| Southport : Original Sources in Exploration |
|
|
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vol. I Bernard S. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt (Eds.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Classical Fragments: Nos. 7-13 (AD 50-ca. 300 AD) [1]
______________________________________________________________
No. 7 Sappho. 19.7 x 9.6 cm. 3rd c. AD
Plate II: Papyrus with fragments of the 7th c BC poets Sappho and Alcman.
Charaxus
(Hdt. ii. 135; Strab. xvii. p. 808;
Athen. xiii. p. 596; Suid. vv. Αἴσωπος and ᾿Ιάδμων, and especially
Ovid, Her. xv. 63 sqq., 117), who was a trader in Lesbian wines,
conceived a violent passion for the famous courtesan, Rhodopis, then a
slave at Naucratis. He went to Egypt, ransomed her, and spent all his
substance on her maintenance. When he returned to Lesbos, Sappho gave
vent to her indignation in verse. Charaxus, if we may believe Ovid, was
on his side not less incensed, and resumed his occupation as a
trader, rejecting all the subsequent advances made by Sappho for a
reconciliation. We conceive the fragment to be one of these vain
appeals offering to forget the past.
Fig.7: Greek text of Papyrus 7, part of a poem by Sappho (7th c. BC).
Translation:
‘Sweet Nereids, grant to me
That home unscathed my brother may return,
And every end, for which his soul shall yearn,
Accomplished see!
And thou, immortal Queen,
Blot out the past, that thus his friends may know
Joy, shame his foes,—nay rather, let no foe
By us be seen!
And may he have the will
To me his sister some regard to show,
To assuage the pain he brought, whose cruel blow
My soul did kill,
Yea, mine, for that ill name
Whose biting edge, to shun the festal throng
Compelling, ceased awhile; yet back ere long
To goad us came.’
Notes:
1. The poem probably began with an invocation to Aphrodite, who no doubt is the goddess addressed in 5, ἄμβροτε.
3. Cf. Sappho i. 17 κῶττε μοι μάλιστα θέλω γένεσθαι μαινόλᾳ θύμῳ, and i. 26 ὄσσα δέ μοι τέλεσσαι θῦμος ἱμέρρει.
5. πP]OCθ’: i.e. her quarrel with Charaxus about Rhodopis. In the next line Charaxus is the subject of γένεσθαι.
6. The only other place where the digamma is found in a papyrus is in the Paris fragment of Alcman, 6.
10.
The restoration of this stanza is much more difficult than that of the
preceding two. ὀνίαν λύγραν can be accusative singular or genitive
plural. Blass prefers the latter alternative, making dros agree with
it. There is but one instance for ὅτου, ὅτῳ etc. used with a feminine
antecedent, Eurip. /p4. 1 Zaur. 1071 μητρὸς πατρός τε καὶ τέκνων ὅτῳ
κυρεῖ, a verse which Dindorf cancels. For πάροιθ᾽ ἀχεύων, πάροιθα χεύων
could be read, but with what sense?
12. EDA]MNA: cf. Sapph. i. 3 μήτ᾽ ὀνίαισι δάμνα, πότνια, θῦμον.
13-14.
There is no instance of κῆρ in Aeolic; Pindar has the form κέαρ, but fp
in place of ἔαρ is an Aeolic spelling. The ὀνείδισμα is of course
Charaxus’ relations with Rhodopis.
ΕΓ XPQ: cf. Soph. Ajax 786 ξυρεῖ γὰρ ἐν χρῷ τοῦτο μὴ χαίρειν τινά, κέρρονΞΞ κεῖρον. ἔλλειν (εἴλει»)ΞΞ κατέχειν, Hesych.(p.13)
14.
ἐπὶ ἀγλαΐᾳ πολίταν : the meaning is that Charaxus was unable to take
part in the festivities of the citizens owing to the reproach he had
incurred.
15. δαῦτε, Or δηὖτε, ‘again’ is common in Sappho, e.g. i. 15.
18-19.
The arian of the fragment containing the letters ἸΛΥΓΙ, .]P€ and
]NAKAKAN[ is doubtful. νυκτὶ... κατ]θεμ[ἐν]α " burying in darkness.
______________________________________________________________
No. 8 Alcman? 6.1 x 10.9 cm. 1st-2nd c. AD (p.13)
Fragment
containing seven hexameter lines, four of them practically complete.
The paragraphus accompanied by a marginal flourish at line 4 marks the
beginning of a new poem, as it does in the Bacchylides papyrus. The
dialect is a mixture of Aeolic and Doric such as is found in Alcman, to
whom Blass would attribute the authorship of the fragment.
The Aeolic
forms are the a: and ot in παίσαι and éxoloa (cf. ἐνθοίσα in the Paris
fragment of Alcm. 73), the doubling of the μ in ἔμματα, and -ομεν
instead of -opes in ἤνθομεν. The form -opes is indeed found in the
Paris fragment 10, παρήσομες ; but ἤνθομες és would have produced an
intolerable cacophony.
Doric forms are the v for A in ἤνθομεν, ἐάσσαι,
ποτεοικότας ; and all the accents used are Doric. The digamma is once
retained—though not written—but thrice dropped. In the fragments of
Alcman’s lyric poems it is often neglected, as it is by the Lesbian
poets, but there is not enough left of his hexameters to show what
principle he followed in them. Accents, apostrophes marking elision,
and marks of quantity are used occasionally, as in the Sappho fragment.
The papyrus is written in a small neat round uncial of the latter part
of the first or of the second century.
Fig.8: Greek text of Papyrus 8, probably by Alcman (7th c. BC).
Translation:
Line 4
sqq. "We came to great Demeter’s fane, we nine, All maidens, all in
goodly raiment clad: In goodly raiment clad, with necklets bright Of
carven ivory, that shone like [snow]."
Notes:
2. The doubtful € at the end of
the line might be 6.
