The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles: An Edition with Prolegomena and Commentary

280 Pages·1974·8.51 MB·English

by  Richard Carden

CARDEN
PAPYRUS FRAGMENTS OF SOPHOCLES
w
DE
G
TEXTE UND KOMMENTARE
EINE ALTERTUMSWISSENSCHAFTLICHE REIHE
IN VERBINDUNG MIT
HELLFRIED DAHLMANN · HANS DILLER . KURT VON FRITZ
ALFRED HEUSS · PAUL MORAUX
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
Ο LÖF GIGON · FELIX HEINIMANN
OTTO LUSCHNAT
BAND 7
WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN · NEW YORK
1974
THE PAPYRUS FRAGMENTS
OF SOPHOCLES
AN EDITION WITH
PROLEGOMENA AND COMMENTARY
BY
RICHARD CARDEN
WITH A CONTRIBUTION BY
W. S. BARRETT
WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN · NEW YORK
1974
ISBN 3 11 003833 1
© 1974 by Walter de Gruyter Sc Co.,
vormals G. J. Göschen'sche Verlagshandlung · J. Guttentag, Verlagsbuchhandlung · Georg Reimer · Karl
J. Trüboer · Veit & Comp., 1 Berlin 30 · Alle Rechte, insbesondere das der Übersetzung in fremde Sprachen,
vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile
daraus auf photomechaniscbem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) zu vervielfältigen.
Printed in Germany
Satz und Druck: Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
Buchbinder: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin
Für Ljuba
έν μύρτου κλαδί τό ξίφοο φορήςω

CONTENTS
PREFACE IX
ABBREVIATIONS ETC XV
1. EURYPYLUS: P. OXY. 1175 1
INACHUS
Introductory 52
2. P. OXY. 2369 57
3. P. TEBT. 692 72
4. SKYRIOI: P. OXY. 2077 94
Excursus 106
5. P. OXY. 2452: THESEUS? 110
6. P. OXY. 1083, P. OXY. 2453: parts of more than one play:
a satyrplay (OENEUS?), POLYIDOS (etc.?) 135
7. P. HIBEH 3: (TYRO?) 161
NIOBE (contributed by W. S. Barrett)
Introductory 171
8. P. OXY. 2805 175
9. P. GRENF. ii. 6(a) and P. HIBEH 11 186
Appendix: the legend 223
10. P. OXY. 213: (ANDROMEDA? TANTALUS?) 236
11. P. OXY. 2804: (ACRISIUS?) 244
INDEXES 251
CONSPECTUS PAPYRORUM 263

PREFACE
The papyrus fragments of Sophocles are here collected together in
one volume for the first time1. All have been published before. The
corresponding fragments of Aeschylus and Euripides have already
been collected and re-edited in recent years2. The plays of So-
phocles are not as well represented as those of the other tragedians
among the texts which the papyri have given us. That in part ex-
plains why such fragments as have been discovered were not collec-
ted earlier. Another reason is to be found in the excellent edition
published by Pearson in 1917 of all the Sophoclean fragments then
known. Though a number of important papyrus texts have ap-
peared since that date, his work remains, for those pieces which it
does treat (and this includes some papyri), a fundamental source
of knowledge. It has not deterred discussion — the bibliographies
continue to grow — but the quality of discussion has not been ad-
vanced to the same extent and Pearson's book has only gradually
shown signs of age.
I should say a few words about the principles on which pieces have
been selected. Not only are the fragments attributed to Sophocles
relatively few in number; they include a high proportion attributed
on the basis of less than conclusive indications. Of the dozen or so
pieces which I deal with here, only four (nos. 1—4) can be assigned
to Sophocles with any degree of certainty, — and there is some
1 With the important exception of the Ichneutai. Pearson's work on this was parti-
cularly thorough. The most valuable contribution to the study of the Ichneutai
papyrus since then is that of E. Siegmann, Untersuchungen zu Sophokles' Ich-
neutai ( = Hamburger Arbeiten zur Altertumswissenschaft Band 3) Hamburg,
1941. I have recorded some notes of my own on certain passages in Β ICS 18
(1971) 39 sqq..
2 Aeschylus: H. Lloyd-Jones, appendix to vol ii of H. Weir Smyth's Aeschylus.
London (Loeb) 1957; and H. J. Mette, Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos.
Berlin. 1959.
Euripides: C. Austin, Nova fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta. (Kleine
Texte 187). Berlin. 1968, supplementing Η. von Arnim. Supplementum Euri-
pideum. Bonn. 1913.
For all three dramatists the collection by D. L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri, vol. i.
London (Loeb) 1942 is of great use, though it does not always reprint fragments
in their entirety.
E. Diehl, Supplementum Sophocleum. Bonn 1913 has very little value of its own.
χ PREFACE
small room for doubt about nos. 2 and 3. I have included all frag-
ments in which I could see some definite grounds for this ascrip-
tion. In some cases the grounds are very slight. It is the main pur-
pose of the introductory discussions in each section to set out what
arguments there are, and to assess their strength. The broader
questions of interpretation: what type of play is represented, from
what part of the play the fragment seems to come, are sometimes
touched on here, on the whole only as they are relevant to the main
question, that of identification.
I have excluded a number of pieces for which Sophocles has been
suggested as author only as one among several possibilities. There
seems to me to be a danger — exemplified by H. J. Mette in his
Verlorener Aischylos — that editors of the fragments of each of the
three tragedians will take to themselves, together with what be-
longs to them, a common stock of dubia; the result will be at best
duplication, at worst a compulsion to invent bad arguments to
justify the inclusion of these pieces3. The desirable solution is, I
suppose, that all the new tragic fragments should appear together,
with these adespota aloof in a section of their own.
I have excluded, too, citations from Sophocles in the works of
other authors known only from papyri. There is a need for all the
new book fragments known from papyri to be collected and edited;
this task would best be combined with the operation of gathering
together the book fragments which have come to light elsewhere
since Pearson. These are very few. I had hoped to include them in an
appendix to the present volume, but the demands of a different oc-
cupation have left no time for ferreting them out. Their number
may be multiplied when we learn the contents of the new manu-
script of Photius discovered recently in Greece. One or two are
still turning up from other sources. See most recently: —
(i) S. L. Radt. Mnemosyne, ser. 4. 19 (1966) 49—50;
(ii) (a) H. Hunger. Jahrbuch der österreichischen byzantinischen
Gesellschaft. 16 (1967) 1 sqq.
(b) M. L. West. Maia. n. s. fasc. iii. (1968) 195 sqq.;
(iii) M. Naoumides. Gk. Rom. Byz. Stud. 9 (1968) 267 sqq.
3 Mette has no particular right to P. Oxy. 213, and what business has he with P.
Oxy. 1083 ? His remark (p. 176) "ich glaube, Aischylos lässt sich als Verfasser
dieses Satyrspiels nicht völlig ausschliessen" opens the gates a little too wide.