Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus

BOOKROLLS A N D SCRIBES IN OXYRHYNCH US William A. Johnson

U N I V E R S I T Y OF T O R O N T O PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

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

! Printed on acid-free paper

National Library ot Canada

Cataloguing in Publication

Johnson,William A. (William Allen), 1956Bookrolls and scribes in Oxyrhynchus / William A Johnson. (Studies in book and print culture) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-3734-8 1. Oxyrhynchus papyri. I.Tide. II. Series.

2. Books and reading - Greece — History.

Z5.J63 2004

C2003-903965-X

091

Plates are reproduced by pernussion o f the University Library, C a m b r i d g e (plate 1); the Egypt E x p l o ration Society, L o n d o n (plates 2, 4 - 5 , 8 - 1 3 ) ; the B o d l e i a n Library, O x f o r d (plates 3 , 1 8 ) ; and the British Library, L o n d o n (plates 6 - 7 , 1 4 - 1 7 ) .

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).

D.W.P.

tG-P.G.

!"#$% &$' &" !(#)*, $+ &"

, !(#)*.

Contents

Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla Acknowledgments xiii 1 Introduction

xi

3

1.0 Voluminology 3 1.1 Gathering the Evidence: The Necessity for Autopsy 1.2 Definition of the Project 9 1.3 Reconstruction of the Bookroll 10

5

2 Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity of the Literary Roll 15 2.0 Prologue: The Importance of Case Studies

15

2.1 A Survey of Scribes w i t h Multiple Surviving Rolls

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6

Scribe Scribe Scribe Scribe Scribe Scribe

#A1 #A2 #A3 #A5 #A6 #A7

17 17 18 20 21 21

2.1.7 Scribe #A17 22 2.1.8 Scribe #A19 23 2.1.9 Scribe #A20 24 2.1.10 Scribe #A24 24

16

"###

Contents

2.1.11 Scribc #A25 25 2.1.12 Scribe #A28 26 2.1.13 Scribe #A30 26 2.1.14 Scribe #A31 27 2.1.15 Scribe #A33 27 2.1.16 Scribe #B1 29 2.1.17 Scribe #B2 29 2.1.18 Scribe #B3 30 2.1.19 Scribe #B4 31 2.1.20 Scribe #B5 31 2.1.21 Scribe #B6 32 2.2 Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls: Summary and Evaluation 32 2.2.1 Excursus: Format changes in mid-roll 37 2.3 How Did the Scribe Copy the Text? Implicit examples for and against line-by-line copying 39 2.3.1 Copying the Text: Examples of scribal error that imply an exemplar of same or similar line length 41 2.3.2 Copying the Text: Examples of scribal error that imply an exemplar of different line length 43 2.3.3 Copying the Text: A remarkable example where different papyri of the same text coincide in line division 48 2.3.4 Copying the Text: Summary and conclusion 49 2.4 Uniformity and Variation in Bookrolls 49 2.4.1 Uniformity and Variation: Width of column, intercolumn, and width from column to column 50 2.4.2 Uniformity and Variation: Height of column, margins, and height of roll 54 2.5 Conclusions 57 Tables 60 3 Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

85

3.0 Prologue: A Different Aesthetic 85 3.1 Construction of the Bookroll 86 3.1.1 Kollêsis and Kollêma: The constitution of the roll 88 3.1.2 Laying out the Columns: Maas's Law, ruling and alignment dots 91 3.1.3 Excursus: The laying out of columns in the Arden Hyperides papyrus (MP 1233) 99

Contents

3.2 Dimensions of the Column: Widths 100 3.2.1 Column Width in Prose Texts 101 3.2.2 Intercolumn and Column-to-column Width in Prose Texts 3.2.3 Letter Counts in Prose Texts 114 3.2.4 Column and Intercolumn Widths in Verse Texts 115 3.3 Dimensions of the Column: Height 119 3.4 Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height 125 3.4.1 Width X Height: Prose texts 125 3.4.2 Width X Height:Verse texts 129 3.5 Upper and Lower Margins 130 3.6 Roü Height 141 3.7 Roll Length 143 3.8 Roll Format and Literary Genre 152 3.9 Editions de luxe

155

3.10 Private versus Professional Book Production Tables 161

157

Appendix 1 Papyri Included in the Sample 231 Appendix 2 Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets Appendix 3 Resolution of Ambiguous Reconstructions 337 Glossary

341

Bibliography

345

Subject Index Index of Papyri

357 361

Illustrations are at the end of the book Figure 1 on !. "

109

251

ix

Figure 1

Anatomy of the bookroll

a. Parts of the Roll 1. Column width 2. Intercolumn 3. Column-to-column width 4. Column height 5. Upper margin 6. Lower margin 7. Roll height 8. Rolllength

h.Leading

Terminology; Conventions, and Sigla

In figure 1,1 have labelled the parts of a roll in order to make clear what I mean by 'column height' as opposed to 'roll height,' and so forth. By 'column' I always mean the written area of text. In general, the terminology for ancient bookroll and script is that common in the papyrological literature; for the benefit of non-specialists, I have added a short glossary of technical terms among the back-matter to the book. The term 'leading' may cause some mild confusion. As a typesetting term, the word traditionally denotes the blank space between lines of print. An alternative usage, however, has evolved wherein the word signifies the vertical distance from base line to base line. I use the word in the latter sense (see figure 1, b).1 Punctuation dots are distinguished as low, middle, or high. A high dot is a dot written at a level parallel to or above the top of the preceding letters; a low dot is a dot at the base line; a middle dot is one that seems intended to fall midway between the top and base lines. Papyrus numbers within the POxy series are indicated by bold face without further qualification, a convention familiar from the volumes themselves. One necessary innovation in the transcription of papyrus texts: I use an open box, to signal blank space of about one character width left deliberately (usually as punctuation) in the text. On the page following, I list the prefixes used to indicate to what degree a figure for width, height, etc. is approximated. If there is no prefix, the figure is measured.

1 During the period when physical type was used, the space between lines was set by small pieces of lead. The secondary use (i.e., from base line to base line) derivesfromterminology standard in computer software applications.

Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla

The figure is mostly measured, but has some element of approximation. This prefix is used, for instance, in the case of a badly distorted papyrus, or in the case of a column width if one or two letters are missing from the line. For widths and heights, this prefix indicates a margin of error of about ±1.5 mm. The figure is measured, but is an approximation of the average line length of a verse text. This prefix is used only for the column widths of verse texts, as a reminder of their very approximate nature. The figure is calculated. For widths, the margin of error is about ±2.5 mm (except for verse texts, on which see above). For heights, the error margin is perhaps ±10 mm. The figure is calculated, but on the basis of a small amount of evidence. This prefix is used before a width if, for instance, there are too few surviving letters to yield a reliable estimate of the character cell; before a height if there are too few lines (usually under 10) to derive reliable estimates of the leading. For widths, the margin of error is about ±5 mm. For heights, the margin is perhaps ±15 mm.

Acknowledgments

I am pleased to record my debt to a good many institutions and people. Indispensable to the project was funding for research and travel, early on, from Yale University and, later on, from the Semple Classics Fund at the University of Cincinnati. During my papyrological wanderings I had the good fortune to enjoy the resources of the following collections: The Bodleian Library, Oxford; The University Library, Cambridge; Department of Manuscripts, the British Library; Ägyptologishes Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin (where I single out Günther Poethke for his friendly assistance); Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich; The Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University; Houghton Library, Harvard University; The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania (where Robert Kraft was most hospitable and helpful); The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago; Special Collections, Columbia University; The Milton S. Eisenhower Library, The Johns Hopkins University; Special Collections, Princeton University Library; Department of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Special Collections, Wellesley College Library; Special Collections, Muhlenberg College Library; Special Collections, Andover Newton Theological School; Freiberger Library, Case Western Reserve University; Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. I reserve for particular mention the Papyrology Rooms at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, where Revel Coles and John Rea were kind enough to entertain my frequent requests and interruptions over several weeks and trips. At an early stage of the project, magisterial encouragement and advice came from George Goold, Michael Ilaslam, and Peter Parsons; at a later stage, from Robert Babcock and Richard Janko. Finally, I wish to express my sorrow that William Willis did not see the work through to completion. With characteristic generosity, he volunteered to take me

xiv

Acknowledgments

through the basics of papyrology when I conceived of the work in 1989, and though lost to us in body he continues to inspire through his careful scholarship and passionate interest in the tattered remains of ancient writings recovered from the sands of Egypt.

BOOKROLLS AND SCRIBES IN OXYRHYNCHUS

This page intentionally

left blank

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

1.0

Voluminology

Bookrolls, by which I mean papyrus rolls containing literary texts, survive in fragmentary form in many thousands of examples from antiquity.1 Yet the bookroll qua book, as an artefact that speaks in detail to the production and use of classical literature in its original context, has received surprisingly little attention. Even as codicology has become a mainstay of medieval studies, voluminology, so to speak, remains almost wholly neglected among classicists. For anyone with strong interests in ancient books, ancient readers, and ancient reading, a host of basic questions remain unanswered. A very few examples: What was the nature of the bookroll 'industry,' including the relation between scribe and book owner, scribe and readers, in the production and markup of the text? What were the changes in bookroll production over time and place, including both manufacture and elements of design? What was the relation, if any, between the format of the bookroll and its contents? In what ways was the design of the bookroll tied up with its use, and what were the circumstances ofthat use? Answers even to such basic questions as these are not yet possible, for the simple reason that much of the painstaking preliminary work - on scribes, on ancient readers, on the bookrolls themselves - has not been done.2 A detailed history of the bookroll is, then, an urgent desideratum. But the detailed

1 LDAB 1998 lists almost seven thousand bookrolls either published or referenced in the literature. Conversations with curators suggest that many thousands of (mosdy very small) fragments of bookrolls still await publication. 2 Kathleen McNamee's forthcoming work on marginalia in ancient bookrolls (McNamee forthcoming) promises to be an important contribution to our detailed knowledge of ancient scribes and readers. See also McNamee 1981a, Johnson forthcoming.

4

Introduction

investigation of the various raw data must come first, and that is what I take up in this book: the collection and close analysis of formal and conventional features for a sample of over four hundred bookrolls. The work is unusual among papyrological studies in that it focuses not on fragments of previously lost literature (fascinating though those are), but on the papyri of known literary texts, that is, texts that also survive in full form in medieval manuscripts. The contributions that such material can make to our understanding of the production, use, and aesthetics of the ancient book are impressive. Since the papyrus fragments derive from known texts, it is often possible to reconstruct a great many details of the format of the ancient book: the column width and height, the height of the roll, even sometimes the length and contents of the roll. Recovery of an extensive body of these data leads to unexpected discoveries. Systematic analysis of hundreds of bookrolls shows, for example, that the rakish lean often seen in the columns of an ancient bookroll is a deliberate design feature; this is proved not only by remarkable consistency of format, but by the discovery of scribal dots that marked the pattern before the column was written out. Analysis of finely written rolls overturns the prejudicial assumption (taken from codex culture, but firmly implanted in the papyrological literature) that a tall roll or column was considered more elegant than a short roll or column. Analysis of the conjunction of format and content yields a great deal of suggestive detail about the relationship between book and genre.These and many other discoveries, small in themselves, reveal that the ancient bookroll was designed according to principles surprisingly different from those of the codex. That difference suggests, in turn, intriguing questions - and some provisional answers about the ways in which the use and function of the bookroll among ancient readers may differ from modern or medieval practice. The book you hold in your hands is a work of fundamental scholarship both in the sense that the work has not been done before, and in the sense that the results are not so much an edifice as a foundation. The strength of the work lies in the comprehensiveness, depth, and thoroughness of the collection and analysis of the data. Those who want detailed facts about the design, construction, and use of ancient bookrolls, so far as they are recoverable, will want to read this book. Now it must be admitted that delving into the many details of drainage, plumbing, electricity, gas, venting, and so forth that form the guts of a modern basement is not to everyone's taste; nor will be the level of detail summoned here. Still, to change the metaphor for a moment, the level of detail is necessary so as to construct a meticulous mosaic, a portrait that takes form with light and shadow and colour. The result is, I think, a reasonably secure evidentiary basis from which to build. I have already begun elsewhere to sketch out some ways in which these data can be creatively deployed in a variety of broad historical inquiries (see esp. Johnson 2000, 2003). My hope is that others will join the enterprise, still very much at its beginnings. My original impetus, now a decade away, had little to do with the task of working through the physical details of several hundred literary papyri. Like many researchers, I was

Gathering the Evidence: The Necessity for Autopsy

5

fascinated by various problems of orality and literacy in early Greece, and my initial investigation was driven by questions I had about the interrelation among form, function, and content in Greek literary texts.The first issue, or so it seemed to me, was to gain a firm and detailed impression of what the Greeks meant by a 'book* and to understand how these books were produced and used. I quickly stumbled upon the embarrassment that the standard work on the ancient book remains Theodor Birts monumental 1882 study, Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältniss zur Littérature I call this an 'embarrassment' not because this is a bad book — quite the opposite is the case — nor simply because it is old, but because Birt in 1882 had very limited access to the artefactual evidence. True, a succession of subsequent works summarize the evidence of the literary papyri, but these are uniformly cursory in their treatment, at times almost anecdotal. I think in particular of the two standard handbooks, both by famous papyrologists, Wilhelm Schubart's Das Buch bei den Griechen und Römern (second edition, 1921) and Frederic Kenyon's Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome (second edition, 1951), both of which tend to generalize on the basis of a very few examples from the papyri in their respective collections (the Berlin and British Museums). More recent decades have seen good but limited progress. The Herculaneum papyri have received fairly detailed treatment in Guglielmo Cavallo's Libri} scribi, scritture a Ercolano (1983); in a succession of more recent books and articles by Mario Capasso; and now in Jankos detailed study of Philodemus s On Poems (2000).4The Herculaneum papyri are, however, in several respects a special case, and the physical details of these bookrolls may or may not reflect the evidence of other Greek literary papyri. Eric Turner s writings are sprinkled with valuable, detailed observations on ancient bookrolls (see esp. The Terms Recto and Verso: The Anatomy of the Papyrus Roll, 1978 and Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient

World, revised by Peter Parsons in 1987).Turners name will therefore recur over and over in the discussion here, even though Turner reserved detailed treatment for papyrus codices (The Typology of the Early Codex, 1977). But the lone systematic study of the mise en page of

the bookroll outside of Herculaneum is a recent chapter by Alain Blanchard on a group of early Ptolemaic papyri extracted from cartonnage (Blanchard 1993), a study of only twenty-four papyri. 1.1 Gathering the Evidence: The Necessity for Autopsy The main focus of this book is a detailed investigation of a large number of papyri, all literary, all of extant works, and all published in the volumes of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, The 3 birt incorporated later thoughts and revisions on his life s work into Birt 1913, but he did not attempt a detailed treatment of the papyri. 4 Capasso 1991 and 1995; cf. also Capasso's edited volumes in the series Papyrologica Lupiensia, esp. Capasso 1994. For Philodemus, see Janko 2 0 0 0 , 7 0 - 1 1 9 , but also the introductions to Obbink 1996 and Delattre's forthcoming edition of Philodemus's de Musica.

6

Introduction

fundamental aim is to learn what we can about the bookroll. Of each fragment we should like to know what it can tell us about the literary roll from which it came: how the roll was fashioned, what it looked like, what dimensions or extent it had. Of the fragments severally, we will want to know what they can tell us about literary rolls as a class: what defines the look and feel of a bookroll, how precise are the characteristics, how are these characteristics influenced (or are they influenced at all) by genre, script, the fashions of the time? To that end, I have first assembled from the published editions as detailed a preliminary reconstruction of each roll as possible. But my second step has been in each case a personal inspection of the papyrus itself Consider first what sort of information must be collected for a proper investigation of even the most obvious physical details of the bookroll. At a minimum, one needs measurements for upper and lower margins, the written column, and the space between columns (the intercolumn). The older Oxyrhynchus volumes almost never provide these data. This fact alone necessitates measuring, preferably by direct inspection, a large number of the fragments. Recent volumes are more detailed in this regard, but even here descriptions are often insufficient. Take as a common example the upper and lower margins. The maximum extent is now given as a matter of course, but not the details that provide a basis for judging whether the margin may be complete (on which see further at §3.5). How can we speak intelligently of roll heights without knowing whether the margins are partial or whole? Even in those cases where the relevant information is given, problems arise.What does one mean, for instance, by 'width of column'? A prose column will be written with a more or less regular right margin, but it will not be so regular as on a printed page. Does one mean then the minimum measurement for the lines of writing, the maximum, the average, or what appears as the notional border the scribe is aiming at? I have always measured the last of these, but comparison of my measurements with those printed in the POxy introductions shows that different editors use different systems. What one means by the column width of a verse text will be more difficult yet.Terminology is also a problem.Take but one example: the 'column height' should be clear enough, since 'column' signifies the written block of text. Yet editors sometimes will use 'column' where 'roll' or 'sheet' is intended, and will speak of the overall height of the roll as the 'column height' (thus, e.g., in the introductions to 3550 [Theocritus] and, apparently, 3325 [Moschus]). And none of this even begins to attack the significant problems of reconstruction and calculation that attach to obtaining figures for a partially preserved column. We see then that even in the case of physical dimensions, if we are to avoid comparing apples and oranges, there is a strong case to be made for a single researcher taking the measurements. Still, there are a number of other essential physical details that are irregularly reported. We certainly want to know whether the column has a slant to it ('Maas's Law': see §3.1.2), and, if so, how much of a slant; we want to know, so far as one can

Gathering the Evidence: The Necessity for Autopsy

7

tell, what is the quality of the papyrus; we want to be able to divide the scripts into meaningful categories (such as whether the script bespeaks a deluxe, everyday, or substandard copy). All of these are reported, but none regularly and consistently. There are also the dimensions of script and spacing that are necessary to calculate the width and height for partially preserved columns. These include the height of the letters, the average horizontal spacing, the leading between lines. Such details - critical to the enterprise - are almost never given. A different sort of difficulty arises in connection with, for instance, 26 (Demosthenes, Exordia plate 6). Study of that text will show the scribes apparent inconsistency in his treatment of jota-adscript. Final iota is added to the masculine dative singular in three cases, but in two cases it is not. More striking yet arc, at iii 11, two subjunctive forms in succession that seem to disagree on the use of adscript: the scribe appears to write, $%$&'(" )(* #$ '+,-& ,(& .-/&01-. The manuscript is otherwise carefully copied and well written. The circumstances seem, then, an indictment against the insouciance of scribes in such matters. Yet personal inspection tells quite a different tale. In fact, iota-adscript can be clearly seen in all five cases of the masculine dative. As for the pair of subjunctives, one supposedly with iotaadscript, the other without, autopsy reveals a misreading of the strokes. Following So,- the papyrus has pulled slightly apart; the supposed & is no more than the hasta of the following ,, which because of the vertical tear is somewhat detached from the rest of the letter. In fact, the scribe writes the adscript for neither of the two subjunctives. A parallel example in the case of punctuation will be found for 2181 (Plato, Phaedo, plate 13).The editor, in his introduction, dismisses the punctuation as 'erratic.' Paragraphus, for instance, seems to be used in conjunction with dicolon where there is a change of speaker, and thus it is found eight times; but in six instances, the paragraphus is omitted.Yet autopsy reveals that the paragraphus exists, in fact, in every one of these six cases. In one instance where the paragraphus is transcribed, the editor notes a middle dot used in lieu of the dicolon. But here too the transcription, not the scribe, errs: a dicolon is plain to see. And so on, as the entry in Appendix 2 clearly shows. The editing of papyri, even those of known works, is fraught with difficulties, some beyond what may immediately come to mind. Let us reconsider the two examples just given: 26 was one of an impressively substantial volume produced by Grenfell and Hunt in the eleven-month interim between excavation seasons in 1897-8; 2181 was somehow gotten out during one of the more ferocious periods of the Second World War. In such circumstances, one can see that the Logia Jesou would attract more of the editors' attention than a fragment from a known work of Demosthenes or Plato. Study of Appendix 2 will show how relatively few of the corrigenda belong to more recent and settled times. In Appendix 2 I propose probable or definite corrections for many dozens of punctuation dots, paragraphia iota-adscripts, and diacritics. Now many of these corrections are piddling enough, to be sure. Yet if we are to come to a proper understanding of

8

Introduction

the ancient book, we must first assemble the details, and (so far as is humanly possible) get them right.5 The detailed consideration of writing conventions such as punctuation and iotaadscript, while certainly part of the eventual aim of producing a detailed history of the bookroll, is beyond the scope of the project set here.There are logistical constraints, since a full treatment would swell this work far beyond the limits appointed.Yet more importantly - and here I anticipate somewhat - substantial portions of details like adscript and punctuation seem to be part of what is traditionally copied, part of the paradosis. Where that is the case, we begin to study something quite different in kind, for the investigation veers toward study of the history of the text and away from the study of scribal habits and book production. Still, one aspect of the use of writing conventions, be it use of adscript, punctuation, or division between lines, deserves immediate attention. My general observation, after a great deal of detailed study, is that these features are considerably more consistent than is commonly recognized. This does not apply to all texts, nor to all features (accentuation being the outstanding exception). But for every papyrus in the samples here collected, I have noted what one would expect if the scribe had been consistent, and have examined those locations on the papyrus; in myriad cases the missing dot or adscript or what-haveyou is either in lacuna or transcribed in error.This procedure will be seen as the genesis of Appendix 2, where a great many of the entries provide evidence of scribal consistency unrecognized by the editor. Let us not think that an ancient literary book, because it was hand-made, was a haphazard affair without any very specific notion of how it should look or how it should be written. All the evidence suggests otherwise. Obviously deliberate are the limited number of script types, and the consistent look and feel, such as the wide margins or (for prose) the narrow columns and very narrow intercolumns. Less obvious, but perhaps more telling, are subtle features such as the frequent slant to the columns and the tight spacing between lines. It is often remarked that bookhands are frequently found in documents as well as in literary rolls.6 Yet what is not so often remarked is that, in general, the overall look of a document and that of a literary roll could not be more different. When we ask ourselves what should prepare us to find any order in the sort of data here collected, the reply must be this defmiteness and constancy of form. The tradition of book production is fundamentally

5 Even so, these corrections do not always give the complete information required. Study of punctuation, for example, will necessitate knowledge of what punctuation does not exist on the papyrus. Where the punctuation is expected but not transcribed, it is unclear whether the surface of the papyrus is blank, rubbed, or missing altogether. I have compiled notes on many such details, but full presentation and analysis will have to await future work. O n e may hope that future editors will follow the lead of M.W. Haslam, w h o now consistently includes expected punctuation, with brackets where it is missing, for the known literary texts (though, unfortunately, his present system makes the presence or absence of a paragraphus sometimes ambiguous). 6 See, e.g., Roberts 1955, xi-xii.

Definition of the Project

9

conservative in almost all times and places, and it is reasonable to suspect from the outset that even subtle changes to the look of the bookroll may be the result of definable shifts in time or circumstance. 1.2 Definition of the Project The focus of this project, as mentioned, are papyri of known works published in volumes 1 to 61 of %$& Oxyrhynchus Papyri? A complete list of the papyri in this primary group, which I will refer to as 'the Oxyrhynchus sample,' can be found in Appendix 1 A. The Oxyrhynchus sample comprises 317 papyri. For purposes of comparison, I have also collected data on 96 papyri of (probably) non-Oxyrhynchite provenance. I will refer to this secondary group as 'the comparison sample'; see Appendix IB for a full listing. The comparison sample itself falls into two subgroups: (1) papyri of the Roman era, where a provenance other than Oxyrhynchus can be established; and (2) papyri that are preRoman era. (Since the Oxyrhynchus papyri are very predominantly Roman era, and the literary texts almost exclusively so, the second subgroup is likely to be also predominantly non-Oxyrhynchite.) The comparison sample will be used primarily in two ways: (1) in statistical contexts, as a check to see whether the Oxyrhynchus evidence does or does not seem to conform to what is observed in non-Oxyrhynchite Roman-era papyri; (2) as a way, using papyri from the Ptolemaic era, to get some idea of whether the Oxyrhynchus evidence does or does not seem to accord with earlier bookroll traditions. I have, over the course of the last ten years, personally examined all these papyri. I am fully aware that the controls are not what one would like. There is, for example, no way of knowing how many of the papyri excavated at Oxyrhynchus were local products, and how many were imported from elsewhere;8 the assignment of provenance for non-Oxyrhynchite examples is sometimes tenuous;9 and the number of examples in the comparison set is not as large as would be ideal. Still, the numbers are not small, and in statistical analysis the inclusion of a few false representatives will not affect the general tendencies. Also, there are interesting indications that, for the Oxyrhynchus data at least, the

7 The sample is not, however, complete for these volumes. More than a few papyri, mostly in Australia, Europe, or Cairo, could not be included because of their location. Papyri published by description in the early Oxyrhynchus volumes have generally been set aside, except that several larger Homeric fragments have been included to make the sample more representative. Finally, a small number of papyri had to be omitted because they are missing from their collections. 8 Turner and Parsons 1987, 17-18. 9 Excepting pieces from excavation, the certainty of the designation of provenance is often doubtful. An idea of the problems besetting assignment of provenance can be gained from the detective work in Harraurer andWorp 1993 (which attempts to isolate the pieces from Soknopaiou Nesos in the Vienna collection); similarly, Sijpesteijn and Worp 1993, and van Minnen 1998.

10

Introduction

sample has reached the point of statistical viability.10 With only a very few exceptions (all noted in the text), the broader sampling of data verifies the preliminary analysis of a smaller (but not insubstantial) group of papyri that saw light of day as my Yale dissertation (Johnson 1992a). The fact that a large expansion of the data in almost every case simply confirms the tendencies noticed in that pilot project makes coincidence, or tendentious misreading, far less likely. Those familiar with the dissertation will note here, in consequence, a more confident tone to conclusions in the cases where that seems warranted. A moment's reflection will show the obvious merits of the restriction to known literary works. Since the text is usually predictable within narrow limits, even very partial remains will allow substantial reconstruction of the roll. Important to that end is the simple point that the works are almost all available in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae data bank (see further under §1.3).The restriction to known works has, however, its disadvantages as well. We will see, for instance, very little of Greek lyric, though it is well represented among the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Perhaps more important for the history of the bookroll, we will see nothing of the works of later historians, commentators, and the like, which might lend important insights into differential treatment (if there was such) accorded authors belonging to the classical canon. Similarly, the exclusion of all documents will rob us of detailed evidence by which to judge how different were the rolls of these classical works from other book or book-like productions. The definition of the project is, then, restricted and, in certain ways, quite limited in scope. On the other hand, anyone who has worked through the details of large numbers of papyri will have some inkling of what an enormous and difficult undertaking even so limited a project has been. I know of no other attempt to draw together so many literary examples for analysis. Conclusions regarding the details of the bookroll are usually based on disconcertingly few examples, or, better, on the general impressions of a seasoned scholar. Kenyon, for instance, sets the 'extreme limit' of roll length at slightly over 10 metres, a rule 'well established on a wide basis of proof.' His 'wide basis of proof,' however, is 14 examples.11 Nitpicking, one might well think, except that in the event it seems that Kenyon is wrong (see §3.7). 1,3 Reconstruction of the Bookroll Some of the fragments will allow the column width or height to be measured outright. Yet even so simple a procedure may not be completely straightforward, since the papyrus can be separated or distorted in confusing ways; but such problems will be familiar to anyone 10 I will not, however, offer statistical checks on the sample (e.g., the 'chi-squared' test of goodness of fit), since the correct use of such tests in humanistic inquiry is far more difficult than is generally recognized. Cf. Greenberg 1991, 319;Wallace-Hadrill 1994,67. 11 Kenyon 1951,54-5 , who seems to be following Schubart 1921, 52-3, 177n. Schubart offers a total of five examples.

Reconstruction of the Bookroll

11

who has worked with papyri. Most of the sample is, however, too fragmentary for simple measurement, and it will be necessary to reconstruct the contents of the columns before going further. This too will be familiar to the papyrologist, who has performed such operations for many years by hand and more recently with the help of computers. What will be new about the project here is its systematic nature and, quite simply, its scale. Facility with machine-assisted techniques has allowed the reconstruction in great detail of a large number of rolls in a reasonably short time. By 'reconstruction' I do not intend anything unduly sophisticated. It is possible, of course, to program a computer to reconstruct a column in accordance with the particularities of a given hand. One would need to record the characteristics of each letter in the script, particularly the typical size and horizontal spacing, and to simulate the accumulation of letters in each line of text. A demonstration of such a technique, based on digitization of the letters by optical scanning, was offered by Robert Kraft at the 1989 meeting of the American Philological Association.12 Yet for large-scale accumulations of data such techniques have serious drawbacks. Relying as they do on the digitization of a script sample, there is both the necessity for a plate or photograph of each papyrus and a great deal of time involved in the scanning itself. Nor is it clear that such techniques will be as precise as they seem for broad statistical comparisons.The variations from letter to letter, line to Une, and column to column will, over a larger scale, belie the sort of accuracy that such techniques seem to promise (see further at §2.4). In the interests of efficiency, I have therefore adopted the following techniques. All of these have been tested over a broad array of examples to ensure tolerable accuracy. Column width. Where the full width of column cannot be measured directly, a set of measurements is taken to estimate the average character cell. For each partially extant line, I measure the width in millimetres from the start of the first extant letter to the start of the last extant letter in the line. Every line is measured for small fragments; for larger fragments a sample of 10 to 20 lines (depending on how much of the line survives) is taken. The total of these measurements is divided by the total number of characters to give the average character cell. This technique has the great merit that it works with surprising accuracy regardless of the script, since it delivers an average that is already weighted, to large extent, in accordance with the actual frequency of letters. Small samples of this sort, it is true, may sometimes exhibit letter frequencies that do not well match those of the text as a whole. But in general the match is good to excellent. Tests have shown that this simple and fast technique lends itself to much better than expected precision.

12 The software was developed in collaboration with Jay Treat for the CATS S project at the University of Pennsylvania. Kraft and Treat's program resulted in hard copy of the simulated column, which of course could be useful for certain purposes. But in order to accumulate data on column dimensions and the like, it is not in fact necessary for the computer to know anything of the actual shapes of letters, but merely how many of them in a given sequence will fit into a line.

12

Introduction

For partially preserved prose texts, I multiply the average character cell by the average line length for the column. Before that can be calculated, it is necessary first to lay out the fragment with the missing parts of the text disposed in a way that is consistent with the physical remains of the papyrus and the scribes habits in matters such as division between lines, scriptio plena, use of iota-adscript, and the like. I accomplish this by reformatting the text from the Tlxesaurus Linguae Graecae data bank. A software program I have developed removes accents, punctuation, and other aspects of the modern edition, adds (or not) iotaadscript and the like in accordance with the particular text, and realigns the text to the narrower columns of the papyrus; other software facilitates a number of tasks related to editing and checking the text. What results is a machine-readable text much as it is printed in the Oxyrhynchus volumes. Working from this text, a program then delivers the average letters per line for each column. For partially preserved verse texts, the column width is calculated by a rough average of the letters per line in a given author. (Homer and Hesiod are calculated at 36 letters per line where adscript is written, 35.5 where it is not; Apollonius is calculated at 35.5 with adscript, 35 without; drama is calculated on the basis of the average trimeter line, thus 30 letters with adscript, 29.5 without.) Column height. Where the full height of the column does not survive (the usual case), the column height must be calculated wherever possible. In order to calculate the height, the following information is required: lines in the column, average vertical space from line to line (leading), letter height.The calculation is made according to the formula: Column height = ([lines per column - &] 2 leading) + letter height The average leading is determined by taking the maximum number of continuously surviving lines within a given column and measuring from the base of the top line to the base of the bottom. This figure is then divided by the number of lines. I measure the letter height by using a metric-scale attachment (increment = 0.1 mm) on a Bausch and Lomb Lenscope magnifier. The measurement is made from top of letters such as " % to the base line (the two lines ofTurner s 'bilinear' scripts), estimated to the nearest quarter millimetre. The number of lines in a partial column can only be calculated where one of the following conditions exists. (1) More than one column exist in succession, either with a physical join between the fragments or with extant margins. (2) A margin occurs close enough to the start of the work to set the column length. (3) So many small fragments exist that the column divisions can be defined by the elimination of possible alternatives. All of these conditions exist in the sample, but the last two are uncommon. Where, for instance, the tops of two columns survive in succession, one needs to figure out how many lines are missing from the bottom of the first column. This is done by computing the number of letters missing (taking into account &ota-adscript and the like) and dividing these by the average number of letters per line in the extant part of that column.

Reconstruction of the Bookroll

13

(I in fact create a line-by-line transcription of the missing area, since this both helps the visualization of the column, which cuts down on errors, and facilitates subsequent computations, placement of fragments, and so forth.) It cannot be stressed too much that the missing text must be reconstructed column by column, and not on the basis of gross averages. Consider but two examples among a great many. In 2096 col, " (Herodotus 1), the editor notes three lines lost following line 19.The missing text totals 59 letters, thus an average of 19.7 letters per line if three lines, 14.75 if four lines. Now in general 17 letters per line is typical for this rolL But this column, as it happens, averages 14.9 letters per line; thus four lines is far more probable. Similarly, in 3675 (Plato, Leg,), the editors calculation of 34 to 35 lines per column is based on an average of the letters per line for the two columns. The editor rightly states that the overall average is just over 17' letters per line, but the column to be reconstructed shows just under 18. Thus, 33 to 34 lines is the better assumption. A detailed account of the basis for reconstructing each column would be impractical, but some of the more complex examples are discussed in Appendix 2. An impression of the techniques and difficulties involved can be gained through a study of the examples discussed in Appendix 3. Roll length. Where a full column can be reconstructed, an estimate for the length of the roll can be got from dividing the total letters for the work (or book, if a multi-volume work) by the average number of letters in a column. The letter count is derived from the TLG text with adjustments for addition or not of iota-adscript, again making use of specialized software. These techniques, as I have said, are designed to deliver tolerably accurate estimations with enough efficiency to create a statistically viable sample within a reasonable time. The methods, though streamlined, are not, I think, crude. Some confirmation of the procedure may be found in the case of 2181 (Plato, Phaedo). The reconstruction of the many columns in that extensive papyrus preceded work on the unplaced fragments. Later a goodly number of the unplaced fragments were located using searching software. Twice during that process a reconstructed column division was found to match exactly an extant margin on a previously unlocated fragment (frr. 55, 60).

This page intentionally

left blank

C H A P T E R TWO

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

2.0 Prologue: The Importance of Case Studies Before any sort of statistical analysis can be attempted, prior questions at once confront us. To what extent are the particular features of a bookroll the result of scribal habit and the conventions of the time, and to what extent are these features governed by the exemplar from which the copy is made? When a scribe copies from his exemplar, what exactly does he copy? Is it the letters only, or does he copy also the punctuation? Do orthographic features like iota-adscript derive solely from the model, or does the scribe regularize the usage as he goes? As for the format, does the scribe copy line by line from the exemplar? If so, does he also then copy column by column? Such questions are basic to any analysis. For example, if we believe that copies are made line by line from the antigraph, then it will be appropriate, in the statistical analysis, to look at letters per line rather than the physical widths of columns, for the physical width would be no more or less than a function of the letter count. That is, the letter count would be passed on in the copy, and we would be analysing neither the habits of particular scribes nor the formal fashions of the age, but the widths, by letter count, which became dominant or popular in the various textual traditions. We must in short be as clear as possible what we are studying. Is a particular feature likely to be an inheritance, and thus general to one tradition of a given work, at least over a certain period? Or is the feature a convention to which the scribe freely adapts the material he is copying? Both matters will be of interest, but we must be clear which is which. A second set of questions is likewise fundamental. Given the fact that the literary roll is a handwritten document, what sort of variation might we expect to find? Regarding features such as punctuation and writing of adscript, is there enough consistency of usage to speak intelligently of systems and conventions? Or is the addition of such lectional aids

16

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

whimsical and idiosyncratic? In this one case, I will simply assert that lectional signs are typically used in a more or less systematic fashion, and defer specific demonstration to future work. But in the case of formal features, a detailed answer is necessarily prior. What degree of variation should we expect? Will the width of columns in a roll vary by 5%, 10%, or 50%? This must be answered, however roughly, before attempting an analysis. For the grouping into types will only be valid if the types are separated by more than the variation we expect within a roll. That is, if one thinks to see a width 'type' centring around a column width of 5.0 cm, and a new 'type' centring around 5.5 cm, the delineation will hardly make sense if, say, a 15% variation within a roll is normal. One might fairly object that the questions are too baldly put. It is unlikely, for instance, that a given feature is always an inheritance and never the result of scribal interference; even within a given manuscript, the same features can sometimes be copied and sometimes added at the scribes own instigation.Yet one can nonetheless make a start, focusing upon what, if any, is the usual case. To attempt some sort of answer, I propose to work through a series of case studies. As is natural in the study of particular examples, we will find that the results are more suggestive than conclusive. Sometimes we will follow where the evidence leads only to find an impasse. Still, the examples are both numerous and multifarious enough to present, I think, a sound set of suggestions for further analysis. Four areas of investigation are promising and will be the subject here. (§2.1, 2.2) A comparison of techniques and habits in cases where more

than one roll is written by the same scribe. Does a given scribe write to one format or many, does he use one system of punctuation for all works, or vary work by work? That is, does he show the sort of uniformity from roll to roll we expect if the formats and conventions were Iiis own, or does he show the sort of variation we expect if the formats and conventions are copied from a variety of models? (§2.2.1) Investigation of changes of format within a roll. If a scribe writes to a conventional standard of format, or, for that matter, if he copies the format of his exemplar, how does one explain violent shifts of format in mid-roll? (§2.3) Inferences from scribal error. What can be inferred about the format of the exemplar from mechanical errors in the copying? In this section we will also look at papyri that contain the exact same text to see if there is any evidence for close relatives among the manuscripts within a given tradition. (§2.4) Analysis of the degree of uniformity and variation within a bookroll Considering only the best-preserved manuscripts, what sort of variation shows up in column width and height, intercolumn, and so forth? What does the variation or its lack tell us in turn about scribal practice? 2 A A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls In almost fifty cases, multiple rolls have been identified as the product of a given scribe. These are collected in table 2.1 at the end of this chapter. Some of the identifications are

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

17

doubtful, and others comprise scraps of small extent or uncertain content. I have therefore selected twenty-one scribes whose fragments are extensive enough to yield some evidence, and whose location has allowed a detailed examination.1 In the survey that follows I will attend in particular to the scribe's tendencies to uniformity or variation from roll to roll. Where a practice is uniform between different works, the presumption will be that the scribe follows his own standard; where varying, that the scribe takes over the features of his several models. Note that these are not the only possible interpretations of the evidence; the particular needs of a customer might, for instance, govern the format and the presence or absence of lectional signs. 2.1.1 Scribe #A1 (844 Isocrates, Panegyricus; 1246 Thucydides, 7; ?767 Homer, Iliad 11) late 2nd cent. AD. The

attribution of 767 to this scribe, though possible, is doubtful. Too little remains to be certain, but several small variations in letter forms (as the top of 8, the right arm of 3, the top of $, and the central vertical of 4) argue against it. On the other hand, style and use of serifs is very similar. All three papyri, moreover, exhibit closely similar leading and letter height, and all are written on papyrus of like quality: a fairly good front surface, with a back surface that is much inferior. But the identification of 767 remains dubious, and that papyrus will be considered no further. The column width of 844 and 1246 is remarkably similar: ranging from 5.75 to 6.05 cm for 844, compared with about 5.7 cm for 1246; the column-to-column width, about 8.1 cm for 844, is unknown for 1246. Though, as commonly, it is difficult to say with certainty what of the punctuation is original, the method of punctuation is clearly different. In 844, the paragraphus is used in conjunction with a slight accompanying space to mark a full stop. In all but one instance (line 378) that space contains a dot written high in the line, which appears to be written by the text hand; a second pen has also added a number of low, middle, and high dots at lesser pauses in the text. In 1246, the paragraphus is also used to mark a full stop, but there is no space at that point in the text: the dots, which may well be by the original pen, are written above the letters. The signs of later addition and correction abundant in 844 are not found in 1246. 2.1.2 Scribe #A2 (2373 Boeotian lyric verse; 2404+PLaur inv. III/278 Aeschines, in Ctesiphontemj 2nd cent. AD.

Many points of comparison are inoperative due to the exiguous remains of 2373. (I have not been able to examine PSI IX 1090 or PLaur inv. III/278.) Of correspondences: both 1 Fragments associated with a given scribe that I have not been able to examine are for the most part omitted from the survey; consult table 2.1 for the complete listing of the papyri assigned to each scribe.

18

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

2373 and 2404 are written on papyrus of very good quality; both slope leftward at the left margin, observing Maass Law (though 2373 slopes, it appears, rather more strongly); both are punctuated by high dots apparently written by the original scribe (the single low dot in 2404 is added by a different pen). The most noticeable difference is the size of the script: 2373 is considerably larger, with the average character measuring in millimeters about 4.6 2 3.1 (w 2 h) on 6.3 leading as against 2404, whose average character occupies 3.5 2 2.6 mm on 5.0 leading. The larger script will have its consequences for letter and line counts in the column, but, since a full column cannot be reconstructed for 2373, no more can be said. The many accents and breathings added by the original hand of 2373 are unexampled in 2404, whose lone accent is added apparently by a second hand; this comes however as no great surprise, for 2373 contains Boeotian verse, while 2404 is the prose of Aeschines. Judging from the style of correction and the script, the busy corrector of 2404 is probably not the same corrector as that of 2373. Yet both correctors go beyond simple collation against the antigraph. The corrector of 2404 adds six variant readings in two columns; the sole adjustment in 2373 (fr. 3) is a correction to proper Boeotian orthography (- (5+0 changed to - (#6+^). The unusual number of variant readings in 2404 and the eclectic nature of the Boeotian verse in 2373 and PSI IX 1090 (Erinna) all suggest intellectually refined readers. The two different correctors argue against facile assignment of these texts to a single scholarly owner; one wonders, but cannot prove, whether the papyri were commissioned for use in some sort of readers' group. 2-· 3 Scribe #A3 (1249 Babrius; of the Aeschylean papyri, 2178 Agamemnon, 2179 Septem contra Thebas, 2161 Diktyulkoi, 2162 Theoroi or Isthmiastai, 2245 Prometheus?j 2nd or early 3rd cont. AD.2 Lobel credits this copyist with a large number of fragments from various plays ofAeschylus, as well as a small piece from the fables of Babrius. The often scrappy remains cast doubt on how many plays are represented, but Lobel identifies eight at least tentatively, and subsequent scholars have suggested several additional identifications. Only large fragments or those of extant works are considered here, as listed above; for a complete list see table 2.1.3 The size and layout of line and column for the Aeschylean fragments is so remarkably similar that the conclusion of a set of matching rolls seems inescapable. All the fragments use very good, and strikingly similar, papyrus; the size of script and leading shows only

2 O f the Babrius fragment Hunt wrote that it 'can hardly be put later than the end of the second century, and may easily be appreciably earlier.' Luzzatto and La Penna demur, dating the Babrius fragment to the early third century: see Luzzatto and La Penna 1986, xxix. Lobel ascribes the Aeschylean fragments to the second century without comment. 3 Krügers assignment (Krüger 1990,193) of 3677 to this copyist results from his misinterpretation, I think, of a confusing introductory statement by the POxy editor.The hand is not in any case the same.

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

19

slight variation between fragments; the text at all measurable left margins slopes leftward about 3-4 degrees. Three columns are preserved from top to bottom, and all contain 34 lines; 2161 col. i measures 14.9 cm, 2161 col. ii 15.0 cm, 2162 fr 1(a) col. i 14.9 cm. From this last column one can also take a horizontal measurement, 14.2 cm from column to column, which compares with the estimate of *14.0 cm calculated for 2161. The happy concurrence is somewhat upset by the column-to-column width of 2245 fr. 1 col. ii, which measures 12.5 cm, but this width depends upon an intercolumnar join made solely by matching the fibre patterns, a dangerous basis for any conclusion about column construction.4 Upper and lower margins are fully preserved or nearly so in several instances: the upper margins vary from 4.8 to 5.4 cm, the lower from 6.5 to 6.8.The total height of the papyrus, measured at 27.1 cm for 2161 and 26.6 for 2162, appears therefore more or less constant. The general concinnity in the layout of the text is quite deliberate: two of the three largest fragments, and probably also the third, contain dots apparently intended to mark the top left of each column (see further at §§3.1.2, 3.1.3). As for textual matters, one again finds much harmony: in the use of adscript, the indentation of lyric verses, the occasional intrusion of an itacism. But not so in the employment of lectional signs — despite the apparent fact of a set of matching rolls of Aeschylus. The substantial remains in 2161 and 2162 contain no use of punctuation dots and no (2161) or rare (2162) use of diacritics; on the other hand, high dots and diacritics are added liberally in 2245. The remaining fragments, including those excluded from the survey, seem to show a like dichotomy (though the slim remains often make a definite conclusion impossible). Papyrus 2164, for example, contains much in the way of accent and punctuation, as do 2246,2253,2254; but 2179, from an extant work, does not have punctuation in the expected locations. The natural assumption will be that the punctuation dots and diacritics were a later addition, and in places (2164 is a good example) this appears the case. Yet the situation, as often, is not clear. A few of the punctuation dots appear original, given the spacing around them: thus at 2160 fr. 3 line 5, for example. Many of the diacritics appear, so far as one can tell, by the same pen and hand as the text, as in 2245 and 2253. Still, in general, the text has the look of one where a few accents and dots are original, with additional lectional marks freely added, in some plays or sections of plays, by a reader or readers. The Babrius fragment, 1249, conforms, as far as it goes, to what is found in the Aeschylean fragments. Size of script and leading is very similar; the text at the left slopes leftward 4-5°; no punctuation or accents appear; the use of paragraphus and ekthesis to mark a new fable is akin to the treatment of lyric (in eisthesis from the trimeter) and of strophe/ antistrophe (marked by paragraphus) in the Aeschylean fragments. The papyrus itself, however, is of considerably lower quality; the front is only somewhat inferior, but the back 4 Cf. Johnson 1992b.

20

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

(which in the Aeschylean fragments almost matches the quality of the front) is quite coarse. Unfortunately, too little remains to deduce column or roll size. 2.1.4 Scribe #A5 (1092 Herodotus, 2 [plate 3]; 2297 Alcaeus; 3213 Dork lyric verses; 3676 Plato, Phd. [plate 4]; 3710 Commentary on Odyssey 20 [plate 5]) late 2nd or early 3rd cent. AD.5 T h e fortunate

survival of three substantial prose pieces allows definite comparisons of column height and width, the results of which are of first importance. The column widths for the extant pieces, 1092 (Herodotus) and 3676 (Plato), are almost exactly the same, measuring 4.4-4.6 cm. But the script in 3676 is substantially larger than that in 1092 (1.9 2 2.0 mm [w 2 h] for 1092,2.25 2 2.5 mm for 3676), and the scribe must write several fewer characters per line to manage the same width (20 letters per line for 3676 compared with nearly 24 for 1092). The intercolumn likewise measures quite exactly 2.0 cm for both papyri. The coincidence in widths is all the more striking in light of the third surviving prose text by this scribe. Papyrus 3710, a commentary on the Odyssey, has the same 2.0-cm intercolumn found in 1092 and 3676, but the column width is considerably wider, 5.6-5.8 cm.There is no evidence for ruling or alignment dots in any of the examples, but the natural conclusion is surely that the columns for the rolls containing Herodotus and Plato (1092 and 3676) were measured to a fixed size, while the commentary (3710) was either measured to a different size or written without measuring.The motivation for the difference in treatment lies, I suspect, in the less formal nature of a commentary,6 and I should think it most likely that the scribe simply left off the laborious blocking of columns to speed up the copying. Analysis of the height of column and roll tells, however, a different story. Despite similar leading between lines, the overall height and number of lines per column exhibit no similarity: POxy

Lines/column

C o l u m n height (cm)

Leading ( m m )

1092 (Hdt.)

39-41

163

40

3676 (Pl.)

about 48

about *19

4.1

3710 (Od. comm.)

at least 55

at least 22.9

4.2

The difference in column height very likely reflects variation in the height of the roll.The margins appear complete for 1092 (3.0 cm above, 3.3-3.4 below), thus the full height seems to have been about 23.0 cm. Papyrus 3710 cannot conform to this height, and 3676 would have had unusually narrow margins to do so. Punctuation exhibits a good deal of variety, though there is no reason to suspect a hand other than the original (only in 3676 is there any real doubt). In 1092 (Herodotus) the 5 Funghi and Savorelli 1992a, 76 date to the first half of the third century. 6 See Turner 1980, chapter 7.

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

21

high dot is used, both alone and with the paragraphus, and a similar system underlies the poetic fragments (2297,3213) though medial and low dot are also occasionally employed. But in 3676 (Plato) the scribe uses a three-level system (dicolon, high dot, low dot), while in the Homeric commentary (3710) he uses blank spaces, with and without the paragraphus, to articulate the text. For this scribe, at least, the punctuation seems mostly or totally inherited from the exemplar. The usual correspondences obtain: all of the papyri are of similar quality papyrus, in this case very good quality; adscript is written; Maas's law is observed, though the degree of leftward drift varies quite a bit. Accents are rare on the prose texts, frequent in the poetic texts; diaeresis is usually written on initial iota, usually not on initial upsilon. In 2297, the scribe leaves an uncommonly wide intercolumn (of about 5 cm) to accommodate the scholia he has added. The Homeric commentary and the Doric verses also suggest that the scribe is copying at least some of these rolls for one or more scholarly readers. 2.1.5 Scribe #A6 (1809 Plato, Phd.; 2076, 2288 Sappho) late 1st or early 2nd cent, AD7 The fragments of

Sappho are too scanty to derive much profit from the comparison. Of physical features: all three pieces are on remarkably similar and very good papyrus; one of the Sappho pieces (2288) is written in a considerably smaller script on smaller leading while 1809 and 2076 are roughly comparable. Among other features, the punctuation is worth attention. In the Plato fragment (1809) the points appear original and part of the paradosis: a three-point system (dicolon, high dot, middle dot) is employed with noticeable spacing about the dots. The treatment is quite different in the Sappho fragments, where the points (all middle dots) seem a later addition since they lack accompanying space and are sometimes awkwardly positioned (twice interfering with the previous letter in 2076 line 8).The marginal scholia in 1809 and in 2076 are by the same hand, and possibly, as Hunt thought, the text scribe in a more cursive aspect (though I find the attribution doubtful). The heavy use of scholia and the interest in Sappho seem to imply a scholarly reader. 2.1.6 Scribe #A7 (231 Demosthenes, de Corona [plate 1]; 1619 Herodotus, 3 [plate 2]; 2313 Archilochus) late 2nd

cent. AD. A comparison of the two prose fragments offers another striking coincidence in column width, for both measure 7.1—7.2 cm. The agreement holds despite a slight difference between the two in script size and hence in the letters per line (25.5 for 231, 24 for 1619). As for column height, the considerable variation in leading among and even within the three rolls need not suggest a variation in physical measure; we simply do 7 O n the date see Turner-Parsons 1987,48.

22

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

not know. All three are written on good or very good papyrus; and the papyrus used in 1619 and 2313 is remarkably similar. In all three rolls iota-adscript is written by the usual rules. Equally striking are differences in the use of lectional signs. In 1619 punctuation is effected by blank space and the paragraphus (disregarding a very few scattered dots added by a reader); in 231 the scribe employs a three-level system of dots (high, middle, low) along with the paragraphus; in 2313, the situation is less clear, but a dicolon occurs, along with high and middle dots.The dots all appear original (with the exception noted), though one cannot rule out the possibility that original blanks were later filled in by dots in a similar ink. If original, as I think, one naturally infers that the scribe copied the punctuation from his exemplar. He may well have copied accents and elision marks, too, for a similar contrast is found there. In 231 the original scribe adds several accents in a few lines, yet initial 3 goes unmarked seven times; in the extensive remains of 1619, by contrast, there are only two rough breathings, but diaeresis is twice added to initial 3 (and goes unmarked only where initial 3 is also line initial). A similar contrast is discernible in the scribes use of elision marks, though here the number of examples is too few to be conclusive: elision is never marked over the extent of 231 and 1619, while the fragments of 2313 contain several elision signs. That the scribe copies movable nu from his exemplar appears very likely, as we should expect: for in 231 and 2313 he writes it, more or less, by the customary rules, but in 1619raw-movableis consistently omitted in the way we learn to expect in papyri of Herodotus. Yet even here one cannot be certain. The omission of raw-movable in Herodotus is, after all, a special case. The scribe was in any event not above systematic adjustment of the text in conflict with the exemplar, for he twice corrects %*-) ( to the (otherwise unattested) Ionic form %*-2 (.7^ the many fragments of 1619 contain no further evidence for collation against another copy, I infer that the scribe came upon this form (perhaps later in the same book) and went back through the text to make the spelling consistent. In both 1619 and 2313, scholiastic marginalia of some sort survive, added, apparently, by different hands. 2-.7 Scribe #A17 (2321 Anacreon; 2693 Apollonius Rhodius, 3) early 2nd cent. AD.Whzt

remains is too scrappy

to allow for much inference in matters of format. Correspondences of note include the quality of papyrus, which is very similar between the two, and the consistent addition of /ota-adscript. Both manuscripts are annotated with scholia, in each case probably by at least two hands distinct from the text hand; though little is preserved, nothing seems to indicate a coincidence of scholiasts between the two texts. That the text scribe wrote almost all punctuation dots is strongly suggested by ink and point, placement of the dots (in a middle-high to high position in the line), and the slight

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

23

spacing around mid-line punctuation. At line end the dots are separated by a full character space in 2321, and, though not so exaggerated, a similar tendency is evident in 2693. Most if not all of the many accents in 2321 have been added by a later hand in a brownish ink. In neither text was diaeresis added to initial $ or 3, but the opportunities are few. The method of punctuation is remarkably consistent, and certainly the spacing of dots at line end may be attributed to the scribes individual style; but nothing precludes the possibility that the punctuation is copied from the exemplar. The presence of annotations in several hands may, here as elsewhere, imply a scholastic context, though it is also possible that the roll was owned by a succession of scholarly readers. 2.1.8 Scribe #A19 (2430 Choral lyric in the Doric dialect [Simonides?]; 2327 Early elegiacs; 2318 Iambic trimetersf?] in the Ionic dialect; 2389 Commentary on Alcman; 2397 Commentary on Iliad 17) 2nd cent, AD.

These scrappy if numerous remains of three unknown poetic works and two commentaries are clearly in the same hand. Whether the same scribe wrote 2694 (Apollonius Rhodius) is, however, disputed (see table 2.1); since that papyrus is currently missing from the Ashmolean collection, no more can be said. The group shares several features.The papyrus surface itself, in all cases of (apparently) good to very good quality, is often noticeably similar from text to text. (In all cases, the back of the papyrus is not accessible.) The poetic texts are laid out with unusually large intercolumns (c. 3-4 cm for 2430; c. 4 cm for 2327), apparently to accommodate the marginal annotations. The intercolumns for the (subliterary) commentaries are narrow, as is usual for a prose text, but unusually variable from column to column (ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 for 2389, and 1,2 to 2.0 for 2397). Annotations for the three poetic texts are all at least plausibly by the same hand (and a hand different from that of the scribe); the annotations in the Alcman commentary are too exiguous for fair judgment, but perhaps are also by that same hand. In two of the poetic texts (2430,2318) a few accents have been added in a different ink, perhaps a second pen or (given affinities in the stroke) by the scribe in a second pass. All (except the Iliadic commentary, too fragmentary to measure) show a slight tilt right (1—2°) to the column, in accordance with Maas's Law. The punctuation employed in these fragments shows interesting points of agreement and disagreement. The poetic texts are all punctuated by slight spaces of half to two-thirds of a character in width; similarly, the prose commentaries, though there the spaces are sometimes as wide as a full character space (and once fully 2-3 spaces: 2389, line 35). (The punctuation spaces are only sporadically noted by the editors.) Dots accompanying the spaces are, however, various: none in the two commentaries; in 2327 added by a second hand only at line end, and (oddly) at some remove; also added only at line end in 2318, but tight against the text; in 2430 added both mid-line and at line end, usually in a position above the letters and sometimes added also where no punctuating space was left by the

24

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

scribe. In the last two cases, it is impossible to say whether the scribe or a second pen is at work, but the situation certainly has the overall appearance of a scribe routinely using space to punctuate the text, and later readers adding dots to clarify. Unfortunately, the fragments are too small to allow measurement of formal features like column width and height. 2.1.9 Scribe #A20 (1604 Pindar, Dithyrambs; 2445 Pindar?, Dithyrambs? [same roll as 1604?]; 1788 Alcaeus?; 2446 Pindar, Hyporchemata; ?2443 Alcman) late 2nd or early 3rd cent. AD. Funghi and

Savorelli 1992b claim 2443 (Alcman) for this scribe, but the common 'severe' style and scanty fragments make the identification difficult at best; not much grist for the mill here in any case. The other fragments here listed, though securely identified as by the same hand, are also too scrappy to yield much. About all that can be said of formal features is that the columns are written with a decided tilt forwards (of about 4°); but 2446 and 2443 are too fragmentary to allow even that conclusion. None are extensive enough to allow comparison of features like column width and height. Characteristic of all these papyri is that they have been heavily worked over by multiple hands. Papyri 1604,1788, and 2445 all have frequent annotations; and all show signs of the addition of various lectional marks. In two of the papyri (1604 and 2445), a slight space is sometimes left by the scribe for punctuation, and in these cases the accompanying dot appears the work of the copyist. But in all the manuscripts punctuation is also added above the line in the manner of a later addition, and in 1604,2445, and 2446, some punctuation dots have a difference in ink suggestive of a different hand. Similarly, the trema on initial 3, $ looks to be by the original scribe in almost all cases, while the frequent accents and breathings have every appearance of a later addition; where one can tell (especially 1604), the ink does not appear to match that of the annotator. The annotator for 1604 and 1788 is certainly the same; a similar hand is responsible for the annotations in 2445, which are however too scanty to allow a clear judgment. Lobel mooted the possibility that 1604 and 2445,both apparently Pindaric, are one and the same roll; no evidence points to a lyric collection able to comprise the likes of 1788, but such cannot be entirely ruled out. The surface of these papyri is not noticeably similar, though all appear to be of good quality On the identification of this scribe with Scribe #A30, see below at §2.1.13. 2.1.10 Scribe #A24 (1364 Antiphon Sophistes, 8$*# 6-9 :;-1$#(9; 2077 Sophocles, Nauplius?; 2452 Sophocles [or Euripides?], Theseus; 2889 Aeschines Socraticus, Miltiades; 3215 Tragedy; ?3683 Leon?,

Halcyonj late 2nd or early 3rd cent.AD.The abundance of material here is illusory, since the

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

25

lack of extant works and the mostly slim remains offer little to compare. I have been able to examine the extensive fragments of 1364 only by photograph. As regards physical measurements: 2889 and 3683 contain about 12 letters per line, but as 3683 is slightly more compressed laterally, physical measurements do not concur; the association of 3683 with this scribe is in any case doubtful. The calculated width for 2889 (Aeschines Socr.) at *4.9 agrees, however, with the ~4.7 measured for 1364 (Antiphon).The column height of 3215 can be measured at 12.3 cm (20 lines per column), which matches neither that of 2077, whose 25 extant lines calculate to a minimum of 15 cm, nor the 17—17.5 cm and 33 lines measured for 1364. The script size is more or less constant, excepting the dubious 3683. Leading, however, is variable, at 6 mm or more for 2077 and 3215 (and 3683), but closer to 5 mm for 2452 and 2889. Of interest will be the use of adscript, which appears to be written in the usual fashion in 2077, 2889, 3215, and 1364), but in 2452 is usually omitted and added by, apparently, the second hand. (Adscript is also once added by the second hand in 3215.) Punctuation dots are mostly added above the line, but by what hand is difficult to say. The slight space allowed for dots in 2889 argues for the first hand there, and the dots in 2452 also appear original; the others are more questionable, including 1364, where roughly half the dots fall at a slight space in the text and half not. In 2077 and 1364 low and middle dots seem to be distinguished. All are written on rather coarse papyrus; 3683 (which, again, may not belong) is written on the coarse back of an agricultural account. The extensive and learned annotations in 2077, 2452, and 3215, as well as the rather eclectic nature of all these texts, suggest readers of some sophistication. Note that the scholia, for 2452 and 3215 at least, are by different hands. 2.1.11 Scribe #A25 (2495 Hesiod, Catalogus mulierum, <=3,+9 ): +9; 3220 Hesiod, Erga, Aspisj 2nd cent. AD. The assignment of these fragments to a single hand is by no means certain.There are minor differences in treatment of $ c, but of common letters 3 is consistently distinct and the uncommon letters > 5 ? 2 are all quite different. Given the variation within 2495 of . (two forms), the differences between odd letters may not be decisive, but 3 is quite different and consistently so. In general 2495 presents a more 'loopy' aspect. Even so, the scripts are superficially very like and one cannot, I suppose, rule out the possibility that these are the product of one scribe writing the rolls under different conditions, such as at different times of life. Given the uncertainties, a detailed comparison is inappropriate. There are no coincidences or differences in format or features that argue very strongly either for or against the identification.

26

Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity of the Literary R o l l

2.1.12 Scribe #A28 (Î806 Theocritus; 3325 Moschus) late 1st cent. AD. Despite the negative opinion of M.E.

Weinstein in the introduction to 3325, the differences between the two scripts are superficial, and I regard the identification as certain. The characters in 1806 are somewhat smaller and on slightly longer leading, and are written with a sharper pen; but the details of the script match exactly (cf., e.g., the treatment of , and the top oft). I agree, however, with the editor's opinion that 3325 is not likely from the same roll as 1806: the different leading (6.05 mm for 3325 versus 6.55 for 1806) as well as the different number of lines per column (25 versus 30-1) results in a wide difference in height of column (*14.9 cm8 versus *19.4). Punctuation systems differ: in 3325 middle dots are written at line end wherever we expect them; 1806, despite one middle dot, is generally unpunctuated. Moveable nu is written at line end in both papyri, even where the following line begins in a consonant. The papyrus itself is very similar for both fragments, with a good quality front and a much coarser back. 2.1-3 Scribe #A30 (1787 Sappho, Book 4; 2442 Pindar, Hymns, Paians, etc.,) late 2nd or early 3rd cent. AD.

Following Hunt (ad 1788) and Lobel (by implication ad 2442 and 2445), and contra Funghi and Savorelli 1992b, I do not believe that this scribe is the same as #A20. Aside from the general question of the look and feel' of the script, which is close but not exact in what is after all a common style, the ductus differs for several letter forms, especially 5 (and less seriously " 3). Moreover, the form of the coronis in 1787 and 2442 does not match that appearing in 1788 and (in partial form) in 1604. One could argue that the coronis shape is copied from the antigraph, but in that case the identity of coronis in only those papyri whose hands are most obviously the same would be an extraordinary coincidence. The two rolls (if they are such, and not fragments of a single poetic collection) seem to be written to similar widths, or at least one can say that the column-to-column width of 2442, measured at ~15.7 cm, matches that roughly estimated for 1787, at about 14.5-16 cm (based on a column width of ~~12-13 cm and intercolumn of ~~2.5-3 cm, which however appear separately). The column tilt forwards matches, at about 2°. Other formal features are indeterminable. Both are punctuated by the original scribe (high dots internal to the line are accompanied by a slight space and appear to be in the same ink as the text), but both also show signs

8 The editor ot 3325 wrongly estimates 22 cm for the column height, by which he apparently intends the roll height. M y calculation is based on a column of 25 lines at 6.05 mm leading with a letter height of 4 m m (.4 + [24 . .605] = 14.9 cm).

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

41

of later additions to the punctuation (dots appearing above the line without accompanying space have ink of different appearance in 1787, and possibly also in 2442). Accents and breathings are liberally applied, and while most are written by the copyist, some are clearly the work of a different pen (in the case of 2442, perhaps by two different pens). 2442 is heavily annotated by at least two, and possibly three, hands (I do not share Lobel's confidence that one of these matches the copyist), a characteristic not shared by 1787. 2.1.14 Scribe #A31 (3839 Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae; PMich inv. 6035 Aristophanes, Equitesj late 2nd or

early 3rd cent. AD. I have examined the Michigan piece only by photograph. From the photograph, Turner's identification of the hands (reported by Cockle ad 3839) seems convincing. Formal scripts (here'biblical majuscule') demand caution, since they are more regular from hand to hand, but the exact correspondence of particulars, including not only letter shapes (such as the slightly idiosyncratic mu) but size, spacing, and the like, is to my eye persuasive.The fact that both pieces derive from excavation, 3839 from Oxyrhynchus and PMich inv. 60359 from Karanis, makes the identification unusually interesting and important. I see, however, no good reason to assume, as does the POxy editor (W. Cockle), that the scribe worked somewhere other than Oxyrhynchus or Karanis. Unfortunately, the papyri are too fragmentary to yield much by way of comparison. Of physical features aside from the script, one can compare only the lower margin — in both cases 6.0 cm, but since neither is indubitably complete, that may be coincidental. As for matters of scribal convention: in both, change of speaker is marked (as is usual) with a paragraphus, and in both the original scribe does not appear to have added dots or spaces to punctuate the text (the several dots in 3839 are squeezed above or in between letters, and look to be later additions). The accents, breathings, and corrections in the PMich piece, which are not characteristic of 3839, may also be additions; but from a photograph sure judgment is impossible, nor does the published edition (Hendricks 1969) offer an opinion. 2.1.15 Scribe #A33 (3882+PSI XI 1195 Thucydides, 1; 2466 (+3319?) Sesonchosis Romance; PSI XVII Congr. 12 Demosthenes, Philippica iv; ?3894 Thucydides, 3; ?2630 Choral lyric) early 3rd cent. AD. The

first three of these papyri are clearly by the same hand, and survive in sufficient extent to allow detailed comparison. In most respects, these papyri demonstrate a variety of striking agreements, despite the fact that the bookrolls comprised three different prose genres (history, romance, oratory). Agreement in format: 3882+PSI XI 1195 (Thucydides) and 2466 (Sesonchosis 9 Published in Hendricks 1969.

28

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

romance) both measure a column width of 8.2 cm, an intercolumn of 1.8 cm, and a column-to-column width of 10.0 cm. PSI XVII Congr. 12 (Demosthenes), which I have examined only by photograph, measures (according to the editor, and confirmed by the photograph) c. 8 cm for the column width, c. 2 cm for the intercolumn, and c. 10 cm for the column-to-column width. But while widths match exactly, column heights clearly differ: - 1 8 . 5 cm for 3882+PS7XI 1195, but c. 16 cm for PSI XVII Congr.. 12 (and @>16 cm

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

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

29

Sesonchosis romance) may, however, suggest rolls that are in some sense related, as for example rolls written by two scribes working in the same 'shop.' 2.1.16 Scribe #B1 (1174 Sophocles, Ichneutai; 1175 Sophocles, Eurypylus) late 2nd cent. AD. In their introduction to 1174 Grenfell and Hunt point out that while the greater part of 1174 and 1775 were discovered in different excavation seasons, minor fragments of 1174 were found close by 1175. I follow Grenfell and Hunt in assuming that the two plays are from sister rolls rather than from a single roll, but, given the physical exigencies, that assumption is by no means assured (see further at §3.7). That the two plays are written to match in format is in any case certain. Both are written on very good papyrus, similar in appearance, with the sheets of the manufactured roll all roughly the same size at 23—6 cm (and thus of the same (grade': see §3.1.1). For both plays the scribe adds only diaeresis, paragraphus, and forked paragraphus; the last is, however, different in form between the two plays, which implies that the exact shape of this less frequent siglum is copied from the antigraph. In both plays, the same annotator later added scholiastic comments and corrections, and apparently is also responsible for punctuation (including high, middle, and low dots), accents, breathings, apostrophe, diastole, coronis, and occasional notae personarum.

The column layout for the two plays is also identical. For both, the column height is 11.5 cm or just under (1174—11.0 [v],~11.3 [vi], 11.5 [vii],-11.3 [ix], 11.3 [xiv]; 1175: —11.5 [fr. 5]); and the margins seem to be of a piece (in 1175, fr. 8.ii, the lower margin is intact and measures 3.5 cm; in 1174, the lower margin is probably intact in columns vi and ix, measuring 3.4 and 3.5 cm). Both plays use two levels, as it were, of indentation (not rigorously deployed, however, and not necessarily meaningful): 1174 uses eisthesis of 1.2-1.3 cm at cols, iv and vii, but 1.8-2.0 at cols, iii, v, viii, x, xiii; 1175 uses eisthesis of both 1.1 and 1.7 cm in fr. 5.ii. The differing levels of indentation cause some confusion for the scribe in measuring the column-to-column width, but that 13.6 cm is the rule he intends can scarcely be doubted: the lone column-to-column width in 1175 measures 13.6; in 1174, columns iv, v, vi, ix, 2 measure within a couple of millimetres of 13.6, while columns ii and vii measure 13.6 to the point of eisthesis; only column xii (measuring 15.5 from the eisthesis and 17.1 cm overall) deviates in a basic way from the pattern.The fact that the scribe occasionally gets confused about what he should be measuring from or to (that is, from the left of the trimeter or from the left of the indented choral lines) is itself a precious detail, since it strongly implies that the scribe measures one column at a time as he goes along. 2.1.17 Scribe #B2 (26 Demosthenes, Exordia [plate 6]; 2549 Demosthenes, Epistula i; ?2548 Demosthenes, in

30

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

Timocratem) 2nd cent. AD, Despite the editor's confidence, the identification of 2548 with the writer of 26 and 2549 is not certain. The two scripts, for all their likeness, vary considerably in details and idea (the writer of 26 and 2549, for instance, uses a double base line, one for ", the other for ( , $ c ', but in 2548 all these characters have the same notional base). As for 26 and 2549, the identification of the script is secure enough, but it is possible that the fragments all derive from a single roll. (In medieval codices, the Exordia is usually followed directly by the Epistulae.) The fragments of 2548 and 2549 are insufficient to allow firm conclusions, but the following is worth remark. All three pieces are written in a similarly sized script with 17-18 characters per line, resulting in a roughly equivalent width of column. Papyrus 2548 is, however, slightly more cramped horizontally, and thus has a somewhat narrower column, perhaps *4.7 cm as opposed to 5.2-5.6 cm for 26 and *5.1 for 2549. 2548 shares with 26 several characteristics: a strong slope leftward of the text at the left margin (4—5°), use of expungement dots above letters to delete characters, use of dots above the line, and no spacing to signal punctuation. (The latter two features may in both cases be later additions. The remains of 2549 are too exiguous to reveal how such details were handled.) Overall, I would say that such details, though hardly conclusive, support the case for identification of 2548 with the other two pieces. But 2548 was in any case not, probably, part of the same roll, for the leading (5.0 mm) is markedly distinct from the others. On the other hand, the similar leading of 26 (6.1-6.3 mm) and 2549 (6.45) lends some support to the hypothesis that these two may be pieces from a single roll. All three fragments are written on good to very good quality papyrus with a somewhat to noticeably coarser back; but the papyrus lacks any striking correspondence. 2.1.18 Scribe #B3 (2485 Hesiod, Catalogus mulierum; 2639+PSI XI Î191 Hesiod, Theogonyj 3rd cent. AD. That these fragments derive from two separate rolls is suggested, but not proved, by the full colophon preserved for the Theogony, and by the different size and spacing of the writing. The script of 2639 is significantly smaller, more laterally compressed, and on tighter leading than 2485. The column of text was therefore noticeably narrower, but as the intercolumn is not preserved for 2639, the column-to-column widths cannot be compared. The height of 2485 at least approached the *21.1 cm estimated for 2639, but nothing definite can be said. Mid-line punctuation is indicated by a short blank space in 2485,10 by space with accompanying dot in 2639; but as the dot is possibly by a different pen, this may reflect the same original system. Diacritics are extensively added to both texts, but by different hands;

10 The space used as internal punctuation in 2485 is neglected by the editor in fr. 2, lines 19,22,24. Only the first of these is at all doubtful.

A Survey of Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls

31

those in 2639 may be by the text hand, but, as usual, certainty is not possible. Both texts often write the adscript, but with erratic omissions (rather more in the remains of 2485). 2.1.19 Scribe #B4 (3436 Dinarchus, in Demosthenem; 3437 Dinarchus, in Philoclem) late 2nd or early 3rd cent.

AD. So like is the physical format - a written column of 5.0 2 19.5 cm with 35-6 lines per column and a 2.0 intercolumn - that one might naturally assign these two short speeches to one roll. In light of the Aeschylean rolls written by scribe #A3, however, the possibility of rolls in twin format remains. The papyrus itself gives perhaps slight support to the latter hypothesis, for the surface of 3437 is noticeably coarser. The identical format makes the difference in punctuation systems all the more striking. In 3436, full stops are marked by paragraphus and middle dot, all apparently by the original hand; in 3437 there is no punctuation at all. I infer then that the punctuation in 3436 is taken over from the exemplar. Of possible significance for what else was or was not part of the paradosis: diaeresis is consistently written in both texts; adscripts in both texts are sometimes written, sometimes not, even for simple datives; 3436 contains three itacistic spellings, whereas 3437, despite at least one example where it might be expected, contains none. 2.1.20 Scribe #B5 (2100+389Î+4Î09

Thucydides, 4-5, 8) middle 2nd cent. AD. Fragments from books 4 and 5

agree noticeably in number of lines per column (32—3) and leading (5.6—6.3 mm) when compared to the line count (37-9) and leading (4.75-5.1 mm) of fragments from book 8. Yet none of this translates into a markedly different physical format. All measurable columns, of which there is one in book 5 and three in book 8, are within a couple of millimetres of 5.5 cm in width. The height of column for the book 8 fragments (18.3518.65 cm) is somewhat less than those from books 4-5 (—19.7 cm), but, given compensating variation in margin size, one need not presume much difference in overall height for the rolls.The intercolumn is consistent at 1.5 cm for all books. The strong similarities noticed above in books 4 and 5 tempt one to suggest a roll division different from the books we are familiar with. Alternative divisions were certainly known in antiquity.11 Still, the uniformity may, of course, be the result merely of copying the books in close succession; the much-remarked agreement between the medieval codices and papyri of the Roman era will predispose us to assume the usual divisions in a papyrus of this date unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. iviarceumus, uje oj nucymaes dö: o o m e divide nis work into 13 books, and others make other divisions,' though, he goes on to say, the division by Asklepiades into 8 books has prevailed. Diodorus Siculus 12.37, c £ 13.42: 'Thucydides wrote in 8 books, or as some divide it, in 9.'Alternate points o f b o o k divisions are also re-marked in theThucydidean scholia (ad 4 . 1 3 5 . 2 , 2 . 7 8 . 4 , 3 . 1 1 6 . 3 , 4 . 7 8 . 1 , 4 . 1 3 5 . 2 ) : details in Hemmerdinger 1948.

32

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

Lectional signs are used or not in uniform fashion among the fragments, with no discernible difference by roll. The papyrus itself is very similar among all the fragments. 2,1.21 Scribe #B6 (3376 Herodotus, 1, 2) 2nd cent. AD. The small scrap of book 1 contains somewhat more widely spaced letters and a markedly different leading between lines: in book 1, the leading measures about 7.0 mm, whereas the fragments from book 2 vary from 5.0 to 5.4 mm.The strong difference suggests that the fragments derive from two rolls. Column width, from what one can tell, was more or less constant between the two books. Little more can be added, except that the fragment of book 1 uses a high dot for punctuation in a manner consistent with the fragments from book 2. The assignment of the fragment from book 1 to the same hand as the others, though very probable in my view, is not quite certain due to the common style of script and different location of the find.12 2.2 Scribes with Multiple Surviving Rolls: Summary and Evaluation Let me first emphasize that such a small amount of evidence inevitably leads to some distortion and, moreover, that the method of selection skews the results in a specific way. A scribe tends to be recognizable precisely because his script is idiosyncratic.Thus, this group of scribes contains many somewhat unusual scripts, and is underrepresented, for example, in the so-called Severe Style common in the second and third centuries. The preponderance of less usual scripts is perhaps related to another striking feature of this group of papyri, namely, the presence of'scholarly' annotations in the text. The fragments of over half of the group (scribes #A3, #A5, #A6, #A7, #A17, #A19, #A20, #A24, #A28, #A30, #B1) contain either sigla or scholiastic comments in the margins; several of the remainder contain variant readings. On the other hand, common school works are rare: the group contains only one Homeric papyrus, for example. The sample appears to be heavy in texts custom-made for serious readers.13 Though often assumed, however, it does not follow that 'scholarly' texts of this sort were privately produced (on which question, see further at §3.9). In none of the texts is it clear that the annotator has the same hand as the

12 Brunner 1987 advances the hypothesis that the fragments from book 2 derive from two identical rolls written by the same scribe. His view is untenable, however, since it is based on an erroneous join in one of the fragments: see Johnson 1992b. 13 Turner 1956,144 asserted that instances 'where more than one work has been transcribed by a single scribe in a workaday hand' can be assumed as scholars' texts.Yet it is hard to see what exacdy he intends by 'workaday/ since his examples are for the most part unusually neat, often decorated, and sometimes (as with scribes # A 1 , #A2) rather formal scripts. Turner backs away from this point somewhat in Turner 1980,92-3, but he maintains the position that multiple copies by a single scribe imply a scholar's text. The logic of his assertion escapes me. For detailed studies of 'scholars texts' see McNamee 1981a, forthcoming, and Johnson forthcoming.

Scribes w i t h Multiple Surviving; Rolls: S u m m a r y a n d Evaluation

33

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

14 1093 and 1182 (scribe #137, both works ot Demosthenes) offer, according to the editor of 1182, another example of rolls written to the same width but of different column and roll height.

34

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

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

15 Turner and Parsons 1987,7, with characteristic caution, state the common opinion. 16 See 881 in Appendix 2A.

Scribes with Multiple Surviving; Rolls: Summary and Evaluation

35

As regards column height, there is little evidence for any practice that would result in a general uniformity among rolls written by a given scribe. As mentioned, there is an apparent effort to write works of a given author on papyrus of similar height (or to cut it to size) so as to create a matched set; the height of written columns at any rate concurs in such texts, and in one case (#A3) the measured roll height is very close. Yet roll and column height otherwise vary considerably, and it seems a fair inference that heights correspond to the papyrus stock available. In this context, one may recall the general agreement noticed in the quality of papyrus used by a given scribe. Front and back usually conform to the same standard, and the papyrus is sometimes strikingly similar in appearance (scribes #A3, #A6, #A7, #A17, #A19, #B1). In only two cases (scribe #A3, but only for the Babrius fragment, and #B4) was there a noticeable difference in the quality of the papyrus used. The natural supposition is that, for a given clientele, a scribe tended to buy papyrus of a given grade; but the corollary must then be that the standards governing the surface quality did not apply to roll height. This conclusion accords with the fact (and it is a fact that has disturbed commentators) that the Elder Pliny, in his detailed discussion of papyrus grades, says nothing of roll height even while enumerating measurements for sheet widths in the various types (Nat. Hist. 13.78). I will return to this point in the next chapter when we turn to consider the anatomy of the manufactured roll in more detail (§3.1.1). Punctuation in the papyri is complicated by the problem that it is so often impossible to know what hand is responsible, but there is nonetheless considerable evidence that a given scribe used different punctuation systems for different texts. Particularly striking is scribe #B4, who wrote two speeches of Dinarchus in the same column format, possibly even in the same roll, but with different systems ofpunctuation. A lone example arguing in the opposite direction is scribe #A33, where the scribe seems to substitute his own, somewhat idiosyncratic, system for whatever he found in his respective models; but even here the specific placements for the punctuation may well be inherited. I infer that punctuation, in some sense, was usually copied along with the text. Given the dates in the sample, all of which fall in the second or early third century, the data seem for the most part to validate Turners assertion that 'during the Roman period in Egypt (especially in ii AD) the view seems to have taken root that if punctuation was present in the exemplar it was the scribe s duty to copy it.'17 The use ofpunctuation is, however, a more complicated situation than that. We have seen repeated indications throughout the survey that, whatever the scribal practice, readers added their own points of distinction routinely as they made use of the book. In fact, in many of these manuscripts a majority of the punctuation dots are plausibly attributed to a later reader or readers. An interesting question to ask is then whether, once a reader's punc17 Turner and Parsons 1987, 10.Turner 1980, 92 puts forward, however, the exact opposite opinion: 'Punctuation, even in the best texts, tends to be regarded as not forming part of the paradosis; it is what the scribe inserts.'

36

Scribes i n O x y r h y n c h u s : Scribal H a b i t s , Paradosis, a n d t h e U n i f o r m i t y o f t h e Literary R o l l

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

Scribes with Multiple Surviving; Rolls: Summary and Evaluation

37

otherwise be. Still, less than fifty identifications, comprising only a bit more than 100 of the 1500 published Oxyrhynchus literary papyri (most of which belong to a two-century span), are still fewer than one might expect. Turner s assertion that 'a limited number of scribes has been engaged in writing the texts of Greek literature' at Oxyrhynchus,19 barring future evidence to the contrary, must be ruled out of court. 2.2.1 Excursus: Format changes in mid-roll Against the conclusion that column width was determined by a scribal tool, and was thus uniform for a given scribe, may be placed a few examples where a substantial shift in format is discernible within the roll. The first eight columns of Iliad 5 survive intact in 223+PKoelnV 210 (plate 18), and while the last seven are approximately to one size from column to column, the first column is much narrower: roughly 16 cm20 against about 21 cm for the rest. This text, written on the back of a document in a good-looking, but bold and hardy severe-style script, is neither formal nor terribly neat, and in general the scribe is none too painstaking in his attention to matters of format. Thus, the column-to-column measurement at the top rarely matches that at the bottom (due to a slope at the left margin that is not parallel from column to column), and the height of the written column shifts considerably over the extent of the columns preserved (see further under §2.4). In general the column widths do match, though with minor variation; column one, by contrast, is significantly more narrow. The circumstance is easily explained by the surmise that the column-to-column width proved, by column 2, too narrow for the longest hexameters, and that the scribe thus immediately adjusted the target width. If so, however, he is not then working to a preset measurement for all hexameter texts in the way that the earlier examples seemed to imply. A second example of an initial column to a different size may be found in 2750 if we agree with Turner that the hand matches that of 2101.21 In 2750 we find preserved the first column of Xenophon's Cywpaedia, and in 2101 several columns from later in the first book (4.15ff., plate 8). But here, if this is in fact one roll, the initial column is wider: roughly *7.1 cm for the column in 2750 as against about 5.6 in the four intact columns of 2101, with also a wider intercolumn (2.65 cm versus about 2.0).The hands have very much the same feel; but the script is formal ('Biblical majuscule'), with several minor differences between the fragments. These differences may be the result of a tiring hand and duller pen, or they may indicate two different scribes writing this script in the canonical fashion. On

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

38

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

the other hand, the differences in format are profound, for not only does the column width differ, but the scribe of 2750 writes a larger script than 2101 (3.5 + mm versus 3.0) on considerably wider leading (5.2 mm versus 4.45). Either column 1 is written to a substantially different aspect, or the pieces belong to two rolls; overall, I find the evidence too ambiguous for secure judgment. More striking will be the mid-roll shift in format that appears in PHarr 12+3666 (Plato, Ale. 1). I have seen the PHarr fragment only in photograph, but there can be little doubt that the fragments are written by the same hand; the identification is fairly guaranteed not only by striking agreement in particulars and the feel of the script, but by the unusual text (Alcibiades 1, otherwise unexampled among the papyri).The column widths, however, differ substantially between the two papyri. The two columns of PHarr 12, perhaps columns 13 and 14 of the roll, have fewer than 14 letters in each line, which calculates to a width of about *5.35 cm. The fragments of 3666, a dozen or so columns later in the roll, contain on average about 20 letters per line, and the column width can be measured (fr. 3) at 7.3 cm.The intercolumn also differs, at roughly 2.0 cm in PHarr and 1.6 in 3666; the column-to-column widths thus measure *7.35 as opposed to 8.9 cm.The POxy editor (H.M. Cockle) attributes the shift from 14 to 20 letters per line to gradual compression by the scribe: A + doubt the scribe feared he would run out of space and became less generous in spacing his letters.7 But this position is untenable: not only do the physical measurements of column width differ, but, if the scribe's concern was to fit more into his space, why does the leading shift from 5.05 mm (PHarr) to 6.35 (POxy; all fragments) and the lines per column from 37-8 to 34?22 Moreover, the shift is not gradual: 3666 fr. 1 follows only 11-15 columns after the PHarr fragment, yet already a dramatic shift in letters per line is apparent (14 to 18.5); 3666 fr. 3, however, follows at a considerable distance from 3666 fr. 1 (40-55 columns), yet shows only a small change (from 18.5 to 20.5 letters per line).The latter variation is the sort found commonly enough between columns, and need not imply any difference in physical width (see §2.4.1). The three fragments of 3666 show then substantial agreement among themselves but disagreement with the PHarr fragment in column width, intercolumn, and leading between lines, and perhaps also in height of column (this last difference is not certain, since both are estimated and, at *21.2 and *18.4-9, less considerable).The script is handsomely executed, the text is good; nothing suggests an inferior or casual production. It is hard to know what to make of this example. One could of course suppose that the two papyri belong to different rolls produced by the same scribe.23 But even should this be so, the strong variation between 22 Such is the best reconstruction. The number of lines per column, and thus the height of the roll, is however somewhat problematic. See comments under 3666 in Appendix 2A. 23 Powell, in his introduction to PHarr 12, notes that 'punctuation is by a later hand in brownish ink.' If he intends to include paragraphes and dicolon, the fragments exhibit yet another difference, for paragraphus and dicolon are written in black ink by the original hand in the fragments of 3666. (Unfortunately, no high dots survive in

How Did the Scribe Copy the Text?

39

rolls remains contrary to the previous evidence. Here, clearly, is an example of a scribe writing in two different formats, be it one roll or two.This example will at the very least stand as a strong corrective to any thought that scribes were altogether uniform in practice. Finally, let us examine two examples that are both interesting in their own right and that shed perhaps a little light on this set of problems. In 2092 (Pindar, Olympian 2) a change ofscribe occurs in the lacuna between line 46 and line 54.The second scribe writes to a different leading (5.15 to 5.65 as against 4.75), but not enough survives to allow a comparison of physical height or width of column. This example serves, however, to remind us that the writing of a text proceeds over considerable time and might easily be interrupted, with concomitant changes when the work was resumed. In this case, the scribe changed; in another case, though, the change might well be one of instruments, which, under the current hypothesis, would imply a change in format. A confusion in measurement may also account for a similar circumstance that arises in the case of a nonOxyrhynchite papyrus, the British Museum de pace roll (MP 1272, PLondLit 131). In this casually written papyrus, columns are not always painstakingly regular: column 39, in particular, is wider than any of the rest. Yet with fair consistency columns 1 to 28 are clearly meant to be written to a narrower width (of slightly under 6 cm), and the later columns to a wider width (7 cm). Interestingly, the column-to-column width for the earlier columns is also 7 cm, and fairly exact (at least at the top of the column). It is unclear whether one scribe is at work (so Bell, Mandilaras, and I am inclined to agree), or two scribes are writing in a similar script (so Kenyon, Milne). Either way, however, the shift to a wider column, unless simply owing to a change of instrument, may well be the result of confusion in the measure, with the scribe mistaking the 7 cm mark, earlier used to define the left of the next column, as the mark intended to define the right edge of the current column. 2.3 How Did the Scribe Copy the Text? Implicit examples for and against line-by-line copying In trying to think through how scribes went about copying literary texts, scholars often too often — fall into debating the hypothesis that dictation was a common component in professional copying.24 The debate has centred on supposedly 'aural' or supposedly Visual' scribal errors. Yet both of these constitute a difficult proof, since the circumstances giving rise to one or another error may vary. 'Aural' errors, for example, may be influenced by

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

40

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

subvocal murmuring of the scribe; a supposedly 'visual' error like haplography25 could result from clipping the text through inattention, including aural inattention, rather than from literal parablepsy. A collection of 'aural* and Visual' errors in the Oxyrhynchus samples seems therefore at best difficult, at worst pointless, and I do not propose to take that path here. Rather, I wish to focus attention on a different aspect of scribal copying (and a critical question for the study in chapter 3), namely, whether in producing a literary text, the scribe copied line by line from his model. E.G.Turner, in his 1956 article 'Scribes and Scholars of Oxyrhynchus,' argued against the dictation hypothesis by adducing 'the way in which scribes will write smaller at the end of a line or alternatively will space out their letters widely in order to produce a certain line length.This seems more natural when explained as due to the scribe following the lay-out of his exemplar by eye than to his writing down a dictated oral section that must often have required a break in the middle of a word.'26 Clearly, then, Turner sees the scribe copying his exemplar, line by line, to the same number of letters per line. (The physical width of column in the copy will naturally differ, however, inasmuch as the script of the copy is horizontally more or less compact than the original.) For evidence,Turner presents in a footnote a transcription of two lines from an unpublished historical text that shows the final letter squeezed above the first line, and the last three letters of the next line widely spaced. I have not seen the example, but anyone who has studied the literary papyri will be familiar with scribes' constant efforts to adjust the horizontal spacing of a prose text to regularize the right margin. Adjustments of this kind can be quite clumsy on occasion, and though sometimes a cause is evident (accommodating a lengthy syllable, correcting a mistake in copying, skipping over an irregularity on the papyrus surface), often it is not, and the slip must be put down to awkwardness - unless, with Turner, we suppose these slips to be evidence of the copying procedure. Do irregularities in horizontal spacing imply line-by-line copying from the model? The question is not, in my view, strictly answerable. For any given example of irregular spacing, one can imagine some circumstance, including inattention or whim, that might govern the irregularity. I at any rate have not found examples that unequivocally suggest line-by-line copying on the basis of the horizontal spacing alone. Nor must one suppose line-by-line copying an inevitable procedure, despite obvious benefits. Potential difficulties arise as well: how, for instance, does the scribe keep an even right margin when copying in a 'mixed' script with a large differential between wide and narrow letters from an exemplar written in a regular, round script (where the horizontal spacing is more uniform)? And 25 So argued as early as Schubart 1921,83-4.There are errors that seem indisputably visual: e.g., at MP 1433 (PRyl 1.60, Polybius, 2nd~3rd cent. AD) the scribe writes 0121$%03. for 0101$%0' (line 20); at MP 1148-2 (PBerol 21224, Odyssey 22,2nd cent. BC) the scribe writes otaot[ot for ot 4'$'$' (line 250); at MP 852 (PVindob G26753, Iliad 10, 1st cent. BC) $]540 &(6 for $540 1(6 (line 25).The last example will, however, show how difficult such judgments arc, for the same scribe in just the previous line makes what gives every appearance of aural (mixed with visual?) error, writing $%.$* for 01.$* (line 24). 26 Turner 1956,145.

How Did the Scribe Copy the Text?

41

how do corrections suggested by collation, whether expansions or contractions, become incorporated into the text without throwing off the line divisions? On the other hand, scribes were very clever in such matters, and one should hesitate to underestimate their craftsman abilities. It would be a mistake to insist on too rigid a system, without allowing the scribe occasional variation in the line divisions as he makes adjustments. Still, if irregularities in horizontal spacing allow no firm conclusion, how should we proceed? I see two avenues of approach. First, and certainly the more profitable, will be a look at certain types of scribal error. If the copy is made line by line from the model, a mechanical error should often leave its mark. If letters are dropped, as by haplography, we expect a shorter line (or perhaps two or three shorter lines until the adjustment is made). If letters are added, as by dittography, an unusually long line (or lines) should result. If an entire line drops out, the number of letters should approximate the line length for that column. And so forth. In §2.3.1 and §2.3.2 I list examples appearing to demonstrate that the line length of the copy either does or does not match that of the exemplar. The second approach, much more limited in scope, will be to look at papyri of prose works with exactly the same text, to see whether among the Oxyrhynchus papyri there are closely related witnesses with line divisions that are identical (§2.3.3). 2.3.1 Copying the Text: Examples of scribal error that imply an exemplar of same or similar line length 16+696, 16 col. iii, line 3 (Thucydides, 4.39.1).The scribes eye skips from $" oqc "-$4& to a second $" 6- & "-04# later in the sentence, omitting several words. The corrector writes (" 4 above the line and adds the missing words in the upper margin. There are 47 letters omitted, very probably two lines at the same line length as here. (The column averages 21.75 letters per line, but at the top of the column 23—5 letters per line are usual.) Yet one cannot be certain: 3 lines of 15—16 letters may have been skipped, for instance; or the scribe's eye may have jumped laterally as well as down the column. 454+PSI II 119 (Plato, Gorg.). Additional fragments of this roll were published in R. Pintaudi 1977.The relevant passage here is his col. ii, fr. c line 6 (Gorg. 472b): 6

[27 ]( 0 [(]% 40 [8$59,]

Owing to the recurrence of 8$59,, a goodly portion of the sentence is omitted following this line: - :06';90$5! $97 otxtot 7 (997 !5110%0'( -"6&"( (% >+3;=. Line-by-line copying is suggested by the inference that in the exemplar 8$59, twice came at the line end. On the other hand, the three lines supposedly omitted are slightly short (46 letters, thus 15.3 letters per line against an average of 17 in this column and almost 18 overall). Once again, we cannot exclude the possibility of two lines at 23 letters in the model. Though more suggestive than conclusive, the slip at 454 col. i line 9 (Gorg. 507c) will, however, help the case for an exemplar with matching lines.

42

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

wc 9

[(1(2"% $3 &0 ;] ( & ;(9"% [:6<&&0'% ( (%] :6(&&7 &

%$Here the scribes ,(;B" at line end (against correct ;(9=!) is perhaps to be explained as parablepsy, the scribe taking up the ending from 6+" in the line immediately below. (It could, though, be that the scribe inattentively wrote ;(9"% under the influence of earlier ()(1B".)

458, Fr. b, line 5 (Aeschines, Fais. Leg. 27). Homoeoteleuton (-xoc) causes the scribe to omit three words, which he adds above the line in correction: 4

[].&;% ([5&=% ;(&'"%-] #51(4[$! 0% ovxocr] []6+c &= [;('6> 4 te-]

At 15 letters the omission matches the expected letter count for this column. (Letters per line average 14.6 for this fragment, 15.4 overall). 463, col. vii, line 57 (Xenophon, An. 6.6.22). Probably confused by $'4( two lines before, the scribe omits '$?&,::$% 40 $'4( following lines 56-7: 56

[6+"

]$" )([* $'4(]

[("'*(] ()(1[+" $%&(]

The omitted words are necessary to the sense. At 14 letters the omission is exactly the expected length for a full line in this column, which averages somewhat over 13 letters per line. 1376, lines 337ff. (Thucydides, 7.60.2). In this example, the scribe skips over :976=!(' ;(' 4'(%(5 (.7^(%&0! owing to homoeoteleuton, and begins to write the next words, 7% 0%. He apparently catches his error midway, however, for after writing 7% 0% he strikes it through, and continues with ;(' 4'(%(5 (.7^(%&0!. 337

[6(' :(%]&( &'%( 0[!8'8(?$%-] [&0^ ·7%

]0% ; [at 4'(%(5-]

[ (.7!(%&0!] 7%

[0% %';=-]

Note that the scribe does not, as one might expect, continue with %;-*4^(&, which may well be added in the margin (no correction is apparent above the line).The fact that the scribe does not continue with %;-*40(& may suggest an effort to maintain the same line divisions in the copy as in the model. But the example is insecure, as the omission of %;-*40(& may be a simple error.

How Did the Scribe Copy the Text?

43

2404, lines 44ff. (Aeschylus, Ctes. 53).The papyrus reads before correction 7 $' :(6 5 =% (:(%&7!7' &' &$'$+&$% ;(' &$ 4$;0'% (9797 0% 9010'% ;&9. The medieval codices transmit 7 $' :(6' + =% <:(%&,!7 &" 4$;0'% 9)10'% )% <9727. Aside from the change in word order at (9727 0% ;$)$&", the medieval tradition can be understood as deriving from the text represented by the papyrus, but with several words omitted by homoeoteleuton (from & before & of-!7' &' to the same sequence at ;(' &$).The coincidence of the 13 letters omitted from the medieval codices and the 13-14 letters average in the columns of this papyrus is worth mention, though in my view it is as likely fortuitous as meaningful. (Since 13—14 letters is a common line length, a tradition of texts written to this format is not a necessary inference.) 3436, fr. C col. ii, lines 22ff. (Dinarchus, in Dem. 110). Homoeoteleuton of :6$&06$% and :$&06$% at line end causes the scribe to pick up :$&06$% twice, and he recopies three lines. This strongly suggests a model in the same format. A line length in the exemplar of one and a half times that of the copy is, however, possible.

22

;(' &7 [% :]6$&06$% @:(6[.$5£(]% 4"A ( ^ ] ([5]&7 ['] (%&'&'20&0 :$&06

%$26

3%(*2+30(" 4$A(% (5&7' (%&'-> 6&1$[&]0 :$&06[$]% 7 π

09003 [%]$-

2.3.2 Copying the Text: Examples of scribal error that imply an exemplar of different line length 227, col. iv line 14 (Xenophon, Oec. 8.23). The scribe omits four letters by haplography, writing [;('] &$5& $54)% for ;(' &$5&$5 (5 $54)%.The resulting line is not noticeably short. The full text, at 16 letters per line, is unlikely, but not however impossible, at this column width. (The column averages under 13 letters per line; 15 letters is the maximum in col. iv, but one of the other columns preserves an odd line with as many as 16.) 231, line 9 (Demosthenes, de Cor: 229, plate l).The papyrus reads &$['(5-] |&7:: 5:(6.$5!7'& 5:$97B0=[#:] against &$'(5&7! $5!7! &7! 5:(6.. 5:$97B. ol the medieval tradition. If the words '()* #* have dropped owing to homoeoteleuton, they have left no mark by way of shorter lines. On the other hand, the words are not necessary, and the papyrus text may well represent a variant (preferred in fact by some editors). 700, line 4 (Demosthenes, de Con 17).The scribe writes :(6"%&( for 5:(6.$%&(, a mere slip.

44

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

4

[%*+c 6+"] %(*B"6( D%(*2+ ["6( ,(&-]

There is no sign of any adjustment of lines to accommodate the error. 882, line 8 (Demosthenes, inAristog. i 47).The similarity of 03 and $3 causes the scribe to skip over ' $3, which he subsequently inserts above the line. (Since $3 is in lacuna, we cannot be sure that $3 was written, especially given its omission in some manuscripts, but the editor's supposition seems at least very likely.)

