Privi Tera

8/14/2019 Privi Tera

1/26

Ivanoe Privitera

Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition*

In this paper I would like to analyse briefly Aristotles direct tradition as we find

it in the papyri already published1, taking into account first those transmittingAristotles preserved works, then those hypothetically attributed to his lostworks. With regard to the first group, I offer some papyrological and philologi-cal contributions, especially discussing textual variants, collating the most re-cent editions and taking into consideration the latest studies. As for the secondgroup, I outline and discuss the argumentspro and contra the attribution of Aris-totelian authorship.

1. The Papyri of Aristotles Preserved Works

Leafing through the Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini (henceforth CPF)2,it may sound surprising to find just eight Aristotle papyri, especially if we com-pare this number to the eighty-two of Plato3.

Quaestio, 11 (2011), 115-140 10.1484/J.QUAESTIO.1.103012

* I would like to thank my supervisor Dirk Obbink, who suggested that I write this article as pre-liminary research for the project The footprint left by Aristotle and the Peripatos in the papyri I workedon as Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Oxford from September 2009 to August 2011; Lucio Del

Corso, who kindly gave me the possibility to contribute to this volume with my article; Daniela Colomoand Laura Castelli, who carefully read and revised it giving me many useful suggestions; the staff of theJohn Rylands Library Special Collections in Manchester for their kind availability; Paul Ellis for hisprompt and accurate English proofreading; Lucio Biasiori, who kindly provided, as always, the bibliogra-phy not available at Oxford.

1 As Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Oxford within the above mentioned project, I identifiedand edited a number of new papyri containing AristotlesNicomachean Ethics,Parts of Animals,Physics,

Rhetoric, Pseudo-Aristotles (Anaximenes) Rhetoric to Alexander, due to appear in the series TheOxyrhynchus Papyri.

2 F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini. Testi e lessico nei papiri di cul-tura greca e latina, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1989-.

3 Cf. J. IRIGOIN,Deux traditions dissymtriques: Platon et Aristote 1986 (avril-juin), 1986-1987 (suite),in ID., Tradition et critique des textes grecs, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1997, pp. 149-190: 150-151, 188 sqq.


2/26

116 Ivanoe Privitera

They contain thePosterior Analytics, the Categories, theNicomachean Ethics,the History of Animals, the Politics, the Protreptic respectively, two of the

Athenaion Politeia4, and they date from between the first and fifth century.To the eight papyri published in CPF, we must add three more.

P. Ryl. III 510 recto (LDAB5 394, MP3 164.016) [pl. 1] from the second cen-tury contains a short passage of the Topics (VI, 13, 150a27-32). It was edited asa Topics fragment by Linguiti7 and revised by Menci8, who also pointed out that P.Giss. Lit. 4.8 recto (LDAB 4454; MP3 164.01, 2810.1) contains Topics VI, 13,150b10-14 and 150b23-26, and belongs to the same roll as the Rylands papyrus.

P. Vind. Barbara 22 (LDAB 9951, MP3 158.01) from the second/third cen-tury is a very tiny fragment of the On the Heaven (De caelo) book one (3-4,

270b31-33). It was edited by Papathomas9. P. Harris I 2 (LDAB 4988, MP3 2566) from the second/third century where Cavini10 identified the text of Categories 10, 11b17-28 and 10, 11b36-12a1.

From a chronological point of view:

the most ancient Aristotle papyrus is P. Lond. Lit. 108 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 7),preserving theAthenaion Politeia, which dates to the end of the first century11.

P. Mich. inv. 6643 + P. Brux. inv. E 8073 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 5), containingtwo passages of thePolitics book four (4-5, 1292a30-1292b2; 6, 1293a15-18),dates to the first/second century.

Four papyri from the second century: P. Oxy. XXIV 2402 (CPF I.1*, 24, no.3) [pl. 2] preserves two passages of theNicomachean Ethics book six (9, 1142b11-

Cf. also T. DORANDI,I papiri e la filosofia antica, Atene e Roma, n.s. 2 (3-4) (2008), pp. 129-143: 130-131. I will return to the complex issue of the first stage of Aristotles transmission in the Conclusions.

4 Cf. CPF I.1*, pp. 251-281.5 http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/.6 CEDOPAL: http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/.7 A. LINGUITI, Un frammento dei Topicisu papiro (PRyl. III 510r), in M.S. FUNGHI (a cura di), O

. Le vie della ricerca. Studi in onore di Francesco Adorno, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1996, pp. 21-23. Instead, in the editio princeps the fragment was simply defined as philosophical text.

8 G. MENCI, Un nuovo frammento papiraceo dei Topici, in F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di),Papiri Filosofi-ci. Miscellanea di Studi VI, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 2011 (Studi e Testi per il Corpus dei Papiri Filosoficigreci e latini, 16), pp. 253-264.

9 A. PAPATHOMAS,Aristoteles, De caelo270b31-33. Der erste Beleg auf Papyrus (P. Vindob. Barbara22), Wiener Studien, 116 (2003), pp. 97-100.

10 W. CAVINI, Un nuovo papiro delle Categorie, P.Harris I 2 e Arist. Cat. 10, in ADORNO ET AL. (a curadi),Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi VIcit., pp. 241-252.

11 I do not take into account P. Lond. Lit. 112, from the third century BC, because its attribution toAristotles Customs of the Barbarians is highly uncertain (cf. CPF I.1*, pp. 392-393, and below).


3/26

Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 117

17; 12, 1144a6-11); P. Oxy. IV 666 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 6) belongs to theProtreptic;the already mentioned Topics papyrus (P. Ryl. III 510 recto + P. Giss. Lit. 4.8 rec-to); P. Rein. II 80 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 4) [pl. 3], containing two passages of theHis-tory of Animals (3, 636a12-18; 4, 636b1-5), is from the end of the century.

The On the Heaven papyrus (P. Vind. Barbara 22) and the Categories one(P. Harris I 2), already mentioned, are from the second/third century.

P. Oxy. XXIV 2403 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 2) [pl. 4], containing Categories 8-10, 11a24-b1; 10, 13b21-27; 14, 14a13-15 (and maybe 10, 13a15-16), is datedto the early third century.

P. Berol. inv. 5009 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 8), preserving some passages of theAthenaion Politeia (12, 3-4; 13, 1-5; 21, 4-22, 4; 22, 4-8), is dated to the fourthcentury.

P. Berol. inv. 5002 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 1), preservingPosterior Analytics 2,71b19-72a38, is dated to the fifth century.

Let us consider them more in detail.

1) P. Lond. Lit. 108 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 7)12, probably both transcribed and foundat Hermupolis13, are the famous rolls containing the part of theAthenaion Po-liteia preserved to us14, beginning in medias res. Along with P. Berol. inv. 5009

12

Cf. F.G. KENYON (ed.),Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens, Printed by order of the Trustees of theBritish Museum, London 1891; M. MANFREDI,LAthenaion Politeia di Aristotele e i papiri, inProceedingsof the XIX International Congress of Papyrology (Cairo, 2-9 September 1989) , Center for PapyrologicalStudies, Cairo 1992, I, pp. 447-460; G. BASTIANINI, Tipologie dei rotoli e problemi di ricostruzione, in M.CAPASSO (a cura di),Atti del V Seminario Internazionale di Papirologia (Lecce, 27-29 giugno 1994), Con-gedo, Galatina 1995 (Papyrologica Lupiensia, 4), pp. 21-42; ID., Un luogo di ritrovamento fantasma, in

Atti del II Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia (Siracusa, 1-3 dicembre 1995), Istituto Inter-nazionale del Papiro, Siracusa 1996 (Quaderni dellAssociazione Istituto internazionale del papiro, Si-racusa, 7), pp. 69-84; ID., in Callimaco (Fr. 1.11 Pfeiffer), in FUNGHI (a cura di), cit., pp. 69-80; E. PUGLIA,La cura del libro nel mondo antico. Guasti e restauri del rotolo di

papiro, Liguori, Napoli 1997, pp. 19-22; G.B. DALESSIO,Danni materiali e ricostruzione di rotoli papira-cei: le Elleniche di Ossirinco (P.Oxy. 842) e altri esempi, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik134 (2001), pp. 23-41; W.A. JOHNSON,Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, University of Toronto, Toron-

to-Buffalo-London 2004, pp. 157 sqq.; L. DEL CORSO,LAthenaion Politeia (P. Lond. Lit. 108) e la sua bi-blioteca: libri e mani nella chora egizia, in D. BIANCONI/ L. DEL CORSO (a cura di), Oltre la scrittura. Varia-zioni sul tema per Guglielmo Cavallo, Centre dtudes byzantines, no-hellniques et sud-est europennes/ cole des hautes tudes en sciences sociales, Paris 2008 (Dossiers byzantins, 8), pp. 13-52; E.G.TURNER, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (revised edition), Institute of Classical Studies, London1987 (BICS Supplement, 46) (henceforth GMAW), p. 102, pl. 60.

13 Cf. MANFREDI,LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 451-453, and BASTIANINI, Un luogo di ritrovamento cit.,esp. pp. 69 and 84.

14 For a list of the editions, cf. P.J. RHODES,A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia,Clarendon Press, Oxford 19932, pp. 739-746; F. MONTANARI,LAthenaion Politeia dai papiri alle edizioni,in L.R. CRESCI/ L. PICCIRILLI (a cura di),LAthenaion Politeia di Aristotele, Il Melangolo, Genova 1993(Historica, 5; Universit, 32), pp. 1-24; G. ARRIGHETTI, Un secolo di edizioni dellAthenaion Politeia,in G. MADDOLI (a cura di),LAthenaion Politeia di Aristotele 1891-1991.Per un bilancio di cento anni di


4/26


(CPF I.1*, 24, no. 8), transmitting, as said, some passages of the same work, P.Lond. Lit. is the only witness. The text of theAthenaion Politeia is written on theback of four rolls on the third roll Aristotles text is upside down which con-tain on the recto agricultural accounts dated to 78/79 (the first three = P. Lond.I 131, 166-188) and to 77/78 (the fourth = P. Lond. I 131*, 189-191).

As noticed since the editio princeps, the text of the Athenaion Politeia waswritten by four different hands15. As pointed out most recently by Del Corsos de-tailed analysis16, the first hand, writing from col. I to col. XII i.e. the entirefirst roll and the first column of the second is a small and rounded cursive (cf.P. Ryl. II 119), showing several ligatures and abbreviations. The second one,writing from col. XIII to col. XX, l. 28 on the second roll, is a squared uninfor-mal script, strictly bilinear (cf. P. Fay. 110; P. Lond. II, 354; PSI VII, 745).

The third one, writing from col. XX, l. 28 to col. XXIV on the second roll, is sim-ilar to the previous one until col. XX, then it becomes rounded. The fourth one,writing from col. XXV to col. XXX the entire third roll is a fluent cursive,responsible for most of the corrections present in the four rolls. The diorthosis ismade basically in three ways: additionssupra lineam of words or letter groupsomitted, deletions with additionsupra lineam of the correct lectio, additionsupralineam of a different lectio17.

The copying process of the four scribes is not organized in a systematic way.Moreover the papyrus presents graphic imperfections and reveals that thescribes have difficulty in the handling of the layout, so that it could be consid-ered as an example of an informal book18. However the text is trustworthy.

On the back there are two more hands: one, somewhat similar to theAthenaionPoliteias first hand, is a short commentary on Demosthenes Meidias (P. Lond.Lit. 179) after col. X of theAthenaion Politeia, crossed out by a big cross; the oth-er hand consists of three tiny columns of different height containing some scho-lia to CallimachusAitia (P. Lond. Lit. 181), written on the back of the sheet addedto theprotokollon of the roll in order to transcribe col. XI of Aristotles text19.

studi, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli 1994 (Studi di storia e di storiografia), pp. 19-37. The edi-tio princeps is KENYON (ed.), Aristotle cit.; the most recent edition is M. CHAMBERS (ed.), Aristotelis

Athenaion Politeia, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Stutgardiae et Lipsiae 19942.15 Cf. KENYON (ed.),Aristotle cit., pp. XI sq.16 Cf. DEL CORSO,LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 19 sqq.17 Cf. DEL CORSO,LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 24-25.18 Cf. DEL CORSO,LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 27-28.19 Cf. BASTIANINI, Tipologie dei rotoli cit., pp. 35-36 (and p. 34 for explanatory drawings), and ID.,

cit., p. 72 (and pp. 79-80 for explanatory drawings). Bastianini puts forward the hy-pothesis that the scholia were written later than theAthenaion Politeia, whereas DEL CORSO,LAthenaionPoliteia cit., p. 29, before. PUGLIA,La cura del libro cit., pp. 19-22, analyses theprotokollon, followingBASTIANINI, Tipologie dei rotoli cit., p. 35, and drawing attention to a small papyrus strip added at the verybeginning of the roll as protective device, probably after the transcription of the Athenaion Politeia.


5/26


Given these elements concerning the form and the content of the rolls, it islikely a private copy of a well-educated person (a gymnasiarch? A lawyer?) in-terested in using Aristotles work as a technical text in order to obtain politicaland juridical knowledge from a theoretical point of view, along with the practi-cal side of judicial oratory (as suggested by the presence of the commentary onDemosthenesMeidias)20. This hypothesis is supported by the other papyri prob-ably found with that of the Athenaion Politeia, including at least the followingones21: P. Lond. inv. 132 = P. Lond. Lit. 131 (Isocrates, On Peace), P. Lond. inv.133 = P. Lond. Lit. 130 (Demosthenes,Epistle III), P. Lond. inv. 134 = P. Lond.Lit. 134 (Hyperides), P. Lond. inv. 135 = P. Lond. Lit. 96 (Herondas, Mimi-amboi), P. Lond. inv. 137 = P. Lond. Lit. 165 (Anonymus Londiniensis, On Me-dicine, recently re-edited by Manetti22). From this data, we can conclude that the

Athenaion Politeia papyrus belonged to a private collection, not homogeneous inits content, but mainly in a rhetorical-philosophical mould23.

2) P. Mich. inv. 6643 and P. Brux inv. E 8073 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 5), of unknownprovenance, are two fragments of papyrus roll, from the first/second century (thehand is a round majuscule)24, which contain two close but not adjoining pas-sages of the Politics book four (4-5, 1292a30-1292b2; 6, 1293a15-18). Theywere first published separately, the first by Turner25; the second by Nachter-gael26, as fragments in prose, and afterwards by Worp27, who identified themas belonging to thePolitics and argued that the two papyrus fragments certainlycame from the same roll.

As stated by Nachtergael and Worp, it is a deluxe edition, as can be seen fromthe elegance of the script rich in serifs, the tightness of the columns (12-14 let-ters per line), the wide inferior margin, and the line-fillers to keep an even right-hand margin.

This papyrus is not taken into account by anyPolitics editor.

20 So MANFREDI,LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 453 and 457-458.

21 For this finding one refers to the account of F.G. KENYON (ed.), Fifty Years of Papyrology, inActesdu Ve Congrs International de Papyrologie (Oxford, 30 aot-3 septembre 1937), Fondation gyptologiqueReine lisabeth, Bruxelles 1938, pp. 1-11. But the question is complicated: cf. DEL CORSO,LAthenaionPoliteia cit., pp. 37-38, with the bibliography quoted in the n. 77.

22 D. MANETTI (ed.),Anonymus Londiniensis. De medicina, W. de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 2011.23 So DEL CORSO,LAthenaion Politeia cit., p. 46.24 Cf. CPF I.1*, p. 266 for the description of the script and the paleographical parallels.25 Cf. E.G. TURNER, Two Greek Papyri, Wiener Studien, 79 (1966), pp. 186-191: 186-189.26 Cf. G. NACHTERGAEL, Les papyrus de la Fondation Reine lisabeth. Fragments de prosateurs,

Chronique dgypte, 47 (1972), pp. 185-203: 185-189.27 Cf. K.A. WORP, Un nouveau fragment dun papyrus de la Politique dAristote, Chronique d-

gypte, 48 (1973), pp. 132-133: 133.


6/26


As for the text, according to Dreizehnters edition28, it differs from the medi-aeval tradition especially in terms of several omissions29.

Nonetheless, it is possible to add some new observations or explanations (Iuse the text given by CPF).

P. Mich. inv. 6643, col. I, 4-6 (= 1292a31-32), ] / [] /[], omits after . Turner observes that this is not cor-rect, because the use of for nomino is not Aristotelian30. However governs a double accusative in de An. I, 2, 99405b4, .

In col. I, 11-13 (= 1292a33-34), [ ]/ [ ] ./[] (), problematic for the use of with genitive instead of + genitive in the meaning of decide, the papyrus confirms the mediaeval tradi-

tion, defended by Newman31, who refers to the passages quoted by KG32 417.4Anm. 10c, 363: Plat. Resp. IX, 576D, ; and Arist.Pol. VI, 12, 1322b36 (which has ,synonym of ), ( Ross33). The traditional text had already been defended by Jowett34, with refer-ence to the same passage of Platos Republic and to another one from theLaws(I, 646D), and has been accepted by Dreizehnter and Aubonnet35. Instead, Im-misch36 and Ross unnecessarily correct the transmitted text, printing , ,

.In col. I, 12 (= 1292a34) the space seems enough only for [], accord-ing to Turners supplement, and not for [ ] as in the mediaeval tradi-tion printed by CPF.

In col. II, 9-10 (= 1292a41), , as in the mediaeval tradition, is cor-rected by a second hand to , that, according to Turner, offers a per-fect participle of completed action (owner, propertied person) which is prefer-

28 A. DREIZEHNTER (Hrsg.),Aristoteles Politik, Fink, Mnchen 1970.

29 Cf. CPF I.1*, pp. 266-267, and the apparatus at pp. 268-269.30 Cf. TURNER, Two Greek Papyri cit., p. 188 (this comment by Turner seems to be misunderstood in

CPF I.1*, p. 267).31 Cf. W.L. NEWMAN, The Politics of Aristotle IV, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1902, p. 182.32 R. KHNER/ B. GERTH,Ausfhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Band I, Teil 2 (Satz-lehre),

Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover-Leipzig 18983.33 W.D. ROSS (ed.),Aristotelis Politica, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1957.34 Cf. B. JOWETT, The Politics of Aristotle, Translated into English, with Introduction, Marginal Analy-

sis, Essays, Notes and Indices, vol. II, part I, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1885, p. 160.35 J. AUBONNET (d.),Aristote, Politique, tome II, premire partie, livres III-IV, Les Belles Lettres, Paris

1971.36 O. IMMISCH (ed.),Aristotelis Politica, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Lipsiae 19292.


7/26


able to the present participle37. This sounds perfectly right, but in four very sim-ilar cases in thePolitics we find the present participle: IV, 4, 1291b40-41, ; IV, 5, 1293a15, ; IV, 11, 1298a38-39, ;VI, 4, 1320b26-27, .Moreover, as Turner himself observes38, Bonitz39 quotes our passage for in the sense of . Furthermore, the apparatus of Aubonnet at1291b40 notes the variant for in the Parisinus graecus 2023(P, XV cent.). If we were to speculate, we could hypothesize that the second hand,responsible for the correction in our papyrus, had this variant inmind, because it occurs in a previous passage which is almost identical and notso far from ours. In any case, however the variant originated, I think that on the

basis of the parallels we should accept the present participle.

