday

7 (4%)

89 (55%)

54 (34%)

11 (7%)

= 100%

Substandard

3 (6%)

19 (40%)

17 (36%)

8 (17%)

= 100%

Since finer scripts tend to a larger letter size, the spacing will in fact appear significantly tighter in better-written manuscripts. By way of comparison, consider the situation among documents, where loose line spacing is common, so common that we can easily find several among documents written on the back of texts from the sample. Thus, the letter on the back of 3231 shows a line spacing close to 10 mm (12.6 mm leading); the register on the back of 2651 line spacing of about 14 mm (17 mm leading); the list of heirs on the back of 2695 spacing of about 8 mm (10.8 leading); the transportation document on the back of 2697 spacing of about 8 mm (11.9 leading and lower margin over 4 cm, written in a large and fine hand); and so forth. By contrast, none of over 400 literary rolls in the two samples exceeds a line spacing of 6 mm. The typical 'deluxe' manuscript will often show, as I have repeatedly said, characteristics no different from those of an everyday production, excepting the fine execution of the script. Yet when deluxe bookrolls differentiate themselves from ordinary productions in ways other than the script, the following will be most likely: (1) a short height for the column, particularly if the text is verse written to a wide column or a prose text written to a narrow column; (2) an excessively large upper and lower margin of 6—7 cm or more; (3) a large script written in a tight format, that is, with no more vertical space between lines than one finds for a smaller script; (4) a roll of excessive length, which will be impressively large to the hand when rolled up (this last is more speculative). A strikingly sumptuous roll, far from being a tall roll with tall columns of amply spaced text as some imagine, was more likely to be a roll of middling height with a narrow band of text bordered by dramatic large bands of blank space at top and bottom, the script a large one, tightly written such that it better defines the written block against the white space that frames it. 78 E.g., Wouters 1971, 56; Donovan 1969,74; Eric Turner speaks of'beautiful spacing' (i.e., unusually wide leading) for the 'very beautiful manuscript' PHibeh 2.194 (MP 1129).

Private versus Professional Book Production

157

3.10 Private versus Professional Book Production The evidence presented here has intriguing implications for our view of book production in the Roman period. The investigations in chapter 2 turned up remarkable regularity in the writing of bookrolls, and uncovered details that suggest standard techniques for copying a literary text.The study of formal features of bookrolls in this chapter has revealed striking coherence in ideas as diverse as the height of verse texts and the slanting appearance of prose columns. Moreover, these coherencies change over time in ways that suggest well-defined shifts of style in the fashioning of books. The very existence both of normative parameters, many strictly defined, and of norms that change over time, suggests an underlying professionalism in the manufacture. That is, it is unlikely that so many elements of book manufacture could maintain consistency over an entire province (as the comparison set allows us to say),79 unless dependent on the strict training implicit in scribal 'professionalism.' The quality of difference between a bookroll produced by a trained scribe and one produced in casual circumstances can be illustrated by the famous example of the Athenaion Politeia (MP 163, plate 14). In many respects, this copy of the Ath. Pol. exemplifies what a bookroll was not. Some salient details:80 1 The four scribes do not use a 'bookhand,' and do use abbreviations. 2 The horizontal line of the writing is often noticeably uneven. 3 The column and column-to-column widths are irregular, even for a given hand; column xi, to take an extreme case, is fully three times the width of column xiii. 4 Several columns are wider than any documented in the study here. 5 The vertical line of the left edge of the column is sometimes uneven (e.g., columns v and xiv). 6 The vertical line of the right edge of the column often does not match the slant of the vertical line at the left, resulting in an intercolumn that narrows as it proceeds downwards; in these cases, the look of the column is not of a rectangle, but of a trapezoid (especially noticeable in e.g. columns ii, vi, vii). 7 Upper and lower margins are unusually narrow. 8 The work is written on the back of four small rolls of reused papyrus. Excepting the reuse of papyrus, the features of this 'book' are hard to parallel among the several hundred bookrolls studied here. Clearly, in this case the complex interaction among reader, writer, and materials that produced a bookroll does not obtain.

79 Some intriguing comparanda for Herculaneum are now gathered in Janko 2000, esp. 70-3. 80 The observations here are based on the facsimile in Scott 1891.1 have not personally inspected the papyrus.

158

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

The example of the Ath. Pol. papyrus does not, however, guarantee or even imply that 'private' productions were generally of this order of irregularity. In fact, an illuminating question to ask is what we mean by a 'private' production, since neither is the term immediately clear, nor does it specify what a 'private' production is meant to oppose. Under influence of the work of Raymond Starr and others, the surprisingly enduring picture of 'mass-production scriptoria' in antiquity has finally fallen under universal criticism. In its place, recent commentators have substituted an opposition between individuals and the 'book trade,' with heavy emphasis on the former. Starr helpfully delineates a series of'concentric rings' of connections through which a new work was made public: first to close friends, gradually to friends of friends at an increasing remove, and finally to a public unconnected to the author.81 As William Harris summarizes (somewhat tendentiously), 'The primary way of distributing books was not ... by means of a trade of any kind, but through gifts and loans among friends.'82 The 'book trade' had, in this view, a very limited function. In his sensible and lucid account of current thinking on the matter, Harry Gamble writes:'The bookshop did not displace the traditional practice among persons with literary interests of lending each other texts to copy. One would presumably have resorted to a bookseller only if the accustomed means failed. On the whole, a bookseller would have found his best opportunities in a reading public that lay beyond aristocratic and scholarly literary circles and in provincial areas where books were otherwise hard to come by.'83 I am inclined to agree that much book circulation in antiquity was informed by 'a series of widening concentric circles determined primarily by friendship.'84 I nonetheless think that what seemed at first a clear view of book circulation has gotten increasingly muddied by neglect of the important question of who is doing the copying.85 The best recent summary treatment of ancient books, by Horst Blanck, assumes a fundamental opposition between 'book trade' (Buchhandel) and 'private copying' (Privatabschrifi),86 Implicit in remarks like those of Gamble just quoted is that the book trade is normally involved only when the 'bookseller' is the source of the master copy of the book, and that, by inference, when the source of the master copy is an individual, the copy is made 'privately,' that is, in house. But a fundamental opposition between book trade and 'private' production is hardly inevitable. We do of course know of examples like Cicero and Atticus, 81 Starr 1987. Starr's model for the circulation of'non-current' texts, which in his view (216—18) circulated only among friends with restricted accessibility, does not, however, adequately account for the fact that texts from the classical canon (and not 'new' texts) form the bulk of the literary texts recovered in Egypt. 82 Harris 1989,224. 83 Gamble 1995, 88; generally 83-93. 84 Starr 1987,213. 85 See now Haines-Eitzen 2000 for a salutary exception, though that book focuses on scribes in Christian contexts. 86 Blanck 1992,117-19. In Blanck's model, private copying includes copying the book oneself, using an experienced slave, or paying for the services of a 'scriptorium' (which, then, is distinct from the Buchhandel, on which cf. my analysis below). McDonnell 1996 rightly stresses the unlikelihood that elite Romans copied book-length works themselves.

Private versus Professional Book Production

159

where the elite created provision for making quality book copies in house. But surely the extreme case was not also the general case.87 It strains credulity to suppose that most culturally inclined Greeks and Romans as a matter of course had on staff someone trained to make copies consistent with the rather exacting standards detailed in this study. The problem seems to be that terms like 'book trade' or 'bookseller' carry with them a sort of creeping anachronism. In antiquity, a 'bookseller' engaged in the 'book trade' need be no more than a scribe on a public corner with his chest (scrinium, Catullus 14). Shops also existed that maintained a certain number of master copies (cf., e.g., Horace Ep. 1.20 for an early example, Martial 1.117 for a later), but these too surely made most of their profit not from pre-made copies, but from making copies to order.88 The centrality of the scribe in the idea of a 'bookseller' is encapsulated in the Latin word librarius, which continues to signify both copyist and bookseller throughout classical Latin.89 In short, book circulation and book production are not coincident. In terms of book circulation, the source of the master copy is essential, and leads conceptually to a division between circulation stemming from the author and his friends, and circulation stemming from 'public' sources such as a librarius or a public library.Yet the production of the book may well have involved the libmrius regardless of the source of the master copy. The financial feasibility of a 'book trade' in fact makes much more sense if we try to re-imagine a librarius not as a 'bookseller' but as a scribe or scribal shop that performs multiple functions: copying books to order from the (few) master copies maintained in stock; copying books to order from master copies furnished by the customer from a personal library; copying books to order from a master copy derived from a public library; selling used books, including those from auction;90 perhaps rarely (given the capital risks) making multiple copies in advance for books thought to have ready customers. This scenario is consistent with what we know of ancient artisan classes generally, and what we know of the modern scribal trade still surviving in, for instance, Arabic countries. In terms of book production, the proper distinction seems then not between individual and 'trade,' or between 'private' and 'public,' but between 'private' and 'professional.' Even here, the lines of demarcation are not as sharply drawn as we might like. Large estates of the culturally ambitious did undoubtedly sometimes have freedmen or slaves who were trained

87 The further examples collected at Blanck 1992,118 include two Macedonian kings and a Roman emperor. Sophistic establishments had their own copyists, as we know from Libanius (4th cent. AD, see Norman 1960, 122—3), but that too is a special case. We know that the very wealthy did sometimes have in-house copyists, but the evidence falls far short of indicating this as a general practice even among the super-elite. 88 BM inv. 2110 preserves a partial account for a series of such orders, including the Plutus of Aristophanes and the 'third Tliyestes' of Sophocles: cf. Bell 1921. 89 Cf. Gamble 1995, 87. Bibliopola, borrowed from Greek at least as early as the first century, displaces librarius in this sense in medieval times (cf. scliol. Hot ars poet, ad 354: bibliopolas libraries veteres dicebant). But librarius is used in the sense of qui libros vendit at least through the fifth century: 77;LL s.v. 90 Cf. Starr 1990,Kleberg 1967 and 1973.

160

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

as scribes in the art of making a bookroll, and who were then 'private' in the sense of belonging to a personal estate, but 'professional' in the sense of having gone through the necessary apprenticeship. Perhaps the best distinction would then be between 'trained' and 'untrained' copyists, where the training implies a level of attainment suitable for guild membership.91 Be that as it may, a remarkable aspect of the data here studied is the scarcity of significantly aberrant examples. 'Books' as radically irregular as the Athenaion Politeia papyrus are in fact exceedingly rare. The overwhelming bulk of bookrolls in both samples show, instead, the mix of general uniformity and slight individual variation, with stylistic changes over time, that is characteristic of a well-established artisan craft. For bookrolls (as opposed to commentaries or other 'subliterary' texts) the evidence for untrained copying is slim: for most ancient readers, the professional look and feel of the bookroll was an essential aspect of its utility, since the bookrolls sociological function as cultural icon was as important as its contents.92 One of the most salient features of the bookroll turns out to be this very professionalism. The fact of professionalism is not surprising in and of itself. What is surprising is the sheer dominance, indeed near uniformity, of professionalism. Commentaries, glossaries, narrative summaries, mythological compendia, and the like were also sometimes written to the requirements of a bookroll.Yet perhaps the most persuasive argument for a separate category of the 'subliterary' is the sudden commonness of unbookroll-like productions the moment once crosses the boundary from the traditional literary genres.93 The ancient reader clearly brought to a text of Aeschylus or Demosthenes a distinct and, as we have seen, definable set of rather strict expectations for what he or she would see in the unrolling. Literacy in Graeco-Roman Egypt, as elsewhere in the empire, was probably quite restricted.94 Still, let us not allow that fact to mislead us into viewing the professional production of books as minimal in this period.95 The shops need have been no larger than a blacksmith's or butcher's, and the trade was mostly to order and limited to an elite stratum of educated Greeks. But that there were a great many scribes cannot be doubted — literary rolls written by several hundred scribes, whether local or not, are witnessed in Oxyrhynchus in the second and third centuries. In these chapters, we have found much evidence of vigorous professional attention to the production of literary works in provincial Oxyrhynchus and indeed throughout Egypt. So much more must be inferred a fortiori for the centres of the Roman world.

91 Cf. Poland 1909 for a detailed study on the nature of ancient guilds. 92 See Johnson 2000 for more detailed discussion of sociological factors in ancient reading. 93 Details of layout, lectional signs, etc. for four types of subliterary text (69 papyri) are collected in van RossumSteenbeck 1998 under the recurring rubric,'Comparative survey of papyri.' 94 Forcefully argued in Harris 1989; cf. the responses to Harris's analysis collected in Beard 1981. 95 Harris's account at times gives this impression, perhaps not deliberately: cf, e.g., Harris 1989,222ff., esp. 225.

TABLES

Conspectus Table 3. i Widths for prose texts Table 3.2 Widths for verse texts Table 3.3 Column height, margins, roll height Table 3.4 Column width X height, prose texts Table 3.5 Column width X height, verse texts Table 3.6 Estimated roll height Table 3.7 Reconstructed rolls: roll length Notes: In the tables I define style of script under three classes: (1) formal, semi-formal, or pretentious; (2) informal and unexceptional (but for the most part probably professional); and (3) substandard or cursive. See discussion at §3.2.1. For the qualifiers (*, **, ~,—) used in the tables, see 'Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla' at the front of the book.

TABLE 3.1 Widths for prose texts Column, column-to-column, and intercolumn (arranged by ascending order of column width, in centimetres) A. Oxyrhynchus sample Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

2.5

13.06(11-15)

POxy

Contents

Date

3685

Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv.

101-150

1

3.2

4104

Thucydides, 5

151-250

2

**4.2

2663

Plato, Cra.

151-200

1

-4.25

3683

[Plato] (or [Lucian] or Leon), Hale.

151-200

3? (or 2?)

-4.25

12.00 (12-12)

3378

Herodotus, 3

151-250

1

*4EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

13.50 (12-15)

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

2

-4.4

**6.4

2.0 (col. 8)

23.83 (20-29)

0226+PS/ XVII Congr 8+ PS/ 11.1197

Xenophon, Hell. 6

51-200

1

-4.5

-6.1

1.5

13.24 (10-16)

3676

Plato, Ph d.

151-200

2

-6.5

2.0

20.01 (17-23)

4110

Thucydides, 8

151-200

2

-4.5-4.7

0704

Isocrates, in Soph.

201-300

2

4.6

-6.7

2.1

13.35(11-15)

0227

Xenophon, Oec. 8-9

51-150

1

4.7 (4.5-4.75)

7.1 (7.05-*7.15)

2.4 (2.35-2.55)

12.97 (11-16)

2404+PLaur III/ 278

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

1

4.7

~2.5(?)

13.43 (11-16)

2548

Demosthenes, in Tim.

101-200

1? (or 2?)

*4.7

>1.0

18.00 (16-20)

3327

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

*4.7

2.7

9.77 (8-13)

4.5 (4.5—4.6)

5.7

11.80(10-13) ~6.25(?)

2.0(?)

20.13 (18-23)

16.29 (14-19)

~7.2(?)

*7.4

TABLE 3.1 - continued

Letters/line (min.—max.)

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

151-200

2

-4.7

>6.0

>1.3

10.69 (9-12)

Plato, Resp. 8

151-200

1? (or 2?)

4.75 (4.6-4.9)

6.75 (6.7-6.8)

2.0 (1.75-2.1)

11.99 (9-15)

2099

Herodotus, 8

101-150

1

4.8

*6.3

1.5 (left)

13.19(11-15)

2550

Lycurgus, in Leo.

101-200?

2

4.8

*7.1

2.3 (left)

12.00 (11-14)

3678

Plato, Phlb.

151-200

2

*4.8

*7.0

2.2

16.42 (14-18)

4047+4051

Aeschines, in Ctes.

151-200

1

4.8

>6.3

2102+

Plato, Phdr.

151-200

2

4.85 (4.8-4.9)

7.1

0229

Plato, Phd.

101-200

1? (or 2?)

-4.9

0702

[Demosthenes], c. Boeot.

101-200

1

1809

Plato, Phd.

51-150

3326

Plato, Resp. 8

3672

POxy

Contents

Date

3892

Thucydides, 3

1808

Intercolumn

>1.5

11.30(9-13) [4047] 10.88 (9-13) [4051]

2.25 (2.2-2.3)

14.05 (11-17)

-6.7

1.8

21.13 (19-24)

-4.9

>~7.1

>2.2 (left)

14.47 (13-16)

2? (or 1?)

4.9

7.0

2.1

21.41 (19-24)

101-200

1

4.9

7.0

2.1

11.75(8-15)

Plato, Leg. 6

201-300

2? (or 1?)

4.9

7.2

2.3

11.32(10-14)

4107

Thucydides, 7

101-200

1

4.9

6.5

1.6-1.7

17.67 (17-19)

3373

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

4.95

-6.45

1.5

17.30 (15-21)

3436

Dinarchus, in Dem.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

5.0 (4.8-5.2)

-7.0

2.0 (1.9-2.1)

12.86 (10-16)

3437

Dinarchus, in Phil.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

5.0

7.1

2.1 (1.8-2.1)

11.82(9-15)

PTurner 7

TABLE 3.1 - continued Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolutnn

101-300

2

5.0

6.3

1.3

16.63 (14-19) [4045] 18.04 (16-21) [4053]

Xenophon,/l«. 6

151-250

2

5.1 (-5.0-5.1)

*7.1 (*7.0-*7.1)

2.0 (1.9-2.1)

13.32 (11-16)

0881r

Plato, Euthd.

151-250

1

-5.1

*6.65

1.55 (left)

17.83 (15-22)

0881v

Plato, Ly.

201-250

3

5.1

17.18 (14-20)

2549

Demosthenes, Ep. 1

101-200

1? (or 2?)

*5.1

17.45 (15-19)

3677

Plato, Phdr.

101-200

2

*5.1

15.08 (12-17)

4041

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

1

5.1

7.7

2.5-2.6

11.35 (8-14)

0016+0696

Thucydides, 4

1-100

2

5.15 (5.05-5.15)

6.35 (-6.25-6.4)

1.2

21.69 (16-30)

1181

Xenophon,/l«. 7

201-250

2? (or 1?)

-5.15

>~6.95

>1.8

16.83 (14-19)

3670

Plato, Hp. mai.

151-250

2

*5.2

>1.1

16.76 (15-19)

3675

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

1

-5.2

1.6

17.30 (15-20)

3847

Demosthenes, in Meid.

201-300

2

5.2

15.00 (12-18)

3899

Thucydides, 4

151-250

2

-5.2

13.33 (11-17)

0455

Plato, Resp. 3

226-300

2

*5.35

3674

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

1

*5.35

3666+ PHan\.\2

Phto,Ak.i

151-200

2

*5.35-7.3

*7.35-8.9

1.6-2.0

20.19 (16-24) [POxy] 13.73 (10-17) [PHarr]

2749

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

5.4 (5.2-5.5)

7.6 (7.3-7.75)

2.2 (2.1-2.25)

15.81 (13-18)

POxy

Contents

Date

4045+4053

Aeschines, in Ctes.

0463

-6.8

>7.85

>2.5

Letters/line (min.—max.)

17.33 (15-19) 17.25 (13-21)

TABLE 3.1 - continued Column-tocolumn width

Letters/line (min.—max.)

Style

Column width

51-150

1

*5.4

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

*5.4

3884

Thucydides, 1

101-200

2

*5.4

4033+4034

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-300

2

*5.4

4043

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

2

*5.4

0026

Demosthenes, Exor.

101-200

1? (or 2?)

5.45 (5.3-5.6)

7.85 (7.8-7.9)

2.4 (2.2-2.5)

17.72 (14-21)

0703

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

2

-5.5

-7.15

1.65

17.14 (15-21)

1183

Isocrates, Tr.

51-100

1

5.5 (5.5-5.55)

7.8 (7.8-*7.85)

2.3

16.33 (13-20)

2100+3891+ 4109

Thucydides, 4-5, 8

126-175

2

5.5 (5.3-5.7)

7.0 20.37 (15-26) [bks4-5] 1.5 (7.0—7EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.2)22.11 (18-26) [bk8]

2402

Aristotle, Eth. Nic.

126-175

2

*5.5

3376

Herodotus, 1-2

101-200

1? (or 2?)

5.5

3668

[Plato], Ep. 2

101-200

2

*5.5

3842

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

2

*5.5

*7.0

3880

Thucydides, 1

51-150

2

*5.5

4030

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-200

3

2101

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

1

5.6 (5.5-5.8)

3680

Plato, Tht .

