Nine Homeric Papyri from Oxyrhynchos 8887829241, 9788887829242

Citation preview

Nine Homeric Papyri from Oxyrhynchos

STUD! E TEST! DI P APIROLOGIA Nuova Serie

a cura di

I

---

Guido Bastianini ---~--~---

ShIClie Testi di Papirologia N.S. 1

NINE HOMERIC PAPYRI FROM OXYRHYNCHOS edited by JOSEPH SPOONER

Istituto Papirologico «G. Vitelli» Firenze 2002

© Istituto Papirologico «G. Vitelli» - Firenze

ISBN 88 87829 24 1

E vietata la riproduzione anche a mezzo di fotocopie e anche solo di parti del presente testo

PREMESSA Quando, alla fine del 1968, usci il terzo volume della serie «Studi e testi di papirologia editi dall'Istituto papirologico «G. Vitelli» di Firenze», cioe II cristianesimoin Egitto di Mario Naldini, Vittorio Bartoletti - ideatore e promotore di quell'iniziativa editoriale e scientifica - era scomparso, prematuramente, da piu di un anno e mezzo e la pubblicazione di quel volume era stata portata a termine per le cure di Manfredo Manfredi. Anche se sono ormai passati trent' anni e piu, mi sembra buona cosa riprendere quell'iniziativa, inquadrando in una serie editorialmente omogenea la pubblicazione delle monografie dell'lstituto Papirologico «G. Vitelli». Questo volume di Joseph Spooner, gia annunciato in P.Oxy. LXVII,p. 270, e dunque il primo della nuova serie di «Studi e Testi di Papirologia» e spero che altri possano seguire presto: e ora in preparazione un volume di Simona Russo, uno di John Lundon, e altri verranno ancora, mi auguro, se l'lstituto proseguira ad adempiere alla funzione sua propria di essere centro vivo di ricerca e promotore di studi e di edizioni papirologiche. Per il momento, non mi rimane che ringraziare tutti coloro che hanno reso possibile la realizzazione di questo volume: in particolare, ii prof. Peter Parsons, che ha acconsentito alla pubblicazione, in questa sede, di papiri della collezione di Ossirinco, e la dr. Simona Russo, che con pazienza pari solo alla generosita ha revisionato e preparato ii testo per la stampa. Firenze, 15 aprile 2002 G. B.

FOREWORD The Homeric papyri presented here originally formed part of the doctoral thesis I submitted to the University of London towards the end of 1990. At the viva voce examination in the spring of 1991, I was encouraged by Professor Franco Montanari to publish these papyri quickly, as they were pertinent to his work on the D scholia. Professor Parsons very kindly gave permission for the papyri to be published outside the Oxyrhynchus Papyri volumes, since the length of the associated material (the Prolegomenaand testimonia) was not appropriate for the series. It has taken the best part of a decade to revise the papyri, and the end result is completely different from what stands in the original thesis. Thanks are due to many. In the first instance, I would like to thank again those involved in the original thesis, among them Professors Maehler, Montanari and Manfredi (of the universities of London, Pisa and Florence respectively). For this revised version thanks are due to Dr Teresa Morgan (Oxford) for her insights; to Dr Revel Coles (Oxford) and Dr John Lundon for their advice; to the ever cheerful librarians at the Institute of Classical Studies, Paul Jackson and Sue Willetts; and again to Professor Maehler, who very generously read the new version in detail and discussed several points with me. Invaluable assistance in preparing this text for publication came from Dr John Lundon, who read the manuscript with laudable thoroughness, and Dr Simona Russo of the Istituto Papirologico «G. Vitelli», who shouldered the burden of preparing a complex text for publication with exceptional cheerfulness. I am extremely grateful to Professor Guido Bastianini, president of the Istituto Papirologico, for allowing publication of this work, and honoured that it should constitute the first volume of the new series of Studi e Testi di Papirologia.Professor Bastianini's care and insight have saved the text from several mechanical errors and the author from a number of errors of judgment. The Istituto Papirologico generously provided a warm welcome in the final stages before publication of the text.

Quibus omnibus gratias agens hoe opusculum dedico,eique, qui dignus domino est. Florence, 26 September 2001 JOSEPH SPOONER

ABBREVIATIONS The papyri published here have been assigned numbers 4630-4638 in the main P.Oxy. sequence, and a list of their contents appears (without texts) in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXVII. For purposes of citation, the papyri should be identified by that volume, e.g., as P.Oxy. LXVII 4630, but with reference to the present publication. Within this work, bold arabic numerals (e.g., 4630) refer to the papyri printed here. The abbreviations used for other papyri in this volume are those of the Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, edited by J.F. Oates, W.H. Willis, R.S. Bagnall, and K.A. Worp, Atlanta 1992 (BASP Supplement 7). Abbreviations for collections of papyri not found in the Checklist should be self-explanatory. The following is a list of abbreviations of authors and works cited in the commentaries and testimonia; for publication details, see the bibliography. Apion

Apion VII. Ludwich 1917, 1918 [cited by page and line number]

Apollon.

Apollonios Sophistes VII. Bekker 1833 [cited by page and line number]

D

D scholia Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele II Codex Graecus 6 Codex Vaticanus Graecus 2183 Codex Vaticanus Graecus 32 Codex Vaticanus Graecus 33 Codex Parisinus Suppl. Gr. 679 IV. Lascaris 1517

C(Z) H(Y) R(X) V(Q) P(S) La Cyr. B BL BarbGr

--

Cyrillus Codex Etonensis 86 Codex Bibliothecae Britannicae Add. Ms. 13773 Codex Barberinianus Graecus 39 -

-

(cont.)

Abbreviations

X

i

u u·

Codex Urbinas 157 Codex Urbinas 157 ('tO\I aUtO\I £'IC tO\I autOU)

I I

I I

I I

Epimerismi Homerici

Ep.Hom. I

i I

Et.aiµ.

I

I I

VII. Dyck 1995 [cited by entry number]

Etymologicum aiµox5eiv VIII. Dyck 1995 [cited by entry number]

EtymologicumGenuinum

Et.Gen. A

Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1818

B

Codex Laurentianus Sancti Marci 304 i

Etymologicum Gudianum

Et.Gud.

