Philodemus: On Poems, Book I 0199262853, 9780199262854

Citation preview

P H ILO D EM U S

On Poems Book i

The Philodemus Translation Project

Philodemus: The Aesthetic Works Volume I / 1 Series Editors : D. L. B l a n k R. J

D.

O

anko b b in k

This project has been supported by a grant from the N ational Endow m ent for the H um anities, an independent federal agency. T he opinions, findings, and conclusions or recom m endations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the N ational Endow m ent for the Hum anities.

T he preparation o f this volume was supported by a generous gift in m em ory of H elen Caldwell

PHILODEMUS

On Poems BOOK 1

edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by

RICHARD JANKO

OXFORD U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

OXFORD U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford 0X2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Säo Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Richard Janko 2000 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2000 First published in paperback 2003 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquiror British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data applied for ISBN 0-19-815041-5 ISBN 0-19-926285-3 (pbk) * 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Designed and typeset in Baskerville and Person by Jeffrey Dean, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by TJ International Ltd., Padstow, Cornwall

Preface

I n 1890 Siegfried Sudhaus, wishing to encourage other brave spirits to

work on the great library of philosophical book-rolls from the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, wrote: M an hat bedauert, daß diese Publikationen meist von jungen, z.T. blutjungen Philologen ausgingen. M it Recht; denn wenn irgendwo, wäre hier Sprachkenntnis, gereiftes Urteil, Besonnenheit und viel, viel Scharfsinn wünschenswert. Da aber die Rollen Jah r um Ja h r liegen bleiben, da man immer noch Scheu hat, an den uralten Kohlen die H ände zu verbrennen, so ist es mit Freuden zu begrüßen, wenn sich jem and der schwierigen Restitutionsarbeit widmet.

Then as now, the task was Herculean : editing what are probably the most damaged, disordered, and difficult fragments to survive from classical antiquity. O f all Greek literary texts, these have received the least atten­ tion from the great philologists of the past. However, recent progress has shown us how to reconstruct, in their entirety as rolls of papyrus, books lost to the world for two millennia. The successful restorations of Philode­ mus’ On Piety and On Music 4 by Dirk Obbink and Daniel Delattre have shown us all that the years of scholarly toil required are profoundly worthwhile, and that the recovery of further texts from this library, both from existing materials and from the new excavations at the Villa, when these are completed, is one of the most exciting prospects for classical scholarship in the coming century. Inspired by their achievements, I undertook to reconstruct the most jumbled of all Philodemus’ works, On Poems 1. It was not only the librorum . . . obscuritas et difficultas that attracted me, as it had Hermann Usener. Philodemus was one of the finest epigrammatists of antiquity; he was also, with the signal exception of his follower Horace, the only ancient poet whose literary criticism also survives. The result of nine years’ study is that we can see the structure of his treatise, understand why it was

VI

Preface

written, fill in, with largely unsuspected material, the lacuna in the history of ancient literary theory between Aristotle and Horace, and illuminate the Augustan movement in Roman poetry. Although under half of it survives, On Poems i is an addition to the corpus of ancient literary criticism on the scale of the Poetics or On the Sublime. The theories which it contains are at least as significant as those in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ De compositione verborum, and will require us totally to reassess Horace’s Ars Poetica. The relative ordering of its fragments was a nightmarish task, truly the hardest that I have ever attempted (except for establishing their abso­ lute order!). It recalled to me the study of archaeological stratigraphy, with which it shares the need to think in three dimensions; just as, in sorting, strewing, and joining potsherds, one matches them up by shape and decoration, so too I had to develop practical techniques for matching fragments. I had to make a model of the roll in which I could constantly reorder the pieces, study a vast range of material outside my previous experience, and question constantly my every assumption, however obvi­ ous it appeared. The restoration of these books was so difficult that no one person seemed likely to have all the knowledge, or the time, needed for its com­ pletion; a collective enterprise by a variety of experts was called for. To this end I organized the Philodemus Translation Project, to edit and trans­ late the three aesthetic works of Philodemus— On Poems, On RhetoHc, and On Music. The rest of On Poems will occupy two further volumes. However, since much of the material summarized in Book i is refuted in Book 2 and also discussed in Book 5, this volume introduces the entire work. This is the first reconstruction of On Poems 1, and the first edition based on its surviving fragments and on newly discovered transcripts, rather than only on drawings of them. The extant pieces were read with the new Nikon microscopes introduced by the Project; these give such excellent results that all the Herculaneum papyri urgently need to be reread. In addition I studied micro-photographs taken with a ring-flash and en­ hanced from CD-ROM using Adobe Photoshop on the Macintosh; but, as with all photographs, the results had to be confirmed by autopsy. I could not here include a complete photographic record of the papyrus or the other sources. When this book was on the very eve of publication, Dr Steven W. Booras of the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts at Brigham Young University astonished us all with even better pictures obtained by multi-spectral digital imaging, a technique first developed for interplanetary exploration (for examples see CErc 29 (1999), 95-100). These images are taken with infra-red light, normally at wave­ lengths of 920-940 nanometres; they restore full legibility to papyri so

Preface

Vil

black that the human eye can discern no ink whatever. We warmly thank Dr and Mrs Booras for their assistance; though this volume could not benefit, all future study of the Herculaneum papyri will gain enormously from this wonderful advance. On Poems 2 (or 3, as it has hitherto been called) will be re-edited in Vol. I / 2 of this series by Costantina Romeo. I am much indebted to her and to Jim Porter for sharing with me their collations of P Here. 994, and to David Armstrong for his readings of P Here. 1676, read with Eric Turner’s microscopes. Unless otherwise stated, I have not myself reread the exten­ sive papyri of Books 2 and 5 (but my extracts from Book 5 cols. 24-9 are based on autopsy with the new microscopes). My quotations of Book 2 (and suggested supplements) are provisional; the full reconstruction of Philodemus’ rebuttal in Vol. I / 2 is bound to modify some of what appears in this volume, but it could wait no longer for its pair. I cite Book 2 directly from its sources (references to Sbordone’s edition can be found via the Concordance, but the line-numbers may differ, since Sbordone often misnumbered them). Vol. I / 3 will contain Books 3—4 by myself and Book 5 by D. Armstrong, J. Fish, andj. Porter. Citations of other Herculaneum papyri rely on the latest published editions, except that I have had access to D. Delattre’s forthcoming edition of On Music', the recent ones bear witness to great progress, but they can and will be bettered. (One deterrent to the use of Philodemus’ work has been a reluctance to cite passages including unusual diacritics like the sublinear asterisk, which marks a letter changed by an editor; most scholars cannot reproduce this. Faute de mieux, I suggest putting such letters into a different fount, or making some other typographical distinction.) My first thanks are owed to the Foundations that made it possible for me to espy, chase, and catch this chimera. I began this reconstruction while I held an Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship at the National Humanities Center in North Carolina. I am grateful to the staff of the Center, and especially to its Director, W. Robert Connor; I was supposed to be finish­ ing my edition of Book 4, not starting Book 1. The Philodemus Transla­ tion Project is extremely fortunate to have been supported by major grants from the Texts and Translations Division (Translations) of the National Endowment for the Humanities, an independent federal agency. I wish to thank the staff of the NEH for their extended help and support. I am grateful to the British Academy/Humanities Research Board for funding, via the Crates Project, one of the new microscopes with which the papyri are being reread, and for supporting the study of the extracts from Crates in Book 5 by Maria Broggiato and myself. Lastly, I was able to finish this edition only because of a Research Fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust,

vili

Preface

which freed me from onerous duties at a crucial time. To the staff of the Trust, and to my colleagues for granting me leave, I extend my thanks. I am also very grateful to the successive Directors of the Officina dei Papiri in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples, namely Dr Vicenzo Litta and Dr Agnese Travaglione, and to the staff of the Officina dei Papiri, espe­ cially Margherita D’Alessandro. The afternoon opening of the Officina in the summers of 1995—7 was essential to the completion of this work (the arias floating across from the San Carlo were helpful too). I owe an equal debt to Professors Marcello Gigante and Francesca Longo Auricchio of the Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi for their warm support of the Philodemus Translation Project, for help in obtain­ ing materials, and for doing much to make my prolonged visits to Naples so enjoyable. Any scholar who views this important field with trepidation, or hesitates to inspect the papyri in person, should visit la bella Napoli and think again. I also thank Ted Brunner and staff of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae for putting at the Project’s disposal an uncorrected version of the TLG text of the entire corpus of Philodemus, and Knut Kleve for supplying a counterpart created by his team. I thank Gunn Haaland for facilitating my study of the Oslo Grammatical Papyrus. For help in tracking down lost manuscripts, I thank Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Jochem Küppers, Chris­ tine Weidlich, Werner Wiele, Peter Zahn, and especially Otto Michael Gugler. For mathematical aid I thank Susan Challenger, Howard Davies, and James Hannoosh. For word-processing assistance I am grateful to Mary Womble Barringer (now Gerdes), Mike Chappell, Basil Dufallo, George Garrett, Jessamyn Lewis, and especially Jeff Fish. Ioana Ciucä and Barbara Smith helped with the indexes, and Andrew Morrison not only assisted in checking the proofs but clarified my thinking about Heracleodorus. I thank the Project’s research assistants, especially Elian Chuaqui, Tom Frazel, and Rebecca Resinski, who organized the Colloquia at UCLA on Philodemus’ On Poems in 1993 and 1996, with support from UCLA (where I thank Claudia Mitchell-Kernan in particular); the great utility of the seminars at which these texts were read (including sessions at Austin, Texas, the Institute of Classical Studies in London, and Annual Meetings of the American Philological Association) is only partly evident from the names in the apparatus criticus of all the scholars who contrib­ uted suggestions. For these seminars united a community of Epicurean friends in the perception that Philodemus’ Greek is far more correct, and his thought far more important, than many have believed. For Pis. 1-6 and 211 thank the Biblioteca Nazionale, Naples (by permis­ sion of the Affnistero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, Italy), and for PI. 7

Preface

IX

the Universitätsbibliothek, Vienna; for assistance with photography I thank David Blank and Stuart Laidlaw, and for help in the production of CD-ROMs Stuart Nightingale. The other illustrations are my own work; if the script looks untidy, this is often because the papyrus is badly corru­ gated. For assistance in arranging the publication I am grateful to Angela Blackburn and Hilary O ’Shea. I thank William Johnson and Maria Luisa Nardelli for copies of their important works. For other help I wish to thank Catherine Atherton, Mario Capasso, Gianluca Del Mastro, Daniel Delat­ tre, Tiziano Dorandi, Jeff Fish, Robert Gaines, Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Nathan Greenberg, Alan Griffiths, William Johnson, Simon Laursen, Herwig Maehler, Annick Monet, Paul Naiditch, Nicola Pace, Peter Par­ sons, Enzo Puglia, Gioia Maria Rispoli, David Sedley, Bob Sharpies, Tatiana Summers, Paul Vander Waerdt, Michael Wigodsky, and the library staff of the Institute of Classical Studies in London. I am very grateful to Maria Broggiato, John Franklin, and Voula TsounaMcKirahan for reading parts of the introduction, to David Armstrong, Elizabeth Asmis, the late Cecilia Mangoni, Jim Porter, and Tina Romeo for their penetrating insights into ancient poetic theory, and to David Blank, Leofranc Holford-Strevens, and Dirk Obbink for reading most or all of the manuscript, which was closed, except for minor revisions, in July 1998. I thank Jeffrey Dean for his painstaking and expert typesetting. Nobody other than myself is responsible for the misreadings and errors that remain. I also wish to thank my aunt, Betty Janko, for encouraging my nascent interest in the past; it was in her company that I hrst saw a papyrus. The past nine years have seen unimaginable vicissitudes, which make one doubt whether τάγαθον μέν εύκτητον, το Sè Setvov eύζκκαρτέρητον. My father died as this edition began; my mother, uprooted to California, patiently typed the first translation of this text, only to die the next year in Cambridge; and my wife’s parents, gravely injured, were miraculously retrieved from death only after many months. Through all the sorrows and separations, and lately the unnamable kinds of dishonesty, oppres­ sion, and injustice which she has faced, Michele’s spirit remained so undaunted that she not merely tolerated my unending project, but helped in countless ways, intellectual, practical, and personal. L’espnten travail sans cesse, c'est le remède à la dévastation du temps. To her, in profound gratitude for her steadfastness, this book is dedicated. R.J. Highgate

Preface to the Paperback Edition

this book appeared, interest in the Herculaneum papyri, and concern about the incomplete excavation of the Villa of the Papyri where they were found, has continued to grow. The recent excavations, which revealed only its south-west corner, showed that it was built on several terraces and not only on the level reached in the 1750s. The terrace below contained rooms adorned with frescoes and with their wooden lintels well preserved; this storey ran at least two rooms deep under the atrium. These fine apartments may well have housed more books. This is the only place in the Graeco-Roman world where a library was buried in conditions that ensured its survival. Since papyrus-rolls were discovered at several loca­ tions in the Villa, and some were being removed to safety during the eruption, more books will be found on the way down to the sea, if only the excavation be resumed. Technological advances offer hope of conserving newly discovered papyri better than was possible in the time of the Prince Regent. Need we risk letting Vesuvius rebury all this? I have taken the occasion to correct minor errors and add a few Addenda, which are printed after the General Index. There is one larger change: columns 196—9 were given in the wrong order; a revised version of them is given in the Addenda. Note also that vol. I/3 of this series will contain On Poems Books 3-4, while Book 5 will occupy vol. I/4. Tandem aliquando . . . The proofs and index of the original book were done at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. I thank the Institute, and especially Profes­ sor H. von Staden, for the time and facilities which they afforded me. I again thank the Press and its staff. S in c e

London

R . J.

Contents w>

List of Illustrations List of Tables Introduction 1. Philodemus of G adara and his Aesthetic Works 2. De poematis i : The History o f the Text (a) T he Papyrus-Rolls of Depoematis (b) How the Papyri were O pened and Recorded (ic) T he Contribution of the Interpreti (d) Bernardo Q uaranta and the Collectio Altera (e) Previous Editions 3. The Manuscripts of De poematis i (a) T he Papyrus: Catalogue, Condition, and Description (b) T he Neapolitan Disegni: Catalogue, Description, and Errors (c) T he Transcripts of the Interpreti (d) Format and Script (e) Syllabification, Orthography, and Punctuation {f) Mistakes, Corrections, Accentuation, and Marginalia 4. T he Reconstruction of the Papyrus-Roll (a) The Relative Sequence: Joins and Parallels (b) The Absolute Sequence: Layers, Circumferences, and Roll-Length (c) T he Stichometry 5. Philodemus’ Sources and Opponents (a) Crates o f Mallos and the Κριτικοί (b) Crates’ Arguments against the Philosophers (Epicureans) (c)

The Musical Critics

(d) Megaclides of Athens (e) Andromenides (f) Crates’ Arguments against the Critics (g) Heracleodorus (,h) Pausimachus of Miletus and the Euphonist Tradition

xiii xv i 3 11 π 15 27 32 39 48 48 57 68 70 75 81 86 86 104 114 120 ΐ2θ 129

134 138

143 154 155 165

6. T he Work: Purpose, Form, and Style (a) The Purpose and Form of De poem. 1-2 (b) Style, Authorship, and Title 7. The Present Edition (a) System of Presentation (b) Conspectus Siglorum

190 190 192

Φ ίλ ο δ η μ ο υ il e p i π ο ιη μ ά τ ω ν A '

201

Conspectus Studiorum Concordances I. By papyrus and disegno IF By H V 2 ΙΠ. By Hausrath IV By Sbordone V By Nardelli Index Verborum Index Poetarum Index Locorum General Index

451 462 462

Addenda

J94 194

!97

474 482 486

491 495 5J7 5!9 540

592

List of Illustrations

Figures 1. T he alphabet of H and 13, with diacritics and selected ligatures 2. On Poems 1: reconstructed cross-section through the roll, to show the placing of the layers (not to scale)

74 105

Plates [after p. 200) 1. E Here. 460 fr. I = 67A 2. Transcript of R Here. 460, f. 4'’: fr. 8 (= 117), hand of G. Genovesi, annotated by A. A. Scotti 3. Transcript of P. Here. 460, f. 3V: on left, J ' fragments; to right, fr. 6 (= 123), hand of F. Javarone 4. 7V460 frr. 20+19 + 14a (= 88-9), montage from drawings of F. Casanova 5. TV1074a fr. 26 (= 193), drawn by C. Malesci 6. H V 2YV 168 (= 193): first state of plate engraved by F. Celentano, with changes in ink by G. Fiorelli (= col. 74 Quaranta) 7. H V 2IV 168: published plate incorporating Fiorelli’s changes, with notes in pencil by T. Gomperz 8. P Here. 466 fr. I (above, = 12A, 15A) and P. Here. 444 fr. I = 3, 6, 9 9. P Here. 460 frr. I--IV, reconstruction of ultimofoglio: fr. I - 67A (top); fr. II = 74 (bottom); fr. Ill = 70 (left); fr. IV = 53 (right) 10. P. Here. 460 fr. V = 125—6 h . P Here. 1073 frr. I-II (below = 84B) 12. P Here. 1074a fr. I = 163—4 13. P Here. 1074a fr. II = 166, 168-9 14. P. Here. 1074a fr. Ill = 171 15. P. Here. 1074a fr. IV = 173-4, 176, 178-9, 181 16. P. Here. 1074a fr. V = 127, 130A, 132A 17. P. Here. 1074a fr. VI = 140

XIV

18. 19. 20. 21.

List of illustrations P. Here. 1074a fr. VII = 150—1 P. Here. 1074a fr. VIII = 158—9, 161 P Here. 1081a, frr. II and I = 187—8 (above) and 159—60 (below). ^ 4 6 6 fr. 8 (above) drawn by F. Casanova, joining with jV444 fr. 10 (below), drawn by G. B. Casanova (= 33-4)

XV

List of Tables

2.1

The papyri of Philodemus’ De poematis

3.1 3.2

The disegni and fragments of P. Here. 460 arranged by layer T he disegni and fragments of P. Here. 1073 arranged by series and layer The disegni and fragments of P. Here. 1074 arranged by scribal hand T he disegni of P. Here. 1081 arranged by scribal hand The disegni and fragments of P. Here. 1081a arranged by series and layer T he accuracy of the disegnatori: comparative statistics Letter-confusions in the disegni T he dimensions and layout of the papyrus-roll

3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

4.1 New fragments of P. Here. 460 from the transcript of the interpreti 4.2 T he order of the J ' and K fragments of P. Here. 460 4.3 Joins between jV460 and jV 1073 4.4 The incidence of accents in 7V460 and 7V1073 4.5 The incidence of back-references in the text 4.6 Verbal parallels between summary and rebuttal (second section) 4.7. T he correlation of layers and joins in 7V466 and 7V444 4.8 Grounds for assigning the various series to each hemicylinder of the roll 4.9 T he position of horizontal cuts in the various series 4.10 The decline in the num ber of letters per line in the roll 4 .11 T he decline in the num ber of lines per column in the roll 4.12 Fragments and disegni of jV 1074a frr. 1-10 arranged by layer 4.13 Fragments and disegni of jVio74a frr. 30-22 arranged by layer 4.14 Joins between P. Here. 1074a and P. Here. 1081a 4.15 Verbal parallels between summary and rebuttal (first section) 4.16 The decline in the circumference and num ber of columns per circumference

12-13 60 61 63 64-5 66 67 67 71 89 89 90 91 91 92-3 95 96 97 97 98 100 101 102 103 106-7

XVI

List of tables

4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20

The fragments of P. Here. 1073 fr· I The assignment of fragments to the layers of the papyrus The stichoi and lineation from A to Μ Numbers of columns and average numbers of lines with i = 180 and s - 200 4.21 The stichometry as finally determined 4.22 Numbers of columns, stichometric totals, and roll-lengths of Philodemus’ works 5.1

The sequence of topics in Book 5 compared with that in Books 1—2 Original and revised order of columns 195—201

I09 110-13 116 117 118 119 128-9 593

Introduction

I

Philodemus of Gadara and his Aesthetic Works

O ur knowledge of Philodemus comes mainly from the remains of what

was once a magnificent library found in the equally magnificent ‘Villa dei Papiri’ at Herculaneum on the Bay of Naples.1As I write, the Villa is once again being brought to light from the dense layers of ash and mud by which it was entombed in the famous eruption of Vesuvius in a d 79 described by Pliny the Younger, and by which Herculaneum, Pompeii, and other towns in the region were buried.2 The Villa was rediscovered in 1750 by the tunnelling of the Bourbons. Its books were preserved by being carbonized during the eruption by pyroclastic surges of gas and ash superheated to 300-320 °C,3 often after they had been soaked by rain in the thunderstorms caused by the eruption. They were found in 1752-4 at several locations; its inhabitants were trying to remove some of them to safety when they were overwhelmed, but the eighteenth-century records do not enable us to establish which books were still in their wooden pigeon-holes (the ancient equivalent of library-shelves) and which were found in the carrying-boxes in which they were being evacuated.4 They

1 SeeJ. J. Deiss, H e r c u la n e u m : I t a l y ’s B u r ie d T reasure (London, 1985), 60-82; Capasso 1991; Gigante 1995; T. Dorandi, ‘La Villa dei Papiri a Ercolano e la sua biblioteca’, C P h 90 (1995), 168-82. 2 On the new excavations see A. De Simone et a l., ‘Ercolano 1992- 7. La Villa dei Papiri e lo scavo della città’, C E r c 28 (1998), 7-60. 3 See C. Basile, I P a p in c a r b o n iz z a ti d i E rc o la n o (Syracuse, 1994), 4 9 _ 5 2· The town was already almost buried in ash when volcanic mud (lahar) came down on top of it. The lava above this came centuries later. 4 E Longo Auricchio and M. Capasso, Ί rotoli della Villa ercolanese: dislocazione e ritrovamento’, C E r c 17 (1987), 37-47; Capasso 1991, 67-83.

4

Philodemus of Gadara

are now housed in the Officina dei Papiri in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples. Somewhere between 800 and 1,100 books were originally retrieved from the Villa. They are mainly Greek philosophical texts, almost entirely of the Epicurean school, although there are important works in Latin, in both prose and verse (these include Caecilius Statius, Ennius, and Lu­ cretius).1The author most often represented, sometimes by two copies of the same text, is Philodemus, the protégé of Cicero’s contemporary, the Roman magnate L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, father-in-law of Julius Caesar. It was soon deduced, rightly in my view, that the Villa was once Piso’s sea-side retreat, and that the books were originally his library,23or perhaps the collection of Philodemus himself, though the sole evidence linking Piso with the Villa is Philodemus’ dedication to him of On the Good King according to Homer.3 We should, I think, regard it as one of the great libraries of Republican grandees that dotted Campania at this time.4 Philodemus was born in about no b c at Gadara, now Umm Qays in Jordan. Cicero praised his learning, which was, he alleged, rare among Epicureans.5 He was even more remarkable for his poetry: the only other poet which the Garden produced was his contemporary Lucretius. He was a witty, polished, and salacious epigrammatist, famous enough for his work to reach Egypt and for selected poems to be included in the Garland of Philip. He wrote poetry for much of his life, as his verses mention both Athens and Naples, and include a poetic dinner-invitation addressed to Piso and references to Caesar and a palliolum.6* His origins may help to explain his high level of culture. Gadara had a strong tradition of Hellenic education, since it had produced two other distinguished writers, the Cynic philosopher Menippus and epigrammatist Meleager (who ignored him when compiling his Stephanos in c.70 b c ) , and was also to nurture the

1 K. Kleve, ‘Lucretius in Herculaneum’, C E rc 19 (1989), 5-27; id., ‘Ennius in Herculaneum’, C E r c 20 (1990), 5-16; id., ‘How to Read an Illegible Papyrus: Towards an Edition of P H e rc . 78, Caecilius Statius, Obolostates sine. F aenerator’, C E rc 26 (1996), 5-14. The unexpectedly cursive script of these early texts has led to an unjust scepticism about Kleve’s identifications. 2 So first W. Drummond and R. Walpole, H e r c u la n e n sia (London, i8to), pp. ix, xiii. 3 Col. 43,16.17. Piso died after 33 bc , as is proved by an inscription from Pola, Inscr. lia i. x. 1. 8t (Frischer 1991, 55-6, 115-25). See also Oberhelman and Armstrong 1995, 236. 4 Rawson 1985, 24-5, 40-2. On the role of philosophy at this period see also Griffin and Barnes i9 8 9 5 non p h ilo so p h ia so lu m se d etia m ceteris s tu d iis q u a e fe r e ceteros E p ic u re o s neglegere d ic u n t p e r p o litu s (In P is. 70). 6 A n th . P a l. n. 44; P. O x y . 3724 cois. 4,25 and 5,29. For a complete collection and edition, including the new incipits from Oxyrhynchus, see Sider 1997; cf. also Sider 1995, 42-57; M. Puelma, ‘Epi­ gramma: osservazioni sulla storia di un termine greco-latino’, A la i a , 49 (1997), 189-214.

and his aesthetic works

5

rhetoricians Theodorus and Apsines, the grammarian Philo, and the Cynic Oenomaus.1 Like Cicero and Atticus in 79 b c , Philodemus studied in Athens under another learned Syrian, Zeno of Sidon (born c. 160), head of the Garden until his death some time between 79/8 and 72, when he was succeeded by Phaedrus.2 It is commonly thought that, since Philodemus refers to Zeno in the present tense in Rhetoric 2,3 he had already begun to compose his philosophical treatises (many of which are based on Zeno’s lectures) before Zeno’s death; but in fact this is a ‘citative present’ and proves nothing.4We do not know the date or cause of the most important event in his life, his departure from Athens; the Mithridatic Wars in Greece of 8884 b c (especially Sulla’s sack of Athens in 86), or conceivably the Asiatic campaigns of 74-65, impelled many other Greek scholars and teachers, not to mention libraries, westward. Perhaps he left Athens after Phaedrus succeeded Zeno, and set off to spread Zeno’s reformist doctrines far and wide, since the Garden already had footholds in Rome and Campania.5 Likewise Philodemus’ much older contemporary6 Demetrius Laco, an­ other learned Epicurean reformist and admirer of Zeno, at the end of two of his works dedicates them to two Roman patrons— On Poems 2 to a (Claudius) Nero, and On the Gods to a Quintus, a praenomen not used by the Nerones.7 He may of course have met them in Greece. Perhaps Philodemus brought with him some or most of the older philosophical books, including those of Demetrius, which were found in the Villa, unless it was Piso or Demetrius himself who did so; but the evidence suggests that the latter taught in Miletus.8 Philodemus went to Italy via Sicily; for Aelian relates that he was expelled from Himera because his religious views were thought to have

1 On Philodemus’ life and circle see Dorandi 1990, 2328-32; Asmis 1990, 2369-73; Sider 1997, 4 21. Strabo 16. 2. 29 (C 759) confuses the birthplace of Philodemus, Meleager, Menippus, and Theodorus with Gazara near Ascalon (= T 6 Sider). 2 D.L. 10. 25-6. For his fragments see Angeli and Colaizzo 1979. 3 P. H ere. 1674 col. 53,7-14 Longo. 4 This is shown byj. Wisse, ‘The Presence of Zeno: The Date of Philodemus’ O n R h e to ric ', in R. Risselada et a l. (eds.), O n L a tin : L in g u is tic a n d L ite ra r y S tu d ie s in H o n o u r o f H a r m P in k ste r (Amsterdam, 1996), 173-202. On Philodemus’ relation to Zeno see D. N. Sedley in Griffin and Barnes 1989, 103-5; Asmis 1992e, 395-7; Gigante 1998, 49-54. 5 See Rawson 1985, 7-9, 23-4. 6 He follows Zeno in a list of leading Epicureans (D.L. 10. 25-6), and quotes him twice ( P H ere. 1012 cols. 44,2 and 50,6); yet, according to Cavallo 19631 the script of the copies of Demetrius treatises from Herculaneum is 2nd c. b c . Perhaps they should be redated to the early ist c. 7 Rawson 1985, 60. 8 On Demetrius see Puglia 1988, 37—48, with testimonia collected by M. Gigante at 13- 23; Romeo 1988, 26-32. On the older books see Cavallo 1983, 58-61.

Philodemus of Gadara caused an epidemic.1He was certainly established in Italy by 55 b c , when Cicero delivered his In Pisonenv, he enjoyed the patronage of Piso, who was his junior. The orator spares Philodemus from any real reproach. He says that Philodemus got to know Piso (consul in 58) when the latter was an adulescens (In Pis. 68). Perhaps he met him in Athens; otherwise he must have reached Italy no later than the 70s,2 and was certainly in Rome as well as Naples. He had connections with another Roman aristocrat with Epicurean leanings: he dedicated his Rhetoric 4 to C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus, the Caesarian consul who fell fighting Antony before Mutina in 43.3 He may also have known the rhetorician Artemidorus of Cnidus who tried to warn Caesar on the Ides of March.4 His friend, the philosopher Siro,5 ran at his house in Naples a college, where Vergil and Varus studied Epicureanism from the late 50s onwards;6 a papyrus confirms that Philo­ demus was a friend of Siro and spent time at Herculaneum,7 and in 45 Cicero paid him and Siro a generous tribute (Defin. 2. 119). This associa­ tion is confirmed by Philodemus’ dedication of at least three books of his On Vices and Virtues to Vergil and three other young Roman poets, P. Quinctilius Varus, L. Varius Rufus and Plotius Tucca,8 who were all friends of Horace also (Serm. 1. 5. 39-42, 10. 81). It is unclear, however, whether Horace knew Philodemus. It is possible that the philosopher died before Horace joined Vergil’s group, an event which must have antedated his introduction to Maecenas in 39 or 38 b c ; but the timing is close, and Horace may well have met him. He cites an epigram of Philodemus (Serm.

1 Aelian fr. 40 Hercher, from the S iid a (s.w.

ε υ κ ο φ α ν τ ε ΐ ν and τ ι μ ώ ν τ α ί ) '. A t X i a v ô c ό 8 ε ε ε υ κ ο φ ά ν τ ε ι 8 η τ ο ύ τ ω ν ν ό ε ο ι κ α ι τ ρ ο φ ώ ν ά π ο ρ ί α ι τ η ν Ί μ ε ρ α ί ω ν κ α τ ε ε χ ο ν . . . of ye μ η ν Ί μ ε ρ α ΐ ο ι τ ο ν Φ ιλ ό Β η μ ο ν τ ι μ ώ ν τ α ι π ρ ο ε τ η 8 η μ ε ύ ε ε ι κ α ι φ υ γ η ε { ζ η μ ί α } (deleted by Holford-Strevens τ ο ν θ ε ό ν ο Χ ιγ ω ρ ί α ε - έ κ

as a gloss, in Sider 1997, 231, = T 8 Sider). 2 So Philippson 1938, 2444-5. Cichorius 1922, 295, thought he came to Rome in 55 b c . 3 P H ere. 1007 col. 42a,4-5, now read as ώ Γ ά ι ε Π α ν c a by T. Dorandi, ‘Gaio bambino’, % P E n i Οθθ6), 4 I-2>who suspects that the work was dedicated to him while he stayed at Puteoli in 44 b c . Philippson’s restoration (1938, 2457) of ] v i c as Κ α λ π ο ύ ρ \ ν ι ε at D e p o e m . 5 col. 3,19 is doubtful (see Mangoni 1993 ad loc.), but possible; Jensen (1923, 126 n. 1) had already posited a proper name, and Horace’s A r s p o e tic a also seems to have been dedicated to L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus in his old age (Frischer 1991, 52-9). However, Sbordone is wrong to claim that Philodemus addressed D e p o e m . 4 to a Gnaeus (19696, 345): P. H ere. 207 fr. 8a,14 reads not > Γ ν α ΐ ε [ or ]ΝΓΝΔΙΕ[ but ] ο ι ν υ ν 8 ι ε ε τ [ (legit Mangoni). 4 Plut. Caes. 65; cf. A n th . P a l. n. 35, where Philodemus names an Artemidorus. The identification was proposed by Cichorius 1922, 297. 5 He mentions Siro in P. H ere. 312; cf. Cic. D e f i n . 2. 119. 6 C a ta lep to n 5 and 8 (both surely genuine); cf. Servius on Verg. E e l. 6. 13 and Donatus auctus, V ita Verg. 79 Diehl (“audivit a Sirone praecepta Epicuri’). 7 P H ere. 312 fr. I col. iv, in Crönert 1906, 126. 8 P H ere. P a n s . 2 frr. 278b and 279a, cf. P H ere. 253 fr. 12, P. H ere. 1082 col. 11 and Probus, V it. Verg. 10-12: see M. Gigante and M. Capasso, ‘Il ritorno di Virgilio a Ercolano’, S I F C 7 (1989), 3-6.

and his aesthetic works

7

2. 121),1 and surely knew his prose-works too. Philodemus’ reference at On Signs 3 col. 2,18 to pygmies brought from Syria by Antony dates this work to 40 or later.2 He must have died in the early 30s b c . Philodemus’ interests were broad, his pen prolific; his prose-works are perhaps in part his lectures. We know of at least thirty-five treatises, some in many volumes; individual books within some of them had subtitles. The end-titles survive for forty-one books, but he wrote many more.3 However, his works are cited only thrice in later authors.4 He wrote on the history of philosophy, theology, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics, but neglected physics.5 On the history of ideas, he composed a monumental Classification of Philosophers in at least ten books, On the Stoics, Epicurean Memoirs, On Epicurus (at least two books), and a polemic against a rival branch of the school. Concerning theology he wrote On Piety in one long book, unless this is by Phaedrus,6 a work on providence, and On the Gods in three books. His On Phenomena and Inferences, based on Zeno’s lectures on scientific method as recorded by Bromius and Demetrius Laco, filled at least three books;7he composed another three Against Demonstration (?) From Zeno’s Lectures. His On Death was in four. He composed at least three major works on ethics, On Vices and the Opposing Virtues (in ten books), On Choices and Avoidance, and Epitome of Characters and Livesfrom feno’s Lectures (at least eight books),8 and perhaps too a multi-volume On Emotions. His essay On the Good King according to Homer, dedicated to Piso, may covertly try to derive I.

