The origins of grammatical tables: a reconsideration of P.Louvre inv. E 7332 (in ZPE 2013, with R....

ELEANOR DICKEY �– ROLANDO FERRI �– MARIA CHIARA SCAPPATICCIO

THE ORIGINS OF GRAMMATICAL TABLES:A RECONSIDERATION OF P.LOUVRE INV. E 7332

aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 187 (2013) 173�–189

© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

173

THE ORIGINS OF GRAMMATICAL TABLES:A RECONSIDERATION OF P.LOUVRE INV. E 7332

Modern Latin and Greek grammars and textbooks normally present in ectional paradigms in tables, with each form in a particular paradigm underneath the previous one; the paradigms are thus visually distin-guished from narrative text, which is presented in the usual continuous lines, and the similarities and differ-ences among the various forms are emphasized by their positioning.1 But it is generally believed that this is a medieval development, and that in antiquity paradigms were usually treated as part of the narrative text.2

A text often overlooked in this context is P.Louvre inv. E 7332,3 which was published by Karl Wes-sely well over a century ago (Wessely 1886: 218�–21) but has since been largely forgotten. This fragment contains one of the earliest substantial examples of Latin grammatical paradigms laid out in the modern tabular fashion and thus offers important insight into the history of paradigm presentation. Its original pub-lication is marred by a number of transcription errors, some of them major, and provides a largely unsup-plemented text, so we offer here a complete re-edition as well as a discussion of the fragment�’s signi cance.

The fragment consists of the lower two-thirds of a leaf from a parchment codex, together with a small portion of the other leaf of the bifolium. It is in poor condition and in some places very wrinkled, which not only makes it dif cult to read but means that measurements are somewhat unreliable. Conservation work intended by the Louvre may well provide the opportunity for signi cant improvement over the following gures in the future, but for now the fragment measures 24.6 cm in width and 18.8 cm in height. The page itself was 20.5 cm wide, with an inner margin of 2.5 cm, an outer margin of c. 4 cm, and a bottom margin of 4.7 cm; the top is lost. Each side of the page contains two columns of paradigms with c. 2 cm of interco-lumnar space. A text height of 29 lines per column can be reconstructed; as the height of each line is 0.6 cm the overall size of the text block would have been c. 17.5 cm high and c. 14 cm wide. If one supposes a top margin of c. 3 cm, which would be in line with common margin proportions, the pages would originally have been c. 25.2 cm high and 20.5 cm wide. This is a plausible size for an early parchment codex: Turner (1977: 27) lists a number of parchment codices with similar dimensions.

The text is written in the so-called BR uncial script and dates to the fth or sixth century AD; Lowe (1972b: 470a and CLA V 697) gave this date without any supporting evidence, but Paolo Radiciotti, in a detailed examination of manuscripts containing both Latin and Greek script (1998: 127�–8), gave the same date and cited as parallels three Latin juridical codices (a sixth-century Digest of Justinian,4 a fth- or sixth-century palimpsest fragment from Gaius�’ Institutiones,5 and a fth- or sixth-century version of part

1 We are very grateful to Marc Étienne, Conservateur en chef du patrimoine au département des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Louvre, for allowing us to inspect the original parchment on two occasions and to photograph it, and for his numerous helpful suggestions. We are also grateful to Alfons Wouters for offering his expertise and advice as well as shar-ing with us his unpublished work, to Mario De Nonno for kindly and swiftly sharing with us his extensive knowledge of the parallel texts and for offering us his guidance on this work, to Marco Fressura for very helpful codicological and bibliographic guidance, to Evert van Emde Boas for examining the Leiden manuscript of Theodosius for us, and to Daniela Colomo, Martin West, and Philomen Probert for their helpful comments on drafts of this article.

2 See e.g. Law (1997: 252, 2003: 133�–5) and the grammatical papyri in Wouters (1979: 67�–8, 70, 127�–8, 185). Cribiore (e.g. 2001: 214) is a notable exception to this generalisation; see also Morgan (1998: 156�–8).

3 Number 2997 in the Mertens�–Pack database (http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/indexsimple.asp; henceforth MP3) and number 6148 in the Leuven database of ancient books (http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/; henceforth LDAB); a plate is also published by Lowe in Codices Latini Antiquiores (henceforth CLA) V 697. Other papyrological abbreviations in this article come from the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, available online at http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/clist.html.

4 Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana sine numero = CLA III 295 = Seider 1981: no. 25 = LDAB 7619; cf. Ammirati (2010: 86�–8); Baldi (2010); Corbino and Santalucia (1988).

5 Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare XV (13) = CLA IV 488 = Seider 1981: no. 23 = LDAB 7843, cf. Ammirati (2010: 94�–5 n. 125).

174 E. Dickey �– R. Ferri �– M. Ch. Scappaticcio

P.Lo

uvre

inv.

E 73

32 re

cto

(Mus

ée d

u Lo

uvre

, dep

. des

Ant

iqui

tés é

gypt

ienn

es, E

733

2, ©

2012

Geo

rges

Pon

cet/M

usée

du

Louv

re)

The Origins of Grammatical Tables 175

of Gaius�’ Institutiones with Greek annotations.6 Other good parallels for its script include P.Oxy. VIII 1099 and L 3553,7 both bilingual Virgil fragments dated to the fth century; the Antinoe fragment of Juvenal, dated to the fth or sixth century;8 and the Vatican�’s Cod. Lat. 10696, dated to the fourth or fth century (see Seider 1978: no. 54). Moreover, all but one of the similarly-shaped parchment codices listed by Turner (see above) are dated to the fth and/or sixth century. Lowe (1972b: 470a) considers this fragment to be part of a group of 21 BR-uncial Latin manuscripts written in the eastern empire; although there are some problems with his analysis (see below), it is notable that P.Louvre inv. E 7332 does have a lot in common with the other manuscripts in Lowe�’s group.9

The material on the leaf mainly preserved consists of four columns of Latin noun paradigms. They are grouped by gender and ending and were evidently intended for Greek speakers learning Latin, since each word is glossed in Greek with a word of the same grammatical gender as the Latin before being declined. This kind of systematic Greek glossing, speci cally using Greek words with the same grammatical gender, is, as Mario De Nonno alerts us, a unique feature of this short text, even if some kind of Greek glossing is also found in Latin grammatical texts belonging to the less theoretical �‘regulae type�’.10 All the rest of the paradigms�’ framework, however �– the headings and indications of gender and number �– is in Latin. This use of language follows the normal practice of ancient grammatical presentation: grammatical explanations were traditionally conveyed in the language being discussed, even when that discussion was aimed at read-ers with little knowledge of that language.

