We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 November 2013
The ancient sources tell a particular story about the destiny of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus after Theophrastus' death. According to information provided mainly by Strabo and Plutarch, the texts produced by the Peripatetic school were lost and unavailable during a period of more than two hundred years, from the time of Neleus, the heir of Theophrastus' library, until Sulla's victory in Athens, in 86 b.c., at the end of his campaign against Mithridates. That was the point at which the private library of a famous bibliophile was confiscated: Apellicon of Teos, who at some time at the beginning of the first century b.c. had acquired the autograph papyri that contained the only copies of Aristotle's and his disciple's works. Sulla, so these sources maintain, recovered then for later generations the so-called ‘esoteric writings’ of Aristotle, and this prepared the ground for the general diffusion of Aristotelian thought, and for the work of Andronicus of Rhodes, whose name has gone down in history as the author of the editio princeps of the Aristotelian Corpus.
I am deeply thankful to Professor Christopher Pelling, Oxford University, for all the interesting comments, suggestions and corrections that he kindly offered me during the writing of this article, both in content and in style. Professors Javier de Hoz and Tomás Calvo of the Complutense University and Professor António Pedro Mesquita of the University of Lisbon read preliminary versions of this work and made countless very useful comments. I would like to thank them for their kind advice. The content of the article was also discussed at the session of the SIFG (Sociedad Ibérica de Filosofía Griega), in Madrid, on 9th October 2010. I thank the audience for a stimulating discussion. I am also indebted to the anonymous reader who evaluated this work for his suggestions and comments which contributed to make a better paper and to Professor John Wilkins for his final reading. However, responsibility for all mistakes that these pages might contain is exclusively mine.
1 Str. 13.1.54, Plut. Sull. 26. See also Porph. Plot. 24.
2 Also Diog. Laert. 5.52.10 presents Neleus as heir of Theophrastus' library. On the grounds for Neleus' retirement to Scepsis, taking the library with him, see von Arnim, H., ‘Neleus von Skepsis’, Hermes 63 (1928), 105Google Scholar, Brink, K.O., ‘Peripatos’, RE Suppl. VII (1958 =1940), 931Google Scholar; on Theophrastus' reasons for leaving his library to Neleus, see Chroust, A.-H., ‘The miraculous disappearance and recovery of the Corpus Aristotelicum’, C&M 23 (1962), 50–1Google Scholar, Gottschalk, H.B., ‘Notes on the wills of the Peripatetic scholarchs’, Hermes 100 (1972), 336–7Google Scholar, Barnes, J., ‘Roman Aristotle’, in id. and Griffin, M. (edd.), Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome (Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar, 5. Tanner, R.G., ‘Aristotle's works: the possible origins of the Alexandria collection’, in MacLeod, R. (ed.), The Library of Alexandria. Centre of Learning in the Ancient World (London and New York, 2000), 83Google Scholar understands Neleus' departure as flight from the threat of the Ptolemies to invade Athens, and the removal of the library as an attempt to protect it from looting. On the possibility that Neleus might have had the intention to found his own school, in Scepsis or Assos, see Blum, R., Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Biobibliographie (Frankfurt am Main, 1977), 127–8Google Scholar.
3 On whom, see Dziatzko, K.F.O., ‘Apellikon, 1’, RE 1.2 (1894), 269–74Google Scholar.
4 On the first critics, in the sixteenth century, see Brink (n. 2), 939. A systematic critique came in the eighteenth century, from the Benedictine Jean Liron. See Primavesi, O., ‘Ein Blick in den Stollen von Scepsis: vier Kapitel zur frühen Überlieferung des Corpus Aristotelicum’, Philologus 151 (2007), 52–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the nineteenth century scepticism about the story is almost general, e.g. Susemihl, F., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der alexandrinischer Zeit (Leipzig, 1892)Google Scholar, 296 ff.; Stahr, A., Aristotelia II, Ueber die verlorenen Briefe des Aristoteles (Halle, 1830), 5–121Google Scholar; Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Zweiter Teil, zweite Abteilung: Aristoteles und die alten Peripatetiker (Hildesheim, 1963 = 19214 = 1878), 138–154, esp. 144Google Scholar; and Shute, R., On the History of the Process by Which the Aristotelian Writings Arrived at their Present Form (Oxford, 1888)Google Scholar, 34 ff. Of the profuse bibliography generated by the question during the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, the following works deserve a special mention: Moraux, P., Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d'Aristote (Louvain, 1951)Google Scholar; Chroust (n. 2); Düring, I., Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Göteborg, 1957)Google Scholar; Gottschalk, H. B. (n. 2) and ‘Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century ad’, in Haase, E. (ed.), ANRW II: Principat; Band 36: Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik; 2. Teilband: Philosophie (Berlin, New York, 1987), 1079–174Google Scholar; Blum (n. 2); L. Tarán, review of Moraux, P., Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. 1. Band: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1. Jh. V. Chr. (Berlin and New York, 1973)Google Scholar, Gnomon 53 (1981), 721–50; Barnes (n. 2); and Primavesi (n. 4). The general veracity of the story is maintained by Bignone, E., L'Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro, Parte prima (Florence, 1936), 466–71Google Scholar, who sees no clear evidence of concrete knowledge of the texts of Aristotle during the third and second centuries. For a survey of criticism of this opinion see Angeli, A., Filodemo. Agli amici di scuola (PHerc 1005) (Naples, 1988), 234–8Google Scholar. See also Tarán (n. 4), 724 and Gottschalk (n. 4), 1080.
5 On this weakening of the Peripatos in the third century b.c. see Chroust (n. 2), 50–62; Barnes (n. 2), 12 ff.; and Mesquita, A. P., Obras completas de Aristóteles. Tomo 1, volume 1: Intruduçâo geral (Lisbon, 2005)Google Scholar, 215 ff. On the ‘Peripatetic Renaissance’, see Moraux, P., Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, I : Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1. Jh. v. Chr. (Berlin, 1973)Google Scholar, xiv ff.; Gottschalk (n. 4), 1083–97; Tanner (n. 2), 84; Barnes (n. 2), 13 ff.; and Grant, E., A History of Natural Philosophy. From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 2007), 30–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Particularly important is the information provided by Philodemus and Simplicius. See Phld. Cont.: P.Herc. 1005, fr. 111 Angeli; Crönert, W., Kolotes und Menedemos. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Philosophen und Literaturgeschichte (Amsterdam, 1965 = 1874)Google Scholar, 174, on the existence of copies of the Aristotelian Analytics and Physics. See Grayeff, F., Aristotle and his School. An Inquiry into the History of the Peripatos. With a Commentary on Metaphysics Z, H, Λ and Θ (London, 1974)Google Scholar, 70 n. 2. Simpl. In Phys. 923.9 ff., on the letters exchanged between Theophrastus and Eudemus, regarding a mistake of the scribe on the copy of the Physics available in Rhodes. See Zeller (n. 4), 149 n. 2; Sandys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship. Vol. 1: from the Sixth Century B. C. to the End of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1921)Google Scholar, 85.
7 Ach. Tat., Isag. in Arati Phaen. 13 (41 Maass) = Posidon. F 149 Edelstein–Kidd (cf. De an. 411b6–10). See Edelstein, L., ‘The Philosophical system of Posidonius’, AJPh 57 (1936), 299 n. 53Google Scholar.
8 See Simpl. De caelo 700, 3–8 (In Aristotelis De Caelo 4.3, 310b1): Posidon. T 100, F 93 E.–K. See also Simpl. In Phys. 291.21: Posidon. F 18 E.–K. On the point, Tarán (n. 4), 724 n. 7.