8

•4 [05*]

[$*])+" (%("6E" "-$1-"(& !" +[&'(]

The line shows no sign of being shorter than its neighbours. Though the omission is brief, the uncorrected line contains 27 letters, near the top of the range for this column. (The minimum number of letters per line is 24, the maximum 28, with an average of slightly more than 26.) 1016, line 40 (Plato, Phdr. 227d). Above the line the text scribe has added several words, perhaps omitted by homoearchon (o-). \#$%! 7 =% 7] 1(6 (% &!'()-

40

$% 9$1$' ;(' $)4)$

[+& ,(& '- 4/$;$&]F7 $& $" +36(,: (codd. $F$" +# ;B)+&, G)4)' +D" +D64?)

The words, though Platonic in style, are not strictly necessary. However, since in several preserved columns there are no signs of collation, and since the insertion brings the text close to the traditional one, a mechanical error is the natural assumption. If so, 15 letters have been omitted, without disruption to line length, in a text of 22 letters per line in this column, and 20 letters per line overall. Some support for a copy made from a differently formatted exemplar may be also found in the mysterious addition of 1$* -" in line 179. The word, which makes no sense, is expunged from the line, which is no longer than its neighbours. (All line lengths are deduced from letter counts; I have not seen this papyrus.) 1 0 1 7 , col. iii line 16 and col. iv line 1 (Plato, Phdr. 239a, plate 7). Dittography of 06= is occasioned by the start of a new column. At the end of col. iii $*4 is written, and subsequently cancelled, while at the beginning of col. iv, the full word, $*4 $"4&, is written. iii, 16

[']&(["+]&(" $*(06-"-$*» (column division)

iv, 1

[$*4] $"4& ("(),- )&)"+-

How Did the Scribe Copy the Text?

45

Both lines are written to the line length usual in this papyrus (18-19 letters); without 06=, the final line of col. iii would be short (15 letters in a column ranging from 16 to 22). Now one might suppose that $*4-1 $"4& was so divided in the original, and that the copyist cancelled 06= and moved it to the next line to avoid splitting a word between columns. If this were so, we should expect, on the hypothesis of line-by-line copying, the line at iv.l to be somewhat long; but that is not the case. 1377, line 5 (Demosthenes, de Cor. 167). Following >+3;$30(01(&, the preposition %$*& has fallen out of the text (the scribe's eye skips from & before % in 8$590';&(!2(' :06' to & before 6 in %$*& 6+D6+"). 5

&=' 8$5905!(!2(' &$+&=%

Line lengths for this and the lines following are no shorter than usual. 2095, col. i line 10 (Herodotus, 1.9). %(*$06(& is written in the wrong place, then cancelled. 10

14

[6( ffjapecTai (5&';( :[(60!&(' ;(']

Though the lines are only partly preserved, there is no suggestion of an adjustment to make up for this 8-letter intrusion. 2 0 9 7 , col. ii line 4 (Herodotus, 1.65). If we assume that >(0&;$3+"6+0 is omitted after H$+"6+0 by homoeoteleuton, then the 12 letters are not enough to form an entire line (which here average 1 6 - 1 7 ) , and we should expect, but do not find, some shortening of lines. 26

0:' [1](6 ;$+["]&$[! ;('] 7-

But the word is not strictly necessary and the papyrus may represent a variant text. 2101, col. iv, line 19 (Xenophon, Cyr. 1.4.19, plate 8). A different kind of example arises here. At line 19, :$9) '$' is interpolated from several lines above (line 16), due to -%&0! preceding and 0%&$' following in both cases. (In the transcription, I omit several later corrections.) 16

jrcoc 760 $5%&0! : [+-]

;$ &+& $"6+& $/- * ,(,$&"+& $/- +& $;(319

;(' 0;0'%

"+"6$0* %+;> F+& $"&$' - %7 &$% Si 0#7

46

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

Given the narrow column, is it plausible that a scribe would have made this error if he were copying line by line from an exemplar with these line divisions? That is, would a scribe copying a line beginning %$%&0! and ending 0%-(&$') be likely to pick up -"6$0 from near the end of a line above, where 0%&$' falls in the next line? If he was copying line by line, why did he continue to copy :$9) '$' without immediately realizing his error, even though in the putative exemplar the line divides, and the copied line should therefore divide, after :$-? Far more likely is that the exemplar was written with different lines. Other slips by this scribe support the same conclusion. A t col. iv line 35, 0%7! is inadvertently omitted without resulting in a short line. At col. iii line 34, &$&0 is apparently written twice (if the reconstruction is correct) without swelling the number of letters per line. (Both of these instances were later corrected.) 2102, col. ii line 22f. (Plato, Phdr. 243a, plate 9). Instead of the received text, ;B)+0 +36+c $+4' eßac, the scribe writes (and a second hand mistakenly corrects): 22

; 0![&] 0&5 $! ;+)++

23

$54 08(c 0% %75!'%

TOC

Though $5&$! is not entirely necessary for the sense, the omission is more likely the result of a mechanical error, owing to the repetition of-oc $5-, than a variant. If so, the lines show no sign of adjustment to length. 3 2 3 3 , fr. A line 7f. (Isocrates, Antid. 74). The received text, (99' 49$'* 0'40!'% :6$0'9" 7%, is too long for the lacuna, and seems to have suffered some omission. The obvious solution is haplography as follows, with the eye skipping from 0'(40!'%) to 0'(9$ 7%). 7

[ ';6$'!]

060*'% (99[ $9$'!]

[0'9$ 7%] .67!2(' %*+[0 5 (!]

There is no sign of any adjustment to the line length. fr. C line 51. Haplography also seems to explain the omission of <99=% in the phrase &=% <99=% C99,%=%, and again the local line lengths show no sign of disturbance. 51

;(' &=% 099,%=% [;(' &=%]

fr. C line 39. Despite the omission of 6+3, added later by the text hand, there is no sign of a short line.

39

&$5 &7 :$90' &7 [%] 710 [$%'(% (-]

How Did the Scribe Copy the Text?

47

The instance is not however secure, since the total number of letters of the corrected line (23), though well over the average (20), is not unexampled in this papyrus. 3372, col. i line 18 (Herodotus, 1.7).There is no obvious mechanical explanation for the omission of the necessary D6(;90'4)=%, which is supplied by a later hand.

18

% [76(];9[0']40=% [$5&= :06'79$]0 çoyça ç[c] &$ 1 0 -

I- this case, as elsewhere, we may of course suppose a fault in the exemplar, but in that case the argument simply extends backwards to the point of error. If the copying were done line by line, how is it that a word of this length drops out, that is, a word of many letters but not nearly enough to approximate the length of a line? 3376, frr. 23-4, line 2f. (Herodotus, 2.108). Assuming the editors reconstruction (which seems persuasive), we find the following dittography: 29

[&$5 .6$%$5 (]'15:[&$! eou-j

30

--«ify[rcroc 0]$5!( :(!(]

Thus, 13 letters have been mistakenly copied (and subsequently stricken) in a column of 18 letters per Une. There is no evidence of length adjustment in these lines. That the copying was not line by line is supported by the slip at frr. 11-16 col. ii line 24:

25

[$5;0&]', cay [:9=]&7% @:$ 86(-

There is no obvious explanation for the omission, which is supplied above the line by a second hand. But if the word, which seems necessary for the sense, was in the exemplar, its omission here left no trace in the length of lines. 3381 line 15 (Herodotus, 7.170). Homoeoteleuton appears to have caused the omission of 01(9=' following !&$9='. 14

=% &0 ;$( :6([']*['=% (:';$ 0-]

15

%$5! !&$9=' 0! *[';(%'7% :$-]

No irregularity in line length is apparent. 4027 lines 6ff. (Aeschines, in Tim. 3). Perhaps after a pause (the editor discerns 'a subtle change in the script after line 6, suggesting an interval in the copying1), the scribes eye picks up the wrong $" +3", and towards the end of line 6 he copies again from the section start. The section that begins (by reconstruction) five Unes before the first line of the extant

48

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

fragment is then duplicated at lines 6fF. In what survives of the text, lines 1-2 and line 12 clearly duplicate each other, but the disposition of the lines is not the same. 2.3-3 Copying the Text: A remarkable example where different papyri of the same text coincide in line division. The Oxyrhynchus sample contains eighteen examples of papyri from different rolls with overlapping prose text.27 In some cases, the overlap is small, sometimes only a few letters, and little can be said.Yet we can often see a difference in punctuation (never agreement), and, remarkably, a large percentage show some divergence in the text. In three cases ( 2 0 9 8 , 3 3 8 1 Hdt. 7; 229,3676 PL Mid.; 1 0 9 2 , 3 3 7 7 Hdt. 2) the difference may be the result of a mechanical error such as dittography, and in one ( 3 3 7 2 , 2 0 9 5 Hdt. 1) the difference is uncertain, since it is not apparent but deduced (from the presence of a paragraphus); but in at least three cases ( 1 8 1 0 , 3 4 3 5 Demosth. OL 1; 2 1 8 1 , 3 6 7 6 Pl. Phd.; 4 0 4 4 , 4 0 4 5 + 4 0 5 3 Aeschin. Ctes.) the existence of two traditions seems very likely. In all cases, save one, one can positively assert that the line divisions are different. The one exception presents, apparently, an extraordinary confirmation of line-by-line copying. The seven lines of 3 3 7 7 (Herodotus 2.161) match line by line with 1092 col. vii lines 206. The sole difference lies in the first line of 3 3 7 7 , which reads &0905&7!(%&$0: 0A040A(&[$] against -;( &0905&7!(% [roc 0A040A(&$] in 1 0 9 2 . But the variation is readily explained, for the first line of 3 3 7 7 is the top of the column, and ;( in 1 0 9 2 is the last syllable of 0&(5&'- |;(. Scribes, it has been suggested, often avoid splitting words between columns.28 One wrinkle does appear in this outstanding example. In 3 3 7 7 line 7 the scribe writes (J&'4"(c, where 1 0 9 2 (along with the received text) has (E'4=%(.29 A textual variant is unexpected. Now we might suppose with the editor a mechanical error, namely, dittography of the sigma that begins the next word (^&6(&$%). On the other hand, a different form for a name is a common type of variant. Given concurrence over so few lines, a coincidental agreement in the line divisions must be admitted a real possibility; in 3 6 7 6 and 2 2 9 , for instance, a few lines may coincide though there is no general suggestion of line-by-line copying.30 On the other hand, the unusual line length, at 24—5 letters per line, encourages the conclusion that these two manuscripts are in fact close relatives. The two papyri seem, 27 The following pairs contain prose text that overlaps: 1810,3435 Demosth. OL I; 3372, 2095 Hdt. 1; 1092,3377 Hdt. 2; 2098,3381 Hdt. 7; 3233,27 Isoc. Antid.; 2181,1809 PI. Phd.; 2181, 3676 PL Phd.; 2 1 8 1 , 2 29 PL Phd.; 3676,229 PL Phd.; 3156+3669,454 + PSI II 119 PL Gorg.; 2749,225 Thuc. 2; 2100+3891+4109,345 1 Thuc. 8; 3848, 3849 Demosth. in Meid,; 4044, 4045+4053 Acschin. in Cîes.; 3882+PSJ XI 1195,3234+3883 Thuc. 1 ; 3888, 3889 Thuc. 2; 3895, 3896 Thuc. 3; 1376,4108 Thuc. 7. 28 Cf. Grenfell and Hunt in the introduction to 1376 Thuc. 7; and cf. 1017 PL Phdr., discussed above at §2.3.2. 29 A second divergence between the two papyri is only apparent.The pamgniphus below 1092 line 25, which is missing from the transcription at 3377 line 6, would in fact stand in lacuna in the latter papyrus. 30 The restoration at 229 18ff. is uncertain, but could plausibly be arranged to match die first 4 to 6 lines of 3676 col. iv (PL Phd. 109d). Similarly, six of the nine lines that overlap between 1376 and 4108 agree in line division by coincidence (Thuc. 7.62.2).

Uniformity and Variation in Bookrolls

49

on palaeographic grounds, to have been written in roughly the same period: both probably date to the early second century.31 If it is correctly supposed that line-by-line copying governs the line divisions in 1092 and 3377, a corollary can be asserted.The scribe is not copying the columns per se, that is, the height of columns is not taken over from the exemplar. This conclusion follows from the fact that the top of the column in 3377 falls in the middle of the column in 1092. 2.3.4 Copying the Text: Summary and conclusion As so often seen, and as expected, there is no absolute uniformity. The examples in §2.3.1, though not numerous and in some cases not certain, suggest that an occasional scribe, at least for a part of his manuscript, did in fact copy line by line from his exemplar. If the tentative conclusion is correct in §2.3.3, we possess an actual example of this practice. On the other hand, the many examples in §2.3.2 demonstrate that this was not the usual practice. A few of these examples are insecure, to be sure, and some merely show that at some point in the transmission, not necessarily in the case of the particular papyrus, a copy was made that differed in line length. Yet the number and variety of counter-examples is too abundant to dismiss. Very striking is the lack of even a single example where an addition or omission results in an obviously long or short line. It seems safe to conclude that copying from the exemplar line by line, though practised, was not customary in Oxyrhynchus during this period. The examples in §2.3.1 range from the first century through the third; those in §2.3.2 date to the same period, except for one papyrus (1377) from the first century BC. 2.4 Uniformity and Variation in Bookrolls The final set of prior questions concerns the amount of variation actually found in literary papyri.The topic, in addition to being a necessary preliminary for the studies in chapter 3, also immediately relates back to the previous investigations. As regards the width in particular, the amount of variation directly influences the question of whether the columns were ruled or measured in some way. If the column widths were gauged entirely by eye, we would expect considerable variation as the scribe progresses from column to column along the roll. To form an accurate impression of the variation found in literary papyri, I will consider in this section only the best-preserved papyri, those where measurements can be taken with some exactness for more than one column. Throughout this section, as in the tables associated with it, I use the word4variation' in a somewhat specialized sense. By variation,

31 Hunt dated 1092 to the late second century.The scribe of 1092 wrote several other extant papyri, however, which editors have dated to the late first or early second century: see scribe #A5 in table 2.1.

50

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

I intend the difference from the mid-point between high and low examples.The variation for a given papyrus will therefore be simply the difference between the high and low figures divided by two?2

2.4.1 Uniformity and Variation: Width of column, intercolumn, and width from column to column In table 2.2A at the end of the chapter I collect the width data for prose texts with multiple surviving columns. For the most part, the columns are proximate, and agreement in the width may not surprise us. In several cases, however (e.g., 844 Isoc. Pan., 1017 PI. Phdr., 1376 Thuc. 7, 1810 Demosth. Ol. 1, 2096+3374 Hdt. 1, 2100+3891+4109 Thuc. 4, 8) the measurements come from fragments of the roll far apart from one another, as much as 50 columns apart; still, the widths continue to show marked agreement. Before proceeding with the analysis, however, let me first emphasize that the figures in table 2.2 represent an approximation. Since the right margin is never entirely even, the column width and the intercolumn will be an average - not an arithmetic average, but an approximation by eye of the virtual line that the scribe seems to regard as his right margin. A few examples of the minimum-to-maximum range actually encountered will help make the point vivid. All of the examples in the table opposite, excepting 4030 Aeschin., are from reasonably well-written rolls, and more radical examples could be adduced. (These are, though, the more extreme examples from the items in table 2.2A.) Still, the point is made: my approximation of the notional right margin, however honest, may at times be somewhat rough. On the other hand, the amplitude of the ranges is not such as to encourage speculation of gross error; one or two millimetres seems the general margin of error to be expected.The most firm figure will be the measurement from column to column (taken from the left margin of each).Yet even that may vary somewhat, inasmuch as the columns may not be exactly parallel or the left margin not exactly straight (as, for example, 223+ PKoeln 210 +. 5, plate 14 discussed below; or, in the comparison set, MP 337+1234 Hyper. & Demosth., where one finds a variation of as much as 4 mm from top to foot of the individual columns [see table 2.2B, plate 15]). In addition, for all examples, there are the usual problems of getting an exact measurement from papyrus that is often distorted or separated or crushed. In short, the figures displayed in table 2.2A are not so fast as they appear, though in general we expect them to be accurate within a couple of millimetres. With that said, however, the figures for the Oxyrhynchus sample are remarkably homogeneous (given the uncertainties, perhaps far more than we might expect), and present a strong case for general

32 I avoid the term 'deviation' since that might imply the difference from the average (rather than the mid-point) of the set. I also wish to avoid any impression that the set of examples here is presented with a strict view to its statistical significance.

Uniformity and Variation in Bookrolls

51

Widths: M i n i m u m - t o - m a x i m u m ranges (cm) Column width

POxy

Intercolumn

26 Demosth. Ex. (plate 6)

col. 1 col. 2 col. 3 col. 4 col. 5 col. 6

5.4-5.7 5.5-5.9 5.1-5.5 5.3-5.6 5.2-5.6 5.4-5.8

2.5 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.4-2.5 2.5

227 Xen. Oec.

col.l col 2 col. 4

4.5-5.0 4.7-4.8 4.3-4.6

2.3-2.4 2.3 2.5-2.6

1808 PI. Resp. (plate 10)

col. 2 col. 5

4.3-4.7 4.7-5.2

1.9-2.1 1.7-2.1

2096+3374 Hdt. 1

2096, fr. 11.2 2096, fr. 12.5

6.2-6.8 6.1-6.7

1.1-1.8 1.2-1.7

2098 Hdt. 7 (plate 11)

col. 5 col. 7 col, 10

5.7 5.3-5.8 5.5-5.8

2.0-2.4 1.9-2.2 2.3

2101 Xen. Cyr. (plate 8)

col.l col, 2 col. 3 col. 4

5.4-5.7 ' 5.3-5.6 5.4—5.8 5.5-6.0

2.2 2.0 1.9-2.0 1.8

3879 Thuc. 1

frl.l fr3.1 fr3.3

5.7-6.2 5.6—6.0 5.3-6.1

-1.9 1.6-2.4

4030 Aeschin.

coll col3 col4

5.8-6.3 5.3-5.6

1.3-1.7 -1.7 1.0-1.5

in Tim.

uniformity of width. The case for uniformity of column width is remarkable enough, as only three instances exist where the variation from mean is as much as two millimetres (26 Demosth. [plate 6], 1250 Ach. Tat., 4030 Aeschin.; on 4030, see just below), and one where the variation is three (1376 Thuc.). Even so, this last example is perhaps illusory, for the wide variation depends upon a column (1376 col. 2) where the papyrus is badly damaged and distorted, and on a partly estimated column (1376 col. 1) lacking its initial letter, in a papyrus where initial letters are sometimes exaggeratedly wide; the four undamaged columns from this same papyrus measure within a millimetre of the same width.

52

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

Yet more remarkable is the agreement in width for the column-to-column measurement. Only three times does the variation exceed 1.5 millimetres, and two of these but slightly. Of these, one instance (1.75 mm) relies upon the measurement of column 1 in 1376, a problem mentioned above. The other example, 2749 Thuc. (2.25 mm), depends for its lower measurement (col. 2) upon a single line, preserved as no more than a few horizontal fibres for much of its length; the measurement is honestly made, but a glance at plate 2 in POxy XXXVI will show the reader the problems involved. The final aberrant example, 4030 (4.5 mm), is problematic in a different way. In this case, the difference in width from column to column is large enough to suggest a lack of measurement altogether. But the papyrus (a copy of Aeschines' in Timarchum) is written in a semi-cursive script on the back of a register, that is, the apparent wildness of measurement here fits in with the general (and rare) look of a substandard production. Almost without exception, then, the column-to-column width varies by no more than 1.5 millimetres, less than 2% of the typical width. Set alongside this the observation that the average stroke of a reed pen is about half a millimetre in width, and that wider pen strokes often measure a millimetre or more. Agreement of such exactitude over the course of many columns seems too extraordinary for even the best craftsman's eye. The general use of some sort of measure or rule seems an inevitable conclusion.33 The intercolumn, interestingly, shows equal, or occasionally a bit more, variation in the column width. How this can be so is well illustrated by, for instance, 844 Isoc. Pan., where the first column measures 5.75 cm, with an intercolumn of 2.5 cm. Column 9, by contrast, has a wider column (6.0 cm), but a substantially smaller intercolumn (2.0 cm). The column-to-column widths of columns 1 and 9 thus fall within 0.25 cm, though the intercolumn differs by 0.5 cm. A similar tendency for the intercolumn to compensate for differences in column width may be seen in 1250 Ach. Tat. and 2101 Xen. Cyr. (It must be admitted, though, that this phenomenon may be merely the result of error in the estimation of the notional right margin, as discussed above.) That the practice is not universal may be seen in the example of 2100+3891+4109 Thuc. 4, where the intercolumn holds fairly steady even while the column width varies. The Oxyrhynchus sample unfortunately contains only one verse example, and that an example of a manuscript (223+PKoeln 210 II. 5, plate 18) written without much care, if by a good hand, on the back of a document. Aside from the aberrant first column (on which see §2.2), the column-to-column variation, at 4 mm, is larger than for prose examples, but

33 One should notice, however, that four of the examples in table 2.2 have appeared under evidence in support of a similar exemplar, that is, in support of line-by-line copying. But three of these (16+696 Thuc. 4,454+PSI II 119 PI. Gorg., 1376 Thuc. 7) had some degree of doubt associated with the example, and the other (463 Xen. An.) was a case of line omission for a very common letter count. Overall, especially where several columns survive (as 16+696,1376), I should think the coincidence raises further the possibility that several of the examples seemingly in support of line-by-line copying are in fact the result of chance.

Uniformity and Variation in Bookrolls

53

still not great. Of interest will be the variation within a given column, for the leftward drift in these columns is by no means uniform, and the column-to-column measurement varies somewhat. From the chart below, it is clear that a 2-millimetre variation from mean is not uncommon from top to foot of the column in this papyrus. Widths: C o l u m n - t o - c o l u m n ranges (cm) POxy 223+ PKoeln 210 Homer, +. 5 (plate 18)

Col.-to-col. width col. 1 col. 2 col. 3 col. 4 col. 5 col. 6 col. 7 col. 8

*15.9-16.4 21.1-19.5 20.7-20.8 20,9-21.3 20.5 20.5-20.7 20.5 20.6-21.0

We expect, however, that a well-written papyrus of a verse text will show a degree of variation more akin to that of the prose examples, and in fact the scribal survey earlier has already provided two verse examples with column-to-column widths in near exact agreement: in the study of the Aeschylean papyri 2161 and 2162 under §2.1.3, and in the study of the Sophoclean papyri 1174 and 1175 in §2.1.16. Data from the comparison set (see table 2.2B) allows extension of this set of observations in two interesting directions. First, one can state unequivocally that Roman-era papyri with non-Oxyrhynchite provenance uniformly support the Oxyrhynchus examples: column and column-to-column widths remain remarkably stable over the length of a bookroll (table 2.2B[1]). None of the non-Oxyrhynchite examples exceed a variation of more than 1.75 mm for either column or column-to-column width. Most vividly, MP 1233 (the British Museum Hyperidcs roll, plates 16 and 17) survives for almost 50 continuous columns, and yet shows width variation of no more than 1.5 millimetres (over fully 3.5 metres of extant papyrus). The lone verse example (MP 919 II. 14, with a variation of 2 mm from column to column) likewise supports the Oxyrhynchite evidence. Second, however, the Ptolemaic examples from the comparison set show a very interesting divergence from these conclusions. True, three Ptolemaic papyri (MP 337+1234 Hyper, and MP 1388 PI. Phd. in prose; MP 998 II. m verse) show tolerances identical to the Roman-era examples. But variation of more than 2 millimetres - up to 6.5 mm - is found in five of the eight Ptolemaic examples (MP 88 Anaximenes, MP 337+1234 Demosth., MP 1409 PI. Lach, in prose; MP 980 //., 1537 Timotheus in verse), only one of which (MP 88) shows any signs of a substandard production.The examples are few and one must therefore be cautious, but there seems good prima facie evidence that the near uniform use in the Roman period of a

54

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

tool of measurement to control the layout of the text may have been a more optional part of scribal training under the Ptolemies. One might wish to ask at this point how the variation in physical width relates to variation in letters per line. In table 2.3 will be found the Oxyrhynchite portion of table 2.2 retabulated for letters per line, with all columns removed where there is any doubt about the reconstruction. A study of the two tables shows perhaps a rough correspondence, but the correlation is not consistent. The letter variation is somewhat greater than expected in 1017 Pl. Phdr., 2096+3374 Hdt., 2100+3891+4109 Thuc., 2102+PTwmer 7 PL Phdr., 3437 Demosth. in Phil, 4030 Aeschin. in Tim., and somewhat less in 1250 Ach. Tat., 1376 Thuc. In general, the variation is not much over half a letter,34 the only sizable exceptions being 2100+3891+4109 and, again, the substandard production 4030. Fairly wide variation can be found even among well-written papyri: 3679 Pl. Resp., a handsome specimen, ranges from about 24 letters in one column to 28.25 in the next (an 8% variation). But this list, based as it is on exceptionally well-preserved papyri, with only the single substandard example, will give a reliable estimation of the usual range for a literary roll. 2.4.2 Uniformity and Variation: Height of column, margins, and height of roll It was a simple task for a scribe to write the first line of a column parallel to the last, and to end the column on a line parallel to the previous foot. Top and bottom of the roll provide a ready reference point by which to estimate the extent of the margins. Some uniformity of height is therefore, more or less, to be expected. Uniformity may be the result of measurement, but in the absence of more compelling evidence, we cannot assume it. We do not really anticipate, nor do we find, large variation in the column height in a carefully written roll. Table 2.4 lists examples from both the Oxyrhynchus sample and the comparison set where the column is preserved from top to bottom, as well as a few examples where the full margin reappears over the course of several columns. In all but one of the cases we find no very great variation.35 The sole exception is 223+PKoeln 210 II. 5, a text written on reused papyrus that is, as we have already seen (§2.2, §2.4.1, plate 18), unusually casual in its layout. Column height otherwise does not show variation above four millimetres, and less than 2 millimetres is clearly the usual case. We often see the scribe at work as he attends to the bottom margin. Even in a text with regular leading, the final line will at times be squeezed closer to make the bottom margin 34 Variation in letter count from line to line, as opposed to the variation in letters per line averaged by column, could be more considerable: details in table 3.1. 35 The lack of variation in the case of margins is at least partly determined by the treatment of the data, since a full margin is only considered such when it is either complete over a substantial extent, or when it recurs at about that height over the course of the roll. If a margin occurred at, say, 6 cm early in the roll and 7 cm later on, the 6 cm, unless a very substantial piece, would be taken as a partial margin and not included in the tabulation. I therefore leave to one side discussion of variation in margin or roll height.

Uniformity and Variation in Bookrolls

55

of the column even. The effect can sometimes be quite noticeable. I list but a few examples: 6 8 6 I/M 1 0 1 9 + 2 9 4 8 Chariton ( 2 9 4 8 col. 1), 1810 Demosth. OL 1 (frr. 5-7), 2 0 9 1 Hes. Erga (last 2 lines), 2 6 3 9 Hes. Th. (fr. c, last few lines), 2 6 4 1 Hes. Th., 2 6 9 1 Ap.Rh. (fr. 2), 2 9 4 6 Triphiodorus, 3 1 5 6 + 3 6 6 9 PL Gorg. ( 3 1 5 6 , fr. 2.2), 3 6 7 0 PL Hp.Ma. Less familiar will be an example such as 232 Demosth. in Tim. (col. 1), where the final line is spaced more widely to conform to the notional margin at the column foot.The lower margin was of course not always regular. In 3 4 4 3 , a text of the Odyssey written in an uneven and messy severe hand, the second column finishes a full line below the first. More usual is a case like 1017 PL Phdr (plate 7), where the upward slant of the lines creates the impression of a somewhat uneven top and bottom margin. In that finely written papyrus, column 20 appears to terminate a full line above the final line of the next column (and similarly in columns 4 and 5). The impression is, however, illusory: while the end of the final line is a full line higher than the start of the next final line, the line beginnings are very nearly parallel. The lines are written to slant slightly upwards from the base line, presenting a deliberately rakish appearance (on which see further at §3.7.3). The overall height of the columns in 1017, as detailed in table 2.4, does not in fact vary more than a bit. A general uniformity, as just mentioned, seems within the capability of a good craftsman as he moves from column to column: fine woodworkers, for instance, often prefer an 'eyeball' judgment over measurement for certain tasks, and we can imagine a scribe carefully eyeing the placement of the top of the column, and then making adjustments as he reaches the foot. On the other hand, the scribe who wrote the Demosthenes speech in MP 337+1234 provides a good example of the result when the scribe is not meticulously careful. In that case, a clear progression is measurable as the scribe moves along the roll. He starts with a column height slightly under 17 cm, an upper margin of about 3 cm, and a lower margin of 4 cm. But as he makes his way along the twelve surviving columns, the upper margin gradually creeps up to 4 cm, the column height also increases, though more slightly, and the lower margin reduces (to 3.3 cm at the point where the bottom edge begins to break apart, col. 8).The result is a roll that has the look of consistency from column to column, but is not in fact consistent along a broad extent when subjected to measurement. This unique example provides an interesting, and perhaps telling, contrast to the few other instances where comparison is possible over the extent of many columns, for in these cases the column height and disposition is very exact. 844 Isoc. Pan. (early 2nd cent. AD) has a full lower margin that measures the same at a distance of 14 columns, and a column height only a couple of millimetres different at a distance of 40 columns; MP 1233 Hyper. (1st cent. AD, plates 16 and 17) remains remarkably stable in height and margins over 50 columns; MP 980 IL (1st cent. BC) has the same lower margin at a distance of 30 columns, and the same column height at a distance of 40 columns; MP 998 II. (1st cent. BC) retains the same lower margin and the same column height, within a couple of millimetres, over almost 30 columns. Though here one must rely on a very few instances,

56

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

heterogeneous in provenance and date, the exactitude of agreement over considerable extents of papyrus certainly seems to imply measurement. In one of these examples, MP 1233, ruling dots govern the vertical disposition of the columns, but (to anticipate: full details at §3.1.3) the ruling dots serve as guides for only every third column or so (plates 16 and 17); thus in MP 1233, at least, the scribe used a combination of'eyeball'judgment and exact measurement as he wrote out the columns. Leading between lines,36 though sometimes quite regular, often varies between columns, or even within a column. Table 2.5 presents the leading for most of the Oxyrhynchus examples listed in table 2.4. Since these columns are intact over their height, the leading figures are fully reliable as an average. The average leading varies between columns somewhat more than the physical height, but, with the exceptions of 223+PKoeln 210 IL and 4 0 3 0 Aeschin. (both written on the back of documents, the one a casual production, the other written in a semi-cursive), the variation remains within 3%, which for the column height translates to a maximum variation of ±0.75 cm. As usual, more aberrant examples can found. In 3 1 5 6 + 3 6 6 9 PL Gorg., for example, the fragments generally range from 6.8—7.75 mm in leading, but one fragment (3156 fr. 3) shows a leading of 5.5 mm (a variation of 17%); and the scribal study (§2.1) detailed several examples where a given scribe varied the leading from roll to roll. In general, though, the average leading from column to column within a roll does not seem to vary substantially, just as the physical height generally remains stable. Yet that is hardly the full story. In brackets following selected examples in table 2.5,1 have given a range of the leading as measured for samples of 10 to 20 lines from the top, middle, and bottom of the column. This range gives an idea of the different measurements that could have been recorded had the column survived only in part. The range can be substantial, as for example a difference of 0.8 mm in 230 Demosth. de Cor. (col. 2) or 0.7 mm in 1017 Pl. Phdr; (col. 19; cf. col. 4); these extreme examples show a variation within the column of 6% (0.4 mm) and 5% (0.35 mm) respectively.37 Had the two columns survived only in part, the calculated height might have been as low as *21.9 cm for 230, or as high as *24.7 cm; for 1017, as low as *22.7 cm, or as high as *25.0 cm. Such discrepancies demand a great deal of circumspection when analysing heights extrapolated from estimated line counts or from leading derived from a partial column. Another lesson may be found in the fact that variation in leading can be considerable even while the physical height remains stable. Not only must we be cautious in the use of calculated figures, but we should be suspicious whenever the reconstruction presents heights that are widely variable from column to column. As to the number of lines in a column (see table 2.5), the situation is now predictable.

36 For a definition of leading, see 'Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla' at the front of this book. 37 It should be noted that part of the variation may be due to inaccuracy in measuring as well as actual difference in leading.

Conclusions

57

The 3% or less variation from column to column in average leading will translate into a variation of no more than one line, plus or minus, from the mean. Examples beyond this are certainly found (in the table, the substandard roll 4030 Aeschin. provides an example), but wild differences are outside what is usual in a well-written roll.38 Variation in letters per column will, however, be somewhat greater. The intact examples listed in table 2.5 will suffice to show that the variation can be substantial, as much as 6%; the reader will note that the more columns survive, the greater the variation seems to be. An outstanding example of the imprécisions involved will be found in 3673 PI. Lg., where the column number at the top of col. ii reads "(, that is, column 51, wrhereas calculation depending on letters per column would make this column 49. The difference is, once again, predictable from the substantial variation already noticed. In short, the assumption of substantial variation (at least 6%) will be a suitable precaution when speaking of the letters in a column, whereas a small variation (of no more than a line or so) is typical of the height and lines per column as one moves along the roll. 2.5 Conclusions An impressive accumulation of evidence argues for unexpectedly precise uniformity in the width of column and intercolumn. Not only does one usually find little variation from column to column within a roll (§2.4.1), but a given scribe apparently writes to the same width from one roll to the next (§§'2.1, 2.2).The case studies suggest that the column-tocolumn width may be the more stable figure, but this may be no more than a consequence of the greater precision with which the column-to - c olumn width is able to be measured. The uniformity of width, both because of the precision with which it obtains, and because it appears constant over rolls of different authors written by the same scribe, suggests that the columns are measured before writing. Interestingly, among earlier papyri, greater variation in column width suggests that scribal practice was more elastic, and that under the Ptolemies columns in literary rolls were commonly enough gauged by eye rather than by measurement. In the Roman era, however, measurement seems to have been standard practice, and thus presumably a standard part of scribal training. Against the conclusion that column widths were standardly measured were urged two sets of examples. First were Roman-era examples that showed violent changes of format in mid-roll (§2.2.1).Though a strong reminder of the lack of any absolute uniformity, this set of examples was too small, and mostly too ambiguous, to weigh in heavily against the usual case. More telling was evidence from a second set of investigations, in which were collected scribal errors for an exemplar with the same or similar line length (§2.3.1).These

38 Schubart 1921,62 finds however a difference of 5-8 lines (in my terms, a variation of 2.5-4 lines) 'not uncommon./ complete account of the evidence from the sample will be found in table 3.7, following chapter 3.

58

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

examples too were often ambiguous, and far fewer than examples showing an exemplar of different line length, but they remain sufficient to suggest that line-by-line copying was at least sometimes employed.To this was added an example that appears to show one papyrus in the sample copied line by line from another (or from a relative in the same format; §2.3.3). Still, the evidence from scribal error argues in the main against line-by-line copying as the usual case (§2.3.2). As regards widths, then, I shall assume in the analysis that physical measurement (or, for the Ptolemaic era, perhaps estimation) was the usual determining factor in the scribe's layout of the roll. On the other hand, the mixed nature of the results will encourage at least a brief investigation of letter counts within the various traditions. Uniformity was also found, for the most part, in the height of the column within a roll (§2.4.2).Though, once again, measurement seems likely as a standard practice, the conclusion is less certain, since a careful craftman's eye may in fact be able to maintain regular parallel lines for the top and bottom of the column. Compelling evidence for measurement seems to exist, but is thin and not wholly one-sided. In the survey of scribes with multiple surviving rolls (§§2.1, 2.2), we saw evidence arguing against uniformity of height from one roll to the next for a given scribe, except where a matching set is intended (as in extant examples of plays ofAeschylus and Sophocles). We have also seen that irregularity in leading from top to bottom of the column makes it difficult to estimate the column height with precision (§2.4.2).The combination of these observations urges caution: it will not do to define types too readily on the basis of small differences in height. If the height of the roll is in part dependent on the available papyrus supply (as I have argued), and the size of margins on convention (which remains to be seen), then differences in height from roll to roll, unless dramatic, may be fortuitous. No evidence, even where line-by-line copying seemed likely, tended towards the conclusion that rolls were copied column by column; and at least one example has argued against that supposition (§2.3.3).Thus, I will focus on the physical measurement in analysing column heights, and the number of lines per column will be treated only briefly. The case studies have not for the most part addressed the problems associated with lectional signs. But in the scribal survey (§§2.1,2.2), several examples (all from the second or third century) suggested the conclusion that punctuation was not formulated independently by the scribe. The fact of a different system ofpunctuation in, for example, Platonic texts (using a dicolon, as well as spaces and raised dots) in itself suggests some sense of a tradition of punctuation. Yet the evidence has also made strong claims for heavy reader intervention in matters ofpunctuation, a circumstance that runs counter to the proposition that the scribe simply copied the punctuation in his exemplar, since elaboration ofpunctuation over time is not in fact observed. The analysis here adopts therefore a middle position: that the scribe attempted to copy the 'original' punctuation, that is, the sort of bare-bones punctuation existing before reader intervention; but also that the scribe did incorporate

Conclusions

59

corrections or additions as he saw fit. Scattered examples relating to adscript, movables, diaeresis, and elision suggested a similar conclusion as regards scribal practice, that is, that readers marks were generally ignored in favour of the stripped-down'originär aids to lection; but the evidence was too meagre for firm judgment. Since the focus here is not the progress of the paradosis but the habits of book production, this result is adequate for the present, and I will defer detailed treatment ofpunctuation and the like to future work.

TABLES

Conspectus Table 2.1

Identified scribes

A. Rolls of more than one author copied by the same scribe (Oxyrhynchite) B. Multiple rolls of one author by the same scribe (Oxyrhynchite) C. Non-Oxyrhynchite rolls copied by the same scribe Table 2.2

Width variation

Variation in rolls with multiple surviving columns: column width, column-to-column width, intercolumn width A. Oxyrhynchus sample 1. Prose texts I 2.Verse texts B. Comparison sample 1. Roman era examples (non-Oxyrhynchite): a. Prose texts, b. Verse texts / 2. Ptolemaic era examples: a. Prose texts, b.Verse texts Table 2.3

Width variation by letter count (Oxyrhynchus sample)

Variation in rolls with multiple surviving columns: letter counts for columns substantially intact Table 2.4

Height variation

Variation in rolls with multiple surviving columns: column height, upper & lower margins A. Oxyrhynchus sample

B. Comparison sample 1. Roman era examples (non-Oxyrhynchite) I 2. Ptolemaic era examples Table 2.5

Variation in leading, lines, and letters per column (Oxyrhynchus sample)

Variation in rolls with multiple surviving columns intact over the full height Notes: For discussion of table 2.1, see §2.1; for tables 2.2-2.3, §2.4.1; for tables 2.4—2.5, §2.4.2. For the qualifiers (*,**,-,—) used in the variation tables, see 'Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla' at the front of the book.

Table 2.1

TABLE 2.1

Identified scribes

A. Rolls of more than one author copied by the same scribe (Oxyrhynchite) tScnbe Al

tScribeA2

XPOxy

844

Isocrates, Panegyricus

XPOxy

1246

Thucydides, 7

X?POxy

767

Iliad 11

(The identification of POxy 767 is not certain. See the discussion at §2.1.1.) Boeotian lyric verses XPOxy 2373 XPOxy

2404+

Aeschines, in

Ctesiphontem

PLaur inv. I I I / 2 7 8 PSI

tScribe A3

IX 1090

XPOxy

1249

Erinna Babrius

POxy

2159

POxy

2 1 6 0 + P S J X I 1 2 1 0 Aeschylus, Glaukos

XPOxy

2161+PSi XI

Aeschylus, Glaukos Aeschylus,

Pontios Potnieus

Diktyoulkoi

1209

iPOxy 2162 POxy

2163

POxy

2164

Aeschylus, Theoroi or Isthmiastai Aeschylus, Myrmidones Aeschylus, Xantriai

j:POxy 2178

Aeschylus,

XPOxy

Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas

2179

# POxy 2245 POxy 2246 POxy 2247 POxy 2248 POxy 2249 POxy 2250

Aeschylus,

POxy

Aeschylus, ?

2251

Agamemnon Prometheus?

Aeschylus, Altnaiai

or

Philoktetes

Aeschylus, ? Aeschylus, Semele or

Hydrophoroi

Aeschylus, Semele o r

Hydrophoroi

Aeschylus, Theoroi or

Isthmiastai

POxy POxy POxy POxy

Scribe A4 tScribe A5

^Scribe A6

:fScribe A7

2252 Aeschylus, Prometheus Pyrkaios 2253 Aeschylus, Iphigeneia 2254 Aeschylus, ? 2255 Aeschylus, ? PSI X I 1208 Aeschylus, Niobe (XPOxy 3677 is not in this hand.) POxy 1082 Cercidas POxy 1 2 4 7 Thucydides, 8 XPOxy 1 0 9 2 (plate 3) Herodotus, 2 XPOxy 2 2 9 7 Alcaeus XPOxy 3 2 1 3 Doric lyric verses (Alcman?) XPOxy 3676 (plate 4) Plato, Pkaedo tPOxy 3710 (plate 5) Commentary on Odyssey 20 POxy ined. Herodotus, 3 PSI XIV 1390 Euphorion PSI XIV 1391 Commentary on choral lyric PMich mv. 4 9 1 3 Boeotian history? (The PMich piece is claimed for this scribe in Funghi and Savorelli 1992a, 75-6.) XPOxy

1809

Plato, Phaedo

XPOxy 2076 XPOxy 2288

Sappho Sappho

XPOxy

D e m o s t h e n e s , de Corona

2 3 1 (plate 1)

61

62

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

T A B L E 2.1 - continued

Scribe A8

XPOxy

1619 (plate 2)

XPOxy

2313

POxy ined. POxy ined. POxy ined.

Iliad 1 3 - 1 4

PSIXl

1202

PSIXI

1206

Demosthenes, in Aphobum Lysias, Epitaphios Lysias, contra Hippothersem, al.

POxy

Scribe A9

Scribe A10 Scribe A l l

PScribe A12

PScribe A13

Scribe A14 Scribe A15 Scribe A l 6 ^Scribe A17

Scribe A18

^Scribe A19

Herodotus, 3 Archilochus

1606

Herodotus, 2 , 4 , 7 Unidentified prose

(Identified in the introduction to PSIXl POxy 2219 Euphorion POxy 2319 Ionic verses

1206.)

PHarr 1.32?

Unidentified

POxy 1241 PSI XI 1211 POxy 1083 POxy 2453 POxy 3675

Scholar's memoranda? Aeschylus, Myrmidones Sophocles? (satyr play) Sophocles, Polyidos or Mantels, etc. Plato, Leges 9

POxyHels

Odyssey

6

23

POxy 664 Aristotle, Protrepticus POxy 1176 Satyrus,life of Euripides (Turner 1956,146 lists as a 'possible' identification.) POxy 227 Xenophon, Oeconomicus POxy 1375 Herodotus, 7 POxy 2260? Commentary on a poetic text (Turner 1956,146 lists as a 'possible' identification, and casts further doubt on the ascription of POxy 2260.) Callimachus (codex) POxy 2258 Apollonius Rhodius (codex?) POxy ined. Alcaeus? POxy 2 3 0 1 Commentary on Aristophanes PFlor 112 Alcaeus POxy 2302 Pindar POxy ined. Anacreon XPOxy 2 3 2 1 XPOxy 2693 Apollonius Rhodius, 3 POxy ined. Lycophron POxy ined. Aratus POxy 2306 Commentary on Alcaeus POxy 2368 Commentary on Bacchylides? POxy 2742 Commentary on Old Comedy (Cratinus?) XPOxy 2 3 1 8 Trimeters in Ionic XPOxy 2327 Simonides XPOxy 2389+3210 Commentary on Alcman XPOxy 2397 XPOxy 2430

Commentary on Iliad 17

XPOxy

Pindar, Dithyrambs

Simonides (same roll as 2327?) POxy 2694? Apollomus Rhodius, 2, 4 (two rolls, apparendy) (On the identification of 2327 and 2430, see Plumer 3; M. Haslam at 3210 disputes the identification of 2694 suggested in Kingsley 1960,46.)

^Scribe A20

1604

Table 2.1

TABLE 2.1 -

Scribe A21 Scribe A 2 2

continued XPOxy

2445

XPOxy

1788

Alcaeus?

XPOxy

2446

Pindar,

tScribe A24

t?Scnbc A25

Pindar?, Dithyrambs S (same as 1604?) Hyporchemata

XPOxy 2443? Alcman (Funghi and Savorelli 1992b identify 2446 and 2443 as part of this group, 2446 convincingly, 2443 less so. In the same publication, they claim this scribe for the two papyri here listed under #A30, but I join Hunt and Lobel in seeing a different, if similar, scribe at work.) POxy 2 2 1 3 Callimachus, A itia 3 POxy 2497 Hesiod, Catalogus? POxy 2427 E p i c h a r m u s , various plays POxy

?Scribe A23

63

POxy

3151 228

Sophocles, Ajax

Locrus

Plato, Laches

POxy 2749 Thucydides, 2 POxy 3156+3669 Plato, Gorgias (M. Haslam at POxy 3326 disputes the identification of 228; H . Cockle at 3550 disputes the identification of any of the three.) POxy 1364 Antiphon Sophistes, F063 &7* <97&03(* XPOxy 2077 Sophocles, Nauplius? XPOxy 2452 Sophocles (or Euripides?),Theseus XPOxy 2889 Aeschines Socraticus, Miltiades XPOxy

3215

Tragedy (fr. 1)

XPOxy

3215

E u r i p i d e s , Hecuba (fr. 2)

XPOxy 3683? [Plato], [Lucian], or Leon, Halcyon PSI XIII 1302 Euripides, Alkmene (same roll as 3215 fr. 1?) (Despite the variant form of 3, I see no good reason to doubt the assignment of 1364 and 2889 to this scribe. [1364 I have compared by photograph.] The ascription of 3683 is very possible, given its closeness to the script of 2077, but too little remains to be certain.) XPOxy 2495 Hesiod, Catalogus, <=3,+9 ): +9 XPOxy

3220

H e s i o d , Erga, Aspis

POxy med. Apollomus Rhodius, 3-4 (I cannot verify the identification of 2495 and 3220. Sec the discussion at §2.1.9.) Scribe A26 Scribe A27 ^Scribe A28

POxy

3532

Gnomai

POxy

3541

Menander,

Monostichoi?

POxy

3008

A n o n y m o u s prose (on dualism)

Epitrepontes

POxy 3659

Anonymous satire (against philosophers)

XPOxy

Theocritus

1806

XPOxy 3325 Moschus (M.E.Weinstein at 3325 advances an identification with 1806 only to reject it; I agree that they do not belong to the same roll, but to my eye the two are clearly by the same copyist.) Scribe A29

POxy

ÊScribe A30

POxy 3674 XPOxy 1787

Plato, Leges 9 Sappho, Book 4

XPOxy

Pindar, Hymns, Paians, etc.

2441

2442

Pindar, Prosodia?

POxy ined. Pindar, Pythians (See under Scribe #A20 for the further identification proposed in Funghi and Savorelli 1992b.)

64

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

TART.F 7 1 - mntitiued ^Scribe A31

Scribe A32

$Scribe A33

PScribe A34

Scribe A35

XPOxy 3839 POxy ined. PMich inv. 6035

Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae Homer, Iliad 2.644-55 Aristophanes, Equités (excavated in Karanis) POxy 1 2 3 3 Alcaeus POxy 2307 Commentary on Alcaeus (Attributed to the same copyist by M. Haslam at 3891.) XPOxy 3 8 8 2 + P S / X I Thucydides, 1 1195 Thucydides, 3 XPOxy 3894? Choral lyric XPOxy 2630? XPOxy 2466(+3319?) Sesonchosis romance PSI XVII Congr. 12 Demosthenes, Phil iv (See Funghi and Savorelli 1992a, 86-8, who also dispute S. Wests judgment (ad 3319) that 2466 and 3319 come from one roll. E.G.Turners suggestion (reported ad 3448) that 3448 may be by the same hand is denied by M.W. Haslam [ad 3882], a judgment with which I concur.) POxy 2806 Old Comedy PVindob G24568+257+ Xenophon, Hellenka 1 (=MP 1552) 29781 (Identification suggested hesitandy at Harrauer 1978,356.) POxy 1016 Plato, Phaedrus 227-30 (proem only) POxy 3450+3885+ Thucydides, 1,2 (codex in 2 columns) PGen 2 +PRyl

3.548+

PKoeln 7.304 (Identification and discussion of similarities in Funghi and Savorelli 1992a, 79-83.)

B. Multiple rolls o f one author by the same scribe (Oxyrhynchite) ^Scribe B1

XPOxy 1174+2081 (a) +

Sophocles, Ichneutai

PapFlor X

XPOxy

1175

Sophocles, Eurypylus

(Turner 1987, 66 notes that the same scribe also copied 'some as yet unidentified prose works.') ^Scribe B2

XPOxy 26 (plate 6)

Demosthenes, Exordia

XPOxy 2549 Demosthenes, Epistula 1 (saine roll?) XPOxy 2548? Demosthenes, in Timocratem (I cannot verify the ascription of 2548. See the discussion at §2.1.11.) ^Scribe B3

XPOxy 2485 XPOxy 2639+P67 XI 1191

Hesiod, Catalogus Hesiod, Theogony

^Scribe B4

XPOxy 3436 XPOxy 3437 (very possibly a single roll)

Dinarchus, in Philoclem

Dinarchus, in Demosthenem

IScribe B5

XPOxy

JScribe B6

XPOxy 3376

Scribe B7

POxy

1182

Demosthenes, de Falsa Legatione

POxy

1093

Demosthenes, contra Boeotum

2100+3891+4109

Thucydides, 4 - 5 (probably 2 rolls) Thucydides, 8 (different format) Herodotus, 1 Herodotus, 2

Table 2.1

65

T A B L E 2 . 1 - continued

Scribe B8

PBerol inv. 9766 POxy

Scribe B9 Scribe BIO

Plato, Leges 8

23

Plato, Leges 9

(Identified in della Corte 1936.) POxy 1250 Achilles Tatius, 2 POxy 3837 Achilles Tatius, 8 POxy 3725? Nicarchus II POxy 4501 Epigrams (Nicarchus II?) POxy 4502 Nicarchus II R.A. Coles (ad 4502) thinks the documentary hands on the rectos to 4501 and 4502 are also the same amateur scribe.

The crux (/) marks groups of papyri whose identification I have verified or rejected; for each of these groups I also mark with a crux the papyri I have personally examined. See §2.1 for a detailed discussed of marked papyri. The list above is a corrected and expanded version ofthat in Krüger 1990,193—5, itself an expansion from the list in Turner 1956,146. Three corrections to Krüger's table are worth noting: 2373 rather than 1273 should be assigned to Scribe # 2 (=#A2); 3677 is mistakenly identified with Scribe # 3 (=#A3); Krügers Scribe #21 will not be found here, since the two papyri he lists are probably from one roll (2481 and PSIXIII 1301, both containing sections from Hesiod's Catalogus). I have therefore abandoned Krügers numeration after #20. All of my additions are compiled from suggestions of the Oxyrhynchus editors except as noted.

In my scribal researches I have also come across the following identifications without Oxyrhynchite provenance, which however I suppose to be only a very partial list: C. Non-Oxyrhynchite rolls copied by the same scribe Scribe CI (Hermopolis) Scribe C2 (Tebtunis)

PBerol 21192

Demosthenes, in Macartatum (=MP 329.2)

PVindob G 2 9 7 6 8

I sa ens, de Nicostrato ( = M P 1238)

(The identification, which I doubt, is suggested in Maehler 1969.) PTebt 2.682 Xenophon, Oeconomicus (=MP 1563.1, Pack2 2905) PLondLit (=PGiss

Scribe C3 (Fayum?)

152+PGissLit

3. 2

X e n o p h o n , Symposium

(=MP

1565)

1.1)

(Identified in van Rossum-Steenbeek 1993.) PMilVogl 11.34+35 Bad 6-7 (=AiP 771, 990) PMil Vogl II. 1 1 2 + 1 1 6

Riad 22 ( = M P 8 0 9 , 9 9 2 )

(Identified in Moretti 1993, 92; for the provenance, see Gallazzi 1990, 288 n. 16.)

66

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

TABLE 2.2

W i d t h variation

Variation in rolls with multiple surviving columns: column width, column-to-column width, intercolumn width (all measurements in centimetres) A. Oxyrhynchu s sample 1. Prose texts POxy

Column width

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

16+696 Thuc. 4

696," 696,vi 696,vii 16,i 16,ii 16,iii variation

5.05 5.1 5.15 5.15 5.15 ±0.05 (1%)

-6,25 -6,3 -6.35 6.4 6.35 ±-0.075 (1%)

1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.25 1.2 ±0.075 (6%)

23

coll col2 col3 var.

6.5 6.45 ±0.025 (0%)

-8 ~

2.1 2.0

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 var.

5.5 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5 ±0.2 (4%)

7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.85 7.9 ±0.05 (1%)

4.7 4.75

7.1 7.1

var.

4.5 ±0.125 (3%)

7.05 ±0.025 (1%)

2.4 2.35 2.55 2.55 ±0.1 (4%)

coll col2 col3 var.

8.1 -8.0 ±-0.05 (1%)

9.2

1.1 1.1

coll col2 col3 var.

5.7 -5.6 ±0.05 (1%)

6.7

PI

Lg.

26 Demosth. Ex.

227 Xen. Oec.

230 Demosth. de Cor.

454 P L Gorg.

463 Xen,

An.

coll col2 col3 col4

coll col4 col6 col7 col8 var.

±0.05 (2%)

~

2.4 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.45 2.4 ±015^(5%)

0 (0%) 1.0 1.0 0 (0%)

5.1 -5.0 1.9 2.1 -4.9 ± - 0 . 1 (2%)

±0.1 (5%)

Table 2.1 67

TABLE 2.1 - continued

844 Isoc. Pan,

1017 PL Phdr.

1183 hoc. Trap.

1250 Ach. Tat.

1376 Thuc. 7

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

5.75 5.9 6.05 6.0 5.9

-8.25 -8.0

2.5 2.1

-8.0

2.0

6.0 6.0 6.0

-8.1 -8.1 -8.2

6.0 6.0

-8.0 -8.0

Column width

POxy

coll col7 col8 col9 col 10 coli 8 col22 col23 col24 col31 eol33 col34 col44 col46 col47 var.

5.85 6.0 ±0.15 (2.5%)

± - 0 . 1 5 (2%)

±0.25 (11%)

col2 col3 col4 col5 coli 9 col20 col21 col22 col26 col34 var.

±0.1 (2%)

± - 0 . 1 (1%)

2.2 1.9 ±0.15 (7%)

coli col2 col3 var.

5.5 5.55 ±0.025 (1%)

7.8

2.3 2.3

coli col2 col3 var.

7.0 6.7 -6.65 ±0.2 (3%)

coli col2 col3 col9 col 10 col20 col21 col31

var.

-6.5 6.5 -6.4 6.4 -6.3 6.5 6.3 -6.3

-7.95

2.1 2.1 2.1 2,2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.05 2.1

-5.7 —6.3 6.1 -6.0 6.0 6.1 6.0 ± - 0 . 3 (5%)

8.4 -8.3 8.5

-8.3 8.4 8.4

1.9 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1

0 (0%) 8.75 8.7

1.75 2.0

± - 0 . 1 (1%)

±0.125 (7%)

-7.95

2.25

-8.3 -8.1 8.15

2.2 2.1 2.05 2.2

± - 0 . 1 7 5 (2%)

±0.1 (5%)

68

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

T A B L E 2.2 - continued

POxy 1808 PI .Resp

coll col2 col5 vär

1810 011,frr5-7 Demosth. Ol 1 012,frr5-6 013,fr5i Phlfr3 Phlfrrlli Phlfrl Iii Paxfr2i var. 2096+3374 Hdt. 1

2098 Hdt. 7

2100+3891 +4109 Thuc. 4

2101 Xen. Cyr.

2096frl Iii 2096fr 1 liii 2096frl2iv 2096frl2v 2096frl4i 3374fr5i 3374fr7i 3374frl0i 3374frl3i var col5 col7 col9 collO

Column width

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

4.6 4.9 ±0.15 (3%)

6.7 6.8 ±-0.05 (1%)

ÏJ5 2.1 1.9 ±0.175 (9%)

8.3

2.1

- 8 15

2.15

-6.25 -6.1 6.2 -6.2 -6.0 -6.25 ±-07125^(2%)^

FKX07 b{\%)

6.5

8.1

6.4

8.0

-6.3

-7.9

±0.05 (1%)

±-0.1 (1%)

5.7 5.7

-8.05 -7.9

57 5~(Ö%)

8K ±-0.075 (1%)

frl fr2 fr4i fr5ii fr8i fr8ii fr8iii fr9ii fr9iii _

±0.2 (4%)

coll col2 col3 col4 ^

5.5 5.5 5.5 5^8 ±0.15 (3%)

5.4

-7.0

5.5 5.7 5.5

-7.1 -7.2 7.0 ^

2.1 ±0.075 (4%) 1.55 1.6 1.55 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.65 ±0.075 (5%) 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 ±0.1 (5%) 1.45 ^1.55 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

±-0.1 (1%)

1.5 1.4 ±0.075 (5%)

7.7 7.5 7.45 7^6 ±0.125 (2%)

2.2 2.0 1.95 1.8 ±0.2 (10%)

Table 2.2

continued Column width

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

coli col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 col8 var.

4.9 4.85 4.8 4.85 4.8 4.8 4.8 ±0.05 (1%)

-7.0 7.15 7.1 7.15 7.0 -6.9 -7.1 ± - 0 . 1 2 5 (2%)

2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 ±0.05 (2%)

coli col2 col4 col5 var.

5.2 5.5 5.4 ±0.15 (3%)

frrC+Di frrE+Dii var.

-6.3 6.5 ± - 0 . 1 (2%)

POxy 2102+

PTurner 7 PL Phdr.

2749 Thuc. 2

2751 PL Resp.

3437 Dinarch. in Phil,

3447 Strabo 9

3676 PL Phd.

3721 Theophr.

3879 Thuc. 1

coli col4 col5 col6 var.

7.3 7.75

2.15 2.1 2.25

±0.225 (3%)

±0.075 (3%)

-8.8

2.5

1.8 1.9 5.0 5.0 0 (0%) -6.5 6.5

frl4i frl4ii frl9i frl9ii var.

-6.7 ± - 0 . 1 (2%)

coli col2 col3 var.

-4.6 4.5 ± - 0 . 0 5 (1%)

coli col2 col3 var.

6.3 -6.3 6.3 0 (0%)

frli fr2i fr3i fr3iii var.

6.0

7.1 (roll end)

2.1 ±0.05 (3%)

8.8

2.3 2.3 2.0

0 (0%)

±0.15 (7%)

00

TABLE 2,2 -

2.0

-5.8 5.7 ±0.15 (2.5%)

-6.5

2.0 0 (0%)

-8.0 -8.0

1.7 1.7

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

-7.7 7.7 0 (0%)

-2.0 -1.9 2.0 ± - 0 . 0 5 (2.5%)

69

70

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

TABLE 2.2 - continued C o l u m n width

POxy

4030 Aeschin. in

Tim.

4045+4053 Aeschin. in Ctes.

4047+4051 Aeschin. in Ctes.

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 var. 4045coll 4053col2 var. 4047 4051 var.

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

-7.7 6.8

-1.5 -1.65 -1.7 -1.3

6.0 5.5 -5.5 ±0.25 (4%)

± - 0 . 4 5 (6%)

± - 0 . 2 (13%)

-4.95 5.0 ± - 0 . 0 2 5 (0.5%)

-6.35 6.3 ±-0.025 (0.5%)

1.4 1.3 ±0.05 (4%)

C o l u m n width

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

—14.0 —15.5 —14.5 —15.0 —14.5 —15.0 —15.0 —15.0

[16.15] 20.3 20.75 21.1 20.5 20.6 20.5 20.8 ±0.4(2%) [coll excepted: see §2.2]

[—2.0] —4.25 —6.0 —6.0 —6.0 —5.25 —6.0 —5.5

4.8 4.8 0 (0%)

2.Verse texts POxy

223+PKoeln 5.210 IL 5

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 col8 var.

B. C o m p a r i s o n sample 1. R o m a n era examples (non-Oxyrhynchite) a. Prose texts MP 300 Demosth. adv. Lept.

1233 Hyperides in Dem. pro Lye., pro Eux.

coll co!2 col3 col4 variation coll col2 col3 co 14 col5 col6 col7

C o l u m n width

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

6.0 6.1 5.9 ±0.1 (2%)

7.3 -7.4

13 1.3 1.3

± - 0 . 0 5 (1%)

Ö(Ö%) 2.0

5.0 4.9 5.0 4.8 -4.8 4.85

6.9

2.0

6.9 -6.8 6.85

2.1 2.0 2,0

Table 2.1 71

TABLE 2.1 -

continued Column width col8 col9 collO colli coll 2 coll 3 col 14 collS coll 6 coll 8 coll 9 col20 col21 col22 col23 col24 col25 col26 col27 col28 col29 col30 col31 col32 col33 col34 col35 col36 col37 col38 col39 col40 col41 col42 col43 col44 co!45 col46 col47 col48 col49 var. coll col6 col7 col8 col9

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

7.0 7,0 6.95 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.85 6.9

2.0 2.0 2.05 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

7.0 6.95 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0 6.95 6.95 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.95 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9

2.0 1.95 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.95 1.95 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.95 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9

±0.15 (3%)

±0.15 (2%)

±0.1 (5%)

5.5 -5.4 -5 4

7.1

1.6 1.6

5.0 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.85 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

1.65

72

Scribes in Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the Uniformity o f the Literary R o l l

T A B L E 2.2 -

continued

MP

1552 Xen.

Hell.

1564 Xen.

Symp.

Column width

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

collO colli coll 2 var.

5.5 5.5 -5.3 ±-0.1 (2%)

7.1 -7.1 -7.0 ±-0.05 (1%)

1.6 1.6 1.65 ±0.025 (2%)

col 12 col 13 coll 4 coll 5 coll 6 col 17 coll 8 coll 9 col20 col21 col22 col23 col24 col25 col26 var.

7.2 -7.5 7.4 7.5 7.45 7.55 7.5 7.5 7.55 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.4 ±0.175 (2%)

col2 col7 var.

-9.0 8.8 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.75 8.9 8.7 8.75 8.65 8.85

1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.35 1.25 1.3 1.25

±-0.175 (2%)

±0.075 (6%)

5.6 5.5 ±0.05 (1%)

7.0

-1.4 1.5 ±-0.05 (3%)

Column width

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

b. Verse texts MP 919 II, 14

coil col2 col3 col4 col5

—8.2 —8.2 —8.1 —8.1

10.3 10.3 10.2 9.9 ± 0.2 (2%)

Column width

Column-to-colum n

-6.05 —6.05 -6.5

-7Ü —7.05 7.1

-6.3

7.1

-6.6

7.2

—2.0 —2.1 —2.1 —2.1 —1.8

2. Ptolemaic era examples a. Prose texts MP 88 Anaximenes

coll col2 col5 col6 col7 col9 col 10

Intercolumn HLÖ —1.0 -0.6 -1.0 -0.9 -0.7 -0.6

Table 2.1 73

TABLE 2.1 -

continued Column-to-column

Intercolumn

-7.0 -6.9 ± - 0 . 4 7 5 (7%)

7.9 7.9 ±0.425 (6%)

-0.5 -0.7 -0.9 -1.0 ± - 0 . 2 5 (33%)

frlSb.i frl5b.ii coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 col8 col9 var.

4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2 ±0.1 (2%)

5.2

1.1

5.2 5.2 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.4

1.2 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2

±0.15 (3%)

±0.15 (13%)

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 col8 col9 collO colli coll 2

-5.1 -5.8 -5.7 -5.7 -5.7 -5.8 -5.5 -5.9 -6.0 -6.0 -5.8 -5.9 ± - 0 . 4 5 (8%)

6.6T/6.4F 7.0T&F 7.1T/7.0F 7.0T/6.9F 6.9T/6.8F 6.8T&F 7.0T/6.8F 7.2T/6.6F 7.1T/7.5F 7.2T/7.0F 7.0T&F

1.5T/1.3F 1 -2T&F 1.4T/1.3F 1.3T/1.2F 1.2T/1.1F 1.0T&F 1.5T/1.3F 1.3T/0.7F 1.1T/1.5F 1.2T/1.0F 1.2T&F

±0.3T/0.55F (4%/8%)

±0.25T/0.4F (20%/36%)

7.9

-1.5 -1.3

Column width

MP col 13 coll 5 coll 6 col 17 variation 337H Hyperides in Phil

337D (=Pack 2 1234) Demosth. Ep. (T=top of col.; F=foot of col.)

var. 1388 PI. Phd.

1409 PL Lack

col3 col4 col5 col8 coll 2 col 13 coll 4 coll 5 var. coll col3 col4 var.

-6.6 -5.9 -6.5

7.9

-1.4 -1.5

-6 2 -7.1 ± - 0 . 6 (9%)

0 (0%)

-6.5

8.3

-6.5 0 (0%)

7.8 ±0.25 (3%)

-1.6 -1.6 ±0.15 (10%) -1,8 -1.5 -1.3 ± - 0 . 2 5 (16%)

74

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

TABLE 2.2 - concluded b. Verse texts MP 980 IL 21

998

H. 23

1537 Timoth. Pers.

col68 co!73 col76 col78 col80 col95 coll 07 variation coll col2 colli coll 2 col 13 col 14 coll 5 col 16 col 17 coll 8 col 19 col20 col21 col22 col23 col28 col29 var. col3 col5 var.

C o l u m n width

Column-to-column

Intercolumn

—14.5 —15.5 —14.5 —15.0 —14.5 — 14.0 —15.0

-16.5 17.8

—2.0 —2.3

-17.6 -17.6

—2.6 —3.1

16.9 ± - 0 . 6 5 (4%)

—1.9

—3.0 —11.0 —11.0 —12.0 —11.5

—11.5 —11.75 —12.25 —11.5 —11.5 —11.5 —11.5 —12.0 —12.0

-14.5

—3.5

14.3

—3.0

14.3 -14.3 14.3 14.2 -14.4

—3.0 —2.5 —2.0 —2.5 —3.0

14.2

—2.0 —2.0

± - 0 . 1 5 (1%) —20.5 —20.0

22.7 23.5 ±0.4 (2%)

—2.2 —3.5

TABLE 2.3 Width variation by letter count (Oxyrhynchus sample) Variation in rolls with multiple surviving columns: letter counts, averaged over the column, tabulated only for substantially intact columns POxy 16+696 Thuc. 4

Letters/line Ï6Ï 16,ii 16,hi variation

21.31 21.68 21.52 ±0.19 (1%)

POxy

1376 Thuc. 7

26 Demosth. Ex.

227 Xen. Oec.

844 Isoc. Pan.

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 var! coll col2 col4

13.20 13.17 12.83

vär

±0.18 (1%)

col7 col8 col9 col 10 col22 col23 col24 col33 col34 col46 col47

16.76 16.93 16.67 16.68 17.23 16.82 17.26 16.87 17.03 16.21 16.33 ±0.53 (3%)

1017

col4

PI. Phdr.

col5

1183 hoc. Trap.

1250 Ach. Tat.

17.52 17.68 16.85 18.00 17.58 18.23 ±0.69 (4%)

2096+3374 Hdt. 1

col3 var.

22.22 ±0.23 (1%)

coll col2 col3 col20 col21 col31 var.

18.90 19.00 19.78 18.94 19.73 19.60 ±0.44 (2%)

Oil } frr5-7 Phl,frlli Phi ,frl Iii Pax,fr2i var.

20.88 20.88 20.63 20.75 ±0.13 (1%)

3374 fr7,l 2096 frlliii 2096 frl 2v

17.03 16.57 16.00 ±0.52 (3%)

var.

2098

col5

Hdt. 7

col7 var.

2100+3891+ 4109

frSii frSii

Thuc. 4

fr8iii fr9+10.ii var.

2101 Xen. Cyr.

col2

18.97

13.14 13.40 ±0.13 (1%) 20.03 23.37 22.81 20.27 ±1.67 (8%)

19.42

col 19 col20 col21 col22 väE

18.35 18.56 18.11 17.79 ±0.82 (4%)

col2 col3

16.10 16.66 ± 0.28 (2%)

coll col2

1810 D e m o s t h . OL 1

Letters/line

21.83 22.29

col3 col4

var. 2 1 0 2 + L Turner 7

coll

PI. Phdr.

col2 col3

col4 col5 col6 var.

18.50 18.14 17.61 ±0.44 (2%) 13.97 14.14 14.50 14.72 14.21 13.38 ±0.67 (5%)

76

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

TABLE 2.3 - concluded

POxy 2751

PI. Resp.

Letters/line frrC+Di fnE+Dii

vu. 3437 co15 Dinarch. in Phil. co16

vu. 3447 Strabo 9

fr14i fr14ii

vu.

19.14 18.33 ±O.40 (2%) 11.51 12.43 ±0.46 (4%) 17.97 17.12 ±0.42 (2%)

POxy 3721 Theophr.

de J.-entis

4030 Aeschin. in Tim.

Letters/line coIl co12 col3 yare

16.29 16.74 16.58 ±O.22 (1%)

call col2 col3 co14 yare

22.21 18.26 20.49 17.51 ±2.35 (12%)

Table 2.1

TABLE 2*4 Height variation Variation in rolls with multiple surviving columns: column height, upper & lower margins (in centimetres) A . Oxyrhynchus sample Col. h e i g h t

POxy

27

coll

Isoc.Antid.

col2

2.3 ± 0 . 0 5 (2%)

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 col8 col9 collO colli var.

17.1 17.15 17.25 17.9 18.8 18.7 18.1 18.4 18.45 18.2 18.8 ±0.85 (5%)

col2 col3 var.

16.0 16.15 ±0.075 (1%)

de Cor:

coll col2 var.

24.4 24.0 ±0.2 (1%)

844

col7

22.0

Isoc. Pan.

col8

21.9

PKoeln

5.210

II. 5

228 PI. Lach.

230 Demosth.

col9 collO col22 col23 col25

1017

4.2 3.8 3.75 3.6 3,4 3.5

3.0 ± 0 . 6 (17%)

4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.1

4.0 ±0.25 (6%)

21.9

5.6 5.5 5.4

var.

21.85 21.8 21.8 -21.6 21.75 ± - 0 . 2 (1%)

col4 col5 col6 coll 9 col20 col21 var.

-24.35 24.2 -24.0 -24.0 -24.0 -24.2 ±0.175 (1%)

col47

PI. Phdr.

Lower m a r g i n

2.2

variation 223+

Upper margin

5.4

±0.1 (2%)

Roll height

91

78

Scribes m Oxyrhynchus: Scribal Habits, Paradosis, and the U n i f o r m i t y of the Literary R o l l

TABLE 2.4 -

continued

Col. height

POxy

1250 Ach. Tat.

^n col2 col3 vair

187 19.1 18.6 ±0.25 (1%)

1819

2.1 2.Ü

-15.8 15.8

vär

070%)

Od. 10

Upper margin

Lower margin

Roll height

25.4

2098 Hdt. 7

col5-6 col9-ll m.

2100+3891+ 4109 Thuc. 4

frBii frBiii

18.65 18.35 ±0.15 (1%)

2101

col4

16.2

3.9

5.3

X e n . Cyn

col5

16.2

3.9

5.3

var

6.0 5^9 ±0.05 (1%)

"

070%T

""

0*/,)~

0 (0%)

25.4

" 0 (0%)

2102+

coll

-15.3

5.3

PTurner 7

co\2

-15.3

5.3

4.8

-25.4

PL Phdr.

col3

14.9

5.3

4.9

25.1

col4 col5 col6 col7 ^

14.9 14.9 14.9 15.05 ±0.2 (1%)

5.3 5.3 5.3 53 010%)

2223

coll

16.1

3.8

E u r . Bacch.

col2

16.25

wZ

±0.075 (1%)

Euv, Andr.

coll col2 mï.

15.5 15.9 ±0.2 (1%)

3436 Dinarch. in Dem.

frb.l frb.3 var.

-19.45 19.3 ±-0K75 (0%)

3447 Strabo 9

frl4i fr!4ii

-20.35 -20.1 ±-0.125 (1%)

2335

3.8

0~(Ö%)

4.9 4.7 4.6 4^65 ±0.15 (3%)

25.1 24.9 24.8 25.05 ±0.3 (1%)

Table 2.1 79

TABLE 2.4 — continued Col. height

POxy

3663 n. 18

frr1-2 fr6 var.

4030 Acschin. in Tim.

4041 Aeschin. in Ctes.

coll

Upper margin

Lower m a r g i n

R o l l height

Lower m a r g i n

Roll heij

3.6

3.5 ±0.05 (1%)

col3 var.

-18.0 -18.4 ± - 0 . 2 (1%)

fr.a,i fr.a,ii var.

14.6 14 7 ±0.1 (1%)

B. C o m p a r i s on sample 1. R o m a n era examples (non-Oxyrhynchite) MP

Col. height

300 Demosth. adv. Lept.

coll col2 var.

16.3 16.4 ±0.1 (1%)

650 1.2

col23 col24 var.

21.5 21.4 ±0.05 (.5%)

857 77.10

col8 colli var.

-24.2 -24.6 ±0.2 (1%)

1039

coll3 col 14 var.

20.2 20.3 ±0.05 (.5%)

Od. 3

1233

Hyper. in

Dem.,

pro. Lye., pro

Eux.

coll col2

col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 col8 col9 collO colli coll2 coll3 coll4 coll 5

Upper margin

16.2 16.0 16.0 16.1 16.1 16.0 16.15 15.9 16.0 16.2 16.3 16.3 16.2 16.1 16.0

7.1 7.1 0 (0%)

8.3 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.4

8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4

30.9 30.7 30.8 30.8 30.7 30.5 30.8

8.1 8.1

6.4 6.3 6.3

8.2 8.2 8.3

30.8 30.8 30.7 30.7 30.7

80

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

TABLE 2-4 — continued MP

Col. height col 16 coll 8 coll 9 col20 col21 col22 col23 col24 col25 col26 col27 coI28 col29 col30 col31 col32 col33 col34 col35 col36 col37 col38 col39 col40 col41 col42 col43 col44 col45 col46 col47 col48 col49 var.

Upper margin

Lower margin

Rol l height

6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6 6.5-6.6

8.0 8.2

30.7 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.7 30.6 30.7 30.7 30.8

16.0 16.0 16.0 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.8 16.1 15.9 16.3 16.3 16.0 16.2 16.2 15.8 15.9 15.9 16.0 16.3 16.2 16.2 16.3 16.3 15.9 15.8 16.2 15.9 16.0 16.3 16.1 16.2 16.2 16.3 ±0.25 (2%)

6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 ±0.25 (5%)

±0.2 (2%)

Col. height

Upper margin

Lower margin

8.3

8 2

8 2

30.9

30.6 30.5 7.9 30.8

6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.5

8.0 8.3 8.0 8.0

30.9 30.9 30.8

8.4

31.0

8.3

30.9 30.7 30.9 30.9 ±0.25 (1%)

8.1

2. P t o l e m a i c era examples MP 88~

coll

-10.4

Anaxim.

col9

10.0

Rhet. ad Alex.

collO

colli coll 6 col 17 variation

10.0

10.1 -10.05 10.0 ±-0.2 (2%)

Roll

height

Table 2.1 81

TABLE 2.1 -

continued

MP 337H

Col. h e i g h t frlSbi

Hyper, in Phil. frlSbii

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 col8 col9 var. 337D coll (=Pack2 1234) col2 Demosth. Ep. col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 col8 col9 col 10 colli coll 2 var.

14.8 14.6 14.5 14.5 14.7 14.8 14.6 15.0 15.3 14.9

Lower margin

Roll height

3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4

±0.4 (3%)

3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 ±0.1 (3%)

16.7 16.9 16.8 17.0 17.0 17.35 17.1 17.25 17.1 17.0 17.3 17.4 ±0.325 (2%)

3.1 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 ±0.45 (13%)

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.4 3.4 3.3

23.8 23.8 23.8 23.9 24,0 23.95 24.0 23.95

±0.35 (10%)

±0.1 (0.5%)

4.0 3.8 3.8 ±0.1 (3%)

3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 0 (0%)

879 17.11

coll col2 var.

980 IL 21

col68 col69 co!79 CO 180 col81 col95 coll 05 col 107 coll08 var.

±0.1 (1%)

col2 colli coll3 collS coll7

20.7 20.8 20.8 20.8 -21.0

998 //. 23

Upper margin

11.5 -11.6 ±0.1 (1%) 16.0 16.0

15.8 16.0

2.3

82

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

TABLE 2.4 - concluded MP

Col. height coll 8 coll 9 col20 col25 col28 col29 col40 col41 col42 var

1388 PL Phd.

1409 VI Lach.

1537 Timoth. Pers.

^ ^

2HH 20.9 20.7 -20.9 20.7 20.7

±0.2 (1%)

col3 col4 col5 col8 col9 coll 4 coll 5 col 17 var

14.3 -14.5

±0.15 (1%)

col4 col5

20.6 -21.0

var.

±-02~(M%#

col3 col5 var.

16.9 16.9

14.4 14.3 -14.6

0 (0%)

Upper margin

2.1 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.2 ±0.2 (9%) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Ö7Ü%)

Lower margin

Roll height

2.2

±0.05 (2%)

3.9 3.9

21.2 21.1

4.1 ±0.1 (2.5%)

±0.1 (0.5%)

Table 2.1 83

TABLE 2.5 Variation in leading, lines, and letters per c o l u m n (Oxyrhynchus sample) Variation in rolls with multiple surviving columns intact over the full height Leading ( m m )

Lines/col.

Letters/coL

7.3 7.0 7.35 7.3 7.7 7.35 7.4 7.55 7.55 7.45 7.7 ±0.35 (5%)

24 25 24 25 25 26 25 25 25 25 25 ±1 (4%)

(verse)

col2 col3 var.

5.1 [4.9-5.1] 5.15 [5.0-5.2] ±0.025 (1%)

32 32 0 (0%)

577 552 ±12.5 (2%)

230 Demosth. de Cor.

coll col2 var.

7.1 [6.6-7.1] 6.8 [6.2-7.0] ±0.15 (2%)

35 36 ±0.5 (1%)

784 831 ±23.5 (3%)

844 Isoc. Pan.

col7 col8 col 9 collO col22 col23 col25 col47 var.

5.45 [5.3-5.5] 5.55 [5.5-5.6] 5.7 [5.6-5.7] 5.55 [5.3-5.6] 5.65 [5.3-5.7] 5.65 [5.4-5.8] 5.45 [5.2-5.5] 5.65 [5.5-5.7] ±0.125 (2%)

41 40 39 40 39 39 40 39 ±1 (2%)

687 677 650 668 672 656 607 637 ±40 (6%)

1017

col4 col5 col6 coll9 col20 col21 var.

7.3 [7.0-7.6] 7.45 [7.25-7.5] 7.2 [7.2-7.45] 7.2 [6.8-7.5] 7.2 [6.9-7.3] 7.0 [6.85-7.0] ±0.22 (3%)

33 33 34 34 34 35 ± 1 (3%)

626 641 672 624 632 634 ±24 (4%)

coll col2 col3 var.

4.6 4.6 [4.3-4.5] 4.6 [4.4-4.6] 0 (0%)

41 42 41 ±0.5 (1%)

908 938 917 ±15 (2%)

POxy 223+PKoeln 5.210

11. 5

228 PI. Lach.

PI. Phdr.

1250 Ach. Tat.

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 col8 col9 collO colli variation

84

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

TABLE 2.5 - concluded POxy

Leading ( m m )

Lines/col.

Letters/col.

2100+3891+4109 Thuc. 4

frSii frSiii var.

5.0 [4.9-5.1] 5.05 ±0.025 (1%)

38 37 ±0.5 (1%)

889 842 ±23.5 (3%)

2101 Xen. Cyr.

col4 col5 var.

4.55 4.55 0 (0%)

36 36 0 (0%)

633 638 ±2.5 (<0.5%)

2102+

coll col2 col3 col4 col5 col6 col7 var.

5.35 5.35 5.4 5.25 [5.1-5.3] 5.25 [5.1-2] 5.25 [5.2-5.6] 5.5 ±0.125 (2%)

29 29 28 29 29 29 28 ±0.5 (2%)

405 406 403 420 405 380 375 ±22,5 (6%)

coll col2 var.

4.25 4.1 ±0.08 (2%)

37 39 ± 1 (3%)

(verse)

3436 Dinarch. in Dem.

frb.l frb.3 var.

5.65 5.6 ±0.025 (1%)

35 35 0 (0%)

452 450 ±1 (0%)

3447 Strabo 9

frl4i frl4ii var.

6.1 6.0 ±0.05 (1%)

34 34 0 (0%)

611 582 ±14.5 (2%)

4030 Aeschin. in Tim.

coll col2 col3 col4 col4 var.

5.55 5.0 5.3 4.9 4.9 ±0.325 (6%)

33 35 35 37

733 639 717 648 657 ±47 (7%)

PTumer

1

PL Phdr.

2335 E u r . Andr.

-

±2 (6%)

C H A P T E R THREE

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

3.0 Prologue: A Different Aesthetic The acsthctic of the codcx depends upon the page.1 Each double page presents itself separately to the reader, the columns of text forming a central block framed by the white space of the outer, top, and bottom margins. From an aesthetic point of view, the problems of design have to do with the proportions of this central block and how the block is situated. Should the rectangle of writing be wide or narrow, tall or squat? Are the margins proportionate to that rectangle? Is the block of text correctly positioned, that is, should the margins be the same all around, or should there be more of a margin at the bottom,or to the left and right? The answers to such questions will be matters of taste, and different ages will have their differing opinions. Among ancient papyrus codices, E.G. Turner has successfully identified a number of groups that appear to constitute prevailing fashions in different periods. Turner defines these groups by the width and height of the physical page, which is distinct from, though possibly related to, the width and height of the column of writing.2 For the codex, the disposition of the writing is in any case always bound up with the frame of the physical page, which is clearly prior. The aesthetic of the roll is, however, a different matter (figure 1). Each column succeeds one upon the other in a continuous, if segmented, band of writing. We could of

1 The argument here applies regardless ofwhether the basic unit of the codex is taken to be the single page or the two pages that face each other when the book lies open. Layout of modern books focuses on the latter, and such is assumed here; but ancient book designers may well have thought more of the single page since — single-quire codices aside — the pages were usually laid out and written with the sheets detached.

2 Turner 1977,13-25. Turner gives dimensions for the columns of writing in his final appendix, but does not offer any analysis.

86

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

course consider each column of writing (Gr. 0$;#9, L. pagina) as if it were the page of a codex, with a written block of text surrounded by margins on all sides, and our way of speaking ('the left margin of column two') will encourage this. But the image is artificial, one frame cut out from a continuous strip. Moreover, such an image may encourage serious error. Consider, for instance, the upper and lower margins. For the codex, the block of text is generally situated on a page so that the upper margin is smaller than the lower margin, andTurner has suggested as a rule of thumb a ratio of 2:3 for upper:lower margin.3The rule is as true today as it was in ancient times, and we see a similar aesthetic commonly employed in the framing of pictures and elsewhere, where a rectangle is surrounded by substantial white space. For whatever reasons, we seem to agree with the ancients that a block does not 'look right' unless framed with considerably greater space at the bottom. Does the same aesthetic apply where not a block but a band of written space is in question? In the event, the evidence wTill suggest that it does not, at least not exactly, and that editors have too lightly made the assumption that it does. But the point is that it need not. The aesthetic is substantially different, and there is little cause to assume that the fashions that attach to the codex will be the same as those for the roll. The codex page has no true counterpart in the roll.The physical presence of the page, with its block of text surrounded by upper, lower, and side margins, cannot be paralleled in the roll, where upper and lower margins are continuous and where the intercolumn belongs to no single column but (excepting start and end) to two. For this reason, the analysis here will focus on the written column of text, which, if organized in bands, nonetheless presents a distinct form. The narrow block of white space between the written columns (the intercolumn) will also come under scrutiny, for that too, in prose texts at least, presents a distinct form. And the column-to-column area (that is, from the left edge of one column to the left of the next) will be considered, since that, if a less distinct form, is nonetheless a discernible oscillation in the band of written text. Separately, the size of the bands of blank space at top and bottom constituting the upper and lower margins will be analysed. But we must leave behind the image of a notional 'page' consisting of a written column plus the surrounding margins, for that makes no sense in the context of the roll. 3.1 Construction of the Bookroll Nor does it make sense to import from codex culture notions of book production. While the codex has obvious advantages - greater capacity, hence economy of material; better protection of the contents; compactness of storage; accessibility of reference - the roll trumps the codex in one very important respect, namely, ease of construction. Codex production brings in its wake the need for specialty skills, such as the knowledge of how to 3 Ibid., 25.

Construction of the Bookroll

87

fashion and plan quires, sew bindings, craft and attach the covers. Bookroll production, by contrast, is nearly trivial. Blank rolls of (usually) twenty sheets were the normal way papyrus was sold.4 If the copying took the scribe to the end of a roll, he glued on an additional blank roll; if the scribe reached the end of that, he glued on another.5 This process continued until the copying was complete, at which point the blank remnant was cut away. A reinforced sheet, with fibres at right angles to the roll itself, could (but need not) be added at the beginning, perhaps also at the end, to help prevent fraying. Such, it appears, was the sum of the technical knowledge required. Implementa, too, were minimal: papyrus; pen, ink, sponge; knife, glue. Bookroll production could then have been extravagantly casual. And one does of course come across obviously casual, idiosyncratic examples. The four scrawled rolls of the Athenaiôn Politeia come to mind, for example; and I will return to aberrations of this type in §3.10.Yet what is perhaps surprising is how seldom such examples come into play. By and large, as we saw in chapter 2, the tendency among bookrolls is just the opposite: standards of construction that are exceedingly exacting. Much of what we will be studying in this chapter will be the hallmarks of conventional scribal behaviour, that series of trained habits and half-conscious ticks that both give the production a 'professional' look (but cf. §3.10 below) and circumscribe the fashions attaching to a particular time or group or place or text. What was the ideal of the normative? How restrictive were the parameters to this ideal? How rigorously were they applied? We will focus in particular on formal characteristics: the dimensions of column and intercolumn, size of margins, number of columns. Before proceeding with the analysis of the writing on the roll, however, it will be wise first to review in somewhat more detail the roll itself. When the scribe wished to write, what exactly did he pick up, how did he use and regard it, and how did he go about constructing that particular look that makes the papyrus roll a bookroll and not a document? At the core of this set of inquiries is the relationship between manufactured object and chosen design. What, if any, were the parameters of material and manufacture that may have influenced scribal attitudes and choices? 4 Evidence for a standard roll of 20 sheets is gathered in Cerny 1952,9; Lewis 1974,54-5; Skeat 1982,169-72; Blanchard 1993,37. We know of exceptional manufactured rolls of 50 or 70 sheets, but these seem to have been special orders (Lewis 55 n. 29) and the names (:0%&7;$%&<;$99$*, )84$ 7;$%&<;$99$*) suggest indire cdy the existence of a standard, since we otherwise hear of &" $* or .<6&7* without qualification, or of &63&$ $*, &0&6<&$ $*, etc. (details in Skeat). 5 In manufacture, the glue joins would be more refined, a three-layer join akin to a rabbet in cabinet joinery.That is, the upper sheet (at the left) has only the top, recto layer for the roughly 2 - c m flange that overlaps the bottom sheet (at the right). The recto of the upper sheet is then glued direcdy to the recto of the lower sheet, and the verso of the lower sheet adjoins the verso of the upper without overlapping; with pounding and smoothing, the line of the join becomes scarcely noticeable.The scribe, however, would simply glue the ends of the rolls together, resulting in a more noticeable four-layer join (the sytikollêsis). See John R e a s report in Turner 1978,20; and the remarks of Revel Coles in the introduction to PHarr 11.212.

88

Formal Characteristics o f the Bookroll

3.1,1 Kollesis and Kollêma: The constitution of the roll In undertaking the task of making a bookroll the scribe, as mentioned, took up not a blank sheet of papyrus, but a blank roll. Confusion on this important point permeates the fundamental scholarship as late as Schubart s handbook, 6 and continues to trip up the inexpert. Even when a sheet was what the task required, as for the writing of a brief document, or in the construction of quires for a papyrus codex, the sheet was most often got by cutting a square or rectangle to size from a premanufactured roll.7 As for bookrolls, there is no hint that the book began life in any way except as a roll. In laying out the columns the scribe did not pay attention to the glue joins (,+;;=0$&9) between the manufactured sheets (,+;;= (6().8The point is not controversial,9 but I do not know that it has ever been documented. Examination of the point of kollesis reveals no statistical tendency for the column of writing to avoid the join: the column of writing obtrudes upon the kollêsis in 32 of 47 instances noted in the Oxyrhynchus sample (68%), roughly approximating the ratio of written column to blank intercolumn. The same is true of the comparison sample. In examples where several kollêmata survive in succession, such as 223+PKoeln 5.210 (Iliad, 3rd cent. AD), or from the comparison set MP 1233 (Hyperides, 1st cent. AD), MP 337+1234 (Hyperides and Demosthenes, 1st cent. BC), MP 980 (Iliad, 1st cent. BC), MP 998 (Iliad, 1st cent. BC), MP 1537 (Timotheus, 4th cent. BC), one can clearly see that the columns of writing were laid out with regard to a preconceived, fixed regularity of column-to-column width, and without the slightest regard to the disposition of the joins. None of this surprises. The quality and placement of the joins, however, remains of importance to the scribe, even if he does not naturally think in terms of'sheets' in the way that we do. (Below, at §3.1.3, is the case of a scribe who lays out his work from sheet to sheet, even though his column layout ignores the kollêsis boundaries.) When the Elder Pliny lists the qualities to be looked at in the grading of papyrus, he mentions the width of the kollêma directly alongside of qualities such as thinness, denseness, whiteness, and smoothness: the conclusion to his list of widths for the various grades at NH 13.78 reads praeterea speciantur in chartis tenuitas, densitasy candor; levot; For Pliny, the width of the kollêma is analogous to thinness, whiteness, and so forth, since the wider the sheet the fewer the joins, hence the fewer imperfections in the writing surface.10 Quality of surface and width of kollêma are, then, directly related, and this relationship allows us to infer from extant examples the quality of papyrus a scribe deemed suitable for 6 Schubart 1921,15-16, repeated in the third edition of 1962 at pp. 21-2; cf. discussion in Skeat 1995,76-7. 7 Turner 1977,43-54. 8 The etymology [from ;$99<- = glue] exposes the viewpoint: in Greek these are not independent sheets but'that which is the result of being joined together.' For the use of terms ;"997!0*, ;"997 (, see Turner 1978,15-16. 9 Often a point of confusion among non-specialists, however. Cf. the confusion on exactly this point in Mazal 1999, 101 (a usually competent compendium). 10 Detailed argument in Johnson 1993b.

Construction of the Bookroll

89

writing a given bookroll.11 The accompanying table shows the widths that Pliny gives (NH 13.79-81).12 Papyrus grade

R o m a n measure

Modern equivalent

macrocollum Claudian (after reform)

1 cubit 1 R o m a n foot

44.4 cm 29.6 cm

optimae chartae

13 digits

24.1 c m

(=Augustan, also apparently Livian, and Claudian before reform; the three were distinguished not by width but by differences in the fineness of recto and verso) hieratic 11 digits 20.4 cm Fannian 10 digits 18.5 cm amp hi theatric 9 digits 16.7 cm emporitic < 6 digits ^ 1 1 . 1 cm

In the sample from Oxyrhynchus, I find surviving kollêmata as in the accompanying table. I have measured from join to join, but it may well be that Pliny intends to include the 1—2" cm overlap between sheets in the roll (the kollêsis); if so, the table s figures need to be adjusted by that amount. Kollêmata widths (Oxyrhynchus) 26 Demosth, Ex. 223+PKoeln

5 . 1 2 0 +,

1 0 1 7 Pl. Phdr.

1174+2081 (a)+PupFIor N Soph. Ichneutai 2101 Xen. Cyr. 2102+PTurner

7

Phdr.

4030 Aeschin. in Tim.

23.7 cm 23.1,21.2,21.9,21.8,21.3,22.5,24.1 cm 17.3, but elsewhere at least 21.5 cm 25.7,25.8,23.5 cm 23.1 cm 22.5 cm 21.0 cm

For several other more fragmentary Oxyrhynchus papyri, one can assert that the width of the sheets exceeds (or nearly so) 20 cm, and that none much exceeds 25 cm. Thus, 20 II. (>21.2), 844 Isoc. Pan. (>25.3), 1175 Soph. Eurypylos (>23.2, same scribe as 1174), 1250 Ach.Tat. (21.0), 3437 Dinarch., in Phil. (>20.7), 3 4 4 2 Od. (>19.5), 3443 Od. (2=22.1), 3663 IL (>21.5), 3721 Theophr. de Ventis (>24.0). AU of the POxy examples here are dated to the second or third century of the common era (that is, in the period immediately following Plinys remarks), and all appear to have good or very good surface quality. I infer then that at Oxyrhynchus, as we expect, scribes self-consciously chose one of the highest grades for bookrolls, though not, so far as the evidence allows, the very highest. Rolls with best claim to belong to the optimae (844, 3 7 2 1 , 2 6 , 2 1 0 1 ) are all written in fine 11 In extant examples, the papyrus surface, although often distinguishable, is not in fact a reliable guide, due to the extreme damage to surface appearance characteristic of papyri. 12 On macrocollum, cf. Johnson 1994.Turner 1977,48 confuses digits with inches in calculating 33.3 cm for the wacrocollum.

90

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

scripts (our class I; see below §3.2.1), thus choice of material and script seem to align. None seems to fall below the hieratic. Worth note is the variability of kollêmata widths within a roll. The sort of variation found in 223 (where the width, mostly c. 22 cm, dances between 21.2 and 24.1) is natural to hand manufacture: the widths given in Pliny are surely target measurements. But the more dramatic variation found in 1017 (and for a few other extreme examples; see Blanchard 1993, 21 and Turner 1980, 173 -. 21)13 seems to bear witness to the sort of rife cheating that Pliny complains of towards the end of his account of papyrus manufacture (tantum inestfraudis, NH 13.25). Examination of surviving kollêmata in the comparison set (displayed in the table) tells roughly the same story, despite a broader chronological range that takes us far from Pliny s time. Kollêmata widths (comparison set) 3rd-4th century B C M P 1537 Timotheus M P 1 4 0 9 PL

Lack

M P 1388 PL Phd. 1st century B C M P 998 +. M P 980 II M P 337+1234 Hyper. & Demosth. M P 852 11 1st century A D M P 1233 Hyper. M P 1039 Od. M P 822 II.

21.4,-21.2,-21.7,21.9 cm > 2 1 . 0 cm > 1 9 . 5 cm

23.2,24.9,25.0, -24.5,11.7 cm (sic; but the 15.5-cm sheet at col. 24 is a patch) 21.7,21.2,20.4,21.8, > 2 2 , > 2 3 . 3 cm 17.9 cm (Hyperides); 18.5,19.0,18.5 cm (Demosthenes) > 2 1 cm

25.6,26.8,24.5,21.1,27.0,27.5,27.0,26.2,26.0,26.0,27.5, 26.6 cm 23.3*23.9 cm 15.0 cm

2nd-3rd century A D M P 1 5 5 2 X e n . Hell.

M P 650 II. M P 919 +. MP 857 77.

26.5 cm 24.4 cm 23.5 cm >21.4, > 2 2 cm

Several rolls in the comparison set have reasonable claim to be rated optimae (MP 998, 1233, 1039, 1552, 650, 919), and most of these are written in fine scripts (with however the exception of MP 1552 and 919, both workaday hands). Most of the rest are also of a high grade (hieratic, in Pliny's terms), but there are two exceptions: MP 337+1234, which is what would later be called Tannian,' and MP 822, apparently of a lower grade yet. 13 Blanchard seems to imply that wild variation in kollêma width is common among the 3rd-century BC papyri (the subject of his study); but his conclusion is based on only two examples (MP 1081, 437.2).

Construction of the Bookroll

91

Interestingly, neither of these last has a noticeably inferior surface appearance. The sort of variation that hand manufacture introduces is broadly in evidence, but the inconsequential nature of that variation is also confirmed; as is the habit of the occasional cheat (note the 11.7 cm kollêma introduced into the c. 24 cm kollêmata in MP 998).14 The scribe then generally picked up a roll of high (not highest) quality for a bookroll, and, even though he was aware, perhaps acutely, of the sheet joins, he viewed the space available for his design in terms of a roll, that is, as a white space bounded by height, but virtually unbounded by width. How did he proceed in the layout of the writing? 3.1.2 Laying Out the Columns: Maas's Law, ruling and alignment dots15 To our surprise, the scribe does not seem to have begun by laying out a row of columns at right angles to the upper edge. Or, not to beg the question, that at least is not how the columns usually appear. A prominent difference in the aspect of columns in the Oxyrhynchus papyri and that of columns in, say, the Wall Street Journal is the vertical tilt that we often find in literary rolls. That is, the left edge of the column more often than not slopes down the page so that the initial letters at the end of the column begin somewhat left of initial letters at the top, giving the impression of a forwards tilt to the column (see figure 1). One might add that the right edge of the column shows a parallel development, such that the final letters at the foot likewise end somewhat left of the final letters at the top.16 This phenomenon is commonly known as 'Maas's Law' (after Paul Maas, who first drew attention to it). Quantification of the phenomenon points up a remarkable uniformity. I subjoin totals for all columns in the Oxyrhynchus sample that can be measured with good probability:17 Column tilt forwards (Maas s Law)

Upright column Column tilt backwards

17 slight tilt forwards (1-2°) 75 moderate tilt (2-3°) 42 strong tilt (4°+) 22 definitely upright 34 apparently upright, possibly a slight tilt 2 slight but definite tilt backwards (1—2°)

14 Judging from the evidence presented by Turner 1977,48, documents and subliterary texts are more often written on inferior rolls, that is, rolls with narrower kollemata.The

measurements Turner presents for literary rolls (p. 47)

generally accord with the evidence presented here. One set o f measurements is, however, odd. For 4 the British M u s e u m Hyperides roll,' which I take to mean M P 1233 (the Arden papyrus),Turner gives measurements that vary a great deal from sheet to sheet; and which do not at all match those I have measured. I have n o idea why this is so; but my o w n measurements are confirmed by the scribe's habit of coordinating alignment dots with the

kollêmata (see §3.1.3). 15 T h e remarks and data in this section augment and differ in important respects from the preliminary results published in Johnson 1993a, n o w superseded. 16 Pace Turner and Parsons 1987, 5, w h o state - wrongly, by my experience - that the lower lines contain a larger number o f letters. 17 T h e slant is measured by testing, with ruler and protractor, the vertical line of the left margin against the horizontal line made by the line of writing; verified wherever possible by the vertical line o f the kollêsis.