151-200

1

5.6

>10.3

3897

Thucydides, 3

101-200

1

5.6

>7.5

POxy

Contents

3380

Herodotus, 5

3382

Date

5.5-*6.3

Intercolumn

21.60(19-24)

*7.4

2.0

21.11 (19-23) 19.64 (18-22)

*7.5

2.1

16.32 (13-20) [4033] 15.06 (13-17) [4034] 20.78 (17-24)

23.30 (20-28)

7.45

1.95 (1.8-2.0)

18.21 (13-23) 17.80 (16-19)

1.5

18.50 (15-28)

~7.0(?)

~1.5(?)

29.23 (26-34)

6.8-*7.9

-1.3— 1.6

10.38 (14-28)

2.0 (1.8-2.2)

17.91 (14-21)

7.6 (7.45-7.7)

18.53 (15-21)

>1.9

15.21 (13-18)

TABLE 3.1 -• continued Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

101-200

2

-5.6

-8.1

2.5

19.64 (17-23)

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300?

1

5.6

>7.4

>1.8

15.76 (13-19)

4111

Thucydides, 8

101-200

2? (or 3?)

*5.6(?)

*7.5(?)

1.9

16.25 (15-18)

0454+ PS/2.119

Plato, Gig.

151-200

2? (or 1?)

5.7 (-5.6-5.7)

6.7

1.0

19.24 (15-23) [POxy] 17.50 (13-22) [ZPE] 17.22 (14-21) [PS/]

1246

Thucydides, 7

101-150

1

5.7

2098

Herodotus, 7

151-250

1

5.7

8.0

3451

Thucydides, 8

51-150

1

**5.7

**7.2

4038

Aeschines, Fals. Leg.

151-300

2

*5.7

0233

Demosthenes, in Tim.

201-300

2

-5.8

-7.3

1.5

22.12 (18-26)

2468

Plato, Pit.

101-200

1

5.8

8.3

2.5 (2.4-2.5)

16.93 (14-20)

3836

Achilles Tatius, 3

101-200

2

5.8

-7.5

1.7

16.51 (12-20)

3879

Thucydides, 1

101-150

2

5.8 (5.7-6.0)

2.0 (-1.9— 2.2?)

15.78 (13-20)

4031

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-300

2

-5.8

>7.4

>1.6

14.90 (13-16)

4040

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2? (or 1?)

*5.8

**7.3

1.5

22.09 (19-24)

4048

Aeschines, in Ctes.

1-100

2

*5.8

22.00 (21-23)

4050

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2

*5.8

18.00 (16-20)

POxy

Contents

Date

4035

Aeschines, Fals. Leg.

4055

16.59 (15-19) 2.3 (1.9-2.4)

12.97 (10-16)

1.5 (1.4->1.6)

14.21 (12-19) 16.76 (15-19)

7.8 (7.7— 8.2?)

TABLE 3.1 — continued

Style

Column width

Column-tocolutnn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

101-200

2

-5.8-5.9

*7.2

-1.3-1.4

17.39 (14-21)

26-100

2

*5.9

*7.1

1.2

17.80 (15-20)

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200?

3

5.9

8.1

2.2

17.32 (14-20)

0844

Isocrates, Paneg.

101-150

1

6.0 (5.75-6.05)

-8.1 (-7.95 —8.25)

2.1 (2.0-2.5)

16.63 (12-21)

1376

Thucydides, 7

151-250

2

6.0 (-5.7— 6.3)

8.1 (-7.95— 8.3)

2.1 (2.05-2.25)

19.24 (14-25)

3233

Isocrates, Antid.

51-150

1

6.0

3375

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

*6.0

3377

Herodotus, 2

101-150

1? (or 2?)

-6.0

3886

Thucydides, 2

201-300

2

-6.0

17.59 (14-21)

4037

Aeschines, Fals. Leg.

101-300

1

*6.0

15.55 (13-18)

4054

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2

*6.0

22.67 (exact line divisions unsure)

4108

Thucydides, 7

151-250

2

*6.0

17.78 (15-20)

Plato, Resp. 4

151-250

2

*6.1

Plato, La.

151-200

2

6.1

3673

Plato, Leg. 6

151-250

2

6.1

3881

Thucydides, 1

151-250

2

-6.1

>7.6

4100

Thucydides, 1

151-250

2? (or 1?)

*6.1

>*7.4

0462

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

2

POxy

Contents

Date

4042

Aeschines, in Ctes.

0225

Thucydides, 2

4044

0456

3671

*6.15

20.37 (17-24)

*7.5

>8.2

1.5

15.59 (14-17)

>1.1

24.43 (22-26)

2:2.1

17.80 (15-21) 18.63 (16-21)

7.6

*7.65

1.5 (>1.2-1.5)

19.29 (16-22)

>1.5

16.30 (14-20)

2=1.3

16.74 (13-21)

1.5

16.65 (13-20)

TABLE 3.1 - continued Date

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

-1.6

19.85(18-24)

POxy

Contents

2703

Thucydides, 1

151-250

1? (or 2?)

1810

Demosthenes, Olynth. i-w,Phil.i,dePae.

101-150

1

6.2 (-6.0—6.25)

4052

Aeschines, in Ctes.

51-150

3? (or 2?)

*6.25

4103

Thucydides, 5

51-150

1

*6.25

18.29(16-20)

0452

Thucydides, 4

151-300

2

*6.3

19.08(17-21)

2097

Herodotus,!

226-275

2

6.3

-8.0

1.8

16.65(14-19)

2751

Phto,Resp.3

151-250

2

-6.3 (-6.3-6.5)

-8.8

2.5

18.45(14-22)

3721

Theophrastus, de Vent.

151-200

1

6.3

-8.0

1.7

16.66(13-24)

3900

Thucydides, 4

201-300

2

-6.3

*8.3

2.0

15.89(12-19)

0461

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

3

-6.35

0460

Demosthenes, de Pac.

151-250

2

-6.4

1017

Plato, Phdr.

151-250

1

6.4 (6.3-6.5)

3379

Herodotus, 4

201-300

2

*6.4

3896

Thucydides, 3

1-100

3? (or 2?)

-6.4

-8.0

1.6

19.55(17-22)

3901+ PYale 2.99

Thucydides, 4

151-200

1

6.4

8.2

1.8

20.45(18-22)

2096+3374

Herodotus,!

151-200

1

6.45 (6.3-6.5)

8.0 (-7.9-8.1)

1.55 (1.5-1.6)

16.66(12-21)

6.15

-7.75 8.3 (-8.15-8.3) *7.75

2.1 (2.0-2.15)

20.93 (15-27)

1.5

17.93(16-20)

18.57(15-23) -8.4 8.4 (-8.3—8.5)

2.0

16.57(14-19)

2.0 (1.9-2.1)

18.63(15-23) 21.70(18-25)

TABLE 3.1 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

0023

Plato, Leg. 9

201-275

3? (or 2?)

6.5 (6.45-6.5)

-8.5

0025

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

1

-6.5

0027

Isocrates,X»ft'~8.5

8.8

*8.1

Intercolumn

2.0 (2.0-2.1)

Letters/line (min.—max.) 17.61 (15-21)

>2.0

12.64(11-14)

>1.7

22.67 (20-24)

2.3

17.42 (12-21)

1.6 (left)

20.86 (17-24) 22.47 (19-25)

22.91 (18-28)

*7.9

-1.4

20.77 (17-23) 21.15 (18-25) [frl] 18.67 (17-20) [fr2]

8.8 (8.8-*8.85) 8.3

2.2 (2.0-2.3)

17.84 (14-23)

1.8 (1.6—1.8)

18.80 (15-22) 18.95 (16-23)

2:1.7

*8.2

1.5 (1.3-1.5)

20.31 (17-23) 14.47 (11-18)

TABLE 3.1 - continued

Style

Column width

151-300

2

**6.7

Demosthenes, in Meid.

201-300

2

-6.7

3681

Plato, Tto.

151-250

2

*6.75

21.13(18-24)

0024

Plato, Resp. 10

201-300

2

6.8

19.90(19-22)

0698

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

2

*6.8

1250

AchiUesTatius,2

301-350

2

6.8 (6.6-7.0)

3849

Demosthenes, in Meid.

151-300

2

**6.8 (**6.6-7.1)

4112

Thucydides, 8

101-200

3

6.8

3898

Thucydides, 4

101-300

2

*6.85

20.07(17-23)

0882

Demosthenes, inAristog.i 101-200

2? (or 3?)

-6.9

26.10(24-28)

2403

Aristode, Cat.

201-250

2

6.9

23.29 (19-26)

3234+3883

Thucydides, 1

51-150

3

-6.9

23.47 (18-28)

3679

Plato, R«/?. 5

1? (or 2?)

6.9

9.0

2.1

25.33(20-30)

3844

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

1-100

1

*6.9

>*8.2

>1.3

21.88(20-24)

3837

Achilles Tatius, 8

201-300

2

*7.0

*8.7

1.7

23.72(20-29)

3895

Thucydides, 3

200-300

1

7.0

9.6

2.5-2.6

14.73(12-17)

1619

Herodotus, 3

51-150

2

7.1

9.0

1.9 (1.8P-2.0)

23.88(21-28)

2750

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

151-200

*7.1

*9.75

POxy

Contents

Date

3448

Thucydides, 1

3846

201-300

1

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.-max.) 19.10(17-21)

>~8.7

>2.0

*8.6(?)

1.8(?) (or > 1.8)

8.7

1.9 (1.75-2.0)

20.54(17-24)

18.75(16-21) 22.11(19-26) 18.90 (16-23)

*8.8(?)

*2.0(?)

2.65

19.07(15-22)

20.09(17-24)

TABLE 3.1 - continued Style

Column width

51-150

2

-7.15

Thucydides, 2

201-300

2

7.2

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

151-250

2

3841

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

4036

Aeschines, Fals. Leg.

0019

Herodotus, 1

4039

Aeschines, in Ctes.

0695

POxy

Contents

0231

Demosthenes, de Cor.

3888

Date

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

>1.1

25.58 (22-29)

-9.5

-2.3

15.96 (14-19)

7.3

*8.9

1.6 (left)

24.43 (20-27)

2

*7.3

*9.0

1.7 (left)

25.60 (24-29)

51-100

2? (or 1?)

*7.3

21.00 (19-24)

101-300

3? (or 2?)

7.35

25.20 (22-28)

51-150

3

7.4

18.07 (16-21)

Herodotus, 5

201-300

3

-7.5

17.12 (15-20)

2095

Herodotus, 1

101-200

2

-7.5

-9.45

1.95

26.33 (24-29)

3383

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

7.5

*9.5

2.0 (left)

23.42 (19-27)

3682

Plato, Tht.

101-200

3

7.5

>10.0

>2.5

24.09 (21-27)

3877

Thucydides, 1, 2, 3

101-150

3? (or 2?)

**7.5

**9.0

1.5

22.41 (18-28)

3894

Thucydides, 3

201-300

2

*7.9

22.07 (20-25)

4102

Thucydides, 5

151-250

2

*7.9

20.50 (18-23)

3444

Isocrates, Ev.

151-250

2

*7.95

26.05 (21-31)

4032

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

2

*8.0 (*7.8-8.2)

**9.7

-1.8

23.78 (20-27)

0230

Demosthenes, de Cor.

101-200

2

8.1 (**7.9-8.1)

9.2 (**9.0-9.2)

1.1

22.79 (19-28)

3893

Thucydides, 3

101-200

2

*8.1

24.43 (20-26)

TABLE 3.1 - ~10.1

3882+ PS/ 11. 1195

Thucydides, 1

201-300

2

-8.2

-10.0

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

2

8.3

3889

Thucydides, 2

151-250

2

*8.4

2662

Plato, Meno

50 BC-AD 50

1? (or 2?)

*8.5

3850

Demosthenes, in Meid.

101-200

1

8.6

4101

Thucydides, 4

201-300

2

**8.6

1019+2948

Chariton, 2

176-225

3

8.8 (*8.5— 8.9)

23.21 (18-27)

0700

Demosthenes, de Cor.

101-200

3? (or 2?)

*9.0

25.72 (23-28)

3878

Thucydides, 1

101-175

2

*9.0

29.78 (exact line divisions unsure)

3848

Demosthenes, in Meid.

201-300

2

*9.9

29.83 (26-33)

2181

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

*10.1 (*9.95-*10.1)

3667

[Plato], Alc.ii

201-300

2

0029

Euclid

251-350

3

11.75

0883

Demosthenes, inAristoc.

201-250

2

n/a

50-1 BC

*10.1

>2.0

23.54 (19-28)

-1.8-1.9

25.18 (21-29) 17.89 (16-21)

*9.7

1.3

29.40 (27-33) 30.33 (26-35)

>10.1

>1.5

20.96 (18-24) 22.78 (21-25)

*11.9

1.8

39.69 (33-49)

**11.7

1.6

25.15 (22-29)

>13.9

>2.2 (left)

28.33 (26-30) 10.90 (9-13)

TABLE 3.1 - continued B. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite)

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

100-1 BC

2? 2

4.1 [Hyp.] 5.8 [Dem.]

5.2 (5.2-5.5) 7.0 (6.4-7.5)

1.1 (1.0-1.3) 1.2 (0.7-1.5)

18.31 (13-24) 28.06 (23-40)

Appian, Iber.

201-300

1

*4.3

0329-2

[Demosthenes], in Mac.

151-250

1

-4.7

1563-1

Xenophon, Oec.

201-300

2

*4.7

1566

Xenophon, Vect.

101-200

1

4.8 (4.6-4.8)

1427

[Plato], dejust.

201-250

2

*4.85

0468

Herodotus, 1

1-200

2

4.9 (4.6-5.0)

1233

Hyperides, in Dem., pro Lye., pro Eux.

1-100

1

4.95 (4.8-5.1)

1397-1

Plato, Pit.

101-200

2

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

2

1564

Xenophon, Symp.

151-200?

0298

Demosthenes, Fals. Leg.

1563-3

Xenophon, Symp.

0337D

Demosthenes: see under 0337H+D

1265-1

Isocrates, Paneg.

0300

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

MP

Contents

Date

0337H+D

Hyperides, in Phil. + Demosthenes, Ep. 3

0113

8.64(7-11)

-7.6

2.9

12.59 (10-15) 13.63 (12-15)

-7.3

2.5 (2.2-2.7)

9.8 (8-13) 13.62 (12-15)

>1.0 cm

15.35 (11-17)

6.95 (6.8-7.1)

2.0(1.9-2.1)

15.13 (11-20)

*7.7

1.7 (1.6-1.8)

18.5 (16-21)

5.5

7.1

1.6 (1.6-1.7)

15.89 (11-20)

1

5.5

7.0

1.5

19.83 (16-24)

101-150

2

5.6 (5.3-5.7)

7.5 (7.3-7.6)

1.9 (1.6-2.5)

17.79 (14-21)

251-300

1

*5.5

*5.8 5.8

151-250

1

1-200

2

6.0

1

**6.3

11.09 (10-14)

7.0

1.2

*5.9

28.06 (23-40) 17.33 (16-19)

7.3

1.3

19.49 (15-24)

**8.2-8.6

2.3

11.33 (10-13)

0478

Herodotus, 5

151-200

0088

Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex.

300-251 BC

3

-6.5 (-6.0-7.0)

7.5 (7.1-7.9)

-1.0 (-0.5-1.0)

25.80 (20-33)

Plato, Phd.

300-201 BC

2

-6.5 (-5.9— 7.1)

7.9

-1.4 (-1.3 — 1.6)

24.36 (17-34)

1388

TABLE 3.1 — concluded Style

Column •width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

325-276 BC

2

-6.5

-8.0 (7.8-8.3)

-1.5 (-1.3— 1.8)

18.48 (13-23)

Polybius, 1 1

151-250

1

6.5

[8.2]

[1.7]

17.62 (14-21)

0296-2

Demosthenes, Fals. Leg.

201-300

1

**6.6

1387

Plato, Ap.

51-150

2? (or 1?)

6.7 (6.4-6.8)

1395

Plato, Soph.

275-226 BC

2

-7.0

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chers.

75-1 BC

3

1552

Xenophon, Hell. I

201-250

1403

Plato, Phdr.

1556-2

1255

MP

Contents

Date

1409

Plato, La.

1433

15.90 (15-17)

8.5

1.7-1.8

16.91 (13-21)

-8.9

1.9 (1.7-2.0)

15.57 (13-18)

7.2

8.7

1.5

26.31 (21-31)

2

7.5 (7.2-7.6)

8.8 (8.7-8.9)

1.3 (1.2-1.5)

18.49 (14-30)

101-150

2

*8.3

34.63 (31-40)

Xenophon, Hell. 1,2,4

151-200

3

-8.7

27.80 (22-37)

Isocrates, ad Nic.

301-400

2

*15.9 [sic]

31.44 (27-36)

Table 3.2 Widths for verse texts Column, column-to-column, and intercolumn (arranged by ascending order of column width, in centimetres) A. Oxyrhynchus sample Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

151-200

2

*5.9

*9.4

—3.5

Euripides, Med.

51-100

2? (or 1?)

*6.8

—3.0

2830

Menander, Pk.

250-300

3

*6.8

*10.1 **8.8

2094+3445

Lycophron, Alex.

101-175

2

*7.55

*9.0

—1.45

2335

Euripides, Andr.

151-200

3

**7.8

**10.05

—2.25

2545

Aristophanes, Eq.

50 BC-AD 50

1

*8.1

3661

Homer, 77. 3

101-300

3

*8.1

0445

Homer, 77. 6

101-250

2? (or 1?)

—8.25

11.7

—3.25

2178

Aeschylus,^.

101-200

2

*8.3

2179

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

2

*8.3

3446

Lycophron, A lex.

101-200

2

*8.4

3713

Euripides, Phoen.

151-200

2

**8.4

3545

Theocritus

101-200

3

3840

Aristophanes, Thesm.

301-400

3

**8.5

3223

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

3

— 8.6

1819

Homer, Od. 10-12

101-200

2

2336

Euripides, Hel.

2693

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

2542

2180

POxy

Contents

Date

2092

Pindar, O7. 2

2337

—2.0

>— 2.1 >— 3.0 >—2.8

*8.45

*13.1

—4.5

*8.65

*11.4

—2.75

1

*8.7

*10.6

—3.0

101-150

I?(or2?)

*8.7

*12.1

—3.25

Homer, 77. 15

51-150

2

*8.9

Sophocles, OT

101-200

1

*9.0

50-1 BC

>— 2.25

*11.0

—2.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

201-300

2

**9.0

**12.0

—2.0

Aeschylus, PV

151-300

2

**9.1

4014

Euripides, Or.

151-200

1? (or 2?)

*9.2

0877

Euripides, Hec.

201-300

2

**9.3

1249

Babrius

101-200

1

*9.3

2543

Euripides, Andr.

101-200

2

**9.3

3828

Homer, Od. 22

51-150

3

*9.3

2946

Triphiodorus

201-400

2? (or 3?)

*9.4

2646

Hesiod, Theog.

101-300

2

*9.6

Euripides, Or.

1-100

3

**9.6

Euripides, Or.

101-200

3

*9.75

2224+3152

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

1

*9.8

1091

Bacchylides, Dith.

126-175

3

s~~9.8

Euripides, Phoen.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

*9.9

51-100

1

*9.9

**12.9

3? (or 2?)

*9.9

*12.6

—2.3

13.0

—3.0

POxy

Contents

Date

3719

Euripides, IA

3838

4015 3717

3153 3154

Homer, H. 6

3716

Euripides, Or.

150-51 BC

2225

Callimachus, Hymn 4

126-175

2

—10.0

3155

Homer, H. 15

151-250

2

~~10.0

1805+3687

Sophocles, Track.

151-200

2

*10.05

3549

Theocritus

101-200

2

*10.1

2638

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

2

*10.4

2639+PS/11.1191

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

3

*10.4

>—2.6 (left) >— 1.7

*11.0

—1.5 (*1.7)

*12.8/**14.8

*13.35 **13.8

—3.0

—3.5 —3.75

>~~2.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued

POxy

Contents

Date

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

2064+3548

Theocritus

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

0693

Sophocles, EL

2093

Sophocles, Aj.

0446

Homer, 77. 13

2697

Apollonius Rhodius, 2

0875+3686

Sophocles, Ant.

4013+PKoe/n 6.252

Euripides, Or.

2829

Menander, Epit.

3546

Theocritus

3827

Homer,//. 11

3231

Hesiod, Erga

3226

Hesiod, Erga

3232

Hesiod, Asp.

2696

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

2831

Menander, Sam.

2541

Homer,//. 14

3225

Hesiod, Erga

3825

Homer, //. 1

3322

Euripides, Phoen.