3. Blass suggests [P]HNATI, i.e. Ῥηναίᾳ or Ῥηνείᾳ.
Either JTIT[ or ΓΙ Τί is possible.
5-6.
For the variation in the quantity of καλά cf. Theocr. vi. 19 τὰ μὴ καλὰ
καλὰ πέφανται.
7. πριστοῦ ἐλέφαντος is Homeric; cf. Od. xviii. 196;
xix. 564. Blass would read the last word of this line AIT[AAI, the next
line commencing (e.g.) λευκοτάτας χιόνος. But if the third letter is Γ
there should be some trace of the vertical stroke, which there is not;
and therefore T or, less probably, Π are preferable. AIT[NAC does not
seem very suitable, though cf. Pind. Pysh. i. 38 νιφόεσσ᾽ Αἴτνα,
mdveres χιόνος ὀξείας τιθήνα. Possibly the word is AIT[€ or AIT [ωN.
______________________________________________________________
No. 9 Aristoxenus PYOMIKA CTOIXEIA 22.7 x 43.5 cm early 3rd c. AD (p.14)
The
following text is a fragment of a treatise upon metre. Parts of five
columns are preserved; but of these the first has but a few letters at
the ends of the lines, and although the following three are practically
complete so far as they go, the last only has its full complement of
lines. Enough however remains to give a fairly connected sense; and to
leave little doubt that the writer was the chief authority of antiquity
upon this subject, Aristoxenus of Tarentum.
Of his principal
work on metrical theory, the ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα in three books, the
beginning of the second book has been preserved ; and stylistic,
linguistic and technical affinities all tend to show that our fragment
belongs to this treatise. The ‘Aristoxenian Cretic,’ for instance (cf.
Schol. Hephaest. p- 173, Gaisf.), consisting of a double trochee—the
converse of the δάκτυλος κατ᾽ ἴαμβον or double iambus, cf. Col. V.
12—figures at the beginning of Col. II. As a peculiarity in language
the preference of ξ to o in the spelling of σύν and its compounds,
which is traceable in all that survives of Aristoxenus and is
particularly prominent in the present text, calls for special mention.
Other points of contact will be noted as they occur. When to such
considerations is added the general resemblance in style—which is more
to he felt than described—the identification assumes, if not certainty,
at least a high degree of probability.
Plate III: Papyrus with fragments of a treatise by Aristoxenus.
These quotations form one of the chief
features of interest in the fragment. They have a common feature in
their Dionysiac character, which suggests that they were derived from
Dithyrambs or Satyric Dramas. In Column IV the paeon is treated of in
reference to the resolution of long into short syllables; but the
connexion of (p.15) this discussion with what precedes and follows is
obscured by the mutilation of the papyrus. In the fifth Column the
question is the admissibility of the forms discussed in Columns II and
III om v -and - vu =v) in dactylic and anapaestic metres.
The
script of this papyrus is a clear, upright uncial (cf. the accompanying
facsimile of Columns IV and V), which we should assign to the first
half of the third century. This date is indicated not only by the
character of the hand itself, but also by a semi-uncial document (pp.
77 sqq.) on the verso, which can hardly be later than about the year
320. A number of corrections have been made in the manuscript by a
second, though not much later, hand, to which is due the single accent
that occurs (III. 16). Sentences are marked off by marginal
paragraphi, which, as in the Thucydides papyrus (No. xvi), are
usually, though not invariably, combined with blank spaces in the text.
In editing this fragment we have received much help from Prof. Blass,
to whom we are indebted for a number of readings, for the more
considerable supplements, and to a large extent for the explanatory
notes.
Translation: (p.18)
Col.
II."These then are the rhythms most appropriate to such a cadence. It
may be employed by the ‘ Iambic-dacty],' in which the syllables
composing the cadence are placed with reference to its beats in the
reverse position to that which they occupied in the cretic. The
metrical basis upon dase! the yee proctsds will υς the iambus. rer ικ.
example :: —“ Where the fields awhich decay | not nor fade | receive in
their |e mbrace by shaldy woodland deeps | delicate | maiden-throngs |
celebratling Bacchus.” Here the cadence is used as we Baye: described
in the first three feet, and aise in a other feet further on. Again :—“
Who soe’er | pleasure takes iin good cheer |a nd the dance.” But this
rhythm is not used for long in a system of this kind. Such a cadence
may be employed."
Col. III. " [Similar to the 'Iambic-dactyl' is]
the form [called the baccheic], though it shows variations of rhythmic
scheme in the lines: — To the Hours | cherished delight to men |r
espite fofor 8 | spacef rom la|bour.” As many as three such feet may
occur together :— τ‘ All-revered |β οὰ, a chaste im other’s child I;
hers who of old | was in the wealth|teeming renowned | city of Thebes |
born to Cad|mus.” The same cadence may be employed by the iambus,
though it is less graceful than when used by the baccheus, for the
single beat is more appropriate to a trochaic rhythm than to the
iambus. For instance, in the lines :— Lv = ν - ν - ικ.. v - ν v yv v -
ι-. . On| ward, on|ward | now, | ye maids, Π Come | ye speed|ing on to|
the front. || Who L then can | that maiden be? || With | what grace |
about her flows |...” the ayncore occurs at intervals of three feet, so
as to produce a kind of period. These usages ."
Col. IV. "....
three short syllables. The same account holds good of the paeon. For
this too may consist of five component syllables, and therefore,
evidently, of five short ones also. A continuous use would not be made
of such a rhythm ; for its character is quite alien to the paeon and
the feet previously mentioned. It might, however, be used if its
especial appropriateness in combination with other feet should commend
it, though, as a general rule, owing to the difficulty previously
raised, it is perhaps better to leave untried uses which exhibit mixed
rhythms not approved by common taste. Else why should this [cadence]
not be employed [ἡ by the dactyl and anapaest....? "
Col. V.