92

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Out of a total of 192 measured examples, only two (3550 Theocr., 3897 Thuc.) appear without much doubt to tilt backwards, both having tall decorated oval scripts of the second century with a tendency for the characters also to tilt backwards. (Columns in a couple of other examples appear upright but may perhaps tilt slightly backwards.) By contrast, over 70% show a measurable tilt forwards, and quite a few others have a slighter tilt forwards or one more difficult to measure. The fact of a tilted column is not in itself a mark of an early date, as Grenfell and Hunt once supposed (see the introduction to 16; so also Kenyon 1891,42), for Maas s Law is common in all periods. Still, in the early Roman era the lack of tilt seems to have been anathema: of 23 texts whose range of date includes the Augustan period or first century AD, only one appears upright, and that one dubiously (3896 Thuc., exiguous and broken at the edge; 3716 Eur. Or., the only other early upright text, is from late Ptolemaic times). Aside from this dearth of upright examples in the early Roman era, the tendency to tilt has no other apparent associations.18 Scholars have commonly assumed that the columns were intended to be upright, and that the tilt to the column is, in effect, a mistake. It has been supposed, for instance, that column tilt was the consequence of writing on one s knee.191 would like to entertain for a moment the possibility that the notional ideal of an upright column is no more than anachronistic presumption, and that the ancient column's characteristic forward-leaning slope is a deliberate aesthetic effect. After all, many styles of Greek script lean forwards, some so rakishly that it cannot but be deliberate. Papyrus 1017 PI. Phdr. is but one of many examples where the slope of hasta matches the slope of the column, creating to my eye a

18 1 find no correlation between height of column and Maas's Law, a possibility suggested by Cavallo 1983,18; nor between formality of script and Maas's Law (further evidence now rules out of court the slight correlation reported with several cautions at Johnson 1993a, 211 n. 3).The comparison set affirms the generalities set forth for the Oxyrhynchus papyri: 23 of 31 from the Roman era and 20 of 23 from the Ptolemaic era exhibit Maas's Law; only a sole exception shows an irregular tendency for the column to tilt backwards (MP 919,2nd/3rd cent. AD, written in a workaday and small but oval and backleaning script). All but one of the few upright examples are dubious (i.e., too exiguous or otherwise difficult to measure), so it may or may not be worth notice that these come from all periods, including three from the early Roman era (MP 863.1, 822, 1387). 19 Turner and Parsons 1987, 5 cite Dain 1964, 25 for this idea. But whether Dain had Maas's Law in mind can be doubted, since he relates the difficulty of writing o n one's knee to a general sort of irregularity in the production. 'You will see then that the successive columns of writing on papyrus may not be always exactly vertical, but incline sometimes to one side, sometimes to the other; that the writing may have a tendency to be larger at the foot than at the top of the column.'The Oxyrhynchus materials do not show a tendency to incline one way or the other, as we have seen, but are either upright or, more often, drift leftward down the column. Given the variety of specific postures in artistic presentations catalogued by Parâssoglou 1979 (sometimes writing on the right knee, sometimes on the left, and sometimes on the left hand), it becomes difficult to imagine that the physical posture of the scribc predetermined the slope of columns. Still, it must be admitted that the evidence collected by Parâssoglou seems to include no representation of a professional scribe. Scribal habits in Graeco-Roman Egypt may well have been different in any case. (In this regard one would like to cite Cavallo 1983,18, w h o states that the Herculaneum materials almost totally lack examples exhibiting Maas's Law.The plates in that volume, however, appear to belie Cavallo's claim; I measure several examples with a 2 - 3 ° slant to the column, e.g. plates XVI, XVII, XIX, and X X . Accordance to Maas's Law among the Herculaneum papyri is now confirmed in Janko 2000,72.)

Construction of the Bookroll

93

lovely harmony in the overall layout (see plate 7; cf plates 16 and 17). Moreover, it can be argued that the forward-leaning run of the columns matches the virtual unboundedness of the horizontal flow of the columns, and creates then a fitting impression of vigorous forward movement along the extent of the bookroll. Such a design would make little sense for a codex, where the horizontal extent of the page is closely bounded, and where the page itself defines the space in terms of right angles. For a codex, that is, the right-angled upright column of writing seems 'natural' because of the right-angled boundary of the page. For the bookroll, however, one can argue that sloping columns are at least as 'natural.' Now this view may, of course, be no more than my own whimsy. Nevertheless, if it be a presumption that the proper column is upright and a fancy that the sloping column is aesthetic, how are we to proceed? I start by noticing the implications of a conclusion just set forth. If in fact scribes avoided upright columns in a given period (the early Roman era), then the slope of the column cannot be mechanistically determined but must be a matter of choice, of fashion. The consistent results from the sample set make this a strong argument, but we need not stop there. In at least a few instances, the papyrus itself preserves direct evidence for how the scribe went about laying out the text, and close study of these will not only help in the question of Maas's Law and its motivations, but will advance more generally our detailed understanding of how the scribe went about his task. Markings to help guide ruling and alignment are rare among the literary papyri, but not perhaps so rare as has been thought.20 In the POxy sample, I have noticed nine examples (a couple of which however may be doubted), and to that can be added four others among other Oxyrhynchus papyri. As the editors have remarked only four of these, I offer below a detailed description of all the Oxyrhynchus examples I have encountered. 1815. The first book of the Iliad, written in a large crude hand of the third century. A probable vertical row of dots is visible just in from the left margin of column 2 below lines 65, 67, 70, and, very uncertainly, 72. The dots align with the considerable (4—5°) leftward slant at the left margin. Distance between dots: 17, 25, 18(?) mm. Damage to the papyrus will allow the hypothesis that there were originally dots below each line at 8.5-mm intervals. But the papyrus has much stray ink, making it uncertain that the dots I have described are intentional. 2098. Plate 11. A handsome roll of the seventh book of Herodotus, written in an exaggeratedly flattened and stylish severe-style hand of the late second or early third century. A vertical row of dots is visible just in from the left margin in column 6, at the base or immediately below lines 1, 11, 13, perhaps 15, and 17 (overwritten by the descender of 6 in the last two instances); also in the same position in column 10 line 1 (POxy vol. XVII, pi. 3), and probably also lines 3 and 5 (overwritten by the initial letter in the last two ins tances). The dots align with the 3-4° leftward slope of the left margin. Distance between 20 Turner and Parsons 1987,4 n. 7 gives a total of eight examples, the most complete listing known to me.

94

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

dots: 65.5,13.5, 12.5(?), 13 mm in column 6; 12.5,13 mm in column 10. The other columns are too badly rubbed for dots to be visible. One may with some confidence suppose that the dots were regularly written at the base of every other line, at approximately 13mm intervals. 2102 [+PTumer 7]. Plate 9. Plato's Phaedms, written in an upright, slightly elongated bilinear script without pretension, perhaps to be assigned to the later second century. A vertical row of dots is just visible immediately in from the left margin in column 3 below line 2, just above the base line in lines 6 and 10 (the latter not quite certain), well below line 13, towards the top of line 21, below line 24, and at the base of line 28. The dots match the strong (4°) leftward slant of the left margin. Distance between dots: 19.5, 19.5, 20, 38.5,20 mm (the last cannot be measured due to a break). If we assume a regular interval of 19.5 mm, the one dot missing from the sequence would occur at a spot where ink and damage very likely obscure it (line 17). Note that the regular spacing does not accord with the leading of the lines (averaging 5.35 mm for this column). Despite the excellent preservation of columns 4 and 5, and the fair state of columns 2 and 6, no other rows of dots are noticeable. What appears to be such a dot occurs in column 9 line 10, but too little survives to confirm it. 2402. A neat but informal copy of Aristo tie's Ethica Nicomachea, probably of the middle second century. A possible vertical row of dots is visible about three characters in from the left margin in fr. 1 at lines 5, 7, and 11. But the first two dots are uncertain; the first may belong to the top arm +#$, despite an apparent gap, and the second is somewhat ill formed, and hence perhaps accidental. Only the dot at 11 seems certain, and in isolation it too may of course be accidental. All the dots are, however, exactly 9 mm apart, except between lines 7 and 11, where the distance is twice that; the dot that might have been expected in line 9 may be hidden underneath a small vertical strip currendy obscuring that spot on the papyrus. The dots follow a line parallel to the left margin, which has no, or very litde, slant. The 9-mm interval is approximately twice that of the leading, which measures 4.7 mm. No dots are visible in fr. 2 (POxy vol. XXIV, pi 13). 3376. A fine roll of the second book of Herodotus, written in a fine, small, flattened severe-style hand of perhaps the later second century. The editor noticed a vertical row of dots at the left edge of the column in several fragments, stating in the introduction that 'in some places a dot can be seen above the initial letter of every fifth line.' Yet this is not strictly true by his own transcription (cf. 25-27.ii, 28.ii). Moreover, the editor has missed a fair number of dots. A complete list follows: frr. ll-16.ii below or at lines 11, 15,19, 23, 27, 31; frr. 17-18 below or at lines 15, 19, 23; frr. 19-21 below line 11; frr. 25-7.ii below or at lines 3, 7,11,16, 20, 25, 29, 34, 38; fr. 28.ii below or at lines 34, 38,43; fr. 36 below line 1;fr,48 below line l.The location of the dots is irregular in relation to the line, placed often between lines, but also frequently mid-line (the editors transcription is misleading in this respect).The dots are sometimes obscured by the initial letter (and hence missed by the

Construction of the Bookroll

95

editor): thus, for instance, at frr. 25-7 lines 16 (obscured by descender of )), 20 (obscured by top ofv), 25 (obscured by foot of a), 34 (inside the bowl ofS). Most of the dots of this sort were located (and sometimes confirmed with the microscope) by noticing that the dots do not in fact regularly occur at a fixed point every fifth line, but do occur at quite exact 22 mm intervals. The same interval is true for all the columns. The dots are laid out on a Une that slopes leftward from the true perpendicular, and matches the 2-3° slant of the written column. 3 4 4 7 . A fine copy of Strabo, book 9, written in a calligraphic majuscule of the 'Homeric' type, perhaps to be assigned to the early second century. In fr. 2 are apparent two vertical rows of dots, which are parallel, but do not align horizontally. The two rows are about 1 cm apart, positioned at approximately 2 and 4-5 characters from the left margin. The dots occur approximately every line and a half, and do not concur with the vertical spacing of the lines. The distances between dots are as follows: for the left row, which begins high in the first line, 6.5, 6.5, 6.0, 7.0, 12.0 mm; for the right row, which begins about 3 mm above the first line, 6.0,6.0,13.0, 13.0, 24.5(?) mm. Roughly then a 6.0-6.5 mm interval. A single vertical row of dots is discernible in fr. 15 col i at approximately 8—9 characters into Unes 1, 2, 3, 5 (POxy vol. XLIX, pi. 4). These are more regularly spaced at 6.5-mm intervals (with one dot obscured), beginning mid-high in the first line, as follows: 6.5, 6.5, 12.5 mm. One expects to see dots in lines 6-7 of this fragment, but none are apparent. All three rows of dots align at a slant of about 2° from the perpendicular, which matches the leftward slope at the left margin of the column. Since two of the three rows begin at the top of the column, one might speculate that the second row in fr. 2, which begins 3 mm into the top margin, was erroneously placed, and that the first row in that fragment was meant to replace it. A handsome copy of Theocritus, written in a fine calligraphic script of the Homeric majuscule type, assigned by the editor to the second century. As the editor notes, a vertical row of largish dots is apparent in a straight line about 11-12 characters from the left margin. The dots are all either very slightly below or at the base of the line of writing. The dots can be seen at lines 14,17,27-8,30-40,42; other lines are rubbed at this point in the line. The vertical row, as the editor suggests, seems to be in parallel with the slight leftward slant at the left margin.The dots are spaced at the following intervals: 5.5,12 (i.e., 2 X 6.0), 5.5, 5.5, 7.5, 5.0, 5.5, 7.0, 5.5, 5.5, 6.75, 11 (i.e., 2 X 5.5), 6.75 mm. The variance in interval is reflected in a slight irregularity of leading between lines. 4033+4034. (Aeschines, in Tim.) Faint horizontal lines, reported by the editor, appear at or near the base line to some and perhaps all of the line ends preserved in 4034 col. i (most clearly in lines 2, 7, 10). Since only line ends are preserved, it is not clear whether the lines extended across the entire column.The lines do not appear in col. ii of 4034 (the last of the oration), or in the column preserved in 4 0 3 3 . 4055. Many small fragments of a fine copy of Aeschines' in Ctesiphontem, of the third 3552.

96

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

century, written in a large and decorated, if somewhat heavy, hand. In the column to which frr. + and * belong, a row of dots is apparent at about 0.7 cm from the notional right margin of the column. In fr. o, a dot is visible interior to : in line 2,just to the right of = in line 3; in fr. p, between 3 and " in line 3, interior to % in line 4, and perhaps (these last two are less certain) obscured by the tail of the first alpha of %(*( in line 5 and the base of delta in line 6. Dots appear at or slightly above the base line, regularly spaced at 6.5 mm intervals to match the leading; and the row of dots leans at a 4° angle matching the slope of the column. Though there seems enough regularity to make the conclusion fairly compelling, the example is not quite certain, given the propensity throughout the manuscript to occasional accidental dots (as e.g. that reported by the editor just to the left of fr. j, line 14). No rows of dots are visible in the fragments of other columns. 2889. A fragment preserving the beginning of the Miltiades of Aeschines Socraticus, written in a severe-style script of perhaps the early third ccntury. Brought to notice by W.E.H. Cockle (see the editors introduction to 3552) is the vertical row of dots placed in the margin 2.8 cm to the left of the first column of writing. Each dot aligns with the base of a line of writing, and is spaced at the regular 5.3-mm interval characteristic of the leading of the lines. The row of dots slopes, however, rightwards at a fair angle (3°), while the column of text is upright. Plate 12. Three among the large group of fragments representing a matching set of bookrolls containing the plays of Aeschylus (see the earlier discussion at §2.1.3), of the second or early third century. Visible 0.3 cm to left of both cols, ii and iii of 2245 (POxy vol. XX, pi. 1) is a dot level with the top of the first line. Col. ii has a second dot about 0.7 cm below; at that point in col. iii, an encrustation hides whatever might be below.The two top dots are 12.5 cm apart, and would appear to mark a regular column-tocolumn width for a text where the line lengths are quite variable. A similar dot appears at 2 1 6 2 fr. l(a).i (POxy vol. XVIII, pi. 4) 0.9 cm to the left on a parallel with the indentation of the tetrameters and level with the top of the first line (no second dot exists). Another such dot may perhaps be discernible in 2162 fr. 2(a) ii (POxy vol. XVIII, pi. 5) immediately at the top left of the column, partly interfering with kappa (the dot appears as though a serif at the top of the hasta, but this hand does not usually write , with a hook; a more elaborate initial is however possible). Possibly also of the same type is a bit of ink at the top left of col. ii in 2161 (POxy vol. XVIII, pi. 3); but if so, the dot appears at the edge of the 2245; 2161, 2162.

eisthesis.

The last two Oxyrhynchus examples are somewhat different in kind. The Aeschylean plays preserved in 2245 and its fellows contain dots intended merely to mark regular column positions in a dramatic text with variable lines and multiple levels of indentation. Fragment 2889 Aeschin. Socr. contains a row of dots that seems intended to set the number and leading of lines for the entire papyrus, a use that is close to, but not quite the same as, that in the other examples. In the rest of the examples, the dots are overwritten by the

Construction of the Bookroll

97

column, and were not intended to be seen by the reader. Such dots (as also 2889) are usually regarded as ruling dots, that is, dots governing the vertical disposition of the lines and ensuring a stable leading. This can be asserted positively for six of the examples (1815 //., 2098 Hdt., 2402 Aristot., 3552 Theocr., 4033+4034 Aeschin., 4055 Aeschin.), where every line or every other line appears to be so marked. But in three of the examples (2102 PL Phdr., 3376 Hdt., 3447 Strabo) no correspondence appears between the dots and the vertical spacing of lines; in two of the three the dots are indeed quite widely spaced, at c. 20 mm. All of the examples space the dots at a regular interval, most quite regular, indeed so much so that I have been able to detect a number of dots simply by predicting with a ruler where the next dot should be. Such regularity of layout includes those examples where the dots and the disposition of lines are at odds. What are we then to infer from such evidence? We could suppose that dots conflicting with the ultimate disposition oflines were simply ignored by the scribe. But this position is made implausible by the fact that one-third of the examples are of this 'exceptional' sort. Why would scribes carefully lay out such dots only to disregard them? The two examples of widely spaced dots would in any case be of little use in the spacing of individual lines. On the other hand, all of the examples (2889 excepted) display a row of vertical dots in parallel to the left margin of the column; and in seven of eight examples the column is not perpendicular but slanted in accordance with Maass Law. In addition to the thirteen examples from the POxy volumes, there are two clear examples in the comparison set (plus the interesting case of MP 1233 Hyper, discussed just below, §3.1.3), and six others (which I have not examined) reported by editors.21 This evidence uniformly shows the same coincidence between column tilt and vertical slant of alignment dots; and provides yet other examples (MP 830 //., MP 1272 Isoc.) of dots that match the vertical slope of the column but do not match the leading of the lines. Summary details: Examples outside the POxy volumes: MP 830 (Iliad, 2nd-lst cent. BC). Unnoticed by the editor is a row of dots in paler ink set at the very left edge of col. ii, at intervals of about 3 mm (often obscured by the initial letter of the line). The dots do not match the leading of the lines (ten dots are visible along the edge of lines 2-8), but are aligned in keeping with the strong (4°) tilt forwards of the column. MP 1272 (Isocrates, de Pace lst2nd cent. AD). In this casually written manuscript, the scribe loses control over justifica21 I do not include the Sosylus fragment, MP 1484, where the dots are almost certainly stichometric (a dot marks every ten lines in the manner of Iliadic texts like MP 619), and are therefore added after the fact or as the scribe went along; they in any case have nothing to do with the layout of line or column. (Wilcken 1906,106 reports dots to the left of ii 2,12, 22, 32; iii 16,19; iv 6 , 1 6 , 2 6 . If we accept Seiders report [Seider 1970, ii 50-2], confirmed by his plate [pl. V], that no dot exists to the left of iii 16 [Seider iii 14] and that an extra dot is visible to the left of iii 29 [Seider iii 27], then there is a dot every ten lines. The sole aberration is a 21-line gap between ii 32 and iii 19 [with the dot at iii 9 in lacuna]: a simple scribal miscount, unless Wilcken is mistaken in seeing the bare traces of a thirty-fourth line at the bottom of col, ii.)

98

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

tion of the right margin toward the bottom of col. 27, such that the too-long lines almost intrude into the next column. Apparently so as to get back on track, the scribe adds a rough row of vertical dots at what will be the right edge of col. 28. There are slightly more than one dot per line, so no line-by-line control is intended. The vertical row wavers, but is clearly intended to match the strong forward-leaning tilt of the columns. Parts or the whole of 44 columns survive from this bookroll, but no other ruling dots are visible. See Mandilaras 1975, 113, and the plate at 317. MP 1409 (Plato, Laches, 4th-3rd cent. BC).The editor reports that 'a little downward stroke, set to mark the commencement of each line, is absorbed in the first letter when possible' (J.P. Mahaffy, PPetr II, p. 165). These strokes match then both the leading and the slight forwards tilt (1-2°) of the column. PSI 15.1478 (Apollonius, 1st cent. BC-lst cent. AD). Dots reported mid-line. PMich inv. 1575 (Iliad, 1st cent. BC-lst cent. AD) Mentioned by the editor (Priest 1982) is a faint line of dots at the far edge of the ragged line ends, approximately at each base line and in no case overlapping the writing. The row matches the strong slope of the column that follows; perhaps added after the writing of col. i, to set the base line and slope for col. ii? PSI Od. 5 (Odyssey, lst-2nd cent. AD) The editor reports dots at the beginning and towards the end of each line for the last column only (Manfredi 1979, 22). The dots towards line end are visible in the plate, and are aligned at the same slight slope (2°) as the column. PHerc 1507 (Philodemus, de bono re sec. Horn1st cent. BC) The editor reports alignment dots at the beginnings and ends of lines, though 'not uniformly applied' (Dorandi 1982, 53). PHerc 1074a (Philodemus, On Poems 1, 1st cent. BC) Janko 2000, 72 reports for columns 127 and 161 (his numeration) that'dots at the top lefthand corner of the column mark where to align it.' H.M. Cockle (in her introduction to 3552Theocr.) has suggested that the coincidence of oblique lines may mean that the scribe 'marked each successive column as he went along.'Thus, the slant of the row of dots is caused by an attempt to maintain a parallel with the previous column (which has assumed a slant by mistake or through the awkwardness of the writing surface).This explanation is possible, but I should like to forward another: that these vertical rows of dots and the left margin of the column display a matching slant from the perpendicular entirely by design. While it appears that some dots were used to guarantee an even leading among lines, it also appears that some, and perhaps all, were intended to guarantee a left margin along a particular (sloped) line.The fact that in four cases (2402 Aristot., 3447 Strabo, 3552 Theocr., 4055 Aeschin.) the dots fall in the midst of the line, and not at the column's edge, may suggest that they were laid out prior to the columns. Examples where dots occur in one column but not others (2102 PL Phdr., 4055 Aeschin.; cf. PSI Od. 5, 4033+4034 Aeschin., PHerc 1507, 1074a Philodem.) further suggest that such dots were sometimes intermittent aids to alignment, and not provided for every column. Certainty is impossible from so small and mixed a sample, but these dots, if they are in fact meant to assist with column alignment, provide direct evidence to support the ear-

Construction of the Bookroll

99

lier, provisional conclusion that the slanted column was a deliberate and popular style, and not the result of some mechanical defect in the production of the book. 3.1.3 Excursus: The laying out of columns in the Arden Hyperides papyrus (MP 1233) It is worth re-emphasizing at this point that the exactitude of column alignment is not, however, predicated generally on ruling dots. MP 1233, the Arden Hyperides papyrus, is an outstanding witness to how precise the disposition of slanted columns could be: over the course of 97 preserved columns, the columns march along with absolute regularity, varying no more than 1-2 mm from column to column along the mostly extant 7 metre extent of the roll, and without any perceptible variation in the strong tilt of the columns (plates 16 and 17). The lone exception proves the rule. At column 16 (the last column of the pro Lycophrone) the sloping of the edge is slightly but perceptibly more upright, such that the lower half of the column is 2-3 mm further from the edge of the previous column than is the top. Inspection of the papyrus reveals a rough kollêsis immediately to the left of this slightly more upright column. Did the scribe notice the roughness, and divert the edge of the column so as to avoid it? An easy assumption, but closer inspection tells a different story. For the kollêsis itself is not original to the manufacture, but a synkollêsis of two manufactured rolls: the edge is not only much rougher and thicker than other joins in the papyrus, but cut irregularly, and - what clinches the case - the edge covers in part the coronis at the lower left of the column. In short, the scribe must have written out the second roll independently, and then cut and pasted so as to replicate, however imperfectly, the column-to-column width of the rest of the bookroll. I bring to attention this non-Oxyrhynchite example not simply because of its regularity - this will come as little surprise after the uniformities documented in chapter 2 - but because, although there are no dots to control the slant or leading of the columns, there do exist alignment dots of a curious, unexampled type. In the Arden papyrus, dots occur regularly just to the left of each kollêsis, positioned so as to mark the very top and very bottom of the virtual horizontal line that demarcates the written columns from the upper or lower margin. I have examined in detail the 48 columns catalogued as BM inv. 115 (and the first piece published, by Arden and Babington, in 1853). Particulars for that piece are as follows: All examples occur 1-2 cm (the distance is not regular) to the left of the kollêsis. The vertical alignment of dots is only roughly upright, matching with exactness or regularity neither the line of the kollêsis nor the sloping line of the columns. The horizontal intervals between the pairs of dots are irregular, matching the breadths of the kollêseis (reported in §3.1.1). Exact locations with associated kollêsis: <1, upper dot in lac., lower dot at base line to right of eta in 6-" at bottom of col. 4; K2, dots in lac.; K> upper dot overwritten by nu of >+;E" at top of col. 12, lower dot in lac.; K* no dots to the left of this synkollêsis, a special case (see above); K> upper dot just to left of the top edge of col. 19, lower dot in lac. K6

100

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

upper dot at the top right edge and lower dot at the bottom right edge of col. 22; K7 upper dot obscured by last character (iota) of the first line of col. 26, lower dot at the right lower edge of the column; K8 upper dot between &( and 4'( of col. 30, lower dot at base of final line between ;(' and cot; K* upper dot above and to right of first omicron of $%$% at col. 34, lower dot slightly above base following ;(3&$'; G 1 0 upper dot raised to the left of 6=% in col. 38, lower dot below omicron of :$9'&03( in last line; K11 upper dot at top right edge of col. 41, lower dot about 3 mm below bottom left edge; K12 upper dot at base line (sic) of the first line of col. 45 in the space following )&(99$5 (and thus appears as a low punctuation dot), lower dot at base of column below the lacunose first sigma of o[ctlc]; K13 no dots are visible to the left of this, the final kollêsis of the roll, which occurs in the middle of the final column of the oration (col. 49). The lack of dots for this final kollêsis implies that the dots are not laid out for the entire roll in advance, but are added by the scribe sheet by sheet as he proceeds in the copying. Two points of great interest devolve from these data. First, the scribe of this text was aware of the kollêsis boundaries of the original manufactured roll, even though the column layout does not attend them. This observation dovetails tightly with the analysis proffered in §3.1.1. Second, the scribe, whatever other help he employed by way of tools or measurement, was content to use as his upper and lower guideline dots set at the edge of each kollêma,The location of these guiding markers implies, importantly, that in writing out the columns the scribe is in some sense working in units that are the full breadth of the kollêma (c. 26 cm wide); that is, in order to see the horizontal relationship between the dots, he must have been working at any given time with a span equal to the breadth of at least 3-4 columns. (Such a practice would also make easier the exacting use of tools of measure deduced in chapter 2.) Views of the scribe's craft that insist on the scribe working on his knee22 or writing on a flattened roll23 — and that ascribe the strong tilt or narrow width of the column to the awkward, narrow writing surface — will not work, at least for this scribe. Documents could of course have been written differently, as also other literary rolls, but the example of the Arden papyrus should at least give pause to those who wish to make the elements of column layout and design (tilt, column dimensions, leading, etc.) solely or largely dependent on the mechanics of writing. 3.2 Dimensions of the Column: Widths The disposition and shape of the written column of text seems, then, a matter of what was conventionally aesthetic, and not (roll height aside) the result of physical constraints. Conventions are, however, themselves often dependent on, or at least coordinate with,

22 Parâssoglou 1979. 23 T.C. Skeat's suggestion, recorded in Turner 1978, 45-6 .

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

101

factors like the use to which an item is put, the fashion of the times, and so forth. Can we go further in delineating the parameters of these conventions? Let us begin with the dimensions of the column, that is, whether the column has a look that is tall and skinny, short and fat, tall and broad. Are there definable ways in which the column formats are distributed, as for instance by the style of writing, by the time period, by the contents of the text? For reasons that will become clear, width and height will first be taken as separate points of inquiry before I address the question of their relationship. A moments reflection will also show that prose widths must be considered separately from verse. In prose texts, the right edge of the column is more or less regular, forming a distinct block of written text followed by a narrow block of intercolumnar space. In verse texts, however, the lines of verse terminate irregularly, so that the 'block' is felt to be more the area from the left edge of the column of text to the start of the next than the text plus the intercolumn. In verse texts, therefore, we will want wherever possible to consider the column-to-column width, whereas in prose texts the column width and intercolumn width will individually command our attention. 3.2.1 Column Width in Prose Texts Chart 3.2.1a summarizes schematically the column widths for prose texts; for a full listing of the papyri by width, see table 3.1 at the end of the chapter. It is common knowledge Chart 3.2.1a Prose c o l u m n width, undifferentiated Oxyrhynchus sample, 181 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

•• • • ••• '• • • • • •• •

• 3,0

3.5

4.0

4.5

• M •

•

• •••

•

• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •a • • • • •• • • • 5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

• • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • 8.0 8.5 9.0 ... >10,0

(in 0.1-cm interwls)

that literary prose texts are more uniformly written in narrow columns than are documents, letters, or 'sub-literary' texts like commentaries. Still, the strict definition of the boundaries demonstrated in the chart above is impressive, even startling. At a glance we can see, for instance, that the editor of 3881 (Thucydides), who writes of a 'fairly narrow' column of 6.5 cm, relies on a mistaken impression; or that the editor of 4027 (Aeschines), who writes that the 'column width at 8 cm is wider than is often found for oratorical texts,' misses the critical point.The chart makes clear a normative range of 4.3 to 7.5 cm for the columns of a literary prose text, with particular denseness in the range from 4.7-6.9 cm.

102

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Aside from this normative group (fully 90% of the sample), there is a small group of texts with widths in the range 8-9 cm; this group contains however only 14 examples (8%). Finally, there is a tiny group (4 examples, 2%) with exceptionally wide columns in excess of 10 cm; and a lone example of exceptional narrowness under 4 cm. Can we analyse the groupings further? A first question will be whether column widths differentiate themselves by grade of book production. Is there evidence that a bookroll de luxe has columns that are narrower or wider? Or does a substandard production have column dimensions that are distinguishable from other bookrolls? At once we face a difficult question, for it is by no means obvious how best to judge which examples are more or less de luxe. The dangers of circularity of argument are profound. Use of criteria such as size of margin or column height - often adduced as evidence for an expensive or substandard bookroll - would beg the very questions we are trying to answer. (As we shall see, assumptions in such matters are often mistaken.) Though subjective, the clearest general indicator I can discern is the style of script, which at least accords with a known fact: that scribes (the major expense of an ancient book) were paid by the quality of writing.24 I have therefore divided the sample set into three classes of script: (1) formal, semi-formal, or pretentious, (2) informal and unexceptional (but for the most part probably professional), (3) substandard or cursive. Full details are laid out under 'style' in table 3.1. Before the reader reviews these divisions, it is important to note that I do not employ 'formal' in the strict palaeographic sense used by Turner.25 We are concerned here not with the definition of scripts per se but with the type of book that the scribe thinks he is writing. Thus, a truly formal majuscule script will be classed together with a script that, if less strictly formal, nonetheless has clear pretensions to elegance. Decoration will be far more important than it was in Turners classification.26 On the other hand, a script that Turner would define as 'formal mixed' will fall into the second class if it is of an everyday, non-calligraphic variety.27 Now this sort of classification is admittedly rough, and I should be surprised if palaeographers agreed with every assignment. Still, the great majority of these functional assignments are clear enough.281 do not think that disagreements will be so substantial as to vitiate the conclusions, which are based upon quite general tendencies. 24 Edidutn Diocletiani de pretiis rerum vetuilium, col. vii 39—41; cf.Turner and Parsons 1987,1-4. 25 Turner and Parsons 1987,20-2. 26 GLH #4c (=Roberts 1955), where a student (perhaps an apprentice scribe) first writes sample lines in a plain script, and then a line in a more formal script with serifs, demonstrates that addition of decoration could be a matter of scribal choice. 27 Turner's primary examples of the 'formal mixed' style, his numbers 14,42,46, would all fall into my second class. See Turner and Parsons 1987,22. 28 We cannot avoid the trap of subjectivity ofjudgment, but the uncertainty of assignation can at least be quantified. In table 3.1,1 have marked as dubious all the examples where I am unsure, or where, in my estimation, others might dispute the designation. These number 46 in a sample of 317; thus, more than 85% of the assignations seem to me unlikely to be questioned. (Results in the comparison set are similar: 18 of 96 seem possibly questionable; thus, 82% of the assignations seem straightforward.)

Dimensions of the C o l u m n : Widths

103

In chart 3.2.1b I divide column widths schematically by script class. Examination of the chart prompts four immediate observations. (1) Papyri written in substandard scripts Chart 3.2.1b Prose c o l u m n width, by script formality O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 181 e x a m p l e s

(each square represents one papyrus)

(1) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 55

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

&· · 'I ·· ··

• •• • 5.0

(2) Informal and unexceptional,

examples

•••• mmum ••••• 5.5

107

•

•

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0 ...

>10.0

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0...

>10.0

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0...

>10.0

• •m •• •• •• •• • •• II

examples

& · · · · • • • • • • • •• 3.0

3.5

4.0

(3) Substandard

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

or cursive, 19 examples

4.5

5.0

5.5

are heavy in wider widths (only 4 fall below 6.3 cm), and close to half are either on the top edge of the normative range (c. 7.5 cm) or above that. (2) The better-written papyri are noticeably lacking in aberrant examples, including the marginal group at 8-9 cm. In particular, the upper edge of the normative range (7.0-7.5 cm) almost disappears. (3) For papyri written in unexceptional scripts (informal but for the most part probably professional), the edge of what appears normative seems to map to the particularly dense part of the range in chart 3.2.1a, that is, from a bit over 4.5 to a bit above 7.0 cm. (4) Almost all of the small group at 8-9 cm is located among papyri in unexceptional scripts. The last two statements will be seen as in part corollary to the first two. These observations support the impression, which will find little argument, that a well-defined notion of normative range for column width did in fact exist. The more formal the production, the more strictly the width conforms to a single range: only 3 of 55 fall outside the range 4.3-7.1 cm among better-written examples. For papyri written in a script below the everyday professional standard, by contrast, almost half (9 of 19) fall at the edge of or beyond that width. Unexceptional manuscripts both for the most part clearly conform to what is conventional and just as clearly witness a minority population of aberration from the conventional.

104

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

The evidence from the comparison sample, displayed in chart 3.2.1c (full details in table 3.IB at the end of the chapter), exactly corresponds with the Oxyrhynchus evidence. Chart 3.2.1c Prose c o l u m n width, undifferentiated Comparison sample, non-Oxyrhynchite, 27 examples (each square represents one papyrus) • • • • 3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0 ...

>10.0

Like the Oxyrhynchus data, the comparison set falls mostly within the range of 4.7 to 6.9 cm; a few scattered examples occur at the very edges of this range; a couple of examples fall in the 8-9 cm group; and there is one example above 10 cm. Of the better-written examples, all ten fall at 6.6 cm or below; of the three substandard examples, all three fall at 6.5 or above. There is, in short, reason to suppose that the specifics here isolated are widely distributed in time and place, and not peculiar to Oxyrhynchus. The evidence of the more formal bookrolls is particularly intriguing, since formal scripts of close similarity are widely distributed about the Mediterranean, and therefore are most confidently associated with meticulously trained - that is, professional - hands. This statement is particularly true of the calligraphic majuscules - one thinks, for instance, of PDura 1, whose majuscule script is in no way distinct from Egyptian parallels.29 We may be tempted to try to associate a more strict definition of a 'standard' width with more 'professional' productions, and a less strict 'standard' to the more 'private.' Closer analysis does not, however, support such a hypothesis. Chart 3.2.Id displays the results if we recast the net so as only to capture calligraphic majuscules of the 'Biblical' and 'Homeric' (or 'Roman') Chart 3 . 2 . I d Prose c o l u m n width, formal majuscules only Oxyrhynchus sample, 11 examples (each square represents one papyrus) • • 3J3

mm Ü

ÏÔ

4l

i

5J3

t

mm 33

• 6X)

(

65

7H

7Ü

8X)

83

9.0 ...

>10.0

types. The subgroup at 8-9 cm disappears (perhaps, however, a statistical quirk), but otherwise this smaller group shows no perceptible tightening of a sense of 'standard.' Similarly, one may wonder whether the mixed results found in the 'unexceptional' group of scripts result from the lumping together of copies produced professionally and privately; that is, whether there is a standard of production followed by professional scribes to which non-professionals do not always attend. Strictly the question is unanswerable, since in most

29 Cf. Roberts 1955, 16.

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

105

cases it is little more than a guess as to whether or not a copy is professional. Once again, however, one can resort to an argument based on script types. A well-defined type of script prevalent in the later second and third centuries was that dubbed 'severe5 (der strenge Stil) by Schubart.30 Related scripts can assume a variety of forms, but here I will consider the style narrowly, in the form exemplified by plates 83-5 in Schubart's Griechische Paläographie and plates 14, 42; 27, 50, 70 in Turner and Parsons.31 A bookhand so well-defined, it is often assumed, is best explained as the result of professional training. And indeed stichometry, the only very clear indicator of a professional copy, will lend some support to the claim, for most of the papyri in the sample containing stichometric signs are written in a severe script.32 In chart 3.2.le the column widths are summarized for papyri written in severe style scripts (with sigla to indicate how well the script is executed). Chart 3.2.le is more sparse than the overall charts (cf. 3.2.1a, 3.2.1b[2]), but the general contours are clearly the same. Chart 3 . 2 . l e Prose c o l u m n width, severe style only Oxyrhynchus sample, 62 examples

• 3.0

3.5

4.0

(• = a fine example,

11 4.5

••

•

5.0

5.5

•

• — unexceptionalf

•

• ••

•

6.0

•

• •

•

•

•

6.5

• = a careless or crude

+ 7.0

7.5

• 8.0

8.5

9.0...

>10.0

example)

Nothing here encourages the notion that 'professional1 productions are more strict in definition than the group as a whole (which, substandard examples aside, may in any case be almost entirely 'professional' in origin). Do the widths change over time? In charts 3.2.If and 3.2.1g, I divide column widths by date in two different schematics ('median' and 'composite,' definitions below). These two sets of tables tell the same story. In the second century, where the sample first gives adequate representation, the density is much higher among narrower widths. Taking 6 cm as the dividing point (as the visual schematic encourages us to do), the median date chart at c. AD 150 shows 39 examples in the range 4.3-5.9 cm but only 15 in the range 6.0—7.5 cm:

30 Schubart 1925,124fF. 31 Schubart 1925; Turner and Parsons 1987. 32 223+PKoeln 2 1 0 , 1 8 0 5 + 3 6 8 7 , 2 0 9 1 , 2 0 9 3 , 3 1 5 5 . For stichometry as hallmark of a copy 'professionally made and paid for,' see Turner 1980, 95. Turner and Parsons 1987,16 bring up the possibility that running stichometric totals might become part of the paradosis, but then give good reasons to reject the idea.

106

Formal Characteristics o f the Bookroll

Chart 3.2.If Prose column width, by median date O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 181 examples (Each square represents o n e papyrus at the m e d i a n o f the date range; a papyrus o f A D 1 - 1 0 0 is listed under A D 50, o f A D 5 1 - 1 5 0 under A D 100, and so forth. W h e r e necessary, I r o u n d d o w n w a r d ; thus a papyrus dated to A D 151-300 is listed under A D 200.) c. 50 3.0

BC

3.5

c. AD 3.0

,

c. AD 3.0

3.5

c. AD

50

4.5

(

4.0

3.0

7.0

7.5

(

6.0 ~~

1 6Ü"

1 I x T

^7.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

• • %• • 7.5

4.5

4.0

8.5

9.0 ...

8J3

8.5

9.0 ....

>10.0

8.0

8.5

9.0 .. .

S10.0

8.0

8.5

9.0 .. .

>10.0

• •

•

•

(

!

!

5.0

• • • a • I • • • • • &mm mm 5.5 6.0 6.5

•

7.0

• • • ••

• 4.5

•

• • • mm m mmm mmm

5.0

5.5

• • • •

• • 6.0

•

6.5

7.Ü

• •

~~8 . ( P " 8 . 5

9.0 .. .

>10.0

4.0

• 4.5

• • • ••• • • •• • 5.0

• • • ••• 5.5

•• •• • • • • • mmm • •• • • • • • • • 6.0 6.5 7.0

•• • 7.5

• ••

•

8.0

9.0 ..

>10.0

• 8.5

250

•

• ••• • • • •

• •

• • • • • • •

1

1

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

•

• •

•

mi

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0. ..

>10.0

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0...

>10.0

300 •

3.0

3.5

>10.0

200

3.5

r. AD

8.0

Î50

3.5

c. AD

t ^

• • 5.5

5.0

III

• • 3.0

6.0

too

3.5

c. AD

5.5

•

4.5

• 3IE

5.0

!

4.0

1IB

c. AD

5.5

(

4.0

• 3.0

5.0

1

1 3.5

(

4.5

4.0

•

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

107

Chart 3.2.1 g Prose c o l u m n width, by composite date O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 181 examples ( T h e date is c o m p o s i t e in the sense that e a ch papyrus can appear several times if the date range is greater than 50 years; thus, the squares at 8.5 c m for 5 0 - 1 B C and A D 1—50 are a single papyrus dated to 50 BC—AD 50. E a ch square represents o n e papyrus.) 50-1

BC

3.5

3.0

AD

4.0

4.5

5.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.5

8.0

3.5 AD

4.0

5.0

4.5

3.5 AD

• • 5.5

4.0

•

• 5.0

4.5

3.5 AD

•

••

7.0

6.5

•

•••• 6.0

•

m 4.0

4.5

• 5.0

• • CC III & & & &

•

•

• • C & C • • &

5.5

6.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0 ...

>10.0

C •

• C CCC 6.5

7.5

8.0

& 8.5

& 9.0 ...

>10.0

••

•

8.0

8.5

•C II I

C, C

8.0

8.5

H B ! 7.0

C C C C C C C C

• C

C CC 7.0

6.5

7.5

C C 9.0...

>10.0

151-200 CC • • C • • • C CCC C • &

• 3.0

C|

I, 6.0

5.5

101-150

• C •• I • 1•

3.0

>10.0

51-100 • •

3.0

9.0 ...

•

1-50 •

3.0

6.0

5.5

3.5 AD

4.0

•

• •I &• • IIIII •1 1• • • •

4.5

5.0

• &

5.5

6.0

C C C C

C C C C CC C

C C C

7.0

6.5

7.5

C C C

C

9.0 ...

>10.0

9.0...

C C >10.0

201-250

•

• C C • & C C C CC C mm C CC C CC

• • • • •• C 3.0

3.5 AD

3.0

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

• 7.0

6.5

7.5

8.0

8.5

251-300

3.5 AD

4.0

,•

C • • Bill

C C • Bill

• •

C C C CCCCCCC 'I I I I I I I I I I

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

II

I,

II

C C II

C

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0 ...

>10.0

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0...

>10.0

301-350

• 3.0

3.5

4.0

C

108

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

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

Ptolemaic t i m e s . Class III (wide), which measures c. 8 to 9 cm, is uncommon, and too sparsely represented to localize temporally. Examples beyond the bounds of these classes are very exceptional.

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

Dimensions of the Column: Widths

109

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

•

•• • • •••

• ••

••

•••••••••••••• •

• •

»um

9

mm

m m mm • • • • • • • • • • a • 55

•••

• • • • • • 6JÖ

65

• •

••

•

•

•

9.0

95

mmmmmmmmummuummmmmm»m m

7K

75

8K

85

•

•••• 10.0

•

• 1Ö5

•

>11.0

(in 0. t-cm intervals)

column-to-column widths retain a strong sense of normative boundary: in broad terms, from 6.3 to 9.0 cm, with particular denseness in the area from 7-8.4 cm; the small cluster at 9.5-10 cm will be seen as a reflex of aberrantly wide column width class III. But — and here is the curiosity - analysis by date shows surprisingly little definition within this broad normative range. Charted by median date, the widths look as displayed below. Now if we Chart 3.2.2b Prose c o l u m n - t o - c o l u m n width, by median date O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 99 examples c. AD 55

6.0

c. AD • 55

50 6.5

8.0

• ••

•• 65

9.5

10.0

105

>11.0

7.0

•

•

•

' • 8.0

75

1 95

i 10.0

105

>11.0

10.0

10.5

>11.0

10.0

105

>11.0

• • 85

• (9.0 ·

• m • m m m • •• m mm • • • 65 7.0

•

•

•

• ••• • ••••

7.5

• •

8.0

8.5

•

•

9.0

95

9.0

95

200 m

6.0

9.0

150

6.0

c. AD

85

100

m

5.5

75

• ' • 6.0

c. AD

55

7.0

;

675

•

•

•

7.0

•

•

• • • ••• • 75

• • 8.0

• • 85

•• •

110

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

c.AD

55

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

I

.

,

,

,

6JÖ

65

c.AD

I

55

250

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

>11.0

1Ö5

>11.0

300

7X)

75

8JD

85

•

(

9K

95

(

(

100

(

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

1.0

1.5

2.0

(in 0.1-cm

25

3.0

intervals)

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

Dimensions of the Column: WidthXHeight111

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

m m

1.0

270

1.0

a,· 2.5 2.0· · •.•

•

3.0 "

3.0

150

1.5 c. AD

25

100

1.5 c. AD

date

•

'l5 c. AD

median

examples

50

m

LÖ

1.0

sample, 99

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.0

2.5

3.0

ZÖ

25

XÖ

200

• ••

1.5 c. AD

m

250

m

» II ·&

1.0

1.5

f. AD L0

15

300

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

112

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

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

+ + + +

w i d e (2.0-2.7 cm) w i d e (2.0-2.7 c m )

Column width

Examples

n a r r o w (4.2-5.7 c m )

15

w i d e (6.0-7.5 c m

17

n a r r o w (4.2-5,7 c m )

23 19

w i d e (6.0-7.5 cm)

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

Oxyrhynchus sample, 99

examples

(1) Formal, semi-formal, mm • • • • • • • •

••

To

Ts

• •

•

-.

2l

m ••••••

pretentious, 35 examples

•

3F

(2) Informal and unexceptional, •

56 examples

&· • • • &••• •• • 1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

(3) Substandard or cursive, 8 examples m 1.Ö

m O+

"275

30"

Dimensions of the Column: WidthXHeight113

papyri exceptionally narrow intercolumns, of under 1.5 cm, are avoided. Similarly, of papyri written m fine majuscules, fully eight of nine have wide intercolumns. Yet how the wide intercolumn - seemingly a deliberate design preference - maps to the column-tocolumn width is telling. Taking the majuscules as examples: in four cases (25 Demosth., 8 4 4 Isoc., 2 7 5 0 Xen., 3 4 4 7 Strabo), a somewhat wide column combines with the wide intercolumn, yielding quite a wide column-to-column measure; but in four other cases (227 Xen., 2 1 0 1 Xen., 3 3 2 7 Thuc., 3 6 8 5 Plut.), the wide intercolumn joins with a narrow column (three of four quite narrow) to create a middling column-to-column measure, since the two in effect cancel one another out. This sort of interaction seems characteristic of the relationship, or lack thereof, between intercolumn and column width for the sample as a whole. The comparison set is thin in examples where a full intercolumn is preserved (only 16 prose examples), but seems to accord with the Oxyrhynchus data: certainly the same sense of normative range (falling wholly within 7.0 and 8.9 cm for column-to-column widths; and almost wholly within 1.3-2.5 cm for the intercolumn). In particular, the comparison set shows the same strong tendency (four of five examples) for well-written papyri to prefer a wide intercolumn. Ptolemaic examples are too few to allow much comment. Perhaps worth mention - but the numbers are tiny - is that Ptolemaic examples seem to prefer narrow or very narrow intercolumns (all five fall below 2 cm, and two, at 1.0 and 1.3 cm, are among the narrowest intercolumns to survive; prose examples in Blanchards study [1993, 35] seem to confirm this tendency). I propose, then, an analysis of intercolumns into two groups: prose intercolumn width class I (narrow), which centres around 1.5 (1.2-1.8 cm); and class II (wide), which centres slightly above 2.0 (1.9-2.5 cm).These classes tend to associate neither with a particular date nor with any column-width class; in fact the only association seems to be a tendency among editions de luxe to favour a wide intercolumn, and to avoid an exceptionally narrow one. The reader may be interested to learn what associations do not help define classes in the analysis of widths. Perhaps unexpectedly, I find no discernible tendencies among literary texts written on the verso (though the examples are few); a study of texts author by author shows no discernible patterns;37 a study of text by genre shows discernible tendencies only among, perhaps, philosophical texts, a point to which I will return at §3.8.

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

114

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

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

• •

•• • • • • • • • • • •

•• • • • • • • •• • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• ••

• •

•

9.0

11.0

13.0

15.0

17.0

19.0

21.0

(in OA-cm

23.0

25.0

27.0

mm

(

•••

29.0

•

>39.0

intervals)

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

POxy

1808 3678 2102+PTurner

229 1809 3326 3672

Col. (cm) 4.75 *4.8 7 4.85 -4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

Col .-col. 6.75 *7.0 7.15 ~6.7 7.0 7.0 ~7.2

Intercol. 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.3

Respubliai (scholia) Phikbus Phaedrus Piiaedo (scholia) Phaedo (scholia) Respubliai (scholia)

Leges (3rd cent.)

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

Dimensions of the Column: WidthXHeight115

Chart 3.2.3b Prose letter counts, by author (each square represents o n e papyrus) Aeschines, 26 examples •

••

9.0

11 0

•

••

•

• •

•••

13.0

&

mmmmrn

15.0

•

m mm

17.0

••

21.0

19.0

uu 23.0

25.0

>39.0

27.0

29.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

>39.0

23.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

>39.0

23.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

>39.0

27.0

29.0

Demosthenes, 26 examples u 9.0

u

11.0

u

•• 13.0

15.0

Herodotus, 2 î examples u• • • 9.0

11.0

13.0

11.0

17.0

15.0

13.0

u

• • • • •• •

21.0

19.0

u• • • • •

Isocrates, 1 examples • ( 9.0

u

• • • • • •

17.0

••

15.0

19.0

• 17.0

23.0

•

•

•

• •

•

•

21.0

• 19.0

• • • •

••

•

21.0

•

Plato, 37 examples • •

• •• • 9.0

11.0

• • ••••

••• 13.0

15.0

•

• •

17.0

• 8• • •• 19.0

>• •

•

21.0

23.0

•

,••

25.0

•

>39.0

Thucydides, 46 examples • •

9.0

•

•

, •

11.0

13.0

Xenophon}

11.0

••

u uu

• • • •

15.0

m u ••• • • 1 • • • • • mm • • • •

• • •

17.0

19.0

13.0

21.0

23.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

>39.0

(

15.0

•

•

17.0

•

21.0 "

23.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

>39.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

>39.0

•

19.0

•

Miscellaneous authors, 13 examples • • •

9.0

11.0

• mm

IB

7 examples • • •

9.0

• • muu

•

13.0

•

15.0

17.0

•

,

19.0

21.0

• , •• 23.0

•

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

116

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

unfortunately both few and often based on very rough calculation. Only 9 of 134 verse examples allow even an approximate measurement for the column-to-column width. Second, given our dependence on the column widths, there is the obvious problem that the width results predictably and necessarily from the verse length and the horizontal spacing of the script. How can one sensibly speak of types or fashions when the size of the written block is not fully under the control of the scribe? Thus, the theoretical basis on which we might expect division into meaningful types is slim. In the event, discernible groupings are usually explainable on more or less mechanical grounds. Chart 3.2.4a presents some promising possibilities for type definition, particularly around 8 - 1 0 and 1 1 - 1 3 cm. Examination of chart 3 . 2 . 4 . b shows at once, though, that the two subgroups probably reflect little more than the fact that trimeter and other verses average significantly fewer letters than a hexameter verse, and thus tend to a smaller width. The shorter trimeter verse usually translates to c. 8—11 cm, the longer hexameter usually to c. 1 1 - 1 4 . There remains a small but not tiny group of hexameter verses written to the smaller width (chart 3.2.4b), but this says no more or less than that some hexameter verses are written in a small script. Other aberrations likewise simply reflect scripts that are unusually small or large. Chart 3.2.4a Verse c o l u m n width, undifferentiated Oxyrhynchus sample, 130 examples (each square represents one papyrus)

m 6.0

7.0

• • ••

•• • • • • 8.0

• •• ••

•• •••

9.0

• • •• • • •• •• • • • • • • • • • 11.0

10.0

12.0

•• • • • •

•

13.0

• I 14.0

•

• 15.0

• < 16.0

• 1

• • • ••

17.0

18.0

• •

>19.0

(in 0.2-cm intervals) Chart 3.2.4b Verse c o l u m n width, by genre Oxyrhynchus sample, 130 examples (each square represents one papyrus) Epic (hexameter),

11

examples

•• 6.0

7.0 Drama

m

8.0 (trimeter),

m mm

•• • 9.0

10.0

m m

• •• 11.0

• • ••• •• • ••• • • • • • • • • 12.0

13.0

7.0

8.0

12.0

13.0

•

•

• • •

• •

•m

• • •

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

>19.0

• 14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

• 18.0

>19.0

31 examples

mm • • •m •

•

• •

6.0

•

9.0

10.0

11.0

D i m e n s i o n s o f the C o l u m n : W i d t hXHeight117

Other, Î6 •

6.0

examples

7H

8H

'

m

, '

'

iÖ

•

1ÖÖ

'

' •

llÖ

12~Ö

m

a

13H

•

Î4~0

(

•

FPJ0

•

ÜTÖ

at

I7I)

a

18.0 >19.0

Chart 3.2.4c presents another pattern of seeming interest, which again can be explained as a function of the script size. We see there a noticeable correlation between the more formal scripts and the wider column widths. But this, on reflection, is no surprise, Chart 3.2.4c Verse c o l u m n width, by script formality O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 130 e x a m p l e s (each square represents o n e papyrus) (1) Formal, semi-formal,

6.0

(2) Informal

6.0

aa 9.0

a, • 10.0

and unexceptional,

7.0

8.0

(3) Substandard

9.0

52

10.0

or cursive, 26 •

• "Ü

a

examples m

m

• • • • • • • •

•

III

I

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

>19.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

>19.0

Ï4JÔ

Q5K

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

•

II

••

examples

11.0

12.0

13.0

examples

I

•

I

CC CC | C BB • 8K 9JÔ IÖÖ

7J3

52

m m

mmm

a 8.0

7.0

pretentious,

•

I

l l l l l l l III QJ0 Ï2S) "UÖ

m

ïil

i

TTÖ 18.0 >19.0

since many of the more formal scripts are also unusually large. The pool of examples is smaller, but even so there is a remarkable lack of obvious groupings among the column-tocolumn and intercolumn widths (charts 3.2.4d, e). At first the narrowness of the columnto-column measurements may seem striking: since verse intercolumns are generally Chart 3.2.4d Verse c o l u m n - t o - c o l u m n width, undifferentiated O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 39 e x a m p l e s (each square represents o n e papyrus)

•I I _

9.0

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I

C IIBBBBBBBBBBB 10.0

IIH

12.0

13.0

I I I

14.0

IÊÛ3

(in 0.2-cm

16H

I

•••• 3JK

I 18H

C 19.0

20.0

II

•

•

21.0 >22.0

intervals)

c. 2-4 cm, and verse columns are c. 8-14 cm, one expects the column-to-column measure to range more or less evenly over c. 11-17 cm, with greatest density in the area about 1316 cm. Instead, there is (in addition to some density at 15-17 cm) a principal group ranging from 10—14 cm, with particular denseness centring around 12-13 cm.Yet this too turns out to be mechanistically determined. What is not predictable is that the percentage

118

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

of dramatic texts is much higher in the column-to-column, sample than among column measurements (almost half as opposed to less than a third); thus, the shorter verse category is overrepresented in the chart. What is more predictable is the survival rate: for very broad examples — since the papyrus is more likely to have broken away - the chance of adequate survival is much less than for narrower examples, and thus narrow widths show up more often in the column-to-column chart. Chart 3.2.4e Verse i n t e r c o l u m n w i d t h , undifferentiated O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 38 examples (each square represents o n e papyrus) • • •

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

(in 0. t-cm

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

>7.0

intervals)

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

TO

,

1.5

m •

m • • • • • •

2.0

2.5

(2) Informal and unexceptional,

m

to

13

ZÖ

25™

370

33

•

ÏÔ

(

45

{

5K

,

53

m •

6Ä)

63

ÉlIT

17 examples

m

m m m »

3Ü

35

4JÖ

45

5K

55

6Ï>

65

>7QJ

J

ÎÔ

• 43

,

55

(

6K

,

>TÖ~

(3) Substandard or cursive, 9 examples m • • &

TÖ

|·

15

.·

To

•

.

23

* »

3K

35

5X)

65

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

D i m e n s i o n s o f the C o l u m n :WidthXH e i g h t

119

Oxyrhynchus sample, but differ in a noticeable sparseness below 11 cm. Still, this circumstance serves only to confirm an earlier point, that the group at 11-14 cm is a reflex of the hexameter, since the comparison set by happenstance almost entirely comprises hexameter texts (86%). Chart 3.2.4g Verse c o l u m n width,

undifferentiated

C o m p a r i s o n sample, n o n - O x y r h y n c h i t e , 64 e x a m p l e s (eac h square represents o n e papyrus)

••• a

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12H

(in 0.2-cm

•

• • • • • • • 13H I4-) Ï5Ï)

• (

•• 16H

•

t

ÏTQ

18.0

• >19.0

intervals)

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

120

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Chart 3.3a C o l u m n height, undifferentiated O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 151 examples (each square represents o n e papyrus)

•

10.0

12.0

14.0

•••••

16.0

••••

18.0

20.0

(in 0.2-cm

22.0

24,0

26.0

28.0

30.0

intervals)

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

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

26.0

28Ü

30.0

(2) Verse, 54 examples »

m

••

10.0

12.0

• • • •• ••••

14.0

16.0

•

•

18.0

• • ••

2ÔÔ

•

22.0

••

24.0

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

Dimensions of the Column:WidthXHeight

121

second-century verse texts are roughly even; from c. AD 200 or later, only 33% (6 of 18) have a short column. Interestingly, the comparison set does not support the Oxyrhynchus Chart 3.3c C o l u m n height, verse texts only, by m e d i a n date Oxyrhynchus sample, 54 examples (cach square represents one papyrus) c. 50 BC 10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

1 30.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

• 24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

20.0

• ,22.0 • 24.0

• 26.0

28.0

30.0

18.0

•

c.AD 1

• 12.0

10.0

14.0

10.0

12.0

• • 16.0

14.0

c.AD 100 m 10.0

• •

MM

•

12.0

18.0

•

c.AD 50 )

16.0

14.0

•

16.0

•

c.AD 150 •

10.0

mu 12.0

•

•

14.0

16.0

• • 16.0

• 18.0

(

16.0

• 18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

• 26.0

28.0

30.0

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

•

•

•• • •

• 18.0

•

• •

c.AD 200

m m 10.0

12.0

•

14.0

•

•

•

c.AD 250 • 10.0

12.0

14.0

12.0

••

•

•

c.AD 300 10.0

•

14.0

16.0

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

122

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

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

m m m

10.0

12.0

14.0

m u m m 16.0

18.0

(1) Informal and unexceptional,

10.0

12.0

14.0

u

u 20.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

76 examples

& · · · · · · • •&

16.0

22.0

18.0

20.0

0) Substandard or cursive, 20 examples •

•

1ÔÔ

• ,V2J) •

KÖ

M1 6 ·5 · , 18H ·

•

•

2 0 0•

•

2ZÔ•

•• 24H

26.0

•

28.0

•

3ÖÖ"

range among other manuscripts of about 14-26 cm. Of particular interest is the distribution of the taller manuscripts. The better-written class contains 7 examples above the noticeable break at 21-2 cm (13%), while the everyday class contains 28 examples (37%), and the substandard class 7 (35%). Closer examination of the very tallest examples

Dimensions of the Column:WidthXHeight

123

shows that three of four are written on the back of reused papyrus, two in rather crude hands. In fact, none of the tallest dozen in the sample qualify for the broadly defined class of finely written papyri. This set of observations is of particular interest since it flies in the face of what we might presume from modern aesthetics of book production. Thus, the editor of 1806 Theocr. Id. speaks of a 'handsome manuscript' with 'tall columns,' which seems presumptive, since my reconstruction suggests a middling height of 19 cm; the editor of 2694 Ap. Rh. suggests that the 'extreme length of column' as well as the script shows this to be a roll of'outstanding sumptuousness;' and the editor of 3 3 7 6 Hdt. suggests *a tall imposing roll' for this well-written example, as though tall and imposing were ideas that necessarily go together. In fact, the column of 3 3 7 6 , at 23.5 cm, is unusually tall for an elegant manuscript.38 The plain fact is that the height of finely written examples tends to stay within what is normative for professional copies; where that principle is violated, the clear tendency for such manuscripts is to prefer a shorter column, and to avoid a taller. There remains only to examine the overall change in column heights by date. Examination of chart 3.3e will show that while a shorter column seems somewhat more prevalent earlier (the examples are sparse), a taller format apparently takes hold in the second century and comes to predominate in the third. Just as the tendency towards shorter columns (under c. 16 cm) is driven primarily by verse texts, as discussed above, so the tendency Chart 3.3e C o l u m n height, by media n date O x y r h y n c h u s sample, 151 examples c. 50 BC m IÖÖ

1ZQ c.AD

TÖÖ

10.0

16H

18H

, •

.

Î4.Ô

^16J0~~R8K

22H

24I>

26H

28.0

30.0

2ÖÖ

22Û

24IE"" 26H

281)

30IE

• 22Q)

, • 24H

28Ü

30.0

28.0

30.0

•

a , · · , · · , I4H 16H I8H 20X3

26H

100 m mm

m 1Ö0

205

50

12.0 c.AD

•

t

14~0

1 m

12.0 c.AD

mm

{

12.0

14.0

Ï6X>

m 18Ï>

20.0

m m 22.0

m 24H

26Ü

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

124

Formal Characteristics o f the Bookroll

c.AD

10.0

12.0 c.AD

10.0

150

14.0

200

12.0 c.AD

10.0

18.0

• •

•

16.0

18.0

250

JL2 c.AD

m m

14.0

•

1Ö0

16.0

, •

,

I4H

16~Q

18H

14.0

16.0

•

. •

300

12.0

•

m • ••,••

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

m

•

•

20.0

22.0

24.0

m m

m m • • • • • •

• • • •

|

· ·

|

2Ö0

22H

24.0

26.0

2Sß

3ÖÖ

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

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

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

Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height

125

groups within that range; extreme examples are 18 and 64 (details in table 3.7 at the end of the chapter). Perhaps worth mention is how abrupt the edges of the normal range are: under 25 lines and over 50, examples become suddenly sparse. The low end of the range (25 and below) is dominated by verse examples, in keeping with the analysis just above. 3.4 Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height We now come to consider the written area as a block, and to ascertain whether the conjunction of width and height is meaningful. Since at every step prose and verse texts have divorced themselves from each other in matters of format, the two will be considered separately. 3,4.1 Width X Height: Prose texts Among prose texts there seems little to recommend an overall arrangement of column blocks by height, width (column or column-to-column), or proportion of width to height. Ordering the data by column width or height gives a general impression that shorter heights tend to associate with narrower columns, and taller heights with wider columns, but more detail to the pattern is difficult to see. Arranging heights by the classes of width defined in section §3.2.1, however, throws much into relief, and I have therefore chosen this arrangement for table 3.4 at the end of the chapter. The width classes differentiate themselves strongly for both short and tall height classes. About a third of narrow columns (width class I) are also short (height class 1), whereas only one-twentieth of wide columns (width class II) are short. Conversely, fully one-half of wide columns are tall (height class III), whereas only a fifth of narrow columns are tall (and of that fifth, half the examples are at the upper edge of the class definition, at 5.5 cm or above). For columns of medium height (class II), the results are more mixed, but a similar tendency dominates: most narrow columns fall in the lower (i.e., shorter) half of that class (16 of 22), but most wide columns fall in the upper (i.e., taller) half of the class (10 of 17). In sum, then: a short column, particularly one below c. 16 cm (class I), was very likely also to be narrow; a tall column, particularly one above c. 21 cm (class III), was likely also to be wide, and very unlikely to be more narrow than 5.5 cm. Now we may think it natural to combine a narrower column with a shorter height and a wider column with a taller. But the example of verse (where a shorter column is most frequent though the lines are necessarily long) should persuade us that convention, and not nature, is at work here. The exceptionally consistent association between narrow width and short height merits closer attention. As Chart 3.4.1a shows, 13 of 15 Oxyrhynchus examples with short columns also fall within the narrow width class. The comparison set has few examples, but seems to verify this tendency.The chart also makes obvious the strong link between these narrow, short columns and script style. In 9 of 13 examples from Oxyrhynchus, and in all

126

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Chart 3.4.1a Short columns (up to 16 cm, height class I, by width) Style

Col. width (cm)

Col.-to-coL

Col. height

Plutarch Xenophon

1 1

3.2 -4.5

5.7 -6.1

**10.8 *11.5

Isocrates Aeschines

2 1

4.6 4.7

-6.7 ~7.2(?)

*13.5 13.6

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

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

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

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

4.8 4.95 5.5 **6.3

-7.3 6.95 7.0 **8.2-8.6

14.4 15.9-16.3 *14.25 *14.5

7.5 (7.1-7.9) 7.9

10.0-10.1

POxy Contents 1. Oxyrhynchus set, 15 examples 3685 0226+PSI XVII Congr 8 + PSI 11.1197 0704 2404+ PLaur III/278 3327 1808 4047+4051 2102+PTurner 1 4041 0463 2749 0026 4035 3435 3895

Thucydides Plato Aeschines Plato Aeschines Xenophon Thucydides Demosthenes Aeschines Demosthenes Thucydides

2. C o m p a r i s o n set, R o m a n - e r a , 4 examples 1566 1233 1564 0478

Xenophon Hyperides Xenophon Herodotus

1 1 1 1

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

Anaximenes

3

Plato

2

-6.5 (-6.0-7.0) -6.5 (-5.9—-7.1)

14.4

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

Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height

127

cartonnage: the three other examples he lists with a column height of 16 cm or less are also wide (i.e., 6 cm or more).40 In general, the evidence does not tempt one to subdivide the papyri further into smaller groups. Since column width, intercolumn, and column height all fall within fairly strict ranges, certain coincidences of agreement are statistically likely. A good example can be found in width class II at a height of c. 25-6 cm.There, four papyri have column widths of 6.3-6.5 cm, and a column-to-column measure of 8.0-8.2 cm; moreover, all four carry the text of either Herodotus or Thucydides. Still, assigned dates range from the first to the third centuries, without much overlap, and script styles range from very fine to quite poor; the likelihood that this 'subgroup' has significance seems slim. Two groups in table 3.4A nonetheless press themselves upon our attention. Among class I widths, a group of five manuscripts share a height of 16.7-17.3 cm, a width of 4.7-4.9 cm, and a column-tocolumn width of 7.0-7.2 cm (227 Xen. Oec., 3326 PL Resp1809 PL Phd3672 PL Lg., 2550 Lycurg. in Leocr.; 881r,v PI. Euthd., Ly. might also be claimed for this group); with the exception of 3672, all of these could plausibly be assigned to the early second century.41 A second group, which is perhaps less certain, appears in the middle of the list of class II columns, measuring 6.4-7.1 cm wide, 8.4-9.0 from column to column, and 20-1 cm high (460 Demosth. de pac698 Xen. Cyr., 3447 Strabo, 1619 Hdt., 3679 PL Resp.; 3156+ 3669 PL Gorg. and 27 hoc.Antid. might also be included); to this one may add a smaller set with the same column and intercolumn parameters, but a somewhat shorter height of 17 to 19 cm (3837 Ach.Tat., 2751 PL Resp., 1250 Ach. Tat.). Examples from this group date mostly from late second to early third century. In both of these groups, the match of column dimensions is, then, striking. Yet if the two groups are significant, what in fact is being signified? If the conclusion to chapter 2 is correct, the agreement in widths should mean that the scribal tool of measure was the same. Possibilities include then that the tool was inherited and shared; or that a given group of scribes (such as master and apprentices) cut the tool to same standard; or that the tool of measure (since the parameters were restricted) simply happened to be the same for unrelated scribes. We may then have here evidence of a scribal group; but — especially sincc the hands bear so little resemblance within the groups — the wiser course may be to chalk these up to chance.

40 Blanchard 1993,35.The widths listed there for the Phaedo piece (MP 1388, Blanchard #14) are not right; though column width is unusually variable, the columns fall roughly in the bounds of 5.9-7.1 cm, with an average of about 6.5 cm. 41 Some of these we have seen before (above, n. 37) in a collection of seven Platonic manuscripts, mostly second century, with similar column and intercolumn widths. If the current analysis is correct, one of these (2102+ PTurner 7) must now be struck from the earlier list (the column height cannot be ascertained for the other three). One can also now suggest at least two non-Platonic additions to that group (227 Xen. and 2550 Lycurg.). Neither of the two new texts has the scholia suggested as a possible attribute of the earlier group; and one (2550) is possibly to be excluded since it is an incomplete manuscript (perhaps then a writing exercise).

128

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

A final group, or rather set of subgroups, is to my mind somewhat more persuasive, since it accommodates to a known phenomenon. By way of example, consider 2095 and 3383. These papyri, both containing Herodotus, are written to near exact agreement in column width, intercolumn width, and column height. The match of author as well as column dimensions recalls the example, already discussed (§2.1.3), of the matching set of Aeschylean rolls that survive under the rubric of 2159-64,2178-9, and 2245-55.Though many plays, and presumably at least several rolls, are represented among the fragments, all these Aeschylean rolls are written to an identical set of dimensions. The point cannot be proved, but one wonders whether 2 0 9 5 and 3 3 8 3 (one of Herodotus, book 1, the other of book 8) were similarly written as two rolls of a set designed to match. Chart 3.4.1b summarizes all reasonably exact pairings among the Oxyrhynchus sample (and cf. §2.1.19 on 3 4 3 6 Dinarch. in Dem. + 3 4 3 7 Dinarch. in Phil, both by scribe #B1 and possibly from the same roll). Chart 3.4.1b Rolls possibly f r o m a m a t c h e d set Pairs showing agreement in widths, height, and author Date

Col. height (cm)

Col. width

Herodotus, 1 Herodotus, 8

101-200 151-250

*23.5 **23.5

~7.5 7.5

—9.45 *9.5

3376 3382

Herodotus, 1-2 Herodotus, 8

101-200 151—250

5.5 *5.4

7.45 *7.4

3841

Demosthenes,

101-200

**22.0

*7.3

*9.0

151-250

*22.8

7.3

*8.9

*10.1 *10.1

*11.9 **11.7

POxy

Contents

2095 3383

23.5 *24.25(?)

Col-to-col.

adv. Lept.

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

2181 3667

Plato, Phd. [Plato],Ale. ii

151-200 201-300

*21.7 *23.25

1808 2102+PT«mer7

Plato, Resp. 8 Plato, Phdr.

151-200 151-200

*15.1 15.1

4.75 4.85

6.75 7.1

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

Dimensions of the Column: Width X Height

129

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

130

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

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

Upper and Lower Margins

131

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

3.1 cm 3.2 cm 3.1 cm

col. 10 col. 29

3.0 cm 3.2 cm

Now had these columns been the only ones preserved, I would have marked down 3.0-3.2 cm as the probable upper margin. As it happens, though, other columns survive whose upper margins measure as follows: 844, col. 1 col. 31

4.4 cm 4.0 cm

col. 32 col. 47

4.3 cm 4.0 cm

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

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

132

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

unfounded (§3.0). What does the evidence show? (See chart 3.5a.) Now only three of the Oxyrhynchus examples are confidendy held to be intact at top and bottom. Of these, two (233 Demosth. in Tim., 2101 Xen. Cyr. (plate 8), the former written on the back of a document) show a lower margin that is larger than the upper margin, though neither is very close to the proportion 2:3 (one is 6:7, the other 3:4). The other secure example (2102+P7wraer 7 PI. Phdr.) has a lower margin that is smaller than the upper. If we consider examples where an intact upper and lower margin is at least very probable, ten examples have a larger lower margin, and three do not. None of the examples, however, shows a ratio under 7:10. Spreading the net wider to include all possible examples shows a similar distribution (the lower margin is larger for 18, not for 7). The comparison set shows the same tendencies: 4 of 10 examples have a lower margin of same or greater size than the upper, all as it happens Ptolemaic and all certainly intact; only 2 examples, neither certain, show a ratio under 7:10. Note also that several very handsome rolls appear to have a lower Chart 3.5a Ratio o f upper t o lower margin (The list includes all rolls where the full roll height is possibly (*??'), probably ('?') or definitely extant; the percentages give, respectively, the ratio of upper to lower margin and the ratio of column height to roll height. Under 'r/v* texts marked with V are those written on the verso, and texts marked with 'r x' are recto texts whose verso was later reused.)

POxy

Contents

r/v

Column height (cm)

Upper margin

Lower margin

Upper + lower

Col. + roll ht.

1. Oxyrhynchus sample, 25 examples 4047+4051

Aeschines

13.2

1.8(??)

3.1(B)

58%

73%

0021

Riad

15.8

1.5(r?)

2.5(2)

60%

80%

0230

Demosthenes

24.2

1.4(??)

2.2.(11)

64%

87%

2100+3891+ 4109

Thucydides

18.5

3.9(?)

5.6(2)

70%

66%

4030

Aeschines

1.9(??)

2.7(??)

70%

80%

2101

Xenophon

16.2

3.9

5.3

74%

64%

2223

Euripides

16.2

2.8(?)

3.8

74%

71%

3882+

Thucydides

*18.2

3,1
4.2(??)

74%

71%

17.7

4.4(?)

5.8(?)

76%

63%

21.9

4.35(?)

5.5

79%

69%

V

-18.4

PS/11.1195 r2

0020

Iliad

0844

Isocrates

3437

Dinarchus

-19.5

3.5(?)

4.3

81%

71%

2181

Plato

*21.7

3.0(??)

3.6(3)

83%

77%

2335

Euripides

1,0(?)

L2(?)

83%

88%

V

15.7

Upper and Lower Margins

133

C h a r t 3 . 5 a - concluded

POxy

Contents

0223+

Iliad

Column

Upper

Lower

Upper +

Col. +

r/v

height ( c m )

margin

margin

lower

roll ht.

V

18.1

3.6

4.25

85%

70%

PKoeln 5.210 3663

Iliad

*18.0

3.5

4.1«

85%

70%

1183

Isocrates

-16.25

5.1 (?)

5.8(?)

88%

60%

1092

Herodotus

-16.6

3.0(??)

3.3(?)

91%

72%

4041

Aeschines

14.7

5.1

5.5(??)

93%

58%

0445

Iliad

24.4

3.0(?)

3.0

100%

80%

1017

Plato

24.2

2.0(??)

2.0(??)

100%

86%

1377

Demosthenes

23.5

2.5(?)

2.5(??)

100%

82%

1806

Theocritus

*19.4

4.5(?)

4.5(??)

100%

68%

2102+

Plato

15.1

5.3

4.8

110%

60%

1250

Achilles Tat.

18.7

3.0(?)

2.7(??)

111%

77%

3444

Isocrates

16.2

3.2(?)

1.7(?)

188%

77%

r 2

PTurner 1

2. C o m p a r i s o n sample ( N o n - O x y r h y n c h i t e ) , 10 examples a. R o m a n era

MP

Contents

0486-3

Hesiod

1039

Odyssey

1233

Hyperides

Column

Upper

Lower

r/v

height ( c m )

margin

margin

Upper + lower

roll ht.

V

-24.0

L7(??)

3.3(?)

52%

83%

20.2

5.95

7.5

79%

60%

16.2

6.6

8.2

80%

52%

Col. + roil ht.

Col. +

b. P t o l e m a i c era

MP

Contents

r/v

0088

Anaximenes

r 2

1388

Plato

1409

Plato

Column

Upper

Lower

Upper +

H e i g h t (cm )

margin

margin

lower

10.05

1.1(?)

1.7(?)

65%

78%

14.4

2.9

4.0

73%

68%

21.0

2.4(?)

2.5(?)

96%

81%

0265-1

Demosthenes

*20.9

2.1

2.1

100%

83%

0998

Mad

20.9

2.3

2.3

100%

82%

1255

Isocrates

18.4

3.4

3.4

100%

73%

0980

Iliad

16.0

3.9

3.8

103%

68%

0337+1234

Hyperides +

15.0

3.5

5.4(?)

65%

52%

Demosthenes

17.0

3.3

3.6

92%

59%

134

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

margin not much or at all larger than the upper, including 1017 Pl., 1806 Theoc., 4041 Aeschin.; MP 980 II The sample is not extensive (35 examples for both sets, including possibly intact margins), but even so the mixed tendencies seem clear enough.Though the lower margin appears more often larger than not, a substantial minority shows no such tendency. What little evidence we have lends no support to the hypothesis that a larger lower margin was characteristic of better-written examples. We should perhaps revise the rule to state merely that literary papyri often have a lower margin that is larger than the upper. (The overall tendency for lower margins to exceed upper also finds some statistical support, as seen in chart 3.5b below.) More positively one can assert, even on the basis of these few examples, that the 2:3 rule from codices appears mistakenly applied. Even where the lower margin is larger, a ratio of 4:5 (80%) or 6:7 (86%) is more usual. I also note in passing that several papyri apparently have upper and lower margins that are exactly the same size. In general the margins appear far closer in size than is the rule among codices. Detailed sorting out of trends, such as by date, must await the gathering of more evidence. Still, early texts, though examples are few, do seem likely to have tended toward shorter margins: of eleven Ptolemaic examples in the comparison set, for instance, only one lower margin can be shown to exceed 5 cm (MP 337). Chart 3.5b Upper and lower margins (in c m ) , undifferentiated (In the following charts, • represents a certainly complete margin, • a probably complete margin, • a possibly complete margin, and + a vestigial margin ^ 5 cm; the two latter must be viewed with circumspection) A. Oxyrhynchus sample (t) Upper margins, 63

examples *

• 1.0

•• 1.5

• • •

•

•

1.0

•

t

1.5

•

•

•

•

•• •

+

•<>• 5.5

•<>• 6.0

t

2.5

2.0

(2) Lower margins, 59

t

•

•

*

•

•

2.0

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

( 6.5

$,

$

• 75

7.0

examples

• •

•

•

•••

2.5

•

• • •

•

••DS • • 3.0

3.5

S

•

DD • •d•a•• 4.0 4.5

0 • S 0 S ( + + a BO C • • O D S 5.0

5.5

SI

S

65

6.0

+

C 7.0

S

•

•

7.5 >8.0

M. C o m p a r i s o n sample (non-Oxyrhynchite) (1) Upper margins, 15 examples (

+

~TÔ

, • Ï1

IÖ

25

(2) Lower margins, 26 *

t IH

• • T# & ^ & & ( + 15

ZÖ

25

·(

ÏÔ

•

aa

a

35

t

4J

45

+ , SiÖ

,+

a

Si

6J)

(

a

65

(

(

TÖ

ÏJ

examples •

•

a ••a i +aa • 3!Ö

35

4H

•

+

% 45

5H

a

55

6.0

65

7H

a

7.5 >8.0

Upper and Lower Margins

135

Schubart advanced the rule of thumb that the amount of margin could be used as a gauge of the fineness of a roll.45 The most stately rolls exhibit, according to Schubart, a proportion of 2:3 for column height to height of roll, or, put the other way around, the margins taken together account for one third of the total height. Less-deluxe examples are said to exhibit progressively less margin, ranging from a quarter down to a sixth of the total height of the roll. Schubart cites a couple of examples by way of support, but much of the force of his argument rests on the analogy of modern books (that is, codices), which I have already attacked as specious reasoning (§3.0). By the time Schubart's observation passed through a couple of generations, it not only had become law, but had acquired additional articles along the way. In a 1971 publication we read of a fragment of the Iliad: 'The height of the column (16 cm) amounts to about two thirds of that of the fragment (23 cm). This ratio of column height to roll height is, as is well-known, an important factor in determining the quality and destination of literary papyri. A ratio of two to three is typical of very carefully made copies intended for the market or for libraries.'46 But did the ancients share this feeling that the 2:3 proportion was best, with less careful or expensive copies degenerating from that ideal? I should first like to consider in isolation the observation that finer manuscripts have larger margins than less fine manuscripts. This is a rather different, and considerably less detailed, formulation than Schubart s, but it will provide a secure first step. Chart 3.5c tabulates surviving upper and lower margins by formality of script. Chart 3.5c Upper and lower margins (in c m ) , by script formality (Oxyrhynchus sample; for use of sigla, see chart 3.5b) A. Upper margins, 63 examples (1) Formal, semi-formal, *

to

* *

15

(2) Informal

•

1.0

1.5

*

]

25

2H

+ 25

or cursive, 6

• 2.0

32

•

,

examples •

•

•

• •

• • •

•

,

+

+*

• <>•

•

40"

45

5.0

5.5

6.0

65

7.0

75

D S • % + • • • • •(• 3~U 35 4~0

45

5.0

55

6.0

6.5

7.0

75

45

5.0

55

6.0

6.5

7.0

75

3.0

25

3.5

examples

! !

• • • 2.0

(3) Substandard 15

• +

and unexceptional,

• 1.0

pretentious,

"

examples

o( 25

3.0

35

4.0

45 Schubart 1 9 2 1 , 5 8 - 9 . 46 Wouters 1 9 7 1 , 5 6 , citing both Schubart and Martin 1 9 5 4 , 1 7 - 1 8 . Neither o f these mentions the 'destination 1 o f the roll.

136

F o r m a l Characteristics of the B o o k r o l l

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

examples

+ + • • 1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

(2) Informal and unexceptional, • 1.0

1.5

t

?4

(3) Substandard

#

1.5

31

• •

••F 25

4.0

4.5

5.0

•

6.5

+

.• ( • 7.0 7.5 >8.0

examples

+

• 3N)

•

•

• •

•

+

, • 3.5

• 4NE

"4.5

! ' 51)

35

4.0

45

5N>

•• " 55

$ 6.0

$· $ 65

6.0

65

OP

or cursive, 5 examples

(

1.0

•

3.5

• +

• $ : $ 5.5 6.0

2.0

' • 25

, D 3.0 "

55~

7.0

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

Upper and Lower Margins

137

Chart 3.5d Ratio o f c o l u m n height to roll height POxy

C o l u m n height (cm)

Contents

Estimated roll height

Column + roll height

A. Oxyrhynchus sample (1) Formal, semi-formal, pretentious, 21 examples

<46%

-12.8

>27.9

Thucydides

**16.4

31.1-34.1

48-53%

0227

Xenophon

-16.7

30.2-33.2

50-55%

2096+3374

Herodotus

16.8

30.1-32.7

51-56%

2404+PL·*« r III/278

Aeschines

13.6

22.1-25.1

54-62%

3447

S trab +

-20.2

33.0-35.7

57-61%

2098

Herodotus

*18.0

28.5-31.5

57-63%

1183

Isocrates

-16.25

27.2

3326

Plato

16.9

26.7-28.2

60-63%

1808

Plato

*15.1

21.6-24.6

61-70%

2699

Apollonius R h o d .

-18.4/20.6

25.9-30.1

61-71%

0020

Riad

17.7

27.9

3721

Theophrastus

20.9

30.0-33.0

2101

Xenophon

16.2

25.4

1806

Theocritus

*19.4

0844

Isocrates

3663

2333

Aeschylus

4107

28.4-29.9

60%

63% 63-70% 64% 65-68%

21.9

31.8

69%

Iliad

*18.0

25.6

70%

3 9 0 1 + P Y a l e 2.99

Thucydides

*25.2

33.1-36.1

2223

Euripides

16.2

22.8

0021

Iliad

15.8

19.8-22.3

71-80%

2224+3152

Euripides

*20.9

25.6-28.6

73-82%

(2) Informal and unexceptional, 24

70-76% 71%

examples

0228

Plato

16.1

27.6-30.6

53-58%

1819

Odyssey

15.8

26.0-27.7

57-61%

4035

Aeschines

*12.9

19.4-22.4

58-66%

2102+PTïifwer 7

Plato

2225

Callimachus

3435

Demosthenes

1809

Plato

2100+3891+4109

Thucydides

1092

Herodotus

-16.6

22.9-24.7

67-72%

3879

Thucydides

**26.5

36.2-39.2

68-73%

15.1

25.2

60%

*21.1

30.6-33.6

63-69%

14.6

20.1-23.1

63-73%

*17.3

23.8-26.8

65-73%

18.5

28.0

66%

138

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

C h a r t 3 . 5 d - continued

C o l u m n height (cm)

Estimated roil height

C o l u m n -r roll height

POxy

Contents

3673

Plato

*18.3

23.8-26.8

2546

Manetho Astro!

-22.0

>31.8

2097

Herodotus

*25.1

33.6-36.6

0223+PKoeIn 5.210

Iliad

3882+P5/11.1195

Thucydides

*18.2

25.5-25.9

3437

Dinarchus

-19.5

27.3

1250

Achilles Tatius

2181

Plato

3444

Isocrates

16.2

21.1

1376

Thucydides

26.5

32.3-34.2

77-82%

0232

Demosthenes

*22.8

26.7-29.7

77-85%

1377

Demosthenes

23.5

28.5-30.0

78-82%

0027

Isocrates

**21.8

25.0-27.7

79-87%

0445

Iliad

(3)

18.1

26.0

68-77% <69% 69-75% 70% 70-71% 71%

18.7

24.4-26.2

71-77%

*21.7

28.3-30.4

71-77%

24.4

30.4

77%

80%

Substandard or cursive, 2 examples

31.5-34.5

3322

Euripides

*27.2

79-86%

2335

Euripides

15.7

17.9

88%

C o l u m n height (cm)

Estimated roll height

C o l u m n Hroll height

B. C o m p a r i s o n sample (non-Oxyrhynchite) Contents

MP

(1) Formal, semi -formal, pretentious, 5 examples

1233

Hyperides

16.1

30.5-31.0

1039

Odyssey

20.2

33.2

0650

Iliad

21.5

30.3-32.6

0980

Iliad

16.0

23.6

1564

Xenophon

*14.25

17.6-20.6

23.9

(2) Informal and unexceptional,

52-53% 61% 66-71% 68% 69-81%

12 examples

0337H

Hyperides

15.0

1552

Xenophon

*25.2

1388

Plato

1551

Xenophon

14.4 —22,5

34.7-37.7 21.2 30.4-32.6

63% 67-73% 68% 69-74%

Upper and Lower Margins

139

Chart 3 . 5 d - concluded

C o l u m n height (cm)

Estimated roll height

C o l u m n -r roll height

-Demosthenes

17.0

23.9

71%

0300

Demosthenes

16.35

20.7-23.0

1255

Isocrates

18.4

25.2

0979

Iliad

1094

MP

Contents

0337D

71-79% 73%

*22.2

28.3-29.9

74-78%

Odyssey

**21.5

26.0-29.0

74-83%

0486-3

Hesiod

-24.0

29.1-32.1

75-82%

1409

Plato

21.0

25.9

81%

0998

Iliad

20.9

25.1

83%

*11.8

14.2-16.5

(3) Substandard

or cursive, 4 examples

1022

Odyssey

0088

Anaximenes

0265-1

Derne

0857

Iliad

henes

72-83%

12.8

79%

•20,9

25.1

83%

-24.5

29.1-32.0

10.05

77-84%

The figures in chart 3.5d are striking in three respects. First, one finds little if any support for Schubarts fixation on the 2:3 ratio (67%) of column height to roll height. The better-written manuscripts do not particularly cluster about the sixty-seventh percentile, nor do everyday examples avoid it. It seems in fact that finer examples generally fall somewhat below such a ratio, and exhibit more ample margins as a proportion of total height than Schubart supposed. The notion of an ideal 2:3 ratio I should think best to discard. Second, however, one does find impressive confirmation of the notion that finer manuscripts generally tend to a larger proportion of margin to total height than do less well-written examples. Comparison of the percentages for the script types makes this clear (e.g., 11 of the 21 better-written examples clearly fall under 65%, whereas only 3 of the 24 examples written in more informal scripts do). In a sense, of course, this is an expected corollary of the earlier observation that finer manuscripts tend to have larger margins, and it should be re-emphasized that this is no more than a general tendency. Many examples among everyday manuscripts display more ample margins than the bottom range of margins among finer manuscripts. Still, and here I reach the third point, the tendency is perhaps accentuated by a slight but noticeable inclination for shorter columns to be associated with larger margins, and taller columns to be associated with smaller. The question now arises whether shorter columns imply that the roll itself was shorter or that, the roll height being roughly stable, the margins were proportionately larger. Chart 3.5e suggests that there is in fact a fairly strong tendency for shorter columns to prefer

140

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

larger margins, and for taller columns to prefer smaller margins. (Margins in the comparison set, which are mosdy Ptolemaic and lacking in examples outside of 2-4 cm, do not show this tendency.) Chart 3.5e Upper and lower margins (cm), by c o l u m n height ( O x y r h y n c h u s sample; f o r use o f sigla, see chart 3 . 5 b )

A. Upper margins height class I (^16

(a) Column

•

•

1.0

1.5

(

(

2.0

(b) Column

cm), 13

•

(

2.5

3.0

height class

examples

• •

3.5

(16-21

cm), 26

•

4.0

, + 5.0

4.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

(c) Column

2.5

• 1.5

2.0

•

•

3.0

height class III

• 1.0

• • Q •

•

!

• • 1 0

•

3.5

21 cm), 10 •

•• 3.0

2.5

• •

6.0

6.5

7 . 0

2=7.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

* >7.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

>7.5

$ 6.0

6.5

7.0

S Q=7.5

6.0

• 6.5

7.0

> 7 . 5

7.0

>7.5

examples

• ,

•

(

5.5

Qp

4.0

• , • 5.0

4.5

$•

D 5.5

examples

o, 3.5

o(

t

4.0

•

&

5.0

4.5

5.5

B. L o w e r m a r g i n s

(a) Column • 1.0

height class I (^16 •

1.5

2.0

(b) Column

!

1.5

(c) Column

•

2.5

3.0

height class II (16-21

examples

)

•

3.5

4.0

cm), 21

•

• 4.5

• 2.0

2.5

• 3.0

height class III (>21

0

3.5

cm), 14

,

1.0

1.5

• 2.0

(

2.5

3.0

•

3.5

$ 5.5

•

+/0

m

•

(

$

S

examples

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

•

*

•

examples

• ,

+ • 5.0

•

• 1.0

cm), 15

t

!

0 4 0

4.5

5.0

• 5.5

S, 6.0

6.5

As always, one cannot be dogmatic: the several examples of short columns with small margins and tall columns with large margins will dissuade us from any notion of absolute regularity. Review of margins by style of script shows also that taller manuscripts with relatively large margins are considerably more prominent among better-written manuscripts. Still, the data lend no general support for Schubart's supposition that finer manuscripts tend to be written on taller rolls.47 Instead, the evidence tends to support the association of finer manuscripts with short columns and large margins, resulting in rolls of unexceptional height. 47 Schubart 1 9 2 1 , 5 9 .

Roll Height

141

The collected evidence will allow us to formulate some idea of what constituted an unusually ample margin (see table 3.5, and charts 3.5b, 3.5c). Such has been claimed, for instance, by the editor of 1809 PI. Phd., who supposes the upper margin, at 4.0 cm, left extra-wide to accommodate scholia; and similarly the editor of MP 1551 Xen. Cyr., also commenting on a margin of c. 4 cm. Compare with these the example of 19 Hdt,, whose scribe leaves an upper margin of 5.0 cm though the text is written on the back of a document in a professional but rather casual script. I have already suggested that the usual range for upper margin was about 3—4 cm, and 3—5 cm was perhaps usual for the lower. I have also noticed that a deluxe manuscript would commonly use a margin of this extent. Yet when a somewhat exaggerated margin was desired, a range from 4—6 cm was common for the upper margin among finely written examples, as was a range of 5-7 cm for the lower margin (though several manuscripts without pretension also employ margins of this size). For dramatic examples, which are almost all from very handsome manuscripts, we must look to 6 cm or more for the upper margin, 7 cm or more for the lower. On the other hand, editors will frequently describe as 'ample' or 'deluxe' margins that are no larger than 3—5 cm. From the evidence here, it would appear that the routine damage to margins has much distorted our idea of how large a typical margin might be. Let me emphasize that the tables, though often uncertain as to the completeness of the edge, present at the worst the minimum measurement for any given margin. The number of secure examples is insufficient to attempt the grouping of margins by date, prose or verse, or the like. No obvious patterns appear in what is in hand. 3.6 Roll Height

Roll height can be treated briefly since most of the problems have been addressed in the discussion of margins. I have already (§3.5) described a technique for extrapolating probable roll heights, and the results of that extrapolation are presented in table 3.6. It remains simply to notice what those heights are. In rough terms, about 9 to 12 examples fall under 25 cm, and only one of these ( 2 3 3 5 Eur. Andr.) seems likely to fall under 20 cm; 25 to 30 examples fall in the area from 25 to 33 cm; and only 4 to 6 examples are taller than 33 cm. To that can be added a large number of examples where the column height alone, or column height plus a partial margin, makes it certain that the total height exceeded 25 cm. (See table 3.3.) I count 45 secure examples (a good many more seem probable), as follows: 16+696 Thuc., 23 PL Lg., 233 11., 454+PSJ 119 PL Gorg., 462 Demosth. de Cor., 703 Aeschin. in Ctes., 1019+2948 Chariton, 1619 Hdt., 1805+3687 Soph. Track., 1810 Demosth. Ol i, 2091 Hes. Erga, 2095 Hdt., 2096+3374 Hdt., 2097 Hdt., 2098 Hdt., 2099 Hdt., 2639+PSI 1191 Hes. Th., 2641 Hes. Th., 2695 7*.Rh., 2700 7*.Rh., 3154 II, 3155 II., 3220 Hes. Erga, 3223 Hes. Erga, 3323 II, 3372 Hdt., 3373 Hdt., 3375 Hdt., 3376 Hdt., 3382 Hdt., 3383 Hdt., 3440 II, 3442 Od., 3443 Od., 3451 Thuc., 3666+

142

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

PHarr 12 PI. Ale. i, 3 6 6 7 PL Ale. ii, 3 6 7 5 PL Lg., 3 7 1 9 Eur. Iph.AuL,

3 8 3 6 A c h . Tat., 3 8 3 9

Aristoph. Th., 3842 Demosth. adv. Lept., 3850 Demosth. in Meid., 3877 Thuc., 4100

Thuc. Only a very small number of these appear likely to exceed 33 cm (only 3155 II demonstrably so). Roman-era examples from the comparison set show a similar distribution: two examples below 25 cm, only one example much above 33 cm; but 7 in the middle range, with an additional dozen demonstrably above the 25-cm boundary. Thus, the usual height for a literary roll in the Roman era was about 25-33 cm. Heights all across that range seem, as far as rough estimation will allow, equally common. This rather tall range of height may surprise those conversant with the handbooks (Kenyon estimates 25 cm; Schubart simply notes the range 20-30 cm), and very likely reflects the general underestimation of typical margins noticed in §3.5.48 I have already observed (§3.5) that taller heights, pace Schubart, do not seem particularly characteristic of betterwritten manuscripts. Ptolemaic examples show, however, a different distribution (for details, see table 3.6B at the end of the chapter). Examples are few, but fully 8 of 12 fall at or below the 25-cm boundary; this is also true of the lone BC example in the Oxyrhynchus data ( 2 2 2 3 Eur. Bacch., 22.8 cm). The two very short examples (MP 88 Anaximenes and MP 1022 Od., 12.8 and c. 15 cm), both cartonnage and reused, may well have been cut down from the original height (which was in any case not much above 20 cm). As always, one cannot be absolute: four Ptolemaic examples do well exceed 25 cm, two others are on the borderline, and three rolls with partial heights (MP 773 //., MP 979 //., MP 1056 Od.) are clearly taller than 25 cm. Still, the density in the area from 21 to 25 cm remains striking. Now these results are of especial interest, since they materially intersect with other studies of early papyri. Cavallo, in his discussion of formats among the Herculaneum papyri, gives examples to support a 'standard' height of 19-24 cm.49 Blanchard, in his study of early Ptolemaic literary texts, advances several standards for height, but by far the best witnessed among these is the set centring around 21.5 cm.50 The combination of evidence makes, then, a good prima facie case that in the early period (pre-Roman or very early Roman) short rolls of c. 19—25 cm were commonly used, at least for literary rolls. If so, these short rolls became rare in the Roman era, as rolls of 25—33 cm came to dominate.Whether this is due to a shift in manner of production, or to a change in fashion, is hard to say, at least on present evidence.51 48 Kenyon 1951, 51; Schubart 1921,57. 49 Cavallo 1983,14-16. 50 Blanchard 1993,32.The other format groupings have almost no complete margins, thus the total height is based on presumption rather than measurement or calculation. If Blanc hard's reports of completeness of margin are correct, the first four members of the 21.5-cm format group (his # 1 1 - 1 4 ) have roll heights of 21.5,19.2-21.7, 21.3, and 21.5 cm. I note in passing that the lower margin for MP 1395 (his #22) is vestigial, though listed by Blanchard as 'complete.' 51 Study of intact documentary texts could resolve the question, but that is beyond the bounds of the task set here.

Roll Length

143

In sum, the height of bookrolls before the first century spanned a wide range, with examples as high as 29 cm, but short bookrolls of less than 25-6 cm seem to have been most common. In the Roman era, however, such short bookrolls became unusual, and in this period roll heights rarely fell below 25 cm or above 33 cm. 3.7 Roll Length Table 3.7 at the end of the chapter sets out in a straightforward, if not to say simpleminded, fashion figures for roll length extrapolated from measurement and reconstruction. The table, it will be noticed, raises many more questions than it answers. For each papyrus, the length is computed (not including protokollon and eschatokollon) for the minimum contents of a roll, that is, for the work or, if a longer work, for the book within the work. Since we do not in fact know what exactly was in a given roll, the figures must be used with caution. Let us look, for example, at some cases of minimal length. The two smallest are both short speeches of Demosthenes, de Pace (460) and Olynthiaca i ( 3 4 3 5 ) . Now as it happens, another papyrus, 1 8 1 0 , contains in one hand fragments of the five speeches Olynthiaca i—iii, Philippica i, and de Pace. One cannot be certain that these fragments did not come from different rolls in a matching set. On the other hand, three bits of evidence suggest, however uncertainly, that the fragments of 1810 belong to one and the same roll. (1) The title preserved in fr. 28 among the Philippica i fragments does not specify the author, which may suggest that the author was named only for the first or last speech among several in the roll. (2) Another papyrus, 4314 (which I have not seen), also contains fragments from three of these speeches (Olynth, ii, iii, Phil, i) in the same hand. (3) These speeches are the canonical first five as they are handed down in medieval codices. The coincidence is extraordinary, and the economical explanation will be that the collecting together of the early Philippic speeches preceded the transfer to codex. Thus, in the case of 1810 there is some justification for assuming as a minimum the 7-metre length of five combined speeches. The very

Data from documents would also be necessary in order to resolve whether the heights are fractions of a standard 'full' roll height. Egyptologists seem generally to accept Cerny's analyses, which are based on the assumption that shorter heights are halves or quarters o f certain standard full heights. Thus in the N e w Kingdom, for instance, Cerny (1952, 16-17) defines three full heights of 47 8, 4 0 - 3 , and 3 5 - 6 cm, with other observed heights then halves or quarters of these. But the data he presents is very limited (he usually cites only one or two examples for each height), and a close reading of the evidence he presents ('various heights are known between 45 cm and 38 cm';'a group o f ... papyri filling the gap d o w n to 25.6 cm') suggests more of a continuum than discrete 'standard' heights. Despite the agreeable arithmetic logic of halves and quarters, the truth seems to be that in manufacture, as Pliny the Elder tells us, o n e uses vertical strips 'as tall as one can' for the back of the sheet (NH

13.77,

schida adlinitur longitudine papyri quae potuit esse; and see the detailed discussion o f this Pliny passage at Johnson 1993b). Similarly, the otherwise valuable study by Blanchard goes astray in proposing, on thin and approximate evidence, that early Ptolemaic literary roll heights are strict arithmetic reflexes o f manufactured heights o f 35 and 42 c m (Blanchard 1993, 2 2 - 9 ) .

