1

The digital edition of ancient sources as a further step in the textual

transmission
Nicola Reggiani

Ancient textual transmission is traditionally regarded with a philological approach,

involving the reconstruction of a textual archetype (the ‘source’) among different variants.
Critical editions of ancient sources are usually considered as the final outcome of a
philological process of reconstruction aimed at reproducing the original text as most
exactly as possible. Thus, they are the fixed representation of a scholar’s more or less
trustable opinion on the text.
This view is being challenged as rather uncomfortable by the development of digital
technologies in the ancient studies, as well as by an increasing concern for the actual
testimonies of the textual tradition and on their peculiar features (a ‘phenomenological’
approach, in a sense). Digital projects like the Homer Multitext Project or the Leipzig Open
Fragmentary Texts Series start envisaging a different approach to text analysis, involving a
text that is in fact a multitext, a fluid and dynamic network of multiple editions
interconnected to each other rather than a traditional fixed structure of text and apparatus
criticus1.
Papyrology has always been facing an adventurous textual situation, coping with
fragmentary texts and idiosyncratic utterances, being particularly interested in the scribal
and material phenomenology of textual development, which affects consistency in treating
the existing textual fluctuations. Traditionally, Papyrology is a philological discipline,
focused on texts and their critical reconstruction, and this background has been inherited
by the main papyrological database, the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri now
featured by the Papyri.info platform. The core text is encoded in an XML subset of EpiDoc,
transcoded via a corpus-specific markup language called Leiden+2, but the human-
readable HTML output closely resembles that of a traditional paper critical edition, as in

1 Cf. Reggiani 2017a:255 ff. (especially 265 ff.).

2 Cf. Reggiani 2017a:232 ff. for details.
 2

the following specimen (PSI XV 1510, medical catechism on anatomy, III cent. AD---printed
edition on the left, digital edition at http://litpap.info/dclp/64024 on the right):

Papyri, however, deploy a wide series of textual fluctuations, which philological analysis
would gladly treat as deviations from the standard archetype (i.e. mistakes) and normalize
them in a reconstructed critical edition, though they actually are significant socio-cultural
variants equally important from the standpoint of the phenomenology of the papyrus texts
and ancient writing culture. Accordingly, the papyrologists’ behavior towards such
fluctuations is twofold, and generates a wide variety of editorial inconsistencies that affect
printed editions as well as digital databanks. As to the latter, the issue at stake is not only
critical agreement or scholarly standards, but also the usability of the tools themselves, in
terms of searching and encoding. In the following paragraphs, I will briefly survey the main
instances of the said fluctuations, to come to final considerations about the digital edition of
papyrus texts3.

Diachronic fluctuations (linguistic change).

Typically, papyri are written in a later manifestation of the ancient Greek language, the
Hellenistic Koine, which should be in fact regarded as the standard level of the language of
the papyri. The example of the verbal forms of gignomai, which becomes g(e)inomai in the

3 A more articulated discussion of some of the following points is to be found in Reggiani 2017b, 2018a, and
2018c.
 3

Koine Greek, will suffice4. The Koine forms are indeed treated as the standard in most of
the papyrus editions, and therefore are never ‘regularized’ as variants5, but this is not
always consistent: editorial regularizations do occur, seemingly only when the verb is
affected also by iotacism, often in compounds6. On the other hand, we do find the classical
Greek forms not being regularized as well7, which increases the uneasiness of anyone who
would perform effective searches in the digital textual corpora8. With the further
developments of the Greek language, the situation is even more complex: for example, the
general shift from dative to genitive in the later (Byzantine) instances of the language of
the papyri9 leads to further editorial inconsistencies. In BGU XIII 2332, 20 (375 AD), for
instance, ὑπάρχω + genitive (μου) is regularized in dative (μοι) according to the classical
use10, whereas in SB XVIII 13947, 15 (507 AD) ὑπάρχω + dative (μοι) is regularized in
genitive (μου) as if the latter was then the correct form11.

Synchronic fluctuations (personal uses and regional substandards).

