Three Homeric <emph rend="italics">Descripta</emph> from Karanis

Responsibility for this article’s contents was distributed as follows: Sawatzky and Shields prepared the editions of P.Fay. 141 descr. and P.Vindob. G 19768, respectively, as part of their MA training at the University of Manitoba. Sampson supervised them and edited P.Vindob. G 19791 + 19794. We are grateful to Michelle Fontenot (University of Michigan Kelsey Museum of Archaeology), Lucy Smith and Richard Allen (Magdalen College Archives), Bernhard Palme and Claudia Kreuzsaler (ÖNB Papyrussammlung), and Francesca Maltomini (Instituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli’). Quotations from the Papers of David George Hogarth (1860s–2017), which are now in the Magdalen College Archives (P452), are published by kind permission of the President and Fellows, Magdalen College. Financial support for the research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada as part of the research project ‘the Books of Karanis’.

1. P.Fay. 141 descr. (Il. 1.273–362)

P.Fay. 141 descr. (TM 60315; LDAB 1436; MP3 596) was unearthed by Said Achmet at Kom Aushim on 3 January 1896, towards the end of the first phase of Bernard P. Grenfell and David G. Hogarth’s pioneering excavations for the Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF).

On the 1895/6 EEF excavations at Kom Aushim, which ran in two phases (24 December 1895–4 January 1896 and 23–29 February 1896), see Davoli 1998: 74–76, Montserrat 1996, Sampson 2022, and Sampson 2023: 442–445. Arthur S. Hunt arrived only on 16 January 1896: see Hogarth and Grenfell 1895–6: 18. The EEF was renamed in 1919 as the Egypt Exploration Society (EES). Although Hogarth and Grenfell employed workers from el-Lahun who had been trained by Petrie, it does not appear that Said Achmet was one of them: the name is absent from the lists assembled by Quirke 2010: 227–234.

Hogarth’s daybook records the discovery as follows: “In chamber next (E.) of plastered room Said Achmet found fragments of Homer. Abdullah just S. of pylon, nothing. Mahmud to W. of him a red vase… All these at floor level.”

Daybook for 3 January 1896 (P452/ARC/3/3). Cf. the slight chronological discrepancy recorded in David G. Hogarth to Laura V. Hogarth, 4 January 1896: “But all know it’s papyrus we want. Today a bit of Homer rewarded us. Yesterday it was a bit of some attic orator.” P452/PER/2/2/2. Cf. Hogarth and Grenfell 1895–6: 16 and P.Cair.Cat. 10217 descr., which specifies the date and acquisition as “1896 (Hogarth-Grenfell).”

The plastered room which provides the reference point is described in previous daybook entries as a chamber to the southeast of the temple, full of wood, twigs, and remains of mats,

Daybook for 1 January 1896 (P452/ARC/3/3).

where “two oatmeal boxes full” of papyrus scraps had previously been discovered.

Daybook for 27 December 1895 (P452/ARC/3/3). Cf. Daybook for 29 December 1895 (P452/ARC/3/3): “Put two onto papyrus chamber, but nothing more found, & evidently only in top rubbish.”

In his daybook, Hogarth elsewhere remarks upon that room’s rough frescoes and “large remains of roof.”

Daybook for 2 January 1896 (P452/ARC/3/3). Cf. the entry for 28 February 1896, which refers back to these frescoes in describing a house on the north side of the kôm: “One chamber had rude fresco of Christ with two bulls supporting, & two female? saints below. very bad art & colour, & rather like the frescoes near entrance of Temple. Must try tracing them tomorrow. Little or no ‘avsh’ in these chambers & no pap. so useless to continue.”

Homer was not the last of the papyri found in this part of the temple precinct; in the final days of the season, there emerged “a few more inscribed sherds & bits of pap.”

Daybook for 27 February 1896 (P452/ARC/3/3).

as well as “a tax-receipt & a good deal of Byzantine pap. fragments.”

Daybook for 28 February 1896 (P452/ARC/3/3); see also P.Fay.: p. 31. The tax receipt is more likely to be P.Fay. 143 than P.Fay. 69 or P.Fay. 70; the edition of P.Fay. 69 indicates that it was found together with P.Fay. 70.

A collation of Hogarth’s notes, the plan of the temple precinct he published (Figure 1), and the plan of the precinct subsequently produced by the University of Michigan excavations (Figure 2) indicates that the structure which yielded the Iliad papyrus was the deipneterion, whose lintel bore an inscription from the reign of Vespasian identifying it as such.

The inscription is I.Fayoum 87. Early entries in Hogarth’s daybook refer to the Vespasianic Gate (as does P.Fay.: Plate II): the inscription’s date was evidently legible, even though text otherwise proved a challenge. The daybook entry for 29 December 1895, for example, includes the remark “Squeezed Vespasian erasure” (P452/ARC/3/3).

That doorway is labelled ‘Gate of Vespasian’ in Figure 1: in the nomenclature of the Michigan dig, the deipneterion is T4.

See Boak 1933: 41.

Figure 1: Hogarth’s Plan of the Temple Precinct (P.Fay. Plate II).

Figure 2: Precinct of Temple of Pnepheros and Petesouchos, Level E (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan).

Figure 3: The east facade of the temple with gateway T3, forecourt T2 and the entrance to T4 (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan, neg. no. 5.3311).

Figure 4: Dec. 31 1929. Stone gateway to T4. View looking south. (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan, neg. no. 5.3399).

That Hogarth’s daybook does not immediately describe the structure as a deipneterion is no obstacle to this conclusion; the dedicatory inscription is badly damaged, especially in the third and fourth lines where the structure’s function is mentioned.

See P.Fay.: p. 33.

Only later in the 1895/6 season, evidently, was it fully analyzed.

Hogarth’s daybook does not specifically mention a “dipniterion” until 27 February – the dig’s antepenultimate day of work (P452/ARC/3/3).

To the deipneterion’s immediate west lay a chamber that was indeed notable for the plaster on its wall. When the University of Michigan excavations returned to the South Temple precinct in 1929, they designated this chamber T7, and recorded that one of its niches preserved no less than eighteen layers of plaster.

Boak 1933: 38–39. On the archaeology of T7 see most recently Shields 2023: 34–43.

