Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out 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
APF.2010 Minima Marcianea Filippomaria Pontani

APF.2010 Minima Marcianea Filippomaria Pontani

Ratings: (0)|Views: 728|Likes:
Published by niconarsi
Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete. Vol. 56, 1, 2010, pagg. 45–50, articolo di Filippomaria Pontani
Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete. Vol. 56, 1, 2010, pagg. 45–50, articolo di Filippomaria Pontani

More info:

Published by: niconarsi on Jun 22, 2011
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

02/03/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Minima Marcianea
 
Filippomaria Pontani (Venedig)
 Abstract:
The evident analogy between
P.Artemid
col. IV, 18–24 and Marcian
. Per. mar. ext
. 2, 6 (p. 544, 2–4 Müller) is best explained by assuming that Marcianus had Artemidorus’ text in front of him while writing the entire section 2, 2 – 2, 7 of his
Periplus
, and especially in parr. 2, 6–7,dealing with the general shape of Iberia.
 Keywords:
 Artemidorus, Marcianus, Iberia, quotation techniques
Very few scholars will share Luciano Canfora’s arguments about column IV of P.Artemid. after the limpid refutations offered by C.M. Lucarini, M.L. West andJ. Hammerstaedt in 2009
1
. However, since the distinguished colleague and his en-tourage still repeatedly present these arguments as „solid proof“ for the claim thatthe papyrus is a forgery
2
, may a brief marginal note be allowed.In short, Canfora argues that both col. IV, 1–14 (= Artemid. fr. 21 Stiehle) andcol. IV, 18–24 of the Turin papyrus actually represent the wording not of Artemi-dorus, but rather that of his late antique (5th-century?) epitomiser Marcianus
3
._________
1
C.M. Lucarini,
 Il nuovo Artemidoro
, «Philologus» 153, 2009, 109–134: 121–25. M. West,
 All  Iberia is Divided Into Two Parts
, in K. Brodersen, J. Elsner,
 Images and Texts on the „Artemido-rus Papyrus“
, Stuttgart 2009, 95–101, partly on the wake of C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, S. Settis(eds.),
 Il Papiro di Artemidoro
, Milano 2008, 219–220. J. Hammerstaedt,
 Artemidoro di Efesonella tradizione indiretta e nel papiro di Torino
, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, S. Settis (ed.),
 Intornoal papiro di Artemidoro. I. Contesto culturale, lingua e stile
, Pisa 2010, 43–56. On Canfora’sother, untenable objections see C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer,
Fünfzehn Monate Diskussion über den Artemidor-Papyrus
, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, S. Settis con A. Soldati (ed.),
 Intorno al papiro di Artemidoro. I. Contesto culturale, lingua e stile
, Pisa 2010, 169–242. Whatever the issue, likemany Italians I dream of a scholarly world where dissent – above all in public venues – neverresorts to derisory tones bordering on insult, exactly in the same way as I dream of a country freefrom the rhetoric of obstination and personal attack typical of some right-wing newspapers.
2
As a matter of fact, these arguments are also the only ones to have appeared after the
editio princeps
in a scientific venue not directly or indirectly controlled by the proponent himself:L. Canfora,
 Artemidorus fr. 21 and P. Artemid. col. IV 
, in Brodersen, Elsner,
 Images and Texts
,89–94 (summarising, and largely repeating, Id.,
The True History of the So-called ArtemidorusPapyrus
, Bari 2008: 93–126 and Id.,
 A Supplement 
, Bari 2008, 7–9; no progress is made in Id.,
Prove testuali del falso
, «Quaderni di storia» 69, 2009, 279–93).
3
On Marcianus see most recently F. Prontera,
 Marciano di Eraclea e la geografia antica
, inK. Belke, E. Kislinger, A. Külzer, M.A. Stassinopoulou (eds.),
 Byzantina Mediterranea (Fs. J. Koder)
, Wien, Köln, Weimar 2007, 517–23.
 
46 Archiv für Papyrusforschung 56/1, 2010
West’s and Hammerstaedt’s textual and linguistic analysis has ruled this out indetail for the first passage, and more succinctly for the second, on which I shouldlike to focus presently.Let us juxtapose the two passages involved:P.Artemid., col. IV, 18–24
4
 
καὶ
 
τὸ
µ
  ̣ὲ̣ ν̣
 
ἓ̣ ν̣
 
π̣
[
]
ρας
 
ε
[
ἰς
]
τ̣
[
]
 ν̣
 
ἡ̣
µ
ε
|
19
τ̣έραν
 
ἔκκειται
 
χώραν
,
 νενευ
|
20
κὸς
 
πρὸς
 
τὴν
 
 νότιον
 
πλευρὰν
[
καὶ
] |
21
τὴν
µ
εση
µ
βρίαν
,
τὸ
 
δ᾿
 
ἕτερον
|
22
πέρας
 
ἀπεστρα
µµ
ένον
 
πρ̣ὸ̣
[
ς
] |
23
ἄρκτους
 
εἰς
 
τὸν
 
ὠκεανὸν
 
κατὰ
|
23
πολὺ
 
προβέβλητ̣αι
.
Marcianus,
Periplus maris exteri
2, 6 (p. 544, 2–4 M.)
 
