New Literary Papyri from the Michigan Collection : Mythographic Lyric and a Catalogue of Poetic First Lines [1 ed.] 9780472028160, 9780472118076

Citation preview

New Literary Papyri from the Michigan Collection

New Literary Papyri from the

Michigan Collection Mythographic Lyric and a Catalogue of Poetic First Lines

Cassandra Borges & C. Michael Sampson

The University of Michigan Press

•

Ann Arbor

Copyright © by the University of Michigan 2012 All rights reserved This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publisher. Published in the United States of America by The University of Michigan Press Manufactured in the United States of America c Printed on acid-free paper 2015

2014

2013

2012

4

3

2

1

A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Borges, Cassandra, 1982– New literary papyri from the Michigan collection : mythographic lyric and a catalogue of poetic first lines / Cassandra Borges and C. Michael Sampson. p. cm. — (New texts from ancient cultures) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-472-11807-6 (cloth : acid-free paper)—ISBN 978-0-47202816-0 (e-book) 1. Classical literature—Manuscripts—Catalogs. 2. Manuscripts, Classical (Papyri)—Michigan—Catalogs. I. Sampson, C. Michael (Christopher Michael), 1979– II. Title. PA3318.M53 2012 881'.0108—dc23 2012000977

In memoriam Traianos Gagos (1960–2010)

Preface

This project began modestly as part of a seminar on the paleography of papyri at the University of Michigan, under the direction of Professor Arthur Verhoogt, the autumn of 2006. Since the two sides of P.Mich. inv. 3498 had been published in the 1970s, we had no idea of the task that lay ahead, but as the existence and implications of the additional, unpublished fragments began to emerge, the need for a larger edition became clear. Audaciously (and perhaps foolishly, for PhD students), we resolved to see it through to publication. As our respective commentaries and analyses continued to evolve, it made the most sense to combine them into a book-length study, since a monograph not only would allow the rectos and versos to appear together but also would allow our treatments to go beyond the limits of standard article length. The papyri are published with the permission of the Papyrology Collection, Graduate Library, University of Michigan, and the images are courtesy of the Ancient Textual Imaging Group ([email protected]), at Brigham Young University and the University of Michigan Papyrology Collection, by NEH Preservation and Access Grant. Copyright © 2012. All rights reserved. Joint publications necessarily involve a division of labor, but luckily, because papyri have two sides and there were only two of us at work, the apportionment for this edition was uncomplicated. The flip of a coin allotted responsibility for the rectos of the papyri to Cassandra, while the versos fell to Mike. In addition, Cassandra produced the introduction to the edition. While we each enjoyed relative autonomy in composing our respective discussions, we have collaborated over the manuscript as a whole and fully endorse one another’s findings.

Acknowledgments

The idea of transforming this project into a book seemed staggeringly audacious at first, and in making it a reality, my coeditor and I owe a great deal to those on the technical side of things. Terry Wilfong, of Michigan’s Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, has helped us both immeasurably in wrangling images and generally dealing with the collections. Our editor at the University of Michigan Press, Ellen Bauerle, has been a driving force behind seeing this project through to completion; we owe a great deal to her guidance and to her bent for boldness and confidence. I would like to thank our fellow participants at the Twenty-fifth International Congress of Papyrology, held in Ann Arbor in 2007, where our ideas about these texts were first presented to a wider audience. Our panel moderator, Kathleen McNamee, whose suggestions for me proved tremendously stimulating, gets special thanks. In the subsequent refinement and development of the recto commentary, many scholars, from both Michigan and elsewhere, played a part. Luigi Battezzato has my most profound gratitude for his detailed comments on multiple drafts of the text and commentary; moreover, he shared it with his seminar in Greek lyric at Pisa, resulting in some good suggestions by his student Silvia Di Vincenzo. David Sider, with his intimate knowledge of Simonides, has graciously helped make sense of the most difficult portion of the recto text. Though the efforts of the Ancient Textual Imaging Group of Brigham Young University brought considerably less to light from the recto text than from the verso—one of the sad side effects of dealing with a palimpsest—their technological expertise nonetheless inspired me with an invaluable sense of the papyri’s history and richness. Closer to home, Benjamin Acosta-Hughes and Ruth Scodel offered their sound poetic judgment; Richard Janko enthusiastically read draft after draft, and this project

x

•

Acknowledgments

would not be the same without his detailed, erudite textual suggestions; and Arthur Verhoogt’s papyrological guidance helped me to carry through even when the text appeared most intractable. The spirit of cooperation that characterizes papyrology extended to the community of my fellow graduate students, past and present: Brian Calabrese worked on P.Mich. inv. 3498 recto previously and graciously provided his readings for my consideration; Rebecca Sears encouraged and advised reciprocally while working on her own papyrological mysteries; Julia Shapiro offered textual assistance; and Richard Persky proved a patient, thoughtful, and constant sounding board through the entire process. Any faults that remain are entirely my own doing. CB Ann Arbor, MI August 25, 2010 ♦

♦

♦

Over the course of four years, my thoughts on the verso texts have changed a great deal, and I am indebted to the many scholars who have graciously lent their insight. Martin Cropp collaborated on the mythographic lyrics from the earliest stages and has guided my judgment (as well as saved me from innumerable errors) throughout. Richard Janko and Luigi Battezzato read drafts of the entire manuscript with care, and Deborah Boedeker, Chris Collard, James Diggle, Kris Fletcher, Ben Henry, Jay Reed, and Ruth Scodel provided comment and criticism on the text and on portions of the commentary at various stages. The American Philological Association generously provided the venue for a working seminar on the mythographic lyrics at its 140th annual meeting, in Philadelphia ( January 9, 2009), which proved extremely fruitful. I thank Martin Cropp and Jennifer Clarke Kosak—without their presentations, the seminar could never have happened—and also the seminar’s participants: Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Clara Bosak-Schroeder, Kris Fletcher, Carolin Hahnemann, Ben Henry, Molly Herbert, Mary Lefkowitz, Chris Kopff, Katherine Lu, Jake MacPhail, Anne Mahoney, Tony Podlecki, Allen Romano, Ruth Scodel, Bill Tortorelli, and Arthur Verhoogt. The insights of the seminar—subsequently incorporated into presentations for the University of Manitoba, Wesleyan University, and McMaster University—occur frequently in my notes. Of course, any errors that remain are my own. Work on the anomalous case of P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso proceeded rather more slowly than that on the mythographic lyrics, for the simple rea-

Acknowledgments

•

xi

son that the condition of the fragments obstructed analysis by autopsy. That changed in June 2009, when the Ancient Textual Imaging Group from Brigham Young University subjected the fragments to multispectral imaging. Divergences from the original transcription were, at several points, quite vast, and much of my initial labor had to be discarded. As a result, work on this fragment was the last to be concluded. I am grateful to Kris Fletcher and Jay Reed for their input on this piece and, of course, to the imaging wizards from BYU. I completed a large part of my portion of this edition over the course of a delightful academic year at St. Olaf College. Thanks are due to the students there who never failed to stimulate and amaze me, as well as to my colleagues Chris Brunelle, Anne Groton, Jim May, and Steve Reece, who provided a happy environment for my labors and unwavering support for my young career. In the years previous, the University of Michigan and its Department of Classics were generous in supporting the project, both financially, through a Predoctoral Fellowship from the Horace Rackham Graduate School in the 2008–9 year, and more largely, through the many friends and advisers I gained there. My coeditor and I are particularly indebted to the late Traianos Gagos, who, as archivist of the university’s Papyrus Collection, enthusiastically supported our work and diligently shepherded it to its home in the New Texts from Ancient Cultures series. Sadly, as our work was nearing completion this spring, he passed away suddenly and prematurely, depriving us of a mentor and a dear friend. It is with considerable affection and gratitude and with no small amount of grief that we dedicate this volume to his memory. Of course, no list of acknowledgments from me would be complete without mention of my family and my fiancée, Dina, for whose support I am always the better. CMS New Brunswick, NJ August 25, 2010

Contents

xv

Abbreviations and Primary Texts

1

Introduction: Institutional History from Egypt to Partial Publication

9

part 1. A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits: P.Mich. inv. 3498
3250b recto, 3250a and c recto

36

part 2. New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric: P.Mich. inv. 3498
3250b verso and P.Mich. inv. 3250c verso

130

part 3. P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

147

Bibliography

153

Index Locorum

167

General Index

173

Plates

Abbreviations and Primary Texts

Abbreviations for ancient authors and works follow those listed in LSJ and OLD; for journals, the conventions of L’Année Philologique—with the obvious anglicizing adjustments (i.e., TAPA); for epigraphic corpora, those of the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum; and for papyri, the conventional notation (see http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist_papyri.html for an up-to-date bibliography). In addition, the following abbreviations are employed. A.P. CA D-K EGF FGE

FGrHist G-P IEG LSJ

Beckby, H., ed. 1965–68. Anthologia Graeca. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Munich. Powell, J. U., ed. 1925. Collectanea Alexandrina. Oxford. Diels, H., & Kranz, W., eds. 1974. Die Fragmente der Versokratiker. 8th ed. 3 vols. Berlin. Davies, M., ed. 1988. Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Göttingen. Page, D. L., ed. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams: Epigrams before A.D. 50 from the Greek Anthology and other sources, not included in “Hellenistic Epigrams” or “The Garland of Philip.” Cambridge. Jacoby, F., ed. 1923–58. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. 3 vols. in 14 fascicles. Berlin and Leiden. Gow, A. S. F., & Page, D. L., eds. 1965. The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams. 2 vols. Cambridge. West, M. L., ed. 1989. Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantati. 2nd ed. Oxford. Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R., eds. 1996. Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed., revised by H. S. Jones & R. McKenzie. Oxford.

xvi

Merkelbach M-W OLD Page Page1 Page2 PCG PEG PMG PMGF P-W SH TrGF

•

Abbreviations and Primary Texts

Merkelbach, R., ed. 1973. “Verzeichnis von Gedichtanfangen.” ZPE 12:86. Merkelbach, R., & West, M. L., eds. 1967. Fragmenta Hesiodea. Oxford. Glare, P. G. W., ed. 1982. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford. Page, D., ed. 1974. “A New Fragment of Lyrical Verse: P.Mich. Inv. 3498 Verso.” ZPE 13:105–9. Page, D., ed. 1974. Supplementum Lyricis Graecis. Oxford. Page, D., ed. 1975. Epigrammata Graeca. Oxford. Kassel, R., & Austin, C., eds. 1983–2001. Poetae Comici Graeci. 8 vols. Berlin. Bernabé, A., ed. 1987. Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum: Testamonia et Fragmenta. Pars I. Stuttgart. Page, D., ed. 1962. Poetae Melici Graecae. Oxford. Davies, M., ed. 1991. Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Oxford. Parke, H. W., & Wormell, D. E. W. 1956. The Delphic Oracle. Oxford. Lloyd-Jones, H., & Parsons, P., eds. 1983. Supplementum Hellenisticum. Berlin. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. 1971–2004. Vol. 1, ed. B. Snell. Ed. corr. R. Kannicht (1986); vol. 2, ed. R. Kannicht and B. Snell (1981); vol. 3, Aeschylus, ed. S. Radt (1985); vol. 4, Sophocles, ed. S. Radt (1977); vol. 5, Euripides, ed. R. Kannicht, (2004). Göttingen.

The following are the critical editions most frequently cited herein. Alternative readings favored by other editors are occasionally discussed, and in the case of epic fragments, the editions of Davies (EGF ) and Bernabé (PEG) are cited in tandem. Aeschylus Alcaeus Bacchylides

Callimachus

West, M. L., ed. 1990. Aeschyli Tragoediae cum incerti poetae Prometheo. Ed. corr. Stuttgart. Voigt, E.-M., ed. 1971. Sappho et Alcaeus. Amsterdam. Mähler, H., ed. 2003. Bacchylides. Munich. Irigoin, J., ed. 1993. Bacchylide: Dithyrambes-ÉpiniciesFragments. Paris. Pfeiffer, R., ed. 1921. Callimachi Fragmenta Nuper Reperta. Bonn. Pfeiffer, R., ed. 1949. Callimachus. 2 vols. Oxford.

Abbreviations and Primary Texts

Euripides Homer

Homeric Hymns

Pindar

Sappho Sophocles Timotheus

•

xvii

Diggle, J., ed. 1981–94. Euripidis Fabulae. 3 vols. Oxford. West, M. L., ed. 1998–2000. Homeri Ilias. 2 vols. Stuttgart. Mühll, P. von der, ed. 1962. Homeri Odyssea. 3rd ed. Stuttgart. Allen, T. W., ed. 1912. Homeri Opera. Vol. 5, Hymnos Cyclum Fragmenta Margiten Batrachomyomachiam Vitas Continens. Oxford. West, M. L., ed. 2003. Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer. Cambridge. Snell, B., & H. Mähler, eds. 1997. Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis. Pars I: Epinicia. 8th ed. Stuttgart. Mähler, H., ed. 2001. Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis. Pars II: Fragmenta, Indices. Stuttgart. Voigt, E.-M., ed. 1971. Sappho et Alcaeus. Amsterdam. Lloyd-Jones, H., & N. G. Wilson, eds. 1990. Sophoclis Fabulae. Oxford. Hordern, J. H., ed. 2002. The Fragments of Timotheus of Miletus. Oxford.

Introduction Institutional History from Egypt to Partial Publication

The discipline of papyrology, where archaeology and philology jostle each other for attention, has had perhaps more than its share of serendipity. It offers an unparalleled source of new texts outside the main manuscript traditions for the literary scholars of Greco-Roman antiquity to analyze, and yet the ways in which it does so are haphazard, controlled as they are by the vagaries of preservation, discovery, and the market—as well as the ebbs and flows of scholarly interest. A discovery such as the Milan Posidippus, which has completely transformed the study of Hellenistic epigram, is rare and thrilling; the publication of the new Archilochus and the meticulous piecing together of the new Sappho, which have enriched the corpora of both these authors considerably, are equally so.1 Yet far more common, in papyrology collections worldwide, is the quiet repose of texts unpublished and underpublished, which nonetheless have the opportunity to make valuable contributions to our study of the ancient literature and its contexts—to say nothing of even larger corpora of documentary papyri. Such is the case with P.Mich. inv. 3498 and 3250a, b, and c, a set of Michigan papyri only partly published decades after they were acquired by the university’s Papyrus Collection. The history of the fragments is a checkered one, beginning in the Egyptian antiquities markets of the 1920s and cycling through various academic institutions before enjoying an oblivion that lasted for some decades. The provenance of the eighteen fragments that compose these texts is ultimately unknown, so their written history, at least, may properly be said to have begun when they came into the possession of 1. E.g., Gronewald & Daniel 2004a, 2004b; West 2005; Obbink 2006.

2

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

the celebrated Cairo antiquities dealer Maurice Nahman. From there, they were sold in two batches, the first in May 1925 and the second in November of the same year. The first batch of fragments was catalogued by H. I. Bell of the British Museum, who oversaw the distribution of the fragments in this lot to the consortium of scholarly institutions that eventually bought the papyri. One of these papyri—archived as two fragments that were subsequently joined2—came to the University of Michigan in October 1926 as the gift of Oscar Weber and Richard H. Webber of Detroit; it was originally catalogued as P.Mich. inv. 3499 but was later renumbered as inv. 3498. (The fragment formerly catalogued as inv. 3498 became, in turn, inv. 3499. To avoid confusion, we will refer henceforth to all of the fragments under their published numbers. The fragment under discussion here is the published inv. 3498.) This papyrus was part of a lot classified by Bell as “a great mass of material which in Nahman’s invoice appears under several headings.”3 The second batch, known as the Brummer lot, was bought in New York and sent to Michigan through W. L. Westermann of Columbia University. It contained the sixteen fragments of inv. 3250. The difficulty, of course, with a great mass of material is that it is so simple to give individual pieces short shrift. The first appearance of fragments 3250a, b, and c in Michigan’s acquisition records indicates that these pieces were not carefully read: they were labeled as Coptic instead of Greek. Even a cursory reading indicates that the identification was erroneous, but the reason for the mistake is simple enough; the hands are sloppy, the texts lacunose. They hardly looked the part of the distinguished Greek literary productions that scholars were still eagerly looking for in the trash heaps and mummy cartonnages of the Fayûm. At any rate, they were called Coptic in the acquisition records and retained this designation for many years. In the meantime, however, the papyrus from the Bell lot (purchased in May 1925) was published in two separate articles. Reinhold Merkelbach edited the recto, which he called a “Verzeichnis von Gedichtanfangen,” in 1973, and it was published as P.Mich. inv. 3498. In the following year, Sir Denys Page edited the verso, which he called a fragment of “lyrical verse.”4 Both worked from photographs in conjunction with Herbert and Louise Youtie at Michigan, with whom they corresponded to verify their readings—an ex2. There are two candidates for this join: at the site of a repair (discussed infra), inv. 3498 was rejoined using a modern adhesive, while two pieces of adhesive tape link the fragments at a separate place. There are thus not two fragments (as archived) but three. 3. H. I. Bell report, July 16, 1925, box 2, Francis Willey Kelsey Papers (1894–1928), Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. 4. Merkelbach 1973a; Page 1974.

Introduction

•

3

acting task even for papyrologists as skilled as Merkelbach and Page. The overall quality of their readings is superb, especially considering that neither man saw the papyrus firsthand. The texts were able to be published independently of each other in this fashion because recto and verso comprised recognizably separate texts, in entirely different hands. Since inv. 3498 had enjoyed the good fortune of being catalogued as a Greek papyrus, it alone was published at this time; the “Coptic” fragments 3250a, b, and c lay dormant. Yet little was done with either recto or verso of inv. 3498 afterward, even when, nearly three decades later, the APIS project brought them (and the fragments of inv. 3250) back to papyrologists’ attention. In January 1999, during the process of digitally cataloguing the University of Michigan’s papyrus collection, Paul Heilporn noted in an e-mail to Ludwig Koenen that P.Mich. inv. 3250b joined with inv. 3498. The join is particularly clear on the recto: the upper portion of inv. 3498’s right edge ends in the middle of a column, and half-letters cut off at this edge are completed on the left edge of inv. 3250b. Heilporn’s discovery is unquestionably correct and throws several of Merkelbach’s conjectures into question. Nevertheless, the editiones principes of inv. 3498 (recto and verso) stood in their original form: inv. 3250b was not published even after the join was made; nor were inv. 3250a and inv. 3250c, which were nonetheless duly catalogued beside it in the APIS database. The publication of these papyri is thus long overdue, as is a reassessment of Merkelbach and Page’s readings on the previously published portions of inv. 3498. We thus have here an opportunity to reconstruct, at least partially, a papyrus that is far longer and more complex than its first editors knew. The sections of this study deal with it in separate segments. The recto, as Merkelbach ascertained, comprises an incipit list of unusual length and breadth, and contains headings that shed light on contemporary bibliographic techniques, while the verso now consists predominantly of a piece of lyric in the style of late fifth-century New Music—Page’s “lyrical verse.” The case of one verso fragment, that of inv. 3250a, comprises a third section.

Physical Characteristics of the Papyri The vertical measurements of the papyri—8.7 cm for inv. 3498
3250b, 8.3 cm for inv. 3250a, and 8.8 cm for inv. 3250c—are unusually short for a standard roll; we therefore surmise that it was cut down, in half or even thirds, from a larger roll. Such cutting must have occurred before the recto text was written: there are both top and bottom margins visible around its text, while

4

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

only bottom margins are visible on the verso (the presence of top margins on the verso cannot be confirmed due to the state of the papyrus). It is therefore likely that the recto text as we have it was written after the papyri were cut down, while the verso text was written before. (The sequence of events in the papyri’s history of use is complicated and will be discussed more fully shortly.) There is creasing damage throughout the fragments, indicating that the roll was folded at some point. No pattern can be discerned from the folds, though, and no correlation exists between the numerous holes in the fragments that would allow a model of the rolled fragments—let alone of the roll itself—to be fashioned. Although the texts’ respective hands will be more thoroughly discussed in their own sections, the recto hand is markedly sloppier and larger in inv. 3250a than in inv. 3250c, which is, in turn, worse than inv. 3498
3250b, particularly at the leftmost edge of 3250c. It is tempting to use this as an indicator that 3498
3250b is farther to the exterior of the roll than 3250a or c and that the quality of the writing deteriorated as the scribe continued, but this remains conjecture. The case of the versos is more promising in the matter of reconstructing the roll: their extremely wide columns—the second column in the reconstructed inv. 3498
3250b measures 17 cm—provide a denominator that can be employed in calculating the widths of the missing sections, and the contents themselves similarly hint at the order of the fragments.5 But even if the sequence of the fragments can be hypothesized on the basis of the versos, the fact that the verso text was truncated at the top when the papyrus was cut down still leaves irresolvable the problem of how much text is missing. The verso is badly abraded, far more so than the recto; we conjecture that it was more heavily exposed to the elements. No further joins can be made after Heilporn’s seminal join of 3498 to 3250b; some horizontal fibers appear to match up across the other fragments of the recto, but we have no indication from the columns themselves that direct joins are possible, and it is impossible to say how much text is actually missing in these gaps either from the recto or from the verso—which, as a complete text rather than a list of incipits, would be more helpful in this matter.

Reconstructing the Compositional History of the Papyri There are many indications that these papyri were used over a period of years, possibly decades. The recto is a palimpsest: a first text, written with 5. See part 2, section 1: “The Fragments.”

Introduction

•

5

the fibers, was erased before the current incipit list was written. We do not have enough of it to determine what its content was; no more than a few scattered letters can be seen, just enough for us to know that it was Greek and written in the same direction as the current recto text.6 The papyri were thus subsequently reused—once for the verso text and once as a palimpsest on the recto. Prior to their reuse, the papyri were also repaired at least once in their history. A patch on the verso of inv. 3498 has repaired a brief gap of about 3–5 mm at a kolle¯sis. The verso hand wrote over the patch, which indicates that this repair was performed quite early in the papyrus’ lifespan, certainly before the verso text was produced. While the verso fibers generally run vertically, the fibers in the patch run horizontally. But the shift in fiber direction at the site of the repair seems to have weakened the papyrus rather than strengthening it: before the fibers return to their original vertical orientation, a small fissure of approximately 1 mm intervenes. Efforts by Michigan’s conservator Leyla Lau-Lamb have confirmed that the fissure led to the separation of the two kolle¯mata (whether by fold, tear, or cut is unclear) and that they were rejoined at some point using a modern adhesive. The circumstances surrounding the damage and reattachment are sadly lost. The fragments, however, clearly require a join: the 1 mm gap caused by the fissure has the effect of interrupting the pen strokes constituting the verso’s letters (which would otherwise line up perfectly—see fig. 1). However unfortunate it may be, the repair has had the unexpected side effect of further elucidating the history of the papyri. When, in the process of conservation, the kolle¯mata of inv. 3498 were brought together to eliminate the 1 mm gap in the fibers of the verso, the recto fibers overlapped by the same amount, covering up part of the recto text. We therefore conclude that the verso text must have been written prior to the fragments’ separation, the recto text afterward; it is impossible that the text of the recto predates that of the verso or the separation of the fragments. This conclusion, however, has a further consequence: because the recto text postdates the separation of the kolle¯mata, its sequence of columns (in the configuration that the reconstructed fragment currently displays) does not have to be continuous; by the time the recto text was written down, the papyrus could have become merely a set of scraps, which were only reattached upon their

6. While multispectral imaging, performed on the fragments by Brigham Young University’s Ancient Textual Imaging Group in 2009, has helped enormously in elucidating the verso text’s readings, it has made no fundamental difference to the recto side, largely due to its being a palimpsest.

6

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

Fig. 1. Patch and separation on inv. 3498 verso

discovery on the basis of the verso text that had been interrupted by the separation. The contents of the recto are consistent with this possibility, as they comprise a list rather than a connected text. In light of the above, we reconstruct the history of the text as follows: •

• •

•

•

•

Early after the papyrus was manufactured, the damage on the verso of inv. 3498 was repaired with a patch, its fibers tellingly running in the same (horizontal) direction as the recto fibers. The original recto text was written with the fibers. The verso text was written across the fibers and over the aforementioned patch. The verso fibers on inv. 3498 separated further at the site of the patch, leading to either the tearing or the cutting of the fragment into two pieces. The original recto text was erased. Because writing with the fibers is less difficult than writing against them, erasure is likely to have happened after the verso was written; if the recto had been blank, it would presumably have been used in preference to the verso. The papyrus was cut down to a half- or third-roll height either before or after the erasure of the recto. In any case, the verso text had lost any importance to its owner at this point.

Introduction • •

•

7

The final recto text (incipit list) was written. The separate fragments of 3498 were reunited on the basis of the continuous text on the verso.

The papyrus shows no trace of having been made into cartonnage, so it must have been discarded when it dropped out of use after the final recto text was recorded on it. The dating of the text, based entirely on paleographic grounds, will be discussed more fully in the sections on the individual hands; it will suffice here to say that the historical sequence previously outlined accords with the paleographical evidence, on which basis the verso hand predates that of the recto. We agree with Merkelbach’s original decision to date the recto hand to the second century BCE, but the verso hand is potentially as early as the late third century (Page and the Youties suggested a secondcentury date). The problems pertaining to the fragments’ hands, however, are not limited to questions of dating.

The Curious Case of inv. 3250a verso We have observed that the verso text is a connected piece of New Musical lyric and that the recto text is a list of poetic incipits from a variety of lyric genres. These generalizations about the contents of recto and verso hold true for most of the papyri as we have them, but the verso of inv. 3250a is a different story. It is by far the worst preserved of the lot; the papyrus is of a dark color and is very badly abraded, and analysis via autopsy proved difficult. The problem is compounded by the fact that inv. 3250a verso appears to contain both hands: the first four lines are in the sprawling, ligatured hand of the mythographic lyrics, after which the hand abruptly switches to the upright, uneven hand of the incipits, which continues for the rest of the fragment. The recto hand adheres to the column width established by the first four lines in the verso hand—at least 16 cm. When the recto hand takes over, then, it seems to be writing not a continuation of the incipit list that appears in the other rectos but, rather, another, undetermined text. For these reasons, it is easiest to treat the unusual case of 3250a verso separately from the other texts. These papyri from the Michigan collection are long overdue for a reassessment. The texts they contain—a set of lyric and tragic incipits, a new piece of mythographic lyric, and the anomalous case of 3250a verso—are

8

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

significant new contributions to our body of Greek poetry. The following texts and commentaries will, we hope, become the basis for further work on the fragments. We are certain that what we have is a set of Ptolemaic literary papyri that enjoyed a fairly long lifespan with repeated reworking, and we offer them as fodder for the papyrologists, philologists, and cultural historians who, we hope, will not only welcome these as valuable fragments of previously undiscovered literature but also mine them for their mute testimony—repaired and reshaped over time—to the ways in which Ptolemaic readers of the Greek classics recorded their texts.

part 1

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits P.Mich. inv. 3498
3250b recto, 3250a and c recto

The Fragments and the Join The first of the rectos in this group to be edited, P.Mich. inv. 3498 recto, has had an unexpected series of effects on our readings of Greek lyric. It was published in 1973 by the late Reinhold Merkelbach as a “Verzeichnis von Gedichtanfangen.”1 As the title suggests, it contains an unusual list of lyric first lines, most of which are otherwise unknown. He dated the text to the second century BCE.2 One line of Alcaeus was clearly present in the list; another incipit appeared to confirm a conjecture regarding Alcaeus fragment 34 that had been made decades previously. Perhaps more temptingly, the third column of the papyrus, broken off in the middle, appeared to contain the missing first half of a Sappho incipit (fr. 5). The line (iii.1) reads Κυπρ κα] Νηρ ϊδεc in Voigt’s edition, from a conjecture made previously by Gallavotti. When Merkelbach read Κυπρ κα
[ι in this papyrus, it must have seemed another of the triumphs of papyrology: a long-dead reader of lyric in Ptolemaic Egypt comes on the scene to confirm a conjecture that had been made by eminent modern textual critics whose labor depended on a deep and abiding familiarity with Sappho’s diction and subject matter. As discussed in the introduction, the join of inv. 3250b with inv. 3498 took the incipit list in a startlingly different direction, completing the third column of inv. 3498 and adding an entirely new fourth column. None of 1. Merkelbach 1973a: 86. Denys Page also reedited Merkelbach’s incipits, with only minor adjustments, in his Supplementum Lyricis Graecis (1974: S286  Page1). 2. For more on the dating, see pp. 4–7.