1 The tense of u t P h ilo d e m u s a it does not show whether he was still alive, as it may be a ‘citative’ present (see above, p. 5 n. 4). 2 If β ξ Ύ p t a c referred to Italian Hyria, it would date to 54; but this is surely to be corrected to i x C v p la c , where Antony was in 40. Η. M. Last is right that he could not have referred to him as simply Ά ν τ ώ ι ho c before 50 (‘The Date of Philodemos D e S ig n is ’, C Q 16 (1922), 177-80); so Asmis 1990, 2372 n. 13 (contrast Sider 1997, 11). The name is a f.l. at D e d is i col. 25,22-37: see Dorandi 1982, 27-8. Cavallo’s attempt (1983) to date the composition of his various works from the handwriting of our copies cannot command acceptance: see Parsons 1989. 3 C atalogo (1979), 45-8; Delattre 1997, 107-15. For comparison, Epicurus wrote c.300 rolls (D.L. to. 26). 4 D.L. 10. 3 cites Book 10 of the C v v r a f c τ ω ν φ ι λ ο ΐ ό φ ω ν , cf. io. 24. Also Ambrose, E p is t. extra coli. 14. 13 (= 63 Maur.), pp. 241-2 Zelzer, cites ‘Filodemus (edd. M a u r .: Filominus vel sim . codd.) eius (sc. Epicuri) sectator in Epitomis suis’ on doctrines of Epicurus (fr. 385a); Ambrose also refers to Epicurus and Hermarchus (ibid. 14. 17-19). See Obbink 1996, 78-80. Cf. too Ps.-Acro on Hor. S erm . I. 2. 121. 5 On his oeuvre in fields other than aesthetics cf. Dorandi 1990, 2334-8, 2344-61 ; Asmis 1990, 2373-99; Gigante 1995, 20-4, 115-21; for bibliography see Obbink 1995, 278-81. 6 See Obbink 1996, 96. 7 The extant D e s ig n is is Book 3 (D. Delattre, Έη relisant les su b sc rip tio n es des P H erc. 1065 et 1427’, Z P E 109 (1995), 39-41)· 8 See Delattre 1996, 146 (I assume that O n E x tr a v a g a n t a n d F ru g a l L ife sty le s and O n W ealth a n d P overty belong to this work).

Philodemus of Gadara from Homer’s portrayal of monarchy ideological support for the Caesar­ ian party. Thus, in the above fields, he left at least forty-nine books. He wrote a further twenty or so on aesthetics, namely his trilogy On Music (in four), On Poems (in five), and On Rhetoric (in at least eight), together with two lost works, both apparently in more than one book, On Diction and On Beauty,’ and a work probably entitled On Sensation.12 ‘Trilogy’ is a misnomer, since it was not conceived as such. But Philodemus composed these works with an important end in view, as has recently become clear.345 In them he deals with the use of language, whether as prose (in his Rhetoric), set to music (in On Music), or in verse (in On Poems, which might better be rendered On Versé).41Any serious content in verse or artistic prose (a concept which he defended against other Epicureans) is the province of the philosopher rather than the poet. Hence he attacked all who thought that language could offer any utility or enlightenment other than by virtue of the philosophical ideas which it contains. This included claims by Academics, Peripatetics, and Stoics that the purpose of poetry or artistic rhetoric was utility, moral edification, or education, that the sheer sound of the words, whether in poetry or set to music, could enlighten the hearers directly through the ear without the intellectual comprehension of the content, that the meaning lurks in the sounds themselves, linked to reality by nature rather than by convention, or that the sense can only be grasped by allegorical interpretation rather than because it is self-evident. What makes a poem good is not the sound, but the combination of words and sense. Although the sound appeals to the ear, the most impor­ tant pleasure we obtain from poetry is in the mind, and such is therefore the function of verse. Again, any value music has, apart from our pleasure in its sheer sound, comes from the poetry which is performed with it, and that effect is less than if the thought were put into prose. This is the ground on which, in On Music 4, Philodemus attacks the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon, the fifth scholarch, who took part with Carneades in the embassy to Rome of 155 b c but died before 150, aged 8 8 . 5 Diogenes had argued that music itself, as an irrational art, can affect the rational soul and have an effect on character; in the lost On Music 3 Philodemus criticized Hera1 These are cited at, respectively, R h e t. 4 (P. H ere. 1423) col. 13,11-12 (for a discussion of ά ΐ ά φ α α ) and O n F la tte r y ( P H ere. 1457) fr. 23,35 and co1· 3>2o; but O n B e a u ty might be an ethical work. 2 Ed. Monet 1996. 3 Greenberg 1955 was the first to understand Philodemus’ views. For succinct surveys see Rawson i9 85 >28o - i ; Dorandi 1990, 2338-44; Asmis 1990, 2400-6; 1991a; 19916, 1-27; 1995b; Porter 1995a; Blank 1998, 299-301. 4 I have retained the traditional title, but π ό η μ α often meant ‘verse’: see C. O. Brink, H o r a c e on P oetry: P roleg o m en a to the L ite ra r y E p is tle s (Cambridge, 1963), 62-7, esp. 62 n. 5. 5 Cic. C a to 23, Luc. M a c ro b . 20.

and his aesthetic works

9 elides of Pontus on the same grounds.1 Epicurus has been generally thought to have rejected poetry outright, demanding that philosophy take over from it the task of education; but, as several scholars have recently shown, he and other founders of the Garden held that poetry did have some value as a means to pleasure, so long as it was not used in education and did not lead one astray from true belief.2 Poetry was one of the ‘unnecessary’ pleasures, something which one could enjoy so long as it did not become toilsome. This is confirmed by my recognition that, in Philo­ demus’ On Poems i and 5, Grates attacked an early Epicurean discussion of poetry (below, §5b). Philodemus, being a poet as well as an Epicurean, developed this view; Zeno and Demetrius Laco had already written to similar effect,3 as well as practised textual and philological criticism on the prose of Epicurus, comparing other texts, even in verse.4 In fact both Demetrius and Philodemus may well be heavily dependent on Zeno’s ideas about aesthetics,5 as shared material from Andromenides confirms (below, §§5a, 5e F8, F9, F30). Philodemus summarizes some of Zeno’s lectures in part of On Poems 5, as he tells us.6 It was left to Lucretius to take the further step of composing a poem which taught the true philosophy of Epicureanism.7 The Roman poet, whose work has now appeared among the texts in Piso’s library, may have known the kind of criticisms levelled by both Demetrius (in On Poems 1) and Philodemus against the claim that euphonic sound (lepidus sonor, i.e. ζύφωνία) tickling the ear (tangere auris, i.e. γαργαλίζζίν) makes verses true, as well as a critique of allegory like those 1 See below, p. 134 n. 5. For Philodemus’ views see G. M. Rispoli, ‘Elementi di fisica e di etica epicurea nella teoria musicale di Filodemo di Gadara’, in H a r m o n ia m u n d i (1991), 69-103. 2 See Asmis 1995a; Obbink in Obbink 1995, 189-94; Sider 1995; Wigodsky 1995. Gale 1994, 1416, holds that his attitude was more negative (she discusses Philodemus at 16-18). The problematic frr. of Epicurus are: (i) ‘it is only the wise who can converse properly of music and poetry . . . and the sage would not compose poems as an activity’ (frr. 568-9), any more than he will compose artistic prose ( π α ν η γ ύ ρ ι ζ α ν , D.L. 10. 120); (ii) the injunction ‘steer clear of every form of conventional education’ (fr. 163, cf. fr. 117), an allusion to Odysseus’ escape from the Sirens’ song (Asmis 1995«, *8, cf. Blank 1998, 111). Against this can be set his likely citation of Homer’s praise of poetry’ as a source of pleasure (O d . 9. 5-11, with Asmis 1995«, 16-17), and his claim that the sage is ‘a lover of spectacle and enjoys hearing and seeing Dionysiae performances no less than others’, although ‘he will not find room even at parties for the musical and literary problems of critics’ (frr. 5, 20). 3 Zeno is almost certainly the main Epicurean source used by Sextus Empiricus in his attack on the grammarians (Crönert igo6, ng, followed by Asmis 1991a and Blank 1998, pp. xliv—1). 4 On Epicurean philology see Puglia 1988, 49-88, esp. 55 -87. 5 Gf. Sedley in Griffin and Barnes 1989, 103.-5. 6 Cols. 29,33-39,13, with Asmis 1992c; he names Zeno at 29,19 (rac π α ρ ά Ζ ή ν ω ν ι δ ό ξ α ή . 7 See Wigodsky 1995. T. Albucius may already have composed such a poem in the late 2nd c. bc (so E. Klebs [misprinted Krebs], ‘Albucius (2)’, R E i (1892), 1330-1), or at least combined Epicurean­ ism and poetry, since Cicero calls him an Epicurean (B r u tu s 131) and Fronto a poet ( B e eloqu. 1. 2, p. 133,12 van den Hout’). Did he study with Zeno during his exile in Athens?

IO

Philodemus of Gadara

in Philodemus’ On Poems 2 and 5.12G. Milanese suggested that Lucretius echoes such criticisms at De rerum natura 1. 641— omnia enim stolidi magis adm irantur amantque inversis quae sub verbis latitantia cernunt, veraque constituunt quae belle tangere possunt auris et lepido quae sunt fucata sonore.

However, if David Sedley is right that Lucretius’ only source was Epicu­ rus’ On Nature, the poet would have derived his phrasing from the critique of Heraclitus in Book 14.3 We do not know what Philodemus made of Lucretius’ great poem, but he must have known of it. A full assessment of the effect of his own teaching on his Roman pupils, who included the critics Quinctilius Varus and Plotius Tucca and the poets L. Varius Rufus and Vergil, if not also Horace, must be sought elsewhere. Here suffice it to say that his emphasis on the importance of content, albeit content presented in fine sound, probably encouraged them in the production of polished poetry on grand topics, something which earlier Greek theorists’ focus on beautiful sound as an end in itself had discouraged. Perhaps Lucretius was himself the first to draw this conclusion; but Philodemus probably had a major influence on the poetry of Late Republican and Augustan Rome. He certainly influenced the revival of a Unitarian and distinctly Aristotelian aesthetic, not unlike Philodemus’ own, in Horace’s Ars poetica, which is fittingly addressed to the Pisones. Like Lucretius, Horace condemns mere ‘versus inopes rerum nugaeque canorae’ (AP 322). He insists on a blend of ingenium and ars, content and form, subject and style, which is typical of Philodemus, as On Poems reveals ;4 his analysis of diction or poema (AP 46— 152) shows frequent points of contact with the theories presented in Books 1-2, and not merely with those of Neoptolemus of Parium in On Poems 5, and there should be no doubt that Horace had read and absorbed the On Poems. Thus Book 1 is of fundamental importance for the revelations it offers about these Hellenistic critical theories against which Philodemus and his Roman followers reacted. 1 See respectively R H ere. 1676 fr. 2 + JV1081 b fr. 12 (cf. Gale 1994, 32-3) ; R H ere. 403 fr. 7 col. i (on allegorical interpretations of Diomedes’ attacks on Aphrodite and Ares in Horn. II. 5). 2 L u c id a c a r m in a : c o m u n ic a z io n e e sc rittu ra d a E p ic u ro a L u c re zio (Milan, 1989), 127- 48 (he suspects a common source in Zeno). So also D. Clay in Obbink 1995, 12. :1 L u c re tiu s a n d th e T ra n s fo rm a tio n o f G reek W is d o m (Cambridge, 1998), 66, 136, 190. 4 See Freudenburg 1993, especially 139-45; Armstrong 1995; Oberhelman and Armstrong 1995.

2

De poematis i : The History of the Text

Nichts hat m ir im Laufe meiner langjährigen Beschäftigung mit den herculanischen Rollen m ehr Kopfbrechens b ereitet. . . als das immer und immer wieder erneute Bemühen, die Beziehungen zu entwirren, welche die verschiedenen auf das Gebiet der Poetik bezüglichen Stücke mit einander verknüpfen. Theodor Gomperz, 1880

(a) The Papyrus-Rolls of De poematis As my epigraph makes clear, an editor who would put in order Philode­ mus’ De poematis (which henceforth I shall call by its Latin name) faces a bewildering variety of problems. First, only recently, since Cavallo’s study of the Greek hands in the library from Herculaneum, have we been able reliably to identify the scribes of the various papyri. Among the over 1,800 items in the collection, 24 have at one time or another been assigned to this work; 19 are currently attributed to it. These are in six different hands. My classification by group and scribal hand (Table 2.1) follows the work of Hausrath and Crönert (below, §2e), now refined by Cavallo 1983. It also shows the work’s current title and the name of its last editor, the number of lines per column, approximately how many columns are preserved, whether the text is a summary or a rebuttal, and any marginal stichometric signs. Since two of these six hands are accounted for by De poem. 5, of which there are two copies by different scribes, and a third is represented by a roll containing Book 4, the residue of 11 inventoried

De poematis i: the history of the text

12 T a b le

P. Here.a

2.1. The papyri of Philodemus’ De poematis Editor

Group, H and

Lines/col. (cols.)

Comments

Book i [or Book 2?] (total cols. represented:■c.160; scribal group ß Crönert) 466+

Treatise E, Nardelli 1983

G

14+ (tops, 15)

summary on syn­ thesis; marginal Δ

444

Sbordone i960

13

14+ (bots., 17)

summary on syn­ thesis

460 +

Treatise B, Sbordone 1976

!3

25-8 (35)

summary on eu­ phony; accents; marginal Θ, M

1073+

Treatise B, Sbordone 1976

i, 13

25-6 (c.19)

summary on eu­ phony; accents

1074a, +

Treatise D, Nardelli 1983

!» !3

26-8 (c.20)

start of rebuttal on synthesis

io8ia+

Treatise D, Nardelli 1983

!» !3

c.24 (e.20)

rebuttal on synthesis

1074a,

Treatise D, Nardelli 1983

!3

23-4 (13)

rebuttal on syn­ thesis; end of roll?

Book 2 [or Book 3?] (total cols. represented: c .120; = group γ Crönert) 26-8 (9)

rebuttal on synthesis

i677a+

Romeo 1992a

E, 8*

26-8 (14)

rebuttal on synthesis

io8ib+

Treatise C, Sbordone 1976

E, 8

26-8 (21)

rebuttal on synthesis

1676

Treatise C, Sbordone 1976

E, 8

26-9 (25)

rebuttal on synthesis

994

Treatise A, Sbordone 1976

E, 8

26-8 (72)

rebuttal on eu­ phony; refers to Book i ; f end of roll, title lost

+

E, 8

r~'O

Treatise C, Sbordone 1976

Book 3 [or Book 1?] (total cols. represented: 50 + ?) CO 0

D orandi 1993^

G, 10

17+ (tops, 15?)

on Homer, Euripi­ des, Theodectes

1403

Spina 1988

G, 10

3° + ? ( 35?)

on Choerilus, Euri­ pides

? n i3 a

unpublished

unidentified; 13+ (tops, 4) cf. B, E

on synthesis; or by Demetrius Laco?

The papyrus-rolls of De poematis P. Here.

Editor

Group, H and

Lines/col. (cois.)

Book 4. (total cols, represented: c .35- 46 ?; = group a Cmnert) 207 Janko 1991a 24+ (c.35?) α 28

*3

Comments

rebuttal of Aristotle ; end of Book 4, with title

Book y exemplar /, in one roll (total cols, represented: max. 67; = group a Cmnert) 1581 Nardelli 1978 15+ (tops, 11) on catharsis; N , 19 marginal Γ Sbordone 1971 18+ (tops, 10) summary of Stoic 403 N , 19 critic; marginal Y 407 M angoni 1992 N, 19 14+ (tops, 4) summary of Stoic critic 228 M angoni 1989 ?N, ?ig 22+ (bots., 12') summary of Crates (1disegni only) M angoni 1993 N, 19 rebuttal of Stoic 1425 34-6 (39) critic, Crates etc. ; end of Book 5, with tide Book y exemplar 2, in two rolls (total cols. represented: 14) M angoni 1993 M 1538 c-30 (14)

second of two rolls; end of Book 5, with title

0 A plus-sign after a papyrus-number indicates that one or more joins have been found with the next item. 4 Frr. 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13b; the rest are in other hands. f At col. 31,4-10 (see below, §5a).

papyri must be distributed between three or more book-rolls.1Why does more than one item belong to each roll? How did the books from Hercula­ neum come to be dismembered? And what can we learn from this about how to put them back together? 1

Several other papyri have been doubtfully assigned to D e p o m . \ (a) P. H ere. 230, two Oxford assigned by Scott 1885, 49, but perhaps by Demetrius Laco, for the Naples d ise g n i represent his R h e to ric (Eubulides is mentioned). (b) P. H ere. 1275, assigned by Comparetti in Comparetti and De Petra 1883, 87; written, like P H ere. 207, in Hand 28 of Group Q_, this is a m id o llo of a work by Philodemus (his name appears in the su b sc rip tio , but the title is lost except Π ε ρ ί ) , containing 37 columns with at least 22 lines per column. The text often cites Homer, but there is no evidence that it belongs to D e p o e m , rather than to e.g. an ethical work like D e bono rege (cf. Dorandi 1992, 34). [c] P. H ere. 1736, another m id o llo also in a hand of Group Q_(but not that of P. H ere. 207), was edited by E. Dürr (‘I resti del P H erc. 1736 [Filodemo, P o e tic a ? ]’, C E rc 22 (1992), 139-56); of its exiguous pieces the sole legible one (fr. 93) mentions the recognition-scene in Euripides’ E le c tra , but this is poor evidence for assigning it to D e p o e m . (d ) P H ere. 128 and 188 are by Demetrius Laco (Dorandi 1992, 30). (e) On P H ere. 1113a = 1818 see below, p. 16 n. 2. ( f ) On P H ere. 463 see p. 33 n. 7. d ise g n i

ι4

De poematis i: the history of the text

The second problem in reconstructing De poematis is that only portions of the original papyri survive; the rest have perished, and are known to us through drawings made when the papyrus-rolls were opened, and from contemporary transcripts which have only now been rediscovered. In much of the roll which will be our concern, the originals have perished. Where they still exist, some were never drawn or transcribed. Happily, at least one piece of each papyrus has survived, from which its handwriting can be verified; and this, together with the numbers written on the drawings when they were made, supplies an Ariadne’s thread to lead us through the labyrinth. The third problem is that the correct order of the pieces, both within single sets of fragments and between them, has until now been deter­ mined, if at all, only in very rare cases, and then mostly by luck. Most of the 0200 pieces of De poem. 1 have been published before; however, as they were completely jumbled, little sense has emerged from the work, and no idea of its structure. The difficulty has been compounded by abysmal standards of editing, and the widespread—but erroneous—assumption that Philodemus wrote an uncouth, irregular, and convoluted type of Greek. Hence editors have posited impossible supplements, paying even less attention to the traces or the spacing on the drawings than they might otherwise have done. Even when the text is restored, only some 45 per cent of De poem. 1 survives. The fourth problem is that these fragments all needed to be properly edited before any could be edited at all. Early editors were misled by reproductions of the drawings that had been altered and were published in an almost totally random sequence. The arduous task of reading the extant fragments has deterred scholars from working on them: both the letters and the background are dark, and can only be read when the papyrus is tilted so that the surface iridesces while the ink shows up as dull. Moreover, the theories discussed in De poematis, and Philodemus’ polemical strategies, are both so complex that a large body of well-edited material was needed for us to be able to see what represents his own position and what derives from others, and from which others. So extraordinary is this work among all that survives from antiquity that there is nothing like it except other Herculaneum papyri. Until enough of De poematis had been properly edited, reconstruction and interpretation were likely to go astray. Only with the editions of Book 5 by Jensen in 1923 and of P. Here. 994 by Sbordone in 1976 were the essentials supplied for reconstructing De poem. I, and in particular for establishing the order of its fragments and identify­ ing Philodemus’ sources and opponents. The task was so hard that four previous attempts at it were never published. This edition uses for the first

The papyrus-rolls of De poematis

15

time two of these, as well as the long-lost sets of contemporary transcripts; but the important work of Kentenich and Jensen has vanished. The story I shall tell is a dramatic one, with more than its fair share of heroes and villains, catastrophes and rediscoveries.

(b) H o w the PapyH were Opened and Recorded

The opening of De poem. 1 is documented much more fully than has been recognized. Reconstruction of the procedure employed is invaluable in understanding how to put the roll back together. In the account below, terms are used as follows. The largest unit is the papyrus-roll (‘roll’ for convenience). A roll may, and usually does, consist of several ‘papyri’. A ‘papyrus’ denotes a portion of a roll given a distinct number, e.g. R Here. 460; only one item was allocated to each number. These numbers, which were assigned by Antonio Piaggio under the direction of F. La Vega in 1782,1 have always been used to refer both to a given set of drawings (1disegni) and to the original papyrus-fragments (if these survive) from which the drawings were made. Moreover, a ‘fragment’ has referred to a piece of extant papyrus (or a drawing of such a piece) which is not physically connected with a preceding or subsequent column of writing, whether extant or destroyed during the process of opening the roll.2 However, this system is ambiguous. Since the text of De poem. 1 derives from several different sources, and each may depict parts of different columns from the same layer or from several layers, I refer to them as follows. Fragments in the drawings and main transcripts receive arabic numerals ; extant pieces of papyrus and the marginalia of the transcripts are given roman numer­ als. Each fragment has a prefix indicating its nature, followed by its papyrus-number, e.g. 460, as follows: Extant fragment of papyrus Neapolitan disegno Transcript by interprete Marginale in transcript Drawing in transcript

R Here. 460 fr. I jV460 fr. 29 G (or C or 7 or P) 460 fr. 1 J ' 460 fr. II K 460 fr. Ill

Thus ‘i?Here. 460 fr. I’ means ‘extant fragment I of the 460 series’ (see PI. 1), 1 D. Blank and F. Longo Auricchio, An Inventory of the Herculaneum Papyri from Piaggio’s Time’, C E r c 30 (2000), to appear. These numbers are distinct from what the C atalogo ( 1979) calls ‘inventory-numbers’, e.g. I n v . 107588/147, which were those assigned when the papyri were trans­ ferred to the library from the museum. 2 During the opening, the pieces (or drawings of pieces) were designated either column or ‘fragment’ according to the apparent completeness of the text, but such designations have no objective value, and were sometimes changed.

ι6

De poematis i: the history of the text

whereas W460 fr. 29’ refers to the Neapolitan disegno of the same piece, while^460 fr. 29 denotes the transcript of it (the numbers of the disegni and transcripts are always identical). When a fragment or disegno contains parts of two columns from the same layer, these are given as ‘col. i’ or ‘col. ii’. But often a fragment of one layer has become stuck to a layer inside or outside it; this is traditionally called a sovrapposto or sottoposto respectively. When a fragment (or disegno) consists of (or depicts) more than one layer, these are denoted by a letter suffixed to the fragment-number, starting with ‘a’ for the outermost layer, which comes hrst in the text. Thus ‘P Here. 460 fr. Ia’ denotes the lowest layer of writing visible in the extant fragment I; the second layer is termed ‘P Here. 460 fr. Ib cols, i—ii’ (since parts of two columns happen to be present there), but also W460 fr. 29’ (since col. i of this layer was drawn by the disegnatore). Lastly, in both jVio74 and J\f 1081 two different hands are recognizable, deriving from two rolls. The frag­ ments in each script are distinguished by an alphabetical suffix added to the papyrus-number. Those in the hrst hand, Hand 13 in Cavallo’s classifi­ cation, are called 1074a and 1081a, and the roll of De poem. 1 from which they come is designated ‘Roll A’ (also comprising P. Here. 444, 460, 466 and 1073). Those in the second hand, Cavallo’s Hand 8, are called 1074b and 1081b, and the roll to which they belong, that of De poem. 2, is called ‘Roll B’;1it also comprises P. Here. 994, 1676, and 1677a.2 Hence we may end up with references as complex as P Here. 1074a fr. VIb col. ii. However, column- and line-numbers in this edition are cited simply as ‘83 12’. The Herculaneum papyri were opened by three methods: scorzatura, svolgimento, and sollevamento.3 These were used singly or in combination. In many cases, the rolls were opened by knife-cuts down the longitudinal axis on either side. Camillo Paderni, the Roman painter who was hrst to open 1 On the reconstruction of the roll see Romeo 19920 and 1992b, esp. 163-4. 2 It does not include R H ere. 1113a = 1818, which will be published in Vol. I/3. This papyrus comprises the Oxford disegno VI 1574 (= jV fr. 1), drawn in 1806 by G. B. Malesci, which was misnumbered 1106, and JVfrr. 1-4 of P. H ere. 1113, drawn in 1827 by G. B. and Francesco Casanova, together with the extant u ltim o fo g lio (= jVfr. 4). Malesci evidently drew the top layer of a stack of fragments whose surface was then visible. Gomperz (in a note in his copy of / / F aX I 3), V De Falco ( L 'E p in ir e o D em etrio L a co n e, Naples 1923, 82), and Sbordone (1983, 29) assigned it to the scribe who wrote both rolls ( R H ere. 188 and 1014) of Demetrius Laco’s D e p o e m . (= Group B Hand 2 in Cavallo 1983, cf. his Tav. 7). De Falco cited as his grounds the palaeography of the extant piece. Crönert (1906, 107 with n. 506a) and Romeo (1988, 78-80) deny that the hand is that of Demetrius’ D e p o e m ., because the orthography differs: P. H e n . 1818 uses 1 for Γ, and also once writes 1 for et, whereas the MSS of Demetrius, P. H ere. 188 and 1014, consistently use et for Ï. However, Romeo indicates that she did not see the surviving piece. In fact the writing is extremely large and cannot be that of either Hand 2 or Roll B (cf. Dorandi 1992, 33). 3 See D. L. Blank, ‘Reflections on Re-Reading Piaggio and the Early History of the Herculaneum Papyri’, C E rc 29 (1999), 55- 82. Cf. also Angeli 1995.

How the papyri were opened and recorded

17

the rolls,1 at first made the cuts right down through the centre of the roll, in order to scoop out the middle; this procedure, which he called scorzatura or scarnire2 but which we now call scorzatura totale, destroyed the middles of the rolls, leaving only their concave outsides. Antonio Piaggio (1713-96), the Genoese friar who was to play so large a part in conserving the papyri,3 criticized this method.4 Other papyri were opened by making much shallower vertical cuts, not reaching the cylindrical centre of the roll, which might survive intact. From its position inside the concave external pieces, resembling the concave surfaces of a femur sawn open along its long axis, such a cylinder was called the midollo or ‘marrow’. The outsides were peeled off, resulting in two hemicylinders (or four smaller ones, if they were also cut transversely) with writing visible on the interior, concave surfaces. A stack of fragments derived from this procedure was called from its shape a scorza, ‘cortex’ or ‘bark’,5 or barchetta, ‘little boat’.6 At first the term scorza was used of any such stack, but this is later used to describe only a piece where an entire column is preserved.7Since the scorze were sometimes broken transversely as well,8 perhaps because they were deliberately cut in half if their layers proved difficult to separate, the upper or lower half of a stack broken in the middle, whose other half may receive a different inventory-number, is called ‘metà di scorza’ or ‘scorzetta’ (often with the pleonastic remark ‘rotta nel mezzo’), or even, if broken into three, a ‘terzo di scorza’. Such stacks were opened by the method now called scorzatura or sfogliamento, in which successive layers of the stack were drawn and then picked or scraped off to reveal the layer below, which was then drawn and 1 See M. G. Mansi, ‘Per un profilo di Camillo Paderni’, in Capasso 1997, 79-108, esp. 100-3. 2 ‘“Scarnire” il custode [sc. Paderni] intende dire vuotare il cilindro spaccato per lungo e per mezzo, levandone il di dentro, per ritrovare il piano delle fasce più eminenti e spaziose; perché non si puô cavare niente di quello ehe resta nel centro e tanto m e n o più si va restringendo il volume’ (A. Piaggio, M e m o r ie , MS XXXI.C.21 of the Biblioteca della Società Napoletana di Storia Patria, cited by Bassi 1907, 687). 3 See now the articles of A. Travaglione, M. Capasso, and M. D’Alessandro in Capasso 1997,5

I5“76· 4 ‘Dato di mano il coltello, . . . gli aveva tagliati da cima a fondo per mezzo; . . . quindi radendo nel loro centro le due parti divise con girare il coltello, finché trovasse un piano, ne aveva tolto tutto il di dentro per arrivare alia maggior circonferenza, per quindi trovare un foglio più ampio e meno interrotto dagli altri, e cosi aveva mandato in polvere tutto il resto di tanti e tanti volumi’ (M em o rie, cited by Bassi 1907, 671-2). 5 De Jorio defines the sc o rza as follows: ‘si è dato questo nome a quelle porzioni di papiro il quale, tagliato per lungo nella sua altezza in due parti uguali, e fino ad un tal numero di pagine, lasciô intatta la porzione più interna del rotolo, che oggi chiamasi “midollo” (1825, 41' 2)· He desciibes an ideal case: not all s c o r ie are accompanied by m id o lli, as we shall see. 6 So Piaggio ap. Bassi 1907, 687. 7 See De Jorio 1825, 35-6. 8 Romeo 1994, 113, thinks Roll B (JVio8ib) was cut similarly. The forms of papyri 444, 466, and 1073 support the hypothesis that they too were cut transversely (see below, §3a-b).

ι8

De poematis i: the history of the text

destroyed likewise; the process continued until no further layers could be separated.1 If a layer contained parts of two columns, the draughtsmen usually ignored any edges judged to have too few letters to be worth drawing: this is unfortunate, since it makes reconstruction much harder. If enough survived to make both columns seem worth recording, then either a single drawing would be made, or two separate drawings, which often fail to indicate that the two columns were from the same layer. In some such cases the correct sequence can be established by studying the shape of the fragments as drawn.2 Scorzatura was the method used for all the papyri which make up our roll, part of P. Here. 1074a excepted. In the process of scorzatura only the lowest, outermost fragment gener­ ally survived, with a thin, translucent animal membrane, pelle battiloro or gold-beater’s skin (normally used for applying gold leaf), holding the back of it together. This outermost fragment was termed rultimofoglio, ‘the last leaf’.3 Being the outermost, it is in fact the first leaf in the order of the original text, a realization essential for reconstructing entire rolls, as is attempted here. To achieve this, pieces from the opposing scorze must be rearranged in alternating backwards order, a fact only recently under­ stood and applied.4 When scorzatura was not total, the interior midollo, provided it was still intact, could often be unwound continuously with the machine invented by Piaggio for the purpose, and thereby be preserved. This method, the 1 This is described by G. Minervini, H V 1 ! 4 (written in 1862): ‘Herculanensium effosionum initio, quum papyros evolvendi methodus nondum a Piaggio esset inventa, ea volumina ferro secari solebant: inde dimidiatae (ut ita dicam) pagellae summa diligentia delineabantur, atque superiores σ ε λ ί δ ε ς destruebantur ut in inferioribus litterae possent apparere. Hinc factum est ut columnarum vel fragmentorum ά π ό γ ρ α φ α servarentur, columnae ipsae, una tantum pagella vel solo titu lo excepto, perirent.’ The words which I have italicized are erroneous: titles are known in the m i d o l l i only, except for the initial titles in P. H ere. 253, 1008, and 1457 (Philodemus, D e vitiis) and that of D e m u s . 4 (D. Blank, M. Capasso, and D. Delattre, pers. comm.). We know of no case where the papyrus had not been rerolled, with its end-title in the middle of the roll (Obbink 1996, 37 n. 6). For a contemporary account of the procedure see De Jorio 1825, 4 r~~7 >with his Tav. IB . 2 Cf. Obbink 1996, 49. 3 Once every stack of fragments had been reduced to its outermost leaf, this term was replaced by sc o rza , a misnomer in this latter sense, which should be avoided. 4 The first to understand and apply this principle was A. Schober in his Königsberg dissertation of 1923, which was not published till 1988 (‘Philodemi Π ε ρ ί ε ύ ε ε β ε ί α ε libelli pars prior’, C E r c 18 (1988), 67-125). His breakthrough was repeated independently by D. Obbink, ‘Philodemus: De Pietate 1’, diss. Stanford 1986, 24-43, and by Delattre 1989, 49-143. Cf. Romeo 1992a, 174 n. 6. Earlier scholars anticipated various aspects of this method. In editing D e p ie t., Quaranta recognized the need to alternate different series of sco rze (Obbink 1996, 28 n. 2). Scott understood that opposing scorze with different numbers could be combined to form a single papyrus (‘the true order of the columns is lost, and the nearest attainable approach to it might be made by reading the pages of the two numbers alternately’, 1885, 69), but he did not simultaneously state that ‘the last page’ had to be the first (cf. 1885, 1 n. 1). Gomperz and Hausrath (see §2e) joined pieces of D e p o e m , from different series. But Sbordone denied that successive strata were numbered in order of their removal (1983, 199-200, written in i960).