Given the decades-long interval following the conclusion of Grenfell and Hogarth’s 1895/6 season, during which time the structure was not backfilled but remained exposed to the elements, the plaster’s preservation is remarkable.

Grenfell and Hunt described the papyrus’ hand as a “good-sized round uncial”, and we may more accurately categorize it as a formal round of the rounded majuscule (or ‘Roman uncial’) type. Decent parallels are P.Oxy. 8 1090 (late I) and especially P.Oxy. 5 844 (mid I–mid II; see Figure 6).

On the assignment of this papyrus to a date earlier than that published in P.Oxy. 5 (“earlier decades of the second”), see Cavallo 1967: 214.

To a lesser extent, classic second-century examples of rounded majuscule such as P.Oxy. 1 20 or the famous Hawara Homer (TM 60571) are also appropriate. The Karanis papyrus shares with the latter three parallels an elegant variation in the thickness of penstrokes. As in the parallel rolls, serifs adorn the bases of upright strokes on the Karanis papyrus, but the spacing of both its lines and especially the letters within them is somewhat compact. The letters’ ratio of width-to-height (i.e., their ‘modulus’) is also less uniformly square: alpha, lambda, and delta are somewhat upright and narrow. Of particular note is the ductus of epsilon, whose upper arm curves around clockwise to the point of touching the rightmost edge of the elevated middle arm, forming an eyelet and thereby hazarding confusion with theta. The script is on the whole less refined than classic examples of rounded majuscule and therefore probably earlier: Grenfell and Hunt assigned it to the first or second century, which we would revise slightly to the late first or second century.

Figure 5: P.Fay. 141 descr.

Figure 6: P.Oxy. 5 844 (MS Gr SM6162a. Houghton Library, Harvard University).

The papyrus survives in ca. 20 fragments preserving two partial columns from a roll of Iliad 1.

The papyrus has evidently deteriorated in the interval between its description by Grenfell and Hunt (which states that there are fourteen fragments) and the photography conducted by the International Photographic Archive of Papyri (IPAP), upon which our edition is based. On the genesis and conduct of IPAP’s work, which includes blanket permissions for the publication of descripta it photographed, see Riad and Koenen 1973.

Each of the extant columns almost certainly preserved forty-five lines of text: only a trio of lines from the vulgate are wholly lacunose, none of which are omitted in the mss. tradition. On the assumption that previous columns contained a similar number of lines, and allowing for the occasional omission or addition of lines, these were evidently the seventh and eighth columns of the roll: they begin with Iliad 1.273 and 1.318, respectively. Apart from a single orthographic variant in the first extant line – μυ for μεo – the text is unremarkable. There are no scribal diacriticals, punctuation, or paratextual additions except for a possible scribal apostrophe in vii.5. With a single exception at the end of vii.22, iota adscript is written. Supplements to the text are drawn from the Teubner edition.

West 1998.

After it was described by Grenfell and Hunt, the papyrus was returned to Cairo by the EEF, along with a great many others from both its Fayum season as well as the first three volumes of Oxyrhynchus papyri.

P.Cair.Cat. p. viii.

It was inventoried as P.Cair.Cat. (= CG) 10217, but was subsequently transferred to the Antiquities Museum of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, where it now has the serial number 0520.

P.Fay. 141 descr. (= CG 10217) 14.4 (h) × 13.3 (w) Late I – II Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities Karanis Museum Serial 0520 ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk

2. P.Vindob. G 19768 (Il. 8.436–461)

On the handwritten inventory card Carl Wessely made for the catalogue in Vienna, P.Vindob. G 19768 (= TM 60326; LDAB 1447; MP3 832) is described as follows: “Papyrus. Stammt aus den Funden Grenfells in Karanis, wurde 1896 von Wessely um je 1 £ Sterling (und einen Band Corpus Papyrorum Raineri I) für jedes Fragment gekauft, hierauf der erzherzoglichen Sammlung geschenkt. Unciale Schrift”.

Cf. Gerstinger 1926: 90, #11, which is evidently based on Wessely’s inventory.

It is not immediately clear which Funde yielded the fragment. Given the date, one thinks immediately of the recently concluded 1895/6 EEF excavations at Kom Aushim (discussed above), but it would have been uncharacteristic of Grenfell to distribute papyri that were not from his personal collection. Unless Wessely’s inventory records an inference on his part as opposed to the provenance supplied by Grenfell,

If Wessely’s report is indeed an inference on his part, we must also admit that the assigned provenance to Karanis is subject to doubt.

I assume rather that Grenfell acquired this papyrus on another occasion – either on his 1894 survey of the Fayum or during the April 1896 visit he paid to the site with Arthur S. Hunt, prior to their departure from Egypt at season’s end.

On Grenfell’s previous survey, see Hogarth’s daybook for 28 February and 23 March 1894 (P452/ARC/3/1); it is also mentioned by Hogarth and Grenfell 1895–6: 14. I owe the detail regarding Grenfell and Hunt’s April 1896 visit to Nick Gonis.

The only evidence that the papyrus might have derived from the EEF excavations at Karanis is Hogarth’s passing reference in an article for The Times to the “many scraps of Homer” they found there, which is incongruent with the fact that P.Fay. 141 descr. is the only Homeric papyrus from Karanis published in Fayum Towns and their Papyri.

D.G. Hogarth (1896) “Dead Cities of the Fayûm” The Times (7 April), transcribed in Montserrat 1996: 171–175. For the quote see Montserrat 1996: 173.

As part of the same 1896 Grenfell lot, Wessely purchased for the Vienna collection additional fragments of Homer at the same price.

See further, below, and especially fn. 32, where a date in the month of July is recorded.

Palaeography indicates that this papyrus originates in the same roll of Iliad 8 as P.Grenf. 1 2 + P.Flor. 2 109, whose hand we date, with Gallazzi, to the first century CE.

Gallazzi 1988: 61–62.

Grenfell noted the archaic form of his fragment’s zeta but assigned a date in the first or second century, while Comparetti posited a range between that of the Herculaneum papyri and the first half of the second century.

See P.Grenf. 1 2, p. 6; P.Flor. 2 109, p. 7: “La scrittura è una unciale piuttosto grande, ben formata e di mano assai buona ma libera e fluente fino a legare colla seguente, pel tratto mediano, le Α, Ε, Θ. Non vedrei ragione per assegnare una data di molto posterior ai papiri ercolanesi; si può pensare all prima metà del 2° sec.” For another related, but less regular hand, cf. also P.Tebt.Tin 01 (I BCE – I CE).

