Historia 61-3-2012 New Studies On The Artemidorus Papyrus

Historia
Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte Revue dHistoire Ancienne Journal of Ancient History Rivista di Storia Antica
Historia Band 61 Heft 3 2012 Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart
NEW STUDIES ON THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS

Ja Elsner et al.
Introduction By Ja Elsner1 The papers on the Artemidorus Papyrus gathered here were rst given in a colloquium at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in June 2011. They spring from two convictions, shared by all those involved. First, if the papyrus is to be regarded as a post-antique forgery, as many have argued,2 then the proponents of that view need to offer a more compelling piece of evidence, a smoking gun which can prove that some facet of its manufacture (inks, papyrus sheet or whatever) is denitively not ancient. Despite the extraordinary energy of those who wish to deny its authenticity, the case for its being a fake currently rests on a subtle structure of assertion, allegation and innuendo, which does not constitute 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) but that is not in itself an argument for forgery. Indeed if the aim of a forger is to create something that will slip under the radar as not obviously problematic then the burden of likelihood from all the numerous unusual features of P. Artemid. points towards an 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 are convinced that the papyrus is more likely to be authentic than to be a forgery.3 Even in the arena that has supplied the most powerful case for forgery, the appearance of a known text from Artemidorus himself in the papyrus, Jrgen Hammerstaedt argues here that 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 Dr James Brusuelas for help with copyediting, and to the Corpus Christi Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity for supporting the original colloquium. We are grateful to LED Edizioni Universitarie for permission to reprint the images which are copyright 2008 by LED. Supremely L. Canfora in many articles and books notably his journal Quaderni di Storia and books such as Canfora (2008) and (2011). In his paper here, DAlessio shows a number of areas where the arguments of the Canfora school of forgery simply cannot be upheld.
2 3
Urheberrechtlich geschtztes Material. Jede Verwertung auerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulssig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere fr Vervielfltigungen, bersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitungen in elektronischen Systemen. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2012
290
JA ELSNER et al.
It is only when questions of forgery cease to run the academic agenda, that the much more interesting historical and cultural issues can be raised. These issues include what the evidence supplied by the papyrus will mean for our understanding of ancient conceptions of geography and geographical prose, space, the mapping and visual representation of space, paradoxography, zoological drawing, gure drawing, art history in 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 currently accepted histories. If the adventure of using it to inaugurate the retelling of these stories 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 signicant reservations now need to be expressed. In particular, most students of the papyrus now agree (as do all the contributors to this group of articles) that the order in which the Artemidorus papyrus was restored (and hence the order in which it was published) is mistaken. The independently-made suggestions by Nisbet (2009) and DAlessio (2009), and especially the new technical observations offered by DAlessio in 2009 (with the signicant further digital support of Tarte, in this fascicle) make it certain that section a of the roll should follow fairly closely onto section c, with the small fragment known as section d hanging loose and not possible to place in direct contiguity with any surviving segment. They make it clear that what survives is only about half of what the roll once contained and they make nonsense of the original editors views that the papyrus contained a coherent linear copy of a book by Artemidorus. The grudging acceptance by Kramer and Gallazzi (the papyrologists in the editorial team) of DAlessios position as certainly reecting one ancient condition of the papyrus (even if they insist on their reconstruction as being originally correct, and DAlessios as representing an ancient restoration) means that they have been persuaded too by his technical arguments (Galazzi and Kramer 2009: 21620). The upshot of this discussion is that although all current and future students of the papyrus have no option but to use the editio princeps, nonetheless it needs to be used with much caution and care. Unlike other objects and texts from antiquity for which scholars have easy or ready recourse to the original in cases of doubt, P. Artemid. is not easy to access nor on public display. Moreover, what can be seen with the naked eye is not obviously clear. More than most objects, this papyrus has a virtual and digital existence made concrete through the editio princeps and its many interpretations among which the apparently documentary sets of images (all digitally doctored in different ways) must be included. Segolne Tartes paper in this volume, by an imageprocessing expert with signicant experience of papyrology, is an attempt to cast light on the problems and the benets created by the existence of the papyrus in what we might call a new-media digital dimension, as well as a call for much greater openness and 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 DAlessio and Irene Pajn Leyra call attention to a number of signicant omissions in the editio princeps of some mirror
New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus
291
images, of fragmentary drawings and labels on the verso and so forth. Again, this is an area where greater digital study, and greater understanding of what we are doing when using digital imagery, alongside autopsy of the actual papyrus, is ultimately going to yield a number of fresh insights. One entailment of Tartes paper and in particular her gure 7 is the potential usefulness of a facsimile in the new arrangement of the fragments with recto and verso correctly aligned on front and back of a single, long photographic sheet, which the user could roll and unroll to explore not only questions of 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 denitely be a worthwhile addition. The problem 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 Tartes call for the release of all the images and the metadata, alongside Pajn Leyras comparison of two photographs of a very small section of the papyrus, taken respectively in 2005 and 2008 (gures 11 and 12), is that it is quite clear that very signicant and heavily interpretative changes took place in restoration, which could be documented if the visual information were released, and some of which may misrepresent what was originally on the papyrus. In his paper Jrgen Hammerstaedt addresses the fundamental philological problems of the text of Artemidorus found in the papyrus at column IV in relation to the quotation from the same passage (conventionally referred to as Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle) in the eleventh century Paris manuscript of the de administrando imperio 23, a text commissioned in the mid-tenth century by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and itself quoting not from the original but from the sixth-century geographical dictionary of Stephanus of Byzantium (which depended at least in part on an earlier epitome of Artemidorus by Marcianus of Heraclea). His conclusion is that not only is the text of the papyrus at col. IV an excerpt from the original of Artemidorus but also that the Artemidorus fragment quoted by Constantine is a somewhat edited redaction going back to Stephanus of an excerpt deriving from the original Artemidorus. The presence of an excerpt from Artemidorus in the papyrus, alongside the rather different and high-blown prefatory text that followed it at col. III (which may very well not 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 DAlessio to the conclusion that the Artemidorus Papyrus was neither the luxury edition of Artemidorus Geography proposed by the editio princeps nor the fake suggested by Luciano Canfora and his collaborators. Rather it was a miscellaneous compilation peculiarly hybrid in its mix of images, texts and map plausibly created for some kind of didactic purpose that combined geography, zoology and paradoxography. The suggestion of Pajn Leyra, in this volume, that there is a geographic logic to the disposition of the drawings of animals on the verso and that this logic emulates the structure of Artemidorus text supports the hunch that the papyrus had an integrated didactic thrust in its composition, which need not be in conict with the view that the bestiary of labelled drawings on the
292
JA ELSNER et al.
verso may have been intended to serve as a pattern or model book for the production of images in mosaic or paint.4
RECONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS

By Giambattista DAlessio5
ABSTRACT: The Artemidorus papyrus was reconstructed by the rst editors as a roll, that opened with a short unwritten portion followed by three columns of text dealing with geography in general (fr. a). This would have been followed by a map (fr. b and c) and by two further columns of text with a description of the Iberian peninsula (in fr. c). DAlessio (2009) argued that the physical evidence provided by the papyrus implies that the sequence of the fragments was b-c-a, and that these surviving sections were preceded by a substantial portion of the roll now entirely lost. In this paper I examine recent reactions to these ndings, confuting Canforas latest hypothesis that the three fragments did not originally belong to a single roll, arguing against Gallazzis and Kramers conjectural reshufing of the preserved fragments, and against Porcianis interpretation of the b-c-a sequence as a fragment from an internal section of Book 2 of Artemidorus Geography. On the basis of the new reconstruction and of parallels provided by other papyri, I suggest that the Artemidorus papyrus was, from the start, a roll containing miscellaneous selections of texts (at least in one case, an excerpt) and images (including a map).
Unusual objects that do not t easily into familiar patterns have a tendency to prompt not only description and analysis, but fantastical stories as a background for them. Such stories provide both a fully-edged conjectural context in which to situate the unusual object, and an explanation for its oddity. This happens not only for artefacts that come to the attention of scholars but also for those that emerge in the antiquarian and ethnographic markets. In this case, the more unfamiliar the object, the greater the effort put into creating imaginary backgrounds, based partly on scholarly information, but, more often than not, on the sheer fantasy of dealers, collectors, and amateurs. To a certain extent, and quite naturally, fantasy plays a role in some aspects of scholarly research too. This can work reasonably well as long as we treat the products of our imagination as provisional explanatory models, and are ready to discard them as soon as they prove to be in substantial conict with the evidence provided by the object itself. But this is not always the case. In recent times the eld of conjectural story-making offers few rivals to the so-called Artemidorus papyrus. Since the very rst announcement of its existence, this object, in many respects unique, has stimulated the fantasies of scholars as well as writers of ction to such a degree that it has become difcult for the reader to distinguish between the two different genres of approach. In some cases, these fantastic reconstructions have turned out to be incompatible with the evidence provided by the object itself. The
4 5 E. g. Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 32022; Elsner (2009) 436. Dept. of Classics, Kings College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK, giambattista.dalessio@kcl. ac.uk
293
paradoxical result of this, however, has been that much stronger effort has been put into defending the ctional context imagined for the object, than into a closer analysis of the implications that the evidence provokes. The papyrus presents a sequence of drawings and writing of various kinds that cover both sides of what has been assembled as a fragmentary roll, around 32.5 cm high, and at least around 2.5 m long. According to the editors, before restoration the papyrus consisted of around 50 fragments that could be tted together into three (or rather four, as we shall see later) separate sections: two substantial ones (a and c), whose relative position is one of the crucial issues to be established for the interpretation of the object, and two smaller ones (b and d). The rst necessary step, in order to make sense of this, was to determine, if at all possible, the sequence of the sections. This was done by the two scholars in charge of the edition of the papyrus, Brbel Kramer and Claudio Gallazzi, rst in a preliminary article that appeared in 1999,6 and subsequently, without any substantial change, in their massive editio princeps proper, that was published in 2008. Their reconstruction was presented, according to their own account, as based both on an analysis of the material evidence and on the conjectural historical context the editors had imagined for the papyrus, which was to become known as the Three Lives of the Artemidorus papyrus. According to this, the papyrus was born originally as an early Roman period de luxe copy of the second book of Artemidorus Geography (composed in the late 2nd century BCE), that also included regional maps. Once the project was aborted, the papyrus was reused in the atelier of an artist, where its verso was covered with images of fantastic and exotic animals, resulting in the papyrus second life. At a later stage, on the occasion of the papyrus third life, the very substantial blank portions of the recto were lled, apparently by a different person or persons, with drawings of human feet, hands and heads.7 The editors therefore reconstructed the recto as a sequence starting with fragment a, which they identied as the beginning of the roll, containing three columns with the proem of Artemidorus book, and preceded by a blank agraphon, later lled with two drawings of bearded heads. This would have been followed by section b, a small fragment attributable to the regional map, and by section c, a very large portion of papyrus with the end of the regional map, two further columns of the text of Artemidorus (this time identied thanks to its partial overlap with an already known fragment), and a large blank space, originally meant for yet another regional map, that eventually (during the papyrus third life) was lled with drawings of parts of the human body. A smaller fragment with a further head on the recto and an animal gure on the verso was published in the editio princeps as part of fragment c, but is in fact unattached to it. The whole of the verso, as we have seen, is covered with drawings of animals, mainly exotic and fantastic ones. The physical evidence allegedly used by the editors for their reconstruction mainly consists of the offset mirror images
6 7 Gallazzi/Kramer (1998) [but published 1999]. This reconstruction of the papyrus was the starting point of a ctional historical novel by the Italian writer E. Ferrero that even preceded the editio princeps of the papyrus itself (La misteriosa storia del papiro di Artemidoro, Turin 2006: non vidi).
294
JA ELSNER et al.
left by the ink of the recto on the surface of the verso, and vice versa, a feature to which we shall come back in greater detail. The editors interpretation of the story of the papyrus did not meet universal approval. Alternative stories were very soon elaborated, the most fantastic of them being Luciano Canforas theory that the papyrus was the work of the 19th-century Greek forger, the feuilleton-like character Constantine Simonides. This theory, which involves a considerable amount of extremely unlikely conjecture, and which has aroused considerable scepticism (as well as some support) in the scholarly world, has been advocated with a passion and verve directly proportional to its implausibility, to such a degree that the boundaries between scholarly research and historical ction have become even more blurred than in the three-lives fantasy of the original editors.8 The physical reconstruction of the sequence of the fragments, though, remained substantially out of the debate, as, up to 2009, Canfora himself never questioned the sequence as reconstructed by the rst editors. An entirely different approach to the issue was independently put forward by G. Nisbet in a contribution to the Oxford colloquium dedicated to this papyrus in 2008, subsequently published in the proceedings of the colloquium in 2009, and by myself, in 2009.9 Even if the reconstructions of the sequence proposed by Nisbet and my own are somewhat similar, they are based on entirely different premises, and follow two entirely different methodological approaches to the evidence. The editors reconstruction, as we have seen, was, according to their own description, based not only on their interpretative model (the story of the Three Lives), but also on physical evidence and, more specically, on the position of the mirror images of the recto on the verso, and vice versa. This element was not taken into account by Nisbet, who challenged their reconstruction on entirely different grounds. Nisbet argued that assuming the alternative sequence b-c-a the two bearded heads drawn at the very beginning of fragment a would have been the logical continuation of the series of artists exercises in anatomical detail at the end of fragment c, and, based on this conjectural re-arrangement, proposed what he thought was a plausible framework for the two texts and the map, that is, that the papyrus was a commonplace book. That is, Nisbet substituted an alternative story (the commonplace book model) for that elaborated by the editors. Far from providing an alternative assessment of the implications of the physical evidence of the papyrus, though, Nisbet warned the reader that he thought this same physical evidence might actually turn out to be a counter-argument against his own view. Finally Nisbet also surmised the possibility that a modern forger improved the papyrus by adding the anatomical and perhaps the animal drawings.
8 Between 2006 and mid-2011 Canfora was responsible for almost 50 publications related in some way to the Artemidorus papyrus, including newspaper articles (most of them in the Corriere della Sera), papers published in the journal he directs (Quaderni di Storia, that also hosted several Artemidorean papers of Canforas collaborators) and, to a far lesser extent, in other journals and not fewer than 8 authored, partly authored or edited books. For a list so far, cf. Quaderni di Storia 74 (2011) 238241. Nisbet (2009); DAlessio (2009).
295
In fact, however, it was exactly that neglected physical evidence that conclusively disproved the editors reconstruction (and, incidentally, ruled out Nisbets hypothesis regarding the possibility of subsequent additions to the papyrus). A fresh examination of the relative positions of the mirror images on the two sides of the papyrus proved that this was quite clearly incompatible with the sequence proposed by the editors (and not disputed by Canfora). A problem with some inconsistent measurements had been noted, to a partial and unsystematic extent, by Canfora (2009a). However, instead of drawing the conclusion that the sequence of the fragments had been wrongly reconstructed, he argued that this was the result of a botched attempt by the forger at a lithographic process.10 Bastianini (2009), on the other hand, while still not doubting the editors general reconstruction, came up with a sophisticated geometrical model that might have accounted for some, but by no means all, of the apparent anomalies produced by the mirror images. In an article published that same year (DAlessio (2009)) I independently examined the abundant evidence provided by the mirror images, coming to the conclusion that it unambiguously entails a reconstruction of the sequence entirely different from that proposed by the editors: the direction in which the distance between original and mirror images increases, and the presence of previously unidentied mirror images linking the right margin of fr. c and the left margin of fr. a would not allow any other possible alternative. According to my conclusions, the sequence of the fragments must have been b-c-a, with d, a further small fragment that the editors had erroneously appended to fragment c, probably to be located to the right of fragment a. This, incidentally, coincided with Nisbets re-arrangement of the fragments while, at the same time, depriving it of one of Nisbets original main arguments, i. e. the fact that it provided an uninterrupted sequence of drawings of heads. In my reconstruction it is very likely that further drawings of this kind must have followed fragment a, not only on the basis of the (conjectural) placement of fragment d to its right, but also because a further mirror image of a head seems to be (albeit very tentatively) identiable at the far left extremity of the verso of fragment a (corresponding to V34: this head does not have its own number nor a description in the editio princeps).11 This might represent a drawing originally located immediately to the right of the upper part of column III of the text (its presence, incidentally, would also prove that there was a further interruption of the written portion after the third column).12
10 Cf. Canfora (2009a) 254264. For a punctual and patient refutation of the lithography theory as formulated by Canfora (2009a), see already Gallazzi/Kramer (2009) 199201. For further arguments against this, cf. p. 300 sq. below. 11 The issue of what mirror images we would expect to nd at the far right-hand end of the recto of fragment a is discussed by Gallazzi/Kramer (2009) 236 f., but without giving any account of the curved lines that can actually be seen in that position, if we trust the photographs published in the editio princeps. 12 An important caveat that must be kept in mind against this possible interpretation of the preserved traces is, however, exactly the fact that this hypothetical head would have been drawn far closer to the margin of the written column than happens in all the other preserved cases.
296
JA ELSNER et al.
The physical evidence seemed to be unambiguous, and my alternative reconstruction is now widely accepted. There has been, however, a certain reluctance to draw the necessary consequences from it, and to discard the provisional, ctional stories that would now seem to have outlived their heuristic purpose. In his most recent contribution at the time of writing Canfora mentions le inoppugnabili osservazioni di Giambattista DAlessio e di Guido Bastianini that have demonstrated that the proem dovrebbe addirittura essere spostato dopo la ne della colonna quinta.13 Strangely enough Canfora attributes here the same opinion to both me and Bastianini,14 while in his contribution Bastianini did not in fact challenge the editors reconstruction but only proposed an alternative model for the rolling of the volume with the intention of accounting for some of the anomalies with the mirror images that this reconstruction entailed. Only at the end of his article did Bastianini acknowledge my entirely different account of the evidence (which he came across only after he had already submitted a draft of his paper) accepting that this alternative reconstruction was hardly debatable.15 Canfora, however, cannot admit the idea of a miscellaneous roll, and, as a consequence, discards the value of this evidence altogether. In his new reconstruction there never was a continuous roll, but three smaller papyri, originally forged by Simonides, and subsequently manipulated by even later forgers with various additions, including that of at least some of the mirror images, in order to create the impression that they were all parts of the same large roll.16 This hypothesis is extremely problematic. Indeed, as I am going to demonstrate, it is straightforwardly impossible to reconcile with the physical evidence. In this context Canfora reiterates his denial of the possibility that the mirror images may have been caused by the exposure of the written papyrus to humidity, on the grounds that this would have produced an altogether different effect, a halo that with time may become an indistinct black blot.17 This proposal (not new in Canforas writing) however had already been clearly refuted by Gallazzi and Kramer in the editio princeps as well as by others, and several counter-examples have been provided.18 In order to repeat this, Canfora has to ignore, and to dismiss with exceptional obstinacy, well documented evi-
13 Canfora (2011) 24. It is just one example of Canforas tendency to focus on what he perceives as the great importance of his own theories that he presents my reconstruction as an attempt at nding a terza via, a third way, a compromise, between his own position and that of the rst editors, rather than as an attempt at making sense of the evidence. 14 Cf. also Canfora (2011) 192 n. 14. 15 Bastianini (2009) 220 f. 16 Gallazzi/Kramer (2010) forcefully argued against the possibility that a blank papyrus of the required dimensions for the reconstructed roll, and, more importantly, of the required date (the papyrus has been carbon-dated between 40 BCE and 130 CE with a 95 % condence degree), might have been available to a forger. 17 Canfora (2011) 188. 18 Cf. editio princeps: 63; DAlessio (2009); Bastianini (2009); Gallazzi/Kramer (2009) 194196 (pointing also tp the case of Callimachus Lille papyrus). For other cases of mirror-writing in cartonnage papyri cf. also P. Kln. 11.440, 443 and 452 edited by C. Armoni and K. Maresch in Klner Papyri, Band 11, Paderborn (2007) 107, 144 and 173.
297
dence that puts the existence of this feature beyond any reasonable doubt. Mirror images, for example, are attested for papyri used for cartonnage, as is amply demonstrated by the Posidippus papyrus (P.Mil.Vogl. 8.309, a 3rd-century BCE roll), where such images are by no means non pi che qualche traccia sporadica as Canfora incredibly would have it.19 Once again, anyone who has used the editio princeps, its excellent reproductions, and the detailed descriptions provided in the apparatus of the Posidippus papyrus can easily assess the extent of Canforas misrepresentation.20 Mirror images are attested also as the effect of the contact between the two sides of a rolled papyrus volumen, exactly as in the Artemidorus papyrus. Once again, Canfora dismisses the clear case of P.Yale 1.19 (dove si intravede qualcosa del genere) as alquanto sospetto, obliquely hinting at the possibility that this may be, again, a forgery.21 It may be useful to remind ourselves here that when the Yale papyrus was rst published, the mirror images on the verso were entirely misunderstood by the rst editors, and that, decades later, renewed and more detailed attention to this feature eventually solved the mystery. But this is by no means the only case. In 1922 Arthur Hunt had noted this phenomenon and used it in order to reconstruct the sequence of the columns (and some textual details) of P.Oxy. 15.1793, a roll with minor elegiac poems by Callimachus, including the Victoria Sosibii and the so-called Elegia in Magam et Berenicen (frs. 387 and 388 Pf.). In this papyrus the traces are far less easy to read than in the case of the Posidippus, the Yale papyrus or the Artemidorus one, but they were clear enough for Hunt to exploit them fruitfully. This is Hunts description of the feature: The roll has evidently been subjected to severe pressure, causing the layers sometimes to adhere tightly and the ink to leave more or less legible impressions of adjacent portions; by this means the order of some fragments, which could otherwise not have been certainly placed, has been xed, and some missing letters have been supplied.22 In this, as in other cases, the difference in clarity among the various mirror images can be easily explained as the result of different kinds of inks and/or of variations in the circumstances under which the damage was produced. A further case, P.Cair.Zen. 1.59034, has been very recently brought again to attention of scholars.23 In this case the authors draw attention to the fact that the transferred letters are more clearly visible and identiable in the right side of the papyrus than in the left which suggests that while the papyrus was still folded this side became wetter than the other (Renberg and Bubelis 2011: 172). Examples of mirror-writing, anyway, can be easily multiplied and the following list is likely to be far from being exhaustive: several further letters from the Zenon Archive,
19 20 21 22
Canfora (2011) 187. Cf. Bastiani and Gallazzi (2001). Canfora (2011) 186. Hunt in Grenfell and Hunt (1922) 99. On this see now Chiesa (2009). This and the following case were overlooked also by myself in DAlessio (2009), where I mistakenly stated that this feature had not been noted before the 1990s. 23 Renberg and Bubelis (2011) 170172. In this case the feature, not noted in the editio princeps (PSI 4.435, Florence 1917), had been identied already by Edgar (1919) 173.
298
JA ELSNER et al.
including Westermann, Keyes and Liebesny (1940), no. 64,24 and P.L.Bat. 20.23, 28 and 34;25 a document from Bakchias published by Knudtzon (1946);26 P.Oxy. 51.3645;27 P.Oxy. 4152, an Oxyrhynchus fragment with an astrological table;28 P.Oxy. inv. 33 4B 83E (811), a fragment of Menanders Sikyonioi published by Eric Handley;29 P.L.Bat. 25.42.30 The feature, though well attested, does not seem to have attracted great attention and a fuller collection of the evidence may yield interesting results.31 The only general comment of which I am aware regarding the circumstances that may have concurred in producing such offset traces is provided by Vleeming (1985): coll. 520 f. discussing P.Michigan 3525B (a demotic document): In such and similar cases where the text has come off and can (partially) be read in mirror-writing, it is often said that the ink would have dried rather slowly. However, here is an instance in which this explanation cannot apply, because the texts rst two lines came off more clearly than did the subsequent lines. We in Leiden think that many of the cases of stained texts may rather have been caused by water long after the texts completion, since antiquity, or even in the process of unrolling.32 In conclusion, Canforas statements to this effect are based on misrepresentation of the evidence and/or on his ignorance of the facts.
24 Westermann, Keyes and Liebesny (1940) 13 From lines 38 there are blottings upon the verso. By reversing these in a mirror, we have recovered etc. 25 In Pestman (1980) 113, 124 and 144. 26 Knudtzon (1946) papyrus 12, 75: die Verso hat schwache Spiegelschriftspuren desselben Textes. 27 The editor, J. R. Rea, notes: The back is blank, except for offsets left by the text of the letter while it was rolled up. 28 Cf. Jones (1999) 123 The back has legible mirror-reversed offset traces transferred from another part of the same tables. 29 Cf. Handley (1984) 25 On the back, in mirror-writing, as we may call it, are offsets from a similar column, faint and (no doubt) deceptive shadows. What can be said in detail of this must await another occasion. For now, the presumption is that at some stage of its history the roll was exposed to damp in such a way as to cause the ink from a column now apparently lost to blot into the back of our piece, as part of the coil of papyrus next nearest the inside of the roll. If any of the mirror-writing could be made out to coincide with text otherwise known, the result would be of immediate interest; but so far all that has been divined, even with the avid eye of faith, has proved unprotable. 30 In Hoogendijk and van Minnen (1991) 177 A strip of c. 1.3 cm of the left edge has been folded inside, as can be seen from the ink traces before ll. 20 and 2226: they are the beginnings of these lines in mirror writing Probably after that, the papyrus was rolled up from the right to the left (so as to leave the address visible), as is shown by the ink traces on the recto at the end of ll. 2326 and on the verso. 31 As far as I can see there is no treatment of this feature in Puglia (1997). 32 I owe the reference to Hoogendijk and van Minnen (1991) 177. A further case that should perhaps be added to the list is P.Oxy. 15.1790 (Ibycus). According to Barron (1969) 119 f. three separate series of offsets, the result either of accidental laying of another sheet of writing face-down upon the rst before its ink was dry, or of the rolling of papyri face to face in circumstances in which they then became wet and exchanged their ink. But the writing in the upper and lower margin surely belongs to a strip of papyrus used to restore the Ibycus: cf. Puglia (1997) 35 f. There are, however, traces also in the empty central space that cannot be accounted for in this way, and that are likely
299
Moreover, contrary to what Canfora repeatedly states with great self-condence,33 it is simply not true that in the Artemidorus papyrus the drawings of anatomical parts on the recto, as opposed to the writing and the animals on the verso, failed to produce a pervasive mirror effect. If one peruses the excellent reproductions of the papyrus in the (unfortunately very expensive and not widely available) editio princeps, it is quite clear that not only the writing on the recto, but also many of the drawings both on the recto and on the verso have left mirror images in a systematically coherent way on the opposite side of the papyrus.34 The difference among the three sets of traces is that some of the lines (in particular the writing of the text on the recto) have left a clearer impression than others. This difference need raise no suspicion and may be plausibly explained by the fact that different kinds of inks are likely to have been used for the different purposes of writing and drawing (Gallazzi and Kramer 2009: 196). And, of course, as is very clear from other comparable examples, we should not expect that all of the original traits of all the images would have left a corresponding and equally visible trace on the other side, as Canfora somewhat naively does. Different portions of the papyrus, even at a very short distance, would have been exposed to different degrees of humidity; folds and creases in the papyrus, uneven rolling and even conceivably, the presence of extraneous pieces of papyrus or other materials within the roll would have affected the result; moreover, the degree of dilution of the different kinds of inks used for writing and drawing would, very naturally, have not been constant. Anyway, the mirror images, both in the case of the texts and in that of the drawings, reect the object before it was damaged. The relative positions of these images (both within recto and verso, and of the verso compared to the recto) remain consistent throughout and closely reect their positions on the extant papyrus, but their distances to the left of the position of the original images (i. e. when examining the recto of the roll) regularly increase when we move from the left hand part of fragment c to the right hand extremity of fragment a. The relative distance between the writing and the two sets of drawings, on the one hand, and their respective mirror images, on the other, and the way the distance increases as one moves toward the right extremity of the recto, is consistent with their having been produced under the same circumstances. All of this can be easily accounted for by their having been produced when the papyrus was rolled with the initial part of its recto at the centre, and when the extant portion of the papyrus was preceded by around 2.5 metres (now lost) within the core of the roll. The geometrical
to be indeed offsets. Cf. also P.Mil.Vogl. inv. 1264, edited by C. Gallazzi in Hoogendik and Muhs (2008) 2. 33 Cf. e. g. Canfora (2011) 174, 185, 190 f. 34 In the case of the map, we are dealing with thinner and relatively isolated lines, conceivably drawn with a different ink, and it is to be expected that their mirror images would be difcult to make out in the more densely populated surface of the verso. For references to mirror images left by some lines of the map on the verso, cf. editio princeps: 63.
300
JA ELSNER et al.
development of the spiral of the roll explains the fact that the distance between original and mirror image increases when we move further away from the centre of the roll.35 It is not entirely clear what technological process would have produced the effects so implausibly envisaged by Canfora. Canfora himself repeatedly hints at the possibility that this was the result of a technical accident linked to experimentation with lithographic reproduction.36 As we have seen, however, it has been conclusively demonstrated that the physical characteristics of the papyrus surface and of its ink are incompatible with such a process (Gallazzi and Kramer 2009: 199201). Moreover, the only practical way to generate the offset impressions as they are now, i. e. at a distance from the original images that gradually increases as we move farther away from the centre of the roll, would be to replicate the conditions of a three-dimensional spiral. The increase in the distance between the original text and its mirror image can be detected even within the span of a single column. This can be clearly demonstrated, for example, by the relation between the letters preserved in column IV lines 3536 and their mirror images on the verso.Here the two sets of images can be easily identied in the infra-red digital reproduction and there is no physical discontinuity in the surface of the papyrus between them.37 Figure 1 shows how, as we move from the beginning of the lines toward the right, the distance between the original letters and their mirror images gradually increases from cm 13.24 to cm 13.33, cm 13.41 and, nally (before a lacuna on the recto), to around cm 13.53, all within a span of cm 6.3. If that were not enough, gures 2 and 3 show that the length of a given sequence of letters is not the same on the original writing and in its mirror image: the original traits are projected onto an inner coil of the spiral and their dimension decreases accordingly. This progression is a clear proof that the offset images cannot have been produced by lithographic techniques, which imply the impression of a at print plate on a at surface. Nor would lithography work even if we took more modern techniques into account, just for the sake of argument, where the plate is applied to a cylinder in a printing press; for, by contrast with a spiral, this too would keep the distance between the traces on the original plate and their impressions constant, rather than progressively and constantly increasing. The deformation of the original images in the mirror ones entails beyond doubt that these were produced when the papyrus was rolled in the shape of a spiral. The variations on the papyrus, moreover, would have been affected by any irregularities in the shape of the roll, which of course would never have been a perfectly aligned spiral, and must have been rolled with different tensions at different places (as is always the case). In order to replicate such effects, one would have to produce an
35 Cf. DAlessio (2009) and, for a digital and three-dimensional reconstruction of the model, Tarte p. 325 sqq. below. 36 Canfora (2011) 189, cf. e. g. Canfora (2009a) 258 n. 11. 37 When taking these measurement, it is essential to select sections where the preserved portion of the papyrus is continuous and unbroken. When dealing with differences in the region of 1 mm or less, we cannot trust that any, even partly, detached fragment has been placed exactly in its right position when the papyrus was mounted.
301
entire roll, approximately 5 m long (i. e. the lost portion at its centre plus the portion corresponding to its extant section), and to ll it with an undamaged copy of all the texts and the drawings. After having produced exactly that same entire roll which never existed according to Canfora, our imaginary forger would have had to wrap it in a coil around the three smaller rolls that Canfora imagines were used (all of them blank, and all of them composed with the same kind of sheets, in the same unusual format!), in order to impress the mirror images upon them. A two-dimensional process based on the impression of lithographic plates would require continuous and extremely complex adjustments in order to reproduce the mirror images at a gradually increasing distance from the original ones which would be practically impossible, even from a purely geometrical point of view (unless of course we are willing to fancy that the whole thing was produced through sophisticated software programmes, which require printing systems that are incompatible with the physical state of both the papyrus and the ink, as well as with Canforas own timeframe). Canforas solution, far from providing a simpler explanation of the evidence, is in patent conict with the evidence itself, and serves the sole purpose of salvaging his extremely unlikely historical premises. To make things even less likely, Canfora conjectures that the mirror images may not all have the same origin. The ones left by the text of the recto on the verso could be the result of an earlier embarrassing technical accident, going back, it would seem, to Simonides himself,38 while the others would have been added at a later stage, by a secondary forger, or even again by Simonides, in order to give the impression that the three fragments originally belonged to a single roll. The location of that set of mirror images in relation to the originals, however, is the same as that of the other images. It is, as we saw, to be explained as the result of the superposition of the spirals of a papyrus, rolled around an inner core corresponding to a lost section roughly 2.5 m long, and presupposes that columns IIIV preceded columns III within a single roll which is exactly the hypothesis that Canfora is so eager to deny. Moreover, since the position of the reections of all the other images, as we have seen, follows the same pattern, we would have to suppose the existence of two different rolls with the same characteristics, one fabricated by Simonides, and the other by a later forger (or by Simonides himself), that would have served the purpose of producing the mirror images as we can see them now. And anyway, the evidence provided by the mirror images of the text on the recto alone is sufcient to conclude that the two fragments were rolled together in the sequence c-a. Canforas hypothesis is absolutely incompatible with the physical evidence, and has no heuristic value whatsoever. It is only a last-resource consequence of his having remained trapped in the feuilleton-like historical ction he has imaginatively created as a background for the papyrus. His reconstruction of the papyrus is not simply unlikely, it is plainly and denitively impossible. In their critical survey of the most recent bibliography on the papyrus, Gallazzi and Kramer too acknowledge the implications of the new assessment of the mirror images
38 Canfora (2011) 199; cf. also 189, where Canfora had advanced the conjecture that this technical accident happened when Simonides was experimenting with a lithographical technique.
302
JA ELSNER et al.
and accept the arguments adduced in DAlessio (2009) that the mirror images must indeed have been produced when fr. a immediately followed fr. c (Gallazzi/Kramer (2009) 218). A consequence of this is that their previous reconstruction of the roll turns out to be wrong. However, Gallazzi/Kramer (2009) are not ready to discard their theory in favour of new evidence. They rather prefer to conjecture the existence of an entirely theoretical previous stage in which the papyrus actually was arranged according to the sequence they had originally reconstructed, a-b-c-d, with a corresponding to the beginning of the roll. They imagine that, at a later stage the papyrus broke at a kollesis following fr. a. They further surmise that after this damage was produced, the papyrus was restored in a different sequence (with fr. a displaced after fr. c) and then reused for the drawings on its verso. Only after this restoration, and after the two sets of drawings had been added, according to their new hypothesis, were the mirror images produced. This is not impossible at a purely theoretical level, since it involves imagining an entirely conjectural previous stage. There is, however, no evidence whatsoever in the papyrus fragments to support this hypothesis, and even Gallazzi and Kramer admit that this conjectural stage has left no physical trace in the papyrus. There are several reasons that suggest this reconstruction is very unlikely. In the preserved portion of the papyrus there is one certain case of ancient restoration. About 13 cm from the right margin of fr. c (looking at it from the recto side) the papyrus broke at the junction point between two kollemata, and was subsequently rejoined at the same point. In the process a few millimetres of the surface of the previous kollema were covered by the following one. In this case, however, there are two fundamental differences from the situation envisaged by Gallazzi and Kramer. In the rst place, no section was actually displaced, and, more importantly, the damage took place after the mirror images were produced, as the tracing of the mirror image of the head numbered as R20 corresponds to its shape before, not after the restoration.39 There are no signs of damage (and even less of restoration) from before the papyrus was covered with both sets of drawings and the mirror images were produced. But there is another objection to Gallazzis and Kramers latest hypothesis. As can be shown on the basis of the distance between the original images and their offset impressions, when these were produced, the papyrus was rolled with its beginning at the centre, and the preserved portion was preceded by a lost section that must have been around 2.5 metres long. If we accept Gallazzis and Kramers hypothesis, we should imagine not only that fr. a was misplaced after frs. b and c, but also that this entire sequence was attached to an extraneous and quite substantial previous portion of the roll. Moreover, according to Gallazzis and Kramers own reconstruction, the original roll was a copy of the second book of Artemidorus Geography, and, consequently, the section with fragment c would have been followed by the rest of the book. At the time the mirror images were produced, however, this position was occupied by fr. a. So, if we want to follow Gallazzi and Kramer (2009), we would have to imagine that the papyrus broke not only after fragment a, but also after
39 Cf. Bastianini (2009) 219 n. 17.
303
fragment c. This amounts to a substantial reshufe for which there is no explanation, and of which no trace remains. Far from being based on the actual physical evidence, Gallazzis and Kramers latest conjecture simply attempts to work around it. One might suppose that they have strong grounds for advancing an unsubstantiated hypothesis of this kind. But their only reason turns out to be that they do not want to accept the clear implications of the evidence as to the original sequence of the papyrus. They examine a number of possible interpretations of the sequence, which include the possibility that the papyrus might have been an anthology, a miscellaneous roll, a collaborative work, an exercise-book, a sample or an autograph, and rule them all out since they prefer to stick to their original hypothesis, although to do this they must conjecture a complex and implausible reshufe.40 Methodologically, to put it bluntly, this is the wrong way round. We should, in the rst place, start from the evidence and only make radical conjectural change if it is unavoidable. And that is certainly not the case here. In fact, even before the new sequence was established, several scholars were struck by the strong stylistic and linguistic differences between the two portions of the text, at columns IIII and IVV respectively. Some argued that they were unlikely to be the work of one author.41 Now that the sequence of the fragments actually does suggest that the two portions of writing were not meant to be part of the same text, it seems to me that we should welcome this, rather than ignoring it for the sake of a hypothesis that was problematic from the start. The reasons adduced by Gallazzi and Kramer against the line that this roll was a miscellaneous anthology are particularly weak. One of their objections is that in an anthology we would expect to nd the indication of the authors name and/or the title of the text before each excerpt. This is indeed frequently the case, but there are numerous exceptions even among the relatively few cases of preserved anthologies. Gallazzi and Kramer are aware of this, of course, but think that this feature is to be found only in the more careless compilations made for personal use, which would be disconcerting in a papyrus they consider to be of high quality, like the Artemidorus papyrus. They nd equally unacceptable the possibility that, within such an anthology, a general introductory text such as the one preserved in columns IIII should follow the detailed description of a single region, as exemplied by the text in columns IV and V. Finally, they do not think that the large blank intervals (actually now covered with drawings) between the texts are compatible with the anthology hypothesis. However, the absence of an indication of the
40 In a most remarkable instance of an entirely circular argument, Gallazzi and Kramer rst establish that fr. a must have preceded the other ones on the ground that they do not think that the alternative textual sequence makes sense to them; then they decide that the blank space at the beginning of fr. a must have been an agraphon (rather than being yet another of the blank spaces between columns of texts that we nd in this papyrus); and, eventually, from all of this they deduce: es kann also festgehalten werden, da der Papyrus den Anfang eines Buches aus der Feder eines bestimmten Autors enthlt, and that this book must, of course, have been Artemidorus, Geography 2 (Gallazzi/ Kramer 2009: 237). 41 Among the scholars who had doubted the attribution of columns IIII to Artemidorus cf. e. g. Obbink (2009) 13; Parsons (2009) 31; Colvin (2009).
304
JA ELSNER et al.
author and title of anthologized excerpts is found also in miscellaneous rolls written by well-practised hands that wrote their texts on the rectos of unused papyrus rolls. A good example of this is a late Ptolemaic papyrus now in the gyptisches Museum in Berlin, P.Berol. 13044. The papyrus is 23.4 cm high, and its preserved portion is 92.35 cm long.42 On the recto, a competent late Ptolemaic book-hand (probably to be dated to the early 1st century BCE; it shares some features, such as the famous rho with a long tail, with the recto of the Artemidorus papyrus)43 wrote a version of the dialogue between Alexander and the Gymnosophists44 and continued with a list of notable men and places published by Diels (1904) under the title of Laterculi alexandrini. This second text is not preceded by any general title, nor by the name of its compiler. Every section is preceded by a header, such as Legislators, Painters, Engineers, The greatest rivers, The most beautiful springs etc. Gallazzi and Kramer make a distinction between anthologies of excerpts, and miscellaneous rolls containing whole works. The Laterculi alexandrini in P.Berol. 13044, however, start with a list of legislators, but there is no reason to think that this was meant to be the beginning of the work as whole.45 The papyrus was meant from the beginning as a collection of miscellaneous texts, and it went on being used in this way when its verso was later employed by a different scribe for copying the prose paraphrase of an Orphic poem on the rape of Persephone (cf. 383, 3879, 3923 and 3967 T Bernab). Here too the papyrus provides neither title nor authors name. The Berlin roll belongs to a group of cartonnage papyri from Abusir al-Melek, for which an Alexandrian provenance has been proposed, based on their link with Alexandrian documentary papyri dated to the Augustan age and arguably from the same cartonnage.46 A further Berlin papyrus attributed to the same context is interesting for its very unusual format and miscellaneous content. P.Berol. 13045 preserves the end of a comparison of various political constitutions (Pack2 2570) and a rhetorical dialogue on the trial of Demades (Pack2 2102) (Salmenkivi 2002: 42). According to its editio princeps,47 this consists of the remains of two different rolls glued together, the rst containing
42 Cf. the entries for this papyrus in the Leuven Catalogue of Paraliterary Papyri (http://cpp.arts. kuleuven.be): nos. 273 and 106. 43 The shape of the rho in the Artemidorus papyrus was considered suspicious by Wilson (2009) 27 f.; cf. Parsons (2009) 35 f. 44 On this text cf. Stramaglia (1996) and Bosman (2010), with previous bibliography. 45 And, by the way, Gallazzi and Kramer can mention only two papyri that would fall within their second category (i. e. miscellaneous rolls): P.Berol. 13044 itself and P.Lond.Lit. 134+130, another Ptolemaic papyrus, with the nal portion of Hypereides, Against Philippides, and the initial one of Demosthenes Third Letter. The latter begins without title, but with the introductory formula (Kenyon (1891) 56). Note that in this case (as in the Artemidorus papyrus, but to a lesser extent) there is a variation in the width of the selides in the two texts. In the Hypereides they are barely 134 in. (Kenyon (1891) 42), while in the Demosthenes they are 214 in. The texts are written by two different hands. Cf. Johnson (2004) 173, Table 3.1 B, and 206, Table 3.4 B. 46 Salmenkivi (2002) 4244. To the two literary papyri discussed here Salmenkivi also adds P.Berol. 13046, with Iliad 13.184367 (Pack 2 903). 47 Kunst (1923) 13 f.
305
the end of the political synkrisis and the rst section of the rhetorical dialogue, and the second with the continuation of the latter.48 The continuous line numbering, however, shows that the whole sequence was treated as a single roll.49 The evidence provided by these Berlin papyri points to the possibility that miscellaneous rolls might have been more common in the late Ptolemaic and Augustan periods than is usually supposed. We simply do not have a sufcient sample to see whether any conclusion might be drawn regarding their typology. Gallazzi and Kramer ask for an explanation why columns IIII of P. Artemid. (the so-called proem) follow rather than precede columns IVV. I do not think that, on the basis of the available evidence, we can reconstruct the intention of the compiler in producing exactly this sequence, any more than we can explain why the scribe of P.Berol. 13044 decided to copy exactly the Laterculi alexandrini after the Gymnosophists. And the fact that we cannot, does not mean that they do not exist or that they are forgeries. It simply reects the limits of our abilities to go beyond the available evidence. Of course, we can make conjectures regarding these reasons,50 but these are never going to be more than debatable guesses, unless some unlikely new piece of information comes to light to help us to ll the gaps. If anything, one might even argue that the sequence of texts in the Artemidorus papyrus is more coherent than that in the Berlin papyrus, and I cannot honestly understand why this greater coherence should be used against the hypothesis that it was an anthology.51 The main difference between the Artemidorus papyrus and any other miscellaneous anthology, of course, is the presence of the large portions of blank papyrus between the text sections, which, at a certain stage, were lled with at least one map/landscape and several drawings. But we have to be clear about this: the map and drawings distinguish P. Artemid. not only from other anthologies, but from practically almost every other known preserved papyrus. Even if we follow the rst editors original idea, to which they still stick (Gallazzi and Kramer 2004: 240 Infolgedessen halten wir an unserer These fest), that P. Artemid. was born as an illustrated copy of a
48 Kunst does not give any indication that more than one scribe might have been at work on these texts and from his description Salmenkivi (2002) 43 n. 73 infers that both texts were written by the same hand, an impression conrmed by Giuseppe Ucciardello, who kindly inspected this papyrus in Berlin in the summer of 2011. According to the authors of the entry for this papyrus in the Leuven Catalogue of Paraliterary Papyri (http://cpp.arts.kuleuven.be), M. Huys and D. Colomo, two different hands can be distinguished. I am not aware of any published photograph of the portion of the papyrus containing the rst text. The hand of the dialogue, judging from the published photograph, is not too dissimilar from the rst hand of P.Berol. 13044. 49 Cf. Kunst (1923) 13 f. and the description in the Leuven Catalogue of Paraliterary Papyri: the two rolls have to be considered as a unit, as appears from the continuous line numbering and from the lack of any interruption in the text at the join of the two rolls. The lines with the beginning of the dialogue are not preserved. 50 Cf., for example, Stramaglia (1996) 114 according to whom the Gymnosophists would have served as an attractive literary text on which the students could exercise, while dopo la piacevole lettura, magari il maestro avrebbe vessato gli alunni con le utili quanto noiose liste di parole 51 Porciani (2010) 212 n. 25, mentions this en passant but, strangely enough, treats it as an argument against the possibility that the Artemidorus papyrus may be a miscellaneous roll.
306
JA ELSNER et al.
geography book, there are no parallels among extant papyri. The facts that only one of the blank spaces was actually lled with a map, and that this map is obviously unsuitable as an illustration of the description of the Iberian coast that follows it or of the text that preceded it (the proem according to Gallazzi and Kramer) greatly weakens an already feeble conjecture. Does the new sequence, as reconstructed on the basis of the physical evidence, necessarily imply that the roll contained a miscellany of texts? Recently, Leone Porciani has argued that this may not be the case.52 While agreeing with Gallazzi and Kramer that P. Artemid. cannot be a miscellany, Porciani argues against their reshufing of the reconstructed sequence, for which he proposes a new interpretation as a coherent and continuous section from Book 2 of Artemidorus Geography. Porciani maintains that the attribution of the two sections (columns IVV and columns IIII) to two different texts multiplies the levels of incoherence of an already incoherent papyrus, and that this is dangerous from the epistemological point of view (Porciani (2010) 213). I disagree on this point. Methodologically, we should start from an analysis of the texts and their position in the papyrus, in order to make sense of them, and not from our expectations of nding in them a preconceived level of coherence, which might or might not have been in the mind of whoever copied them. Porciani, nonetheless, nds the coherence he requires in the hypothesis that columns IVV would belong to an internal section of the second book of Artemidorus Geography (in which the author would have produced a summary of the physical and political conguration of the Iberian peninsula) and that this would have been followed by a methodological digression in columns IIII. However, when dealing with the rst portion of text (coll. IVV) Porciani does not confront the small, but in my opinion crucial issue of the missing connecting particle in its opening sentence. That is present in the Artemidorean excerpt in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in a position where there would have been no reason to interpolate it (the quotation is introduced by a verbum dicendi after which the particle does not make syntactical sense). It is therefore highly probable that it was already in the original. Its omission in the papyrus looks like a clear sign that this was an excerpt deliberately, if only slightly, modied in order to make it self-standing and independent from its original context.53 This conclusion is reinforced by the circumstance that the whole section has been designed by the scribe in such a way as to occupy exactly two columns (with a different width from that of columns IIII). Porciani argues that columns IVV do not represent either a proem, nor (part of) a separate work, but a methodological section internal to the text of Artemidorus, elaborating upon the two notions of a regional geographical area and of comprehensive knowledge (conoscenza complessiva), that were used in the preceding descriptive passage (Porciani 2010: 225). This suggestion, however, does not face squarely the problems posed by the great stylistic and linguistic difference between the two sections of the text. This would have caused serious problems if Porciani had followed the hypothesis that columns IIII show off the author at his most purple in the introduction
52 Porciani (2010). 53 On the whole issue, cf. now also the much more detailed treatment of Hammerstaedt in this volume.
307
to one of his books (a theory that, in this case, I have never found persuasive). It is even more problematic if we think we are dealing with an internal digression or interlude. Indeed, even if we accept this highly unlikely hypothesis, the idea that the extant portions of P. Artemid. might have been preceded and followed by the rest of Book 2 of Artemidorus Geography is not compatible with the physical appearance of the papyrus, as Porciani himself is forced to acknowledge. As we have seen, we must accept (as Porciani does) that the extant portion of the papyrus was preceded by a lost section roughly 2.5 m long. The extant portion of the papyrus starts in the middle of a map, and we do not know how much of it might have extended into the lost section. The rst two preserved columns (IVV) are separated from the following three by another blank portion, roughly 0.85 m long. And the last preserved column was followed again by more unwritten papyrus. This means that the written text occupies roughly a quarter of the preserved length of the papyrus. There is no reason to suppose that in the lost portion the ratio between written text and blank elements must have been signicantly different from that of the extant section, as it is unlikely that the scribe would have started to leave extensive blank spaces only at this point of the roll. So, theoretically, 2.5 metres may correspond to no more than the same amount of text as in the preserved section; but, according to Porcianis hypothesis, this lost section must have accommodated a sequence of Book 2 long enough to lead author and reader to the recapitulation we eventually nd in columns IVV. Moreover, had the papyrus continued according to the same ratio between texts and blank spaces, a roll containing a whole book would have required a great and decidedly unwieldy length. If we add to this that the lay-out of the text, with its remarkable oscillation in the width of the columns, is highly unusual, and that the extant map is obviously not relevant to the preserved texts, the hypothesis that this was a complete edition of the geographers book becomes even more difcult to maintain. And it is not maintained, in fact, by Porciani himself, who suggests that P.Artemid. might have been a sample text made towards the preparation of such an edition. Now, if we have pretty few papyrological parallels for miscellaneous prose anthologies, I am aware of no parallel at all for such samples as envisaged by Porciani.54 We remain, once more, before the most obvious conclusion, i. e. that the papyrus is a miscellaneous compilation of geographical texts and drawings. Porciani, among others, stresses the didactic implausibility of an anthology of such texts (Porciani (2010) 211). And yet, geography and paradoxography, as well as art history were far from being alien to the educational trends of Greco-Roman Egypt. A good example of this, albeit at
54 Porciani (2010) 228 n. 70 quotes P.Col. 204, 1278 MP3, as a possible example of una prova di scrittura per una edizione. The case, however, is very different. In the Columbia papyrus a scribe used the verso of a documentary papyrus in order to start copying Isocrates, Contra sophistas, but did not go beyond the second line of the second column. Apart from being of interest for the scribes possible attempt at nding the most appropriate width of the column (moving from an average of 26 letters to that of 22 letters per line, a difference which is, by the way, far less striking than that between the two sections of P.Artemid.), this papyrus is hardly comparable to the situation of the Artemidorus papyrus, where the experiment would have covered roughly 5 metres of the recto of a large-sized roll.
308
JA ELSNER et al.
a more down-to-earth level, is provided by one of the miscellaneous papyri discussed above, P.Berol. 13044, containing the so-called Laterculi Alexandrini, dated probably to the early 1st century BCE.55 This is a wide-ranging list of names covering various categories, including both people and places. The greatest portion of the names of people represents artists such as painters, sculptors, architects (and engineers). The geographical and paradoxographical interest of the text is demonstrated by columns VIIIXII (after which the papyrus is broken), where a list of the seven wonders is followed by those of the largest islands, the highest mountains, the longest rivers, the most beautiful springs, and lakes. The geographical range is quite wide. The list mentions several exotic places from Asia, Africa, Eastern and Western Europe, as well as some from the Iberian peninsula. The list of rivers starts with . The Pyrenees, as well as the Alps, are mentioned among the mountains. The Balearic islands gure among the largest islands (in this, the list strictly follows Timaeus, F 65 Jacoby, criticised for exactly this treatment of the Balearic islands by Strabo 14.2.10, 654). The difference in range from a similar list in the teachers book of P. Jouguet-Guraud (dated to the late 3rd century BCE), where the westernmost location included was the Eridanos, is noticeable. In a paper presented at the 20th International Papyrology Congress at Copenhagen in 1992 Bernard Legras examined the evidence of particular geographical interest provided by 13 Greek school-papyri (including ostraca and wooden tablets) covering different educational levels from the rst rudiments up to specialized didactic material, arguably collected by teachers for their personal use.56 When dealing with the Laterculi Alexandrini Legras observes that their content suggests the work of somebody familiar with the geographical works of the likes of Eratosthenes Hipparchus of Bithynia and Agatharchides of Cnidus,57 and argues that they may have had a scholarly rather than merely didactic purpose. Their list of visual artists conveys pieces of information unknown from other sources.58 There is no reason to be surprised if the same kind of people who compiled this list might have been interested in excerpts from geographical writings. What is really singular about the Artemidorus papyrus is not so much its miscellaneous content as the fact that it is a miscellany obviously designed from the start to accommodate both texts and images. Regarding the nature and the extent of a unitary project behind the roll, in this as in other analogous cases, we can make only conjectures. Scholars dealing with the papyrus have already had occasion to draw attention to its coherent interest in geography and wonders from the extreme regions of the world that
55 Cf. p. 304 sq. above. 56 Cf. Legras (1994). 57 Note that Legras accepts a dating of this papyrus to the 2nd century BCE, but it seems much more likely that it may have been written well into the 1st century. One may add, therefore, also Artemidorus among its possible sources, but, as far as I can see, there is no positive reason for advancing this conjecture. 58 Cf. Hebert (1986).
309
may link the texts to two of the sets of drawings, the map and the animals on the verso.59 The Laterculi Alexandrini with their focus on the visual arts as well as on geography and paradoxography may give us a further clue about the possible intellectual background of the kinds of people responsible for the preparation of this remarkable papyrus, from which we have undoubtedly still much to learn. This approach leads, unavoidably, to provisional conclusions and leaves many unanswered questions. But this is what we can reasonably do without distorting the evidence. It is to be hoped that some of these questions may be claried and this perspective may be altered by further research, but gaps and uncertainties are probably going to remain unavoidable. After all, this is one of the differences between scholarly research and historical ction.
ARTEMIDORUS FR. 21 STIEHLE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS

By Jrgen Hammerstaedt60
ABSTRACT: The Turin papyrus (P.Artemid.) contains a section of Artemidorus fr. 21 (Stiehle), whose text had made its way through the lost complete version of Stephanus Ethnica (c. 520 AD) into the medieval compilation De administrando imperio, executed under Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century. A correct interpretation of the textual differences between these two texts is of crucial importance for the debate on the authenticity of the papyrus. The present article offers a new explanation of these differences. The common view that all Artemidorus fragments in Stephanus derive from Marcianus Artemidorus epitome, and none is a direct excerpt from the original version of Artemidorus text, has to be given up. The differences between the papyrus and the medieval Artemidorus tradition appear to be due not to Marcianus epitomizing (c. 400 AD or later), but to the results of editorial changes in a text whose form was identical, or very close, to the original version of Artemidorus Geographumena and does not derive from Marcianus, who would have updated its geographical content. The most important changes are due to Stephanus.
The famous papyrus edited in 2008 by Claudio Gallazzi, Brbel Kramer and Salvatore Settis is generally called the Artemidorus papyrus because the rst 14 lines of its summary description of Spain offer a slightly amplied version of a fragment of the second book of the geographical description of the oikoumene written by this late Hellenistic geographer.61 Besides this text, the recto of the papyrus contains a comparision between
59 Cf. DAlessio (2009). For a new, coherent reading of the sequence of the drawings on the verso, cf. now Pajn Leyra p. 336 sqq. below. 60 Institut fr Altertumskunde, Universitt zu Kln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Kln, ala19@ uni-koeln.de. 61 Gallazzi / Kramer / Settis (2008). See esp. P.Artemid. col. IV, 114. Cf. Artemid. fr. 21 Stiehle. Bossina (2009) 139 recommended we speak instead of the Turin Papyrus, as I did (Hammerstaedt 2009a). But I used this expression in the context of a volume with the title Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro and the title of his contribution was clear too: Artemidoro di Efeso nella tradizione indiretta e nel papiro di Torino. In the absence of a such a context it would not be wise to speak just about the Turin Papyrus without further specications.
310
JA ELSNER et al.
geography and philosophy,62 a hitherto unidentied map, and drawings of human heads and limbs, while the entire verso is lled with a series of drawings of animals (some real, others imaginary). No similar papyrus is known, and starting with Luciano Canfora, its authenticity has been challenged. Some scholars followed Canfora in considering it a 19th-century fake made by the notorious forger Konstantinos Simonidis. In a few years the authenticity discussion has taken many different aspects of this unique papyrus into consideration. I limit myself to some new reections on the most important and fundamental part of the philological controversy: Are the differences between the new papyrus text and Artemidorus fragment 21 Stiehle,63 whose text is indirectly transmitted in Constantine Porphyrogenitus,64 due to the work of a modern forger who reveals himself by using inappropriate modern conjectures and giving anachronistic geographical information, as Canfora believes? Or does the new text rather offer splendid conrmation of the results of modern philological work, and ll, in one case, the lacuna of a corrupt passage in the medieval tradition which no philologist had been able to resolve, and certainly no forger could have emended? Canfora tried to constitute the medieval Artemidorus quotation from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio 23 without adopting three modern philological emendations and operations. His text runs as follows.65
62 P.Artemid. col. IIII. 63 Stiehle (1856) 203 edited Artemidorus fr. 21 in this way: Steph.B. p. 324,2 v. - -. . - - - , (die obige Lcke fllt Berkel aus durch , was nach Meineke non sufcit). Das Fragment steht auch bei Constantin. Porphyrog. De administr. imp. c. 23 . 64 Const. Porph. De administrando imperio 23. 65 Canforas relevant articles rst appeared in Quaderni di Storia (QS), but they were republished and are quoted in this article from Canfora (2008): Postilla testuale sul nuovo Artemidoro, in: QS 64 (2006) 4559 formed the chapter Se la geograa tace in Canfora (2008) 211217 (according to Canfora 2008: 222 n. 5 and Canfora 2007: 60, n. 5 this version is improved); Le molte vite del fr. 21 di Artemidoro, in: QS 65 (2007) 271298, appeared later in an English version as the chapter The many lives of fr. 21 of Artemidorus in Canfora (2007) 5991 and was published again in Italian in Canfora (2008) 221242; Perch quel papiro non pu essere Artemidoro, in: QS 66 (2007) 227254, was published in English under the title Why this papyrus cannot be Artemidorus in Canfora (2007) 93126, and nally in Canfora (2008) 243275.
311
Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle according to Canfora 2008, 234: [] . , , . , .
10
West and I have argued that in all three cases where the medieval text has not been accepted by modern scholarship it is indeed corrupt and/or lacunose.66 In two cases the Artemidorus papyrus conrms previous conjectures, while in the third,67 it lls a lacuna which has never been lled convincingly hitherto. Canforas response does not address the three most important problems:68 the awkward word order and construction of in the medieval tradition of Artemidorus fr. 21 and the difculty of supplying a suitable subject for (understood as also) .69 Canfora proposed Iberia in one of his two attempts. But this would result in the nonsensical statement that Iberia is also called synonymously Iberia and Spain.70 The third problem consists in the impossible syntactical break after , which leaves without the necessary .71
66 West (2009); Hammerstaedt (2009a) and (2009c). 67 P.Artemid. col. IV, 56 (text see p. 312 below). The lacuna of fr. 21 would be in line 9 of the text constituted by Canfora (2008) 234 (quoted above). 68 Canfora (2009d) 115f. 69 In lines 57 of Canforas text, quoted above. Cp. West (2009) 97; Hammerstaedt (2009a) 6265 and (2009c) 9599. Billerbeck/Zubler (2011) 264 who printed the Constantinian text as Steph. Byz. 19a retained in line 14f. However, their translation (loc. cit. 265: <Das Gebiet, welches sich erstreckt> von den Pyrenen landeinwrts bis zur Gegend um Gadara, heisst ohne Bedeutungsunterschied sowohl Iberien als auch Hispanien) does not offer a convincing construction of (with landeinwrts bis) and does not account for the problematic . Billerbeck (2009) 77 had instead adopted Schubarts transposition ( ), and explained this ibid. 80. 70 Hammerstaedt (2009a) 66f and (2009c) 99f; see also West (2009) 98. 71 Text quoted above, lines 910. West (2009) 98; Hammerstaedt (2009a) 66f and (2009c) 100f. Billerbeck (2009) 80 n. 29 criticized the awkward word order which is produced by Canforas
312
JA ELSNER et al.
Hammerstaedts (and Wests) belief that Canforas text does not resolve, and partially ignores, the corruptions of the medieval Artemidorus quotation, so that the papyrus text is superior to the medieval text, was challenged by Luciano Bossina72 and Federico Condello.73 However, neither offers new arguments or information concerning the three problems mentioned here: they just insist on the soundness of Canforas text and on the irrelevance of Wests and Hammerstaedts observations. Since I print Canforas text above, state the remaining textual problems, and offer below a conspectus of the papyrus and the codex unicus of the medieval Artemidorus quotation in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, it is left to the reader to form his or her own judgement on this matter. Bossina and Condello made an important additional observation on the text which will be the starting point of the new considerations offered in this article. For the sake of clarity I present a conspectus of the papyrus and the medieval Artemidorus quotation.74, 75 P.Artemid. col. IV, 114:74 [] [] [] [] [ ] [] 4 . [] 8 [] [] [] 12 - - . Paris.Gr. 2009 f. 46v 114:75 . - - .
There are three groups of variants between the papyrus and the non-emended text of the Artemidorus quotation in Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The rst group, in bold italics,
72 73 74
75
supplement in line 12 and Billerbeck/Zubler (2011) 264 accepted the lacuna before and deleted the before . Bossina (2009) 140142. Condello (2010) 503507. Text according to the editio princeps of Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) but without the half lower square brackets (which are not necessary here), an orthographical change in line 3 (where the papyrus reads |) and an emendation in line 13, where Benedetto Bravo (2009) 60 proposed instead of (see p. 324 below). Transcribed by Canfora (2008) 222.
313
consists of variants of the papyrus in three places where the medieval Artemidorus quotation has for long time been considered to be corrupt by modern scholars. The second group, in the left text, marked by simple underscoring, consists of words present on the papyrus but absent in the medieval quotation. The third group, in the right text, marked by double underlining, is formed by two small additions in the medieval quotation (lines 4 and 7) of words which the papyrus does not have. The relationship between the two versions of the Artemidorus text and the lost original version of Artemidorus geographumena has to be established on the basis of these differences and of the knowledge we have about the medieval tradition of the Artemidorus quotation from other sources. The complete text of the eleven books of Artemidorus geographumena, which was written at about 100 B.C.,76 was epitomized by Marcianus of Heraclea who wrote after the geographers Ptolemy and Protagoras (dated about 200 AD) and before Stephanus of Byzantium (c. 530 AD) and who lived perhaps shortly after 400 AD or even a bit later.77 Marcianus provides detailed information about the criteria according to which he epitomised Artemidorus original text.78 This epitome would be completely lost, if Stephanus of Byzantium had not reported some quotations from it in his Ethnica.79 Unfortunately, the Ethnica of Stephanus, whose huge content was alphabetically ordered in a very large number of books, are also not preserved in their entirety. Nearly the whole work is transmitted only in a heavily epitomized form. Of the original entire (or at least much more complete)80 version, only one sequence of eight pages of the letter delta has been transmitted in an 11th century manuscript, S(eguerianus) Parisinus Coislinianus 228.81 But an entire (or more complete)82 version of the Ethnica was also used in the compilations made under Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus (945959). In this way, through the compilations De administrando imperio and De thematibus, several entries of the original Ethnica of Stephanus have been transmitted in a more or less entire form. One of them is the lemma which contains our Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle. Up to now, both the defenders and the adversaries of authenticity of the Artemidorus papyrus shared the belief that the medieval quotation of Artemidorus fr. 21 in Constantine
76 Marcianus of Heracleia, Epitome peripli Menippei 3 (GGM 1, 566, 3133) dated Artemidorus oruit in the 169th Olympiad (104101 B.C.). 77 Grtner (1999) 916. 78 Marcianus, Periplus maris exteri 1,1 (GGM 1, 516, 113), text and translation see below. Cf. ibid. 2,2 (GGM I 542, 1521) and Marcianus, epitome peripli Menippei 4 (GGM 1, 567, 16 and 2333 [cf. below n. 105]). 79 Fragments of Marcianus epitome of Artemidorus in GGM 1, 574576. Not to be confused with Marcianus own Periplus maris exteri (GGM 1, 515562), as happened to Billerbeck (2008) 317 n. 38. 80 Cp. Billerbeck/Zubler (2011) p. VII. 81 Billerbeck (2006) 5*6*. 82 Billerbeck (2006) 6* and (2009) 71; however, Billerbeck (2008) 301 spoke of Artemidorus fr. 21 in Constantine Porphyrogenitus as une partie du texte original, cf. ibid. 317.
314
JA ELSNER et al.
Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio 23 offers the text of Marcianus epitome of Artemidorus, and not of the original version.83 Hence, the adversaries of authenticity conclude that the Artemidorus papyrus contains a text which is based essentially on Marcianus epitome in its medieval tradition and on modern distortions adopted in Stiehles edition of fr. 21. On the other side, the defenders of authenticity consider the relevant text in the papyrus to be a section of the entire text of Artemidorus geographumena. Bossina and Condello (who do not believe in the authenticity of P.Artemid.) pointed out that the two columns which contain the description of Spain cannot be regarded as the direct tradition of Artemidorus geographumena, but that they are only an extract of his text in a different context; in other words, they are indirect tradition. Their considerations start from two facts. The rst is DAlessios recomposition of the papyrus roll and the resulting new sequence of texts.84 Since according to DAlessios recomposition columns IIII with their comparision between geography and philosophy follow columns IVV which contain the description of Spain, they cannot be regarded as a praefatio of the second book of Artemidorus geographumena.85 Their second argument consists in the observation that at the beginning of the description of Spain in the papyrus (col. IV, 1) the particle is missing, while it is present at the beginning of the medieval quotation of Artemidorus fr. 21.86 The medieval Artemidorus quotation appears in a context which would not easily account for a later addition of such a , because in the introductory remarks just a few words before the name of Artemidorus himself is introduced with another .87 The introduction was most probably formulated by Stephanus himself.88 In view of this later in line 2 of the medieval excerpt, the in line 4 does not arouse any suspicion and is almost certainly part of Stephanus source which goes back directly or indirectly to Artemidorus. On the other hand, the missing particle in P.Artemid. col. IV, 1 reveals that the text sequence there was accommodated to form the beginning of the description of Spain. It is obvious that in the original Artemidorus text this had connected the words with
83 Billerbeck (2008) 317ff and (2009) 66; Canfora (2008) 244; Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 213. Also West (2009) 95f. 84 DAlessio (2009). See also DAlessio in this volume. 85 This conclusion had already been made by DAlessio (2009) 40. Porciani (2010) made another attempt to reconcile DAlessios recomposition with the attribution of both text sequences on the recto to Artemidorus second book by considering the comparision between geography and philosophy not as a praefatio, but as an internal reection on the task of the geographer which Artemidorus had inserted immediately after his summary description of Spain. Porcianis assumption, however, does not offer a convincing solution for the missing in col. IV, 1 (see below) and for the serious differences in the level of style and thought of the two sequences which do not seem to be written by the same person. 86 Paris.Gr. 2009 f. 46v 4; see above the two facing texts of P.Artemid. IV, 1 and Paris.Gr. 2009 f. 46v 4. This argument has already been formulated before, as in DAlessio (2009) 41. 87 Paris.Gr. 2009 f. 46v 2. 88 See p. 323 below.
315
some preceding text.89 So the description of Spain in the Artemidorus papyrus has to be regarded as indirect tradition too. Another consideration raised by adversaries of authenticity is that the textual differences between the papyrus and the medieval Artemidorus quotation, which they believe derives from Marcianus epitome of Artemidorus, are not as signicant as one would them expect to be if the papyrus really contained a section of Artemidorus geographumena in their complete form.90 The additional elements in the papyrus91 appear to be minor adjustments, and not the more substantial differences between the original version and an epitomized redaction. I agree with Bossina and Condello that columns IV and V of the Artemidorus papyrus cannot be classied as a piece of direct tradition of Artemidorus geographumena,92 and I acknowledge the lack of substantial differences between the papyrus and the medieval redaction of the Artemidorus quotation. But starting from these facts I shall arrive at different conclusions. The common belief that Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle derives from Marcianus epitome is conditioned by the general opinion that all Artemidorus quotations in Stephanus of Byzantium, without exception, were taken from this epitome. Margarethe Billerbeck referred to this opinion in 2008,93 and maintained in 2009 that Stephanus, as Aubrey Diller has convincingly demonstrated, did not use Artemidorus directly but drew his information from the epitome which the minor Greek geographer Marcianus of Heraclea had excerpted .94 Among the adversaries of authenticity of the Artemidorus papyrus, Luciano Canfora stated with a certain degree of caution that the form of Stephanus quotations of Artemidorus and of his geographumena do not necessarily force us to assume that Stephanus drew at the same time on the epitome and on Artemidorus it-
89 Artemidorus can have easily marked the transition from the description of another region, or some other aspect linked with Spain, to the division of Iberia. So it is not necessary to assume with Bossina (2009) 141 and Condello (2010) 506 that the geographer proposed another geographical division of Iberia in the missing text before this . Canfora (2008) 259ff had already claimed, following Strabo 3,4,19, that the lost text offered an earlier division of Iberia which started from the Rhone and which nished, as Canfora believes, at the Ebro. But Hammerstaedt (2009c) 96f with n. 62 has proved that Strabo does not limit the extension of the region originally called Iberia to the (surroundings of) the Ebro, but extends it from the Rhone to the whole Hispanic peninsula. Canfora (2009d) 115 tried to confute this, by referring to Charax. But Charax FGrHist 103 F 3 only speaks about the Spanish peninsula, does not mention the Rhone, and certainly does not take the Ebro (or the surroundings of Ebro) as a border of the original Iberia. He states explicitly that the whole Spanish peninsula was previously called Iberia by the Greeks ( ). 90 Tosi (2009) 35f. See also Billerbeck (2009) 80f. Billerbeck (2008) 318 found it remarkable that Artemidorus fr. 21, and two other Artemidorus quotations, do not just report the names of harbours and the distances between them, but also contain some historical and cultural information. 91 The second group of variants, which is underscored in the conspectus, see p. 312 above. 92 However they are not the rst to have made such a statement, cf. DAlessio (2009) 41. 93 Billerbeck (2008) 317. 94 Billerbeck (2009) 66 n. 5, referring to Diller (1952) 4547.
316
JA ELSNER et al.
self an assumption which he called unusual.95 Later he assumed it to be certain that Stephanus exclusively quotes Artemidorus through Marcianus epitome.96 Among the defenders of authenticity, the same belief was adopted by Gallazzi, Kramer and Settis in their commentary on the papyrus text in the editio princeps. They quoted information given by Billerbeck and mentioned that Canfora shared this belief without recognizing Dillers priority.97 Canfora cannot be blamed for this. Aubrey Diller does not prove or state anywhere in his monograph that Stephanus used Marcianus epitome exclusively for his Artemidorus quotations.98 On the contrary, several scholars have assumed that the Artemidorus quotations in Stephanus do not derive exclusively from Marcianus epitome.99 They believe that some quotations of Artemidorus in Stephanus derive from the complete geographumena through other sources than Marcianus epitome. Billerbeck listed the different ways in which Stephanus refers to Artemidorus as a source:100 a. (22 x) , (1 x) , (1x) ). b. (35 x)101 (, ) or (3x) , , . c. (12 x) or (4 x) or (1x) or (1x) . All citations of group b start with + book number. The vast majority is followed by the genitive of . In group c is followed, with one exception, by and only exceptionally by a book number. Within the two groups there is a large degree of uniformity. Billerbeck (and those who have taken part in the Artemidorus discussion) believed that all these quotations refer to Marcianus epitome. But surprisingly, Billerbeck left
95 Canfora (2008) 86: Quando nel lessico geograco di Stefano di Bisanzio ci troviamo dinanzi al rinvio non possiamo esser certi che Stefano si riferisca allopera integra. Anche se parecchie volte Stefano rinvia ad questo non ci deve indurre necessariamente a pensare che Stefano usasse (cosa inusuale) sia Artemidoro sia lepitome. 96 Canfora (2008) 243247. 97 Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 213. 98 Diller (1952). Curiously Billerbeck (2008) 318 with n. 31 reported the content of the relevant pages in Dillers monograph in the exact way: she mentioned Diller for having shown that the ancient corpora of minor Greek geographers, including Marcianus Artemidorus epitome, were used directly by Stephanus of Byzantium. This observation of Diller does not exclude the possibility that other Artemidorus quotations in Stephanus derive from different sources which quote from the complete text of Artemidorus geographumena. 99 Atenstdt (1910) 20f; Honigmann (1929) 2384; Fraser (2009) 24 n. 19. 100 Billerbeck (2009) 87. The gures slightly differ from those in Billerbeck (2008) 317. Atenstdt (1910) 20 was the rst to divide the Artemidorus quotations in Stephanus into three classes. 101 Billerbeck omitted the quotation in Steph. Byz. 150, lines 3941 (text and translation below) and in the entry (360, 1820 Meineke).
317
aside the lemma in which Stephanus refers to the same information given by Artemidorus in two different ways:102 Steph. Byz. Ethnica 150, lines 3241 Billerbeck/Zubler:103 , , . and Artemidorus shows knowledge of the town Dora in the Epitome of the 11 books: the Tower of Straton follows immediately, and then there is Dora, a small township situated in a place shaped like a peninsula, where Mount Carmel starts; and in the 9th Book of his Geography he says the same. Canfora was aware of this lemma and understood the two quotations as references to two different books of Marcianus epitome.104 He explained that Marcianus epitomai of Menippus and Artemidorus did not mention Marcianus himself but the two geographers as the authors,105 and that Marcianus explicitly states that he retained the original numbering of the eleven books of Artemidorus geographumena in his Artemidorus epitome.106 Canfora believed therefore that Stephanus was referring to the same epitome
Which she mentioned (2008) 317 in a different context. Billerbeck/Zubler (2011) 114f, where this specic passage is not treated in the notes. Canfora (2008) 247. The lemma was treated with different results in Atenstdt (1910) 20. Cp. Canfora (2008) 85f: sia Artemidoro epitomato sia il Menippo edito e largamente farcito circolarono con i nomi dei rispettivi autori, come opere da loro volute (). Marciano spiega di aver agito cos per non peccare nei confronti dei , ma forse anche perch lapporto suo personale era stato piuttosto limitato. This statement only takes in half of the information in Marcianus, Epitome peripli Menippei 4 (GGM 1, 567, 2233) about Menippus (and Artemidorus) epitome: , , , , , , . I made the edition of the three books without taking away the father of these and transferring the work of others to myself (in the same way as I did not suppress the name of Artemidorus who had treated everything with care), but writing on the one hand () their names in the book titles , and turning on the other hand () the abridgements and corrections of their text into an evident token of my own fatigue, so that to the attention of the readers nothing is ignored of what they (Menippus and Artemidorus) wrote or of what I added or found worthy of a careful correction. Marcianus quoted Artemidorus and Menippus names in the book titles. But he also made sure that his own fatigue of epitomizing and correcting became evident. We see in the preserved parts of his Epitome peripli Menippei that Marcianus did not mark any single abridgement and correction. So he must make his own work sufciently evident in the book titles. Indeed Stephanus of Byzantium in one place, s. v. (429, 11f Meineke), quotes . 106 Marcianus, Epitome peripli Menippei 4 (GGM 1, 567, 45) .
102 103 104 105
318
JA ELSNER et al.
of Marcianus when he says and when he says .107 But Canforas explanation of the Doros entry is insufcient. The ninth book of the geographumena, which treated the region of Phoenicia, is the only place where Artemidorus can have mentioned the small Dora or Doros at the foot of Mount Carmel. It is very unlikely that this was mentioned in any other book of Artemidorus description of the Mediterranean world. Furthermore, one would have to assume with Canfora that Stephanus did not see any problem in referring to the same Artemidorus epitome under two quite different titles in the same lemma. Condello108 justied this by the additional assumption that both quotations refer to the same book of Marcianus epitome but that they were taken by Stephanus indirectly from different sources, so that he was not aware of the fact that he was quoting the same work twice. But this is too very unlikely. Even if Marcianus epitome reached Stephanus through different sources, such sources do not easily account for signicant differences in the book titles. Moreover, there is not the slightest evidence for the circulation of Marcianus epitome before Stephanus time, for instance in copies with varying titles. In fact, Stephanus is the only author who quotes the Artemidorus epitome. For this reason Diller shared the suspicion that Marcianus was employed by Stephanus himself to compile the epitome.109 I concede that there is no proof for Dillers suspicion. But it is sufcient for our purposes here to show that the assumption that all Artemidorus quotations in Stephanus derive without exception from Marcianus is simply not cogent. On the contrary, Atenstdts argument that a quotation from the geographumena of Artemidorus found its way into the Stephanus lemma through Philo of Byblos work on Cities and their Famous Men as an intermediary source has up to now been neither challenged nor refuted. This quotation (Steph. Byz. s. v. [613, 79 Meineke]) has the same form as the title in Steph. Byz. 150, 3941 Billerbeck/Zubler. It is very likely that the quotation of the original Artemidorus arrived there through some intermediary source, so that Stephanus could add it to the text taken from Marcianus excerpt (without the book number) as a further piece of information from Artemidorus himself (with book number). So there is no general need to assume that Artemidorus fr. 21 found its way into Steph. Byz. 19 Billerbeck/Zubler through Marcianus epitome. We cannot rule out the possibility that it derives (probably through indirect transmission)110 from Artemidorus original edition.
107 108 109 110 Marcianus, Epitome peripli Menippi (GGM 1, 567, 4f and 26f). Condello (2009) 504. Diller (1952) 46. For example through Herodianus who seems to have been used directly by Stephanus (cf. Honigmann 2380), even if August Lentz went too far with his arduous reconstruction on the base of the Constantinian text in GG 3, 1 (1867) 288, 2833.
319
But how do we explain the undeniable differences between the slightly larger version of the excerpt in the Artemidorus papyrus and the Constantinian excerpt? I believe that these differences are traces of editorial work, which is different from epitomizing. The same kind of work is visible in a quotation from Marcianus and his Periplus maris exteri transmitted in the same chapter 23 of De administrando imperio which offers Artemidorus fr. 21. The position of this quotation within the Constantinian chapter is problematic, and Meineke changed it in his Stephanus edition.111 At any rate this text allows us to compare the quotation in Constantine with the original text of Marcianus: Marcianus, Periplus maris exteri 2,7 (GGM 1, 544, 912): , , . Adm. imp. 23 (ed. Moravcsik 1967) , .
Meineke: Paris.Gr. 2009 What we see in Constantine Porphyrogenitus are the slight editorial changes and cuts of a redactor. He mostly removed what he considered to be redundant or superuous (bold in text on the left). Similarly the elements that the medieval quotation of Artemidorus fr. 21 eliminated from the text as it is transmitted in the Artemidorus papyrus are redundancies and superuous information.112 The fact that Marcianus own text underwent the same kind of redaction, which we nd in the Artemidorus quotation nearby, renders it very unlikely that the differences between the medieval Artemidorus quotation and the Artemidorus papyrus are due to Marcianus. Also in general, there is no evidence for such detailed redactional work on the part of Marcianus such as we nd in the medieval tradition of Artemidorus fr. 21. The selfdeclared criteria of Marcianus epitomization are different: Marcian. periplus maris exteri 1,1 (GGM 1, 516, 113) [ ] , [] The geographer Artemidorus of Ephesus in his Eleven Books of Geography described as well as he could the coastal voyage (periplus) [of the] (Mediterranean) sea which is situated [inside the columns of Hercules].
111 Billerbeck/Zubler (2011) 264 accepted this transposition; for the reasons, see Billerbeck (2009) 80. 112 See p. 312 above the conspectus of P.Artemid. IV, 114 and Paris.Gr. 2009 f. 46v 414.
320
JA ELSNER et al.
, , , , , [] , .
It (the sea) is limited west[wards] by the Ocean which surrounds the earth and ows into it (the Mediterranean) at the so-called Strait of Hercules. We skipped in these books the superuous digressions of the man mentioned above, left out the Aethiopian town of the barbarians and redacted instead the coastal voyage in an epitomized form, presenting it clearly and adding accurately the information which had been found out (in the meantime), so that there is not lacking anything which leads to the most perfect clarity for those who treat this part of geography.
The square brackets are used according to the Leyden system for text supplied in lacuna. Marcianus cancelled the ethnographical and cultural digressions in his Artemidorus epitome and also the description of non-Greek towns in Aethiopia, while he updated the coastal voyage. Billerbeck believed that Marcianus self-declared principles of epitomization do not properly account for the rough description of the extension, the administrative division and the geomorphology of Spain in Artemidorus fr. 21.113 I suspect however that his epitome must have included such a short introductory description of the political and geomorphological constitution of Spain, because it would have served as a necessary orientation for the periplus. At any rate we must not automatically expect redactional work on a purely formal level from Marcianus. The principles he states rather suggest that the wording of many passages of Marcianus epitome did not differ at all from Artemidorus original work.114 So we have to assume that Stephanus quoted Artemidorus fr. 21 in a form which was not epitomized but identical or very close to the original version of the geographumena. It is far more likely that Stephanus received the Artemidorus quotation at fr. 21 from an indirect source than from a copy of the entire second book of Artemidorus geographumena.115 Why should Steph. Byz. 150 Billerbeck/Zubler quote the words of Artemidorus from Marcianus epitome if he had the complete edition as his disposal? Now, although we have excluded the radical view that all Artemidorus quotations in Stephanus come from Marcianus, we should also be wary of the equally radical assumption that all the quotations from Artemidorus in Stephanus that belong to group b,
113 Billerbeck (2008) 318. 114 See already West (2009) 96. 115 Cp. Atenstdt (1910) 20.
321
automatically refer to the original geographumena and none is taken from Marcianus epitome. In fact, several literal quotations from Marcianus epitome of Menippus are quoted by Stephanus in the form ,116 ,117 .118 Nevertheless, in the specic case of Artemidorus fr. 21, the medieval text almost certainly does not go back to Marcianus who repeatedly claims to have accurately added information that had been discovered in the meantime,119 and was himself well aware of the division of Spain into three provinces.120 Would Marcianus really have maintained in his epitome Artemidorus division of Spain into two provinces which had become anachronistic as early as 27 B.C.? But who is the author of the slight redactional changes which we have seen in Marcianus Periplus maris exteri and in the medieval Artemidorus quotation? Stephanus of Byzantium, the Constantinian redactors, or the scribe/redactor of the Parisinus Graecus 2009?121 I think that there is evidence which points to Stephanus himself: Marcianus, Epitome peripli Menippei 9 (GGM 1, 571, 2022): .
Hudson: cod.
Steph. Byz. s. v. (356, 13f Meineke): , .
Marcianus, Periplus maris exteri 1,16 (GGM 1, 525, 38f) .
Steph. Byz. s. v. (697, 10f Meineke) .
116 Stephanus s. v. (703, 11f Meineke), cp. Marcianus, Epitome peripli Menippei 8 (GGM 1, 570, 57). 117 Stephanus s. v. (635 ff Meineke), cp. Marcianus, Epitome peripli Menippei 9 (GGM 1, 625, 1f). 118 Steph. Byz. s. v. (677, 68 Meineke), cp. Marcianus, Epitome peripli Menippei 10 (GGM 1, 572, 3ff). 119 Marcianus, Periplus maris exteri 1,1 (GGM 1, 516, 9f) [] (full text and translation see p. 320 above); see also the mentions of his in Epitome peripli Menippei 4 (GGM 1, 567, 29 and 32; full text and translation above n. 105). 120 Marcianus, Periplus maris exteri 2,7 (GGM 1, 544, 912; text quoted p. 319 above). 121 Billerbeck (2009) 80f. attributed the losses of the medieval Artemidorus quotation in comparison with the Artemidorus papyrus to either Stephanus or the compilors working under Constantine.
322
JA ELSNER et al.
We see here the same kind of redaction which occurred in the Artemidorus and Marcianus quotations of Constantine, De administrando imperio 24: redundancies are omitted and the syntax accordingly adjusted. In view of this clear evidence of Stephanus method of redacting the texts of his sources,122 I believe that many of the differences between the Artemidorus papyrus and the medieval Artemidorus fr. 21 can be attributed to his activity. This does certainly not mean that all possible changes and corruptions in the 24th chapter of Constantines De administrando imperio are due to Stephanus. Meinekes transposition of the Marcianus quotation (see above) and other details show that the order of the original entry in Stephanus underwent some kind of disturbance at a later stage.123 At rst sight, one might be tempted to attribute this disturbance to the Constantinian compilors, who certainly did not leave the texts they collected untouched.124 However, there are good reasons to believe that the medieval compilors of Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio left their work uncompleted. The codex unicus for the medieval tradition of De administrando imperio, the Parisinus Graecus 2009, was written in the 11th century by Michael Rhoizaites for Johannes Dukas. Brigitte Mondrain, as a result of her investigations of this manuscript, posed the question: Jean Doukas ne pourrait-il avoir lui-mme procd ou fait procder la constitution en ouvrage des diverses notes quil aurait trouves, remontant au dossier tabli par Constantin mais non agenc en livre?125 Certainly, the supposed work of John Dukas and Michael Rhoizaites would not account for the slight cuts in the text of the medieval fragment which are most likely due to Stephanus. But it is very tempting to assume that the dossier which contained the Marcianus quotation in De administrando imperio 24 fell out of order when the compilation had not yet been redacted into a book.126 As a result of these considerations the second group of differences in the conspectus of P.Artemid. and Paris Gr. 2009 has to be regarded as (conscious or unintentional) eliminations of the original Artemidorus text, in most cases on the part of Stephanus. However, the surplus in P.Artemid. col. IV, 10 probably was not cancelled in an act of conscious redaction, but was dropped by an accident, caused by the homoioteleuton of the preceding expression (- versus - ).127
122 This slight redactional work is certainly not due to Stephanus epitomator, who would rather have preferred to cut away the entire quotations. 123 See Billerbeck (2009) 7678. 124 An instructive illustration of their work is offered by Billerbeck (2009) 7275. She compared the complete entry (Steph. Byz. 143 Billerbeck/Zubler) with its quotation in Const. Porph., De thematibus 9, 1120. 125 Mondrain (2002) 490. 126 The far-going assumption of Canfora (2008) 252259 that the Constantinian compilors also had access to Marcianus epitome besides Stephanus Ethnica was rejected by Billerbeck/Zubler (2011) 265 for lack of proof. 127 The same reason accounts for the missing words (P.Artemid. col. IV, 67) after the preceding (P.Artemid. col. IV, 6) in the medieval tradition.
323
On the other hand, P.Artemid. col. IV, 24 seems to have been cut intentionally. Billerbeck remarked that the clause in Paris.Gr. 2009 f. 46v 35 presupposes that the quotation of Marcianus ( ) preceded in Stephanus text,128 and served there as the point of reference which is required by in the words .129 With this still in mind, Stephanus in the following Artemidorus quotation no longer needed the subject and omitted it. The missing of , I would argue, is due to the following circumstances. In Artemidorus times the Iberian peninsula was explored on its Mediterranean and the West coast and in the strips of interior land () between the Pyrenees and the west coast which run parallel to the Mediterranean coast. Exploration did not extend to the northern coast. By Stephanus time Spain was known as a whole and there was no need to mention the . Unfortunately, the redactional intervention did not produce a satisfying sentence. But this is not surprising in view of the alterations in the quotation from Marcianus periplus maris exteri in the same chapter (see p. 319 above). Another variant of the Artemidorus papyrus which offers an addition to the medieval tradition regards the extension and the limit of the second Roman province in Spain. Canfora has repeatedly claimed that this variant forms an insurmountable obstacle to attributing the papyrus text to Artemidorus. According to P.Artemid. col. IV, 1114 the second of the two Roman provinces contains the territory up to Gadeira and . The medieval quotation of Artemidorus writes instead . Canfora has pointed to a historical inconsistency in the papyrus.130 In Artemidorus time, the late 2nd cent. B.C., the geographical notion of Lusitania went well beyond the jurisdiction of the territory that formed the second Roman province. If col. IV, 1314 of the papyrus is translated as all the land in Lusitania, meaning the whole of Lusitania, this would be an anachronism for Canfora. On the other hand, he points out that it would be wrong to exclude Lusitania from the second province completely. The territories south of the Tagus were certainly under Roman control by the later second century B.C.131 In the Rovereto proceedings Canfora gave a sarcastic review of the different attempts to interpret this expression.132 At the same time he emphasized the historical accuracy of the medieval tradition of Artemidorus which just reads up to Gadeira and Lusitania.133 But is the medieval Artemidorus quotation as preserved in Constantine Porphyrogenitus historically exact? What does up to Gadeira and Lusitania actually mean? Is Lusitania included by , like Gadeira? Or does Lusitania serve as an indication for
128 129 130 131 132 133 Where it has been transposed by Meineke: see p. 319 above. Billerbeck (2009) 80. Moret (2010) 116 n. 12 lists the numerous publications where Canfora repeated this point. See also Moret (2010) 119 n. 34. Canfora (2009e) 108109. Canfora (2009e) 110.
324
JA ELSNER et al.
