Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:39:23.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elegiacs by Gallus from Qaṣr Ibrîm*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

R. D. Anderson ,
P. J. Parsons  and
R. G. M. Nisbet
R. D. Anderson
Affiliation:
Egypt Exploration Society, London
P. J. Parsons
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
R. G. M. Nisbet
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The hilltop fortress town of Qaṣr Ibrîm is situated in Egyptian Nubia, some 150 miles south of Aswan. Transformed into an island by the rising waters of Lake Nasser, it has been excavated under the aegis of the Egypt Exploration Society since 1963. Until 1976 work was under the direction of Professor J. M. Plumley (University of Cambridge); the 1978 season was led by Professor W. Y. Adams of the University of Kentucky (site director) and R. D. Anderson, honorary secretary of the E.E.S. (administrative director and epigraphist). A site that attracted Egyptian interest at least as early as the New Kingdom and formed part of the district under the special protection of Horus of Mi'am, Qasr Ibrîm was for much of its history a military stronghold, administrative centre, and place of religious pilgrimage. Occupation can be traced for some 3,500 years till the expulsion in 1811 of the ‘Bosnian’ mercenaries stationed at Ibrîm soon after 1517 by the Ottoman Selim I. Ideal conditions of preservation, only now threatened by the lake, have combined with this long history to provide an astonishing wealth of documents from a wide variety of periods.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 69 , November 1979 , pp. 125 - 155
Copyright
Copyright ©R. D. Anderson and P. J. Parsons and R. G. M. Nisbet 1979. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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

1 Preliminary reports have appeared in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology L (1964), 3–4Google Scholar; LII (1966), 9–12; LVI (1970), 12–18; LX (1974), 212–38; LXI (1975). 5–26; LXIII (1977), 29–47; LXV (1979), 30–43.

2 J. M. Plumley in JEA L (1964), 4, pl. 1, 3.

3 J. M. Plumley in JEA L (1964), 4.

4 Skeat, T. C., ‘A Letter from the King of the Blemmyes to the King of the Noubades’, JEA LXIII (1977). 159–70Google Scholar; Rea, J. R., ‘The letter of Phonen to Aburni’, ZPE XXXIV (1979), 147–62Google Scholar.

5 R. D. Anderson in JEA LXV (1979), 41.

6 Plumley, J. M., ‘The Christian Period at Qaṣr Ibrîm: Some Notes on the MSS Finds’, in Michalowski, K. (ed.), Nubia, Récentes Recherches (1975), 105–6Google Scholar.

7 J. M. Plumley and W. Y. Adams in JEA LX (1974), 236–8, pl. LIV, 3; Plumley, J. M., ‘An Eighth-century Arabic Letter to the King of Nubia’. JEA LXI (1975); 241–5Google Scholar, pl. XXVIII.

8 J. M. Plumley in JEA L (1964), 3–4, pl. 1, 2; Plumley, J. M., The Scrolls of Bishop Timotheos (Egypt Exploration Society, Texts from Excavations, First Memoir, 1975)Google Scholar.

9 Kirwan, L. P., ‘Rome beyond the Southern Egyptian Frontier’, Proc. Brit. Acad. LXIII (1977), 13, on pp. 21–4Google Scholar.

10 Weinstein, M. E. and Turner, E. G., ‘Greek and Latin Papyri from Qaṣr Ibrîm’, JEA LXII (1976), 115–30Google Scholar.

11 Written communication from M. J. Price.

12 Verbal communication from D. Bailey.

13 A theoretical possibility is (ἔτουϲ) θ Κ̣α̣ι̣[ϲαρείου. According to K. Scott, YCS 11 (1931), 253, the earliest known instance of this month-name is of A.D. 40; such of the later material as is collected in Kiessling, WB Suppl. III, provides nothing earlier. In that case, ‘year 9’ must refer to Claudius (A.D. 48/9) or a successor, rather later than one's impression of the hand would suggest.

* This section owes much to the help and advice of Professor E. G. Turner.

14 Above, p. 126.

15 OGI 654 = E. Bernand, Inscr. gr. et lat. de Philae II, no. 128 (hieroglyphic version dated 17 April 29 B.C.). Kirwan, L. P., Proc. Brit. Acad. LXII (1978), 20 fGoogle Scholar.

16 Strabo XVII. 1. 54 (820–1). On the details see Jameson, S., JRS LVIII (1968), 71Google Scholar; Hofmann, I. in Ägypten u. Kusch (ed. Endesfelder, Erika & others, Akademie d. Wissenschaften d. DDR, 1977), 189Google Scholar.

17 Kirwan, op. cit. (n. 15), 23 f. For the background see Adams, W. Y., Nubia: Corridor to Africa (1977), 338–55Google Scholar, and now Desanges, J., Recherches sur l'activité des Méditerraneens aux confins de l'Afrique (1978), 307 fGoogle Scholar.

18 See R. O. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus, no. 102.10.

19 Above, n. 10. I exclude the pleasant speculation, that the victorious Gallus sent a copy of his own works to the client prince whom he installed in this area.

20 Wingo, op. cit., 35; Müller, pp. cit. (n. 23), 13. J. S., & Gordon, A. E., Contributions to the Palaeography of Latin Inscriptions (1957), 151 ffGoogle Scholar.