VIII. De Stefani 1909, 1929

I

[for a~Etai,

I

cited by page and

line number]

I

VIII. Sturz 1820 [thence to co,cited by column and

line number]

--

-

EtymologicumMagnum

EM

VIII. Gaisford 1848 [cited by column and line number] -

Etymologicum Parvum

Et.Parv.

VIII. Pintaudi 1973 [cited by entry number] -

Eust.

I

I i I

I

Hdn.

Eustathius

VII. van der Valk 1971 [cited by page and line number]

-

Herodian VII. Lentz 1867-68 [cited by volume, page and line number] -----

---

Abbreviations

Hsch.

XI

Hesychius VIII. Latte 1954, 1966 [for A-0, cited by entry number; ms. abbreviations as in Latte] VIII. Schmidt 1862 [for TI--0,cited by entry number]

Lex.Hom.

'()µ17purai Ka't'a C't'Ol_tEioV

AE~EtC

VII. De Marco 1946 0

Codex Bodleianus, ms. gr. class. f.114(R)

s u

Codex Selestadiensis 105 [sic)

Mosch.

Codex Urbinas 157 Moschopulos VII. Scherpezelius 1702

Orion

Orion VIII. Sturz 1820

[cited by column and line number] PB

Paraphrasis

Bekkeri

VI. Bekker 1825, appendix (1827) PG

Paraphrasis

Gazae

VI. Thesis 1811 Philox.Gramm.

Philoxenos VII. Theodoridis 1976 [cited by fragment number]

Phot.

Photios VIII. Theodoridis 1982, 1998 [for A-M, cited by entry number] VIII. Naber 1864

[for N--0, cited by page and line number] PM

Paraphrasis

Moschopuli

VI. Grandolini 19~1, PO

Paraphrasis

1982

Oxoniensis

VI. Burgess 1820

-

- ~-1 -

---

j

Abbreviations

XII

PV

----

PW sch.mai. (Dindorf) (Erbse)

'

Paraphrasis Codicis Vaticani Graeci 1315

'

I

Paraphrasis Wassenberghi VI. Wassenbergh 1783

I

scholia maiora III. Dindorf 1855 III. Erbse 1969; 1971; 1974; 1975; 1977; 1983; 1988 [ms. abbreviations as there]

(Ludwich)

III. Ludwich 1888-90

(Nicole)

III. Nicole 1891 --------------

sch.min.

scholia minora

Sud.

Suda

--

-·

--

----

VIII. Adler 1928-38 [cited by entry number]

Syn.

Cvvaywrr, M~Ewv zp11c{µwv

VIII. Bachmann 1828, I [cited by page and line number]

--

-

PROLEGOMENA

I. INTRODUCTION

The nine fragments presented here consist of eight fragments of scholia minora pertaining to book B of the Iliadl, and a text of book B of Homer2 with speaker indications. 4636 and 4637 are the first scholia minora to be published relating to the Catalogue of Ships. Despite von WilamowitzMoellendorff' s injunction3 more than one hundred years ago that scholarship required a scholarly edition of scholia minora / D scholia4, the importance of these texts has only been recognized more recently, in the work of Henrichs5, Montanari6 and van Thiel7. The antiquity of the practice of glossing specifically Homeric words is well known, and the transmission of glossographic and exegetic material was effected orally (with material being expounded or possibly dictated in an educational context), as well as textually (with texts being copied by students, individuals or scribes). The pervasive character and osmotic nature of this Homeric glossographic material is witnessed directly by the D scholia and antique and medieval paraphrases; indirectly by the scholia maiora, grammarians and ultimately by the late antique and medieval and the Ai;eic '0µ11p11c:a{; lexica. It is hoped that this pervasiveness will be conveyed by the testimonia provided here, and that the status of the parallels drawn and their relative importance will be clarified in these Prolegomena. As Montanari notes in relation to his planned edition of D, «allo stato attuale degli studi non epiu possibile considerare separatamente questi tre elementi (vale a dire i precedenti restituiti dai papiri, gli Scholia D e le Lexeis Homerikai), per cui l'edizione deve prevederli tutti insieme, corredati da un congruo apparato di testimonia e loci similes ... ». It has been usual up to now, when editing scholia minora, to cite a few papyrological parallels, the D scholia and perhaps Bekker's paraphrase, especially where these 1 The passages covered are 824--40 (?55); 8 50-109; 8214-27; 8277-318 (294-306 in lacuna); 8303-36; 8303-28 (308-20 in lacuna) and 8463--93 (471-78 in lacuna); 8?593-645; and 8 ?632-55. 2 8191-287 (227-53 in lacuna). 311. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1887. 4 The distinction between scholia minora and D scholia had not been clarified at that time. 55ee II. Henrichs 1971a, 1971b and 1973. 6 See II. Montanari 1979, 1984, 1988, 1993, 1995; IV. Montanari 1979, 1995, etc. 7 See IV. van Thiel 2000a and 2000b.

2

Prolegomena

agree with the lemma-gloss group as it stands in the papyrus being edited. However, there are problems with Bekker's paraphrase, and if all the glosses for one particular lemma are cited (both those for the lemma at that point, and those given for comparable lemmata at other points in the Homeric text), a much more complex picture arises. Frequently scholia minora may help clarify difficulties in later exegetic material, or provide evidence for the currency of a gloss only known from a later date8. The testimonia amply confirm two things already known: that the same two or three glosses are used for one particular lemma, even when the case, number, tense, mood and voice vary; and that certain glosses were associated with particular locations in the Homeric text. In addition, the testimonia for those lemma-gloss groups (with single-word and phrasal glosses)9 that found their way into many late antique and medieval lexica, confirm several well known relationships, e.g., Cyrillus > Cvvarcor11> Photios and Suidas. The material of these Prolegomena follows the order of parallels drawn in the testimonia: (1) the direct testimonies of the scholia minora on papyrus, D scholia and continuous paraphrases (II-IV of the Prolegomena); (2) the testimony of the scholia maiora, grammarians working on Homer and other Homero-exegetical works (V); and (3) the indirect testimony of later lexica (VI)lO.For the scholia minora on papyrus we have used the lists of Raffaelli and Lundonll. Citations from 012 are derived from the

