The Avis Phoenix in The Schools of Rheto PDF

Copyright © Università degli Studi di Cassino (Italy)
ISSN 2037-0245
ISBN 978-88-8317-073-7
Direttore
Oronzo Pecere
Comitato scientifico
Massimiliano Bassetti, Daniele Bianconi, Franco De Vivo, Lucio Del Corso,
José Antonio Fernández Delgado, Paolo Fioretti, Anatole Pierre Fuksas,
Anna Maria Guerrieri, Jacqueline Hamesse, Alfredo Mario Morelli, Paolo Odorico,
Inmaculada Pérez Martín, Filippo Ronconi, Francesco Santi, Francesco Stella,
Antonio Stramaglia, Michael Winterbottom
Editing
Maddalena Sparagna (coordinamento editoriale)
Stella Migliarino
«Segno e Testo» è una rivista peer reviewed
Edizioni Università di Cassino

Centro Editoriale di Ateneo
Campus Folcara – via Sant’Angelo in Theodice
I-03043 Cassino (FR)
E-mail: segnoetesto@unicas.it
Tel. +39 0776 299 3289
Distribuzione
Brepols Publishers
Begijnhof 67 – B-2300 Turnhout (Belgium)
E-mail: info@brepols.net
www.brepols.net
Tel. +32 14 44 80 20 – Fax +32 14 42 89 19
Periodico annuale: Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Cassino nr. 75/03, del 9-6-2003
Direttore responsabile: Oronzo Pecere
Finito di stampare nel mese di dicembre 2013

presso Tipografia Tuderte s.r.l.
Loc. Torresquadrata, 202
I-06059 Todi (PG)
Daniela Colomo
The avis phoenix in the Schools of Rhetoric:

P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 and P.Lond. Lit. 193 revisited*
in memory of Marc Huys (1961-2010)
1. Introduction
ὥϲπερ γὰρ οἱ λέοντεϲ καὶ ὅϲα ἐντιμότερα τῶν ζῴων ϲπανιώτερα
τῶν ἄλλων ἐϲτὶ τῇ φύϲει, οὕτω καὶ κατ’ ἀνθρώπουϲ οὐδὲν οὕτω
ϲπάνιον [ὡϲ] ὅϲον ἄξιον προϲειπεῖν ῥήτορα. εἷϲ δὲ ἀγαπητῶϲ καὶ
δεύτεροϲ ὥϲπερ ὁ Ἰνδικὸϲ ὄρνιϲ ἐν Αἰγυπτίοιϲ ἡλίου περιόδοιϲ
φύεται.
Aelius Aristides, Or. 2, 425-426 Lenz-Behr
No quotation could be more suitable to set the scene: Aelius Aris-

tides, a rhetorician, compares the rarity of the true rhetor with the rare
appearance on earth of the mythical oriental bird called the phoenix1.
While this clever comparison associates the phoenix and the ars rheto-
rica at an abstract level using a rhetorical simile, roughly a century later
the same association is exploited more pragmatically: Augustine, in De
anima et eius origine 4, 31, 33, refers to the phoenix rhetorically within
the context of a theological polemic on the nature of the human soul2.
This is hardly surprising if we consider that the mythical bird was a
* A preliminary and shorter version of this paper was delivered at the Dipartimento
di Scienze dell’Antichità, Università degli Studi di Milano, on 26th October 2009. I would
like to thank Andrea Capra, Lucio Del Corso, Marco Fassino, Isabella Gualandri, Giulio
Iovine, Cristina Iturralde, Pierluigi Lanfranchi, Alfredo Mario Morelli, Peter J. Parsons,
Marco Perale, Ivanoe Privitera, Andrea Rodighiero, Chiara Torre, and especially Antonio
Stramaglia for criticism and helpful advice.
1. See Laplace 2007, p. 101.

2. On the polemic and its historical context, see Preus 1985, esp. pp. 4-11.
30 Daniela Colomo
well-established symbol of the immortality and resurrection of the soul

in the patristic tradition3. Augustine is arguing against Vincentius Vic-
tor, a contemporary theologian who challenged him by stating that the
human soul is asexual like the phoenix, and points out the irrelevance
of the problem concerning the sex of the soul, mocking his adversary
and comparing his arguments to the declamations of young students of
rhetoric on the subject of the ‘phoenix’: quod enim de phoenice loqueris,
ad rem de qua agitur omnino non pertinet… arbitror quod tuum ser-
monem parum putaveris fore plausibilem, si non multa de phoenice more
adulescentium declamares4. The use of the phoenix as a comparandum
in a rhetorical simile by both Aelius Aristides and Augustine clearly
shows that this bird must have enjoyed great popularity as a subject of
rhetorical exercises in schools. Moreover, two verse compositions on
the bird by two Christian writers, Lucius Caelius (Caecilius) Lactantius
and Claudius Claudianus5, authors of De ave phoenice6 and Phoenix7
respectively, clearly show how deeply school training influenced literary
production. Significantly, Lactantius inter alia echoes the debate on the
phoenix’s sex mentioned by Augustine8. Unfortunately, today we can-
not read very much of the actual school compositions: only two papyri,
P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 and P.Lond. Lit. 193, both from the second/third cen-
tury AD, have preserved examples of the treatment of this theme in a
rather fragmentary form9.
3. See van den Broek 1972, pp. 194, 374-376, 382; Lecocq 2005, pp. 250-253.
4. On this passage, see Preus 1985, pp. 133-134.
5. On the influence of the progymnasmatic tradition on Lactantius and Claudian,
see Gualandri 1968, esp. pp. 8-9, 20-22, 69; Ead. 1974a, pp. 223-225; Ead. 1974b,
pp. 299-311; cf. also Ricci 1981, pp. xix, xxi. From a more general point of view, on
the relationship between progymnásmata and literary production see the dense survey by
Fernández Delgado 2007.
6. The composition consists of 85 elegiac couplets; see Laszlo 2002, pp. 105-109;
on problems of authorship and on the allegorical interpretation in a Christian direction,
see Isetta 1980; Bryce 1989; Richter 1993; Goulon 2001; Heck 2002-2003; Lecocq
2005, pp. 256-263. The edition used for quotations in this article is Riese 1906.
7. The composition consists of 110 hexameters; see Ricci 1981; Ead. 2001, pp. 148-
169; Strati 2007, pp. 72-79. The edition used for quotations in this article is Hall 1985.
8. de ave phoen. 163-164: femina seu [sexu seu] masculus est seu neutrum: / felix, quae
Veneris foedera nulla colit!
9. Ornithological themes are popular in the progymnasmatic tradition: P.Köln VI
250, B I 13-B II 22 contains a piece including a fable on the swan (see Stramaglia 2003,
pp. 226-227; Thévenaz 2004, pp. 65-67; below, § 4), while an ecphrasis on the peacock is
transmitted in Libanius’ corpus, Ecphr. 24, vol. VIII, pp. 527-529 Foerster (on the debated
authorship of this text see Hebert 1983, pp. 8-9; Ureña Bracero 2007; Gibson 2008,
pp. xxiii-xxv). Besides, Philostr. VS 487 (vol. II, p. 7, 16-19 Kayser) mentions a now lost
encomium on the parrot by Dio Chrysostom (see Billerbeck – Zubler 2000, pp. 11-
The avis phoenix in the Schools of Rhetoric 31
P.Mil.Vogl. I 2010, from Tebtunis, preserves three columns contai-

ning five different pieces: our piece on the phoenix, a piece on Heracles
at the Eleusinian Mysteries (col. i)11, a piece on exile (col. ii), a piece
on the flower named after Antinoos (cols. ii-iii), a composition on the
mantle worn by philosophers and orators (col. iii). They clearly repre-
sent a collection of sketchy models for rhetorical exercises of progym-
nasmatic type12. The text is written along the fibres in a somewhat in-
formal bookhand of small size, upright and round, with a few ligatures,
carefully executed13. Sections are separated by paragraphos and intro-
duced by headings in eisthesis. A number of phonetic spellings (espe-
cially itacisms) and orthographic errors occur. In addition, iota adscript
is usually omitted.
P.Lond. Lit. 19314, of unknown provenance, contains two progym-
nasmatic compositions15, our piece on the phoenix (fr. 2, cols. iii and
iv), and a piece on Αἰδώϲ (fr. 1, cols. i and ii). It is written across the
fibres on the back of a papyrus previously used to write a document, a
land list, which may be ascribed to the second century16. The script is
a rather informal upright hand, with some irregularities17 and cursive
12). Moreover, the phoenix is listed as a theme for ecphraseis from the second to the sixth
century in Brattico 1997, p. 64, in relation to Johannes Gazeus’ Ἔκφραϲιϲ τοῦ κοϲμικοῦ
πίνακοϲ τοῦ ὄντοϲ ἐν τῷ χειμερίῳ λουτρῷ, a description (in hexameters and iambics) of
the allegorical representation of the universe on the dome of a public bath, where the
phoenix is treated in II 208-226. However, rather than an actual ecphrasis of the bird the
passage contains the account of its death and resurrection; cf. Friedländer 1912, p. 205;
Bargellini 2006, pp. 60-61 with fnn. 68 and 69; Gigli Piccardi 2008, pp. 94-95 with
fn. 36.
10. P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 = MP3 1996, LDAB 4772, CPP 216; photographic reproductions
are to be found in: CPF IV.2, fig. 122; Stramaglia 2003, Tav. 1; Pordomingo 2007, Fig.
10; Photographic Archive of Papyri in the Cairo Museum of the Centre for the Study of
Ancient Documents (http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk).
11. See Colomo 2004.
12. See Pordomingo 2007, pp. 437-442; Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo
2008, esp. pp. 168-170.
13. A good palaeographical parallel is to be found in Roberts, GLH, pp. 18-19, pl.
18b (terminus post quem AD 190-191, possible terminus ante quem AD 215); cf. Guglielmo
Cavallo (ap. Stramaglia 1996, p. 138 fn. 215), who, on the basis of the comparison with
Roberts, GLH, pp. 22-23, pl. 23b, a document written between AD 260 and 270, suggests
the third century.
14. P.Lond. Lit. 193 = MP3 2524, LDAB 4730, CPP 328; a photographic reproduction
is to be found in Stramaglia 2003, Tavv. 4 and 5. Col. iii and iv are plated here (tav. 1),
courtesy of the British Library, London.
15. The classification of P.Lond. Lit. 193 as a collection of progymnasmata has been
proposed by Stramaglia 1996, p. 105 fn. 26.
16. The document is still unpublished.
17. One could compare, for example, two occurrences of the same letter sequence in
32 Daniela Colomo
features, possibly the hand of a student18, and contains rather awkward

spelling mistakes; iota adscript is omitted.
I offer here a re-edition of the section on the phoenix in the two
papyri, with translation and commentary (§§ 2-3), followed by some
final considerations on the treatment of the myth in the two composi-
tions, and the (possible) use of the two texts in schools (§ 4).
2. P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, col. i, 1-17
Text19
Top
[περὶ] τ̣οῦ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοιϲ ἰε-

[ροῦ φοίνι]κοϲ
[τοῦ ἱεροῦ φο]ίνικοϲ, τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ παρ’ Αἰγυ̣-
[πτίοιϲ, εἶδο]ν̣ μ̣ὲ̣ν τὴν μορ-
5 [φὴν ὅϲον] ἐ̣ν γραφῇ, τὸν δὲ ὄ̣ρ-
[νιν αὐτὸν] ο̣ὐκ εἶδον πλὴν ἐπ’ Αἰ-
[γύπτῳ, ἕνα] κ̣αὶ μὴ πανταχοῦ̣ πετό-
[μενον. οὐ γὰ]ρ ἦϲαν φοινίκων
[ἔθνεα, ὥϲ]περ χηνῶν ἢ γερά-
10 [νων ἢ κύκνω]ν δουλ̣ιχοδείρων.
[καὶ ἔν τινι παρ’] Αἰγυπτίοιϲ ἑ̣ο̣ρ̣τ̣ῇ̣
[ᾔδετο, ἵν’ ὁ φοῖ]νιξ φα̣νείη· ‘ὦ φοῖ-
[νιξ ποικιλό]π̣τερε, καὶ ἀηδόνων
[ἀοιδότερε κ]α̣ὶ κύκνων μο̣υ̣ϲι-
15 [κώτερε, χρύ]ϲ̣ε̣[ο]ϲ̣ τὸ ϲχῆμα
[c. 5]ω̣ϲ μηδὲ ἀκαίρωϲ̣ φα-
[νείηϲ…’]
1-2 suppl. Vogliano 1 [ἐπὶ] Parsons Αἰγυπτίοιϲ: the last iota seems to have been corrected
from a previous upsilon; perhaps a confusion with the genitive Αἰγύπτου? 3 [τοῦ ἱεροῦ] Par-
the same line, col. ii 5 (= iv 65; on the line number system followed here, see fn. 68) τοῖϲ
δὲ, of which the second one appears definitely smaller in size. Note also the size and shape
of the first alpha in col. ii 11 (= iv 71), which prolongs its right-hand stroke for the space
of one letter.
18. See Crisci ap. Stramaglia 2003, p. 232 fn. 64.
19. In the apparatus I record readings, corrections and supplements by Vogliano
as printed in his 1937 editio princeps of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, and by Maas and Castiglioni,
whose suggestions are recorded by Vogliano himself in that ed. pr. Supplements by Snell
are contained in Snell 1939; the supplement by Cazzaniga is contained in Gualandri
1974b, p. 294.
sons : [τοῦ μὲν] Vogliano : [ἐγὼ τοῦ] Maas 3-4 παρ’ Αἰγυ|[πτίοιϲ, εἶδον] Vogliano 5 [ὅϲον]
Castiglioni 6 suppl. Vogliano 6-7 ἐπ’ Αἰ|[γύπτῳ, ἕνα] Parsons : ἐπ’ Αἰ|[γύπτου γῇ] dub.
Vogliano 7-8 πετό|[μενον. οὐ γὰ]ρ ἦϲαν Parsons : πετο|[μένων πα]ρῆϲαν Maas 9 [ἔθνεα]
Colomo : [ἀγέλαι] Maas 9-10 γερά|[νων ἢ κύκνω]ν δουλ̣ιχοδείρων Vogliano 11 [ἔν τινι
παρ’] Αἰγυπτίοιϲ Vogliano, καὶ add. Parsons 12 [ᾔδετο, ἵν’ ὁ φοῖ]νιξ Parsons : [ᾄδεται· ὦ φοῖ]
νιξ Vogliano φα̣νιη pap. : φα̣νείη Parsons : φα̣νείη⟨ϲ⟩ Vogliano 12-13 φοῖ|[νιξ ποικιλό]π̣τερε
Colomo : Φοί|[βου] Maas 13 εὐφωνό]τερε Vogliano : ἡδυφωνό]τερε Castiglioni : μελωιδό]-
τερε Snell 14 [ἀοιδότερε] Vogliano 14-15 μουϲι|[κώτερ’, ὦ κάλ]λ̣ι̣ϲ̣τ̣ε̣ τὸ ϲχῆμα Snell 15 ἐλ]-
θέ Vogliano : χρύ]ϲεοϲ τὸ ϲχῆμα Cazzaniga 16 εὐκαίρ]ωϲ dub. Vogliano : [καιρί]ωϲ Maas
Translation20
[On] the Egyptian sacred bird, the phoenix
Of [the sacred] phoenix, the one by the Egyptians, [I had seen] its outline shape
[only] in pictures, but I did not see the bird [itself ] except in [Egypt, a single one]
and not flying everywhere: [for there] were [not flocks] of phoenixes as of wild
geese or cranes or long-necked [swans]. [And at a certain] Egyptian festival [this
song was performed in order] to make the phoenix appear: ‘O [colourful] winged
phoenix, [more tuneful] than the nightingale and more musical than the swan,
with [your gold-coloured] appearance, [may you show yourself at a timely] and
not untimely moment […’
Commentary
1-17 First of all, a few words on the reconstruction of the text, in parti-
cular on the variable length of the supplements at line–beginning. On
the basis of the comparison with col. ii21 and iii of the papyrus, two
main points have to be taken into consideration. (1) In cols. ii and iii
note that the column tends somehow to slope slightly downwards to
the left, featuring the so-called Maas’ law22. Col. ii seems to be particu-
larly affected by this tendency in the first part. (2) Often – but not sy-
stematically – letters are slightly larger in size and are more generously
spaced at line-beginning, while they are smaller and somehow crowded
towards line–end (see, for example, col. i 10, 11, 13, 26, col. ii 4, 5,
14). On the basis of (1), we may surmise that the first lines of col. i in
20. A Spanish translation is to be found in Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo

2008, p. 170.
21. Here the shortest line – 16 – contains 18 letters; the longest line – 5 – contains
24,5 letters (counting iota as a half letter); the majority of lines contain about 20 letters.
22. See Johnson 2004, p. 91: «[…] the left edge of the column […] slopes down the
page so that initial letters at the end of the column begin somewhat left of initial letters at
the top, giving the impression of a forwards tilt to the column»; cf. also ibid., pp. 91-99,
and GMAW, p. 5.
34 Daniela Colomo
our piece could have had shorter lacunas than those in the rest of the
column. Note that the most certain supplement is that of line 10, based
on a Homeric echo.
1-2 On the indentation of the title, cf. P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, col. ii 25 and
col. iii 26. The construction περί + genitive is paralleled by the titles of
the Διηγήματα in Lib. Prog., vol. VIII, pp. 33-58 Foerster (on the possi-
ble classification of this piece as a διήγημα, see below, § 4).
The Egyptian origin and provenance of the phoenix (cf. 3-4 and
11) represent a central element of its myth, deriving from its identifica-
tion with the Egyptian bird called benu, sacred to the sun, whose cultic
centre was Heliopolis23. Hdt. 2, 73, 1, one of the earliest sources on
the phoenix, explicitly points out the Egyptian source of his informa-
tion with the phrase ὡϲ Ἡλιοπολῖται λέγουϲι24. Ancient writers indicate
Egypt as the place where the death of the bird and/or its burial takes
place25. According to Hdt. 2, 7326, the phoenix dies every 500 years27
and its young offspring carries its corpse in a coffin made of an egg of
myrrh from Arabia28 to the Egyptian town of Heliopolis, where it is to
23. From an historical perspective the classical myth of the phoenix does not have an
Egyptian origin, but the bird seems to have been identified with the benu at a later stage
because of their similarities: the two birds are both related to the sun, both are able to
regenerate themselves and therefore both represent a symbol of life, renewal and eternity,
and both are symbols of the so-called Egyptian Sothic cycle (see fn. 52). The two myths
probably merged during the Hellenistic period, and such a syncretistic identification was
firmly established in Roman times, as documented by literary and iconographical evidence;
see van den Broek 1972, pp. 14-32, esp. 24-26, 70, 105-109, 238-246; Lloyd 1976, pp.
317-322; Nagy 2001, pp. 65-70; Lecocq 2005.
24. Note that he expresses apertis verbis his scepticism (2, 73, 3 ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ πιϲτὰ
λέγοντεϲ). On the reliability of the Herodotean account, see van den Broek 1972, pp.
401-408; Labrique 2013.
25. But note that Lact. De ave phoen. 65-66 states that the phoenix goes to Syria to die
and because of this the region was given the name Phoenicia.
26. Different sources about the death and re-birth of the phoenix, and variants of
the myth, are examined in detail by van den Broek 1972, pp. 146-232; cf. also Lecocq
2009b, esp. pp. 113-125.
27. 500 years represents the lifespan of the phoenix most frequently attested in the
sources, recorded by Tac. Ann. 6, 28, 3 as the commonest tradition, and accepted by Ov.
Met. 15, 395; Philostr. VA 3, 49 (vol. I, p. 120, 25-28 Kayser); Ael. NA 6, 58; on other less
attested figures, see van den Broek 1972, pp. 67-145, esp. 67-72.
28. Egg of myrrh: see Lecocq 2009b, esp. pp. 108-111. With regard to the actual living
place of the phoenix, sources apparently differ from each other: Arabia (Hdt. 2, 73, 3; Plin.
Nat. 10, 3; Tac. Ann. 6, 28, 4), Aethiopia (Hel. Aeth. 6, 3, 3; Ach. Tat. 3, 25, 3 and 7), India
(Luc. Peregr. 27, Nav. 44; Aristid. Or. 2, 107 Lenz-Behr, Philostr. VA 3, 49 [vol. I, p. 120,
25-28 Kayser]), Syria and Assyria (Ov. Met. 15, 392-407; Mart. 5, 7); see van den Broek
1972, pp. 305-334. As Lloyd 1976, p. 322 points out, these differences represent «no real
contradiction, since these terms could all be used more or less vaguely of the East in general».
be buried in the temple of the sun29. Achilles Tatius 3, 25, 630 adds that
before the burial the corpse is examined by a priest of Helios to ascer-
tain its true identity (on this point, see below).
On the relationship between the phoenix and the sun, cf. Claud.
Phoen. 7 Titanius ales, Stil. 19 Solis…avem, and Jo. Gaz. Ἔκφραϲιϲ τοῦ
κοϲμικοῦ πίνακοϲ II 210 Ἡλίου ταχὺϲ ὄρνιϲ ἐΰπτεροϲ.
The phoenix is designated as ἱερὸϲ ὄρνιϲ in PGM II 104 and XII
231; cf. Claud. Phoen. 11 par volucer superis.
3-17 On the basis of different supplements I offer here a general inter-
pretation that diverges from Vogliano’s. The verbal forms surviving in
the text are actually in the past, aorist (6) and imperfect (8): accordingly,
among the proposed supplements (recorded in the apparatus criticus)
I have adopted in the text the most suitable to this ‘past dimension’.
These verbal forms frame a narrative, an account of past events, of a past
episode: the writer speaks in the first person apparently as a traveller in
Egypt, and reports on his direct experiences concerning the phoenix. In
this respect, a Herodotean echo (5-6), already pointed out by Vogliano,
can be used in the interpretation of the text. In fact Herodotus, appa-
rently in the same role as our writer, i.e. as a traveller in Egypt, gives an
account of his own visit to Heliopolis, where he had access to an oral
source on the myth of the phoenix, but did not see the bird itself: he
saw it only in pictures. On this basis the ‘narrator’ of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20
seems to state that he had seen the shape of the bird – τὴν μορφήν – in
pictures, but was later able to see the bird itself only in Egypt (according
to Parsons’ supplement), in a single specimen, presumably only once,
on a single occasion, since there were no flocks of phoenixes as there
were flocks of other wild birds. Through the insertion of the Herodo-
tean echo the narrator parallels himself to Herodotus as a traveller in
Egypt encountering the fabulous bird, but at the same time he differen-
tiates his own experience from that of the historian. On the one hand,
Herodotus had no chance to see the real bird, but had to rely exclusi-
vely on artistic representations and on an oral source, i.e. the account
29. Cf. Antiphanes, fr. 173, 1-2 Kassel – Austin. Plin. Nat. 10, 4 locates the city of the
sun in Panchaia; cf. van den Broek 1972, pp. 189-190.
30. He offers a description of the making of the coffin similar to that of Herodotus.
His statement that the young phoenix fetches its parent’s corpse from Aethiopia to the river
Nile, seems to imply that the corpse of the bird is going to be buried in the temple of the
sun, i.e. in Heliopolis; cf. Celsus ap. Origen. Contra Cels. 4, 98; Tac. Ann. 6, 28, 5; Mela
3, 84; Claud. Phoen. 89-100 (see the detailed treatment of this aspect in van den Broek
1972, 189-193).
36 Daniela Colomo
given to him by the Heliopolitai. On the other hand, the ‘protagonist’

