Ivanoe Privitera

Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition*

In this paper I would like to analyse briefly Aristotles direct tradition as we find
it in the papyri already published
1
, taking into account first those transmitting
Aristotles preserved works, then those hypothetically attributed to his lost
works. With regard to the first group, I offer some papyrological and philologi-
cal contributions, especially discussing textual variants, collating the most re-
cent editions and taking into consideration the latest studies. As for the second
group, I outline and discuss the arguments pro and contra the attribution of Aris-
totelian authorship.
1. The Papyri of Aristotles Preserved Works
Leafing through the Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini (henceforth CPF)
2
,
it may sound surprising to find just eight Aristotle papyri, especially if we com-
pare this number to the eighty-two of Plato
3
.
Quaestio, 11 (2011), 115-140 10.1484/J.QUAESTIO.1.103012
* I would like to thank my supervisor Dirk Obbink, who suggested that I write this article as pre-
liminary research for the project The footprint left by Aristotle and the Peripatos in the papyri I worked
on as Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Oxford from September 2009 to August 2011; Lucio Del
Corso, who kindly gave me the possibility to contribute to this volume with my article; Daniela Colomo
and Laura Castelli, who carefully read and revised it giving me many useful suggestions; the staff of the
John Rylands Library Special Collections in Manchester for their kind availability; Paul Ellis for his
prompt and accurate English proofreading; Lucio Biasiori, who kindly provided, as always, the bibliogra-
phy not available at Oxford.
1
As Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Oxford within the above mentioned project, I identified
and edited a number of new papyri containing Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics, Parts of Animals, Physics,
Rhetoric, Pseudo-Aristotles (Anaximenes) Rhetoric to Alexander, due to appear in the series The
Oxyrhynchus Papyri.
2
F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini. Testi e lessico nei papiri di cul-
tura greca e latina, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1989-.
3
Cf. J. IRIGOIN, Deux traditions dissymtriques: Platon et Aristote 1986 (avril-juin), 1986-1987 (suite),
in ID., Tradition et critique des textes grecs, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1997, pp. 149-190: 150-151, 188 sqq.
116 Ivanoe Privitera
They contain the Posterior Analytics, the Categories, the Nicomachean Ethics,
the History of Animals, the Politics, the Protreptic respectively, two of the
Athenaion Politeia
4
, and they date from between the first and fifth century.
To the eight papyri published in CPF, we must add three more.
P. Ryl. III 510 recto (LDAB
5
394, MP
3
164.01
6
) [pl. 1] from the second cen-
tury contains a short passage of the Topics (VI, 13, 150a27-32). It was edited as
a Topics fragment by Linguiti
7
and revised by Menci
8
, who also pointed out that P.
Giss. Lit. 4.8 recto (LDAB 4454; MP
3
164.01, 2810.1) contains Topics VI, 13,
150b10-14 and 150b23-26, and belongs to the same roll as the Rylands papyrus.
P. Vind. Barbara 22 (LDAB 9951, MP
3
158.01) from the second/third cen-
tury is a very tiny fragment of the On the Heaven (De caelo) book one (3-4,
270b31-33). It was edited by Papathomas
9
.
P. Harris I 2 (LDAB 4988, MP
3
2566) from the second/third century
where Cavini
10
identified the text of Categories 10, 11b17-28 and 10, 11b36-
12a1.
From a chronological point of view:
the most ancient Aristotle papyrus is P. Lond. Lit. 108 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 7),
preserving the Athenaion Politeia, which dates to the end of the first century
11
.
P. Mich. inv. 6643 + P. Brux. inv. E 8073 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 5), containing
two passages of the Politics book four (4-5, 1292a30-1292b2; 6, 1293a15-18),
dates to the first/second century.
Four papyri from the second century: P. Oxy. XXIV 2402 (CPF I.1*, 24, no.
3) [pl. 2] preserves two passages of the Nicomachean Ethics book six (9, 1142b11-
Cf. also T. DORANDI, I papiri e la filosofia antica, Atene e Roma, n.s. 2 (3-4) (2008), pp. 129-143: 130-
131. I will return to the complex issue of the first stage of Aristotles transmission in the Conclusions.
4
Cf. CPF I.1*, pp. 251-281.
5
http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/.
6
CEDOPAL: http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/.
7
A. LINGUITI, Un frammento dei Topici su papiro (PRyl. III 510r), in M.S. FUNGHI (a cura di), O
. Le vie della ricerca. Studi in onore di Francesco Adorno, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1996, pp. 21-
23. Instead, in the editio princeps the fragment was simply defined as philosophical text.
8
G. MENCI, Un nuovo frammento papiraceo dei Topici, in F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Papiri Filosofi-
ci. Miscellanea di Studi VI, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 2011 (Studi e Testi per il Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici
greci e latini, 16), pp. 253-264.
9
A. PAPATHOMAS, Aristoteles, De caelo 270b31-33. Der erste Beleg auf Papyrus (P. Vindob. Barbara
22), Wiener Studien, 116 (2003), pp. 97-100.
10
W. CAVINI, Un nuovo papiro delle Categorie, P.Harris I 2 e Arist. Cat. 10, in ADORNO ET AL. (a cura
di), Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi VI cit., pp. 241-252.
11
I do not take into account P. Lond. Lit. 112, from the third century BC, because its attribution to
Aristotles Customs of the Barbarians is highly uncertain (cf. CPF I.1*, pp. 392-393, and below).
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 117
17; 12, 1144a6-11); P. Oxy. IV 666 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 6) belongs to the Protreptic;
the already mentioned Topics papyrus (P. Ryl. III 510 recto + P. Giss. Lit. 4.8 rec-
to); P. Rein. II 80 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 4) [pl. 3], containing two passages of the His-
tory of Animals (3, 636a12-18; 4, 636b1-5), is from the end of the century.
The On the Heaven papyrus (P. Vind. Barbara 22) and the Categories one
(P. Harris I 2), already mentioned, are from the second/third century.
P. Oxy. XXIV 2403 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 2) [pl. 4], containing Categories 8-
10, 11a24-b1; 10, 13b21-27; 14, 14a13-15 (and maybe 10, 13a15-16), is dated
to the early third century.
P. Berol. inv. 5009 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 8), preserving some passages of the
Athenaion Politeia (12, 3-4; 13, 1-5; 21, 4-22, 4; 22, 4-8), is dated to the fourth
century.
P. Berol. inv. 5002 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 1), preserving Posterior Analytics 2,
71b19-72a38, is dated to the fifth century.
Let us consider them more in detail.
1) P. Lond. Lit. 108 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 7)
12
, probably both transcribed and found
at Hermupolis
13
, are the famous rolls containing the part of the Athenaion Po-
liteia preserved to us
14
, beginning in medias res. Along with P. Berol. inv. 5009
12
Cf. F.G. KENYON (ed.), Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens, Printed by order of the Trustees of the
British Museum, London 1891; M. MANFREDI, LAthenaion Politeia di Aristotele e i papiri, in Proceedings
of the XIX International Congress of Papyrology (Cairo, 2-9 September 1989), Center for Papyrological
Studies, Cairo 1992, I, pp. 447-460; G. BASTIANINI, Tipologie dei rotoli e problemi di ricostruzione, in M.
CAPASSO (a cura di), Atti del V Seminario Internazionale di Papirologia (Lecce, 27-29 giugno 1994), Con-
gedo, Galatina 1995 (Papyrologica Lupiensia, 4), pp. 21-42; ID., Un luogo di ritrovamento fantasma, in
Atti del II Convegno Nazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia (Siracusa, 1-3 dicembre 1995), Istituto Inter-
nazionale del Papiro, Siracusa 1996 (Quaderni dellAssociazione Istituto internazionale del papiro, Si-
racusa, 7), pp. 69-84; ID., in Callimaco (Fr. 1.11 Pfeiffer), in FUNGHI (a cura di),
cit., pp. 69-80; E. PUGLIA, La cura del libro nel mondo antico. Guasti e restauri del rotolo di
papiro, Liguori, Napoli 1997, pp. 19-22; G.B. DALESSIO, Danni materiali e ricostruzione di rotoli papira-
cei: le Elleniche di Ossirinco (P.Oxy. 842) e altri esempi, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik
134 (2001), pp. 23-41; W.A. JOHNSON, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, University of Toronto, Toron-
to-Buffalo-London 2004, pp. 157 sqq.; L. DEL CORSO, LAthenaion Politeia (P. Lond. Lit. 108) e la sua bi-
blioteca: libri e mani nella chora egizia, in D. BIANCONI / L. DEL CORSO (a cura di), Oltre la scrittura. Varia-
zioni sul tema per Guglielmo Cavallo, Centre dtudes byzantines, no-hellniques et sud-est europennes
/ cole des hautes tudes en sciences sociales, Paris 2008 (Dossiers byzantins, 8), pp. 13-52; E.G.
TURNER, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (revised edition), Institute of Classical Studies, London
1987 (BICS Supplement, 46) (henceforth GMAW), p. 102, pl. 60.
13
Cf. MANFREDI, LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 451-453, and BASTIANINI, Un luogo di ritrovamento cit.,
esp. pp. 69 and 84.
14
For a list of the editions, cf. P.J. RHODES, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia,
Clarendon Press, Oxford 1993
2
, pp. 739-746; F. MONTANARI, LAthenaion Politeia dai papiri alle edizioni,
in L.R. CRESCI / L. PICCIRILLI (a cura di), LAthenaion Politeia di Aristotele, Il Melangolo, Genova 1993
(Historica, 5; Universit, 32), pp. 1-24; G. ARRIGHETTI, Un secolo di edizioni dellAthenaion Politeia,
in G. MADDOLI (a cura di), LAthenaion Politeia di Aristotele 1891-1991. Per un bilancio di cento anni di
118 Ivanoe Privitera
(CPF I.1*, 24, no. 8), transmitting, as said, some passages of the same work, P.
