DCLP

Introduction

Extract from the treatise de materia medica (MM) by Pedanius Dioscorides (Ann Arbor, Michigan University, Library P. 3). Parts of three columns from a papyrus roll (13.8x32.7cm) of unknown provenience. In fact, only few letters on a projection at the upper left-hand side are left of column one, whereas the other two columns are preserved to full height and contain ca. 88 lines of text each; column 2 shows small holes and striping which accounts for loss of text along the left margin and column 3 breaks off at midpoint. The papyrus exhibits generous margins (3,8cm at the top, 3,1 cm at the bottom) and circa 25-30 letters per line with an intercolumnar space between 1,5 and 1,1cm. Concerning the text, there are no accents and breathings to be found, but in col. 3 l. 40 a diairesis is visible. Furthermore, it is structured by paragraphoi (8 are visible in col. 3) and on-line blank spaces followed by ekthesis of the succeeding line and by diplai obelismenai appearing in col. 2. Additionally, at the end of several lines in col. 2 (and possibly also in col. 1) there is some kind of check which was considered as a space-filler by Bonner, but instead might signal the scribe’s uncertainties about the text he has written. On the verso, a notation of the date is written in a rapid cursive which indicates the year 33 of Emperor Commodus' reign (= 192/193 AD). Serving as a terminus ante quem the treatise on the recto can be dated to the second century AD. Moreover, on the verso appear some scattered letters which, however, don't yield an identifiable text. On the recto, the papyrus contains a geater part of Dioskorides MM II, 76, 2 & 7-18 (ed. Wellmann) which deals with the preparation and medicinal properties of animal fats. It shares many similarities with the MS E against the rest of the manuscript tradition (cf. commentary). The text is written by a good, small and right sloping hand of an accomplished professional which can be attributed to Turner's category of the formal, mixed style.

(This papyrus has been digitally edited by Marcel Moser as part of the Project "DIGMEDTEXT - Online Humanities Scholarship: A Digital Medical Library based on Ancient Texts" (ERC-AdG-2013, Grant Agreement no. 339828) funded by the European Research Council at the University of Parma (Principal Investigator: Prof. Isabella Andorlini). The digital edition is mostly based on the previous editions (Campbell, TAPhA 53 (1922), 142-168; Flemming-Hanson, Estratto provvisorio del Corpus dei papiri greci di medicina (1998), 4-30; Flemming-Hanson, GMP 1.2 (2001)))

Apparatus

Notes

• r.1.8-9.

  MS E transmits θεραπείας τρόπος which cannot have been the order in the papyrus, since it would leave l. 9 too short.

• r.1.10.

  Instead of λεαί]νεται which is also found in Oribasius' and Wellmann's edition, MS E conveys διαίνεται with δι in rasura.

• r.2.1.

  Deviating from the order in the papyrus, MS E offers the reading ἔκπλυνον σφοδρῶς πάλιν, whereas Wellmann prints πάλιν ἔκπλυνον σφοδρῶς.

• r.2.3.

  MS E also conveys παγῇ, while Oribasius has παγηθῇ and Wellmann πλυθῇ.

• r.2.5.

  Wellmann has οἴνου ἴσου which also Bonner supplements in his edition of the papyrus.

• r.2.7.

  δέ is a singular addition in the papyrus.

• r.2.8.

  Almost all other sources read τῇ δ' ἐχομένῃ ἐάν τι τῆς δυσωδίας.

• r.2.9.

  Instead of ὑπολείπητι, E, Oribasius and Wellmann have ὑπολείπηται.

• r.2.11.

  Oribasius and Wellmann read προσεπίχεον which seems preferable in combination with καί. Furthermore, ταὐτά might be written separately, without crasis, like in E, Oribasius and Wellmann (cf. col. 2 l. 87).

• r.2.15.

  Dioscorides endorses the principle of curing through opposites, a basic concept of Greek medicine since Hippocrates. Therefore ἐναντιοῦνται here has the meaning "these (salts) are counter-indicated" as in e.g. Gal. De simpl. med. temp. ac fac. XI 31.

• r.2.18.

  σκευαζστέον seems to be a mistake of copying: in documents from Roman Egypt sigma is sporadically written σζ, but not ζσ.

• r.2.20.

  After ἵππειον the papyrus omitted καὶ τὰ ὅμοια which is a recurrent phrase in the MM also appearing in col. 3 ll. 30-31.

• r.2.22.

  E and Wellmann have the singular τοῦδε τοῦ ζῴου instead.

• r.2.24.

  Instead of μέν, E and Wellmann read μέλλον.

• r.2.25.

  The word οἴνωι was added at the right side after the line was written. Both the hand and the ink indicate another scribe who made this addition.

• r.2.30.

  Before ἔμπροσθεν the papyrus omitted the article ὁ.

• r.2.31-32.

  The only instance in the papyrus in which a numeral is written out in full. Probably a faint epsilon was written above the α which can be interpreted as to be cancelled since there is ink set on this letter. The rest of the tradition has the number ἔννεα which can easily be explained by a misreading of θ (=9) as ο (=70), because the middle stroke was lost.

• r.2.36.

  The papyrus omits καί after φοίνεικος which is preserved elsewhere in the Greek MS-tradition.

• r.2.38.

  The papyrus omits the sentence μεῖξον δὲ καὶ καρδαμώμου καὶ νάρδου καὶ κασσίας καὶ κιναμώμου ἀνὰ σύγγιαν μίαν which was also absent in E, but was subsequently added in the margin with slight deviations.

• r.2.43.

  E and Wellmann read ἐννυκτερεῦσαι αὐτό.

• r.2.44.

  MS E also has ἀποχέας, whereas Wellmann's edition exhibits ἀπόχεε.

• r.2.49.

  The papyrus wrongly omits the needed article τὸ, but it is found in a similar phrase in col. 3 l. 47-48.

• r.2.50.

  Wellmann's text has an additional αὐτὸ ἀπόθου καὶ between τε and χρῶ which is quite common in Dioscorides at the end of a clause (cf. MM II 76.1, 151.16), but other instances (e.g. MM V 72.1, 6.15) prove that also this reading is possible.

• r.2.51.

  Before τὸ the papyrus omits καὶ. Additionally, Wellmann reads τεθεραπευμένον instead of τεθαραπευμένον which also E exhibits.

• r.2.55.

  Wellmann and E have the genitive plural αὐτῶν.

• r.2.56.

  ἀλλὰ seems to be an error for ἅμα which is transmitted by E and Wellmann.

• r.2.59.

  The papyrus erroneously repeated ἔτι δὲ from the preceding line which Wellmann omitted.

• r.2.60.

  Before τρίτον, τὸ is omitted by the papyrus.

• r.2.64.

  The papyrus added ὡς and instead of θέλῃς which is conveyed by E and Wellmann, it has ἐθέλῃς.

• r.2.76-78.

  Wellmann has the dative plural τοῖς ξύλοις and instead of παραλαμβάνουσι transmits χρῶνται. MS Di also exhibits only the verbal form found in the papyrus, while E has both connected with καί.

• r.2.81.

  The papyrus erroneously transmits λιβανω- instead of the regular λαβών.

• r.2.83.

  The MSS show either ἀμαράκου (E and Dl) or ἀμαρακίνου (Wellmann). Only the papyrus, however, conveys κεκομμένης which is the wrong gender for both supplements. Therefore, the participle might have been repeated from l. 82 and the original reading might be preserved by Wellmann: ἀμαρακίνου δὲ ἄνθους.

• r.2.84.

  καί seems better as a connector between φύρασον and ἔασον (Wellmann), rather than the form in the papyrus.

• r.2.85.

  The reading συμπεσεῖν in the meaning 'settle' might be right as opposed to E's impossible συμπεῖν or ποιεῖν in other MSS. Wellmann corrected to συμπιεῖν ('soak') which occurs five other times in the MM in combination with ἐάσον and also has a parallel in Theophr. HP V 7.4.

• r.2.86.

  Wellmann reads τριχουνιαίαν which is thusfar apax legomenon. Therefore the adjective τρίχους ('holding 3-choes') used by the papyrus and E is to be preferred since it is also attested elsewhere in Greek literature, e.g. Aristot. Ath. Pol. 67.2.

• r.2.87.

