The Grammatical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt, Contributions to the Study of the "Ars Grammatica" in Antiquity

Citation preview

THE GRAMMATICAL PAPYRI FROM GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY OF THE 'ARS GRAMMATICA' IN ANTIQUITY

VERHANDELINGEN VAN DE

KONINKLIJKE ACADEMIE VOOR WETENSCHAPPEN, LETTEREN EN SCHONE KUNSTEN VAN BELGIE

• KLASSE

DER

LETTEREN JAARGANG XLI

Nr 92

1 979 PALEIS

DER

ACADEMIEN

-

BRUSSEL

HERTOGSSTRAAT

I

THE GRAMMATICAL PAPYRI FROM GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY OF THE 'ARS GRAMMATICA' IN ANTIQUITY BY

Alfons WOUTERS Doctor in de Wijsbegeerte en Letteren (Klassieke Filologie) Docent K.U. Leuven

MET EEN NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING

1 979 PALErs

DER

AcADEMIEN

-

BRUSSEL

HERTOGSSTRAAT

1

... non curent plerique haec studia haud ita iucunda, utilia tamen, immo necessaria R. REITZENSTEIN (Index Lectionum Rostock 1892-93, p. 3)

iJ 'toLU1J't1']npayµaula

ou µ6vov MaKOAO£ TUY)(UVEL,a.1.1.a. Kat Ou0Ko1.w,:a,:a EuplaKE'tm OLa.'tU£

OUCT'tUJCLU£ 'tOU yEVOU£

C. LASCARIS (in Epilogus ad Cod. Matrit. 56)

PREFACE

I would like to express here my most sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. E. Van 't Dack who as supervisor of my doctoral dissertation on the grammatical papyri 1 , provided the necessary orientation and critical accompaniment during its elaboration. I am also much indebted to Prof. Dr. W. Peremans, who continually stimulated my interest in the literary papyri, and to Prof. Dr. T. Reekmans, who was ever willing to share his papyrological and palaeographical acumen. I would like to thank explicitly the late Prof. Dr. E. de Strycker (Universiteit van Antwerpen), who on behalf of theKoninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, read my text and made many extremely valuable suggestions, and Prof. Dr. J.D. Thomas (University of Durham), who not only corrected my English, but also saved me from several inconsistencies, mainly with regard to the papyrological aspects of my edition. Prof. Dr. D. Donnet (Universite Catholique de Louvain) helped me with advice in the interpretation of individual passages in the Greek grammarians. Several papyrologists from all parts of the world not only arranged for access to the papyri or provided me with photograpfs, but also did a lot of checkings against the originals. It is not possible to mention all their names here, but I want to stress how deeply I appreciate their assistance. De Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven and the Nationaal Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek van Belgie (by a grant of Aangesteld Navorser) enabled me to pursue my researches. I am very grateful to theKoninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie for the prize awarded my dissertation and for making the publication of this volume possible. I feel especially obliged to Prof. Dr. L. Lebeer and to Prof. Dr. Mag. G. Verbeke, former and present Permanent Secretaries of the Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, who enabled me to enrich the edition with photographs of the papyri of which no reproduction was otherwise available.

1

De grammatica[e papyri uit Grieks-Romeins Egypte. Bijdrage tot de studie van de 'Ars grammatica' in de Oudheid, 4voll., Leuven, 1974.

5

CONTENTS

PROLEGOMENA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

I. Ancient grammatical literature and the papyri

..................

15

2. Content and form of the present edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

3. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.· Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Greek authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Latin authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Anecdota and collections of fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. The corpora of the Grammatici Graeci and the Grammatici Latini 2. Modern works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Encyclopedias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Grammars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. Palaeographic studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. Other works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 21 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 27 30

