¹ The entire line would then read αὐτὰρ ὁ βῆ ῥ᾿ Ἶσόν τϵ καὶ Ἄντιϕον ἐξϵναρίξων (‘but he went on to slay Isus and Antiphus’).

² Text based on the edition of H. Erbse, Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), vol. 3 (Berlin, 1974), 114.

³ T. Bergk, Poetae Lyrici Graeci (Leipzig, 1853²), 507–8.

⁴ E.g. F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit (Leipzig, 1892), 2.531, who asserted that it constituted a compilation solely of Posidippus’ epigrams.

⁵ R. Reitzenstein, Inedita poetarum Graecorum fragmenta (Rostock, 1891), 6–7 n. 3. The concluding statement of this footnote (‘habetis iam vetustissimam epigrammatum syllogam’) initiates the theory that the Sôros is the earliest anthology of Hellenistic epigrams.

⁶ R. Reitzenstein, Epigramm und Skolion. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexandrinischen Dichtung (Giessen, 1893), 94–6. This idea was elaborated by W. Wallace and M. Wallace, ‘Meleager and the “Soros”’, TAPhA 70 (1939), 191–202, who even discerned within the sequence of anonymous epigrams in Book 5 of the Anth. Pal. (135, 142, 168, 200, 201, 205) a portion of the Sôros collection. The hypothesis regarding three epigrammatists was also adopted by I.G. Galli Calderini, ‘Su alcuni epigrammi dell’Antologia palatina corredati di lemmi alternativi’, AAP 31 (1982), 239–80 as well as G. Tarditi, ‘Per una lettura degli epigrammisti greci’, Aevum(ant) 1 (1988), 5–75 (although he believed that the Soros’ epigrams were accompanied by lemmata of the authors). However, A. Cameron, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes (Oxford, 1993), 374 contends that the compilation’s author was the youngest of these epigrammatists, namely Hedylus, who appended works by Posidippus and Asclepiades to his own epigrams. A similar opinion was expressed by H. Lloyd-Jones, ‘All by Posidippus?’, in D. Accorinti and P. Chuvin (edd.), Des Géants à Dionysos. Mélanges de mythologie et de poésie grecques offerts à Francis Vian (Alessandria, 2003), 277–80, who previously inclined towards the notion that Sôros was a collection by a single author (‘The Seal of Posidippus’, JHS 83 [1963], 75–99, at 96). Sporadic dissenting voices emerged regarding the uncritical acceptance of the theory that sôros was the title of a collection of epigrams, whether by one or multiple poets. See e.g. L. Argentieri, ‘Epigramma e libro: morfologia delle raccolte epigrammatiche premeleagree’, ZPE 121 (1998), 1–20, at 9: ‘ed effettivamente immagina molto di più di quanto dicano i fatti; dopotutto per noi Σωρός è solo un nome in uno scolio, anche se ricorda uno di quei titoli “cumulativi” tipici delle miscellanee come Πάγκαρπον o Στέϕανος’.

⁷ On Didimus as transmitter of the scholium see G. Nagy, ‘Homeric echoes in Posidippus’, in B. Acosta-Hughes, E. Kosmetatou and M. Baumbach (edd.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309) (Washington, DC, 2004), 57–64, at 62; H. Lloyd-Jones, The Further Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Oxford, 2005), 246–9. On Didymus as a source of information and text for Aristarchus, see F. Schironi, The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad (Ann Arbor, 2018), 65–71.

⁸ G. Huxley, ‘ΒΗΡΙϹΟϹ’, JHS 112 (1992), 153 defends the reading Βήρισον, identifying Bêrisos as the eponymous hero of the Βηρύσιοι, who, according to subsequent sources, resided in the Troad. This defence is not significant for our argument, though, since Aristarchus demonstrates that Posidippus removed that name (or the entire epigram) from later editions of his epigrams.