9 The dates of his birth and death have been deduced from the testimonies of Ps.-Lucian, Longaevi 20, 223 (Posidon. FGrH 87 T 4, T 4 E.–K.) and Sud. s.v. Ποσειδώνιος (Posidon. FGrH 87 T 1, T 1 E.–K.). On this point, see Edelstein, L. and Kidd, I. G., Posidonius II. The commentary: (i) Testimonia and Fragmenta 1–49; (ii) Fragments 150–293 (Cambridge and New York, 1988), 4, 8–9Google Scholar.
10 See Brink (n. 2), 938; Düring (n. 4), 421; Moraux (n. 5), 45–9; Gottschalk (n. 4), 1095; Barnes (n. 2), 22–4.
11 Plut. Mar. 45.7: Posidon. FGrH 87 T 7, T 28 E.–K.; see Edelstein and Kidd (n. 9), 22–3. See also Posidon. FGrH 87 F 37, F 255 E.–K.
12 Ath. 5.53 214d–e: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 36, F 253 E.–K. On Posidonius' more than probable direct knowledge of the recovered texts of Apellicon's library see Edelstein and Kidd (n. 9), 85.
13 Testimonies of this travel: Posidon. TT 14–18 E.–K.: Str. 3.5.9, 1.15 – FGrH 87 T 5a – 2.5.14, 3.5.8, 13.1.67.
14 Str. 4.1.7: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 90, F 229 E.–K. Cf. Mete. 368b23 ff. Laffranque, M., Poseidonios d'Apamée. Essai de mise au point (Paris, 1964), 175Google Scholar, on the basis of Dubois, M., Examen de la Géographie de Strabon (1891)Google Scholar, considers it practically beyond doubt that the references to Aristotle in Strabo's work are never due to a direct reading of the philosopher by the geographer, but to intermediary sources, and these include Posidonius. So also Aujac, G., Strabon et la science de son temps (Paris, 1966), 39Google Scholar.
15 Str. 3.1.5: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 45, F 119 E.–K.; cf. Arist. Mete. 342b5 ff. Posidonius does not mention Aristotle's name, but the text follows almost literally the Aristotelian treatise.
16 A brief review can be seen in Edelstein–Kidd (n. 9), 85–6: see for example Str. 2.2.2: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 28, F 49.14 ff. E.–K. (cf. Arist. Mete. 362a32 ff.), Sch. Arat. 881: Posidon. F 121.15 E.–K. (cf. Arist. Mete. 377b15–19), Sch. Arat. 1091: Posidon. F 131a E.–K. (cf. Arist. Mete. 343b), Sen. QNat. 2.54.1–55.3: Posidon. F 135 E.–K. (on the Aristotelian basis of Posidonius' theory about lightning, Edelstein–Kidd [n. 9], 507; cf. Arist. Mete. 369a10 ff.).
17 Str. 3.3.3: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 84, F 220 E.–K.; cf. Arist. Mete. 354a5 ff.
18 The interest in testing the information of earlier writers is not exclusive to Posidonius. See e.g. Hdt. 2.4–5, when the historian is most probably checking Hecataeus' hypothesis on the origin of Egyptian soil in silt (see FGrH 1 F 301: Arr. Anab. 5.6.5). See A. Lloyd's note ad loc. in Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. and Corella, A, A Commentary on Herodotus. Books I–IV, ed. Murray, O., and Moreno, A. (Oxford, 2007), 246Google Scholar.
19 On the sources of the treatise On the ocean, see Laffranque (n. 14), 169 ff., esp. 184, on the interest in empirical checking of information as an essential element in Posidonius' scientific travel, and Laffranque (n. 14), 193 on the value of previous testimony, either oral or written, as the element that drives Posidonius to observe the phenomena in person.
20 Str. 3.5.7–8: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 85, F 217 E.–K., Polyb. 34.9.5. Artemidorus of Ephesus and Silanus are also referred to, even if their explanations are not quoted. See Edelstein and Kidd (n. 9), 768–9, on the importance of personal observation in Posidonius' research on the well, as the element that gives him authority over the theories of his predecessors.
