Sei sulla pagina 1di 29



Bollettino del Centro Internazionale

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


Graziano Arrighetti
Knut Kleve
Francesca Longo Auricchio

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

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, Federica Nicolardi, Michael McOsker

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,

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

This article presents a reedition of the final columns of Philodemus’ On the Good King THE CLOSING COLUMNS
According to Homer (columns 95-98 = cols. 40-43 Dorandi). In the final column, an OF PHILODEMUS’ ON THE
important programatic phrase of Philodemus’ in which he refers to his activity in the GOOD KING ACCORDING
treatise as epanorthosis is evaluated at length, since the received reading from Olivieri’s
1909 edition is unsustainable. A brief introduction situates the treatise, dedicated to
Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, as being most likely presented between 58 (after Piso had
COLS. 95-98 (= COLS. 40-43
been assigned to his province) and mid-56.   DORANDI)

Keywords: Philodemus, kingship, Homer,  PHerc. 1507, Lucius Calpurnius Piso


The columns which I present here, the last four of On the Good King According
to Homer, begin well before what Philodemus seems to have considered the Fragments of Aristotle, On Poets (Oxford
2010); Kenney 1966 = E.J. Kenney, Review
of Kuch 1965, «CR» 16/1966, pp. 212 f.;
Acknowledgments: My gratitude is owed to Homeric Akhos, «AJPh» 124/2002, pp. 165- Konstan 2004 = D. Konstan, The Birth of the
many for their suggestions on these columns 198; De Sanctis 2006 = D. De Sanctis, Omero Reader: Plutarch as Literary Critic, «Scholia»
at various stages of completion as well as the e la sua esegesi nel De Bono Rege di Filodemo, 13/2004, pp. 3-27; Kuch 1965 = H. Kuch,
rest of the treatise: David Blank, Gianluca Del «CErc» 36/2006, pp. 47-64; De Sanctis 2008 ΦΙΛΟΛΟΓΟΣ. Untersuchung eines Wortes
Mastro, Ben Henry, Richard Janko, Francesca = Id., Il buon re di Filodemo tra Epicuro von seinem ersten Autreten in der Tradition
Longo, Dirk Obbink, and especially to David e Omero, «CErc» 38/2008, pp. 165-177; bis zur ersten überlieferten lexikalischen
Armstrong. In the complete edition of the De Witt 1936 = N. De Witt, Organization Festlegung (Berlin 1965); McConnell 2010
work I shall try to thank them and others who and procedure in Epicurean groups, «CPh» = S. McConnell, Epicureans on Kingship,
have helped along the way more fully. 31/1936, pp. 205-211; Del Mastro 2014 = G. «CCJ» 56/2010, pp. 178-198; Murray 1965
Bibliographical abbreviations: Armstrong Del Mastro, Titoli e annotazioni bibliologiche = O. Murray, Philodemus on the Good King
2004 = D. Armstrong, All Things to All nei papiri greci di Ercolano (Napoli 2014); according to Homer, «JRS» 55/1965, pp. 161-
Men: Philodemus’ Model of Therapy and Denniston 1954 = J.D. Denniston, The Greek 182; Murray 1984 = Id., Rileggendo Il buon
the Audience of De morte, in D. Obbink-J. Particles (Oxford 1954); Dorandi 1978 = re secondo Omero, «CErc» 14/1984, pp. 157-
Fitzgerald-G. Holland (edd.), Philodemus T. Dorandi, L’Omero di Filodemo, «CErc» 160; Nisbet 1961 = R.G.M. Nisbet, M. Tulli
and the New Testament World (Leiden 8/1978, pp. 38-51; Dorandi 1982 = Id., Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio
2004), pp. 15-54; Armstrong 2011 = Id., Filodemo: Il buon re secondo Omero (Napoli (Oxford 1961); Obbink 1995 = D. Obbink,
Epicurean virtues, Epicurean friendship: 1982); Fish 2002 = J. Fish, Philodemus’ On How to Read Poetry about Gods, in D. Obbink
Cicero vs the Herculaneum papyri, in Fish- the Good King according to Homer: Columns (ed.), Philodemus and poetry: poetic theory
Sanders 2011, pp. 105-128; Asmis 1990 = E. 21-31, «CErc» 32/2002, pp. 187-234; Fish and practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and
Asmis, Philodemus’ Epicureanism, «ANRW» 2011 = Id., Not all politicians are Sisyphus: Horace (New York 1995), pp.189-209; Obbink
2.36.4/1990, pp. 2369-2406; Asmis 1991 = what Roman Epicureans were taught about 1996 = Id., Philodemus: On Piety 1 (Oxford
Ead., Philodemus’s Poetic Theory and On politics, in Fish-Sanders 2011; Fish-Sanders 1996); Olivieri 1909 = A. Olivieri, Philodemi
the Good King According to Homer, «CA» 2011 = J. Fish-K.R. Sanders (edd.), Epicurus περὶ τοῦ καθ’ Ὅμηρον ἀγαθοῦ βαϲιλέωϲ
1991/10, pp. 1-45; Blank 1998 = D. Blank, and the Epicurean Tradition (Cambridge libellus (Leipzig 1909); Philippson 1910 = R.
Sextus Empiricus: Against the Grammarians 2011); Fowler 1986 = D.P. Fowler, Homer Philippson, Review of Olivieri 1909, «PhW»
(Adversus mathematicos I) (Oxford 1998); and Philodemus, «CR» 36/1986, pp. 81- 30/1910, pp. 740-744, 765-768; Rawson 1975
Bloch 1940 = H. Bloch, L. Calpurnius Piso 85; Gigante 1983 = M. Gigante, Ricerche = E. Rawson, Caesar’s heritage: hellenistic
Caesoninus in Samothrace and Herculaneum, filodemee (Napoli 19832); Gigante 1995 kings and their Roman equals, «JRS» 65/1975,
«AJA» 44/1940, pp. 485-493; Braund 1996 = Id., Philodemus in Italy: the books from pp. 148-159; Roskam 2007 = G. Roskam, Live
= D. Braund, Ruling Roman Britain: Kings, Herculaneum (Ann Arbor 1995); Gildersleeve Unnoticed: On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean
Queens, Governors and Emperors from Julius 1900-1911 = B.L. Gildersleeve-C.W.E. Doctrine (Leiden 2007); Segal 1994 = C.
Caesar to Agricola (London-New York 2011); Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer Segal, Singers, heroes, and gods in the
Bücheler 1887 = F. Bücheler, Philodem über to Demosthenes (New York 1900-1911); Odyssey (Ithaka 1994); Sider 1997 = D. Sider,
das homerische Fürstenideal, «RhM» 42/1887, Hammerstaedt 1992 = J. Hammerstaedt, The Epigrams of Philodemus (New York-
pp. 198-208; Cichorius 1922 = C. Cichorius, Der Schlußteil von Philodems drittem Buch Oxford 1998); Paolucci 1955 = M. Paolucci,
Römische Studien (Berlin 1922); Cirillo 1844 über Rhetorik, «CErc» 22/1992, pp. 9-117; Studi sull’epicureismo romano, I, Note al
= S. Cirillo, Herculanensium voluminum Hunter-Russell 2011 = R. Hunter-D. Περὶ τοῦ καθ’ Ὅμηρον ἀγαθοῦ βαϲιλέωϲ di
quae supersunt t. VIII (Napoli 1844), pp. 2-62; Russell (edd.), Plutarch: How to Study Poetry Filodemo, «RIL» 88/1955, pp. 483-511; Yunis
Cook 2003 = E. Cook, Agamemnon’s Test of (Cambridge 2011); Janko 2010 = R. Janko, 2001 = H. Yunis, Demosthenes: On the crown
the Army in Iliad Book 2 and the Function of Philodemus, On Poems, Books 3-4, with the (Cambridge 2001).

peroration of the treatise, which probably begins with καὶ μήν at col. 97, 24 (=
Dorandi col. 42, 17). They show how advancements in Herculaneum papyrology
in the last two decades can be brought to bear on this treatise.1 1) PHerc. 1507
is particularly rich in placeable sovrapposti and sottoposti, and in many places
their placement has added comprehensible Greek where there was previously
nothing intelligible.2 2) The digital images produced by Brigham Young
University in 1999-2000 have also proven a great asset in editing text. While
they do not distinguish the layers in many places, and thus have not substituted
for the autopsy of the papyrus,3 especially when it comes to placement of the
sovrapposti and sottoposti, they too have led to the discovery of new text in
several places, including passages in the columns published here. 3) New
developments in the stichometry of the roll, along with precise measurements
of the folds, from which the circumference of the roll can at various points be
determined, combine to show that the treatise was 98 columns long, with all but
the 37-line last column averaging 41 lines per column. Thus, both the original
number of columns, and the number of lines lost at the top of each column, can
be determined with near certainty. In all there must have been 2006 stichoi.
I do not discuss the subscriptio of the treatise here, but one may now see the
authoritative work of Gianluca Del Mastro.4 Nothing of the first twenty columns
of the treatise survives. What remains of the roll begins with what originally was
col. 21 (= col. 1 Dorandi). Not just the outer part of the roll was lost. Sometimes
stretches of the papyrus were lost in the process of unrolling (e.g. cols. 51-
70). All of this will be detailed in the completed edition. But for now this brief
explanation must suffice to explain the difference, not just in column numbers,
but also in line numbers, from that of all previous editions, including those of
Olivieri and Dorandi.
Cols. 95-96, 1-9 concern, in their legible portion, the management of a ruler’s
The most recent full edition is Dorandi 1982, retinue, in particular, paradigms in Homer for dealing with slanderous and
which represented a major improvement over competitive courtiers. These come especially from two scenes in Iliad 5 (418-
the first critical edition of the text, Olivieri 430 and 872-899). In the first Zeus ignores the sarcasms of Athena against
1909. The editio princeps was Cirillo 1844. Aphrodite, who has been wounded on the battlefield by Diomedes, and delivers
Fish 2002 is a re-edition of cols. 21-39 Dorandi.
his own more balanced judgment of Aphrodite’s behavior. In the second Zeus
In this edition sovrapposti and sottoposti ignores the complaints of Ares against Athena, who has helped Diomedes wound
are indicated by particular brackets in the him on the battlefield, and delivers his own more balanced judgment of Ares’
apparatus. As explained in the conspectus
siglorum, 〔φ〕- indicates a letter derived from
behavior. In col. 96, 9-41, Philodemus speculates, on the basis of his exegesis
a sottoposto and 〔φ〕+ from a sovrapposto, of Homer (Iliad in 23-25; Odyssey in 29-41), that Homer himself would advise
while in the text itself, bold face is used for both those «especially yearning for glory» (10 f.) and «all those desirous of
such letters. Luigi Corazza, who both unrolled advantageous distinction» (15-17) to cultivate those who can articulately
the papyrus and recorded the apographs (N), promote their reputations. In Agamemnon’s case these are φιλόλογοι, expert
occasionally copied the text of sovrapposti
into the margins of the disegni before chipping
speakers, like Odysseus and Nestor, «and most (princes) have similar (advisers)»
them away to reveal text underneath. At a later (23-27). Odysseus and (following his example) Telemachus especially cultivate
stage, N1, primarily (or exclusively) the hand bards, like Demodocus and Phemius, and prophets, like Halitherses and
of the Neopolitan academic Luigi Caterino, Theoclymenus. It is notable that Philodemus speaks of the pursuit of reputation
integrated some of these marginal drawings in the column in a way that is suitable for his addressee, Calpurnius Piso (cos.
into the text, but almost certainly not on the
basis of autopsy.
58), and others like him, and implies that Piso must manage his council with
firmness, and choose his advisers (like Philodemus) from those whose talent
See the justified caution in Janko 2010, p. ix.
for speaking and credit with the public can enhance his reputation. Already
Del Mastro 2014, pp. 339-341. on the basis of less-reconstructed text, Murray (1965 and 1984) and Dorandi

saw that the passage was probably self-referential, a viewpoint strengthened
by new readings which include the nearly-certain use of the word φιλόλογοι to
refer to the sort of men in Homer who excel in promoting a ruler’s reputation,
a word which could describe both figures like Nestor and Odysseus as well
as Philodemus himself. The reconstruction and interpretation of lines 30-41
is entirely new, revealing Philodemus’ subtle interpretation of the Odyssey in
describing how Odysseus and Telemachus cultivated bards and prophets who
might speak on their behalf. The upper part of col. 97 pertains to glory, and
thus in some way continues the theme of the previous column, although the
details are unclear, as it is mostly a free-form parade of Homeric quotations
showing that his heroes (and heroines) valued good repute and feared ill-repute.
Col. 98 contains in its upper portion a newly restored passage about figures in
Homer who warn others against their destructive behavior, most notably Hermes
warning Aegisthus not to kill Agamemnon (Od. 1.35-43), and Phoenix warning
Achilles with the story about Meleager (Il. 9.529-602) «to take care», as the
text now says, «lest he suffer the same things as Meleager» (col. 98, 9-14 – a
passage, previously unintelligible that has been completely restored). Again, we
can suppose without extravagance that Philodemus means, not without humor,
to present himself as Piso’s Hermes and Phoenix; though unlike Aegisthus and
Achilles, Piso welcomes his good counsel. Since Olivieri’s edition it has been
thought that Philodemus, in frequently quoted concluding remarks that concern
the method and purpose of his treatise, speaks of the ‘starting points (ἀφορμῶν)
which one can take from Homer for the correction of powers’ (εἰϲ ἐπανόρθωϲιν
δυνα‹ϲ›τε[ιῶν). But in fact δυνα‹ϲ›τε[ιῶν is an impossible reading on account of
spacing in the papyrus, and ἐπανόρθωϲιν must be interpreted without a genitive.
The most persuasive scenario for the context of On the Good King is the view
that it is associated with Calpurnius Piso’s consulship in 58 BC, or with his
pro-consulship of Macedon immediately following, from January 1 57 to mid-
summer 55, when he was recalled to Rome, principally because opposition
to him was brought to a head by Cicero’s speech De provinciis consularibus
(delivered in June 56). We know from Cicero’s invective against Piso on his
return, In Pisonem (delivered probably July-September 55), that Philodemus
had been and remained closely associated with Piso. It is true that In Pis. 68 cum
isto vivit («he lives with the fellow»), does not necessarily mean «lives in his
house», but there is more. When they met, Piso was an adulescens (cum istum
adulescentem . . . vidisset, non fastidivit eius amicitiam cum esset praesertim
appetitus, «the minute he met this fellow (Piso), still a young man, he accepted
his overtures of friendship, since Piso showed himself particularly eager for
it»).5 R.G.M. Nisbet argues that their association began in the 70’s: Piso became
quaestor about 71, since he was born in 102/101 and held all the posts in the
cursus at the earliest legal age, but one could be adulescens still at thirty.6 But
certainly the next phrase dedit se in consuetudinem sic ut prorsus una viveret,
nec fere usquam ab eo discederet, «he formed so close an association with Piso
that he lived wholly with him, and almost never left his side», strongly suggests
In Pis. 68.
that Philodemus went to Macedon in the new governor’s train. C. Cichorius 6
Nisbet 1961, p. 183. On Philodemus’
pointed this out, but argued wrongly that they first met in Greece or Macedon biography see Gigante 1995, pp. 50-62; Sider
when Piso was already proconsul, ignoring the word adulescens.7 The decisive 1997, pp. 3-12.
text, which Nisbet did not take into full account in his edition of In Pisonem, 7
Cichorius 1922, pp. 295 f. and p. 70 n. 23.

is in fact De prov. cons. 14, where Cicero is explaining that Piso had not failed
to send the Senate formal letters for a triumph or supplication for his military
successes in Macedon out of modesty, but out of shrewd policy, and fear of being
denied. Writing, of course, when Piso was still in Macedon, Cicero says aut ipse
est homo doctus et a suis Graecis subtilius eruditus, quibuscum iam in exostra
helluatur, antea post siparium solebat, aut amicos habet prudentiores: «either
he himself is a learned philosopher and has been trained in subtle thinking by
his Greeks, with whom he now riots on the open stage, though before (i.e. in
Rome and Italy) this all went on behind curtains; or else his official staff (amici,
comites) are more prudent (sc. than that of Cicero’s other enemy Gabinius, who
had written and asked for a triumph and been refused)». This reference to Piso’s
Greeks would seem at least to include Philodemus himself, and may even be a
mask for Philodemus, with whom Cicero may not wish to openly contend.8
That On the Good King explicitly celebrates Piso’s proconsulship of Macedon
was well argued by M. Paolucci.9 Oswyn Murrray’s groundbreaking 1965 article
argued that the treatise rather celebrated Piso’s election to the consulship for 58,
because he wanted to see Piso’s «kingship» as that of a senator among senators.10
But the more fully the text is restored, the more it seems that the allegory, if that
word is not misunderstood, of Philodemus’ good king more closely resembles
that of a vice-regal Roman proconsul with a group of Roman advisers and
assessors of his own class (amici, comites), and a special philosophical and
poetic chaplain (Philodemus) as adviser at a higher intellectual level.11 This is
consistent with Don Fowler’s approach:12 «Murray argued that “there was little
in Philodemus which could help a Roman governor”»13 but himself pointed out
the section on the ϲυνέδριον or βουλή (col. 33 Dorandi) which fits a proconsul’s
advisers better than the Roman Senate: and the section on military strategy fits
no-one but a promagistrate. We should remember that he had power over a wider
sphere than just Macedonia.14 An adaptation of kingship theory to a proconsul’s
governorship seems more likely than its application to a Republican politician;
This is apparently how the Loeb editor, R. and there is of course a contemporary parallel in Cicero’s first letter to Quintus.
Gardner, understands it; he simply identifies Cicero’s work is much more Roman than Philodemus’, but there are points of
the Graeci as «Philodemus» in a footnote. similarity, such as Ad Q. fr. 1.1.13 on resistance to slander or 37ff. on anger».15
Paolucci 1955. David Braund accepts this theory in full,16 and develops the parallel with Cicero
Ad Q.Fr. 1.1 much further. I agree with Fowler and Braund, and the theory of
Murray 1965, esp. p. 178. For a survey of
possible dates that have been proposed for the a dating between 58 (after Piso had been assigned his province) and mid-56 is
treatise, see Asmis 1991, p. 1 n. 1. taken for granted in my notes.
On Roman proconsuls as equivalent to
Hellenistic kings, see Rawson 1975. Conspectus Siglorum
Fowler 1986, p. 82.
P Papyrus Herculanensis 1507
Murray 1965, p. 179.
N Apographum Neapolitanum
Cf. especially Bloch 1940. N1 Manus secunda viri docti Neapolitani in N, ex N tantum ut
With the reference to anger, Fowler videtur, suo marte corrigentis
presumably had in mind cols. 12 and 29 HV1 Incisa in Herculanensium voluminum quae supersunt viii
Dorandi. On slander, compare the newly
restored passage featured here in cols. 95, 30-
(Neapoli 1844), pp. 1-61
96, 9. Cirillo = Cirillo 1844
Braund 1996, pp. 31-34. Bücheler = Bücheler 1887

Olivieri = Olivieri 1909
Philippson = Philippson 1910
Dorandi = Dorandi 1982
Murray = Murray 1965
* Fish
Armstrong D. Armstrong (per litteras)
Blank D. Blank (per litteras)
Janko R. Janko (per litteras)
Henry W.B. Henry (per litteras)
α̣ = littera dubia quae aliter legi potest
α͙ = littera apographi mutata ab editore
[α] = littera ab editore suppleta
{α} = littera ab editore deleta
<α> = littera ab editore addita
`α΄ = littera a librario addita
⟦α⟧ = littera a librario deleta
α = littera in subposito vel supraposito ab editore vel N 1 collocata.
〔α〕+ = littera in supraposito sita, hic collocata ab editore
〔α〕- = littera in subposito sita, hic collocata ab editore
|| = finis columnae, margine inferiore sequente
α˹˺α = spatium
[.] = littera deperdita
[.(.)] = 1-2 litterae deperditae
[] = 0-1 littera deperdita

Col. 95 = Col. 40 Dorandi

8 . . . . . . . .]νγα[. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .]νταπε . [. . . . . .
10 . . . . . .]αφου και̣[. . . . . . .
. . . . τέ]κ̣νου τον̣[. . . . . . .
. . . . .] . αυποτ̣[. . . . . . . . . . . .
.]ι̣[.]ηϲ γαμε[τ]ῆ̣[ϲ . . . . . .]ου
.]ϲ̣[]τ[.]ν, ὥϲτε τ̣[. . . . . μᾶ]λ-
15 λον τοὺϲ μηδὲν [. . . . .]ο̣ν-
ταϲ̣, μάλιϲτ̣α δὲ τ̣[. . . . .]ρουϲ
οἵουϲ̣ εἶναι ϲ̣υν̣ε̣[. . . . . . .]ε
.] ὅ̣τ’ [ἐ]νέδρευ[ον . . . .]α̣ταπε
δ̣η[. . .]ιϲε τὸν [Τηλέμ]αχο̣ν
20 ω[.(.)]και ϲυ̣μβ[. . . . . .(.)]νοκ̣ε
] π̣άλα̣ι κ . [. . . . . . . . . . .]α
.]επι[. .]αι[. . . . . . . . . . .]αι
. . ω[. .]αιπ[. . . . . . . . . . .] και
(.)α̣η[.(.)]ροω[. . . . . . μηδὲ] π̣αρα-

25 λίπ̣ωμεν [. . . . . .(.)] . αϲ εἰκῆ
[]τ̣ῶν ἐπιξ̣ε̣ν̣[ο]υ̣μ̣[έ]νων τῆι
βαϲιλείαι πα . [.]δ̣ . χ̣αϲ επι⟦.⟧-
[]φα[.]ειϲ ἐν ομ̣[. . . . . .(.)] . . πα
. . . .]νδρου γε[. . . . . . . .]α̣ι̣
30 . . . . .] ἐπιδεδ[. . . . . . οὐ μό-
νο͙ν [τὸ πα]ραπέμ[πειν ἀλλ]ὰ καὶ̣
π̣α[ρ]α̣κ̣[ού]ειν τοῦ̣ βα̣[ϲιλέωϲ
ἐδο̣κ̣ίμαζεν, [ὑπολαμβα-
νόμενοϲ ὅτ[ι] δ̣[ι]αφωνοῦν-
35 τεϲ ἀλλήλοι[ϲ] ο[ἱ ἐ]π̣ὶ τῶν >
πραγμάτων κα[ὶ ἐ]πιβου-
λεύοντεϲ τὸν ὑπακούον-
τα νευροϲπαϲ̣τοῦϲι τοῖϲ >
πλαττομένοιϲ κατ’ ἀλλήλων.
40 ὅθεν ὁ Ζεὺϲ τῆι μ̣ὲν Ἀφρο-
δίτ[η]ι μετάγων [τ]ὴν διαβο||-

95 = Dorandi 40 10 ἀφ’ οὗ Cirillo 12 ante αυπο Olivieri legit sup. pars τ, π, etc.
13 η̣ (hasta tantum) 13 sq. οὐ|κ ἔ̣[ϲ]τ[ι]ν * 14 sq. * 15 sq. ὄν|ταϲ * 16 δε,
tum τ̣ vel υ̣ 18 ὅ̣τ[’ * fort. brevius: o vel ϲ P: τ N tantum ἐ]νέδρευ[ον Blank 19 ]
ιϲε N: ]ϲε P Τηλέμ]αχο̣ν Olivieri 20 fin. κ̣ vel λ̣ 24 init. .]μη[.]ροω N: fort. hasta
(π̣, etc.) si pertinet ad hanc columnam, tum α̣[. . .]ροω[ P: possis ἀκ]ροω[μ- vel ἀ-
θ]ρόω[ϲ * μηδὲ] Cirillo 25 ὅτι ὁ μὲν] τ̣ὰϲ Janko εἰκῆ * 26 τ̣ῶν : τ̣ vel ϲ̣, tum ων P:
sup. pars τ, π, etc., tum π̣ N ἐπιξ̣ε̣ν̣[ο]υ̣μ̣[έ]νων * 27 fin. επι tum vestigium atramenti
expunctum ut videtur puncto supra lineam: επ⟦η⟧ N: επει HV1 27 sq. ἐπι|φα[ν]είϲ
Olivieri: ἐπι|φά[ϲ]ειϲ Philippson: ἐπι|[ϲ]φα[λ]ειϲ * 28 ἐν Ὁμ̣[ήρῳ dub. *: ἐν ὁμ[οίωι
Janko 28 sq. πα|ρ’ ἀνά]νδρου Olivieri: πα|[ρὰ Μενά]νδρου vel πα|[ρ’ Ἀλεξά]νδρου
Janko 30 sq. οὐ μό]|νο͙ν *: νεν N 31 πα]ραπέμ[πειν vel πα]ραπέμ[πεϲθαι * ἀλλ]ά
* 32 π̣α[ρ]α̣κ̣[ού]ειν Armstrong τοῦ̣ *: υ̣ vel ϲ̣, ι̣, fort. ν̣ P βα̣[ϲιλέωϲ *: α̣ vel λ̣ 33
sq. Henry 40 μ̣έν:〔ε〕-

«(c.40 words missing) child (c.5 words missing) wife (c.15 words missing,
syntax unclear) when they were trying to ambush (c.3 words missing)
Telemachus (c.15 words missing) and let us (not) pass over (c.2 words missing)
to no purpose, of those being entertained by the queen17 (c.9 words missing)
he18 approved as characteristic of a king not just his dismissing such talk19 but
refusing even to hear it, understanding that those in authority, disagreeing with
and conspiring against one another, manipulate as if by strings anyone who will
Probably Penelope. If so, «those being give ear to their fictions hostile to one another, for which reason Zeus, changing
entertained» are the suitors.
Athena’s20 attempt to create prejudice (continues on)»
Something like «such talk» or «slander» is
understood from the context and was no doubt Col. 96 = Col. 41 Dorandi
explicitly mentioned previously. [λὴν τῆϲ Ἀθηνᾶϲ
Athena is understood by the context in Il. desunt versus fere ii
5.418 ff., which relates how she and Hera
ridiculed Aphrodite when she returned to φ̣[. . . . . . . . . .]α[]το[. .]γ̣ουν
Olympus after Diomedes wounded her. 5 τ̣[. . . . . . .(.)ν]οεῖτα[ι . . . . .

τηι̣[. . . .]ε[. . . ., τὸν] δ’ Ἄρ̣η̣ [λοι-
δορε̣ῖ̣ [π]αρ[ε]μφαί̣ν̣ων ὅτ̣[ι
μιϲ[εῖ τὸ] “παρεζόμ̣ενον μι̣[-
>- νυ̣ρ̣ί̣ζ̣[ειν]”. φά̣[ναι] δ’ ἂν̣ οἶ̣-
10 μ̣̣αι̣ [πρ]οϲῆκον τ[οῖ]ϲ̣ μάλιϲ[τα
δόξ[ηϲ ὀ]ρεγομέν̣οιϲ (οὐ γὰρ̣
ἄν π̣ο[τ’ ἐ]πιδοῦναι τὸν ἑ-
αυτ[ῶ]ν̣ [β]ίο̣ν ε̣ἰ̣ϲ πληθῶν ἐ̣-
>- πανό̣ [ρθ]ω̣ϲ̣ι̣ν προείλοντο̣) -
15 τά]⟦τ⟧`χ΄α δὲ̣ [καὶ] π̣ᾶϲι̣ τ̣οῖϲ ὀν[η-
ϲ̣[ι]φόρ̣ου γ̣ν̣ώϲεωϲ ἐπιθυμοῦ-
ϲιν, εἰϲοικειοῦϲθα[ι] τοὺϲ δυ-
να]μένουϲ επ[.]υ̣ . [. . .] καὶ
. . . . . .(.)]ανειν [τῶι τῶν
20 ζ̣ώντων γ̣ένει κ[α]ὶ̣ τῶι τῶ[ν
ἐπιγινομένων, [ἐ]ν οἷϲ φ͙ι͙[λό-
λ]ογοι δήπουθεν ἄνδρεϲ
φέροντα̣ι τὰ πρῶτ̣α, διό̣-
περ Ἀγαμέμνων μ̣ὲν̣ Ὀδυϲ̣-
25 ϲ]εῖ κ̣αὶ Νέϲτορι πέπ̣οι̣θ̣εν,
οἱ πλεῖϲτοι δ’ ἔχουϲι . [. . .
. [. . .(.)]τω̣ν ἀνάλογο̣ν λ̣{ου̣}[.
. . . . .] . ε κα̣ιπ̣ . [. . . . . . . .
. . . .]ταϲ̣ ὁ δὲ “πο̣[λύμητιϲ”
30 ο̣ὐ μ̣[ό]νον ϲῴζει τ[ὸ]ν̣ [ᾠδόν,
ἀ̣λ̣λ̣ὰ κα[ὶ] τὸν τῶ[ν Φαιάκω]ν
ἐπ]άγ̣εται καὶ . [. . . .]ι̣[. .(.)] ἀ-
π]ὸ τρα̣πέζηϲ κα[ὶ] μ̣ε̣γ̣άλοι̣ϲ̣
>- ἐγκωμίοιϲ. ἔοικε̣ν δὲ καὶ̣
35 τ̣ὸν μάντιν ἐν Ἰθάκηι πε-
φιλοποῆϲθαι· διόπερ καὶ
ὁ Τηλέμαχοϲ οὐχ ὅτι μό-
ν̣ον ᾑρεῖτο φιλοξενεῖν
προϲήκ[α]το τὸν Θεοκλύμε-
40 νον ἀλ̣λ[ὰ κ]α̣ὶ πιϲτευόμενον,
εἰδὼϲ τὸ γ̣έ̣νοϲ τῶν μάντε||[ων