  Instead of τὰ αὐτά, Di reads just αὐτὰ, while E and Wellmann have ταῦτα.

• r.2.88.

  The papyrus exhibits a kind of accusative of χοῦς which, elsewhere in the MM, is either χοῦν or χοέα. In fact, the latter one is conveyed by E and seems the best reading compared to Wellmann's genitive χοέως, since the MM seems to use genitive of ingredient plus accusative of measure as a rule.

• r.2.89.

  E has ὡς ἂν (leg. ἕως δ' ἄν as in Di), while Wellmann reads a temporal clause with ὅταν δέ.

• r.3.1.

  According to Bonner τῶν was lost before στυμμάτων, when the scribe switched from one column to the next. In fact, also the word πάντων is omitted before the article like in MS E.

• r.3.8.

  If one wanted to restore Wellmann's text (ἂν εὐδιασθείη· λαβὼν οἱούτινος) in the remainder of the line, it would be too crowded, as Bonner noted. Therefore, the papyrus probably omitted λαβὼν.

• r.3.10.

  The papyrus omitted the connector καὶ before καθεὶς. In addition, the combination of χύτρα and ὀστράκινος seems strange, since in the MM, Dioscorides usually combines this adjective with the vessels ἀγγεῖον and λοπάδιον to indicate that they are 'earthen'. For χύτρα, however, it's his habit to use the adjective κεραμεοῦς to indicate an 'earthen pipkin'.

• r.3.13.

  Although Bonner restored Wellmann's κεκομμένων, the singular is more likely, since elsewhere in the MM (e.g. I 55.1) reed (κάλαμος) is chopped, but never fir (ἐλάτη).

• r.3.15.

  The larger measure κοτύλην α seems more appropriate for the context than the κυάθον ἕνα conveyed by Wellmann. In the MM, the kyathos is often the amount of an individual dosage (e.g. V 55.1, III 32.6), while the kotyle is some 6 times as large.

• r.3.16.

  Instead of δίς, Wellmann has τρίς and E exhibits τετράκης ἢ τρίς. The latter reading was discarded by a second hand and only τρίς remained. In fact, the initial delta of δίς appears to have been deliberately transformed into 'four times'. Hence, either the reading in the papyrus or δὶς ἢ τρίς is right.

• r.3.23.

  The papyrus' reading καειν[ὸν] occurs as the regular καινόν after βάλε only in the MSS H and Dl.

• r.3.24.

  Wellmann reads καί after βάλε which is needed to connect the imperatives in this clause.

• r.3.27.

  πήσσεται, recalled in E's πίσσεται, is a later alternative for πήγνυται transmitted by Wellmann. The latter's root is in general more common in the MM.

• r.3.30.

  The papyrus omits καὶ τὸ ὕειον in this short enumeration. For another omission of pig fat confer col. 3 l. 87.

• r.3.31.

  The papyrus is the only witness in the tradition that preserves the preferred orthography for σαμψουχίζεται with ου.

• r.3.32.

  μὲν is a singular addition in the papyrus.

• r.3.35.

  ὁλοσχερῶς, as preserved by the papyrus and E, is probably better than ἐπιμελῶς which occurs in the rest of the tradition. With this reading, the meaning is rendered more emphatically and it also has a parallel in MM V 72.1. Furthermore, ἐπιμελῶς is found in E and the papyrus 5 words later which may point to its erroneous transference to this earlier position by the other witnesses.

• r.3.36.

  Instead of μείξας, E exhibits μαλάξας, while Wellmann reads μαγίδας which also recurs in col. 3 l. 50.

• r.3.36-37.

  The papyrus and Di read ἐπιραίνων with E showing a related ἐπιραίνου. Wellmann, however, has ἐπιχέας.

• r.3.38.

  Wellmann reads ἀποθέμενος αὐτὰς referring to μαγίδας in l. 36.

• r.3.43-44.

  The papyrus added the second αὐτὸ in this line.

• r.3.47.

  The reading of the papyrus is uncertain here; E has τὴν πρὸς τὸν πυθμένα which also Bonner adopts, but which is wrong, since the dative case is needed here. Wellmann exhibits τὴν ἐν τῷ πυθμένι and here we have probably the same reading with the preposition πρὸς which is also found in col. 3 ll. 52-53.