Recurring peculiarities in the language used by individuals or in certain geographical
locations, even though diverging from what is assumed as the contemporary linguistic
standard, should be regarded as actual substandards, pointing to interesting socio-cultural
phenomena, so that ‘regularizations’ become almost senseless12. “Amyntas’ weakness for
aphestalka”13, as C.C. Edgar called the habit of one of the individuals in the Zenon archive of

4 Cf. Depauw--Stolk 2015.

5 A quick survey of a sample search in Papyri.info can give a global idea of this trend:
http://papyri.info/search?STRING1=%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BC&target1=TE
XT&no_caps1=on&no_marks1=on&STRING2=NOT+%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B3%CE%BD%CE%BF&target
2=TEXT&no_caps2=on&no_marks2=on.
6 παραγ{ε}ινεται l. παραγίγνεται in BGU XVI 2651, 6; γείνεσθαι l. γίγνεσθαι in Chr.M. 172, i 15;
κ̣ αταγειν̣ [ο]μ̣[αι] l. καταγίγνομαι in P.Bodl. I 17, i 9; παραγεινομαι l. παραγίγνομαι in P.Haun. II 22, 5;
περιγεινομένων l. περιγιγνομένων in P.Stras. VIII 772 passim. Note the double possible regularization
γίγνεσθαι or γενέσθαι advanced for γείνεσθα̣ ι in P.Col. X 280, 13.
7 Another sample search:
http://papyri.info/search?STRING1=%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B3%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BC&target1=TE
XT&no_caps1=on&no_marks1=on.
8 My own personal experience in the difficult search for a word featuring such a common phonetic variant as
iotacism is discussed in Reggiani 2017b.
9 Cf. Stolk 2015b.
10 For more similar cases cf. Stolk 2015a:85 ff.; Stolk 2015c.
11 Cf. Depauw--Stolk 2015:213. See also Stolk 2015a:93.
12 Cf. Stolk 2017. For linguistic substandards in the (para)literary production of Greek medical papyri see
Maravela--Reggiani 2018.
13 Note to P.Cair.Zen. I 59047, 1.
 4

writing an ‘irregular’ aspirated perfect form of ἀποστέλλω, is meaningful: this is a

recurring personal use, the consistency of which assumes the flavour of a linguistic
substandard in Trevor Evans’ terms14. According to a pure ‘philological’ path, this
‘irregularity’ is normalized is all the papyrological occurrences (e.g.
http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.cair.zen;1;59047) but in P.Cair.Zen. III 59435, 3 + P.Cair.Zen.
IV p. 289, where a more ‘phenomenological’ attitude seems to prevail
(http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.cair.zen;3;59435)15.

Textual fluctuations in copies and duplicates.

Papyri preserving the ‘same’ text in multiple copies16 are traditionally treated in the
‘philological’ way, i.e. collated and merged in one source archetype: e.g.
http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.tebt;3.1;771dupl (note the suffix ‘dupl’ added to the URL of the
digital text, which advises about the existence of a duplicate of the papyrus). However, a
certain degree of uneasiness is felt about such a practice:

I disagree with this editorial choice for two reasons. First, in a field like
papyrology, every copy of a text deserves full consideration and […] an
archetype that would somehow be considered more authentic than a later
copy is an editorial fancy. Copies of the same text, however similar, were
written with a purpose in mind, so that edition should be more rather than
less interesting. Second, in order to appreciate the fact that we have multiple
copies […], we must ask why different versions of it exist in the first place.
The interest of these documents is, therefore, not restricted to the text alone,
but extends to the life and afterlife of its copies in relation to one another. In
sum, the text of just one fragment does not make for a satisfactory edition of

14 Evans 2010a, 2010b, and 2012.

15 Another apparent ‘phonetic deviation’ which might in fact be a ‘substandard’ form is osyptron “mirror”,
which stands beside the ‘standard’ form esoptron in a consistent number of papyri. The case will be discussed
in Bonati--Reggiani 2018.
16 For a catalogue of duplicates cf. Nielsen 2000.
 5

understanding of this [text]. By editing the texts in their own right, we learn
about the convention of […] writing in [Graeco-Roman] Egypt17.

A new ‘phenomenological’ consideration of papyrus copies is emerging18, but, for now, the
digital database is following the ‘philological’ practice, with a significant loss of
information.

Textual fluctuations in literary and paraliterary papyri.

