Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:07:12.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Annotations of M. Valerivs Probvs1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

H. D. Jocelyn
H. D. Jocelyn
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the period between Constantine's reunification of the Empire in 324 and the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 M. Valerius Probus enjoyed a large reputation as master of all areas of the ars grammatica. The commentary on Terence attributed to Donatus and the commentary of Servius on Virgil cite him more often than they do any other ancient authority. His fame persisted through the Dark Ages. Eugenius of Toledo set him with Varius and Tucca against Aristarchus, the greatest of the Alexandrian students of Homer. Modern writers on the history of Roman scholarship have estimated in widely different ways his quality as a textual critic, the level of his reputation during the century after his death and the influence which his activities had on the transmission of the Latin classics. That he ‘annotated’ at least some of these in the manner of an Aristarchus is not in dispute, but everything about the nature of his ‘annotation’ is. This paper will treat afresh a famous statement about Probus in Suetonius' De grammaticis (24. 3), two lists of notae associated with Probus’ name in a late eighth-century manuscript from Monte Cassino, cod. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 7530 (CLA v 569), two references to such notae which have been detected in Virgilian scholia (Serv. Aen. 10. 444 and Serv. Dan. Aen. 1. 21) and a number of statements in these scholia which appear to give Probus’ reasons for affixing notae. The results of my study are largely negative but may help to control general discussion of the history of a number of Latin texts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , December 1984 , pp. 464 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The commentary on Terence ascribed to Donatus names Probus nine times, Asper three. Servius' commentary on Virgil names Donatus, probably his principal direct source, forty-seven times; Probus comes next with eighteen mentions, followed by Asper with fifteen. The Danieline additions have seventeen mentions of Probus, six of Celsus, five of Cornutus, four of Asper.