3) P. Oxy. XXIV 2402 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 3), from the second century, preservestwo passages of theNicomachean Ethics book six (9, 1142b11-17; 12, 1144a6-11) in two fragments of papyrus roll, the same roll as the fragment containing aprevious passage of this work (VI, 9, 1142a20-32), forthcoming in TheOxyrhynchus Papyri series. Considering the average number of 23 letters perline, the portion of text included between the fragments, counting about 4057letters, should have been written in about 176 lines, so probably in three

columns of 58-59 lines each40

.This is a neat but informal copy41, which offers a good text, twice in agree-ment with Lb (Par. gr. 1854, XII/XIII cent.), fr. 1, 8 (= 1142b15, )and fr. 2, 3 (= 1144a6, ); in one case isolated, i.e. fr. 2, 11 (= 1144a10, Lb: papyrus). As stated in CPF (I.1*, p. 262), in fr. 2, 2 (=1144a6), in the lacuna before , the papyrus could have contained with Lb or Busses conjecture 42, preferred by Turner43. Bywa-ter44 prints the passage between cruces. In fr. 1, 11 (= 1142b16), [

37 Cf. TURNER, Two Greek Papyri cit., p. 189, followed in CPF I.1*, p. 267.38 Cf. again TURNER, Two Greek Papyri cit., p. 189.39 Cf. H. BONITZ,Index Aristotelicus, Typis et impensis Georgii Reimeri, Berolini 1870,s.v.40 58-59 lines, as argued in CPF I.1*, p. 262. Cf. the columns of P. Oxy. VI 666, containing 57 lines

each (see below), and other examples in JOHNSON,Bookrolls cit., table 3.7, pp. 217 sqq.41 So W.A. JOHNSON, Column Layout in Oxyrhynchus Literary Papyri: Maass Law, Ruling and Alignment

Dots, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 96 (1993), pp. 211-215 (cf. ID.,Bookrolls cit., p. 94).42 Cf. H. BUSSE, Zur Textkritik der Nikomachischen Ethik, Hermes, 18, 1 (1883), pp. 137-147: 141-

142.43 In P. Oxy. XXIV, p. 126.44 I. BYWATER (ed.),Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1894.


8/26


disagrees with of the codices, probably erroneously45. The papyruslends no support to the deletions of modern scholars46.

4) P. Oxy. IV 666 (= CPF I.1*, 24, no. 6), from the second century, contains twoalmost entire columns, preceded by the end of the lines of a third and by thetraces of the beginning of a fourth, from Aristotles Protrepticus (46-48, B 2-5Dring47 = 76, 1 Gigon48 = 13 a-k Schneewei49). The pa-pyrus text overlaps with a passage quoted by Stobaeus (III, 3, 25) after the lem-ma , but it also gives a few lines before and a sentence omitted inStobaeus (II, 52-III, 5).

The columns are tight and extraordinarily close to each other; the script is asmall, not very neat bookhand; the text is not always correct, though in several

points better than Stobaeus (II, 12-13; 13-14; 36-37; 39; 40; III, 8)50.

5) P. Ryl. III 510 recto was identified and published by Linguiti51 as a Topics frag-ment (VI, 13, 150a27-32), only from a photograph, after being classified as aphilosophical text in the editio princeps. It was revised, on the basis of a digitalimage, by Menci52, who also pointed out that P. Giss. Lit. 4.8 recto (antea P. Giss.Univ. IV 40; LDAB 4454: unidentified text; MP3 164.01, antea 2810.1) con-tains Topics VI, 13, 150b10-14 and 150b23-26, and belongs to the same roll asthe Rylands papyrus (on the verso it preserves part of two columns containing

scholia to an unidentified text; Hellanicus and Simonides are probably quoted).I was able to inspect the original at the John Rylands Library in Manchester,

so I will provide some general information, focussing in particular on the pointswhere I disagree with Mencis revision.

It is a small fragment of papyrus roll (5.7 x 6.8 cm), from the Faym where

45 Cf. Turner in P. Oxy. XXIV 2402, pp. 124-126.46 Cf. R.A. GAUTHIER/ J.Y. JOLIF (ds),Aristote. Lthique Nicomaque, Publications Universitaires,

Louvain / Batrice-Nauwelaerts, Paris 19702, tome II, deuxime partie, ad loc., pp. 513-515.47 I. DRING,Aristotles Protrepticus. An Attempt at Reconstruction, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgen-

sis, Gteborg 1961 (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 12).48 O. GIGON,Aristotelis opera, III,Librorum Deperditorum Fragmenta, W. de Gruyter, Berolini-Novi

Eboraci 1987.49 G. SCHNEEWEI,Aristoteles, Protreptikos. Hinfhrung zur Philosophie, Wissenschaftliche Buchge-

sellschaft, Darmstadt 2005 (Texte zur Forschung, 85).50 The text of the papyrus was discussed by F. VENDRUSCOLO,Riesame critico-testuale del papiro del

Protrettico di Aristotele (POxy 666), in F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di),Protagora, Antifonte, Posidonio, Aris-totele: saggi su frammenti inediti e nuove testimonianze da papiri, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1986 (Studi eTesti per il Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 2), pp. 129-152, before his edition in CPF.

51 LINGUITI, Un frammento cit.52 MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit.


9/26


P. Giss. Lit. 4.8 was bought53 written along the fibres. On the back there arethe remains of 12 lines which preserve a text probably belonging to a historicalor chronological work on the Seleucid kingdom, from second to third century (soin the editio princeps). This text is turned upside down, so that the upper marginof Aristotles turns out to be the lower one on the back. Only the upper margin ispreserved to a length of 1 cm. The space between lines measures 0.3 cm, where-as the height of letters is 0.2. The width of column was about 6.5 cm, i.e. be-longing to Johnsons somewhat wide class54. According to Mencis text, which Ifollow, the average number of letters per line is about 17, so, given to the num-ber of the column at l. 1 ( = 74), we can infer that the roll began with the sixthbook of the Topics, written in columns of about 30 lines each55. This is compat-ible with Mencis reconstruction of the distribution of the text between P. Ryl.

and P. Giss., even though she does not accept the reading 56.The script is a medium to small bookhand with serifs (see , , ) and occasion-

ally cursive features (see ), strictly bilinear, comparable to GLH57 13a and b dat-ed to c. 125 and the first half of the second century respectively in addition to theparallels provided by Linguiti and Menci58. is looped, with a lengthened cross-bar, is in three movements and deep, in two movements, is broad. There areonly one apostrophe (l. 2) but elision is always applied and probably a criticalsign (maybe an interlinear I at l. 4)59. Iota adscript is regularly written. As stated, inthe upper margin we read the number of the column ( = 74)60.

This papyrus (P. Ryl. III 510 + P. Giss. Lit. 4.8) is the only so far known pre-serving the Topics in the direct tradition, since P. Fay. 3 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 53T= III, 2 = CLGP61 I.1.4, 7) contains a commentary on four passages from the sec-ond book of the Topics, and CPF I.1*, 24, nos. 54T, 55T, 56T are testimonia ofthe Topics.

The text, collated with the editions of Waitz, Strache-Wallies, Ross andBrunshwig 200762, shows no new variants.

53 Cf. MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit., p. 254.

54 Cf. JOHNSON,Bookrolls cit., p. 108.55 So LINGUITI, Un frammento cit., pp. 21-22, but calculating 25 lines per column. Just to avoid any

possible confusion, I report a slip in MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit., p. 255 n. 8, where it is said that theroll must have contained the Topics from the beginning, instead of only book six.

56 Cf. MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit., pp. 254-255 and 259, and below.57 C.H. ROBERTS, Greek Literary Hands 350 B.C.-A.D. 400, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1955.58 Cf. LINGUITI, Un frammento cit., p. 21, and MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit., p. 255.59 Cf. Roberts in P.Ryl. III, p. 138, and below.60 For other examples, cf. GMAW, p. 16.61 G. BASTIANINI ET AL. (edd.), Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris reperta (CLGP), K.G. Saur,

Mnchen-Leipzig 2004-.62 TH. WAITZ,Aristotelis Organon Graece, Pars Posterior, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Lipsiae 1846; I.


10/26


Some observations in detail, resulting from the autopsy of the recto of P. Ryl.III 510.