9

10

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

Merkelbach’s conjectures from the third column—not even the missing first half of Sappho fragment 5—survived the join; they were plausible and wellconceived supplements, but inv. 3250b simply did not confirm them. The corpus of Greek lyric thus continues to surprise us. Merkelbach’s conjectures and readings in the first two columns are superb—despite his working only from photographs, with correspondence from the Youties in Michigan—and thus remain largely unaltered in the present volume. Indeed, they have only been enriched by the addition of new material. The genre of the incipit list played a significant part in the information technology of antiquity, and we have remarkably few examples of it remaining.3 This text is, therefore, a valuable testimony to the ways in which Ptolemaic readers of the Greek classics organized and catalogued their reading material. After the join, P.Mich. inv. 3498
3250b measures 26.6  8.7 cm; 3250a, 19.2  8.3 cm; and 3250c, 30.5  8.8 cm. The only direct join that can currently be made is the one that has already been made, between inv. 3498 and 3250b; it is probable that inv. 3250c follows 3250b (as we have reconstructed the roll), though the edges do not join exactly. We cannot determine with any certainty the position of 3250a with respect to the other pieces on the roll; it certainly does not join directly. We may guess, based on the deterioration of the handwriting, that 3250a occurs farther toward the interior on the roll than 3250c; we can see that the hand grows gradually larger and more untidy as we move to the right from the beginning of inv. 3498 onward, and if this process continues, due to the scribe’s fatigue or similar circumstances, then the largest and least legible writing should come later in the roll. We cannot, with any confidence, conjecture further than this. The content proceeds from lyric to tragic incipits, and the switch is made in the second column of inv. 3250c. The lyric sections include known lines from Alcaeus and Anacreon; the tragic sections, lines from the Orestes and Bacchae of Euripides. The other lines are unknown.

The Hand The hand is upright, unligatured, and informal—distinctly not a book hand, despite its content. It is small and tight in inv. 3498
3250b, particularly at 3. Of course, other incipit lists remain from antiquity: the most important of these for our purposes include a second-century CE list of probable Sappho incipits from Oxyrhynchus (see part 1, section 2: “The Incipits in Context” for further discussion of this important text) and an unpublished Vienna papyrus (P.Vind. G 40611) that contains first lines of epigrams as well as stichometric markers. It is at least a century older than the Michigan incipits.

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

11

the leftmost edge, but grows slightly larger and more sprawling as it moves from column to column. This development is even more pronounced on the other two papyri: the hand is larger and sloppier still in inv. 3250c and yet more so in inv. 3250a. The letterforms throughout are sufficiently similar, however, that we may be confident that the hand is the same throughout the three papyri. There are several eccentric forms that support this assertion: the c is written with one sweeping, curved stroke, and the ε is written with two; the crossbar of the latter frequently dips down and to the right, potentially causing confusion with other forms, especially when the writing is small and cramped. Particularly noteworthy is the π, with its widely curved right leg that makes it rather resemble τc. The η curves similarly at the right; at its most extreme, it resembles κ. Despite the hand’s awkwardness, it is nevertheless rapid enough to argue for a fair degree of confidence on the writer’s part: this is no βραδωc γρφων, in Youtie’s terms.4 The same hand appears to be found in P.Mich. inv. 3499, a poetic text, which Hugh Lloyd-Jones has suggested can be attributed to Callimachus, in the rare archebulean meter.5 The papyrus is quite different from that of the incipit text, both in its color and in its prior usage: inv. 3499 is not a palimpsest, and there is nothing on the verso. There is no suggestion that they should be joined, but the similarity in the hands should be noted. They may come from the same scribe or the same collection. Merkelbach dated the incipit text to the second century BCE based on the letterforms, and there is no reason to challenge his dating. We can perhaps narrow the range of possible dates to the latter half of the century. The closest comparandum to this hand comes from a school exercise, P.Köln inv. 7693, a set of anapests dated to the late second or early first century BCE, slightly later than Merkelbach’s second-century date for the Michigan incipits.6 The hand in the Köln anapests is similarly squat and upright, its π just beginning to buckle at the right in the way the incipit hand has taken to extremes. It is not the same hand, by any means, but it demonstrates some of the same trends. The recto hand is clearly distinct from the much more cursive, ligatured hand of the verso text; there can be no doubt that they are the work of two 4. Youtie’s own summaries of “slow writing” (1971) do, admittedly, feature many of the same descriptors as must inevitably be used for this incipit list: “large, awkward, uneven . . . very unpretty . . . goes up and down hill” (250). The ink strokes on this list, however, are rapid and unhesitating; the writing may be awkward and “unpretty,” but it argues for a certain degree of competence in the writer. 5. This, too, was originally published by Merkelbach (1973b); see also Lloyd-Jones 1974. 6. In addition to the editio princeps by B. Kramer, see Rusten 1985.

12

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

different writers. Also unlike the verso text is the way in which the lines bow and slope unpredictably. The columns are uneven in width, and Maas’ law is not universally observed; the left column edges are frequently not even straight. The intercolumnar space is irregular; it is particularly narrow between the third and fourth columns of inv. 3498
3250b. The columns contain unequal numbers of lines due to uneven spacing and letter sizes. Let the reader thus beware: lines that appear to be next to each other on the transcript are not necessarily next to each other on the actual fragments. Corrections are frequent (most are made by writing the desired letter above the line), but errors are even more so. A rather distinctive error occurs twice in 3250c; at ii.2 and iii.1, the writer confused the letters δ and λ and printed both to be on the safe side. This error occurred probably out of simple visual confusion, as there is little reason to suspect that the writer was actually mistaking one sound for the other. Intervocalic γ is omitted and then added above the line twice at 3250c iii.4, almost certainly for phonological reasons: the sound was already on its way to becoming a glide, as it has in modern Greek, and it is possible that our writer—either reading out loud to himself as he copied or writing from dictation—simply did not hear γ as a stop when writing it down but had the philological knowledge to correct the mistake later. Unlike the verso text, this text is sufficiently legible and distinct that a full diplomatic transcription with paleographic commentary is not necessary; paleographically difficult spots will be noted in the apparatus and treated as they appear in the main commentary.

The Incipits in Context Beyond inv. 3498
3250b, the remaining pieces, inv. 3250a and inv. 3250c, continue the incipit list, which now contains first lines of both lyric and tragic songs. The sections are divided by headings, which are indented and marked off with paragraphoi (see fig. 2). Three of these survive: parodo¯n archai at 3250c ii.4–5; mero¯n archai at 3250c iii.5–6; and a heading at 3250a ii.4–5 that is mutilated but clearly refers to archai as its brethren do. We see similar attempts to impose bibliographic order in other anthologies from the Ptolemaic period. Compare, for instance, the FirminDidot papyrus, a second-century anthology from an archive representing a small but determined Greek presence in the Serapeum of Memphis.7 It con7. P.Louvre 7172; see Wilcken 1922, 113–16.

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

13

Fig. 2. Indented heading parodo¯n archai with paragraphos

tains indented headings that clearly divide the pieces by genre and author: for example, Ποcει{δει}διππου επειγραµµατα in the fourth column of the verso. The striking difference between the Firmin-Didot papyrus and the Michigan list, however, is that the Michigan list’s headings make it clear that all of these sections contain archai, not actual poems. The two texts, however, indicate where overlap occurs between the organizational mechanisms of simple lists and those of anthologies—especially involving epigrams, which are generally quite short. It has previously been mentioned that a handful of other incipit lists from antiquity survive; these are the most important comparanda for this piece. An apparent list of incipits from the second century CE, P.Oxy. 2294, is so labeled because it contains ten apparently unrelated lines of lyric, followed by a prose section containing a fragment of a genre heading: πιθα]λµια. Moreover, the word πρτη two lines before this heading supports the notion that we are dealing with incipits in these lines.8 Lobel’s editio princeps supplies ρχ as the missing noun this adjective should modify, the most sensible conjecture under the circumstances; the first incipit in the list is therefore being singled out in some fashion. Lobel attributes these lines confidently to Sappho on the grounds of both content and dialect, and the attribution has been generally accepted ever since. If it is accurate, what we have here is the strongest possible comparandum for the Michigan incipits, both in its use of a generic marker to delimit a section of first lines and in its quasi-scholarly, yet potentially informal, arrangement. The adjective !κολποc appears in quick succession (differently inflected) in lines 5 and 8. This important text will be referred to throughout the commentary as the “Oxyrhynchus incipits” for short.

14

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

6 of P.Oxy. 2294; similarly, forms of the word "cτηρ appear two lines away from each other in the Michigan text, at 3250a iii.1 and iii.3. This proximity is probably no coincidence. Either the lists are arranged thematically, in which case some repeated vocabulary is to be expected, or the mere act of writing down one line suggests the other. In the latter case, the list in question may be an ad hoc composition, informal and dependent on the scribe’s associative memory. Any academic who has taken notes knows that this informality is not at odds with a scholarly mindset, and the memory is one tool among many; the interplay of formalized bibliographic tools and the spontaneous echoes of lyric are nevertheless intriguing features of our text. In addition, we can compare our pieces with P.Oxy. 3724, a text from the first century CE containing incipits of various epigrammatists, along with notes on the contents of the collection and a medical recipe. Three hands are represented: the first clumsily noted down some epigrams; the second even more clumsily added the recipe; the third, the most polished, wrote down several columns of incipits, including at least one representing a poem the first hand copied into the anthology. Twenty-seven of these incipits are attributed elsewhere—if inconsistently—to Philodemus. David Sider makes the case that this piece represents a Philodemus-loving user’s private collection, but Parsons’ original suggestion that the incipit list on this text represents a scholar’s working notes for the preparation of an anthology is even more attractive as a comparandum for the Michigan text.9 Some features of the Philodemus incipits are strikingly scholarly; Parsons has compared the abbreviations used, for instance, to the conventions of scholia.10 Yet overall, this list, like the Michigan list, is hard to view as a finished product, complete in itself; Both lists are written on reused papyrus, jostling with other texts for space, in swift but unpretentious hands. A homemade anthology or the incipit list is bound only by the user’s needs and tastes, rather than by literary canons or schoolteachers’ judgments. The Michigan and Oxyrhynchus incipit lists under discussion here have a sense of informality in common, which suggests something about their usage patterns: they may be notes for bigger projects, indices of personal libraries, or similar apparatuses for scholars at any level who wish to organize their reading. We can, in effect, see them as an informal counterpoint to the most important bibliographic work of antiquity, the Pinakes of Callimachus. The poet-librarian’s masterpiece of ancient library science catalogues works of literature by category and author and, in some fragments at least, 9. Sider 1989, 229; Parsons 1988, 68. 10. Parsons 1988, 66.

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

15

provides a brief résumé of the texts’ salient features. More important for our purposes, the Pinakes appear to have contained archai, according to three important testimonia from Athenaeus. Fragment 433 (Pfeiffer) contains the clearest evidence that the entries of the Pinakes included at least some first lines: νγραψε Καλλ$µαχοc ν τω ι τρ$τωι π$νακι τω ν Ν!µων κα ρχ%ν α&του τ νδε παρθετο. Fragments 434 and 436 also contain references to archai; fragment 436 preserves what appears to be the formula the bibliographers used (ο' ( ρχ ), though this is not immediately clear from the context. It is equally unclear whether Callimachus included the incipit always or just in cases where confusion could have resulted from its omission, as well as how this bibliographic practice would have trickled down into the papyrological record. In any case, these archai function in the same way as titles, either for works with more than one known title (such as the culinary epic mentioned in fr. 436), for multiple plays of the same name by the same author, or for short works, usually lyric, that were not assigned titles proper. We are generally dealing with the last category in this incipit list. In the sections that do not immediately follow headings, the only recognizable lines are all from Alcaeus and Anacreon, and the unknown lines fit well within the framework of lyric style and diction. That the writer of this list took a more generically comprehensive view is suggested by the headings we do have: beginnings of tragic parodoi and other tragic songs. This kind of genre mixing is unusual in the context of Greek anthologies: multiauthor collections are very common, but they tend to stay within a range—epithalamia in the case of the Oxyrhynchus incipits, epigram in the others mentioned here. The combination of lyric and tragedy, however, is a striking feature of the Michigan text. The rift between the two genres may, of course, be a modern creation; it is entirely possible to treat the parodoi and other choral numbers from tragedy as lyric songs in their own right, to be excerpted along with Alcaeus and his ilk as pieces to be sung or recited.11 It may perhaps surprise us to see this kind of Callimachean scholarly apparatus mirrored in a text clumsily written on twice-reused papyri that are literally falling apart at the seams. Yet this does happen elsewhere. We may compare a list of Euripidean prologues, currently in the Strasbourg collection, dating from the mid-third century BCE.12 The hand is as uneven as

11. Strepsiades, in Aristophanes’ Clouds (1354ff.), objects to his son’s performing a speech of Euripides at a banquet, but this is at least as much due to the unsavory subject matter as to the problem of genre. 12. P.Stras. W.G. 307.

16

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

that of the Michigan incipits and does not look exceptionally practiced. There is, nevertheless, one paragraphos, indicating a certain attempt to control the material; and there are dashes within the lines, at points that do not entirely make sense—certainly more of them than would be necessary to indicate character divisions.13 We may also consider the Firmin-Didot papyrus, containing its literary texts from the Memphite Serapeum, including the “epigrams of Poseideidippus [sic],” mentioned earlier. It also has some entirely unsophisticated features; the hand of the Posidippus is, as Turner termed it, “as unformed as that of a schoolboy.” He further notes that the writer spaces the words unevenly in order to avoid particularly rough areas of the papyrus.14 We may deduce, then, that the papyrus used for the Firmin-Didot papyrus (and for a list of accounts on the other side) was of relatively poor quality. This grade of papyrus—or the palimpsest that the writer of the Michigan incipits reached for—may have been chosen due to considerations of cost or availability.15 There is, of course, a category of Greek readers and writers whose literary ambitions are highly likely to be recorded on inexpensive and even shoddy materials: students. It is unclear whether the Michigan incipits are to be considered a school text or not. The Köln anapests are more likely to come from a classroom setting; they are even signed “Maron,” presumably by the student who labored to record his Aeschylus in something resembling a straight line.16 Bärbel Kramer, the text’s original editor, argued that the hand and the frequent errors indicated that the anapests were a student’s work.17 We have in our text a very similar hand, and errors abound; by these standards, it could well be a school text. (Kathleen McNamee’s

13. See Turner 1987, 60. The state of the text is in some ways comparable to that of the many contemporary Homeric “wild” texts; bizarre errors juxtaposed with some textual improvements over the vulgate as we have it. 14. Turner 1987, 82. 15. The most comprehensive treatment of the price of papyrus in antiquity is Skeat 1995. Skeat’s assertion that papyrus was cheap and plentiful is nevertheless not as useful for our purposes here as it would be for a later text, since most of his examples are drawn from a considerably later period (e.g., Martial). We have so few Ptolemaic texts, relatively speaking, that we cannot properly compare their economic value to the more plentiful texts—augmented by more plentiful literary evidence, from Martial and others—for the Roman period. Nevertheless, the solution is not to import later references, especially satirical literary ones, back onto the earlier period. It is risky even to cite Catullus, whose description of premium papyrus features (22.5–8) contrasts satirically with the reused materials that most people, as he asserts, can afford: sic ut fit in palimpsesto relata (5–6). 16. Rusten (1985, 22) has argued that this may be not even the student’s signature but a common name used in school texts. 17. Kramer 1980, 11.

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

17

suggestion that the incipit list represents a syllabus of sorts—presumably for an intermediate to advanced reader—is intriguing but ultimately unprovable.)18 The combination of authors represented could be another indication: the known lines from the collection include Euripides—moreover, selections from plays of Euripides that we know were phenomenally popular in the Hellenistic world, the Orestes and the Bacchae—and less popular, more difficult authors: Anacreon and Alcaeus. Teresa Morgan has asserted that this sort of combination is a fundamental characteristic of school anthologies: “The teachers who used them were trying to combine the works and authors known to be important with something out of the ordinary which might attract notice.”19 Whether this incipit list is a school text or not, we may certainly read it as the reflection of the literary, critical, and educational habits of its original audience. This text’s unusual features—particularly its use of headings to organize the material it contains—reflect a Greek reader’s desire not merely to own or read the pieces it contains but also to impose order on them. Based on the parallels cited in this introduction, I suggest that this is not a school text but, rather, a more advanced scholar’s private work—perhaps an index to a larger collection of poetry, done rapidly and on reused materials, but with the sort of attention to detail that we find in more formal anthologies and bibliographic lists. The Michigan incipit list represents a highly personal, even idiosyncratic, collection of poetry, arranged by headings (indented so that they would be the first thing the eye sees on scanning the roll) to allow the user to access the desired material quickly and effectively. More than simply a source of new lines of lyric (though they must not be undervalued as such) the new Michigan incipits are also an unparalleled source for the ways in which the sort of information technology exemplified in the Pinakes of Callimachus was implemented by ordinary readers for their own bibliographic purposes. The text that follows is the restored transcription; no diplomatic transcription is given, in contrast to the verso text. The rectos are far more legible and contain minimal editorial markings, aside from the paragraphoi that mark off the indented headings and one possible stichometric marking that will be discussed more fully in the commentary. Inv. 3498 was, of course, previously published by Merkelbach and reedited by Page in his Supplementum Lyricis Graecis. In the following edition of 3498, I print Merkelbach’s readings 18. Personal communication, 2007. 19. Morgan 1998, 86.

18

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

unless I dispute them, which will be made clear in the critical apparatus. Since this fragment has been joined to inv. 3250b, the fourth column (and half of the third) is where the new material begins, and all readings henceforth are therefore mine unless otherwise noted.

The Text P.Mich. inv. 3498
3250b recto Provenance unknown col. i

5

10

]θ
ριξα τε ] π
]αδα
α ]
τε ]c
αι
]
υ
µα[

]αντε ]
ηα
]

οc[

]
]
]


col. iii

:\γ/ν% µητι!εccα Κυπρ κα[λ]λ
$cτα

26.6  8.7 cm →

II BCE

col. ii

δευ τ[] µοι να cον δυ2 *
ρωτc µε 4cταµεν ε5χην
 δεξαµνη{ι} κε
6 cεµν7 πολ/κλα
π!τνι2 6ρνω *ρωc πεξενω[ δευτ2 8λβιαι τ$c *ρ
ωτοc 9δη[

]ονηαρ χαιρε ⌊Κ⌋υλλναc + µ[


] π!ντ[ Θυ[νη]ν φρα π ∆ανα!ν τι col. iv



]
µεν τ1ν
2Αλκµ [ ε µ;ν πρ!cεcτιν

3498
3250b recto: i.1
ρ
ιξατε Merkelbach i.2  ii.2 apud Merkelbach i.5 c
α
ι Sampson ii.1 Alc. fr. 34 ii.4 δεξαµνη{ι} Merkelbach ii.5 πολυκλα
: πολυκλ
Merkelbach ii.7 πεξεν[θη Page1: *παιξεν Merkelbach ii.10 ο
νηα
ρ Merkelbach ii.12 + µ
δει c Merkelbach, “aber nicht warscheinlich” (Alc. fr. 308): , µ [γα]c π!ντ[οc Page1 ii.13 Θυω[να]ν vel θ/ω[ µε]ν Page1 αφρα Janko: vix αφρο Merkelbach; ii.14 π ∆ναον τι Merkelbach: επιδα

οντι
[ Page1 iii.1 µητιοεccα µη[τερ Merkelbach iii.2 κα[λ]λ
$cτα Shapiro: κα[ι Nηρηιδεc (Sapph. fr. 5) Merkelbach iv.1 τ1ν
vel του
2Αλκµ [ lege 2Αλκµ [νηc vel 2Αλκµ [ναc

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

5 µ
c

10

ανετωφρ
[
]ται γρcθω µο[ι
]υδω α!λον φων[
]τιµε πχου τ!ν [*]ρωτα γλυκυµε[

]cαν χαιρε χα[ιρ]ε δια εδον [
]δ
[
]ποµ
ε —ουνο[


]οθα νον τ[


]υτιλ
 παι κ[


]ιµεν 6 Cθι µ[ ω π[

•

19

 τ%ν :γ$ην θεο 6 τ1ν *ρωτα τοµ Καλλ$µηδεc ο& π!τνια Bc αδ ν[
]\c/ιερην ερωc Πη
λιδο[c] ποτ2 ε δη ει
δ
εθ
2 'περη
[

]ψο[

]λι δ$κην [vac. 7–8]ειc φιλοι [vac. 7–8]ων παπ


P.Mich. inv. 3250c recto Provenance unknown col. i

πακτ c/ννοµε Μουcων 9
δη τοι ν/ξ µcατον ]πο το\υ/ ραν τ1 φιλοcοφειν ]π
*ρωτ2 *ρωτι λ/ει 5 DΕ]λνην ποτε λ!γοc c
ε τ1ν Τρωι1ν (µιν πολιο µ;ν (µν 9δη  νεο κτ/ποc µε 6 µ
7 χ〚 ο〛 \ε/λ/να

30.5  8.8 cm → col. ii

µνην δευτεπιων λιγα τιc µεν
ω[

]ιλ\δ/α παρ!δων ____ρχα$ ρα
µοι δοξα
[  βα[c]$λεια γ/ν[αι 6 Ζευ θεω ν Hπατ[ε  φ$λι αι Μυκη
ν$δ\εc/ 6 └

II BCE col. iii

2Αχε{δ}\λ/ω ιο[ 2Αc$αc π1 γ
⌊αc  ξνε cε[ 6 cι\γ/α cι\γ/α λ
επτ1ν ____ µερω ν[ αι κλειν1ν [ πολυπαι[ Μ
αιαδ[

iii.3 ανετωφρο[δι Merkelbach; Page1 ad loc. “–ωφρο[διτ- supplevit Merkelbach” iii.4 γρcθω vel επεcθω Merkelbach ]υδω: Λυδ=ω  Janko iii.6 πχου τ!ν: ρον Merkelbach: πχ


ον Page1 πχ’ ο& iii.7 η c Merkelbach; littera vix η γλυκ> µε[λιc]cαν vel µε[λ$c]cαν Battezzato iii.10 γουνο[υ µαι Merkelbach; prima littera vix γ est iii.11 [να]υτ$λ- vel [Μ]υτιλ ν- Battezzato iii.12 κ[


]ιµεν: fortasse κ[λυθ]ι µν; κ[αλο], κ[αλα], vel κ[αλε]ι Battezzato iii.13 ιθι µ: ιθι µο
Merkelbach 3250c recto: i.4 ]π
: ]π2 Sampson  ι]cε, @ι]cε, vel 6  ]cε i.6 ]cε:  i.7 Anacr. 395.1 (PMG) ii.1 µνηνA δευτ’ π’ ν Battezzato ii.2 δ super λ scriptum est ii.7 E. El. 988 potius quam A. Pers. 623 ii.9 E. Or. 1246 iii.1 λ super δ scriptum est; E. Ba. 519  ξν’, c [ Battezzato iii.2 E. Ba. 64 iii.3 vel 6 iii.4 E. Or. 140 iii.5–6 fortasse µερω ν [ρχ]α$ iii.9 Μ
αιαδ[ vel Ν
αιαδ[

20

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

10 κθεκτοι µε φ\λ/γουcιν ]

φ
ρειc µου τ%ν
ρ
[

ανακ

Ζ
ε>c Kµερ
[



]α
ιον οK µ;ν π
[ δροµ
α[



]

[


]φορ
[ο]ι H
µνει µναµ[

P.Mich. inv. 3250a recto Provenance unknown col. i

5

π
10

col. ii λατογεν;c [
]ε
λ/ρα νcω ν αµ[

]χ
υτα

"γετ µε το
[
]αβρον ____ τω ν cιµ
ω
[ ] ρχα$ ρατ1ν θ[λ]οc ρατ1ν πναπα
υ Μου[c]αι παντο$ων λιγ[/]φωνο
ν µ!ν *πο[c] ερε Χαρ$των ψ$θ[υ]ρε πο[λ]υτρη

19.2  8.3 cm →

II BCE

col. iii : µ;ν cτεροπ


την$κα δ2 *αρ αK µ;ν cτρο[c] κατα
γονα$ J
δε π;[ρ] µγαc Ζφυρε παντου
θρ
οουβρο λε$ρια µ;
ν µελαν!π[τ]ε κα$ τοθ2 'π;[ρ] ενου[ Πλοψ



Philological Commentary On 3498
3250b recto col i The column is incomplete and badly abraded, and nothing of substance can be made out in these lines. My readings, therefore, differ in only a few unimportant respects from those of Merkelbach, which I follow unless otherwise noted. ii.1 δευτ
[] µοι ναcον “here, to me, [leaving] the island.” The conjecture δευ τ µοι να ]cον for Alcaeus fr. 34 had already been made by Gallavotti (and previously, Wilamowitz had conjectured δευτ2)—“quod probat  πτ[ερο]φ!ρ[ο]ι (E. Or. 317) Battezzato ii.11 δροµ[δεc 6 iii.11 fortasse µναµο[c/ναν, µναµο[c/ναc, etc. 3250a recto: ii.1 λατογενc [c]ε
λ/ρα Janko ii.2 χ vel λ; fortasse µφιχ/τIα ii.4 cιµω
vel cιµο
ο
postea vacat ii.9 λιγ[/]φων’ Sider: λιγ[/]φων "νεµ’, Jν Battezzato: potius ο quam α ii.10 *πο[c] ερε Janko iii.3 cτρο[c] Janko iii.5 Jδ’ πε µγαc Sampson iii.6 π!ντου Battezzato iii.9 µελαν!π[τ]ερε vel sim. coniecit Janko

