|
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vol. 7, edited by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1910)
Theological and classical fragments (Nos. 107, 110, 111, 116, 117) [1][2]
_______________________________________________________________
No. 1007. Genesis ii, iii. 516-2 cm. Late 3rd century AD. Plate I (recto). (p.1)
These few verses from the second and third chapters of Genesis are
contained on a fragment of a vellum leaf, which, like the Genesis
papyrus from Oxyrhynchus already published (No. 656), appears to be of
an unusually early date. The text is in double columns, written in a
medium-sized upright uncial which can hardly be later than the end of
the third century, at any rate. A date anterior to the third century AD
has been claimed for two vellum leaves, the Kvretes fragment at Berlin
(Berl. Klassikertexte v. 2. 17), attributed to the first century, and a
fragment in the British Museum of the De Falsa Legatione which Kenyon
assigns to the second (Palaeogr. of Greek Papyri, p. 113). Of the
latter no facsimile has been published, but the age of the former seems
to have been considerably exaggerated, and it may be doubted whether
either of them is to be separated from the present example by a very
wide interval.
Fig.1: Oxy 1007: Genesis II and III fragment (Plate 1)
The columns of No. 1007, which contained about 33 lines, may be
estimated to have measured some 16.5 cm. in height, the leaf having
been of a rather square shape, not much taller than it was broad, like
that of the Kvezes. No stops occur; a short blank space in 1. 25 marks
the close of a chapter. θεός is contracted in the usual way, but
ἄνθρωπος, πατήρ and μήτηρ are written out in full, and the only other
compendium used is a most remarkable abbreviation of the so-called
Tetragrammaton, which in the Septuagint is regularly represented by
κύριος. This abbreviation consists of a doubled Yod, the initial of the
sacred name, written in the shape of a Z with a horizontal stroke
through the middle, the stroke being carried without a break through
both letters ; the same form of Yod is found on coins of the second
century BC .
This compendium exactly corresponds with that employed in Hebrew MSS,
of a later period, ”, which, (p.2) ... occurs in the tenth century and
no doubt goes back to a much earlier epoch. As is well known, it was a
peculiarity of the version of Aquila to write the Tetragrammaton in the
archaic Hebrew letters instead of translating it by κύριος .... A
decided tendency to omit the word κύριος was .... observable in the
early Oxyrhynchus papyrus (No. 656), where in one passage a blank space
was originally left in which the missing word was supplied by a second
hand. Possibly the scribe of that papyrus or its archetype had Hebrew
symbols before him which he did not understand, or the archetype had
been intended to show the Hebrew symbols and they had not been filled
in.
At any rate, in the light of the present example, the question may be
raised whether Origen’s statement (7 Ps. ii) that ‘in the most accurate
copies the (sacred) name is written in Hebrew characters’ was intended
to apply, as is commonly assumed, only to the copies of Aquila’s
version. Apart from the substitution of the Tetragrammaton for κύριος,
the text, though interesting, is not so far as it goes particularly
notable. As usual, it evinces no pronounced affinities with any one of
the chief extant MSS., but agrees here with one, there with another. In
two passages, again (Il. 20 and 28), it sides with some of the cursives
against the earlier MSS. evidence, in one of them (1. 20) having the
support of citations in the New Testament and in Philo.
_______________________________________________________________
No. 1010. 6 Ezra. 8.4 x 5.6 cm. 4th century AD. Plate I (recto) (p.11)
Oxyrhynchus has already presented us with several fragments in the
original Greek of theological works extant, entirely or in part, only
in translations,—the Apocalypse of Baruch (403), the conclusion of the
Shepherd of Hermas (404), Irenaeus, Contra Haereses (405; cf. P. Oxy.
iv. p. 264), the “εἰς of Peter (849); and there is now to be added to
the list the following specimen of the Greek of 6 Ezra, as modern scholars call the apocalyptic writing which appears in the printed editions of the Vulgate as 4 Ezra, chapters xv—xvi.
Fig.2: Oxy 1010: Ezra book VI (Plate 1)
The sixth book of Ezra was written during a period of persecution, and
James (Texts and Studies, iii. 2, Ὁ. Ixiv) following Gutschmid
(Zettschr. f. wissensch. Theol. iii. 1860) places the date of
composition about AD 268; Weinel, however (Meutest. Apokryphen, p.
312), holds that the time cannot be fixed more definitely than between
AD 120 and 300. An Egyptian origin has often been postulated, and the
discovery of this early fragment at Oxyrhynchus (p.12) though of course
not conclusive, to some extent strengthens that hypothesis. That the
Latin version which alone exists was made from Greek is evident from
the use of such words as vumphea in the passage quoted below; Dr.
Charles believes, on the strength of certain Hebraisms, that some
Jewish document lies behind, but that is a question which does not here
arise. Resemblances to passages in 6 Ezra have been pointed out in
Books xi (ix) and xii (x) of the Sibylline Oracles, but with that
doubtful exception no traces of the document have been recognized in
Greek, and there are very few early references in Latin.