3 See the preface which he wrote to his ‘edition’ of Dracontius, vv. 20–5 (MGH auct. ant. xiv, pp. 27, 29).

4 Still fundamental are Leo's, F. discussions: Plautinische Forschungen: zur Kritik und Geschichte der Komödie (Berlin, 1895), pp. 21–45Google Scholar (= [with supplements] ed. 2, 1912, pp. 23–48); Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischen Form (Leipzig, 1901), pp. 18–19, 139Google Scholar; review of Lindsay's, W. M.The Ancient Editions ofPlautus, GGA (1904), 358–74Google Scholar; review of Keller, and Holder's, edition of Horace, and of Keller's, edition of the pseudacronian scholia, GGA (1904), 849–56Google Scholar (= Ausgewählte kleine Schriften, II [Rome, 1960], 159–67)Google Scholar. For general approval of Leo's view of the transmission of the archaic and classical authors see Vollmer, F., ‘Die Ueberlieferungs-geschichte des Horaz’, Philologus Suppl. 10. 2 (1905), 261–322 (267, 285 n. 47)Google Scholar, Höhne, E., Die Geschichte des Sallusttextes im Altertum (Diss. Munich, 1927), pp. 14–38Google Scholar, Rostagni, A., RF1C 62 (1934), 1–26, 67 (1939), 113–35Google Scholar (= Scritti minori II 2 [Turin, 1956], 351–75, 121–47)Google Scholar, Suetonio ‘De Poetis’ e biografi minori (Turin, 1944), pp. 167–8Google Scholar, Hanslik, R., RE II 8. 1 (1955), 198–208Google Scholar, s.v. ‘M. Valerius Probus’, Brunhölzl, F., Hermes 90 (1962), 102Google Scholar. For modification see Seyffert, O., ‘Zur Ueberlieferungsgeschichte der Komödien des Plautus’, BPhW 16 (1896), 252–5, 283–8Google Scholar, Wessner, P., Bursians Jahresberichte 113 (1903), 133–6, 143, 139 (1908), 102, 152–3, 188 (1921), 78–88Google Scholar, Aemilius Asper (Halle, 1905), pp. 9–12, 19–23Google Scholar, in Kroll, W. and Skutsch, F., W. S. Teuffels Geschichte der römischen Literatur, ed. 6, II (Leipzig–Berlin, 1910), pp. 256–63Google Scholar, BPhW 33 (1913), 139–47Google Scholar,49 (1929), 434–45,51 (1931), 1449–59, Gnomon 3 (1927), 339–47Google Scholar, RE II 4. 1 (1931), 741–2Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Sulpicius Apollinaris’, Aistermann, J., De M. Valeria Probo Berytio capita IV (Bonn, 1910), pp. 9–15, 33–57Google Scholar, Klotz, A., BPhW 43 (1923), 261Google Scholar, Jachmann, G., Die Geschichte des Terenztextes im Altertum (Basle, 1924), pp. 72–91Google Scholar, Zimmermann, R., Der Sallusttext im Altertum (Munich, 1929), pp. 48–50Google Scholar, Pasquali, G., Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (Florence, 1934; ed. 2, 1952), pp. 339–48, 357–9, 370–3, 378–9Google Scholar, Paratore, E., Una nuova ricostruzione del ‘De poetis’ di Suetonio (Turin, 1946), pp. 90–101Google Scholar (=ed. 2, with supplements, Bari, 1950, pp. 81–126), D'Anna, G., Le idee letterarie di Suetonio (Florence, 1954; ed. 2, 1967), pp. 157–70Google Scholar, Questa, C., RFIC 102 (1974), 177–9Google Scholar. For outright rejection (anticipated to some extent by Lindsay, W. M., The Ancient Editions of Plautus [Oxford, 1904], pp. 104–18, 142–50Google Scholar, Bursians Jahresberichte 130 [1906], 128–33Google Scholar, Keller, O., RhM 61 [1906], 80–81)Google Scholar see Scivoletto, N., ‘La “filologia” di Valerio Probo di Berito’, GIF 12 (1959), 97–124Google Scholar (=, with supplements, Studi di letteratura latina imperiale [Naples, 1963], pp. 155–213)Google Scholar, Büchner, K. in Hunger, H. et al. , Geschichte der Textüberlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur, I (Zurich, 1961), pp. 329–30, 335–9, 377, 379–80, 388, 391, 392–6Google Scholar, Kenney, E. J., CR n.s. 12 (1962), 225Google Scholar, Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G., Scribes and Scholars (Oxford, 1968) pp. 25–6Google Scholar (= ed. 2, 1974, pp. 25–7), Schmidt, P. L., Der kleine Pauly 4 (1972), 1147–8Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Probus', Pascucci, G., ‘Valerio Probo e i ueteres’, in Grammatici latini d'eta imperiale (Genoa, [Universita di Genova, Fac. d. Lett., Ist. d. Filol. Class, e Med.], 1976) pp. 17–40Google Scholar (= Scritti Scelti [Florence, 1983], 399–422)Google Scholar, Courtney, E., BICS 28 (1981), 24–6Google Scholar, Zetzel, J. E. G., Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity (New York, 1981), pp. 41–54, 73–4, 237–8Google Scholar. The best measured recent discussion is Brink's, C. O.: Horace on Poetry. The ‘Ars Poetica‘ (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 35–8Google Scholar.

5 Op. cit. (n. 3), pp. vi (1, 2), vii (4), xix (55), xxiii (66).

6 Cf. Cic, . Fam. 9. 8. 1Google Scholar (…nosti morem dialogorum), Athen. 5. 215c–221a, 11. 505e–506a, Diog, Laert. 3. 35–6, Macrob, . Sat. 1. 1. 5–6Google Scholar. On fiction in the Nodes Atticae see Strevens, L. A. Holford, LCM 7. 5 (1982), 65–8Google Scholar.

7 Discussed by Questa, C., RFIC 102 (1974), 178–9Google Scholar.

8 Auli Persii Flacci Satirarum liber (Leipzig, 1843)Google Scholar. Some of the references to Probus scattered in extant literature had been collected by Burman, P., P. Virgilii Maronis opera cum integris et emendatioribus commentariis Seruii, Philargyrii, Pierii, I (Amsterdam, 1746)Google Scholar, praef.