1243

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

151-250 151-200 50-1 BC 201-250 151-250 151-200 201-250 101-150 50 BC-AD 50 251-350 101-200 101-200 151-225 101-250 151-200 151-200 51-150 201-300 126-175 101-150 51-150 101-200

Style 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 2

I?(or2?) 3 1 1 3 1

2? (or 1?) 3 2

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

*10.45 *10.5 —10.5 **10.6

**12.5(?) *15.3 12.9

*10.6 **10.7 *ir,.75 **10.9 **11.0 *11.1 *11.1 *11.1 Ml. 15 *11.2 *11.3 *11.4 *11.4 *11.5 *11.5 —11.5 *11.6 *11.65

*13.4

Intercolurnn width —2.0(?) *4.8 —2.5

—3.0 >— 1.8 >— 1.5

>— 13.1

>—3.0 >— 1.5 >—2.0 >— 1.2 >— 2.0

> —2.0 >— 14.3

>— 2.8

**15.6

—4.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued Colurnn-tocolumn -width

Intercolumn -width

Style

Column width

201-300

3

*11.7

Hesiod, Theog.

101-200

1

**11.7

2643

Hesiod, Theog.

101-300

2? (or 3?)

*11.7

2651

Hesiod, Theog.

101-200

2

*11.7

3222

Hesiod, Erga

201-300

2

—11.7

3228

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

1

*11.7

3324

Meleager

50 BC-AD 50

3

*11.75

**13.75

—2.0

3443

Homer, Od. 17

201-300

2

*11.8

**13.3

—1.5

2648

Hesiod, Theog.

201-250

2

*11.9

3220

Hesiod, Erga

101-200

1

*11.9

3440

Homer, 11. 16

151-250

2

*11.9

3547

Theocritus

101-200

3

*11.9

0224+PRyl 3.547

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

1

—12.0

3441

Homer, Od. 10

101-200

3

—12.0

3442

Homer, Od. \ 1

101-150

I?(or2?)

—12.0

0688

Homer,//. 11

50-1 BC

1

*12.1

2640

Hesiod, Theog.

1-200

1

*12.25

2691

Apollonius Rhodius, 4

50 BC-AD 50

1

*12.25

3712

Euripides, Phoen.

101-200

3

*12.3

0692

Apollonius Rhodius, 4

101-200

2

*12.4

2692

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

51-100

2

**12.4

3851

Nicander, Ther.

101-200

1

*12.4

POxy

Contents

Date

2641

Hesiod, Theog.

2642

> — 2.0

>— 1.0 — 18.0

—6.0

**15.2

—3.2 (left)

> — 3.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued POxy

Contents

2540

Homer, 77. 13

2701

Date

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

>— 1.5

51-150

2

Apollonius Rhodius, 4

251-300

2? (or 3?)

*12.6 *12.6

0691

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

101-200

1

**12.8

2090

Hesiod, Theog.

126-175

1

*12.8

2700

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

201-250

2

*12.8

>~~1 V

2748

Homer, 77. 16

101-200

1

>— 1.0

3230

Hesiod, Erga

1-50

3

*12.8 *12.8

2091

Hesiod, Erga

201-250

2

—13.0

2645

Hesiod, Theog.

151-250

3

**13.0

3221

Hesiod, Erga

151-250

3

2546

Manetho Astrol.,Apot. 4

201-300?

2

0447

Homer, 77. 23

151-200

2

**13.3

0689

Hesiod, Asp.

151-250

2

*13.3

1815

Homer, 77. 1

201-300

3

*13.3

3224

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

2

*13.3

4016

Euripides, Or.

151-250

1

2333

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

1

*13.3 *13.35

2649

Hesiod, Theog.

101-200

1

*13.4

>*16.9

>—3.5

3323

Homer, 77. 15-16

151-250

1

**17.2

"—3.5

0686

Homer, 77. 2

50-1 BC

1

*13.7 **13.75

1806

Theocritus

51-100

1

—14.0

2698

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-250

2

*14.2

*13.1 -13.15

>— 2.7

16.8

—3.75

> — 1.0

-17.1

-4.0

**16.1

*2.8 >~~1 ^

>17.85

> —4.5

>—3.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued Style

Column width

1

*14.2

2? (or 1?)

**14.3

201-250

1

*14.4

Theocritus

101-200

1

**14.6

3550

Theocritus

101-200

1

*14.75

3438

Homer, 77. 1

101-300

2

*14.9

3662

Homer, 77. 5

226-275

3

—15

0223+PKoeln 5.210

Homer, 77. 5

201-250

2

3325

Moschus, Megara [sp]

51-150

1

*15.4

2226

Callimachus, Hymn 6

101-150

2

*15.85

0767

Homer, //. 1 1

101-200

1

3227

Hesiod, Erga

151-250

1

0946

Homer, 77. 2

151-300

I?(or2?)

**16.2

3663

Homer, 77. 18

201-300

1

—16.8

0694

Theocritus

101-150

1

*16.9

1179

Apollonius Rhodius, 2

176-250

1

*17.1

>*22.1

>—5.0

2334

Aeschylus, Sept.

151-200

1

*18.15

**24.0

— 6.0

3552

Theocritus

101-175

1

*18.2

3439

Homer, 77. 5

101-200

1

*18.5

0021

Homer, 77. 2

1-200

1

*18.55

0020

Homer, 77. 2

101-200

1

*19.5

0685

Homer, 77. 17

151-200

1

**20.3

POxy

Contents

Date

3839

Aristophanes, Thesm.

101-300

0687

Homer, 71. 3

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

2945

50-1 BC

—15.0 (14.0-15.5)

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

**16.8

—2.5 >— 2.5

**16.75 >*19.5

20.7 (20.5-21.1)

—2.0 (left) >— 4.5 (left)

—5.5 (4.25-6.0)

**19.85

—4.0

21.0

—4.0

**16.0 *16.15

>— 1.8 (left)

>— 1.3

—22.1

—2.6 >— 3.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued

Style

Column width

126-200

1

*24.5

Euripides, Phoen.

50 BC-AD 50

3

Menander, Dys.

151-200

3

POxy

Contents

Date

3229

Hesiod, Erga

1177+3714 2467

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

B. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite) Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn

Intercolumn width

*7.7

**11.1

—3.4

51-150

2? (or 3?) 1

**8.0

>*2.1

Homer, 77. 14

151-250

2

—8.2

>**10.1 10.2 (9.9-10.3)

1094

Homer, Od. 1 1

250-151 BC

2

[**8.6]

[**9.8]

—2.0 [—1.2] [1.2-1.4]

0400-1

Euripides, IT

101-150

1

**8.7

0863-1

Homer, //. 10

50-1 BC

2

*9.3

0774

Homer, H. 6

275-226 BC

2

**9.4

0894

Homer, II. 12

200-101 BC

2

**9.4

**11.1

—2.0

0397

Euripides, Hipp.

275-226 BC

2

*9.5

*10.8

—1.5

0897-2

Homer, R. 12

50-1 BC

1

—9.5

**11.0

—1.6

0979

Homer, R. 21

300-201 BC

2

—10.5

-12.5

—2.0

1056

Homer, Od. 4, 5

200-101 BC

m'2 m2 3? (or 2?)

*10.5

*12.3

—2.0

1129

Homer, Od. 17, 19

275-226 BC

2

**10.8

0594-1

Homer, H. 1

101-175

1

**11.0

MP

Contents

Date

0417-2

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

1286

Lycophron, Alex.

0919

)-i

2fi

.2 -5 V

s8 3*

•w

ja 1

o

Y c

a £ £ ,3

.2 ^o "S O U

•s •d •^

m CM

i

co T-H

-K

CM

7!

* | j3

"o

Euripides, Andr.

O O

in

"« §

o" 15

00 0 00 TH

s s

+ r^

0 TH

M

Homer, //. 1

§ CN 1 T-H

in

^

Moschus, Megara [t

ir>

f^

Euripides, Phoen.

T—(

sO T-H CH t-T t)

6 o E

00

•*27.8

>2.9

50-1 BC

3550

Theocritus

101-200

r

1

4028

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

r

3

**17.2

1809

Plato, Phd.

51-150

r

2? (or 1?)

*17.3

2550

Lycurgus, in Leo.

101-200?

vx

2

*17.3

3672

Plato, Leg. 6

201-300

r

2? (or 1?)

**17.3

2=1.4

2=1.7

8.1(?) 5±0.7

2=1.2 3.0(??) 7.5(?)

2=6.1

3.3(?) >2.3 7.2(?)

~22.9(??) >-26.5 >*30.1

>2.5 >4.9

>26.7 >*20.0

>4.0 >3.0 2=21.3

4.0(?) >3.9

2=**21.2

TABLE 3.2\ — continued Column height

Upper margin:}:

Lower margin:}:

1

*17.5

>2.5

>4.0

rx

1

17.7

101-200

r

2

**17.8

Thucydides, 4

201-300

r

2

*17.85

2098

Herodotus, 7

151-250

rx

1

*18.0

6.0

3663

Homer,//. 18

201-300

r

1

*18.0

3.5

0223+

Homer, H. 5

201-250

vx

2

18.1

3.6

3451

Thucydides, 8

51-150

r

1

**18.1

>4.9

>4.5

>**27.5

2751

Plato, Resp. 3

151-250

rx

2

*18.2

>1.3

2=3.7

>*23.2

3882+

Thucydides, 1

201-300

r

2

*18.2

3.1(?)

3673

Plato, Leg. 6

151-250

rx

2

*18.3

3.5(?)

3716

Euripides, Or.

150-51 BC

r

3? (or 2?)

*18.35/*20.15

4055

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300?

r

1

*18.4

4030

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-200

vx

3

-18.4

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

201-250

r

1

-18.4/20.6

2100+

Thucydides, 4-5, 8

126-175

r

2

1250

Achilles Tatius, 2

301-350

r

2468

Plato, Ph.

101-200

1805+

Sophocles, Track.

3676

r/vf

Style

151-250

rx

Homer, //. 2

101-200

4032

Aeschines, in Tim.

3900

POxy

Contents

Date

3227

Hesiod, Erga

0020

4.4(?)

5.8(?)

Roll height >24.0 27.9(?)

>3.5 >2.1

>2.3 1.9(??)

>*24.0 3.0-4.1 (??) *24.5-*25.6(??) >4.25

4.2(??)

25.6

*25.5(??) >*21.8

>1.3 2.7(??)

>*22.0 23.0(??) >25.9

>3.5/1.3

4.0(?)

18.5

3.9(?)

5.6(?)

28.0(?)

2

18.7

3.0(?)

2.7(??)

24.4(??)

r

1

*19.0

>1.9

151-200

r

2

**19.0

>2.7

Plato, Ph d.

151-200

r

2

**19.0

>2.3

3154

Homer, 11. 6

51-100

r

1

*19.1

3436

Dinarchus, in Dem.

151-250

r

2? (or 1?)

19.3

>3.5

>*20.9

>3.1

>24.8 >**21.3

>3.9

>*23.0

>4.5

>27.3

TABLE 3.3 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

4045+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

1806

Theocritus

1810

Upper margin:):

r/vf

Style

Column height

101-300

r

2

19.4

3.3(??)

51-100

r

1

*19.4

4.5(?)

Demosthenes, Olynth. i—iii, Phil, i, de Pac.

101-150

r

1

*19.4

5.8(??)

3850

Demosthenes, in Meid.

101-200

r

1

*19.4

>1.3

4033+

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-300

rx

2

*19.4

>2.0

3437

Dinarchus, in Phil.

151-250

r

2? (or 1?)

-19.5

3230

Hesiod, Erga

1-50

rx

3

19.6

3156+

Plato, Grg.

151-200

rx

1

4039

Aeschines, in Ctes.

51-150

vx

0460

Demosthenes, de Pac.

151-250

3675

Plato, Leg. 9

0698

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

1619

Herodotus, 3

3447

3.5(?) >1.9

Lower margin:}:

Roll height

2=1.4

>24.1

4.5(??)

*28.4(??)

>4.2

>*29.3

>4.1

>*24.8

4.3

27.3(?)

>2.0

^23.5

*19.7

>1.7

>*21.4

3

**19.8

>3.7

r

2

**20.1

126-175

r

1

**20.1

201-250

rx

2

*20.1(?)

51-150

r

2

*20.2

Strabo, 9

101-150

r

1

-20.2

>5.8

7.0(?)

>-33.0

2639+

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

r

3

**20.8

5:2.9

4.0(??)

>**27.7

1815

Homer, 17. 1

201-300

vx

3

*20.85

3721

Theophrastus, de Vent.

151-200

r

1

20.9

5.3(?)

2224+

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

r

1

*20.9

3.1(?)

3679

Plato, Resp. 5

201-300

r

I?(or2?)

**20.9

3842

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

r

2

**20.9

3888

Thucydides, 2

201-300

r

2

*21.0

4.1(??)

2225

Callimachus, Hymn 4

126-175

vx

2

*21.1

5.5(?)

>**20.1 >5.7

>*25.8 >*20.1

4.0(??)

5=4.2

>*28.4

>*20.85 ^2.0

>28.2 >*24.0 >**20.9

>4.8

>25.7 >*26.6

TABLE 3.3• — continued

r/vf

Style

Column height

Upper margin:]:

151-250

r

2? (or 1?)

*21.2

>2.2

Plato, Ak.i

151-200

r

2

*21.2/*18.65(?)

3220

Hesiod, Erga

101-200

r

1

**21.4

3443

Homer, Od. 17

201-300

r

2

*21.5

2092

Pindar, Ol. 2

151-200

r

2

*21.6

2181

Plato, Phd.

151-200

r

2

*21.7

0027

hocrates,Antid.

51-200

r

2

**21.8

0844

Isocrates, Paneg.

101-150

r

1

21.9

3877

Thucydides, 1,2,3

101-150

vx

3? (or 2?)

**21.9

>3.0(?)

s±3.8

>**28.7

2546

Manetho Astrol.,Apot. 4

201-300?

rx

2

-22.0

3.4(?)

>6.4

>~31.8

3841

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

r

2

**22.0

3373

Herodotus, 1

201-300

r

2

*22.25

>3.6

>*25.85

3375

Herodotus, 1

201-300

r

2

*22.4

>1.7

>*24.1

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

151-250

rx

2

*22.8

0023

Plato, Leg. 9

201-275

rx

3? (or 2?)

*22.9

>3.4

3671

Plato, La.

151-200

r

2

**23.0/**11.3

>1.2

0016+

Thucydides, 4

1-100

r

2

23.1

>1.4

3667

[Plato],^/c.ii

201-300

r

2

*23.25

3440

Homer,//. 16

151-250

r

2

23.3

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

rx

2

23.5

3376

Herodotus, 1-2

101-200

r

I?(or2?)

23.5

2095

Herodotus, 1

101-200

r

2

*23.5

POxy

Contents

Date

4100

Thucydides, 1

3666+

50-1 BC

Lower margin:):

>*23.4

>3.6/ >5.5(?) \ /

>1.5 >1.0 3.0(??)

>*24.8?/24.15?

>3.5

>**26.4

>3.0

>*24.5

=>1.2

>*23.8

3.6(?)

2.2 4.35(?)

2.5(?)

>0.7

*28.3(??) >**24.0

5.5

2.7(?)

>2.2

Roll height

31.75(?)

>*25.5 >*26.3

>2.0

>26.5

>4.5

>*27.75

>2.1

>27.6

2.5(??)

28.5(??)

>4.2

>28.4

>4.5

>*28.0

TABLE 3.3 - continued

r/vf

Style

Column height

Upper margin:}:

101-150

r

I?(or2?)

*23.5

>1.5

Herodotus, 8

151-250

r

2

**23.5

>4.5

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-250

vx

3

*23.6/*27.3

2099

Herodotus, 8

101-150

r

1

**23.85

2091

Hesiod, Erga

201-250

r

2

24.1

0230

Demosthenes, de Cor.

101-200

r

2

24.2

l-4(??)

2.2(??)

27.8(??)

1017

Plato, Phdr.

151-250

r

1

24.2

2.0(??)

2.0(??)

28.2(??)

3323

Homer,//. 15-16

151-250

r

1

24.2

3382

Herodotus, 8

151-250

r

2

*24.25(?)

0445

Homer, //. 6

101-250

r

2? (or 1?)

24.4

3223

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

vx

3

*24.4

>2.5

1019+

Chariton, 2

176-225

r

3

*24.55

>3.0

3896

Thucydides, 3

1-100

r

3? (or 2?)

*24.7/*24.1

4044

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200?

r

3

**24.8

2097

Herodotus, 1

226-275

r

2

*25.1

3901 +

Thucydides, 4

151-200

r

1

*25.2

0703

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

r

2

**25.2

3827

Homer,//. 11

101-200

r

1

*25.3(?)

>1.7?

3836

Achilles Tatius, 3

101-200

r

2

*25.9

>1.0

4111

Thucydides, 8

101-200

rx

2? (or 3?)

**25.9

3719

Euripides, IA

201-300

r

2

**26.0(?)

4042

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

r

2

**26.2

POxy

Contents

Date

3442

Homer, Od. 1 1

3383

Lower margin:):

Roll height >*25.0

>2.3

>**30.3 >*26.0/*29.7

2.4(??)

>**23.85 2.6(??)

>2.5

>3.8

>26.7

>30.5 >*24.25

3.0(?)

3.0

30.4(?) >*26.9

=»1.3

5.0(?)

>*28.85

>*30.1

4-7(?) >**25.2 >*26.9

>0.9 >**26.0(?) 2.5(??)

"T3

f^

a $

TABLE 3.3 - continued

Plato, Grg.

151-200

vx

>

2? (or 1?)

3322

Euripides, Phoen.

51-150

vx

X >

3

*27.2

0233

Demosthenes,in Tim. Demosthenes,

201-300

r

2

**28.4

2641

Hesiod,77ie0£.

201-300

vx

X >

3

29.3

>1.9

0694

Theocritus Theocritus

101-150

in

r

1

>*10.1

>4.6

0702

[Demosthenes] c. Boeot. [Demosthenes],

101-200

r

1

>*10.15

* Al

>3.8

2698

ApolloniusRhodius, Rh ApoUonius 1

151-250

r

2

>*10.2

3153

Euripides,Phoen. Phot Euripides,

151-250

r

2? (or 1?)

>*10.2

0883

Demosthenes,inAristoc. Demosthenes,

201-250

in 1

r

2

>*10.3

2648

Hesiod,Theog.

201-250

m

r

2

>*10.4

3674

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175 r^--

r

1

>*10.4

4038

Aeschines, Fah. Leg.

151-300

o>

r

2

>**10.4

3897

Thucydides, 3

101-200

o>

r

1

>*10.5

4016

Euripides, Or.

151-250

rx

1

>*10.7

Herodotus,!

201-300

r

1

>*11.2 ^H

7.0

Euripides,Or. Or. Euripides,

151-200

r

I?(or2?)

>11.2

>4.6

Thucydides,55 Thucydides,

151-250

r

2

>*11.2

£

S

C/3

hi

4— V

O

«

Al

Al

Tf

sd

CN

X

m

33.1?) sC

o

CO

ON T—1

* Al

•*31.25 r^

Al

Al

>27.9 O

rv. ON' CN

CN

ON 0

r^

>*30.1 >*28.4

Tf

00 CN •K •K

CN

1

l_i

O O CO

o

CN

S S .S

ro

f>

0.9

27.0

rv. ^^ tj O

rv. CN

X

0

o

CN 1

in

X

CM

1

0 O CO

O

3 -3z o TJ M^° .Si ^ •S34.4 Al

Al

00

CO

o

in T—i

T—i

CM 1

o o

O

XJ

S c§

vj

(S 0

o

>7.3

CO

Al

Al

SO rt

T—1

Al

O

*

T—1

1

T—1

O

O

•3.1

•*

CN CO

ON

Al

^

CO ON CN

CO

1

^^> CO

O CM

1 si

T3 _O

u

ffi

1-H Tf

so

3.2

rv.

ro CO

Al HI

Al

CO (N

CO

rv.

3.1 (?)

^^

Al Al^

CO ^

r~- LO

CN CO

\D (N

m

(N

O

T—1

O

0

•^

«s

SO •

4014

0

34.8

>2.7

>2.7 (>3.5?)

ON CN

* *

0462

>4.5

CO

2

J3

in

r

:=3 o 2!

101-150

26.5

>3.9

Roll height

in

Thucydides, 1 Thucydides,!

*26.4

ON

3879

m CM 1 m

w, -y1 •&

si- .sIt

2

*26.4

CO

r

m (M 1 m

S

£ g» TT Al Jj J 2 S

CX W) Qd ** ^T «

D

151-250

W)

CM

m (N 1 m

•w J3

CM

Thucydides,77 Thucydides,

§° 4.7

1243

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

101-200

vx

2

>5.8

1249

Babrius

101-200

r

2179

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

r

1 2

2540

Homer,//. 13

r

2

>3.6

2545

Aristophanes, Eq.