"That such a rhythm] will approximate to the anapaestic form is fairly
clear. But what is there to prevent the use of the reverse form, in
which the first syllable has the . longest time, the second the
shortest, and the third a mean between the two? It is evident that this
same question may also be put with regard to the cadence which is the
reverse of the four-beat cretic. For why should not either two iambic
feet with different tempo be used, or two trochaic feet....? Concerning
this form the foregoing account will be sufficient ; for that the
unnatural arrangement of the syllables does not enter a dactylic system
may be easily gathered from what has been said. The four-beat cadence
beginning with a short syllable, being of iambic type, is from the
nature of its rhythms appropriate to the iambus. The... forms of this
cadence are ..., so that it is not easy to meet with a continuous use
of them."
______________________________________________________________
No.10 Comedy Fragment 14.4 x 14.92 cm. 2nd-3rd c. AD (p.21)
Fragment
of a lost comedy containing parts of 20 lines of which the last 9 are
nearly complete. It is written in a medium-sized upright uncial with a
slight tendency towards cursive. forms, and may be assigned to the
second or third century AD. The colon in line 7 should indicate a
change of speaker as in xi and xxiii, and also in the Geneva fragment
of Menander. From this point onwards the fragment appears to give a
monologue of a slave who wishes for freedom.
7. Probably ENT]AYOA or EAH]AYOA8-11.
Blass suggests the following restoration of these lines :— τῶν
πίλημμελουϊμένων yap Helis τὴν δίκην ὑποτίρέομεν, KolU μειράκιον
ἔνθεϊρμον ὄν, ἐρῶν, [οἷόν τ᾽ ὄν] μ᾽ εἰς τὸ βάραθρον ἐμβαλεῖν πρόφασιν
λαβὸν] μικράν. τὸ μὲν τούϊτῳ τύχοι.
Fig.10: Greek text of Papyrus 10.
14. EME Τ.: the letter after T
is either Ε, Ο, or ὦ ; EMO! ΤΕ [Τ]0 was not written. 20. Blass suggests
at the end of the line π[οὖστί μοι;
______________________________________________________________
No. 11 Comedy Fragment 17.7 X 17.55 cm. AD 50-150 (p.22)
Parts
of two consecutive columns from a lost comedy. The papyrus is complete
at the top and bottom, but the beginnings of the lines of the first and
the ends of those of the second column have been broken away. Under
these conditions it is difficult to make out any connected sense.
In 1-42 we have a dialogue between a young man and a confidential friend or παιδαγωγός (cf. TPOφ[IMON
in 41) concerning a marriage which had been long arranged for the young
man, but which he wishes to break off, having contracted another and
secret engagement.
At 43 a fresh scene apparently begins,
indicated by a marginal note containing the new speaker's name. The
fragment has several points of resemblance to the recently-discovered
fragment of Menander’s Γεωργός ; see pp. 17, 18 in our edition of it
for the characters in that play, and cf. 44 ἐξ ἀγροῦ, 50 ἀδελφός with
18, 19 of the Γεωργός, οὐκ οἶδα yap τὸν ἀδελφὸν εἰ viv ἐξ ἀγροῦ |
ἐνθάδ᾽ ἐπιδημεῖ, and 43-47 στεφανοῦσθε x.1.A., with 8 and 40 of the
Γεωργός.
Fig.11: Greek text of Papyrus 11, containing a comedy fragment.
On the other hand, the first few lines of our fragment are
hardly applicable to the father (Gorgias) in the Γεωργός, and the
epithet (p.23) ξένης in 25 does not suit the κόρη in the Γεωργός whom
Cleaenetus wishes to marry. Perhaps, as Blass suggests, this fragment
comes from another play of Menander, with a plot very similar to that
of the Γεωργός, just as the story of his Andria very much resembled
that of his Perinthia.
The MS. is written in a good-sized
round upright uncial hand, which is evidently of an early date. It may
be placed with much probability in the period from 50 to 150 AD. As in
Papyrus X, the divisions of the dialogue are marked by a colon. A
single high point is used to mark a pause. Accents, breathings, and
marks of elision occur occasionally. All these signs seem to be by the
original scribe.
Translation: (p.25)
1-19.
" A. ‘Will you say, 1 seduced a girl?’ B. ‘Great Heracles!’ A, ‘And
though you do not say so, how do you think he will bear the present
situation, or what will he say afterwards? ... and it now turns out a
disgrace to him that he offered to make his daughter your wife. You
might say that it was perhaps well, both for old friendship’s sake and
on account of what was then decided, to marry her. Nevertheless you
chose this course. Good. Why then did you afterwards assume a different
character, he has a right to know. You even had part of the dowry in
advance. Is there any one of whom you stand in awe?’ B. ‘ Yes, myself.’ "
A. "This is what they will say, “Hοw frequently did he go to a house which
belongs to none of his acquaintance, nor to any one with whom he had
any need to consort. These secret practices ought not to have been.”
And you will win them over with many arguments, of which you will be
not at all ashamed; it is the opposite side which you will be ashamed
to take."
26-34. "A. ‘There is a very pretty little girl; but her
comrade! he has come to grief, and not one of the gods even could save
him now. .B. ‘Oh yes, they will.” (Exit)
A. "Well, he has gone off and left me. But I must not take my defeat to
heart ; that would be cowardice. I must first do all I can and leave
nothing untried, for I wish to be thought no ordinary man..."
______________________________________________________________
No. 12, recto. Chronological Work. 21 x 55.5 cm. AD 200-250 (p.25)
Six
columns from a chronological work giving a list of the chief events in
Greek, Roman, and Oriental history, dated by the Olympiads and archons
at Athens. The portion preserved concerns the years 355-315 B.C.; and
the writer notes events of importance, not only in politics, but in
literature and in connexion with the Olympic games.