the frontier and is excluded? And what about the regions south of the Tagus which as Canfora stresses were under Roman control? The medieval tradition offers the same historical problems as the papyrus,134 with the only difference that in the case the papyrus text a solution can be found. Let us rst consider the meaning of in P.Artemid. col. IV, 13. Some lines later the sea belonging to the Ocean which touches the North coast of Spain is mentioned.135 The preposition obviously means that the belongs to the Ocean. It is not as big as the Ocean but it is part of it. Likewise, can easily indicate territories which belong to Lusitania without having the same extension.136 They can be identied with the territories South of the Tagus which Canfora misses in the description offered by the papyrus. I agree that this interpretation leaves two problems which Canfora was right to point out. The rst is the meaning of in this context. Why should Artemidorus stress that all the territory in Lusitania belongs to the second province?137 The second problem is that the province is described as containing the coast up to Gadeira and the territory belonging to Lusitania South of the Tagus, but its most important part, Baetica, is omitted. So we should adopt Benedetto Bravos proposal to read instead of in the papyrus at line 13 .138 This easy emendation resolves both the problem of and of the missing mention of Baetica. now refers to the remaining in P.Artemid. col. IV, 12, meaning that all the land up to Gadeira and up to the territories in Lusitania belongs to the second region. The emended expression depends on and indicates the outermost extension of the province to the North: there is no need to mention Baetica in this context. With these words the excerpted author, Artemidorus, reects the gradual seizure of Lusitanian territory by the Romans in his time. When Stephanus found the Artemidorus quotation he did not understand the historical implications of this ne differentiation and abridged it into an anachronistic .139
134 Moret (2010) 124 has made a similar observation. 135 P. Artemid. col. V, 13: [ | ] [ | ] 136 Moret (2010) 123, instead, proposed to understand as dans toute ltendue de and explained the whole expression (without emending ) in a sense which would be very close to the simple . 137 See however Lucarini (2009) 123, who thinks that refers to the border between the rst and the second province and means that no part of Lusitania belongs to the rst of the two provinces. 138 Bravo (2009) 60. 139 See also Settis (2008) 58 and Moret (2010) 13.
325
THE DIGITAL EXISTENCE OF WORDS AND PICTURES: THE CASE OF THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS
By Sgolne M. Tarte140
ABSTRACT: This paper describes a case-study conducted to model digitally the Artemidorus papyrus as a roll. It presents how the correspondence between digital images of recto and verso was established and the adoption of a spiral model to reconstitute the papyrus as a rolled virtual 3D object. We suggest that the thickness of the papyrus (undocumented, to the authors knowledge) is roughly 0.45 mm. It is further shown that DAlessios (2009) re-ordering of sections (a) and (b+c) of the papyrus is justied. Against expectations, the digital world shifts focus on the papyrus from a pure-content perspective to a content-within-a-material-context perspective. This material context, revealed by the use of digital technologies, gives invaluable clues in the trail of evidence gathered to build an understanding of P. Artemid.
Nowhere is access to digitized versions of artefacts more valuable than in the case of the Artemidorus papyrus. The papyrus itself is out of physical reach for most of those who study it, with the result that its digitized versions, along with the documentation produced by those who have had direct contact with the artefact, act as primary source material for the majority of scholarly investigations into its meaning. It is as an imageprocessing expert and a sociologist of papyrology that I have come to collaborate with scholars studying the Artemidorus papyrus. While offering my expertise in image processing to help papyrologists reveal texts in ancient documents that are obscured and difcult to read, I have also attempted to understand (some of) the cognitive processes that papyrologists mobilise when studying textual artefacts in order to ensure that the techniques I develop and employ are not only mathematically sound, but also make sense from a papyrological perspective. I will, for the purposes of this paper, assume: (1) that the images kindly provided me by the editors of the editio princeps (Gallazzi/Kramer/ Settis (2008)), via Professor Hammerstaedt, are suitable for my intended purpose, and (2) that the reordering of the fragments proposed by DAlessio (2009) is plausible. With those two working hypotheses, the aims of this brief case-study are: to construct a model that allows us to roll the Artemidorus papyrus virtually, and thereby to assess the reordering of the fragments proposed by DAlessio mathematically and visually; and to present some of the advantages and pitfalls of working with digitized versions of textual artefacts. I will rst offer a detailed account of how the papyrus can be rolled virtually and then proceed to discuss some of the assumptions made in the process, and what they entail in terms of the application of digital techniques to papyrological interpretation.
140 Oxford E-Research Centre, 7 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QG, UK, segolene.tarte@oerc.ox.ac.uk. I am very grateful to the following people for their precious collaboration and support: J. Elsner, G. DAlessio, J. Hammerstaedt, and I. Pajn Leyra.
326
JA ELSNER et al.
1 Rolling the Digital Papyrus In order to roll the Artemidorus papyrus virtually, as well as to assess mathematically the reordering of the fragments, we must start with the images of the recto and verso of the papyrus. The images I have used, albeit not exactly those published in the editio princeps, were provided by the editors. They are a set of high resolution infrared images: a full papyrus recto and a full papyrus verso, along with 5 further images covering the recto in segments, and 5 covering the verso. The rst pair of the 5 pairs of images contains section (a), showing the drawings of two heads (R1 and R2) and columns (i), (ii), and (iii) of text (adopting the terminology of the editio princeps), and their corresponding verso; the second pair contains a large portion of the map and its corresponding verso; the third pair contains the remainder of the map with columns (iv) and (v) and their corresponding verso; the fourth pair contains the drawings of hands, feet and heads and their corresponding verso; the fth pair contains the small fragment, section (d), with one head (R23) and its corresponding verso. It is unclear from the metadata of the images whether they have been processed or how much of a composite of several images they are, but my assumption here is that digital joins have been made. The main motivation to perform virtual rolling in this paper is to demonstrate how V3 has left transfer traces of ink near R2, and R2 near V3, which in turn shows that section (a), i. e. the fragments with R1, R2 and columns (i) to (iii), were in fact situated after the portion containing the hands, feet and heads at the far end of section (b+c), on the verso of which V3 is located, as was argued by DAlessio (2009). To do this, the following workow has been implemented: 1. establish a shape-based correspondence between the pictures of the recto and the pictures of their verso in each of the 5 pairs of images. 2. join the second, third and fourth pairs of images to form section (b+c) (recto and verso) according to the editio princeps; indeed it is only the position of section (a) which is modied by DAlessios (2009) observation of the transfer images. 3. determine the equation of the spiral which, as a model, describes how the papyrus was rolled, based on the measured circumferences in the roll at various locations on the papyrus as established in DAlessio (2009) and Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) and on the (model-based) length of a coil in a spiral. 4. append section (a) to section (b+c) so that the transfer image on the verso corresponds to the original on the recto and vice-versa.
1.1 Reconstituting the Papyrus The rst two steps outlined above proceed to reconstitute the papyrus. Naturally, all the difcult reconstruction work with the individual fragments has already been done in the editio princeps with the actual fragments as they were restored and attached to each other, before they were photographed; the reconstitution we are concerned with here is a digital reconstitution, where, given our set of images, we aim to obtain a virtual 3D
327
papyrus with a front, a back and a thickness. Step (1) consists in nding a shape-based correspondence between the recto and the verso images. It is indeed to be expected that when the fragments were photographed, they will have moved, if only slightly, between the moment when the recto was digitally captured and the moment when the verso was photographed, after the fragments have been ipped. So, in order to evaluate whether that correspondence had already been established in our 5 pairs of images, I rst mirrored the verso images. Overlaying each pair in Photoshop,141 and modifying the transparency values of the recto and verso layers, it appeared that this correspondence was not strict in the fold-outs of Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) however, after close inspection, it seems that the correspondence was established in the editio princeps (which means that the editors kindly provided us with versions of images that were anterior to the edition, a fact that is conrmed by the date value in the metadata of the images: 8th June 2005). There are many ways of establishing shape-based correspondences, and, for each of the 5 pairs of recto-verso images, I have chosen to consider the recto image as the target to which the mirrored verso (hereafter m-verso) would have to be matched (in theory, the roles of recto and verso could perfectly well be swapped; a discussion of my choice to assign the role of target to the recto follows in 2.1). The algorithm used is a piece-wise linear pair-point matching. The input for this algorithm is a set of paired points: one set on the target recto image, and one set on the m-verso image, and where each pair of [recto, m-verso] points marks the same physical location on the papyrus. These points are dened manually, chosen with great care, based on material and physical features of the papyrus such as tears or holes, which appear on recto and verso, rather than on textual or ink-based features that are, for the most part, side-specic. The sets of manuallypicked paired points are: 52 points on the recto and 52 on the m-verso for the rst pair of images, 103 points on each image for the second pair, 97 for the third pair, 148 for the fourth and 81 for the fth. What the algorithm proceeds to do is to move the points of the m-verso and the image itself so that the m-verso points superimpose exactly with the points of the recto. The piece-wise linear pair-point matching algorithm operates so that deformations of the m-verso image are allowed in order to permit an exact paired-points correspondence, but they are constrained to being locally linear; the m-verso image is modied as little and as smoothly as possible, the transformation rst triangulates each set of points (with the so-called Delaunay triangulation) and then linearly deforms the m-verso triangles in order to make them superimpose exactly onto the target (recto) triangles. In effect, it is similar to considering the recto image as a piece of tightly woven fabric xed or glued to a board, with each point location marked as a target, and then superimposing the m-verso on the recto with pins, the m-verso also being considered as a piece of tightly woven fabric, in such a way that the pins traverse the m-verso fabric at each of the m-verso point locations and are planted in the recto fabric exactly where their corresponding target points are situated (Figure 4). In fact, this fabric analogy extends to the nature of the deformations imposed
141 Photoshop Adobe: http://www.adobe.com/ last checked: November 28, 2011.
328
JA ELSNER et al.
by the algorithm, and the constraints imposed by the piece-wise linear algorithm can be compared to the movements that the bres of fabric allow in the m-verso fabric. This algorithm was implemented in Matlab.142 As an output, 5 matched mirror images of the verso (hereafter mm-verso, for matched mirrored verso) are available for further use; each mm-verso image can be superimposed exactly with its corresponding recto image. Step (2) can then be performed in Photoshop. Using the full image of the recto of the papyrus as a template, section (b+c) recto is easily reconstituted. The joins themselves were made in Photoshop by merging three layers, each layer containing an image, and choosing the multiply blend mode for each layer. In grey-level images, a white pixel has value 1 and a black pixel has value 0 (with intermediate grey values ranging from 0 to 1, from darker to lighter), so that multiplying the images to merge their overlapping areas gives more weight to the darker pixels (closer to 0) and lets lighter pixels act as almost-invariants (closer to 1), which is exactly what we want as the ink is dark and the background is light. Merging images with this multiply blend mode also has the advantage of making the joining process visible in the resulting image, hence explicitly showing where a digital intervention has occurred. Thanks to step (1) and to the established correspondence between recto and mm-verso images, the matched mirrored version of the verso of section (b+c) is easily obtained in the same way. At this stage of the process, we thus have 3 pairs of [recto, mm-verso] images: one for section (a), one for section (b+c), and one for section (d), the small fragment with the head (R23). The next task is to dene an appropriate model for rolling the papyrus.
1.2 Rolling the Papyrus To implement steps (3) and (4), in agreement with DAlessio (2001a); Essler (2008), we adopt Archimedes spiral as a model for the roll. This spiral actually models the cross section of the roll. Archimedes spiral is a particularly appropriate model as it is the one spiral of the group of Archimedean spirals for which the distance between successive coils remains constant (gure 6).143 This constant gap between coils thus allows for a constant thickness of papyrus. Naturally this is only a model, and I will discuss in more details the assumptions made when adopting this model in 2.1. The polar equation of an Archimedes spiral is given by: r () = g 2 Equation (1)
142 Matlab 7.11.0.584 (R2010b) MathWorks: http://www.mathworks.co.uk/ last checked: November 28, 2011. 143 Confusingly, the group of Archimedean spirals contains spirals such as the hyperbolic spiral, Fermats spiral, as well as the so-called Archimedes spiral (hence the apparent tautology), which can all be formalized by r() = a 1/k. The case k = 1 corresponds to Archimedes spiral, i. e. equation (1) for a = g/(2).
329
where r is the radius, is the polar angle, and g is the gap between two coils, or, here, the thickness of the papyrus. As can be seen from this equation, for each full revolution of the polar angle (i. e. each increment of by 2), the radius is increased by g. To unroll the papyrus, what is needed is to nd a correspondence between each point on the rolled-up papyrus and each point on the unrolled roll, or more simply between each point on a cross section of the roll (a spiral) and the corresponding cross-section of the unrolled roll (a line). This can be done with the help of the concept of curvilinear abscissa s. The curvilinear abscissa of a point P on a curve describes at what physical distance from the starting point the point P is located along the curve. For a spiral, it describes the physical distance of any given point P with polar coordinates (r; ) on the spiral to its centre, or, for a roll, the distance of a point on the roll to the core of the roll along its cross-section; it is given by: s () = s () = g 1 + t 2 dt 2 0 g 1 + 2 + ln + 1 + 2 4 Equation (2)
Equation (3)
So that the length of the (n + 1)- coil (n 0) is: L n +1 = s ( 2 ( n + 1) ) s ( 2n ) Equation (4)
In order for these general formulae to be adapted to the specic case of the Artemidorus papyrus, an essential variable is the thickness of the papyrus (the variable g). Unfortunately, to my knowledge, this information was never published. It is to be noted that this spiral model assumes a constant thickness of the papyrus, an aspect of modelling which I will further discuss in 2.1. Documented thicknesses of papyri in the literature range from 0.16 mm to 0.45 mm (DAlessio (2001b) 41, n.59; Janko (2000a) 109, n.1). So to determine a plausible value for the thickness of the Artemidorus papyrus, following DAlessio (2009) I have assumed that the papyrus was rolled recto inside and from left to right; I have further relied upon the coil lengths read as circumference values on section (b+c) by DAlessio (2009) and Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008). They are: 12.5 cm at the level of V25 on the verso, which corresponds on the recto to approximately 40 cm inwards of the left end of section (b+c) 13.2 cm at the level of column (iv) 15.3 cm to 15.4 cm at the level of the hands (R16, R18) at the right end of section (b+c)
Experimenting with various values of thicknesses in the range 0.16 mm0.45 mm and applying equations (3) and (4), a thickness of g = 0.45 mm yields the values in gure 5 for the coil lengths on section (b+c) and beyond. These coil lengths are consistent with the circumference values measured on section (b+c). It entails that, if the papyrus was
330
JA ELSNER et al.
rolled very tightly at its core (like an Archimedes spiral), it would have had a total length of at least 4.59 m rolled into at least 57 coils. Figure 6 shows the corresponding cross section of the roll. As pointed out by DAlessio (2009) and as is substantiated by gure 5, section (a) has to be positioned very close to the end of section (b+c). Indeed according to gure 5, the panther and human head ink transfers discovered by DAlessio (2009) and illustrated in gure 7 have to occur around coil 15 in gure 5; closely after the end of section (b+c) at coil 14, and right before the coil length of 15.9 cm measured at the level of column (i) on section (a) at coil 16. Once section (a) is thus placed and appended in Photoshop to section (b+c), we can also tentatively append the last small fragment, section (d), and nally obtain the full extent of the papyrus with the revised order of the fragments, recto and verso. The two recto and verso full images thus reconstituted are of size 37608 x 5699 pixels, corresponding to 257.08 cm x 38.96 cm given these images resolution. So that, considering the available fragments only, the reconstructed papyrus has a length of approximately 2.5 m (while its full original length was at least 2 m longer, provided that the roll was a perfect Archimedes spiral tightly rolled at its core). To illustrate further how the papyrus might have originally been rolled, one can attempt to virtually roll the papyrus and digitally visualize the roll. I have conducted two such attempts: one in Matlab, and one in the open-source visualization software Blender.144 In Matlab, not wanting to compromise with the resolution of the images of the roll, the limitations imposed by the size of the images, memory and graphics card prevented the images to be rendered as texture maps onto a roll. In Blender, it is with the accuracy of the roll itself that compromises had to be made (both attempts were conducted on an iMac, 2.8GHz Intel Core Duo, running OSX 10.6.8).145 Therefore, and also bearing in mind that, as Janko (2000a, 87 n1) expressed it: () the limitations of size of the screen remain a disadvantage, I have proceeded to produce a physically manipulatable avatar of the reconstituted papyrus by printing it on transparencies (thickness 0.1 mm). The use of transparencies allows to compensate for possible (if minor) variations in the orientations of the images due to printing and establish physically the correspondence between the recto and matched mirrored verso images on the transparencies. Then, taping recto and verso together, and inserting a white sheet between them (removable at will) allows to obtain a physical version of the reconstituted papyrus. Removing the in-between white sheet of paper allows to check for ink bleed-throughs; rolling with the in-between sheets inserted allows to visualize ink transfers (gure 7). Naturally this version of the papyrus does not claim to be a surrogate. It is only an avatar of the papyrus that was produced with the explicit intention of clarifying questions about both the rolling and the recto-verso correspondence. It only simulates a specic aspect of the actual papyrus, and has no claim to being an exact reproduction. Its usefulness might well be limited to understanding how the papyrus was rolled, its geometry and the mechanism
144 Blender 2.59: www.blender.org/ last checked: November 28, 2011. 145 The exact specications of the computer used for those attempts, and all the work presented here, are: iMac, 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM, GPU ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB VRAM, running OSX 10.6.8.
331
of ink transfers and bleed-throughs. The methodological and theoretical issues of how an avatar of a papyrus, either fully virtual or a spawn of virtual imaging, relates to the real world (that is, to the fragmentary empirical evidence of ancient material culture) are at the centre of the reection in the following section.
2 The Digital Papyrus and its Relations to the Real World Having presented in detail the steps undertaken in the digital world to access information about the actual papyrus, I will now focus on some of the advantages and weaknesses of such digital interactions with P. Artemid. and with papyri in general, starting with a detailed discussion of the algorithmic and modelling choices made in 1.
2.1 Digitization, Modelling, Materiality, and Embodiment Digitization is not neutral (Tarte, 2011a); it is already an act of interpretation, dependent on the implicit and explicit intentions and expectations that originally motivated it. As the metadata have shown, the images that we were kindly provided with being highresolution infrared (IR) images are an example of the intervention of interpretative decisions at the earliest stage of what may easily be thought of as pure fact-gathering. The main focus with IR imaging is to reveal ink and enhance its contrast with respect to the support it was deposited on, in this case, papyrus. That is, IR imaging sets the focus on textual and ink-based interpretation (which is of course the philological motivation underlying most papyrologists interest in papyri namely, to read the texts on them). Further, the fragments on these photographs have also been positioned in a way that makes the act of interpretation explicit: portions of text have been reconstructed, drawings have been reassembled. Of course, I am not putting into question these acts, and scholars working on this papyrus do not contest the way most fragments have been assembled (save for the order of sections (a) and (b+c), the new order of which seems to have gathered wide consensus). It is however undeniable that, had the fragments been assembled by other scholars, despite the consensus on their general locations, their exact positioning would have shown some variability, a variability called inter-user variability, which is a well documented phenomenon e. g. in the domain of medical imaging.146 Far from undermining the quality and validity of the work of Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008), these observations simply support the fact that digitization is already interpretation.
146 Inter-user variability is not the only kind of variability that occurs. Intra-user variability also takes place: if a same subject is asked for example to trace a line around a pathological zone on a given X-ray image on two different occasions, the traces will denitely show some differences. It is therefore more than likely that, with respect to relative fragments positioning, inter-user as well as intra-user variability occur.
332
JA ELSNER et al.
In the same way, when establishing the correspondence between recto and verso images, assumptions have to be made. I have decided to align the verso to the recto, making the verso images those that undergo motion and small, constrained deformations. My rationale was the following: given that there is textual content on the recto in the form of full columns of text, and that the ink-related information is one of the main clues for determining the positions of the fragments, it is likely that the relative positions of the fragments on the recto will be prone to smaller inter-user variability than the verso fragments. As such, this decision is a signicant axiomatic intervention in the act of interpreting the papyrus (an intervention which can indeed be debated from the point of view of the preferences of ancient users of papyri); it directly participates in the investigation of the meaning of P. Artemid.s ink-based information, and by explicitly stating why this choice was made, we also make explicit that it is an interpretative choice, and is consequently open to discussion. Further, my choice of piece-wise linear pair-point matching, rather than other types of registration algorithms, is justied by the nature of the deformations it allows, by their similarity with deformations of tightly woven fabric, and by the physical similarity between fabric and papyrus, a similarity rooted in the weaving of threads in fabric and the criss-crossing overlap (almost weaving) of (brous) papyrus leaves although the exact details of the technique employed to produce papyri is still a mystery today (Blow-Jacobsen (2009)). This physical similarity sets an expectation, namely that a papyrus will react to deformations in a way similar to tightly woven fabric; it assumes that the criss-crossing overlap of papyri and the weaving of cloth are sufciently analogous in their material substance and in the ways they support decoration for the piece-wise linear pair-point matching process to be valid. In the next step, when deciding upon a model to adopt in order to roll the papyrus virtually, one has to subscribe to a model that can be handled digitally. Here, Essler (2008) has established a precedent, which is itself well substantiated by several previous studies by DAlessio (2001a,b); Delattre (2007); Janko (2000); Obbink (1996). These works concentrate on the process of reconstruction of papyri from their originally rolled and thereafter decorticated fragments. All of them adopt Archimedes spiral as a model, even if they do so implicitly. Given how tightly papyri were rolled, Archimedes spiral is particularly appropriate. A model, however, only represents an ideal perfect case that never occurs in actuality. What Archimedes spiral as a model captures well is the principle of rolling a sheet that has a thickness (equation (1)); yet it does not allow to account for variations in the thickness of the papyrus, or for creases, or for slanted rolling, all of which can occur. As all models, it skilfully captures certain aspects of a phenomenon, but suppresses others; and as all models it has the potential to be enhanced and modied to encapsulate more complex phenomena, based on prior knowledge and additional information, if available. Further, as many models, it struggles with agency. The agency in question here is as much that of the subject who originally rolled the papyrus, that of the many subjects who may later have unrolled and rerolled it (both of these groups in antiquity), as well as that of the subject who applies the model (in contemporary times). Agency is one of the root causes for variability, and the model is the unifying factor around which variability occurs. Both are rich in information and useful for the act of interpretation.
333
Our last choice, to print the images in order to roll physically the digitally reconstructed papyrus, might seem surprising coming from an image-processing specialist. However, beyond the technical bottlenecks of memory and graphics card limitations, as a sociologist of papyrology, I am very much aware of the importance of embodied interactions with the object of study (Piquette (2008) and Tarte (2011c)).Cognitive processes are facilitated by such interactions. The enactment of the geometrical changes applied to the digitally-printed papyrus when rolling it, make the ink bleed-throughs and transfers much more tangible (literally!). The process and the conclusions derived from it have then the potential to be more convincing when presented to the scrutiny of papyrologists. In fact, the act of digitization of the papyrus allows its re-materialization (Latour and Lowe (2011)). Care must be taken however to avoid the assumption that this re-materialization is neutral (just as the digitization that enabled it is not neutral). The new artefact only expresses a certain form of presence of the Artemidorus papyrus; it is only an avatar of it, one that allows its rolling, but possibly not its study for art historical or philological purposes; it is denitely not one that allows a better understanding of the manufacturing process of a papyrus sheet. Yet, as shown above, it can provide some valuable pieces of evidence for the reconstruction of the papyrus and thus, further downstream, for the extraction of its meaning. The case of the Artemidorus papyrus, as presented here, exemplies the extent to which the digital existence of its words and pictures is embedded in the real world and can inuence it.
2.2 Papyrological Interpretations, Trail of Evidence, and Uncertainty Digital images and digitized versions of textual artefacts have increasingly become an integral part of the papyrological interpretation process. These digital artefacts nd themselves near the very beginning of the interpretative workow, participate in it and inuence it, being interpretations in and of themselves. Being fully aware of their ontology and its limitations, is crucial in two important aspects: to document accurately the provenance of the digital artefacts; and to minimise the entanglement of factuality and interpretation embedded in them. I have already mentioned and illustrated above two of the three ontological characteristics of digital images (Tarte (2011b)), namely that they are embedded into the real, and that they inuence the real. The third characteristic is that they are encoded, both numerically and culturally. This third characteristic raises issues of ekphrasis, by which I mean here issues of translation from analogue to digital, from a material object to a digital representation of it, and thus the introduction of yet another act of interpretation. If one focuses on these three ontological characteristics, it is that much clearer that digital images are not neutral, and that they already are an act of interpretation, that they express a certain form of presence of the artefact rather than being a mimetic representation of it. Papyrology is of course an intrinsically interpretative discipline that has a long tradition of substantiating and justifying its claims (Hanson (2001); Tarte (2011c); Terras (2005); Youtie (1963), (1966)). All papyrological publications set to establish
334
JA ELSNER et al.
a trail of evidence for or against specic claims and interpretations. With the advent of the digital era, the nature of some of the clues put forth is mutating, and the nature of some (indirect) interactions with the textual artefact is also changing. Intriguingly, instead of distancing further the artefact from the physical world, digitization enables us to bring materiality back into the trail of evidence accompanying the interpretation process. In particular, the virtual world and the interactions therein have foregrounded the possibility that understanding the materiality of the Artemidorus papyrus can yield not only new knowledge about how the roll was stored, but also new textual evidence for the investigation into its meaning. The mutual inuence of materiality and textuality is made particularly salient in papyrology, where text layout and wormholes provide essential better evidence that may yield new interpretations (Renberg and Bubelis (2011); DAlessio (2009), (2001b); Delattre (2007); Essler (2008); Janko (2000); Obbink (1996)). The focus on materiality is more than a trend, it is an integral part of the understanding of ancient texts, as is the embodied interaction with a papyrus avatar. Uncertainty remains unavoidable. Techniques of recording fragments of papyri have undoubtedly changed. For instance, when Janko (2000) 18 describes the methods adopted in the 19th century to document the decortication of papyri and the recording of the resulting fragments, it becomes apparent that draughtsmen introduced signicant interpretation in their drawings by attributing (or not in this case) importance to portions of texts: If a layer contained parts of two columns, the draughtsmen usually ignored any edges judged to have too few letters to be worth drawing: this is unfortunate, since it makes reconstruction much harder. If enough survived to make both columns seem worth recording, then either a single drawing would be made, or two separate drawings, which often fail to indicate that the two columns were from a same layer. In this report, it is obvious that the materiality of the texts was not given much importance and that the task was undertaken almost exclusively to enable access to the textual content and meaning of the artefacts. The main aim of papyrology nowadays has hardly changed, yet the materiality of the artefact is now used as an important clue in the act of papyrological interpretation. Draughting has its weaknesses, but so does digitization. One of the weaknesses of digitization is that ekphrasis (understood as a process of transference from one medium to another, and all the issues it raises) occurs, but another type of ekphrasis was also present in the non-digital processes of recording fragments, as shown by the quotation from Janko above. Uncertainty is no less present with digital technologies, but its nature has changed. In essence, the technology is new and its limitations are different from those of past methodologies, though not always radically so. The important thing is to establish where the similarity in methodology does not require different handling and where deviations from traditional methodology warrant extra care and documentation. Therefore, in order to support future generations in their study of our contemporary discoveries, and to allow informed discussion of textual artefacts, it is crucial to document not only digital images and interactions, but also the actual processes that produced them. The aim of this brief case study was two-fold: (1) to present digital interactions, which could not have been undertaken on the actual surviving papyrus in all its fragility,
335
and which have the potential to advance the understanding of the Artemidorus papyrus; and (2) to review how the use of digital technologies can contribute to the evolution of methodological approaches in papyrology. Digital images of the recto and of the (mirrored) verso of the papyrus were rst matched exactly in order to re-establish the physical correspondence between them. The precise choice of the matching algorithm was justied by the observation that papyrus is a brous material that behaves somewhat like tightly woven fabric. A model was then adopted to allow the virtual rolling of the papyrus. This model assimilates the cross-section of the papyrus to an Archimedes spiral. Based on measurements of coil lengths established in previous work and on the mathematical expression of the length of a given spiral coil, we were able to evaluate the thickness of the papyrus and justify the placement of section (a) after section (b+c) as proposed by DAlessio (2009). To ascertain and visualize that this new placement of section (a) yielded the expected ink transfers, the digitally reconstituted papyrus was then printed out, thereby re-materializing it with a specic and interpretative form of presence. This demonstrates how digital images not only take part in the act of papyrological interpretation, but also are interpretations in and of themselves. By their nature, digital images enable us to re-materialize the artefact, to underline the extent to which its materiality is re-assessed through the digital; they take their part in the trail of evidence that substantiates papyrological interpretation. Digital technologies have the potential to transform methodological approaches in papyrology; even if they have weaknesses, such as adhering to an ideal model, they nonetheless allow us to minimise some aspects of the uncertainties present in traditional methodologies. Such observations reinforce the necessity to comment and document not only on the digital data that is used (the images, the models) but also on the thought processes (intentions, expectations) that produced them. In times when new technologies are adopted, such documentation is fundamental and essential, as it will allow scholars, when necessary, to revisit results produced with their help once the technology enters routine and well-understood usage. It is a signicant criticism of the editio princeps that this documentation is not fully available for the entire range of the high-quality images published therein. It is to be hoped that the editors can soon release the images used in the editio princeps into the public domain, thereby allowing further research on the (currently protected) images accompanying the edition. Beyond the specic case of P. Artemid., in papyrological research in general, the scholarly community would benet greatly from systematically making their images available alongside a detailed documentation, with a commentary on how they where prepared, produced and further processed; scholarly debates would thereby be enhanced in that all scholars studying a same textual artefact would be able to exchange views and conduct research on the basis of transparently collected data, especially when access to the physical artefact is highly restricted, as the textual artefact itself would normally be the lowest common denominator of the research. One further area of on-going research in this domain at the crossroads of papyrology and digital technologies is that of uncertainty and its nature in papyrology. Each subject domain has their own way of dealing with uncertainty, and observing how computational/digital approaches to uncertainty might accommodate papyrological approaches to uncertainty
336
JA ELSNER et al.
and vice-versa will undoubtedly help us to advance the understanding of justications, negotiations, substantiations, rebuttals and decision-making in intrinsically interpretative arenas.
ARTEMIDORUS BEHIND ARTEMIDORUS: GEOGRAPHIC ASPECTS IN THE ZOOLOGICAL DESIGNS OF THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS
By Irene Pajn Leyra147
ABSTRACT: The collection of zoological drawings on the verso of the Artemidorus papyrus has been considered a random set of gures with no coherent structure. However, the new disposition of the two main fragments of the document and a reconsideration of the relationship between recto and verso that is, between the collection of animals and the Geography of Artemidorus opens the space for a new interpretation of the drawings as a rational sequence that is not chaotic, but answers to a plan and follows a geographic progression from west to east that reects the movement of Artemidorus work.
Now that there is an overwhelming likelihood that the order of the two main fragments of the Artemidorus papyrus must be reversed, the new understanding of the papyrus necessitates a fresh revision of the study of the document as a whole, including its origin, its composition and its meaning. Among the aspects pointed to by Giambattista DAlessio as worth reconsideration, is the relationship between recto and verso, that is, between the text of the Geography of Artemidorus of Ephesus, on whose second book the columns IV and V of the text preserved on the papyrus front depend, and the collection of zoological designs that covers the back. 148 The new reconstruction has promoted a number of interpretations of the columns of text in their new sequence, to offer explanations that justify the presence of the socalled proem in its actual place, well away from the beginning of the roll and after the description of the Iberian Peninsula.149 However, the interpretation of the verso and