8 «Bestenfalls gelingt es, das relative Alter einzelner lnterpretamente zu erweisen oder bestimmte Oberlieferungstendenzen aufzuzeigen (wie z.B. Verkilrzung, Vereinfachung, Verschlimmbesserung, Beeinflussung des lnterpretaments durch ein anderes Lemma, Storung der logischen Reihenfolge innerhalb der Teile eines lnterpretaments). So la8t sich den Papyri mit Scholia Minora sehr haufig entnehmen, daB beispielsweise ein lnterpretament, das sich sonst nur bei Hesych findet, bereits im 2. Jh.n. Chr. in derselben Form um.lief; dagegen la8t sich nur selten bestirnmen, durch wekhe Zwischentrager dieses lnterpretament von der durch den Papyrus reprasentierten Oberlieferungsstufe in den Hesych oder ein anderes zu Eustathios gelangt ist»: II. Henrichs 1971a, p. 106. 9 e.g., Etymologicum Magnum373,11, s.v. ipfiro8ev. 10 We admit that this division is partly one of convenience and hope that it will not obscure for the reader, for example, the time lapse between the paraphrases on papyrus and the continuous paraphrases of the medieval manuscripts; the close links between D and the Lexeis Homerikai;the links between D and Apollonios Sophistes, etc. 1111. Raffaelli 1984 and II. Lundon 1999. 12 All instances of a particular gloss have been traced using the revised version of Lushington-Prendergast's concordance to Homer. Where no lemma is given in the testimonia it

I. Introduction

3

following sources: for the passages covered by the papyri, our own transcriptions of the relevant portions of the four principal manuscripts; for other locations, van Thiel's edition13. Occasionally the editio princeps of Lascaris is also cited. The outline of the Homero-exegetical and lexicographic material is restricted to pointing out routes by which glosses probably arrived in the etymologica and to what is relatively unknown (e.g., the Ai~etc 'Oµr,puca{) or the subject of much discussion (Apion); no attempt is made to rehearse what is excellently and uncontentiously outlined elsewhere, such as Latte on Hesychius, Adler on Suidas, Dyck on the Etymologicum aiµrooefv, or Haslam on Apollonios Sophistes14. Note that since scholia minora are restricted to glossographic and a certain amount of exegetic material, and not the etymologies such as are found in the grammarians, Epimerismi Homerici or later lexica, the absence of a reference to any of these in the testimonia does not imply that the Homeric lemma in question is not dealt with in those works, simply that they contain no glossographic material. The use of the designation «scholia minora» aims to avoid the confusions created by the rubrics under which scholia minora have been published in the past, such as «scholastic exercise» (which restricts the text to its transmission context and does not distinguish the scholia minora from other school exercises) and «glossary» (which refers primarily to the physical format of the scholia minora). The rubric «paraphrase» has also been used, but the term is used here to refer to a continuous grammatical or rhetorical rendition (see IV below). The D scholia will always be referred to as such, and not by the terms «scholia minora», «scholia vulgata» or «scholia Didymi» by which they have been denoted in the past.

shouldbe assumedthat it is identicalin formto the lemmaas it standsin the papyrusunder consideration. differs 13See IV. vanThiel2000b.Ata smallnumberoflocationsin book B our transcription from that given by van Thieland his assistants,and they are as follows:B35(4630, 14, ciittPT1(£to); B89 (4631,i,28, £lt av8tct tiaplVOlCl); B103(4631,ii,14, 6ta1Ctopon); B217(4632,~, ll)OA.!Coc); B278(4633,i,7, lttOA.lltOp8oc); B280(4633,i,10, civroytt); B287(4633,i,10, cuixovttc); B290 (4633,i,26, vitc8m); B314(4633,ii,15 tttptytac); and B465 (4635, fragment2, «recto»,8, 0

C Kaµav6ptov ). 14VIII. Latte

1954,VIII. Adler1928,VIII. Dyck 1995andVII. Haslam1994.

Prolegomena

4

II. SCHOLIA MINORA

11,1 General The number of papyri, both of the text of Homer (ranging from two- or three-line copying exercises to broad-margined luxury copies) and of scholia on Homer, testifies to Homer's importance and enduring popularity. Homer occupied an exceptional position as a symbol of Greek culture in GraecoRoman Egypt15. Literature constituted an important part of education, as is evidenced both by authors writing on the subject and the papyri of GraecoRoman Egypt. In the case of Homer, the distribution of papyri in identifiable school hands mirrors that of papyri in professional hands16. Many functions were ascribed to literature17, and it was considered a source of everything from ethics to correct language. While the grammatical papyri18 may have been considered a sufficient study aid as far as authors such as Euripides and Menander were concerned, Homer required the specific help of scholia minora.

The distribution of passages covered by the scholia minora throughout the Iliad and Odyssey generally reflects that for the surviving texts of the epics, with the emphasis in the Iliad on book A and the first half of book B. At least half the scholia minora on the Iliad in Raffaelli's and Lundon's lists19 relate to these books, which contain principally the debates on Olympos and by Troy. In addition the subjects covered by scholia minora include battle scenes and lists20; there are also scholia minora relating to

155eeIX. Davison 1956;IX. Morgan 1998,pp. 74-78and 105-15; and IX. Morgan 1997. 16«Some pupils may also have read texts in professional literary hands in an educational context, and there are certainly more texts from more parts of the Iliad and Odyssey surviving in professional hands than in school hands. But on close examination the distribution of fragments of Homer in professional hands closely mirrors the distribution of survi,·al in school hands»: IX. Mor~an 1997, p. 742. IX. Morgan 1995, p. 121. 18The grammar of the grammatical papyri is that of classical Attic. 19See note 11. 20e.g., P.Ryl. ill 537.Listing words seems to have been an end in itself, although word-lists of characters in literature or mythology can be construed as a very basic way of «acquiring» literature; see IX. Morgan 1995,p. 84. «At least fifty-five texts out of ninety-seven [texts of Homer in identifiable school hands] fall into one of four rather surprising categories: lists, similes, portents and battle-scenes. Together with the twenty-five texts from the bt•ginnings of books, regardless of content, they constitute the great majority of our fragments»: IX. Morgan 1997,p.

