Minima MarcianeaFilippomaria Pontani (Venedig)Abstract: The evident analogy between P.Artemid col. IV, 1824 and Marcian. Per. mar. ext. 2, 6 (p. 544, 24 Mller) is best explained by assuming that Marcianus had Artemidorus text in front of him while writing the entire section 2, 2 2, 7 of his Periplus, and especially in parr. 2, 67, dealing with the general shape of Iberia. Keywords: Artemidorus, Marcianus, Iberia, quotation techniques

Very few scholars will share Luciano Canforas arguments about column IV of P.Artemid. after the limpid refutations offered by C.M. Lucarini, M.L. West and J. Hammerstaedt in 20091. However, since the distinguished colleague and his entourage still repeatedly present these arguments as solid proof for the claim that the papyrus is a forgery2, may a brief marginal note be allowed. In short, Canfora argues that both col. IV, 114 (= Artemid. fr. 21 Stiehle) and col. IV, 1824 of the Turin papyrus actually represent the wording not of Artemidorus, but rather that of his late antique (5th-century?) epitomiser Marcianus3. _________1 C.M. Lucarini, Il nuovo Artemidoro, Philologus 153, 2009, 109134: 12125. M. West, All Iberia is Divided Into Two Parts, in K. Brodersen, J. Elsner, Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus, Stuttgart 2009, 95101, partly on the wake of C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, S. Settis (eds.), Il Papiro di Artemidoro, Milano 2008, 219220. J. Hammerstaedt, Artemidoro di Efeso nella tradizione indiretta e nel papiro di Torino, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, S. Settis (ed.), Intorno al papiro di Artemidoro. I. Contesto culturale, lingua e stile, Pisa 2010, 4356. On Canforas other, untenable objections see C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, Fnfzehn Monate Diskussion ber den Artemidor-Papyrus, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, S. Settis con A. Soldati (ed.), Intorno al papiro di Artemidoro. I. Contesto culturale, lingua e stile, Pisa 2010, 169242. Whatever the issue, like many Italians I dream of a scholarly world where dissent above all in public venues never resorts to derisory tones bordering on insult, exactly in the same way as I dream of a country free from the rhetoric of obstination and personal attack typical of some right-wing newspapers. 2 As a matter of fact, these arguments are also the only ones to have appeared after the editio princeps in a scientific venue not directly or indirectly controlled by the proponent himself: L. Canfora, Artemidorus fr. 21 and P. Artemid. col. IV, in Brodersen, Elsner, Images and Texts, 8994 (summarising, and largely repeating, Id., The True History of the So-called Artemidorus Papyrus, Bari 2008: 93126 and Id., A Supplement, Bari 2008, 79; no progress is made in Id., Prove testuali del falso, Quaderni di storia 69, 2009, 27993). 3 On Marcianus see most recently F. Prontera, Marciano di Eraclea e la geografia antica, in K. Belke, E. Kislinger, A. Klzer, M.A. Stassinopoulou (eds.), Byzantina Mediterranea (Fs. J. Koder), Wien, Kln, Weimar 2007, 51723.