The majority of the text is written in a brownish-black ferric ink, which unfortunately is frequently visible from the other side of the parchment and so produces misleading traces, but the headings are in red ink.11 These headings are nevertheless in the same hand as the rest of the text; they t in well with the material written in black, so that neither colour shows signs of having been written rst and the other t-ted in around it. It looks as though the scribe wrote the whole text in order and simply changed ink colour at the appropriate places.12 In one place (line 43) the second part of a heading is written in black rather than red ink. Spaces are generally left between words in Latin, but no space is left in the phrases abhac, abhoc, abhis, and etcetera; in Greek no space is left between the article and the noun, but as there are no other places where words could be divided in the Greek it is unclear whether more prosodically signi cant divisions would have been indicated by spaces.13 Some punctuation and abbreviation signs are present, all of them apparently by the rst hand; as the spacing and punctuation are of interest we present here a dip-lomatic transcription containing only the word spaces and punctuation present in the original. There is no evidence of ruled lines.

6 PSI XI 1182 = CLA III 292 = MP3 2953 = LDAB 1068, cf. Ammirati (2010: 79�–80).7 P.Oxy. VIII 1099 = MP3 2950 = LDAB 4162; P.Oxy. L 3553 = MP3 2943.1 = LDAB 4160 (plates of the latter are available

online at http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/). For these see now Scappaticcio (2013: 129�–33; 87�–9).8 P.Ant. s. n. = MP3 2925 = LDAB 2559; see Roberts (1935) and Seider (1978: no. 53).9 For example, the use of an elongated initial letter in headings (Lowe 1972b: 471) and the use in Latin of a letter N with a

thin oblique stroke and thick uprights; this latter is normally a feature of Greek rather than Latin scribal practice, for Western Latin manuscripts have Ns with a thick oblique and thin uprights (Lowe 1972b: 469).

10 For the de nition cf. Law (1987: 191�–2). For the irregular presence of Greek as (superscript) lemmata with partial nominal paradigms (only nom.; abl. sing.; gen. pl.) cf. Fragmentum Bobiense de nomine e.g. GL V 557.39�–40 hoc uectigal

; ibid. 558.33�–4 hoc lacunar . We thank De Nonno for these references.11 Red ink is not infrequently used in juridical papyri to emphasize important words; it is also found in some literary

papyri (e.g. P.Ant. I 29 = MP3 2937 = LDAB 4148 = CLA Suppl. 1708 and P.Hamb. II 167 = MP3 3011 = LDAB 5037 = CLA VIII 1214) as a way of marking headings, names of characters, etc. A striking parallel for its use in our fragment comes from Vaticanus Urb. lat. 1154 (colour plate in De Nonno 2011: 42), where a set of grammatical paradigms in black ink has headings (de genere masculino and numeri pluralis) in red ink. See also De Nonno (2000: 150�–1) and Ammirati (2010: 58 n. 7).

12 Some scribes apparently kept two inkpots open on their desks and dipped their pen into whichever one was needed, as can be observed from a papyrus whose scribe dipped his pen into the wrong pot: see Blumell (2009: 28).

13 On spaces see Wingo (1972: 127�–31) and Geymonat (2008: 36�–7).


P.Lo

uvre

inv.

E 73

32 v

erso

(Mus

ée d

u Lo

uvre

, dep

. des

Ant

iqui

tés é

gypt

ienn

es, E

733

2, ©

2012

Geo

rges

Pon

cet/M

usée

du

Louv

re)


The text and translation are as follows:

Recto, column 1: Translation

5 [In �—o haec iussio] (Feminine nouns) in -io: nom. iussio [ ] �‘command�’ [huius iussionis] gen. iussionis [huic iussioni] dat. iussioni [hanc iussionem] acc. iussionem10 [o iussio] voc. iussio [abhac iussione] abl. iussione [P hae iussiones] Plural, nom. iussiones [harum iussionum] gen. iussionum h [ssionibus] dat. iussionibus15 a iu [s] nes acc. iussiones o iussiones voc. iussiones abhis iussionib�‘ abl. iussionibus In u�—s haec palus (Feminine nouns) in -us: nom. palus �‘marsh�’20 huius paludis gen. paludis huigc paludi dat. paludi hanc paludem acc. paludem o palus voc. palus abhac palude abl. palude25 P hae paludes Plural, nom. paludes etcetera etc. In �—x haec nutrix (Feminine nouns) in -ix: nom. nutrix �‘nurse�’ huius nutricis gen. nutricis

Notes5 We start our numeration here because the other columns can be restored to be 29 lines high, so it is

likely that four lines of some other paradigm once existed at the start of this column. This line would have been in red ink.

6 The equation of iussio and can be found in pseudo-Cyrillus (Goetz and Gundermann 1888: 347.27) and the Glossarium Leidense (Goetz 1892: 408.6). This line would have been in red ink.

18 This line is written in red ink.19 This line is written in red ink.21 Wessely read huic, but the situation is more complicated. The scribe wrote huig and then the same

hand added c, somewhat out of alignment a bit below the line, to make huic. There is no evidence of deletion of the g, but this is not surprising as corrections in literary papyri often do not involve dele-tions (see Colomo 2008: 24).

24 Wessely printed abhas paludes, but this must be a typographical error, as the expected ablative sin-gular form is clearly visible on the parchment.

25 The abbreviation for �‘plural�’ (standard in grammatical manuscripts) consists of the letters P and L with a diagonal line running through them both.

27 This line is written in red ink.28 This line is written in red ink.29 Underneath nu may be some further traces, perhaps of es.