96 = Dorandi 41 1 Philippson 4 το N: τ̣ vel γ̣ P 5 τ̣ vel β̣ P: τ N 6 τὸν] δ’ Ἄρ̣η̣

Janko 6 sq. * 7 π]αρ[ε]μφαί̣ν̣ων *: 〔α〕+, tum ρ[.]μφα, tum littera incerta, tum hasta,
tum ων ὅτ̣[ι * 7 sq. * 8 μιϲ[εῖ * τὸ] Janko fin. ι̣ vel η̣, ν̣ 8 sq. μι̣|νυ̣ρ̣ί̣ζ̣[ειν
* 9 ante φ spatium, ut videtur φά̣[ναι *: φ tum α̣ vel λ̣ P δ’ ἂν̣ * 9 sq. οἶ̣|μ̣αι̣
* 10 [πρ]οϲῆκον confirmat Cirillo: 〔ο tum pars sin. ϲ〕- τ[οῖ]ϲ̣ Cirillo 11 δόξ[ηϲ
Cirillo 12 π̣ο[τ’ *: π̣ vel fort. γ̣, τ̣ P: ι⟦ϲο⟧ N 12 sq. Cirillo 13 [β]ίο̣ν * ε̣ἰ̣ϲ * 13
sq. * 14 fin. brevis hasta horizontalis in margine dextra spatii vice 15 τά]`χ̣΄α *:
χ̣ scriptum supra lineam fort. secunda manu δέ̣ * [καί] Armstrong π̣ᾶϲι̣ τ̣οῖϲ * 15
sq. ὀν[η]|ϲ̣[ι]-φόρ̣ου Armstrong 16 ε̣[ὐ]φόρου Cirillo 18 ἐπ[α]ύ̣ξ[̣ ειν *: υ̣ vel fort.
χ̣ 19 ϲυνιϲτά]-νειν Henry (fort. brevius): ϲυναυξ]άνειν *: ϲυλλαμβ]άνειν Armstrong:

[τῶι τε τῶν Armstrong 20-22 in dextra parte columnae N 1 collocavit fragmentum ex
supraposito delineato a N in marg. dext. 20 ζ̣ώντων: sup. pars ζ, π, τ, tum ωντ̣ω̣ν̣ P:
]ωντων N κα]ὶ τῶι τῶ[ν Olivieri: 〔hasta, tum τ⟦ωι⟧τω〕+ N, ωι expunctum manu secunda
ut videtur: 〔τ[. .]τω〕+ N1 [ἐ]ν οἷϲ Cirillo 〔νοιϲ〕+ N, N1 21 sq. φ͙ι͙[λό|λ]ογοι Armstrong:
〔ο tum γ̣ vel fort. υ̣〕+ N: 〔ο, tum ι̣ vel υ〕+ N1, fort. correctum manu secunda iubente
Cirillo, qui proposuit οἱ [ἄ|ψ]ογοι: οἱ͙ [εὔ|λ]ογοι F. Cairns privatim 22 fin. 〔ανδρεϲ〕+
N, N 1 24 μ̣ὲν̣ * fin. οδυϲ̣ P: ερευλ N, superpositum, ut videtur 24 sq. fere Olivieri
25 init. 〔ει〕+ 26 sq. τ̣[ῶν] | δ̣[υναϲ]τῶ̣ν Henry, fort. contra vestigia ad init. lineae
27 27 ἀνάλογο̣ν Cirillo {ου̣} ad aliam paginam pertinet P fin. τινα Henry 28 τ̣ε *
κα̣ί Dorandi 29 ταϲ̣˹˺οδε ὁ δὲ πο̣[λύμητιϲ vel πο̣[λύτροποϲ *: ο̣[, arcus circuli sin.,
ut videtur P * 30 ο̣ὐ μ̣[ό]νον Olivieri τ[ό]ν̣ *: 〔ν̣ hasta tantum〕+ [ᾠδόν Henry post
Janko, qui suppleverat [ἀοιδόν 31 τῶ[ν Φαιάκω]ν * 32 ἐπ]άγ̣εται vel εἰϲ]άγ̣εται *:
ἐξ]άγ̣εται Janko τ̣[οῖϲ κ]ρ̣[έαϲιν] Delattre privatim: τ̣[οῖϲ γ̣[έραϲι]ν̣ Janko: δ̣[ωτί]ν̣[αιϲ
E. Cook priv. 32 sq. ἀ|[π]ό Olivieri: τὰ] ἀ|[π]ό Janko 34 οιϲ˹˺εοι 36 θαι˹˺διο 39
προϲήκ[α]το *: προϲήγ[ε]το Bücheler 40 ἀλ̣λ[ὰ κ]α̣ί: Dorandi: Ἕλλ[η]ϲ̣ι̣ Cirillo

«against Aphrodite (c.12 words lost)21 is understood . . . but he22 reviles Ares,
indicating that he hated him for sitting beside him complaining.23
The context suggests words like: «into less And I suppose he24 would say that it is fitting for those especially yearning for
offensive speech, says . . .». glory (for they25 would otherwise26 never have deliberately chosen to devote
It is Zeus who reviles Ares, but his opinion of
their own lives to setting things right for the commons and presumably for
Ares appears to Philodemus to reflect Homer’s all those desirous of a beneficial reputation, to win over to themselves those
opinion in this case. capable of (one word missing, probably infinitive) and (infinitive missing)27 for
A close paraphrase of part of Il. 5.888-891. the generation of those living and for that of those born after, in whose number
men who are articulate and learned, as we all know, take away first prize, for
which reason Agamemnon on the one hand has confidence in Odysseus and
Homer’s heroes. Nestor, and most28 on the other hand have (a few words missing)29 similar (a few
I.e. unless they were compensated by the words missing). But the crafty one30 not only saves his own bard,31 but also wins
glory that attends the government of others. over the Phaeacians’ bard32 both with (one word missing)33 from the table and
The context would suggest words to the with great encomia.
effect of «celebrating him» or else (less likely) And it appears that he34 had also made for himself a friend of the seer35 in Ithaka,
«teaching them» (i.e. the rulers). and for this reason36 also Telemachus accepted Theoclymenus into his circle, not
I.e. of Homer’s heroes, or perhaps of kings just because he chose to act hospitably, but also because he knew that the race
in general. of seers is believed37 (top of following col. lost) …»
Supply perhaps «someone similar» (i.e. a
figure like Odysseus and Nestor to promote
their reputations).
An epithet used by Homer for Odysseus. Col. 97 = Col. 42 Dorandi
Phemius, Odysseus’ bard in Ithaka. desunt versus fere vii
8 . . . . . . .]ι̣ειϲ[. .]τον οὐδα[-
Supply: «fine food» or «meats».
μῶϲ κομ]π̣άϲειεν ἀκουω[.
Odysseus. 10 π̣αιϲ[. . . .]α[.]ται [καὶ “ἐϲ]ϲομ̣[έ-
Halitherses. ν̣οιϲι̣ π̣υθέϲθα̣ι̣” “ἵ̣να ̣ τ[ίϲ ϲε καὶ
I.e. because he had seen the benefits of ὀ̣ψ̣ιγόνω̣ν̣ ἐ̣ῢ̣ εἴ̣πῃ ̣ ” “κ[είϲομ’ ἐ-
the seer Halitherses, who served Odysseus’ πεί κε θάν̣ω· νῦν δ̣[ὲ κλέοϲ
household in his absence. ἐϲθλὸν ἀροίμην” “τ[οῦ δὴ
Sc. «by others». 15 νῦν γ̣ε ̣μέγιϲτον ὑπο̣[υρά]ν[ι-

ον κλέο̣ϲ ἐϲτ̣ί̣ν” {`τ̣ο̣΄} “ἦ̣ γ̣ά[ρ ϲευ κλέ-
οϲ̣ οὐρ̣ανὸν εὐ̣ρ̣[ὺ]ν [ἱ]κά[νει”
και̣ [.]ιο[. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . λ̣[ “ἦ οὐκ ἀΐειϲ οἷον κλέοϲ ἔλλα-
20 βε [δῖοϲ Ὀρέϲτηϲ πάνταϲ ἐ-
π’ ἀνθρώπο[υ]ϲ” “χαλε[πὴ δέ
τ’ ἀο̣ιδὴ ἔϲϲε̣τ’ ἐπ’ ἀν[θρώπουϲ,
ϲτυγερὴν δέ τε φῆμιν ὀ-
>- π]άϲ̣ϲει”. καὶ μὴν̣ δ̣εῖ πᾶ-

25 ϲαν η[.]ερευλ[. . .] . . ι̣αν
. ω[. . . .]ειρω [τ]ω̣ι̣ [β]αϲ̣ιλεῖ
.]υν[. . . .]ιν[. . κ]ατορθώϲειϲ
ο̣[.]ο̣ν[.(.)]ου̣[. . . . . . . . . .]νεϲε̣[
. . .]ϲ̣αι̣[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]ν̣ . ν
. α̣[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
τ[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]ηϲα[
α[. . . . . . . . . .]ιδε̣[ . . . .]ϲηϲ[
35 α[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]ημε[
ν[. . . . . . . . . . .(.)]ο̣ν [Ὅ]μηρο̣[ν
καιτ[. . . . . . . .]η ϲυ̣[μ]φέρον[-
τι το[. . . . . . Ν]έϲτ[ο]ρα παρ̣έ̣{ϲ}-
`ϲ΄τηϲε τοὺ̣[ϲ δι]αφ[ερ]ομένο̣υϲ
40 πε̣ί̣θοντα τὴν αἵρ[ε]ϲ̣̣ιν ζη-
λούντων καὶ τοὺϲ [μ]ὲν ταυ||-

97 = Dorandi 42 8 ϲυν]ι̣είϲ Janko: εἰϲ *: 〔ι̣ειϲ〕+ 8 sq. 〔τον〕+ ουδα|[μῶϲ Blank:

〔ουδα〕+ 9 κομ]π̣άϲειεν Janko: π̣ (hasta tantum) 〔ν〕+ ἀκούω[ν vel ακούω *: 〔ακουω〕+
̣ τ[ίϲ: 〔ατ〕+ N 11-12 * 12 εἴ̣πῃ
10 init. π̣ vel τ̣ fin. 〔ϲομ〕+ 11 ἵ̣να ̣ κ[είϲομ’: 〔ηκ〕+
N 16 {`τ̣ο΄̣ } male scriptum in secunda manu supra ι̣ν delevi η̣ vel υ̣ 17 εὐ̣ρ[̣ ύ]ν: 〔υ̣ρ〕̣ +
18 ιο N: ιϲ VH 19 init. arcus circuli, tum duae apices 24 δ̣εῖ *: [πο]εῖ Bücheler 25

εὐλ[ογ]ίαν Janko: 〔ερευλ〕+ Ν: possis ἐβ̣ο͙υλ- vel ε‹ὐ›β̣ο͙υλί̣αν (si censeamus N habere
ερευλ nimis ad sinistram in col. 96) fin. 〔ι̣〕- 26 χ]είρω *: 〔ειρω〕+ vel 〔ιρω〕+ si ε ad
hanc paginam non pertinet 〔ω̣ι〕+ β]αϲ̣ιλεῖ * 27 ε]ἶν[αι Janko: 〔ιν〕+ κ]ατορθώϲειϲ
*: 〔ατο〕+: ἐπανο]ρθώϲειϲ edd. 28 〔ο̣ vel π̣, tum ν〕+ 〔ου〕+ 29 〔ϲ̣αι̣〕- 32 〔. α〕+
34 〔ιδ, tum ε̣ vel ο̣̣〕- 35 ημε N: ]μ̣, tum ε̣ vel θ̣ P 38 το[ N: τ̣[ P: τὸ]ν μέν Cirillo:
τὸ[ν δῖον Olivieri: τὸ[ν ϲοφόν Armstrong 39 Cirillo 40 αἵρ[ε]ϲιν Cirillo: αιρ[.]
ϲιν N: α, tum pes hastae, tum pes, tum [.], tum ε̣ vel fort. ϲ̣, tum ι, tum ν̣ vel η̣ ϲ̣ιν˹˺ζη
(spatiolum) 41 fin. υ N: υ̣ P

«(c.30 words lost) that they in no way boast, hear (a few words lost)
«for those hereafter to hear of»38
This phrase ends the line five times in Homer.

«in order that someone of those born after may speak well of you»39 39
Od. 1.302, 3.200.
«I shall lie still when I am dead, but now let me win great glory»40 40
Il. 18.121.
«whose glory is now greatest under heaven»41 41
Od. 9.264.
«for surely your glory has reached the wide heaven»42 42
Od. 19.108.

(several words lost, probably from a quotation)
«or have you not heard what glory Orestes won among all men?»43
«and her song will be grievous among men, and she brings a hated
Now it is necessary that every (several words lost) the king (a few words
lost) successes45 (c.30 words lost) Homer (a few words lost or unintelligible)
described Nestor trying to persuade the quarreling ones among those who were
eager for the choice, and those on the one hand46 (top of following col. lost) ...»