21 BGU 611 see n. 43; POxy 668 : POxy IV, pl. vi. PBarc inv. 14913–153 : Roca-Puig, R., Himne a la Verge Maria, ‘Psalmus Responsorius’ (1965)Google Scholar (the hand was assigned to the earlier iv A.D. by the editor, to the later iy A.D. by Lowe, CLA Suppl. 1782). PBarc uses this system of paragraphing to separate stanzas; Dr. R. W. Hunt remarks that the lyric poems of Prudentius are similarly set out in A (Par. lat. 8084, vi A.D.), see Mallon, Marichal & Perrat, L'écr, lat., pl. XXX.

22 According to the hand-drawing of Hayter (Scott, sW., Fragmenta Herculanensia (1885)Google Scholar, after pl. xli, cols. F and H; no example in col. E, which alone has been photographed, CLA III, 385; Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 4).

23 Again, according to the hand-drawings. See e.g. Herculanensium Voluminum Pars Prima (Oxonii, 1824), pp. 74, 87Google Scholar. For various forms of paragraphos in later Latin MSS see Müller, R. W., Rhetorische u. syntaktische Interpunktion (Diss. Tübingen, 1964) 52Google Scholar; for paragraphos in verse-inscriptions (showing the division between prose and verse, or between one metre and another), see Wingo, op. cit. 144 f.

24 CPL 20. Plate: PIand v, pl. 16; CLA VIII, 1201; Mallon, Pal. rom. pl. IV, 1; Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 1.

25 CPL 19. Plate: PSI II, pl. 5; CLA, III 289; Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 62. Here the lower oblique of K is extended and curved up at the end, with a point on either side. K for kaput is known from earlier inscriptions, and from medieval MSS (Lindsay, , Notae Latinae, 27Google Scholar). Some have taken K in the two papyri to be the same abbreviation, although in PSI 142 at least the sign divides lines, not chapters.

26 Scott, loc. cit. (n. 22), col. H. The wide lower margin shows that something ends here.

27 Wingo, op. cit. 35, 77, 113.

28 Stephen, G. M., Scriptorium XIII (1959), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar and pls. 1–2.

29 A few drawings by G. Tanzi-Mira, Aeg. I (1920), 224.

30 Again, according to the hand-drawings. See e.g. Herculanensium Voluminum Series Secunda (Oxonii, 1825), p. 21Google Scholar (paragraphos, combined with short blank in mid-line), p. 43.

31 Plate: Turner, E. G., Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (1971), pl. 26Google Scholar.

32 Isid., Etym. 1. 21. 8 and 26; his notes on paragraphus occur also at Gram. Lat. VII, 535. 3 Keil, where the sign is called simplex ductus and drawn as >. (I owe these references to Professor Jocelyn.) The so-called coronis derives, like the rest, from the forked paragraphos: G. M. Stephen, loc. cit. (n. 28), 10.

33 e.g. POxy v, 843, with pl. 6 (Plato); XLII, 3000, with pl. 2 (Eratosthenes).

34 PRyl 472 (liturgical, papyrus, iii/iv A.D.assigned date) : plates, PRyl in, pi. 3; CLA Suppl. 1720 (neither shows the border). PBarc (Cicero, papyrus, iv A.D. assigned date) : plate, Roca-Puig, R., Cicero, Catilinaries (1977), pls. x, xxxivGoogle Scholar. POxy 1097 (Cicero, papyrus, v A.D. assigned date) = CPL 24 (further fragments, POxy 1251, PKöln 1, 49) : plate, CLA II, 210; Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 50. CPL 75 (De Iudiciis, parchment, iv–v A.D., assigned date) : plate, CLA VIII, 1033.

35 Degrassi, ILLRP, no. 316 (late ii B.C.), 342 (c. 101 B.C.), 985 (plates: Degrassi, Imagines, nos. 137, 151; Ritschl, Priscae Latinitatis Monumenta Epigraphica, tab. lxxix); no. 793 runs one verse over two or more lines, and indentation serves to show the unity of each verse, whether hexameter or pentameter. Of course the sample is too small to prove that indentation was universal.

36 Collected in CIL IV and Suppl. Indented: 1796 ( + full interpunction), 1824, 1893–4 ( + full interpunction. Ovid, Am. 1. 8. 77 f. + Prop. IV. 5. 47 f.), 1950 (Prop. IV. 16. 13 f.). Not indented: 1891,1895 (Ovid, AA I. 475 f.), 1898 (second line + full interpunction), 2066, 4491 ( + full interpunction ? Prop. II. 5. 9 f.), 4957, 6626. 1904 and 2487 are two copies of the same couplet, one with indentation, the other without.

37 This is an impression; I know no collection of material. The papyri of Callimachus' elegiac poems, which range in date from iii B.C. to vi A.D., certainly have no example of indentation.

38 Again, an impression, which I owe to Mr. P. A. Hansen and Mr. P. M. Fraser. Of the texts collected in E. Bernand, Inscr. metr. de l'Égypte gréco-romaine, nos. 47, 68 and 73 show indentation; all are of ii A.D. Of two epitaphs inscribed in ink, one indents (no. 22, ii/ii i A.D. ?), one does not (no. 87, ii A.D. ?).

39 Guelf. Aug. 13. 11 : E. Chatelain, Paléographie des classiques latins, pl. xcix; date from CLA IX, 1377. Par. Lat. 10318: fascimile publ. by H. Omont (1903); CLA v, 593. A and B of Prudentius, to which Dr. R. W. Hunt refers me, are both of vi A.D.; but the available specimen plates do not show whether they indent in the few elegiac poems (on the lyric poems see n. 21). The Bobbio fragment of Rutilius, vii A.D., to which Mr. Reeve refers me, has only the second half of each line (Italia medioevale e humanistica XVI (1973), 29 f. & pl. iv).