How the papyri were opened and recorded

19

second of those mentioned above, is properly called svolgimento, ‘unrolling’. Once the edge of the outermost layer was found, gold-beater’s skin was glued to the back of the papyrus; strings were then attached to it, and it was then gently unrolled under its own weight, with infinite skill, patience, varying amounts of glue, and use of the point of a needle.1 Segments of a certain length were periodically cut off as the roll unwound; these were mounted on stout paper (cartoncino), which was then pinned or glued to a sheet of wood or cardboard (tavoletta) and stored in a frame (cornice).2 In De poem. 1 no midollo has been found; the roll was probably opened by scorzatura totale. It has only recently been understood that these methods could be used together to open a single roll.3 Once the roll had been split open, the interior midollo would be unrolled on Piaggio’s machine, and (many years later) the exterior scorze would be subjected to scorzatura.4 This combina­ tion of techniques has been called scorzatura parziale, but might better be termed scorzatura con svolgimento. Nor has it hitherto been realized that a third procedure was also used. Piaggio’s machine could be used for continuous svolgimento only when the roll had not been cut vertically into two sections. However, when a roll had been so divided, successive layers could sometimes be peeled from the exterior of each by gluing gold-beater’s skin onto the back, as if by a kind of scorzatura in reverse; these always survive as separate fragments, detached from each other. The writings of Piaggio confirm that this could be done.5 In Delattre’s reconstruction of De mus. 4, and in mine of this roll, we were both puzzled why the fragmentnumbers go forwards in those series where a series of detached pieces still survives, but backwards where they do not;6 this is the explanation. This 1 D ejorio 1825, 24-30. 2 Papyri which had been opened and glued to ta vo lette were framed and hung on the walls of the Officina (Dejorio 1825, 95, 112), a practice begun in 1812 and halted only in 1906 (Gapasso 1986, 177). 3 The first to suggest that a m id o llo could be combined with exterior scorze (in P H ere. 1672) was L. Spina, ‘Vita dell’Officina dei Papiri Ercolanesi (inediti dall’Archivio dell’Officina)’, L e P arole e le idee ' 3 (I 9 7 I)> 2 7 3 ..85, at 277-8. The first specific proposal on these lines was by Nardelli 1979, regarding D e p o em . 2. This was replicated for other texts by T. Dorandi (‘Per una “ri-edizione” antica del π ε ρ ί e i c e ß e l a c , g P E 73 (1988), 25-9) and Delattre 1989. For a conspectus of its use see T. Dorandi, ‘Papiri ercolanesi tra “scorzatura” e “svolgimento” ’, C E rc 22 (1992), 179-80. 4 Dejorio 1825, 46. 5 Cf. the letter of 13 June 1766 published by E Longo Auricchio and M. Gapasso, ‘Nuove accessioni al dossier Piaggio’, in C o n tr ib u ti / (1980), 17-59, at 44 (cf. Angeli 1995, 194 η· 22)· th's Piaggio reports that he ‘cavô’ two fragments, one superposed upon the other, and conserved the non-consecutive fragments without losing the ‘minimo attomo di materia’ (i.e. without destroying one layer to reach another), though he was aware of the difficulty of ‘mantenere i fogli tagliati per lungo in tutte due le parti opposte’ (i.e. the two halves of the roll). 6 This also applies to D e p ie t., where the numbers of the detached extant frr. of P. H ere. 243 go forwards (D. Obbink, pers. comm.), and to D e m us. 4 (see Delattre, ‘Les Rouleaux carbonisés d’Herculanum’, in B. Gratien and R. Hanoune, L ir e l ’écrit (Lille, 1997), 81- 98 at 93-4).

De poematis / : the history of the text third method, here christened sollevamento, ‘lifting off’, was employed in part on P. Here. 1074a. It could yield well-preserved pieces, but suffers from the disadvantage that several layers tended to come off at once, greatly complicating the task of a conscientious editor. The case of the exterior stack called P. Here. 1074a shows how these two methods could be combined. A number of layers were peeled by sollevamento from the exterior until no more could be prised off. The stack was then turned over, and scorzatum was used to reach the remaining layers, starting from the interior and working outwards. Hence two sets of frag­ ments survive, those resulting from sollevamento (frr. I—III and V—VIII) and the outermost piece remaining after the scorzatura, fr. IV Moreover, during the sollevamento, two layers came off at once, and these were separated by scorzatura. Thus one layer was drawn as jV 1074a frr. 1—2 and then de­ stroyed, whereas the extant fr. V, drawn as jV 1074a fr. 3, represents the layer underneath it—but the whole stack containing /V" 1074a frr. 1—3 had been pulled from the outside of the halved roll by sollevamento. In another case, that of P Here. 460, only the bottommost layer and one other were preserved; this stack was opened entirely by scorzatura, and it is surprising that fr. V, which corresponds to part of /^460 frr. 4-5, survives, since this layer was closer to the middle of the roll.1 Let us now follow the opening of Roll A. At some point after its discovery in 1752—4 it was split open on both sides along its long axis, by Paderni, no doubt, and divided into two halves, viz. (a) 1073+1074a, and (b) 466/444+460+ 1081a.2 During its opening parts of the roll also broke horizontally, yielding four series, i.e. 466 and 444 (upper or lower pieces), 1073 aRd 1081a (upper and lower pieces). Only 460 and 1074a remained as complete vertical halves (see Fig. 2). All this must have occurred before 1782, when the separate pieces were allotted their current papyrus-numbers. The numbers are grouped as if related pieces of Roll A had been kept together physically to some extent. There are two groups—that comprising 444, 460, and 466, and that comprising 1073, 1074, and 1081 a. In the context of the 1,695 ‘papyri’ originally inventoried, such a distribution cannot be random. In fact at least three book-rolls of De poematis originally constituted a single heap, which when found was at first kept together. Another roll of De poematis, 1 Such survivals could occasionally occur, where a layer came away from those below and was conserved with a backing of gold-beater’s skin (cf. Obbink 1996, 38 n. 3). In this case the extant piece is far smaller than the layer which was drawn, even though a strip c.i cm. wide at its bottom left corner was lost, perhaps when it hung on the wall (above, p. 19 n. 2); the blue ca rtoncino behind it is less faded than elsewhere and one can see traces of the glue used to attach it to the cardboard. Presumably it was lifted off the front with tweezers and lowered onto the membrane. 2 For the reconstruction of the two halves see below §4a, Table 4.8.

How the papyri were opened and recorded

21

that represented by 1087 and fTYfi may have formed part of the same cache, as the number 1087 suggests. Moreover, in the 1074 and 1081 series Roll A and Roll B seem likely to have been confused because these rolls were found together and kept together; both have about the same number of lines per column (r.26) and width of line. The pieces which are mistak­ enly put together are the two exterior halves of Roll B, viz. 1074b and 1081b in Hand 8, and the two of the interior of Roll A, viz. 1074a and 1081a in Hand 13. It is easy to imagine that two of the four halves were swapped over by mistake, so that two combined stacks were created which each contained materials in both hands.1 Yet we shall see that, in fact, 1081a and 1081b were at first drawn as separate series, and were united because of the confusion between 1074a and 1074b. The exterior pieces of Roll B, viz. 1074b, must have been put on top of the interior pieces from Roll A, viz. 1074a, thereby producing the order of the disegni. In 1807, an inventory describes each of the papyri now assigned to Roll A as ‘unopened’, i.e. no further attempt had been made to work on them.2 This is not surprising: since Roll A had been cut open so crudely, it could not be unrolled on Piaggio’s machine, and work on its remnants was postponed until 1821. Since scorzatura was a destructive process, it was used only when the possibilities for svolgimento had been exhausted.3 Naturally enough, those with complete columns were opened before those which were broken horizontally. Partially erased entries in a second inventory, dated between 1819 and 1823,4 show when the first three papyri, 460, 1074, and 1081, were taken in hand:5 1 Gf. Sbordone 1983, 201. The confusion in P. H ere, 1074 could perhaps have occurred when the revolution of Dec. 1798 erupted in Naples, and King Ferdinand IV fled to Palermo, taking the papyri with him (cf. F. Longo Auricchio, ‘J ohn Hayter nella Officina dei Papiri Ercolanesi’, in C o n tr ib u ti 1 (1980), 163). The collection returned to Portici only in Jan. 1802. Romeo 1992Ä, 164, suggests that the unrolling of P. H ere. 1676 of Roll B was interrupted by the Revolution, which explains why 1676 was separated from 1677a. The latter must have been unrolled before P. H ere. 994, and its separation from the latter and confusion with parts of another papyrus undergoing unrolling, viz. 1007/1673 (Philodemus, R h e to ric 4), can best be explained if it was being unrolled in 1798. It is entered merely as ‘Papiro B’ in the inventory of 1806 (A.O.P. XVII 6), but is assigned the number ‘1677’ in that of 1807 (A.O.P XVII 7); cf. Romeo 1992a, 178. John Hayter’s diary of 27 May 1803 mentions as completed the unrolling and transcription of papyri 207 and 994 of D e p o e m . ; he quotes it himself in A R e p o r t on the H e r c u la n e u m M a n u s c r ip ts in a S e c o n d L e tte r addressed, by P e rm is sio n , to H i s R o y a l H ig h n e s s the P rin ce R e g e n t (London, 1811), 56-7. 2 C atalo g o d e ’ p a p ir i ercolanesi d a ti p e r isvolgere e re stitu iti, con la in d ic a zio n e d i q u e lli d o n a ti d a S . M . a p e r so n a g g i este r i ( A .O .P . XVII 7), quarto, unbound, 53 folios. This reveals that P H e n , 444 was kept in Tavoletta 35, 460 and 466 in Tavoletta 36, and 1073, 1074, and 1081 (together with 1087) in Tavoletta 60; this reflects Piaggio’s arrangement. On the inventories see G. Guerrieri, L Officina dei Papiri Ercolanesi dal 1752 al 1952’, in P a p ir i ercolanesi 1954, 32-41, and above, p. 15 n. 1. 3 See Dejorio 1825, 46-7; Capasso 1991, 102. * In v e n ta rio d e ’ P a p ir i E rc o la n e s i (A.O.P. XVII 11), folio, bound in leather, 92 folios. 5 Erasures are between double brackets, abbreviations between parentheses; insertions over the

22

444 460

466 1073 1074

1081

De poematis /: the history of the text [Scorza] 'M eta di scorza' di papiro rotta in due parti. Armadio 1°. Tavola 35“. Scorza 'di papiro svolta' [molto m alconcia.1 Presa da D(on) Giambatt(ist)a2 Casanova nel di i° Luglio 1821 p(er) disegnarsi. Term inata di disegnarsi nel di i° Ag(os)to 1822.] Esistono nel p(ropri)o luogo i d u e 3 ultimi fram(men)ti. Armadio 1°. Tavola 36a. Frammenti 20.4 Disegni 30. Rami 14 fino a tutt’Ag(os)to 1822, 16 Tippici,5 (totale) 30. Term inata l’incisione a di 30 Ap(ri)le 1823. Sono rami trenta. [Scorza] 'M età di scorza' di pap(ir)o rotta nel mezzo. Armadio 1°. Tavola 35a. Scorza di pap(ir)o rotta nel mezzo. Armadio 11°. Tavola 6oa. Scorza di papiro. [Presa p(er) disegnarsi dal Sig(no)r(e) Malesci Carlo a di 15 Feb(brar)o 1823] 'svolta in pezzi otto essendosi perduto il rim anente'.6 Armadio 11°. Tavola 6oa. Tavolette dal no. 866. No. dello stipo X IV Disegni 30. Rami — . Scorzetta di papiro presa per isvolgere da D(on) Francesco Casanova, svolta in fram(men)ti 4g, esiste il solo ultimofoglio nel proprio luogo.1 Armadio 11° Tavola 6oa. Disegni 4g,8

From the erasures we learn the surprising fact that the engravers at­ tempted to incise the copperplates (rami) of papyrus 460 at the same time as the scorza was opened, but that, unsurprisingly, they fell behind; no engravings of the other stacks which had been opened, 1074 and 1081, are mentioned. In fact the drawing of the fragments was at first followed at once by the incision of the plates, but later these were produced only after a delay, often of many years. This is confirmed by the signatures on the Neapolitan disegni. Once these had been made, they were endorsed as accurate by the overseer (interprete), who signed ‘Visto Buono’ or often line are between the signs ' and doubtful letters are dotted, and illegible letters are represented by ··. Entries in a different hand are in italics. 1 This disparaging remark means only that this roll was split in half longitudinally. The stack was otherwise well preserved, but was poor in comparison with rolls which could be continuously unwound. 2 Not to be confused with Giuseppe Casanova, p a c e Crönert 1898, 585; note that ‘Don’ is used as in Spanish, and does not imply Holy Orders. On the verso of a catalogue of papyri given to Sir Humphrey Davy, datable to 1819, a list headed ‘papiri sulle macchine’ contains the entry ‘Giam­ battista) Casanova, 460 fram(men)to’ (A.O.P. XVII 9). Since this stack was opened by s c o r ta tu r a , it was not, sen su stric to , on the machine. 3 Five pieces are now extant; for an explanation see below, p. 50 n. 1. 4 This may be my misreading of 29, since 31 pieces (the two last very scrappy) were drawn on 30 folios. 5 The meaning of this word is obscure. 6 The statement that only one piece survived which was then lost matches the situation in Roll B (1074b); the ‘eight remaining fragments’ correspond to those still extant from Roll A (1074a). 7 No sc o rza of 1081b has been identified, whereas that of 1081a is known. 8 On this puzzling total see below, p. 25 n. 1.

How the papyn were opened arid recorded

23

‘V B.’ They were then inspected by the Superintendent of the Officina (or his deputy) for the making of a copper plate; this resulted in another signature.1 Next, the engraver signed and dated the lower right corner of the second folio of the disegno when he had finished his work. This holds true of all the sets which I have examined. These three signatures not only date the engravings, but also provide termini ante quem for the drawings. The opening of 460 took thirteen months, from 1July 1821 to 1 August 1822. We have a unique testimony to this in a list of all the work under­ taken in the Officina in the week of 30 July-4 Aug. 1821 : ‘D. Giambattista Casanova ha scoperta una colonna ben conservata, e con caratteri chiari: essa appartiene ad una scorza di Papiro, la quai è inventariata sotto il No. 46ο’.2 G. B. Casanova not only dismantled this stack but also drew frr. i and 13—31, ending with the bottommost, surviving pieces; F. Celentano drew frr. 2-12. They were overseen by three interpreti (below, §2c), G. Genovesi, F. Javarone, and G. Parascandolo, who made transcripts at the same time.3A. A. Scotti approved the drawings and corrected some of the transcripts; thirty copperplates were engraved by Gelentano, Gorazza, and Biondi.4 Their dates prove that the drawings became available for engraving in ascending order, but sometimes the incision of poorer pieces like fr. 1 or 4 was postponed in favour of better ones; the engravings lagged so many months behind the disegni that none of the plates could have been checked against the original papyrus. Work on /074 occupied 1823-4. This was dismantled and drawn by G. Malesci, overseen by G. Genovesi. First the exterior layers were removed by sollevamento and drawn (1074a frr. 1-10); then scorzatura began from the inside, starting with pieces of the extraneous 1074b, viz. 1074b frr. 11-16, then 1074a frr. 17-18, then 1074b frr. 19-21, and then the remaining pieces of 1074a, viz. frr. 22-30, ending with the bottommost, surviving piece. Twenty-four copperplates were engraved by Gelentano and Gorazza.5* Lastly, but still in 1824, I0^1 was dismantled and drawn by Francesco Casanova. In this case the confusion between the pieces from the two 1 Those approved were marked ‘S’incida’; any that were not received a cross, as if dead. 2 A.O.P. V i c. 4. 3 The overseers were as follows: Genovesi, frr. 1-4, 8, 10 11, 13-14, 25-6; Javarone, frr. 5-6, 9, iq, 15-24, 27-9; Parascandolo, fr. 7 (Scotti endorsed all the d ise g n i). 4 The plates of 460 are dated: frr. 2-3, Feb. 1822; frr. 5-6, Mar. ; frr. 8-9, Apr.; frr. 1,7, May; fr. 10, undated; frr. n-i2 ,Ju n e; frr. 14-15,July; frr. 13, 16, Aug.; frr. 17, 19, Sept.; frr. 20, 22, Oct.; frr. 4, 21, 24, Nov.; frr. 18, 28, Dec.; frr. 25, 29,Jan. 1823; frr. 23, 26, Feb.; fr. 27, Mar.; frr. 30-1, Apr. 5 The plates of 1074 are dated: fr. 5, Apr. 1823; frr. 1-2, 6, May; frr. 8, 21, June; frr. 7, 14, July; frr. 11-13, Aug.; frr. 15-16, Sept.; frr. 20, 22, Oct.; frr. 23-4, Nov.; frr. 9, 26, Dec.; frr. 10, 28,Jan. 1824; frr. 25, 27, Feb.; frr. 29-30, Mar.; frr. 3-4, Apr. Again the order ascends, but not exactly. The signature giving approval for the engraving does not appear; it was presumably the same Genovesi. The miserable scraps frr. 17-19 were not engraved until Oct. 1846, by Gorazza.

24

De poematis i: the history of the text

rolls occurred after 1081 was opened, since there were originally thirty fragments, a number which corresponds to those of 1081a; among these were interleaved a further seventeen, which matches the number of frag­ ments of 1081b.1 Casanova’s work was overseen by Genovesi and Javarone. Although Genovesi and Scotti approved the drawings for engraving, given the broken state of the text no plates were produced until 1836.2 A third catalogue, begun in 1824 and based on the previous one, documents all the remaining work on Roll A:34 444

M età di scorza di Papiro [rotta in due parti], non isvolta. Presaper isvolgere

da D(on) Gia(m)Batt(ist)a Casanova. Svolta infram(men)ti 17. Esiste il solo ultimo foglio nelproprio luogo.* Armadio 1°. Tavoletta 36. Frammenti 17. Disegni 17. 460

Rami 17. Scorza di Papiro svolta. Esistono i due ultimi fram(men)ti nel proprio luogo. Armadio 1°. Tavoletta 36. Frammenti 31. Disegni 30. Ram i 30.

Questopapiro si riferisce all’altro col numero 1074.. 466 M età di scorza di Papiro, non isvolta. Disegnato da D(on) Francesco Casanova infiam(menti) ip. L’ultimofoglio esiste nel proprio luogo.5Armadio 1°. Tavoletta 1073

36. Frammenti 13. Disegni 13. Ram i 13. Scorza di Papiro rotta nel mezzo, non isvolta. Presa per isvolgersi e disegnarsi da D(on) Carlo Malesci: disegnata in fram(men)ti [[··]. L’ul­ timo foglio esiste nel proprio luogo. Disegni [19] ' Q . 6 Armadio II. Tavoletta 60. Frammenti [[19] 19. Disegni [[19] 14. Ram i 13. Questo Papiro si

riferisce aiN(umer)i φ ο e 107p.1 1074

1081

Scorza di Papiro, svolta in pezzi otto essendosi perduto il rimanente, trovasi. Armadio II. Tavoletta 60. Frammenti 30. Tavolette dal No. 792. No. dello stipo XIV. Disegni [[Jo] '25 '. Ram i 25. Questo Papiro si riferisce all’altro col No. 460. Scorza di Papiro, non isvolta. Presa per isvolgersi e disegnarsi 'nel 1835 da D(on) Francesco Casanova, disegnata infram(men)ti [[42] 54 Pultimofoglio

1 This is shown by the numbers on the first states of the engravings extant with Quaranta’s MS, where the 47 fragments were previously numbered in pencil as 43 tavo le pages, but there is an earlier numeration still, written in ink. Thus frr. 8 and 15 (Roll B) were first numbered 6 and 9 in ink, frr. 19 (Roll A) and 20 (Roll B) were 10 and 11 (= 15 16 in pencil), frr. 31 and 33 (Roll A) were 16 and 18, and fr. 46 (Roll A) was 29 (= 42 in pencil). Only the second change is verifiable on the surviving disegni·. fr. 16 was once ‘12’ and the highest number, 47, was '43’· 2 In May 1836-June 1837, 31 plates were made by Ventrella, Corazza, and Filippo Casanova under Scotti’s supervision. In Aug.-Oct. 1846, 10 more were prepared by Corazza and Ventrella, overseen by Genovesi and Scotti. 3 In v e n ta rio d ella R e a le O Jpcina d e ’ P a p in E rc o la n e si, N a p o li A I D C C C X X I V (A.O.P. XVII 12), folio, bound in leather, 190 folios. 4 This piece, corresponding to disegno 17, still survives; it was identified by me. 3 The surviving piece, identified by me, does not match the d ise g n i. 6 There are 19 fragments drawn on 14 pages. 7 ‘1073’ is a mistake for ‘1074’.

How the papyri were opened and recorded

25

esiste nelproprio luogo. Armadio 11°. Tavoletta 60. Frammenti [42]] 54. Disegni 49.1 R am i [31] 41.

From this we learn that stacks coming from the same roll were soon recognized as such. But the sole date given, 1835 for the opening of papyrus 1081, is false.2 Since no further inventory was compiled until 1853,3 we must use two other types of evidence: the dates of the plates, given with the engravers’ signatures on the second sheets of the disegni, and changes to the personnel of the Officina. In June 1826 Bernardo Quaranta was appointed interprete, and early in 1832 Parascandolo and Caterino retired andjavarone left to become bishop of Ascoli. The opening of P. Here. 1081 began while the inventory of 1824 was being compiled. Later that year, 1073 became the next stack to be opened. It was dismantled and drawn by Carlo Malesci, overseen by Genovesi and Javarone,4 ending with the bottommost, extant piece. Javarone transcribed those columns which he verified. Since some whole columns were wrongly thought to have survived, even though the scorza was always described as ‘broken in the middle’, Genovesi and Scotti approved the making of ten plates, which were engraved by Celentano and Corazza.5We can date the opening of 466 only to 1824-32, but I suspect that it took place before the new interpreti arrived, i.e. in 1825. This was dismantled and drawn by G. B. Casanova, overseen by Javarone, who again made a transcript.6 No plates 1 These figures are puzzling; there are 47 d ise g n i on 43 pages. This certainly comprises both Rolls A and B, but suggests that some d ise g n i are lost. 2 The fact that this entry is all in the original hand, except the date ‘1835’, shows that Francesco Casanova was opening this sco rg a when this inventory was made in 1824. This explains the addition of a similar entry in the previous inventory. It is proved by the fact that A 1081b fr. 12 (the allegorical interpretation of Agamemnon as Aither etc.) is quoted by De Jorio, who says in his French G u id e that it was ‘actuellement dans les mains des interprètes’ [«'c] (1825, 107 n.); his book appeared after 5 Nov. (cf. 1825, 92). The date ‘1835’, unquestioned until now, was added by mistake when the plates were being engraved. Francesco Casanova died in 1835 (D- Bassi, ‘Papiri Ercolanesi disegnati’, R F I C 41 (1913), 427-67, at 436); in the same year F ilip p o Casanova must have taken the d ise g n i to make engravings, since he handed in the plates in 1836. Between May 1836 and June 1837, 31 plates of A 1081 were produced by him, Ventrella, and Corazza under Scotti’s supervision (the rest were done in 1846). My source for the dates of the engravings is the R e g istre d d r a m i i n d s i (A.O.P. XVII 10), which starts in 1826 but does not record papyrus-numbers until 1836. The d ise g n i of frr. 1—15 and fr. 17 are missing, but the dates on a number of the others confirm this record. 3 See below, p. 33 n. 8. 4 Malesci’s work was supervised by Genovesi (frr. i-6, 17-18) and Javarone (frr. 7-16), and approved for engraving by Genovesi (frr. 2-7, 10, 13-16) and Scotti (frr. 1, 17, 19). 5 The dates of these are: fr. 9, Sept. 1824; frr. 3-4, 8, Oct.; frr. 5-6, 11-12, Nov; fr. 15, Dec.; fr. 16, Jan. 1825; frr. 17, 19, Feb. The date for fr. 15, not given on A, is written in ink on the first states kept with the MS of Quaranta. The rest, except fr. 18, were done in 1846 by Ventrella supervised by Genovesi. A note on Asays that Biondi engraved fr. 18 in Jan. 1861; marked ‘113’, it was once meant to be inserted at the end of H V 2IV, which finishes with ‘col. cxii’. 6 Javarone countersigned all the d iseg n i. Frr. 1-6 and 11-13 are endorsed ‘S’incida’ by Scotti, frr. 710 by Genovesi.

De poematis i: the history of the text were produced until 1843,1 presumably because no columns survived entire. The last stack to be opened was almost certainly 444, which I would assign to 1826. It was dismantled and drawn by G. B. Casanova, overseen at first by Javarone, two leaves of whose transcript survive, and then by Antonio Ottaviano and the new interprete Quaranta, ending with the bot­ tommost, extant piece.2 Genovesi approved all the drawings for engraving, but no plates were made until 1846,3 no doubt because no whole columns survived. The plates were based on tracings of the disegni. The tracing was reversed and laid over the copper; the engraver’s burin then cut through the tracing into the surface of the metal, thus incising in dry-point a mirror-image of its original. Many disegni show signs of having been traced. Some have holes where the tracing-paper was pinned (the earlier procedure), whereas others have dark stains above the upper left and right corners of the image where oblong sheets of tracing-paper had been glued over them. In both cases, parts of inky fingerprints betray where the sheets ended.4 The plates have no independent value as witnesses to the text. Their production was not simultaneous with the opening of the stacks; in the cases of P. Here. 460 and 1074 the engraving began months after the drawing, and fell behind it even further. Moreover, the dates of the engravings prove that they were not made in the same order as that in which the process of scorzatura exposed the successive layers of papyrus. Nowhere can a discrepancy between plate and drawing be plausibly ascribed to checking a papyrus now lost. When, in a letter, Scotti speaks of the value of rechecking the papyri for the engraving,5 he meant those papyri which were still extant.6 Lastly, as we shall see, the editors of the Collectio Altera altered the first states of the plates. Hence these are not a primary source for De poem. 1. 1 In 1843-4 Casanova and Ventrella engraved nine plates of it under Scotti’s direction; the scrappiest pieces were done by Ventrella and Orsini only in 1851, supervised by Genovesi. 2 The drawings are countersigned as follows: Javarone, frr. 1-5, 12; Quaranta, frr. 6- 7, 9, 11, 1415, 17; Ottaviano, fr. 8, 10, 13; unsigned, fr. 16. 3 They were made in 1846-7 by Biondi, D. Casanova, Corazza, Orazi, and Ventrella. 4 Thus the W460 and N 1073 series were pinned, whereas the later TV444 series were glued, as were TV1081 frr. 21, 22, 24 (glued for the engravings of 1861, whereas the rest of the set was pinned for those of 1837), and jVi074a frr. 17-19 (the rest of the set was pinned). 5 ‘Per quanta diligenza siasi adoperata e si adoperi nell’emendare i disegni prima d’inciderli, non è possibile che tutti tutti gli errori si awertano, e nessuno se ne introduca nei rami incisi. . . Quando l’Interpetre nell’atto dell’interpetrazione ha presenti tutte le colonne del papiro, . . . ricorrendo all’originale scopre spesso delle interessanti emendazioni da farsi nel rame’ (A.O.P. VIII 3.19, a letter of 1837). The spellings ‘interpetre’ and ‘interpetrazione’ are regular in the Bourbon documents. 6 When he approved TV1073 fr. 19 for engraving he certainly modified the drawing directly from the papyrus, in the same ink with which he signed it; but this was the u ltim o fo g lio , which must have remained after s c o rz a tu r a , although this layer of it has since perished.

( 27 ) (ή The Contnbution of the Interpreti In July 1997, by requesting the wrong item in the Archive of the Officina, I made an astonishing discovery: a hefty packet 221 folios thick, in a folder marked ‘Casa Regia: Soprantendenza della Reale Officina de’ Papiri Ercolanesi: Manoscritti degl’Interpetri’.1 The interpreti were the scholars who supervised the work of the disegnatori and engravers; their duties were to translate, interpret, supply lacunae, and check the disegni and engrav­ ings.2 The archivist had already sorted a few manuscripts with legible titles, including one dealing with P Here. 460 (Pis. 2-3); but in the heap relating to ‘papiri non identificati’, some bearing numbers but many completely untitled, I recognized transcripts of P. Here. 444, 466, and 1073, as well as of other books of De poematis.3 These are in fact the first transcripts of the papyri ever made. Even if they were all made merely from secondary sources (the disegni or plates) they would still concern the editor, simply because they came first; some interpreti made supplements since proposed independently by schol­ ars whom the world esteems. But in fact they are based on the papyri. The transcripts are all anonymous, but from correspondences between changes in the script in that of P. Here. 460 and the signatures of the interprete who endorsed each disegno I identified the hands of the transcriber of each page.4 This enabled me to assign their supplements to those who first thought of them. All were born and educated locally. The weaker interpreti were Giuseppe Genovesi, Giuseppe Parascandolo, and Luigi Caterino. Genovesi (1792— 1854) , Scotti’s favourite pupil, became Professor of Palaeography at the University. Appointed lettore in 1815, he was promoted to interprete in 1822 and to Superintendent upon Scotti’s death in 1845.5 He published nothing on the papyri save the last six cols, of P. Here. 1007/1673 of Rhet. 4 (H Vl XI, 1855) 5 where he was finishing Scotti’s work. His hand is shown in PI. 2. Parascandolo (d. 1838), a Carmelite canon, served as interprete from 1812 to 1832; he also held a post as Orientalist at the University.6 Both were 1 A.O.P. XXIII fasc. 21, listed in the Inventory of 1984 as ‘illustrazioni varie’. Seejanko and Blank 1998, 174-81; R. Farese, ‘Catalogo delle “illustrazioni” e degli interpreti’, C E rc 29 (1999), 83-94. 2 Cf. the decree of 23 Aug. 1823 (A.O.P. V 3/28), cited in E p ic u ro e I ’epicureism o 1993, 158-9. 3 These are: P. H ere. 228 (Parascandolo); P. H ere. 403 (Javarone [frr. 1-2, 4, 7] and Genovesi [frr. 3, 5-6]); P. H ere. 994 fr. 19 (Caterino); P. H ere. 1581 frr. 1-4 (Javarone); and P H ere. 1676 entire (Parascandolo, Caterino, and Genovesi, corrected by Scotti). 4 The sole discrepancy between the signatures and the distribution of hands in the MS is that Javarone transcribed frr. 14 and 25—6, and Caterino did fr. 13. For descriptions of the MSS see §3C. 5 G. de Luca, ‘Cav. Giuseppe Genovesi’, A n n a li C iv ili d e l R e g n o delle D u e S ie ilie 109 (1855), 70-2. 6 See Castaldi 1840, 207; Cerasuolo in Cerasuolo, Capasso, and D’Ambrosio 1986, 57-8.