PART I

THE TEXNAI I'PAMMATIKAI

33 33 37 37 38 39 39 39 40 41 43 43 44

Introduction: Dionysius' TE'XJ''YJ I'paµµan1 /\.O'U0La£ YJTO'Uµl] KE-

40 oriµalvouoa: auµalvouoa W. 42 OUVKUtU0EOLV: I. ouyKata0EOLV t'r.itay6pEUOLV: t'r.itm6pEUOLV W. 43 eux~[v]: EUX~V H. 45 OOU:I. O'OV 46 ltOLW I: ltotO I H.; I. itot6 I 47 o[.De:OEH.; o[ ..Dew. vu_y:v supra u; vu[v] w. 48 EK0tc;:I. txetc; ev0au0a: I. evmu0a 48-49 ev0au0al ~~\: t\v0au0a xal µal H.; ev0au0a, I EKLW. 49 t'r.pviJoEOc;: I. t'r.pviJoewc;auvKam0£ I: I. ouyKma0e I 50 I oEOc;:I. I oewc; t'r.itayopeuoeoc;:I. t'r.itayopeuaewc; 51 £mKEt..EuoEOc;: I. emKEt..Euoewc;n: tfJ W.; I. tfJ vel tol H.; I. WLE. de Strycker 52 I oEOc;:I. I oEwc; q~0e : corr. ex e0E?; urne H.; [.]o0E (I. [.]me) W. itapa~ot..fJ[c;]W. 5.'l ( f} too~: I. fool~ 55 epµevlac;: epµev(ac; W.; I. !pµrivlac;

napa~[o]t..fJc;: c;supra ri; ·

56 xapLc;:1. xapLV OUVltt..Oicijc;: 1. OUµitt..oKijc; 57 OLU~Eu!;eoc; : I. OLU~Eu!;ewc; 58 wu µ~ KeI= wu KEI w.

51

59 Xl]VEVaL T'Y]V 01JV0EOL£. 60 ouv:rcoKfJ£ µh oi'.iveimv o[ i:uoiii:m 61 6111.wi:tKotouv6rnµm, &1.M, µe[ v], i:t, nµev, av. 6[t]a62 KE,N, 11M,Ka(, Y]TOL, 63 l;,E1JSE0£ 59 OUV0EOL£: I. OUV0EOLV 60 µh ouv ELOLV: µEVouv II EtOLVW. i:uoiitOL: I. toLOiitoL ouvnoKfi£: I. ouµnoKfi£ 61 ante OT]AWtLKO(:spatium &.nu, µt[v], tErecogn. J.D. Thomas; apa&.'A'AatEH.; c\pa, &.na, tE W. 62 i\toL om. W.

fiµtv: tµtv W.

63

I ~EU~EO£:I. I ~EU~EW£

3.

ANALYTICAL COMMENTARY

6[L]a

I: 6 vac.

al W.

The surviving text provides a definition of the sentence (II. 1-2), an enumeration of the parts of speech (11. 2-5) and a series of definitions of these µep11 (11.6-end).

11.1-2 'A sentence is a combining of words in general, expressing a complete thought'. :rc]El;'Y] MsEWVouv[0EOL£]: Dionysius Thrax (G.G.I 1, p. 22, 5) defines the Myo£ as a :rcel;f]£MsEW£01JV0EOL£ 6uxvmav alJTOTEA'Y] 6111.oiioa.Presumably his text originally also read :rcel;i]_ 1.e;ewv ouv0EOL£.Cf. A. Wouters, Dionysius Thrax 's Definition of the Sentence (l6yo£") and P. Yale 1.25, in Orbis, 23, 2(1974),pp. 217-223. II. 2-3 'There are nine parts of speech' ... For the different systems concerning the parts of speech, see the comm. onP. Heid. Siegmann 198 (= no. 12), II. 1-4 and ll. 4-5. Aristarchus' system of eight µep11was not as prevalent as is generally assumed, at least not before the Second Sophistic. The existence of a nine-part system, traces of which have been preserved in the scholia on Dionysius' Techne, that are always difficult to date, are confirmed by the papyri. The µep11are enumerated in a well-defined order; first the parts that can be inflected: ovoµa, :rcpoOl]yop(a, µei:ox11,6.vi:ovoµao(a and ap0pov; then the pf]µa; and finally the aKAti:a: :rcp60EOL£,e:rc(pp11µaand ouv6rnµo£ 21 . According to H.M. Hubbell, o.c., p. 195, the same order was applied inP. Amh. 2.21 (= no. 14). But firstly, in the latter text only five of the nine parts of speech are actually discussed, and further the ap0pov is mentioned there before, and not after, the 6.vi:wvuµ(a.

II. 6-9 The. ovoµa is defined as 'a word signifying the individual being of a concrete or an abstract subject, having no tenses but case-inflections'. 21

Dionysius Thrax's arrangement (G.G.I I, pp. 2-3) differs as follows: (I), (3), (5), (4), (2), (6), (7), (8).