of our piece did once have the chance to see the bird, presumably in
Egypt: while Herodotus is simply the ‘passive’ recipient of a legendary
tale, regarding which he even declares himself sceptical (see above, fn.
24), our narrator seems to take part in an Egyptian festival, in which
a song invoking the appearance of the phoenix is actually performed.
In other words, Herodotus’ encounter with the phoenix is mediated by
an artistic representation (the γραφή) and an oral source (the legendary
account by the Heliopolitai); on the contrary, our narrator has a much
more direct and realistic approach, since he has an actual sight of the
bird itself. Speculating still further on the concise and sketchy ‘report’ of
P.Mil.Vogl. I 20: the text seems to imply that it was through the effect
of the song performed at the Egyptian festival, i.e. a ritual song, that
the phoenix actually appeared and let itself be seen by men (see below,
Comm. on 11, 12ff. and 15-16). The narrator, by imitating the role of
Herodotus as a traveller in Egypt, necessarily adopts the viewpoint of
the ‘classical Greek culture’: this explains the oddity that in the papyrus
text Egypt is presented as a foreign country, while in reality the text
itself has actually been written in Egypt by somebody living there (cf.
Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo 2008, p. 171).
It is worth noting that a comparable ‘narrative’ dimension is typical
of most ecphraseis31 of Libanius’ corpus: people, objects and actions are
described as directly seen by a narrator speaking in the first person sin-
gular and reporting an actual and specific experience. See in particular:
Ecphr. 2, vol. VIII, pp. 465-468 Foerster (on a painting in the council
chambers); Ecphr. 5, vol. VIII, pp. 472-477 (on the New Year); Ecphr.
6, vol. VIII, pp. 477-479 (on drunkenness); Ecphr. 8, vol. VIII, pp.
483-485 (on a harbour); Ecphr. 9, vol. VIII, pp. 485-486 (on a garden);
Ecphr. 10, vol. VIII, pp. 487-489 (on a hunt); Ecphr. 24, vol. VIII, pp.
527-529 (on a peacock); Ecphr. 26, vol. VIII, pp. 531-533 (on a statue
of Heracles lifting up the Erymanthian boar); Ecphr. 30, vol. VIII, pp.
541-546 (on beauty); for further details see below, Comm. on 4ff.; on
the possible classification of our piece as an ecphrasis see below, § 4.
3 Vogliano’s supplement [τοῦ μέν] is less economical, since he has to ex-

plain the duplication of μὲν in 4 as resumption of a clause by referring
to Denniston, GP, p. 384.
31. On the relationship between ecphrasis and narration, see Webb 2009, pp. 8, 61-78.
4ff. A striking echo of Hdt. 2, 73, 1: ἐγὼ μέν μιν οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ ὅϲον
γραφῇ32. Artistic representations of the phoenix are mentioned by Achil-
les Tatius in relation to the death and burial of the bird (cf. Comm.
on 1-2): the offspring of the phoenix presents its parent’s corpse to the
Egyptian priests, who examine it in order to verify whether it actually is
the corpse of a genuine phoenix with the help of pictures from a book.
Interestingly, Achilles stresses that the phoenix’s offspring, aware of the
scepticism of the priest in charge, allows him to examine even his pa-
rent’s genitalia, a fact from which we must infer that the pudenda were
represented in the picture (3, 25, 6-7)33: ὄρνιθοϲ αὕτη μετοικία νεκροῦ.
ἕϲτηκεν οὖν ἐπὶ μετεώρου ϲκοπῶν καὶ ἐκδέχεται τοὺϲ προπόλουϲ τοῦ
θεοῦ. ἔρχεται δή τιϲ ἱερεὺϲ Αἰγύπτιοϲ, βιβλίον ἐξ ἀδύτων φέρων, καὶ
δοκιμάζει τὸν ὄρνιν ἐκ τῆϲ γραφῆϲ. [7] ὁ δὲ οἶδεν ἀπιϲτούμενοϲ καὶ τὰ
ἀπόρρητα φαίνει τοῦ ϲώματοϲ καὶ τὸν νεκρὸν ἐπιδείκνυται, καὶ ἔϲτιν
ἐπιτάφιοϲ ϲοφιϲτήϲ. ἱερέων δὲ παῖδεϲ Ἡλίου τὸν ὄρνιν τὸν νεκρὸν
παραλαβόντεϲ θάπτουϲι34. Lact. De ave phoen. 153-154 records that, im-
mediately after the arrival of the phoenix in Egypt, its image is carved
in consecrated marble and the fact of its appearance, with the date, is
recorded in a new carved inscription: protinus exculpunt sacrato in mar-
more formam / et titulo signant remque diemque novo35.
The Herodotean echo in P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 is not surprising if we
take into consideration the treatment of the ecphrasis in Theon, Prog.
(p. 67, 15-17 Patillon – Bolognesi = p. 118, 15-16 Spengel), where
ecphraseis by Herodotus are mentioned as examples: they include ano-
ther Egyptian bird, the ibis, and two other typical Egyptian animals,
the hippopotamus and the crocodile36.
The wording borrowed from Herodotus represents an interesting
rhetorical device: the author/narrator defines himself as a spectator by
32. See van den Broek 1972, p. 394 fnn. 1-2 and p. 395; Lloyd 1976, p. 319.
33. Here and in the passages quoted below I use the Budé edition by J.-P. Garnaud,
Paris 1991.
34. See van den Broek 1972, pp. 195-196: «it remains possible that Achilles Tatius
inserted these details on his own initiative, but it is also conceivable that he borrowed them
from stories about the benu-phoenix that were current in the Egyptian syncretism of his
time». On the burial of the bird by the ἱερεῖϲ τῆϲ Αἰγύπτου, cf. Horapollo, Hieroglyphica 2,
57 and 1, 35, who states that it was done according to ancient Egyptian practice: this seems
to imply that the phoenix was mummified in the same manner as other sacred animals; cf.
van den Broek 1972, pp. 197-198, and Dubel 2011, pp. 396-397.
35. Cf. van den Broek 1972, p. 227.
36. In general, on the imitation of ‘canonical’ classical authors recommended in the
progymnasmatic practice, see Cribiore 2001, pp. 224-244, and Webb 2001, esp. pp. 307-
310, 313-314.
38 Daniela Colomo
using verbs of seeing appropriate to this role, implicitly emphasizing

the accuracy and credibility of his account. Libanius’ corpus offers va-
rious examples of such a rhetorical device, some of which interestingly
concern ecphraseis of pictures and statues: vol. VIII, p. 527, 13-14 Fo-
erster ἄρτι δὲ τὰ προπύλαια τοῦ τεμένουϲ ἑωρακὼϲ κατεῖδόν τι τοιοῦτον
(on a peacock); p. 265, 5 εἶδον καὶ τοιάνδε γραφήν (on a painting in the
council chambers)37; p. 532, 2-3 ἐγὼ δὲ μετ’ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ χαλκῆϲ εἰκόνοϲ
φερόμενον καὶ ὅπωϲ εἶχε κατιδὼν διηγήϲομαι (on a statue of Heracles
lifting up the Erymanthian boar)38; p. 485, 8-9 ἐγὼ δὲ ὃ τεθέαμαι καὶ
διεξιέναι βούλομαι (on a garden)39; p. 483, 9-13 τῶν δ’ αὖ λιμένων οἱ
μὲν τέχνηϲ προέρχονται καὶ χερϲὶν ἐϲκευάϲθηϲαν, τοὺϲ δὲ φύϲιϲ ἀνῆκε
μηδὲν εἰϲ τοῦτο δεομένη τῆϲ τέχνηϲ, ὃν δὲ νῦν εἶδον, εἴργαϲται μὲν ἡ
φύϲιϲ, εἰπεῖν δὲ ὡϲ ἔχει προῄρημαι (on a harbour); pp. 460, 10-461, 2
ἐγὼ δὲ θεατὴϲ γενόμενοϲ μάχηϲ τοιαύτηϲ ἐθέλω ϲοι δεῖξαι λόγῳ τὴν
θέαν (on an infantry battle). Here the writer/narrator implicitly stresses
his own credentials as author of the ecphrasis.
4-10 On the basis of the background of the myth of the bird, lines 4-8
seem to imply that the appearance of the phoenix is a very rare event,
and the experience of the writer/fictional protagonist of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20
is an exceptional one. He states that he was able to see a single specimen
of the bird, in a precise geographical area – ἐπ’ Αἰ|[γύπτῳ – and just in
this area, not everywhere – μὴ πανταχοῦ –, since a single bird cannot
fly all over the place, as flocks of other wild birds do. In relation to the
rarity of the appearance of the phoenix, one could compare Luc. Nav.
44 καὶ ἐπεὶ γρὺψ ὑπόπτερον θηρίον ἢ φοῖνιξ ὄρνεον ἐν Ἰνδοῖϲ ἀθέατον
τοῖϲ ἄλλοιϲ, ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἑώρων ἄν, a passage which emphasizes the
impossibility of mankind seeing the bird by introducing – so to speak
– ‘the exception that proves the rule’. Besides, cf. Lib. Orat. 17, 10, vol.
II, p. 211 Foerster διὰ πάϲηϲ μὲν τῆϲ γῆϲ ἐκτεῖναι τὴν πτῆϲιν, ϲτῆναι δὲ
μηδαμοῦ μήτε ἀγρῶν μήτε ἄϲτεων. ἀμυδρὰ γὰρ οὕτωϲ ἂν ἐγένετο τοῖϲ
ἀνθρώποιϲ ἡ τοῦ ὄρνιθοϲ ὄψιϲ, a passage which is part of a comparison
between the short reign of Julian and the short appearance of the phoe-
nix in our world: as van den Broek 1972, p. 67 fn. 1 points out, «[…]
in this connection he states emphatically that the bird can be seen only
vaguely by men». In this respect, the description of the bird in P.Lond.
37. Cf. vol. VIII, p. 470, 5 (same subject).

38. Cf. vol. VIII, p. 537, 6-9 (on a statue of Eteocles and Polynices).
39. Cf. vol. VIII, p. 520, 17-18 (on a statue of Athena); p. 529, 16-17 (on a temple of
Tyche); p. 487, 9-10 (on hunting).
Lit. 193, col. ii 16-21 (= iv 76-81) as being in the air, with gleaming
gold and light blue plumage, similar to the sea, seems to be compatible
with its appearance at a distance with a vague and indistinct shape. Li-
banius’ passage may help to clarify lines 4-8 further. Here the experien-
ce of seeing the bird through artistic representations and the experience
of seeing it in reality are both mentioned. Herodotus, in the passage
here echoed, states that artistic representations had been his only means
to see the bird, since it appears only every 500 years. On the contrary,
our narrator states he has seen a single specimen of the bird in the flesh,
in Egypt and – implicitly – on a single occasion. Why does he need
to mention that he had also seen its μορφή in pictures? There may be
two reasons for this. On the one hand, this may be simply a gratuitous
allusion to the Herodotean passage to emphasise the difference and the
superiority of his own encounter with the phoenix: he saw the actual
bird, not only its shape in pictures! On the other hand, it may be prac-
tically related to the fact that he saw the bird in reality, apparently on
a single occasion: in these circumstances, the fact that he already knew
what the bird looked like from pictures may be proof that he was able
to recognize this single specimen when it appeared before him40. Such a
recognition appears problematic, if we think that the bird, as Libanius
says, appears to men only ἀμυδρά, vaguely, at a distance, and therefore
the narrator wants somehow to prevent the reader from suspecting that
he deluded himself because of ignorance and did not actually see a ‘real’
phoenix but some other bird.
In respect to the most striking characteristics of this bird – the fact
that no more than a single individual bird exists at any one time – see
Philostr. VA 3, 49 (vol. I, p. 120, 28 Kayser) εἶναι δὲ ἕνα; Ov. Am. 2,
6, 54 et vivax phoenix, unica semper avis; Lact. De ave phoen. 31-32 hoc
nemus, hos lucos avis incolit unica Phoenix: / unica, sed vivit morte refecta
sua41. A single specimen of the phoenix lives for a long span of time,
40. On this point see Torre 2013, forthcoming, fn. 30.

41. Cf. also: Plin. Nat. 10, 3; Schol. on Aristid. Or. 2, 107; Mela 3, 83; Claud. Phoen.
8, De consul. Stilichonis 2, 417. Moreover, Isid. Etymol. 12, 7, 22 offers an etymological
explanation on the singularity of the bird: Phoenix Arabiae avis, dicta quod colorem
phoeniceum habeat, vel quod sit in toto orbe singularis et unica. Nam Arabes singularem
‘phoenicem’ vocant; cf. van den Broek 1972, pp. 387-388. This characteristic of the phoenix
has become proverbial and is exploited in constructing similitudines aiming to single out
and praise unique individuals or to stress the exceptionality of an event. Apart from the
instructive passage by Aristides quoted at the very beginning of this article, see: Synesius,
Dio 9, 3 (vol. iv, 1, p. 162 Lamoureux-Aujoulat) ϲπανιώτερον δὲ δήπου τὸ γένοϲ τῶν τοιούτων
ψυχῶν ἢ τὸ τοῦ φοίνικοϲ, ᾧ τὰϲ περιόδουϲ μετροῦϲιν Αἰγύπτιοι (the rarity of those who achieve
contemplation by their own efforts are rarer than the phoenix by which the Egyptians
40 Daniela Colomo
which varies according to the sources42, and then dies. On its death we
know two basic traditions: (1) The bird dies by burning itself up and
immediately regenerates itself (as in Claud. Phoen. 50-71). (2) It dies
by gradual decay and from its remains a new young bird emerges into
the world (Plin. Nat. 10, 4-5, reporting Senator Manilius; cf. Mela 3,
84; Tac. Ann. 6, 28, 5)43. Horapollo, Hieroglyphica 2, 57 offers a slightly
different version, according to which for a brief span of time two speci-
mens of the bird are in existence at the same time: the phoenix, having
reached a certain age, deliberately inflicts on itself a wound; from the
liquid issuing from this wound a young phoenix is generated; both
birds fly together to Heliopolis, where the elder dies at sunrise.
Antiphanes, fr. 173 K.-A., contains a list of birds typical of various
towns: ἐν Ἡλίου μέν φαϲι γίγνεϲθαι πόλει / φοίνικαϲ, ἐν Ἀθήναιϲ δὲ
γλαῦκαϲ, ἡ Κύπροϲ / ἔχει πελείαϲ διαφόρουϲ, ἡ δ’ ἐν Ϲάμῳ / Ἥρα τὸ
χρυϲοῦν, φαϲίν, ὀρνίθων γένοϲ, / τοὺϲ καλλιμόρφουϲ καὶ περιβλέπτουϲ
ταώϲ. He refers to the phoenix by using the plural: this would not repre-
sent a problem if we think that it is simply done in order to match the
way in which the other birds are indicated, and therefore is to be under-
stood as referring to «the separate specimens of the one phoenix»44. The
author probably has in mind artistic representations of the bird in the
temple of the sun; see Comm. on 4ff. As Antonio Stramaglia observes,
we have to take into consideration the ‘rhetorical’ aspect of the use of
the plural: speaking in terms of ‘flocks of phoenixes’ the author inten-
tionally introduces a paradox, a sort of ἀδύνατον45.
6-7 ἐπ’ Αἰ]|γύπτῳ. One may expect here the preposition ἐν rather than
measure eras); Them. Or. 33, 367c (vol. 3, p. 210, 11-14 Downey-Norman) καὶ ὅτι τούτῳ
ἐντυχεῖν ϲπανιώτερον τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἢ τῷ φοίνικι τῷ ὀρνέῳ, ὃ λέγει Ἡρόδοτοϲ ὁ μυθογράφοϲ δι’
ἐτῶν πεντακοϲίων φαίνεϲθαι Αἰγυπτίοιϲ περὶ τὸν νεών; Sen. Ep. 42, 1: Scis quem nunc virum
bonum dicam? Huius secundae notae. Nam ille alter fortasse tamquam phoenix semel anno
quingentesimo nascitur (see Torre 2013, forthcoming); Luc. Herm. 53 ἢν μὴ φοίνικοϲ ἔτη
βιώϲῃ; Mart. 5, 37, 12-13 cui comparatus indecens erat pavo, / inamabilis sciurus et frequens
phoenix (on a slave who had died before reaching the age of six); Lib. Orat. 17, 10, vol. II,
p. 211 Foerster; Schol. on Pers. 1, 46 (cf. Strati 2007, p. 68). On the exploitation of this
motif in Christian culture and theological debate, see van den Broek 1972, pp. 358-360
and 383-389.
42. See fn. 27.
43. A detailed account of these two traditions, including the variants in minor details,
is to be found in van den Broek 1972, pp. 146-232.
44. So van den Broek 1972, p. 358 fn. 5; the plural φοίνικες is to be interpreted in the
same sense in Dionysius Areopagita, De natura transmitted by Eus. PE 14, 25, 4 (= Feltoe
1904, p. 139, 5), and Ael. NA 6, 58.
45. Cf. Lecocq 2005, p. 231. On the problem of the use of the plural in our text, cf.
Gualandri 1974b, pp. 295-296.
ἐπί followed by the dative of a toponym. However, the use of the pre-
position ἐπί is in any case plausible and here seems to express the fact
that the phoenix has been seen flying upon the earth. For comparable
use of ἐπί plus a toponym cf. Fl. Jo. Contra Apionem 1, 261 μήτε θεοὺϲ
προϲκυνεῖν μήτε τῶν ἐπ’ Αἰγύπτῳ θρηϲκευομένων ζῴων ἀπέχεϲθαι;
Corn. Alex. Polyhist., fr. 89-93, FHG III, p. 236 Σελεύκεια, πόλιϲ ἐπὶ
Κιλικίᾳ, τραχεῖα λεγομένη = Hdn. De pros. cath. 3, 1, p. 279, 35-37
Lentz = Steph. Byz. Epit. p. 560, 3 Meineke.
9-10 The passage imitates very closely Hom. Il. 2, 459-460 (cf. Il. 15,
692): τῶν δ’ ὥϲ τ’ ὀρνίθων πετεηνῶν ἔθνεα πολλὰ / χηνῶν ἢ γεράνων
ἢ κύκνων δουλιχοδείρων. Therefore, at the beginning of line 9, I print
in the text the supplement ἔθνεα. Alternatively, Maas’ ἀγέλαι is equally
possible for the space available in lacuna and may be supported by
Schol. Il. 2, 460, where the hordes of birds along the river Castros are
described as ϲυναγελαϲτικά46. Note the occurrence of the epic form of
the adjective δουλιχόδειροϲ instead of the Attic form δολιχόδειροϲ. The
latter occurs rarely (Aesop. Fab. [dodecasyllabi] 225 aliter, bis, line 5
[p. 368 Chambry] referring to the γέρανος; [Hdn.] Epim., p. 23, 9-10
Boissonade, referring to the γέρανοϲ; Schol. Pind. [e cod. Patm.], Pyth.
4, 380 [p. 79, 6-7 Semitelos], referring to the ἴυγξ; cf. also Hesych. δ
2149; Eust. Comm. ad Hom. Od., vol. II, p. 13, 6-7; [Zonar.] δ, p. 560,
5). The occurrence of this form in our papyrus may be interpreted as
the author’s intention to allude to the above-mentioned Homeric pas-
sage. Alternatively, the lack of Atticization could be due to the fact that
the text consists of notes for an exercise rather than of a completed and
polished composition.
Gualandri 1974b, pp. 295-296 observes that the passage could
allude to the hordes of birds that accompany the phoenix in a sort of
cortège, and refers to several sources. Ezekiel the Dramatist47, Exag.
265-269, describes the apparition of the phoenix to Moses’ messengers
sent to explore the Promised Land as the king of all birds (βαϲιλεὺϲ
δὲ πάντων ὀρνέων ἐφαίνετο / ὡϲ ἦν νοῆϲαι· πάντα γὰρ τὰ πτήν’ ὁμοῦ
/ ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ δειλιῶντ’ ἐπέϲϲυτο, / αὐτὸϲ δὲ πρόϲθεν, ταῦροϲ ὣϲ
γαυρούμενοϲ, / ἔβαινε κραιπνὸν βῆμα βαϲτάζων ποδόϲ). Tac. Ann. 6,
28, 3 represents the bird at its arrival in Heliopolis as accompanied
46. Schol. bT; cf. Gualandri 1974b, p. 295.

