Sei sulla pagina 1di 19

CRONACHE

ERCOLANESI

Bollettino del Centro Internazionale


per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi
fondato da Marcello Gigante e
Gaetano Macchiaroli

45/2015

direzione
Graziano Arrighetti
Knut Kleve
Francesca Longo Auricchio

Editore
Centro Internazionale per lo
Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi
‘Marcello Gigante’
CRONACHE ERCOLANESI - NUOVA SERIE
QUESTA PUBBLICAZIONE
SI AVVALE DI UN CONTRIBUTO
DEL MINISTERO DEI BENI E DELLE ATTIVITÀ
CULTURALI E DEL TURISMO
E DELLA REGIONE CAMPANIA

Direttore responsabile: Francesca Longo Auricchio

Comitato Scientifico: David Armstrong, David Blank, Daniel Delattre, Michael Erler, Jeffrey Fish, Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Giovanni Indelli,
Richard Janko, Giuliana Leone, Francesca Longo Auricchio,Dirk Obbink, David Sedley, Martin Ferguson Smith, Voula Tsouna, Mauro Tulli

Redazione: Gianluca Del Mastro, Mariacristina Fimiani, Antonio Parisi

Amministrazione: Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi ‘Marcello Gigante’, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Via Porta
di Massa 1, 80133 Napoli, tel. +39 0812535428, auricchi@unina.it

Questo «BOLLETTINO» pubblica in volumi annuali articoli di papirologia e archeologia ercolanesi. La Direzione si impegna a procedere alla
selezione qualitativa dei contributi da pubblicare sulla base di una valutazione formalizzata e anonima di cui è responsabile il Comitato Scientifico.
Tale sistema di valutazione si avvale anche di esperti esterni al suddetto Comitato. Si raccomanda di indicare l’indirizzo al quale l’autore desidera
ricevere le bozze. I testi, anche se non pubblicati, non si restituiscono. Per garantire l’uniformità della stampa l’editore si riserva, d’accordo con la
redazione, la determinazione dei caratteri e dei corpi tipografici che pertanto, ad evitare confusioni, non vanno indicati sui testi. I collaboratori rice-
veranno una sola volta le bozze ed è opportuno che conservino una copia del testo per il riscontro. La rivista infatti non restituirà il testo originale,
per eventuali collazioni all’atto della stampa. L’indirizzo e-mail degli autori è in calce al contributo.

© Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi ‘Marcello Gigante’

Registrazione del Tribunale di Napoli n. 2228 del 27/05/1971


Enrico Piergiacomi
Mental Attraction to a Magnet-Like God.
Demetrius Laco’s Notion of ἐπιϲπαϲμόϲ 5

Antonio Parisi
Citare il Maestro: due menzioni
di Epicuro in Demetrio Lacone 19

Gertjan Verhasselt
Hermippus on Chaeron of Pellene
(Phld., Acad. Hist., PHerc. 1021, coll. 10,
40 - 12, 4 and PHerc. 164, fr. 22 and fr. 24):
edition and discussion 33

Kilian Fleischer
Die Schüler des Charmadas (PHerc. 1021,
XXXV 32 - XXXVI 14) 49

Federica Nicolardi
Elementi per la ricostruzione del I libro
del De rhetorica di Filodemo 55

Jacob L. Mackey
New Evidence for the Epicurean Theory
of the Origin of Language: Philodemus,
On Poems V (PHerc. 403, fr. 5, col. I) 67

Gianluca Del Mastro


Per la ricostruzione del I libro del
trattato di Filodemo, Contro coloro
che si definiscono lettori dei libri
(PHerc. 1005/862, 1485) 85

Giovanni Indelli
Francesca Longo Auricchio
Contributi inediti di Achille Vogliano
sul PHerc. 1471 (Filodemo,
La libertà di parola) 97

Giuliana Leone
Sergio Carrelli
La morfologia dei papiri ercolanesi:
risultati e prospettive di ricerca
dall’informatizzazione dell’Inventario
del 1782 147

Martin Ferguson Smith


Jürgen Hammerstaedt
Diogenes of Oinoanda:
News and Notes IX (2014) 189
Gabriele Martina
Dediche a donne della famiglia
Giulio-Claudia a Ercolano: il caso
di Lucio Mammio Massimo 199

Domenico Esposito
Un contesto di pitture inedito dalla
cosiddetta Palestra di Ercolano 209

Gianluca Del Mastro


Daniel Delattre
Vito Mocella
Una nuova tecnologia per la lettura
non invasiva dei papiri ercolanesi 227

Notiziario 231
This article presents a new edition with an English translation and a commentary of HERMIPPUS ON CHAERON
Phld., Acad. Hist., PHerc. 1021, coll. 10, 40-12, 4 and PHerc. 164, fr. 22 and fr. 24. This OF PELLENE (PHLD., ACAD.
section of Philodemus’ Historia Academicorum contains an excerpt from the Hellenistic HIST., PHERC. 1021, COLL.
biographer Hermippus on the tyrant Chaeron of Pellene, a former pupil of Plato and Xe-
10, 40-12, 4 AND PHERC.
nocrates. Re-examination of the papyri has revealed new readings and has also shown
the correct title of Hermippus’ work On Those Who Converted from Philosophy to Ex-
164, FR. 22 AND FR. 24):
cellence and the Exercise of Power. His source is in all likelihood the Peripatetic phi- EDITION AND DISCUSSION
losopher Dicaearchus, who may have discussed Chaeron in his Pellenian Constitution.

Keywords: Philodemus, Historia Academicorum, Hermippus, Dicaearchus, Chaeron.

GERTJAN VERHASSELT
1. Introduction

Philodemus’ Historia Academicorum, probably part of his Ϲύνταξιϲ τῶν


φιλοϲόφων, is preserved in two versions: PHerc. 1021 is a draft, whereas PHerc.
164 presents the final version, of which only a few scraps have been recovered.
As Gaiser recognized, the work is a collection of excerpts.1 Philodemus quotes
numerous earlier biographers and historians, e.g. the biography of Plato by the
historian Neanthes (late fourth century BCE), the biographies of the first gener-
ation Academics by Antigonus (third century BCE) and a long passage on the
succession in the New Academy from Apollodorus’ Chronica (second century
BCE). The Historia Academicorum is thus a window into much older, lost Hel-

This research was funded by Onderzoeksfonds micorum philosophorum index Herculanensis und ihr vermeintlicher Philomacedonismus.
KU Leuven/Research Fund KU Leuven. I was (Gryphiswaldiae 1869); Dorandi 1985 = T. Bemerkungen zu Bernays' Phokion, «WS»
able to consult the original papyri in Naples in Dorandi, Il Papiro Ercolanese 164, «CErc» 4/1882, pp. 102-120; Marasco 1985 = G.
November and December 2013 thanks to trav- 15/1985, pp. 101-111; Dorandi 1991 = T. Marasco, Cherone di Pellene. Un tiranno
el grants awarded by the FWO – Flanders and Dorandi, Filodemo. Storia dei filosofi [.] Pla- del IV secolo a.C., in F. Broilo (ed.), Xenia.
The Friends of Herculaneum Society. I thank tone e l’Academia (PHerc. 1021 e 164), La Scritti in onore di Piero Treves, La Fenice 3
Tiziano Dorandi for sharing his transcriptions Scuola di Epicuro, Collezione di testi ercol- (Roma 1985), pp. 111-119; Mekler 1902 =
of the papyri and Michael McOsker for proof- anesi diretta da M. Gigante, vol. 12 (Napoli S. Mekler, Academicorum philosophorum
reading the English text of this article. 1991); Düring 1941 = I. Düring, Herodicus index Herculanensis (Berolini 1902); Trampe-
the Cratetean. A Study in Anti-Platonic Tradi- dach 1994 = K. Trampedach, Platon, die Aka-

Bibliographical abbreviations: Asheri 1977 = tion, Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antikvitets demie und die zeitgenössische Politik, Her-
D. Asheri, Tyrannie et mariage forcé. Essais akademiens Handlingar 51.2 (Stockholm mes. Einzelschriften 66 (Stuttgart 1994); von
d’histoire sociale grecque, «Annales (Éco- 1941); Engels 1998 = J. Engels, 1012. Phaini- Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881 = U. von
nomies, Sociétés, Civilisations)» 32/1977, pp. as of Eresos, in J. Bollansée-J. Engels-G. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von
21-48; Bollansée 1999 = J. Bollansée, Felix Schepens-E. Theys (edd.), Felix Jacoby. Karystos, Philologische Untersuchungen 4
Jacoby. Die Fragmente der Griechischen His- Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (Berlin 1881); Wehrli 1967 = F. Wehrli, Die
toriker Continued. Part Four. Biography and Continued. Part Four. Biography and Antiquar- Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar.
Antiquarian Literature. Edited by G. Sche- ian Literature. Edited by G. Schepens. IV A. Heft I. Dikaiarchos (Basel 19672); Wehrli
pens. IV A. Biography. Fascicle 3. Hermip- Biography. Fascicle 1. The Pre-Hellenistic 1969 = F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristote-
pos of Smyrna (Leiden-Boston-Kőln 1999); Period (Leiden-Boston-Kőln 1998), pp. 266- les. Texte und Kommentar. Heft IX. Phainias
Bollansée 1999A = J. Bollansée, Hermippos 351; Gaiser 1983 = K. Gaiser, La biografia von Eresos. Chamaileon. Praxiphanes (Basel
of Smyrna and His Biographical Writings. A di Platone in Filodemo. Nuovi dati dal PHerc. 19692); Wehrli 1974 = F. Wehrli, Die Schule
Reappraisal, Studia Hellenistica 35 (Leu- 1021, «CErc» 13/1983, pp. 53-62; Gaiser des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Sup-
ven 1999); Bollansée 2002 = J. Bollansée, 1988 = K. Gaiser, Philodems Academica. Die plementband I. Hermippos der Kallimacheer
Philodemos on Chairon, Tyrant of Pellene (P. Berichte über Platon und die Alte Akademie (Basel 1974); Wörle 1981 = A. Wörle, Die
Herc. 1021, Col. 10, 40 - 12, 41), «Historia» in zwei herkulanensischen Papyri, Supple- politische Tätigkeit der Schüler Platons, Göp-
51/2002, pp. 32-48; Brunt 1993 = P.A. Brunt, mentum Platonicum. Die Texte der indirek- pinger akademische Beiträge 112 (Lauterburg
Studies in Greek History and Thought (Oxford ten Platonüberlieferung 1 (Stuttgart 1988); 1981).
1993); Bücheler 1869 = F. Bücheler, Acade- Gomperz 1882 = T. Gomperz, Die Akademie 1
Gaiser 1988, pp. 25-27.