De poematis i: the history of the text corresponding members of the Accademia Ercolanese.1 Caterino (1786— 1834), likewise interprete from 1812 to 1832, was Professor of Canon Law from 1824 and a full member of the Accademia.2 The two others, both full members and Jesuits, were better scholars. Angelo Antonio Scotti (1786-1845) was a pupil of Rosini and of the learned Spanish Jesuit Juan Andrés (1740-1817), sometime Prefect of the Royal Library.3 He was a prominent, powerful, and controversial cleric, reviled by liberal intellectuals no less than he reviled them, and perhaps the most dangerous agent of the Bourbon government in suppressing dissent through the network of all-powerful police, spies, informers, and inquisitors for which Naples became infamous during these years. Leo­ pardi’s friend Antonio Ranieri reports in the preface to La Ginevra,4 a book which revealed a scandal in the running of an orphanage involving the brother of a Minister, that Scotti scoured the bookshops of Naples to burn the copies of it, remarking that it would have been more meritorious to burn their author.5 Scotti argued for censorship and the suppression of political debate, attacking ‘liberal philosophers’, liberty, equality, the rights of man, and the separation of powers, while advocating the divine right of kings in subordination to the Church.6 This supplied the intellectual framework for the appallingly brutal regime, which W. E. Gladstone denounced as ‘the negation of God erected into a system of govern­ ment’.7 Leopardi probably had Scotti in mind in his attack on the Accademici Ercolanesi quoted as epigraph to the next section.8 Scotti became interprete in 1811, ‘primo Interpetre’ in 1822 and Superintendent, succeed­ ing Rosini, in 1836; the holder of many other offices, he died in 1845 from typhus contracted after visiting a prison. As primo interprete, Scotti corrects the work of the others in a crabbed hand (see PI. 2), making many rash emendations.9 Francesco Javarone (1788-1854), taught by Andrés and Scotti, was from 1817 Professor of Theology. He served as interprete from 1812 to March 1832, when he was anointed Bishop of Ascoli and Cerignola. He was the 1 Gastaldi 1840, 65. 2 Ibid., 120-1. He published D e v itiis X in H V ' III (1827). 3 On him see Marchese di Villarosa, N é cro lo g ie d i M o n s ig n o r A n g e lo A n to n io S c o tti [Naples, 1845]; Gastaldi 1840, 233 -6; Indelli 1986, 39. For his portrait see Gapasso 1983, 63. 4 Opere, i (Turin and Milan, 1862), 12-13. 5 See further Paolella 1990, 221-2. 5 In his T eorem i d i p o litic a c r istia n a (Naples, 1830, 3rd edn. 1834-5), esP· ■· 18-40, and his C a té c h ism e filoso fico p e r uso delle scuole in fe n o ii (Naples, 1837). 7 Open letter to Lord Aberdeen, 7 Apr.1851. 8 See further M. Gigante, ‘Leopardi nella filologia classica di Napoli’, in L a cu ltu ra classica a N a p o l i n e ll'O tto c e n to : S econda co n trib u to (Naples, 1991), 1-45, at 29-31. 9 He edited Polystratus ( H V ' IV) 1832), Philodemus’ D e d is ( H V ' VI, 1839), and P. H ere. 1007/1673 of R h e t. 4, published posthumously in 1855 ( H V ' XI). He showed too little respect for the traces, though he had a number of excellent intuitions among many improbable conjectures (so Indelli 1986, 4 3 - 7 )·

The contribution of the interpreti

2g

best of the five, with an outstanding grasp of Greek (for his hand see pi· 3)·1 The almost exact parallelism between the endorsements to the disegni and the changes of hand confirms that the transcripts were made at the same time as the drawings. In fact they constitute another primary witness to the text. New fragments in the transcript of P. Here. 460 prove that it was copied directly from the papyrus, and not from the disegni or engraving. The left column of f. f contains faint sketches in pencil of three unnum­ bered pieces of papyrus (siglum K). The first, K fr. I, corresponds to the ends of ^4 6 0 fr. 15,6-10, but has additional traces in 1. 10; the second, ATr. II, the beginnings of five lines, is new; and the third, ATfr. Ill, matches the right edge of jGjfio fr. 18,6—11, offering a new reading in 1. 6 and confirming a supplement in 1. 10. Where the pieces are identified, they are from 11. β­ ίο and correspond to material near the right edge of the Neapolitan disegno. This pattern recurs on f. 3'' (PI. 3), which has in its left column important marginalia (siglum J -1); these are five unnumbered passages five to six lines long in Javarone’s hand, in the same pale ink with which he copied the top of fr. 16 on f. 8V. Since he uses dark ink everywhere else in this manuscript, he probably transcribed these pieces at the same time. The first (J 1fr. I) is identical with the last of the drawings on f. f (ATfr. Ill): it contains parts of 460 fr. 18,6-11. The second as we go down the page (J 1fr. II) matches W460 fr. 13,6-11. J 1fr. Ill is unparalleled, but, like ATfr. II, shows the left margin of a column. The fourth corresponds to 11. 5-10 of ^ 4 6 0 fr. 14a, a fragment which became detached and was drawn with fr. 19; there are several new readings. The last J 1fr. V) matches 11. 6-10 of W460 fr. 22. The pieces which correspond to jValways come from its upper right edge. Only one explanation of this pattern is possible : these fragments repre­ sent successive layers of a small piece which had broken off at the right edge from 11. 6-11. The artist of K shows his pieces as broken at the left. From the shapes in N we know that the papyrus had not broken evenly at this point, but had an angular break between 11. 5 and 10. That a piece of papyrus broke off at the right is proved by the fact that a small piece which completes the right ends of JVfr. 19,6-10 (ATr. 14a) was drawn with jVfr. 14; the error was noted at the time, and someone lightly crossed out the 1 G. de Luca, ‘Monsignor Francesco Iavarone’, A n n a li C iv ili del R eg n o delle D u e S ic ilie , 109 (1855), 69-70. For his publications and career see Castaldi 1840, 177 80. He edited Philodemus’ D e oec.; his work, finished by 1820, was not published until 1828 in H V ' III 1 55 (see C. M. Rosini on p. ii for the publication-history). Jensen (1907, vi) judges it too harshly: ‘primam autem textus restitutionem atque interpretationem editores Neapolitani . . . exemplo chalcotypo addiderunt. Qui viri cum lingua Graeca non satis eruditi audacius quam rectius coniecturis lacunas explerent, nisi quod lacunarum spatii et litterarum traditarum diligenter rationem habebant, non multa laudabiliter gesserunt.’

30

De poematis i: the history of the text

detached piece (see PL 4). Moreover JV 460 frr. 22 and 18 show a crack demarcating a piece containing exactly the letters which appear in J ' frr. 1 and 5. Hence the new passages ATfr. II and J l fr. Ill must represent further layers of this same piece. On their order see below, §4a. Another proof of the value of the transcripts is their independent readings and variants. For example, in 100 I had reconstructed the text as on the left below, because of a parallel in Roll B and a quotation from Sophocles. I give J to the right: λ ί\γ η ΐ’

‘ν α

ν τα μ Δ 8 ’ εμ η ρ ύ-

c a v Ar o ν η ο ρ ζ I c x f S a ρόμεθα

y à Lp

’ h τι

r Lov

'κ ^ α ρ π ό ν '.

Se μ ερ υ-

flV]]

. φβ-

ε φ ’ δ ß o fX e -

τ α ι κ α ι ό π μ ο η τ^-η ε, ο ν -

8j

\η ντο νη ε

δ ’α φ ε -

ρομεθα

2ο

τα ι

κ α ι ο π ο ·τ

κ ε ιτι

I choose a damaged passage to avoid the risk that the interprete is restoring rather than reading it. In 1. i8, each source offers a letter missing in the other. For ποητήε in 20, where JV offers π[ J^c, Javarone gives ττοιτ or 770[ ]t, evidently not understanding the sense at all. Lastly, in 21, where I had supplied ου|[δ’ from Roll B, Gomperz supplied ού\[κ instead, which J now confirms. Again, JV reads 103 12 as orarSeAe[, i.e. όταν Sè Χά[γηι. J has όταν Se Χεπτ, which accurately represents how this scribe joins up Γ with H, producing a ligature easily mistaken for Π, and concludes his H with a horizontal readily confused with T. At 103 21—2 the text cites Homer’s phrase βράχε φήγινοε άξων. JV offers βρα[ and a[Jo>r, where Javarone has βραχ and απών. Clearly he saw letters not shown in jV. Hence, where an interprete transcribes as certain letters which are doubtful in the disegno, I have treated this as a confirmation of the reading. Moreover, this transcript often retains misreadings later corrected in JV. For example, at 106 21 Aboriginally read ΗΝΚΕΛΟΝ, which is still visible under the microscope, despite correction to ΗΙΙΚΕΛΟΝ (part of Homer’s phrase εκιήι ΐκελον). Caterino too read ηνκελον, and Genovesi endorsed the disegno as ‘Visto Buono’. The disegno must have been corrected by order of Scotti when he approved it for engraving. This implies, of course, only that the fragment existed when he checked it, not that it still existed when the engraving was made, which is impossible (the stack had been totally dismantled by July 1822, but fr. 13 was engraved in August). The situation is similar in all the other transcripts of De poem. 1. For example, in his MS of P. Here. 466Javarone transcribed 43 5 as follows: η α τελ δη λο ς α υ τώ ν π α τελ κ α τε λ

The contribution of the interpreti

3i

Clearly he could not decide whether to read Π, H, or K. Now JV reads ]ηλο€αυτωνηατς[. From it I had restored πρόδ]ηλθ€ αυτών η άτο[πία, but Javarone clearly read Λ after the rounded letter, which he read as £. Hence the true restoration is areA[eta, which fits the context better, as it compares bad poets to artists who lack finish, as if merely sketching. Thus these transcripts were made directly from the papyri. However, in one case at least, a supplement suggested by an interprete was drawn by the disegnatore, where the extant papyrus proves that the letters written could not have been visible.1If we ask why the transcripts were created, we can better appreciate their importance. According to the system instituted by Hayter, the disegnatori were paid a salary, plus a bonus for each line copied without errors. The Officina therefore needed to establish that the whole line was correct. Only the interpreti, with their knowledge of Greek, could say whether the letters made sense in that language. The care with which they checked the disegni is attested by the profusion of erasures there. The practice of making transcripts goes back to at least 1812, when that of P. Here. 1676 must have been made. They formed part of the procedure for verifying the disegni, and are particularly valuable in the case of papyri subjected to scorzatura. It would have been hard to make them without being present regularly throughout the scorzatura, and the interpreti clearly resented this fact. On 16 June 1823 Rosini obtained permission from the Marchese Ruffo, Minister of the Casa Reale, that the interpreti need not attend the Officina whenever it was open, and that, given the scholarly nature of their task, they could work where they chose, and would now be paid not a daily stipend but fixed sums upon the publication of the texts.2 Even so, the conscientious Javarone still made some transcripts in 1825—6, as that of P. Here. 444 attests. The transcripts are not all equally valuable, but they will all need to be considered by future editors of Herculaneum papyri; they also illuminate the role and abilities of the interpreti.

1 This is 7/460 fr. Ib col. 1,9, where the papyrus (PI. i) shows that the first Γ of γ ε γ ρ α μ μ ε ν ο ν , read by jVand by Javarone in his transcript, cannot have been visible, as a small sovrapposto still conceals it. For more extreme cases in the transcripts of other works of Philodemus see Janko and Blank 1998, o0_j 2 A.O.P. V III.a7; cf· Gapasso 1986, 184-5.

32

De poematis i: the history of the text [cl] Bernardo Quaranta and the Collectio Altera E mercé s’abbia non di riso e d ’ira, di ch’ebbe sempre assai, ma d ’altri danni l’ipocrita canaglia onde sospira l’Europa tutta invan tanti e tanti anni i papiri ove cauta ella delira, scacciando ognun, sui mercenari scanni; razza a cagion di cui mi dorrebb’anco se boia e forche ci venisser manco. Giacomo L eopardi1

Bernardo Quaranta (1796-1867) made the second attempt to interpret this roll.2 Taught Greek by Parascandolo,3 he became, aged 20, Professor of Greek Archaeology at the University.4Appointed interprete in June 1826,5 he did much to publicize the papyri6but nothing to thwart Leopardi’s expec­ tation, acidly expressed above, that the Accademici would publish them tardily if at all. He succeeded Genovesi as Superintendent from 1854 until his dismissal in i860, under three weeks after Garibaldi entered Naples.7 He had been so staunch a Bourbon loyalist that he denounced to the police his archaeological collaborator, Giuseppe Fiorelli (1823-96),89for revolu­ tionary activities which in fact meant planning to publish the excavationdiaries of Pompeii and Herculaneum; Fiorelli lost his post in consequence, and was not rehabilitated until after the fall of the ancien régime. In 1826 Quaranta was commissioned to edit De pietatep following the original method of publishing the papyri, that of HV'. This included not only engravings of the papyri but, facing them, a text with parallel transla­ tion into Latin, and a commentary overleaf. Only two years later, Qua­ ranta pressed the Marchese Ruffo for more assignments, i.e. more money, but Rosini was still alert enough to stop him: ‘per l’interpetrazione del Papiro, ehe gli si è dato, ha preso quattro (sic) anni di tempo, con la corri1 P a ra lip o m e n i d ella B a tra co rn io m a ch ia 3. 14 (written in Naples, 1833 7). 2 On Quaranta see Castaldi 1840, 207-9; Rispoli 1987; E p ic u ro e P epicureism o 1993, 156-7. For his portrait see Capasso 1983, 65. 3 Castaldi 1840, 207. 4 On his disappointing academic career see Cerasuolo 1987, 23-4. 5 Capasso 1986, 188. '* Rispoli 1987, 522 n. 52. 7 Cf. E. Puglia, ‘L’Officina dei Papiri Ercolanesi dai Borboni alio Statu unitario’, in C o n tr ib u ti 2 (1986), 101-30. e On Fiorelli see L. A. Scatozza Höricht in C u ltu m classica 1987, ii. 865-80; Cerasuolo 1987, 64-5. 9 See Bassi 1911; λΐ. Capasso, ‘I Papiri e la collezione dei rami ercolanesi’, in C o n tr ib u ti 2 (1986), 133-56, at 150 n. 81; Obbink 1996, 27-8. We shall see good grounds to doubt whether, as Obbink deemed possible, Quaranta troubled to consult the surviving papyri once they had been drawn.

Bernardo Quaranta and the Collectio Altera

33

spondente gratificazione, ed ora incaricandosi di un nuovo lavoro avrebbe ragione di pretendere un nuovo compenso’.1 None the less, in 1833, with De pietate still unfinished, he was given the thirty plates of jV 460 to interpret, with a view to a similar edition of De poematis. He received twenty-eight further plates in 1836 (presumably those of JV1073 and 1074), the first thirty-one plates of jVio8i in 1840, and thirty-three further plates (unidentified) in 1846.2 But his project still languished when the Bourbons were overthrown in i860. His manuscript, apparently the first draft,3 has reposed in the Archive of the Officina ever since, along with his edition of De pietate, which was never completed either, despite the claim in 1840 that its publication was imminent.4 No previous editor has taken Quaranta’s manuscript into account.5 It comprises papyri 444, 460, 1073, 1074, and 1081, all of which he assigned to the same roll; for this he deserves credit.6 However, he did not notice the two hands in the 1074 and 1081 series; both sets depict fragments in Hands 8 and 13, but only Hand 13 copied De poem. 1. Also, he mistakenly included B Here. 463, which is in fact from Rhet. 4.7 This was an unfortunate after­ thought, since in the inventory of 1853, where the entries for the relevant items bear the annotation that they are from the same roll as the others,8 463 is regularly added above the line. Also, he omitted E Here. 466, which therefore has a publication-history different from that of the other papyri. His manuscript, entitled ’Ανωνύμου Πζρι πουημάτων Bernardo Quaranta

1 Exchange of letters between Ruffo and Rosini (1828), A.O.P. VI 37. My source for Quaranta’s assignments is the ‘Notamento dei papiri interpretati e pubblicati’ (A.O.P XVII 17). His being given D e p o em , may well be connected with the departure of Javarone, who had transcribed so many of the relevant fragments. He also took over P. H ere. 463, which Javarone had transcribed (A.O.P. XXIII 21 cc. 12-13). 3 According to Sbordone 1983, 8, the finished text was destroyed by fire on 12 Sept. 1943 (presumably the blaze in S. Paolo Belsito, whither part of the Archivio dello Stato had been sent to protect it from war-damage), but a copy survives, which is that still in the Officina. If so, the lost MS was perhaps the proofs for publication with the (less important) second states of the plates, corrected after Quaranta’s MS (see below). A second text of his edition of D e p ie t,., perhaps again the proofs, is likewise said to have disappeared since 1911 (Obbink 1996, 27 n. 4); but I have since found another copy of his preface to the latter among the MSS of the interp reti (A.O.P. XXIII 16). 4 Castaldi 1840, 64-5. It was meant to be H V ' vol. VII, which never appeared. 5 His MS is A.O.P. XXII; see Rispoli 1987, 527-8; Capasso 1991, 106-7, 247-8. Nardelli knew of it, but said it was worthless (1983, pp. xxiv f). 6 His achievement in the case of D e p ie t, was similar (Obbink 1996, 27-8). 7 It is written in Hand 27 of Group R (Cavallo 1983, 43, 46); cf T. Dorandi, ‘Per una ricomposizione dello scritto di Filodemo S u lla R e to ric a ’, Z P E 82 (1990) 59-87. Future editors of P. H ere. 463 will need to take account of Quaranta’s work. 8 R e a le O fficin a d e ’ P a p in E rco la n esi. In v e n ta rio G enerale d e ’ P a p ir i e d i t u t t i g l i a ltr i oggetti iv i e siste n ti (A.O.P. XVIII 13), folio, bound in leather, 188 folios. Thus the entry for P. H ere. 444 reads: ‘alia controscritta scorza di papiro si referiscono le altre sotto i N(umer)i 460, 463', 1073, 1074, 1081’. 2

De poematis i : the history of the text interprete, is written in ink in a rapid and difficult hand. It is preceded by an Anteloquium, which begins : Papyrorum Herculanensium pagellae sine auctoris titulo, quas oculis tuis, beni­ gne lector, subiicimus, non semel atque iterum, sed subinde traditae nobis fue­ runt, prout ex operarum manibus evolutae prodibant. Q uam ob rem, vix tandem cunctarum lectione repetita cognoscere licuit, auctorem in illis omnem poeticae artis naturam ad trutinam revocasse. Nonnulla siquidem de poeticae artis m ate­ rie, forma, fine caussaque efficiente, multa de rebus et ordine, quam plurima de verbis, tradit. Et nisi temporis incuria opus istud tandem non omni ex parte mancum lacerumque ad nos pervenisset, utilem profecto atque adeo absolutissi­ mam huiusce artis tractationem haberemus. Nunc vero, quamvis nihil integri possidere datum est, ex iis tamen quae supersunt liquido patet huiusmodi X e h p a v a haud parvi momenti ducenda esse.1

Quaranta appends a list of 122 columns with their contents and a review of Epicurean and other doctrines about poetry, whence he concludes : Quae omnia si ad trutinam revocabimus, videmur omnia ista, quae tibi damus, ad Epicureum quendam posse referre. Ac proinde minime temeritatis nota argu­ emur, si divinando adferemus pagellas, quas nunc evulgamus, n e p l π ο ι η μ ά τ ω ν inscriptas fuisse, atque eundem Philodemum auctorem habuisse, qui plurimos alios libros Herculanensi bibliothecae suppeditaverat.2

Thus he must also receive credit for first ascribing this roll to Philodemus and divining its title. The rest of his manuscript comprises proofs of the first states of the plates, with transcription, Latin translation, and notes, fairly full on P. Here. 460 and 1073 (the materials he received first) but very thin on the remainder, where they largely consist of defences of his wilder conjectures.3 Quaranta may often seem astute in discovering supplements since proposed independently; but in fact he was frequently anticipated by earlier interpreti. The sole respect in which he improved on their procedure is that he usually marked with sublinear dots lost or incomplete letters, but careless omissions or additions of the dots are common.4 However, the lack of distinction between damaged and lost letters reduces the value of his texts as testimonies to which letters were partially visible and which were never there at all. His transcriptions have no accents and little punctuation; this was standard in HV'P He often misdivides words. He introduces Italian phonetic confusions, notably τ for Θ and e for η or vice 1 A.O.P. XXII 1, pp. 1-4. 2A n te lo q u iu m , pp. 33—4. 3 I have checked his translation only where I had trouble deciphering his Greek. A few of his notes have scholarly value; I have taken them into account. 4 In D e p ie t, he had used red sublinear dots to indicate this (Obbink 1996, 27 n. 4), just as H V ' prints restored letters in red; the change to writing the dots in the same ink is typical of his sloth. 5 He supplies rough breathings, as in H V ' .

Bernardo Quaranta and the Collectio Altera

35

versa.1 He often makes poor choices in interpreting damaged letters, and makes many reckless changes to the preserved letters, without even a sublinear dot to indicate that he is doing so. He omits lines without indication or explanation; he leaves out all the more damaged passages, and often some in reasonable condition too, where he could not make sense of them, offering no interpretation of most of the plates of 1081 which he had received. Wherever he did make an attempt, he aimed at a continu­ ous text, with scant regard for line-length or the size of lacunae; he tended to assume that far more was missing at the edges than is actually the case. His supplements contain plenty of mistakes in grammar and syntax, notably in conditionals, negatives and use of the article. For his knowledge of Greek, suffice it to cite μύθοι ωαν (42 y) read as μΰ Ô οϊωσιν (sic), or χρηστόν (55 2o) translated ‘oportet στον’! Quaranta arranged the fragments in the order seen in the Concord­ ance; he sometimes edited the same piece twice.2 His ordering of them depended wholly on his beliefs about their content. Sometimes his se­ quence corresponds to that of the disegni, either forwards or in reverse. But although he juxtaposed several disegni representing columns that were physically joined, he hit upon all these sequences by chance, either be­ cause two disegni were drawn on the same sheet,3 or because he followed the order of their numbers.4 Quaranta appended his immodestly flamboyant signature as interprete to only a few drawings of De poem. 1, namely ^ 4 4 4 frr. 6—7, g, 11, 14—15, and 17.5 I have had to take seriously the possibility that his versions of these fragments are primary witnesses to the text, despite their obvious unreli­ ability and the likelihood that he based them on J\f. Otherwise his manu­ script cannot have this status, on a par with jVor the transcripts,6 for many reasons. First, he saw no need to distinguish the disegno from the papyrus of which it was a copy. Thus he calls the disegno the ‘originale’ for the miscopying ΗΓ60Ν inTVio73 fr. 15^17, where he rightly emended to ήχων, and when, in ./Vio74a fr. 6,16, he emends jV’s reading ΦΘΟΠΟ[ to φθονο[ν, he refers to the drawing as ‘in nostro’, when in fact the extant papyrus has 1 Where his readings are reported, such errors are tacitly corrected, except in those frr. of ^4 4 4 where he had countersigned the d iseg n i. 2 I have collated both versions. 3 So jV 1074a frr. 1-2, 17-18 (backwards order, in any case), N 1081b frr. 1-4. 4 So W460 frr. 4-5, 1074a frr. 1-2, 3 sin-4, 12-13, 1081a frr. 19-20. 5 Since he shared the work with Javarone, this was before the latter left in 1832, i.e. before he was given papyri of D e p o e m , to interpret. 6 Obbink 1996, 27-8, deems Quaranta’s edition of D e p u t . a primary witness, but does not cite a correct reading to prove that he would ‘undoubtedly have consulted with the copyist . . . in the preparation of his text, and checked his own text, if not the Naples apographs as well, against the papyri’. Instead, once the engraving had been checked against the apograph, Quaranta surely controlled his text against its first state; hardly any of the papyri still existed.

De poematis i: the history of the text ΦΘΟΓΓΟ[. Moreover, he never includes letters visible on extant frag­ ments but not in the disegni. I append a comparison between a disegno which Quaranta approved, my col. 43B (on the left), and his own text of it; I substitute square brackets for the sublinear dots with which he indicated lost or incomplete letters : ΐ5

] e if a c [

σαφ ώ ς

α πο δ ]ει£ α ? [ σ υ ρ τ α τ τ € ΐ ρ ε£] ιδ ιω τικ ά )[y ρ η μ α -

]ιδ ιο τ [ ]ιω ι[

σ το ίχ ο υ ς

]ν μ π εινα ικ α ι[

τω ρ

]0VTCLCOVTOCTl

] ι ο π ο υ φ η ει/3 ελτ[] 0 2ο

] λε£εακ:τονκιν[

ρος

τα

] το ο το ν ω ετεκ α ιδ ια ]ρ π ο η ο α ι κ α ι μ η μ ο

και

δια λ]ε£εω ?

κ τλ.

24

to p

[κ α ­

κιν[οκν-

θ υμ ο ρ € ]υ το ρ ω ς τ€

π α ρ τα

] α νεσ ινη επ ιτα σ ι v ]μ€Ρ Τθβ€λτίΟ Ρ Ο Τί

είναι

α γα θο]ρ μ η

τ ’ α ρ τ ι λ € γ ] ο Ρ τ α ς , ο ρ τ ο ς τ ιvoç α κτώ ν] ό ς π ο υ φ η σ ι /3 ε [λ ]τ [ιο κ α ι δ ια

€ργο]ρ π ο η σ α ι κ α ι μ η

ρορ

δια]

και

είναι]

a p e o ip

[[και]]

μ€Ρ το

μ [ο -

η € π ιτα σ ιρ

ß e X T io p ό τ ι

Quaranta omits 11. 25~9> almost complete in JV. He supplies far too many letters at the start of each line (from 1. 20, only three are lost). Worse, he has dotted many letters which are shown as complete in JV, failed to dot others which are not drawn there and cannot have been there, omitted others, and modified still others without warning, e.g. in 11. 16 and 21, which latter was read correctly by Hausrath as τούτον were καί. Most of his reconstructions are unintelligible;1 his wish to produce complete sen­ tences overrode philological accuracy. Some shared false restorations suggest that he saw the transcript of papyrus 460.2 But his work did not depend on lost transcripts made by himself or others during scorzatum. Suffice it to compare his text with that of the person who oversaw the unrolling; I choose at random 58. Javarone’s text is on the left: >5

a Be ο μ ο ίω ς

μ α λ ισ τα

τ ω επαινούμενα) ο μ ο ίω ς Be τ ω

τe μενοκ

το υ

α eoTi

ι/ιε-

κ π ο κ ε ιτα ι

φ eγα ρ

α γ α θ ο ρ π ρ ο ς ep € ξ α ρ α γ κ ^ α σ § 'η ς ' ρ ο υ ρ τ ω ρ e ip a i

τω ν επα[[ν]]ι-

ε π ’ εκείνο και

κ τω ] 20

π α σ ιρ

το υ ]τω . Ά

και

Se ό μ ο ι­

τ ]ω επαινούμ ενοι, τ ά ­

δε και κ α λα ]. 'Ο

ε π α ιρ ο υ -

ίδ ια ο ύ τ ε τ ο υ

σ τα ι

α ντίλ ε)Ό ]μ εν ω [ν

και τα

το υ

μ ο ίω ς

δε τ ω

ε π α ιν ο ύ ­

μ ενο ι; εσ τι τα ] ίδ ια , οκδε κ το υ

μ ε μ ερ ]ι σ τ α

σ το ιχ ο ις το

νηΘεν ε]£

φ e-

ι.

το υ

Ύ π ο κ ε ιτ α ι

ί/ιεγα ρ

ο \γ α θ ο ρ π p o σ γ e p -

α ρ α γκ η [ς

] τω ν ε π α ι­

ν ε τ ώ ν είναι εκείνο, και

1 Where these grossly exceed the space, are disproved by an extant papyrus, or are nonsensical or ungrammatical they are not reported. 2 e.g. ά μ α for ο ί [ γ ] μ α (86 II), wore for l6 the disegno has πλι»[, but he supplies π λ η [ ν and the proof is altered accordingly; the published plate has π λ η [ . In the next line he alters HRON to ή χ ω ν , to similar effect. At.V 1073 fr. 16a,4, where he could not understand the letters K[ JICOA offered by/Vand the first state, they are cancelled on the latter, and duly vanish from the printed engraving. 9 Perhaps these come from the lost ‘fair copy’ of Quaranta’s edition. 10 See Capasso 1991, 122-3, with further references.

Bernardo Quaranta and the C ollectio A ltera

39

described by D ejorio;1Minervini continued it.2In this case the ink used is that of Fiorelh, whose initials endorse all those first states selected for publication with the phrase ‘Si stampi’ or ‘Si stampi corretta’.3 A con­ temporary list of the contents of HV2 I-VII confirms that he ‘corrected’ pis. 109-208 of H V2IV in 1864.4 Given their importance for the history of the text, I have recorded in the apparatus cases where the first states of the plates betray Fiorelli’s changes. When these were incorporated into HV2, they served to mystify and mislead all those scholars who relied on it. The most ludicrous case is 1 9 1 3 -4, where Fiorelli, following Quaranta, altered Ήθ\\ητικψ to ια]|τρικψ· Hence even Nardelli concluded that a passage which says ‘it is most important, in the art of poetry, to speak in whatever form one chooses’ actually ran ‘in medicine we put a plaster on a place that itches’! We are fortunate that the original disegni survive, so that eventually the unreliabil­ ity of HV2 could be exposed; the latter is not a primary source for the text of this roll.

(e) Previous Editions The publication of the engravings of De poem. 1 was completed by the appearance in H V2 X (1875), pls· I-I 3>°f those of W466, unmarred by deliberate modifications and in correct (forwards) numerical order. How­ ever, the papyrus-numbers were not published until 1876, when the index in H V 2XI.2 appeared. Even when scholars obtained this crucial informa­ tion, they did not know how to use it, since the process of scorzatura was not understood, and the principle of alternating backwards order could not therefore be applied. Nor did the engravings supply reliable palaeographical criteria for grouping the papyri. Nonetheless, scholars from outside Naples could at last begin to study the texts, a century after their discov­ ery.5 It is amazing that they accomplished as much as they did; the editorial history of these rolls eloquently attests to the extraordinary difficulty of their task. We can only gaze in horror at how published 1 1825, 22. 2 ‘Id quod erat deperditum intactum reliqui, meliusque duxi indocti viri apographum retinere, quam ad philologicas uwo^eceic recurrere: aliquando tamen verborum monstra eliminavi, quum verae lectiones certae atque indubiae mihi viderentur’ (Preface to H V 1 1 , p. 5). In his copy (see p. 40), Gomperz underlined these words, and in fact successfully removed a number of the m o n stra which those who thought they were expelling m o n stra had actually introduced. 3 The same procedure appears in other cases where first states survive, e.g. R H ere. 1038, Chrysip­ pus’ Π ΐ ρ ι T T p o vo ia c (A.O.P. XX 5). These are modified in the same ink in which they are endorsed ‘Si stampi G. F.’; the changes duly appear in H V 1 V 22-5. 4 A.O.P. XXIII 21 c. 221. 5 For a useful introduction to the editorial history of the papyri see Schmid 1984.

De poematis i: the history of the text editions were based on misleading materials and faulty method, while the work of some outstanding scholars was lost. Equally lamentable were the effects of geographical isolation and lack of attention to what had already been done: the originals in Naples were ignored by scholars both local and foreign, works published there circulated so poorly that they remained unknown even elsewhere in Italy, and many discoveries were repeated independently The papyri soon caught the eye of Theodor Bergk, who identified many poetic quotations in them.1But the great pioneer was the Viennese scholar Theodor Gomperz (1832—1912).2 Although he visited Naples in 1867, 1871, and 1877, he worked little on the originals, which he found too difficult to read systematically.3 1 rediscovered his complete set of H V2.4 It is heavily annotated (see PI. 7). His first notes, usually in pencil or crayon, must be very early, since in 1865—6 he began to review HV2 II—V in their entirety. However, he found the papyri of De poematis so hard that he confined himself to short articles on them, leaving the field open for Hausrath to edit them in 1889. He continued to annotate these texts after that date, as references on every page to the latter’s edition prove. Al­ though some entries can be distinguished as early or late on the basis of internal evidence or the thickness of the pencil, I have thought it wiser for editorial purposes to treat them all as later than Hausrath’s edition. Gomperz would have been a brilliant editor of these materials. His restorations, often palmary, anticipate those of later scholars on countless occasions. This fact has a certain probative value, since the text which he divined from the lacunose and falsified engravings can, in the case of e.g. E Here. 994 or 1425, be checked against the surviving papyri; he restored the correct text to an astounding degree. His marginalia will need to be taken into account by all future editors of Herculaneum papyri. The secret of his success was his excellent grasp of philosophical Greek and of the arguments being advanced; it also helped that he counted carefully the number of letters per line, as letter-counts, written at the line-ends, sometimes attest. In assigning many papyri to their correct rolls he em­ ployed as a criterion the number of lines per column. He would have done even better had he applied the correct principles of Greek syllabification to the division of words between lines; by 1891 others had in this respect ' Bergk 1866, ii. 735. 2 On him see Schmid 1984, 59-62; Dorandi 1993a, pp. xi-xxii. 3 See T h e o d o r G o m p e r z: B rie fe u n d A u fz e ic h n u n g e n , ed. H. Gomperz (Vienna, 1936), i. 433-6, for his reaction on first seeing the papyri. 4 I found it, following indications in Dorandi (1993a, p. xi) and through the good offices of Otto Michael Gugler, in the library of the University of Vienna, where it bears the shelf-mark III 411.501. See further Janko and Blank 1998, 173-4.

