adams, rec. salomons (ed.), papyri bodleianae i

8/12/2019 Adams, Rec. SALOMONS (Ed.), Papyri Bodleianae I

1/4

Review: Bodleian PapyriAuthor(s): Colin AdamsSource: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 49, No. 1 (1999), pp. 237-239Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/713980 .Accessed: 17/02/2011 04:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/713980?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/713980?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/4

THE CLASSICAL REVIEWHE CLASSICAL REVIEW 23737

Roman bureaucracy. The addressees, the Oxyrhynchite defensor civitatis and riparii,are ordered to compel the acting curator civitatis and a protodemotes (here one missesany reference to J. Gascou, BIFAO 76 [1976], 200ff., and P.Oxy. LIX 3987) to dispatch

wreaths to Heracleopolis (the prases's residence). The date, 23 December, made theeditor think of New Year celebrations. 795 (fifth-sixth century) is a memorandumdrafted in a scrinium canonum (the first attestation in papyri), apparently that of thesacrae largitiones (see ZPE 121 [1998], 144), concerning the oil supply of Pelousion.There are several uncertainties, but it is at least possible that the activities illustrated bythis document relate to an alimonium. Alimonia of oil are known to have existed inRome and Constantinople, and P.Mich. XI 613 (415) attests this institution atAlexandria. Pelousion was the chief city of the small province of Augustamnica I atthe time; could we extrapolate such alimonia for all provincial capitals in the LateEmpire?

796-8 are Coptic (literary). This is the first time that Coptica are included in avolume with Greek texts from Michigan: a reminder that post-Pharaonic Egyptshould not be viewed through Greek eyes only.

Some details (I thank Dr P. Heilporn or checking my readings on the originals). 60 i.8-T7JCroC; -9 eJKda.cL; ii.20 'EXCT[Ar n text. 766 It is a pity that a computer whim has eliminatedall the i. 6 6 6ava[Toc certain. 778 10-11 read cyyparT-a; 24 KavvatK,Iv n text; 25-26 cTr~Tourt..VTOC: 7rtO rapovT oc?; 31 surely T&v KaA&c XWovav; 4 TOVTO ' ..OV TO; el 8~/xC ye isa self-contained lliptical xpression, nd ye should not be bracketed likewise n 779 16 el c ,/x,ye- - el oc ,U?7c);36C7TOVtands or oTrov r e 7rov 'va goeswith cbroKa~Tacr'fccal);7readyevoluevov. 779 4 &lOK,IT'I - &otOKr'Tr. 780A The editors' dating, 205-204?, relies on a docketof uncertain mport, and is at best a terminus ost quem. 11-12 The editorial nterventions reunnecessary. 81 37 'ApKao' on'oc is a patronymic; fter that, the uncertain l]pKa[?]oc s anunlikely version of ApKac; 20 n. &rtcKCTreV, not mlCKoTrerV. 87 40, 41a read CKTOTC. 788 1-2In the context, AVTVOe']tuV ~ro6ewc (cf. 1 n.) is an unviable alternative; 9 ov] --, d^'ov]; 17dpyupt'[ou ~paXfixv Tpa].Kocto)v -> dpyup'[ou ?]p..aX.3[&v, with the amount of the rent lost inthe break; 18the sublinear ot should ollowTOKaOWV. 892 The man mentioned ereseems ohave had tria nomina; if so, his praenomen should be restored as [actov. 790 1 I7CTCVpl[c] --/7er'e5p.[; 9, 11-12 the restorations are at least too bold to admit into the text. 792 8 vvv > c[o]vcv; 9 7r[o6Av] C[e]p[05tv]; 12 delete the restored Ka;: alBetv (14) depends on 8[A)tovu,/cvcov(13-14), and has no relation with &cXr7Kctva (14); 13 -- .[t]d; 14 C[iC TO] > C[K TcV?]; 177reVTaKa.[ctac ~ rrev'aKoc.[[ac; 26 supplement -avTa- rather than ~-dS, cf. P.Oxy. VI 908.37; 32A60v[p] - A[0].vp; 34 (PH) 7r[po]~[ecTat -- 7rpoX[eitat. 794 9 ?K [r].r4povc is impossible, but Ihavenot arrived t a plausible eading; 6kala(ndas) >Kal(endas). optic ndices:CK~yoc isGreek. ~rapptcva s a vox nullius: TIp&lCT'3 stems from wrap[c,ll.

Wolfson College, Oxford N. GONI S

BODLEIAN PAPYRI

R. P. SALOMONS (ed.): Papyri Bodleianae I. (Studia Am-stelodamensia ad Epigraphicam, Ius Antiquum et Papyrologicampertinentia, 34.) Pp. xxi + 398, 73 pls. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996.Hfl. 340. ISBN: 90-5063-035-9.A short review of a volume of papyri can only present preliminary comments uponcontent and quality. It remains for papyrologists and other scholars to graduallysuggest corrections and new interpretations of individual documents. That thisvolume has already attracted much critical attention is an indication of its quality. Inthe first volume of a series, Salomons presents 171 papyri from the collection of the

? OxfordUniversity ress,1999

Roman bureaucracy. The addressees, the Oxyrhynchite defensor civitatis and riparii,are ordered to compel the acting curator civitatis and a protodemotes (here one missesany reference to J. Gascou, BIFAO 76 [1976], 200ff., and P.Oxy. LIX 3987) to dispatch

wreaths to Heracleopolis (the prases's residence). The date, 23 December, made theeditor think of New Year celebrations. 795 (fifth-sixth century) is a memorandumdrafted in a scrinium canonum (the first attestation in papyri), apparently that of thesacrae largitiones (see ZPE 121 [1998], 144), concerning the oil supply of Pelousion.There are several uncertainties, but it is at least possible that the activities illustrated bythis document relate to an alimonium. Alimonia of oil are known to have existed inRome and Constantinople, and P.Mich. XI 613 (415) attests this institution atAlexandria. Pelousion was the chief city of the small province of Augustamnica I atthe time; could we extrapolate such alimonia for all provincial capitals in the LateEmpire?

796-8 are Coptic (literary). This is the first time that Coptica are included in avolume with Greek texts from Michigan: a reminder that post-Pharaonic Egyptshould not be viewed through Greek eyes only.

Some details (I thank Dr P. Heilporn or checking my readings on the originals). 60 i.8-T7JCroC; -9 eJKda.cL; ii.20 'EXCT[Ar n text. 766 It is a pity that a computer whim has eliminatedall the i. 6 6 6ava[Toc certain. 778 10-11 read cyyparT-a; 24 KavvatK,Iv n text; 25-26 cTr~Tourt..VTOC: 7rtO rapovT oc?; 31 surely T&v KaA&c XWovav; 4 TOVTO ' ..OV TO; el 8~/xC ye isa self-contained lliptical xpression, nd ye should not be bracketed likewise n 779 16 el c ,/x,ye- - el oc ,U?7c);36C7TOVtands or oTrov r e 7rov 'va goeswith cbroKa~Tacr'fccal);7readyevoluevov. 779 4 &lOK,IT'I - &otOKr'Tr. 780A The editors' dating, 205-204?, relies on a docketof uncertain mport, and is at best a terminus ost quem. 11-12 The editorial nterventions reunnecessary. 81 37 'ApKao' on'oc is a patronymic; fter that, the uncertain l]pKa[?]oc s anunlikely version of ApKac; 20 n. &rtcKCTreV, not mlCKoTrerV. 87 40, 41a read CKTOTC. 788 1-2In the context, AVTVOe']tuV ~ro6ewc (cf. 1 n.) is an unviable alternative; 9 ov] --, d^'ov]; 17dpyupt'[ou ~paXfixv Tpa].Kocto)v -> dpyup'[ou ?]p..aX.3[&v, with the amount of the rent lost inthe break; 18the sublinear ot should ollowTOKaOWV. 892 The man mentioned ereseems ohave had tria nomina; if so, his praenomen should be restored as [actov. 790 1 I7CTCVpl[c] --/7er'e5p.[; 9, 11-12 the restorations are at least too bold to admit into the text. 792 8 vvv > c[o]vcv; 9 7r[o6Av] C[e]p[05tv]; 12 delete the restored Ka;: alBetv (14) depends on 8[A)tovu,/cvcov(13-14), and has no relation with &cXr7Kctva (14); 13 -- .[t]d; 14 C[iC TO] > C[K TcV?]; 177reVTaKa.[ctac ~ rrev'aKoc.[[ac; 26 supplement -avTa- rather than ~-dS, cf. P.Oxy. VI 908.37; 32A60v[p] - A[0].vp; 34 (PH) 7r[po]~[ecTat -- 7rpoX[eitat. 794 9 ?K [r].r4povc is impossible, but Ihavenot arrived t a plausible eading; 6kala(ndas) >Kal(endas). optic ndices:CK~yoc isGreek. ~rapptcva s a vox nullius: TIp&lCT'3 stems from wrap[c,ll.