33 GERTJAN VERHASSELT
lenistic literature. With this huge compilation, Philodemus is an important prede-
cessor for Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (third
century CE). Unlike Diogenes, however, he knew these authorities directly.
The Historia Academicorum is chronologically structured, starting with Plato
2
See Gaiser 1988, pp. 18, 119-123, 489 f., and running up until Antiochus of Ascalon and his pupils. After the excerpt
493. Other scholars have unconvincingly con- from Demochares2 on Heraclides Ponticus and Philodemus’ personal skepticism
sidered Hermippus Philodemus’ source for about the reliability of the story about Heraclides’ death in coll. 9-10, Philode-
Heraclides Ponticus, despite the discrepancies
with Hermipp. Hist. FGrHist 1026 F 71: see
mus treats Plato’s pupil Chaeron of Pellene in col. 11, quoting the biographer
Mekler 1902, p. XXX; Wehrli 1974, p. 71 Hermippus of Smyrna (FGrHist 1026 F 39). Hermippus was a pupil of Calli-
and Dorandi 1991, p. 91. In fact, Demochares machus and wrote biographies of lawgivers, tyrants, orators, philosophers and
might be cited in the lower margin of PHerc. poets as well as an astrological poem entitled Phaenomena, a Collection of Aph-
1021, col. 8, where Gaiser 1988, p. 208, sup- orisms from Homer’s Works and a work On Magi.3 In col. 12, Philodemus next
plemented Δη̣[μοχάρ]η̣ν̣. Philodemus calls the
man in question a ῥήτ⌈ω⌉[ρ] in col. 10, 15 (if cites the Peripatetic Phaenias (FGrHist 1012 F 6),4 probably from the Slaying
this reading is correct; it is found only in the of Tyrants out of Vengeance.5 It is uncertain, however, whether he quotes him
Neapolitan transcript); such a label fits the or- directly6 or through Hermippus.7
ator Demochares but not the biographer Her- PHerc. 1021 was first edited by Bücheler on the basis of the Neapolitan disegni,
mippus. Moreover, Philodemus’ skepticism
which he copied only partly; the Oxford transcripts were not yet known at that
about the section on Heraclides is incompati-
ble with his claim that «nothing hinders us» to time.8 The actual editio princeps of the Historia Academicorum is by Mekler,
quote Hermippus’ discussion of Chaeron (see who edited both PHerc. 1021 and PHerc. 164, drawing on the two sets of dise-
also § 5 below). gni, Crönert’s now lost transcription and his own inspection of the originals.9
3
On Hermippus, see Bollansée 1999A. PHerc. 164 was later re-edited by Dorandi.10 Gaiser published the section on
4
The fragment is not found in the edition of
the old Academy (PHerc. 1021, coll. 1 to 18 with the corresponding sections in
Wehrli 1969. PHerc. 164), relying on the disegni, Dorandi’s personal transcription, Mekler’s
edition and Dorandi’s edition of PHerc. 164.11 The entire Historia Academi-
5
See Gomperz 1882, p. 116 n. 14; Mekler
1902, p. 31; Düring 1941, p. 86; H. Berve, Die corum was re-edited by Dorandi, who was much more cautious than Gaiser in
Tyrannis bei den Griechen (München 1967), supplementing the gaps.12 In his edition of Hermipp. Hist. FGrHist 1021 F 39,
vol. II, p. 677; Wörle 1981, p. 111; Mara- however, Bollansée chose to rely on Gaiser instead. In this article, I present a
sco 1985, p. 116; Gaiser 1988, pp. 18, 126,
new edition with a commentary of the fragment of Hermippus in Philodemus.
498; Dorandi 1991, pp. 49, 91 f.; Trampedach
1994, p. 65; Engels 1998, pp. 309-311 and
Bollansée 1999, p. 357; Id. 2002, pp. 43, 47.
2. Chaeron of Pellene
6
See Dorandi 1991, pp. 91 f.
7
See Wehrli 1974, p. 95; Gaiser 1988, pp. Little is known about Plato’s pupil Chaeron, tyrant of Pellene.13 Apart from
124, 126-128, 500 and Bollansée 1999, p. Philodemus (who cites Hermippus and Phaenias), the main sources are Pseu-
359; Id. 2002, pp. 45 f.; Engels 1998, pp. 308 do-Demosthenes (XVII 10-11), Pausanias (VII 27, 7)14 and Athenaeus (XI 119,
f. remained agnostic. 508f-509b).15 Chaeron was one of the tyrants installed by the Macedonians
8
Bücheler 1869. in order to keep control over mainland Greece during Alexander’s absence.16
9
Mekler 1902. According to Hermippus and Phaenias, he seized power with the help of Cor-
rhagus’ Macedonian troops and later received ambassadors sent by Antipater
10
Dorandi 1985.
(regent of Macedonia in Alexander’s absence). In Hermippus’ version, Chaeron
11
See Gaiser 1988, pp. 15, 137 f. explained to the ambassadors that he had banished the citizens and had given
12
Dorandi 1991. the exiles’ wives and possessions to their former slaves. The story also recurs in
13
On Chaeron, see especially Wörle 1981, pp. Pseudo-Demosthenes and Athenaeus. The banishment of «all citizens» in Her-
105-111; Marasco 1985; Trampedach 1994,
pp. 64 f. and Bollansée 2002. 15
Chaeron’s name also recurs in Philodemus’ Χαιρώνεια, p. 678 Meineke).
14
According to Pausanias, the people of Pel- updated catalog of Plato’s pupils in Acad. 16
See Marasco 1985, pp. 111 f. and Bollansée
lene even refused to mention Chaeron’s name Hist., PHerc. 1021, col. 6, 4 add. He is also
2002, p. 36.
because he had overthrown their constitution. mentioned in Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v.

CRONACHE ERCOLANESI 34
mippus (τοὺϲ μὲν | π̣ο̣λ⌈̣ ί⌉ταϲ ἐγβαλεῖν), however, is exaggerated. According
to Pseudo-Demosthenes, «the majority of the citizens» (ἐκβαλὼν τῶν πολιτῶν
τοὺϲ πλείϲτουϲ) were exiled. Athenaeus more accurately speaks of the aris-
tocracy (τοὺϲ ἀρίϲτουϲ τῶν πολιτῶν ἐξήλαϲεν), who were in power before the
coup.17 Similar measures were taken by other tyrants, e.g. Clearchus (see Trog.
in Iustinus XVI 5, 1-4), Dionysius I of Syracuse (see D.S. XIV 66, 5) and Nabis
(see Plb. IV 81, 13; XIII 6, 3; XVI 13, 1). Although the episode is sometimes
considered a topos,18 it might be historical.19 Chaeron was probably also respon-
sible for the loyalty of Pellene to Macedonia during the revolt of Agis III (who
defeated the forces of Corrhagus), when all other Achaean cities sided with the
Peloponnesians (see Aeschin. III 165).20

The above-mentioned sources all explain Chaeron’s rise differently, in accor-


dance with their own agenda. Pseudo-Demosthenes’ anti-Macedonian speech
advises against forming a treaty with Alexander the Great. Therefore, he blames
Alexander for the banishment of the Pellenian citizens, not Chaeron, who is
installed only after this action. He even makes Pellene into a democracy in or-
der to draw the parallel with the threat to Athens, which is historically incor-
rect.21 Athenaeus probably relies on Demochares, who attacks the philosophers
of Athens (see § 5 below) and therefore connects Chaeron’s tyranny with his
discipleship with Plato and Xenocrates: he even claims that Chaeron applied the
political principles set out in Plato’s Republic and Laws and ignores the Mace-
donian support for Chaeron, since this would distract from his argument against
the philosophers.22 Phaenias connects Chaeron’s behavior with his victories in
17
See Marasco 1985, p. 113. The cities in
Achaea were run by aristocracies: see X., HG
wrestling, which made him ambitious (φιλότιμοϲ); this idea is not explicitly VII 1, 41-43.
found in col. 11 (from Hermippus), although it may have been mentioned in 18
See Trampedach 1994, p. 64 n. 24 and En-
the lacunose mid-section. Pausanias also mentions Chaeron’s victories, though gels 1998, p. 307.
merely as a side-note. Incidentally, Pseudo-Demosthenes and Pausanias do not 19
See especially Asheri 1977 and Bollansée
call Chaeron a pupil of Plato and Xenocrates. For Pseudo-Demosthenes at least, 2002, pp. 36 f. with further literature.
it was better to omit this: Alexander the Great was the culprit; mentioning Plato 20
See H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf
or Xenocrates might partly shift the blame on Athens.23 prosopographischer Grundlage. Zweiter
Band. Prosopographie (München 1926), p.
403; Marasco 1985, pp. 111 f. and Trampe-
3. Edition and translation dach 1994, p. 64.

21
See Marasco 1985, pp. 112 f.
My edition is based on the multispectral images (produced by Brigham Young
University), the original papyri preserved in the Officina dei Papiri Ercolanesi
22
See Bollansée 2002, p. 42.
of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples (inspected in November-December 2013), 23
See Marasco 1985, pp. 118 f. n. 43.
the Oxford disegni of PHerc. 1021 (by Gennaro Casanova), the Neapolitan The disegni of columns 9, 10 and 12 were
24

disegni of PHerc. 1021 (by Giuseppe Casanova) 24 and PHerc. 164 (by Carlo made by Carlo Malesci. A facsimile of the
Orazi)25 and the proofs of VH2 (preserved in the Officina dei Papiri Ercolanesi), Neapolitan transcripts has been published in
VH2, vol. 1, pp. 162-197.
which often contain the original readings of the Neapolitan transcript (N 1) be-
fore the intervention of a later reviser (N 2 ). I also cite Crönert’s readings (report-
25
A first set of disegni were made by France-
sco Casanova (i.e. frr. 7-8, frr. 12-13, fr. 19, fr.
ed in Mekler’s apparatus) and Dorandi’s unpublished transcription, when they 21, fr. 29, fr. 33 Dorandi). Copperplates were
are compatible with the visible traces. I have printed the text in two columns: made from these transcripts for VH2 but were
the text of PHerc. 1021 is found on the left, and the corresponding fragments in never published. See also M. Gigante, Catalo-
PHerc. 164 appear on the right. go dei papiri ercolanesi (Napoli 1979), p. 92.