Previous editions

41

improved on his practice.1He was the first to join fragments of P. Here. 460 and 1073,2to assign P Here. 466 to this roll,3 and to note the verbal parallels between Roll A and Roll B, although he was for a while in doubt as to the authorship of either. In 1885, relying on the index in HV2 XI, access to the Oxonian disegni, and Emidio Martini’s catalogue,4 Walter Scott surveyed and classified all the papyri on poetics.5 He accepted Quaranta’s grouping of P Here. 444, 460, 463, 1073, and 1074, but treated 1081, as well as 466, separately. He suggested no author for these papyri, but assigned Roll B to Philodemus. In 1889 August Hausrath published his edition of Roll A, which origi­ nated as a Bonn dissertation directed by Hermann Usener6 and Franz Bücheier. Knowing Quaranta’s work only via Martini and Scott, Haus­ rath included most published fragments of P. Here. 460, 1073, 1074a, and 1081a, with P. Here. 444 relegated to an Appendix; he rightly regarded the latter as an initial summary of the opponent’s views, like that in De mus. 4.78 He was the first to exclude P. Here. 463,® but he still omitted P. Here. 466. He saw that some plates of P. Here. 1073 represent parts of two distinct layers,9 but failed to deduce from this that they all do. He found a further join between P. Here. 460 and 1073,10but none between the other papyri of Roll A. Apart from these cases, he ordered the fragments according to similari­ ties of content. His greatest contribution was to distinguish the two hands in P. Here. 1074 and 1081, recognizing the existence of two separate rolls and assigning, for the most part correctly, the individual fragments to each.11 He found important joins between several papyri making up Roll 1 See Gomperz 1891, 26 n. 1, where he argues against the rules newly discovered by Blass and Diels (cf. Crönert 1903, 11, 13). See below, §3e. 2 Gomperz 1873. He joined (a) N 460 fr. 19 with 1073 fr. 10a, because of a quotation of Euripides, Io n 237-40; (b ) M 460 fr. 15 + 1073 fr. 6, because these fragments correspond verbatim to E H ere. 994 col. 5,5 17; and ( ή Ν φ ο fr. 14c + 1073 fr. 5, a join wrongly rejected by Hausrath 1889, 245. Since, like all editors dependent on H V 2, he did not know the original t&cgrao-numbers, he had no chance of arranging the fragments according to the principle of alternating reverse order. 3 In his note in his copy of H V 2 X 1. 4 ‘Catalogo generale dei papiri ercolanesi’, in Comparetti and De Petra 1883, 97-144, at 111. 5 1885,74-9. 6 On Usener (1834-1905) see Schmid 1984, 63 4; M. Gigante, ‘Hermann Usener nella storia degli studi epicurei’, C E r c 6 (1976), 5-14; id., ‘Usener e i testi epicurci nei papiri ercolanesi’, C E rc 8 (1978), 5—20, both reprinted in S a g g i d ip a p ir o lo g ia 1979, 4 7 —9 I>the editors’ preface to Usener i 9 7 7 > pp. vii—X (since this was compiled in tandem with Usener 1887, but contains afterthoughts down to his death, I have treated it for editorial purposes as after 1889); M. Gapasso, 'Gli studi ercolanesi di Hermann Usener’, in Capasso and Cerasuolo 1987, 104-36. 7 1889, 218-27, 229-33. 8 1889, 217-18; he assigned it, following Usener, to an anti-Epicurean, probably Stoic, writer on rhetoric. * 2Φ · 10 He joined JV460 fr. 9 with JV1073 fr. 10(1889,215,218-19). 11 1889, 216-17, 227. His main criteria were script, orthography, and the greater number of letters per line (18-21 rather than 16 18).

42

De poematis i: the history of the text

B: he reunited N 1074b fr. 21 with 1081b fr. 8, and P. Here. 1676 fr. 2 with jV 1081b fr. 12, claiming (rightly) that P. Here. 1676 belongs to the same roll as 1074b and 1081b.1 His editorial work was careful, as he usually paid close attention to the number of letters per line in determining lacunae. Also, he never altered the letters shown on the engravings without warn­ ing the reader, by enclosing them in angular brackets ; but inevitably, since he worked from HV2only, Fiorelli’s modifications to the plates misled him. From a scrutiny of parallel passages on euphony in Roll A (P. Here. 460 and 1073) and Roll B (P Here. 994), Hausrath concluded (rightly) that the author of Roll A was Philodemus, opposing the doctrines of Heracleodorus, but (wrongly) that P. Here. 994 was by a Stoic refuting the arguments found in Roll A. He recognized Philodemus as the author of P Here. 1074b, 1081b and 1676 (also in fact from Roll B). From Philodemus’ statement in De poem. 5 that he had already rebutted in Book 2 claims about the sounds of the letters,2 he deduced that Roll A was De poem. 2. His arguments thus entailed the existence of three rolls, one of them by an author opposed to, and later than, Philodemus.3 Hausrath’s work was welcomed less warmly than it deserved. Thus Sudhaus praised his clarification of the relationship between the various papyri, but rejected his idea of a post-Philodemean author; Hausrath owed most of his best supplements to his teachers and had adopted fewer of their ideas than he ought.4 His publication elicited further improve­ ments to the text, notably Erich Preuner’s discovery of the first join between P Here. 1074a and 1081 a.5 However, by sending Gomperz a copy of his book, Hausrath provoked the latter to re-enter the fray, as appears from his fulminations in the margins of that very exemplar.6 His reply was published soon after.7 Still relying on HV2, he refuted Hausrath’s claim that P Here. 994 was not by Philodemus, proving that it contains a polemic against material in Roll A, but that both are by the Epicurean.8 He was the first to supply the opponent’s name Pausimachus in Roll B.9 In an Appen­ dix, he offered many improvements to Hausrath’s text of Roll A, and 1 1889, 229. Gomperz 1891, 51 n., wrongly rejected this join. 2 Col. 29,7-18 (V 12 in §53). 3 1889, 233. 4 Sudhaus 1890. 5 ATo8ia fr. 16 + JVi074a fr. 22. Gomperz 1891, 7-8 noted the significance of this gain. 6 I found this in the library of the University of Southern California, under the call-number PA 4271.P3.P4. The library of his son Heinrich, with other MSS by him, was in part acquired by USC. 7 It included an account of P . H ere. 1676, identifying the opponent there as Heracleodorus, and the first assignment of P. H ere. 1677 to D e p o e m a tis (Gomperz 1891, 51-69). The reviews were laudatory: see e.g. L. Stein and P. Wendland, A r c h i v f ü r G eschichte der P h ilo s o p h ie , 4 (1891), 675-6, and S. Sudhaus, B erlin e r P hilo lo g isch e W o ch en sch rift, 48 (1892), cols. 1515 17. 8 1891, 1-51. He reached this view by 1888, as we know from a remark added when he reprinted Gomperz 1873 in that year. » 1891, 19.

Previous editions

43

a join between jV 1074a fr. 23 and jV 1081a fr. 25.1 He was so acute an emender that he even restored the original text where the engraving had been altered: thus at 193 8 he restored TeiWtv ώ a schoolmaster and local historian (I thank Fiete Pingel for this information). 8 3 5 ~^· 9 He joined N 1081b fr. 9 with ./Vio74b fr. 14 (1896, 35), although Jensen claims the credit for this himself (1923, p. V n.). 10 1903, 6· On Crönert see Schmid 1984, 66-8.

44

De poematis i: the history of the text

1074a, and 1081a, refining Hausrath’s allocation of fragments to 1074a and 1081a. The addition of 466 also represents an advance. To Group γ he rightly assigned 994, 1074b, 1081b and 1676. Gronert’s work was not followed up until Regina Schächter published several articles on the papyri of Roll A in the early 1920s. Although these display an ignorance of Greek, carelessness over syllabification, and disre­ gard of line-length equalled only by Quaranta,1 they do make a useful contribution. Relying on HV2, she was the first to publish a text of P. Here. 466.2 She also cited Gomperz’s annotations in his copy of HV2, to which she had access in Vienna. Christian Jensen (1883-1940), in his splendid edition of De poem. 5 in 1923, took account of these papyri.3 Although aware of the extreme difficulty of the task, he planned to edit Roll A in its entirety,4 claiming that he had made a number of joins missed by Hausrath.5 He held that the views of Grates of Mallos and Andromenides, whose names he was the first to supply in Book 5, were prominent in Roll A, which he regarded as Book 2; part of it (P Here. 460 + 1073) represented Grates’ views on sound.6 Schächter, in her review,7 welcomed his plans, and accepted his identification of the opponents.8 In 1937, when, as a result of Nazi pres­ sure, Werner Jaeger vacated Wilamowitz’s Chair in Berlin, Jensen became his successor.9 In 1940, at the start of a sabbatical year, he was about to return to Naples to complete his project when he died of a heart-attack. The story of these texts would have been transformed had he, or his pupil Wolfgang Schmid, done so, as the latter promised.10 However, my enquir1 These failings were castigated by Philippson 1927, 515, who was rather erratic himself. 2 Schächter 1926. More work was done on P. H ere. 466 by Caini 1939. 3 On Jensen see Schmid 1984, 71 ; he told his pupil that Book 5 had been the only possible point of entry to D e p o e m ., and that it would be very difficult to repeat his achievement on its other books. For his knowledge of the history of the Officina and the problems of editing the papyri see his lecture of 1929, ‘La Biblioteca di Ercolano’, S a g g i d ip a p ir o lo g ia 1979, in 26. 4 ‘Hausrath hat einen großen Teil der Fragmente dieses zweiten Buches veröffentlicht, ohne zu ahnen, daß sie sich in der Mehrzahl auf die Darlegungen des Andromenides und Krates über die CTOLgeia und έ'ττη und ihre Wirkung auf das Gehör beziehen. Sie müssen jetzt einer Neubearbeitung unterzogen werden, die freilich wegen der Vernichtung des Papyrus und der Zersplitterung und Unordnung der von den Schreibern abgezeichneten Kolumnenreste sehr schwierig ist. Die ergiebi­ gen Stücke hoffe ich bald vorlegen zu können’ (1923, 159). 5 1923, p. Vn. 2; but the join he cites was first made by Kentenich (above, p. 43 n. 9). 6 >9 23 >UfVA2; ('f· Stroux 1923, 312 with n. 4. So too Philippson 1938, 2455-7, who supposed that Roll B is a later epitome of Book 2. 7 E o s 28 (1925), 165-70, at 170. Cf. R. Philippson, P h l V ^ (1924), 417-21, at 421. 8 O 20, 4 4 3 · 9 In 1912 Wilamowitz had praised Jensen in a letter to Gilbert Murray as ‘ein brauchbarer Philologe, die so selten auf diese Erde werden’; see A. Bierl, W. M. Calder III, and R. L. Fowler, T h e P ru ss ia n a n d the P oet (Hildesheim, 1991), 109. IU A. Olivieri, ‘Christian Jensen’, R A A N , ns 21 (1941), 21-6, at 25-6.

Previous editions

45

ies revealed no trace of Jensen’s Nachlass. I believe that, tragically, Kentenich’s manuscript is lost with it; for in De poem. 5 the latter formed the basis for Jensen’s text. This is proved by his ascription to Kentenich of many supplements made by such earlier scholars as Dübner and Hausrath. The Preisaufgabe cannot have had an apparatus criticus, and Jensen did not check whether others had anticipated Kentenich’s text.1 Nathan Greenberg, in a fine Harvard dissertation directed by Jaeger,2 was the last scholar to rely on HV2 alone.3 Following Crönert’s classifica­ tion, he aimed to look at the whole corpus, rather than Book 5 alone, to clarify the position of Philodemus himself. He carefully proceeded from the known to the less known, and provides useful translations and inter­ pretations, but did not work closely on the text. He rightly concluded that Roll A contains an epitome of opinions criticized in Roll B,4 and that the opponents are Crates, Andromenides, and Pausimachus.5 Francesco Sbordone’s work, for all its faults,6 represents a further ad­ vance, in that he no longer depended on HV2. In preliminary studies of Rolls A and B, he published parts of Roll B directly from N and the papyri.7 To Roll A he assigned P. Here. 460+1073. Not knowing the extant pieces of P Here. 444 and 466, he hesitated to assign them to the same roll, but recognized their affinity; he also first edited N 444·8 However, al­ though he well explained how scorzatura worked, and agreed with Gomperz that P. Here. 460+1073 contains a summary of material which Philo­ demus rebuts in P. Here. 994, he accepted Hausrath’s theory that there were three rolls, with P. Here. 994 distinct from the rest.9 In his final edition of part of Roll A and most of Roll B (1976), he divided the material into Tractatus A (P. Here. 994, the end of Roll B), Tractatus B (P. Here. 460+ 1073, the middle of Roll A), and Tractatus G {P. Here. io74b + io8ib + i676, the middle of Roll B), assigning io74a+ 1081a to a different roll entirely.10 This was the first edition of these fragments to aim at the quality of Jensen’s De poem. 5. Sbordone published fairly accurate tracings of N, and, 1 Hencejensen’s attributions of conjectures are unreliable; unfortunately Mangoni 1993 adopted them. 2 Greenberg 1955, published only in 1990. 3 Despite A. Rostagni’s support, he was denied access to the original materials (pers. comm., 1993)· 4 Sbordone suggested this independently in 1966 (1983, 39). J 1955’ 220· 6 On his earlier edition of P. H ere. 1005 see the severe verdict of Angeli 1988, 118- 20. 7 1983, 17 (a piece first in R A A N , ns 31 (1956), 161-77). 8 Sbordone i960. His joins between ./V444 frr. 17, 13 and 7 are wrong, but his comparison of N 4.4.4. fr. 3 with 7V466 fr. 1 is correct, as these form col. 58. 9 A t t i d e ll’X I C ongresso I n te r n a tio n a le d i P a p iro lo g ia (Milan, 1966), 312-24, = 1983, 29-43, at 3 '~ 2 (but ./Vio8t was drawn in 1824-5, and the i/wfçtzo-numbers do provide the essential clue to reconstructing the rolls). 10 Sbordone 1976, pp. xiv, xxvi.

4.6

De poematis i : the history of the text

facing these, a text and Italian translation. He even added serviceable photographs of the extant pieces of P Here. 460.1 However, his edition cannot be judged a success, either in ordering the fragments or in elucidating particular pieces. He proposed twelve new joins between ^ 4 6 0 and N 1073.2 The falsity of nine of these spoilt his chances of finding the true order of the fragments, which he arranged by three criteria- -joins, the content (he separated fragments on the sound of the letters from those on more theoretical questions), and the shape of the pieces. Following Hausrath’s lead, he perceived that yet more pieces of N 1073 represent parts of two layers, but not that they all do. He also failed to pursue two promising observations, that pieces of similar shape derive from adjacent layers,3 and that it should be possible to order the pieces by calculating the relation between the thickness of the papyrus and the decline in the number of columns per circumference.4 He found many further parallels in content between N 460+1073 and P Here. 994. His editing displays the faults usual in his texts—dubious Greek, changes to the traces in J\f marked merely by sublinear dots, and slovenly line­ numbering and spacing. Where the papyri survive he reread them with the binocular microscopes newly brought into the Officina upon Eric Turner’s initiative, yet still produced poor texts with antiquated editorial conventions. Two pieces which he transcribed as if for the first time in fact correspond to disegtii.5 Sbordone’s pupil Maria Luisa Nardelli made a valuable contribution also. She was the first to argue that P Here. 1074b, 1081b, 1676, and 994 all make up a single roll (Roll B), in which, she thought, Philodemus opposes two adversaries, a kpltlkoc and Crates or a Cratetean.6 She thereafter produced texts and facing translations of the rest of Roll A, with a fine introduction, tracings of N, and a commentary, the best so far written on these texts.7 She edited N 1074a-!-1081a8 as ‘Tractatus D’ and 466 as 1 Sbordone 1976, Tav. 20. He could not read anything on P. H ere. 1073 frr. I-II (1976, p. xv). 2 O f these, I accept 460 fr. 22 + 1073 fr. 11, 1073 fr. 15b + 460 fr. 16, and 460 fr. 14c + 1073 fr. 5. The following are rejected: 460 fr. 28 + 1073 fr. 14; 1073 fr. 15a + 460 fr. 17; 460 fr. 8 + 1073 fr. 17; 460 fr. 7 + 1073 fr. 2a; 1073 fr. 7a + 460 fr. 6; 460 fr. 5 + 1073 fr· 8aJ I073 fr· 1 + 460 fr. 2 + 1073 fr. 13; 460 fr. 1 + 1073 fr· *· 3 ‘Sembra infatti assai probabile che strati successivi d’una stessa sezione di v o lu m en presentassero agli occhi d’un dato disegnatore un contorno somigliante e spacchi o lacune della stessa entità’ (1976, p. xvii). 4 1976, p. xviii; cf. Sbordone 1977 = 1983, 155-88, esp. 162-3. However, such calculations are laborious and not very accurate in practice: see below, §4b and Table 4.16. 5 P. H ere. 460 fr. Ill (his fr. 39) = .V460 fr. 28 (his fr. 22); fr. V contains not only the left half of JV460 fr. 5 (his fr. 28), but also the right edge of Λ"460 fr. 4 (his fr. 4 col. i). 6 Nardelli 1979. 7 Nardelli 1983. 8 She correctly assigned N 1081 fr. 4 to this roll, but did not see that it joins N 1081a fr. 25.

Previous editions

47

‘Tractatus E’, still omitting 444 from this roll. She renounced the search for new joins, basing her ordering of fragments on their content. Her editing was careful and sensible. However, for reasons which she leaves obscure, she says that she could consult the extant papyri only in the first phase of her work, when she used the microscopes for a first reading.1She missed the surviving piece of P. Here. 466. Although she matched those of 1074a and 1081a with the relevant disegni, her acquaintance with the originals made no difference to her edition, which follows TVand never refers to the papyri in its apparatus criticus. 1983, pp.

XXXV f.

3 The Manuscripts of De poematis i

(a) T h e Papyrus: Catalogue, Condition, a n d Description

I n this edition the extant papyri are illustrated by drawings rather than

photographs (except PL 1). Image-enhancement has yet to reach the stage where we can smoothe out the folded and buckled surfaces of P. Here. 460 and 1074a; thus photographs often distort the shape of the letters, and do not show the very faint lines where one layer overlies another, whereas drawings can show all the letters visible when a papyrus is viewed from every possible angle. Since these are the products of my hand, eye, and brain I cannot guarantee that they are wholly accurate. They are traced from photographs, but modified by hand in the presence, first, of colour slides viewed from CD-Rom and enhanced with Adobe Photoshop 3.0, and then of the papyrus itself seen at diverse angles through a binocular microscope.1 These buckled pieces are also hard to measure.2 The flatter ones [P. Here. 444, 466, 1073, and 1081a) were conserved between sheets of glass by Anton Fackelmann;3 however, flattening them must have done some damage, and two of them {P. Here. 1073 fr. II and 1081 a fr. II), alone 1 For reading carbonized papyri, best results are obtained by using a high-quality binocular microscope with an annular light fitting, complemented by the strongest natural light possible. When the Philodemus Translation Project and Crates Project introduced two such microscopes to the Officina in 1996, it soon became clear that every papyrus in the collection needs to be reread. 2 Since the papyri are often curved, creased, and buckled, the actual surface, were it flattened, would be larger. Most pieces are so irregular in shape that it is difficult to express their dimensions. Hence all measurements of papyri not under glass are approximate. Those in the C atalogo (1979) cannot be fully trusted either. 3 Cf. A. Fackelmann, ‘The restoration of the Herculaneum Papyri and other recent finds’, B I C S

■7 (I(97°)> MT-S·

The papyrus

49

of those from this roll, are deteriorating.1This procedure made them even harder to read, because the glass reduces the amount of light reflected from the surface into the reader’s eye. I finally transcribed them by using a novel technique : on a very bright day, I drew them in red ink with a fine point directly onto a triacetate transparency laid over the glass while looking through a Nikon binocular microscope with its internal light turned on (only thus could I keep my place in my drawing even when I had to raise my eyes from the lens). I later reread them after K. Kleve had lifted the glass for archival micro-photography; this led to further improvements to my drawings. In these, lines of dots indicate the edges of layers, and an arrow ->■ shows a descent from a layer above to a layer underneath.2 P. Here. 444 (PI. 8). Remnant of scorza, well described as ‘illegibile, pessimo’.3 Conserved between glass in cornice 31 Fackelmann.4 Script of Hand 13 of Group I.5 Squarish, 6.9 cm. W. x 9.2 cm. H. Black, with microscopic specks of yellowish-brown dust on the surface.6 Remnant of scorza: edges of three superposed layers of papyrus visible at bottom, and of eight at bottom left corner. The lowest surface seems never to have had writing, and represents the initial agraphon. Parts of three layers with visible letters: a κ at lower left is unaccounted for. 2.3 cm. of lower margin below the bottommost traces; to judge by 7V444 fr. 17 = fr. Ic, there were 2.5 cm. below the bottom of that column.7Fr. Ia: to left, at bottom, traces of 11. 24 and 27 of a column. Fr. Ib: to right, especially below, traces of 11. 19, 24 -5, and 27-8 of a column. Fr. Ic: to left, 1.6 cm. of papyrus, the right half of which is certainly intercolumnium; at top left and right, and at centre, beginnings of 11. 18-25 °f a column (= 7V444 fr. 17);8 H. 4.6 cm. from the top of letters of 1. 19 to bottom of those of 1. 26, for average H., per line plus interlineation, of 0.614 cm. 1 Thus 1073 fr. He is undergoing rapid deterioration, with e.g. α υ τ ώ ν in 1. to, clearly legible in 1996, being reduced to α υ τ ώ ν a year later (the only gain from this is that parts of the layers below are now visible instead). 2 In the descriptions which follow, H. = height and W. = width. 3 C atalog o (1979), 150, a description which also applies to P H ere. 466 and 1073. Until now this had yielded no legible text, nor even identifiable handwriting; D. Bassi must have had excellent vision when he wrote on ./V444 fr. 17 ‘è in minima parte la scorza di armadio I tavoletta 36’. 4 Mounted with P H ere. 228 and 1073. 5 Cavallo 1983. The A, €, K, N, Π, C, T, Φ, and X are all typical. 6 Presumably of volcanic origin, this dust suggests that the piece is from the outermost part of the roll. 7 If it contained 28 lines, the portion with writing was 17.2 cm. high, and (allowing for margins of 2.5 cm. above and below) the height of the roll was 22.2 cm. 8 This correspondence is expected in sc o rz a tu r a , since N 444 fr· *7 [i|e u ltim o J b g lio , i.e. the bottom layer which the draughtsman could copy, where layers had been peeled off until no more could be separated, and parts of the last layer drawn adhered to the one beneath and outside it. When the disegnatore tried to lift off the upper layer, it tore down the middle and across the bottom.

50

The manuscripts of De poematis /

P. Here. 460. Five remnants of scorzatura glued in some arbitrary man­ n er1to a tavoletta.2 Script of Hand 13. P. Here. 460 fr. I (Pis. 1, 9). Shaped like a map of North America; 9.0 cm. W. X 10.4 cm. H. Very dark brown. Parts of four successive layers. Fr. Ia. at centre, parts of six lines at heights different from those of fr. Ib.34Fr. Ib (= JV460 fr. 29):* main layer. Fifteen lines of one column (5.75 cm. W., but as papyrus is buckled and fractured in middle, original width was greater), with c.i cm. of intercolumnium to left; complete intercolumnium to right (1.5 cm. wide), with first letters of three lines of a second column. Width of first column plus intercolumnium c.7.3 cm. Average height of each line (including interlineation) 0.6 cm. Tiny strip of upper margin above the top line. Fr. Ic: small piece at upper left; scattered across upper two-thirds of piece, tiny traces matching JV460 fr. 28. Fr. Id: small piece at upper left; right edge of column and 0.7 cm. of intercolumnium to right. P. Here. 460 fr. II (PI. 9). Squarish; c.6.1 cm. W. x 9.7 cm. H. Very dark brown. Parts of three layers. Fr. Ha: small piece at bottom right, lower margin below. Fr. lib: main layer (= lower half of jV46o fr. 27).5 Slightly less legible than fr. I. Eleven lines, broken at right, 5.1 cm. W.; original column-width 06.6 cm. To left, c. 1.0 cm. of intercolumnium; 2.5 cm. of lower margin below. Fr. lie: small piece at bottom right, lower margin below. P. Here. 460 fr. Ill (PL 9). Narrow vertical strip; c.4.5 cm. W. x 10.2 cm. H. Very dark brown. Parts of three layers. Fr. Ilia: at lower right corner. To left, 0.5 cm. of margin and initial letters of three lines. Fr. Illb: main layer (= lower half of JV 460 fr. 28). Less legible, as the most abraded, dirtiest and darkest of the five pieces.6 Twelve lines, broken at right, 4.0 cm. wide. To left, 1.0 cm. of intercolumnium; below, 2.5 cm. of margin. Fr. IIIc: at left, traces of right edge of column, with 0.8 cm. of interco­ lumnium to right.

1 As we saw (pp. 22, 24), the early inventories record that two pieces of P. H ere. 460 survived, but now there are five. In fact frr. I-IV can be put back together into a single large piece, in which fr. I forms the upper half, fr. II the lower centre, fr. Ill the left edge and fr. IV the right (see PI. 9). Fr. V, which matches d ise g n i 4 and 5, must be the second piece. The implications for the order of the fragments are discussed below. 2 The pieces are glued so that their upper edges are all at the same level, although some are tops of columns and others are bottoms. For a photograph see Sbordone 1976, Tav. 20. 3 This layer appeared after .V 460 fr. 29 was drawn. It is visible in the photographs taken in 1952 and now in the Dept, of Special Collections, University Research Library, UCLA. 4 So first Sbordone 1976, p. xiv. 5 So first Sbordone 1976, p. xv. 6 Hence Sbordone 1976 edited it twice (above, p. 46 n. 5).

The papyrus

51

P. Here. 460 fr. IV (PI. g).1Tall, narrow strip; c.3.3 cm. W. x 15.7 cm. H. Black, curled under itself at edges, broken horizontally six lines from top, badly buckled by deep horizontal folds, especially below;2 cut vertically at right. Edges of at least seven layers visible at bottom of lower margin. Parts of at least three layers of writing. Fr. IVa: at lower centre. Bottom line of column; 0.5 cm. of margin below. (Parts of other, presumably deeper, layers visible here also.) Fr. IVb: main layer of writing. Beginnings of 21 lines. To left, 0.3 cm. of intercolumnium; below, 2.7 cm. of lower margin. Fr. IVc: a few traces, now identified as matching jV460 fr. 31. P. Here. 460 fr. V (PI. 10). Small, rectangular piece; r.5.4 cm. W. x 6.8 cm. H.3 Lighter brown than the rest. Clean and legible. Parts of two layers. Fr. Va: at centre left and lower right, end of a line with 0.8 cm. of intercolumnium to right, and then two letters of next column,4 Fr. Vb: main layer of writing. Ends of 8 lines (= upper part of N φ ο fr. 4); 14-1.5 cm. of intercolumnium to right, with beginnings of nine lines of next column (= upper portion of 7V460 fr. 5).5 P. Here. 466 (PL 8). Remnant of scoria. Conserved between glass in cornice 30 Fackelmann.6 Diamond-shaped, 5.4 cm. W. x 8.0 cm. H.7 Black, with microscopic particles of yellowish-brown dust on the surface. Script of Hand 13.8Parts of at least two layers.9Fr. Ia: at left, middles of lines 4 and 6-8 of a column. Fr. Ib: at right, middles of eleven lines of a column with an average height of 0.62 cm. per line; above, 1.5 cm. of upper margin. Just enough words to confirm that this belongs to De poematis.10 1 The d ise g n o o f this made in 1908 by Alfredo Cozzi (unpublished) provides no useful in­ formation. 2 This hides much of the lettering from cameras and static microscopy; only by tilting the papyrus can one read these portions. Hence Sbordone 1976 (fr. 40) failed to read most of the text. 3 On its subsequent loss of a strip c.i cm. W. at its lower left edge, containing the ends of three lines, see above, p. 20 n. 1. 4 These fill a lacuna in JV 4 6 0 fr. 6. 5 So first Sbordone 1976, p. xiv. 6 Mounted with with P H ere. 221, 1081a and two other pieces. Fackelmann doubted which of three pieces once on ta v o le tta 36 is P H ere. 466, because their labels were lost. Nardelli (1983, xxi n. 21) thought none corresponded to the d iseg n i. By drawing transparencies I finally identified the relevant piece, that marked 'no. 2’ by Fackelmann. No. 1 (5.5 cm. W. x 9.5 H.) belongs to Hand 25 of Cavallo’s Group P, responsible for P H ere. 465 and other books of Philodemus’ treatise Π ε ρ ί κ α κ ι ώ ν ; I suspect that it is part of the u ltim o fo g lio of P. H ere. 465, the O n A v a n c e . No. 3 (5.5 cm. W. x 9.0 H.) belongs to Group N, Hand 22, who wrote the second copy of R h e t. 3 ( P H ere. 467 + 1426). I identified it as R h e t. ii. 295 Sudhaus, i.e. the u ltim o fo g lio of P. H ere. 467. 7 ‘8.6 cm.’ in the C a ta lo g o (1979) is a misprint. 8 The A, Δ, £, Η, I, A, N, Ξ, P, T, Φ, and (fr are all typical. 9 The assignment of some letters to the layers involved an unwelcome degree of conjecture. 10 Neither fr. matches the d ise g n i , including even the last in the series, fr. 13· Hence D. Bassi wrote on the cover-sheet ‘1’ultimo foglio è indisegnabile’. In fact the disegnatore managed to raise the last layer he had drawn, but gave up when two or more layers came off at once, hence his note non esiste l’originale’.

52

The manuscripts of De poematis i

P. Here. 1073 (PL 11). Remnant of scorza broken horizontally into three pieces;1since lowest and middle have same layer of writing, classed as two. Conserved between glass in cornice 31 Fackelmann.2 Script of Hand 13.3 P. Here. 1073 fir. I: squarish, 10.o cm. W. x 9.5 cm. H. Black, surface obscured by specks of brownish-yellow dust.4 Very thick, many layers visible at edges. Parts of Peight layers of writing, but many traces could not be assigned to specific layers; sequence often hard to reconstruct.5 3.1—3.7 cm. of margin above. Fr. Ia: at right, middles of 11. 2 and 4 of a column. Fr. Ib: at right, ends of 11. 4-6 of a column, with 0.4 cm. of intercolum­ nium to right (over fr. Ia). Fr. Ic: at right, ends of 11. 6—7 of a column, with O. 3 cm. of intercolumnium to right (over fr. Ib). Fr. Id: in centre, middles of 11. 2-5 of a column. Fr. Ie: in centre, middles of 11. 3—6 and perhaps 1. 8 of a column (over fr. Id). Fr. If: in centre, middles of 11. 1—3 of a column; above, upper margin (over fr. Ie). Fr. Ig: to left, middles of 11. 7—10 of a column. Fr. Ih: at centre, middles of 11. 1-2 of a column (over fr. If).6 P. Here. 1073 fr. II: squarish, cut vertically along right and perhaps left edge, 9.7 cm. W. x 10.5 H., with lower piece fitting into bottom 6.5 cm. W., 6.1 cm. H. Black, some volcanic dust on surface. Parts of numerous layers with visible letters; traces of writing almost to bottom. Sequence hard to verify in most cases. Fr. Ha: at right edge, part of intercolumnium, then first letters of 11. 15-16, 18, and 20-1 of a column. Fr. lib : at upper right, middles of 11. 8-11 of a column. Fr. lie: at upper right, middles of 11. 8—10 of a column (over fr. lib). Fr. lid : at lower left, middles and end of 11. 1819 of a column, with part of intercolumnium to right. Fr. He: in left half, the beginnings of 18 lines (= N 1073 fr. 18,10-27);7 average height per line 0.6 cm.8 Below, probably 3.0 cm. of lower margin. The disegnatore tried to remove this layer, but gave up when it tore at centre; hence his annotation

1 Since their shapes interlock at the fractures, we may conclude that they once formed a single tall oblong, i.e. an entire half of a roll, cut vertically at either side, with a maximum total height of 24.2 cm. (more probably c.23.0 cm.). 2 Mounted with E H ere. 228 and 444. His procedure may have caused the distortion and displace­ ment of letters in the lowest piece, where they appear to run diagonally. 3 I read it by making a transparency; Sbordone (1976, p. xv) saw nothing. 4 This shows that the sc o rza derived from the outer part of the roll. 5 For the order of layers see Table 4.17 below. 6 None of the frr. match „V 1073 fr. 19, last d isegno of the upper series; this layer has perished completely. 7 This correspondence is as expected for s c o r ta tu r a , asjVTo73 fr. 18 is the last in the lower series of d iseg n i; according to the inventory of 1824 (above, pp. 24-5), only the u ltim o fo g lio was conserved. 8 If the column contained 27 lines, its total height would be 16.2 cm., with (allowing for margins of 2.4 cm. above and 3.0 below) a total height for the roll of 21.6 cm.