144

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

short length calculated for the isolated bits of two of these speeches designated by 460 (de Pace) and 3 4 3 5 (Ol, i) may therefore mislead, since in each case at least five speeches may well have formed the full roll we seek to reconstruct. Similarly, other speeches may have been included with another very short piece of oratory, Isocrates' in Sophistas (704, whose length is based on a partial text in any case, since the end had been lost by medieval times). In more general terms, the inclusion of multiple short prose works in 'mixed' rolls is confirmed by a third-century Oxyrhynchus papyrus (PSILaur inv. 19662v = CPF 3), which gives a list, in the manner of a book catalogue, of rolls of Plato, Xenophon, and others. The catalogue specifies, for instance, one roil containing Meno and Menexenus; another containing the two Hippias dialogues and Euthydemus.52 Similar problems surface as we inspect poetic works among the minimum figures for roll length.The roll of Hesiod's Erga (3223) may well have comprised other works. Under 3220 are fragments from Erga and Aspis in the same hand (and in that hand there are also fragments of two lost works of Hesiod under the rubric of 2495); but whether from one roll or more we simply do not know. Similarly, we cannot tell whether the Homeric rolls with very short lengths (445 II., 3155 J/., 3442 Od., 3828 Od.; also several examples in the comparison set) truly contained but a single book. Rolls did sometimes include more than one book of Homer, though the examples from the Roman period are not many.53 The Oxyrhynchus sample includes two second-century papyri where Homeric books in the same hand were preserved together (3323 II., 1819 Od.); inasmuch as the point of division between books is lost, one cannot, however, be certain that these were not companion rolls relegated to the rubbish heap at the same time. Thus, the argument can be made that all of the lengths under 2.5 metres in table 3.7 may be from rolls that originally contained more than the one surviving work. This need not be so, but it is a real possibility. Examples above this length seem more secure. No evidence to my knowledge suggests a roll containing more than a single whole play.54 Thus, though one can never be completely sure, it seems fair to accept as a single roll Lycophron's 52 See Carlini 1989; Puglia 1996.What exactly the list proposes to inventory is uncertain (the possibilities are summarized in Carlini 1989,96, with bibliography), but that each line in some sense reflects a bookroll seems clear enough. In line 2 of the papyrus, the heading 4'<9$1$' ;' ('20 dialogues') introduces a list of tides in lines 3-22, which is terminated by a paragraphus and a new heading.The item count seems to reflect bookrolls rather than works, since while 20 lines are listed, three of these lines contain more than one work (a 'mixed' roll, under the hypothesis here), and the number of works thus totals 24. T h e notion that each line inventories a physical bookroll also fits well with the duplicated titles in the list (R3,978$* at lines 16 and 22; F6=&(1"6(* at 5 and 21). 53 West 1967,24-5 n. 48 gives a list of known examples, noting that'the proportion of rolls which originally contained more than one book seems to be much higher in the Ptolemaic period than later.' Ofher examples, there are 14 possible and 6 certain instances from Ptolemaic times, 8 possible and 2 certain instances from R o m a n times ('certain' by her judgment); since Roman-era Homeric papyri number many hundreds, the reduced n u m ber of instances cannot be happenstance. See also Lameerc 1951,187 n. 18 and Lameere 1960,241-3. 54 A m o n g the dozens of papyrus remains of tragedy and comedy catalogued in Pack 2 (1965) and LDAB 1998,1 find multiple plays only among codices (obvious collections of excerpts, i.e. anthologies and school texts, to one side).

Roll Length

145

Alexandra (2094) at, apparently, just under 3 metres and Euripides* Andromache (2335) at just over 3 metres. Rolls of drama range widely, however: at the high end, the extensive remains strongly suggest a single roll at 8.5 metres for Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus (2180+ PSI11.1192) and one at 11.0 m for Euripides' Phoenissae (224+PRyl 3.547).The couple of tragic texts in the comparison set also fall within these parameters (MP 0417-2 Eur. Ph., 3.6 m; MP 0397 Eur. Hipp., 6 m). A different set of considerations comes into play for long prose works divided into short 'books.' I have in mind cases like 1250, 3836, and 3837, containing, respectively, books 2, 3, and 8 of Achilles Tatius, and all with a short estimated roll length (2.6—3.3 metres; note that 1250 and 3837 are by the same scribe). The fact of a division into 'books' can mean only that the long work was initially subdivided into separate short papyrus rolls, perhaps for a combination of commercial, ergonomie, conceptual, and even performance reasons.55 The initial subdivision does not, however, preclude later recombining of two or more of these short 'books' into a single roll, and examples where multiple short works are combined in one bookroll (such as the Demosthenic speeches just cited) should give us pause. Yet in this case, unlike the case of the Homeric papyri or the Demosthenic speeches, one does not readily find ancient examples bearing witness to the practice of combining multiple prose 'books' into a single roll.56 One can, to be sure, chart a distinction between the conceptual 'book' (>D>;+9, liber) and the physical 'bookroll' (6B +9, volumeri), and 'book' and 'bookroll' are thus only usually and not uniformly coextensive (on which more below). But in prose contexts the difference obtains only, so far as I know, in cases where two 'bookrolls' are used as the physical housing for one 'book,' that is, where the conceptual liher is too lengthy to fit, not where multiple short lihri are combined in a single roll I will return to this point in a moment. On present evidence, however, it seems reasonable to assume that examples like the rolls of Achilles Tatius carried only the one book, and thus were in fact quite short rolls. In picking up a roll written in a bookhand and a format characteristic of a book, the ancient reader may or may not have also assumed a certain minimum heft as part and parcel of thinking the item a 'book' (and not, say, a letter, or writing exercise, or set of excerpts). That is, we cannot be sure that the ancients shared the sort of conceptual distinction we assume in the semantic field of 'pamphlet' as opposed to 'book.' Yet given the examples just cited of short rolls from drama and the Greek novel, we can be reasonably confident in 55 Fashion may also be at work, if (as I suspect) the short 'romantic' book format was intended to match the short poetry books favoured by Callimachus and his followers. 56 In the introduction to 3837, a papyrus o f Achilles Tatius, Peter Parsons suggests that one 'volume' could contain two or three 'books' o f a romance, but no evidence is offered. O n e possible example is P S / X I 1197, containing parts o f b o o k s 5 and 6 o f X e n o p h o n ' s Hellenica, but the point of book division is in lacuna. For longer books like those ofThucydides, fragments from multiple books must on practical grounds be from more than one roll (e.g., 2 1 0 0 + 3 8 9 1 + 4 1 0 9 , books 3 , 4 , 5 ) , unless representing excerpts (e.g., 3877, probably stylistic quotations from books 1 - 3 ) .

146

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

saying that, whatever the minimum size, a roll as short as 3 metres certainly fulfilled one normative conception of the bookroll. How long could a roll be? As in the case of the very shortest examples, there are reasons to suspect the calculations for some of the very longest. The 225 columns estimated for Xenophon's Oeconomicus (227) may be wrong, for instance; there are reasons (though slim) to suspect that the work was divided into books in antiquity.57 Of wider consequence will be the speculation that an example like 3 3 2 7 may originally have constituted only a part of the second book of Thucydides. The suspicion arises because the extant fragment is from one of the most celebrated sections in Thucydides. Several possible excerpts spring to mind, such as one containing Pericles' funeral oration, the plague, the death of Pericles, and Thucydides' discussion of Periclean policy (33—65); or an extract from book 2 stopping after the second year of the war (1—70). Similar arguments could be concocted for several of the other Thucydidean and Herodotean fragments that dominate among examples of the longest rolls.Yet such an argument is difficult for 3451, which contains extensive fragments from a goodly portion of book 8 ofThucydides, and 2 0 9 6 + 3 3 7 4 , which contains many fragments from throughout the first book of Herodotus; these are estimated at 17.6 and 22.9 metres respectively. Also, the copies of Aeschines' in Ctesiphontem (2404+PLaur III/278,19.2 m; 4 0 5 5 , c. 17 m with extensive fragments) and Plato's Gorgias ( 3 1 5 6 + 3 6 6 9 , 25-6 m) are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis that what appear to be particularly lengthy copies can be explained away as excerpts.58 At this point, one might wish to interpose the observation that by far the majority of the longest examples are written in very fine scripts. Could it not be the case that longer works or books were sometimes subdivided, so as, for example, to accommodate the ample format of a deluxe copy? I have already mentioned that 'book' and 'bookroll' are only usually and not uniformly coextensive. In the younger Pliny's list of his uncle's literary output (Ep. 3.5.5) he mentions a work in three iibri that was divided into six volumina 'on account of the size:' studiosi très [sc. Iibri], in sex volumina propter amplitudinem divisi.59 An exact parallel

arises among the Herculaneum papyri. The fifth 'book' of the On Poems survives in two recensions, but while one recension (PHerc 1425) is, as we expect, in one roll, the second 57 Cicero wrote a translation that, at least by the time of Servius, was divided into books. A third book o f Cicero's

Oeconomicus is mentioned by Servius (Georg. 1.43) and Macrobius (Sat. 3.20.4). O n the other hand, Servius in the same context states, sciendum Xenophonicm scripsisse unum librum Oecommkum.

See Chantraine 1 9 4 9 , 2 4 .

58 3 1 5 6 + 3 6 6 9 has, however, the curious feature that the fragment latest in the dialogue (3156 fr. 3) is written with slighdy compressed letters and m u c h narrower leading (5.5 m m vs. 7 m m or so for the rest; the change goes unremarked by the editor). Could this be a sign of a second roll in a slightly difFerent format? O r is the compression a confirmation o f the extreme roll length, a sign that the scribe is trying to reduce somewhat the size o f an already massive roll? 59 Similarly, at the end of his second book Orosius (5th cent. A D ) states,'Seeing that my material is so abundant that it will never fit into this book (fiter), I set this as the end of the present volume (volumen), and in subsequent volumes I will carry on with the rest' (et quoniam über dicendi materia est, quae nequaquam hoc concludi libro potest, hie

praesentis volutninis finis sit, ut in subsequentibus cetera persequamur).

Roll Length

(PHerc 1538) is divided between two papyrus rolls: the subscription reads, R ' 9 $ 4 ,

147

$5 | :06'

Similarly, the subscription to the fourth book of Philodemus s On Rhetoric shows that the 'book' is divided into two rolls (PHerc 1423 R ' 9 $ 4 , $ 5 | : 0 6 ' S 7 & $ 6 ' ; , * | 4' | &=% 0 ' * 4+$ & " : 6 " & 0 6 $ % ) ; and the manuscripts of the tenth book of Euclid's Elements preserve two lemmata ($6$' 4 0 + & 0 6 $ ' , "6$' & 6 3 & $ ' ) that seem best understood as the points where this exceptionally long book was subdivided into three bookrolls.60 There clearly was, then, a point at which a very long 'book' might, as a matter of convenience, be subdivided into two rolls. The On Poems " example is particularly interesting, since in that case the division into two rolls is optional: once used, once not. Richard Janko has calculated the full length of the single-roll recension (PHerc 1425), with probability but not certainty, at 245 or 269 cols, which translates to somewhere in the range of 12.3—14.8 m.The second recension of On Poems " is in a slightly different format, translating to roughly 16—18 m, of which the roll represented by PHerc 1538 is then the 4 first part' (8-9 m?).The 'second part' of On Rhetoric iv (PHerc 1423) can also be calculated from its column count, at about 10 m.61 Cavallo's fundamental study of formal and palaeographical features in the Herculaneum papyri uses surviving column counts to calculate lengths for several other papyri:

:$'7 <&=%

| [ & $ ] 5 0'

| [&=] % 0'* 4+$

[&]$ 8'.

PHerc 1497, 10.5 m; PHerc 1050, 10 m; PHerc 1414, 9 m; PHerc 1424, 6.5 m; PHerc 1471, 11.5 m; to which can now be added, PHerc 1497 etc. (On Music), 11.3 m; and PHerc 1426,

12.2 m.62 From such evidence (combined with that for PHerc 1423), Cavallo derived a 'standard' extent of 9-10 m, with an outside upper range of 12 m.63 Blanchard rightly points out that the uniformities of the Herculaneum papyri are exceptional, and devolve directly from the circumstance of a coherent collection by a single individual.64 Yet even within the terms of the Herculaneum materials, the assumption of a 'standard' roll length must be heavily qualified. As noticed already, the single-roll recension of On Poems " (at 6U <J1. JJorandi 1^86 and the bibliography there.The interpretation o f the lemmata in Euclid is convincing, since (1) book 10 occupies 185 Teubner pages, while the other books occupy no more than 68 pages, mostly falling within 3 5 - 6 0 pages; (2) by dividing the book at the lemmata, book 10 falls into three roughly equal sections o f 68, 59, and 58 Teubner pages. As to On Rhetoric iv, Dorandi repeats the report (originating with Scotti) of a subscription to the second part as well as the first, but Obbink 1 9 9 6 , 7 2 n. 2, is sccptical ('not rccordcd o n the original disegno, and not visible on the extant papyrus [= PI 1ère 1007/1673]'). 61 Janko ( 1 9 9 1 , 6 2 n. 346) estimates 245 or 269 columns for PHerc 1425 based on the assumption that this roll, like

PHerc 1424 and the fragments o f the On Piety (Obbink 1996, 68), was long enough to go through the stichometric alphabet and in part repeat it; the assumption seems warranted, since otherwise the number o f columns would be too small (121/131) to motivate the division into two bookrolls. Mangoni (1993,108) reports somewhat vaguely a column width o f 4 c m and intercolumn o f 1 - 1 . 5 cm, from w h i c h the length here is then derived. O n the ratio between the column formats for PHerc 1425 and 1538, see Mangoni 1 9 9 3 , 1 1 4 n. 17; for column and intercolumn measurements, ibid., 113-14. For the estimated length o f PHerc 1423, see Cavallo 1 9 8 3 , 1 5 , w h o at 2 0 - 2 gives cautionary examples to show h o w rough a basis stichometry can be for estimating roll length. I have not personally inspected any of the Herculaneum papyri. 62 Janko 2 0 0 0 , 1 1 9 . 6 3 Cavallo 1 9 8 3 , 1 4 - 1 6 . 64 Blanchard 1 9 9 3 , 4 0 .

148 Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

c. 12—15 m) well exceeds the 9—10 m 'standard.' And the rush of new work on the Philodemus papyri continues to reshape the picture. A piece of detective work by E. Puglia has untangled the knotty evidence for the subscription to the first book of the On Rhetoric (PHerc 1427), which he convincingly restores as a column count of 237.65 On that basis, the roll length would have been c. 15—16 m, a conclusion that Puglia seems to find awkward (since it goes against the 'standard'), but which is the natural inference from the evidence of the subscription. Moreover, new evidence now demonstrates that the 367 columns of the On Piety (earlier assumed to be two rolls) occupied but a single roll. That roll was therefore in extent about 23 in long.66 I have presented the Herculaneum evidence at some length, since the Oxyrhynchus data do not provide stichometric and column counts of this sort. But before turning again to the Oxyrhynchus data, let us look briefly at the comparison sample, which as it happens provides a very interesting case to set alongside the Herculaneum examples. MP 980 (PBerol 16985), a papyrus of the first century BC, contains extensive remains from 21 columns of books 21 and 22 of the Iliad (ending with the first two lines of book 23, as reekmans), The division between books 21 and 22 is extant, and occurs in mid-column, without vertical space, marked by a coronis. The papyrus also contains running stichometry; extant are stichometric V (=1300) at line 21.383, and @ (=1400) at line 21.485. The stichometry strongly implies that the roll included books 19-20 as well as 21-22 (424 lines in book 19, 504 lines in book 20; 424+504+383=1311, with several lines as candidates for omission).67 Now this roll, containing, on good evidence, fully four books of the Iliad, is interesting because it is a handsome, regular manuscript, written in a fine script, with ample proportions. The width from column to column is a broad 17.5 cm; only 19 lines occur per column. The upshot is that the 2000+ lines of the four Iliadic books would require about 108 columns; thus the roll was c. 19 metres in length. We have, then, good reason to think that larger rolls from the library of Philodemus approached and sometimes exceeded 15 metres, in one case 20 metres; and, moreover, that rolls extending past 15 metres were considered awkward enough that at least sometimes the scribe divided the 'book' into two rolls. Outside of Herculaneum, we find what appears to be good evidence (though, of course, we can never be sure) for a luxury roll extending to about 19 metres. What of the Oxyrhynchus materials? The results in table 3.7A show a comforting mix of author and genre in the range from 15 metres and below Even at the high end of the range, from 12—15 metres, individual rolls include three orations (of Lycur-

w Fugua i y y / , i z ô - 5 . 66 D. Obbink has discovered a note by an interprete that attests to the fact of a single roll; reported in Janko 2000, 114, superseding Obbink 1996,70-1. For the interpreti (i.e., those scholars who first transcribed and took notes on the Herculaneum papyri in the early 19th cent.) and the complex history of the Philodemus papyri, see Janko 2000,11-31, esp. 27ff. 67 So also West 1967,25 (Iliadic papyrus #449).

Roll Length

149

gus, Demosthenes, Aeschines), two full dialogues of Plato, and a book each from Herodotus, Thucydides, Strabo, and Plato's Laws. Between 3 and 15 metres, one finds a steady stream of works of all sorts, with (as already noted) rolls of drama ranging as long as 11 metres, and books of history, on the other hand, seldom falling short of 10 metres. Unless one supposes that the use of multiple rolls for single 'books' was widespread, defining a normative range of 3-15 metres seems in order. Rolls with extrapolated lengths above 15 metres are not few (16 in the Oxyrhynchus data, 3 in the comparison set), but the monochromatic character of the data urges caution. With only the odd exception (two examples of Aeschines' in Ctesiphontem, a couple of lengthy Platonic dialogues), almost all of these examples are books of Herodotus or Thucydides. The great majority are also, as noted earlier, written in fine scripts. Was there an unattested habit of subdividing the books of the early historians? Or was one possible aspect of a deluxe copy a larger circumference to the roll? At first blush, a roll extending to 20 or more metres seems improbable. But there is the case of MP 980, just reviewed (19 metres); one thinks of the awkward oversized format of 'coffee table books' today; of huge lectional bibles; and, perhaps most tellingly, of the example of lectional scrolls of the Torah, which can be exceedingly massive and, by design, imposing and laborious to use. Note that the high end of the 3-15 metre range here defined as normative is significantly larger than that inferred by previous investigators. Cavallo s 'standard' of 9-10 metres for the Herculaneum rolls has already been discussed. Kenyon, on uncertain basis, puts the 'extreme limit' of a Greek literary roll at 35 feet (10.7 m). Schubart, relying on Ibscher, supposed that a 5-6 metre roll was of a 'comfortable' circumference for the hand, and regarded 7-10 metres an upper limit that was hardly ever transgressed.68The data here suggests, however, an upper limit extending at least to 15 metres, with great likelihood of odd examples extending to a length considerably beyond that. Now how can we visualize a roll of such length? That is, what size cylinder do these rolls translate into? By measuring the distances between tears and holes occurring at regular intervals, Borschardt was able to derive a circumference of 16 cm for the 4.71 metre extent of PBerlin 3003; a ratio that closely matches that experimentally derived by Ibscher, work69

ing with reconstructions, and which is roughly confirmed by my own tests. On that basis, diameters can be estimated as follows:70 68 Kenyon 1951,54; Schubart 1921,52-3. 69 Ibscher derived a diameter of 5—6 cm (circumference of 16-19 cm) for a roll 6 m in length. For Ibscher and Borschardt, see the summary and citations in Cerny 1952,11. Rather different is now the reconstruction by D. Delattre of Philodemus's On Music from various Herculaneum papyri (1497 etc.), said to be c. 6 cm in diameter but 11.3 m long (forthcoming work, reported in Janko 2000, 109).'Whether a carbonized roll can accurately bear witness to the original external diameter seems to me doubtful. But I have not seen Delattre's evidence and arguments. 70 The mathematics is only a bit tricky. Imagine a thick carpet rolled up in the manner of a papyrus roll.The area of the circular edge of the carpet roll can be estimated by unrolling the carpet and treating it as if a rectangle with a

150

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Roll length

Roll diameter

2.5 m

3.7 cm

5.0 m

5.2 cm

7.5 m

6.4 cm

10.0 m

7.4 cm

12.5 m

8.25 cm

15.0 m

9.0 cm

17.5 m

9.8 cm

20.0 m

10.45 cm

25.0 m

11.7 cm

30.0 m

12.8 cm

The cylinder of a 7.5-metre roll is, then, roughly the same diameter as a can of soda pop; a 10-metre roll roughly the same as a wine bottle; a 20-metre roll slightly smaller than a 2litre container of Coca-Cola. The diameter, it will be noted, increases more slowly than the length, since a larger circumference holds more length of papyrus in each winding of the roll: about 85 windings of the roll are needed to hold a length of 10 metres, but only 20 more windings are needed to accommodate a length of 15 metres. A diameter as large as 9 or 10 centimetres may, nonetheless, seem daunting. Yet to think in Schubarts terms, that is, to try to imagine what size makes for a 'cornvery short height and very long length: thus one simply multiplies the short height of the backing and pile by the long length of the unrolled carpet to get a good approximation of the area.To make the measurement precise, one needs only to substitute for the 'height' the average measurement from layer to layer of the spiral, which because of gaps or crushed pile will only approximate the 'height' of the carpet backing and surface. Borschardt's figures can be used, then, to derive the average interval from layer to layer in the rolled-up spiral, as follows. A circumference of 16 cm has a radius (r) of 2.55 cm (circumference = 2 π , and an area of 20.4 cm 2 (area = nr2). Since, as shown in the carpet example, the area is the length times this interval (the 'height1 of the putative rectangle), the interval is 0.043 cm (area - lengthx height, thus 20.4 cm 2 = 471 c m x interval, that is, interval = 20.4 ^ 471).Using this value for the interval (and given that area = (length x interval) and area = ïïr2),we can now for any given length compute the radius according to the formula, r2 = (lengthX0.043 -r :).

Roll Length

151

fortable' roll, seems to me fundamentally misguided.71 To someone living in a codex culture, used to reading quietly and alone, in a bed or a couch, without the help of a lector, and often referring backwards in the text, the prospect of managing a 10-metre-long bookroll the size of a wine bottle seems nearly preposterous, and by no means 'comfortable;' and yet no one disputes that rolls were sometimes, and probably often, of this size. (Cavallo's standard length for Herculaneum rolls was 9-10 metres!) The massive size of a 10-metre or 15-metre roll comes as a surprise. Yet the proper course, I think, is not to force the data to conform to preconceived ideas about how these rolls were used, but rather to follow where the evidence leads. The evidence, so far as I can see, strongly suggests at least the occasional use of f airly massive bookrolls in cases such as the monumental histories (where the bookroll iconographically suggests the awesome endeavour) and éditions de luxe.72

The normative span, it will be noticed, is wide, ranging from small (3 m) to quite large (15 m).This range rests on the rule of thumb that in general a roll contained a single work, or a single book of a larger work. As already discussed, the rule does not invariably hold. 'Mixed' rolls were common enough, whether those containing multiple books of Homer (less common in the Roman era) or multiple short prose works (e.g., short speeches, short philosophical works). Conversely, very large 'books' were sometimes divided as a matter of convenience. Yet nothing in the data suggests a tendency towards a 'standard' length, and nothing suggests the notion that a scribe routinely filled out a roll with books or works until he reached a certain length. Since roll length was determined by the knife or, alternatively, by the glutinator, there was no real incentive for that sort of behaviour (§3.1). On the other hand, the way that the ancients speak of their books gives every reason to suppose that the delicate appearance of a book of romance or poetry reflected the contents with self-conscious, deliberate iconology; as did the weighty appearance of a book of monumental history. That the roll length was not predetermined by a 'standard' would not seem to need such emphasis. Still, the idea continues to surface, even among learned sources. One example: in Van Sickles contribution to an edited volume on the Augustan poetry book, he discusses roll length with a sensible and clear insistence on the importance of internal

71 Blanck 1992, 85 follows the same path of reasoning as Schubart. 72 In a Roman context, Pliny the Younger bears witness to an ethos of thinking the larger book (maior liber) the better (melior):' Like all good things, a good book is all the better if it is a long one; and statues, busts, pictures and drawings of human beings, many animals and also trees can be seen to gain by being on a large scale as long as they are well-proportioned. The same applies to speeches; and when published they look better and more impressive in a good-size volume' (Ep. 1.20.4-5, trans. B. Radice). For a roll too large to fit comfortably in the hand (of an old man, however), cf. Ep. 2.1.4. Representations of rolls in Greek and Roman statuary and painting generally leave us with the image of a much thinner roll (Immerwahr, 1964 and 1973; Birt 1907) .Yet the range of settings for these representations is very limited, and the iconography almost always defines the roll as a (short) speech, a poetry book, or a school text.

152

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

over external constraints; but his appendix is an attempt to see how the Eclogues would fit onto a (standard!) twenty-sheet roll.73 3.8 Roll Format and Literary Genre In the discussion of roll length (immediately above), I mooted the possibility that, for instance, the short books of Greek romantic novels were deliberately slim, so as to match the look and feel of a book of love poetry; and that books of history were deliberately fat, so as to suggest the weightiness of the enterprise. What of internal features like column height or width? Were there aspects of the mise en page that signalled to the reader the literary genre of the bookroll? Young papyrologists learn as part of the standard training the rule of thumb that in Greek literary rolls oratory is usually written to a narrower column. But the rule has had its permutations over time and place. In Das Buch bei den Griechen und Römern Schubart remarks that 'short lines in surviving pieces occur conspicuously often in orations and in rhetorical and philosophical texts; one sees it also in historical writings, but by no means as a rule.'74 Turner states, on the other hand, that 'oratory is often written in narrower columns than history or philosophy.'75 Looking back to notes from my own papyrological training, I find that oratory and history are said to be written to narrower columns, philosophy and others to wider.76 One suspects already that the local collection may have substantial influence on the general impression one has. Still, it will be noticed that everyone, it seems, agrees at least that oratory is written to a narrower column. The case studies in chapter 2, however, gave reasons to doubt that a scribe would write different genres of text to differing column widths. Generally, an individual scribe seems to write all of his prose literary texts to a predefined width (§2.2). Specifically, four scribes were found for whom texts in multiple genres are extant, but who keep to one and the same column width (scribes #A1, #A5, #A7, #A33: §2.1.1, §2.1.4, §2.1.6, §2.1.15). Scribe #A1 wrote to the same column width a roll of Isocrates and one ofThucydides,

73 Van Sickle 1980.Typical and common is the sort of remark found in the editor's introduction to 3663, a fragment of Iliad 18 published in 1984, where a length of 4 m i s said to suggest that 'the whole roll contained one, if not two, more books;' for this the editor improperly cites Kenyon, who speaks in terms not of an 'average roll' but of the limits to the roll's extent. Similarly, Janko's use (1991, 8-9) of a 10-metre 'standard' as the basis for calculating the missing part of a roll seems on present evidence misguided, even though based on a Herculaneum example. 7 4 Schubart 1921,65. 75 Turner and Parsons 1987, 7. Wilson 1974, 91, in a review of the first edition of Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, objected that the rule did not always hold.The reply in the second edition (Turner and Parsons 1987,7 n. 22) is,'I emphasise "often"'; but the rule is left to stand.The contrasting examples cited by Turner and Parsons indicate that 'narrow' is substantially less than 5 cm (the narrow example of oratory is 3.5 cm, the wide example of history and philosophy both 5.5 cm, and the aberrandy wide examples of oratory 5 - 6 cm). 76 Prof.William H.Willis, Duke University.

R o l l Format and Literary Genre

153

scribe #A5 Herodotus and Plato, scribe #A7 Demosthenes and Herodotus, and scribe #A33 Thucydides and a romance. This scenario was, however, qualified by evidence (§2.3.1, §2.3.3) that line-by-line copying was occasionally employed. In short, what we now know about the way that scribes went about writing out a prose text does not encourage the notion that different genres were treated differently, though the possibility cannot be excluded out of hand. How does the statistical evidence stack up? In chart 3.8a, I list prose column widths by genre. As the number of examples in each genre is not equivalent, I add in chart 3.8b a summary by percentage (grouped by half-centimetre intervals). In the Oxyrhynchus data, C h a r t 3.8a P r o s e c o l u m n w i d t h ( c m ) , b y g e n r e 1. O x y r h y n c h u s s a m p l e , 178 e x a m p l e s (each b o x represents a papyrus) (a) History, 76 examples

•

•

3.0

3.5

4.0

•

•

4.5

•

•

•

• mmmu

•

llll

•

••

•

• • •••

• 1 ••

• •

•

• •

• •

•

•

•

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

>10.0

5.0

5.5'

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

>10.0

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

> 1 0 . 0

(b) Oratory; 60 examples

3.0

3.5

4.0

(c) Philosophy, 42

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5 examples

4.5

2 . C o m p a r i s o n s a m p l e , n o n - O x y r h y n c h i t e , 178 e x a m p l e s (each b o x represents a papyrus) (a) History, 8 examples 3.0

3.5

5.0

5.5

,• ,

•

&

4.0

5.0

5.5

4.0

4.5

(b) Oratory, 11 examples11 3.0

3.5

4.5

m

6.0

6.5

7.0

• • • 6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

•

8.5

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

>10.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

>10.0

{

9.0

>10.0

8.0

1

t

(c) Philosophy, 10 examples •

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

mt 5.0

• •

5.5

•

•

•

6.0

6.5

•

•

7.0

•

154

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

Chart 3.8b Prose c o l u m n width, by genre (summary by percentage)

no oratory occurs among the rare examples below 4.5 cm.77 At widths between 4.5 and 4.9 cm (inclusive) reside about 10% of the oratorical texts, 21% of philosophical texts and 8% of the historical. Of the examples of oratory 12% lie between 5.0 and 5.4 cm, as compared to 19% of the philosophical texts and 12% of the historical. Indeed, as one moves along the frequented part of the scale, there is plainly no suggestion that one or another part of the distribution favours oratory. In fact, the only noticeable tendency seems to be for philosophical texts slightly to prefer more narrow widths, and strongly not to prefer wider widths of 7-9 cm; that is, philosophical texts seem to avoid class III widths altogether, along with the upper edge of class II (though there are also three aberrant examples above 10 cm).The slim sample of the comparison set, so far as it goes, confirms this conclusion. As a general proposition one can state, then, that the sample as a whole lends no statistical support whatsoever to the notion that oratory tends to a more narrow width; but that philosophical texts do seem to tend towards avoidance of wider widths. The picture does not change if one takes into account other parameters, like date or quality of script. The slight difference here noted among philosophical texts is interesting, since philosophical texts (almost all of which are Socratic dialogues) have repeatedly divorced them77 Turner and Parsons # 6 7 (=1182), which Turner offers as a typical example of oratory written to a narrow column, will not be included here since the papyrus is in Cairo, a collection I have not been able to visit.Turner lists the column as 3.5 cm wide, but (assuming the photograph is in fact 1:1) I measure approximately 3.8 cm.

Éditions de luxe

155

selves from the general conclusions: philosophical texts have a distinct method of punctuation (unique in the use of dicolon, usually in a 3-point system, for which cf. e.g., the discussion of scribal practice at §§2.1.4, 2.1.5), a tendency toward predefined letter counts (§3.2.3), a seeming tendency to distinct width Xheight groupings (§3.4.1), and now a tendency to avoid wider column width. (One hesitates to make too much of this, since most of these conclusions are tentative. Still, it does begin to look as though philosophical texts, at least in Oxyrhynchus, had a distinct tradition, though it is hard to say whether that means special treatment in the copying (e.g., line-by-line copies) or a common locus (e.g., one library, or one copyist's shop, over time). Study of other features of the mise en page, such as the column height or margins, does not turn up further points of distinction among texts of different literary genres. 3.9 Editions de luxe

A number of presuppositions attaching to the idea of a 'deluxe' roll have already come under attack. That the finer rolls were taller overall, or had taller columns, or showed an ideal 2:3 ratio of written column to total height - all of these have been rejected. We have also seen that editors have tended to underestimate the size of a truly deluxe margin (that is, one large enough to differentiate itself from those found in everyday productions). What should we imagine in place of what has been set aside? A number of details have accrued along the way, but before drawing these together, let us first attend to a couple of final questions relating to the image of an édition de luxe. Frequently in the course of these inquiries I have commented that elegant scripts tend towards a larger size. Crudely written scripts can also of course be sometimes rather large, but the huge majority of very large scripts will be elegant, and, to put it the other way around, the majority of elegant scripts will be rather large. Chart 3.9a demonstrates that C h a r t 3.9a Letter heights, by style (Oxyrhynchus sample, percentages by column) ~l-2.4 m m

-2.5-2.9 m m

-3.0-3.9 m m

~4.0+ m m

Elegant

24 (27%)

31 (24%)

42 (50%)

11 (73%)

Everyday

55 (63%)

77 (60%)

27 (32%)

2 (13%)

9 (10%)

21 (16%)

15 (18%)

2 (13%)

Substandard

100%

100%

100%

100%

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

156

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

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

—2.0-2.9

m m

—3.0-3.9 m m

—4.0-6.0 m m

Elegant

7 (6%)

5 8 (54%)

35 (32%)

8 (7%)

= 100%

Everyday

7 (4%)

89 (55%)

54 (34%)

11 (7%)

= 100%

Substandard

3 (6%)

19 (40%)

17 (36%)

8 (17%)

= 100%

Since finer scripts tend to a larger letter size, the spacing will in fact appear significantly tighter in better-written manuscripts. By way of comparison, consider the situation among documents, where loose line spacing is common, so common that we can easily find several among documents written on the back of texts from the sainple.Thus, the letter on the back of 3231 shows a line spacing close to 10 mm (12.6 mm leading); the register on the back of 2651 Une spacing of about 14 mm (17 mm leading); the list of heirs on the back of 2 6 9 5 spacing of about 8 mm (10.8 leading); the transportation document on the back of 2 6 9 7 spacing of about 8 mm (11.9 leading and lower margin over 4 cm, written in a large and fine hand); and so forth. By contrast, none of over 400 literary rolls in the two samples exceeds a line spacing of 6 mm. The typical4deluxe5 manuscript will often show, as I have repeatedly said, characteristics no different from those of an everyday production, excepting the fine execution of the script. Yet when deluxe bookrolls differentiate themselves from ordinary productions in ways other than the script, the following will be most likely: (1) a short height for the column, particularly if the text is verse written to a wide column or a prose text written to a narrow column; (2) an excessively large upper and lower margin of 6-7 cm or more; (3) a large script written in a tight format, that is, with no more vertical space between lines than one finds for a smaller script; (4) a roll of excessive length, which will be impressively large to the hand when rolled up (this last is more speculative). A strikingly sumptuous roll, far from being a tall roll with tall columns of amply spaced text as some imagine, was more likely to be a roll of middling height with a narrow band of text bordered by dramatic large bands of blank space at top and bottom, the script a large one, tightly written such that it better defines the written block against the white space that frames it. 78 E.g., Wouters 1971, 56; Donovan 1969, 74; Eric Turner speaks of'beautiful spacing* (i.e., unusually wide leading) for the'very beautiful manuscript' PHibeh 2/194 (MP 1129).

Private versus Professional B o o k Production

157

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

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

158

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

The example of the Ath. Pol. papyrus does not, however, guarantee or even imply that 'private' productions were generally of this order of irregularity. In fact, an illuminating question to ask is what we mean by a 'private' production, since neither is the term immediately clear, nor does it specify what a 'private' production is meant to oppose. Under influence of the work of Raymond Starr and others, the surprisingly enduring picture of 'mass-production scriptoria' in antiquity has finally fallen under universal criticism. In its place, recent commentators have substituted an opposition between individuals and the 'book trade,' with heavy emphasis on the former. Starr helpfully delineates a series of'concentric rings' of connections through which a new work was made public: first to close friends, gradually to friends of friends at an increasing remove, and finally to a public unconnected to the author.81 As William Harris summarizes (somewhat tendentiously), 'The primary way of distributing books was not . . . b y means of a trade of any kind, but through gifts and loans among friends.'82 The 'book trade' had, in this view, a very limited function. In his sensible and lucid account of current thinking on the matter, Harry Gamble writes:'The bookshop did not displace the traditional practice among persons with literary interests of lending each other texts to copy. One would presumably have resorted to a bookseller only if the accustomed means failed. On the whole, a bookseller would have found his best opportunities in a reading public that lay beyond aristocratic and scholarly literary circles and in provincial areas where books were otherwise hard to come by.'83 I am inclined to agree that much book circulation in antiquity was informed by 'a series of widening concentric circles determined primarily by friendship.'84 I nonetheless think that what seemed at first a clear view of book circulation has gotten increasingly muddied by neglect of the important question of who is doing the copying.85 The best recent summary treatment of ancient books, by Horst Blanck, assumes a fundamental opposition between 'book trade' (Buchhandel) and 'private copying' (Privatahschrift) fi6 Implicit in remarks like those of Gamble just quoted is that the book trade is normally involved only when the 'bookseller is the source of the master copy of the book, and that, by inference, when the source of the master copy is an individual, the copy is made 'privately,' that is, in house. But a fundamental opposition between book trade and 'private' production is hardly inevitable. We do of course know of examples like Cicero and Atticus, 81 Starr 1987. Starrs model for the circulation of'non-current' texts, which in his view (216-18) circulated only among friends with restricted accessibility, does not, however, adequately account for the fact that texts from the classical canon (and not 'new' texts) form the bulk of the literary texts recovered in Egypt. 82 Harris 1989,224. 83 Gamble 1995,88; generally 83-93. 84 Starr 1987,213. 85 See now Haines-Eitzen 2000 for a salutary exception, though that book focuses on scribes in Christian contexts. 86 Blanck 1992,117-19. In Blanck's model, private copying includes copying the book oneself, using an experienced slave, or paying for the services of a'scriptorium' (which, then, is distinct from the Budihandel, on which cf. my analysis below). McDonnell 1996 righdy stresses the unlikelihood that elite Romans copied book-length works themselves.

Private versus Professional Book Production

159

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

87 T h e further examples collected at Blanck 1 9 9 2 , 1 1 8 include two Macedonian kings and a R o m a n emperor. Sophistic establishments had their own copyists, as we know from Libanius (4th cent. AD, see N o r m a n 1960, 122-3), but that too is a special case. We know that the very wealthy did sometimes have in-house copyists, but the evidence falls far short o f indicating this as a general practice even among the super-elite. 88 B M inv. 2 1 1 0 preserves a partial account for a series of such orders, including the Plutus ofAristophanes and the 'third Thyestes' o f Sophocles: cf. Bell 1921, 89 Cf. Gamble 1995, 87. Bibliopola, borrowed f r o m Greek at least as early as the first century, displaces librarius in this sense in medieval times (cf. schol. Hor. ars poet, ad 354: bibliopolas librarios veteres dicebant). But librarius is used in the sense o f qui libros vendit at least through the fifth century: ThLL s.v. 90 Cf. Starr 1990, Kleberg 1967 and 1973.

160

Formal Characteristics of the Bookroll

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

91 Cf. Poland 1909 for a detailed study on the nature of ancient guilds. 92 See Johnson 2000 for more detailed discussion of sociological factors in ancient reading. 9 3 Details of layout, lectional signs, etc. for four types of subliterary text (69 papyri) are collected in van RossumSteenbeck 1998 under the recurring rubric, 'Comparative survey of papyri.' 94 Forcefully argued in Harris 1989; cf. the responses to Harris's analysis collected in Beard 1981. 95 Harris's account at times gives this impression, perhaps not deliberately: cf., e.g., Harris 1989,222ff. t esp. 225.

TABLES

Conspectus Table 3.1 W i d t h s for prose texts Table 3 . 2 W i d t h s for verse texts Table 3 . 3 C o l u m n height, margins, roll h e i g h t Table 3 . 4 C o l u m n w i d t h X h e i g h t , p r o s e texts Table 3 . 5 C o l u m n w i d t h X height, verse texts Table 3 . 6 Estimated roll h e i g h t Tabic 3 7 R e c o n s t r u c t e d rolls: roll length Notes: In the tables I d e f i n e style o f script u n d e r three classes: (1) f o r m a l , s e m i - f o r m a l , or pretentious; (2) informal and u n e x c e p t i o n a l (but for the m o s t part probably professional); and (3) substandard or cursive. See discussion at § 3 . 2 . 1 . F o r t h e qualifiers (*, * * , used in t h e tables, see 'Terminology, C o n v e n t i o n s , and Sigla* at t h e front o f t h e b o o k .

T A B L E 3 . 1 W i d t h s f o r p r o s e texts Column, column co-column, and intcrcolumn (arranged by ascending order of column width, in centimetres)

o\

A. Oxyrhynchus sample Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.-max.)

2.5

13.06 (11-15)

Contents

Date

3685

Plutarch, Sept. sap. conu

101-150

1

3.2

4104

Thucydides, 5

151-250

2

**4.2

2663

Plato, Cra.

151-200

1

-4.25

3683

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

151-200

3? (or 2?)

-4.25

3378

Herodotus, 3

151-250

1

*4.3

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

2

-4.4

**6.4

2,0 (col. 8)

23.83 (20-29)

0226+PSIXVII Congr 8+PSI 11.1197

Xenophon, Hell. 6

51-200

1

-4.5

-6.1

1.5

13.24 (10-16)

3676

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

-6.5

2.0

20.01 (17-23)

4110

Thucydides, 8

151-200

2

0704

isocrates, in Soph.

201-300

2

4.6

-6.7

2.1

13.35 (11-15)

0227

Xenophon, Oec. 8 - 9

51-150

1

4.7 (4.5—4.75)

7.1 (7.05—*7.15)

2.4 (2.35-2.55)

12.97 (11-16)

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

1

~2.5(?)

13.43 (11-16)

2548

Demosthenes, in Tim.

101-200

1? (or 2?)

*4.7

>1.0

18.00 (16-20)

3327

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

*4.7

2.7

9.77 (8-13)

241)4+PLaur 278

III/

Style

Column width

POxy

4.5 (4.5-—4.6)

5.7

11.80 (10-13) —6.25(?)

2.0(?)

12.00 (12-12) >1.6

13.50 (12-15)

16.29 (14-19)

-4.5-4.7

4.7

2 0 . 1 3 (18-23)

~7.2(?)

*7.4

•n 0H 3 8L O tr v> 3$ n>

a. $ $ ·Er "·"> = $ $ PC 3 t=:

T A B L E 3 . 1 - continued

Contents

Date

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.-max.)

3892

Thucydides, 3

151-200

2

1808

Plato, Resp. 8

151-200

1? (or 2?)

4.75 (4.6-4.9)

2099

Herodotus, 8

101-150

1

4.8

*6.3

1.5 (left)

13.19 (11-15)

-4.7

>6.0

>1.3

10.69 (9-12)

6.75 (6.7-6.8)

2.0 (1.75-2.1)

11.99 (9-15)

2550

Lycurgus, in Leo.

101-200?

2

4.8

*7.1

2 . 3 (left)

12.00 (11-14)

3678

Plato, Phlb.

151-200

2

*4.8

*7.0

2.2

16.42 (14-18)

4047+4051

Aeschines, in Ctes.

151-200

1

4.8

>6.3

S1.5

2102+ PTurner 7

Plato, Phdr.

151-200

2

4.85 (4.8-4.9)

0229

Plato, Phd.

101-200

V (or 2?>

-4.9

0702

[Demosthenes], c. Boeot.

101-200

1

1809

Plato, Phd.

51-150

2? (or 1?)

7.1

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

2.25 (2.2-2.3)

14.05 (11-17)

-6.7

1.8

21.13 (19-24)

-4.9

>—7.1

> 2 . 2 (left)

14.47 (13-16)

4.9

7.0

2.1

21.41 (19-24)

3326

Plato, Resp. 8

101-200

1

4.9

7.0

2.1

11.75 (8-15)

3672

Plato, Leg. 6

201-300

2? (or 1?)

4.9

7.2

2.3

11.32 (10-14)

4107

Thucydides, 7

101-200

1

4.9

6.5

1.6-1.7

17.67 (17-19)

3373

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

4.95

-6.45

1.5

17.30 (15-21)

3436

Dinarchus, in Dem.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

5.0 (4.8-5.2)

-7.0

2.0 (1.9-2.1)

12.86 (10-16)

3437

Dinarchus, in Phil.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

5.0

7.1

2.1 (1.8-2.1)

11.82 (9-15)

T A B L E 3 . 1 — continued

ON

POxy

Contents

Date

4045+4053

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

2

5.0

6.3

1.3

5.1 (—5.0-5.1)

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

0463

Xenophon, - m. 6

151-250

2

0881r

Plato, Euthd.

151-250

1

0881v

Plato, Ly.

201-250

3

5.1

17.18 (14-20)

2549

Demosthenes, Ep, 1

101-200

1? (or 2?)

*5.1

17.45 (15-19)

3677

Plato, Phdr.

101-200

2

*5.1

15.08 (12-17)

4041

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

1

5.1

7.7

0016+0696

Thucydides, 4

1-100

2

5.15 (5.05-5.15)

6.35 (-6.25-6.4)

1181

Xenophon, An. 1

201-250

2? (or 1?)

-5.15

3670

Plato, Hp. mai.

151-250

2

*5.2

3675

Plato. Leg. 9

126-175

1

-5.2

3847

Demosthenes, in Meid.

201-300

2

5.2

-5.1

*7.1 (*7.0-*7.1)

Letters/line (min.-max.)

*6.65

>-6.95

-6.8

2.0 (1.9-2.1)

13.32 (11-16)

1.55 (left)

17.83 (15-22)

2.5-2.6 1.2

11.35 (8-14) 21.69 (16-30)

>1.8

16.83 (14-19)

>1.1

16.76 (15-19)

1.6

17.30 (15-20) 15.00 (12-18)

3899

Thucydides, 4

151-250

2

-5.2

0455

Plato, Resp. 3

226-300

2

*5.35

3674

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

1

*5.35

3666+ PHarr 1.12

Plato, Ale. '

151-200

2

*5.35-7.3

•7.35-8.9

1.6-2.0

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

2749

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

5.4 (5.2-5.5)

7.6 (7.3-7.75)

2.2 (2.1-2.25)

15.81 (13-18)

13.33 (11-17) >7.85

>2.5

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

•n $

tr •1 Ci

M

7 K^ S$ td $ $ 3 5=

T A B L E 3 . 1 - continued

POxy

Contents

3380

Herodotus, 5

3382

Date 51-150

Style

Column width

1

*5.4

2

*5.4

Intercolumn

*7.4

2.0

21.11 (19-23)

*7.5

2.1

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

2 1 . 6 0 (19-24)

Herodotus, 8

151-250

3884

Thucydides, 1

101-200

2

*5.4

4033+4034

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-300

2

*5.4

4043

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

2

*5.4

0026

Demosthenes, Exor.

101—200

1? (or 2?)

5.45 (5.3-5.6)

7.85 (7.8-7.9)

201-300

2

-5.5

-7.15

51-100

1

0703

Aeschines, in Ctes.

1183

Isocrates, Tr.

2100+3891+ 4109

Thucydides, 4 - 5 , 8

126-175

2402

Aristode, Eth. Nie

126-175

2

3376

Herodotus, 1 - 2

101-200

1?

19.64 (18-22)

20.78 (17-24) 2.4 (2.2-2.5)

17.72 (14-21)

1.65

17.14 (15—21) 16.33 (13-20)

5.5 (5.5—5.55)

7.8 (7.8-*7.85)

2.3

5.5 (5.3-5.7)

7.0 (7.0—7.2)

1.5

20.37 (15-26) [bks4-5] 22.11 (18-26) [bk 8]

(1.4—2:1.55)

23.30 (20-28)

*5.5 5.5

18.21 (13-23)

7.45

(or 2?)

1.95 (1.8-2.0)

3668

[Plato], Ep. 2

101-200

3842

Demosthenes, adv. Lept,

101—200

2

*5.5

*7.0

3880

Thucydides, 1

51-150

2

*5.5

-7.0(?)

4030

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-200

3

2101

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

1

5.6 (5.5-5.8)

3680

Plato, Tht.

151-200

5.6

>10.3

3897

Thucydides, 3

101-200

1 1

5.6

>7.5

2

Letters/line (min.-max.)

Column-tocolumn width

17.80 (16-19)

*5.5

5.5-*6.3

6.8-*7.9 7.6 (7.45-7.7)

1.5

18.50 (15-28)

-1.5(?)

29.23 (26-34)

-1.3—1.6

10.38 (14-28)

2.0 (1.8-2.2)

17.91 (14-21) 18.53 (15-21)

>1.9

15.21 (13-18)

TABLE 3 1 — continued

m 0\

POxy

Contents

Date

4035

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

101-200

Style

Column width

2

-5.6

4055

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300?

1

5.6

4111

Thucydides, 8

101-200

2? (or 3?)

*5.6(?)

0454+ PSI 2.119

Plato, Grg.

151-200

2? (or 1?)

5.7 (-5.6—5.7)

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

-8.1

2.5

19.64 (17-23)

>7.4

>1.8

15.76 (13-19)

*7.5(?)

1.9

16.25 (15-18)

6.7

1.0

19.24 (15-23) [POxy] 17.50 (13-22) [ZPE] 17.22 (14—21) [PSI] 16.59 (15—19)

1246

Thucydides, 7

101-150

1

5.7

2098

Herodotus, 7

151-250

1

5.7

8.0

3451

Thucydides, 8

51-150

1

**5.7

**7.2

4038

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

151-300

2

*5.7

0233

Demosthenes, in Tim.

201-300

2

-5.8 5.8

8.3 -7.5

2.3 (1.9-2.4)

12.97 (10-16)

1.5 (1.4->1.6)

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

-7.3

1.5

22.12 (18-26)

2.5 (2.4-2.5)

16.93 (14-20)

1.7

16.51 (12-20)

2.0 (-1.9—2.2?)

15.78 (13-20)

2468

Plato, Pit.

101-200

1

3836

Achilles Tatius, 3

101-200

2

5.8

3879

Thucydides, 1

101-150

2

5.8 (5.7-6.0)

4031

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-300

2

-5.8

>7.4

>1.6

14.90 (13-16)

4040

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2? (or 1?)

*5.8

**7.3

1.5

22.09 (19-24)

4048

Aeschines, in Ctes.

1-100

2

*5.8

22.00 (21-23)

4050

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2

*5.8

18.00 (16-20)

7.8 (7.7—8.2?)

6& + 3 m / Ei" i-r

1

rt 1 a. +

+I-*, 4 + + pr

3

T A B L E 3 . 1 - continued Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

101-200

—5.8-5.9

*7.2

-1.3-1.4

17.39 (14-21)

26-100

*5.9

*7.1

1.2

17.80 (15-20)

5.9

8.1

2.2

17.32 (14-20)

6.0 (5.75-6.05)

-8.1 (-7.95—8.25)

2.1

16.63 (12-21)

POxy

Contents

Date

4042

Aeschines, in Ctes.

0225

Thucydides, 2

4044

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200?

0844

Isocrates, Paneg.

101-150

6.0 (-5.7—6.3)

8.1

1376

Thucydides, 7

3233

Isocrates, A ntid.

3375

Herodotus, 1

3377

Herodotus, 2

Style

151-250 51-150 201-300 101-150

1 2 1?

6.0

2.1 (2.05-2.25)

(-7.95—8.3)

*6.0 -6.0

(2.0-2.5)

*7.5

19.24 (14-25) 20.37 (17-24)

1.5

15.59 (14-17)

>1.1

24.43 (22-26)

{or 2?) 201-300

17.59 (14-21)

-6.0

3886

Thucydides, 2

4037

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

101-300

1

*6.0

15.55 (13-18)

4054

Aeschines, in Ctes,

101-300

2

*6.0

22.67 (exact line divisions unsure)

4108

Thucydides, 7

151-250

2

*6.0

17.78 (15-20)

0456

Plato, Resp. 4

151-250

2

*6.1

3671

Plato, La.

151-200

2

6.1

3673

Plato, Leg. 6

151-250

2

6.1

7.6

3881

Thucydides, 1

151-250

2

-6.1

>7.6

2

4100

Thucydides, 1

151-250

2? (or 1?)

*6.1

0462

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

2

*6.15

>8.2

>2.1

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

>*7.4 *7.65

1.5 (>1.2-1.5)

19.29 (16-22)

>1.5

16.30 (14-20)

>1.3

16.74 (13-21)

1.5

16.65 (13-20)

T A B L E 3 . 1 - continued

as 00 Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Contents

Date

Style

2703

Thucydides» 1

151-250

1? (or 2?)

6.15

1810

D e m o s t h e n e s , Olynth. i—iii, Phil, i, de Pac.

101-150

1

6.2 (-6.0—6.25)

4052

Aeschines, in Ctes.

51-150

3? (or 2?)

*6.25

4103

T h ucydides , 5

51-150

1

*6.25

0452

Thucydides, 4

151-300

2

*6.3

19.08 (17-21)

6.3

-7.75 8.3 (-8.15-8.3) *7.75

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

POxy

-1.6 2.1 (2.0-2.15) 1.5

19.85 (18-24) 20.93 (15-27) 17.93 (16-20) 18.29 (16-20)

2097

Herodotus, 1

226-275

2

-8.0

1.8

16.65 (14-19)

2751

Plato, Resp. 3

151-250

2

-6.3 (-6.3-6.5)

-8.8

2.5

18.45 (14-22)

3721

Theophrastus, de Vent.

151-200

1

6.3

-8.0

1.7

16.66 (13-24)

*8.3

2.0

15.89 (12-19)

3900

Thucydides, 4

201-300

2

-6.3

0461

D e m o s t h e n e s , de Cor.

201-300

3

-6.35

0460

D e m o s t h e n e s , de Pac.

151-250

2

-6.4

1017

Plato, Phdr.

151-250

1

6.4 (6.3-6.5)

3379

Herodotus, 4

201-300

2

*6.4

3896

Thucydides, 3

1-100

3? (or 2?)

-6.4

-8.0

1.6

19.55 (17-22)

3901 + PYale 2.99

Thucydides, 4

151-200

1

6.4

8.2

1.8

20.45 (18-22)

2096+3374

Herodotus, 1

151-200

1

6.45 (6.3-6.5)

1.55 (1.5-1.6)

16.66 (12-21)

18.57 (15-23) -8.4 8.4 (-8.3—8.5)

2.0

16.57 (14-19)

2.0 (1.9-2.1)

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

8.0 (-7.9-8.1)

Tl 0 B ^ K sr pj 2f? $ S "P K* bd $ 0? M ts

T A B L E 3 . 1 - continued

POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

0023

Plato, Leg. 9

201-275

3? (or 2?)

6.5 (6.45-6.5)

-8.5

0025

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

1

-6.5

0027

Isocrates, Antid.

0228

Plato, La.

0453

Thucydides, 6

0458

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

3372

Herodotus, 1

3381

Herodotus, 7

3435

Demosthene

3684

Plutarch, Lyc.

Olynth '

>-8.5

Intercolumn 2.0 (2.0-2.1)

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

>2.0

12.64 (11-14)

>1.7

22.67 (20-24)

2.3

17.42 (12-21)

51-200

2

-6.5

101-200

2

6.5

51-150

2

*6.5

18.14 (16-20)

2? (or 3?)

*6.5

15.39 (13-19)

201-300 51-150

2

6.5 *6.5

101-200

2

101-200

2? (or 1?)

201-300

1

6.5 -6.5

3887

Thucydides, 2

101-300

2

*6,5

4028

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

3

*6.5

3449

Thucydides, 1

201-300

2? (or 3?)

3447

Strabo, 9

101-150

1

6.6 (6.5—6.7)

3664

Isocrates, Paneg.

201-300

2

6.6

0018

Herodotus, 1

201-300

1

*6.65

0017

Thucydides, 2

101-300

2

*6.7

3156+3669

Plato, Grg.

151-200

1

6.7

8.8

*8.1

1.6 (left)

20.86 (17-24) 22 47 (19-25)

8.1

1.6

~7.7(?)

-1.2(?)

21.32 (18-25) 16.17 (15-17) 22.91 (18-28)

*7.9

-1.4

20.77 (17-23) 21.15 (18-25) [fr] 18.67 (17-20) [fr:

**6.55 8.8 (8.8-*8.85) 8.3

2.2 (2.0-2.3)

17.84 (14-23)

1.8 (1.6—1.8)

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

>1.7 *8.2

1.5 (1.3-1.5)

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

T A B L E 3 . 1 — continued

+ Style

Column width

151-300

2

**6.7

Demosthenes, in Meid.

201-300

2

—6.7

Plato,

151-250

2 .

*6.75

POxy

Contents

Date

3448

Thucydides, 1

3846 3681

m

0024

Plato, Resp. 10

201-300

2

6.8

0698

X e n o p h o n , Cyr. 1

201-250

2

*6.8

1250

Achilles Tätius, 2

301-350

2

6.8 (6.6-7.0)

3849

Demosthenes, in Meid.

151-300

2

**6.8 (**6.6-7.1)

4112

Thucydides, 8

101-200

3

3898

Thucydides, 4

101-300

2

0882

Demosthenes, in Aristog. i

101-200

2? (or 3?)

2403

Aristotle, Cat.

201-250

3234+3883

Thucydides, 1

3679

Plato, Resp. 5

6.8

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

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

>-8.7

*8.6(?) 8.7

>2.0

20.54 (17-24)

OB »t

19.90 (19-22)

+5H K ^ p00 K + [

1.8(?) (or > 1 . 8 )

18.75 (16-21)

1.9 (1.75-2.0)

22.11 (19-26)

*2.0(?)

19.07 (15-22)

*6.85

20.07 (17-23)

-6.9

26.10 (24-28)

2

6.9

23.29 (19-26)

51-150

3

-6.9

201-300

1? (or 2?)

23.47 (18-28)

6.9

9.0

2.1

PJ

2

21.13 (18-24)

18.90 (16-23) *8.8(?)

»-»

3 &L

25.33 (20-30)

3844

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

1-100

1

*6.9

>*8.2

>1 3

21.88 (20-24)

3837

Achilles Tatius, 8

201-300

2

*7.0

*8.7

1 /

23.72 (20-29)

3895

Thucydides, 3

200-300

1

7.0

9.6

2.5-2.6

14.73 (12-17)

1619

Herodotus, 3

51-150

2

7.1

9.0

1.9 (1,8?—2.0)

23.88 (21-28)

2750

X e n o p h o n , Cyr. 1

151-200

1

*7.1

*9.75

2.65

2 0 . 0 9 (17-24)

T A B L E 3 . 1 - continued

POxy

Contents

0231

Demosthenes, de Cor.

3888

Thucydides, 2

Style

Column width

51-150

2

-7.15

201-300

2

7.2

Date

Column-tocolumn width

-9.5

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

>1,1

25.58 (22-29)

-2.3

15.96 (14-19)

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

151-250

2

7.3

*8.9

1.6 (left)

24.43 (20-27)

3841

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

2

*7.3

*9.0

1.7 (left)

25.60 (24-29)

4036

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

51-100

2? (or 1?)

*7.3

21.00 (19-24)

0019

Herodotus, 1

101-300

3? (or 2?)

7.35

25.20 (22-28)

4039

Aeschines, in Ctes.

51-150

3

7.4

18.07 (16-21)

0695

Herodotus, 5

201-300

3

-7.5

17.12 (15-20)

2095

Herodotus, 1

101-200

2

-7.5

3383

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

7.5

*9.5

3682

Plato, H l .

101-200

3

7.5

>10.0

>2.5

24.09 (21-27)

3877

Thucydides, 1, 2 , 3

101-150

3? (or 2?)

**7.5

**9.0

1.5

22.41 (18-28)

3894

Thucydides, 3

201-300

2

*7.9

22.07 (20-25)

4102

Thucydides, 5

151-250

2

*7.9

20.50 (18-23)

3444

Isocrates, Uv.

151-250

2

*7.95

4032

Aeschines, in Tim,

101-200

2

*8.0 (*7.8—8.2)

0230

Demosthenes, de Cor,

101-200

2

8.1 (**7.9-8.1)

3893

Thucydides, 3

101-200

2

*8.1

-9.45

1.95 2.0 (left)

26.33 (24—29) 23.42 (19-27)

26.05 (21-31)

9.2 (••9.0-9.2)

-1.8

23.78 (20-27)

1.1

22.79 (19-28) 24.43 (20-26)

T A B L E 3 . 1 — continued Column width

Column-tocolumn width

POxy

Contents

Date

Style

4027

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-300

2? (or 3?)

-8.1

>-10.1

3882+ PSI 11.1195

Thucydides, 1

201-300

2

-8.2

-10.0

Letters/line (min.—max.)

$

>2.0

23.54 (19-28)

K

-1.8-1.9

25.18 (21-29)

Intercolumn

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

3889

Thucydides, 2

151-250

2662

Plato, Meno

50 B C - A D 50

3850

Demosthenes, in Meid.

101-200

1

8.6

4101

Thucydides, 4

201-300

2

**8.6

1019+2948

Chariton, 2

176-225

3

8.8 (*8.5—8.9)

23.21 (18-27)

0700

Demosthenes, de Cor.

101-200

3? (or 2?)

*9.0

25.72 (23-28)

3878

Thucydides, 1

101-175

2

*9,0

29.78 (exact line divisions unsure)

3848

Demosthenes, in Meid.

201-300

2

*9.9

2181

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

*10.1 ( * 9 . 9 5 - * 10.1)

50-1 BC

2

8.3

2

*8.4

1? (or 2?)

*8.5

3667

[Plato], Ale. ii

201-300

2

0029

Euclid

251-350

3

11.75

0883

Demosthenes, in Aristoc.

201-250

2

n/a

*10.1

17.89 (16-21) *9.7

1.3

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

>10.1

>1.5

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

29.83 (26-33) *11.9

1.8

39.69 (33-49)

**11.7

1.6

25.15 (22-29)

>13.9

> 2 . 2 (left)

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

27 F? 7 ( (»öd S $ pr 3 t—

T A B L E 3 . 1 - continued

B. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite) Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min.—max.)

100-1 BC

2? 2

4.1 [Hyp.] 5.8 [Dem.]

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

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

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

201-300

1

*4.3

MP

Contents

Date

0337H+D

Hyperides, in Phil + Demosthenes, Ep. 3

0113

Appian, Iber.

0329-2

[Demosthenes], in Mac.

151-250

1

-4.7

1563-1

Xenophon, Oec.

201-300

2

*4.7

1566

Xenophon, Vect.

101-200

1

4.8 (4.6-4.8)

1427

[Plato), dcJust.

201-250

2

*4.85

8.64 (7-11) -7.6

2.9

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

-7.3

2.5 (2.2-2.7)

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

0468

Herodotus, 1

1-200

2

4.9 (4.6-5.0)

1233

Hyperides, in Dem.,pro

1-100

1

4.95 (4.8-5.1)

6.95 (6.8—7.1)

2.0 (1.9-2.1)

15.13 (11-20)

1397-1

Plato, Pit.

101-200

2

*5.5

*7.7

1.7 (1.6-1.8)

18.5 (16-21)

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

2

5.5

7.1

1.6 (1.6-1.7)

15.89 (11-20)

1564

Xenophon, Symp.

151-200?

1

5.5

7.0

1.5

19.83 (16-24)

0298

Demosthenes, Fais. Leg.

101-150

2

5.6 (5.3-5.7)

7.5 (7.3-7.6)

1.9 (1.6-2.5)

1563-3

Xenophon, Symp.

251-300

1

*5.8

Lye.,pro

0337D

^1.0 cm

15.35 (11-17)

Eux,

Demosthenes:

5.8

17.79 (14-21) 11.09 (10-14)

7.0

1.2

28.06 (23-40)

7.3

1.3

19.49 (15-24)

see under 0 3 3 7 H + D

1265-1

Isocrates, Paneg.

0300

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

151-250

1

*5.9

1-200

2

6.0

17.33 (16-19)

0478

Herodotus, 5

151-200

1

**8.2-8.6

2.3

11.33 (10-13)

0088

Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex.

300-251 BC

3

-6.5 (-6.0-7.0)

7.5 (7.1-7.9)

-1.0 (-0.5-1.0)

25.80 (20-33)

1388

Plato, Phd.

300-201 BC

2

-6.5 (-5.9—7.1)

7.9

-1.4 (-1.3—1.6)

24.36 (17-34)

**6.3

TABLE 3.1 - concluded Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn

Letters/line (min .-max.)

325-276 BC

2

-6.5

-8.0 (7.8-8.3)

-1.5 (-1.3—1.8)

18.48 (13-23)

[8.2]

[1.7]

MP

Contents

Date

1409

Plato, La.

1433

Polybius, 11

151-250

1

6.5

0296-2

Demosthenes, Fais. Leg.

201-300

1

**6.6

1387

Plato, Ap.

51—150

2? (or 1?)

6.7 (6.4-6,8)

1395

Plato, Soph.

275-226 BC

2

-7.0

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chers.

75-1 BC

1552

X e n o p h o n , Heil. 1

17.62 (14-21) 15.90 (15-17)

8.5 -8.9

1.7-1.8

16.91 (13-21)

1.9 (1.7-2.0)

15.57 (13-18) 26.31 (21-31)

3

7.2

8.7

1.5

201-250

2

7.5 (7.2-7.6)

8.8 (8.7-8.9)

1.3 (1.2-1.5)

101-150

2

*8.3

18.49 (14-30) 34.63 (31-40)

1403

Plato, Phdr.

1556-2

X e n o p h o n , Hell. 1,2, 4

151-200

3

-8.7

27.80 (22-37)

Isocrates, ad Nie.

301-400

2

*15.9 [sic]

31.44 (27-36)

1255

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

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

151-200

2

*5.9

*9.4

Euripides, Med.

51-100

2? (or 1?)

*6.8

*10.1

;

Menander, Ph.

250-300

3

*6.8

**8.8

—2.0

POxy

Contents

Date

2092

Pindar, Ol 2

2337 2830 2094+3445

Lycophron, Alex,

101-175

2

2335

Euripides, A ndr.

151-200

3

*7,55 **7.8

2545

Aristophanes, Eq.

50 BC-AD 50

1

*8.1

3661

Homer, II. 3

101-300

3

*8.1

0445

I loin er, Ii. 6

101-250

2? (or 1?)

•—8.25

2178

Aeschylus,

101-200

2

*8.3

2179

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

2

*8.3

3446

Lycophron, Alex.

101-200

2

*8.4

3713

Euripides, Phoen.

151-200

2

**8.4

3545

Theocritus

101-200

3

3840

Aristophanes, Thesm.

301-400

3

**8.5

3223

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

3

—8.6

1819

Homer, Od. 10-12

101-200

2

2336

Euripides, Hel.

2693

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

—3.5 —3.0

*9.0

—1.45

**10.05

'—2.25

11.7

—3.25 >—2.1 >—3.0

*8.45

*8.65

Intercolumn width

>—2.8 *13.1

—4.5

*11.4

—2.75

1

*8.7

*10.6

—3.0

101-150

1? (or 2?)

*8.7

*12.1

—3.25

50-1 BC

2542

Homer,

. 15

51-150

2

*8.9

2180

Sophocles, OT

101-200

1

*9.0

>—2.25 *11.0

—2.0

TABLE 3.3 - concluded Style

Column width

Column-toc o l u m n width

Intercolumn width

201-300

2

**9.0

**12.0

—2.0

151-300

2

**9.1

POxy

Contents

Date

3719

Euripides, LA

3838

Aeschylus, PV

4014

Euripides, Or.

151-200

1? (or 2?)

*9.2

0877

Euripides, Hec.

201-300

2

**9.3

1249

Babrius

101-200

1

*9.3

2543

Euripides, A ndr.

101-200

2

**9.3

3828

Homer, Od. 22

51-150

3

*9.3

2946

Triphiodorus

201-400

2? (or 3?)

*9.4

2646

Hesiod, Theog.

101-300

2

*9.6

4015

Euripides, Or.

1-100

3

**9.6

3717

Euripides, Or.

101-200

3

*9.75

2224+3152

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

1

*9.8 >—9.8

> — 2 . 6 (left) >—1.7 *11.0

—1.5 (*1.7)

*12.8/**14.8

1091

Bacchylides, Dith.

126—175

3

3153

Euripides, Phoen.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

*9.9

3154

Horner, II. 6

51-100

1

*9.9

**12.9

—3.0

3716

Euripides, Or.

150-51 BC

3? (or 2?)

*9.9

*12.6

—2.3

2225

Callimachus, Hymn 4

126-175

2

—10.0

13.0

—3.0

3155

Homer, il. 15

151-250

2

—10 . 0

*13.35

—3.5

1805+3687

Sophocles, Track.

151-200

2

*10.05

3549

Theocritus

101-200

2

*10.1

2638

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

2

*10.4

3

*10.4

2639+P5/11.1191

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

**13.8

—3.75

>—2.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width 2.0(?)

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-250

3

*10.45

**12.5(?)

2064+3548

Theocritus

151-200

2

*10.5

•15.3

*4.8

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

1

—10.5

12.9

—2.5

0693

Sophocles, EL

201-250

2

**10.6

2093

Sophocles, Aj.

151-250

2

*10.6

*13.4

-3.0

0446

Homer, 8. 13

151-200

2

**10.7

2697

Apollonius Rhodius, 2

201-250

2

0875+3686

Sophocles, Ant.

101-150

2

**10.9

50-1 BC

* i r ,.75

Euripides, Or.

50 BC-AD 50

1

**11.0

2829

Menander, Epit.

251-350

3

*11.1

3546

Theocritus

101-200

1

*11.1

3827

Homer,//. 11

101-200

1

*11.1

4013+PKoeln

6.252

-1.8 -1.5 —3.0 -1.5 S—13.1

-2.0

3231

Hesiod, Erga

151-225

2

Ml.15

3226

Hesiod, Erga

101-250

1? (or 2?)

*11.2

-1.2 -2.0

3232

Hesiod, Asp.

151-200

3

*11.3

2696

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-200

1

*11.4

2831

Menander, Sam.

51-150

1

*11.4

2541

Homer,

14

201-300

3

*11.5

3225

Hesiod, Erga

126—175

1

*11.5

3825

Homer, II. 1

101-150

2? (or 1?)

—11.5

>—14.3

-2.8

3322

Euripides, Phoen.

51-150

3

*11.6

**15.6

-4.0

1243

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

101-200

2

*11.65

-2.0

T A B L E 3.2 - continued

Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

00 ^ 8

POxy

Contents

Date

2641

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

3

*11.7

2642

Hesiod, Theog.

101-200

1

**11.7

2643

Hesiod, Theog,

101-300

2? (or 3?)

*11.7

2651

Hesiod, Theog.

101-200

2

*11.7

3222

Hesiod, Erga

201-300

2

—11.7

3228

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

1

*11.7

3324

Meleager

50 BC-AD 50

3

*11.75

**13.75

-2.0

L e* t* öö %

3443

Horner, Od. 17

201-300

2

*11.8

**13.3

-1.5

I

2648

Hesiod, Theog.

201-250

2

*11.9

3220

Hesiod, Erga

101-200

1

*11.9

3440

Homer, 77.16

151-250

2

*11.9

3547

Theocritus

101-200

3

*11.9

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

1

—12.0

3441

Homer, Od. 10

101-200

3

—12.0

3442

Homer, Od. 11

101-150

1? (or 2?)

—12.0

0688

Homer, IL 11

§224+PRyl

3.547

50-1 BC

1

*12.1

1-200

1

*12.25

50 BC-AD 50

1

*12.25 *12.3

2640

Hesiod, Theog.

2691

Apollonius Rhodius, 4

3712

Euripides, Phoen.

101-200

3

0692

Apollonius Rhodius, 4

101-200

2

*12.4

2692

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

51-100

2

**12,4

3851

Nicander, Ther.

101-200

1

*12.4

8 >—2.0 rc I-I

>—1.0 —18.0

—6.0

**15.2

—3.2 (left)

>—3.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued Style

Column width

51-150

2

*12.6

>—1.5

Apollonius Rhodius, 4

251-300

2? (or 3?)

*12.6

>—2.7

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

101-200

1

**12.8

POxy

Contents

2540

Homer, 77.13

2701 0691

Date

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

2090

Hesiod, Theog.

126-175

1

*12.8

2700

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

201-250

2

*12.8

>—1.7

2748

Homer, 77.16

101-200

1

*12.8

>—1.0

3230

Hesiod, Erga

1-50

3

*12.8

2091

Hesiod, Erga

201-250

2

—13.0

2645

Hesiod, Theog.

151-250

3

**13.0

3221

Hesiod, Erga

151-250

3

*13.1

2546

Manetho Astrol.,^!/*)/. 4

201-300?

2

0447

Homer, 77. 23

151-200

2

—13.15

16.8

—3.75 >—1.0

—17.1

-4.0

**16.1

*2.8

**13.3

0689

Hesiod, Asp.

151-250

2

*13.3

1815

Homer, II, 1

201-300

3

*13.3

3224

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

2

*13.3

4016

Euripides, Or.

151-250

1

*13.3

2333

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

1

*13.35

2649

Hesiod, Theog.

101-200

1

*13.4

>*16.9

>—3.5

3323

Homer, 77.15-16

151-250

1

*13.7

**17.2

—3.5

0686

Homer, 77. 2

1

**13.75

51-100

1

—14.0

151-250

2

*14.2

1806

Theocritus

2698

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

50-1 BC

>—1.3 >17.85

>—4.5

>—3.0

TABLE 3.2 - continued

00 0 Column width

POxy

Contents

Date

3839

Aristophanes, Thesm.

101-300

0687

Homer, . 3

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

201-250

1

*14.4

2945

Theocritus

101-200

1

**14.6

3550

Theocritus

3438

Homer,

50-1 BC

Style 1

*14.2

2? (or 1?)

**14.3

101-200

1

*14.75

.1

101-300

2

*14.9

3662

Homer, IL 5

226-275

3

0223+PKoeIn 5.210

Homer, il. 5

201-250

2

3325

Moschus, Megara [5p]

51-150

1

2226

Callimachus, Hymn 6

101-150

2

0767

Homer, II. 11

101-200

1

3227

Hesiod, Erga

151-250

1

0946

Homer, IL 2

151-300

1? (or 2?)

**16.2

3663

Homer, IL 18

201-300

1

—16.8

0694

Theocritus

101-150

1

*16.9

—15 —15.0 (14.0-15.5)

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

J m i0 3

**16.8

—2.5

% 0 (Î

>—2.5 **16,75 >*19.5 20.7 (20.5-21.1)

—2.0 (left) >—4.5 (left) —5.5 (4.25-6.0)

*15.4 *15.85

**19.85

—4.0

**16.0 *16.15 21.0

—4.0 >—1.8 (left)

1179

Apollonius Rhodius, 2

176-250

1

*17.1

>*22.1

>—5.0

2334

Aeschylus, Sept.

151-200

1

*18.15

**24.0

—6.0

3552

Theocritus

101-175

1

*18.2

3439

Homer,

101-200

1

*18.5

.5

0021

Homer, II. 2

1-200

1

*18.55

0020

Homer,

.2

101-200

1

*19.5

0685

Homer, II. 17

151-200

1

**20.3

>—1.3

—22.1

—2.6 >—3.0

o' K1 0 Ö K K pr 3t=s

TABLE 3.2 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column width *24,5

3229

Hesiod, Erga

126-200

1

1177+3714

Euripides, Phoen.

50 BC-AD 50

3

2467

Menander, Dys.

151-200

3

Column-tocolumn width

Intercolumn width

Column-tocolumn

Intercolumn width

M. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite) MP

Contents

Date

0417-2

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

2? (or 3?)

1286

Lycophron, Alex.

51-150

1

0919

Homer, 8. 14

151-250

2

—8.2

10.2 (9.9-10.3)

1094

Homer, Od. 11

250-151 BC

2

[**8.6]

[**9.8]

0400-1

Euripides, IT

101-150

1

**8.7

Style

Column width *7.7

**11.1

—3.4

**8.0

>**10.1

>•2.1

—2.0 [—1,2] [1.2-1.4]

0863-1

Homer, II. 10

50-1 BC

2

*9.3

0774

Homer, H. 6

275-226 BC

2

••9.4

0894

Homer, H 12

200-101 BC

2

••94

**11.1

- 2.0

0397

Euripides, Hipp.

275-226 BC

2

*9.5

*10.8

-1.5

0897-2

Homer, IL 12

50-1 BC

1

—9.5

**11.0

-1,6

0979

Homer, 8. 21

300-201 BC

2

—10.5

-12.5

- 2.0

Homer, Od. 4, 5

200-101 BC

1

m 2 m 2 3? (or 2?)

*10.5

*12.3

-2.0

1129

Homer, Od. 17,19

275-226 BC

2

**10.8

0594-1

Homer, 8. 1

101-175

1

**11.0

1056

— t^ 00 w

TABLE 3.2 — continued Style

Column width

Column-tocolumn

Intercolumn width

300-251 BC

2

*11.0

*12.3

—2.0-2.5

Homer, W 15

100-1 BC

2

•11.0

1148-2

Homer, Od. 22

200-101 BC

2

*11.0

0189-1

Callimachus, Hymn 3

101-200

1

**11.4

0486-3

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

2? (or 3?)

*11.4

0805-1

Homer, 8. 1

300-101 BC

2

*11.4

*12.1

—0.7

0830

Homer, II. 8

150-51 BC

2

**11.5

**14.0

—2.5 (2.0-3.4)

m fr

0998

Homer, It. 23, 24

100-1 BC

2? (or 1?)

—11.5

14.3 (14.2-14.3)

—3.0

3 es

0662-01

Homer, Ii. 2

101-200

0991

Homer, II. 22

150-101 BC

**12.7

—1.1

0688

Homer, IÎ. 3

0995-1

Homer,

. 22

0852

MP

Contents

0819

Homer,

0919-1

Date

.8

**13.1

—2.0

2

**11.6 *11.6

250-151 BC

2

**11.7

50-1 BC

2? (or 3?)

*11.7

Homer, +. 10

100-1 BC

3

—11.75

0876-2

Homer, II. 11

101-200

2

0879

Homer, It. 11

300-251 BC

2? (or 3?)

**11.8

**13.15

—1.75 (0.4-3.3)

0619

Homer, +. 1

250-151 BC

2

*11.9

**13.6

—2.0

0660-3

Horner, IÎ. 2

101-200

2

*12.0

0699

Homer, II. 3, 4, 5

300-251 BC

2

**12.0

**13.0

—1.0 (0.8-1.4)

1039

Homer, Od. 3

1

—12.0

-17.2

—5.2

—12.0

>17.0

>—5.0

>2.5

>—1.0

•11.8

1064

Homer, Od. 6

50 BC-AD 25

2

1355-1

Pindar, Ol 9,10

251-300

1

**12.0? (**4.6—**16.5)

1156

Homer, Od. 24

101-200

2

**12.15

«

S ja

2? (or 1?)

1-100

+•-

>2.0

S + '7" ( S —> -1'

TABLE 3.2 - continued MP

Contents

Date

0384-1

Euripides, Bacch.

100 BC-AD 50

0604-1

Homer, . 1

101-200

2

*12.3

1026-1

Homer, Od. 1

201-250

2

**12.6

Style

Column width

1? (or 2?)

*12.2

Column-tocolumn

Intercolumn width

**14.4

—2.0

**14.3

—2.0

0773

Homer, 17. 6

150-101 BC

3

**12.8

0624-1

Homer, 17. 2

251-400

3

*12.9

0822

Homer, It. 8

2

*13.0

**15.5

—2.5

0857

Homer, II. 10

201-250

3? (or 2?)

—13.0

-15.3

—2.3

0914

Homer, IL 13

101-300

2

**13.0

0632

Homer, 17.2

150-101 BC

**15.3

—2.0

1009

Homer, It. 23

100-1 BC

1-100

2

*13.3

2? (or 1?)

*13.3

1150-1

Homer, Od. 23

25 BC-AD 25

1

**13.6

0883

Homer, II. 11

151-200

2

*13.7

1051-1

Homer, Od. 4

1-50

2

**13.7

0832

Homer, Ii. 8

1-100

2? (or 1?)

**13.8

0388-1

Euripides, Hec.

51-150

2? (or 3?)

**13.9

1022

Homer, Od. 1

200-151 BC

3

*13.9

0895

Homer, II. 12

201-300

2? (or 3?)

*14.0

1099

Homer, Od. 11

51-150

1

*14.0

0898-1

Homer, 17. 12

1-100

2

**14.5

1061

Homer, Od. 5

201-300

2

**14.5

0980

Homer, 17.21,22

100-1 BC

1

—15.0

0584-1

Homer, 17.1

101-150

3

**15.1

>—1.5 17.5 (16.9-17.8)

—2.5

TABLE 3.2 - concluded MP

Contents

Date

0962

Homer, II .18

100-1 BC 151-200

Style

Column width

2? (or 3?)

*15.3

0784-1

Homer, 77. 6

0785-1

Homer, 77. 6

0692-1

Homer, 77. 3

1092-1

Homer, Od. 10

1-200

1? (or 2?)

**16.6

1537

T i m o t h e u s , Pers.

350-301 BC

2? (or 1?)

[—20.5]

1

*22.2

50-1 BC 151-200

3

*15.6

1

•15.7-15.9

3

Homer, 77. 2

101-200

**15.9

Intercolumn width —0.6 >—2.1

**16.5

[uncolometrized] 0650

Column-tocolumn

[23.1] [22.7-23.5] **26.7

[—2.6] [2.2-3.5] —4.5 (4.0-5.0)

Table 5.3 Column height, margins, roll height (arranged by ascending order of column height, in centimetres) A. Oxyrhynchus sample r/vf

Style

Column height

Upper marginj

101 150

r

1

**10.8

>2.0

101-200

r

1

11.0

r

1

vx

3

POxy

Contents

Date

3685

Plutarch, Sept. sap. corn.

2180

Sophocles, OT

0226+

Xenophon, Hell. 6

51-200

3828

Homer, Od. 22

51-150

2638

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

2336

Euripides, Hel

50-1 BC

Lower marginf

Roll height

>4.1

>4.2

>19.3

•11.5

>0.6

>1.4

>*13.5

11.5

>0.9

r

2

**11.6/**23.5

r

1

**12.25

r

1

*12.5(?)

2090

Hesiod, Theog.

126—175

3324

Meleager

50 BC-AD 50

r

3

2093

Sophocles, Aj.

151-250

r

2

*12.8

2333

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

r

1

-12.8

4035

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

101-200

r

2

*12.9

3895

Thucydides, 3

200-300

rx

1

**12.9

4047+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

151-200

r

1

13.2

2.2(??)

2.0(??) 1.8(??)

>1.0

3.8(??)

>5.3

>*21.6

6.5(?)

>8.6

>-27.9

12.5(?)

4.0(?) 1.8(??)

0704

Isocrates, in Soph.

201-300

r

2

•13.5

3226

Hesiod, Erga

101-250

r

1? (or 2?)

•13.5 or *17.9 or *27.3

2404+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

r

1

3839

Aristophanes, Thesm.

101-300

rx

1

3229

Hesiod, Erga

126-200

rx

1

2064+

Theocritus

151-200

E

2

14.5

>3.0

3.1(??)

18.1(??)

>2.2 >22.0

>3.4

5.0

13.8

>5.7

>6.0

>25.5

14.2

>3.8

>5.5

>•23.5

13.6

4.3(??)

>21.6

TABLE 3.3 - concluded

14.6

201-300

r

1

14.7

5.1

1

•14.8

>3.5

>1.8

1

•14.8 14.9

>2.0

>2.3

•14.9

>1.7

>4.4

15.1

5.3

4.8

101-200

4041

Aeschines, in Ctes.

2749

Thucydides, 2

151-250

rx

3327

Thucydides, 2

151-250

r

3325

Moschus, Megara [ip]

2102+

Plato, Phdr.

>19.3

2? (or 1?)

Demosthenes, Olynth, i

Homer, II. 16

>1.2

r

3435

Euripides, Med.

Roll height

Column height

Date

2748

Lower margin^

Style

Contents

2337

Upper margin}:

r/vt

POxy

101-200

vx

1

51-100

vx

2? (or 1?)

r

1

151-200

r

2

51-150

3.5

>1.3

1808

Plato, Resp. 8

151-200

1? (or 2?)

•15.1

3825

Homer, II. 1

101-150

vx

2? (or 1?)

*15.2/*16.3

>1.9

vx

2

-15.3

>1.7 (2.2?)

2697

Apollonius Rhodius, 2

201-250

0224+

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

r

1

•15.4

0026

Demosthenes, Exor.

101-200

rx

1? (or 2?)

•15.5

2335

Euripides, Andr.

151-200

vx

3

15.7

0875+

Sophocles, Ant.

101-150

r

2

•15.7

0687

Homer, H. 3

50-1 BC

r

2? (or 1?)

•15.75

0021

I iomer, IL 2

1-200

r

1

15.8

1.5(??) 5.2(?)

Homer, Od. 10-12

101-200

r

2

15.8

Xenophon, An. 6

151-250

r

2

•16.0

4.6(??)

>2.8 >3.9

25.0 >*19.9/2£*21.0 >•23.9 >•17.5

>2.0 1.0®

>•21.0 >•19.1

4.0(?)

r

1819

25.3 >•20.1

>1.5

•14.9

0463

5.5(??)

1.2(?)

17.9(?)

2.5(?)

19.8(??)

>2.5

0228

Plato, La.

101-200

J

2

16.1

>3.2

2226

Calliniachus, Hymn 6

101-150

r

2

•16.1

>1.8

2643

Hesiod, Theog.

101-300

r

2? (or 3?)

16.1 (•16.4)

2.9(??)

>5.0

>26.0

>6.7

>•22.7

6.5

>25.8

>1.4

TABLE 3.3 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

1177+

Euripides, Phoen.

50 BC-AD 50

2101

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

50-1 BC

r/vt

Style

Column height

vx

3

**16,1/**17.1

r

1

16.2

r

1

16.2

rx

3

16.2

Upper margin}: 3.9 2.8(?)

Lower marginj

Roll height

5.3

25.4

3.8

22.8(?)

>1.7

2829

Menander, Epit.

251-350

3444

Isocrates, Ev.

151-250

r

2

16.2

3.2(?)

1.7(?)

21.1(?)

r

1

-16.25

5.1(?)

5.8(?)

—27.15(?)

**16.4(??)

1183

Isocrates, Tr.

51-100

4107

Thucydides, 7

101-200

r

1

0881r

Plato, Euthd.

151-250

rx •

1

3889

Thucydides, 2

151-250

r

2

*16.6

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

r

2

-16.6

201-250

vx

3

**16.6(?)

51-150

r

1

-16.7

0881v

Plato, Ly,

0227

Xenophon, Oec. 8-9

*16.6

>1.4

8.1 (?) >0.7 >1.2 3.0(??) 7.5(?)

2096+

Herodotus, 1

151-200

r

1

16.8

2334

Aeschylus, Sept

151-200

r

1

*16.85/*17.4

3326

Plato, Resp. 8

101-200

rx

1

16.9

4.9

0225

Thucydides, 2

26-100

r

2

*16.9

>3.1

>6.1

3837

Achilles Tatius, 8

201-300

r

2

* 16.9/* 17.3

^2.8

Theocritus

101-200

r

1

*17.0 or **25.1 or >*27.8

>2.9

4028

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

r

3

Plato, Phd.

51-150

r

2? (or 1?)

*17.3

Lycurgus. in Leo.

101-200?

vx

2

*17.3

3672

Plato, Leg. 6

201-300

r

2? (or 1?)

**17.3

7.2(?)

>-26.5 >*30.1

>4.9

>26.7 >*20.0

>4.0 >3.0

**17.2

1809

>2.3

-22.9(??)

>2.5

3550

2550

3.3(?)

>21.3

4.0(?) >3.9

>**21.2

TABLE 3.2 - continued r/vt

Style

Column height

Upper margin}

Lower margin}

151-250

rx

1

*17.5

>2.5

>4.0

Homer, II. 2

101-200

rx

1

17.7

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

r

2

**17.8

201-300

r

2

*17.85

151-250

rx

1

*18.0

6.0

POxy

Contents

Date

3227

Hesiod, Erga

0020 4032 3900

Thucydides, 4

2098

Herodotus, 7

. 18

3663

Homer,

0223+

Homer, IÎ. 5

3451

Thucydides, 8

2751 3882+

4.4(?)

5.8(?)

Roll height >24.0 27.9(?)

>3.5 >2.1 >*24.0

201-300

r

1

*18.0

3.5

3.0-4.1 (??)

201-250

vx

2

18.1

3.6

>4.25

51-150

r

1

**18.1

>4.9

>4.5

>**27.5

Plato, Resp. 3

151-250

rx

2

M8.2

>1.3

>3.7

>*23.2

Thucydides, 1

201-3«)

r

2

•18.2

3.1(?)

rx

2

*18.3

3.5(?)

r

3? (or 2?)

*18.35/*20.15

3673

Plato, Leg. 6

151-250

3716

Euripides, Or.

150-51 BC

4055

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300?

r

1

*18.4

4030

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-200

vx

3

-18.4

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

201-250

r

1

-18.4/20.6

2100+

Thucydides, 4-5, 8

126—175

r

2

1250

Achilles Tatius, 2

301-350

r

2

18.7

2468

Plato, Pit.

101-200

r

1

*19.0

1805+

Sophocles, Trach.

151-200

r

2

**19.0

>2.7

3676

Plato, Phd.

151-200

r

2

**19.0

>2.3

*19.1

3154

Homer, II. 6

3436

Dinarchus, in Dem.

51-100

r

1

151-250

r

2? (or 1?)

18.5

19.3

>2.3 1.9(??)

4.2(??)

25.6

*25.5(??) >*21.8

>1.3 2.7(??)

>3.5/1.3

4.0(?)

3.9(?)

5.6(?)

3.0(?)

2.7(??)

>1.9

>3.5

*24.5—*25.6(??)

>*22.0 23.0(??) >25.9 28.0(?) 24.4 (??) >*20.9

>3.1

>24.8 >**21.3

>3.9

>*23.0

>4.5

>27.3

TABLE 3.3 - continued POxy

4045+

r/vf

Style

Column height

101-300

J

2

19.4

Contents

Date

Aeschines, in Ctes.

Upper margin} 3.3(??)

1806

Theocritus

51-100

r

1

•19.4

4.5(?)

1810

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

101-150

r

1

*19.4

5.8Ç?)

3850

Demosthenes, in Meid.

101-200

r

1

•19.4

>1.3

4033+

Aeschines, in Tim.

151—300

rx

2

*19.4

>2.0

Dinarchus, in Phil.

151-250

r

2? (or 1?)

-19.5

3437 3230

Hesiod, Erga

3156+

Plato, Grg.

4039

Aeschines, in Ctes.

0460

Demosthenes, de Pac.

3.5(?)

Lower margin}

Roll height

>1.4

>24.1

4.5(??)

•28.4(??)

>4.2

>•29.3

>4.1

>*24.8

4.3

27.3(?)

1-50

rx

3

19.6

>2.0

>23.5

151-200

rx

1

•19.7

>1.7

>•21.4

51-150

vx

3

••19.8

>3.7

151-250

r

2

••20.1 ••20.1

>1.9

>••20.1 >5.7

>•25.8

3675

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

r

1

0698

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

rx

2

*20.1(?)

1619

Herodotus, 3

51-150

r

2

•20.2

3447

Strabo, 9

101-150

r

1

-20.2

>5.8

7.0(?)

>-33.0

2639+

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

r

3

••20.8

>2.9

4.0(??)

>••27.7

1815

Homer, II. 1

201-300

vx

3

>•20.1 4.0(??)

>4.2

•20.85

>•20.85

3721

Theophrastus, de Vent.

151-200

r

1

20.9

2224+

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

r

1

•20.9

3679

Plato, Resp. 5

201-300

r

1? (or 2?)

••20.9

3842

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

r

2

••20.9

4,1(??) 5.5(?)

3888

Thucydides, 2

201-300

r

2

•21.0

2225

Callimachus, Hymn 4

126-175

vx

2

•21.1

>•28.4

5.3{?)

>2.0

>28.2 >•24.0

3.109

>••20.9 >4.8

>25.7 >•26.6

TABLE 3.3 - continued

+ r/v}

Style

Column height

Upper margin}

151-250

r

2? (or 1?)

*21.2

>2.2

Plato, Ale. i

151-200

r

2

*21.2/*18.65(?)

3220

Hesiod, Erga

101-200

r

1

**21.4

3443

Homer, Od. 17

201-300

r

2

*21.5

2092

Pindar, Oî. 2

151-200

r

2

*21.6

2181

Plato, Phd.

151-200

r

2

*21.7

POxy

Contents

Date

4100

Thucydides, 1

3666+

0027

Isocrates, Ant id,

51-200

J

2

**21.8

0844

Isocrates, Paneg.

101-150

r

1

21.9

3877

Thucydides, 1,2,3

2546

M a n e t h o Astro!.,Apot.

3841 3373

Lower margin}

>*23.4

>3.6/ >5.5(?) >1.5 >1.0 3.0(??)

>*24.8?/24.15? >3.5

>••26.4

>3.0

>*24.5

>1.2

>*23.8

3.6(?)

22 4.35(?)

Roll height

*28.3(??) >••24.0

5.5

31.75(?)

101-150

vx

3? (or 2?)

**21.9

>3.0(?)

>3.8

>••28.7

201-300?

rx

2

—22.0

3.4(?)

>6.4

>-31.8

D e m o s t h e n e s , adv. Lept.

101-200

r

2

**22.0

Herodotus, 1

201-300

r

2

*22.25

>3.6

>*25.85

3375

Herodotus, 1

201-300

r

2

*22.4

>1.7

>*24.1

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

151-250

rx

2

*22.8

4

2.7(?)

>*25.5

0023

Plato, Leg. 9

201-275

rx

3? (or 2?)

*22.9

>3.4

3671

Plato, La.

151-200

r

2

**23.0/**11.3

>1.2

0016+

Thucydides, 4

1-100

r

2

23.1

>1.4

>2.0

>26.5

3667

[Plato],/4Ic. ii

201-300

r

2

*23.25

>4.5

>*27.75

>2.2

>2.1

>27.6

3440

Homer, II 16

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

151-250 50-1 BC

r

2

23.3

rx

2

23.5

3376

Herodotus. 1-2

101-200

r

1? (or 2?)

23.5

2095

Herodotus, 1

101-200

r

2

*23.5

2.5(?) >0.7

>*26.3

2.5(??)

28.5(??)

>4.2

>28.4

>4.5

>*28.0

0m >1 + ser u 3 + a

I + C%> 4 ++ 3— f«

TABLE 3.3 - continued r/vf

Style

Column height

Upper margin^

r

1? (or 2?)

*23.5

>1.5

151-250

r

2

**23.5

>4.5

151-250

vx

3

*23.6/*27.3

Herodotus, 8

101-150

r

1

**23.85

Hesiod, Erga

201-250

r

2

24.1

101-200

r

2

24.2

1.4(??)

2.2(??)

27.8(??)

151-250

r

1

24.2

2.0(??)

2.0(??)

28.2(??)

POxy

Contents

Date

3442

Homer, Od. 11

101-150

3383

Herodotus, 8

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

2099 2091 0230

Demosthenes, de Cor.

1017

Plato, Phdr.

3323

Homer, //. 1 5 - 1 6

151-250

r

1

24.2

3382

Herodotus, 8

151-250

r

2

*24.25(?)

0445

Homer, It. 6

101-250

r

2? (or 1?)

24.4

3223

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

vx

3

*24.4

>2.5

176-225

r

3

*24.55

>3.0

1-100

r

3? (or 2?)

*24.7/*24.1 **24.8

1019+

Chariton, 2

3896

Thucydides, 3

4044

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200?

r

3

2097

Herodotus, 1

226-275

r

2

*25.1

3901 +

Thucydides, 4

151-200

r

1

•2.5.2

0703

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

r

2

**25.2

3827

Homer, IL 11

101-200

r

1

3836

Achilles Tatius, 3

101-200

r

2

4111

Thucydides, 8

101-200

rx

2? (or 3?)

3719

Euripides, IA

201-300

r

2

**26.0(?)

4042

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

r

2

**26.2

Roll height >*25.0

>2.3

>**30.3 >*26.0/*29.7

2.4(??)

>**23.85 2.6(??)

>2.5

>3.8

>26.7

>30.5 >*24.25

3.0(?)

3.0

30.4(?) >*26.9

>1.3

5.0(?)

>*28.85

>*30.1

4.7(?)

>**25.2 >1.7?

*25.3(?) *25.9 ••25.9

Lower margin:):

>1.0

>*26.9

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

TABLE 3.3 — continued

\D to Lower margin:):

Roll height

*26.4

>3.9

>4.5

>34.8

2

*26.4

>2.7

r

2

26.5

>2.7 (>3.5?)

r

2

**26.5

rx

2

Herodotus, 1

51-150

r

1376

Thucydides, 7

151-250

3879

Thucydides, 1

101-150

0462

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

r

2

*26.85

0454+

Plato, Grg.

151-200

vx

2? (or 1?)

27.0

3322

Euripides, Phoen.

51-150

vx

3

*27.2

0233

Demosthenes, in Tim.

201-300

r

2

**28.4

2641

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

vx

3

0694

Theocritus

101-150

r

1

>*10.1

0702

[Demosthenes], c. BoeoL

101-200

r

1

>*10.15

>3.8

2698

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-250

r

2

>*10.2

3153

Euripides, Phoen.

151-250

r

2? (or 1?)

>*10.2

0883

Demosthenes, in Aristoc.

201-250

r

2

>*10.3

2648

Hesiod, Theog.

201-250

r

2

>*10.4

3674

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

r

1

>*10.4

4038

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

151-300

r

2

>**10.4

3897

Thucydides, 3

101-200

r

1

>*10.5

4016

Euripides, Or.

151-250

rx

1

>*10.7

0018

Herodotus, 1

201-300

r

1

>*11.2

4014

Euripides, Or.

151-200

r

1? (or 2?)

>11.2

4102

Thucydides, 5

151-250

r

2

>*11.2

Date

3155

Homer, IÎ. 15

3372

Column height

29.3

>*29.1 3.1(?)

>32.3 (>33.1?)

4.1 (?)

>**30.6

"f

151-250

Contents

Al

Style

Al

Upper margin^

r/vf

POxy

>0.9

>*31.25 >27.9 >*30.1

2.9(?)