52

H.M. Hubbell, o.c., p. 191 believes npayµa (I. 7) to be superfluous in this definition, since he believes that ovoµa for the grammarian of P. Yale I. 25 refers only to the proper noun. This statement is based on a slightly mistaken concept of the ancient theories on ovoµa and npomwopCa. To the earliest Stoics the ovoµa (Kuptov) is a 'more genuine' name than the npomwop(a 22. Diogenes of Babylon's (Ilnd cent. B.C.) definition is cited by Diogenes Laertius (VII 58). For him the ovoµa expresses an t6Ca nm6tYJS, the npoOY]yop(a a KOLVlJ nm6tYJS: ovoµa 6E fott µtpos 11.6you6riA.ouvlb(av nOL6tYJta, ofov L'.itoytvris, i:wKpatris- npoariyopCa µtpos A.6you miµaivov Ko1v17v:;rn16n1ta, ofov av0pomos, \'Jmos. That the JtotOTYJS tMn is to be limited to a 'concrete subject' is not specified although he gives as illustrations for the ovoµa only proper names. Dionysius Thrax (G .G. I I, p. 24, 1-6) calls the ovoµa: µtpos Myou mwttK6v, awµa r) npayµn oriµai:vov, awµa µEv ofov A.C8os,npayµa 6E ofov nm6E(a, Kotvws tE Kat t6Cws A.q6µEvov, Kmvws µEv ofov av8pwnos, i'.nnos, t6(ws 6E ofov LWKpatYJ£.Further (G.G. I 1, pp. 33 .6-34, 2) he mentions the Kuptov and the npoOYJyoptK6vas subclasses of the ovoµa: Kuptov µEv ouv ic:an to t17vt6(av ova(av oriµai:vov, ofov "Oµripos i:wKpatYJS•npoariyoptKov 6t £an to t17vKotv17vova(av oriµai:vov, ofov av8pwnos i'.nnos. For the first he too mentions personal names only. But that the tb(a nm6tris/ ova(a does not involve personal names only, can be deduced from Priscianus' exposition: "nomen est pars orationis quae unicuique subiectorum corporum seu rerum communem vel propriam qualitatem distribuit. .. et communem quidem corporum qualitatem demonstrat ut 'homo', propriam vero ut 'Vergilius', rerum autem communem ut 'disciplina', 'ars'; propriam ut 'arithmetica Nicomachi', 'grammatica Aristarchi' 23. The addition of ocbµaws r) npayµatos to ovo(av t6(av by the grammarian of P. Yale I. 25 was presumably inspired by Dionysius Thrax's definition (G.G.I I, p. 24, 3): ovoµa £0-tt µtpos Myou ni:wttK6v, awµa r) npayµa ariµai:vov ... From the latter was probably also taken the term ova(a in substitution for the Stoic JtOLOtYJS24. II. 10-11 'A npoorJYop(a is a word applicable to many (concrete) subjects, without indication of person or tense, such as notrit~s'. awµatwv: Presumably the grammarian omitted npayµatwv. See the comm. on 11.6-9. II. I 3-14 tenses'.

'A participle is a word having articles and cases and the distinction of

22 One cannot render correctly the original combination l'>voµaKupwv - npoorwop(a by the terms: 'proper name' and 'class-name'. Chrysippus (Illrd cent. B.C.) was the first to equate more or less l'>voµaKupwv with our term 'proper name'. Cf. A.H. GARDINER,The Theory of Proper Names. A Controversial Essay, London, 1957 2 , who on pp. 4-5 mentions some older literature. 23 G.L.Il, pp. 56-57. On this text, see also G.B. PECORELLA, Dionisio Trace, p. 137. 24

See the comm. on P. Heid. Siegmann 198 (= no. 12), II. 1-5.

53

It is surprising that the article is mentioned as one of the features of the µttox~H.M. Hubbell, o.c., p. 191 very rightly refers to a parallel in Pseudo-Herodianus, p. 306, 7: µETEXElyap UJ'tri of the conjunction), and II. 58-59 (ouv8EOL£)will suffice. The connections in terminology with the Greek philosophers, mainly the Stoics, are clear for the first, second, fourth and fifth of the passages recorded. In this -cex,vrimore importance than in Dionysius is devoted to the mentioning of the napm6µEVa ('consequential attributes') 49 typical of each part of speech. The grammarian even proceeds in a negative way and indicates the characteristics that each part lacks. On the other hand, the structure of the treatise is wholly identical with that of the Techne.

3. Is the text an abridgment? We have no reason to consider this treatise a resume of a more extensive text. H. M. Hubbell so stressed the disproportion between the treatment of the pf]µa (2, 5 lines) and that of the tn(ppriµa (17 lines). But in Dionysius' Techne too, the enumeration of the species of the adverb (G. G. I I , pp. 73-86) occupied considerable place, when compared with the discussion of the verb (G.G. I I, pp. 46-53), which, to be sure, is followed by a treatment of the outuy(m (G.G.I I, pp. 53-60) 51 .

49

See II. 8-9, 11-12 and 13-15. The term JtapeJt6µeva indicates the categories applicable to each part of speech. Some are morphological (cases, numbers, axiJµm:a), others are semantic (the dliTJof the voµa;the genders of the personal pronouns that are obvious only by the reference). They are considered consequential attributes, not essential to the existence of the part of speech. Cf. e.g. Schol. Dion. Thrax, pp. 217, 28-218, 7. See also R.H. ROBINS, Dionysius Thrax and the Western Grammatical Tradition, pp. 98-99 and p. 105. 50 O.c., p. 197. 51 On the other hand H.M. HUBBELL, o.c., p. 198 conjectured that the absence in the papyrus of a division of the verbs in conjugation classes and the general lack of a treatment of morphology was not due to an excerptor, but revealed a grammatical system different from the system in the Techne.

60

2. P. LIT. LOND. 182 Provenance l\1a'ahda?

Date ea. 300 A.D. Plates I, II, III

1.

INTRODUCTION

Some information on the provenance of this papyrus was first given by G. Uhlig 1 in 19IO. According to him the text was discovered in 1854 by A.C. Harris in the so-called 'Crocodile pit' at Ma 'abda (near Assiut), in the hands of a mummy. In a letter 2 A.C. Harris conjectured that the mummy case contained the body of the grammarian Tryphon (Ist cent. B.C.)3, who, as could be concluded from a title at the end, was the author of the grammatical treatise in the papyrus. W.R. Dawson 4, however, who has written a biography of A.C. Harris, considers this story to be fictitious. He believes rather that the egyptologist purchased the papyrus codex (which contains, besides the grammar, a portion of thelliad) around 1847 from the dealer Castellari who at the time was mainly active in Lux or 5 • After Harris's death in November 1869, his adopted daughter, Selima Harris, inherited his entire collection of antiquities and sold the larger part to the British Museum in 1872. The codex with the Homer text and the grammatical treatise, however, was only bought by the Museum in 1888 6 and was catalogued asP. Lond. 126. At the moment of purchase it was in the possession of one Hilton Price. The text of the papyrus codex was first published by F.G. Kenyon 7 in 1891. In G.G.Il 2, Prolegomena, p. VII, n. I. This letter was published in The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 1854, p. 284 (non vidimus). 3 Cf. Prosopographia Ptolemaica, vol. YI, no. 16887. 4 Anastasi, Sallier, and Harris and their Papyri, in JEA, 35 (1949), pp. 158-166. See on A.C. Harris, pp. 161-166. 5 Cf. W.R. DAWSON, o.c., p. 162, n. 4. 1

2

6

Cf. W.R. DAWSON, o.c., p. 164, n. 6. Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum, London, 1891, pp. 81-92 (Iliad papyrus) and plate VI (top of the eighth column;//. II 458-477); pp. 109-116 (grammar) and plate IX (lower part of the first page of the grammar). In his Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum, London, 1927, H.J .M. MILNE mentions the Homer text under no. 5 and the grammar under no. 182. See also Pack 2 634 (Homer), and 1539 (Tryphon). 1

61

As early as 1892 C. Wessely 8 provided a new diplomatic transcript of the grammar. The main features of the grammatical treatise were described by M. Guggenheim in his additions to the second edition of H. Steinthal's Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 9 . Further observations on certain passages of the text have since then been made by E. Thost 10 , E. Siegmann 11 and V. Di Benedetto 12 . Nine sheets (h.: 29 ,5 cm - w. : 26 cm) of the originally more extensive codex have survived. These sheets were laid on top of one another, horizontal fibres uppermost 13 , and were afterwards folded to form a little book (single quire codex) 14 of 18 leaves or 36 pages. In the first half of the quire the pages with horizontal fibres precede the pages with vertical fibres; in the second half the pages with vertical fibres come first. Only the first page and the right-hand pages of the opened codex were inscribed. The others remained blank so that a regular alternation existed between written and unwritten pages. The codex thus corresponded to Quintilian's prescripts, who asked (Instil. Orat., X 3 ,32): "reliquendae autem in utrolibet genere ... vacuae tabellae'' 15 . 8