At l. 1 I confirm the reading , proposed by Linguiti and rejected by Menci.The right-hand arc of the remains, whilst I regard the as certain. A small spaceis left between the two letters, which seem the only letters on the line63; there-fore, as I have said, they can be interpreted as the number of the column (= 74).

At l. 4 I think we should read ] (Roberts, in P. Ryl. III, p. 137, prints] ), whereas Linguiti and Menci read ] . The two verticals they interpretlike those of the seem instead the second vertical of the and the , linked withthe by a horizontal stroke, which is the lengthening of the horizontal stroke ofthe itself. In fact, the first vertical seems odd as the first vertical of the , hav-ing at the baseline a serif curving towards the right instead of the left. As for the

traces at the beginning of the line, the minimal one on the break belongs to the; there follow other scanty traces of . The iota adscript is added by mistake, asin l. 6 (, where it is expunged by placing two dots, one on each side ofthe letter) and in P. Giss. Lit. 4.8, col. I, l. 7 ( ).

At the same l. 4, above the second of there is an interlinear letterlooking like , but which should possibly be interpreted as the critical sign I (forI)64, not detected by Linguiti nor by Menci.

At l. 6, above the expunged there are some dot-shaped traces of ink and alittle diagonal, probably accidental.

At the end of l. 12 Menci prints ] [ (] [ in the diplomatic transcrip-tion), without taking into consideration this line in the commentary. I confirm hertext, even though just and (of which the first half of the horizontal is missing)are quite certain, whereas the previous traces are far from being clear.

6) P. Rein. II 80 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 4), of unknown provenance, from the end ofthe second century, contains on the recto the inferior part of two adjoiningcolumns, preserving two passages from book ten of the History of Animals (3,636a12-18; 4, 636b1-5); on theverso there is Hom.Il. 3, 33-43 (= P. Rein. II 66,

unpublished). As calculated in CPF (I.1*, p. 264), given that each column

STRACHE/ M. WALLIES (edd.),Aristotelis Topica cum libro de sophisticis elenchis, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri,Lipsiae 1923; W.D. ROSS (ed.),Aristotelis Topica et Sophistici Elenchi, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Ox-onii 1958; J. BRUNSCHWIG (d.),Aristote. Topiques, tome II, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2007.

63 The traces at a distance of about 0.5 cm from the actually minimal considered by MENCI, Unnuovo frammento cit., p. 259, as the inferior part of a letter, could be accidental, like those we see for ex-ample between lines 5 and 6.

64 Cf. Roberts in P. Ryl. III, p. 138, and, for the sign, a type of dotted obelus used to mark a margin-al note, a correction or a variant, see K. MCNAMEE, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri,Fondation gyptologique Reine lisabeth, Bruxelles 1992 (Papyrologica Bruxellensia, 26), p. 37.


11/26


should have had 33 lines, these are the sixth and the seventh of the 28 columnswhich containedHistory of Animals, book ten65. The text of the papyrus seemsto agree completely with the mediaeval tradition, so it does not lend support toDittmeyers emendation for in col. I, 4 (= 636a15)66 accepted byLouis67 and rejected by Balme68 but neither, for reasons of space, to Dittmey-ers supplement after in col. I, 3 (= 636a14), nor to William of Mo-erbekes addition before in col. I, 5 (= 636a16). As argued in the appa-ratus of CPF, for reasons of space it is probable that the papyrus in col. II, 2 (=636b2-3) omitted ; but I think it is also possible that it omitted , in both cases because of a saut du mme au mme in the sequence .

7) P. Vind. Barbara 22 (LDAB 9951, MP3 158.01), from the second/third centu-ry, is a very tiny fragment of the On the Heaven just fourteen letters from threelines of I, 3-4, 270b31-33 published by Papathomas69. It is the only On the

Heaven papyrus so far known.

8) P. Harris I 2 (LDAB 4988, MP3 2566), from the second/third century, consid-ered in the editio princeps as a fragment of a treatise on rhetoric, then of a trea-tise on logic70, was finally identified by Cavini71, as we have seen, as the text ofCategories 10, 11b17-28 and 10, 11b36-12a1. As Cavini72 himself observes, thepapyrus shows some omissions compared to the mediaeval tradition and wit-nesses a part of the so-calledPraedicamenta (chapters 10-15), considered spu-rious by Andronicus73.

9) P. Oxy. XXIV 2403 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 2), from the early third century, con-sists of four fragments of papyrus roll containing Categories 8-10, 11a24-b1; 10,

65 The book, generally considered spurious, had an independent circulation in antiquity with the ti-tle . On this cf. D.M. BALME,Aristotle. Historia Animalium Book Ten, in J. WIESNER

(Hrsg.),Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung, W. de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1985, vol. I, pp. 191-206.66 L. DITTMEYER (ed.),Aristotelis De historia animalium, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Lipsiae 1907.67 P. LOUIS (d.),Aristote. Histoire des animaux, tome III, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1969.68 D.M. BALME (ed.),Aristotle: Historia animalium Volume I (Books I-X: Text), Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge 2002 (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 38).69 PAPATHOMAS,Aristoteles cit.70 Cf. B. SNELL, The Rendel Harris Papyri of Woodbrooke College, Birmingham by J. Enoch Powell ,

Gnomon, 13 (1937), pp. 577-586: 579, and A. KRTE,Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der Christlichen,Archiv fr Papyrusforschung, 13 (1939), pp. 78-132: 113, no. 887.

71 CAVINI, Un nuovo papiro cit.72 Cf. CAVINI, Un nuovo papiro cit., pp. 249-250.73 Cf. below, P. Oxy. XXIV 2403.


12/26


13b21-27; 14, 14a13-15 (and maybe 10, 13a15-16); on the back there are wheatregistrations from the second half of the third century (unpublished).

The average number of letters per line is 23 with a column width of about 7cm, belonging to Johnsons somewhat wide class74. As calculated in CPF (I.1*,p. 256), if we assume a column of 41 lines, between the first two fragments therewere eight columns.Mesai and ano stigmai, two points with diple obelismene andapostrophes are used75.

The papyrus offers a good text, though not excellent as defined by Turner (inP. Oxy. XXIV, p. 126). It agrees with the codices n (Ambros. 490, olim L 93 sup.,IX cent.) and B (Marc. gr. 201, X cent.), on which Minio-Paluello76 bases his edi-tion prior to the editio princeps of the papyrus and never with V (Vat. Barb.gr. 87, X cent.), according to Torracas collation77.

In two cases it preserves a variant lost in the rest of the tradition, (fr. 1, 21 = 11a35-36) for of all the codices (except n I, whichhave ), accepted by Minio-Paluello and (fr. 1, 23 = 11a37). The twopapyrus variants are accepted by Bods78, who also notices in the apparatusthat the lectio is contained in the codex Laurentianus 71, 3 (F) in the lemmaof Philoponus commentary to the Categories too. As pointed out in CPF (I.1*, p.257),pace Turner (in P. Oxy. XXIV, pp. 128-129), could be defend-ed by interpreting in a generalising meaning (as in Cat. 7, 7b1-2 and 10, ), but probably Bods is right in defending the lectio of the

papyrus, tentatively explaining as a misunderstanding of the abbreviationof -79. Moreover, at fr. 2, 2 (= 13b21), the omission of represents anancient corruption also reflected in the ancient versions and in the mediaevaltradition. The text lends no support to two proposals by Minio-Paluello, accept-ed by Bods, i.e. the hypothesis of a lacuna at the end of 9, 11a and the trans-position of 9, 11b1-8. Moreover, the presence in the papyrus of fragments of thechapters 10 and 11 shows that the so-called Prostpraedicamenta were consid-ered part of the Categories as a whole, in spite of the opposite opinion of An-dronicus80.

74 Cf. JOHNSON,Bookrolls cit., p. 108.75 Cf. CPF I.1*, p. 257 for the details.76 L. MINIO-PALUELLO (ed.),Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber de interpretatione, e Typographeo Clarendo-

niano, Oxonii 1949.77 L. TORRACA,Il Cod. Vat. Barberinianus Gr. 87 e il testo delle Categorie di Aristotele, Bollettino del

Comitato per la preparazione dellEdizione Nazionale dei classici greci e latini, n.s. 11 (1963), pp. 91-108: 95 sqq.

78 Cf. R. BODS (d.),Aristote, Catgories, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2001, pp. 51-52.79 Cf. BODS (d.),Aristote cit., p. 285 n. 121.80 Cf. P. MORAUX,Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias,


13/26


10) P. Berol. inv. 5009 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 8; CLGP I.1.4, pp. 266-67), from theArsinoites, consists of two fragments of papyrus codex from two differentleaves preserving the following passages of theAthenaion Politeia: 12, 3-4 (fr.Ia []); 13, 1-5 (fr. Ib []); 21, 4-22, 3 (fr. IIa []); 22, 4-7 (fr. IIb []). As arguedby Stroppa in CLGP (I.1.4, p. 266, n. 1), the last line of frr. IIa and IIb is thetwenty-fifth. Since the average number of letters per line is 36-37, the text in-cluded between frr. Ia and Ib was written in 12 lines and the number of lines percolumn was 37. The written area should have measured about 11 x 19 cm, so theleaf considering the margins (external 4 cm; internal 1.5; lower 5) shouldhave measured 16.5 x 27 (estimating 3 cm for the upper margin now lost), be-longing to Turners Group 681.