⁹ K.J. Gutzwiller, Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context (Berkeley, 1998), 152 and F. Ferrari, ‘Posidippus, the Milan papyrus, and some Hellenistic anthologies’, Classic@ 1 (2004), 1–14, at 8 contend that the collection of epigrams quoted by Athenaeus is the same comprehensive edition of poetry in which Aristarchus failed to locate the Bêrisos form.

¹⁰ Whether Callimachus composed the collection to which later authors refer using the term-title ‘Epigrams’ is unclear. The arrangement of the Aetia and Iambi collections suggests that the poet placed importance on editing his own works: N. Krevans, ‘The poet as editor: Callimachus, Virgil, Horace, Propertius and the development of the poetic book’ (Diss., Princeton, 1984), 230–300; M.A. Harder, ‘Aspects of the structure of Callimachus’ Aetia’, in M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit and G.C. Wakker (edd.), Callimachus (Groningen, 1993), 99–110; D.L. Clayman, Callimachus’ Iambi (Leiden, 1980), 49. He probably prepared the arrangement of the Epigrams collection himself: Gutzwiller (n. 9), 183–226.

¹¹ The title of Diogenes Laertius’ collection of epigrams is the best example, as he himself provides it while citing his own epigram on Thales (1.39): ἔστι καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐς αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἐπιγραμμάτων ἢ Παμμέτρῳ τόδϵ τὸ ἐπίγραμμα. It is in fact a double title, the second option perhaps offering a more metaliterary label.

¹² On the verso of papyrus P.Petr. 2.49 (SH 961), containing the text of the Epithalamium for Arsinoe, the title (or heading) σύμμϵικτα ἐπιγράμματα Ποσϵιδίπ[που has been inscribed. Τhis resembles the title of Simias of Rhodes’ collection, ποιήματα διάϕορα (Suda σ 431 Adler). In both authors’ cases, these represent assortments of selected ‘mixed’ epigrams, and the extant titles serve an informative function, delineating the poetic character (if not genre) embodied by these collections.

¹³ The hypothesis of a single-author collection is advocated by Gutzwiller (n. 9), 18, 155–6; see also R. Höschele, Die blütenlesende Muse: Poetik und Textualität antiker Epigrammsammlungen (Tübingen, 2010), 82, 309–11.

¹⁴ See T.B.L. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry and Art (London, 1964), 45, who juxtaposes this title with Theoc. 7.155, as previously suggested by F. Lasserre, ‘Aux origines de l’anthologie II’, RhM 102 (1959), 307–70, at 326. Ferrari (n. 9), 7 n. 17 points also to Posidippus 52.6 AB; cf. M. Santirocco, Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes (Chapel Hill, NC and London, 1986), 8–9. Metaphorical titles, although attested as early as the Classical period (e.g. Peplos by Aristotle), became particularly popular from the first century b.c., as can be inferred from the lists included in the prefaces to their works by Pliny and Gellius: e.g. Μοῦσαι of Aurelius Opilius, Ἀμαλθϵίας κέρας of Sotion, Λϵιμών (λέξεων?) of Pamphilus of Alexandria, Κηρίον/Κηρία of Herodes Atticus, Στρωματϵῖς of Caesellius Vindex, Παντοδαπὴ [ὕλη] of Favorinus, as well as Λύχνοι and Πάγκαρπον by unknown authors.

¹⁵ Gutzwiller (n. 9), 83. According to D. Obbink, ‘Tropoi (Posidippus AB 102–103)’, in B. Acosta-Hughes, E. Kosmetatou and M. Baumbach (edd.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309) (Washington, DC, 2004), 292–301, the title Tropoi, understood as ‘characters’ in the sense of Theophrastan personalities, is precise and non-metaphorical.

¹⁶ P. Bing, ‘Homer in the Σωρός’, in Y. Durbec and F. Trajber (edd.), Traditions épiques et poésie épigrammatique (Leuven, 2017), 99–114.

