American Journal of Philology

The title of this edition of Philodemus is Storia dei filosofi. It translates a more perplexing and tantalizing title in Greek. This is not preserved in the subscription to the Herculaneum papyrus edited here (PHerc. 1018). In the Catologo dei Papiri Ercolanesi (Bibliopolis: Naples 1979) the title of this treatise is given as [Filodümoy | Perç t©n ½p̄ Zünvnoq Stvik©n kaç ađrª | sevn ápŒntvn | q ]t [¼ ]x [oi . . . . . ] | Sy [ntŒjevq t©n filos¿fvn | b¼bloq ]. This is approximately the title Agosto Traversa gave the work in his edition, Index Stoicorum Herculanensis (Genoa 1952). The reader will appreciate how ambitious Traversa’s supplements are. The inspiration for his title comes from the title Domenico Comparetti gave its companion work, PHerc. 1021 (1164), Filodümoy S′ntajiq [End Page 146] filos¿fvn . Comparetti’s inspiration was the notice in Diogenes Laertius, who cites the tenth book of Philodemus’ ï t©n filos¿fvn s′ntajiq (10.3). This second history of a philosophical school has long been known under the title that S. Mekler chose for it at the beginning of this century, Academicorum Philosophorum Index Herculanensis (Berlin 1902). The fact is that the word s′ntajiq occurs in neither of Philodemus’ companion treatises on the history of the Academic and Stoic philosophers.

In both treatises and in PHerc. 1021 especially, Philodemus is generous with dates. He writes the nearly parallel histories of these schools from their foundation by Plato and Zeno of Citium down to his own day. Philodemus dates are not certain. Ca. 110–40 b.c.e. are the dates commonly given. Only a few lines are missing from the protected innermost midollo of PHerc. 1021, and the text of the last columns makes it clear that Philodemus has taken his history of the Academy down to his own day, not that of his master in Athens, Zeno of Sidon. He speaks of Menekrates of Mytilene (a student of Antiochus of Ascalon) as resident in Sicily “until recently” (24, 8–11) and of students of Antiochus who are “our acquaintances” (35, 5–8). The last words of the papyrus are: “[of the sects and successions beginning with Eucleides and those beginning with Plato, and the other sects and successions that came after these a collection. . . .” The word which comes closest to giving us a title for these histories of Philodemus is syna [gvgü (col. 36, 19). If these two treatises belong to the work entitled “The Ordering of the Philosophers” it is plain that Philodemus’ inspiration is Apollodoros of Athens’ vast Xronikî s′ntajiq, which Philodemus made great use of in his Academicorum Historia and which he uses sparingly in his Stoicorum Historia. (He is named as Apollodoros “the man of letters”—¸ grammatik¿q —at the end of Philodemus’ Stoicorum Historia, col. 69. 4–5.)

In lack of a title in the subscription to PHerc. 1018, Dorandi’s Storia dei filosofi is as good description as any. Philodemus is interested in the succession, lives, and characters of the Stoics whose history he writes—not their philosophy. A review of Dorandi’s Stoicorum Historia should offer a brief review of the companion edition of Philodemus’ history of the Academic philosophers that preceded it, for it seems clear from the end of PHerc. 1021 that Philodemus’ history of the Academic philosophers came first. Dorandi published Filodemo · Storia dei filosofi: Platone e l’Academia (PHerc. 1021 e 164) as volume 12 of Marcello Gigante’s La Scuola di Epicuro (Bibliopolis: Naples, 1991). The format of both volumes is strikingly similar: both contain introductions to Philodemus as a historian, first of the Academy and then of the Stoa; both give a survey of Philodemus’ sources in writing his histories. In both volumes a description of the papyri edited precedes Dorandi’s scrupulous and exacting editions of...