Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Historia 61-3-2012 New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

Historia 61-3-2012 New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

Ratings: (0)|Views: 397|Likes:
Published by niconarsi
Historia, Band 61, Heft 3, 2012.

Elsner, Jaś "New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 289-292
D'Alessio, Giambattista "Reconstructions of the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 292-309
Hammerstaedt, Jürgen "Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle and its Relationship to the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 309-324
Tarte, Ségolène M. "The Digital Existence of Words and Pictures: The Case of the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 325-336
Leyra, Irene Pajón "Artemidorus Behind Artemidorus: Geographic Aspects in the Zoological Designs of the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 336-367
Historia, Band 61, Heft 3, 2012.

Elsner, Jaś "New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 289-292
D'Alessio, Giambattista "Reconstructions of the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 292-309
Hammerstaedt, Jürgen "Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle and its Relationship to the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 309-324
Tarte, Ségolène M. "The Digital Existence of Words and Pictures: The Case of the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 325-336
Leyra, Irene Pajón "Artemidorus Behind Artemidorus: Geographic Aspects in the Zoological Designs of the Artemidorus Papyrus" pp. 336-367

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: niconarsi on Jun 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Historia
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte
Revue d’Histoire AncienneJournal of Ancient History 
Rivista di Storia Antica
Historia Band 61 • Heft 3 • 2012© Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart
NEW STUDIES ON THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS
Ja
ś
Elsner et al.IntroductionBy Ja
ś
Elsner
1
The papers on the Artemidorus Papyrus gathered here were
rst given in a colloquium atCorpus Christi College, Oxford, in June 2011. They spring from two convictions, sharedby all those involved. First, if the papyrus is to be regarded as a post-antique forgery, asmany have argued,
2
then the proponents of that view need to offer a more compellingpiece of evidence, a ‘smoking gun’ which can prove that some facet of its manufacture(inks, papyrus sheet or whatever) is de
nitively not ancient. Despite the extraordinaryenergy of those who wish to deny its authenticity, the case for its being a fake currentlyrests on a subtle structure of assertion, allegation and innuendo, which does not cons-titute a convincing argument. To be sure, the papyrus is unique (in the mix of its texts,its map and its drawings, as well as in each of these categories taken individually) butthat is not in itself an argument for forgery. Indeed – if the aim of a forger is to createsomething that will slip under the radar as not obviously problematic – then the burdenof likelihood from all the numerous unusual features of P. Artemid. points towardsan exceptional ancient survival rather than a fake. This is not to endorse the papyrus’authenticity beyond the likelihoods of relative probability – but within that world, of the likely rather than the absolutely proven, the authors of the papers collected here areconvinced that the papyrus is more likely to be authentic than to be a forgery.
3
Evenin the arena that has supplied the most powerful case for forgery, the appearance of aknown text from Artemidorus himself in the papyrus, Jürgen Hammerstaedt argues herethat the evidence points powerfully towards authenticity and not to modern fabrication.
1 Corpus Christi College, Oxford OX1 4JF, UK, jas.elsner@ccc.ox.ac.uk. Special thanks are due to DrJames Brusuelas for help with copyediting, and to the Corpus Christi Centre for Greek and RomanAntiquity for supporting the original colloquium. We are grateful to LED Edizioni Universitarie forpermission to reprint the images which are copyright 2008 by LED.2 Supremely L. Canfora in many articles and books notably his journal
Quaderni di Storia
and bookssuch as Canfora (2008) and (2011).3 In his paper here, D’Alessio shows a number of areas where the arguments of the Canfora schoolof forgery simply cannot be upheld.
Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar.Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitungen in elektronischen Systemen.© Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2012
 