Column 2:

30 [huic nutrici] dat. nutrici [hanc nutricem] acc. nutricem [o nutrix] voc. nutrix [abhac nutrice] abl. nutrice [P hae nutrices] Plural, nom. nutrices35 [harum nutr] cu�— gen. nutricum ]etcetera etc. [haec mer] trix (Another in -ix): nom. meretrix [ ] �‘prostitute�’ [huius mere]tricis gen. meretricis40 [huic] m[er] trici dat. meretrici etcetera etc. eutralia in o�—r Neuter nouns in -or: hoc aequor: nom. aequor �‘sea�’ huius aequoris gen. aequoris45 hu c aequori dat. aequori hoc aequor acc. aequor o aequor voc. aequor abhoc aequore abl. aequore P haec aequora Plural, nom. aequora50 horum aequorum gen. aequorum his aequorib�‘ dat. aequoribus haec aequora acc. aequora o aequora voc. aequora abhis aequorib�‘ abl. aequoribus55 In �—�— hoc poema (Neuter nouns) in -ma: nom. poema �‘poem�’ huius poematis gen. poematis huic poemati dat. poematiNotes36 The position of the surviving traces is surprising: if etcetera was the only thing on this line, we would

expect it to be positioned as in line 41, and therefore its position here suggests that some word was ori-ginally written to its left. De Nonno suggests that this might have been similiter, originally intended to go with the meretrix paradigm that follows (cf. line 106, similiter hoc tribunal) but incorporated into this line by scribal error.

37 This line is written in red ink.38 This line would have been written in red ink.42 This line is written in red ink.43 This line is anomalous among the headings: it is written in black ink, though the pattern of other

headings indicates that it should have been in red ink, and the Greek is on the same line as the Latin (as at line 81).

55 This line is written in red ink.56 This line is written in red ink.


Verso, column 3: [hoc poema] acc. poema60 [o poema] voc. poema [abhoc poemate] abl. poemate [P haec poemata] Plural, nom. poemata [orum poematum] gen. poematum his [poematibus] dat. poematibus65 ha [c poemata] acc. poemata [poemata] voc. poemata ab [is poematibus] abl. poematibus In �— hoc [sidus] (Neuter nouns) in -us: nom. sidus [ ] �‘star�’70 huius sid [ris] gen. sideris hu c deri dat. sideri oc s du acc. sidus o voc. sidus a oc abl. sidere75 P haec Plural, nom. sidera ho um i gen. siderum h s �‘ dat. sideribus haec [sid] acc. sidera o [si] voc. sidera80 abhis ibus abl. sideribus Hoc pectus (Another in -us): nom. pectus �‘chest�’ h ius pector gen. pectoris huic pect[o] dat. pectori [h]oc pect acc. pectus85 o pec voc. pectus abhoc pe [re] abl. pestore

Notes67 There may be some traces to the left of abhis.68 This line is written in red ink.69 This line is written in red ink.81 This line is written in red ink.82 The u of huius is peculiar; it might be hêius, but at the same time the right-hand vertical of the u also

seems to be visible. 86 Although Wessely read pectore, the error of pest- for pect- seems nearly certain; the letter in question

is not the same shape as the other s signs in this column, but it is very similar to the one in line 92. The same type of mistake recurs in lines 102 and following.


Column 4: [P haec pectora] Plural, nom. pectora [horum pectorum] gen. pectorum [his pectoribus] dat. pectoribus90 [haec pectora] acc. pectora [o pectora] voc. pectora [abhis pectoribus] abl. pectoribus [In a�—l hoc uectigal] (Neuter nouns) in -al: nom. uectigal [ ] �‘revenue�’95 [huius uectigalis] gen. uectigalis [huic uectigali] dat. uectigali [hoc uectigal] acc. uectigal [o uectigal] o uectigal [abhoc uectigali] abl. uectigali100 P[ haec] uect g a Plural, nom. uectigalia hor uectigaliu�— gen. uectigalium his uest galib�‘ dat. uestigalibus haec uestigalia acc. uestigalia O uestigalia voc. uestigalia105 abhis stigalib�‘ abl. uestigalibus Similiter hoc tribunal Similarly, nom. tribunal �‘speaker�’s platform�’ uius tribunalis gen. tribunalis uic tribunali dat. tribunali110 hoc tribuna acc. tribunal o tribun l voc. tribunal etcetera etc.

Notes93 This line would have been written in red ink.94 This line would have been written in red ink. The equation of uectigal and can be found in the

late antique glossary attributed to pseudo-Philoxenus (Goetz and Gundermann 1888: 205.13); other possibilities for the Greek are and , equated with uectigal in the Glossae Bernenses (Goetz 1892: 504.15) and in pseudo-Philoxenus (Goetz and Gundermann 1888: 205.13) respectively.

102�–5 Although Wessely read uect- in all these lines, the s is unmistakeable.106 This line is written in red ink.107 This line is written in red ink. The eta in looks like a Latin h. Wessely read another ear-

lier in the line, but neither that nor any other word is present there: the apparent traces are actually the ink of paludi (line 21) showing through from the recto.

112 There may be a high point before etcetera as well as after it. After this line there are three blank lines at the bottom of the column. It is possible that these blanks indicate that the section on neuters ended here, but in view of the fact that some large classes of neuters (e.g. those declined like nomen and mare) are not present in the text we have, it is likely that the scribe was reluctant to put the heading and rst line of a new paradigm at the end of this quire (that this page was the end of a quire is indi-cated by the quire number on the other leaf; see below) and continue the rest on a new quire. Probably the blank lines were left to enable the scribe to put the next heading at the start of the next quire.


In addition to these four columns, there is some writing on the small surviving portion of the other leaf of the bifolium. Although these traces are scanty and poorly preserved, enough remains to make it clear that they are not grammatical tables; nevertheless they seem to have been written by the same scribe, and using the same ink (though no red is visible) as the paradigms on the main page. We tentatively propose as a reading:

Recto (to the left of column 1, opposite the lines indicated by the numbers):

1 ] ] ] ] 5 ] ] ] ] ]10 ] ] ] ] ]15 ] ] ] ] ]20 ] ] ] ] ] 25 ] ] ] ] Notes2 Here Wessely read a nu followed by a high point, and he could be right, but the letter could also be

iota (no diagonal line for the nu is really visible now), and the following mark could be a circum ex rather than a simple dot.

24 Wessely read here, and he could be right, but the last element is rather large for a dot and could be the remains of a letter such as sigma. The preceding sigma seems very clear, but it is not impossib-le that it could be an omicron with damage; in other words, these traces might conceivably be .

27 This must be the end of a word, as it ends well to the left of lines 23, 24, and 28; it could be the end of a number such as twenty-two, thirty-two, etc.

28 Wessely suggested that this could be supplemented to [ ] [ ].


Verso (to the right of column 4, opposite the lines indicated by the numbers):

[110 [ [ pr [ [ [115 [ [ [ [ [ 120 �—�— [

�—�—

Notes109 Wessely read here. The traces look like but may simply be line 23 showing through from the

opposite side of the parchment.110 Extensive traces appear here, but we believe that they are actually line 24 showing through from the

opposite side.111 Wessely read a here; the letter could also be s.113 Wessely read pr here, and he is probably right at least about the p; the most obvious traces look like

, but they are probably line 27 showing through from the opposite side.114 Wessely read here, and that is what it looks like, but the traces here are confused by the fact that

line 28 shows through from the opposite side of the parchment. We are not convinced that anything can really be read from this side of this line.