35 GERTJAN VERHASSELT
P Original papyrus
O Oxford disegni
N Neapolitan disegni
Pd Dorandi’s transcription
Pc Crönert’s transcription

PHerc. 1021

col. 10, 40 vac. π̣ερ̣ὶ μέντο[ι Πελ-


col. 11 `ληνέωϲ´ ⟦των̣ ̣ ̣ ̣υ⟧ Χαίρωνοϲ̣, ἐ̣πει-
δήπερ οὐδ̣ὲν <ἐμ>ποδών ἐϲ-
τι, παραθετέον ἃ κατεχώ-
ρ̣ι̣ϲεν Ἕρμιπποϲ ἐν τῶι Πε-
5 ρ̣ὶ̣ τῶν ἀπὸ φιλοϲοφίαϲ εἰϲ
ἀ̣ρ̣ι̣ϲτ̣εί̣αϲ καὶ δυναϲτεί-
̲α̲]ϲ̣ με[θ]ε̣ϲτηκότων· vac. Χαί-
ρ̣ων δ᾿ ὁ [Π]ε̣λλ̣[η]ν̣εὺϲ ἐν Ἀ-
καδημείαι μὲ̣[ν] παρὰ Πλά-
10 τω̣ν̣ι̣ καὶ Ξενοκράτει
ἔμ[εν]ε̣ν, ἀ̣λ̣λ̣ὰ ⌈ν⌉ενικ̣ηκὼϲ PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi
c. 2 π]ά̣λην ἄνδ[ρα]ϲ ἀπτὼϲ
c. 3 ] τρίϲ, κ̣α[θὰ λέ]γ̣εται̣,
τ̣ρ̣ὶϲ δὲ Πυθ[( ̣)] ̣ ̣[ c. 8 top
15 κ̣ατὰ τον γε ̣[ c. 2 ] ̣ ̣[ c. 3 ] ̣ιϲ c. 4 ] ̣[ c. 7
τ ̣[ ̣]τα̣[ c. 3 ] ̣υτο ̣[( ̣)]ο̣[ (̣ ̣)]λ[ ̣] ̣ον c. 3 ] υ̣ τ ̣ ̣ο ̣ ̣ ̣[ c. 3
( )
̣ ]ονυ̣[ c. 3 ]ϲ̣ια̣κον̣ ̣[ c. 4 c. 3 ] π ̣ εραϲ̣ιακον ̣ ̣[( ̣)

c. 5 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[( )̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ηϲ[ c. 3 Δικ]α̣ίαρχόϲ φηϲιν
c. 7 ἀ]π̣οδειξάμ̣⌊ενοϲ⌋ 5 c. 3 ] ̣ ν̣ τα vac. ἀλλατε
20 διὰ τῆϲ] ⌊τό⌋λ̣μηϲ̣ ἔργ̣α κα- ἀ]⌊π̣ο⌋δ̣ει̣ξάμενοϲ διὰ
λὰ c. 3 ] ̣ ̣ ̣[ c. 2 ] ̣ατων τῆϲ] τ̣όλ̣μηϲ ἔργ̣α κα-
c. 6 ]εμ[ c. 5 ]νοϲ ζω- λὰ c. 8 ] ̣εν[
c. 10 ]οτοϲπ[ ̣ . . . . .
c. 3 ]δ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ν ̣α ̣του ̣[( ̣)
25 ( )
̣ ] ̣ ̣[ c. 3 ] ̣[( ̣)] ̣α ̣λ ̣ ̣ ̣[( ̣)

̣[ c. 6 ] ̣τ̣αφρονουν̣-
τ c. 6 ] ̣ ̣[( ̣) ϲ]φόδ[ρ]α περι
c. 7 ] ̣ [ c. 2 ] ̣ ̣ [τύ]ρ̣αν-
νο̣ν̣ [τῆϲ π]α̣τρίδ̣οϲ̣ [κ]α̣τέϲ-
30 τηϲε c. 3 ] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣oνυπε ̣[( ̣)

CRONACHE ERCOLANESI 36
̣ ̣[( ̣)] ̣[ c. 4 ]νεν τῶι π̣ροϲ[( )̣
̣ ̣[( ̣)] ̣ ̣[ c. 3 ] Ἀντιπάτρ̣ου π̣[ρεϲ-
βεύ̣ϲα̣[ϲι]ν̣ διὰ̣ Κορρά⌈γ⌉ο[υ
κα̣[ὶ] τῶ[ν] μετὰ τούτ̣[ο]υ̣ κα- PHerc. 164, fr. 24 Dorandi
35 λῶν ἐμ Πελοποννήϲωι
ϲτρατιωτῶν καταϲχ̣όν̣-
τ̣α̣ τ̣ὴν πατρίδα τοὺϲ μὲν . . . . .
π̣ο̣λ̣⌈ί⌉ταϲ ἐγβαλεῖν, το[ῖϲ] δού- [ 3 illegible lines ]
λοιϲ] δ̣ὲ̣ τ̣ὰ̣ κ̣τήματα τ̣[ῶν ⌊κ̣τ⌋ήματα τ[ῶν] δ̣εϲ̣⌊πο̣-⌋
col. 12 δεϲπο̣τῶν καὶ τὰϲ γυνα̣ῖ̣καϲ 5 ⌊τ⌋ῶ̣ν καὶ τ̣ὰϲ γυ̣ν̣α̣ῖ⌊̣ καϲ⌋
δοῦναι. Φαινίαϲ δ’ αὐτὸν ⌊λέ-⌋ δ⌊ο⌋ῦ̣ναι vac. Φα̣νία̣ϲ ⌊δ’ αὐ-⌋
γ̣ει φιλότιμον ἐμ πλεο̣ν̣ε- τ̣ὸ̣ν λέγ⌊ει⌋ φιλό⌊τι||μον⌋
ξίαι γενόμενον etc. bottom

«Concerning Chaeron of Pellene – since nothing hinders us – it is necessary to


add what Hermippus recorded in On Those Who Converted from Philosophy to
Excellence and the Exercise of Power: Chaeron of Pellene stayed in the Acad-
emy with Plato and Xenocrates, but having won the men’s wrestling contest
without touching the ground ... three times, as it is said, and three times at the
Pythian Games ... through [his] courage he gave a demonstration of great deeds
... appointed him tyrant of his hometown ... who had come as the ambassadors of
Antipater ... that through Corrhagus and the good soldiers who were with him in
the Peloponnese he had taken control over his hometown, had exiled the citizens
and had given the slaves their masters’ possessions and women. Phaenias says
that when he became ambitious in his greed etc.».

PHerc. 1021: the supplements are those of Mekler 1902, unless specified otherwise
Col. 10, 40 before space: `κάτ̣ω̣´ (κά[τω] Gaiser); π̣ερ̣ὶ Verhasselt; μέντο[ι] Gaiser : per-
haps μὲν το[ῦ] Col. 11, 1 [Πελ]||ληνέωϲ Gomperz; [τ]οῦ Χαίρωνο[ϲ] Gomperz, but
the letters ̣ ̣ ̣υ appear to have been deleted 2 οὐδ̣ὲν <ἐμ>ποδών Verhasselt : οὐ[θ]<ὲν>
ἐνποδών Gomperz ap. Mekler 6 ἀ̣ρ̣ι̣ϲτ̣εί̣αϲ Verhasselt ([ἀρ]ιϲ̣[τεί]αϲ Mekler) 7
paragraphus identified by Verhasselt 9 μ[ὲν] Gomperz ap. Mekler 11 ἔμ[ενε]ν
Gaiser : ἔμ[εινε]ν Mekler 12 [δὶϲ πά]λην Mekler : [τὴν πά]λην Gaiser 13 δ̣[ὶϲ ἢ]
τρίϲ Gaiser; κ̣α̣[θὰ λέ]γ̣ετα[ι] Gaiser 14 Πυθ̣[ίοιϲ] Mekler : Πυθ̣[ίοιϲ, οὐκέτι] Gaiser:
perhaps Πυθ[ι]ο̣ν̣[ίκηϲ] or Πυθο̣ῖ̣ 15 τὸν γεν̣[ναίοιϲ ἄθλ]ο̣ιϲ Mekler : τὸν γεν̣[να]ῖ̣ο̣[ν
ἄ]ριϲ|το̣ν̣ Gaiser 16 τα̣[c. 3] ̣ : τ’ἄ̣[νδρ]α̣ Gaiser 18 [Δικαίαρ]χ[όϲ φ]ηϲ[ιν] Mekler
19 [ἀλλ’ ἅτε ἀ]π̣οδειξ̣άμ[ενοϲ] Gaiser on the basis of PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi : [ἰόντα.
ἀλλ’ ἀ]ποδειξά[με|νοϲ] Mekler on the basis of the same text 20 [διὰ τῆϲ τόλ]μηϲ̣
Gaiser on the basis of PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi 20-21 κα|[λά] Gaiser: κα|[κήθουϲ]
Mekler 21 [με]τὰ τῶν Gaiser 22-23 [τὴν τοῦ Πλάτω]νοϲ ζω|[ήν] Gaiser: perhaps
ἐμ [Πλάτω]νοϲ ζω|[ῆι] 26 [κατ]αφρονοῦν̣[τα] Gaiser : [κατ]αφρονοῦν̣[τεϲ] Mekler:
perhaps ] ̣τ̣α φρονουν̣[τ- 27 ] ̣ ̣[ : perhaps κ̣α̣[ὶ] ([καὶ] Gaiser); [ϲ]φόδ[ρ]α Gaiser;
περὶ Mekler : περί|[βλεπτον] Gaiser 28 ] ̣[ c. 2 ] ̣ ̣[ : perhaps [Ἀλέξα]ν̣[δρ]ο̣ϲ̣ (see
Paus. VII 27, 7) or [Ἀντί]π̣[ατρ]ο̣ϲ̣ 28-29 [τύρ]αν|[νον] Gaiser 29-30 [τῆϲ π]α̣τρ̣ί̣δ̣ο̣[ϲ
κ]α̣τέϲ|[τηϲε] Gaiser 30 ] ̣ον : [ξενι]κὸν Bücheler ap. Mekler : [νεανι]κόν Gai-
ser 30-31 ὑπεν̣[αν|τίον] Mekler : ὑπεμ̣[ει|δία δ᾿] Gaiser : ὑπεμ̣[ει|δίαϲε] Gaiser comm.