740.

II. Scholia Minora

5

the conferences of the gods in books /l and 921. The possible significance of this is dealt with in the introduction to 4638. For the contents of scholia minora we may tum to Montanari's definition: «Per scholia minora intendiamo un arrangiamento che presenta il testo omerico frantumato in una serie di lemmi isolati l'uno dall'altro, costituiti da singole parole o espressioni opportunamente scelte, cui segue una Worterkliirung che puo essere anche plurima (per es. µijviv: xo'A.ov, oprflv, 8uµov) ed alla quale sporadicamente ed occasionalmente puo accompagnarsi qualche altro elemento esegetico o grammaticale; lemmi e interpretazioni sono ordinati sinotticamente in due serie, per lo piu in due colonne parallele o affrontate, oppure in successione continua senza che ogni lemma inizi per forza un nuovo rigo»22. The two-column format is found also in lexica. Where scholia minora constitute part of scholia maiora, they appear within the en bloc format of the hypomnema. Sometimes an espressioneis glossed with a single-word gloss, sometimes with a phrasal gloss23. Such phrasal glosses are quite common in the D scholia and are also found (more rarely) in the scholia maiora and scholia minora on papyrus24. There are examples in the papyri published here of an espressione rendered with a one-word gloss (4634,22); of a one-word Homeric lemma rendered with a phrasal gloss (4637,?iii,3-5); and of an espressione rendered with a phrasal gloss (4631,i,10-11 and i,22). Del Pistoia25 attempts to distinguish between two types of possible single-word glosses for a lemma: formal variants (which give the Attic form of the epic word) and synonyms26, and further notes the tendency to maintain particular glosses for particular lemmata (a tendency also present

21P.Berol.inv. 11518(editioprincepsin II. Millier1968)and P.Amst.I 6 (editioprincepsin S~teijn 1970). II. Montanari1984,p. 135. 23 e.g., P.Stras.inv. 33,iv,8-9tp11t[u)c£[1]£ [tt 8u)µov x:ata,xo1 tllV oprriv; see II. Henrichs 1971a. 24e.g., P.Oxy.II 221,xii,4-6(early 1st cent.):x:pa11µvo[u anai~ac acp)opµ11cac [a)1to tou cf. P.Oxy.VIII1086.Boththesepapyriare analysedin III. Howald1918. 1CP11µvou; 25oc DelPistoia1973.Weare gratefulto ProfessorManfredoManfrediforgrantingaccessto this thesis. 26Of the former is said: «Queste[interpretazioni]rappresentanoil grado intermediodi evoluzionelinguisticatra ii lemmaomericoe ii corrispondentetermine in uso nella koine e testimonianol'influssoesercitatodallatradizioneattraversole grammatichescolastichee che,nel caso particolare,e rappresentatadal dialetto attico, modelloespressivodella prosa letteraria dall'etAellenisticain poi»: IX. DelPistoia1973. II.

6

Prolegomena

in the lexica on papyrus)27, even if the synonyms were not current in the koine of the period. It would be very difficult in some cases to prove how distinct the vocabulary of classical Attic is from that of koine; even in those cases where it would be possible to prove from extant literature that certain words were exclusive to either form of the language, it would be necessary too to consider the oral history of these words - which would be very 4635 here exhibits a rare case of difficult to establish. However, demonstrably koine forms being used in glosses28. Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff suggested that we may have evidence for glossographic activity from before the 5th century BC, giving examples29 from the Hymn to Hermes30 and Aeschylus31. Wackemage}32 gives further examples from Aeschylus, and others from Sophocles and Euripides33. However, the use of different (and probably obscure) meanings of words, the evidence for which is contained in later glossographic sources, could be construed as no more than an author's expectation that the audience would be aware of a word's several resonances. It does not constitute proof of glossing as either a scholastic or a scholarly exercise. That glossing certainly was on the school curriculum by the 5th century BC is shown by the

27See VIII. Naoumides 1961and 1969. 28 See 4635,fragment 2, «verso»,S-9. 29 See IX. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1886. For further discussions of glossographic activity in general, see VIII. Latte 1925 (which concentrates on the glossing of dialect words); VII. Lehrs 1882;and IX. Pfeiffer 1968. 30 IX. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff1886.In l. 503 of the hymn the cattle are driven «Jtoti ~a8£0v Anµ&va». ~a8E0un1Copuµpa;"»:VII. Lehrs 1882, p. 36. «... sara ben difficile che nel frammento di Aristofane si alluda con tanta naturalezza a una prassi inventata sul momento: sara piuttosto il riflesso di qualcosa gia abbastanza consolidato e tradizionale ... »: V. Montanari 1991 (pp. 61-62 in I. Montanari 1995). 35 II. Montanari 1976. 36 In the relevant scholion the Selli are described in similar fashion (Il234-35 «aµcpi 6t: (£A.M>tcoi vaiouc · u1tocpijtat avt1tt61to6£cxaµat£uvat» ). The meaning given in most of the scholia derives the word from a + v{ntw + nouc i.e., the priests do not wash their feet, «costumanza dei sacerdoti dodonei (accanto a quello di dormire per terra: xaµat£uvat)»: V. Montanari 1976, p. 203 (p. 4 in reprint). However, besides the meaning «not washing their feet, like pigs» - xaµatrnva6£c is used of pigs in the Odyssey, at ic243,~15 - Eubulus seems to be playing on a secondary meaning, which would derive the word from av11ttaµat + nouc, coining the word «who live in the air», «with their heads in the air», which matches well with the bT commentary on the same line of Homer: « ... oi 6t: avt1tt61to6acavt1ttaµ£vouc taic 6tavo{atc, µ£tE(l)po"'6youc ». The joke is carried yet further when we see that xaµatEuvat is explained as «xaµai ovtEc icai tc'x 1t6ppw cico1touvtEc » in bT. Montanari concludes: «Di questa glossa prealessandrina e rimasta testimonianza solo negli scoli di tradizione bizantina: se era noto a Eubulo, che la sfrutto nel IV sec., essa nacque in epoca ancora classica, fu recepita nei lavori (commentari, raccolte lessicografiche) dei filologi di Alessandria e da questi si trasmise attraverso tutti i passaggi che tale cammino conobbe - ai corporadi scoli messi insieme e redatti nell'eta bizantina»: V. Montanari 1976,p. 208 (p. 8 in I. Montanari 1995). 37 e.g., the exegetical scholion on X430 «a6wou: oinpou icatc'x AitWAOU£PP'ICin Grottaferrata bei Frascati und den dortigen Codex Z P11 ... Man sieht es sind die falschlich so genannten Scholia Didymi, von denen wir jedenfalls altere und vollstandigere Codices haben,.: Ill. Ludwich 1887, p. 187. We are unable to explain why the manuscript indication given by Ludwich is different from that given for this manuscript everywhere else (Z a XXV). The manuscript will not be taken into consideration in Montanari's planned edition, neither does van Thiel take account of it in his edition.