An excellent parallel which also features the archaic zeta and which justifies a somewhat earlier assigned date is PSI 15 1478 (mid I BCE–mid I CE; see Figure 8).

While the hand of the Vienna papyrus closely resembles that of PSI 15 1478, we do not feel the same way regarding the parallels Pernigotti cites to justify the I BCE – I CE date he assigns to that papyrus (i.e., P.Oxy. 21 2303, P.Oxy. 24 2387), and we are therefore reluctant similarly to extend our assignment into the first century BCE.

Like P.Fay. 141 descr., the Vienna papyrus’ script can be classified as an early example of what would become the rounded majuscule or ‘Roman uncial’ type.

Although the letter forms are not especially regular, I would not label the hand as “informale rotunda”, as Gallazzi 1988: 62.

Several palaeographical peculiarities (including the broad horizontals of epsilon, theta, and alpha, the arms of kappa that do not touch the letter’s hasta, and the diagonal of nu that begins above and beyond its left hasta) are all shared by the various fragments. Hypsilon is written in two straight diagonal strokes, like the lower-case letter ‘y’ in English. Gallazzi argued that the bookroll included both Iliad 7 and 8,

Cf. Gallazzi 1988: 60–61.

to which point we would add only that the testimony of the Vienna papyrus, whose column ends with Iliad 8.461, indicates that most of the ten columns separating it from the Oxford and Florence fragments contained thirty-three instead of thirty-four lines (barring further omissions). The testimony of Vienna’s inventory card is sufficient grounds for locating all of the fragments in Karanis.

Figure 7: P.Vindob. G 19768 (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Papyrussammlung).

Figure 8: PSI 15 1478 (Florence, Istituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli’).

The various fragments constituting this roll are all ‘early’ acquisitions. The Oxford portion (P.Grenf. 1 2) is among the earliest of Grenfell’s purchases after arriving in Egypt – Hogarth probably saw it in the spring of 1894

“Drove back with N. at 4.30 & after tea with him at Shepheard’s went with Grenfell to see latter’s papyri: (bits of Homer, & a Greek codex of Gospels ? bought of Faragh.” Daybook entry for 27 Mar. 1894 (P452/ARC/3/1). See further Sampson 2022: §13, n. 40. A viewing by Hogarth in the spring of 1894 is compatible with the Preface of P.Grenf. I, dated 13 December 1895: “The papyri published in this volume were obtained by myself in the last two winters…” On Grenfell’s arrival in Egypt in January 1894 and his apprenticeship under Petrie, see Mazza 2022: 232–234.

– while the Florentine papyrus (P.Flor. 2 109) was bought in 1903.

So Gallazzi 1988: 60: “Nel 1908, entro il I fascicolo di P.Flor. II apparvero al nr. 109 due esigui frammenti di rotolo con Ilias Θ 62–5 e 106–14, i quali erano stati comprati cinque anni prima, al Cairo oppure a Gizeh, nell’ambito di una serie di acquisti compiuti da Vitelli, Schiapparelli e Breccia.”

As was previously noted, Wessely purchased the Vienna fragment edited here directly from Grenfell in 1896. It is admittedly curious that different fragments from this palaeographically distinct roll passed through Grenfell’s hands on separate occasions, but that conclusion appears inescapable. The alternative hypothesis, that they were acquired together during Grenfell’s 1894 survey of Kom Aushim, requires that Grenfell either failed to connect (and publish) them immediately or somehow misplaced a fragment, only to rediscover it years later. Neither alternative seems particularly likely. It is preferable, then, to suppose that they were distinct acquisitions. Grenfell failed to recall a familiar hand for the simple reason that he was reading vast numbers of papyri in these years; yet another fragment of Homer was less likely to catch anything more than his passing attention, a supposition consistent with his willingness to part with it without first publishing the text, which was otherwise his typical practice.

The Vienna fragment is notable for a few textual peculiarities. In line 10, the scribe assimilated the final vowel of οὐδέ τι to οὐδέ τε, and (more unusually), appears to have written [οὕ]θω in line 12, whose false aspiration violates Grassman’s law. Although Gignac notes the frequent interchange of theta and tau in the papyri, a sigma typically precedes;

Gignac, Gram.: I.63–64, 84.

his examples of false aspiration in composition, meanwhile, all involve prepositional prefixes.

Gignac Gram.: I.136–137.

The only parallel known to us is P.Lond. 3 991.22, where οὕθως is perhaps explained as a slip in anticipation of ὀρθῶς, which follows in the formula. Here, [οὕ]θω may similarly be attributed to the influence of τίφθ’, which immediately precedes. Iota adscript is written in line 8, as elsewhere in the roll’s other fragments. Like P.Sorb. 1 3 and P.Mich. inv. 5694d (TM 66091), the papyrus omits Iliad 8.458. No scribal accents or punctuation can be discerned, which is consistent with the testimony of the roll’s other fragments, which preserve a mere trio of diaireseis. Supplements to the text are drawn from the Teubner edition.

West 1998.

P.Vindob. G 19768 16.8 (h) × 2.5 (w) I CE data.onb.ac.at Karanis

3. P.Vindob. G 19791 + 19794 (Il. 10.41–57, 10.76–100, 10.103–112)

In addition to the previous item (G 19768), Wessely also acquired further fragments of Homer from Grenfell in July 1896.

So MPER N.S. 1 3 (= II.–III.b): “Der Papyrus stammt aus den Ausgrabungen in Karanis und wurde 1896 von B. P. Grenfell um den Preis von 1 £ an unsere Sammlung verkauft”; see also MPER N.S. 3 1: “Der Papyrus wurde im Juli 1896 durch C. Wessely von B. P. Grenfell, der ihn in Karanis ausgegraben hatte, für die Sammlung angekauft.” These remarks correspond to Wessely's handwritten inventory cards: “Papyrus, gekauft und der Sammlung geschenkt von Wessely (1896 von Grenfell aus dessen Ausgrabungen in Karanis). Preis 1 £ Sterling” (G. 19791) and “Papyrus, gekauft um 1 £ Sterling von Wessely aus den Ausgrabungen von Grenfell in Karanis 1896” (G. 19794).