147 Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterrneo y Oriente Prximo, CCHS, CSIC, C/ Albasanz 2628, 28037 Madrid, Espaa, Irene.pajon@csic.es. My thanks to Ja Elsner and Christopher Pelling, for their valuable suggestions regarding both content and style. I have presented preliminary versions at papyrology seminars in Oxford and at Kings College London: my gratitude is due especially to Dirk Obbink and Giambattista DAlessio for both their invitations and their specic comments, as well as to Peter Parsons and Javier de Hoz who kindly read preliminary versions. I thank Jrgen Hammerstaedt for his generosity in sharing the digital images of the Artemidorus papyrus in his possession, taken by D. Bertani, and for discussion, and Sean Leatherbury for his generous bibliographic suggestions. 148 D Alessio (2009) 42. See also Nisbet (2009) 2022, and Bastianini (2009). 149 See DAlessio (2009), Gallazzi/Kramer (2009) 216242, Porciani (2010).
337
the ways in which the collection of animal gures may be affected by the transposition of the fragments have not been investigated to the same extent, since the alteration of the order of the drawings has not been seen as particularly signicant. However, the new order of the fragments, alongside a re-evaluation of the relationship between recto and verso, opens the grounds for new interpretative possibilities which the reconstruction of the editio princeps left unclear. In particular, I want to argue against the assumption that there are no connections whatsoever between the zoological designs and Artemidorus geographical text on the verso. The collection of animals has been understood as a randomly arranged accumulation of diverse drawings with no plan, structure or criteria of coherence. The different gures are not inserted into a unitary or coherent landscape, nor do they have any kind of realistic proportional or spatial connections in relation to each other.150 Each animal or group, within its specic landscape or sea setting, is completely independent from the others. Nonetheless, it is not impossible that the collection does answer to a general organizational pattern. My suggestion is that this pattern can be uncovered to some extent through the connection with Artemidorus work and the structure of its contents. The idea that Artemidorus of Ephesus Geography may have inuenced the animal designs of the papyrus was proposed for the rst time, in the context of the polemic about authenticity, in the studies of Stefano Micunco,151 one of Luciano Canforas collaborators.152 Micunco saw the presence of materials connected to Artemidorus on the back side of the papyrus as clear evidence against its authenticity, and as indicating how the supposed forger, Constantinos Simonidis, elaborated both sides of the piece with the text of the geographer in mind. My proposal is to preserve Micuncos view of the existence of a relationship between the animals of the verso and the Geography of Artemidorus, but to remove it from the discussion of whether the papyrus is a forgery. Instead I will take Micuncos suggestion as a starting point from which to go a step further, by exploring to what extent the geographical work of Artemidorus may have served as an organizational criterion of the collection of animals, once the transposition of the fragments proposed by DAlessio allows us to appreciate the original disposition of the drawings.
The Eighth book of Artemidorus Geography in the zoological designs Micunco argues for Artemidorus inuence on the collection of animal drawings on the following basis: book XVI of Strabo preserves a long quotation of Artemidorus,153 that corresponds to his description of the animals in the area known as the Troglodytic
150 On the lack of general coherence see Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 311 and 3156. 151 Micunco (2008a) 18388 (the same text is published in Micunco (2006) 915). See also Micunco (2008b) 2436. 152 It is worth noticing that Canfora and those who regard the papyrus as a forgery did not question the reconstruction of the document of the editio princeps. 153 Str. XVI.4.1516: Artem. Eph. FF. 9698 Stiehle.
338
JA ELSNER et al.
country (comprised by the Nile valley and the coast of the Red Sea). According to Strabo, Artemidorus, most probably quoting the work of Agatharchides of Cnidus, discussed the oriental part of Africa as a zone where, among other species, there abound elephants, leopards, rhinos that ght against the elephants, giraffes, different kinds of apes, carnivorous bulls, hyenas called , considered a mix of wolves and dogs, and snakes thirty cubits long that can defeat bulls or elephants, but that are still not as monstrous as the snakes that can be found in Libya or India. Among the wild beings which populate the Troglodytic country, Artemidorus mentions a particular kind of lions called myrmekes a word that usually means ant in Greek , that have genitals in the opposite direction from normal and that have gold-coloured hair, thicker than their relatives in Arabia. Micunco noticed conspicuous coincidences between the species mentioned by Artemidorus and those depicted on the verso of the papyrus, particularly the largest and the most complicated gures of the central section. The giraffes, the leopards and the gigantic snakes nd striking parallels in the papyrus, but it is the presence of an explicit representation of the ght between a snake and an elephant (V16) and, above all, the gure of a curious winged feline accompanied by the label myrmex (V22), that Micunco saw as the main sign of a connection between the verso of the Artemidorus papyrus and the text of the Geography of Artemidorus.154 However, instead of the IInd book of Artemidorus (on Spain, quoted in the papyrus recto), this connection refers to the VIIIth book, which according to the ancient sources was devoted to the description of Egypt, the coast of the Red Sea and Arabia. Such close and specic coincidences can hardly be explained as a product of hazard, and in themselves create a rm argument in favour of the hypothesis that the designs on the verso, and not just the text on the recto, have Artemidorus Geography as a background. However, Micunco went farther and offered a complicated argument intended to prove that the tradition of the existence of felines called myrmex comes exclusively from Artemidorus,155 since parallel examples in other authors are either ambiguous or clearly refer to insects, in connection to the gigantic gold-seeking ants described by Herodotus.156 Micunco left the door open to the possibility that Agatharchides, a source for Artemidorus on the Troglodytic country, might have talked about lions called myrmex. But he considered also that Artemidorus himself, or perhaps Strabo quoting him, could have confused two different creatures mentioned by Agatharchides: ants with turned genitals and lions with a golden hair. The so-called myrmekes that appear in the summary of Agatharchides text by the Byzantine scholar and churchman Photius after a series of felines come down to us in a summarized version, so that the illusion is produced for
154 Perhaps Artemidorus insistence in the description of battles and ghts between animal species (rhinos against elephants, gigantic snakes against elephants and bulls) is also reected in the the repeated pairs of ghting animals on P.Artemid. 155 Micunco (2008a) 1846. 156 Hdt. III.102.
339
the modern reader that Agatharchides original text continued by discussing felines, when in fact it may have changed tack and started talking about ants. At this point, however, the question arises: why did Artemidorus, who did not read Agatharchides in Photius summary, consider these myrmekes to be lions? If the original text established a clear distinction between felines and insects, it is hardly likely that the geographer of the IInd century B. C. should have fallen into the same error as modern philologists, who have been dependent on the ways in which Agatharchides text has been transmitted. Outside this tradition offered by (Agatharchides-)Artemidorus, Micunco argued there are no clear traces among diverse testimonies on the myrmekes that imply that they were a different species from the gigantic ants of Herodotus, that dig gold and that are explicitly described as insects, similar to their corresponding Greek relatives, but of a much bigger size. It must be ants, then, that Megasthenes is describing. During his voyage to India, as Strabo testies twice,157 Megasthenes tried to get information about the peculiar ants that are as big as foxes. Micunco considered, rightly, that there is nothing in this text that allows us to suppose that Megasthenes is referring to felines. However, he does not mention that immediately before the second quotation of Megasthenes Strabo includes a very brief mention of Nearchus, a companion of Alexander in his exploration of the East, who states that he could see the skins of these ants, which are ,158 similar to leopards skins, a description that seems to point to felines, and not to insects. Aelian also talks about myrmekes in the XVIIth book of his Nature of animals and places them in the territory of Babylon,159 without any further information about their nature as lions or insects. It is surprising that Micunco, in his selective interpretation of Aelians discussion of these creatures, does not consider that, in the VIIth book of his work, he includes the myrmekes in a classication of the diverse species of felines.160 There is nothing that allow us to decide if Philostratus refers to ants or felines,161 when he connects the myrmekes with the custody of gold in Ethiopia, nor in the text of
157 Str. II.1.9: FGH 715, F. 27a. Str. XV.1.44: FGH 715, F. 23b (cf. Arr. Ind. XV.47: FGH 715, F. 23a). 158 Str. XV.1.44: FGH 133, F. 8b: . Cf. Arr. Ind. XV.4: FGH 133, F. 8a. 159 Ael. N. A. XVII.42: , , . Micunco (2008a) 186, attributes to Aelian the origin of the confusion between the tradition derived from Herodotus and the one due to Artemidorus. However, Aelians myrmekes, placed in Babylon and described with the same terms as appear in Strabos text, do not show any clear trace of contamination with the tradition of Herodotus, who places the gigantic ants in India. 160 Ael. VII.47.18: , . , , . , , . 161 Philostr. V. A. VI.1.
340
JA ELSNER et al.
Heliodorus,162 who talks about the inhabitants of the Troglodytic country, that offer to their king the gold dug by these animals. However, even if it is arbitrary to consider that these texts refer to lions in these cases, it is also arbitrary to assume that they do not, particularly in the case of Heliodorus, who was signicantly inuenced by Artemidorus, according to the study of Capelle.163 Only in the case of Philostratus is the testimony completely inconclusive. In view of the data, and against Micuncos interpretation, we may infer that the minority tradition is not that which understands the myrmekes as felines, but rather the line that considers them as insects, whose sole clear and unambiguous representative is Herodotus. Nevertheless, this argument does not diminish the value of Micunco s principal argument: that book VIII of Artemidorus Geography informs the collection of animals on the verso of the Artemidorus papyrus. The parallels, indeed, are clear and can hardly be overlooked. The presence of material connected to Artemidorus, however, as DAlessio pointed out, adds nothing to the argument about authenticity, either in favour or against. The relationship between book VIII of the Geography and the verso designs neither conrms nor denies the intervention of a forger. For reasons of space, I will not rehearse here the arguments about whether the Artemidorus papyrus is genuine.164 Instead, I will consider the authenticity of the document to be sufciently substantiated and will assume it to be genuine, in order to concentrate attention on the new interpretative possibilities presented by the re-ordering of the fragments in relation to the argument made by Micunco.
Traces of Artemidorus in the general title of the collection of animals? In addition to the coincidence between the species native to the Troglodyte country described by Artemidorus and the gures of the papyrus, there are other indications of a relationship of the verso drawings to the Geography. The verso of the papyrus includes a general label that appears to have explained the content and the meaning of the whole collection of animal gures, perhaps as a sort of title (see the top right of gure 10). The editio princeps classies this text as V30 and reads it as follows:165
162 Heliodorus Emesenus Aethiopicae .26.2. 163 Capelle (1953) 169175. 164 A summary of the development of the polemic between the publication of the editio princeps and June 2009 can be found in Gallazzi/Kramer (2009) 177216, with bibliography at 1715. A general review of the arguments in favour of authenticity is offered by DAlessio (2009) 3034. See also Hammerstaedt (2009a) and (2009b), and Pajn Leyra (2009). For a general review of the debate, see Marcotte (2010). The arguments for forgery made by Canfora and his collaborators can be found in Quaderni di Storia (20062011). See particularly Condello (2011). For further discussion of Canforas hypothesis, see DAlessio p. 292 sqq. above. 165 Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 4256.
341
] ] [ ] [] That is, animals that inhabit the ocean, animals with wings, with feet and sea monsters. This expression reects, with variations, the tripartite division of living beings established by the Aristotelian school, distinguishing between ying, terrestrial and aquatic animals.166 Given the lacuna that affects the inscription, especially at the beginning of lines 1 and 2, the reading proposed by the editors is based on the assumption that the text was disposed according to an even left margin, whereas the right margin was irregularly aligned. The beginning of all the lines of the label are assumed by the editio princeps to be aligned in respect to the kappa at the beginning of line 3. I have recently disputed the validity of this reconstruction,167 particularly that of the rst line, and suggested replacing the noun , supplied by the editors, with the preposition , arguing that the Ocean is a concept connected to the eld of geography, not to zoology. On this argument, the text of the label could have a geographic value, instead of dening a kind of habitat. However, the whole reconstruction of the text, and not just the rst line, probably needs to be reconsidered, in view of the difculties of the position of the word at the beginning of line 2. On the one hand, the missing letters of the word seem to form a slightly shorter sequence than the space they ought to ll, from the supposed limit on the left margin. The handwriting of the verso is not regular enough to make this argument denitive,168 but on the other hand, perhaps the estimation of the space that the reconstruction must cover may also need a revision, and we should consider the possibility that the text may not originally have been left justied, but could equally have had a symmetrical disposition of both margins (centred, as it were). The editors justify their hypothesis on instrumental grounds, through the theoretical advantage that is given by starting from a clear reference point, compared to the uncertainty implied in an irregular left margin, with lines whose starting point is unpredictable.169 But the fact is that other inscriptions of the verso which consist in more than one line are not left justied, so that there is really no basis for starting from the assumption of an even left margin. The zoological collection presents two other cases of labels in which the text is disposed in two lines: the gures described as V3 and V9b in the editio princeps, to whom are respectively appended the labels / [], amphibious panther crocodiles, and [- / [, saw tuna. The rst of these (V3, gure 8) disposes both words of the inscription on different lines, so that the shorter word appears approximately centred in respect to the longer one.
166 167 168 169
On the importance of this division of the animal species see Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 312, n. 7. See Pajn Leyra (2010). As kindly pointed to me by Dirk Obbink. Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 425.
342
JA ELSNER et al.
The case of the second label, the so-called (V9b, gure 9), requires a more complex discussion. The inscription is preserved in a fragmentary condition, with a lacuna that prevents us from knowing the ends of its two lines. The editors consider that the label offers a compound word formed by two nominal roots, , tuna, and , saw, which together comprise a single word divided into two lines, so that the end of the rst is missing an omicron, and the end of the second, an iota and a sigma.170 On this interpretation the left margin appears even, whereas the right is reconstructed with a rst line that is slightly shorter than the second. However, the blank space to the left of the inscription raises the question of why the author needed to divide this word into two lines, instead of writing it on a single line. In fact, neither the label of V3 nor the general title V30 offer parallels for such a division within a single word at the end of a line, since in both cases each line end corresponds to the end of a word. Perhaps, then, instead of a compound word, one may propose that in the case of V9b the text offers not one word created from two nouns, but two independent nouns that qualify each other appositionally. In this case it would be necessary to reconstruct the rst word in the nominative case at the end of the rst line, which now contains a complete word. In addition to the omicron proposed by the editors, a sigma should be reconstructed, which would make both lines the same length. Both margins turn out to be even on this reading, making impossible to determine whether the writer was trying to dispose the text symmetrically or whether it was the left margin that determined the lay-out of the whole. The only label that offers clear information about the disposition of its margins is, then, V3, which shows a symmetrical structure (centred, as opposed to left justied). This makes it at least possible and more likely that the general title at V30 would also have been centred,171 and this in turn makes the suggestion of the editio princeps more difcult to accept. But at the same time, as the editors rightly point out, removing the insistence on left-justication takes away any objective reference point and hence vitiates our chances of nding a compelling solution to the problem.172
170 Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 353. 171 The general label of the verso makes this a unique case that cannot be completely assimilated to the tabulae ansatae that frequently appear on works of art, nor can it be considered exactly parallel to the book titles that often head written texts. Nevertheless, examples of both can be compared with P.Artemid V30. On the tabulae ansatae see Pani (1986) and (1989), and on book titles see Caroli (2007). Particularly relevant are the examples offered by Caroli (2007) tab. XXa (see id. p. 184; the title presents a clear symmetric structure of both margins), XXb (palimpsest where the inferior writing offers a title disposed symmetrically), or XXVIII (the title consists in 6 lines organised symmetrically), XXXIIIa. See also tab. XXIb, or XXXb, with irregular left margins. Also Pani (1986) tab. III. However, Caroli (2007) tabs. XXIa and XXXI offer examples of left justied titles. On votive tabulae ansatae see Fraser, Rnne (1975) and Albert (1972) with important graphic material. 172 Jrgen Hammerstaedt suggests the possibility that we might reconstruct the mention of the terrestrial beings at the beginning of the second line, and to read [ (?) ] / [ ] / [ ] , translating the (?) walking animals and birds which [live near] the Ocean and the (?) monsters [which live in it].
343
However, in the context of this general re-evaluation of the label at V30 the only verso label without a specic image of an animal attached to it , and in relation to the potential inuence of Artemidorus Geography on the verso of the papyrus, perhaps the proposal of the expression at the beginning of the text can acquire new value. 173 Among the examples of this expression in Greek literature, a signicant proportion appear in contexts directly connected to Artemidorus work. The clearest case is in Marcianus of Heraclea, the author, as is well-known, of an epitome of the Geography that, even though it is lost, was one of the main means by which fragments of Artemidorus have been transmitted. Beside the epitome of Artemidorus, Marcianus wrote also a Periplous of the External Sea, which survives to the present and that clearly contains material from Artemidorus as well as from other sources. All the seven examples of that are found in the text of the Periplous are limited to the description of the oceanic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, at the beginning of book II of the Periplous, and appear in contexts in which either the name of Artemidorus is explicitly mentioned, 174 or the phraseology used allows us to establish a direct link to him. 175 Although the whole Periplous consists of a description
173 Or perhaps we should read , as rst Claudio Gallazzi, and then Giambattista DAlessio have suggested to me. 174 See Marcian. Peripl. II.19: , () , [ , ] . Also Marcian. Peripl. II.18.1125: () (), () , , , . , '. ', '. , , . Admittedly, Mller (1855) p. 550, ad loc., considered that the mention of the Artemidorus epitome ( ) should be eliminated as a dittography, given that it appears later, at chapter 19 of book II. In my opinion, the direct reference to Artemidorus is justied in both cases. 175 See particularly Marcian. Peripl. II.67: , , (). , , (). , . , , ().
344
JA ELSNER et al.
of the coast of the Ocean, outside the contexts where Artemidorus inuence is clear the expression disappears, so that not one case can be explained through any other of the sources used by Marcianus. Examples of the phrase in Stephanus of Byzantium point in the same direction.176 In his text the expression appears only once, inside a clear reference to the Geography of Artemidorus. However, the author that offers the greatest number of examples of this expression is Diodorus (14 occurrences of a total number of 36). In his work, the appearances of are mostly concentrated between the last chapters of the IInd book and through the IIIrd,177 that is, at precisely the places where Artemidorus inuence is most likely, even if his name is mentioned explicitly only once.178 The sources of Diodorus are a complex problem, and frequently there are no clear criteria to identify the origin of what he says. Nevertheless, it is worth calling attention to the text of DS II.54.4: , . , . , .179
(cfr. P.Artemid. IV.114). Also Marcian. Peripl. II.1.111, and II.11.36. On the similarity of Marcianus text and the IVth column of the papyrus see Canfora (2008) 300 ff., (2009b) 901, who does not understand it as a consequence of Marcianus use of his own epitome as a source, but as evidence of the counterfeiter Simonidis when he made up the text of the papyrus. Steph. Byz. s. v. (Artem. Eph. F. 35): , , . See as well Phot. Bibl. 190, 148a, 3234: , (). Cfr. Steph. Byz. s. v. (Artemid. Eph. F. 78): , (). , . . The expression appears concretely in DS II.43.2, 54.4, III.p.1, 22.3, 47.9, 53.4, 56.2, 59.8, 60.1, 66.4, IV.18.4, 56.4, XXXIII.1. The inuence of Artemidorus can be appreciated in such contexts as DS II.51 and III.35, both containing descriptions of African fauna that are similar to Str. XVI.4.1516 (Artem. Eph. FF. 9698). However, in the rst case it is possible that Posidonius must be considered as an intermediary source (this is the opinion of Jacoby, FGrHist 87, F. 114). A signicant closeness can be observed between DS III.36.41 and Str. XVI.4.19 (Artem. Eph. F. 101). On the other hand, the examples of DS III.53.4, 56.2, 59.8, 60.1, 66.4 and IV.18.4 seem related to Dionysius Scythobrachion (FGrHist 32, FF. 7 and 8), perhaps through Crates of Mallos (Bianchetti (2000) 225 ff.). The two occurrences in DS IV.56.4 seem to be due to Timaeus of Tauromenium (FGrHist 566, F. 85), though Jacoby comm. ad loc., considers content from Posidonius likely in this context. Regarding DS XXXIII.1, cf. Posidon. F. 96a Theiler. On the importance of Artemidorus in the description of Egypt offered by Diodorus in his book I, see Capelle (1953) 1725. On the possible inuence of Artemidorus on the nal chapters of book II of the Bibliotheca historica, focusing especially on the story of Iambulus (DS II.5560), see Canfora (2010) 146158. DS III.11.1 (Artem. Eph. F 82; cfr. F. 92). [] after , omitted in the ms. Parisinus regius 1659.
176
177
178 179
345
It can be seen that the description of the oceanic region of Arabia, its hydrography and the prosperity due to its climate is followed by a summary description of its fauna that includes a tripartite division of animals, , , which recalls that at V30 on the Artemidorus papyrus, even though it shows differences. Clearly, the expression is not limited to contexts inuenced by Artemidorus. But the preserved examples allow us to establish a likely connexion to him in a signicant proportion of cases. It is possible, then, to consider that the expression, although not exclusive to Artemidorus, could reect a phrase that was frequently repeated in the Geography, and that might have been a feature of the way in which Artemidorus referred to areas outside the Mediterranean when he dealt with them. The anonymous author of the collection of drawings on the papyrus, who seems to have been inspired by Artemidorus, may have included an echo of a source that he considered as particularly important in the general title that he gave his work.
Artemidorus as geographic model for the zoological gures The relationship between the VIIIth book of Artemidorus and the verso of the papyrus has so far been treated by scholars only in connection to the polemic about the authenticity. However, the idea that the inuence of the Geography is not just visible in the text, but also in the collection of verso drawings, when removed from the discussion of the supposed sources of a hypothetical forger, offers new interpretative understandings for the general signicance of the drawings and the elaboration of the verso as a whole. It is known that Geography VIII was devoted to the description of Egypt along with the the coast of the Red Sea and Arabia, and that it was placed after the wide-ranging description of Libya in book VII and the section on the Orient in book IX, where India, Parthia, Phoenicia and the south of Asia Minor were discussed, although the sequence of Artemidorus account is unknown. Among the fragments attributed to book VIII in Stiehles edition, number 100 tells us that the description of Arabia followed that of the Troglodytic country.180 Though there are no explicit testimonies about the exact position of Egypt within the countries with which Artemidorus dealt, it is reasonable to assume that it was originally placed at the beginning of book VIII.181 Regarding book IX, Stiehle considered it probable that after Arabia Artemidorus went on to describe the Persian Gulf and India.182 Even though it is true that this last assumption has no explicit evidential testimony, the order Libya-Egypt-Ethiopia-Arabia-India does seem likely as a working hypothesis for the original structure of Artemidorus books VIIIX. What is interesting is that this sequen-
180 Str. XVI.4.18. 181 Plin. V.9.9 (Artemid. Eph. F. 81) seems to suggest that the author began his measurement of Asia in Egypt. 182 Stiehle (1856) 227.
346
JA ELSNER et al.
tial geographical structure determines that of the animals drawn on the verso, once one has accepted the transposition of section A after section C. Admittedly, whether in a West-East direction or the reverse, a similar sequence is frequent in the ancient geographic literature. This structure can be appreciated in the work of Diodorus,183 who, as we have seen, probably owes a great deal of his material to Artemidorus in this section of his work. Before him Agatharchides seems to have followed the same order.184 Moreover, Nearchus explored the coast of the Indian Ocean from the mouth of the Indus to the Persian Gulf,185 repeating partially the voyage of Scylax of Carianda, who travelled along the shores of the Indian Ocean until reaching Egypt.186 Strabo makes the same journey when he describes India, Asia and Arabia, and Egypt, Ethiopia and Libya in books XV, XVI and XVII. Other examples abound, from the Periplous of the Erythraean Sea187 to Marcianus Periplous.188 This descriptive order, therefore, is normal in the ancient geographic literature. It can also be attributed to Artemidorus work, but by no means can it be considered exclusive to him. ut, if it were to be accepted as the co-ordinating schema of the papyrus verso, it seems the most economical explanation to consider this as due to Artemidorus inuence than to any other possible source. From a methodological point of view, in the works of Micunco,189 as in the editio princeps,190 the animal gures are not considered to form an homogeneous collection: some of the drawings are to a larger scale than others, or have been executed more carefully by the designer and are placed in a central position on the papyrus in respect to the others, which surround them. To this group the vignettes of ghting animals belong particularly. These are classied in the editio princeps as V9, V16, V19, V22, V25, V31 and V38, to which the giraffe (V21) has to be added, although it is represented alone and not ghting against another creature, since it occupies almost the whole height of the roll. Beside these gures, the rest are signicantly smaller and are placed predominantly around the larger ones, sometimes forming clear circles or sometimes exercising a function as
183 Particularly in book III, which starts from Egypt (already dealt with in book I, according to Jacoby, under the inuence of Agatharchides; see FGrHist 86, F. 19), and then describes the African coast of the Red Sea, Arabia and India. 184 The summary of the Vth book of his On the Erythraean Sea, as is transmitted by Photius, deals rst with the African coast of the Red Sea (GGM I, 2384), and then with Arabia ( 85 ff.). The ancient sources attest that the author also described in his work Egypt (Agatharch. GGM, F. 112: DS I.41.4) and Libya (Agatharch. GGM F. 114: Aelian. N. A. XVI.27; F. 115: Plin. VII.2). On the structure of Agatharchides work and on the lost contents of books IIIV as a tour of the southern Sea from the Occidental end of Libya to Persia and India, see Marcotte (2001) 388391 and 420426, esp. 4256. 185 FGrHist 133, F. 1: Arr. Ind. 20. 186 See Hdt. IV.44. 187 In GGM I, pp. 257305, attributed to Arrian in the codex Pal. Gr. 398 at Heidelberg, the text describes the commercial route from Egypt to India along the coast of the Red Sea and Arabia. 188 GGM I, pp. 522536: Marcian. Peripl. 1143. 189 Micunco (2008a) 187. 190 Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 315316.
347
elements of separation. Whereas the available information that allows us to locate these central animals geographically is in general clear, and the literary and iconographical parallels usually provide enough data for us to link them to a concrete area of the known world, most of the minor gures offer serious difculties of geographical placement. If we observe the sequence of the gures from left to right as it appears in the editio princeps, at the beginning there is a section clearly dominated by the ght scene (V9) in which an odd animal accompanied by the label tries to liberate itself from the snaky creature called saw tuna.191 Although it is impossible to localize the saw tuna precisely,192 in the case of the , however, the link to the Nile seems clear: to the well-known parallel offered by the Nile mosaic of Palestrina,193 where the animal appears accompanied by a label with the same name as the papyrus, we may add the testimony of two Pompeian wall paintings in which the same animal appears, 194 although without a conrmatory label, among the represented fauna, that undoubtedly recall the landscape of the Nile.195 Among the creatures that surround the scene, the two panther crocodiles (V3) also have a close parallel in the Palestrina mosaic,196 and the Egyptian goose at V8 is frequently represented in Egyptian art and mentioned in Greek texts in connection with Egypt.197 So these too link this part of the papyrus with the Nilotic context. An Egyptian origin can perhaps be proposed in the case of the curious feline called in V6, but the available information is very dubious.198
191 See Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 350354. 192 The ancient Greek texts do not offer parallels for this hybrid creature. Considering the elements that form the inscription separately, appears as a sea monster in Gal. De alimentorum facultatibus 7378; also in Arist. HA 566b, Plu. Fr. 193, Aelian. IX.49, Sud. ss. vv. ( 1555 Adler), ( 2270 Adler). These testimonies do not offer exact geographic references. Only Pliny talks about pristes in the Indian Sea (Plin. IX.4, 8). The iconographic parallels gathered by Kinzelbach (2009) Abb. 26, 29 and 30 do not offer any geographical information. 193 Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 351353, Adornato (2008) 2389, Pajn Leyra (2009), Meyboom (2011) 978. 194 Casa di Maius Castricius, Insula Occidentalis: see Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 353, n. 94; Meyboom (1995) 223, n. 23, Baldassare, Pugliese Carratelli (1997) 940 ff., Varriale (2006) 495501. Casa del Medico: see Baldassarre, Pugliese Carratelli (1998) 606, g. 4. 195 However, Meyboom (2011) 94 and 97, identies it as an Ethiopian animal: the mentioned also by Artemidorus. 196 See Meyboom (1995) 27. The crocodile is one of the most conspicuous Nilotic animals since it was rst described by Herodotus (Hdt. .689). 197 See Hdt. II.72, Aelian. X.16. Bibliography and references of iconographic parallels, so in the Egyptian art as in Greek representations of Nilotic landscapes, can be found in Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 348. 198 Hierocl. Ethic. III.9 ff., BKT IV col. III 1019 indicates an Egyptian origin: . However, Bastianini (2004) considers the testimony as insufcient to connect the species with the Nile and understands the text as a product of corruption and transmission problems. Nevertheless, perhaps V6 on the papyrus gives testimony of a second, not frequent, meaning of the word, as happens with other animals in this collection, such as the , the , the or the , that are
348
JA ELSNER et al.
Among the other gures that surround the scene of V9 there is no insistence on a different geographical region from Egypt. Leaving aside the special case of the (V1), whose place on the papyrus is far from clear, since it is beyond doubt that it did not originally occupy the place that the editio princeps gave to it,199 among the other drawings the sh called (V10) and (V11) have no geographical references. The , the sea hare (V5) might correspond to a sh from the Indian Ocean mentioned by Aelian and Pliny.200 The (V15) has been identied with globular sh that are common in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.201 The animal at V2, identied as the hybrid of dog and wolf called in the Greek texts,202 appears among the animals of the Trogloditic country enumerated by Artemidorus,203 according to the quotation in Strabo, but its presence in the Nilefocused Palestrina mosaic perhaps justies its place in this section of the papyrus.204 Also the bird called (V7) breaks the geographic consistency: the mythic tradition associates it to the voyage of the Argonauts to Colchis,205 but is contradicted by the alternative testimony of Pausanias that places its habitat in the Arabian desert.206 Lastly, the , the wild ram of V4, in principle is also outside the pattern that relates the initial section of the papyrus to the Nile. But the scarce testimonies offered by Greek literature about this creature seem to associate it with Libya,207 which helps to connect the left part of the document to the Occident of the known world. The names of (V13) and (V14) are both hapax legomena, whose traces cannot be followed in the Greek zoological tradition. The (V12), meanwhile, has no parallel as the denomination of an animal.208 The written sources
199 200 201
202 203
204 205
206 207 208
designated by terms usually applied to different species. Besides, some of the particular uses testied by the papyrus, as for example the , seem to have a strong local character. DAlessio (2009) 38. Aelian. NA XVI.19, Plin. IX.155. Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 371. Kinzelbach (2009) 46 identies the drawing as a moonsh. In both cases attention is drawn to the presence of these species in the Mediterranean. However, both globular sh and moonsh are also common in the Indian Ocean. Thanks to the revision of the offset prints done by DAlessio (2009) 3940. Str. XVI.4.16 (Artemid. Eph. F. 98). See as well Plin. VIII.72, DS III.35.10, Phot. Bibl. 250, 456a (= Agatharch. De mari erythraeo 77), Paradoxographus Vaticanus 2, Hsch. s. v. , Periplus Maris Erythraei 50. It is mentioned as an Indian animal in Porph. Abst. III.4 y D. C. LXXVI.1.4. Meyboom (1995) 23. Nevertheless, the denition of the Troglodytic country as the zone limited by the Nile valley and the Red Sea might justify some permeability between both ambits. Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 345. The majority tradition places these birds in Arcadia (A. R. II.10523, Sch. A. R. II.105257, Str. VIII.6.8, D. S. III.30.40, IV.13, Ps. Apoll. Bibl. II.92, Paus. VIII.22.4, Etym. M. 731.40. Other localizations: the island of Ares (A. R. II.1052 ff., Hygin. Fab. XXX), the island of Dia (Hygin. Fab. XX). Paus. VIII.22.4 ff. Hdt. IV.192. The word is regularly used to denominate a plant. See, Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 362, where there is also offered (n. 107) an answer to the objections of Micunco (2008a) 188, on the hypothetical confusion, from the part of Simonidis, between (wild oats) and (a dialectal word
349
do not allow us to place the gures in a concrete geographic area in these cases. The wide diffusion of the species proposed as models of the drawings, that generally can be found everywhere in the Mediterranean, in the African coast or in the Indian Sea, does not add any useful information to the problem.209 Only the iconographic parallels could perhaps help and indicate that these gures, or at least some of them, have to do with the environment of Egypt.210 The design V16 appears next, showing an elephant ghting a gigantic snake coiled around its body. This opens the section of the verso where the direct inuence of Artemidorus description of the Troglodytic country has been observed. The African coast of the Red Sea thus follows Egypt in section of the papyrus. But the geographic sequence seems to break at this point, given that, after the odd hammer sh (V18), for which there are no geographic references,211 appears the impressive scene of a ying gryphon that has seized a young leopard whose mother chases in pursuit. Greek sources usually place the gryphons in the oriental side of the world, not in Africa, so that its presence among the animals of the coast of the Red Sea presents a big obstacle to a geographic structure. There follows a sh without clear localisation (, V20)212 and later the animals of Artemidorus come back: the giraffe (V21), which according to the preserved fragments was described in detail in the Geography,213 and the famous (V22), that the geographer tells us had its habitat in Ethiopia and Arabia. Then the fragmentary gure of a large feline appears, forming a sort of continuous sequence with the scene of the myrmex and its opponent, and accompanied by a label
209
210
211
212
213
