¹ Collected by Krohn, K., Der Epikureer Hermarchos (Diss. Berlin, 1921), frr. 20–39, pp. 22–32Google Scholar with Nachtrag, p. 39.

² New text in Bouffartigue, J. and Patillon, M., Porphyre, De l'abstinence, Tome 1 (Paris, 1977)Google Scholar = 22M–N in Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N., Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1 (translation), vol. 2 (text) (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar. A neglected discussion is Bernays, J., Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit (Berlin, 1866), pp. 7–10, 139–41Google Scholar.

³ Philippson, R., ‘Die Rechtsphilosophie der Epikureer’, AGPh 23 (1910), 289–337 and 433–46, esp. 290–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Studien zu Epikur undden Epikureern, edd. Schmid, W. and Classen, C. J. (Hildesheim, 1983), pp. 27–89, esp. 28–58Google Scholar, answered by Gigante, M., Ricerche Filodemee ² (Napoli, 1983), pp. 247–59Google Scholar; also: Boyd, M. B., CQ 30 (1936), 188–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and more recently Goldschmidt, V., La Doctrine d'Épicure et le droit (Paris, 1977), pp. 287–97Google Scholar, Müller, R., ‘Konstituierung und Verbindlichkeit der Rechtsnormen bei Epikur’, in ΣΥΖΗΤΗΣΙΣ Studi sull' Epicureismo greco e romano offerti a Marcello Gigante (Napoli, 1982), i. 153–83Google Scholar, and id., ‘Zu einem Entwicklungsprinzip der epikureischen Anthropologie’, Philologus 127 (1983), 187–206Google Scholar, Gallo, I., ‘Ermarco e la polemica epicurea contro Empedocle’, in Esistenza e destino nel pensiero greco arcaico, ed. Cosenza, P., Univ. Sez, di Salerno. Atti Conv. Miscell, . 9 (Napoli, 1985), 33–50Google Scholar, Long, A. A., ‘Pleasure and Social Utility – the virtues of being Epicurean’, in Hardt, Fondation, Enlretiens sur Vanliquite classique 32, Aspects de la philosophie helle'nistique (Vandoeuvres-Genève, 1986), 283–329Google Scholar, Long-Sedley, vol. 1 (note 2), 126–39, Waerdt, P. A. Vander, ‘The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man’, CQ 37 (1987), 402–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, id., ‘Hermarchus and the Epicurean Genealogy of Morals’, TAPA 118 (1988, forthcoming)Google Scholar, Mitsis, P., ‘Natural Law and Natural Rights in Post-Aristotelian Philosophy’, in ANRW 11.36.4 (Berlin–New York, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

⁴ Gigante (note 3), like most commentators, still regards the title as 'Σπɩστολɩκά περί 'Σμπεδοκλέυος A. Tepedino Guerra, ‘I primi seguaci di Epicuro’, in ΣΥΖΗΤΗΣΙΣ (note 3), ii.519–23 at 520 discusses the evidence of the papyri but renders the title as ‘Trattati in forma epistolare in 22 libri’. (After this article was accepted for publication, I was delighted to learn that similar conclusions regarding the title IIρός 'Εμπεδοκλέα were reached independently by Francesca Longo Auricchio and will appear in her forthcoming new edition ef the fragments of Hermarchus; I am grateful to her for kindly making the relevant portions of her work available to me in advance of publication.)

⁵ Gomperz, Th., Philodem Über Frömmigkeit, Herculanische Studien 2 (Leipzig, 1866)Google Scholar. The first citation does not appear in Gomperz's text, but was convincingly restored already by Bücheler, Fr., Jahrbuch für Philologie 91 (1865), 513–41Google Scholar, at 538 = Kleine Schriften 1 (Leipzig-Berlin, 1915), 580–612Google Scholar, at 608–9 (title only), and independently (with Hermarchus' name) by Diets, H., Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879), p. 127Google Scholar n. 1 - accepted by Krohn in his dissertation (fr. 32, cf. frr. 33–4) and in the rendition by Philippson, R., Hermes 56 (1921), 369Google Scholar. (See the new text below, p. 430.)