They derive from a single roll (TM 60366; LDAB 1487; MP3 853), but were inventoried separately as P.Vindob. G 19791 and G 19794. The latter item consists of eight individual fragments. Their text is written against the fibers in a bilinear script which aspires to the Alexandrian majuscule.

On this script, see especially Cavallo 1975.

Particularly distinctive is the alpha in two strokes, with an elaborately capped diagonal that tends to bow gently as the penstroke descends toward the baseline. The letter’s oblong belly is drawn separately at the midpoint of that diagonal. Some letters – especially alpha, delta, lambda, mu, nu, pi, tau, and chi – are notably wider than they are tall. Reasonable palaeographical parallels are P.Lond.Lit. 8 (II–III), P.Oxy. 50 3527 (early III), P.Ryl. 3 527v (III). Oellacher’s assessment – “Die Schrift des Homertextes ist unausgeglichen und ungemein zaghaft, also ein Schülerelaborat”

MPER N.S. 3 1.

– is unduly harsh: the verses are simply stacked quite closely atop one another and, in places, wavy, as though the notional lines containing them were not strictly ruled.

The fragments’ obverse preserves documents whose primary hand is a cursive characteristic of the second or third centuries, written with the fibers. A kollesis is visible to the left of the text on G 19791. Blank space on either side of that kollesis is suggestive of margins, and that these were originally separate sheets, pasted together into a composite roll which was subsequently reused to receive the text of Iliad 10 on its verso. The appearance of a subscription in a second, unpracticed hand at the bottom of the principal column of G 19794 is consistent with this inference, but we note that no such kollesis is discernible to the left of that column. The obverse texts are in any event helpful for establishing a date: although only traces of the first line of G 19794 survive, its legible portion begins τῷ καὶ Ἁρποκρ̣[ατί]ω̣νι σ̣τ̣ρ̣(ατηγῷ) Ἀρσι(νοίτου) | Θ̣ε̣μίστ(ου) καὶ Πολέμω(νος) μερίδων [Μᾶρ]|κος Αὐρήλιος Θέων ἀπάτωρ [μη]|τρὸς Θεανοῦτος ἀπὸ κώμης Πτολ̣[ε]|μ̣αίδος Μελ̣ισσουργ̣ῶν τῆς Πολέμω|νος μερίδος. ὀ[μνύω] τ̣ὴ̣ν Μάρ̣κ̣ου̣ Αὐρηλίου | Σεου̣ήρου Ἀν[τωνί]ν̣ου Παρ̣θ̣ικο[ῦ] | μεγ[ί]σ̣του Βρε̣[ταννι]κ̣οῦ μεγίστου.

The recto texts will be fully edited elsewhere.

The strategos to whom this oath was addressed is Calpurnius Isidorus alias Harpocration, who held office in the Arsinoite between 214–216.

See, e.g., P.Köln 10 416; P.Oxy 45 3243; P.Oxy. 45 3263. In P.Oxy. 38 2876 (212–214) and P.Oxy.Hels. 23 (213), he is strategos in the Memphite nome. See further the commentary to P.Oxy. 38 2876.14–16; Bastianini and Whitehorne 1987: 47.

The ‘twenty-fourth year’ [κδ (ἔτος)] mentioned in G 19791.7 allows for further precision, and is moreover reassuringly compatible with the testimony of G 19794: the twenty-fourth year of Caracalla’s reign was 215/216. The Homer text written against the fibers may therefore be dated to the third century, post 216.

G 19794 survives in eight individual fragments that were reassembled into a single column of text: both the upper and the lower margin are visible. Portions of 35 lines survive, and only two lines from the mss. tradition (Il. 10.101–102) are entirely lost:

P.Ant. 3 161, PSI 12 1274 and an Oxyrhynchite ineditum (TM 68310) all preserve Il. 10.101–102, as does the mss. tradition unanimously.

fully reconstructed, in other words, the column plausibly contained 37 lines. Assuming that the roll in question contained only Iliad 10, G 19791 preserves its second column, and the fragments of G 19794 its third. At the time the papyrus was glazed and imaged, the placement of two small fragments of G 19794 had not been definitively established, but our closer analysis – confirmed by the ÖNB – has established their position.

New photography, when completed, will be available via the ÖNB catalogue

The first, upside down in the picture, contains a few letters of Iliad 10.88–91. Its right edge does not in fact preserve a margin (as it might appear); instead, the ink there has been abraded. The other small fragment contains letters from the beginnings of Iliad 10.87–91. The text includes occasional orthographical variants, corrections, scribal punctuation, and apostrophes (noted below), but is otherwise unremarkable. Supplements are drawn from the Teubner edition.

West 1998.

Figure 9: P.Vindob. G 19791 + 19794 verso (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Papyrussammlung).

P.Vindob. G 19791 + 19794 verso 8.2 (h) × 8.2 (w) post 216 data.onb.ac.at Karanis

Bastianini, G. and Whitehorne, J. (1987) Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt. Chronological List and Index. Second edition. Firenze. Boak, A.E.R. (1933) Karanis: the Temples, Coin Hoards, Botanical and Zoölogical Reports. Seasons 1924–31. Ann Arbor. Cavallo, G. (1967) “Osservazioni paleografiche sul canone e la cronologia della cosidetta ‘onciale romana’,” ASNP 36: 209–220. Cavallo, G. (1975) “Grammata Alexandrina,” JÖBG 24: 23–54. Davoli, P. (1998) L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di età ellenistica e romana. Napoli. Gallazzi, C. (1988) “Membra disiecta: PSI VII 748 + PSI VII 749; P.Flor. II 109 + P.Grenf. I 2; P.Mil.Vogl. III 117 + P.Mil.Vogl. III 118,” ZPE 71: 55–70. Gerstinger, H. (1926) “Zur Geschichte der Griechischen Abteilung der Papyrussamlung der Nationalbibliothek in Wien, mit einem Anhang: Katalog der Homerpapyri der Sammlung ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’,” Archiv für Bibliographie 1: 82–93. Hogarth, D.G., and Grenfell, B.P. (1895–6) “Cities of the Faiyûm: Karanis and Bacchias,” Egypt Exploration Fund: Archaeological Report 1895–1896: 14–19. Hogarth, D.G. (1896) “Dead Cities of the Fayûm,” The Times (7 April). Mazza, R. (2022) “Narratives of Discovery: Petrie, Grenfell and Hunt, and the First Finding of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri,” BASP 59: 221–258. Montserrat, D. (1996) “‘No Papyrus and No Portraits’: Hogarth, Grenfell, and the First Season in the Fayum, 1895–6,” BASP 33: 133–176. Quirke, S. (2010). Hidden Hands: Egyptian Workforces in Petrie Excavation Archives, 1880–1924. London. Riad H. and Koenen, L. (1973) “Das photographische Archiv griechischer Papyri; Mitteilungen über neue Lesungen an Kairener Papyri.” ZPE 11: 201–234. Sampson, C.M. (2022) “The David G. Hogarth Papyri.” Pylon 2. Sampson, C.M. (2023). “Area G and the Digging of Kom Aushim.” Trends in Classics 15: 441–467. Shields, C. (2023) Karanis: Understanding Religious Activity and Identity in Legacy Archaeology. MA Thesis. Winnipeg. http://hdl.handle.net/1993/37535 West, M.L. (1998). Homeri Ilias. Volumen prius rhapsodias I–XII continens. Stuttgart/Leipzig.