J
A
Ś
E
LSNER
et al.
290It is only when questions of forgery cease to run the academic agenda, that themuch more interesting historical and cultural issues can be raised. These issues includewhat the evidence supplied by the papyrus will mean for our understanding of ancientconceptions of geography and geographical prose, space, the mapping and visual re-presentation of space, paradoxography, zoological drawing,
gure drawing, art historyin general including issues of visual mimesis and book illustration. In all these areas,the Artemidorus papyrus has strong claims to be a cardinal item in the rewriting of cur-rently accepted histories. If the adventure of using it to inaugurate the retelling of thesestories can begin, then all these
elds will be enriched by a vibrant scholarly debate.However, for all such discussions, scholars are in the hands of the
editio princeps
 (Gallazzi, Kramer and Settis (2008)), about which very signi
cant reservations nowneed to be expressed. In particular, most students of the papyrus now agree (as do allthe contributors to this group of articles) that the order in which the Artemidorus pa-pyrus was restored (and hence the order in which it was published) is mistaken. Theindependently-made suggestions by Nisbet (2009) and D’Alessio (2009), and especiallythe new technical observations offered by D’Alessio in 2009 (with the signi
cant furtherdigital support of Tarte, in this fascicle) make it certain that section
a
of the roll shouldfollow fairly closely onto section
c
, with the small fragment known as section
hangingloose and not possible to place in direct contiguity with any surviving segment. Theymake it clear that what survives is only about half of what the roll once contained andthey make nonsense of the original editors’ views that the papyrus contained a coherentlinear copy of a book by Artemidorus. The grudging acceptance by Kramer and Gallazzi(the papyrologists in the editorial team) of D’Alessio’s position as certainly re
ectingone ancient condition of the papyrus (even if they insist on their reconstruction as beingoriginally correct, and D’Alessio’s as representing an ancient restoration) means thatthey have been persuaded too by his technical arguments (Galazzi and Kramer 2009:216–20).The upshot of this discussion is that although all current and future students of thepapyrus have no option but to use the
editio princeps
, nonetheless it needs to be usedwith much caution and care. Unlike other objects and texts from antiquity for whichscholars have easy or ready recourse to the original in cases of doubt, P. Artemid. isnot easy to access nor on public display. Moreover, what can be seen with the nakedeye is not obviously clear. More than most objects, this papyrus has a virtual and di-gital existence made concrete through the
editio princeps
and its many interpretations – among which the apparently documentary sets of images (all digitally doctored indifferent ways) must be included. Segolène Tarte’s paper in this volume, by an image-processing expert with signi
cant experience of papyrology, is an attempt to cast lighton the problems and the bene
ts created by the existence of the papyrus in what wemight call a new-media digital dimension, as well as a call for much greater opennessand clarity about the digital metadata used to create the images which are the basis of current and future study.In the course of their papers, Giambattista D’Alessio and Irene Pajón Leyra callattention to a number of signi
cant omissions in the
editio princeps
– of some mirror
Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar.Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitungen in elektronischen Systemen.© Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2012
 
New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus
291images, of fragmentary drawings and labels on the
verso
and so forth. Again, this is anarea where greater digital study, and greater understanding of what we are doing whenusing digital imagery, alongside autopsy of the actual papyrus, is ultimately going toyield a number of fresh insights. One entailment of Tarte’s paper – and in particularher
gure 7 – is the potential usefulness of a facsimile in the new arrangement of thefragments with recto and verso correctly aligned on front and back of a single, longphotographic sheet, which the user could roll and unroll to explore not only questionsof ink offsets and markings but also juxtapositions of image and text in recto and verso,which are normal in the use of a roll (but hardly studied within papyrology generally).If there ever were a second edition, this would de
nitely be a worthwhile addition. Theproblem will be that the cost of the
editio princeps
and the excessively vested set of positions taken by the editors means that a second, much more usable standard edition,closer to the original, is unlikely to be produced. A second entailment of Tarte’s callfor the release of all the images and the metadata, alongside Pajón Leyra’s comparisonof two photographs of a very small section of the papyrus, taken respectively in 2005and 2008 (
gures 11 and 12), is that it is quite clear that very signi
cant – and heav-ily interpretative – changes took place in restoration, which could be documented if the visual information were released, and some of which may misrepresent what wasoriginally on the papyrus.In his paper Jürgen Hammerstaedt addresses the fundamental philological problemsof the text of Artemidorus found in the papyrus at column IV in relation to the quotationfrom the same passage (conventionally referred to as Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle) in theeleventh century Paris manuscript of the
de administrando imperio
23, a text commis-sioned in the mid-tenth century by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyro-genitus and itself quoting not from the original but from the sixth-century geographicaldictionary of Stephanus of Byzantium (which depended at least in part on an earlierepitome of Artemidorus by Marcianus of Heraclea). His conclusion is that not only isthe text of the papyrus at col. IV an excerpt from the original of Artemidorus but alsothat the Artemidorus fragment quoted by Constantine is a somewhat edited redactiongoing back to Stephanus of an excerpt deriving from the original Artemidorus.The presence of an excerpt from Artemidorus in the papyrus, alongside the ratherdifferent and high-blown prefatory text that followed it at col. I–II (which may very wellnot be by Artemidorus), in addition to the map and the different groups of images on
recto
and
verso
arguably point – in the argument advanced here by D’Alessio – to theconclusion that the Artemidorus Papyrus was neither the luxury edition of Artemidorus’
Geography
proposed by the
editio princeps
nor the fake suggested by Luciano Canforaand his collaborators. Rather it was a miscellaneous compilation – peculiarly hybridin its mix of images, texts and map – plausibly created for some kind of didactic pur-pose that combined geography, zoology and paradoxography. The suggestion of PajónLeyra, in this volume, that there is a geographic logic to the disposition of the drawingsof animals on the
verso
and that this logic emulates the structure of Artemidorus’ textsupports the hunch that the papyrus had an integrated didactic thrust in its composition,which need not be in con
ict with the view that the bestiary of labelled drawings on the
Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar.Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitungen in elektronischen Systemen.© Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2012

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->