115 The rst letter is very faded, but a seems unmistakeable; the second has a long vertical and could be p or r; the third probably has a vertical and so could be p or r; the fourth has a curve on its left side and could be c, e or o. These traces can also be seen in mirror image, showing through on the other side under line 28. The whole suggests a word beginning with appe- or appo-, such as the grammati-cal terms appellativum, appositus, appositivum, etc. (Schad 2007: 36�–8 lists eight grammatical terms with these beginnings).

120 This is the number 11 in Greek; see discussion below.

It is widely believed that the presentation of grammatical paradigms in tabular format is a medieval devel-opment; for example Law (1997: 251�–6) presents a detailed narrative of the medieval evolution of gram-matical tables based on examination of a corpus of 40 eighth- and ninth-century manuscripts. Although De Nonno (2000: 149�–50) has observed that in fact some much earlier manuscripts arranged paradigms in tables, the implications of this point for the development of paradigm presentation have not been generally appreciated.14

It is true that tabular presentation of paradigms is very rarely found before the eighth century, but this scarcity must be considered in light of the whole body of evidence for the layout of grammatical paradigms before the eighth century, which is in fact tiny. We have few grammatical manuscripts from this period,15 and since most ancient grammatical works do not contain paradigms spelled out in full (see below), the

14 See e.g. Law (2003: 133�–5). Cribiore (e.g. 2001: 214) is a notable exception to this generalisation.15 For Latin a list is given by De Nonno (2000: 135�–6); it contains seven items, two of which are the same manuscript.

Vienna 16 is also sometimes cited; this is in fact an earlier way of referring to Neapolitanus Latinus 2.


evidence is restricted not only to the already small body of early grammatical manuscripts and papyri, but to a limited subset of that evidence. In Latin, all members of that subset contain paradigms in tables: 1) P.Bodl. inv. Gr.bibl.d.2 (MP3 2997.2 = LDAB 6142, see Scappaticcio forthcoming), with date estimates

ranging from the third to the sixth century (we would put it in the fourth century), is a palimpsest frag-ment containing among other things a partial declension of procurator in tabular form (we have seen this fragment; it is also discussed by Van Haelst 1976: no. 323; Marichal 1950: no. 312; and Nicholson in Madan and Craster 1924: no. 31074).

2) P.Oxy. LII 3660 (MP3 3008.2 = LDAB 5824, photo available online at http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/), from the fourth or fth century, is a Latin word-list that includes a declension of interrex in tabular form.

3) P.Vind. inv. L 19 (MP3 3015.21 = LDAB 5861), from the fourth or fth century, seems to be an attempt at a declension of dominus in tabular format, though only three forms are present and none is (or ever was) complete.

4) Neapolitanus Latinus 2, fth century, has at least some of its paradigms in tables (for the tables, which occur at least in the pronouns section of the Anonymus Bobiensis and in the verb section of Sacerdos, see De Nonno 2000: 149). We are not aware of any paradigms in this manuscript with the other layout, but as we have not been able to see the entire manuscript it is possible that such exist.

5) Vaticanus Urb. Lat. 1154, fth century, has at least some of its paradigms in tables (for the tables, which occur at least in the noun section of Probus�’ Instituta, see e.g. the plate of f. 108r in De Nonno 2011: 42; on this manuscript see also Lindsay 1927). We are not aware of any paradigms in this manuscript with the other layout, but as we have not been able to see the entire manuscript it is possible that such exist.

6) Our fragment (P.Louvre inv. E 7332), fth or sixth century, has all its surviving paradigms in tables.7) Neapolitanus Latinus 1 has at least some of its paradigms in tables (for the tables see the plate of f. 28vb

in Law 2003: 134). Lowe (CLA III 388) dates this to the seventh or eighth century, and Law (2003: 134) claims that it dates to the seventh century, but an eighth-century date cannot be excluded16. For general information on the manuscript see De Nonno 2007. Again, we have no evidence for other types of para-digm presentation in this manuscript but cannot exclude the possibility that they might exist.

In other words, every piece of available evidence points to the arrangement of Latin paradigms in tables in antiquity (or at least late antiquity; there is no evidence at all for the layout used at earlier periods). As Law states (1997: 251�–6), medieval Latin manuscripts of the eighth century and later may use either this layout or one in which the paradigms are written as part of the continuous text; in at least some cases this latter layout was clearly introduced in order to save space (Law 1997: 256), a common concern among medieval scribes owing to the price of parchment and vellum, and it is perfectly possible that the percentage of manu-scripts using the space-saving paradigm layout rose after the fth century.

In Greek the situation is more complex. Of the eighteen papyri containing paradigms that we have found,17 thirteen arrange them in tables and ve arrange them horizontally as part of continuous text:18

16 In support of a later date for this manuscript cf. Radiciotti (2000: 79�–101).17 For this purpose we went through all the papyri edited by Wouters (1979), those indicated as grammatical or as note-

books by Cribiore (1996), and those agged as grammatical in MP3; no doubt there are other papyri with paradigms that we did not nd (we second the point made by Swiggers and Wouters (2000) that a new collection of grammatical papyri is long overdue), but our ndings should be a representative sample and must contain the majority of the examples.