51-150 50 BC-AD 50

r

1

>4.4

2549

Demosthenes, Ep. 1

101-200

r

I?(or2?)

2649

101-200

r

2691

Hesiod, Theog. Apollonius Rhodius, 4

50 BC-AD 50

r

1 1

2696

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-200

r

1

2703

Thucydides, 1

151-250

rx

2946

Triphiodorus

201-400

rx

I?(or2?) 2? (or 3?)

3231

Hesiod, Erga

151-225

r

2

>3.2

3234+

Thucydides, 1

51-150

r

3

>1.5

3377

Herodotus, 2

101-150

r

>1.1

3448

Thucydides, 1

151-300

r

I?(or2?) 2

3547

Theocritus

101-200

r

>3.5

3549

Theocritus

101-200

V

3 2

Contents

Date

0689

Hesiod, Asp.

0692

Column height

Upper margin:]:

r/vf

POxy

>2.2 >1.7 >0.8 >2.4

2.7(??)

>3.0

>1.9 5.3(??)

>6.0 >3.4 >3.0 >2.0

>3.3 >4.3

Roll height

TABLE 3.3 - continued

POxy

Contents

Date

3662

Homer, 77. 5

3668

Column height

Upper margin:):

Lower margin^:

r/vf

Style

226-275

vx

3

>0.8

[Plato], Ep. 2

101-200

r

2

>2.2

3670

Plato, Up. mai.

151-250

r

2

3680

Plato, Tht.

151-200

r

1

3681

Plato, Tht.

151-250

r

2

3684

Plutarch, Lye.

201-300

r

1

3713

Euripides, Phoen.

151-200

vx

2

>0.8

3844

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

1-100

vx

1

>1.9

3892

Thucydides, 3

151-200

rx

2

>3.1

3898

Thucydides, 4

101-300

r

2

>1.0

4037

Aeschines, Fals. Leg.

101-300

r

1

4043

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

vx

2

>1.9

4048

Aeschines, in Ctes.

1-100

r

2

>0.6

4054

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

r

2

>1.6

4103

Thucydides, 5

51-150

r

1

>4.0

4108

Thucydides, 7

151-250

rx

2

>1.6

4110

Thucydides, 8

151-200

r

2

4112

Thucydides, 8

101-200

r

3

>5.1 6.2(??) 4.1(??) 5.0(?)

>4.3

>4.8 5.6(??)

Roll height

TABLE 3.3 - continued B. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite) Column height

Upper margin:}:

Lower margin:):

1.1(?)

1.7(?)

Roll height

r/vf

Style

rx

3

10.0-10.1

100-1 BC

r

2? (or 3?)

*10.8?

Homer,//. 11

300-251 BC

r

2? (or 3?)

11.5

=±1.8

1022

Homer, Od. 1

200-151 BC

rx

3

*11.6/*12.2

>0.8

0995-1

Homer, //. 22

50-1 BC

vx

12.0

=±1.9

1564

Xenophon, Symp.

151-200?

2? (or 3?) 1

1388

Plato, Phd.

300-201 BC

r

2 •

14.4

2.9

1566

Xenophon, Vect.

101-200

r

1

14.4

?±1.6

0478

Herodotus, 5

151-200

r

1

*14.5

0337H+D

Hyperides, in Phil. + Demosthenes, Ep. 3

100-1 BC

r

2? 2

0852

Homer, //. 10

100-1 BC

vx

3

14.8

2.2

0897-2

Homer,//. 12

50-1 BC

r

1

*15.0

>2.5

>1.6

0830

Homer, //. 8

150-51 BC

r

2

**15. 1-15.5

1064

Homer, Od. 6

50 BC-AD 25

r

2

*15.3/*20.6

=±1.7

>2.8

1-100

r

1

15.9-16.3

6.3-6.8

7.9-8.4

30.5-31.0

r

1

16.0

3.8-4.0

3.8

23.6

vx

3

16.2

==2.1

3.6(??)

=±21.9

r

2? (or 1?)

16.2

>2.5

3.8(??)

>22.5

r

2

16.35

=±1.7

2.6(?)

>20.65

MP

Contents

Date

0088

Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex.

300-251 BC

0962

Homer,//. 18

0879

1233

Hyperides, in Dem.,

n/a

>2.2 >2.5

1.6(?) >2.3

=±15.8 >*14.0/*14.6 =±16.2

2.4

*14.25

14.6-15.3[H] 16.7-17.4P]

12.8(?)

3.4-3.5 2.9-3.8

3.9-4.1

21.1-21.2

>2.2

=±18.2

>7.5

>*22.0

5.2-5.5(?) 3.3-4.0 [partial column]

23.9(?) 23.8-24.0 31.0

>*19.8/>*25.1

pro Lye., pro Eux.

0980

Homer,//. 2 1,22

100-1 BC

0824-1

Homer,//. 8

151-250

0991

Homer, //. 22

150-101 BC

0300

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

1-200

TABLE 3.3 - continued Upper margin^

Lower margin^;

Roll height

>*20.8

r/vt

Style

Column height

275-226 BC

r

2

*16.45

150-101 BC

r

2

*16.5

>2.2

Homer, H. \

101-200

rx

2

*16.8

>1.8

2.2(??)

1537

Timotheus, Pers.

350-301 BC

r

2? (or 1?)

16.9

>1.4

>0.7

0329-2

[Demosthenes], in Mac.

151-250

r

1

*17.6

>1.8

0619

Homer, H. 1

250-151 BC

r

2

**17.6

>2.1

1150-1

Homer, Od. 23

25 BC-AD 25

r

1

*18.2

>4.6

£2.3

>25.1

1255

Isocrates, ad Nic.

301-400

r

2

18.4

3.4

3.4

25.2

0822

Homer, //. 8

1-100

r

2

**18.7

SI. 5

0898-1

Homer, H. 12

1-100

r

2

*19.0

1395

Plato, Soph.

r

2

**19.5

1039

Homer, Od. 3

1-100

r

1

20.2

0919

Homer, II. 14

151-250

rx

2

*20.4

0998

Homer, //. 23, 24

100-1 BC

r

2? (or 1?)

20.7-21.1

2.1-2.5 (1.8-2.5?)

2.2-2.3 (1.8-2.3?)

25.1(-*25.4)

0819

Homer, II. 8

300-251 BC

r

2

-20.7

>1.7

>0.9

>~23.3

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chers.

75-1 BC

r

3

*20.9

2.1

2.1

1286

Lycophron,/lfex.

51-150

r

1

*20.9

>2.1

1409

Plato, La.

325-276 BC

r

2

21.0

2.4(?)

0650

Homer, fl. 2

101-200

r

1

21.5

4.8(?)

0699

Homer, //. 3, 4, 5

300-251 BC

r

2

**21.5

MP

Contents

Date

0397

Euripides, Hipp.

0632

Homer, II. 2

0337D

Demosthenes: see under 0337H+D

0604-1

275-226 BC

5.9-6.0

>**20.2

>3.1

>**22.6

7.1-7.9

33.2(-*33.5)

2.2(??)

>*22.6

*25.1 >*23.0

2.5(?)

>4.0

25.9(?) S30.3

TABLE 3.3 - continued

r/vj-

Style

Column height

Upper margin:}:

Lower margin:}:

Roll height

200-101 BC

r

m'2 m2 3? (2?)

**21.5

>3.5

>2.1

>**27.1

Homer, Od. 11

250-151 BC

r

2

**21.5

0894

Homer,//. 12

200-101 BC

r

2

**21.7

>2.7

0979

Homer, //. 21

300-201 BC

r

2

*22.2

>3.0

1433

Polybius, 1 1

151-250

rx

1

*22.3

0298

Demosthenes, Pals. Leg.

101-150

rx

2

**22.3

>3.3

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

r

2

-22.5

>3.6

1387

Plato, Ap.

51-150

r

2? (or 3?)

23.2

>0.9

0486-3

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

vx

2? (or 3?)

-24.0

1556-2

Xenophon, Hell 1,2, 4

151-200

vx

3

**24.2

0857

Homer, //. 10

201-250

r

3? (or 2?)

-24.5

0784-1

Homer, H. 6

151-200

vx

3

**25.0

1552

Xenophon, Hell 1

201-250

vx

2

*25.2

0773

Homer, //. 6

150-101 BC

rx

3

*25.4-*29.4

0876-2

Homer,//. 11

101-200

vx

2

0883

Homer, //. 1 1

151-200

r

0417-2

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

0895

Homer,//. 12

0388-1

MP

Contents

Date

1056

Homer, Od. 4, 5

1094

3.0(?)

1.7(??)

>**24.4 3.1-3.2(?)

>*28.3

[3.5-4.0]

>*25.8 >**25.6

4.3(?)

3=1.4 3.3(?)

>30.4 >25.5 ~29.0(??)

3=1.6

>**25.8

3=1.6

3.0

>~29.1

3=1.6

1.9(??)

>**28.5

5.5 (5.2-5.8)

>*30.7

3=3.1

^2.6

3=*31.1-*35.1

**25.5

3=1.5

3=1.0

>**28.1

2

26.9

>2.7

3=1.0

>30.6

vx

2? (or 3?)

*28.2

>2.1

^2.4

>*32.7

201-300

r

2? (or 3?)

>*9.9

>0.6?

Euripides, Hec.

51-150

rx

2? (or 3?)

>*10.3

>0.8

1355-1

Pindar, Ol 9, 10

251-300

r

1

>*10.7

0584-1

Homer, //. 1

101-150

vx

3

>*10.8

0624-1

Homer, //. 2

251-400

vx

3

3=*11.3

1427

[Plato], dejust.

201-250

r

2

s=*11.8

>3.5

TABLE 3.3 - concluded

r/vf

Style

Column height

Upper margin:):

1-200

rx

2

£=12.1

>2.9

Homer, //. 8

1-100

r

2? (or 1?)

>*14.0

0919-1

Homer, II. 15

100-1 BC

r

2

£=15.3

0660-3

Homer, 17. 2

101-200

r

2

>22.8

0113

Appian, Iber.

201-300

r

1

>2.6

0384-1

Euripides, Bacch.

100 BC-AD 50

r

I?(or2?)

£=2.1

0400-1

Euripides, IT

101-150

r

1

>2.3

0662-01

Homer, //. 2

101-200

r

2

>2.7

0688

Homer, n. 3

250-151 BC

r

2

£=1.8

0805-1

Homer, n. 7

300-101 BC

r

2

£=1.4

1051-1

Homer, Od. 4

1-50

rx

2

£=1.2

1099

Homer, Od. 11

51-150

r

1

1129

Homer, Od. 17, 19

275-226 BC

r

2

£=1.4

1148-2

Homer, Od. 22

200-101 BC

r

2

£=1.4

1156

Homer, Od. 24

101-200

r

2

1265-1

Isocrates, Paneg.

151-250

vx

1

1563-3

Xenophon, Symp.

251-300

r

1

MP

Contents

0468

Herodotus, 1

0832

Date

Lower margin:J:

Roll height

>2.9? >2.4

>25.2

>0.6?

>5.6

>2.3 £=1.9

>2.7

t Under the column headed r/v each papyrus is marked as to whether it is written on the r(ecto) or v(erso) side, such that recto indicates writing along the fibres and verso across.Those marked with an x are papyri that were used for another document at some time in their life. Any of these papyri may therefore have been cut down from the original size. *It is difficult to say which margins are complete. I use the following system to suggest the degree of certainty: (unqualified) almost certainly complete; the margin recurs over more than one column and seems to be complete over a significant expanse (over 5 cm), or the margin is complete over a large expanse (?) probably complete; the margin recurs or seems to be complete over a significant expanse (usually over 5 cm) (??) possibly complete; the margin nearly recurs or seems to be complete over a small expanse (usually 2-5 cm) ^ no positive sign of completeness; the margin is vestigial

Table 3.4 Column width X height, prose texts (arranged by height, in centimetres, within the width classes) A. Oxyrhynchus sample POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

1. Width class I (43 examples) Width class I + height class I (13 examples, 30%) 3685

Plutarch, Sept. sap.

101-150

1

**10.8

3.2

5.7

0226+

Xenophon, Hell. 6

51-200

1

*11.5

-4.5

-6.1

4035

Aeschines, Fa/5. Leg.

101-200

2

*12.9

-5.6

-8.1

4047+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

151-200

1

13.2

4.8

>6.3

0704

Isocrates, in Soph.

201-300

2

*13.5

4.6

-6.7

2404+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

1

13.6

4.7

~7.2(?)

4041

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

1

14.7

5.1

7.7

3327

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

*14.8

*4.7

*7.4

2749

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

*14.8

5.4

7.6

1808

Plato, Resp. 8

151-200

*15.1

4.75

6.75

2102+

Plato, Phdr.

151-200

I?(or2?) 2

15.1

4.85

7.1

0026

Demosthenes, Exor.

101-200

I?(or2?)

*15.5

5.45

7.85

0463

Xenophon, An. 6

151-250

2

*16.0

5.1

*7.1

51-100

1

-16.25

5.5

7.8

201-250

1

16.2

5.6

7.6

Width class I + height class II (22 examples, 51%) 1183

Isocrates, 7f.

2101

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

TABLE 3.4 - continued Style

POxy

Contents

Date

4107

Thucydides, 7

101-200

1

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

2

0881r

Plato, Euthd.

151-250

0881v

Plato, Ly.

0227

Xenophon, Oec.

3326

Column height

Column width

Column-tocolumn -width

4.9

6.5

-16.6

-4.4

**6.4

1

*16.6

-5.1

201-250

3

**16.6(?)

5.1

51-150

1

-16.7

4.7

7.1

Plato, Resp. 8

101-200

1

16.9

4.9

7.0

2550

Lycurgus, in Leo.

101-200?

2

*17.3

4.8

*7.1

1809

Plato, PW.

51-150

2? (or 1?)

*17.3

4.9

7.0

3672

Plato, Leg. 6

201-300

2? (or 1?)

**17.3

4.9

7.2

2098

Herodotus, 7

151-250

1

*18.0

5.7

8.0

3451

Thucydides, 8

51-150

1

**18.1

**5.7

**7.2

4030

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-200

3

-18.4

5.5-*6.3

6.8-*7.9

4055

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300?

1

*18.4

5.6

>7.4

2100+

Thucydides, 4-5, 8

126-175

2

. 18.5

5.5

7.0

3676

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

**19.0

4.5

-6.5

3436

Dinarchus, Dem.

151-250

2?(orl?)

19.3

5.0

-7.0

4045+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2

19.4

5.0

6.3

4033+

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-300

2

*19.4

*5.4

*7.5

3437

Dinarchus, Phil.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

-19.5

5.0

7.1

3675

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

1

**20.1

-5.2

-6.8

3842

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

2

**20.9

*5.5

*7.0

**16.4(??)

*6.65

TABLE 3.4 - continued POxy

Contents

Style

Column height

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

201-300

2

*22.25

4.95

-6.45

1-100

2

23.1

5.15

6.35 7.45

Date

Width class I + height class III (8 examples , 19%) 3373

Herodotus, 1

0016+

Thucydides, 4

3376

Herodotus, 1—2

101-200

I?(or2?)

23.5

5.5

2099

Herodotus, 8

101-150

1

**23.85

4.8

*6.3

3382

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

*5.4

*7.4

0703

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

2

**25.2

-5.5

-7.15

4111

Thucydides, 8

101-200

2? (or 3?)

**25.9

*5.6(?)

*7.5(?)

0454+

Plato, Grg.

151-200

2? (or 1?)

27.0

5.7

6.7

*24.25(?)

Transitional area between width class I and II (5.8-5.9 cm, 7 examples) 26-100

2

*16.9

*5.9

*7.1

Plato, Ph.

101-200

1

*19.0

5.8

8.3

4044

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200?

3

**24.8

5.9

8.1

3836

Achilles Tatius, 3

101-200

2

*25.9

5.8

-7.5

4042

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

2

**26.2

-5.8-5.9

*7.2

3879

Thucydides, 1

101-150

2

**26.5

5.8

7.8

0233

Demosthenes, in Tim.

201-300

2

**28.4

-5.8

-7.3

**12.9

7.0

9.6

14.6

6.5

8.1

0225

Thucydides, 2

2468

2. Width class II (38 examples) Width class II x height class I (2 examples, 5%) 3895

Thucydides, 3

200-300

1

3435

Demosthenes, Olynth. i

101-200

2? (or 1?)

TABLE 3.4 - *7.4

TABLE 3.4 - continued

POxy

Contents

0027

Isocrates, ;4tt£u/.

0844

Column-tocolumn width

Style

Column he jht

Column width

51-200

2

**21.8

-6.5

Isocrates, Paneg.

101-150

1

21.9

6.0

-8.1

3877

Thucydides 1,2,3

101-150

3? (or 2?)

**21.9

**7.5

**9.0

3841

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

2

**22.0

*7.3

*9.0

3375

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

*22.4

*6.0

*7.5

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

151-250

2

*22.8

7.3

*8.9

0023

Plato, Leg. 9

201-275

3? (or 2?)

*22.9

6.5

-8.5

3671

Plato, La.

151-200

2

2095

Herodotus, 1

101-200

2

*23.5

-7.5

-9.45

3383

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

**23.5

7.5

*9.5

1017

Plato, Phdr.

151-250

1

24.2

6.4

8.4

3896

Thucydides, 3

-6.4

-8.0

2097

Herodotus, 1

3901+

Thucydides, 4

Date

1-100

3? (or 2?)

**23.0/**11.3

*24.7/*24.1

6.1

226-275

2

*25.1

6.3

-8.0

151-200

1

*25.2

6.4

8.2

*8.1

3372

Herodotus, 1

51-150

2

*26.4

6.5

1376

Thucydides, 7

151-250

2

26.5

6.0

8.1

0462

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

2

*26.85

*6.15

*7.65

3. Width class III (8 examples) 3444

Isocrates, Ev.

151-250

2

16.2

*7.95

3889

Thucydides, 2

151-250

2

*16.6

*8.4

*9.7

TABLE 3.4 - continued Column width

Column-tocolumn width

**17.8

*8.0

**9.7

2

*18.2

-8.2

-10.0

1

*19.4

8.6

>10.1

2

23.5

8.3

101-200

2

24.2

8.1

176-225

3

*24.55

8.8

Style

POxy

Contents

Date

4032

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

2

3882+

Thucydides, 1

201-300

3850

Demosthenes, in Meid.

101-200

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

0230

Demosthenes, de Cor.

1019+

Chariton, 2

50-1 BC

Column height

9.2

4. Aberrantly wide (2 examples)

2181

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

*21.7

*10.1

*11.9

3667

[Plato], Alc.ii

201-300

2

*23.25

*10.1

**11.7

Style

Column height

B. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite) MP

Contents

Date

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

1. Width class I (3 of 6 examples front height class I)

1564

Xenophon, Symp.

151-200?

1

*14.25

5.5

7.0

1566

Xenophon, Vect.

101-200

1

14.4

4.8

-7.3

0337H+D

Hyperides, in Phil. + Demosthenes, Ep. 3

100-1 BC

2? 2

14.6-1 5.3[H] 16.7-17.4 [D]

4.1 5.8

5.2 7.0

1233

Hyperides, in Dem., pro Lye., pro Eux.

1-100

1

15.9-16.3

4.95

6.95

TABLE 3.4 - concluded

MP

Contents

Date

0329-2

[Demosthenes], in Mac.

0298

1551

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Style

Column height

151-250

1

*17.6

-4.7

-7.6

Demosthenes, Fah. Leg.

101-150

2

**22.3

5.6

7.5

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

2

-22.5

5.5

7.1

*14.5

**6.3

2. Width class II (only one from height class I; 4 of 6 examples in height class III) 151-200

1

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

1-200

2

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chen.

75-1 BC

3

1433

Polybius, 1 1

151-250

1

1387

Plato, Ap.

51-150

1552

Xenophon, Hell. 1

0478

Herodotus, 5

0300

**8.2-8.6

6.0

7.3

*20.9

7.2

8.7

*22.3

6.5

[8.2]

2? (or 3?)

23.2

6.7

8.5

201-250

2

*25.2

7.5

8.8

301-400

2

18.4

*15.9

16.35

3. Aberrantly wide example

1255

Isocrates, ad Nic.

Early Ptolemaic (all from width class II; but 2 of 4 examples also in height class I) 0088

Anaximenes, Rhet . Alex.

300-251 BC

3

1388

Plato, Phd.

300-201 BC

2

14.4

1395

Plato, Soph.

275-226 BC

2

1409

Plato, La.