The oldest certain quotations are those of the English writer Gildas,
who lived in the sixth century AD, though it has been supposed that
there is an allusion to xvi. 60 in Ambrose, xxix. Two recensions of the
Latin version are to be distinguished, a French and a Spanish, of which
the principal representatives respectively are the MSS. SA and ΟΜ.....
It is generally considered [these two chapters] were written as
an appendix to 4 Ezra (James, of. c7¢., p. Ixxviii, Weinel, of. cz¢.,
p. 311), and that they never circulated in any other guise or position.
That view is now tenable only on the supposition that this pocket
edition extended to more volumes than one; and it certainly does not
appear at all probable that the form here exhibited would have been
selected for a work on the scale of 4 Ezra and 6 Ezra, which might
easily have been reproduced in a small single volume by the employment
of a somewhat larger page and a more compressed script. The present
discovery therefore rather suggests that the sixth book of Ezra was
originally current independently of the fourth. If the figure 40 is the
number of the leaf, this would point to the existence of some prefatory
matter no longer represented in the Latin. If, on the other hand, the
numeration, as is more likely, refers to the page, the book began in
the same abrupt manner that now characterizes it.
Translation from Greek: (p.14)
"(Thy children) shall die of hunger, and thou shalt fall by the sword;
and thy cities shall be destroyed, and all thy people that are in the
plains shall fall by the sword, and they that are on the mountains and
highlands shall die of hunger and shall eat their own flesh and drink
their own blood in hunger for bread and thirst for water. At first thou
art reduced to misery (?) and again a second time (thou shalt receive
woe)."
New classical texts:
No. 1011. Callimachus [a], Aetia and Iambi. Fol. 130x18 cm. Late 4th c. AD. Plates II and III (Fol. 1 recto, Fol. 2 verso). (p.15)
It might reasonably have been expected that, among the many classical
authors represented by the papyri of Egypt, an Alexandrian poet so
celebrated and so prolific as Callimachus would not fail to finda
prominent place. Hitherto that expectation has not been realized. A
wooden tablet at Vienna has indeed supplied some considerable pieces of
the Hecale (edited by Th. Gomperz, 1893; cf. Wilamowitz, Gdotting.
Nachrichten, 1893, pp. 731-47) ; but the contributions of the papyri
have consisted of a small fragment at Alexandria from the Hymns, and a
scrap of scholia, also on the Hymns, in the Amherst collection (P. Amh,
20).
The deficiency is, however, now amply made good by a discovery
restoring to us substantial pieces of two important works, previously
known only from short and disconnected citations, the Aetia and Iambi;
and by a fortunate chance the new fragments include what was probably
the most popular passage of the Aetia, the famous love story of
Acontius and Cydippe. As now reconstituted the find, which was made in
the winter of 1905-6, consists of seven leaves from a papyrus book,
with a few small pieces still unplaced. One of the leaves is nearly
perfect and a second is only slightly broken; but the others are all
more or less severely damaged. Even where the papyrus is intact,
however, it is often extremely difficult to read, owing partly to the
rubbed and discoloured state of the surface, partly to the fading of
(p.16) the ink, which is of the light brown kind frequently met with in
the Byzantine period. Its ancient readers had already found the
manuscript unsatisfactory in this respect, and letters or words,
occasionally whole lines, have here and there been rewritten. In some
parts of Foll. 6 and 7, moreover, the ink has run badly, and the
papyrus is besides worm-eaten. Where there has been no deterioration
the large and handsome script is of course legible enough. Though
generally sloping it is sometimes erect, and in the size and quality of
the writing, too, some variation is noticeable; an irregular appearance
is also caused by the occasional exaggeration of certain letters, e.g.
x. The coarse down strokes contrast strongly with the light horizontal
lines, which are at times barely distinguishable from the fibres of the
papyrus. o and w are commonly small; «and onarrow. Like that of No.
847, this hand seems to represent a transitional stage between the
sloping oval style, predominant in the 3rd century AD, and the squarer,
heavier type of the 4th and 5th centuries.
Two further considerations assist in the determination of the date: (1)
the semicursive notes and additions which have been occasionally
inserted,
in several cases by the original writer, and of which the age is more easily
estimated than that of the more formal script of the text; (2) the fact that
a small group of documents in the company of which the present papyrus was
discovered (No. 1088 is one of them) was dated about the year AD 400.
On these various grounds the production of this codex is to be placed
in the 4th century AD and, if greater precision is desired, the third
quarter of it is perhaps the likeliest period; Nos. 1008 and 1009,
which were also found along with 1011, appear to belong to about the
same epoch.