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

21

P.Mich. nondum edita,” according to Voigt in her edition. Presumably Merkelbach had alerted her to this line’s presence on our papyrus before his edition appeared. In any case, the attribution will never be completely certain, since our line ends with ναcον, but the likelihood is strong that we do have the missing first half-line of the Alcaeus fragment here. Luigi Battezzato has observed that this and the two incipits that follow it are in alphabetical order, something that occurs elsewhere in this text (iii.5–7; 3250a ii.6–9). If, however, the composer of this list—our writer or someone whose work he or she is copying out—is indeed attempting to alphabetize these incipits, it is not done in any sustained way and thus cannot be an organizing principle for the list. ii.2 δυ 
ρωτc µε “two loves [possess, burn, vel sim.] me.” The first ε is missing all but its lowest curve, but it is unlikely to be c. The meter is possibly ionic a minore. ii.3 cταµεν εχην
“we stood . . . a prayer.” Page1 did not read the final ν, but Merkelbach did; a letter that is either ν or α is clearly present. The use of Mcτηµι’s second perfect suggests an intransitive meaning, so the easy way out—taking the accusative noun as the verb’s direct object—is unlikely, and in any case, nowhere else does this verb appear to be paired with this direct object. Page1 notes that since the word ε5χην forces the dialect of the piece to be Ionic, the verb must be the Ionic perfect rather than the Doric second aorist 4cτα¯ µεν. ii.4  δεξαµνη{ι} “you who will receive.” The vocative is far more likely  than the dative after ω, so I follow Merkelbach in deleting the ι. ii.5 cεµν πολκλα
“revered, greatly [famous?] one.” Merkelbach did not read the α, but remnants of the diagonal stroke on the left side and of another diagonal at midletter level appear to be present; they are, however, located on a tear, so the letter is mutilated enough to require a dot. The word is probably πολ/κλαυτε or πολ/κλα¯τε (the latter with the sort of Aeolicizing long alpha that we would expect in archaic lyric); I suggest that cεµν is a vocative and that the πολυ- adjective modifies the same vocative noun; we thus are likely to have a cletic hymn to an unidentified goddess. The meter could be the beginning of an Alcaic hendecasyllable. One of this text’s idiosyncrasies is its propensity to cut words off midway—generally at syllable divisions. In many cases, there is no room in

22

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

the column for anything else and, as here, nothing written after the final letter of the syllable where the writer ends. Battezzato suggests a parallel in the index to the letters of Fronto, which are denominated by their first lines as the poems are here. One of these lines, in the index to book 1, similarly cuts off at the end of a syllable within a word: Minus valui mi mag (mag for magister). That the textual tradition preserves this abbreviation in the case of Fronto and Antoninus indicates that perhaps it was at least not seen as outlandish. In the Michigan incipits, at least enough of the truncated word is given to provide any reader who knows the poem a clue to its identity. This was convenient enough for the ancient user of this list but is frustrating for our purposes except in the case of the very few known lines, where we can confidently restore the rest of the incipit based on the manuscript traditions. ii.6 πτνι ρνω “queen, from heaven.” This is probably the beginning of a Sapphic hendecasyllable. The meter could be trochaic, but the dialect of 6ρνω and the line’s context within this heavily Aeolic list suggest Aeolic. ii.7 ρωc πεξεν With Page’s conjecture πεξεν[θη, “love was a guest.” The meter is iambic. ii.8 δευ τ’ λβιαι “here, fortunate ones.” The adjective could, in lyric, refer to any number of divine entities (as δευτ’ implies; we are probably dealing with a cletic hymn): the Muses, the Charites, even (as in Ar. Ra. 452) the Moirai. ii.9 τc ρ
ωτοc “who, of love.” All but the right side of the rounded stroke at the upper-right part of the letter is missing; the letter appears to be ρ. The word order suggests that we have the interrogative τ$c instead of the indefinite pronoun. ii.11 χαιρε ⌊Κ⌋υλλναc “hail, [the ruler] of Cyllene.” This is certainly the incipit of Alcaeus fr. 308.1–2: χαιρε, Κυλλναc + µδειc, c; γρ µοι θυ µος 5µνην, τ1ν κορ/φαιc ν α5ταιc Curious here is the next line of the Michigan text, which reads ο µε[


]c π!ντ—suspiciously like the continuation of the poem until the

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

23

end of the line. Page read , µ[γα]c π!ντ[οc in this line, but we have more space in the lacuna than two letters’ worth; three would be more plausible. Merkelbach tentatively conjectured + µ└δει┘c. The problem then becomes the letters ποντ that end the line; these could conceivably be the beginning of the next incipit. This sort of line division is unparalleled elsewhere in the papyrus. Given the text’s tendency to leave out even final syllables of words, the idea of one incipit spilling over into a line and a half is implausible. The reading + µ[δει]c (or , µ[δει]c, if the dialect is something other than Aeolic) is an excellent one, but it must be the beginning of another unknown line of poetry rather than the continuation of Alcaeus fr. 308. The third syllable of the word beginning in ποντ- is omitted per the scribe’s usual practice, but I suggest that we should read something like ,/+ µ[δει]c π!ντ[ου, “who reigns over the sea.” ii.13 "φρα “rashness [overtook? harmed?] Thyone.” Janko has suggested φρα[δ$α, which, in conjunction with the supplement Θυ[νη]ν, would immediately suggest a plot for the poem. Semele is referred to as Thyone as early as the Homeric Hymns (h.Bacch. 1.21), and her folly in asking Zeus to display his divinity to her offers an irresistibly dramatic subject for a poem. This reading is rather different from the one that both Merkelbach and Page give: θ/ω[µε]ν 2Αφροδ[$τηι. What Merkelbach read as an ο is a hole in the papyrus—a difficult pitfall to avoid when working from photographs—and his δ is an α; thus Aphrodite simply will not go here. ii.14 π$ ∆αναν τι “against Danaus, something.” The line probably refers to the hero Danaus rather than to one of the Homeric Danaans, since the latter are generally plural. iii.1 &\γ/ν( µητιεccα “holy, crafty one.” Merkelbach conjectured µ [τερ before the join between inv. 3498 and inv. 3250b was made. The break occurs in the middle of the τ; only traces of the left side of the horizontal bar are present on inv. 3498, so it would have been impossible to tell what letter was present until the join was made. His reading was thus a sensible conjecture as long as we only had inv. 3498, but the addition forces us to replace it with the more unusual—and therefore harder to predict—µητι!εccα. The line is probably the beginning of a Sapphic hendecasyllable, but the Ionic form :γν makes it difficult to ascribe this to Sappho or Alcaeus, where we should expect γν. For the omission

24

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

and subsequent insertion of the γ, see inv. 3250c, iii.4. The goddess referred to may be the notoriously guileful Aphrodite or—as Battezzato suggests, following Page1 415.3, the crafty Athena. iii.2 Kυπρ$ κα[λ]λ
cτα “Cypris, most beautiful.” Merkelbach read κυπρ κα[ and therefore suggested, very tentatively, that this line might supply the conjectured beginning of Sappho fr. 5 (Voigt): Κυπρ κα] Νηρ ϊδεc. This line would then do the same thing for Sappho that ii.1 had done for Alcaeus. But the restored line proceeds quite differently now that inv. 3250 has been joined. The first letter after the break could read as δ, α, or λ; I read λ, following Julia Shapiro’s conjecture. This also is the beginning of a Sapphic stanza, and both the dialect (as the final -α in the epithet indicates) and the meter (likely a Sapphic hendecasyllable) are fully consistent with an attribution to Sappho or Alcaeus. iii.3 ανετωφρ
[
]ται Merkelbach found Aphrodite in this line, but the lacuna now present after the join is too small for more than one rather cramped letter, and the name of the goddess will not fit. The letter next to the lacuna may be an ο, but there is not enough of it to tell for certain. iii.4  , as Janko has conjectured, but we can see nothing
]υδω Perhaps Λυδ=ω to the left of the υ. The scribe does not use scriptio plena, so all iota subscripts must be supplied by the editor. iii.5 α)λον φων[ “changeful [voice?].” Page1 compares Theocritus 16.44: αολ7 φωνων. iii.6 "πχου τν []ρωτα “Hold back Eros.” Merkelbach read πχ2 ο&ρον, but the letter is clearly τ, not ρ. We now have a line begging someone to restrain love; this is probably addressed to Aphrodite, and the Eros in question is the proper name. The meter appears anapestic. iii.7 µ
c These two letters stand in the margin, and their purpose is unclear. The first could be either µ or η; µ is likelier, given the letter’s lack of the distinctive rounded right stroke that η features in this hand. They could be stichometric markers, though the letters occur in the opposite order from what we would normally expect (e.g., cµ  240). There is also no distinguishing horizontal line over the letters to indicate that they would be numerals. γλυκυµε[

]cαν It previously appeared that there was space for three let-

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

25

ters in the lacuna within the incipit itself in this line, hence Luigi Battezzato’s restorations: either γλυκυµελ[ιcc]αν or γλυκυµελ[$cc]αν. Further inspection suggests that we do not have quite enough space as it stands for all three letters in the lacuna, but it is difficult to see what else the word could be. Perhaps the scribe omitted one c; though there are no other instances of haplography in this text, it is a common enough process. iii.10 —ουνο[


]οθα Merkelbach had read the first letter as γ and thus conjectured γουνο[υ µαι, possibly as the beginning to Anacreon fr. 348. The letters οθα after the break are on inv. 3250b, which he did not have, so the temptation to read the first five letters alone as the beginning of a familiar word is entirely understandable. There is no upright stroke on the first letter, though, so the γ is improbable. This mark does not, in fact, resemble any letter at all. It may instead be an abnormally small paragraphos, intended to mark off a subsection of incipits within the larger divisions. iii.11 νον τ[


]υτιλ
The λ has what looks almost like a serif on the bottom of the right diagonal; it may be the remnant of the horizontal stroke of a δ, but λ is likelier. iii.12  παι κ[


]ιµεν “child, [listen?].” Perhaps κλυθι µν; alternatively,  Battezzato’s suggestions of some form of καλ!c or καλω would work well, too. iv.1 ]
µεν τ+ν
Αλκµ.[ “on the one hand, Alcmene’s son.” The presence of the definite article τ!ν (or του; there is only a trace of the letter present) leads us to conjecture some genitive form of Alcmene’s name; we thus have a clear reference to Herakles. The lacuna at the beginning of the column prevents us from knowing exactly what is being done to him. iv.2 ε) µ/ν πρcεcτιν “if [he? she? it?] is added.” iv.3  τ(ν &γην θεο “oh, the holy goddess.” We should naturally expect  θε!ν, but there is nothing written to the right of the ο. At several points in this column, the writer breaks off unexpectedly in the middle of words. Furthermore, blank space is visible after the letters that are written, even though the syllable is incomplete; the lines all break off in different places, so the writer is clearly not trying to create a consistent

26

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

right margin. There is no visible damage to the papyrus that would necessitate avoiding this section of the roll. We ultimately have no way of discerning what happened here. Unfortunately, the scribe breaks off before a verb appears to let us know what is being done to said holy goddess. iv.4 τοµ The sequence of letters is clear on the papyrus, but it is unclear what is actually meant. The writer is undoubtedly breaking off in midword again—perhaps some derivative of τοµ or a repeated article assimilated to a following consonant, as Battezzato suggests—though this would be easier to envision happening if the next word were present. iv.6 πτνια 0c αδ “queen, how sweet.” Again, the writer breaks off after the first syllable of the last word, which is probably a Doric or Aeolic form of :δ/c/"δυc. iv.8 Πη
λιδο[c] ποτ ε) δ. “the Pelian [spear] once, if indeed.” The η in Πη
λιδο[c] is missing except for two short strokes, top and bottom, at the very right-hand side. Since the right vertical of η is strongly curved in this hand, these are exactly the strokes we expect to see in order to read η. The line must refer, as the epithet Πηλιc always does, to the ash spear (µελ$η) of Achilles; the syntax in the line is unfortunately confused.

On 3250c recto i.1 πακτ$ cννοµε Μουcων “lyre, companion of the Muses.” This line, which mixes the dialects Doric/Aeolic (πακτ, rather than πηκτ) and Ionic (Μουcων), indicates that we are still in the lyric section of the incipit list. The dialect mixture of the line as it stands is quite confusing, in fact, and one suspects scribal error. The line appears to scan as a glyconic if we scan Μουcων as a cretic, as a pherecretean if we scan it as a spondee. The word does scan (with synezesis) as a spondee in all its verse attestations—but all of these occur in hexameters and elegiac couplets, where a cretic would be impossible. There is thus nothing to prevent its scanning as a cretic here, in an entirely different metrical system. i.2 3
δη τοι νξ µcατον “it’s already midnight, you know.” The first η could also be read as an ε, but 9δη makes more sense; the adjective, failing to go with ν/ξ, looks forward to a noun that is not included in this entry. The meter is unclear. The line recalls Sappho 168b ( PMG adesp. 976):

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

27

δδυκε µ;ν  cλαννα κα ΠληSαδεcA µcαι δ; ν/κτεc, παρ7 δ2 *ρχετ2 Uρα, *γω δ; µ!να κατε/δω. The presence of τοι in our poem, however, suggests a second person: perhaps here we have a lover wishing—audibly, to another—for the horses of night to run slowly. No attribution can be made. Battezzato’s comparison of a line from the Little Iliad (ν>ξ µ;ν *ην µεcτη, λαµπρ7 δ’πτελλε cελ νη, PEG fr. 9  EGF fr. 11a) would move this from the realm of amatory lyric to that of high epic, midnight being when Troy fell. But in the context of the list—particularly the next line, which is insistently amatory—this suggestion appears less likely. i.3 "]πο το\υ / ρα ν τ+ φιλοcοφειν “from loving comes philosophizing.” The first word reads better as π1 than as 'π1. The meter is uncertain; the wording, slightly prosaic; the sentiment, unusually philosophical for this collection. See, however, Pl. Smp. 204b4: ναγκαιον VΕρωτα φιλ!cοφον εναι (“Eros must be a philosopher”). The Oxyrhynchus Sappho incipits (P.Oxy. 2294) appear to contain prose headings both before and after the list of poetic first lines, and we could compare that feature here, but the following lines appear to be all love and no philosophy, and divisions within the list are very carefully marked with indented headings and paragraphoi and tend to have more to do with genre than with subject matter anyway. i.5 4Ε]λνην ποτε λγοc “the story goes that once, Helen.” The meter could be anapestic with an unusual degree of resolution (or, as Sampson suggests, iambic—but the subject matter would be odd for iambs). For the Helen logos as a paradigm, compare Sappho fr. 16.6ff. The word ποτε in our text suggests that she is being similarly held up as a mythological exemplum here: as Helen did once, so perhaps might the audience of the poem wish to do. i.7 π
ολιο$ µ/ν 6µ$ν 3δη “My [temples] are already graying.” The only identifiable line in this column is easily ascribed to Anacreon (PMG 395.1), even if the first letter is little more than a smudge: πολιο µ;ν (µν 9δη κρ!ταφοι κρη τε λευκ!ν.

28

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

i.8  νεο$ κτποc µε “Young men, the noise [does something to] me.” As it  stands, the meter appears to be trochaic. The speaker is addressing a group of younger people in a way that is familiar to us from the lyrics of Sappho and Anacreon. As we lack the verb, we do not know what his or her reaction to the young men’s noise is, but κτ/ποc is as likely to be the joyous, festival sound of trumpets (B. Paean 1.75) as the loud sound of mourning (Tim. Pers. 171), and the verb could be anything from “thrills” to “grieves” to “annoys.” i.9 µ
 χ〚ο〛\ε/λα “my tortoise-shell.” The µ is badly abraded, but traces are still visible. The correction is of a type unprecedented in this piece; the writer does not tend to get vowels mixed up, but the ο is changed directly into an ε—not written above the line without deleting the incorrect letter, which is the way this scribe usually makes corrections. The dialect is Doric or Aeolic; the reference is in all likelihood to a lyre or similar musical instrument, in the context of this lyric list. ii.1 µνην δευτεπιων Battezzato’s word division (µνην7 δευτ π’ )ν) gives us a sentence fragment out of this confused mass of letters: “I am mad; come here to . . .” The final word should involve either violets or Ionians, but we have nothing beyond the first two syllables. We have enough nonetheless to make the familiar equation of love (floral, Eastern, delicate) and madness. ii.2 µεν
ω[

]ιλ\δ/α The first hint of the writer’s problems with δ/λ surfaces at the end of the line. The letter λ is written slightly lower than the rest of the line, with δ directly above it; this does not look like a correction made by inserting the correct letter above the line, as the writer does elsewhere in the text. Rather, he or she seems genuinely unsure as to which letter is correct. There is occasional evidence for λ or ρ being interchanged with δ in the Roman period, but not this early.20 It is highly possible that the writer is making a simple visual error and correcting it, as λ and δ look so similar. ii.3 There is about a line’s worth of space between the beginning of one section and the end of the next. 20. See Gignac 1976, 1:110.

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

29

ii.4–5 παρδων "ρχα “beginnings of parodoi.” This is the first of the generic headings. Several anthologies containing headings survive in the papyrological record, and several incipit lists exist, but the combination of incipits and generic headings is a distinctive feature of our text. The other major comparandum for our text is the so-called Firmin-Didot papyrus (discussed in the introduction); that papyrus anthology, containing some remarkably contemporary literature, features generic headings and is written in a nondistinguished, nonliterary hand comparable to that of this list. ii.7  , resembles  βα[c]λεια γν[αι “o queenly woman.” The line, minus 6  A. Pers. 623 and E. El. 988—neither of which is technically a parodos. The list’s heavily Euripidean content suggests the latter, and the writer’s  is easy enough to understand. omission of the 6 ii.9  φλι
αι “dear women of Mycenae.” E. Or. 1246. This line Μυκη
νδ\εc/  is also not a parodos in our terms or Aristotle’s (Po. 1452b). The scribe appears to be using the word as a catchall term for a choral song of any type. ii.10 8νακ

Ζε:c ;µερ
[



]α
ιον “lord . . . Zeus . . . desire.” The syntax is unclear. The third word is most likely a form of Mµεροc. The first appears to be a form of "ναξ (e.g., the accusative); the line would therefore be about Zeus doing something to a king, perhaps with desire (Kµρωι). ii.11 Battezzato restores the extremely lacunose middle section of this line to ] give us another line from the Orestes of Euripides: δροµ[δεc 6 π
τ
[ερο]φ!ρ[ο]ι (317). There are traces in the middle of what could be either one or two letters, π and/or τ. The spacing has to be rather erratic for this restoration to work, but that is no difficult thing to assume by this point in the text, and the reading gives good sense and is entirely consistent with the rest of the list. iii.1

Αχε{δ}\λ/ω  ιο “[daughter] of Achelous.” Again, the writer confuses δ and λ. It is clear here that δ was written first, then λ was inserted above it; this can be viewed as a correction, since the word makes no sense with δ. The line then continues in a downward slope from the λ. The predominance of Euripides in this list and the popularity of the Bacchae in general indi-

30

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

cate that we are looking at E. Ba. 519: 2Αχελιου θ/γατερ. The line is the beginning of a choral song—again not a parodos. iii.2

Αcαc "π+ γ
⌊αc “from the land of Asia.” E. Ba. 64. This line is the actual beginning of a parodos. iii.4 cι\γ /α cι\γ /α λ⌊επτ+ν “hush, hush, [step] lightly.” E. Or. 140. This line begins the parodos of the Orestes, the presence of which makes the inclusion of a different choral ode from the same play (Or. 1246 in ii.9) even more striking. Each γ has been left out and reinserted, indicating that the writer probably pronounces the word as cια in daily speech; the stop is becoming a glide, a linguistic development that Mayser identifies as an early element of the “Volkssprache.”21 iii.5–6 µερω ν “beginnings of acts/songs[?].” There is a break in the text on the right side of the ν, and it is unclear what is supposed to follow. The next line contains only αι, also indented. The logical assumption is that the beginning of the word ρχα$ occurs on line 5 and continues onto the next line. It would be preferable to break up the word by syllable in the usual fashion, by beginning the syllable with the consonant; thus we would expect to have χαι on line 6. That the writer did not do so suggests that perhaps he hoped to squeeze the whole heading on one line and failed to plan ahead, a conclusion consistent with the general informality of the piece. The word µερω ν requires some explanation. As it is used in the Poetics, it is a fairly generic term for a “part” of a tragedy, used in the definitions of more specific terms such as epeisodion and, of course, parodos (1452b). Pfeiffer has argued that µρη are roughly equivalent to acts and cites P.Oxy. 2257, a hypothesis of Aeschylus’ Aitnai(ai), as an example.22 This sort of technical term would be required for archai to make any sense; “beginnings of acts” is more logical as a section heading than “beginnings of parts.” This technical sense of the word µροc may have developed later than our piece, however, since P.Oxy. 2257 dates to the second century CE.

21. Mayser 1970: I.163. 22. Pfeiffer 1968: 194. The papyrus is incorrectly given as P.Oxy. 2256 in Pfeiffer’s footnote; it is really 2257 that contains the references to the Aitnai(ai). Lobel’s original publication (1952) supplied µροc from µ alone, but Bastianini (Bastianini et al. 2004) has detected µ
ρ
[οc, securing the identification of the word even further. See also McNamee 2007: 135.

A List of Lyric and Tragic Incipits

•

31

The other possibility is to emend line 5 to µελω ν, since confusion between λ and ρ is not infrequent in the papyri. We would thus have “beginnings of songs,” a reading easier to explain from the generic point of view. The column is incomplete, so we do not have enough of the archai in this section to identify any and thus to be able to interpret line 5 accurately. iii.8 πολυπαι[ The word most immediately recalls the Πολυπα$δηc of the Theognidea, but anything beginning in πολυ- is unfeasible as a linebeginning in elegiacs; anapests or even ionics a minore would be a better guess. No form of the word πολ/παιc appears to be attested in the tragic or lyric poets. The Homeric πολυπα$γµων (Od. 21.134) or πολυπα$παλοc (Od. 15.419) may be possibilities as well. iii.9 Μ
αιαδ[ The first letter is just as plausibly read as Ν. We should probably expect something along the lines of Μαιδοc (or Nαιδοc) υK!c/γ!νοc/ τ!κοc, “child of Maia (or of a naiad).” iii.11 δ%  δε cτρατηγω ν λογcιν DΕλλ νων ποτ; | Τρο$αν φε$λου Πρ$αµον, B φαυλοc Uν; both of the two uses of λογcι in Euripides refer to the Achaeans at Troy, specifically (and conveniently) in the aftermath of the sack. But while typical of Euripides, the term is strange and prosaic: it is frequent in Thucydides and Herodotus, but apart from these late fifth159. Page (1970, 120–22) argued that the fragment belonged to Euripides’ Pirithous, but other editors attribute it to Critias, on the combined grounds that Athenaeus (496b) named Critias as author of a Pirithous and that the Vita Euripidis (TrGF T1 IA.9) alleged the Pirithous to be spurious. The precise attribution does not affect my point, namely, that the adjective appeared again later in the fifth century. The adjective ε&τ!λµῳ appears in a similarly martial context in an epigram attributed to Simonides (A.P. 6.50  FGE XVI), but W. B. Henry points out that the line in question (as well as the attribution) is rejected by Page, on the grounds that it does not appear in Plutarch (see FGE pp. 211–13).

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric

•

111

century prose uses, which present unequivocally military contexts, it does not appear in classical Greek.160 π()ν This is a difficult reading, even though the word (whatever it is) comes at the end of the line. Visible traces suggest at least two restorations, neither of which is entirely satisfactory. The first, π!λιν, is appropriate to the sense but paleographically doubtful: the traces reveal a ligature between the second and third letters, but this scribe elsewhere avoids a ligature from ο to λ (π!λυ, fr. 1 ii.11; δολ-, fr. 2 i.2, i.3).161 The second possibility, πλιν, avoids the aforementioned difficulty but is itself paleographically doubtful, since the visible traces of the second letter are smaller than is ideal for the α of this hand. Alternatively, one can admit the possibility of a compound ending -οποιον. i.11 ε)c Mµιλλαν

“to a contest.” The noun appears first in Aesop and Ibycus (PMG fr. 6) and occurs rarely in Pindar (O. 5.6; N. 9.12, 10.31; I. 5.6, 7.50), Aeschylus (fr. 451n; Pr. 130), Sophocles (El. 861; Tr. 220; OC 1063), Herodotus (7.44; 7.196; 8.10), and Thucydides (4.32.2; 7.71.3; 8.6.2), but it is extremely common in Euripides. He and Ibycus are the only authors to use the prepositional phrase εc/c Wµιλλαν, and Euripides does so not uncommonly (fr. 62a.4; Med. 557; Hec. 226; HF 812– 13; Tr. 621; IT 1147). In Euripides, Wµιλλα can be qualified, occasionally by an adjective (πολ/τεκνον, Med. 557; νυµφιδ$α, Hipp. 1139–41; φιλ!πλουτον, IT 411; α&τοc$δαρον, Hel. 356; δεινηc, Ph. 1261), but more commonly by a genitive: there are contests of λ!γων (fr. 62a.4; Med. 546; Supp. 428), φρον µατοc (Andr. 214), νδρω ν (Andr. 1021), χερω ν (Hec. 226), γνων (HF 812–13), χαρ$των (IT 1148), αMµατοc (Hel. 1155), νγκαc (Ba. 552), and ποδοιν (ΙΑ 213). One expects a genitive here, but DΕλλνων is a poor candidate, as it is likely to be paired with "νδρεc. 8νδρεc 4Ελλνων Compare TrGF adesp. 332: "νδρεc DΕλλ νων "ριcτοι; E. fr. 703.1; E. Hec. 929–30: παιδεc DΕλλνων. This phrase further reinforces the likelihood of Trojan focalization, continuing the reference to their army (i.e., the army of the Other) in the preceding lines. The combination of hyperbaton and parataxis is again striking: the subject and its modifiers are detailed over three lines: we have οK µ;ν ε&τ!λµων φρενω ν

160. See also Sophr. PCG fr. 48. Of classical authors, Thucydides is unique in also using adverbial λογδην (4.4.2, 4.31.2, 4.66.2). 161. In fact, the scribe tends to avoid ligatures from ο in general: cf. fr. 1 ii.11 (cωµατουc) for an exception.