47. On the presence of the phoenix in Ezekiel, see Jacobson 1983, pp. 7, 11-12, 36,
39, 153-154, 157-165; Lecocq 2005, pp. 231-244; Heath 2006, pp. 23-41, who analyses
the description of the bird in terms of a typical Hellenistic ecphrasis.
42 Daniela Colomo
by multo ceterarum volucrum comitatu, novam faciem mirantium. Ach.

Tat. 3, 25, 5 compares the phoenix to a king followed by his entourage
(ἕπεται δὲ αὐτῷ χορὸϲ ἄλλων ὀρνίθων ὥϲπερ δορυφόρων, καὶ ἔοικεν
ὁ ὄρνιϲ ἀποδημοῦντι βαϲιλεῖ)48, while Claud. Phoen. 83-88 compares
the birds to a ductor Parthus surrounded by his barbarian troups (talis
barbaricas flavo de Tigride turmas / ductor Parthus agit: gemmis et divite
cultu / luxurians sertis apicem regalibus ornat, / auro frenat equum, per-
fusam murice vestem / Assyria signatur acu tumidusque regendo / celsa per
famulas acies dicione superbit); cf. Lact. De ave phoen. 155-158 contrahit
in coetum sese genus omne volantum, / nec praedae memorest ulla nec ulla
metus. / alituum stipata choro volat illa per altum / turbaque prosequitur
munere laeta pio.
11 καὶ ἔν τινι παρ’] Αἰγυπτίοιϲ ἑ̣ο̣ρ̣τ̣ῇ.̣ The presence of the conjunction
καί in the lacuna is very likely: the simple ἔν τινι παρ’ would be too
short in comparison with the supplement in line 10 (though from the
syntactical point of view it would be acceptable, given that the lack of a
conjunction may be due to the sketchy nature of the text).
Some evidence for the existence of an Egyptian festival involving
the phoenix can be traced back on the basis of the identification of the
phoenix with the benu. The benu-phoenix is involved in the festival of
the first day of the new year, at the beginning of the annual inundation
of the Nile, which brings fertility and prosperity and thus symbolizes
the renewal of life. In this respect, Horapollo, Hieroglyphica 1, 34, states
that the Egyptians indicated the rising of the waters by the figure of a
phoenix, because the phoenix is a symbol of the sun49, and therefore is
strictly related to the solar year marked by the rising of the waters of the
Nile50. This recalls Ach. Tat. 3, 24, 2-3: «ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν αὗται πέντε χιλιάδεϲ
ἱκαναὶ πρὸϲ εἴκοϲι τῶν ἐκείνων. ἀφίξονται δὲ ὅϲον οὐδέπω πρὸϲ τούτοιϲ
ἕτεροι διϲχίλιοι τῶν ἀμφὶ τὸ Δέλτα καὶ τὴν ἡλίου πόλιν τεταγμένων ἐπὶ
τοὺϲ βαρβάρουϲ». καὶ ἅμα λέγοντοϲ αὐτοῦ παῖϲ εἰϲτρέχει τιϲ, λέγων ἀπὸ
τοῦ Δέλτα πρόδρομον ἥκειν τοὐκεῖθεν ϲτρατοπέδου, καὶ πέντε ἔλεγεν
ἄλλων ἡμερῶν διατρίβειν τοὺϲ διϲχίλιουϲ· τοὺϲ μὲν γὰρ βαρβάρουϲ τοὺϲ
κατατρέχονταϲ πεπαῦϲθαι, μελλούϲηϲ δὲ ἥκειν τῆϲ δυνάμεωϲ τὸν ὄρνιν
48. Cf. Laplace 2007, p. 337.

49. ψυχὴν δὲ ἐνταῦθα πολὺν χρόνον διατρίβουϲαν βουλόμενοι γράψαι ἢ πλήμμυραν φοίνικα τὸ
ὄρνεον ζωγραφοῦϲι. ψυχὴν μέν, ἐπειδὴ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ κόϲμῳ πολυχρονιώτατον ὑπάρχει τοῦτο τὸ
ζῷον· πλήμμυραν δέ, ἐπειδὴ ἡλίου ἐϲτιν ὁ φοῖνιξ ϲύμβολον, οὗ μηδέν ἐϲτι πλεῖον κατὰ τὸν κόϲμον.
πάντων γὰρ ἐπιβαίνει καὶ πάνταϲ ἐξερευνᾷ ὁ ἥλιοϲ, εἶθ’ οὕτω πολύϲ⟨κοποϲ⟩ ὀνομαϲθήϲεται; cf.
Wortmann 1966, pp. 103-104.
50. Cf. P.Lond. Lit. 193, Comm. on col. ii 13-14 (= iv 73-74).
αὐτοῖϲ τὸν ἱερὸν ἐπιδημῆϲαι, φέροντα τοῦ πατρὸϲ τὴν ταφήν. ἀνάγκη δὴ
πᾶϲα τὴν ἔξοδον ἐπιϲχεῖν τοϲούτων ἡμερῶν. Here the appearance of the
phoenix is presented as a crucial event: departure and other commit-
ments are postponed for five days in order to pay tribute to the sacred
bird. Note that the coming of the bird carrying the corpse of its parent
is poignantly expressed with the verb ἐπιδημέω, followed by the dative,
in the sense of ‘to visit somebody’51.
The celebration of festivals at regular intervals of time is clearly
based on the core element of the myth: the periodic appearance of
the bird before its death. On this basis Gualandri 1974b, pp. 297-
298 suggests that P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 could reflect the celebrations of the
year 139 AD, which – as attested by Censorinus, De die natali 21, 10
– represents the beginning of a new Sothic cycle52, identified with the
reappearance of the phoenix53. Such celebrations were marked by the
issue – in Alexandria – of coins representing the phoenix with the le-
gend of Αἰών; see van den Broek 1972, pp. 429-430, plate VI, nos. 8
and 9; cf. LIMC VIII.1, Supplementum, s.v. Phoinix III, p. 987 no. 6 =
LIMC I.1, s.v. Aion, p. 404 no. 23; cf. also Lecocq 2009a, pp. 87-88.
The proposal is certainly attractive, and may provide an argument to
date P.Mil.Vogl. I 2054 more precisely.
51. See Merkelbach 1963, pp. 16-17, 31; Id. 1962, pp. 129-132, and van den
Broek 1972, p. 71 with fn. 4: both scholars state tout court that in this passage the
reappearance of the bird announces the rising of the Nile, taking place five days later, and
speak of a description of the festival celebrating the flooding of the Nile in 4, 18. However,
to be precise, the actual occurrence of such a festival is not stated apertis verbis in the text,
but may be deduced from 4, 18, where the representation of exultation at victory over the
enemy could be considered as overlapping with customary celebrations for the inundation;
see in particular 4, 18, 3, and cf. Laplace 2007, pp. 220-222.
52. The Sothic cycle is the period of time necessary for the beginning of the solar year
and the beginning of the civil year to concide. When the solar year of 365 and 1/4 days and
the civil year of 365 days begin on the same day, this is a Sothic year. In Egypt the beginning
of the solar year is calculated from the rising of Sirius, i.e. Sothic, at the beginning of the
Nile’s inundation. Every four years the civil year is a day ahead in comparison to the solar
year. Every 120 years the civil year begins a month later than the solar year; the beginnings
of the two years coincide after a period of 1461 years. See Bonneau 1964, pp. 30-33, 38-
45, and Merkelbach 1995, pp. 111-112.
53. Cf. Aristid. Or. 2, 107 Lenz-Behr φαϲὶ δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν εἰϲ πυρὰν
κατιόντα καίεϲθαι; cf. van den Broek 1972, p. 71.
54. The fact that the papyrus echoes contemporary events can be also supported by the
presence in the same roll of the piece on the flower of Antinoos: Antinoos tragically died in
AD 130, only nine years earlier than the recurrence of the Sothic year in AD 139. In fact,
there is sound evidence for a remarkable literary proliferation on Antinoos in the first decades
following his tragic death, both in verses (P.Oxy. VIII 1085 = Heitsch, GDRK no. 15, 1, and
P.Lond. Lit. 36 = Heitsch, GDRK no. 15, 2, ascribed to a hexametric poem by Pankrates on
the famous Antinoos’ flower; an anapaestic hymn contained in a Cypriot inscription [see
Lebek 1973, pp. 101-137]; the lost ἔπαινοϲ by the poet Mesomedes, mentioned by Suda,
44 Daniela Colomo
12ff. The advantage of Parsons’ supplement, in comparison to Voglia-

no’s [ᾄδεται· ὦ φοῖ]νιξ φα̣νείη⟨ϲ⟩, is that it avoids correcting the text
– φα̣νίη in φα̣νείη⟨ϲ⟩ – iuxta lacunam contrary to the so-called Youtie’s
Law (see Fassino 1998, pp. 72-75; cf. Gonis 2005, p. 166). Moreover,
the use of the past is perfectly suitable to the narrative framework of the
piece (see Comm. on 3-17).
The phoenix’s song is praised as unique in comparison with the
song of the nightingale and the swan in Lact. De ave phoen. 45-50, a
passage which describes the daily song of the bird at dawn and shows a
striking similarity with lines 13-15: incipit illa sacri modulamina funde-
re cantus / et mira lucem voce ciere novam / quam nec aedoniae voces nec
tibia possit / musica Cirrhaeis adsimulare modis, / sed neque olor moriens
imitari posse putatur / nec Cylleneae fila canora lyrae55. Cf. P.Lond. Lit.
193, col. ii 8-16 (= iv 68-76), 13-14 (= 63-74).
The primacy of the phoenix’s song is also illustrated by Ezekiel the
Dramatist, Exag. 264 φωνὴν δὲ πάντων εἶχεν ἐκπρεπεϲτάτην. Cf. also
Tac. Ann. 6, 28, 2 sacrum Soli id animal et ore ac distinctu pinnarum a
ceteris avibus diversum consentiunt qui formam eius effin<x>ere, where,
according to van den Broek 1972, p. 253 fn. 6, ore is to be interpret-
ed as referring to the song56; Claud. Phoen. 45 blando Solem clangore
salutat. Moreover, Philostr. VA 3, 49 states that the phoenix, like swans,
sings itself a song when dying (on this point, see below).
On the symbolism of the phoenix’s song in Christian tradition, in rela-
tion to the early Christian morning prayers, see van den Broek 1972, p. 284.
In the song allegedly performed at an Egyptian festival, Snell
1939, p. 536 ingeniously recognizes a metrical pattern57.
The following passage – Philostr. VA 3, 49 (vol. I, pp. 120, 31-
121, 4 Kayser) – merits particular consideration: ἃ δὲ Αἰγύπτιοι περὶ
s.v. Μεϲομήδηϲ) and in prose (the lost παραμυθητικόϲ by the rhetor Numenios mentioned by
Suda, s.v. Νουμήνιοϲ). However, Antinoos’ myth is attested in later poetry as well, as shown
by P.Oxy. LXIII 4352, Hexameter Verses (c. 285 AD; see Derda - Janiszewski 2002, pp. 65-
70), and P.Oxy. L 3537 verso, Encomium of Hermes and Antinous in hexameters, of the third/
fourth century. The latter seems to belong to the school environment (see Pordomingo
2007, pp. 430-432; Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo 2008, pp. 168, 191).
55. Cf. pp. 46-47 with fnn. 63 and 64.
56. See Lanfranchi 2006, p. 288.
57. ὦ φοῖ]νιξ φα̣νείη⟨ϲ⟩, mol | ba|
ὦ Φοί]βου μελωιδό]τερε mol | ia ⏖
καὶ ἀηδόνων [ἀοιδότερε ⏖ ia | ia ⏑
καὶ κύκνων μο̣υ̣ϲι[κώ- mol | cr
τερ’, ὦ κάλ]λ̣ι̣ϲ̣τ̣ε̣ τὸ ba cr
ϲχῆμα, [καιρί]ωϲ μη- cr ba
δ’ ἀκαίρωϲ φα[νείηϲ.] ba | ba |||
αὐτοῦ ᾄδουϲιν, ὡϲ ἐϲ Αἴγυπτον φέρεται, καὶ Ἰνδοὶ ξυμμαρτυροῦϲιν

προϲᾴδοντεϲ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ τὸν φοίνικα τὸν ἐν τῇ καλιᾷ τηκόμενον
προπεμπτηρίουϲ ὕμνουϲ αὑτῷ ᾄδειν. τουτὶ δὲ καὶ τοὺϲ κύκνουϲ φαϲὶ
δρᾶν οἱ ϲοφώτερον αὐτῶν ἀκούοντεϲ58. The content of the song concer-
ning the phoenix – ἃ δὲ Αἰγύπτιοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ᾄδουϲιν, what the Egyp-
tian sing about the bird – is given in some detail immediately before (p.
120, 25-31): καὶ τὸν φοίνικα δὲ τὸν ὄρνιν τὸν διὰ πεντακοϲίων ἐτῶν ἐϲ
Αἴγυπτον ἥκοντα πέτεϲθαι μὲν ἐν τῇ Ἰνδικῇ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον, εἶναι δὲ
ἕνα ἐκδιδόμενον τῶν ἀκτίνων καὶ χρυϲῷ λάμποντα, μέγεθοϲ ἀετοῦ καὶ
εἶδοϲ, ἐϲ καλιάν τε ἱζάνειν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἀρώματοϲ, ποιουμένην αὐτῷ πρὸϲ
ταῖϲ τοῦ Νείλου πηγαῖϲ. This song covers the lifespan of the phoenix,
its physical aspects, its nidification and its death. A significant element
here is the use of the verb ᾄδω instead of the simple and rather vague
λέγουϲιν, and consistently προϲᾴδοντεϲ in the same passage: in fact
ᾄδω may more specifically imply a poetic tradition59. Therefore, since
a poetic tradition is likely to be expressed in the form of performances,
Philostratus’ wording leads me to speculate on the possibility of poetic
performances on occasions comparable to the song allegedly performed
at an Egyptian ἑορτή in P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, i.e. at festivals, within a ritual
context. A song performed in a ritual context is likely to contain allu-
sions and/or a brief sketch of the god/mythical figure involved in the
form of a sort of historiola sacra60, and the details given by Philostratus
on what Αἰγύπτιοι περὶ αὐτοῦ ᾄδουϲιν may well represent the content
of such a historiola. On this basis I am tempted to think that the song
performed at the Egyptian festival recorded in our text could represent
part of a (presumably) more extensive version of a song that could also
have contained a historiola mentioning the most important moments of
the phoenix’s myth. There is another interesting element in the song’s
text in respect to its suitability for performance at a festival. At the end
of the text preserved in the papyrus, the hope that the bird may appear
at a timely moment seems to be expressed (if the supplements proposed
58. Cf. van den Broek 1972, pp. 201-202 for the presence of this motif in Gregory
of Tours and in the twelfth century Persian poet Attar.
59. Of course the verb could mean more generally ‘to tell as a legendary thing’, as in
Philostr. VA 6, 4 (vol. II, p. 208, 22 Kayser).
60. The historiolae sacrae are a typical structural element of several magical papyri; see,
for example, PGM IV 94-153, PGM VII 93-1009, PGM IV 1390-1495, PGM XX 4-20;
cf. also Brashear 1995, pp. 3438-3440; Frankfurter 1995, pp. 457-476; Faraone 1997,
pp. 38-59, in particular 47-58. Note that in the last two passages of the list it is possible to
recognize relics of a metrical pattern; see Betz 1992, p. 66 fn. 197, and cf. here Comm. on
12ff. with fn. 57.
46 Daniela Colomo
are plausible, this point appears particularly emphasized; see Comm.

on 15-16). This fact would appear more poignant if we refer it to the
connection between the re-appearance of the phoenix and the rising
of the Nile. The taking place of the latter phenomenon is of crucial
importance for Egypt, and of course it is also crucial that it takes place
at the appropriate time61. Therefore, since the re-appearance of the bird
allegedly coincides with it, it is hardly surprising that the timeliness
and punctuality of the ‘epiphany’ of the phoenix are hoped and prayed
for. This theme, placed at this point in the song, may virtually offer the
opportunity of inserting a historiola of the myth of the phoenix, as a
sort of αἴτιον to explain its re-appearance.
12-13 ποικιλό]π̣τερε. The traces visible at the beginning of line 13
are compatible with the required pi: they consist of the faded remains
of the right-hand vertical of this letter and its join with the crossbar,
which seems to form a single stroke with the crossbar of the following
tau without any interruption. The adjective ποικιλόπτεροϲ occurs in
Eur. Hipp. 1269-1270 (referring to Eros) and Pratinas, fr. 3, 3 Snell
(qualifying μέλοϲ).
The reconstruction of these lines printed in the ed. pr. and based on
supplements suggested by Maas and Vogliano – ὦ Φοί|[βου] εὐφωνό]-
τερε (cf. apparatus criticus) – is problematic62. In the first place, it ap-
pears rather odd that the phoenix, a mythological figure and sacred
bird, is defined as superior in its singing ability to the Olympian deity
Apollo63. In addition to this, if we take into consideration Apollo’s my-
61. On the punctuality of the Nile’s flooding, cf. Ach. Tat. 4, 12, 2 and Bonneau
1964, pp. 29-30, 47-51.
62. On this specific point I am indebted to Andrea Rodighiero for a stimulating discussion.
63. It must be said, however, that such a comparison with Phoebus could find some
support in Lact. De ave phoen. 45-50 (quoted above, Comm. on 12ff.). In this passage
the comparison between the phoenix’s song and that of the nightingale and the swan
and the ‘reference’ to the musical output of Apollo led Snell 1939, p. 536 to suggest
that Lactantius depends on our papyrus; cf. Gualandri 1974b, pp. 296-297 with fn. 20.
However, the passage can be interpreted in a more nuanced way: de facto the reference to
the ‘alleged’ musical output of Apollo, and similarly to that of Hermes, is expressed in a very
sophisticated and periphrastic way: in vv. 47-48 nec tibia possit / musica Cirrhaeis adsimulare
modis, and v. 50 nec Cylleneae fila canora lyrae. Therefore, these phrases may be taken as
sort of metaphors to indicate ‘superlative’, ‘very high quality’, generally ‘divine’ tones in
the first case (Cirrhaeis modis), and simply the lyre as a musical instrument, qualifying it
as Cyllenea to allude to its divine origin as invention of the god Hermes, ruler of Mount
Cyllene (cf. H. Herm. 2 and 17). In this respect, cf. the paraphrasis of the passage offered
by van den Broek 1972, pp. 282-283: «This sound cannot be surpassed by either the
voice of the nightingale or the flute with its Cirrhaean tones; the same holds for the song
of the dying swan and the melodious strings of the Cyllenian lyre». Finally, ad regards to
thological persona more generally, it is evident that the god excels at