As stated by Stroppa (in CLGP I.1.4, pp. 266-67)82

, the hand should be dat-ed to the fourth century, with Kenyon83, not to the second (as proposed by Blass84,followed by Chambers85) according to two palaeographical parallels in Cavallo /Maehler86, 8b and 9b.

On the basis of the script, which is clear and competent, and in particular ofthe width of the margins, there is no reason to not consider our papyrus as a stan-dard book, instead of a school exercise, as proposed before the publication of P.Lond. Lit., when it had been proposed that P. Berol. 5009 contained not an en-tire work but some excerpta copied by a student87: the papyrus would originally

have transmitted the wholeAthenaion Politeia, as P. Lond. Lit. 108.The autopsy of the original by G. Bastianini, F. Montanari and M. Stroppabrought out the fact that there are no scholia in the external margins, as be-

vol. I, W. de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1973, pp. 97 sqq.; BODS (d.),Aristote cit., pp. XXV sqq.; CAVINI,Un nuovo papiro cit., pp. 249-250 with n. 15; above P. Harris I 2.

81 E.G. TURNER, The Typology of the Early Codex, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 1977(The Haney Foundation series, 18), pp. 18 and 103, no. 27. Cf. M. STROPPA, Osservazioni bibliologiche

sullAthenaion Politeia di Berlino, in T. GAGOS (ed.),Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Con-gress of Papyrology (Ann Arbor, July 29-August 4, 2007), Scholarly Publication Office, The University of

Michigan Library, Ann Arbor 2010 (American Studies in Papyrology, Special Edition), pp. 747-756:748.

82 And cf. STROPPA, Osservazioni cit., p. 751.83 Cf. F.G. KENYON (ed.),Aristotelis Res publica Atheniensium, Reimer, Berolini 1903, p. VI, and ID.

(ed.),Aristotelis Atheniensium Respublica, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1920, p. IV.84 Cf. F. BLASS,Neue Papyrusfragmente eines Historikers im gyptischen Museum zu Berlin, Hermes,

15 (1880), pp. 366-382: 366-367.85 Cf. M. CHAMBERS, The Berlin Fragments of the Ath. Pol., Transactions and Proceedings of the

American Philological Association, 98 (1967), pp. 49-66: 54.86 G. CAVALLO/ H. MAEHLER, Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period. A.D. 300-800, Univer-

sity of London, Institute for Classical Studies, London 1987 (BICS Supplement, 47).87 Cf. STROPPA, Osservazioni cit., p. 752 n. 20.


14/26


lieved by Chambers88, and that fr. II was restored by adding a strip on the ex-ternal margin89.

11) P. Berol. inv. 5002 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 1; CLGP I.1.4, 1), containingPosteri-or Analytics 2, 71b19-72a38, most likely from the fifth century, consists of threefragments from a leaf of papyrus codex measuring 18 x 31 cm, so belonging toTurners Group 590. The papyrus shows marginal annotations in a very smallhand, practically unreadable, both on the recto and on theverso91: this suggeststhat it was a working copy.

The text of the papyrus differs from the mediaeval tradition in several points.In fr. I, 32 (= 72a3-4) it reads against of all the codices,except D (Par. gr. 1843, XIII cent.) and the second hand of S a Sinaiticus codex

of the Organon written at the beginning of the tenth century at the latest,analysed and collated by Reinsch92 which transmit 93. As statedin CPF (I.1*, pp. 252-253), the lectio of the papyrus trivializes the Aristotelianwording (as in 72a2-3), a fact apparently ignoredby the first editor94. In fr. I, 38 (= 72a8), the papyrus, S and D wrongly insert an-other after , whereas the rest of the tradition has . In fr. II, 20 (= 72a22-23), the papyrus, S and D agree again in reading instead of of the other codices. occurs inENVIII, 7, 1158b31 and 32, as indicated in CPF (I.1*, p. 253), and only one moretime inPh. III, 1, 200b34. The form with the article is also preferable in con-nection with 95. The papyrus, S and D also agree in fr. I, 36 (= 72a6),having instead of of C (Par. Coisl. 330, XI cent.), V (Vat. Barb. gr. 87, X cent.) and oth-er codices96. With C and V the papyrus disagrees in fr. II, 18 (= 72a21), wherethey omit , and in fr. II, 25 (= 72a27), where it reads with n (Ambros.490, olim L. 93 sup IX cent.), printed by Ross / Minio-Paluello97. In one sin-

88 Cf. CHAMBERS, The Berlin Fragments cit., p. 62, followed by MONTANARI,LAthenaion Politeia cit.,pp. 16 sqq. (but not in CLGP I.1.4, p. 244).

89 Cf. Stroppa in CLGP I.1.4, p. 266, and ID., Osservazioni cit., pp. 750-751.90 Cf. TURNER, The Typology cit., pp. 16-17 and 103, no. 26.91 Cf. Stroppa in CLGP I.1.4, pp. 246-247.92 D.R. REINSCH, Fragmente einer Organon-Handschrift vom Beginn des zehnten Jahrhunderts aus dem

Katharinenkloster auf dem Berge Sinai, Philologus, 145, 1 (2001), pp. 57-69.93 Cf. CH. BROCKMANN,Das Papyrusfragment und die ltesten byzantinischen Textzeugen der Analyti-

ka des Aristoteles, Philologus, 148, 1 (2004), pp. 50-63: 53.94 Cf. H. LANDWEHR, Griechische handschriften aus Fayyum, Philologus, 44 (1885), pp. 1-29: 29.95 Cf. BONITZ,Index cit., 8b43-44 and 627a24.96 Cf. BROCKMANN,Das Papyrusfragment cit., p. 54.97 W.D. ROSS / L. MINIO-PALUELLO (edd.), Aristotelis Analytica Priora et Posteriora, e Typographeo

Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1964.


15/26


gle case (fr. I, 37 = 72a7), , the papyrus disagrees with S and D,which have . As stated in CPF (I.1*, p. 252), this papyrus, thoughneglected by editors and scholars, is the only witness practically contemporaryto the mediaeval archetype (which is to be assigned to the V/VI century). More-over the Sinaiticus and the Parisinus which, as shown by Brockmann, is a copyof the Sinaiticus itself, for the most part lost generally agreeing with the pa-pyrus, mirror this ancient step of the tradition.

2. The Papyri Attributed to Aristotle

When trying to attribute unknown fragments to the lost works of an author,among the attribution criteria one should obviously consider the fragments top-ic and style, especially if there is any similarity with preserved passages of thesame author or correspondence with witnesses on the lost work at issue98, or elseany occurrence of terms or expressions typical of the author. As we will see be-low, this is the case for P. Lond. Lit. 112, P. A Khanoum inv. Akh III B 77 P.O.154, and P. Vind. G inv. 26008 + 29329. We should also take into account the ti-tle of the lost works and try to establish if they may fit some transmitted frag-ments, as is the case with P. Oxy. XI 1365 and P. Oxy. II 217. Just to add anoth-er example within the Peripatos, P. Oxy. XLVII 3320 (MP3 2592.1; CLGP I.1.4,

p. 269; second century),Analytics, containing a different version of AristotlesPrior Analytics, may belong to Theophrastus or Eudemus, who themselves wrotePrior Analytics.

According to the papyrological database of CEDOPAL (MP3), there are seven pa-pyri tentatively attributed by scholars to Aristotle, but only five, as we will see,could really belong to Aristotle, since PSI II 132 (MP3 2363) and PSI XIV 1400(MP3 2565) just witness the use of Aristotelian material. To those listed by MP3,we should add at least two more papyri, P. Hamb. II 128 (MP3 2289, antea 1502)and P. Berol. inv. 9571v (MP3 1381).

98 For the specific case of witnesses, P. Oxy. IV 664 + L 3544 (from the beginning of the third centu-ry), a philosophical dialogue with Pisistratus as one of the speakers, is interesting. It was attributed in allprobability to Heraclides PonticusDe imperio on the basis of CicerosAd Att. XIII, 19, 4 andAd Q. fr. III,5, 1 (= Heracl. Pont. frr. 24 a and b respectively), according to which the speakers in Heraclides dia-logues were antiquae personae (not contemporaries to the author as in Aristotles), and on the basis of D.L. 5, 89 (= Heracl. Pont. fr. 25 SA), saying that in Heraclides dialogues there were philosophers, strate-gists and politicians talking together. Cf. CPF I.1**, 56, no. 1, esp. pp. 208-212, and W. LAPINI,Il POxy664 di Eraclide Pontico e la cronologia dei Cipselidi, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1996 (Studi e Testi per il Cor-pus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 7), esp. pp. 34-36.


16/26


1) P. Oxy. XI 1365 (MP3 2181; CPF I.1*, p. 394)99, from the third century, foundwith P. Oxy. XI 1386, 1392 and XIV 1690100, preserves two columns of a histor-ical text concerning the origin and rise of the Orthagorid tyranny at Sicyon. Theattribution to Aristotles Constitution of Sicyon (no. 44, fr. 580 Rose3 101; no. 131,FF 598, 1-599 Gigon) was first proposed by Grenfell and Hunt (in P.Oxy. XI, pp.107-108), who however preferred to think of Ephorus the verbosity of the frag-ment may fit Dion Chrysostoms criticism (18, 10) of his style as or, more cautiously, to a writer deriving his information from Epho-rus or Aristotle. The attribution to Ephorus is the most accepted among schol-ars102. Lenchantin de Gubernatis103 holds a different view and hypothesizes thatthe fragment belongs to a collector of local oddities such as Menaechmus (age ofAlexander the Great), author of Sikyonika; Pesely104 instead assigns it to the au-thor of theHellenica Oxyrhynchia.