Fig.3: Oxy 1011: Callimachus, Aetia, Folio I recto (Plate II)
Accents are not inserted at all systematically, some leaves (Foll. 2,
3, 4) being plentifully supplied, others (Foll. 1, 6, 7) having very
few, while Fol. 5 shows many more on the verso than on the recto. From
the same source come a few marginal signs, the significance of which is
not always evident. The text as it originally stood was not a very
accurate one ; and in spite of the efforts of the (p.17) correctors the
text sometimes remains in an unsatisfactory condition.....
It remains to consider the arrangement and subject-matter of the
fragments. The position in the codex of three out of the seven leaves
is fixed by the pagination. Fol. 1, containing the conclusion of the
story of Acontius and Cydippe, is numbered in the left-hand corner of
the recto 152. It was already known from Callim. Fr. 26 that this elegy was part of the third book of the Aetia,
and according to Schneider, Callimachea, ii. pp. 99 sqq., it stood
early in the book, a view which, as will be seen, suits the data of the
papyrus. The subject of the third book is supposed by Schneider to have
been inventions and inventors, and Cydippe’s history was, he thinks,
introduced in connexion with the art of writing as an illustration of
the injurious results to which that art might lead.
Acontius, a handsome youth, fell in love with the beautiful Cydippe;
and seeing her one day in the temple of Artemis he wrote on a fine
apple the words, ‘By Artemis, 1 will marry Acontius,' and unobserved
rolled this in front of Cydippe. She picked it up and read the
inscription, then threw it aside, and, thinking no more of Acontius,
proceeded to wed another suitor. The preparations were all made when
she suddenly fell ill. Three times the same obstacle to the marriage
occurred, and at last her father betook himself to the oracle of Apollo
and inquired the cause. Apollo informed him of the broken oath and of
the anger of Artemis, and advised him to carry out his daughter’s
undesigned engagement to Acontius. He accepted the advice, the nuptials
were duly celebrated, and Acontius and Cydippe lived in happiness.
Such in brief summary is the story as told with elaborate elegance by
Aristaenetus [b], whose debt to Callimachus has long been
recognized.... The papyrus, which preserves the latter part of the
tale, including the illnesses of Cydippe, the visit of her father to
the oracle, and the happy event (lines 1-52), now enables us to see the
extent of the debt. Aristaenetus follows Callimachus in the main
outlines, and his prose frequently echoes the language of the
poet:... but he omits some details and introduces others of his
own. The relation of the two Ovidian letters between Acontius and
Cydippe .... to the Greek versions is comparatively remote.
This discovery, however, not only displays the beauty of the model of
Aristaenetus ; it reveals the source of Callimachus. He obtained the
story, he says, from Xenomedes [c], an early historian of Ceos, whose
true character now emerges for the first time; cf. line 54 and the
note. The legend, then, was a Cean one; and the fact that a similar
tale is told by Antoninus Liberalis, (p.18) Metamorph. 1, on the authority of Nicander, concerning the Cean heroine Ctesylla, at once becomes more intelligible.
Callimachus proceeds (Il. 56-74) to give a brief summary of the
mythical history of Ceos as narrated by Xenomedes, several details of
which are quite novel; and he expressly credits the historian with a
love of the truth (l. 76).
The last three verses of the page form the transition to another theme.
Between Fol. 1 and Fol. 2 a large gap intervenes. The verso of Fol. 2
contains the conclusion of the following book of the Aetia. In this
epilogue Callimachus, after a reference to the meeting of Hesiod with
the Muses at Hippocrene, an experience which he had in the proém to his
work represented as having happened in a dream also to himself, takes a
formal farewell of poetry, and declares that he will now devote himself
to prose.
The poet must then at this time have had in view a large and important
prose work; and it is natural to suppose that he was here alluding to
his Πίνακες, a kind of literary encyclopaedia, which is said by Suidas
to have extended to 120 books and must have occupied the author during
a long period. But the Πίνακες were certainly written at Alexandria ;
and it would hence follow that the Aetia were not completed, as held by
Schneider, of. c7z. ii. p. 40, at Cyrene, and the choice would lie
between the view of Merkel (Apollon. Rhod. p. xxi), that these poems,
though begun were not published in youth, and that of Hecker, Com.
Ca/lim. p. τό, that they were the product of the poet’s maturity. At
any rate the present passage is in thorough accordance with the view of
Wilamowitz (Texigesch. d. gr. Bukoliker, pp. 173-4, cf. Gotting. Nachr.
1893, pp. 745-6) that the poetical activity of Callimachus is to be
assigned to the prior part of his career, and that his appointment at
the Alexandrian library turned his energies into another channel.
Fig.4: Oxy 1011: Callimachus, Folio II verso (Plate III)
Below these final verses is inscribed the title of the foregoing book,
‘The fourth Book of the Aetia of Callimachus.’ From the fact that no
number beyond four had been mentioned in the citations from this work,
the inference had been drawn that it did not include more than four
books; and this is now definitely confirmed by the papyrus. ....