playing the lyre and the kithara rather than singing64, so that he would
scarcely represent an appropriate comparandum. Moreover, in the dif-
ferent reconstruction I have proposed in line 12, based on Parsons’
supplement (see above, Comm. on 12ff.), the song performed at the
Egyptian festival, which apparently consists of a hymn to the phoenix,
starts just after φα̣νείη. Here we clearly need an Anrede addressing (and
at the same time identifying) the laudandum: in the standard structure
of a hymn such an Anrede is an essential element of the invocatio65.
Therefore a comparison with a god at this point would appear so-
mewhat ‘misplaced’.
On the colourful plumage of the phoenix cf. P.Lond. Lit.193, col.
ii 7 (= iv 67) and 19ff. (= 79ff.) with Comm.
13-15 In Greek literature the musical quality of the swan and of the
nightingale play a very important role, and the two birds are often
mentioned together; for example, in Schol. in Aristoph. Av. 1332a both
are defined μουϲικά; cf. also Pl. Resp. 620a, and Lib. Decl. 2, 27, vol.
V, pp. 140, 19-141, 6 Foerster. On the swan see Artem. 2, 20, p. 138,
8-12 Pack; Schol. in Hom. Il. 2, 460b; Pl. Phaed. 84e-85b; Alcm. fr. 3,
100-101 Calame; Pratinas, fr. 3, 3-4 Snell; Aesch. Ag. 1444-1445; Paus.
1, 30, 3; cf. also Thévenaz 2004, esp. pp. 53-55. In Eur. Hel. 1108 the
ἀηδών is defined with the superlative ἀοιδοτάτη, which also occurs in
Theocr. Idyl. 12, 7 in the rather emphatic phrase ϲυμπάντων ἀοιδοτάτη
πετεηνῶν; in Call. Del. 252 an almost identical expression refers to the
swans, Μουϲάων ὄρνιθεϲ, ἀοιδότατοι πετεηνῶν; cf. Corn. De natura
deorum, p. 68, 9-10, where the swan is defined as μουϲικώτατον καὶ
λευκότατον… τῶν ὀρνέων. Like the phoenix, the swan is a sacred bird:
as a musical bird it is the servant of Apollo; see h. Hom. 21, 1; Alc. fr.
307c Voigt; Bacchyl. 16, 6-7; Aristoph. Av. 769-784; Eur. Ion 160-165;
Plut. Mor. 387c, 400a; Schol. in Hom. Od. 3, 372 [5-8]; Schol. in Lyc.
Alex. 425 [5-7]; cf. also Call. Ap. 2, 5, Del. 249-252 and Pherecyd.
FGrHist 3 F 5866.
the relation between P. Mil. Vogl. 20 and the Lactantius passage, I am inclined to think in
terms of a topos of the rhetorical school tradition, rather than to assume direct knowledge
of the papyrus text by Lactantius.
64. See Calame 2001, pp. 49-55, esp. 49-50 with fn. 123; for a much less frequent
image of Apollo singing and accompanying himself with the lyre, see H.Herm. 475-479
and 499-503 (cf. Calame 2001, p. 52 fn. 129).
65. See Furley - Bremer 2001, I, pp. 51-56, esp. 54.
66. See Lanna 2009, pp. 218 with fn. 10 and 225-226 with fn. 69.
48 Daniela Colomo
The adjective ἡδύφωνοϲ is used to describe the nightingale in Ar-

tem. 4, 56, p. 279, 16 Pack, and in Paraphrasis in Dionysii Periegetae
orbis descriptionem, section 525-532, vol. II, pp. 416-417 Müller (Geo-
graphi Graeci Minores).
The adjective μελῳδόϲ refers to the nightingale in Eur. Hel. 1109-
1110, to the swan in IT 1104-1105 (… ἔνθα κύκνοϲ μελῳ/δὸϲ Μούϲαϲ
θεραπεύει).
15-16 The supplement χρύ]ϲ̣ε̣[ο]ϲ̣ printed in 15 is based on Cazza-

niga’s suggestion χρύ]ϲεοϲ (rather ‘free’ in respect to the actual traces
of the papyrus). It is compatible with the surviving traces: the first
two traces after the first lacuna – in horizontal alignment and 0,5
mm apart from each other – fit the top of the required sigma; then
follows a left-hand arc, which fits the shape of the required epsilon;
the following horizontal trace visible in the upper part of the writing
space after the second lacuna can fit the top of the required sigma;
the remaining traces, which in fact appear to be very close to the fol-
lowing tau and actually lie above and below the writing space, should
be considered as casual and meaningless flecks of ink. A distance of
about 3 mm has to be assumed between the sigma and the tau of
the following word, which is not impossible in this script (cf., for
example, the distance between φοῖ]νιξ and φα̣νείη in 12). τὸ ϲχῆμα
depends on χρύ]ϲ̣ε̣[ο]ϲ̣ as an accusative of relation. On gold as the
colour of the plumage of the phoenix, cf. P.Lond. Lit. 193, Comm.
on col. ii 17 (iv 77).
The supplement proposed by Snell μουϲι|[κώτερ’, ᾦ κάλ]λ̣ι̣ϲ̣τ̣ε̣ τὸ
ϲχῆμα is not reconcilable with the actual traces. Vogliano’s proposal ἐλ]-
θέ is palaeographically possible: the two traces after the lacuna may fit
the top of the required theta (cf. ed. pr., p. 180 ad loc.). However, the
syntactical articulation would remain unclear.
Maas’ supplement καιρί]ωϲ, based on the good parallel Eur. Hipp.
528 μή μοί ποτε ϲὺν κακῷ φανείηϲ μηδ’ ἄρρυθμοϲ ἔλθοιϲ67, seems to be
too short for the space available in the lacuna at the beginning of line
16; in this respect Vogliano’s εὐκαίρ]ωϲ is better, although a couple of
letters shorter than the supplements in the previous lines. Adding a καί
at the beginning of line 16, we could propose the following reconstruc-
tion of lines 15ff:
67. See Barrett 1964, Comm. on lines 528-529, pp. 259-260, on «formulae in which
one invites a god to appear and help one, in which one says φάνηθι, ἐλθέ, or the like and
prescribes the mood or manner in which he is to come».
χρύ]ϲ̣ε̣[ο] ϲ̣ τὸ ϲχῆμα
καὶ εὐκαίρ]ω̣ϲ μηδὲ ἀκαίρωϲ φα-
[νείηϲ.]
A possible translation would be: «you may show yourself with your
gold-coloured appearence – and at a timely, not untimely moment».
From a syntactical standpoint, χρύ]ϲ̣ε̣[ο]ϲ̣ is to be understood as predi-
cative of φα|[νείηϲ, rather than a vocative in parallel with the vocatives
occurring in lines 13-15 (although a nominative form used in vocative
function is not unplausible; see Schwyzer, Grammatik, II, pp. 63-64).
The antithetic parallelism consisting of the repetition of the adverb with
variatio in the form of a litotes – εὐκαίρ]ω̣ϲ μηδὲ ἀκαίρωϲ – perfectly
fits the ‘assumed’ ritual dimension of the song to which this invocation
belongs. As parallels for this type of rhetorical device cf. Soph. OT 58-
59 γνωτὰ κοὐκ ἄγνωϲτά μοι / προϲήλθεθ’ ἱμείροντεϲ, 1230 ἑκόντα κοὐκ
ἄκοντα; Eur. Andr. 357 ἑκόντεϲ οὐκ ἄκοντεϲ, and Heracl. 531 ἑκοῦϲα
κοὐκ ἄκουϲα. See Kühner-Gerth, Grammatik, II.2, p. 586; Fehling
1969, pp. 272-273.
50 Daniela Colomo
3. P.Lond. Lit. 193, fr. 2
Text68
Col. i (= iii)
Top
[ c.15 ]ϲ̣τ̣αϲ
[ c.15 ]νο̣(ν)
[ c.14 τ]ὸ̣ ϲχῆ-
[μα c.13 ]α̣ τὴ(ν)
5 (= 58) [ c.15 ] ̣υ
[ c.15 ]φρο-
[ c.15 ] ̣υ
[ c.15 ]̣̣
̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
1 (= 54) ]ϲ̣τ̣αϲ, the first sigma is very likely: in this script this letter tends to prolong its flat
top above the following letter; cf. col. ii (= iv) 5 (= 65), 12 (= 72), 26 (= 86) 2 (= 55) νο̣̅
pap. 4 (= 57) τη̅ pap. 5 (= 58) ] ̣υ, thick trace at line level, probably extremity of descen-
dant: λ̣υ ed. pr. 7 (= 60) ] ̣ υ, part of curve or descendant in the upper part of the writing
space: ο̣ ed. pr.; alternatively, α̣ or λ̣ possible 8 (= 61) ] ̣ ̣, two tiny traces in the upper part
of the writing space.
Col. ii (= iv)
Top
ο̣ὐκ ἔϲτιν αὐτῶν τὸ ϲχ̣ῆ̣-

μ̣α· χρὴ λογίζε̣ϲθαι ὅ̣τι
[τ]οῖϲ μὲν μουϲικὴ̣ν̣
τ̣ῶν ὀρνίθων ἔδωκε(ν)
5 (= 65) ὁ θεόϲ, τοῖϲ δὲ μαντική(ν),
τοῖϲ δὲ ἄλλο τι, τοῖϲ δὲ
πο̣ικίλην πτέρωϲιν, ὡϲ
καὶ τῷδε τῷ ὄρνιθι. ἀλλὰ
μ̣ὴ̣ν̣ οὐδ̣ὲ⟨ν⟩ ἀ̣πηνὲϲ αὐτῶ(ν)
10 (= 70) [κ]α̣ὶ τραχ̣ὺ τ[ὸ φθ]έγμα ἵ̣ει̣,
[δι]άφο[ρ]ον δ[ὲ] τ̣ὸ̣ ᾆ̣ϲμα̣ κ̣α̣[ὶ]
[ὡ]ϲεὶ φ̣ρ̣άϲαντί τ̣ι̣ ἐοικόϲ.
[οὗ]τ̣οϲ δ[ὲ] καὶ εὔφημον ἀφί[ε]ι̣
68. Crönert’s supplements are those recorded in the ed. pr.; Körte’s supplements
have been incorporated in the apparatus criticus from Körte 1932, p. 220. In order to
facilitate the consultation of the ed. pr. I give in brackets the corresponding column and
line numbers.
[τ]ὸ̣ ᾆϲμα̣· αἰώνιον ἔοικέ(ν)

15 (= 75) [τι] παρ̣[α]πλήϲιον ἔχειν
[τ]ῷ κ[ό]ϲμῳ. βλέπεται
[δ’ ἀ]έρι[ο]ν̣ καὶ χρυϲαυγὲϲ
[ὁμ]οῦ κ̣α̣ὶ ἀερῶδεϲ κ̣α̣τ̣ὰ̣
[τ]ὴ̣ν̣ π̣[τ]έ̣ρ̣ωϲι̣ν, ὑπά̣ρ[χ]ο̣ν̣
20 (= 80) [δει]ν̣ὸν̣ π̣ροϲεοικὸϲ θα-
[λά⟨ϲ⟩]ϲῃ̣. ἡ̣ δὲ κόμη ἔοικε(ν)
[πτ]ερῶν̣ ἀνέμου καται-
[γί]ζον̣τοϲ ἦχον ἀπο-
[τυ]π̣ῶ̣ϲ̣αι. πρόειϲι̣ν δέ,
25 (= 85) [καί]πε[ρ] ἐξανδρού-
[⟨με⟩νο]ϲ, οἶ[ο]ϲ, πλούϲι[ο]ϲ̣ δ̣’
[ἐπ’] ἄ̣λλῳ ϲοφί̣[αϲ ὤ]ν̣.
εἰρηνι̣κ̣[ὸ]ϲ̣ ὁ `ὄ΄ρν̣ι̣[ϲ· οὐ]
γὰρ ϲαρκ̣οφά̣[γοϲ ἢ]
30 (= 90) φιλόνικ̣ό̣ϲ̣ ἐ̣[ϲτι c. 2]
[ c.15 ]
[ c.15 ]
[ c.15 ] ̣ ̣ορ
[ c.15 ]̣
̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
4 (= 64) εδωκε̅ pap. 5 (= 65) μαντικη̅ pap. 7 (= 67) πο̣ικίλην, the second iota presents a
diagonal stroke, starting from its lower part and ascending from left to right, evidently acci-
dental 9 (= 69) αυτω̅ pap. 10 (= 70) φθ]εγγμα pap. 11 (= 71) τ ὸ ᾆ̣ϲμα̣ : τὸ] ͅϲμα̣ (sic) ed. pr.
The traces corresponding to the second dotted alpha are rather blurred 14 (= 74) εοικ̅ε̅ pap.
18 (= 78) κ̣α̣τ̣ὰ,̣ the last three letters of this sequence are very uncertain 20 (= 80) δει]ν̣ὸν̣,
of the last nu, only two faded marks in vertical alignment are visible 24 (= 84) προϊϲι̣ν pap.
27 (= 87) ϲοφί[αϲ, vertical trace in the upper part of the writing space ὤ]ν, two marks in
vertical alignment, respectively in the upper and lower part of the writing space 28 (= 88)
εἰρηνι̣κ̣[ὸ]ϲ, spacing and traces suggests that the second iota has been added later 29 (= 89)
ϲαρκ̣οφά[γοϲ, of kappa, only the extremity of the upper diagonal, protruding above the fol-
lowing omicron and ending with a leftwards hook, has survived; for the shape of kappa, cf.
col. ii 5 (= iv 65), ii 17 (= iv 77) and P.Lond. Lit. 193, fr. 1, col. i 24 30 (= 90) ἐ̣[ϲτι, of this
letter, only very tiny traces in the upper part of the writing space are visible 33 (= 93) ] ̣ ̣ορ,
first, traces in the upper part of the writing space and at mid-height: round letter? second,
very faded traces at mid-height 34 (= 94) ] ̣, traces of the right-hand half of a big omega?
A very thin strip, 5.5 cm long, detached from the fragment, preserves very scanty traces of
at least 4 lines; in line 4 an epsilon can be read.
col. i end–col. ii 1 πᾶϲι γὰρ ἴϲον]| ο̣ὐκ ἔϲτιν αὐτῶν Stramaglia 9 οὐδ̣ὲ<ν> Stramaglia αὐτῶ(ν)
ed. pr. : ἀϋτῶ(ν) Stramaglia 11 δι]άφο[ρ]ον ed. pr. κ̣α[̣ ὶ] Parsons : ἵει ed. pr. 12 [ὡ]ϲεὶ
̣ ϲαντί τ̣ι̣ Stramaglia : [ ̣ ]̣ ϲεπ̣ ̣ αϲαντι[ ]̣ ι̣ ed. pr. : [ἐ]π̣εοικόϲ Parsons 13 δ[ὲ] ed. pr. : δ[ὴ]
φ̣ρά
Stramaglia ἀφί⟨ει⟩ ed. pr. ἀφι⟨εὶϲ⟩ Körte 14 post ]τὸ ἆϲμα add. ⟨καὶ⟩ ed. pr. 15 [τι] Colomo
: [ἢ] ed. pr. 18 [ὁμ]οῦ Parsons : [π]ου ed. pr. 19 ὑπά̣ρ[χ]ο̣ν̣ Colomo : ὑπάρχ̣ι̣ ed. pr. 20
[δει]ν̣ὸν̣ Colomo : [ ̣ ]̣ ν̣οϲ̣ ed. pr. 21 ϲειπε̅ pap., l. ἔοικε(ν) dub. ed. pr. 22 [πτ]ερῶν̣ Colomo
: [ἀ]έρων ed. pr. 23-24 ἀπο|[τυ]π̣ῶ̣ϲ̣αι Colomo : ἀπο|[ ̣] ̣ω̣ϲ̣αι ed. pr. 25 [καί]πε[ρ] Colomo :
[ὥϲ]πε[ρ] ed. pr. 25-26 ἐξανδρού|[μενο]ϲ ed. pr. 26 οἶ[ο]ϲ Colomo : οἷ[ο]ϲ Crönert 26-27
πλούϲι[ο]ϲ̣ δ̣’ | [ἐπ’] ἄ̣λλῳ ϲοφί̣[αϲ ὤ]ν̣ Morelli 27 κα]ὶ̣ Parsons (at line-end) 28 εἰρηνι̣κ̣-
52 Daniela Colomo
[ὸ]ϲ̣ Colomo/Parsons : ιρηνε̣ϲ̣ ὀρ [̣ Crönert 28-29 [οὐ] | … [ἢ] Colomo ([οὔτε] | … [οὔτε]
spatio longius) : [ἀλλὰ] | …. [καὶ] ed. pr. : [οὐ] | … [καὶ] Körte 30 φιλόνικ̣ό̣ϲ̣ ἐ̣[ϲτι Stramaglia
Translation
… their appearance is not…: it is necessary to consider that God gave to some

birds the gift of music, to others the gift of prophecy, to others something else,
to others a colourful plumage, as with this bird (i.e. the phoenix). Yet, nothing
harsh or rough does their (= of birds in general) voice utter; rather, their song (is)
varied and similar – as it were – to a person who is speaking. But this (bird) has a
song that is also of good omen: it (i.e. the song) seems to have [an] eternal quality,
which is at one with the universe. It (i.e. the bird) can be seen flying through the
air and at the same time with its plumage gleaming, gold and light blue all over,
being wondrously similar to the sea. And the plumage of its wings seems to imita-
te the echo of the storming wind. And in fact it lives its life alone even as an adult,
but it is rich in wisdom in addition to other things. Peaceful is the bird: for it is
[not] carnivorous [or] contentious…
Commentary
The identification of the bird described in col. ii (= iv) with the

phoenix rests prima facie on its eternal nature and its relation with the
universe, expressed by the phrase αἰώνιον ἔοικέ(ν) | [τι] παρ̣[α]πλήϲιον
ἔχειν | [τ]ῷ κόϲμῳ (14-16 = 74-76). Moreover, the description of its
physical appearance (16-21 = 76-81) and song (9-16 = 69-76) grosso
modo matches the contents of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20. The first 12 lines of col.
ii (= iv) seem to contain a comparison between the phoenix and other
birds, recalling P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, 9-10 and 13-15 (see below, § 4).
Col. i (= iii)
3ff. (= 56ff.) The first mention of the phoenix in the surviving text comes
only in col. ii 8 (= iv 68) in the form τῷ ὄρνιθι, but very probably col. i
(= iii) – or at least part of it – dealt with the bird.
The sequence ]φρο- in 6 (= 59) may suggest as a supplement a
form of the noun φρόνηϲιϲ or of the verb φρονέω. On psychological/
intellectual qualities attributed to animals, cf. Comm. on col. ii 25ff.
(= iv 85ff.). Of course, there are other possibilities, e.g. a form of the
adjective εὔφρων. In any case, a reference to psychological/intellectual
characteristics suits the context, being preceded by a reference to its
physical aspect, τ]ὸ̣ ϲχ̣ῆ|[μα] in 3-4 (= 56-57).
Col. ii (= iv)
1ff (= 61ff). As discussed above, the word ϲχῆμα can be supplemented
in col. i 3-4 (= iii 56-57). This gives a hint of the topic dealt with in this
column: here the physical aspect of other birds in comparison with the
phoenix was probably discussed. In 1-12 (= 61-72) it is stated that God
has given a different gift to different birds, like music, prophecy, and
colourful plumage: the rhetorical structure recalls Hom. Il. 13, 730-733.
The phoenix is singled out for possessing both a beautiful plumage and
outstanding singing ability (7-16 = 67-76). If we complete the sentence
at the beginning of col. ii (= iv) with the supplement suggested by Stra-
maglia (see apparatus criticus), the sense would be: «… for not everyone
has the same appearance: it is necessary to consider that God gave to
some birds the gift of music, etc.». Alternatively, the text can be recon-
structed as follows: [… ἐπεὶ λόγου ἄξιον] | οὐκ ἔϲτιν αὐτῶν τὸ ϲχ̣ῆ|̣ μ̣α χρὴ
λογίζε̣ϲθαι ὅ̣τι κτλ., to be translated as: «given that it is not worth treating
their appearance… (perhaps referring to birds that do not possess parti-
cularly beautiful physical features), it is necessary to consider that God
gave to some birds the gift of music, etc.». Another possibility would
be: [ἐπεὶ πάνυ καλὸν] | οὐκ ἔϲτιν αὐτῶν τὸ ϲχ̣ῆ|̣ μ̣α κτλ., to be translated:
«given that their appearance is not very beautiful (referring to a specific
group of not particularly beautiful birds), it is necessary to consider etc.».
On the physical appearance of the phoenix cf. P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, 15.
7-8 (= 67-68) On the colour of the plumage of the phoenix as presen-
ted in important sources of the myth, see Comm. on 19ff. (= 79ff.).
8-14 (= 68-74) I take αὐτῶν (9 = 69) as a partitive genitive equivalent
to τῶν ὀρνίθων (cf. 4 = 64), referring to birds in general. The rhetorical
structure of the text presents a gradual increase in focus: after a short
list of gifts given by God to different birds – starting from the μουϲικήν
(3) and ending up with the πο̣ικίλην πτέρωϲιν (7) – a single quality is
considered: the voice/song. Although the specific gift of the μουϲικήν
is the prerogative of some birds only (3-5), none of them produces a
rough or harsh sound, but their voices can be variable and similar to the
human voice. At this point, the phoenix is singled out as producing a
song that is also of good omen and seems to be eternal and at one with
the universe. Then, in 16-21, the plumage of the phoenix is described
as a development of the brief anticipation in 7-8.
It has to be pointed out that the construction of φθέγμα as the
subject that produces a song appears somewhat awkward. We do not
54 Daniela Colomo
expect the voice to produce a song, in other words to reproduce it-