The papyrus

53

‘non esiste l’originale’. Preserved width of letters in 1. 12 is 2.8 cm. (= 8 average letter-widths).1 P. Here. 1074a: eight fragments in two cornici.2 Frr. I III and V-VIII are products of sollevamento; fr. IV is a remnant of scorzatura. Dark brown; no volcanic dust; easily legible. Script of Hand 13. P. Here. 1074a fr. I (PI. 12): large, oblong, 9.4 cm. W. x 18.6 cm. H., with large rectangular hole at lower left, cut at right. Parts of four layers. Fr. Ia: at upper left and lower right, middles of 11. 8 and 15-17 of a column. Fr. Ib: right halves of most of 27 lines of column (= jV 1074 fr. 7), with 0.9 cm. of upper margin, and 1.3 cm. of lower. To right, complete intercolum­ nium 1.5 cm. W, then first half of the 28 lines of next column (= jV 1074 fr. 8), with 0.9 cm. of lower margin. Frr. Ic—d: at top and in centre, traces of sovrapposti. P. Here. 1074a fr. II (PI. 13): large, squarish, widest at top and bottom left, 9.0 cm. W. x 17.3 cm. H., cut to right, where tended to tear in vertical strips. Parts of at least3 two layers. Fr. Ha: at top left, 1.1 cm. of interco­ lumnium, then middles of first 24 lines of a column (= jV 1074 fr· 10)> complete for first two lines (W. of column 6.4 cm.), with most of right margin intact (surviving height 15.8 cm.); above, 2.6 cm. of upper margin; lower indistinguishable or non-existent. To right, 1.2 cm. of intercolum­ nium.4 Fr. lib: middle of 1. 1 and ends of 11. 13-17 and 23 of a column; to right, 1.1—1.4 cm. of complete intercolumnium. At centre right, parts of 11. 8—14 of next column. P. Here. 1074a fr. Ill (PL 14): smaller, shaped like a molar with roots, 9.2 cm. W. x 11.6 cm. H., cut to right, where tended to tear in narrow vertical strip. Fold in shape of Λ with apex in upper margin above œvcv in fr. Ilia. Parts of two layers. Fr. Ilia: left parts of first 17 lines of a column (= jVi074 fr. 9), complete for first three lines, with lateral margins preserved for 1.1 cm. on both sides; 2.2 cm. of upper margin above. The column is 6.2 cm. W ; total breadth for the column plus intercolumnium was there­ fore at least 7.3 cm. Fr. Illb: at top left, middles of first two lines of a column, with some upper margin. 1 If the average line contained 18 letters, the column-width would be 6.3 cm., and a column plus an intercolumnium of 1.5 cm. would be 7.8 cm. wide. 2 C ornice 1 contains frr. V-VIII, and cornice 2 frr. I-IV. In fact the c o rn ici are in correct order, whereas the frr. are misnumbered: their true sequence is frr. V- VIII and then 1 -IV. Nardelli 1983, p. xviii n. 10, first identified the pieces with their respective disegni. 3 More are present, especially in the excrescence at the bottom left, where the strata aie too complex to edit. 4 Thus the total breadth for the column plus intercolumnium was at least 7.6 cm.

54

The manuscripts of De poematis /

P. Here. 1074a fr. IV (PL 15): product of scorzatura rather than sollevamento. Prominent fold in upper margin in shape of A with apex just beyond right edge of fr. IVc col. i; to right, a second fold parallel to right-hand half of first. Heavily corrugated below. Very large, oblong, 9.2 cm. W. x 22.0 cm. H. (probably representing full height of roll), cut to right. Parts of four layers. Fr. IVa: near right edge, scraps of 11. 15 and 22 of a column, with 2.0 cm. of bottom margin; after lacuna, to right, middles of 11. 16—23 °f next column, cut at right. Fr. IVb: mostly in centre and lower right, medial portions of a column 24 lines long, 3.5 cm. of bottom margin below, with marginalia in it. Fr. IVc: right halves of first 22 lines of column, intact at top and again lower down, followed by intercolumnium I. 5 cm. W, with initial letters of next column at top and again below. Above, 3.4 cm. of upper margin. Fr. IVd: right halves of first 18 lines of a column (= TV1074 fr. 30),1represented by traces at top left and centre left, a large piece at top and centre right, and two scraps below. To left of 1. 12, O. 9 cm. of left margin; 1.4 cm. of right margin intact down to 1. 15. Column was 6.27 cm. W. Comparison with TVis instructive; the disegnatore managed to remove fr. IVd to expose fr. IVc at the upper and lower left, but tore off too many layers at the lower right and too few at the upper right. This piece shows that the roll was originally c.23 cm. H., with an upper margin of 3.4 cm., columns of writing 016.2 cm. H., and a lower margin of 3.5 cm. P. Here. 1074a fr. V (PI. 16): roughly triangular, 9.4 cm. W. x 10.0 cm. H. Fold in upper margin in shape of Λ with apex over the point where fr. Va runs under fr. Vb; to right, a second fold parallel to the right-hand half of this Λ. Parts of three layers of writing. Fr. Va: top left and centre, ends of 11. 1— 4 of one column with complete intercolumnium 1.3 cm. W. to right, and then beginnings of 11. 1-7 of next column (= TV1074 fr. 3 sin.); latter runs under next layer to right, and is broken off below. Line of a kollesis (the only one yet identified in the extant pieces of this roll) clearly visible after second letter. Fr. Vb : traces of middles of five lines of one column, and then middles of eleven lines of the next, cut at right and broken off below (= V1074 fr. 3 dext.). In both layers, 2.7 cm. of margin above. Fr. Vc: at left edge, middles of 11. 2-6 of column (= TV1074 fr. 1).2 To right, traces of left of a second column, compatible with TV1074 fr. 2. P. Here. 1074a fr. VI (PI. 17): roughly square, longest at lower right, 6.7 cm. W. x 10 cm. H., with Λ-shaped fold centred above π o in π ο η τ ο υ of fr. VIb,i. (Expected second fold would be beyond right edge.) Parts of five 1 A disegno drawn by A. Cozzi in 1908 and published by Nardelli 1983, 52 right, contributes nothing of value. 2 Nardelli 1983 missed this identification.

The papyrus

55

layers of writing. Fr. Via: at centre and right, middles of 11. 4-7 of a column. Fr. VIb: at right, middles of 11. 4-6 of a column. Fr. Vic: to left, 0.9 cm. of intercolumnium, then beginnings of 11. 1-7 of column (= N 1074 fr. 4), abraded surface worst at lower right. To right, 0.4 cm. of intercolumnium ; above, 2.6 cm. of margin. Fr. Vld: at left edge, traces of first two lines of column; smidgen of upper margin. In centre, traces of 1. 7 of a column. Fr. Vie: at left edge, traces of 11. 1—2 of a column; tiny amount of upper margin. P. Here. 1074a fr. VII (PI. 18): large, roughly oblong, longest at right, 9.0 cm. W. X 16.0 cm. H., with Λ-shaped fold meeting precisely above the left margin of fr. Vllb col. ii. Parts of at least three layers. Fr. Vila: at centre, middles of 11. 12-17 of a column. Fr. Vllb: ends of 14 lines,1with 2.9 cm. of upper margin above, and 1.2 cm. of complete intercolumnium to right, followed by beginnings of 11. 1-21 of next column (= N 1074 fr. 5), cut at right and broken below, with large hole in middle; extant width of writing 5.1 cm. (= 16.5 average letters).2 Fr. IIIc: at centre, middles of 11. 5-13 of a column. P. Here. 1074a fr. VIII (PI. 19): large, oblong, longest at left, 9.5 cm. W. x 18.2 cm. H., cut at right, again with Λ-shaped fold centred directly above end of Ae^eoic in fr. V lllb col. ii, 1; second fold diagonally parallel to right. Parts of at least3 two layers. Fr. V illa: at centre, middles of 24 lines of a column, with space-filler announcing right margin; no upper or lower margins preserved. To right, lacuna, then 0.5 cm. of intercolumnium; then left edge of next column, with four letters from start of 11. 17- 20. Fr. V lllb: ends of 14 lines, with 2.9 cm. of upper margin; to right, 1.6 cm. of complete intercolumnium, followed by the most part of 21 lines of next column (= V1074 fr. 6), cut at right and broken below, with large hole in middle. (Complete column is 6.1 cm. W., giving total for column plus intercolumnium of 7.6 cm.) To right, 0.5 cm. of intercolumnium. P. Here. 1081 a (PI. 20): two fragments, conserved between glass in cornice 30 Fackelmann.4 Two remnants of scorzatura reversed during mounting: that mounted above, fr. I, formed the lower half of the scorza, whereas that mounted below, fr. II, formed its upper half. Original scorza fractured across two-fifths of the way down, but fit between the two pieces still 1 A diseg n o of this col., drawn by Cozzi in 1908 and illustrated by Nardelli 19831 5 2 leC *s worthless. 2 This yields an estimated column-width (18 letters wide) of 5.45 cm., and a width for column plus intercolumnium of 6.65, which seems too narrow. 3 I could not account for all the letters, especially at the lower left, where the stratigraphy is extremely complex. 4 Mounted with P. H ere. 221, 465, 466, and 467 (above, p. 51 n. 6).

56

The manuscripts of De poematis /

discernible; once formed an entire half of a roll (total extant H. 21.1 cm., but probably once c.22.0 cm.). When replaced in correct relation to each other, they form a tall columnar fragment, rounded at top but with fiat base, narrower above than below, with irregular edges except at lower right, where cut vertically. Dark brown; clean of volcanic dust, legible. Script of Hand 13. P. Here. 1081a fr. I: 10.6 W. x 11.2 H. Parts of three layers. Fr. Ia: scrap of bottom line of a column, with 2.4 cm. of lower margin; after lacuna (there is no proof of direct connection to the left part), perhaps up to 1.5 cm. of intercolumnium; at extreme right edge, initial letters of 11. 13— and 17—23 of next column.1 Fr. Ib: at left edge, traces of line-ends of lower part of a column, with a complete intercolumnium 14-1.5 cm. W. In centre, line-beginnings of next column, with its bottom line two-thirds complete, until it runs under the layer above. Below, 2.3 cm. of lower margin. At right edge, to the left of line 17, 0.6 cm. of intercolumnium, with beginnings of what are probably 11. 16, 17—18, and 25 of a third column, which in 1. 25 definitely overlies fr. Ia, where width from left edge of col. ii to that of col. iii is 74-7.5 cm. Fr. Ic: traces of right edge of lower half of a column (= ^1074 fr. 46), followed by intercolumnium, intact at top and again below, 1.1—1.6 cm. W., with start of next column (= jVio74 fr. 47), which reaches right edge only at bottom, where 6.4 cm. W. (Total W. of column plus intercolumnium 7.5 -7.g cm.) Below, 1.8 cm. of lower margin. The draughtsman succeeded in removing fr. Ic to expose fr. Ib on the left and the extreme right, but also exposed fr. Ia at the latter edge and failed to detach fr. Ic in the centre. He therefore abandoned the scorzatura. P. Here. 1081a fr. II: g.3 cm. W. x 10.o H. Parts of two layers. Fr. lia: most of 11. i—ii of a column (= jV 1081a fr. 34), 5.3 cm. W. but broken at left; original width of column calculated as 6.3—6 4 cm. To right, a com­ plete intercolumnium 1.5—1.6 cm. W., and beginnings of 11. 1—10 of next column. Above, 2.3 cm. of upper margin. Fr. lib: at left edge, tiny sovrapposto of two letters which match left edge of jV 1081a fr. 31,5.2

1 This layer lies beneath exiguous fragments of a layer with lines at the wrong height for fr. Ic, but at the correct height for the layer above, fr. Ib. However, calculations of the ratio between the number of columns per circumference and the circumference itself (c. 2.5 : 1) show that the right edge must come from two layers before fr. Ib. The writing in this layer ended noticeably higher up than in fr. Ib, which suggests that the column contained one line fewer. 2 This, in my reconstruction, is in fact the second layer over fr. lia.

(57 ) (b) T h e N eapolitan D isegni: Catalogue, Description, and Errors

The six sets of disegni depicting this roll, kept in the Officina dei Papiri,1 are carefully done in pencil on the first page of large sheets of stout paper folded in half (each page is 021.9-22.1 cm. W. x 30.9-31.8 cm. H.); this is the normal format for Neapolitan disegni. They were made by draughts­ men who did not know Greek; this was the policy of the Officina’s superintendents, who rightly saw this as the only way (before photogra­ phy) to ensure that scholars’ efforts to restore the text could not affect the accuracy of the copies. The failure to draw parts of columns where only a few letters survive at the edges, a standard procedure,2 has vastly compli­ cated the task of reconstruction. The disegni merit much closer study than they have ever received.3 They are not drawings which can simply be transcribed without difficulty, and certainly not from photocopies ; these are essential for reconstructing the rolls, but often mislead as to what the disegni actually show In places, for example, the copyists have unknowingly drawn parts of different layers. Faint lines, depicting edges or cracks, may or may not indicate such cases. Close study of the disegni can also disclose the physical stages of scorzatura. Thus at 84 7—8 N reads γραμ\ματων, but faint lines show that the left side of the column was interrupted by a tongue-shaped break right up to 1. 4. The microscope reveals that M was at first incomplete on the right, the left diagonal of A has had to run beneath it to be fitted in, and the left half of ύύ was once missing; hence when first drawn the papyrus had only γραμ| μ[ ]ων, the other traces being hidden by a sovrapposto removed at a second stage in the scorzatura, when N was corrected.4Again, the copyists did not always draw the interpuncts which were so numerous in this roll; but they often spaced more widely letters between which an interpunct existed in the original. Microscopic inspection has disclosed much new information, deriving from three sources. First, some series (especially .A460 and N 1073) have many erasures, marked by brown smudges obvious to the eye. These usually signal the great pains taken to plot the letters in their correct relation to each other, even if the difference involved merely half a letter; ' There are no Oxonian d ise g n i, as is true of all papyri drawn after Feb. 1806, when Hayter removed from Naples those drawings made under his direction; these eventually reached the Bodleian Library (Capasso 1991, 121, 246). 2 e.g. in D e p ie t. (Obbink 1996, 60). 3 Seejanko and Blank 1998, 181-2. 4 The same process can sometimes be inferred from the transcripts: thus in Τ' 444 fr. i Javarone made additions at the bottom right in a different ink, which are too unexpected to be his own supplements but result from a like procedure; in N these letters cannot be proved to have been added, since the pencil looks the same, but they must have been.

58

The manuscripts of De poematis /

often the first draft was not wholly erased, and remains as a kind of shadow to one side or the other of the second rendering of the same character.1 One must be careful not to mistake such ghost letters for new readings. However, the erasures are also rich in important variants, which can sometimes be read. This is easier where transcripts exist, since these often concur with the original reading rather than the correction.2 Not all afterthoughts are right; every reader of these papyri knows the danger of erasing an earlier transcription, when perhaps the sunlight was impercep­ tibly stronger than this time. Moreover, even errors may hint at the truth. Many letter-forms on the disegni, which to the eye merely seem a bit odd, are in fact changes of one letter into another of similar shape. Secondly, the disegnatori habitually made a preliminary sketch of a num­ ber of letters, in the faintest possible pencil-strokes, before drawing them in with heavy lines. This was as much a guide to placing the characters as to identifying them. I have called these ‘lineaments’ of letters (siglum jVlm). These traces, hardly visible except under magnification, were normally written over or erased; occasionally they remain, sometimes half a letterwidth or more away from the final drawing, even if it was later decided that they were not there, or belonged to a different layer, or, in the case of punctuation-signs, that they did not matter enough to draw. Traces from other layers, perhaps sketched merely as a guide, clarify the sequence and reveal the size of the circumference. Thirdly, the microscope reveals a few later changes to the disegni. Cor­ rections by the interprete who approved jVTor engraving are recognizable in 39 because they are in ink; the pen was that of Scotti, who signed his name in the same ink.3 In 81 there are pencil supplements in a clumsy script, probably Quaranta’s. Luckily this use of disegni to test the fit for conjectures does not recur in this roll. The disegni are as follows:4 N 444 (PL 21): 17 drawings of lower parts of columns with bottom margin, ending with the bottommost, sole extant piece;5 some show parts of two columns from the same layer.6 G. B. Casanova, 1826-32.7 N 460 (PI. 4): 31 drawings of columns which are mostly complete, with 1 It is rare, on the other hand, to find evidence for vertical realignments. 2 Such agreement, I believe, indicates that the correction was not made until the Superintendent approved the drawing for engraving. 3 He adds some superscript letters which he must have deciphered on the u ltim o jo g lio (which has since perished). 4 For the evidence for their dates, and details of the signatures each bears attesting endorsement by an interprete, approval for engraving, and completion thereof, see §2b. 5 Though marked ‘Non esiste l’originale’, TV444 fr. 17 corresponds to the extant u ltim o jo g lio . 6 The only change to the numeration is that no. 7 is written over another number (5?). 7 Probably 1826: see above, §2b.

The Neapolitan disegni

59

upper and lower margins; each shows only one column. Frr. 2—12 by F. Celentano;1frr. 1, 13-31 by G. B. Casanova.2July 1821 to July 1822. These draughtsmen produced the best rendition of the script of the original papyrus. All drawings are annotated ‘Non esiste l’originale’, but six match extant fragments: 7V460 fr. 31 = fr. IVa; ^ 4 6 0 fr. 29 = fr. Ib; JV460 fr. 28 = fr. Illb; N 460 fr. 27 = fr. lie; N 4.60 frr. 4 and 5 = fr. Vb, which proves that frr. 4-5 formed one layer.3 Adjacent columns from the same layer were illustrated and numbered as distinct drawings.4 Such pairs of columns were drawn and numbered in an arbitrary order, according to whichever was better preserved. The drawings, combined with the original frag­ ments, are assigned to layers as shown in Table 3.1. AT466 (PI. 21) : 13 drawings of upper parts of columns, with top margin; some show parts of two columns from the same layer. F. Casanova, 182432.5 Fr. 13 does not match the sole extant piece. Fr. 13,1-2 depicts in lineament part of fr. 12,1-2, as a sovrapposto from the layer above. N 1073: 19 drawings on 14 sheets6 of upper parts of columns, or of whole columns, with top margin. C. Malesci, late 1824 to early 1825. Fr. 18 matches the lower two-thirds of the bottommost, sole extant piece; fr. 19 does not match its upper third. Each drawing was meant to show parts of only one column. But in fact the papyrus was torn across at 11. 7—9, and many drawings show parts of two layers; no one drawing shows the upper and lower parts of the same column. In several pieces, e.g. fr. 15, the tear is clearly drawn.7 I number the fragments where two layers are shown ‘a’ and ‘b’, according to which came first. Fr. 11, a piece from the upper series, itself contains parts of two layers, as the scribe unwittingly redrew the right halves of fr. ioa,5-8, which he had already drawn with that frag­ ment; these letters survived the removal of fr. 10a as a sovrapposto. Similarly, fr. 9a,10 is drawn again as fr. 15b,10, just as Jfr. 12,1 partly reappears in Jfr. 11,1. All fragments have both margins unless the indication ‘left edge’ or ‘right edge’ is given, in which case the text is broken to the left or right. The sequence of these pieces, combined with the extant fragments, ap­ pears in Table 3.2. Malesci drew only reasonably complete pieces; it is ' Crönert 1898, 585, charged Celentano with inaccuracy in drawing, falsely, to judge by these d ise g n i (see below, Table 3.6). 2 Frr. 30-1 are on the same sheet. A further drawing, labelled ‘fram(men)to 4’ and made in 1908 by Cozzi, represents the extant fr. IV, which had not been drawn before; it adds nothing to our knowledge. 3 This accords with the one change to the numbering of the disegni'. no. 5 was first marked 4 . 4 This practice recurs in the Neapolitan apographs of D e p i e t . (Obbink 199F 4 9 )· 5 Probably 1824-5: see §2b. 6 Those of frr. 3-4 and 4-5 are on blue paper. 7 Hausrath 1889 first understood that two layers were present in fr. 15; likewise Sbordone (1976, pp. XV f.) in frr. 2, 7, 8, and 10.

./V460 with left m argin, assigned to right edge

460 with right m argin, assigned to left edge

M

fr. 31 [=

fr. IVc]

P. H e r e .

fr. 30 [Θ in margin] [/? H e r e . fr. Ia] (no margins) fr. Ib col. ii]

fr. 29 [= P H e r e . fr. Ib col. i] (both margins) [+ fr. Ilia + fr. lia] (no margins)

\P. H e r e .

[/? H e r e . fr. Ic col. i] (no margins)

fr. 28 [= P H e r e . fr. Illb = fr. Ic col. ii] (both margins) [+ fr. lib]

[P H ere,

fr. Id + fr. IIIc] (right margins)

fr. 27 [=

P H ere.

fr. lie] (both margins)

fr. 26 (both margins) fr. 25 (both margins) fr. 23, same layer as

fr. 24 (both m argins); join in StSacH/cetr

fr. 21, same layer as

fr. 22 (both margins)

fr. 20, same layer as

fr. 19a [M in m argin] + fr. 14a

fr. 17, same layer as

fr. 18

fr. 16 (both margins)

J '

fr. I ll [for J

'

see below]

Ä'fr. II + fr. 14b [for A'see below] fr. 15 (both margins) fr. 14c (right edge) fr. 13 (right edge) fr. 12, same layer as

fr. 11

fr. 9 (both margins), same layer as

fr. 10 fr. 8 (both margins) fr. 7 (both margins)

[ P H ere.

fr. 4 [=

fr. Va col. i] (right margin) P. H e r e .

fr. 6 (both margins) [=

fr. Vb col. i], sam e layer as

fr. 5 [=

P. H e r e .

P. H e r e .

fr. Vb col. ii]

fr. Vb col. ii]

fr. 3 (both edges) fr. 2 (both edges) fr. i (both edges)

unfortunate that so many layers are lost entirely, as comparison with P Here. 460, which forms the opposite half of the roll at this point, reveals. N 1074 (PL 5); 30 drawings on 25 sheets, largely of complete columns.*1G. 1 For unknown reasons, the d ise g n i of Roll B have gone missing since 1983, with those of frr. 4, 17, and 18 of Roll A (drawn on the same sheets as frr. 3 and 19 of Roll B); copies of the former exist in Sbordone 1976 (Treatise C), and of the latter in H V - and Nardelli 1983. On how these rolls came to be confused, see above, p. 21 n. 1. The dossier also contains Cozzi’s drawings of fr. Vllb col. i and of fr. IV made in 1908 and reproduced by Nardelli 1983, 52; these prove only that the papyrus has not deteriorated since.

N 1073 upper series

J V 1073 lower series

fr. 19 [must follow extant R Here. fr. I] fr. 17 fr. 16a fr. 15a fr. 14 (left edge) fr. 13 (left edge) fr. 12 (left edge), same column as

[four earlier pieces/ Players of RHere. fr. II] fr. 18 [= R Here. fr. He]

fr. n a (left edge) [with fr. n b = 10] fr. 10 [= fr. n b ], same column as

fr. 16b (left edge)

fr. 9a, joins with

fr. 15b (right edge)

fr. 8a (right edge) fr. 7a (right edge) fr. 6 (left edge), same column as

fr. 10b (right edge)

fr. 5 (left edge) fr. 4 (left edge) fr. 9b (right edge) fr. 3 (right edge), joins with

fr. 8b (right edge)

fr. 2a (right edge), same column as

fr. 7b (right edge)

fr. i a (left edge) fr. 2b (right edge) fr. ib

Malesci, Feb. 1823 to 1824. Malesci usually numbered separate columns from the same layer separately; once he drew two adjacent columns as one fragment (1074b fr. 15). Some disegni have been renumbered, but there is no evidence for any deliberate reordering.*1 Since the lax interprete Genovesi supervised the drawings, they have few corrections. Nine represent Roll B (1074b); the other 21 are of Roll A. Even from JV, there can be no doubt which hand wrote each piece;2 the frequent claim that nothing can be learned from the disegni about the scribal hands is false in this case, where the scripts are distinctive (the difference even appears in HV2). Whereas no drawing of JV 1074b corresponds to an extant fragment, several of JV1074a 1 Since the nos. 17-19 are written over illegible numbers in the teens, 20 has replaced |[ig| and 21 was |[20], 17-21 were at first numbered 16-20, but the error was corrected before fr. 22 was drawn. 2 Sbordone 1976 omitted N 1074b fr. 19, yet its hand was that of Roll B, as witness the narrow E , Θ, O, and C. It is now only in H V 2.

The manuscripts of De poematis i do. The drawings are assigned to these hands and match the extant pieces (composed in all cases of two or more layers) as shown in Table 3.3. N 1081: 47 drawings on 45 sheets, of either upper or lower parts of columns. F. Casanova, 1824.1 Casanova never drew columns from the same layer in the same drawing, even though in jVio8ib frr. 46 and 47 the extant ultimo foglio proves that he was drawing the same layer. There has been the same confusion of rolls as 111X1074; in this set 30 drawings derive from Roll A, but the other 17 are of Roll B and are called 1081b.2 Again, no disegno of 1081b matches any extant scrap, but two pieces of 1081a still exist. The drawings are assigned to these hands are shown in Table 3.4. To apply the method of reversed alternating sequence, we must classify the pieces, both extant and lost, into four groups, by whether they are from left or right edges and are the tops or bottoms of columns, and whether, according to their shape and content, they depict the same layer (Table 3 -5)·3 Thus but four disegnatori drew Roll A. They copied only more complete passages where they could distinguish extensive surfaces from the same layer.4 Given the difficulty of their task, their achievement is extraordi­ nary; nowhere, as in e.g. XT403, did they draw as if from the same layer letters derived from several, producing a meaningless jumble. To be sure, total accuracy cannot be asked of them, in either letter-spacing or tran­ scription; but whereas in De pietate the width of lacunae cannot be reliably calculated to an accuracy greater than one letter,5 in this roll it is hazard­ ous to advance supplements which diverge from the drawing by more than 0.5 letter-widths (where I have printed such supplements, this is indicated in the apparatus). The disegni are somewhat reduced in the vertical dimen­ sion, but enlarged horizontally: the letters are more widely spaced (by about 20 per cent) than on the originals.6 This was no doubt for ease of transcription. The number of mistakes which the disegnatori made varies according to their skill, the talents and assiduity of their supervisor, and 1 For this date, rather than 1835, see above, p. 25 n. 2. 2 These were once numbered separately (p. 24 n. 1). As in the case of jV 1074b, the originals of Ario8ib are missing (copies are in my possession and that of C. Romeo). In the table below I indicate the joins between 1074b and 1081b accepted by or advocated by Romeo 1993; I made independently, in 1991, further joins between 1074b fr. 15b and 1081b fr. 7 inf., between 1081b fr. 1, fr. 5 and 1074b fr. 13, and between 1074b fr. 12 and 1081b fr. 7 sup. 3 The missing numbers are of course those of jVio8ib. 4 Obbink 1996, 60. 5 Cf. ibid., 62. 6 Thus the height of P. H ere. 1081a fr. 34 col. i, from the top of the letters of 1. 1 to the bottom of those of 1. π , is 8.1 cm. (traced through glass), but 7.5 cm. on jV, a difference of 8%. Its width at 1. 4, measured from the left foot of the a of xjaAAior, is 5.15 cm. on the original, but 6.2 cm. on jV, an increment of 20.4%.

T able 3.3. The disegni andfragments of P. Here. 1074 arranged by scribal hand 1074a, = H a n d 13

N

= extant

P. H ere,

in

cornice

W 1074b, = H and 8

fr. i (left edge), sam e layer as fr. 2

co rn ice

1 fr. Va col. i

fr. 2 (right edge), = layer over fr. 3

corn ice

1 fr. Va col. ii

—

fr. 3 (two layers shown)

co rn ice

1 fr. V b—c

—

fr. 4

corn ice

1 fr. V I (5 layers)

fr· 5 fr. 6

co rn ice

1 fr. V II (3 layers)

—

co rn ice

1 fr. V III (2 layers)

—

fr. 7 (left edge), same layer as fr. 8

co rn ice

2 fr. I (3 layers)

fr. 8 (right edge), same layer as fr. 7

co rn ice

2 fr. I (3 layers)

—

fr. 9 fr. 10

corn ice

2 fr. Ill (2 layers)

—

corn ice

2 fr. II (2 layers)

—

fr. 11 (top, left edge)

—

fr. 12 (top, right edge, 2 layers shown), same layer as fr. 13 fr. 13 (top, left edge), same layer as fr. 12

—

—

—

—

fr. 14

—

—

fr. 15 (2 cols, shown)

—

—

fr. 16 (left edge)

fr. 17 (right edge)

—

—

fr. 18 (right edge) fr. 19 (left edge) fr. 20

__ —

fr. 21 (right edge)

—

—

fr. 22 (end o f text?) fr. 23

—

fr. 24 (left edge)

—

fr. 25 (left edge)

-.-

fr. 26 (left edge)

—

fr. 27 (left edge)

—

"

— —

fr. 28 fr. 29 (left edge) fr. 30

corn ice

1 fr. IV (4 layers)

T able 3.4. The disegni of P. Here. 1081 arranged by scribal hand P. Here. 1081a, = H and 13

P. Here. 1081b, = H and 8 (with 1074b in bold) fr. i, joins with fr. 5 and fr. 13 fr. 2 (left edge), joins with fr. 15b fr. 3 (right edge), joins with fr. 15a

fr. 4 (top), joins with fr. 25 fr. 5 (right edge, bottom, 2 layers shown), joins fr. i and fr. 13 fr. 6 (left edge, top) fr. 7 (left edge, top), joins with frr. 12 and 15b fr. 8 (left edge, 2 layers shown), top joins with fr. 21 fr. 9, joins with fr. 14 fr. 10 (2 layers shown), top joins with 1677 fr. 4 fr. i i , joins with fr. 20 fr. 12 (top), joins with 1676 fr. 3 fr. 13 (top) fr. 14 (bottom) fr. 15 (top) fr. 16 (bottom) fr. 17 (top) fr. 18 (bottom) fr. i g (bottom) fr. 20 (top) fr. 21 (bottom) fr. 22 (bottom) fr. 23 (top) fr. 24 (bottom) fr. 25 (top), joins with fr. 4 fr. 26 (bottom) fr. 27 (top) fr. 28 (bottom) fr. 29 (top) fr. 30 (bottom) fr. 31 (top) [extant as fr. lib] fr. 32 (bottom) fr- 33 (top) fr. 34 (top) [extant as fr. Ha]

The Neapolitan disegni P. Here. 1081a,

Hand 1

65

E Here. 108ib, = Hand 8

fr. 35 (bottom) fr. 36 (bottom) fr. 37 (bottom) fr. 38 (bottom) fr. 39 (bottom) fr. 40 (bottom) fr. 41 (bottom) fr. 42 (bottom) fr. 43 (bottom) fr. 44 (bottom) fr. 45 (bottom) fr. 46 (bottom) [extant as fr. Ic col. i] fr. 47 (bottom) [extant as fr. Ic col. ii] above all the preservation of the papyrus. Some sets of disegni bear many more corrections than others (e.g. 7V460 and 1081 are much more heavily corrected than 444 and 466). In Table 3.6 I have calculated their reliabil­ ity according to the number of letter-confusions for which they can plausibly be held responsible, establishing also the number of errors in each set of fragments and errors per half-column.*1 Past mistrust2 of E Casanova’s honesty (and Celentano’s accuracy) finds no support here. P. Here. 444 has the most errors, either because it was ill-preserved, since it came from the outside of the roll, or perhaps because Quaranta was lax in overseeing the work. Each draughtsman was prone to particular misreadings; study of these may help in improving the text.3 G. B. Casanova is prone to copy Al as N, E as O, K as N, T as Γ, and 63 as O. 1 I omit all mistakes which seem likely to have been the fault of the ancient scribe. 2 Crönert 1898, followed by M. Capasso (‘Altre falsificazioni negli apografi ercolanesi’, C E rc 16 (1986), 149-53), accuses Casanova of having falsified some drawings or drawn badly, although Capasso adduces extenuating circumstances. However, Crönert wrote before he first visited the Officina in 1899, as he indicates (1898, 595); some of his cases depend on dise g n i which were drawn twice by accident or represent multiple layers, like W1403. Moreover, Casanova’s critics have not tried hard enough to interpret „V1104: this papyrus reports someone’s opinions about void, time, and eternity, and may also mention water and combustion. Crönert’s supplement of fr. 5,9 10 as n e p l [ t ] t) [ c τ ώ ν ] I π [ ο ] η μ ά τ ω ν τ ί [ χ ν η ΐ , which led me to consider whether it is from D e p o e m ., is false, since jVreads ] ν [ ο ] η μ α τ ω ν ; there is no other reference to poetry in these frr. 3 Cf. D. Armstrong and J. Fish, ‘Emender’s Guide to P H erc. 1425 as read by 0 and W, C E rc 24 (1994), 97-107, where the misreadings in Ware all by G. B. Casanova; his errors are likely to diverge here, since the hand is so different.