40 See for example the MSS of Ovid in Chatelain, op. cit. (n. 39), pl. xci ff.

41 CLA X, 1474; Chatelain, op. cit. (n. 39), pls. xiv, xcix. E. A. Lowe had already guessed that enlarged initials began in pagan times (Paleographic Papers I, 196); the counter-argument of Roberts, C. H. (Manuscript, Society & Religion in Early Christian Egypt, 1979, 17)Google Scholar must now be modified.

42 Similar oversights in Pland 90 (see n. 24); and also in inscriptions, see J. S. & A. E. Gordon, op. cit. (n. 20), 183 f.

43 Dated literary texts. PHerc 817 (Carmen de bello Aegyptiaco ), CLA III, 385 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 4 (31 B.C.-A.D. 79). ? PHerc 1067, CLA III, 386 (before A.D. 79), too damaged for certainty. ? PHerc 1475, CLA, III 387 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 2 (before A.D. 79), too damaged for certainty. BGU 611 = CPL 236 (speeches of Claudius), CLA VIII, 1038 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. I, no. 5 (after c. A.D. 43). PMich VII, 456 ( = CPL 231) + P Yale inv. 1158 (Parassoglou, Stud. Pap. XIII (1974), 32) (legal text), CLA Suppl. 1779 (ii A.D. ? the verso text, see Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 16, has Greek writing assignable to iii A.D., and Latin writing without interpunction).

Undated literary texts. (Here the assigned dates, especially the earlier, may themselves depend in part on the fact of interpunction.) Pland 90 = CPL 20 (Cicero), CLA VIII, 1201 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 1 (i B.c./i A.D. ? i A.D. ?). POxy 2088 = CPL 41 (de Servio Ttdlio ), CLA Suppl. 1714 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 12 (i A.D. ? ii A.D. ?). POxy 30 = CPL 43 (de Bellis Macedonicis ), CLA 11, 207, X, 1539 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 14 (i A.D. Mallon, ii A.D. Seider, iii A.D. ed. pr.). PSI 743 = CPL 69 (Alexander Romance ? Greek in Latin letters), CLA Suppl. 1693 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 13 (i/ii A.D. ?). PHamb. II, 167 = CPL 65 (Mime ? below, n. 90), CLA VIII, 1214 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 6 (ii/iii A.D. ?). PHeid Lat 1 = CPL 318 (Cookbook ?), CLA VIII, 1220 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 8 (i/ii A.D. ? iii A.D. ?). POxy VI, 871 = CPL 47 (Philosophy ?), CLA XI, 1666 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. 3 (iv–v A.D. ? ed. pr., iii A.D. ? Lowe). These last three would be late examples, if their dates were firm; and could no doubt be explained as archaizing, or as the literal reproduction of early exemplars. But we have very few dated Latin book-hands for the early period; so that the assignment of dates to the undated is more than usually uncertain; and in this uncertainty the presence of interpunction will generally be the only solid indication. There is thus a temptation to down-date PHamb 167, PHeid Lat 1 and POxy 871, as Seider has now done, to i A.D. This works well enough for the first two (on PHamb see n. 90); more doubtfully for POxy 871, if, as the first editors state, the back carries a document assignable to v A.D.

Dated documents. CPL 247, Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 1, nos. 3–4 (c. 17–14, or 21–18 B.C.). PMed inv. 68. 87,0. Montevecchi, La Papirologia, pl. 34 (A.D. 7). POxy 2772, with plate viii (Greek in Latin letters) (A.D. 10/11 ?). POxy 244 = CPL 175, ChLA III, 206 (A.D. 23). PMich III, 159 = CPL 212, ChLA V, 280 (A.D. 41–68). PSI XI, 1183 = CPL 170, Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 1, no. 6 (A.D. 47/8). CPL 238, Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 1, no. II (Domitian). PYale, Chron. d'Eg. XLVIII (1973), 318, with plate (A.D. 91: only the first few words of each line, so that the appearance of full interpunction may be misleading). PWisc 11, 70, with plate (late i ?). PVindolanda 65 (c. A.D. 105: five lines only, and not all the interpuncts clear. I am grateful to Dr. A. K. Bowman for permission to refer to this piece).

Undated documents. (Again, the assigned dates depend in part on the fact of interpunction.) PBerl Lat 13. 956 = CPL 246, Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 1, no. 1 (i B.C. ?). OWadiFawakhir 3 = CPL 305, Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 1, no. 2 (i B.c./i A.D. ? Seider, i/ii A.D. ? ed. pr.). POxy 3208, BICS XVII (1970), pl. iv (i B.c./i A.D. ?). PSI 1321, with plate (and Mallon, Pal. rom., pl. xi) (i A.D. ?). PKöln II, 160, with plate (i/ii A.D. ?). PRyl IV, 608 = CPL 248, CLA 11, 228 (i/ii A.D. ?).

