Henry, WB

UCL Discovery

W. B. HENRYNOTES ON PHILODEMUS, ON ANGERaus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 201 (2017) 59–63© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn59NOTES ON PHILODEMUS, ON ANGER1Fr. 17 app. 15–17 15   ]̣ καὶ ∆ΟΥM[– – –    ̣]ΕΙ∆Ε%[– – –]    ΛΕΥϹU[– – –]At the end of line 15, I read λ[. Perhaps then a contrast was drawn between a slave or slaves and a king (17 βαϲι]λεύϲ, supplied by R. Philippson, RhM 71 (1916) 437). But it is not easy to take matters any further.23.6–7                      τὰ μὲν ἀ[γ-]  νοο[ύμεν]α τελέωϲThe supplement at the end of line 6 is ruled out by the faulty line division: γ cannot be separated from ν in this combination.3 νοο is clearly legible in N and it begins at the left-hand margin, but it is in a second hand and written over something else. The original shows   ̣]νο [, with room for a narrow letter at the begin-ning of the line; O has more of this ο, correctly placed, and lacking only the very top. We may then print ἀ|[γ]νο[ούμενα;4 the second ο given by the second hand of N is probably no more than a conjecture.3.18–25         τοῦτ[ο] γὰ[ρ] δὴ προϲ-  τιθέαϲιν  [κἂ]μ μετρί- 20 ω [ϲ] τῶν φιλ[οϲ]όφων οἱ  δὴ γενν[αῖοι] κ αὶ τοὺϲ τρό-  [πο]υϲ, δ[ι’ ὧν] ἂν ἥκιϲτα  τοῖϲ ὀργ[ίλοιϲ] πάθεϲιν  περιπίπτ [οι]μεν, ὑπο- 25 γράφουϲιν.1 Lemmata are drawn from the edition of G. Indelli, Filodemo: L’ira (1988), and his numbering is used throughout. I also refer to the editions of L. Spengel (Philol. Suppl. 2 (1863) 498–525), T. Gomperz (Philodemi Epicurei de ira liber (1864)), and K. Wilke (Philodemi de ira liber (1914)). References are to columns except where specifi ed. The sources for the text are the papyrus (P. Herc. 182) and the Oxford (O; for digital images, see http://www.herculaneum.ox.ac.uk) and Naples (N) disegni. I have used photographs of all three. To save space, I do not discuss passages in which I am inclined to revive neglected pro-posals found in earlier editions (e.g. 21.17–20 ο [ὐ μό]|νον (Gomperz) …, | μ ᾶλλ[ον] δέ (Spengel)), nor a few places where my readings match those of M. McOsker, who plans to publish a revised text and translation in collaboration with D. Armstrong. The following abbreviations may be noted:Bücheler   F. Bücheler, ZÖG 15 (1864) 578–95 = Kleine Schriften i (1915) 510–30 (review of Gomperz’s edition). Crönert   W. Crönert, Kolotes und Menedemos (1906).Delattre   D. Delattre, Le Sage épicurien face à la colère et à l’ivresse: une lecture renouvelée du De ira de Phi-lodème, CErc 39 (2009) 71–88.Giuliano   L. Giuliano, Segni e particolarità grafi che nel PHerc. 182 (Filodemo, De ira), CErc 35 (2005) 135–59.Janko    R. Janko (ed.), Philodemus: On Poems Book 1 (2000).Jensen    C. Jensen, Ein neuer Brief Epikurs (1933).Wilke, Textkritisches K. Wilke, Zu Philodems Schrift über den Zorn. Textkritisches, in Festschrift zur Feier des 350jähr. Bestehens des Gymnasiums zu Greifswald (1911) 95–117.2 I briefl y record here a few other points in the fragments: 1.9 Perhaps λυπεῖϲθ [αι: the fi nal letter appears to have a crossbar. (E. Dürr, CErc 18 (1988) 215, states that frr. 1 and 2 are in a different hand, but see Giuliano 136 n. 19.)3.31–2 ]ον|τοϲ: a participle in agreement with the following τοῦ μὴ κτλ.?13.14 ἧι παρεῖται. It is not clear which sense of παρίημι is to be assumed.3 See in general Janko 75–6.4 Wilke reports ‘μενα  ̣ N l.’ at the end of 6, but the surface is damaged, and there are no clear traces to the right of α, which O shows as the last letter of the line.60 W. B. HenryConcerning the structure, Wilke comments (on line 19) ‘κἂμ μετρίωϲ sc. ὀργιϲθῇ’, but the ellipse is a harsh one, as Indelli says in his note: the verb to be understood is not present in the context. μετρί[ωϲ] was sup-plied by Gomperz; Wilke places ω  outside the bracket, but the small high trace at the beginning of the line does not point to any letter in particular, and in fact ωϲ is clearly too long for the space. Then in the previ-ous line, where Wilke reads and supplies [κἄ]μ, O has space for two or three letters followed by ]αι. The draughtsman shows no doubt about the decipherment, and while the papyrus is now damaged, the surviving traces are compatible with what he draws. (In N too, an α was drawn after the gap, but this and the next letter, now largely obscured, were made into a large μ by the corrector:5 cf. above on 6–7.) We may then safely supply κ]αί here, with Gomperz, though the κ will not fi ll the gap by itself. Finally, in line 21, Gom-perz was evidently wrong to take γενναῖοι to be the fi rst word of the line, but there is no reason to supply δή (Crönert 90 n. 440) in particular at the start. Taking these points into account, I propose the following text:         τοῦτ[ο] γὰ[ρ] δὴ προϲ-  τιθέαϲιν  [οἱ κ]αὶ μέτρι- 20 ο [ι] τῶν φιλ[οϲ]όφων, οἱ  δὲ] γενν[αῖοι] κτλ.‘For even the middling among philosophers add this, while the noble (sc. among philosophers) also sketch the traits by means of which we should least fall victim to irascible passions.’ For the expression, cf. Oec. 27.31–3 οἱ καὶ ϲα|[τρ]α πικώτεροι τ[ῶν φ]ιλοϲό|[φω]ν.8.24–8  καὶ βριμώϲεωϲ καὶ δεινῆϲ 25 ἐπιθυμίαϲ τοῦ μετελ-     θεῖν καὶ ἀγωνίαϲ, εἰ δυ-  νήϲεται, καθάπερ ἀπο-  δηλοῦ[ϲ]ι ν  αἱ φωναὶO has at the start of line 28 δε  ̣ου, the uncertain trace being an unusually broad letter resembling a π. N has δε followed by an erasure, and the ε is quite clear in the original, but little can be made out in the damaged patch that follows.6 In such a case, O, conscientiously executed when the text was better preserved, is of particular value. Its reading is most easily accounted for by supposing that the papyrus had ἀποδείξουϲιν: a damaged ξ, with its fl at top, could easily be taken for the right-hand side of a broad π.7 The man’s utteranc-es, then, will demonstrate his anguish, should he be able to take revenge: it is no longer necessary to take εἰ δυνήϲεται somewhat unnaturally with τοῦ μετελθεῖν, as Bücheler had proposed (580 = 513).9.18–19  τρόμουϲ καὶ κ[ινήϲειϲ]  τῶν με[λ]ῶνIn line 19, O has between με and ων the loop of a ρ with the upper part of its upright on the left. For μερῶν in this context, cf. e.g. Gal. Trem. Palp. 5 (51.16–17 Konstantinides = vii 594.16–17 Kühn) ἀκούϲιοϲ δὲ κίνηϲιϲ ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω τῶν μερῶν ἐναλλὰξ φερομένων ὁ τρόμοϲ.11.6–9  ἀλλ[ὰ π]ανπόλλων ἐποι-  ϲτικὰ ϲ ϲυμ[φ]ορῶν, ὅ ταν  μὴν πάντ[ω]ϲ  [ἔ]χθραϲ ἀ-  ναλάβωϲιν [ἄν]θ ρωποι5 Wilke reports the original reading of N in Textkritisches 96, but only that of the second hand in his edition.6 Wilke reports ‘δου mutatum in δη et λ  ̣  ̣  ̣ι ν  l.’, but ε is clear, and nothing points unambiguously to λ. For another account of the traces, see Giuliano 148 n. 123.7 I fi nd a similar proposal, ἀποδεικνύουϲιν, in a heavily annotated copy of Gomperz’s edition in the Ghent University Library: see http://lib.ugent.be/catalog/bkt01:000411663. The notes in this copy deserve further investigation: the supplement ἑα [υτῶν at 21.16, for example, is worth considering. Notes on Philodemus, On Anger 61The text of line 8 is problematic. As J. Blomqvist, Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose (1969) 49, observes, ‘the force of μήν is obscure’.8 Then πάντ[ω]ϲ  is an emendation of Wilke’s. Gomperz had printed πάντεϲ, and Wilke reports that he read παντε ϲ  in the papyrus. But there seems to be some confusion here. The trace following μην in the original is the lower part of an upright, with the papyrus lost to the right and above. O shows no trace, but the edge of the papyrus as drawn there corresponds to the edge as seen in the original today: no further loss has occurred. N too shows a lacuna of the same extent, but it has the upright in place, and a second hand has drawn a π across the gap, with the preserved trace serving as its fi rst upright: several such editorial supplements can be seen in the drawing. μὴν πάντ[ω]ϲ  must then be considered highly dubi-ous. I should read instead μηνί [ϲ]αντε ϲ , ‘having become enraged’. Philodemus refers to Achilles’ μῆνιϲ at 29.23; see in general H. Frisk, Μῆνιϲ. Zur Geschichte eines Begriffes, Eranos 44 (1946) 28–40.912.20–22 20                  κατὰ [τελευταῖ-]     ον καὶ καταφε[ρεῖϲ εἰϲ]  λί[θ]ων  βολάϲWilke heals the asyndeton that results from his supplement at the end of line 20 by inserting ⟨δέ⟩ before καί in the next line, but the loss would be hard to account for. A likelier supplement is κατὰ [δὲ βαι]|όν, ‘little by little’. κατὰ βαιόν has the further advantage of being (unlike κατὰ τελευταῖον) an attested Greek phrase: see the Diccionario Griego-Español s.v. βαιόϲ 2. 16.34–7         μανίαϲ τ[ο]ι γ α [ρο]ῦν 35 οὐχ ὁμο[γ]εν[ῆ] εἶ-     ναι ϲυμβέβηκε [τὴν] ὀρ-  γήνThe hiatus in line 35 can be avoided by supplying instead ὁμογε͙ν[έϲ] with W. Crönert ap. M. Gigante, CErc 16 (1986) 95 = Atakta (1993) 41. For this idiomatic use of the neuter singular, cf. West on Hes. Th. 864, and Il. 2.204 in his edition. I have placed an asterisk under the γ, since the disegni show a τ. 20.17–19           ἢ  τὰ M[  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ]̣  ΤΩΝ ἢ ἐπὶ μ[ικ]ροῖϲ [ἀναγ-]  κάζη⟨ι⟩ ϲκυθρω πάζει[ν]The papyrus is now damaged before τα, but the trace shown in O is the upper part of an oval. After τα, ν seems more probable than μ: O shows an upright with an oblique descending smoothly from its top, almost reaching the baseline at the edge, while most of the oblique is now lost in the original. ὅταν is thus a like-ly interpretation. After it, we may consider supplying [κατὰ πάν]|των, as at Lib. fr. 79.4–6 Olivieri μηδὲ ϲυ ν εχῶϲ αὐ|τὸ ποιεῖν, μηδὲ κα τὰ πάν|των. The unreasonable behaviour in question may then be manifested either ‘against everyone or over small things’.28.16–21  καὶ φιλονικε[ῖν καὶ λυπ]εῖ[ν  καὶ] διαϲύρειν καὶ πάν[π]ο λ -  λα ποιεῖν ἕτερα δυϲχερῆ  — ϲυναυξόμενον δὲ καὶ μι- 20 ϲανθρωπίαϲ αἴτιον γίνε-    ται —, ⟨ἐνίοτε⟩ δὲ καὶ ἀδικεῖν8 Blomqvist fi nds here and in one place in Epicurus ‘cases of non-connective μήν with a function that cannot be paralleled in earlier Greek’, but μήν is no longer read in the passage of Epicurus, now Nat. 14 col. 41.21 (ed. G. Leone, CErc 14 (1984) 63). The example recognized in our passage would stand alone.9 The example in a Ptolemaic document cited on p. 33 is now P. Dryton 31.3 (140–30 BC).62 W. B. HenryWilke’s supplement in line 21 does not account for the corruption. Perhaps the word lost was βιάζεται10 and the scribe’s eye skipped forward from the fi rst εται to the second.11 Then there is no need to take what precedes as a parenthesis. 33.40–34.4 33.40           [καὶ τ]ό τε  κ [ο]λά[ζ]ειν``` 34.1 τοῖϲ ἱππικοῖϲ τοὺϲ ἵππ [ο]υϲ  καὶ τοῖϲ γραμματικοῖ[ϲ ἀ-  ⟨μ⟩έ]λει ⟨καὶ⟩ τοῖϲ ἄλλοιϲ τεχνίτα ιϲ  ἔδω [κε ⟨τοὺϲ⟩ μ]α θητὰϲThe text of 34.3–4 given above assumes losses in three separate places, none of which would be easy to explain. But there is no need to suppose that any corruption has occurred. The letters on the left-hand side are on a sovrapposto and belong one circumference (7.6 cm) further forward, at 35.3–4,12 where ἀμέ[λει] and ἀπ°[δωκεν are supplied: we may now print ἀμέλει and ἀπέδω [κεν in that passage. Crönert (62 n. 304) had evidently recognized the sovrapposto:13 he rightly gives the text of 34.2–4 as καὶ τοῖϲ γραμματικοῖ[ϲ`| καὶ] τοῖϲ ἄλλοιϲ τεχνίταιϲ | [τοὺϲ μ]αθητάϲ.14 Then at the foot of col. 33, Wilke’s [καὶ τ]ό τε  is too short for the gap: Crönert read ] π ρ ὸ ϲ  τό  here in the original, and [καὶ] π ρ ὸ ϲ  τό  would fi t. We may then give the text in the following form: 33.40            [καὶ] π ρ ὸ ϲ  τὸ  κ [ο]λά[ζ]ειν 34.1 τοῖϲ ἱππικοῖϲ τοὺϲ ἵππ [ο]υϲ  καὶ τοῖϲ γραμματικοῖ[ϲ  καὶ] τοῖϲ ἄλλοιϲ τεχνίτα ιϲ  τοὺϲ μ]αθητάϲ‘and (whether anger is needed) by horsemen for punishing their horses and by teachers of letters and other experts for punishing their pupils’.35.5–7 5                                 [ἐ]πῆϲαν   δ’ [ἐν] αἰτ [ί]α[ιϲ ποτὲ] μὲν αἱ  κοινότη[τεϲJensen (58 n. 2) proposed to read and supply here ἦϲαν δ’ [ἐν] αἰτ ί α[ιϲ ποτὲ] μὲν αἱ κοινότη[τεϲ, with ποτὲ] μέν corresponding to πολλάκιϲ δέ at line 22. According to his interpretation, the passage is concerned with Epicurus in particular: ‘die Gründe genannt werden, die ihn als jähzornig erscheinen ließen’. But Gom-perz’s ἦϲαν cannot have stood alone at the end of line 5: as Wilke reports, the papyrus has further traces before the η, transcribed by him as ῀ .ˈ Wilke himself, adopting a suggestion made to him by Mewaldt, prints [ἐ]πῆϲαν, with the underlining used to indicate an uncertain letter (p. 2). But the traces point rather to ε ἴ ηϲαν | δ’ ἄ[ν]. (For the second letter of line 6, we depend entirely on N, but there is no particular reason to reject its evidence here.) In the rest of line 6, Wilke prints αἱ πα[ραδεδο]μέναι. πα is clear and unam-biguous in both disegni. The supplement, however, is too short. I suggest αἱ πα[ραδεδειγ]μέναι. The sense is then ‘the indicated qualities would be’. There is nothing here specifi c to Epicurus. Rather, Philodemus is referring back to 34.27–9 τὰϲ | κοινότηταϲ … | δι’ ἃϲ ὀργίλοι φα ίνονται. He now proceeds to list those qualities. The list continues in the lower part of the column: cf. Indelli on 35.17ff.10 βιάζετ]αι δέ in line 5 is an uncertain supplement of Wilke’s. (The particle has dropped out of Indelli’s text.)11 Gomperz’s προάγεται would explain the corruption equally well, but after what precedes, we do not expect a personal subject. 12 On such sovrapposti, see in general H. Essler, Rekonstruktion von Papyrusrollen auf mathematischer Grundlage, CErc 38 (2008) 273–307, esp. 275–6.13 For Crönert’s pioneering work on sovrapposti and sottoposti, see M. L. Nardelli, Ripristino topografi co di sovrapposti e sottoposti in alcuni papiri ercolanesi, CErc 3 (1973) 104–11.14 Gomperz had printed (τοὺϲ) μαθητάϲ at the start of line 4, while C. G. Cobet, Mnem. 6 (1878) 380, had supplied καί at the end of line 2, conjecturing πᾶϲι at the start of line 3. Notes on Philodemus, On Anger 6335.24–6  καὶ πρὶν ἐνθυμηθῆναι 25 ϲυντετελεϲμένωϲ τὴν     ἀτοπίαν ἐπίπτωϲ [ι]ν ἐπίπτωϲ [ι]ν  in line 26 is read and supplied by A. Angeli in Indelli’s edition, but it seems much too long. Both disegni have επιπιων, and Wilke appears to be correct in reporting that the papyrus has the same. Jensen (58 n. 2) proposed ἐπὶ ποιῶν: ο was clearly not written on the line, but may have been added above and lost. The sense, however, is unconvincing: ‘in the case of things of a certain kind’ would be curiously vague. A likelier solution is obtained by changing the accent so as to give an indirect question: ἐπὶ π⟨ο⟩ίων. A good man may castigate even before he has completely pondered the circumstances of the misdeed.48.38–49.4  περί τε γὰρ τοῦ μεθυϲθή-  ϲεϲθαι καὶ τὸν ϲοφόν, εἰ μὲν 48.40 ἀποφαίνονται τοὺϲ πε-  ρὶ τὸν Ἐπίκουρον κ[ε]χρῆϲθαι 49.1 τῶι καὶ τοὺϲ χα[ρ]ίεν[ταϲ, φλ]υ-  α ροῦϲιν· εἰ δ’ ἑα[υ]τούϲ, ἀτόπωϲ  περὶ ἐκείνου φ[ανερὸ]ν ἐκ τού-  των ϲυλλογίζ[ε]ϲ[θ]αι·In 48.38–49.2, I understand (following Bücheler 593 = 528) ‘for concerning the claim that the wise man too will get drunk, if they declare that Epicurus and his circle have used the claim that even the elegant will get drunk, they are talking nonsense, while if they declare that they themselves (have used that claim)’: cf. CErc 39 (2009) 101 with n. 55. As for what follows, Indelli (129) translates ‘è evidente che da questi ragio-namenti in modo assurdo traggono conclusioni riguardo al sapiente’. This is the best that can be done with the text as it stands, but the Greek is not easily so understood if the subject of the infi nitive (αὐτούϲ) is not expressed; and φ[ανερό]ν (Wilke) so placed would naturally be taken with ἀτόπωϲ, to the detriment of the sense. I should supply in line 3 not φ[ανερό]ν but φ[αῖεν ἄ]ν:15 ‘it would be strange of them to say that they are drawing conclusions about him (sc. the wise man) from them (sc. the elegant)’.1649.40–50.2 49.40 τῶι προϲ τηϲαμέν[ωι ὑ]π ο -  λ ή ψ εϲιν τοῦ βεβλάφθαι 50.1 τὴν ὀργὴν ἐπακολουθεῖν,  ἄλλω ϲ δ ’ ἀδυνατεῖν17In 49.40, we need τό to fi ll the space between τῶι προϲ τηϲαμέν[ωι and ὑ]π ο -. Then the hiatus (-νωι ὑ-) is removed18 and the construction is clarifi ed: the premiss introduced by τῶι προϲ τηϲαμέν[ωι now has the expected article. W. B. Henry, Department of Greek and Latin, University College Londonw_b_henry@yahoo.co.uk15 Wilke, Textkritisches 109, had considered φαμέν, but this is too short, and we expect a verb in the third person plural, parallel to φλ]υα ροῦϲιν (1–2).16 Delattre 78 states that φ[ανερό]ν seems to be confi rmed by traces (not further described) ‘qui se devinent sur le papy-rus: φ[αν]ε ρ [ό]ν’, but there do not appear to be any traces preserved in the relevant place.17 ἀδυνατεῖν is of course parallel to ἐπακολουθεῖν in the previous line; it is not clear why Delattre 85 asserts that ‘un infi nitif ici ne peut aucunement se construire ni se justifi er’. The original is damaged, but O and N both show a complete ν at the end of the word; there are no grounds for doubt. For the argument of the passage, see E. Asmis in J. Fish and K. R. Sanders (edd.), Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition (2011) 154–5.18 Cf. e.g. Janko 77.

Notes on Philodemus, On Anger

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1517889/7/Henry_201059.pdf

Notes on Philodemus, On Anger

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery