The Classical Review

http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR

Additional services for The Classical Review:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Philodemus F. Sbordone: Philodemi adversus

[Sophistas]. Pp. xv+183. Naples: L. Loffredo, 1947.
Paper. L. 550.

Cyril Bailey

The Classical Review / Volume 62 / Issue 3-4 / December 1948, pp 133 - 134
DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00091666, Published online: 27 October 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00091666

How to cite this article:

Cyril Bailey (1948). The Classical Review, 62, pp 133-134 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00091666

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 129.97.124.54 on 31 Mar 2015

 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 133
the other literature indicated by R. McCrindle and Gilmore. In the matter of
Wittkower,Journ. WarburgInst.v, 1942, commentaries, there was' not much else
161). Dr. Henry admits that he was un- to be seen. ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO.
able to see the commentaries by Baehr, University of Bristol.

PHILODEMUS
F. SBORDONE: Philodemi adversus Sbordone has done his best to restore
[Sophistas]. Pp. xv+183. Naples: the original; in the columns, where a
L. Loffredo, 1947. Paper. L. 550. good deal has survived intact, this can
F. SBORDONE, who has undertaken an be done with some certainty, but in the
edition of Philodemus' works (it does fragments conjecture has to work hard.
not appear how much this will include), Sbordone is, as he sometimes confesses,
has himself published the Herculanean extremely bold in his attempts and
papyrus 1005, which had been in part often the result 7
is not very convincing.
edited or noticed by others, but never Thus fr. c 3-7 reads in Sbordone's
before dealt with in full. The papyrus version: aur<J> Adyos TIS I8i6fiop<f>os •>} KOX
contains a letter or treatise of Philo- o6$ia\x,a. irepufxives mtvecrrrjKe irepl ifwxijs
demus, which its tantalizing subscrip- •rijs iSi'a?, of which all that appears in
tion designates as IIPOS TOYS.... the Sbordone's copy and the apographs is
word in the missing line being of eight (a)v iSiojtto
or nine letters. Diels conjectured a/za ir(ep) wearq
STCDIKOVS, but there is little in what rris iSi. . . . He admits that Adyos and
remains (except in fr. g 4 , 5 , 7 ) which ipvxfjs are doubtful but adds cetera satis
suggests the Stoics, and Sbordone has certa sunt; it is not easy to agree. Often,
adopted the more plausible restoration however, especially in the columns, his
of Vogliano, Swfucrrds, the unorthodox, conjectures are more persuasive. Occa-
or even apostate, Epicureans (cf. Diog. sionally Sbordone's text involves ques-
Laert. x. 26). The present treatise may tionable Greek, e.g. fr. d3 6 •qvprjK' dv,
5
have been (see commentary on Col. XV) fr. d 6 ayadw 2
/xeOoSu) (corrected in
the first of three books, the other two errata), fr. f 10 evddfieva in pass, sense
dealing with more overt adversaries. (? [AeydJ/xeva), Col. VIII. I eA0d/xevov,
Sbordone made his own apograph of Col. XIV. 3 KaX-qaas; and it is difficult
the papyrus before the war, and checked sometimes to accept Sbordone's ex-
it after the return of the papyrus to the planation
8
of the meaning of words, e.g.
Naples Museum, when, though much fr. y dSewSv 'indulgence', Col. XV. 8
had been obscured, certain new indica- vjTOfiovqv 'recreation'; in Col. XI. 17
tions had appeared which he notes in dirapalrrp-ov surely means ' inexcusable',
his apparatus "with an asterisk. He has not 'inevitable'. There are4several new
also compared his copy with the Oxford words 10
in the text, e.g. fr. b 14 imrfdaos,
and Neapolitan apographs, which, fr. f 9, Col. IX. 7 'Apurratoi, fr. x 1
though they have often proved faulty, •qfiepoKCDfuai, Col. I . 5 efava/caAuTrreiv,
here and there record readings of ibid. 16 <f>\outi8u)s, Col. VII. 5 npoKarapxTJ)
which the indications are now lost in Col. X I I . 3 <f>i\om>ieiv, ibid. 4 ei/ay/caAicu,
the papyrus. The present edition con- ibid. 6 e/c/JAatr^iyteiv.
tains reproductions of Sbordone's own The labour of deciphering and edit-
apograph of the three tabulae of frag- ing is enormous and Sbordone must be
ments and two of columns with his own congratulated on the accomplishment
restoration on the opposite page and a of a task which is much greater than
Latin translation of such parts as make is suggested by the slender volume. It is
consecutive sense. He has appended a scientifically a gain that the contents
useful commentary in which he indi- of the Herculanean rolls should be put
cates his beliefs as to the subject- on record. But when one asks about
matter and adduces Epicurean parallels the contents, it must be confessed that
to words and phrases used. the results are disappointing. We learn
134 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
something about the 'Sophists', that
they were giVen to the pursuit of
'pleasure' in the superficial sense, but
exhibited 'indolence' (dveuepyijaia Col.
XI. 17) in learning the true doctrines.
There are references to sayings and
doctrines of Epicurus (frs. f1, f2, etc.)
including an abridgement of the rerpa-
<f>dp[jLa.Kos (Col. IV) and one of the
extant mentions of the irapiynXuns
(Col. VII. 3). We gather something of
the relations of Philodemus to Zeno
(fr. i3, Col. VII, Col. IX), and can infer
that Philodemus was as pleased with
his own 'originality' as Epicurus was
before him (fr. f9). There are references
to Nausiphanes (fr. x) and to the be-
haviour of Epicureans during the siege
of Athens—in Sulla's day, as Sbordone
rightly maintains (Col. X). And the
end of the Book seems to have inter-
esting suggestions as to the education
of budding philosophers. But there is
few
little of real importance and one is left
with the feeling that the Herculean
labours of the editor have in the end
produced a rather ridiculous mouse,
CYRIL BAILEY.

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK

Novum Testamentutn Graece. Textui a editor has wisely frowned on any attempt
retractoribus Anglis adhibito brevem at the present juncture to construct
adnotationem criticam subiecit Alex- another. Into the available space under-
ander SOUTER : Editio altera penitus neath it he has contrived to fit a
reformata. Oxford: Clarendon Press, judicious selection of the new material;
1947. Cloth, 10s. 6d. net (India paper, and he has done so with masterly skill.
12s. 6d. net). Among the additions we note especially
THE appearance of a new edition of a whole host of new papyrus readings,
'Souter' is an event of importance for the fact that Homer's edition of the
all students of the Greek Testament. Sahidic version is now complete, and
For many 'Souter' is the Greek Testa- that more attention has been paid to
ment in the sense that it is the only Marcion.
critical edition they have ever used, The Gospels apparatus has been en-
while most among the textual specialists riched particularly by the inclusion of
will readily agree that its apparatus is the Uncials 0 and W, many important
the fullest and most satisfactory ob- minuscles (the result of Lake's labours),
tainable within the compass of a single and the Georgian version edited by
volume. The fact that the original Blake. Probably the most interesting
edition of 1910 has been reprinted no individual reading added is that of K*
less than six times is ample proof of its at Matt. vi. 28, which was brought to
widespread and deserved popularity. light during the exhaustive examina-
But since 1910 a great deal has hap- tion of the codex after its arrival in the
pened. Not only have the intervening British Museum in 1933, and which led
years brought to light a mass of fresh Skeat to conjecture an original /ccwa-
material—from new manuscript dis- fiaJdeT* ra KpLva rov dypov TT&S OV £aivovaiv
coveries (particularly of papyri), from ov8e vrfdovaw (Z.N.T. W. xxxviii. 211-14).
progress in editing and interpreting the In the Pauline Epistles the most out-
evidence of the versions, and from the standing addition is p 46 ; and in this
provision of more modern and accurate connexion a striking instance of 're-
editions of the Fathers; but also much valuation' may be mentioned. The
of the older material has necessarily papyrus shares the peculiarity of plac-
been submitted to a process of revalua- ing the doxology of Romans at the end
tion. The need for a more up-to-date of chapter xv with the tenth-century
'Souter' is therefore clear. Athos minuscule 1739. In the old
In the new edition the pagination and 'Souter' this minuscule was not speci-
text remain the same as formerly. The ally noticed, and its placing of the
text is, of course, that presumed^ to Romans doxology went unrecorded,
underlie the Revised Version, and the presumably because it looked like a