2) P. Lond. Lit. 112 (MP3 2183; CPF I.1*, p. 393), partially edited for the firsttime as P. Petrie I 9 and then completed by Blass105, from the third century BC,contains six fragments concerning the costumes of different peoples. As statedin CPF (I.1*, p. 393), the attribution to Aristotles Nomima Barbarica (no. 45,frr. 604-610 Rose3; no. 140, FF 468, 1-473 Gigon) goes back to H. Diels106, ac-cording to a quotation about the in Nicolaus Damascenus

(FGrHist 90 F 117 ~ P. Lond. Lit. 112, fr. 1, 5-12). Among others, analternative possibility has been proposed by Mekler107, who thinks of AristotlesThebaian Constitution for fr. 2, 7 sqq. But these proposals are far from certain,

99 Cf. L. DEL CORSO,Lo stile severo nei P.Oxy.: una lista, Aegyptus, 86 (2006), pp. 81-106: 84, no.21.

100 Cf. R.S. BAGNALL,An Owner of Literary Papyri, Classical Philology, 87 (1992), pp. 137-140: 137sqq.

101 V. ROSE (ed.), Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Lipsiae18863.

102 Cf. FGrHist 105 F 2 and CPF I.1*, p. 394.103 M. LENCHANTIN DE GUBERNATIS,I nuovi frammenti di Eforo e lo storico di Sicione, Bollettino di

filologia classica, 25, 11 (1918-1919), pp. 127-130 (continued in Bollettino di filologia classica, 25,12 [1918-1919], pp. 141-143).

104 Cf. G.E. PESELY,How many copies of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia have been found?, The AncientHistory Bulletin, 8, 2 (1994), pp. 38-44: 39.

105 Cf. F. BLASS,Mitteilungen aus Papyrushandschriften, Jahrbuch fr klassischen Philologie, 145(1892), pp. 571-580: 580.

106 Cf. the short communication given in Sitzungsberichte der Kgl. Preussischen Akademie der Wis-senschaften, 1891.39, p. 837.

107 Cf. S. MEKLER, Zu dender Flinders Petrie Papyri, Wiener Studien, 24 (1902), pp. 457-461: 461.


17/26


because the fragments could also belong to a collection of ethnographical mate-rial and not to a treatise108.

3) P. Oxy. II 217 (MP3 2204; CPF I.1*, p. 393), from the third century, contain-ing eighteen lines (seven of which very fragmentary) of a laudatory apostropheto a king for his , was classified by the editores principes as Letter to aking of Macedon and assigned to Aristotles De regno (no. 52, frr. 646-647Rose3) or to Theopompus homonymous work (according to Cic.Ad Att. 12, 40,2, 2, printed by Rose3 before fr. 646). However, the difference between the offi-cials of the king and those of the city that can be inferred from our papyrus maysuggest that the work it contains belongs to the Diadochi age109.

4) P. A Khanoum inv. Akh III B 77 P.O. 154 (MP3 2563.01), from the third cen-tury BC, found in the homonymous city of ancient Bactria (Afghanistan) andedited for the first time by Rapin / Hadot / Cavallo110, then by Lerner111, con-tains the remains of four columns of a philosophical dialogue on the question ofthe of the Ideas. In the words of Lerner112, the fragment deals with theway sensible objects participate in Ideas and the way Ideas participate in eachother; there is a supreme cause for both kinds of participation (col. II) and thiscause should be immobile and eternal as Ideas are (col. III). Terminology andtopic are obviously linked with Platos theory of Ideas and the treated inPlatos Sophist in reply to the apories of theParmenides first part113. Isnardi Pa-rente114 suggests that it belongs to Aristotles Sophist, which probably recalled

108 So O. CRUSIUS, Zu den alexandrinischen Sprichwrtersammlung, Philologus, Suppl. 6 (1892), pp.295-307: 299-300.

109 So U. VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, The Oxyrhynchos Papyri Part II edited by Bernard G. Gren-fell and Arthur S. Hunt, London 1899 etc., Gttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 162, 1 (1900), pp. 29-58: 36.

110 C. RAPIN/ P. HADOT/ G. CAVALLO,Les textes littraires grecs de la Trsorerie dA Khanoum, Bul-letin de correspondence hellnique, 111, 1 (1987), pp. 225-266.

111 J.D. LERNER, The A Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und

Epigraphik, 142 (2003), pp. 45-51. Cf. also the proposals of M. ISNARDI PARENTE,Il papiro filosofico diA Khanoum, in F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Studi su codici e papiri filosofici: Platone, Aristotele, Ierocle,L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1992 (Studi e Testi per il Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 6), pp. 169-188: 170-173, and of F. VENDRUSCOLO,Note testuali al papiro di Ai-Khanum, in F. ADORNO ET AL. (a curadi),Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi I, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1997 (Studi e Testi per il Corpus deiPapiri Filosofici greci e latini, 8), pp. 145-151.

112 LERNER, The A Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus cit., p. 50.113 Cf. ISNARDI PARENTE,Il papiro filosofico cit., pp. 178 sqq. On the concept of cf. F. FRON-

TEROTTA, . La teoria platonica delle idee e la partecipazione delle cose empiriche. Dai dialoghigiovanili al Parmenide, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa 2001 (Pubblicazioni della Classe di lettere efilosofia, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 23), esp. pp. 125-128, 145 sqq., and, for the Sophist, pp. 333-379.

114 Cf. ISNARDI PARENTE,Il papiro filosofico cit., esp. pp. 181 sqq.


18/26


Platos homonymous dialogue in its content, and that the speaker in the pre-served fragments may be Xenocrates. This proposal is quite tempting but unfor-tunately can hardly be proven. Rather speculatively, I would say that our frag-ment could also be from, for example, Heraclides Ponticus (D. L. V,88, 12 = Heracl. Pont. fr. 22, 20), of which we know nothing but the title and thatit was in one book. Nevertheless we know that Heraclides wrote dialogues, oneof them partially found at Oxyrhynchus in a papyrus from the beginning of thethird century (CPF I.1** 56, no. 1, pp. 199 sqq.)115.

5) P. Vind. G inv. 26008 + 29329 (MP3 2564), from the Faiym and from the thirdcentury, consists of fragments of more than one roll (two up to four) written bytwo or three hands, which can be divided into four groups: A, literary criticism;

B, doxography; C, uncertain collocation between the subject of A and that of B(A, B and the most part of C written by the same hand); D, four or five fragmentswritten by a different hand116. The topic of group A, concerning and in the poets the best ones, like Homer and Sophocles, and the notgood ones, like Timotheus is very close, in content and terminology, to Aristo-tlesPoetics chapter 15 (1454a16 sqq.). The topic of group B is a comparison be-tween one science and the others, like the natural ones, which reduce infinity tothe constitutive elements parallels in some passages of thePhysics, theMeta-

physics and the On the Heaven. Oellacher117, who first edited all the fragments,attributed group A to the

(D. L. V, 24, 27) and

group B to other Aristotle works such as the or the 118. Rostagni119, rightly noting that the is nothing but ourPoetics, for group A proposes the or better,more cautiously, a work of the Peripatetic school. Janko120 is also in favour of the . Most121, assuming that groups A and B belong to the same roll,and hence to the same text, suggests that this text is AristotlesProtreptic, on the

115 Cf. LAPINI,Il POxy 664 cit., esp. pp. 34-36, and above, n. 98.116 Cf. F. DECLEVA CAIZZI/ M.S. FUNGHI, Su alcuni frammenti filosofici della sterreichische National-

bi-bliothek (PVind G 26008 e 29329), in ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Studi cit., pp. 49-99: 50 sqq.117 Cf. H. OELLACHER, Griechische Literarische Papyri aus der Papyrussammlung Erzherzog Rainer in

Wien, tudes de papyrologie, 4 (1938), pp. 133-196: 177 and 181.118 Cf. CPF I.1*, pp. 394-395.119 Cf. A. ROSTAGNI, Qualche osservazione sopra un papiro estetico-letterario attribuito ad Aristotele,

Ri-vista di filologia e di istruzione classica, 66 (1938), pp. 295-297: 296-297.120 Cf. R. JANKO,Philodemus On Poems and Aristotles On Poets, Cronache Ercolanesi, 21 (1991),

pp. 5-64: 54-55.121 G.W. MOST, Some New Fragments of Aristotles Protrepticus?, in ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Studi

cit., pp. 189-216, esp. p. 197, followed by G. ARRIGHETTI, in un papiro di Vienna e nella Poet-ica di Aristotele (PVindob G 26008 e Arist. Poet. 1454a24-25 e 1454b10-11), in FUNGHI (a cura di), cit., pp. 59-68: 59 nn. 2-3.


19/26


basis of some similarities with IamblichusProtreptic. Mosts opinion was con-vincingly refuted by Megino Rodrguez122, who states that both group A and Bmay contain a doxographical work, philosophical in content, with two differentsources, the On Poets for group A, and for group B the On Philosophy, dialogueused by thePhysics, theMetaphysics and the On the Heaven.