Lond. Lit. is the only witness. The text of the Athenaion Politeia is written on the
back of four rolls on the third roll Aristotles text is upside down which con-
tain on the recto agricultural accounts dated to 78/79 (the first three = P. Lond.
I 131, 166-188) and to 77/78 (the fourth = P. Lond. I 131*, 189-191).
As noticed since the editio princeps, the text of the Athenaion Politeia was
written by four different hands
15
. As pointed out most recently by Del Corsos de-
tailed analysis
16
, the first hand, writing from col. I to col. XII i.e. the entire
first roll and the first column of the second is a small and rounded cursive (cf.
P. Ryl. II 119), showing several ligatures and abbreviations. The second one,
writing from col. XIII to col. XX, l. 28 on the second roll, is a squared uninfor-
mal script, strictly bilinear (cf. P. Fay. 110; P. Lond. II, 354; PSI VII, 745).
The third one, writing from col. XX, l. 28 to col. XXIV on the second roll, is sim-
ilar to the previous one until col. XX, then it becomes rounded. The fourth one,
writing from col. XXV to col. XXX the entire third roll is a fluent cursive,
responsible for most of the corrections present in the four rolls. The diorthosis is
made basically in three ways: additions supra lineam of words or letter groups
omitted, deletions with addition supra lineam of the correct lectio, addition supra
lineam of a different lectio
17
.
The copying process of the four scribes is not organized in a systematic way.
Moreover the papyrus presents graphic imperfections and reveals that the
scribes have difficulty in the handling of the layout, so that it could be consid-
ered as an example of an informal book
18
. However the text is trustworthy.
On the back there are two more hands: one, somewhat similar to the Athenaion
Politeias first hand, is a short commentary on Demosthenes Meidias (P. Lond.
Lit. 179) after col. X of the Athenaion Politeia, crossed out by a big cross; the oth-
er hand consists of three tiny columns of different height containing some scho-
lia to Callimachus Aitia (P. Lond. Lit. 181), written on the back of the sheet added
to the protokollon of the roll in order to transcribe col. XI of Aristotles text
19
.
studi, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli 1994 (Studi di storia e di storiografia), pp. 19-37. The edi-
tio princeps is KENYON (ed.), Aristotle cit.; the most recent edition is M. CHAMBERS (ed.), Aristotelis
Athenaion Politeia, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Stutgardiae et Lipsiae 1994
2
.
15
Cf. KENYON (ed.), Aristotle cit., pp. XI sq.
16
Cf. DEL CORSO, LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 19 sqq.
17
Cf. DEL CORSO, LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 24-25.
18
Cf. DEL CORSO, LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 27-28.
19
Cf. BASTIANINI, Tipologie dei rotoli cit., pp. 35-36 (and p. 34 for explanatory drawings), and ID.,
cit., p. 72 (and pp. 79-80 for explanatory drawings). Bastianini puts forward the hy-
pothesis that the scholia were written later than the Athenaion Politeia, whereas DEL CORSO, LAthenaion
Politeia cit., p. 29, before. PUGLIA, La cura del libro cit., pp. 19-22, analyses the protokollon, following
BASTIANINI, Tipologie dei rotoli cit., p. 35, and drawing attention to a small papyrus strip added at the very
beginning of the roll as protective device, probably after the transcription of the Athenaion Politeia.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 119
Given these elements concerning the form and the content of the rolls, it is
likely a private copy of a well-educated person (a gymnasiarch? A lawyer?) in-
terested in using Aristotles work as a technical text in order to obtain political
and juridical knowledge from a theoretical point of view, along with the practi-
cal side of judicial oratory (as suggested by the presence of the commentary on
Demosthenes Meidias)
20
. This hypothesis is supported by the other papyri prob-
ably found with that of the Athenaion Politeia, including at least the following
ones
21
: P. Lond. inv. 132 = P. Lond. Lit. 131 (Isocrates, On Peace), P. Lond. inv.
133 = P. Lond. Lit. 130 (Demosthenes, Epistle III), P. Lond. inv. 134 = P. Lond.
Lit. 134 (Hyperides), P. Lond. inv. 135 = P. Lond. Lit. 96 (Herondas, Mimi-
amboi), P. Lond. inv. 137 = P. Lond. Lit. 165 (Anonymus Londiniensis, On Me-
dicine, recently re-edited by Manetti
22
). From this data, we can conclude that the
Athenaion Politeia papyrus belonged to a private collection, not homogeneous in
its content, but mainly in a rhetorical-philosophical mould
23
.
2) P. Mich. inv. 6643 and P. Brux inv. E 8073 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 5), of unknown
provenance, are two fragments of papyrus roll, from the first/second century (the
hand is a round majuscule)
24
, which contain two close but not adjoining pas-
sages of the Politics book four (4-5, 1292a30-1292b2; 6, 1293a15-18). They
were first published separately, the first by Turner
25
; the second by Nachter-
gael
26
, as fragments in prose, and afterwards by Worp
27
, who identified them
as belonging to the Politics and argued that the two papyrus fragments certainly
came from the same roll.
As stated by Nachtergael and Worp, it is a deluxe edition, as can be seen from
the elegance of the script rich in serifs, the tightness of the columns (12-14 let-
ters per line), the wide inferior margin, and the line-fillers to keep an even right-
hand margin.
This papyrus is not taken into account by any Politics editor.
20
So MANFREDI, LAthenaion Politeia cit., pp. 453 and 457-458.
21
For this finding one refers to the account of F.G. KENYON (ed.), Fifty Years of Papyrology, in Actes
du V
e
Congrs International de Papyrologie (Oxford, 30 aot-3 septembre 1937), Fondation gyptologique
Reine lisabeth, Bruxelles 1938, pp. 1-11. But the question is complicated: cf. DEL CORSO, LAthenaion
Politeia cit., pp. 37-38, with the bibliography quoted in the n. 77.
22
D. MANETTI (ed.), Anonymus Londiniensis. De medicina, W. de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 2011.
23
So DEL CORSO, LAthenaion Politeia cit., p. 46.
24
Cf. CPF I.1*, p. 266 for the description of the script and the paleographical parallels.
25
Cf. E.G. TURNER, Two Greek Papyri, Wiener Studien, 79 (1966), pp. 186-191: 186-189.
26
Cf. G. NACHTERGAEL, Les papyrus de la Fondation Reine lisabeth. Fragments de prosateurs,
Chronique dgypte, 47 (1972), pp. 185-203: 185-189.
27
Cf. K.A. WORP, Un nouveau fragment dun papyrus de la Politique dAristote, Chronique d-
gypte, 48 (1973), pp. 132-133: 133.
120 Ivanoe Privitera
As for the text, according to Dreizehnters edition
28
, it differs from the medi-
aeval tradition especially in terms of several omissions
29
.
Nonetheless, it is possible to add some new observations or explanations (I
use the text given by CPF).
P. Mich. inv. 6643, col. I, 4-6 (= 1292a31-32), ] / []
/[], omits after . Turner observes that this is not cor-
rect, because the use of for nomino is not Aristotelian
30
. However
governs a double accusative in de An. I, 2, 99405b4,
.
In col. I, 11-13 (= 1292a33-34), [ ] / [ ]
.
/
[] (), problematic for the use of with genitive instead of
+ genitive in the meaning of decide, the papyrus confirms the mediaeval tradi-
tion, defended by Newman
31
, who refers to the passages quoted by KG
32
417.4
Anm. 10c, 363: Plat. Resp. IX, 576D,
; and Arist. Pol. VI, 12, 1322b36 (which has ,
synonym of ), (<>
Ross
33
). The traditional text had already been defended by Jowett
34
, with refer-
ence to the same passage of Platos Republic and to another one from the Laws
(I, 646D), and has been accepted by Dreizehnter and Aubonnet
35
. Instead, Im-
misch
36
and Ross unnecessarily correct the transmitted text, printing
< >, ,
.
In col. I, 12 (= 1292a34) the space seems enough only for [], accord-
ing to Turners supplement, and not for [ ] as in the mediaeval tradi-
tion printed by CPF.
In col. II, 9-10 (= 1292a41), , as in the mediaeval tradition, is cor-
rected by a second hand to , that, according to Turner, offers a per-
fect participle of completed action (owner, propertied person) which is prefer-
28
A. DREIZEHNTER (Hrsg.), Aristoteles Politik, Fink, Mnchen 1970.
29
Cf. CPF I.1*, pp. 266-267, and the apparatus at pp. 268-269.
30
Cf. TURNER, Two Greek Papyri cit., p. 188 (this comment by Turner seems to be misunderstood in
CPF I.1*, p. 267).
31
Cf. W.L. NEWMAN, The Politics of Aristotle IV, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1902, p. 182.
32
R. KHNER / B. GERTH, Ausfhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Band I, Teil 2 (Satz-lehre),
Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover-Leipzig 1898
3
.
33
W.D. ROSS (ed.), Aristotelis Politica, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1957.
34
Cf. B. JOWETT, The Politics of Aristotle, Translated into English, with Introduction, Marginal Analy-
sis, Essays, Notes and Indices, vol. II, part I, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1885, p. 160.
