PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI p 315–345

UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW FACULTY OF LAW AND ADMINISTRATION CHAIR OF ROMAN AND ANTIQUE LAW UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PAPYROLOGY THE RAPHAEL TAUBENSCHLAG FOUNDATION THE JOURNAL OF JURISTIC PAPYROLOGY Supplements SERIES EDITORS TOMASZ DERDA ADAM ¸AJTAR JAKUB URBANIK VOLUME XXVIII

Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology Warsaw, 29 July – 3 August 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume One LITERARY PAPYRI: TEXTS AND STUDIES OPENING LECTURE Roger S. Bagnall, Illegitimacy in Roman and Late Antique Egypt .................. SECTION ONE: POETRY José Antonio Fernández Delgado, Contribution of the new papyri to the history of Hesiod’s text ................................................................................................ Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez, Theseus’ and Pirithous’ catabasis in P. Ibscher col. I (Hes. fr. 280 Merkelbach–West = Minyas fr. 7 Bernabé) ...... C. Michael Sampson, A new reconstruction of Sappho 44 (P. Oxy. X 1232 + P. Oxy. XVII 2076) .............................................................................................. Benedetto Bravo, Anacreonte, Poetae Melici Graeci 346/1, fr. 1, 1–12: Uno scherzo sull’erõs del potere politico ......................................................................... Kathleen McNamee, A new look at the Würzburg Phoenissae commentary ..... Fjodor Montemurro, P. Berol. 5514 re-examined: textual and exegetical problems in Euripides, Melanippe desmotis, fr. 495 Kannicht ..................................... Krystyna Bartol, How to serve a giant fish? Pap. Duk. F 1984.7 = Adesp. Com. 1146 K.-A.: Some textual problems ........................................................... Angelo Casanova, Note sul lessico della rhesis di Panfile (Men., Epitr. 801–835) ... Jan Kwapisz, P. Heid. G 310a revisited: Hellenistic sotadeans, hexameters, and more? ........................................................................................................ Marco Perale, A Hellenistic astronomical poem from Oxyrhynchus .................. Gabriel Nocchi Macedo, Juvenal in Antinoë. Palaeographic and contextual observations on P. Ant. s.n. ........................................................................ 5 21 37 53 63 85 97 117 129

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TWO: PROSE Natascia Pellé, Frammenti delle Historiae di Tucidide su rotoli riutilizzati: uno studio bibliologico e paleografico ............................................................... Francesca De Robertis, P. Mich. inv. 918 e la tradizione della terza Filippica di Demostene ................................................................................................ Rosa Otranto, Esegesi demostenica su papiro: P. Lit. Lond. 179 [MP 3 307] ....... María Paz López Martínez, Consuelo Ruiz Montero, The Parthenope’s novel: P. Berol. 7927 + 9588 + 21179 revisited ............................................ Giuseppe Ucciardello, New light on P. Strasb. Gr. 1406–1409: An early witness of Secundus’ sentences ................................................................................ Chris Rodriguez, Le cri d’une victime de la tyrannie: La théâtralisation des débats dans les Acta Appiani ..................................................................... Natalia Vega Navarrete, Acta Appiani: Gerüchte über den kaiserlichen Hof in Alexandria ............................................................................................... SECTION THREE: HERCULANEUM PAPYRI Christian Vassallo, Towards a comprehensive edition of the evidence for presocratic philosophy in the Herculaneum papyri .......................................... Giuliana Leone, L’edizione di Epicuro, Sulla natura, libro II ............................ Aurora Corti, P. Herc. 454: Una «scorza» di Epicuro, Sulla natura XXV (P. Herc. 1420/1056) ............................................................................................... Michele Alessandrelli, Graziano Ranocchia, P. Herc. 1020 (Stoici scriptoris anonymi opus incertum). Condizioni fisiche, aspetti bibliologici e storia editoriale ...................................................................................... Mario Capasso, Nuovi frammenti del De adulatione di Filodemo (P. Herc. 1092) ... Mariacristina Fimiani, Contributo al testo del P. Herc. 1423 (Filodemo, Retorica, libro IV) .................................................................................................. Graziano Ranocchia, P. Herc. 1004 ([Filodemo], [Sulla retorica], libro incerto). Condizioni fisiche, descrizione bibliologica e storia degli studi ..................... Matilde Fiorillo, Segni di interpunzione e di correzione nel P. Herc. 1004 (Filodemo, Retorica VII) .......................................................................... Giovanni Indelli, Francesca Longo Auricchio, Il P. Herc. 1471 (Filodemo, La libertà di parola) nelle carte Vogliano .................................................. Kilian Fleischer, New readings in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum: Dio of Alexandria (P. Herc. 1021, col. XXXV, 17–19) .......................................... Daniel Delattre, Joëlle Delattre-Biencourt, Annick Monet, Agathe Antoni, La reconstruction du P. Herc. Paris. 2, Philodème, [La Calomnie]: Quelques nouveautés textuelles .................................................................. Holger Essler, Daniel Riaño Rufilanchas, ‘Aristarchus X’ and Philodemus: Digital linguistic analysis of a Herculanean text corpus ............................. 187 201 223 235 251 279 301 315 347 357 373 389 401 413 433 445

TABLE OF CONTENTS Michael McOsker, Verso una nuova edizione del P. Herc. 188 (Demetrio Lacone, Sulla poesia I). Storia del papiro ed indentificazione degli avversari ......... Antonio Parisi, Osservazioni preliminari sul P. Herc. 124 ................................ Gianluca Del Mastro, Il titolo del P. Herc. 1005 ............................................. SECTION FOUR: CHRISTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI Jitse H. F. Dijkstra, The A ‘ lexandrian World Chronicle’. Place in the late antique chronicle traditions, date, and historical implications .................................. Marco Stroppa, I papiri greci dell’Asceticon dell’abate Isaia .............................. Alan Gampel, Céline Grassien, P. Duke Inv. 766: Le plus ancien témoin papyrologique d’un canon poétique liturgique ................................................... VII 503 515 525 535 549 561 Volume Two SUBLITERARY PAPYRI, DOCUMENTARY PAPYRI, SCRIBAL PRACTICES, LINGUISTIC MATTERS SECTION FIVE: POPULAR LITERATURE, MEDICINE, MAGIC, LETTERS Francisca A. J. Hoogendijk, Page of an oracle book: Papyrus Kellis 96.150 ..... Luigi Prada, P. Oxy. XXXI 2607 re-edited: A Greek oneirocriticon from Roman Egypt ....................................................................................................... Ann Ellis Hanson, P. Ryl. III 530 and the Latin commentaries to the Hippocratic aphorisms ................................................................................................. Isabella Bonati, Between text and context: P. Oslo II 54 reconsidered ............... Antonio Ricciardetto, Inventaire et typologie des listes grecques et latines de produits pharmaceutiques ......................................................................... Korshi Dosoo, Magical discourses, ritual collections: Cultural trends and private interests in Egyptian handbooks and archives ............................................ Rachel Yuen-Collingridge, Legibility in the Greek magical papyri: The treatment of formulae in PGM IV ........................................................... Laura Willer, Die Handhabung magischer Schriftamulette im römischen Ägypten Lincoln H. Blumell, A Christian amulet containing a doxology with sketches on the back .................................................................................................... Iain Gardner, The Sethian context to a Coptic handbook of ritual power (= P. Macquarie I) .................................................................................... 595 623 647 659 677 699 717

VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS Marie-Hélène Marganne, Du texte littéraire au document: Les connexions entre les papyrus littéraires et documentaires grecs et latins ........................ Amaia Goñi Zabalegui, On the other side of the dialogue: letters addressed to women from Roman Egypt ....................................................................... Antonia Sarri, Handshifts in letters .................................................................. SECTION SIX: COLLECTIONS OF PAPYRI María Jesús Albarrán Martínez, Archives d’Apa Sabinos dans le fonds copte de la Sorbonne .......................................................................................... Carla Balconi, Papiri della collezione dell’Università Cattolica di Milano provenienti dalla Grande Oasi ....................................................................... Katherine Blouin, Papyri in Paris: The Greek papyrus collection in the Bibliothèque nationale de France ........................................................................ Franziska Naether, Demotic texts from Leipzig .............................................. Déborah Vignot-Kott, D’Apollonopolis Magna à Varsovie. Regard sur les textes démotiques d’Edfou dans les collections polonaises ............................ SECTION SEVEN: GREEK AND LATIN PAPYRI AND OSTRACA: NEW AND REVISITED TEXTS Panagiota Sarischouli, BKT IX 158 revisited: An extract from judicial proceedings rather than a prose fragment ........................................................ Hélène Cuvigny, Un type méconnu de document administratif militaire: la demande de versement de frumentum praeteritum (O. Claud. inv. 7235 et ChLA XVIII 662) ............................................................................... Eleonora Angela Conti, PSI inv. 1816. Una lettera privata in scrittura libraria.. Alia Hanafi, Two unpublished documents from the Coptic Museum in Cairo .... Fatma E. Hamouda, A boule-papyrus from Karanis ......................................... Shareen A. Aly, Three Greek ostraca from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo ....... Nadine Quenouille, The Gerontios-Archive: A sub-archive to the AbinnaeusArchive? ................................................................................................... Anne Boud’hors, Jean Gascou, Le monastère de Dorothée dans la montagne d’Antinoopolis .......................................................................................... Seham D. A. Aish, Noha A. Salem, Ten new documents from the archive of the elaiourgoi of Aphrodite (O. Cairo Museum S.R. 18953).............................. 767 777 797 823 837 853 883 895 911 931 943 953 961 967 975 991 1011 SECTION EIGHT: COPTIC PAPYRI AND OSTRACA Anne Boud’hors, Apprendre à lire et à écrire: deux documents coptes revisités . 1027 Esther Garel, The ostraca of Victor the priest found in the hermitage MMA 1152 . 1041

TABLE OF CONTENTS Jennifer Cromwell, Coptic documents in two copies: A study of corrections and amendments .............................................................................................. IX 1055 SECTION NINE: ARABIC PAPYRI Ursula Bsees, Half a sale contract or an unknown type of document? Going deeper into P. Cair. EgLib. inv. 885 verso ............................................................. 1077 Johannes Thomann, An Arabic horoscope on parchment with a square diagram for ad 1002 (P. Vind. inv. A. Perg. 236) ..................................................... 1085 SECTION TEN: ANATOMY OF A TEXT, BIBLIOLOGICAL MATTERS Francesca Maltomini, Use and reuse of papyrus rolls and scraps: Some bibliological matters ..................................................................................................... 1097 Francisca Pordomingo, Scriptio plena vs. élision dans les papyrus littéraires: Les papyrus ptolémaïques avec des textes poétiques .................................... 1113 Enrico Emanuele Prodi, Titles and markers of poem-end in the papyri of Greek choral lyric ............................................................................................... 1137 Chiara Meccariello, Title, !ρχ$, %π'θεσι,. Notes on the heading and arrangement of the tragic hypotheses on papyrus ........................................ 1185 Chiara Martis, Sistemi di correzione nei papiri letterari greco-egizi: Considerazioni preliminari .................................................................................... 1201 Thomas A. Wayment, Michael R. Trotter, P. Oxy. LXIV 4405: An early witness to a system of textual division at Oxyrhynchus .............................. 1231 Nathan Carlig, Symboles et abréviation chrétiens dans les papyrus littéraires grecs à contenu profane (ive–viie siècles) .................................................... 1245 SECTION ELEVEN: LANGUAGE, VOCABULARY, ONOMASTICS Sonja Dahlgren, Egyptian transfer elements in the Greek of Narmouthis ostraka . Grzegorz Ochała, Multilingualism in Christian Nubia: A case study of the monastery of Ghazali (Wadi Abu Dom, Sudan) ........................................ Maria Chiara Scappaticcio, Coniugare nell’una e nell’altra lingua. Sondaggi dalle flessioni verbali greco-latine su papiro .............................................. Joanne Vera Stolk, Dative and genitive case interchange in Greek papyri ........ Elena Martín González, -ον'σκορδον (PGM IV 2209) ........................... Zsuzsanna Szántó, Les noms bibliques des Juifs dans l’Égypte hellénistique ...... 1257 1265 1285

TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume Three STUDYING PAPYRI SECTION TWELVE: HISTORY OF PAPYROLOGY, NEW PAPYROLOGICAL TOOLS Holger Essler, Wilckens Briefe an britische Kollegen ........................................ Alain Martin, Charles Wessely à la «Semaine Égyptologique» de Bruxelles ........ Herbert Verreth, Topography of Egypt online ................................................ Marius Gerhardt, Die Berliner Papyrusdatenbank (BerlPap) .......................... Jean-Luc Fournet, Simona Russo, La culture matérielle dans les papyrus: une nouvelle entreprise lexicographique ........................................................... Nicola Reggiani, Data processing and state management in Late Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt: The project ‘Synopsis’ and the archive of Menches ........ SECTION THIRTEEN: PAPYROLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY Rodney Ast, Paola Davoli, Ostraka and stratigraphy at Amheida (Dakhla Oasis, Egypt): A methodological issue ........................................................ Mario Capasso, Nuovi ritrovamenti di papiri e ostraka a Soknopaiou Nesos (2010–2012) .............................................................................................. Alberto Nodar, Two new texts from Oxyrhynchus: Archaeology and papyrology on the site ................................................................................................. Thomas Landvatter, Archaeological and papyrological inquiry at Karanis: Problems and potentialities ....................................................................... Giovanna Menci, Ogetti iscritti appartenenti alla collezione dell’Istituto Papirologico «G. Vitelli» ..................................................................................... Maria Mossakowska-Gaubert, La papyrologie à la rencontre de l’archéologie: Le lexique des mobiliers d’éclairage ........................................................... SECTION FOURTEEN: JURISTIC PAPYROLOGY Rob Kugler, Judean legal reasoning in P. Polit. Iud. 3–5: A research report ....... Joachim Hengstl, Noch einmal zum Erfahrungsprofil des Apostels Paulus aus rechtshistorischer Sicht ............................................................................. Fara Nasti, The new complete edition of P. Haun. De legatis et fideicommissis: Some remarks ........................................................................................... 1351 1365 1379 1387 1393 1415 1447 1473 1483 1493 1519 1533 1565 1579 SECTION FIFTEEN: HELLENISTIC EGYPT Lucia Criscuolo, Queens’ wealth .................................................................... 1605

TABLE OF CONTENTS Andrew Monson, Harvest taxes on cleruchic land in the third century bc ........ Hans Hauben, Boats and skippers in the service of Apollonios the dioiketes especially in Zenon’s Alexandrian years (261–256 bc) ................................ Christelle Fischer-Bovet, Les Égyptiens dans les forces armées de terre et de mer sous les trois premiers Lagides ............................................................. Patrick Sänger, The meaning of the word πο#$τευµα in the light of the JudaeoHellenistic literature ................................................................................. Christian-Jürgen Gruber, Amtsdauer und -nachfolge von Eklogistai vom ausgehenden ersten Jh. v.u.Z. an in Ägypten .................................................. SECTION SIXTEEN: ROMAN EGYPT Livia Capponi, C. Calpurnius Proculus and an example of Greek stenography under Augustus ......................................................................................... Micaela Langellotti, Contracts and people in early Roman Tebtunis: A complex affair ................................................................................................ Marie-Pierre Chaufray, Comptes du temple de Soknopaios à Dimé à l’époque romaine .................................................................................................... Adam Łukaszewicz, Double greetings in P. Brem. 5 and some other remarks on Hadrian’s Egypt ........................................................................................ Thomas Kruse, Zu den Kompetenzen des administrativen Hilfspersonals der enchorischen Beamten in der römischen Kaiserzeit .................................... XI 1615 1633 1669 1679 1695 1709 1725 1737 1751 1761 SECTION SEVENTEEN: LATE ANTIQUE EGYPT Miroslava Mirković, Taxes and people: Transactions and misuses in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Egypt .......................................................... 1775 Usama A. Gad, Who was who in the aristocracy of Byzantine Oxyrhynchus ..... 1787 Alexandra Jesenko, Die Topoteretai im spätantiken und früharabischen Ägypten .. 1801 Karin Maurer, Sven Tost, Polizeiliche Erzwingungs- und Verwaltungsstäbe im spätantiken Ägypten ............................................................................ 1825 Matthias Stern, Welche Gefängnisse kontrolliert der Pagarch? .......................... 1843 Isabelle Marthot, L’irrigation des terres du village d’Aphroditê à l’époque byzantine .................................................................................................. 1871 SECTION EIGHTEEN: LIVING IN EGYPT IN GRAECO-ROMAN TIMES Mario C. D. Paganini, Decisional practices of private associations in Ptolemaic and Early Roman Egypt ........................................................................... 1889

INDEX OFOF THE AUTHORS TABLE CONTENTS Lucia Rossi, Le navire kerkouros, une galère marchande fluviomaritime? Pour une contribution à l’étude de la mobilité commerciale sur le Nil ................. Isabella Andorlini, Import of luxury goods in the light of the papyri of the Roman period ........................................................................................... Yousry Deyab, Laissez-passers in the light of documentary evidence from Mons Claudianus, ad 98–117 ............................................................................. Myrto Malouta, Antinoopolis by land and river .............................................. Eman Aly Selim, Where was Psenharpsenêsis? .................................................. Claudia Tirel Cena, Who hides behind the god Djeme? .................................. Rasha Hussein el-Mofatch, Where is the party? ........................................... 1903 1927 1943 1961 1973 1981 1993 SECTION NINTEEN ARABIA AND BEYOND Jaakko Frösén, From carbonized papyri to the Monastery of Saint Aaron at Petra. The ‘last will’ of Mr. Obodianos (P. Petra Inv. 6A) .......................... 2013 Jorma Kaimio, The division of landed property in P. Petra 17 ............................ 2025 Rachel Mairs, New discoveries of documentary texts from Bactria: Political and cultural change, administrative continuity ................................................ 2037 INDEX OF THE AUTHORS Aish, Seham D. A. 1011 Albarrán Martínez, M. J. 823 Alessandrelli, M. 373 Aly, Shareen A. 967 Andorlini, I. 1927 Antoni, A. 471 Ast, R. 1447 Bagnall, R. S. 5 Balconi, C. 837 Bartol, K. 117 Blouin, K. 853 Blumell, L. H. 745 Bonati, I. 659 Boud’hors, A. 991 and 1027 Bravo, B. 63 Bsees, U. 1077 Capasso, M. 389 and 1473 Capponi, L. 1709 Carlig, N. 1245 Casanova, A. 129 Chaufray, M.-P. 1737 Conti, E. A. 943 Corti, A. 357 Criscuolo, L. 1605 Cromwell, J. 1055 Cuvigny, H. 931 Dahlgren, S. 1257

Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology Warsaw, 29 July – 3 August 2013 pp. 315–345 Christian Vassallo TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE EDITION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI* D. M. Hermanni Diels et Theodori Gomperz T he prominent role of the Herculaneum papyri in the reconstruction of the Presocratic tradition can be easily proved through a numerical comparison between the Herculanean testimonia more or less directly concerned with Presocratic philosophers and those known through Graeco-Egyptian papyri. The Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF) gives evidence from Graeco-Egyptian papyri concerning about 25 Presocratics.1 For the purpose of this argument the name of Leucippus in P. Tura III (= Van Haelst 645; LDAB 773), col. XV, 27 is included. But, as we know, in this case the papyrological context is so full of gaps as * This paper was written as part of a research project funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme 2007–2013, ERC Starting Grant 241184-P. Herc. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to W. Benjamin Henry for kindly revising and improving the English version of the manuscript. We should also take into account the papyrological evidence for Pythagoreans and Sophists considered as philosophical schools or movements (cf. infra, Appendix).

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO to make the identification of the Atomist Leucippus, proposed by Gerhard Binder and Leo Liesenborghs, very uncertain.2 On the other hand, as far as the Herculanean tradition is concerned, my preliminary work on a Corpus Praesocraticorum Herculanense (CPH)3 has enabled me so far to identify in the Herculanean collection references to almost 40 Presocratic philosophers.4 Of course, one should also consider the total amount of evidence concerning the Presocratics preserved in the Herculanean and non-Herculanean sources. In this case, if one includes fragments, doxographical information, reminiscences and simple name quotations, the Graeco-Egyptian testimonia for Presocratic philosophers are not too much more numerous than about 180 Praesocratica Herculanensia which I have counted so far.5 Furthermore, we have to bear in mind that in this case the difference is due both to the large mass of Graeco-Egyptian papyrological evidence concerning the Orphics6 and to some sensational discoveries of recent years such as the famous Strasbourg Empedocles (P. Strasb. gr. inv. 1665–1666 = Mertens-Pack3 356.11; LDAB 824)7. 2 G. Binder, L. Liesenborghs, Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (TuraPapyrus), I.1., Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 1, 1–2, 14 [= Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 25], Bonn 1979, p. 72 (app.). See CPF I.1**, 65, p. 467, where it is rightly noted that we have nothing on which to base a comparison between this piece of papyrological evidence and the evidence for Leucippus collected in DK. In any case, if we wish to exclude P. Tura III, col. XV, 27 from the Presocratic sources, we could include instead P. Hibeh 13, if this text is really to be attributed to Alcidamas (so A. Brancacci) rather than to Hippias (so F. W. Blass and others). See A. Brancacci, ‘Alcidamante e PHibeh 13 De musica. Musica della retorica e retorica della musica’, [in:] idem, Musica e filosofia da Damone a Filodemo. Sette studi [= Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’, Studi 245], Florence 2008, pp. 57–79 (= idem et alii, Aristoxenica, Menandrea, fragmenta philosophica [= Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’, Studi e Testi per il Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini 3], Florence 1988, pp. 61–84). 3 Ch. Vassallo, Corpus Praesocraticorum Herculanense. Testimonia to Presocratic Philosophers in the Herculaneum Papyri (= Studia Praesocratica), Berlin – Boston (in preparation). 4 To be precise, the Presocratics I have counted so far are 39 in number (cf. infra, Appendix). 5 Cf. infra, Appendix, but in this case too the catalogue still remains open. 6 For the Derveni Papyrus and the other Orphic sources, cf. infra, Appendix. A. Martin, O. Primavesi, L’Empédocle de Strasbourg (P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665–1666), Introduction, édition et commentaire. With an English Summary, Strasbourg – Berlin – New York

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI In any case, the sheer number of the Herculanean testimonia suggests the major impact that they could have on a new comprehensive edition of the fragments of the Presocratics. To understand this better, we need to consider briefly the use of the Herculanean texts in the Diels-Kranz collection. In fact, Hermann Diels took the Herculanean evidence for the Presocratics into account long before 1903, when the first edition of the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker appeared.8 The Doxographi Graeci of 1879,9 the famous article Über ein Fragment des Empedokles, published in the same year in the Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie,10 and later on the Poetarum Philosophorum Fragmenta11 represented for the German scholar a sort of philological training in view of the selection of the Herculanean texts that he was going to establish while collecting the Vorsokratiker. In the Vorsokratiker Diels included altogether 60 Herculanean sources spread over a list of 24 authors. The passages at issue included only two pieces of 1999. For simple reasons of chronology (the relevant volume came out seven years before the edition of Martin and Primavesi), this papyrus does not appear in CPF I.1**, 49. 8 A very careful reconstruction of the Herculanean studies of Diels, drawing on the publication of his correspondence with Th. and H. Gomperz by M. Braun, W. M. Calder III & D. Ehlers (eds), Philology and Philosophy. The Letters of Hermann Diels to Theodor and Heinrich Gomperz (1871–1922), Hildesheim 1995, has been given by T. Dorandi, ‘Gli studi ercolanesi di Hermann Diels’, [in:] W. M. Calder III & J. Mansfeld (eds), Hermann Diels (1848–1922) et la science de l’antiquité [= Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 45], Genève 1999, pp. 227–260. From this research it emerges that ‘Diels aveva cominciato a occuparsi dei testi ercolanesi già nel 1875 spinto dalla lettura di alcuni scritti del Gomperz con il quale era in corrispondenza almeno fin dagli inizi del 1871’ (ibidem, p. 229). On this question, see also M. Gigante, La Germania e i Papiri Ercolanesi [= Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschafte 1], Heidelberg 1988, pp. 37–38; 47. For a more general analysis of the editorial work of Diels and of his interest in the Presocratics, I refer to J. Mansfeld, ‘Hermann Diels (1848–1922)’, [in:] O. Primavesi & K. Luchner (eds), The Presocratics from the Latin Middle Ages to Hermann Diels [= Philosophie der Antike 26], Stuttgart 2011, pp. 389–420. 9 H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, Berolini 1879; 4th ed., Berlin 1965. 10 H. Diels, ‘Über ein Fragment des Empedokles’, Sitzungsberichte der Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften 62 (1897), pp. 1062–1073 (= idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte der antiken Philosophie, ed. W. Burkert, Darmstadt 1969, pp. 147–158). H. Diels, Poetarum Philosophorum Fragmenta [= Poetarum graecorum fragmenta 3.1], Berlin