Prolegomena

10

C(Z) is the oldest and most discussed

of the four principal manuscripts48. The first half in Rome contains D up to the end of book E; the second half in Spain has been published in part by De Marco49. The manuscript differs noticeably from the other three50 and is datable on palaeographical grounds to the end of the 9th century. Though comparatively free of corruption, it is not the autograph, as a few errors show51. Other characteristics of the manuscript mentioned by Sittl include elided words written out; p, IC, "' and ~ at the ends of words followed by an apostrophe, as is ou1e52; iota adscript usually missing; v ephelkystikon often used where it does not occur in the Homeric text; occasional assimilation; the presence of the augment where it is not required53; and the influence of late Greek pronunciation - £ for a1, o for co, confusion between tl, 1 and 11,tt for m, u for u1, and 01 for u54. C(Z) sometimes joins two scholia together with a copulative 6i. This may be to add a little variety to a somewhat repetitive text; or it could mark the joining of items from separate sources; or it might indicate where successive scholia are in fact taken from the same source. Sometimes C(Z) has scholia in a different form to that found in the other manuscripts, or occasionally not found in them at all. Examples may be found in Appendix l.

48 Referred to as R in IV. Schimberg 1880,1891and 1892;Ve in II. Schwartz 1954;and Ve1 in I. Allen 1931. 49 IV. De Marco 1946. De Marco never did complete his planned edition of D, but did publish material from D relating to several authors; see IX. De Marco 1975,IX. De Marco 1984and IX.Geymonat 1989. 50 «C infatti e senza dubbio il codice piu autorevole della nostra tradizione e quello che offre insieme ... il maggior numero di varianti nei lemmi che non qualunque altro manoscritto omerico ed in cio consiste una parte non trascurabile della sua importanza, ma di assai maggior rilievo e ii fatto che C pur accordandosi nel corso dei primi libri agli altri mss. della nostra tradizione, al V comincia a distaccarsene e per ii sesto ... procede per proprio conto ... procedendo oltre pero si nota che ad E396il nostro si distacca dai rimanenti codici e riporta tradizione del tutto nuova ed ignota fino ad E481;le due tradizioni (C, gli altri mss.) concordano di nuovo sino ad E723,poi C, per la restante parte del quinto libro e per tutto ii sesto si differenzia dalla tradizione nota ed offre scoli o inediti, o assai differenti nella lezione da quelli noti dalle altre raccolte ...»:IV.De Marco 1932, 376. E~E(µrvrol I oopatt: xah11pn ppotoe ppottT) ICU\ tp07t11l'tO\>'t de e ppoctT) ICU\aµppoctT), iv ~l oi ppotOl. OU 1t0ptuovtal [yiyvttal ... V(Q)La only]

857

aµppoctT)V

887

l8vta: t8vT). 1tAi,8T).C(Z)H(Y)V(Q) t8vT). 1tAi,8T). 1tpc.otT1 6r au'tT)napapoA~ trot 1tOlTl'tlllLa

8101

1Caµt: t1Caµtv, ICUttelCtUaetV. C(Z)H(Y)V(Q) t1Caµtv, , ICU'ttelCtUaetV. 1Caµrov £'t£U~£V. avaetpocp~ 6t O tp01tOL

,

.,

6ta

,

.,

V(Q)La

66 IV. Schimberg 1891and 1892. 67For the relative importance of these other manuscripts, see IV. Schimberg 1891and 1892. 68 See IV. Montanari 1995, p. 151. 69 « ... gia dai sessanta versi del I. libro esaminati appare l'accordo tra VLa di contro ad R; sembrerebbe dunque che l'archetipodi La sia da ritenere un codice assai affine a V, ii quale pero offrisse qua e la qualche cosa di piu che non V stesso ...»:IV.De Marco 1932,p. 394.See also IV. van Thiel 2000a, p. 12.

14

Prolegomena

111,2.2Other Editions Lascaris' edition was reprinted by Asulanus70 (Venice 1521) along with other Homero-exegetical works; Asulanus was also responsible for the first edition of the D scholia on the Odyssey (a much slighter volume, dating from 1528). Sadly, this edition is full of misprints. A brief examination of other editions - those of Schrevelius (Amsterdam 1656), Barnes (Cambridge 1711), and Heyne (Oxford 1834), all of which include the text of Homer as well, reveals little that is of help towards an understanding of the D scholia. Schrevelius passes practically no comment on the scholia71, nor gives any indication of the provenance of his text of the D scholia, though it is generally assumed that he used the Lascaris edition with some additions, subsequently condemned by Wassenbergh72. In the preface to his edition, Barnes is more forthcoming about his sources. For the Odyssey he used a manuscript in Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (which only goes as far as 1154)and an edition of the Odyssey text with the scholia written into the margin by a previous owner of the book73; for the Iliad he names several old editions74. Editors frequently made small additions from various sources75, and later editions appear simply to have