The roll
containing this treatise has been cut down in order that the verso of
it might be used for some accounts. There is therefore a lacuna at the
top and bottom of each column, but not more than a few lines have been
lost in either case. The accounts on the verso are written in a not
very late third century cursive hand, so that the writing on the
recto, which is in good-sized sloping uncials, can hardly be later than
about 250 AD. Judging by its general resemblance to the handwriting of
the Plato fragment facsimiled in Plate VI, we should not put it earlier
than 200.
As in the case of the recently-discovered piece of the Parian Chronicle,
which covers the period from 336 to 298 B.C., the information given by
the papyrus is rather meagre and frequently too indefinite to afford
any new light. Alexander's Asiatic campaigns, for instance, are
dismissed in four lines, though the writer is somewhat more detailed
when he comes to events which interest him, as for instance the
invasion of Egypt. In its chronology of events relating to Greek
history, the papyrus is generally in accord with the received
chronology until the period following the death of Alexander, when it
embarks upon a system of its own starting from 320-19 as the date of
the Lamian war, and becomes consistently irreconcilable. In its
references to Persian and Roman affairs, the dates are generally
divergent from those commonly accepted. A full discussion of the
difficulties is too large a subject to be entered upon here, but the
points of agreement and difference between the papyrus and the received
chronology are briefly stated in the notes.
Fig.12: Greek text of Papyrus 12, containing six columns from an historical work.
The scribe, though
he wrote a good hand, was very ignorant, witness the blunders in V. 6
and 13. These and some other mistakes have been corrected or marked by
a different person, who has also added in some places paragraphi,
stops, iotas adscript, and a few notes, in a semi-cursive hand. Some of
the paragraphi and stops are due to the original scribe.
Translation from Greek:
I. 1-7. "In the archonship of the second (ἢ) of these (Callistratus,
355-4 BC), at Syracuse, Dion (?) was murdered by Dionysius the tyrant. In
the archonship of the third (Diotimus, 354-3 BC) the Tiburtines were
reduced by the Romans to submission."
Notes:
The proposed restoration of the
first two lines is very uncertain. .... The preceding lines ... must refer to the first or
second archonship of this (p.30) Olympiad.....But the
real difficulty concerns the name of the person who, according to the
papyrus, was murdered at Syracuse by Dionysius, probably in the year
355-4. According to Diodorus xvi. 17 and Plutarch Dion c. 37, Dionysius
was expelled from Syracuse in the summer of 356. Does the papyrus imply
that Dionysius was still at Syracuse in 355-4? We should reply in the
negative. Dionysius’ second expulsion is mentioned in II. 6 sqq., and
since there is no mention of his first expulsion in the papyrus, if we
were to refer this event in 355-4 to the period preteding his first
expulsion, we should have to suppose that neither his first expulsion
nor the death of Dion were recorded in the papyrus.
We should,
moreover, be confronted with the difficulty of finding a name to suit
the end of L. 2, and ‘the serious divergence from the received
chronology of Dionysius. It is much more probable that the writer of
the papyrus placed Dionysius’ first expulsion, whether he recorded it
or not, in the period before 355-4, and meant that the assassination
took place during his exile, but at his instigation. Now by far the
most eminent person who was assassinated at Syracuse about 355-4 was of
course Dion, and as his name just suits the lacuna we have placed it in
the text. It is true that Diodorus (xvi. 31), states that he was
murdered ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Διοτίμου, i.e. in 354-3; but this divergence
between the papyrus and Diodorus only amounts to one year, and need
cause no special difficulty. A more serious objection to. our
hypothesis is the fact that the murder of Dion is always attributed to
Callippus, and Dionysius is not known to have been in any way concerned
in it. But on the other hand it is not recorded that Dionysius
assassinated any one of eminence at this period, and since he
ultimately regained his throne owing to the death of Dion, the story of
his responsibility for that event is not unnatural.
4-7. On. the date
of the submission of the Tiburtines cf. Livy vii. 19, who also places
it in the year 354 BC.
Translation from Greek:
I. 7-15. "In the royth Olympiad Smicrinas of
Tarentum won the foot-race. The archons at Athens were Aristodemus,
Thessalus, Apollodorus, Callimachus. In the archonship of Apollodorus
(350-49) . . "
Notes:
9. Either CTAD[IO]N CMIKPI[NJAC or CTAA[IJON MIKPI[NAJC
can be read. Diodorus Xvi. 37 gives the name as Smicrinas; Africanus
ap. Euseb. ‘EAA. dA. 42, as Micrinas. 13-15.
The event recorded appears
to be some novelty introduced in connexion with the course at Olympia.
[ταύτης κατὰ τὸ] τρίτον é[[ros. . . might equally well be read.
Translation from Greek:
I. 16-24. "In the 108th Olympiad Polycles of Cyrene won the foot-race. The
archons at Athens were Theophilus, Themistocles, Archias, Eubulus. In
the first year of this Olympiad ( 348-7) Plato the philosopher died, and
Speusippus was his successor at the school."
Notes:
22. The date here assigned
to Plato's death agrees with the statements of Apollodorus ap. Diog.
Laért. v. 9, and Athenaeus v. 217b .
Translation from Greek:
II. 1-11. "In the 109th Olympiad
Aristolycus of Athens won the foot-race. The archons at Athens were
Lyciscus, Pythodotus, Sosigenes, Nicomachus. In the second year of this
Olympiad (343-2) Dionysius, the second tyrant of Sicily, was deposed,
and sailed to Corinth, where he remained teaching letters."
Notes:
2.
APICTOAYKOC: K is converted from X. Diod. xvi. 69 calls him
᾿Αριστόλοχος.
5. The remark at the side, κάτω, addressed to the reader,
and the insertion of δέ, show that at the bottom of the column some
event occurring in the year 344-3 was added by the corrector. Cf. xvi.
III. 3, where ἄνω refers to an insertion in the margin at the top of
the column.