self: therefore φθέγμα would work better as the object of the verb ἵημι,
a function which from a morphological standpoint can be suppor-
ted by the passive suffix –μα. For φθέγμα as the object of ἵημι/ἀφίημι,
cf., ex. gr., Ael. NA 15, 27 λέγει τις λόγοϲ τοὺϲ ὄρνιθας τοὺϲ ἀτταγᾶϲ
μετακομισθένταϲ ἐϲ Αἴγυπτον ἐκ Λυδίαϲ καὶ ἀφεθένταϲ ἐϲ τὰϲ ὕλαϲ
τὰ μὲν πρῶτα ὄρτυγοϲ φωνὴν ἀφιέναι… οὐ διέλιπον οὖν οἱ ὄρνιθεϲ
οὗτοι πολλῷ ϲαφέϲτερον καὶ ἐναρθρότερον παιδίου φθέγμα ἀφιέντεϲ
καὶ λέγοντεϲ ‘τρὶϲ τοῖϲ κακοῖϲ τὰ κακά.’ λέγει δὲ ὁ αὐτὸϲ λόγοϲ ὅτι
ϲυλληφθέντεϲ καὶ ἀγρευθέντεϲ οὐ μόνον οὐ τιθασεύονται, ἀλλὰ οὐδὲ
φωνὴν ἔτι ἀφιᾶϲιν ἣν πρότερον ἠφίεσαν; Adamantius, Physiognomonica
2, 42, pp. 405, 6-406, 1 Foerster οἱ δὲ κλαγγηδὸν φθεγγόμενοι ὀξύ τε
καὶ ὀρνίθιον φθέγμα ἱέντεϲ μάργοι καὶ χαῦνοι καὶ μετάρϲια νοοῦντεϲ.
One can suggest a possible alternative construction, taking as subject
οὐδ̣ὲ⟨ν⟩ … αὐτῶ(ν), with the partitive genitive referring to the birds,
with a shift to the neuter form τὰ ὄρνεα. The entire sentence would go
as follows: ‘none of them (= the birds in general) produces a voice rough
or harsh; rather, a song varied and similar – as it were – to a person who
is speaking’. However, this reconstruction would be problematic from
the standpoint of word-order, since it implies an awkward separation
between ἀ̣πηνέϲ and τραχ̣ύ on the one hand, and between the two ele-
ments of the phrase οὐδ̣ὲ⟨ν⟩ … αὐτῶ(ν) on the other.
Alternatively, Stramaglia proposes to articulate the sequence
αυτω(ν) in 9 (= 69) as ἀϋτῶ(ν), present participle from ἀϋτέω. The
subject of the sentence would be the phoenix itself. The sense of the
passage would be: «Besides, it (= the phoenix) certainly uses its voice
without crying out anything harsh or rough; rather, its song (is) varied
and similar – as it were – to a person who is speaking. Indeed, this
(bird) has a song that is also of good omen». One could object that the
verb ἀϋτέω is never used in prose, but occurs in the present and imper-
fect in epic and tragedy (Hom., Il. 11, 258; 20, 50; 21, 582; A. Pers.
1058, Th. 384 [this occurrence is a participle], 639, Ag. 927, 1344, Ch.
311; Eur. fr. 781, 218 Kannicht; A. R. 4, 1337; Nonn. D. 11, 185; 33,
263; AP (Appendix), Epigr. Dedicatoria, 175, 7; Opp. Cyn. 2, 365; 4,
93; 4, 219; Hermesianax, fr. 7, 5 Powell; Epica adespota, fr. 4, 8 Powell;
Manetho, Apotelesmatica 4, 39; 4, 428; 4, 501; Call. Iambus 11, 51, fr.
202 Pfeiffer; Col. Memn. 19, 7 [= A. and É. Bernand, Les inscriptions
grecques et latines du Colosse de Memnon, Le Caire 1960]), as its com-
pound ἐπαυτέω (Theocr. Id. 22, 91; Call. Dian. 58, Ap. 102; Q. S. 4,
262, 411; 9, 130, 146; 11, 327; 12, 486; Dion. Ep. fr. 9r, 3 Heitsch).
However, the fact that a poetic form occurs could be accounted for by
the influence of poetry on progymnasmatic practice; see Webb 1997,
pp. 339-369, in particular 347-349, and cf. the echoing of an Homeric
phrase in P. Mil. Vogl. I 20, 9-10 (with Comm. ad loc.); see also Comm.
on 25ff. (= 85ff.).
10 (= 70), cf. 13 (= 73): ἵει as the present form is rather rare, the com-
moner form being ἵηϲι; cf. Schwyzer, Grammatik, I, p. 687, and West
1963, p. 12 on the occurrence in A. R. 4, 634 («The form ἵει for ἵηϲι
is normally confined to compounds, at least in literary context. Read
προΐει coll. Il. ii 752, Hes. fr. 37, Dion. Per. 774, 806, 990»). Other
occurrences are found in Gal. In Hippocratis librum de fracturis com-
mentarii III, 18b 584, 18 (referring to a plurale tantum) and Arr. Ind.
15, 8, 3. The latter is particularly interesting, since it concerns a bird, a
sort of parrot, which is said to speak with a human voice (ὅπωϲ φωνὴν
ἵει ἀνθρωπίνην).
At the end of 11 = 71 the restored κ̣α[̣ ὶ] seems to protrude slightly
to the right.
12 (= 72) Stramaglia’s supplement [ὡ]ϲεὶ φ̣ρ̣άϲαντί τ̣ι̣ is fully satisfacto-
ry from the point of view of both palaeography and sense. The initial
phi of φ̣ρ̣άϲαντί would have a rather oval body, so that the remaining
trace appears to be the rest of an upright; cf. the phi in line 27 (= 87).
If we accept the second interpretation of lines 8-12, i.e. the phoenix as
subject, this phrase implies that the song of the phoenix is somehow
at the level of human communication, perfectly compatible with the
qualification of it as εὔφημον, of good omen (13 = 73).
Other attempts to supply the text on the basis of the ed. pr. would
require emendation. Ex. gr.: [ὡ]ϲείπ̣⟨ε⟩ρ̣ ᾄϲαντί τ̣ι̣ ἐοικόϲ, to be translated:
«as it were somewhat (τι) similar to somebody singing». Alternatively,
the following articulation is also possible: [ὡ]ϲείπ̣⟨ε⟩ρ̣ ᾄϲαντί τ̣ι⟨̣ νι⟩ ἐοικόϲ.
13-14 (= 73-74) Cf. P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, 12-15. The emphatic καί before
εὔφημον in 13 (= 73) is to be related to the previous lines, where it is
said that some birds possess the gift of music, others the gift of pro-
phecy: but this bird, which speaks with a voice which is also of good
omen, combines the two gifts. In fact, the periodical re-appearance of
the phoenix marks important events in world history, announcing the
beginning of a new epoch-making cycle. Horapollo, Hieroglyphica 2,
57 states that the Egyptians use the figure of a phoenix when they wish
to indicate a global renewal after a long period of time, probably refer-
56 Daniela Colomo
ring to the Sothic year69: ἀποκατάϲταϲιν δὲ πολυχρόνιον βουλόμενοι

ϲημῆναι, φοίνικα τὸ ὄρνεον ζωγραφοῦϲιν· ἐκεῖνοϲ γὰρ ὅτε γεννᾶται,
ἀποκατάϲταϲιν γίνεται πραγμάτων. Various sources consider the re-ap-
pearance of the bird as presaging important historical events, like the
beginning of the Seleucid era (Plin. Nat. 10, 5), the death of Tiberius
and the inauguration of the new era of Caligula (Dio Cassius 58, 27,
1), the recurrence of the 800 years since the foundation of Rome under
Claudius (Plin. Nat. 10, 5; Solinus 33, 14; Sextus Aurelius Victor, De
Caesaribus 4, 14; see van den Broek 1972, pp. 114-117).
14-15 (= 74-75), cf. 22 (= 82). On the movable nu of ἔοικε(ν) before
consonant, see Kühner-Blass, Grammatik, I.1, pp. 295-296; Threat-
te, Grammar, I, pp. 640-643; Crönert 1903, pp. 137-141; Devine -
Stephens 1994, p. 252.
14-16 (= 74-76) The sense of the text leads us to take the phoenix’s song
as the subject of ἔοικε(ν).
16ff. (= 76ff.) βλέπεται should be taken as a passive form, meaning literal-ly
‘it is seen’, and having as subject the phoenix. Although the bird is treated
as masculine in 13 (= 73) οὗ]τ̣οϲ and, before it, in 8 (= 68) τῷ ὄρνιθι, the
verb βλέπεται is constructed with neuter adjectives, as ἔοικε(ν) in 14 (= 74).
Indeed, βλέπω in the active form, with the sense of ‘to look, to appear’, can
be constructed with neuter adjectives and participles referring to masculine
subjects; see LSJ s.v. II, and Eur. Alc. 773 with the comment by Parker
2007, pp. 205-206. In our case we would have to assume a construction
with the passive form instead of the (normally attested) active one.
χρυϲαυγὲϲ | [ὁμ]οῦ κ̣α̣ὶ ἀερῶδεϲ. I am inclined to take the second
adjective in the sense of sky-coloured/light blue (cf. LSJ s.v. ἀερινόϲ 2),
instead of the more vague sense of ‘like air’: this meaning is to be pre-
ferred because of the similarity with the sea stated at 20-21 (= 80-81). If
we take ἀερῶδεϲ in this sense, it would produce a sort of etymological
figure with the preceding adjective containing the same radical, ἀέριον.
The passage recalls Lib. Ecphr. 24, 6 (vol. VIII, p. 528, 8-9 Foerster),
ecphrasis of the peacock: τὸ δὲ τῆϲ δειρῆϲ χρυϲαυγὲϲ κυανέῳ ϲυμμίϲγει,
in which gleaming gold is mingled with dark-blue70. The supplement
69. On the Sothic year and its relation with the beginning of a new epoch see Tac.
Ann. 6, 28, 3; cf. van den Broek 1972, pp. 103-108, 416-417.
70. Cf. also Ach. Tat. 1, 16, 3: ταύτῃ νῦν οὗτοϲ τὸ κάλλοϲ ἐπιδείκνυται λειμῶνα πτερῶν.
ὁ δὲ τοῦ ταὼ λειμὼν εὐανθέϲτεροϲ· πεφύτευται γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ χρυϲὸϲ ἐν τοῖϲ πτεροῖϲ, κύκλῳ δὲ
τὸ ἁλουργὲϲ τὸν χρυϲὸν περιθέει τὸν ἴϲον κύκλον, καὶ ἔϲτιν ὀφθαλμὸϲ ἐν τῷ πτερῷ.
[ὁμ]οῦ better fits the space available in lacuna and the sense than [π]ου
proposed by the ed. pr. The mixture of colours on the plumage of the
phoenix is emphasized in the sources listed in Comm. 19ff. (= 79ff.).
19ff. (= 79ff.) ὑπά̣ρ[χ]ο̣ν̣ is more compatible with the traces than the
reading ὑπάρχ̣ι̣ l. ὑπάρχει proposed by the ed. pr.: the chi certainly fits
the lacuna; of the omicron, remains of its left-hand arc are clearly visi-
ble in the form of a curve approaching to a horizontal, i.e. one has to
think of a rather oval omicron, like those in lines 11 (= 71), 12 (= 72,
omicron at line-end), 14 (= 74, first omicron within the line); of the
nu, the right-hand upright is perfectly visible and on its left a trace at
mid-height belonging to the left-hand upright can be detected. The
participle ὑπά̣ρ[χ]ο̣ν̣ would give better sense: it is constructed with the
participle π̣ροϲεικὸϲ in the sense of τυγχάνω (cf. LSJ s.v. B. 5), i.e. in
the meaning of ‘it is seen as being similar to...’. On the presence of the
neuter forms, see Comm. on 16ff. (= 76ff.).
[δει]ν̣ὸν̣. The remaining traces of the second putative nu (transcri-
bed by the ed. pr. as uncertain sigma) consist of two dots, lying at mid-
height and in the lower part of the writing space respectively, in vertical
alignment with each other: they represent the remains of the left-hand
upright of the letter. The adjective is to be taken as an adverbial accusa-
tive in the sense of ‘wondrously similar to the sea’.
On the physical appearance of the phoenix and the colour of its
plumage the comparable sources offer a considerable amount of detail,
including the nimbus on its head, which symbolizes the relationship of
the bird with the sun71.
Hdt. 2, 73, 2: […] τὰ μὲν αὐτοῦ χρυϲόκομα72 τῶν πτερῶν, τὰ δὲ
ἐρυθρά· ἐϲ τὰ μάλιϲτα περιήγηϲιν αἰετῷ ὁμοιότατοϲ καὶ τὸ μέγαθοϲ.
Ach. Tat. 3, 25, 1-3: […] μέγεθοϲ κατὰ ταῶνα· τῇ χροιᾷ ταὼϲ ἐν
κάλλει δεύτεροϲ. [2] κεκέραϲται μὲν τὰ πτερὰ χρυϲῷ καὶ πορφύρᾳ·
αὐχεῖ δὲ τὸν Ἥλιον δεϲπότην, καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ μαρτυρεῖ· ἐϲτεφάνωϲε γὰρ
αὐτὴν κύκλοϲ εὐφυήϲ· ἡλίου δέ ἐϲτιν ὁ τοῦ κύκλου ϲτέφανοϲ εἰκών. [3]
κυάνεόϲ ἐϲτιν, ῥόδοιϲ ἐμφερήϲ, εὐειδὴϲ τὴν θέαν, ἀκτῖϲι κομᾷ. καὶ εἰϲὶν
αὗται πτερῶν ἀνατολαί73.
71. A detailed treatment of this motif, with extensive iconographical evidence, is to

be found in van den Broek 1972, pp. 233-251; cf. also Ricci 1981, pp. 27-28; LIMC
VIII.1, Supplementum, s.v., pp. 987-990; Hilton 2009, pp. 109-110; Lecocq 2009a, esp.
pp. 78, 84-99.
72. It is worth noting that this epithet is frequently applied to gods: see LSJ, s.v.
73. The interpretation of this passage is problematic; see van den Broek 1972, pp.
235-236, 248-249; Laplace 2007, p. 336; Lecocq 2011, pp. 411-412.
58 Daniela Colomo
Philostr. VA 3, 49 (vol. I, p. 121, 28-29 Kayser): εἶναι δὲ ἕνα

ἐκδιδόμενον τῶν ἀκτίνων καὶ χρυϲῷ λάμποντα, μέγεθοϲ ἀετοῦ καὶ εἶδοϲ.
Plin. Nat. 10, 3 aquilae narratur magnitudine, auri fulgore circa col-
la, cetero pupureus, caeruleam roseis caudam pinnis distinguentibus, cristis
fa<u>ces caputque plumeo apice honestante.
Claud. Phoen. 17-20: arcanum radiant oculi iubar, igneus ora / cin-
git honos. rutilo cognatum vertice sidus / attollit cristatus apex tenebrasque
serena / luce secat: Tyrio pinguntur crura veneno. / antevolant Zephyros
pinnae, quas caerulus ambit / flore color sparsoque super ditescit in auro.
Lact. De ave phoen. 125-134: primo qui color est malis sub sidere Cancri,
/ cortice quae croceo Punica grana legunt, / qualis inest foliis, quae fert agreste
papaver, / cum pandit vestes Flora rubente solo74, / hoc humeri pectusque decens
velamine fulget; / hoc caput, hoc cervix summaque terga nitent / caudaque
porrigitur fulvo distincta metallo, / in cuius maculis purpura mixta rubet. /
alarum pennas insignit desuper Iris / pingere ceus nubem desuper aura solet75.
Ezekiel the Dramatist, Exag. 257-258: πτεροῖϲι ποικίλοιϲι ἠδὲ
χρώμαϲι· / ϲτῆθοϲ μὲν πορφυροῦν ἐφαίνετο ...
Cf. Claud. Phoen. 83-88 (quoted in P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, Comm. on
9-10) and van den Broek 1972, p. 256.
To sum up, the description of P.Lond. Lit. 193, although rather
concise, agrees grosso modo with the sources, at least in terms of colora-
tion: the plumage of the bird is said to be colourful (7 = 67 πο̣ικίλη),
gold-gleaming (17 = 77 χρυϲαυγὲϲ), light blue (18 = 78 ἀερῶδεϲ), and
similar to the sea (20-21 = 80-81, π̣ροϲεοικὸϲ θα|[λά⟨ϲ⟩]ϲῃ̣).
21-24 (= 81-84) The form ϲειπε(ν) given by the papyrus at the end of
21 (= 81) represents a clear copying error and leads us to assume that
the model was written in a rather cursive script76 (see below, § 4).
[πτ]ερῶν̣: genitive plural from πτερόν, to be understood as a syno-
nym of πτέρυξ, ‘bird’s wing’ (LSJ s.v. 2). The alternative supplement
suggested by the ed. pr., [ἀ]έρων, seems to be too short, unless we assu-
74. Note that vv. 125-128 are rather problematic from the point of view of the textual
tradition; on the manuscript evidence and modern attempts and emendation, see van den
Broeck 1972, p. 255 fn. 1.
75. For the comparison of the plumage of the phoenix with the rainbow, cf. van den
Broek 1972, p. 254, who mentions the Slavonic Enoch; the colours of another bird, the
peacock, are also compared to the rainbow in Luc. Dom. 11, 20-22. Moreover, Lact. De ave
phoen. 143-144 says that the phoenix appears to be a mixture of a peacock and a pheasant
(effigies inter pavonis mixta figuram / cernitur et pictam Phasidis inter avem), while Ach. Tat.
3, 25, 1 (quoted above) states that the plumage of the peacock is inferior; cf. also [Eust.]
Comm. in Hexaem., PG 18, 729c and van den Broek 1972, pp. 252-253.
76. I owe this point to Lucio Del Corso.
me that the alpha at line-beginning was larger in size (for a particularly

big alpha see line 11 = 71, first alpha, and cf. fn. 17) or justify it on the
ground that the spacing in this script may be irregular. Moreover, the
sense is less satisfactory: it should be understood as a genitive in hyper-
baton referring to the noun ἦχον in 23 (= 83).
According to my reconstruction, when in motion the phoenix
seems to try to reproduce with its plumage a sound comparable to that
of the storming wind. This representation would fit the previous sec-
tion of the text, where the phoenix is represented in a sort of ‘mimetic
communion’ with nature, for it is said to be at one with the universe
trough its song and resembling to the sea.
ἀπο|[τυ]π̣ῶϲ̣ α ̣ ι. This supplement is compatible with the traces of the
uncertain letters visible on the papyrus: first, there are clear remains of a
square letter consisting of very tiny and faded traces in vertical alignment
followed, 2,5 mm farther on, by another upright with leftwards curving
lower extremity (compare the shape of the second upright with the pi of
the following word πρόειϲι̣ν); then we have an omega with a sort of tiny
hook under the right-hand curve, perhaps the ligature with the following
letter; finally, a trace below the upper half of the diagonal of the following
alpha represents the extremity of the flat top of sigma. Moreover, note
that the alpha at the end of the sequence shows a somehow odd shape, as
if the scribe were going to write another letter in the first place and then
realized that he had to write an alpha. This verb literally means ‘to im-
press, to represent’, and metaphorically ‘to follow as a model, to imitate’
(in this sense it is used in the middle form in D. H. Din. 8, 15). It gives
a sort of plastic, visual and dynamic representation to an acoustic pheno-
menon, i.e. the ἦχοϲ (of the air) consisting in the motion of the plumage
resembling the action of the wind. The image is rather synesthetic.
On the use of the verb καταιγίζω referring to strong winds, cf. the
comment on Alex. fr. 47, 5 in Arnott 1996, p. 166.
In the sources there are references to winds in relation to the phoe-
nix: Lact. De ave phoen. 21-24 outlines the absence of violent meteoro-
logical phenomena in the grove where the bird lives (non ibi tempestas,
nec vis furit horrida venti, / nec gelido terram rore pruina tegit, / nulla
super campos tendit sua vellera nubes, / nec cadit ex alto turbidus umor
aquae); cf. 73-76, containing a description of the peace surrounding
the place of refuge where the old phoenix goes to die (tum ventos clau-
dit pendentibus Aeolus antris, / ne violent flabris aera purpureum / neu
concreta noto nubes per inania caeli / submoveat radios solis et obsit avi)77.
77. Cf. van den Broek 1972, pp. 183-184.

60 Daniela Colomo
24 (= 84) On the superfluous movable nu in πρόειϲι̣ν δὲ cf. Gignac,

Grammar, I, pp. 114-116.
25ff. (= 85ff.) The sense would require the participle ἐξανδρούμενοϲ in
25-26 (= 85-86), although the space available at line-beginning in 26
(= 86) is too short, as pointed out by the ed. pr.78. The most economi-
cal solution is that a syllable, probably -με-, has accidentally been left
out by the scribe. ἐξανδρού|[⟨με⟩νο]ϲ should mean ‘reaching adult age,
maturity’, as in Hdt. 2, 63, 4; Eur. Phoen. 32 (commented on by Ma-
stronarde 1994, p. 154), Suppl. 703, and Antipho Soph., fr. 21,
4 Gernet = 61 Diels and Pendrick = Stobaeus 2, 31, 40. As Mastro-
narde, loc. cit., points out, factitative verbs like this are more common
in the aorist or perfect: although the expected meaning of the present is
progressive or inceptive, the participle «may be ‘timeless’, equivalent to
ἐξηνδρωμένοϲ, as apparently in Aristoph. Eq. 1241 τέχνην δὲ τίνα ποτ’
εἶχεϲ ἐξανδρούμενοϲ». It should to be noted that this verb is relatively rare79.
The description of the phoenix as οἶοϲ is to be related to the fact
that each time only a single specimen of the bird is living on earth; see
Comm. on P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, 4-10.
With the given articulation, the sense appears clear: the phoenix,
even when reaching maturity, does not mate, since there is a single
specimen of the phoenix extant at any given time. This can be related
to the debate on the sex of the phoenix mentioned at the beginning
of this article. In its solitude, however, the bird is rich – in addition to
other things, i.e. the beauty of its plumage, its musical abilities, etc. – in
wisdom80. From a linguistic and styilistic viewpoint it is worth noting
that the adjective οἶοϲ in the sense of ‘alone’ is a poetic word, which we
do not expect in prose. However, we could justify its presence on the
basis of the influence of poetry on progymnasmatic practice; cf. Comm.
on 8-14 (= 68-74).
The ed. pr. supplies [ὥϲ]πε[ρ] ἐξανδρού|[μενο]ϲ and articulates the
following sequence as οἷ[ο]ϲ, perhaps as indefinite (LSJ, s.v. 7) in the sense
of ‘a sort of, a kind of’, so that one could understand οἷ[ο]ϲ πλούϲι[ο]ϲ̣
in the sense ‘like a rich person’. The passage could be reconstructed as
78. «[μενο] too long, unless it projected into the margin».