καὶ
 
τὸ
µ
ὲν
 
ἓν
 
πέρας
 
τοῦ
 
ὄρους
 
εἰς
 
τὴν
 
µ
ετέραν
 
ἔκκειται
 
θάλασσαν
,
τὸ
 
δὲ
 
ἕτερον
 
πέρας
 
αὐτοῦ
 
πρὸς
 
τὰς
 
ἄρκτους
 
καὶ
 
τὸν
 
ἀρκτῷον
 
ὠκεανὸν
 
προβέβληται
.
a) These two passages, both describing the Pyrenaeans and both introductory toa description of Iberia, are too similar to be independent from one another, and itis hard to believe, for all the „inertia“ of geographical tradition, that they could just share a common source.b) West’s obvious argument is that „an unprejudiced critic will naturally takethe shorter text to be an abridgment of the longer“ (100), all the more so as Mar-cianus is known to have epitomised Artemidorus, using a technique fully inkeeping with our case
5
.c) The major differences between the two texts concern: l. 19
χώραν
, certainlya clerical error of the scribe for
θάλασσαν
6
; l. 20
 νενευκὸς
 
πρὸς
 
τὴν
 
 νότιον
 
πλευρὰν
 
καὶ
 
τὴν
µ
εση
µ
βρίαν
, an impeccable Greek participial sentence clarifyingthat the foot of the Pyrenaeans belongs to the southern side of the triangle andlooks south
7
; ll. 22–3
ἀπεστρα
µµ
ένον
 
πρὸς
 
ἄρκτους
 
εἰς
 
τὸν
 
᾿Ωκεανόν
, whichMarcianus clearly adapted by leaving out the difficult participle
ἀπεστρα
µµ
ένον
 _________
4
I present the text as restored by Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis,
 Il papiro
, and with the integration of 
καί
simultaneously proposed by Lucarini,
 Il nuovo
, 132 and West,
 All Iberia
, 100. G. Carlucci,
Quando i Pirenei si inoltravano nell’Oceano
, in L. Canfora (ed.),
 Il papiro di Artemidoro
, Bari2008, 300–306: 301 suggests *
µ
εση
µ
βρινάν
; B. Bravo,
 Artemidoro di Efeso geografo e retore
,«Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik» 170, 2009, 43–63: 61, would rather delete
τὴν
 µ
εση
µ
βρίαν
altogether.
5
On Marcianus’ technique see M. Billerbeck,
 Artemidorus and Stephanus
, in Brodersen,Elsner,
 Images and Texts
, 65–87, esp. 79–81. See also S. Settis,
 Artemidoro. Un papiro dal I seco-lo al XXI 
, Torino 2009, 57–59.
6
See Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis,
 Il papiro
, 222. One might call it a „polar error“, or a simpleblunder brought about by
χώρας
occurring in l. 15 of col. IV.
7
For the wording see e.g. Diod. Sic. 5, 3, 3
πρὸς
 
τὴν
 
ἄρκτον
 
 νενευκός
(also 5, 41, 1 etc.), Phil.
de prov.
2, 48
πρὸς
µ
εση
µ
βρίαν
 
 νενεύκασιν
, Strab. 2, 5, 31 [129, 14–15 C.] etc. For what it isworth, the 3-ending form of the adj. (
 νοτία
 
πλευρά
) is the rule from Ptolemy (
geogr.
2, 5, 1) on-wards, whereas earlier authors clearly prefer
 νότιος
 
πλευρά
, like in our papyrus (Polyb. 9, 27;Strab. 2, 1, 23 [78, 30 C.]; 2, 1, 31 [84, 11 C.]; 16, 1, 13 [724, 18 C.]).
 