⁶ Bernays, op. cit. (note 2), p. 140. On Cicero's debt to Philodemus' De Pietate for these titles in this passage and on the relationship of sources, see Hirzel, R., Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften 1 (Leipzig, 1877), p. 19Google Scholar; Diels (note 5), p. 127 n. 1.

⁷ Koerte, A., Metrodori Epicurei Fragmenta, Jahrbücher fur classische Philologie Supplbd. 17 (1889–1890), 547Google Scholar (fr. 15, cf. fr. 14); Cronert, W., Kolotes und Menedemos, Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde herausg. Wessely, C. 6 (Leipzig, 1906), p. 24Google Scholar; see further D. Obbink, ‘The Earliest Notice of Plato's Euthyphro’ (forthcoming).

⁸ Philippson, art. cit. (note 5), 370f. (missing in Koerte).

⁹ Philippson, art. cit. (note 5), 370f. (missing in Gomperz, Koerte), the title independently attested elsewhere in Philodemus: Koerte (note 7) 542, 546. Metrodorus also wrote not only Πρός Τɩοκράτην, Πρός τοὺς διαλεκτικούς, Πρός σοϕɩστάς Πρός σοϕɩτάς and IIρός τοὺς ίατρούς, but also Πρός Δημόκρɩτον (Diog. Laer. Vitae 10.23–4).

¹⁰ Coles, R. A., ed., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 47 (London, 1980), p. 10Google Scholar no. 3318 with pl. 3 (further discussion in Dorandi, T., ‘SILLYBOI’, Scrittura e Civilta 8 (1984), 185–99Google Scholar, at 195 with tav. 5a).

¹¹ That the fragment is a σίλλυβος or σίττυβη, i.e. the title-tag attached to the roll for reference during storage (rather than a subscriptio from the end of the actual text) is the careful conclusion of the editor, R. A. Coles, from the fact that the writing runs across the fibres of the I papyrus (i.e. on the verso of the roll) while the ‘back’ (i.e. the recto) is blank. That the fragment contains a subscriptio from the end of a re-used or opisthographic roll with fortuitously uninscribed space on the recto remains an alternative, though perhaps a less likely one.

¹² Although in the full form of the citation the author would probably have writted βνβλίωɩ as at De Piet. p. 113,5 G. ἂλλο βυβλίον: see Puglia, E., ‘ΒΥΒΛΟΣ e ΒΥΒΛΙΟΝ in Filodemo’, Cronache Ercolanesi 15 (1985), 119–21Google Scholar.

¹³ This does away with the possibility, raised by Coles (note 10), 10 n. 3, that the ordinal Θ in the Oxyrhynchus fragment might represent not the book number but the ninth complete letter (if the letter occupied exactly an entire roll of papyrus) – a possibility which in this case would I hold only if the ninth letter and the ninth book were coterminous (which seems highly I unlikely).

¹⁴ Bailey, C., Epicurus. The Extant Remains (Oxford, 1926), p. 157Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Excerpted from col. 30 of the new edition, edd. A. Henrichs and D. Obbink (forthcoming). The text amalgamates the readings of the original Naples copy (N) with the supplements of all editors and commentators. The papyrus itself does not survive and there is no Oxford copy; for a facsimile of the Naples copy see Herculanensium Voluminum quae supersunt, Collectio Altera torn. 2 (Neapoli, 1863), 68–9Google Scholar ( = HV ² ii). (Letters designated in the text by a sublinear asterisk indicate editorial corrections of putative errors in the nineteenth-century copy.)