325-276 BC

2

-6.5 (-6.0-7.0)

7.5 (7.1-7.9)

-6.5 (-5.9—7.1)

7.9

**19.5

-7.0

-8.9

21.0

-6.5

-8.0

10.0-10.1

Table 3.5 Column width X height, verse texts (arranged by proportion of column-to-column width to height, in centimetres) A. Oxyrhynchus sample

POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

Column-tocolumn width

Column width

>17.85

*13.35

1. Oblong (i.e., column-to-column width greater than the height) 2333

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

1

-12.8

0224+

Euripides, Phocn.

201-300

1

*15.4

—18.0

2226

Callimachus, Hymn

101-150

2

*16.1

**19.85

*15.85

2334

Aeschylus, Sept.

151-200

1

*16.85/*17.4

**24.0

*18.15

0020

Homer, 11. 2

101-200

1

17.7

—22.1

*19.5

3663

Homer, //. 18

201-300

1

*18.0

21.0

—16.8

0223+

Homer, II. 5

201-250

2

18.1

20.7

—15.0

—12.0

(The following are also oblong, as we can tell from the column width) 3839

Aristophanes, Thesm.

101-300

1

13.8

*14.2

3229

Hesiod, Erga

126-200

1

14.2

*24.5

3325

Moschus, Megara [sp]

51-150

1

*14.9

*15.4

0021

Homer, 77. 2

1-200

1

15.8

*18.55

(The following are possibly oblong, considering the column width) 2090

Hesiod, Theog.

126-175

1

*12.5

*12.8

2748

Homer, fi. 16

101-200

1

14.9

*12.8

3227

Hesiod, Erga

151-250

1

*17.5

*16.15

TABLE 3.5 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

Column-tocolumn width

Column width

2. Roughly square (within 1—2 cm)

2180

Sophocles, OT

101-200

1

11.0

*11.0

*9.0

3828

Homer, Od. 22

51-150

3

11.5

*11.0

*9.3

2336

Euripides, Hel.

50-1 BC

1

**12.25

*10.6

*8.7

3324

Meleager

50 BC-AD 50

3

**13.75

*11.75

2093

Sophocles,/!/.

151-250

2

*12.8

*13.4

*10.6

2064+

Theocritus

151-200

2

14.5

*15.3

*10.5

0687

Homer, //. 3

2? (or 1?)

*15.75

**16.8

**14.3

2

15.8

*11.4

1

16.2

12.9

**19.0

**13.8

*10.05

50-1 BC

12.5(?)

3. Width to height is roughly 3:4

1819

Homer, Od. 10-12

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

1805+

Sophocles, Track.

151-200

2

1815

Homer, //. 1

201-300

3

*20.85

**16.1

*13.3

2546

Manetho Astro\.,Apot. 4

201-300?

2

-22.0

-17.1

-13.15

101-200

50-1 BC

*8.65

—10.5

4. Roughly 2:3 2337

Euripides, Med.

51-100

2? (or 1?)

*14.9

*10.1

*6.8

2335

Euripides, A ndr.

151-200

3

15.7

**10.05

**7.8

3716

Euripides, Or.

150-51 BC

3? (or 2?)

*18.35/*20.15

*12.6

*9.9

TABLE 3.5 — continued Style

Column height

Column-tocolutnn width

Column width

51-100

1

*19.1

**12.9

*9.9

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

1

*20.9

*12.8 or **14.8

*9.8

2225

Callimachus, Hymn

126-175

2

*21.1

13.0

3443

Homer, Od. 17

201-300

2

*21.5

**13.3

*11.8

3442

Homer, Od. 1 1

101-150

I?(or2?)

*23.5

**15.2

—12.0

2091

Hesiod, Erga

201-250

2

24.1

16.8

3323

Homer, 77. 15-16

151-250

1

24.2

**17.2

*13.7

2092

Pindar, Ol. 2

151-200

2

*21.6

*9.4

*5.9

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-250

3

**12.5(?)

*10.45

0445

Homer, It. 6

101-250

2? (or 1?)

24.4

11.7

—8.25

3223

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

3

*24.4

*13.1

—8.6

3719

Euripides, LA

201-300

2

**26.0(?)

**12.0

**9.0

3155

Homer, //. 15

151-250

2

*26.4

3322

Euripides, Phoen.

51-150

3

*27.2

POxy

Contents

3154

Homer, II. 6

2224+

Date

— 10.0

~~13.0

5. Closer to 1:2

*23.6/*27.3

*13.35 **15.6

—10.0 *11.6

TABLE 3.5 - continued B. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite)

MP

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

Column-toColumn width

Column width

1. Oblong (i.e., column-to-column width greater than the height) 0962

Homer,//. 18

100-1 BC

2? (or 3?)

*10.8?

**15.9

*15.3

0879

Homer,//. 11

300-251 BC

2? (or 3?)

11.5

**13.15

**11.8

1064

Homer, Od. 6

50 BC-AD 25

2

*15.3/*20.6

>17.0

—12.0

1537

Timotheus, Pers.

350-301 BC

16.9

23.1

—20.5

0650

Homer, II. 2

101-200

2? (or 1?) 1

21.5

**26.7

*22.2

(The following are also probably oblong, as we can tell from the column width)

1022

Homer, Od. 1

200-151 BC

3

*11.6/*12.2

*13.9

0995-1

Homer, II. 22

50-1 BC

2? (or 3?)

12.0

*11.7

2. Roughly square (within 1—2 cm) 0830

Homer, II. 8

150-51 BC

2

**15.1-15.5

0980

Homer,//. 2 1,22

100-1 BC

1

0632

Homer, //. 2

150-101 BC

**14.0

**11.5

16.0

17.5

—15.0

2

*16.5

**15.3

*13.3

*15.0

**11.0

—9.5

16.2

**12.7

*11.6

3. Width to height is roughly 3:4 0897-2

Homer, //. 12

50-1 BC

1

0991

Homer, //. 22

150-101 BC

2? (or 1?)

TABLE 3.5 - concluded

Style

Column height

Column-toColumn width

Column width

101-200

2

*16.8

**14.4

*12.3

250-151 BC

2

**17.6

**13.6

*11.9

1-100

2

**18.7

**15.5

*13.0

1-100

1

20.2

-17.2

— 12.0

2

*16.45

*10.8

*9.5

2? (or 1?)

20.7-21.1

14.3

—11.5

MP

Contents

Date

0604-1

Homer, //. 1

0619

Homer, //. 1

0822

Homer, //. 8

1039

Homer, Od. 3

4. Roughly 2:3 0397

Euripides, Hipp.

275-226 BC

0998

Homer, U. 23, 24

100-1 BC

0699

Homer, //. 3, 4, 5

300-251 BC

0857

Homer,//. 10

0919

2

**21.5

**13.0

**12.0

201-250

3? (or 2?)

-24.5

-15.3

—13.0

Homer,//. 14

151-250

2

*20.4

10.2

—8.2

0819

Homer, //. 8

300-251 BC

2

-20.7

*12.3

*11.0

1056

Homer, Od. 4, 5

200-101 BC

2/3?

**21.5

*12.3

*10.5

1094

Homer, Od. 1 1

250-151 BC

2

**21.5

[**9.8]

[**8.6]

0894

Homer,//. 12

200-101 BC

2

**21.7

**11.1

**9.4

0979

Homer,//. 21

300-201 BC

2

*22.2

-12.5

—10.5

0773

Homer, //. 6

150-101 BC

3

**14.3

**12.8

0417-2

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

**11.1

*7.7

5. Closer to 1:2

2? (or 3?)

*25.4-*29.4 *28.2

TABLE 3.6 Estimated roll height (ordered by roll height, in centimetres) A. Oxyrhynchus sample, 47 examples Style

r/v

Column height

Upper margin

Lower margin

Estimated roll height

Col./roll height

151-200

3

vx

15.7

1.0(?)

1.2(?)

17.9

88%

101-200

2

r

*12.9

4.0(?)

19.4-22.4

58-66%

1-200

1

r

15.8

1.5(??)

2.5(?)

19.8-22.3

71-80%

Demosthenes, Olynth. i

101-200

2?

r

14.6

3.5

20.1-23.1

63-73%

1808

Plato, Resp. 8

151-200

1?

r

*15.1

4.0(?)

21.6-24.6

61-70%

3444

Isocrates, Ev.

151-250

2

r

16.2

3.2(?)

21.1

77%

2404+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

1

r

13.6

5.0

22.1-25.1

54-62%

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

50-1 BC

1

r

16.2

2.8(?)

3.8

22.8

71%

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

2

r

-16.6

3.0(??)

3.3(?)

22.9-24.7

67-72%

1809

Plato, Phd.

51-150

2?

r

*17.3

4.0(?)

23.8-26.8

65-73%

3673

Plato, Leg. 6

151-250

2

rx

*18.3

3.5(?)

23.8-26.8

68-77%

1250

Achilles Tatius, 2

301-350

2

r

18.7

3.0(?)

24.4-26.2

71-77%

0027

Isocrates, Antid.

51-200

2

r

**21.8

2.2

25.0-27.7

79-87%

2102+

Plato, Phdr.

151-200

2

r

15.1

5.3

4.8

25.2

60%

2101

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

1

r

16.2

3.9

5.3

25.4

64%

3882+

Thucydides, 1

201-300

2

r

*18.2

3.1(?)

4.2(??)

25.5-25.9

70-71%

r

*18.0

3.5

4.1(?)

25.6

70%

25.6-28.6

73-82%

4.0(?)

25.9-30.1

61-71%

4.25

26.0

70%

POxy

Contents

Date

2335

Euripides, A ndr.

4035

Aeschines, Fals. Leg.

0021

Homer, //. 2

3435

>3.4

3663

Homer,//. 18

201-300

1

2224+

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

1

r

*20.9

3.1(?)

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

201-250

1

r

-18.4/20.6

>3.5/1.3

0223+

Homer, //. 5

201-250

2

vx

18.1

3.6

>1.2 1.7(?)

2.7(??)

_c "c S \

vO

f>

a 3

TABLE 3.6 - continued *O

«H

T-H

•^ 0s

so

0^ CO ^ LO

s

00

rv.

(N

so

X*""N

so

0sT-H

rv.

CM

LO

CO

CO •^>

00

so

QX.

so

VI

Al

Al

00

NO

MD SO

S~-s.

001 ^ m so

ON

0s-

^ 0

LO

0
31.8

VI

>6.4

^N ON SO

T-H

xp 6sON SO

00

^69%

31.8

0?

5r^

T-H

69%

5.5

0

CO

79-86%

00

LO

CO sO

48-53%

31.1-34.1 31.5-34.5

in in ^ sd Al

Tj-

cO

O CM CM

rv. O

O CO

& o*^

irT

CO

T-H

^

ON

C^ON CM

CM

T-H

T-H

^-^

00

Tf

rv. Q^,

CM

r^

T-H

CM

sO

CO CO

s*~^

ITT

LO

T-H

sO

CM

"£

T-H

T-H

CO

-K

T—H

**

CM

o LO

63-69%

30.6-33.6

sP

LO

d

CM

CO CO

0s-

CM CO

T-H LO

51-56%

30.1-32.7

-

CO

0s-

CM

X X in sO

63-70%

30.2-33.2

3.0

°P OO

30.0-33.0

d CO

Al

CO CM

!s>_^-

in r^

T

>2.3

O

CO

CO

^~^

[
2.0

-

^ 7

ON CM

T-H

d CO

rv.

LO

CM

O so

O 00

rv. rv.

Tf

in

,^-*^ rv.

rv.

T}-

CO CM

o m in

CO

CO LEEEEO

^

ON CO

?

^

m

CO so

ON

rv.

^—^

•^J-

oo' in

t~-~

LO

LO

T-H

Tj-

00

SO

00 CM

Tj-

r^ r^

I

ON

in

sC

d CO

CM

LO

sO

Al

0?

CM CO

06" in

i. *^

{^s

T-H

T-H

LO

sC

LO

ON

in

CM sO

I

57-63%

28.5-31.5

2.9(?) 3.4(?)

CO LO

00 r^ SO sO ^

I

T-H

in

7±

O

-22.0

78-82%

8.1 (?) 4.35(?)

O so

|T

*

T-H

rx

2

21.9

sO

T-H

r

1

*27.2

d S LO

ON £"

CM

CM

CM

0 O

vx

3

28.5-30.0

5.5(?)

**16.4(??)

U

T-H

1

in

T-H

T-H

in

O

X

r

1

*21.1

•x ^^ '53 *O

CM

T

0

101-200

vx

3.0(?)

CM

CM

1

CM

2

24.4

Csf

T-H

1

O LO CM 1 O

126-175

r

7.5(?)

CM

T-H

7

CM

T-H

1 1 in in

2?

-16.7

ON' oo ^

rv. CM

1

LO

C

T?

101-250

r

^

T—1

O in CM

LO

1

s~-•*,

CM

1

T-H LO

51-150

T—1

T-H

T-H

in

oL

OEEEN

sO

EEEEEEfi O 0, f.4

rx

71-77%

28.3-30.4

CO

0844

4.5(??)

4.5(?)

66%

3.6(?)

CO

51-150

Isocrates,Paneg. Paneg. Isocrates,

*19.4

28.0

LO

3322

Euripides,Phoen. Phoen. Euripides,

r

3.0(??)

5.6(?)

27.9

CO

2225

Callimachus,Hymn Hyi CaUimachus,

r

3.9(?)

>8.6

T-H

Homer,//. 6

18.5

6.5(?)

27.9

T-H

0445

r

63%

5.8(?)

CO

Xenophon, Oec. 8-9

-12.8

4.4(?)

si

0227

r

53-58%

d CO

1

17.7

27.6-30.6

CO

151-200

rx

71%

T-H

2096+

1

6.5

72 d d

1

16.1

27.3(?)

LO

151-200

Herodotus, 1 Herodotus,!

r

4.3

00 CM

3721

CJ o O o o LO o o m_l CM CM CM

1

2

3.5(?)

4;

151-250

Theophrastus,EE de Theophrastus, de Vent.

-19.5

60%

27.2(?)

00 CM

2098

r

5.8(?)

CO 00 CM

1 o LO

2

2?

5.1(?)

60-63% 77-85%

26.7-29.7

O 00 CM

50-1 BC

Herodotus,77 Herodotus,

-16.25

57-61%

CM

1377

r

2.7(?)

Col./roll height

CM

1

*22.8

CM

51-100

Demosthenes,dedeCor. Demosthenes,

rx

>3.2

'55 1 sd sd sd CM CM CM

CM 1

1806

in [--^ O o o 0 T-H

2

rx

16.9

W

oEE~

151-200

Theocritus Theocritus

ON

Plato, Phd.

«H

T-H

2181

O

1

2

IH

126-175

a *^\

2100+

4.9

CD

1

1

101-200

ThucydidEEEes, Thucydides, 4-5,84-5

•4.9

15.8

ttimatedroll Estimated height 26.0-27.7

>5.0

Tt

1

Lower margin

LO

51-100

Dinarchus,EEE Dinarchus, Phil. Phil.

ce

Isocrates,Tr. Tr. Isocrates,

C c

1183

00

2

*rf

151-250

is

0232

o LO o O CME CM 1 1 0 in

1

LO

s

101-200

Demosthenes,ininTim. Demosthenes,

"S>

Plato, Resp. 8

fl J3 .2.

3326

r

Upper margin

ON 00 2.7

3.1(?)

32.3-34.2

77-82%

r

-20.2

>5.8

7.0(?)

33.0-35.7

57-61%

1

r

*25.2

33.1-36.1

70-76%

226-275

2

r

*25.1

5.0(?)

33.6-36.6

69-75%

101-150

2

r

**26.5

4.1(?)

36.2-39.2

68-73%

Style

r/v

Column height

Lower margin

Estimated roll height

Col./roll height

151-200?

1

n/a

*14.25

2.4

17.6-20.6

69-81%

1-200

2

r

16.35

2.6(?)

20.7-23.0

71-79%

POxy

Contents

Date

1376

Thucydides, 7

3447

Style

r/v

151-250

2

r

Strabo, 9

101-150

1

3901+

Thucydides, 4

151-200

2097

Herodotus, 1

3879

Thucydides, 1

Column height

4.7(?)

B. Comparison sample, 21 examples MP

Contents

Date

Upper margin

1. Roman era 1564

Xenophon, Symp.

0300

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

1255

Isocrates, ad Nic.

301-400

2

r

18.4

3.4

3.4

25.2

73%

0857

Homer, //. 10

201-250

3?

r

-24.5

>1.6

3.0

29.1-32.0

77-84%

0486-3

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

2?

vx

-24.0

1.7(??)

3.3(?)

29.1-32.1

75-82%

0650

Homer, //. 2

101-200

1

r

21.5

4.8(?)

30.3-32.6

66-71%

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

2

r

-22.5

4.3(?)

30.4-32.6

69-74%

1233

Hyperides, in Dem., pro Lye., pro Eux.

1-100

1

r

16.1

6.3-6.8

7.9-8.4

30.5-31.0

52-53%

1039

Homer, Od. 3

1-100

1

r

20.2

5.9-6.0

7.1-7.9

33.2

61%

1552

Xenophon, Hell 1

201-250

2

vx

*25.2

5.5

34.7-37.7

67-73%

>1.7

>3.6

>4.0

T3

"o CJ

^

•W

^N

'53

TU

xO ON

0s-

00

LO

NO

T-H 1

so xP

%o

?:

ON CO CM

CO

ON CO CM

00

CM

vO CO CM

T-H

CM

sp

xp sP

ON

00

T-H

CM

CO 00

T-H

CM

CO 00

CM

LO

LO

LfS

0

ON ON CM

00

ON CM 00 CN

o

4 4

0 ^«O CM CO

*22.2

"Si

CM

r

^"

2

CM

300-201 BC

«

1

Homer,//. 21

^

cf T-H

0979

CO'

**21.5

T-H

rv.

CO

CO

r

CM

^»

CO

0.8

Demosthen Ep. 3 Demosthenes,

1.1(?)

68% 23.6

72-83%

14.2-16.5

*11.8

3.8

79%

12.8

Lower margin r/v

0088

8 \

I

2. Ptolemaic erara

Upper margin

21.2

Col./roll height

Estimated roll height

Style Date ontents Contents

MP

sO f}

TABLE 3.6 - concluded

TABLE 3.7 Reconstructed rolls: roll length (ordered by roll length, in metres; lengths are simple calculations, not necessarily to be taken at face value; cf. §3.6 for discussion of significance) A. Oxyrhynchus sample Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

151-250

2

32 (or 33?)

546

1

14

1.2

Demosthenes, Olynth. i

101-200

2?

28 (27-8?)

593 (589-97)

3

16

1.3

0445

Homer, 77. 6

101-250

2?

44.7 (43-7)

3

12

1.4

0704

Isocrates, in Soph.

201-300

2

27

1

3155

Homer,//. 15

151-250

2

63.5 (63-4)

1

21(+) 12

3828

Homer, Od. 22

51-150

3

33

1

16

2094+

Lycophron, Alex.

101-175

2

[44-6 or 48-5 !(?)]

3223

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

3

56.8 (56-7)

3442

Homer, Od. 11

101-150

1?

2546

Manetho Astrol.,Apot. 4

201-300?

3836

Achilles Tatius, 3

3667

[Plato], Alc.'u.

0687

Homer, //. 3

3837

Achilles Tatius, 8

1183

Isocrates, Tr.

1250

Achilles Tatius, 2

POxy

Contents

Date

0460

Demosthenes, de Pac.

3435

367

1.4 (+) 1.6

1.75

[30/33]

[2.7-3.0]

4

15

2.0

42 [41-2]

1

16

2.4

2

43 (42-6)

2

15

2.6

101-200

2

47 (47-8)

774 (730-818)

2

35

2.6

201-300

2

33.5 (33-4)

851 (839-62)

2

24

2.8

2?

25

1

17

2.9

201-300

2

38-9

925

1

33

2.9

51-100

1

29

474 (467-83)

3

39

3.0

301-350

2

41.3 (41-2)

914 (895-936)

3

38

3.3

50-1 BC

TABLE;3.7

— continued

POxy

Contents

Date

2335

Euripides, Andr.

2091

Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

38 (37-9)

2

33

3.3

2

42.5 (42-3)

2

20

3.4

201-300

2

51(?)

1

31(?)

201-300

3

25.5 (25-6)

2

24

3.9

45 (42-7?)

1

44?

4.0 (?)

1

30

4.1

Style

Lines/ column

151-200

3

Hesiod, Erga

201-250

3719

Euripides, IA

1815

Homer, //. 1

3679

Plato, Resp. 5

201-300

1?

1805+

Sophocles, Track.

151-200

2

44

3663

Homer, H. 18

201-300

1

32.2 (32-4?)