35
J. AUBONNET (d.), Aristote, Politique, tome II, premire partie, livres III-IV, Les Belles Lettres, Paris
1971.
36
O. IMMISCH (ed.), Aristotelis Politica, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Lipsiae 1929
2
.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 121
able to the present participle
37
. This sounds perfectly right, but in four very sim-
ilar cases in the Politics we find the present participle: IV, 4, 1291b40-41,
; IV, 5, 1293a15,
; IV, 11, 1298a38-39, ;
VI, 4, 1320b26-27, .
Moreover, as Turner himself observes
38
, Bonitz
39
quotes our passage for
in the sense of . Furthermore, the apparatus of Aubonnet at
1291b40 notes the variant for in the Parisinus graecus 2023
(P, XV cent.). If we were to speculate, we could hypothesize that the second hand,
responsible for the correction in our papyrus, had this variant in
mind, because it occurs in a previous passage which is almost identical and not
so far from ours. In any case, however the variant originated, I think that on the
basis of the parallels we should accept the present participle.
3) P. Oxy. XXIV 2402 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 3), from the second century, preserves
two passages of the Nicomachean Ethics book six (9, 1142b11-17; 12, 1144a6-
11) in two fragments of papyrus roll, the same roll as the fragment containing a
previous passage of this work (VI, 9, 1142a20-32), forthcoming in The
Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. Considering the average number of 23 letters per
line, the portion of text included between the fragments, counting about 4057
letters, should have been written in about 176 lines, so probably in three
columns of 58-59 lines each
40
.
This is a neat but informal copy
41
, which offers a good text, twice in agree-
ment with L
b
(Par. gr. 1854, XII/XIII cent.), fr. 1, 8 (= 1142b15, )
and fr. 2, 3 (= 1144a6, ); in one case isolated, i.e. fr. 2, 11 (= 1144a10,
L
b
: papyrus). As stated in CPF (I.1*, p. 262), in fr. 2, 2 (=
1144a6), in the lacuna before , the papyrus could have contained
with L
b
or Busses conjecture
42
, preferred by Turner
43
. Bywa-
ter
44
prints the passage between cruces. In fr. 1, 11 (= 1142b16), [
37
Cf. TURNER, Two Greek Papyri cit., p. 189, followed in CPF I.1*, p. 267.
38
Cf. again TURNER, Two Greek Papyri cit., p. 189.
39
Cf. H. BONITZ, Index Aristotelicus, Typis et impensis Georgii Reimeri, Berolini 1870, s.v.
40
58-59 lines, as argued in CPF I.1*, p. 262. Cf. the columns of P. Oxy. VI 666, containing 57 lines
each (see below), and other examples in JOHNSON, Bookrolls cit., table 3.7, pp. 217 sqq.
41
So W.A. JOHNSON, Column Layout in Oxyrhynchus Literary Papyri: Maass Law, Ruling and Alignment
Dots, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 96 (1993), pp. 211-215 (cf. ID., Bookrolls cit., p. 94).
42
Cf. H. BUSSE, Zur Textkritik der Nikomachischen Ethik, Hermes, 18, 1 (1883), pp. 137-147: 141-
142.
43
In P. Oxy. XXIV, p. 126.
44
I. BYWATER (ed.), Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1894.
122 Ivanoe Privitera
disagrees with of the codices, probably erroneously
45
. The papyrus
lends no support to the deletions of modern scholars
46
.
4) P. Oxy. IV 666 (= CPF I.1*, 24, no. 6), from the second century, contains two
almost entire columns, preceded by the end of the lines of a third and by the
traces of the beginning of a fourth, from Aristotles Protrepticus (46-48, B 2-5
Dring
47
= 76, 1 Gigon
48
= 13 a-k Schneewei
49
). The pa-
pyrus text overlaps with a passage quoted by Stobaeus (III, 3, 25) after the lem-
ma , but it also gives a few lines before and a sentence omitted in
Stobaeus (II, 52-III, 5).
The columns are tight and extraordinarily close to each other; the script is a
small, not very neat bookhand; the text is not always correct, though in several
points better than Stobaeus (II, 12-13; 13-14; 36-37; 39; 40; III, 8)
50
.
5) P. Ryl. III 510 recto was identified and published by Linguiti
51
as a Topics frag-
ment (VI, 13, 150a27-32), only from a photograph, after being classified as a
philosophical text in the editio princeps. It was revised, on the basis of a digital
image, by Menci
52
, who also pointed out that P. Giss. Lit. 4.8 recto (antea P. Giss.
Univ. IV 40; LDAB 4454: unidentified text; MP
3
164.01, antea 2810.1) con-
tains Topics VI, 13, 150b10-14 and 150b23-26, and belongs to the same roll as
the Rylands papyrus (on the verso it preserves part of two columns containing
scholia to an unidentified text; Hellanicus and Simonides are probably quoted).
I was able to inspect the original at the John Rylands Library in Manchester,
so I will provide some general information, focussing in particular on the points
where I disagree with Mencis revision.
It is a small fragment of papyrus roll (5.7 x 6.8 cm), from the Faym where
45
Cf. Turner in P. Oxy. XXIV 2402, pp. 124-126.
46
Cf. R.A. GAUTHIER / J.Y. JOLIF (ds), Aristote. Lthique Nicomaque, Publications Universitaires,
Louvain / Batrice-Nauwelaerts, Paris 1970
2
, tome II, deuxime partie, ad loc., pp. 513-515.
47
I. DRING, Aristotles Protrepticus. An Attempt at Reconstruction, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgen-
sis, Gteborg 1961 (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 12).
48
O. GIGON, Aristotelis opera, III, Librorum Deperditorum Fragmenta, W. de Gruyter, Berolini-Novi
Eboraci 1987.
49
G. SCHNEEWEI, Aristoteles, Protreptikos. Hinfhrung zur Philosophie, Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, Darmstadt 2005 (Texte zur Forschung, 85).
50
The text of the papyrus was discussed by F. VENDRUSCOLO, Riesame critico-testuale del papiro del
Protrettico di Aristotele (POxy 666), in F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Protagora, Antifonte, Posidonio, Aris-
totele: saggi su frammenti inediti e nuove testimonianze da papiri, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1986 (Studi e
Testi per il Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 2), pp. 129-152, before his edition in CPF.
51
LINGUITI, Un frammento cit.
52
MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 123
P. Giss. Lit. 4.8 was bought
53
written along the fibres. On the back there are
the remains of 12 lines which preserve a text probably belonging to a historical
or chronological work on the Seleucid kingdom, from second to third century (so
in the editio princeps). This text is turned upside down, so that the upper margin
of Aristotles turns out to be the lower one on the back. Only the upper margin is
preserved to a length of 1 cm. The space between lines measures 0.3 cm, where-
as the height of letters is 0.2. The width of column was about 6.5 cm, i.e. be-
longing to Johnsons somewhat wide class
54
. According to Mencis text, which I
follow, the average number of letters per line is about 17, so, given to the num-
ber of the column at l. 1 ( = 74), we can infer that the roll began with the sixth
book of the Topics, written in columns of about 30 lines each
55
. This is compat-
ible with Mencis reconstruction of the distribution of the text between P. Ryl.
and P. Giss., even though she does not accept the reading
56
.
The script is a medium to small bookhand with serifs (see , , ) and occasion-
ally cursive features (see ), strictly bilinear, comparable to GLH
57
13a and b dat-
ed to c. 125 and the first half of the second century respectively in addition to the
parallels provided by Linguiti and Menci
58
. is looped, with a lengthened cross-
bar, is in three movements and deep, in two movements, is broad. There are
only one apostrophe (l. 2) but elision is always applied and probably a critical
sign (maybe an interlinear I at l. 4)
59
. Iota adscript is regularly written. As stated, in
the upper margin we read the number of the column ( = 74)
60
.
This papyrus (P. Ryl. III 510 + P. Giss. Lit. 4.8) is the only so far known pre-
serving the Topics in the direct tradition, since P. Fay. 3 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 53T
= III, 2 = CLGP
61
I.1.4, 7) contains a commentary on four passages from the sec-
ond book of the Topics, and CPF I.1*, 24, nos. 54T, 55T, 56T are testimonia of
the Topics.
The text, collated with the editions of Waitz, Strache-Wallies, Ross and
Brunshwig 2007
62
, shows no new variants.
53
Cf. MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit., p. 254.
54
Cf. JOHNSON, Bookrolls cit., p. 108.
55
So LINGUITI, Un frammento cit., pp. 21-22, but calculating 25 lines per column. Just to avoid any
possible confusion, I report a slip in MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit., p. 255 n. 8, where it is said that the
roll must have contained the Topics from the beginning, instead of only book six.
56
Cf. MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit., pp. 254-255 and 259, and below.
57
C.H. ROBERTS, Greek Literary Hands 350 B.C.-A.D. 400, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1955.
58
Cf. LINGUITI, Un frammento cit., p. 21, and MENCI, Un nuovo frammento cit., p. 255.
59
Cf. Roberts in P.Ryl. III, p. 138, and below.
60
For other examples, cf. GMAW, p. 16.
61
G. BASTIANINI ET AL. (edd.), Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris reperta (CLGP), K.G. Saur,
Mnchen-Leipzig 2004-.
62
TH. WAITZ, Aristotelis Organon Graece, Pars Posterior, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Lipsiae 1846; I.
124 Ivanoe Privitera
Some observations in detail, resulting from the autopsy of the recto of P. Ryl.
III 510.
At l. 1 I confirm the reading , proposed by Linguiti and rejected by Menci.