For the decline of interpunction see (i) PMich 430a, Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. 11. i, no. io, a literary text, copied before A.D. 115, with only sporadic interpunction; (ii) two documentary archives of early ii A.D., the letters of Terentianus (PMich VIII, 467–72 = CPL 250–5; + ChLA V, 299), which have no interpunction at all, and the documents from Vindolanda, of which one has (perhaps) full interpunction, a few partial interpunction, most no interpunction at all. It may be that decline was more rapid in Italy. The wall-inscriptions and waxtablets from Pompeii and Herculaneum (if correctly copied in CIL IV) show interpunction much less commonly than one might expect of the Senecan age or earlier (cf. n. 36). But no doubt in private (as distinct from professional) MSS much depended on individual choice. Suetonius, Aug. 87. 3, notes that Augustus did not divide his words (by interpuncts, presumably).

44 Kühner-Stegmann 1, 32. F. Sommer (rev. by Pfister, R.), Handbuch d. lat. Laut- u. Formenlehre4 I, 126Google Scholar. Leumann, M., Lat. Laut- u. Formenlehre, 137Google Scholar.

45 Quint., Inst. 1. 7. 5.

46 TLL s.v. ‘magnus’ 122. 40; Brock, Arthur, Quaestionum Grammaticarum Cap. Duo (1897)Google Scholar. The Pompeian wall-inscriptions show two cases of maxumus against many of -im -, V. Väänänen, Le Latin vulgaire des inscriptions Pompéiennes 3, 26. POxy 3208 (i B.c./i A.D., assigned date) still has maxsuma. Infimus is already attested in ILLRP 517 (117 B.C.). But the change from -u - to -i - may have proceeded at different speeds in different words: Sommer, op. cit. (n. 44), 88.

47 Cornutus, ap. Cassiod., GL VI, 150 Keil = Varro, gr. fr.**68 Goetz-Schoell. Hence Quint., Inst. 1. 7. 21.

48 ‘Mar. Vict.’ (Aphthonius), GL VI, 9. 3 Keil.

49 Kent, R. G., The Sounds of Latin3 (1945)Google Scholar, para. 22. Sommer, op. cit. (n. 44), 64. Leumann, op. cit. (n. 44), 13, 62.

50 Accius fr. 24 Funaioli (Quint., Inst. 1. 7. 14: ‘semivocales geminare diu non fuit usitatissimi moris, atque e contrario usque ad Accium et ultra porrectas syllabas geminis ut dixi vocalibus scripserunt. diutius duravit ut e et i iungendis eadem ratione qua Graeci … uterentur: ea casibus numerisque discreta est, ut Lucilius praecipit’ etc.; ‘Mar. Viet.’ (Aphthonius), GL VI, 8. 13 Keil: … ‘cum longa syllaba scribenda esset, duas vocales ponebat, praeterquam quae in i litteram incideret; haec enim per e et i scribebat)’. Lucilius fr. 10 Funaioli (358–70 Marx). Varro fr. 272 Funaioli (gr. fr. **69 Goetz-Schoell). Nigidius Figulus fr. 10 Funaioli (xxxvi Swoboda).

51 Quint., Inst. 1. 7. 14 (above, n. 50).

52 CIL 12 583.

53 Lommatzsch, , Arch. Lat. Lex. XV (1908), 129Google Scholar.

54 Väänänen, op. cit. (n. 46), 22 f.

55 CPL 246, Letter (i B.C., assigned date): conserveis, sei, sateis, defendateis (the last two in short syllables, from an over-anxiety to be correct; similar examples in inscriptions, Sommer, op. cit. (n. 44)). CPL 311, Account (i B.c./i A.D., assigned date): conductei. POxy 3208, Letter (i B.C., assigned date): tibei, vocareis. Contrast CPL 247, Letters (17–14 or 21–18 B.C.), where one letter uses I-longa, the other simple I; PMed inv. 68. 87 = O. Montevecchi, La Papirologia, pl. 34, Subscription (A.D. 7), I-longa PQaṣrlbrîm 78–3–21/24, Letter (same deposit as the Gallus-papyrus), simple I. The EI still survives in PMich 469.11 (early ii A.D.) : rescreibae, but patri.

56 The Gallus-papyrus may encourage us to believe that EI spellings in the MSS of Catullus and Lucretius are authorial, not simply scribal archaisms. See Stolz, Fr., Hist. Gramnt. d. lot. Spr. (ed. Blase, H. and others) I. i (1894), 215 fGoogle Scholar. For Catullus see 23. 1, 39. 2, 61. 1, 61. 199, 61. 225, 63. 91, 76. 26, 77. 3; and (as suspected cause of corruption) 64. 164, 68. 15s, 57.9, 63. 10, 96. 1. (I owe these references to the kindness of Dr. D. S. McKie.) For Lucretius see Lachmann on 4. 602. For Cicero see Stolz, op. cit.; but the instances are frequent only in the Pro Fonteio, which suggests deliberate recension rather than chance survival (Marouzeau, see n. 67).

57 This unified system is ascribed to Accius in GL VI, 8. 13 (above n. 50); the two features are at least considered side-by-side in Quint., Inst. 1. 7. 14 (ibid.). But the more consistent spelling II occurs from time to time, see n. 58. Gemination + EI, e.g. ILLRP 751 (c. 140 B.C.), 793 (Sullan ?), 394 (49/6).

58 R. Coleman, CQ XIII (1963), 3; J. H. Oliver, AJP LXXXVII (1966), 152.

59 Quint., Inst. 1. 7. 14 (above, n. 50). Sporadic survivals, Oliver, op. cit. (n. 58), 155.

60 Treated as a unified system in the quotation of Varro's view, fr. 272 Funaioli.

61 ILLRP 365, 803, 934, 977; in proper names, 372, 563, 667, 801, 978. j. S. & A. E. Gordon, op. cit. (n. 20), 148, 214; Quint., Inst. 1. 4. 10.