112

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

(i.9), λογδεc (i.10), and, finally, "νδρεc DΕλλνων (i.11). If the thrust of the lines is that the elite of the Achaean army are preparing to enter the Wooden Horse, one expects reference to the ambush or intended destruction of the city. If DΕλλνων is not taken with Wµιλλαν, however, the adjective must be linked with ε&τ!λµων φρενω ν (i.9) by hyperbaton, which admittedly makes for difficult, though not impossible, Greek— compare the hyperbaton of "νδρεc with οK µν and λογδεc. col. ii:

Although more text survives than in the first column, this is the worst preserved of the four columns. The script is less refined than in other columns and decreases in size toward the right edge of the papyrus. The difficulties are compounded by intralinear letters, abrasion, and large gaps in the papyrus. Even with the assistance of multispectral imaging, I have had little success in reconstructing the Greek: only the odd word or two can be discerned. As such, the commentary will be markedly sparser for this column than for previous ones: if there is a unifying thread to the commentary, it is this editor’s uncertainty. ii.4

]δ επτελη ι [ This is perhaps to be restored as ]δ ε πτελ ⟨⟩η ι , which would refer to yet another kind of wood (namely, elm), albeit one that is far from the previous references to pine (fr. 1 ii.2) and cypress (fr. 1 ii.8). The revelation of the faint letters δε by multispectral imaging makes other possibilities unlikely: while it might have been possible to have a form of ληSc or ληϊcτηρεc at the end of the line (particularly in light of the context), such possibilities are no longer tenable. ii.5

κατ]εκλα τ[ο ( Janko). Taken with πντα (see also δ]νδ ρ α τ α [ infra), the verb has the meaning “and everything was broken down.” Another possibility is to take the form κατ]εκλα τ[ο not from κατακλω but from ´ ́ κατακλα$ω (Attic -κλα¯ ω) to mean “(s)he was lamenting.” Compare, however, the Euripidean forms of this verb: κατακλα$ουcα El. 113; κατακλα$ουcα El. 128; κατακλα$οµαι El. 156; κατακλαιοµναι IT 149. δ]νδ ρ α τ α [ This is an ideal supplement for the remains of the lacuna after κατ]εκλα τ[ο. Given the visible letters, δ]νδ ρα τα  or "]νδ ρα τα  are likely supplements. With πντα at the start of the line, the former makes better sense, though the possibility of the article (τα ) placed near the end of the line hints at a further modifier in attributive position, with the meaning “and all the [modifier (?)] trees were broken/brought

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric

•

113

down.” The possibility of the article, of course, is less palatable if one reads "]νδ ρα , since (a) one would have to read κατ]εκλα τ[ο as a form of κατακλα$ω (and not of κατακλω), with the meaning “and [subject] was lamenting every man”; and (b) a neuter plural subject would be difficult for that verb. Given the woodcutting expedition previously commanded in the second column of fragment 1 and the grammatical momentum of the line, the destruction of trees makes better sense. ii.6

κα$ προc κ [ρα]τ ερ In light of the preceding line, the ideal supplement is κ [ρα]τ ερ (Janko)—“and/even the previously mighty [trees]”—even if it produces an unusual conjunction of adverb and adjective (cf. Il. 12.346–47  12.359–60). Since the phrase indicates a reversal of fortune—to indicate something was “previously mighty” implies that its current state is far from it—it is perfectly appropriate to the outcome of the expedition to Mount Ida. Other possibilities can be entertained as well: if κρατερ is feminine, the obvious referent could easily be Troy itself or a cτρατε$α (which could be from either side); similarly, if it is neuter, items on either side of the battlefield, such as 4ρκεα or τε$χεα, become possible. As proposed earlier, it is tempting to interpret the phrase (with the subsequent conjecture δ/ [c]χ ρηcτα) as a reference to the dismantling of the Trojan walls ( Janko), but the latter conjecture is supplied on this assumption and is otherwise a speculative reading. δ []χ ρηcτα The restoration is uncertain: attractive in light of the previous words (and especially the possibility of reading κ[ρα]τερ) is the adjective δ/[c]χρηcτα, “hard to use” (first in X. An. 3.4.19; Cyr. 3.3.26; Cyn. 3.11; Isoc. De pace 103; and Hipp. Aph. 2.74; cf. Men. Dysc. 249). Both meaning and syntactic function are unclear: the adjective means “hard (to use)” or “difficult,” but the collective substantive means “difficulties.” If taken in apposition with κ[ρα]τερ, it becomes very difficult to render (i.e., “the previously mighty difficult one” or “previously mighty difficulties”), even in comparison with similar chains of apposition, such as τουθ’ :µν λοιπ!ν (i.7). An alternative to apposition is to treat the adjective as a predicate or in some sort of factitive construction—that is, “[(s)he made] the previously mighty hard to use.” Janko’s conjecture τ$ [θει and the prospect of dismantling the Trojan walls are well suited to this kind of construction,162 but I am hesitant in light of the near total uncertainty about the 162. As described in the Little Iliad (PEG arg. 20–23  EGF 28–30), Vergil (A. 2.234), and Dictys (5.9).

114

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

context. W. B. Henry considers δ/ [c]χ ρηcτα unsuitably prosaic (though the presence of prosaic language is not unusual for this text) and notes that δ[ι7] χρηcτ is another possibility. Since the sense of the passage is unclear, I preserve the lacunae. ii.7

νεω ν This is a recognizable form, but what word it comes from is unclear. The Attic dialect allows the genitive plurals νεω  ν (ships) or νων (young) and the accusative νεν (temple). Even the participle νων (swimming) is possible. All these possibilities (with the possible exception of swimming) have a conceivable relationship to Troy and the episode of the Wooden Horse, but the uncertain context makes accentuation and identification impossible. τριχ µ ατα This term occurs first at A. Th. 666, twice at Hdt. 7.70, and at X. Cyn. 5.30 and 10.17. It is a strange word in an uncertain context: given the possibility that it refers to young men (νων), one might suppose that a reference is being made to youths who have not yet or just recently grown their first beards. The commotion of the next line, whose subjects are huffing and puffing, is not much help, and one could plausibly posit a number of contexts surrounding the Wooden Horse or events in Troy in which a reference to hair is appropriate. Janko, for example, suggests it might conversely refer to the manes of horses rushing about or dragging the Wooden Horse into the city. ii.8 φυcω  µ ον

The division and reconstruction are uncertain: a first set of possibilities emerge from the assumption that φυc- derives from φ/ω; φυcmight be an unaugmented aorist form (likely third-person singular φ/cε) whose ending is elided before ω. The second word, then, is po µον (“shoulder”). In conjunction with the tentially 6µ!ν (“raw”) or 6 sense of the verb, the meaning “raw” or “cruel” is preferable: that is, φ/c’ 6µ!ν, “[subject] produced [something/someone to be] cruel/ raw.” The masculine participle φυ¯´ c (“born”) does not agree with any form  µον group,163 and other alternatives are simply unfrom the 6µ!ν/6 convincing: Homeric φυ occurs as part of a full-verse formula (Il. six times; Od. five times) introducing speech (but with tmesis of the prepo-

163. For the participle, see, e.g., Od. 18.410; S. OT. 1184; E. Heracl. 325, Ph. 19. Forms  µον must be either neuter or accusative, all of which are incompatible with the of 6µ!ν/6 nominative φ/c.

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric

•

115

sition ν),164 and the Aristophanic exclamation φυ  (Lys. 295, 305) is no more than an onomatopoetic sigh of relief (akin to the English phew! ). A second set of possibilities posits not a form of φ/ω but, rather, a form of φυcω. This alternative depends on the reading for the rest of the line, where I posit, with Janko, the pair of verbs θ ορυ β ο υντ{ο}  νθ ’ (see infra). Assuming that two forms of φυcω frame ⟨⟩φυcω θορυβου ντο, Janko suggests emending φυcω µ ον to produce the participle φυc µ εν (α), whose ending is, appropriately, elided before θορυβου ντο. There are two major problems with this emendation: one must alter ο to ε, and one must make sense of the participle’s syntactic relationship with the two verbs. If the participle is neuter plural nominative, one is faced with the redundancy of the phrase φυcµενα . . . φυcω νθ’ (“the puffing things were puffing”) and also with the question of what neuter noun the participle stands for.165 Similarly, if the participle is neuter accusative plural, one struggles to treat either of the verbs θορυβουντ{ο} ⟨⟩φυcω  νθ’ as transitive: the meaning of “they were setting the puffing things into commotion, they were blowing them up” borders on tautology and is very difficult—not to mention the fact that θορυβω is generally intransitive. Other emendations that assume a form of φυcω are even less plausible: by altering µ to ν, one can create the unaugmented third-person plural imperfect verb φ/cων, which then permits the construction φ/cων qν θορυβου ντο φυcω νθ’ (“they blew up whom they were disturbing, they were blowing [him] up”). Since neither the verb φ/ω nor φυcω produces a reading that can be plausibly defended, I leave the text in its diplomatic form. νθ ’ ;δ [ ‘they were clamoring, they were puffing.’ θ ορυ β ο υ ντ{ο} ⟨⟩φυcω The former verb is a difficult, but not impossible, reading. The noun θ!ρυβοc is a favorite of Thucydides (who also uses the verb) and appears in Herodotus as well, but its usage is not strictly prosaic: both Euripides and Sophocles avail themselves of its forms,166 as does Aristophanes (Ach. 546; Eq. 547, 666, 1380; V. 621; Pax 233; Lys. 328–29; Ran. 757, 768; Ec. 431, 519). The color of the verb is likely supplemented both by ⟨⟩φυcω νθ’ and by the participle cπε/δοντεc in the next line: one imagines a scene of commotion and shouting. With Janko, I read the end of the line as ⟨⟩φυcω νθ ’ Kδ [. The verb 164. See Kirk 1990, ad 6.253. 165. As a feminine singular nominative, φυcωµνα would be ungrammatical with the  νθ’. verbs θορυβου ντ{ο} ⟨⟩φυcω 166. S. Aj. 142, 164; Ph. 1263; E. Hec. 872, 1111; Supp. 160; Or. 630, 905; IA 317, 604, 1349. Prior to the late fifth century, see Pi. O. 10.72; Pratinas, TrGF F3.

116

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

⟨⟩φυcω νθ’ matches θορυβου ντο in person, number, tense, voice, and mood, and their respective meanings make good sense in conjunction— “they were clamoring, they were puffing.” Janko notes that a better reading for the pair of verbs would be θορυβου ντ{ο} ⟨⟩φυcω νθ’, as the second augment is essential. The scribe may have made an error in copying from dictation—he heard a vowel but simply copied the wrong one. Little more can be discerned about the line, but Janko suspects a form of the noun Kδρc—presumably dative—at the end of the line, which makes good sense in context and is appropriate both to the aspirated ⟨⟩φυcω νθ’ and to the expected column width. The alternative is to posit a form derived from Kδρ/ω, which is similarly possible but a little more difficult. As with the sequence φυcω µ ον at the start of the line, forms of φ/ω are possible as well. I nevertheless favor Janko’s interpretation, since the alternatives are very unlikely: the possible divisions for the sequence (as I see them) are as follows: a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

φ/c’ Uν θ’ Kδ[  ν θ’ Kδ[ φ/c’ B φ/c’ cν θιδ[  ν θ’ Kδ[ φ/c’ B φ/cων θιδ[ φ/cων θ’ Kδ[ φυcω νθ’ Kδ[

Positing a form of φ/ω is problematic: not only do such forms clash with the number of the preceding verb θορυβου ντο, but they leave ων in their wake, which—whether a relative pronoun or participial ending167—similarly disagrees in number. Possibilities (a–d) are therefore unlikely. Possibility (e) leaves one with the troubling sequence θιδ, which is consistent only with a reference to lettuce (θ$δραξ  θρ$δαξ), which leaves one with a choice between possibilities (f ) and (g). The presence of enclitic θ’ is appealing inasmuch as it interrupts the apposiν, but I am inclined to read ⟨⟩φυcω νθ’ and tion of θορυβου ντο φυcω to pair the verb with θορυβου ντο, as Janko suggests. ii.9 cπεδοντεc Mµ α ποι εν ι

The gist of this difficult reading was first proposed by Henry, and its expression Wµα ποιειν provides yet another case of prosaic language. Given the reconstruction of line 8, the participial 167. See Garvie 1986, ad 833–36.

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric

•

117

phrase neatly elaborates on the verbal actions. The subjects made the clamor and were gasping for breath because they were apparently collectively undertaking some undetermined task. ii.10

Nτερα ιδ In light of the verbs θορυβου ντο, cπε/δοντεc, and *χοντεc in the vicinity, one suspects a reconstruction 4τεραι δ’. If Janko’s conjecture φυcµεν(α) (ii.8) is correct, however, gender and case may come into conflict, so we cannot discount the possibilities of ^τρα¯ ι δ’ or even the alternative 4τεροι δ’. µ〚〛c εκ[ Although the visible traces strongly suggest reading 〛π c , such a sequence of letters is not Greek, and I resort to dots: one is hard pressed to argue that the scribe was an Egyptian who wrote πc for the ψ he heard. Admittedly, the scribe used an Egyptian kalamos, and the transcript elsewhere potentially reveals evidence of erroneous aural recognition (see ad i.4 supra), but it is better to posit a sloppy hand than one who does not know the alphabet. Numerous ligatures and an apparently deleted letter make reading even individual letterforms in this line difficult, but it should be noted that the scribe lifts his kalamos after ε. This is the sole reason one might read the impossible πc for ψ: on the assumption that the scribe lifted the kalamos at the end of the word as a natural pause, we can conjecture an aorist verb form in -ψε. αιρο ν⹂ ⹃πε [ As the scribal pause ⹂ ⹃ indicates, αιρο ν is probably the end of a word, although anything from *χαιρον ( Janko) to καιρ!ν or ^ταιρον to cφαιρον is conceivable given the surrounding uncertainty. For the end of the line, Janko conjectures πλ [ωρ and πλ [αc, both of which warrant mention since they potentially augment the meaning of the following line. The adverb πλ [αc makes good sense in light of the presumably Trojan context of this column: if the Trojans have taken the Wooden Horse into the city with much effort, they would be oblivious to the threat that is now positioned nearby as a threat to their community. In a similar way, the horse is even more plausibly a monster (πλ [ωρ), which gives an object to the participle *χοντεc and is capable of attacking the city (γ ενcει [µ]πεcειν). ii.11

χοντεc γ ενcει  µ πεcειν This is a strange phrase whose reading would be doubted were there clear alternatives. After the participle, the only full-word possibilities are γενcει or νεµcει. The latter’s ν is somewhat more consistent with the visible traces, but its sense is incomprehensible—how does one fall on or attack nemesis? The alternative reading

118

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

γενcει is better, but not by much, as the infinitive µπεcειν continues to prove troubling: one must (a) read γενcει as an abstract term for “descent” or “lineage” (i.e., S. Tr. 380), (b) interpret µπεcειν as having the force of “attack” (Il. 16.81; Od. 24.526; [E.] Rh. 127), and (c) admit hiatus. This interpretation is consistent with a description of an attack on the head of a family and, by extension, of a society as a whole—perhaps fitting for Priam’s death—but the hiatus and the paleographical difficulty surrounding γ are serious enough to warrant consideration of other possibilities. If one reads δ instead of γ, the framework for an alternative reading appears: *χοντεc δ  µ ε cει    πεcειν . But numerous problems with this reconstruction almost immediately discount it: π$πτω is intransitive, which means that one must either posit a compound verb in -πεcειν to govern the accusative µε or assume that *χοντεc governs indirect statement (i.e., “having [it in mind] that I fall”). Given the scanty space before the infinitive—especially if one requires a prepositional prefix for πεcειν—and the lack of options beginning with cει-, neither alternative is attractive.

Colometry and Meter The matter of discerning colometry in fragmentary papyri is problematic enough but is especially complicated by the larger controversy over the authority of manuscript colometry in general. The hand’s third- to secondcentury date (which is contemporary with or just postdates the activity of Alexandrian scholars) puts the text at the center of the controversy. Some argue that Alexandrian colometries should be considered correct in principle,168 whereas others claim that Alexandrian scholars often erred in their metrical and colometrical interpretations. Thus E. Christian Kopff assumes that the line divisions on the papyri are metrically meaningful and analyzes the text accordingly (see the appendix to part 2), while others would be reluctant to grant any a priori significance to its layout. I bring up the larger controversy so as to dodge it somewhat; to my mind, we cannot be certain that this text had any relationship to learned Alexandrian circles or practices. Despite the presence of a dicolon,169 the assumptions that the text is both the work of a professional scribe and a faith168. Fleming & Kopff 1992. 169. Cf. phil. comm. ad fr. 1 i.5.

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric

•

119

ful copy of an archetype that itself reflects Alexandrian erudition are unverifiable; the scribe’s Egyptian kalamos and rapid penmanship suggest a copy produced and probably intended for private use, one that may well have been careless or casual regarding metrical matters.170 Even were the hand more professional in appearance, there remains no indication that an independent copy would need to have followed its archetype rigorously.171 We cannot safely assert, in other words, whether the scribe was a scholar or connected in any way to activity in Alexandria. In fact, the state of the papyri may well suggest otherwise: like other papyri of the early Ptolemaic period, its lyrics are preserved as prose in lines of uneven length,172 which seems to undermine further a possible connection to Alexandrian erudition.173 Inasmuch as colometry and systematic metrical division in manuscripts are owed to Aristophanes of Byzantium, the evidence suggests that transcription as prose was the pre-Alexandrian practice for lyrics. The mode of transcription is therefore significant for implying the fragments’ independence from Alexandria. For the aforementioned reasons, my relationship to meter and colometry is fairly open. Nonetheless, an analysis must begin somewhere, and I observe, in general terms, the following characteristics about the text: a. I do not think that the papyri preserve any meaningful colometry: hiatus occurs within the lines, and the scribe’s criterion of word-end is not, in itself, conclusive. b. The meter is astrophic: despite certain patterns, I can discern no responsion. c. The meter is polymetric, dominated by cretics and other iambo-trochaic sequences (lecythia and ithyphallics), though dochmiacs appear, as do occasional Aeolic elements (choriambs, penthemimers). d. There is a great deal of resolution, which, in consort with characteristics (b) and (c), suggests a complex handling of meter consistent with the socalled New Music. 170. Word-end appears to be the scribe’s primary criterion for beginning a new line; while some readings are uncertain, only in the case of the compound λαφρο|cωµτουc is it clearly the case that a word is split over two lines. 171. See Mastronarde & Bremer 1982, 151–66; on colometrical variations in papyri and manuscripts, see Diggle 1991, 131–51. More recently, see also Prauscello 2003 (examining variations in P.Vind. G2315 and P.Leid. 510) and 2006 (a more systematic monograph discussing the relationships between musical scores and Alexandrian editions). 172. See, e.g., P. Köln 398 (E. Cresphontes), dated to the second century BCE by Gronewald, or the Timotheus papyrus (P. Berol. 9875), many features of which these lyrics share. 173. See Turner 1962.

120

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

The apparent presence of hiatus at numerous points in the middle of the line (e.g., fr. 1 i.9, ii.8; fr. 2 i.10) is a solid foundation for doubting the presence of a meaningful colometry, as hiatus has been, since Boeckh, one of the few accepted marks of period-end. This observation is somewhat liberating and invites, as a consequence, the imposition of an analyzed colometry, a practice undertaken with respect to other lyric papyri of the Ptolemaic era.174 In addition, because the fragments necessarily raise the issue of manuscript colometry, it is also worth considering how the meter works in the text’s transcribed form. I therefore supply the analysis of Kopff (appendix to part 2), who has considered the metrical structure of the best preserved portion of the text (fr. 2 i.2–11) as it is laid out on the papyri. As in matters textual and interpretive, any metrical reconstruction is necessarily subjective, and I have proceeded on the following principles. Where the text is too fragmentary or the meter impenetrable, I reprint the reconstructed text, with corresponding line number at left; where an analysis of colometry is possible, line numbers are removed, and metrical analysis is provided to the right. In general, it is easier to analyze the cola in smaller units and, like the scribe, to utilize word-end as a criterion for determining cola— though not exclusively.175 Smaller units are, of course, potentially part of larger cola, but because of the text’s fragmentary state, only where hiatus is observed can verse-end be posited. I readily acknowledge that were the text more complete, the various cola could be analyzed differently and as part of larger units. But however tentative and subjective my analysis may be, it at least provides a starting point for the discussion of the text’s metrical features. A quick analysis of the reconstructed scansion reveals certain metrical patterns. Cretics are particularly abundant (often with resolution), and one finds sequences of cretics and also the slightly expanded lecythion. Other patterns are less clear: given that the cola in which the recurring forms appear are (more often than not) incomplete, one is left with options between which to choose. In these cases, choosing one colon over another is somewhat arbitrary. For example, the pattern ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – recurs in both fragments (fr. 1 i.4, i.7, ii.4, ii.9; fr. 2 i.5, i.6 [and potentially at fr. 1 i.6; see phil. comm. ad loc.]), but this form can be variously analyzed: 174. See, e.g., the treatment of Timotheus’ Persae (P. Berol. 9875) and the fragmentum Grenfellianum (P. Dryton 50). 175. The exception is α&τω  ν πη- (fr. 2 i.6). Lyrics do not avoid word-end generally, and the extent to which the New Music (in particular) did so appears vast: around 20 percent of the lines in Timotheus’ Persai ignore it (51 of 240 by Page’s edition, 52 of 240 by Campbell’s; 48 of 240 by Hordern); 16 percent in the Phrygian’s speech in Orestes (22 of 134 by Diggle & Porter).

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric •

• • • •

Resolved iambic metron, the so-called first-foot anapest Beginning of an anacreontic End of a glyconic End of a dodrans End of a dochmiac

•

121

⏖–⏑– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – [⏑ – – ××–]⏑⏑–⏑– –]⏑⏑–⏑– –]⏖–⏑–

The fragmentary state of the text makes choosing between the options an inexact science. I have proceeded on the observation that the majority of the examples have the end of the pattern coincide with word-end (fr. 2 i.6 is the exception), which makes a recurring anacreontic pattern unlikely. Similarly, if the pattern were iambic, the resolution of the initial quantity would be nearly universal. As such, I generally interpret this pattern as a marker not of iambic rhythm but of either Aeolics (dodrans or glyconic) or dochmiacs, depending on the context. Metrical Symbols ⏑ short – long × anceps ⏖ resolved long ^ catalexis or acephaly [] lacuna () conjectured quantities ‖ verse-end sp spondee (– –) pe penthemimer (× – ⏑ – ×) ia iambic metron (× – ⏑ –) tr trochaic metron (– ⏑ – ×)

ba cr ch gl dod lec ith D δ kδ hδ

bacchiac (⏑ – –) cretic (– ⏑ –) choriamb (– ⏑ ⏑ –) glyconic (× × – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ –) dodrans (– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ –) lecythion (– ⏑ – × – ⏑ –) ithyphallic (– ⏑ – ⏑ – –) hemiepes (‒ ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –) dochmiac (⏑ – – ⏑ –) kaibelianus (× – ⏑ – ⏑ –) hypodochmiac (– ⏑ – ⏑ –)

Metrical Analysis Fragment 1, Column i 1 3 4 5

]  απ ενεπ α ν []δ [ ] :λ$]ρραντον κτν ]π µποντεc Φ]ρ/γιο c λιµ ν  [  ()]   ]ν: ∆αναSδαι ∆αν [αSδ]α ι

⏑–]– ⏑––

2ba

–]⏑⏑–⏑–

dod

⏖ ⏑ – ⏑[⏑ ⏑] –

2cr

122

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

(]δον η c " λγ α µ υ λ ο []  2Ιθα]κ cιοι Λοκρο$ VΑ[βα]ν τ ε c 8 ]χ οικο κ ιτε cεπ  α cι 9 ]ωτω ι Cτε Cτε 10 ]τροφιδα[]ν [ ] γ αρυν    () 11 ]ρτα λα  τυ οκο 

(× –)] ⏑ – – – ⏑ × [ (⏒ ⏖)] – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏖ – ⏒ [(⏕)

2ia (?) δ δ

Little can be made of the first column. A few comments are nonetheless warranted: • I analyze Φρ/γιοc λιµ ν as a dodrans, given that the preceding, lacunose syllable will be closed by position. One can easily conjecture κα$ or the definite article ( in this position. A dochmiac is possible as well, but I hesitate to print it for two reasons: dochmiacs normally occur in clusters (see fr. 1 col. ii infra), and in this text they appear restricted to the section of oratio recta. Since I interpret the dicolon at line 5 as marking the beginning of the oratio recta, occurance of the dochmiac at this early point is less likely. • My suspicion that the oratio recta begins in line 5 is supported by the first words ∆αναSδαι ∆αναSδαι, which conveniently begin a new colon with the first of several cretic dimeters. • The hiatus in the sequence 2Ιθακ cιοι Λοκρο$ VΑβαντεc is troubling, and Battezzato and Diggle prefer to analyze with correption.176 Two treatments, however, are possible with correption. With some supplement, the vocatives are plausibly part of a sequence of cretics: 2Ιθα]κ cιοι (– ⏑) ⏖] – ⏑ – Λοκρο$ VΑ[βα]ντεc ⏖ ⏑ – × (⏑ –)

2cr (?) 2cr (?)

While cretics are perfectly at home in the fragment, I prefer Battezzato’s more complicated alternative of a pair of dochmiacs; in light of further dochmiacs in the subsequent column, they are not out of place in the context of the oratio recta, and while one might object to the split resolution that dochmiac analysis produces in the second unit (Λοκρο VΑβαντεc), Laetitia Parker has demonstrated that at least in tragic dochmiacs, “when the first long is resolved it is quite frequently split.”177 176. Correption of this sort is not unattested in New Musical texts: Hordern’s discussion of Timotheus (2002, 60), e.g., notes three instances in Timotheus, including one with the diphthong -οι (132) seen here. 177. Parker 1968, 264–65. A sequence of dochmiacs is possible even if one posits hiatus: 2Ιθακ cιοι Λοκρο$ produces a kaibelianus (× – ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ‒), and while VΑβαντεc produces a bacchiac, it could very well provide the beginning of another dochmiac metron (i.e., ⏑ – – [⏑ –).

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric

•

123

Fragment 1, Column ii 1      ][               ()] 2 π ε/κα cυν [               ()]ιωδαιγα [ 3 +ξυθηκτ[               ()] οντεc [ VΑρεωc β$αι 4 κ ε[ ]    κε[ι]ρετ  εκα ρ 〚〛ε [ κ! πτετ᾿ 2Ιδα$[ων]    δεν δρ ω ν παλαι1[ν] 5 π ταν αcτηµα []  δυν  µλ εο ι. ξ/λο [ν] 6 `$π τε〈τε〉 δ᾿ Bc τ [χ]ο c C κ αµα νδρ$ο υc π `[οc.] κε$ρεθ᾿ οK µ;ν αc[]  α α&θ ι⟨c⟩ κυπ αρ$ccου[c] π γαι τε δοχµο[>]c  ετε πλατcι τε. δ [ ]δο µουc πρω  ναc []   µα κροφυειc λ αφρ [ο]cωµτουc `$πτετε, ` [$]π τετ’ π  πολ> δρ [

⏖–⏑–

ia

– ⏑ – – [ (–) –⏑–⏑––

tr (/cr
?) ith

–⏖–⏑– –⏖–⏑– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – [(⏑ –)] – ⏑ – ⏑ × [    ] ‖ – –⏖– –⏑⏑–⏑⏑– [(×)] ⏖ ⏑ ⏖ ⏑ [] ⏑ – – [   ] ⏖⏑– ⏑⏖–⏑– – ⏑ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏖ ⏖ [(⏑ –)

δ δ 2ia tr (
?) × ch D ia (?) 2ia (?) cr δ tr δ (?)

The second column is much better preserved than the first, which allows a more complete metrical analysis: •

•

Although VΑρεωc β$αι contains the pattern ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – that was previously discussed, I avoid analysis in terms of a dochmiac or of either the Aeolic dodrans or glyconic: in the preceding line, the final legible syllable is open, and it is unclear how many letters (if any) are in the lacuna. The probability of an open syllable preceding VΑρεωc makes a dochmiac unlikely, since the likely dochmiac sequence (– ⏖ – ⏑ –) requires an initial closed syllable (the so-called drag-in).178 The Aeolic cola also require an initial closed syllable, to produce their telltale choriamb. For these reasons, I conservatively analyze the pattern as an iambic metron. The iamb can similarly be preserved if one scans VΑρε͜ωc β$αι with synizesis (⏑ – ⏑ –). The ithyphallic δενδρων παλαι!ν stands out as unusual, especially since the sequence mirrors the final six quantities of the first column’s ˘ βα¯ντε˘ c (– ⏑ – ⏑ – ×). There, however, we had either 2Ιθακ cιοι Λο˘ κρο VΑ correption or hiatus, and positing a parallel here is impossible, particularly in light of the lacuna after 2Ιδα$ων. 178. See West 1982, 109.