Papyri bearing literary or ‘paraliterary’ texts (a somehow artificial category referring to
technical texts, school books, practical manuals, and the like) raise further categories of
issues. Beside the ‘traditional’ philological variants, which are usually treated as in the
critical editions, we may find variants that are unattested in the manuscript tradition. In
several cases, such variants subtend linguistic peculiarities typical of the language of the
papyri, rather than outright transcription mistakes or other philological phenomena. In
such cases, the philological approach is inconsistent as well. P.Aberd. 124, i = GMP I 2, i (II
cent. AD), a papyrus fragment preserving chapter 37 of Hippocrates’ treatise De fracturis, is
quite a nice example. Here we find variants already attested in the manuscript tradition (ll.
4--5) but also passages completely divergent from the codices (ll. 11--12, where the length
of the gap and the shape of the following traces exclude the unanimous manuscript
tradition, which is of course printed in all the editions, in favour of a previously unattested
variant). A third instance in the same text is even more interesting: at l. 14, where the
codices (and the editions) have the ‘regular’ Ionic form πήχεοϲ, the papyrus shows clearly
π]ή̣ χεωϲ, the Koine form, which looks like an ‘interference’ of a typical ‘linguistic variation’
pertaining to the language of the documentary papyri (where, on the contrary, it would be
the standard form, as we saw earlier). Any ‘traditional’ treatment of this and similar cases
would lead to editorial inconsistencies and to the loss of relevant information.

17 Stoop 2014:185. I thank very much Giuditta Mirizio for helpful hints about this topic.
18 Cf. Yuen-Collingridge--Choat 2012, with interesting preliminary comments on textual differences between
copies of the same document.
 6

Scribal alternatives.
Something more than the papyrus variants described above are the textual alternatives
recorded by the ancient scribes of literary and paraliterary papyri, which attest to an
ancient concern for textual criticism. An astounding case is offered by P.Tebt. II 272v (late
II cent. AD, http://litpap.info/dclp/60048), preserving a fragment of Herodotus Medicus’
De Remediis about the symptomatology of thirst. In the relevant point, the text on the
papyrus is overlapped by an excerpt of Herodotus Medicus preserved with Orib. Coll.Med.
V 30, 6--7 (CMG VI 1,1). Here, where the manuscript tradition and the papyrus itself
unanimously read αἰτίαι τῆς προσφορᾶς, the ancient scribe added two groups of three
letters between dots above the line: *τῶν* above τῆς, and *ρῶν* above ρᾶς, patently
indicating an alternative reading. A critical edition cannot really choose a ‘correct’ version,
since the ancient writer himself was aware of a certain fluctuation in the textual
transmission. This is rather reasonable in fields like ancient medicine, where the relevant
knowledge was transmitted mostly orally and, even when written down, depended so
much on the actual practice and the individual experience (a similar case occurs in P.Oxy.
LVI 3851, II-III cent. AD, http://litpap.info/dclp/61917: Nicander’s Theriaka), and any
‘philological’ approach is hard, if not impossible. Let us consider, for instance, a case like
P.Oxy. IX 1184, preserving a thematic selection of the pseudo-Hippocratean epistles: not
only is the papyrus influenced by contemporary epistolary conventions, which differ from
the Medieval tradition (in terms of iota mutum adscript and iotacistic phenomena), but
also does it convey some significant scribal alternatives. Indeed, Ep. 4 is transcribed twice:
an abridged version of the ‘standard’ text in the main body of the papyrus is flanked by a
shorter version without the introductory salutation, added in the right margin and
separated from the previous one with a curved line19. Such a textual care is further
apparent in P.Oslo III 72, 9 (medical treatise, II cent. AD, http://litpap.info/dclp/63583),
where the ancient scribe left a blank vacat in a controversial point (according to the
editors’ interpretation).

19 Other striking features are an original editorial comment inserted between letters 4 and 5 (ll. 17--19); the
occurrence of the shorter version of Ep. 5 with certain variations; an unattested letter to Gorgias showing a
strong coincidence with Ep. 6 addressed to Demetrius. See the digital edition by M. Moser at
http://litpap.info/dclp/60175.
 7

Paratextual devices.
Another striking aspect of this ancient textual care, especially in literary and paraliterary
papyri, is the deployment of paratext to add meaning to the text. Layout devices such as
line indentions/extensions (eisthesis, ekthesis) and graphical marks such as horizontal
rules (paragraphoi, diplai obelismenai) or pointing signs (diplai) are used to articulate the
written discourse (e.g. to separate prescriptions in a collection of recipes, or to highlight
questions and answers in the catechistic handbooks) in order to clarify the content and to
add semantic value to the text. While paper editions usually reproduce the ancient paratext
in the printed text, digital editions have mostly neglected this aspect for a long time, and it
is just now, thanks to the development of the Digital Corpus of Literary Papyrology (DCLP),
that ways of encoding special signs and layout features is fully supported20.

