This volume is part of the much larger and complex project ‘Commentaria et lexica graeca in papyris reperta’ (CLGP), which aims to compile a collection of technical literature and excerpts in papyri, i.e. specific and textual testimony that brings us closer to what remains of Alexandrian and early Roman philology. This item is a major step forward in the study of ancient exegesis and will enable scholars to access the products of Euripidean exegesis. This fascicule is included in vol. 2, Callimachus-Hipponax, of Part 1, Commentaria et lexica in auctores; it is entirely devoted to Euripides, and the texts included have been edited by K. McNamee, except for scheda (a) edited by E. Esposito. In terms of editors, this consistency makes for a more balanced volume.
The volume follows the usual CLGP format: an introduction to the author, followed by the analysis of the fragments. For each papyrus the editors present the usual bibliographical summary, a papyrological commentary, which is rich and revealing, the edition of the fragment accompanied by a critical apparatus and, where possible, a translation. This is followed by a rich commentary on the fragment.
The volume contains seventeen papyri + two schede, and they are classified according to their contents. Of the seventeen papyri, fifteen contain marginal notes. It is significant that, except for PSI XIII 1302 and P.Oxy. VI 852, the commentaries are on works from the selected plays. The fragments are arranged alphabetically by the initial letter of the tragedy commented. After these, McNamee includes two fragments containing hypomnemata (P.Würzb. 1 and P.Oslo inv. 1662). The volume concludes with two lexical lists (schede). The label of commentaries to Euripidean works is clear in the cases commented on, despite the fragmentary and scarce information included in them. The fragments generally contain commentaries that do not exceed one or two lines or one or two notes per papyrus, except for P.Ant. I. 23, P.Oxy. LIII 3718, P.Würzb.1 and P.Oslo inv. 1662. This brevity sometimes makes it impossible to discern the content of the fragments. A lack of precision in the sources occurs in three cases and concerns the work to which the commentary belongs, not the authorship: PSI XIII 1302 (fr. 1), of which it is doubtful whether it belongs to Alcmaeon in Psophis or to Alcmaeon in Corinth; P.Oxy. XXXI 2543, which is considered to be a comment on Andromache because it belongs to a set of small fragments of a book roll containing Andr. 346–69 (even though it is not certain); and P.Oxy. LIII 3791 for the same reasons.
The introduction to Euripides is well written, and its brevity, precision and bibliographical richness (pp. 3–15) are appreciated. Particularly noteworthy is the review of the history of the transmission of this type of literature, starting with the written and regularised establishment of Euripides’ text and what this implies in terms of ancient philology. This part shows the complicated transmission and tradition of this type of commentary on Euripides’ work and its success. As McNamee acutely observes, despite the strong presence of Euripides in the school – of great relevance are Appendices 1 and 2 –, we have a low number of preserved fragments containing this type of commentary, which could be due to the school level, where it was most present, and to the oral nature of this level.
The work in the commentaries on the papyri is remarkable for the rich apparatus of the text edition. This richness allows readers to analyse critically the possibilities offered and to justify and understand the choices made by the editor, typically presented in a clear and well-argued style, as can be seen, for example, in P.Oslo inv. 1662. This, along with the bibliographical summary, is a useful tool for further research on these papyri.
For the study of ancient exegesis the analysis of parallel sources is of great importance. In this respect I note the work done on the parallels found in the scholia, the Suda and Hesychius. The parallels and their commentary and justification are of great use, for example in P.Würzb. 1, where the inclusion of the parallel text in the body of the work is appreciated. Finally, McNamee, where possible, refers to the potential school environment of a fragment, for example P.Harr. I 38 (inv. 179) + P.Fitzw.Mus. inv. Add. 109 + P.Oxy. LXVII 4550.
Generally the discussions present, where possible, a solid argument, and the editing of the text does not tend towards speculation, but, where uncertain, a reading is added in the apparatus. However, when the nature of the commentary and the condition of the papyrus do not allow for assertions of a more positive nature, this condition is accepted, and all possibilities are presented with acute caution, as in scheda (a), by Esposito, and in P.Oxy. LIII 3718.
In many cases the space devoted to the commentary is limited, but this is not a negative note, since the discussions of the fragments vary for several reasons: the extent of what can be read, the amount of commentary and the type of commentary, not the same as the lexical or the epexegetic one, as P.Oxy. LXVII 4554 and P.Oslo inv.1662, in which cases the effort is mainly devoted to the papyrological commentary.
Some minor shortcomings can be observed. Sometimes no comment is provided on the purpose of the note, as in P.Harr. I 38, where no reference is made to the possibility that the annotations it contains may be understood as textual variants, at least those of v. 1282, as other scholars have pointed out. Some bibliographical references are missing, although these concern general works. These include: G. Messeri and R. Pintaudi, ‘I lettori dei papiri: dal commento autonomo agli scolii’, in: V. Fera et al. (edd.), Talking to the Text: Marginalia from Papyri to Print (2002); one of the few works that provides an overview of the Euripidean commentaria: M.L. Martínez Bermejo, ‘Comentarios y marginalia al texto de Eurípides en los papiros’, Ianua Classicorum. Temas y formas del Mundo Clásico 2 (2015), 223–30. Further, I echo other reviewers’ comments about the need for indexes; in this case, I missed a list of annotated passages and cross-references, something that would make the volume easier to use. However, these are minimal objections.
The volume is of high philological quality and usefulness. The editors have filled a gap in relation to this kind of study on the Euripidean corpus and have done what was expected of this edition: they have assessed the importance and value of this type of evidence and placed it in a wider context. These are essential steps in stimulating interest in these technical and often fragmentary texts. The editors provide a good commentary, rich in possibilities for the cataloguing and understanding of the Euripidean excerpta.