124 •

•

•

•

•

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

 µλεοι ξ/λον and `ίπτετε δ᾿ Bc Martin Cropp has suggested that 6 τχοc be treated as successive dochmiacs (– ⏖ – ⏑ –) and that the end of the column—λαφροcωµτουc `$πτετε, `$πτετ’ π πολ> δρ[/αc (with Janko’s supplement)—be analyzed as ⏑ ⏖ – ⏑ – – ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏖ ⏖ ⏑ – (δ tr δ).179 The proposal is attractive inasmuch as sequences with dochmiacs are consistent with the context of oratio recta. Iambo-trochaic cola regularly accompany tragic dochmiacs,180 and their concurrence here is not unusual, even if one might expect some sort of interchange between speakers. The emotion suggested by the dochmiacs, however, is unsettling in light of the context: the speaker is unusually agitated in commanding the expedition to Ida. If one reads `$π τεθ’ Bc (with Battezzato) for `$π τε⟨τε⟩ δ᾿ Bc in the second dochmiac previously discussed, the scheme must be altered from δ δ to δ hδ. The two cola following the first dochmiacs may also consist of dochmiac elements: one can analyze Cκαµανδρ$ουc π `οc κείρεθ᾿ οK as ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – – ⏑ – (kδ δ). I do not print this analysis for two reasons, however: it separates οK and µν into separate metrical units, and because the reading following µν is unclear and interrupts what is otherwise continuous text, I cannot posit a further colon following the dochmiac to supplement the verse and mitigate the harshness. Until a textual supplement appears, the meter is best left in its simplest form, no matter how enticing or plausible further dochmiacs may be. Cropp points out that a final syllable before initial `- can be scanned as short in lyrics, which leaves the quantities in π `οc (⏑ ‒ ⏑ ‒) and `$πτετε, `$πτετ’ (– ⏑ – – ⏑) somewhat in question.181 If one of these syllables is, in fact, open, the analysis requires the sequences ia cr (instead of 2ia) and ch δ (instead of tr δ), respectively. The rendering of ii.8–9 (beginning with α&θι) is curious, and James Digθι⟨c⟩ in order to avoid resolution before long gle suggests emending to α&

179. Cropp prefers a choriamb to a trochee, on the assumption that initial `- in lyrics is not absolutely syllable-closing. 180. West 1982, 111–12; Parker 1997, 43, 66–67. On specific passages, see Bond 1981, ad 875–921; Willink 1986, ad 166–86  187–207; Finglass 2007, ad 1232–87. As briefly noted already in the “Attribution” section, dochmiacs appear in every tragedy but are very rare outside of drama. Timotheus has them at Pers. 65a-69, and the only other nondramatic example is the fragmentum Grenfellianum (P.Dryton 50). As West (1982, 108) notes, they also appear in paratragic Aristophanean passages and in satyric drama. 181. Examples in trimeters are very rare. See Griffith 1977, 81–82, with regard to [A.] Pr. 713, 992: Griffith considers E. Ba. 128 the sole unavoidable case in lyrics, as A. Th. 105, Ch. 315, and Eum. 789 all involve τ$ `εξ-.

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric

•

•

•

•

•

•

125

anceps in the initial trochee. The resulting analysis (anceps
ch
D) ameliorates both the awkward resolution and the overlap with the hemiepes. The stop-liquid combinations -πλ- in "γετε πλατcι and -δρ- in πολ> δρ/αc are scanned as syllable-releasing, as is appropriate to Attic scansion, especially in light of the combination’s initial position.182 Similarly, -χµ- in δοχµο/c is scanned as syllable-releasing, though the Attic practice here is far less universal. Usually, the combination produces an open syllable, but there are exceptions in tragedy ([A.] Pr. 5; E. Alc. 575), and Lycophron universally treats the combination as producing a closed syllable (e.g., 41, 443, 625, 1064). If one emends δοχµο/c to the more common δοχµ⟨$⟩ουc, the metrical analysis becomes difficult: α&θ ι κυπ αρ$ccου[c] π γαι τε δοχµ⟨$⟩ο[υc – ⏑ ⏖ – – ⏖ – ⏑ ⏖ – tr δ ‒ I therefore retain the rarer, transmitted form. The anaphora of enclitic τε at the start of successive cola is noteworthy. The enclitic’s place at the start of the verses—especially twice in succession—is unusual, though not entirely unparalleled.183 Resolution, which only featured in the cretics in the first column, becomes widespread from this point on, resulting in one particularly startling sequence of up to eight consecutive open syllables across two cola: ετε πλατcι τε δ [ ]δοµ-. Fragment 2, Column i

1 2 3

[   ()]  Cιµ! εντοc [ ]  [   ]      () c>ν τχει δ ολ ιοτω πον [    ] ωι δολια τρ!πο ν νυετω [ ] [ ()] τιc γ ’ *κρυψ’ Kµερ!εντ τε δ ω  ρ α Πριµου π τραc. Bc δ ’ κρ υξε κατ7 µικρ1ν α&τω ν π η τ/ζετο cτρατ!πεδον— τουθ’ :µ  ν λοιπ 1ν, :µν *τι ζω  〈cι〉 φρειν, c c τρ ατε$αc καλαc.

–⏑– –⏑⏑–⏑⏑– ⏑⏖–⏑– –⏑– –⏑⏖ –⏑– –⏑– –⏑– ⏖⏑– ––⏑–⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – (⏑) ⏑ – –⏑– –⏑–

182. See West 1987, 16–17; Barrett 1964, ad 760. 183. Cf. A. Supp. 135; Eum. 383, 390, 919; Pr. 573; E. Med. 994; HF 921; Ba. 567; S. Ant. 338; B. Dith. 3.19, 3.85, 4.25.

cr Dδ 2cr 2cr 2cr pe 2ch 2cr

126

10

11

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

οK µ;ν ε&τ!λµ [ω]ν [φ]ρ[ε]νω ν λογδεc cτλλοντο ε[ ]δ ε [   ]  οπ  ν εc Wµιλλαν "νδρεc DΕλλνων [()]ρι

– ⏑ – – [(– ⏑)] – ⏖ ⏑ – – – ⏑ [(–)]

lec lec (?)

–⏑–⏑ –⏑– ––

tr cr sp

Despite a few lines where the readings are difficult, this column—like the second column of fragment 1—offers a great deal of continuous text for analysis. The results are interesting: •

•

•

•

•

The poet’s fondness for cretics continues. In this column, we find not only sequences of cretics grouped together but possibly a pair of lecythia as well. The stop-liquid combination πρ- in Πριµου is scanned as syllablereleasing (as in fr. 1 col. ii). Cropp analyzes the last line of oratio recta (Kµερ!εντ τε δω ρα Πριµου πτραc) as D δ. The dochmiacs also appear in the previous column’s oratio recta and are not unattested or incompatible with dactylic cola.184 Following the end of the speech, the meter becomes fairly regular, and the speaker’s agitation does not extend into the narrator’s account. Order is restored by a series of cretics, though the presence of the choriambs :µν *τι ζω  ⟨cι⟩ φρειν (admittedly produced by conjecture) is a notable departure. On the quantity of :µ$ν, compare A. Eum. 349. If one posits the form :µιν, the meter no longer allows for choriambs but can admit iambs if one adds ν-movable to the conjectured participle ζω  ⟨cι⟩: :µιν *τι ζω ⟨cιν⟩ φρειν

•

As was noted, the verb πητ/ζετο is one case in which word division presents difficulties. Although I favor the sequence of cretics as printed in my own analysis, Janko suggests an alternative word division: µικρ1ν α&τω ν πητ/ζετο cτρατ!πεδον

•

– – ⏑ – – ⟨–⟩ ⏑ – 2ia

–⏑– –⏑–– ⏑–⏖⏑–

cr tr δ

If one reads (with W.B. Henry) οK µ;ν ε&τ!λµ[ω]ν [2Αχ]α ιω ν, the metrical analysis loses a lecythion but remains regular: οK µ;ν ε&τ!λµ[ω]ν [2Αχ]αιω ν 184. See West 1982, 112–13.

– ⏑ – – [– ⏑] – – 2tr

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric •

•

•

127

The presence of hiatus at ii.10 (cτλλοντο ε) within the lecythion is suspicious, and were the reading at the end of the line more secure, I would elide the final vowel. – ∆α˘ να˘ ˘$δαι –) The resolved cretics first seen at fragment 1 i.5 (∆α˘ να˘ ˘$δαι recur in this column, confirming the importance of the cretic dimeter as one of the poet’s building blocks. Fragment 2, Column ii [          ()]κ []  τε c  [ [          ()]εω [  ]το µουc ε[ [ ]  χ ερ οιν [ ()] ρα τελ [()] cθ δ ια ι cο [ ταχ> δ εα c [  ] ο⹂ ⹃τα⹂ ⹃\ ε ο νδ /δ επτελ η ι[ πν τα δ; [κατ]εκλατ[ο δ]νδ ρα τα[ ] κα προc κ[ρα]τερ7 δ[]χ ρηcτα τι[ νεω ν ν [  ()]  τριχ µατα δ ε γα [ ] φυcω µον θ ορυ β ο υντ{ο} ⟨⟩φυcω νθ ’ Kδ [ cπε/δοντεc Wµ α ποιεν ι κα  κα 〚ι〛π[ ] ^τερα ιδ µ〚〛 c εκ[ ]αιρο ν⹂ ⹃πε [ ] *χοντεc γ εν cει µ πεcειν [

1 2 3 4

7

9 10

– ⏑ ⏑[⏑] ⏑ ‒ [(⏑ ‒)] ⏑ × – ⏑ – [(⏑)]⏑ ⏑ [(–)] – ⏑ [(×)]

2tr (
?) 3cr (?)

– – ⏑ ⏖ ⏑ – ⏑ – – ⏑ [×] ––⏑⏖ –––

2ia cr ia (
?)

⏑–– ⏑⏖–⏑–

ba δ

Little can be said with certainty about the final column: too much text is lost. I add only a few notes to the preceding analysis: •

•

•

•

Given the poet’s propensity for the cretic dimeter, κα προc may be the end of the previous colon instead of part of a cretic trimeter. Since the end of the preceding verse is lost, however, I analyze it as part of a longer colon. I have scanned the final alphas of κ[ρα]τερ and δ[]χρηcτα as short, since similar sequences of cretics occur elsewhere and since κ[ρα]τερ, at least, seems to agree with the restored δν]δρα from the previous line. Such an analysis is far from conclusive. The line analyzed as an iambic trimeter (φυcω µ ον θ ορυ β ο υ ντο φυcω νθ ’ Kδ[) may contain elements of two different iambic cola, but given the uncertainty of its surroundings, I again prefer the longer colon. I posit correption in the final line in order to avoid hiatus (as in fr. 1 i.7), though the dochmiac I suggest is difficult in isolation, as is the correption

128

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

in a dochmiac context.185 Alternatively, the sequence might also be analyzed as trochaic (⏖ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ‒[).

Conclusion This text presents a variety of problems. First and foremost, many of its readings are difficult, and there are places where Greek is restored only with difficulty. Its contents present similar difficulties: while a Trojan setting is certain, the specific episode in question remains a mystery; while it is clear that the text includes both a speaker and a narrator, the identities of either individual—knowledge of which would shed some light on the myth at stake—are unknown. Complicated also is the narrative framework, in which both narrator and speaker appear to address an internal audience. The possibility that the narrator is a particular individual addressing a group introduces the possibility of a dramatic genre. Indeed, there is much in the text that seems consistent with a work of drama, particularly of tragedy: the dialect’s Doric flavor is native to drama; the complex lyric meter, including telltale dochmiac cola, are similarly characteristic of drama; and much of the language, which includes diction or phrases common in tragedy (and in Euripides in particular) also suggests a tragic context. But none of these features are decidedly exclusive to tragedy or Euripides; for all its tragic characteristics, the diction is also startlingly prosaic at times, and a dramatic context is difficult to reconcile both with the narrator’s series of past-tense verbs and with the length of the speaker’s oratio recta, which would be extremely unusual for a lyric context in drama. Attributing the text to a late fifth-century or fourth-century work of theatrical poetry such as citharodic nomos or dithyramb accounts for the evidence without the various problems produced by the hypothesis of a tragic work.

appendix: alternative metrical analysis P.Mich. inv. 3250c verso (Fr.2. i.2–11 [Courtesy of E. Christian Kopff]) 2 c>ν τχει δ ολ ιοτω πον []ωι 3 δολια τρ!πο ν νυετω [ ][()]τιc 4 C]τε κρυψιµροπ’ ντ/[ε]τε δω ρα 185. See Conomis 1964, 40–43.

‒ ⏑ ‒ ⏖ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ [(⏑ ⏑)] ‒ ⏖⏑⏖⏖⏑‒[] ⏖‒⏑⏖‒⏖⏑‒×

ia tr^ (cr cr cr) ia tr (cr cr ?) ia dim (ia p)

New Fragments of Euripidean Lyric Πριµου πτραc. Bc δ’  κρυξε , κατ7 µικρ1ν α&τω ν π ητ/ζετο cτρατ!πεδον—τουτ’ "λ [λ]ο λοιπ1ν :µν *τι Ζευ φρειν, c cτρ ατε$αc κακαc. οK µ;ν ε&τ!λµ [ω]ν [φρε]ν ω ν λογδεc cτλλοντο ε [ ]δ ε [] οπ ()ν 11 εc Wµιλλαν "νδρεc DΕλλνων [δο]ρ$

5 6 7 8 9 10

•

129

⏖‒⏑‒‒⏑‒‒× ⏖‒⏑‒‒⏑‒‒⏑× ⏖⏑‒‒‒⏑‒× ‒‒⏑‒‒⏑‒‒⏑‒‒ ⏑‒‒⏑‒‒‒⏑‒

ia tr^ (ia cr sp) ia tr^ (ia cr cr) ia di (cr p) ia tr^ (p ba ba) ia tr^ (ba ba cr)

⏖ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ [(‒)] ‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒‒⏑×

ia dim (cr ia) ia tr (cr ia ia)

Three textual notes deserve mention: Kopff follows W. B. Henry’s readings of lines 4 and 8 and reads κακαc instead of καλαc at line 9 (ironice dictum). Critics will also note that this analysis makes the meter a highly syncopated sequence of iambo-trochaic elements: gone are the lecythia and dactylic-dochmiac clausula (not to mention the tidy sequence of cretics) found in the enforced colometry.

part 3

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

Introduction: The Fragment, Its Hands, and Attribution P.Mich. 3250a verso is a problematic fragment for several reasons, chief among which are the poor condition of the papyrus (and so, accordingly, of its readings) and a curious paleographical peculiarity. Multispectral imaging has assisted greatly in ameliorating the former (see paleo. comm. infra), but the latter is more intriguing: oddly, the fragment contains both the semicursive hand of 3498
3250b and 3250c verso, Hand V (lines 1–4), and the more informal and upright hand of the fragments’ rectos, Hand R (lines 5–9). Telltale is the change in the form of π: at the start of ii.5, the π of Hand R (with its characteristically lunate right leg) appears for the first time—a clear contrast with the shape of the letter at the start of ii.2.1 On the one hand, the presence of the two hands is something of a blessing, as the sequence further validates our conclusions regarding the hands and the chronology of transcription.2 When it comes to analyzing the fragment, however, the paleographical anomaly causes only further headaches: because the state of the text is so poor, few conclusions can be drawn about either hand’s text, their possible relationship to one another, or their possible relation to the other fragments. Formal and textual observations prompt further caution: while the three recto fragments are consistent inasmuch as they all comprise the same incipit list, the presence of Hand R on 3250a verso destabilizes the assumption of a united or continuous verso 1. There are also further differences in other letterforms—particularly α, ε, η, δ, π, and c—between the first four and last four lines, which confirm the presence of two distinct hands. 2. The fact that Hand R picks up where Hand V leaves off confirms both that the verso texts were transcribed in advance of the rectos and that Hand V can be comfortably dated previous to Hand R. See this book’s introduction.

130

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

•

131

text. The texts’ contents do not seem to broadcast any continuity: the first four lines (in Hand V) involve what appears to be an agricultural context, while the second four (in Hand R) are more mythological (see phil. comm. infra). Linking the two requires considerable speculation. Nontextual considerations also do not confirm any unity: given that there may have been as much as a century’s gap between the two hands, the assumption that their respective texts are continuous tests the limits of plausibility.3 The sole formal indicator, in fact, is rather circumstantial: the column that dominates the fragment is at least 16 cm wide, which is close to the average column width of Hand V’s mythographic lyrics (ca. 17 cm) but would be about twice as wide as the recto columns, which are usually between 5.6 and 8.4 cm wide. The scenario seems to be as follows: on coming across the scrap of papyrus previously used by Hand V, Hand R continued on the remaining blank space in accordance with the parameters set by Hand V. But since only by recourse to considerable speculation do the texts’ contents suggest continuity or cohesion, the formal accident of columnar integrity is an insufficient basis for the assumption that Hand R picked up the text of Hand V precisely where the scribe broke off. The exceptional nature of the fragment’s two texts, moreover, has the further consequence of undermining any relationship to the other verso fragments; nothing in the Hand V or R texts relates to the mythographic lyrics and their decidedly Trojan setting. For the foregoing reasons, not only does the fragment itself warrant its own independent discussion, but so do its two unique texts, to which I now turn. The context of the Hand V text, inasmuch as it can be deduced at all, may be loosely agricultural: the terms that would specifically suggest such a context (e.g., γεωρ[γ]!c, ii.1; δφεccιν, ii.2) are each restored with some hesitation, and the other suggestive piece of diction ('ποκτωθε, ii.3) is not, on its own, conclusive in this respect. The possible presence of a γεωργ!c, however, is our best indicator. In the absence of an unmistakable context, two features of the text nonetheless stand out: for one thing, pinpointing either the language or its register is difficult. Like the mythographic lyrics of the other versos, the text combines prosaic and poetic diction: words like γεωργ!c (ii.1) and 'ποκτωθε (ii.3) are rare in elevated poetry, but there  θευ also appears a unique dialectal form attested in Callimachus (6 , ii.4) and 3. Given the chronological gap between hands, there is some question as to how long the papyrus could realistically have been in use. The abundance of writing materials in the contemporary developed world, not to mention the development of recycling technology, almost certainly influence our consideration of the likelihood that one might keep a piece of scrap paper around for several decades. Borges points out that for the scrap to remain usable, it was likely tucked away in a dark and dry place out of the way.

132

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

an expression at home in both settings (εc τ1 πρ!cθεν, ii.4).4 More telling, perhaps, is a second feature of the diction, namely, the possible presence of  θευ the second-person pronoun (cε, ii.1) and the exclamation (6 , ii.4). Such bits of language add nuance to the text, implying that it consists either of simple narration (with the narrator apostrophizing someone or some divinity) or of something more complex, such as a narrator or commentator quoting a person or text in which one character addresses another in oratio recta. In combination with the text’s mixed register of language, these features make the assumption of a literary or subliterary work fairly secure, and if one entertains the second option—namely, that the text quotes another text—the possibility arises that it comprises a prose work such as a commentary or diegesis in which are embedded poetic passages or quotations. The case of the second text, in Hand R (lines 5–8), is no less complicated, and concerns of a formal and lexical nature once more predominate. The presence of Hand R necessitates a comparison of its text to that of the recto fragments, from which, as already noted, the column width deviates. The expanded column width, however, has the further consequence of undermining any assumption that the Hand R text proceeded like the incipit lists of the other recto fragments—that is, by transcribing an assortment of poetic verses on a line-by-line basis, organized under various headings. It seems to be the case, rather, that the Hand R text is continuous. The appearance of the Paphian—Aphrodite (ii.5)—and the adverb ρωτικω  c (ii.6) in successive lines is thematically consistent and argues against a line-byline transcription of incipits or separate texts, even though the goddess’ presence jars with the reference to the twin Sicel gods known as the Palici two lines later (ii.7), the surviving testimony about whose mythology allows only for a tenuous relationship.5 There is little basis for bold assertions or firm conclusions. Other features of Hand R’s text stand out. As in the Hand V text, one finds a combination of poetic and prosaic forms, but their juxtaposition here is even more striking: in the phrase προcτγµατ’ *δει Παφ$ηc (ii.5), for example, the poetic (and Ionic) title for Aphrodite seems odd so close to a baldly prosaic term for commands, a collision that is all the stranger given the words’ apparently close syntactical relationship. Here, the hypothesis advanced with respect to the Hand V text, that the mixture of lexical registers reflects quotation or discussion of poetry in a prose work, seems similarly likely—a hypothesis bolstered by the presence of the prosaic adverb 4. See phil. comm. infra ad loc. 5. See phil. comm. infra ad loc., and, for further discussion, Sampson 2012.

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

•

133

ρωτικω  c, which smacks of a commentator’s language. As Jay Reed and Ruth Scodel suggest, the passage may derive from a prose work involving an erotic context of some sort (which prompted a quotation from poetry), or perhaps we have a “quotation” or lemma in poetic language that is subsequently explained by prose commentary. The difficulties raised by the paleographical and lexical oddities distinguish this fragment from the other versos and render any identification or ascription speculative at best. While the assistance of multispectral imaging has aided greatly in the analysis of the readings, the consequence is that the texts are as baffling (if not more so) as they were previously. Each text blends prosaic and poetic language and also appears literary or paraliterary. No definitive connection that might link them, however, stands out to analysis.

Diplomatic Text and Paleographical Commentary P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso Provenance unknown

19.2  8.3 cm↓

col. i

5 ]ο ]θει ]  ] ]ιν 10 ]cειενεπεc ιυεναµαc ο []  vacat

Late III to II BCE col. ii

πε ()[]εα δαπ   ει εω [()]c ελ[  ()]δε [ επ []εδαφε   ν⹂ ⹃αλλο δεπροc[ ]  [()] νε[ αµ ω [] δυ π κα〚θ〛\τ/ωθετοιδεταπ[ ] κεκ [ ειcτ[ ]προcθ ν ωθευη ⹂ ⹃τεµνο ν ()ετ[ 5 προc ταγµα τ〚α〛\ε/δειπαφιηcκειc[ ] αικ[ \ / ο ερωτικω c τε ε νεφενιµενενηκ ν[ ηνοαναλωτ[ ]ετναπα λ ικωνδιπλω ντο[ οcοδυνη []  [] τα ι⹂ ⹃〚δ ε ξ   c ετο βο   το 〛[ ο⹂ ⹃A vacat

Col. i.

6 ι, ligature from upper horizontal of ε into a descender, with a slight change in angle above the junction of ligature and descender as of ι υ 7 ]  , upright with crossbar descending slightly at right into the apex of a second upright, with traces of ink extending from midletter height into a vertical stroke 8 ] , traces of a vertical stroke as of ι, but possibly a descender from line above 9 ι, trace of upright at upper-letter height immediately to right of papyrus’ edge as of ι etc. 10 ε , three horizontal

134

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

strokes, the middle ligatured to the subsequent ι, and from right side of upper horizontal, a descender as of ε θ ι, extremely faint traces of an upright curving slightly to the right near its peak c ο , rounded cursive shape as of c, ligatured to ο, which also has ligature extending to right ] , indistinct fleck at right of lacuna Col. ii.

1 (Lines 1–4 written by Hand V): (), vertical stroke with traces to right at midletter height as of ν ρ; abrasion on the upright and at the join with the diagonal as of ι ρ εα , upright with obscured upper half; two horizontal traces extending slightly to right at lower- and midletter height as of ε ρ; triangular letter with tail as of α δ π   , abrasion and lost fibers obscure the reading: a vertical with horizontal cap extending to right and descending slightly, second upright with traces of a diagonal at right but which cannot be confirmed to descend from apex of upright as of γν π  γι ; after lacuna, traces of a diagonal rising to the right from midletter height into an upright as of αι ι; following lost fibers, traces at midletter height with ligature extending upward to following ε as of τ υ ρ εω [, traces of an upright that does not descend as far as previous ι and with upper portion lacunose as of γ ι; following ε, short vertical at upper- to midletter height with abraded traces of a horizontal to right as of ω ο  [()] c , traces of a descender beneath lacuna; lacuna; indistinct fleck beneath lacuna; traces of lunate letter at right of lacuna as of c ελ [, further lunate trace, with horizontal cap ligatured to following ε, possibly with middle crossbar as of ε c; following ε, horizontal ascending to right from midletter height before lacuna as of λ α τ vix κ ] δε [, trace of ink beneath lacuna before δ; δ ligatured into bottom portion of a lunate letter, traces of horizontal cap as of ε c; trace of ink at mid- to lower-letter height before lacuna 2 [, upright at edge of lacuna; ligature from previous π may extend at upper-letter height as of ι γ π etc. ε, traces of three horizontal strokes as of ε, the bottom of which appears ligatured from φ; vertical blot or smudged ink before lacuna; with damaged fibers, traces of two horizontals at upper- and mid- to lower-letter height as of c ε; a vertical at right edge of lacuna as of ι ο δ, small loop ligatured from λ and to subsequent triangular traces at lowerletter height as of οδ αδ ] [, fleck of ink beneath third letter in lacuna ] , faint trace at midletter height at edge of lacuna before ν [, small trace at midletter height before lacuna, possibly round as of ο or the left side of a horizontal as of τ π 3 µ ω [, two verticals (the second with a curving ligature to the subsequent letter) linked by curved crossbar/diagonal as of µ ν;

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

•

135

faint bowl-shaped trace at upper-letter height with ligature extending to right as of ω ο ] δυ π κ , abraded round shape with traces of ligature extending toward the following δ as of α ο vix θ ε; following δ, u-shaped bowl at upper-letter height supported by a vertical as of υ; ligature extending to right into lacuna, supported by parallel uprights as of π; fleck of ink at lower-letter height before lacuna; narrow lunate shape at right side of lacuna with faint fleck of ink above (on damaged fibers) as of κ c ] κεκ , faint traces at midletter height obscured by hole as of ω ο; following κε, an upright obscured by edge of papyrus (with damaged fibers and abrasion) with traces of ink to the right as of κ ι ρ ε etc. 4 τ , left edge of a slightly ascending horizontal at midletter height, with faint trace of descender beneath hole as of τ π θ ν , traces of a round letter with crossbar obscured by small hole as of θ; faint flecks of ink at left edge of lacuna; traces of upright on right edge of lacuna with diagonal descending from apex and curving upward into second upright as of ν η , two vertical strokes, the second of which is slightly lunate, and only vestiges at lower right of a diagonal linking (due to a hole) as of η µ ν (followed by 1 cm of vacant papyrus) µ νο , two diagonals meeting at apex, with abrasion to right as of µ λ; following tear and ν, small round letter with open top as of ο υ  ( )ετ[, fleck of ink at bottom left before lacuna; fleck of ink on fibers extending into lacuna from right; ligature from lacuna into lunate letter with traces of a curious vertical stroke ascending from top of letter (or descending from upright of κ in line above?) and inclining slightly to right as of ε c fortasse ψ; abraded traces of curvy upright with horizontal cap as of τ υ; badly abraded fibers at edge of fragment, possibly traces of a round shape at upper-letter height 5 (Lines 5–9 written by Hand R): c , faint traces of lunate shape obscured by a tear as of c ι α , trace of diagonal or horizontal stroke at lower-left letter height prior to tear as of α δ χ αικ , following tear, faint traces of a small round or triangular letter, possibly with crossbar as of θ ε c ο α; following α, upright followed by small tear; traces of an upright with two diagonals extending to right from midletter height as of κ 6 ο ε, oddly formed letters complicate the reading: upright with horizontal cap and curved diagonal descending from vertex, followed by a second, lunate upright that cannot be confirmed to be part of or ligatured to either the horizontal or the diagonal of the first traces due to abrasion as of µ π π vix η εc (cf. ad ii.8 infra), therefore confounding whether the traces comprise one or two letters; following ο, abraded traces of upright with faint traces of a diagonal descending across top of upright from upper left to middle right as of υ λ δ α τ; lower half of lunate stroke with horizontal extending