70Asulanus was the first to attribute these scholia to Didvmus. 71 «Scholia addidimus brevia ilia quidem, sed ut i~dico, plurimi facienda et utilitate excellentia ... an vero ilia Scholia Didymi sint, an vero aliorum, pro certo hoe dicere non possemus: ego tamen incerturn icai avwvuµov arbitror, quia non raro in his citatur Didymus: nisi forte alius ab isto, qui xaAicivt£p0t. est cognominatus, et ter mille et quingentos libros ab Athenaeo elucubrasse dicitur, hunc ipsum citet••: IV. Schrevl 1646, Pratjatio, p. 4 (pages unnumbered). 72 « ... vulgavi enim, quod in principe editione reperam; cum quod reliquarum omnium fons erat et splendidissima, tum quoque ut sic Schrevelii additamenta, falsa plerumque et futilia (quibus tamen infectae sunt editiones elegantissimae Hackiana, Cantabrigiensium et Oxoniensis) ipsosque ilia, quae Jos. Barnesius haud raro praeter rem immiscuit, eo certius, commodiusque arcerentur, apparetque adeo, quaenam propriscis et genuinis antiquorum criticorum in Homerum observationibus sint habenda ...»: V. Wassenbergh 1783, Prolv.lctt 6i: to cxi\µa £1ttictanc, i61ov 6i: ivcov[pro µEi..tccmvhabet C(Z) µEi..tcciovicai; i6tov ... om. R(X)); for i6tov 6i: ivcov Barnes and Schrevl have i6tov Aioi..icov 1ea8a1tEp to µEi..tccicov 'Ivcov.To the scholion on B99 epiitu8EV: l\Pfltu8f1cav ... Schrevl adds to l\Pfltu~cav 1ta~nicov £VEPYT1tticioc citnici~El. To the \lit() cpui..i..otc.£V cinoic tEX8tvt£( !tpcotov. yap scholion on B312, Schrevl adds ltElttCOICOtEC iv t©l O>OtOICElV 1ti1ttEl£ICltpCOICtO\l ti\c opvt8oc. B651 evuai..icot: t©l WApEl/civ6pElcpOVtfll [-t- C(Z)): av6pac cpovruovtt [C(Z)V(Q)La and Barnes; folia missing in H(Y)R(X)). Schrevl has instead of these two scholia: ivuai..icot civ6pEtcpovtfll: evuai..1oc 1tpocf1yopticioctE icai £1tt8itcoc A.EyEtal1taic "Evouc icai WApEcoc, t0Ut£Ctl ltOA.EµllCOC. £VUCXA.l0l av6pEC ltOA.Eµticoi.ICUpicoc6£ µovov 6uo Eiciv £VUCXA.l0l. 0 1tpiotoc w Apflc, 0( icai xai..ico8pa~ civ6p1cpOVtflCicai civ6pElcp0Vtfl(,o ectiv av6pac cpOVE\lCOV. icai o 6EutEpoc Kupivoc, o 'Pcoµui..oc. 76 «Professus eram me de antiquiore canninis Homerici habitu in ipsis Scholiis antiquioribus pauciora, quam speraveram, reperisse; contra multa parum utilia a grammaticis esse allata: hoe utique valere non poterat ad omnem operam in iis positam sugillandam, et ipsam lectionis varietatem ex codicibus nondum inspectis et editionibus sine consilio antea adhibitis enotatam elevandam ... Huie novae editioni ... accesserunt Scholia Minora ... ad fidem editionis Romanae ab interpolationibus liberata, necnon Heraclidis Allegoriae Homericae cod. Vat. 871 ope a Bastio p. vi. plurimis locis castigatae et sub finem insigniter locupletae ... »:IV.Heyne 1834, Praefatio, 77 One should mention briefly Gattiker's work on the relation of the D scholia to the lexicon of Apollonios Sophistes. The eccentric nature of his work is partly to be blamed on the lack of papyrological evidence available to him. He makes several errors of judgment - one of which is to include in his survey of papyri not simply scholia minora (P.Achm. 2, editio princeps in II. Wilcken 1887, and P.Stras. inv. 33, editio princeps in II. Henrichs 1971a) but also the scholia maiora of P.Oxy. VIIl 1086, and proposes the following series: Aristarchos > Aristarchos' pupils> P.Oxy. VIII 1086 > Apollonios Sophistes > Achmim papyrus > StraBburg papyrus > Fayum papyrus. In addition to this sequence, Gattiker believes the D scholia to be very similar to P.Oxy. VIlI 1086 and thus places D much too early, as a product of the Aristarchean school. As such, D becomes, for Gattiker, a major source of the lexicon of Apollonios Sophistes, to which the mythographic and exegetical elements were added subsequently. However, since the three elements mentioned form a substantial part of D, it is difficult to accept this. A closer examination of D would have produced several references datable to later than Apollonios, and indeed, van der Valk gives the date of the latest redactor as the early 6th century (see IV. van der Valk 1963, pp. 203-4). In his review of VII. Martinazzoli 1957, Erbse also erroneously suggests that D precedes Apollonios Sophistes. Gattiker then proceeds to the remarkable conclusion that Apollonios' lexicon is an alphabetized version of the D scholia. The «unfinished state» of the lexicon (whose main characteristic, for Gattiker, is incomplete alphabetization) shows that Apollonios never properly finished the work, and that its lack of success was due to the availability of the D scholia, much easier to follow when reading Homer. For this reason, according to Gattiker, we have only one manuscript of Apollonios, but several of D. Since we now know more about the habits of early lexicographers (word lists were not subjected to thorough alphabetization, epitomists did render lexica into more abbreviated forms) we can see that Gattiker's conclusions are simply wrong. However, two important points do emerge from his work: that there are many correspondences between Apollonios, D and the papyri; and once more we are reminded of the osmotic nature of the mass of glossographic material pertaining to