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO evidence for Democritus in Epicurus’ masterpiece !ερ$ φ&'εω',12 three testimonia for Empedocles and one for Democritus in Demetrius Laco’s works contained in P. Herc. 1012 (Opus incertum)13 and P. Herc. 1014 (On Poems, Book 2)14 respectively, but above all a very large number of testimonia in several works by Philodemus.15 As far as this last author is concerned, the extraordinary role of the treatise On Piety, which Diels knew through the old edition of Theodor Gomperz,16 stood out in his selection. From that work he drew very important evidence for several Presocratics (Musaeus, Epimenides, Pherecydes, Acusilaus, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Democritus and Prodicus). However, the Presocratic thinkers quoted in Philodemus’ On Piety are much more numerous, as the later partial editions of that work by Adolf Schober,17 Albert Henrichs18 and, as far as the first part of the work is concerned, Dirk Obbink19 have clearly shown. In this paper I present my critical reconstruction of two columns of this text in order to demonstrate how Presocratic doxography could be further enriched by the use 12 Epic., Nat. XXV, P. Herc. 1191 + 1056, pp. 40–41 Laursen (= DK 68 A 69); Nat., Lib. inc., P. Herc. 1413, col. [XXXVII 20] 5–8 Arrighetti2 (= DK 68 A 72). 13 Dem. Lac., Op. inc., P. Herc. 1012, col. XL, 5–10 Puglia (= DK 31 B 142); col. LVII, 1–5 Puglia (= DK 31 B 2, 1); col. LXV, 1–6 Puglia (= DK 31 B 100, 1–2). 14 Dem. Lac., Poem. II, P. Herc. 1014, col. LXIV, 4–10 Romeo (= DK 68 B 298a). Cf. M. Gigante, ‘Il Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi contributo alla storia della Filologia Classica’, Cronache Ercolanesi 10 (1980), pp. 5–15, at 13. 15 For the complete list of the testimonia Herculanensia in the Diels-Kranz collection, see T. Dorandi, ‘Gli studi ercolanesi di Hermann Diels’ (cit. n. 8), pp. 243–248. 16 Th. Gomperz, Philodem. Über Frömmigkeit [= Herkulanische Studien 2], Leipzig 1866. 17 A. Schober, ‘Philodemi De pietate Pars prior’, Cronache Ercolanesi 18 (1988), pp. 67–125 (= idem, Philodemi !ερ$ ε)'εβε+α' libelli partem priorem restituit A. Schober, diss. ined. Königsberg 1923). 18 A. Henrichs, ‘Towards a new edition of Philodemus’ treatise On Piety’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 13 (1972), pp. 67–98; idem, ‘Die Kritik der stoischen Theologie im P. Herc. 1428’, Cronache Ercolanesi 4 (1974), pp. 5–32; idem, ‘Two doxographical notes: Democritus and Prodicus on religion’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79 (1975), pp. 93–123; idem, ‘Philodems De pietate als mythographische Quelle’, Cronache Ercolanesi 5 (1975), pp. 5–38; idem, ‘The Atheism of Prodicus’, Cronache Ercolanesi 6 (1976), pp. 15–21. D. Obbink, Philodemus. On Piety, Part 1. Critical Text with Commentary, Oxford 1996.

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI of the recent multispectral images of the Herculaneum papyri (MSI) together with an accurate reading and a scrupulous transcription of the original manuscripts preserved in the Officina dei Papiri Ercolanesi of the National Library in Naples. Diels relied on editions which were not principally founded on autopsy of the original manuscripts. And this fault caused him, on the one hand, to exclude from his collection some evidence which the progress of Herculanean studies brought to light only many years later, and to include, on the other, some fragments in which there is actually no real trace of the Presocratics. Both of these points apply to two important Presocratic philosophers, viz. Xenophanes and Empedocles, whom I would like now to treat in more detail. In the Nachträge to the first volume of the Vorsokratiker, Diels took into account a Herculanean passage which turns out to have no reference to Xenophanes, viz. col. XXV of P. Herc. 1289, containing Book 2 of Philodemus’ work On Epicurus.20 In this passage Achille Vogliano21 wrongly thought that he could restore the dative !!(ε<ν>ο)φ[&ν]ει. Ettore Bignone,22 basing himself on Vogliano’s edition, considered this Herculanean text to be a proof of the anti-sceptical polemics of Epicurus in the Letter to the Philosophers of Mitylene. In fact, in his opinion, the letter was directed against Presocratics, Academics, and Peripatetics in relation to two kinds of problems: firstly, ethics and the denial of any role to liberal studies in philosophical education; secondly, scepticism, and the criticism of all philosophical trends which did not consider the senses as criteria of truth. Xenophanes would have been directly involved in the dispute because of his scepticism, attested to by fr. 34 DK, which I will shortly mention. In the seventies David N. Sedley was the first scholar to throw new light on this topic by restoring the name (]ρκεφ+ντι in place of the imaginary reading !!(ε<ν>ο)φ[&ν]ει of Vogliano. The new text 20 H. Diels & W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. I–III, Berlin 1903; 6th ed., Berlin – Zürich 1952, I, p. 491. 21 A. Vogliano, Epicuri et Epicureorum Scripta in Herculanensibus Papyris servata, Berlin 1928, p. 60 (fr. 6, col. III). E. Bignone, L’Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro, vol. I–II, 2nd ed., Florence 1973; Milan 2007 (repr.), pp. 441–444.

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO excluded the possibility that the fragment refers to the question of Presocratic scepticism.23 Still, I have found so far 5 Herculanean testimonia for Xenophanes.24 The first one represents a very recent acquisition, fr. 23 Janko of P. Herc. 207, a roll containing Book 4 of Philodemus’ work On Poems. Then there are 3 fragments transmitted by P. Herc. 327, attributed to the Survey of Philosophers of Philodemus on the basis of palaeographical considerations.25 All these texts are extremely significant for Xenophanes’ doxography and in general for the history of ancient atheism. A peculiar papyrological case is represented by fr. 16 Sudhaus (I, p. 275) of P. Herc. 1015/832. As far as the papyrological aspects are concerned, a first autopsy of the original manuscript led me to exclude the possibility that the letters !"# (l. 14) belong to the original layer of the roll, because of the large sovrapposto at the end of that column. Consequently I denied that there could be any trace of Xenophanes there or in Philodemus’ treatise On Rhetoric generally.26 But thanks to David Blank,27 who is preparing a new critical edition of P. Herc. 1015/832 (a Herculaneum roll currently assigned to Book 8 of that work28), 23 D. N. Sedley, ‘Epicurus and the Mathematicians of Cyzicus’, Cronache Ercolanesi 6 (1976), pp. 23–54, at 27–28. This conclusion has been confirmed by the later edition of A. Tepedino Guerra, ‘L’opera filodemea Su Epicuro (P. Herc. 1232, 1289β)’, Cronache Ercolanesi 24 (1994), pp. 5–53, at 43–44. See M. Gigante, Scetticismo e Epicureismo. Per l’avviamento di un discorso storiografico [= Elenchos 4], Naples 1981, pp. 27–29. 24 An in-depth report on the presence of Xenophanes in the Herculaneum papyri is now given in Ch. Vassallo, ‘Xenophanes in the Herculaneum Papyri. Praesocratica Herculanensia IV’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 60 (2014), pp. 45–66. 25 On this point, see G. Cavallo, Libri scritture scribi a Ercolano. Introduzione allo studio dei materiali greci [= Cronache Ercolanesi Suppl. 1], Naples 1983, p. 31, who associates with the same graphical trend (group D) P. Herc. 327 and P. Herc. 495, 558, 1508 and 1780, the last all belonging to the %&νταξι, τ-ν φι/ο,1φων. See also M. C. Cavalieri, ‘La Rassegna dei filosofi di Filodemo: Scuola eleatica ed abderita (P. Herc. 327) e Scuola pitagorica (P. Herc. 1508)?’, Papyrologica Lupiensia 11 (2002), pp. 17–53, at 21–23. 26 That is what I argued in the paper that I read during the Congress in Warsaw. 27 A new critical reconstruction of the final section of the roll was already given by D. Blank, ‘Aristotle’s ‘Academic Course on Rhetoric’ and the End of Philodemus, On Rhetoric VIII’, Cronache Ercolanesi 37 (2007), pp. 5–47. F. Longo Auricchio, ‘Nuovi elementi per la ricostruzione della Retorica di Filodemo’, Cronache Ercolanesi 26 (1996), pp. 169–171, at 171. But a different and more convincing

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI I had the opportunity to return to this complex stratigraphical problem. The provisional edition of the fragment (fr. 16a Blank) which Blank has kindly showed me saves the sequence !"#$% at line 14 of the column and reopens the old debate on the identification of this name: Xenophanes or Xenophon? As is well-known, on the grounds of Gomperz’s Oxonian apograph, these letters were taken by Sudhaus to belong to the name of the Presocratic, while in the same passage Gomperz suggested an allusion to Xenophon.29 I am sure that a new compehensive edition of this roll will throw new light on the words that can actually be restored in the column at issue and above all on their contextualization in the book of the multivolume treatise to which they belong. As far as the content is concerned, I would only observe that it would be at least difficult to imagine in that context a plausible connection between the ‘good rhetoricians for philosophy’ (ll. 1–2 Sudhaus: ο[' ()τ]ορε- | [δι0 φι]2ο[-]οφ3[α-] 5[γ]αθο3) and the name of a Presocratic philosopher like Xenophanes. But on this occasion I will dwell instead on the fifth piece of evidence, which is by far the most important. I refer to fr. 12 of P. Herc. 1428. In this testimonium we can read the following words:30 Fr. 12: P. Herc. 1428, cr. 2, pz. 1 = N fr. 12 = VH2 II 4 desunt versus fere 23 ][ ][][ ][]κ[ ₍₎]ν%ε%⌈ι⌉ν[ 24 ][ ][][ ][] κα[; π@ντα κει]νεAν µ%[ηδαµ>- hypothesis concerning the number of this book is given now by G. Ranocchia, ‘Sui testimoni principali del :ερ; (ητορικ=- di Filodemo’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (forthcoming). I extend many thanks to the author for giving me in advance the manuscript of this article. 29 See R. Janko, Philodemus. On Poems, Books 3 and 4, With the Fragments of Aristotle, On Poets [= The Philodemus Translation Project; Philodemus: The Aesthetic Works 1.3], Oxford 2011, pp. 258–259 and n. 4: ‘To judge by the spacing, Philodemus refers to Xenophon at Rhet. 8 P. Herc. 1015 fr. 16,13 = i. 275 Sudhaus, where Gomperz suggested !ενοφ[>ν] εν[’. The conspectus siglorum et signorum is below, before the Appendix.

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO ₍₎]ει#θαιτ[]ο$ν$ ]τ$ω$α*[₍₎]ν$ε ₍₎]ι$#ηπεριεµ$η ]αυτα#αθ$ε$ι# ]τα#⌈δο⌉ξ#$µ$ β$β$ηκενγινω#κειν  παρµενειδη#δε 28 32 δ9 κειν]ε8#θαι τ[:ν θε];ν, εE περD] τKν$<**$[ω]ν *$Iγει] τ$ι# L περD θ$εο$@$, µηδ9ν] τ$α>τα# A*$η$θε8# ο=#α#] τM# δ;ξα$#$#υ$µβI$βηκεν γινN#κειν.  Oαρµενε6δη# δ9 24 ][ subter lineam vert., med. vest. || 25 ][][ sin. asc. sicut *, α, inf. vest. || 26 ][]κ[ inf. vest., inf. vest., inf. apex || 27 ⌈ι⌉ N:  sup. vest. P | ν[ (µ, κ, ν) || 29 ω$α*[ (ν, αι, *ι, δι), (*, α, χ) | ν$ε (*, χ, α) || 30 ]ι$(τ, γ, π, ξ, ζ) | ιεµ$sup. vest., inf. vest, dext. sup. uncus || 31 ]αυτα#αθ$ med. vest., inf. vest., sup. vert. cum med. horiz. coniuncta || 32 ⌈δο⌉ N:  (δ, *, α), (ο, #) P | ξ#$µ$ (α, δ), inf. vest., sup. vest. || 33 β$β$inf. vest. 26–28 κα[6 supplevi, cetera Sedley: µ7τε || κει]νε8ν µ$[ηδ9ν µ7τε | κειν]ε8#θαι τ[:ν θε|;ν Philippson: µ7||τε κει]νε8ν µ[ηδ9ν µ7|τε κειν]ε8#θαι τ[:ν | θε;ν Schober: µ[7τ’ <**ο|#ε κει]νε8ν Janko (cf. DK 21 A 31 = Simpl., in Phys. 22, 22 sqq.: ο=τε κινο>µενον ο=τε ?ρεµο@ν, A 35 = [Galen.], Hist. phil. 7 = DG, p. 604, 17: AµετBβ*ητον, B 25 = Simpl., in Phys. 23, 10: A**’ AπBνευθε π;νοιο ν;ου φρενD πBντα κραδα6νει, B 26 = Simpl., in Phys. 23, 10: αEεD δ’ Fν ταGτH µ6µνει κινο>µενο# οGδIν / οGδ9 µετIρχε#θα6 µιν FπιπρIπει <**οτε <**J) || 28 fin. τ[:ν θε];ν supplevi: τ[:ν αGτ];ν Hammerstaedt dubit. || 29 εE περ6] supplevi (εE] Hammerstaedt) | <**$[ω]ν supplevi || 29 sq. *$I|[γει suppll. Hammerstaedt et Rashed || 30 θ$εο$@$legi dubit. || 30–33 cf. DK 21 B 34 = Sext., Adv. math. VII 49, 110; Plut., Aud. poet. 2, 17e || 30–31 µη|[δIν] supplevi: µηδI] Philippson || 32 ο=#α#] supplevi: *Iγων] Philippson || 34 cf. Bücheler, p. 529 (c. 25 lines and 2–3 words missing) and it turns out that [he (scil. Xenophanes) believes] that God on the one hand moves all things, and on the other hand is not moved in any way, and [it turns out] that, if someone argues about the other things (scil. about the other facts/phenomena) or about God, he does not recognize these opinions as true. Then Parmenides (continues on) The diple obelismene placed under the line 33 indicates the transition from a doxographical section to another, in this case to the section specifically devoted to Parmenides, whose name is clearly legible at the end of the column (l. 34). As a matter of fact, in the following column (P. Herc. 1428, fr. 13) Philodemus itemizes the theological conception of Parmenides.31 The lines Cf. M. Capasso, ‘Epicureismo ed Eleatismo. Secondo contributo alla ricostruzione della