136

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

from midletter height as of ε c ω c , small, round shape to left of tear as of ω ο; following tear, right edge of two parallel horizontals at upper- and lower-letter height, with trace of a third horizontal well above the clothesline as of c ε ε\ ε /, normal-sized lunate letter with clear horizontal cap but only faint traces of further horizontals as of ε c; at upper right side of preceding letter’s horizontal cap, another lunate stroke that sits atop the horizontal cap—straddling it as the middle of three horizontals as of ε µ , a difficult letter, upright with diagonal descending to right at very narrow angle, leading into (or ligatured into) a lunate stroke as of µ λc (cf. ad ii.7 infra; paleo. comm. in part 2 ad 3250c [fr. 2] i.4) κ ν [, following κ, a descender that curves upward to the right; vestiges of a vertical on the back of the recto fibers and of a second vertical following a tear; faint traces of a triangular letter as of α δ θ vix ε; after ν, traces of an upright linked to a lunate stroke from their midletter height as of µ η 7 η  , a difficult reading: a slightly inclined upright with diagonal descending from summit to bottom of lunate stroke as of η µ λc τ[()]ετν , horizontal at upper-letter height, some evidence of a descender at right as of τ; after lacuna, abraded right edge of lunate letter or at least two horizontals (a third trace, at very low letter height, may be a blot) as of ε c; a descender with horizontal cap whose left side is bady abraded as of τ γ; two diagonals meeting at apex as of λ, but faint traces of a second vertical above base of second diagonal as of ν α , small, roundish letter as of α ο δ λ ι, upright with long diagonal descending from peak to base of an adjacent upright as of λι ν ω ν το , following tear, traces of a small round or triangular letter as of ο ω α δ θ; upright with diagonal descending to right, possibly to the base of extremely faint upright as of ν λ; traces of an upright with horizontal cap, the left side of which is abraded but which extends at right into a round letter as of το; traces of upright with curved horizontal extending to right as of υ τ γ; trace of ink at edge of fragment 8 υ , obscured by lacuna: trace of diagonal or cap at upper right and of a descender at low center as of υ τ γ vix ι η , upright with diagonal crossbar to second, lunate upright, but with short horizontal extending to right from cap of first upright as of η µ εc (cf. shape at start of ii.6, discussed supra) [  ]  [  ] , left side of round letter before hole as of ω ο c; following 0.6 cm hole, another round letter, but one open at summit, as of ο ω; at right edge of lacuna, blot ligatured to subsequent τ at upperletter height τα , following τ, a diagonal ascending to right as of α 〚δ ε ξ   c ε τ ο β ο   το 〛[, all letters very small and obscured by horizontal strokes as though deleted, largely unidentifiable and speculative 9 ο⹂ ⹃7, after ο and a gap of 0.4 cm, a small dot at upper level height, more likely to be a colon than a letter

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

•

137

Reconstructed Text and Translation P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso Provenance unknown col. i

5

10

19.2  8.3 cm↓

Late III to II BCE

col. ii

πν [θ]εα δ’ πα ιτει γ εω ρ[γ]! c cε λ [()]δ ε [ επ [] δφεccινA λλ’ J δε προc[] [()] νε [ αµω [] δ’ 'πο κτωθε, το δ; τ7 π[ρ]ο κεκ [  θευ, @ τµνον   ετ[ εc τ[1] πρ!cθ εν . 6 ( ) ]ο 5 προcτγµα τ’ *δει Παφ$ηc κειcθ αι κ[ ]θει µ’ ο&⟨κ⟩ ρωτικω  c τεενεφενιµενενη κ ν [ ] η νοαναλωτ[ ]ετνα Πα λ ικω ν διπλω  ν το [ ] Jc’ +δ/νη[][]τα ι⹂ ⹃〚δεξcετο βτο 〛[ ]ιν ο⹂ ⹃· ]cειενεπεcιυεναµαcο []  10 vacat vacat and a farmer demands that you [verb] griefs [or “and the farmer asks you . . . the griefs”](?) . . . and [verb (in?)] the soil. But this [masculine noun] to-[verb
object] (?) [from] underneath/below, and they (?) the things (neuter accusative plural participle) forward/in front. Oh divinity, [were they/was I] cut[ting] (?) . . . the commands of the Paphian ought to be laid down . . . me . . . not in an erotic sense . . . (?) (?) . . . of/by the twofold Palici . . . (?) [as much/however much pain (?)] . . .

ii.1 πα ιτει vel 3250a verso (*  ego): i.10 ]cειεν *πεc c ι dispexit Borges πα ιρ ει* λ [()]: λ [/ειν] vel λ [υγρ]* c ε*: τε Borges ii.2 δφεc c ιν vel φειcιν* αλλο δ ε: λλ J δ ε Janko: "λλο δ *: "λλα δ  Borges ii.3 αµω [] δυπ κ α〚θ〛\τ/ωθε: "µω [µ]α δ’ 'π ο κ τωθε vel :µω  [ν] J δ’ 'π ο κτωθε*  θευ* ii.4 6 9 *: @ Reed ii.5 κειcθαι Borges ii.6 µ’ ο&⟨κ⟩ vel µου vix k ο& vel π οτ’* τεενεφενιµενεν: θ’{ε} 4ν φ’ ^ν µνεν vel τ’{ε ν} φ’ ^ν µνεν*  ν* vel n ν ii.7 @ νλωτ [ο]: prop. Battezzato Πα λικω  ν διπλω  ν *: sed διπλο ν pap. ii.8 οcοδυνη : Jc’ +δ/νη *

138

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

Philological Commentary col. ii

Uncertainties about the makeup of the two texts have consequences for the foregoing translation: it is clumsy and tentative and proceeds line by line, since the continuity of the texts cannot be confidently maintained. ii.1 πν [θ]εα δ’ "π α ιτει γ εω ρ [γ] c c ε The abundance of dotted letters betrays how speculative the reconstruction is. Because of the Hand V scribe’s practice on the other versos, I proceed on the assumption that each line begins with a new word. In this case, the visible traces and the small size of the lacuna make the likeliest supplement πεν[θ]εα, but from this point, the reading becomes more difficult: following the elided particle δ’, I discern either the verb παιτει or πα$ρει (word-end is suggested by the scribe lifting his pen after ει),6 followed by the nominative γεωρ[γ]!c. Of the various supplements, γεωρ[γ]!c is perhaps most speculative, largely because the top edge of the papyrus renders several letters more or less lacunose. That said, I see no alternative for the first three letters—which means something built on the root γεω- is necessary—and I add only that the few traces beneath the lacuna are consistent with the conjecture. Two interpretations of the verse are possible: the assumption that the reading is παιτει and that the verb introduces an indirect statement renders “and a farmer demands that you [verb] griefs” or (if, as Jay Reed notes, παιτω takes a double accusative) “and a farmer asks you [the cause of] your griefs.” The latter is particularly appropriate to Hellenistic scenes of a humble or anonymous character making an inquiry of a traveling god or hero;7 while the epic-heroic overtones of the other versos’ mythographic lyrics may resonate in the “griefs,” the presence of a γεωρ[γ]!c both undercuts the assumption of an elevated poetic register of language and suggests a more humble context.8 The presence of a farmer and his request or demand provide the kernel of the verse, and if one both accepts the reading of the personal pro6. Hand V does not normally ligature ι to the subsequent letter: both of the notable exceptions (at fr. 1 i.5, ii.8) occur midword. 7. Reed offers [Theocritus] 25, Callimachus’ Hecale, and the Molorchus story (Call. Aetia frr. 54b–60c) as parallels for this Hellenistic trope. 8. The word’s poetic appearances are limited to comedy (old and new) and satyr drama. [E.] Rh. 176 provides the exception that proves the rule. Comic uses are too frequent to list, but for satyr drama, see Aeschylus’ satyric Diktuoulkoi (fr. 46a.16).

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

•

139

 θευ (ii.4), noun cε (ii.1) and associates it with the subsequent vocative 6 the conclusion that it is directed toward a divinity is unavoidable. The obvious candidate for a farmer’s request is, naturally, Demeter, which invites one of two further textual supplements for the lacuna at the verseend: the infinitive λ[/ειν] (i.e., “the farmer asks you to undo [his] griefs”) or the standard adjective for πνθεα, namely, λ[υγρ]. ii.2 επ[] δφεc c ιν Assuming that Hand V begins each line with a new word produces immediate difficulties for the second line. The problem is that the clearest letters (εδαφεν) not only appear to be followed by the start of a new clause and change of subject (λλ’ Jδε) but also produce Greek only with some difficulty: the likeliest readings are δφεccιν or the participle φειcιν preceded by the letters εδ. In either case, what to do with the four letters at the beginning of the line is a problem. If one reads the participle φειcιν preceded by δ’, the visible traces indicate that a third-person singular verb beginning πε-, πη-, or πι- is most likely, but there is space enough for only a few possibilities (*πεξε, *πεcε, *πεχε, *πηκε, *πηξε, πηρε, πη ν, *πιδε, *πινε), preferably one that corresponds to the present tense παιτει or πα$ρει in the previous line. If one reads the dative δφεccιν, the task is equally difficult—a four-letter word beginning πε-, πε-, or πη- that, due to the likelihood that the dative constitutes the end of a clause, makes a particle or conjunction (e.g., π ν, πε$) is improbable. One of the aforementioned verbs, with the final vowel elided, is again most likely, with the same proviso regarding the present tense παιτει or πα$ρει. Lack of context prevents a confident assertion regarding the verb, though the possibility of a farmer in the previous line makes the form of *δαφοc preferable to the participle. As a kind of base or foundation, *δαφοc implies something inalienable or essential—hence its application to a (father)land, a home’s floor, the hull of a ship, the power of fire, or (as I translate) soil.9 "λλ’ ? δ ε The sequence αλλο δ ε allows a number of reconstructions, with the obvious options being either the conjunction λλ (λλ’ Jδε) per Janko or the pronoun "λλο ("λλο δ*, "λλα δ) per Borges. I print Janko’s reading with some hesitation: Borges’ "λλα would be ideal in conjunction with the possibility of "µω[µ]α in the subsequent line, but the critical letter is, to my mind, more clearly ο than α. One could posit scribal error (caused by elision) and emend to α, but a generic, masculine 9. So, e.g., Od. 5.249; Hdt. 8.137; Th. 3.68; D. 26.11; Aeschin. 3.134.

140

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

subject is preferable in light of the surrounding nominatives (γεωρ[γ]!c, ii.1; το$, ii.3), and, as Reed notes, provides contrast with το δ (ii.3)—perhaps reemphasizing the farmer as subject. ii.3 αµω  []  This is a difficult reading, particularly in light of the constraints imposed by the subsequent reading 'ποκτωθε. A first possibility is "µω [µ]α , which, as already noted (ad ii.2 supra), might well be paired with the possibility of "λλα in the previous line. The syntax is far from clear enough for certainty: "λλα could also have a relationship either to the neuter plural τ later in the line or to εc τ[1] πρ!cθεν in the subsequent line. In light of the presence of the dialectal variant :µ$ν in 3250c verso i.8, however, reading :µω  [ν] J δ’ 'πο κτωθε in this line is also possible. Once again, uncertainty remains: there are several other nominatives in the vicinity, which makes the presence of another (Jδ’) burdensome. But the assumption of :µω  [ν] reintroduces the possibility, consistent with the exclamation in the following line and with the pronoun cε (ii.1), of oratio recta for some portion of the fragment. Oπ ο κ τωθε Given the overtones of words like γεωρ[γ]!c and δφεccιν, the adverb “[from] underneath” could be appropriate to the fragment’s agricultural context, though it must be admitted that those readings are not secure enough to serve as the basis for such a conclusion; the word is rare before the Septuagint (e.g., Pl. Lg. 761b; Arist. GA 773a; HA 493b; Eudox. fr. 344b; Euc. Opt. 22) and of no specific or particular application that would decisively establish the agricultural setting or clarify the current context. τ π[ρ]ο κεκ [ The second κ is far from certain, but the presence of the definite article strongly suggests a reduplicated perfect participle of some sort. One supplement is suggested by the prepositional phrase εc τ[1] πρ!cθεν in the subsequent line: both Euripides and Herodotus use forms of προκ!πτω in the context of similar prepositional phrases, even though (it must be admitted) the Euripidean parallel also governs a genitive.10 Were it not for this proviso (see further infra), one of the perfect participles προκεκοµµνα or προκεκοφ!τα would be welcome here. ε)c τ [+] πρcθ ε ν This phrase is not attested before the second half of the 10. At Hec. 960–61, Polymestor asks, λλ7 ταυτα µ;ν τ$ δει / θρηνειν, προκ!πτοντ’ ο&δ;ν c πρ!cθεν κακω  ν; while at 3.56.1, Herodotus describes how after forty days’ siege at Samos, the Lacedaimonians c τ1 πρ!cω τε ο&δ;ν προεκ!πτετο τω  ν πραγµτων.

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

•

141

fifth century11 and, for the purpose of supplementation, is not entirely parallel to the Euripidean passage cited supra. Instead of combining c πρ!cθεν with a genitive, this is a separate construction with the definite article that eschews the genitive—not πρ!cθεν κακω  ν but τ1 πρ!cθεν. I therefore hesitate to print either participial supplement for the previous line (προκεκοµµνα or προκεκοφ!τα—which would produce something akin to “and they [verb] the things progressed forward”). 12   θευ , P  While the dialectal variant θε/c is attested in Callimachus, the last letter (η) is followed by an entire centimeter of blank papyrus. On the other Hand V text, such spaces denote scribal pause—either punctuation or the end of oratio recta, but always word-end.13 Reading the  θευ thus leaves a single letter to account for,14 and since the vocative 6 traces are compatible with η, there are three convenient possibilities consistent with word-end: the exclamation 9 (“ah!”), the comparative conjunction 9 (“or”), or the interrogative adverb @ . The third is prefer is acceptably placed following a vocative15 and able, as interrogative @ makes for good Greek with the subsequent τµνον: “o god(dess), were they/was I cutting . . . ?” Homeric parallels for the construction suggest that the meter in question might be dactylic, even if the subsequent τµνον would make for a heavily spondaic sequence. The hiatus between  is not unparalleled—particularly in hexameters—and is not θευ and @ grounds for serious objection.16 Nevertheless, the reading is curious; the scribal pause cannot mark punctuation or the end of oratio recta, since it interrupts the syntax of the question. τµνο ν ()ε τ  Despite the evident connection to τµνω, the latter portion of the reading is rather vexed. If one works solely with the first letters, however, either the unaugmented imperfect or a neuter participle

11. E.g., S. Aj. 1249; Hdt. 4.72, 7.89; E. Hipp. 1228; Hel. 1579; IA 619; Th. 7.43.5, 7.78.3; Antipho Soph. fr. 49; Ar. Ach. 43, 242; Eq. 751; Lys. 185; Th. 645. 12. Call. Cer. 57, fr. 731. Hopkinson, who notes that nonliterary appearances are limited to several κοιν -Doric inscriptions, cites Bechtel (1921–24, 2:446–47). 13. See, e.g., fr. 1 ii.6; fr. 2 i.5, i.9. 14. While the traces are not entirely incompatible with ν, I am not convinced by Jay  (i.e., 6  θευν—cf. Sapph. Reed’s hypothesis of an accusative of exclamation following U or 6  τ1ν VΑδωνιν, “alas for Adonis!”) and prefer the vocative. fr. 168: 6 15. LSJ (s.v.) cites Il. 5.421, 5.762; Od. 4.632; S. OC 863, 1102. 16. Homer frequently admits hiatus in long final vowels (without correption or influence of ϝ), particularly when they bear the rhythmic accent: see West 1982, 38; Smyth 1920, 47 D1. Words ending with the diphthong -ευ are particularly appropriate: even in Attic, hiatus is permitted following the adverb ε& (Smyth 1920, 47 D2).

142

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

τµνον are possible, the former of which is the better candidate, as it provides a verb for the question seemingly at stake (or, barring that, for the nominative το$ in the previous line). The lack of syllabic augment, in conjunction with the dialectal variant θε/c, continues to suggest a poetic context or quotation, potentially (as noted supra) in hexameters. While the scribal pause between adverb and verb unusually interrupts the syntax, its coincidence with word-end is acceptable. ii.5 προc τγµα τ’ δει Παφηc κειc θαι These are the first words after the change from Hand V to Hand R and mark the point at which the presumption of continuous text becomes questionable: while one could easily posit a second question—“ought the commands of the Paphian be laid down . . . ?”—following on the previous line’s, there is no conspicuous relationship between the two. Thus, although Aphrodite is potentially the θε/c addressed in the previous line, this assumption requires an explanation of how the “cutting” there now relates to her προcτγµατα. Positing disjuncture eases the interpretive load: as an independent assertion, the statement “the commands of the Paphian ought to be laid down” makes perfect sense. Apart from their references to a divinity, there is no definitive link between the two verses and, a fortiori, the two hands’ respective texts. Nevertheless, this first verse in Hand R is interesting in its own right, for it appears, at first glance, to comprise a tidy metrical unit: προcτγµατ’ *δει Παφ$ηc κειcθαι ‒‒ ⏑⏑‒ ⏑⏑‒ ‒‒

anapestic dimeter

Despite the appearance of metrical orderliness, the conjunction of anapests and the Ionic form Παφ$ηc is curious: anapests are more regularly used in drama and in the Doric poetic tradition, neither of which would include an Ionicism. An anapestic sequence, in other words, is unlikely unless one posits scribal error, but it is equally possible that Παφ$ηc κειcθαι or (most likely) *δει Παφ$ηc κειcθαι are excerpted from a larger, dactylic verse, a context that makes much more sense. For one thing, the Ionic form Παφ$ηc is much better suited to dactyls,17 and

17. It is attested exclusively in epigrammatic contexts by the time of this fragment: for the Ionic Παφ$η, see two epigrams of Plato (A.P. 6.1, 16.160  VIII, XXV [Page2]  15, 23 [Diehl]), one of Asclepiades (A.P. 5.158  IV [Page2]), and one attributed variously to Asclepiades (A.P. 5.209  XXXVI [G-P]) or to Posidippus ( IV [Page2]). As Jay Reed notes (1997, ad Adonis 64), by the Hellenistic period, the goddess’ title is sufficient to appear alone.

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

•

143

the hypothesis of dactyls allows one to jettison the prosaic word προcτγµατ’ from the apparently poetic context.18 The blend of lexical registers makes best sense if the sequence is a poetic quotation within a prose text. An error in transcription seems to reinforce the likelihood of a quotation; the scribe originally wrote the final α of προcτγµατα before recognizing the elision and writing ε above it—Hand R’s normal method of correcting and deleting a letter. I am tempted to agree with Ruth Scodel that the passage is not a selfcontained line of poetic verse but part of a prose work on the topic of poetry (which would naturally quote verse), potentially either notes or a more elaborate commentary on a poem.19 As was the case with the rectos’ incipit list, the hypothesis of a relation to scholarly works of the sort being produced in Alexandria is consistent with many features of the Hand R text, despite the hand’s relative lack of refinement.20 ii.6 µ’ οI ⟨κ⟩ ρωτικω  c For the difficulties in reading the initial µ, see the paleographical commentary supra (ad loc). The alternative is k ο& , but the syntax produced by this reading is difficult. The reading µου is not transparent: the letters can be rendered as the pronoun µου (whose case is appropriate to the adverb) or as µ’ ο&. The latter seems more likely: the position of the adverb following the enclitic µου undermines their close syntactical relationship,21 while µ’ ο& is regularly followed by a modifier or verb that governs the pronoun (one should emend to ο&⟨κ⟩ to avoid hiatus). As previously with the possibile readings cε (ii.1) and :µω ν (ii.3), admittedly in the separate Hand V text, the identity of the first-person speaker or narrator is unclear.

18. The term appears once in Aesop (103b [Hausrath-Hunger]) before a deluge of usages beginning with fourth-century prose (Isocrates, Plato, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Aristotle, and Ephoros are all fond of the term). A testimonium concerning Polyclitus reveals that he was said to have taught sculpture according to the “commands of reason” (τ7 του  λ!γου προcτγµατα, T3 [D-K]). Furthermore, while the verse (including προcτγµατ’) scans as dactylic as well, its presence would be metrically suspect: Reed points out that if one reads προcτγµατ’ *δει Παφ$ηc κειcθαι as a hexameter, not only would the position of προcτγµατ’ (in the second foot) violate Meyer’s first law, but the spondaic κειcθαι would also span the fourth and fifth feet. These rules prohibiting such violations are not absolute, but leaving out προcτγµατ’ produces a much tidier metrical sequence (‒ ⏑ *δει Παφ$ηc κειcθαι ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ×). 19. Cf. the practice of P.Oxy. 2294 or the Callimachean diegeses—on which see van Rossum-Steenbeek 1998, 74–84. 20. See the discussion of the hand in part 1. 21. Cf. Pl. Smp. 216d2, 222c2; R. 485c7.

144

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

The adverb ρωτικω  c is strikingly prosaic22 and, as both Reed and Borges suggest, implies a commentator’s language—not so much “erotically” or “desirously” but, rather, “in an erotic sense.” The suspicion already advanced (ad ii.5 supra) concerning the text as a prose work appears confirmed: while the adverb is appropriate to the previous line’s reference to Paphian Aphrodite, the line’s numerous open syllables are incompatible with the dactylic structure of *δει Παφ$ηc κειcθαι. Thus, while the erotic theme that links lines 5–6 suggests that the text of Hand R is continuous, the admixture of prosaic and poetic language—most likely the mark of poetic quotation in prose—distinguishes the text from the other recto fragments. τε ε νεφενιµ ενενη  κ This is a difficult restoration. After what seems to be enclitic τε, the sequence ενεφενι is most likely rendered uν φ’ ^ν$ (“one [thing] . . . for another”), but this raises the questions of (a) how the enclitic τε is possible following µ’ ο&κ ρωτικω  c, (b) why the final ε of τε was left unelided before 4ν, and (c) had that ε been elided, why τ’ was not aspirated to θ’.23 While one can posit scribal error, it seems that Hand R made a correction, inserting ε before ν (τε ε ν; see paleo. comm. ad loc.).24 An attempt to render the line, with a minimal amount of emendation, remains opaque: µ’ ο&κ ρωτικω  c τε uν φ’ ^ν µνεν ηκ (“and each/one [neuter noun] was awaiting me in another, not in an erotic sense”). Assuming that the reading uν φ’ ^ν is correct,25 the line continues to ring of prose; uν φ’ ^ν occurs only twice prior to the Common Era (Pl. Soph. 229b9; Leg. 758b7). The related phrase φ’ ^ν is no more common, with only fourteen attestations (four of which also come from Plato), none of which occur in poetry. But while this is among the clearest readings in the line and while µνεν seems likely toward the end of the line, the text is vexed as a whole, and I print the diplomatic version; even µνεν can be reanalyzed as µ;ν ν. ii.7 η νοαναλωτ[ ]ετν α The reconstruction is uncertain; the visible traces are consistent with a nominative form of the adjective νλωτ[ο]c , but in 22. Menander (Sam. 166) provides our sole poetic example. 23. Preserving an unaspirated τ’ assumes the implausible sequence of prepositions ν φ’ ^ν$, which is only possible if one of them (presumably the former) is subjected to editorial deletion. 24. When making corrections, Hand R usually writes the correct letter directly above the incorrect one and leaves the original reading as is. The incorrect letter is not crossed out or covered over but is simply replaced by the correct letter on top. See, further, Part 1. 25. The alternative, as I see it, is to deem εν a scribal error in transcribing the subsequent preposition φ’ and delete it.

P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso

•

145

light of the subsequent reading Παλικω  ν διπλω  ν, one is left not only with three intervening letters (τν α) that defy reconstruction and invite conjecture26 but also with the three isolated letters ηνο at the start of ν , or vν ,, but on the assumption the line. The latter can be rendered @ that the subsequent traces ετν α comprise the noun modified by νλωτ[ο]c , the masculine article is difficult.27 There are also questions about the adjective’s meaning. It seems necessary to pair the adjective with Παλικω ν διπλω ν (see infra), but the options are not convincing: one can posit a reference to either the twins’ “impenetrable” earthen womb (cf. Hdt. 1.84, 8.51) or their incorruptible or inscrutable authority (cf. Pl. Tht. 179c) before the Sicels, but a parallel for the adjective used with the genitive suggests that the meaning here might be “[noun] unaffected by the Palici” (Men. Rh. 416S).28 Πα λ ικων In light of the subsequent reconstruction διπλω ν , this is almost certainly to read Παλικω ν,29 for the simple reason that the Palici were twin divinities. Even if one preserves the alternative reading διπλ! ν , a reference to something “double” belonging to the twins is appropriate.30 The Palici are ancient and important divinities in Sicel cult.31 Macrobius reports that Aeschylus was the first to write about them: in his Aitnai(ai), the Palici are already Sicilian daimones (Sat. 5.19.17–19  TrGF F6; cf. Serv. A. 9.581). The myths surrounding them vary but generally involve their pregnant mother seeking refuge from Hera/Juno in the earth, from which the twins were subsequently born. Aeschylus, accordingly, etymologizes the name from πλιν Mκειν (πλιν γ7ρ Mκουc’ κ cκ!του τ!δ’ εc φοc, TrGF F6.4). From an account of Theophilos, 26. While a form of the name ΑCτνη/ΑCτνα would be welcome, it cannot be read. 27. Without the article, the problems disappear: νλωτ[ο]c has only two terminations and can easily describe a feminine noun. 28. The parallel in Menander Rhetor is curious in that it involves Aphrodite, which is intriguing in light of the Paphian previously mentioned (ii.5): he says that Diomedes is µ!νοc γ7ρ νλωτοc τω ν 2Αφροδ$τηc παθω  ν. 29. The alternative is less convincing: the Doric form :λ$κων is attested (Pi. I. 8.66), but the presence of π before the spiritus asper means that in order to read this form, one must also posit psilosis and the Aeolic dialect (i.e., π’  λ $κων), which is unlikely given the prosaic bent of the previous verses. 30. Cf. S. Aj. 959 (for the Atreïdae); E. Hel 494 (where Nauck conjectured διπλουν for :πλουν, for Sparta/Tyndareion). 31. Diodorus Siculus writes, µυθολογου cι γ7ρ τ1 τµενοc τουτο διαφρειν τω  ν "λλων ρχαι!τητι κα cεβαcµ=ω  (“for they relate that this shrine surpasses the others in antiquity and reverence,” 11.89.1). The source for this section of Diodorus’ book 11 is likely Ephoros, and so Diodorus’ claims regarding the cult’s antiquity and importance should be regarded as true. On Diodorus’ sources, see Stylianou 1998, 58–59 n. 165.

146

•

new literary papyri from the michigan collection

we hear as well of a shrine, which is located near a spring with unique, volcanic properties (FGrHist 573, 1)32 and near the Symaethos river (Steph. Byz. s.v. Παλικ  FGrHist 175, F3; Serv. A. 9.581). Their connection to the region south of Mount Aetna appears quite strong; beyond the shrine and spring, they were also eponymous for a short-lived polis founded in the decades following the production of Aitnai(ai).33 What role they might play in the Hand R text is unclear: while their mythology requires an erotic episode—their mother’s union with Zeus/Jupiter—Aphrodite plays no prominent role in the sources, and if she did, given the Palici’s importance in Sicel cult, one might prefer a reference to Venus in her Sicilian aspect of “Erycina,” not as the Cypriot “Paphian.”

32. See also [Arist]. Mir. 834b8; Sotion VIII (Westermann 1839, 184), who reports Isigonus’ description of the spring’s activity; Polemon fr. 83 (Preller); and Diodorus (11.89.2–9). 33. Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Παλικ ; Polemon (fr. 83 [Preller]); cf. Diodorus 11.88.6. Diodorus states that the city was founded by Douketios, who would have done so by the midfifth century and therefore after Aeschylus’ production of Aitnai(ai) following the founding of the city in 476/5.