The inadequacy of the traditional ‘philological’ approach to render in full and in a

meaningful way all the features pinpointed above is apparent. On one hand, linguistic and
textual variations frame socio-cultural environments that must be preserved in order to
understand the complexity of ancient civilizations. On the other hand, a full set of textual
(quotations, adaptations, additions, re-elaborations, comments, annotations, alternative
readings…) and paratextual machineries is deployed by the ancient scribes to convey
particular shades of meaningful knowledge, which we need to save for the sake of textual
analysis and comprehension. Both cultural loads tend to be flattened by a traditional
‘philological’ edition, aimed at reconstructing a fixed archetype relegating all the possible
variants in apparatus notes, depending on each editor’s own opinions and choices. A
challenge to this static stemmatological model is the “accretive model of composition” as
defined by Ann Hanson to illustrate the textual development of ancient medical texts21, as
well as the ‘genetic criticism’ focused on the process of textual composition22. Perhaps even
more than multitextual editions, which simply juxtapose different redactions of the same
text, such dynamic approaches seem to be the most suitable for representing, from the

20 Cf. Reggiani 2017a:250 ff.; Reggiani 2018a; Reggiani 2018c; Reggiani 2018d. On the DCLP see also Ast--
Essler 2017.
21 Hanson 1997.
22 Cf. Cribiore 2017 for a papyrological application.
 8

editorial viewpoint, complex cases such as the ‘Michigan Medical Codex’ (P.Mich. XVII 758,
http://www.litpap.info/dclp/59332), a receptarium on a small-format papyrus codex, dated to
the IV cent. AD, where the numerous prescriptions collected are divided by means of lines and
indented headings, and where the ancient owner intervened with corrections and marginal
additions framed by graphical markers of different type23.
The printed medium is physically limited as to dealing with complex degrees of
textuality, and adopted the critical edition model as a way of fixing a text for scholarly
purposes. On the contrary, as we noted, ancient textual criticism was a way to pass down
knowledge, i.e. a means of text transmission rather than text reconstruction and fixation.
Nowadays, thanks to the digital tools, we do have the occasion to develop digital
infrastructures in a hyper-dimensional cyberspace to overcome traditional criticism (and
its shortcomings) and to conceive a digital critical edition with deeper and deeper levels of
text analysis (markup tagging, linguistic or semantic annotation layers, in-text
information), with a very similar outcome as the ancient textual criticism described above.
It can be argued, therefore, that a digital (critical) edition can develop into something
completely different from the somehow ‘old-fashioned’ printed critical edition: namely, a
further step in the fluid textual transmission of ancient sources24.

Bibliography25
Andorlini, I. 2003. “L’esegesi del libro tecnico: papiri di medicina con scolî e commenti”. In
Papiri filosofici. Miscellanea di studi IV. Firenze. 9--29.
Ast, R. and H. Essler. 2017. “The Digital Corpus of Literary Papyrology”. In Digital
Papyrology II. New Tools for the Digital Edition of Ancient Papyri, ed. N. Reggiani.
Berlin--New York. Forthcoming.

23 Cf. Hanson 1997 and Andorlini 2003 (with more cases of additions of annotations and comments).
24 For further thoughts on the digital edition of papyri cf. Reggiani 2017a:255 ff. and 2017c. On linguistic
annotation of papyri see also Vierros 2017.
25 The papyrological sources are abbreviated according to the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic,

and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets, eds. J.D. Sosin, R. Ast, R.S. Bagnall, J.M.S. Cowey, M. Depauw, A.
Delattre, R. Maxwell, P. Heilporn [http://papyri.info/docs/checklist].
 9