P. Fay. 141 Digital Corpus of Literary Papyri 60315 60315 1436 60315 p.fay;;141 00596.000

Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 10217 papyrus

papyrus roll (columns: 2, pagination: 0)

Found: Karanis (Arsinoites, Egypt); written: Egypt Ende I - II

Arsinoites Egypt Karanis Kom Aushim

Egypt

This file encoded to comply with EpiDoc Guidelines and Schema version 8 http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/5/

poetry epic literature classical English Greek Crosswalked to EpiDoc XML

καὶ μέν μεομυ βουλέων ξύνιεν πείθοντό τε μύθωι· ἀλλὰ πίθεσθε καὶ ὔμμες, ἐπεὶ πείθεσθαι ἄμεινον· μήτε σὺ τόνδ’ ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν ἀποαίρεο κούρην, ἀλλ’ ἔα, ὥς οἱ πρῶτα δόσαν γέρας υἷες Ἀχαιῶν· μήτε σὺ Πηλείδ’δ’̣ papyrus ἤθελ’Πηλείδη θέλ’ ἐριζέμεναι βασιλῆϊ ἀντιβίην, ἐπεὶ οὔ ποθ’ ὁμοίης ἔμμορε τιμῆς σκηπτοῦχος βασιλεύς, ὧι τε Ζεὺς κῦδος ἔδωκεν. εἰ δὲ σὺ καρτερός ἐσσι, θεὰ δέ σε γείνατο μήτηρ, ἀλλ’ ὅδε φέρτερός ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ πλεόνεσσιν ἀνάσσει. Ἀτρείδη, σὺ δὲ παῦε τεὸν μένος· αὐτὰρ ἐγώ γε λίσσομ’ Ἀχιλλῆϊ μεθέμεν χόλον, ὃς μέγα πᾶσιν ἕρκος Ἀχαιοῖσιν πέλεται πολέμοιο κακοῖο. τὸν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων· ναὶ δὴ ταῦτά γε πάντα, γέρον, κατὰ μοῖραν ἔειπες· ἀλλ’ ὅδ’ ἀνὴρ ἐθέλει περὶ πάντων ἔμμεναι ἄλλων, πάντων μὲν κρατέειν ἐθέλει, πάντεσσι δ’ ἀνάσσειν, πᾶσι δὲ σημαίνειν, ἅ τιν’ οὐ πείσεσθαι ὀΐω. εἰ δέ μιν αἰχμητὴν ἔθεσαν θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες τούνεκά οἱ προθέουσιν ὀνείδεα μυθήσασθαι; τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ὑποβλήδην ἠμείβετο δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς· ἦ γάρ κεν δειλός τε καὶ οὐτιδανὸς καλεοίμην, εἰ δὴ σοὶ πᾶν ἔργον ὑπείξομαι ὅττί κεν εἴπῃς. ἄλλοισιν δὴ ταῦτ’ ἐπιτέλλεο, μὴ γὰρ ἐμοί γε σήμαιν’· οὐ γὰρ ἐγώ γ’ ἔτι σοὶ πείσεσθαι ὀΐω. ἄλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ’ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῆισι· χερσὶ μὲν οὔ τοι ἔγωγε μαχέσσομαι εἵνεκα κούρης, οὔτε σοὶ οὔτέ τωι ἄλλωι, ἐπεί μ’ ἀφέλεσθέ γε δόντες· τῶν δ’ ἄλλων ἅ μοί ἐστι θοῆι παρὰ νηῒ μελαίνηι, τῶν οὐκ ἄν τι φέροις ἀνελὼν ἀέκοντος ἐμεῖο. εἰ δ’ ἄγε μὴν πείρησαι ἵνα γνώωσι καὶ οἵδε· αἶψά τοι αἷμα κελαινὸν ἐρωήσει περὶ δουρί. ὣς τώ γ’ ἀντιβίοισι μαχεσσαμένω ἐπέεσσιν ἀνστήτην, λῦσαν δ’ ἀγορὴν παρὰ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν. Πηλεΐδης μὲν ἐπὶ κλισίας καὶ νῆας ἐΐσας ἤϊε σύν τε Μενοιτιάδηι καὶ οἷς ἑτάροισιν· Ἀτρείδης δ’ ἄρα νῆα θοὴν ἅλαδε προέρυσσεν, ἐν δ’ ἐρέτας ἔκρινεν ἐείκοσιν, ἐς δ’ ἑκατόμβην εἷσεν ἄγων· ἐν δ’ ἀρχὸς ἔβη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς. οἳ μὲν ἔπειτ’ ἀναβάντες ἐπέπλεον ὑγρὰ κέλευθα, λαοὺς δ’ Ἀτρείδης ἀπολυμαίνεσθαι ἄνωγεν. οἳ δ’ ἀπελυμαίνοντο καὶ εἰς ἅλα λύματ’ ἔβαλλον, ἔρδον δ’ Ἀπόλλωνι τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας ταύρων ἠδ’ αἰγῶν παρὰ θῖν’ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο· κνίση δ’ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν ἑλισσομένη περὶ καπνῶι.

