Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 49 (2012) 7-14 A New Epic Fragment on Achilles’ Helmet?1 C. Michael Sampson University of Manitoba Abstract Edition of a small scrap from the Princeton collection containing fragmentary epic hexameters, ascribed to the cyclic Aethiopis of Arctinus or the Little Iliad on the basis of its contents, which most plausibly involve the death of Achilles (with possible echoes of that of Penthesilea). This small fragment from the Princeton collection preserves a lovely slop- ing oval hand whose uncials are roughly bilinear but tiny – typically in the vicinity of 3 mm tall. The uprights of kappa (ll. 5; 11) and iota (ll. 3; 7; 10) are occasionally adorned with a decorative serif, and the loops of omicron and rho are particularly small (a mere 1-1.5 mm), but the hand is otherwise consistent with the “formal mixed” style described by Turner, with narrow epsilon, theta, omicron, and sigma but comparatively wide and squat forms of pi, eta, nu, and mu.2 The label “formal,” however, is not exactly ideal; close parallels are found in the small, rapid hands of the latter half of the second century (occasionally termed “informal” by their editors), to which date and category I would assign this hand as well.3 So broad are the shapes of eta, nu, and pi, in fact, that they 1 I am happy to acknowledge the support of the American Council of Learned So- cieties and The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for the New Faculty Fellows award under whose auspices this research was undertaken, as well as the cooperation of Dr. Don Skemer, the Curator of Manuscripts in the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University’s Harvey S. Firestone Memorial Library. I note as well particular debts to Richard Janko and Jay Reed, my correspondence with whom in February and March 2011 produced a number of suggestions that were instrumental in shaping this article. For further criticisms and an important reading, I am grateful to the journal’s editors and its anonymous referee. Any errors that remain are my own. 2 Turner, GMAW2 22. 3 See, for example, P.Oxy. 15.1788. Similar scripts are found also in P.Oxy. 17.2078 (“a small sloping hand of an informal, rapid type”); P.Oxy. 17.2082; P.Oxy. 27.2452; and P.Mich. inv. 3 (C. Bonner, “A Papyrus of Dioscurides in the University of Michigan 8 C. Michael Sampson are potentially mistaken for one another: as regards the former two letters, the slope of the hand makes it difficult to distinguish whether the angle of the crossbar is horizontal or slightly diagonal.4 As regards eta and pi, moreover, where the upper portion of the letter is obscured, the letters are nearly identical; due to their respective squatness, where traces above the crossbar are abraded or invisible (as in l. 10), it is difficult to tell them apart. The text is written with the fibers (→). P.Princ. inv. AM 14601A H x W = 5.7 x 3.1 cm Oxyrhynchus (?) Late II CE – – – – – – – – – – ] . τηϲ̣ ̣ . [ ] . τηϲ̣ . [ ] . νηθην̣[ κ]ινηθῆν̣ ̣[αι ]ϲπαρεα̣ϲι ̣ . [ ]c παρέα̣ϲιν̣ ̣ [ ]τ̣ρυφα . [ ] τ̣ρυφάλ̣[εια ] . κα . απρο[ 5 ] . καλ̣ὰ προ[ ]μ̣οιο [ πολέ]μ̣οιο [ ]ϲαιακιδε̣[ ]c Αἰακιδε̣[ ]διοϲεγ̣χ̣[ ]διοϲ ἔγ̣χ̣[οϲ ]φ . [ ]φ . [ ]ε̣υε . ινοπα . [ 10 ϲκ]ε̣ύεϲ̣ιν οπα . [ ] . κ[ . ]αν . [ ] . κ[ . ]αν . [ ]φ [ ]φ [ – – – – – – – – – – (courtesy Princeton University Library) 1 ] . , trace of a horizontal at lower letter height along edge of papyrus as of α, δ 1 ϲ̣ . [, lower half of lunate letter as of c, θ, ε; fleck of ink at lower letter height 2 ] . , trace of a vertical on edge of papyrus 2 ν̣[, upright with diagonal (or horizontal) extending to right from apex, trace of ink at upper right as of ν, γ . 3 α̣, right side of triangular letter obscured by damage to fibers as of α, δ, λ Collection,” TAPA 52 [1922] 142-168). Dr. Don Skemer, the Curator of Manuscripts at Princeton, informs me that the majority of the Princeton collection is Oxyrhynchite, with regard to which possibility the fragment in question offers no contradictory evi- dence. (The collection’s descriptive inventory, for its part, states that the provenance is unknown, but given that this same inventory also erroneously dates the hand to the first centuries BCE/CE, we are at liberty to reevaluate.) 4 In line 2, for example, the letters can be distinguished only by observing the point at which the crossbar intersects the second upright. A New Epic Fragment 9 3 ι ̣ . [, upright with decorative serif at apex (cf. l .7); damaged fibers and a fleck of ink at lower letter height 4 ]τ̣, upper portion of vertical with horizontal cap extending to right as of τ, γ 4 . [, trace of ink at upper letter height above lacuna 5 ] . , fleck of ink at mid letter height on edge of papyrus 5 α . α, middle letter obscured by hole, fleck of ink at lower-left position, possis λ, vix τ, ι 6 ]μ̣, bowl-shaped stroke leading into descender as of μ, ωι; end of verse fol lowed by over 0.5 cm blank papyrus 7 ε̣ [, faint traces of lunate stroke with horizontal crossbeam as of ε, θ 8 γ̣χ̣ [, upright with horizontal cap extending to right; left side of intersecting diagonals; fleck at lower right as of γχ, γχ . , ιχ, ιχ . 9 ]φ . , papyrus obscured to right of φ; flecks of two letters’ width at upper- letter height; vertex at top as of α, δ 10 ]ε̣υ, right edge of two horizontal or diagonal strokes at mid and upper- letter height, respectively, as of ε, χ, κ, vix c 10 ε . ι, a difficult reading: upper portion of a lunate letter with damaged fibers at mid and lower letter height as ofϲ , ε, but resembling the vertex of two diagonals as of δ, α (cf. l. 3 for a comparably sharp-angled upper portion of c) 10 α . [, faint fleck at lower letter height adjacent to the tail of α 11 ] . κ, fleck at mid to upper letter height 11 ν . [, badly damaged fibers: traces of a round or lunate shape; faint flecks 12 ]φ, upper portion of the lengthy upright of φ (cf. l. 4; l. 9); fibers damaged at right. Numerous morphological and lexical details indicate an epic context: I reconstruct the Homeric verb παρέᾱϲιν (l. 3; first suggested by Richard Janko) as well as forms of the epic words for helmet (τρυφάλεια, l. 4) and weapon (ἔγχοϲ, l. 8),5 conjectures which are endorsed by the sure presence of an archaic genitive in -οιο (l. 6), and a form of the patronym Αἰακίδηϲ (l. 7). Of metrical features, the frequency of the double-short rhythm – either ⏑ ⏑ – (ll. 3, 4, 6,6 8) or – ⏑ ⏑ (l. 7) – is consistent with hexameters, a possibility which is confirmed 5 Although certain -μι verbs in Attic-Ionic also retain -ᾱϲι as a third person plural ending (e.g. ἴᾱϲι, διδόᾱϲι, τιθέᾱϲι, ἱcτᾶϲι), the form παρέᾱϲι is attested only in Homer (Il. 5.192; 14.299; Od. 13.247). On the ending, see the discussion in A.L. Sihler, A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Oxford 1995) §430.5. Alternatives are few, and not inconsistent with an epic context: one might read the archaic adverb ῥέα, or posit a reference to the goddess of the same name. 6 The reading πολέ]μ̣οιο is, admittedly, a conjecture, but the other likely supplements (see app. crit.) are metrically equivalent. 10 C. Michael Sampson by Janko, who points out that the visible text is either metrically compatible with verse-ends (ll. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8), made compatible by means of minor emenda- tion (l. 7, 10), or readily supplemented by formulae or verse-ends known from Homer (ll. 5, 7, 10). The presence of blank space following the -οιο genitive, which might seem to belie the possibility of hexameters or elegiacs, is rather the indication of a very short verse.7 A visualization of the verses is helpful, and in the case of the substantial remains (some two-thirds of the verses), hexameters are easily posited. I include the likeliest supplements, conjectures, and corrections. ] . τηϲ̣ . [ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ κ]ινηθῆν̣[αι – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ]ϲ παρέα̣ϲιν̣ ̣ [ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ] τ̣ρυφάλ̣[εια 5 – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ] . καλ̣ὰ πρό[cωπα – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – πολέ]μ̣οιο [ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ποδώκεο]c Αἰακίδα[ο͙ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ]διοc ἔγ̣χ̣[οc ]φ . [ 10 – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – cκ]ε̣ύε⟨ϲ⟩ϲ̣ιν ὀπάϲ̣[cαι ] . κ[ . ]αν . [ ]φ [ Because Achilles is the obvious candidate for the Aeacid mentioned in line 7, and because of the references to a τρυφάλεια (l. 4) and ἔγχοc (l. 8), the task of contextualizing the fragment necessarily begins from the assumption that we are dealing with one of his martial exploits. Admittedly, some nondescript battle at Troy or even his aristeia is possible, but the proximity of Achilles and a helmet is perhaps more significant. One thinks immediately of the Iliadic death of Patroclus, marked as it is by the unprecedented sullying of his friend’s divine headgear (Il. 16.789-800): it is entirely possible that the passage in ques- tion involves the death of Achilles himself. The presence of other anonymous figures (required by the plural verb παρέαcι at l. 3), as well as the possibilities of maiming or mourning (l. 5),8 war (l. 6), and chasing or devotion to armor 7 While scribal pause of this sort is common as a mark of punctuation, it is usually only a letter’s width or so. In this case, there are no further traces of ink on this line, which can only indicate verse end. 8 The formula καλὰ πρόϲωπα, if restored (l.