79. Apart from the occurrences already quoted, a TLG search offers the following
results: Eust. Comm. ad Hom. Od., 1, 420, 22; Schol. Aristoph. Eq. in 1241a, b, c; Su. ε
1541, 1; Schol. in Theocr. 6, 2/3d; [Zonar.] ε, p. 776, 17; Nicephoros Basilaces, Or. A, p. 9,
2 Garzya (metaphorical use referring to λόγοϲ); Michael Choniates, Or. 16, vol. 1, p. 289,
5-6 Lampros.
80. For this interpretation I am indebted to Alfredo Mario Morelli.
[ὥϲ]πε[ρ] ἐξανδρού|[⟨με⟩νο]ϲ οἷ[ο]ϲ πλούϲι[ο]ϲ̣, and translated as: «like

someone reaching maturity, like a rich person (possibly in his fine clo-
thes, given that in the previous section of the text the colourful plu-
mage of the phoenix has been described)». Besides, one could assume
that an indefinite pronoun τιϲ has been left out by lapsus, i.e. [ὥϲ]πε[ρ]
ἐξανδρού|[⟨με⟩νό]ϲ ⟨τιϲ⟩ οἷ[ο]ϲ πλούϲι[ο]ϲ̣. Against this reconstruction
there are two objections: (1) The syntax – with the sequence [ὥϲ]πε[ρ]
… οἷ[ο]ϲ – sounds rather twisted; (2) It is not clear how the lines that
follow can be articulated and interpreted.
On the wisdom attributed to the phoenix, see Ael. NA 6, 58 (p.
156, 14-19 García et alii), who illustrates it with the fact that the bird
knows exactly when its lifespan has elapsed and that it has to fly to Egypt
to regenerate itself (ἐκεῖνα δέ, ὢ πρὸϲ τῶν θεῶν, οὐ ϲοφὰ εἰδέναι, ποῦ
μὲν Αἴγυπτόϲ ἐϲτι, ποῦ δὲ καὶ Ἡλιούπολιϲ, ἔνθα αὐτῷ πέπρωται ἥκειν,
καὶ ὅποι ποτὲ τὸν πατέρα καταθέϲθαι χρὴ καὶ ἐν θήκαιϲ τίϲι; ταῦτα δὲ εἰ
μὴ δοκεῖ θαυμαϲτά, ἆρά γε τὰ ἀγοραῖα καὶ τὰ ἐνόπλια καὶ τὰϲ ἄλλαϲ τῶν
ἀνθρώπων ἐϲ ἀλλήλουϲ τε καὶ κατ’ ἀλλήλων ἐπιβουλὰϲ ἐροῦμεν ϲοφά;);
cf. Nonn. D. 40, 394 and Jo. Gaz. Ἔκφραϲιϲ τοῦ κοϲμικοῦ πίνακοϲ II
208, who defines the phoenix as ϲοφὸϲ ὄρνιϲ. This attribution of this
quality to a bird is not surprising in a progymnasmatic piece: [Herm.]
Prog. vii 11, pp. 196-197 Patillon, in a passage containing the topoi
according to which an animal has to be praised, includes, besides its
physical characteristics, its psychological and behavioural features too
(ποταπὸν τὴν ψυχήν).
26 (= 86) At first glance, in terms of syllable division, the elided particle
δ(έ) at the very end of the line may appear puzzling, but such a practice
is attested in several cases (where the elision at line-end is mark-ed by
apostrophe): BKT IX 185, col. ii 5-6; P.Vindob. G 806 (MPER N.S.
III [1939] no. 42 = CPF I.2**, Isocrates, no. 64), A 4-5 and B 5-6;
P.Mich. inv. 918 (= Winter 1925), col. iii 27-28 (interestingly we have
here the same sequence – particle followed by preposition – as in the
supplement proposed for our papyrus, δ’ | επ Ωρεον); col. vi 8-9; P.Ryl.
I 58 (= Hausmann 1978, no. XXI, pp. 95-109), fol. ii recto, 11-12.
28ff. (= 88ff.) The sequence preserved in the papyrus at the beginning
of line 28 (= 88) – ιρην ̣[ ̣] ̣ – can be confidently restored and articulated
as εἰρηνι̣κ̣[ό]ϲ̣, assuming a banal iotacism at the very beginning of the
word. After the nu it is possible to distinguish scanty and faded traces in
vertical alignment: the spacing suggests that the iota has been omitted
in the first place and added later between the nu and the kappa. There
62 Daniela Colomo
then follows a clear upright and the remains of the upper oblique of the
kappa, while the remains of its lower oblique appear to be rather blurred.
The trace corresponding to the last letter of the sequence perfectly fits
a sigma, since it represents the prolongation of the flat top of this letter,
cf. col. ii (= iv) 5 (= 65), 12 (= 72), 26 (= 86). Alternatively, since the
above-mentioned traces in vertical alignment after the nu are very scan-
ty and faded, they could be considered as accidental ink: therefore we
could assume that the iota had just been omitted and not added later;
thus we would have to print the sequence with the iota as an edito-
rial addition, i.e. as εἰρην⟨ι⟩κ̣[ὸ]ϲ̣.
On the characterization of the bird as εἰρηνικόϲ, cf. Ael. NA 5, 34
(p. 117, 10-13 García et alii), where the attitude and behaviour of all
birds apart from the eagle towards the swan are described: οἱ μὲν οὖν
ὄρνιθεϲ οἱ λοιποί, εἰρηναῖα αὐτοῖϲ πρὸϲ αὐτοὺϲ καὶ ἔνϲπονδά εἰϲιν, ὁ
δὲ ἀετὸϲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦτον ὥρμηϲε πολλάκιϲ, ὡϲ Ἀριϲτοτέληϲ φηϲί [HA
610a1, 615b1, fr. 270, 15 Gigon] κτλ.
The following sequence contains a correction, which can be recon-
structed as follows: in the first instance the scribe omitted the article
and wrote the word ὄρνιϲ; then, having realized the lapse, he assigned
the function of article to the omicron beginning the sequence ορν̣ι̣[, and
added above the line, in a smaller size, another omicron as the initial of
the following word, i.e. ὁ `ο΄ρν̣ι̣[ϲ81.
ϲαρκ̣οφά̣[γοϲ recalls the numerous sources related to the feeding
habits of the phoenix, the majority of which says that the bird nourishes
itself with aromatics, or sun rays and sea mists, dewdrops falling from
the nocturnal sky82; cf. Jo. Gaz. Ἔκφραϲιϲ τοῦ κοϲμικοῦ πίνακοϲ II 215
ἄνθεοϲ εὐόμου βοτανηφάγοϲ, from a passage where he tells that before
dying the old phoenix fills its body with aromatic herbs. The text, as I
have reconstructed it, is probably to be understood in the sense that the
phoenix, not being carnivorous, does not display aggressive behaviour
in order to capture prey, i.e. it is not contentious with other birds.
81. Note that the ed. pr. has in the apparatus ὀ.

82. See Ov. Met. 15, 393-394: non fruge neque herbis, / sed turis lacrimis et suco vivit
amomi; Lact. De ave phoen. 109-114: non illi cibus est nostro concessus in orbe / nec cuiquam
implumem pascere cura subest. / ambrosios libat caelesti nectare rores, / stellifero tenues qui
cecidere polo. / hos legit, his alitur mediis in odoribus ales, / donec maturam proferat effigiem;
Claud. Phoen. 13-16: non epulis saturare famem, non fontibus ullis / adsuetus prohibere sitim;
sed purior illum / solis fervor alit ventosaque pabula libat / Tethyos, innocui carpens alimenta
vaporis; but cf. Plin. Nat. 10, 4 neminem existisse qui viderit vescentem, and see van den
Broek 1972, pp. 333-356; Ricci 1981, pp. 15-16, 19-23; Richter 1993, pp. 81-83;
Lecocq 2009b, pp. 111-113. The supplement ϲαρκ̣οφά̣[γοϲ referred to the phoenix was
considered a difficulty by the ed. pr.; cf. Rattenbury 1933, p. 253.
Interestingly, the adjective φιλόνικοϲ83 is used to characterize ano-

ther bird, the swan, in another rhetorical composition on papyrus,
P.Köln VI 250, fr. B I, 13-II, 22. This piece tells the fable in which the
swan refuses to sing in front of the Great King in the form of an aition
to explain the φιλονικία of the bird (B II, 1-3: τὸ δὲ φιλόνεικον αὐτοῦ
τῇδε δηλοῦται).
The peaceful environment of the phoenix recalls several sources
that present the abode of the bird as an idyllic habitat84: the phoenix
lives in the grove of the sun, among evergreen trees and pure water
(Lact. De ave phoen. 5-14, 25-30), located in Elysium by Ov. Am. 2, 6,
49-5085. Lact. De ave phoen. 71-72 describes the peaceful place where
the phoenix dies (and resurrects), stressing the absence of predatory
animals: in quam (sc. palmam) nulla nocens animans prorepere possit, /
lubricus aut serpens aut avis ulla rapax; cf. also 155-160, describing the
departure of the phoenix from Heliopolis: contrahit in coetum sese genus
omne volantum / nec preaeda memor est ulla nec ulla metus. Ov. Am. 2,
6, 51-58 represents the phoenix among pious birds: si qua fides dubiis,
volucrum locus ille piarum / dicitur, obscenae quo prohibentur aves: / illic
innocui late pascuntur olores / et vivax phoenix, unica semper avis; / ex-
plicat ipsa suas ales Iunonia pinnas, / oscula dat cupido blanda columba
mari. / psittacus has inter nemorali sede receptus / convertit volucres in sua
verba pias. This motif also recalls Claud. Phoen. 76-82, who describes
the cloud of birds which, like a huge army, accompanies the phoenix on
its journey to Egypt to its death: they are united by a feeling of respect
towards the phoenix and any aggressive attitude, like those of the wild
hawk and the eagle of Jupiter, and natural hostility between some of
them disappears: innumerae comitantur aves stipatque volantem alituum
suspensa cohors: exercitus ingens / obnubit vario late convexa meatu. / nec
quisquam tantis e milibus obvius audet / ire duci, sed regis iter fragrantis
adorant; / non ferus accipiter, non armiger ipse Tonantis / bella movet:
commune facit reverentia foedus86.
As recorded in the apparatus criticus of the ed. pr., Crönert suggests
to restore in 28 (= 88) an iambic quotation, ⟨ε⟩ἴρην ἐϲ ὄρ[νιν]87, reading
83. Note that the alternative form φιλόνεικοϲ, found in papyri and codices, cannot
simply be explained in terms of iotacism: it rather derives from a problematic etymological
interpretation of the second element as νεῖκοϲ; see LSJ, s.v. φιλόνικοϲ, 2.
84. See van den Broek 1972, pp. 305-334.
85. Cf. van den Broek 1972, p. 311.
86. Cf. van den Broek 1972, p. 228 fn. 1.
87. It is printed in this form in the ed. pr., probably a slip for ⟨ε⟩ἴρην ἐϲ ὄρν̣[ιν.
64 Daniela Colomo
Ϲοφο[κλ in 27 (= 87). However, note that in 28 (= 88) the traces after

nu can hardly be read as εϲ; moreover, he does not take into account
the small omicron added above the line. No Sophoclean lines that could
match the suggested quotation can be found. However, Soph. fr. 236
Radt, from the play ᾿Ηριγόνη, contains the word εἰρή in a corrupted
passage: νῦν δ’ †εἰρὴ ὕποφροϲ ἐξ αὐτῶν† ἕωϲ / ἀπώλεϲέν τε καὐτὸϲ
ἐξαπώλετo. Note that Hesych. contains the following gloss: †ε ἴ ρ η · ἡ
ἐκ τοῦ ἡλίου γινομένη ταῖϲ νεφέλαιϲ χρόα, τὸ καλούμενον τόξον, i.e. the
rainbow, commonly ἶριϲ. In fact we could consider the form ιρην in the
papyrus as a phonetic spelling for the accusative ἶριν (on eta instead of
iota, see Gignac, Grammar, I, pp. 237-239); in this respect, note also
Headlam’s emendation of the Sophoclean fragment (in Radt’s apparatus
criticus), νῦν δ’ ῏Ιριϲ ὣϲ. Although the syntactical articulation is uncle-
ar, this word in relation to the phoenix is not unplausible; cf. Comm.
on 19ff. (= 79ff.). Alternatively, one could consider the possibility of
emending the sequence ιρην to ἔριν (cf. Gignac, Grammar, I, pp. 249-
251), following Blaydes’ emendation of the Sophoclean fragment, νῦν
δ’ ἔριϲ. This word itself may be related to the fact that the phoenix
seems to be presented as a peaceful bird in 28-30 (= 88-90). Finally,
it is worth mentioning that Hesych. has another gloss for εἴρη: φήμη,
κληδών (LSJ, s.v. εἴρη (A)).
33 (= 93) ] ̣ ̣ορ. This sequence at line-end suggests the word ὄρνιϲ
in whatever case and ending in the following line: it seems to produce a
line longer than expected according to the column width. Similarly, in
P.Lond. Lit. 193, fr. 1, col. i 1, a sequence of four letters (representing
the beginning of a new word) protrudes from the line-end of the rest
of the column, so that it seems to have been added later, although the
hand, the letter size and the ink appear to be the same. But here the
letter size is slightly smaller, the shape of rho is different (the head is
narrower) and the ink appears to be lighter, so that from every perspec-
tive it appears to be a later addition.
4. General Observations
I offer here some general remarks on the two pieces with respect to
their content, their progymnasmatic character, and their relationship
with the literary and rhetorical tradition of the myth of the phoenix, as
well as to their bibliological features.
In both compositions two core-motifs of the myth of the phoenix
can be traced back: the song and the physical appearance of the bird.
P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 stresses the beauty of the phoenix’s song through a

comparison with the singing performances of other birds as an element
contained in the song allegedly performed at an Egyptian festival, but
the motif of physical appearance is also briefly treated. In P.Lond. Lit.
193 both motifs are developed to a certain extent. Here the phoenix’s
song is singled out as being εὔφημον, of good omen. Then the bird’s
song is said to seem to have an eternal quality and to be at one with
the universe. Its physical appearance is also described in detail. It is
noteworthy that both P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 and P.Lond. Lit. 193 emphasize
the singing abilities of the bird, an aspect frequently treated in various
classical sources, as we have seen above88. Note also that in P.Mil.Vogl.
I 20 there is a clear echo of an auctoritas on the myth of the phoenix,
Herodotus, who is also one of the ‘classical’ authors whose imitation is
recommended in progymnasmatic practice (see Comm. on 4 ff.). Besi-
des, the occurrence, in the same papyrus, of a phrase clearly modelled
on a Homeric passage (9-10) illustrates the crucial importance of po-
etry in rhetorical training (cf. Comm. on P.Lond. Lit. 193, col. ii 8-14
= iv 68-74). On the one hand, in P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 the short piece on
the phoenix, marked off by a paragraphos (like the other compositions
contained in the same roll), is preserved in its original length, so that it
appears to be meant as a rather rough sketch, not as a fully developed
model. On the other hand, in P.Lond. Lit. 193 neither the beginning
nor the end of the composition is preserved: it breaks off in the final
section of col. ii (= iv)89; on the basis of lexical elements (see Comm.
on col. i 3ff. [= iii 56ff.]), it is likely that col. i also dealt with the same
theme. By comparison with col. i of fr. 1 of the same papyrus, which is a
fully preserved column with its 35 lines (a piece on Αἰδώϲ), we can infer
that the text in col. ii (= iv) may well have included 4-5 further lines:
perhaps it mentioned the aging, death and resurrection of the phoenix,
which may be suggested by the participle ἐξανδρού|[⟨με⟩νο]ϲ in 25-26
(= 85-86). In fact, this theme is a core-motif in the myth of the phoenix
and is treated by Lactantius (De ave phoen. 63-116) and Claudian (Pho-
en. 27-71) in verses that are heavily indebted to the rhetorical tradition
of the myth, as we have already pointed out.
With regard to the textual and stylistic features of the two pieces
examined here, I have pointed out the provisional and sketchy nature
88. See Comm. on P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, 12ff.

89. The right-hand lateral margin of fr. 2 of P.Lond. Lit. 193, preserved to a maximum
of 5, 5 cm, is much wider than the intercolumnium between col. i and col. ii (about 2 cm),
so that it seems to be likely that the piece on the phoenix ended in the second column and
that there was not a subsequent third column.
66 Daniela Colomo
of the composition of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, also shared by the other pieces

contained in the same roll. Besides, P.Lond. Lit. 193 gives here and
there the impression of a not quite refined text: for example, in col. ii
5-8 (= 65-68), midway through the list of the different gifts assigned
to different birds by God is the rather vague expression τοῖϲ δὲ ἄλλο τι,
preceded and followed by two specific gifts, τοῖϲ δὲ μαντικὴ(ν) (5 = 65)
and τοῖϲ δὲ | πο̣ικίλην πτέρωϲιν (6-7 = 66-67).
These remarks make clear that it is rather difficult to assign the
two pieces to a specific progymnasmatic type. In P.Lond. Lit. 193 no
title has survived, while in P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 the (restored) title is rather
vague. Moreover, their ornithological theme cannot be treated as a di-
stinctive element in relation to their precise classification, since animals
(ἄλογα ζῷα) are included in the lists of objects for encomia, syncriseis
and ecphraseis90. Therefore, in this article I have preferred the ‘cautious’
generic label of progymnasmatic composition. Other scholars, howe-
ver, have ascribed the pieces to a specific progymnasma: Gualandri
1974b, p. 299 thinks that P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 contains hastily written and
concise notes for a diegema, which in my view would presumably have
included – as a full scale exercise – the narration of the death and re-
birth of the phoenix91; Cribiore 2001, p. 229 fn. 39 seems to consider
the piece of P.Lond. Lit. 193 as an encomium92; Stramaglia 2003, p.
226-227 fn. 41, Pordomingo 2007, pp. 439-440 with fn. 115, and
Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo 2008, pp. 170-171 categorise
both pieces as ecphraseis93. In my view each of these proposals is – at
least to some extent – plausible. One may consider that the ecphrastic
90. See Aphth. Prog. x 2, p. 141 Patillon, on syncrisis: τοϲαῦτα δὲ ϲυγκρίνειν προϲήκει,
ὅϲαπερ καὶ ψέγειν καὶ ἐγκωμιάζειν, πρόϲωπά τε καὶ πράγματα, καιρούϲ τε καὶ τόπουϲ, ἄλογα ζῷα
καὶ πρὸϲ τούτοιϲ φυτά. Cf. Id. Prog. viii 2, 1-6, p. 131 Patillon (on encomium); xii 1, 2-4, p.
147 Patillon (on ecphrasis); and [Herm.] Prog. vii 1, p. 194 Patillon (on encomium). See
also Pernot 1993, I, p. 132 fn. 13.
91. «È nostra impressione che ci si trovi davanti a brevi e frettolosi appunti che fissino,
a mo’ di schema, i temi di un progimnasma retorico, senza raggiungere la coerenza di un
διήγημα». However, the peer reviewer of this contribution excludes this possibility, pointing
out that «diégema es el relato de un hecho acaecido, de tipo mítico, ficticio, histórico o
privado».
92. Note that the ed. pr. speaks of an «account of a bird, apparently the phoenix».
The view expressed by Körte 1932, p. 220 – «Die letzte Kolumne gibt eine blumige
Schilderung des Vogels Phoenix» – is compatible with the attribution of the piece to an
ecphrasis (note, however, that ed. pr. does not ascribe the two pieces of P.Lond. Lit. 193 to
the school environment, but reports Crönert’s view that the author is an Atticising sophist
composing διαλέξειϲ comparable to those of Maximus Tyrius mentioned by Philostratus in
his VS; this classification has been accepted by Körte 1932, p. 220).
93. Stramaglia is the first scholar to have considered both compositions on the theme
of the phoenix in relation to rhetorical training together. Previously, the two pieces were
mentioned individually in scholarly literature, without connection to each other.
dimension is typical for the encomium on animals (τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα) as