¹⁶ Bücheler, art. cit. (note 5), 538 (= 609); Philippson, art. cit. (note 5), 369. Cf. Philod. Rhet. 1.89.30; 1.91.16; 1.121.4; 2.117.11; De adulat. (Περì παρρησίας, π. κολ.) P.Herc. 1082, 11; Capasso, M., Elenchos 2 (1981) 397Google Scholar. Not very promising is the syntactically odd supplement by Krohn in line 4 πρ[ώτηɩ], i.e [ἐν]| τῆɩ Πρό]ς 'Εμπεδο]|κλέα πρ[ώτηɩ] (sc. ἐπɩστολῆɩ). Longo Auricchio, op. cit. (note 4), against the reading of the disegno, corrects here to ϒρ[αϕῆɩ…] (= ‘libro’, a meaning attested elsewhere in the Herculaneum papyri), arguing that the ordinal numeral in her reading (following Bücheler and Diels) of 3–4 as [ἐν]| τῆɩ πρώ|τηι Πρός 'Εμπεδο]|κλέα requires the citation of a specific book; πραϒματεία never occurs with this meaning. But I have argued that πρώ[τηɩ] is very likely to be wrong, and the correction to πρό[ς…] right, on the grounds of line length alone.

¹⁷ A tradition stemming from Aristoxenus (e.g. frr. 25, 28, 29) and which appears e.g. in Theophrastus (De Piet. ap. Porph. De Abst. 2.28.2). The Pythagorean tradition was itself divided between ἐμѱύϰων ἀπέϰεσθαɩ (Porph. VP 36, Iambi. VP 54) on the one hand, and δɩκαɩότατον θύεɩν (Iambi. VP 82, 100; Diog. Laer. Vitae 8.12): see Burkert, W., Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), pp. 180–3Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Bernays, op. cit. (note 2), p. 139; cf. Madvig on Cic. De fin. 2.30.96.

¹⁹ Goldschmidt, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 176–9 argues as well for polemic with the Cynics at Porph. De Abst. 1.12.2–3 (from Hermarchus).

²⁰ Thus Philodemus in De Pietate cites Hermarchus' treatise (above pp. 428f. with note 5) in defence of the main tenets of Epicurean theology against its critics and of Epicurus and his followers against contemporary or post-Epicurean charges (by rival unnamed philosophers).

²¹ See now Waerdt, Vander, ‘Hermarchus and the Epicurean Genealogy of morals’ (note 3 above). Already Hesiod, Op. 276ffGoogle Scholar. denied to animals any share in δίκη: see further West's note ad he. (on Archil, fr. 94 Diehl).

²² On the Peripatetic view and tradition see Obbink, D., ‘The Origin of Greek Sacrifice: Theophrastus on Religion and Cultural History’, in Theophrastean Studies. Ethics, Rhetoric and Religion, edd. Fortenbaugh, W. W. and Sharpies, R. W., Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 3 (New Brunswick and London, 1988), passim, esp. nn. 71–2Google Scholar (Theophrastean oiKfLorrjs with bibliography) and 88 (on the compassion for animals attested for the Cynics: cf. note 19, above).

²³ Diogenes of Oenoanda frr. 34–5 Chilton, with New Fragments 2 (in Smith, M. F., AJA 74 [1970], 58–60)Google Scholar and 61–2 (in Smith, M. F., Anatolian Studies 28 [1978], 57–60)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the polemic with the Stoics, see further Vander Waerdt, ‘Hermarchus and the Epicurean Genealogy of Morals’ (note 3 above).