62 Degrassi on ILLRP 716. J. S. & A. E. Gordon, op. cit. (n. 20), 186, 216. In medieval usage, of course, I-longa has no connection with quantity at all; it is the form taken by initial I and medial semi-vocalic I (Lowe, E. A., Palaeographic Papers 1, 4Google Scholar). This development begins already in classical times, see Oliver, op. cit. (n. 58), 166 f., Väänänen, op. cit. (n. 46), 35.

63 See nn. 57, 60.

64 See e.g. ILLRP 149 alias donis, 307 feili suet, 364 summis pereiculeis, 513 veneire … venire, 719 magistrei … magistri, 794 Deidiae Didiae, 823 liberteis suis.

66 So also in PHamb 11, 167 (below). Equally, EI and I-longa may occur side-by-side in the same inscription: ILLRP 579, 823. It is clearly not true that the apex replaced gemination, and I-longa replaced EI, from the time of Sulla, as Lommatzsch maintained.

67 Thus Lucilius recommended pueri genitive, puerei nominative; Varro, facilis singular, facileis plural (n. 50). Inscriptions show a large (disproportionately large ?) number of EI spellings in such case-endings, plus a certain discrimination: -i gen. sing., with -ei nom. plu., ILLRP 94, 343, 357, 360; -i gen. sign., with -eis dat./abl. plu., 57, 705, 771, 964, 974; -i nom. plu., with -eis dat./abl. plu., 57, 105a, 662 (suets, professi; but also quei; perhaps simple inconsistency, but there are other hints that monosyllables had special treatment). One factor here may be (Dr. J. N. Adams suggests) ‘an attempt on the part of the grammarians to counter the tendency to shorten long vowels in (unstressed) final syllables’; another was no doubt the flight from ambiguity; contrast the treatment of the unambiguous verbal ending -i in ILLRP 977 (fui, optinui but domineis, illei ), 985 (fui, but inferieis, tristeis acc.); though this too appears as -ei in the whole-hogging PHamb 167 and in other inscriptions (ILS ill. ii, p. 814). The economical policy was to discriminate long vowels only when an ambiguity was thus avoided. Quintilian recommends this, in discussing the apex; but his words make it clear, and the inscriptions clearer still, that normal usage was much less rigorous, see Oliver, op. cit. (n. 58), 133.

67 cf. Väänänen, op. cit. (n. 46), 22 f. Numerous EI spellings still survive (not all acceptable) in the MSS of Plautus: Anderson, TAPA XXXVII (1906), 73; Marouzeau, Mélanges Chatelain (1910), 150. It has been disputed whether Lucilius based his rules on pure theory, or on the tradition of archaic orthography (R. G. Kent, op. cit. (n. 49); F. Sommer, op. cit. (n. 44), 65). The inscription of Gallus at Philae (n. 15) has particular interest: deivi and diets patrieis stand isolated, among many spellings in simple I, as if only these words (solemn in themselves, and common in early inscriptions) require the distinctive ornament.

68 Both visible in the photograph, CLA III, 385; Seider, Pal. lot. Pap. 11. i, no. 4.

69 n. 24.

70 n. 90.

71 mihei is quoted from CIL 12, 1401 (ILLRP 939), IV, 1846 etc. tibei still in POxy 3208 (n. 55).

72 Thus ILLRP 511 (SC de Bacchanalibus, 186 B.C.) 27 figier after exdeicatis.

73 The etymology of dives is doubtful. But some ancient authorities (Varro, L.L. V. 92) certainly connected it with divus, older deivos. Deivitis occurs, as proper name, in ILLRP 929, of uncertain date.

74 There are two difficulties. (1) Priscian states (if it is not an interpolation) that the -i - in such words was long; modern etymologists doubt this. But certainly CIL VI, 6314 writes dlgne with I-longa. (2) We have no evidence from the archaic period to show whether the original spelling was di - or dei -. Sommer, op. cit. (n. 44), 100.

75 I owe this suggestion to Dr. J. N. Adams and Mr. M. D. Reeve. In the inscriptions note: (a ) ILLRP 122 (c. 140 B.C.) redieit … signum, but 82 seignum; (b ) 702 Quinctius … pageis, vicei, Sulpicei, but 565 (c. 70?) Queinctius; (c ) 517 (117 B.C.) dixserunt among many EI spellings, 973 (Gracchan ?) deico … dIxi, but 340 (late ii B.C. ?) indeixsit, 793 (Sullan ?) and 805a (late i B.C. ??) veixsit; (d ) 136 afleicta. Väänánen, op. cit. (n. 46), 22 f. cites only Queintus and utreisque from the Pompeian inscriptions.

76 Donatus, GL IV, 368. 7 Keil.

77 Sommer, op. cit. (n. 44), 31. So in the letters of Terentianus, PMich 467 etc. (Adams, J. N., The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Clau. Terentianus, 32Google Scholar); and in the letters from Vindolanda (Karus, karissime ). Clearly the schoolmasters maintained the rule, against those like Quintilian who thought the distinction perfectly pointless (Inst. 1. 7. 10). The writer of PHerc 817, who has C before A everywhere, both initially and medially, apparently took the radical view.