¹⁷ Cf. Ath. Deipn. 3.81a ἐν Ἀπολλωνίᾳ τῇ Μορδίῳ λϵγομένῃ (‘in Apollonia called Mordia’), 3.88a τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀλϵξάνδρϵιαν λϵγομένῃ Φάρῳ νήσῳ (‘on the island called Pharos, near Alexandria’), 3.82f τὰ δὲ Πϵρσικὰ λϵγόμϵνα μῆλα (‘so called Persian apples’) 7.284f <ἡ> κωβῖτις λϵγομένη (‘[fish] called kôbitis’), 9.395a ἐν τοῖς λϵγομένοις Καταγωγίοις (‘during [the festival] called Katagôgia’), Suda α 75 Ἀβρεττηνὴ χώρα, ἡ λϵγομένη Μυσία (‘Abrettene, the territory, which is called Mysia’), Σ A Hom. Il. 6.133 Νυσήϊον· τὴν λϵγομένην—Θρᾴκης νῦν (‘Nyseion: the one so called, now Thrace’). The participle λϵγόμϵνος in the preserved corpus of Greek texts mentioning the titles of works, such as scholia and Athenaeus, is never found in conjunction with the name of a title, but exclusively with that of a tangible object, space, toponym, etc. It can also serve to specify a literary work, but in such cases, it appears solely in an adjectival construction, preceding an attributive adjective modifying a common noun (e.g. Σ Theoc. 7.21b, Ath. Deipn. 8.359d–e).

¹⁸ Σ A Hom. Il. 18.570 ἥ τϵ καλουμένη Σϕαῖρα ποίημά ἐστιν ϵἰς τὸν Λίνον (‘[The poem] called Sphaira is about Linus’); Suda α 1916 on the genres and works of Anacreon: ἔρωτας παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ ᾠδάς. καὶ συνέγραψϵ παροίνιά τϵ μέλη καὶ ἰάμβους καὶ τὰ καλούμϵνα Ἀνακρϵόντϵια (‘composed songs about the love of boys and women, as well as drinking songs and iambs, and [the works] called Anacreontics’); and, in the case of poetic collections of Agathias, ibid. 112 τά τϵ καλούμϵνα Δαϕνιακά, καὶ τὸν Κύκλον τῶν νέων ᾿Eπιγραμμάτων, ὃν αὐτὸς συνῆξϵν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ καιρὸν ποιητῶν (‘[the works] called Daphniaka, and the Cycle of the New Epigrams, which he himself compiled from the poets of his time’). Daphniaka is a good example here as it was a title of a collection of short hexametric love poems. Likewise, in the case of the collection entitled Peplos attributed to Aristotle, which is often juxtaposed with the hypothetical Sôros (e.g. R. Merkelbach, ‘ΒΟΥΚΟΛΙΑΣΤΑΙ (Der Wettgesang der Hirten)’, RhM 99 [1956], 97–133 at 124), the title is given by Eustathius as follows (in Il. 2.557, page 285, I 439.23–6 van der Valk): ἱστορϵῖ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς Πορϕύριος καὶ ὅτι Ἀριστοτέλης σύγγραμμα πραγματϵυσάμϵνος, ὅπϵρ ἐκλήθη Πέπλος, γϵνϵαλογίας τϵ ἡγϵμόνων ἐξέθϵτο καὶ νϵῶν ἑκάστων ἀριθμὸν καὶ ἐπιγράμματα ϵἰς αὐτούς, ἃ καὶ ἀναγράϕϵται ὁ Πορϕύριος ἐν τοῖς ϵἰς τὸν Ὅμηρον, ἁπλᾶ ὄντα καὶ οὐδέν τι παχὺ καὶ ϕλϵγμαῖνον ἔχοντα (‘Porphyry himself also recounts that Aristotle composed a work, which was called Peplos , in which he set out the genealogies of chieftains, the number of their ships and epigrams about them. These, Porphyry notes in his writings on Homer, were simple and contained nothing elaborate or extravagant’). The present medio-passive participle from καλέω is commonly used to denote all types of names: proper names, names of animals, toponyms, names of buildings, etc. Other examples of titles cited with a derivative of καλέω can be found in M. Davies and P.J. Finglass, Stesichorus: The Poems (Cambridge, 2014), 337, who note that the participle ‘implies that this is what everyone calls the poem, whether or not it was so called by the author’.