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI immediately before the diple certainly refer to Xenophanes. This is demonstrated by, among other things, the stylistic similarity of the Herculanean text to a parallel passage of Book 1 of Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods: Tum Xenophanes, qui mente adiuncta omne praeterea, quod esset infinitum, deum voluit esse, de ipsa mente item reprehendetur ut ceteri, de infinitate autem vehementius, in qua nihil neque sentiens neque coniunctum potest esse. Nam Parmenides etc.32 Next, Xenophanes endowed the universe with mind, and held that, as being infinite, it was god. His view of mind is as open to objection as that of the rest; but on the subject of infinity he incurs still severer criticism, for the infinite can have no sensation and no contact with anything outside. As for Parmenides, etc.33 Diels in the Doxographi Graeci compared this Latin text in a synoptic way to fr. 12 of P. Herc. 1428,34 even though he did not believe that Cicero depended on Philodemus in this field.35 Robert Philippson, less prudent critica epicurea alla filosofia presocratica’, [in:] M. Capasso, F. De Martino, P. Rosati (eds), Studi di filosofia preplatonica, Naples 1985, pp. 253–309, at 290–299 (= idem, Comunità senza rivolta. Quattro saggi sull’epicureismo, Naples 1987, pp. 103–163, at 142–151). 32 Cic., ND I 11, 28 (= DK 21 A 34). 33 Transl. by H. Rackham. 34 H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci (cit. n. 9), p. 534. On the synoptic technique adopted in the Doxographi Graeci, see J. Mansfeld & D. T. Runia, Aëtiana. The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Vol. 1. The Sources [= Philosophia Antiqua 73], Leiden – New York – Köln 1997, pp. 89–97, at 92: ‘in the letter to Wilamowitz of January 22 1870, he [scil. Diels] speaks of the ‘archetypus’ of P [= pseudo-Plutarch] and the material in S [= Stobaeus] which as at the time he believed had been used by Philodemus in the On Piety, which in its turn would have been used by Cicero in ND 1.10 ff., and by Varro’. 35 Diels, Doxographi Graeci (cit. n. 9), pp. 121–129, assumed that both Cicero and Philodemus followed the treatise !ερ$ θε&ν of the Epicurean Phaedrus. As we know, a specific request for the theological work of Phaedrus by Cicero is testified in Cic., ad Att. XIII 38, 1 and 39, 2, on which see A. R. Dyck, Cicero. De natura deorum I [= Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics], Cambridge 2003, p. 7; H. Essler, ‘Cicero’s Use and Abuse of Epicurean Theology’, [in:] J. Fish & K. Sanders (eds), Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition, Cambridge 2011, pp. 129–151, at 151. For the other thesis, viz. the dependence of Cicero on Philodemus, see R. Philippson, ‘Zur epikureischen Götterlehre’, Hermes 51 (1916), pp. 568–608 (= idem, Stu-

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO than Schober with regard to the supplements, considered the final lines of the fragment a clear ‘Anspielung auf die vermeintliche Skepsis des Xenophanes’.36 He was evidently inclined to divide it into two sections, with theological and epistemological content respectively. But his reading τ"] µ!ηδ!%ν γιν)*κειν, besides failing to explain what kind of things Xenophanes’ scepticism referred to, cannot be reconciled with the evidence of the original manuscript, which categorically excludes the reading µ!ηδ!-ν proposed by Philippson and restores instead the perfect *υ!µ|β-!βηκεν at lines 32–33. Thus we can infer that the infinitive γιν)*κειν refers still to Xenophanes and not to human knowledge in general. At the same time the new reading does not exclude the possibility that the passage has epistemological implications. This is very important both for the history dien zu Epikur und den Epikureern, Hildesheim – Zürich – New York 1983, pp. 90–130), at 606– 608; idem, ‘Die Quelle der epikureischen Götterlehre in Ciceros erstem Buche De natura deorum’, Symbolae Osloenses 19 (1939), pp. 15–40 (= idem, Studien zu Epikur [cit. n. 35], pp. 249– 274). On this point, see also P. Steinmetz, ‘Eine jungepikureische Sicht der Geschichte der Philosophie’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 48 (1966), pp. 153–162, at 154; Henrichs, Die Kritik (cit. n. 18), p. 9, n. 28; Capasso, ‘Epicureismo ed Eleatismo’ (cit. n. 31), pp. 293– 294; M. Gigante, Ricerche filodemee [= Bibl. della Parola del Passato 6], Naples 1969; 2nd ed., 1983, p. 34; idem, Filodemo in Italia [= Bibl. del Saggiatore 49], Florence 1990, p. 52. 36 R. Philippson, ‘Zu Philodems Schrift über die Frömmigkeit’, Hermes 55 (1920), pp. 225– 278; 364–372, at 367. In general on Xenophanes’ epistemology, see M. Untersteiner, Senofane. Testimonianze e frammenti [= Biblioteca di Studi Superiori 33], Florence 1956; Milan 2008 (repr.), pp. CCXIII–CCXXXVI, at XXX; Th. Schirren, ‘Xenophanes’, [in:] D. Bremer, H. Flashar, G. Rechenauer (eds), Frühgriechische Philosophie, [in:] F. Überweg (ed.), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike, I.1–2, Basel 2013, I.1, pp. 339–374, at 362–367. For the specific problem of Xenophanes’ scepticism, above all in relation to fr. 34 DK, see H. Fränkel, ‘Xenophanesstudien’, Hermes 60 (1925), pp. 174–192, at 184–192; E. Heitsch, ‘Das Wissen des Xenophanes’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie n.F. 109 (1966), pp. 193–235; F. Decleva Caizzi, ‘Senofane e il problema della conoscenza’, Rivista di Filologia e Istruzione Classica 102 (1974), pp. 145–164; J. H. Lesher, ‘Xenophanes’ Scepticism’, Phronesis 23 (1978), pp. 1–21; G. Turrini, ‘Il frammento 34 di Senofane e la tradizione dossografica’, Prometheus 8 (1982), pp. 117–135; A. Finkelberg, ‘Studies in Xenophanes’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 93 (1990), pp. 103–167, at 131–146; J. Wiesner, ‘Wissen und Skepsis bei Xenophanes’, Hermes 125 (1997), pp. 17–33; R. Ioli, ‘Senofane B 34 DK e il conoscere’, Giornale Italiano di Filologia 55 (2003), pp. 199–219; W. Lapini, ‘Un recente studio sullo scetticismo di Senofane e alcune precisazioni di filologia filosofica’, [in:] idem, Studi di filologia filosofica greca [= Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’, Studi 211], Florence 2003, pp. 59–72.

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI of ancient philosophy and for Presocratic doxography, because the Herculanean evidence comes many decades before the testimonia of Plutarch and Sextus Empiricus on Xenophanes’ scepticism. In the first lines of the fragment the supplements of Philippson and Schober do not give a completely certain reference to the qualities of God in Xenophanes’ thought. But parallel passages37 give us good grounds for believing that in this doxographical section the active and passive immobility of God was at issue. The philosophical connection of such an important theological problem with the second part of the fragment allows us to formulate a wide range of hypotheses, among which I would mention at least two. a) The first takes the second part of fr. 12 as a proof of Xenophanes’ Eleatism in the view of Philodemus or more generally in the Epicurean approach to the history of Presocratic philosophy. According to this approach the image of Xenophanes as a forerunner of the Eleatic school would be confirmed. In this case the fragment would testify not only to Xenophanes’ generic scepticism but also to his specific assent to the traditional Eleatic theory of a strong separation between !"#θεια and δ)ξα and of the consequent inability of the senses to reach the truth.38 If so, the Herculanean fragment should be compared, on the one hand, with the radically sceptical evidence of pseudo-Plutarch (DK 21 A 32), which maintains the deceptive nature of the senses and the inadequateness of human reason for knowledge;39 on the other hand, with the moderately sceptical evidence of the Peripatetic Aristocles (DK 21 A 49), who confirms that the senses give no access to truth and are useless for knowledge, but at the same time does not associate reason with this sceptical approach (on the contrary, in the view of Aristocles the ")γο- is the only trustworthy human faculty).40 b) The other interpretation sets the 37 See supra the evidence quoted in the critical apparatus of my edition. See, for example, DK 28 B 7–8. A good and exhaustive treatment of the role of the senses and the relationship between opinion and truth in Parmenides, with a rich and up-to-date bibliography, can be found now in M. Kraus, Parmenides, [in:] D. Bremer, H. Flashar & G. Rechenauer (eds), Frühgriechische Philosophie (cit. n. 36), I.2, pp. 441–530. 39 Ps.-Plut., Strom. 4 (ap. Eus., PE I 8, 4 = DG, p. 580): (...) !ποφα0νεται δ3 κα5 τ6- α7-θ#-ει38 ψευδε:- κα5 καθ)"ου -;ν α<τα:- κα5 α<τ=ν τ=ν ")γον διαβ?""ει. (...) Aristocl., De philos. VIII (ap. Eus., PE XIV 17, 1): ο@ονται γ6ρ δε:ν τ6- µ3ν α7-θ#-ει- κα5

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO supposed scepticism of Xenophanes against its theological and ontological background. I think this is the best way to understand the Herculanean evidence. If so, it seems reasonable to consider fr. 12 of P. Herc. 1428 as a unity and to associate it with the words of the well-known fr. 34 DK, where Xenophanes says: κα# τ% µ&ν ο)ν *αφ&* ο,τι* .ν/ρ 1δεν ο4δ5 τι* 6*ται ε7δ8* .µφ# θε:ν τε κα# ;**α <5γω περ# π@ντων· ε7 γAρ κα# τA µ@<ι*τα τBχοι τετε<ε*µ5νον ε7πDν, α4τ%* Eµω* ο4κ οFδε· δGκο* δ’ Hπ# πI*ι τ5τυκται.41 No man knows, or ever will know, the truth about the gods and about everything I speak of; for even if one chanced to say the complete truth, yet oneself knows it not; but seeming is wrought over all things [or fancy is wrought in the case of all men].42 τA* φαντα*Kα* µεταβ@<<ειν, α4τM δ& µGνον τM <GγN πι*τεBειν· (...) Among the supporters of this position Aristocles joined Xenophanes directly to the Eleatics (Parmenides, Zeno, Melissus), and he added besides the followers of Stilpon and the Megarics. See also Aët., IV 9, 1 (= DG, p. 396). Untersteiner, Senofane (cit. n. 33), pp. XXXIV–XXXV and nn. 54– 55; 59, does not see any contradiction between κα# α4τ%ν τ%ν <Gγον διαβ@<<ει of A 32 (p. 122, 21) and α4τM δ& µGνον τM <GγN πι*τεBειν of A 49 (p. 126, 7), above all on the grounds of the different value the word <Gγο* would have in the two testimonia (ibidem, p. CCXIV). 41 DK 21 B 34 (= Sext., Adv. math. VII 49; 110; VIII 326; Plut., Aud. poet. 2, 17e). As far as the v. 1 is concerned, in place of the reading 1δεν of Sextus Empiricus (attested in the itacistic form οFδεν in the Mss. N and A), Plutarch’s text has γ5νετ’. Sextus’ reading was preferred already by F. W. A. Müllach, Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum, vol. I–III, Paris 1860, I, p. 103; defended by Fränkel, ‘Xenophanesstudien’ (cit. n. 36), p. 185 and U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, ‘Lesefrüchte’, Hermes 61 (1926), pp. 277–303, at 280; then accepted, among others, by H. Diels and B. Snell, most recently by G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven & M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophy. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Cambridge 1957; 2nd ed. 1983, p. 179, and J. H. Lesher, Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments [= Phoenix Suppl. 30; Phoenix Presocratics 4], Toronto – Buffalo – London 1992, p. 38. On the other hand, Untersteiner, Senofane (cit. n. 36), pp. CCXX–CCXXII and nn. 22–26; Decleva Caizzi, ‘Senofane e il problema della conoscenza’ (cit. n. 36), p. 160; J.-P. Dumont, Les Présocratiques [= Bibliothèque de la Pléiade], Paris 1988, pp. 122–123; R. Ioli, ‘Senofane B 34 DK e il conoscere’ (cit. n. 36), pp. 201–204, opt for the reading of Plutarch. Transl. by G. S. Kirk, J.E. Raven & M. Schofield.

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI Having illustrated the presence of Xenophanes in the Herculanean texts, I will briefly mention as a second example the case of Empedocles. The significant role of this Presocratic in the Herculaneum papyri, and more generally in Epicurean philosophy, has been highlighted by several studies in the last few decades.43 In the Vorsokratiker Diels took into account the only 3 important fragments quoted in the philological and apologetic work of Demetrius Laco transmitted by P. Herc. 1012. In addition, he placed among the testimonia P. Herc. 1428, fr. 3 (= DK 31 A 33), which, as Carlo Gallavotti was the first to demontrate, contains no reference to Empedocles.44 Luckily this is the only place where a false claim has been made concerning the presence of Empedocles in the Herculaneum papyri. On the other hand, the considerable progress achieved in editorial work allows us today to add 12 further testimonia to the 3 contained in P. Herc. 1012.45 I would like to draw particular attention to two of them. The first, recently edited by David Armstrong and Joseph A. Ponczoch, is col. VI of P. Herc. 1570, containing an Epicurean treatise on the effects of poverty and wealth, most probably written by Philodemus.46 In this pas43 See C. Gallavotti, ‘Empedocle nei papiri ercolanesi’, [in:] J. Bingen, G. Cambier, G. Nachtergael (eds), Le monde grec: Pensée littérature histoire documents. Hommages à Claire Préaux [= Université libre de Bruxelles, Faculté de philosophie et lettres. Sources et instruments 62], Bruxelles 1975, pp. 153–161; E. Puglia, ‘Demetrio Lacone e Empedocle’, PapCongr. XVII, II, pp. 437–446; I. Gallo, ‘Ermarco e la polemica epicurea contro Empedocle’, [in:] AA.VV., Esistenza e destino nel pensiero greco arcaico [= Pubblicazioni dell’Università degli Studi di Salerno; Sez. Atti, Convegni, Miscellanee], Naples 1985, pp. 33–50; D. Obbink, ‘Hermarchus, Against Empedocles’, Classical Quarterly 38 (1988), pp. 428–435; A. Martin, ‘Empédocle, Fr. 142 D.-K. Nouveau regard sur un papyrus d’Herculanum’, Cronache Ercolanesi 33 (2003), pp. 43–52; O. Primavesi, ‘Die Häuser von Zeus und Hades: zu Text und Deutung von Empedokles B 142 D.-K.’, Cronache Ercolanesi 33 (2003), pp. 53–68; G. Leone, ‘Epicuro ed Empedocle’; G. M. Rispoli, ‘Empedocle nelle testimonianze ermarchee’; E. Puglia, ‘Demetrio Lacone ed Empedocle’; G. Indelli, ‘Filodemo ed Empedocle’, [in:] G. Casertano (ed.), Empedocle tra poesia, medicina, filosofia e politica [= Skepsis 19], Naples, pp. 221–240; 241–269; 270–276; 277–288. 44 Gallavotti, ‘Empedocle nei papiri ercolanesi’ (cit. n. 43), p. 161: ‘Nel testo non compare neppure il nome di Empedocle, perché non c’è dubbio che sia scritto εµπο[, dove un εµπε[ fu immaginato dal Philippson arbitrariamente’. See also D. Obbink, ‘A Quotation of the Derveni Papyrus in Philodemus’ On Piety’, Cronache Ercolanesi 24 (1994), pp. 111–135, at 119–121. 45 Cf. infra, Appendix, s.v. ‘Empedocles Acragantinus’. D. Armstrong, J. A. Ponczoch, ‘[Philodemus] On Wealth (P. Herc. 1570 cols. VI–XX,

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO sage there is a clear allusion to fr. 111 DK of Empedocles, which is very interesting not least because Plutarch considered it to be the ending of the !υ#ικ&.47 The second piece of evidence to which I would like to draw attention is fr. 14 of P. Herc. 1428. This is the other passage of Philodemus’ On Piety of which I offer here my critical reconstruction. Even though the identification of sovrapposti and sottoposti in the original manuscript has considerably changed the old editions of Philippson and Schober, the text that I have restored confirms in my opinion the reference to Empedocles which the two German scholars already detected.48 Here is what we can read today in this Herculanean fragment:49 Fr. 14 : P. Herc. 1428, cr. 2, pz. 2 = N fr. 14 = VH2 II 5 desunt versus fere 26 ][ ₍₎]κ$⌈α⌉ιτο$υ[₍₎ ]#αιεπ[ ₍₎]#πενδον$[ ₍₎]ντα#⌈κ⌉ατ[ θ$α[₍₎]τ$#θα⌈ι⌉πο/[ δ$ε#τινεντοι#µε ε#ιντουτοι#πε 28 32 ][ ₍₎] κα0 το1[τοι# ]#αι επ[ ₍₎] #π2νδον[τ&# τε κα0 θ1ο]ντα# κ3τα$[καθαγ$[5]#${τ}<ε>#θαι· πο//$[6 δ’ 7#τ0ν 7ν το8# µ2ρ$ε#ιν το1τοι# πεpcc. 4–6a): New fragments of Empedocles, Menander, and Epicurus’, Cronache Ercolanesi 41 (2011), pp. 97–138, at 100–103. The edition is now revised, with some important conjectures of D. N. Sedley, in D. Armstrong, J. A. Ponczoch, ‘Empedocles and Philodemus in P. Herc. 1570, col. VI 9–19’, Cronache Ercolanesi 43 (2013), pp. 113–115. 47 For a commentary on Empedocles’ fr. 111 DK (= Diog. Laërt., VIII 59; Clem., Strom. VI 30 = fr. 98 Gallavotti), see C. Gallavotti, Empedocle. Poema fisico e lustrale [= Fondazione Lorenzo Valla], Milan 1975, pp. 260–261. On the evidence of Plutarch (Quaest. symp. VIII 8, 1) and the philological difficulties raised by it, see C. Gallavotti, ‘Qualche frammento di Empedocle’, [in:] Aa.Vv., Scritti in onore di C. Carbonara, Naples 1976, pp. 355–366, at 363–366. 48 Philippson, ‘Zu Philodems Schrift über die Frömmigkeit’ (cit. n. 36), pp. 367–368; A. Schober, ‘Philodemi De pietate Pars prior’ (cit. n. 17), pp. 111; 113. The conspectus siglorum et signorum is below, before the Appendix.

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI 27 ][ inf. vest., inf. et sup. vest. || 28 ⌈α⌉ N:  (α, ") P || 31 ⌈κ⌉ N:  (κ, χ) P | τ[ (α, ", χ) || 32 α[ (γ, π) | ]τ$dext. inf. arcus sicut (, ε | ⌈ι⌉ N:  sup. vert. P | "[ sup. vest. || 34 ε (ρ, β, φ) 28 το/[τοι( supplevi: το0[( 1κε2 Philippson: το0[( Schober spatio brevius || 29 init. 3ε[γαρ4]α( perperam rest. Philippson (µεα( Schober) eo quod µε[₍₎]α in subpos. et duobus superpos. in marg. sin. collocatis servatum est | ](αι επ[ dispexi || 30 init. 5$ε6 (<υ>νεχ4( perperam rest. Philippson eo quod omnes litt. in superpos. servatae sunt | (π4νδον[τ:( suppl. Philippson || 31 θ/ο]ντα( supplevi (cf. DK 31 B 137.3 = Sext., Adv. math. IX 129: "ι((<µενον θ/οντε(, θ/οντο( corr. Hermann ap. fr. 122.5 Gallavotti): κα6 θ$/ο$ ντα( perperam leg. Philippson eo quod κα6 θ$/ο$ - in superpos. servatum est | κ=τα$ leg. Janko || 31–32 [κα]|θαγ$[>](${τ}<ε>(θαι restitui: [κα]|θαγ$[ι]($τ<ε/ε>(θαι Janko: {κατ[α}κα]|θαρ$[>](${τ}<ε>(θαι Ranocchia || 32 πο""$[: suppl. Gomperz || 33–34 µ4|ρ$ε(ιν legi (µ4|[ρ]ε(ιν iam suppl. Gomperz) || 34 πε||[ρ> e.g. suppleverim (c. 27 lines and 1–2 words missing) and [he (scil. Empedocles) maintains that] in honour of these (scil. of the gods/dead people) (c. 3–4 words missing) making libations and offering sacrifices, and [he maintains] that afterwards they will light the funeral pyre: as a matter of fact, there are many things in these parts (1 word missing) (continues on) Philippson, unlike Diels, considered Philodemus to be the real source of Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods. For this reason he thought that in On Piety, as in the text of Cicero, the treatment of Empedocles in fr. 14 of P. Herc. 1428 followed the doxographical section on Parmenides (fr. 13).50 In fact, Cicero’s criticism of Empedocles concerns the relation between the theology and the four elements, viz. physical topics rather than ritual and religious ones.51 As for fr. 14, Philippson thought that it was concerned with Empedocles’ well-known disapproval of animal sacrifices.52 Some 50 R. Philippson, ‘Zu Philodems Schrift über die Frömmigkeit’ (cit. n. 36), p. 367: ‘Die Kritik des Parmenides beginnt 4d 8 und umfaßt noch 1428 BC 22 (5a S. 68) = G. Bei Cicero folgt Empedokles. Diesem muß das genannte unveröffentlichte Bruchstück angehören; aber auch noch 5b (S. 68)’. 51 Cic., ND I 12, 29: ‘Empedocles autem multa alia peccans in deorum opinione turpissume labitur. quattuor enim naturas, ex quibus omnia constare censet, divinas esse vult; quas et nasci et extingui perspicuum est et sensu omni carere’. 52 Philippson, ‘Zu Philodems Schrift über die Frömmigkeit’ (cit. n. 36), pp. 367–368: ‘Daß Empedokles Tieropfer als Sünde betrachtete, ist bekannt’. But he wrongly found in the fragment a reference to the Megarians, which led him to suggest, as an alternative, an improbable reference to Epicharmus (‘Doch kann auch an Epicharm gedacht werden, der aus jenem Megara stammte und als Geistesverwandter des Pythagoras auch wohl die

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO lexical elements, in particular the use of the verb θ"ω, lead us to believe that Philodemus (or his source) is here referring to fr. 137 DK of Empedocles (= fr. 122, 3–8 Gallavotti). In this case the Herculanean testimonium would bring up Empedocles’ most general criticism of human sacrifices. This may at first sight seem to be in line with Epicurean criticism of superstition, as shown for instance by the use of Iphigenia’s sacrifice in the poem of Lucretius,53 and, in a certain sense, with the Epicurean philosophy of law in regard to the origin of homicide as a crime, according to a famous testimonium of Hermarchus transmitted by Porphyry’s On Abstinence.54 But in fact even on this point the Epicureans entirely disagreed with Empedocles’ philosophy. The Presocratic founded his condemnation of bloody sacrifices on the law of nature, whereas Epicurus and the Epicureans argued on the basis of a conventional notion of law and justice.55 Nevertheless, if Philodemus really built his text on the framework of Hermarchus’ Against Empedocles in 22 books, there are sufficient grounds: a) to take fr. 14 of P. Herc. 1428 as a reference to (or a paraphrase of) a section of Empedocles’ Purifications; b) to argue that Philodemus followed a doxographical trend which assigned ritual and Opfer verwarf ’). A thorough analysis of Empedocles’ approach to sacrificial violence can be found now in A.G. Wersinger, ‘Empédocle, la Violence sacrificielle et la Grâce’, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 75 (2012), pp. 379–402. 53 Lucr., RN I 84–101. 54 Hermarch., fr. 34 Longo Auricchio (= Porph., Abst. I 7–12; 26, 4, pp. 46–52, 61 Bouffartigue-Patillon = fr. 24 Krohn), esp. 9, 3–5. Also interesting is another passage of Porph., Abst. II 20, a testimonium which comes from Theophrastus and is the source of Empedocles’ fr. 128 DK. Cf. infra, n. 70, on the subject of P. Petrie II 49E (= P. Lit. Lond. 159A) and P. Lit. Lond. 159B. 55 On this basic distinction, strictly connected to a good understanding of Epicurean concept of ο%κει)τη,, see Rispoli, ‘Empedocle nelle testimonianze ermarchee’ (cit. n. 43), pp. 257–262. Gallo, ‘Ermarco e la polemica epicurea contro Empedocle’ (cit. 39), pp. 42; 50; idem, ‘Empedocle in Epicuro e negli Epicurei’, [in:] U. Criscuolo (ed.), Mnemosynon [= Pubblicazioni del Dip. di Filologia Classica ‘F. Arnaldi’ dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’ 19], Naples, pp. 259–265, at 264, mantains that Porphyry’s text addressed only the -αθαρµο0. In general, on Epicurean philosophy of law, see R. Müller, Die epikureische Gesellschafts-Theorie [= Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 5], 2nd ed., Berlin 1974; V. Goldschmidt, La doctrine d’Epicure et le droit [= Bibliothèque d’histoire de la philosophie], Paris 1977; idem, ‘La teoria epicurea del diritto’, Elenchos 2 (1981), pp. 290–316.

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI religious topics to the !αθαρµο& and considered that poem and the 'υ)ικ, to be different works, although this does not exclude a contamination of demonological and cosmological theories in the latter. The cases of Xenophanes and Empedocles are sufficient to indicate the contribution that an accurate examination of the Herculanean sources could give to the history of Presocratic philosophy and its tradition. New collections of the fragments concerning these two Presocratics have been recently announced, for Xenophanes by Georg Wöhrle (De Gruyter, ‘Traditio Praesocratica’), and for Empedocles by Marwan Rashed (Les Belles Lettres, ‘Collection des Universités de France’). From these two works I think it reasonable to expect a serious consideration of the Herculanean evidence, which has been systematically forgotten or quoted in accordance with the outdated standards of Diels-Kranz even in the most recent editions of the Presocratics.56 Furthermore, I hope that a new approach to the Herculanean sources will be taken by André Laks and Glenn W. Most in their forthcoming four-volume collection of the fragments of the Presocratics for Harvard University Press (‘Loeb Classical Library’). I have not mentioned so far the inestimable contribution of the Herculaneum papyri to the history of ancient Atomism (not only Leucippus and Democritus, but also Anaxarchus, Diotimus, Metrodorus, Nausiphanes) and to the Heraclitean doxography as well.57 As far as Heraclitus is concerned, the collection of the testimonia edited by Serge N. Mouraviev represents a decisive advance in the history of studies of the Heraclitean tradition, but there is still much work to be carried out on 56 Among others, see the recent collections edited by M. L. Gemelli Marciano, Die Vorsokratiker [= Sammlung Tusculum], vol. I–III, Düsseldorf 2007–2010 and J. Mansfeld & O. Primavesi, Die Vorsokratiker, Stuttgart 1983; 2nd ed., 2011. This structural fault is indirectly confirmed by the useful survey of A. Brancacci, ‘Presocratici/Preplatonici. Contributo a un bilancio di cinquant’anni di storiografia filosofica in Italia’, [in:] idem, Studi di storiografia filosofica antica [= Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’, Studi 243], Florence 2008, pp. 1–18; and by A. A. Long, ‘Presocratics’, Phronesis 58 (2013), pp. 98–106, on scholarship and editorial developments relating to the Presocratics in recent years. Also in this case, cf. infra, Appendix, s.vv. ‘Anaxarchus Abderites’, ‘Democritus Abderites (seu Democrates)’, ‘Diotimus Tyrius’, ‘Heraclitus Ephesius’, ‘Leucippus (atomorum doctrinae conditor)’, ‘Metrodorus Chius’, ‘Nausiphanes Teius’.

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO the ‘Heraclitus of Herculaneum’.58 As regards the Atomists, the situation is much less satisfactory. In this field, in spite of the new perspectives in the history of philosophy opened up by recent research (above all in relation to the problem of the relationship between Epicurus and Aristotle), we must not forget the old thesis of Cyril Bailey, according to which ‘Epicurus’ controversy is with the pre-Socratics, and his debt, unacknowledged and even violently denied, is to Leucippus and Democritus’.59 With respect to this question the Herculaneum papyri play of course a very important role. For this reason, during the International Congress held in Catania in 1979 on Democritus and ancient Atomism (Democrito e l’atomismo antico), Marcello Gigante noted the urgent need for a comprehensive re-edition of the texts of ancient Atomists, from Leucippus to Diogenes of Oenoanda (‘da Leucippo, Democrito e la sua scuola a Epicuro e gli epicurei greci e romani fino a Diogene di Enoanda’).60 The recent collection of the evidence for the early Atomists edited by Walter Leszl has taken into account a good part of the Herculanean texts. But so far this project has been limited to an Italian translation of the testimonia concerning Leucippus and Democritus without a Greek text. For this reason it is impossible to understand to what extent the new textual improvements of Herculaneum papyrology have been really appreciated.61 Besides, this 58 See the second part of the Heraclitea edited by S. N. Mouraviev, Heraclitea, II. Traditio, A. Témoignages et citations, vol. I–IV, Sankt Augustin 1999–2003, specifically devoted to the traditio Heraclitea. On Heraclitus’ presence in the Herculaneum papyri, cf. M. Capasso, ‘Epicureismo e Eraclito. Contributo alla ricostruzione della critica epicurea alla filosofia presocratica’, [in:] L. Rossetti (ed.), Atti del Symposium Heracliteum 1981, Rome 1983, I, pp. 423–457 (= idem, Comunità senza rivolta [cit. n. 31], pp. 59–102); and, for a status quaestionis on this topic, Ch. Vassallo, ‘Die Überlieferung des Fr. 18 Marcovich Heraklits (= DK 22 B 81) in P. Herc. 1004 (Philodemi De rhetorica, Liber VII). Praesocratica Herculanensia II’, Mnemosyne 68 (2015), pp. 185–209. 59 C. Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus, Oxford 1928; New York 1964 (repr.), p. 220. 60 M. Gigante, ‘Atomisti antichi ad Est’, [in:] F. Romano (ed.), Democrito e l’atomismo antico [= Siculorum Gymnasium 33], Catania 1980, pp. 91–124, at 91; 123–124. 61 See W. Leszl, I primi atomisti. Raccolta dei testi che riguardano Leucippo e Democrito [= Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’, Studi 246], Florence 2009. In the Index locorum of the CD-ROM, apart from some passages of Diogenes of Oenoanda (not updated to take account of the present state of research and of the new fragments discovered every year thanks to the epigraphic and editorial work of J. Hammerstaedt and M. F. Smith), the Epi-

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI collection, published in 2009, could not take into account the very recent edition of Book 2 of Epicurus’ !ερ$ φ&'εω' (P. Herc. 1149/993 and P. Herc. 1783/1691/1010) by Giuliana Leone, in which new points, relevant to the comparison of the early Atomists and Epicurus, have come to light in relation to the cosmological question of the infinity of the worlds and the epistemological theory of the ε)δω+α.62 To conclude, in the light of what I have discussed about the Presocratic tradition, it seems evident that a comprehensive edition of the Herculanean evidence for the Presocratics is a requirement for the study of the history of ancient philosophy which must not be put off any longer. EDITIONES Conspectus siglorum P O N P. Herc. 1428 apographum Oxoniense P. Herc. 1428 apographum Neapolitanum P. Herc. 1428 Bücheler F. Bücheler, ‘Philodemos !ερ$ ε-'εβε/α'’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 91 (1865), pp. 513–541 (= Kleine Schriften, vol. I–III, Leipzig – Berlin 1915, I, pp. 580–612) DG H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, Berolini 1879; 4th ed., Berlin 1965 DK H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. I–III, Berlin 1903; 6th ed., Berlin – Zürich 1952 Gallavotti C. Gallavotti, Empedocle. Poema fisico e lustrale [= Fondazione Lorenzo Valla], Milan 1975 curean sources are represented by a list of Herculanean texts of which unfortunately the reference editions are not indicated. In the index, P. Herc. 1056 and 1148 are quoted for Epicurus, and P. Herc. 182, 1005, 1050, 1428, 1457, 1471 and 1497 for Philodemus. G. Leone, Epicuro. Sulla natura, Libro II [= La Scuola di Epicuro 18], Naples 2012, esp.

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO Gomperz Th. Gomperz, Philodem. Über Frömmigkeit [= Herkulanische Studien 2], Leipzig 1866 Hammerstaedt J. Hammerstaedt per litteras et per verba Janko R. Janko per litteras Philippson R. Philippson, ‘Zu Philodems Schrift über die Frömmigkeit’, Hermes 55 (1920), pp. 225–278; 364–372 Ranocchia G. Ranocchia per verba Rashed M. Rashed per verba Schober A. Schober, Philodemi !ερ$ ε%&εβε(α& libelli partem priorem restituit A. Schober, Diss. ined. Königsberg 1923 (= idem, ‘Philodemi De pietate Pars prior’, Cronache Ercolanesi 18 (1988), pp. 67–125) Sedley D.N. Sedley per litteras 2 VH II Herculanensium Voluminum quae supersunt. Collectio altera, vol. II, Neapoli 1863 Conspectus signorum α!β!γ! [αβγ] <> {} ⌈⌉   [] [₍₎] [] litterae dubiae quae aliter legi possunt litterae ab editore suppletae litterae ab editore additae litterae ab editore deletae litterae alterutrius vel utriusque apographi spatiolum diple obelismene litterae deperditae una vel duae litterae deperditae dimidia littera deperdita

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI APPENDIX TESTIMONIA PRAESOCRATICA IN PAPYRIS REPERTA A COMPLETE LIST OF THE PAPYROLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR PRESOCRATICS WITH A COMPARATIVE CATALOGUE OF THE HERCULANEAN SOURCES The following catalogue gives a complete list of the evidence for Presocratics discovered so far in the papyri, with one section devoted to the Herculanean sources and another to the Graeco-Egyptian rolls. A more detailed catalogue (Index Praesocraticorum Philosophorum Herculanensis) devoted exclusively to the Herculaneum papyri will appear shortly.63 The list gives the Presocratic philosophers in alphabetical order. As far as the Graeco-Egyptian papyri are concerned, the order follows the sequence and the criteria adopted by the CPF;64 while the Herculanean sources are listed in order of inventory numbers. The papyrological testimonia considered spurious are given in square brackets, while uncertain ones are followed by a question mark. Exceptions apart, only the editions of the Herculaneum papyri listed in the catalogue are taken into account, even if the works they belong to are spread over several rolls. In some cases I was able to make use of fragments belonging to editions still in preparation which I was kindly allowed to consult in advance. All the editions of Herculanean texts for which my name is given are being published in specialist journals. 63 Ch. Vassallo, ‘A catalogue of the evidence for Presocratics in the Herculaneum Papyri’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 62 (2016), in press, where the Herculanean evidence is divided into fragments (passages directly belonging to works of the Presocratics), witnesses (indirect witnesses concerning their life and thought), names (polemical or doxographical contexts where only the name of a Presocratic is mentioned) and reminiscences (papyrological texts where a Presocratic’s influence on a certain writer or on the source that he paraphrases can be proved). Here I give instead simply a list of the Herculanean and GraecoEgyptian evidence without specifying the nature of the source. 64 As far as the Orphic tradition is concerned, I refer to the Index fontium of A. Bernabé (ed.), Poetae epici Graeci. Testimonia et fragmenta, II.3 [= Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana], Berlin 2007, pp. 329–373.

Praesocratica Herculanensia CHRISTIAN VASSALLO I. Acusilaus Argivus Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 242, col. iia + P. Herc. 247, col. ii Salati; P. Herc. 247, col. i Salati; P. Herc. 247, col. ivb, 5–21 + P. Herc. 242, col. ivb, 22–26 Salati; P. Herc. 433, col. v Salati; P. Herc. 433, col. vib Salati; P. Herc. 1088, col. vi, 21 + P. Herc. 433, col. viii, 12 Salati; P. Herc. 1088, col. vii, 12–23 Salati; P. Herc. 1088, col. vii, 24–29 Salati; P. Herc. 1610, col. iii, 3–19 + P. Herc. 247, col. via, 1–6 Salati II. Alcmaeo Crotoniates Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 9, 1–4 Schober (?) III. Anacharsis Scytha Philod., Rhet. I, P. Herc. 426, fr. 5 Sudhaus IV. Anaxagoras Clazomenius Philod., Di I, P. Herc. 26, col. ixb Diels; Rhet. IV, P. Herc. 224, fr. 3 Vassallo; P. Herc. 224, fr. 15 Vassallo; P. Herc. 245, fr. 7 Vassallo; Adv. […] I, P. Herc. 1005, fr. 109 Angeli; P. Herc. 1005, fr. 116 Angeli; Mort. IV, P. Herc. 1050, col. xvii, 3–32 Henry; Rhet. VIII, P. Herc. 1015/832, fr. 7 Sudhaus; Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 9 Schober (?) V. Anaxarchus Abderites Philod., Mort. IV, P. Herc. 1050, col. xxxv, 11–34 Henry; Adulat., P. Herc. 1675, coll. iv, 31 – v, 9 Capasso Vbis. Anaximander Milesius Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 8, 9–19 Vassallo VI. Anaximenes Milesius Epicur., Nat. XI, P. Herc. 1042, coll. 8 i–ii + P. Herc. 154, coll. 22 iii – 23 i Arrighetti; Nat. XIV, P. Herc. 1148, col. xxvii– xxxii Leone; Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 8, 20–31 Vassallo Graeco-Egyptian Papyri deest I. Alcmaeo Crotoniates P. Flor. 115, B 9–13 deest II. Anaxagoras Clazomenius P. Oxy. 1012, fr. 6; P. Oxy. 1176, fr. 37, col. i, 16–30; col. iii, 5–29; P. Duke inv. G 178, col. i, 7–8; P. Tura V, 222, 27 (?) III. Anaxarchus Abderites P. Mich. inv. 4912, col. i, 12–14 IV. Anaximander Milesius P. Duke inv. G 178, col. i, 4–5 V. Anaximenes Milesius P. Duke inv. G 178, col. i, 6; P. Berol. inv. 7927 + 9588 + 21179, coll. i–ii

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI Praesocratica Herculanensia Graeco-Egyptian Papyri VII. Antipho Rhamnusius VI. Antipho Rhamnusius Philod., Poem. II, P. Herc. 994, col. P. Oxy. 1364 + 3647 et P. Oxy. 1797; P. Köln ccxxvii Janko 213; P. Gen. inv. 264bis–267 (?); P. Br. Libr. inv. 2561, 21r n. 736 (?); [P. Oxy. 414]65 VIII. Critias Atheniensis VII. Critias Atheniensis Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1077, col. xix, P. Vatic. 11, col. XXI, 36; P. Oxy. 2078 + 1–23 Obbink; P. Herc. 1428, fr. 15a 3531 (?) et P. Köln 2 inv. 263 + PSI inv. Schober (?) 3021 (?) IX. Damon Atheniensis deest Philod., Mus. IV, P. Herc. 411, col. xxii Delattre; P. Herc. 1497, coll. cxlvii, 34 – cxlviii, 5 Delattre; P. Herc. 1572, col. xxxiv, 23–45 Delattre; P. Herc. 1578, coll. c, 37 – ci, 1 Delattre X. Democritus Abderites (seu Demo- VIII. Democritus Abderites crates)66 P. Flor. 115, B 9–13; P. Gen. inv. 203, B Philod., Ir., P. Herc. 182, col. xxix, 17–29 27–29; P. Hibeh 16, col. 1, 14; P. Oxy. 1609 Indelli; Poem. IV, P. Herc. 207, fr. 10 + P. Princ. inv. AM 11224C, fr. a, col. ii, Janko; [Philod.], [Hist. philos.], P. Herc. 4–9; P. Tura IV, 209, 26–210, 1; P. Vin327, fr. 1 Vassallo; P. Herc. 327, fr. 5 Cava- dob. G 29329 + 26008b, fr. 3 (= P. Rain. lieri; Epicur., Nat. XXV, P. Herc. 1191, cr. I 16); P. Br. Libr. inv. 137, col. xxxvii, 9, pz. 2, z. 3 = -6 inf./P. Herc. 1191, cr. 8, 32–46; P. Oxy. 221, col. xiii, 30–31 (?); pz. 2, z. 6 = -5 sup. + P. Herc. 697, cr. 4, pz. PSI 849, fr. 2 (?); [P. Lond. 121r, col. v, 1– 2, z. 1 + P. Herc. 1056, cr. 7, z. 4 Laursen; 19]; [P. Leiden J 384v, col. xi, 1–14]; Philod., [Zen. schol., lib. inc.], P. Herc. [P. Holm A 12–14]; [P. Lond. 121v, coll. 1003, O II 427, 18 Crönert (?); Philod., xxiii, 17 – xxiv, 27] Adv. […] I, P. Herc. 1005, fr. 59 Angeli; P. Herc. 1005, fr. 111 Angeli (?); P. Herc. 1005, fr. 116 Angeli; Dem. Lac., Poem. II, P. Herc. 1014, col. lxiv, 4–10 Romeo (?); Epicur., Nat., Lib. inc., P. Herc. 1039, fr. 26 65 P. Oxy. 414 was attributed to Antipho by S. Luria, ‘Ein Gegner Homers’, Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences de Russie 18 (1924), pp. 373–382, and the attribution was accepted by M. Untersteiner, I Sofisti, Milan 1949; 2nd ed. 1967, IV, pp. 100–107. But F. Decleva Caizzi (CPF I.1*, 17, p. 236) considers this attribution insufficiently well-founded. 66 On the figures of Democritus and Damocrates, which I take to be the same person, see J.-M. Flamand, Démocratès (= RE 12), [in:] Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques II (1994),

CHRISTIAN VASSALLO Praesocratica Herculanensia Puglia (?); Philod., Mort. IV, P. Herc. 1050, coll. xxix, 27 – xxx, 11 Henry (?); P. Herc. 1050, col. xxxix, 6–25 Henry; Epicur., Nat. XIV, P. Herc. 1148, col. xxx Leone; Nat. II, P. Herc. 1149, col. xiv Leone (?); P. Herc. 993, col. cix Leone (?); Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 15 Schober (?); P. Herc. 1428, fr. 16 Henrichs; Epicur., Nat. XXXIV, P. Herc. 1431, coll. xx–xxi Leone; Philod., Adulat., P. Herc. 1457, col. x, 4–12 GiganteIndelli; Lib., P. Herc. 1471, fr. 20, 8 Olivieri; Mus. IV, P. Herc. 1497, col. cl, 29–39 Delattre; [Philod.], Op. inc., P. Herc. 1788, fr. 1 Crönert; P. Herc. 1788, fr. 2 Crönert XI. Diagoras Melius Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1077, col. xix, 1– 23 Obbink; P. Herc. 1428, coll. x, 30 – xii, 12 Henrichs; P. Herc. 1428, coll. xiv, 24 – xv Henrichs (?); Anonym., Op. inc., P. Herc. 1589, fr. 7 Del Mastro (?) XII. Diogenes Apolloniates Epicur., Nat. XIV, P. Herc. 1148, coll. xxvii–xxxiii Leone (?); Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 18, 2–10 Schober XIII. Diotimus Tyrius Anonym., Op. inc., P. Herc. 176, fr. 5, col. xxvi Vogliano (?); Philod., Tract., P. Herc. 1418, col. xx Militello (?) XIV. Empedocles Acragantinus Philod., Adv. […] I, P. Herc. 1005, fr. 116 Angeli; Sup., P. Herc. 1008, col. x, 11–26 Ranocchia; Dem. Lac., Op. inc., P. Herc. 1012, col. xl, 7–10 Martin; P. Herc. 1012, 67 68 Graeco-Egyptian Papyri deest IX. Diogenes Apolloniates P. Duke inv. G 178, col. i, 12 deest X. Empedocles Acragantinus P. Berol. inv. 9782, coll. lxx, 43 – lxxi, 6; P. Ibscher 2, 10–11; P. Oxy. 160967 + P. Princ. inv. AM 11224 C, fr. a, col. ii, 4–13; P. Vatic. 11, col. i, 23–28; P. Oxy. 3318;68 DK 31 B 109a. Hermarch., fr. 28 Longo Auricchio (deest Krohn).

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI Praesocratica Herculanensia col. lvii Puglia; P. Herc. 1012, col. lxv Puglia; Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1077 + 1098, coll. xix, 24 – xx, 6 Obbink; P. Herc. 1077, col. xxxv Obbink; P. Herc. 1077, col. xxxix Obbink; Epicur., Nat. XIV, P. Herc. 1148, col. xxxiv Leone; P. Herc. 1148, col. xl Leone; Philod., Poem. V, P. Herc. 1425, coll. i–ii Mangoni; Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 14 Vassallo (?); P. Herc. 1428, col. xv Henrichs (?); [Philod.], [Divit.], P. Herc. 1570, col. vi Armstrong-Ponczoch; [Philod.], Op. inc., P. Herc. 1788, fr. 3 Crönert XV. Epicharmus Cous [Philod.], [Avarit.], P. Herc. 465, fr. 12, 1–21 Capasso; [Elect. et fugae], P. Herc. 1251, col. xxi Indelli-Tsouna-McKirahan; P. Herc. 1251, col. xxii Indelli-TsounaMcKirahan; Philod., Oec., P. Herc. 1424, col. xxv, 4–23 Capasso XVI. Epimenides Cretaeus Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 243, col. iv + P. Herc. 243, col. ii, 18–25 Salati; P. Herc. 247, col. vb, 18 + P. Herc. 242, col. vb, 30 Salati; P. Herc. 433, col. vib Salati; P. Herc. 1088, col. vii, 24–29 Salati; P. Herc. 1610, col. iii, 3–19 + P. Herc. 247, col. via, 1–6 Salati XVII. Euryphon Cnidius [Philod.], [Hist. philos.], P. Herc. 1508, fr. 7 Cavalieri 69 339 Graeco-Egyptian Papyri P. Strasb. gr. inv. 1665–1666;69 P. Petrie II 49E (= P. Lit. Lond. 159A) (?); P. Lit. Lond. 159B (?)70 deest XI. Epimenides Cretaeus P. Oxy. 2442 deest Emped., fr. 66 (= DK 31 B 17; 20; 21; 76) + fr. 87 (= DK 31 B 139) Mansfeld-Primavesi. Cf. O. Primavesi, Empedokles. Physika, I. Eine Rekonstruktion des zentralen Gedankengangs [= Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Beiheft 22], Berlin – New York 2008, pp. 64–72; 76–79. Cf. M. S. Funghi, A. Roselli, ‘Sul Papiro Petrie 49E attribuito al ‘De pietate’ di Teofrasto. Riedizione di PLitLond 159A-B’, [in:] Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi I [= Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’, Studi 163], Florence 1997, pp. 49–69, at 59–

Praesocratica Herculanensia CHRISTIAN VASSALLO XVIII. Gorgias Leontinus Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 15a Schober (?); Rhet. II, P. Herc. 1580, fr. 4 Sudhaus; Rhet. I, P. Herc. 1612, fr. 4 Sudhaus; [Philod.], Op. inc., P. Herc. 1788, fr. 4, 7 Crönert XIX. Heraclitus Ephesius Philod., Ir., P. Herc. 182, col. xxvii, 19– 39 Indelli; Rhet. VII, P. Herc. 1004, col. cxxxv Ranocchia-Vassallo; P. Herc. 1004, col. cxl Ranocchia-Vassallo; Sup., P. Herc. 1008, col. x, 11–26 Ranocchia; Poem. I, P. Herc. 1073, col. xciii, 17–24 Janko; Epicur., Nat. XIV, P. Herc. 1148, col. xl Leone; Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 17, 3–4; 7–9; 9–11 Henrichs; P. Herc. 1428, coll. vii, 12 – viii, 21 Henrichs XX. Hippias Eleus Philod., Sup., P. Herc. 1008, col. xviii, 19–26 Ranocchia; P. Herc. 1008, col. xx, 22–27 Ranocchia; [Di], P. Herc. 1108, fr. 1 Crönert (?) 71 Graeco-Egyptian Papyri deest XII. Heraclitus Ephesius P. Derveni, col. ii, 1–11; P. Flor. 115, B 1–2; P. Oxy. 1808, col. i, mg. 4; P. Oxy. 3710, coll. ii, 33–35; iii, 1–19; O. Berol. inv. 12319, 23–25 (?); [P. Berol. inv. 9782, col. lxiii, 25];71 P. Berol. inv. 9782, col. lxxi, 12–26 (?);72 [P. Gen. inv. 271, col. xii, 7];73 [P. Gen. inv. 271, coll. ix–xv (?)] XIII. Hippias Eleus P. Ross. Georg. I 22, col. ii, 11; [P. Hibeh 13]74 This source appears as a dubious reminiscence (R?) of Heraclitus DK 22 B 13 in M. Marcovich, Heraclitus. Greek Text with a Short Commentary, Editio maior, Merida, Venezuela 1967, 2nd ed., Sankt Augustin 2001, p. 180 [fr. 36 (b3)], but the papyrological text is considered spurious in CPF I.1**, 57, p. 244, because of the great popularity of the proverb in antiquity, above all in the sceptical tradition: ‘in questo caso infatti il passo citato (LXIII 20–30) è esplicitamente fatto risalire alla tradizione pirroniana, contrariamente al caso di O. Berol. inv. 12319, 23–25 [
57 5T], dove la citazione dello stesso passo eracliteo compare anonimamente in una raccolta di sentenze’. 72 The reference to Heraclitus identified here by H. Diels (BKT II 1905, dubiously accepted in DK 22 B 126b) is considered to be founded ‘su basi di lettura inconsistenti’ by T. Dorandi (CPF I.1**, 57, p. 244). 73 In the opinion of F. Decleva Caizzi (CPF I.1**, 57, p. 244), the name of Heraclitus, used in a pseudoepigraphical letter to Hermodorus, has only a rhetorical function. The attribution to Hippias, proposed for the first time by F. W. Blass and then dubiously accepted by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt and by Ch. E. Ruelle, is criticized and refuted by A. Brancacci, who refers P. Hibeh 13 to Alcidamas (see supra, n. 2).

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI Praesocratica Herculanensia Graeco-Egyptian Papyri XXI. Hippocrates Chius deest Philod., Acad. hist., P. Herc. 1021, col Y Dorandi deest XIV. Hippo Crotoniates P. Br. Libr. inv. 137, col. xi, 22–42; P. Gen. inv. 203, b 29–31 (?) XXII. Leucippus XV. Leucippus (atomorum doctrinae conditor) (atomorum doctrinae conditor) Philod., Adv. […] I, P. Herc. 1005, fr. 116 [P. Tura III, 15, 27]75 Angeli; [Philod.], Op. inc., P. Herc. 1788, fr. 1 Crönert XXIII. Melissus Samius deest Philod., Rhet. IV, P. Herc. 224, fr. 3 Vassallo XXIV. Metrodorus Chius deest Philod., Rhet. IV, P. Herc. 224, fr. 3 Vassallo XXV. Metrodorus Lampsacenus deest Philod., Poem. II, P. Herc. 1767, fr. 2 + N 1081b, fr. 12, coll. xlix–l Janko XXVI. Musaeus Eleusinus XVI. Musaeus Eleusinus Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 243, col. vi Hen- P. Berol. 44, 1 ss.; 56; P. Cornell 55, 11; richs; P. Herc. 433, col. iv, 1–9 Henrichs P. Oxy. 2802, 17 ss. (?); P. Herc. 1088, col. ii, 3 + P. Herc. 433, col. ii, 10–12 Henrichs; P. Herc. 1088, col. xii Schober; P. Herc. 1428, col. vi, 16–26 Obbink; P. Herc. 1428, col. vii, 18–21 Schober; P. Herc. 1610, col. iii, 3–19 + P. Herc. 247, col. via, 1–6 Henrichs XXVII. Nausiphanes Teius deest Philod., Rhet. IV, P. Herc. 452 (olim 463), fr. 9 Vassallo; Adv. […] I, P. Herc. 1005, fr. 116 Angeli; Rhet. VIII, P. Herc. 1015/832, col. xiii Sudhaus; P. Herc. 1015/832, col. xxiv, 2–20 Blank; P. Herc. 1015/832, coll. xxx–xlviii Sudhaus; P. Herc. 1015/832, The attribution of the passage to Leucippus of Elea (the atomist) is controversial (see supra, n. 2).

Praesocratica Herculanensia CHRISTIAN VASSALLO col. C192, 48a Blank; Rhet. III, P. Herc. 1506, col. xxxii Sudhaus; P. Herc. 1506, col. xl, 33 Hammerstaedt XXVIII. Orpheus Thracius (seu Orphici) Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 242, col. ivb, 26–30 Schober + P. Herc. 247, col. iii Henrichs; P. Herc. 243, col. vi Henrichs; P. Herc. 1428, fr. 3 + P. Herc. 248, col. ii Obbink; P. Herc. 1428, col. vi Vassallo; Mus. IV, P. Herc. 1497, col. cxxii, 25–36 Delattre; P. Herc. 1572/225, col. xli, 17–25 Delattre; P. Herc. 1578/1575, coll. lxii, 42 – lxiii, 4 Delattre Graeco-Egyptian Papyri XVII. Orpheus Thracius (seu Orphici) P. Argent. 1313; P. Berol. 44, 1 ss.; 44, 15; 44, 33; 44, 34; 44, 45; 44, 52; 44, 60; 44, 69; 44, 75; 44, 81; 44, 117; P. Berol. 13426; P. Bonon.; P. Cornell 55, 5; P. Derveni, coll. iii, 3; v, 3; vi, 1; vi, 2; vii, 2; vii, 4; vii, 8; vii, 14; viii, 1; viii, 3; ix, 10; x, 9; x, 11; xi, 1; xi, 9; xii, 1; xii, 7; xiii, 1; xiii, 3; xiii, 5; xiv, 1; xiv, 2; xiv, 5; xiv, 13; xv, 5; xv, 11; xvi, 1; xvi, 12; xvii, 2; xvii, 13; xviii, 1; xviii, 6; xix, 8; xx, 1; xxi, 1; xxii, 1; xxii, 7; xxiii, 1; xxiv, 1; xxv, 12; xxv, 13; xxvi, 1; xxvi, 2; xxvi, 5; P. Gurob 1; P. Mag. I 305; IV 1709; IV 2333 ss.; VII 450; VII 479; XII 84; XIII 933; XIII 947; LXX 4 ss.; LXX 9 ss.; LXX 12 ss.; ap. Suppl. Mag. II 96, 24; P. Ord. Ptol. 29 Lenger; P. Oxy. 221, 9, 1; 2447, fr. 4b, 8 ss.; 2816, fr. 1, 9 ss.; 3698; vol. IV 1904, p. 261; PSI 850; 1162; 1290; 1476; P. Univ. Mil. I 20 XXIX. Parmenides Eleates XVIII. Parmenides Eleates Philod., Rhet. IV, P. Herc. 224, fr. 3 Vas- P. Berol. inv. 9782, col. lxx, 33–43; sallo (?); [Philod.], [Hist. philos.], P. Herc. P. Duke inv. G 178, col. i, 7; P. Oxy. 3219, 327, fr. 2 Crönert; Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 12 fr. 2, col. i, 3–9 Vassallo; P. Herc. 1428, fr. 13 Vassallo; P. Herc. 1428, col. xv Henrichs (?) XXX. Pherecydes Syrius deest Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 242, col. ivb, 22–26 Salati; P. Herc. 242, col. va, 27 + P. Herc. 247, col. vb, 33 Salati; P. Herc. 247, col. i Salati; P. Herc. 247, col. ivb, 5–21 Salati; P. Herc. 1088, col. i, 14–29 Salati; P. Herc. 1088, col. vii, 12–23 Salati; P. Herc. 1428, fr. 4 Salati; [Philod.], Op. inc., P. Herc. 1788, fr. 8 Crönert

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI Praesocratica Herculanensia XXXI. Philolaus (Pythagoricus) Philod., Acad. hist., P. Herc. 1691, col. ii Del Mastro (?) XXXII. Prodicus Ceus Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1077, col. xix, 1–23 Obbink; P. Herc. 1428, fr. 15 Schober (?); P. Herc. 1428, fr. 19 Henrichs; P. Herc. 1428, coll. ii, 28 – iii, 13 Henrichs; P. Herc. 1428, coll. iii, 24 – iv, 12 Henrichs XXXIII. Protagoras Abderites Dem. Lac., Op. inc., P. Herc. 124, fr. 2 De Falco (?); Philod., Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 15 Schober (?); P. Herc. 1428, col. xv Henrichs (?) 343 Graeco-Egyptian Papyri XIX. Philolaus (Pythagoricus) P. Br. Libr. inv. 137, coll. xviii, 8 – xix, 1; xx, 16–24; [Cod. Par. Suppl. Gr. 574]76 XX. Prodicus Ceus P. Cairo Masp. 67175, col. ii, 10–13; P. Oxy. 3543, 4–7; P. Tura III, 16, 9–18 (?); P. Berol. inv. 9782;77 [P. Oxy. 1176];78 P. Oxy. 2087, 29 XXI. Protagoras Abderites P. Berol. inv. 9782, coll. ii, 1–8; lx, 19–38; lxiv, 44 – lxv, 13; lxii, 8 – lxiii, 1; lxv, 39 – lxvi, 3; P. Oxy. 221, col. xii, 19–25; P. Tura V 222, 18–29; P. Oxy. 3219, fr. 2, I 2– 3 (?); [P. Berol. inv. 9782, coll. I, 1, 3, 11, 19; LXVII, 19–20]79 XXXIV. Pythagoras Samius XXII. Pythagoras Samius (seu Pythagorei) (seu Pythagorei) Philod., Rhet. IV, P. Herc. 245, fr. 7 Vassal- P. Berol. inv. 9782, col. lxx, 5–9; P. Br. lo; Rhet. X, P. Herc. 473, fr. 5 Sudhaus; Libr. Add Ms 37516, 1; [P. Haun I 8];80 Rhet. VII, P. Herc. 1004, col. lx, 3–12 [P. Lond. 121v, coll. xxiii, 17 – xxiv, 27];81 76 In the opinion of Diels, the Orphic-Pythagorean context of this source (DK 44 B 11) could suggest a reference to Philolaus. See Diels, Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (cit. n. 20), I, p. 411, app. r. 19: ‘!ρµ#ζων] vgl. das orphische Bruchstück im Par. Zauberp. V. 1755 Preisendanz (Pap. Gr. Mag. I 128)’. 77 In this case Prodicus is mentioned in relation to Plat., Theag. 127e ff. 78 G. Arrighetti, Satiro. Vita di Euripide [= Studi Classici e Orientali 13], Pisa 1964, p. 117 (fr. 38 Arrighetti, coll. II–III), following H. Gerstinger, ‘Satyros’ '(ο* +,ριπ(δου’, Wiener Studien 38 (1916), pp. 54–71, considers the reference to Prodicus, immediately followed by the explicit reference to Socrates, to be probable. See now S. Schorn, Satyros aus Kallatis. Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar, Basel 2004, pp. 105–106 (fr. 6 Schorn = P. Oxy. 1176, fr. 39, coll. XIII–XIV); 222–223. 79 D. N. Sedley (CPF I.1***, 88, p. 676) maintains that in this case ‘la lacunosità del contesto in cui il nome di Protagora compare non consente di stabilire se si tratta di una testimonianza o di un riferimento al personaggio del dialogo’. 80 In the opinion of F. Maltomini (CPF I.1***, 91, p. 685) the name of Pythagoras is not certainly supplied here, as the context is full of gaps. See H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (cit. n. 20), II, p. 221, r. 18

Praesocratica Herculanensia CHRISTIAN VASSALLO Erbì; P. Herc. 1004, col. cxxxv Ranocchia–Vassallo (?); P. Herc. 1004, col. cxl Ranocchia–Vassallo (?); Sup., P. Herc. 1008, col. x, 11–26 Ranocchia; Rhet. VIII, P. Herc. 1015/832, fr. 7 Sudhaus; Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 10 Schober; P. Herc. 1428, fr. 11 Schober; Mus. IV, P. Herc. 1497, col. cxlv, 7–19 Delattre; P. Herc. 1576, col. xlii, 39–45 Delattre; Acad. hist., P. Herc. 1691, col. ii Del Mastro; [Philod.], Op. inc., P. Herc. 1788, fr. 4 Crönert (?) desunt82 Graeco-Egyptian Papyri P. Berol. inv. 9782, col. lxxi, 12–18; P. Tura III 79, 26 – 80, 1; 216, 23 – 217, 1; [P. Haun II 13v] XXIII. Sophistae P. Berol. inv. 9782, coll. vii, 20–25; liv, 31–38; lviii, 7–12; P. Oxy. 2606, 1 (?);83 P. Tebt. 269, 4–7 (?)84 XXXV. Thales Milesius XXIV. Thales Milesius [Philod.], Op. inc., P. Herc. 1788, fr. 6 Vas- P. Mil. Vogliano I 18, col. vi, 10–19; sallo; Philod., Rhet. IV, P. Herc. 224, fr. 3 P. Oxy. 1011, f. 3v, 119–138; P. Oxy. 3710, Vassallo (?) col. ii, 36–43; P. Duke inv. 178, col. i, 2; PSI 1093, 32 (?) XXXVI. Thrasymachus Calchedonius deest Philod., Rhet. II, P. Herc. 1672, coll. xlix, 27 – l, 29 Longo Auricchio XXXVII. Xenophanes Colophonius XXV. Xenophanes Colophonius Philod., Poem. IV, P. Herc. 207, fr. 23 Jan- P. Oxy. 1087, col. ii, 40–41; P. Oxy. 221, col. ko; Rhet. IV, P. Herc. 224, fr. 3 Vassallo (?); ix, 1–3 (?) (‘Derartige Prognostika sind häufig in der magischen, auf Demokrit weisenden Literatur. Horapollon Hier. I 38 erwähnt den Magier Iambres mit derartigen Prognostika, vielleicht eine der Quellen des Bolos. Im cod. Matr. 4616 fol. 82v steht eine Schrift des !υθαγ&ρα( mit ähnlichen προγνω(τικ0 ζω2( κα3 θαν4του. Ein 5νειραιτητ8ν !υθαγ&ρου κα3 9ηµοκρ:του steht im Pap. Lond. 121, 833 K.’), in relation to DK 68 B 300.20 (= deest Luria), quoted by Diels among the unechte[n] Fragmente[n] of Democritus and considered spurious also by F. Maltomini (CPF I.1***, 91, p. 685). 82 The Sophists seem not to be quoted in the Herculaneum papyri as a Presocratic philosophical movement. But as the catalogue shows, there are several Herculanean testimonia for philosophers traditionally considered Sophists. 83 The testimonium is considered only probable by T. Dorandi (CPF I.1***, 97, p. 776). The testimonium is considered only probable by G. Menci (CPF I.1***, 97, p. 776).

PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE HERCULANEUM PAPYRI Praesocratica Herculanensia Graeco-Egyptian Papyri [Philod.], [Hist. philos.], P. Herc. 327, fr. 1 Vassallo (?); P. Herc. 327, fr. 2 Crönert; P. Herc. 327, fr. 4 Vassallo; Philod., Rhet. VIII, P. Herc. 1015/832, fr. 16a Blank (?); Piet., P. Herc. 1428, fr. 12 Vassallo XXXVIII. Zeno Eleates XXVI. Zeno Eleates Philod., Mort. IV, P. Herc. 1050, col. P. Tura V 217, 33–218, 2 (?) xxxv, 25–34 Henry Christian Vassallo Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto per il Lessico Intellettuale Europeo e Storia delle Idee Villa Mirafiori via C. Fea 2 00161 Roma Italy e-mail: ch.vassallo@pherc.eu