In this excellent monograph, derived from his Ph.D. dissertation, F. analyses the most complex and discussed of the fragments ascribed to Epicharmus and addresses the many thorny issues surrounding the spurious works circulating under his name.
The introduction provides a general overview of the main questions regarding the corpus as a whole and the individual poems. The volume's core (pp. 62–389) comprises the translation of and commentary on the fragments, preceded by a discussion of the key aspects of the work to which they are ascribed. Throughout the book F. shows good knowledge of the relevant bibliography. Although the material is arranged according to Kassel and Austin's edition for convenience, F. casts doubt on, and sometimes convincingly rejects, the ascription of some of the fragments to the Pseudepicharmeia or to a particular title among them. The commentary focuses on the particular problems posed by each fragment, be they textual, metrical, content-related or linguistic. The sources of the fragments are briefly commented on, too. The Greek text and the critical apparatus update Kassel and Austin's edition and also take into account the re-edition of part of the fragments in the Corpus dei papiri filologici greci e latini. Besides the bibliography, the volume includes three indexes: of sources, Greek and Latin words discussed and notable points.
As I have no space to discuss every single comment, this review will focus on the main questions concerning the pseudo-Epicharmean corpus that F. addresses in depth. In the introduction F. suggests that more pseudo-Epicharmean poems than those known to us may have circulated in antiquity. This proposal, however, comes up against much the same objections once made against Wilamowitz's theory of an alleged pseudo-Epicharmean poem Περὶ φύσεως. In the absence of proof, and considering that all the fragments of uncertain origin could be ascribed to one (or more) of the known poems, we must confine ourselves to the titles whose existence is confirmed by the sources. This does not mean, however, that F. is wrong in claiming that not all the Epicharmean maxims of uncertain origin necessarily come from Axiopistus’ Γνῶμαι. For instance, as he points out (pp. 68–9, 93 etc.), some may well have been taken from Chrysogonus’ Πολιτεία. Furthermore, it is only to be expected that gnomai attributed to Epicharmus (from either the genuine comedies, the spurious poems or the common stock of anonymous traditional sayings) circulated for centuries as part of anthologies, private collections, schoolbooks etc. (see e.g. fr. 248 K.-A.), and, of course, orally. Thus, some Epicharmean maxims quoted without mentioning a work of origin may well have become known to their sources via any of these alternative ways.
The book also addresses the question (closely linked to the origin of the pseudo-Epicharmean corpus) of the typology of the poems within pseudo-epigraphic literature (pp. 26–32). Are they forgeries, i.e. works attributed to Epicharmus by their real authors with the intention of deceiving the reader, or else pseudepigrapha, wrongly fathered on the playwright? F. convincingly champions the second option. According to his reconstruction, the authors of the Pseudepicharmeia did claim authorship for their works, which nevertheless were sometimes credited to Epicharmus because they contained elements that were passed off as deriving from him. F. suggests, therefore, that the traditional name ‘pseudo-Epicharmean works’, which points to deliberate forgeries, should be substituted by Epicharmea, more suitable to refer to works inspired by Epicharmus, but whose real authors did not mean to pass them off as his. This would certainly explain why the names of the authors of all the poems but Χείρων and ᾿Οψοποιία are known to us. Regarding the latter, which might refer to a single work, F. wonders whether they might correspond to the medical treatise by Metrodorus mentioned by Iamblichus (VP 34.241 = Epich. test. 13 K.-A.), but leaves the question open.
According to F. (pp. 24–6), all these works being pseudepigrapha and not real forgeries also explains why the language of the fragments is often not a faithful imitation of Syracusan dialect (see also pp. 64–5, regarding the Πολιτεία): as the authors did not intend their works to be credited to Epicharmus, they were happy to give them (at most) a Dorian veneer, despite also reproducing some other formal elements found in the ‘real’ Epicharmus, particularly the metre. Leaving aside the role that textual transmission may sometimes have had in this, I would suggest that the non-Dorian dialect of some fragments may also be due to their having been ascribed to Epicharmus from a traditional stock of Attic origin.
Several chapters deal with three characteristics of Epicharmus’ comedies thought to have contributed to shoring up his image as a wise man, and, therefore, to the origin of the spurious corpus attached to his name: (1) the use of maxims (pp. 35–9), which were taken out of context and reinterpreted stressing their moral or speculative aspects. (2) The resort to etymological mechanisms, which, as F. demonstrates, did not necessarily have a jesting purpose (pp. 40–5). F. highlights Epicharmus’ witty and original creation of some exegetic and hermeneutic etymologies, some of which were even seriously taken into consideration by grammarians like Apollodorus of Athens (Epich. fr. 135 K.-A.) and Tryphon (Epich. fr. 14 K.-A.). (3) The philosophical parody (pp. 46–52). F. dwells especially on Epicharmus’ controversy with Xenophanes (attested to by Aristotle, Met. 1010a5 = Epich. fr. 143 K.-A.), who was probably well known to Syracusan audiences through the public recitation of his poems. Thus, Epicharmus’ own public, direct witness to the intellectual debate between the two authors, would have been the first to see the playwright as a wise poet. The association of Epicharmus with medical subjects (doctors might have played a humorous role in some comedies) may be related to the existence of a Sicilian medical school (pp. 339–40). F. also addresses the tradition that made Epicharmus a Pythagorean (pp. 52–61), his conclusion being that this conception arose from Timaeus of Tauromenium and the Sicilian historiography of the fourth century bce, who sought to add an ancient figure of prestige to a movement which, in turn, had made Sicily and Magna Graecia famous. Aristoxenus may also have influenced this process of Pythagorean appropriation, intentionally emphasising some elements of the Πολιτεία assimilable to Pythagoreanism, to which the poem, as F.'s analysis shows, was alien.
Regarding the fragments ex Alcimo (pp. 189–279), F. highlights the internal and external data pointing to their authenticity and shows the weakness of opposing arguments, in contrast to Kassel and Austin's opinion. Based on his analysis of the language, he also asserts that the indirect source of those fragments, Diogenes Laertius, did not reflect the original purpose of Alcimus objectively, which, in F.'s opinion, was to stress Sicilian or Western Greek culture in general and not anti-Platonic criticism in particular.
In the chapter devoted to Ennius’ Epicharmus F. points to some data that suggest, against the communis opinio, that the poem was subsequent to at least some sections of the Annales. According to his convincing analysis, the frame of the work was a dream Ennius had, which he himself narrated, during which Epicharmus instructed him in matters regarding natural philosophy. Also, F. points out, the work was not a Latin version of a single pseudo-Epicharmean writing, but an original poem inspired by material circulating under Epicharmus’ name, very much like the rest of the Epicharmea.
F.'s approach to the problems under discussion is reasoned and well grounded, and his comments prove his worthy capacity to handle both the philological and linguistic aspects of the texts under discussion alongside the literary ones. All this makes the book indispensable reading for anyone interested in Epicharmus and the pseudo-Epicharmean corpus.