Wolfson College, Oxford N. GONI S

BODLEIAN PAPYRI

R. P. SALOMONS (ed.): Papyri Bodleianae I. (Studia Am-stelodamensia ad Epigraphicam, Ius Antiquum et Papyrologicampertinentia, 34.) Pp. xxi + 398, 73 pls. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996.Hfl. 340. ISBN: 90-5063-035-9.A short review of a volume of papyri can only present preliminary comments uponcontent and quality. It remains for papyrologists and other scholars to graduallysuggest corrections and new interpretations of individual documents. That thisvolume has already attracted much critical attention is an indication of its quality. Inthe first volume of a series, Salomons presents 171 papyri from the collection of the

? OxfordUniversity ress,1999


3/4

238 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Bodleian Library in Oxford, dating from the Ptolemaic, Roman, and Byzantineperiods. S. admits that he has chosen texts to edit 'more or less at random', which isan odd approach, but most receive their editio princeps, with a small number of

re-editions. The volume is divided into three parts: texts, descripta, and a catalogueof documents from the collection by shelfmark (Mr. Gr. class al to c300). Herein liesone of the principal faults of the volume. Texts appear to be in a haphazard order,and descripta are arranged in order of shelfmark rather than date; this makes for arather irregular presentation of the material. It would seem better to have presentedthe catalogue first, with an indication as to which texts would be included in thevolume, with both inventory number and reference in the volume. Texts could thenhave been placed in the more conventional and logical chronological order.

Part One consists of fifty-three texts included in the conventional manner-adescription of the fragment, Greek transcript, English translation, apparatus criticus,

and a line-by-line commentary. The citation of parallel texts and modern bibliographyis sometimes not full enough. For example, 14 is actually part of the archive of thestrategos Damarion (S. Daris, Aegyptus 72 [1992], 23-59 with SB XX 14155-62). Thetexts come largely from the Arsinoite nome (the villages of Soknopaiou Nesos,Karanis, Theadelphia, and unprovenanced villages). Six main texts (32, 33, 43, 46, 50,and 51) add to the growing evidence for the Great Oasis; those remaining come fromthe Hermopolite and Apollonopolite nomes. The texts can be grouped as follows:Biblical texts, an arithmetic problem, official documents, petitions to officials,property and census returns, egal proceedings, contracts, receipts, ists, and fragments.

Part Two comprises of descripta of 117 texts, which seems rather a large number.

They are mostly transcribed in full, some with an apparatus criticus and all with acommentary. Unaccountably, the date and provenance of each document is stated,when known, in the description rather than under the text's heading. The lack ofdiscussion of many of these texts means that many interesting details are lost. Moreimportantly, it is certain that much more could be made of the texts themselves.Significant improvements have been made to 31 and 32 (R. S. Bagnall, ZPE 116[1997], 149-51), 82 (A. Jordens, ZPE 116 [1997], 81ff.), 107 (F. Morelli, ZPE 115[1997], 199ff.), and 63 and 64 (N. Gonis, ZPE 119 [1997], 148ff.).