Bonati, I. and N. Reggiani. 2018. “Mirrors in the Greek Papyri: Question of Words”. In
Mirrors and Mirroring: From Antiquity to Early Modern Period. Proceedings of the
Conference (Wien 2017), eds. L. Diamantopoulou and M. Gerolemou. Forthcoming.
Cribiore, R. 2017. “Genetic Criticism and the Papyri”. In Greek Medical Papyri – Text,
Context, Hypertext. Proceedings of the Final DIGMEDTEXT Conference (Parma
2016), ed. N. Reggiani. Parma. Forthcoming.
Depauw, M. and J. Stolk. 2015. “Linguistic Variation in Greek Papyri: Towards a New Tool
for Quantitative Studies”. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 55:196--220.
Evans, T.V. 2010a. “Standard Koine Greek in Third Century BC Papyri”. In Proceedings of
the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology (Ann Arbor 2007), eds. T.
Gagos et al. Ann Arbor. 197--206.
--- --- ---. 2010b. “Identifying the Language of the Individual in the Zenon Archive”. In The
Language of the Papyri, eds. T.V. Evans and D.D. Obbink. Oxford. 51--70.
--- --- ---. 2012. “Linguistic and Stylistic Variation in the Zenon Archive”. In Variation and
Change in Greek and Latin, eds. M. Leiwo, H. Halla-aho, and M. Vierros. Helsinki. 25--
42
Hanson, A.E.. 1997. “Fragmentation and the Greek Medical Writers”. In Collecting
Fragments / Fragmente Sammeln, ed. G.W. Most. Göttingen. 289--314.
Maravela, A. and N. Reggiani. 2018. “Between Textual and Linguistic History. Exploring
Linguistic Variation in Greek Medical Papyri”. In Act of the Scribe: Interfaces
Between Scribal Work and Language Use. Proceedings of the Workshop (Athens
2017), eds. M. Leiwo, S. Dahlgren, H. Halla-aho, and M. Vierros. Forthcoming.
Nielsen, B.E. 2000. “A Catalog of Duplicate Papyri”. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 129:187--214.
Reggiani, N. 2017a. Digital Papyrology I. Methods, Tools and Trends. Berlin--New York.
--- --- ---. 2017b. “Varianti filologiche e linguistiche nei papiri: riconsiderazioni alla luce
della digitalizzazione dei papiri greci di medicina”. In Greek Medical Papyri – Text,
Context, Hypertext. Proceedings of the Final DIGMEDTEXT Conference (Parma
2016), ed. N. Reggiani. Parma. Forthcoming.
--- --- ---. 2017c. “New Ways of Conceiving Digital Editions of Papyri”. In Digital Papyrology
II. New Tools for the Digital Edition of Ancient Papyri, ed. N. Reggiani. Berlin--New
York. Forthcoming.
--- --- ---. 2018a. “The Corpus of Greek Medical Papyri Online and the Digital Edition of
Ancient Documents”. In Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of
Papyrology (Barcelona 2016), eds. A. Nodar and S. Torallas Tovar. Barcelona.
Forthcoming.
 10

--- --- ---. 2018b. “Transmission of Recipes and Receptaria in Greek Medical Writings on
Papyrus Between Ancient Text Production and Modern Digital Representation”. In
“Cupis volitare per auras”: Books, Libraries and Textual Transmission from the
Ancient to the Medieval World. Proceedings of the International Conference (Bari
2016), eds. E. Barile, R. Berardi, M. Filosa, L. Fizzarotti, and G. Marolla. Bari.
Forthcoming.
--- --- ---. 2018c. “Ancient Doctors’ Literacies and the Digital Edition of Papyri of Medical
Content”. In Digital Literacies for the Ancient World (Classics@ Special Issue), ed. P.
Dilley. Forthcoming.
--- --- ---. 2018d. “Digitizing Medical Papyri in Question-and-Answer Format”. In “Where
Does It Hurt?” Ancient Medicine in Questions and Answers. Proceedings of the
International Conference (Leuven 2016), eds. M. Meeusen and E. Gielen. Leiden--
Boston. Forthcoming.
Stolk, J.V. 2015a. Case Variation in Greek Papyri. Retracing dative case syncretism in the
language of the Greek documentary papyri and ostraca from Egypt (300 BCE – 800
CE). PhD Dissertation.
--- --- ---. 2015b. “Dative by Genitive Replacement in the Greek Language of the Papyri: A
Diachronic Account of Case Semantics”. Journal of Greek Linguistics 15:91--121.
--- --- ---. 2015c. “Scribal and Phraseological Variation in Legal Formulas”. Journal of Juristic
Papyrology 45:255--290.
--- --- ---. 2017. “Encoding Linguistic Variation in Greek Documentary Papyri: The Past,
Present and Future of Editorial Regularization”. In Digital Papyrology II. New Tools
for the Digital Edition of Ancient Papyri, ed. N. Reggiani. Berlin--New York.
Forthcoming.
Stoop, J. 2014. “Two Copies of a Royal Petition from Kerkeosiris” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik 189:185--193.
Vierros, M. 2017. “Linguistic Annotation in the Digital Edition of Papyri”. In Digital
Papyrology II. New Tools for the Digital Edition of Ancient Papyri, ed. N. Reggiani.
Berlin--New York. Forthcoming.
Yuen-Collingridge, R. and M. Choat. 2012. “The Copyist at Work: Scribal Practice in
Duplicate Documents”. In Actes du 26e Congrès international de papyrologie
(Genève 2010), ed. P. Schubert. Genève. 827--34.