Suidas relates that Marianus, who flourished in the fifth century,
produced a μετάφρασις of the Hecale, Hymns, Aetia, and Epigrams of
Callimachus in 6,810 iambic verses. Marianus is hardly likely to have
effected a considerable reduction in the number of the lines; the
tendency would rather be in the opposite direction. But the extant
hymns and genuine epigrams of Callimachus amount to 1,400 lines, and
the Hecale appears to have been a lengthy poem; therefore, if the four
books of the Aetia averaged some 1,500 lines, a much larger total than
6,810 iambics would be expected. If on the other hand the alternative
view be adopted, that the foliation of this MS. referred to pages, and
consequently the foregoing estimate of leaves and lines be divided by
two, the difficulties disappear. Seven or eight hundred lines is the
normal compass of a book, and the scope of Marianus’ metaphrase, with
some allowance for hymns and epigrams no longer extant, becomes more
natural.
The Iambi open with a general prologue, extending to about 30 lines, of
which the first three and a half had already been correctly
reconstructed from (p.20) scattered citations. At 1]. 103 begins the
story of Bathycles’ cup, which was to be given to the wisest man and
went the round of the seven sages until it came a second time to
Thales, by whom it was dedicated to Apollo of Didyma: cf. Diog. Laert.
i. 28 ...
The sixteen verses on Fol. 2 are much obscured by mutilation, but Fol.
3 verso is in rather better case. Thales is discovered drawing
geometrical figures by Bathycles’ son, who offers him the cup. The
first two verses and the gist of part of the following passage were
previously known from Diogenes Laertius and Diodorus Excerpt. Vat., by
means of which attempts had been made at restoration (Fr. 83 a) with,
as is now seen, indifferent success....
This story is referred in ll. 171-3, a passage already known as an
adespoton, to Aesop (cf. the citation in 1. 54 of Xenomedes), but is
not found in the extant collection of Aesopian fables or in those of
Babrius. The rest of the verso and the recto is severely damaged, and
there is little that is intelligible until in 1. 211 the narrative of
the dispute between the two trees is begun. If, as may well be the
case, the preceding lines of the recto all belong to the preface of
this, the fable would appear to have been narrated by one of the
persons whose meeting is described in Il. 192 sqq. The first two and a
half verses of the story itself were already extant (Fr. 93a), but
nothing was known concerning the nature of the quarrel, or of
Callimachus’ treatment of it in the poem of which a substantial portion
is now happily recovered in Fol. 5.
In rhetorical speeches the rivals expatiate in turn upon their
own respective merits and advantages, the laurel dwelling upon its
ritualistic and ceremonial uses, and taunting the olive with the
indignity of association with corpses (ll. 218-239).
To this the olive replies at length (lines 242 sqq.), priding itself on
assisting to honour the dead, and, with regard to the pretensions of
the laurel, pointing out that the olive-branch was the prize of victory
at Olympia, which ranked before Delphi. The olive proceeds (lines 260
sqq.) to claim superiority on the ground, first, of a more illustrious
origin, secondly, of its serviceable qualities, and thirdly, of being
the emblem of the suppliant. At ll. 291-6 another tree intervenes in
the interests of peace, but with the result of making the laurel, which
is getting the worst of the argument, the more angry, and the would-be
peacemaker only meets with abuse.
Here the papyrus fails us and, since the next leaf is missing, we cannot tell how the quarrel was brought to a termination.
It is, however, something to learn that Callimachus, like other
iambographers, wrote in trochaic tetrameters (trochaic pentameters are
exemplified in Fr. 115); and the remains are sufficient to show that
his use of the measure was marked by an unexpected freedom. ....
Callimachus thus allows himself the same licence in this respect as the
comedians. ....
For the sake of clearness a brief summary of the disposition and contents of the leaves may here be added :
— Fol. 1 verso and recto (pp. 151-2) = dez. iii, story of Cydippe.
Fol. 2 verso (p. 185?) = “4162. iv, conclusion, and /amé., prologue.
recto (p. 186?) = conclusion of prologue, and story of Bathycles (Lamb.
1).
Fol. 3 verso (p. 187) = story of Bathycles continued. recto (p. 188) : subject doubtful (Zam. 2).
Fol. 4 verso |p. 189] = story of the reign of Saturn (continuation of
/amé. 2 ?), recto [p. 190| = story of dispute between laurel and olive
(amd. 3).
Fol. 5 verso and recto (pp. 191-2) = dispute between laurel and olive con-tinued.
Fol. 6 verso and recto [pp. 195-6 or 197-8?] = ἃ piece relating to poetical composition, especially tragedy (Jam. 4).
Fol. 7 recto and verso [pp. 201-2 Ὁ] = trochaic poem (amb. 5).
In the reconstruction and interpretation of this difficult text I have
received invaluable assistance from Professor U. von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, to whom is due in no slight degree such
success as may have been attained. Many restorations and comments will
be found expressly attributed to him in the notes below; but the
frequency of these references is by no means the measure of my great
obligations. The proofsheets were also seen by Professor Gilbert
Murray, whom I have to thank for a number of acute suggestions and
criticisms.
