Empedocles, On Nature I 233-364: A new reconstruction of P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-6

Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Volumn 150, Issue , 2004, Pages 1-12

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 62249138544     PISSN: 00845388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. See The Derveni Papyrus: an Interim Text, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 141 (2002) 1-62
2. God, Science and Socrates, BICS 46 (2002-3) 1-18
3. A. Martin and O. Primavesi, L'Empédocle de Strasbourg, Berlin and New York 1998 (henceforth 'Martin and Primavesi')
4. Fr. 17 Diels = vv. 233-66 in this edition
5. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom, Cambridge 1998, 10-34
6. Empedocles Recycled, CQ 37 (1987) 24-50
7. Fr. 139 Diels = vv. 335-6 in this edition
8. Martin and Primavesi 3
9. Martin and Primavesi 103
10. citing Simplicius, De Ar. Phys. p. 157,25-7 Diels: [fr. 17 D. follows]
11. Cf. e.g. B. Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles, ed. 2, Toronto 2001, 20, who, however, thinks that fr. d could well be from very late in the poem, in a third or later book
12. Martin and Primavesi 111
13. Simpl. Phys. 159,3 Diels: (fr. 21,3)
14. This preference, which I am told was also advocated by David Sedley, Myles Burnyeat and Malcolm Schofield when the editors presented their preliminary results at Cambridge, is shared by C. Osborne, Rummaging in the rubbish bins of Upper Egypt. A discussion of A. Martin and O. Primavesi, L'Empédocle de Strasbourg, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 18 (2000) 329-56, at 335-6
15. Empédocle II. Les Origines. Edition et commentaire des fragments et des témoignages, Paris 1969, 102
16. For an explanation of how this works see M. Capasso, Volumen: aspetti della tipologia del rotolo librario antico, Naples 2000, 59-60 with Tav. II
17. Compare the corrections at 267 and 303: in each case the scribe wrote the first person plural cυνερχόμε θcombining comma above right which the second hand altered to the participle cυνερχόμενcombining comma above right (at 303 the ν is between points and the text quoted by Simplicius concurs with the alteration). A. Laks rightly defends the first persons middle (Reading the Readings: on the First Person Plurals in the Strasburg Empedocles, in V. Caston and D. W. Graham, edd., Presocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos, Aldershot 2002, 127-38). The second hand introduces another mistaken ν in the supralinear ·β]ηcombining inverted breveν· at 345, which the placement of fr. f now reveals to be wrong, since οcombining reversed comma aboveππότcombining dot below[ε at the start of the verse is better followed by the subjunctive β]ηcombining inverted breveι offered on the line by the first hand. The sole correction by the second hand which must be right is that at v. 335, where Porphyry's reading οιcombining comma abovecombining acute accentμο ι οcombining reversed comma abovecombining acute accentτ(ι) is introduced by the second hand's text ]μcombining dot belowοιcombining grave tone markοτιcombining acute tone mark, whereas the original scribe made the obvious blunder ]μcombining dot belowοιcτ. As Simon Trépanier pointed out to me (per litt.), the corrections by the second hand in my col. xii (335, 340, 345, 348, 349) are placed between points, whereas those at 267 and 303 in cols, ix and xi are not
18. In Homer, as here, the subjunctive after οcombining reversed comma aboveπ(π)ότε indicates 'l'idée de répétition et d'éventualité' (P. Chantraine, Grammaire homérique, Paris 1958-63, II. 256)