Letters/ column

1105

13

3.7 (?)

19-20

4.1

58

4.2

0233

Demosthenes, in Tim.

201-300

2

58

1286

1

3721

Theophrastus, de Vent.

151-200

1

31

513 (505-19)

3

52

4.2

3841

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

2

1182

1

48

4.3

2224+

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

1

46 44 [44_6]

1

33-4

4.3/5.0

1819

Homer, Od. 10-12

101-200

2

40

1

(43)

(4.9)

15

1.7 (Od. 10)

16

1.8 (Od. 11)

12

1.4 (Od. 12)

[72-94]

[5.3-8.4?]

3666+

Plato, Alc.i

151-200

2

37-38 (PHarr) 34(?)

(POxy)

514

1

714(?)

1

2337

Euripides, Med.

51-100

2?

27

1

52-3

5.3 (excerpt?)

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

50-1 BC

1

33

2

41-3

5.4

3675

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

1

34 (33?)

599

1

83

5.6

0228

Plato, La.

101-200

2

32

557 (542-77)

4

66

5.7

TABLE 3.7 - continued Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

151-250

2

47

1179

151-250

1

(50)

POxy

Contents

Date

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

3323

Homer,!/. 15-16

50

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

1

64

5.7

(2)

(33)

(5.7)

15

2.6 (H. 15)

2

18

3.1 (17. 16)

Columns extant

2181

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

55.2 (53-7)

2195 (1963-2450)

26

49

5.8

0023

Plato, Leg. 9

201-275

3?

41

725 (722-7)

2

70-1

6.0

0881r

Plato, Euthd.

151-250

1

35 '

636

1

92

6.1

3382

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

49(?)

1035(?)

1

82(?)

6.1 (?)

3842

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

2

35 (34-36)

651 (643-58)

2

88

6.2

3673

Plato, Leg. 6

151-250

2

36

692

1

84

6.4

3322

Euripides, Phoen.

51-150

3

43

1

41

6.4 (excerpt?)

3685

Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv.

101-150

1

28 (27?)

361

1

127

6.6

0463

Xenophon,/ltt. 6

151-250

2

28 (27-9)

370 (350-81)

8

96

6.8

2093

Sophocles,/!/.

151-250

2

26 [25-6]

1 [3]

51-6

6.8-7.5

0016+

Thucydides, 4

1-100

2

50.3 (48-53?)

1088 (1049-1158)

9

108

6.9

4030

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-200

3

35 (33-7)

679 (639-733)

5

102

6.9-8.1

1810

Demosthenes, Olynth. i-iii, Phil, i, de Pac.

101-150

1

31.7 (30-3)

663 (627-717) [661]

23 [62]

(84)

(7.0)

32

679

2

14

1.2 (O/.i)

TABLE 3.7 — continued POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

7

16

1.3 (O/. ii)

697

2

17

1.4 (O/.iii)

31.8 (31-3)

662

10

26

2.2 (Ph. i)

32

675

2

11

0.9 (Pax)

646 (634-66)

5

93

7.1

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

31.3 (30-2)

648

32

2101

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

1

35.8 (35-6)

3716

Euripides, Or.

150-51 BC

3?

31 (or 34?)

1

56/51

7.1/6.4

2336

Euripides, Hel

50-1 BC

1

25

2

68

7.2

3383

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

47 (46-8)

1110 (1086-1134)

2

75-7

7.2

3676

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

46-7 (46-8?)

959 (952-65)

2

110

7.2

0844

Isocrates, Paneg.

101-150

1

39.1 (37-41)

649 (606-716)

19

91

7.4

1376

Thucydides, 7

151-250

2

50.9 (47-53)

978 (890-1050)

19

91

7.4

1809

Plato, Phd.

51-150

2?

46

1003 (960-1046)

2

105

7.4

1808

Plato, Resp. 8

151-200

1?

29.4 (29-30)

367 (351-80)

5

111

7.5

0698

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

2

37?

694?

1

87?

7.5 (?)

4028

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

3

36

723 [748]

8[1]

96 [93]

7.6 [7.4]

4033+

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-300

2

44

684 [662]

3[1]

102 [105]

7.7 [7.9]

0020

Homer, //. 2

101-200

1

25

4

35

7.7

TABLE 3.7 - continued Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

32/34

7.7/8.2

18

38-9

8.0

861 (766-989)

10

119

8.0

45-47?

756

2

13.1-2

8.3 (4045)

39 (40?)

707

1

140-1

8.9 (4053)

Style

Lines/ column

151-200

1

31-2

Homer, U. 5

201-250

2

24.3 (22-6)

0454+

Plato, Grg.

151-200

2?

48.3 (46-51)

4045+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2

POxy

Contents

Date

2334

Aeschylus, Sept.

0223+

Letters/ column

Columns extant

1

2751

Plato, Resp. 3

151-250

2

27.3 (27-8)

512 (495-536)

3

94-6

8.4

0026

Demosthenes, Exor.

101-200

1?

25.5 (25-6)

453 (438-74)

6

108

8.5

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

2

40.6 (39-41)

960 (923-1013)

10

133

8.5

2180

Sophocles, OT

101-200

1

20 (19-20?)

12

77

8.5

3896

Thucydides, 3

1-100

3?

46 (45?)

893

1

110

8.8

0703

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

2

45

779

1

127-8

9.1

4042

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

2

45

773

1

128

9.2

3326

Plato, Resp. 8

101-200

1

26

305 (290-313)

3

134

9.4

4032

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

2

30

703

1

99

9.6

2099

Herodotus, 8

101-150

1

41

525

1

160

10.1

2100+

Thucydides, 4-5, 8

126-175

2

33

737

1

158

10.9 (bk 4)

33 (32-4)

654

4

133

9.2 (bk 5)

38 (37-9)

839

5

120

8.3 (bk 8)

TABLE 3.7 - continued Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

51-150

2

55

1175

1

128

10.4

Thucydides, 8

101-200

2?

45

718

1

140

10.5

1619

Herodotus, 3

51-150

2

40.3 (39—41; perhaps 39-40)

951 (911-64)

6

120

10.8

4035

Aeschines, Fals. Leg.

101-200

2

25

495

1

134

10.9

0224+

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

1

29.5 (29-30)

2

61

11.0

3889

Thucydides, 2

151-250

2

29 (30?)

860

1

113-4

11.0

1017

Plato, Phdr.

151-250

1

33.1 (31(?)-35)

617 (568-672) [606]

14 [21]

133-4

11.2

2095

Herodotus, 1

101-200

2

48

1269

1

118-19

11.2 (excerpt?)

0462

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

2

46

764 [754]

1 [13]

153

11.7

3376

Herodotus, 1-2

101-200

1?

45.3 (44-7)

812 (759-881) [781]

12 [19]

157 [163]

11.8 (bk2) [12.1]

3901 +

Thucydides, 4

151-200

1

39.5 (39-40)

796 (785-806)

2

146

12.0

3373

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

45

787

1

191

12.3

2550

Lycurgus, in Leo.

101-200?

2

28

331

1

173

12.3 (exercise?)

2468

Plato, Pol

101-200

1

34

572 (554-84)

3

152

12.5

3672

Plato, Leg. 6

201-300

2?

28.5 (28-9)

319 (314-24)

2

175-6

12.6

POxy

Contents

3372

Herodotus, 1

4111

Date

TABLE 3.7 - continued Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

3

143

13.2

10

151-3

13.4

1

177

14.3

401 (375-427)

8

201

14.4

26

463

1

210-12

15.0

2

40 (37-43) [41 (37-47)?]

605 (549-660) [644 (549-752)?]

2 [5?]

197 [185?]

15.5 [14.4?]

151-250

1

29.5 (29-31)

469 (456-93)

4

209

15.9

51-150

1

30

389 (383-96)

5

225 (?)

16.0 (?)

Thucydides, 1

201-300

2

29

734 (727-39)

3

164

16.4

3888

Thucydides, 2

201-300

2

35 (34?)

552

1

176

16.7

3451

Thucydides, 8

51-150

1

[29] (2=26)

[410]

[19]

[245]

17.6

3900

Thucydides, 4

201-300

2

33.25 (32-5)

534

4

216-18

17.9-18.1

2404+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

1

28

373 (368-77)

2

267

19.2

2097

Herodotus, 1

226-275

2

37

634

1

237

19.3

3375

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

35

551

1

272

20.4

4041

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

1

31.3 (30-2)

364 [359]

17 [3]

271 [275]

20.9 [21. 2]

Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

101-200

2

35.7 (35-6)

815 (785-830)

Strabo, 9

101-150

1

34.0 (33-6)

610 (582-640)

4044

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200?

3

32 (31?)

558

2102+

Plato, Phdr.

151-200

2

28.75 (28-9)

0225

Thucydides, 2

26-100

2

3879

Thucydides, 1

101-150

2749

Thucydides, 2

0227

Xenophon, Oec.

3882+

POxy

Contents

Date

0230

Demosthenes, de Cor.

3447

Columns extant

TABLE i3.7 — continued Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

151-200

1

30.6 (29-32)

510 (478-547)

10

290

22.9

Plato, Gig.

151-200

1

27? (26-8) (also 35?)

371? (362-79)

2

322? (302-22?)

3327

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

27

264

1

371

27.5

3895

Thucydides, 3

200-300

1

22

323

1

300

28.8

2098

Herodotus, 7

151-250

1

29.1 (29-30)

376 (362-402)

10

371

29.1

2333

Aeschylus, .Sept.

101-200

1

18

2

60-1

>10.8

3229

Hesiod, Erga

126-200

1

18

1

46

0021

Homer, fl. 2

1-200

1

20

1

44

2697

Apollonius Rhodius, 2

201-250

2

23

1

56

4047+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

151-200

1

24

1

378

>23.8

3839

Aristophanes, Thesm.

101-300

1

25

1

>7.1

3325

Moschus, Megara [sp]

51-150

1

25

1

50 ?

0226+

Xenophon, Hell.

51-200

1

25 (25-6?)

2

169-70

2226

Callimachus, Hymn

101-150

2

25.5 (25-6)

2

?

2064+

Theocritus

151-200

2

25.6 (25-8)

19

?

2829

Menander, Epit.

251-350

3

25.7 (25-6)

3

34-8

2090

Hesiod, Theog.

126-175

1

26 (25-7?)

2

40

3550

Theocritus

101-200

1

26 or 37-9 or >42

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

2

27

1

241

POxy

Contents

Date

2096+

Herodotus, 1

3156+

50-1 BC

261

333 (329-37)

483

26.4 (?) (24.7-26.4?)

TABLE 3.7 - continued Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

Estimated roll length (m)

201-300?

1

28

448

16.

224

>16.6

Aeschines, in Ctes.

51-150

3

29

542 [524]

5 [1]

184 [190]

>13.6 [14.4]

1806

Theocritus

51-100

1

30.5 (30-1)

2

3877

Thucydides, 1,2,3

101-150

3?

30.5 (30-1)

? excerpts?

POxy

Contents

Date

4055

Aeschines, in Ctes.

4039

101-200

1

32

51-150

1

32 or >43

Hesiod, Erga

151-250

1

34

3444

Isocrates, Ev.

151-250

2

34

1177+

Euripides, Phoen.

50 BC-AD 50

3

2643

Hesiod, Theog.

101-300

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

3850

667 (647-709)

4

[179]

[16.1] (bk 1)

[146]

[13.1] (bk 2)

[145]

[13.0] (bk 3)

1

27

1

24

1

28

34-6

1

33-6

2?

35

1

30

201-250

1

35 or 39

1

35/39

Demosthenes, in Meid.

101-200

1

35.3 (35-6)

3

101/107

>10.2/>10.8

2225

Callimachus, Hymn

126-175

2

35.6 (35-6)

7

4100

Thucydides, 1

151-250

2?

37

1

? 195

>14.4

3443

Homer, Od. 17

201-300

2

38.5 (39-40)

2

16

3440

Homer, 77. 16

151-250

2

41 [40-1]

1

21-2

2092

Pindar, Ol. 2

151-200

2

42 (41-3)

2

3154

Homer, 11. 6

51-100

1

43 (42-4?)

2

? 12-13

2748

Homer,//. 16

3233

Isocrates,^»ftU

3227

•

916

745 (728-66) 620

TABLE 3.7 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

3220

Hesiod, Erga &Aspis

101-200

Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

1

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

(34) 39 [38-9]

2 [6]

21 (Erga) 13 (Aspis)

1091

Bacchylides, Dith.

0027

126-175

3

[45?]

Isocrates,Antid.

51-200

2

46

2641

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

3

2639+

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

1019+

Chariton, 2

3671

[3/4] 1

96

47

1

22

3

49

2

21-22

176-225

3

50

1154 (1133-72)

3

20

Plato, La.

151-200

2

51-2 or 25-6

963/482

1/2

38/76

3827

Homer, n. 11

101-200

1

52(?)

1

17

2638

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

2

[22-3 or 45]

[1/2]

[45-7/23]

3226

Hesiod, Erga

101-250

1?

[25 or 33 or 50]

[4/3/2]

[33/25/17]

0875+

Sophocles, Ant.

101-150

2

[27 or 15-16]

[9/16]

3825

Homer, //. 1

101-150

2?

[30 or 60]

[3/2]

[21/11]

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-250

3

[45or51(?)J

[1]

[31/27]

Style

Lines/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

1042

>2.2

B. Comparison sample Letters/ column

MP

Contents

Date

0894

Homer,//. 12

200-101 BC

2

45.4

7

11

1.2

0897-2

Homer, //. 12

50-1 BC

1

38.5 (38-9)

2

13

1.4

TABLE 3.7 - continued Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

5

14-16

1.4-1.6

1

[20]

[1.8] (excerpts?)

31

1

17

2.2

3

32.2 (30-6)

5

16

2.3

201-250

3?

39 (36-41)

11

15

2.3

300-251 BC

2

30/33.5

19-23

2.3-2.9 if bk 8 only

(36-42)

(4.4-5.2 if bk 7+8)

1

17

2.4

16

27

2.4

Style

Lines/ column

2

35.5 (35-6)

75-1 BC

3

42

Homer, Od. 22

200-101 BC

2

0773

Homer, //. 6

150-101 BC

0857

Homer, H. 10

0819

Homer, /7. 8

MP

Contents

Date

0919

Homer,//. 14

151-250

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chers.

1148-2

Letters/ column

1121

5?

0830

Homer, //. 8

150-51 BC

2

34

1552

Xenophon, Hell. 1

201-250

2

42.8 (40-3)

0604-1

Homer, //. 1

101-200

2

35.5 (33-6)

5

17

2.5

0822

Homer, //. 8

1-100

2

34

1

17

2.6

1094

Homer, Od. 11

250-151 BC

2

44 (22 verses)

1

26

2.6 (excerpts?)

0991

Homer, /7. 22

150-101 BC

2?

25 (25-5)

6

21

2.7

0417-2

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

2?

55.5 (55-6)

2

32

3.6

1056

Homer, Od. 4, 5

200-101 BC

2/3?

38.7 (36-42?)

7

35

4.3

1409

Plato, La.

325-276 BC

2

32.5 (32-4)

611 (586-681)

4

60

4.8

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

2

48.1 (46-50)

773

10

72

5.1

1387

Plato, Ap.

51-150

2?

41.5 (41-2)

692 (683-700)

2

61

5.2

0329-2

[Demosthenes], in Mac.

151-250

1

35

443

1

75

5.7

794

TABLE 3.7 — continued Estimated cols, /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

4

37

5.7

19.5 (19-20)

2

44

5.8

2?

17

2

37

5.9 (excerpts?)

275-226 BC

2

27

1

55

6.0

Xenophon, Symp.

151-200?

1

27.3 (27-8)

539 (521-65)

3

85

6.0

1566

Xenophon, Vect.

101-200

1

25

242

1

83

6.1

0998

Homer, //. 23, 24

100-1 BC

2?

39.5 (38-42)

34

44

6.3 (E. 23-4)

0699

Homer, 11. 3, 4, 5

300-251 BC

2

39.5 (39-40)

2

49

6.4 (II. 3-5)

12

1.6 (n. 3)

14

1.8 (11.4)

23

3.0 (//. 5)

91

6.7

Style

Lines/ column

150-101 BC

2

25.3 (24-6)

Homer, tt. 11

300-251 BC

2?

0962

Homer, W. 18

100-1 BC

0397

Euripides, Hipp.

1564

MP

Contents

Date

0632

Homer, H. 2

0879

Letters/ column

Columns extant

0300

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

1-200

2

32 (31-3)

630 (618-40)

3

1233

Hyperides, in Dem., pro Lye., pro Eux.

1-100

1

27.7 (27-9)

420 (393-450)

97

>97 (near complete)

1039

Homer, Od. 3

1-100

1

34.8 (34-6)

6

40

6.9 (Od. 1-3, guaranteed by colophon)

0979

Homer, H. 21

2

27-33

61-75

7.6-9.4 (if Od. 21-3)

86-105

10.8-13.1 (if E. 21-4)

300-201 BC

(12)

>6.8

TABLE 3.7 - continued Style

Lines/ column

101-200

1

24 (24-4)

Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex.

300-251 BC

3

20-4 (22.13)

1433

Polybius, 11

151-250

1

0298

Demosthenes, Fals. Leg.

101-150

1388

Plato, Phd.

1395

MP

Contents

Date

0650

Homer, //. 2

0088

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

•7

37

9.9

581 (530-643)

22

158

11.2-12.5

35.6 (35-6)

626 (600-58)

5

[150-225]

[12.3-18.5]

2

38

672

1

179

13.4

300-201 BC

2

22.2 (22-3)

548 (511-607)

13

192

15.2

Plato, Soph.

275-226 BC

2

24' (23-5)

369

207-9

18.5

0980

Homer,//. 2 1,22

100-1 BC

1

19 (19-20)

108

19.0

0478

Herodotus, 5

151-200

1

18

1

390-3

32.0-33.8

1537

Timotheus, Pers.

350-301 BC

2?

27.0 (26-9)

4

>6

£=1.4

0337H

Hyperides, in Phil +

100-1 BC

2?

26.5 (26-8)

486 (470-516)

8

0337D

Demosthenes, Ep. 3

2

32.3 (29-35)

907

12

1556-2

Xenophon, Hell. 1,2,4

3

40

1099

3

0824-1

Homer, //. 8

151-200

151-250

3

18

1

20 203

1

£=1.9 (H+D)

[174?]

[£=15.1?] (Hell 1-4) (or excerpts?)

38

[3.3] (Hell 1)

39

[3.4] (Hell. 2)

[42]

[3.7] (Hell 3)

55

[4.8] (Hell. 4)

32

TABLE:J.7 — concluded Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols. /roll

301-400

2

18

523 (477-569)

2

31

200-151 BC

3

19/20

1

23/24

1

25

1

25

MP

Contents

Date

1255

Isocrates, ad Nic.

1022

Homer, Od. 1

0995-1

Homer, 77. 22

50-1 BC

2?

21

0619

Homer, 77. 1

250-151 BC

2

25

1064

Homer, Od. 6

50 BC-AD 25

2

25/33/50

1150-1

Homer, Od. 23

25 BC- AD 25

1

30

1

13

0784-1

Homer, H. 6

151-200

3

37

1

15

0486-3

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

2?

39.3 (38-42)

8

21

0898-1

Homer, 77. 12

1-100

2

39/40

1

12

1286

Lycophron, Alex.

51-150

1

46

1

32

0876-2

Homer, 77. 1 1

101-200

2

49.3

6

18

0883

Homer, 77. 1 1

151-200

2

58

1

15

0113

Appian, Iber.

201-300

1

7

13/10/7

Estimated roll length (m)

APPENDIX 1

Papyri Included in the Sample

Listed below are all the papyri included in the sample, along with their contents, whether the text is written on recto or verso, and the date. Dates are those given by the editor except as specified; when alternatives are given, the first date is used in the analysis. Table 1A lists the Oxyrhynchus sample and IB the comparison set.Table 1C provides summaries by author and text genre. TABLE 1A Oxyrhynchus sample

POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

I 16+IV 696

Thucydides, 4.28—41 (excerpt?)

r

1-100

17

Thucydides, 2.7-8

r

101-300

18

Herodotus, 1.105-6

r

201-300

19

Herodotus, 1.76 (excerpt?)

V

101-300

20

Homer, Iliad 2.730-828

r

101-200

21

Homer, Iliad 2.745-64

r

1-200

23

Plato, Leges 9.862b-3c

r

201-275 (verso AD 295)

24

Plato, Respublica 10.607e-8a

r

201-300 151-200 (Welles)

25

Demosthenes, de Corona 244

r

201-300

26

Demosthenes, Exordia 26—9

r

101-200

27

hocrates,Antidosis 77, 81

r

51-200

29

Euclid, 2.5

r

251-350

232

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

II 223+PKoelnV 210

Homer, Iliad 5.1-705 passim

v

201-250 (recto AD 186)

224+PRyl III 547

Euripides, Phoenissae 646-57, 1017-43, 1064-71

r

201-300 151-200 (PRyl)

225

Thucydides, 2.90.5-6, 91.1-2

r

26-100

226+PSIXVII

Xenophon, Hellenica 6.5.7-9

r

51-200 51-150 (RossumSteenbeck)

227

Xenophon, Oeconomicus 8.17-9.2

r

51-150

228

Plato, Laches 197a-8a

r

101-200

229

Plato, Phaedo 109c-d

r

101-200

230

Demosthenes, de Corona 40—7

r

101-200

231

Demosthenes, de Corona 227-9

r

51-150

232

Demosthenes, in Timocratem 53—4, 56—8

r

151-250

233

Demosthenes, in Timocratem 145—6, 150

r

201-300

III 445

Homer, Iliad 6.128-48, 173-99, 445-529

r

101-250

446

Homer, Iliad 13.58-99

r

151-200 201-400 (Harvard)

447

Homer, Iliad 23.81-91

r

151-200 201-300 (Harvard)

452

Thucydides, 4.87.5-6

r

151-300

453

Thucydides, 6.32.2-3

r

51-150

454+PSIII 119

Plato, Gorgias 471d-2b; 507b-8d; 522-6

v

151-200 (Turner) 101-200 (verso post AD 111)

455

Plato, Respublica 3.406a-b

r

226-300

456

Plato, Respublica 4.422c-d

r

151-250

458

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 21, 26-7, 29-30

r

201-300

460

Demosthenes, de Pace 21, 23

r

151-250

461

Demosthenes, de Corona 7—8

r

201-300

462

Demosthenes, de Corona 25-8

r

201-300

463

Xenophon, Anabasis 6.6.9—24

r

151-250

IV 685

Homer, Iliad 17.725-32

r

151-200

686

Homer, Iliad 2.50-8

r

50-1 BC

Congr 8+PSI XI 1197

Papyri Included in the Sample

233

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

687

Homer, Iliad 3.185, 187-9, 207-16

r

50-1 BC

688

Homer, Iliad 11. 172-83

r

50-1 BC

689

H.esiod,Aspis 466—80

r

151-250

691

Apollonius Rhodius, 3.908-13

r

101-200

692

Apollonius Rhodius, 4.77-90

r

101-200

693

Sophocles, Electra 993-1007

r

201-250

694

Theocritus, Idyll 13.19-34

r

101-150

695

Herodotus, 5.104-5

r

201-300

698

Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.6.45—2.1.1 (reclamans + colophon)

r

201-250

700

Demosthenes, de Corona 17—19

r

101-200

702

[Demosthenes], contra Boeotum 2.52-3

r

101-200

703

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 94, 96

r

201-300

704

Isocrates, in Sophistas 16—18

r

201-300

767

Homer, Iliad 1 1.555-61

r

101-200

V844

Isocrates, Panegyricus 19—116

r

101-150

VI 875+LII 3686

Sophocles, Antigone 109-23; 242-6

r

101-150

877

Euripides, Hecuba 1252-80

V

201-300

881r

Plato, Euthydemus 301e-2c

r

151-250

881v

Plato, Lysis 208c-d

V

201-250

882

Demosthenes, in Aristogitonem i 47-8

r

101-200 125-150 (Welles)

883

Demosthenes, in Aristocratem 149-50

r

201-250

946

Homer, Iliad 2.861-7

r

151-300

VII 1017

Plato, Phaedrus 238c-40d, 245a-51b

r

151-250

1019+XLI 2948

Chariton, 2.3. 5-2.5.1

r

176-225 (Turner) 151-250

VIII 1091

Bacchylides, Dithyramb 17 (16). 47-78, 91-2

r

126-175 101-200 (SnellMaehler)

1092

Herodotus, 2.154-75 (with lac.)

r

51-150 (Lobel) 151-200

234

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

IX 1177+LIII 3714

Euripides, Phoenissae 171-85, 220-6 (1177); 625-35 (3714)

v

50 BC-AD 50 (Haslam) 1-50 (Hunt)

1179

Apollonius Rhodius, 2.101-10

r

176-250

1181

Xenophon, Anabasis 7.1.40

r

201-250

1183

Isocrates, Trapeziticus 44-8

r

51-100

X 1243

Apollonius Rhodius, 3.1055-63

v

101-200

1246

Thucydides, 7.38. 1-2

r

101-150

1249

Babrius,43, 110, 118,25

r

101-200 201-250 (Teubner)

1250

Achilles Tatius, 2.7.7-2.8.3, 2.2-2.3.2, 2.9.12.9.2 (sic)

r

301-350 201-300 (Schubart)

XI 1376

Thucydides, 7.54-68.2, 72-3, 78.5-6, 79.582.4

r

151-250

1377

Demosthenes, de Corona 167—9

r

50-1 BC

XIII 1619

Herodotus, 3.26-72

r

51-150

XV 1805+LII 3687

Sophocles, Trachiniae 12-1276 (with lac.)

r

151-200

1806

Theocritus, Idyll 22.8, 38-84

r

51-100

1808

Plato, Respublica8.546b-7d

r

151-200

1809

Plato, Phaedo W2e-3c

r

51-150 (Turner) 101-150

1810

Demosthenes, Olynthiaca i.9, 16, 23-6; ii.l , 10, r 13, 17-9, 21-2, 24-7, 30; iii.l, 3, 9-14, 35-46; Philippica i.2, 4, 7-8, 14-15, 18, 21, 23, 32-41, 43, 45-51 ;de Pace 16-21

101-150

1815

Homer, Iliad 1 .33-50, 59-75

201-300 (recto 2nd cent.)

1819

Homer, Odyssey 10.3-12; 1 1 .244-323, 41426, 428-32; 12. 1-4

2064+L 3548

Theocritus, Idylls 1,6,4,5,7,3,8,9,11 (with lac.)

r

151-200

XVII 2090

Hesiod, Theogony \-l , 28-52, 148-54

r

126-175

2091

Hesiod, Erga 292-335, 366-9, 373-80

r

201-250

2092

Pindar, Olympian 2.1 6-28, 42-94

r

151-200

2093

Sophocles, 4/d* 51-66, 266-76, 291-307

r

151-250

v r

101-200

Papyri Included in the Sample TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

2094+XLIX 3445

Lycophron, Alexandra 586-92, 922-39, 134579; 747-56, 764-9, 850-3

r

101-175

2095

Herodotus, 1.9, 11 (excerpt?)

r

101-200

2096+XLVIII 3374

Herodotus, 1.57, 58, 85, 89, 91, 112, 115-16, 118, 119, 121-3, 127-8, 132, 137, 160, 177-8, 181, 191, 204-5, 209-14 (with lac.)

r

151-200 (2096) 151-250 (3374)

2097

Herodotus, 1.64-5

r

226-275

2098

Herodotus, 7. 168-73

r

151-250 (verso AD 267?)

2099

Herodotus, 8.22-3

r

101-150

2100+LVII 3891+ LXI 4109

Thucydides, 4.15-16; 5.4, 18, 42-3, 72-3; 8.6, 20,23-5,52-4,81,96,103

r

126-175

2101

Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.4.15, 17-21; 1.6.3

r

201-250

2W2+PTurner 7

Plato, Phaedrus 242d-4e

r

151-200

XVIII 2178

Aeschylus, Agamemnon 7—17, 20-30

r

101-200

2179

Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas 155—9

r

101-200

2180

Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus 102-974 (with lac.)

r

101-200

2181

Plato, Phaedo 75a-l 17c (with lac.)

r

151-200

XIX 2223

Euripides, Bacchae 1070-1136 (1092 lacking)

r

50-1 BC (ego) 101-200 (POxy) 1-50 (Turner)

2224+XLIV 3152

Euripides, Hippolytus 225-59, 269-88, 357-94, r 443-55 (3 152); 579-604 (2224)

101-200

2225

Callimachus, Hymn 4.1 1-25, 38-40, 68-75, 81-92, 102-10, 141-6, 156-81, 186-205, 209-18,230-43

v

126-175

2226

Callimachus, Hymn 6.32-7, 41-3, 54-63, 79117,138

r

101-150

XXII 2333

Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas 621-31, 634—8, 644-56

r

101-200

2334

Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas 498, 501-3, 529-52

r

151-200

2335

Euripides, Andromache 954—1022

v

151-200

2336

Euripides, Helena 630-51 , 658-74

r

50-1 BC

2337

Euripides, Medea 1 149-63, 1 171-90 (excerpt?) v

51-100

235

236

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

XXIV 2402

Aristode, Ethica Nichomachea 6.1142b.ll-7, 1144a.6-ll

r

126-175

2403

Aristode, Categoriae lla.24-b.l, 13b.21-17, 14a.l3-15

r

201-250

2404+PLanr HI/278

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 51—3

r

101-200 (Turner) 151-300 (Savorelli-Pintaudi)

XXVII 2467

Menander, Dyskolos 263-72, 283-90

r

151-200

2468

Plato, Politicus 257 d, 261d-2c

r

101-200

XXXI 2540

Homer, Iliad 13.474-84

r

51-150

2541

Homer, Iliad 14.274-302

V

201-300

2542

Homer, ttiad 15.158-63, 172-82, 212-38

r

51-150

2543

Euripides, Andromache 346—69

r

101-200

2545

Aristophanes, Equites 1057—76

r

50 BC-AD 50

2546

Manetho Asttol.,Apotelesmatica 4.384-415, 417-33, 564-90, 592-604

r

201-300? 201-250 (Turner)

2548

Demosthenes, in Timocratem 60

r

101-200

2549

Demosthenes, Epistula I

r

101-200

2550

Lycurgus, in Leocratem 1—2 (exercise)

V

101-200?

XXXII 2638

Hesiod, Theogony 46—60

r

201-300

2639+PSIXI 1191

Hesiod,Theogony 57-75, 84-96, 566-92, 62842, 652-64, 866-76, 913-32, 1016-20

r

201-300 101-200 (PS/)

2640

Hesiod, Theogony 135—50

r

1-200

2641

Hesiod, Theogony 245-92

V

201-300

2642

Hesiod, Theogony 271—83

r

101-200

2643

Hesiod, Theogony 359—94

r

101-300

2645

Hesiod, Theogony 504—19

r

151-250

2646

Hesiod, Theogony 650-63

V

101-300

2648

Hesiod, Theogony 681-94, 751-71

r

201-250

2649

Hesiod, Theogony 731—40

r

101-200

2651

Hesiod, Theogony 963—81

V

101-200

XXXIII 2662

Plato, Meno 92e-3b

r

50 BC-AD 50

2663

Plato, Cratylus 405c

r

151-200

XXXIV 2691

Apollonius Rhodius, 4.348-56, 1128-35

r

50 BC-AD 50

Papyri Included in the Sample

237

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

2692

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.1261-74

r

51-100

2693

Apollonius Rhodius, 3.940-58, 962-71

r

101-150

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.460-79

V

151-250

2696

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.1049-65

r

151-200

2697

Apollonius Rhodius, 2.119, 136-57

V

201-250

2698

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.794-807, 919-37

r

151-250

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3.1—35

r

201-250 301-400 (Turner)

2700

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.169-74, 202-43

r

201-250

2701

Apollonius Rhodius, 4.1175-80, 1187-97

r

251-300

2703

Thucydides, 1.110

r

151-250

XXXVI 2748

Homer, Iliad 16. 129-60

V

101-200

2749

Thucydides, 2.90-2

r

151-250

2750

Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1 . 1

r

151-200 351-400 (Cavallo)

2751

Plato, Respublica 3.412cl3-414c (with lac.)

r

151-250

XXXVIII 2829

Menander, Epitrepontes

r

251-350

2830

Menander, Perikeiromene 473-92

r

250-300

2831

Menander, Samia 385-90

r

51-150

XLI 2945

Theocritus, Idyll 14.30-50

r

101-200

2946

Triphiodorus, 391-402

r

201-400

XLIV 3153

Euripides, Phoenissae 552—75

r

151-250

3154

Homer, Iliad 6.28-44, 65-86

r

51-100

3155

Homer, Iliad 15.316, 318, 373-406, 420-37

r

151-250

3156+LII 3669

Plato, Gorgias 491a-b, 494e, 495a, 495c-e, 508d-e

r

151-200

XLV 3220

Hesiod, Erga 15-7, 256-62, 308-9, 357-812 passim; Aspis 83-96, 189-202

r

101-200 101-150 (Lobel)

3221

Hesiod, Erga 93-108

V

151-250

3222

Hesiod, Erga 144—56

r

201-300

3223

Hesiod, Erga 172-215, 228-45

V

101-150

3224

Hesiod, Erga 179-95

r

151-200

3225

Hesiod, Erga 265-79

r

126-175

238

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

3226

Hesiod, Erga 311-16, 345-53, 414-19, 421-2, 432-6, 441-3

r

101-250

3227

Hesiod, Erga 415, 421-35, 440-53

r

151-250

3228

Hesiod, Erga 5 11-29

r

101-150

3229

Hesiod, Erga 670-4, 686-716, 743-56

r

126-200

3230

Hesiod, Erga 293-301, 763-4, 78 (or 789), 113 (a miscellany)

r

1-50

3231

Hesiod, Erga 225-45

r

151-225

3232

Hesiod, Aspis 325-30

V

151-200 (ego) 1-100

3233

Isocrates,Antidosis 66, 74—80

r

51-150

3234+3883

Thucydides, 1.73.4-74.3

r

51-150

XLVII 3322

Euripides, Phoenissae 3-14, 46-61

V

51-150

3323

Homer, Iliad 15.162-97; 16.55-65, 101-50

r

151-250

3324

Meleager, Epigrams (AP 9.16, 5.190, 12.157, 5.152(1-4) plus 1 unidentified pentameter)

r

50 BC-AD 50

3325

Moschus, Megara [sp.] 65-76, 86-9

r

51-150

3326

Plato, Respublica 8.545c-6a

r

101-200

3327

Thucydides, 2.64.6-65.2

r

151-250

XLVIII 3372

Herodotus, 1.6.2-1.9.2

r

51-150

3373

Herodotus, 1.51.4-54.1

r

201-300

3375

Herodotus, 1.61.2-62.2

r

201-300

3376

Herodotus, 1.187; 2.51-141

r

101-200

3377

Herodotus, 2. 161. 1-3

r

101-150

3378

Herodotus, 3.37.2

r

151-250

3379

Herodotus, 4. 168. 1-2

r

201-300

3380

Herodotus, 5.30.1-3

r

51-150

3381

Herodotus, 7.169.2-170.1

r

101-200

3382

Herodotus, 8.1.1-2

r

151-250

3383

Herodotus, 8.2.2-5.1

r

151-250

XLIX 3435

Demosthenes, Olynthiaca 1.22—8

r

101-200

3436

Dinarchus, in Demosthenetn 7—8, 108—11

r

151-250

3437

Dinarchus, in Philoclem 17—22

r

151-250

Papyri Included in the Sample

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

3438

Homer, Iliad 1.499-523

r

101-300

3439

Homer, Hiad 5. 1-23

r

101-200

3440

Homer, Iliad 16.612-54

r

151-250

3441

Homer, Odyssey 10.1-24

r

101-200

3442

Homer, Odyssey 11.330-66,373-403

r

101-150

3443

Homer, Odyssey 17.409-37, 460-77

r

201-300

3444

Isocrates, Evagoras 6—12

r

151-250

3446

Lycophron, Alexandra 1239-50

r

101-200

3447

Strabo, 9 passim

r

101-150

3448

Thucydides, 1.40

r

151-300

3449

Thucydides, 1 ,42

r

201-300

3451

Thucydides, 8.12-14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30,32-5,81,97,106

r

51-150

L3545

Theocritus, Idyll 1.68-74, 78-95

r

101-200

3546

Theocritus, Idyll 2.30-2, 43-9

r

101-200

3547

Theocritus, Idyll 3.49-4.2

r

101-200

3549

Theocritus, Idyll 10.45-56

V

101-200

3550

Theocritus, Idylls 14.43-56, 18.27-52

r

101-200

3552

Theocritus, Idyll 18. 12-43

r

101-175

LI 3661

Homer, Iliad 3.383-410

r

101-300

3662

Homer, Hiad 5. 1-1 9

V

226-275

3663

Homer, Hiad 18.33-50, 55-8, 73, 98-123; 182-408 (with lac.)

r

201-300

3664

Isocrates, Panegyricus 14—15

V

201-300

3666+PHarr I 12

Phto,Akibiades i 107c-8b; 113b, 132a-b

r

151-200

3667

[Plato], Aldbiades ii 142b-3c

r

201-300

3668

[Plato], Epistula 2.310e-lla

r

101-200

3670

Plato, Hippias maior 29 Id—e

r

151-250

3671

Plato, Laches 179b-c

r

151-200

3672

Plato, Leges 6.751a-c

r

201-300

3673

Plato, Leges 6. 77 \3r-d

r

151-250

3674

Plato, Leges 9.854c-d

r

126-175

239

240

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

3675

Plato, Leges 9.865a-c

r

126-175

3676

Plato, Phaedo 107d-10a

r

151-200

r

3677

Plato, Phaedrus 267 c

r

101-200

3678

Plato, P/»7efcw5 18e-19a

r

151-200

3679

Plato, Respublica 5.472e-73d

r

201-300

3680

Plato, Theaetetus 1 90e-9 1 a

r

151-200

3681

Vhto,Theaetetus 198d-e

r

151-250

3682

Plato, Theaetetus 209a-c

r

101-200

3683

[Plato] (or [Lucian] or Leon), Halcyon 184

V

151-200

3684

Plutarch, Lycurgus 31.6—8

r

201-300

3685

Plutarch, Septem Sapientium Convivium 12 (= Moralia 155c)

r

101-150

LIII 3712

Euripides, Phoenissae 50—69 (excerpt)

r

101-200

3713

Euripides, Phoenissae 244—50

V

151-200

3715

Euripides, Phoenissae (colophon)

r

101-200

3716

Euripides, Orestes 941-51, 973-83

r

150-51 BC

3717

Euripides, Orestes 1377-96

V

101-200

3719

Euripides, Iphigenia Aulidensis 913-18

r

201-300

3721

Theophrastus, de Ventis

r

151-200

LVI 3825

Homer, Iliad 1.61-86, 98-120, 204?, 229-52

V

101-150

3827

Homer, niad \ 1.337-61

r

101-200 51-150? (ego)

3828

Homer, Odyssey 22.333-66

V

51-150 (recto AD 60?)

3836

Achilles Tatius 3.21-3

r

101-200

3837

Achilles Tatius 8.6.14-8.7.6

r

201-300

3838

Aeschylus, Prometheus Vinctus 122-34

r

151-300

3839

Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae 25?, 742—66, 941-56

r

101-300

3840

Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae 1 185-93

r

301-400

3841

Demosthenes, adversus Leptinem 15—16

r

101-200

3842

Demosthenes, adversus Leptinem 28—31, 39, 47,49

r

101-200

Papyri Included in the Sample TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

3844

Demosthenes, adversus Leptinem 44

V

1-100

3846

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 6—8

r

201-300

3847

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 29—30

r

201-300

3848

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 48—51

V

201-300

3849

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 51-6

r

151-300

3850

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 131—7

r

101-200

3851

Nicander, Theriaca 333-44

r

101-200

LVII 3877

Thucydides, 1.2, 2.19-21, 3.82 (excerpts?)

V

101-150

3878

Thucydides, 1.3

r

101-175

3879

Thucydides, 1.9-10, 30, 36-9

r

101-150

3880

Thucydides, 1.46-7, 62

r

51-150

3881

Thucydides, 1.52-3

r

151-250

3882+PSI XI 1195

Thucydides, 1.71-4

r

201-300 (POxy) 151-200 (PS/)

3884

Thucydides, 1.91.3

r

101-200

3886

Thucydides, 2. 15-16

r

201-300

3887

Thucydides, 2.54, 80

r

101-300

3888

Thucydides, 2.75—6

r

201-300

3889

Thucydides, 2.76-7

r

151-250

3890

Thucydides, 2: colophon

r

201-300

3892

Thucydides, 3.71

r

151-200

3893

Thucydides, 3.80

r

101-200 100-151? (ego)

3894

Thucydides, 3.83

r

201-300

3895

Thucydides, 3.23, 94

r

200-300

3896

Thucydides, 3.94-5, 100

r

1-100

3897

Thucydides, 3.98

r

101-200

3898

Thucydides, 4.8

r

101-300

3899

Thucydides, 4.25

r

151-250

3900

Thucydides, 4.67-9

r

201-300

3901+PYak II 99

Thucydides, 4.73—5

r

151-200 (?)

