No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Democritus on Politics and the Care of the Soul: Appendix
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
The following texts and comments are a supplement to ‘Democritus on Politics and the Care of the Soul’, CQ 39 (1989), 307–31 (henceforth ‘Democritus on Politics’). The Democritean fragments there were quoted only in translation; detailed commentary on them would have taken up too much space and clogged the argument. They make their appearance here in the same order as they did there, preceded by a thumb-nail résumé of that argument and of their place in it. Text, spelling and numbering is that of the standard edition: H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin, 1951–2). Reference will also be made to collections by P. Natorp, Die Ethika des Demokritos (Marburg, 1893), S. Y. Luria, Democritea (Leningrad, 1970) and G. Ibscher, Demócrito y sus sentencias sobre ética y education (Lima, 1983–4), as well as to translations by V. E. Alfieri, Gli Atomisti (Bari, 1936), K. Freeman, Ancilla to the Presocratics (Oxford, 1948) and J. Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy (Harmondsworth, 1987).
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1990
References
1 ‘Democritus on Politics and the Care of the Soul’ began life as a chapter, excluded from the final version, of a Ph.D. thesis on Democritean ethics. After a long interval, part of the chapter was revived for a paper read to a meeting of the B Club in Cambridge in May 1988, and gradually evolved into the present article, assisted by invaluable comments from M. Burnyeat, P. Cartledge, R. Coleman, A. Dihle, P. Garnsey, M. Reeve and the Editors of CQ.
2 Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium, ed. Wachsmuth, C., Hense, O. (Berlin, 1884–1909)Google Scholar. For a clear, succinct account of the Stobaeus MSS, see Plutarchi Moralia VII ed. Sandbach, F. H. (Teubner; Leipzig, 1967), pp. viif.Google Scholar
3 The opposite holds good for purportedly Democritean sentences in Byzantine gnomologies such as the corpus Parisinum profanum (= Democritus B 302 DK) or the ‘Gnomologium Byzantinum ⋯κ τ
ν Δημοκρ⋯του Ἰσοκρ⋯τους Ἐπικτ⋯του᾽ (DEI), reconstructed by Wachsmuth, C. (Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien [Berlin, 1882], 162–216)Google Scholar from four surviving gnomologies. Where these overlap with material in Stobaeus, Democrates or Plutarch (see below, on B 157), they can be taken as versions (usually feeble) of something genuinely Democritean. Where they do not, they have no guarantee of authenticity.
4 In what follows, I have kept the apparatus criticus of the fragments to a minimum. For fuller information, see Diels-Kranz or Wachsmuth-Hense.