²⁴ Compare the appeal to famous figures of the past (often in disputes over κοɩναί ἓννοɩαɩ) by members of the sceptical New Academy, especially Arcesilaus (lists of such authorities appear e.g. at Cic. Acad. 2.14 and 72–6, cf. 1.44–6; Plut. Adv. Col. 1108b, 112If–1122a). The Epicurean Colotes responded not by attacking Arcesilaus (whom he in fact never named: Adv. Col. 1120c, cf. 1124b), but by criticizing his ‘authorities’. On the method, and disputes over philosophical pedigrees: Long, A. A., ‘Stoa and Sceptical Academy: Origins and Growth of a Tradition’, LCM 5.8 (10 1980), 161–74Google Scholar; Striker, G., ‘Sceptical Strategies’, in Doubt and Dogmatism, ed. Schofield, M. et al. (Oxford, 1980), 54–83Google Scholar; Sedley, D., ‘The Motivation of Greek Skepticism’, in The Skeptical Tradition, ed. Burnyeat, M. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983), 9–29Google Scholar at 15f. with n. 27; already Ph. Lacy, De, Introd. to Adv. Col. in Plutarch's Moralia XIV (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 155f. and 165Google Scholar; id., ‘Colotes' First Criticism of Democritus’, in Isonomia. Studien zur Gleichheitsvorstellung im griechischen Denken, edd. Mau, J. and Schmidt, G., Veröffentl. der Arbeitsgruppe für hellenistisch-röm. Altertumskunde (Berlin, 1964), 67–86Google Scholar. For a well known Stoic instance: Long, A. A., ‘Heraclitus and Stoicism’, Φɩλοσοϕία 5–6 (1975–1976), 133–53Google Scholar, especially 152.

²⁵ So apparently Krohn (note 1), 22, 30 (frr. 32–34); Tepedino Guerra (note 4), 520; Dorandi (note 10), 195.

²⁶ See Birt, T., Das antike Buchwesen (Berlin, 1882), passimGoogle Scholar; Schubart, W., Das Buch bei den Griechen und Romern ² (Leipzig, 1921), pp. 98ff.Google Scholar; Nachmanson, E., Der griechische Buchtitel, Göteborgs Hogskolas Arsskrift xlvii 19 (Gothenburg, 1949), passimGoogle Scholar; Wendel, C., GriechischRomische Buchbeschreibung, Hallische Monographien 3 (Halle, 1949)Google Scholar, Hendriksson, K.-E., Griechische Büchertitlel in der Römischen Literatur, AASF B 102, 1 (Helsinki, 1956)Google Scholar, Kleberg, T., Buchhandel und Verlagswesen in der Antike (Darmstadt, 1967)Google Scholar, Schmalzriedt, E., Peri Physeos. Zur Frühegeschichte der Buchtitle (Munich, 1970)Google Scholar, and witness the continuing controversy over the alternative citations of Empedocles' work(s) in antiquity as περί ϕύσεως, τὰ ϕυσɩκά, and καθαρμοί, especially Heidel, W. A., ‘Περί Φύσεως’ Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 45 (1910), 79–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar; most recently: Sider, D., ‘Empedocles’ Persika', Ancient Philosophy 2 (1982), 76–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Osborne, C., ‘Empedocles Recycled’, CQ 37 (1987), 24–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ An extreme example in a private letter of the first century A.D. (Keenan, J. G., J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 5 [1977], 91–4)Google Scholar which refers to Epicurus' De voluptate (Cic. De div. 2.27.59) as Υπὲρ τῆς ἡδονῆς, where ὑπέρ is simply a Koinê variant for περί – though the actual book bearing the title is specifically said to be in the hands of the letter-writer!

²⁸ See above with note 6. The relevant passages from Philodemus' De Pietate had been published in a rudimentary form in the preceding year by Fr. Bücheler (note 5); Gomperz's edition appeared in the same year as Bernays' monograph (1866).

²⁹ Bernays (note 2) 139f., followed by Gomperz, , ZEOG 16 (1865), 825Google Scholar, Philippson, R., Review of Krohn (note 1), in BPhW 43 (1923), 3Google Scholar; cf. Usener, H., Epicurea (Leipzig, 1887), p. 369Google Scholar. Longo Auricchio (note 4) reports the appearance, previously unnoticed, of ‘un punto in alto’ (of the same type which separates the other titles) after Επɩστολɩκά in the authoritative twelfth-century Neapolitanus Borbonicus (III B 29) of Diogenes Laertius.