ὣς οἳ μὲν τὰ πένοντο κατὰ στρατόν· οὐδ’ Ἀγαμέμνων λῆγ’ ἔριδος, τὴν πρῶτον ἐπηπείλησ’ Ἀχιλῆϊ, ἀλλ’ ὅ γε Ταλθύβιόν τε καὶ Εὐρυβάτην προσέειπεν, τώ οἱ ἔσαν κήρυκε καὶ ὀτρηρὼ θεράποντε· χειρὸς ἑλόντ’ ἀγέμεν Βρισηΐδα καλλιπάρηον. εἰ δέ κε μὴ δώησιν, ἐγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι ἐλθὼν σὺν πλεόνεσσι, τό οἱ καὶ ῥίγιον ἔσται. ὣς εἰπὼν προΐει, κρατερὸν δ’ ἐπὶ μῦθον ἔτελλεν. τὼ δ’ ἀέκοντε βάτην παρὰ θῖν’ ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο, Μυρμιδόνων δ’ ἐπί τε κλισίας καὶ νῆας ἱκέσθην. τὸν δ’ εὗρον παρά τε κλισίηι καὶ νηῒ μελαίνηι ἥμενον· οὐδ’ ἄρα τώ γε ἰδὼν γήθησεν Ἀχιλλεύς. τὼ μὲν ταρβήσαντε καὶ αἰδομένω βασιλῆα στήτην, οὐδέ τί μιν προσεφώνεον οὐδ’ ἐρέοντο· αὐτὰρ ὃ ἔγνω ἧισιν ἐνὶ φρεσὶ φώνησέν τε· χαίρετε κήρυκες, Διὸς ἄγγελοι ἠδὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν, ἆσσον ἴτ’· οὔ τί μοι ὔμμες ἐπαίτιοι, ἀλλ’ Ἀγαμέμνων, ὃ σφῶϊ προΐει Βρισηΐδος εἵνεκα κούρης. ἀλλ’ ἄγε, διογενὲς Πατρόκλεις, ἔξαγε κούρην πρός τε θεῶν μακάρων πρός τε θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πρὸς τοῦ βασιλῆος ἀπηνέος, εἴ ποτε δὴ αὖτε χρειὼ ἐμεῖο γένηται ἀεικέα λοιγὸν ἀμῦναι τοῖς ἄλλοις. ἦ γὰρ ὅ γ’ ὀλοιῆισι φρεσὶ θυίει, οὐδέ τι οἶδε νοῆσαι ἅμα πρόσσω καὶ ὀπίσσω, ὅππως οἱ παρὰ νηυσὶ σόοι μαχεοίατ’ Ἀχαιοί. ὣς φάτο, Πάτροκλος δὲ φίλωι ἐπεπείθεθ’ ἑταίρωι, ἐκ δ’ ἄγαγε κλισίης Βρισηΐδα καλλιπάρηον, δῶκε δ’ ἄγειν. τὼ δ’ αὖτις ἴτην παρὰ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν, ἣ δ’ ἀέκουσ’ ἅμα τοῖσι γυνὴ κίεν. αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς δακρύσας ἑτάρων ἄφαρ ἕζετο νόσφι λιασθείς θῖν’ ἔφ’ ἁλὸς πολιῆς, ὁρόων ἐπὶ οἴνοπα πόντον· πολλὰ δὲ μητρὶ φίληι ἠρήσατο χεῖρας ὀρεγνύς· μῆτερ, ἐπεί μ’ ἔτεκές γε μινυνθάδιόν περ ἐόντα, τιμήν πέρ μοι ὄφελλεν Ὀλύμπιος ἐγγυαλίξαι Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης· νῦν δ’ οὐδέ με τυτθὸν ἔτισεν. ἦ γάρ μ’ Ἀτρείδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων ἠτίμησεν, ἑλὼν γὰρ ἔχει γέρας αὐτὸς ἀπούρας. ὣς φάτο δάκρυ χέων, τοῦ δ’ ἔκλυε πότνια μήτηρ ἡμένη ἐν βένθεσσιν ἁλὸς παρὰ πατρὶ γέροντι. καρπαλίμως δ’ ἀνέδυ πολιῆς ἁλὸς ἠΰτ’ ὀμίχλη, καί ῥα πάροιθ’ αὐτοῖο καθέζετο δάκρυ χέοντος, χειρί τέ μιν κατέρεξεν, ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζε· τέκνον, τί κλαίεις; τί δέ σε φρένας ἵκετο πένθος;

1 141 descr. P. Fay. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. West Martin L. 125 10217 descr.

Homerus Ilias 1 273-362

Liège

Fragments of Iliad 8 in Florence, Oxford, and Vienna Digital Corpus of Literary Papyri 60326 60326 1447 60326 pylon;7;1_2 00821.000

Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana P. Flor. 109 Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Gr. class. d. 20 (P) Vienna, Nationalbibliothek G 19768 papyrus

papyrus roll (columns: 1, pagination: 0)

Found: Karanis (Arsinoites, Egypt); written: Egypt I

Arsinoites Egypt Karanis Kom Aushim

Egypt

This file encoded to comply with EpiDoc Guidelines and Schema version 8 http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/5/

epic classical literature poetry English Greek Finalized - This is good to go Vote - Accept-Straight-to-Finalization - yes Submit - Typo in biblios Finalized - This is good to go. Vote - Accept-Straight-to-Finalization - Yes. Submit - Initial entry, from Gallazzi 1988. Finalized - This is good to go. Vote - Accept-Straight-to-Finalization - Yes. Submit - Initial entry, from Gallazzi 1988. Crosswalked to EpiDoc XML