6. The date of Dionysius’ deposition agrees with that of
Diodorus xvi. 69, 70. (p.31)
Translation from Greek:
II. 11-17. "In the archonship οἵ
Nicomachus (341-0) Bagoas the eunuch murdered Ochus, king of Persia,
and set Ochus’ youngest son, Arses, upon the throne, retaining all the
power in his own hands."
Notes:
The dating of Persian events in the papyrus
(cf. III. 1-7, the accession of Darius Codomannus in 338-7) differs
somewhat widely from the received chronology. ‘The Ptolemaic Canon
places Arses’ accession between Nov. 15, 338, and Nov. 15, 337, and
Darius’ accession between Nov. 15, 336, and Nov. 15, 335- This is
confirmed both by Arrian ii. 142, who quotes the substance of a letter
from Darius to Alexander implying that the expedition of Philip in 336
was to be directed against Arses, and, to some extent, by Diodorus, who
states (xvii. 5, 6) that Arses was killed in the third year of his
reign, and that Darius succeeded him ‘about the time at which Alexander
succeeded Philip.’ A few lines later, however (xvii. 7), Diodorus
speaks of Darius’ accession as having taken place Jefore the death of
Philip in the summer of 336, so that there is a contradiction, though
not a very serious one, between Diodorus and the Ptolemaic Canon. But
the papyrus goes far beyond the view of Diodorus that Philip and Darius
were for a time contemporary tulers; for by putting the accession of
Darius in the same year as the battle of Chaeronea, it makes the period
during which Philip’s reign overlapped that of Darius as much as two
years. With regard to the length of Arses’ reign, the papyrus is
consistent with Diodorus and the Canon. But in the dates which it
assigns to the accessions of Arses and Darius there is a divergence
from both these authorities of two, if not three, years, A further
discrepancy between Diodorus and the papyrus occurs in III. 3, where
the brothers of Arses are said to have been put to death along with
him. Diodorus xvii. 5 states that they were put to death on the
accession of Arses.
Translation from Greek:
II.18-28. "In the 110th Olympiad Anticles of Athens
won the foot-race. The archons at Athens were Theophrastus,
Lysimachides, Chaerondas, Phrynichus. In the archonship of Theophrastus
(340-39) the Samnites fought against the Romans. In the archonship of
Lysimachides (339-8) the Latins united in revolt (?) against the Romans
and attacked them."
Notes:
23. It is unfortunate that most of the notices of
Roman history are either rather vague or more or less mutilated. The
war between the Romans and Samnites referred to in the present passage
must be the First Samnite War,which according to Livy (vii. 29-31)
began in 343 BC and ended in 341. The battle apparently referred to here
was probably that at Mount Gaurus or at Suessula, both of which Livy
places in the first year of the war. There may thus be a discrepancy of
two or three years between the papyrus and Livy.
25. The Latin revolt
took place according to Livy viii. 3 in 340 BC, after peace had been
concluded with the Samnites; but his account of events in this period
is of very doubtful value. The papyrus brings the date of the Latin
rebellion closer to the Samnite war, and places it a‘year later than
Livy, according to whom (viii. 11) the principal battle took place at
Trifanum in the consulship of T. Manlius Torquatus and P. Decius Mus
(340). This is perhaps the event referred to the year 338-7 by the
papyrus in III. 7-8. Diodorus xvi. go places the battle in the same
consulship as Livy, corresponding, on his reckoning, to the archonship
of Phrynichus (337-6). Livy tells us that the war dragged on for two
years after the battle of Trifanum, the Latin states being subdued
gradually.
Between 338 BC and the Second Samnite War, the papyrus notes a
scandal concerning the Vestal Virgins (III. 33-37) in 336-5 (again a
year in advance of Livy’s date), the expedition of Alexander the
Molossian (IV. 17-20), which it places six years later than Livy, and
some event occurring in 333-2, the nature of which is obscure owing to
the lacunae. In the references to the Second Samnite War (VI. 12-14,
21-25) the papyrus (p.32) is as usual one or two years in advance of
Livy. How far the apparent divergences in the dates of individual
events between the writer of the papyrus and Livy are due to the former
really placing the events in different years, how far to some flaw in
his system of synchronizing Roman with Greek events, must remain
uncertain, since we know neither what were the sources of these
references in the papyrus to Roman history, nor whether they were
based, like Livy’s, on the system of dating by consuls. We can however,
by comparing the intervals between the different events of the series
recorded by _ both the writer of the papyrus and Livy, gauge to some
extent the difference between their views of Roman chronology. The
interval between the First Samnite War and the Latin revolt is only one
year according to the papyrus, while according to Livy it is three.
With regard however to the intervals between the Latin revolt and the
scandal concerning the Vestals, and between that event and the Second
Samnite War, the papyrus is in agreement with Livy. It is in reference
to the date assigned to the expedition of Alexander the Molossian that
there is the clearest divergence.
Translation from Greek:
II. 28—III. 8. "In the archonship of
Chaerondas (338-7 BC) Philip king of Macedon defeated the Athenians and
Boeotians in the famous battle of Chaeronea, being assisted by his son
Alexander who greatly distinguished himself. In the same year Isocrates
the orator died aged about ninety... years...... Bagoas the eunuch
killed Arses king of Persia together with his brothers, and set Darius
son of Arsamus, of the royal house, on the throne in his place. In the
same year the Romans took the field against the Latins."
Notes:
28-37. The
dates assigned by the papyrus to the battle of Chaeronea and the death
of Isocrates are the usual ones. Thebes and Athens supplied the
principal con-tingents to the Greek army, but other states, e.g. the
Phocians and Achaeans, were represented.
36. Cicero Senec. 5. and
Dionysius p. 537 state that Isocrates was ninety-eight when he died.
The writer of the papyrus appears to have been uncertain as to his
exact age.