prescribed by [Herm.] Prog. vii 11, pp. 196-197 Patillon94: as we have
already seen95, among the topoi, the encomium includes psychological
and intellectual qualities as well as physical characteristics, ποταπὸν τὴν
ψυχήν, ποταπὸν τὸ ϲῶμα. A good example of this is to be found in Lu-
cian’s Μυίαϲ ἐγκώμιον (especially 1-3 and 5-10)96. Another interesting
feature of both pieces is the comparison of certain qualities of the pho-
enix with those of other birds: in other words they contain a syncrisis,
which represents a very important part of the encomium, as prescribed
by [Herm.] Prog. vii 10, 1-2, p. 196 Patillon97; Aphth. Prog. viii 3, 6-12,
p. 132 Patillon98; Nicol. Prog. p. 59, 5-7 Felten99. Instructive examples
are the ἐγκώμιον βοόϲ found in Libanius’ corpus (Encom. 8, vol. VIII,
pp. 267-273 Foerster) and that of Nikolaos (Rhetores Graeci, vol. I, pp.
332-333 Walz), where the qualities of the ox are praised as superior to
those of the horse100, and Luc. Musc. Enc. 1-3, 5-9, 12101. With regard
to Gualandri’s view, the sketch of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 could certainly be
used for the treatment of the πρόϲωπον in a diegema, as prescribed
by Theon (Prog. p. 39, 25-27 Patillon-Bolognesi)102. In this respect,
94. παραπληϲίωϲ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα κατὰ τὸ ἐγχωροῦν. καὶ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου, ἐν ᾧ
γίνεται, ἐγκωμιάϲειϲ. εἰϲ δὲ τὴν τοῦ γένουϲ χώραν ἐρεῖϲ τίνι θεῶν ἀνάκειται, οἷον ἡ γλαῦξ τῇ
Ἀθηνᾷ, ὁ ἵπποϲ τῷ Ποϲειδῶνι. ὁμοίωϲ δὲ ἐρεῖϲ πῶϲ τρέφεται, ποταπὸν τὴν ψυχήν, ποταπὸν
τὸ ϲῶμα, τίνα ἔργα ἔχει, ποῦ χρήϲιμα, πόϲοϲ ὁ χρόνοϲ τοῦ βίου. καὶ ϲυγκρινεῖϲ δὲ καὶ ὅλωϲ
τοῖϲ ἐμπίπτουϲι τῶν τόπων χρήϲῃ. On the relationship between ecphrasis and encomium in
progymnasmata, see Bargellini 2006, pp. 46-47 and Webb 2009, pp. 78-81.
95. Cf. Comm. on P.Lond. Lit. 193, col. ii 25ff. (= iv 85ff.).
96. Cf. Billerbeck – Zubler 2000, pp. 26-30, who point out that here Menander
Rhetor p. 420, 10-14 – on the funeral oration – is taken and adapted as a model. In general,
on the relationship between Lucian and progymnasmatic practice, see Bompaire 1958, pp.
240-242.
97. μεγίϲτη δὲ ἐν τοῖϲ ἐγκωμίοιϲ ἀφορμὴ ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ϲυγκρίϲεων κτλ.; cf. vii 11.7-8, p.
197 Patillon.
98. εἶτα τὸ μέγιϲτον τῶν ἐγκωμίων κεφάλαιον ἐποίϲειϲ τὰϲ πράξειϲ, ἃϲ διαιρήϲειϲ εἰϲ ψυχὴν
καὶ ϲῶμα καὶ τύχην, ψυχὴν μὲν ὡϲ ἀνδρείαν ἢ φρόνηϲιν, ϲῶμα δὲ ὡϲ κάλλοϲ ἢ τάχοϲ ἢ ῥώμην,
τύχην δὲ ὡϲ δυναϲτείαν καὶ πλοῦτον καὶ φίλουϲ. ἐπὶ τούτοιϲ τὴν ϲύγκριϲιν ἐκ παραθέϲεωϲ
ϲυνάγων τῷ ἐγκωμιαζομένῳ τὸ μεῖζον· εἶτα ἐπίλογον εὐχῇ μᾶλλον προϲήκοντα.
99. ἐν αὐτοῖϲ τοῖϲ ἐγκωμίοιϲ, ὅπου τῇ πρὸϲ ἕτερον παραθέϲει μεγάλα ἐπιδεικνύναι
ἐπειρώμεθα τὰ τοῦ νῦν ἐπαινουμένου.
100. Lib. Encom. 8, 8-10, vol. VIII, pp. 270, 12-271, 15 Foerster; Nicol. Prog.,
Rhetores Graeci, vol. I, p. 333, 29-31 Walz.
101. See Billerbeck – Zubler 2000, pp. 29 and 74; cf. Pernot 1993, II, pp. 690-
698. On the use of the syncrisis in an encomiastic context in another piece contained in
P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, the piece on Antinoos’ flower (mentioned above), see Pordomingo 2007,
pp. 441-442, and Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo 2008, p. 187. In general, on
individual progymnasmata see Miguélez Cavero 2008, pp. 264-366.
102. παρακολουθεῖ δὲ τῷ μὲν προϲώπῳ γένοϲ, φύϲιϲ, ἀγωγή, διάθεϲιϲ, ἡλικία, τύχη,
προαίρεϲιϲ, πρᾶξιϲ, λόγοϲ, θάνατοϲ, τὰ μετὰ θάνατον.
68 Daniela Colomo
Nicol. Prog. p. 17, 8-13 Felten offers an interesting passage: τὸ τοίνυν

διήγημα τῶν μερῶν ἐϲτι μόνων· [καὶ] μέρουϲ <γὰρ> ἀεὶ χρείαν πληροῖ
καὶ οὐδέποτε ἀρκεῖ πρὸϲ ὅλην ὑπόθεϲιν ἐν τοῖϲ πολιτικοῖϲ λόγοιϲ, εἰ μή
τιϲ οὐκ ὀρθῶϲ λέγων εἴποι ἐν ταῖϲ ἐκφράϲεϲιν, αἵτινεϲ αὐτῶν εἰϲι τῶν
διηγημάτων ὡϲ εἰπεῖν μέρη, ὡϲ ἐν τῷ περὶ ἐκφράϲεωϲ ῥηθήϲεται103.
Finally, with regard to the ecphrastic aspect, it is worth recalling
the ‘narrative’ frame and the rhetorical device consisting of the use of
verbs of ‘seeing’ by the ‘narrator’, which P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 seems to have
in common with a number of the ecphraseis in the Libanius’ corpus (cf.
Comm. on 3-17 and 4ff.).
A similar and instructive case of a rhetorical piece on papyrus whose
attribution to a specific progymnasmatic type is problematic or at least
not straightforward, is the previously mentioned P.Köln VI 250, fr. B I
13-II 22. While the ed. pr. simply points out that it contains a hitherto
unknown fable on the swan, where the bird refuses to sing in front of
the Great King, Stramaglia 2003, p. 227 fn. 45 considers it an ecphra-
sis. This classification could be supported by the fact that the fable is
used to illustrate the φιλον(ε)ικία typical of this bird (lines 1-3: τὸ δὲ
φιλόνεικον αὐτοῦ τῇδε δηλοῦται)104; cf. Comm. on P.Lond. Lit. 193, col.
ii 28ff. (= iv 88ff.).
Since the two compositions here examined belong to papyri, i.e. to
original documents circulating in the school environment, it is worth
considering finally their material aspects. From a bibliological and pa-
laeographical standpoint, the two pieces display some differences. On
the one hand, P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, written along the fibres on the recto of a
roll, in a bookhand script105, with some layout devices (titles of sections
in eisthesis, paragraphoi separating individual sections), represents a de-
cently executed volumen, with some attempt at formality and even cal-
ligraphy, although it cannot be defined tout court a de luxe edition. On
the other hand, P.Lond. Lit. 193 is written across the fibres on recycled
103. Cf. Id. Prog. pp. 69, 18-70, 6: πέντε δ’ ὄντων τῶν τοῦ λόγου μερῶν, ὡϲ πολλάκιϲ
εἴρηται, προοιμίου, διηγήϲεωϲ, ἀντιθέϲεωϲ, λύϲεωϲ, ἐπιλόγου, γυμνάϲει ἡμᾶϲ ἡ ἔκφραϲιϲ πρὸϲ
τὸ διηγηματικὸν μέροϲ, πλὴν ὅϲον οὐ ψιλὴν ἀφήγηϲιν ποιουμένη, ἀλλὰ παραλαμβάνουϲα τὰ
ἐργαζόμενα τὴν ἐνάργειαν καὶ ὑπ’ ὄψιν ἡμῖν ἄγοντα ταῦτα, περὶ ὧν εἰϲιν οἱ λόγοι, καὶ μονονοὺ
θεατὰϲ εἶναι παραϲκευάζοντα. See also [Herm.] Prog. x 7, p. 203 Patillon: ἰϲτέον δὲ ὡϲ
τῶν ἀκριβεϲτέρων τινὲϲ οὐκ ἔθηκαν τὴν ἔκφραϲιν εἰϲ γύμναϲμα ὡϲ προειλημμένην καὶ ἐν
μύθῳ καὶ ἐν διηγήματι καὶ ἐν τόπῳ κοινῷ καὶ ἐν ἐγκωμίῳ· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ, φαϲίν, ἐκφράζομεν
καὶ τόπουϲ καὶ ποταμοὺϲ καὶ πράγματα καὶ πρόϲωπα. ἀλλ’ ὅμωϲ, ἐπειδή τινεϲ οὐ φαῦλοι καὶ
ταύτην ἐγκατηρίθμηϲαν τοῖϲ γυμνάϲμαϲιν, τούτοιϲ ἠκολουθήϲαμεν καὶ ἡμεῖϲ ῥᾳθυμίαϲ ἔγκλημα
φεύγοντεϲ.
104. Cf. Thévenaz 2004, pp. 66-67 fn. 12.
105. The ed. pr. speaks of «maiuscola quasi calligrafica».
papyrus in a careless informal script106. However, as already stated, both

texts have in common features showing that they are stylistically unre-
fined. In P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, as G. Bastianini in CPF I.1**, p. 93 points out,
there are various errors that are clearly the result of careless copying107;
moreover, there are some corrections by the same hands. Similarly, nu-
merous copy errors and phonetic spellings occur in P.Lond. Lit. 193108.
These observations may raise the following question: is it possible to
exploit these data to reconstruct – to some extent – the actual process
through which the two texts were composed and put in circulation? At
first glance, the palaeographical impression given by P.Lond. Lit. 193
may lead us to think of an autograph, probably of a student, like P.Oxy.
LXVIII 4647, Encomium on the Horse, from the second/third century
AD, which presents similar features, being written on the back of a do-
cument in a rather irregular and cramped hand, and being badly spel-
led: here the presence of corrections by the same hand may give further
support to the classification as an autograph109. However, for P.Lond.
Lit. 193 another possibility is not to be ruled out because of some errors
that may point out to a copy. But a copy of what? It is rather tempting
to imagine a student who hastily copied from notes taken by one or
more of his classmates during classes in which the teacher illustrated
how to compose progymnasmata. On the other hand, P.Mil.Vogl. I
106. But note that in fr. 1, at the end of col. ii, a layout device – the coronis – is used.
Moreover, one should notice the attempt to keep an even right edge to the column by
reducing letter size and spacing between letters towards the line-end (see, for example: col.
i 6 = iii 59, ending with an extremely small omicron; col. ii 16 = iv 76, 17 = 77), and by
writing the final nu in the form of a horizontal stroke above the preceding consonant (see
col. i 2 = iii 55, 4 = 57; col. ii 4 = iv 64, 5 = 65, 9 = 69, 14 = 74, 21 = 81).
107. Bastianini speaks of «errori di tipo visivo»; see col. i 12 φα̣νιη instead of φα̣νείη,
and in other sections of the roll: col. i 20 μ]εμνημαι instead of μ]εμύημαι, 26 νυκνα instead
of νύκτα, col. ii 4 ϲειδων instead of Ϲόλων, 12 ϲαρδαναπολλον instead of Ϲαρδανάπαλλον, 14
απεληϲαν instead of ἠπείληϲαν, 16 δημαγωνα instead of δημαγωγία; col. iii 19 ωχην instead
of ὠχρόν, 20-21 υακιν]|θον instead of ὑάκιν]|θοϲ. In col. iii 18 a correction in the interlinear
margin by the same hand (eta to replace alpha, but alpha has not been crossed out) occurs.
Cf. Körte 1932, p. 116, who thinks that the texts of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 have been dictated
from the teacher to his students, and that errors derived from dictation.
108. See Comm. on col. ii 21-24 (= iv 81-84) on the form ϲειπ representing a
misunderstanding of ἔοικε(ν), probably due to the cursivity of the model. Diplography
occurs in col. ii 10 (= iv 70) φθ]έγ{γ}μα. See also fr. 1: col. i 3 ἁλμη προτε̣ρον instead of
λαμπρότατον (?), 5-6 oφα̣λ̣|μ̣ο̣ϲ instead of ὀφθαλ|μόϲ (?), 12-13 φε|φ̣ανται instead of πέ|φανται;
22-23 δημηρ̣ο|ρ̣ον instead of δημηγό|ρον, 23 τερουτο instead of τοιοῦτο (?); haplography
occurs in col. i 8 θαυμάϲα, 12 ἀνδρν, 15 κ[ι]νδύνου, 17 ἔ̣χ̣ραν, 34 ὀνηϲιν; diplography in
col. i 13 καλλ{λ}ίϲτου, 20 διδαϲκάλ{λ}ῳ; interlinear correction by the same hand in col. i 12
π`λ΄έονεϲ. Moreover, note that movable nu is used in all positions (col. ii 4 = iv 64, 14 = 74,
21 = 81, 24 = 84; cf. Gignac, Grammar, I, p. 114).
109. Cf. Pordomingo 2007, pp. 424-425.
70 Daniela Colomo
20 does not seem to be an occasional and ephemeral product: on the

contrary, it clearly appears to be a volumen put in circulation and meant
to last beyond a couple of lectures, produced as a sort of short textbook
of models, a handy reference work. However, the poor quality of the
text may raise the question why and how such rather provisional notes
have received, in the words of Bastianini, loc. cit., such a «veste grafica
abbastanza accurata»110. It is perhaps not implausible to think that one
or more students may have given the notes taken during classes to a
professional scribe in order to have a proper school book, although not
a very refined one. The scribe copied the notes without great care111, but
still making use of his trained hand.
Finally, it is worth concluding with a comparison with another col-
lection of rhetorical exercises, the previously mentioned P.Köln VI 250.
From a bibliological and palaeographical standpoint this item shows
similarities with P.Lond. Lit. 193: it is written on the back of a docu-
ment, i.e. on recycled papyrus, in a semi-literary hand, slanting to the
right, with numerous cursive forms, very probably by a student112. Ho-
wever, it presents some elements of layout that can be compared to the
devices of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 described above: headings written in smaller
110. [The omission of comma after «grafica» is mine.] The comparison with another
school text, P.Mil.Vogl. III 123, a collection of models for encomia from the first half of
the third century BC, to be considered a sort of Ur-progymnasmata, is instructive. This
roll represents a professional good edition. The encomia, although rather schematic (see
Talamanca 1971, pp. 508-509 fn. 94; Pernot 1993, I, pp. 43-44), cannot be considered
just rough notes like the compositions in P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, but they are written in pure
Attic prose and elegant style, with very good orthography, and with colometric division
(see Cazzaniga in P.Mil.Vogl. III 123, pp. 27-28). Moreover, the text has been revised and
corrected by the same scribe. From a palaeographical and bibliological point of view the
product is very fine, being written on good quality papyrus in a well-executed bookhand
with the use of layout devices such as coronis, paragraphos (marking end and beginning of
colons), and ecthesis (see Pordomingo 2007, pp. 417-419 and the general assessment by
Fernández Delgado 2012, pp. 239-247).
111. In this respect, col. ii 21-23 offers a rather interesting piece of evidence: the
object is repeated there twice in a different form – the first time as an aorist participle – τὸν
νεικήϲαντα – preceding the verb, the second time as a perfect participle – τὸν νενεικηκότα
– following the verb. This reduplication, left uncorrected, may be due to the mechanical
and rapid taking of notes during actual classes, where the teacher in the free flow of the
oral performance may have slightly changed the sentence in the attempt to improve it.
Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo 2008, pp. 177-179 wrongly consider τὸν νεικήϲαντα
a «propuesta […] de Maas», clearly implying that it is not written in the papyrus. In fact
Vogliano’s text is misleading: he prints ⟦τὸν νεική|ϲαντα⟧, as if the word had been deleted
by the scribe, while in the commentary at p. 181 he states: «Il parallelismo dei 6 kola (ll.
18-24) esigerebbe che il quinto kolon terminasse con il verbo ἔδηϲαν (Maas)», i.e. without
the participle τὸν νενεικηκότα.
112. See Stramaglia 2003, pp. 215-216 fn. 12.
size and in eisthesis, and paragraphoi separating different sections113.

Like P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 and P.Lond. Lit. 193, P.Köln VI 250 also contains
various mistakes – especially cases of haplography – and phonetic spel-
lings. In spite of its fragmentary state of conservation, P. Köln VI 250
seems to have included exercises of different levels. On the one hand,
some pieces are to be classified as sketchy notes for standard composi-
tions, like fr. A I, 1-16, containing excerpts of two suasoriae on histo-
rical themes (one probably concerning Alexander the Great, and the
other Cyrus the Younger before the battle of Kunaxa)114, and fr. B I, 13-
II, 22, a fragment of an ecphrasis on the swan (as said above). On the
other hand, the text of fr. A I, 17-II, 24 can be classified as an ἠθοποιΐα
διπλῆ in the form of a speech of προϲαγγελία by a lover who is going
to commit suicide, a composition which assumes the appearance of a
μελέτη: in other words, an original variatio of a standard progymnas-
matic exercise, more developed in comparison to the sketchy notes of
the other pieces115. To sum up, P.Köln seems to share the two different
typologies that I have pointed out for P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 and P.Lond. Lit.
193 respectively: short sections meant as sketches for individual exer-
cises in the first case, more developed and detailed compositions in the
second one116. Moreover, P.Köln VI 250 also seems to have originated
from notes hastily taken during lessons, and later copied down: further
element that supports this point is the fact that in fr. A 1, between lines
7 and 8, the paragraphos with the function of separating the excerpts of
the two suasoriae has been left out117. The scenario that could be imagi-
ned behind P. Köln VI 250 is that of a teacher providing his pupils with
rather concise specimina for standard exercises like the ecphrasis, and
concentrating on the development of the more complex and difficult
ethopoea διπλῆ of fr. A I, 17-II, 24. One may think of a similar scenario
for the two papyri here revisited118.
113. P.Köln VI 250, fr. A I, 17-19, fr. B III, 1-3, 21-23.

114. So Antonio Stramaglia, in a personal communication.
115. See Stramaglia 2003, in particular pp. 220-227.
116. I owe this observation to Antonio Stramaglia.
117. Cf. Stramaglia 2003, p. 226.
118. The peer reviewer of this contribution holds a different opinion about how P.Mil.
Vogl. I 20 and P.Lit.Lond. 193 have originated. For what concerns P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, he
thinks that it is «más económico pensar en copia de alumno avanzado a partir de notas
del profesor para la elaboración de ejercicios progimnasmáticos». With regard to P.Lond.
Lit. 193, he states: «me parece una explicación más económica pensar en copia a partir de
un cuaderno de progymnásmata del profesor (es sabido que los progymnásmata también
podían ser utilizados como muestras de escritura)».
72 Daniela Colomo
Abstract
This article presents the re-edition of two Greek rhetorical prose composi-
tions preserved on papyrus and dealing with the theme of the phoenix, the famous
mythical bird of Egyptian and Greek mythology. A much improved reconstruc-
tion and articulation of the text of both papyri, based on several new readings and
new supplements, has allowed a better interpretation of the two pieces through
the examination of their relationship with the copious literary tradition on the
phoenix and a more precise contextualization within the cultural milieu that pro-
duced them: they clearly belong to the Progymnasmata genre and should therefo-
re be ascribed to the school environment.
Daniela Colomo
Oxford, Sackler Library – Papyrology Rooms
daniela.colomo@classics.ox.ac.uk
Bibliography
Arnott 1996 = W. G. Arnott, Alexis. The Fragments, Cambridge et al. 1996.

