1

2
3
4 Franco Montanari
5
6
7 A new papyrus commentary on the Iliad
8
9
Abstract: A new Oxyrhynchus papyrus brings to light fragments from a finished
codex containing an extensive commentary on the Iliad. The critical-exegetical
10 content of this late hypomnema, which is of a high-level, reveals many affinities
11 with the scholia exegetica.
12
13 Keywords: Homeric commentary; papyrus codes; Iliad scholia.
14
15 Some fragments of a papyrus codes to be published in P.Oxy. vol.
16 LXXVI (Inv. 84/17 (a) + 84/32 (a)) uncover a new commentary on
17 the Iliad of the utmost importance1. Only frr. 1 and 2 + 3 preserve a sig-
18 nificant portion of text.
19 The scribe writes in a splendid example of the perfected Alexandrian
20 majuscule of the type with contrasting broad and narrow letter forms,
21 probably datable either to between the Vth and VIth century A.D.,
22 i. e. the period during which the canon of this type of script became es-
23 tablished, or to the first half of the VIth century2. The broad margins
24 (the lower one preserved for over 4 cm, the upper one for 1.5 cm,
25 and the lateral margin for up to 2.5 cm) and the calligraphic style reveal
26 a high-level book product, elegant in its graphic presentation, with great
27 care devoted to precision in the text: a rather fine exemplar, certainly
28 destined to the bookselling trade. The height and width of the page can-
29 not be determined with certainty: it can be said only that the lines con-
30
31
32 English translation by Rachel Barritt Costa.
1 I wish to express my warm thanks to Dirk Obbink for the permission to antici-
33 pate informations concerning this unpublished papyrus, and to Davide Mura-
34 tore for his important help in preparing the edition.
35 2 Guido Bastianini argues in favour of dating the codex to the V/VIth century,
36 with reference to Cavallo 1975, 39 – 40, 46 – 48, 51 = Cavallo 2005,
37 188 – 190, 195 – 196 and 199 (with tab. XLVII a-b); Cavallo/Maehler 1987, ta-
bles. 22a-b, with comm. 52; Cavallo 2008, 101 – 105. Daniela Colomo prefers a
38 dating set well into the VIth century A.D., drawing on a comparison with Ca-
39 vallo/Maehler 1987 tab. 37 (Paschal letter dated A.D. 577), with the references
40 therein.
Trends in Classics, vol. 1, pp. 177 – 182 DOI 10.1515/tcs.2009.011
© Walter de Gruyter 2009

Brought to you by | Rice University

Authenticated | 128.42.202.150
Download Date | 7/9/13 4:00 AM
 178 Franco Montanari

1 tained roughly 37 – 40 letters and the writing area must have been about
2 14 cm wide, but there is nothing to indicate how many lines were con-
3 tained in a page or to suggest the height of the writing area.
4 The work that has come to light in the papyrus fragments forms part
5 of a rich and extensive hypomnema on the Iliad in an independent codex,
6 separate from the text of the poem. In the larger fragments, sections of
7 commentary to book XII and book XV can be identified: fr. 1 preserves
8 a series of lemmata belonging on the ! side to Il. 12.91 – 92 and
9 110 – 111, on the fl side to Il. 12.136, 139 – 140, 147 and 148;
10 frr. 2+3 preserve a series of lemmata belonging on the ! side to
11 Il. 15.610 – 614, 618, 623, 624 and 625, on the fl side to
12 Il. 15.641 – 642 (?), 645, 653, 659, 661. It seems obvious that the pre-
13 served remnants constituted part of a hypomnema to the entire Iliad.
14 They clearly do not constitute sporadic annotations: rather, we are deal-
15 ing with a complete and systematic work, reproduced in a fine high-
16 quality edition. The lemmata identified on the two sides of fr. 1 go
17 from l. 91 to l. 148 of book XII, and those identified on the scraps of
18 the two sides of frr. 2+3 go from l. 610 to l. 661 of book XV. We
19 thus may have 50/60 commented lines per page in the preserved
20 parts, but nothing can be said about the lost parts because the page
21 size cannot be reconstructed. It could perhaps be speculated that roughly
22 100 Iliad lines may have been covered per sheet as an average for the
23 whole poem, in which case book XII might have occupied five sheets,
24 book XV eight sheets, and the entire hypomnema to the Iliad could have
25 been contained in a fine codex composed of roughly 140 – 160 sheets3.
26 The iota adscript is always written. Only scanty lectional signs: an
27 apostrophe in fr. 1 !, l. 17 d’olgqor ; single dot over i (fr. 1 !, l.
28 12) and u (fr. 2 + 3 !, l. 5), perhaps over u in fr. 1 fl, l. 11 (or it
29 could be a smooth breathing). The only visible abbreviation ( j(ai)
30 fr. 1 !, l. 12) appears to be motivated by respect for end-of-line align-
31 ment, but in fr. 2 + 3 !, l. 3, the end-of-line alignment is not respected
32 (because the word is a lemma?). In general, the spelling is correct and
33
the text is written carefully; probably there is a (simply phonetical?)
34
mistake in fr. 1 fl, l. 19, !ýssomtai for the dual !ýssomte.
35
The sections of the commentary are well separated by means of a
36
middle point4, which is placed at the end of the lemma and at the
37
38 3 This seems plausible according to the data given by Turner 1977, 82 – 84.
39 4 More frequent is the use of a dicolon and/or blank space; on the middle point
40 see Salomons 1984.

Brought to you by | Rice University

Authenticated | 128.42.202.150
Download Date | 7/9/13 4:00 AM
 A new papyrus commentary on the Iliad 179

1 end of the commentary section before a new lemma; but a middle point
2 is also used as a punctuation sign within the sentences in the body of the
3 exegesis (cf. fr. 1!, ll. 11, 17 and 18; fr 2 + 3!, l. 6; fr. 2 + 3 fl, l. 15).
4 The extension of the lemmata is variable, as is usually the case: the
5 majority are contained within one line; in one case it is certain that the
6 lemma consists of a single word (15.645, fr. 2 fl, l. 3); in one case the
7 lemma is a pericope that extends over two lines, both incomplete
8 (12.139 – 140 Fr. 1 fl ll. 11 – 12); one lemma consists of two lines that
9 are not fully written out but are instead indicated with a few words fol-
10 lowed by 6yr and by the final word (12.110 – 111, possibly also
11 12.91 – 92, both in fr. 1 !). In the parts that have been preserved,
12 the commentary matches the order of the Homeric text perfectly and
13 no lemmata placed in inappropriate positions are found. No names of
14 grammarians appear, nor are citations from other authors adduced in
15 the exegetic arguments.
16 A number of elements seem to suggest that P.Oxy. should be re-
17 garded as a highly unique finding, of paramount importance. The latest
18 Homeric commentary known so far (excluding the scholia Minora and
19 the Mythographus Homericus) was P.Mich. inv. 1206, which is dated
20 to the IIIrd/IVth century A.D. and written only on the recto, suggesting
21 (although there is no absolute certainty) that it is a fragment of a roll5.
22 This means that the text under investigation here is now unquestionably
23 the latest known Homeric hypomnema and the first to come to light that
24 is definitely contained in a papyrus codex. We have ten or so codex
25 commentaries on various authors, datable to between the III/IVth
26 and the VIth century A.D., but so far none on Homer6 : somewhat
27 strange, if one thinks of the astonishing critical fortune of the Homeric
28 poems at all levels of education, scholarship and society. Now we have
29 what is a late-antiquity commentary presumably on the entire Iliad, con-
30 tained in a book of excellent quality both as regards its graphic appear-
31 ance and the presentation of the text: it is thus a book that combines
32 external beauty with the value of the critical-exegetic content and care-
33
34
35
36
37 5 Luppe 1992a; cf. MP3 1198.01, CPP 0485, LDAB 2078.
6 See in this vol. the article by M. Stroppa. A few commentaries on papyrus roll
38 are dated to the IVth century A.D.: for ex. P.Oxy. 856, commentary on Aris-
39 tophanes, Ach. (Aristophanes 1 CLGP); P.Berol. inv. 13419 (MP3 1357), com-
40 mentary on Pindar, P. 2.17 – 19.