Translation from Greek:
IlI. 1-7. Cf. note on II. r1-17. In line 1 the supplement
BA]F[QAC O ΕἸ barely fills the lacuna.
Notes:
7-8, Cf. note on II. 25.
Translation from Greek:
III. 9-13. "In the archonship of Phrynichus (337-6 BC) an assembly of the Hellenic
confederacy appointed Philip general with absolute powers to carry on
the war against Persia."
Notes:
This date agrees with Diodorus xvi. 89.
Translation from Greek:
III.
13-34. "In the 111th Olympiad Cleomantis of Clitor won the
foot-race. The archons at Athens were Pythodelus, Euaenetus, Ctesicles,
Nicocrates. In the archon-ship of Pythodelus (336-5) Philip king of
Macedon was assassinated by Pausanias, one of his bodyguard, and was
succeeded by his son Alexander. He on his accession first subdued the
Illyrians, Paeonians, and other foreign tribes which had revolted.
Afterwards he captured Thebes by assault and razed it. At Rome the
priestesses of Vesta being perpetual virgins were accused of inchastity
and... ."
Notes:
21. On the date of Philip’s death cf. Diod. xvi. 91, and
Arrian i. 1. From this point we have also the testimony of the
newly-discovered fragment of the Parian Chronicle (A then. Mittheil.
xxii. 1), which gives a chronological epitome much resembling that of
the papyrus.
29: The expedition against the Ilyrians and Paeonians took
place in the spring of the archonship of Pythodelus (335 BC) according to
Arrian i.I. While Alexander was engaged in this war Thebes revolted,
and was captured about the time of the Mysteries at Athens (p.33)
(Arrian i. 10, 2, Plutarch Alex. 13), i.e. in October, 335, at the
beginning of the archonship of Euaenetus, not in that of Pythodelus.
The Parian Chronicle assigns both the expedition and the capture of
Thebes to the year of Euaenetus.
33. This no doubt refers to the
scandal recorded by Livy viii. 15, who however places it in the year
337, and states that only one Vestal was concerned.
Translation from Greek:
IV. 1-7. ‘In the
archonship of Euaenetus (335-4 BC) Alexander king of Macedon crossed over
into Asia and defeated the generals of Darius king of Persia in the
battle of the Granicus.’
Notes:
According to Plutarch Cam. 10 the battle of
the Granicus took place in Thargelion (May), i.e. at the end of
Euaenetus’ archonship. The Parian Chronicle puts it in that of
Ctesicles.
Translation from Greek:
IV. 8-20. "In the archonship of Ctesicles (334-3) the same
Alexander fought a battle against Darius at Issus in Cilicia and again
defeated him, slaying many thousands of the Persians and their allies,
and taking many prisoners and much spoil. In the same year Alexander
the Molossian crossed over to Italy to help the Greeks in that
country."
Notes:
8. According to Arrian xi. 11 the battle of Issus was fought
in Maimacterion (Novem-ber) in the archonship following that of
Ctesicles, and Diod. xvii. 33 also places it in the archonship of
Nicocrates. ‘The Parian Chronicle however agrees with the papyrus.
17.
Justin (xii. 1, 2) places the end of the expedition of Alexander the
Molossian and his death about the same period as the final conquest of
Darius, the news of the failure of the expedition reaching Alexander in
Parthia simultaneously with that of the death of Agis. Justin does not
state for how many years Alexander the Molossian had been in Italy, but
from his account we should not infer that the period was a long one.
Livy however (viii. 3, 24) says that the expedition to Italy occurred
in 340, and its leader’s death in 326, which last event he synchronizes
with the foundation of Alexandria. The papyrus thus differs from the
chronology of Livy by six years as to the sailing of the expedition,
though it can be reconciled with the chronology of Justin.
20-24. Cf.
note on II. 25.
Translation from Greek:
IV. 24-36. "In the 112th Olympiad (Gryllus) of Chalcis won
the foot-race. The archons at Athens were Nicetes, Aristophanes,
Aristophon, Cephisophon. In the first year of this Olympiad (332-1)
Alexander the son of Philip captured Tyre, and took over Egypt, being
welcomed by the inhabitants owing to their hatred of the Persians. In
the same year Alexander ordered (the building of Alexandria?)...."
Notes:
The
capture of Tyre took place, according to Arrian xi. 24, 6, in
Hecatombaeon | (July), at the beginning of Nicetes’ archonship, and the
invasion of Egypt followed in the autumn. With this chronology the
papyrus is in agreement. The Parian Chronicle however places the
conquest of Phoenicia and Egypt in the archonship of Nicocrates
(333-2), though it assigns the foundation of Alexandria to the
archonship of Nicetes.
Translation from Greek:
V. 1-4. ‘.. .. Alexander went to the temple of
Ammon and on the way thither founded the city of Paraetonium.’
Notes:
1. Owing
to the lacuna it is not certain to which of the two years 332-1 or
331-0 the writer assigned the expedition to the oasis of Ammon. Arrian
iii. 3-6 places it in the winter of 332-1, and says that Alexander
returned to Phoenicia at the beginning of spring. If the papyrus is
still in agreement with Arrian and the expedition to the oasis was
placed in the archonship of Nicetes, there are no events recorded
during the archonship of Aris-tophanes (331-0). The Parian Chronicle
also passes over that archonship without comment. But in the date which
it assigns to the battle of Arbela (see below) the papyrus is a year in
advance of Arrian, so that it is by no means impossible that it
assigned the expedition to the oasis to the year 331-0. (p.34)
3. Arrian, who states (v3,3) that Alexander marched along the coast as far as
Paraetonium
and then turned inland, says nothing to imply that Alexander founded or
re-founded Paraetonium.
Translation from Greek:
V.4-14. "In the archonship of Aristophon (330-29)
another battle took place at Arbela between Alexander and Darius, in
which Alexander was victorious. In the same year Darius was murdered by
his own friends and the Persian empire came to an end, having lasted 33
(sc) years since its foundation by Cyrus."