37 GERTJAN VERHASSELT
31 ]εν τῶι π̣ρὸϲ Mekler : [ὡϲ ἴϲ]μ̣εν τῶι π̣ροϲ[ώ|πωι] Gaiser 32 [λέγων] Ἀντιπά-
τ[ρ]ου Gaiser : [εἰπὼν] Ἀντιπάτ[ρ]ου Gaiser comm. 32-33 π̣[ρεϲ|βεύ]ϲα̣[ϲι]ν̣ Gaiser
33 perhaps Κορρά⌈γ⌉ο[υ τε] 34 κα̣[ὶ] τῶ[ν] Verhasselt 38 [πο]λίταϲ Mekler 39
τ̣[ῶν] Verhasselt : [τε] Mekler col. 12, 1 δεϲπο̣τῶν Verhasselt (δ̣[εϲπο]τ̣ῶν Mekler)

PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi


2 ] υ̣ τ ̣ ̣ : perhaps α̣ὐτὸ̣ν̣ 3 ] π
̣ ερ : perhaps [ὥ]ϲ̣περ or ὑ̣πὲρ; αϲ̣ια : perhaps Ἀϲ̣ία or
ἀε̣ὶ 4 [Δικ]α̣ίαρχ̣οϲ Mekler 5 [ c. 3 ] ̣ ̣ντα : δ̣ό̣ντα Gaiser 1983 : [πα|λα]ίοντα Gaiser
1988; ἀλλ’ ἅτε Gaiser 1988 : ἄλλα τε Dorandi 6 [ἀπο]|δ̣ει̣ξάμενοϲ Gaiser on the basis
of PHerc. 1021, col. 11, 19 7 [τῆϲ] Gaiser 7-8 κα[λά] Gaiser, but κα|[λά] is more
accurate

PHerc. 164, fr. 24 Dorandi: the supplements are those of Gaiser 1988, unless specified
otherwise
4 τ[ῶν] Verhasselt : [τε] Gaiser 4-5 δ̣εϲ̣⌊πο̣|τ⌋ῶ̣ν Verhasselt on the basis of PHerc.
1021, col. 12, 1 6 space identified by Verhasselt; Φα̣νία̣ϲ Verhasselt 7 φιλό[τιμον]
Gaiser on the basis of PHerc. 1021, col. 12, 3, but φιλό[τι||μον] Dorandi is more accurate

Paleographical notes
PHerc. 1021
Col. 11, 1 τ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣υ̣ (unidentifiable traces) P : ̣ ̣ ̣[ c. 4 ]ο̣υ Pd των̣[ c. 3 ] ̣υ O τω[ N 2
ουδ̣εν P : ουθ̣ ̣ ̣ Pd ουζεν O ου[ N 8 ]ε̣λλ̣[ ̣]ν̣ευϲ P : ]ελλ̣η̣ ̣ευϲ Pd ]ο̣υλ[ ̣]ϲ̣ευϲ O
]λ[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ευϲ N 11 ]ε̣νικ̣η̣κωϲ P : μεντηκωϲ O ]νι[ ̣ ̣]κωϲ N 13 [ c. 3 ]τριϲ PN : ̣[ c. 4
]τριϲ Pd (rising oblique) [ c. 3 ]πυϲ O 14 ] ̣ ̣[ : trace of narrow round letter, followed
by rising oblique or slanting upright P 15 at beginning of line sovrapposto of ]μ[ P;
̣[ (trace of upright at line level) P : ν̣[ Pd ̣[ (λ̣ or ν̣) O; ] ̣ ̣[ : trace of round letter (ο̣ or
ε̣), followed by specks at maximum height P; ] ̣ιϲ (round trace [ο̣, ω̣]) P : ]ριϲ Pd ]οιϲ O
16 at beginning of line sovrapposto of ] ̣[ (trace of upright) P : transcribed as same layer
in Pd; τ ̣[ (trace of round letter) P : τ[ O ; ] ̣υ : triangular letter (α̣ or λ̣) P; ο ̣[ : trace
of descending stroke at mid-height with connecting upright (ν̣ or π̣) P; ]ο̣[ P : ]τ[ Pd;
] ̣ο̣ν (horizontal bar at mid-height with upright [ν̣ or μ̣]) P : ]νον O 17 at beginning
of line sovrapposto of ] ̣αυ[ (upright) P : υ̣ transcribed as basic layer in Pd; ]ϲ̣[ ̣]α̣κον̣ ̣[
(trace at line level followed by left-hand arc [ω̣ or ̣ϲ̣ or ̣ε̣]) P : ] ̣κ̣ων̣ϲ̣ ̣[ Pd ]ιαιϲοειϲ[ O
18 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ : two letter tips followed by upright and triangular letter (these may belong to
a sovrapposto layer) P; ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣η̣ϲ̣[ (specks of two letters at maximum height and line level,
followed by trace of righthand arc, then tip of letter extending above line [perhaps φ̣])
P : ] ̣[ (lower left-hand arc) Pd ]ν[ c. 2 ]ηϲ[ O 20 at beginning of line sovrapposto of
] ̣ε[ (descending oblique stroke) P; ε̣ρ̣[ ̣]α P : ερι[ O 21 ] ̣ ̣ ̣[ (right-hand arc [ο̣ or ω̣],
followed by horizontal trace at line level and remains of round letter [ε̣ or ο̣], of which
the last two letters might be identical with ̣ε in PHerc. 164, fr. 22, 8) P : ] ̣ιϲ̣[ Pd (rising
and descending oblique); above these traces sovrapposto of ]με[ P; below these traces
sovrapposto of ] ̣[ (triangular letter) P; ] ̣α̣των (horizontal trace at maximum height)
P : ]ατων O 23 ]κ[ ̣] ̣ει[̣ c. 2 ]ι ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ c. 2 ]οϲπ[ Pd 24 ]δ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ν ̣ α ̣του ̣[( )̣ ] (after δ
round letter [ο̣ or ε̣], followed by unidentifiable trace, triangular letter [λ̣ or α̣], trace of
round letter, then after ν upright with horizontal crossbar [τ̣ or γ̣], after α rising oblique,
followed by horizontal bar at maximum height [τ̣], after ο trace at maximum height
[υ̣], followed by horizontal trace at line level) P : ]δον̣λ̣[ ̣]τ̣ια̣ [ c. 3 ] ̣[ (round letter) Pd
] ̣του[ (slanting upright) O 25 ] ̣ ̣[ : trace of round letter (perhaps ο̣), followed by
upright with descending mid-stroke (perhaps ν̣) P; ] [̣ : trace at maximum height P;
] ̣ : speck at line level P; α ̣λ ̣ ̣ ̣[ (after α λ̣ or α̣, after λ remains of two triangular
letter, followed by horizontal bar at maximum height with trace of upright at line level

CRONACHE ERCOLANESI 38
: αα̣λλ̣α̣τ̣ or αλλα̣α̣τ̣) P : ] ̣αλλα̣[ Pd ]α[ c. 2 ]ατ[ O 26 ̣[ : trace of narrow round letter
(ο̣, ϲ̣) or upright with base P; ] ̣ trace at mid-height P 27 ] ̣ ̣[ : horizontal trace at max-
imum height and speck at line level, followed by slanting upright or oblique P 28 at
beginning of line sovrapposto of ] ̣ο[ (trace at maximum height), followed by sottoposto
of ] ̣η ̣[ (before η lefthand arc, after η trace of upright at line level) P; ] ̣[ : trace at mid-
height, followed by upright (perhaps ν̣) P; ] ̣ ̣[ : traces of two round letters (perhaps ο̣ϲ̣)
P 30 at beginning of line sovrapposto of ]ει[ P; ] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣ο̣ν ̣π̣ε ̣[ (trace of upright
with base at line level, after lacuna of two letters upright, after lacuna of one letter lower
trace of arc, after πε upright with trace at mid-height) P : ]κονυπε ̣ (remains of μ̣ or ν̣)
O 31 ̣ ̣[ : horizontal trace at line level and mid-height with speck at maximum height
(perhaps ε̣), followed by upright P; ] ̣[ : trace at maximum height P 32 ̣ ̣[ : specks at
mid-height P; ] ̣ ̣[ : remains of η̣ or π̣, followed by lower part of left-hand arc P, after first
trace sovrapposto of ] ̣[ (horizontal trace) P 33 κορρα[ ̣]ο[ P κορρατο[ O κορρα[ N 1
κογρα[ N 2 38 π̣ο̣λ̣[ ̣]ταϲ P [ ̣ ̣ ̣]ιτ̣αϲ Pd [ ̣ ̣ ̣]νταϲ O [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ταϲ N

PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi


1 ] ̣[ : trace of unidentifiable letter P 2 ] ̣ (descending oblique stroke [α̣, δ̣ or λ̣]) P :
]δ Pc; υτ ̣ ̣ : round letter (ε̣ or ο̣), followed by traces of two uprights at line level (ν̣ or π̣)
P; ̣ ̣ ̣[ (upright with horizontal stroke at mid-height, followed by two uprights connected
by mid-stroke [probably ν̣], then traces at line level [probably λ̣]) P : η ̣ (lower trace
of round letter) Pc 3 ] ̣ : trace of curve at maximum height and speck at line level (ϲ̣
or υ̣) P; αϲ̣ι : perhaps αε̣ι; ̣ ̣[ : trace of left hand arc, followed by lower trace of round
letter (ο̣ϲ̣ or ω̣), the latter trace might be sovrapposto P; at end of line sovrapposto of ] ̣[
(horizontal trace at maximum height) P 4 after φηϲιν sovrapposto of ]μ[ PN 8 ] ̣ :
upper trace of left-hand arc (ϲ̣ or κ̣) P

PHerc. 164, fr. 24 Dorandi


4 Above the first line are scanty traces of three additional lines, most of which belong
to a sottoposto or sovrapposto layer; at the end of the line sovrapposto of ] ̣ ̣[ (two up-
rights) P 5 at the beginning of the line sottoposto of ]ιν[ P; after γυ̣ν̣α̣ι̣[ sovrapposto of
]φω[ P : in Pc and N transcribed as basic layer 6 at the beginning of the line sottoposto
of ] ̣α[ (speck at maximum height) P; over ⌊ο⌋ sovrapposto of ] ̣[ (descending oblique)
P : in Pc, Pd and N transcribed as basic layer; pace Pd the letters φα̣νια̣ belong to the basic
layer; after Φα̣νία̣ϲ sovrapposto of unidentifiable traces P (ιεια according to N) 7 at the
beginning of the line sottoposto of ] ̣[ (upright) P; over ⌊ει⌋ sottoposto of ]δι[ P

4. Commentary

4.1. PHerc. 1021


10, 40 - 11, 1. π̣ερ̣ὶ μέντο[ι Πελ]||`ληνέωϲ´ ⟦των̣ ̣ ̣ ̣υ⟧ Χαίρωνοϲ̣. Gaiser and
Dorandi read το̣ῦ μέντο[ι Πελ]||ληνέωϲ [τ]ο̣ῦ Χ̣αίρωνοϲ.26 The first το̣ῦ was
based on the Oxford transcript, which reads ]τευμεντο[, with epsilon supposedly
as an error for omicron. Βefore μεντο[, however, Dorandi’s transcript reads iota.
This letter is also found in the Neapolitan transcript, which reads ]ειμεντι[. The
original papyrus shows a horizontal trace at maximum height with a trace of an
upright (pi or tau), followed by remains of a round letter (epsilon or omicron),
an upright with a speck at maximum height and another upright. The last upright
is a trace of iota. On the basis of these newly read traces, I now read π̣ερ̣ὶ: epsi-
lon is supported by O and N and iota by N and Pd. In fact, the sentence requires 26
Gaiser 1988, pp. 216-219; Dorandi 1991,
a construction with the preposition περί. pp. 141 f.