>*28.4 >1.9

>3.2

> 3 . 1

>7.3

>4.2

7.0 > 4 . 6

>34.4

K {tr U s S ??

n> tu + 0pr 3

TABLE 3.3 - continued r/vt

Style

Column height

151-250

r

2

>*11.5

POxy

Contents

Date

3899

Thucydides, 4

2830

Menander, Pk.

250-300

r

3

>*11,6

2543

Euripides, Andr.

101-200

r

2

25*11.7

Upper margin J

2750

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

151-200

r

1

>*11.7

>1.9

Plato, Phd.

101-200

rx

1? (or 2?)

>*12.1

4.3

2662

Plato, Meno

50 BC-AD 50

r

1? (or 2?)

>12.2

2645

Hesiod, Theog.

151-250

r

3

>*12.3

3

>*12.4

>1.2

3

>*12.5

>2.4 >3.3

Homer, H. 3

101-300

3682

Plato, Tht.

101-200

r

3664

Isocrates, Paneg.

201-300

vx

2

>*12.8

0700

Demosthenes, de Cor.

101-200

r

3? (or 2?)

>*12.9

3441

Homer, Od. 10

101-200

r

3

>*13.1

3228

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

r

1

>*13.3

2945

Theocritus

101-200

E

1

>*13.4

2542

Homer,

. 15

51-150

r

2

>*13.5

3848

Demosthenes, in Meid.

201-300

vx

2

>13.6

2403

Aristode, Cat.

201-250

rx

2

>*13.9

3449

Thucydides, 1

201-300

r

2? (or 3?)

>*14.2

3439

Homer, 77. 5

t01-200

rx

1

>*14.4

3849

Demosthenes, in Meid.

151-300

r

2

>*14.8

3712

Euripides, Phoen.

101-200

r

3

>*15.3

0695

Herodotus, 5

201-300

rx

3

>*15.9

Roll height

>0.7

0229

3661

Lower

=2.2 >3.0

2.2(??) >3.2

4.3(?) >4.6

>2 0

>3.0

>*21.4

TABLE 3.3 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

0877

Euripides, Hec.

201-300

r/vf V

Style

Column height

Upper margin^

2

>*16.0

>1.8

2094+

Lycoph ron, A lex.

101-175

r

2

>*16.2

2701

Apollonius Rhodius, 4

251-300

r

2? (or 3?)

>*16.85

2693

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

101-150

r

1? (or 2?)

>*16.9

3438

Homer, 11. 1

101-300

r

2

>*17.0

2541

Homer, II. 14

201-300

vx

3

>*17.4

>2.6

0446

Homer, 17.13

151-200

rx

2

>*17.5

>1.3

1091

Bacchylides, Dith.

126-175

r

3

>*17.6

>1.7

3552

Theocritus

101-175

r

1

>*18.5

>2.3

3.8(??)

Thucydides, 1

151-250

r

2

>18.5

>3.3

3846

Demosthenes, in Meid.

201-300

r

2

>*19.4

>1.8

201-250

r

2

>*23.1

51-150

r

1

>*24.0/>*43.0

2700

Apollonius Rhodius, 1 Isocrates, A ntid.

0017

Thucydides, 2

101-300

r

2

0019

Herodotus, 1

101-300

vx

3? (or 2?)

0025

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

r

1

0029

Euclid

251-350

r

3

0458

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

201-300

0461

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

0685

Homer, 77.17

151-200

0686

Homer, II. 2

50-1 BC

r

1

0688

Homer, IL 11

50-1 BC

r

1

Roll height

>4.3

>*24.3

3.3(?)

3881

3233

Lower margin^

>3.0

>*20.3

>•22 3 >*20 8

>*23.1 >1.9 >1.3 5.0(?) >2.3 3.2(?)

2? (or 3?)

>1.2

r

3

>0.9

r

1

>6.9 >2.0 >0.8

TABLE 3.3 - continued r/v+

Style

r

2

POxy

Contents

Date

0689

Hesiod, Asp.

151-250

0692

Apollomus Rhodius, 4

101-200

r

2

0693

Sophocles, El.

201-250

r

2

Column height

Upper margin:):

Lower margin^

>2.2 >1.7 >0.8

0767

Homer,//. 11

101-200

r

1

>2.4

0882

Demosthenes, in Aristog. i

101-200

r

2? (or 3?)

>4.7

1243

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

101-200

vx

2

1249

Babrius

101-200

r

1

2179

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

r

2

2540

Homer, II. 13

51-150

r

2

>3.6

2545

Aristophanes, Eq.

50 BC-AD 50

r

1

>4.4

2549

Demosthenes, Ep. 1

101-200

r

1? (or 2?)

>5.8 2.7(??) >3.0

>1.9

2649

Hesiod, Theog.

101-200

r

1

2691

Apollonius Rhodius, 4

50 BC-AD 50

r

1

>6.0

2696

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-200

r

1

>3.4

2703

Thucydides, 1

151-250

rx

1? (or 2?)

>3 0

2946

Triphiodorus

201-400

rx

2? (or 3?)

>2 0

3231

Hesiod, Erga

151-225

r

2

>3.2

3234+

Thucydides, 1

51-150

E

3

>1.5 >1.1

3377

Herodotus, 2

101-150

E

1? (or 2?)

3448

Thucydides, 1

151-300

r

2

3547

Theocritus

101-200

r

3

3549

Theocritus

101-200

"

2

5.3(??)

>3.3 >3.5 >4.3

Roll height

TABLE 3.3 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

r/vf

Style

Column height

Upper margin^

3662

Homer,

.5

226-275

vx

3

>0.8

3668

[Plato], Ep. 2

101-200

r

2

>2.2

3670

Plato, Hp. mai.

151-250

r

2

3680

Plato, Tht.

151-200

J

1

3681

Plato, Tht.

151-250

r

2

3684

Plutarch, Lye.

201-300

r

1

151-200

vx

2

>0.8

1-100

vx

1

>1.9

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

3713

Euripides, Phoen.

3844

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

3892

Thucydides, 3

151-200

rx

2

>3.1

3898

Thucydides, 4

101-300

r

2

>1.0

4037

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

101-300

r

1

4043

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

vx

2

>1.9 >0.6 >1.6

4048

Aeschines, in Ctes.

1-100

r

2

4054

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

r

2

4103

Thucydides, 5

51-150

r

1

4108

Thucydides, 7

151-250

rx

2

4110

Thucydides, 8

151-200

r

2

4112

Thucydides, 8

101-200

r

3

Lower margin^

>4.3

>4.0 >1.6 >4.8 5.6(??)

Roll height

T A B L E 3 . 3 - continued

B. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite) Style

Column height

MP

Contents

Date

0088

Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex.

300-251 BC

rx

3

10.0-10.1

0962

Homer, . 18

100-1 BC

r

2? (or 3?)

*10.8?

r/vf

Upper margin^ 1.1(?)

Homer,//. 11

300-251 BC

r

2? (or 3?)

11.5

>1.8

1022

Homer, Od. 1

200-151 BC

rx

3

*11.6/*12.2

>0.8

vx

2? (or 3?)

12.0

>1.9

n/a

1

*14.25

Homer, . 22

1564

X e n o p h o n , Symp.

151-200?

50-1 BC

1.7(?)

Roll height 12.8(?)

>2.2

0879

0995-1

Lower margin^

>2.5 1.6(?) >2.3

>15.8 >*14.0/*14.6 >16.2

2.4

1388

Plato, Phd.

300-201 BC

r

2 •

14.4

2.9

3.9-4.1

21.1-21.2

1566

X e n o p h o n , Vect.

101—200

r

1

14.4

>1.6

>2.2

>18.2

0478

Herodotus, 5

151—200

r

1

>7.5

>*22.0

0337H+D

Hyperides, in Phil. +

100-1 BC

J

2? 2

3.4-3.5

5.2-5.5(?) 3.3-4.0

Demosthenes, Ep. 3

*14.5 14.6—15.3[H] 16.7—17.4[D]

2.9-3.8

0852

Homer, 17. 10

100-1 BC

vx

3

14.8

2.2

0897-2

Homer, II. 12

50-1 BC

r

1

*15.0

>2.5

>1.6

0830

Homer, II. 8

150-51 BC

r

2

**15.1-15.5

1064

Homer, Od. 6

50 BC-AD 25

r

2

*15.3/*20.6

>1.7

>2.8

1233

Hyperides, in Dent., pro Lyc.,pro Eux.

r

1

15.9-16.3

6.3-6.8

7.9-8.4

0980

Homer,

0824-1

Homer, II. 8 .

151-250

0991

Homer, . 22

150-101 BC

0300

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

R.2\,22

1-100 100-1 BC

1-200

[partial column]

23.9(?) 23.8-24.0 31.0

>*19.8/>*25.1 30.5-31.0

r

1

16.0

3.8-4.0

3.8

vx

3

16.2

>2.1

3.6(??)

23.6

r

2? (or 1?)

16.2

>2.5

3,8(??)

>22.5

r

2

16.35

>1.7

2.6{?)

>20.65

>21.9

TABLE 3.3 - continued MP

Contents

Date

0397

Euripides, Hipp.

0632

Homer, II. 2

0337D

Demosthenes: see under

Lower margin^

Roll height

>1.8

2.2(??)

>*20.8

>0.7

Upper marginj

r/vf

Style

Column height

275-226 BC

r

2

*16.45

150-101 BC

r

2

*16.5

>2.2

rx

2

•16.8

0337H+D

0604-1

Homer, II. 1

101-200

1537

Timotheus, Pers.

350-301 BC

r

2? (or 1?)

16.9

>1.4

r

1

0329-2

[Demosthenes], in Mac.

151-250

*17.6

>1.8

0619

Homer, Ii. 1

250-151 BC

r

2

**17.6

>2.1

1150-1

Homer, Od. 23

25 BC-AD 25

r

1

*18.2

>4.6

>2.3

1255

Isocrates, ad Nie.

301-400

r

2

18.4

3.4

3.4

0822

Homer, II. 8

1-100

r

2

**18.7

>1.5

1-100

r

2

•19.0

275-226 BC

r

2

**19.5

0898-1

Homer, II. 12

1395

Plato, Soph.

25.2 >**20.2

>3.1

>**22.6

7.1-7.9

33.2(-*33.5)

1039

Homer, Od. 3

1-100

r

1

20.2

0919

Homer, II 14

151-250

rx

2

*20.4

0998

Homer, // 23 24

100-1 BC

r

?? (+& 1 )

20.7-21.1

2.1-2.5 (1.8-2.5?)

2.2-2.3 (1.8-2.3?)

25.1(—*25.4)

0819

Homer,//. 8

300-251 BC

r

2

-20.7

>1.7

>0.9

>~23.3

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chers.

75-1 BC

r

3

*20.9

2.1

2.1

•25.1

r

1

*20.9

>2.1

r

2

21.0

2.4(?) 4.8(?)

1286

Ly c + * h r+ -, A ex.

1409

Plato, La.

51-150 325-276 BC

0650

Homer, II. 2

101-200

r

1

21.5

0699

Homer, II. 3,4,5

300-251 BC

r

2

**21.5

5.9-6.0

>25.1

2.2(??)

>*22.6

>*23.0 2.5(?) >4.0

25.9(?) >30.3

TABLE 3.3 - continued r/vf

Style

Column height

Upper margin^

Lower margin^

Roll height

200-101 BC

r

m1 2 2 m 3? (2?)

**21.5

>3.5

>2.1

>**27.1

MP

Contents

Date

1056

Homer, Od. 4, 5

1094

Homer, Od. 11

250-151 BC

r

2

**21.5

0894

Homer, 77.12

200-101 BC

r

2

**21.7

>2.7

0979

Homer, Ii. 21

300-201 BC

r

2

*22.2

>3.0

1433

Polybius, 11

151-250

rx

1

*22.3

0298

Demosthenes, Fais. Leg.

101-150

rx

2

**22.3

>3.3

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

r

2

-22.5

>3.6

51-150

r

2? (or 3?)

23.2

>0.9

1387

Plato, Ap,

0486-3

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

vx

2? (or 3?)

1556-2

X e n o p h o n , Hell. 1 , 2 , 4

151-200

vx

3

—24.0

3.0(?) >••24.4 3.1—3.2(?) [3.5-4.0]

1.7(??)

4.3(?) >1.4 3.3(F)

0857

Homer, IL 10

201-250

r

3? (or 2?)

-24.5

>1.6

3.0

0784-1

Homer, IL 6

151-200

vx

3

**25.0

>1 6

1.9(??)

1552

X e n o p h o n , Hell 1

201-250

vx

2

*25.2

0773

Homer, IL 6

150-101 BC

rx

3

*25.4—*29.4

>3.1

>*25.8 >**25.6

>1.6

**24.2

>*28.3

>30.4 >25.5 -29.0(??) >**25.8 >-29.1 >**28.5

5.5 (5.2-5.8)

>*30.7

>2.6

>*31.1-*35,1

0876-2

Homer,//. 11

101-200

vx

2

**25.5

>1.5

>1.0

>**28.1

0883

Homer,//. 11

151-200

r

2

26.9

>2.7

>1.0

>30.6

0417-2

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

vx

2? (or 3?)

*28.2

>2.1

>2.4

>*32.7

0895

Homer, IL 12

201-300

r

2? (or 3?)

>*9.9

>0.6?

0388-1

Euripides, Hec.

51-150

rx

2? (or 3?)

>*10.3

>0.8

1355-1

Pindar, Ol. 9,10

251-300

r

1

>*10.7

0584-1

Homer, IL 1

101-150

vx

3

>*10.8

0624-1

Homer, 77. 2

251-400

vx

3

>*11.3

1427

[Plato], de Just.

201-250

r

2

>*11.8

>3.5

TABLE 3.3 - concluded r/vf

Style

Column height

Upper margin:]:

1-200

rx

2

>12.1

>2.9

Date

MP

Contents

0468

Herodotus, 1

0832

Homer, II. 8

1-100

r

0919-1

Homer, IL 15

100-1 BC

r

2

>15.3 >22.8

2?

(or 1?)

Lower margin^

Roll height

> 2 9?

>*14.0

0660-3

Homer,

.2

101-200

r

2

0113

Appian, Iber.

201-300

r

1

0384-1

Euripides, Bacch.

100 BC-AD 50

r

1? (or 2?)

0400-1

Euripides, IT

101-150

r

1

>2.3

>2.4

>25.2

>2.6 >2.1

0662-01

Homer, IL 2

101-200

r

2

>2.7

0688

Homer, U. 3

250-151 BC

r

2

>1.8

0805-1

Homer, IL 7

300-101 BC

r

2

>0.6?

>1.4 >1.2

1051-1

Homer, Od. 4

1-50

rx

2

1099

Homer, Od. 11

51-150

r

1

1129

Homer, Od. 17,19

275-226 BC

r

2

>1.4

1148-2

Homer, Od. 22

200-101 BC

r

2

>1.4

1156

Homer, Od. 24

101-200

r

2

1265-1

Isocrates, Paneg.

151-250

vx

1

1563-3

Xenophon, Symp.

251-300

r

1

>5.6

>2.3 >1.9 >2.7

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

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

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

Column width

column width

1

**10.8

3.2

5.7

51-200

1

*11.5

-4.5

-6.1

101-200

2

*12.9

-5.6

-8.1

1. Width class I (43 examples) Width class I + height class I (13 examples, 30%) 101-150

3685

Plutarch, Sept. sap.

0226+

Xenophon, Hell 6

4035

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

4047+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

151-200

1

13.2

4.8

>6.3

0704

Isocrates, in Soph.

201-300

2

*13.5

4.6

-6.7

2404+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

1

13.6

4.7

~7.2(?)

4041

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

1

14.7

5.1

7.7

3327

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

*14.8

*4.7

*7.4

2749

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

*14.8

5.4

7.6

*15.1

4.75

6.75 7.1

1808

Plato, Resp. 8

151-200

1? (or 2?)

2102+

Plato, Phdr.

151-200

2

15.1

4.85

0026

Demosthenes, Exor.

101-200

1? (or 2?)

*15.5

5.45

0463

Xenophon,H# . 6

151-250

2

*16.0

5.1

*7.1

1

-16.25

5.5

7.8

7.85

Width class I + height class II (22 examples, 51®/e) 1183

Isocrates, 7r.

51-100

2101

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

1

16.2

5.6

7.6

TABLE 3.3 - concluded Style

POxy

Contents

Date

4107

Thucydides, 7

101-200

1

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

2

Column height **16.4(??)

Column width

Column-tocolumn wi

4.9

6.5

-16.6

-4.4

**6.4

-5.1

0881r

Plato, Euthd.

151-250

1

*16.6

0881V

Plato, Ly,

201-250

3

**16.6(?)

*6.65

0227

Xenophon, Oec.

51-150

1

-16.7

4.7

7.1

3326

Plato, Resp. 8

101-200

1

16.9

4.9

7.0

2550

Lycurgus, in Leo.

101-200?

2

* 17.3

4.8

*7.1

1809

Plato, Phd.

51-150

2? (or 1?)

*17.3

4.9

7.0

2? (or 1?)

**17.3

4.9

7.2

5.1

3672

Plato, Leg. 6

201-300

2098

Herodotus, 7

151-250

1

*18.0

5.7

8.0

3451

Thucydides, 8

51-150

1

**18.1

**5.7

**7.2

4030

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-200

3

-18.4

5.5-*6.3

6.8—*7.

4055

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300?

1

*18.4

5.6

2100+

Thucydides, 4-5,8

126-175

2

. 18.5

5.5

7.0

3676

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

**19.0

4.5

-6.5

>7.4

3436

Dinarchus, Dem.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

19.3

5.0

-7.0

4045+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2

19.4

5.0

6.3

4033+

Aeschines, in Tim.

151-300

2

*19.4

*5.4

*7.5

3437

Dinarchus, Phil.

151-250

2? (or 1?)

-19.5

5.0

7.1

3675

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

1

**20.1

-5.2

-6.8

3842

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101—200

2

**20.9

*5.5

*7.0

TABLE 3.4 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

2

*22.25

4.95

-6.45

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

Herodotus, 1

201-300

0016+

Thucydides, 4

3376

Herodotus, 1-2

101-200

1-100

2

23.1

5.15

6.35

1? (or 2?)

23.5

5.5

7.45

**23.85

2099

Herodotus, 8

101-150

1

3382

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

*24.25(?)

4.8

*6.3

*5.4

*7.4

0703

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

2

**25.2

-5.5

-7.15

4111

Thucydides, 8

101-200

2? (or 3?)

**25.9

*5.6(?)

*7,5(?)

0454+

Plato, Grg.

151-200

2? (or 1?)

27.0

5.7

6.7

*7.1

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

2

*16.9

*5.9

Plato, Pit.

101-200

1

*19.0

5.8

8.3

4044

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200?

3

**24.8

5.9

8.1

3836

Achilles Tatius, 3

101-200

2

*25.9

5.8

-7.5

4042

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

2

**26.2

-5.8-5.9

*7.2

3879

Thucydides, 1

101-150

2

**26.5

5.8

7.8

0233

Demosthenes, in Tim.

201-300

2

**28.4

-5.8

-7.3

••12.9

7.0

9.6

14.6

6.5

8.1

0225

Thucydides, 2

2468

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

Thucydides, 3

200-300

1

3435

Demosthenes, Olynth, i

101-200

2? (or 1?)

TABLE 3.4 - continued

POxy

Contents

to +

Date

Style

Column height

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

2

16.1

6.5

8.8

Width class II X height class II (17 examples, 45%) 0228

Plato, La.

101-200

2096+

Herodotus, 1

151-200

1

16.8

3837

Achilles Tatius, 8

201-300

2

*16.9/*17.3

4028

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

3

3900

Thucydides, 4

201-300

2

2 7 5 1

Plato, Resp. 3

151-250

3 6 7 3

Plato, Leg. 6

1 2 5 0

1810

1

$ CT " 3

8.0

l-t

*7.0

*8.7

( +

* 6 . 5

*7.9

* 1 7 . 8 5

-6.3

*8.3

2

*18.2

-6.3

-8.8

151-250

2

* 1 8 . 3

6.1

7.6

Achilles Tatius, 2

301-350

2

1 8 . 7

6.8

8.7

Demosthenes, Olynth, i—iii »

101-150

1

* 1 9 . 4

6.2

8 . 3

151-200

1

*19.7

6 . 7

* * 1 7 . 2

6.45

o

Phil, i, de Pac.

3156+

Plato, Grg.

4039

Aeschines, in Ctes.

51-150

3

* * 1 9 . 8

0460

Demosthenes, de Pac.

151-250

2

* * 2 0 . 1

0698

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

2

*20.1(?)

3447

Strabo, 9

101-150

1

-20.2

*8.2

7 . 4

-6.4

-8.4

*6.8

*8.6(?)

6 . 6

8.8

1619

Herodotus, 3

51-150

2

*20.2

7.1

9.0

3721

Theophrastus, de Vent.

151-200

1

20.9

6.3

-8.0

3679

Plato, Resp. 5

201-300

1? (or 2?)

**20.9

6.9

9.0

Width class II X height class III (19 examples, 50%) 3888

Thucydides, 2

201-300

2

*21.0

7.2

4100

Thucydides, 1

151-250

2? (or 1?)

*21.2

*6.1

-9.5 > * 7 . 4

+^ J6* ft

4 + + TT 3 fci

TABLE 3.3 - continued POxy

Contents

0027

Isocrates , Ant id. Isocrates, Paneg.

Style

Column he ;ht

Column width

51-200

2

**21.8

-6.5

101-150

1

21.9

6.0

Date

Column-tocolumn width

3877

Thucydides 1, 2, 3

101-150

3? (or 2?)

**21.9

**7.5

-8.1 •*9 0

3841

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

2

**22.0

*7.3

*9.0

3375

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

*22.4

*6.0

*7.5

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

151-250

2

+22.8

7.3

*8.9

6.5

-8.5

0844

*22.9

0023

Plato, Leg. 9

201-275

3? (or 2?)

3671

Plato, La.

151-200

2

2095

Herodotus, 1

101-200

2

*23.5

-7 5

-9.45

3383

Herodotus, 8

151-250

2

**23.5

75

*9.5

1017

Plato, Phdr.

151-250

3896

Thucydides, 3

1-100

1 3? (or 2?)

**23.0/**11.3

24.2 *24.7/*24.1

6.1

6.4

8.4

-6.4

-8.0

2097

Herodotus, 1

226-275

2

' *25.1

6.3

-8.0

3901+

Thucydides, 4

151-200

1

*25.2

6.4

8.2 *8.1

3372

Herodotus, 1

51-150

2

*26.4

6.5

1376

Thucydides, 7

151-250

2

26.5

6.0

8.1

0462

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

2

*26.85

*6.15

*7.65

3. Width class III (8 examples) 3444

Isocrates, Ev.

151-250

2

16.2

*7.95

3889

Thucydides, 2

151-250

2

*1B.6

*8.4

*9.7

TABLE 3.3 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

4032

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

Style

Column height

Column width

Column-tocolumn width **9.7

2

**17.8

*8.0

3882+

Thucydides, 1

201-300

2

*18.2

-8.2

-10.0

3850

D e m o s t h e n e s , in Meid.

101-200

1

*19.4

8.6

>10.1

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

2

23.5

8.3

0230

Demosthenes, de Cor.

2

24.2

8.1

176—225

3

*24.55

8.8

1019+

50-1 BC 101-200

Chariton, 2

9.2

4. Aberrantly wide (2 examples) 2181

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

*21.7

*10.1

*11.9

3667

[Plato], AL· ii

201-300

2

*23.25

*10.1

**11.7

Style

Column height

Column width

Column-tocolumn width

M. Comparison sample (Non-Oxyrhynchite) MP

Date

Contents

1. Width class I (3 of 6 examples from height class I) 1564

X e n o p h o n , Symp.

151-200?

1

*14.25

5.5

7.0

1566

X e n o p h o n , Vect.

101-200

1

14.4

4.8

-7.3

Hyperides, in Phil. +

100-1 BC

2? 2

14.6-15.3[H] 16.7-17.4 [D]

4.1 5.8

5.2 7.0

1-100

1

15.9-16.3

4.95

6.95

0337H+D

Demosthenes, Ep. 3 1233

Hyperides, in Dem.,pro pro Eux.

Lyc.,

TABLE 3.4 - concluded MP

Contents

Date

0329-2

[Demosthenes], in Mac.

151-250

Style

Column height

C o l u m n width

*17.6

-4.7

Column-tocolumn width -7.6

0298

Demosthenes, Fais. Leg.

101-150

**22.3

5.6

7.5

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

-22.5

5.5

7.1

*14.5

**6.3

2. Width class II (only one from height class I; 4 of 6 examples in height class III) 0478

Herodotus, 5

0300

Demosthenes, adv. Lepr.

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chers.

1433

Polybius, 11

1387

Plato, Ap.

1552

Xenophon, Hell. 1

151-200

1

**8.2-8.6

1-200

2

6.0

7.3

75-1 BC

3

*20.9

7.2

8.7

151-250

1

*22.3

6.5

[8.2]

51-150

2? (or 3?)

23.2

6.7

8.5

201-250

2

*25.2

7.5

8.8

301-400

2

18.4

*15.9

16.35

3. Aberrantly wide example 1255

Isocrates, ad Nie.

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

Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex.

300-251 BC

3

10.0-10.1

- 6 . 5 (-6.0-7.0)

7.5 (7.1-7.9)

1388

Plato, Phd.

300-201 BC

2

14.4

- 6 . 5 (-5.9—7.1)

7.9

1395

Plato, Soph.

275-226 BC

2

**19.5

-7.0

-8.9

1409

Plato, La.

325-276 BC

2

21.0

-6.5

-8.0

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

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

column width

Column width

>17.85

* 13.35

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

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

1

-12.8

0224+

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

1

*15.4

—18.0 **19.85

* 15.85

—12.0

2226

Callimachus, Hymn

101-150

2

*16.1

2334

Aeschylus, Sept.

151-200

1

*16.85/*17.4

**24.0

*18.15

—22.1

*19.5

0020

Homer, U. 2

101—200

1

17.7

3663

Homer, U. 18

201-300

1

*18.0

21.0

—16.8

2

18.1

20.7

—15.0

0223 +

Homer, II. 5

201-250

(The following are also oblong, as we can tell from the column width) *14.2

3839

Aristophanes, Thesm.

101-300

1

13.8

3229

Hesiod, Erga

126-200

1

14.2

*24.5 *15.4

3325

Moschus, Megara [sp]

0021

Homer, II. 2

51-150

1

*14.9

1-200

1

15.8

*12.5

*12.8 *12.8

+18.55

(The following are possibly oblong, considering the column width) Hesiod, Theog.

126-175

1

2748

Homer, II. 16

101-200

1

14.9

3227

Hesiod, Erga

151-250

1

*17.5

2090

*16.15

TABLE 3.5 - concluded POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

Column-tocolumn width

Column width

+9.0

2. Roughly square (within 1-2 cm) 2180

Sophocles, OT

101-200

1

11.0

+11.0

3828

Homer, Od. 22

51-150

3

11.5

+11.0

+9.3

50-1 BC

1

++12.25

+10.6

+8.7

2336

Euripides, Hel

3324

Meleager

50 BC-AD 50

3

2093

Sophocles, Aj.

151-250

2

2064+

Theocritus

151-200

0687

Homer, U. 3

50-1 BC

12.5(?) +12.8

++13.75

+11.75

+13.4

+10.6

2

14.5

+15.3

+10.5

2? (or 1?)

+15.75

++16.8

++14.3

15.8

+11.4

3. Width to height is roughly 3:4 1819

Homer, Od, 10-12

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

101-200

1805+

Sophocles, Track

151-200

1815

Homer, Ii. 1

201-300

2546

Manetho Astral., Apot. 4

201-300?

50-1 BC

+8.65 —10.5

16.2

12.9

++19.0

++13.8

+10.05

++16.1

+13.3

-17.1

-13.15

+20.85 -22.0

4. Roughly 2:3 2337

Euripides, Med.

51-100

2? (or 1?)

+14.9

+10.1

+6.8

2335

Euripides, A ndr.

151-200

3

15.7

++10.05

++7.8

3716

Euripides, Or.

150-51 BC

3? (or 2?)

+18.35/+20.15

+12.6

+9.9

TABLE 3.5 - continued Date

Style

Column height

Column-tocolumn width

Column width

1

+19.1

++12.9

+9.9

1

+20.9

+12.8 or ++14.8

2

+21.1

13.0

2

+21.5

++13.3

+11.8

1? (or 2?)

+23.5

++15.2

—12.0

24.1

16.8

—13.0

24.2

++17.2

+13.7

POxy

Contents

3154

Homer,

2224+

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

2225

Callimachus, Hymn

126-175

3443

Homer, Od. 17

201-300

3442

Homer, Od. 11

101-150

2091

Hesiod, Erga

201-250

2

3323

Homer, IL 15-16

151—250

1

.6

51-100

+9.8 —10.0

5. Closer to 1:2 2092

Pmdar, Ol. 2

151-200

2

2695

Apollomus Rhodius, 1

151-250

3

+21,6 +23.6/+27.3

+9.4

+5.9

+ +12.5(?)

+10.45

0445

Homer, IL 6

101-250

2? (or 1?)

24.4

11.7

3223

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

3

+24.4

+13.1 ++12.0

3719

Euripides, IA

201-300

2

++26.0(?)

3155

Homer. 8. 15

151-250

2

+26.4

3322

Euripides, Phoen.

51-150

3

+27.2

+13.35 ++15.6

—8.25 —8.6 ++9.0 —10.0 +11.6

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

MP

Contents

Date

Style

Column height

Column-toColumn width

Column width

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

Homer, II. 18

100-1 BC

2? (or 3?)

*10.8?

++15.9

*15.3

0879

Homer,//. 11

300-251 BC

2? (or 3?)

11.5

**13.15

**11.8

1064

Homer, Od. 6

50 BC-AD 25

1537

Timotheus, Pers.

350-301 BC

0650

Homer, II. 2

101-200

2

*15.3/*20.6

S17.0

—12.0

2? (or 1?)

16.9

23.1

—20.5

1

21.5

**26.7

*22.2

(The following are also probably oblong, as we can tell from the c o l u m n width) 1022

Homer, Od. 1

200-151 BC

0995-1

Homer, It. 22

50-1 BC

2? (or 3?)

+11.6/+12.2

+13.9

12.0

*11.7

2. R o u g h l y square (within 1-2 cm) 0830

Homer, Zf. 8

150-51 BC

0980

Homer, W 21,22

100-1 BC

0632

Homer, U. 2

150-101 BC

++14.0

**11,5

16.0

17.5

—15.0

*16.5

**15.3

+13.3

+15.0

**11.0

—9.5

16.2

**12.7

+11.6

**15.1—15.5

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

Homer, II. 12

50-1 BC

1

0991

Homer, It. 22

150-101 BC

2? (or 1?)

TABLE 3.5 - concluded Style

Column height

Column-toColumn width

Column width

101-200

2

+16.8

++14.4

+12.3

250-151 BC

2

++17.6

++13.6

+11.9

2

++18.7

++15.5

+13.0

1

20.2

-17.2

—12.0

2

+16.45

+10.8

+9.5

MP

Contents

Date

0604-1

Homer, IL 1

0619

Homer, IL 1

0822

Homer, IL 8

1-100

1039

Homer, Od. 3

1-100

4. Roughly 2:3 275-226 BC

0397

Euripides, Hipp.

0998

Homer,

. 23,24

100-1 BC

0699

Homer,

. 3,4,5

300-251 BC

0857

Homer, J7.10

14.3

—11.5

2

++21.5

++13.0

++12.0

201-250

3? (or 2?)

-24.5

-15.3

—13.0

Homer, IL 14

151-250

2

+20.4

10.2

—8.2

0819

Homer, IL 8

300-251 BC

2

—20.7

+12.3

+11.0

1056

Homer, Od. 4,5

200-101 BC

2/3?

++21.5

+12.3

+10.5

2? (or 1?)

20.7-21.1

5. Closer to 1:2 0919

1094

Homer, Od. 11

250-151 BC

2

++21.5

[++9.8]

[++8.6]

0894

Homer, IL 12

200-101 BC

2

++21.7

++11.1

++9.4

0979

Homer, W 21

300-201 BC

2

0773

Homer, H. 6

150-101 BC

3

0417-2

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

2? (or 3?)

+22.2 +25.4-+29.4 +28.2

-12.5

—10.5

++14.3

++12.8

++11.1

+7 7

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

POxy

Contents

Date

Style

r/v

2335

Euripides, Amir.

4035

Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

151-200

3

vx

101-200

2

r

1-200

0021

Homer, II 2

3435

Demosthenes, Olynth, i

101-200

1808

Plato, Resp. 8

151-200

3444

Isocrates, Ev.

151-250

Column height 15 J

Upper margin 1.0(?)

+12.9

1

J

15.8

1.50?)

2?

r

14.6

3.5

1?

r

*15.1

4.0«

2

r

16.2

3.2 (?) >3.4

Lower margin

Estimated roll height

Col./roll height

1.2(?)

17.9

88%

4.0(?)

19.4-22.4

58-66%

19.8-22.3

71-80%

20.1-23.1

63-73%

21.6-24.6

61-70%

21.1

77%

5.0

22.1-25.1

54-62%

3.8

22.8

71%

22.9-24.7

67-72%

2.5(?) >1.2 L7(?)

2404+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101—200

1

r

13.6

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

50-1 BC

1

r

16.2

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

2

r

-16.6

3.0(??)

1809

Plato, Phd.

51-150

2?

r

+ 17.3

4.0(?)

23.8-26,8

65—73%

3673

Plato, Leg. 6

151-250

2

rx

+18.3

3.5(?)

23.8-26.8

68-77%

1250

Achilles Tatius, 2

301-350

2

r

18.7

3.0(?)

24.4-26.2

71-77%

0027

Isocrates, Antid.

51-200

2

r

**21.8

25.0-27.7

79-87%

2.8(?)

3.3(?)

2.7(??)

2.2

2102+

Plato, Phdr.

151-200

2

r

15.1

5.3

4.8

25.2

60%

2101

Xenophon, Cyr. 1

201-250

1

r

16.2

3.9

5.3

25.4

64%

3882+

Thucydides, 1

201-300

2

r

+18.2

3.1 (?)

4.2(??)

25.5-25.9

70-71%

3663

Homer,

201-300

1

r

+18.0

3.5

4.1«

25.6

70%

2224+

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

1

r

+20.9

3.1 (?)

25.6-28.6

73-82%

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

201-250

1

r

-18.4/20.6

>3.5/1.3

4.0(?)

25.9-30.1

61-71%

0223+

Homer, +. 5

201-250

2

vx

18.1

4.25

26.0

70%

18

3.6

TABLE3.228- concluded POxy

Contents

Date

Style

r/v

Column height

Upper margin 5.2(?) 4.9

1819

Homer, Od. 10-12

101-200

2

r

15.8

3326

Plato, Resp. 8

101-200

1

rx

16.9

0232

Demosthenes, in Tim.

151-250

2

rx

+22.8

1183

Isocrates, Tr.

51-100

1

r

-16.25

3437

Dinarchus, Phil.

151-250

2?

r

-19,5

0228

Plato, La.

101-200

2

r

16.1

Lower margin

Estimated roll height

Col./roll height

>5.0

26.0-27.7

57-61%

>4.9

26.7-28.2

60-63%

26.7-29.7

77-85%

2.7(?) 5.1(?)

5.8(?)

3.5(?)

4.3

27.3(?)

6.5

27.6-30.6

S3.2

0020

Homer, 11 2

101-200

1

rx

17.7

4.4(?)

2333

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

1

r

-12.8

6.5(?)

5.8(?) >8.6

27.2(?)

60% 71% 53-58%

27.9

63%

>27.9

<46%

2100+

Thucydides, 4-5, 8

126-175

2

r

18.5

3.9(?)

5.6(?)

28.0

66%

2181

Plato, Phd.

151-200

2

J

+21.7

3.0(??)

3.6(?)

28.3-30.4

71-77%

1806

Theocritus

51-100

1

J

+19.4

4.5(?)

4.5(??)

28.4-29.9

65-68%

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

50-1 BC

2

rx

23.5

2.5(?)

2.5(??)

28.5-30.0

78-82%

2098

Herodotus, 7

151-250

1

rx

+18.0

3721

Theophrastus, de Vent.

151-200

1

r

20.9

2096+

Herodotus, 1

151-200

1

J

16.8

0227

Xenophon, Oec. 8-9

51-150

1

r

-16,7

0445

Homer, II. 6

101-250

2?

r

24.4

2225

Callimachus, Hymn

126-175

2

vx

+21.1

4107

Thucydides, 7

101-200

1

r

3322

Euripides, Phoen.

51-150

3

vx

6.0 5.3(?) >6.1 7.5(?) 3.0®

2.9(?) 4.35(?)

Isocrates, Paneg.

101-150

1

r

21.9

Manetho Astrol.,Apot. 4

201-300?

2

rx

-22.0

3.0 8.1«

+27.2

0844

7.2(?) >2.3 5.5(?)

+*16.4(??)

2546

>2.0

3.4(?)

28.5-31.5

57-63%

30.0-33.0

63-70%

30.1-32.7

51-56%

30.2-33.2

50-55%

30.4

80%

30.6-33.6

63-69%

31.1-34.1

48-53%

31.5-34.5

79-86%

5.5

31.8

69%

>6.4

>31.8

<69%

TABLE 3.6 - continued Style

r/v

Column height

Upper margin

Lower margin

Estimated roll height

Col./roll height

151-250

2

r

26.5

>2.7

3.1(?)

32.3-34.2

77-82%

>5.8

7.0(?)

33.0-35.7

57-61%

33.1-36.1

70-76%

POxy

Contents

Date

1376

Thucydides, 7

3447

Strabo, 9

101-150

1

r

-20.2

3901+

Thucydides, 4

151-200

1

r

+25.2

2097

Herodotus, 1

226-275

2

r

+25.1

5.0(?)

33.6-36.6

69-75%

2

r

++26.5

4.1«

36.2-39.2

68-73%

Style

r/v

Column height

Lower margin

Estimated roll height

Col./roll height

1

n/a

+14.25

2.4

17.6-20.6

69-81%

2

r

16.35

2.6(?)

20.7-23.0

71-79%

3879

Thucydides, 1

101-150

4.7f?)

B. Comparison sample, 21 examples MP

Contents

Date

Upper margin

1. Roman era 1564

X enophon, Symp.

0300

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

151-200? 1-200

>1.7

1255

Isocrates, ad Nie.

301-400

2

r

18.4

3.4

3.4

25.2

73%

0857

Homer,//. 10

201-250

3?

r

-24.5

>1.6

3.0

29.1-32.0

77-84%

0486-3

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

2?

vx

-24.0

1.7(??)

0650

Homer, IL 2

101-200

1

r

21.5

4.8(?)

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

2

r

-22.5

1-100

1

r

16.1

1-100

1

r

20.2

201-250

2

vx

+25.2

1233

Hyperides, in Dem.,

29.1-32.1

75-82%

30.3-32.6

66-71%

4.3(?)

30.4-32.6

69-74%

6.3-6.8

7.9-8.4

30.5-31.0

52-53%

5.9-6.0

7.1-7.9

33.2

61%

5.5

34.7-37.7

67-73%

>3.6

3.3(?) >4.0

pro Lyc.f pro Eux.

1039

Homer, Od. 3

1552

Xenophon, Hell 1

TABLE 3.6 - concluded MP

ÎS

Contents

Style

r/v

Column height

Upper margin

Lower margin

300-251 BC

3

rx

10.05

1.1(?)

Date

Estimated roll height

Col./roll height

1.7(?)

12.8

79%

14.2-16.5

72-83%

21.2

68%

2. Ptolemaic era 0088

A n a x m i e n e s , Rhet.

Alex.

1022

Homer, Od. 1

200-151 BC

3

rx

+ 11.8

>0.8

1.6(?)

1388

Plato, Phd.

300-201 BC

2

r

14.4

2.9

3.9—4.1

0980

Homer,//. 21,22

100-1 BC

1

r

16.0

3.8-4.0

3.8

23.6

68%

0337H

Hyperides, in Phil.

100-1 BC

2?

r

15.0

3.5

5.4(?)

23.9

63%

2

r

17.0

3.3

3.6

23.9

71%

75-1 BC

3

r

+20.9

2.1

2.1

25.1

83%

0337D

+ Demosthenes, Ep. 3

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chers.

0998

Homer,

100-1 BC

2?

r

20.9

2.1-2.5

2.2-2.3

25.1

83%

1409

Plato, La.

325-276 BC

2

r

21.0

2-4(2)

2.5(?)

25.9

81%

1094

Homer, Od. 11

250-151 BC

2

r

**21,5

3.0(?)

26.0-29.0

74—83%

0979

Homer, IL 21

300-201 BC

2

r

+22.2

3.1-3.2(?)

28.3-29.9

74—78%

. 23, 24

>3.0

^ S g

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

POxy

Contents

Date

Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

Estimated ro length (m)

0460

Demosthenes, de Pac

151—250

2

32 (or 33?)

546

1

14

1.2

3435

Demosthenes, Olynth, i

101-200

2?

28 (27-8?)

593 (589-97)

3

16

1.3

0445

Homer, ÏÎ. 6

101-250

2?

44.7 (43-7)

3

12

1.4

0704

Isocrates, in Soph.

201-300

2

27

1

3155

Homer, il 15

151-250

2

63.5 (63-4)

1

21(+> 12

1

367

16

1.4 (+) 1.6 1.75

51-150

3

33

101-175

2

[44—6 or 48-51(?)]

Hesiod, Erga

101-150

3

56.8 (56-7)

4

15

2.0

Homer, Od. 11

101-150

1?

42 [41-2]

1

16

2.4

2546

Manetho Astrol., Apot. 4

201-300?

2

43 (42-6)

2

15

2.6

3836

Achilles Tatius, 3

101-200

2

47 (47-8)

774 (730-818)

2

35

2.6

3667

[Plato], Ale. ii

201-300

2

33.5 (33-4)

851 (839-62)

2

24

2.8

0687

Homer,

2?

25

1

17

2.9

3837

Achilles Tatius, 8

201-300

2

38—9

925

1

33

2.9

1183

Isocrates, Tr.

51-100

1

29

474 (467-83)

3

39

3.0

1250

Achilles Tatius, 2

301-350

2

41.3 (41-2)

914 (895-936)

3

38

3.3

382B

Homer, Od. 22

2094+

Lycophron, Alex.

3223 3442

.3

50-1 BC

[30/33]

[2.7-3.0]

TABLE 3.7 — continued

oo Estimated cols, /roll

Estimated roll length (m)

Style

151-200

3

38 (37-9)

2

33

3.3

Hesiod, Erga

201-250

2

42.5 (42-3)

2

20

3.4

3719

Euripides, IA

201-300

2

51(?)

1

31(?)

1815

Homer, Ii. 1

201-300

3

25.5 (25-6)

2

24

3.9

-'

3679

Plato, Resp. 5

201-300

1?

45 (42-7?)

1

44?

4.0 (?)

"--

1805+

Sophocles, Track.

151-200

2

44

1

30

4.1

3663

Homer, It. 18

201-300

1

32.2 (32-4?)

13

19-20

4.1

0233

Demosthenes, in Tim.

201-300

2

58

1286

1

58

4.2

3721

Theophrastus, de Vent.

151-200

1

31

513 (505-19)

3

52

4.2

3841

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

101-200

2

1

48

4.3

Euripides, Hipp.

101-200

1

46 44 [44—6]

1182

2224+

1

33-4

4.3/5.0

1819

Homer, Od. 10-12

101-200

2

40

1

(43)

(4.9)

15

1.7 (Od. 10)

16

1.8 (Od. 11)

Contents

Date

2335

Euripides, Andr.

2091

151-200

2

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Lines/ column

1105

3.7 (?)

12

1.4 (Od. 12)

[72-94]

[5.3-8,4?]

1

52-3

5.3 (excerpt?)

37-38 {PHarr)

514

1

34(?) (POxy)

714(?)

1

3666+

Plato, AL·, i

2337

Euripides, Med.

51-100

2?

2223

Euripides, Bacch.

50-1 BC

1

33

2

41-3

5.4

3675

Plato, Leg. 9

126-175

1

34 (33?)

599

1

83

5.6

0228

Plato, La.

101-200

2

32

557 (542-77)

4

66

5.7

27

3

iL

8 tr 2

)

*

»

4 3

TABLE 3.7 -

3323

151

47

151-250

(50)

1179

64

(2)

(33)

(5.7)

15

2.6 (8. 15) 3.1 (II. 16)

2 151-200

2

5.7

1

26

(53-7) 3?

41

725 (722-7) 636

1

49(?)

1035(?)

1

6.1 (?)

651 (643-58)

2

6.2

692

1

35 (34-36) 3673 3322

51-150

43

1

41

101—150

28 (27?)

361

1

127

151-250

28 (27-9)

370 (350-81)

8

96

26 [25-6] 1-100

101-150 i—iii» Phil, i, de Pac.

92

50.3 (48-53?)

(1049-1158)

35 (33-7)

679 (639-733)

31.7 (30-3)

663 (627-717) [661]

32

679

6.1

1[3]

51-6

6.8-7.5

9

108

6.9 6.9-8.1 (7.0)

23 [62] 14

1.2 (OL i)

16

1.3 (OL ii)

32

697

17

1.4 (Ol. iii)

31.8 (31-3)

662

26

2.2 (Pk i)

32

675

11

0.9 (Pax)

35.8 (35-6)

646 (634-66)

93

7.1

56/51

7.1/6.4

75-7

7.2

2

110

7.2

39.1 (37-41)

19

91

7.4

• (47-53)

19

91

7.4

31.3 (30-2)

3716

150-51 BC 1 2

31 (or 34?)

7.2

47 (1086-1134)

2 1 151-250 51-150

2

2

2?

1?

151-3

7.4

5

111

1

87?

7.5

(351-80)

2

37?

3

36

7.5 (?)

8[1]

7.6 [7.4]

2

3[1]

7 J [7.9]

1

4

7.7

723 [748]

TABUE 3.7 - continued Estimated cols./roll

Estimated roll length (m)

1

32/34

7.7/8.2

18

38-9

8.0

10

119

8.0

2

131-2

8.3 (4045)

707

1

140—1

8.9 (4053)

512 (495-536)

3

94-6

8.4

25.5 (25-6)

453 (438-74)

6

108

8.5

2

40.6 (39-41)

960 (923-1013)

10

133

8.5

1

20 (19-20?)

12

77

8.5

Style

lines/ column

1

31-2

Letters/ column

Contents

Date

Aeschylus, Sept.

151-200

0223+

Homer, II. 5

201-250

2

24.3 (22-6)

0454+

Plato, Grg.

151-200

2?

48.3 (46-51)

861 (766-989)

4045+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-300

2

45-47?

756

39 (40?) 2751

Plato, Resp. 3

151-250

2

27.3 (27-8)

0026

Demosthenes, Exor.

101-200

1?

1092

Herodotus, 2

51-150

2180

Sophocles, OT

101-200

2334

Columns extant

3896

Thucydides, 3

3?

46 (45?)

893

1

110

8.8

0703

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

2

45

779

1

127-8

9.1

4042

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200

2

45

773

1

128

9.2

3326

Plato, Resp. 8

101-200

1

26

305 (290-313)

3

134

9.4

4032

Aeschines, in Tim.

101-200

2

30

703

1

99

9.6

2099

Herodotus, 8

101-150

1

41

525

1

160

10.1

2100+

Thucydides, 4 - 5 ,8

126-175

2

1-100

33

737

1

158

10.9 (bk 4)

33 (32-4)

654

4

133

9.2 (bk 5)

38 (37-9)

839

5

120

8.3 (bk 8)

to to to

T A B L E 3.7 - continued

Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

Estimated roll length (m)

*n +

51-150

2

55

1175

1

128

10.4

1

Thucydides, 8

101-200

2?

45

718

1

140

10.5

Herodotus, 3

51-150

2

40.3 (39—41; perhaps 39-40)

951 (911-64)

6

120

10.8

495

Date

POxy

Contents

3372

Herodotus, 1

4111 1619

4035

Aeschines, Pals. Lsg.

101-200

2

25

0224+

Euripides,

201-300

1

29.5 (29-30)

3889

Thucydides, 2

151-250

2

29 (30?)

1017

Piato, Phdr.

151-250

1

33.1 (31 (?) 35)

2095

Herodotus, 1

101-200

2

48

0462

Demosthenes, de Cor.

201-300

2

3376

Herodotus, 1-2

101-200

3901+

Thucydides, 4

3373

.

1

134

10.9

2

61

11.0

860

1

113-4

11.0

617 (568 -672) [606]

14 [21]

133-4

11.2

1269

1

118-19

11.2 (excerpt?)

46

764 [754]

153

11.7

1?

45.3 (44-7)

812 (759-881) [781]

& [13] 12 [19]

157 [163]

11.8 (bk 2) [12.1]

151-200

1

39.5 (39-40)

796 (785-806)

2

146

12.0

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

45

787

1

191

12.3

2550

Lycurgus, in Leo.

101-200?

2

28

331

1

173

12.3 (exercise?)

2468

Plato, Pol.

101-200

1

34

572 (554-84)

3

152

12.5

3672

Plato, Leg. 6

201-300

2?

28.5 (28-9)

319 (314-24)

2

175-6

12.6

Phoen.

6prJ 2 S H

M-

4 ++ ("J* 3 fcs

TABLE 3.7 - concluded Estimated ro length (m)

Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

101-200

2

35.7 (35-6)

815 (785-830)

3

143

13.2

Strabo, 9

101-150

1

34.0 (33-6)

610 (582-640)

10

151-3

13.4

4044

Aeschines, in Ctes.

101-200?

3

32 (31?)

558

1

177

14,3

2102+

Plato, Phdr.

151-200

2

28.75 (28-9)

401 (375-427)

8

201

14.4

0225

Thucydides, 2

26-100

2

26

463

1

210-12

15.0

3879

Thucydides, 1

101-150

2

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

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

2 [5?]

197 [185?]

15.5 [14.4?]

2749

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

29.5 (29-31)

469 (456-93)

4

209

15.9

0227

Xenophon, Oec.

51-150

1

30

389 (383-96)

5

225(?)

16.0 (?)

3882+

Thucydides, 1

201-300

2

29

734 (727-39)

3

164

16.4

3888

Thucydides, 2

201—300

2

35 (34?)

552

1

176

16.7

3451

Thucydides, 8

51—150

1

[29] (>26)

[410]

[19]

[245]

17.6

3900

Thucydides, 4

201-300

2

33.25 (32-5)

534

4

216-18

17.9-18.1

2404+

Aeschines, iti Ctes.

101-200

1

28

373 (368-77)

2

267

19.2

2097

Herodotus, 1

226-275

2

37

634

1

237

19.3

3375

Herodotus, 1

201-300

2

35

551

1

272

20.4

4041

Aeschines, in Ctes.

201-300

1

31.3 (30-2)

364 [359]

17 [3]

271 [275]

20.9 [21.2]

POxy

Contents

Date

0230

Demosthenes, de Cor.

3447

to to

TABLE 3.7 - continued

Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

Estimated roll length (m)

151-200

1

30.6 (29-32)

510 (478-547)

10

290

22.9

Plato, Grg.

151-200

1

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

371? (362-79)

2

322? (302-22?)

3327

Thucydides, 2

151-250

1

27

264

1

371

3895

Thucydides, 3

200-300

1

22

323

1

300

28.8

2098

Herodotus, 7

151-250

1

29.1 (29-30)

376 (362-402)

10

371

29.1

2333

Aeschylus, Sept.

101-200

1

18

2

60-1

>10.8

3229

Hesiod, Erga

126-200

1

18

1

46

0021

Homer, II. 2

1-200

1

20

1

44

2697

Apollonius Rhodius, 2

201-250

4047+

Aeschines, in Ctes.

151-200

1

24

POxy

Contents

Date

2096+

Herodotus, 1

3156+

23 261

1

56 378

>23.8 >7.1

3839

Aristophanes, Thesm.

101-300

1

25

1

' 50

Moschus, Megara [sp]

51-150

1

25

1

?

0226+

Xenophon, Hell.

51-200

1

25 (25-6?)

2

169-70

2226

Callimachus, Hymn

101-150

2

25.5 (25-6)

2

?

25.6 (25-8)

19

?

2064+

Theocritus

151-200

2

2829

Menander, Epit.

251-350

3

25.7 (25-6)

3

34-8

2090

Hesiod, Theog.

126-175

1

26 (25-7?)

2

40

3550

Theocritus

101-200

1

26 or 37-9 or >42

2

27

1

241

1377

Demosthenes, de Cor.

50-1 BC

483

27.5

1

3325

333 (329-37)

26.4 (?) (24.7-26.4?)

•71 S >- f S er »} + .

% S £·

tu +0 pr a0 E=i

TABLE 3.3 - continued Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

Estimated roll length (m)

201-300?

1

28

448

16

224

>16.6

Aeschines, in Ctes.

51-150

3

29

542 [524]

5[1]

184 [190]

>13.6 [14.4]

Theocritus

51-100

1

30.5 (30-1)

2

"?

101-150

3?

30.5 (30-1)

4

excerpts?

POxy

Contents

Date

4055

Aeschines, in Ctes,

4039 1806 3877

Thucydides, 1,2,3

2748

Homer, IÎ. 16

3233

Isocrates, Antid.

3227

Hesiod, Erga

101-200

1

32

51-150

1

32 or > 4 3

151-250

1

34

667 (647-709)

[179]

[16.1] (bk 1)

[146]

[13.1] (bk 2)

[145]

[13.0] (bk 3)

1

27

1

24

3444

Isocrates, Eu.

151-250

2

34

1

28

1177+

Euripides, Phoen.

50 BC-AD 50

3

34-6

1

33-6

916

2643

Hesiod, Theog.

101-300

2?

35

1

30

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3

201-250

1

35 or 39

1

35/39

3850

Demosthenes, in Meid.

101-200

1

35.3 (35-6)

3

101/107

2225

Callimachus, Hymn

126—175

2

35.6 (35-6)

4100

Thucydides, 1

151-250

2?

37

3443

Homer, Od. 17

201-300

2

3440

Homer,!?. 16

151-250

2

2092

Pindar, Ol 2

151-200

31.54

Homer, IÎ. 6

51-100

745 (728-66) 620

7

?

1

195

38.5 (39-40)

2

16

41 [40-1]

1

21-2

2

42 (41-3)

2

?

1

43 (42-4?)

2

12-13

.

>10.2/>10.8

>14.4

TABLE 3.7 - continued POxy

Contents

Date

3220

Hesiod, Erga &Aspi$

101-200

Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

2 [6]

21 (Erga)

1

Estimated roll length (m)

(34) 39 [38-9]

13 (Aspis)

1091

Bacchylides, Dith.

0027

Isocrates, Antid.

126-175

3

[45?]

51-200

2

46

[3/4] 1042

1

96

2641

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

3

47

1

22

2639+

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

3

49

2

21-22

1019+

Chariton, 2

176-225

3

50

1154 (1133-72)

3

20

3671

Plato, La.

151-200

2

51-2 or 25-6

963/482

1/2

38/76

3827

Homer, H. 11

101-200

1

52(?)

1

17

2638

Hesiod, Theog.

201-300

2

[22-3 or 45]

[1/2]

[45-7/23]

3226

Hesiod, Erga

101-250

1?

[25 or 33 or 50]

[4/3/2]

[33/25/17]

>2.2

0875+

Sophocles, Ant.

101-150

2

[27 or 15-16]

[9/16]

3825

Homer,

.1

101-150

2?

[30 or 60]

[3/2]

[21/11]

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1

151-250

3

[45 or 51(?)]

[1]

[31/27]

Style

Lines/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

Estimated roll length (m)

B. Comparison sample MP

Contents

Date

0894

Homer,

0897-2

Homer, II. 12

. 12

Letters/ column

200-101 BC

2

45.4

7

11

1.2

50-1 BC

1

38.5 (38-9)

2

13

1.4

TABLE 3.3 - continued MP

Contents

Date

0919

Homer,//. 14

151-250

0265-1

Demosthenes, de Chers.

1148-2

Homer, Od. 22

0773 0857 0819

0830 1552

Style

Lines/ column

2

35.5 (35-6)

Letters/ column

Estimated cols./roll

Estimated roll length (m)

5

14-16

1.4-1.6

1

[20]

[1.8] (excerpts?)

1

17

2.2

75-1 BC

3

42

200-101 BC

2

31

Homer, It. 6

150-101 BC

3

32.2 (30-6)

5

16

2.3

Homer, IÎ. 10

201-250

3?

39 (36-41)

11

15

2.3

Homer, It. 8

300-251 BC

2

30/33.5

19-23

2.3-2.9 if bk 8 only

(36-42)

(4.4-5.2 if bk 7+8)

1

17

2.4

16

27

2.4

Homer, II 8 X e n o p h o n Hell 1

.1

1121

Columns extant

5?

2

34

2

42.8 (40-3)

101-200

2

35.5 (33-6)

5

17

2.5

1-100

2

34

1

17

2.6

150-51 BC 201-250

794

0604-1

Homer,

0822

Homer, It. 8

1094

Homer, Od. 11

250-151 BC

2

44 (22 verses)

1

26

2.6 (excerpts?)

0991

Homer, It. 22

150-101 BC

2?

25 (25-5)

6

21

2.7

0417-2

Euripides, Phoen.

201-300

2?

55.5 (55-6)

2

32

3.6

1056

Homer, Od. 4, 5

200-101 BC

2/3?

38.7 (36-42?)

7

35

4.3

1409

Plato, La.

325-276 BC

2

32.5 (32-4)

611 (586—681)

4

60

4.8

1551

Xenophon, Cyr. 5

101-200

2

48.1 (46-50)

773

10

72

5.1

51-150

2?

41.5 (41-2)

692 (683-700)

2

61

5.2

151-250

1

35

443

1

75

5.7

1387

Plato, Ap.

0329-2

[Demosthenes], in Mac.

to to 00

TABLE 3.7 - continued

Contents

Date

0632

Homer, U. 2

150-101 BC

2

25.3 (24-6)

300-251 BC

2?

19.5 (19-20)

0879

Homer, 71.11

Style

Lines/ column

MP

Letters/ column

Estimated cols./roll

Estimated roll length (m)

4

37

5.7

2

44

5.8

Columns extant

0962

Homer, Ii.18

100-1 BC

2?

17

2

37

5.9 (excerpts?)

0397

Euripides, Hipp.

275-226 BC

2

27

1

55

6.0

1564

Xenophon, Symp.

151-200?

1

27.3 (27-8)

3

85

6.0

1566

Xenophon, Vect.

0998

Homer,//. 23,24

101-200

1

25

100-1 BC

2?

39.5 (38-42)

539 (521-65) 242

0300 1233

Homer,//. 3,4,5

300-251 BC

2

1

83

34

44

2

39.5 (39-40)

6.1

49

6.3 23-4)

6.4 (H. 3-5)

12

1,6 (11. 3)

14

1.8 (//. 4)

23

3.0 (Ii. 5)

Demosthenes, adv. Lept.

1-200

2

32 (31-3)

630 (618-40)

3

91

6.7

Hyperides, in Dem.,

1-100

1

27.7 (27-9)

420 (393-450)

97

>97 (near complete)

6

40

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

61-75

7.6-9.4 (if Od. 21-3)

86-105

10.8-13.1 (if iï. 21-4)

pro Lye., pro Eux.

1039

Homer, Od. 3

1-100

1

34.8 (34-6)

0979

Homer, Ii. 21

300-201 BC

2

27-33

S

tr

s 7 7' K tr

( .

0699

31

(12)

>6.8

4 + +pr C.

TABUE 3.7 - continued Style

Lines/ column

101-200

1

24 (24-4)

Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex.

300-251 BC

3

20-4 (22.13)

1433

Polybius, 11

151-250

1

0298

Demosthenes, Fais. Leg

101-150

2

MP

Contents

Date

0650

Horner, 77. 2

0088

1388

Plato, Phd.

300-201 BC

2

Letters/ column

Columns extant

37

9.9

581 (530-643)

22

158

11.2-12.5

35.6 (35-6)

626 (600-58)

5

[150-225]

[12.3-18.5]

38

672

1

179

13.4

13

192

15.2

1

207-9

18.5

108

19.0

1

390-3

32.0-33.8

>6

22.2 (22-3)

548 (511-607) 369

1395

Plato, Soph.

275-226 BC

2

24'(23-5)

Homer, i7.21.22

100-1 BC

1

19 (19-20)

0478

Herodotus, 5

131-200

1

18

1537

Timotheus, Pers.

350-301 BC

2?

27.0 (26-9)

4

100-1 BC

2?

26.5 (26-8)

486 (470-516)

8

2

32.3 (29-35)

907

12

151-200

3

40

1099

3

Hyperides, in Phil +

0337D

Demosthenes, Ep. 3

1556-2

Xenophon, Hell. 1, 2,4

Estimated roll length (m)

•7

0980

0337H

Estimated cols, /roll

20 203

>1.4 >1.9 (H+D)

[174?]

[5:15.1?] (Heli 1 - 4 )

(or excerpts?)

0824-1

Homer, JZ. 8

151-250

3

18

1

38

[3.3] (Hell. 1)

39

[3.4] (Hell 2)

[42]

[3.7] (Hell. 3)

55

[4.8] (Hell. 4)

32

TABLE 3.7 - concluded

Style

Lines/ column

Letters/ column

Columns extant

Estimated cols./roll

301-400

2

18

523 (477-569)

2

31

200-151 BC

3

19/20

1

23/24

MP

Contents

Date

1255

Isocrates. ad Nie.

1022

Homer, Od. 1

0995-1

Homer, II. 22

0619

Homer, //. 1

50-1 BC

2?

21

1

25

250-151 BC

2

25

1

25 13/10/7

1064

Homer, Od. 6

50 BC-AD 25

2

25/33/50

1150-1

Homer, Od. 23

25 B C - AD 25

1

30

1

0784-1

Homer. Ii 6

151-200

3

37

1

0486-3

Hesiod, Erga

151-200

2?

39.3 (38-42)

0898-1

Homer, II. 12

1-100

2

39/40

1286

Lycophron, A lex.

51-150

1

0876-2

Homer,

. 11

101-200

2

0883

Homer,

. 11

151-200

0113

Appian, Iber.

201-300

13 15 21

1

12

46

1

32

49.3

6

18

2

58

1

15

1

7

Estimated roll length (m)

to U +» ^ S S r 2 7 + :" K ( + +9 3

APPENDIX 1

Papyri Included in the Sample

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

TABLE 1A Oxyrhynchus sample POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

I 16+IV 696

Thucydides, 4.28-41 (excerpt?)

r

1-100

17

Thucydides, 2.7—8

r

101-300

18

Herodotus, 1.105-6

r

201-300

19

Herodotus, 1.76 (excerpt?)

"

101-300

20

Homer, Iliad 2.730-828

r

101-200

21

Homer, Iliad 2.745-64

r

1-200

23

Plato, Leges 9.862b-3c

r

201-275 (verso AD 295)

24

Plato, Respublica 10.607e-8a

r

201-300 151-200 (Welles)

25

Demosthenes, de Corona 244

r

201-300

26

Demosthenes, Exordia 26-9

r

101-200

27

Isocrates,Antidosis 77,81

r

51-200

29

Euclid, 2.5

r

251-350

232

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued Contents

r/v

Date

Homer, Iliad 5.1-705 passim

V

201-250 (recto AD 186)

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

r

201-300 151-200

Thucydides, 2.90.5-6, 91.1-2

r

26-100

Xenophon, Hellenica 6.5.7-9 226+PSIXVII Congr 8+PSI XI 1197

r

51-200 51-150 (RossumSteenbeck)

POxy I I 225+PKoelnV

224+PRyl III 547 225

210

(PRyl)

227

Xenophon, Oeconomicus 8.17-9.2

r

51-150

228

Plato, Laches 197a-8a

r

101-200

229

Plato, Pkaedo 109c-d

r

101-200

230

Demosthenes, de Corona 40-7

r

101-200

231

Demosthenes, de Corona 227-9

r

51-150

232

Demosthenes, in Timoeratem 53-4,56-8

r

151-250

233

Demosthenes, in Timoeratem 145-6,150

r

201-300

III 445

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

r

101-250

446

Homer, Iliad 13.58-99

r

151-200 201-400 (Harvard)

447

Homer, Iliad 23.81-91

r

151-200 201-300 (Harvard)

452

Thucydides, 4.87.5-6

r

151-300

453

Thucydides, 6.32,2-3

E

51-150

454+PSI II 119

Plato,

V

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

455

Plato, Respublica 3.406a-b

r

226-300

456

Plato, Respublica 4.422c-d

r

151-250

458

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

r

201-300

460

Demosthenes, de Pace 21,23

r

151-250

461

Demosthenes, de Corona 7-8

r

201-300

462

Demosthenes, de Corona 25-8

r

201-300

463

Xenophon, Anabasis 6.6.9-24

r

151-250

IV 685

Homer, Iliad 17.725-32

r

151-200

686

Homer, Iliad 2.50-8

r

50-1 BC

Gorgias

471d-2b; 507b-8d; 522-6

Papyri Included in the Sample

233

TABLE PT - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

687

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

r

50-1 BC

688

Homer, Iliad 11.172-83

r

50-1 BC

689

Hesiod, Aspis 466-80

r

151-250

691

Apollonius Rhodius, 3.908-13

r

101-200

692

Apollonius Rhodius, 4.77-90

r

101-200

693

Sophocles, Electra 993-1007

r

201-250

694

Theocritus, Idyll 13.19-34

r

101-150

695

Herodotus, 5.104-5

r

201-300

698

Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.6.45-2.1.1 (reclamans + colophon)

r

201-250

700

Demosthenes, de Corona 17-19

r

101-200

702

[Demosthenes], contra Boeotum 2.52-3

r

101-200

703

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 94,96

r

201-300

704

Isocrates, in Sophistas 16-18

r

201-300

767

Homer, Iliad 11.555-61

r

101-200

V 844

Isocrates, Panegyricus 19-116

r

101-150

VI 875+LII 3686

Sophocles, Antigone 109-23; 242-6

r

101-150

877

Euripides, Hecuba 1252-80

%

201-300

881r

Plato, Euthydemus 301e-2c

r

151-250

881v

Plato, Lysis 208c-d

%

201-250

882

Demosthenes, in Aristogitonem i 47—8

r

101-200 125-150 (Welles)

883

Demosthenes, in Aristoaatem 149-50

r

201-250

946

Homer, Iliad 2.861-7

r

151-300

VII 1017

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

r

151-250

1019+XLI 2948

Chariton, 2.3.5-2.5.1

r

176-225 (Turner) 151-250

VIII 1091

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

r

126-175 101-200 (SnellMaehler)

1092

Herodotus, 2.154-75 (with lac.)

r

51-150 (Lobel) 151-200

234

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

IX 1177+LIII 3714

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

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

1179

Apollonius Rhodius» 2.101-10

176-250

1181

Xenophon, Anabasis 7.1.40

201-250

1183

Isocrates, Trapeziticus 4 4 - 8

51-100

X 1243

Apollonius Rhodius, 3.1055-63

101-200

1246

Thucydides, 7.38.1-2

101-150

1249

Babrius, 43,110,118,25

101-200

1250

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

X I 1176

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

r/v

Date

201-250 (Teubner) 301-350 201-300 (Schubart) 151-250

1377

Demosthenes, de Corona 167—9

50-1 BC

XIII 1619

Herodotus, 3.26-72

51-150

XV 1805+LII 3687

Sophocles, Trachiniae 12-1276 (with lac.)

151-200

1806

Theocritus, Idyll 22.8,38-84

51-100

1808

Plato, Respublica 8.546b-7d

151-200

1809

Plato, Phaedo 102e-3c

51-150 (Turner) 101-150

1810

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

101-150

1815

Homer, Bad 1.33-50,59-75

201-300 (recto 2nd cent.)

1819

Homer, Odyssey 10.3-12; 11.244-323,41426,428-32; 12.1-4

101-200

2064+L 3548

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

151-200

lac.) XVII 2090

Hesiod, Theogony 1-7, 28-52,148-54

126-175

2091

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

201-250

2092

Pindar, Olympian 2.16-28,42-94

151-200

Sophocles, Ajax 51-66,266-76,291-307

151-250

2093

Papyri Included in the Sample

T A B L E 1 A - continued

POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

2094+XLIX 3445

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

r

101-175

2095

Herodotus, 1.9,11 (excerpt?)

r

" 101-200

2096+XLVIII 3374

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

r

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

2097

Herodotus, 1.64-5

r

226-275

2098

Herodotus, 7.168-73

E

151-250 (verso AD 267?)

2099

Herodotus, 8.22-3

r

101-150

2100+LVII 3S91+ LXI 4109

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

r

126-175

2101

Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.4.15,17-21; 1.6.3

r

201-250

2102+PTmmer 7

Plato, Phaedrus 242d-4e

r

151-200

XVIII 2178

Aeschylus, Agamemnon 7-17,20-30

r

101-200

2179

Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas 155-9

r

101-200

2180

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

r

101-200

2181

Plato, Phaedo 75a l l 7 c (with lac.)

r

151-200

XIX 2223

Euripides, Bacchae 1070-1136 (1092 lacking)

r

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

2224+XLIV 3152

Euripides, Hippolytus 225-59,269-88, 357-94, 443-55 (3152); 579-604 (2224)

r

101-200

2225

Callimachus, Hymn 4.11-25,38-40,68-75, 81-92,102-10,141-6,156-81,186-205, 209-18,230-^3

V

126-175

2226

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

r

101-150

XXII 2333

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

101-200

2334

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

r

151-200

2335

Euripides, Andromache 954-1022

V

151-200

2336

Euripides, Helena 630-51,658-74

r

50-1 BC

2337

Euripides, Medea 1149-63,1171-90 (excerpt?)

V

51-100

235

236

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

XXIV 2402

Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea 6.1142b. 11-7, 1144a.6-11

r

126-175

2403

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

r

201-250

2404+PLaur III/278

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 51-3

r

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

XXVII 2467

Menander, Dyskolos 263-72,283-90

r

151-200

2468

Plato, PoHticus 257d, 261d-2c

r

101-200

X X X I 2540

Homer, Iliad 13.474-84

r

51-150

2541

Homer, Iliad 14.274-302

"

201-300

2542

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

r

51-150

2543

Euripides, Andromache

346-69

r

101-200

2545

Aristophanes, Equités 1057-76

r

50 BC-AD 50

2546

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

r

201-300? 201-250 (Turner)

2548

Demosthenes, m Timocratem 60

r

101-200

2549

Demosthenes, Epistula 1

r

101-200

2550

Lycurgus, in Leocratem 1-2 (exercise)

%

101-200?

XXXII 2638

Hesiod, Theogony 46-60

r

201-300

2639+PSIXI 1191

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

r

201-300 101-200 {PSI)

2640

Hesiod, Theogony 135—50

r

1-200

2641

Hesiod, Theogony 245-92

%

201-300

2642

Hesiod, Theogony 271-83

r

101-200

2643

Hesiod, Theogony 359-94

r

101-300

2645

Hesiod, Theogony 504-19

r

151-250

2646

Hesiod, Theogony 650—63

"

101-300

2648

Hesiod, Theogony 681-94,751-71

r

201-250

2649

Hesiod, Theogony 731-40

r

101-200

2651

Hesiod, Theogony 963—81

%

101-200

XXXIII 2662

Plato, Meno 92e-3b

r

50 BC-AD 50

2663

Plato, Cratylus 405c

r

151-200

X X X I V 2691

Apollonius Rhodius, 4.348-56,1128-35

r

50 BC-AD 50

Papyri Included in the Sample

237

T A B L E 1 A - continued

POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

2692

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.1261-74

r

51-100

2693

Apollonius Rhodius, 3.940-58,962-71

r

101-150

2695

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.460-79

V

151-250

2696

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.1049-65

E

151-200

2697

Apollonius Rhodius, 2.119,136-57

V

201-250

2698

Apollomus Rhodius, 1.794-807,919-37

E

151-250

2699

Apollonius Rhodius, 3.1-35

r

201-250 301-400 (Turner)

2700

Apollonius Rhodius, 1.169-74,202-43

r

201-250

2701

Apollonius Rhodius, 4.1175-80,1187-97

r

251-300

2703

Thucydides, 1.110

r

151-250

X X X V I 2748

Homer, Riad 16.129-60

v

101-200

2749

Thucydides, 2.90-2

r

151-250

2750

Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.1

r

151-200 351-400 (Cavallo)

2751

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

r

151-250

XXXVIII 2829

Menander, Epitrepontes

r

251-350

2830

Menander, Perikeiromene 473-92

r

250-300

2831

Menander, Samia 385-90

r

51-150

XLI 2945

Theocritus, Idyll 14.30-50

r

101-200

2946

Triphiodorus, 391-402

r

201-400

XLIV 3153

Euripides, Phoenissae 552-75

r

151-250

3154

Homer, Iliad 6.28-44,65-86

r

51-100

3155

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

r

151-250

3156+LII 3669

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

r

151-200

XLV 3220

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

r

101-200 101-150 (Lobel)

3221

Hesiod, Erga 93-108

v

151-250

3222

Hesiod, Erga 144-56

r

201-300

3223

Hesiod, Erga 172-215,228-45

v

101-150

3224

Hesiod, Erga 179-95

r

151-200

3225

Hesiod, Erga 265-79

r

126-175

238

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

3226

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

r

101-250

3227

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

r

151-250

3228

Hesiod, Erga 511-29

r

101-150

3229

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

r

126-200

3230

Hesiod, Erga 293-301, 763-4,78 (or 789), 1 13 (a miscellany)

r

1-50

3231

Hesiod, Erga 225-45

r

151-225

3232

Hesiod, Aspis 325-30

%

151-200 {ego) 1-100

3233

Isocrates,Anüdosis 66,74-80

r

51-150

3234+3883

Thucydides, 1.73.4-74.3

r

51-150

XLVII 3322

Euripides, Phoenissae 3-14,46-61

%

51-150

3323

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

r

151-250

3324

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

r

50 BC-AD 50

3325

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

r

51-150

3326

Plato, Respublica 8.545c-6a

r

101-200

3327

Thucydides, 2.64.6-65.2

r

151-250

XLVIII 3372

Herodotus, 1.6.2-1.9.2

r

51-150

3373

Herodotus, 1.51.4-54.1

r

201-300

3375

Herodotus, 1,61.2-62.2

r

201-300

3376

Herodotus, 1.187; 2.51-141

r

101-200

3377

Herodotus, 2.161.1-3

r

101-150

3378

Herodotus, 3.37.2

r

151-250

3379

Herodotus, 4.168.1-2

r

201-300

3380

Herodotus, 5.30.1-3

r

51-150

3381

Herodotus, 7.169.2-170.1

r

101-200

3382

Herodotus, 8.1.1-2

r

151-250

3383

Herodotus, 8.2.2-5.1

r

151-250

XLIX 3435

Demosthenes, Olynthiaca 1.22-8

r

101-200

3436

Dinarchus, in Demosthenem 7-8,108-11

r

151-250

3437

Dinarchus, in Philoclem 17-22

r

151-250

Papyri Included in the Sample

T A B L E 1 A - continued

POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

3438

Homer, Iliad 1.499-523

r

101-300

3439

Homer, Iliad 5.1-23

r

101-200

3440

Homer, Iliad 16.612-54

r

151-250

3441

Homer, Odyssey 10.1-24

r

101-200

3442

Homer, Odyssey 11.330-66,373-403

r

101-150

3443

Homer, Odyssey 17.409-37,460-77

r

201-300

3444

Isocrates, Evagoras 6-12

3446

Lycophron, Alexandia 1239-50

r

101-200

3447

Strabo, 9 passim

r

101-150

3448

Thucydides, 1.40

r

151-300

3449

Thucydides, 1.42

r

201-300

3451

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

r

51-150

L 3545

Theocritus, Idyll 1.68-74,78-95

r

101-200

3546

Theocritus, Idyll 2.30-2,43-9

r

101-200

3547

Theocritus, Idyll 3.49-4.2

r

101-200

3549

Theocritus, Idyll 10.45-56

%

101-200

3550

Theocritus, Idylls 14.43-56,18.27-52

r

101-200

3552

Theocritus, Idyll 18.12-43

r

101-175

LI 3661

Homer, Iliad 3.383-410

r

101-300

3662

Homer, Iliad 5.1—19

%

226-275

3663

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

r

201-300

3664

Isocrates, Panegyricus 14-15

3666+PHarr I 12

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

r

151-200

3667

[Plato],Alcibiades ii 142b-3c

r

201-300

3668

[Plato], Epistula 2.310e-lla

r

101-200

3670

Plato, Hippias maior 291d-e

r

151-250

3671

Plato, Laches 179b-c

r

151-200

3672

Plato, Leges 6.75la-c

r

201-300

3673

Plato, Leges 6.77 la-d

r

151-250

3674

Plato, Leges 9.854c-d

r

126-175

r

%

151-250

201-300

239

240

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

3675

Plato, Leges 9.865a-c

r

126-175

3676

Plato, Phaedo 107d-10a

r

151-200

3677

Plato, Phaedrus 267c

r

101-200

3678

Plato, Philebus 18e-19a

r

151-200

3679

Plato. Respublica 5.472e-73d

r

201-300

3680

Plato, Theaetetus 190e-91a

r

151-200

3681

Plato, Theaetetus 198d-e

r

151-250

3682

Plato, Theaetetus 209a-c

r

101-200

3683

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

"

151-200

3684

Plutarch, Lycurgus 31.6-8

r

201-300

3685

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

r

101-150

LIII 3712

Euripides, Phoenissae 50-69 (excerpt)

r

101-200

3713

Euripides, Phoenissae 244—50

%

151-200

3715

Euripides, Phoenissae (colophon)

r

101-200

3716

Euripides, Orestes 941-51,973-83

r

150-51 BC

3717

Euripides, Orestes 1377-96

%

101-200

3719

Euripides, Iphigenia Aulidensis 913-18

r

201-300

3721

Theophrastus, de Ventis

r

151-200

LVI 3825

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

%

101-150

3827

Homer, Iliad 11.337-61

r

101-200 51-150? (ego)

3828

Homer, Odyssey 22.333-66

%

51-150 (recto AD 60?)

3836

Achilles Tatius 3.21-3

r

101-200

3837

Achilles Tatius 8.6.14-8.7.6

r

201-300

3838

Aeschylus, Prometheus Vinctus 122-34

r

151-300

3839

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

r

101-300

3840

Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae 118 5-93

r

301-400

3841

Demosthenes, adversus Leptinem 15-16

r

101-200

3842

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

r

101-200

Papyri Included in the Sample

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

3844

Demosthenes, adversus Leptinem 44

1-100

3846

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 6-8

201-300

3847

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 29-30

201-300

3848

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 48-51

201-300

3849

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 51-6

151-300

3850

Demosthenes, in Meidiam 131-7

101-200

3851

Nicander, Theriaca 333-44

101-200

LVII 3877

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

101-150

3878

Thucydides, 1.3

101-175

3879

Thucydides, 1.9-10,30,36-9

101-150

3880

Thucydides, 1.46-7, 62

51-150

3881

Thucydides, 1,52-3

151-250

3882+PSIXI 1195

Thucydides, 1.71-4

201-300 (POxy) 151-200 (PSI)

3884

Thucydides, 1.91.3

101-200

3886

Thucydides, 2.15-16

201-300

3887

Thucydides, 2.54, 80

101-300

3888

Thucydides, 2.75-6

201-300

3889

Thucydides, 2.76—7

151-250

3890

Thucydides, 2: colophon

201-300

3892

Thucydides, 3.71

151-200

3893

Thucydides, 3.80

101-200

3894

Thucydides, 3.83

3895

Thucydides, 3.23,94

3896

Thucydides, 3.94-5,100

3897

Thucydides, 3.98

3898

Thucydides, 4.8

3899

Thucydides, 4.25

3900

Thucydides, 4.67-9

3901+PYaJe II 99

Thucydides, 4.73-5

LX 4013+ PKoeln VI 252

Euripides, Orestes 314-20

100-151? (ego) 201-300 200-300 1-100

101-200 101-300 151-250 201-300 151-200 (?) 50 BC-AD 50

241

242

Appendix 1

TABLE 1A - continued POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

4014

Euripides, Orestes 986-1002

r

151-200

4015

Euripides, Orestes 990-3

r

1-100

4016

Euripides, Orestes 1233-52

r

151-250

4027

Aeschines, in Timarchum 3

r

151-300

4028

Aeschines, in Timarchum 14-15,17-18

r

101-200

4030

Aeschines, in Timarchum 43-52

%

151-200

4031

Aeschines, in Timarchum 79

r

101-300

4032

Aeschines, in Timarchum 131—2,134

r

101-200

4033+4034

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

r

151-300

4035

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 43-5

r

101-200

4036

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 64-5

r

51-100

4037

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 134-5

r

101-300

4038

Aeschines, de Falsa Legatione 171-2

r

151-300

4039

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 6-7

%

51-150

4040

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 8

r

101-300

4041

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 15-17,22-3

r

201-300 (ego) 101-300

4042

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 33-4, 35-6

r

101-200

4043

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 39

%

101-200 (ego) 101-300

4044

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 56-8

r

101-200?

4045+4053

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

r

101-300

4047+4051

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

r

151-200

4048

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 101

r

1-100

4050

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 157-8

r

101-300

4052

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 195-6

r

51-150 1-100? (ego)

4054

Aeschines, in Ctesiphontem 216—17

r

101-300

4055

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

r

201-300?

LXI 4100

Thucydides, 1.25-6,27-9,31

r

151-250

Papyri Included in the Sample

243

TABLE 1A — concluded POxy

Contents

r/v

Date

4101

Thucydides, 4.19-20

r

201-300

4102

Thucydides, 5.18

r

151-250

4103

Thucydides, 5.35

r

51-150

4104

Thucydides, 5.50

r

151-250

4107

Thucydides, 7.23

r

101-200

4108

Thucydides, 7.62

r

151-250

4110

Thucydides, 8.73

r

151-200

4111

Thucydides, 8.87.5,88

r

101-200

4112

Thucydides, 8.98

r

101-200

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

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

Provenance

PHib 1.26

Anaximenes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 15.3-31.20

r

300-251 BC

Hibeh

113

PDura 2

Appian, Iberica 15,17

r

201-300

Dura Europos

189.1

PFayColes 5

Callimachus, Hymn 3.67-80

r

101-200

Fayum

265.1

PBeroI 16895+ 21284

Demosthenes, de Chersoneso r 60-7

75-1 BC (in same coffm doc. dating to 52 BC êc an Augustan archive)

Abusir el Melek

296.2

PBeroi 21274

Demosthenes, de Falsa Legatione 223

r

201-300

298

PTebt 2.267

Demosthenes, de Falsa Legatione 293—6

r

101-150

300

PBeroi 5879

Demosthenes, adversus Leptinem 84—91

r

1-200 51-150 {ego)

329.2

PBeroi 21192

[Demosthenes], contra Macartatum 45-7

r

151-250

Hermopolis

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

Hermopolis?

MP

337+1234 PLondLit 134+ 130

Hyperides, in Philippidem+ Demosthenes, Epistula 3

Hermopolis Tebtunis Fayum

244

Appendix 1

TABLE IB - continued Provenance

MP

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

384.1

PBeroi 21235

Euripides, Bacchae 17—

r

100 BC-AD 50

388.1

PTebt 2.683

Euripides, Hecuba 216-31

r

51-150 1-50 (Montanari)

Tebtunis

397

PLondLit 73

Euripides, Hippolytus 116579,1194-1204

r

275-226 BC

Philadelphia

400.1

PBeroi 21133

Euripides, Iphigenia Taurica 946-55

r

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

Hermopolis

417.2

PBeroi 21169

Euripides, Phoenissae 280-98 (<*es««f 291-2), 337-51,36477,379-92 387)

V

201-300

Hermopolis

468

PMuench 2.40

Herodotus, 1.115-16

r

1-200

Fayum

478

PDura 1

Herodotus, 5.113.2-114.2

r

151-200

Dura Europos

486.3

PBeroi 21107

Hesiod, Erga 84-531 passim

V

151-200

Hermopolis

584,1

PFay Coles 14

Homer, Iliad 1.171-85

V

101-150

Fayum

594.1

PFayColes 15

Homer, Iliad 1.272-9

r

101-175

Bacchias

604.1

PMuench 2.35+ PLudgBat 25.6

Homer, Iliad 1.384, 402-35, 481-507,510-44

r

101-200 51-150? (ego)

Arsinoë (Medinet elFayum)

619

PTebt 3.898

Homer, Iliad 1.539-48, 56174

r

250-151 BC

Tebtunis

624.1

PAnt 3.156

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

V

251-400

Antinoopolis

632

PTefc* 1.4

Homer, Iliad 2.95-109,1 F P 5,121-57,172-84,186-7, 197-210

r

150-101 BC

Tebtunis

650

PTebt 2.265

Homer, Iliad 2.339-62,507652

J

101-200

Tebtunis

660.3

Pßero/ 21197

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

101-200

Hermopolis

662.01

PBeroi 17069

Homer, Iliad 2.629-36 (637?)

r

101-200

Hermopolis

688

PBeroi 17054

Homer, Iliad 3.125-35

r

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

(Mette) 692.1

PTebtTait 38

Homer, Iliad 3.225-30

V

151-200

Tebtunis

699

PHib 1.20+ PGrenf2.3

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

r

300-251 BC

Hibeh

Papyri Included in the Sample

245

T A B L E 1A - continued

MP

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

Provenance

773

PTebt 3.899

Homer, Iliad 6.2-347

r

150-101 BC

Tebtunis

774

PHib 2.193

Homer, Iliad 6.4-7

r

275-226 BC

Hibeh

784.1

PBeroi 21102+ 17153

Homer, Iliad 6.217-82

V

151-200

Hermopolis

785.1

PYale 1.8

Homer, Iliad 6.232-48

V

50-1 BC

805.1

PBeroi 21215

Homer, Iliad 7.183-95

r

300-101 BC

Upper Egypt?

819

PHib 1.21+ PGrenf 2.2+ PHeidLit 1

Homer, fltW 8.17-73, 180E 258 passim, with frequent plus lines

300-251 BC

Hibeh

822

PGrenf 1.2+ PF/or 2.109

Homer, I M 8.62-75, 96116

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

Fayum

824.1

PFayColes 16+17 Homer, Iliad 8.168-70?+172 V +187-9; 424-43

151-250

Fayum

830

PFay 4

r

150-51 BC

Bacchias

832

PttWofc G19768 Homer, flwd 8.436-61

r

1-100

Karanis

852

PVindob G26753 Homer, Iliad 10.1-26

V

100-1 BC

857

PBeroi 11911A+ Homer, Iliad 10.91-568 B+17038 (-Pack 2 863)+ 17048 (=Pack2 857)+21155

r

201-250

863.1

Pta/e 1.10

Homer, Iliad 10.311-19

r

50-1 BC

876.2

PBeroi 21109

Homer, Iliad 11.36(^-77, 427- V 56,639-60,673-703,716-19

101-200

Hermopolis

879

PPetr 1.3(4)

Homer, Iliad 11.502-37 with plus lines

r

300-251 BC

Gurob

883

PTe/if 2.266

Homer, Bad 11.556-613

r

151-200

Tebtunis

894

PLondLit 251 + PHarr 36

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

200-101 BC

895

PGrenf 1A

Homer, Iliad 12.178-98

r

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

897.2

PMuench 2.38

Homer, Iliad 12.296-304, 335-72

r

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

Homer, Iliad 8.332-6,362-9

r

Hermopolis

246

Appendix 1

TABLE I B - continued

Date

Provenance

1-100

Soknopaiou Nesos

101-300 101-200? (ego)

Hermopolis

Homer, Bad 14.235-447

151-250

Hermopolis

PBeroi 21216

Homer, I/tW 15.5-31

100-1 BC

962

PBeroi 9774

Homer, Bad 18.585-608 (-Pack 2 962)+608a-d ~ Hesiod, Aspis 207-13 (=Pack2 505)

100-1 BC

979

PGrenf 2.4+ PHib 1.22+ PHeidLit 2

Homer, Bad 21.302-23.281

300-201 BC

980

PBeroi 16985

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

100-1 BC

991

PTebt 3.900

Homer, Bad 22.140-52,188201,252-3,277-301

150-101 BC

995.1

PYale 1.13

Homer, Bad 22.402-22

50-1 BC

998

PLondLit 21

Homer, Bad 23.1-79,402897; 24.1-759

100-1 BC 1-100 (Milne)

1009

PBeroi 9949

Homer, Bad 23.718-32

100-1 BC 100 B C - A D 100 (Poethke)

1022

PTebt 3.696

Homer, Odyssey 1.81-94, 9 6 102

1026.1

PFayColes 18

Homer, Odyssey 1.300-10

1039

MP

Papyrus

Contents

898.1

PBeroi 21185

Homer, Bad 12.459-71

914

PVmdob G26752 Homer, Bad 13.762-74

919

PBeroi 11910+ 21156

919.1

r/v

r

Hibeh

Tebtunis

200-151 BC

Tebtunis

201-250

Fayum

PLondLit 30+ Homer, Odyssey 3.227-497 PVindob G26746 +G26754-60

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

Soknopaiou Nesos?

1051.1

PFay Coles 19

Homer, Odyssey 4.476-86

1-50

Fayum

1056

PTebt 3.697

Homer, Odyssey 4.796-812; 5.6-264

200-101 BC

Tebtunis

1061

PGrenf

Homer, Odyssey 5.346-53

201-300

Fayum

1.3

Papyri Included in the Sample

247

TABLE1A- continued r/v

Date

Provenance

MP

Papyrus

Contents

1064

PFayl

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

1092.1

PFay Coles 20

Homer, Odyssey 10.373-80

1094

PBeroi 11678

Homer, Odyssey 11.110-12, 126-34

250-151 BC

1099

PTebt 2.431

Homer, Odyssey 11.428-40

51-150

Tebtunis

1129

PHib 2.194

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

275-226 BC

Hibeh

1148.2

PBeroi 21224

Homer, Odyssey 22.193-217, 235-52

200-101 BC

1150.1

PBeroi 16709

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

25 B C - A D 25

Hermopolis

1156

PTebt 2.432

Homer, Odyssey 24.501-8

101-200 51-150? (ego)

Tebtunis

1233

PLondLit 1324Pland 5.80?

Hyperides, in Demosthenem, pro Lycophrone, pro Euxenippo

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

Gournou?

1255

PVindob G2316

Isocrates, ad Nicoclem 2—4

301-400

Fayum

1265.1

PFayColes 6

Isocrates, Panegyricus 90

151-250

Bacchias

1286

PMuench 2.39

Lycophron, Alexandra 1108— 28

51-150

Arsinoë

1355.1

PTebt 2.684

Pindar, Olympians 9.109—

251-300

Tebtunis Soknopaiou

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

1-200

Fayum (Bacchias?)

10.12

1387

PBeroi 21210+ 13291

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

51-150

1388

PPetr 1.5-8

Plato, Phaedo 67b-84b

300-201 BC

Gurob

1395

PHib 2.228

Plato, Sop hi s ta 223e.4-224a.2, 224b. 1 - 3

275-226 BC

Hibeh

1397.1

PBeroi 11749

Plato, Politicus 300 b-c, with insertions

101-200 51-150? (ego)

Hermopolis

1403

PAnt 2.77

Plato, Phaedrus 257d

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

Antinoopolis

Nesos

248

Appendix 1

TABLE IB - concluded MP

Papyrus

Contents

r/v

Date

Provenance

1409

PPetr 2.50

Plato, Laches 189d-92a

r

325-276 BC

Gurob

1427

PAnt 2.79

[Plato], ife Justo

r

201-250

Antinoopolis

1433

PBeroi 9570+ PRyl 1.60

Polybius, 11.13.8-16.9

r

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

Fayum

1537

PBeroi 9875

Timotheus, Persae

r

350-301 BC

Abusir

1551

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

101-200

Hermopolis

1552

P Vindob G257 +G29781 +G24568

Xenophon, Hellenica 1.1.278; 1.2.2-1.5.8 (with lac.)

%

201-250

Pheretnuis

1556.2

PBeroi 21108

Xenophon, Hellenica 1,2,4 passim

%

151-200

Hermopolis

1563.1

PTebt 2.682

Xenophon, Oeconomicus 18.9

r

201-300

Tebtunis

1563.3

PMuench 2.42

Xenophon, Symposium 3.910

r r

251-300

1564

B4«l 1.26

Xenophon, Symposium 4,515,64; 5.1-3 (on parchment)

n/a

151-200?

1566

PMuench 2.41

Xenophon, de Vectigalibus 1.5-6

r

101-200

Melâwi? Antinoopolis Fayum

Papyri Included in the Sample

249

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

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

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

1 1 1 6 5

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

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

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

73 45 61 4 1

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

76 33 7 11 2 2 2

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

8 10 10 1

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

57 6 2 1

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX 2

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

The lists below, by augmenting and correcting the published editions, establish the text for the samples set forth in Appendix 1. These corrections are assumed in analysis and discussion throughout the book. I have not corrected minor miscalculations or mismeasurements of physical features (column, margin, etc.), since these are readily available in the tables following chapter 3. 2a. Oxyrhynchus papyri, primary sample set Corrections already noted in the POxy volumes (whether in subsequent introductions, or in tables of corrigenda) are not repeated; in a very few cases, as a matter of convenience, I have included independent observations even though they have been noted by others. 16+696. Thucydides, 4. 696, col. viii =16, col. i (not col. iii). 16, col. l.The transcription in 696 mistakenly omits a line between lines 89 and 90. Traces appear in the upper margin, of which only an omega can be confidently read. 16, col. 1, line 11. Read ,(& (not ,() at end of line. 16, col. 1, line 28. A space precedes 2$ , [at. The space is slighter than many in this manuscript, but at 1—2 characters in width, is large enough to signal punctuation. 16, col. 2, line 1. Below this line a paragraphus is clearly visible. A wide space (2-3 characters) follows (*2B"64" and acts as punctuation. 16, col. 2, lines 7f. A 1-2 character space follows vo^âï·-1 +". 16, col. 2, line 13. A single character space follows %+&$&". 16, col. 2, lines 41f. A 2-3 character space follows 6+-1 coibe.

252

Appendix

1

16, col. 2, line 49. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Î6, coL 3, lines 28ff. At three points in the 11-line lacuna a symbol is visible in the left margin: beside 31, perhaps a large chi (the reading is uncertain); beside 34, antisigma; beside 35, three irregular vertical slashes. To the right of 16, col. 3, several initial letters from the next column can be seen, as well as an odd siglum to the left of line 10 (a clumsy oversize chiï). I reconstruct these as follows, though with the caution that only the last three lines are entirely certain: Col. 11 (assuming the column numeration of 696; to right of 16, col. 3) [8 lines missing] 9

:[$&0 $';&7! 17^ :0 B(%&00:]

f\

*-[#=% (5&>% &$50 0:'&740'$&(] [&$5! 097'?$%&$ &0 &7% 9(;=%']

12

[;7% ;(' :903!&( 089(:&$% +-]

[ +/4"+& $%&0! +& 40 9(;04('-] [$%'$' ( (20'! $%&0! 0%] &[=' :6'% .6$%=' 97'!&0'(!] 16

;[(' &$5 &$'$5&$5 :$9) $5] & [=% &0 0'9=&=% (5&$ $9$5%-] & [=% ;(' #$8$+ 0%$' : ['

20

7 ;(' 0-]

(;6$&06$% ccpici &' %0-]

[=&06'!27' &=% ;(& ( &7% .=-] [6(% $5 6('4'(;: 0#06$% (99(] [;(':06 $5 8$59$ 0%$' 0%47-] 9 [$' 03%(' &$'c (27%(3$ ic 0:60-]

24

cß[05$%&$ :(6 (5&$5! ;(' 0:0'-]

6 [=%&$ &7% &0 %3;+" ;(' 6+30 (%-] 18. Herodotus, 1. Line 19. Read a high, not middle, dot. Line 22. Read üßpioc (the diaeresis is clearly visible). 19. Herodotus, 1. Lines 4, 10. The papyrus is badly preserved, and much of the right side is now illegible. But the use of iota-adscript may not be so haphazard as the transcription suggests. Adscript, as the editor notes, is written in line 11. At lines 4 and 10, though both lines are difficult to read, the corrector appears to have added iota to ;6$'!= (at 4 squeezed on the line, at 10 slightly above). It is no longer possible to verify the editor's reading at line 10, &]7 :&06'[7'.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

253

Line 12. Below this line a paragraphus is clearly visible. 20. Homer, II 2. Line 752. Read ,(;;&*++" not ;(99'66$$% (cf. 21). Line 796. Nw-movable is omitted at line end. Line 798. Read - $" '- [(;( ,6;. 21. Homer, Il 2. Line 8. Read %*+#$& (acute over iota not epsilon). Line 9. Read [+]3X. The correction is made by a second hand. Line 11. Read 06D)+0 (grave, not brevis). Line 12. Following %*B$++0 is a low dot. Line 14. Following ["](&$0,+" is a low dot. Line 14. Read $ooc (grave). Line 18. Following the nu of #%%4" is a mark resembling a circumflex: an ill-formed mark ofpunctuation? Line 19. Read /=*=6&[('(+] (grave, not long marks). 23. Plato, Leg. Col. 2, lines 6f. Add a high dot following ('&,&- |(". 25. Demosthenes, de Cor. Line 9. A high dot follows %+;$&, as expected. 26. Demosthenes, Exor. Col. 3, lines lOf. Read '+-1 ?- not '+-1 ?-&. (The supposed iota is actually the left side of the hasta of the following kappa; the papyrus has pulled slightly apart.) Col. 3, line 11. A middle dot apparently follows .-/&01-. Col. 4, line 3. Read 061=' not 061=. Col. 5, line 14. Read &=' /D0$& not &= /D0$&. Col. 6, lines lOf. A high dot (written by the corrector) follows ;$- |)$&". 29. Euclid. Line 9. Below the last line is a paragraphus (not a slash).The cursive G in the margin and the paragraphus under line 1 appear to be by a second hand.The diagram to the right is misdrawn in the transcription. Contrary to what we might expect, the large square at the right is divided into four equal parts. 223+PKoelnV 210. Homer, IL 5. Line 31. Read >*B6+;+&)$ not >*+6';+#)$.

