The Presocratics in the Herculaneum Papyri

该项目旨在创建一个赫库兰尼姆Praesocraticorum Herculanense （CPH）语料库，即赫库兰尼姆纸莎草纸中包含的前苏格拉底哲学家证据的第一个综合收集。CPH将包括一个批判版，在哲学介绍之前，并附有英文翻译和评论。在著名的《Vorsokratiker Fragmente der Vorsokratiker》（甚至更早的《希腊文献汇编》）中，赫尔曼·迪尔斯（Hermann Diels）在24位前苏格拉底作家的名单上总共收录了60个赫拉库拉尼的资料。争论的段落只涉及伊壁鸠鲁的杰作《论自然》中德谟克利特的两份证据，恩培多克勒斯的三份证词和德谟克利特的一份证词，这些证据来自于《自然》中拉科的作品。1012 （Opus incertum）和phc。1014（论诗歌，第二册），但最重要的是，在伽达拉的菲洛德摩斯的几部作品中有大量的证词（尤其是在他的论文《论虔诚》中）如今，前苏格拉底时代的十二文献学可以通过更可靠的赫库拉尼文本版本大大丰富。事实上，Diels依靠的是Herculanean文本的版本，而这些版本主要不是基于对原始手稿的解剖，即使在这种情况下，以前的编辑也没有使用任何现代技术（即显微镜和多光谱图像）来成功地做到这一点。这个错误导致他，一方面，从他的收集中排除了一些实际的前苏格拉底时期的证据，另一方面，在其中包括一些与前苏格拉底时期无关的赫库拉尼文本。事实上，如果考虑到片段、文献信息、回忆和简单的人名引用，赫库兰尼的前苏格拉底哲学家证言（约180件证据）几乎是Diels-Kranz的三倍。这种情况清楚地表明，它们的综合版本可能会对前苏格拉底时代的碎片的新收集产生强烈的影响，并有助于更好地理解伊壁鸠鲁对前苏格拉底时代物理学、宇宙学、伦理学和神学的判断。这个项目既有纸纸学的目的，也有哲学的目的。前者通过替换和整合Diels-Kranz合集中相关的Herculanean部分来增强我们对前苏格拉底思想的认识，后者第一次以系统的方式处理前苏格拉底哲学与伊壁鸠鲁主义之间的复杂关系。

The project aims to create a Corpus Praesocraticorum Herculanense (CPH), i.e. the first comprehensive collection of the evidence for Presocratic philosophers contained in the Herculaneum papyri. The CPH will include a critical edition preceded by a philosophical introduction and accompanied by an English translation and a commentary. In the renowned Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (and, even before, in the Doxographi Graeci) Hermann Diels included altogether 60 Herculanean sources spread over a list of 24 Presocratic authors. The passages at issue concerned only two pieces of evidence for Democritus in Epicurus' masterpiece On Nature, three testimonia for Empedocles and one for Democritus in Demetrius Laco's works contained in PHerc. 1012 (Opus incertum) and PHerc. 1014 (On Poems, Book 2) respectively, but above all a very large number of testimonia in several works by Philodemus of Gadara (especially in his treatise On Piety). Nowadays, the Presocratic doxography can be greatly enriched by more reliable editions of Herculanean texts. As a matter of fact, Diels relied on editions of Herculanean texts which were not principally founded on autopsy of the original manuscripts and, even when this was the case, the previous editors did not dispose of any modern technology (viz. microscopes and multispectral images) for doing this successfully. This fault caused him, on the one hand, to exclude from his collection some actual Presocratic evidence and to include in it, on the other, some Herculanean texts having nothing to do with the Presocratics. In fact, if one considers fragments, doxographical information, reminiscences and simple name quotations, the Herculanean testimonia for Presocratic philosophers (ca. 180 pieces of evidence) almost triples the Diels-Kranz selection. This situation makes clear the strong impact that a comprehensive edition of them could have for a new collection of the Presocratics' fragments and for a better understanding of the Epicurean judgment on Presocratic physics, cosmology, ethics and theology. The project has a both papyrological and philosophical purpose. The former consists in enhancing our knowledge of Presocratic thought by substituting and integrating the relevant Herculanean sections of the Diels-Kranz collection, the latter deals for the first time in a systematic way with the complex relationship between Presocratic philosophy and Epicureanism.