39 GERTJAN VERHASSELT
The scribe has canceled his first words at col. 11, 1 and written ληνεωϲ in super-
script as a correction. According to the Oxford transcript, the deleted letters are
των̣; the Neapolitan transcript reads τω[. In its current state, the papyrus only
shows tau, followed by unidentifiable traces; Dorandi’s transcript only records
traces of three unidentifiable letters. Before Χαίρωνοϲ, his transcript reads ]ο̣υ,
but I was only able to read upsilon (as in the Oxford transcript). This is preceded
by unidentifiable traces. Mekler, Gaiser and Dorandi supplemented [τ]οῦ.27 Al-
though this may be correct, the scribe seems to have canceled everything written
before Χαίρωνοϲ, including upsilon. If [τ]οῦ is deleted, there is no article with
Χαίρωνοϲ. Perhaps it should be supplemented as μὲν το[ῦ] at the end of col. 10,
where Gaiser and Dorandi supplemented μέντο[ι],28 although the position of the
article in τοῦ Πελληνέωϲ Χαίρωνοϲ is less natural than in τοῦ Πελληνέωϲ τοῦ
Χαίρωνοϲ or Πελληνέωϲ τοῦ Χαίρωνοϲ.

2. οὐδ̣ὲν <ἐμ>ποδών. Gomperz restored these words as οὐ[θ]<ὲν> ἐνποδών


(with haplography).29 Since the scribe in PHerc. 1021 usually assimilates a final
-ν to the subsequent letter (compare col. 11, 35 ἐμ Πελοποννήϲωι; col. 12, 3-4
ἐμ πλεο̣ν̣ε|ξίαι), it is more likely that εν belongs to οὐθέν, and the scribe’s eye
jumped to ποδων, skipping εμ. Dorandi’s transcript reads ουθ̣ ̣ ̣; however, the
papyrus shows a trace of a triangular letter instead of a round one. Moreover, the
error ουζεν in O is more intelligible if οὐδὲν is read: zeta can be mistaken for
delta but is not paleographically close to theta.

4-7. Ἕρμιπποϲ ἐν τῶι Πε|ρ̣ὶ̣ τῶν ἀπὸ φιλοϲοφίαϲ εἰϲ | ἀ̣ρ̣ι̣ϲτ̣εί̣αϲ καὶ δυναϲτεί|-
[α]ϲ̣ με[θ]ε̣ϲτηκότων. For a long time, the reconstruction of Hermippus’ title
was debated. It is attested only once more in Phld., Stoic. Hist., PHerc. 1018,
col. 16, 2-6: [Ἑρ]μίππωι γρά|[φεται ἐν] τῶι Περὶ τῶν | ἀ[πὸ φιλ]ο̣ϲοφίαϲ εἰϲ
δυ|να[ϲτεί]α̣ϲ με̣τ̣α̣ϲτάν|τω̣ν̣. In PHerc. 1021, the title has an additional substan-
tive. Bücheler’s supplement [τυραννίδ]αϲ30 was already rejected by Mekler31 but
was nevertheless adopted by Wehrli32 and perpetuated in later literature.33 Me-
kler supplemented [ἀρ]ιϲ̣[τεί]αϲ34 and Gaiser [ἀρ]ιϲ̣τ̣[ε]ί̣αϲ (drawing on Doran-
Mekler 1902, p. 28; Gaiser 1988, p. 219;
27 di’s transcription ]τ̣[ ̣]ι̣αϲ,), which Dorandi later adopted.35 This supplement
Dorandi 1991, p. 142. was rejected by Bollansée (the previous editor of Hermippus), who claimed
that the notion of excellence (ἀριϲτεία) did not fit Hermippus’ work. According
28
Gaiser 1988, p. 216; Dorandi 1991, p. 141.
to Bollansée, the two extant fragments, on Chaeron and on Persaeus of Citium
29
Gomperz ap. Mekler 1902, p. 28. See also (FGrHist 1026 F 40a-b), indicate that, in Hermippus view, the transition from
Gaiser 1988, pp. 219, 495 and Dorandi 1991,
p. 142. philosophy to a position of power was a form of degeneration.36 However, the
tendency of these two fragments need not be representative of the whole work.
30
Bücheler 1869, p. 9.
My re-examination of the papyrus has in fact confirmed the reading ἀριϲτείαϲ:
31
Mekler 1902, p. 29. the original shows a triangular letter (α̣), a trace of a loop at maximum height (ρ̣),
32
Wehrli 1974, pp. 36, 95. an upright (ι̣), a left-hand arc (ϲ), an upright with a horizontal crossbar (τ̣), re-
33
See Bollansée 1999A, p. 73. mains of epsilon, a trace of an upright at line level (ι̣) and finally αϲ. Also, below
[α]ϲ̣ of δυναϲτεί|[α]ϲ̣, there is a paragraphus, not noticed by previous editors. It
34
See Mekler 1902, p. 29.
is used in combination with the space to mark the beginning of the excerpt from
35
Gaiser 1988, pp. 219, 495; Dorandi 1991, Hermippus.
p. 142.
36
Bollansée 1999, p. 356; Id. 1999A, pp. 73- 11-14. According to Hermippus, Chaeron achieved victories in wrestling:
75; Id. 2002, p. 34 n. 5. ⌈ν⌉ενικ̣ηκὼϲ | [ c. 2 π]ά̣λην ἄνδ[ρα]ϲ ἀπτὼϲ | [ c. 3 ] τρίϲ, κ̣α[θὰ λέ]γ̣εται,̣ | τ̣ρ̣ὶϲ

CRONACHE ERCOLANESI 40
δὲ Πυθ[( )̣ ] ̣ ̣[. Hermippus mentions three victories in an unspecified contest and
another three at the Pythian Games. The former probably concern the Olym-
pic Games, which perhaps did not need to be mentioned by name. Pausanias
(VII 27, 7) speaks of four Olympic victories, but Phaenias (ap. Phld., Acad.
Hist., PHerc. 1021, col. 12, 4-5 = FGrHist 1012 F 6) merely of one. Pausanias
also refers to two victories at a contest, whose name has probably been lost
through haplography in δύο ἀνελόμενον πάληϲ ν<ίκαϲ ...>ικὰϲ, i.e. the contest
was probably denoted by an adjective in ‑ικόϲ; it has been supplemented as
either <Ἰϲθμικὰϲ> (Boeckh) 37 or <Πυθικὰϲ> (Gaiser).38 On the basis of Pausa-
nias, Mekler supplemented [δὶϲ] before [π]ά̣λην at l. 12.39 Gaiser and Dorandi,
however, supplemented the article [τὴν] here and reconstructed the reference to
the double victory in l. 13. Dorandi’s transcript records a rising oblique at the
beginning of that line, which I was unable to confirm on the basis of the original.
If the identification of this trace is correct, the supplement δ̣[ὶϲ ἢ] τρὶϲ is likely.40
However, the deviating number of Olympic victories in Pausanias is a warning
not to use him blindly to reconstruct Philodemus’ text.

14. Πυθ[( ̣)] ̣ ̣[. Mekler, Gaiser and Dorandi supplemented the word as Πυθ̣[ίοιϲ]
«at the Pythian Games».41 The additional traces visible on the original (a round
letter, followed by a rising oblique or slanting upright) could confirm this con-
jecture. However, to express a victory at a contest, νικάω is usually constructed
with a cognate accusative (e.g. Πύθια, Ὀλύμπια, Νέμεα, Ἴϲθμια, Διονύϲια) or an
adverbial of place (e.g. Πυθοῖ, Ἰϲθμοῖ, (ἐν) Ὀλυμπίᾳ, (ἐν) Νεμέᾳ). Occasionally,
ἐν + the contest in the dative case is found (e.g. ἐν Πυθίοιϲ, ἐν Ὀλυμπίοιϲ),42 but
the single dative is rare.43 More plausible is the adverb Πυθο̣ῖ̣ «at the Pythian
Games» or the adjective Πυθ[ι]ο̣ν̣[ίκηϲ] «victor at the Pythian Games»: πυθ[
is followed either immediately by the new traces or by a narrow letter (iota),
followed by the two traces.