254

Appendix

1

Line 61. A faint but definite high dot follows 6G32$&". Line 106. A hand other than the original scribe has added a dot above the m of ':(0#6$", though it is unclear whether the corrector intends punctuation before (;;' or expungement of ««-movable at line end. Line 126.The marginal symbol is not an arrow but a somewhat clumsy anchor, written at an oblique. Line 13 4. The marginal symbol is the diplê obelismenê, as frequently m this papyrus. The supposed double horizontal results from an inadvertent stroke written as the scribe retracts his pen to add the oblique stroke. Line 240. A clear high dot can be read at line end. 224. Euripides, Phoen.+PRyl 547. I have not examined the PRylands piece. 224, lines 1027f. For :04$(6$5-1 [c] (956$[% ;&9 read :04('6$5! | ^upofv.The sigma is visible, and (956$% aligns with the left margin. Line 1039.The reported diastole is probably no more than a serif at top right of the arm of ). Read 06$["]() +0 without punctuation. Line 1067.1 can confirm neither the placement nor the reading of the editor for the nota personae. To the left of lambda is blank papyrus (though it is possible, I suppose, that ink has disappeared since the original transcription). The single letter, written by a second hand, stands opposite line 1065 and appears to be a lambda with a sling underneath. Perhaps ;($#%$&), i.e. scilicet (as often in scholiastic contexts, cf. LSJ s.v. A.IL2.a) with an explanatory word following but in lacuna? 227. Xenophon, Oec. Col. 1, lines 9f.The iota-adscript at the end of oixl- | at appears to be an addition, more or less on the line, by the corrector. Col. 4, lines If. A dicolon, written high in the line, apparently follows $-] | ,(06(. Col. 5. At the top of this column, four (not three) lines are lost, for ([ -2("&(0 stands opposite col. 4, line 5. All five columns thus have 30 lines to the column. Col. 5, line 9. Below this line the left edge of the expected paragraphus is visible. The dot recorded her** <-™ilH w*>ll hr th* Inwpr Ant r»f ( HirrJrm, written high in the line as at col. 4, Une 2. 229. Plato, Phd. Line 21. Read oc]gh (adscript written). Line 23. A high dot appears to follow cy]ici. Line 29. The siglum opposite this line at the right, referring no doubt to the next column, is an antisigma.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

255

230. Demosthenes, de Cor. Col. 1, line 8. A high dot follows 40';%5]%('. Col. 1, lines 12f. Read $(<:$(%0]!2[('] (9-1 [9 exeat. Col. 1, Une 14. A high dot follows 7ioLY)c]ac&ai. Col. 1, line 30. The iota at line end in >+&]=&'(' appears to be a later addition. Col. 2, line 4. The scribe has left a large space (8-mm) at the line end, apparently to distinguish the section. Note that the break at the other paragraphus (col. 3, line 32) also occurs at line end. Col. 2, line 9. Following [$,$#-] | "4 is, apparently, iota-adscript added on the line. Col. 2, line 16. The usual horizontal dash acts as a filler at the end of the line. Col. 2, line 34. The adscript at the end of $?+30&+( is a later addition. Above 23$ earlier in the line arc illegible traces of ink. 233. Demosthenes, in Tim. Line 5. Following ,&6+( is a space, probably intended as punctuation. Elsewhere, as at lines 4 and 11, a space left by the first hand seems to have been filled with a punctuation dot added by a second pen. Only the dot at line 16 (which introduces a direct quote from the law) appears written by the text hand. Line 12. A middle-low dot, apparently by the second pen, is squeezed in following :](20'%.

445. Homer, II. 6. Line 489 begins a new column. 453.Thucydides, 6. Line 9. Read ?3 (24[".R1F6 remains at the left do not suit c in this script, but are easily reconciled with ?. 454. Plato, Grg. Two lines follow the remains of column 2 and only one line can precede the remains of column 3. Column 2 thus has 51 lines while column 3 has 49 lines, a difference which measurement confirms to be due to different leading and not to any actual difference in height between the two columns. 456. Plato, Resp. 4. Line 10. Whether adscript is written cannot be determined, since jpucmioy[ is at least as likely a reading for the traces at right. 458. Aeschines, Fais. Leg.

256

Appendix

1

The left margin Is not extant either in fr. a or in fr. b. Unremarked is an unidentified text or texts on the back, written the other way up.The script is large, round, and bilinear, crude in formation on a large layout (the letters are 3.54.0 mm tall on 8-mm leading).The script probably dates to the late third or early fourth century. I read as follows: Fr. a, back: ],(,-[..]6;[ ]

(%+"+&[

]

"+ +0%[

rn.infA.6cm,

Fr. b, back is blank. Fr. c, back: ]+",6[ ]xotc:[ ],+""[ 4

].(&7%[

]*+36[

462. Demosthenes, de Cor. The usual angular filler mark is found at the ends of lines 4, 12,13,14,16, 17. Line 25. The initial c has been added above the line in the left margin, apparently by the first hand. The scribe presumably changed his mind as to the proper division of the word. 4 6 3 . X e n o p h o n , An.

Two columns are missing between the columns labelled ' J and '3.* 688. Homer, IL 11. 11.172.The editor writes $$+[" without hesitation, and of course there may have originally been more to the edge; but at present the final letter is very partial, and one can equally well read $^[+" with the vulgate. 693. Sophocles, EL Line 999. A low dot, perhaps added by the second pen, follows '(& ]4" '$.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

257

696. See 16+696. 698. Xenophon, Cyr. 1. Col. 2, line 5.That the text read 0209=!'% and not C$;4(" cannot be much doubted: the spacing requires it (two letters are necessary between mu and theta in

[-] 0$09=!'%) and the

crossbar + # $ is distinct.Thus also Paap 1970, 47. Col. 2, lines 1 Off. The transcription of the colophon is misleading, and in fact there is no reason to doubt that the final letters, just as the initial letters, were marked with lines above and below in the usual way. In line 11 there is but the barest trace of the final upsilon. Given the centred arrangement and the blank papyrus underneath :('403([, the book number probably falls at the end of line 12, thus: :('403( [c öj. 844. Isocrates, Paneg. Col. 7, line 63. Middle (not high) dot at line end. Col. 8, line 77. Middle (not high) dot. Line 111.The dot may be intended as a middle (not high) dot. Col. 25, line 377. N o paragraphus is visible or expected under this line. Lines 377f. A blank space follows 7A'-1 >27!(%, apparently to mark the point of punctuation. 875+3686. Sophocles, Ant. Given the reconstruction advanced by the editor of 3686, the number of lines per column might equally well be 27 (27 X 4=108, 27 X 5=135: both results are only one line off the estimated number of lines in lacuna). 3686, lines 118ff. More likely, considering the leftward drift of the column and the number of letters missing in the lines below, is the following division of lines: [9$1.(']* 0:&(:59$% !& [$ ]( 120

[08( :6']% :$& ( 0&06=%

877. Euripides, Hec. Line 1264. Read @:$:[&06$'! (one dot of the diaeresis is visible). Line 1269. The expected paragraphus would be in lacuna. 881. Plato, Euthd. The recto and verso are written the same way up, and the verso text started at the edge that contained the end of the recto text, in the manner of an opisthograph. (Following col. i of the recto text were about 13 columns remaining from the Euthydemus. We can calculate that before col. i of the verso text were about 14—15 columns from the start of the Lysis.

258

Appendix

1

The calculation is based on a knowledge of the ratio of leading between the two texts (18:16) and an assumption that top and bottom margins matched (as they appear to do at the top margin at least). Measurement shows that the physical widths of the columns, remarkably, match between recto and verso. We do not know the width of the intercolumn for the verso, but it seems fair to assume that the two were at least similar. Thus, our estimate yields only a 1-2 column difference between the missing end of the recto and the missing beginning of the verso, which difference may in any event be the result of blank space following the colophon of the recto text.) Recto, col. 2, lines 28f. The editor's reconstruction is unlikely, as the paragraphus is thereby misplaced. Read instead: 28

6[5; 0!&3 ?05! $ :(&6=$!:] $[5; 0!&3% 7% S 01= ...

882. Demosthenes, in Aristog. Line 8.To the left of the correction is the usual middle dot: read ·' [$3·] above the line. 946. Homer, II 2. 2.864. Pace Bowman 1968, 131, Grenfell and Hunt were correct to read ](-0 at the left.The alpha is quite clear, formed in exactly the same fashion as, e.g., the second alpha in line 867. 1017. Plato, Phdr, Col. 21, line 32. Add a high dot following -"#+2+3. Col. 27, line 8. Spacing makes $&'$[" &]( far the more likely restoration. Unplaced fr. b can be located at 236e as follows: . 0(%

]$[']

[ 7 0 ':7 tc &$% 9$1$% 0]%(%[&'$% (5&7! &(5&7!

]740-

[:$&0 cot 0&06$% 9$1$]% [40%(

740%$! .

7-

.

1019+2948. Chariton. (I have not examined 1019.) 2948, col. 1. Blank spaces appear to be used as punctuation at lines 19 (after otxiav) and 22 (after 4'717). The irregularity of the script makes rather doubtful the slighter spaces seen in lines 3 (after ;(]9=!), 9 (after 0&0:0] B(&$), 26 (after :':6$#;0'), and 31 (after 09(97!0%).

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

259

2948, col. 1, line 3. A large, rather messy single dot trema resides over the initial of U>*[&". (1019 contains two other examples of single-dot trema over initial 3; initial & receives the usual two-dot trema.) 1091. Bacchylides, Dith. Line 62. The second nu of 0% [0]%;0 is written above the line as a correction. The letter below is illegible, though ) would be the natural assumption. Line 76.Visible is a trace of the high dot expected after '4*](. 1183. Isocrates, Tr. Lines 14ff. The end of line 14 is misread (the transcription is impossible, given this scribe's way of writing ,), resulting in a faulty reconstruction. The line filler at the end of 15 goes unremarked, and there is a typographical error in line 17. Read as follows: 14

[clojvoc 5 '% 4]0479=-> [;( ;(' :(6( &=]% 0'4[$-]>

16

[&=% (;7;$(&0] 4$;0'[&0 40

$' = (%46]0! 4'-

Line 30. A paragraphus is clearly visible below this line. Line 73.The scribe writes 0.^$! (not 0.6$!) for 0.26$3 The editors comparison of 852 l.iv.15 therefore does not apply. 1243. Apollonius Rhodius, 2. Line 1062. As the remains of the accent are slight, the readings = and = (i.e. =) are equally possible. Read G("'$" (not G:"'$"). The accents, added by the corrector, reflect the corrected form. 1246.Thucydides, 7. Col. 1, line l.The dot below the + in %$5+0 is a typographical error. Col. 1, line 7. Below this line the tip of the expected paragraphus is visible. 1376.Thucydides, 7. Line 132. Add a high dot following $]%&[$]!. Line 312.The smooth breathing added by the editor before T27%('$']! appears to be a slip; the papyrus in any event shows no trace of a diacritical mark. Line 346. Following ("6&];-.$01(&, a full character space is evident; any punctuation dot would be in lacuna.

260

Appendix

1

Line 348. Following $%+#-0(", a full character space is evident; any punctuation dot would be in lacuna. Line 498. Below this line a paragraphus is visible; any punctuation at line end would be in lacuna. Line 556. A trace of the expected paragraphus is perhaps apparent in the left margin. Line 938. A faint but definite paragraphus is visible below this line. I fmd no support in this manuscript for the several odd word divisions suggested in the editors reconstruction (such as (-99('), :$-99$!, 63-**-"+0, (%(-6 $!&$'). 1377. Demosthenes, de Cor. Substantial blank spaces apparently act as punctuation in the following locations: before 4)$ at lines 4 and 6, before $:06 at 8, before 0(% at 10, and, less securely, before (9 [9(] at 21. The dots recorded by the editor at lines 4 and 8 are very likely no more than stray ink from the extensive bleeding evident in this area of the papyrus. 1619. Herodotus, 3. Since the publication a number of small fragments have been added to the papyrus without notice. Fr. la. Joining to the top of fr. 1 (line 1) read:

[+ $" $% (&1&+%](0 [06+;+0] [+364 $%*-?$ • ']$ ' ([364" $-] [% :

4" Loue (%+]06([;$"6$0]

[06*(6$D$&1(& $%$&]6$ +[* -&$"] [6sc $, 64" 1->$4"] $%+[*$3+"6+] (1)

[$2+"6$0 ()4)+30] (% &, [+ $" + &]

Fr. 2a. To the bottom of fr. 2 (line 9) add as follows: (9)

. . . ] $ ;( 85 [ct\c 0#7 B0540-] [c$ai !#0](! ;(' mc .$[54$ 0-] [voue 2(%(]&=' 0?[7 '$5 • (:$ ;&0'-] [vac 40 &$5&]$5! 4[05&06( &$5!] • · *

Fr. 3a. To the left of fr. 3 (lines 14ff.) add a piece as follows: (14)

[&]$#' &(+&( :67!!$5!' &$5]*

0%

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

261

'60([! (:$ (!&'1=!(' • ('15:&34" [40 64" :;;4" 6+" (" 9](8=CL $6[&(?$%&]( ,6$&"[$&" + +*]6-

$"

47 4 ['09095]&$ ('1+:&'$ [ici] $' 40 '600 [c 04';(']05%&$ $ $ 4 [0 ( : ] ' 2 (20)

:0[:971 0]%$! &

%$7 [6$% 0#2'-]

Frr. 7a, 7b. A d d at t o p left of fr. 7 (lines 50ff.) and in the same fragment a f e w lines d o w n a n d to the right (lines 55ff.) as follows: (50) ^ [&$&(&$! (]:$;&0[%]0$%&(

'% • $

[$0 avaßa]c 25 covcoc (:0;&0'%0 [0 064'%] $'

0% 901$50' 0: (-

[167% 0A(1](1$%&( $' [40 2)] &7% 0[65267% 2(]9(<;(;(% :6[$(1(1$%-] (55) ^ [&( ;(&](:$%&=!(' • :6=[&$%]

[0%]

[47 901]$5<:' ;( 85!7' &=% ;(^

[;=% (6]A(' &$+&$ • 40+&0 [6]( 40 0[A061(]!(&$ &7% (409#0[7]% 0 [:'-]

Fr. 18a. A d d to the t o p of fr. 18 col. 1, including the first (heretofore mostly lacunose) lines (lines 355ff.):

[:6$(!&0'$% &7! :$9'$3: 0:0]87[cav

0&( 40 (5&$5 8$707!(]%-

[&$! :$95;6(&0$! .0'6' :$9]97'> ^ (355)

[(:79(!27!(% • ;(&( 40 &$]% 0:([%= :561$% &$% 0:' &7! 6(.']$!

{0:' &$5 (-1 ;6=&76'$5}

[&$5 $60$0: 0:0$%&( 0:0?7]9&$% [$'&0 0:3;$56$' ;(' (5&>%] ca[ '=% !5.%$3 40A( 0%$' 4]0 [roue 9(;04(' $%'$5! 0]: $9'[1

%$.

.

]

Fr.2la, col. 1. At t h e b o t t o m of fr. 21, the scholium to the right of 41 Of. can n o w be completed: (410)

*:9'

0

| =!0':(6[(] | 9' )%(

262

Appendix

1

i.e., :(06') 9' 0("() 40$& %(*( ;& G"(. Fr. 21a, col. 2. The new fragment opposite 41 Of. also contains a row ofletters from the next column: [;( -] [85!0= $ $' &0 47 =% <99$' ;765;0!] :6$7[1$605$% &(+&( ;(' 47 ;(' $] 0: ('1[5:&$% &(.&0'! • 0+6'!;0] [1(]6 ;( [ 85!7% ;(' &$% !&6(&$%] [0$]%&( [&7! !56'7! 0% (18(&(-] [%$]'!' : [6$71$6050 !&(! 0! ^ [&( 0]% [&0&(9 0%( 0; &$5

)!$%] <1$5]

Fr. 22a. To the top of fr. 22 (line 422) add: &7 [' (:(!7' !+ #$67 ' (%(&6=-] !;[0' 0:' &$% '::$% 0% %$='] 0.[=% &7% &(.'!&7% 0! !$5!(] (422)

!&6([&050!2(' 0:' &

%$(1$%]

Line 142. Below this line not a paragraphus, but a diplê. Line 144. Before 9010&[(' a space acts as punctuation. Line 150. Left and below this line in the margin is the remnant of a falling oblique (\), perhaps a diplê. The diplê obelismenê is ruled out by the lack of any signs of a horizontal stroke beneath the delta. Line 173. A slight blank space follows &(;(00(", apparently intended as punctuation. Line 177. A goodly space follows '$, apparently as punctuation. The dot at line end, somewhat clumsily added, may well be intended as a middle (not low) dot. Line 210. Below this line is a diplê, not a diplê obelismenê. Line 267. A paragraphus is clearly visible below this line. Line 330. Below this line is a diplê, not a diplê obelismenê. Line 379. The horizontal line that the editor reads as the bottom of an initial ' is more likely a paragraphus. Line 422. A paragraphus is clearly visible below this line. 1805+3687. Sophocles, Track 1805, line 744. As the lines following 744 are all of similar length, we expect the final letters of 745ff. to be visible below the final word of 744, :<6=%. Underneath :<6=%, how-

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

263

ever, is blank papyrus, or in one case (747) a trace of the line's final letter.The earlier part of line 744 appears therefore to contain some variant or correction. Line 764. The supralinear (, written by the corrector, probably intends a word transposition, and one expects that > is written over some word in the missing part of the line. The variant may then be ;$! > &0 ;(' !&$9, .(36=%, which though not so poetical is far the commoner word order in Sophocles. Line 792.The low-middle dot here is probably not to be distinguished from the middle dot in 1143. 1806.Theocritus. Lines 8Iff.The spacing does not require the lipography suggested by the editor.The first letters of :06' here and !#'!' in 83 are one above the other; nine letters precede both in the vulgate text. 1808. Plato, Resp. 8. Col. 3, line 8.The correction is by the text hand. Col. 5, line 3. The final letter of $5&=! is not certain, and $5&= [$6(- |8(!( cannot be ruled out. 1809. Plato, Phd. Col. l . T h e line-end remains can be placed in 102b as follows. All traces match exactly excepting the theta in $)$]$+0, which is, however, very mutilated. top of column [&$ 47

0&( &(+&( 76=&( 0' 4]7 7

[4 $! &(5& $5&=! 9010'! (6 $]5. $[&(% !' 4

'(% !=;6(&$5! #7]'!

[ 0'?= 03%(' #('4=%$! 40] 0-> [9(&&= 9010'! &$& 03%(' 0% &='] [!'

'(' ( #"&06( ;('

010]2$!

[;(' ! ';6"&7&( 01=10 (99]( 8

[1(6 7 4 $! $ $9$10'! &$ &$%] [!'

'(% 5:060.0'% !=;6](-

[&$5! $5. =! &$'! 67 (!' 9010-J [&(' $5&= ;(' &$ (;-1$0 0.0'%]: »

1

*

We can reconstruct 46 lines in both col. 1 and col. 2. Col. 2, line 15. The editor neglects to transcribe the chi siglum in the left margin (noted however by Turner and Parsons 1987, #19).

264

Appendix

1

1810. Demosthenes, Olynth. i—iii, PhiL i, de Pac Olynth, ii, frr. 12-13, line 4. Following ;&%%4]& add a high dot. Olynth, iii, frr. 2-3, line 12. Read ;+])+30[ ,6;. Fr. 5, col. 1, line 7. At line end following %+&+30&" add a high dot. Line 11. Read M06$ (the right dot of the diaeresis is clearly visible). Col. 2, line 2.The stroke below this line is probably a paragraphus, written low between the two lines as usually in this manuscript; the reading is difficult, though, since the stroke interferes with ' at the start of the line below, and a mistakenly written delta is not impossible. Phil, i, fr. 8, line 4. At line end following ,$];$34 add a high dot. Frr. 11—13, col. 1, line 2. Following [$]06(& is a noticeable though slight space, such as usually accompanies punctuation; no dot is, however, apparent. De Pace, fr. 2, col. 2, line 13. Below this line a paragraphus can be read. Unplaced frr. Among the many small unplaced bits (not transcribed in the publication), none can be securely assigned to a speech of Demosthenes not already represented in the original publication. Only two further pieces can be placed with any certainty.These are: fr. a = Olynthiaca 3 § 5 [ .

.

.

"B &0("-]

6[$0 (/$&6+ 4 ("'*$0 (1-"(&-] 2

+& 6[+" (%+06+;+" -" ' +3-] 6+0 [+ ,(&*+0 (36+0* $& )(* 6+-]

4

6$ [$,$&0 $>+-1-0( $" 40%$*]

fr. b = de Pace % 25 top of column [$,(06+30 ,(]1 $"( +3 [64] 2

[%*+0$"-"$) $"]+[30 %$*&] (1: ,(1' £"' +D64 codd.)

In fr. b, the division of the lines is by way of example. The margin falls close to where we would predict: from the bottom of fr. 2.ii to the top of the column there are 1364 letters, thus two columns intervened averaging 682 letters each, to which we may compare the 685 letters in the column containing fr. 2.ii and the overall average of 661 letters per column. Note that scriptio plena is written against the received text for lexical words, but that the preposition is silently elided; such is the common practice throughout this manuscript.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

265

1815. Homer, II 1. For possible alignment dots in this manuscript, see §3.1.2. 1819. Homer, Od. 10-12. 11.303. The stichometric gamma to the left of this line is marked with lines above and below. The editor is wrong to imply that frr. 3-5 join in such a way as to preclude line 427. In fact,fir.4 contains the leftmost edge through 426, and fr. 5 picks up at 428 in the middle of the line. As we see from locating unplaced fr. a below, line 427 was in fact part of the manuscript. Four small unidentified fragments labelled a-d can be placed in Odyssey 11 as follows: fr. a = 11.427-34, joins with fir. 5 at 428ff. 427

[wc $5; ('%$]&0[6$% ;(' ;5%&06$% (99$ 15%(';$!] [7 &'! 47 &$'](5&[(

0&( #60!'% 061( 8(97&(']

[$'$% 47 ;(' ;0]3%7 [0 7!(&$ )61$% (0';0!] 430

[;$56'4'=' &0]+A[(!( :$!0' #$%$% 7 &$' 0#7% 10] [acnacioc :(]'40![!'% '40 4 =0!!'% 0 $'!'%] [$';(4 0905!]0!2[(' 7 4 G?+2( 9516( '45'(] [$' &0 ;(& ('!].$! )[.050 ;(' 0!!$ 0%7'!'% $:'!!=] (A trace from the next line)

fr. b = 11.391-4

391

[;9(30 4 $ 10 9]'10=[! 2(906$% ;(&( 4(;65$% 0'8=%] [:'&%(! 0'! 0] 0 . [0'pac $60A(!2('

0%0('%=%]

[(99 $5 1(6 $' 0]& 7% le [0 :04$! $54 0&' ;';5!] [$'7 :06 :(6$! 0!];0[% 0%' 1%( :&$'!'

090!!'%]

fr.c = 11.375-6

375

[;(' ;]0% 0* 7= 4['(% (%(!.$' 7% $&0 [&9(']7! 0%

[01(6=' &( ca ;740(

$' &-]

527!(!2(']

266

Appendix

1

fr. d = 11.397-404

397

[(&60'47 ;54'!&0 (%(]A (%[46=% (1( 0 %$%] [&'! %5 !0 ;76 04( (!]!0 &([%79010$! 2(%(&$'$] [70 ce 1 0% %70!!' :$!0']4([=% 04( (!!0%]

400

[$6!(! (61(90=% (%]0 =[% ( 01(6&$% (5& 7%] [70 c (%(6!'$' (%460!] 04[797!(%& 0:' .)6!$5] [8$5! :06'&( %$ 0%]$% [74 $3=% :=0( ;(9(]

[-$ %$*& :&$9'$! (.]0"5[ 0%$% 740 )3"(&,E"] [40 0#( 7% $ 40

(5&3;] ([ 0'8$ 0%$! :6$!00':0%]

2064+3548. Theocritus. 2064, col. 3, line 39. A middle-high dot follows ,]+;%+" at line end, separated from the text by a space as is the scribe's habit in this manuscript. Col. 11, line 11.To the left, the editor transcribes a slash with a dot to its right.The dot however is not ink, but an encrustation on the papyrus surface. Line 16. A middle dot follows %]+6B5+" after a space. Line 17.The dot transcribed here at the end of the line belongs not to the text, but to the scholia. The scholia are often introduced by a dot in this manuscript. 7.115. A middle dot follows ;&%+"6$]0 after a space. 3548,7.99.The punctuation dot is written above the " of the correction, which shows that the punctuation was added at the same time or later than the correction. 7.128. A high dot, apparently, follows 0]#( (%. 7.146.There may be the trace of a middle dot at the end of the line. 2064, col. 19, line 16. A paragraphus, which we expect (to mark the change in speaker), is visible below this line. At the end of the line a middle dot is clearly visible, though it is partly overwritten by the scholia. 3548,8.36. What the editor interprets as the top arm of , in the line following is more probably the expected paragraphus. 8.40. A paragraphus is clearly visible below this line. Unplacedfrr. See Bulloch 1987. 2091. Hesiod, Erga. Line 327. Probably 3!$% (with diaeresis) should be read. 2092. Pindar, OL 2. Lines 20, 63. Lower margins are visible below these lines (cols. 1 and 2 respectively).

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

267

Lines 82f The coronis at the end of the third triad is correctly positioned beside line 82, but the paragraphus is curiously misplaced following line 83; doubly curious, given the same mistake made again at line 117 (infra). Line 117. The tip of a paragraphus is visible below $,6+*(. Lines 118f. The colometry of this papyrus leads us to expect the division ,/]-1 [v]oc. The editor notes that 118 requires two letters in the lacuna at line beginning. The space does indeed match that of [oc] two lines above, but this hand might well have written a quite large initial v: cf. e.g. initial 5 and ; at lines 82 and 90 respectively, both of which take up as much space as [oc] in line 117.The reading ;'[$]-1 [v]a is then at least as possible. 2095. Herodotus, 1,11. Col. 2, line 4. A space meant as punctuation is apparent following /+&6(]). 2096+3374. Herodotus, 1. 2096, fr. 5, line 4. A high dot follows 1$]+3. 3374, fr. 5, col. 1, line 2. A high dot is visible at line end. 2096, frr. 10-12, col. 1. No margin follows line 3. Col. 4, line 28. A high dot follows 9$1$%. Col. 5, line 2. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Line 21. A high dot is visible at line end (partly obscured by a fold). Col. 6. No margin is visible at the top, though reconstruction suggests that line 1 is in fact the top line of the column. Fr. 13. This unidentified fragment most probably belongs to 1.46.2, though 1.134.9 (at 13 letters per line) is possible. 3374, fr. 14. Place this unidentified fragment as follows: [7]%0 [';(%&$ 19=!!7!] (1.57) [.](6([;&76(

0&(-]

The identification is confirmed by fibres at fr. l.i.6-7, with which fr. 14 appears indeed to join over a very narrow bridge. Fr. 15 is located as follows: [ . 1

.

. a-]

[1(&( $54]0%( [:$%$%] [4$59$:]60:[0( 0.$5!'] [ 7 8$5]9$ [0%$'!' 40]

Fr. 18 is located as follows:

(1.126)

268

Appendix

1

1

[&] $5 $% [$ (-roc

(9-]

(1.147)

[9$]% #$[ &=% <99=% m - ] [%]=% ec [& =!<% 47 ;('] 4

['$] ;(2( [6=! 101$%$&0!] ['=]%0* [0 tri 40 :(%&0!] (&:+3"+ (6+^ codd.)

Frr. 16, 17, 19, 20 are not in the same hand as 2096+3374. In the frame of unidentified fragments are two unpublished scraps in the same hand as fr. 17, one of which contains remnants of five lines from Demosthenes, adversus Leptinem §40. 2098. Herodotus, 7. For the alignment dots visible in this manuscript, see §3.1.2. Col. 3, line 4. The reported high dot is more probably the tip of the right vertical of " (separated from the stroke below by the loss of a small bit of ink). Both position (above, not beside, the preceding letter) and form (squared at the top) differ from the other preserved dots. 2099. Herodotus, 8. Col. 1. The lacuna following line 4 is 3 (not 4) lines in extent; and the top line of the fragment, since it is opposite line 2 of column 2, is the second line of the column. Preserved then are the ends of lines 2,3,4, 5,9,10 of the column. 2100+3891+4109. Thucydides, 4-5,8. 2100. The editor states that fr. 4 col. 1 is 'shorter by about five lines than average,* but reconstruction suggests 33 lines per column, and 32—4 lines per column is usual for what we can reconstruct of books 4 and 5; thus, fr. 1 col. 1 (33), fr. 3 col. 2 (34), fr. 5 col. 1 (34) and col. 2 (32), a measured column height of 19.7 cm (fr. 5).The fragments from book 8, on the other hand, consistently suggest columns with more lines (37—9), but with much tighter leading, hence somewhat less physical height (c. 18.5 cm); as does the fragment (3891) from book 3 (40-1 lines, c. 20 cm). Fr. 3, col. l.The editor's suggestion of 8$59=%]&([' (5-] | [#'()] is impossible, as it would require a line length of over 27 letters per line, whereas extant lines show 18 letters per line in this part of the roll. The final letter in the line in any case appears to be a rounded character. Probably best is 5.18 [(27-] | ["(&+& :0'2=!'] &([! :]$-1 [90'!] which allows a reconstruction of col. 2 with 34 lines at 18.5 letters per line (the leading, being the same as fr. 5 col. 1, confirms the presumption of 34 lines per column here). Fr. 3, col. 2, lines 6f. A blank space is used as punctuation following ['- +-] |cuoi. Fr. 5, col. 2, line 22. A blank space as punctuation follows ()&".

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

269

Fr. 8, col. 2, line 3. A blank space as punctuation follows (S-"(&+,:. Line 8. A slight blank space, perhaps intended as punctuation, follows ;-0&(0. Line 15. A blank space as punctuation follows ;$4". Line 23. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Line 28. A blank space as punctuation follows ,*(6-0("6$0. Lines 31f. A blank space as punctuation follows $"&-1 ,-0(". Col. 3, lines 27f. A blank space as punctuation follows --1 032(0(". Line 35. In the left margin is not a paragraphus but the diplê obelismenê. Frr. 9+10, col. l . T o the left of this column lie 2.2 cm of apparently vacant space, but closer inspection reveals traces of ink at 1.5 cm from the left margin. The nearly complete disappearance of ink is common in these fragments. This intercolumn then matches the others at c. 1.5 cm. Frr. 9+10, col. 2, line 17. Read 6-: (not 6-) %+;$&. Fr. 15. For the placement of this fragment, see Luginbill 1990. 3891. col. 1, line 7. The blank space reported before ,(& is an abraded area with ink traces that look like the remains of sigma; and what is read as dotted iota is a curved stroke (thus consistent with omicron). Read: ]([36]+[&]9,([&] (i.e., without punctuation space). 3891. col. 2, line 11. What is read as the tip of the right hasta of «- appears to be the ink of the corrector, who adds here and there punctuation dots (in the high position) and textual corrections. O n this basis, and on the basis of spacing, the ink seems likely the remains of a punctuation dot (written, as often, with slight elongation), inserted as clarification by the corrector into the blank space left by the scribe (just as in lines 3, 6, and 9 of this column). The same corrector is responsible for the paragraphus at line beginning and the textual correction. Read: €

cpopojv]· • 6( ,6;.

4109. Fr. 1, line 14. The tip of a paragraphus (expected) is visible below this line. 4109. Fr. 2, col. 2, line 11.1 see no trace of the high dot reported after ,(6$;1$&" (there is a full character space). Nor is the dot expected: nowhere else in the remains of the roll containing book 8 (whether 2100 or 4109) is the punctuation effected by a dot. 2101. Xenophon, Cyr. 1. For convenience, I include corrections that were independently observed by Paap and incorporated into his text (Paap 1970, 16-20); these I indicate parenthetically. Paap also notes an interlinear nu above the cancelled movable at col. 3, line 24; a cancellation of 6$ at col. 5, line 33; and a paragraphus below col. 5, line 15. Col. 2, line 3. A high dot follows $?$[;$]$[.. (Paap) Line 15. There may be a trace of the expected paragraphus below this line.

270

Appendix

1

Lines 16-17. Read '&('+- )2[- .... Line 19. A trace is visible of the paragraphus expected below this line. Col. 3, line 5. An apparent trace of a high dot is visible at line end. Lines 7-8.The diplê is located between these lines and not opposite 8. Line 24. A trace of the expected paragraphus may be visible below this line, but the reading is uncertain. Col. 4, line 8. Read not a line filler at the end, but a middle dot. Line 16. Following the supralinear correction a is not a high dot but a dicolon. Line 19. A clear paragraphus is visible below this line. (Paap) Line 20. Beside the paragraphus a chi is visible below this line. (Paap) At line end, 4 %:%%$ appears a later addition, written in the right margin, perhaps over an erasure. Lines 26f. An elision mark follows (;-1 ;. (Paap) Line 28. Beside and below this line is a diplê. (Paap) Line 30. Above +& the second hand has written something, probably +F. Col. 5, line 5. Read l&oclv (with diaeresis). (Paap) Line 8.The paragraphus is added by the second hand. (Paap) Line 13. A paragraphus is visible below this line. (Paap) Lines 35f.The diplê is written between these two lines, not opposite line 36. 2102+PTwraer 7. Plato, Phdr. (For the identification, see Menci 1982.) For the alignment dots visible in 2102, see §3.1.2.1 have not examined PTurner 7. 2102. Col. 1, line 16.The short slash above and to the right of $ +3 is unlikely to be the word-division mark postulated by the editor. An identical mark appears at the end of the line, in mid-word of the text, but immediately preceding a tiny marginal comment that is damaged but ends either ]ci or presumably the mark then is meant to signal the placement of a correction. Line 25.The traces do not allow us to decide between - and & at the left. Given the usual practice of the scribe, the more probable reading is &(5&]7 & [$ $5% 7-]. Col. 2, line 25. No paragraphus is visible or expected. Col. 3, line 28. A middle dot follows $*(01$&0. Col. 6, line 10. No paragraphus is visible or expected (cf. editor's comment ad loc.). Line 13. A high dot follows $#"(&. Line 29. No paragraphus is visible or expected. Col. 8, line 18. No paragraphus is visible or expected. High magnification shows that the apparent trace of ink is an encrustation. 2103. Gaius. Institutiones. (Since a Latin text, not included in the sample.) Fr. 2, col. 1, line 13. A high dot appears to follow agat.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

271

2179. Aeschylus, Sept. Line 164. At left the nu is by no means secure: ) cannot be ruled out, given the form of ) in e.g. line 156. (Cf. addendum in POxy vol. 20, p. 167.) 2180. Sophocles, OT. Along with the unplaced fragments of 2180 resides a thorough sheet of identifications by W.S. Barrett. The list remains, as far as I know, unpublished, but Barrett is able to place, plausibly or certainly, most fragments of any size. For fr. 32, Barrett offers no identification, but computer analysis suggests strongly that this should be located at 299—303, though 1177-81 is not impossible. Barrett's identification of fr. 37 (at 437-9) seems unlikely: despite the editor's transcription, I see no /, but a clear ]+3$&[ in the second line, and only traces in the third (the editor's %;- is too bold). For fr. 37 I suggest then placement at lines 6-8. Fr. 48 has been identified in Brunner 1986, 295 as line 1215, but line 426 (as Barrett also saw) is at least as likely. (There is no crossbar extant to distinguish + from $ at the right.) Indeed, examination of the nearby frr. 10-11, though no join can be made, shows a similarity of fibers which sugg^ts that 426 is much the likelier alternative. Barretts unpublished work, the work of Brunner, and the suggestions above take care of all but a small number of fragments (namely, frr. 41, 47, 50, 51, 53), each of which is too exiguous to allow definite placement. The speculation advanced by the editor that the unplaced fragments contain some work other than the Oedipus Tyrannos can now be laid to rest. Line 417. Middle dots surround the correction. Line 429. Add a middle dot at line end. Line 451. A clear diaeresis is visible on ;(M$&+". Lines 463ff. From the spacing an eisthesis of about two characters can be deduced here for the lyric section (as probably also elsewhere, though nowhere else do we have trimeter and lyric juxtaposed). Line 515. A circumflex is apparent on (6;-]6E". 2181. Plato, Phd. The many corrections and additions in Dornum and Haslam 1991 are assumed here. Unremarked by the editor is an extraordinary aspect to the punctuation system in this papyrus. Here, as often in papyrus texts of Plato, dicolon is used both to mark a full stop and, in conjunction with paragraphus, to mark a change of speaker. The long lines here create the fairly common coincidence of two or more dicolons, sometimes with different meanings, in the same line. Wherever more than one dicolon appears in a line, the scribe marks dicolons that signify a speaker change with a small line under the letter previous to the dicolon; thus in fr. 34, lines 9, 18, 20 (plate 13); fr. 84. No such mark is used when a single dicolon appears in a line, whether, without the paragraphus, to signal a full stop (as

272

Appendix

1

e.g. fr. 29, line 23) or, with the paragraphus, to mark a speaker change (as e.g. fr. 29, lines 22, 24).

Fr. 4, line 2. Spacing suggests that the line ended '&(]0,$'[(""3-]. Fr. 7.The final line is misread and wrongly restored ((*2$01+( is two lines past the line that reads -] 6& '$ 6+ 0[4 (). The final line should read $%$&'(]) $" 6[4& (364& ,6;. The editor's disposition of lines in frr. 9-11 and 12-14 can be right only if the text diverges, since a single line of only 28 characters is left to intervene between these two groups (compared to an average in this column of about 39). Dornum and Haslam 1991, 10 rightly note that no margin appears to the right of %*+6$- (fr. 9-11.8), but reconstruction suggests that the right margin cannot be far off. A simple solution is to suppose that the top lines in frr. 12-14 are somewhat shorter than the editor supposes, and that fr. 12 begins further left in the line. The line in lacuna and the initial lines of frr. 12-14 would read then something like the following: [&,6&"4" )$"-: - %+& (" (;;+0$ /( $" 6(0 6+&(3-] [6(0 &$"(&:] ( [$;$& $/- + ,$>-0 zic 6( 6+&(D6(: +3,-] [+3" - ' oc] '-;( ['- ,(& 6(;;( -]& ( [" $,(06(&+& ,(6(]

Frr. 12-14, line 32.The spacing does not require the editor's omission of - ' oc in the restoration. Fr. 16. The first line should be transcribed [,(& $*46(" +6&] ay [>+]3;[-01$ 265 (" (1-"(#4" $40&"] and in fact joins with the bottom of unplaced fr. 62. (Fortuna, Bindi, and Bozzi 1987 place fr. 62 correctly, but, since they accept the editor's reading of fr. 16, do not recognize the join; there is no margin at the bottom of fr. 62. So also Dornum and Haslam 1991,5.)

Fr. 17, line 17. See Dornum and Haslam 1991, 11. Line 22. The dot is in the low-middle position. Line 28. A high dot follows ['&(6$ -]^ Fr. 18, line 17. A clear dicolon follows ;G)4". I see no trace of the dotted + reported by the editor. Fr. 19, line 7. A dicolon (not high dot) follows -?$&. Line 14. To the right of the marginal writing is not a dot but the prime sign; above the omicron, a small superscript upsilon. Read then +3(640) ( , of uncertain meaning (the first of two collated exemplars?). Line 18. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Line 20.The dicolon is neither visible nor expected, though the area is badly rubbed. Line 29. The area below (;;+&0 is badly rubbed, but there may be traces of the expected paragraphus.

Fr. 20, line 12. A high dot follows .32-.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

273

Fr. 23.There is no margin at the bottom: the top layer is stripped, but as there is a join here (apparently a synkollêsis), the (blank) recto of the lower layer is apparent. (The margin would be about 9 lines below, as we can reconstruct from the top margin apparent in fr. 24.) Fr. 28, line l.The high dot following 6(D6(, where a dicolon is expected, is no longer visible, as the area is badly rubbed. There may be perhaps the barest trace of a lower dot. Fr. 29, line 2. A dicolon follows 0+/46$*+&0. Line 15. A high dot follows #6$%&'!. Line 16. An acute accent but no rough breathing is visible over " =! (to distinguish + 40 from " >!). Line 17. Read #['9$!]$#[=%. Line 22. Where the editor reads $'+?$" , [at, I see $'+?$: , [at. More corrections to this fragment in Dornum and Haslam 1991, 6f. Fr. 31, line 7ff.The final letter of line 8 is not now visible, but " is fairly clear two lines after the & at the end of line 7. Read then for lines 7ff.: 7

[0&06$% · 7 #0510'% ;(' 5:0;.=60'% $&(% (5&=]' [:6$!'7' &$ 0%(%&3$% &$ ! ';6"%* 7 :6$!09$$%&$]!

9

[0;03%$5 (:$9=90%(': 5:$ 0%$% 40 ;(' 40A( 0%$]%

The final letter of line 6 may well be $ (that is, 0-1 [&06$%]). Fr. 33, line l.Th e editor's layout results in an exceptionally short line for the reconstruction. But the : of :6$! is in fact over the & of ,(]& and the line lengths are even. Fr. 31, col. 2, line 1. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Line 8. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Fr. 34, line 6. A dicolon follows %$*&66+0. Line 6. Over (5 read a circumflex (not a rough breathing); this distinguishes (+ &( from (5&<.

Line 9. Under the - of $/- is a small horizontal Une (see discussion at top). Line 16. At line end a dicolon apparently follows )$"$01(& (only the lower dot is visible). Line 18. Under the " of +3" a short horizontal line may be visible (see discussion at top). Line 20. Under the c of ;$)]$&0 a short horizontal line is visible (see discussion at top). Fr. 40, line 4. Read a middle (not high) dot. Frr. 47,48, 49: A kollêsis running down the right edge of these fragments confirms that all three belong to one column. Aligning fr. 48 and 49 along the kollêsis results, however, in an awkward amount of text in the lacuna between the two fragments: about 100 characters where one expects eighty or so for the two lines in lacuna. Some textual variant must be assumed.The obvious supposition is that the text omitted = '' +0 E <6'!&0 G63&=%.

274

Appendix

1

Fr. 50, line 2. The editor's note misreports the bracketed letters in this line. The main text has the correct transcription. Fortuna, Bindi, and Bozzi 1987 and Dornum and Haslam 1991 locate the many unplaced fragments numbered 51 and following.To those discussions, I append two notes: Fr. 51. At top is not a margin, but a rubbed area with traces of ink. Place at 83d as follows (exact line division unknown):

[$ $4$A0'% #6$ !> (&' ;('] &$ er ([5&$'! .('60'%] [(%(1;(?0&(' $' (' $ $&6$]:$! &0 ;[(' $ $&6$#$!]

Frr. 68+84+70. Under the epsilon of )$ at fr. 84.3+68.7+70.3 a short horizontal line is visible (see discussion at top). 2224+3152. Euripides, Hipp. 3 # 52,The height of the written area is about 21 cm (not 17), assuming that col. 1 has 44 lines at 4.8-mm leading. Lines 279ff. Haslam 1979, 32 corrects the reading in the right margin opposite lines 279,278,280 to >' (' )'. Though the margin is largely undamaged I see, however, no traces beside line 279 (despite the photograph, whose shadow might well be mistaken for ink) and the partial letter beside 280 suits the base of > well but ) not at all. I read then a' to the left of 278 and >' to the left of 280, which is not at all what we expect nor even very sensible. 2333. Aeschylus, Sept. Line 627. Read $3[632]- not $3[632]-&. (Thus, the unusual combination of an unwritten dative adscript alongside a written adscript for the subjunctive third singular is a phantom.) 2334. Aeschylus, Sept. There appear to be 31-2 lines per column not 27-8 (unless one assumes the loss of some part of 515-20, ejected by some modern editors, but consistently present within the medieval tradition). Line 531. Read = not - at line start. Line 543. Read a diaeresis over 3%('). 2335. Euripides, Andr. Lines 983f. The first line of the column overhangs at the left one character (ek thesis), but the subsequent line is flush with the left margin.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

275

Line 988. In the margin 9' = 9(010') is possible» but to my eye it looks much more like a = stichometric 1000. Line 1015.The editors reading, (;[ , is unnecessary, though possible; the traces do not preclude the transmitted text, ("[ 2$*( ,6;. 2336. Euripides, Hel Lines 673-4. A paragraphus is visible below 673, not below 674. 2337. Euripides, Med. Line 1149. Read $&]9+'+39[] % [+cic] '$ [coc]. Line 1155. Add a middle dot at line end. Line 1189. Add a low dot at line end. 2402. Aristotle, Eth. Nie. For the possible alignment dots visible in this manuscript, see §3.1.2. 2403. Aristotle, Cat. In line 2 of the unplaced fragment, the ' is crossed through. The unplaced fragment definitely belongs to this roll, since the hand matches on both front and back. Definite placement is impossible, though a good fit in the vicinity can be found at 12a (assuming 'G corrected to )$). 2404+PLaur III/278. Aeschines, in Ctes. The blank noted at the end of the last line of column one is probably no more than the right margin of a slightly short line (cf. line 35 of col. 2).The column exhibits Maas's law, and a comparison of column 2 leads us to expect a gain on the left of 3-4 letters from line 12 to the end of the column. Moreover, to the left of line 54 of column 2 a trace survives that cannot be i, but which accords well with c. The final lines of column 1 should be restored then as follows: 26

[80% 0%] &7' $6.[7]*-

27

[&6(' .$]671$! =%[]

28

[;(' wc (]:04&&$

2468. Plato, Pot. In the reconstruction, the editor assumes that many lines are divided after the vowel even in the ultimate syllable, a very unusual convention in a well-written literary papyrus. Thus, divisions are proposed such as 0&0[6$]-[%], [&$]-[%], 0:0:97[A(]-[!], [xai]-[c], [(]-[99],

276

Appendix

1

[0'4$]-[30]. Nowhere does spacing compel such reconstructions, and in some places (as fr. 2, lines 6f.) spacing argues against. The basis of the reconstruction lies in two readings at the right edge of the papyrus.The first, at fr.l, col. 1, lines lOf. is transcribed as +*]$4-1 [c. The edge is badly damaged, but there is a clear trace of ink following 4 at the end of the line, which can only be sigma or a line filler.The other example, at fr. 1, col. 2, line 3, the editor transcribes as :]9$5!'=&06[+<&] 0-> | [ic. But the lacuna that is supposed to contain [oc] appears not large enough for these two letters, and I should be inclined to read -&06[$]*> | ^ic.The final letter does contain a trace that may be taken as the mid-stroke of $; but the letter is too damaged to be at all sure, and the spacing argues strongly against it. Without better evidence, it seems rash to assume such flouting of the (literary) conventions of word division in so handsome a roll. Fr. 1, col. 2, line 5. The dot is forced down because of the lengthy descender of / which intrudes from the line above; probably not to be distinguished from the high dots written elsewhere at full stops in this manuscript. N o top margin is apparent for frr. 2 and 3. 2541. Homer, IL 14. Line 278. The unmetrical nu at the end of ;]09[05]0% appears to be cancelled by an oblique stroke. 2542. Homer, IL 15. Line 224. A high dot follows [-] $6[$*]+", written above the line. 2543. Euripides, Andr. Line 361. A high dot follows 6+&+&]'$. 2639. Hesiod, Theog. Fr. a, line 70. Read +:[+ (not D%[+), which serves to mark the preposition as postpositive. Fr. e, line 918. Probably N+2$((*([" should be read (extant is a trace of the diaeresis). Line 926. Read = (not =). 2641. Hesiod, Theog. Line 249.The mu of %*E6+ [$'$&( is clearly visible. Line 256. A second pen, as is usual for the punctuation in this manuscript, has added a high dot following /]&;+ $[&']-9. 2642. Hesiod, 7Iteog, Line 272. A middle-high dot has been added as punctuation at the end of the line.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

277

Here as elsewhere in this manuscript (with the possible exception of the low dot in line 280) the punctuation appears to be written by a second pen. Line 273. Add a middle-high dot at the end of the line. Line 281. Add a middle dot at the end of the line. Line 283. At the end of the line, no trace can be found of the unexpected acute accent transcribed by the editor; a punctuation dot is, however, clearly visible. 2643. Hesiod, Theog. Line 364. Though the acute is possible, traces of the accents above the lacuna by no means preclude the expected reading, 4,$(["?"(&]. Line 366. Read a macron along with the acute on S$:4". Line 374.1 cannot confirm the elision mark read by the editor. 2646. Hesiod, Theog. Line 652. Read F,[$01$ (not #,[$0&$). Line 654. A high dot is clearly visible following 40 /(6+. Line 655. Following the punctuation dot is a full character space (no space follows the dot in 654). 2648. Hesiod, Theog. Line 770. Read a middle (not high) dot. Elsewhere in these fragments the dots are in the high position. 2662. Plato, Meno. Line 8. A middle dot follows ("'*$]0 to mark (presumably in conjunction with a paragraphus) the change of speaker. The dot appears to be by the same pen as the text. (The dot is clumsily added so that it appears as though a serif on the sigma; but sigma is not so written in this script.) 2693. Apollonius Rhodius, 3. A kollêsis is visible at the right edge of the column of writing in both fr. 1 and fr. 2.The two fragments thus belong to the same column. The column was therefore a minimum of 34 lines and 17 cm high. Line 955. There may be a trace of the punctuation dot expected at the end of this line. 2695. Apollonius Rhodius, 1. The editor neglects several possibilities for the line in column 1 that terminates in sigma. For an analysis of which are more possible, see appendix 3. Line 468. A second acute is visible on occoctlov %$*.

278

Appendix

1

Line 469.There is enough space for zc{c]zc§% and 2(9[( $%40 (the apparent space is due to distortion of the papyrus along the vertical break). Line 15. Add a diaeresis on U%$*/#(;+0. Line 19. Traces are visible of a diacritic on ou [%4], either 6\j [:=] or "5[:=]. Line 26. The traces are entirely consistent with $]4& $&%[ . The nu in ]-"$&6[ appears to be cancelled by an oblique stroke. Line 27. Read a rough breathing on o[icu Line 28. Read a brevis on a[v.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

279

2701. Apollonius Rhodius, 4. The vertical fibres on the back make it clear that fr. 1 and fr. 2 belong to the same column. (But the order of the two frr. remains unclear - thus, the piece is of no value in confirming or denying Fraenkel's transposition of 1182-1200 to follow 1169.) 2748. Homer, II 16. 16.136. R e a d (36(* (not (36((*).

2749. Thucydides, 2. Col. 1. The fourth line of the column ends in a high dot. Taking into account the number of letters between the nu at the end of line 1 and the full stop at the end of line 4, the number of letters per line (which is fairly constant in the other columns), and the approximate number of characters in a column, the very probable reconstruction for the top of col. 1 is as follows: 1

[:6$! &$uc (5&$5! ;']%[45%$5! + +&(& $#"(&*] [&$'(+&( 40 ;(' $ #$6-]

4

[ '=% :(60;0905!(&$] *

Col. 2, lines 1 Of. The editor reports ]&> for the end of line 10, which would not match the paradosis; but % or $ (i.e., 0!!7%'=]% or :(608]$-) are at least as possible. Col. 2, lines 17f. Read (9['-1 !&(] (:$ ;&9. Col. 5, line 50. There is space for an additional letter at the end of the line. Equally possible are ;0905[!-1 ([&$! and ;0905[-> | ([&$!.

Line 57. A full character space, presumably intended as punctuation, follows 5:0 [0']%(%.

2750. Xenophon, Cyr. 1. Line 19. Read at line end ,(&: the iota was hidden under a small flap (now properly restored by R.A. Coles). Opposite the last lines of the column are the first letters from the next: [ , .[ (feet of two hastas, thus : , '& or the like), %7[ , :[ , 0.[ , 0[ . I have not been able to place these traces; a variant text? 2751. Plato, Resp. 3. Fr. A, line 6. Over the lacuna at the left read not a rough breathing but a circumflex; i.e., [9$' =] ' .... Fr. A, line 11. Given the wide

and ' in this script, and the leftward slant of the col-

umn, the lacuna at the right has space only for [- '$].

280

Appendix

1

Fr. C. Comparison of horizontal fibres shows that the top line of Fr. C lies opposite the top line of Fr. E. Line 1 is therefore the first line of the column. Fr. C, line 4.The lacuna at right has space sufficient for 8(!([%'?$ 0-. Fr. W, line 4.Visible below is a trace of the expected paragraphus. 2829. Menander, EpiL Line 50. In the space noted by the editor there is a hole exactly where we should expect the dicolon. Line 60. A trace of the expected paragraphus is visible below this line. 2831. Menander, Sam. Line 385.The space between ci and "- shows blank papyrus where a low dot would be placed, and a dicolon is thus ruled out. A high dot (despite the editor's reconstruction) seems plausible, even expected. 2948. See 1019+2948. 3152. See 2224+3152. 3156+3669. Plato, Grg. The height of the column is about 19.6-19.8 (not 17) cm. (3156 fr. 2 col. 2 had 26 lines with leading of 7.75 mm; 3669 fr. 2 col. 1 had 28 lines with leading of about 7.25 mm; the character height is about 2.5 mm.) 3156 fr. 1+3669 fr. 1.18f. Fitting the traces equally well and far more probable given the word division is ,(&] ("-1 ['*$]&+& (without line filler). 3222. Hesiod, Erga. The hand slopes not backward but forward (rather strongly, about 5°). 3229. Hesiod, Erga. Line 692. Read an acute accent on : (?( [v. 3230. Hesiod, Erga. Line 301. No dot follows >&+6+3 (the apparent dot is the tip of the right arm of 3, separated from the rest of the letter by an encrustation). 3234+3883. Thucydides, 1. A kollesis can be seen at 2.0 cm from the left edge of 3234, fr. 1, also visible in 3883 (foot of the same column).

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

281

3323. Homer» II. 15-16. 16.116. A high dot, added by the second hand, follows (%:*(?$. 3326. Plato, Resp. 8. If the roll contained all of book 8 of the Respublica, the length of the text would be approximately 9.4 (not 7) metres. (I measure about 4.9 cm for column width and 2.1 cm for the intercolumn; thus 7.0 cm from column to column. The roll contained about 134 columns, given 40,872 letters in book 8 and an average in the surviving text of 305 letters per column.) A tiny diplê precedes the marginal note in col. 1, line 6. 3372. Herodotus, 1. The height of the column is an estimated 26.5 (not 32) cm; as the upper margin is only partially preserved, and thr lower margin not at all, the roll height cannot be estimated. 3374. See 2096+3374. 3376. Herodotus, 1-2. Fr. l . T h e placement of this piece (culled from a different excavation season) with the remainder of the fragments may be questioned, despite similarities between the hands. (The script style, a common severe type, makes the similarities less telling.) The noticeably wider spacing between lines suggests in particular that fr. 1 comes from a different roll. The many other fragments all display a leading of 5 mm, almost no variation; the leading for fr. 1, on the other hand, is about 7 mm. Additional alignment dots can be seen, for which see §3.1.2. For placement of fr. 44, see Johnson 1992. Fr. 8, line 5. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Fr. 22, line 2. A high dot follows $2$&. Fr. 28, col. 1, line 14. A high dot follows %+];$&. 3383. Herodotus, 8. A full space, apparently intended as punctuation, follows :(-] |6( 0["]$$&" in fr. 1, col. 2, lines 1 If., as at the full stop at line 6 (but there is no space for the full stops at col. 1, line 3; col. 2, line 1). 3435. Demosthenes, Olynth, i. A palimpsest: the whole was washed before writing, so thoroughly that the underneath cannot be read but for an occasional letter. The first text was written in a slightly smaller bookhand.

282

Appendix

1

Col. 2, line l l . A space follows $;S$&", apparently intended as punctuation. A similar space follows %[+]3 $"+& in line 26, but there a high dot could be in lacuna. Col. 3, line 26. The reading %*B0$?$ - 3- is equally possible on palaeographic grounds, and is perhaps to be preferred given the habit here of writing scriptio plena wherever a lexical word (noun, adjective, verb) is elided before a rough breathing (examples at col. 2, line 10; col. 3, lines 5, 15; cf. effected elision before a smooth breathing at col. 2, line 14; col. 4, line 17). Col. 4, line 22. Traces are visible here of not one but two horizontal strokes, spaced as we would expect for the decoration above and below the final letter of the colophon. 3440. Homer, IL 16. 16.632. Read an apostrophe following -*2. 16.634. Following >-00-. a high dot is clearly visible above the line. 3442. Homer, Od. 11. 11.340. Read a rough breathing on 3 $&". 11.349. Add a dot at line end. 11.355.The dot at line end is in the middle position. 11.390. Read an apostrophe following (#.. 3444. Isocrates, Ev. Lines 1—4. The # of 5]#, . of &51.(% [oucriv, and 5 of &$]5 [c align vertically. The restoration must therefore assume longer lines, such as follows: [1$%(!'% 7 &$+&=% 5]# = [% 05 : 0-] 2

[:$%2$&0! (]5&$' &51.(% [$5!'% $5-] [ 7% 4$5905&0$% 6+]3[0 %$5% 0.$%]

4

[&(! &$'c $5&= ;(;=! #6$%$5!'%]

Line 37.The high dot above ,(& in the POxy printing is errant ink. No dot is apparent or expected on the papyrus. Line 44. Following 2:*&", the high dot appears to be stricken.The low dot will then be a correction. 3447. Strabo, 9. Alignment dots are visible in two columns in this papyrus. For details, see §3.1.2. Fr. 2, line 3. An oblique stroke by the second pen cancels the movable nu in $&;$", as several times elsewhere in this manuscript (fr. 14, col. 1, lines 5, 13, 30; fr. 21, line 1; fr. 30, line 3; frr. 40+41, line 9). (In all other examples, the movable nu is cancelled both by an

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

283

oblique stroke and an expungement dot over the letter; the expungement dot here would be in lacuna.) Fr. 14, col. 2, line 2. The dot following ,(& is neither accidental nor punctuation, but an alignment dot (see above). Fr. 15, col. 2, line 2. At the left of this line is a large dot (which may be accidental). Fr. 18, line 3. A middle dot follows .67!&76'(?$ ^%$*. Fr. 19, col. ii, line 7. A middle dot apparently (the area is blurred) follows $%&,*(6$&(0. Fr. 45, Une 2.The right dot of a diaeresis is apparent above the 3 of 3;-[0. Fr. 71. This unplaced piece can be located about two columns after frr. 6+7 at Strabo 9.2.25: .

.

,

20!:'-]

[at ;(' &$ 0:'%0'$% (5]&7! [7 ;60$5!(* &$+&$ 40 ;]('> [;$'9$&(&$% %$ '?0]&(' [&$

06$! &$5 ;6'!('$5] ;$9-

' $ + ;(' (:9=! &$5 ;$6'%-]> [2'(;$5

.

.

Frr. 72 and 98 are probably not part of this manuscript. 3451. Thucydides, 8. There were about 29 lines to the column. This is a formal, regular script with remarkable consistency, which allows calculations such as the following. There are three locations where margins occur fairly close to one another: (1) fr. 6 foot to fr. 9 foot = 3686 letters (2) fr. 10 top to fr. 11 top = 1209 letters (3) fr. 11 top to fr. 14 top = 2891 letters Clearly, # 1 is roughly thrice #2 (1209 X 3 = 3627). But # 3 is not a multiple of #2, nor a multiple of # 2 halved. A third of # 2 is, however, a multiple (1209^3 = 403, 403X7 = 2821). A quarter of #2 yields too few lines per column, given the extant partial columns. Thus, we deduce the column size at roughly one-third of #2: (1) 3686 = 9 cols. @ 409.5 letters/column (2) 1209 = 3 cols. @ 403 letters/column (3) 2891 = 7 cols. @ 413 letters/column Average = 410 letters/column At 14.2 letters per line (the average for extant lines), we derive 28.9 lines per column, which accords with the largest reconstructed partial column (fr. 13, at least 26 lines). Fr. l.The left of this fragment cannot be the left margin, since the ( of (%0[;$ '?$%&$ in

284

Appendix

1

line 3 aligns to the right of the & in &$% in line 2. The expected paragraphus is probably therefore not omitted but in lacuna. Frr. 9+10, col. 1, lines 3f.Add a high dot following [.=- |pto]v. Fr. 21.The remains match well the following probable placement at 8.15.1: top of column [&(' ;('] %$[ '!(%&0!] [ 01(%] 7§[7 ;(' ca-] [#7 &$%] ;'[%45%$%] [ccpac :]06'[0!&(%(']

3547. Theocritus. 3.54. Add a high dot at line end. The dot appears very like the bottom of the supralinear iota, but the ink matches that of the text, not that of the correction. 3548. See 2064+3548. 3552. Theocritus. For the alignment dots visible in this manuscript, see §3.1.2. 3663. Homer,//. 18. 18.266. Add a high dot at line end following $06(&. 3666+PHarr I 12. Plato, Ale. i. Calculation of the measurements of height and intercolumn does not support the editors statement that the two papyri concur. The height for PHarr 112, if it is 37-8 lines per column (which is not certain, as the last line of the papyrus does not agree with our text), would be about *18.4—18.9 cm; for 3666, if the editor is right in reconstructing 34 lines per column (which is probable, but again not certain since the expected paragraphus is lacking), the height calculates to *21.2 cm. (The only other real possibility supposes 24-5 lines per column, which calculates to *14.85-15.5 cm.) I measure a substantial difference in the size of the intercolumn: on average, about 2.0 cm for PHarr I 12, but 1.6 cm for 3666; physical width of column likewise varies, at 7.3 and *5,3 cm respectively.The upper margin of3666 fr. 3 measures 3.6 (not 3.1) cm. (All measurements of PHarr I 12 are taken from a photo, taking into account the 10% reduction.) PHarr I 12.The editor understandably misreads many letters at the edge of the papyrus. The following errors in transcription, confirmed from a photograph, are of special note.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

285

Col. 1, line 17. At left read ov (not +3), thus 6*+%]+" with the tradition. Col. 2, lines 16 and 17.The lines are mistakenly metathesized; read 16

&0 $:$&0 [809&'$%:]

17

%(': ;(' &$[!(52 oca]

Col. 2, line 25. A high dot, not a dicolon, is expected and evident following %*[+0%(I ;(]&$&". 3667. [Plato],AL ii. There are 4 (not 3) lines missing from the top of each column. The central lacuna in col. 1 may be 21 or 22 lines; in col. 2, however, 11 lines is far more likely than 12 lines (25.9 letters per line for 11 lines, 23.9 for 12 lines, with an average of 25.3 letters per line for the extant lines in the column). For col, 2, reconstruct then 34 lines, a column height of about *23.25 cm. The editor restores adscript in lacunose sections with no justification: the two extant datives are both written without adscript. 3669. See 3156+3669. 3671. Plato, La. Line 1. The editor's note on this line should read 5:$ %7!$%-] |&0[!]. Line 2. A middle dot is added before ,(& by a second pen. Line 5. Following ,+&"= an adscript has been added above the line by a second pen. Line 15. Above the 3 of S (0 is not only diaeresis, but an additional stroke, which appears to be a grave accent. Both marks are added, apparently, by the second pen. 3672. Plato, Leg. 6. Col. 1, line 10. The reported dicolon appears in fact a high dot with the usual small angular line filler below; following is a second line filler. 3675. Plato, Leg 9. The lower margin of col. 2 is largely made up of a separate fragment that was incorrectly joined. (The front was mistaken for the back and rotated 180°; the new join, effected by R.A. Coles, is guaranteed by a kollêsis that the fragment shares with the upper part of col. 2.) Rightly positioned, the lower margin measures 5.7 cm. The roll height estimated by the editor is based on an arithmetic error. The editor assumes Turner's rule of thumb of 2:3 for upper dower margins, but inverts the ratio. The

286

Appendix

1

misplacement of the fragment in the lower margin (see above) invalidates the estimate in any event. I do not offer a recalculation, since I do not believe sound the application of a rule based on evidence - and slim at that - from codices. See further at §3.5. The computer count of letters preceding the extant remains appears to have mistakenly included the speaker names in the TLG text, thus slightly inflating the count. Col. 1 is thus more probably column 33 (not 34) of the roll. 3677. Plato, Phdt The introductory comment is unclear, but can be taken (as did Krüger 1990, 194) to mean that 2160-4 and 3677 were copied by one scribe. The hands are not the same. Lines 8f.There seems little justification for the unusual word division [--|" ...]. Nu could in any case be written as an overbar (cf. line 10). But the letter read as , though undotted, is very doubtful. I would hesitantly suggest that the traces may belong to an angular line filler. In line 9, a noticeable space follows the final character of +&],6*+)+4", suggesting the end of the line. A more plausible reconstruction, which better suits the vertical alignment of extant letters, may be as follows: 8

[9( ;(' ;](9(* &=% 10>[] [ 7% $'];&6$1$=%

[]

[0:' 176(]0" ;(' :0%'(%) [09;$ ]0%=% 9"1=% 12

[;0;6(&]7;0 [%(' &0.-]

3682. Plato, Tht. Line 1. iota-adscript follows 4'(%$'( and precedes the dicolon (of which only the upper dot survives). Line 15. Read a paragraphus below this line and no 6 at the beginning of the next. The horizontal line is low, in the manner of this scribe (cf. the paragraphus at line 4), but is nonetheless too high to be the arm of 6 from the line below. As often, there is no dicolon at line end to mark the speaker change. 3683. [Plato] (or [Lucian] or Leon), Hale. At the top read [· · ·
6';[$]5[* :(%5

0%]

This must be preferred to the editor's reading %("3 [ 0%] for several reasons: (1) the initial

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

287

stroke is the tail of a descender that reaches well below the line, as does * in this script but not %; (2) the paragraphus is otherwise misplaced; (3) the line length is strangely uneven by the editor's reading (7 letters for line 1, but 12 letters for line 2), whereas the new reading yields the regularity we expect in a prose column (12 characters in each line). 3684. Plutarch, Lyc. Line 16. The reported dicolon is very probably a middle dot with a very high dot added later by a second hand. The first scribe wrote middle dots here and at line 4 to mark new sections in the text; the second hand added (besides an accent) a high dot for punctuation at line 7 and, redundantly, a high dot here as well. (Damage to the papyrus obscures the area in line 11 where we expect a high dot.) 3686. See 875+3686. 3687. See 1805+3687. 3712. Euripides, Phoen. Line 55. At line end a slash can be seen, faint but distinct, of the same type as found at the end of lines 56, 67, and 68. 3713. Euripides, Phoen. On the recto, written the same way up, are exiguous remains in an informal secondcentury bookhand. I read as follows:

]&$'[

]$:(6$[ [

4

(36+3:[ 01=&[ <

In line 5, 06..&[ is a possible alternative. 3825. Homer, IL 1. The editors reconstruction of the column size (at 60 lines per column) is problematical, and probably mistaken. (1) From the foot of frr. 2+3 to the foot of fr. 4 are 132 lines,

288

Appendix

1

thus on his reconstruction 66 lines per column as opposed to the 60 lines per column supposed for frr. 1 & 2+3. This six line per column differential is hard to swallow because the leading exhibited by the fragments is fairly consistent (the vertical spacing is only very slightly more compressed in fr. 4). (2) As answer to this problem the editor raises the possibility of omitted lines, (a) The editor's speculation about omission of athetized lines must be firmly rejected. The general lack of correspondence between omissions in the papyri and verses athetized by the Alexandrians is well documented. In a papyrus of the Roman period that otherwise shows all the earmarks of a vulgate text the hypothesis of several such omissions is a priori dubious, but is in any case contradicted by the remains of several extant Unes that were athetized by Zenodotus or Aristarchus (63, 80, 110, 117, 229-33). (b) The editors other hypothesis, that 12 lines were omitted in error, is of course possible, but seems a desperate solution to the problem at hand. (3) The variant reading in the lower margin is, as the editor remarks, only speculatively assigned to verse 204. Even if the reading is correct, one can easily imagine this line as variant reading for e.g. verse 233, and there are any number of other (unattested) possibilities. (4) The physical height of the column, depending on whether you assume 60 or 66 lines per column, would be c. 31 or c. 33 cm. A count of 60/66 lines per column is at the extreme limit of what is exampled in other literary papyri; 31/33 cm is simply extraordinary, beyond the column height of any papyrus in the sample (cf. §3.3, tables 3.3, 3.7). (5) On the other hand, nothing in what survives contradicts the hypothesis of 30—3 lines per column (aside from the dubious assignment of line 204). The differential in lines per column (3 lines) and the calculated height (c. 15—16 cm) would in this case be entirely normal. Verse 70. A corrector has inserted a small iota between eta and delta of ='-. Verse 114. A high dot follows (;+2+3. 3827. HomerJ L 11. Verses 337, 358. Here, as at 349 and 361, the oblique is accompanied by a punctuation dot. Verse 355. The /ota-adscript at line end, on %(2$&-&, is added, as in verse 354, by a corrector. The same may be true of the iota-adscript at the end of verse 340. Verse 403. Stichometric delta to the left of this line is marked with the usual horizontal strokes above and below.The 'horizontal joined by an oblique' reported by the editor above the letter is a phantasm; the oblique stroke is no more than transient ink on the papyrus. 3836. Achilles Tatius, 3. Col. 1, line 24. At end of line there is a break in the papyrus followed by a vestige of ink, perhaps the right hasta of nu (assuming a small nu, as at line 26). It would appear that the scribe always writes movable nu (cf. col. 3, lines 16 and 27). Col. 3, line 18. Add a middle dot following )$)+"$".

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

289

3837. Achilles Tatius, 8. Col. 1, line 17. The restoration $&%- [i]c is unlikely. The apparent gap is due to vertical distortion of the papyrus, and the scribe does not elsewhere write iota-adscript. Read then $&%-0. Col. 1, line 23. Add a high dot following .32-0. 3838. Aeschylus, PV. Verse 126b. Read a high (not middle) dot at the end of this line. 3839. Aristophanes, Thesm. Verse 749. The 'possible paragraphus' reported below %("[ is a very short horizontal stroke underneath the right edge of alpha, and seems not at all suitable as paragraphus. Probably accidental ink (if this is in fact ink, and not an encrustation on the papyrus surface). 3842. Demosthenes, adv. Lept. Fr. 2, col. 1, line 1. For editor's ] §&( 6[(3]6 read: ] 6(3 [6(] $-1 [)4 ,6;]. The epsilon at line end is nearly certain, the crossbar of epsilon being extended to fill out the space at the end of the line; tau seems excluded. Note the use of scriptio plena (restored, but seemingly inevitable given the spacing). Comparison of the punctuation, by 'high oblique dash/ with 3843 may give the impression of a possible association between these manuscripts, or of a tendency towards this form of punctuation among Roman-era Demosthenic papyri. But in fact the punctuation in 3843 at fr. a.6 is a largish dot, not as in 3842 placed above the line, and not a dash at all (the editor seems to confuse the closely following serif at the top of the hasta of ,); at fr. b.6 only the right edge of the punctuation is extant. There is then no reason to suppose that dashes were used in 3843, and thus no reason to associate that manuscript with 3842. 3 8 4 3 . See 3 8 4 2 .

3846. Demosthenes, in Meid. Lines 34ff.The separate fragment that begins with the first three characters of this line should be placed not here but at section 10 (noted by the editor as a possibility in the end notes). (1) In line 34,pi seems certain for the second letter, and alpha nearly so for the first. The editor reads ]()"[, but gamma is excluded by the top of the second hasta, visible at right. (2) Fibre patterns between the two fragments do not, pace editor, match well. (3) The placement in section 10 does not require the hypothesis of a variant text, and is exactly in accord with the extant column format (20.5 letters per line). (4) The placement in section 10 would follow the first fragment by only one column, thus the coincidence of proximity

290

Appendix

1

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

I

[&$5&$5 #(%06]( 7i[aciv 5 '%] [7 &0 &=% (99]=% @[ =% 059(-]

3

[80'( 10%7<:0]&[('] ; [at &$ &$5-] [&$5 &pacoc 9]010 &$% [%$ $%]

5

[ • • • • • • • • %]$ $! • • [ • • • • • ]

Line 34 of the first fragment reads then [(%(1%]=<70&(' 40 :6=[&$%]. As noted by the editor, the traces in line 35 at the foot of the first fragment are consistent with the transmitted text, and no variant text need be supposed. 3847. Demosthenes, in Meid. Line 8.There is no trema above the final iota in [(4';72]7'. (Ink has been lost below the upper tip of the vertical stroke, giving the impression of iota with a single dot above.) Line 11. The tau reported at line end is probably a phantasm. The supposed hasta appears to be no more than dark discoloration of the papyrus surface; the horizontal stroke (which is verifiably ink) is perhaps a line filler, or accidental. The problem of the short restoration at the beginning of line 12 thus disappears. Read: II

[&7% &' =]6'(%* (99(-[]

12

[&$5%(%&'$]% %$ $+*[]

3849. Demosthenes, in Meid. Col. 1, line 3. Ink is visible above the first letter ofyßpiv, probably the remains of a diaeresis. Col. 2, lines 5-6.The traces seem to follow the expected text, as follows: [.. $ $'=!] $ & [0 )99=% vi-] [;(% ;(' $] : [(%&=% 5!&(&$!]

Col. 2, line 20.The middle dot reported after $540]%' may well be stray ink. Col. 2, line 26. Add a middle dot, barely visible, after 0[[']]%[0];(. (The cancellation of iota is definite.) 3850. Demosthenes, in Meid.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

291

Col. 1, line 23. The papyrus surface is darkened at the point where a middle dot is reported, but I see no signs of ink. 3877. Thucydides, 1-3. Fr. 3, col. 2, line 1. There is a split in the papyrus between eta of 6- and delta of Sixfauocet,. The conservator has positioned the fragments so that there is a gap between these letters and a space between alpha and rho of )(* in the line below. But ap were in fact written in ligature, and the space is mistakenly inserted. In line 1, then, delta followed eta directly, there is no lacuna, and / ' ta- adscript was not written (in keeping with scribal habit elsewhere in this text). 3878. Thucydides, 1. Line 4. Following 0997]%(^ a full character space distinguishes the pause.Whether there is also a dot may be doubted: there is a speck of ink at middle-high position, but there are other transient ink specks in this area (otherwise well preserved). 3879. Thucydides, 1. Fr. 1, col. 2. Reconstruction of this column on the basis of the transmitted text yields 29-30 lines for the lacuna from the foot of fr. 1 col. 1 to the first line of col. 2, or 46-7 lines for the column, a height of c. 31 cm.The other columns, despite variation in lines per column, are stable at c. 27 cm (2.2 = 37 lines, **26.5 cm; 3.2 = 43 lines, **27.6 cm). Fr. 1 is much earlier in the roll (roughly 27 columns before fr. 2), but the height variation seems excessive. It is likely, then, that the papyrus contained a shorter text (by perhaps 4-5 lines) in the area between §9.4 and § 10.2. Fr. 3, col. 3, Une 5. A low dot, apparently, follows ()(1+#. Line 9. The dash transcribed at the end of this line, and visible on the plate, is a tear in the surface of the papyrus - there is no ink here. 3883. See 3234+3883. 3887. Thucydides, 2. Fr. 1, line l.The reading #6$ [$]%$& is at least as likely. To the right of omega is a speck of ink, here taken as the remains of iota; if taken as part of epsilon, there would seem to be too wide a gap before pi. 3888. Thucydides, 2. Column height will be c. 35 (not 30) lines, and c. *21 (not 19) cm. (From the foot of col. 1 to the foot of col. 2 are 552 letters in the transmitted text, thus 34 or 35 lines assuming the c. 16 letters per line exhibited by col. 1.)

292

Appendix

1

Col. 1, line 17. Reading lenis above the first letter of this line is difficult, since one expects to see some trace of the vertical. To the left of the horizontal stroke the papyrus surface is stripped; the stroke may then be the right tip of a paragraphus, written low m the line. 3889. Thucydides, 2. There are c. 30 (not 35) letters to the line. Fr. 1, col. 1, line 3. Following &$+&$ a second pen has squeezed in upsilon in faint but distinct ink. The papyrus thus provides ancient confirmation for Hude's conjecture &$+&$5 0% 0:0^.$% (Hude 1913, 2.76.2).Whether the correction is a readers guess or from collation is impossible to say: the papyrus shows no other signs of this corrector. For G%G24 with the genitive, cf.Thuc. 8.31. 3890.Thucydides, 2: colophon. Line 3. Above and to the left of &06+*&E" are traces of the same bowl-shaped decoration used above and below beta in line 2. Presumably lines 1 and 3 were then decorated at left and right with such marks, as is usual for a colophon. 3891. Sec 2100+3891+4109. 3893.Thucydides, 3. The back is not blank. Along the verso fibres (thus at a right angle to the recto text) is the end of a single line, written by a rough, thick pen in a very large (c. 10 mm) and plain bookhand. Read: ] .!$5

Of the first letter part of a horizontal survives at the top, thus probably & : ) ; above and to the left is a rounded mark like a circumflex(P). The second letter could also be + $ 1. U$5;54]'4$5 is excluded. 3895.Thucydides, 3. Fr. 1, col. 2. The leading in fr. 1 is considerably tighter than in fr. 2, thus we expect a column height of c. 26 lines, which matches well the placement {^},4[;36-0 (for which a column height of c. 26 lines would be expected). In this case the scribe writes sigma dittographically, or under influence of 0,E;+". It is just possible that the thin horizontal stroke is meant as a cancellation stroke (though I think not, and cf. editors remark). 3896.Thucydides, 3. Fr. 2, line 5. Below this line are traces, apparently, of the expected paragraphus.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

293

3 899. Thucydides, 4. Line 17. At line end read 40 0[%] (i.e., with scriptio plena; the rounded partial letter following 40 cannot be nu). 3900.Thucydides, 4. The placement of fr. (g) is doubtful ('not quite certain1 admits the editor), depending as it does on the supposition of substantial added (9f.) and omitted (13f.) text.The only secure sequence of letters is va[ at the start of line 12; the readings at lines 14 and 15 are difficult at best.The identification seems largely to rest on fibre patterns on the back (not now accessible), on which see the caveat in Johnson 1992. 3901+PYale 2,99. Thucydides, 4. 3901, Col. 2, line 4. For doubtful 3$)#27$8 perhaps better is kqctscl. The reading remains uncertain, but a rounded letter seems to follow pi. 4027. Aeschines, in Tim. Worth remark is the possibility that this papyrus represents a writing exercise rather than a book roll. In that case the repetition at lines 6ff. is caused not by parablepsy but by a deliberate rewriting of the paragraph set for copy. (That is, from 6+3 0% +3" B;+3 <1>%$! through 03,+/("6$F". Note that 03,+/("6$#" ends the paragraph in the text of Gregory, which omits the short sentence beginning :063 )% $5%.) The ink change reported at line 6 would be consistent with the writing of a student or apprentice who stops at the end of the paragraph, sharpens his pen, and begins anew at the start of the paragraph. In support of this speculation: the hand that, though 'severe style' and not bad looking, is irregular and in some respects idiosyncratic; the poor control of ink flow; the unusually wide column (unparalleled among other severe-style prose manuscripts, §3.2.1, esp. chart 3.2.le); and an odd inability to maintain an even left margin. This last deserves comment. Rather than the straight vertical line customary for the left margin of a column (whether upright or tilted), the alignment at left follows a parabolic curve rather like a large left parenthesis. Distortion of the papyrus itself will sometimes cause a similar effect, but in this case distortion does not seem to account for it. All in all there seems reason enough to entertain the possibility that this is a writing exercise for an advanced student or apprentice scribe. Line 2. Add a low middle dot, apparently, following [47 71$-] | *$&". Line 8. An apostrophe can be read following $5K' (in the line above, an apostrophe following the first $52 would be in lacuna). 4030. Aeschines, in Tim. Though this papyrus exhibits interesting variation in column width (cf. §2.4.1), the impression given by the editor of variable column height is misleading. Column 4 is lower

294

Appendix

1

than column 5 by a half line, hardly remarkable (cf. §2.4.2); the variation in lines per column does not translate into a noteworthy difference in column height, but reflects the uneven leading. (As a physical measure or estimate, col. 1 - ~18.0 cm, col. 2 = *18.0, col 3 = -18.4, col. 4 = *17.9, col. 5 = *17.6, thus a height of 18.0 ±0.4 cm, completely normal.) Col. 1, line 4. Following '$0 46]-*&+" a high dot is visible, added in a paler ink. Col. 2, line 3. At line end read 0[116(#]=· P$] (both the high dot and the oblique strikethrough are effected in a paler ink). Line 9. Following [)]%=6' ( a middle dot, apparently, has been added in a paler ink. Col. 3, line 2. At line end a low dot, apparently, has been added in a paler ink (stray ink in this area makes the reading uncertain; the high dot apparent at the end of the following line seems surely accidental). Line 14.The famt horizontal stroke reported at the end of this line appears much like the top part of sigma, written as often with the top line extended and exaggerated at line end. Another case of dittography then, %(*(^2$9-1 çOai? An expungement dot over sigma at the start of the next line would be in lacuna. Col. 4, line 18. Following +*:6$ add a high dot, written in a paler ink, Line 24. Following 3%+;(- |>-6$ add a high dot, written in a paler ink. Col. 5, line 25. Following $[&]"(& a high dot, apparently, has been added. 4031. Aeschines, in Tim. Lines 7, 8. The use of dicolon is, I think, wrongly reported in these lines (it would be very exceptional). It appears that the scribe originally wrote a high dot in both instances. A second pen then struck the high dot with a short horizontal (that, presumably, is the dash transcribed by the editor above the dicolon in line 8; not transcribed in line 7).The second pen then added a dot in the low position, to indicate the lesser pause (in contradistinction to the full stop in line 9). In both lines read then a high dot corrected to a low dot. 4033+4034. Aeschines, in Tim. Serious doubt about the correlation of these two papyri should not be entertained. For these pieces, both of which come from the top of the roll, the column width is (by calculation) the same, the leading is the same, we can plausibly reconstruct an identical column height, the letter size is the same, the script looks the same, and there is close juxtaposition of text (only a single column's remove): the remarkable coincidence would be if these fragments were not part of the same roll. 4033, upper margin. The hand of the corrector (the same hand as e.g. in line 2) writes at right , 6 (kappa is clear), that is, ,(64. (The same abbreviation occurs in the top margin of PAmh II 24 recto; cf. McNamee 1981b, 48.) The corresponding ("(4) will have been written, probably, opposite line 7 (see note below).

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions in the Sample Sets

295

Lines 6-7. These two lines occupy exactly the vertical space normally occupied by a single line. At a guess the scribe originally jumped from &6(1=4'('! to :6$:0&0'^ in the exemplar, and thus he wrote following &6(1=4'('! the line &$5 != (&$0 74$%('; when the mistake was noticed (apparently soon, given the clean erasure), he erased this line and inserted the full text. Be that as it may, the reconstructed text for line 7 is in any case too long (and the overspill is too great to fit comfortably in the intercolumn). We can with some confidence assume that the text in the upper margin is added to redress this problem. Restore lines 6-7 more or less as follows: [:$3,%$# 09(5%0'% ;([' ;$9
0 % a te* (9[9 ai :6$:0&0'!

(% (=)]

and the insertion in the upper margin will have read then [&$5 != (&$3 74$]%('

;(()&(=)

(The editor's assumption that the upper margin refers to line 8 is not impossible, but given the heavy use of interlinear corrections in this manuscript, it seems odd that the scribe resorts to the upper margin merely to add 0']%('.) Line 20.To the right of the correction 0# is a trace of ink, consistent with an apostrophe. Line 23. A dicolon is almost certainly not intended.The low dot and the high dot were not written at the same time. The low dot appears to be original. The faint high dot was then added by a second pen (a readers clarification?); and may even be accidental ink, as occasionally elsewhere in this manuscript. 4034.Visible at the ends of lines 8,14, and 16 (see specific notes below), are dots in the low position, none of which seem sensibly taken as punctuation. The dots align to the slant of the column, but do not exhibit the usual regularity of alignment dots (that is, despite good preservation at the top of the column, there are no such dots above line 8; cf. further at §3.2.1). Given the use of horizontal ruling lines in this column (see editor's comments), one wonders if these dots may be accidental blobs left at the end of the (faint) ruling lines. The dots seem in any case more likely associated with the ruling of the column than with the system ofpunctuation. (Or they may be simply accidental.) Line 8. A low dot is visible at line end, not expected following &]7%. Line 14. There is no trace of the upper dot of the reported dicolon. The low dot, apparently original, is unexpected after (9]9(. Line 16. The two dots (both visible) do not have the appearance of an intended dicolon. The upper dot, which appears original, is in the middle-high position, but the lower dot is positioned underneath the presumed line base, somewhat to the right, and the ink has a slightly different appearance. More surprisingly (given the apparent fact of a middle-

296

Appendix

1

high dot), the partial letter does not seem consistent with the right edge of epsilon; a more obvious reading would be ]y. 4035· Aeschines, Fais. Leg. Col. 2, line 3. A paragraphus (expected) is visible below this line. Line 5. Transcribed correctly, but not noted by the editor (or in the chart of variant readings at pages 50ff.) is the fact that the papyrus reading 4=&0 0':03% matches that of MS i (Parisinus 2996,5. xiii), the only other witness to this word order. Blass and Schindel 1978 p r i n t 0':03% 4=&0.

Line 23. A paragraphus (expected) is visible below this line. It was first written as a very short stroke; later, perhaps by a second pen, the stroke was extended to make the mark clear. 4040. Aeschines, in Ctes. The intercolumn (a difficult measurement) is c. 1.5 (not 2) cm. 4041. Aeschines, in Ctes. This cannot be from the same roll as 703, pace the editor.The column height in 4041 measures 14.6-14.7 cm, but in 703 calculates to c. 25 cm, an intolerable difference within the same roll. (Column and intercolumn widths also do not match.) The scripts, though similar, are not in any case so very close. Not the same scribe, in my opinion. 4042. Aeschines, in Ctes. Col. 2, line 4. Following 5 =% is a space, about 3/4 of a character's width, presumably intended as punctuation. 4043. Aeschines, in Ctes. Line 9. A gap between omega and what appears to be kappa seems to make the reading 47 =['] ;(' (i.e., with /ota-adscript) inevitable. 4044. Aeschines, in Ctes. Line 8. Above eta of -6$ are remains of, apparently, a circumflex. Line 12. Probably a middle dot rather than nu should be read before ,(&. But certainty is impossible. 4045+4053. Aeschines, in Ctes. The variation in column height between these two fragments calculates to about 2 cm. So much variation in column height would be unusual (§2.4.2), though not quite unexampled (223 approaches it: see table 2.4). But the calculation depends on a reconstruction

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

297

of 4053, column 1, that assumes the paradosis; the addition of a short clause, whether by reason of textual variant or copying error, would be enough to bring the column height into the normal range. There seems otherwise much to recommend one roll: the same hand, exact match of column and column-to-column widths, very similar leading and papyrus surface. 4045, Col. 1, line 34. The ink has rubbed away, but there remains space following [cucTatvxJec for the expected dot (just as at 4053, i.9). 4053. Col. 1, line 11. At line end a high dot is clearly visible. Line 12. The trema is added in ink of different appearance. 4047+4051. Aeschines, m Ctes. That 4047 and 4051 belong either to the same bookroll, or to matching rolls, is certain. The hands are not only 'similar' but exactly the same, sharing e.g. an unusual slight backward lean of ce; the column width matches exactly; papyrus quality is very alike; both are corrected by a hand writing in an exceptionally pale ink. Between the fragments will have been, from the bottom margin of 4047 to the top of 4051, 23,802 letters, thus about 91 columns. 4047. Line 8.The epsilon following delta in correction is but a trace, which may be no more than the upstroke from the bottom horizontal of delta. Not certain, but the corrector seems to intend elided '' here. 4051. Col. 1, line 1. Following ("]("'*&+,6 possibly a dot (in the very high position), above the tip of c. 4050. Aeschines, in Ctes. Line 5. The 'elaborate filler stroke' reported at line 5 is the usual filler of diplê style, written small and twice (as commonly). 4054. Aeschines, in Ctes. Line 4. What is read as a trace of iota at line beginning is perhaps better read as a punctuation dot (in the middle-high position, as elsewhere in the papyrus). 4055. Aeschines, in Ctes. The editor notes dots appearing low in the line at unexpected places (thus not punctuation) in frr. (o) line 3 and (p) line 3. These two fragments are from the same column, as the foot preserved in fr. (p) guarantees. Occasional dots do appear elsewhere in the papyrus, such as that reported at fr. (j) line 10, which are almost certainly accidental. The dots in frr. (o) and (p), however, fit into a vertical pattern of such regularity as to make it likely that these were ruling dots intended to control the alignment of the column (see §3.1.2). In fr. (o) a dot is visible interior to % in line 2, at a remove of 0.65 cm from the dot reported fol-

298

Appendix

1

lowing 4 in line 3. (No trace of the expected alignment dot survives in line 1: obliterated by the bottom stroke of c?) Similarly, in fr. (p) a vertical row of dots is visible at 2-4 letters from line end, all spaced at an interval of 0.65 cm, as follows: between 3 and " in line 3 (as reported by the editor), between the verticals of % at line 4, partially obscured by the tail of the first ( of %(*(- in line 5, apparently obscured by the base line of ' in line 6 (this last not certain). All six dots are approximately 0.7 cm from the notional right edge of the column, all are positioned just slightly above the base of the line of writing; the 0.65-cm interval thus reflects the leading for the column (which is quite regular throughout the bookroll, ranging only from 0.65 to 0.68 cm), and the vertical line formed by the dots leans forward at an angle of 4°, matching the forward lean of the column. Fr. (p), line 3. The slight space after ;]$)$&" may indicate that the expected punctuation was in fact added; the dot would (if in the high position) be in lacuna. 4100. Thucydides, 1. The number of lines per column is closer to 37 than the reported 32 (from the top margin of fr. 6 to that of fr. 7 are 620 letters; the average number of letters per line is 16.75), which calculates to a height of somewhat over 21 cm (given leading of 0.58 cm). 4102.Thucydides, 5. The reported 5 cm for the column width ('by calculation') is impossible: e.g., at fr. 2, line 3 the extant remains measure 4.6 cm, but fully 7 letters are in lacuna. I calculate 7.9 cm. 4107. Thucydides, 7. If the three taus in column two are correctly read, then they are likely to be placed at 7.24.1: & [ 6 $ : ( ' ( 00&&70&(% (5&[=% & 6 ' ( · ;(' & $

0% )-

& 0 6 $ % & $ ' % 45$'% ; & 9

Assuming the transmitted text, 7.24.1 is the only placement at a line length of 16-21 letters that allows reconstruction of a normal column height (27-8 lines, c. 16 cm). But though tau is the best reading in all three cases, it is by no means certain, and the reconstruction must remain doubtful. 2b. Comparison sample set (non-Oxyrhynchite) Editions and corrections subsequent to the editio princeps are given for each papyrus. The corrections here assume a text fully revised in light of these subsequent publications.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

299

PAberd 113 (Pack2 299)+PAberd 137 (Pack2 2789). Cf. PBeroi 5879 (MP 300). PAnt 1.26. MP 1564. Xenophon, Symp. 4-5. On the date, see Dillery and Gagos 1992, 189 n. 15. Line 49. A middle dot is visible following $0+ +(. Line 51. Horizontal space is generally used to accommodate punctuation dots in this manuscript. In this line such a space follows (%$6$;$0B-&; any dot would be in lacuna. Line 56. Diaeresis is clearly visible above M949. Col. iv.The line beginnings readable towards the foot of this column fit the transmitted text as follows: / [- ,(& $" &%%4 ,6;.

(6 lines missing) § [& $/- rcpoc 6( $*)( 4" $"$,( $-]

,[(06( ,64 $&( $3$&*)(0 $-] " [( -& - $3 % $ / 3 , + 6 ( npoc

(]

( [" '$4 $&( ,6;. These lines are either the last of the column, or the last but one. (The evidence suggests 28 (col. ii) or 27 (col. iii) lines per column; by this reconstruction the last line of col. iv is line 27.) PAnt 2.77. MP 1403. Plato, Phdr. Line 1. A space, apparently intended as punctuation, follows ;$)$]&". PAnt 2.79. MP 1427. [Plato], de Just Line 8. Read [$&] 93 $ $*+&+ 6 [& $+] (i.e., with scriptio plena). PAnt 3.156. MP 624.1. Homer, II 2. Published by description; a school exercise, =Cribiore #299. Line 23. Read '(#/*+"$0. Line 30. Perhaps 'E (6([ (but '4 (6 $[2+"6$0 cannot be excluded). PBeroi 5879. MP 300. Demosthenes, adv. Lept. Hausmann 1981, 13-18 (no. 29); cf. Wilcken 1891,Lipsius 1893, Butcher 1907. Turner suggested, and Lenaerts has seconded, the possibility that the two fragments, PAberd 113 (-Pack- 299, cf. Turner 1939, 82) and 137 (-Pack- 2789, cf. Turner 1939, 87 and pi. 3, Lenaerts 1977, 30—2) may be from the same roll as PBeroi 5879. But on no good grounds: the hands are not the same (as Turner admits); and the happenstance of a similar count of letters per line is just that (see §3.2.3).

300

Appendix

1

In this manuscript it is often hard to say whether the half-spaces between words are intended as punctuation or are the half-conscious result of the scribe's understanding of the text. Spaces not noted by Hausmann but apparently intended as punctuation include: following 0,+%$# at 1.3; following >+3;+] (& at 1.6; following $&0&" at 2.16; following (36+&0 at 2.19; following %(02+30&" at 2.33; following (" '#,(&+" - at 3.20; following 6$1$"[6](0 at 4.8.

More doubtful are these spaces: following %+3 at 1.4; following 6& (" at 2.6; following )&I )"$6(& at 2.27f.; preceding (" '#,(&+" - at 3.20. (And cf. below under 2.8 for the use of a middle dot, apparently, as punctuation at line end.) Col. 1, line 3. Read (36$ (not (36+). Col. 2, line 8. Following >*(230 at line end is, apparently, a middle dot. Also, '&$[;1-]& (with adscript) cannot be excluded. Col. 2, line 23. Butcher 1907 (§87, ad lin. 13) mistakenly reports 'E9: om. Pap.'The papyrus omits 40 (" (correctly reported by Hausmann). Col. 2, line 31. Read 64& (with adscript). Col. 2, line 33. Below this line is, perhaps, the remains of a paragraphus. The blank following %(02+30&" is (for this manuscript) unusually wide and noticeable. Col. 3, line 18. Not reported is the apparent variant 6&"(0. Read: [$] & 6[&]"(9 t i c ,(6( $ /$6(&

Col. 3, lines 22ff. Butcher 1907 (§89, ad lin. 1) notes '%:"64" om. Pap. (ut videtur), Aristid. Rh. Gr. ix 353/ based on the ed. pr. (Lipsius 1893), which however mistakenly assumes 3 missing lines between line 22 and $[3]*[- ( (line 27 below); but in fact the vertical measure matches exactly for lines 1—22 of col. 2 and col. 3, and $[3]*[- ( lies opposite col. 2 line 27. The foot of col. 3 can be reconstructed as follows, in accordance with the received text (Hausmann overlooks the traces of lines 26ff. ['nihil restât in papyro'], reported by Lipsius and still visible at the lower right of the piece containing cols. 1-2): 22

[+%4]0 ouc +3'$&0 ("6$&%+&

23

[ - +3 '$&" $2$&" $?+3-]

24

[civ 6( '+&$"6( ,(& 6+3-]

25

[64" %:"64" +3'G" $06#"]

26

[- ]$[6$*+" +3'$ ,(&"+"]

27

$[3]*[- ( (;; + %(;(&+0]

28

[+"] +3 [TOC %(*G>- "+ +0 +3-]

29

[64]9 ,[$;$3$& "+ +^$6$&"]

30

[)*(/$01(&

31

[64" 3%(*2B"64" "+ E"

32

[;40 $2$&" -)-6(& %(*$&0/$-]

$" (" TIC 6&"(] - ,(-]

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

33

301

[*$iv ' (36B" :;;+" +" ("] 22: (" ("6$&%+& codd. 2$ :velzc§'

26: vel ,+("+" +3'$

28f: +364 codd.

Such a reconstruction, given the thin basis of evidence, is by no means inevitable. But there is nothing to suggest other than that the papyrus text agreed with one or another of the medieval traditions (aside from the haplographic omission of :" at line 22, already noted by Butcher and Hausmann, and +3640, apparently, at lines 28f). Col. 4, lines 9-10. The editor misplaces the paragraphus, which is visible below line 10 (marking the sentence ending ,3*&+30 $#"(&), not line 9. PBeroi 9570+PRyl 1.60. MP 1433. Polybius, 11. Wilcken 1901,388-95. I have examined only the Berlin fragments. PBeroi fr. C, line 12.The apostrophe reported m /(;()')+0 is written as though a serif on the arm of gamma in a darker ink, apparently a later addition. Since the two gammas are written together, it may be simply an attempt at clarification of the strokes. Fr. D, line 6. 2*+]"4[" cannot be excluded. Line 12. Following 6]- the expected /ota-adscript is added above the line in a paler ink. PBeroi 9774. MP 962 (=Pack 2 962+505). Homer, II 18. West 1967, 132-6, pi. 4; cf BKT 5.1.18-20. PBeroi 9875. MP 1537. Timotheus, Pers. Wikmowitz-Möllendorff 1903; Page 1962, 404-413. PBeroi 9949. MP 1009. Homer, II 23. Poethke 1994; published by description in BKT 5.1.4. Line 722. R e a d ]oc %*+:6$$[F.%]$

$)(0 6$;( [4"&+0. Presumably then 6+" %*+6$*+0 %*+;:$$-

&%$ ,6;. (cf. Iliad 5.276, 6.122, 6.517, etc.).

Line 728. Read 8-]+3"6+, PBeroi 11678. MP 1094. Homer, Od. 11.West 1967,256-60; cf. PSchub 1. Line 108(?).The reading $]3*-6$ seems impossible, for, aside from the problem of rho (noted by the editor), the remains of 4 (possibly 5) letters intervene between the clear eta and the apparent beta of ßo[a]c. Read ].'-6,„>+[(]? ,6;. Line 130. Following the line end ,6& (written on a separate line) is a symbol very much like two connecting chis (22).7 decorative line filler, added because of the very short (3 letters) line?