T able 3.5. The disegni andfragments of P. Here. 1081a arranged by series and layer R ight edge o f layer

Left edge o f layer JV 1081a upper series

JV io8ia lower series

JV 1081a upper series

JV 1081a lower series

E H ere.

fr. Ia col. i

E H ere.

fr. Ia col. ii

E H e re .

fr. Ib col. i

E H e re .

fr. Ib cols.

ii—iii JVfr. 46 [= col. i]

E H ere.

JV fr. 47 [= col. ii]

Ic

E H e re .

Ic

JVfr. 45 JVfr. 44

JVfr. 43

JV fr. 42

JVfr. 41 JVfr. 40 JVfr. 39 JVfr. 38 JVfr. 37

JVfr. 34 [= E H a col. i] JVfr. 31 [= lib]

H ere.

E H e re .

JVfr. 36

1081a fr. Ha col. ii]

[ E H e re .

JVfr. 33

JVfr. 35

JVfr. 29

JVfr. 30

JVfr. 27

JVfr. 26

jVfr. 32 JVfr. 28, joins with

JVfr. 24 JVfr. 22 JVfr. 21

JVfr. 19 JVfr. 25 jo in ed to

JVfr. 18

fr· 4 JVfr. 16

Errors typical of F. Casanova are to copy Λ as N, O as £, and 60 as O; C. Malesci tends to mistake A for P, ΛΗ for NI, N for Η, Π for T, and Tl for Π. Confusions between letters of dissimilar shapes, e.g. round and square, are rare. Although the usual uncial errors1 are well represented, others will seem inexplicable without detailed knowledge of the hand. The errors found are listed in Table 3.7. (I omit cases where a letter looks like another when incomplete, e.g. Θ looking like C or Γ like I.)

1 M. L. West, T e x tu a l C r itic ism a n d E d ito r ia l T echnique (Stuttgart, 1973), 25, lists the commonest as A = Δ = Λ, Γ = T, € = Θ = O = C, H = €l (not seen here), Η = N = K = 1C, ΛΛ = M, AI = N, and T = Y.

67 T able 3.6. The accuracy of the disegnatori : comparative statistics

Disegnatore

Papyrus

No. of half-cols.

Errors in papyrus

F. Casanova

466 1081a

G. B. Casanova

total 444

!3

7

0-53

30

20

0.66

43

27

0.63

24 18

1.41 0.49

42 9

0.78

G

460 frr. i, 13—31

37

total

54

Celentano

460 frr. 2-12

20

Malesci

i °73 1074a

27

36

25 29

total

63

54

T a b l e

per half-col.

0.45

0-93 0.81

0.86

3.7. Letter-confusions in the disegni Letter in JV

Correct reading

NI

IN , A H

Letter in JV

Correct reading

A

A,

AI

N

Γ

T, X

0

Δ

A

€

Θ, 0 , C

00, oc π

ei z

ω

H

IB, ιέ ,

Θ 10

e, φ ω

in

M, 0

T

e, ω

Θ,

c, ω

ΓΓ, ΓΟ, ΓΡ, Η, IT, Ν, τ , τ ι, τ ο

z:

ω

no

γ,

P

Α , Η, Ν, Τ , Φ

PI

Η

c

Γ, C, Η, 0

H I, N l, Π Π

CO

ω

K

le

τ

γ, γ γ , γρ , η ,

Kl

TO

Y

Η, Τ

A

A , Δ , N, Y, X

φ

τ

M

ΔΑ, AA, Y

X

κ

N

Α Γ , A l, K, A , PI, T F , Y

ω

0 , ΡΓ

it

, N, π

π,

y, X

The manuscripts of De poematis / (c) The Transcripts of the Interpreti As we saw (§2c), transcripts of about a quarter of Roll A survive among the manuscripts of the interpreti; these cover papyri 460 and 466 entire, the start of 444 and middle of 1073. That of 460 is a joint effort by Genovesi, Parascandolo, Caterino, and Javarone, with corrections by Scotti (Pis. 2— 3). The others comprise only pieces where Javarone was supervisor, and not all of those. The status of these manuscripts as primary witnesses to the text was proved in §2c. The interpreti generally share the same practices. They put one column or part thereof on each page, spaced as on the papyrus, and headed Tram(m).’ or ‘Col.’1 They may omit damaged lines or parts of lines, but respect the lineation of the papyrus and its division of words over the lineends by the rules of Greek syllabification. They mark with hyphens words deemed incomplete at the line-end, even when they do not supply the remainder. They omit the space-fillers common at the line-ends of this roll, as well as marginal signs, stichometric letters, and nearly all paragra­ ph!. They separate the words where they understand them, leaving wide spaces for lacunae. They use no accents except the apostrophe and diaer­ esis; Javarone ignores the accents present in his part of the papyrus. They supply only rough breathings, and those inconsistently (Genovesi usually omits them); in the long diphthongs iota is written subscript (these are the usual conventions of HVS). They do not indicate damaged letters, al­ though Javarone often gives alternative readings or supplements above the line. Missing letters are not usually distinguished, but occasionally Geno­ vesi underlined them2 and Javarone marked them with sublinear dots (this risks confusion with the iota subscript, e.g at 114 2-3). They may confuse e and η, o and ω, Θand r, because of the phonetics of Italian. Genovesi and Parascandolo use punctuation in only one transcript each,3*but Javarone offers a fair amount of punctuation, often following the practice of the ancient scribe. He puts a high stop thirteen times where JVshows a vacant space, and eight times where jVhas an interpunct with or without a space. Hence, when, eleven times, he writes a high stop where JV has no space, but in four of these cases it has a paragraphus, this proves that there was at 1 In the transcript of 460 Genovesi began by placing the text on the left half of the page (fos. 1-2), but Javarone put the next fr. on the right, a practice followed in the rest of this MS and the others. 2 He and Scotti also underline letters to signal an alternative in the margin. 3 In 460 frr. 7-8, where Scotti’s interventions betray his influence. All the high dots stand for interpuncts; Parascandolo’s commas in the lower part of fr. 7 probably do not reflect ancient punctuation, but four of Genovesi’s eight in fr. 8 (PI. 2) correspond to interpuncts on JV.

The transcripts of the interpreti

69

least an interpunct in the original.1But one of his high dots is wrong, and only five of his 32 commas, or 16 per cent, correspond to interpuncts on N.2 He marks punctuation only twice in nine cases where it is visible on the extant original. However, JVdraws only one of these nine; and since, as we shall see (§3e), Wshows only 34 per cent of the interpuncts visible on all the extant pieces, most of Javarone’s commas probably do represent the scribe’s punctuation. The transcripts of the interpreti are as follows:3 P. Here. 444 (A.O.P XXIII 21, cc. 68-g). F. Javarone, 1826-32 (1826?).4*6 White paper, two loose folios, 20.4 cm. W. x 29.9 cm. H. Untided, no indication of date or authorship. Content: in Javarone’s hand, fo. 68r, transcript (untitled) of P. Here. 444 fr. 1; fo. 68v , blank; fo. 694 transcript (headed ‘Fram. 3’) of fr. 3; fo. 694 transcript (entitled ‘fram. 4.’) of fr. 4. P. Here. 460 (A.O.P. XXIII 8). Various authors, 1July 1821 to 1 August 1822. Paper, 16 folios (a quinion bound with a ternion, the latter of blue paper), 18 cm. W. x 25 cm. H. Title, in upper centre of fo. ir: Tapiro no. 460’; no indication of date or authorship.3 Content: in hand of Genovesi, fos. 1—2, transcripts of fir. 1—4.6 In hand of Javarone, fo. 34 transcript of fr. 5; fo. 3V, left col., transcripts of 11. c.6—10 of fr. 18, fr. 13, a left edge of a col. (J' 460 fr. Ill), fr. 14a and fr. 22 (no titles); fo. 34 right col., transcript of fr. 6. In hand of Parascandolo, fo. 44 transcript of fr. 7, with additions by Scotti. In hand of Genovesi, fo. 44, transcript of fr. 8, with additions by Scotti. In unknown hand, fo. 54 left col., opposite fr. 9,9-10, sketch in pencil of a line of Greek (V460 fr. IV), now deemed to be fr. 14,15. In hand of Javarone, fo. 54 right col., transcript of fr. 9, with marginal note by Scotti. In hand of Genovesi, fo. 5v-6 4 transcripts of frr. 10—11. In hand of Javarone, fo. 64 transcript of fr. 12, with additions by Scotti. Fo. 74 left col., in unknown hand, drawings in pencil of 11. 6—11 of fr. 15, of a left edge of a col. (./6460 fr. Ill), and of fr. 18 (no titles). In hand of Caterino, fo. 74 right col., transcript of fr. 13 (title in hand of Javarone). In hand of Javarone, fos. 8 r- i 64 transcripts of fr. 14-29, one per page (fo. i2r was left blank for fr. 23, which was never transcribed). Fo. i6v blank. P. Here. 466 (A.O.P. XXIII 10). F. Javarone, 1824-32 (1824-5?). ^ ue 1 Likewise at 460 fr. 7,21 .A^has only a narrow space after φ ν α ν where Parascandolo puts φ υ σ ι ν , but jV’s paragraphus confirms that there was at least an interpunct. 2 At 77 8—9 he writes δι 1 | ols’ €i for δι|οκ€ΐ. At the line-end in 55 24 Fo writes as / an interpunct which jV omits. 3 All are in ink unless stated. * For the dates of the MSS see above, §2b. 5 The note in pencil in the upper corner of f. iv, ‘a di pir] quattro marzo—40’, is probably a calculation of a stipend due for work done on Mon. 4 Mar. 1822. 6 The fragments are entitled ‘Fram(m). 1’ etc., except that frr. 18—19 and 21—2 are headed Col. 18 etc. (the title of fr. 20 was omitted).

70

The manuscripts of De poematis i

paper, 6 folios (a ternion), 18.5 cm. W. x 25.5 cm. H. Title, in top right corner of fo. ir: ‘Sc(orza) 466’. No indication of date or authorship. Content: in hand of Javarone, folios 1-6, transcripts of frr. 1-13 (entitled ‘Fram. 1’ etc.), one per page. P. Here. 1073 (A.O.P. XXIII 21, cc. 8-11). F. Javarone, 1824. White paper, 4 folios (two sheets each folded upon itself), 18.2 cm. W. x 26.2 cm. H. and 19.4 cm. W. x 26.8 cm. H. Title, in upper centre of fo. T: ‘Papiro 1073’. No indication of date or authorship. Content: in hand of Javarone, fos. 8r—n r, transcripts of frr. 8a, 10a, 11-15, one per page, entitled cFram(ment)o 8’, but then ‘Fr. 10’ etc. and Έ 14’ etc.;1fo. i i vblank.

(1d ) Form at and Script

Since the papyrus-roll was damaged even before it was unrolled, it was surprisingly difficult to establish its original dimensions, except in the case of those pieces conserved between glass sheets. Keeping a ruler a safe distance from the papyrus causes parallax errors, and the creasing, folding, and tearing of its surface means that the measurements in photographs are unreliable. I was eventually able to verify the dimensions (cm.) by means of electronic digital calipers (Table 3.8).2The possibility of damage to the top and bottom of the roll means that the margins and roll-height are minimum figures, and other estimated results proved unreliable. At 23 cm. the roll is fairly tall for Herculaneum,3 but squat in compari­ son with papyri from Oxyrhynchus, which average 25—32 cm.4 Its length depends on the original number of columns, to be investigated below. The column-height is only estimated, but seems to be c.16 cm., which is rather short;5 hence the written portion is 70 per cent of the total height. This suggests that the upper and lower margins are somewhat broader than is usual at Herculaneum, which would show that this was a book of rela­ tively high quality.6 The number of lines per column, 26-8 for much of 1 Javarone copied only the upper parts of the columns except fr. 15, rightly supposing that, with that (mistaken) exception, the lower sections were from other layers. Hence he left out fr. 9, where the upper part was ill preserved, even though the lower had continuous text. 2 I thank J. Fish for introducing this equipment and lending it to me. 3 The range is 19-24 cm., with a slight preference for 21-2 (Cavallo 1983, 16). 4 Johnson 1992, 202. 5 Cavallo 1983, 18, gives the range as 15-18 cm.; 16-20 cm. is normal for prose texts at Oxyrhyn­ chus (Johnson 1992,181). 6 Cavallo 1983, 18, calculates the average proportion as 75-80%; but, as Johnson remarks (1992, ■93—4)5 ■■is very difficult to be sure that margins are complete. A wider range is found at Oxyrhyn­ chus, with finer MSS having wider margins (Johnson 1992, 199, 233, 296-8). Literary papyri tend to have a lower margin larger than the upper (Johnson 1992, 196).

Format and script

η\

T able 3.8. The dimensions and layout of thepapyrus-roll Fragmentnumber

Upper margin

Fleight of column

Lower margin

Fleight of roll

Width of column

Interco­ lumnium

Total width of unit

444 fr. I

—

17.2 (est.)

2·3

—

5-3 (est.)

1.5-1.6?

6.9 (est.)

!-5

17.4 (est.)

—

—

—

5-96

t -54 1.0+

466 fr. I

—

460 fr. I

—

15.6 (est.)

460 fr. II

—

—

2·5

460 fr. Ill

—

—

460 fr. IV

—

—

460 fr. V

—

1073 frr. I—II

3-7

1074a fr. V 1074a fr. VI

7 -5 “ 7 ·6

—

6.6 (est.)

2·5

—

—

1.0+

—

2.7

—

—.

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

t-5 - t -7

—

16.2 (est.)

3-0

22.2 (est.) 6.3 (est.)

t -5 (est.)

7-8 (est.)

2.7

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

t -3 0.9+

—

2.6

1074a fr. V II

2-9

—

—

—

5-45 (est·) 1.2

1074a fr. V III

2-9

—

—

—

5-93

1074a fr. I

0.9+

—

!·3

—

—

1074a fr. II

2.6

—

—

—

6.45

t -5 1.2 +

1074a fr. Ill

2.2

—

—

—

6 ·35

I.I +

7 -4 5 +

1074a fr. IV

3-4

16.2 (est.)

3-5

23.2

6.27

!-5

7-77

1081a fr. I

2-3

21.1 +

6.3 (est.)

I.5-I.6

7.8

1081a fr. II

—

21.1 +

6.4 (est.)

1 .1 -1 .6

7 ·4 - 7 -5 )

— —

2·3

1.6

—

6.65 (est.) 7-53 —

7-65 +

7 -5 +

range

3-7 +

16.2 (est.)

3 ·5 +

23.2+

5 ·93 - 6.45 1.1-1.7

7 4 -7 .8

the roll, declining to 23-4 at its end (Table 4.11), is low for Herculaneum;1 this is related to the unusually large script. The decline shows that the scribe felt he had plenty of room as he approached the end of the roll— the reverse of the usual situation, when the number of lines is stable, with a deviation from the mode of one line,2 or increases towards the end.3The letters are 2.5 mm. wide by 2 mm. high, rather large for Herculaneum but typical for elegant scripts at Oxyrhynchus,4 with a line-to-line height of 5.5—6.0 mm., and line-spacing of 3.5—4.0 mm.;5 this is generous, but not especially associated with elegant styles of script at Oxyrhynchus.6 The first letter of the line may be slightly enlarged. The horizontal measurements are harder to establish. Those based on 1 Roll B is similar, but many rolls have averages between 30 and 40 (Cavallo 1983, 18). 2 So at Oxyrhynchus (Johnson 1992, 144 with his table 2.5). 3 Cf. D e p ie t., where the number increases from c.29 to c.31—5 lines (Obbink 1996, 75); the papyri involved are all from the same roll. 4 Johnson 1992, 231. 5 For comparable statistics from Oxyrhynchus see Johnson 1992, 144 with his table 2.5. 6 Ibid., 232.

The manuscripts of De poematis / fragments from earlier in the roll are estimates (marked ‘est.’), which are too narrow; a width of 5.3—5.75 (with a column-to-column width of 6.7— 6.9, at odds with the measurement of 7.5 in 460 fr. I), is lower than the firmly established dimensions of 5.95-6.45 (and 74-7.8) later in the roll. This might reflect a tendency to widen the column-to-column width as the scribe progressed, but probably results from the extreme difficulty in ob­ taining the prior measurements. If these are set aside, the column-width of 5.95-6.45 cm. (fairly broad for Herculaneum '), and accordingly the col­ umn-to-column width of 74-7.8 cm., are comparable to those in the wider class of prose texts from Oxyrhynchus.12 This latter figure is normally sta­ ble, e.g. in De pietate,3 whereas the width of the column relative to the in­ tercolumnium varies : when a column is broader, less space is left before the next one, so that the column-to-column width remains the same. In 127 and 161 dots at the top left-hand corner of the column mark where to align it;4 since, as Johnson remarks,5 £in a well-executed literary roll, column widths seem to be measured prior to the writing of a column’, the columnto-column width was probably made with a fixed measure, e.g. a notch on the scribe’s pen-box. It accords with this that columns often begin with a very long line, a phenomenon paralleled elsewhere.6 The number of av­ erage letter-widths per line is typical at Herculaneum, but, untypically, de­ clines from 19.4 early in the roll to 17.7 at the end (see Table 4.10).7The ratio of column-height to column-width is 2.15 : 1, which is low for both Hercu­ laneum 8and wider prose texts at Oxyrhynchus.9 Since only one kollesis has been identified (in 127), the average width of the kollema is unknown. The writing runs parallel to the fibres, as is the norm in a literary roll. In 164 (PL 12), the one case where the original completely preserves the left margin, the scribe let the lines drift leftwards by at least 30 lower down in the column, in accord with Maas’s Law; despite repeated denials,10 this applies at Herculaneum as well as in Egypt,11 but the disegnatori always depict the left margin as vertical. The scribe aimed to justify his right 1 Cavallo (1983, 18-19) finds that the average column is 5-6 cm. wide, and the average interco­ lumnium 8.12 mm., whereas 16 mm. is wide. 2 Johnson 1992, 167, 173: at Oxyrhynchus, these texts generally have columns 6.0-6.9 cm. wide, the narrower ones 4.7-5.3, with column-to-column widths of 6.7-8.2 cm., and a preference for c.7.0. The intercolumnar spacing is average (Johnson 1992, 173-4). 3 Obbink 1996, 75. 4 Cf. Dorandi 1982, 53;Johnson 1992, 221-30. 5 1992, 107. 6 e.g. P P a n s . 2 (Chrysippus, I J t p l α π ο φ α τ ι κ ώ ν , ii bc ) = Pl. ii in F. G. Kenyon, T h e P a la e o g ra p h y o f G reek P a p y r i {Oxford, 1899). 7 Cavallo 1983, 18. It is in the middle of the range for Oxyrhynchus (Johnson 1992, table 2.3). 8 Cf. P H ere. 1007/1673. The average is 3 : 1, and in some texts 4 : 1 (Cavallo 1983, 19). 9 Johnson 1992, 186-93 with fits table 3.12. 10 Cavallo 1983, 18-19; Turner and Parsons 1987, 5 η. 11; Capasso 1991, 209. " Johnson 1992, 222-3. Maas’s Law also applies in D e p ie t. (Obbink 1996, 75).

Format and script

73

margin more neatly than is seen in many Herculaneum papyri. To this end he sometimes crowds the letters towards the end of the line 12and uses, with surprising frequency but not always where one expects, ‘end-fillers’ shaped like a reversed diple In addition to a large script, W. A. Johnson3identified as formal criteria for a ‘de luxe’ copy of a prose text written in narrow columns, (i) a short height to the column; (ii) broad upper and lower margins; (iii) a large script written in a tight format. This roll meets all these criteria, except that the line-spacing is generous. We shall see below that it also meets his last criterion, that (iv) such a roll was very long, so as to be impressively large to the hand when rolled up. We may well believe that the production of such a roll was subsidized by a grandee like Piso. The script is an elegant book-hand, unusually large for Herculaneum, such as befits a high-quality professional production. Cavallo4 classifies it within his Group I as Hand 13 (distinguishable especially by its K and M), and dates it to the third quarter of the first century bc; this seems more precise than can be justified, given the paucity of comparanda from Egypt.5 It is upright, regular, somewhat informal, flowing and rounded, elegant but never fussy, with some ligatures between letters, carefully but fluently written at moderate speed. It prefigures the very round bookhands common in Egypt during the Roman period, especially E Louvre E 7733 verso,6 hand 2 of P. Oxy. 2654, a roll of Menander ascribed to the first half of the first century a d ,7 and the new Strasbourg papyrus of Empedocles, originally from Panopolis and dated (only by its hand) to the Flavian period.8 The letters are similar in width, except that M and 03 are two average letters wide, and I is 0.5; in height they are bilinear, save that Φ and T project above and below the line, P below, and the first upright of H slightly above. After H or T, with which it is ligatured, the top of I projects also (it would otherwise be confused with Π). Fig. 1 shows the alphabet of Hand 13, with its style of writing ya, eri, ή , τ η ν , τ ι , and τ ε χ ν η ι (for the breathing and stigme see below, §3e). 1 Gf. Turner and Parsons 1987,17. 2 It is doubled at 30 13 ()i*This sign, an ί ξ ω v e v e v x u î a δ ι π λ ή (Hephaestion, D e sign. 1), often recurs as a filler, e.g. in P. H ere. 336/1150, and is used π ε ρ ι ε ε τ ι γ μ ε ν η at P. H ere. 1426 col. 6,3 (R h e t. 3); an à c r e p tc K o c is also used, e.g. in D e m u s. 4, D e p ie t., P. H ere. 163, and P H ere. 19/698 coi. 27,9 (cf. Monet 1996, 30), as is the sign ‘= ’ in D e bono rege. The δ ι π λ ή (D e p ie t.), δ ι π λ ή ω β ε λ κ μ ε ν η (once in Ρ. H ere. 346), and δ ι π λ ή π e p ie e r i y μ ε ve] (Ρ. H ere. 1012} are also known (Gapasso IQ9C 216). Various systems were used in Egypt (Turner and Parsons 1987, 5 n. 12), including the δ ι π λ ή , but not apparently reversed. 3 1992, 232-3. 4 1983, 35-6. 5 Cavallo, 1983, 52.-3; cf. Parsons 1989. 6 Pack“ 2911 (from Memphis, adduced by Cavallo 1983, 52—3). 7 Turner and Parsons 1987, no. 41. The general effect resembles P. O x y . 3533 (Menander, ii ad , = Turner and Parsons 1987, no. 86). 8 Gf. A. Martin and O. Primavesi, L ’E m p é d o c le de S tra sb o u rg (Berlin and New York, 1998), 14-15.

74

The manuscripts of De poematis /

Among diagonal letters, A is made in two movements, starting at the upper end of the left diagonal, with an open loop at its left base; it may be joined to a preceding Γ, €, Η, Μ, Π, T, or X by a horizontal at mid-height. Δ is similar, but with the loop usually closed and a flat base. The scribe makes K in two movements, an upright with leftward-pointing blobs and a stroke which starts at the top right, turns in a closed loop (not always quite touching the upright), and ends at the lower right. Λ is as angular as A. The M is in three strokes, the first and last steeper than those of A but still somewhat curved, the central one a deep shallow bowl, like the second loop of Ού. N is easily confused with AI; its second downstroke may have a slight leftward curve, like the second loop of CO. The scribe starts X from

A S Γ Δ Ο -Ζ ίτ θ Ι Κ λ λ λ

Ο ΤΤρ C Τ’- γ φ χ " ' ) ' ' LU

rA e m J t τΥ γν'τΙ 'nsooJhn F ig . i . T he alphabet of H and 13, with diacritics and selected ligatures

its upper left corner; the second stroke begins at the lower left, and often continues beyond its upper right tip as a high horizontal, which may join a following A, H, N, or P. Among squared letters, the scribe makes Γ in two movements, starting at the base of the vertical; after the initial left horizontal, he constructs T likewise. He may ligature both letters to a following A, €, H, I, Λ, Μ, Ο, P, or CO; both have a leftward-pointing blob of ink at the base, like H and I, which distinguishes them from the second upright in H and Π, where the blob points to the right. His H is shaped like IT; it may be ligatured with a preceding Γ or T. Its first upright extends above the line; it is joined by a high horizontal which touches the top of the second upright, and is prolonged by a second horizontal which may be ligatured with a following Δ, I, K, N, Π, or T. The scribe makes Π in three or four strokes—two uprights and a horizontal normally made up of two short strokes, which may join a following A, I, A, O, or T. In both H and Π the horizontal is made last. His I has blobs pointing leftward, and may curve slightly in that direction ; it is never ligatured with any subsequent letter. All rounded letters begin at the top. 6 is made in two strokes, with the cross-bar rarely touching the curve but projecting beyond its arms, and sometimes joining the next letter, especially Γ, I, or T. Θ is like €, but closed at the right; its cross-bar normally touches both sides of the circle. C can sometimes have its arms drooping downwards, so that its opening faces

Format and script

75

the lower right; the tip of its upper arm may consist of a second short stroke. The vertical of Φ begins at the top and ends in a blob pointing to the left, (j) is made in two movements, an upright ending in a loop open to the top and right, followed by a second loop open to the top only. B has as its right stroke a squiggle which projects further to the right below. Z is made in three movements, starting from the top left, without lifting the pen from the papyrus ; after the pen turns in closed curving loop (like that of Δ) at the bottom left, the base horizontal may curve upwards slightly. Both horizontals on Ξ may slope upwards to the right; its lower part consists of a stroke curving down from the centre towards the left base, which then turns to form the lower horizontal. P consists of an upright projecting below the line, with leftward-facing blob at its base, and a small half-triangle, which runs diagonally from the top of the upright to turn sharply left to rejoin the upright halfway down. Y is a curving bowl atop a rather short half-upright with a leftward-facing blob at its base. Ψ has the same bowl as Y, but then a tall upright starting from the top and descending further below the line than does that of P.

(e) Syllabification, Orthography, and Punctuation

The scribe strictly observed the normal rules of Greek syllabification in the division of words over line-ends, equivalent to our hyphenation.1This has proved invaluable in finding correct supplements and excluding false ones, especially when one considers whether a word was split because the next syllable was too long to fit at the end of the line.2 The rules are: (i) Words may be divided at the end of any syllable, whether closed or open. They are often split near their beginnings or ends, e.g. i|Seac, τραγωδοποιοί. The vowel in the next syllable may be elided, e.g. yu.T71δ ττάν\τ\ (ii) A syllable is closed if it ends in a consonant, when another conso­ nant (or consonant-group) follows which was not pronounced with it and with which it may not begin a word, e.g. αλ|λα, ΐαμ.|βικώ]]|[>ων; 39 2~3, where he divided μ ε ν ό ν τ ω ν as φ ό ν ­ των, taking it as μ ε ν ο ν τ ω ν ; and 89 20—1, where he apparently wrote π ρ ] \ ω τ η ν . 2 See further Herodian 2.1 (G ra m m , g r. iii. 2, pp. 390—406); Crönert 1903, 10-19; Philippson 1909, 4-7; cf. Threatte 1980, 64-9. The syllabification also informs us about Greek pronunciation. As I noted in p. 41 n. i, early editors did not know these rules; my apparatus silently corrects their errors. 3 Cf. ρ υ θ \ μ ό ε several times in Roll B (it is not divided in Roll A, but we might expect ρ υ \ θ μ ό ε , in accord with rule (iii) below).

y6

The manusm pts of De poematis /

(iii) A syllable is open if it ends in a vowel or diphthong, where the next syllable begins with either another vowel, e.g. πο\ηταί, î'Si|oy or a single consonant, e.g δυ^ηχή, ή\ρωϊκών, or a digraph, e.g e|£eSeξατο, or two plosives, e.g. φζ\κτώί, since these were pro­ nounced together, or a plosive followed by a sonant (‘mute plus liquid’), e.g. μέ\τpov, o]|yAouc, τά\φρον, δεβκνυΎ), πρά\γμα, ε\γλ€γηται, ττλο\χμοί, τέ\χνη. These last observe the later rules of syllabifi­ cation, which are called ‘Attic’ to distinguish them from those of Homeric epic.1 (iv) Prepositives are treated with the next word, since they were pro­ nounced together, e.g. i\v avroîc, ού\κ irrl.2 Otherwise final conso­ nants are kept with their word. (v) Syllables ending in c before a consonant are treated as closed, e.g. curSec|p.ouc, ec|n, SiSac|/ceir, cupeic|0cu, ßapvc\[τομο]ν, except in compounds divided after the initial element in (vi) below.3 (vi) Compounds are either divided after the initial element, e.g. προφ[e]77icureTi£ei, άπο^τερηθή^ταί, ßev6\στόμα, cu\[cToXrjv, èy]|AeAeγμ[έν-, or (more commonly) treated like other words, even across the morpheme-boundary, e.g. δυ^η χή , α\\ττT77ce at D e hono rege col. 42,31 ( J . Fish tells me that such changes, found throughout, are by a second hand); Crönert 1903, 11, 17; Philippson 1909, 5--6. 4 R h e t. i. 164,8 Sudhaus; cf. Crönert 1903, 12. 5 Crönert classifies him as d ilig e n s (1903, 4, 12). 6 0 0 3 , 36.

Syllabification, orthography, and punctuation

77

quotations elision of short vowels is freely admitted, except that (as in prose) it is forbidden at the line-end.1 Crasis is common between καί and prepositions or conjunctions beginning with a vowel, e.g. καπό, καν, and occurs with some other words, e.g. κάμφατίκώζ; the article undergoes it in certain combinations, e.g. τάγαθόν, ταναντία, ταύτό, θάτβρα, τοΰργον, but not elsewhere, e.g. το από (as usual, the article does not cause hiatus, as it is a prepositive), iav is usually contracted to αν, but does occur in 7 out of 27 instances, all in the summary of Pausimachus’ opinions, as if a relic of his style.2 The 1 in long diphthongs, e.g. τώι, often omitted,3 sometimes appears where it should not.4 It had obviously been lost in pronunciation, except in the ubiquitous πο-ητβΐ for 770771-171.5 Confusion of et and 17t is otherwise confined to the third person singular of verbs.6 In ποιζίν and its derivatives the medial 1 is omitted before front vowels (e, 17, and 1), e.g. όποποΐα, ποητηο',7 it persists before o.8 Long 1 is written et only in Te]|yrfe|tT[ for τεχνιτ- (34 1-2), teeiret(r) (88 18, 175 23-4), and ημβΐν at 201 24, a form readily introduced by analogy with ijpetc.9 The reverse error occurs only twice, in διατίνηι (117 23) and πλίονα (ΐ2θ 16). Other scribes did not observe these niceties.10 Note όμοζηλβία (151 io), an easy error in this class of nouns.11 πλέον and the more recent spelling πλβΐον12 both occur twice, πλβονάκιο once, but -et- is the only vocalization in other forms of the word. As usual, the more recent analogical comparative endings, e.g. πλβίονα, are used,13 but forms in -ίω appear in quotations at 43 ii—12 and 167 22—4. Note too the older spelling reXiav (171 7); -eioc is 1 I found these rules after D. Obbink alerted me to a similar system in D e p ie t. They also apply in Roll B and P. H ere. 1425 of D e p o e m . 5. The papyri of D e m us. 4 and D e m orte 4 elide more freely than this (notably in -ται), the Derveni papyrus less, and the various papyri of Hyperides still less. The usage of scribes, important for the accurate restoration of lacunae, merits a thorough study. 2 42 6-7, 55 7, 14, 67 12, 77 9-10, 93 16, 123 12. But dv coexists with i a v throughout this section, αν is the rarer form in Attic inscriptions (Threatte 1996, 672). 3 More often than in P. H ere. 1425 (Book 5); cf. Crönert 1903, 40-52. 4 ΐ ί φ η ι κ ω ν τ ο , 24 5; ουταπ, 49 5, 120 18; - δ ε χ θ ε ι η ι , 136 6. 5 C f D e p o e m . 5 col. 15,20 (this form is not in Roll B), with Crönert 1903, 36; π ο ] η τ γ ι is read at 81 g. Datives singular in -ei not - r ji are normal in Attic inscriptions of c.300—125 bc; - r ji predominates after too bc (Threatte 1980, 378-80, and 1996, 90). 6 for 46 4; the scribe corrects η ξ η ι to η ξ ε ι , 120 8; €7ucwfT[(j;[i for -£e[i, 186 13. The use of - e i for - ψ is Attic; it is found in Epicurus and Polystratus but not Philodemus (Crönert 1903, 37). It was especially common from c.350-200 b c (Threatte 1996, 466). 7 Only in this roll of D e p o e m , is this spelling fixed: see Crönert 1903, 6, 116-17. 8 But note ττοιΗ(ν) at 117 11, 186 9-10 and perhaps 88 3-4. In Attic inscriptions too this difference is usual; as the omission of 1is normal until 200 bc but unusual thereafter (Threatte 1980, 328-30), this is another conservative trait. 9 Threatte 1996, 312-13. 10 Contrast the habits of the scribes of Demetrius, D e p o e m . (Romeo 1988, 76), and of Roll B. fef is the correct early spelling: cf. Callias, P C G test. 7· p.ctyvup,i is also correct (Crönert i 9 ° 3 >^9 )· 11 Crönert 1903, 31-4. 12 π λ ε ΐ ο ν began to appear only in the later 2nd c. (Threatte 1980, 321-2). 13 Crönert 1903, 188; Threatte 1996, 311-12.