χαλκεοθωρήκων· ἀτὰρ ἀσπίδες ὀμφαλόεσσαι ἔπληντ’ ἀλλήλῃσι, πολὺς δ’ ὀρυμαγδὸς ὀρώρει. ἔνθα δ’ ἅμ’ οἰμωγή τε καὶ εὐχωλὴ πέλεν ἀνδρῶν ὀλλύντων τε καὶ ὀλλυμένων, ῥέε δ’ αἵματι γαῖα. ὄφρα μὲν ἠὼς ἦν καὶ ἀέξετο ἱερὸν ἦμαρ, τόφρα μάλ’ ἀμφοτέρων βέλε’ ἥπτετο, πῖπτε~~πεῖπτε~~ δὲ λαός. ἦμος δ’ Ἠέλιος μέσον οὐρανὸν ἀμφιβεβήκει, καὶ τότε δὴ χρύσεια πατὴρ ἐτίταινε τάλαντα. ἐν δ’ ἐτίθει δύο κῆρε τανηλεγέος θανάτοιο Τρώων θ’ ἱπποδάμων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων, ἕλκε δὲ μέσσα λαβών· ῥέπε δ’ αἴσιμον ἦμαρ Ἀχαιῶν. αἳ μὲν Ἀχαιῶν κῆρες ἐπὶ χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ~~πουλυποτείρῃ~~ ἑζέσθην, Τρώων δὲ πρὸς οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἄερθεν. αὐτὸς δ’ ἐξ Ἴδης μεγάλ’ ἔκτυπε, δαιόμενον δὲ

ἀλλὰ μέν’ ὄφρα γέροντος ἀπώσομεν ἄγριον ἄνδρα. ποιητής ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἐσάκουσε πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς, ἀλλὰ παρήϊξεν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν. Τυδεΐδης δ’ αὐτός περ ἐὼν προμάχοισιν ἐμίχθη~~ἐμείχθη~~, στῆ δὲ πρόσθ’ ἵππων Νηληϊάδαο γέροντος, καί μιν φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα~~προσεύδα~~· Α ὦ γέρον ἦ μάλα δή σε νέοι τείρουσι μαχηταί, Διομήδης πρὸς Νέστορα σὴ δὲ βίη λέλυται, χαλεπὸν δέ σε γῆρας ὀπάζει, ἠπεδανὸς δέ νύ τοι θεράπων, βραδέες δέ τοι ἵπποι. ἀλλ’ ἄγ’ ἐμῶν ὀχέων ἐπιβήσεο, ὄφρα ἴδηαι οἷοι Τρώϊοι ἵπποι ἐπιστάμενοι πεδίοιο κραιπνὰ μάλ’ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα διωκέμεν ἠδὲ φέβεσθαι, οὕς ποτ’ ἀπ’ Αἰνείαν ἑλόμην μήστωρε φόβοιο. τούτωτούτωι μὲν θεράποντε κομείτων, τώιδε δὲ νῶϊ Τρωσὶν ἐφ’ ἱπποδάμοις ἰθύνομεν, ὄφρα καὶ Ἕκτωρ εἴσεται εἰἠ καὶ ἐμὸν δόρυ μαίνεται ἐν παλάμῃσιν. ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ. Νεστορέας μὲν ἔπειθ’ ἵππους θεράποντε κομείτην ἴφθιμος Σθένελός τε καὶ Εὐρυμέδων ἀγαπήνωρ. τὼ δ’ εἰς ἀμφοτέρωι Διομήδεος ἅρματα βήτην· Νέστωρ δ’ ἐν χείρεσσι λάβ’ ἡνία σιγαλόεντα,

μίγδ’ ἄλλοισι θεοῖσι, φίλον τετιημέναι ἦτορ. Ζεὺς δὲ πατὴρ Ἴδηθεν ἐΰτροχον ἅρμα καὶ ἵππους Οὔλυμπόνδ’ ἐδίωκε, θεῶν δ’ ἐξίκετο θώκους. τῶι δὲ καὶ ἵππους μὲν λῦσε κλυτὸς Ἐννοσίγαιος, ἅρματα δ’ ἂμ βωμοῖσι τίθει, κατὰ λῖτα πετάσσας. αὐτὸς δὲ χρύσειον ἐπὶ θρόνον εὐρύοπα Ζεύς ἕζετο, τῶι δ’ ὑπὸ ποσσὶ μέγας πελεμίζετ’ Ὄλυμπος. αἳ δ’ οἶαι Διὸς ἀμφὶς Ἀθηναίη τε καὶ Ἥρη ἥσθην, οὐδέ τέτί μιν προσεφώνεον οὐδ’ ἐρέοντο. αὐτὰρ ὃ ἔγνω ἧισιν ἐνὶ φρεσὶ φώνησέν τε· τίφθ’ οὕθωοὕτω τετίησθον, Ἀθηναίη τε καὶ Ἥρη; οὐ μέν θην κάμετόν γε μάχηι ἔνι κυδιανείρηι ὀλλῦσαι Τρῶας, τοῖσιν κότον αἰνὸν ἔθεσθε. πάντως, οἷον ἐμόν γε μένος καὶ χεῖρες ἄαπτοι, οὐκ ἄν με τρέψειαν, ὅσοι θεοί εἰσ’ ἐν Ὀλύμπωι. σφῶϊν δὲ πρίν περ τρόμος ἔλλαβε φαίδιμα γυῖα, πρὶν πόλεμόν τε ἰδεῖν πολέμοιό τε μέρμερα ἔργα. ὧδε γὰρ ἐξερέω, τὸ δέ κεν τετελεσμένον ἦεν· οὐκ ἂν ἐφ’ ὑμετέρων ὀχέων πληγέντε κεραυνῶι ἂψ ἐς Ὄλυμπον ἵκεσθον, ἵν’ ἀθανάτων ἕδος ἐστίν. ὣς ἔφαθ’· αἳ δ’ ἐπέμυξαν Ἀθηναίη τε καὶ Ἥρη. ἤτοι Ἀθηναίη ἀκέων ἦν οὐδέ τι εἶπεν, σκυζομένη Διὶ πατρί, χόλος δέ μιν ἄγριος ἥιρει·

Homerus Ilias 8 62-75 and 8 96-116 and 8 436-461

P.Flor. 02, pl.2 ZPE 71, pl.2 G. Cavallo e.a., Scrivere libri e documenti nel mondo antico, Mostra di papiri Firenze 1998, tav. 14 cd-ROM, Papiri letterari della Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana

Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. 20 Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. 55 2 109 2 2 60-66 35

Fragments of Iliad 10 Digital Corpus of Literary Papyri 60366 60366 1487 60366 pylon;7;1_3 00853.000

Vienna, Nationalbibliothek G 19794 Vienna, Nationalbibliothek G 19791 papyrus 7.5 7.5

papyrus roll (columns: 1, pagination: 0)

