Parallel to the edition volumes of the series Traditio Praesocratica, in which texts of early Greek natural philosophers are presented in a critical edition with translation, the series Studia Praesocratica presents commentaries, monographs and collective volumes on early Greek philosophy and its doxography.

Herculaneum papyri found during the discovery of the Villa dei Papiri in the XVIII century are our only knowledge about Greek philosophical schools. Unfortunately, the original manuscripts are in a precarious state of conservation and the currently available editions of them have largely been made obsolete by the latest technological progress. The aim of the Advanced Grant ERC project ‘Greekschools’ is to provide a new protocol based on optical methods to increase the text reading and thus allow for (...) a new critical edition of the whole treatise of Philodemus’ "Arrangement of the Philosophers". A multi-disciplinary approach is adopted and non-invasive techniques to Herculaneum papyri investigations such as Macro X-Ray Fluorescence Imaging (MA-XRF), Shortwave-Infrared Hyperspectral Imaging (SWIR), high resolution digital microscopy and Technical Photography were applied to read the text hidden on the verso, detect, classify, and replace overlapping layers and read the text concealed inside them. In this work some first preliminary results will be reported. (shrink)

Text by Philodemus accompanied by critical commentary, both on the text itself and on the process of reconstructing the dismembered papyrus roll on which it was found (inventoried as PHerc. 89/1301/1383). The subject of the book, despite the extreme fragmentary nature of the text, seems to focus on the physical nature of the divinity and its prerogatives, as well as on the possibility of knowing the divine in light of the Epicurean doctrine of images.

The papyri transmit a part of the testimonia relevant to pre-Socratic philosophy. The ʼCorpus dei Papiri Filosofici‛ takes this material only partly into account. In this volume, a team of specialists discusses some of the most important papyrological texts that are major instruments for reconstructing pre-Socratic philosophy and doxography. Furthermore, these texts help to increase our knowledge of how pre-Socratic thought – through contributions to physics, cosmology, ethics, ontology, theology, anthropology, hermeneutics, and aesthetics – paved the way for the (...) canonic scientific fields of European culture. More specifically, each paper tackles papyrological texts concerning the Orphics, the Milesians, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, the early Atomists, and the Sophists. For the first time in the field of pre-Socratics studies, several papers are devoted to the Herculanean sources, along with others concerning the Graeco-Egyptian papyri and the Derveni Papyrus. (shrink)

Contains a collection of the essays of the great Viennese Hellenist Theodor Gomperz concerning the Herculanean Papyri of Epicurus and Philodemus. The Introduction presents a concise biography of Gomperz and a careful discussion of his work on Hellenistic philosophy. Das Buch enthalt eine Auswahl der _Herculanensia minora_ von Theodor Gomperz. Die kurze Einleitung erhebt sich nicht den Anspruch, ein systematisches und vollständiges Bild der herkulanensischen Studien von Gomperz zu zeichnen; sie soll lediglich zur Orientierung und Einführung in die Lektüre (...) dienen. (shrink)

pt. I. Autori noti. V. 1* [Academici-Cyrenaici] V. 1*** in 2 vols. (v. 2(?): Nicolaus Damascenus-PLatonis Fragmenta; pt. 1. 2. Cultura e filosofia (Galenus-Isocrates) (2 v.); v. 3(?) : Platonis Testimonia-Zeno Tarsensis) -- pt. 3. Commentari -- pt. 4.1. Indici -- pt. 4.2. Tavole (I.1 e III). Tavole (I.2 Galenus-Isocrates).