46

Archiv fr Papyrusforschung 56/1, 2010

Wests and Hammerstaedts textual and linguistic analysis has ruled this out in detail for the first passage, and more succinctly for the second, on which I should like to focus presently. Let us juxtapose the two passages involved: P.Artemid., col. IV, 18244 [] [] [] |19 , |20 [] |21 , |22 [] |23 |23 . Marcianus, Periplus maris exteri 2, 6 (p. 544, 24 M.) , . a) These two passages, both describing the Pyrenaeans and both introductory to a description of Iberia, are too similar to be independent from one another, and it is hard to believe, for all the inertia of geographical tradition, that they could just share a common source. b) Wests obvious argument is that an unprejudiced critic will naturally take the shorter text to be an abridgment of the longer (100), all the more so as Marcianus is known to have epitomised Artemidorus, using a technique fully in keeping with our case5. c) The major differences between the two texts concern: l. 19 , certainly a clerical error of the scribe for 6; l. 20 , an impeccable Greek participial sentence clarifying that the foot of the Pyrenaeans belongs to the southern side of the triangle and looks south7; ll. 223 , which Marcianus clearly adapted by leaving out the difficult participle _________I present the text as restored by Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis, Il papiro, and with the integration of simultaneously proposed by Lucarini, Il nuovo, 132 and West, All Iberia, 100. G. Carlucci, Quando i Pirenei si inoltravano nellOceano, in L. Canfora (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro, Bari 2008, 300306: 301 suggests *; B. Bravo, Artemidoro di Efeso geografo e retore, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 170, 2009, 4363: 61, would rather delete altogether. 5 On Marcianus technique see M. Billerbeck, Artemidorus and Stephanus, in Brodersen, Elsner, Images and Texts, 6587, esp. 7981. See also S. Settis, Artemidoro. Un papiro dal I secolo al XXI, Torino 2009, 5759. 6 See Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis, Il papiro, 222. One might call it a polar error, or a simple blunder brought about by occurring in l. 15 of col. IV. 7 For the wording see e.g. Diod. Sic. 5, 3, 3 (also 5, 41, 1 etc.), Phil. de prov. 2, 48 , Strab. 2, 5, 31 [129, 1415 C.] etc. For what it is worth, the 3-ending form of the adj. ( ) is the rule from Ptolemy (geogr. 2, 5, 1) onwards, whereas earlier authors clearly prefer , like in our papyrus (Polyb. 9, 27; Strab. 2, 1, 23 [78, 30 C.]; 2, 1, 31 [84, 11 C.]; 16, 1, 13 [724, 18 C.]).4

F. Pontani, Minima Marcianea

47

(looking away, with respect to the aforementioned south8), and by adjusting the formula to his own definition of the parts of the Ocean, particularly to what he (and noone else before him) calls 9; finally, l. 24 . The latter, on which much has been built, should not be dismissed as an ultimately insignificant detail (so West). Yet the wrong idea that the Pyrenaeans should reach out far into the Ocean, thus creating two gulfs divided by the Oiasso promontory (see col. V, 813)10, is not so peculiar of Ptolemy as to persuade us that it could not have figured in Artemidorus as well: quite the contrary, it belongs to a longstanding tradition encompassing even Strabo himself11. d) Against the derivation of Marcianus from the text of our papyrus, one might rebuke that in the Periplus maris exteri Marcianus declares that he is not going to use Artemidorus as a source for this work: Poich il Periplo del mare esterno Marciano lo rivendica come opera sua, non ricavata da altri (p. 567, 10), se ne deve dedurre che le frasi che stiamo considerando (Mare esterno II, 6) debbono ritenersi sue, non tratte da altri12. And I add Marcianus makes a point of being honest, and says he will not ascribe to himself the merits and achievements of previous scholars (see esp. Menipp. per. epit. 1, 4, p. 567, 2333 M.)13. Let us verify this.