Col. 98 = Col. 43 Dorandi

desunt versus fere vi

7 . . . . . . . . . .]ε̣ι[.]ν[. . . . .
Ἑ[ρμῆν] μὲν [εἰϲ] τοὺϲ [τοῦ πα-
τρὸ̣`ϲ̣΄ κατ̣αφ ̣ ̣ονεῖϲ Ὀρέϲτο̣[υ,
10 Φοίν̣ι̣κα δὲ̣ ⟦ι⟧ τἀχιλλεῖ π̣α̣-
ρ̣α̣ι̣ν̣οῦ[ν]τ̣α̣ φυλάξαϲ̣[θαι μ]ὴ
τα̣ὐ̣τ̣ὰ [τ]ο̣ῖ̣ϲ̣ π̣ερὶ Μελέαγ̣[ρ]ο̣ν
πά[θ]η[ι.] κ̣αλῶϲ δ’ ἐνίοιϲ̣ [ὑπ]ο-
γραφομ̣[έ]νοιϲ ἐπιφωνο̣ῦν-
15 τ̣ά τ̣ινα κοινῶϲ . δ̣ε̣κ̣α̣[] .
[]οπ̣ρο[. .]ρο̣ . . γ̣α̣ρ̣ . . []αϲ κα̣τ̣[]
[]χ . []επ̣[. .]ρθ̣[] . ν[. .(.)] . ἐμ̣φ̣ . . .
. . .]δ[. . . .]τουϲ̣ ο̣ὐ χ̣ά̣ριν̣ [.
. . . . . . . . .] . ε̣ . . . [.]δε̣ϲ̣θ̣α̣[ι
20 . . . . (.)] . []δρ̣ω̣ν[. . .]μ̣[. . . . .
. ε̣[. . . . . . . .] . . [. . . . . . . .
. ν̣ . ιν τῶν̣ ἀφο[ρ]μ̣ῶ̣ν̣, ὦ Πεί̣[-
ϲων̣, ἅϲ ἐϲτι̣ παρ’ Ὁμήρου̣ λ̣α-
βεῖ̣ν̣ εἰϲ ἐπανόρ̣θω̣ϲ̣ιν δυ̣-
25 νατό͙[ν(.)], καὶ τ . ϲ̣ . [.]πα[. . .
δ̣ε[.] . πω . ν . . ε . . υ̣ . . μ̣ . .
κε[.]ται το . ρ . ϲ̣κ̣ . . ρ[. . . .]μ̣ι̣ϲ̣
.(.)]λ̣ι̣ . . ρα̣δ̣ . []ρ̣ε̣[.] . . [.]υ̣ .
. . . . ν[.]ρ̣ρ . ο . ο̣ν γε μη[. . . .
30 . . .(.)]υ̣ . ν̣ροτ̣ε̣ . . κ̣απ̣ . η̣[
. . . .]α̣ι̣[. . . . . . .]. .[. . .] . . .
. . .]. . το̣μ̣[. . . . . .] . μι̣ν̣[. . .
τε̣[. .] ὡϲ δο̣κ̣ε̣ῖ̣ με[.(.)]κ̣ω̣ . . ξ̣ιν,
Od. 1.298. ἐπ[ὶ] δὲ `τ̣ι̣΄⟦υ⟧[. . . .]καυ[.(.)]ϲα[. . . .]ο[.
Od. 24.200 f. 35 μενων κ[. . . .]ϲοιτ[. . .]ϲο[. . .
Or «corrections». ϲ̣υ̣νδι[α- . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Or «some, on the one hand . . .».
37 δ[. .]εν[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98 = Dorandi 43 8 * 8 sq. πα]τρό̣`ϲ̣΄ vel μη]τρό̣`ϲ̣΄ *: μέ]|τρο̣`ϲ̣΄ Janko : Ἠλέκ]τρα[ν
dub. Olivieri: τρα N: τ̣ρ̣, tum arcus circuli sup. cum arco circuli sup. suprascripto paulo
ad dextram, quod insertionem arguit magis quam deletionem 9 κατ̣α̣φ̣ονεῖϲ Janko (cf.
καταφονεύω): κα[. . . .]ονευϲ N: .]κ̣ vel α̣, tum pars sup. υ vel fort. τ, tum atramentum ad
partem inf. lineae, tum 〔φ̣〕- tum o vel fort. ω, tum νειϲ P: [γ]ονεῖϲ Olivieri: Ὀρέϲτο̣[υ
Armstrong: ορεϲτ, tum arcus circuli sin. 10 δ̣έ̣ ⟦ι⟧ *: 〔δ̣ε̣〕-, tum ι expunctum puncto
supra lineam: δ’ [ε]ἶτ’ Olivieri 10 sq. π̣α̣|ρ̣α̣ι̣ν̣οῦ[ν]τ̣α̣ *: 〔τ̣α〕 ̣ - 11 φυλάξαϲ̣[θαι μ[ή *
12 τα̣ὐ̣τ̣ά *: ταῦτα Olivieri τ]ο̣ῖ̣ϲ̣ *: 〔ο̣ῖ̣ϲ〕 13 πά[θ]η[ι *: πά[θ]η Olivieri κ̣αλῶϲ *:

〔κ̣α〕+ 13 sq. Blank: ἀπ]ο|γραφομ̣[έ]νοιϲ Olivieri 15 τινα *: 〔α〕- ante δ̣ε̣κ̣α̣ vestigia
incerta unius litterae vel duarum litterarum 16 init. τ]ὸ (nisi longius) π̣ρό[τε]ρο̣ν̣:
π̣ vel τ̣, υ̣ 16 sq. κα̣τ̣[ε]|χ[- * 17 〔init. χ, tum fort. arcus circ. sin.〕- ἐπ̣[ανο]ρ-̣[ο]
θ̣̣ν[τ- Janko: π̣ vel τ̣, υ̣ 〔ρ, tum θ̣ vel ε̣ι〕
̣ - possis ἐμ̣φ̣α̣ι̣ν̣- vel ἐμ̣φ̣α̣ϲ̣-* 18 ο̣ὐ χ̣ά̣ριν *:
ϲο̣υ χ̣ά̣ριν̣ dub. Janko, cf. ὦ Πεί|ϲων̣ in 22 sq.: ε̣ὔχ̣α̣ριν̣ * 19 ἥ]δε̣ϲ̣θ̣α̣[ι Janko 20 ἀν]-
δρῶν Olivieri 22 init. .] tum hasta inclinata ad sinistram et hasta (ν vel fort αι) tum []
ιν N: vestigia incerta triarum litterarum tum fort ν τῶν Olivieri ἀφο[ρ]μ̣ῶ̣ν̣ Olivieri
22 sq. ὦ Πεί̣|ϲων̣ Sudhaus apud Olivieri 24 sq. δυ̣|νατό͙[ν Obbink: δ tum vestigium
atramenti (possis υ) | να[ P: ]|νατε N: δυ|νατῶ͙[ν F. Costabile privatim: δυ|να‹ϲ›τῶ͙[ν
Janko: δυ̣|να‹ϲ›τε[ιῶν Olivieri, longius 25 καὶ τῆ̣ϲ̣ dub. *: καιτ[ N: κ[.(.)] tum ad
partem sup. lineae hasta horizontalis vel pars sup. litterae curvatae, tum fort. hasta tum
pars sin. circuli (ε vel ϲ): τ[ων Olivieri 26 init. δ̣ vel χ̣ P: δ N υ̣ vel τ̣ 27 init. κε[ῖ]ται
Olivieri 29 ἀν[τ]ί̣ρροπ̣ον dub. Janko: ο̣ vel ω̣ P: ο N 32 μ̣ι̣ν̣ P: μηπ N 33 δο̣κ̣ε̣ῖ̣ *:
ο̣ vel ε̣ με[ N: μ, tum ο̣ vel ε̣ P: μο͙[ι * ξ̣ vel fort. ε̣ P: ε N fin. ο, tum η̣ vel π̣, tum [.]ειν
N 34 ἐπ[ὶ] δὲ `τ̣ι̣΄⟦υ⟧ *: post δε tum τ̣ι̣ vel fort. π̣ scriptum supra lacunam P: επ[.]δευ N

«(c.25 words lost) (Homer presents) Hermes going47 to the murderers of the
father of Orestes,48 and Phoenix advising Achilles to be on his guard lest he
suffer the same things as Meleager.49 (a few words lost) some things to be said in
general as a finishing touch to various things that are adequately sketched (c.25
words lost or unintelligible) of the points of departure, Piso, which it is possible
to take from Homer for rectification, and (c.30 words lost or unintelligible) …»


Cols. 95-96,1-9 = Cols. 40-41,1-6 Dorandi

The left margin of the upper half of column 95 is extremely difficult to determine.
Several letters that were thought by Olivieri and Dorandi to belong to the left
part of the column in 12-20 (most of them only in N) belong to the previous
column. The upper part of the column may deal with the situation in Ithaca,
in particular the crisis of having malevolent people at court who could harm
one’s child (τέ]κ̣νου 11) and wife (γαμε[τ]ῆ̣[ϲ 13). Probably the suitors attempt
to ambush is mentioned in 18-20. The bottom part of the column (beginning
before line 30) and continuing to col. 96, 9 concern how a good king deals with
the manipulative talk of competing courtiers. Zeus figures as a positive example
of kingly behavior in the way he deals both with Athena’s sarcastic appraisal of
Or some similar participle supplied by the
Aphrodite’s wounding by Diomedes (Il. 5.420-425) and with Ares’ complaining
of his own wounding at the hands of Athena (5.875-880). In both cases Zeus 48
Od. 1.37-43.
«dismisses» the talk of one god against another, though in very different ways. 49
Il. 9.527 ff.

A governor among his younger comites should ignore all efforts of his followers
to criticize each other and instead talk straight to the issue.
12-20. To the left of what I have judged to be the margin are found several letters,
most of them visible now only in N, which were thought by N and previous
editors to be part of this column. However, the papyrus is blank before οἵουϲ in
17. If that gives a fixed point for the left margin, as it seems, these letters to the
immediate left belong elsewhere:

12 ]οδην[
15 .]ου[
. .]α[
. .]ε[.]{οτ}[
. . .]μ̣{η}[
20 .]ϲτ{ω}[

If we assume these to be sottoposti, we find that the letters from 13 and 15

confirm supplements in the corresponding lines of col. 39 Dorandi, and those
in 17 and 18, excepting the letters in curled brackets, may be compatible. Not
all of the letters can be placed, however, which may suggest that Ν copied them
incorrectly (and in fact he or an interpreter cancelled νιλ in 16) or that some
of the restorations in col. 39 are incorrect. I print in curled brackets in 18-21
letters which I have printed here in this column, but which may belong in col.
39 Dorandi.
13. There is a break in the papyrus below this line. The editors have assumed a
line was lost, but the two fragments fit together perfectly and the bottom of the
μ of ϲυμβ[ is visible in the lower piece.
γαμε[τ]ῆ̣[ϲ: with ηϲ preceding, we probably have the genitive of γαμετή «wife»
rather than the nominative γαμέτηϲ, «husband», perhaps then a reference to
Penelope. Reading γαμέ[ε]ι̣[ν is also possible, which would indicate a quotation,
but the surrounding letters do not seem to indicate such to make this probable.
18-20. If Blank’s ὅ̣τ’ [ἐ]νέδρευ[ον and Olivieri’s τὸν [Τηλέμ]αχο̣ν are correct,
then there is a reference to the suitors who «were lying in ambush» for
26 f. ἐπιξ̣ε̣ν̣[ο]υ̣μ̣[έ]νων τῆι | βαϲιλείαι: parallels indicate that τῆι βαϲιλείαι refers
to a queen (βαϲίλεια) and not a kingdom (βαϲιλεία): [Apollod.] 2.83 διερχόμενοϲ
οὖν Φολόην ἐπιξενοῦται Κενταύρῳ Φόλῳ; 3.44 ὁ δὲ ἐν Πελοποννήϲῳ διατελῶν
ἐπιξενοῦται Πέλοπι; 3.208 ἀπορῶν δὲ τὸν χρηϲμὸν ἀνῄει πάλιν εἰϲ Ἀθήναϲ.
καὶ Τροιζῆνα διοδεύων ἐπιξενοῦται Πιτθεῖ τῷ Πέλοποϲ; Isoc., Ad filios Jasonis
(Epist. 6) 2 ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐμποδίζει με πολλά, μάλιϲτα μὲν τὸ μὴ δύναϲθαι πλανᾶϲθαι
καὶ τὸ μὴ πρέπειν ἐπιξενοῦϲθαι τοῖϲ τηλικούτοιϲ, ἔπειθ’ ὅτι πάντεϲ οἱ
πυθόμενοι τὴν ἀποδημίαν δικαίωϲ ἄν μου καταφρονήϲειαν. The queen is more
probably Penelope than Arete, who just entertains one guest in the Odyssey, and
therefore the suitors are likely the topic.

30. ἐπιδεδ[: likely a form of ἐπιδίδωμι (cf. col. 96, 12).
31 f. [τὸ πα]ραπέμ[πειν ἀλλ]ὰ καὶ̣ | π̣α[ρ]α̣κ̣[ού]ειν τοῦ̣ βα̣[ϲιλέωϲ: For δοκιμάζω
+ inf. see LSJ s.v. II.1. τοῦ̣ βα̣[ϲιλέωϲ is best taken (with εἶναι understood) as a
genitive of characteristic.
33. At line beginning N reads ⟦κ̣⟧αιω̣ which may have been a sovrapposto.
35 f. ο[ἱ ἐ]π̣ὶ τῶν πραγμάτων: cf. D. 18.247, where the expression is rendered by
H. Yunis as «the leading politicans»;50 Plb. 8.31.6.
40-col. 96,1. Ζεὺϲ τῆι μ̣ὲν Ἀφρο|δίτ[η]ι μετάγων [τ]ὴν διαβο||[λήν τῆϲ Ἀθηνᾶϲ:
as Murray first saw,51 the reference must be to Il. 5.418 ff., although Philodemus’
use of the passage is now clearer with the restorations in 30-32. When Aphrodite
returned to Olympus, wounded after the attempt to snatch her son Aeneas
from Diomedes, Athena and Hera then «taunted Zeus the son of Cronus with
cutting words» (κερτομίοιϲ ἐπέεϲϲι Δία Κρονίδην ἐρέθιζον 419). Athena’s
specific taunt is that Aphrodite had pricked her hand on the brooch of one of the
Achaean women she was inciting to follow the Trojans (420-425). Of course in
making Helen follow Paris to Troy, Aphrodite had previously done what Athena
is alleging here, but in the present circumstances Aphrodite rescued her own
son from Diomedes’ onslaught and got wounded in the process. Zeus is able
to see through Athena’s rancorous insinuations, and, without becoming angry
himself, merely directs Aphrodite to her proper sphere. Although Zeus agrees
with Athena and Hera, he is able to translate what they said into something that
can be communicated to Aphrodite without needlessly offending her.
μετάγων: cf. Libanius 6.2.14 πολλὰ γὰρ τῶν πραγμάτων αὐτὰ μὲν καθ’ ἑαυτὰ
δόξειεν ἂν εἶναι δεινὰ οὐμενοῦν ἔχοντα κακίαϲ ὑπερβολήν, προϲλαβόντα δὲ τὴν
πρόφαϲιν μεθ’ ἧϲ γέγονε, τὸ πρῴην ἔγκλημα πρὸϲ εὐφημίαν μετάγει, «Many
accusations in themselves seem to be dreadful, though not having any excessive
viciousness, but if one adds in the pretext on which they happened, change over
the earlier “accusation” into a compliment».
[τ]ὴν διαβο||[λήν picks up τοῖϲ | πλαττομένοιϲ κατ’ ἀλλήλων (38 f.), though
Philodemus probably did not consider every element of Athena’s speech to be
false. His focus is on the manipulative purpose of her speech. Cf. among the
citations in LSJ s.v. διαβολή Ι. Plb. 12.15.9 τὰ πρὸϲ διαβολὴν κυροῦντα, «the
things tending to discredit»; Arist., Rh.1415a27 διαβολὴν λῦϲαι καὶ ποιῆϲαι,
«remove and create prejudice».
6-9. A close paraphrase of Il. 5.888-891 in which Zeus expresses his contempt
for Ares:
Τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπόδρα ἰδὼν προϲέφη νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύϲ.
‘μή τί μοι ἀλλοπρόϲαλλε παρεζόμενοϲ μινύριζε.
ἔχθιϲτοϲ δέ μοί ἐϲϲι θεῶν οἳ Ὄλυμπον ἔχουϲιν·
αἰεὶ γάρ τοι ἔριϲ τε φίλη πόλεμοί τε μάχαι τε’.
«Then looking at him darkly Zeus who gathers the clouds spoke to him: “Do not
sit beside me and whine, you double-faced liar. To me you are the most hateful
of all gods who hold Olympus. Quarrelling is forever dear to your heart, wars
and battles”» (tr. Lattimore).
Cf. col. 27, 29-36 Dorandi, where Philodemus notes that both the king of
gods (Zeus) and the king of men (Agamemnon) in the Iliad rebuke a lover of
Yunis 2001, p. 247.
strife with similar words 5.890 / 1.176. Zeus’ excoriating of Ares in the Iliad 51
Murray 1965, p. 172.