Fundort: Karanis (= Kom Aushim) (Arsinoites, Egypt); Schreibort: Egypt 1 - 199

Arsinoites Egypt Karanis Kom Aushim

Egypt

This file encoded to comply with EpiDoc Guidelines and Schema version 8 http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/5/

classical literature poetry epic English Greek Finalized - This is good to go. Vote - Accept-Straight-to-Finalization - Fine Submit - Updated meta and provided image link Crosswalked to EpiDoc XML

νύκτα δι’ ἀμβροσίην· μάλα τις θρασυκάρδιος ἔσται. τὸν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων· χρεὼ βουλῆς ἐμὲ καὶ σέ, διοτρεφὲς ὦ Μενέλαε, κερδαλέης, ἥ τίς κεν ἐρύσσεται ἠδὲ σαώσει Ἀργείους καὶ νῆας, ἐπεὶ Διὸς ἐτράπετο φρήν. Ἑκτορέοις ἄρα μᾶλλον ἐπὶ φρένα θῆχ’θῆχ’ papyrus ἱεροῖσιν. οὐ γάρ πω ἰδόμην, οὐδ’ ἔκλυον αὐδήσαντος, ἄνδρ’ ἕνα τοσσάδε μέρμερ’ ἐπ’απ ἤματι μητίσασθαι, ὅσσ’ Ἕκτωρ ἔρρεξε διίφιλος υἷας Ἀχαιῶν αὔτως, οὔτε θεᾶς υἱὸς φίλος οὔτε θεοῖο. ἔργα δ’ ἔρεξ’ ὅσα φημὶ μελησέμεν ἈργείοισιἈργίοισι δηθά τε καὶ δολιχόν· τόσα~~τσα~~ γὰρ κακὰ μήσατ’ Ἀχαιούς. ἀλλ’ ἴθι νῦν Αἴαντα καὶ Ἰδομενῆα κάλεσσον ῥίμφα θέων παρὰ νῆας· ἐγὼ δ’ ἐπὶ Νέστορα δῖον εἶμι καὶ ὀτρυνέω ἀνστήμεναι, αἴ κ’ ἐθέληισιν ἐλθεῖν ἐς φυλάκων ἱερὸν τέλος ἠδ’ ἐπιτεῖλαι. κείνου γάρ κε μάλιστα πιθοίατο· τοῖο γὰρ υἱὸς

ἀσπὶς καὶ δύο δοῦρε φαεινή τε τρυφάλεια· πὰρ δὲ ζωστὴρ κεῖτο παναίολος, ὧι ῥ’ ὁ γεραιός ζώννυθ’, ὅτ’ ἐς πόλεμον φθεισήνορα θωρήσσοιτοθωρίσσοιτο λαὸν ἄγων, ἐπεὶ οὐ μὲν ἐπέτρεπε γήραϊ λυγρῶι. ὀρθωθεὶς δ’ ἄρ’ ἐπ’ ἀγκῶνος, κεφαλὴν ἐπαείρας, Ἀτρείδην προσέειπε καὶ ἐξερεείνετο μύθωι· τίς δ’ οὗτος κατὰ νῆας ἀνὰ στρατὸν ἔρχεαι οἶος νύκτα δι’ ὀρφναίην, ὅτε θ’ εὕδουσι βροτοὶ ἄλλοι, ἠέ τιν’ οὐρήων διζήμενος, ἤ τιν’ ἑταίρων; φθέγγεο, μηδ’μηδ’ papyrus ἀκέων ἐπ’ ἔμ’ ἔρχεο. τίπτε δέ σε χρεώ; τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων· ὦ Νέστορ Νηληϊάδη, μέγα κῦδος Ἀχαιῶν, γνώσεαι Ἀτρείδην Ἀγαμέμνονα, τὸν περὶ πάντων Ζεὺς ἐνέηκε πόνοισι διαμπερές, εἰς ὅ κ’ ἀϋτμή ἐν στήθεσσι μένηι καί μοι φίλα γούνατ’ ὀρώρηι. πλάζομαι ὧδ’, ἐπεὶ οὔ μοι ἐπ’ ὄμμασι νήδυμος ὕπνος ἱζάνει, ἀλλὰ μέλει πόλεμος καὶ κήδε’ Ἀχαιῶν. αἰνῶς γὰρ Δαναῶν περιδείδια, οὐδέ μοι ἦτορ ἔμπεδον, ἀλλ’ ἀλαλύκτημαι, κραδίη δέ μοι ἔξω στηθέων ἐκθρώισκει, τρομέει δ’ ὑπὸ φαίδιμα γυῖα. ἀλλ’ εἴ τι δραίνεις, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ σέ γ’ ὕπνος ἱκάνει, δεῦρ’ ἐς τοὺς φύλακας καταβείομεν, ὄφρα ἴδωμεν, μὴ τοὶ μὲν καμάτωι ἀδηκότες ἠδὲ καὶ ὕπνωι κοιμήσωνται, ἀτὰρ φυλακῆς ἐπὶ πάγχυ λάθωνται· δυσμενέες δ’ ἄνδρες σχεδὸν εἵαται, οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν, Ἀτρείδη κύδιστε, ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγάμεμνον, οὔ θην Ἕκτορι πάντα νοήματα μητίετα Ζεύς ἐκτελέει, ὅσα πού νυν ἐέλπεται· ἀλλά μιν οἴω κήδεσι μοχθήσειν καὶ πλείοσιν, εἴ κεν Ἀχιλλεύς ἐκ χόλου ἀργαλέοιο μεταστρέψηι φίλον ἦτορ. σοὶ δὲ μάλ’ ἕψομ’ ἐγώ· προτὶ δ’ αὖ καὶ ἐγείρομεν ἄλλους, ἠμὲν Τυδείδην δουρικλυτὸν ἠδ’εἰδ’ Ὀδυσῆα ἠδ’ Αἴαντα ταχὺν καὶ Φυλέος ἄλκιμον υἱόν. ἀλλ’ εἴ τις καὶ τούσδε μετοιχόμενος καλέσειεν, ἀντίθεόν τ’ Αἴαντα καὶ Ἰδομενῆα ἄνακτα·

MPER N.S. 3 (= 2-3 b) Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. 288 Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. 367 1 3

Homerus Ilias 10 41-57 and 10 76-100 and 10 103-112

Liège