78 There might be considerations of book-production. Apices would spoil the solid bilinear appearance of the script ? Apices were the business of the corrector, not the first hand (cf. PHamb 167), and this book has not been corrected (below, p. 138) ?

79 See in general Mallon, J., Paléographie romaine (1952)Google Scholar; Seider, R., Pal. lat. Pap. II. i (1978)Google Scholar. A list of early Latin book-hands is given by Marichal, R., Scriptorium IV (1950), 134Google Scholar; IX (1955), 127. Recent discussions of the early period: Nicolaj, G. P., Miscellanea in memoria di Giorgio Cencetti (1973), 3Google Scholar; Seider, R., Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Papyrologists (Oxford) (1975), 277Google Scholar.

80 For the early codices see Lowe, E. A., Palaeographic Papers 1, 189Google Scholar.

81 See n. 22.

82 CLA III, 386. Another section, Nicolaj, op. cit. (n. 79), pl. IIIe.

83 CLA III, 387; Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 2. Other sections, Nicolaj, op. cit., pls. II, IIIa.

84 Small portions reproduced in Nicolaj, op. cit.

85 Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 7b.

86 CPL 70; CLA XI, 1645.

87 CPL 69; CLA Suppl. 1693 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 13. Assigned to i A.D. by Nicolaj, op. cit. (n. 79).

88 CLA Suppl. 1735.

89 CPL 318; CLA VIII, 1220 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 8.

90 CPL 65; CLA VIII, 1214 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 6a. This sumptuous book (note the use of red ink, and the large lower margin) has interpunction and EI spellings throughout, and frequent apex; either it archaises, or the date normally assigned to the hand, ii or ii/iii A.D., is too late. Published as a declamation; republished as comedy or mime by J. Dingel, ZPE X (1973), 29; more probably mime, since not demonstrably metrical; B. Bader, ZPE XII (1973), 270; Dingel, ZPE XIV (1974), 168; Questa, C., Maia XXVI (1974), 314Google Scholar.

91 CPL 56–7; CLA II, 212, XI, p. 19, ChLA III, 218, Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 5. The recto contains a military document, with dates of A.D. 163–172; so that the dating of the verso c. 200 is more reliable than usual.

92 CPL 28; CLA Suppl. 1721 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 23 (there assigned iii/iv A.D.).

93 CPL 170;PSI XI, pl. V, Mallon, Pal. rom., pl. V; Seider, Pal. lat. Pap.I, no. 6. A census-return, therefore most likely written in the census-year 47/8 or a little after.

94 Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. I, no. 15.

95 CPL 125; PRyl II. Pl. 23.

96 CPL 324; Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. I, no. 41. For other examples of the ‘Rustic Capital’ as commonly used in military documents see ChLA V, 283 and notes ( + ChLA 491, 497). This sub-style has been named Capitalis Romana Militaris by Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, p. 37.

97 ChLA XI, 492 & Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II. i, no. 1b.

98 CPL 61; CLA Suppl. 1695.

99 CPL 228; CLA Suppl. 1781.

100 POxy XLI, pl. 3. All three pieces seem to be imitations of, or cartoons for, stone inscriptions.

101 Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. I, nos. 7, 13.

102 PHerc 1057: Nicolaj, op. cit. (n. 79), pl. IV. PSI 743: n. 87. Pland 90 verso: n. 97. PSI 1183a: n. 93.

103 PIand 90 recto: n. 24. Cursive: CPL 247 ii, Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. I, no. 4.

104 Mallon, Pal. rom. p. 24.

105 Nicolaj, op. cit. (n. 79), pls. II–III. Similarly in the painted wall-inscriptions from Pompeii and Herculaneum, n. 101.

106 Above, p. 134. For punctuation, see Müller, op. cit. (n. 23), 46, 61. PHerc 817 writes an oblique stroke at some line-ends, to show colon- or sentence-end (at all line-ends, and simply to show line-end, according to Seider, Pal. lat. Pap. II i p. 36; but his photograph does not bear this out).

107 Strabo XIII. 1. 54 (609). But it is just possible that i 6 carries a correction by a different hand, see p. 143.

108 See the excellent discussion by Tränkle, H., Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lateinischen Dichtersprache, Hermes Einzelschriften XV (1960), 66 fGoogle Scholar.

109 The second eclogue is assigned to 45 by Hardie, C. G., in The Ancient Historian and his Materials (Essays in honour of C. E. Stevens), ed. Levick, B. (1975), IIIGoogle Scholar: Virgil says to Pollio ‘accipe iussis carmina coepta tuis’ (Ecl. 8. 11 f.), and Pollio was absent from Italy during the relevant years except for the latter part of 45. Mr. J. C. Bramble suggests that Ecl. 2. 24 ‘Amphion Dircaeus in Actaeo Aracyntho’ may be derived from Gallus; he points not just to the neoteric rhythms but to Prop. III. 15.39 f., where Dirce, Amphion and Aracynthus are mentioned in the same context.

110 There is no reason to emend to iudice in view of 2 ‘festina tibi vindicem probare’.

111 The lines are assigned to a first edition by G. L. Hendrickson, CP XI (1916), 249 f.; XII (1917), 77 f.; their authenticity is rejected by Fraenkel, E., Hermes LXVIII (1933), 392 f.Google Scholar = Kleine Beiträge II (1964), 199 f.