is preceded by Ares’ complaint of what he had suffered at the hands of Athena
(5.875-880). Ares complains that all the gods are warring with him because
of his special protection of Athena, whom he characterizes as ἄφρονα (875)
and «destructive, always concerned with unjust deeds» (οὐλομένην, ᾗ τ’ αἰὲν
ἀήϲυλα ἔργα μέμηλεν). It appears that Ares is introduced (τὸν] δ’ Ἄρ̣η̣ 7) as a
way of showing that Zeus takes an approach towards dealing with slanderous
nobles that contrasts with the way he dealt with Athena’s prejudiced account of
Aphrodite’s wounding (τῆι μ̣ὲν Ἀφρο|δίτ[η]ι col. 95, 40 f.). Whereas he merely
smiled in response to Athena, and then kindly redirected Aphrodite, he replies
harshly to Ares’ complaint. Like a good king, a sage, as we know from On Frank
Criticism, adapts his rebukes according to each addressee.

Col. 96, 9-41 = col. 41, 6-39 Dorandi

At various points in the treatise Philodemus touches upon the importance
of a king’s reputation (e.g. cols. 24 and 25 Dorandi). Here he argues that a
ruler should seek those who can speak favorably and credibly of him. In
Homer’s world, bards and prophets were especially well placed to promote the
reputations of kings, and for this reason Odysseus saved Phemius in Ithaca and
cultivated Demodocus in Phaeacia. This element may have been a factor as well
in Odysseus’ friendship with the prophet Halitherses. Whether it was or not,
Telemachus saw the utility in having such a spokesman and, at least partly for
these reasons, took in the prophet Theoclymenus when he was a fugitive.
9-19. The subject turns from the king’s dealing with problematic nobles to his
cultivating individuals who are advantageous to him, in particular those who
further his own reputation. While Homer does not say such a thing explicitly,
Philodemus believes he would give such instructions (φάναι δ’ ἂν οἶμαι) to
rulers, since Agamemnon, Odysseus, and Telemachus all trusted and cultivated
such men (24-26). The transition from the king’s dealing with problematic
nobles to his concern with promoting his reputation is made by the parenthesis
related to glory (11-14), which affirms that the sacrifice rulers like Homer’s
kings had to make in their «correction of the masses» was compensated by
glory, without which they would have never given their lives to governing.
Otherwise the troubles involved (cf. the correction of Ares in 6-9) would not be
worthwhile. προϲῆκον is not completed until εἰϲοικειοῦϲθαι (17). The following
outline shows the structure of the sentence:
φάναι δ’ ἂν οἶμαι προϲῆκον
τοῖϲ μάλιϲτα δόξηϲ ὀρεγομένοιϲ
(οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτ’ ἐπιδοῦναι τὸν ἑαυτῶν βίον
εἰϲ πληθῶν ἐπανόρθωϲιν προείλοντο)
τάχα δὲ καὶ
πᾶϲι τοῖϲ ὀνηϲιφόρου γνώϲεωϲ ἐπιθυμοῦϲιν,
εἰϲοικειοῦϲθαι τοὺϲ δυναμένουϲ
επ . υ . . . . (infinitive ?)
. . . . . .ανειν (infinitive)
Central to the interpretation of the passage are two questions: a) the meaning of
γνώϲεωϲ in 16 and b) what activity is described by the missing infinitive(s) in

18 and 19. Philodemus supposes that Homer would encourage «those especially
longing for glory» (πᾶϲι τοῖϲ μάλιϲτα δόξηϲ ὀρεγομένοιϲ) to win over those
capable of performing a certain activity (perhaps seeking out people who could
magnify their reputation) because, as the parenthesis informs us, his own heroes
were prepared to sacrifice their lives to obtain glory. He supposes, though with
less certainty, that Homer would also give the same encouragement to another,
larger class of people: πᾶϲι τοῖϲ ὀνηϲιφόρου γνώϲεωϲ ἐπιθυμοῦϲιν (15-17). Since
the main argument concerns reputation management rather than instruction,
γνώϲεωϲ (16) will not mean «knowledge» here but rather «reputation» (see
below on 15 f. for parallels), and accordingly τοῖϲ μάλιϲτα δόξηϲ ὀρεγομένοιϲ
and πᾶϲι τοῖϲ ὀνηϲιφόρου γνώϲεωϲ ἐπιθυμοῦϲιν are related in the following
way. Since the subject of the parenthesis must be Homer’s heroes—it is they
who would not have been willing to devote their lives to governing without
compensating glory—the preceding clause (τοῖϲ μάλιϲτα δόξηϲ ὀρεγομένοιϲ)
should refer to them or people like them. There is little doubt that Homer would
give such advice to those especially seeking glory, since his own characters seek
out bards and prophets to enhance their reputations. With πᾶϲι τοῖϲ ὀνηϲιφόρου
γνώϲεωϲ ἐπιθυμοῦϲιν, Philodemus appears to be focusing more directly on his
contemporary Roman audience, clarifying the proper limits of seeking glory
(see below on 14 f.). The Epicureans among them will not of course be among
those «who want glory most of all», but are all expected to value «a reputation
that brings support».
9 f. φά̣[ναι] δ’ ἂν̣ οἶ̣|μ̣αι̣: for a similar structure in thought and grammar see both
col. 27, 29-36 Dorandi, where Philodemus discusses the significance of Zeus’
hatred of Ares, referring to Il. 5.890, the same passage to which he refers here
in 6-9, and my col. 92, 9-13 (with new readings) = Dorandi col. 37, 1-5, where
Philodemus says that Homer himself «obviously would have hated» Demetrius
Poliorcetes: φα|νε̣ρ̣ὸϲ δ̣’ ο̣̣ὗ̣τόϲ̣ γ̣ε κἂν̣ μυϲα̣|χθεὶ̣ϲ τὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶι̣ κάλλ[ει] |
θρυ̣πτόμενον Δημήτρ[ι]|ον τὸν | Πολιορκητήν.
12. ἐ]πιδοῦναι τὸν ἑ|αυτ[ῶ]ν̣ [β]ίο̣ν: cf. LSJ s.v. ἐπιδίδωμι 3. «give freely»,
«bestow» and 4. (c. ἑαυτόν) «give oneself up», «devote oneself». Of course
the Epicurean who «devotes his life» to doing good ultimately expects security
and pleasure as well as «helpful reputation», which is just one of many means
to that end.
13 f. πληθῶν ἐ̣|πανό̣[ρθ]ω̣ϲ̣ι̣ν: Although Philodemus speaks in the treatise
of the task of setting figures like Thersites straight (col. 21 Dorandi; cf. De
piet. 2438-2449 Obbink, w. note), the idea here is probably a general one,
including the betterment of both the circumstances of the many and their moral
improvement. Useful parallels are found in Polybius: 7.14.6 τηλικαύτην τοῖϲ
νέοιϲ βαϲιλεῦϲι ῥοπὴν ἔχει καὶ πρὸϲ ἀτυχίαν καὶ πρὸϲ ἐπανόρθωϲιν τῆϲ ἀρχῆϲ
ἡ τῶν παρεπομένων φίλων ἐκλογὴ καὶ κρίϲιϲ, «Such a great weight for youthful
kings both for the ill-fortune and the setting right of their rule does their choice
and their judgment of their friends and followers have»; 27.7.12 τὸν δὲ Δείνωνα,
φιλάργυρον ὄντα καὶ θραϲύν, ἐξ ἀρχῆϲ οἰκεῖον εἶναι τῆϲ ἐκ τῶν δυναϲτῶν καὶ
βαϲιλέων ἐπανορθώϲεωϲ, «But Deinon, who was avaricious and unscrupulous,
had always been disposed to look to kings and princes for the rectification of
his circumstances». Cf. ἐπανόρ̣θω̣ϲ̣ιν at col. 98, 24 w. note. These passages are

also relevant there. In col. 36 of PHerc. 1015, the eighth book of Philodemus’
Rhetoric (an edition is in preparation by David Blank, to whom I am grateful
for the use of his text), Philodemus claims that someone who is surprised that
the sage is «alien» from political life has failed (among other deficiencies) to
distinguish μέχρι τί[νοϲ ὠ]φελεῖϲθαι τὰ πλήθη ἐ]ξ̣[έϲ]ται κα[ὶ] κουφίζ̣[εϲθαι,
«to what extent the masses can be helped and relieved».52 But that is not to deny
that he believed that genuine good could be done by statesmen for those ruled.
Philodemus quotes at least twice in the treatise from Od. 19.109-114, which
describe how a kingdom prospers under a king who rules with piety and justice
(col. 4 and col. 30 Dorandi). At the end of On Rhetoric 3 Philodemus asserts
that the political faculty, if taken up with perfect virtue, can contribute many
great things both to cities and to statesmen who possess such faculties (Rhet. 3,
cols. 14a, 26-15a, 6 Hammerstaedt). He goes so far as to say that philosophical
training for a statesman can make «an astronomical difference for the better»
(Rhet. 3, col. 15a, 16-31 Hammerstaedt).53
14 f. At line end there is a short horizontal stroke at the top of the line, presumably
in lieu of a spatium, which could not otherwise be shown at the end of the
line. The sprawling nature of the sentence seems to have misled the scribe into
putting a paragraphos here. He seems to have thought that line 15 began with
κατὰ δέ, which could have begun a new thought. A second hand has written χ
over τ, indicating τά]χα δέ, which would instead continue a previous thought.
There may be a trace of τ over the lacuna where the scribe presumably began
the line with κα, although that same trace may be the extreme point of very long
forked paragraphos, as below at line 34.
15 f. ὀν[η]|ϲ̣[ι]φόρου γ̣ν̣ώϲεωϲ: LSJ were dubious of the reading ε̣[ὐ]φόρου
γ̣ν̣ώϲεωϲ «productive knowledge» (s.v. εὔφοροϲ ΙΙ. 3.) and indeed the first letter
of 16 favors ϲ over ε. For ὀν[η]|ϲ̣[ι]φόρου (Armstrong) «profitable» cf. Rhet. I,
p. 219, 23 Sudhaus ὀνηϲιφόρουϲ ὕμνουϲ; p. 288, 8; PHerc. 1232 (De Epic.), col.
18, 6-10 π̣ᾶ|ϲι τοῖϲ τοῦ β[ίου] καιροῖϲ ἐ[π]’ ἄ|κρον εὖ διῳκή[θημε]ν ὑ|π’ αὐτοῦ
κατὰ τὸ ὀ[ν]ηϲιφό|ρον τῆι φύϲ[ε]ι πᾶν, «in all the crucial moments of our life we
were as well disposed by him as is possible, in accord with all that is profitable
to our nature». γνῶϲιϲ must not have its usual active meaning in our passage,
but rather a passive one, «reputation», for which see LSJ s.v. III.2. «fame»,
«credit». For this usage, cf. Herodian ἐν ταῖϲ προγενομέναιϲ πράξεϲιν
εὐδοκίμηϲιϲ, ἔν τε ϲυγκλήτῳ καὶ τῷ Ῥωμαίων δήμῳ γνῶϲιϲ οὐκ ἄϲημοϲ καὶ
τιμὴ ἔνδοξοϲ ἀεί, «their approval of your conduct in your former offices; and
the fact that among the Senate and the Roman people you enjoy a distinguished
reputation and are held in high esteem» (trans. Loeb); Luc., Herod. 3. Cf. Pl.,
Tht. 206b (cited by LSJ s.v. III.1.) where γνῶϲιν ἔχει τι = γνωϲτόν ἐϲτι.
Statesmen ought not be characterized by an irrational lust for glory, but as
leaders they should seek a «profitable reputation», which maintains their own
and their family’s safety, their ἀϲφάλεια ἐξ ἀνθρώπων in conducting public
affairs, a reputation which helps in general to leverage the support of others for
Cf. Fish 2011, pp. 93 f. n. 84. good ends. While it was understood that the sage would not engage in political
See Roskam 2007, pp. 122 f.; De Sanctis activity except in special cases, it was always understood among Epicureans
2008, pp. 173 f.; Armstrong 2011, pp. 119- that some, particularly those with hereditary obligations, might not be able
123; Fish 2011, pp. 94-96. to withdraw from their political engagements, but that their best chance at a