The latest volume of the Antinoopolis Papyri contains fragments of some 40 iambic lines in praise of a certain Archelas. The papyrus is dated by J. W. B. Barns, the editor of the piece, to the sixth century A.D., and the poem itself can be no older, since corrections and alterations show it to be an author's draft. According to Barns it is ‘an iambic encomium of a type not uncommon in late Greek occasional poetry from Egypt’. I (...) would suggest rather that the surviving lines come in fact from an iambic preface to a hexameter encomium.In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries it was standard, if not universal, practice to preface a hexameter poem with an iambic prologue. Since details are not readily available, and are relevant to my argument, I tabulate them here. First the four examples that have come to us by manuscript tradition, as it happens the same manuscript, and all dating from the second half of the sixth century. (shrink)

Orpheus and the Orphic tradition -- Pythagoreanism and beyond -- Heraclitus -- Empedocles -- Anaxagoras and his school -- Early atomists -- The Sophistic movement -- The papyrological tradition and doxographical questions.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Re-editing the RepublicMalcolm SchofieldS. R. Slings, ed. Platonis Respublica. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. xxiv + 428 pp. Cloth, $45.S. R. Slings' Republic is the second volume to appear in the new OCT edition of Plato. Reviewing the first—the new volume I, containing the first two tetralogies—Slings rounded off with some general remarks for the "average user of OCTs," who "will want to know to what degree (...) all this work has improved the text" (Mnemosyne 51 [1998] 101). If we apply the question to the fruits of his own tireless labours (the last of his seven general editorial principles is: editori non est fatiscendum), the answer is the same verdict as Slings passed on volume I: "The text is not all that different from Burnet's, and rightly so," for "he was a superb editor with a feeling for Platonic Greek that is unlikely to be ever surpassed" (ibid. 93). But did you know something Slings reports elsewhere (Mnem. 42 [1989] 192): that "when the volumes of Burnet's Platonis Opera first appeared, they were generally considered a provisional editio minor, soon to be superseded by more impressive tomes?" What is hugely improved is the apparatus criticus. There are two main reasons for this.First, Slings' text is based on a much more secure assessment of the textual tradition than was Burnet's, thanks not least to the comprehensive work of his former pupil Gerard Boter in The Textual Tradition of Plato's Republic (Leiden: Brill, 1989). Burnet gave pride of place to three primary witnesses: Parisinus 1807, ninth century (A); Marcianus 185, twelfth century (D); and Vindobonensis suppl. gr., dated by Slings to the period 1250-1325 (F). But he reported them selectively and sometimes inaccurately and never collated any of them himself. Moreover, while he was the first editor to recognise the true importance of the Vindobonensis, in Slings' opinion he accorded it more authority, particularly relative to the Parisinus, than it really carries. Finally, Burnet attached some weight to M, a manuscript in the library of the Malatestas at Cesena variously attributed to the twelfth, thirteenth, or fourteenth centuries (but considered fifteenth century by Slings and Boter) and collated for the Republic by Lewis Campbell. Boter's investigations have established that M carries no independent authority. Slings and Boter have reexamined all three of the primary medieval manuscripts both in photocopies and in situ, with what was evidently extreme care, and Slings says he has no doubt that the readings reported in the new OCT are a lot more reliable than in any previous edition. His general view of the [End Page 607] merits and demerits of A, D, and F—repeated here—was already set out in Appendix 2 to his major edition of the Clitophon (which precedes the Republic in the seventh tetralogy and shares its textual tradition); see Plato: Clitophon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 340-44. Roughly speaking, A is the weightiest, D is of relatively minor importance, and F is "a typical representative of the cheap Plato omnibus as found in later antiquity," with "many uniquely true readings" but lots of errors and "untrustworthy variants in word order and particles" (ibid. 341).Second, as well as exploiting Plato papyri and translations into Coptic, Arabic, and Hebrew, Slings makes more generous use of the indirect tradition than do earlier editions by using quotations and allusions in subsequent ancient authors and scholia. He thanks a number of other Dutch scholars for their help in compiling this material and cites in particular Gerard Boter's index of testimonia in The Textual Tradition. Slings includes a list of those cited in his apparatus criticus as an appendix (it runs to seventeen pages). Moreover, interpretation of the information provided in the apparatus is aided by the clear explanation in the editor's pithy Latin preface of the rules and the orthographic practices he proposes to follow. In general, while Slings' apparatus is not consistently bulkier than Burnet's, it is often richer. Mostly this is thanks to better information about the textual tradition. But in line with the usual modern practice, Slings also gives the source of any Platonic quotation... (shrink)