14-18. Gaiser supplemented these lines as [οὐκέτι | κ]α̣τὰ τὸν γεν̣[να]ῖ̣ο̣[ν ἄ]- 37
See W.H.S. Jones, Pausanias. Description
ριϲ|τό̣ν̣ τ’ ἄ̣[νδρ]α̣ ὑποτ̣[ά]τ[τετ]α[ι], ⌈τ⌉ὸν | δ̣όντ̣[α δὲ] τ̣ὰ ἴϲων ἴϲ[α, καθά|περ of Greece. III. Books VI-VIII (I-XXI), (Lon-
don-Cambridge, Mass. 1933), p. 340.
Δικαίαρ]⌈χ⌉[όϲ φ]ηϲ[ιν], which he translated as «da ordnet er sich nun nicht
mehr unter im Sinne des edlen und besten Mannes (= Platons), der ‘das Glei- 38
Gaiser 1988, p. 494.
che (Gleichberechtigung) von Gleichen’ gewährte, wie ja Dikaiarch sagt». His 39
Mekler 1902, p. 29.
iunctura «equal for equals» is supposedly paralleled by PHerc. 1021, col. 2;44 40
Gaiser 1988, p. 219; Dorandi 1991, p. 142.
however, his conjecture is ungrammatical (his translation ignores the supple- 41
Mekler 1902, p. 29; Gaiser 1988, p. 219;
mented δέ) and is contradicted by the traces both in col. 2 (see § 4.2 below) and
Dorandi 1991, p. 142.
in col. 11. His supplement [Δικαίαρ]⌈χ⌉[όϲ φ]ηϲ[ιν] at l. 18 is probably correct,
since it is found in the parallel fragment in PHerc. 164, fr. 22, 4 Dorandi. The
42
See Pi., N. II 15 (9) (ἐν Πυθίοιϲί τε
νικᾶν), Arr., Epict. III 22, 52 (ἐν Ὀλυμπίοιϲ
letters ] ̣υτο ̣[ at l. 16 correspond to ] ̣υτ ̣ ̣ο ̣ ̣ ̣[ in PHerc. 164, fr. 22, 2 Doran- νικηθῆναι), Zen. IV 6 (ἐν τοῖϲ Παναθηναίοιϲ
di, whereas ]ονυ̣[ c. 3 ]ϲ̣ι̣α̣κον̣ ̣[ at l. 17 probably matches ] ̣περαϲ̣ιακον ̣ ̣[ in νικήϲαϲ), Eust., Il. I 403-404, vol. 1, p. 194
PHerc. 164, fr. 22, 3 Dorandi. If the two texts are combined, l. 16 should prob- van der Valk (τῶν νικώντων ἐν Ὀλυμπίοιϲ)
ably read α̣/λ̣ + υτοπ̣ο + ν̣/η̣ (+ perhaps 1 letter) + λ + 1 letter + ]μ̣ον or ]ν̣ον, and sch. Patmiaca Pi., P. IX 177-178 Semite-
los (νικήϲαντα καὶ ἐν τοῖϲ Παναθηναίοιϲ καὶ
whereas l. 17 should read ]ονυ̣περαϲ̣ιακονω̣[. However, I have not been able to
ἐν τοῖϲ Ὀλυμπίοιϲ).
make sense of this. Gaiser’s supplement ἀκονιτὶ παλαίοντα «wrestling without
falling» in PHerc. 164, fr. 22, 3 Dorandi (not restored in PHerc. 1021, col. 11,
43
It occurs only once in Plu., Quaestiones con-
vivales II 4, 638b (Πυθίοιϲ νενικηκότα).
17) is impossible, since after κον both papyri read a round letter (sigma, omicron
or omega), no upright. PHerc. 1021, col. 11, 17 suggests that the trace before 44
Gaiser 1988, pp. 219 f., 496.

41 GERTJAN VERHASSELT
περ is upsilon. Possibilities are ὑπέρ and (if we do not read upsilon) ὥϲπερ, fol-
lowed by Ἀϲία or ἀεί. κον- remains difficult to supplement. Perhaps Philodemus
mentioned Conon, an Athenian general, who defected to the Persians after the
Peloponnesian War.

19. [ c. 7 ἀ]π̣οδειξάμ̣⌞ενοϲ⌟. Gaiser supplemented [ἀλλ’ ἅτε ἀ]π̣oδειξ̣άμ[ενοϲ]


on the basis of PHerc. 164, fr. 22, 5 Dorandi. However, in PHerc. 164, αλλατε
is preceded by ] ̣ ̣ντα, perhaps a participle. The lacuna in PHerc. 1021 is too
narrow to accommodate all this. Philodemus has obviously changed something
in the final version, which is why I have not supplemented l. 19. In any case, the
addition of ἅτε is more likely than that of the word in ] ̣ ̣ντα.

28-30. [ c. 7 ] ̣ [ c. 2 ] ̣ ̣ [τύ]ρ̣αν|νο̣ν̣ [τῆϲ π]α̣τρίδ̣οϲ̣ [κ]α̣τέϲ|[τηϲε]. Already


Gaiser had supplemented [τύρ]αν|[νον τῆϲ π]α̣τρ̣ί̣δ̣ο̣[ϲ κ]α̣τέϲ|[τηϲε] on the basis
of Paus. VII 27, 7 (τύραννοϲ τῆϲ πατρίδοϲ τῆϲ αὑτοῦ καταϲτῆναι) and [D.] XVII
10-11 (Χαίρωνα δὲ τὸν παλαιϲτὴν τύραννον ἐγκατέϲτηϲεν).45 Although Dorandi
did not adopt these conjectures,46 my re-examination of the papyrus has con-
firmed them. As the subject of κατέϲτηϲε, Gaiser supplemented [ὁ Μακεδὼν]
on the basis of Pseudo-Demosthenes (τούτων δ’ ἐν Πελλήνῃ νῦν καταλέλυκε
τὸν δῆμον ὁ Μακεδὼν). Since [τύ]ρ̣αν|νο̣ν̣ is preceded by traces of two round
letters, I consider supplementing [Ἀλέξα]ν̣[δρ]ο̣ϲ̣ (see Paus. VII 27, 7: δῶρον
τὸ ἐπιφθονώτατον παρὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Φιλίππου λαβών) or [Ἀντί]π̣[ατρ]ο̣ϲ.̣

30. ] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣oνυπε ̣[( ̣)]. Bücheler’s supplement [ξενι]κὸν «foreign» is possi-


ble,47 but the adjective is strange applied to Chaeron, a native of Pellene. Gaiser
supplemented [νεανι]κόν «impetuous, insolent», followed by ὑπεμ̣[ει|δία] «he
smiled» on the basis of the fragment of Phaenias in col. 12, 7 (ν̣εαν̣ι̣κόν) and col.
12, 36 (ὑ̣πο̣[με]ι̣δ̣[ιῶν]).48 The latter supplement in col. 12 is uncertain, however:
υ̣πο̣[ is found in the Oxford transcript, whereas the original only shows υ̣π[; I
have not been able to confirm ]ι̣δ̣[, read in Dorandi’s transcript (O reads noth-
ing). According to Gaiser, ὑπομειδιάω expresses Chaeron’s insolent reply to
Antipater’s ambassadors. Mekler’s supplement ὑπεν̣[αν|τίον], however, is also
possible.49

32-33. π̣[ρεϲ]|βεύ̣ϲα̣[ϲι]ν̣. Gaiser had already supplemented π̣[ρεϲ|βεύ]ϲα̣[ϲι]ν̣ on


the basis of the parallel in Phaenias in col. 12, 37-38: [π]ρὸϲ τοὺϲ Ἀντι̣π̣ά̣τ̣ρ̣ο̣υ
45
Gaiser 1988, pp. 221, 497. | πρέϲβειϲ. Although Dorandi did not adopt Gaiser’s supplement,50 my re-exam-
46
Dorandi 1991, p. 142. ination of the papyrus has confirmed it.
47
Bücheler ap. Mekler 1902, p. 30.
33-36. διὰ̣ Κορρά⌈γ⌉ο[υ] | κα̣[ὶ] τῶ[ν] μετὰ τούτ̣[ο]υ̣ κα|λῶν ἐμ Πελοποννήϲωι |
48
Gaiser 1988, pp. 221; 497 f. ϲτρατιωτῶν. Gaiser and Dorandi supplemented the text as δι[ὰ] Κορράγο̣[υ τῶν
49
Mekler 1902, p. 30. | τε] τό[τε] μετὰ τού[το]υ̣ κα|λ̣ῶν ἐμ Πελοποννήϲωι | ϲτρατιωτῶν.51 However, at
50
Dorandi 1991, p. 142. the beginning of l. 34, the original shows kappa followed by a rising oblique (α̣).
The Oxford transcript (which reads nothing for the first two letters) then gives
51
Gaiser 1988, p. 221; Dorandi 1991, p. 142.
Mekler 1902, p. 30 read δι[ὰ] Κορράγο̣[υ, tau and a round letter. The original shows that this round letter is omega. There-
| αὐ]τὸ[ν δὲ] μετὰ τού[το]υ̣ κα[ὶ | τῶ]ν ἐμ fore, I supplement κα̣[ὶ] τῶ[ν]. At l. 33, Κορρά⌈γ⌉ο[υ] may have been followed
Πελοποννήϲῳ | [ϲτρ]ατιωτῶν. by the particle [τε].

CRONACHE ERCOLANESI 42
col. 11, 39 - col. 12, 1. τ̣ὰ̣ κ̣τήματα τ̣[ῶν] || δεϲπο̣τῶν. Gaiser and Dorandi read
[τὰ] κτήματά [τε] || τ̣[ῶν] ⌈κ⌉[υρ]ίων.52 In Dorandi’s transcript, the first letter
of column 12 is transcribed as τ̣. However, the multispectral images clearly
show δεϲπο̣τῶν.53 This reading is also confirmed by PHerc. 164, fr. 24 Dorandi
(δ̣εϲ̣⌊πο̣|τ⌋ῶ̣ν). Therefore, I supplement τ̣[ῶν] at the end of col. 11 instead of τε.

4.2. PHerc. 164, fr. 22


This fragment from the final version of Philodemus’ Historia Academicorum is
the counterpart of PHerc. 1021, col. 11, 16-20.54 Dorandi’s edition of the text is
as follows:55

]υπ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[
]περαϲιακον ̣[
Δικ]αίαρχόϲ φηϲιν [
̣]ιοντα. ἄλλα τε
5 δ̣ει̣ξάμενοϲ διὰ
τ̣ό̣λ̣μηϲ ἔργα κα[
]εν[
Gaiser supplemented this as
56

τα] δ̣’ ὑπὲ̣ρ̣ ἴ̣ϲ̣ω̣ν̣ [ἴϲα καὶ


τὸ] πέραϲ {ι} ἀκονι̣[τί, ὡϲ
Δικ]αίαρχόϲ φηϲιν, [πα-
λα]ίοντα. vac. ἀλλ’ ἅτε [ἀπο-
5 δ̣ει̣ξάμενοϲ διὰ [τῆϲ
τ̣ό̣λ̣μηϲ ἔργα κα[λά, οὐ-
κέτι ἠξίω]ϲεν [μετὰ 52
Gaiser 1988, p. 222; Dorandi 1991, pp. 143,
233.
53
Already Gomperz ap. Mekler 1902, p. 31
However, delta of δ̣ει̣ξάμενοϲ is at the same height as the first alpha of [Δι- had suggested [τῶν] δ̣[εϲπο]τ̣ῶν for col. 12, 1.
κ]α̣ίαρχοϲ, which means that it is preceded by a gap of about three letters. There- 54
Mekler 1902, pp. XX f. was the first to
fore, the prefix ἀπο- should be supplemented at the beginning of Dorandi’s l. 5 connect PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi with
(my l. 6), not at the end of Dorandi’s l. 4 (my l. 5). The same holds true for the PHerc. 1021, col. 11, 16-20. This hypothesis
was adopted by Gaiser 1988, pp. 220, 496
supplement [τῆϲ], which should go before τ̣όλ̣μηϲ at Dorandi’s l. 6 (my l. 7), not
and is confirmed by the parallels [ἀ]⌊π̣ο⌋δ̣ει̣-
at the end of his l. 5 (my l. 6). This means that φηϲιν at Dorandi’s l. 3, αλλατε at ξάμενοϲ ~ [ἀ]π̣οδειξάμ̣⌊ενοϲ⌋ and τ̣όλ̣μηϲ ἔργ̣α
his l. 4 and κα at his l. 6 are line ends. Incidentally, I include an extra line at the κα|[λὰ] ~ ⌊τό⌋λ̣μηϲ̣ ἔργ̣α κα[λὰ].
beginning, where a scanty trace is visible. 55
Dorandi 1985, p. 106; Id. 1991, p. 179.