pleasurable life might actually be to maintain their political involvement as
virtuous statesmen. What was prohibited was the ambitious pursuit of political
power, as though such power and the honors that accompany it were necessary
and natural ends in and of themselves.54
17. εἰϲοικειοῦϲθα[ι]: one of four similar terms used in the column which
indicate winning over or befriending someone: otherwise ἐπ]άγ̣εται (32);
πεφιλοποῆϲθαι (35 f.); προϲήκ[α]το (39). For εἰϲοικειόω (extremely rare) cf. (in
classical Greek) the only two other examples: Plut., Alex. 10.2 αὖθιϲ ἐγίνοντο
λόγοι καὶ διαβολαὶ . . . ὡϲ Ἀρριδαῖον ἐπὶ τῇ βαϲιλείᾳ Φιλίππου γάμοιϲ λαμπροῖϲ
καὶ πράγμαϲι μεγάλοιϲ εἰϲοικειοῦντοϲ, «once again slanderous stories kept
coming to Alexander . . . that Philip, by means of a brilliant marriage and a great
connexion, was trying to make Arrhidaeus look fit for kingly rule» (active);
X., HG 5.2.25-26 ὁ μέντοι Λεοντιάδηϲ ἄλλωϲ τε ἐθεράπευεν αὐτόν, καὶ ἐπεὶ
εἰϲῳκειώθη, «Leontiades paid court to him in various ways, and when he had
become intimate with him» (middle-passive); but in our text, it takes an object
(«win over those who can ...»).
18 f. It appears that two infinitives are missing, connected by καί.
20 f. τῶ[ν] | ἐπιγινομένων: apparently refers to the generations after Homer,
though it is unclear whether he is referring exclusively to kings. Cf. οἱ
μεταγενέϲτεροι (βαϲιλεῖϲ) at col. 20, 10 and 37 Dorandi, «later rulers», who are
unfavorably compared to Homeric kings.55 Post-Homeric rulers are generally
treated unfavorably in On the Good King, on which see cols. 22, 34 f. Dorandi;
37, 1-15 Dorandi, with the exception of Cyrus (col. 24 Dorandi) and perhaps
Pisistratus, on which cf. col. 85, 16-19 Fish (with new readings) = col. 30,
5-8 Dorandi: καὶ τὸ ἄϲτυ καὶ τὴν [ὅλην] | Ἀ̣τ̣τ̣ι̣κὴν ἱεροῖϲ κ[αὶ τοῖϲ] | ἄ[λ]λ̣οιϲ
καταϲκε͙[υ]ά[ϲ]μ[α]|ϲι̣ν ἐκό̣[ϲ]μ̣ηϲεν, «both the city itself and the whole of Attica
he adorned with temples and with the other structures».
21 f. φ͙ι͙[λό|λ]ογοι δήπουθεν ἄνδρεϲ: φ͙ι͙[λό|λ]ογοι (Armstrong) requires the
assumption that N made the mistake of writing ο for φ and γ (or υ) for ι, but
both are fairly common errors and in fact both occur in col. 98 (at lines 14
and 9 respectively). οἱ͙ [εὔ|λ]ογοι is paleographically easier, but rarely modifies
people (an exception is Philo, De vita Mosis 1.83.2, where Moses tells the Lord 54
On these themes see Fish 2011; Armstrong
2011; Roskam 2007; McConnell 2010. I
he is οὐκ εὔλογοϲ, «not articulate», but instead ἰϲχνόφωνον καὶ βραδύγλωϲϲον,
propose in a forthcoming article that Virgil’s
«weak-voiced and slow of tongue» – the latter words cited from LXX, Exod. Aeneas is characterized as having precisely
4.10). Moreover, φιλόλογοι . . . ἄνδρεϲ is more compelling gramatically than οἱ this sort of «helpful reputation», in contrast to
εὔλογοι . . . ἄνδρεϲ.56 φιλόλογοϲ in a philosophical Epicurean context suggests other characters in the poem. His reluctance to
a sage who is adept at argument, not just wise. φιλόλογοι ἄνδρεϲ is a broad rule, moreover, and his desire for the quiet life
(cf. Aen. 3.493-497), are, I suggest, meant to
enough expression not just to fit the description of the sort of person this column be attractive from an Epicurean point of view.
recommends as a king’s companion, a Nestor or an Odysseus who can articulately 55
See De Sanctis 2006, p. 58.
defend and promote their leader, but also to have contemporary resonance, that
is, to refer to Philodemus himself. δήπουθεν may be the equivalent of clearing 56
Cf. Gildersleeve §31 who shows that the
paraphrase of nominalized adjectives with
his throat in mock modesty: «if I may say so», «I should think», or «I presume».
ἄνδρεϲ makes the article redundant.
φιλόλογοϲ is twice paired with φιλόϲοφοϲ in Philod., De lib. dicendi, col. VIIIa
7-9 (ϲοφὸϲ . . . καὶ φιλόϲοφοϲ δὲ καὶ φιλόλογοϲ); Xa 1-2 (φιλόϲοφοϲ ἢ φιλόλ[ο]-
On the term in general, see Kuch 1965
and Kenney 1966. DeWitt 1936 argued
γ̣οϲ). It is broader, however, than φιλόϲοφοϲ, though a φιλόϲοφοϲ can be called that in the Epicurean school φιλόλογοι were
a φιλόλογοϲ.57 After discussing philosophers, poets, and grammarians in Tarsus, hierarchically subordinate to φιλόϲοφοι, a
Strabo refers to them all as φιλόλογοι, «learned men» (14.5.14). The Epicurean thesis opposed by Gigante 1983, pp. 72-74.

mathematician and philosopher Philonides is described in a biography probably
by Demetrius Laco or Philodemus as having a host of φιλόλογοι with him (see
cols. 12, 205; 34, 25 Gallo). Philodemus refers to φιλόλογοι in De morte in a
reference important for our passage:
[ὅ]|ταν δ’ ἐπὶ ξένηϲ, φυϲ[ικὸν] δη[χθῆ]|ναι φιλολόγοιϲ κα[ὶ] μάλιϲτ’ ἐὰ[ν] γονεῖϲ
| ἢ ϲυγ[γ]ενεῖϲ ἄλλουϲ ἐπὶ τῆϲ πατρίδοϲ | ἀπολε[ί]πωϲιν, ἀλλ’ ὥϲτε νύττειν
μό|[ν]ον, ο[ὐ]χ ὥϲτε λύπην καὶ μεγάλην | ταύτην ἐπιφέρειν [κ]αταφερομένουϲ |
ἐπὶ τὰϲ ἐν τῶι ζῆν [πα]ρακολουθούϲαϲ | [ἐ]πὶ ξένηϲ [γῆ]ϲ δ[υ]ϲχρ[ηϲ]τίαϲ (cols.
25, 4-26, 7).
«When death occurs in a foreign land, it is natural even for learned men to feel a
pang, and most of all if they leave parents or other family members at home, but
only a pang, not such as to bring them in addition as they lie dying something
that could truly be called a great grief, over and above the other difficulties that
follow upon life in a foreign country».
Asmis and Armstrong have argued that Philodemus, who left his homeland of
Gadara to study in Athens and ultimately to live in Italy, is in part referring
to himself in this passage.58 As for our passage, already Murray, noting the
identification of bard and philosopher in Athenaeus I 14b (=1.24.5 Kaibel) which
comments on singers at Menelaus’ palace (ϲῶφρον δέ τι ἦν τὸ τῶν ἀοιδῶν γένοϲ
καὶ φιλοϲόφων διάθεϲιν ἐπέχον, «but there was a certain sobriety for the race of
bards and they had the character of philosophers»), suggested that the passage
was an overture to Piso and compared it to Philodemus’ epigram inviting Piso
to dinner (Sider 27 = AP 11.44), in which Philodemus implicitly compares
himself to the bard Demodocus.59 Dorandi takes this a step further. Philodemus
is offering himself to Piso as the equivalent of the prophet Theoclymenus to
Telemachus: «sotto le spoglie del μάντιϲ Teoclimeno, si rivolge a Telemaco/
Pisone per chiedere protezione e per offrirgli i suoi consigli di filosofo e
letterato. Cioè – dice Filodemo a Pisone – ti devi comportare come Telemaco
nei riguardi di Teoclimeno, accogliendomi presso di te e proteggendomi, non
per un generico amore verso gli stranieri, ma perché tu possa fruire della mia
sapienza e divenire sempre piú partecipe della mia amicizia».60 There are many
reasons, however, to see Philodemus already as the comes of Piso, especially
since the most compelling scenario for the date of the treatise is early in Piso’s
proconsulship in Macedonia (see introduction), but the passage is no less self-
referential for that. Now that it is clear that the column does not affirm that
prophets either in Homer’s day or Philodemus’ were trustworthy, but simply
«trusted» (see below on 37), there is an even firmer basis for such a reading of
the column.
23-25. Agamemnon has confidence in Odysseus and Nestor both because
of their abilities as spokesmen for him and because of their loyalty. When
Asmis 1990, 2392; Armstrong 2004, p. 41 Agamemnon seems to botch the test of his men (Il. 2.84 ff.) it is Odysseus
n. 50. who, helping Agamemnon save face61 reorders the troops and puts Thersites
Murray 1965, p. 172.
in his place, events to which Philodemus refers in cols. 21, 32-39 and 26, 21-
24 Dorandi. Odysseus also serves on the embassy to Achilles and works to try
Dorandi 1982, p. 44.
to reconcile Achilles to Agamemnon. Nestor’s skills as a spokesman are used
See Cook 2003, pp. 181 f. in the service of Agememnon on numerous occasions. After Odysseus’ long

speech after Agamemnon’s test, Nestor weighs in to further help Agamemnon
save face (2.337 ff.). The embassy occurs at his behest. Agamemnon praises his
rhetorical skills at 2.370 ff.
27. The second or third letter in the line may be an ε̣, θ̣, or ϲ̣ from a possible
sovrapposto in col. 95, 28.
28-30. Here N has drawn a fragment in the margin, as is his practice when he
identifies a sovrapposto which he believes can be integrated and which he will
later chip away to reveal the text underneath on the proper level. N 1 integrated
the fragment into the text, as in 20-22 above, and with the integration the text
reads as follows:
28 . . . . .] . ε κα̣ι π̣ . //αξειϲ το[
. . . .]ταϲ̣ ὁ δε π . //αυτον α[
30 ο̣ὐ μ̣[ό]νον ϲῴζει τ[.]ι̣[. .(.)]//τα[
Although we could read π̣ρ̣//άξειϲ in 28 (as Dorandi), which would fit well in a
context dealing with men’s reputations, I am confident that in this case either the
fragment does not belong here at all, or that the bulk of it does not. The second
part of 29 must refer to Odysseus (ὁ δέ by itself being insufficient to single him
out), but there is no way that the integrated text of the fragment can do so if
integrated where N1 placed it. It is difficult to determine, however, where the
fragment then belongs. If placed one more circumference to the right than N1
supposed, it appears to interfere with fragments which are fairly securely placed
in col. 97, 28 f.
29-41. The favor Odysseus and Telemachus show bards and prophets argues
that they understood such people to be especially effective in promoting the
reputation of a king. Philodemus interprets these actions as calculated to win
over such figures, who then will demonstrate their gratitude with favorable
words and actions.
29. ὁ δὲ πο̣[λύμητιϲ: cf. col. 35, 6 Dorandi where Philodemus refers to Odysseus
in the same way, though in an obscure context. Here Philodemus refers to
Odysseus by this epithet because Homer uses it as an appellation for him both
at the moment of his saving the bard Phemius (22.371) and also just before he
sets to winning over the Phaeacian bard Demodocus to his purposes (8.474).
Philodemus must have thought that the epithet was especially well-chosen, and
in Demodocus’ case he was right (see below).
30. ϲῴζει τ[ὸ]ν̣ [ᾠδόν: Odysseus saves both Phemius the bard and Medon the
page from the slaughter he meets out to the suitors (Od. 22.330-377). It is at the
behest of Telemachus that he does so (22.355-357, 72).
32-34. τὸν τῶ[ν Φαιάκω]ν | ἐπ]άγ̣εται: a reference to Odysseus and his praise
for Demodocus, «the most extravagant praise that a bard receives in Homer».62
At the court of Alcinous, Odysseus has a herald take a portion of meat to
Demodocus and praises the race of bards (Od. 8.474-481). After the meal,
Odysseus exalts Demodocus «above all mortal men» for his ability to sing of
the toils of the Achaeans (487). He then urges Demodocus to sing of events
in which he had played the central role, promising to make him famous (497
f.). Philodemus must have in mind Odysseus’ success in using Demodocus as
a mouthpiece to inform the Phaeacians about his heroic accomplishments. A
good king will cultivate those who can effectively proclaim his excellence. The 62
Segal 1994, p. 119.

ancients seemed to have viewed Odysseus’ actions as calculated. For instance
the Q. scholion comments on Od. 8.485, where Odysseus, after having given
Demodocus the meat, is about to request a particular song from him: δαιμονίωϲ
τῇ τάξει ἐχρήϲατο. οὐ γὰρ ἅμα τῇ δόϲει τῶν κρεῶν εὐθὺϲ ἐπιτάττει τὰ περὶ
τὸν ἵππον ᾄδειν, ἀλλὰ προθεραπεῦϲαι μὲν τῇ τιμῇ. τὸ δὲ πρόϲταγμα εἰϲ καιρὸν
ὑπέθετο ὅτε ἔμελλεν ἐκεῖνοϲ ἀείδειν, «He made use of order wonderfully, for
he does not straightway command him to sing the story about the horse together
with the giving of the meats, but he cultivates him first with the honor (i.e.
the gift). And then he put forth his command at the right moment, when he
(Demodocus) was about to sing».
ἐπ]άγ̣εται: see LSJ s.v. II. 6, «bring over to oneself», «win over».
34-36. ἔοικε̣ν δὲ καὶ̣ | τ̣ὸν μάντιν ἐν Ἰθάκηι πε|φιλοποῆϲθαι: the seer Halitherses,
along with Mentor, is said twice in the Odyssey to have been a companion of
Telemachus (πατρώιοι ἑταῖροι = 2.254/17.69) from the beginning. He remained
faithful to the absent king, and he and Mentor apparently helped Telemachus
prepare for his journey abroad (2.253). Halitherses prophesied to the suitors that
Odysseus was near Ithaca and would destroy them (2.157 ff.). He also attempted
to persuade the fathers of the suitors to cease trying to avenge the deaths of their
sons (24.451 ff.). Philodemus shows some reserve in his statement (ἔοικε̣ν),
perhaps because Homer says nothing explicitly of Odysseus’ motives in
befriending Halitherses.
36-41. Οn the basis of what he had experienced of Halitherses’ loyal services
to his family, Telemachus accepted the prophet Theoclymenus as a fellow
passenger on his return to Ithaca from Sparta. It was not merely for motives
of hospitality that he brought him on, but because he knew that people tend to
believe prophets. When Theoclymenos was in flight for having killed a man,
he entreated Telemachus for mercy and was taken on by him (Od. 15.222-281).
Shortly thereafter, he interpreted a bird omen to Telemachus as having the
following significance:
ὑμετέρου δ’ οὐκ ἔϲτι γένευϲ βαϲιλεύτερον ἄλλο / ἐν δήμῳ Ἰθάκηϲ, ἀλλ’ ὑμεῖϲ
καρτεροὶ αἰεί (533 f.)
«No other family shall be kinglier than yours in the country of Ithaka, but you
shall have lordly power forever».
Telemachus responds:
αἲ γὰρ τοῦτο, ξεῖνε, ἔποϲ τετελεϲμένον εἴη·
τῶ κε τάχα γνοίηϲ φιλότητά τε πολλά τε δῶρα
ἐξ ἐμεῦ, ὡϲ ἄν τίϲ ϲε ϲυναντόμενοϲ μακαρίζοι (15.536-538)
«If only this word, stranger and guest, were brought to fulfillment, soon you
would be aware of my love and many gifts given by me, so any man who met
you would call you blessed».
Although he had previously arranged for Theoclymenus to stay with the
suitor Eurymachus, Telemachus now decided to have him stay with Peiraios,
a «trustworthy companion» (πιϲτὸϲ ἑταῖροϲ) who he said obeyed him even
more faithfully than the other friends who followed him to Pylos (539-541).
Telemachus instructs him to host Theoclymenus at his house and «give him his
honor due and loving attention» (ἐνδυκέωϲ φιλέειν καὶ τιέμεν) until Telemachus

arrives (542 f.). On the basis of his own favorable interpretation of an omen,
Theoclymenus swore an oath to Penelope that Odysseus was safe on Ithaka and
preparing the ruin of the suitors (17.152-161). He further announced doom to
the suitors when they were made to laugh uncontrollably by Athena (20.350-
357). According to Philodemus, it was not just to be hospitable that Telemachus
befriended him, but because he saw his potential usefulness to the family.
39. προϲήκ[α]το: see LSJ s.v. προϲίημι ΙΙ.1 «let come to or near one, admit»;
cf. among many parallels given there X., An. 3.3.30 προϲίεϲθαί τινα ἐϲ ταὐτὸ
ἡμῖν αὐτοῖϲ, «admit one into our society»; Pl., Phdr. 255a τὸ προϲέϲθαι αὐτὸν
εἰϲ ὁμιλίαν.
40. πιϲτευόμενον: not «trustworthy» (previous editors) but simply, «believed»
(sc. by others).63 Philodemus is not saying that prophets in Homer should always
be believed (i.e. that they are πιϲτοί) but rather that they are often believed by
those who hear them, and therefore their favorable judgments towards a king
could be valuable assets to the king, who should cultivate him. But as Murray
and Dorandi agree, the main point is self-referential: Philodemus is both Piso’s
poet and his philosophical prophet, and Piso has made a good choice in both

Col. 97 = col. 42 Dorandi

8-24. Unlike anywhere else in what survives of the treatise, Philodemus apparently
presents a number of Homeric quotations one after the other, several of which
(perhaps all) are not connected by any conjunctions. They all pertain to a ruler’s
glory, the first three to posthumous glory. The connection to the previous column
on reputation is thus obvious enough, although the rhetorical presentation and
purpose of these quotations is not entirely clear since Philodemus’ introduction
to them is missing. Perhaps the verses are merely intended to illustrate the
importance of glory to Homeric heroes (and heroines). As for their form, the
list may be intended as a kind of flourish before the conclusion of the treatise.
Plutarch speaks of those who use «a mass of examples» (παραδειγμάτων ὄχλον)
as a rhetorical display (Quomodo adulesc. 29 F). Galen complained (SVF 906)
that Chrysippus’ habit of listing verses was no substitue for argument, and he
gives an example of Chrysippus method. In another treatise Chrysippus quoted
Euripides’ Medea so much that a joker called the work «Chrysippus’ Medea»
(D.L. 7.87). In this treatise there are instances both of high rhetorical artifice
(e.g. end of col. 37 Dorandi) as well as moments of casualness (e.g. the use of
the first person in what seems an offhanded way) which may reflect the well-
known indifference which Epicureans had towards formal rhetoric. A list of this
kind could indeed create an impression of informality and actual voice. It is
arresting that there is no connective between the first two quotations and then
no connective before the only quotation in the series (presumably the last) about
bad fame instead of good (21-24) (if 18 f. contained a quotation, it may have
begun with καί). If we are looking at something that Philodemus intended to
elaborate later, we may wonder whether this is a list of verses produced from
memory or rather one produced from a concordance of some kind, e.g. a list
of quotations on glory. The quotations containing the word κλέοϲ are grouped 63
Cf. Fowler 1986, p. 84.

together in 5-13. The last quotation may then have its place because it was
grouped under φῆμιϲ, although its position may be accounted for merely by the
fact that it speaks about bad reputation.
8 f. What at first sight appear to be the line beginnings in the papyrus are instead
sovrapposti which I have placed at the end of the line.
10 f. “ἐϲ]ϲομ̣[έ]|ν̣οιϲι̣ π̣ύθεϲθα̣ι”: ends the line five times in Homer, but the
precise verse cannot be identified here since Philodemus seems to give only this
part. In De morte, Philodemus twice loosely quotes Il. 22.305 (ἀλλὰ μέγα ῥέξαϲ
τι καὶ ἐϲϲομένοιϲι πυθέϲθαι), at col. 28, 3 f. as an example of improper fear of
suffering an inglorious death, and also at col. 33, 23 f., where he mocks the tone
of the quotation.
11 f. “ἵ̣ν̣α τ[ίϲ ϲε καὶ] | ὀ̣ψ̣ιγόνω̣ν̣ ε̣ῢ̣ εἴ̣π̣ῃ”: ends the line at Od. 1.302, where
Athena speaks to embolden Telemachus, and 3.200, where Nestor does the
same. ατ derives from N where the papyrus today reads ν̣οιϲι̣. N was reading a
sovrapposto which has since fallen away.
12-14. Il. 18.121. Achilles vows to attain great glory in his vengeance for the
death of Patroclus.
14-16. Od. 9.264, where Odysseus responds to Polyphemus’ questioning. It is
Agamemnon’s glory to which he refers.
16 f. From Od. 19.108, where Odysseus praises Penelope as meriting κλέοϲ
like that of a good king whose people prosper. Some of the following verses
(109-114), which describe the prosperity of that king’s rule, are quoted twice
elsewhere in the treatise by Philodemus (cols. 4 and 30 Dorandi). Olivieri and
Dorandi read ε]ἶ̣τα, but incorrectly: the quotation actually begins with ἦ̣ γ̣ά[ρ.
18 f. Olivieri thought that part of Od. 18.254 f. (= 19.126 f.) lurked here and that
line 18 began καὶ [β]ίον[: εἰ κεῖνόϲ γ’ ἐλθὼν τὸν ἐμὸν βίον ἀμφιπολεύοι, / μεῖζόν
κε κλέοϲ εἴη ἐμὸν καὶ κάλλιον οὕτω. But the traces at the beginning of 12 seem
not to support this, and Philodemus would not have begun the quotation at this
point in the verse. In any case there must have been a quotation here.
19-21. Od. 1.298, in which Athena, disguised as Mentes, offers Telemachus the
figure of Orestes as a model of filial piety.
21-24. Surviving witnesses of Od. 24.200 f. all read as follows: κουρίδιον
κτείναϲα (sc. Clytemnestra) πόϲιν, ϲτυγερὴ δέ τ’ ἀοιδὴ / ἔϲϲετ’ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπουϲ,
χαλεπὴν δέ τε φῆμιν ὀπάϲϲει. Bücheler argued that the position of the two
adjectives ϲτυγερή and χαλεπή was simply switched from our normal text.64 It
may have been a slip of Philodemus’ memory, as Dorandi notes,65 and χαλεπὴ
ἀοιδή would be unique, but so is ϲτυγερὴ . . . ἀοιδή. The text here should thus
be considered as a possible (but not probable) variant reading.
24. Here Philodemus apparently shifts to his conclusion. The diple is accompanied
by a very large spatium. καὶ μήν, moreover, indicates a strong stop.66
25. ερευλ comes from N at col. 96, 24 where P reads ενοδυϲ. Apparently N was
reading a sovrapposto which has since fallen away and hence my placement of
it here.
26. ειρω derives from N at col. 96, 25 where P reads θειν, apparently also a
Bücheler 1887, p. 199.
sovrapposto, though he may have been seeing the θ when he wrote ε.
Dorandi 1978, p. 44. 27. κ]ατορθώϲειϲ: cf. col. 32, 13 f., in which affairs are said to be «set right»
Cf. Denniston, p. 351. (κατορθοῦϲθαι) by counsel. κατόρθωϲιϲ (see LSJ s.v.) is a successful setting

aright of something, a success (κατορθώματα are opposed to ἀποτεύγματα,
«failures», in Philod., De vit., p. 35 Jensen) or an amendment of something
(i.e. τῆϲ πολιτείαϲ Polyb. 3.30.2; τῶν πραγμάτων Polyb. 2.53.3). Or it could be
a future verb in a direct address to Piso, telling him that «you will succeed» in
setting something right. κατορθώϲειϲ occurs in PHerc. 1251, [On Choices and
Avoidances], col. 7, 8, although the meaning is unclear there.
28. ου̣ may belong instead at the end of col. 96, 27 where I represent it in curled
brackets. If it is a sovrapposto, it belongs here.
38-41. Nestor’s activity as a peacemaker is mentioned once again (cf. col. 28,
27 ff. Dorandi), although the context is unclear and the passage may be corrupt.
The middle and passive of διαφέρω («be at variance with», «quarrel») normally
select περί τινοϲ for the thing disputed (see LSJ s.v. IV). Therefore with the text
as it stands αἵρεϲιν should be the object of ζηλοῦντων, taking ζηλοῦντων either
as a partitive genitive («the quarreling ones among those who were envying/
eager for the choice») or as part of a genitive absolute («those quarreling, when
people were envying/eager for the choice . . .»). But αἵρεϲιν ζηλόω is not easy to
interpret. In parallels it indicates zeal for, or a wish to enter, a sect. Cf. Jos., Bell
Jud. 2.137, τοῖϲ δὲ ζηλοῦϲιν τὴν αἵρεϲιν αὐτῶν οὐκ εὐθὺϲ ἡ πάροδοϲ, «and they
(the Essenes) do not allow immediate entrance to those wishing to join their
sect»; Nicolaus (comicus) fr. 1.20 f., τίνοϲ μαθητὴϲ γέγοναϲ; αἵρεϲιν τίνα (20) /
ζηλοῖϲ, «Whose pupil were you? What sect do you profess?». It remains unclear
what Homeric passage is referred to here.
38 f. Ν]έϲτ[ο]ρα παρ̣έ̣{ϲ}|`ϲ΄τηϲε: for παρίϲτημι as «represent», «describe» cf.
LSJ s.v. A.II.3. Olivieri’s τὸ[ν δῖον Ν]έϲτ[ο]ρα would fit the spacing, and δῖοϲ
is used three times of Nestor in Homer (Νέϲτορα δῖον: Il. 10.54; 11.510; Od.
1.284). At col. 32, 16-19 Dorandi Philodemus sees significance in the fact that
it is Nestor, old as he is, who is called οὖροϲ Ἀχαιῶν (Il. 8.80, etc.). When
Philodemus uses the epithet πολύμητιϲ in col. 96, 29 to refer to Odysseus he
clearly thinks that Homer’s choice of the epithet is especially suited for the
passages to which he alludes. What relevance δῖοϲ would have here is not
obvious, and Cirillo’s τὸ[ν μέν is too short, so I prefer not to print a supplement.

Col. 98 = col. 43 Dorandi

The fragmentary close of the treatise presents in the upper portion a list of
instances in Homer where characters are warned about their dangerous behavior
(7-13). Finally, in a direct address to Piso, Philodemus makes a programmatic
statement about his method of operation in the treatise (22-25).
7-13. In the six or so lines lost at the top of the column the topic has changed
from Nestor settling quarrels to advisors who warn others of their destructive
behavior. We should understand a verb like παρέϲτηϲε (cf. col. 97, 38 f.).
Philodemus makes mention of the warning given to Aegistheus by Hermes (Od.
1.35-43), and Phoenix’s exemplum of Meleager (Il. 9.527 ff.). These lines thus
continue, or at least recapitulate, the theme of the wise advisor in col. 96, in
which Philodemus appears to see himself as figuring for Piso as prophets and
bards did for Odysseus and Telemachus. Here Philodemus may see himself as

a modern analogy to Hermes and Phoenix in their role as wise advisors. For
Philodemus, it is probably significant that both the king of the gods and the
king of men authorizes the sending of such a warning figure (cf. col. 27, 29-36
7-9. Cf. Od. 37-43, where Zeus speaks of how the gods had sent Hermes to
warn Aegisthus neither to court Clytemnestra or murder Agamnenon. The
plural κατ̣α̣φ̣ονεῖϲ (on which see below) shows that Philodemus assumes that
Aegisthus told Clytemnestra he was warned by Hermes.
9. κατ̣α̣φ̣ονεῖϲ: the crossbar of τ̣ appears more like the bowl of υ, but crossbar
τ touching a following diagonal (of α) could create the same appearance, and
letters do occasionally touch.67 In any case, Janko’s suggested κατ̣α̣φ̣ονεῖϲ must
be correct. Although καταφονεύϲ is unattested, καταφονεύω is attested in many
authors, Herodotus, Euripides, and Polybius among them, and a nomen agentis
could be easily improvised from it. Leontius of Jerusalem (585-643) has the
feminine, καταφονήτρια (In pentecosten, hom. 11).
10-13. Φοίν̣ι̣κα δὲ̣ ⟦ι⟧ τἀχιλλεῖ π̣α̣|ρ̣α̣ι̣ν̣οῦ[ν]τ̣α̣ φυλάξαϲ̣[θαι μ]ὴ | τα̣ὐ̣τ̣ὰ [τ]ο̣ῖ̣ϲ̣
π̣ερὶ Μελέαγ̣[ρ]ο̣ν | πά[θ]η[ι.]: cf. Il. 9.527 ff. Philodemus focuses upon the
general point of Phoenix’s warning to Achilles, that, as Meleager, he could lose
great benefits by waiting too long to return to battle. As Olivieri observes in his
apparatus, Plutarch refers to the passage (Quomodo adulesc. 26f-27a): Φοίνικοϲ
τὸν Ἀχιλλέα διδάϲκοντοϲ οἷόν ἐϲτιν ὀργὴ καὶ ὅϲα διὰ θυμὸν ἄνθρωποι τολμῶϲι,
μὴ χρώμενοι λογιϲμῷ μηδὲ πειθόμενοι τοῖϲ παρηγοροῦϲι. καὶ γὰρ τὸν Μελέαγρον
ἐπειϲάγει τοῖϲ πολίταιϲ ὀργιζόμενον, εἶτα πραϋνόμενον, ὀρθῶϲ τὰ πάθη ψέγων,
τὸ δὲ μὴ ϲυνακολουθεῖν ἀλλ’ ἀντιτάττεϲθαι καὶ κρατεῖν καὶ μετανοεῖν ἐπαινῶν
ὡϲ καλὸν καὶ ϲυμφέρον, «since Phoinix is teaching Achilles what anger is and
how much men dare do in a rage; and in fact he pictures Meleager angered with
his fellow citizens and then calmed down, rightly blaming the passions and
praising the not obeying them but opposing and controlling them as good and
profitable». Philodemus would have agreed with this assessment, but his point
seems to be once more that it is good to have wise advisers like himself.
18. ]τουϲ̣ ο̣ὐ χ̣ά̣ριν̣: cf. col. 38, 32-36 Dorandi. We could also read ϲ̣ο̣ῦ χ̣ά̣ριν̣,
given the direct address to Piso in 16-19.
21 f. Here Olivieri supplemented εἰ δέ τιναϲ παρελοί|παμε]ν τῶν ἀφ[ορμῶν, which
is along the lines of what we might expect. Although he indicated in his apparatus
that all of line 21 was supplemented, he used no brackets in the text, giving the
unfortunate impression that the entire line was present. N records nothing for line
21, but at the beginning of 22 contains traces that contradict παραλελοί|παμεν,
including a vertical before the last ν. In the papyrus, apart from traces of the ν
before των, very little remains except for specks of ink and a vertical and ascender
at the beginning of the line which may be from another layer.
22-25. Here Philodemus refers to the method and purpose of his work. Since
Olivieri’s edition it has been thought that his supplement δυ̣|να‹ϲ›τε[ιῶν
followed ἐπανόρ̣θω̣ϲ̣ιν (ἔϲτι̣ accented) and that Philodemus accordingly spoke
Cf. the thorough description in Janko 2010,
of how these passages from Homer and his exegesis of them provided a
pp. 181 f. of PHerc. 207, which is written by
the same scribe as PHerc. 1507. He reports «correction of powers», or even «dynasties». But δυ̣|να‹ϲ›τε[ιῶν is impossible
(p. 181) that «ligatures are rare» although paleographically: there is not sufficient space for it. We should instead read
«occasionally γ is linked to ο and ω, and ν to ε». δυ̣|νατό͙[ν, correcting the ε of the disegno to ο (this reading was suggested to