The right-hand arc of the remains, whilst I regard the as certain. A small space
is left between the two letters, which seem the only letters on the line
63
; there-
fore, as I have said, they can be interpreted as the number of the column (= 74).
At l. 4 I think we should read ] (Roberts, in P. Ryl. III, p. 137, prints
] ), whereas Linguiti and Menci read ] . The two verticals they interpret
like those of the seem instead the second vertical of the and the , linked with
the by a horizontal stroke, which is the lengthening of the horizontal stroke of
the itself. In fact, the first vertical seems odd as the first vertical of the , hav-
ing at the baseline a serif curving towards the right instead of the left. As for the
traces at the beginning of the line, the minimal one on the break belongs to the
; there follow other scanty traces of . The iota adscript is added by mistake, as
in l. 6 (, where it is expunged by placing two dots, one on each side of
the letter) and in P. Giss. Lit. 4.8, col. I, l. 7 ().
At the same l. 4, above the second of there is an interlinear letter
looking like , but which should possibly be interpreted as the critical sign I (for
I)
64
, not detected by Linguiti nor by Menci.
At l. 6, above the expunged there are some dot-shaped traces of ink and a
little diagonal, probably accidental.
At the end of l. 12 Menci prints ] [ (] [ in the diplomatic transcrip-
tion), without taking into consideration this line in the commentary. I confirm her
text, even though just and (of which the first half of the horizontal is missing)
are quite certain, whereas the previous traces are far from being clear.
6) P. Rein. II 80 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 4), of unknown provenance, from the end of
the second century, contains on the recto the inferior part of two adjoining
columns, preserving two passages from book ten of the History of Animals (3,
636a12-18; 4, 636b1-5); on the verso there is Hom. Il. 3, 33-43 (= P. Rein. II 66,
unpublished). As calculated in CPF (I.1*, p. 264), given that each column
STRACHE / M. WALLIES (edd.), Aristotelis Topica cum libro de sophisticis elenchis, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri,
Lipsiae 1923; W.D. ROSS (ed.), Aristotelis Topica et Sophistici Elenchi, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Ox-
onii 1958; J. BRUNSCHWIG (d.), Aristote. Topiques, tome II, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2007.
63
The traces at a distance of about 0.5 cm from the actually minimal considered by MENCI, Un
nuovo frammento cit., p. 259, as the inferior part of a letter, could be accidental, like those we see for ex-
ample between lines 5 and 6.
64
Cf. Roberts in P. Ryl. III, p. 138, and, for the sign, a type of dotted obelus used to mark a margin-
al note, a correction or a variant, see K. MCNAMEE, Sigla and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri,
Fondation gyptologique Reine lisabeth, Bruxelles 1992 (Papyrologica Bruxellensia, 26), p. 37.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 125
should have had 33 lines, these are the sixth and the seventh of the 28 columns
which contained History of Animals, book ten
65
. The text of the papyrus seems
to agree completely with the mediaeval tradition, so it does not lend support to
Dittmeyers emendation for in col. I, 4 (= 636a15)
66
accepted by
Louis
67
and rejected by Balme
68
but neither, for reasons of space, to Dittmey-
ers supplement <> after in col. I, 3 (= 636a14), nor to William of Mo-
erbekes addition before in col. I, 5 (= 636a16). As argued in the appa-
ratus of CPF, for reasons of space it is probable that the papyrus in col. II, 2 (=
636b2-3) omitted ; but I think it is also possible that it omitted
, in both cases because of a saut du mme au mme in the sequence
.
7) P. Vind. Barbara 22 (LDAB 9951, MP
3
158.01), from the second/third centu-
ry, is a very tiny fragment of the On the Heaven just fourteen letters from three
lines of I, 3-4, 270b31-33 published by Papathomas
69
. It is the only On the
Heaven papyrus so far known.
8) P. Harris I 2 (LDAB 4988, MP
3
2566), from the second/third century, consid-
ered in the editio princeps as a fragment of a treatise on rhetoric, then of a trea-
tise on logic
70
, was finally identified by Cavini
71
, as we have seen, as the text of
Categories 10, 11b17-28 and 10, 11b36-12a1. As Cavini
72
himself observes, the
papyrus shows some omissions compared to the mediaeval tradition and wit-
nesses a part of the so-called Praedicamenta (chapters 10-15), considered spu-
rious by Andronicus
73
.
9) P. Oxy. XXIV 2403 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 2), from the early third century, con-
sists of four fragments of papyrus roll containing Categories 8-10, 11a24-b1; 10,
65
The book, generally considered spurious, had an independent circulation in antiquity with the ti-
tle . On this cf. D.M. BALME, Aristotle. Historia Animalium Book Ten, in J. WIESNER
(Hrsg.), Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung, W. de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1985, vol. I, pp. 191-206.
66
L. DITTMEYER (ed.), Aristotelis De historia animalium, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Lipsiae 1907.
67
P. LOUIS (d.), Aristote. Histoire des animaux, tome III, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1969.
68
D.M. BALME (ed.), Aristotle: Historia animalium Volume I (Books I-X: Text), Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2002 (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 38).
69
PAPATHOMAS, Aristoteles cit.
70
Cf. B. SNELL, The Rendel Harris Papyri of Woodbrooke College, Birmingham by J. Enoch Powell,
Gnomon, 13 (1937), pp. 577-586: 579, and A. KRTE, Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der Christlichen,
Archiv fr Papyrusforschung, 13 (1939), pp. 78-132: 113, no. 887.
71
CAVINI, Un nuovo papiro cit.
72
Cf. CAVINI, Un nuovo papiro cit., pp. 249-250.
73
Cf. below, P. Oxy. XXIV 2403.
126 Ivanoe Privitera
13b21-27; 14, 14a13-15 (and maybe 10, 13a15-16); on the back there are wheat
registrations from the second half of the third century (unpublished).
The average number of letters per line is 23 with a column width of about 7
cm, belonging to Johnsons somewhat wide class
74
. As calculated in CPF (I.1*,
p. 256), if we assume a column of 41 lines, between the first two fragments there
were eight columns. Mesai and ano stigmai, two points with diple obelismene and
apostrophes are used
75
.
The papyrus offers a good text, though not excellent as defined by Turner (in
P. Oxy. XXIV, p. 126). It agrees with the codices n (Ambros. 490, olimL 93 sup.,
IX cent.) and B (Marc. gr. 201, X cent.), on which Minio-Paluello
76
bases his edi-
tion prior to the editio princeps of the papyrus and never with V (Vat. Barb.
gr. 87, X cent.), according to Torracas collation
77
.
In two cases it preserves a variant lost in the rest of the tradition,
(fr. 1, 21 = 11a35-36) for of all the codices (except n I, which
have ), accepted by Minio-Paluello and (fr. 1, 23 = 11a37). The two
papyrus variants are accepted by Bods
78
, who also notices in the apparatus
that the lectio is contained in the codex Laurentianus 71, 3 (F) in the lemma
of Philoponus commentary to the Categories too. As pointed out in CPF (I.1*, p.
257), pace Turner (in P. Oxy. XXIV, pp. 128-129), could be defend-
ed by interpreting in a generalising meaning (as in Cat. 7, 7b1-2 and 10,
), but probably Bods is right in defending the lectio of the
papyrus, tentatively explaining as a misunderstanding of the abbreviation
of -
79
. Moreover, at fr. 2, 2 (= 13b21), the omission of represents an
ancient corruption also reflected in the ancient versions and in the mediaeval
tradition. The text lends no support to two proposals by Minio-Paluello, accept-
ed by Bods, i.e. the hypothesis of a lacuna at the end of 9, 11a and the trans-
position of 9, 11b1-8. Moreover, the presence in the papyrus of fragments of the
chapters 10 and 11 shows that the so-called Prostpraedicamenta were consid-
ered part of the Categories as a whole, in spite of the opposite opinion of An-
dronicus
80
.
74
Cf. JOHNSON, Bookrolls cit., p. 108.
75
Cf. CPF I.1*, p. 257 for the details.
76
L. MINIO-PALUELLO (ed.), Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber de interpretatione, e Typographeo Clarendo-
niano, Oxonii 1949.
77
L. TORRACA, Il Cod. Vat. Barberinianus Gr. 87 e il testo delle Categorie di Aristotele, Bollettino del
Comitato per la preparazione dellEdizione Nazionale dei classici greci e latini, n.s. 11 (1963), pp. 91-
108: 95 sqq.
78
Cf. R. BODS (d.), Aristote, Catgories, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2001, pp. 51-52.
79
Cf. BODS (d.), Aristote cit., p. 285 n. 121.
80
Cf. P. MORAUX, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias,
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 127
10) P. Berol. inv. 5009 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 8; CLGP I.1.4, pp. 266-67), from the
Arsinoites, consists of two fragments of papyrus codex from two different
leaves preserving the following passages of the Athenaion Politeia: 12, 3-4 (fr.
Ia []); 13, 1-5 (fr. Ib []); 21, 4-22, 3 (fr. IIa []); 22, 4-7 (fr. IIb []). As argued
by Stroppa in CLGP (I.1.4, p. 266, n. 1), the last line of frr. IIa and IIb is the
twenty-fifth. Since the average number of letters per line is 36-37, the text in-
cluded between frr. Ia and Ib was written in 12 lines and the number of lines per
column was 37. The written area should have measured about 11 x 19 cm, so the
leaf considering the margins (external 4 cm; internal 1.5; lower 5) should
have measured 16.5 x 27 (estimating 3 cm for the upper margin now lost), be-
longing to Turners Group 6
81
.
As stated by Stroppa (in CLGP I.1.4, pp. 266-67)
82
, the hand should be dat-
ed to the fourth century, with Kenyon
83
, not to the second (as proposed by Blass
84
,
followed by Chambers
85
) according to two palaeographical parallels in Cavallo /
Maehler
86
, 8b and 9b.
On the basis of the script, which is clear and competent, and in particular of
the width of the margins, there is no reason to not consider our papyrus as a stan-
dard book, instead of a school exercise, as proposed before the publication of P.
Lond. Lit., when it had been proposed that P. Berol. 5009 contained not an en-
tire work but some excerpta copied by a student
87
: the papyrus would originally
have transmitted the whole Athenaion Politeia, as P. Lond. Lit. 108.
The autopsy of the original by G. Bastianini, F. Montanari and M. Stroppa
brought out the fact that there are no scholia in the external margins, as be-
vol. I, W. de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 1973, pp. 97 sqq.; BODS (d.), Aristote cit., pp. XXV sqq.; CAVINI,
Un nuovo papiro cit., pp. 249-250 with n. 15; above P. Harris I 2.
81
E.G. TURNER, The Typology of the Early Codex, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 1977
(The Haney Foundation series, 18), pp. 18 and 103, no. 27. Cf. M. STROPPA, Osservazioni bibliologiche
sullAthenaion Politeia di Berlino, in T. GAGOS (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Con-
gress of Papyrology (Ann Arbor, July 29-August 4, 2007), Scholarly Publication Office, The University of
Michigan Library, Ann Arbor 2010 (American Studies in Papyrology, Special Edition), pp. 747-756:
748.
82
And cf. STROPPA, Osservazioni cit., p. 751.
83
Cf. F.G. KENYON (ed.), Aristotelis Res publica Atheniensium, Reimer, Berolini 1903, p. VI, and ID.
(ed.), Aristotelis Atheniensium Respublica, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1920, p. IV.
84
Cf. F. BLASS, Neue Papyrusfragmente eines Historikers im gyptischen Museum zu Berlin, Hermes,
15 (1880), pp. 366-382: 366-367.
85
Cf. M. CHAMBERS, The Berlin Fragments of the Ath. Pol., Transactions and Proceedings of the
American Philological Association, 98 (1967), pp. 49-66: 54.
86
G. CAVALLO / H. MAEHLER, Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period. A.D. 300-800, Univer-
sity of London, Institute for Classical Studies, London 1987 (BICS Supplement, 47).
87
Cf. STROPPA, Osservazioni cit., p. 752 n. 20.
128 Ivanoe Privitera
lieved by Chambers
88
, and that fr. II was restored by adding a strip on the ex-
ternal margin
89
.
11) P. Berol. inv. 5002 (CPF I.1*, 24, no. 1; CLGP I.1.4, 1), containing Posteri-
or Analytics 2, 71b19-72a38, most likely from the fifth century, consists of three
fragments from a leaf of papyrus codex measuring 18 x 31 cm, so belonging to
Turners Group 5
90
. The papyrus shows marginal annotations in a very small
hand, practically unreadable, both on the recto and on the verso
91
: this suggests
that it was a working copy.
The text of the papyrus differs from the mediaeval tradition in several points.
In fr. I, 32 (= 72a3-4) it reads against of all the codices,
except D (Par. gr. 1843, XIII cent.) and the second hand of S a Sinaiticus codex
of the Organon written at the beginning of the tenth century at the latest,
analysed and collated by Reinsch
92
which transmit
93
. As stated
in CPF (I.1*, pp. 252-253), the lectio of the papyrus trivializes the Aristotelian
wording (as in 72a2-3), a fact apparently ignored
by the first editor
94
. In fr. I, 38 (= 72a8), the papyrus, S and D wrongly insert an-
other after , whereas the rest of the tradition has
. In fr. II, 20 (= 72a22-23), the papyrus, S and D agree again in reading
instead of of the other codices. occurs in EN
VIII, 7, 1158b31 and 32, as indicated in CPF (I.1*, p. 253), and only one more
time in Ph. III, 1, 200b34. The form with the article is also preferable in con-
nection with
95
. The papyrus, S and D also agree in fr. I, 36 (= 72a6),
having instead of
of C (Par. Coisl. 330, XI cent.), V (Vat. Barb. gr. 87, X cent.) and oth-
er codices
96
. With C and V the papyrus disagrees in fr. II, 18 (= 72a21), where
they omit , and in fr. II, 25 (= 72a27), where it reads with n (Ambros.
490, olim L. 93 sup IX cent.), printed by Ross / Minio-Paluello
97
. In one sin-
88
Cf. CHAMBERS, The Berlin Fragments cit., p. 62, followed by MONTANARI, LAthenaion Politeia cit.,
pp. 16 sqq. (but not in CLGP I.1.4, p. 244).
89
Cf. Stroppa in CLGP I.1.4, p. 266, and ID., Osservazioni cit., pp. 750-751.
90
Cf. TURNER, The Typology cit., pp. 16-17 and 103, no. 26.
91
Cf. Stroppa in CLGP I.1.4, pp. 246-247.
92
D.R. REINSCH, Fragmente einer Organon-Handschrift vom Beginn des zehnten Jahrhunderts aus dem
Katharinenkloster auf dem Berge Sinai, Philologus, 145, 1 (2001), pp. 57-69.
93
Cf. CH. BROCKMANN, Das Papyrusfragment und die ltesten byzantinischen Textzeugen der Analyti-
ka des Aristoteles, Philologus, 148, 1 (2004), pp. 50-63: 53.
94
Cf. H. LANDWEHR, Griechische handschriften aus Fayyum, Philologus, 44 (1885), pp. 1-29: 29.
95
Cf. BONITZ, Index cit., 8b43-44 and 627a24.
96
Cf. BROCKMANN, Das Papyrusfragment cit., p. 54.
97
W.D. ROSS / L. MINIO-PALUELLO (edd.), Aristotelis Analytica Priora et Posteriora, e Typographeo
Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1964.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 129
gle case (fr. I, 37 = 72a7), , the papyrus disagrees with S and D,
which have . As stated in CPF (I.1*, p. 252), this papyrus, though
neglected by editors and scholars, is the only witness practically contemporary
to the mediaeval archetype (which is to be assigned to the V/VI century). More-
over the Sinaiticus and the Parisinus which, as shown by Brockmann, is a copy
of the Sinaiticus itself, for the most part lost generally agreeing with the pa-
pyrus, mirror this ancient step of the tradition.
2. The Papyri Attributed to Aristotle
When trying to attribute unknown fragments to the lost works of an author,
among the attribution criteria one should obviously consider the fragments top-
ic and style, especially if there is any similarity with preserved passages of the
same author or correspondence with witnesses on the lost work at issue
98
, or else
any occurrence of terms or expressions typical of the author. As we will see be-
low, this is the case for P. Lond. Lit. 112, P. A Khanoum inv. Akh III B 77 P.O.
154, and P. Vind. G inv. 26008 + 29329. We should also take into account the ti-
tle of the lost works and try to establish if they may fit some transmitted frag-
ments, as is the case with P. Oxy. XI 1365 and P. Oxy. II 217. Just to add anoth-
er example within the Peripatos, P. Oxy. XLVII 3320 (MP
3
2592.1; CLGP I.1.4,
p. 269; second century), Analytics, containing a different version of Aristotles
Prior Analytics, may belong to Theophrastus or Eudemus, who themselves wrote
Prior Analytics.
According to the papyrological database of CEDOPAL (MP
3
), there are seven pa-
pyri tentatively attributed by scholars to Aristotle, but only five, as we will see,
could really belong to Aristotle, since PSI II 132 (MP
3
2363) and PSI XIV 1400
(MP
3
2565) just witness the use of Aristotelian material. To those listed by MP
3
,
we should add at least two more papyri, P. Hamb. II 128 (MP
3
2289, antea 1502)
and P. Berol. inv. 9571v (MP
3
1381).
98
For the specific case of witnesses, P. Oxy. IV 664 + L 3544 (from the beginning of the third centu-
ry), a philosophical dialogue with Pisistratus as one of the speakers, is interesting. It was attributed in all
probability to Heraclides Ponticus De imperio on the basis of Ciceros Ad Att. XIII, 19, 4 and Ad Q. fr. III,
5, 1 (= Heracl. Pont. frr. 24 a and b respectively), according to which the speakers in Heraclides dia-
logues were antiquae personae (not contemporaries to the author as in Aristotles), and on the basis of D.
L. 5, 89 (= Heracl. Pont. fr. 25 SA), saying that in Heraclides dialogues there were philosophers, strate-
gists and politicians talking together. Cf. CPF I.1**, 56, no. 1, esp. pp. 208-212, and W. LAPINI, Il POxy
664 di Eraclide Pontico e la cronologia dei Cipselidi, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1996 (Studi e Testi per il Cor-
pus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 7), esp. pp. 34-36.
130 Ivanoe Privitera
1) P. Oxy. XI 1365 (MP
3
2181; CPF I.1*, p. 394)
99
, from the third century, found
with P. Oxy. XI 1386, 1392 and XIV 1690
100
, preserves two columns of a histor-
ical text concerning the origin and rise of the Orthagorid tyranny at Sicyon. The
attribution to Aristotles Constitution of Sicyon (no. 44, fr. 580 Rose
3 101
; no. 131,
FF 598, 1-599 Gigon) was first proposed by Grenfell and Hunt (in P.Oxy. XI, pp.
107-108), who however preferred to think of Ephorus the verbosity of the frag-
ment may fit Dion Chrysostoms criticism (18, 10) of his style as
or, more cautiously, to a writer deriving his information from Epho-
rus or Aristotle. The attribution to Ephorus is the most accepted among schol-
ars
102
. Lenchantin de Gubernatis
103
holds a different view and hypothesizes that
the fragment belongs to a collector of local oddities such as Menaechmus (age of
Alexander the Great), author of Sikyonika; Pesely
104
instead assigns it to the au-
thor of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia.
2) P. Lond. Lit. 112 (MP
3
2183; CPF I.1*, p. 393), partially edited for the first
time as P. Petrie I 9 and then completed by Blass
105
, from the third century BC,
contains six fragments concerning the costumes of different peoples. As stated
in CPF (I.1*, p. 393), the attribution to Aristotles Nomima Barbarica (no. 45,
frr. 604-610 Rose
3
; no. 140, FF 468, 1-473 Gigon) goes back to H. Diels
106
, ac-
cording to a quotation about the in Nicolaus Damascenus
(FGrHist 90 F 117 ~ P. Lond. Lit. 112, fr. 1, 5-12). Among others, an
alternative possibility has been proposed by Mekler
107
, who thinks of Aristotles
Thebaian Constitution for fr. 2, 7 sqq. But these proposals are far from certain,
99
Cf. L. DEL CORSO, Lo stile severo nei P.Oxy.: una lista, Aegyptus, 86 (2006), pp. 81-106: 84, no.
21.
100
Cf. R.S. BAGNALL, An Owner of Literary Papyri, Classical Philology, 87 (1992), pp. 137-140: 137
sqq.
101
V. ROSE (ed.), Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, Lipsiae
1886
3
.
102
Cf. FGrHist 105 F 2 and CPF I.1*, p. 394.
103
M. LENCHANTIN DE GUBERNATIS, I nuovi frammenti di Eforo e lo storico di Sicione, Bollettino di
filologia classica, 25, 11 (1918-1919), pp. 127-130 (continued in Bollettino di filologia classica, 25,
12 [1918-1919], pp. 141-143).
104
Cf. G.E. PESELY, How many copies of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia have been found?, The Ancient
History Bulletin, 8, 2 (1994), pp. 38-44: 39.
105
Cf. F. BLASS, Mitteilungen aus Papyrushandschriften, Jahrbuch fr klassischen Philologie, 145
(1892), pp. 571-580: 580.
106
Cf. the short communication given in Sitzungsberichte der Kgl. Preussischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 1891.39, p. 837.
107
Cf. S. MEKLER, Zu den der Flinders Petrie Papyri, Wiener Studien, 24 (1902), pp. 457-
461: 461.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 131
because the fragments could also belong to a collection of ethnographical mate-
rial and not to a treatise
108
.
3) P. Oxy. II 217 (MP
3
2204; CPF I.1*, p. 393), from the third century, contain-
ing eighteen lines (seven of which very fragmentary) of a laudatory apostrophe
to a king for his , was classified by the editores principes as Letter to a
king of Macedon and assigned to Aristotles De regno (no. 52, frr. 646-647
Rose
3
) or to Theopompus homonymous work (according to Cic. Ad Att. 12, 40,
2, 2, printed by Rose
3
before fr. 646). However, the difference between the offi-
cials of the king and those of the city that can be inferred from our papyrus may
suggest that the work it contains belongs to the Diadochi age
109
.
4) P. A Khanoum inv. Akh III B 77 P.O. 154 (MP
3
2563.01), from the third cen-
tury BC, found in the homonymous city of ancient Bactria (Afghanistan) and
edited for the first time by Rapin / Hadot / Cavallo
110
, then by Lerner
111
, con-
tains the remains of four columns of a philosophical dialogue on the question of
the of the Ideas. In the words of Lerner
112
, the fragment deals with the
way sensible objects participate in Ideas and the way Ideas participate in each
other; there is a supreme cause for both kinds of participation (col. II) and this
cause should be immobile and eternal as Ideas are (col. III). Terminology and
topic are obviously linked with Platos theory of Ideas and the treated in
Platos Sophist in reply to the apories of the Parmenides first part
113
. Isnardi Pa-
rente
114
suggests that it belongs to Aristotles Sophist, which probably recalled
108
So O. CRUSIUS, Zu den alexandrinischen Sprichwrtersammlung, Philologus, Suppl. 6 (1892), pp.
295-307: 299-300.
109
So U. VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, The Oxyrhynchos Papyri Part II edited by Bernard G. Gren-
fell and Arthur S. Hunt, London 1899 etc., Gttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 162, 1 (1900), pp. 29-58: 36.
110
C. RAPIN / P. HADOT / G. CAVALLO, Les textes littraires grecs de la Trsorerie dA Khanoum, Bul-
letin de correspondence hellnique, 111, 1 (1987), pp. 225-266.
111
J.D. LERNER, The A Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und
Epigraphik, 142 (2003), pp. 45-51. Cf. also the proposals of M. ISNARDI PARENTE, Il papiro filosofico di
A Khanoum, in F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Studi su codici e papiri filosofici: Platone, Aristotele, Ierocle,
L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1992 (Studi e Testi per il Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 6), pp. 169-
188: 170-173, and of F. VENDRUSCOLO, Note testuali al papiro di Ai-Khanum, in F. ADORNO ET AL. (a cura
di), Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi I, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 1997 (Studi e Testi per il Corpus dei
Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 8), pp. 145-151.
112
LERNER, The A Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus cit., p. 50.
113
Cf. ISNARDI PARENTE, Il papiro filosofico cit., pp. 178 sqq. On the concept of cf. F. FRON-
TEROTTA, . La teoria platonica delle idee e la partecipazione delle cose empiriche. Dai dialoghi
giovanili al Parmenide, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa 2001 (Pubblicazioni della Classe di lettere e
filosofia, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 23), esp. pp. 125-128, 145 sqq., and, for the Sophist, pp. 333-
379.
114
Cf. ISNARDI PARENTE, Il papiro filosofico cit., esp. pp. 181 sqq.
132 Ivanoe Privitera
Platos homonymous dialogue in its content, and that the speaker in the pre-
served fragments may be Xenocrates. This proposal is quite tempting but unfor-
tunately can hardly be proven. Rather speculatively, I would say that our frag-
ment could also be from, for example, Heraclides Ponticus (D. L. V,
88, 12 = Heracl. Pont. fr. 22, 20), of which we know nothing but the title and that
it was in one book. Nevertheless we know that Heraclides wrote dialogues, one
of them partially found at Oxyrhynchus in a papyrus from the beginning of the
third century (CPF I.1** 56, no. 1, pp. 199 sqq.)
115
.
5) P. Vind. G inv. 26008 + 29329 (MP
3
2564), from the Faiym and from the third
century, consists of fragments of more than one roll (two up to four) written by
two or three hands, which can be divided into four groups: A, literary criticism;
B, doxography; C, uncertain collocation between the subject of A and that of B
(A, B and the most part of C written by the same hand); D, four or five fragments
written by a different hand
116
. The topic of group A, concerning and
in the poets the best ones, like Homer and Sophocles, and the not
good ones, like Timotheus is very close, in content and terminology, to Aristo-
tles Poetics chapter 15 (1454a16 sqq.). The topic of group B is a comparison be-
tween one science and the others, like the natural ones, which reduce infinity to
the constitutive elements parallels in some passages of the Physics, the Meta-
physics and the On the Heaven. Oellacher
117
, who first edited all the fragments,
attributed group A to the (D. L. V, 24, 27) and
group B to other Aristotle works such as the or the

118
. Rostagni
119
, rightly noting that the
is nothing but our Poetics, for group A proposes the or better,
more cautiously, a work of the Peripatetic school. Janko
120
is also in favour of the
. Most
121
, assuming that groups A and B belong to the same roll,
and hence to the same text, suggests that this text is Aristotles Protreptic, on the
115
Cf. LAPINI, Il POxy 664 cit., esp. pp. 34-36, and above, n. 98.
116
Cf. F. DECLEVA CAIZZI / M.S. FUNGHI, Su alcuni frammenti filosofici della sterreichische National-
bi-bliothek (PVind G 26008 e 29329), in ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Studi cit., pp. 49-99: 50 sqq.
117
Cf. H. OELLACHER, Griechische Literarische Papyri aus der Papyrussammlung Erzherzog Rainer in
Wien, tudes de papyrologie, 4 (1938), pp. 133-196: 177 and 181.
118
Cf. CPF I.1*, pp. 394-395.
119
Cf. A. ROSTAGNI, Qualche osservazione sopra un papiro estetico-letterario attribuito ad Aristotele,
Ri-vista di filologia e di istruzione classica, 66 (1938), pp. 295-297: 296-297.
120
Cf. R. JANKO, Philodemus On Poems and Aristotles On Poets, Cronache Ercolanesi, 21 (1991),
pp. 5-64: 54-55.
121
G.W. MOST, Some New Fragments of Aristotles Protrepticus?, in ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Studi
cit., pp. 189-216, esp. p. 197, followed by G. ARRIGHETTI, in un papiro di Vienna e nella Poet-
ica di Aristotele (PVindob G 26008 e Arist. Poet. 1454a24-25 e 1454b10-11), in FUNGHI (a cura di),
cit., pp. 59-68: 59 nn. 2-3.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 133
basis of some similarities with Iamblichus Protreptic. Mosts opinion was con-
vincingly refuted by Megino Rodrguez
122
, who states that both group A and B
may contain a doxographical work, philosophical in content, with two different
sources, the On Poets for group A, and for group B the On Philosophy, dialogue
used by the Physics, the Metaphysics and the On the Heaven.