_________8 I regard the conjecture proposed by Bravo, Artemidoro di Efeso, 61, as ulti mately unnecessary. 9 Can we possibly credit the same forger who in Canforas view is not overly familiar with ancient Greek (and therefore writes with omicron), with the skill of detecting Marcia nus terminology and therefore avoiding the adjective ? Furthermore, the result of Marcianus abridgement produces a less satisfying iunctura between and + acc., whereas is more normal in geographical contexts (see e. g. schol. Ael. Arist. Pan. 110, 19 [p. 78, 36 Dind.]; Proc. aedif. 1, 9, 11 and 4, 3, 17). 10 Perhaps to be ] |8 |9 |10 [ ] |11 [] |12 []|13 (though I am not entirely convinced by in l. 9; a discussion of the difficult sentence in Bravo, Artemidoro di Efeso, 6162). 11 Pace Carlucci, Quando i Pirenei: see Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis, Il Papiro, 222 and 23233. Gallazzi, Kramer, Fnfzehn Monate Diskussion, in: Intorno al papiro. 12 Canfora, Il papiro, 289. A small warning about the reliability of what we read in this book: on p. 291 we read that presente solo nel greco tardo e bizantino (see also Carluccis tendentious note 5 on p. 301), whereby Aesop, Epicurus, Dioscorides and Galenus all become Byzantines (for Canforas use of lexical arguments see F. Montanari, D. Muratore, Parole del papiro di Artemidoro, in Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis (eds.), Intorno al papiro, 105126; A.C. Cassio, Cultura ellenistica e linguaggio religioso in Artemidoro, ibid., 6778); on the same page, we read that the maps in Ptolemys manuscripts are risalenti al lavoro ricostruttivo di Massimo Planude (see also Carlucci, Quando i Pirenei, 3056), an old communis opinio refuted by F. Mittenhuber, Text- und Kartenberlieferung in der Geographie des Klaudios Ptolemaios, diss. Bern 2009 (see also my forthcoming article The World on a Fingernail: an unknown Byzantine map, Planudes and Ptolemy) . 13 Prontera, Marciano, 520.

48

Archiv fr Papyrusforschung 56/1, 2010

The Periplus begins with an open praise of Artemidorus for his of the Mediterranean Sea, and with a mention of Marcianus own epitome of that work (p. 516, 113 M.); the author then declares that his main source for the periplus of the outer sea will be Ptolemys Geography, together with (p. 516, 1420 M.)14. Now, the second book of the Periplus maris exteri is mainly devoted to the Western and Northern Ocean (by and large, the Atlantic and the North Sea): at its outset, Marcianus insists once again on the comparison between his old achievement of epitomising Artemidorus excellent Geographumena, which concerned only the Mediterranean (p. 542, 1521 M.), and the scope of the present work (p. 542, 2126 M.): , , , . This attests to the fact that Artemidorus did show some knowledge (however inadequate as a basis for a complete description) of the outer Sea, which fits in perfectly both with other statements by Marcianus15 and with our papyrus, where the north-western coast of Spain is described very summarily (col. V, 113), and presented as still largely unexplored (col. V, 4445; see still App. Iber. 23). Let us follow Marcianus: 2, 34 are devoted to the Pillars of Heracles, whereby Artemidorus receives a special mention (p. 543, 1415 M.: he is the only geographer quoted in this passage) as the chief authority for their collocation in Cadiz. Then, after a short methodological paragraph (2, 5: p. 543, 2637 M.) there come two paragraphs (2, 67) addressing the general shape and situation of Iberia, not its , and much less the periplus of its Oceanic coasts. That these two paragraphs do not belong to Marcianus main design, is proved beyond doubt by the closing statement of 2, 7 (p. 544, 2022 M.), whereby the author ends this (clearly parenthetic) introductory section and reverts to his original plan: . What happens in 2, 67? Lucarini has shown that Marcianus note on the subdivision of Spain in 2, 7 (p. 544, 9ff. , .) plainly quotes and updates historically Artemidorus fr. 21 Stiehle (which, as everyone knows, appears in col. IV, 114 of our papyrus and is guaranteed as genuine Artemidorus by Constantine Porphyrogenitus)16. Indeed, Artemidorus subdivision of Spain (as opposed to that _________14 The same idea also appears in Per. maris ext. 1, 3 (p. 519, 911 M.) and in Menipp. per. epit. 1, 4 (p. 567, 1016 M., to which Canfora refers): . --- . 15 Menipp. per. epit. 1, 3, p. 566, 3136 M. (of Artemidorus) --- ---. 16 Lucarini, Il nuovo, 125. The same interest for the history of administrative subdivision surfaces in Strabo 3, 4, 19 (16566 C.).