78

The manuscripts of De poematis /

not attested.1βυβλίον not βφ- is usual in Philodemus.2 -ΰα for -via at 106 17 is the standard Hellenistic spelling, but the 1 is seldom omitted at Herculaneum.3 γιγν- is always simplified to γιν- in γίνομαι,, γινώεκω, and their com­ pounds, as is normal in Philodemus.4 όλίγοε is written oAioc at 49 22, an obsolescent spelling in Philodemus’ time.3 The scribe writes word-internal nasals before gutturals as y; his sole departure from this practice is cwκεί­ μενον at 188. Such care is typical of a superior scribe.6 μηδείε and ούδείε are used exclusively in the masculine and feminine, but μηδέν and ούδεν are interchangeable with μηθεν and ούθεν in the neuter;7the ratio is 4.1 : 1 in 23 cases.8 Proximity to ούδε or μηδέ influences the scribe to select forms in -δ-; the distribution is otherwise random, and not linked to the style of either Philodemus or his adversaries.9 Consonants are assimilated within words, but not over a word-boundary. Thus, as was standard in bettereducated writing in Classical and Hellenistic times, εκ- is assimilated to y before δ and A, e.g. εγδηλον (92 io) or the ubiquitous εγλογη.10 εν- becomes εμ- before labials, e.g. ε μ φ α ίν ε ιν the sole exception is ενμετροποων at 46 2. However, this does not occur over a word-boundary, e.g. εν ττοημαει', again there is but one exception, εμ πλάεματι at 191 5.12 Ephelcystic v is omitted only at 1177, 21, each time before heavy punctuation;13 it some­ times precedes consonants, e.g. 182 22, 209 1—2. Medial p may be gemi­ nated: with άρρητον and ερρωμενων contrast ψευδόρημονά.14 In initial position εμ is voiced to ζμ in ζμαραγεΐ.15 ττολλάκι receives a final -c only 1 Cf. Threatte 1980, 317. 2 Cf. Crönert 1903, 21; E. Puglia, C E rc 16 (1986), 119-21. ß t ß - is normal in Epicurus, but β υ β - is the usual Hellenistic spelling (Threatte 1980, 263). 3 Crönert 1903, 123; Threatte 1980, 338-42. The older spelling was restored during the ist c. b c . 4 Crönert 1903, 91. 5 Cf. ο] Χ ι ο γ ρ ά μ μ α τ ο ΐ (Roll B, P. H ere. 994 col. 34,14-15), όλιά/ctc and à X io jp e îc ( P H ere. 1418 cols. 20,11 and 23,4, Philodemus’ P r a g m a te ia i), with Crönert 1903, 91. o X lo c occurs in Attic inscriptions of £.350-130 and Ptolemaic papyri (Threatte 1980, 440-1). 6 So Crönert 1903, 57. 7 Crönert 1903, 155, claims that papyri of Philodemus hardly ever have oblique cases in -Θ - rather than -δ-, Threatte 1980, 472, notes that the Attic inscriptions have the feminine exclusively in -δ-. 8 The ratio is 14 : 1 in the neuter in P H ere. 1425 (Book 5), and 4 : 1 (20 examples against 5) in Roll B. According to Crönert 1903, 155-8 (esp. 156), a slight preference for the aspirated form is typical of the better scribes, μ η δ ΐ κ appears twice (with no forms in -Θ -) in Demetrius Laco, D e p o e m . 2, the manuscript of which (P. H ere. 1014) is probably early ist c. Masculines and neuters in -δ- vanish entirely from Attic inscriptions by c.300 bc and only begin to reappear in the 40s bc (Threatte 1980, 472-6). The prevalence of forms in -δ- here may suggest that they survived in Hellenistic prose after all, in which case such a dating for Demetrius’ D e eloc. becomes less difficult (see below, p. 176 n. 6). 9 Both forms appear in the summary of Pausimachus' views, and in Philodemus’ rebuttals. 10 C f Crönert 1903, 53-5; Threatte 1980, 580-1, 585. 11 Crönert 1903, 61. 12 Contrast P. H ere. 1425 (Book 5) in both respects. 13 For parallels see Crönert 1903, 137-8. 14 Cf Threatte 1980, 519-21. 15 Usual at Herculaneum (Crönert 1903, 95-6), this spelling was common later (Threatte 1980, 5 4 7 " 9)· α ν ε γ ν ω μ ΐ ν [ α for ά ν € γ ν ω ( ΐ ) μ € ν α (43 2) is isolated (Crönert 1903, 248) and plainly an error.

Syllabification, orthography, and punctuation

79

before a vowel,1 but πλβονάκ ic precedes a consonant. Attic -tt- is used (never -cc-); this is typical of Philodemus.2 cirra/coc is written, not ι/ιιτταKoc,3 and CKopSov not cκόροδον.4 Note the assimilation of aspirates in tr a t

(l20

14).5

The scribe who wrote the papyrus also punctuated it, systematically6 and very fully, as even the disegni show; this has greatly helped in restoring the text. The surviving pieces, together with the transcripts, spacing, and lineamenta in M, prove that punctuation was commoner than JV attest.7 Three signs are used : the paragraphus, the vacant space, and a high stop shaped like an acute accent ('), which I shall call a α-ιγμήΡ (i) The paragraphus fiapaypapoc γραμμή) is a thick, straight horizon­ tal under the first letter of the line;9 it may occasionally slope upwards to the right10 or take the form of a διπλή (>).“ (ii) The vacant space is normally one letter wide, but may be as broad as three;12 it occurs within the line and at the line-end. (iii) The commonest sign is the α-ιγμή, a thin diagonal extending above 1 Both forms are known at Herculaneum (Crönert 1903, 142—3), but - ά κ ι is not in Attic inscrip­ tions (Threatte 1996, 394-5). 2 So also the MSS of Epicurus, Polystratus, Chrysippus, and Carneiscus, but not Demetrius Laco. 3 Cf. cod. Ca of Aristotle, H A 8. 12, 597b27, Arrian, In d . 1. 15. 8, Aelian, M A 16. 15, and the Mesopotamian place-name Ciτ τ ά κ η or Ψ ι τ τ ά κ η . Ctesias calls the bird β υ τ τ α κ ό ε (Phot., cod. 72 p. 45a Bekker), but Pliny gives the original Indian form as sip ta ce ( Μ Η ίο. 117, cod. E); see Crönert 1903= 136 η· 7 · 4 C K op S o v is in codd. of Hippocrates, Polybius, and Galen (Crönert 1903, 132 n.), and in I G IP 1184,15 (late iv bc ), but is rare in prose, whereas c K o p o S o v is not found in inscriptions; both forms appear in manuscripts of Theophrastus (Threatte 1980, 405). 5 Lejeune 1972, 59-60. This is almost unknown in Attic inscriptions after 300 bc (Threatte 1980, 455). 6 One must not underestimate scribal consistency in matters like iota adscript, punctuation, and division between lines: ‘my general observation, after a great deal of detailed study, is that these features are considerably more consistent than is generally recognized’ (Johnson 1992, 7). 7 On these see above, §§3b—c. The d ise g n a to ri did not feel obliged to draw interpuncts, but did try to draw paragraphi. 8 Dorandi calls it an apex (1982, 53), Cavallo a comma (1983, 24). 9 There are 85 occurrences on the d ise g n i, but these show only 50% of those visible on the extant originals (5/10). A paragraphus extends under the second letter only at 46 3 (M ) and 70 14 ( E H ere.), and enters the left margin only at 210 19 (M ). Cf. Cavallo 1983, 23—4; Roll A lacks the variant forms which he describes. 10 This is seen only in M at 34 22, 26 (each time incorporated into the base of an initial r), 59 13 (written as an acute over the first letter of 1. 14), 26, 79 15, 22, 80 18, 170 18. 11 There are only four cases, all in .Aand extending into the left margin: 168 21 (a piece broken to the right), 172 18, 194 24 (both with a space plus c T iy p r j later in the line), 191 1 (shaped like a 7 and with a σ τ ι γ μ ή later in the line); none seems to differ from an ordinary paragraphus. 83 14 may have a S i π λ ή ώ β ε λ ΐ € μ ε ν η miscopied by TVas a rightward-tilted caret-mark at the left margin (but there is no break in sense until the next line). 12 This occurs 33x with no accompanying € τ ι γ μ ή , and 36 x with one.

The manuscripts of De poematis /

8o

the line, sometimes preceded or, more often, followed by a space.1 Few Herculaneum papyri use this sign, whereas the other two are standard;2 it is equally rare in Egypt.3 Each is found alone, but also in combination.4 The paragraphus is normally combined with a vacant space within the line where the stop actually falls, or with a ο τ ι γ μ ή at that point, or both. It occurs alone r.iox ; combined with the vacant space 14X ; combined with the ο τ ι γ μ ή 15 x ; and with a vacant space followed by a ο τ ι γ μ ή 19 x (the ο τ ι γ μ ή precedes the space a further βχ). The blank space occurs alone 6x, and with a ο τ ι γ μ ή 5X (preceding the space 3X and following it twice).5 All these almost always represent a heavy stop (reAeta or άνω ο τ ι γ μ ή ) . Perhaps such stops were supposed to be marked by at least two elements, paragraphus plus either vacat or ο τ ι γ μ ή : where a paragraphus stands alone, I suspect that there was in fact also a ο τ ι γ μ ή · , and, where a blank stands alone, the paragraphus was probably mistaken for a fibre. There is no discernible pattern in these combinations, and the weight of these various punctua­ tions corresponds poorly to how we would punctuate. The ο τ ι γ μ ή unsupported by other punctuation certainly marks the lighter stops indicated by our semi-colon and comma; as in Modern Greek, it delimits subordinate clauses, e.g. before cm. But lone ο τ ι γ μ α ί are used in two further ways. They can delimit phrases within clauses, e.g. a X X ’

(49 10), α υ τ ή ν ' (74

ο υ τ ω ώ

ivepyovvTL

eX cLTTO V

8 -9 ),

ό

δύναι[το τ ο ίν [ υ ν

a \v

rj

irX é o v '

Μ ζ ^ γ α κ Χ ε ίδ -η ώ

(67 9—10),

ύττό

p -è[r

'κ α ι

τώι

Κ ρ ά τ η \ τ ο ο

(130 3-5). If, as we should, we trust Javarone’s commas and the wide spacing in JV, they also define items in lists, e.g. τ ρ α γ ω δ ί α , κ α ί ΐ α μ β ο ο , κ α ί τ ο

ά μ μ ζ Χ έ ο

(77 ΐ6—18) Ο

ΐ ’Ό μ - η ρ ό ο

i r p o c 8 è TOVTOi c C o p o K X r ) c ,

κ α ι

re,

κ α ί

M[p]y[iAo]yoc,

Φ ιΧ ό ξ ε ν ο ο ,

δ μ ο ίω ο

8è

κ α ι κ α ι

Ε ύ [ ρ ι\π ίδ η € , Τ ιμ ό θ ζ ο ο ,

τ α

(83 17-22). They also function as quotation-marks to demarcate both syllables quoted without regard to sense, e.g. ' o i o v ' a p ε ι τ ι τ ο ι ο υ τ ο ν ' , i.e. o î o v cϊ ρ , ή ξ ε ι τ ι τ ο ι ο ύ τ ο ν (ΐ2θ 8), and quotations, π ο η μ α τ ’ α υ τ ώ ν

μ ώ γ ω ν

1 The d ise g n i show 213 instances: 171 alone, 8 before a space, and 34 after one. However, they depict only 14 of the 41 visible on the extant pieces (34%). 2 Cf. Cavallo 1983, 24. Other papyri with this sign, usually in the same combinations as here, are P. H ere. 1012 (a work of Demetrius Laco), 994/1676 (Philodemus, D e p o e m . Roll B), 163 {D e d iv itiis), 182 {D e ira), 1065 {D e sig n .), 1424 {D e o ec). 3 Cf. P O x y . 3533, Menander, ii ad , where they stand on the line, within a space, and were written by the original scribe (Turner ad loc. cites further cases); P O x y . 2258, a commentary on Callimachus, vi a d , and P. O x y . 1019, Chariton, ii-iii ad (Turner and Parsons 1987, nos. 86, 47, 66); P O x y . 3657-8, philosophical prose, ii and iii a d ; P O x y . 3698, verse, ii a d ; P O x y . 4428 (Lycophron, iii ad ), and others listed in the note on P O x y . 3812,5; P O x y . 4321 (Demosthenes, ii a d , using commas). See further below, p. 81 n. 2. 4 I exclude cases where the left margin is damaged or a line with a paragraphus is incomplete to the right. 5 For this combination cf. P O x y . 1019, cited in n. 3 above.

Syllabification, orthography, andpunctuation

81

whether poetic, e.g. 212 15-18, or of an opponent’s doctrine, introduced by on or το. I append a longer passage with ο τ ι γ μ α ί given as commas: ά ξ ιω τ ό ο ν α ίτ ιο ν

τ ο υ

ο ΰ ν e v ,

η

μ η

κ α ι

φ [ό ]ρ € ΐν , 'ό τ ι ,

η

δ ο ικ ν ύ ο ιν

τ[ο ràc] 7r p o O é c e i c

aie

ό ο τιν

η μ ώ ν

ά ν ά γ κ η ο

â < f> a [ip e ]îc d a i

τ ι

τ ο ύ τ ω ν

τ α ύ τ α ο ,

8i

’

etc. (74 20-5)· In the next case the papyrus must have had even more of them: e]u μ ς [ ν φ \ α ί ν ο τ α ι λ ό γ ο ι ν , ο τ ι τ τ ο η τ ώ ν ό ρ γ ο ν è c n v ο ν λ ό γ ο ι ν ο

ώ ν

lx V i ^ ] € L C ’

ο υ τ ω ο

eiT reîv

ω ο

o v S e ic

τ ω ν

μ η

τ τ [ ο ] η τώ ν ,

κ α κ ώ

c

8e

τ ο ,

etc. (ϊ 67 15—21). Oblique dividers were used to mark off individual words in schools,1 but the careful punctuation of clauses in so intellectually demanding a text, which is unlikely to have been read by the poorly educated, suggests that it was marked up for reading aloud, perhaps for Philodemus as an aid to lecturing from it, or for an anagnostes to read to his patron Piso.2 Dividers marking off clauses are usually thought to be intended for declamation as ‘reading marks’, and appear in Christian texts, which were certainly read aloud.3 γ ο ν η ο ο ο θ α ι

τ ο ΰ ρ γ ο ν

i f ) Mistakes, Corrections, Accentuation, and Marginalia Given how close in time the papyrus was to the author’s manuscript, it had what may seem an undue number of errors,4 mostly uncorrected. Haplography has caused many omissions of the article, e.g. μόντοι (το) (yο 8);5 forms of ouroc could be confused with it in του'τω, του(του) and (ταΰ)τα.6 Other haplographies are frequent: αιγιαλώι (μογάλωί), δ]ία τον ήχον (aie . . . τον “Αωτου”), άκου]όμον{ον όν)οκα, οτ(ο δ)β δι[ά, χθονόc (ρηντο καττνόο), γραμ(μ)α-, φυ] χ(α γ) ωγ ου ο- , (/cat) κάλλιοτα, αύτ (t/ca) /cat.7 Dittography is rarer, e.g. e7Tt/xeA{A}etau, ομ tue {opc}, ύπο]\^τ€^τβτα[γμόνα.8 Errors often come in pairs. Thus Pausimachus cited Sophocles’ phrase ßapvc ξύνοικοο ώ ξόνοι, but the scribe wrote βαρυουνοικοο. As if subcon­ sciously aware of his error, he then committed a dittography, ξονοικοο ω ξονοι (86 22~5). This phenomenon of pairs of related mistakes is so common that it ought to become a general principle of textual criticism: the mind is at some level aware of the first fault, and tries to remind one by 1 Cribiore 1996, 87 -8 with her pit. 35 (7 ΓLand.. A d d . A I S 33293, iii ad ) and 46 (T . B erol. inv. 10508, ii ad ). 2 I owe this suggestion to Peter Parsons, and thank him for help in finding parallels. 3 F. G. Kenyon, T h e C h ester B e a tty B ib lic a l P a p y r i (London, 1937), fasc. vii, text p. ix. Gf. G. Bastianini, IKS'97 (1984) 195-202, at 196-8, and P. B o d m e r 13 (Melito, S e r m . P a sc h ., iii ad ), with spaces; see M. Testuz, P a p y r u s B o d m e r X I I I (Geneva, i960). 4 I exclude all mistakes which must be attributed to the d ise g n a to n , such as no speaker of Greek would make. For a typology of errors cf. Rispoli 1988. 5 Gf. 1 2 20, 4 9 4, 1 6 0 19, 1 7 0 22, 1 9 3 10, 2 1 2 22. 6 2 4 22, 1 0 3 26, 1 8 6 10. 7 1 8 4, 8 5 23-4, 9 2 18-19, 9 3 12, 1 0 6 16, 1 2 5 6, 1 3 6 16, 1 8 1 7, 2 0 3 17. 8 1 3 1 17, 1 3 6 10, 1 6 4 24.

The manuscripts of De poematis / committing another. I have learnt to look for a second error, and often find one. Neat examples are διά τ ο ϋ τ ο { υ } . . . τ α ύ τ ο ( ϋ ) , τ ο { ν } λ α [ μ \ β ( α ν ) ό μ € ν ο ν , the double dittography in ι{ω}δ[ι]ωτάρου{partially cited above. Romeo (1992c, 200) thinks the similarity is because the opponent in Book 5 is that same as that in P. H ere. 1677. 4 The previous collection is F H G iv. 443. See E. Bux, R E xv (1931), 124-5; H. Erbse, B e itr ä g e z u r Ü ber lieferu ng de r Iliassc holien (Munich, i960), 34, 45; M. van der Valk, Rese arches on the T e x t a n d S c h o lia o f the Iliad (Leiden, 1963-4), i. 442, ii. 363-4. 5 I at first read it as ' Η ] ρ [ α ] κ λ ε ί 8 η ε , but the reading depended upon a high horizontal attached to the tip of a downward-sloping right diagonal, which I interpreted as the horizontal and diagonal of the P. Re-examination of the papyrus showed that it is certainly the horizontal of Γ or T ligatured to the diagonal of A or A, of which the upper part comes to an end with a blob, as P would not. The reading was confirmed by D. Blank.

Megaelides of Athens

13g

correctly placed, he also spoke of the pleasure and enchantment wrought by poetry on the soul. Unfortunately Philodemus’ résumé of Megaclides is also lost at the start of the roll, unless his ideas can be recognized in the discussion of enthral­ ment in cols. 9-12, which corresponds to cols. 159-66 in the rebuttal, here assigned to Andromenides (see below). Most of the rebuttal of Megaclides’ arguments also fell in a badly damaged section; however, the latter’s name recurs as M[e|ya/cAei]6T/c at 151 8-9 (F 1b).1 Philodemus complains that, by saying that ‘the art is similar’ (i.e. poetry resembles music), Megaclides obscures the difference between how songs and rhythms enthral us when they are referred to the hearing, whereas verses do so when they are understood by the intellect. 150 belongs with this, as it mentions a musical instrument. We can assume that much of the ensuing material on poetic inspiration derives from him. The rebuttal of Andromenides probably began in the lacuna between 152 and 157, unless the references to Eumaeus and Patroclus in 158 reflect Megaclides’ inter­ est in Homeric characters, about which other sources inform us; the terminology of 159 15-19 appears to be paralleled in Andromenides F 5, known from Demetrius Laco (see below, §5e). The alternative is to ascribe to Megaclides all the material from 150 to 166 (including the fragments presented in §5e as Andromenides F 7—16); in 167 Andromenides is referred to as e/cefroc for F 18 and 21, and the pronoun may suggest that he has not been mentioned for a while. The strongest argument for this ascription is that F 18—19 are quoted early (but not first) in the recapitulation of Andromenides’ views in 131, where there is no reference to enthralment or the different aims of poetry and prose. Style is of little help; cols. 159—66 contain none of the striking turns typical of Andromenides, but the extent of the quotations there is limited, and they do include #ôyyoc and λαμ/π-pôc, terms which Andromenides certainly used. Moreover, this alternative also would also entail assigning to Megaclides two fragments closely related to other known fragments of Andromenides: F 14, which refers to ‘splendid words’ (found in Androme­ nides F 35 and 37), and F 5, which Demetrius transmits between material derived from Andromenides, notably F 2 on beautiful letters in quality and quantity (cf. F 22 in Philodemus), and F 6, where Andromenides’ name is given. To uphold this reconstruction, one would therefore need to posit that Megaclides also appeared in Demetrius Laco, and that he and Andromenides were closely linked; in F 6 Demetrius mentioned 1 The slight rightward slope of its initial upright, about half of which is visible, makes ‘Megacli­ des’ preferable to ‘Heraclides’ (it has no blob at the base, as in some instances of M but none of H). The spacing excludes ‘A ndromenides’.

140

Philodemus1*3sources and opponents

Andromenides alongside someone else, since after that point he discusses a group. Now Megaclides’ name recurs, at the end of Philodemus’ rebut­ tal of Andromenides, as Me]|ya/ and ibid. 334 οη divine origin of the arm our borrowed by Patroclus. Porphyry often depends on Aristotle’s Homeric Questions, as I showed in the M artin Classical Lectures of 1993 (to appear). 5 F 6a = Σ T on II. 22. 205: Μ ε γ α κ λ ε ί δ η ε π λ α ε τ ή ν είναι τ η ν μ ο ν ο μ α χ ί α ν φ η ε ι ν prük γ ά ρ τ α Ή φ α ι ε τ ό τ ε υ κ τ α 3π λ α ε ι’είν; F 6b = Σ b O il II. 22 . 36: Μ ε γ α κ λ ε ί δ η ε δε φ η ε ι τ α ΰ τ α π ά ν τ α π λ ά ε μ α τ α είναι', F 6c = Σ b on II. 22. 205: Μ ε γ α κ λ ε ί δ η ε π λ ά ε μ α είναι φ η ε ι τ ο ύ τ ο το μ ο ν ο μ ά χ ι ο ν . π ώ ε γ ά ρ π ι θ α ν ώ ε , διά τ ο τ η ν ύ λ η ν α υ τ ο ύ μ η ουράνιον, ά λ λ έ γ γ ε ι ο ν κα ι Π η λ ι ώ τ ι ν είναι.

το εα ύτα ε μυριά δα ε νεύμα τι Ά χ ιλ λ ε υ ε απεετρεφεν;

6 Poet. 24, i 4 6 oai 4 ~i7 >w '1*1 Richardson 1993, 129.

142

Philodemus’ sources and opponents

discussed such arms in the Shield of Heracles (F 7): he considered this poem genuine, but criticized Hesiod for the illogicality of having Hephaestus arm his mother’s enemies, i.e. Heracles and Iolaus.1 He also denied that Heracles sacked Troy (F 8).2 Both fragments probably come from a long discussion of Heracles’ exploits and weaponry in post-Homeric poetry, from which Athenaeus preserves a long extract (F 9).3 He criticized those post-Homeric and post-Hesiodic poets (Pisander4 was certainly among those meant) who said that Heracles, presumably wearing conventional armour, led armies and sacked cities ; he supported instead the later image of a pleasure-loving, hard-drinking gourmand who wandered about in the guise of a bandit with his club, lion-skin, and bow, seducing women and having children by virgins. He certainly approved of pleasure; why else was he known as a gourmand and a toper, with hot springs and warm blankets named after him? Megaclides singled out Stesichorus for invent­ ing (vXacou) Heracles’ bow and lion-skin,5 noting that the older lyric poet Xanthus did not depict him thus, even though in other respects Stesicho­ rus borrowed heavily from Xanthus, including his Oresteia. In a continua1F

= Hyp. i in Hes. Scut. : Μ ε γ α κ λ ε ί δ η ε (Schweighäuser: Μ ε γ α κ λ ή ε cod. A) 6 ’Α θ η ν α ί ο ι γ ν ή ε ι ο ν άλλωε δε ε π ί τ ι μ α τ ώ Ή ε ι ό δ ε ρ ' α λ ο γ ο ν γ ά ρ φ η ε ι π ο ι ε ΐ ν δ π λ α "Η φ α ι ε τ ο ν t o Î c τ ή ε μ η τ ρ ο ε ε χ θ ρ ο ΐ ε . Aristophanes of Byzantium deemed the poem spurious (fr. 406 Slater). 2 F 8 = T b T on II. 5. 640: Μ ε γ α κ λ ε ί δ η ε (G. F. Russo: Μ ε ν ε κ λ ή ε codd., = F G r H 270 F 11 : Μ ε γ α κ λ ή ε Mueller) δε φ η ε ι ν ε φ ε ΰ ε θ α ι τ η ν h τι Ί λ ι ο ν ε τ ρ α τ ε ί α ν . Pisander attested Heracles’ expedition against Troy ( P E G F 11 : om. E G F ) . 3 F 9 = Ath. 12. 512 E 513 c: δ ι ό π ε ρ κ α ί Μ ε γ α κ λ ε ί δ η ε ε π ί τ ι μ α τ ο ί ε μ ε θ ’ " Ο μ η ρ ο ν κ α ί Ή ε ί ο δ ο ν π ο ι η τ α ί ε δ ε ο ι π ε ρ ί Ή ρ α κ λ ε ο υ ε ε ί ρ η κ α ε ι ν ώ ε ε τ ρ α τ ο π ε δ ω ν η γ ε ί τ ο κ α ί π ό λ ε ι ε ή ρ ε ι · “δε μ ε θ ’ ή δ ο ν ή ε η

μ ε ν ο ΐδε τ ο π ο ί η μ α ,

π λ ε ίε τ η ε το ν μ ε τ ’ α ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν β ίο ν δ ιε τε λ ε ε ε , π λ ε ίε τ α ε μ ε ν γ υ ν α ΐκ α ε γ ή μ α ε , εκ π λ ε ίε τ ω ν δε λ ά θ ρ α π α ρ θ έ ν ω ν π α ι δ ο π ο ι η ε ά μ ε ν ο ε . ε ί ' π ο ι γ ά ρ ά ν τ ι ε π ρ ά ε τ ο ύ ε οΐ>

(om. cod. Ε:

τ α ΰ τ α π α ρ α δ ε χ ο μ ε ν ο υ ε · ‘π ό θ ε ν , ώ ο ΰ τ ο ι , τ η ν π ε ρ ί τ ά ε ε δ ω δ ά ε α ύ τ ώ

οΰτω

dubitanter Kaibel)

επουδην ά να τίθ ετε, η πόθεν

π α ρ ή λ θ ε ν είε τ ο ύ ε ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ ε το τ ή ε λ ο ιβ α ία ε κ ύ λ ικ ο ε μ η δ έ ν ύ π ο λ ε ίπ ε ε θ α ι, ε ί μ η τ α π ε ρ ί τ ά ε ή δ ο ν ά ε εδ ο κ ίμ α ζ ε ν , η διά τ ί τ α θ ε ρ μ ά λ ο υ τ ρ ά τ ά φ α ιν ό μ ε ν α ε κ τ ή ε γ ή ε π ά ν τ ε ε Ή ρ α κ λ ε ο υ ε φ α είν είνα ι ιερά , ή δ ι α τ ί τ ά ε μ α λ α κ α ε ε τ ρ ω μ ν ά ε Ή ρ α κ λ ε ο υ ε κ ο ί τ α ε ε ι’ ώ θ α ε ι κ α λ έ ΐ ν , ε ί κ α τ ε φ ρ ό ν ε ι τ ω ν ή δ ε ω ε ζ ώ ν τ ω ν ; ’

“οί νέοι (codd. AK: νεώτεροι cod. Ε) ττοιηταί κ α τ α ε κ ε υ ά ζ ο υ ε ι ν ε ν λ η ε τ ο ΰ ε χ ή μ α τ ι ταΰτα π λ ά ε α ι π ρ ώ τ ο ν C t η ε ί χ ο ρ ο ν τ ο ν Ί μ ε ρ α ί ο ν (P K I G 22g). κ α ί Ξ ά ν θ ο ε δ ’ ό μ ε λ ο π ο ι ό ε ( P M G 6gg), π ρ ε ε β ύ τ ε ρ ο ε ώ ν Ο τ η ε ι χ ό ρ ο υ , ώ ε κ α ί α υ το ε ο Ο τη είχο ρ ο ε μ α ρ τ υ ρ ε ί ”, ώ ε φ η ε ιν ό Μ ε γ α κ λ ε ίδ η ε , “ου τ α ύ τ η ν α ύ τ ώ π ε ρ ιτ ίθ η ε ι τ η ν ε τ ο λ ή ν , άλλα τ η ν ' Ο μ η ρ ι κ ή ν . 7τολλά δε' τ ώ ν Ξ ά ν θ ο υ π α ρ α π ε π ο ί η κ ε ν ό Ο τ η ε ί χ ο ρ ο ε , ώ ε π ε ρ κ α ί τ ή ν Ό ρ ε ε τ ε ι α ν κ α λ ο υ μ ε ν η ν . ” Following citations on pleasure from Antisthenes and Epicurus (citing O d . 9. 5-11), which may both be owed to Megaclides, Athenaeus continues: ό δε Μ ε γ α κ λ ε ί δ η ε φ η ε ί τ ο ν Ό δ υ ε ε ε α κ α θ ο μ ι λ ο ΰ ν τ α τ ο ί ε κ α ι ρ ο ΐ ε ύ π ε ρ τ ο ύ δ ο κ ε ΐ ν ό μ ο ή θ η τ ο ί ε Φ α ί α ξ ι ν ε ί ν α ι τδ ά β ρ ο δ ί α ι τ ο ν α υ τ ώ ν ά ε π ά ζ ε ε θ α ι , π ρ ο π υ θ ο μ ε ν ο ν τ ο ύ Α λ κ ι ν ο υ (O d . 8. 248— g) “ α ί ε ί δ ’ ή μ ΐ ν δαίε τε φ ί λ η κ ί θ α ρ ί ε τ ε χ ο ρ ο ί τ ε / ε ΐ μ α τ ά το ύ το ν ούν” φ η ειν

μονον π ερ ιπ ο ρ ευ ό μ εν ο ν , ξύλο ν εχ ο ν τα κα ί λ εο ν τή ν κα ί τό ξ α · κα ί

τ

ε ξ η μ ο ιβ α λ ο ετρ α τ ε θ ερ μ ά κα ί εύ ν α ί.” μ ό ν ω ε γ ά ρ ο ύ τω ε ώ ή θ η ών ή λ π ιζ ε ν μ ή (αν) δ ια μ α ρ τ ε ιν .

4 Cf. above, η. 2. In his H e r a k l e i a Pisander stated that Athena created warm baths for Heracles at Thermopylae ( P E G F 7 = E G F gA) and in many other places (Zenob. 6. 49 = E G F F gB); Megaclides cites these baths among his evidence that Heracles loved pleasure (F 9). 5 However, Strabo (15. 1.9 = Pisander F i) says this attire was a π λ ά ε μ α of Pisander or whoever wrote the H e r a k le ia \ so too the S u d a (s.v. Π ε ί ε α ν δ ρ ο ε = Pisander T i). G. Huxley rejects Megaclides’ claim (Greek E p i c Poetry (London, 1969), 102 n. 2).

Andromenides

M3 tion of F 9, which overlaps with it at the beginning (as it repeats the fact that Xanthus was a lyric poet anterior to Stesichorus), we hear that Xan­ thus called Agamemnon’s daughter Laodice, and the Argives changed her name to Electra when Clytemnestra and Aegisthus prevented her from marrying (F io).1 Megaclides meant that Stesichorus not only used this story but borrowed it from Xanthus, whom the poet cited, as we know from F 9.2 In F 11 Megaclides explained the omen of the unseen heron in the Doloneia.3 We also know of two readings of his in the Odyssey (F 12-13).4 Megaclides’ decidedly naïve approach to myth is more reminiscent of Zoilus the ‘dogger of Homer’ than of Aristotle’s skill in defending the poet against such captious critics, but his dislike of the Cyclic poets resembles Aristotle’s. I suspect that he was a contemporary of Aristotle who attached himself to his school, where he developed a poetic theory similar to those of Heraclides of Pontus, Theophrastus, and Andromenides; this must be why Crates included him among those who ascribed the judgement of poetry to the hearing rather than the intellect.

(