9 Both Scivoletto, op. cit. (n. 4), 100 (= Stud. p. 162) and Büchner, op. cit. (n. 4), 336–7, make much of this. It troubled nineteenth-century students. Steup, J., De Probis grammaticis (Jena, 1871), pp. 18–19Google Scholar, conjectured multosque ad exemplaria contracta emendare, Usener, H., SB Bayer. Ak. Philos.philol. u. hist. Kl. 1892, Heft rv, 605Google Scholar, n. 1 (= Kleine Schriften II [Berlin-Leipzig, 1913], 282 n. 49)Google Scholar, multaque exemplarium copia contracta emendare.

10 Cf. Büchner, op. cit. (n. 4), 336, 339.

11 Cf. Scivoletto, op. cit. (n. 4), 106–107 (= Stud. pp. 178–80).

12 Despite Suda iv 581. 18, s.v. Τράγκυλλος, and Plin, . Epist. 1. 24. 4Google Scholar (misinterpreted by Macé, A., Essai sur Suétone [Paris, 1900], pp. 51–3Google Scholar, and G. D'Anna, op. cit. [n. 4], pp. 73–86 [75, 85]), it must be said that Suetonius would have classed himself with Varro, Cornutus, Pliny the Elder, and Asconius, all of whom he put elsewhere among the uiri illustres.

13 There is no precise reference to collation at Dom. 20 (…quamquam bibliothecas incendio absumptas impensissime reparare curasset, exemplaribus undique petitis missisque Alexandream qui describerent emendarentque), but it is quite certainly implied.

14 Cf. Strabo 12. 3. 20–3, pp. 550–2 Casaubon, , Lucian, , Ver. Hist. 2. 20Google Scholar, Galen, 15. 22, 24 Kühn, (= CMG v 9, 1, pp. 13, 15 Mewaldt)Google Scholar, 358–60, 16. 485, 17A. 79, 18B. 631, 19. 83, Athen. 5. 180e, Diog. Laert. 9. 113.

15 Cf. Athen. 1. 12e, 5. 188f, 11. 498 f.

16 See Front, p. 15. 13–21 van den Hout.

17 See schol. Pind. Ol. 2. 140 a ⋯ μ⋯ν Αρισταρχος “πόσιος” γράΦει. cf. schol, . Nem. 10. 114aGoogle Scholar ⋯ μ⋯ν Άρισταρχος ⋯ξιοἶ γράΦειν “ἣμενον”, schol. Hom, T. Il. 15. 24Google Scholar ⋯μεινων δ⋯ ⋯ Άριστάρχου γραΦ⋯, schol. A Il. 16. 252 διχ⋯ς γράθεται.

18 See Serv, . Dan, . Virg, . Georg. 1. 277Google ScholarProbus “Orchus” legit. Cf. Fest. p. 392. 27 Lindsay (probably transmitting material from a commentary of the first century B.C.) Plautus ‘quia tibi suaso infecisti propudiosa pallulam’. quidam autem legunt ‘insuaso’, Porph, . Hor, . Carm. 2. 6. 24Google Scholarlegitur et ‘uatis Horati’, Donat, . Ter, . Andr. 205Google Scholar. I …uera ergo lectio est ‘neque tu haud dicas’, quod plurimi non intellegunt, «cum» ‘hoc dicas’ legunt, Serv, . Virg, . Aen. 6. 37Google Scholarsane sciendum ‘poscit’ lectionem esse meliorem, Georg. 1. 218 duplex lectio est…

19 For legere of the grammaticus in the classroom see Sueton, . Gramm. 2. 3–4, 11. 2Google Scholar (citing an earlier poet, probably Bibaculus), 24. 3–4, Gell. 9. 9. 12, 16. 6. 3. legit aliquis sometimes has reference merely to punctuation (e.g. Serv, . Virg, . Aen. 6. 123, 8. 409, 9. 37Google Scholar), word division (Serv, . Aen. 10. 471Google Scholar), or assignation of speaker (Donat, . Ter, . Eun. 312)Google Scholar. Legendum est (Serv, . Aen. 2. 348, 4. 132Google Scholar) states what the pupil must do. legi, legimus, legitur, lectum est can refer to the instructor's knowledge of the substance of the poem in hand (Serv, . Aen. 3. 68Google Scholar) or of some other work (Serv, . Aen. 3. 57Google Scholar, Serv, . Dan, . Aen. 3. 133, 4. 698)Google Scholar.