Text of Aetia
Translation from Greek: (p.60)
lines 1-9
“...and already the maid had been couched with the youth in accord with
the custom bidding the affianced bride forthwith rest in a pre-nuptial
sleep with her all-favoured suitor. For they say that once Hera [1] —’
Cease, dog, cease: reckless heart, thou wilt sing what it is not lawful
for thee to speak of! Lucky indeed for thee that thou hast never seen
the mysteries of the dread goddess, or thou hadst e’en begun to blurt
out the tale of them. Verily much knowledge is a grievous ill for one
who controls not his tongue; how truly is he a child possessed of a
knife.’
notes:
1. In Aristaenetus i. 10 [b] the description of the sickness with which
Cydippe was seized is immediately preceded by a long speech placed in
the mouth of Acontius; whois apparently expressing his regret that
Cydippe had not immediately followed up her (unintentional) declaration
that she would marry him after the custom of the maidens of her own
island, who copied the example of Hera.
translation from Greek: (p.60-61)
10-49. ‘In the morning the oxen [2] were about to chafe their spirit in
the water, having before them the evening’s keen blade, when she was
seized by a dread pallor, seized by the sickness that we send out into
the wild goats [3], and falsely call sacred ; this it was that then in
grievous wise wasted the girl to her very bones. A second time were the
couches spread; (p.61) a second time the maiden lay ill seven months of
a quartan fever. A third time they bethought themselves of the
marriage: again for the third time a fearful chill laid hold of
Cydippe. For a fourth time her father did not tarry, but set off to
Apollo of Delphi, who in the night spake this oracle: “A dread oath by
Artemis breaks off the maiden’s marriage with Lygdamis [4]. My sister
was not troubling Tenos, nor plaiting rushes [5] in Amyclae’s temple,
nor, fresh from the chase, washing away her stains in the stream of
Parthenius [6], but was sojourning at Delos, when your child vowed that
she would have Acontius and none other for her husband ...; but if you
will take me for your adviser you will perform all your daughter’s
pledges [7]. For I say that you will not be mixing silver with lead,
but in accepting Acontius will be mingling electrum with shining gold.
You the father-in-law are of the stock of Codrus, while your Cean son
is priest of the rites of Aristaeus [8] Bringer of Rain, one whose duty
it is to soften on the hill-top the fierceness of the rising Maera, and
to ask of Zeus the wind by which the thronging quails [9] are stricken
in the hempen nets.” Thus spake the god: and the other returned to
Naxos and questioned the maid herself, but she hid all the tale in
silence. So he voyaged forth: it remained to fetch thee, Acontius, to
his own Dionysias. And faith was kept with the goddess, and the maid’s
fellows forthwith sang their comrade’s bridal songs which were no more
delayed. Methinks, Acontius, thou wouldst then have taken for the
maiden girdle which thou didst touch that night neither the foot of
Iphicles speeding over the corn-tops nor the wealth of Midas of
Celaenae, and all who are not ignorant of the grievous god would
testify to my judgement.’
notes:
2. It was already the morning of the day on which Cydippe’s
marriage was to be celebrated when the sickness overtook her. The
oxen were to exhaust some of their high spirit in a morning bath, in
order to come clean and quiet to the evening sacrifice.
3. The supposed connexion with goats comes out in the
Hippocratean treatise περὶ ἱερᾶς νούσου" ad init. where notice is taken
of the popular belief that it was harmful to eat goats’ flesh and to
wear or lie upon goat-skins; cf. also the references there to the
καθαρμοὶ καὶ ἐπαοιδαί by which a cure was sought.
.
4. The Naxian rival of Acontius is given a well-known Naxian
name. A cult of Artemis at Tenos is attested by the name of the month
᾿Αρτεμισιών, C.I.G, 2338; at Amyclae we hear from Pausanias iii. 18.9
of a statue of Artemis Λευκοφρυηνή carved by Bathycles of Magnesia. The
present passage points to a common cult of Artemis and Apollo in the
great shrine of Amyclae, such as is frequently found elsewhere. Artemis
was prominent in Laconia.
5. Reeds or rushes would be appropriate to Artemis as a river goddess.
6. Parthenius was also an older name of the river Imbrasus in Samos according to Callimachus.
7. The commencement of this verse is a crux. Some reference to the stratagem of Acontius would be expected; cf. Aristaenetus.
