{"_index":"sire","_id":"453","_score":null,"_source":{"id":453,"authors_free":[{"id":609,"entry_id":453,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":422,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","free_first_name":"Nicolaas","free_last_name":"van der Ben","norm_person":{"id":422,"first_name":"Nicolaas","last_name":"van der Ben","full_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: Some Preliminary Remarks","main_title":{"title":"The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: Some Preliminary Remarks"},"abstract":"It will have become clear, I hope, that the amount of work that has yet to be done on this newly published papyrus is enormous. Surely it is early days to draw any conclusions. The work in terms of a scholarly debate has not even started yet. However, some remarks may perhaps be made. (1) The text in the physical sense of the word is in a poor state, obviously. (2) The text in the abstract sense, too, is of poor quality; and all the signs are that no proper edition was ever made of Empedocles' text. (3) As far as we are able to discern the contents of the lines discussed, it must be said that they do not appear to be particularly revealing. They start with 8 lines which seem to be somewhat repetitive and of a transitionary nature. Next, there are 16 lines which somehow deal with the Sphairos; although, of course, they constitute a welcome addition to fr. 35DK (quoted by Simplicius), the latter passage is still the more informative one. Finally, there are 10 lines in which the pupil is urged to see for himself the great explanatory force of the theory, which is restated in pregnant form.\r\n\r\nTo put it differently and more poignantly, these 34 lines do not offer us the treatment of any one particular subject. Just think how much our understanding of Empedocles would have been enhanced if we had been able to read, say, his cosmology, or physiology of the sense-organs, or of the intellectual functions; or a detailed description of the assimilation of food and growth, or of fertilization! A similar disappointment surrounds the other ensembles: b partly coincides with 76DK, c with 20DK, and d with (a repeat of) fr. 139DK: welcome and interesting though the additional information provided by them often is, here, too, there is no treatment of a particular subject matter unknown, or insufficiently known, to us previously.\r\n\r\nTo return to ensemble a, it should be noted that most of it, viz. ?(i)6-?(ii)29, 33 lines in all, was omitted by Simplicius, who quoted very extensively from this section of the poem. The reason why he refrained from copying these 33 lines may well have been, I think, that he deemed them to contain little that had not been said equally well or even better in the other extensive passages he had copied from Empedocles.\r\n\r\nAre there no saving graces? Yes, of course, there are. The first is that we have a better perspective on the transmission of Empedocles' text, tantalizingly blurred though it is bound to remain. It may now be suspected that many of the corruptions in our text are not due to errors made by medieval scribes, but had already entered the text in antiquity itself. I am referring particularly to the deep corruptions which seem due to extensive tampering and appear to exhibit a certain pattern. And since corruptions of this kind appear well-represented even in Aristotle's quotations, their source must date back to a very early time indeed.\r\n\r\nThe second gain, finally, is, I think, the most important of all, viz. the fact that we now know line 300; and, by simple calculation, that the 35 lines of fr. 17DK extend from line 232 through 266. So the absolute position of the 69 lines 232 through 300 is now known. The value of this piece of information can hardly be overestimated. It will have a beneficial effect on literally all the fragments. After all, the average size of Empedocles' fragments is a mere three lines, hardly enough, in many cases, to arrive at any compelling interpretation. Starting from the text of lines 232-300, one will be able to establish the relative positions of many fragments with a large degree of certainty (decreasing, of course, as the distance to 232 or 300 increases). The result will be that many fragments will draw closer together and constitute one another's context, so to speak. Our interpretations will be based on much firmer foundations. [conclusion p. 543-544]","btype":3,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BcAsTrl3xWnFgU9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":422,"full_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":453,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"52","issue":"5","pages":"525-544"}},"sort":["The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: Some Preliminary Remarks"]}