m

ta

16

Prolegomena

IV,1.278,but the mythographic elements not at all79. For a description of D, we tum again to Montanari: «II corpus degli Scholia D consta, corn' e noto, per la maggior parte di due componenti fondamentali: primo le glosse, cioe spiegazioni di natura glossografica di singole parole o espressioni del testo omerico, un grosso insieme di Worterkliirungen di tipo parafrastico, che segue passo passo ii testo poetico, frantumato in lemrni (differenza rispetto alle parafrasi continue bizantine); secondo, un insieme di trattazioni piu ampie costituite sostanzialmente da k topiat e ~Tlt~µata; a tutto questo si aggiunge una quantita relativamente non grande di annotazioni grammaticali ed esegetiche; infine, ii corpus e caratterizzato costantemente dalla presenza delle hypotheseis, nonnalmente in numero di due per ciascun canto, di solito la prima piu breve e concisa, la seconda piu lunga e discorsiva»S0. In recent work, Montanari has begun to gather together the papyrological precedents for each element of D. In addition to the scholia minora on papyrus, there are nine papyri containing hypotheseis (eight for the Iliad, two for the Odyssey, with P.Ant. I 69 constituting the overlap), and ten fragments of the Mythographus Homericus (eight for the Iliad and two for the Odyssey)Sl. The most significant scholia minora from a formal point of view are P.Achm. 2s2, P.Oxy. XLIV 3159 and P.Oxy. XLIV 3160 with P.Stras. inv. 140183,as they combine hypothesis with scholia minora, as we have in D. For a precedent of scholia minora with mythographic exegesis, see 4631 here. Van der Valk and van Thiel have undertaken longer analyses of the D scholia84. While van der Valk's work contains a wealth of detail, the analyses are hampered by his use of the somewhat defective edition of

Homer. In addition, Gattiker highlights the phrasal glosses in D, and draws the conclusion (as Lehrs had done - see IV,2.3 below) that D consists of a broken up paraphrase. 78 Note that for books A and K onwards, La only prints one hypothesis, whereas the manuscripts have two. 79 See Bibliography III. 80 II. Montanari 1984, p. 129. 81 II. Montanari 1995, p. 83. 82II. Wilcken 1887. 8311. Luppe 1977. 84 See IV. van der Valk 1963, chp. 6 and IV. van Thiel 2000a. Van Thiel's work, a brief survey of the material relevant to his internet edition of the D Scholia, appeared too late to be taken into consideration in detail in this work. He makes a number of interesting observations about those lemmata in D that are not in the form in which they occur in the Homeric text.

Ill. D Scholia

17

Asulanus85. Erbse summarizes86 van der Valk's overview of the composition of D as follows: « .•• Teile des Corpus seien dem Lexikon des Apollonios Sophistes entnommen, andere den Schriften des VMK; die mit bT-Scholien verwandten Stucke entstammten aus einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ('CS') wekhe neben den exegetischen Deutungen altere Worterklarungen enthielt ('GS'). Diese seien z.T. aus den Obersetzungen der alten Glossographen abgeleitet, 'GS' selbst konne jedoch nicht alter sein als Aristarch ... Da die einzelnen Bestandteile nachweislich gesondert existiert haben ... ist Entstehung des Corpus erst nach den dunklen Jahrhunderten wahrscheinlich ... ». We follow Erbse in not being convinced by any of van der Valk's proposed Trennfehler to prove the existence of a source (CS) for the learned material common to D and the bT elements of the scholia maiora. The sporadic use of the more learned material in D suggests that it may have come to D via an intermediate exegetical source, rather than being derived directly from a lengthy learned commentary. As for GS, Erbse is convinced of the existence of a pre-Aristarchean glossographic corpus; he had earlier87 attributed some of Apollonios Rhodios' more imaginative uses of Homeric words to his reading of a pre-Aristarchean glossographic corpus also used by D88. While positing the existence of such a commentary makes sense of this aspect of the material89, McNamee points out that there are references in 85Van der Valk draws our attention to a comment of Herodian on 8316«where A, D and bT offer the same scholion on the accentuation of nupuyoc: napo~utovC1K ,mi o µev ,cavmv 8H..t1 1tpo1tapo~utovC1Kroe6oi6u1Coc ... The situation is uncertain, for we may have to deal with a D scholion which goes back on a common source of bT and D and has been taken over by VMK or we are confronted with a scholion of Herodian which has found its way into both D and bT». The only difference between the scholia - as van der Valk notes - is that A offers 6oi6u1Coc,D optuyoc and T 9ett6oc . However, his picture of the situation is not full, since H(Y)R(X)V(Q)La offers OptUyOCbut C(Z), the oldest manuscript, offers 8et16oc like T. It may be that D and T took their scholion from the same source, and that VMK took the scholion over independently; per1::!:. there is a relationship between VMK/ A and the later manuscripts of D. In his review of IV. van der Valk 1963-M; see the Bibliography. 87111. Erbse 1953. 88 e.g., Ap. Rh. III,168 i\pEc... TJYOpovto. The meaning here is clearly «they assembled». Since the verb elsewhere means «to speak in assembly» Erbse compares the line to Don 111: TJ'YOPOVto: 61£A.Eyovto,£1C1CA.ric1a~£to, CXltO toll ayop£U£1V, £~ Otl TJ9poi~ovto. Van der Valk shows that £~ oti (as o i:cti, oiv and yap) seem to be copulae used by D to join two different sources, sometimes even when the two interpretations disagree, as here. 89«Da sich infolge urtserer diirftigen Kenntnis der voraristarchischen Homererklarung kein Glossar namhaft machen la8t, das ein sokhes Stadium zwischen den unwissenschaftlichen und der spateren alexandrinischen Worterklarung reprasentieren konnte, empfielt sich die Annahme, Apollonios habe mit einem Homer-Kommentar gearbeitet, den man als Vorstufe unserer O-Scholien ansprechen mochte. Zahlreiche Obereinstimmungen seiner angeblich eigenwilligen Umdeutungen mit den in D iiberlieferten Interpretamenten liefem die Bestatigung»: IV. Erbse 1953,p. 171.

18

Prolegomena

the scholia maiora to Homer to yAO>u.oypaq,ot(in the plural) and suggests that word-lists (i.e., several small corpora) would have been in circulation90. The connections established by Erbse between D and Apollonios Rhodios show only that individual interpretations had gained currency by Apollonios' time. They may have derived from an amorphous, orally transmitted corpus, whose content and coverage changed with time, reflected in the sum total of disparate scholia minora (perhaps dictated from teacher to pupil or imparted in the manner of a catechism), to which Aristarchos would have been exposed. «The bulk of the "minor scholia" transmitted by the archetype of the medieval manuscript versions of the DScholia as well as the codex of Apollonios Sophistes and of the codex of the lexicon of Hesychius must have been very similar to what is already a fairly consolidatedcorpus of information as reflected in the Homer papyrus scholia of the Roman period ... »91(our italics). Although it is beyond the scope of this work to investigate D's sources extensively, it is appropriate to outline here two possible routes by which the Homeric glossographic and a certain amount of exegetic material may have entered D: texts of Homer with marginalia and scholia minora / paraphrase texts. Many of the scholia minora on papyrus seem unlikely candidates for the transmission of such material to D: the amount of Homeric text covered is small; the density of lemmata is often lower than in D; and when created in an educational context, the documents served a temporary end. Even the sum total of scholia minora covers only a fraction of the epic poems. Scholia minora fragments (in addition to the three mentioned above that combine hypothesis with scholia minora) that are more likely candidates on account of the density of lemmata, their apparently more permanent nature, and the possibility that their coverage might have been more extensive than most scholia minora, are the codex fragments P.Med. inv. 72.1392 and 4635 here. Indeed, there are striking resemblances between 4635 and 093.

90 «Philitas of Cos and Simias of Rhodes made the first comprehensive collections of epic and dialectal glosses, but references to glossographers in the scholia probably refer to word-lists p. 16. circulating long before their time ►►: IX. McNamee 1992, 91IV. Nagy 1997,pp. 117-18. 92II. Strassi 1978. 93 See 4635, fragment 2, «recto», 1-6.

III. D Scholia

19

The redactor of D may have had recourse to a text of Homer with interlinear or marginal glosses. Lundon94 cites eleven examples of texts of Homer with marginal or interlinear glosses. However, the glosses in these texts are sporadic. Another form of marginal annotation found in papyri of the Iliad of the lst-3rd centuries AD is the speaker indication. These are discussed further in the introduction to 4638, but one particular is relevant here. P.Stras. inv. 31-32v95 covers A215-442 and is one such text of Homer. The editor notes similarities between the text of this papyrus and the lemmata of Das given in C(Z)96_For book A Allen97 cites six readings unique to C(Z) that may also be found in the papyri; one of these readings is found in P.Lond.Lit. 6 and three other papyri that contain speaker indications; C(Z) also has a reading (at 8872) otherwise only found in Clement of Alexandria. While admitting the extremely exiguous nature of this evidence, and not concurring entirely with Schwartz's inference that C(Z)'s model was an Egyptian manuscript, it does seem reasonable that the Homeric text of Homer manuscripts with marginalia should be reflected in the lemmata of the D scholia. There were also other texts with more developed marginalia circulating in the Greek-speaking world. In his search for antecedents to a possible archetype of an Aristophanes text with scholia, Zuntz98 points to «spatantike Randscholienbiicher». These books come from Palestine and are of Biblical texts with marginal commentaries by known scholars. Zuntz's description of the format, content and function of these texts could very plausibly be applied to a text of Homer with marginalia: «Die Hesychianischen Erklarungen ... sind, besonders in den Psalmen, iiberaus primitiv: ein Synonym fur ein seltenes Wort des Textes, knappe erleichternde Paraphrasen, eine kurze Hinleitung zu allegorischer Auffassung des Textes ...»99.Zuntz claims that these texts were not meant for personal study, but to help Christians understand the texts as they were 94II. Lundon 1999, pp. 48-50. 9511.Schwartz 1954,pp. 45--62. 96(i) assimilation of a terminal consonant

with the initial consonant of the following word;

(ii) vowel lengthening achieved by doubling the following consonant; (iii) elided letters written out in full.

971.Allen 1931,I, pp. 180ff. 98[X. Zuntz 1938and 1939. 99IX. Zuntz 1939,p. 567(p. 83 in

reprint). Note that the earliest codices are also mainly Homeric or Christian texts. Since Zuntz's original work, other literary papyri with small numbers of marginal glosses and comments (e.g., P.Oxy. V 841) and manuscripts with margins full of scholia (e.g., P.Oxy. XX 2258) have come to light, and Zuntz recognised the importance of these when his work on Aristophanes was reprinted.

20

Prolegomena

read out. The 4th-century fragment of Aristophanes with scholia published by Zuntz was further examined by Maehlerl00 when he published the adjoining scrap. These scraps are significant, as they do constitute an intermediate stage between papyri with hypomnemata and later codices with margins full of scholia. If part of the composition of D did consist in culling marginalia or interlinear glosses from a text of Homer, then this process may also be reflected in the composition of the Ai;cu '0µ11p1Ka{, where certain errors in the Homeric lemmata can be shown to be misreadings of maiuscule text (see V,3 below). Three paraphrase / scholia minora texts deserve attention: P.Vind. 26221101, the Cairo fragment J.E. 45612102,and an unpublished Sorbonne fragment103. Both published papyri are codices dating to the 6th century and both presented problems of classification to their editors; the Sorbonne fragment dates to the 5th century. All three papyri present two columns of text, the left-hand one of Homeric lemmata, the right-hand one of glosses. Two important features of all three papyri are that every word of the Homeric text is treated (even when the gloss is only minimally different), and that each papyrus employs a device to facilitate use as a literary aid and perhaps ease of consultation (- in the Vienna papyrus the first word of each Homeric verse is placed in ekthesis, and in the Cairo and Paris fragments the last word of each Homeric verse is separated from the first of the following verse by a paragraphos). While the Vienna and Paris fragments give the lemmata as they appear in the Homeric text (a characteristic of this type of text), the text of the Cairo fragment gives them in full unelided form, a characteristic of scholia minora highlighted by Lundon104. If we string the extant glosses (A609-1O)of the Vienna fragment together, the resulting grammatical paraphrase is very similar to that of the pseudoPsellos type (see below)105; the same process performed on the Cairo 100 IX. Maehler 1968. 101 V. Bastianini 1980 and V. Lundon (forthcoming). 102 V. Gallazzi 1986 and V. Lundon (forthcoming). 103 Some information in V. Lundon (forthcoming). 104 Lundon cites several examples, including P.Oxy. XLV 3237,ii,23; d. 4635, fragment 2, «verso»,15. 105 P.Vind. inv. 26221: o £ff\ too1 0A)uµ,r1Jl(1)011Coov I o] ta, a, [tpa,ra