Finally Janko
123
proposes that all the pieces of our papyrus come from the
seventh book of Aristocles De philosophia, which should have contained ex-
cerpts from Aristotles homonymous work and from De Poetis (F 59-63 of Jankos
edition).
As things stand now, I think we should revert to Rostagnis caution
124
and
state that the papyrus certainly contains Aristotelian material, which could come
from one or more of Aristotles lost works as well as, generically, from the Peri-
patetic school.
6) PSI II 132 (frammento medico; LDAB 4666; MP
3
2363), from Oxyrhynchus
and from the third century (second for Roselli
125
; fourth, by mistake, for the CD-
ROM Papiri Letterari della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana
126
), consists of three
fragments written against the fibres
127
. As pointed out by Roselli
128
, who re-edit-
ed the fragment, the content deals not with alopecia but with baldness caused by
mood, as explained by Arist. GA V, 3, 781b30 sqq. The text can easily be con-
sidered as a rielaborazione medico-filosofica di materiale di derivazione ari-
stotelica
129
.
7) PSI XIV 1400 (LDAB 6421; MP
3
2565) is a leaf of a deluxe codex bought in
Egypt by Medea Norsa, dated to the eighth century in the editio princeps by Nor-
sa herself
130
, then to seventh/eighth in PSI XIV, to seventh in the CD-ROM Pa-
122
C. MEGINO RODRGUEZ, Propuesta de atribucin de dos fragmentos del papiro de Viena PVindob. G
26008, Emerita, 76, 1 (2008), pp. 87-104, esp. p. 102 with n. 48.
123
Cf. R. JANKO (ed.), Philodemus On Poems Books 3-4 with the Fragments of Aristotle On Poets, Ox-
ford University Press, Oxford 2001 (The Philodemus Translation Project. Philodemus: The Aesthetic
Works I/3), pp. 378-383 and 462-469.
124
Cf. ROSTAGNI, Qualche osservazione cit., p. 297.
125
Cf. A. ROSELLI, Interpretazione di PSI II 132, in R. PINTAUDI (a cura di), Miscellanea papirologica,
Gonnelli, Firenze 1980 (Papyrologica Florentina, 7 [1980]), pp. 331-335: 333.
126
http://www.accademiafiorentina.it/paplett/index.html#
127
The back contains a third/fourth century documentary text edited by R. PINTAUDI / P.J. SIJPESTEIJN,
PSI II 132 recto: frammenti di corrispondenza ufficiale (?), Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie une Epigraphik,
89 (1991), pp. 86-88.
128
Cf. ROSELLI, Interpretazione cit., p. 331.
129
So ROSELLI, Interpretazione cit., p. 333.
130
M. NORSA, Un frammento di fisica aristotelica, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa,
II ser. 7/1 (1938), pp. 1-12.
134 Ivanoe Privitera
piri Letterari della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (about mid-seventh for
Medri
131
, who has produced the latest edition), finally to the end of the sixth
(Radiciotti
132
). It deals with motion, especially the circular motion of the celes-
tial bodies and the dianoetic thought
133
. Norsa, on account of its similarity with
Aristotles loci (especially Physics and Metaphysics ), postulates that it is a
text linked with Aristotle, if not a work by Aristotle himself. Instead, Barigazzi
134
considers it a neoplatonic text and is followed by Garin (in PSI XIV, p. 95) and
by Falcon
135
, who stresses the similarity with the doctrine of motion set out in
the De caelo. MacCoull / Siorvanes
136
offer a precise attribution, proposing the
lost work Contra Aristotelem by Johannes Philoponus
137
. Radiciotti
138
proposes
the Commentary in Aristotles Metaphysics by the same Philoponus.
Whoever the author of the text may be, we certainly have to reject Norsas
opinion that it could be a work by Aristotle.
8) P. Hamb. II 128 (MP
3
2289.1, antea 1502) fr. a, remains of 96 lines from
three columns; fr. b, remains of four lines from the third century BC (the end
of the century according to Cavallo / Maehler
139
), close to Aristotles Poetics 21
in its content, was doubtfully assigned to Theoprastus book one
by its first editor B. Snell (in P. Hamb., pp. 36 and 40). Snell, supplying []
in fr. a, col. I, 8, saw in this passage the quotation of Aristotles Poet. 20,
1457a13 quotation accepted by Kassel in his edition of Aristotles Poetics
140
.
Fortenbaugh
141
prints the papyrus as Appendix 9, in order to draw attention to
131
Cf. E. MEDRI, Un testo sul moto celeste. Per una nuova edizione di PSI XIV 1400, in F. ADORNO ET
AL. (a cura di), Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi IV, L.S. Olschki, Firenze 2003 (Studi e Testi per il
Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici greci e latini, 11), pp. 109-128: 115.
132
Cf. P. RADICIOTTI, Una nuova proposta di datazione per il PSI 1400 con alcune osservazioni sulla
maiuscola alessandrina, Studi di Egittologia e Papirologia, 5 (2008), pp. 117-128: 122.
133
A summary of the content in CH. WILDBERG, Neoplatonic Philosophy of Nature in PSI XIV 1400:
an Impression, in ADORNO ET AL. (a cura di), Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi IV cit., pp. 143-148:
144-145.
134
A. BARIGAZZI, Un nuovo frammento di filosofia neoplatonica, Aegyptus, 29 (1949), pp. 59-75.
135
Cf. A. FALCON, A Late Ancient Discussion of Celestial Motion. PSI XIV 1400, in ADORNO ET AL. (a
cura di), Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi IV cit., pp. 129-141: 140-141.
136
L.S.B. MACCOULL / L. SIORVANES, PSI XIV: a Papyrus Fragment of John Philoponus, Ancient Phi-
losophy, 12 (1992), pp. 153-170, esp. pp. 167-168.
137
Sceptical FALCON, A Late Ancient Discussion cit., p. 141 n. 33, and in general, on the possibility of
establishing the authorship of our text, WILDBERG, Neoplatonic Philosophy cit., esp. pp. 143 and 148.
138
Cf. RADICIOTTI, Una nuova proposta cit., pp. 119-120.
139
Cf. G. CAVALLO / H. MAEHLER (eds.), Hellenistic Bookhands, W. de Gruyter, Berlin-New York 2008,
p. 64, no. 35.
140
Cf. R. KASSEL (ed.), Aristotelis de arte poetica liber, e Typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii 1965, p.
XIII and app. ad loc. Cf. CPF I.1*, p. 395.
141
Cf. W.W. FORTENBAUGH ET AL. (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought
and Influence, vol. II, Brill, Leiden-New York-Kln 1992 (Philosophia antiqua, 54, 2), pp. 612-617.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 135
the text without taking a stance over the attribution to Theoprastus
.
The attribution to Theophrastus was rejected by Schenkeveld
142
, who pre-
ferred to assign the papyrus to a Hellenistic Ars Poetica (so MP
3
). Instead, Janko,
noticing that the text follows Poetics ch. 21 closely, but with minor additions
and alterations in the content, believed that it is a fragment of Aristotles On
Poets
143
, but now he goes back to Theophrastus
144
. Again, since this is not
demonstrable, I think we should follow Schenkevalds caution.
9) P. Berol. inv. 9571v (MP
3
1381, Commentaire Pindarus, Dithyrambi [ou
trait sur le dithyrambe?]) remains of 66 lines from two columns from the
third century, was tentatively assigned to Apollodorus by Koenen /
Merkelbach
145
, then to Aristotles On Poets by Janko
146
, who, following Del
Corno
147
, describes it as a fragment of a literary treatise, which at 38-41 cer-
tainly (and most uniquely) echoes Aristotles views about the origins of tragedy,
dithyramb and satyr-play (Poet. 4, 1449a10 f.), associates dithyramb with
at 43. Once again, this cannot be demonstrated.
3. Conclusions
We can conclude this short presentation by focussing on three aspects of the pa-
pyri containing Aristotles preserved works: their chronology, the works they
transmit and the type of artefacts they are in relation to their purposes.
As for their chronology, as we have seen, the most ancient so far published is
the famous Athenaion Politeia papyrus (P. Lond. Lit. 108; CPF I.1*, 24, no. 7),
from the end of the first century. The Rhetoric papyrus due to appear in The
Oxyrhynchus Papyri series
148
is more ancient, likely dating to the first century
142
D.M. SCHENKEVELD, Pap.Hamburg. 128: a Hellenistic Ars Poetica, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und
Epigraphik, 97, pp. 67-80.
143
Cf. JANKO, Philodemus On Poems cit., p. 49 n. 224.
144
Cf. JANKO (ed.), Philodemus On Poems Books 3-4 cit., pp. 361 n. 6 and 406. The same already in
R. JANKO, Aristotle, on Comedy. Towards a Reconstruction of Poetics II, University of California Press,
Berkeley-Los Angeles 1984, pp. 93-94.
145
Cf. L. KOENEN / R. MERKELBACH, Apollodoros ( ), Epicharm und die Meropis, in A.E.
HANSON (ed.), Collectanea papyrologica. Texts Published in honor of H.C. Youtie, Habelt, Bonn 1976 (Pa-
pyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 19-20), vol. I, pp. 3-26: 3 n. *.
146
Cf. JANKO, Philodemus On Poems cit., pp. 43-44 n. 200.
