The book under review studies the glossaries to Homer’s Iliad transmitted through papyri, the larger part of the Homerica in the papyrological record, as a separate paratextual category, distinct from, for example, the scholia vetera. Fontanella aims to provide an exhaustive overview, and from that overview, an analysis and description of these scholia minora as a text category. Die Iliasglossare auf Papyrus reads hysteron proteron: the Introduction discusses the text category’s characteristics and definition; chapters 1-3, on documentation, content, and author and usage respectively, present the data and the discussion. The concise conclusion, the book’s clearest reminiscence of its origin as a dissertation, broadens the perspective on the glossaries with reference to their patrimonial value in the cultural history of Egypt. Three appendices constitute the book’s second half: Appendix I containing a new annotated edition of P.Strasb. Inv. Gr. 1015 recto, P.Berol. Inv. 11634 verso, and P.Berol. Inv. 13420 verso, Appendix II listing alphabetically the scholia minora to be added to the list by Lundon,[1] and Appendix III, a full inventory of the roughly 90 extant Iliad-glossary fragments on papyrus (adding up to ca. 60 glossaries) listing description, date, provenance, content, and edition(s) of each. The book is concluded by a bibliography, indices to the glossaries and the papyri, and color photographs of eleven different glossaries, one paraphrase on papyrus,[2] and one ostracon (O.Bodl. II 2000), a private letter requesting one Isidorus to deliver materials, designated as λέξεις, on the Iliad. Fontanella argues (p. 78) that the λέξεις refer to γλῶσσαι and lists O.Bodl. II 2000 under Papyri in the Index (p. 335).
The introduction summarizes the main arguments to distinguish glossaries on papyrus as a separate text category within Homerica and scholia minora: their isolated position within the textual tradition, and the limitation of the usage of ‘gloss’ to its ancient application as an unusual poetic or dialectological attestation. Glossaries aim to further the understanding of Homeric words and text (cf. p. 200). Much terminological confusion may thus be left behind, though Fontanella’s parameters become somewhat self-fulfilling; the procedure does, however, create a meaningful distinction from established text typologies such as hypomnemata, hypotheses, paraphrases, lexica, lemmata, and the Mythographus. Glossaries comprise lists of glossanda and interpretamenta, separated by graphic aids: they are produced ‘horizontally’, gloss and explanation together, rather than ‘vertically’, with a scribe writing down the list of glosses first, and only then adding the explanations in the space available. Guided by these criteria,[3] Fontanella presents a list of Glossaries that incorporates several Homerica previously classified differently and excludes others (like Homeric fragments containing marginalia), notably P.Cair. J.E. 45612, P.Vindob. Inv. Gr.26221, and P.Sorbonne Inv. 2088. Formal criteria for inclusion in the category, like the use of scriptio plena, ἔκθεσις, and the use of the paragraphos to indicate the new verse, are disposed of as inadequate (p. 21-22). Readers not yet convinced of Fontanella’s typology, and those who wish to consult her study as an addition to, rather than a replacement of, existing categorizations are referred to the scheme on p. 30, a comparative enumeration of only the excluded papyri (and fragments from these) that are still retained by Fontanella, plus the newly edited ones. Conversely, characteristics of the ‘separate text category’ do allow for observations concerning the comparanda, notably against the assumption of a standardization of Scholia Minora: ‘Die Papyrusglossare scheinen keine kontinuierliche Überarbeitung einer Standardsammlung, aus den die ‘ursprünglicher’ Text rekonstruiert werden kann, sondern vielmehr die vielfältigen Formen darzustellen, in denen sich der Strom der Scholia Minora zusammenfügen und von den Schreibern je nach ihren Quellen, kulturellen Bedürfnissen und ihrem Wissen ständig angepasst werden konnte.‘ (p. 152).
The first chapter opens with an inventory of glossaries categorized by date and location. These data lead to an exploration of the provenance of the ‘Roman’ glossaries (all to be dated to the 1st-7th centuries AD) as a type of paratext only to be expected after a certain level of standardization of the Homeric epic (2nd century BCE), despite references to glossary-like texts as old as Aristophanes’ Δαιταλῆς (Fr. 233 K.-A.). A comparison of the various materials as carriers of text, and of the use of graphic symbols, leads to the conclusion that the constitution of the various glossaries, often exercises by students or the corrections by their instructors, reflects a high level of individuality and leeway for personal preferences.
The extant glossaries on papyrus refer to the Iliad far more often than to the Odyssey, with Iliad A (31) and B (18) as the center of gravity, followed by E (11). References to other Iliadic rhapsodies are limited to one to five instances. Iliad A is almost fully covered (98%), followed by E (80.6%), N (67.6%), and O (65.5%). Of other rhapsodies roughly half (B, Δ, Θ, Λ, Ξ, Σ, Υ), of the remainder only small parts or none at all (M, Ψ, Ω). In addition to this overview, chapter 2 further discusses the content of the glossaries with special attention to the discrepancies between the presentation of lemmata in the glossary and their orthography in the text referred to.[4] In the discussion on mythological and dialectological interpretamenta and the application of sermo grammaticus, Fontanella is inevitably selective in her illustrative use of examples (although the list of attested terms for figures of speech is exhaustive [p. 138]), but the individual instances are analyzed in great detail and with a wide and relevant variety of references; in passing judgment the author is prudent rather than intent on innovation. Underlining the independent status of the papyrus glossaries and refuting the claim that the Byzantine D-scholia are the continuation of standardized glossaries, table 1 (on Il.1.1-18; pp. 158-165) and table 2 (on Il.5.197-256; pp. 166-173) present an inventory of the correspondences between the papyrus glossaries and the D-scholia, listed in order of verse numbers.
The heterogeneity of the papyrus glossaries, and their popularity, raise questions with regard to their makers, their intended audience(s), and their usage. These issues constitute the core of chapter 3. Whereas scholars no longer follow Wilamowitz’ view that all the glossaries were for use in schools, quite a few glossaries (23) are still considered as school material. These texts appear impromptu affairs, written in untrained hands, and full of errors and corrections, like exercises. Others are seen as the work of professional scribes, written in imitation of the contemporary calligraphic fonts. These professionally conceptualized glossaries (Fontanella identifies sixteen examples) are regularly found on the back of rolls already inscribed. A third group now count as privately owned. Though difficult to identify on the basis of characteristics,[5] these texts, equally on the reverse of documentary papyri, are usually palimpsests, incompletely erased and hence visibly trying to avoid whatever confusion may arise from the insufficient care given to the erasure – through an irregular mise en page. Users are identified as anywhere on the spectrum between striving amateurs and proficient readers, both representative, Fontanella argues, for the audience of popular-scholarly exegesis of Homer in Roman and Byzantine Egypt.
The appendices will be of most direct use to scholars. The new, annotated editions of P.Strasb. Inv. 1015 recto,[6] P.Berol. Inv. 11634 verso,[7] and P.Berol. Inv. 13420 verso[8] are comprehensive, very detailed, and address all issues from lectiones in both the Homeric text and the glossary, to variations in handwriting, adequately illustrated by clear full-color photographs. Appendix II, the addition to Lundon’s alphabetical list, presents the Homeric lexeis that were recently edited with their metaphraseis. The usability of Fontanella’s addition is highly furthered by her decision to follow the editorial principles applied by Lundon (including the use of ■ to indicate the ink spot in PSI XVII 1667) and Esposito.[9] In Appendix III, the catalogue of glossaries, dates, descriptions, contents, uses, and editions[10] are readily stated, but a few question marks remain, for the discussion of which the reader is referred to the initial three chapters of the study; here, cross-references in footnotes would have been helpful in addition to the accessible index on pp. 329-336. Future work remains to be done on, among other glossaries on papyrus, unpublished P.Oxy. Inv. 105/62a, P.Oxy. Inv. 5B.51/E(4-5)a, P.Oxy. Inv. 72 / 9 (b), P.Oxy. Inv. 4 1B.74 / D (d), P.Oxy. Inv. *30 4B.39 / J (1-3) a and P. Oxy. Inv. 101 /30 (a) – these, too, would be well off in the capable hands of the current editor.
The study is very well produced by Brill | Schöningh, especially the photographs. There are no infelicities of any significance.[11] The author’s choice to lavishly use footnotes (to a total of 708) not only makes the Appendices stand out as separate works since they go without, but also results in some overlap and untimely presentation of discussion (e.g. in the illustration of the author’s use of recto and verso as late as footnote 178).
Fontanella’s book will prove a valuable study and reference tool for anyone, student and scholar alike, working on the Homeric glossaries on papyrus. In complementing online-available lists like Lundon’s, presenting new editions, and providing readily accessible overviews of the Iliad-glossaries on various materials, Fontanella enables and furthers the description and analysis of a particular text type, that well represents the flexibility of learning and cultural profiling in an important period of intellectual history. Those not convinced by the identification of a separate text category will nonetheless still find much of interest in its lively discussion and defense in the book’s first half.
Notes
[1] Lundon, J., The Scholia Minora in Homerum. An Alphabetical List, Version 1.0, November 2012. https://www.trismegistos.org/dl.php?id=14 (last accessed 20 March 2024).
[2] P. Vindob. G 26221, labelled a ‘continuous Homeric paraphrase set out in the manner of scholia minora’ (Lundon, J., ‘P.Vindob. G 26221: Scholia Minora or Paraphrase?’, in B. Palme (ed.), Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses. Papyrologica Vindobonensia 1, Vienna (2007), 407-414.
[3] Following Rafaelli, L., ‘Repertorio dei papiri contenenti Scholia Minora in Homerum’, in F. Montanari (ed.), Ricerche di filologia classica II, Pisa (1984), 130-177.
[4] ‘Banalisation’, as coined in Tagliapietra, L., ‘Scholia Minora to Iliad 2.212-225 and 272-295’, BASP 54 (2017), 9-30. There appears to be no consistency in the quotation of nu ephelcysticon or the application of scriptio plena.
[5] As listed in Johnson, W. A., Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus (Toronto 2004), 157.
[6] To replace Plasberg, O., ‘Strasburger Anekdota’, APF 2 (1903), 185-228.
[7] To replace Poethke, G., ‘Homer-Präparation für den Schulgebrauch auf einem griechischen Papyrus aus Ägypten‘, FBSM 8 (1967), 105-110.
[8] To replace Müller, W., ‘Griechische literarische Texte auf Papyrus und Pergament‘, FBSM 10 (1968), 113-132 (esp. 119-120), and Sijpesteijn, P.J., Homerica. Fünf literarische Papyri aus der Amsterdamer Papyrussammlung‘, ZPE 6 (1970), 121-131 (esp. 128-130).
[9] On P.Berol. Inv. 11647: Esposito, E., ‘P.Berol. Inv. 11647: Scholia Minora al V libro dell’Iliade’, in A. Casanova, G. Messeri & R. Pintaudi (eds), E sì d’amici pieno. Omaggio di studiosi italiani a Guido Bastianini per il suo settantesimo compleanno, Firenze (2016), 207-215.
[10] Notes announce that P.Berol. Inv. 10511-10512, P.Berol. Inv. 10510, P.Berol. Inv. 10508, and P.Berol. Inv. 10509 will be newly edited in a forthcoming issue of Berliner Klassikertexte (BKT, not listed in the bibliography).
[11] Just one that makes the reader smile: in quoting Dickey 2007, 108: “there is soften no difference between ‘and’ or ‘or’” (p. 90).