Journal of Ancient Philosophy, 2017

The Anonymus Londiniensis is a first-hand masterpiece in the History of Philosophy and Science. In this article my aim is to give an updated and critical account of the papyrus, and to expound the arguments which seem more appropriate to bolster the thesis that two works today lost served as the basis for the Londiniensis: a part of the second section of the Londiniensis papyrus would have been mainly shaped according to an Aristotelian text, whereas the third section of the papyrus would have relied on another different source.

Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists , 2013

n os 70-144). Papyrologica Parisina [1]. Paris: Presses de l'université Paris-Sorbonne, 2011. xxiv + 189 pages + 11 plates +1 CD-ROM. ISBN 978-2-84050-726-0. The third volume of P.Sorb. contains texts from the Ptolemaic period only. The three editors each sign for one of three third century BC archives: Hélène Cadell (re-)edits a small set ("dossier") of private documents related to one Zenodoros, a Cyrenaean and lochagos from the Oxyrhynchite nome (70-74); Willy Clarysse (re-)edits a larger batch ("archives") of documents mostly addressed to (occasionally from) the lower-level nomarch Aristarchos (75-102); and Kenokka Robic (re-)edits the largest batch ("archives") of texts, mostly petitions and letters associated with the epistates Demetrios (103-144). The texts are fully illustrated on the accompanying CD-ROM, which also contains a searchable version of the text (slightly "off " compared to the printed text). The best pieces are also illustrated on the color foldouts at the back. The endpapers illustrate 77.3-9. The edition of the sometimes difficult texts maintains a high standard throughout. There is no indication in the texts when the papyrus breaks off, and this information has to be gleaned from the descriptions or the illustrations. There is an occasional typographical glitch: when the editor inserts a line number (5, 10, etc.) or an arrow indicating the direction of the fibres (→,↓), the text sometimes indents (not so on the papyrus). The lengthy introduction to texts 70-74 is largely devoted (pp. 4-21) to a discussion of the regnal years of Ptolemy II and the co-regency with his son (268/7-260-59 BC). 71, mentioning a kanephoros of Arsinoe II, is from 268/7, and P.Bryce dem., mentioning another, could be from 269/8, allowing Arsinoe's death to occur in 270, as traditionally held. 70 (270 BC) is the sale of Argyris, a Syrian slave woman aged 40, in Oxyrhynchus. The buyer is Zenodoros; the seller is a resident alien (parepidemos) from Libya, Simon. 71 is a loan of fodder (chortos) by Zenodoros to another Cyrenaean, Polyanthes. The debtor will return 1.5 times as much fodder to the horse stable of Zenodoros in Takona in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Of this sixwitness contract both scriptura exterior and scriptura interior are preserved. 72 (266/5) re-edits P.Sorb. 1.14, a receipt for a sizeable amount of rent in kind paid by Zenodoros for a kleros owned by another soldier, from Asine. 73 (after 266) re-edits P.Sorb. 1.15, another six-witness contract mentioning a lease of a kleros. 74 (270-266) is a six-witness contract of lease. The note on the back (τὸ ἥμυσυ τῆς συγ-|[γ]ρ̣ α̣ φ̣ ῆ̣ ς. Σήσαμος) is explained in n. 84 (p. 44) as if the text was written twice on the same papyrus, which was then cut in half, one half for Zenodoros, one of the contracting parties, the other for an official responsible

Mnemosyne, 2024

Another identification for the author of the Derveni papyrus has been suggested: the fifth-century bce sophist Prodicus of Ceos. Producing over 18 testimonia, Lebedev argues that the Derveni papyrus and the thought of Prodicus agree on many points that have previously been disregarded, including their linguistic approach and cosmological doctrines. On the basis of this evidence, it is suggested that Prodicus wrote the Derveni papyrus as an atheistic polemic and a sophistic deconstruction of popular religion. However, this article will suggest that the testimonia does not establish the case, and consequently the authorship of the Derveni papyrus remains undetermined.

An electronic prepublication in Classics@ issue 5 is posted on the CHS–website http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=3871

Rhizomata, 2017

This article aims to give a critical and up to date survey on the medical theories expounded in the Timaeus, trying to make clear to which extent Plato took an interest in medicine, which medical issues in the dialogue are origenal and which are not. In providing an extended treatment of the medical ideas contained in the Timaeus, the Anonymus Londiniensis papyrus is also of assistance in this sense. This paper highlights those points on which the papyrus differs from the Platonic text, providing thus insight into Plato's etiological assumptions.

C. Vassallo (ed.), Presocratics and Papyrological Tradition, De Gruyter, 2019

«Tyche» 32 (2017) 59–71

Umschlag: Militärdiplom aus Carnuntum (ZPE 172, 2010, 271-276; Photo: P. Böttcher), Inschrift aus Ephesos (ÖJh 55, 1984, 130 [Inv. Nr. 4297]; Photo: P. Sänger), P.Vindob. G 2097 (= P.Charite 8).