That’s a great text (=Erbse’s Pap II.), undoubtedly one of the most important Homeric commentaries on papyrus, with σημεῖα and all (including the non-Aristarchean Χ(ρησιμον) siglum, I think on this very passage).mwh wrote:On the subject of time manipulation, here in a 1st-cent.BCE papyrus commentary is a notable anticipation of Zielinski’s insight that concurrent events are sometimes represented as consecutive: ο δε ποιητης διηγηματικος ων ου⟨δε⟩ δυναμενος α⟨μα⟩ παντα ειπειν τα κατα τον ⟨αυτον⟩ χρονον πραχθεντα παρα μερος ειρηκεν. (“The poet, since he is in narrative mode and not able to recount simultaneous events all at the same time, has recounted them successively.” (POxy 1086.58-60, on Il.2.788)
I was recently looking into a problem related to the passage you cite (as part of my diss. research). If anyone still has an appetite for the scholia (τῶν ἐπιθυμία…), I can bring it up here. The note in Pap. II is about how Iris is sent simultaneously with Ὄνειροϲ at the beginning of Β, though narrated separately. A bT scholion (B.6c) discusses the sending of “baneful Dream”:
B.5-6:
Ἥδε δέ οἱ κατὰ θυμὸν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή,
πέμψαι ἐπ᾽ Ἀτρεΐδῃ Ἀγαμέμνονι οὖλον ὄνειρον·
Sch. B.6c (bT):
οὖλον: τοῦτο κατὰ συμπάθειαν, ὡς „οὐλομένην“ (Α 2), b
(BCE3E4)T καὶ ἵνα ποθοῖμεν μαθεῖν, τί εἴργασται ὁ οὖλος ὄνειρος.
Ἕκτορι δὲ Ἶρις πέμπεται (cf. Λ 182–210), ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ νῦν, ὅπως μὴ πρὸ τοῦ Καταλό-
γου ἡ ναυμαχία γένηται. ἢ οὖλον τὸν ἀσαφῆ καὶ ὕπουλον b(BCE3)
T (εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὸν μαλακὸν λέγει, ἐπεὶ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν διαλεγόμενος
οὕτω φησίν· b [BE3] T „οὖλε“ [Β 8])· καὶ Τρῶας γὰρ ἀπώλεσε
θαρρήσαντας ὑπομεῖναι τὸν Ἀχιλλέα, ποιητικὸν δὲ τὸ πλάσσειν ὀνεί-
ρους. ἢ τὸν ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ πεμπόμενον. ἢ τὸν ὁλόκληρον, ὡς τὸ <***>
„οὖλέ τε καὶ μέγα χαῖρε“ (ω 402). T
Previously, I assumed Ἕκτορι δὲ Ἶρις πέμπεται was a reference to the sending of Iris (as Polites) later in B. Thus, the note would disagree with the (possibly Aristarchean) reading in Pap. II. They weren’t sent simultaneously, but Dream first then Iris. This is also how Lundon takes it. Later I noticed that Erbse added “(cf. Λ 182-210)” in the corrigenda in vol. 7 (and thus on the TLG version, but not in vol. 1). The reference thus being to Iris’ mission to Hector in Λ—note that she speaks first to Priam in B (though ultimately to Hector). More importantly, Iris’ mission in Λ is explicitly connected with the ναυμαχία (Λ.193). In that case, there would be no obvious disagreement with the papyrus fr. I think Erbse’s reading make sense. Is this perverse?