18 We exclude P.Iand. V 83a (MP3 2159 = LDAB 4692), second century, which is claimed by Law (1997: 259 n. 1) to have paradigms laid out horizontally, on the grounds that this text does not seem to us (on our reading of what is admittedly a very fragmentary papyrus) to contain genuine declensional paradigms, just nominatives in multiple numbers and genders, and therefore it is dif cult to see how tables could have been employed. We exclude a further three examples on the grounds that although they contain grammatical tables, those tables are not really of paradigms: MP3 2712 (= LDAB 5315), third century; MP3 2732 (= LDAB 2418), third century; P.Col. VIII 206 (MP3 2166.01 = LDAB 5550), third or fourth century. We exclude two other examples (P.Strasb. inv. g 1175 = MP3 2134.61 = LDAB 9218 = Kramer 2001: no. 6, third or fourth century, and P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 280 Ro = MP3 2698 = LDAB 6668, seventh or eighth century), which do contain tables of verb conjugations, on the grounds that they are bilingual: the numerous bilingual texts and glossaries found on papyrus very often have the Latin and the Greek in parallel columns even when they do not contain paradigms (for the layout possibilities for glossaries see Esposito


1) T. Blanckertz s.n. (MP3 2738 = LDAB 5007), second or third century AD, declensions in tables.2) P.Brookl. 2 (MP3 2661.01 = LDAB 4992), second or third century, probably a conjugation table.3) P.Rain.Unterricht 136 (MP3 2660.01 = LDAB 5472), third century, conjugations in tables.4) PSI inv. 204 (MP3 2162 = LDAB 5256), third century, declensions in tables.5) P.Ryl. III 533 (MP3 2166 = LDAB 5588), third or fourth century, conjugations in tables.6) P.Ryl. III 534 (MP3 2164 = LDAB 5540), third or fourth century, conjugations in tables.7) Brit. Mus. inv. Add. MS 37516 (MP3 2711 = LDAB 3868), third or fourth century, conjugations in tables

(singular only).8) P.Rain.Unterricht 138 (MP3 2161 = LDAB 6180), fourth to sixth century, conjugations in tables.9) PSI inv. 2052 (MP3 2705 = LDAB 6103), fth or sixth century, declensions in tables.10) PSI inv. 479 (MP3 2706 = LDAB 6066), fth or sixth century, declensions in tables.11) P.Rain. Unterricht 137 (MP3 2162.02 = LDAB 6369), sixth century, conjugations in tables.12) P.Hamb. II 166 (MP3 0356 = LDAB 816), sixth century, conjugations in tables.13) P.Rain.Unterricht 139 (MP3 0355 + 2161.01 = LDAB 811), sixth or seventh century, conjugations in

tables.14) P.Heid.Siegmann 197 (MP3 2146 = LDAB 4311), rst century AD, paradigms laid out horizontally as

part of continuous text.15) P.Rain.Unterricht 140 (MP3 2167 = LDAB 5460), second or third century, conjugations laid out hori-

zontally as part of continuous text.16) P.Iand. V 83 (MP3 2659 = LDAB 5273), third century AD, paradigms laid out horizontally as part of

continuous text.17) P.Lond.Lit. 182 (MP3 1539 = LDAB 110341), c. 300 AD, paradigms laid out horizontally as part of

continuous text.18) P.Berl. inv. 9917 (= MP3 2144.01 = LDAB 5496 = Wouters 2012), c. 300 AD, paradigms laid out hori-

zontally as part of continuous text.19

Byzantine Greek manuscripts, like their medieval Latin counterparts, also use the tabular presentation for paradigms at least some of the time.20

Under these circumstances what is perhaps most interesting is the choice of layout made by the mod-ern editors of ancient grammatical texts, particularly the tremendously in uential Grammatici Graeci and Grammatici Latini corpora. These editors consistently opted to present the paradigms as continuous text rather than in tables, not because that was the format used in the manuscripts (for the manuscripts use a variety of formats, with some of the best using tables), nor because presentation of paradigms as continu-ous text was the norm at the time these editors were working (for nineteenth-century grammars of Latin and Greek usually set out paradigms in tabular format like more recent ones), but in order to save space in editions that were already vast multivolume works and would have become even vaster if great care had not been taken to avoid wasted space. The perception among modern scholars that ancient grammatical writers always presented paradigms as continuous text rather than in tables has probably been in uenced by the layout of these editions, though the fact that all the paradigms in the papyri collected by Wouters (1979) are laid out horizontally may also have been a contributing factor in the development of that perception.

2009: 263�–4). In fact a bilingual text would most likely be arranged in columns even if it were continuous prose and therefore tells us nothing about the presentation of paradigms per se.

19 We are very grateful to Professor Wouters for allowing us to see his edition of this papyrus before its publication.20 We have been able to examine only two examples. One of these, Monacensis Graecus 310 from the ninth or tenth

century (photographs available online at http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0004/bsb00049688/images/index.html?id=00049688& p=qrsxdsydweayaxssdasxdsyden&no=24&seite=24), arranges the paradigms attached to Theodosius�’ Canons entirely in tables. The other, Leidensis Vossianus 76 from the eleventh century (kindly examined for us by Evert van Emde Boas) contains two works with paradigms and presents one (folios 50�–7) with the paradigms entirely in tables and the other (folio 104) with the paradigms entirely in horizontal lines.


Other aspects of the presentation of grammatical paradigms in our fragment generally seem to follow the Greek and Latin grammatical traditions. For example the division of paradigms by stem termination is common among both Greek and Latin authors, though it can be handled in several different ways. The canonical Latin grammarians, such as Charisius and Priscian, present noun paradigms by dividing them rst into the different declensions, then within the third declension arranging the different paradigms by stem termination, and only then mentioning the genders that could be found in nouns of each termination. But some of the �‘regulae type�’ grammars, such as the Regulae Aurelii Augustini (written in the fourth or fth century), contain paradigms organized without reference to declensions, rst by gender and then with-in each gender by stem termination (e.g. neuters in -um, -us, -ur, -or, -ar, -er, -os, -e, -al, -el, -en, -u, -c, -t, -a).21 In Greek we have fewer surviving ancient examples, but we do have the Canons of Theodosius (again from the fourth or fth century), which is arranged rst by gender and then by stem termination, without any explicit mention of declensional category.22 Our fragment is arranged primarily by gender and then by stem termination; this looks like the Greek arrangement or that of the Latin regulae, but since all the paradigms presented belong to the third declension it is likely that the over-arching divisions were ones of declension, as in Charisius and Priscian, and that we have here a fragment of the section on the third declen-sion. The arrangement is reminiscent of that in the Latin grammarian Probus, who although he does not explicitly divide his nouns by stem termination groups them rst by declension and then by gender, with a range of paradigms within each gender (e.g. GL IV 89.37�–92.27 on what is essentially the third declension).

