The Herculaneum papyri that preserve the only remains of the philosophical writings of the first-century b.c. Epicurean Philodemus are a rare and exciting source of new material for Classicists. As part of the Philodemus Translation Project, J. published Book 1 of Philodemus' On Poems in 2000. In the latest volume he presents the remains of Books 3 and 4, along with a new edition of the fragments of Aristotle's On Poets. Editions of On Poems Books 2 and 5 are in progress. J.'s edition of Book 1 brought to light the previously unknown theories of a group of Hellenistic literary critics. At the heart of this excellent new volume is J.'s reconstruction of Philodemus' rebuttal in his On Poems of key aspects of Aristotelian literary theory.
The volume is tripartite. Parts 1 and 2, on Books 3 and 4 of Philodemus' On Poems respectively, have the same structure. After a detailed introduction the text is presented in the following format: the left-hand page has two columns, an apparatus criticus on the left and the transcribed text as it appears in the papyrus on the right; the right-hand page reprints the Greek text margin to margin with an English translation of each fragment underneath. The footnotes to the translation constitute the commentary. This lay-out, with the addition of a heading stating the subject matter at the top of each right-hand page, makes it as easy as possible, given the nature of the material, to read the often very fragmentary text.
As J. states in his introduction, Book 3 is the most ill-preserved and neglected of the On Poems. He provides a history of the text, including an account of how the papyri (P. Herc. 1087 and 1403) were opened and recorded. In the section on the reconstruction of the papyrus-roll J. offers a series of mathematical calculations aimed at establishing the correct order of the fragments and estimating the number of columns that the papyrus-roll contained. He then attempts to summarise the contents of Book 3, concluding that while it is not possible to reconstruct a clear argument, ‘it is clear that the main topic, like that of Books 1–2, is the relation between sound, poetic diction, and poetic excellence’ (p. 57).
As in the other books, Philodemus appears to be rebutting the doctrines of at least one critic in Book 3 and J. suggests that this is most likely to be Crates of Mallus (fr. 65). The identification of Crates as the main opponent is partly based on the structure and contents of On Poems as a whole since, although Philodemus used a treatise by Crates as a source for the theories of the euphonist critics in Books 1 and 2, no other book contains a ‘full-length exposition and rebuttal of Crates’ own doctrines' (p. 64). One of the topics in Book 3 seems to have been the difference between poetry and prose and the diction suitable to each. For instance, towards the end there is a relatively well-preserved section in which Philodemus appears to be arguing against his opponent's contention that ‘verses are always composed of very particular i.e. poetic words’ (p. 130 n. 1). Here, as elsewhere, J.'s painstaking reconstruction and contextualisation provides valuable material for anyone interested in ancient discussions of poetic diction.
J. introduces Book 4 as ‘one of the most significant parts of Philodemus’ De Poem.', but one that has ‘not received the attention which it deserves’ (p. 141). He gives a history of the text, including an account of how the papyrus (P. Herc. 207) was opened and recorded, and the chequered history of its previous editions. In this section he includes the late C. Mangoni's Italian translation and analysis of cols 113–20. After a detailed description of the manuscript sources and the reconstruction of the papyrus-roll, J. turns to Philodemus' sources and opponents in Book 4. He divides it into three sections: the beginning to fr. 10 (a new fragment of Democritus); fr. 11 to 105, in which Aristotle may already be the opponent, and 106 to 120, which is directed against Aristotle's On Poets.
Philodemus' attack centres on Aristotle's theory that a single art of mimesis subsumes all genres of poetry. As J. points out, Philodemus' concept of mimesis is far less complex than Aristotle's. Philodemus uses μίμησις to signify ‘imitation’, as opposed to Aristotle's ‘representation’, since ‘despite its extraordinary merits, Aristotle's use of μίμησις simply never caught on’ (pp. 232–3). Philodemus may fail to appreciate Aristotle's theory of literary representation, but a number of the criticisms that he makes of other aspects of Aristotle's poetic theory (for example, in the discussion of character in relation to different genres in 109–12) have been raised independently by modern scholars. He also challenges Aristotle's contention that tragedy is superior to epic (from 113 onwards). Through J.'s introduction and in his presentation of the remains of Book 4 a fascinating picture emerges of Philodemus' critique of Aristotelian theory, which whets the appetite for his treatment of Aristotle in Part 3.
J.'s new edition of the fragments of Aristotle's On Poets comprises an extensive and highly stimulating introduction, facing translation and commentary. On Poets was a dialogue in three books, probably written in the 350s during Aristotle's time at the Academy. J. argues cogently that it was a major theoretical treatise that covered much of the same material as the Poetics, and that down to the fourth century a.d. it was ‘the main channel through which Aristotle explained his poetic theory to a wider public’ (pp. 390–8). While it does contain some of the anecdotal material previously considered to constitute its core, On Poets in fact discussed issues such as the nature of literary mimesis, the origins and evolution of different poetic genres, catharsis, and errors and perfection in poetry.
This edition ‘more than quadruples the number of fragments’ (p. 400) and much of the introduction is devoted to explaining the use of a number of key sources. For instance, four fragments are drawn from Themistius, who wrote in the fourth century a.d. on the origins of drama. J. defends his inclusion of this material and argues convincingly that it is compatible with the discussion of the origins of tragedy and comedy in Poetics 3–5. As part of his argument that Aristotle's On Poets is the target of Philodemus' attack in On Poems 4, J. criticises the extreme scepticism, ‘which bordered on paranoia’, of Rose's view of the fragments of Aristotle and the influence that it still exerts (pp. 359–60). He later states that as an editor he prefers ‘to include something doubtful and mark it as such rather than to omit something genuine’ (p. 402).
In addition to the material from Book 4 of Philodemus' On Poems, J. presents a series of fragments (frr. 45–52) from Book 5 in which Philodemus appears to be rebutting Aristotle's contention that catharsis is the final purpose of poetry. These include fr. 46: ἔστιν ἡ ποιη[τι]κὴ χρήσιμον πρὸς [ἀρε]τήν, καθαίρουσα, ὡ[ς] ἔϕαμεν, τὸ (ἄλογον) μόριον (τῆς ψυχῆς). J.'s commentary on these fragments and frr. 53–6 places them in the context of Aristotle's writings on catharsis elsewhere (in Politics 8, where Aristotle discusses education and catharsis as two of the beneficial purposes of μουσική, and in the lost second book of the Poetics, in which J. has long had an interest). While there is of course room for debate about individual points, J. makes a compelling case for his core contention that at the end of Book 4 and the beginning of Book 5 of his On Poems Philodemus attacked the theories of mimesis and catharsis drawn from Book 1 and perhaps Book 2 of Aristotle's On Poets.
J. writes of the ‘almost endless patience, ingenuity and time’ (p. 157) needed by those who work on the Philodemus papyri and he has clearly invested vast amounts of all three in the preparation of this volume. In doing so he has produced a book of exceptional quality that is essential reading for anyone with an interest in Philodemus, Aristotelian poetics and Hellenistic literary criticism.