Bibliography

Anderson, M. J. 1997. The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art. Oxford. Barchiesi, A. 1996. “Simonides and Horace on the Death of Achilles.” In Boedeker & Sider 1996, 247–53. Barrett, W. S., ed. 1964. Euripides: Hippolytus. Oxford. Bastianini, G., & Casanova, A., eds. 2005. Euripide e i papiri: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi Firenze, 10–11 giugno 2004. Florence. Bastianini, G., Haslam, M., Mähler, H., Montanari, F., & Römer, C. E., eds. 2004. Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris Reperta. Part 1, Commentaria et lexica in auctores. Vol. 1, no. 1, Aeschines–Alcaeus. Munich. Battezzato, L., ed. 2003. Tradizione testuale e ricezione letteraria antica della tragedia greca: Atti del convegno Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 14–15 giugno 2002. Amsterdam. Battezzato, L. 2009. “The fragmentum Grenfellianum: Metrical Analysis, Ancient Punctuation, and the Sense of an Ending.” In Cousland & Hume 2009, 403–20. Bechtel, F. 1921–24. Die griechischen Dialekte. Vol. 2. Berlin. Bers, V. 1997. Speech in Speech: Studies in Incorporated Oratio Recta in Attic Drama and Oratory. Lanham. Björck, G. 1950. Das Alpha Impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache: Attische Wort- und Stilstudien. Uppsala. Blum, R. 1991. Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography. Trans. Hans Wellisch. Madison. Boedeker, D., & Sider, D., eds. 1996. “The New Simonides.” Special Issue, Arethusa 29.2. Boedeker, D., & Sider, D., eds. 2001. The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire. Oxford. Bond, G. W., ed. 1981. Euripides: Heracles. Oxford. Breitenbach, W. 1934. Untersuchungen zur Sprache der euripideischen Lyrik. Stuttgart. Bremer, J. M., & Worp, K. A. 1986. “Papyri containing fragments of Eur. Phoenissae (2).” Mnemosyne 39:240–60. Bremmer, J. N., & Horsfall, N. M., eds. 1987. Roman Myth and Mythography. London.

147

148

•

Bibliography

Brown, M. K., ed. 2002. The Narratives of Konon. Munich. Burnet, J., ed. 1900–1907. Platonis Opera. 5 vols. Oxford. Calame, C., ed. 1989. Alcman. Rome. Camp, J. M. 1986. The Athenian Agora. London. Campbell, D. A., ed. 1990–93. Greek Lyric. 5 vols. Cambridge. Cary, E., ed. 1937–50. Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Roman Antiquities. 7 vols. Cambridge. Cavallo, G. 2008. La scrittura greca e latina dei papiri: Una introduzione. Pisa. Chantraine, P. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris. Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots. Paris. Cockshaw, P., Garand, M.-C., & Jodogne, P., eds. 1979. Miscellanea Codicologica F. Masai: Dicata MCMLXXIX. Ghent. Collard, C. 2005. “Colloquial Language in Tragedy.” CQ 55:350–86. Conomis, N. C. 1964. “The Dochmiacs of Greek Drama.” Hermes 92:23–50. Cousland, J. R. C., & Hume, J. R., eds. 2009. The Play of Texts and Fragments: Essays in Honour of Martin Cropp. Leiden. Cribiore, R. 1996. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Atlanta. Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton. Csapo, E. 1999–2000. “Later Euripidean Music.” ICS 24–25:399–426. Csapo, E. 2004. “The Politics of the New Music.” In Murray & Wilson 2004, 207–48. Denniston, J. D. 1950. The Greek Particles. 2nd ed. London. Denniston, J. D., & Page, D. L., eds. 1957. Aeschylus: Agamemnon. Oxford. Diehl, E., ed. 1950–58. Anthologia Lyrica Graeca. 3rd ed. Lipsiae. Diggle, J. 1991. The Textual Tradition of Euripides’ Orestes. Oxford. Dindorf, L., & Büttner-Wobst, T., eds. 1962–63. Polybius: Historiae. 5 vols. Stuttgart. Dodds, E. R., ed. 1960. Euripides: Bacchae. 2nd ed. Oxford. Dover, K., ed. 1993. Aristophanes: Frogs. Oxford. Duke, E. A., Hicken, W. F., Nicoll, W. S. M., Robinson, D. B., & Strachan, J. C. G., eds. 1995. Platonis Opera. Vol. 1. Oxford. Edwards, M. W. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 5, Books 17–20. Cambridge. Eisenhut, W., ed. 1973. Dictys Cretensis. Leipzig. Erbse, H., ed. 1969–88. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem. 7 vols. Berlin. Esposito, E., ed. 2005. Il Fragmentum Grenfellianum (P.Dryton 50): Introduzione, testo critico traduzione e commento. Bologna. Ferrari, G. 2000. “The Ilioupersis in Athens.” HSCP 100:119–50. Ferrari, G. 2002. “The Ancient Temple on the Acropolis at Athens.” AJA 106:11–35. Festa, N., ed. 1902. Palaephati Peri Apistou. Leipzig. Finglass, P. J., ed. 2007. Sophocles: Electra. Cambridge. Fleming, T. J., & Kopff, E. C. 1992. “Colometry of Greek Lyric Verses in Tragic Texts.” SIFC Supp. no. 310:758–70. Fontenrose, J. 1978. The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley. Fraenkel, E., ed. 1950. Aeschylus: Agamemnon. 3 vols. Oxford. Frazer, J. G., ed. 1921. Apollodorus: The Library. 2 vols. Cambridge.

Bibliography

•

149

Frösen, J., Purola, T., & Salmenkivi, E., eds. 2007. Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology. Helsinki. Führer, R. 1967. Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der frühgriechischen Lyrik. Munich. Gallavotti, C., ed. 1947. Saffo e Alceo: Testimonianze e frammenti con introduzione. Naples. Garvie, A. F., ed. 1986. Aeschylus: Choephori. Oxford. Gignac, F. T. 1976. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol. 1. Milan. Gow, A. S. F., ed. 1952. Theocritus. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F., & Scholfield, A. F., eds. 1953. Nicander: The Poems and Poetical Fragments. Cambridge. Graves, C. E., ed. 1982. Thucydides Book IV. Bristol. Griffith, M. 1977. The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound. Cambridge. Gronewald, M., & Daniel, R. W. 2004a. “Ein neuer Sappho-Papyrus.” ZPE 147:1–8. Gronewald, M., & Daniel, R. W. 2004b. “Nachtrag zum neuen Sappho-Papyrus.” ZPE 149:1–4. Hall, E. 1988. “When Did the Trojans Turn into Phrygians? Alcaeus 42.15.” ZPE 73:15–18. Hansen, P. A., ed. 2005. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Vol. 3, Π–Σ. Berlin. Hausrath, A., & Hunger, H., eds. 1970. Corpus Fabularum Aesopicarum. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Leipzig. Heubeck, A., & Hoekstra, A. 1989. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol. 2. Books IX–XVI. Oxford. Heubeck, A., West, S., Hainsworth, J. B. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol. 1, Introduction and Books I–VIII. Oxford. Holder, A., & Keller, O., eds. 1894. Pomponi Porfyrionis Scholia Antiqua in Q. Horatium Flaccum. Ad Aeni Pontem. Horsfall, N. M. 1979a. “Some Problems in the Aeneas Legend.” CQ 29:372–90. Horsfall, N. M. 1979b. “Stesichorus at Bovillae?” JHS 99:26–48. Horsfall, N.M. 1987. “The Aeneas-Legend from Homer to Virgil.” In Bremmer & Horsfall 1987, 12–24. Hude, C., ed. 1927. Herodoti Historiae. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Oxford. Hurst, A., & Kolde, A., eds. 2008. Lycophron: Alexandra. Paris. Hutchinson, G. O., ed. 1985. Aeschylus: Seven Against Thebes. Oxford. Janko, R., ed. 1987. Aristotle: Poetics. Indianapolis. Janko, R., ed. 2000. Philodemus: On Poems, Book One. Oxford. Jocelyn, H. D., ed. 1967. The Tragedies of Ennius: The Fragments. Cambridge. Johnson, W. J. 2000. “Musical Evenings in the Early Empire: New Evidence from a Greek Papyrus with Musical Notation.” JHS 120:57–85. Jones, H. S., & Powell, J. E., eds. 1902. Thucydidis Historiae. 2 vols. Oxford. Jones, J. W., Jr. 1965. “Trojan Legend: Who Is Sinon?” CJ 61:122–28. Kassel, R., ed. 1965. Aristotelis de Arte Poetica Liber. Oxford. Kirk, G. S. 1990. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 2, Books 5–8. Cambridge. Kramer, B. 1980. “Schülerübung: Anapäste (P.Köln III 125).” Papyrologica Coloniensia 7, no. 3:14–23. Kranz, W. 1933. Stasimon. Berlin.

150

•

Bibliography

Latte, K., ed. 1953–66. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. 2 vols. Hauniae. Leaf, W., ed. 1900. The Iliad. 2nd ed. London. Leaf, W. 1912. Troy: A Study in Homeric Geography. Reprint. Freeport. Lefkowitz, M. R. 1991. First-Person Fictions: Pindar’s Poetic “I.” Oxford. Lewis, N. 1936. “Greek Literary Papyri from the Strasbourg Collection.” Études de Papyrologie 3:46–91. Lindsay, W. M., ed. 1904–22. T. Macci Plauti Comoediae. 2 vols. Oxford. Littré, E., ed. 1839–61. Ouevres completes d’ Hippocrate. 9 vols. Paris. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1974. “A New Hellenistic Fragment in the Archebulean Metre.” ZPE 13:209–13. Lobel, E. 1952. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 20. London. Losada, L. A. 1983. “Maple, Fir, and Pine: Vergil’s Wooden Horse.” TAPA 113: 301–10. Ma, J., 2007. “A Horse from Teos: Epigraphical Notes on the Ionian-Hellespontine Association of Dionysiac Artists.” In P. Wilson 2007, 215–45. Maltomini, F. 2003. “Considerazioni su P.Oxy. LIV 3724.” ZPE 144:67–75. Marshall, P. K., ed. 2002. Hyginus Fabulae. 2nd ed. Munich. Martinelli, M. C., ed. 2009a. La musa dimenticata: Aspetti dell’esperienza musicale greca in età ellenistica. Pisa. Martinelli, M. C. 2009b. “Testi musicati, testi per la musica: ipotesi su alcuni papyri lirici.” In Martinelli 2009, 317–54. Mastronarde, D. J. 1980. “P.Strasbourg WG 307 Re-examined (E. Phoin. 1499– 1581, 1710–1736).” ZPE 30:1–42. Mastronarde, D. J., ed. 2002. Euripides: Medea. Cambridge. Mastronarde, D. J., & Bremer, J. M. 1982. The Textual Tradition of Euripides’ Phoinissai. Berkeley. Mayser, E. 1970. Grammatik der Griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. 2nd ed. Berlin. McNamee, K. 1992. Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri. Brussels. McNamee, K. 2007. Annotations in Greek and Roman Texts from Egypt. New Haven. Meiggs, R. 1982. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford. Meineke, A., ed. 1849. Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorvm quae svpersvnt. Berlin. Merkelbach, R., ed. 1973a. “Verzeichnis von Gedichtanfangen.” ZPE 12:86. Merkelbach, R., ed. 1973b. “Wartetext 10, lyrisches Fragment.” ZPE 12:138. Miller, W., ed. 1914. Xenophon. Vols. 5–6, Cyropaedia. Cambridge. Morgan, T. 1998. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge. Müller, K., ed. 1855. Geographi Graeci minores. Vol. 1. Paris. Murray, P., & Wilson, P., eds. 2004. Music and the Muses: The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City. Oxford. Obbink, D. 2006. “A New Archilochus Poem.” ZPE 156:1–9. Oldfather, C. H., ed. 1933–67. Diodorus of Sicily. 12 vols. Cambridge. Olson, S. D., ed. 1998. Aristophanes: Peace. Oxford. Otranto, R. 2000. Antiche liste di libri su papiro. Rome. Page, D. L., ed. 1970. Select Papyri. Vol. 3, Literary Papyri. Cambridge. Page, D. L. 1974. “A New Fragment of Lyrical Verse: P.Mich. Inv. 3498 Verso.” ZPE 13:105–9.

Bibliography

•

151

Panagl, O. 1971. Die dithyrambischen Stasima des Euripides: Untersuchungen zur Komposition und Erzähltechnik. Vienna. Panagl, O. 1972. “Zur Funktion der direkten Rede in den ‘dithyrambischen Stasima’ des Euripides.” WS 6:5–18. Parker, L. P. E. 1968. “Split Resolution in Greek Dramatic Lyric.” CQ 18:241–69. Parker, L. P. E. 1997. The Songs of Aristophanes. Oxford. Parker, L. P. E. 2001. “Consilium et ratio? Papyrus A of Bacchylides and Alexandrian Metrical Scholarship.” CQ 51:23–52. Parsons, P., ed. 1988. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 54. London. Perry, B. E., ed. 1952. Aesopica. Urbana. Pfeiffer, R., ed. 1921. Callimachi Fragmenta Nuper Reperta. Bonn. Pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginning to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford. Pordomingo, F. 2007. “Anthologies composites sur papyrus: Étude bibliologique et fonction.” In Frösen, Purola, & Salmenkivi 2007, 909–20. Porter, J. R. 1994. Studies in Euripides’ Orestes. Leiden. Prauscello, L. 2003. “Ecdotica alessandrina e testi con notazione musicale: La testimonianza dei papyri fra prassi esecutiva e trasmissione testuale.” In Battezzato 2003, 57–76. Prauscello, L. 2006. Singing Alexandria: Music between Practice and Textual Transmission. Leiden. Preller, L., ed. 1964. Polemon: Fragmenta. Amsterdam. Probert, P. 2003. A New Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek. London. Reed, J. D., ed. 1997. Bion of Smyrna: The Fragments and the Adonis. Cambridge. Rose, V., ed. 1886. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Leipzig. Russell, D. A. & Wilson, N. J., eds. Menander Rhetor. Oxford. Russo, J., Fernandez-Galiano, M., & Heubeck, A. 1992. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol. 3, Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford. Rusten, J. 1985. “Maron in School (on P.Köln 3.125).” ZPE 60:21–22. Sampson, C. M. 2012. “Callimachean Tradition and the Muse’s Hymn to Ceres (Ov. Met. 5.341–661).” TAPA 142:83–103. Scarpi, P., ed. 1996. Apollodoro i Miti Greci (Biblioteca). Milan. Scheer, E., ed. 1881. Lycophronis Alexandra. 2 vols. Berlin. Schefold, K., & Jung, F. 1989. Die Sagen von den Argonauten, von Theben und Troia in der klassischen und hellenistischen Kunst. Munich. Schmidt, M., ed. 1858–68. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. 5 vols. Ienae. Schubart, W. 1911. Papyri Graecae Berolinenses. Bonn. Schubart, W. 1927. Griechische Papyri: Urkunden und Briefe; Vom. 4 Jahrh. v. Chr. bis ins 8. Jahrh. n. Chr. Bielefeld. Scodel, R. 1980. The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides. Göttingen. Scodel, R. 1982. “The Achaean Wall and the Myth of Destruction.” HSCP 86: 33–50. Sebesta, J. L. 2000. “The Wedding Gifts in Catullus 64.” SyllClass 11:127–40. Sider, D. 1989. “Looking for Philodemus in P.Oxy. 54.3724.” ZPE 76:229–36. Skeat, T. C. 1995. “Was Papyrus Regarded as ‘Cheap’ or ‘Expensive’ in the Ancient World?” Aegyptus 75:75–93.

152

•

Bibliography

Slater, W. J., ed. 1969. Lexicon to Pindar. Berlin. Smyth, H. W. 1920. Greek Grammar. Cambridge. Solmsen, F., ed. 1970. Hesiodi Theogonia Opera et Dies Scutum: Fragmenta Selecta. Ed. R. Merkelbach & M. L. West. 3rd ed. Oxford. Stevens, P. T. 1937. “Colloquial Expressions in Euripides.” CQ 31:182–91. Stevens, P. T. 1976. Colloquial Expressions in Euripides. Wiesbaden. Stylianou, P. J. 1998. A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15. Oxford. Thilo, G., ed. 1878–84. Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii. Lipsiae. Thompson, D. 1987. “Ptolemaios and the Lighthouse: Greek Culture in the Memphite Serapeum.” PCPS 33:105–21. Turner, E. G. 1962. “L’érudition alexandrine et les papyrus.” Chronique d’Égypte 37:135–52. Turner, E. G. 1968. Greek Papyri: An Introduction. Oxford. Turner, E. G. 1979. “The Date of the Strasbourg Fragments of Euripides.” In Cockshaw, Garand, & Jodogne 1979, 1–5. Turner, E. G. 1987. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. Revised and enlarged by P. J. Parsons. 2nd ed. London. van Rossum-Steenbeek, M. 1998. Greek Reader’s Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri. Leiden. Vian, F., & Delage, E., eds. 1976–81. Apollonios de Rhodes: Argonautiques. Paris. Wagner, R. A., ed. 1926. Mythographi Graeci. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Stuttgart. Waltz, P., ed. 1931. Anthologie Grecque. Paris. Reprint, 2002. Webster, T. B. L. 1954. “Fourth Century Tragedy and the Poetics.” Hermes 82: 294–308. Weinberger, G., & Zimmermann, A., eds. 1969. Quintus Smyrnaeus, Tryphiodorus, Colluthus. Stuttgart. West, M. L., ed. 1966. Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford. West, M. L. 1982. Greek Meter. Oxford. West, M. L. 1987. Introduction to Greek Meter. Oxford. West, M. L. 1990. Studies in Aeschylus. Stuttgart. West, M. L. 2005. “The New Sappho.” ZPE 151:1–9. Westermann, A., ed. 1839. Paradoxographoi. Brunswick. Wilcken, U., ed. 1922. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit. Berlin. Willink, C. W., ed. 1986. Euripides: Orestes. Oxford. Willis, J., ed. 1963. Macrobius Opera. Vol. 1, Saturnalia. Leipzig. Wilson, N. G., ed. 2007. Aristophanis Fabulae. 2 vols. Oxford. Wilson, P., ed. 2007. The Greek Theater and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Oxford. Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. 1980. Studies in Fourth-Century Tragedy. Athens. Youtie, H. C. 1971. “Βραδωc γρφων: Between Literacy and Illiteracy.” GRBS 12:239–62.

Index Locorum

745: 84 803: 97n124 858: 101n134 889: 94n111 893: 90n100 1018: 104n140 Eum. 10: 81 181: 91 349: 126 357: 109n157 383: 125n183 390: 125n183 466: 84 631: 109 789: 124n181 919: 125n183 Pers. 132: 98n128 293: 109 623: 9, 29 721: 101n134 726: 101n134 744: 101n134 748: 101n134 846: 84 878: 98n128 953: 90, 95 [Pr.] 5: 125 31: 84n87 104: 109 130: 111 573: 125n183 713: 124n181

Achaeus TrGF 20, F37: 94n111 Aeschines 3.134: 139n9 Aeschylus Ag. 14: 84n87 27: 94n111 126: 104n141 126–38: 66n35 126–55: 80 135: 91 140–55: 66n35 155: 101 206–17: 66n35 307: 98n128 410–15: 66n35 603: 109 696: 82, 100n132 710: 104n141 935: 101n134 1019: 96n121 1066: 108 1226: 108n154 1298: 110 1302: 110 1523: 101 Ch. 315: 124n181 520: 84n87 591: 91 726: 101 153

154

•

Aeschylus (continued) [Pr.] (continued) 832: 100n131 992: 124n181 1021–22: 91 Supp. 14: 98n126 95: 104n139 135: 125n183 666: 90, 95 1043: 84 Th. 79: 77n57, 106n147 105: 124n181 109: 86 114: 96n122 384: 106 448: 90n100 569: 90n100 571: 90n100 620: 90n100 641: 90n100 666: 114 675: 94n111 947: 92, 93 1050: 84n87 TrGF fr. 6: 145 fr. 6.4: 145 fr. 23a: 98n128 fr. 46a.16: 138n8 fr. 74.10: 90n101 fr. 99.3: 101n134 fr. 154a: 90n100 fr. 181: 85 fr. 446: 82 fr. 451n: 111 Aesop 70 (Perry): 98 103b (Hausrath-Hunger): 143n18 273 (Perry): 104n140 Alcaeus 34.1: 9, 20 Alcman PMGF 89: 98 PMGF 126: 82

Index Locorum Anacreon PMG 348.1: 25 395.1: 19, 27 Anthologia Palatina 5.158: 142n17 5.209: 142n17 6.1: 142n17 6.2.3: 88n96 9.333.1: 81 14.72.4: 81 15.26: 104n140 16.160: 142n17 Antipho Sophista fr. 49: 141n11 Apollodorus Ep. 3.27: 82n76 5.10–11: 71n47 5.14: 71, 91n102 5.15: 67n37 5.17: 69, 72n50 5.19: 67n37, 68n40 6.15b: 85n90 Apollonius of Rhodes 1.615: 92n107 1.1169: 97n123 2.341: 93 Aristides of Miletus fr. 355.12: 94n112 Aristophanes Ach. 43: 141n11 242: 141n11 546: 115 Ec. 431: 115 519: 115 Eq. 547: 115 666: 115 751: 141n11 1068: 101 1380: 115 Lys. 185: 141n11 295: 115 305: 115

Index Locorum 328–29: 115 1187: 94 Nu. 132: 90 1354ff.: 15n11 Pax 1: 94 233: 115 1063: 93 1068: 101 Pl. 1097: 90 1157: 101 Ra. 723: 90 757: 115 768: 115 1329–63: 77n60 1347–49: 99n130 Th. 645: 141n11 969: 31 V. 621: 115 Aristotle GA 773a: 140 HA 493b: 140 [Mir.] 834b8: 146n32 PA 696a5: 99 Poet. 1452b: 29 1459b: 67 Rh. 1409a: 34 Astrologicae praxis canon 12.126.2: 99 Athenaeus 496b: 110n159 Bacchylides Dith. 3.19: 125n183 3.85: 125n183 4.25: 125n183 Paean 1.75: 28 5.15: 87 15.48: 87 25.10: 87 fr. 20b2: 87 fr. dub. 64.24: 88n96 Callimachus Aetia frr. 54b–60c: 138n7

•

155

Cer. 57: 141n12 Pin. fr. 433: 15 434: 15 436: 15 fr. 731: 141n12 Catullus 22.5–8: 16n15 Choerilus fr. 21.1 PEG: 81 Conon Diegeseis 34: 61n28, 72 [Critias]. See TrGF: 43, F1.2 Ctesias FGrHist 688, F1b, 14: 92 Demosthenes 26.11: 139n9 Dictys Eph. 4.18: 72 5.8: 71n47 5.9: 61n28, 72, 113n162 5.11: 70n46, 72 Diodorus Siculus 11.88.6: 146n33 11.89.1: 145n31 11.89.2–9: 146n32 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.48.2: 57 Ennius Andr. 87: 105n143 Epic Cycle Cypria PEG arg. 7–8/EGF 10–11: 69 PEG arg. 11/EGF 15–16E: 56 PEG arg. 50/EGF 64: 82n76 Iliou Persis PEG arg. 7–9/EGF 10–13: 57

156

•

Epic Cycle (continued) Iliou Persis (continued) PEG arg. 10–11/EGF 14–15: 67n37, 68n40 PEG arg. 11–13/EGF 16–18: 82n76 Little Iliad PEG arg. 6–7/EGF 6–8: 61n28, 71 PEG 9/EGF 11a: 27 PEG arg. 10–11/EGF 12–13: 71 PEG arg. 14/EGF 17–18: 70, 71, 91n102 PEG arg. 15–17/EGF 19–22: 65, 71 PEG arg. 20–23/EGF 28–30: 113n162 Nostoi PEG arg. 12–13/EGF 18–19: 85n89 Euclid Opt. 22: 140 Eudoxus fr. 344b: 140 Euripides Alc. 81–82: 108n152 247: 84n87 416: 109 520: 108n152 570: 31 575: 97, 125 819: 97 869: 96n121 915: 87 1000: 97 Andr. 106: 90 214: 111 296–300: 56n12 298: 105 324–25: 110 512: 97 718: 86 1019: 100 1021: 111 1046: 83n80

Index Locorum 1118: 89n98 1150: 89n98 1158: 94n111 1183: 100 Ba. 8: 108n152 64: 19, 30 83: 86 86: 82n78 109: 100n131 127: 82n78 128: 124n181 140: 82n78 152–53: 86 159: 82n78 263: 109 346: 94n111 519: 19, 30 526–27: 66n35 552: 111 567: 125n183 590: 109n157 600: 97 685: 100n131 703: 100n131 977: 86 1100: 101n134 Cyc. 116: 98n128 286: 109 304: 105n142 383: 100n131 384: 97 449: 101 615: 100n131 El. 2: 90 112: 109n157 113: 112 127: 109n157 128: 112 156: 112 166: 101 314: 82n78 419: 108n152 441: 100 457: 82n78 585: 109n157 708–11: 66n35 742: 85

Index Locorum 988: 19, 29 1001: 82n78 1151–54: 66n35 1159: 89n98 1215: 66n35 Hec. 109–40: 65n34 178: 105 226: 111 398: 100n131 525–27: 59n24 543–45: 110 575: 87 631: 87 641: 100 738: 109 872: 115n166 929ff.: 66n35, 111 933: 101n134 960–61: 140n10 1093: 86 1111: 115n166 1131: 84n87 1136: 84n87 1155: 111 1167: 101n134 Hel. 20: 101 52–53: 94 56: 108n152 231: 87 238: 101 239: 83n80 250: 100 293: 108n152 356: 111 364: 103 369a: 94n114 494: 145n30 525: 96n121 609: 94n114 637: 97 663: 103 1141–42: 95n116 1166: 85 1322: 101 1341ff.: 66n35, 86 1491: 105 1579: 141n11

•

157

Heracl. 290: 90 325: 114n163 396: 77n57, 106n147 893: 88n96 HF 179: 91 241: 100n131 408: 106n146 412: 84n86 576: 101n134 812–13: 111 921: 125n183 Hipp. 198: 97 362: 109n157 491: 94n111 743: 101n134 764: 84n87 1139–41: 111 1228: 141n11 1275: 91 1361: 97 1411: 103 1458: 94n111 IA 181: 103 213: 111 237: 90 283: 90 317: 115n166 327: 109 337: 83n80 352: 83n80 359: 83n80 495: 109 552: 81n75 576: 82n78 604: 115n166 619: 141n11 683: 97 751: 100 764: 90 767: 100 775: 90 809: 109 931: 90 1006: 93n110 1053: 82n78 1062–75: 66n35, 80 1200: 83n80

158 Euripides (continued) IA (continued) 1335: 83n80 1349: 115n166 1409: 97 1414: 83n80 1469: 83n80 1475: 97n124 1628: 82n78 IT 149: 112 359: 83n80 411: 111 571: 91 771: 108n152 926: 84n87 1131: 96n121 1147: 111 1148: 111 1264: 104n140 Ion 911: 105 1010: 103 Med. 105: 94n111 412: 101 469: 110 546: 111 557: 111 618: 103 994: 125n183 999: 85 1051: 109 1142: 84n88 Or. 140: 19, 30 212: 97 268: 103 317: 20, 29 474: 97n124 629: 97n124 630: 115n166 651: 84n87 809: 100 826–30: 66n35 905: 115n166 933: 83n80 1024: 109 1147: 108n152 1176: 91 1246: 19, 29