me by Dirk Obbink before I examined the papyrus). δυ̣|νατό͙[ν could also be
construed somehow with the fragmentary text that follows, as discussed below.
As for the basic structure, these are the possibilities:
1) construing ἐϲτι and δυνατόν together:
τῶν̣ ἀφο[ρ]μ̣ῶ̣ν̣, ὦ Πεί̣|ϲων̣, ἅϲ ἐϲτι̣ παρ’ Ὁμήρου̣ λ̣α|βεῖ̣ν̣ εἰϲ ἐπανόρ̣θω̣ϲ̣ιν
δυ̣|νατό͙[ν, καί τ . . . [
«of the points of departure, Piso, which it is possible to take from Homer for
rectification, and . . .».
In this construction ἐϲτι and δυνατόν are rarely separated, except by one or two
words (e.g. δέ, ἁπλῶϲ, μὲν οὖν), but cf. Philo, Leg. 3.42.3, οὐ γάρ ἐϲτι <τὸν>
κατοικοῦντα ἐν ϲώματι καὶ τῷ θνητῷ γένει δυνατὸν θεῷ ϲυγγενέϲθαι, «for it is
not, for one dwelling in a body and among the mortal race, possible to associate
with God». There does not seem to be anything forced about this word order
here in our passage or in Philo.
2) reading accented ἔϲτι and assuming δυνατόν went with what follows:
a) with δυνατόν still part of the same sentence:
τῶν̣ ἀφο[ρ]μ̣ῶ̣ν̣, ὦ Πεί̣|ϲων̣, ἃϲ ἔϲτι̣ παρ’ Ὁμήρου̣ λ̣α|βεῖ̣ν̣ εἰϲ ἐπανόρ̣θω̣ϲ̣ιν,
δυ̣|νατό͙[ν(.)], καί τ . . . [
«of the points of departure, Piso, which one can take from Homer for rectification,
it is possible even . . .».
b) with δυνατόν beginning a new sentence: τῶν̣ ἀφο[ρ]μ̣ῶ̣ν̣, ὦ Πεί̣|ϲων̣, ἃϲ ἔϲτι̣
παρ’ Ὁμήρου̣ λ̣α|βεῖ̣ν̣ εἰϲ ἐπανόρ̣θω̣ϲ̣ιν. δυ̣|νατό͙[ν(.)] καί τ . . . [
«of the points of departure, Piso, which one can take from Homer for rectification.
It is possible also/even . . .».
In both 2 a) and b) it is possible to construe the last καί as coordinating, i.e. «it
is possible and (e.g.) useful, etc.» but this seems less probable.
Unrelated to the structure but crucial for the overall interpretation of the passage
is whether ἐπανόρ̣θω̣ϲ̣ιν here refers a) to the setting right of the real world of
affairs in a ruler’s domain (including the moral improvement of his people, cf.
col. 96, 13 f. πληθῶν ἐ̣|πανό̣[ρθ]ω̣ϲ̣ι̣ν and the parallels cited in my note), or b) as
a technical term of literary criticism denoting morally improving interpretation
of poetry for the internal correction of philosophically incorrect conduct and
opinions in a literary work, of course Homer in this case.
ἀφο[ρ]μ̣ῶ̣ν̣: the term can be used to refer to «starting points» or «resources» (cf.
LSJ s.v. I.2 and 3) for philosophical investigation.68 Cf. Sextus Empiricus, Adv.
gramm. 270 ἡ ποιητικὴ πολλὰϲ δίδωϲιν ἀφορμὰϲ πρὸϲ ϲοφίαν καὶ εὐδαίμονα
βίον, ἄνευ δὲ τοῦ ἀπὸ γραμματικῆϲ φωτὸϲ οὐχ οἷόν τε τὰ παρὰ τοῖϲ ποιηταῖϲ
διορᾶν ὁποῖά ποτέ  ἐϲτιν· χρειώδηϲ ἄρα ἡ γραμματική, «the art of poetry
provides many starting points toward wisdom and a happy life, and that
without the illumination of grammar it is impossible to see what sort of things
the poets say, and therefore grammar is necessary».69 Dion., Pomp. 6.1 οὗτοι
παραληφθέντεϲ οἱ ϲυγγραφεῖϲ ἀρκέϲουϲι τοῖϲ ἀϲκοῦϲι τὸν πολιτικὸν λόγον
ἀφορμὰϲ ἐπιτηδείουϲ παραδειγμάτων παραϲχεῖν εἰϲ ἅπαϲαν ἰδέαν, «These
writers, when studied, will suffice to furnish those practising political rhetoric
appropriate resources of examples for every style»; ps.-Plut., De Hom. 6, πλὴν
καὶ ἐν τοῖϲ μυθώδεϲι τούτοιϲ λόγοιϲ, εἴ τιϲ μὴ παρέργωϲ ἀλλ’ ἀκριβῶϲ ἕκαϲτα 68
Cf. Hunter and Russell 2011, p. 13; Obbink
τῶν εἰρημένων ἐπιλέγοιτο, φανεῖται πάϲηϲ λογικῆϲ ἐπιϲτήμηϲ καὶ τέχνηϲ 1995, p. 191; Blank 1998, p. 283.
ἐντὸϲ γενόμενοϲ καὶ πολλὰϲ ἀφορμὰϲ καὶ οἱονεὶ ϲπέρματα λόγων καὶ πράξεων 69
Tr. Blank 1998, pp. 54 f.

παντοδαπῶν τοῖϲ μετ’ αὐτὸν παρεϲχημένοϲ, καὶ οὐ τοῖϲ ποιηταῖϲ μόνον ἀλλὰ
καὶ τοῖϲ πεζῶν λόγων ϲυνθέταιϲ ἱϲτορικῶν τε καὶ θεωρηματικῶν, «Even in
these mythical passages, if one is not careless but precise in considering each of
the things Homer said, he will turn out to have possessed all of rational science
and technê and to have provided many points of departure and, as it were, seeds
of all sorts of discourse and action to those who came after him – and not only
to poets, but also to the composers of historical and theoretical prose works».70
In a passage important for ours, which also contains the idea of ἐπανόρθωϲιϲ,
Polybius (12.25b) discusses how the study of history provides «opportunities»
for correcting one’s behavior:
Ὅτι τῆϲ ἱϲτορίαϲ ἰδίωμα τοῦτ’ ἐϲτὶ τὸ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοὺϲ τοὺϲ κατ’ ἀλήθειαν
εἰρημένουϲ, οἷοί ποτ’ ἂν ὦϲι, γνῶναι λόγουϲ, δεύτερον τὴν αἰτίαν πυνθάνεϲθαι,
παρ’ ἣν ἢ διέπεϲεν ἢ κατωρθώθη τὸ πραχθὲν ἢ ῥηθέν· ἐπεὶ ψιλῶϲ λεγόμενον
αὐτὸ τὸ γεγονὸϲ ψυχαγωγεῖ μέν, ὠφελεῖ δ’ οὐδέν· προϲτεθείϲηϲ δὲ τῆϲ αἰτίαϲ
ἔγκαρποϲ ἡ τῆϲ ἱϲτορίαϲ γίνεται χρῆϲιϲ. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐπὶ τοὺϲ οἰκείουϲ
μεταφερομένων καιροὺϲ ἀφορμαὶ γίνονται καὶ προλήψειϲ εἰϲ τὸ προϊδέϲθαι
τὸ μέλλον, καὶ ποτὲ μὲν εὐλαβηθῆναι, ποτὲ δὲ μιμούμενον τὰ προγεγονότα
θαρραλεώτερον ἐγχειρεῖν τοῖϲ ἐπιφερομένοιϲ, «(He says) that the proper
character of history is this: first, to find out the things themselves that are truly
stated, whatever these may be; and second, to inquire into the cause by which
what was done or said failed or was set right (κατορθώθη). Because simply told
by itself what happened entertains but profits nothing. But if the cause is added
in, the use of history becomes fruitful, for, from circumstances transferred from
similar ones to one’s own, opportunities and concepts arise by which one can
foresee the future, and in some cases take precautions, and in others undertake
one’s duties with more confidence by imitating the past».
ἐπανόρ̣θω̣ϲ̣ιν: cf. πληθῶν ἐ̣|πανό̣[ρθ]ω̣ϲ̣ι̣ν col. 96, 13 f., where the term appears
to indicate the betterment of a ruler’s subjects in general. In the note some
parallels are provided in which ἐπανόρθωϲιϲ refers to a ruler’s bettering the
affairs in his realm. The term can also be used to indicate the effecting of moral
improvement on the part of those «set right», e.g. Plb. (10.21.4) ὅϲῳ γὰρ ἄν
τιϲ καὶ ζηλῶϲαι καὶ μιμήϲαϲθαι δυνηθείη μᾶλλον τοὺϲ ἐμψύχουϲ ἄνδραϲ τῶν
ἀψύχων καταϲκευαϲμάτων, τοϲούτῳ καὶ τὸν περὶ αὐτῶν λόγον διαφέρειν εἰκὸϲ
(πρὸϲ) ἐπανόρθωϲιν τῶν ἀκουόντων, «The more one can admire and imitate
living men rather than lifeless schemes, the more an account of them is likely
to make a difference for the moral improvement of the hearers»; 1.35.1 ἐν
ᾧ καιρῷ πολλά τιϲ ἂν ὀρθῶϲ ἐπιϲημαινόμενοϲ εὕροι πρὸϲ ἐπανόρθωϲιν τοῦ
τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίου ϲυντελεϲθέντα, «In these events there will be found by
one who notes them aright much to contribute to the better conduct of human
life.» Professor Felice Costabile kindly suggested to me δυ|νατῶ͙[ν, the
«improvement of powerful men», which I include in the apparatus but think is
not the right reading, since the definite article would be needed for this use (cf.
LSJ s.v. I.3), as with substantivized adjectives almost always,71 and even for it
to mean «capable» we should assume an infinitive, which seems impossible.
Moreover, it is doubtful that Philodemus would directly speak to Piso of the
Tr. Id. 1998, p. 283. «improvement of powerful men» (cf. also δυ|να‹ϲ›τῶ͙[ν, Janko). It is rather the
Gildersleeve 1900-1911, §573. ruler who accomplishes the improvement. The idea that Philodemus conceives

On the Good King According to Homer as showing how Homer can provide
«resources» or «starting points» for helping Piso to set things right in his task as
provincial governor of Macedon is perfectly plausible, and πληθῶν ἐ̣|πανό̣[ρθ]ω̣-
ϲ̣ι̣ν in the preceding column lends weight to this interpretation.
An alternative to this interpretation of ἐπανόρθωϲιϲ is to see the term here as a
technical term of literary criticism. Plutarch presents a highly suggestive parallel
for this in On How a Young Person Should Read Poetry.72 Plutarch suggests
various possible ἐπανορθώϲειϲ when a reader encounters philosophically
incorrect opinions or actions in Homer (19A-33D). Sometimes verbal statements
suggests the poet’s approval or disapproval of certain actions or statements
(19A). If there are morally contradictory actions and advice, the good should
be allowed to cancel out the bad (20C). If the poet does not present the good
alongside the bad, the opinions of other reputable authors may be brought to
bear on the passage (20E). Plutarch continues with a parallel to our passage:
δεῖ δὲ μηδὲ τὰϲ ἐκ τῶν παρακειμένων ἢ ϲυμφραζομένων παραλιπεῖν ἀφορμὰϲ
πρὸϲ τὴν ἐπανόρθωϲιν, «but we must not neglect, either, the occasions for the
rectification [sc. of a philosophically incorrect statement] which are afforded by
the words that lie near, or by the context». A philosophically correct thought can
be achieved in other ways, for instance by taking the name «Zeus» to indicate
«fate» or «fortune». In this way, «one should correct» (ἐπανορθωτέον) most of
the seemingly unjustifiable things said of Zeus (24A). Plutarch goes on to explain
how the appropriate correction may even involve rewriting offensive lines, as
Cleanthes and Zeno did with philosophically incorrect lines of tragedy (33C-D).
Some of the differences in Philodemus’ approach are obvious. Plutarch aims to
show how a reader, with almost total interpretive liberty, can wrestle something
edifying out of passage of Homer, even if Homer himself holds an incorrect
opinion about the matter.73 In contrast, Philodemus, as his title suggests, has
already selected philosophically correct opinions from Homer. How then, if we
understand Plutarch’s technical usage of ἐπανόρθωϲιϲ as a significant parallel,
is Philodemus’ treatise a «rectification» or «correction» of anything related to
Homer? One possibility may be that the very act of sorting out Homer’s correct
opinions on a subject, even if one just barely alludes to his incorrect opinions,
qualifies for this technical sense of ἐπανόρθωϲιϲ. Alternatively, Elizabeth 72
Cf. Asmis 1991, pp. 21 f.; Obbink 1995, p.
Asmis observes that in On the Good King «Philodemus looks only to Homer as
corrector of the conduct that Homer depicts».74
25. Olivieri here read τ[ῶν] πα[ρα]|δε[ιγμά]των («of the examples»), but neither
Cf. Konstan 2004.
word survives autopsy of the papyrus. 74
Asmis 1991, p. 23.