302

Appendix

1

PBeroi 11749. MP 1397.1. Plato, Pol True 1974, 438-40; cf Tulli 1995. Col. 1, line 15. Above and to the right of the alpha in '*(" is a stroke, only partially preserved, apparently iota. It does not appear to be a circumflex. Perhaps then the scribe adds iota erroneously, as commonly in the literary papyri. (I am, however, unable to find a good parallel for parasitic jota-adscript in an alpha contract verb; for the general situation see Gignac 1976,195.) Col. 2, lines Iff.Two (not one) lines intercede between line 2, ,([ and line 4, ) [ . All of the lines through and including line 4 are in eisthesis 0.3 cm relative to lines 5—10, and lines 1 If. have the same slight indentation.The indentation indicates that lines 1—4 and 11— 12, unknown from the medieval tradition, contain text different in kind from the text of lines 5-10 (which matches the transmitted Platonic text). We can rule out therefore the possibility that this papyrus witnesses an expanded text of the Politicus. The papyrus seems to contain each statement of the argument (here the statements of the stranger: 1.8ff; 2.4—10), followed by an indented paraphrase or running commentary (1.1-7; 2.1-4; 2.11ff.).The inconsequential replies of the youth (:;-&G06(6: )$ 300a; %E0 '' +D G;;$&; 300b; ôpOcoc 300c) do not precede or follow the main statements directly (there is no room for ôp$ô>c at 2.10),but it is otherwise unclear how they were handled in this format. The ink is, as expected in this period, black (not 'braun' as reported by the editor). PBeroi 11910 (-Pack 2 919)+21156. MP 919. Homer, 11 14. Maehler, Müller, and Poethke 1976, 26-32; BKT 9 #58. Line 406. A high dot appears to have been added following 2*+(. But that the ink is accidental cannot be ruled out. PBeroi 11911 A+B+17038 (-Pack 2 863)+17048 (=Pack 2 857)4-21155. MP 857. Homer, II 10. Maehler, Müller, and Poethke 1976, 13-26; BKT 9 #57. In this manuscript the low dot is often curiously placed: for in open letters such as c, the dot is often close to being enclosed within the circle suggested by the letter form.Thus, low dot is almost universally neglected by the editor. Many of what the editor transcribes as high dots are in fact in the middle or low position: middle at lines 321, 324, 327 (first instance), 329, 331 (first instance), 341, 342, 345, 348 (first instance), 372, 377, 378, 437, 441, 449, 451, 478, 503; low at 389, 566; at 332 a low dot together with a high, perhaps in correction. Most, if not all, of the punctuation marks (i.e., dots and paragraph^) appear to be later additions in a different ink. Line 251. A high dot follows ("36+(. Line 252. A high dot follows [%*+>$>]-,$. Line 285. Read [63']$M (i.e., with diaeresis). Line 295. A high dot is visible at line end.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

303

Line 298. A high dot is visible at line end. Line 302. A high dot is visible at line end. Line 305. At line end read N%%+30 (with diaeresis), followed by a high dot at line end. Line 312. A high dot is visible at line end. Line 313. A high dot is visible at line end. Line 315. A trace of an apparent high dot is visible at line end. Line 316. A high dot is visible both after xaxoc and at line end. Line 326. A middle dot follows ()[(] $ "+"$-". Line 327. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Line 328. A dot follows $/[(]1\ written in the middle-low position. Line 332. A low dot follows [[$#%4 +^$. Line 334. A second hand adds not macron but an epsilon (written cursively) above the iota of pivov (i.e., *$&"+", to show that the iota is long). Cf 338 below. Line 338. The original scribe wrote ,(;[;]&.%', corrected by a second hand (by overwriting the letter) to ,(;[;]&/\ Line 338. As at 334, a second hand adds not macron but a cursive epsilon above the iota of

$ 0'9

%$(i.e., $

0',9$%,

as commonly, to show that iota is long).

Line 339. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Line 339. A middle dot follows $ (40. Line 340. A middle dot follows +'3F0Jesus. Line 342. Read - $6$*-^" (iota added by a second hand). Line 343. A high dot follows 6&"(. Line 345. A trace is visible of what appears to be the left dot of a trema above (["](M?("6$0. Line 346. A dot follows ,(*%(;& 40, written in the middle-low position. Line 348. At line end, the rota-adscript in (;3?-& is apparently a later addition, perhaps by a second hand (cf. 350,352, etc.). Line 358. A trace is visible of what is perhaps a trema above '-M+3$. Line 366. A low dot follows "-(+. Line 367. The area is badly rubbed, but there may be (as often in this manuscript) an rota-adscript squeezed in to follow 63'$&'-. Line 368. A low dot follows >(;$$&". Line 369. The paragraphus (here as elsewhere apparently a later addition) appears to be cancelled by two light cross strokes.This is surprising, since of the pair of paragraphs in lines 368-9, the paragraphus under line 368 is the incorrect placement (assuming that the paragraphus is used to mark the start and end of speeches). Neither of the similar pair at lines 376—7 is cancelled. Line 370. A dot follows $", written in the middle-low position. Line 376. Read üEa[i].The left dot of the trema is clear.

304

Appendix

Line Line Line Line Line Line Line hand (cf

1

377. No trace can be seen of the asper reported above B 8$. 378. A trace of what may be a middle dot is visible following ;3$+ (&. 386. A middle dot follows ( 86$!'7%. 390. A dot follows 'B;4", written in the middle-high position. 390. Read U%+ (i.e., with diaeresis). 402. A low dot, apparently, follows '(M/*+"+0. 404. After [(;;]4, an rota-adscript is squeezed into the line, perhaps by a second 348 etc.).

Line 409. A middle dot follows eqjiciv. Line 410. A low dot follows (%+%[*+1$]". Line 418. A trace of a low dot may follow $£2(*+(. Line 425. A middle dot follows (%("$31$. Line 436. Read M%'%+u[c. Between the double % is a slight space and traces of what is almost certainly an apostrophe. Line 440.The area following $24]" is smudged, but perhaps a middle dot can be read. Line 464. A high dot is visible at line end. Line 473. A dot is visible at line end, written in the middle-high position. Line 477. As at 436, 480, etc. there is a slight space between the double consonants of &]%%+&. Abrasion in the area makes plausible the conclusion that an original apostrophe has been rubbed away. Line 480. Read ':'%+30. A trace of the apostrophe is visible. Following V : ' : $ 5 ! , a middle dot is visible at line end. Line 481. A high dot is visible at line end. Line 482. A high dot is visible following /(6+. Line 482.The i+#(-adscript of 64& is squeezed into the line, apparently added in correction by a second hand. Line 492.The rota-adscript of &]3 4& is added in correction by a second hand. Line 493. A dot is visible at line end, written in the middle-high position. Line 496. As at 492 etc., the iota-adscript at line end ($%$$6-&) may be a later addition. The iota at first glance appears original, but is in slightly fainter ink. Line 497. The first iota of +&"$&'(+ is squeezed into the line, added in correction by a second hand. Line 497. A low dot is visible at line end. Line 500. The rota-adscript of 6+?4& is added in correction by a second hand. Line 505. A low dot is visible at line end. Line 507. The (erroneous) paragraphus under 507 has an odd, later extension to the right: perhaps a clumsy attempt at cancellation? Line 508. A low dot follows &06: $"-.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions 111 the Sample Sets

Line 520. A half-space following

0[6]7

%$305

may be intended as punctuation; there is no

sign of a dot. Line 522. A high dot follows

0:0'&(.

Line 524. A low dot follows ( 3'&6. Line 525. A low dot follows *$?("6$0. Line 526. oik is corrected by the scribe from +1+, calamo currente. Line 529. A half-space following [6&]&$& may be intended as punctuation; there is no sign of a dot. Line 542.The (erroneous) paragraphus is perhaps cancelled. Line 546. A middle dot follows 6[*4]4". PBeroi 13291: cf PBeroi 21210. PBeroi 16709.MP 1150.1. Homer, Od. 23.Müller 1983, 11-12 (no. 4). Line 122. The leftmost extant edge of the papyrus reads Jecöou. Lines 122,130.The slash reported at end ofline is a crudely written dot in the middlehigh position with a slight tail (as often at verse end; the dot reported here at line 123 is very similar). Line 124. A high dot above the line follows /&;$. Line 126. At line end is a trace of ink that may be the remains of a dot in middle position. But the area is badly abraded. PBeroi 16895+21284. M P 265.1. Demosthenes, de Chers. Brashear 1982; BKT 9 #190; cf. Müller 1968,128-9 (no. 14). Lines 9f. At the end of line 9 %+ is clear, followed by a tiny smudge (which the editor takes as ;); at the start of line 10 coc (ed. $40) is a difficult but fairly certain reading: cf the form of 6) in line 6.1 read then %+ | 65 (sic), though damage in the area perhaps allows (but does not encourage) the reading %+[;$] | 40. Line 53. Read ,+( %3{%}[;(&("], i.e., the scribe by haplographic error fails to write the article. Line 62. The reading

0!&3%

[9010'%]

cannot be excluded (and to my eye fits the traces

somewhat better). Movable nu is elsewhere uniformly written (cf. exx. before consonant at lines 9 and 56). Line 76 (col. 2, foot).The second column ends opposite and slightly below line 37 of column 1, leaving 2.5 cm of blank papyrus up to a point parallel with the foot of column 1 and 4.8 cm to the bottom edge of the roll. Müller (1968, 128), working with only the lower half of the fragment, suggested that the fragment was originally a solitary page and not a bookroll. The fact that the first col-

306

Appendix

1

umn begins in mid-word led Brashear to suggest (1982, 64) that the fragment 'did in fact once belong to a whole roll' and that the 5.7-cm blank space left of the first column was originally covered by the kollêsis of the previous sheet, 'thus decreasing the width [of the blank space] and making it conform to the 1.5 cm intercolumnar space' (1982, 61).There are problems with this hypothesis. (1) The fragment cannot have belonged to a whole roll, since column 2 ends, in mid-sentence, 2.5 cm before the expected foot of the written column. (2) A kollêsis of over 4 cm, on a sheet reconstructed (on Brashear's hypothesis) as somewhat less than 12 cm, seems extraordinary. The papyrus quality is poor, and the evidence here collected is mostly for papyrus of good or very good quality. But in our sample c. 2 cm is usual for the kollêsis overlap. Nor is there any sign of an original kollêsis (though it is true that the top layer of a kollêsis can peel off without visible traces). The essential question is what to make of the fact that the text breaks off in the middle of a sentence, four-fifths of the way down a column, and with only about 10% of the oration remaining. This fact alone suggests a writing exercise, a hypothesis that is consistent with the substandard hand, the unusually erratic leading, the lack ofpunctuation or other lectional aids, and the several uncorrected errors, which are in both quality and quantity beyond what is usual for a bookroll. Müller is incorrect in supposing a solitary sheet (Einzelblatt), for a kollêsis is visible at the right edge of column 1. But we would never expect a solitary sheet in any case. Rather, for the purpose of an exercise we would expect an appropriate length of papyrus to be cut from a pre-existing blank roll. The fragment is perhaps most economically explained, then, as a writing exercise, the goal of which was to copy the two visible columns from a roll laid open before the student (or apprentice).The first column of the exemplar began in mid-word, hence also the copy. The student stopped copying at the end of the second column of the exemplar, thus naturally in the middle of a sentence; and, since either his writing was more compressed or the first column was slightly longer, the copy stops about four-fifths of the way down the second column. The content of the passage was occasioned either by happenstance (the roll to hand, by chance unrolled to this point), or by the fact that the section comprising chapters 61-7, one of the highlights of the oration, begins one half-sentence from the top of column 1, and is almost complete by the end of column 2. PBeroi 16985. MP 980. Homer, II 21-3. Published by description: Mette 1955, 199 (no. 449); cf. Poethke 1981, plates 101-2; on the reclamans see West 1967,22 n. 42. The piece awaits full publication. Stichometry indicates that the roll contained Iliad 19 and 20 as well as books 21-2 (see West 1967,25). From extant fragments, the top of a new column can be seen or inferred at book 21, lines 359, 378, 397, 436, 455, 474 (in which column 480 is missing), 494, 514, 533, 552, 571, 590, 609 (with line 611 directly followed by book 22, lines Iff.); book 22,

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

307

lines 17, 112, 265, 284, 420, 439, 458, 477, 496, 515 (followed by the rectamans [book 23.1-2], with the rest of the column blank). The count of lines per column (rigidly stable at 19 lines in this formal manuscript) allows the inference that one line was omitted in the two columns beginning at 21.397 and ending at 435 (lacunose at lines 402-35); line 434, omitted from the vulgate, is the likely candidate. Similarly, one line must have been omitted from the column beginning at 21.494 (probably line 510); one line from the 8 columns following 22.112 (probably line 121); 3 lines from the 7 columns following 284. PBeroi 17038: cf. PBeroi 11911. PBeroi 17048: cf. PBeroi 11911. PBeroi 17054. MP 688. Homer, II 3. West 1967,62-3. PBeroi 17069. MP 662.01. Homer, II 2. Müller 1993, 7. PBeroi 17153: cf. PBeroi 21102. PBeroi 21102+17153. MP 784.1. Homer, IL 6. Maehler 1974a, 368-9, pi. 59; BKT 9 #2; cf. Maehler 1967, 61-2. Diaeresis at 224 and 225 as in BKT 9. PBeroi 21107. MP 486.3. Hesiod, Erga. BKT 9 #7; Maehler 1974b; cf Maehler 1969, 82-8, pis. 5a-b; Maehler 1967, 63-70 (no. 6). Line 145. A blank, apparently deliberate, punctuates the colon after +>*& +]" (there seems to be no punctuation dot). Lines 114,297,408, 413,425, 433, 435.The dot is written in the middle position. PBeroi 21108. MP 1556.2. Xenophon, Hell. 1-2, 4. BKT 9 #8; cf. Maehler 1967, 73-7; Maehler 1969, 88-94. We can infer a column length of c. 40 Unes as follows. From the foot of fr. 1 and the top of frr. 2+3 is a lacuna of 2426 letters, approximately 88 lines (at an average of 27.6 letters per line); thus c. 120 lines from the margin at the foot of fr. 1 to the margin at the foot of frr. 2+3. The possibilities are: (1) 5 columns of c. 24 lines; (2) 4 columns of c. 30 lines; (3) 3 columns of 40 lines; or (4) 2 columns of c. 60 lines. (1) Frr. 2+3 guarantees a minimum of c. 32 lines; thus, we can exclude 5 columns averaging 24 lines.

308

Appendix

1

(2) The placement of fr. 4, which follows at a remove of c. 22 lines from the margin at the foot of frr. 2+3, guarantees a column length of either less than c. 23 or greater than c. 37 lines; thus, we can exclude the hypothesis of 4 columns averaging 30 lines. (3) Nothing excludes the hypothesis of 3 columns averaging 40 lines. The calculated height of approximately 24 cm is consistent with observed column heights (see §3.3). (4) For a 60-line column, the column height would be approximately 36 cm, which is well beyond the column height for any observed or reconstructed Greek literary papyrus (see §3.3). Thus, unless there was substantial deviation from the transmitted text (not in evidence elsewhere), we can conclude then that there were about 40 lines to the column. Frr. 2+3, line 27.The iota of ='0&[$ is squeezed in as an afterthought, apparently by the original scribe. PBeroi 21109. MP 876.2. Homer, II 11. BKT 9 #9; c£ Maehler 1974a, 377-9; Maehler 1967, 62-3. Above Une 674 (frr. 7+8+9) is a vestigial margin of 1.5 cm. PBeroi 21133. MP 400.1. Euripides, IT BKT 9 #34; Parâssoglou 1982. PBeroi 21155: cf. PBeroi 11911. PBeroi 21156: cf. PBeroi 11910. PBeroi 21169. MP 417.2. Euripides, Phoen. BKT 9 #72; cf Maehler 1969, 101-7. Line 284.The cursive note in the right margin, written by a second pen in a brownish ink, is perhaps best interpreted as

;&,

i.e.,

;(()&(=),

thus referencing a note in the lower

margin (for parallels cf McNamee 1981b, 48).The reading is slightly difficult palaeographically (xc does seem the more natural interpretation), but seems inevitable given the context. Line 349. The high dot read by the editor is more likely the forward tip of the upper stroke of sigma. The apparent detachment from the letter is the result of abrasion. (The top stroke of sigma is typically extended in an exaggerated fashion, especially at line end: cf. e.g. the ends of lines 289f.) PBeroi 21185. MP 898.1. Homer, II 12. BKT 9 #88; cf Maehler 1974a, 381. The line end from the previous column (opposite lines 468f.) is followed by at least three, and probably four, lines of blank space directly underneath. That is, this is the end of

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

309

a longer line that is then followed by several shorter lines. Among known line variants in this area only line 429 fits the profile (lines 409, 423, and 433 can be ruled out). A column length of 39-40 lines seems therefore likely. PBeroi 21192. MP 329.2. [Demosthenes], contra Macartatum. BKT 9 #96; cf Maehler 1969,119-22. Col. l,line 14.The upsilon is not cancelled. Line 15. Read a middle (not high) dot. Line 18. Traces are visible of a line below, as well as above, the final eta of (;;-. Evidently :;;- was distinguished at start and end with lines above and below, as commonly for headings of this type. (The lines above and below the initial alpha would be in lacuna.) Col. 2, line 19. What is read as a punctuation dot just above and to the left of the second iota may be the left dot of a trema: M["(]? PBeroi 21197. MP 660.3. Homer, II 2. BKT 9 #101; cf Maehler 1974a, 366-8. PBeroi 21210+13291. MP 1387. Plato, Ap BKT 9 #114; cf. Schubart 1950; Vassiliadis 1981. 21210, fr. b. There is no reason for Vassiliadis to prefer 28b over several other possible placements in the Apology. 13291, line 68. Read 6+3 ( $&- 4 [(]"[']*[$0] (sic). Line 74. What is transcribed as a dash is a middle dot, somewhat clumsily written with a very slight tail (as also the middle dot in line 83). Line 105 is more probably restored without $06#", given the letter count. PBeroi 21215. MP 805.1. Homer, IL 7. BKT 9 #119; cf. Maehler 1974a, 371. Lines 192-3. Opposite these lines at the right the edge of the next column is visible, thus allowing the calculation of intercolumn and column-to-column width. (The traces are minimal, but I assume the ink belongs to the next column, since the traces both align vertically and are vertically spaced in accordance with the leading of the preserved column.) PBeroi 21216. MP 919.1. Homer, IL 15. BKT 9 #120; cf. Maehler 1974a, 382-3. PBeroi 21224. MP 1148.2. Homer, Od. 22. BKT 9 #128; cf Maehler 1974a, 394. PBeroi 21235. M P 384.1. Euripides, Ba. BKT 9 #139; cf.Brashear 1975, 300-1. PBeroi 21274. BKT 9 #178; cf. Brashear 1982, 65.

310

Appendix

1

PBetol 21284: cf. PBeroi 16895. PDum 1, MP 478. Herodotus, 5. The letters in this script are 0.5 (not 1.3) cm high. Col. 2, line 12. A paragraphus, partially in lacuna but definite, is visible below this line. PDura 2. MP 113. Appian, Iber. 15,17. Babcock and Johnson 1994. PFay 4. MP 830. Homer, II. 8. PLondLit 17. There are ruling dots along the left edge of col. 2 (on which cf. §3.1.2). What the editor reports as a square-shaped epsilon at the beginning of lines 366 and 367 is in fact normally written, but, with ruling dots at the top and bottom at left, placed so as to make the curve appear square. PFay 7. MP 1064. Homer, Od. 6. PLondLit 31. Verse 293. At line end (;4&[- or (;4-[ are equally possible. (Similarly, (;;-[ or (;;-[& can be restored at verse 286.) PFayColes 5, MP 189.1. Callimachus, Hymn 3. Line 77. A high dot, added in a different ink (apparently the same as that of the correction in line 73), is visible following >&-/&. Read: 77

[4;+.(0] §$ >&-/& ' 6+ [' :6*&2+ " $&0$6& ,(& "3"]

PFayColes 6. MP 1265.1. Isocrates, Paneg. PFayColes 14. MP 584.1. Homer, II. 1. PFayColes 15. MP 594.1. Homer, IL 1. PFayColes 16+17. MP 824.1. Homer, II. 8. PFayColes 18. MP 1026.1. Homer, Od. 1. Line 301. A high dot is visible following /&;+0. PFayColes 19. MP 1051.1. Homer, Od. 4. PFayColes 20. MP 1092.1. Homer, Od. 10. PFlor II 109. MP 821: cf PGrenf 1.2.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

311

PGrenf 1.2 (-Pack 2 822)+PFlor II 109 (-Pack 2 821). MP 822. Homer, IL 8. Gallazzi 1988,60-6 & pi. 2. I have inspected only the British piece. Gallazzi corrects several errors in Grenfells transcription. PGrenf 1.3. MP 1061. Homer, Od. 5. PGrenf 1 A. MP 895. Homer, IL 12. Line 179. Following - 3"]+"6+ is a dot written high above the line in a somewhat wild fashion, consistent with the look of this manuscript. Line 183.The acute accent reported on >](;G" is in fact positioned between the final nu and the next word, probably another example of the slight wildness that characterizes the writing of this manuscript (cf line 179). But inasmuch as the accent is incorrect, one wonders if the mark is perhaps punctuation, that is, some sort of reading mark (cf. line 184). Line 184. As in the example in line 183, the incorrectly written second acute reported on G02$1G" has an unusual appearance (in this case written very high and far to the right only the left of the mark is extant), and one questions whether this is in fact intended as an accent. Line 185.The mark above $!&0$% reported as acute ("!&0$%) may well be the remains of lenis ("!&0$%). All that remains is a short, upright stroke above the letter. Line 185. A high dot, apparently, follows +06$+". Line 190. Read ;$90$W$ (i.e., with circumflex, not acute). Line 195. Read ['9]!} (with elision mark). PGrenf 2.4+PHib 1.22+PHeidLit 2. MP 979. Homer, II. 21. West 1967,136-91. PHib 1.20+PGrenf 2.3. MP 699. Homer, IL 3-5. PLondLit 10; West 1967, 64-70. PHib 1.21+PGrenf 2.2+PHeidLit 1. MP 819. Homer, IL 8. PLondLit 16; West 1967, 74-90. PHib 1.26. MP 88. Anaximenes, Rhet. adAlexandrum. Line 12. A space, apparently intended as punctuation, follows [%]*[(]?$&0. Line 29. A space, apparently intended as punctuation, follows [%*+6$]*+". Line 86f. Below line 86 and just barely above line 87 a horizontal mark is visible in the margin at left.The mark is low for the usual paragraphus in this manuscript, but cf. the paragraphus below line 88, which is almost this low. Alternatively, one can compare the mark in the margin at 316f., a horizontal stroke with a slight tilt upwards.This mark is added opposite a paragraphus that does not extend into the margin, perhaps for clarification or special

312

Appendix

1

emphasis. Either way, it seems fair to impute a paragraphus below line 86 marking the sentence that ends $6&1&. Line 101. Below this line a paragraphus is perhaps apparent under the gesso - but the reading is uncertain. Line 146. N o punctuation space follows

[&5]1.([%$'0]%

(nor is any expected).

Line 232. $06#" (with rtw-movable) cannot be excluded: a very difficult reading. Line 253f. Evidence for the unusual word division the end of this short line

[0]:6([&-]

0:6(-&&0%

is ambiguous at best. At

cannot be excluded, and in fact seems the likely reading:

the papyrus is rubbed and there is a trace of ink. Line 316f. See the comments at lines 86f. PHib 2.193. MP 774. Homer, II. 6. West 1967, 71-3. Full argumentation for the corrections below in Johnson 2002. Verse 4.The mu read by West is neither complete nor certain, and the vulgate text, read by Turner in the editio princeps, cannot be excluded. Verse 7f.The blank space below verse 7 may well be the expected meat at the end of verse 8, inasmuch as verse 8 is unusually short (31 letters).There is then no reason to assume a margin here, and no basis therefore for the hypothesis that this fragment comes from a roll with more than one book of the Iliad, or that book 6 began in the middle of a column. PHib 2.194. MP 1129. Homer, Od. 17,19. West 1967, 267-70. PHib 2.228. MP 1395. Plato, S ^ . T u r n e r 1955. Pace the editor's's remarks, this large script, though clearly a bookhand, is rather clumsily executed; as for the editor's remark that the 'generous' 3.1-cm lower margin supports the impression of a'handsome' manuscript, cf. §3.9. Col. 1, line 5. Visible at the left is a dot of ink in a raised position. This the editor reads as the top of iota, thus "(&]:

$5!';>%

&$'%5 %

%(]'

$5!'; 7 %

&$'%5%,

which is possible. But equally possible is

(i.e., with dicolon marking the speaker change). The other points

where the speaker changes (1.1 fin. and 1.4 fin.) are lacunose. Use of dicolon to mark the speaker change can therefore be neither confirmed nor

denied.

Col. 2, line l . T h e traces are consistent with: 2[0]96[(&(

9010'!]

The paragraphus is no more than a trace of ink at the expected position. Plrnd 5.80: cf PLondLit 132. PLondLit 27. MP 998. Homer, 11. 23-4. Kenyon 1893; c£ Kenyon 1891,100-8, pi. 8.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

313

General notes. It is difficult to tease out the various hands, but clearly at least three readers have added to the text, and very likely more.Verse 23.443 is a good example: over ,=* at line end, a pen different from that of the scribe adds an accent, and a third pen has repeated the accent and added the middle dot at the end. Neither of these seems to match the ink of the reader who adds (in a pale ink) the iota-adscript just above at verse 441. Generally, accents (excepting diaeresis, which appears original) seem to be added by two hands, the one using a fine-tipped pen not unlike that of the original scribe (though different in ink and uncertain enough in stroke that I would guess a different hand), the other a coarse pen (and this latter seems responsible for most of the punctuation). Similarly, the reader who rewrites or retraces lines, as e.g. the rewritten end of verse 434, tries to imitate the hand of the original scribe (though this is not, in my opinion, the same hand).This reader is surely not the same as that who has messily and ignorantly copied the text for the patch sheet (containing the final letters of the last column of book 23 and the first column of book 24), and who is also responsible for other additions, as e.g. the verses written in the top margin of col. 20. And neither of these hands seems to match that of the scholia added here and there in the intercolumn. In short, this manuscript shows many signs of long and active usage. At many possible points ofpunctuation, a space of a half-character's width has been left by the scribe - but these slight spaces are for the most part too ambiguous to seem intended as punctuation, and are not noted here. Into many of these spaces a second hand has added, often rather messily, and often above the line, dots ofpunctuation; only here and there do such dots appear possibly to be by the scribe, and it may well be that none of the punctuation is original. The sheet of papyrus inserted as a patch at the end of book 23 and the start of book 24 was worked as follows: (l)The blank patch sheet was attached to the end of the front half of the roll (containing book 23). The rather crude join was made in an unusual manner, with the right sheet pasted over the left sheet, thus on top of the ends to lines 879-97 o f b o o k 23 (the very ends of which were probably already damaged). (2) The scribe copied out the ends to lines 879-97 o f b o o k 23 (column 23), and the opening 40 lines of book 24 (column 24). That this was the next step is suggested by the last letter of the long line 6, which did not fit onto the patch sheet, and which appears to be a later addition. (3) The two halves of the roll were then attached (with the join made in the usual fashion, left over right).The final letter to line 6 was now added to complete that line. The manuscript deserves more detailed study than it has so far received. In the annotations below, detailed examination of the papyrus was left off after column 25; the notes on book 24, line 8 Iff. are based on spot checks of the text. Book 23, verse 13. N o punctuation is visible at the end of this line. Verse 14. Add a high dot at line end. Verse 18. Add a middle-high dot at line end. Below this line the tip of a paragraphus is visible.

314

Appendix

1

Verse 27, A high dot follows [+/ +(*]+"6(. Verse 32. Read not :25 but dec. Verse 62. Read, apparently, asper and acute above D%"+0. Following ( /&231$&0 is, apparently, a low dot. Verse 403. Read +/E# (with trema). Verse 408. A high dot follows [,(]*%(;(, 4<:. Verse 415. Add a high dot at line end. Verse 420. Read asper and circumflex above -N. Verse 421. Read circumflex above 6-]&. Verse 424. Read macron and acute above %(*(,;#$^#"(0. Verse 427. A high dot follows oSoc. Verse 428. Add a middle-high dot (somewhat faded) at line end. Verse 430. Add a middle dot (somewhat faded) at line end. Verse 432. Read a grave, apparently, above (&5=]&+0. Verse 438.The dot at line end is in the low position. Verse 439. Add a middle dot at line end. Verse 441. Following + &0- #+ ta-adscript is added by a corrector. Verse 443. The letters "(2 in G06(6+"(2"3 $"4 are erased and rewritten by a corrector. Verse 450. The trace of a middle dot is visible at line end. Verse 458.The trace of a high dot is visible following &"':;;$6+(. Verse 463.The dot reported after %]("6- is in fact iota-adscript added above the line by a corrector. Verse 470. A high dot follows '&()Y&"40,4. Verse 48l.The nu in >$>-,$Y is crossed out. Verse 486. Add a middle dot at line end. Verse 493. Add a middle dot (somewhat faded) at line end. Verse 497. A high dot follows $;$&.+"6+(. Verse 500. A high dot follows ,(64 ('+". Verse 501. Add a middle dot at line end. Verse 506. A high dot follows ,+"&-&. Verse 516. Add a middle dot at line end. Verse 521. Add a low dot at line end. Verse 524. A high dot follows ,&2("]$". Verse 536. Add a middle dot at line end. Verse 537. No dot is visible at line end. Verse 544. Read 6+D6+ $[%+]9·* 0[990'! ,6; at line beginning (with high dot). Verse 546. Add a high dot following $4". Verse 550. A high dot, apparently, follows %[*+>(6]. Verse 562. Below the initial letters of this line is a long horizontal stroke of indetermi-

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

315

natc meaning. It does not look like a paragraphus, but rather like the stroke under = &%G;$[,,( in line 858 (and cf. book 24,line 56). Verse 593. A low dot follows (%(&6-0$&(0. Verse 625. Slightly below this line and in the margin is a siglum, smudged and indistinct, presumably marking the insertion of verse 626 in the top margin (and cf. verse 711). Verse 666. Below this verse a paragraphus is visible. Verse 677.The first upsilon of 0565(9$! is rewritten by the corrector (the original letter cannot be read). Verse 711. In the margin a corrector adds an anchor siglum and at the foot of the column are remains of ink, apparently traces of an added or variant line or lines. Verse 714.The epsilon in Op ac I$*G4" is, apparently, cancelled by an oblique stroke. Verse 751. A diaeresis and, apparently, acute can be read above ;+&01=& Verse 757. At left and below this line is not a simple paragraphus, but a horizontal line overwritten (messily) by a large slash. This served to mark the point of attachment for the lines in the upper margin. Verse 841. Read (/]G=,$ (acute, not macron). Verse 845. A macron is clearly visible over $**#$FM.$. Verse 850.The dot reported between iota and delta in 0&'-*+" is actually above the delta - presumably to mark the lemma for the gloss in the margin. Verse 853. Read a badly written acute, not a macron, over 6*=*4"(. Verse 848. The nu added by a corrector above the line is surrounded by middle dots. Book 24, verse 6. A trema is visible over -U. Verse 10. In the margin at left, a crudely written slash has been added. Verse 56. At line end a long horizontal stroke is added, beginning under the final letter of (*)3*+6+?$. Cf Book 23, verses 562 and 858. Verse 59. The letters (3 of (36- are retraced by a corrector. Verse 62. The letters )( of )( [+]3 are retraced by a corrector. Verse 103.To the left and below this line is a slash, written apparently by a hand different from that which adds the paragraphus. Verse 193. A paragraphus is visible below this line. Verse 221. The diastole reported after tic $ is vestigial, but the remains suggest no more than a high dot (which is often somewhat sloppily written). Verse 225.The hypodiastole reported at line end is probably no more than a badly written low dot. Verse 517.To the left and below this line is a slash. Verse 558. A paragraphus is visible below this line. PLondLit 30+PVindob G26746+G26754-60. MP 1039. Homer, Od. 3. Kenyon 1894; PVindob published by description m Gerstinger 1926.

316

Appendix

1

The Vienna pieces await full publication; corrections below therefore apply to Kenyon's transcript of the London pieces, unless explicitly noted. Verse 283. Read at end, apparently, a middle dot (added, as usual in the manuscript, a one-half character space beyond the line end). Verse 285. An acute can be read on ,6G*$(. Verse 289. The first accent on (+& )%( is cancelled in the usual way by dots on either side (perhaps unclear from the transcript). Verse 323. The high dot reported following i&i is (judging from shape and placement) probably accidental ink and not punctuation. Verse 393. A high dot follows ;06$B!(&$. Verse 401. Read 6c (with acute). Verse 425. For the lenis read by editor over ;(G*,$[(] read instead a grave accent, cancelled by a short oblique stroke; to the right of that an acute accent has been added. Verse 445. A high dot follows ,(6-*2]$6+. Verse 450. A high dot follows 0%$]9. Verse 460. At line end 2G*04"] (with movable nu) cannot be excluded. Verse 481. Add a middle low dot at line end. Verse 494 (PVindob G 26757). As in verse 484, and in accordance with most medieval manuscripts, the papyrus reads (;$%&0 for (0;$%&0. Verse 486. Add a middle dot at line end. Verse 490. Add a middle dot at line end. Colophon. Read at end: oSucc [$&+/

«

> [ )]

(In the final line, both alpha and beta are clear, despite the editor's ( $.) The colophon, which is written by the scribe in a slightly larger (4 mm) script, seems to guarantee that the roll contained the entirety of the first three books of the Odyssey. PLondLit 73. MP 397. Euripides, Hipp. Verse 1165. Above this line read the tip of a low descender, in this hand thus / or ..The location is consistent with 1164, [%*+0 6+3 '& $21*(+ 4" xic -

(]/[&) $"+0].

Verse 1172.The scribe omits rho (not tau): 6]$:&$%. One cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility that this reflects a bona fide older spelling for vulgate 6":&6$%. Cf. IG 4 2 .1.122.41, a fourth-century BC inscription from Epidaurus, in which 6":&$% is written in the sense of a door knocker (cf LSJ & LSJ Suppl. s.w.). Verse 1172.The editor wrongly suggests that the papyrus reads ('!.5%(%&( [ 0] against ('!.5%(%&' 0 0. Given scribal use of scriptio plena in line 1169, ('!.5%(%&( [0 0] is equally possible.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

317

PLondLit 130: cf. PLondLit 134. PLondLit 132+PIand 5.8Q(?). MP 1233. Hyperides, in Demosthpro

Lye, pro Eux. Plates

16 and 17. For the Arden papyrus, cf. Arden and Babington 1853, corrected in many particulars in Jensen 1917, vii-xi, 28-56; Kuhlmann ad PGissLit 4.6 has recently raised doubts as to whether Pland 5.80 is written in the same hand. I have examined only the Arden papyrus, which contains the final 49 columns of the roll in a mostly complete state (comprising the latter half of Hyperides, pro Lycophrone and the entirety of pro Euxenippo). Kollêsis joins are visible in the middle of columns 4,8, and 12; to the left of column 16; at the left edge of column 19; to the left of column 23; at the left edge of column 27; in the right part of column 30; in the middle of column 34; in the left part of column 38; to the left of column 42; at the right edge of column 45; and in the middle of column 49. The kollêsis at the left of column 16 is different in appearance, clumsier, and noticeably uneven in vertical line; hence, probably a synkollêsis (further at §3.1.3). Roughly a centimetre to the left of each kollêsis are alignment dots at top and bottom of the column, which mark the upper and lower line of the run of columns, but do not reliably signal either the horizontal disposition of the columns or their vertical tilt. Several of the dots are missing by accident of survival, but clear, largish dots can be seen: at the bottom of column 4 to the right of eta in &7%; at the top of column 12 underneath the nu of 8$9>%;

about 0.4 cm to the left upper edge of column 19; at the right upper and lower

edges of column 22; at the right upper (obscured by the last letter of the line, iota) and lower edges of column 26; at the top of column 30 following &( and at the bottom following ,(&; at the top of column 34 above and to the right of the first omicron in +"+", and at the lower edge following 4);#'$; at the top of column 38 just to the left of 6=%, and at the bottom below the omicron of %+;&6$#(; to the right of the upper and lower edges of column 41 (the lower dot being about 0.3 cm below the base line); at the top of column 45 following G6(;;+3 (at the base line, as though a low dot) and at the bottom just below the lacuna at line's end. The alignment dots are missing at the kollêsis for column 16, which however is a join of a different sort (see just above); and are also missing for the kollêsis at the final column of the roll (column 49). In this papyrus, spaces are used to distinguish punctuation, both with and without accompanying paragraphus. Width seldom exceeds a single character space, and is typically less. In conjunction with paragraphus, the narrow spaces pose little difficulty (since the paragraphus keys the reader to look for the space), but without paragraphus, the use of spaces becomes problematic. While spaces often signal a point of punctuation clearly, ambiguous examples abound. Narrow spaces fall at points of pause in the text too commonly for coincidence; but there are also occasional narrow spaces that are clearly fortuitous. Since punctuation spaces are not reported by either editor, I subjoin a list of spaces that seem to signal punctuation.

318

Appendix 1

Spaces with accompanying paragraphus are found following '&'40&" at 2.21,%&0&6&0 +" at 2.26, $"( at 4.11, ;+)+&0 at 4.18, )3"(#,( at 6.21 t h o u g h very slight, "+"6(& at 7.14, )&(0 at 7.25, '&(06*[$/+30&"] at 8.17, "4" at 8.25,-1$&" at 9.4, ;$)$&" at 9.23, (%+;+)&(" at 10.5, $D/- +3 at 11.19, '#,(5$ iv at 12.2, %+;$& at 12.9, (,*&>G06(6+&; at 12.13, $#"(& at 13.3, $ (36+3 at 13.21, "+30 at 14.16, +0&( M+3'$&0]] at 14.21, ;$)$&" at 15.19, ()4"+0 at 16.2, >+-T-0(& at 16.6, ;$)$&" at 16.9, 6(/-"(& at 16.19, ())$;&(& at 18.8, 4& at 18.23, ,(06-|0]]*&+" at 19.6, -0(" at 19.10, - at 20.15, '&,(06-*&+" at 21.14, ,(1-6(& at 21.27, ,(1$06-,$ at 22.5, 6$ at 22.13,

-'$&0 at 22.19 (where a high dot, probably by a reader, reconfirms the point of punctuation), ,(6(;3Y- at 22.21, 06(& at 22.23, 06-*&4& at 23.2, (unexpectedly, n o space follows "4" at 23.13), )*(.("6$0 at 23.16, (" at 23.18, /&0 (6( at 23.23, +3640 at 23.27, ,(6 $ at 24.6, 2*-0&(& at 24.13, ;+)&(0 at 24.19, 0,$&" at 24.29, "&%%[+]3 at 25.5, "+"64" at 25.12, coi at

26.13,$& at 27.8, 0+3 (but very slight) at 27.14, $?$6(5+"6$0 at 27.22 (with diplê in lieu of paragraphus), )$&;(& at 28.2, (1-"(&+30 at 28.10, $(364& at 29.2, (unexpectedly, n o space follows %+" at 29.7), 6(& at 30.4, (?&+0 at 30.7, *&+" at 30.17, (%+;4;$"(& at 30.28, $6$& -1-& at 31.4,

"(& at 31.9 (Jensens report is confusing: the paragraphus occurs here and not at 31.8), 3)I&C$&(0 at 31.13, '&,(06E" at 31.23, (,$'B"4" at 32.25, >+3;+"6(& at 33.19, vov at 34.18, (* +66$& and '&( 6& at 35.8, 3 &" at 35.12,0(" at 35.24,1$+3 at 36.15, ?( $" at 37.5, $0+ $1(

at 37.10, '$" & at 38.13, (the expected space following /3)$ at 39.4 is almost indiscernible), 3%G)*(.( at 40.7, %+&-0(& at 40.17, 6:?$& at 40.24, 6+3 at 41.2, ;$)$6$ at 41.14, ;&%$6(& at 41.23, %*() (6+0 at 42.20, "(&4" at 43.5, 1$9 at 43.10, $6('+"6$0 at 44.7, $06& at 44.13,%+;$& at 44.23,

G6(;;+3 at 45.1, ,&"'3"$3$&" at 45.23, (at 46.27 n o t only is the paragraphus mis-

placed, but only the slightest space occurs after %*(66$&" in line 26, the apparent point of pause), '+D"(& at 48.11, %(*$2$&0 at 48.20, ,(6(>-0+ (& at 48.24, 6$ at 49.9. (All other lines

with paragraph! have the point of pause at line end, or the point of pause is in lacuna.) Spaces without accompanying paragraphus that clearly signal punctuation are found following: 06*(6&'-" at 2.8, ,(6-)+*$# at 2.17, 5$& at 2.24, (;-1- at 4.7, U"(&,(F a t 5 . 1 ^ o v x a i at 7.9,0&" a t 7 . 2 0 ^ p o v at 9.7, >+-1$&" at 9.11, "+ +30 at 11.2, $&%$#" at 11.6, '$01(& at 11.26, [$06]&" at 12.16 (where, however, a paragraphus may b e in /(<:Y-(),03"(*2+"64" at 13.26, (,-,+(6$ at 15.16, ,&"'3"$3+"6& at 16.11, )+" at 18.5, %*+'+3"(& at 18.19, ,- (64" at 19.8, *[(,$]"(& at 19.26, "+ E" at 20.14, 01$&-" at 21.4, (" at 23.9,%+3"6(& at 24.3,)+*+& at 24.15, ;$)40&" at 24.25, ,(6(06(0 at 25.20, -1-0(& at 25.26, ,$2*-0(& at 26.3, 0+3 at 26.9, )$&" at

26.15, 2*-0(& at 26.17, )+*&( at 27.19, M$*+" at 27.26, '- +" at 28.7, (36+ at 30.9, )$)*(/1(& at 30.20, ,(06(& at 30.22, #)$+3 at 30.25, *4" at 31.18, $*)(0(01(& at 32.2, %+;$& at 33.24, (" at 34.26, -6&4& at 35.5, -0(& at 36.1, ,(;;&06+" at 36.4, (64" at 36.11, $&- at 36.20, $06#" at 36.22, 6(?("6+0 at 37.17, %+&-0(&+ at 37.21, 09(& at 37.28, *4"6(& at 38.10 (where t h e paragraphus has b e e n cancelled), 6$&" at 38.15, 0( at 38.23, '&,(06=*&4& at 39.16, '&,(&(" at 39.18, /+" at 40.12, ;$)$&0 at 42.1, +3 at 42.22, $"- at 43.1, $%&13 $&" at 44.2, 6$6 - $"+" at 44.18, %+;$& at 44.26, '#,(&+" at 45.6, 6(0 at 47.5, (1-"(#4" at 47.26, -;&(06&,+" at 49.6, $&2+" at 49.17.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

319

Less certain are these examples, also without paragraphus, where the spaces are narrower but occur at points of pause in the text: following 6&"$&" at 2.19, 14" at 3.22, 9$520'% at 5.4, %+" at 5.5, [%"&])+ $"+0 at 5.26 , %+&-0(01(& at 9.27(?), ;(>E" at 13.10, "&(36+" at 1 4 . 1 0 , 03%(' at 15.6,0&(& at 15.21, >+-1-0+"6( at 1 6 . 2 2 , '&,(06(& at 18.2,$;$)$" at 2 0 . 1 7 , '- 4& at 2 0 . 2 7 , ) * ( / # - # 1 at 2 2 . 1 , e t at 22.4 ,

W&3!'(% at 2 2 . 2 7 , !5%(1(17 at 23.5,>$;6$&+" at 25.14(?), cac at

2 6 . 1 8 , ("(>&>(0(01(& at 27.3, 0':03% at 27.5, 03%(' at 2 8 . 4 , '+"6+0 at 2 9 . 1 1 ,

TOUT

at 30.14, %('

at 3 0 . 2 7 , -,+"6( at 32.7, ;04$%'(% at 33.1,+&,&( " at 3 3 . 4, :;;4" at 3 3 . 2 5 , 6$ at 36.2,c[$]]ai at 37.24,"(0(& at 37.25(?), ;6'%0'% at 37.26(?), 0/-66&+" at 3 9 . 5 , %+;$& at 3 9 . 7 , ;(>E" at 4 0 . 1 0 ,

'- 4& at 40.20, $&%E" at 40.26, '&,(06(& at 41.13 (where the paragraphus has been cancelled), )&"-6(& at 4 1 . 1 8 , ,6(& at 42.9, 0!&3% at 4 2 . 1 1 , ciav at 4 3 . 1 4 , +30(" at 4 3 . 1 5 , -" at 4 3 . 1 7 ,

-"+0 at 44.11, +'+" at 46.7, 5 0&06(! at 46.13, /*+"6&5+30&" at 46.14, 01(& at 46.22, vov at

47.11, cxtv at 47.12, 4';(!&>% at 49.19. The clear but wholly irrational spaces in column 31 are a red herring: the spaces, e.g., following )(* in 14, and both in mid-word and following $/%+'&+" in 15, are introduced by the scribe to avoid a crease in the papyrus surface. 3.3 A paragraphus is clearly visible below this line (omitted by Jensen; Babington does not report paragraph]). 3.9 A diplê, rather than a paragraphus, is written underneath the line at left; perhaps an addition by the diorthotes (see just below). 11.2 At line end +3" is squeezed in, apparently a later addition by the original scribe. 15.3 Gamma is written over 6$, correcting to )$; the tau is, however, not cancelled. 22.27 A diplê is added at left to the paragraphus below this line, forming a siglum like a diplê obelismenê; as at 3.9, the addition is made with the sharp, precise pen stroke characteristic of both scribe and the principal corrector (and indeed corrector and scribe could be the same person, working on the manuscript at different times). 39.4 The paragraphus reported below this line by Jensen does not exist. 43.21 A paragraphus is clearly visible below this line. 46.2 The delta at line end is a later correction; hence the odd word division. PLondLit

134+130 descr. MP 337+1234. Hyperides, in Philippidem + Demosthenes,

Epistula. For no. 134 (Hyperides), Jensen 1917, xi-xiv, 56-68, and cf Kenyon 1891, 4 2 55, pi. 2; for no. 130 (Demosthenes), published by description in Kenyon 1891, 56-62, pi. 3, and with a partial edition in Hausmann 1981, 74—96 (no. 44). Possible provenance discussed in Martin 2002. PLondLit 134 (Hyperides). In the papyrus spaces are used to distinguish punctuation, and the scribe may possibly intend a distinction also between wider (1.5-3 characters in width) and narrower (0.5 to 1 character) spaces. Punctuation spaces are not reported by either editor. Wider spaces are found following: $-1 )$"$6+ at fr. 6.5, '[$+]"6[(&] at fr. 10.11, 1$*(%$3-

320

Appendix

1

] +"6$0 at col. 1.9, [$]*2$6(& at 1.22, ,+ #5$& at 2.7, ,(,$&+"( at 2.13, $&%$#" at 2.18, [6(>]-0+(& at 2.23, [/$*]$&" at 2.26, %*+G'*4" at 3.2, ("()$&"40,+-1 G"4" at 3.9, .-/&$&0-1 [1](& at 3.20, .-/&5$0-1 1( [&] at 3.26, %]*+-'*$3-1 ,(0&" at 4.12, (- | %+/$3)$ at 4.18, $?3>*&- |5[$]6+ at 6.13, '[&],(&+" at 6.9, ,(6$)"4-1 6$ at 7.2, ('&,+D" [6(] at 7.12, ( /B6$*( at 7.18, ;(>$#" at 7.23, (%-;;(21(& at 7.27, '$'4,$" at 8.1, (*- |63*$&" at 8.6, %:;&" at 8.26.

Narrower spaces are found following: 1-[>](&<; at fr. 15a.2, 6(["]()*(& at fr. 15a.3, %(;;([)]$"6( at fr. 15b.l, ("(6*(%--1 "(& at fr. 15b. 4, ;(] >("+30 & " at fr. 15b.6, +3'G" at col. 1.25, (1$&" at 2.1, 0(36+3 at 2.4,6$[& ]4*-0$01$ at 3.13,$6$/(-1 "40(& at 4.3, )"4- |civ at 4.6, (1-"(#4" at 4.10, 3%](*-1 [2]$&" at 4.26, $6$-1 *41& at 5.3, ,+;(,$3$&" at 5.5, $0$01(& at 5.8, ,(6$)"40 at 5.10, 63-1 *(""4" at 5.10, $;+)&0(01$ at 5.17, %$*&$)$"$6+ at 5.21, %+;$& " at 5.23, $24" at 6.5, 6$& 4*&(0 at 6.20, zc- |6&" at 6.23, 2*-06+0 at 6.27, --1 ;4,+0&" at 8.4, %(*(- |)$"4"6(& at 8.7, -6$& 401(& at 8.10, )*(/$&" at 8.15, %+&+30&" at 8.18, 6$& 4*&(0 at 8.20.

Following '= +3 at col. 5.26 there is no space, but a raised dot has been added to distinguish the clause. Two hands are responsible for the paragraph) in the Hyperides section. The first, likely that of the scribe, writes the usual horizontal stroke. The second hand writes a curved stroke (shaped like a large circumflex); this hand is the same as that responsible for paragraphs of the same shape in the Demosthenes section (thus either the scribe of the Demosthenes read and corrected the Hyperides, or a reader is responsible for the oddly shaped paragraph] in both). These curved paragraphs are found under the following lines: col. 2.7, 3.20, 3.26, 5.10, 6.9, 6.13, 6.26, 7.8, 7.12, 7.23, 7.27 (for convenience I list all; most of these are reported by Kenyon). Fr. 15b, line l . T h e paragraphus reported by the editor below this line is not visible, and one wonders if the foot of % (exaggerated at line beginning, as often in this manuscript) has been mistaken for a paragraphus. Col. 4, line 17. Read 64& (with adscript). Col. 6, line 4. In the margin a second hand has added a slash, presumably to mark the correction of /3;(?("6$0 to %(*(/3;(?("6$0 (and this second hand is also responsible for the correction). Line 1 Of. Jensen wrongly reports kappa at line end. The word divides as follows: 4I [,6]$&*$6+ (so also Kenyon). Col. 7, line 3. Read 64& (with adscript). Col. 8, line 1. A paragraphus is clearly visible below this line (reported by Kenyon but omitted by Jensen). PLondLit 130 descr. (Demosthenes). This large piece deserves a full reporting, which it has not yet received. PLondLit 145: c£ PPetr 1.5-8.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

321

PLondLit 251+PHarr 36. MP 894. Homer, II 12. West 1967,118-31. PMuench 2.35+PLudgBat 25.6. MP 604.1. Homer, +. l.Andorlini 1997. The traces of documentary writing on the back are confined to a thin strip opposite a kollêsis; thus, a used strip of papyrus was added (later?) as reinforcement; the back otherwise shows no sign of reuse. Line 413. The omicron in [6]+" is corrected by the scribe from, apparently, an original epsilon.The omicron above is then added for clarity. PMuench 2.38. MP 897.2. Homer, il 12. Lines 301, 303. At the end of both of these lines is, apparently, a high dot. But in both cases damage to the surface and transient ink makes the reading uncertain. Line 346. Opposite this line in the left margin is visible what appears to be the left lower tip of a diplê (in accordance with Ven.A). Line 355. Opposite and slightly above this line in the left margin are the remains of what seems intended as a critical sign, a line sloping slightly upwards - a badly written obelos? or a slash? (cf. McNamee 1992, 34ff., table 2[D]). Line 365. Opposite this line in the left margin is visible what appears to be the left upper tip of a diplê (in accordance with Ven.A). PMuench 2.39. M P 1286. Lycophron, Alexandra. Line 1161. The acute over [c]i&3voc is cancelled, by the usual method of placing a dot to either side of the stroke of the accent (the upper dot being in lacuna). The accents in this line and the cancellation dots are written in an ink distinct from that responsible for the other accents in this manuscript. PMuench 2.40. MP 468. Herodotus, 1. Cf. Paap 1948, 24ff. Pace the editors summary in the heading (she gets it right in the text), the Herodotus text is on the front (recto), written along the fibres; the documentary text is on the back (verso), written the other way up and across the fibres. Line 1. Below this line a paragraphus is, apparently, to be read. Visible is the left tip of a horizontal stroke in a light, faded ink. All the paragraphi in this manuscript are in this same lighter ink. Line 7. A high dot follows $%$6$;$- jov. Lines 9, 12.The commas reported by the editor are not on the papyrus. Line 10. A high dot follows '&,-". Line 17. A paragraphus, faded and partly rubbed away but certain, is visible below this line. What may be a middle dot (smudged, thus uncertain) follows (3-1 6+3.

322

Appendix

1

Line 22. A paragraphus, again faded but certain, is visible below this line. PMuench 2.41. MP 1566. Xenophon, de Vectigalibus. The upper margin measures 1.6 cm and is not, pace the editors remark, complete.The lower margin measures 2.2 (not 1.7) cm and is also incomplete. Above line 1 of col. 1 can be read line ends for three lines opposite col. 2, lines 6—8 (col. 1, line 1 is opposite col. 2, line 10). Read: [. . . $;;--] (1.0a)

["$0 ,(& >(]*-

(1.0b)

[>(*+& %*+0]'$-

(1.0c)

[+"6(& $06#" ']$

(1 .Od)

[,(& )- - 0%$&-]

1.1

[*+ $"-]

$"

PMuench 2.42. MP 1563.3. Xenophon, Symp. The editor's assertion that the piece is from mummy cartonnage is very surprising, if not impossible, given the date (3rd cent. AD); and in fact the appearance is not at all that of cartonnage. I infer a mistaken reading of some sort of local catalogue; which also then casts grave doubt on the editors assertion of provenance (said to be Melâwi, but based on false identification with an excavated mummy?). 1 must also register my doubt that the smaller fragment containing fr. A, line 6 (lower part) and lines 7 - 8 belongs with the larger fragment containing fr. A lines 1 - 5 and line 6 (upper part),The smaller piece appears to be separate, simply stuck by accident to a vertical fibre of the larger piece; and vertical fibres between the two pieces do not appear to match. Adding to the doubt is the fact that what is read as the lower tip of / in line 6 is not nearly low enough (it should almost intrude upon the next line; cf. line 1), and the sling read before this letter looks much more like the bottom of epsilon or sigma. Moreover, if one measures up from 23[ in line 7, one predicts the base line of line 6 to be exactly where we find the curved stroke and tip of the hasta: were these marks a sling and the tip of /, they should be well below the base line. Assume then three fragments, the first containing lines 1-6, and the second of which reads: 1

]?.[

2

]. π[

3

].[

1: $ or c for the first letter; for the second, bottom of a hasta at the base line: , ,, , ", -, %. 2: For the first letter, remains of the right edge of a rounded letter: +, 4, perhaps p.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

323

We can discard then the hypothesis of a textual variant at fr. A, lines 6f., as well as the sling read underneath iota in line 6 [$-

|:']#[2$%$%].

PPetr 1.3(4). M P 879. Homer, IL 11. PLondLit 21; West 1967,103-7. PPetr 1.5-8=PLondLit

145. MP 1388. Plato, Phd. Cf. Burnet 1900, and the additions and

corrections by Carlini 1992 and Strachan 1992. As pointed out by Carlini 1992, 150, the editor is far off in his estimate (122) of the number of columns for the entirety of the Phaedo. From the remains, a count of c. 192 columns can be inferred (the text as transmitted has 105,100 letters, and extant columns average 548 letters per column). fr.V.la, line 3. <]* and 5]-^" are equally possible. At line end the unusual word division reported by the editor (-,-1 [OVTOC]) is a phantom: read -,[+"-1 6 oc], fr. V l b , line 12. The intercolumn is apparent to the right, Dispose the lines for this fragment as follows:

8

[6+36+3 (%]-;;(21(& 03"+"6+ [c (5&$3c] [- ("1*4%#"4"

$" %(&'&,4[" ,(&]

[15%(';>%] - %(#'4" $"$,( [(%+-] [1("B"64" %]+;;+& $,+"6$0 [-1$-] 12

[;-0(" etc (&]'+3

$6$;1$&" 3%+

fr.V.2, line 11.The transmitted text is too long for the lacuna by c. 4—5 letters. Perhaps 6+D6+ was omitted: [$5;$5% ' ; ( % $ % ! $ ' ] 0 # 7 & 0 ; 7 6 ' $ % [(%46$! $% (% '47']!

(1(%(;&$5%&(

fr.V.3, line 9. A paragraphus (expected) is clearly visible below this line. Line 9.There is room for only c. 11 letters before the epsilony certainly no more than 15 letters even in this sometimes cramped and uneven script. The transmitted text, ([6+%+0 365 '- 4 04,*(6]$0, at 17 letters plus punctuation, seems excluded. In any case the editor's ]$0 at the right of the lacuna is dubious; the reading is difficult, but to my eye most likely is ]çiç.This evidence suggests that Simmias's reply was 8E0 ;G)$&0; (as commonly in Plato and so at Phaedo 72b, 73d, etc.; for use of this reply before +#01( '6& cf. Phaedo 104d, Crat. 398c, 391e, 418b). Restore then: $#"(& ([6+%+0 — %40 ;$)]$&0 [ — +&01( -] ' oc $ [6&]

324

Appendix

1

There seems little to choose between the papyrus text and the transmitted text, but the fact of such variation in an early witness is interesting in and of itself Line 15. Read 3%+ $&"4[0&" (not 3%+ $& 4[ with editor and Burnet 1900; nu> though damaged, is definite). The aorist should not be dismissed out of hand. The present is certainly usual for this idiom (on which cf. Burnet 1911, 68, and to Euth. 7d add the parallels at Prot. 360a, Gorg. 468ab, Resp. 373e); but the aorist is also possible (cf. Phaedr. 256e, Resp. 439c, both predictably emended to the present, the first by H. Richards, the second by Schneider) and has obvious semantic appropriateness in this context. Line 17. At line beginning read ]oi (the editor's zi]ci is excluded), with c. 6 - 7 letters in the lacuna. Apparently the papyrus read $&0&" ("'*$#+& for transmitted ("'*$#+& $ ici. Read then: 16

[6(D6( — ] 64& '$'&$"(& [(]* [( ,(& '$$& $&0&"]

17

[("'*$&]+& %("6$0 [%;-" ,6;.

(The high letter count for line 16 suggests a shorter restoration, such as 64& '$'&$"(& [(]*[( $&0&"] I [("'*$&]+& %("6$0 ,6;. (in which case ,(& '$$& is imported from the next sentence an otherwise rather clumsy repetition). But the considerable variation of line length in this text precludes a firm conclusion; 31 letters is, though barely, within the norm for these columns.) fr.VI. 1, lines 3-4. Either the transmitted text for line 3 is too long by c. 5 letters, or that for line 4 is too short. Judging from the relative position of line 5 (the end of which is wholly visible - read $];$)+ $"), the latter is more likely. An obvious possibility is to add 04 ( t o t h e t r a n s m i t t e d text, so: [(*( .32- 04 (6+0 $06#" 6]4& (&'$& 6+ '$ / [04 ( 64& +*(64&: %(]0( ("(),- 4 04,*(6$0.

fr.VI.3, line 5. A paragraphus (expected) is clearly visible below this line. fr.VI.4, line 9. Following [$&-J (1&0 $"- is a hasta with a cross-stroke at the top; iota is excluded.The letter appears most like ) or %, but is perhaps no more than a badly written mu of

[iceiv.

fr.VII.2, line 15. A paragraphus (expected) is clearly visible below this line, and at left is a large slash. fr.VIII.2, line 15. Read +3640 (not +364 - the sigma is partly obscured by an overlapping fibre). PPetr 2.50. MP 1409. Plato, Laches. Smyly 1899, 407-8; Pontani 1995,117-26. The fragment reported in Smyly and re-edited as fr. A by Pontani was not locatable at the Bodleian Library in December 1996. Col. 4 (=PPetr col. 2), lines 24-5.The paragraphus expected below line 25 is clearly visible; there is no paragraphus below line 24.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

325

PRyl 1.60: cf. PBeroi 9570. PTebt 2.265. MP 650. Homer, +. 2. Verse 511. A trace survives of the high dot expected at line end. Verse 514. N o diaeresis is visible above the first letter of icavaßaca. Verse 522. A trace survives of the high dot expected at end of line. Verse 535. Add a high dot at end of line. Verse 541. A trace survives of the high dot expected at end of Une. Verse 542.The low dot reported after 0 : $ % & $ is oddly placed and shaped, and very likely accidental; cf. the similar fleck of ink under kappa in the line below. Verse 548. A high dot follows 13)(6-p. Verse 577. A high dot, inserted above the line, follows

(&60'4]7!.

Verse 578. A high dot, inserted above the line, follows

0:]$%&.

Verse 648. At line end the scribe has added a high dot, to which in a different ink is added a largish dot in the middle position. PTebt 2.266. MP 883. Homer, II11. M e n 1931. PTebt 2.267. MP 298. Demosthenes, de Fais. Leg. Hausmann 1981,9-12 (no. 27). PTebt 2.431. M P 1099. Homer, Od. 11. Keenan 1971,199-201, pl. 1. PTebt 2.432. MP 1156. Homer, Od. 24. Keenan 1971,201-2, pi. 2. PTebt 2.682. MP 1563.1 (Pack2 2905). Xenophon, Oec. 18.9. Lenaerts 1974 identified the piece. Line 8. End of colon is punctuated with a high dot. Read: [10]=610£,% $ [6= 4 o>c-]

PTebt 2.683. MP 388.1 (Pack2 2456). Euripides, Hec. Montanari 1987, 24-32, 441-3; on the verso (a multiplication table), Cribiore 1993. PTebt 2.684. MP 1355.1 (Pack2 2906). Pindar, OL 9-10. Montanari 1983 identified the piece as the end of OL 9 and the start of OL 10. Line 6.The horizontal line reported under ec and taken as part of a coronis appears to be not ink but a dark papyrus fibre. PTebt 3.696. MP 1022. Homer, Od. LWest 1967,195-7.

326

Appendix

1

It is possible, perhaps probable {pace the editor), that the same hand writes the recto text (=PTebt 3.690, Hesiod, Catalogue). Line 87. A paragraphus, apparently, is visible below this line. But there is substantial stray ink on the surface and the reading is not certain. PTebt 3.697. MP 1056. Homer, Od. 4-5.West 1967,198-217. The corrections appear to be by the first scribe (who writes all but 5.104—247) rather than by a third hand. Book 5, line 254. The left dot of a diaeresis is apparent over M06[+"], PTebt 3.898. MP 619. Homer, II l.West 1967,36-8. Verse 564. Between ' and +364 the papyrus is pulled apart, but comparison of lines fore and aft shows that there is no room for an additional letter; the trace to the left of +364 in any case matches the right lower edge of delta (epsilon can be excluded). Read (without scriptio plena): $& ' +364 6+36 [$06#" $ +&

$;;$& /#;+ " $#"(&]

The scriptio plena restored by the editor at verse 571 is also doubtful. A wide eta (as in verse 570) would fill the gap without the supposition of a second letter. PTebt 3.899. MP 773. Homer, II 6. The editor s description is somewhat confusing with regard to recto/verso: in fact the Iliad text is written along the fibres on the front (recto) of the papyrus, and the back (verso) was reused for accounts. PTebt 3.900, MP 991. Homer, II 22. Line 252. Visible in a paler ink is ],$", which almost intrudes upon the next column, and ends e.g. 2.5 cm to the right of the end of line 256 (5$]30), a line with the same number of letters (36). Presumably then a corrector (possibly the original scribe) has added the vulgate reading ("-],$" in the margin, and the text of line 252 contained a variant, probably ("4)$& (cf PHib 1.22, also Ptolemaic). PTebtTait 38. MP 692.1. Homer, II 3. PVindob G257+29781+24568. MP 1552. Xenophon, Hell 1. 24568 in MPER n.s. 6.97113; G257+29781 in Harrauer 1978,351-9. G257. The column break imputed by the editor one line below the end of this frag-

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

327

ment, and immediately above G29781, is problematic. (1) The basis of the imputed column break is that the remains of the recto document, written the other way up, show 2.8 cm of vertical blank space, followed by a fragmentary line of text: vacat[ vac. ,([ vacat[

If the blank space above the line is taken as the upper margin, it would correspond to the lower margin of the verso, and guarantee that the verso text represents the foot of the column. But on this assumption, the upper margin of the document would have to be c. 9 cm (the 2.8-cm measure here, plus, on the editor s reconstruction, another line of text and a 5.5-cm lower margin) - both unlikely in and of itself, and inconsistent with the c. 2-cm margin otherwise regular for this document (known from G24568 verso: see plates m Sijpesteijn and Worp 1993). Moreover, below the line of text is another blank space (1.1 cm), which suggests that these letters are written in an otherwise blank area. The natural assumption will be that these letters are in ekthesis, marking the start of a new entry; and the substantial remains of the recto document show just such a format (Sijpesteijn and Worp 1993; note that entries often begin with ,(#).There is no reason to assume then that the blank space above the line, any more than that below the line, constitutes a margin. The basis for inferring a column break is therefore dubious. (2) From the supposed column break to the next reference point - the column break that can be inferred at the beginning of restored columns 11-13 (=Wessely 17-15) - there is text to fill approximately 144 lines, or 3 columns of 48 lines (889 letters per column); but elsewhere the columns seem to be fairly stable at about 43 lines per column (averaging 794 letters per column). Though one cannot of course rely on extensive restoration of text, the lack of agreement with the known text and presumed format draws further doubt to the hypothesis of a column break between G257 and G29781. Both G257 and G29781 are then best reconstructed as belonging to the same column, which on the basis of letter counts would have been column 7 (not 6) of the roll. Before the column labelled by Wessely as column 17 there were 10 columns (not 9, pace Harrauer 1978, 357: 7892 letters, thus 789 letters per column, to which compare the average of 794 letters per column in the other 16 columns). The final column (Wessely s column 1) was column 27 (not 26) of the roll, and we can confidently reconstruct the written length of the full roll as 2.4 metres. G29781.Thc

left margin does not survive (the blank before 6 in line 3 must be a punc-

tuation space, if somewhat surprising: compare the alignment of 2 in line 4 and the traces at left of

in line 5), and there is no paragraphus underneath line 5. Read as follows (exact

line divisions unknown):

328

Appendix 1

[$' S $5; 0#(!(% 40'% ex (-] 1

[!'(?0'% :6$ c] &7 [% 0(5-]

2

[&=% :$9'% 0'] 40 . [cc 0:';<-]

3

[9$']7 • &' ([5]&[$]# 9$1$% )-

4

.(!(%] .67%(' 4['4$%(']

5

[ 0 %]7 0%$5! [o]c[ac &0 %(5-]

6

[ (.'(]! (5&$3 & [0 ;(2 (5-]

7

[&$5! %]0%';7;[(&0 ;(' ]

8

[%(5! 0']97#(&0 [oca &0 ]

9

[ 0&( &=]% (99=[%

]

10

[

11

[%(&0 7] =% 71[$5 0%=%]

12

[&(A']% [0].$%[&0! &7% ;6(-J

] (7&&7[&$' 101$-]

[&'!&7% ;&9.]

G24568. Wessely in the editio priticeps employed the innovation of numbering columns backwards from the end of the roll, and lines upwards from the foot (or downwards where the foot is not extant). I substitute here a more usual system (counting down from the first extant line, and numbering the columns as per the reconstruction), with Wessely's (W) enumeration in parenthesis. Col. 12, line 2 (W16, 2). A paragraphus is visible below this line, and a blank space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows [:905-] | [!$5] 0%$!. Col. 12, lines llff. (W16, 1 Iff.). The ed. pr. lists the line ends under the notes to column W15, several erroneously. The following is consistent with what remains: 11

0'c 0#0!$% ([:0:905!0%] ;('

12

&[$5!

13

[;$6]7![!$% (:$8'8(!(! &$uc]

14

[40 '::0(! ;(' :09&(!&(!]

15

[;(' 0:'8(&(! ;(' &$5! (9-]

16

[9$5! :(%&(! :6$! &$ 09$!] 0-

17

[:' &( 0&06( &7! :$90=!

18

[, 06( :6$!710 45$ !&]6(-

19

[&$:04( $' 4 0; &7! :$90=]!

]0% $[:9'&(! :6$! &$%]

( &]7

Following 19 ]c are four lines without a trace, then 24 ]a, 25 ]$, 26 ]$, 27 ]$, 28 no trace, 29 ]$, 30 ]. (an unrecognizable trace, possibly omega). Below line 30 to the foot of the column were 3, possibly 4, additional lines.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

329

Col, 13, lines 3-4 (W15, 31-30). Following ]6(;$ at the end of line 3 is a lacuna, and alignment of the right margin suggests a couple of additional letters. Read !5]6(;$[!'-]. This, however, still does not explain line 4, where the transmitted text remains c. 6 letters too long for the lacuna. (Line 4 ,*(6,66+&0 aligns over (*&66$&( in the line below.) Line 6 (W15, 28). A trema, apparently, over lSl- | a. Line 9 (W15, 25).The blank space reported after ($[&] is not apparent. Line 26 (W15, 8). What may be the right tip of a paragraphus (written low, as often: cf e.g. 12.11 [W16, 11]) is visible below this line, and a blank space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows [0]!0!$%. Line 32 (W15, 2). The paragraphus reported below this line is not visible (it is not expected). Following !5%#51(4( is a blank space, perhaps meant as punctuation. Line 33 (W15, 1). A blank space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows ,(6[$;$3-] IHev.

Col. 14 (W14) and 15 (W13).To the glass plate containing G24568 have been added two largish pieces, the one containing the left side of column 14 down to the foot, the other the right edge of column 14 down to the section transcribed in the ed.pt, and several line beginnings from column 15 (W13). For column 14 (W14) read as follows:

1

(.$%&$ etc 40;090'(]%

2

($' S zic

3

[&7 9( B(;= <;5%&(&&]$%~

4

[#') (9;'8'(4$5 &$ ^&6(]&05~

5

[ ( :(% $' :6$&06$' 0&6](&'-

6

[=&](' $5; 08$59$[%&$ &]+&0

7

[ 0]&( 26(0599$5 c [5]%&(&-

8

[&0^2](' 6' (5&$3

9

[(7&]&7&$' 0;03%$' 40 7&-

)1(6( 0% 4]0 —

0 [%] $%&0!

10

[&7

]0%$' 7;$'0%[] 0%&(+-

11

2 ( 4]7 0.0' (?$% (:(%-

12

[&0! 9]( B(;$% &0['.]'?$%-

13

[&0]* ;(' 0!&6(&05*[(]% :6$!-

14

[(]8[5]4$% • #(6%(8[(]?$! 4' 0·

15

[8$]727!0% 3::$' [c :$]99$'[!]

16

[;]('

17

[10]% $ (9;'8'(47E [40 0]4'=-

18

[;0]% 0.=% &$5* & [0 ':]:0-

(.7 7&&7203* [0]#5-

330

Appendix 1

19

[acr] ;(' &=% $:90[' &=]% 0'-

20

[;$!]' ;(' 0;(&"% [=%] 76->

21

[.0]

22

[&$c] (#0'90&$ 0; [40 vr\]c >

23

[ (.]7! &(5&7! [^5%0]87-[]

24

[ca]v $' <:&6(&'=&[(' (5&$]'

25

[(]5&$'! ;(['] 7<::([?$]%&$

26

&$5!

27

[0]?792$% 4 [0] &'%[(0· ;('] (9·

28

[9](! 0A$4$5! &$5 [.0' ]=%$!

29

[0]W3: &7% ,:0'6$ [% ;('] 0- >

30

:$62$+% &7% 8([!]'[90]=[!]

31

.=6<% • &= 4 (5[&= .]6$%=

32

;(' 9(;04(['] $%['$'] &$5K

33

etc &$ ;$65#(3$ [%] &=%

0%(%[46]$(: [ 0].6' cxo-

0&( 26(*[5]9[9$]5 —

foot & = cm) 14:The apostrophe is added by a second pen.

19: I.e.,$:9'.

22: N o punctuation space follows (#0'90&$.

For column 15 (W13) read as follows:

1

8[=&7 ;(' $ 0%'(5&$! 0-]

2

9[710% $5&$! 0% = ;('

3

( [: $ 4(60'$5 &$5 :06!>%]

4

8([W&'90=(· (]: [$]!&(%&0<:

5

:( [9'% :6$<;0.]=67<7(%

6

(5[&=] &[$]5 40 [0:]'$%&$£ 0 - —

7

&$5! [$ 0% #]=;0( %0=!

8

&7! (27%(! 0%0:67!-

9

27 :[67!]&76$! 0%:0^$(%)-

74$']

10

TOC ( 0[:0]' 40 $ .0' =% 0 -

11

971[0] :(%&(;90$5!

12

0#[$605]$%&$0 (6.$%&$!

13

4 [(%&]'10%$5! eapoc (6-

0 (%)

1—3: The transcription is consistent with the bare traces that are very uncertain. Following (W13,17ff.).

remain, but the readings

line 13 continue with Wessely's transcription

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

331

C o l 15, line 19 (W13, 12), A space meant as punctuation follows [%$']4&. At line end read: Sern (no scriptio plena), Line 23 (W13, 8). A space meant as punctuation follows [2-'+"]&. C o l 16, lines 5, 11,15 (W12: 27, 21, 17). In each of these lines the reported paragraphus is in fact a forked paragraphus (the paragraphus in line 10 [W12, 22] is a simple line). Line 8 (W12, 24). At line end a clumsily written line filler is misread as iota. Read: $?=)()$ >. Line 15 (W12,17). A space meant as punctuation follows %+;;+#. Line 21 (W12,12). A space meant as punctuation follows $>+-1-0$. Line 31 (W12, 1). Spacing makes (%$2E*-0$ [" e]tc the more probable restoration, despite the example at line 24 (W12, 8). Col. 17, line 1 ( W l l , 29). Read as follows:

[o p -]

1

xou[c $'+#6(" ,(& $;(>+"]

Line 7 ( W l l , 23). A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows (%+'+3"(&. Line 15 (W11,15). At line end not oï but +3 with an expungement dot above each letter. Line 20 ( W l l , 10).A space,perhaps meant as punctuation, follows ([,]+0&4". Line 27 ( W l l , 3). A space meant as punctuation follows + &$&6(&. Col. 18, line 7 (W10, 20). Read eu-1 *(,+3^4" (with double sigma). Line 12 (W10,17). The paragraphus below this line is of the forked type. A space meant as punctuation follows -- |)$". Lines 22 (W10, 3). A space meant as punctuation follows ,+&-1 *(6('-0. Col. 19, line 4 (W9, 20). A space meant as punctuation follows -0(". Line 9 (W9,15). A space meant as punctuation follows >35:"6&+3. Col. 20, line 1 (W8, 21). Probably $" was written at line end in small letters, as often at line end in this manuscript; otherwise the line is short. Line 12 (W8,10) .The paragraphus below this line is of the forked type. A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows -,+30(". Line 13 (W8, 34). The slash reported beside this line is in fact the bottom 'fork' of the forked paragraphus in the line above. Col. 21, line 4 (W7, 16). The paragraphus below this line is of the forked type. A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows %*(66+ $"( (partly obscured by the tail of alpha). Line 15 (W7, 5). A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows 1(;(66(". Col. 22, line 5 (W6,16). A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows ([%+"-] |6(. Line 17 (W7, 4). A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows $2+&. Col. 23, line 13 (W5, 6). A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows %(6*#'+9. Col. 24, line 4 (W4,15). The paragraphus below this line is of the forked type.

332

Appendix

1

Line 8 (W4,11), A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows 0.26$'.&. C o l 25, line 6 (W3,11). A space, apparently inadvertent, follows 767 0%$$. Line 7 (W3,10). A space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows !&6(&71$3. Col. 27, line 5 ( W l , 5). Underneath this line is a forked paragraphus, and centred about the paragraphus is a large coronis extending from slightly above line 1 to the end of the text. From ÖL Se in line 5 to the end is therefore, presumably, the reclamans, which will have been repeated at the beginning of the next roll. Line 9 (Wl, 9) The paragraphus below this line is of the forked type. Colophon (lines 1 Off.).The alpha in the final line appears to have been washed out (or written in a light ink?) and then rewritten in a darker ink. This may be no more than a problem with ink flow, but one wonders if it may be occasioned by confusion over the proper designation for a book containing only half of'book J of the Hellenica. Decoration around the colophon is of the usual type, with short horizontal lines above and below the initial and final letters of each line. PVindob G2316. MP 1255. Isocrates, ad Nicoclem. MPER n.s. 4.136-9. PVindob G19768. MP 832. Homer, II. 8. Gerstinger 1926, 90 (no. 11), description only. Line 453. &0 is elided contra metrum. Read :$]90 $% & iS[et,v. PVindob G24568: cfi PVindob G257. PVindob G26010 (Pack2 1551)+G29283+G29782. MP 1551. Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 5. G26010 in Paap 1970, 50-66 (and cf. Wessely, MPER n.s. 6.81-97); for columns 10-11, which include G29283+G29782, see Bannert and Harrauer 1980,29-37. General notes. Neither Paap nor Bannert and Harrauer report the spaces used as punctuation throughout this text, and one must go back to Wessely's ed. pr. for a listing (to which add as reported below). Paap reports line fillers as both < and > in shape, but the fillers are consistently of shape <, written tiny and often rounded at the point. Line 2 (col. 1) lies opposite line 15 (col. 2).The column height can thus be estimated at about 47 lines. Col. 1, line 9. A trace of, apparently, trema is visible above the first letter ofïSov \xtc. Col. 2, line 19.There are the following problems with the editors' reading: (1) pi is not an unambiguous reading (eta is at least as likely); (2) the line as restored is short (12 letters, opposed to a range of 14-18 elsewhere in this column); (3) the paragraphus reported below 19 would be oddly placed (we expect it to mark the period after $&6-&$&.). Read and restore lines 15ff. as follows: 15

;[$06(6( %*+$&0%$ -]

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

333

B[(! $5% $ ;56$! :6$-] 17

[3&;$:$5! ;('. 45%(-] [ '% (5&$! $5&=! etc-]

19

7}['0' 0:0' 4 03,(7920%]

Col. 3» line 33. A space meant as punctuation follows -)$&6+. Col. 3» line 38. A space meant as punctuation follows [%]$5%. Col. 4, line 42. A space meant as punctuation follows (/&(&". (There is no accompanying paragraphus.)

Col. 4, line 50. A space meant as punctuation follows (36B". (There is no accompanying paragraphus.) Col. 4, line 53. Above upsilon of 56;([%']$[0] Wessely reports asper, Paap a horizontal Ene; rather, a trema with excessive ink flow (cf line 169). Col. 6, line 67. The right edge of the expected paragraphus is visible below this Une. Line 67. The iota reportedly added in correction following omega is not to be seen; the editors seem to have been confused by an errant fibre with ink that intrudes into this area. Col. 7, line 76. A half-space, apparently meant as punctuation, follows 4$-] |"+ $". Line 80. A trace of the expected paragraphus is visible below this line. Line 86. Into the punctuation space following (5&=' a second hand, apparently, adds a high dot. Line 89. A space meant as punctuation follows )4>*3(\ (There is no accompanying paragraphus.) Line 92. Pace Wessely, no space precedes 40%$*. Line 93. A space meant as punctuation follows -". (There is no accompanying paragraphus.) Line 94.1 cannot confirm the iota transcribed by the editors as added above the line in correction. (There is a smudge of ink, as often in this region.) Col. 8, line 109. Remains of the expected paragraphus are visible below this line. Line 116. A half^space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows (36B". Col. 9, line 119. A half-space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows $&']-6$. Line 126. Under the microscope it is clear that the dot transcribed at line end is a badly written line filler, here as elsewhere in the form of tiny <.The upper stroke doubles over itself and the ink bleeds so as to give the appearance of a large dot. Col. 10, line 128. What appears as a dot and overbar above the epsilon of '$ is taken by Paap and by Bannert and Harrauer as a critical sign referring to the scholia. But it looks very like a middle dot followed by tau, and variant readings were of course commonly surrounded by middle dots (as in this papyrus at line 220). Following tau is a lacuna accommodating no more than 2 - 3 letters. Read then the variant ·&['·] above the line.

334

Appendix

1

Line 134. At the end of line a line filler (a tiny <) can be read. Line 158f. There is no line filler at the end of line 158, and the final letter in the line is clearly nu. Read: 158

[&023*B6$*( %*+0()]+"-

159

[TOC c,tH +3" $/]7 ,(&<

Note that the variant 0+3 &023*B6$*( %*+0(). is too long for the lacuna. Here then the papyrus sides with codices CE (cf Marchants app. crit. ad loc., 'P, ut uidetur, non habuit,' which must now be corrected). Line 165. At the end of line a line filler (a tiny <) can be read. Line 169. A trema is clearly visible over M'4". Line 170e.A second pen has added the /cta-adscript, squeezed into the line and slightly raised (as elsewhere, e.g. line 134). Col. 11, lines 174ff. Pace Bannert and Harrauer, the left margin of column 11 runs along an even vertical line, and the disposition of the lines reported by Paap is substantially correct. Not reported by the editors is the space following )('(6(0 in Une 175 or the paragraphus below that same line, of which only a trace survives. Read: 174

0% $ ;56$! (: [0 (].0&$ 40 $ 1(4(&(! • [7%]

176

40 ;(' $ 09(80 .=63$ [%] $ ;56$! $[:$'$]% [0]#7

The letters that Bannert and Harrauer report in ekthesis at the left of lines 175—7 are not part of the original column of text. These could be corrections or additions to 175ff. by a second hand, but more likely, I think, the letters are the line ends of the marginalia to the previous column. The line beginnings ofthat marginalia are badly abraded, and only traces remain (not reported by the editors).These letters would belong then to commentary on lines 132ff. Line 201 g. A half-space, perhaps meant as punctuation, follows [,3*+]". Line 201k. A space meant as punctuation follows $/-. Col. 12, line 205.1 cannot confirm the dicolon reported by Wessely and Paap as a word divider following $+&,$. (There is a smudge of ink, as often on this papyrus.) Line 217. A space meant as punctuation follows $,$-1 [,6-0]+. Line 226. Over M&& the left dot of a trema is clearly visible. PVindob G26752. MP 914. Homer, iZ. 13. Gerstinger 1926, 91 (no. 18), description only.

Addenda and Corrigenda to Editions111the Sample Sets

335

PVindob G26753. MP 852. Homer, II 10. Gerstinger 1926, 90 (no. 13), description only. Line 2. Read [$]3'+"

:(%%5.'$'

(9(;=[ ] 4 0 4 7 0 % $ ' $

expungement dot above the final omicron of 4 0 4

7 0 % $ ' $,

5[:]%='

(sic). There may be an

but there is too much transient ink

in this area to be sure. Line 9. The scribe writes

(]%0!&0%(.'?0

currente to alpha and continues with

unelided, then corrects the final epsilon calamo

(1( 0 %=%.

Line 20. To either side of this line in the margin a second pen has added a heavy horizontal stroke, on a parallel with the bottom half of the line (not, that is, in the position of a paragraphus). Line 24. The first omicron ';'8"'5 may be corrected to epsilon. But the reading is difficult. The editor's note that the text is punctuated by high dot is mistaken. Only at line 19 (despite many opportunities) is a dot in evidence, but the apparent dot at the end of that line is better read as part of the original text of this palimpsest. Nor, despite the editors note, is /ota-adscript consistently written. Adscript can be read following the datives and

(5&='

at the ends of lines 2 and 25 (the area following

iota is not added to

(!&6(:&7

(9(;=

5[:]%='

in line 2 is illegible), but

in line 5.

PVindob G29283: cf. PVindob G26010. PVindob G29781: cf PVindob G257. PVindob G29782: cf PVindob G26010. PYale 1.8. MP 785.1. Homer, II 6. PYale 1.10. MP 863.1. Homer, II 10. PYale 1.13. MP 995,1. Homer, II. 22, The papyrus was published by description. Lectional aids (not reported) are as follows. Apostrophe is added to

'

in 416 and &,$01' in 417. Accents are added to 0 D2+&6+ in 411,

oiov

in 416, &"['$!4 0 in 420, and oc in 421. Both apostrophe and accents may be by a second pen (certainly at 417), but, as often, this is uncertain. Punctuation was, apparently, signalled by use of a space. Though omitted at 405 following (%(" (where a dot would be in lacuna), noticeable space is found at 408 following # 3 9 $ * , at 415 as noted by editor, and at 416 following

#']9$'.

Adscript was not added to

$'] =17

in 409 (the sole opportunity).

The 7-metre roll length suggested by the editor is off the mark. The intercolumn width is unknown, but the column width averaged c. 12 cm. Even allotting a generous inter-

336

Appendix 1

column, the total length for the 25 columns ofbook 22 (515 lines at 21 lines per column) would not exceed 4 metres, and 3.5 metres is probably closer to the truth. Line 411. A letter is smudged out, and also cancelled by a dot over the letter, following the mu of 0 # ]]D2+&6+. The cancelled letter in line 402 is handled in exactly the same way (i.e., both smudged out and marked with a cancellation dot).

APPENDIX 3

Resolution ofAmbiguous Reconstructions

In the tables following chapter 3, alternatives were listed where ambiguous remains led to uncertainty about column reconstruction. In several of these cases, the analysis in chapter 3 now allows probable, or even near certain, resolution of the ambiguity. POxy

Contents

Lines per column

Column height (cm)

875+3686 2638 2695 3226 3550 3233 3671

Sophocles Hesiod Apollonius Hesiod Theocritus Isocrates Plato

15-16/27 22-3/45 45/51 25/33/50 26/37-9/>42 32/>43 51-2/25-6

*8.55-*9.2/*15.7 **23.5/**11.6 *23.6/*27.3 *13.5/*17.9/*27.3 *17.1/*24.4-*25.8/>*27.8 *17.75/>*24.0 *23.0/*11.3

875+3686. The editor of 3686 calculates (on the basis of the similar colometry in L) a gap of 109 lines from the beginning of the play to the top margin of 3686, and 134 lines from the top margin of3686 to the top margin of 875.The editor concludes that the 'neatest result' is obtained on the assumption of 15-16 lines per column (109 + 7 = 15.6; 134 — 9 = 14.9). But at 27 lines per column, four columns in the first case (27x4 = 108) and five columns in the second (27 X 5 = 135) yield results within one line of the estimated gaps. Which reconstruction is more probable? At 15—16 lines, the height would be 9 cm or slightly less, that is, shorter than any other examples in the sample. True, the Herodas roll, to which the editor of 3686 refers, has columns 8 cm tall. But Turner s statement under his discussion of the Herodas roll, that 'this format is often found in the early Roman period for poetry,'1 is misleading, for rolls this short cannot be taken as a general case. In fact, 1 Turner and Parsons 1987,72 (#39), quoted by the editor of 3686.

338

Appendix

1

Turners other examples well exceed 10 cm, and rolls below that mark seem to be exceedingly rare.2 On the other hand, c. 16 cm is exactly the sort of height we should expect in a verse text of this date. The almost certain reconstruction is therefore 27 lines per column. 2638. The extant top of column begins at line 46 of the Theogony. Did one column of 45 lines (*23.5 cm), or two of 22-3 lines (*11.6 cm) precede? Given a column width of *10.4 cm, a column of 22-23 lines and *11.6 cm would put this papyrus into either the square or rectangular (width greater than height) category These groups, we will recall, were strongly dominated by finely written examples. A height of 11.6 cm would also put this papyrus among those with the shortest columns, which as a group are, once again, dominated by finely written examples. Given the very informal hand here, 45 lines and a height of *23.5 cm is far more probable. 2695. The editor neglects several possibilities for the line in column 1 terminating in sigma. Possible lines include 448, 435, 432, 430, 429, 424, 423, yielding lines per column of 27, 40, 43, 45, 46, 51, 52 respectively. Of these latter, 40 and 43 are less likely on the basis that they yield an awkward number of columns before the top of extant column 2 (459 + 40=11.5, 459 — 43=10.67). Following the sigma in column 1, moreover, is what appears to be a middle dot; even given the liberal punctuation habits of this scribe, that will exclude lines 435, 429, and 423. Remaining in consideration then are lines 424, 430, and 448. But there is one final piece of evidence: above the sigma m column 1 is blank papyrus for a space of three lines, all of which must then be shorter than the line ending in c. On this basis, only 424 and 430 seem very likely, and the previous exclusions are all confirmed. We are left with either 45 or 51 lines per column; which calculate to a column height of *23.6 or *27.3. A height of 27.3 cm would put this column among the top three in the sample, which normally would exclude it from likelihood. Among the tallest papyri, however, 3 of 4 are written on the verso, as is this papyrus. Thus, 45 lines and 23.6 cm are certainly the more probable, but 51 lines and 27.3 cm remain nonetheless possible. 3226. Between the top margins of frr. 1 and 3 are 100 lines (taking into account the probable omission of 370-2 and 406 in this text of the Erga). The editor allows for the possibility of a column height of 33 or 50 lines; but the extant fragments also will allow 25-6 lines per column. As in the case of 2638 above, so short a height as 25 lines and 13.5 cm would put the papyrus into the square or rectangular category given the column width (*11,2 cm). But since the papyrus is written in a fairly formal (if heavy) majuscule this is by no means impossible. A column height as tall as 27 cm, on the other hand, is most

2 Four bookrolls with column heights near to 10 crn are k n o w n to me: PHib 6 (10,5 cm) and PDuke inv. F 1984.1 (9.5 10.0 cm), both Ptolemaic copies of unidentified comedies; PHib 26 (10.0 cm), also Ptolemaic, an oration copied in a tiny, semi-cursive hand; and 2 9 44 (10.5 cm), l s t / 2 n d cent., an anonymous prose work.These obviously make poor parallels for the example under discussion here. T h e miniature roll o f epigrams, PBeroi inv. 10571 (Pack 1598,1st cent., a total roll height o f 5 cm), will also be beside the point.

Resolution of Ambiguous Reconstructions

339

improbable for a finely written specimen. We should assume then a column of 25 lines and *13.5 cm or 33 lines and *17.9 cm. 3550. The editor is right to exclude from consideration the possibility that the nu at line end in fr. 2.i comes from a different idyll. For in that case, we must assume at least 42 lines, and a column height of over 28 cm, which is improbably tall. But how to decide between 26 lines (17 cm) and 37-9 (24-5 cm)? The editor prefers the latter:'the larger size would perhaps be more in proportion with the comparatively large script and margins.' But, as we have seen, views that associate fine, large scripts with tall columns are presumptive. Here, the column-to-column width is estimated at **16.75 cm, which would place this example in the square category Given the large, decorated script, this seems indeed quite possible. On the other hand, well-written poetic examples in the 24-5 cm range will be found, and we must conclude that either of the shorter possibilities is probable enough. 3233. The width of this prose example is *6.0 cm, which places it in width class II. That class, as we recall, is most abundant m examples from 18 to 24 cm. As the two estimations are at either border of that range, both must be reckoned equally possible. 3671.This prose example once again falls into width class II, with a column width of *6.1 cm. A height of 11 cm in this class would be unexampled, and fully 7 cm below the usual range. As 23 cm is exactly normal for this class, we can confidently assert that the column contained 51-2 lines.

This page intentionally left blank

Glossary

For measurement qualifiers (*, **, — ) used in the tables, and for other conventions peculiar to this book, see 'Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla' at the front of the book.

Bookhand. One of the various types of scribal hand commonly used for the writing of literary texts, characterized by a lack of cursive letter formations. All of the plates, excepting plate 18, exemplify bookhands. Coronis. An elaborate marginal sign that marks a major point of division in the text, such as the end of a work. Dicolon. In a Greek context, dicolon is used to distinguish a colon with two dots (:), like the colon in English, from the single raised dot of the Greek colon. Diplê. In appearance like a right angle bracket (>), the diplê is used as a marginal signal of varying import, such as to mark noteworthy lines. Diplê obelismenê. The diplê obelismenê or forked paragraphus is a horizontal line with a diplê or a fork affixed at the left — )— ). When (as is usual) the horizontal line is positioned like a paragraphus, the diplê obelismenê marks divisions in the text more prominent than, or otherwise to be distinguished from, those marked by a simple paragraphus. The same sign is also sometimes added to the left of a line, in function and form like the diplê. Dittography. A scribal error in which a letter, syllable, or word is accidentally repeated in the text. Dots, punctuation. For an explanation of'high,' 'middle,' and 'low' punctuation dots, see 'Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla1 at the front of the book. Ductus. The specific path taken by the pen when the scribe forms a letter shape.

342

Glossary

Eisthesis. The line of text is said to be in eisthesis when it protrudes to the right of the notional left margin (i.e., when it is 'indented'). Ekthesis.The line is said to be in ekthesis when it protrudes to the left of the notional left margin (i.e., a 'hanging indent'). Eschatokollon.The eschatokollon is the last (blank) sheet in a bookroll. Expungement dot. A dot added above a letter by the scribe as a signal to delete that letter. Used in lieu of (and sometimes in addition to) a strike through. Haplography. A common scribal error in which a letter or syllable or word is written once instead of twice.Thus, e.g., a copyist may write corpusque for original corpususque. Homoeoarchon. An instance in which nearby words or parts of words have identical beginnings. The similarity of letter shapes can lead the scribe to skip over the intervening text or otherwise err in the copying (see haplography, parablepsy). Homoeoteleuton. An instance in which nearby words or parts of words have identical endings. The similarity of letter shapes can lead the scribe to skip over the intervening text or otherwise err in the copying (see haplography, parablepsy). Intercolumn (L. intercolumnium). The blank area between the written columns of text in a bookroll (often but rather improperly called the 'left margin' or 'right margin'; see §3.0). See diagram in 'Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla' at the front of the book. Kollêma. The kollêma is one of the (usually twenty) sheets of papyrus that are glued together to create a manufactured roll. Plural kollêmata. See §3.1.1. Kollesis. The kollesis is the glue join between the sheets of papyrus (the kollêmata) in a papyrus roll. Plural kollêseis. Leading. The vertical space between lines of text, measured from base line to base line. See explanation and diagram in 'Terminology, Conventions, and Sigla' at the front of the book. Opis tograph. A bookroll where the text is written on both front (recto) and back (verso). This term does not apply when both sides are written upon because the papyrus has been reused. Parablepsy. A scribal error in which distraction of the eye causes an omission in the text. Haplography is a special case of this more general term. Paradosis. The text as traditionally transmitted. In particular, those elements of text that the scribe intends faithfully to copy. Paragraphus. A horizontal line placed below a line of text at the left margin to signal a notional division (such as the end of a period, or a change of speaker). See also diplê obelismenê. Prôtokollon. The prôtokollon is the first (blank) sheet in a bookroll. Reclamans. Works with multiple 'books' (i.e., multiple bookrolls) sometimes contain, at the very end of the book, the first line of the next book, as a help with the sequential ordering of the bookrolls. This repeated line is called the reclamans.

Glossary

343

Scriptio continua. Writing in which the letters are written one after the next without word spaces (standard practice in ancient Greek literary texts) is called scriptio or scriptum continua. Stichometry. Scribes sometimes placed a letter of the Ionic alphabet in the left intercolumn after every 100 stichoi, by way of a running total. For verse texts, the count equals the number of lines; for prose texts, the stichos signifies a unit roughly equivalent to the length of a hexameter line, usually calculated at 15 or 16 syllables in length. The classic study of stichometric signs and their significance is Ohly 1928; see Obbink 1996,62 n. 1 for more recent work. Synkollêma, synkollêsis. When the user (as opposed to the manufacturer) glues together rolls or parts of rolls in order to create a longer unit, the glue join is the synkollêsis (which differs in a subtle way from the manufactured join; see §3,1.1).The combined papyrus roll that results is the synkollêma. Tréma. Also known as diaeresis, a tréma is in appearance a double point above a letter (like an umlaut). In papyrological texts, this most often marks an iota or upsilon at the beginning of a word, though it can also (as in modern edited texts) distinguish a vowel that forms its own syllable.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

The bibliography contains only books and articles cited in the text. Forfurther reading on the literary roll, consult the excellent annotated bibliography in Turner and Parsons 1987. Papyrological abbreviations conform to the standard list of (Dates, Bagnall, et al. 2001,

but for the convenience of non-specialist readers I give fall references below

(lb).

1. CATALOGUES AND VOLUMES OF PAPYRI A.

Catalogues

Mertens-Pack, the updated catalogue to Pack2, by Paul Mertens, forthcoming. Though this longawaited expansion and revision to Pack's catalogue is not yet available, the papyrus numeration system has been made known through several partial publications, through the Leuven Database of 3 Ancient Books (LDAB 1998), and now through the web-based Mertens-Pack database project (convertie ndy located through the Online Resources' link at papyrology.org). The partial publications are Mertens 1981,1985,1992; Mertens and Bouquiaux-Simon 1991,1992; Mertens and Lenaerts 1989; and Mertens and Marcotte 1990. Papyri in the comparison set are cited by MP number (see Appendix lb for a concordance). Pack2 R . A. Pack. The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt. Ann Arbor, 1965. 2nd edition.

MP

B. Edited

BKT -

Volumes Berliner Klassikertexte.

I, Didymos,

Kommentar

(Papyrus 5008). -

Berlin. zu Demosthenes

(Papyrus 9780)

nebst Wörterbuch zu Demosthenes'

Aristocratea

Ed. H. Diels and W. Schubart 1904.

V, Griechische Dichtefragmente'.

P t . I, Epische und elegische Fragmente. P t . II, Lyrische und

dramatische

Fragmente. Ed. W. Schubart and U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1907. -

I X , Catalogue of Greek and Latin Literary Papyri in Berlin (P.Berolinv.

G. Ioannidou. Mainz 1996.

21101-21299,

21911).

Ed.

346

Bibliography

CPF

Corpus dei papirifilosofici greci e iatini. Florence 1 9 8 9 - ,

M P E R Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek in Wien, Neue Serie. - I, Griechische literarische Papyri I. Ed. H. Gerstinger, H. Oellacher, K.Vogel. Vienna 1932. -

III, Griechische literarische Papyri II. Ed. H . Oellacher, w i t h an i n d e x to pts. I and II by H . Gerstinger and P. Sanz.Vienna 1939.

-

IV, Griechische literarische Papyri christlichen Inhaltes I (Bihlica, Väterschriften und Verwandtes). Ed. P. Sanz.Vienna 1946.

- VI, Aegypter und Amazonen (Pap.dem. Vindob. 6165 und 6165A). Ed. A.Volten. Vienna 1962. PapFlor Papyrologica Florentina. Florence 1976-. - X, Sofocle, Ichneutae. Introduzione, testo critico, interpretazione e commento. Ed. E.V. Maltese. 1982. PAberd Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri and Os traca in the Possession of the University ofAberdeen. Ed. E.G.Turner. Aberdeen 1939. (Aberdeen Univ. Studies 116.) PAnt The Antinoopolis Papyri. London. - I.Ed.C.H.Roberts. 1950. - II. Ed. J.W.B. Barns and H. Zilliacus. 1960. - III. Ed.J.W.B. Barns and H. Zilliacus. 1967. PBeroi Papyri inventoried in the collection of the Ägyptisches Museum in Berlin, variously published (as listed in Appendix 2 for the papyri under discussion in the text). PDuke Papyri inventoried in the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library at Duke University, variously published; see catalogue at http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus. PDura

The Excavations at Dura-Europos

conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions

Final Report V, Part I,The Parchments and Papyri. Ed. C.B.Welles, R.O. Fink, and J. F Gilliam. New Haven 1959. PFay Fayum Towns and Their Papyri. Ed. B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt, and D.G. Hogarth. London 1900. PFayColes Revel Coles. 'New Literary and Sub-literary Fragments from the Fayum.' ZPE 6 (1970) 247-66. PFlor Papiri greco-egizii, Papiri Fiorentini ( S u p p l e m e n t Filologico-Storici ai Monument! Antichi). Milan. and Letters,

- I I . Papiri letterari ed epistolari. Ed. D. Comparetti. 1 9 0 8 - 1 1 .

PGen -

Les Papyrus de Genève. I. Ed. J. N i c o l e . Geneva 1 8 9 6 - 1 9 0 6 .