•

Index Locorum 1261: 97 1382: 82n78 1434: 82n78 1438–43: 66n35 1447: 66n35 1462–65: 66n35 1465–67: 66n35 1480b: 82n78 1486: 82n78 Ph. 19: 114n163 56: 90n100 134: 90 295: 109n157 832: 89 1038a: 106 1081: 90 1124: 90 1261: 111 1306–7: 85 1515: 100n131 [Rh.] 127: 118 176: 138n8 256: 96n121 262: 96n121 283: 97 546–47: 100n132 604: 97 721: 96n121 895: 95n116 Supp. 23: 109 60: 109n157 116: 109 130: 83n80 160: 115n166 229: 109 428: 111 454: 108n152 460: 94n111 598: 92n107 661: 77n57, 106n147 683: 97 807: 84, 109n157 1157: 84 Tr. 9–12: 70, 91n102 11: 92 18: 82n78 143–44: 92n107

Index Locorum 151: 82n78 165: 92n107 335: 109n157 374: 94n114 506: 97n124 524–26: 66n35 530: 101 533: 88 545: 82n78 595: 84 600: 101n134 621: 111 747: 83n80 764: 79 774: 97n124, 99 810: 100 837: 105n142 911: 103 1116–17: 100 1151: 94n114 1208: 82n78 1220: 82n78 1261: 105 1285: 97n124 1288: 82n78 TrGF T1 IA.9: 110n159 iii.25–28 (Alexandros) 56n12 T6 (Epeus): 70 fr. 62a.4: 111 fr. 221.3: 100n131 fr. 271: 91 fr. 368: 100n131 fr. 369.6: 87n92 fr. 472.8: 96 fr. 495.29: 97 fr. 627: 87 fr. 633: 84n86 fr. 703.1: 111 fr. 739: 97 fr. 752f.23: 100n131 fr. 757.851: 97n124 fr. 758.10: 96 fr. 789d: 67n39 fr. 1115: 85 FGrHist 90, F68.8: 93

•

159

175, F3: 146 573, 1: 146 627, F1: 95 Fronto Letters I (index): 22 Hellanicus FGrHist 4, F84: 57n14 Herodotus 1.35: 109 1.84: 145 3.56.1: 140n10 4.72: 141n11 4.75: 96 5.63: 90, 95 5.106: 94n112 6.75: 90, 95 6.99: 90, 95 7.44: 111 7.70: 114 7.89: 141n11 7.140.2: 93 7.196: 111 8.10: 111 8.51: 145 8.137: 139n9 Hesiod Op. 156–73: 109 Th. 508: 98n127 fr. 129.7: 98n127 fr. 129.21: 98n127 fr. 180.11: 98n127 fr. 193.12: 98n127 Hesychius α 2794: 84 Hippocrates Aph. 2.74: 113 Mul. 141: 77n59, 96n122 Homer Il. 1.19: 104n141 1.94: 85 1.185: 59n24

160 Homer (continued) Il. (continued) 1.318–25: 59n24 1.430: 82n76 2.285: 104n139 2.373: 104n141 2.465: 94 2.467: 94 2.724–25: 71n47 2.762: 63n31 3.184: 82 3.216–23: 71 3.244: 95n116 3.401: 82 4.56: 101 4.475: 100n132 4.787: 95n116 5.49: 94 5.421: 141n15 5.762: 141n15 5.774: 100 5.777: 100n132 5.796: 97 6.4: 100n132 6.73–74: 94n113 6.281: 95n116 6.402: 94 6.500: 108 7.86: 97 7.100: 95n116 7.247: 98n126 7.336–43: 57 7.434–35: 59n21 7.435–41: 57 7.441: 57 8.291: 98n127 8.557: 98 9.352–54: 94n113 10.513: 90 11.118: 98n126 11.166: 91 11.307: 86 11.372: 91 11.679: 97 12.22: 100n132 12.148: 77n59, 96n122 12.254: 57 12.258: 58

•

Index Locorum 12.282: 98 12.346–47: 113 12.359–60: 113 12.397–98: 58 13.203: 90 13.389–91: 88n95 16.14: 108n151 16.15: 108n151 16.81: 118 16.299: 98 16.331: 95n116 16.482–84: 88n95 16.602: 63n31 16.719: 82 17.275: 63n31 17.521: 90 17.681: 108n151 18.117: 90 18.254ff.: 94n113 18.291: 82 18.379: 90 19.335: 108n151 20.53: 100n132 20.302ff.: 57 21.120ff.:94 21.123–26: 94 21.307: 100n132 22.87: 33 23.110–28: 58, 59 23.115: 63n31 23.116: 97 23.117–21: 94 23.664–99: 70 24.450: 90 24.545: 82 Od. 1.7: 63n31 1.197: 108n151 2.312: 90 4.250–56: 71 4.254: 65 4.270–73: 71 4.356–57: 101 4.498: 108n151 4.499–510: 85n89 4.552: 108n151 4.632: 141n15 4.833: 108n151 5.64: 95

Index Locorum 5.243: 101 5.249: 139n9 5.404–5: 83 7.44–45: 58 8.492–95: 67n38, 70 9.167: 63n31 10.27: 63n31 10.39: 63n31 10.52: 108n151 10.259: 63n31 10.498: 108n151 11.458: 108n151 11.459: 63n31 11.508–9: 71n47 11.523–24: 70 11.526–27: 105 14.44: 108n151 14.487: 108n151 15.294: 101 15.349: 108n151 15.353: 108n151 15.419: 31 17.340: 95 18.91: 95n116 18.135: 108–9 18.335: 90 18.410: 114n163 19.63: 63n31 19.435: 63n31 19.447: 63n31 20.49: 102n135 20.207: 108n151 21.134: 31 22.369: 90 24.71: 101 24.526: 118 Homeric Hymns h. Ap. 476: 95n116 h. Bacch. 1.21: 23 h. Cer. 66: 33 h. ad Solem 18: 104n139 h. Ven. 196ff.: 57 Hyginus Fab. 108: 60n27, 68n40, 70n46, 72n50

•

161

Ibycus PMG fr. 6: 111 Isocrates De pace 103: 113 Lycophron 7: 87 41: 125 344–47: 68n40 443: 125 625: 125 1064: 125 Lyrica adespota CA 6.10: 83n80 Macrobius Sat. 5.19.17–19: 145 Manilius 4.577: 104 Menander Dysc. 249: 113 Sam. 166: 144n22 Menander Rhetor 416S: 145 Nicander Ther. 294: 77n59, 96n122 497: 77n59, 96n122 Nicetas Choniates 8.79.16: 101n133 Paean Delphicus CA 7: 98 Palaephatus fr. 16: 68n41 Pindar I. 4(3).12: 105 4(3).41: 98n126 4(3).43: 105 5.6: 111

162 Pindar (continued) I. (continued) 7.50: 111 8.66: 145n29 N. 4.52: 98 6.45: 97 7.21: 84n85 7.35: 104n141 9.12: 111 10.31: 111 O. 5.6: 111 5.7: 98 5.8: 105 6.38: 84n85 10.72: 115n166 P. 1.54: 104n141 2.49: 101n134 3.42: 84n85 3.97: 84n85 4.164: 94 4.200: 58n20, 105 5.39: 95 5.72: 98 8.48: 84n85 10.25: 108n153 fr. 33c2: 103 fr. 52o39: 100 fr. 131b2: 108n153 Plato Lg. 758b7: 144 761b: 140 R. 485c7: 143n21 Smp. 204b4: 27 216d2: 143n21 222c2: 143n21 Soph. 229b9: 144 Tht. 179c: 145 Plautus Bac. 953: 71n47 Polemon fr. 83: 146n32, 146n33 Polybius 6.55: 94n112

•

Index Locorum Polyclitus T3 (D-K): 143n18 Porphyry Σ ad Hor. Carm. 1.15: 72n50 Pratinas TrGF 4, F3: 115n166 Quintus of Smyrna 12.8–45: 71 12.25–45: 71 12.33: 67n38 12.79–83: 70n46 12.140: 92 12.238: 67n38 12.377: 71 12.444: 70n45 Sappho 5.1: 9, 18, 24 16.6: 27 44.33: 31 168: 141n14 168b: 26–27 Scholia to Homer A ad Il. 1.250: 102n135 A ad Il. 2.862: 82 Scholia to Lycophron Alex. 344: 67n38 [Scylax] 112.41: 71n59, 96n122 Servius A. 9.581: 145–46 Sibylline Oracles 4.162: 93n108 14.87: 93n108 14.146: 93n108 14.215: 93n108 14.259: 93n108 14.335: 93n108

Index Locorum Simias AP 7.647: 32 Simonides AP 6.212.4: 34 6.50: 110n159 7.25.3: 34 13.28.10: 34 fr. 11.1–2: 87 Sophocles Aj. 142: 115n166 164: 115n166 235: 96n121 295: 84n85 382: 84n88 418: 94 503: 84n87 593: 94n111 630: 88n97 853: 100 951: 101n134 959: 145n30 990: 108n152 1241ff.: 101 1249: 141n11 1250: 97 1268: 99 Ant. 3: 108n152 134: 96 302: 101n134 448: 125n183 648: 84n88 750: 108n152 760: 97n124 977: 84n85 1068: 84n87 1178: 101n134 1301: 89n98 1321: 97n124 El. 88: 88n97 98: 100n131 212: 101n134 414: 99 575: 84n87 585: 84n87 683: 87

•

163

861: 111 871: 84n88 872: 100 962: 97 1153: 84n88 1491: 100 OC 7: 84n85 275: 84n87 454: 101n134 863: 141n15 885: 100 904: 100 953: 84n87 967: 84n87 1010: 84n87 1063: 111 1102: 141n15 1295: 84n87 1398: 94n111 1418: 97 1461: 94n111 1489: 84n87 1705: 96n121 1713: 96n121 1755: 101n134 OT 166: 101n134 248: 86 264: 84n87 720: 101n134 867: 98n126 945: 94n111 1045: 108n152 1154: 94n111 1184: 114n163 Ph. 1: 81 10: 77n57, 106n147 68–69: 71 126ff.: 101 166: 91 314: 90n100 321: 90n100 343–47: 71n47 412: 108n152 581: 97 592: 90n100 711: 101n134 766: 100n131

164 Sophocles (continued) Ph. (continued) 924: 94n111 1029: 97n124 1145: 101n134 1168: 100n131 1195: 100n131 1263: 115n166 1352: 77n60 Tr. 38: 90n100 220: 111 305: 108n152 319: 101n134 380: 118 788: 98n128 849: 101 886: 101n134 995: 101n134 1193–99: 59 1196: 90 TrGF fr. 370–77 (Laocoön): 70 fr. 371.2: 98n128 fr. 373: 57 fr. 403.1: 100n131 fr. 535.5: 100n131 fr. 542–44 (Sinon): 67 fr. 1130.12: 88n97 Sotion VIII: 146n32 Stesichorus PMGF S89.6: 100n132 S115.7: 94 212: 82 Strato PCG fr. 1.1–8: 104n140

•

Index Locorum Theophrastus HP 3.5.1: 91n103 3.9.1: 91n103 4.5.2: 95 4.5.5: 91n103 Thucydides 1.70: 98 2.34: 95 2.60: 109 3.68: 139n9 4.4.2: 111n160 4.30: 105 4.31.2: 111n160 4.32.2: 111 4.38: 108n153 4.66.2: 111n160 4.111: 105 7.43.5: 141n11 7.71.3: 111 7.78.3: 141n11 8.6.2: 111 Timotheus Pers. 65a–69: 124n180 171: 28, 76 179: 76 185: 84 TrGF 43, F1.2: 110 adesp. 126.6: 88n97 adesp. 332: 111

Theocritus Idyll 2.36: 94 22.120: 77n60 [25]: 138n7

Tryphiodorus 43–48: 72n49 51–52: 71n47 55–56: 71n47 57–58: 70n46 135: 92 376: 72n50, 93 292–99: 68n41 510–11: 68n40

Theognis IEG 357: 95n116

Joannes Tzetzes H. 3.95: 101n133

Index Locorum Vergil A. 2.16: 96n119 2.20: 92 2.77: 67n39 2.82: 69 2.112–260: 96 2.162–84: 60n27, 71n47 2.185: 71 2.186: 96n119 2.230–31: 96n119 2.234: 113n162 2.238: 88 2.246–47: 72n50

•

165 2.258–59: 96n119 2.260: 96n119 3.5–6: 57n14 11.135–38: 96n119

Xenophon An. 3.4.19: 113 Cyn. 3.11: 113 5.30: 114 10.17: 114 Cyr. 3.2.4: 94n112 3.3.26: 113

General Index

Abantes. See Euboea, Euboeans Achaeans, 55–58, 60–64, 66–74, 78, 80–83, 85, 88, 94, 97, 99–101, 103, 105, 107–10, 112; distress of, 61–62, 68, 78, 105, 107–9; as speaker’s addressee, 55–57, 60–61, 63–64, 70, 72–73 (see also focalization, from Trojan perspective) Achilles, 26, 56, 58–59, 94; death, ghost or tomb of, 58–59, 68n40, 87, 93 acropolis, monuments of, 78 adjective, terminations of, 32, 97, 99, 101, 145n27 Aeneas, 56–57; as possible narrator, 64, 67, 73 Aeschylus, 16, 30, 76, 80, 90, 92, 97, 109–11, 138n8, 145–46; and the adjective Phrygian, 77, 82 agriculture, 131, 137–40 Alcaeus, 9–10, 15, 17, 20–24 Alexandros, 56, 72n49, 87 Anacreon, 10, 15, 17, 25, 27–28 anadiplosis, 55, 77, 83, 86, 90, 94, 99. See also New Music anaphora, 77, 125. See also New Music Ancient Textual Imaging Group, Brigham Young University. See multispectral imaging Andromache, 65, 73, 79, 99, 105n143 anthology. See incipit, incipit list: as genre

Aphrodite, 23–24, 132, 137, 142, 144, 145n28, 146 APIS project, 3 Apollo, 31 apposition. See parataxis archai. See incipit, incipit list: as genre Aristotle, 29, 34, 67, 99, 143n18 Athena, 24, 71–72, 78, 91; as possible speaker, 70, 74 Athenaeus, 15, 110n159 attribution, 11, 13–14, 21, 24, 27, 32– 33, 55, 66, 75–81, 99, 110n159, 128, 130, 142n17 Bacchylides, 72n50, 80–81, 87 Battezzato, Luigi, 19–22, 24–29, 35, 51–53, 59n24, 78n63, 81, 83n81, 84– 85, 93, 106, 122, 124, 137 Bell, H. I., 2 Boedeker, Deborah, 91 Calchas, 66n35, 80; as possible speaker, 71–72, 74, 93 Callimachus, 11, 15, 76n56, 131, 138n7, 141, 143n19; Pinakes of (see incipit, incipit list: as genre) Cassandra, 56, 61, 87, 108; as possible speaker, 72–74, 93 Charites, 22, 34 Clarke Kosak, Jennifer, 54, 58n19, 59, 65, 109 167

168

•

Collard, Christopher, 52, 82, 85, 87, 90–93 colometry: and Aristophanes of Byzantium, 119; hiatus (see under meter, metrics); line division, 118 (see also division, of lines; division: of words in reconstruction); of manuscripts, 118–21; word division, 126. See also katalogade¯n coptic, 2–3 correction, scribal, 12, 28–30, 40, 144n24 Cretans, 43, 85–86 Cropp, Martin, 52–53, 58n20, 60n27, 61n28, 67n39, 72, 77n57, 80, 83, 89, 90n99, 92–93, 96–98, 100, 105–6, 124, 126 cypress, 53, 60, 95, 100, 112; as construction material, 95–96 dialect(s): Aeolic, 21–23, 26, 28, 145n29; Attic, 76, 89, 91, 112, 114; Attic-Ionic, 76; Doric, 21, 26, 28, 31, 76, 81, 84, 87, 89, 91–92, 105, 128, 141n12, 145n29; Ionic, 21, 23, 26, 132, 142; literary amalgamation, 26, 76, 81, 86; variant forms, 84, 96, 140, 141–42. See also attribution dicolon, 39, 55, 62, 83, 103n136, 118, 122 diction: and chronology, 76–77; colloquial, 109n155, 109n158; lyric, 9, 15, 75, 91; prosaic and poetic, 76– 77, 79, 105, 114, 116, 128, 131–33, 138, 144; tragic and Euripidean, 77– 78, 128 diegesis, 132, 143n19 Diggle, James, 52–53, 84n84, 95, 101, 105–6, 122, 124 digitization. See APIS project; multispectral imaging dithyramb, 75–76, 78, 128; and Euripidean stasima, 80; and New Music (see New Music: features of) dittography. See under error, scribal division: of lines, 23, 92, 98, 99, 119– 21, 126; of words by syllable, 21–23,

General Index 25, 26, 28, 30, 35; of words in reconstruction, 28, 86, 88, 91, 99, 101, 114, 116, 126, 141–42 (see also pause, scribal). See also colometry; incipit, incipit list: organization and arrangement of eisthesis. See pause, scribal Epeus: as possible speaker, 70–71; and the Wooden horse, 70–72, 74, 90–91 Eros, erotics, 18–19, 21–22, 24, 27–28, 91, 133, 137, 144 error, scribal: dittography, 39, 101; haplography, 25, 39, 92; phonetic, 12, 39, 102–3, 116, 117. See also correction, scribal ethopoeia. See New Music Euboea, Euboeans, 52, 85 Euripides, 10, 40n9, 56n12, 70, 75–81, 86, 94, 96, 100, 108–9, 115, 128; attribution to (see attribution); comparative evidence from, 65–66, 67n39, 69n43, 70, 82–87, 89–92, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105–6, 109–12, 140–41 (see also attribution); incipits from, 17, 29–31 (see also parodos); prologues of, 15–16 exclamation, 65, 88, 92, 107–9, 115, 132, 140–41; in distress, 55, 60, 62– 63, 68, 107–9; prophetic, 58, 61, 70– 72, 74, 92–93, 105 farmer. See agriculture Fayûm, 2 Firmin-Didot papyrus. See incipit, incipit list: as genre Fletcher, K. F. B., 69, 91, 93, 96n119 focalization, from Trojan perspective, 63–66, 68, 78–79, 107, 111 fortifications, 56–58, 59n23, 87 fragmentum Grenfellianum, 78, 120n174, 124n180 Gagos, Traianos, 92 gender. See grammatical gender genealogy, 34–35, 67n39, 69 Graces. See Charites

General Index grammatical gender: change of, 84; uncertainty of, 101, 117 Hades, 101 hand(s): presence of both, 7, 39, 130– 33, 142; student and professional, 10–11, 16–17, 39, 83, 118–19. See also papyrus, papyri: hands and dating haplography. See under error, scribal heading(s), 2–3, 12–13, 15, 17, 27, 29– 30, 32–34, 132. See also paragraphos, paragraphoi Hector, 56, 58, 108 Hecuba, 56n12; as possible narrator, 65, 73 Heilporn, Paul, 3–4 Helen, 27, 56, 72, 87, 103; as possible narrator, 64–65, 73 Helenus, as possible speaker, 61, 71– 72, 74, 93 hendiadys, 97 Henry, W. B., 52–54, 86, 102n135, 103–4, 108, 110, 114, 116, 126, 129 Herakles, 25, 59, 90 horse, Wooden, 64–68, 70–73, 78–81, 82n76, 87–91, 101, 104, 107, 109, 112, 114; construction of, 56, 59, 61, 66, 68–69, 74, 78, 80, 87, 89, 95–96, 102–3 (see also Epeus: and the Wooden horse); as pregnant, 68n41, 88, 92, 102, 112; Trojan handling of, 59–60, 67–68, 74, 114, 117 hymn, cletic, 21–22, 31 hyperbaton, 111–12 hyperdoricism, 84 hysteron proteron, 88–89 Ilioupersis, myth of, 57, 60n26, 64, 78, 87 incipit, incipit list, 3–5, 7, 9–11, 21–23, 25, 26, 32, 34, 83n83, 130, 132, 143; as genre, 10, 12–18, 27, 29, 33; organization and arrangement of, 16, 21, 23, 25, 27, 33–34, 132 Ithaca, Ithacans, 52

•

169

Janko, Richard, 18–20, 23–24, 31, 37n3, 41–43, 45, 48, 52–54, 83, 85– 86, 90–92, 94–98, 100–103, 106–7, 112–17, 124, 126, 137, 139 kalamos, 39, 47, 49, 117, 119, 138 katalogade¯n, 37n2, 83n81, 119 Koenen, Ludwig, 3 kolle¯ma, kolle¯mata, 5, 39 kolle¯sis, 5 Köln anapests. See hands: student and professional Kopff, E. Christian, 54, 59n21, 118, 120, 128–29 Laocoön, 57; as possible narrator, 61, 69–70 Leto, 31 ligature, 32, 42–51, 89, 111, 117, 133– 36, 138n6. See also under papyrus, papyri: hands and dating Locris, Locrians, 52, 85 Lycophron, 67, 125 Maia, 31 Memory, 31 memory, associative. See incipit, incipit list: organization and arrangement of Merkelbach, Reinhold, 2–3, 7, 9–11, 17–21; correcting the text of, 23–25 meter, metrics: Alcaic hendecasyllable, 21; anapest, 24, 27, 31, 34, 94, 142; choriamb, 108, 119, 123, 124n179, 126; correption, 122–23, 127, 141n16; cretic, 26, 119–20, 122, 125–27, 129; dactylic, dactylic hexameter, 26, 31–32, 96, 126, 129, 141– 44; dochmiac, 32, 55, 77–78, 100, 119, 121–24, 126–29; elegy, elegiac couplet, 26, 31; hiatus, 95, 106, 118– 20, 122–23, 127, 141, 143; iamb, iambic, 22, 27, 108, 121, 123, 126– 27; iambo-trochaic, 119, 124, 129; ionic a minore, 21, 31; lecythion, 119–20, 126–27, 129; resolution, 27, 119–21, 122, 124–25, 127; Sapphic hendecasyllable, 22–24, 33; Sapphic

170

•

meter, metrics (continued) stanza, 24, 33; stop-liquid combination, 125–26; synezesis, 26; trochee, trochaic, 22, 28, 124n179, 125, 128. See also colometry; New Music metonym, metonymy, 87, 89 Mnemosyne. See Memory Mount Ida, Idaean, 53, 55–58, 60, 67, 70, 72, 78, 87, 89–91, 94, 96, 113, 124 multispectral imaging, vi, ix, xi, 5n6, 47, 81, 112, 130, 133 Muses, 22, 26, 33 Nahman, Maurice, 2 narrator, narrative framework, 41, 55– 56, 59, 62–75, 78–80, 105–7, 126, 128, 132, 143 New Music, 3, 7, 75, 77, 81n74, 104; and date, 77; features of, 75, 76n54, 77–81, 119, 120n175, 121n176 (see also attribution). See also dithyramb; nomos, citharodic; Timotheus nomos, citharodic, 75–76, 78, 128 oak, as construction material, 100 Odysseus, 57n15, 65, 67, 69, 71, 85, 101, 108n151; as possible speaker, 69, 71, 74 oratio recta, 37, 55, 58, 62, 66, 70–73, 77–80, 83, 85–86, 88, 105, 122, 124, 126, 128, 132, 140–41; in tragic lyric, 80–81; unmarked, 62–63, 68, 107 Page, Denys, 2–3, 7, 9n1, 17, 18–19, 21, 22–24, 36, 40–43, 51–53, 81–82, 86, 95n117 Palamedes, 67, 69, 103 Palici, 132, 137, 145–46 palimpsest. See papyrus, papyri: compositional history palisade. See fortifications Pan, 34 Paphian. See Aphrodite papyrus, papyri: acquisition history, 1– 3; compositional history, 4–7 (see

General Index also incipit, incipit list: as genre); hands and dating, 7, 9–12, 24, 32, 39–41, 85, 88, 130–33; joins and reconstruction, 2–4, 9–11, 36–39; physical characteristics, 3–4, 23–26, 29, 31–32, 36–39, 42–51, 80n70, 82, 89, 91, 104, 112, 114, 122–23, 130– 31, 133–36, 138–39, 141 paragraphos, paragraphoi, 12–13, 16– 17, 25, 27, 34 parataxis, 77, 79, 85, 98, 111, 113, 116. See also New Music: features of Paris. See Alexandros parodos, 12–13, 15, 29–30, 65–66 Patroclus, 56, 58–59, 94, 97, 108n151 pause, scribal, 40, 47, 102, 104, 117, 141; as punctuation, 39, 141–42 periphrasis, 90–91, 108 Philoctetes, 67n39, 71, 72n49 Philodemus. See incipit, incipit list: as genre Phrygia, Phyrgian, 52, 55, 75, 77, 81– 83, 120n175 Pindar, 81, 84, 94, 96–98, 100, 104, 108, 111 pine, 53, 60, 87, 91, 112; as construction material, 87–88, 96n119 polymetry, polymetric. See New Music: features of polyptoton. See word play Polyxena, 59, 65, 87 Posidippus, 1, 13, 16, 142n17 Priam, 54, 59–61, 103–5, 118 prologues, Euripidean. See Euripides: prologues of prophet, prophecy, 56, 60–61, 71–74, 87, 93, 105. See also Calchas; Cassandra; exclamation: prophetic; Helenus, as possible speaker provenance. See papyrus, papyri: acquisition history pyre, funeral, 56, 58–59, 87, 94, 97, 101 Reed, Jay, 133, 137–38, 140, 141n14, 143n18, 144 rivers: Scamander, 53, 55, 94, 96, 100; Simoïs, 54–55, 100

General Index Sappho, 1, 9–10, 13, 15, 23–24, 26–28, 31 Scamander. See under rivers Scodel, Ruth, 52–53, 58n19, 87, 92n106, 94, 99, 106–7, 109, 133, 143 scribe. See colometry; correction, scribal; error, scribal; hands; papyrus, papyri: hands and dating scriptio plena. See papyrus, papyri: hands and dating silloi, 32 Simias of Rhodes, 32 Simoïs. See under rivers Simonides, 32–34, 87, 110n159 Sinon, 71, 103n138; as possible narrator, 67–69, 71, 73–74 Sophocles, 57–58, 65, 67, 70, 84n85, 90n100, 94, 97, 99–100, 108, 109n157, 111, 115 stichometry, 10, 17, 24 Tenedos, 68, 74, 80–82 Theognidea, 31 Timon of Phlius. See silloi Timotheus, 75–76, 78, 80, 119n172, 120nn174–75, 122n176, 124n180 transcription: from archetype, 83,

•

171

103n136, 118–19; by dictation, 39, 83, 102, 103n136, 117; of lyric as prose (see katalogade¯n). See also error, scribal; hands; papyrus, papyri: hands and dating Troy, Trojan, 27, 55–57, 59–61, 63–69, 71–74, 77–83, 85–87, 94, 100–103, 107, 109–14, 117, 128, 131; defector to (see Sinon); prisoner or spy from, 66, 71–72, 74 Vergil, 57, 64, 67–69, 71, 73, 88, 92, 96, 113n162 Verhoogt, Arthur, 32, 40 wall. See fortifications Webber, Oscar and Richard H., 2 Westermann, W. L., 2 word division. See under colometry word order, 22, 84–85 word play, 77, 79, 91, 101 Youtie, Herbert and Louise, 2, 7, 10, 40, 43, 52 Zephyrus, 34–35 Zeus, 23, 29, 109, 146

Plates

Pl. 1. P.Mich. inv. 3498
3250b recto

Pl. 2. P.Mich. inv. 3498
3250b verso

Pl. 3. P.Mich. inv. 3250c recto

Pl. 4. P.Mich. inv. 3250c verso

Pl. 5. P.Mich. inv. 3250a recto

Pl. 6. P.Mich. inv. 3250a verso