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