Notes:
4. The date of the battle of
Arbela is fixed by an eclipse of the moon which took place on Sep. 20,
331, ἃ few days before the battle. Arrian (ili. 15, 7) and Plutarch
(Alex. 31) disagree as to the date in the Attic calendar on which the
engagement was fought, but Arrian correctly states that it was in the
archonship of Aristophanes. The papyrus therefore is a year too late in
its date. The Parian Chronicle on the other hand is a year too early,
placing the battle in the archonship of Nicetes (332-1).
9. In its date
for the assassination of Darius the papyrus agrees with both Arrian
iii. 22. 2 and the Parian Chronicle.
13. The corrector by inserting a
critical mark against this line called attention to the blunder in the
figures, as he also did in 17 to the omission of the fourth archon. A
very similar critical sign marks an omission in the Thucydides papyrus
(xvi. III. 3). In the present case it does not appear that the
corrector added a note, since there is no reference to the margin as
there was in II. 5. Reckoning from Olympiad 55. 1, the traditional date
of Cyrus’ accession, to the present year, the interval is 230 years.
One theory for the number given in the text, 33, would be to suppose
that 200 had dropped out and the number 33 for 30 was either
intentional or due to a confusion with the 33 years which in line 32
are stated to be the years of Alexander’s age. But we are more inclined
to think that the whole number 33 here is due to the influence of the
coming passage about Alexander, and that it is therefore useless to
conjecture what the original number may have been.
Translation from Greek:
V. 14-23."In the 113th
Olympiad Criton, a Macedonian, won the foot-race. The archons at Athens
were Euthycritus, Hegemon, Chremes. In this Olympiad during four years
Alexander performed his other exploits, conquering the Asiatic tribes."
Notes:
15. Africanus af. Euseb. ‘EAA. oA, 42 calls the Olympic victor
Cliton.
17. The critical mark at the side (cf. note on 13) denotes the
omission of the archon for 325-4, Anticles. There was much confusion in
antiquity about the archons of the 113th and r14th Olympiads. Diodorus
omits Hegemon, Archippus, and Neaechmus, and between Anticles and
Hegesias inserts another archon, Sosicles. Dionysius, whose list . 18
more complete, omits Hegesias.
Translation from Greek:
V. 23-33. "In the 114th Olympiad Micinas of
Rhodes won the foot-race. The archons at Athens were Hegesias,
Cephisophon, Philocles, Archippus. In the first year of this Olympiad
(324-3) king Alexander died, having reigned 13 years, and lived 33
years."
Notes:
27. The name of the second archon should be Cephisodorus. Cf.
VI. 30, where (The)odorus is found in place of Theophrastus. The names
of the archons, and especially their terminations, are subject to
frequent variations.
Alexander’s death took place on Daisius 28, 323
(Wilcken, Philol. 1894, p. 120 ἢ... The length of his life and reign
are given more precisely than in the papyrus by Arrian (vii. 28) on the
authority of Aristobulus as 32 years 8 months, and 12 years 8 months.
Translation from Greek:
V. 33-36. "In the archonship of Cephisophon (323-2) Ptolemy the son of
Lagus was sent to Egypt and made himself ruler of the country."
Notes:
34. Cf.
line 8 of the Parian Chronicle which places Ptolemy’s κυρίευσις
Αἰγύπτου in the same year as the death of Alexander, namely the
archonship of Hegemon, but less correctly, since the death of
Alexander took place at the end of Hegemon’s year. As in the Parian
Chronicle, Ptolemy is the only satrap mentioned by the papyrus in
connexion with (p.35) the first. division of Alexander's empire. Cf.
also the use of μετήλλαξε in 31 with the word . μεταλλαγή used in the
Parian Chronicle for the death of Alexander.
Translation from Greek:
VI. 1-14. "In the 115th
Olympiad Damasias of Amphipolis won the foot-race. The archons at
Athens were Neaechmus, Apollodorus, Archippus, Demogenes, In the
archon-ship of Neaechmus (320-19) Antipater having succeeded to the
kingdom of Macedonia fought against the Greeks at Lamia and vanquished
them. The Romans fought against the Samnites and were defeated."
Notes:
7. The
differences which we have hitherto noted between the statements of the
papyrus and the received chronology are trifling compared with the
divergence in its account of events in Greek history from 323 to 316 BC.
While the intervals between the Lamian war, the division of the empire
at Triparadeisus, and the death of Antipater, correspond sufficiently
well with the intervals between these events in the chronology of this
period, so far as it can be made out from the Parian Chronicle,
Diodorus, and Plutarch, the series in the papyrus starts with a date
three years later than that given by these authorities to the Lamian
war. But amid the many doubtful points in the chronology of events
succeeding the death of Alexander, the date of the Lamian war is one of
the few which admit of no question. It followed immediately upon the
death of Alexander, occupying the winter of 323 and spring of 322. In
the date of its starting-point therefore the papyrus has gone
considerably astray. Possibly the occurrence of two archons named
Archippus, one in 325—4, the other in 318-7, may have led to a
confusion; possibly the ordinary chronology of the Greek events has
been altered to suit the writer’s chronology of events in Italy, which
are twice referred to by the papyrus between 320 and 316. But
conjectures are of little use, for at the year 316—5 the papyrus breaks
off, and we are left in ignorance of the point at which the writer
brought back his chronology into the ordinary channel.
10. The
reference to the Lamian war is somewhat loosely worded. Antipater
defeated the Greeks at the battle of Crannon, which is considerably to
the north of Lamia, where he had been besieged. Polybius however (ix.
29, 2) speaks of this battle as ἡ περὶ Λαμίαν μάχη.