8. The meaning here doubtless is that Acontius was the priest of Aristaeus- Icmius, which showed his high lineage.
9. It is in March that the quails begin to migrate north across the
Mediterranean. But the north wind which brought the birds was the wind
which later on cooled the summer heats, and there is no reason to
suspect the poet of having confused the ἐτησίαι and the ὀρνιθίαι.
translation from Greek: (p.65)
50-79. ‘From that marriage a great name was to spring: for thy line the
Acontiadae still dwells, Cean, numerous and honoured at Iulis; and this
desire of thine we heard from old Xenomedes [10], who once lay up a
memorial of the whole island’s lore, beginning with how it was taken
for an abode by the Corycian nymphs whom a mighty lion [11] drove from
Parnassus, wherefore they named it Hydrussa; and how Ciro . . . dwelt
at Caryae [12], and how the Carians [13] and Leleges abode in the
island, whose offerings Zeus, god of the battle-cry, ever receives to
the trumpets’ sound, and then Ceos [14], son of Phoebus and Melia,
caused it to be called by another name; and the tale of insolence and
death by lightning, and the sorcerers the Telchines, and Demonax who in
his folly recked not of the blessed gods the ancient put in his
tablets, and the aged Macelo, mother of Dexithea, whom alone the
immortals left unscathed when for its wicked insolence they laid the
island waste; and how of its four cities Megacles founded Carthaea, and
Eupylus, son of the demigod Chryso, the fair-founted citadel of Iulis,
yea and Acae . . Poeéssa, seat of the long-tressed Graces, and
Aphrastus Coresus’ town, and joined with them the old man, friend of
truth, told, Cean, of thy sore love; whence came the maiden’s story to
my muse. I will not then now sing of the habitation of the cities... .’
notes: (p.66)
10. This reference by the poet to his authority is highly interesting
and also provides some historical information of importance. Xenomedes
[c] is occasionally cited by grammarians .... but only in one passage
is he more fully specified, Dion. Hal. De Thucyd. 5, where Xenomedes
stands in a list of local historians prior to the Peloponnesian
war. It is now evident that Χῖος should there be emended ... to
Κεῖος, and that Xenomedes is to be recognized as the Cean writer who
was no doubt among the sources of Aristotle and, indirectly, of
Heraclides [d] in their accounts of the history and institutions of
Ceos. Several points of contact with lines 56-63 are to be found in the
excerpts of Heraclides ....
11. According to the Heraclides excerpt quoted in note 10 above, the
lion was the cause of the departure of the nymphs, not of their
arrival. A colossal lion close to a spring of water (cf. 1. 72
εὔκρηνον) is still one of the features of the site of Julis.
12. Who it was who lived at Caryae and what this has to do with Cean
tradition remains a problem. Besides the well-known Laconian Caryae we
hear of places so called only in Arcadia and Lycia, and there is no
evident link between any of these and Ceos. .... Carystus, son of
Chiron, was the reputed founder of Carystus in Euboea, and it is
noticeable that in the Heraclides excerpt cited above that town
is mentioned.
13. Herodotus i. 171 attributes certain inventions in armour to the
Carians, whose warlike proclivities are also indicated by the tradition
that they were the first μισθοφόροι; but they do not appear to be
elsewhere specially connected with σάλπιγγες, the introduction of which
was claimed by the neighbouring Lydians. The custom referred to by
Callimachus belongs not to Ceos but to the Carians proper, whose Ζεὺς
Στράτιος (Hdt. v. 119, &c.) is here meant by Ζεὺς ᾿Αλαλάξιος, (p.67)
14. Ceos is called the son of Apollo and Rhodoéssa in Etym. Magn. 504.
53. 64-9. ... In three respects Ovid and his scholia are at variance
with the version of the legend here given by Callimachus. .... the
ancient commentators thereon represent Macelo not as Dexithea’s mother,
but as an elder sister who was slain on account of the guilt of her
husband, while Dexithea and other sisters were preserved ; moreover,
the name of the sisters’ father, the chief of the Telchines, is given
as Damo, who is obviously to be identified with the Demonax.
Text of Iambi:
translation from Greek: (p.75)
lines 218-239."... the left white as a snake’s belly, the other, which
is oft uncovered, -burnt by the sun. What house is there where I am not
at the door-post? What seer, what offerer of sacrifice does not take me
with him? Yea, and the priestess of Pytho has her seat in laurel, of
laurel she sings, of laurel makes her couch. O foolish olive, did not
Branchus save the sons of the Jonians, when Phoebus was angry with
them, by striking them with laurel [1] and saying twice or thrice ...?
I go to feasts and to the Pythian choral dance, I am made a prize of
victory, and the Dorians cut me on the hill-tops at Tempe and carry me
to Delphi whene’er the rites of Apollo are celebrated. O foolish olive,
I am acquainted with no hurt, nor know I the path of the bier-carrier,
for I am pure, nor do men trample me, for I am sacred; but with you
whenever they are about to burn a corpse or lay it out for burial they
crown themselves and also duly place you beneath the sides of the
lifeless body ”.’
notes:
1. The allusion here is to the Delphic theoria sent every ninth
year to Tempe, whence a laurel branch was carried back by a δαφνηφόρος
παῖς. This solemnity commemorated the purification of Apollo at Tempe
... after killing the Python ; see Steph. Byz. p. 223. 12,
Plutarch, Ae/. Gr. 12 (293), Miiller, Dordans ii. 1. 2.