Finally Janko123 proposes that all the pieces of our papyrus come from theseventh book of Aristocles De philosophia, which should have contained ex-cerpts from Aristotles homonymous work and fromDe Poetis (F 59-63 of Jankosedition).

As things stand now, I think we should revert to Rostagnis caution124 andstate that the papyrus certainly contains Aristotelian material, which could comefrom one or more of Aristotles lost works as well as, generically, from the Peri-

patetic school.

6) PSI II 132 (frammento medico; LDAB 4666; MP3 2363), from Oxyrhynchusand from the third century (second for Roselli125; fourth, by mistake, for the CD-ROMPapiri Letterari della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana126), consists of threefragments written against the fibres127. As pointed out by Roselli128, who re-edit-ed the fragment, the content deals not with alopecia but with baldness caused bymood, as explained by Arist. GA V, 3, 781b30 sqq. The text can easily be con-sidered as a rielaborazione medico-filosofica di materiale di derivazione ari-stotelica129.

7) PSI XIV 1400 (LDAB 6421; MP3 2565) is a leaf of a deluxe codex bought inEgypt by Medea Norsa, dated to the eighth century in the editio princeps by Nor-sa herself130, then to seventh/eighth in PSI XIV, to seventh in the CD-ROMPa-

122 C. MEGINO RODRGUEZ,Propuesta de atribucin de dos fragmentos del papiro de Viena PVindob. G26008, Emerita, 76, 1 (2008), pp. 87-104, esp. p. 102 with n. 48.

123 Cf. R. JANKO (ed.),Philodemus On PoemsBooks 3-4 with the Fragments of Aristotle On Poets, Ox-ford University Press, Oxford 2001 (The Philodemus Translation Project. Philodemus: The Aesthetic

Works I/3), pp. 378-383 and 462-469.124 Cf. ROSTAGNI, Qualche osservazione cit., p. 297.125 Cf. A. ROSELLI,Interpretazione di PSI II 132, in R. PINTAUDI (a cura di),Miscellanea papirologica,

Gonnelli, Firenze 1980 (Papyrologica Florentina, 7 [1980]), pp. 331-335: 333.126 http://www.accademiafiorentina.it/paplett/index.html#127 The back contains a third/fourth century documentary text edited by R. PINTAUDI/ P.J. SIJPESTEIJN,

PSI II 132 recto: frammenti di corrispondenza ufficiale (?), Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie une Epigraphik,89 (1991), pp. 86-88.

128 Cf. ROSELLI,Interpretazione cit., p. 331.129 So ROSELLI,Interpretazione cit., p. 333.130 M. NORSA, Un frammento di fisica aristotelica, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa,

II ser. 7/1 (1938), pp. 1-12.


20/26


piri Letterari della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (about mid-seventh forMedri131, who has produced the latest edition), finally to the end of the sixth(Radiciotti132). It deals with motion, especially the circular motion of the celes-tial bodies and the dianoetic thought133. Norsa, on account of its similarity withAristotles loci (especiallyPhysics andMetaphysics ), postulates that it is atext linked with Aristotle, if not a work by Aristotle himself. Instead, Barigazzi134

considers it a neoplatonic text and is followed by Garin (in PSI XIV, p. 95) andby Falcon135, who stresses the similarity with the doctrine of motion set out intheDe caelo. MacCoull / Siorvanes136 offer a precise attribution, proposing thelost work Contra Aristotelem by Johannes Philoponus137. Radiciotti138 proposesthe Commentary in Aristotles Metaphysics by the same Philoponus.

Whoever the author of the text may be, we certainly have to reject Norsas

opinion that it could be a work by Aristotle.

8) P. Hamb. II 128 (MP3 2289.1, antea 1502) fr. a, remains of 96 lines fromthree columns; fr. b, remains of four lines from the third century BC (the endof the century according to Cavallo / Maehler139), close to AristotlesPoetics 21in its content, was doubtfully assigned to Theoprastus book oneby its first editor B. Snell (in P. Hamb., pp. 36 and 40). Snell, supplying []in fr. a, col. I, 8, saw in this passage the quotation of Aristotles Poet. 20,1457a13 quotation accepted by Kassel in his edition of AristotlesPoetics140.Fortenbaugh141 prints the papyrus as Appendix 9, in order to draw attention to

131 Cf. E. MEDRI, Un testo sul moto celeste. Per una nuova edizione di PSI XIV 1400, in F. ADORNO ETAL. (a cura di),Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi IV, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 2003 (Studi e Testi per ilCorpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 11), pp. 109-128: 115.

132 Cf. P. RADICIOTTI, Una nuova proposta di datazione per il PSI 1400 con alcune osservazioni sullamaiuscola alessandrina, Studi di Egittologia e Papirologia, 5 (2008), pp. 117-128: 122.

133 A summary of the content in CH. WILDBERG,Neoplatonic Philosophy of Nature in PSI XIV 1400:an Impression, in ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di),Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi IVcit., pp. 143-148:144-145.

134 A. BARIGAZZI, Un nuovo frammento di filosofia neoplatonica, Aegyptus, 29 (1949), pp. 59-75.135 Cf. A. FALCON,A Late Ancient Discussion of Celestial Motion. PSI XIV 1400, in ADORNO ET AL. (a

cura di),Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi IVcit., pp. 129-141: 140-141.136 L.S.B. MACCOULL/ L. SIORVANES,PSI XIV: a Papyrus Fragment of John Philoponus, Ancient Phi-

losophy, 12 (1992), pp. 153-170, esp. pp. 167-168.137 Sceptical FALCON,A Late Ancient Discussion cit., p. 141 n. 33, and in general, on the possibility of

establishing the authorship of our text, WILDBERG,Neoplatonic Philosophy cit., esp. pp. 143 and 148.138 Cf. RADICIOTTI, Una nuova proposta cit., pp. 119-120.139 Cf. G. CAVALLO/ H. MAEHLER (eds.),Hellenistic Bookhands, W. de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 2008,

p. 64, no. 35.140 Cf. R. KASSEL (ed.),Aristotelis de arte poetica liber, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1965, p.

XIII and app. ad loc. Cf. CPF I.1*, p. 395.141 Cf. W.W. FORTENBAUGH ET AL. (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought

and Influence, vol. II, Brill, Leiden-New York-Kln 1992 (Philosophia antiqua, 54, 2), pp. 612-617.


21/26


the text without taking a stance over the attribution to Theoprastus .

The attribution to Theophrastus was rejected by Schenkeveld142, who pre-ferred to assign the papyrus to a HellenisticArs Poetica (so MP3). Instead, Janko,noticing that the text follows Poetics ch. 21 closely, but with minor additionsand alterations in the content, believed that it is a fragment of Aristotles On

Poets143, but now he goes back to Theophrastus144. Again, since this is notdemonstrable, I think we should follow Schenkevalds caution.

9) P. Berol. inv. 9571v (MP3 1381, Commentaire Pindarus, Dithyrambi [outrait sur le dithyrambe?]) remains of 66 lines from two columns from thethird century, was tentatively assigned to Apollodorus by Koenen /

Merkelbach145, then to Aristotles On Poets by Janko146, who, following DelCorno147, describes it as a fragment of a literary treatise, which at 38-41 cer-tainly (and most uniquely) echoes Aristotles views about the origins of tragedy,dithyramb and satyr-play (Poet. 4, 1449a10 f.), associates dithyramb with at 43. Once again, this cannot be demonstrated.

3. Conclusions

We can conclude this short presentation by focussing on three aspects of the pa-

pyri containing Aristotles preserved works: their chronology, the works theytransmit and the type of artefacts they are in relation to their purposes.

As for their chronology, as we have seen, the most ancient so far published isthe famousAthenaion Politeia papyrus (P. Lond. Lit. 108; CPF I.1*, 24, no. 7),from the end of the first century. The Rhetoric papyrus due to appear in TheOxyrhynchus Papyri series148 is more ancient, likely dating to the first century

142 D.M. SCHENKEVELD,Pap.Hamburg. 128: a Hellenistic Ars Poetica, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie undEpigraphik, 97, pp. 67-80.

143 Cf. JANKO,Philodemus On Poems cit., p. 49 n. 224.144 Cf. JANKO (ed.),Philodemus On PoemsBooks 3-4 cit., pp. 361 n. 6 and 406. The same already in

R. JANKO, Aristotle, on Comedy. Towards a Reconstruction ofPoetics II, University of California Press,Berkeley-Los Angeles 1984, pp. 93-94.

145 Cf. L. KOENEN/ R. MERKELBACH,Apollodoros ( ), Epicharm und die Meropis, in A.E.HANSON (ed.), Collectanea papyrologica. Texts Published in honor of H.C. Youtie, Habelt, Bonn 1976 (Pa-pyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 19-20), vol. I, pp. 3-26: 3 n. *.

146 Cf. JANKO,Philodemus On Poems cit., pp. 43-44 n. 200.147 Cf. D. DEL CORNO,PBerol. 9571 verso ber den dithyrambos: Pindar und die Poetik des Aristoteles,

in H. KIESSLING/ H.-A. RUPPRECHT (Hrsg.),Akten des XIII. Internationaler Papyrologenkongresses (Mar-burg/Lahn, 2-6 August 1971), Beck, Munich 1974 (Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und an-tiken Rechtsgeschichte, 66), pp. 99-110: 106 sqq.