There are a number of literary fragments of Homer and Apollonius of Rhodes,writing exercises, and mathematical problems. Also included are Ptolemaic fragmentsfrom Gurob and Hibeh, and from the Petrie collection. The majority of Roman textsdate from the second century, but there is a fair spread of documents from the first toseventh centuries. Types of documents featured are official letters, petitions, contracts,lists, receipts, registrations, lists and registers, sales and leases, and private letters. In anumber of cases (61g, 67, 88, 96, 121, and 154) plates are included, but notranscription. This is surprising with 121, for example-sales of donkeys areformulaic, and some attempt at a transcription should have been made. 61a is anaddendum to BGU III 702 = M. Chr. 333; it would have been better to have a newedition of the whole text, as S. does with 47 for P. Grenf: I 62. 75 is a list of personspaying one artaba in tax; S. seems unaware that there is a strong argument to suggestthat the term monartabia s a modem invention and that this tax may not have existedas he understands it (see P. Diogenes 17, pp. 131 f.)-indeed only the abbreviation apra appears on his text.

The catalogue making up Part Three is a useful tool for papyrologists, drawing as itdoes on previous handlists drawn up by Edgar Lobel and Revel Coles, listing papyriaccording to shelfmark number.

Overall the volume is a mixed bag. Of particular importance are: 14, on military


4/4

THE CLASSICAL REVIEWHE CLASSICAL REVIEW 23939

supply; 16, on the vestis militaris; 17, five census returns; 20 4, tax documents; 32 and33, mandates from the Great Oasis; 34, sale of the monopoly of baking cakes; 36-8,leases of property; 41, a paramone contract; 46, the earliest known deed of divorce

from the Great Oasis; 66, an ephebeia certificate from Alexandria; and 153, a list ofexotic foodstuffs. But texts of genuine interest are interspersed with those ofcomparatively little interest. Impressive to look at with its covers closed, thepresentation of the contents is poor, and with dim plates, certainly does not reflect thecost of the volume. The important documents will stimulate debate and add to ourknowledge; the descripta bring to our attention potentially important documentswhich will be improved by other scholars.

University of St Andrews COLIN ADAMS

RESPIRATION

A. DEBRU: Le corps respirant: La pensee physiologique hez Galien.(Studies n Ancient Medicine, 3.)Pp. viii+ 302.Leiden, tc.: E. J. Brill,1996.Nlg. 178.50/ 112.50. SBN: 90-04-10436-4.A discussion of theories of respiration in ancient medicine opens up a series ofquestions which take the researcher from breath into the processes of life, and on tothe nature of knowledge itself. From Homeric literature onwards, the idea that life

and breath are linked has been expressed, evenif

the connection between them oftenremained unexplored. But how does breathing occur? Which organs are involved,and how do they share in making breathing possible? In what does 'life' itselfconsist? How does breathing relate to the digestive process? How does air relate toblood, and can the two substances mix? Ancient writers on physiology, unable toknow what 'air' consisted of, and often holding the belief that arteries carry air andveins carry blood, came up with a range of answers to these questions.

In this work, D. has chosen to focus on Galen's contributions to such debates, notjust because of the breadth and ambition of his own work, but because of his role asa source for otherwise lost ideas, both those he repeats and those against which he

argues. Although she provides an excellent summary of previous attempts to criticizeGalen for 'missing' the circulation of the blood or to give him credit for having notedthe pulmonary circulation (pp. 7-10), she chooses not to read Galen alongside modernknowledge, but instead to attempt to situate him in the historical and textual contextof his own work, and of ancient debates. She is well aware of the risks inherent in anyattempt to reconstruct 'Galen's true views' by taking passages from different worksand merging them, and prefers to emphasize the place of statements about respirationwithin the dynamics of particular Galenic arguments.