Bemerkungen zu einiger Publikationen auf dem Gebiete der iilteren griechischen Paliiographie, in Dreiundzwanzigster Jahresbericht des kk. Staatsgymnasiums im Ill. Bezirke in Wienfiir das Schuljahr 1891 /2, Wien, 1892, pp. 13-20. 9 H. STEINTHAL, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Romern, vol. II, Berlin, 18912, pp. IX-XII: Zusiitze und Berichtigungen. 10 Ad papyros titulosque Graecos symbolae, in Griechische Studien Hermann lipsius zum 60.Geburtstag dargebracht, Leipzig, 1894, p. 162. 11 literarische Griechische Texte der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung, pp. 46 sqq. 12 Dionisio Trace, I, pp. 191-196. 13

E.G. TURNER,Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, p. 40, who includes a reproduction of the Iliad text (plate 14), says of the little book : "papyrus codex formed of 9 sheets ... laid above each other, vertical fibres uppermost''. In a letter (1 June 1973) he agreed that my reconstruction was more likely. 14 E.G. TURNER,o.c., p. 40 stressed the similarity in outward appearance with the famous Menander codex of the Bodmer collection (cf. Pack 2 1298). See also, on the bibliological characteristics of the latter codex, the recent study of R. KASSER,Nouvelle description du codex Bodmer de Menandre, in Scriptorium, 25 (1971), pp. 46-49. Completely comparable too for the way in which the codex had been constructed is the tax book P. Vindob. Gr. Inv. No. 39847 (IVth cent. A.O.?) edited by P.J. SIJPESTEIJN in J.R. REA-P.J. SIJPESTEIJN,Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, Band V, Wien, 1976, pp. 71-132. 15 See also C.H. ROBERTS,TheCodex, p. 173, n. I; pp. 174-175 andp. 175, n. 3. The author refers to other examples such as the juridical codex Dura Parchment V (1st cent. A.O.), described by F. CUMONT,Fouilles de Doura-Europos, Paris, 1926, pp. 309-314, which has the back of each page blank. See further Bodleian Inscriptions 3019 (Illrd cent. A.O.)(= Pack 2 2732). Cf. P.J. PARSONS, A School Book from the Sayce Collection, in ZPE, 6 ( 1970), pp. 133-149, especially p. 134 (the tablets 4b and 7b are blank).

62

To clarify the description I give here the contents of the entire booklet and I indicate by means of an arrow the direction of the writing in relation to the fibres.

II

III

I

VI

VI II

VI III

VIII I

l, II, ... : numbers of the sheets l, 2, ... : numbers of the pages page 19 ➔ II. III 55-110 (94 is omitted) I ll. II 101-149 2 blank 20 blank 3 t II. II 150-198 (168 is omitted) 21 ➔ 11. III 111-159 22 blank 4 blank 23 ➔ ll. III 160-210 5 t II. II 199-247 (206 is omitted) 24 blank 6 blank 25 ➔ II. III 211-262 7 t II. II 248-304 26 blank 8 blank 27 ➔ II. III 263-317 9 t II. II 305-354 28 blank 10 ➔ accounts 29 ➔ II. III 318-367 11 t JI. II 355-405 30 blank 12 blank 31. ➔ II. III 368-417 13 t ll. II 406-457 32 {, grammar (page III) 14 blank 15 t II. II 458-493 (= E.G. Turner, o.c., plate 14) 33 ➔ II. III 418-461 grammar (page II) 34 16 blank 35 ➔ II. IV 1-40 II. III 1-54 17 18 blank 36 t grammar (page I) (= F.G. Kenyon, o.c., plate IX)

page

t

t

t

W. LAMEERE, Aperqus de Pa/eographie homerique, p. 170 seems to propose a different explanation for the pages' being blank in our booklet. He presumes the copyist has not been aware of the possibilities offered by the codex form. Therefore as in a volumen he used only one side of the pages.

63

The papyrus book was tied together with thread; the holes are still visible on the different sheets. No traces of binding have survived. The codex contains Homerus, Iliad, II 101-493 (the catalogue in 494-877 is omitted), III complete and IV 1-40 with an average of 48 to 50 verses per page 1 6 . Some verses (II 168 and 206 and III 94)of the passages mentioned were overlooked. The Homer codex was re-used by a second copyist. He turned the booklet over so that the blank pages of the opened book were on the right. On the first blank pages he wrote the grammatical treatise discussed below. This text is of course written in the opposite direction to the Homer. Three pages (on sheets I, II, III) of this grammar have been preserved. They contain 48, 45 and 28 lines respectively. The text ends with the title Tpucpwvo~'tEX,Vl] ypaµµmLK'll1 7 . A further page (no. 10) of the codex, which was originally left blank, now, contains some partially erased and almost illegible accounts (21 lines). They are written in a cursive hand 18 and have some importance because, as will become apparent below, they may furnish some additional information on the date of the codex. These accounts are written in the same direction as the grammar. The grammatical text starts in the middle of a discussion on the 6.v,:wvuµ(a. An important part of the text is therefore lost. Apparently several folios of the book have disappeared, but the exact number cannot be established. If we assume that the Iliad codex originally also contained book I, either complete or with some verses or passages omitted 19 , at least 14 further pages would be needed for the 611 verses of the first book and for II 1-100, allowing about 50 verses per page. This implies that after Iliad IV 40, 14 X 50 verses could also have followed. Thus 14 further pages would have been available for the grammatical text, so that the surviving text would represent only one-sixth of the original treatise. Whereas for the treatment of 6.v,:wvuµ(a (partim) auvornµo~, i!:n(ppriµa and np60Em~ the remaining three pages sufficed, 6voµa, pf]µa, µcwx,11and ap0pov would have occupied 14 pages. Accordingly, this hypothesis seems improbable. F. G. Kenyon 20 conjectured that the codex originally comprised two further sheets only, containing Iliad II 1-100. In this case the first four parts of speech and 16

See on the Iliad copy also K. OHLY, Stichometrische Untersuchungen (61. Beiheft zum Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen), Leipzig, 1928, anast. reprint, Wiesbaden, 1968, pp. 43-44; W. LAMEERE,o.c., pp. 73and 170andE.G. TURNER,o.c., no. 14(reproductionofpageno. 15)andcomm. on p. 40 (date: second half of the Illrd cent. A.D.). 17

On the title placed at the end of the work, see W. SCHUBART,Das Buch bei den Griechen und Romern 3 , p. 89 and p. 125; H.I. BELL, inJEA, 10 (1924), p. 149; V. MARTIN,Papyrus Bodmer 11 (Evangile de Jean Chap. 1-14), Geneve, 1956, pp. 21-23; C. WENDEL,Die griechisch-romische Buchbeschreibung, Halle, 1949, pp. 24, 28 and n. 159 and E.G. TURNER,o.c., p. 12. 18 They have been transcribed by C. WESSELY,o.c., pp. 13-14. 19

See book II, where the verses 494-877 are missing.

20

O.c., p. 109. According to E.G. TURNER,o.c., p. 40 it can be deduced from one of the titles in the Homer text (on page 15: TEAO!; EX.EL IIALa0o!;a~ylie~) that the copyist intended to write down the first six books of the Iliad.

64

part of the avi:wvuµ(a would have been treated on two pages, which is equally unlikely. One cannot exclude the possibility that the original codex did indeed contain 14 further sheets and that the second copyist wrote another text before the grammatical treatise. In his edition F.G. Kenyon dated the grammatical text to the Vth-Vlth cent., the Iliad copy to the IVth-Vth cent. According to C. Wessely 21 , however, ,,tragt die Cursive (viz. of the grammar) den Character des 3. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts''. In his Palaeography of Greek Papyri 22 F.G. Kenyon, after a long discussion in which he involved more recent papyrus finds, revised his earlier dating of the grammatical text and proposed a date ea. 300 A.O. He even noted this date, in the British Museum copy of his Classical Texts 23 . V. Di Benedetto 24 wrongly retained the dating of the editio princeps. The grammatical text was written in a rather small semi-cursive hand by a practised copyist using a fine pen. The legibility of certain passages is impaired by a kind of patina, which was attached to the material and which is due either to an extensive use of the papyrus in Antiquity or to the circumstances of preservation. The writing is comparable to that of the Chester Beatty Codex V (Genes. 42,27-33) assigned to the IIlrd-IVth century 25 . The hand of the latter papyrus is semi-cursive yet quite legible. Several letters show similarity to P. Lit. Lond. 182, namely p,~,, the large t,cpwith its long vertical stroke, the a with the form of a loop, and 6 with the diagonal stroke sloping to the left. There are differences, however, in K and v. Comparison might also be made with the documentary P. Hamb. inv. no. 99 26 , written in 250A.D. The date of the grammar can be narrowed down with the aid of the documentary text written in the same codex. At the end of the account a fifth regnal year is mentioned. Since dating by consular years was prevalent in Egypt from the IVth cent. on 27 , the account in all probability has been written during the Illrd century. Therefore, the original Iliad codex had been used as waste-paper before the end of 21