Within each declension the Latin grammarians arrange the stem terminations in approximate alpha-betical order, grouping together those with the same vowel (e.g. in Charisius -a, -al, -an, -ans, -ar, -ars, -as, -ax, -e, -el, -en, -ens, -er . . . -ul, -ur, -us, -uis, -ut, -ux).23 Theodosius, on the other hand, arranges them by nal consonant; the consonants themselves seem to be arranged in declining order of frequency rather than alphabetically, but within each consonant the terminations are arranged in alphabetical order of the vowels (e.g. in the masculine - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - , - ). Our fragment shows no evidence of either ordering principle: the list of feminine terminations ends with -io, -us, and -ix, and the neuter list begins with -or, -ma, -us, and -al. If there is any principle to this order at all, it may be one of confusability: nouns in -or, -a, and -us are normally masculine or feminine, not neuter, and therefore the neuter nouns with these terminations are particularly tricky and might be high-lighted for pedagogical reasons. By contrast the terminations -al, -e, -el, -ut, and -en (the last four of these being terminations not preserved on the fragment but likely to have been given on the following pages) are exclusively or primarily neuter and therefore less likely to cause confusion for learners.

On the other hand some aspects of our fragment�’s format are unambiguously taken from the Latin grammatical tradition. The use of forms of hic to indicate the gender, number, and case of the declined forms, and the pre xing of ab to the ablative forms hac, hoc, and his to distinguish them from identi-cal forms in other cases, are common techniques of the Latin grammarians; for example Charisius says al neutralia tantum inveniuntur, velut hoc animal huius animalis, hoc tribunal tribunalis, hoc bidental bidentalis. horum ablativus per i effertur, velut ab hoc animali tribunali bidentali �‘(Nouns) in -al are found only in the neuter, as neuter nominative animal, genitive animalis, neuter nominative tribunal, (genitive) tribunalis, neuter nominative bidental, (genitive) bidentalis; the ablative of these (nouns) ends in -i, as abla-

21 Cf. GL V 498.27�–501.31; Martorelli (2011: 13.17�–29.6).22 See Hilgard (1889: 1�–36); although the masculine section does not have a heading specifying its gender, the femi-

nine and neuter sections do (pp. 25, 32), and all three sections end with statements such as �‘end of the masculines�’ (pp. 24, 32, 36), which make the organisation by gender explicit. The majority of paradigms presented belong to what we would call the third declension, but in the masculine canons 2 and 4 illustrate what we would call the rst-declension masculines, canon 14 illustrates the contracted second-declension nouns, and canon 17 illustrates the Attic second declension with quantitative metathesis (Theodosius gives a total of 35 masculine paradigms, none of which illustrates the normal second-declension pattern); in the feminine canons 1 and 2 illustrate the rst declension (there are a total of 12 feminine paradigms given, none of which illustrates the admittedly rare second-declension feminines); and in the neuter canon 4 illustrates the second declension (there are a total of 9 neuter paradigms given).

23 On the listing of grammatical terminations in alphabetical order in some Roman grammatical writers see Strzelecki (1954�–55).


tive animali, tribunali, bidentali�’ (p. 24.19�–22 Barwick). Although this use of hic is clearly borrowed from the Greek grammarians�’ use of the de nite article to indicate gender, number, and case,24 and although the addition of ab is a logical and indeed necessary adaptation to deal with the fact that hic does not always have a distinct ablative form, this system is only one of many theoretically possible ways of adapting the Greek system to Latin. It would not have been invented multiple times in exactly the same way, so its use here shows that our fragment has a clear connection to the mainstream Latin grammatical tradition.

A further complication is that, as in the passage of Charisius just quoted, Latin grammarians do not always give entire paradigms when they discuss declensions; they normally give just the nominative and genitive singular, along with any problematic forms. Spelling out whole paradigms seems to be character-istic of the more elementary grammars, since Probus gives some (e.g. GL IV 91.38�–92.1) and Donatus in his Ars Minor gives complete paradigms for all the different kinds of nouns he discusses (p. 586.19�–587.24 Holtz; the paradigms given are magister, Musa, scamnum, sacerdos, and felix, again prioritizing gender, not declension, which is not mentioned); full paradigms can also be found in the Fragmentum Bobiense de nomine et pronomine (e.g. GL V 563.25�–564.36), another grammatical text of Eastern origin.25 In Greek there are fewer different grammatical texts to compare on this point, but it is notable that Theodosius relent-lessly spells out all the singular, dual, and plural forms for every one of his nominal paradigms (including, of course, many nouns that not only are unattested in dual or plural forms but that could not possibly ever have been so attested), and that full paradigms for pronouns can be found in P.Heid.Siegmann 197 (inv. 1893; MP3 2146 = LDAB 4311), dated to the rst century AD (see Wouters 1979: 125, 127�–8), and in P.Berl. inv. 9917 (Wouters 2012), dated to c. 300.

The overlap between the particular words used as declensional examples here and in the extant gram-matical treatises (whether in Latin or in Greek) is not greater than one would expect from pure chance: the grammarians discuss a vast number of nouns, but of the nine paradigm words found in our fragment, only eight are used as declensional examples (i.e. declined at least as far as the genitive singular) anywhere in the extant Latin grammatical tradition, and half of those eight are rarely so used.26 The closest parallels to our set of paradigms that we can nd come from Priscian (GL II 165.14�–15), whose list of feminine verbal nouns in -ix is victrix, nutrix, meretrix, and natrix, and the Ars Bernensis (GL VIII 119.17, a compilation often deriving from Priscian), whose list of feminine nouns in -ix is radix, meretrix, nutrix, textrix, and creatrix �– and these are not very close.

The number in the lower margin of the more fragmentary page must be a quire number, as Turner (1977: 75�–9) points out that page numbers are never found in the bottom margins of early codices, but quire num-bers are sometimes found there; moreover if the number were a page number there should be two other page numbers preserved on this fragment, and no others are in fact visible. Quire numbers are found only on the rst and last pages of quires, whence it follows from the position of this number that it must have been on the rst page of a quire and that the main page of this fragment would have been the last page of that quire. It is possible that this situation accounts for the somewhat surprising27 lack of any traces of rul-ing: if the ruling was done with a dry point for the whole quire at once, from the rst page, it might well not have penetrated as far as the last page, which effectively is the only one we have (cf. Agati 2009: 187�–215).

24 This use of hic does not imply that hic was thought to have the same meaning as the Greek article; rather the point is that hic has more distinct forms for different genders, numbers, and cases than any other word in the Latin language, and thus it is the Latin word best suited to indicate grammatical form, though it does not work as well for this purpose as the Greek article.