This new edition corrects shortcomings of earlier editors by providing a text which incorporates neglected or unavailable material from Greek manuscripts, recently published papyri, and quotations from the orations by rhetoricians dating from antiquity through to the Byzantine period. All this information is presented in notes in Greek and Latin, which will not only allow convenient access to evidence for the text but will also provide references to ancient and medieval interpretations of the orations.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Prolegomenon to the Homeric CentosM. D. UsherHomeric centos are poems made up entirely of verses lifted verbatim, or with only slight modification, from the Iliad and Odyssey. Only a few have survived antiquity. There exist three short Homeric centos in the Palatine Anthology (9.361, 381, 382; cf. Hunger 1978, 98–101), a ten–line cento about Herakles quoted by Irenaeus (Wilken 1967), and a seven– line cento grafitto inscribed on the (...) leg of a statue of Memnon in Egypt, which dates from the reign of Hadrian (Bernand 1960, 111–13; Bowie 1990, 65). There are also several cento–like incantations from the Greek Magical Papyri that use lines from Homer (Maltomini 1995). The only Homeric centos we possess in any quantity are the topic of this study. These originated with a Christian bishop named Patricius in the fourth century C.E., and were later expanded by Eudocia Athenaïs, wife of the emperor Theodosius II, in the early fifth.Eudocia's Homeric centos have long been neglected for lack of a complete and authoritative text. The responsibility for this situation rests with the otherwise eminent Homerist, Arthur Ludwich, whose Teubner edition of 1897, the only edition of the centos currently available, is based on a single, partially edited manuscript (Par. graec. suppl. 388: "Codex Mutinensis").1 Pessimism about establishing a reliable text and aesthetic disenchantment with the poem itself have hampered further study: according to Joseph Golega, for example, the Homeric centos are "weder des Druckes noch des Lesens wert" (Golega 1960, 1).Such an assessment lacks understanding and imagination. In his short study of 1979, Kurt Smolak called for a new edition of the centos in no uncertain terms, emphasizing the poem's great heuristic potential (49):Die Zentonen als spezielle Form der spätantiken Homerrezeption erwiesen sich als der Interpretation ihrer oft nicht anerkannten dichterischen Möglichkeiten durchaus zugänglich—dann sind sie doch wohl auch eine [End Page 305] Edition wert! Denn die frühbyzantinische Bibeldichtung kann dem Theologen, Komparatisten und sich auch dem Philologen ein wenig bebautes Arbeitsfeld eröffnen—sofern dieser sich nicht als Zensor im Namen einer klassizistischen Ästhetik versteht.The present study is offered as a prolegomenon to a new, complete edition of Eudocia's poem—a first installment on the larger interpretive program suggested by Smolak.2 It concerns my collation and transcription of a manuscript of the Homeric centos in the collection of the Iviron monastery on Mount Athos, Greece, which I inspected meis oculis in the summer of 1995.3 This hitherto unaccounted–for cento manuscript, datable on palaeographical grounds to the mid–fourteenth century, is one of a type used by Aldus Manutius for the editio princeps of the centos, published in Venice in 1502 (Renouard 1825, 57–62). Ludwich all but ignored Aldus' edition and the important revision of it published by Henricus Stephanus in 1578. His oversight was unfortunate, for the Iviron–Aldus–Stephanus recension of the centos (hereafter simply "Iviron," or "Iviron recension") is completely different from his, and as we shall see, better than his as well.Our investigation begins with the Aldine edition, the preface to which indicates that the text was transcribed and corrected for Aldus by Petrus Candidus, the son or perhaps nephew of Petrus Candidus Decembrius (1399–1477), papal secretary to Nicolas V. This younger Candidus belonged to the Benedictine order of the Camaldunensians, who were housed in the Venetian monastery of St. Michael Murianus. Following the preface of Candidus is a six–line elegiac poem on the centos composed by Scipio Fortiguerra, a member of the Aldine Academy who frequently collaborated with Aldus in preparing printed editions. We can safely infer, therefore, that both Candidus and Fortiguerra had a hand in the production of the editio princeps, and it is likely that the ms or mss they used were Venetian, or at least Italian (cf. Harris 1898, 25–26). That manuscript has yet to resurface, and may no longer exist, though it is possible that Iviron 4464 was once in Venice. The monastery obtained it, according to its librarian Father Theologos, from the personal library of [End Page 306] Maximos Margounios (1549–1602), bishop of Kythera, who... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Work in Progress: Literary Revision as Social Performance in Ancient Rome by Sean Alexander GurdThomas HabinekSean Alexander Gurd. Work in Progress: Literary Revision as Social Performance in Ancient Rome. American Classical Studies 57. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. xi + 167 pp. Cloth, $74.The New Critical approach to texts of Latin literature as well-formed artifacts comprehensible solely on their own terms has been in decline for some time (...) now. Cultural critics have illuminated the ways in which literary texts intersect with a broad range of practices and discourses; increasing attention has been paid to the cognitive, conceptual, and emotional aspects of poetry and prose; even diehard intertextualists find themselves wondering how to connect literary texts with other communicative systems. Most such work, however, has taken the form of interpretation. Debates have been concerned with the relative weight to be given to internal and external factors in assessing the meaning and significance of texts, but rarely have scholars stopped to ask what is meant by “text” in the context of Roman verbal production. Indeed, critics who insist on the boundlessness of interpretation are among those most committed to the boundedness of the objects to be interpreted.Sean Gurd’s new study reorients discussion of Latin literature by asking whether and when Roman readers and audiences came to regard a text as complete. His interest is still discursive, that is to say, he shies away from detailed discussion of the material practices evidenced in papyri and manuscripts, which in my view is a mistake. Nonetheless, his crisp, insightful examination of the way [End Page 340] multiple Roman (and Greek) authors represent the process of textual revision and completion should force reconsideration of widely shared assumptions about the boundedness and autonomy of the texts that constitute the interpreter’s object of inquiry. On Gurd’s account, the familiar Alexandrian and neoteric concern with formal completeness is just one of many models of textualization available to ancient authors. Like Enrica Sciarrino in her recent study of Cato the Elder (Cato the Censor and the Beginnings of Latin Prose. From Poetic Translation to Elite Transcription [Columbus, Ohio 2011]), Gurd manages to shake things up in part through the simple (and to this writer self-evident and long-overdue) move of including prose as well as poetry in the Latinist’s remit. Cicero and Pliny contribute as much to his account as do Horace and his Alexandrian predecessors.Equally important, if less successfully handled, is Gurd’s identification of different models of craftsmanship implicit in a preference for complete as opposed to revisable texts. Gurd suggests that an Aristotelian model, in which the craftsman has a telos or ideal in mind to which the object is expected to adhere, has been allowed to dominate discussion of texts at the expense of other models, identifiable in the writings of Isocrates, Plato, Quintilian, and others, that allow for revision, by the author or by others, as part of the creative process. I agree, but think the connection between the Aristotelian approach and the literary texts that embody it could have been developed in more detail, as might the philosophical underpinnings of alternative approaches to revision. At the same time, Gurd’s pursuit of the Aristotelian lead through other philosophical writings (Stoic, Epicurean, euphonist) is unpersuasive and a distraction from his main story, which is the diverse uses to which authors assign the process of revision, as discussed in four compelling chapters that form the substance of the book.The first of these chapters groups Isocrates, Plato, and Quintilian as promoters of textual revision as pedagogical strategy. For them, revision of a text is aimed at the improvement of the revising subject as much as the revised text. The ability to collaborate with others, especially apparent in Isocrates’ Panathenaicus, becomes predictive of political competence, while in the case of Plato’s Theaetetus and Euthydemus, revising a text is another means of revising the self. For Quintilian, revision, without entirely losing its Isocratean or Platonic aims, eventually produces a speaker who no longer needs to revise. The practice of criticizing and correcting, alone or with others, generates a substantive transformation of the student’s psyche... (shrink)