20 Cf. Quintil, . Inst. 5. 11. 40Google Scholar (Homeri uersu, qui tamen ipse non in omni editione reperitur).

21 Cf. Gramm. 1. 3 libros…de metris ab eodem Ennio editos, 3. 3 librum…nondum edition, 9. 2 librum…edidit, 18. 2 commentario Zmyrni edito, 25. 7 plerique autem oratorum etiam declamationes ediderunt, 25. 9 controuersiae…conlectae editaeque. A synonym, uulgare, is used at 8. 3.

22 Cf. Ammonius ap. schol. Hom, T. Il. 19. 365–8 περι τ⋯ς ⋯πεκδοθεισης διορθώσεως, schol. Arat. p. 140. 17–18 Maass οὐδέπω τ⋯ς διορθώσεως ταύτης ⋯κδεδομένης. It may indeed be doubted whether it is proper to talk about a special use of έκδιδόναιGoogle Scholar.

23 Cf. schol. Hom, A. Il. 10. 397–9Google Scholar.

24 Prolegomena ad Homerum siue de operum Homericorum prisca et genuina forma uariisque mutationibus et probabili ratione emendandi (Halle Sax. 1795), pp. clxxiv–cclxxviGoogle Scholar (= ed. 2, Berlin, 1876, pp. 106–169).

25 Cf. Lehrs, K., De Aristarchi studiis Homericis (Königsberg, 1833), pp. 29–31Google Scholar (=ed. 2, Leipzig, 1865, pp. 25–6 = ed. 3, 1882, pp. 26–7), Ludwich, A., Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik, I (Leipzig, 1884), pp. 18–19Google Scholar, II (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 431–3, von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Euripides: Herakles, I (Berlin, 1889), p. 138Google Scholar, Allen, T. W., Homer: the Origins and the Transmission (Oxford, 1924), pp. 307–9Google Scholar, G. Pasquali, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 216, Zuntz, G., ZDMG 101 (1951), 187, 192–3Google Scholar, Gnomon 35 (1963), 3Google Scholar, Erbse, H., ‘Ueber Aristarchs Iliasausgaben’, Hermes 87 (1959), 275–303Google Scholar, in H. Hunger et al., op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 223–5, Turner, E. G., Chron. d'Ég. 37 (1962), 146–7Google Scholar(= Greek Papyri [Oxford, 1968], pp. 112–13, 184 n. 28)Google Scholar, van Groningen, B. A., Mnemosyne. 4. 16 (1963), 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Traité d'histoire et de critique des textes grecs (Amsterdam, 1963), pp. 34–5Google Scholar, Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968), pp. 71–2, 94, 110, 215–17Google Scholar.

26 See Anon, Gramm. Lat. VII 534. 4–6Google Scholarhis solis in adnotationibus + hennii lucii + et historicorum usi sunt + uarrus hennius haelius aequae + et postremo Probus qui illas in Virgilio et Horatio et Lucretio apposuit, ut Homero Aristarchus. On the discovery of this material, its source and the corrupt proper names see part II.

27 The three poets are frequently cited in Seneca's philosophical letters and treatises while those whom they read at school are either ignored or abused (cf. Dial. 5. 37. 5, Epist. 58. 5, ap. Gell. 12. 2. 3–11). For the coupling of Virgil and Horace as classics see Petron. 118. 5, Anon, Laus Pisonis, 230–45Google Scholar.

28 See Part III.

29 Printed in Rome in 1472.

30 Printed in Florence in 1471.

31 Printed in Paris in 1600 (P. Daniel, Pub. Virgilii Maronis…et in ea Mauri Seruii Honorati Grammatici…commentarii).

32 Printed in Milan in 1818 (Mai, A., Virgilii Maronis interpretes ueteres; cf. Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum tomus vii [Rome, 1835], pp. 247–320Google Scholar).

33 Printed in Venice in 1507 (from a manuscript removed from Bobbio by G. Merula in 1493).

34 Attributed to Cornutus in some codices and in editions of the time of C. von Barth, who declared it to be from Suetonius' De uiris illustribus (Aduersariorum commentariorum libri sexaginta antiquitatis tarn gentilis quam Christianae illustratae [Frankfurt, 1624], xi 27)Google Scholar. Jahn, op. cit. (n. 8), p. cxxxvi, pointed out that various older codices attributed it to Probus. On the exegetical material attached to Persius see, most recently, Zetzel, J. E. G., ‘ On the History of Latin Scholia, II’, Medievalia et Humanistica n.s. 10 (1981), 19–31Google Scholar.

35 In the edition of 1746 (see above, n. 8).

36 See Diomedes, , Gramm. Lat. i 437. 14–19Google Scholar (distinctio).

37 See Prob, . Virg, . Buc. 6. 31, p. 337. 25Google ScholarHagen, . For nota, ‘discursive note’, the lexicon of Forcellini offers nothing before Dig. 49. 17. 10Google Scholar (Pomponius libro singulari regularum ex nota Marcelli…).

38 For the μέρη/partes of grammar see Thr, Dionysius. Gramm. Graec. I i, pp. 5–6Google ScholarUhlig, , Sext, . Emp, . Math. 1. 91, 248–53Google Scholar, Varroap, . Diomed, . Gramm.Lat. i. 426. 12–31Google Scholar(fr. 236 Funaioli), Quintil, . Inst. 1. 4. 2–3, 1. 5. 1, 1. 9. 1Google Scholar.

39 The theory seems to have gone back to Estienne, H. (Stephanus, ), De criticis ueteribusgraecis et latinis…dissertatio (Paris, 1587), pp. 247–9Google Scholar. Cf. Schopen, L., De Terentio et Donato eius inlerprete dissertatio critica (Diss. Bonn, 1821), p. 30Google Scholar, Lindemann, F., Corpus grammaticorum Latinorum ueterum, I (Leipzig, 1831)Google Scholar, praef., Suringar, W. H. D., Historia critica scholiastarum Latinorum, II (Leyden, 1834), pp. 8–31Google Scholar, Osann, F., ‘Probus der Grammatiker’, Beiträge zur griechischen und römischen Literaturgeschichte, II (Kassel-Leipzig, 1839), pp. 166–280Google Scholar, Lersch, L., Zeitschr. f. d. Alt. 7 (1840), 109–18Google Scholar, n.s. 1 (1843), 625–31, 633–5.

40 See the work cited in part II, n. 57, 119 (= Kl. phil. Schr. I 601).

41 See Ber. ü. d. Verh. d. kön. sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. z. Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Cl. 5 (1853), 130Google Scholar (= Gesammelte Schriften, VII [Berlin, 1909], 209–210)Google Scholar.

42 Cf. Steup, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 25–34, Kübler, B., De M. Valerii Probi Beryti commentariis Vergilianis (Diss. Berlin, 1881), p. 2Google Scholar, Gudeman, A., Grundriss der Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (Leipzig, 1907), p. 105Google Scholar, Scivoletto, op. cit. (n. 4), 102–105 (= Stud. pp. 165–78), Grisart, A., Helikon 2 (1962), 384 n. 21Google Scholar, Reynolds and Wilson, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 25–6. Inzerillo, B., Athenaeum 3 (1915), 31–40Google Scholar, Andrieu, J., REL 28 (1950), 488Google Scholar, Scivoletto, op. cit. (n. 4), 102–105 (withdrawn, apparently, at Stud. pp. 165–78), and Grisart, op. cit., 406–408, attempt to find other senses in distinguere; see, however, Steup, op. cit., pp. 20–4, and Müller, R. W., Rhetorische und syntaktische Interpunktion (Diss. Tubingen, 1964), pp. 55–60Google Scholar.