2-5. [ c. 3 ] ̣υτ ̣ ̣ο ̣ ̣ ̣[ c. 3 | c. 3 ] ̣περαϲ̣ιακον ̣ ̣[( )̣ | Δικ]α̣ίαρχόϲ φηϲιν | [ c. 3


56
Gaiser 1988, p. 220.
] ̣ ̣ντα. Gaiser supplemented this text as [τὰ] δ̣᾽ ὑπὲ̣ρ̣ ἴ̣ϲ̣ω̣ν̣ [ἴϲα καὶ | τὸ] πέραϲ 57
Gaiser 1988, pp. 220, 497. In a previous
{ι} ἀκονι̣[τί, ὡϲ | Δικ]α̣ίαρχόϲ φηϲιν, [πα|λα]ίοντα «equal for equals and fi- publication, Gaiser 1983, p. 61 n. 45, recon-
nally wrestling without falling, as Dicaearchus says». He also reconstructed the structed the text as [τόν | τ’] α̣ὖ τὰ̣ ἴ̣ϲ̣ο̣ι̣ϲ̣ [ἴϲα, |
ὅ]περ Ἀϲια[νῶϲ Δι|κ]α̣ίαρχόϲ φηϲιν, | δ̣ό̣ντα
iunctura «equal for equals» at the end of the excerpt from Dicaearchus in Phld., «who gave the equal to equals, as Dicaearchus
Acad. Hist., col. 2, 4. In his view, Philodemus included an additional citation of says in an Asianic manner», which is incom-
Dicaearchus on Plato’s success as a wrestler in his final version.57 However, as patible with the traces as well.

43 GERTJAN VERHASSELT
I have argued in a previous article, PHerc. 1021, col. 2, 4 does not read ἴ̣ϲ[̣ οι]ϲ
ἴϲα.58 Moreover, Gaiser’s conjecture in PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi is contra-
dicted by the traces. It also assumes that iota in πέραϲ {ι} should be deleted as
a writing error, but reconstructing such irregularities in a lacunose text violates
the «lex Youtie». Moreover, the supplement ἀκονι̣[τί] is impossible since after
ακον the papyrus shows a left-hand arc (ϲ̣, ε̣ or ω̣), no upright. However, the text
remains difficult to reconstruct (see § 4.1 above).

4.3. PHerc. 164, fr. 24 Dorandi


This fragment is the counterpart of PHerc. 1021, col. 11, 39-col. 12, 3. I have
omitted the first three lines of the papyrus fragment, since most of the scanty
traces seem to belong to other layers (sottoposti and sovrapposti). Since Doran-
di omitted ll. 1-4,59 Gaiser reconstructed them on the basis of Crönert’s tran-
scription (reported in Mekler).60 His edition gives the following text for the be-
ginning of the fragment: 61

πολίταϲ ἐκ]β̣α[λεῖν,
τοῖϲ δούλοιϲ] δ̣ὲ [τὰ
κτ]ή̣μ̣ατά̣ [τε τ]ῶ̣̣ν̣ κ̣[υ-
ρί]ων καὶ τὰϲ γυ̣ν̣α̣ῖκ̣α̣ϲ̣

However, [ἐκ]β̣α[λεῖν], δ̣ὲ and [τ]ῶ̣̣ν̣ κ̣[υ-] are gratuitous corrections for Crönert’s
]φα[, ]κε[ and ]εν̣η̣[ respectively. The original reads ]φα[ at l. 1 (there is actually
an extra line preceding the first line recorded by Crönert), ]ϲκευ̣[ at l. 2 and ] ̣εϲ̣[
58
G. Verhasselt, A New Reading in Philode- at l. 3. The first two belong to a sovrapposto layer; only ] ̣εϲ̣[ seems to belong
mus’ Historia Academicorum (PHerc. 1021,
to the basic layer and is in all likelihood a trace of δ̣εϲ̣⌊πο̣|τ⌋ῶ̣ν (see δεϲπο̣τῶν
Col. 2) with Observations on Dicaearchus in
Col. Y (F 46b Mirhady), «CErc» 43/2013, pp. in PHerc. 1021, col. 12, 1). Gaiser also joined PHerc. 164, fr. 24 Dorandi to fr.
17-26, at pp. 18 f. 25 Dorandi. However, since the latter fragment is nearly illegible and Gaiser’s
59
Dorandi 1985, p. 106; Id. 1991, p. 180. reconstruction is too uncertain, I have omitted it.
60
Crönert ap. Mekler 1902, p. XVIII. 7. Φα̣νία̣ϲ. Gaiser and Dorandi read the name as «Phaenias» with iota: Dorandi
61
Gaiser 1988, p. 222. initially considered the traces preceding sigma part of another layer and thus
62
Dorandi 1985, p. 106. supplemented [Φαινία]ϲ;62 in Gaiser and Dorandi’s re-edition, this is [Φα]ι̣ν̣ί̣α̣ϲ.63
In PHerc. 1021, col. 12, 2, the Peripatetic philosopher is indeed called Φαινίαϲ.
63
Gaiser 1988, p. 222; Dorandi 1991, p. 180.
However, PHerc. 164, fr. 24 Dorandi shows a loop with an upright extending
64
See Wehrli 1969, p. 27 and Engels 1998, above the upper line (only compatible with phi), followed by a triangular letter
p. 290.
(α̣) and immediately ny. In his final version, Philodemus apparently preferred
65
On Dicaearchus, see Wehrli 1967 and the Attic name «Phanias» to the Lesbian form «Phaenias». In other sources too,
W.W. Fortenbaugh-E.E. Schütrumpf (edd.),
these variants recur alongside each other.64
Dicaearchus of Messana. Text, Translation,
and Discussion, RUSCH 10 (New Bruns-
wick-London 2001). For a brief introduction,
5. The citation of Dicaearchus
see G. Verhasselt, Dicaearchus of Messene,
in R. Bagnall-K. Brodersen-C. Champion-A.
Erskine-S.R. Huebner (edd.), The Encyclo-
Dicaearchus was a Peripatetic philosopher, active in the late fourth century
pedia of Ancient History. Online Additions BCE. He wrote on philosophers, politics, cultural history, literature, geography,
(forthcoming). ethics and the soul.65 Although his name is not found in PHerc. 1021, the paral-

CRONACHE ERCOLANESI 44
lel in PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi = F 51 Mirhady ([Δικ]α̣ίαρχόϲ φηϲιν) confirms Banquet, F 153 Isnardi Parente = FGrHist
that Hermippus cited him when discussing Chaeron.66 According to Gaiser, the 1009 T 3a-b) and D.L. III 46.
fragment of Dicaearchus is limited to the supposed comment on the geometrical 70
See von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881,
equality in Plato’s teachings (δ̣όντ̣[α δὲ] τ̣ὰ ἴϲων ἴϲ[α] in Gaiser’s supplement). pp. 196 f.; Düring 1941, pp. 84 f.; Wehrli
1974, p. 96; Asheri 1977, p. 44 n. 16; Mara-
However, this is based on an erroneous reconstruction of the fragmentary lines sco 1985, p. 114 and Gaiser 1988, pp. 121 f.
16-18 (see § 4.1 above). Gaiser assumed that Hermippus cited the end of Dicae- Gomperz 1882, p. 116 n. 14 and Brunt 1993,
archus’ biography of Plato, but there is no indication of this. He also claimed p. 289, unconvincingly considered Hermippus
that in the fair copy (PHerc. 164), Philodemus included an additional reference the source of Athenaeus’ account on Chaeron,
to Plato’s career as a wrestler, taken from Dicaearchus ([τὸ] πέραϲ {ι} ἀκονι̣[τί, but Athenaeus’ version differs significantly
from Philodemus’. According to Düring 1941,
ὡϲ | Δικ]αίαρχόϲ φηϲιν, [πα|λα]ίοντα in Gaiser’s supplement).67 Here too, Gai- pp. 14, 39, 150 f., Athenaeus relies on Herod-
ser’s reconstruction is contradicted by the traces in the papyrus (see § 4.1 above). icus the Cratetean; however, Düring’s recon-
According to Gaiser, Hermippus’ source in col. 11 is Demochares’ speech struction of Herodicus is too speculative.
Against the Philosophers. This suggestion is based on the parallel with the 71
See Poll. IX 42; D.L. V 38; Ath. XIII 92,
attack on Plato and the Academy in Athenaeus (XI 119, 508f-509b).68 Athe- 610e-f.
naeus argues that many of Plato’s students became tyrants, citing as examples 72
Demochares attacked Aristotle for betraying
Euphraeus (taken from Carystius’ Memoranda), Callipus of Athens (slayer of his fatherland Stagira to Macedonia (BNJ 75
Dion of Syracuse), «Euagon» of Lampsakos (taken from Eurypylus, Dicaeo- F 2) and held Demetrius of Phalerum respon-
cles’ Memoranda and Demochares’ Against the Philosophers) and «Timaeus» sible for the death of his own brother (BNJ
75 F 5). He also accused Heraclides Ponti-
of Cyzicus (taken from Demochares).69 His subsequent account of Chaeron cus of bribing the Pythia to give an oracle to
resembles that of Philodemus: Chaeron was a pupil of Plato and Xenocrates his hometown Heraclea that he be awarded a
(ὥϲπερ καὶ Χαίρων ὁ Πελληνεύϲ, ὃϲ οὐ μόνῳ Πλάτωνι ἐϲχόλακεν ἀλλὰ καὶ golden crown (ap. Phld., Acad. Hist., PHerc.
Ξενοκράτει), became a tyrant in his hometown (καὶ οὗτοϲ οὖν τῆϲ πατρίδοϲ 1021, coll. 9 f.). On Demochares’ speech
Against the Philosophers and its historical
πικρῶϲ τυραννήϲαϲ), drove out part of the citizens (οὐ μόνον τοὺϲ ἀρίϲτουϲ τῶν context, see von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff
πολιτῶν ἐξήλαϲεν) and gave their possessions and wives to their former slaves 1881, pp. 189-197; W.S. Ferguson, Hellenistic
(ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖϲ τούτων δούλοιϲ τὰ χρήματα τῶν δεϲποτῶν χαριϲάμενοϲ καὶ τὰϲ Athens. An Historical Essay (New York 1911),
ἐκείνων γυναῖκαϲ ϲυνῴκιϲεν πρὸϲ γάμου κοινωνίαν). Although Athenaeus does pp. 104-107; Düring 1941, pp. 147-151; J.P.
not cite Demochares a third time, the orator is in all likelihood his source. The Lynch, Aristotle’s School. A Study of a Greek
Educational Institution (Berkeley-Los An-
reference to «the Academics today» (τοιοῦτοι δ’ εἰϲὶ καὶ νῦν τῶν Ἀκαδημαϊκῶν geles-London 1972), pp. 103f.; G. Marasco,
τινεϲ) indeed suggests a late fourth century BCE setting.70 Democare di Leuconoe. Politica e cultura a
In his speech Against the Philosophers, Demochares defended a man named Atene fra IV e III sec. a.C., Studi e testi 4 (Fi-
Sophocles, who had proposed a law forbidding the foundation of any philo- renze 1984); Gaiser 1988, pp. 120-122; Brunt
1993, pp. 332-334; C. Habicht, Hellenistic
sophical school without the consent of the assembly and the council, under Athens and Her Philosophers, in Habicht
penalty of death.71 The context of this motion was the anti-philosophical at- (ed.), Athen in hellenistischer Zeit. Gesam-
mosphere following the conquest of Athens by Demetrius Poliorcetes and the melte Aufsätze (München 1994), pp. 231-247,
downfall of Demetrius of Phalerum (307 BCE) with the banishment of the at pp. 236-238 and M. Haake, Der Philosoph
in der Stadt. Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen
pro-Macedonian Peripatetics. A man named Philon brought Sophocles to tri-
Rede über Philosophen und Philosophie in
al under the accusation of proposing an unconstitutional law. In defense of den hellenistischen Poleis, Vestigia. Beiträge
Sophocles, Demochares wrote a speech, in which he adduced examples of rep- zur alten Geschichte 56 (München 2007), pp.
rehensible philosophers.72 16-43. In his edition of Demochares (FGrHist
75), F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der grie-
chischen Historiker (FGrHist). Zweiter Teil.
66
Wehrli 1967, p. 50, did not include the frag- 68
Gaiser 1988, pp. 124-126. See also Brunt Zeitgeschichte A. Universalgeschichte und
ment in his edition of Dicaearchus since he 1993, p. 289 and Trampedach 1994, p. 64 n. 18. Hellenika (Berlin 1926), pp. 133-136, omitted
considered Mekler’s supplement [Δικαίαρ]- the fragments of Demochares’ speech. These
69
Other sources call these men «Euaeon» and are now included in S. Dmitriev, Democha-
χ[όϲ φ]ηϲ[ιν] in PHerc. 1021 too uncertain.
«Timolaus». For Euaeon, see D.L. III 46; for res (75), in I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New
67
Gaiser 1988, pp. 56, 97, 126, 365, 496. This Timolaus of Cyzicus, see Phld., Acad. Hist., Jacoby (2012), <http://referenceworks.brillon-
view was adopted by Bollansée 1999, p. 358; PHerc. 1021, col. 6, 12 add. + PHerc. 164, line.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/democha-
Id. 2002, p. 37 with n. 16. fr. 12 Dorandi (citing Speusippus’ Funerary res-75-a75>.

45 GERTJAN VERHASSELT
Bollansée rejected Gaiser’s view because of the different tendency of these
two reports: Demochares explains Chaeron’s tyrannical behavior as an applica-
tion of Plato’s political theories in the Republic and the «lawless» Laws (ταῦτ’
ὠφεληθεὶϲ ἐκ τῆϲ καλῆϲ Πολιτείαϲ καὶ τῶν παρανόμων Νόμων), whereas in
Hermippus it is motivated by Chaeron’s character.73 Bollansée was mainly con-
cerned with defending Hermippus’ reliability as a historian and therefore want-
ed to assume a reliable source instead of a manipulative, anti-Platonic orator.74
Despite the parallel between Philodemus and Athenaeus, the story of Chaeron’s
ascent to power may nevertheless be adopted from Dicaearchus.75 Chaeron’s
conquest of Pellene with the aid of Corrhagus’ Macedonian troops and his reply
to Antipater’s ambassadors are also discussed in col. 12, 38-41 ([π]ρὸϲ τοὺϲ
Ἀντι̣π̣ά̣τ̣ρ̣ο̣υ̣ | πρέϲβειϲ αὐ̣τῶι δι[ὰ Κορ]|ράγου καὶ τῶν μ⌈ε⌉τὰ | τούτου χιλίων ἐν
Πελ̣[ο]|π[ο]ννήϲωι); this section probably belongs to the fragment of Phaenias.
In other words, the story was known and discussed in the Peripatos. Howev-
er, even if Demochares is Hermippus’ source of this episode, the reference to
Chaeron’s victories in wrestling is unlikely to go back to the orator. This detail
is indeed absent in Athenaeus and would not fit the tendency of Demochares’
73
Bollansée 1999, p. 358 n. 14; Id. 2002, p. speech, whose point was to show that the Athenian philosophers produced ty-
41. See also Wehrli 1974, p. 96 and Marasco rants. As the parallel in Athenaeus shows, the relevant point for Demochares is
1985, p. 115. the connection with Plato and Xenocrates, not Chaeron’s victories. The latter
74
See Bollansée 2002, p. 43: «occasionally, would even undermine his argument: if he tied in Chaeron’s tyrannical behavior
this Hellenistic biographer (who has an unde- with his character instead of his philosophical studies, Plato and Xenocrates
served reputation for consistently inventing would actually be excused. Hence, the information on the victories must derive
salacious stories or maliciously manipulating from a different source, in all likelihood Dicaearchus, who is cited immediately
evidence) did draw on a reliable source»; «it
appears that the case for making Demochares
after this information.
Hermippos’ source is, to say the least, very Therefore, (1) either all information in col. 11 goes back to Dicaearchus, (2)
weak. Instead, I subscribe to the view that the or Hermippus combined the information in Dicaearchus about Chaeron’s suc-
Callimachean has used a reliable historical cess as a wrestler with Demochares’ discussion of Chaeron’s tyrannical coup.76
writer for the Chairon-episode». See also Bol- As Bollansée argued, Hermippus is unlikely to have cited Demochares as his
lansée 1999, p. 358: «we have indications that
occasionally H[ermippos] made use of reliable
source. In the foregoing section on Heraclides Ponticus, Philodemus is skeptical
sources». about Demochares’ reliability. He concludes that he will not discuss the oth-
er pupils of Plato attacked by Demochares, such as Dion of Syracuse (PHerc.
75
See e.g. Engels 1998, p. 307 n. 72 and Asheri
1977, p. 27. 1021, col. 10, 32-39). Therefore, when he claims that «nothing hinders us» (col.
11, 1-3 ἐ̣πει|δήπερ οὐδ̣ὲν <ἐμ>ποδών ἐϲ|τι) to quote Hermippus, he implies
76
The space in PHerc. 164, fr. 22 Dorandi
that – in his view – the story about Chaeron does not go back to the orator. 77
(] ̣ ̣ντα vac. ἀλλατε) might be used to close the
citation of Dicaearchus. However, in the His- Hence, Hermippus is unlikely to have mentioned Demochares. Bollansée has
toria Academicorum, spaces can also indicate also shown that Hermippus did not radically change his sources and often cited
a narrative break: see Gaiser 1988, p. 38 and them nominatim.78 This makes the attribution of all information in col. 11 to
Dorandi 1991, pp. 105 f. Dicaearchus all the more likely.
77
Bollansée 2002, p. 39. According to Doran- If the whole section on Chaeron in column 11 goes back to Dicaearchus, his
di 1991, p. 48, by contrast, Philodemus’ clos- account may be a reply to alternative stories in his contemporaries. Dicaearchus
ing words about Dion of Syracuse are connect- probably knew the versions of Phaenias and Pseudo-Demosthenes, who (like
ed with Chaeron: they both supposedly serve
as bad examples among Plato’s students. How- Dicaearchus) were active during Alexander’s reign. Perhaps he also replied to
ever, the space in col. 10, 40 suggests a narra- the anti-Peripatetic speech of Demochares (dated to 307 BCE); since it is un-
tive break, probably with a change of source. known whether Dicaearchus was still alive in the last decade of the fourth cen-
78
Bollansée 2002, pp. 40 f. On Hermippus’ tury BCE, however, we cannot be certain of this.
«derivative» method, see Bollansée 1999A, It remains to be asked which work of Dicaearchus Hermippus used. Gaiser at-
pp. 154-163. tributed the fragment to On Lives, more specifically a life of Plato, because he

CRONACHE ERCOLANESI 46
assumed that Dicaearchus was cited for a supposed Platonic adage.79 As I have
shown, this theory rests on an erroneously supplemented text and must be re-
jected. On Lives is still possible, since as a former pupil of Plato and Xenocrates
and a later tyrant of his hometown Chaeron might have been an example in the
discussion of the contemplative versus the active life.80 Alternatively, the frag-
ment might belong to Dicaearchus’ work on politics. Especially in the Pellenian
Constitution,81 Dicaearchus is likely to have discussed the tyrant Chaeron.82

79
Gaiser 1988, pp. 126, 365, 496. = F 9 Mirhady (Πελληναίων in manibus tene-
bam et hercule magnum acervum Dicaearchi
80
For works entitled On Lives, see G. Verhas- mihi ante pedes exstruxeram).
selt,What Were Works Περὶ βίων? A Study of
the Extant Fragments, «Philologus» forthcom-
82
See Mekler 1902, p. XXI. Gaiser 1988, p.
496, excluded this option on the basis of his
ing.
erroneous reconstruction of the fragment (sup-
81
The title is attested once in Cic., Att. II 2, 2 posedly referring to Plato).

gertjan.verhasselt@arts.kuleuven.be

47 GERTJAN VERHASSELT