• r.3.50.

  Ε and Wellmann have ἀναστρέφου instead of the participle also conveyed by MS Q.

• r.3.51.

  Bonner adopted Wellmann's text, while E has ἃ ἠδίως (leg. ἰδίως) προείρηται.

• r.3.52-53.

  Bonner accepted Wellmann's reading which is shown in the apparatus. E instead exhibits ἀφ[ελών τε τὴν πρὸς] τῷ πυθμέν[ι] ῥυπαρία[ν ὑπαρχοῦσαν ἀπόθου].

• r.3.56.

  The papyrus has ἐχιδνῆον, a previously unattested alternate for ἐχιδναῖον, which also E transmits with the form ἐχίδνιον. Opposed to that, Oribasius and Wellmann convey μόσχειον, but both the Latin translation in Dl and the fact that the fat of vipers is not an uncommon ingredient in ancient medicine (cf. Nik. Ther. 209) support the reading of the papyrus.

• r.3.57.

  προι[ητέον] is an error for ποιητέον transmitted by the rest of the tradition.

• r.3.61-62.

  ἐκπιάζειν is the later Attic form of ἐκπιέζειν and it often appears in many MS traditions, like here and in E, as opposed to the older form in Oribasius and Wellmann.

• r.3.62.

  The scribe erroneously added εἶτα from line 63 here.

• r.3.63.

  Instead of simple εἴρας, Oribasius, E and Wellmann have the composite διείρας.

• r.3.68.

  ἄσηπτα μένει is wrongly repeated from the preceding lines 66-67.

• r.3.72.

  The papyrus omitted δὲ after λεόντειον.

• r.3.74-75.

  τὸ δὲ ἐλεφάντειον is omitted by the papyrus, leaving only fat of the stag as ointment against snakes. This reading seems preferable, since Dioscorides makes no mention of elephant fat elsewhere in the MM and also the translation in Dl knew only stag fat.

• r.3.77-79.

  The papyrus duplicates ὅθεν (also reflected in Dl) which seems hardly plausible. The duplication, however, may signal that a connector between the two participles ἑψόμε[νον] and ἐνκλυζό[μ]ενον is missing. Instead, E and Wellmann read ἑψόμενον ἐνκλύζεται as well as καὶ before μετὰ.

• r.3.84.

  The papyrus and E omitted ὂν after διαλυτικώτερον which is perhaps an haplography, and φυραθὲν before σὺν which might be an intrusion anyway, because, in the MM, it signifies in most instances the kneading of the solid with a liquid.

• r.3.85.

  After κρόκῳ another καὶ was omitted by E and the papyrus.

• r.3.86.

  This line shows no signs of ekthesis on the papyrus, although a paragraphos as well as an on-line space is present.

• r.3.87.

  The papyrus omitted a sentence about pig fat (vd. col. 3 l. 30): ὕειον δὲ [ἀναλογεῖ, om. E et secl. Wellmann] τοῖς περὶ ὑστέραν καὶ ἕδραν καὶ πυρικαύτοις ἁρμόζει.

• v.1.

  A conflated version of the dating formular for year 33 of Commodus' reign which corresponds to 192-193 AD. It's the regnal year in which the emperor was murdered on 31 December 192 (= 5 Tybi). The news of his death didn't reach the Arsinoite nome or was not officially recognized there until the end of February 193 which may explain the way Commodus' titulature appears here.

• v.2-3.

  Although Commodus' titulature begins much in the same way as in PHeid. IV 301 ii 2-3 and iii 12-13, it veers off after l. 2 omitting his victory titles Ἀρμενιακοῦ Μηδικοῦ Παρθικοῦ Σαρματικοῦ Γερμανικοῦ μεγίστου Βρετανικοῦ.

• v.3-4.

  In year 33 of his reign, Commodus' six victory titles were sometimes followed by εἰρηνοποιοῦ τοῦ κόσμου εὐτυχοῦς ἀνικήτου Ῥωμαίου Ἡρακλέου (e.g. POxy XXXI 2611.26-27 & PSI IX 1036.25-26) and both ll. 3 and 4 might represent unsuccessful attempts in this direction.