147
Cf. D. DEL CORNO, PBerol. 9571 verso ber den dithyrambos: Pindar und die Poetik des Aristoteles,
in H. KIESSLING / H.-A. RUPPRECHT (Hrsg.), Akten des XIII. Internationaler Papyrologenkongresses (Mar-
burg/Lahn, 2-6 August 1971), Beck, Munich 1974 (Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und an-
tiken Rechtsgeschichte, 66), pp. 99-110: 106 sqq.
148
Cf. above, n. 1.
136 Ivanoe Privitera
BC. Anyway, on the basis of this evidence, we could be tempted to trust the sto-
ry told by Strabo (XIII, 1, 54) and Plutarch (Sull. 26) and partially also by Po-
seidonius, in Athenaeus V, 214d about the disappearance of Aristotles trea-
tises ( or the so-called esoteric works) during the Hellenistic peri-
od and their recovery due to Andronicus first century BC edition
149
; but we have
to consider it, entirely or for the most part, not reliable for other reasons. For ex-
ample, the fact that Diogenes Laertius catalogue, probably based on Hermip-
pus, contains titles of works composed by Aristotle in the Peripatos
150
, shows
that Hermippus knew Aristotles treatises before Andronicus edition and that
the Library of Alexandria where Hermippus was based owned them. In Drings
opinion, part of the so-called esoteric works, copied directly from the originals,
would have been brought to Alexandria in 307 BC that is, during Theophras-
tus life when Straton of Lampsacus and Demetrius of Phaleron were invited
there by Ptolemy Soter to found a sort of new Peripatos
151
. In particular, Dring
draws attention to the knowledge of Aristotles zoological works in the Hellenis-
tic period
152
. In this respect, for instance, the Epitome of Aristotles History of An-
imals by Aristophanes of Byzantium, of which a fragment is preserved in P. Lond.
inv. 2242 = P. Lond. Lit. 164, assigned to the second/third century (CPF I.1*,
24, no. 36T), is important.
So we have to consider as simply accidental the lack of Aristotle papyri dat-
ing to the Ptolemaic age.
Instead, it is noteworthy that the presence of Theophrastus in the papyri goes
back to a very ancient period, since P. Hibeh I 16 (CPF I.1***, 103, no. 4) con-
taining a passage that, because of its subject and its antiquity, can be attributed to
De aquis or to other works on a similar topic
153
is dated to the third century BC.
149
Cf. only MORAUX, Der Aristotelismus cit., pp. 3-94; J. BARNES, Roman Aristotle, in J. BARNES / M.
GRIFFIN (eds.), Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997, pp. 1-
69; more recently, O. PRIMAVESI, Ein Blick in den Stollen von Skepsis: Vier Kapitel zur frhen berlieferung
des Corpus Aristotelicum, Philologus, 151 (2007), pp. 51-77; R.W. SHARPLES, Peripatetic Philosophy
200 BC to AD 200. An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge-New York 2010, pp. 24-30; R. CHIARADONNA, Interpretazione filosofica e ricezione del corpus:
Il caso di Aristotele (100 a.C.-250 d.C.), in this volume.
150
Cf., e.g., no. 38, which may indicate one of the Ethics, probably the Eudemian one; noo. 49-50,
Prior and Posterior Analytics; no. 78, the first two books of Rhetoric; no. 87, the third book of Rhetoric: see
P. MORAUX, Les listes anciennes des ouvrages dAristote, ditions Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain 1951
(Aristote, traductions et tudes), pp. 80, 87, 97, 103. For the relationship between Diogenes catalogue
and Hermippus, cf. E. BERTI, La filosofia del primo Aristotele, Cedam, Padova 1962 (Pubblicazioni del-
la Facolt di lettere e filosofia, Universit di Padova, 38), p. 124, esp. n. 2.
151
Cf. I. DRING, Notes on the History of the Transmission of Aristotles Writings, Gteborgs Hgsko-
las rsschrift, 56 (1950), pp. 35-70: 59-60, and ID., Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines
Denkens, Winter, Heidelberg 1966 (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, n.F. 1), p. 37.
Cf. also MORAUX, Der Aristotelismus cit., pp. 14-15, and again BERTI, La filosofia cit., p. 124.
152
Cf. DRING, Notes cit., esp. pp. 61-64.
153
Cf. CPF I.1***, p. 850.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 137
As for the works preserved, the Athenaion Politeia is the most well represent-
ed with two papyri
154
, but also the Nicomachean Ethics, as two more papyri are due
to appear in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri series, one belonging to the same roll as P.
Oxy. XXIV 2402, the other being a fragment of papyrus codex
155
. The Athenaion
Politeia must have been very important at different levels: historical, political, an-
tiquarian; that is why it is one of the most quoted of Aristotles works
156
.
As for the Nicomachean Ethics, our papyrus is roughly contemporary to As-
pasius commentary on this work, dating to the second century, which is also the
age of the revival of commentaries on Aristotle
157
.
We have already pointed out the interest of the Hellenistic period in the zo-
ological works of Aristotle: the History of Animals, along with the Politeiai, is the
most quoted work in the indirect tradition
158
. To the History of Animals papyrus
already published, we have to add a De partibus animalium papyrus due to ap-
pear in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri series
159
.
Given the importance of the Politeiai, the presence of a Politics papyrus is
not surprising. Furthermore, the De caelo fragment witnesses the interest in cos-
mogony, already represented by the commentary of this work given by Xenar-
chus of Seleucia (first century BC), but also by that of Alexander of Aegae (first
century AD)
160
. The De caelo and especially the Categories, commented by the
same Alexander of Aegae, were the most important works in the first phase of
the commentaries on Aristotle (later first century BC-earlier first century AD)
161
.
In this regard, the Organon is well represented in the papyri, with two from
the Categories and in particular from the Postpraedicamenta, considered spu-
rious by Andronicus one from the Posterior Analytics and one from the Topics.
In relation to the fact that the Posterior Analytics papyrus is dated to the fifth
century, we know that in late antiquity Aristotles works and most of all the
154
P. Oxy. inv. 2B 76/F (8-11) = CPF I 1*, 24, no. 9 (T?) probably contains a paraphrase or a com-
mentary of a passage from the Athenaion Politeia.
155
Cf. again above, n. 1.
156
Cfr. Montanari in CLGP I.1.4, p. 245.
157
Cf. R.W. SHARPLES, Aristotles Exoteric and Esoteric Works: Summaries and Commentaries, in R.W.
SHARPLES / R. SORABJI (eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy. 100BC-200AD, II, Institute of Classical Stud-
ies, London 2007 (BICS Supplement, 94/2), pp. 505-512: 511.
158
Cf. Montanari in CLGP I.1.4, p. 244.
159
Cf. again above, n. 1.
160
Cf. again SHARPLES, Aristotles Exoteric and Esoteric Works cit., p. 511; CHIARADONNA, Interpre-
tazione filosofica cit., pp. 83 sqq.
161
The second phase is the revival of the second century, while Alexander of Agae takes place be-
tween the two phases (cf. once again SHARPLES, Aristotles Exoteric and Esoteric Works cit., p. 511, and cf.
CHIARADONNA, Interpretazione filosofica cit., pp. 83 sqq.).
138 Ivanoe Privitera
Organon constituted the core of the philosophical canon as the first and prope-
deutic stage before studies on the more divine philosophy of Plato
162
.
Finally the Protreptic papyrus, from the second century, shows that Aristotles
lost works do not disappear immediately after the so-called Andronicus edition
but are still read along with the treatises.
As for the type of artefacts in relation to their purposes, firstly there is no copy
that can certainly be attributed to the school environment
163
. We should then
draw attention to the fact that the famous rolls of the Athenaion Politeia likely
belonged to the private collection of a well-educated person; the Politics pa-
pyrus, which is a deluxe edition, like the Berlin papyrus of the Athenaion Po-
liteia, with its carefully executed script and wide margins, is to be considered a
standard book instead of a school copy. The Nicomachean Ethics papyrus is an
informal copy with a good text, like that of the Categories, P. Oxy. XXIV 2403.
Finally, the only Aristotle papyrus with annotations is that preserving the Poste-
rior Analytics, which was probably a working copy.
Abstract: This paper intends to present briey Aristotles direct tradition as found in the
papyri already published, rst in those containing Aristotles preserved works, then in
those tentatively attributed to his lost works. Some papyrological and philological contri-
butions are offered regarding the text of the rst group, in particular by collation of the
most recent editions and consideration of the latest studies. As for the second group, the
arguments pro and contra Aristotelian authorship are analysed.
Key words: Aristotle; Papyri; Direct Tradition; Authorship.
Mailing address:
via Mario Fantinelli, 40
I - 47121 Forl
ivanoe.privitera@gmail.com
162
Cf. E. SZABAT, Teachers in the Eastern Roman Empire (Fifth-Seventh Centuries). A Historical Study
and Prosopography, in T. DERDA / T. MARKIEWICZ / E. WIPSZYCKA (eds.), Alexandria Audotoria of Kom el-
Dikka and Late Antique Education, Fundacja im. Rafala Taubenschlaga, Warsaw 2007 (The Journal of
Juristic Papyrology, Supplements, 8), pp. 177-345: 196.
163
We do not find any Aristotle papyrus in the list presented by R. CRIBIORE, Literary School Exer-
cises, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 116 (1997), pp. 53-60: 54 sqq.
Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition 139
Pl. 1. P. Ryl. III 510
(Aristotle, Topics)
Pl. 2. P. Oxy. XXIV 2402
(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics)
140 Ivanoe Privitera
Pl. 3. P. Rein. II 80 (Aristotle,
History of Animals)
Pl. 4. P. Oxy. XXIV 2403
(Aristotle, Categories)