12. This must refer
to the surrender of the Roman army at the Caudine Forks; cf. 20-25,
where the recovery of the prisoners is recorded. Livy ix. 1-7 places
the surrender in 321,the year before the date assigned to it by the
papyrus. Cf. note on II. 25.
Translation from Greek:
VI. 15-20. "In the archonship of Apollodorus
(319-8) Antipater, having crossed over into Asia (to attack?)
Perdiccas, made the second division of the empire among Alexander’s
successors, (in which division Ptolemy again took part" added by the
corrector, who puts a critical mark at the side).
Notes:
15. The crossing over
of Antipater and Craterus into Asia is placed in the spring of 321
(Droysen, Hellen. ii. 115, Niese i. 119) in the archonship of
Philocles, the deaths of Craterus and Perdiccas took place in the
summer, if we are to believe Plut. Lumen. 6, and the division of the
empire at Triparadeisus followed at the beginning of the next
archonship (Archippus 321-0). The Parian Chronicle however places the
invasion of Asia and the death of Craterus in the year of Archippus. In
the date given to the invasion of Asia by Antipater and Craterus the
papyrus is three years ahead of the received chonology, and two years
ahead of the Parian Chronicle. With regard to the division at
Triparadeisus the papyrus is only two years ahead of the received
chronology.
17. The case of Περδίκκᾳ is a difficulty. We should expect
ἐπί or πρός with the accusa-tive, if it is to be taken in connexion
with διαβάς, and it is hard to see how Perdiccas can be connected with
the division at Triparadeisus, which took place after his death.
Perhaps CYN should be supplied in 16, and Perdiccas considered a
mistake for Craterus.
20. The insertion of Ptolemy’s part in the
division by the corrector is noteworthy. Cf. V. 34, note.
Translation from Greek:
VI. 20-25. "In
the archonship of Archippus (318-7) the Romans fought against the D2
(p.36) Samnites and proved victorious, recovering all the prisoners who
had been captured in the previous battle."
Notes:
20. Cf. Livy ix. 13, who
places the recovery of the prisoners in 320, the year after the batttle
of the Caudine Forks. The papyrus makes the interval two years, and is
therefore two years in advance of Livy in its date for the recovery of
the prisoners. But cf. note on II.
Translation from Greek:
VI. 25-35. "In the 116th Olympiad
(Demos)thenes the Laconian won the foot-race. The archons at Athens
were Democlides, Praxibulus, Nicodorus, (The)odorus. In the archonship
of Democlides (316-5) (Antipater) died, and was succeeded in the
government by (Polyper)chon .."
Notes:
27. The name ‘of the winner was
Deinomenes according to Diodorus xix. 17. Africanus however (ap.
Euseb. ‘EAA. oA. 42) calls him Demosthenes.
30. The name of the third
archon was Theophrastus according to Diodorus xix. 73 and Bionys. Hal.
Dinarch. p. 650.
32-35. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to
fill up the lacunae on the supposition that the writer has in this
Olympiad reverted to the ordinary chronology. Of the prominent persons
who died about 316-5, Eumenes, Olympias and Xenocrates, none are
suitable. On the other hand, if we suppose that the writer is still
three years ahead of the ordinary chronology, which places the death of
Antipater in 319, the restoration is easy...
______________________________________________________________
No.13 . Letter to a king of Macedon 8.7 x 7.1 cm (p.36)
Fragment
of a letter written to a king of Macedon, attacking the conduct of the
Thebans. From the manner in which Philip is mentioned in line 12 and
the reference to ‘the dynasty of your éraipo.’ the letter would seem to
have been addressed to Antigonus or his son Demetrius Poliorcetes.
Fig.12: Greek text of Papyrus 13,
Since Antigonus had been the ἑταῖρος of Philip and Alexander, they
might be called his ἑταῖροι after he had become king himself. Thebes
had been restored by Cassander, the enemy of Antigonus, so there was
much to be said about their offences ‘against τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν.
The
papyrus is valuable historically in stating definitely the alliance
between the Thebans and Olynthians against Amyntas, the father of
Philip, a fact which makes the seizure of the Cadmeia by the Spartans
on their way to Olynthus much less gratuitous than has been generally
maintained. Cf. Xen. Hellen.
v. 2, 15, 34 where the alliance between Thebes and Olynthus is implied.
The authorship of the fragment is a very difficult problem. The style
is thoroughly Isocratean, but who is the imitator ?
Translation from Greek: (p.37)
2
sqq. "With regard then to their acts of hostility directed against
your kingdom and the dynasty of your companions, though you are
probably aware of them, I have thought it worth while to write you a
brief account of them, lest you should think that they have escaped me.
The Thebans in the first place attempted with the aid of the Olynthians
to expel Amyntas, the father of Philip, from the country and to deprive
him of his kingdom, although he had done them no previous injury,
nor..."
Footnotes:
1. [Editor's Note:]
Abbreviations to standard historical
and literary references used by Grenfell and Hunt include the following:
Africanus
Apollodorus ap. Diog.
Laért. v. 9,
Athenaeus v. 217b .
Athen. xiii.
Bacchylides papyrus. Alcman
Cicero Senec. 5.
Dionysius p. 537 s
Diodorus xix.
Eusebius
Hdt. ii. Herodotus
Livy vii
Menander Geneva fragment
Menander’s Γεωργός ; recently-discovered
fragment
Ovid, Her.
Parian Chronicle recently-discovered piece which covers the period from 336 to 298 B.C.,
Paris Fragment Alcman
Pind. Pysh
Schol. Hephaest. p- 173, Gaisf.
Strab. xvii.
Suid. Αἴσωπος and ᾿Ιάδμων,
Theocr. vi.
Thucydides papyrus (No. xvi),
Xen. Hellen.
[Continue to next part]
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|
| Southport main page Main
index of Athena Review
Copyright © 2023 Rust Family Foundation.
(All Rights Reserved). |
| |
.
|