112 R. P. Robinson, TAPhA LIV (1923), 98 f.; N. B. Crowther, CP LXVI (1971). 108 f.; Wiseman, T. P., Cinna the Poet (1974), 53Google Scholar.

113 Prop. II. 34. 91; Ov., Am. I. 15. 30, A.A. III. 537. Trist. II. 445; Mart. VIII. 73. 6. See Schanz-Hosius II4, 171; RE XII, 218.

114 Established by Bentley on Hor., Carm. II. 12. 13; cf. Lesbia and Clodia, Perilla and Metella, Delia and Plania, Cynthia and Hostia (Apul., Apol. 10).

115 RE XIII, 2382 f.; Call., H. Ap. 18 f.: ὅτε κλείουσιν ἀοιδοὶ ἤ κίθαριν ἤ τόξα, Λυκωρέος ἔντεα Φοίβου (with F. Williams's note); Euphorion fr. 80. 3 (a poet notoriously imitated by Gallus).

116 cf. Prop. II. 1.3 f. (programmatic): ‘non haec Calliope, non haec mihi cantat Apollo; ingenium nobis ipsa puella facit’ with Stroh, W., Die römische Liebeselegie als werbende Dichtung (1971), 55 f.Google Scholar; Mart. VIII. 73. 6: ‘ingenium Galli pulchra Lycoris erat’ (the motif may be derived from Gallus himself).

117 Virg., Ecl. 6. 64 f. (cited p. 151). Cf. also Ecl. 10. 11 f.: ‘nam neque Parnasi vobis iuga, nam neque Pindi ulla moram fecere neque Aonie Aganippe’; this would have an extra point if Gallus had mentioned Parnassus as well as Helicon.

118 The cult-title suggested especially the learned poetry of Callimachus; cf. W. Clausen, AJP XCVII (1976), 245 f. and XCVIII (1977), 362.

119 Hor., Carm. I. 33. 5; Mart. I. 72. 6; 102. 1; III. 39. 2; IV. 24. 1; 62. 1; VI. 40. 1; VIII. 13. 2; Maxim., Eleg. 2. 1.

120 For such hyperbaton in pentameters and hexameters see B. O. Foster, TAPhA XL (1909), 32 f. (Propertius); Platnauer, M., Latin Elegiac Verse (1951), 49Google Scholar; H. Patzer, MH XII (1955), 77 f.; C. Conrad, HSCP XIX (1965), 195 f.; J. B. Van Sickle, TAPhA XCIX (1968), 487 f. (Catullus 65); B. Wohl, TAPhA CIV (1974), 385 f. (Tibullus).

121 O. Skutsch had already suggested that the sandwiched word-order of ‘raucae, tua cura, palumbes’ originated with Gallus (RhM XCIX [1956], 198 f.).

122 The fragments would seem more effective if they could be regarded as sections of one complex poem (the connections in elegy are often loose, and Propertius sometimes divides into quatrains), but the layout of the book tells against such a hypothesis (above, p. 129 f.).

123 It is of course possible that the book ended in the lost lower position of column i, but apart from the natural assumption that the book and the roll coincide, there would be no room for a heading at the top of column ii, unless the poem following consisted of no more than a single couplet.

124 W. Kranz, RHM CIV (1961), 3 f., 97 f. = Studien zur antiken Literatur und ihrem Fortwirken (1967), 27 f.; Nisbet-Hubbard on Horace, Carm. II, 335 f.

125 Carm. III. 30. 14 f.: ‘sume superbiam quaesitam meritis et mihi Delphica lauro cinge volens, Melpomene, comam’, Kranz, op. cit. 5. For the pretensions of elegiac poets cf. Hor., Epist. II. 2. 92 (apparently on Propertius): ‘caelatumque novem Musis opus’.

126 Nisbet-Hubbard on Horace, Carm. I. 1. 33; F. Cairns, Mnem. XXII (1969), 155 f.

127 H. Lloyd-Jones, JHS LXXXIII (1963), 75.

128 Reitzenstein, R., Hermes XXXI (1896), 194 f.Google Scholar; Skutsch, F., Aus Vergils Frühzeit (1901), 34 f.Google Scholar; Ross, D. O. Jr., Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome (1975), 20 fGoogle Scholar.

129 Pfeiffer, E., Hermes LXIII (1928), 302 f.Google Scholar = Ausgewählte Schriften (1960), 98 f.; Wimmel, W., Kallimachos in Rom (Hermes Einzelschriften 16, 1960), 142 fGoogle Scholar.

130 Ross, op. cit. (n. 128), 109, does not admit that Propertius is contradicting Gallus; he thus concludes that the latter's personal poetry was a later development.

131 Plut., Caes. 56. 4; Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (1971), 197 fGoogle Scholar.

132 Wilkes, J. J., Dalmatia (1969), 46 fGoogle Scholar. Those who wish to assign the new poems to this period may claim support from the allusion to Viscus (above, p. 145); on the other hand the chronology of Lycoris raises problems (p. 154).

133 Meyer, E., Caesars Monarchie3 (1922), 474 f.Google Scholar; Gelzer, M., Caesar (1960), 298 fGoogle Scholar. (= 322 f. in English edition, 1968); S. Weinstock, op. cit. (n. 131), 130 f., 340 f. I exclude consideration of a Parthian campaign under Octavian: a suitable context is hard to find, Gallus would be more aware of the realities than Horace or Propertius, and anything that minimizes present achievements (2 tum erunt) comes badly from the Prefect of Egypt.

