This massive volume is one of those ‘outstanding works of scholarship’, to quote the definition given by Mike Edwards in CR 60.1 (2010), 37, that are the volumes of the CPF series. This impressive project, aimed at publishing all the surviving papyri of philosophical interest discovered in Greco-Roman Egypt, started in 1989 and consists of four parts. Part 1 is devoted to known authors and is divided into two nominal volumes, each further subdivided into a plurality of volumes: Vol. 1 deals with individual philosophers (I filosofi: Academici – Zeno), Vol. 2 (Cultura e filosofia: Galenus – Isocrates) encompasses authors influenced by philosophical culture, including the two main Greek medical writers, Galen and Hippocrates. The volume under review belongs to Part 2 and, along with the volume published in 2015 (CPF II.2, entitled Sentenze di autori noti e “chreiai”), it completes the part of the corpus devoted to sententious literature, whereas the first volume of the same Part 2 (CPF II.1), still in preparation, will include fragments of unknown authorship (Frammenti adespoti). Part 3 focuses on commentaries on philosophical texts and, finally, Part 4 contains indexes and tables.
This longstanding and monumental series, characterised by scholarly thoroughness and high-quality outcomes, is an invaluable tool for all those who engage with philosophical papyri and ancient philosophy. The present volume maintains the excellent standards of its predecessors and is compiled by an impressive array of editors and collaborators, of whom the majority are scholars from Italy.
The main body of the volume contains accurate editions of all the papyrus fragments preserving gnomologies and gnomic anthologies, but also a remarkable number of sentences used as copying exercises in a scholastic context. In most cases, the texts are re-editions based on fresh autopsies of the papyri, sometimes resulting in useful new readings and restorations.
The corpus of the editions, entitled Gnomica (60 in total, each one identified as GNOM plus a progressive number), occupies about 420 pages and is followed by a brief description of 10 papyri previously regarded as gnomic but rejected (respinti) by the CPF editors since there is no certain element to prove their gnomic nature. The format has been designed to be as comprehensive as possible: name, date and title of the papyrus are accompanied by provenance, details concerning the institution where it is conserved, its previous edition(s), reproductions and extensive bibliography of modern discussion and earlier commentaries. Then follows the introduction that often presents very good descriptions of the physical conditions of the fragments and a thorough palaeographical analysis. The text is equipped with an elaborate twofold or threefold apparatus providing palaeographical information, testimonia, loci similes and comparanda (if any), and the proper apparatus criticus with the modern conjectures and emendations. This is followed by an Italian translation of the text (in some cases the first translation into a modern language) and the commentary. The commentary mostly focuses on textual and hermeneutical issues, which enhances the philological value of the editions. Nevertheless, a note of disappointment may be expressed here. According to the subtitle of the volume (Testi e lessico), one would expect to find much more attention paid to lexical matters. Some commentaries contain valuable and illuminating lexical remarks, but overall, the lexicographical information is less substantial than expected, especially taking into account the importance of an in-depth lexicographical investigation in order to achieve a better understanding of the text and its context.
The main body of the book is preceded by a preface by M.T. Funghi outlining the scope of the volume and highlighting the influence of papyrus evidence on the study of gnomological literature. Immediately before the Gnomica come about 20 pages by R.M. Piccione serving as an introduction to the topic. Piccione emphasises aspects essential to contextualise gnomological phenomena. Among these aspects, the observations on the physical features of the papyri provide interesting insights into their contexts of use. It suggests that these moralistic texts were (a) chiefly scholastic materials read as part of cultural, professional and rhetorical training, (b) often copies for personal use as a reflection of the ethical culture absorbed at school and (c) seldom products intended for the book market. Another important point is the effort to identify criteria to distinguish between gnomic anthologies and gnomologies, in order to draw deductions especially at a formal and chronological level. Even though the boundaries are not so rigid, the gnomologies tend to have more evident formal characteristics, notably the fact that the modular units of text are shorter than the ones in the anthologies, and sometimes they are marked by signs such as the paragraphos or separated by a blank space. In both these typologies, the name of the author and/or the title of the work can introduce the text. Moreover, the gnomic anthologies seem to be peculiar to the Ptolemaic period, whereas the gnomologies spread later, during the Imperial period. Also significant is the conclusion that the sententious literature should be deemed a method to systematise, classify and transmit (ethical) knowledge, an epistemic practice (‘pratica epistemica’), rather than a minor literary genre, as it is usually considered.
The volume includes a bibliography and some pages of addenda et corrigenda to CPF II.2, and is completed by the indexes: the index locorum and the index both of the present volume and of CPF II.2. This helps to give an overall idea of the papyrological evidence concerning sententious literature. Given the remarkable thoroughness of this volume (and of the series in general), the lack of an index uerborum seems quite surprising. Moreover, as the book is supposed to be devoted to lexical issues, the presence of such an index (at least of the most relevant terms occurring in the published papyri) would have further increased the scholarly quality of the volume. It is hoped that this gap will be filled by the publication of a separate index in a forthcoming volume of Part 4 (so far, only the indexes of CPF I.1 have appeared as Part 4.1, in 2002). In the meantime, an index uerborum intended for an immediate consultation would have made the book more serviceable.
Due to restrictions of space, I shall make only a few comments on points particularly deserving of mention. An example useful to illustrate the philological contribution of the papyri is found in GNOM 44 (P. Oxy. 3214), re-edited by M.C. Martinelli. This papyrus fragment preserves fourteen lines of an anthology from the second century ce containing passages from Euripides. The verses in lines 3–4 (= Eur. fr. 162a Kannicht) are transmitted by Joannes Stobaeus. The form λέκτρα αὐτοῖς in the manuscripts of Stobaeus is contra metrum and does not make sense. The papyrus offers a better reading: λέκτ[ρ’] ἅ τ̣ο̣ι̣. This reading, proposed by the editor princeps M.W. Haslam (and approved by E.G. Turner and J. Rea ap. ed. pr.), is confirmed by inspection of the original. Also noteworthy is GNOM 49 (P. Schub. 27 + P. Berol. 21312), a gnomology from the second–third century containing more than 27 maxims. This excellent re-edition, a collaborative effort by G. Messeri Savorelli, M.S. Funghi and M.C. Martinelli, offers the correct placement of the fragments, which were misplaced and separated in previous editions, thus providing elements of the utmost importance for the reconstruction of the text. The maxim in lines 29–33, mainly attributed to Epicurus, has several testimonia, among which Stobaeus (III 16, 29), the Gnomologium Vaticanum Epicureum (or Sententiae Vaticanae) and the paremiographers (CPG II, 341, 25–9). In the fourth line, the Sententiae Vaticanae have the neuter participle τὸ χαῖρον (‘the delight’), whereas Stobaeus and the paremiographers have τὸν καιρόν (‘the opportune moment’). The papyrus confirms τὸ χαῖρον and, from a doctrinal perspective, it is more in tune with the concepts of early Epicureanism. Two of the gems of the volume are the edition of GNOM 22 (P. EES) by Funghi and Martinelli, a gnomology περὶ τύχης, and of GNOM 30 (P. Heid. Inv. G 310) by Piccione, an anthology περὶ πλούτου. They both have meticulous and insightful introductions and commentaries, which also encompass lexical observations. For instance, in GNOM 22 the analysis of the term δυσλόγιστος, ‘not rational’, appearing in column III line 24 (τ̣ὸ γ̣ὰρ δ̣υσλόγ̣ιστον) and referred to τύχη, leads to some meaningful conclusions. The concept expressed by the connection between δυσλόγιστος and τύχη seems to reflect a Peripatetic context. Moreover, the CPF editors interpret the term εὐλόγιστος, ‘rational’, in the bottom margin of the column, as a gloss to δυσλόγιστος. The restoration ο]ὐ̣ [γὰ]ρ̣ εὐλ̣όγιστον is convincing (contra ed. pr. τὸ γὰ]ρ̣̣ εὐλόγ̣ιστον with the opposite meaning): δυσλόγιστον, indeed, ‘sebbene self-evident, è usato raramente e εὐλόγιστον è il suo calco linguistico in positivo’.
The major failing of the volume is that the attention to lexicographical matters is decidedly underwhelming (with exceptions like those noted above). Lexical notes appear in the commentaries more occasionally than systematically. In addition, the complete lack of an index uerborum is not a minor failing and limits the lexical utility of the volume, especially for scholars and readers concerned with ancient vocabulary. That said, however, the overall merits of the book are predominant. It is very well edited, with unusually few errors considering its length and complexity. The quality of the papyrus editions reflects high standards. Their stimulating and accurately detailed contents will be of interest to papyrologists, but also to philologists and scholars of ancient philosophy. Furthermore, although this volume is addressed to specialists, one of its greatest strengths is the translations that make the texts accessible to undergraduates who have recently started to study ancient Greek and Latin and to more generally interested readers: this balances the obstacle represented by the degree of technical knowledge required by the subject.
This volume (together with CPF II.2) has value in presenting all the copious papyrological material pertinent to sententious literature. It greatly succeeds in illustrating the contribution of the papyri to what we know about the transmission of gnomological texts. More specifically, it helps to illuminate how this material has been transmitted and disseminated through teaching from the Ptolemaic to the Imperial period. The book marks a decisive step towards a deeper understanding of ancient sententious literature and will serve as a milestone for further studies in the field.