for eagle), on the basis of Etym. M. 28.19. On the other hand, the presence of the name of a plant applied to an animal is not surprising in the context of the Artemidorus papyrus, in which similar cases abound: names of terrestrial animals appear beside sh gures (, ), names of sh apply to terrestrial creatures (), names of insects are applied to strange felines () or names of sea animals are applied to birds (). The mute swan that has been interpreted at the background of the can be found in wide areas of Europe, the Near East, Africa and Western Asia (Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 362, Kinzelbach (2009) 3840), just as the himantopus that has been identied as the model of the (Gallazzi/Kramer/ Settis (2008) 368369, Kinzelbach (2009) 445). A satisfactory explanation for the has not been found. Examples of representations of swans in Egyptian art can be seen in Houlihan (1986) 5052. Parallels between the and some waders in the Palestrina mosaic have been proposed (Gallazzi/ Kramer/Settis (2008) 369). A catalogue of the species of birds identiable in the mosaic is offered by Tammisto (1997) 362. Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 382. Greek texts mention the hammer sh as , or consider it among the , but there are no geographic references to the species (see Ael. IX.49, Gal. De alimentorum facultatibus, Khn VI, 737738, Oribasius II.57.1, Sud. s. v. ( 1555 Adler), Manuel Philes Carmina I.1521). Kinzelbach (2009) 6263 identies it as a cetacean, perhaps a cachalot, and interprets the name of as a reference to the breathing hole that these animals have on the top of their head (see Plin. XXXII.69). The habitat of the cachalot encompasses almost all the regions of the world. Artemid. Eph. F. 98, Str. XVI.4.16.
350
JA ELSNER et al.
of which only the beginning is preserved: [.214 It faces an enormous snake labelled as . The editors reconstruct the broken inscription as [, an interpretation strongly endorsed by the text of the Physiologus,215 which talks of an ancestral enmity between these animals. The gure of a tiger in aggressive attitude follows almost immediately, but the end of this section of the papyrus, which interrupts just at this moment, leaves it unclear which creature he is attacking.216 The minor designs of this part of the document offer little information regarding the geographic origin of the represented animals.217 However, the gure of the tiger might imply that this section of the papyrus is associated with India, given that the tiger is a classic element of its fauna.218 But the scene at V25, the confrontation between the panther and the dragon, raises questions of where it should be located. According to the editio princeps, the label that accompanies the big feline has to be reconstructed as [. The possibility to reconstruct it as [ is excluded, given that the form which is systematically used in P.Artemid. is the variant , judging from the labels of V21, the , and V19b, which accompanies a gure that clearly represents a leopard and of which only the beginning is preserved: [. Both
214 As observed by Micunco (2008a) 187. 215 Phys. Redactio prima, 16: , . 216 The opponent of the tiger has left traces on the recto, but the preserved offset print is not enough to appreciate concrete details of the gure. See Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 430. 217 The represented creatures are either common animals impossible to connect with a precise region, or hapax without parallels. To the rst case corresponds the [ de V23, if this reconstruction is accepted (see the alternative proposal of Kinzelbach (2009) 723), common in the Mediterranean, Northern Africa and the Near East. The iconographic parallels highlighted in the editio princeps pp. 4012 are very doubtful. The (V24), the (V26), the (V27), the (V28) and the (V29) do not have objective geographic references. Only in the cases of V24 and V27 identications have been proposed, that relate to species dwelling in the high Nile and Nubia, but the poor condition of the gures makes the judgement of these parallels difcult, both in respect to real beings and to iconographic representations. 218 The identication of the tiger with the dangerous martichora (Paus. .21.45), one of the most famous creatures described by Ctesias in his work on India (FGH 688, F. 45bd) is well-known. The rst direct contacts of Greeks with tigers did not happen until the expedition of Alexander the Great. Nearchus states that he saw a tigers skin, according to Arr. Ind. 15.1 (FGrHist 133, F. 7). See also Str. XV.1.37, through Megasthenes (FGrHist 715, F. 10). Aelian. N. A. XV.14.2, Aristoph. Byz. II.280, D. C. LIV.9.8, Ptol. Geog. VII.1, 2.21, Philostrat. V. A. II.28, III.50 also connect the tiger with the Indus. Aristotle had stated that Indian dogs come from the mix of a dog and a tiger (Arist. H. A. 607a, cfr. D. S. XVII.92.2). See also Sud. s. v. ( 494 Adler) on the importance of tigers in Dionysus triumphal procession from India to Greece. Among Latin sources Plin. VI.71, 91, VIII.65, 148, associates the tiger with the same region. However, a minority tradition places tigers in other areas, particularly Ethiopia (Ptol. Geog. IV.8.4, Tim. Gram. 9, on this text see further below), or Mesopotamia (D. S. II.50.3: ). See Meyboom (1995, 1224 and (2011) 100, on the use of as denomination of the cheetah, that could explain the gure of a feline with dappled skin accompanied by a label with this name in the Barberini mosaic (Meyboom (1995) g. 14).
351
terms, and /, refer to the same animal species, which could be found in Antiquity along the entire coast of the Red Sea, from Africa to India.219 However, in contrast with the widespread use of , is a much less common denomination, which tends to be limited to the Orient and to India.220 Therefore, it is possible that the scene of V25 can be associated to this zone, where Artemidorus himself stated that large snakes abound.221 Before continuing the review of the geographic correspondences of the animal gures of the verso, let us stop and consider an element missing from the editio princeps. If we observe the zone of the papyrus above the tiger just at the lacuna that separates the and the general title (gure 10), the remains of a label are visible, which is not discussed in the edition. The poor condition of the papyrus makes it almost impossible to distinguish the preserved letters clearly. However, a kappa, an omicron and a theta are still partially readable, followed by an undistinguishable letter, perhaps another omicron judging by Bertanis image (gure 11), and a descendent stroke, that might correspond to an alpha. On the image of the editio princeps (gure 12) a curved line seems to be visible, perhaps the inferior part of a sigma. Only direct examination of the document can conrm or deny these observations. If they are conrmed, a sequence ] does not occur in the Greek language except in two cases: the anthroponyms and ,222 the rst of which itself appears in the papyrus beside gure V1, as the name of a kind of jackal. The second anthroponym might, then, also be present on the papyrus, applied to a creature whose gure is completely lost.223 In any case, and pending direct examination of the papyrus,
219 However, Greek texts do not usually use both names as synonyms for the same reality, but as designations for different species. The clearest example can be found in Aristoph. Byz. Epit. 2.279280: , , . . Also Aristoph. Byz. Epit. 1.50: , , Callix., FGrHist 627, F. 2.298 (Athen. V.32). Cf. Aelian. VII.47, who enumerates them separately in his catalogue of the diverse kinds of felines: , (Aristoph. Byz. F. 5 Nauck) , . , , . Both names appear as synonyms in Manuel Philes Carmina varia de naturali historia I.864., and Plin. VIII.63, who considers pardus to be the correct term for the male of the panthera, and places both of them in Africa. 220 See Aristoph. Byz. Epit. 2.280, 282, Aelian. XV.14, Tim. Gram. 14. An exception to this tendency is Hdt. IV.192, which places the in Libya. 221 Str. XVI.4.16 (Artemid. Eph. F. 98 Stiehle). 222 See Hdn. 3,2 649, Choerob. In Theod. 142: . 223 It seems unlikely that the appeared twice, even if the possibility cannot be completely excluded.
352
JA ELSNER et al.
it seems clear that a new element has to be added to the collection of drawings, a new label that could be designated as V42.224 Continuing with the possible geographic structure in the verso of the papyrus, the sequence breaks again beyond the gure of the tiger. After a lacuna of undetermined length comes the section called fragment A by the editors, where all the gural elements seem to point to an occidental origin, quite different from what one might have expected in the Orient. No information can be obtained from the gures V33, V34 and V36, due to the bad condition of the images and the labels. Manuel Philes mentions the (V40) as a kind of sh in the Red Sea,225 without any further specication. The gure of V37, however, labelled as , despite the loss of most of the design, can be clearly associated with a precise geographic area: even if the word does not have any parallel in the Greek texts, the remains of the image are enough for us to recognize a bird that appears recurrently in the Egyptian iconography as a representation of the Phoenix.226 In this section of the papyrus, then, the geographic sequence seems to be back to the Nile, given that the pelican represented in V41 also has signicant parallels in Egyptian art.227 On the other hand, the term , the wild goat that is attacked by the lynx in V38, though it is widely attested in Greek sources, does not offer a clear geographic reference. Nevertheless, some mentions of do point to Libya,228 a place that,
224 Neither the name of the nor , if this reading is accepted, offer parallels that can help to localize them geographically. Nevertheless, it has to be observed that the second element of the compound appears, in plural (), on the Barberini mosaic (Meyboom (1995) 2122). See also Hdt. IV.192, for among the animals of Libya. 225 Manuel Philes I.1685. 226 Gallazzi/Kramer/Settis (2008) 4456. Among the most famous are those in the Tomb of Irinefer (Deir el-Medina 290) and the Tomb of Nefertari (Kinzelbach (2009) 97). It is also frequent in the Book of the Dead. Further images of the bird in Egyptian art can be found in Houlihan (1986) 1318. It can also be seen in Hellenistic and Roman representations of Nilotic landscapes. It has been identied in the Barberini mosaic (see Tammisto (1997) 362, Whitehouse (1976) sections 3 and 8), and in some mosaics of Canopus (Tammisto (1997) 3723). 227 See Houlihan (1986) 1011. Greek texts often mention that pelicans dwell in uvial environments. See Arist. H. A. 614b, Aelian. N. A. V.35, Arist. Byz. I.24, [Arist.] M. A. 831b. Pelicans are mentioned in connexion with the Nile in Cyran. III.39. 228 See Plb. XII.3.6 ss. (through Timaeus of Tauromenium, FGrHist 566, F. 3): , , . On the same direction Aristoph. Byz. Epit. II.549, and Aelian. XVI.16: . But Arist. H. A. 606a states that in Libya there is no wild boar, deer and . Much more doubtful is the case of the animal of V35, whose label is completely lost. The editors identify it as , a hypothesis that, if true, could contribute to link this section of the papyrus with Libya (see the above mentioned text of Plb. XII.3.6 ss.), albeit Str. XVI.4.9 and DS .25.2 point to a connexion to Ethiopia. In any case, every statement on this gure cannot be based on evidence, given the loss of the corresponding inscription.
353
even if it does not agree completely with the information provided by the and the pelican, contributes in linking this part of the papyrus to the Occidental side of the earth. More complicated is the case of the lynx that attacks the goat. Lynxes were widespread through all the regions of the world known by the Greeks, from North to South and from West to East. That in principle makes it difcult to associate the drawing with a concrete region. Nevertheless, several testimonies do place the lynx in the environment of Africa, even if they disagree with each other to some extent. The represented animal has been identied as the caracal, a species which, though found also in the Arabian coast or in western India, is usually known as African lynx, due to its particular frequency in the north of Africa. Pliny probably refers to the caracal when he considers it among the Aethiopian fauna,229 even as he recognizes the wide diffusion of the lynx and states that lynces are vulgo frequentes. On the other hand, there are many testimonies that point to a relationship between the lynx and the environment of Egypt. Representations of the caracal often appear in Egyptian art.230 The Palestrina mosaic, besides, presents the lynx among the Nilotic animals.231 Finally, Timotheus of Gaza deals with the lynx immediately after his treatment of Nilotic animals, between chapters 41 and 45 the lynx appears at chapter 46. Aelian,232 however, associates the lynx with the north of Africa and Maurousia. This testimony opens the door to the possibility that, like its opponent the , this gure too can be connected to Libya. The drawings of this section of the papyrus appear to refer to an occidental context, although it can be difcult to decide if the connections to the Nile are predominant, or to other regions of Africa, especially Libya, with which Artemidorus dealt in book VII of his Geography.233
229 Plin. VIII.72. 230 The Mastaba of Issimr-ntr, the tomb of Menna, the tomb of Pehenouka and the tomb of Chnemhotep are particularly relevant. Reproductions can be seen in Osborn, Osbornov (1998) 112113. 231 Although the dappled skin of the gure has caused identication of this image as a serval, also a common feline of the Nile zone and Nubia, and not as a caracal. See Osborn, Osbornov (1998) 110111. 232 Aelian. N. A. 14.6: . , . 233 Perhaps, in this context, Stph. Byz. s. v. is worth citing. There Artemidorus is reported as mentioning of a city in Northern Africa called (cf. Artemid. Eph. F. 76 Stiehle): . , . . Though the orthography of the term of ethnicity, with double , might seem to distance the toponym from the animal name (cf. Str. XVII.3.2: , , , , Str. XVII.3.8: , ), the variant with instead of also appears frequently in the name of the lynx (see e. g. S. F. 474, S. E. H. P. I.119, Plu. De sollertia animalium 962F 3).
354
JA ELSNER et al.
From this review of the geographic implication of the animals represented on the verso of the Artemidorus papyrus, we can appreciate a tendency to dispose the gures according to a West-East structure. This structure is particularly clear in the case of the central gures, but it breaks in two occasions: a gryphon, traditionally an Asian animal, appears among the Troglodytic animals of Artemidorus, and after the Indian animals the sequence seems to turn back to the beginning and to represent again occidental animals. However, the second break in the sequence is resolved with the reordering of the fragments of the papyrus. Section A, traditionally placed at the right end of the verso, and at whose centre appears the scene of the ght between the lynx and the wild goat, recovers its original location on the left of the document, immediately before the gures from V2 onwards. Following DAlessios reordering, all the Nilotic animals now appear together, and so do the creatures connected to Libya (the and the , and perhaps the bovid represented on V35). Besides, Libya and Egypt are sometimes described as a continuous unity, and not as two distinctly separate areas. The scene of the lynx and the ,234 surrounded as it is by Nilotic and Libyan animals, perhaps reects this continuity. The case of the gryphon which appears among the Troglodytic animals, precisely in the section of the papyrus that seems to keep the most direct relationship with Artemidorus, is more complex. The ancient sources almost unanimously associate this legendary creature with the eastern end of the earth. Two different traditions survive from the Ancient world about the original home of the gryphons: the rst, transmitted by the Arimaspea, the epic poem written by Aristeas of Proconessus, places them near the Black Sea, where the bellicose Arimaspians, a species of men with only one eye, ghts them for the possession of gold. Authors like Herodotus, Pliny or Pausanias echo and develop this tradition.235 On the other hand, the works of Ctesias of Cnidus connected the gryphon to India, where it also had the function of a guardian of gold. This tradition appears in the his-
234 See for example Str. II.5.33. With the new order, we may note that the three cases in which the animals appear in peaceful groups now appear close to each other (V3, V39 and V40 (which, even if they are different species, can be regarded as a pair), and more doubtfully V36, interpreted in the editio princeps as a group of two gures, although the condition of the image does not allow us to distinguish clearly if it is actually a couple or a single animal). These examples also exhibit the peculiarity of disposing the gures as couples whose members face in opposite directions. This composition is paralleled in the and the of the Barberini mosaic, as Micunco (2008a) 1901, has pointed out. 235 Hdt. III.116, IV.27, 79, 152. Paus. .24.56. See also A. Prom. 804, Steph. Byz. s. v. . In the Latin sources, Mela II.1 mentions the gryphon as Asian animal and Plin. VII.10 and XXXIII.66 place the beast in the zone of Scythia, following Herodotus and Aristeas (but see also Plin. X.136, where grypes are mentioned as dwelling in Ethiopia). See Philips (1955) on the relationship between the text of Aristeas and gold mining in Central Asia. Mayor (2011) 1553, offers an interpretation of beliefs about the gryphon in relation to the remains of fossils from the Orient. The inuence of these fossils on the gryphon legend was rst studied by the anthropologist Adolph Erman in the XIXth century. Bolton (1962) 84, contests Ermans view.
355
toriography developed after the expedition of Alexander and in authors like Aelian and Philostratus.236 Nevertheless, there are only two examples that stand out from this general picture and connect the gryphon with Africa. In both cases a direct relationship can be established either with the vignette drawn on the papyrus or with Artemidorus work.237 The rst example is provided by Heliodorus of Emesa at the end of his Aethiopica: 238 , . The Troglodytians offer king Hydaspes as present gold dug by myrmekes and gryphons as an exceptional product of their country. In this context, Wilhelm Capelles study of the sources used by Heliodorus is of great importance. Capelle, after excluding other possibilities, concluded that the material shared by Heliodorus, Diodorus, Strabo and Juba had to be due to a common source, which he concluded could not be other than Artemidorus Geography.239 On this account, the presence of a gryphon among the African animals of the papyrus makes complete sense from a viewpoint that considers the Geography as a fundamental paradigm for the designs of the verso. Moreover, the scene of V19 nds a close parallel in the work of Timotheus of Gaza, who places the development of enmity between the gryphon and the tiger in Ethiopia:240 . () . (). , , . The Ethiopian gryphon of Timotheus steals a tiger cub and is pursued by its mother until all fall into the sea and die. This seems to reect directly on the visual narrative of V19 where the gryphon of the papyrus has stolen a cub and is pursued by its mother; but in P.Artemid. the animal is not a tiger, but a leopard accompanied by the fragmentary label which, as we have seen, the editors reconstruct as [. The scene is the same, but the kind of feline is not. This must be regarded as meaningful. Compared to Timotheus, the papyrus offers a version of the story that is coherent with what is known about Artemidorus description of the animals of the Troglodytic country, among which
236 Arr. V.4.3 explains that when the companions of the king visited the Indus valley, they did not nd the famous guardians of gold, but that the reality of the country was quite different from the legends that circulated about it; Aelian. N. A. IV.27, Philostr. V. A. 3.48, 6.1, Manuel Philes Carmina varia de naturali historia I.85 ff. 237 On the other hand, the gryphon appears represented among Ethiophian animals in the wall paintings of Marissa and of the Casa di Romolo, in Pompei. See Meyboom (2011) 93, n. 7. 238 Hld. Aethiopicae .26.2. 239 Capelle (1953) 166173. It cannot be excluded that Heliodorus used the text of Agatharchides, but Capelle (p. 170) considers this extremely unlikely. 240 Tim. Gram. 9.
356
JA ELSNER et al.
the was included.241 Against Timotheus text, the design of the verso agrees with Artemidorus concept of African fauna. Therefore, the presence of the gryphon among the animals of the Troglodytic country does not break the geographic sequence, which follows a clear progression from west to east in what we may regard as the central drawings of the papyrus. The animals of the verso, or at least the ght scenes and large gures, appear disposed in an order that can be interpreted in geographic terms and that appears to reect the structure of Artemidorus Geography. V38 can represent the animals of Libya, though the lynx has also a strong relationship with Egypt; V9 clearly implies the landscape of the Nile, V16, V19, V21 and V22 correspond to the description of the Troglodytic country, even if the can also count as an Arabian animal, and V25 and V31 seem to have their place in India. Regarding the minor gures, a general tendency to follow this geographic order can also be observed, but in this case it is not possible to see more than a tendency, broken by some inconsistencies, and one that is unveriable in many of the gures because their poor condition of preservation or because of the lack of external textual or iconographic testimonies. The absence of parallels, either literary or iconographic, particularly affects the sh: these are also the least realistic gures in the collection. The most fundamental inconsistencies are at V7 (the ) and V2 (the ), attested respectively as a creature of the desert of Arabia and as one of the African animals of Artemidorus. Despite the inconsistencies and uncertainties, a vision of the collection of drawings emerges as a well-structured unity that follows a pattern and a plan. It is not a random set of animal gures disposed chaotically. In this context it is worth highlighting the Great Hunt mosaic of Piazza Armerina, dated in the early IVth century A. D., which shows Roman soldiers catching exotic animals to take them to Rome, presumably to be used as circus entertainment. According to Chiara Settis-Frugoni,242 the mosaicist and designer appears to have used a geographic structure in the disposition of the animals, so that on the left end of the mosaic predominantly occidental creatures appear, whereas oriental animals are represented on the right. Though criticised in the years after its publication,243 this hypothesis perhaps deserves new attention, given the parallel that the Artemidorus papyrus offers. Nevertheless, one must stress that Artemidorus inuence cannot be sustained evidentially beyond the gures at V16, V19, V21 and V22, which are instantiated in Strabos quotation of the Geography. Neither the ght of the lynx and the wild goat,
241 However, there is no evidence that the Geography included a story like the one illustrated on the papyrus and that appears in Timotheus text. Also it is likely that the designer knew the tale from other sources and included it among the drawings. In that case, we cannot know to what extent he needed to adapt the story to make it agree with Artemidorus concept of the African fauna. 242 Settis-Frugoni (1975). 243 Mielsch (1989), Meyboom (2011) 99. See also Mielsch (1986) 7578. Critics have focused mostly on the lack of clear landscape elements to support the geographic arrangement.
357
nor the xiphias, the panther as enemy of the dragon, nor the tiger have left any traces in the fragments of Artemidorus that are preserved. It is by no means impossible that they were once discussed in the text of the Ephesian geographer, but this cannot be proved. Their presence on the papyrus may be due to other sources, elaborated and adapted by the anonymous designer to the general structure of the collection. These considerations allow the hypothesis that, in the context in which the Artemidorus papyrus was created, not only was a copy of book II of the Geography available, but there was also at least a copy of book VIII and probably copies of books VII and IX in addition. The suggestion of the original editors that the papyrus was made as a luxury edition of the complete text of Artemidorus is no longer tenable, but it is likely that, whatever was its original function and meaning, it was made in relationship to a complete copy of the Geography. It is still possible, in my opinion, to understand the collection of animals in the sense suggested by the editio princeps, as a repertory of models to be used by artists, perhaps in book illustration,244 and as an independent project in itself, with internal coherence and not connected to the recto, despite the shared inuence of Artemidorus. The internal coherence of the verso as a zoological geography and its likely indebtedness to a deep study of ancient geographic bibliography add an element of scientic rigour to its repertory of drawings. The art works elaborated on the basis of a pattern book like the verso of P. Artemid. would display, as a result, a depth and command of ancient natural science. On the other hand, the geographical structure of the collection of drawings of the verso (and their possible employment as a model book) is not in conict with its likely scholarly context in antiquity, as suggested by DAlessio: that is, that it was a miscellaneous roll, intended for didactic use.245
Bibliography
Adornato, G., 2008, Didascalie, disegni e zoologia sul Papiro di Artemidoro, APF 54, 224245. Albert, W. D., 1972, Die tabulae ansatae aus Pergamon, in Pergamon: Gesammelte Aufstze, Deutsches Archologisches Institut, Pergamenische Forschungen 1, Berlin, 134. Aoyagi, M. and Pappalardo, U. (eds.), 2006, Pompei. (Regiones VIVII.) Insula Occidentalis. Volume primo. Naples. Atenstdt, P.F., 1910, Quellenstudien zu Stephanos von Byzanz 1, Alexander Polyhistor, Philon von Byblos und Hesychios von Milet, Schwarzenberg. Baldassarre, I. and Pugliese Carratelli, G. (et al.), 1997, Pompei, Pitture e Mosaici. Volume VII. Rome. 1998, Pompei, Pitture e Mosaici. Volume VIII, Rome. Barron, J.P., 1969, Ibycus: To Polycrates, BICS 16, 119149. Bastianini, G., 2004, Il castoro del Nilo : (Horap. II 65 e Hierocl., BKT IV col. III 1019), Aegyptus 84, 12, 157161. 2009, Sullavvolgimento del rotolo di Artemidoro, APF 55, 215221.
244 As suggested by Elsner (2009) 3846. 245 See DAlessio, in this volume.
358
JA ELSNER et al.
Bastianini, G., and Gallazzi, C. (eds.), 2001, Posidippo di Pella. Epigrammi: P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309, Milan. Bianchetti, S., 2000, I Lotofagi nella tradizione antica: geograa e simmetria, in M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara (eds.), LAfrica romana. Atti del XIII convegno di studio, Djerba, 1013 dicembre 1998, vol. 1, Rome, 219229. Billerbeck, M., 2006, Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, Vol. I (), CFHB 43, 1, Berlin. 2008, Sources et technique de citation chez Etienne de Byzance, Eikasmos 19, 301322. 2009, Artemidorus Geographumena in the Ethnika of Stephanus of Byzantium. Source and Transmission, in Brodersen and Elsner, 6588. and Zubler, Chr., 2011, Stephani Byzantii Ethnica, Vol. II (), CFHB 43, 2. Berlin. Bolton, J. D. P., 1962, Aristeas of Proconnesus. Oxford. Bosman, P.R., 2010, The Gymnosophist Riddle Contest (Berol. P. 13044): A Cynic Text?, GRBS 50, 175192. Bossina. L., 2009, Riconosciuto che non Artemidoro, che cos? Tre osservazioni e unipotesi, in Canfora 2009c, 133147. Bravo, B., 2009, Artemidoro di Efeso geografo e retore. Per la costituzione e linterpretazione del testo del Papiro di Artemidoro, ZPE 170, 4363. Brodersen, K. and Elsner, J., 2009 (eds.), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P. Artemid. (St. Johns College Oxford, 2008), Historia Einzelschriften 214, Stuttgart. Blow-Jacobsen, A. (2009), Writing Materials in the Ancient World, in R. Bagnall (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, Oxford, 329. Canfora, L. , 2007, The True History of the So-called Artemidorus Papyrus, Bari. 2008 (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro, Bari. 2009a, Le prove fattuali della falsicazione, QS 35, 69, 241264. 2009b, Artemidorus fr. 21 and P.Artemid. col. IV, in Brodersen and Elsner, 2009, 8994. 2009c (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro, Atti della Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati 259 ser. VIII vol. IX, A, fasc. II. 2, Rovereto. 2009d, Note sui fraintendimenti nella relazione Hammerstaedt, in Canfora 2009c, 114121. 2009e Sar Simonidis, Certo non pu essere Artemidoro, in Canfora 2009c, 105113. 2010, Il viaggio di Artemidoro. Vita e avventure di un grande esploratore dellAntichit. Milan. 2011, La meravigliosa storia del falso Artemidoro, Palermo. and Bossina, L., 2008, Wie kann das ein Artemidor-Papyrus sein? Ma come fa a essere un papiro di Artemidoro?, Bari. Capelle, W., 1953, Zwei Quellen des Heliodor, RhM 96, 166180. Caroli, M., 2007, Il titolo iniziale nel rotolo librario greco-egizio. Bari. Chamoux, F., 1987, Diodore de Sicile et la Libye, QAL 12, 5765. Chiesa, I., 2009, Lelegia In Magam et Berenicen di Callimaco: In Berenices Nuptias?, Acme 62, 227233. Colvin, S., 2009, P. Artemid.: Text, Proem, Koin, in Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis, and Soldati, 2009, 6978. Condello, F., 2010, Artemidoro come vero, Eikasmos 21, 491524. 2011, Artemidoro 20062011: lultima vita, in breve, QS 74, 161256. D Alessio, G. B., 2001a, Per una ricostruzione del libro dei Peani di Pindaro, in M. Cannat Fera and G.B. DAlessio (eds.), 2001, I lirici greci : forme della comunicazione e storia del testo : atti dellIncontro di studi, Messina, 56 novembre 1999, Messina, 6986. 2001b, Danni materiali e ricostruzione di rotoli papiracei: Le Elleniche di Ossirinco (POxy 842) e altri esempi, ZPE, 134, 2341. 2009, On the Artemidorus Papyrus, ZPE 171, 2743. Delattre, D., 2007, Philodme de Gadara. Sur la musique. Livre VI, Paris. Diels, H., 1904 Laterculi Alexandrini aus einem Papyrus ptolemischer Zeit, Abhandlungen der knigl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 316.
359
Diller, A., 1952, The tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers, Lancaster, PA. Edgar, C. C., 1919, Selected Papyri from the Archives of Zenon (nos. 110), Annales du service des antiquits de lgypte 18, 159182. Elsner, J., 2009, P. Artemid.: The Images, in Brodersen and Elsner, 2009, 3550. Essler, H., 2008, Rekonstruktion von Papyrusrollen auf mathematischer Grundlage, CErc 38, 273307. Fraser, M.P., 2009, Greek Ethnic Terminology, Oxford. Fraser, P., Rnne, T., 1975, Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones, Lund. Gallazzi, C., and Kramer, B., 1998, Artemidor im Zeichensaal. Eine Papyrusrolle mit Text, Landkarte uns Skizzenbchern aus spthellenistischer Zeit, APF 44, 189208. 2009, Fnfzehn Monate Diskussion ber den Artemidor-Papyrus, in Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis and Soldati, 2009, 169242. 2010, Il P. Artemid. e i sacchi di papiro bianco di J. de M. Johnson, APF 56, 232238. , Kramer B., and Settis, S. (eds.), 2008, Il Papiro di Artemidoro (P. Artemid.), Milan. , Kramer, B., Settis, S., and Soldati, A. (eds.), 2009, Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro: il Contesto culturale, lingua, stiule e tradizione, Milan. Grtner, H.A., 1999, Markianos, NPauly 7, 916f. Grenfell B. P. and Hunt, A. S., 1922, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, XV, London. Hammerstaedt, J., 2009a, Artemidoro di Efeso nella tradizione indiretta e nel papiro di Torino, in Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis, and Soldati, 2009, 5568. 2009b, Warum Simonides den Artemidorpapyrus nicht htte flschen knnen: Eine seltene Schreibung fr Tausender in Inschriften und Papyri, Chiron 39, 323337. 2009c, Come fa a essere un papiro falsato?, in Canfora 2009c, 82103. Handley, E. W., 1984, Another Fragment of Menanders Sikyonios, BICS 31, 2531. Hanson, A. E., 2001, Papyrology: Minding other peoples business, TAPA, 131, 297313. Hebert, B., 1986, Attische Gelehrsamkeit in einem alexandrinischen Papyrus? Bemerkungen und Vorschlge zu den Knstlerkanones der Laterculi Alexandrini, Tyche 1, 127131. Honigmann, E., 1929, Stephanos (Byzantios), RE II A 2, 23692399. Hoogendijk, F. A. J., and van Minnen, P., 1991, Papyri, Ostraca, Parchments and Waxed Tablets in the Leiden Papyrological Institute (P.L.Bat. 25), Leiden. and Muhs, B. P. (eds.), 2008, Sixty-Five Papyrological Texts Presented to Klaas A. Worp on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (P.L.Bat. 33), Leiden. Houlihan, P. F., 1986, The Birds of Ancient Egypt, Warminster. Janko, R., 2000, Philodemus On Poems Book 1, Oxford. Johnson, W. A., 2004, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Toronto. Jones, A. (ed.), 1999, Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy. 41334300a), Philadelphia. Kenyon, F. G. (ed.), 1891, Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum, London. Kinzelbach, R., 2009, Tierbilder aus dem ersten Jahrhundert. Ein zoologischer Kommentar zum Artemidor-Papyrus, Berlin. Knudtzon, E. J., 1946, Aus der Papyrussammlung der Universittsbibliothek in Lund, IV. Bakchiastexte und andere Papyri, Lund. Kunst, K., 1923, Rhetorische Papyri im Auftrage der Berliner Papyruskommission, Berliner Klassiker Texte, Heft 7, Berlin. Latour, B. and Lowe, A., 2011, The migration of the aura, or how to explore the original through its facsimiles, in T. Bartscherer and R. Coover (eds.), Switching Codes: Thinking Through New Technology in the Humanities and the Arts, 275298. Chicago. Legras, B., 1994, Lhorizon gographique de la jeunesse grecque dgypte (IIIme sicle av. n.. Vme sicle de n..), in A. Blow-Jacobsen (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congess of Papyrologists, Copenhagen, 2329 August, 1992, Copenhagen, 165176. Lucarini, C.M., 2009, Il nuovo Artemidoro, Philologus 153, 109134.
360
JA ELSNER et al.
Marcotte, D., 2001, Structure et caractre de loeuvre dAgatharchide, Historia 50, 385426. 2010, Le papyrus dArtmidore: le livre, le texte, le dbat, RHT 5, 333371. Mayor, A., 2011, The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times, Princeton, New Jersey. Meyboom, P. G. P., 1995, The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina. Early Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy, Leiden. 2011, A tour along ancient scenes with Aithiopian animals. The Marisa frieze, the Nile mosaic of Palestrina, the Artemidorus Papyrus and the great hunt mosaic of Piazza Armerina, in G. F. La Torre and M. Torelli (eds.), Pittura ellenistica in Italia e in Sicilia. Linguaggi e tradizioni. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Messina, 2425 settembre 2009), Rome, 91103. Micunco, S., 2006, Figure di animali: il verso del papiro di Artemidoro, QS 64, 543. 2008a, Le gure di animali sul verso del papiro di Artemidoro, in Canfora, 2008, 180206. 2008b, Il verso del papiro e la damnatio di Artemidoro, QS 68, 241258. Mielsch, H., 1986, Hellenistische Tieranekdoten in der rmischen Kunst, AA, 747763. 1989, Realitt und Imagination im Grossen Jagdmosaik von Piazza Armerina, in H.-U. Cain, H. Gabelmann and D. Salzmann (eds.), Beitrge zur Ikonographie und Hermeneutik, Festschrift fr Nikolaus Himmelmann, Mainz, 459466. Mondrain, B., 2002, La lecture du De administrando imperio Byzance, in Mlanges Gilbert Dragon, Travaux et Mmoires 14, 485498. Moravcsik, G., and Jenkins, R. J. H. , 1949, Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando imperio, CFHB I, Washington D.C. Moret, P., 2010, La Lusitanie dArtmidore, Palaeohispanica 10, 113131. Mller, C., 1855, Geographi Graeci Minores, I, Paris. Nisbet, G., 2009, P. Artemid.: The Sequence of the Fragments, in Brodersen and Elsner, 2009, 1922. Obbink, D., 1996, Philodemus On Piety Part 1, Oxford. 2009, P. Artemid.: The Artefact, in Brodersen and Elsner, 2009, 1118. Osborn, D. J., and Osbornov, J., 1998, The Mammals of Ancient Egypt, Warminster. Pajn Leyra, I., 2009, in the Artemidorus Papyrus, ZPE 170, 64. 2010, La didascalia general del animalario del verso del Papiro de Artemidoro: una nueva interpretacin, Emrita 78, 1325. Pani, G. G., 1986, Segno e immagine di scrittura: la tabula ansata e il suo signicato simbolico, Decima Miscellanea Greca e Romana, Rome, 429441. 1989, Forma, linguaggio e contenuti delle dediche epigrache nei tituli ansati (ivix sec. d.C), in A. Donati (ed.), La terza et dellepigraa, Faenza, 169194. Parsons, P. J., 2009, P. Artemid.: A Papyrologists View, in Brodersen and Elsner, 2009, 3138. Pestman, P. W. (ed.), 1980, Greek and Demotic Texts from the Zenon Archive. (P.L.Bat. 20), Leiden. Phillips, E.D., 1955, The Legend of Aristeas: Fact and Fancy in Early Greek Notions of East Russia, Siberia, and Inner Asia, Artibus Asiae, 18, 161177. Piquette, K. E., 2008, Re-materialising script and image, in V. Gashe and J. Finch (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology: Proceedings of the ninth annual symposium, Manchester, 89107. Porciani, L., 2010, Il Papiro di Artemidoro: per una interpretazione della sequenza testuale, APF 56, 207231. Puglia, E., 1997, La cura del libro nel mondo antico: guasti e restauri del rotolo di papiro, Naples. Renberg, G. H. and Bubelis, W. S., 2011, The Epistolary Rhetoric of Zoilos of Aspendos and the Early Cult of Sarapis: Re-reading P. Cair.Zen. I 59034, ZPE 177, 169200. Salmenkivi, E., 2002, Cartonnage Papyri in Context. New Ptolemaic Documents from Ab r al-Malaq, Helsinki. Settis, S., 2008, Artemidoro. Un papiro dal I secolo al XXI, Turin. Settis-Frugoni, Ch., 1975, Il grifone e la tigre nella Grande Caccia di Piazza Armerina, CArch 24, 2132.
361
Stiehle, R., 1856, Der Geograph Artemidoros von Ephesos, Philologus 11, 193244. Stramaglia, A., 1996, Fra consumo e impegno: usi didattici della narrativa nel mondo antico, in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (eds.), La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino, Cassino, 98166. Tammisto, A., 1997, Birds in Mosaics. A Study on the Representation of Birds in Hellenistic and RomanoCampanian Tessellated Mosaics to the Early Augustan Age, Rome. Tarte, S. M., 2011a, Digitizing the act of papyrological interpretation: negotiating spurious exactitude and genuine uncertainty, Lit Linguist Computing 26, 34958. 2011b, The interplay of visual perception and cognition in digital papyrology: Visualization for interpretation, visualization as interpretation, in A. Carusi, A. S. Hoel, T. Webmoor, and S. Woolgar (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Visualization in the Age of Computerization Conference, Oxford: http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/insis/visualisation/Documents/Visualisation_Final%20detailed%20 programme.pdf, 2021. 2011c, Papyrological Investigations: Transferring Perception and Interpretation into the Digital World, Lit Linguist Computing 26, 23347. Terras, M., 2005, Reading the readers: Modelling complex humanities processes to build cognitive systems, Lit Linguist Computing 20, 4159. Tosi, R., 2009, Non Asiani sed Asini, in Canfora 2009c, 3554. Varriale, I., 2006, VII 16 Insula Occidentalis 17, Casa di Maius Castricius (II), in Aoyagi and Pappalardo, 2006, 419505. Vleeming, S. P., 1985, Notes on Some Early-demotic Cattle Documents, BO 42, 508525. West, M., 2009, All Iberia is Divided into two parts, in Brodersen and Elsner, 2009, 9510. Westermann, W. L., Keyes, C. W., and Liebesny, H. (eds.), 1940, Zenon Papyri. Business Papers of the Third Century B.C. Dealing with Palestine and Egypt, II, New York. Whitehouse, H., 1976, The Dal Pozzo Copies of the Palestrina Mosaic, BAR Suppl. Ser. 12, Oxford. Wilson, N., 2009, P. Artemid.: A Palaeographers Observations, in Brodersen and Elsner, 2009, 2529. Youtie, H. C., 1963, The papyrologist: articer of fact, GRBS, 4 1, 1933. 1966, Text and context in transcribing papyri, GRBS, 7, 2518.
Corpus Christi College Oxford OX1 4JF, UK jas.elsner@ccc.ox.ac.uk
Ja Elsner
362
JA ELSNER et al.
Fig. 1: The mirror image of the verso has been superposed onto the recto. This allows us to work out the distance between the original traces and the offset images with great precision.
Fig. 2: Column IV line 35: the sequence of letters is 4.48 cm long.
Fig. 3: The mirror image of the same sequence is 4.18 cm long.
Fig. 4: Establishing the exact recto-verso correspondence.