O.c., p. 16. O.c., p. 106. 23 The Homer text was then dated to the third century A.D. 24 Dionisio Trace, I, pp. 191-196: Yth cent. Cf. R. PFEIFFER, History of Classical Scholarship, p. 270. 11.2. W. SCHUBART,£it1/i"i/m111g in die Pap_1T11s/.:unde, Berlin. 1918, p. 484suggested: IVth-Vth n:111. The s1a1c111c111 of E. M. THOMPSON .An lmrod11ctio11to Greek a/Ill Lalin Palaeography. p. 56, 11. 5: '300 B.C,' is obviously an error. 25 Cf. R. SEIDER, Paliiographie, ll, no. 53 (Taf. XXVII). 2 ~ Cf. R. SEIDER, Paliiographie, I. no. 44 (Taf. XXVII). 22

27 CL L. MtTTEls-U. WtLCKEN. Grwulziige 11ml Chrestomathie der Papyrusurkunden, Historischer Teil, l. Grundzuge, Leipzig-Berlin, 1912, p. LIX.

Bd. 1:

65

this century. It may be assumed that the grammatical text had already been inscribed in the booklet at that moment, since the copyist started the account midway through, not on the first page. Absolute certainty, however, cannot be obtained here. The words of the grammatical text are separated from one another 28 . The different sections are introduced by a title. In two cases (11.66 and 105) this title is written on the last line of the preceding chapter, once (1. 80) on the first line of the new section. The first letters of these titles are conspicuously larger 29 . This was a widespread procedure, according to some modern scholars 30 , from the IVth century on31_ Many letters have been written above the line 32 . As far as punctuation is concerned, mention may be made of the avco m:tyµa( at the end of a sentence 33 or between a series of examples 34 . An oblique stroke concludes a section 35 (1. 66: ocpei:epa/). There is a line filler at the end of the complete text (1. 121). Grammatical forms are marked by a horizontal line 36 . The copyist wrote tremata 37 and

28 The text was mentioned for this reason by E.M. THOMPSON,AnIntroduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 56, n. 5 and by F.G. KENYON,The Palaeography of Greek Papyri, pp. 26-27 ("perhaps the only example of it in literary papyri"). P. Lit. Lond. 182 is certainly not the only literary papyrus having the words separated. See e.g. also P. Par. I (Ilnd cent. B.C.) (= Pack 2 369), a fragment of Eudoxus' Ars Astronomica; P. Oxy. 22.233 I (IIlrd cent. A.O.)(= Pack 2 I 931) and the Menander copy P. Oxy.2.211 (lst-Ilnd cent. A.O.)(= Pack 2 1304). C.H. ROBERTS,Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, 1936, p. 26, n. I mentioned an unedited Rylands papyrus, presumably a schoolboy's exercise, as the only papyrus he was aware of, having words separated. See now also E.G. TURNER,Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, p. 9. 29 See also, however, I. 69: ty be cruv-ra;Et: enlarged£. 3

° Cf.

E. LOBEL-C.H. ROBERTS,in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XXII, London, 1954, p. 84.

31

But see already B.K.T. 3. 27-29(inv. 8439) (Ilnd cent. A.O.)(= Pack 2 2144), where the first letters of the quotations are larger, and P. Oxy. 11. 1380 (Ilnd cent. A.O.)(= Pack 2 2477). Cf. in addition E.G. TURNER,o.c., p. 8. 32

It is not always possible to distinguish clearly between letters placed above the line in scribendo and possible interlinear corrections. 33 LI. 6, 16, 18, 20, 28, 35, 41, 46.

34

LI. 39, 85, 91,111,112,113,114,115,117,118,119,120,121.

35

Cf. W. SCHUBART,Das Buch bei den Griechen und Romern 2 , p. 180 (Anhang-Add., p. 80). A similar oblique stroke to conclude a lemma, a question or a section, is also displayed by the sixth-century Oidymus papyrus. Cf. G. BINDER-L.LIESENBORGHS, Didymos der Blinde, Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus), Tei! VI: Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 11-12, Bonn, 1969. See also J. MOREAU-MARECHAL, in Scriptorium, 22 (1968), p. 61. 36

Wrongly. in II. 3 and 4: Km, I. 44: EV't0£ and I. 79: T]µETEpaand in the whole passage II. 111- I 2 I.