Bargellini 2006 = F. Bargellini, Per un’analisi strutturale dell’ Ἔκφραϲιϲ τοῦ κοϲμικοῦ
πίνακοϲ di Giovanni di Gaza, «MEG», 6 (2006), pp. 41-68.
Barrett 1964 = W. S. Barrett, Euripides Hippolytos. Edited with Introduction and Com-
mentary, Oxford 1964.
Betz 1992 = H. D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the Demotic
Spells, I. Texts, Chicago-London 1992 (2nd ed.).
Billerbeck – Zubler 2000 = M. Billerbeck – C. Zubler, Das Lob der Fliege von Lukian
bis L. B. Alberti. Gattungsgeschichte, Texte, Übersetzungen und Kommentar, Bern et al.
2000.
Bompaire 1958 = J. Bompaire, Lucien écrivain. Imitation et création, Paris 1958.
Bonneau 1964 = D. Bonneau, La crue du Nil, divinité égyptienne à travers mille ans d’his-
toire (332 av.-641 ap. J.-C.), Paris 1964.
Brashear 1995 = W. M. Brashear, The Greek Magical Papyri: an Introduction and Survey;
Annotated Bibliography (1928-1994), «ANRW», II.18.5 (1995), pp. 3380-3684.
Brattico 1997 = L. Brattico, Per un indice tematico di Ekphraseis greche (II-VI sec.),
«Rudiae», 9 (1997), pp. 53-74.
Bryce 1989 = J. Bryce, Lactantius’ De ave Phoenice and the Religious Policy of Constantine
the Great, in E. A. Livingstone (ed. by), Papers presented to the Tenth International
Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford, 1987, Leuven 1989 (Studia Patristica,
19), pp. 13-19.
Calame 2001 = C. Calame, Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece: Their Morphology,
Religious Role, and Social Function, Engl. tr., Lanham 2001.
Colomo 2004 = D. Colomo, Herakles and the Eleusinian Mysteries: P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, 18-32
Revisited, «ZPE», 148 (2004), pp. 87-98.
Cribiore 2001 = R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and
Roman Egypt, Princeton-Oxford 2001.
Crönert 1903 = G. Crönert, Memoria graeca herculanensis cum titolorum Aegypti papyro-
rum codicum denique testimoniis comparatam proposuit, Lipsiae 1903.
Denniston, GP = J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, Oxford 1934 (2nd ed. 1954).
Derda – Janiszewski 2002 = T. Derda – P. Janiszewski, Soterichos Oasites Revisited, in T.
Derda – P. Janiszewski (ed. by), ΕΥΕΡΓΕϹΙΑϹ XΑΡΙΝ. Studies Presented to Benedet-
to Bravo and Ewa Wipszycka by Their Disciples, Warsaw 2002, pp. 51-70.
74 Daniela Colomo
Devine – Stephens 1994 = A. M. Devine – L. D. Stephens, The Prosody of Greek Speech,

New York-Oxford 1994.
Dubel 2011 = S. Dubel, Le phénix, le crocodile… et le flamant rose: sur le bestiaire égyptien
d’Achille Tatius, in Poignault – Dubel 2011, pp. 389-404.
Fabrizio-Costa 2001 = S. Fabrizio-Costa (éd. par), Phénix: mythe(s) et signe(s). Actes du
colloque international de Caen, 12-14 octobre 2000, Bern et al. 2001.
Faraone 1997 = C. A. Faraone, Salvation and Female Heroics in the Parodos of Aristophanes’
Lysistrata, «JHS», 117 (1997), pp. 38-59.
Fassino 1998 = M. Fassino, Sulla cosiddetta ‘Lex Youtie’, «RFIC», 126 (1998), pp. 72-75.
Fehling 1969 = D. Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen
vor Gorgias, Berlin 1969.
Feltoe 1904 = C. L. Feltoe, The Letters and other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria,
Cambridge 1904.
Fernández Delgado et al. 2007 = J. A. Fernández Delgado – F. Pordomingo – A.
Stramaglia (ed. por), Escuela y literatura en Grecia antigua. Actas del Simposio In-
ternacional, Universidad de Salamanca, 17-19 Noviembre de 2004, Cassino 2007.
Fernández Delgado 2007 = J. A. Fernández Delgado, Influencia literaria de los
progymnásmata, in Fernández Delgado et al. 2007, pp. 273-306.
Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo 2008 = J. A. Fernández Delgado – F. Pordo-
mingo, PMilVogl I 20: bocetos de progymnásmata, «ZPE», 167 (2008), pp. 167-192.
Fernández Delgado 2012 = J. A. Fernández Delgado, Modèles progymnasmatiques de
l’époque hellénistique, in P. Schubert (éd. par), Actes du 26e Congrès international de
papyrologie. Genève, 16-21 août 2010, Genève 2012, pp. 239-247.
Frankfurter 1995 = D. Frankfurter, Narrating Power: the Theory and Practice of the Ma-
gical Historiola in Ritual Spells, in M. Meyer – P. Mirecki (ed. by), Ancient Magic
and Ritual Power, Leiden et al. 1995, pp. 457-476.
Friedländer 1912 = P. Friedländer, Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius, Leipzig-
Berlin 1912.
Furley – Bremer 2001 = W. D. Furley – J. M. Bremer, Greek Hymns. Selected Cult Song
from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, I. The Texts in Translation, II. Greek Texts and
Commentary, Tübingen 2001.
Gibson 2008 = C. A. Gibson, Libanius’ Progymnasmata. Model Exercises in Greek Prose
Composition and Rhetoric. Translated with an Introduction and Notes, Atlanta 2008.
Gigli Piccardi 2008 = D. Gigli Piccardi, AEPOBATEIN. L’ecfrasi come viaggio in Gio-
vanni di Gaza, in S. Audano (a cura di), Nonno e i suoi lettori, Alessandria 2008, pp.
83-101.
Gignac, Grammar = F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzan-
tine Periods, I-II, Milano 1976-1981.
GMAW = E. G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts in the Ancient World, Second edition revised
and enlarged by P. J. Parsons, London 1987.
Gonis 2005 = N. Gonis, A. S. Hunt and ‘Youties’s Law’, «ZPE», 151 (2005), p. 166.
Goulon 2001 = A. Goulon, L’oiseau Phénix de Lactance et ses attaches à l’œuvre apologé-
tique, in Fabrizio-Costa 2001, pp. 85-103.
Gualandri 1968 = I. Gualandri, Aspetti della tecnica compositiva in Claudiano, Milano
1968.
Gualandri 1974a = I. Gualandri, Review of van den Broek 1972, «RFIC», 102 (1974),
pp. 218-225.
Gualandri 1974b = I. Gualandri, Un papiro milanese, Lattanzio, Claudiano e il mito della
fenice, «RAL», s. VIII, 29 (1974), pp. 293-311.
Hall 1985 = J. B. Hall, Claudianus. Carmina, Leipzig 1985.
Hausmann 1978 = B. Hausmann, Demosthenis Fragmenta in papyris et membranis servata
[Pars prima], Firenze 1978 (Papyrologica Florentina, 4).
Heath 2006 = J. Heath, Ezekiel Tragicus and Hellenistic Visuality: The Phoenix at Elim,
«JThS», 57 (2006), pp. 23–41.
Hebert 1983 = B. D. Hebert, Spätantike Beschreibung von Kunstwerken. Archäologischer
Kommentar zu den Ekphraseis des Libanios und Nikolaos, Graz 1983.
Heck 2002-2003 = E. Heck, Nochmals: Lactantius und Lucretius. Antilucrezisches im Epilog
des lactanzischen Phoenix-Gedichts?, «IJCT», 9 (2002-2003), pp. 509-523.
Hilton 2009 = J. L. Hilton, Contemporary Elements in Achilles Tatius’s Leucippe and Cli-
tophon, «AClass», 52 (2009), pp. 101-112.
Isetta 1980 = S. Isetta, Il «de ave Phoenice» attribuito a Lattanzio, «CCC», 1 (1980), pp.
379-409.
Jacobson 1983 = H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, Cambridge 1983.
Johnson 2004 = W. A. Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Toronto 2004.
Körte 1932 = A. Körte, III. Referate. Literarische Texte mit Ausschluß der christlichen,
«APF», 10 (1932), pp. 217-237.
Kühner-Blass, Grammatik = R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Spra-
che, Teil. I.1, besorgt von F. Blass, Hannover 1890.
Kühner-Gerth, Grammatik = R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Spra-
che, Teil. II, besorgt von B. Gerth, Hannover-Leipzig 1904.
Labrique 2013 = F. Labrique, Le régard d’Hérodote sur le phénix (II, 73), in L. Coulon – P.
Giovannelli-Jouanna – F. Kimmel-Clauzet (éd. par), Hérodote et l’Égypte. Regards
croisés sur le livre II de l’ Enquête d’Hérodote. Actes de la journée d’étude organisée à
la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, le 10 mai 2010, Lyon 2013, pp.
119-143.
Lanfranchi 2006 = P. Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique. Introduction, texte,
traduction et commentaire, Leiden-Boston 2006.
Lanna 2009 = S. Lanna, εἰϲ κύκνον: la tradizione del poeta cigno in Mesomede 10 Heitsch,
«SemRom», 12 (2009), pp. 217-230.
76 Daniela Colomo
Laplace 2007 = M. Laplace, Le roman d’Achille Tatios. «Discours panégyrique» et imagi-

naire romanesque, Bern-Frankfurt a. M. 2007.
Laszlo 2002 = R. Laszlo, Die poetischen Dichtungen des Lactantius, Marburg 2002.
Lebek 1973 = W. D. Lebek, Ein Hymnus auf Antinoos (Mitford, The Inscriptions of Kourion
No. 104), «ZPE», 12 (1973), pp. 101-137.
Lecocq 2005 = F. Lecocq, Les sources égyptiennes du mythe du phénix, in ead. [ed.], L’Égyp-
te à Rome, Caen 2005 (= 2008) (Cahiers de la Maison de la Recherche en Sciences
Humaines, 41), pp. 211-266.
Lecocq 2009a = F. Lecocq, L’iconographie du phénix à Rome, «Schedae», 6/1 (2009), pp.
73-106 (http://www.unicaen.fr/services/puc/ecrire/preprint0062009.pdf ).
Lecocq 2009b = F. Lecocq, L’œuf du phénix. Myrrhe, encens et cannelle dans le mythe
du phénix, «Schedae» 17/2, pp. 107-130 (http://www.unicaen.fr/services/puc/ecrire/
preprints/preprint0172009.pdf ).
Lecocq 2011 = F. Lecocq, Le roman indien du phénix ou les variations romanesques du myth
du phénix, in Poignault – Dubel 2011, pp. 405-429.
Lloyd 1976 = A. B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book II. Commentary 1-98, Leiden 1976.
Mastronarde = D. J. Mastronarde, Euripides Phoenissae. Edited with Introduction and
Commentary, Cambridge et al. 1994.
Merkelbach 1962 = R. Merkelbach, Roman und Mysterium in der Antike, München-
Berlin 1962.
Merkelbach 1963 = R. Merkelbach, Isisfeste in griechisch-römischer Zeit. Daten und Ri-
ten, Meisenheim a. Gl. 1963.
Merkelbach 1995 = R. Merkelbach, Isis regina-Zeus Sarapis. Die griechisch-ägyptische
Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1995.
Miguélez Cavero 2008 = L. Miguélez Cavero, Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the
Egyptian Thebaid 200-600 AD, Berlin-New York 2008.
Nagy 2001 = A. M. Nagy, Le phénix et l’oiseau-benu sur les gemmes magiques. Trois notes sur
le phénix gréco-egyptien, in Fabrizio-Costa 2001, pp. 57-84.
Parker 2007 = L. P. E. Parker, Euripides Alcestis. Edited with Introduction and Commen-
tary, Oxford et al. 2007.
Pernot 1993 = L. Pernot, La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain, I. Histoire et
technique, II. Les valeurs, Paris 1993.
Poignault – Dubel 2011 = R. Poignault – S. Dubel (éd. par), Présence du roman grec et
latin. Actes du colloque tenu à Clermont-Ferrand, 23-25 novembre 2006, Clermont-
Ferrand 2011.
Pordomingo 2007 = F. Pordomingo, Ejercicios preliminares de la composición retórica y
literaria en papiro: el encomio, in Fernández Delgado et al. 2007, pp. 405-453.
Preus 1985 = M. C. Preus, Eloquence and Ignorance in Augustine’s On the Nature and Ori-
gin of the Soul, Atlanta 1985.
Rattenbury 1933 = R. M. Rattenbury, Romance: Traces of Lost Novels, in J. U. Powell (ed.

by), New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature, III, Oxford 1933, pp. 211-257.
Ricci 1981 = M. L. Ricci, Claudii Claudiani Phoenix (carm. min. 27). Introduzione e
commento, Bari 1981.
Ricci 2001 = M. L. Ricci, Claudius Claudianus. Carmina minora, Bari 2001.
Richter 1993 = W. Richter, Zwei spätantike Gedichte über den Vogel Phoenix, «RhM»,
136 (1993), pp. 62-90.
Riese 1906 = A. Riese, Anthologia Latina, I.2, Lipsiae 1906.
Roberts, GLH = C. H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands. 350 B. C. – A. D. 400, Oxford
1956.
Schwyzer, Grammatik = E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik: auf der Grundlage von Karl
Brugmans Griechischer Grammatik, I-III, München 1939-1953.
Snell 1939 = B. Snell, Review of P.Mil.Vogl. I and P.Ryl. III, «Gnomon», 15 (1939), pp.
529-543.
Stramaglia 1996 = A. Stramaglia, Fra ‘consumo’ e ‘impegno’: usi didattici della narrativa
nel mondo antico, in O. Pecere – A. Stramaglia (a cura di), La letteratura di consumo
nel mondo greco-latino. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cassino, 14-17 settembre
1994, Cassino 1996, pp. 97-166.
Stramaglia 2003 = A. Stramaglia, Amori impossibili. PKöln 250, le raccolte proginnasmati-
che e la tradizione retorica dell’‘amante di un ritratto’ [tavole 1-5], in B. J. Schröder –
J.-P. Schröder (hrsg. von), Studium declamatorium. Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen
und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, München-Leipzig 2003, pp. 213-239.
Strati 2007 = R. Strati, La fenice nella letteratura latina, «AOFL», 2 (2007), pp. 54-79
(http://eprints.unife.it/annali/lettere/2007vol1/strati.pdf ).
Talamanca 1971 = M. Talamanca, Su alcuni passi di Menandro di Laodicea relativi agli
effetti della ‘Constitutio Antoniniana’, in Studi in onore di E. Volterra, V, Milano 1971,
pp. 433-560.
Thévenaz 2004 = O. Thévenaz, Chants de cygnes et paroles de rhéteurs, in O. Bianchi –
O. Thévenaz (éd. par), Mirabilia – Conceptions et représentations de l’extraordinaire
dans le monde antique. Actes du colloque international, Lausanne, 20-22 Mars 2003,
Bern-Frankfurt a. M. 2004, pp. 53-74.
Threatte, Grammar = L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I-II, Berlin-New
York 1980-1996.
Torre 2013 = C. Torre, Seneca e l’utopia del sapiens, in F. Pezzoli – J. Cano Cuenca
(ed. por), De Utopia y animales. VIII Jornadas sobre pensamiento utópico, 24-25
Noviembre 2011. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid – Instituto de Estudios Clásicos
Lucio Anneo Séneca, Madrid 2013 (forthcoming).
Ureña Bracero 2007 = J. Ureña Bracero, Algunas consideraciones sobre la autoría de
los progymnásmata atribuidos a Libanio, in Fernández Delgado et al. 2007, pp.
645-689.
78 Daniela Colomo
van den Broek 1972 = R. van den Broek, The Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical
and Early Christian Traditions, Leiden 1972.
Webb 1997 = R. Webb, Poetry and Rhetoric, in S. E. Porter (ed. by), Classical Rhetoric in
the Hellenistic Period. 330 B.C. - A.D. 400, Leiden et al. 1997, pp. 339-369.
Webb 2001 = R. Webb, The Progymnasmata as Practice, in Y. L. Too (ed. by), Education in
Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden et al. 2001, pp. 289-316.
Webb 2009 = R. Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory
and Practice, Farnham 2009.
West 1963 = M. L. West, Critical Notes on Apollonius Rhodius, «CR», n.s., 13 (1963), pp.
9-12.
Winter 1925 = J. B. Winter, A Fragment of Demosthenes’ Third Philippic in the University
of Michigan Collection, «CPh», 20 (1925), pp. 97-114.
Wortmann 1966 = D. Wortmann, Kosmogonie und Nilflut. Studien zu einigen Typen ma-
gischer Gemmen griechisch-römischer Zeit aus Ägypten, «BJ», 166 (1966), pp. 62-112.
d. colomo Tav. 1
P. Lond.Lib. 193, fr. 2. © British Library Board (pap. inv. 2239)

Indice generale
Guglielmo Cavallo
P.Mil. Vogl. I 19. Galeno e la produzione
di libri greci a Roma in età imperiale p. 1
Elisabetta Todisco
Sebuini o Sesuini? Una nuova lettura e interpretazione
dell’iscrizione dei vicani di Angera (CIL V 5471) p. 15
Daniela Colomo
The avis phoenix in the Schools of Rhetoric:
P.Mil. Vogl. I 20 and P.Lond. Lit. 193 Revisited p. 29
Alessandro Fusi
La recensio gennadiana
e il testo di Marziale p. 79
Fabio Acerbi
Funzioni e modalità di trasmissione
delle notazioni numeriche nella trattatistica
matematica greca: due esempi paradigmatici p. 123
Claudio Giammona
Copia, incolla, sostituisci: il dialogo
con le fonti di un grammatico altomedievale p. 167
Emanuela Colombi
Assetto librario ed elementi paratestuali
nei manoscritti tardoantichi e carolingi
del De civitate dei di Agostino: alcune riflessioni p. 183
414 Indici
Francesca Piccioni
Sull’Assisiate 706
del De magia di Apuleio p. 273
Bart Huelsenbeck
A Nexus of Manuscripts Copied
at Corbie, ca. 850-880: A Typology of Script Style
and Copying Procedure p. 287
Lidia Buono
Un omeliario di Cava del XII secolo in frammenti:
ricostruzione codicologica e commento liturgico p. 311
Daniele Bianconi
Un nuovo codice appartenuto
a Manuele Crisolora (Pal. Heid. gr. 375) p. 375
Filippo Ronconi
The Patriarch and the Assyrians:
New Evidence for the Date
of Photios’ Library p. 387
Indici p. 397

The Avis Phoenix in The Schools of Rheto PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Avis Phoenix in The Schools of Rheto PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Copyright © Università degli Studi di Cassino (Italy)

«Segno e Testo» è una rivista peer reviewed

Edizioni Università di Cassino

Finito di stampare nel mese di dicembre 2013

The avis phoenix in the Schools of Rhetoric:

in memory of Marc Huys (1961-2010)

No quotation could be more suitable to set the scene: Aelius Aris-

1. See Laplace 2007, p. 101.

well-established symbol of the immortality and resurrection of the soul

P.Mil.Vogl. I 2010, from Tebtunis, preserves three columns contai-

features, possibly the hand of a student18, and contains rather awkward

2. P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, col. i, 1-17

[περὶ] τ̣οῦ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοιϲ ἰε-

[On] the Egyptian sacred bird, the phoenix

20. A Spanish translation is to be found in Fernández Delgado – Pordomingo

given to him by the Heliopolitai. On the other hand, the ‘protagonist’

3 Vogliano’s supplement [τοῦ μέν] is less economical, since he has to ex-

using verbs of seeing appropriate to this role, implicitly emphasizing

37. Cf. vol. VIII, p. 470, 5 (same subject).

40. On this point see Torre 2013, forthcoming, fn. 30.

46. Schol. bT; cf. Gualandri 1974b, p. 295.

by multo ceterarum volucrum comitatu, novam faciem mirantium. Ach.

48. Cf. Laplace 2007, p. 337.

12ff. The advantage of Parsons’ supplement, in comparison to Voglia-

αὐτοῦ ᾄδουϲιν, ὡϲ ἐϲ Αἴγυπτον φέρεται, καὶ Ἰνδοὶ ξυμμαρτυροῦϲιν

are plausible, this point appears particularly emphasized; see Comm.

thological persona more generally, it is evident that the god excels at

The adjective ἡδύφωνοϲ is used to describe the nightingale in Ar-

15-16 The supplement χρύ]ϲ̣ε̣[ο]ϲ̣ printed in 15 is based on Cazza-

3. P.Lond. Lit. 193, fr. 2

ο̣ὐκ ἔϲτιν αὐτῶν τὸ ϲχ̣ῆ̣-

[τ]ὸ̣ ᾆϲμα̣· αἰώνιον ἔοικέ(ν)

… their appearance is not…: it is necessary to consider that God gave to some

The identification of the bird described in col. ii (= iv) with the

expect the voice to produce a song, in other words to reproduce it-

ring to the Sothic year69: ἀποκατάϲταϲιν δὲ πολυχρόνιον βουλόμενοι

71. A detailed treatment of this motif, with extensive iconographical evidence, is to

Philostr. VA 3, 49 (vol. I, p. 121, 28-29 Kayser): εἶναι δὲ ἕνα

me that the alpha at line-beginning was larger in size (for a particularly

77. Cf. van den Broek 1972, pp. 183-184.

24 (= 84) On the superfluous movable nu in πρόειϲι̣ν δὲ cf. Gignac,

78. «[μενο] too long, unless it projected into the margin».

[ὥϲ]πε[ρ] ἐξανδρού|[⟨με⟩νο]ϲ οἷ[ο]ϲ πλούϲι[ο]ϲ̣, and translated as: «like

81. Note that the ed. pr. has in the apparatus ὀ.

Interestingly, the adjective φιλόνικοϲ83 is used to characterize ano-

Ϲοφο[κλ in 27 (= 87). However, note that in 28 (= 88) the traces after

P.Mil.Vogl. I 20 stresses the beauty of the phoenix’s song through a

88. See Comm. on P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, 12ff.

of the composition of P.Mil.Vogl. I 20, also shared by the other pieces

dimension is typical for the encomium on animals (τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα) as

Nicol. Prog. p. 17, 8-13 Felten offers an interesting passage: τὸ τοίνυν

papyrus in a careless informal script106. However, as already stated, both

20 does not seem to be an occasional and ephemeral product: on the

size and in eisthesis, and paragraphoi separating different sections113.

113. P.Köln VI 250, fr. A I, 17-19, fr. B III, 1-3, 21-23.

Arnott 1996 = W. G. Arnott, Alexis. The Fragments, Cambridge et al. 1996.

Devine – Stephens 1994 = A. M. Devine – L. D. Stephens, The Prosody of Greek Speech,

Laplace 2007 = M. Laplace, Le roman d’Achille Tatios. «Discours panégyrique» et imagi-

Rattenbury 1933 = R. M. Rattenbury, Romance: Traces of Lost Novels, in J. U. Powell (ed.

P. Lond.Lib. 193, fr. 2. © British Library Board (pap. inv. 2239)

Potrebbero piacerti anche