F. Pontani, Minima Marcianea 47
(„looking away“, with respect to the aforementioned south
8
), and by adjusting theformula to his own definition of the parts of the Ocean, particularly to what he(and noone else before him) calls
ἀρκτῷος
 
᾿Ωκεανός
9
; finally, l. 24
κατὰ
 
πολύ
.The latter, on which much has been built, should not be dismissed as an ultimatelyinsignificant detail (so West). Yet the wrong idea that the Pyrenaeans should reachout far into the Ocean, thus creating two gulfs divided by the Oiasso promontory(see col. V, 8–13)
10
, is not so peculiar of Ptolemy as to persuade us that it couldnot have figured in Artemidorus as well: quite the contrary, it belongs to a long-standing tradition encompassing even Strabo himself 
11
.d) Against the derivation of Marcianus from the text of our papyrus, one mightrebuke that in the
Periplus maris exteri
Marcianus declares that he is not going touse Artemidorus as a source for this work: «Poiché il
Periplo del mare esterno
 Marciano lo rivendica come opera sua, non ricavata da altri (p. 567, 10), se nedeve dedurre che le frasi che stiamo considerando (
 Mare esterno
II, 6) debbonoritenersi sue, non tratte da altri»
12
. And – I add – Marcianus makes a point of being honest, and says he will not ascribe to himself the merits and achievementsof previous scholars (see esp.
 Menipp. per. epit.
1, 4, p. 567, 23–33 M.)
13
. Let usverify this._________
8
I regard the conjecture
ἐπεστρα
µµ
ένον
proposed by Bravo,
 Artemidoro di Efeso
, 61, as ulti–mately unnecessary.
9
Can we possibly credit the same forger who – in Canfora’s view – is „not overly familiar withancient Greek“ (and therefore writes
γεογραφία
with omicron), with the skill of detecting Marcia–nus’ terminology and therefore avoiding the adjective
ἀρκτῷος
? Furthermore, the result of Mar-cianus’ abridgement produces a less satisfying
iunctura
between
προβέβληται
and
πρός
+ acc.,whereas
εἰς
is more normal in geographical contexts (see e. g. schol. Ael. Arist. Pan. 110, 19[p. 78, 36 Dind.]; Proc.
aedif.
1, 9, 11 and 4, 3, 17).
10
Perhaps to be
πρὸ
]
ς
|
8
αὐτοῖς
 
δὲ
 
τοῖς
 
µ
οροῦ̣σ̣ι̣ ν̣
 
τῇ
 
Πυρή̣ ν̣η̣ι
µ
  ̣έ̣ρ̣ε
|
9
σιν
 
παρεπέστραπτα̣ι̣
 
πρὸς
 
τὴν̣
 
ἠῶι
 
τ̣ινα̣
 
τ̣ῆ̣ς
|
10
Ἰβηρίας
 
καὶ
 
κόλπου
 
περιγραφὴν̣
 
ε̣ὐ
µ
εγέθου̣
[
ς
 
]
 ν̣
|
11
αποτελεῖ 
 
παρήκοντος
 µ
έχρι
[
τ
]
ῶ̣ ν
 
προδεδη̣λ̣ωι
|
12
µ
ένων
 
ὀρῶν·
 
οὗτος
 
δὲ
 
καὶ
 
συνάπτει
 
τῶι
 
Γαλ̣
[
α
]|
13
 
τ̣ικῶι
 
κόλπωι
(thoughI am not entirely convinced by
τινά
in l. 9; a discussion of the difficult sentence in Bravo,
 Arte-midoro di Efeso
, 61–62).
11
 
Pace
Carlucci,
Quando i Pirenei
: see Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis,
 Il Papiro
, 222 and 232–33.Gallazzi, Kramer,
Fünfzehn Monate Diskussion,
in:
 Intorno al papiro
.
12
Canfora,
 Il papiro
, 289. A small warning about the reliability of what we read in this book:on p. 291 we read that
κατὰ
 
πολύ
«è presente solo nel greco tardo e bizantino» (see also Carlucci’stendentious note 5 on p. 301), whereby Aesop, Epicurus, Dioscorides and Galenus all becomeByzantines (for Canfora’s use of lexical arguments see F. Montanari, D. Muratore,
Parole del  papiro di Artemidoro
, in Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis (eds.),
 Intorno al papiro
, 105–126; A.C. Cassio,
Cultura ellenistica e linguaggio religioso in Artemidoro
,
ibid.
, 67–78); on the same page, we readthat the maps in Ptolemy’s manuscripts are «risalenti al lavoro ricostruttivo di Massimo Planude»(see also Carlucci,
Quando i Pirenei
, 305–6), an old
communis opinio
refuted by F. Mittenhuber,
Text- und Kartenüberlieferung in der Geographie des Klaudios Ptolemaios
, diss. Bern 2009 (seealso my forthcoming article
The World on a Fingernail: an unknown Byzantine map, Planudes and Ptolemy
)
 
.
13
Prontera,
 Marciano
, 520.

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)//-->