Translation from Greek: (p.76)
240-59. "Thus boasting spake she; but nothing daunted the producer of
oil repelled her: 'O laurel, utterly barren of that which I bear, you
have sung like a swan at the end I help to carry to burial the men whom
Ares slays and (am laid on the bier) of the heroes who (perish nobly)
[2]; and when a white-haired grandmother or an aged Tithonus is borne
to the grave by their children, I attend them and am laid upon the
ground. I.. more than you for those who bring you from Tempe; _ nay,
even in that matter of which you spoke, am I not also as a prize
superior to you, for where is the greater festival, at Olympia or at
Delphi? Yes, silence is best! I indeed say nought of you that is either
good or ill, but the birds have long been sitting among my leaves
unwontedly chattering thus' ”. [3]
notes:
2. W-M thinks that the point of this allusion to the κύκνειον μέλος is
the mention by the laurel of funerals, which is accepted as a bad omen.
3. Ἰ neither praise nor blame ; it is the birds in my branches
which chatter thus.’ The olive humourously attributes to the birds its
unflattering remarks.
Translation from Greek: (p.78)
260-80. ‘Who found the laurel? the earth (produced it) just like the
ilex, the oak, the galingale, or other timber. Who found the olive?
Pallas, when she contended for Acte with him who dwells amid the
seaweed, and the man of old who in the lower parts was a snake gave
judgement. That is one fall for the laurel. Who of the immortals
honours the olive, who the laurel? Apollo the laurel, Pallas her
discovery the olive. In this they are even, for I distinguish not
between gods. What is the laurel’s fruit? For what shall I use it?
Neither eat it nor drink it nor anoint yourself with it! But that of
the olive pleases in many ways: it is a morsel for food. .., and with
it as an unguent one may dive as deep as Theseus(?) [4]. A second fall
I set down to the laurel. Whose is the leaf that suppliants hold
forward? The olive’s: for the third and last time is the laurel thrown.
Oh, the tireless ones! how they chatter. Shameless crow, does not your
beak ache? Whose is the trunk preserved by the Delians? The olive’s,
which gave a seat to Leto.’
notes:
4. The general sense evidently is that the produce of the olive is good both as
food and as an unguent; the employment of oil as an unguent is apparently traced back to Theseus.
_______________________________________________________________
Extant Classical Authors
No. 1016. Plato [e], Phaedrus. 2857-5 cm. 3rd century AD. Plate V (Cols. v-vi). (p.115)
Six columns in very fair preservation, containing the proem of the Phaedrus
(pp. 227a-230e). A coronis is placed at the bottom of the last column,
and a broad margin follows, which shows that the dialogue was not
continued on this sheet ; either, therefore, it was for some reason
left incomplete or a fresh roll was begun.
As with so many of the literary papyri belonging
to the first large find of 1906, from which both Nos. 1016 and 1017 are
derived, this text is on the verso of a cursive document, a register of
landownérs, part of which is printed later on in this volume (No.
1044). The document was drawn up in the fourteenth year of an unnamed
emperor, no doubt either Marcus Aurelius (AD 173-4) or Septimius
Severus (AD 205-6).
Fig.5: Oxy 1016: Plato, Phaedra, cols. 5-6 (Plate V)
A date near the commencement or in the earlier decades of the 3rd
century AD is therefore indicated for the MS. of the Phaedrus, and this
is the period which the hand itself would naturally suggest. It is a
medium-sized uncial of the oval type, but upright, and written in a
rather free and flowing style. .... (p.116) The text is not
uninteresting, showing a number of small variations from the mediaeval
MSS. No doubt the scribe was liable to make mistakes (cf. Il. 40, 85,
154, 187) and sometimes seems to have had a difficulty in reading his
archetype (cf. notes on 1]. 160 and 229). On the other hand good
readings occur which have hitherto rested either on inferior evidence
or modern conjecture; .... These lend a certain colour to the variants
the value of which is more questionable. As between the two principal
MSS., the Bodleianus (B) and Marcianus (T), the papyrus shows, as
usual, little preference, agreeing first with one and then with the
other. The appended collation is based on Burnet’s Oxford edition, of
which B and T are the foundation; occasional references to other MSS.
are taken from the edition of Bekker.
_______________________________________________________________
No. 1017. Plato, Phaedrus. Height 27.5 cm. Late 2nd or early 3rd c. AD. Plate VI (Cols. xix—xx). (p.127)
The following remains of a fine copy of the Phaedrus
extend from p. 238c to p. 251b, with considerable lacunae, a gap of as
much as eleven columns occurring after Col. vii. This text and No.1016
were found together, but they are two quite distinct manuscripts, and
differ markedly both in the quality of the materials and the character
of the hands.
Fig.6: Oxy 1017: Plato, Phaedra, cols. 19-20 (Plate VI).