134 Schanz-Hosius I4, 163, 313, 349 f.

135 Hor., Epist. I. 18. 56, Carm. IV. 15. 7 f.

136 Att. x. 10. 5, x. 16. 5, Phil. 2. 58.

137 Fam. xiv. 16; Shackleton Bailey rightly identifies this Volumnia with Cytheris.

138 plut., Ant. 10. 3: γύναιον…ἄρχοντος ἄρχειν καὶ στρατηγοῦντος στρατηγεῖν βουλόμενον.

139 Fam. ix. 26. 2: ‘infra Eutrapelum Cytheris accubuit. “in eo igitur” inquis “convivio Cicereille quem aspectabant, cuius ob os Grai ora obvertebant sua ?” ’

140 Phil. 2. 77 : ‘sibi cum ilia mima posthac nihil futurum’.

141 Dio XLVIII. 49. 3; RE ix A, 1233 f.; MRR II, 389.

142 Mr. I. M. LeM. DuQuesnay has observed that the Eclogues should have been completed in 39: Maecenas, who took up Virgil no later than 38, is mentioned nowhere in the book. There is no justification for the view that the eighth poem belongs to 35.

143 Hermes xxxvii (1902), 19 = Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften II (1960), 34.

144 Nep., Att. 12. 4; RE ix A, 875 f.

145 D. Brutus was the son (or perhaps stepson) of the cultured but notorious Sempronia (Sail., Cat. 25).

146 This is true even if Martis is taken primarily with armis (as the word-order naturally suggests). Gallus is not with Lycoris in imagination (thus Servius), but on a separate expedition; this is shown by munc, detinet, and the contrasting tu in 46.

147 F. Leo, op. cit. (n. 143), 18 f.; Rose, H. J., The Eclogues of Virgil (1942), 106 fGoogle Scholar.

148 For Pollio's presence in Spain in 45 (before his late praetorship) cf. André, J., La vie et l'œuvre d'Asinius Pollion (1949), 16Google Scholar (citing Suet., Jul. 55. 4).

149 Pollio writes from Spain to Cicero in June 43 that he can borrow one of his tragedies from Gallus (Fam. x. 32. 5), a sign that the two men had been recently together (cf. also x. 31. 6 of March). The episode shows that Gallus was already regarded by Pollio as a literary man.

150 Syme, R., Roman Revolution (1939), 252, n. 4Google Scholar; Gallus has since turned up with the same title in Egypt (see next paragraph).

151 Plancus ap. Cic., Fam. x. 15. 3, x. 17. 1 (both of 43 B.C.); RE VII, 69.

152 Kromayer, J., Hermes XXXI (1896), 12 fGoogle Scholar.; R. Syme, CQ XXXII (1938), 40 f.; Vittinghof, F., Römische Kolonisation und Burgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und Augustus (= Abh. der Akad. der Wiss. Mainz, 1951), 67, n. 3Google Scholar.

153 The place in Narbonensis was far more important than others of the same name, see R. Syme, CQ XXXII (1938), 39 f.

154 For bibliography see Volkmann, H., Gymnasium LXXIV (1967), 501 f.Google Scholar; Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria II (1972), 97Google Scholar.

155 Fraser, op. cit. II, 96.

156 Bömer, F., Gymnasium LXXII (1965), 8 fGoogle Scholar.

157 Hartmann, E., Gymnasium LXXII (1965), 3Google Scholar.

158 Dio LIII. 23. 5: καὶ τὰ ἔργα ὁσα ἐπεποιήκει ἐς τὰς πυραμίδας ἐσέγραψε, see ILS 8995 = OGIS 654.

159 Prop. I. 5. 23 f.; Hubbard, M., Propertius (1974), 25Google Scholar; Syme, R., History in Ovid (1978), 99 fGoogle Scholar.

160 Cat. 28 and 47; Hor., Epist. 1. 3. 6 f.

161 For the alleged damnatio memoriae see Boucher, J.-P., Caius Cornélius Gallus (1966), 56 fGoogle Scholar.

162 Prop. 11. 34 B. 91 f.; Ov., Amor. 1. 15. 29 f., III. 9. 63 f.: ‘tu quoque, si falsumst temerati crimen amici, sanguinis atque animae prodige Galle tuae’.

163 W. B. Anderson, CQ XXVII (1933), 36 f.; Norden, E., Sitzungsb. der Preuss. Akad. der Wiss. (1934), 627 f.Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften (1966), 469 f.; J. Griffin, G & R xxvi (1979), 74 f. But revisions are possible in principle (cf. Ovid's Amores and Metamorphoses ), and only a few lines need have been excluded.

164 When the Augustan poets talk of Parthian expeditions, their political realism has been variously regarded (Brunt, P. A., JRS LIII [1963], 170 f.Google Scholar; Syme, R., History in Ovid, 186 f.Google Scholar); imitation of Gallus would not be a total explanation, but would help to account for the degree of interest shown by Propertius. The political element in the elegies of Gallus was divined by the Renaissance forger of Anth. Lat. 914 (even if his Roman history left much to be desired): ‘(Lycoris) pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas victricesque aquilas subduce Ventidio qui nunc Crassorum manes direptaque signa vindicat Augusti Caesaris auspiciis’.

165 Amor. 1. 15. 29 f. Lycoris is the poetry-book as well as the actress; nota is not only ‘famous’ but ‘notorious’.