The twenty-seven fragments under this number ‘were assembled in the belief that they represented lyric verses in the Aeolic dialect and might contribute something to the text of Sappho or Alcaeus’ . The only feature that is ‘unequivocally Aeolic’ is in fr. 2. 9 the letter following is, or possibly the division is not considered, no doubt rightly). Is this indeed a text in the Aeolic dialect ? There is very little other indication: fr. 4. 3 in fr. 4. 5 (...) would seem decisive if the reading were quite certain. (shrink)

Two well-known ancient witnesses report that Aristophanes of Byzantium was responsible for the arrangement of Pindar's poems into seventeen book-rolls according to lyric genres. These witnesses form fr. 381 in the edition of Aristophanes’ fragments by W.J. Slater : Vit. Pind. P.Oxy. 2438.35–9 δ]ιῄρητα̣ι̣ δὲ α̣ὐ̣τ̣[ο]ῦ̣ τ̣[ὰ ποιήματα ὑπ’ Ἀριστοφάν]ους εἰς βιβλία ιζˊ· διθ̣[υ]ρά̣[μ]βων βˊ [προσοδίω]ν̣ βˊ παιάνων αˊ πα[ρ]θεν[εί]ων γ̣ˊ [ἐπινικίω]ν̣ δˊ ἐγκωμίων αˊ ἐν [ᾧ] κα̣ὶ [σκ]όλ̣[ια ±4 ὕμ]ν̣ων αˊ ὑ[π]ορχημάτων αˊ θρ̣[ήνων.| nisi aliter ind., omnia suppl. Lobel (...) | 2 Ἀριστοφάν]ους Lobel e Vit. Pind. Vat. | 3 ἐν [ᾧ] κα̣ὶ [σκ]όλ̣[ια …. de Kreij : ἐν [ᾧ] κ[αὶ σκόλιά τινα vel ἐν [ᾧ] κ[αὶ σκόλιά ἐστι Gallo : ἐν [ᾧ] καὶ [παροίνια D'Alessio | 4 αˊ post θρ̣[ήνων coni. edd., fort. recte; an θρ̣[- βˊ?Vit. Pind. Vat. page 7.14–17 Dr. ὁ δὲ ἐπινίκιος οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ “Ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ” προτέτακται ὑπὸ Ἀριστοφάνους τοῦ συντάξαντος τὰ Πινδαρικὰ διὰ τὸ περιέχειν τοῦ ἀγῶνος ἐγκώμιον καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ Πέλοπος, ὃς πρῶτος ἐν ῎Ηλιδι ἠγωνίσατο.A much-debated question is whether the order of the poems attested by the papyrus can be credited to Aristophanes, since an ordering principle is apparently not to be found in the list transmitted by it. Moreover, there are some disagreements with the list of Pindar's works transmitted by the Vita Ambrosiana, which is generally deemed the most authoritative catalogue of the poet's corpus, on account of its well-recognized criterion of classification: the poems are divided between those for gods and those for men, and both of these categories of songs are arranged from the most general to the most specific. This catalogue has been thought to reproduce the order established by Aristophanes in his edition of Pindar. (shrink)

The present paper concludes that P. Oxy. 2463 contains remnants of a commentary on the Aitia of Callimachus. Identifying the commentary makes it possible to reconstruct the missing part of Heracles' conversation with Molorchus, confirming its place in the Victoria Berenices and settling the latter's relationship to the Aitia. The argument takes its departure from a vexed passage in Lycophron.

Dieses von mir im J. 1924 behandelte Papyrusbruchstück wurde 1927 von v. Wilamowitz berücksichtigt. Er hält meine Zurückfuhrüng des Bruchstückes auf Antiphon für sehr ansprechend und auch meine Erklärung für treffend; die Ergänzungen befriedigen ihn nur zum Teil. Letzteres muss ich ihm unbedingt zugeben. Leider sind alle kleinen Fragmente des Papyrus sowie die Zz. 1–6 des Fr. B bei dem Hinüberführen aus England nach Amerika spurlos verschwunden und somit fiir die Wissenschaft auf immer verloren; es ist also nicht mehr möglich (...) zu beurteilen, ob ich Recht hatte, als ich die Zz. 14–15 des Fr. A mit dem Fr. F vereinigte. Dagegen ist Col. II. des Fr. A glücklicherweise erhalten; Prof. W. L. Westermann legte eine ganz hervorragende Freundlichkeit an den Tag, indem er mir zuerst eine photographische Aufnahme davon zusandte und dann meine Lesung an der Hand des Originals prüfte. Bei dem näheren Studium der Photographie bemerkte ich, dass sowohl Hunts Lesung der Z. 7 wie auch meine fruhere durch diese falsche Lesung ins Leben gerufene Erganzung ganz unmöglich sind. Auf der Photographie las ich Z. 7 t περ[ι] επ[ ]ηδ‐‑, und teilte dieses Ergebnis W. L. Westermann mit. Nachdem er in das Original noch einmal eingesehen hatte, antwortete er mir darauf; ‘Das ist die richtige Lesung. Es ist absolut sicher.’ Zu der scheinbar nächstliegenden Ergänzung Περ[] έπ[ιτ]ηδ[ευ]μάτων, die auch ich im ersten Augenblick für passend hielt, kam Westermann, nachdem ihm mein Vorschlag zur richtigen Lesung des Textes bekannt worden war, ganz unabhängig von mir; ich glaube trotzdem dass diese Lesung nicht das Richtige trifft. Wir haben doch in Col. II. eine Reihe von Antithesen ; aus περ Υο‐‑ νης ist aber keine Antithese zu έπιτηδεύματα zu konstruieren. Was nun diese Stelle anbetrifft, so ist hier nur die Lesung Υο möglich, keinesfalls aber das von mir a. a. O. vermutete Υα Aus den Resten Υο. νης oder Υο.νης ist allerdings kein griechisches Wort zu erganzen; doch haben die einzelnen Zeilen des Papyrus nicht gleiche Längen, sodass nichts dem im Wege steht, dass Z. nach Υο auch nichts gestanden habe; dann gelangen wir zur Lesung: πε[ρ] Υο[] έπ[ικ]ηδ [ευ]μάτων, d. h. ‘von der Geburt der Menschen sowie von den Bestattungsbrauchen’ —auch hier haben wir dann, wie in alien anderen Antithesen von Col. II. an der ersten Stelleυμξφροντα, an der zweiten ξυμΦέροντα, vgl. Antiphon, P. Oxy. 1364, Col. III., Z. 28: κατμένξναύτοέστινάΠων. (shrink)

I shall argue the likelihood that Vergil took Aeacus’ speech as his model for Charon's, as part of Aeneas’ newly created journey through Vergil's expanded topography of Hades.The four Greek verses just quoted, addressed by Aeacus to Heracles, and Heracles’ reply in twelve, were first published separately by Rabe, and then inserted by Page as verses 16–19 and 20–31 between surviving frs. 1 and 2 of P.Oxy. 2078, to be ascribed in all likelihood to the lost Pirithous of Euripides, rather (...) than to the slightly later Critias. (shrink)

Journal Name: Philologus Issue: Ahead of print.

In 1930 Hunt and Johnson published the remains of P. Oxy. 2064, a roll containing at least some of the poems attributed to Theocritus and dating from the late second century A.d. . The papyrus was important, even though very fragmentary , since at its time of publication it was one of the three earliest witnesses to the text of Theocritus. Fragments of other early papyri of Theocritus have been published since then, but P. Oxy. 2064 has remained the most (...) important known witness prior to the fifth century because of the spread of poems which the extant fragments show it to have contained. No other papyrus allows us to reconstruct the contents of an early Theocritus book to such an extent. In 1983 the editors of Oxyrhynchus Papyri published a further collection of Theocritus fragments from various papyri , among which were more remains from P. Oxy. 2064 edited by P. J. Parsons under the number P. Oxy. 3548. (shrink)

In recent years, our understanding of Archilochus has been transformed by the discovery of a major new fragment from the Oxyrhynchus collection (P Oxy.4708), first published by Dirk Obbink. The new poem is not only the most substantial of Archilochus' elegiac fragments, but more importantly it is the first example we have of the poet's use of myth, for the surviving section narrates a mythological theme: the defeat of the Achaeans at the hands of Telephus during their first attempt to (...) reach Troy. Scholars have found the choice and handling of the myth surprising, and the role that Telephus plays within the poem has been a subject of controversy. Yet this debate has tended to dwell on the Telephus myth in its general form, rather than focussing on the details of how Archilochus presents him in this particular context. This article will explore the significance that Telephus could have had for a Parian audience, and will use this to investigate the political and rhetorical impact of his presentation within the poem. I will argue that Archilochus highlights the aspects of Telephus' story which connect him most closely with Parian local myth, and that he does so in order to enhance the poem's central message: criticism and implicit mockery of the mythological battle and, by implication, of contemporary Parian military strategy. (shrink)

A contribution to a scholarly controversy that has been on-going for a quarter century now, this article provides a critical review of previous studies on the existence of post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) as a consequence of extreme violence in the ancient world. It highlights methodological difficulties in attempting to ‘diagnose’ psychological illnesses across a distance of more than two millennia by means of highly stylized literary texts. Simultaneously, it introduces crucial new evidence in the form of a late antique papyrus (...) originally published in 1924 (P.Oxy. 16/1873), which has hitherto been almost completely ignored by scholarship. The papyrus, a letter written by a man called Martyrios in sixth century Lycopolis and addressed to his father, recounts psychological war trauma as a result of an attack on his hometown. He does so in a first-person perspective, using a highly select and unusual vocabulary to describe his emotional impairment. Because of its syntactical and vocabulary extravagance, this letter is sometimes seen as a fictional literary reflex. The authors argue, on the contrary, that this letter is the only reliable documentary evidence for psychological war trauma from the ancient world known so far. (shrink)

Rudolf Pfeiffer believed that, as a young man, Callimachus wrote four books of Aetia. To these the poet added in his old age a Reply to his Critics , and a slightly revised version of his recent occasional elegy, the Lock of Berenice ; this revised Coma became the last poem in Aetia book 4, to be followed by an Epilogue which may mark a transition to the Iambi. Pfeiffer's theory generally held the field until the brilliant article of P. (...) J. Parsons, in ZPE 25 , 1–50. With the help of newly recovered papyrus fragments Parsons showed that a previously unplaced elegy celebrating a Nemean victory was connected to the story of Molorchus , who entertained Heracles before that hero killed the Nemean lion and instituted the Nemean Games; thus the poem belonged to Aetia book 3. Furthermore, various pieces of evidence converge to make it probable, if not wholly certain, that this substantial poem stood first in its book. So it appears that, at least in the final form of the Aetia, books 3–4 were framed by two poems honouring the wife of Ptolemy III Euergetes, namely Victoria Berenices and Coma Berenices. Soon afterwards a further important advance was made by E. Livrea , who perceived, on grounds of subject-matter as well as papyrology, that the poor man who sets a mousetrap in fr. 177 Pf. must be none other than Molorchus; note particularly the probable mention of Cleonae in fr. 177.37 Pf. = Supplementum Hellenisticum 259.37. Thus a new fragment of 38 lines accrued to the poem. These discoveries have some implications for the composition of the Aetia. Addition of a Coma Berenices to a pre-existent Aetia book 4 could be countenanced easily enough, but, as Parsons says , it would have required a much more radical, and therefore less plausible, revision for Callimachus to have added Victoria Berenices to a pre-existent Aetia book 3. Accordingly Parsons suggested that the original Aetia contained only books 1–2, united by the conversation with the Muses; then in his old age Callimachus compiled two more books, partly at least from poems already composed, and gave them a frame of two poems honouring Queen Berenice. Parsons' view has, I think, been widely accepted; Professor Lloyd-Jones wrote in SIFC 77 , 56 ‘No-one has yet argued against the simple modification of Pfeiffer's theory of the two editions of the Aetia which Mr. Parsons based on this discovery. The first edition comprised two books only.’. (shrink)