¹⁹ Gal. In Hippocr. Epid. III Comm. III 17a, page 607 Kühn; see below. The details of Galen’s testimonium are subject to debate, particularly regarding whether it was Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III Euergetes who borrowed the copies, and which edition of the three tragedians was the subject of the ‘compensation’. See K. Pietruczuk, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides between Athens and Alexandria: A Textual History (Rome 2019), 122–5. For our argument, the precise dating of the events described in this anecdote is of secondary importance.

²⁰ Compare the Roman horrea chartaria, which were warehouses for paper (blank papyrus scrolls). The term horreum in its literal sense refers to granaries. For the etymology of horreum, see D.B. Kaufman, ‘Horrea romana: Roman storehouses’, The Classical Weekly 23.7 (1929), 49–54, at 49.

²¹ The act of piling up scrolls (designated by the verb σωρϵύω) in the processes of the compilation of the Quran is attested in the work of the thirteenth-century monk Bartholomew of Edessa in Confutatio Agareni 65 (ed. K.-P. Todt [Würzburg, 1988], 94): ὁ δὲ Ἀποπάκρης ἐπϵρίμϵνϵ τοῦ ὑποστρέψαι. καὶ ἰδόντϵς ὅτι οὐκ ἦλθϵν, ἀπέμνησαν αὐτόν. καὶ λέγουσι πρὸς τὸν λαόν· “ϕέρϵτϵ τὰς γραϕὰς αὐτοῦ, ἃς δέδωκϵν ὑμῖν ὁ Μουχαμέτ, ἵνα σωρϵυθῶσι καὶ γένωνται βιβλίον ἕν”. καὶ ἐκάθισϵν ὁ Ἀποπάκρης χαλιϕάτης ἀντὶ τοῦ Μουχαμέτ. ἦν δὲ Ὀθμάνης γραμματικὸς πάνυ καὶ ἐπέταξϵν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἀποπάκρης σωρϵῦσαι πάσας τὰς γραϕὰς τοῦ Μουχαμέτ, ποιῆσαι αὐτὰς βιβλίον ἕν, τὸ λϵγόμϵνον κουράνιον. καὶ πϵποίηκϵν τοῦτο καθὰ ὁρίστηκϵν. (‘But Abu Bakr waited for him [Muhammad] to return. And when they saw that he did not come, they recalled him. And they said to the people: “Bring the writings that Muhammad has given to you, so that they may be collected and become one book”. And Abu Bakr sat as caliph in place of Muhammad. Now, Uthman was very learned, and Abu Bakr commanded him to collect all the writings of Muhammad and make them into one book, which is called the Qur’an.’). CQ’s reader also drew our attention to a similar testimony in Latin – Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the burning of books in Antioch at 29.1.41: deinde congesti innumeri codices et acerui uoluminum multi sub conspectu iudicum concremati sunt, ex domibus eruti uariis ut inliciti, ad leniendam caesorum inuidiam, cum essent plerique liberalium disciplinarum indices uariarum et iuris, ‘then, innumerable writings and many heaps of volumes were hauled out from various houses and under the eyes of the judges were burned in heaps as being unlawful, to allay the indignation at the executions, although the greater number were treatises on the liberal arts and on jurisprudence’ (transl. J.C. Rolfe).

²² The storage of unpublished texts in warehouses (ἀποθῆκαι) is confirmed by Galen when he recounts how his manuscripts, which he had not yet handed over to the scribes for copying, were destroyed in the fire on the Via Sacra in 192 (De indolentia 13; 16; 17–19; text and commentary in P.R. Tucci, ‘Flavian libraries in the city of Rome’, in J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou and G. Woolf [edd.], Ancient Libraries [Cambridge, 2013], 277–311, at 292).