21 See n. 15. Str. 3.1.5.22–4: τὸ δὲ ψεῦδος ἐλέγξαι ϕησί τριάκονθ’ ἡμέρας διατρίψας ἐν Γαδείροις καὶ τηρήσας τὰς δύσεις.
22 Str. 3.5.9: Posidon. FGrH 87 F 86, F 218 E.–K. On Seleucus, see Gossen, H., ‘Seleukos, 38’, RE IIA, 1 (1964 = 1921), 1249–50Google Scholar, and Gundel, W. and Gundel, H.G., Astrologumena: die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte (Wiesbaden, 1966), 44Google Scholar. The will to check the previously known theories of Seleucus is clear: αὐτὸς δὲ κατὰ τὰς θερινὰς τροπὰς περὶ τὴν πανσέληνόν ϕησιν ἐν τῷ Ἡρακλείῳ γενόμενος τῷ ἐν Γαδείροις πλείους ἡμέρας μὴ δύνασθαι συνεῖναι τὰς ἐνιαυσίους διαϕοράς. Seleucus' theories are a starting point for Posidonius' observations, and therefore he had to have read them before making those observations.
23 Laffranque (n. 14), 65–7.
24 Particularly the war between Sulla and Mithridates (88–84 b.c.), the rebellion of Spartacus (73–71 b.c.), the war of Sertorius (82–72 b.c.) and the struggles between Marius and Sulla (87–82 b.c.).
25 The ancient sources also testify his presence in Rhodes and Rome during this period, something that had not been the case in the former decade. See TT 27–39 E.–K. and the corresponding commentary in Edelstein and Kidd (n. 9), 21–30.
26 Str. 11.1.6: Posidon. FGrH 87 T 8a, T 35 E.–K.; Plin. HN 7.112: FGrH 87 T 8b, T 36 E.–K.; Solin. 1.121: T 37 E.–K.
27 Cic. Tusc. 2.61: Posidon. FGrH 87 T 8b, T 38 E.–K.
28 With regard to the availability of the treatise On coming to be and passing away, the testimony of Ps.-Ocelus Lucanus, a supposed Pythagorean of the fifth century b.c., is particularly valuable. A Late Hellenistic author of a cosmological text seems to have hidden under this identity, and to have paraphrased part of the treatise. On Ps.-Ocellus' date, see Diels, H., Doxographi graeci (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929 2 = 1879), 186–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nothing is known about the real author, his origin and education, but it is extremely relevant that Harder, R., Ocellus Lucanus. Text und Kommentar (Berlin, 1926), xiii–xivGoogle Scholar, connects with Posidonius or his school the practice, manifested in Ocellus' text, of presenting Pythagoreanism as an antecedent of Aristotle's thought.
29 Moraux (n. 5), 30.
30 Tarán (n. 4), 727.
31 The use of the biological treatises of Aristotle and Theophrastus made, among others, by the Greek paradoxographers of the third and second centuries b.c. allowed Regenbogen, O., ‘Theophrastos von Eresos’, RE Suppl. VII (1940)Google Scholar, 1377 ff., to confirm the availability of some treatises of the Corpus and counter the idea of a total loss during this period.
32 Although Düring (n. 4), 68, considers it unimaginable that the Museum's library lacked copies of these works.
33 A similar silence concerning the Museum affects also the other cosmological works known to Posidonius.
34 Antig. Car. Mirabilia 143, = Callim. F 3 Giannini, Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 272; cf. Arist. Mete. 359a 22. Theopompus is explicitly mentioned as source of the information in Antig. Car. ibid. 141, and there is no indication of a change of source until Antig. Car. ibid. 144. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely excluded that the reference comes from the same ‘Aristotelian’ work mentioned in Antig. Car. ibid. 144, and that has been identified with Theophrastus' treatise Περὶ ὕδατος, present in Diogenes' list of Theophrastean works. Schneider, O., Callimachea II (Leipzig, 1873), 336Google Scholar considers the text as taken directly from Meteorology, comparing it with Pliny 31.82. Theopompus, however, is recurrently mentioned among Pliny's sources for HN Book 31, whereas Aristotle is not mentioned even once in that book.