"5uo.The lines are lacking in I. 48:

9L,

I. 58:

37 L. 15: i:Kavn; I. 16: i:ooµopov; I. 22: n]poiiJtoKELµEvwv; I. 24: i:oofbv]vaµovom; I. 30: iiµtv; I. 41: npooiiimKovoµevov; I. 45: bvi:Km; I. 49: bvi:Km and vwi:-reI pm;; I. 52: vwi:-rEpw,ocpwi:-repw;I. 58: iiµe-repa, ocpwi:-repa;I. 60: bvi:Km; I. 101 : i:ow;; I. 112: meand I. 114 : i:va.

66

apostrophes 38 . He did not indicate any accents, but he did note sometimes the iota mutum as iota adscript (ll. 16, 20, 22, 71, 77). A few times an abbreviation rp: for ~i:(m) occurs (ll. 7, 8, 9, 42, 43, 44). The s·pellingof the text is not faultless. Several itacistic errors occur (ll. 27, 71, 72, 75). Note also the forms ou8ntpwi; 39 and similars (ll. 45, 51, 52, 60-61) and the haplography in Kmnai:LKl']i;(11. 1,3,79) (or must a crasis be supposed?). The text was corrected, presumably by the first hand. The corrections were effected by erasure (l. 104), or by crossing out (11.16,43), sometimes in combination with an addition above the line (ll. 5, 25, 32, 40, 69, 89, 96, 109 and 113). 2.

TRANSCRIPT

Note: B.

V. Di Benedetto F.G. Kenyon s. E. Siegmann T. E. Thost W.: C. Wessely K.

Page I 1 WOEW'UW Ou'C[Kat]Op8f]i;K all:Lal:LKY][i; ..] rtpWW'IJ~~~ [] 2 :n:poow:n:ou vw [Kat] vw'C,y1ovtKf]i; 1vyvuµEvot, ofov iyw 39 auT6s;' O'UauT6s;' ~ UUT6s;. TWV6£ O'UVa.p8pwv O.VTWV'UµLWV 40 nEpt Mo 8E[B]pouµtvwv, nEp( TETOMyov np6ownov Kal TO 41 E~w8EvnpooiJnaKov6µevov· 8 dotv apt8µwv 6tacpo42 pa( . KUT'aµcp6TEpa{t} EVLKUl, Eµ6s;,o6s;, os; YJT(ot)Eµ6s;, 43 TE6s;,o6s;, [rill Eµ~, o~, i1f\T(ot) tµ~, TE~[i\ tµ6v, o6v, ov] 44 E~, tµ6v, o6v, o6v i'jT(ot) tµ6v, TE6v, Mv, evTos;EVtKa( 45 EKTOs; 6vi:Kal, Kotvat apOEVLKOlJ Kat ou8ETEpweµw, ow, 46 & Kat 8l]A.'UKWs; £µ6., 06., ?f YEVLKf]s; Kat 6onKf]s; 47 tµoiv, ooiv, olv, eµaiv, oaiv, a[v. evTos;EVtKat 48 [e]KTOs; l1A.l]8'UVTLKUL, £µo(, oo(, ouv0foELnpo[~]l0w0m, £V OEouvi:a!;ELi:wv JtAElmwv, 6p0(fj] Kat KAl]LLKfj Jt'l:WOEL O'IJouvaµEVOVouvi:a ow0m O'IJOE tv MywL y~yya(cµnpoi:l0w0m. npo0fo Li; OEELOLV Ll], &vu, &µcp(,&n6,&vi:(,fu?i,Tv{aL !;, ~' Ei{E}L, Ka[i:a], np6i;, Jtp6, JtEp(, Jtapa, µEi:a, 1iiTp, UJt6, OlJV,1:WV[OE] npo0EOEWV avaoi:pocpiJv tmoexovi:m &.vu, an6, en{E}l, Ka.a, nEpl, J«ipa, µEi:a, unep, un6. mwoEm OE i:aii; JtAay(OLi;ouvi:aooovi:m aLOE,aµcp(, tn(, np6i;,

~s

52 oui:1m(: OEKm W. 54 vwi:1:tpmy: v supra !in. 58 ocpwi:Tepa: I. ocpE,Epa iiµrn\pa:

uµE,Epa W.

60-61 oi, l01m~pwv: I. oi, lbE,Epwv 63 uµrn\potv: uµE,EpOLVW. 67 itp60Em;; i;( tonv: itp60w(;; n tm:tv K.; itpo0Em;; wnv W. ouµf3i!f3TJKE: KEsupra !in. Ka0' EV