This MS. is probably rather earlier in date than No. 1016, and may go
back to the end of the 2nd century AD. The text is on the whole
accurate and good, and the double readings, which have been referred to
above, give it a particular interest.... The papyrus shows its good
(p.128) quality by frequently preserving the superior reading when one
of the two chief authorities, Bodleianus (B) and Marcianus (T),
goes astray, sometimes (e. g. xxi. 4, xxii. 13) against them both. As
in the commentary on No. 1016, it is to the evidence of those two MSS.,
as given by Burnet, that the collation appended below is for the most
part confined; some additional information has been supplied from
Bekker’s edition.
Footnotes:
1. [Editor's Note:] The original textual commentaries and notes provided by Grenfell and Hunt on
passages in Greek, and on some bibliographic references, have sometimes been abbreviated or omitted, if not essential to
understanding the content of the papyri documents. Any such omissions
are marked with "....", and any added words needed for clarity are
placed between brackets [ ]. These elisions are separate from those
used by Grenfell and Hunt in the translated text, which have not been
altered.
2. [Editor's Note:] References to all other papyri from the Oxyrhynchus
collections are given with their sequential number as "No. xx".
Abbreviations to other papyri collections and standard historical
references used by Grenfell and Hunt include the following:
Archiv.= Archiv fur Papyrusforschung.
B.G.U. = Aeg. Urkunden aus den K. Museum zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden.
C.I.G. = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum
C.I.L. = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
Cod. Just.= Codex Justianus
Cod. Theod.= Codex Theodosianus
C.P.R. = Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, by C. Wessely.
Marcellinus =The late Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus.
P. Amh. = The Amherst Papyri (Greek), Vols. I-II, by B.P.Grenfell and A.S.Hunt.
P. Brit.Mus. = Greek papyri in the British Museum, vol.I-II by F.G. Kenyon.
P. Cairo = Catalog of the Greek Papyri in the Cairo Museum,by Grenfell & Hunt.
P.
Grenf. = Greek Papyri, Ser. 1 by B.P. Grenfell, and Ser. II by Grenfell and Hunt
P. Hibeh = The Hibeh Papyri by B.P Grenfell and A.S. Hunt
P. Leipzig = Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig by I Mitteis.
P. Leyden = Papyri Graeci Musei Antiquarii Lugduni-Batavi, by C. Leemans.
P. Tebt. = The Tebtunis Papyri, by B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt, et al.
Perseus = the satirical ancient Roman playwright Perseus.
Wilcken, Ost. = Griechische Ostraka, by U. Wilcken.
a. [Editor's Note:] Callimachus (ca.310 – 240 BC) was an ancient Greek poet
who wrote over 800 literary works in a wide variety
of genres. He was born in Cyrene, a Greek city on the coast of
modern-day Libya.
During the 280s, Callimachus is thought to have studied under the
philosopher Praxiphanes and the grammarian Hermocrates at Alexandria, According to the the Suda, a 10th-century AD Byzantine encyclopaedia, Callimachus then entered into the patronage of
the Ptolemies, the Greek ruling dynasty of Egypt, and was employed at
the Library of Alexandria. His career coincided
with the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who became sole ruler of
Egypt in 283 BC, and married
his second wife, Arsinoe II, who was also his sister, sometime between
276 and 273 BC. Callimachus wrote poems on the occasion of their
marriage. The composition of Books
1 and 2 of the Aetia is dated to the 270s. The popularity of the Aetia is indicated by
the large number of fragmentary papyrus copies that have survived.
b. [Editor's note:] Aristaenetus was an
ancient Greek epistolographer who flourished in the 5th or 6th century
AD. Under his name, two books of love stories, in the form of letters,
are extant; the subjects are borrowed from the erotic elegies of such
Alexandrian writers as Callimachus, and the language is a patchwork of
phrases from Plato, Lucian, Alciphron and others.
c. [Editor's note:] Xenomedes of Keos (5th c. BC) was a historian who wrote about the mythic genealogy and history of
Ceos. The references from Callimachus are a main source of information about this otherwise little known historian.
d. [Editor's note:] Heraclides Lembus was a 2nd c. BC Greek historian
and philosophical writer whose works only survive in fragments quoted
in later authors. The Suda mentions a
Heraclides of Oxyrhynchus, He lived during the
reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor and worked for the Ptolemaic administration, with Agatharchides of Cnidus as his secretary. He is said to have negotiated the treaty that ended Antiochus IV's invasion of Egypt in 169 BC.
e. [Editor's note:] Plato (424 – 348 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher who founded the Academy in Athens. Along with his teacher, Socrates, and student Aristotle,
Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy, whose entire body of work
is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years. He was an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms in philosophy. His dialogue Phaedrus, composed
in about 370 BC, is between Socrates and Phaedrus, who appears in
several dialogues. The discussion revolves around the art of rhetoric
and how it should be practiced, and covers diverse subjects including
reincarnation, erotic love, and the nature of the human soul.
[Continue to next part]
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|