The book opens with a discussion of the linguistic and philosophical basis ofGalen's thought, looking at the fluid vocabulary of the anatomical terms, and at the

relationships between everyday language and technical neologisms. D. argues thatGalen's attempts to reach a more precise terminology for respiration should beunderstood in the context of his belief that naming is an essential part of scientificactivity. She then goes on to investigate the causes or instruments of breathing, theactivity of the respiratory organs, and the 'use' of breathing. In Galen's account ofrespiration, it is not the heart but the thoracic muscles and their nerves that controlbreathing. Here Galen followed the Alexandrian anatomists rather than Aristotle,demonstrating the importance he placed on anatomy, and hence on dissection, in

? Oxford University Press, 1999

supply; 16, on the vestis militaris; 17, five census returns; 20 4, tax documents; 32 and33, mandates from the Great Oasis; 34, sale of the monopoly of baking cakes; 36-8,leases of property; 41, a paramone contract; 46, the earliest known deed of divorce

from the Great Oasis; 66, an ephebeia certificate from Alexandria; and 153, a list ofexotic foodstuffs. But texts of genuine interest are interspersed with those ofcomparatively little interest. Impressive to look at with its covers closed, thepresentation of the contents is poor, and with dim plates, certainly does not reflect thecost of the volume. The important documents will stimulate debate and add to ourknowledge; the descripta bring to our attention potentially important documentswhich will be improved by other scholars.

University of St Andrews COLIN ADAMS

RESPIRATION

A. DEBRU: Le corps respirant: La pensee physiologique hez Galien.(Studies n Ancient Medicine, 3.)Pp. viii+ 302.Leiden, tc.: E. J. Brill,1996.Nlg. 178.50/ 112.50. SBN: 90-04-10436-4.A discussion of theories of respiration in ancient medicine opens up a series ofquestions which take the researcher from breath into the processes of life, and on tothe nature of knowledge itself. From Homeric literature onwards, the idea that life

and breath are linked has been expressed, evenif

the connection between them oftenremained unexplored. But how does breathing occur? Which organs are involved,and how do they share in making breathing possible? In what does 'life' itselfconsist? How does breathing relate to the digestive process? How does air relate toblood, and can the two substances mix? Ancient writers on physiology, unable toknow what 'air' consisted of, and often holding the belief that arteries carry air andveins carry blood, came up with a range of answers to these questions.

In this work, D. has chosen to focus on Galen's contributions to such debates, notjust because of the breadth and ambition of his own work, but because of his role asa source for otherwise lost ideas, both those he repeats and those against which he

argues. Although she provides an excellent summary of previous attempts to criticizeGalen for 'missing' the circulation of the blood or to give him credit for having notedthe pulmonary circulation (pp. 7-10), she chooses not to read Galen alongside modernknowledge, but instead to attempt to situate him in the historical and textual contextof his own work, and of ancient debates. She is well aware of the risks inherent in anyattempt to reconstruct 'Galen's true views' by taking passages from different worksand merging them, and prefers to emphasize the place of statements about respirationwithin the dynamics of particular Galenic arguments.

The book opens with a discussion of the linguistic and philosophical basis ofGalen's thought, looking at the fluid vocabulary of the anatomical terms, and at the

relationships between everyday language and technical neologisms. D. argues thatGalen's attempts to reach a more precise terminology for respiration should beunderstood in the context of his belief that naming is an essential part of scientificactivity. She then goes on to investigate the causes or instruments of breathing, theactivity of the respiratory organs, and the 'use' of breathing. In Galen's account ofrespiration, it is not the heart but the thoracic muscles and their nerves that controlbreathing. Here Galen followed the Alexandrian anatomists rather than Aristotle,demonstrating the importance he placed on anatomy, and hence on dissection, in

? Oxford University Press, 1999

adams, rec. salomons (ed.), papyri bodleianae i

Documents