(B) the mirrored verso image and its set of points (pin placement).
(A) the recto image and its set of points (pin targets).
(C) the matched mirrored verso image and the displacements of its points. Image (C) shows how the piecewise linear matching algorithm has moved the verso image to match the recto shape-wise. This process was applied to each of the 5 pairs of [recto, m-verso] images; here only the smallest one is presented in the interest of visibility. The outcome is that in images (A) and (C) the fragments are superimposed exactly.
363
364
JA ELSNER et al.
Fig. 5: Coil lengths in cm for a spiral with thickness 0.45 mm. The rst value would correspond to the very left end of section (b+c), at approximately 40 cm (in fact at 36.05 cm) before the rst known coil length. The boldfaced entries are those that correspond to the values measured on section (b+c); the slanted entry designates the value corresponding to the coil length measured on section (a).
Fig. 6: The spiral cross-section of the roll. This Archimedes spiral shows in grey the 41 missing coils, and in black the 16 coils in Table 1, namely coils 42 to 57, provided that the roll is a perfect Archimedes spiral of thickness 0.45 mm. Note how, despite the full length of the papyrus being beyond 4.5 m, the diametrical extent of the roll itself does not exceed 6 cm.
365
Fig. 7: Rolling the papyrus. After having performed steps (1) to (4) in 1, the recto and mmverso images of the reconstituted roll were scaled at 66.7 % (to make them t on 10 portrait A4 sheets), and printed on transparencies of thickness 0.1 mm. These transparencies were then taped together, a sheet of white paper (thickness 0.1 mm) inserted between them, and then rolled. On this picture, Im holding these partially rolled print-outs. Notice how slightly away from the tip of the nose on the unrolled papyrus, traces of the mirrored panthers head can be seen (panthers eyelids, jawline, neck and ears), and transfer traces of the human heads eye and forehead can also be seen mirrored on the rolled portion of papyrus above and to the right of the panthers head. The areas where those images can be seen are circled: the transfer images with a sparsely dotted line, and the original images with a long dotted line.
366
JA ELSNER et al.
Fig. 8: The lay-out of the label to V3.
Fig. 9: the lay-out of the label to V9b.
Fig. 10: Detail from the far right of section a, verso. The circle shows the remains of a label missed by the editio princeps. Above is the general title (V30) and to the lower right the tiger (V31) with its inscription.
367
Fig. 11: Detail of the missing label, from D. Bertanis photograph (2005) as supplied to J. Hammerstaedt by the editors.
Fig. 12: Detail of the missing label, from the editio princeps (2008).