³⁰ A source of confusion ma y have been the fact that the title Πρός Εμπεδοκλέα (Against Empedocles) would be identical with the standard epistolary title: thus Diog. Laer. Vitae 10.6 ἐν τῇ Πρός Πυθοκλέα ἐπɩστολῇ; 10.85 ἐν τῇ μɩκρᾷ ἐπɩστολῇ Πρός Ήρόδοτον, and cf. the formulation with the dative in the standard epistolary opening, e.g. 10.83 Έπίκονρος Πυθοκλεî ϰαίρειν. In other words, on grounds of chronology the reading πρός Έμπεδοκλέα, if transmitted in the MSS. as in the papyri, would be the lectio difficilior.

³¹ Brink, C. O., ‘Callimachus and Aristotle: An Inquiry into Callimachus Πρός Πραξɩϕάνην’, CQ 40 (1946), 11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aly, W., RE 22.2 (1954), 1769–84Google Scholar.

³² History of Classical Scholarship 1 (Oxford, 1968), 95 n. 4, 135–6Google Scholar, with Schol. Florentina to fr. I (line 7, p. 3); so already Wehrli, F., Die Schule des Aristoteles, vol. 9 (Basel, 1957) on Praxiphanes fr. 15–17Google Scholar.

³³ Claudii Galeni opera omnia, ed. Kühn, C. G., vol. 8 (Leipzig, 1824), 150, 4Google Scholar; Sorani Gynaeciorum, ed. Ilberg, I., Corpus medicorum graecorum, vol. 4 (Leipzig, 1927), 6, 1Google Scholar, an d n.b. that in the latter instance the designation έπɩστολɩκόν is employed to distinguish an epistolary from a polemical title in πρός + accusative.

³⁴ Fragments and testimonia collected by Krohn, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 36–9 (frr. 45–57). Longo Auricchio (note 4) following Philippson, R. (Review of Krohn [note 1] in BPhW 43 [1923], 3)Google Scholar against Usener, H. (Epicurea [Leipzig, 1887], p. 369)Google Scholar takes Έπɩστολɩκά to refer to writings in epistolary form in addition to genuine epistles (in contrast to the designation Έπɩστολαί in the list of the works of Epicurus at Diog. Laer. Vitae 10.28), but excludes from this group the treatise Πρός Έμπεδοκλέα.

³⁵ As the title in this instance appears last in the list, no similar confusion results from a succeeding title beginning with a preposition.

³⁶ Incerti auctoris Βίος Φɩλωνίδου (P.Herc. 1044) col. 14 (πάς ἀπɩτομἁς τῶ[ν] ἐπɩστολῶν τῶν Έπɩκούρο[ν] Μητροδώρου Πολυαίνου Έρμάρϰου καί τῶν σ[υνηϒ]με[νων]) in Cronert, W., ‘Der Epikureer Philonides’, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. 1900, 2, 943–9Google Scholar = Studi Ercolanesi, Ital. transl. Livrea, E. (Napoli, 1975), 36–91Google Scholar; cf. ibid., ‘Die Epikureer in Syrien’, JOAI 19 (1907), 145ff., and the new text by Gallo, I., Frammenti biografici da papiri, 2: La biogrqfia deifilosofi, Testie Commenti 6 (Roma, 1980), pp. 23–166Google Scholar at fr. 14,3–10 (p. 46 Cronert, 68 Gallo) where Hermarchus' letters are included among those edited by Philonides.

³⁷ Noted by Coles, , op. cit. (note 10), p. 10Google Scholar.

³⁸ Krohn, , op. cit. (note 1), pp. 1–16 esp. 9–11Google Scholar; for a striking instance see Philod. De dis 3 col. 13,20ff. Diels (fr. 39 Krohn) with the discussion of Diels ad be. Porphyry, De Abstinentia 1.7.12 esp. 1.7.1 (from Against Empedocles) may be a case of polemical Epicurean appropriation by Hermarchus of the Stoic concept of oUeiwais (argued by Vander Waerdt, ‘Hermarchus and the Epicurean Genealogy of Morals’ (note 3 above)).