25 Cf. De Nonno and Passalacqua (2007: 321�–8).26 Iussio not found; palus found occasionally, e.g. Charisius p. 54.16 Barwick; nutrix found occasionally, e.g. Priscian GL

II 323.7�–8; aequor found often, e.g. Priscian GL II 314.2; poema found often, e.g. Charisius p. 24.6�–8 Barwick and Priscian GL II 312.6; sidus found occasionally, e.g. Phocas GL V 420.18; pectus found often, e.g. Probus GL IV 92.10; uectigal found only in Priscian GL II 147.1 and in pseudo-Priscian GL III 523.6; tribunal found often, e.g. Charisius 2.20 Barwick and Priscian GL II 312.15�–16.

27 Note however that there is no ruling in another late antique grammatical manuscript, Neapol. Lat. 2. On ruling see especially Sautel (1995) and Agati (2009).


Wessely (1886: 221) suggests that the use of Greek numerals indicates that the codex was intended for a Greek-speaking audience (or at least for a Greek bookbinder, as M. De Nonno suggests to us), and the Greek glosses on the paradigms point in the same direction, but there is a dif culty. Latin codices some-times have quire numbers in Greek,28 and Greek codices rarely have quire numbers in a bottom corner, whereas Latin codices often do (Turner states that Greek codices never have quire numbers in this position at all, but Mondrain cites two sixth-century examples).29 The quire number, therefore, is not as unambigu-ous a marker of a Greek environment as it rst appears; if Lowe (1972b: 470a) is right that our fragment is part of a group of similar Latin manuscripts written in bilingual scriptoria (or in a bilingual scriptorium) in the East, it is possible that the particular combination of numerals and position is in fact a characteristic of that speci c circumstance, rather than of Greek or Latin tradition in isolation. In this context it is interest-ing that a manuscript generally acknowledged to be very similar to P.Louvre inv. E 7332, the sixth-century Florence codex of Justinian, has a Latin quire number in the same position as the number in our fragment.30

The identi cation of the rest of the material on that page is very doubtful. It does not appear to consist of noun paradigm tables like those on the main page; the remains on the verso could be the paradigm of a verb beginning pro- or simply a continuous text, and those on the recto seem to be continuous text; the remains on the recto could be entirely in Greek, and those on the verso could be entirely in Latin, but either side might also have been bilingual. This material need not belong to the same text as the grammatical paradigms �– composite manuscripts such as the Montserrat and Chester Beatty codices (cf. Gil and Torallas Tovar 2010: 18�–31; Wouters 1988) are well attested in antiquity �– but at the same time it need not belong to a different text, since preserved grammatical works such as those of Probus contain both paradigm tables and continuous text. (And the continuous text in Latin grammatical treatises may be bilingual when Greek glosses are provided for words under discussion or Greek comparative data are provided, e.g. Charisius p. 17 Barwick)

The fragment contains a number of interesting diacritical signs. Endings under discussion are consist-ently marked with a horizontal line (paralleled e.g. in Neapolitanus Latinus 2, fth century AD, see Seider 1978: no. 66). The punctuation marks separating the Greek from the Latin in line 43, which look like a modern colon, are paralleled in some other bilingual papyri.31 Final -m is abbreviated using a raised dot with a horizontal stroke above it; this unusual abbreviation is found occasionally in uncial manuscripts from the late fourth century AD onwards (Lowe 1972a: 268�–70; cf. Seider 1981: plate X (no. 25) lines 4 and 10). The use of abbreviations is inconsistent and not obviously connected with space limitations (e.g. in line 77 an abbreviation for the ending of sideribus is used and in line 80 exactly the same word is spelled out in full; in both lines there would arguably have been space for the ending); it is possible that the abbreviations were copied with the text from the exemplar.

28 Examples of Latin codices with Greek quire numbers in the same position as that on our fragment, i.e. the lower left-hand corner of the rst page of the quire, include the sixth-century manuscript Verona Bibl. Cap. LXII (60) (Codex Justinianus, LDAB 7868 = CLA IV 513; for location of the number see Lowe 1972b: 470a) and P.Strasb. L3 + 6B (fragments of Ulpian�’s Disputationes from the fth or sixth century, MP3 2962 = LDAB 4137 = CLA VI 834); for location of the quire number see Ammirati (2010: 93).

29 See Mondrain (1998: 25), who cites Vindobonensis med. gr. 1 and Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1074, and Turner (1977: 78). According to Turner the precise corner in which our number is found is not the preferred one even for Latin codices, but he cites several examples of Latin codices with quire numbers in exactly the position where our number occurs. The situation is complicated by the fact that Lowe (1972b: 468) reached the opposite conclusion from Turner about Greek quire numbers, stating �‘in Greek manuscripts �… the signatures [for quires] are in Greek numerals placed in the left-hand corner of the lower margin of the rst quire page�’. Turner used a much larger pool of evidence and cited it speci cally in a way that Lowe did not, so his opinion must carry more weight than that of Lowe, but nevertheless the existence of Mondrain�’s examples show that Turner�’s view was not the full story either.

30 On this manuscript see n. 4 above; we are grateful to Marco Fressura for bringing its quire numbers to our attention.31 For example the Ambrosian Palimpsest L 120 sup. (MP3 2943 = LDAB 4156 = CLA III 306), e.g. at lines 53 and 155 in

the edition of Scappaticcio 2009 (= Aeneid 1.605 and 1.700); P.Ness. II 1 (inv. pap. 1; MP3 2939 = LDAB 4166 = CLA XI 1652), e.g. at lines 54 and 493 in the edition of Casson and Hettich (1950: 2�–65 = Aeneid 1.419 and 2.85).


ReferencesAgati, M. L. (2009) Il libro manoscritto da oriente a occidente: Per una codicologia comparata (Rome).Ammirati, S. (2010) Per una storia del libro latino antico, The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 40: 55�–110.Baldi, D. (2010) Il codex Florentinus del Digesto e il �‘Fondo Pandette�’ della Biblioteca Laurenziana (con un�’appen-

dice di documenti inediti, Segno e Testo 8: 99�–186. Blumell, L. H. (2009) Report of Proceedings in Red Ink from Late Second Century AD Oxyrhynchus, BASP 46:

23�–30.Casson, L, and Hettich, E. L. (1950) Excavations at Nessana II (Princeton).Cockle, H. M. (1984) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LII (London).Colomo, D. (2008) Osservazioni sullo scriba ossirinchita dell�’omega quadrangolare (Johnson A2), Segno e Testo 6:

3�–34.Corbino, A., and Santalucia, B. (1988), Justiniani Augusti Pandectarum codex Florentinus (Florence). Cribiore, R. (1996) Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta).�– (2001) Gymnastics of the Mind (Princeton).De Nonno, M. (2000) I codici grammaticali latini di età tardoantica: osservazioni e considerazioni, in M. De Non-

no, P. De Paolis, and L. Holtz (edd.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance I (Cassino) 133�–72.