PGissLit

Die Giessener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse. Ed. P A . Kuhlmann. Glessen 1994.

(Berichte und Arbeiten aus der l Jniversitätsb iblio th eh und dem Universitätsarch iv Giessen 46.)

PGrenf - I. An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and Other Greek Papyri Chiefly Ptolemaic. Ed. B.P. Grenfell. Oxford 1896. - II, New Classical Fragments and Other Greek and Latin Papyri. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. Oxford 1897. PHarr

The Rendel Harris Papyri ofWoodbrooke

College,

Birmingham.

- I. Ed. J.E. Powell. Cambridge 1936. PHeidLit Veröffentlichungen aus der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung.Vol. IV, Griechisch-literarische Papyri I, Ptolemäische Homerfragmente. Ed. G.A. Gerhard. Heidelberg 1911. PHerc Papyri inventoried in the collection of the Naples Museum, from the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum. See Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi, compiled under the direction of M. Gigante at Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi, Naples 1979; and M. Capasso, Manuale di papirologia ercolanese, Lecce 1991. PHib The Hibeh Papyri. - I. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1906.

Bibliography

347

- II. Ed. E.G.Turner and M.-Th. Lenger. 1955. Pland Papyri landanae, cum discipulis ed. C. Kalbfleisch. Leipzig. - V. Literarische Stücke und Verwandtes. Ed. J. S prey. 1913. PKoeln Kölner Papyri, Cologne/Opladen. - V. Ed. M. Gronewald, K. Maresch, and W. Schäfer. 1985. Nos. 203-40. - VI. Ed. M. Gronewald, B. Kramer, K. Maresch, M. Parca, and C. Römer. 1987. Nos. 241-81. - VII. Ed. M. Gronewald and K. Maresch. 1991. Nos. 282-326. PLaur Papyri inventoried in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence. PLondLit Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum. Ed. H.J.M. Milne. London 1927. PLugdBat Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava. Leiden 1941- . -

X X V Papyri, Ostraca, Parchments and Waxed Tablets in the Leiden Papyrological Institute

(P. L. Bat.

25).

Ed. F.A.J. Hoogendijk and P. van Minnen. Leiden 1991. (Also abbreviated as PLeidlnst.) PMich Papyri inventoried at the University of Michigan Papyrus Collection, variously published; see catalogue at http://www.Hb.umich.edu/pap. PMilVogl - II. Papiri délia Università degli Studi di Milano. Ed. by many collaborators. Milan 1961. PMuench

Die Papyri der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek

München.

- II. Papiri letterarigreci. Ed. A. Carlim. Stuttgart 1986. POxy

The Oxyrhynchus

-

Papyri.

I, Nos. 1-207. Ed. B.P Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1898. II. Nos. 208-400. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1899. III. Nos. 401-653. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1903. IV. Nos. 654-839, Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1904. V. Nos. 840-4. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1908. VI. Nos. 845-1006. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1908. VII. Nos. 1007-72. Ed. A.S. Hunt. .1910. VIII. Nos. 1073-1165. Ed. A.S. Hunt. 1911. IX. Nos. 1166-1223. Ed. A.S. Hunt. 1912. X. Nos. 1224—1350. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1914. XI. Nos. 1351-1404. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1915. XII. Nos. 1405-1593. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1916. XIII. Nos. 1594-1625. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1919. XIV. Nos. 1626-1777. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1920. XV Nos. 1778-1828. Ed. B.P Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. 1922. XVI. Nos. 1829-2063. Ed. B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt, and H.I. Bell. 1924. No. 2064 was pubÜshed in Two Theoaitus Papyri. Ed. A.S. Hunt and J.Johnson. London 1930. XVII. Nos. 2065-156. Ed. A.S. Hunt. 1927. XVIII. Nos. 2157-207. Ed. E. Lobel, C.H. Roberts, and E.P.Wegener. 1941. XIX. Nos. 2208-44. Ed. W. Lobel, E.PWegener, C.H. Roberts, and H.I. Bell. 1948. XX. Nos. 2245-87. Ed. E. Lobel, E.P.Wegener, and C.H. Roberts. 1952. XXI. Nos. 2288-308. Ed. E. Lobel. 1951. XXII. Nos. 2309-353. Ed. E. Lobel and C.H. Roberts. 1954. XXIII. Nos. 2354-82. Ed. E. Lobel. 1956. XXIV. Nos. 2383-425. Ed. E. Lobel, C.H, Roberts, E.G.Turner, and J.W.B. Barns. 1957. XXV. Nos. 2426-37. Ed. E. Lobel and E.G.Turner. 1959. XXVI. Nos. 2438-51. Ed. W. Lobel. 1961. XXVII. Nos. 2452-80. Ed. E.G.Turner, J.R. Rea, L. Koenen, andJ.M.F. Pomar. 1962. XXVIII. Nos. 2481-505. Ed. E. Lobel. 1962.

348

Bibliography

-

XXIX. No. 2506. Ed. D. Page. 1963. XXX. Nos. 2507-30. Ed. E. Lobel 1964. XXXI. Nos 2531—616. Ed. J.W.B. Barns, PJ. ParsonsJ.R. Rea, and E.G.Turner. 1966. XXXII. Nos. 2617-53. Ed. E. Lobel. 1967. XXXIII. Nos. 2654-82. Ed. RJ. ParsonsJ.R. Rea, and E.G.Turnen 1968. XXXIV. Nos. 2683-2732. Ed. L. Ingrams, P. Kingston, PJ. Parsons, andJ.R. Rea. 1968. XXXV, Nos. 2733-44. Ed. E. Lobel. 1968. XXXVI, Nos. 2745-800. Ed. R.A. Coles, D. Foraboschi, A.H. Soliman el-Mosallamy,J.R. Rea, U. Schlag, et al. 1970. - XXXVII. Nos. 2801-23. Ed. E. Lobel. 1971. - XXXVIII. Nos. 2824-77. Ed. G.M. Browne,J.D.Thomas, E.G.Turner, M.E.Weinstein, et al. 1971. - XXXIX. Nos. 2878-91. Ed. E. Lobel. 1972. - XL. Nos. 2892-942. Ed.J.R. Rea. 1972. - XLI. Nos. 2943-98. Ed. G.M. Browne, R.A. Coles,J.R. Rea,J.C. Shelton, E.G.Turner, et al. 1972. - XLII. Nos. 2999-3087. Ed. PJ. Parsons. 1974. - XLIII. Nos. 3088-150. Ed J . R . Rea et al. 1975. - XLIV. Nos. 3151-208. Ed. A.K. Bowman, M.W. Haslam J.C. Shelton, and J.D.Thomas. 1976. - XLV. Nos. 3209-66. Ed. A.K. Bowman, M.W Haslam, S.A. Stephens, MX. West, et al. 1977. - XLVI. Nos. 3267-315. Ed. J.R. Rea. 1978. - XLVII. Nos. 3316-67. Ed. R.A. Coles and M.W. Haslam, with contributions from 8 others. 1980. - XLVIII. Nos. 3368-430. Ed. M. Chambers, WE. H. Cockle J.C. Shelton, and E.G.Turner. 1981. - XLIX. Nos. 3431-521. Ed. A. Bulow-Jacobsen and J.E.G.Whitehorne. 1982. - L. Nos. 3522-600. Ed. A.K. Bowman et ai. 1983. - LI. Nos. 3601-46. Ed J . R . Rea. 1984. - LII. Nos. 3647-94. Ed. H.M. Cockle. 1984. - LUI. Nos. 3695-721. Ed. M.W. Haslam. 1986. - LIV. Nos. 3722-76. Ed. R.A. Coles, H. Maehler, and RJ. Parsons, with contributions from others. 1987, - LV. Nos. 3777-821. Ed J . R . Rea. 1988. - LVI. Nos. 3822-75. Ed. M.G. Sirivianou, with contributions by H.-C. Gunther, PJ. Parsons, P. Schubert, et al. 1989. - LVII. Nos. 3876-914. Ed. M.W. Haslam, H. El-Maghrabi, and J.D.Thomas. 1990. - LVIII. Nos. 3915-62. Ed J . R . Rea. 1991. - LIX. Nos. 3963-4008. Ed. E.W. Handley, H.G. Ioannidou, PJ. Parsons, andJ.E.G.Whitehome. 1992. - LX. Nos. 4009-92. Ed. R.A. Coles, M.W Haslam, RJ. Parsons, et al. 1994. - LXI. Nos. 4093-132. Ed.T. Gagos, M.W. Haslam, and N. Lewis. 1995. POxyHels Fifty Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Ed. H. Zilliacus,J. Frôsén, P. HohtiJ. Kaimio, and M. Kaimio. Helsinki 1979. (Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 63.) PPetr The Flinders Petrie Papyri. Dublin. (Royal Irish Academy, Cunningham Memoirs.) - I. Ed.J.R Mahafîy. 1891. - II. Ed.J.P. Mahafly. 1893. PRyl Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Manchester. - I, Literary Texts. Ed. A.S. Hunt. 1911. Nos. 1-61.

Bibliography

349

- Ill, Theological and Literary >exts. Ed. C.H. Roberts, 1938. Nos. 457-551. PSchub Griechische literarische Papyri. Ed.W. Schubart. Berlin 1950. (Berichte über die Verhandl. der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Leipzig, Phil.-Hist. KI. 97, no. 5.) PSI Papirigreci e latini. (Pubblicaziom délia Società Italiana per la ricerca dei papiri greci e latim in Egitto.) Florence. The first eleven volumes were edited by a number of persons under the general direction of G.Vitelli and M. Norsa. - II. 1913. Nos. 113-56. - IX. 1929. Nos. 1001-96. - XL 1935, Nos. 1182-222. - XII. Fase. I. Ed. M. Norsa; fasc. II. Ed.V. Bartoletti. 1943-51. Nos. 1223-95. - XIII. Ed. M. Norsa andV. Bartoletti. 1949-53. Nos. 1296-370. - XIV. Ed.V. Bartoletti. 1957. Nos. 1371-452. - XV. Fasc. 1. Ed.V Bartoletti and M. Manfredi. 1979. Nos. 1453-68. PSI XVII Congr Trenta testi greci da papiri letterari e documentari editi in occasione del XVÏI Congres so Internazionale PSI PTebt

Od

di Papirologia. F l o r e n c e 1983,

Papiri dell 'Odissea. Seminario papirologico 1977-78. The Tebtunis

E d . M . M a n f r e d i . Florence 1979.

Papyri.

- I. Ed. B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt, and J.G. Smyly. London 1902. - II. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt. London 1907. - III. Pt. I. Ed. A.S. Hunt and J.G. Smyly, assisted by B.P. Grenfell, E. Lobel, and M. Rostovtzeff. London 1933. - III. Pt. IL Ed. A.S. Hunt,J.G. Smyly, and C.C. Edgar. London 1938. PTebtTait Papyri from Tebtunis in Egyptian and Greek. Ed.WJ.Tait. London 1977. PTurner Papyri Greek and Egyptian edited by various hands in honour of Eric Gardner Turner on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Ed. PJ. Parsons, J.R. Rea, et al. London 1981. PVindob Papyri inventoried in the collection of the Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, variously published (as listed in Appendix 2 for the papyri under discussion in the text), PYale

Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript

Library.

- I. Ed.J.F. Gates, A.E. Samuel, and C.B.Welles. New Haven and Toronto 1967. (Am.Stud.Pap. II.) - II. Ed. S.A. Stephens. Chico 1985. (Am.Stud.Pap. XXIV.)

2. C O M P U T E R RESOURCES DDBDP Duke Data Bank of Documentary Papyri. PHI CD-ROM #7,1996. Ibycus Ibycus Scholarly Personal Computer. System and applications software by Ibycus. Custom applications by William A. Johnson. LDAB 1998 Willy Clarysse. Leuven Database ofAncient Books. (CD-ROM) 1998. An updated webbased version is conveniently located via the Online Resources' at papyrology.org. TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Project TLG C D - R O M #D, 1991; #E, 1999.

3. SECONDARY SOURCES CITED IN THE TEXT Allen, T.W. 1931. Homert Ilias. Oxford. Andorlini, I. 1997. 'PBL XXV 6 + P. Mon. II 35: Omero, Iliade A 384; 415-420/ ZPE 115:197-8. Arden, Joseph, and Churchill Babington. 1853. The Orations of Hyperides for Lycophron and for Euxenippus. Cambridge.

350

Bibliography

Babcock, R.G. and W.A.Johnson. 1994. T h e Appian Papyrus from Dura-Europus (P.Dura 2)/ BASP 31 85-8. Bannert, H. and H. Harrauer. 1980. 'Vier literarische Papyri/ WS 14: 25-39. Beard, Mary, et al. 1981. Literacy in the Roman World. JRA Supplement Series #3. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Bell, H. Idris. 1907.'The British Museum Papyrus of Isocrates ! Journal of Philology 30:1-83. - 1921. T h e "Thyestes" of Sophocles and an Egyptian ScriptoriumM^y/Jto 2:281-8. Birt, Theodor. 1882. Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhält niss zur Litteratur. Berlin. -

1907. Die Buchrolle in der Kunst. Leipzig.

- 1913. Kritik und Hermeneutik, nebst Abriss des antiken Buchwesens. Munich. Blanchard, Alain. 1993.'Les papyrus littéraires grecs extraits de cartonnages: Études de bibliologie.' In M. Maniaci and P. Munafo, eàs., Ancient and Medieval Book Materials and Techniques.Vàûcm City. Blanck, Horst. 1992. Das Buch in der Antike. Munich.

Blass, E, ed. 1978. A eschines: Orationes. Rev. U. Schindel. Stuttgart. Bowman, Alan K. 1968. Z Fragment of Homers Iliad/ BASP 5: 131. Brashear,W. 1975.'Euripides' Bacchae 17-26/ ZPE 19: 300-1, pl. 5. - 1982. Two Demosthenes Papyri/ ZPE 48:61-5, pl. 1. Brunner,Theodore F. 1986. 'Computer-Früchte/ ZPE 66: 293-6. - 1987. T.Oxy. XLVIII 3376 fr. 44.' ZPE 69:229-30. Bulloch, A.W. 1987. 'An Early Theocritus Book (P.Oxy. 2064+3548): Placing Fragments/ CQ n.s. 37: 505-12. Bülow-Jacobsen, Adam. 1985. '"Magna in latitudine earum differentia" (Pliny, NH XIII,78)/ ZPE 60: 273-4. Burnet,John. 1900. Piatonis Opera. Vol. 1. Oxford. -

1911. Plato's Phaedo. O x f o r d .

Butcher, S.H. 1907. Demosthenis orationes.Vol. 2. Oxford. Capasso, Mario. 1991. Manuale di papirologia ercolanese, Galatina. - 1995. Volumen: Aspetti della tipologia del rotolo librario antico. Naples. Capasso, Mario, ed. 1994. H rotolo librario: Fabbricazione, restaur', organizzazione interna. Galatina. Carlini, Antonio. 1989/Elenco di opere filosofiche e letterarie.' No. 3 in CPF vol. 1,94—8. - 1992/Sul papiro Flinders Petrie I 5-8 del Fe do ne.' In Studi su codici e papiri filosoßd. Piatone, Aristotele, Ierocle, 147-60 and figs. 7—11. Florence. Cavallo, Gughelmo. 1967a. Osservazioni paleografiche sul Canone e la cronologia della cosiddetta "Oncialc Romana/" ASNP 36:209-20. - 1967b. Ricerche suîîa maiuscola biblica. 2 vols. Florence. -

1983. Libri, saibi, scritture a Ercolano. Naples.

è e r n y j . 1952. Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt. (Inaugural lecture, University College London, 1947.) London. Chantraine, Pierre. 1949. Xénophon: Economique. Paris. Cockle, WE.H. 1983/Restoring and Conserving Papyri.' BICS 30:147-65. - 1987. Hypsipyle, Euripides: Text and Annotation Based on a Re-examination of the Papyri. Rome. Coles, R.A. 1974. Distribution List of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London. della Corte, F. 1936. O t t o papiri letterari editi e inediti del Museo Berlinese.' Riv. Fil 64: 385-409. Cribiore, Raffaella, 1993. Z Table of Squares (P.Tebt II 683 verso).' BASP 30: 23-5, plate 2. - 1996. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Adanta. Dain, A. 1964. Les Manusaits. 2nd edition. Pans, 1964. Dillery,J. andT. Gagos. 1992. 'Xenophon and an Unknown Christian Text with an Appendix of All Xenophon Papyri.' ZPE 93:171-89.

Bibliography

351

Donovan, Bruce E. 1969. Euripides Papyri I: Texts from Oxyrhynchus. American Studies in Papyrology, vol. 5. New Haven. Dorandi,Tiziano. 1982. Filodemo: + buon re secondo omero. Naples. - 1986. P1 libro X degli Elementi di Euclide.' Prometheus 12: 225. von Dornum, D.D., and M.W. Haslam. 1991. 'Fishing for Phaedo/ ZPE 89:1-14. Fortuna, S., R. Bindi, A. Bozzi. 1987. 'Nuovi frammenti di P. Oxy. 2181 (Platone, Fedone) identificati con il ricorso all'archivio computerizzato (T.L.G.)/ SCO 37:191-203. Funghi, Maria Serena, and Gabriella Messier Savorelli. 1992a. 'Note papirologiche e paleografiche.' Tyche 7:75-88. - 1992b. 'Lo "Scriba i Pindar" e le Bibhoteche di Ossirinco.' SCO 42:43-62. Gallazzi, C. 1988.'Membra Disiecta: PSIVII 748 + PSIVII 749; P. Flor. II 109 + P. Grenf. I 2; P. Mil. Volg. Ill 117 + P. Mil.Vogl. Ill 118/ ZPE 71: 55-80 and plates 2-3. - 1990.'La"cantina dei papiri" delTebtynis e cio che esse conteneva.' ZPE 80: 283-8. Gamble, Harry. 1995. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, Gardthausen,V. 1911. Griechische Palaographie (2 vols). 2nd edition. Leipzig, 1911-13. Gerstinger, H. 1926. 'Katalog der Homerpapyri der Sammlung "Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer/*f Archiv für Bibliographie 1:86-93.

Gignac, F.T. 1976. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Volume 1: Phonology. Milan. - 1981. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Volume 2: Morphology. Milan. Greenberg, Nathan A. 1991/Word Juncture in Latin Prose and Poetry.'RHLH. 121:297-334. Haines-Eitzen, Kim. 2000. Guardians of Letters: Literacy; Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature. Oxford.

Harrauer, H. 1978.'Zu Xenophons Hellenika auf Papyrus: Neu- und Wiederentdeckungen in der Wiener Papyrussammlung/ Mnemosyne 31: 351-9, plates at 358. Harrauer, H. and K.A.Worp. 1993. 'Literarische Papyri aus Soknopaiu Nesos.' Tyche 8:35-40. Harris,WilliamV. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Harvard. Haslam, M.W 1979.'Aristophanes Lysistrata in P. Köln I 14.' ZPE 33: 31-2. Hausmann, Bernhard. 1978,1981. Demosthenis fragmenta in papyris et memhranis servata. 2 vols. Papyrologica Florentina 4,8. Florence. (Reprint of 1921 Leipzig dissertation with a new appendix.) Hemmerdinger, C. 1948.'La division en livre de l'oeuvre de Thucydide.' REG 61:104—17. Hendricks, A. 1969.'Aristophanes, Equités 1127-1141 (PMich. inv. 6035).' ZPE 4:216-18. Hendriks, I.H.M. 1980.'PHny, Histona Naturalis XIII 74-82, and the Manufacture of Papyrus.' ZPE 37: 121-36. - 1984.'More about the Manufacture of Papyrus IA tti del XVII Congresso Inter nazionale di Papirologia, 1: 31—7. Naples. Hude, Karl. 1913. Thucydides Historiae. Leipzig. Immerwahr, Henry. 1964. 'Book Rolls on Attic Vases.' In Classical, Medieval and Renaissance Studies in Honour ofB.L.

Oilman, 1 : 1 7 - 4 8 (Oxford).

- 1973.'More Book Rolls on Attic Vases.'Antike Kunst 16: 143-7. Janko, Richard. 1991. 'Philodemus' On Poems and Aristotle's On Poets ' CErc 21: 5-64, - 2000. Philodemus. On Poems: Book 1. Oxford. Jensen, Christian. 1917. Hyperidis orationes sex. Leipzig. Johnson, William A. 1992a.'The Literary Papyrus Roll: Formats and Conventions. An Analysis of the Evidence from Oxyrhynchus.' Diss.Yale University. - 1992b.'Multiple Copies of Literary Papyri, Fiber Patterns, and P.Oxy. XLVIII 3376 fr. 44.' ZPE 93:153-4.

352

Bibliography

- 1993a. 'Column Layout in Oxyrhynchus Literary Papyri: Maas's Law, Ruling and Alignment Dots.' ZPE 96: 211-15. - 1993b. 'Pliny the Elder and Standardized Roll Heights in the Manufacture of Papyrus.' CPh 88: 46—50. - 1994. 'Macrocollum.' CPh 89: 62-4. - 2000.'Toward a Sociology of Reading in Classical Antiquity/ AJPh 121: 593-627. - 2002, [ Hibeh II 193 (IliadVl 4-7).' ZPE 139:1-2. ' - 2003. 'Reading Cultures and Education.' In L Patrikis, ed., Reading between the Lines: Perspectives on Foreign Language Literacy. New Haven. - Forthcoming. 'Scholars' Texts and Reading Communities in Hellenic Egypt.' Forthcoming in Alexander Jones, ed., Editing Ancient Texts. Toronto. Keenan, James G. 1971.'Two Papyrus Fragments of the Odyssey! CSCA 4:199-202, plates 1-2. Kenyon, F.G. 1891. Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum. London. - 1893.'Brit. Mus. Pap. CXXVIII (+. XXIII, XXIV) ! Journal of Philology 21:296-343. - 1894.'Two New Manuscripts in the British Museum.' Journal of Philology 22: 238-61. - 1951. Books and Readers in Ancient Rome and Greece. 2nd edition. Oxford. Kingsley, P. 1960. Z Papyrus of Apollonius Rhodius.' BICS 7: 45-56. Kleberg,Tonnes. 1967. Buchhandel und Verlagswesen in der Antike. Darmstadt. - 1973.'Book Auctions in Ancient Rome.' Libri 22:1-5. Krügerjulian. 1990. Oxyrhynchos in der Kaiserzeit: Studien zur Topographie und Literaturrezeption. Frankfurt. Lameere, William. 1951.'Pour un recueil de facsimiles des principaux papyrus de l'Iliade et de J Odyssée! Scriptorium 5 : 1 7 7 - 9 4 . 1960. Aperçus de Paléographie homérique. Paris. LDAB 1998. See under section 2 'Computer Resources.' Leclercq, H. 1937.'Papyrus.' In Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, vol. 13, cols. 1370-1520. Paris. Lenaerts Jean. 1974.'Un papyrus de l'Économique de Xenophon.' Chronique d'Egypte 49: 354—5. -

-

1 9 7 7 . Papyrus littéraires grecs. Brussels.

Lewis, N. 1974. Papyrus -

in Classical Antiquity.

1 9 8 9 . Papyrus in Classical Antiquity:

Oxford.

A Supplement.

Papyrologia Bruxellensia

2 3 . Brussels,

Lipsius Justus. 1893. 'Zur Textgeschichte des Demosthenes.' Bericht über die Verhandlungen der Königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften

zu Leipzig

[Philologisch-Historische

Klasse] 4 5 : 1 - 2 3 .

Luginbill, R.D. 1990. 'POxy. XVII 2100 fr. 15.' BASP 27:43. Luzzatto M.J. and A. La Penna 1986. Babrii Mythiambi Aesopei. Leipzig. 1986. Maehler, H. 1967. 'Griechische literarische Papyri.' MH 24:61-78. - 1969. 'Griechische literarische Papyri.' ZPE 4: 81-122, plates V-VIII. - 1974a. 'Fragmente antiker Homei^Handschriften aus Ägypten.' In Festschrift zum 150jährigen Bestehen des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums, 363-94, plates 58-63. Berlin. - 1974b. 'Neue Fragmente eines Hesiodpapyrus in West-Berlin.' ZPE 15:195—207. Maehler, H.,W Müller, and G. Poethke. I976.'llias-Handschriften ! Archiv für Papyrologie 24/25:13-26, plates 1-4. Mandilaras, Basil G. 1975. The Speech (on the Peace' of Isocrates from the British Museum Papyrus [ K %$*# $#*="-9 ;B)+9 6+3 I0+,*:6+39]. Athens. Manfredi, Manfredo, 1979. Papiri dell'Odissea. Florence.

Mangoni, Cecilia. 1993. Filodemo: Il quinto libro della poetica. Naples. Martin, Alain. 2002. 'Heurs et malheurs d'un manuscrit. Deux notes à propos du papyrus d'Hérondas.' ZPE 139: 22-6. Martin,Victor, 1954. Papyrus Bodmer: Iliade chants 5 et 6. Bibliotheca Bodineriana III. Cologne.

Bibliography

353

Mazal, Otto. 1999. Geschichte der Buchkultur, Band 1, Griechisch-römische Antike. Graz, Austria. McCorniick, M. 1981. Typology, Codicology and Papyrology. A New Book by E.G.Turner/ Saiptorium 35:331-4. McDonnell, Myles. 1996.'Writing, Copying, and Autograph Texts in Ancient Rome.' CQ 46:469-91. McNamee, Kathleen. 1977,'Marginalia and Commentaries in Greek Literary Papyri.'Diss. Duke University. - 198 la.'Greek Literary Papyri Revised by T w o o r More Hands.' Proc. XVI Int. Congr. Pap. (Chico): 79-91. - 1981b. Abbreviations in Greek Literary Papyri and Ostraca. Atlanta. - 1992. Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri. Pap. Brüx. 26. Brussels. - Forthcoming. Annotations in Greek Literary Papyri. American Society of Papyrologists monograph series. Oakville, Conn. Expected 2005. Menci, G. 1982.Osservazioni paleografiche ad alcuni papiri letterari.' SCO 32:249-52 and plate 27. Mertens, Paul. 1981.'Appendice di aggiornamento.' In Hausmann 1981. - 1985.'Vingt années de papyrologie odysséenne.' Chronique d'Egypte 60:191-203. - 1992. 'Les témoins papyrologiques de Ménandre. Essai de classement rationel et equisse d'étude bibliologique.' In Serta leodiensia secunda: Mélanges publiés par les classiques de Liège à l'occasion du 175e anniversaire de l'Université 330-7. Liège. Mertens, Paul, and Odette Bouquiaux-Simon. 1991.'Les papyrus de Thucydide.' Chronique d'Egypte 66: 198-210. - 1992.'Les témoignages papyrologiques d'Euripides: Liste sommaire arrêtée au 1/6/1990.' In Mario Capasso, ed., Papiri letterarigreci e latini, 96-107. Gatalina. Mertens, Paul, and Jean Lenaerts. 1989.'Les papyrus d'Isocrate.' Chronique d'Égypte 64: 216-30. Mertens, Paul, and Dider Marcotte. 1990.'Les papyrus de Callimaque.' Miscellanea Papyrologica. Pap. Flor. 29 (Florence): 409-27. Mette, H.J. 1955. 'Neue Homer-Papyri.' Rev. Pfci/.,ser. 3.29:193-205. Milne, H.J.M. 1927. Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum. London. Montanari, F. 1983.'P.Tebt. 684 Pindaro, Ol. 9,109 - 10,12.' La parole del passato 38: 20-8. - 1987.'Un "nuovo" papiro dell'Ecuba di Euripide (P.Tebt. 683 recto).' Riv. Fil 115: 24-32,441-3. Moretti, A.F, 1993,'Revisione di alcuni papiri omerici editi tra i P. Mil.Vogl.'Tyche 8: 87—97. Müller, W. 1968. 'Griechische literarische Texte auf Papyrus und Pergament.' Staatl Mus. Berlin Forschungen u. Berichte 10: 113-32. - 1983. 'Zwei Berliner Papyri zu Komödien.'HLL 29: 5-12, plates 1-2. - 1993. 'Ilias-Papyri aus der Berliner SammlungMPF 39: 5-8. Norman,A.F. 1960.'The Book Trade in Fourth-Century Antioch.'JHS 80:122-6. Norsa, Medea. 1921/Elenco di opere letterarie.' Aegyptus 2:17-20. Oates,John F., Roger Bagnall, et al. 2001. Checklist of Editions of Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets. Oakville, Conn. Obbink, Dirk. 1996. Philodemus, On Piety, Part 1. Oxford. Ohiy, K. 1928. Stichometrische Untersuchungen. Leipzig. Paap, A.H.R.E. 1948. De Herodoti reliquts in papyris et membranis Aegyptiis servatis. Pap. Lugd.-Bat., vol. 4. Leiden. - 1970. The Xenophon Papyri. Pap. Lugd.-Bat., vol. 18. Leiden. Page, D.L. 1962. Poetae melici graeci. Oxford. Parâssoglou, George M. 1979.' W@I7 NWIL <7I JSVR: Some Thoughts on the Postures of the Ancient Greeks and Romans When Writing on Papyrus Rolls.' Scrittura e Civiltà 3: 5-21. - 1982.'IphigemaTaurica 946-955.' W;;-"&,: 34 (1982-3): 479-80. Pettimengin, Pierre, and Bernard Flusin. 1984.'Le livre antique et la dictée: Nouvelles recherches.' In E.

354

Bibliography

Lucchesi and H.D. Safïrey, eds, Mémorial André-Jean Festugière: Antiquité païenne et chrétienne [Cahiers d'Orientalisme X], 248-62. Geneva. Pintaudi, R. 1977/Frammenti letterari Laurenziani.' ZPE 27:107-17. Poethke, G. 1981/Papyri mit Homerfragmenten.' In Troja und Thrakien. Ausstellung Berlin-Hauptstadt der DDR und Sofia, 50-2, plates 101-4. Berlin. - 1994. ' Ilias-Handschriften aus der Berliner Papyrus-Sammlung.' A PF 40:1-11, plates 1-10. Poland, Franz. 1909. Geschichte des Griechischen Vereinswesens, Leipzig, 1909. Pontani, W 1995. 'Per la tradizione antica del Lachete di Piatone: PPetrie II, 50 e POxy 228.' SCO 45: 117-26. Priest, N E . 1982/Michigan Homeric Papyri I: Iliad A-P.' ZPE 46: 88-91 Puglia, Enzo. 1996/11 catalogo di un fondo librario di Ossirinco del III d.C/ ZPE 113: 51-65. - 1997/Note bibliologiche e sticometriche.' ZPE 119:123-7. Roberts, C.H. 1955. Greek Literary Hands 350 BC-AD 400. Oxford. van Rossum-Steenbeek, Monique. 1993/Three Xenophon Papyri. One Scribe.' ZPE 99:18. - 1998. Greek Readers' Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri. Leiden. Savorelli, G. Messeri, and R. Pintaudi. 1997/Frammenti di rotoli letterari Laurenziani.' ZPE 115:171-7. Schubart, W. 1921. Das Buch bei den Griechen und Römern. 2nd edition. Berlin and Leipzig. (The 1962 revision is deliberately neglected.) - 1925. Griechische Paläographie. Munich. - 1950. [#- Platon-Papyrus.' JJP 4: 83-7. Scott, Edward. 1891. '71-"(#4" 8+;&6$#(. Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens. Facsimile of papyrus CXXXI in the British Museum. London, Seider, Richard. 1970. Paläographie der griechischen Papyri. II; Literarische Papyri. Stuttgart, van Sickle, John. 1980/The Book-roll and Some Conventions of the Poetic Book.' Arethusa 13: 5-42. Sijpesteijn, PJ., and K.A.Worp. 1993. Eine Steuerliste aus Pheretnuis (P Pher.). Stud.Amst. XXXIII. Amsterdam. Skeat,T.C. 1952/The Use of Dictation in Ancient Book Production.' Proc. Brit. Acad. 38:179-208. - 1982/The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-advantage of the Codex.' ZPE 45: 169-75. - 1995. "Was Papyrus Regarded as "Cheap" or "Expensive" m the Ancient World?' Aegyptus 75:75— 93, SmylyJ.G. 1899. Z New Fragment of the Laches of Plato.' Hermathena 10: 407-8. Solomon, E, R, Merkelbach and M.L.West, eds. 1990. Hesiodi Theogonia, opera et dies, scutum. Oxford. Starr, R.J. 1987/The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World.' CQ 37: 213-23, - 1990. 'The Used-book Trade in the Roman World/ Phoenix 44: 148-57. Straclian, Christopher. 1992/Flinders Petrie Papyrus 1.7/ In Studi su codici e papiri ßlosofici. Platone, Aristotele, Ierocle, 160—62. Florence.

Suerbaum,W. 1992. 'Zum Umfang der Bücher in der archaischen lateinischen Dichtung: Naevius, Ennius, Lukrez und Livius Andronicus auf Papyrus-Rollen.' ZPE 92:153-73. True, <. 1974/Kleine Klassikerfragmente/ In Festschrift zum 150jährigen Bestehen des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums, 431-40, plate 70. Berlin. Tulli, M. 1995/Un commento del II sec. d.C. al "Politico": P. Berol. 11749! APF 41:45-55. Turner, E.G. 1939. Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri and Ostraca in the Possession of the University of Aberdeen. Aberdeen. - 1952/Roman Oxyrhynchus.'JEA 38:78-93. - 1955/A Ptolemaic Scrap of Plato, Sophistes! Rheinisches Museum 98:97-8. - 1956. 'Scribes and Scholars of Oxyrhynchus.' Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung Erherzog Rainer, n.s. 5 (Vienna): 141-6.

Bibliography

-

355

1971. The Typology of the Early Codex. Philadelphia.

- 1978. The Terms Recto and Verso :The Anatomy of the Papyrus Roll. Actes du XVe Congrès international de Papyrologie, première partie. Brussels. - 1980. Greek Papyri: An Introduction. 2nd edition. Princeton and Oxford. - 1983.'Sniffing Glue.' Cron. Ere. 13: 7-14. Turner E.G., and P.J. Parsons 1987. Greek Manusaipts of the Ancient World. 2nd edition. London, van Minnen, Peter. 1998. 'Boorish or Bookish? Literature in Egyptian Villages in the Fayum in the Graeco-Roman Period.'J/P 28: 89-184. Vassiliadis, A. 1981. 'Zwei Platon-Fragmente.' ZPE 42:37-8. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. 1994. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton. West, Stephanie. 1967. The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer. Cologne and Opladen. von Wilamowitz-MöllendorfF, U., ed. 1903. Timotheos Milesius: Die Perser. Hildesheim and New York. Wilcken, U. 1891. Tafeln zur aelteren griechischen palaeographie. Leipzig and Berlin. - 1901. [ F - Polybiustext auf Papyrus.' Archiv für Papyrologie 1:388-95. - 1906. [ F - Sosylos-Fragment in der Würzburger Papyrussammlung.' Hermes 41:103—41. Willis, W H . 1968. Z Census of the Literary Papyri from Egypt.' GRBS 9: 205-41. Wilson, N. 1974.'Greek Manuscripts.' Review of E.G.Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (1971), CR 24:91-2. Wouters, A. 1971. Two Papyri of the Iliad, Book ? Ancient Society 2: 52-65.

This page intentionally left blank

Subject Index

See also the Glossary (pp. 3 4 I f f ) for definitions of technical terms.

Aeschylus: set of matching rolls, 18-19 alignment dots. See ruling dots Athenaion Politeia, 157,160 autopsy: need for, 6 Birt, Theodor, 5 Blanchard, Alain, 5,127,142,147 bookrolls: aesthetic different from codex, 85-6; circulation of, 158-9; consistency of appearance, 8; construction, ease of, 86-7; design, 85—7; de luxe — see de luxe editions; format and genre, 34,152-5; laying out the columns, 91-100;list ofbook orders (BM inv. 2110), 159n88; matched sets, 18,35,128; production - see production of bookrolls; reconstruction of, 10-13; size — see bookrolls, length and bookrolls, circumference above; uniformity and variation in format, 49—57; versus books — see iiber vs. volumen; what a bookroll was not, 157 bookrolls, circumference, 149—51; large for histories, 151; small for romances, 145, 151 bookrolls, height, 141—3; dependent on papyrus grade, 35,58; not fixed for a given scribe, 33; in Ptolemaic vs. Roman era, 142; ratio of column height to roll height, 137-9; statistics, 185-200 (table 3.3), 213-16 (table 3.6); variation in, 77-82 (table 2.4)

bookrolls, length, 13,143-52; Herculaneum evidence, 146-8; for histories, 151; for Homeric rolls, 144, 148; long works divided into 'books,' 145-9; for 'mixed' rolls, 143-4; normative range, 149,151; for romances, 145; size of cylinder - see bookrolls, circumference; 'standard' size, 151-2; statistics, 217-30 (table 3.7) bookseller, 158-9 >D>;+9, 145 Capasso, Mario, 5 case studies: importance of, 15-16 Cavallo, Guglielmo, 5,147,149 circulation of books, 158-9 circumference of a bookroll. See bookrolls, circumference codex: advantages and disadvantages vs. bookroll, 86-7; aesthetic different from that of bookroll, 85—6; ratio of upper to lower margin, 86, 131-2 codex culture, 4, 85-6,151 column (of writing): layout, 91-100; layout in the Arden Hyperides papyrus, 99-100; lean or slant - see Maas's Law; letters per - see letter counts, per column; lines per — see lines per column

358

Subject Index

column height, 119-25; charted by date, 121 (verse), 123; charted by prose vs. verse, 120; charted by script formality, 122; exceptionally short, 338n2; ratio of column height to roll height, 137; reconstruction of, 12-13; statistics, 185-200 (table 3.3); summary of classes, 1245; uniformity and variation in, 54-6,58,77-82 (table 2.4) column lean. See Maas's Law column width, 100-1,101-8 (prose), 115-17 (verse); changes of fashion over time, 105—8; changes in mid-roll, 37-9; charted by date, 106-7 (prose); charted by genre, 116 (verse), 153-4 (prose); charted for formal majuscule scripts, 104 (prose); charted by script formality, 103 (prose), 117 (verse); charted for severe style scripts, 105 (prose); definition of, 6; fixed for a given scribe, 33; and genre, 34,152-5; irregularities in, 39; letters per line — see letter counts; measured before writing, 33-4 - see also ruling dots; problems of measurement, 6,11,57; reconstruction of, 11-12; statistics, 162-74 (table 3.1, prose), 175-84 (table 3.2, verse); summary of prose classes, 108; uniformity and variation in, 50-4,115; —, statistics, 66-74 (table 2.2); —, summary, 57-8 column width by height, 125—8 (prose), 129-30 (verse); statistics, 201-7 (table 3.4, prose), 20812 (table 3.5, verse); summary, 128,130 column-to-column width, 109—13 (prose), 115— 19 (verse); charted by date, 109; measurement of, 57; uniformity and variation in, 50, 52—3, 115; —, statistics, 66-74 (table 2.2); summary, 57-8 commentaries: written to a different standard, 20, 33-4 comparison sample: definition of, 9-10,243-8 copying. See scribes

genre, See bookrolls, format and genre height: bookroll - see bookrolls, height; column see column height historical papyri: monumental size of bookroll, 149,151 Homeric texts: bookrolls with multiple 'books,' 144; tall and thin a deliberate design type for, 130 Hyperides: Arden papyrus, 99-100 intercolumn width, 109-13 (prose), 115-19 (verse); charted by date, 111 (prose); charted by script formality, 112 (prose), 118 (verse); correlation to column width, 112-13; summary of prose classes, 113; uniformity and variation in, 50-2; —, statistics, 66-74 (table 2.2) #+#(-adscript, 7,15-16, 22, 25,28,59 Janko, Richard, 5,147 Kenyon, Frederic, 5,10,142,149 kollêma, 88-91,99-100; maaocollum, 89; as unit for scribal attention, 100; width variation in, 90 kollêsis, 87-8,99-100; 3- and 4-layer joins, 87 Kraft, Robert 11 leading: variation in, 56-8, 83-4 (table 2.5). See also line spacing lectional aids, 15-16, 35-6, 58-9, and passim. See also readers length of roll. See bookrolls, length; also papyrus rolls

letter counts: per column, 114-15 (prose); —, variation in, 57, 83-4 (table 2.5); per line, 12 (verse), 114—15 (prose);—, charted by author, 115;—, variation in, 54,75-6 (table 2.3) letter heights: charted by style, 155-6 liber vs. volumen,

de luxe editions, 155-6; definition of, 102; erroneous association with tall roll or column, 1223; large script size, 155; line spacing in, 156; margin size, 141; summary of characteristics, 156 dictation. See scribes, copying by dictation éditions de luxe. See

de luxe editions

eisthesis, 1 9 , 2 9 , 9 6 , 3 0 2

145-7

librarius, 1 5 9

line spacing: charted by style, 156; in documents, 156; in éditions de luxe, 156. See also leading lines per column: variation in, 57,83-4 (table 2.5) lower margin. See margins Maas's Law, 55, 91-9; and bookroll design, 93; in Herculaneum papyri, 92nl9;as result of writing on knee, 92. See also ruling dots

Subject Index

macrocollum, 8 9

margins (upper and lower), 6,130-41; charted by column height, 140; charted by script formality, 135—6; definition of completeness, 131, 200; ratio of column height to roll height, 137— 40; ratio of upper to lower margin, 131-4; statistics, 185-200 (table 3.3); variation in, 77-82 (table 2.4); what constitutes an unusually large margin, 141 'mixed' rolls, 143-4 opistograph, 34 oratorical papyri: written to narrower columns, a false rule, 152-4 orthography, 18,22 Oxyrhynchus sample: definition of, 9, 231-43 papyrus rolls: 20-sheet roll as standard, 87; 50- or 70-sheet rolls as exceptional, 87n4; grades and sizes, 89; height, as fraction of a notional 'full' height, 143n51 ; manufacture, 35,87-8; sold as rolls not sheets, 88; surface quality, 17-21, 234, 26,30,35,88-9. See also bookrolls papyrus sheets. See kollêma; also papyrus rolls philosophical papyri: distinct tradition of copying, 113n37,127,154-5; distinct system of punctuation, 21, 271-2 Plato. See philosophical papyri Pliny the Elder: on papyrus manufacture, 35, 889,143n51 production of bookrolls: book trade, 158-9; private, definition of, 158; private vs. professional, 157-60 provenance: uncertainty of, 9 punctuation: as part of paradosis, 8,19,21-8,31, 35, 58; scribe's copying of, 15, 35-6; whether consistent or erratic, 7-8,15-16 readers: adding punctuation and lectional marks, 35-6; scholarly, 18,21,23,25,32-3 - see also scholia. See also lectional aids roll. See bookrolls; papyrus rolls ruling dots: examples from Oxyrhynchus, 93—7; examples outside Oxyrhynchus, 97-9 scholia, 21,22-5,27,29,32-3

359

Schubart, Wilhelm, 5,105,135,139-40,142, 149 scribes: an apprentice craft, 34, 102n26,127, 160; aural and visual errors, 40; change of hand in mid-roll, 39, î 14n37; copying punctuation and lectional marks, 35-6; copying the text: by dictation, 39-40; —, examples implying different line length, 43-8; —, examples implying exemplar of similar or same line length, 41—3, 48-9; —, line by line, 15,39-49 (summary, 49), 57-8; —, summary, 49; discretion in what to copy, 36; groups of, 127; habits and conventions for, 15; identified scribes: analysis of scribe #A1,17, #A2,17-18, #A3,18-20, #A5,20-1, #A6,21, #A7,21-2, #A17,22-3, #A19,23-4, #A20,24, #A24, 24-5, #A25, 25, #A28,26, #A30,26-7, #A31,27, #A33, 27-9, #B1,29, #B2,29-30, #B3,30-1, #B4, 31, #B5,31, #B6,32; —, small number of, 36—7; —, summary listing of, 61-5 (table 2.1); making copies to order, 159; with multiple surviving rolls, 16-37 (summary, 32-7); 61-5 (table 2.1); scribal shops, 29,127,159; tools of measurement, 33-4,57; writing columns to a measured width, 33; writing on knee sim., 92, 100. See also librarius; production of books; ruling dots script: definition of classes, 102; decoration, 102 synkollêsis, 87n5, 99, 273 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, 10,12-13 Thucydides: book division in, 31 6B +9, 145 Turner, Eric G., 5,37,40,131 upper margin. See margins variation: definition of, 49-50 volumen. See liber vs. volumen voluminology, 3 width: column — see column width; column-tocolumn - see column-to-column width; intercolumn - see intercolumn width

This page intentionally left blank

Index of Papyri

Asterisk marks corrigenda to papyri that affect the text (including matters of orthography, but not iotaadscript, elision, accents, or the like). Crux marks corrigenda that describe newly placed fragments. BM inv. 2110 (document, book orders), 159 CPF 3 (PSILaur

inv. 19662v; document, list of

books), 144 MP 88 (PHib 1.26; Anax., Rhet. ad Alexandrum), 53,72, 80,126,133,139,142,173,197,207, 216,229,243,311-12 MP 113 (PDura 2; Appian, Iber), 15,17,173, 200,230,243,310 MP 142.3 (PMich inv. 6035; Aristoph., Eq.), 27, 64 MP 163 (PLondLit 108;Athenaiôn Politeia), 157-8; pi. 14 MP 189.1 (PFayColes 5; Callim., Hymn), 182, 243,310 MP 265,1 (PBeroi 16895+21284; Demosth., de Chers.), 1 3 3 , 1 3 9 , 1 7 4 , 1 9 8 , 2 0 7 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 7 ,

243, *305-6 MP 296.2 (PBeroi 21274; Demosth., Fais. Leg.), 174,243 MP 298 (PTebt 2.267; Demosth., Fais. Leg.), 173, 199,207,229,243,325 MP 300 (PBeroi 5879; Demosth., adv. Lept.), 70, 79,139,173,197,215, 228,243, *299-301 MP 329.2 (PBeroi 21192; Demosth., in Mac), 65, 173,198,207,227,243,309

MP 337+1234 (PLondLit 134+130; Hyper., in Ptoï.+Demosth., Ep.), 50,53,55, 81, 88, 90, 133,138-9,173,197,206,216,229, 243, 319-20; pi. 15 MP 384.1 (PBeroi 21235; Eur., Bacch.), 183, 200, 244,309 MP 388.1 (PTebt 2.683; Eur., Hec.), 183,199, 244.325 M P 397 (PLondLit 73; E u r . , H i p p . ) , 145, 181,

198,212,228,244, *316 MP 400.1 (.PBeroi 21133; E u r , IT), 181, 200,

244,308 MP 417.2 (PBeroi 21169; Eur., Phoen.), 145,181, 199,212,227,244,308 MP 468 (PMuench 2.40; Hdt.), 173,200,244, 321-2 MP 478 (PDura 1; Hdt.), 104,126,173,197, 207,229,244,310 MP 486.3 (PBeroi 21107; Hes., Erga), 133,139, 182,199,215,230,244,307 M P 584.1 (PFayColes 14; IL), 183,199, 244,

310 M P 594.1 (PFayColes 15; II.), 181,244, 310 M P 6 0 4 . 1 (PMuench 235+PLudgBat

25.6; +.),

183,198,212,227,244,321 MP 619 (PTebt 3.898; II.), 182,198,212,230, 244.326

362

Index of Papyri

MP 624.1 (PAnt 3.156; 17.), 183,199, 244,299 M P 6 3 2 (PTebt 1.4; IL), 1 8 3 , 1 9 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 2 8 , 2 4 4

MP 650 (PTebt 2,265; IL), 79,90,138,198,184, 211,215,229,244,325 MP 660.3 (PBeroi 21197; +), 182, 200,244,309 MP 662.01 (PBeroi 17069; 11), 182, 200,244,307 MP 688 (PBeroi 17054; II.), 182, 200,244,307

MP 914 (PVindob G26752; 17.), 183,246,334 MP 919 (PBeroi 11910+21156; i7.), 53,72,90, 92,181,198,212,227,246,302 MP 919.1 (PBeroi 21216), 182,200,246,309 M P 9 1 9 . 2 (PMich inv. 1575; II.), 9 8

MP 962 (PBeroi 9774; 17.), 184,197,211,228, 246,301

M P 6 9 2 . 1 (PTebtTait 38; II), 184, 244

M P 9 7 9 (PGrenf 2A+PHib

MP 699 (PHib 1.20+PGrenf 2.3; II.), 182,198, 212,228,244,311 MP 771+990 (PMilVogl 2.34+35; il.), 65 MP 773 (PTebt 3.899; 71.), 142,183,199,212, 227,245,326 MP 774 (PH/6 2.193; 27.), 181,245,*312 MP 784.1 (PBeroi 21102+17153; IL), 184,199, 230,245,307

139,142,181,199,212,216,228,246,311 MP 980 (PBeroi 16985; 17.), 53,55,74,81,88, 90, 133-4,138,148-9,183,197,211,216,229, 246,*306-7 MP 991 (PTebt 3.900; 17.), 182,197,211,227, 246, *326 MP 995.1 (PYale 1.13; 17.), 182,197,211,230, 246,335-6 MP 998 (PLondLit 27; 17.), 53,55,74,81,88,90, 133,139,182,198,212,216,228,246,312-

M P 7 8 5 . 1 (PYale 1.8; II.), 184, 245, 3 3 5

MP 805.1 (PBeroi 21215; J?.), 182, 200,245,309 MP 809+992 (PMilVogl 2.112+116; 11), 65 M P 8 1 9 (PHib 1 . 2 1 + P G r e n f 2 . 2 + P H e i d L i t 1 ;IL),

182,198,212,227, 245,311 M P 822+821 (PGrenf 1.2+PFlor 2.109; //.), 90,

92,183,198,212,227,245,310 MP 824.1 (PFayCo/es 16+17; fl.), 197,229,245, 310 MP 830 (PFay 4; //.), 97,182,197, 211,227,245, 310 MP 832 (PVindob G19768; II.), 183, 200, 245, *332 MP 852 (PVindob G26753; II.), 40, 90,182,197, 245,*335 M P 8 5 7 (PBeroi

11911A+B+17038+17048+

21155; IL), 79,90,139,183,199, 212,215, 227,245,302-5 MP 863.1 (PYale 1.10; IL), 92,181,245,335 MP 876.2 (PBeroi 21109; 77.), 182,199, 230,245, 308 MP 879 (PPetr 1.3(4); II.), 81, 182,197,211,228, 245,323 MP 883 (PTebt 2.266; IL), 183,199, 230,245, 325 M P 8 9 4 (PLondLit

251+PHarr

36; IL), 1 8 1 , 1 9 9 ,

212,226,245,321 M P 8 9 5 (PGrenf 1.4), 1 8 3 , 1 9 9 , 245, 3 1 1

MP 897.2 (PMuench 2.38; IL), 181,197,211, 226,245,321 MP 898.1 (PBeroi 21185; IL), 183,198,230, 246, 308-9

1.22+PHeidLit

2; IL),

16

MP 1009 (PBeroi 9949; II.), 183,246, *301 MP 1022 (PTebt 3.696; Od.), 139,142,183,197, 211,216,230,246,325-6 MP 1026.1 (PFayColes 18; Od.), 183,246,310 M P 1 0 3 9 (PLondLit

30+PVindob G 2 6 7 4 6 +

G26754-60; Od), 79,90,133,138,182,198, 212.215.228.246, *315-16 MP 1051.1 (PFayColes 19; Od), 183,200,246, 310 MP 1056 (PTebt 3.697; Od), 142,181,199,212, 227,246,326 M P 1 0 6 1 (PGrenf 1.3; Od.), 1 8 3 , 2 4 6 , 3 1 1

MP 1064 (PFay 7; Od), 182,197,211,230,247, 310 MP 1092.1 (PFayColes 20; Od), 184,247,310 MP 1094 (PBeroi 11678; Od), 139,181,199, 212.216.227.247, *301 MP 1099 (PTebt 2.431; Od), 183,200,247,325 MP 1129 (PHib 2.194; Od), 156,181, 200, 247, 312 MP 1148.2 (PBeroi 21224; Od), 40,182, 200, 227,247,309 MP 1150.1 (PBeroi 16709; Od), 183,198, 230, 247,305 MP 1156 (PTebt 2.432; Od), 182,200,247,325 MP 1233 (PLondLit 132+PIand 5.80?; Hyper., in Dem. pro Lyc.ypro Eux.), 53, 55-6, 70,79, 88, 90-1, 99-100,126,133,138, 173,197, 206, 215,228,247,317-19; pl. 16-17

Index of Papyri

MP 1234. See MP 337+1234 MP 1238 (PVindob G29768; Isaeus, de Nif.), 65 MP 1255 (PVindob G2316; Isoer., ad Nie), 133, 139,174,198,207,215,230,247,332

MP 1566 (PMuench 2.41; Xen., Feci.), 126,173, 197, 206, 228, 248, J322 MP 2180 (PMich inv. 4913; Boeotian history?), 61

M P 1265.1 (PFayColes 6; Isocr., Paneg), 173,

200,247,310 M P 1272 (PLondLit 131; Isoer., de Pace), 39, 97 M P 1286 (PMuench 2.39; Lycophron,Alex), 181,

198,230,247,321 MP 1355.1 (PTebt 2.684; Pindar, Ol), 182,199, 247,325 M P 1387 (PBeroi 21210+13291; ?l,Ap),

92,

174.199.207.227.247, *309 MP 1388 (PPetr 1.5-8; Pl., Phd), 53,73,82,90, 126-7,138,173,197,207, 216,229,247, */323-4 MP 1395 (PHib 2.228; Pl., Soph), 142,174,198, 207,229,247,312 MP 1397.1 (PBeroi 11749; Pl., Pol), 173,247, *302 MP 1403 (PAnt 2.77; Pl., Phdr), 174,247, 299 MP 1409 (PPetr 2.50; PL, Lach), 53,73,82,90, 98,133,139,174,198,207,216,227,247, 324 MP 1424 (PBeroi 9766; PL, Leg), 65 M P 1 4 2 7 (PAnt 2 . 7 9 ; PL, de Just),

173, 199, 2 4 7 ,

299 MP 1433 (PBeroi 9570+PRyl 1.60; Polybius), 40, 174.199.207.229.248,*301 MP 1537 (PBeroi 9875;Timotheus, Pers), 53,74, 82,88,90,119,184,198,211,229,248, 301 MP 1551 (PVindob G26010+G29283+G29782; Xen., Cyr), 71,138,141,173,199,207,215, 227,248,^332-4 MP 1552 (PVindob G257+G29781+G24568; Xen., Hell), 64,72,90,138,174,199,207, 215,221,248, *:f326-32 MP 1556.2 (PBeroi 21108; Xen., Hell), 174,199, 229,248,307-8 MP 1563.1 (PTebt 2.682; Xen., Oec), 65,173, 248,325 MP 1563.3 (PMuench 2.42; Xen., Symp), 173, 200,248, *322-3 M P 1564 (PAnt 1.26; Xen.,

Symp),12,126,138,

173,197,206,215, 228,248, /299 M P 1 5 6 5 (PLondLit Symp),

65

152+PGissLit

3.2; X e n . ,

363

PAberd 113+PAberd 137. See M P 300 PAnt L26. See M P 1564 PAnt 211. See M P 1403 PAnt 2,79. See M P 1427

PAnt 3.156. See MP 624.1 PBerlin 16985. See MP 980 PBeroi 9570. See MP 1433 PBeroi 3003 (document), 149 PBeroi 5879. See MP 300 PBeroi 9766. See MP 1424 PBeroi 9114. See M P 962

PBeroi 9875. See MP 1537 PBeroi 9949. See MP 1009 PBeroi 11678. See MP 1094 PBeroi 11749. See MP 1397.1 PBeroi 11910. See MP 919 PBeroi 11911A+B. See MP 857 PBeroi 13291. See MP 1387 PBeroi 16709. See MP 1150.1 PBeroi 16895. See MP 265.1 PBeroi 17038. See MP 857 PBeroi 17048. See MP 857 PBeroi 17054. See MP 688 PBeroi 17069. See MP 662.01 PBeroi 17153. See MP 784.1 PBeroi 21102. See MP 784.1 PBeroi 21107. See MP 486.3 PBeroi 21108. See MP 1556.2 PBeroi 21109. See MP 876.2 PBeroi 21133. See MP 400.1 PBeroi 21155. See MP 857 PBeroi 21156. See MP 919 PBeroi 21169. See MP 417.2 PBeroi 21185. See MP 898.1 PBeroi 21192. See MP 329.2 PBeroi 21197. See MP 660.3 PBeroi 21210. See MP 1387 PBeroi 21215. See MP 805.1 PBeroi 21216. See MP 919.1 PBeroi 21224. See MP 1148.2 PBeroi 21235. See MP 384.1 PBeroi 21274. See MP 296.2 PBeroi 21284. See MP 265.1

364

Index of Papyri

PDura 1. See MP 4 7 8

Pland 5.80. See M P 1 2 3 3

PDura 2. See M P 113

PKoeln

PFay 4. See M P 8 3 0

PKoeln

PFay 7 . See M P 1 0 6 4

5.210. See POxy 223 6.252. See POxy 4013 PKoeln 7.304. See POxy 3450

PFayColes

5. See M P 1 8 9 .1

PLondLit

PFayColes

6. See MP 1265.1

PLondLit

3 0 . See M P 1 0 3 9

PFayColes

14. See M P 5 8 4 . 1

PLondLit

73. See M P 3 9 7

PFayColes

15. See M P 5 9 4 . 1

PLondLii 108. See MP 163 PLondLit 130. See MP 337+1234

18. See MP 1026.1 PFayColes 19. See MP 1051.1 PFayColes 20. See MP 1092.1 PFayColes 16+17. See MP 824.1 PFlor 2.109. See MP 822 PFlor 112 (commentary on Aristoph.), 62 PCen 2. See POxy 3450 PFayColes

2 7 . See M P 9 9 8

PLondLit

132. See M P 1 2 3 3

PLondLit

134. See MP 337+1234

PLondLit

152. See M P 1565

PLondLit

251. See M P 8 9 4

PLudgBat

2 5 . 6 . See M P 6 0 4 . 1

PMich inv. 1575. See M P 9 1 9 . 2

PGiss 1.1. See M P 1 5 6 5

PMich inv. 4 9 1 3 . See M P 2 1 8 0

PGissLit

PMilVogl

3.2. See M P 1 5 6 5

2.34+35. See MP 771+990 2.112+115. See MP 809+992

PGrenf 2.4. See M P 9 7 9

PMilVogl

PGrenf 1.2. See M P 8 2 2

PMuench 2 . 3 5 . See M P 6 0 4 . 1

PGrenf 1.3. See M P 1 0 6 1

PMuench

PGrenf 1.4. See M P 8 9 5

PMuench 2 . 3 9 . See M P 1 2 8 6

PGrenf 2.2. See MP 819 PGrenf 2.3. See MP 699 PHarr 1.12. See POxy 3666 PHarr 1.32 (work unknown), 62

PMuench 2.40. See M P 4 6 8

PHarr 1.36. See M P 8 9 4 PHeidLit

1. See M P 8 1 9

PHeidLit

2. See M P 9 7 9

PHerc 1007/1673 (Philodem., de Rhet. iv), 147 PHerc 1050 (Philodem., de morte iv), 147 PHerc 1074a (Philodem., de Poem, i), 98 PHerc 1414 (Philodem., de grato animo), 147 PHerc 1423 (Philodem., de Rhet. iv), 147 PHerc 1425 (Philodem., de Poem. v), 146-7 PHerc 1426 (Philodem., P//ei. in), 147 PHerc 1427 (Philodem., de Rto. i), 148 PHerc 1471 (Philodem., de libertate dicendi), 147 PHerc 1497 (Philodem., de Music, iv), 147 PHerc 1507 (Philodem., Je bono re sec. Horn.), 98 PHerc 1538 (Philodem., de Poem, v), 147

2.38. See MP 897.2

PMuench 2 . 4 1 . See M P 1 5 6 6

PMuench 2.42. See M P 1563.3

POxy 16+696 (Thuc.), 41,52,66,75,141,164, 190,203,219,231,251-2 POxy 17 (Thuc.), 169,194,231 POxy 18 (Hdt.), 169,192,231,252 POxy 19 (Hdt.), 141,171,194,231,252-3 POxy 20 (il.), 89,132,137,180,188,208,214, 220,231, *253 POxy 21 (//.), 132,137,180,186,208,213,224, 231,253 POxy 23 (Pl., Leg.), 65-6,141,169,190, 205, 219,231,253 POxy

2 4 (PL, Resp.), 170, 2 3 1

POxy 25 (Demosth., de Cor), 113,169,194, 231, 253 POxy 26 (Demosth., Ex.), 29-30,51, 64,66, 89, 75,126,165,186,201,221,231,253; pl. 6

PHib 1.21. See M P 8 1 9

POxy 27 (Isoer.,Antid), 4 8 , 7 7 , 1 2 7 , 1 3 8 , 1 6 9 ,

PHft 1.20. See MP 699 PHifc 1.22. See MP 979

190,205,213,226,231 POxy 29 (Euclid.), 172,194,231,253 POxy 223+PKoeln 5.210 (II), 37,50,52-4, 56, 70,77,83, 8&-9,105,129,133,138,180,188, 208,210,213,221,232,253-*; pl. 18 POxy 224+PRyl 3.547 (Eur., Phoen), 145,178, 186,208,222,232,254

PHib 1.26. See M P 8 8

PHib 2.193. See M P 774 PHib 2.194. See M P 1129 PHib 2.228. See M P 1395 PHibeh

2.194. See MP 1129

Index of Papyri

POxy 225 (Thuc.), 48,167,187,203, 223,232 POxy 226+PSI 17 Congr.8+PSI 11.1197 (Xen., Hell), 126,162,185,201, 224,232 POxy 227 (Xen., Oec), 43, 51,62, 66, 75, 113, 127,137,146,162,187,202,214,223,232, 254 POxy 228 (PL, Lach), 63,77, 83,137,169,186, 204,214,218,232 POxy 229 (Pl., P M ) , 4 8 , 1 1 4 , 1 6 3 , 1 9 3 , 2 3 2 , 2 5 4

POxy 230 (Demosth., de Cor), 56,66, 77, 83, 132,171,191,206,223,232,255 POxy 231 (Demosth., de Cor), 21-2, 43, 61,171, 232; pl. 1 POxy 232 (Demosth., in Tim), 55,128, 138,171, 190,205,214,219,232 POxy 233 (Demosth., in Tim), 132,141,166, 192,203,218,232,255 POxy 445 (II), 1 3 3 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 4 , 1 7 5 , 1 9 1 , 2 1 0,

214.217.232.255 POxy 446 (II), 177,194,232

POxy 447 (II), 179,232 POxy 452 (Thuc.), 168,232 POxy 453 (Thuc.), 169,232, *255 POxy 454+PSI2.119 (PL, Gorg), 41 AS, 52, 66, 141,166,192,203,221, 232,255 POxy

4 5 5 (Pl., Resp.), 164, 2 3 2

POxy 456 (Pl., Resp.), 167, 232, 255 POxy 458 (Aeschin., Fais. Leg), 42,169,194, 232,255-6 POxy 460 (Demosth., de Ric), 127,143-4,168, 189,204,217,232 POxy 461 (Demosth., de Cor), 168,194,232 POxy 462 (Demosth., de Cor), 141,167,192, 205.222.232.256 POxy 463 (Ken.,An),

42,52, 66,126,164,186,

201,219,232,256 POxy 664 (Aristot., Protrepticus), 62 POxy 685 (IL), 180,194,232 POxy 686 (Ü), 55,179,194, 232 POxy 687 (II), 180,186,209, 217, 233

688 (il.), 178,194,233, *256 POxy 689 (Hes-,H..), 179,195, 233 POxy

POxy 691 (Ap. Rh.), 55,179, 233 POxy 692 (Ap. Rh.), 178,195, 233

POxy 693 (Soph., EL), 177,195,233,256 POxy 694 (Theoer.), 180,192,233 POxy 695 (Hdt.), 171,193,233 POxy

6 9 6 . See POxy

16+696

365

POxy 698 (Xen., Cyr.), 127,170,189,204,220, 233,*257 POxy 700 (Demosth., de Cor), 43-4,172,193, 233 POxy 702 (Demosth., c. Boeot), 163,192,233 POxy 703 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 141,165,191, 203,221,233 POxy 704 (Isoer., in Soph), 126,144,162,185, 201,217,233 POxy 767 (I/.), 17,61,180,195,233 POxy

8 4 2 (Hellenica Oxyrhynchia),

36

POxy 844 (Isoer., Pan.), 17, 50, 52, 55,61,67, 75,77,83,89,113,131-2,137,167,190,205, 214,220,233,257 POxy 852 (Eur., Hypsipyla), 259 POxy 875+3686 (Soph.,^nf.), 177,186,226, 233,257,337 POxy 877 (Eur., Hec.), 176,194,233,257 POxy 881 (Pl., Euthd), 34,127,164,187,202, 219,233,257-8 POxy 882 (Demosth., inAristog), 44,170,195, 233,258 POxy 883 (Demosth., inAristoa), 172,192,233 POxy 946 (Ü), 180,233,*258 POxy 1016 (PL, Phdr), 44,64 POxy 1017 (PL, Pfcdr.), 44-5,48,50,54-6,67, 75,77,83, 89, 92, 133-4,168, 191, 205,222, 233, $258; pl. 7 POxy 1019+2948 (Chanton), 55,141,172,191, 206,226,233,258-9 POxy 1082 (Cercidas), 61

POxy 1083 (Sophocles?), 62 POxy 1091 (Bacchyl., Dith.), 176,194,226,233, 259 POxy 1092 (Hdt), 20-1,48-9,61,133,137, 162,187,202,213,221,233; pl. 3 POxy

1 0 9 3 P e m o s t h . , c. Boeot), 3 3 , 6 4

POxy 1174+2081 (a)+PapF/or X (Soph., Ichneutai), 29,53, 64,89 POxy 1175 (Soph., Eurypylos), 29,53,64,89 POxy 1176 (Satyrus, vit. Eur), 62 POxy 1177+3714 (Eur., P/wen.), 181,187, 225, 234 POxy 1179 (Ap. Rh.), 180,234 POxy 1181 (Ken., An), 164,234 POxy 1182 Pemosth., de Fais. Leg), 33,64 POxy 1183 (Isoer., Trap.), 67,75,133,137,187, 165,201,214,217,234,259

366

Index of Papyri

POxy 1233 (Alcaeus), 64

POxy 1241 (scholars memoranda?), 62 POxy 1243 (7*. Rh.), 177,195,234,25 9

POxy 1246 (Thuc.), 17,61,166,234,259 POxy 1247 (Thuc.), 61

POxy 1249 (Babrius), 18-19,61,176,195, 234 POxy 1250 (Ach.Tat.), 51-2, 54,65,67,75, 78, 83, 89,127,133, 138,145,170,188, 204,213, 217,234 POxy 1364 (Antiphon Soph.), 24-5,63 POxy 1375 (Hdt.), 62

POxy 1376 (Thuc.), 42,48,50-2,54,67,75, 138,167,192, 205,215,220,234,259-60 POxy 1377 Pemosth., de Cor.), 45,133,138, 172,190, 206, 214,224,234,260 POxy 1604 (Pindar, Ditk), 24,62 POxy 1606 (Lysias, Hippotk), 62

POxy 1619 (Hdt.), 21-2,62,127,141,170,189, 204, 222, 234, £260-2; pl. 2 POxy 1787 (Sappho), 26-7,63 POxy 1788 (Alcaeus?), 24,63 POxy 1805+3687 (Soph., Track). 105,141,176, 188, 209, 218,234, *262-3 POxy 1806 (Theoer., Id.), 26,33,63,123,133-4, 137,179,189,214,225,234, *263 POxy 1808 (PL, Resp.), 5 1 , 6 8 , 1 1 4 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 8 ,

137.163.186, 201,213,220,234, *263; pL 10 POxy 1809 (PL, Phd.), 21,48,61,114,127,137, 141.163.187, 202, 213,220,234, /263 POxy 1810 (Demosth., OL i-üi, Phil, i, de Pac.), 48, 50, 55, 68, 75,141,143,168, 189,204, 219,2344264 POxy 1815 (//.), 93, 97,179,189, 209,218,234, 265 POxy 1819 (Od),

78,137,144,175,186,209,

214,218, 234, */265-6 POxy 2064+3548 (Theoer.), 177,185,209,224, 234,266 POxy 2076 (Sappho), 21,61 POxy 2077 (Soph., NaupliusT), 24-5,63 POxy 2090 ( H e s T h e o g . ) , 179,185,208, 224, 234 POxy 2091 (Hes., Erga), 55,105,141,179,191, 210,218,234,266 POxy 2092 (Pindar, Ol), 39,114,175,190,210, 225,234,266-7 POxy 2093 (Soph., Aj), 105,177,185,209,219, 234

POxy 2094+3445 (Lycophron,Alex), 145,175, 194,217,235 POxy 2095 (Hdt.), 45, 48, 128,141, 171,190, 205,222,235,267 POxy 2096+3374 (Hdt.), 13, 50-1, 54, 68,75, 137, 141,146,168,187, 204, 214, 224, 235, 1267-8 POxy 2097 (Hdt.), 45,138,141,168,191,205, 215,223,235 POxy 2098 (Hdt.), 48,51,68,75,78, 93,97, 137,141,166,188,202,214,224, 235,268; pL 11 POxy 2099 (Hdt.), 141,163,191,203, 221,235, 268 POxy 2100+3891+4109 (Thuc.), 31,48, 50,52, 54,64,68,75,78,84,132,137,145,165,188, 202,214,221,235,268-9 POxy 2101 (Xen., Cyr), 37-8, 45-6, 51-2,68, 75,78, 84,89,113,132, 137,165, 187, 201, 213,220,235,269-70; pl. 8 POxy 2102+PTurner 1 (PL, Phdr), 46, 54, 69,75, 78,84, 89,94,97-8,114,126,127-8,132-3, 137,163,186,201,213,223,235, 270; pl. 9 POxy 2103 (Gaius, Inst), 270

2159 (Aesch., Glaukos Ponüos), 61,128 2160+PSIXI 1210 (Aesch., Glaukos Potnieus), 61,128,286

POxy POxy

POxy 2161-+PSJXI

1209 (Aesch., Diktyoulkoi),

18-19,61,96,128,286 POxy 2162 (Aesch.,Theoroi or Isthmiastai), 18-19, 61,96, 128,286 POxy 2163 (Aesch., Myrmidones), 61, 128, 286

POxy 2164 (Aesch., Xantriai), 61,128, 286

POxy 2178 (Aesch.,Ag), 18-19, 61,128,175, 235 POxy 2179 (Aesch., Sept.), 18-19, 61,128,175,

195,235, *271 POxy 2180+PS! 11.1192 (Soph., OT), 145,175, 185,209,221,235, t271 POxy 2181 (PL, Phd), 7,13, 4 8 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 2 , 1 3 8 ,

172,190,206,214,219,235, *$271-4; pl. 13 POxy 2 2 1 3 (Callim.,Aitia ), 63

2223 (Eur., Bacch), 78,132,137,142,177, 187,209,213,218,235 POxy 2224+3152 (Eur., Hipp), 137,176,189, 210,213,218,235,274 POxy 2225 (Callim., Hymn), 137,176,189,210, 214,225,235 POxy

Index of Papyri

POxy 2226 (Callim., Hymn), 129,180,186,208, 224,235 POxy 2245 (Aesch., Prometheus?), 18-19,61,96, 128; pi. 12 POxy 2247 (Aesch.?), 61,128 POxy 2248 (Aesch., Semele or Hydrophoroi), 61, 128 POxy 2250 (Aesch.,Theoroi or Isthmiastai), 61, 128 POxy 2251 (Aesch.?), 61,128 POxy 2252 (Aesch., Prometheus Pyrkaios), 61, 128

2253 POxy 2254 POxy 2255 POxy 2258 POxy 2260 POxy 2288 POxy 2297

POxy

(Aesch., iph), 61,128 (Aesch.?), 61,128 (Aesch.?), 61,128 (Callim., codex), 62 (commentary on verse), 62 (Sappho), 21,61 (Alcaeus), 20-1,61

POxy 2301 (Alcaeus?), 62

2302 (Alcaeus), 62 2306 (commentary on Alcaeus), 62 POxy 2307 (commentary on Alcaeus), 64 POxy 2313 (Archilochus), 21-2,62 POxy 2318 (Ionic trimeters), 23, 62 POxy 2321 (Anacreon), 22-3,62 POxy 2327 (Simonides), 23,62 POxy 2333 (Aesch., Sept.), 137,185,179,208, 214.224.235.274 POxy 2334 (Aesch., Sept.), 180,187,208, 221, 235.274 POxy 2335 ( E u r . , A n d r ) , 78,84,132,138,141, 145,175,186,209,213,218,235, *274-5 POxy 2336 (Eur., Hel), 175,185, 209,220,235, 275 POxy 2337 (Eur., Aferf.). 175,186, 209, 218, 235, 275 POxy 2368 (commentary on Bacchylides?), 62 POxy 2373 (Boeotian lyric), 17-18, 61 POxy 2389+3210 (commentary on Alcman), 23, 62 POxy 2397 (commentary on +), 17,23,62 POxy 2402 (Aristot., Eth. Nie.), 94,97-8,165, 236.275 POxy 2403 (Aristot., Cat.), 170,193,236, J275 POxy 2404+PLaur III/278 (Aeschin., in Ctes.), 17-18,43,61,126,137,146,162,185,201, 213.223.236.275

POxy

POxy

367

2427 (Epicharmus), 63 2430 (Simonides), 23,62 POxy 2441 (Pindar, Prosodia?), 63 POxy 2442 (Pindar, Hymns, etc.), 26-7,63 POxy 2443 (Alcman), 24,63 POxy 2445 (Pmdar?), 24,62 POxy 2446 (Pindar, Hyporch), 24,63 POxy 2452 (Soph, or Eur., Theseus), 24-5, 63 POxy 2453 (Soph., Polyidos or Manteis), 62 POxy 2466(+3319?) (Sesonchosis romance), 278,64 POxy 2467 (Menander, Dyi.), 181, 236 POxy 2468 (Pl., Pol.), 166,188,203,222,236, 275-6 POxy 2481 (Hes., Cat.), 65 POxy 2485 (Hes., Cat.), 30-1,64 POxy 2495 (Hes., Cat), 25,63,144 POxy 2497 (Hes., Cat), 63 POxy 2540 (I/.), 179,195,236 POxy 2541 (II), 111, 194,236,*276 POxy 2542 (7/.), 175,193,236,276 POxy 2543 (Eur., Andr), 176,193,236,276 POxy 2545 (Anstoph., Eq), 175,195, 236 POxy 2546 (Manetho, Afraf.), 138,179,190, 209,214,217,236 POxy 2548 (Demosth., in Tim), 29-30,64,162, 236 POxy 2549 (Demosth., Ep),29-30,64,195,236 POxy 2550 (Lycurg., in Leocr), 127,163,187, 202,222,236 POxy 2630 (choral lyric), 27-8, 64 POxy 2638 (Hes.,T/ie^.), 176,185,226,236, 338 POxy POxy

POxy 2639+PS7 XI 1191 (Hes., Theog), 30-1,

55, 64,141,176, 189, 226, 236, 276 2640 (Hes., Theog), 178,236

POxy POxy

2 6 4 1 (Hes.,Theog),

236, 276 POxy 2642 POxy 2643 277 POxy 2645 POxy 2646 POxy 2648 POxy 2649 POxy 2651 POxy 2662 POxy 2663

5 5 , 1 4 1 , 1 7 8 , 1 9 2 , 2 2 6,

( H e s T h e o g ) , 178,236,276-7

(Hes., Theog),

178,186,225,236,

(Hes., Theog), 179,193,236 (Hes.,77îe^.), 176,236,277 (Hes., 178,192,236,277 (Hes., Theog), 179,195,236 (Hes., 7 7 ^ . ) , 178,236 (PL, Meno), 172,193,236,277 (PL, Cm.), 162,236

368

Index of Papyri

POxy

2 6 9 1 (7*. R h . ) , 178» 195» 2 3 6

2692 (7*. Rh.), 178,237 POxy 2693 (7*. Rh.), 22-3,62,175,194,237, 277 POxy 2694 (Ap. Rh.), 62,123 POxy 2695 (Ap. Rh.), 141,177,191,210,226, 237,*277-8, 338 POxy 2696 (Ap. Rh.), 177,195,237,278 POxy 2697 (Ap. Rh.), 177,186,224,237,278 POxy 2698 (Ap. Rh.), 179,192,237 POxy 2699 (Ap. Rh.), 137,188,213,225,237, 278 POxy 2700 (Ap. Rh.), 141,179,194,237 POxy

POxy 2701 (Ap. Rh.), 179,194,237,27 9

2703 (Ap. Rh.), 168,195,237 2742 (commentary on old comedy), 62 POxy 2748 (IL), 179,186,208,225,237,279 POxy 2749 (Thuc.), 48, 52,63,69,126,164, 186,201,223,237,279 POxy 2750 (Xen., Cyr.), 37-8,113,170,193, 237,*279 POxy 2751 (Pl., Resp.), 69,76,127, 168,188, 204,221,237,^279-80 POxy 2806 (old comedy), 64 POxy 2829 (Menander, E p i t ) , 177,187,224, 237,280 POxy 2830 (Menander, Pfe.), 175,193,237 POxy 2831 (Menander, Sam.), 177,237,280 POxy 2889 (Aeschin. Soc.,Miltiades), 24-5,63, 96 POxy 2945 (Ap. Rh.), 180,193,237 POxy 2946 (Triphiodorus), 55,176,195, 237 POxy 2948. See POxy 1019+2948 POxy 3008 (anon, prose), 63 POxy 3151 (Soph., 4/tfx Loaus), 63 POxy 3152. See POxy 2224+3152 POxy 3153 (Eur., Pfcoen.), 176,192,237 POxy 3154 (I/.), 141,176,188,210,225,237 POxy 3155 (17.), 105,141-2,144,176,192,210, 217,237 POxy 3156+3669 (Pl., Gotg.), 48,55-6,63,127, 146,169,189,204,224,237,280 POxy 3213 (Doric lyric), 20-1, 61 POxy 3215 (tragedy), 24-5,63 POxy 3220 (Hes., Erga, Asp), 25, 63,141,144, 178,190,226,237 POxy 3221 (Hes., Erga), 119,237 POxy 3222 (Hes., Erga), 178,237,280 POxy POxy

POxy 3223 (Hes., Erga), 141,144,175,191,210, 217,237 POxy 3224 (Hes., Erga), 179,237 POxy 3225 (Hes., Erga), 111, 237 POxy 3226 (Hes., Ega), 177,185, 226, 238,338 POxy 3227 (Hes., Erga), 180,188, 208, 225,238 POxy 3228 (Hes., Erga), 178,193, 238 POxy 3229 (Hes., Erga), 181,185,208, 224,238, 280 POxy 3230 (Hes., Erga), 179,189, 238,280 POxy 3231 (Hes., Erga), 111, 195,238 POxy 3232 (Hes.,/bp.), 177, 238 POxy 3233 (Isocr.,^4«ijJ.), 46, 48,167,194,225, 238,339 POxy 3234+3883 (Thuc.), 48,170,195,238, 280 POxy 3322 (Eur., Phoen), 138,177, 192, 210, 214,219,238 POxy 3323 (II), 141,144,179, 191, 210,219, 238,281 POxy 3324 (Meleager), 178,185, 209, 238 POxy 3325 (Moschus, Megara), 6, 26, 33, 63,180, 186,208,224,238 POxy 3326 (PL, Resp), 114,127,137,163,187, 202,214,221,238,281 POxy 3327 (Thuc,), 113,126,146,186,162, 201,224,238 POxy 3372 (Hdt.), 47-8,141,192,169,205, 222,238,281 POxy 3373 (Hdt.), 141,163,190, 203, 222, 238 POxy 3374. See POxy 2096+3374

POxy 3375 (Hdt.), 141,167,190, 205,223,238 POxy 3376 (Hdt.), 32, 47, 64, 94, 97,123,128, 141,165,190,203,222,238, 281 POxy 3377 (Hdt.), 48-9,167,195, 238 POxy 3378 (Hdt.), 162, 238 POxy 3379 (Hdt.), 168, 238 POxy 3380 (Hdt.), 165, 238 POxy 3381 (Hdt.), 47-8,169, 238 POxy 3382 (Hdt.), 128,141,165,191, 203,219, 238 POxy 3383 (Hdt.), 128,141,171,191,205,220, 238,281 POxy 3435 (Demosth., Ol i), 48,126,137,1434,169,186, 203, 213, 217,238, 281-2 POxy 3436 (Dinarchus, in Dem), 31, 43, 64,78, 84,128,163,188,202,238

Index of Papyri

POxy 3437 Pemosth., in Phil), 31,54,64,69, 76,89,128,132,138,163,189,202,214, 238 POxy 3438 (JR.), 180,194,239 POxy 3439 (II), 180,193,239 POxy 3440 (77.), 141,178,190,225,239,282 POxy 3441 (Od.), 178,193,239 POxy 3442 (Od.), 89,141,144,178,191, 210, 217,239,282 POxy 3443 (Od.), 55,89,141,178,190,210, 225,239 POxy 3444 (Isocrates, Ev), 133,138,171,187, 205,213,225,239,282 POxy 3446 (Lycophron, Alex), 175,239 POxy 3447 (Strabo), 69,76,78,84,95,97-8, 113,127,137,169,189,204,215,223, 239, $282 POxy 3448 (Thuc.), 170,195, 239 POxy 3449 (Thuc.), 169,193,239 POxy 3450+3885+PGe« 2+PRy/ 3.548+PKoeln 7.304 (Thuc., codex), 64 POxy 3451 (Thuc.), 48,141,146,166,188,202, 223,239, $283-4 POxy 3532 (Gnomai?),63 POxy 3541 (Menander, Epitr.), 63 POxy 3545 (Theoer.), 175,239 POxy 3546 (Theoer.), 177,239 POxy 3547 (Theocr.), 178,195,239,284 POxy 3548. See POxy 2064+3548 POxy 3549 (Theocr.), 176,195,239 POxy 3550 (Theocr.), 6,92,180,187,224,239, 339 POxy 3552 (Theocr.), 95,97-8,180,194, 239, 284 POxy 3659 (anon, satire), 63 POxy 3661 (77.), 175,193,239 POxy 3662 (77.), 180,196,239 POxy 3663 (77.), 79,89,131,133,137,152,180, 188,208,213,218,239,284 POxy 3664 (Isocrates, Paneg), 169,193,239 POxy 3666+PHarr 1.12 (VI,Ale. i), 38,141, 164, 190,218, 239, *284—5 POxy 3667 (LI.,H/c. ii), 128,142,172,190,206, 217,239,285 POxy 3668 (Pl., Ep), 165,196,239 POxy 3669. See POxy 3156+3669 POxy 3670 (Pl., Hp.Ma), 55,164,196,239 POxy 3671 (Pl., Lac/i.), 167,190,205,226,239, 285,339

369

POxy 3672 (Pl., Leg), 114,127,163,187,202, 222,239,285 POxy 3673 (Pl., Le^.), 57,138,167,188,204, 213.219.239 POxy 3674 (Pl., Leg), 63,164,192,239 POxy 3675 (Pl., Le£.), 13,62,142,164,189,202, 218,240,285-6 POxy 3676 (Pl., P/id.), 20-1,48,61,69,162, 188,202,220,240; pl. 4 POxy 3677 (Pl., Phdr), 61,164,240,286 POxy 3678 (Pl., Phlb), 114,163,240 POxy 3679 (PL, Pesp.), 54,127,170,189,204, 218,240 POxy 3680 (Pl., Tht), 165,196,240 POxy 3681 (PL,77*.), 170,196,240 POxy 3682 (Pl., TT*.), 171,193,240,286 POxy 3683 (PL [or Lucian or Leon], Hak), 24-5, 63,162,240,286-7 POxy 3684 (Plut., Lyc), 169,196,240,287 POxy 3685 (Plut., Sept. sap. com), 113,126,162, 185,201,219,240 POxy 3686. See POxy 875+3686 POxy 3687. See POxy 1805+3687 POxy 3710 (commentary on Od.), 20-1,61; pl. 5 POxy 3712 (Eur., P/ioe«.), 178,193,240,287 POxy 3713 (Eur., Phoen), 175,196,240,287 POxy 3715 (Eur., P/ioe«.), 240 POxy 3716 (Eur., Or.), 92,176,188,209,220, 240 POxy 3717 (Eur., Or.), 176,240 POxy 3719 (Eur., Iph.Aul), 142,176,191,210, 218,240 POxy 3721 (Theophr., de Vent), 69,76,89,137, 168,189,204,214,218,240 POxy 3725 (Nicarchus II), 65 POxy 3825 (77.), 177,186,226,240, *287-8 POxy 3827 (77.), 177,191,226,240,288 POxy 3828 (Od.), 144,176,185,209,217, 240 POxy 3836 (Ach.Tat.), 142,145,166,191,203, 217,240,288 POxy 3837 (Ach.Tat.), 65,127,145,170,187, 204,217,240,289 POxy 3838 (Aesch., PV), 176,240,289 POxy 3839 (Aristoph.,I7ie5m.), 27,64,142,180, 185,208,224,240,289 POxy 3840 (Aristoph., Thesm), 175,240 POxy 3841 pemosth., adv. Lept), 128,171,190, 205.218.240

370

Index of Papyri

3842 (Demosth., adv. Lept), 142,165,189, 202,219,240,289 @/"A 3843 Pemosth., adv. Lept.), 289 @/"A 3844 (Demosth., adv. Lept.), 170,196,241 POxy 3846 Pemosth., in Meid.), 170,194,241, $289-90 POxy 3847 Pemosth., in Meid.), 164,241,*290 POxy 3848 (Demosth., in Meid.), 48,172,193, 241 POxy 3849 Pemosth., in Meid.), 48,170,193, 241,290 POxy 3850 (Demosth., in Meid.), 142,172,189, 206,225,241,290-1 POxy 3851 (Nicander, Ther.), 178,241 POxy 3877 (Thuc.), 142,145,171,190,205, 225,241,291 POxy 3878 (Thuc.), 172,241,291 POxy 3879 (Thuc.), 51,69,137,166,192,203, 215,223,241,291 POxy 3880 (Thuc.), 165,241

POxy

POxy 3881 (Thuc.), 1 0 1 , 1 6 7 , 1 9 4 , 2 4 1

POxy 3882+PS/11.1195 (Thuc.), 27-8,48,64, 132,138,172,188,206,213,223,241 POxy 3883. See POxy 3234+3883

3884 (Thuc.), 165, 241 3885. See POxy 3450 POxy 3886 (Thuc.), 167,241 POxy 3887 (Thuc.), 169,241,291 POxy 3888 (Thuc.), 48,171,189,204,223,241, 291-2 POxy 3889 (Thuc.), 48,172,187,205,222,241, *292 POxy 3890 (Thuc.), 241,292

POxy POxy

POxy

3 8 9 1 . See POxy

2100+3891+4109

3892 (Thuc.), 163,196,241 POxy 3893 (Thuc.), 171, 241,292 POxy 3894 (Thuc.), 27-8, 64,171,241 POxy 3895 (Thuc.), 48,126,170,185, 203,224, 241,292 POxy 3896 (Thuc.), 48,92,168,191,205,221, 241,292 POxy 3897 (Thuc.), 92,165,192,241 POxy 3898 (Thuc.), 170,196,241 POxy 3899 (Thuc.), 164,193,241,293 POxy 3900 (Thuc.), 168,188,204,223,241, *293

POxy

POxy 3901+PYale 2.99 (Thuc.), 137,168,191 ,

205,215,222,241, *293

POxy

4013+PKoeln

6.252 (Eur.,

Or.),

177,

241 POxy 4014 (Eur., Or.), 1 7 6 , 1 9 2 , 2 4 2 POxy 4015 (Eur., Or.), 176,24 2 POxy 4016 (Eur., Or.), 1 7 9 , 1 9 2 , 2 4 2

4027 (Aeschin., in Tim.), 47-8,101,172, 242,293 POxy 4028 (Aeschin., in Tim.), 169,187,204, 220, 242 POxy 4030 (Aeschin., in Tim.), 50,51, 54, 56-7, 70, 76, 79, 84, 89,132,165,188,202,219, 242,293-4

POxy

POxy 4031 (Aeschin., in Tim.), 1 6 6 , 2 4 2 , 2 9 4

4032 (Aeschin., in Tim.), 171,188, 206, 221,242 POxy 4033+4034 (Aeschin., in Tim.), 95, 97-8, 165,189,202, 220,242,294-6 POxy 4035 (Aeschin., Fais. Leg.), 126,137,166, 185,201,213,222,242, *296 POxy 4036 (Aeschin., Fais. Leg.), 171,242 POxy 4037 (Aeschin., Fais. Leg.), 167,196,242 POxy 4038 (Aeschin., Fais. Leg.), 166,192,242 POxy 4039 (Aeschin., in Ctes.), 171,189,204, 225,242 POxy 4040 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 166,242,296 POxy 4041 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 79,126,133-4, 164,186, 201,223,242,296 POxy 4042 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 167,191,203, 221,242,296 POxy 4043 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 165,196, 242, 296 POxy 4044 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 48,167,191, 203,223,242,296 POxy 4045+4053 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 48,70, 164, 189, 202, 221, 242,296-7 POxy 4047+4051 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 70,126, 132,163,185, 201,224,242,297 POxy 4048 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 166,196, 242 POxy 4050 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 166,242, 297 POxy 4051. See POxy 4047 POxy 4052 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 168,242 POxy 4053. See POxy 4045 POxy 4054 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 167,196, 242, 297 POxy 4055 (Aeschin., in Ctes), 95,97-8,166, 188,202,225,242,297-8 POxy 4100 (Thuc.), 142,167, 190, 204,225, 242,298

POxy

Index of Papyri

@/"A 4101 (Thuc.), 172, 243

@/"A 4102 (Thuc.), 171,192,243, 298 @/"A 4103 (Thuc.), 168, 196, 243 @/"A 4104 (Thuc.), 162» 243

LS2) 4107 (Thuc.), 137,163,187,202, 214, 243, $298 LS2) 4108 (Thuc.), 48,167,196,243 @/"A 4110 (Thuc), 162,196, 243 @/"A 4111 (Thuc.), 166,191,203,222, 243 @/"A 4112 (Thuc.), 170,196, 243 @/"A

4 3 1 4 P e m o s t h . , Ol ii, iii, Phil i), 1 4 3

@/"A 4501 (epigrams), 65 @/"A

4502 (Nicarchus II), 65

@/"A ined. (7*. R h . ) , 6 2 , 6 3

(Aratus), 62 (Demosth., adv. Lept.), $268 @/"A ined. (Hdt. 2,4,7), 62

@/"A

ined.

@/"A

ined.

@/"A

ined. ( H d t . 3), 6 1

13-14), 62

@/"A

ined. (II.

@/"A

ined. (0. 2), 6 4

(Lycophron), 62 (Pindar), 62 @/"A ined. (Pindar, Pyth.), 63 @/"A

ined.

@/"A

ined.

POxyHels

1.3(4). See MP 879 PPetr 1.5—8. See MP 1388

PPetr

PPetr 2.50. See M P 1409 PRyl 1.60. See M P 1 4 3 3 PRyl 3 . 5 4 7 . See @/"A PRyl

224

3.548. See POxy 3450

PSI 2.119. See POxy 454

PSI 11.1090 (Erinna), 17,61 PSI 11.1195. See POxy 3882 PSI 11.1197. See POxy 226

PSI 11.1202 PSI 11.1206 PSI 11.1208 PSI 11.1211 PS/13.1301 PSI 13.1302

PSÏ 14.1390 (Euphonon), 61 PS/ 14.1391 (commentary on choral lyric), 61 PSI 15.1478 (7*. Rh.), 98 PSI 17 Congr. 8. See POxy 226 PSI 17 Ccw^r. 12 Pemosth., Phil iv), 27,64 PSI Od. 5 (Od.), 98 PSILaur inv. 19662v - CPF 3 (document, list of books), 144 PTebt 1.4. See M P 6 3 2

2.265. See MP 650 2.266. See MP 883 PTebt 2.267. See MP 298 PTebt 2.431. See MP 1099 PTebt 2.432. See MP 1156 PTebt 2.682 See MP 1563.1 PTebt 2.683. See MP 388.1 PTebt 2.684. See MP 1355.1 PTebt 3.696. See MP 1022 PTebt 3.697. See MP 1056 PTebt 3.898. See MP 619 PTebt 3.899. See MP 773 PTefo 3.900. See MP 991

PTebt

PTebt

PTebtTait 38. See M P 6 9 2 . 1

PKmdofc G257. See MP 1552

6 (Od.) 6 2

Pemosth., inApk), 62 (Lysias, Epitaph.), 62 (Aesch., Niobe), 61 (Aesch., Myrmidones), 62 (Hes., Cdf.), 65 (Eur.^/towene), 63

371

PVindob PVindob PVindob PVindob PVindob PVindob

G2316. See M P 1255 Gl9768. See M P 832 G24568. See M P 1552 G26010. See M P 1551 G26746. See M P 1039 G26752. See M P 914

PKmdofc G26753. See MP 852 PVindob G26754-60. See MP 1039 PVindob G29283. See M P 1551 PVindob G29768. See M P 1238

PWmfob G29781. See MP 1552 PVindob G29782. See M P 1551 PYale 1.8. See M P 7 8 5 . 1

PYij/e 1.10. See MP 863.1 PYale I A3. See M P 9 9 5 . 1 PYale

2.99. See POxy 3901

This page intentionally left blank

STUDIES IN BOOK AND P R I N T CULTURE General editor: Leslie H o w s a m Bill Bell, et al., Where Is Book History? Essays in the Emergence of a Discipline Hazel Bel1, Indexes and Indexing in Fact and Fiction Heather Murray, Come, bright Improvement! The Literary Societies of Nineteenth-Century

Ontario

Joseph A. Dane, The Myth of Print Culture: Essays on Evidence, Textuality, and Bibliographical Method William A. Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in

Oxyrhynchus

Christopher J. Knight, Uncommon Readers: Dennis Donoghue, Frank Kermode, George Steiner, and the Tradition of the Common

Reader

Eva H e m m u n g s Wirten, No Trespassing:Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of

Globalization

Siân C chard and Stephen Partridge, eds, The Book Unbound: Editing and Reading Medieval Manuscripts and Texts

This page intentionally left blank

ILLUSTRATIONS

This page intentionally left blank

1

POxy

231 (Cambr.Add. Ms. 4050). Demosthenes,

2

POxy

1619. Frr. 9 - 1 1 . H e r o d o t u s 3 . 2 6 - 7 2 . Scribe # A 7 .

3

@/"A

1092 (Bodl. Ms. Gr. Class. d.ll4(P)). H e r o d o t us 2.154-75. Scribe #A5.

4

POxy 3676. Plato, Phaedo 107d-10a. Scribe #A5.

5

@/"A

3710. Commentary on

6

POxy

26

7

POxy

1017 (BM inv. 2048). Cols. 1-6. Plato, Phaedrus

8

@/"A

2101. Xenophon,

9

POxy

2102. Col. 1-6. Plato, Phaedrus 242d-4b.

(BM inv. 744).Top

Odyssey o f cols.

Cyropaedia

de Corona

227-9. Scribe #A7.

20. Scribe #A5. 1-5. D e m o s t h e n e s ,

1.4.15-21,

Exordia 2 6 - 9 . Scribe # B 2 .

238c-40b.

1.6.3.

10 POxy 1808. Plato, Respublica 8.546b-7d. 11 POxy 2098. Col. 10. Herodotus 7.168-73. 12

POxy

2245. Col. 2. Aeschylus, Prometheus

13

POxy 2181. Frr. 29,30,34. Plato, Phaedo 101d-2d, 104a-c.

14 MP 163 (BM inv. 131 verso). Cols. 15 MP 1234 (337+1234 = 16 MP 1233 pro 17

(PlondLit

PlondUt

Purkaieus

12-16. Aristotle,

or

Purphoros.

Athenaiôn

134+130). Fr. 15b, cols.

1-9.

Politeia.

Hyperides,

in

Philippidem.

132). The Arden papyrus. Cols. 14-22. End of Hyperides, pro Lycophrone and start of

Euxenippo.

MP 1233

(PlondLit

132).The Arden papyrus. Cols. 29-37. Hyperides, pro

18 POxy 223. Cols. 1-6. Homer, Iliad 5.1-153.

Euxenippo.

This page intentionally left blank

1 .POxy 231 (Cambr.Add. Ms. 4050). Demosthenes, de Corona 227-9. Scribe #A7.

!"#$ 1619. Frr. 9-11. Herodotus 3.26-72. Scribe # A 7 .

3. POxy 1092 (Bodl Ms. Gr. Class. d.ll4(P)). Herodotus 2.154-75. Scribe #A5 .

•I. POxy 3676. IMato, Phaedo 107d-10a. Scribe #A5. 5. POxy 3710. Commentary on Odyssey 20. Scribe #A5. (Opposite)

POxy 26 (BM inv. 744) Top of cols. 1 - 5 . Demosthenes, Exordia 2 6 - 9 . Scribe # B 2 .

7. !"#$ 1017 (13M inv. 2048) Cols. 1 - 6 . Plato, Phaedrus 238c-40b. (On next page)

8. !"#$ 2101. Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.4.15-21, 1.6.3.

9. !"#$ 2102. Col. 1—6. Plato, Phaedrus 242d-4b. Arrows mark ruling dots along the edge of col. 3. (On next page)

10. POxy 1808. Plato, Respublica 8.546b-7d.

11.

2 0 9 8 . C o : , 10. H e r o d o t u s /. 1 6 8 - 7 3 . A r r o w s m a r k r u l i n g dots.

12. !"#$ 2245. Col. 2. Aeschylus, Prometheus Purkaieus or Purphoros. Arrows mark ruling dots.

13. POxy 2181. Frr. 29,30, 34. Plato, Phaedo 101d-2d, 104a-c.

14. M F 163 (BM inv. 131 verso). Cols. 12-16. Aristotle, Athenaiôn Politeia. Reduced by

15. M P 1234 (337+1234 = PLondLit 134+130). Fr. 15b, cols. 1 - 9 . Hyperides, in Philippidem.

16. M P 1233 (PLondLit 132).The Arden papyrus. Cols. 14-22. End of Hyp er ides, pro Lycophrone and start of pro Euxenippo. Arrows mark ruling dots and synkollêsis. Reduced by 10%. (foldout 1) 17. M P 1233 (PLondLit 132).The Arden papyrus. Cols. 29-37. Hyperides, pro Euxenippo. Arrows mark ruling dots and kollêseis. Reduced by 10%. (foldout 2) 18. P O x y 223. Cols. 1 - 6. Homer, Iliad 5.1-153. (Colorized composite image from black and white photographs.) Kollesis pulled apart at left of col. 1 Reduced by 25%. (foldout 3)