148 Cf. above, n. 1.


22/26


BC. Anyway, on the basis of this evidence, we could be tempted to trust the sto-ry told by Strabo (XIII, 1, 54) and Plutarch (Sull. 26) and partially also by Po-seidonius, in Athenaeus V, 214d about the disappearance of Aristotles trea-tises ( or the so-called esoteric works) during the Hellenistic peri-od and their recovery due to Andronicus first century BC edition149; but we haveto consider it, entirely or for the most part, not reliable for other reasons. For ex-ample, the fact that Diogenes Laertius catalogue, probably based on Hermip-pus, contains titles of works composed by Aristotle in the Peripatos150, showsthat Hermippus knew Aristotles treatises before Andronicus edition and thatthe Library of Alexandria where Hermippus was based owned them. In Dringsopinion, part of the so-called esoteric works, copied directly from the originals,would have been brought to Alexandria in 307 BC that is, during Theophras-

tus life when Straton of Lampsacus and Demetrius of Phaleron were invitedthere by Ptolemy Soter to found a sort of new Peripatos151. In particular, Dringdraws attention to the knowledge of Aristotles zoological works in the Hellenis-tic period152. In this respect, for instance, theEpitome of Aristotles History of An-imals by Aristophanes of Byzantium, of which a fragment is preserved in P. Lond.inv. 2242 = P. Lond. Lit. 164, assigned to the second/third century (CPF I.1*,24, no. 36T), is important.

So we have to consider as simply accidental the lack of Aristotle papyri dat-ing to the Ptolemaic age.

Instead, it is noteworthy that the presence of Theophrastus in the papyri goesback to a very ancient period, since P. Hibeh I 16 (CPF I.1***, 103, no. 4) con-taining a passage that, because of its subject and its antiquity, can be attributed to

De aquis or to other works on a similar topic153 is dated to the third century BC.

149 Cf. only MORAUX,Der Aristotelismus cit., pp. 3-94; J. BARNES,Roman Aristotle, in J. BARNES/ M.GRIFFIN (eds.),Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997, pp. 1-69; more recently, O. PRIMAVESI,Ein Blick in den Stollen von Skepsis: Vier Kapitel zur frhen berlieferungdes Corpus Aristotelicum, Philologus, 151 (2007), pp. 51-77; R.W. SHARPLES,Peripatetic Philosophy

200 BC to AD 200. An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge-New York 2010, pp. 24-30; R. CHIARADONNA,Interpretazione filosofica e ricezione del corpus:

Il caso di Aristotele (100 a.C.-250 d.C.), in this volume.150 Cf., e.g., no. 38, which may indicate one of the Ethics, probably theEudemian one; noo. 49-50,

Prior andPosterior Analytics; no. 78, the first two books ofRhetoric; no. 87, the third book ofRhetoric: seeP. MORAUX,Les listes anciennes des ouvrages dAristote, ditions Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain 1951(Aristote, traductions et tudes), pp. 80, 87, 97, 103. For the relationship between Diogenes catalogueand Hermippus, cf. E. BERTI,La filosofia del primo Aristotele, Cedam, Padova 1962 (Pubblicazioni del-la Facolt di lettere e filosofia, Universit di Padova, 38), p. 124, esp. n. 2.

151 Cf. I. DRING,Notes on the History of the Transmission of Aristotles Writings, Gteborgs Hgsko-las rsschrift, 56 (1950), pp. 35-70: 59-60, and ID., Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines

Denkens, Winter, Heidelberg 1966 (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, n.F. 1), p. 37.Cf. also MORAUX,Der Aristotelismus cit., pp. 14-15, and again BERTI,La filosofia cit., p. 124.

152 Cf. DRING,Notes cit., esp. pp. 61-64.153 Cf. CPF I.1***, p. 850.


23/26


As for the works preserved, theAthenaion Politeia is the most well represent-ed with two papyri154, but also theNicomachean Ethics, as two more papyri are dueto appear in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri series, one belonging to the same roll as P.Oxy. XXIV 2402, the other being a fragment of papyrus codex155. TheAthenaion

Politeiamust have been very important at different levels: historical, political, an-tiquarian; that is why it is one of the most quoted of Aristotles works156.

As for theNicomachean Ethics, our papyrus is roughly contemporary to As-pasius commentary on this work, dating to the second century, which is also theage of the revival of commentaries on Aristotle157.

We have already pointed out the interest of the Hellenistic period in the zo-ological works of Aristotle: theHistory of Animals, along with thePoliteiai, is the

most quoted work in the indirect tradition158

. To theHistory of Animals papyrusalready published, we have to add aDe partibus animalium papyrus due to ap-pear in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri series159.

Given the importance of thePoliteiai, the presence of a Politics papyrus isnot surprising. Furthermore, theDe caelo fragment witnesses the interest in cos-mogony, already represented by the commentary of this work given by Xenar-chus of Seleucia (first century BC), but also by that of Alexander of Aegae (firstcentury AD)160. TheDe caelo and especially the Categories, commented by thesame Alexander of Aegae, were the most important works in the first phase of

the commentaries on Aristotle (later first century BC-earlier first century AD)161

.In this regard, the Organon is well represented in the papyri, with two fromthe Categories and in particular from thePostpraedicamenta, considered spu-rious by Andronicus one from thePosterior Analytics and one from the Topics.In relation to the fact that thePosterior Analytics papyrus is dated to the fifthcentury, we know that in late antiquity Aristotles works and most of all the

154 P. Oxy. inv. 2B 76/F (8-11) = CPF I 1*, 24, no. 9 (T?) probably contains a paraphrase or a com-mentary of a passage from theAthenaion Politeia.

155 Cf. again above, n. 1.156 Cfr. Montanari in CLGP I.1.4, p. 245.157 Cf. R.W. SHARPLES,Aristotles Exoteric and Esoteric Works: Summaries and Commentaries, in R.W.

SHARPLES/ R. SORABJI (eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy. 100BC-200AD, II, Institute of Classical Stud-ies, London 2007 (BICS Supplement, 94/2), pp. 505-512: 511.

158 Cf. Montanari in CLGP I.1.4, p. 244.159 Cf. again above, n. 1.160 Cf. again SHARPLES, Aristotles Exoteric and Esoteric Works cit., p. 511; CHIARADONNA, Interpre-

tazione filosofica cit., pp. 83 sqq.161 The second phase is the revival of the second century, while Alexander of Agae takes place be-

tween the two phases (cf. once again SHARPLES,Aristotles Exoteric and Esoteric Works cit., p. 511, and cf.CHIARADONNA,Interpretazione filosofica cit., pp. 83 sqq.).


24/26


Organon constituted the core of the philosophical canon as the first and prope-deutic stage before studies on the more divine philosophy of Plato162.

Finally theProtreptic papyrus, from the second century, shows that Aristotleslost works do not disappear immediately after the so-called Andronicus editionbut are still read along with the treatises.

As for the type of artefacts in relation to their purposes, firstly there is no copythat can certainly be attributed to the school environment163. We should thendraw attention to the fact that the famous rolls of theAthenaion Politeia likelybelonged to the private collection of a well-educated person; the Politics pa-pyrus, which is a deluxe edition, like the Berlin papyrus of theAthenaion Po-liteia, with its carefully executed script and wide margins, is to be considered astandard book instead of a school copy. TheNicomachean Ethics papyrus is an

informal copy with a good text, like that of the Categories, P. Oxy. XXIV 2403.Finally, the only Aristotle papyrus with annotations is that preserving thePoste-rior Analytics, which was probably a working copy.

Abstract: This paper intends to present briefly Aristotles direct tradition as found in thepapyri already published, first in those containing Aristotles preserved works, then inthose tentatively attributed to his lost works. Some papyrological and philological contri-butions are offered regarding the text of the first group, in particular by collation of themost recent editions and consideration of the latest studies. As for the second group, the

argumentspro and contra Aristotelian authorship are analysed.Key words: Aristotle; Papyri; Direct Tradition; Authorship.

Mailing address:via Mario Fantinelli, 40I - 47121 [email protected]

162 Cf. E. SZABAT, Teachers in the Eastern Roman Empire (Fifth-Seventh Centuries). A Historical Studyand Prosopography, in T. DERDA/ T. MARKIEWICZ/ E. WIPSZYCKA (eds.),Alexandria Audotoria of Kom el-

Dikka and Late Antique Education, Fundacja im. Rafala Taubenschlaga, Warsaw 2007 (The Journal ofJuristic Papyrology, Supplements, 8), pp. 177-345: 196.

163 We do not find any Aristotle papyrus in the list presented by R. CRIBIORE,Literary School Exer-cises, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 116 (1997), pp. 53-60: 54 sqq.


25/26


Pl. 1. P. Ryl. III 510(Aristotle, Topics)

Pl. 2. P. Oxy. XXIV 2402(Aristotle,Nicomachean Ethics)


26/26


Pl. 3. P. Rein. II 80 (Aristotle,History of Animals)

Pl. 4. P. Oxy. XXIV 2403(Aristotle, Categories)

Documents

Privi Tera