Historia 61-3-2012 New Studies On The Artemidorus Papyrus

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Historia 61-3-2012 New Studies On The Artemidorus Papyrus

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Historia

Historia Band 61 Heft 3 2012 Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart

NEW STUDIES ON THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

RECONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

39 Cf. Bastianini (2009) 219 n. 17.

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

ARTEMIDORUS FR. 21 STIEHLE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ARTEMIDORUS PAPYRUS

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle according to Canfora 2008, 234: [] . , , . , .

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

102 103 104 105

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

Steph. Byz. s. v. (356, 13f Meineke): , .

Marcianus, Periplus maris exteri 1,16 (GGM 1, 525, 38f) .

Steph. Byz. s. v. (697, 10f Meineke) .

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

141 Photoshop Adobe: http://www.adobe.com/ last checked: November 28, 2011.

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

So that the length of the (n + 1)- coil (n 0) is: L n +1 = s ( 2 ( n + 1) ) s ( 2n ) Equation (4)

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

166 167 168 169

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

199 200 201

206 207 208

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

Corpus Christi College Oxford OX1 4JF, UK jas.elsner@ccc.ox.ac.uk

Fig. 2: Column IV line 35: the sequence of letters is 4.48 cm long.

Fig. 3: The mirror image of the same sequence is 4.18 cm long.

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

Fig. 4: Establishing the exact recto-verso correspondence.

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

Fig. 8: The lay-out of the label to V3.

Fig. 9: the lay-out of the label to V9b.

New Studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen