Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:11:36.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philodemus on the Good King According to Homer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Oswyn Murray
Oswyn Murray
Affiliation:
St. Edmund Hall, Oxford.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1844 Italy was in travail; even the subjects of Ferdinand II Bourbon, King of the Two Sicilies, knew it. The previous year had seen the failure of the ‘Moto di Savigno’, an attempt at a combined rising in Romagna and Calabria. In March occurred the massacres of Cosenza; on 12th June the Bandiera brothers set sail for the kingdom, only to be arrested on arrival and executed. The martyrdom inflamed liberals throughout Europe.

It was appropriate that the scholars of the Reale Officina de' Papiri Ercolanesi, engaged in the task of publishing the papyri found in 1752 in the Villa dei Pisoni at Herculaneum, should have reached a work of Philodemus called (so the editor Cirillo believed) περὶ τοῦ καθ΄ "Ομηρον ἀγαθοῦ λαῷ:

‘Hinc fit, Rex Augustissime, ut tomus hic quasi suo iure se Tibi tradat, cui divinitus fuit mandata Tuorum populorum cura, atque incolumitas (quae adeo acriter sancteque tueris) hoc praecipue tempore, quo vana quaedam, falsa, et perniciosissima philosophandi ratio caecas hominum mentes, animosque invasit.’

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 55 , November 1965 , pp. 161 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Oswyn Murray 1965. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a succinct statement of the problems connected with the ownership of the villa, and the relations between Piso and Philodemus, see R. G. Nisbet's edition of Cicero's, in Pisonem (1961), App. 3 and 4. For the theory of Hemmerdinger, B., REG LXXII (1959), 106Google Scholar, see my note, ib. LXXVII (1964), 568.

2 Cirillo, dedication: dated 30th April.

3 Comparetti, D., La Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni (1883), 73Google Scholar castigates Cirillo for accepting an impossible reading; in his favour it can be said that the scribe achieved symmetry elsewhere on the colophon; Diels' restoration sacrifices this.

4 Olivieri, despite his ‘commentaria silentio praeterire licet’, took much from Cirillo's synopsis.

5 Herm. (1878), 3.

6 Supplements, Philippson 765 ff. and van Krevelen, D. A., Mnem. x (1942), 226 ff.Google Scholar, are too uncertain to be of use.

7 cf. Traversa, A., Index Stoicorum Herculanensis (1952), p. x.Google Scholar

8 Hayter, John, A Report upon the Herculaneum Manuscripts, in a Second Letter, addressed, by Permission, to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent (1811), 52 ff.Google Scholar On Hayter's mission in general, see this letter and Dict. Nat. Biogr. IX, 304 f.

9 Croenert, W., Rh. Mus. LIII (1898), 585 ff.Google Scholar; F. Casanova was the worst culprit, C. Malesci only careless.

10 Bassi, D., Riv. Fil. XLI (1913), 460.Google Scholar The folder of the disegni reads, ‘Svolto nel 1808 da Luigi Corazza, disegnato nel … da Luigi Corazza (prima del 1811) Carlo Malesci (1845.1852) …’, unsigned, dated ‘Maggio 1911’. This is obviously a product of the same researches by Bassi, described 1.c. 432 ff., 197. The general catalogue of 1853 records none of this.

11 Olivieri p. v is a series of misunderstandings. F 6 is signed ‘C. Malesci’, and certified with the date, ‘Visto per Giugno 1845 L. Pasca’; F 21 is signed ‘Carlo Malesci dis: Pap° N° 1507’, with the date in the same hand, ‘Per Aprile 1852’; elsewhere, in a different hand, it has ‘VB Genovesi’—not his initials, but the usual ‘visto’ or ‘VB (visto bene)’ with a signature, certifying that it has been checked. Bassi, l.c. 460, queries these dates, presumably because of Olivieri's mistakes.

12 Not 1819 (Olivieri).

13 An unjust picture of Rossini, who was also in charge before Hayter's arrival, is drawn in Hayter's letter; Rossini justifiably opposed plans to remove the papyri to England. The materials for a history of the Officina are available in Naples and Oxford; it would be a fascinating study.

14 The circle of the ϴ is clearly visible in the fibres underlying the surface, which has now disappeared; there appears to be a transverse stroke immediately after it, which might belong to the first X.

15 The engraving is misleading here.

16 Riv. Fil. XXXVII (1909), 349 f.; the tear is in any case still clean, and too small for a figure to have got lost in it without being visible, or causing a messier deterioration. Bassi believed that the στίχος in the Herculaneum papyri was the actual line, not an arbitrary measure based on the hexameter.

17 He runs together only ΚΑϴΟΜ[ΗΡ]ΟΝ.

18 I give the numeral without brackets as Corazza saw it plain, and so apparently did Olivieri; though Bassi, at the same date, saw only the line above the figures.

19 2,000 × 15 = 30,000 syllables. Taking the actual line-length as 9 syllables and the column as 40 lines, 30,000 ÷ (40 × 9) = 83 columns. For the method of calculating, see K. Ohly, Stichometrische Untersuchungen (1928), c. 1.

20 Croenert, cited Olivieri, p. viii, n.

21 Cirillo has inadvertently omitted 10: see n. 26.

22 Cirillo p. iv; my italics.

23 Thus there is no disegno for Cols. 13, 16, 17, 20 in his numeration; that for Col. 6 was done later by Malesci.

24 Comparetti, D., Riv. Fil. III (1875), 453 n.Google Scholar: ‘….nel linguaggio dell'officina, diconsi colonne quelle che, quand'anche frammentose, hanno un posto sicuramente definite rimpetto a ciò che le precede e le segue. Frammenti invece diconsi quei brani, i quali, quand'anche abbraccino tutta una pagina, non hanno alcun sicuro rapporto di continuità fra loro, e il cui posto nell' originale è ignoto.’

25 See commentary ad loc.

26 See n. 23; the disegni of Corrazza's Cols. 1, 8, 10, 15, 45 have the statement, ‘Inutile deciso da Monsignor Rossini’; and Col. 45 has also ‘Inutili framti 5 cioé il framto segnato Col. 1, Col. 8, Col. 10, Col. 15 e Col. 45.’

27 Bücheler 207 was misled even by Cirillo, and tried to connect F9 with Col. XXI. It is with this protest that I retain Olivieri's numbering; it would look as if he followed the same practice in his edition of the περι παρρησίας.

28 cf. the remarks of Hayter, o.c. 63 ff.; Traversa, l.c. (n. 7).

29 The greatest success was by Piaggio himself— pap. 1672, which is 3·34 metres long.

30 Viz. Breaks occur after F 6, 10, 12, 16, 20, Cols. IV, VIII, XII, XVII, XXI.

31 F 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21.

32 Bassi (l.c., n. 16) thought he could detect the top margins in two or three cases; I could not. If he is right, there were from thirty-eight to forty lines to a column.

33 Cols. XXII ff are broken in the middle; at least one line is missing.

34 Paolucci 485; cf. A. Momigliano, JRS XXXI (1941), 151 ff. But though most of ray references to Paolucci will therefore be critical, I owe much to him, and would agree with much that he says, on a different occasion.

35 cf. Philippson 741 f.; RE XIX, 2 (1938), 2474. Paolucci 486 lays greater stress on Col. XXV, 15 ff. to explain the form.

36 cf. p. 176, below.

37 Col. XXV, 15 ff. I give this important passage as it stands in Olivieri's text:

cf. Sudhaus, S., Rh. Mus. LXIV (1909), 475 f.Google Scholar

38 For the Epicurean attitude to poetry, cf. Sextus, adv. math. I, 297 ff.Google Scholar; for Epicurus on Homer, F 228–9, Usener p. 171; cf. Metrodorus F 24 Koerte (so Philippson 742). Whether Philodemus accepted the Epicurean view is doubtful. Philippson thought he did, adducing περὶ ποιημάτων II, F 56–7 Hausrath. But Schächter, R., Eos XXXI (1928), 439 ff.Google Scholar (esp. 445 f), followed by Paolucci 487 f., claimed that Philodemus looked to the content, not the form, and that περὶ ποιημάτων II represents in general the views of an opponent.

39 F 5–6, Usener p. 94.

40 Philippson's parallels (743 f.) depend on his supplements, or are common to other schools; see commentary on F 12, Col. XIX. For Paolucci, who takes the work as representative of Epicurean thought, see in general above, p. 165.

41 Contrast F 5 Usener with Col. II, 7 ff.; F 6 with Col. XXIII, 32 ff.

42 See n. 35.

43 Perhaps even composed at his request: so Sudhaus, l.c. (n. 37), comparing Cic., in Pis. 70; Philippson 742.

44 Olivieri p. ix; Philippson 742 f.; RE, l.c. (n. 35); Paolucci 489 ff.

45 On the problems connected with Athenaeus' source, a work of uncertain date, authorship and title, see Schwartz, E., RE v (1905), 1128 f.Google Scholar

46 The de vita et poesi Homeri is the name by which a pair of independent works are known. It is the so-called book II which is relevant to this discussion; the text in Bernadakis' edition of Plutarch's Moralia, 337 ff. Plutarch's de aud. poet, does not go back to Chrysippus: Pohlenz, M., Die Stoa II2 (1955), n. to p. 140.Google Scholar

47 Athen. I, 8e. Paolucci 493 ff. claims σωφροσύνη as the central message of Philodemus, indeed of all Hellenistic philosophy; I cannot follow him in giving the notion so much importance or so wide a meaning.

48 On these criteria, the only close parallel with Athen. is Col. VIII, 33: 1, 13e (a similarity of thought in IV, 8: 1, 9f, 24c; and, if Bücheler is right, F 18, 15: X, 433b); contrast F 18, 27: 1, 17f (cf. Ioe). For Plut. de aud. poet. contrast 111, 32: 30a. For de vit. et poes. Hom., compare VIII, 35: 197 (cf. 179); X, 26: 186; F 12: 189 (but note difference in selection of quotations). Similarities of thought in IV, 8: 207. Contrast VII, 27: 149; XI, 26: 145; XIX, 30: 133; XXIV, 12: 185. For further details see commentary.

49 Philippson denies Stoic influence, but argues for Peripatetic in two places. One depends on his conjecture; for the other see commentary on Col. XVIII. Paolucci 491 ff. argues for Stoic influence, basing himself on ‘parallels’ with Plutarch.

50 Paolucci 489 f.

51 This might seem to shed doubt on a wider topic, the possibility of gnomological tradition for Homer, such as is envisaged by e.g. Peretti, A., Teognide nella Tradizione Gnomologica (1953), 31 ff.Google Scholar, 334. The problems of how much variation to accept as compatible with a ‘Vulgate’ text, and how far that was the result of Alexandrian scholarship, are complex; and the certainty that many quotations were from memory or earlier writers makes any generalization from variants hazardous.

52 See commentary ad loc.

53 But II. XXI, 389 is another Homeric crux; cf. Porph. p. 254 Schrader; Eustath. p. 1242, 45 ff. Porph. contrasts the line with V, 890, which Philodemus has just referred to in Col. IX, 31 ff. The quotation might come from some commentary.

54 cf. esp. commentary on F 2; Col. I, VI, VII, IX, XI, XII, XVII; some of these are topoi.

55 cf. esp. P. Oxy. 221.

56 ‘Antisthenes’, Xen., Symp. IVII, 6 (cf. Mem. III, 2; Plato, Ion 540b; Duemmler, F., Kleine Schriften I (1901), 36 f.Google Scholar); Dio, Or. I, II ff.; n, 6; de vit. et poes. Horn. 199. The only known work similar in scope to Philodemus' is Porphyry mentioned in Suidas, of which nothing survives (an unlikely ‘fragment’ ap. Porph., ad Il. I, 340, p. 12 Schrader; cf. his note). Fabricius, J. A., Bibliotheca Graeca I 4 (1790), 541 f.Google Scholar has an interesting essay on the subject.

57 Antisthenes, Diog. Laert. VI, 15 ff.; Persaeus, , SVF I, F 435 ff.Google Scholar

58 Col. XI, 5 ff. As E. L. Bowie reminds me, the two are often contrasted; e.g. Herod. VIII, 3, 1; Ael. Arist. XXXIII, 55 K; XXIV, 19 K.

59 cf. Appian, , BC I, 2Google Scholar, 4 for the recognition of the breakdown of the distinction in Roman history.

60 The definition of the βασιλεύς accepted in Or. 111, 43 is repeated in LVI, 5, only to be rejected. Nestor perhaps represents Trajan's philosophic adviser, Dio himself.

61 cf. e.g., Sen., de clem.; esp. 1, 3, 3; 5, 2–4; 11, 7, 3.

62 cf. Plato, Polit. 294 a–b; Aristotle, , Pol. III, 1286a7 ff.Google Scholar; cf. NE v, 1137b11 ff.

63 Cic., de off. I, 88; cf. de virt., F 6–8; J. Stroux, Summum Ius summa Iniuria (n.d.), passim.

64 Hellegouarc'h, J., Le Vocabulaire Latin des Relations et des Partis Politiques (1963), 261 ff.Google Scholar

65 Col. V, 17 ff.

66 Col. XI, 15 ff.

67 Col. XXIV, 30 ff.

68 JRS XXXI (1941), 152 f.

69 Under the nouns I have included the cognate adjectives, verbs and abstract nouns. βασιλεύς of Homeric kings: Col. III, 20; VIII, 28, 32; IX, 32–4; XII, 25; XV, 18; XIX, 25; XXII, 21 (?); cf. 11, 15. In VI, 8 the usage might be better described as generic; cf. F 7, 27; Col. VI, 13. It is interesting that τύραννος is found only at F 3, 17.

70 Col. III, 10; VIII, 13; IX, 35; XVIII, 15 (?).

71 See Olivieri's apparatus. The engraving ( = dis. b) shows a hole after П.ОС ЕУСТ.ϴ, and in 17 .АРХ…‥; which is hardly compatible with the disegni as reported by Olivieri. I have not checked the papyrus; the engraving would allow ὀλιγαρχίαν.

72 Col. XXV, 18; cf. X, 18; IX, 15; VI, 18.

73 I have used C. J. Vooys, Lexicon Philodemeum (1934–41); it is neither complete nor wholly accurate.

74 Col. 111, 17; Vol. Rhet. I, p. 377, 5; cf. p. 222, 14; π.θαν., Col. XXXIV, 3.

75 Vol. Rhet. II, p. 140, 7.

76 Col. VI, 18; IX, 15.

77 Of oligarchy, VI, 9, 4; cf. IX, 23, 5; of king, e.g. X, 40, 7.

78 cf. esp. Livy, discussed in Wickert, L., RE XXII, 2 (1954), 2004 ff.Google Scholar

79 Or. 11, 5 f.; cf. esp. 65 f., contrasted with the treatment of the same passage in Col. XX, 3 ff.

80 e.g. the often cited Il. II, 196–7, 204 ff., which appear in Stobaeus in the section ὁτι κάλλιοτον ἡ μοναρχία (IV, 6, 1–2, p. 239 Hense).

81 Gwosdz, A., Der Begriff des römischen princeps, Diss. Breslau (1933), 54 ff.Google Scholar Plutarch's usage (66 ff.) is the closest to Philodemus; e.g. Cic. 15, 1; Lucull. 37, 3: ἄνδρες οἱ πρῶτοι καὶ ςυνατώτατοι; Caes. 13, 3: τῷν μέγιοτον ἐν τῇ πόλει δυναμένων.

82 Cic., ad Att. XII, 40, 2; XIII, 28, 2, etc. cf. in general Klek, J., Symbuleutici qui dicitur sermonis historia critica, Diss. Freiburg (1919).Google Scholar

83 Varro to Pompey, Gellius XIV, 7; Cicero to Quintus, ad Q. fr. I, I; the Commentariolum Petitionis (cf. Balsdon, J. P. V. D., CQ LVI (1963), 242 ff.Google Scholar); further references in Henderson, M. I., JRS XL (1950), 18.Google Scholar

84 Aevum XXIX (1955), 201 ff.

85 ad Q. fr. III, I, II. For the relations between Cicero and Philodemus, see F. Sbordone, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Ciceroniani (1961).

86 Plut., Caes. 14, 8; cf. Cic., in Pis. 3.

87 Cic., Phil. XIV, 17; cf. Wickert, l.c. (n. 79), 2029 ff.

88 Hor., Odes II, 1, 3 f.

89 cf. Syme, R., Tacitus (1958), 672.Google Scholar

90 111, 62, 3; IV, 78, 3.

91 cf. esp. Pol. IV, 1292b5 ff.; 1293a30 ff.; V, 1306a24.

92 For the almost invariably pejorative meaning of these words in politics, see TLL, s.v.; Hellegouarc'h, o.c. (n. 64), 562 ff.

93 LII, I; LS–J, s. δυναστεία II, mistakenly take this of the Roman senate; similarly δυναστευτικός in Phld., Rh. 2, 145S., mistakenly ‘oligarchical’.

94 BC, 1, 2, 7.

95 Dynastae, , ad Att. 11, 9, 1Google Scholar; dominatio, 21, 1; dominus, 19, 3; cf. regnum, 12, 1; 13, 2; reges, 8, 1; ad Q. fr. I, 2, 16; ἐντυραννεῑ;σθαι ad Att. II, 14, 1; τυραννίς 17, 1; Piso the tyrannus, ad sen. 12.

96 Col. IV, 30 ff.

97 Suet. DJ 22, 2; 49; cf. 2; Dio XLIII, 20, 2; de vir. ill. 78, 1. The scandal was still alive at the time of Caesar's Gallic triumph; the point cannot there fore be pressed. And Philodemus will have been in the East during the lifetime of Nicomedes III.

98 de prov. cons. 41; ad Att. II, 1, 6 f.; 3, 3.

99 Od. X, 235 f.

100 Cic. ad Att. II, 20, 6.

101 So from the time of Plato on; cf. Polit. 259d; 293a; SVF III, F 618.

102 In general I accept the views of Heinze, R., Vom Geist des Römertums 3 (1960), 141 ff.Google Scholar; E. Lepore, Il Princeps Ciceroniano (1954).

103 Epist. I, 2, 14 ff. The whole passage from line 6 is important in showing how impossible it had become to take political precepts even from Homer's βασιλεῑς. Sudhaus, l.c. (n. 37), attempted to connect line II with Col. X, 27; but the parallel is possible only with Cirillo's reading, which Olivieri rejects.

I should have been more out of my depth, if it had not been for a number of friends, notably Professors E. Lepore, A. Momigliano, Mr. E. L. Bowie, Mrs. Miriam Griffin and Mr. P. J. Parsons. To all I am deeply grateful, but especially to Professor F. Sbordone, who arranged for me to see the papyrus, and gave a great deal of his time to answering questions and searching out the relevant documents. The research was carried out under the auspices of the Craven Committee, as H. F. Pelham Student at the British School at Rome.