The Editorial Process
The editor’s most important tasks—namely, the production of an accurate transcription (i.e., “good readings”), as well as attributing the work to a particular poet—are the basis for all further research. But fulfilling these responsibilities depends on further wide-ranging, synthesizing analyses, including of dialect (de Kreij, this volume), of meter (Battezzato 2009; D’Angour, this volume), of palaeography, of diction, and of physical layout. The last can be particularly challenging: a group of small fragments is like a jigsaw puzzle, but with papyri there are inevitably missing or otherwise ill-fitting pieces! (Figure 7.2) In general, the larger the scrap(s) and the more extensive the amount of text available for analysis, the more richly it can be understood.
Figure 7.2 P.Oxy. 25.2430; fragments of Simonides (= fr. 519). (Courtesy of The Egypt Exploration Society and the University of Oxford Imaging Papyri Project.)
The order in which various aspects of the process are presented below in no way reflects a standardized technique: every papyrus is unique, and yields insights on its own terms as its readings are confirmed and its text stabilized. A papyrologist invariably wears many hats in the course of completing the job (Youtie 1963; Turner 1968: 54–73), but all responsible editions will include some combination of the following.
Origins/Provenance
Papyri are archaeological objects, and are therefore best understood in their archaeological and historical contexts, to the extent that these can be reconstructed: from archaeological find spot, to use (and reuse) in antiquity and modern ownership or collecting history. But due especially to philology’s tendency to privilege the text above all else, papyrology—and especially literary papyrology—has long been weak on archaeology. Early excavations such as those of the famed Oxford “Dioscuri” (Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt), for example, prioritized the extraction and accumulation of papyri. While attempts were made to organize texts that were uncovered together where possible, the “torrent” of papyri Grenfell and Hunt were uncovering on a daily basis at al-Bahnasa precluded any sort of detailed inventory or accounting of find-spots, let alone a more scientific recording of stratigraphy. (Figure 7.3) We are not much better served on this front by the reality of a lively antiquities market: purchased papyri were accompanied by the dealer’s word, which could (but need not) be well informed. There are exceptions (see, e.g., Claytor and Verhoogt 2018) but the principal methods of acquisition during the heyday of discovery regularly make the analysis of a papyrus in its archaeological context impossible. Documentation is frequently frustrating or nonexistent.
Figure 7.3 Excavating for papyri at Oxyrhynchus (al-Bahnasa). (GR.NEG.048, courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.)
Such historical limitations notwithstanding, every editio princeps should include a frank and thorough accounting of a papyrus’ provenance, an all-encompassing term under whose umbrella the object’s history (from antiquity to the present) is meant: its ancient context, the circumstances of its discovery, and its modern ownership or collecting history. Where documentation exists in the form of receipt(s) for sale, archaeological notebook(s), or institutional acquisition/inventory report(s), it should also be reported. Transparency on this front is essential to responsible scholarship; in addition to the possibility of forgery, Egyptian law has since 1983 prohibited the domestic antiquities trade and has established definitively that all archaeological sites and objects are the property of the state. Any papyrus that cannot be proven to have been exported before that date therefore falls into a legal—not to mention ethical—grey area (see further discussion of ethics, below).
Physical Description and Layout
Before an editor begins to transcribe a text, all aspects of the physical papyrus are measured and described:
the dimensions of the fragment(s)
the color and quality of the papyrus
the direction of the fibers
the location and size of holes
the direction and orientation of any folds
the presence of any sheet-joins (= kollēseis)
the extent of the header, footer, margins, intercolumnar space, and leading (= the space between lines), where extant
the number of lines, letters per line, and width of the lines
the size of the letters
the presence of marginalia, symbols, or corrections (see further, below)
if the obverse also preserves writing, it is similarly scrutinized
Among the insights potentially resulting from physical examination is the type of ancient book from which the fragment derives (i.e., bookroll or codex). But more significant findings are possible, as well. New analyses of the columns in P.Oxy. 10.1232, for example, have clarified the organization of Sappho fr. 44 (Sampson 2016; de Kreij 2020). Regularly recurring folds or wormholes, similarly, can permit the modeling of a bookroll, facilitating the placement of fragments (or columns) relative to one another. And where the fibers of the papyrus align, disparate fragments can be rejoined with some confidence.
Palaeography
A familiarity with ancient handwriting styles (and their evolution) is essential for the papyrologist: due to abrasion, dirt, holes, or other damage, letters can be quite unclear and educated guesswork is therefore inevitable. In order to produce good readings, it is often necessary to produce an alphabet of letter shapes drawn by a particular scribe, the recourse to which helps to narrow the possibilities for fragmentary letters.
Palaeography is also important for assigning a date to the text. Although this is true of both documentary and literary texts, documents can helpfully include a dating formula while literary texts lack such an internal indication (unless the papyrus has a document on its obverse side!). The differences between the two kinds of text are often obvious even to an untrained eye; unlike the cursive scripts of rapid documentary hands, whose analysis often requires specialized training, those of professionally produced ancient books can be remarkably elegant (Figures 7.4 and 7.5). Their features have been analyzed and categorized in several scholarly studies: in some cases, the handiwork of an individual scribe can even be identified (e.g., Johnson 2004: 16–37). But not all literary texts are the product of professional workshops: the text of PSI 13.1300, the so-called Sappho ostracon (= fr. 2), for example, is very corrupt, and the hand that transcribed it, while practiced, is less regular than that of a formal bookroll (Figure 7.6). This poem, coincidentally, continues to challenge its editors and interpreters.
Figure 7.4 P.Tebt. 2.684 (= Pindar, Ol. 9 and 10). The clear script is an example of biblical majuscule. (Courtesy of the Center for the Tebtunis Papyri, University of California, Berkeley.)
Figure 7.5 P.Tebt. 2.620 descr., a receipt for poll-tax. The rapid script is an example of a documentary cursive. (Courtesy of the Center for the Tebtunis Papyri,