LX 4013+ PKoelnVI 252

Euripides, Orestes 314-20

r

50 BC-AD 50

241

242

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

4014

Euripides, Orestes 986-1002

r

151-200

4015

Euripides, Orestes 990-3

r

1-100

4016

Euripides, Orestes 1233-52

r

151-250

4027

Aeschines, in Timarchum 3

r

151-300

4028

Aeschines, in Timarchum 14—15, 17—18

r

101-200

4030

Aeschines, in Timarchum 43—52

V

151-200

4031

Aeschines, in Timarchum 79

r

101-300

4032

Aeschines, in Timarchum 131-2, 134

r

101-200

4033+4034

Aeschines, in Timarchum 190-2 (4033), 194-6 (4034)

r

151-300

4035

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 43-5

r

101-200

4036

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 64—5

r

51-100

4037

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 134-5

r

101-300

4038

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 171—2

r

151-300

4039

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 6—7

V

51-150

4040

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 8

r

101-300

4041

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 15—17, 22-3

r

201-300 (ego} 101-300

4042

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 33—4, 35—6

r

101-200

4043

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 39

V

101-200 (ego) 101-300

4044

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 56—8

r

101-200?

4045+4053

Aeschines, m Ctesiphontem 57-9,60-1 (4045), 213-14,215-16(4053)

r

101-300

4047+4051

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 98 (4047), 160-1 (4051)

r

151-200

4048

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 101

r

1-100

4050

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 157-8

r

101-300

4052

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 195-6

r

51-150 1-100? (ego)

4054

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 216-17

r

101-300

4055

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 87-94, 220-52 passim

r

201-300?

LXI 4100

Thucydides, 1.25-6,27-9,31

r

151-250

Papyri Included in the Sample

243

TABLE 1A - concluded

POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

4101

Thucydides,4.19-20

r

201-300

4102

Thucydides,5.18

r

151-250

4103

Thucydides, 5.35

r

51-150

4104

Thucydides, 5.50

r

151-250

4107

Thucydides, 7.23

r

101-200

4108

Thucydides, 7.62

r

151-250

4110

Thucydides, 8.73

r

151-200

4111

Thucydides, 8.87.5, 88

r

101-200

4112

Thucydides, 8.98

r

101-200

TABLE IB Comparison set (Non-Oxyrhynchite) (Ordered by Mertens-Pack number. See Appendix 2b for bibliography on the editions of papyri in the comparison set.) MP

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

Provenance

88

PHibl.26

Anaximenes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 15.3-31.20

r

300-251 BC

Hibeh

113

PDura 2

Appian, Iberica 15, 17

r

201-300

Dura Europos

189.1

PFayColes 5

Callimachus, Hymn 3.67-80

r

101-200

Fayum

265.1

PBerol 16895+ 21284

Demosthenes, de Chersoneso 60-7

r

75-1 BC (in same Abusir el coffin doc. dating Melek to 52 BC & an Augustan archive)

296.2

PBerol 21274

Demosthenes, de Falsa Legatione 223

r

201-300

Hermopolis

298

PTebt 2.267

Demosthenes, de Falsa Legatione 293-6

r

101-150

Tebtunis

300

PBerol 5879

Demosthenes, adversus Leptinem 84—91

r

1-200 51-150 (ego)

Fayum

329.2

PBerol 21192

[Demosthenes], contra Macartatum 45-7

r

151-250

Hermopolis

Hyperides, in Philippidem+ Demosthenes, Epistula 3

r

100-1 BC (Blass) 25 BC-AD 25

Hermopolis?

337+1 234 PLondLitl 34+ 130

244

Appendix 1

TABLE IB - continued MP

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

384.1

PBerol 21235

Euripides, Bacchae 17—26

r

100 BC-AD 50

388.1

PTebt 2.683

Euripides, Hecuba 216—31

r

51-150 1-50 (Montanari)

Tebtunis

397

PLondLit 73

Euripides, Hippolytus 1165— 79,1194-1204

r

275-226 BC

Philadelphia

400.1

PBerol 21133

Euripides, Iphigenia Taurica 946-55

r

101-150 (loannidou), 1-200 (Parassoglou)

Hermopolis

417.2

PBerol 21169

Euripides, Phoenissae 280—98 (desunt 291-2), 337-51, 36477, 379-92 (deest 387)

v

201-300

Hermopolis

468

PMuench 2.40

Herodotus, 1.11 5-1 6

r

1-200

Fayum

478

PDura 1

Herodotus, 5. 113.2-1 14.2

r

151-200

Dura Europos

486.3

PBerol 21 Wl

Hesiod, Erga 84—531 passim

v

151-200

Hermopolis

584.1

PFay Coles 14

Homer, Iliad 1.1 7 1-85

v

101-150

Fayum

594.1

PFay Coles 15

Homer, /7iW 1.272-9

r

101-175

Bacchias

604.1

PMuench 2.35+ PLudgBat 25.6

Homer, Iliad 1 .384, 402-35, 481-507,510-44

r

101-200 51-150? (ego)

Arsinoe (Medinet elFayum)

619

PTebt 3.898

Homer, Iliad 1.539-48, 56174

r

250-151 BC

Tebtunis

624.1

PAnt 3.156

Homer, Iliad 2.1-3, 7-15, 21-40

v

251-400

Antinoopolis

632

PTebt I A

Homer, Iliad 2.95-109, 11215,121-57,172-84,186-7, 197-210

r

150-101 BC

Tebtunis

650

PTebt 2.265

Homer, Iliad 2.339-62, 507652

r

101-200

Tebtunis

660.3

PBero/21197

Homer, Iliad 2.597-603, 614- r 28, 633-44, 647-51, 654-67

101-200

Hermopolis

662.01

PBerol 17069

Homer, Iliad 2.629-36 (637?)

r

101-200

Hermopolis

688

PBerol 17054

Homer, Iliad 3. 125-35

r

250-151 BC (West) , Hermopolis 200-101 BC (Mette)

692.1

PTebtTait 38

Homer, Iliad 3.225-30

v

151-200

Tebtunis

699

PHifc 1.20+ PGren/2.3

Homer, Iliad 3.347-51, 3546, 383-94; 4.19-22, 55-61, 67-72,80-3,86-91, 98-102, 109-13; 5.525-32,796-803

r

300-251 BC

Hibeh

Provenance

Papyri Included in the Sample

245

TABLE IB - continued

MP

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

Provenance

773

PTebt 3.899

Homer, Iliad 6.2-347

r

150-101 BC

Tebtunis

774

PHib 2.193

Homer, Iliad 6.4—7

r

275-226 BC

Hibeh

784.1

PBero/21102+ 17153

Homer, Iliad 6.217-82

V

151-200

Hermopolis

785.1

P Yale 1. 8

Homer, Iliad 6.232-48

V

50-1 BC

805.1

PBerol 21215

Homer, Iliad 7. 183-95

r

300-101 BC

Upper Egypt?

819

PHib 1.21+ PGrenf2.2+ PHeidLit 1

Homer, Iliad 8.17-73, 180r 258 passim, with frequent plus lines

300-251 BC

Hibeh

822

PGrenfl.2+ PF/or2.109

Homer, Iliad 8.62-75, 96116

1-100 1-200 (Grenfell), 100-151 (Comparetti), 1-75 (Gallazzi)

Fayum

824.1

PFayCoks 16+17 Homer, Iliad 8. 168-70?+ 172 +187-9; 424-43

V

830

PFay4

832

r

151-250

Fayum

r

150-51 BC

Bacchias

PVindob G19768 Homer, Iliad 8.436-61

r

1-100

Karanis

852

PVindob G26753 Homer, Iliad 10. 1-26

V

100-1 BC

857

PBerol 11911A+ Homer, Hiad 10.91-568 B+17038 (=Pack2 863)+ 17048 (=Pack2 857)+21155

r

201-250

863.1

PYalel.W

Homer, Iliad 10.3 11-1 9

r

50-1 BC

876.2

PBerol 21 109

Homer, Hiad 11.360-77, 42756, 639-60, 673-703, 716-19

V

101-200

Hermopolis

879

PPetr 1.3(4)

Homer, Hiad 11.502-37 with plus lines

r

300-251 BC

Gurob

883

PTebt 2.266

Homer, Hiad \ 1.556-613

r

151-200

Tebtunis

894

PLondLit25l + PHarr 36

Homer, Hiad 12.128-40, 176- r 91, 249-63, 355-68, 370, 374, 399-402, 404-12, 446-58

200-101 BC

895

PGrenflA

Homer, Hiad 12. 178-98

r

Fayum 201-300 (ego) 301-400 (Grenfell)

897.2

PMuench2.38

Homer, Hiad 12.296-304, 335-72

r

50-1 BC 50 BC-AD 50 (ego)

Homer, Iliad 8.332-6, 362-9

Hermopolis

246

Appendix 1

TABLE IB - continued

MP

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

Provenance

898.1

PBero/21185

Homer, 77/W 12.459-71

r

1-100

Soknopaiou Nesos

914

PVmdob G26752 Homer, 7//W 13.762-74

r

101-300 101-200? (ego)

Hermopolis

919

PBero/11910+ 21156

Homer, 7/mJ 14.235-447

r

151-250

Hermopolis

919.1

PBero/21216

Homer, 7/iW 15.5-31

r

100-1 BC

962

PBerol 9774

Homer, Iliad 1 8 . 585-608 (=Pack2 962)+608a-d ~ Hesiod,Aspis 207-13 (=Pack2 505)

979

PGren/2.4+ PHib 1.22+

Homer, Iliad 21 .302-23.281

r

r

100-1 BC

300-201 BC

Hibeh

PHeidLit 2

980

PBerol 16985

Homer, Uiad 21.359-401, r 436-47, 455-66, 474-9, 48190, 494-512, 514-31, 533-51, 557-608; 22.1-16, 104-11, 265-83, 420-5, 439-55, 458; 23.1-2

100-1 BC

991

PTebt 3.900

Homer, Iliad 22.140-52, 188- r 201,252-3,277-301

150-101 BC

995.1

P Yd/el. 13

Homer, Iliad 22.402-22

v

50-1 BC

998

PLondLit 27

Homer, Iliad 23. 1-79, 402897; 24.1-759

r

100-1 BC 1-100 (Milne)

1009

PBerol 9949

Homer, Iliad 23.718-32

r

100-1 BC 100BC-AD 100 (Poethke)

1022

PTebt 3.696

Homer, Odyssey 1.81-94, 96102

r

200-151 BC

Tebtunis

1026.1

PFayColes 18

Homer, Odyssey 1.300-10

r

201-250

Fayum

PLondLit 30+

Homer, Odyssey 3.227-497

r

1-100 (Kenyon) 1-50 (Gerstinger)

Soknopaiou Nesos?

1039

PVmdob G26746 +G26754-60

Tebtunis

1051.1

PFayColes 19

Homer, Odyssey 4.476—86

r

1-50

Fayum

1056

PTe/tf 3.697

Homer, Odyssey 4.796-812; 5.6-264

r

200-101 BC

Tebtunis

1061

PGren/1.3

Homer, Odyssey 5.346-53

r

201-300

Fayum

Papyri Included in the Sample

247

TABLE IB - continued

MP

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

1064

PFayl

Homer, Odyssey 6.201-3, 205-9, 255-6, 258-63, 286300, 325-8

r

50 BC- AD 25 Euhemeria 50-1 BC (Roberts); AD 1-50 (Grenfell & Hunt, Milne; found with Augustan docs.)

1092.1

PFayColes 20

Homer, Odyssey 10.373-80

r

1-200

1094

PBerol 11678

Homer, Odyssey 11.110-12, 126-34

r

250-151 BC

1099

PTebt 2.431

Homer, Odyssey 11.428-40

r

51-150

Tebtunis

1129

PHib 2.194

Homer, Odyssey 17.357—63, r 365-8; 19.400-4, 407-8, 4112a

275-226 BC

Hibeh

1148.2

PBerol 21224

Homer, Odyssey 22.193-217, 235-52

r

200-101 BC

1150.1

PBerol 16709

Homer, Odyssey 23.122-42, 149-53 (om. 127f.)

r

25 BC- AD 25

Hermopolis

1156

PTebt 2.432

Homer, Odyssey 24.501-8

r

101-200 51-150? (ego)

Tebtunis

1233

PLondLit 132+ Pland 5.80?

Hyperides, in Demosthenem, pro Lycophrone, pro Euxenippo

r

1-100 (Kenyon, Jensen) ;c. AD 100 (Milne)

Gournou?

1255

PVindob G2316

Isocrates, ad Nicodem 2—4

r

301-400

Fayum

1265.1

PFayColes 6

Isocrates, Panegyricus 90

v

151-250

Bacchias

1286

PMuench 2.39

Lycophron, Alexandra 1108— 28

r

51-150

Arsinoe

1355.1

PTebt 2.684

Pindar, Olympians 9.109— 10.12

r

251-300

Tebtunis

1387

PBerol 21210+ 13291

Plato, Apologia Socratis 25b-c, 28b(?),40b-41c

r

51-150

Soknopaiou Nesos

1388

PPetrl.5-8

Plato, Phaedo 67b-84b

r

300-201 BC

Gurob

1395

PHib 2.228

Plato, Sophista 223e.4-224a.2, 224b.l-3

r

275-226 BC

Hibeh

1397.1

PBero/11749

Plato, Politicus 300 b-c, with insertions

r

101-200 51-150? (ego)

Hermopolis

1403

PAnt 2.77

Plato, Phaedrus 257d

r

101-150 (ego) 151-250 (Barns)

Antinoopolis

Provenance

Fayum (Bacchias?)

248

Appendix 1

TABLE IB - concluded

MP 1409

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

Provenance

PPetr 2.50

Plato, Laches 189d-92a

r

325-276 BC

Gurob

1427

PAnt 2.79

[Plato], dejusto

r

201-250

Antinoopolis

1433

PBerol 9570+ PRy/1.60

Polybius, 11.13.8-16.9

r

151-250 151-200 (Hunt) (verso dated 276)

Fayum

1537

PBerol 9875

Timotheus, Persae

r

350-301 BC

Abusir

1551

PVindob G26010 Xenophon, Cyropaedia 5.2.3- r 4, 6-7, 22, 24-5, 28; 5.3.1-9, +G29283 +G29782 12-19, 19-26

101-200

Hermopolis

1552

PVindob G257 +G29781 +G24568

Xenophon, Hellenica 1 . 1 .27— 8; 1.2.2-1. 5.8 (with lac.)

201-250

Pheretnuis

1556.2

PBero/21108

Xenophon, Hellenica 1,2,4 passim

v

151-200

Hermopolis

1563.1

PTebt 2.682

Xenophon, Oeconomicus 18.9

r

201-300

Tebtunis

1563.3

PMuench 2.42

Xenophon, Symposium 3.910

r

251-300

Melawi?

1564

PAnt 1.26

Xenophon, Symposium 4.515,64; 5.1-3 (on parchment)

n/a

151-200?

Antinoopolis

1566

PMuench 2.41

Xenophon, de Vectigalibus 1.5-6

r

101-200

Fayum

v

Papyri Included in the Sample

249

TABLE 1C Tabulation by author, genre A. Summary by author 1. Oxyrhynchus sample (317 total) Achilles Tatius Aeschines Aeschylus Apollonius Rhodius Aristophanes Aristotle Babrius Bacchylides Callimachus Chariton Demosthenes or [Demosthenes] Dinarchus Euclid Euripides Herodotus Hesiod Homer, Iliad Homer, Odyssey Isocrates Lycophron Lycurgus Manetho Astrol. Meleager Menander Moschus] Pindar Plato or [Plato] [Plato] or [Lucian] or Leon Plutarch Sophocles Strabo Theocritus Theophrastus Thucydides Triphiodorus Xenophon

3 26 5 14 3 2 1 1 2 1 26 1 1 21 21 27 28 5 7 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 36 1 2 5 1 10 1 47 1 7

2. Comparison set (95 total) Anaximenes Appian Callimachus Demosthenes or [Demosthenes] Euripides

1 1 1 6 5

Herodotus Hesiod Homer, Iliad Homer, Odyssey Hyperides Isocrates Lycophron Pindar Plato or [Plato] Polybius Timotheus Xenophon

2 1 42 14 2 2 1 1 7 1 1 7

B. Summary by genre 1. Oxyrhynchus sample (317 total) (a) Prose texts History Philosophy Oratory Novel Other

73 45 61 4 1

(b) Verse texts Epic (hexameter) Tragedy Comedy Bucolic Lyric Hymn Other

76 33 7 11 2 2 2

2. Comparison set (95 total) (a) Prose texts History Philosophy Oratory Other

8 10 10 1

(b) Verse texts Epic (hexameter) Tragedy Lyric Hymn

57 6 2 1

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX 2

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

The lists below, by augmenting and correcting the published editions, establish the text for the samples set forth in Appendix 1. These corrections are assumed in analysis and discussion throughout the book. I have not corrected minor miscalculations or mismeasurements of physical features (column, margin, etc.), since these are readily available in the tables following chapter 3. 2a. Oxyrhynchus papyri, primary sample set Corrections already noted in the POxy volumes (whether in subsequent introductions, or in tables of corrigenda) are not repeated; in a very few cases, as a matter of convenience, I have included independent observations even though they have been noted by others. 16+696. Thucydides, 4. 696, col. viii =16, col. i (not col. iii). 16, col. l.The transcription in 696 mistakenly omits a line between lines 89 and 90. Traces appear in the upper margin, of which only an omega can be confidently read. 16, col. 1, line 11. Read xac, (not xa) at end of line. 16, col. 1, line 28. A space precedes et, x[ou. The space is slighter than many in this manuscript, but at 1—2 characters in width, is large enough to signal punctuation. 16, col. 2, line 1. Below this line a paragraphus is clearly visible. A wide space (2—3 characters) follows ap^ovTcov and acts as punctuation. 16, col. 2, lines 7f. A 1-2 character space follows vo^-- JJLOV. 16, col. 2, line 13. A single character space follows TTOIELV. 16, col. 2, lines 41f. A 2-3 character space follows TO- | cotSe.

252

Appendix 2

16, col. 2, line 49. A paragraphus is visible below this line. 16, col. 3, lines 28fF. At three points in the 11-line lacuna a symbol is visible in the left margin: beside 31, perhaps a large chi (the reading is uncertain); beside 34, antisigma; beside 35, three irregular vertical slashes. To the right of 16, col. 3, several initial letters from the next column can be seen, as well as an odd siglum to the left of line 10 (a clumsy oversize chi?). I reconstruct these as follows, though with the caution that only the last three lines are entirely certain: Col. 11 (assuming the column numeration of 696; to right of 16, col. 3) [8 lines missing] 9

TC[OTE OUCYJC yiQc Tte^avTEc]

?$

c[9&)v auTwv TOUC ETUTYjSsioTa] [TOUC £Xy)i,£ovTO TE TTQV Xaxwvi.]

12

[x7)v xou TrXsicTa £(3Xa7iTov o-] [(j.o]T read: ] TauJTa] ?- 1 [yw xTX].The epsilon at line end is nearly certain, the crossbar of epsilon being extended to fill out the space at the end of the line; tau seems excluded. Note the use of scriptio plena (restored, but seemingly inevitable given the spacing). Comparison of the punctuation, by 'high oblique dash,' with 3843 may give the impression of a possible association between these manuscripts, or of a tendency towards this form of punctuation among Roman-era Demosthenic papyri. But in fact the punctuation in 3843 at fr. a. 6 is a largish dot, not as in 3842 placed above the line, and not a dash at all (the editor seems to confuse the closely following serif at the top of the hasta of x); at fr. b.6 only the right edge of the punctuation is extant. There is then no reason to suppose that dashes were used in 3843, and thus no reason to associate that manuscript with 3842. 3843. See 3842. 3846. Demosthenes, in Meid. Lines 34ff.The separate fragment that begins with the first three characters of this line should be placed not here but at section 10 (noted by the editor as a possibility in the end notes). (1) In line 34, pi seems certain for the second letter, and alpha nearly so for the first. The editor reads ]ayv[, but gamma is excluded by the top of the second hasta, visible at right. (2) Fibre patterns between the two fragments do not, pace editor, match well. (3) The placement in section 10 does not require the hypothesis of a variant text, and is exactly in accord with the extant column format (20.5 letters per line). (4) The placement in section 10 would follow the first fragment by only one column, thus the coincidence of proximity

290

Appendix 2

for the placement in section 8 is not so compelling. Read as follows (exact line division unknown):

1

[TOUTOU cpavep]