�– (2007) L�’Appendix Probi e il suo manoscritto: contributi tipologici e codicologici all�’inquadramento del testo, in F. Lo Monaco and P. Molinelli (edd.), L�’Appendix Probi: nuove ricerche (Florence) 3�–26.

�– (2011) Filologia classica, in M. Buonocore and A. M. Piazzoni (edd.), La Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, luogo di ricerca al servizio degli studi (Vatican) 19�–48.

De Nonno, M., and Passalacqua, M. (2007) A long way to the truth: a proposito di una sottoscrizione del MS. Napo-letano Lat. 1, Rivista di lologia e di istruzione classica 135: 321�–8.

Dickey, E. (2010) The Creation of Latin Teaching Materials in Antiquity: a Reinterpretation of P.Sorb. inv. 2069, ZPE 175: 188�–208.

Esposito, E. (2009) Fragments of Greek Lexicography in the Papyri, Trends in Classics 1: 255�–97.Geymonat, M. (2008) Gra a e interpunzione nell�’antichità greca e latina, nella cultura bizantina e nella latinità

medievale, in B. Mortara Garavelli (ed.), Storia della punteggiatura in Europa (Bari) 25�–62.Gil, J., and Torallas Tovar, S. (2010) Hadrianus: P. Monts. Roca III (Barcelona).Goetz, G. (1892) Hermeneumata pseudodositheana (vol. III of Corpus glossariorum Latinorum; Leipzig).Goetz, G., and Gundermann, G. (1888) Glossae latinograecae et graecolatinae (vol. II of Corpus glossariorum

Latinorum; Leipzig).Hilgard, A. (1889) Theodosii Alexandrini Canones (vol. IV.I of Grammatici Graeci; Leipzig).Kramer, J. (2001) Glossaria bilinguia altera (Munich).Law, V. A. (1987), Late Latin Grammars in the Early Middle Ages: A Typological History, in D. J. Taylor (ed.), The

History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (Amsterdam) 191�–206.�– (1997) Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages (London).�– (2003) History of Linguistics in Europe (Cambridge).Lindsay, W. M. (1927) The Primary MS. of Probus Inst. Art., American Journal of Philology 48: 231�–4.Lowe, E. A. (1972a) More Facts about our Oldest Latin Manuscripts, in E. A. Lowe, Palaeographical Papers I

(Oxford) 251�–74.�– (1972b), Greek Symptoms in a Sixth-Century Manuscript of St. Augustine and in a Group of Latin Legal Manu-

scripts, in E. A. Lowe, Palaeographical Papers II (Oxford) 466�–76.Madan, F., and Craster, H. H. E. (1924) Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library VI

(Oxford).Marichal, R. (1950) Chronique de paléographie précaroline et de papyrologie II: L�’écriture latine du Ier au VIIe siècle:

les sources, Scriptorium 4: 116�–42.Martorelli, L. (2011) Ps. Aurelii Augustini Regulae: Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento. Collectanea

grammatica Latina, 7 (Hildesheim).Mondrain, B. (1998) Les signatures des cahiers dans les manuscrits grecs, in P. Hoffmann and C. Hunzinger,

Recherches de codicologie comparée: la composition du codex au Moyen Âge, en Orient et en Occident (Paris) 21�–48.

Morgan, T. (1998) Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge).Radiciotti, P. (1998) Manoscritti digra ci grecolatini e latinogreci nell�’antichità, in M. Capasso (ed.), Ricerche di

papirologia letteraria e documentaria (Galatina) 108�–46.


�– (2000) La scrittura del �“Liber ponti calis�” nel codice bobbiese IV.A.8 della Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, Annali dell�’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 24 (= Parrhasiana II, Naples 2002): 79�–101.

Roberts, C. H. (1935) The Antinoë Fragment of Juvenal, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 21: 199�–209.Sautel, J.-H. (1995) Répertoire des réglures dans les manuscrits grecs sur parchemin (Turnhout). Scappaticcio, M. C. (2009) Appunti per una riedizione dei frammenti del palinsesto Virgiliano dell�’Ambrosiana,

Archiv für Papyrusforschung 55: 96�–120.�– (2013) Papyri Vergilianae (Liège). �– (forthcoming) La scriptio inferior latina del P.Bodl. I 2 (inv. Gr. bibl. d. 2). Lemmi e essioni parziali in forma

tabulare tra lessico giuridico e Artes grammaticae, Archiv für Papyrusforschung.Schad, S. (2007) A Lexicon of Latin Grammatical Terminology (Pisa).Seider, R. (1978) Paläographie der lateinischen Papyri II.1 (Stuttgart).�– (1981) Paläographie der lateinischen Papyri II.2 (Stuttgart). Strzelecki, L. (1954�–55) De grammaticis Latinis quaestionum particula, Eos 47: 143�–57.Swiggers, P., and Wouters, A. (2000) Grammaires grecques (et latines) sur papyrus, in M. De Nonno, P. De Paolis,

and L. Holtz (edd.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance I (Cassino) 59�–88.

Turner, E. G. (1977) The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia).Van Haelst, J. (1976) Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens (Paris).Wessely, K. (1886) Bericht über griechische Papyri in Paris und London, Wiener Studien 8: 175�–230. Wingo, E. O. (1972) Latin Punctuation in the Classical Age (Paris).Wouters, A. (1979) The Grammatical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt (Brussels).�– (1988) The Chester Beatty Codex AC 1499: A Graeco-Latin Lexicon on the Pauline Epistles and a Greek Gram-

mar (Leuven and Paris).�– (2012) A Manual on the Parts of Speech, in F. Reiter (ed.), Literarische Texte der Berliner Papyrussammlung: zur

Neueröffnung des Ägyptischen Museums (Berlin; = BKT X) 135�–53.

Eleanor Dickey, University of [email protected]

Rolando Ferri, Università di Pisar.ferri@ cl.unipi.it

Maria Chiara Scappaticcio, Université de Liè[email protected]

The origins of grammatical tables: a reconsideration of P.Louvre inv. E 7332 (in ZPE 2013, with R....

Documents

Transcript of The origins of grammatical tables: a reconsideration of P.Louvre inv. E 7332 (in ZPE 2013, with R....