Brought to you by | Rice University

Authenticated | 128.42.202.150
Download Date | 7/9/13 4:00 AM
 180 Franco Montanari

1 ful transcription, a product that must surely have been destined to an

2 equally discriminating public7.
3 Let us now look at two short text portions from fr. 1 ! and from
4 fr. 2 !. As usual the complete edition will be presented in the Oxyrhyn-
5 chus Papyri series.
6 fr. 1 !
7 15 !kk( oq]w. zqtaj¸dgr 5he. k. ( -
. sior 6. y. r. heq²pomta 12.110 – 111
8 6teqor poigtµr #]m t_i Poukud²lamti p²mtar 1po¸
9 gsem peihol´]mour7 b d( nlgqor lilo¼lemor tµm ak. ^.
10
heiam 6ma coO]m t¹[m !pe].ihoOmta eQs²cei7 di± t¸
d³ 6ma toOtom ; fti l²kista to ] .?r. Vppoir Ac²kke
11 20 to
12
13 Sch. ex. Il. 12.110a1 (T): !kk( oqw zqtaj¸dgr 5hek( < -sior, eqwalor !mdq_m>:
14 baqbaqijµ B !pe¸heia. 6teqor l³m #m poigtµr t` Pokud²lamti 1po¸gse p²mtar
15 peihol´mour, b d³ nlgqor lilo¼lemor tµm !k¶heiam 6ma coOm t¹m !peihoOmta
16
eQs²cei. di± t¸ d³ 6ma toOtom ; fti l²kista to?r Vppoir Ac²kketo7 “lec²koi”
(L 97) c±q Gsam7 oXr ja· haqq_m !pºkkutai (cf. M 384 – 93).
17
18 Sch. ex. Il. 12.110a2 (b): baqbaqijµ B !pe¸heia. lilo¼lemor d³ tµm !k¶heiam b
poigtµr 6ma coOm t¹m !peihoOmta eQs²cei. di± t¸ d³ 6ma toOtom ; fti l²kista
19
to?r Vppoir Ac²kketo. jatast´kkei owm tµm t_m pokk_m !kafome¸am.
20
21 fr. 2 + 3 !
Uswom c±q p[uqcgd¹m !qgqºter 15.618
22 5 ALte p´tqg7 B l³m‚ 1lbokµ t_m [baqb²qym j¼la
23 sim eUjastai ja· a. m.́ l. yi7 B d³ t_m. [:kk¶mym jaqte
24 q¸a t_i t/r p´tqar !jim]¶. tyi ja. [· duspahe?. kalpº 15.623
25 lemor puq¸7 ‚ ]a. kkel.[
]p. u. qºr7 1m d( 5p. [es ]¢r fte jO[la 15.624
26
27
4 – 7 Cf. sch. ex. Il. 15.618b (bT): puqcgd¹m <!qgqºter ALte p´tqg>: B l³m
28 1lbokµ t_m baqb²qym to?r j¼lasim eUjastai taw» diakuol´moir7 B d³ t_m :kk¶-
29 mym jaqteq¸a t_i t/r p´tqar !jim¶tyi ja· duspahe?.
30 8 .[ slightly leftwards arching trace, so that e, o, s are possible; the curvature of v
31 is usually more accentuated (but 1l¦. [a- cannot be excluded).
7 – 9 Cf. sch. ex. Il. 15.623 (bTil): <kalpºlemor puq¸:> peqikalpºlemor rp¹
32
t_m fpkym ¢r rp¹ puqºr.
33
34 These two sections of the commentary, as can be seen, form an almost
35 word-perfect match to the corresponding scholia exegetica known from
36
37
7 On the characteristics of the manuscripts written in Alexandrian majuscule of
38 profane content, cf. Porro 1985, who sets out a typology that easily encompass-
39 es our P.Oxy.; for the papyrus commentaries in bookhands, see also Del Fabbro
40 1979, 81 – 83.

Brought to you by | Rice University

Authenticated | 128.42.202.150
Download Date | 7/9/13 4:00 AM
 A new papyrus commentary on the Iliad 181

1 the medieval codices, and can easily be reconstructed in parallel with

2 them (comparison is with the edition of Erbse). In the other parts
3 that have been preserved, the phenomenon is not so striking, but
4 from what remains it can be established that P.Oxy. undeniably consti-
5 tutes evidence of a hypomnema, the exegetic contents and interests of
6 which are of the same type as is found in the scholia exegetica of the me-
7 dieval tradition: in fact, the contents are extensively overlapping or bear
8 a strong similarity. None of the considerable number of Homeric papy-
9 rus commentaries known to date can be so closely likened to this tradi-
10 tional stream, nor do they provide such distinctively characterized exe-
11 getic materials (thus differing sharply, in other words, from the line of
12 Aristarchean Alexandrian ancestry which, through the works of Aristo-
13 nicus, Didymus, Nicanor and Herodianus and the so called VMK, i. e.
14 Viermnnerkommentar, eventually led to the preponderant mass of the
15 scholia of Ven. A as well as in smaller quantity to the scholia of the
16 bT group of mss.) 8.
17
The formation of the corpus of the scholia exegetica is one of the many
18
aspects of the history of ancient Homeric philology in which the acquis-
19
ition of new data and new bodies of evidence is essential in order to
20
clarify a number of issues and achieve progress in knowledge9.
21
P.Oxy. will certainly offer much material for study and in-depth re-
22
search. It contains a commentary belonging to the same stream as the
23
sch. ex. of the medieval tradition: it may coincide verbatim with the cor-
24
responding sch. ex., or show only partial agreement with the latter, or
25
display a clear difference while still addressing contents of the same
26
kind; at times it may contain richer materials and preserve unknown an-
27
28
notations, whereas elsewhere the material seems meager and lacks por-
29
tions present in the sch. ex. that have come down to us. For example,
30
what can be read in fr. 1 ! as a comment on Il. 12.91 – 92 is strikingly
31
different and far richer than the material known from the corresponding
32
sch. ex. of bT, but this annotation is then followed directly by that per-
33 taining to 12.110 – 111, while a number of sch. ex. that are present in bT
34 in the portion of text between 12.92 and 12.110 are missing in the
35 papyrus; in fr. 1 fl the comment on Il. 12.147 is certainly richer than
36
37 8 For ex., the hypomnema from which the fragment P.Mich. inv. 1206 derives,
mentioned above, cites the grammarians Demetrius Ixion (with the title of
38 the work), Zenodotus and Didymus in just a few lines.
39 9 An overview in Schmidt 2002, partic. 170 – 176, with the bibliographical refer-
40 ences; cf. infra and n. 10.

Brought to you by | Rice University

Authenticated | 128.42.202.150
Download Date | 7/9/13 4:00 AM
 182 Franco Montanari

1 the sch. ex., but the preceding part unquestionably lacks the annotations
2 to 12.137 and 144, which are present in bT.
3 In short, at the present stage of research it seems possible to say that
4 the compiler of the corpus of sch. ex. transmitted by the bT group of
5 manuscripts, i. e. by the tradition dating back to Erbse’s archetype c,
6 made use of three commentaries from late antiquity. It also seems likely
7 that the material was gathered together somewhere between the IIIrd
8 and the IXth century A.D., as the extreme dates10. P.Oxy. is a fine ex-
9 emplar of a commentary that incontrovertibly belongs to this critical-
10 erudite line and which was composed at the very latest on the date as-
11 signed to this copy, but perhaps earlier: it can therefore be set fully
12 within the time span (a fairly broad interval) identified by scholars as
13 the likely range in which the formation of the corpus should be situated.
14 What was the model of P.Oxy., and how should we propose to char-
15 acterize it?
16 We should resist the temptation of imagining that our commentary
17 was in fact a genuine exemplar of the corpus sch. ex. in its original form
18 that shaped the archetype c (BT): this seems impossible, because in the
19 sch. ex. deriving from c (i. e. in the bT manuscripts) a substantial amount
20 of material is found which is absent in P.Oxy. (cf. above). One possibil-
21 ity is that the model of P.Oxy. was one of the (three) commentaries
22 used in compiling the corpus of the sch. ex. and that it therefore repre-
23 sents an earlier stage than c in the tradition of this exegetic material (but
24 even in this case the date of our papyrus copy would be of no use for the
25 chronology of c, which could have been created earlier or later). A fur-
26 ther possibility is that the model of P.Oxy. was a commentary belonging
27 to the same typology as those that were at the origin of the corpus of the
28 sch. ex. and that it featured contents which were partly the same as, and
29 partly different from, those that eventually made up c (bT), having el-
30 ements in common but intermingled with others that were subsequently
31 lost11. Within such a framework of reference, this overall new body of
32 evidence will have to be analyzed with precision and subjected to in-
33 depth investigation, as soon as the material becomes fully available for
34 scholars.
35
36
37
38 10 Cf. Schmidt 1976, 67 – 69.
39 11 On the problems of the formation of the scholiographic corpora cf. Montana
40 2007 and Montana 2010, § 2.2.5, with the bibliographical references.

Brought to you by | Rice University

Authenticated | 128.42.202.150
Download Date | 7/9/13 4:00 AM