F. Pontani, Minima Marcianea

49

of Gaul, which he evidently did not undertake), was probably mentioned by Marcianus in the corrupt passage Per. mar. ext. 2, 19 (p. 551, 69). In this context (a parenthetic section, surrounded and interspersed with explicit and implicit references to Artemidorus), any unprejudiced reader would hardly be surprised to find more Artemidorus in paragraph 2, 6 indeed one could well expect it, without any contradiction with Marcianus programmatic statements in the proem, which all refer to the actual periplus of the Ocean, not to this particular section17. Now, paragraph 2, 6 falls into three parts: a) name and extension of Iberia (p. 543, 4044); b) position and shape of the Pyrenaeans (p. 543, 44544, 4); c) what do the Pyrenaeans divide (p. 544, 48)? The beginning of part c ( ) corresponds closely to col. IV, 1617 in our papyrus ( [])18. Part b is the quotation from which we started our inquiry, which finds an almost verbatim match in col. IV, 1824. Do we really need more evidence to conclude that Marcianus, here too, is using Artemidorus? In other words, it seems clear that in this section (2, 22, 7), preliminary to the periplus of the outer coasts of Iberia, Marcianus has Artemidorus in mind, and resorts to him rather faithfully, stopping short of the lines describing the of Iberia, which are of no use for his present purpose19. If this is so, we are left with an important consequence: Marcianus quotes not one fragment of column IV, but two bits covering virtually the entire column (ll. 114 handed down through Stephanus and Constantine and our 1824), both (certainly the former, most probably the latter) belonging to Artemidorus. To this fact one should add that col. IV, 30V, 3 has been shown to be the most elaborate piece of Greek in the entire P.Artemid., thus leaving little doubt about its ancient age20. I leave it to specialists of ancient geography to draw from this state of affairs the due conclusions about the contents of our papyrus. Yet prima facie the most convincing explanation is that whatever the role and status of the prooemium of the first two columns coll. IVV preserve the introduction (with summary _________17 K. Mller, Geographi Graeci Minores, I, Paris 1855, cxxxiii is perhaps too summary in reviewing Marcianus sources by the sentence nonnisi rarissima quaedam occurrunt a Claudii verbis aliena. 18 As remarked by the editors: Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis, Il Papiro, 221. The last sentence of part c ( ) is on the other hand a verbatim quotation from Ptolemy (geogr. 2, 6, 11). It is indeed by a strange perspective that Canfora (Prove testuali, 280 83) is led to see a cento in the papyrus rather than in Marcianus, who openly declares he is making one. 19 It is certainly not fortuitous that the section on Iberia, if Mllers supplement is correct, also ends with a reference to Artemidorus treatment of the Mediterranean coast (2, 18, p. 550, 78 M.), so in a sense reverts to the point from which it had begun. 20 To this fact one should add that col. IV, 30V, 3 has been shown to be the most elaborate piece of Greek in the entire P.Artemid., thus leaving little doubt about its ancient age: A.C. Cassio, in Gallazzi, Settis, Kramer, Il papiro, 13839 has shown it to be perfectly in keeping with late Hellenistic Greek style.

50

Archiv fr Papyrusforschung 56/1, 2010

periplus) to the geographical part of Artemidorus book 2, a book that will have then later developed a more detailed description of Spain21.

_________21 See Lucarini, Il nuovo, 113117; Gallazzi, Kramer, Settis, Il papiro, 234 (with quotation of Strab. 2, 5, 4, p. 112, 610 C.). I wonder if this might have something to do with Marcianus repeated reference to Artemidorus as the author of a (very reliable) along with a less perfect (beside the passages of the Periplus maris exteri, see also Per. Menipp. 3, 28 34 and 4, 16: the same idea recurs when is applied to both Artemidorus and Strabo in Menipp. per. 3, p. 566, 35 M.): on the issue see also Prontera, Marciano, 51921. My thanks to Jrgen Hammerstaedt for comments on a previous draft.