43 Cf. Jahn, himself, Ber. ü. d. Verh. d. kön. sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. z. Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Cl. 3 (1851), 366–7Google Scholar, Riese, A., De commentario Vergiliano qui M. Valeri Probi dicitur (Diss. Bonn, 1862), pp. 3–10Google Scholar, Ribbeck, O., NJbb 87 (1863), 351Google Scholar, Leo, , Pl. Forsch.2 (see n. 4), p. 29Google Scholar, Aistermann, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 14, Pasquali, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 344, Hanslik, op. cit. (n. 4), 198, Büchner, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 336–7, Brink, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 37, Courtney, op. cit. (n. 4), 24.

44 Όμ⋯ρου Ίλι⋯ς σὑν τοἶς Σχολιίις: Homeri Ilias ad ueteris codicis Veneti fidem recensita. Scholia in eam antiquissima Ex eodem Codice aliisque…cum Asteriscis, Obeliscis, aliisque Signis criticis (Venice, 1788)Google Scholar.

45 See the facsimile (codices graeci et latini photographice depicti duce Scatone de Vries, tom. VI. Homeri Ilias cum scholiis, codex Venetus A, Marcianus 454 phototypice editus. Praefatus est Dominicus Comparetti (Leyden, 1901)Google Scholar.

46 See Egger, E., Mémoires d'histoire ancienne et de philologie (Paris, 1863), pp. 159–75Google Scholar. Cf. Notices et extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, XVIII. 2 (Paris, 1865), 416–20Google Scholar(and PI. L).

47 Cf. Wilamowitz, op. cit. (n. 25), pp. 165–8, Susemihl, F., Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, II (Leipzig, 1892), p. 201Google Scholar.

48 Cf. P. Oxy. 3 (1903). 445 (Homer, Il.: ii cent.); 5 (1908). 841 (Pindar: ii cent.); 9 (1912). 1174 (Sophocles: ii cent.).

49 See E. G. Turner, op. cit. (n. 25), 146–52 (= Greek Papyri, pp. 112–24); also the supplementary notes on pp. 205–206 of the 1980 paperback edition of Greek Papyri.

50 See Diels, H. and Schubart, W., Didymos: Kommentar zu Demosthenes (Berlin, 1904 [Berliner Klassikertexte, i]), pp. xxvii–xxixGoogle Scholar, Rutherford, W. G., A Chapter in the History of Annotation (London, 1905), pp. 22–3Google Scholar, White, J. W., The Scholia on the Aves of Aristophanes (Boston-London, 1914), pp. liii–lviiiGoogle Scholar, Zuntz, G., Byzantion 14 (1939), 545–605Google Scholar (= Die Aristophanes Scholien der Papyri [Berlin, 1975], pp. 61–121)Google Scholar, An Enquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 272–6Google Scholar. Wilamowitz changed his mind in old age; see the ‘Geschichte der Philologie’ inGercke, A. and Norden, E., Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, ed. 3, I i (Leipzig-Berlin, 1921), 76Google Scholar; cf. Pasquali, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 344, Zetzel, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 42–5.

51 Zuntz, op. cit. (n. 50), 552 (= Die Aristophanes-Scholien, p. 68) treats Sueton, . Gramm. 24. 3Google Scholar as an apparent difficulty for his view of the Alexandrian έκδόσεις and emphasises how brief and sketchy Probus' marginal annotations must have been.

52 See Gudeman, A., RE 11. 2 (1922)Google Scholar, 1916–27 (1916), s.v. ‘Kritische Zeichen’, Allen, , Homeri llias. Tomus I Prolegomena (Oxford, 1931), p. 198Google Scholar, Turner, op. cit.(n. 25), 148–52 (= GreekPapyri pp. 113–18, 184), Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1971), p. 17Google Scholar, West, S., The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Cologne-Opladen, 1967), p. 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Cf. R. Pfeiffer, op. cit. (n. 25), p. 115, n. 4.

54 See above n. 23, part II n. 62.

55 Epist. 88. 39.