35 The various editors of Strabo consider that there is a lacuna at this point. Berger, H., Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen (Leipzig, 1903)Google Scholar, 82 n. 4, proposes this reconstruction, following Meteorology.
36 Str. 1.4.6: Eratosth. F IIA.6 Berger, F 33 Roller.
37 On this value of παραμυθεῖν, cf. Sext. Emp. Math. 7.66.
38 The English translations of Jones, H. L., The Geography of Strabo, vol. I (Cambridge Massachusetts, 1969, = 1960, = 1919)Google Scholar, and Roller, D. W., Eratosthenes' Geography. Fragments collected and translated, with commentary and additional material (Princeton, Oxford, 2010)Google Scholar don't consider this lacuna. However, the text is seriously corrupted, and Berger's emendation helps to find a coherent general meaning.
39 Arist. Mete. 362b15–19, English translation of Lee, H.D.P., Aristotle: Meteorologica (Cambridge, MA, 1952), 181–3Google Scholar.
40 It is worthwhile to highlight the complete absence of Aristotle from the fragments that Berger, H., Die geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes (Amsterdam, 1967 =1880)Google Scholar, 40 ff., classifies as corresponding to Eratosthenes' review of the History of Geography and where are mentioned explicitly names such as Hesiod, Anaximander, Hecateus, Damastes, Euemerus and Pytheas.
41 In this tradition of mathematic geographers Dicaearchus of Messene, disciple of Aristotle and well known by Eratosthenes, could have had great importance. His ‘fundamental parallel’ or διάϕραγμα (known through this name since Berger [n. 35], 418), seems to form the background of the parallel that Eratosthenes proposes to follow along the temperate zone. Geus, K., Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Munich, 2002)Google Scholar, 271 highlights the importance of Dicaearchus' thought in Eratosthenes' conception of the structure of the earth. See also Roller (n. 38), 149 on the importance of this text as testimony of the construction of a main parallel. On the outline of the fundamental parallel, see Agathem. 5: Dicaearch. F 110 Wehrli. Aristotle, Mete. 362b20–1, mentions the Columns as starting point of his measurement of the earth in the direction west–east, and this has sometimes been understood as an antecedent of the διάϕραγμα. None the less, the philosopher never describes its course, nor does he talk about any division inside the temperate zone.
42 Diog. Laert. 5.22–7. See Düring (n. 4), 67–9.
43 Known also as Vita Menagiana, from the name of its first editor, Gilles Ménage (1663). On the list, see Rose, V., Aristoteles pseudepigraphus (Leipzig, 1863), 18–20Google Scholar, Moraux (n. 4), 195 ff., Düring (n. 4), 90–2.
44 Moraux (n. 4), 289 ff., Düring (n. 4), 221–31, Hein, C., Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie. Europäische Hochschulschriften XX, 177 (Frankfurt am Main, 1985), 421–39Google Scholar.
45 According to Primavesi (n. 4), 61, this dependence is probably not direct, but the author could have known a work of Andronicus himself that dealt with the collection of books of Aristotle.
46 On the differences between them, explained as the result of post-Hellenistic interpolations in Hesychius' list, see Primavesi (n. 4), 59.
47 Moraux (n. 4), 312 ff. is a remarkable exception; he suggests that the list has an Athenian origin, connected with Ariston of Ceos. Düring, I., ‘Ariston or Hermippus? A note on the Catalogue of Aristotle's writings’, C&M 17 (1956), 11–21Google Scholar, id. (n. 4), 67 ff. and now Primavesi (n. 4), 59 argue for an Alexandrian origin. A different picture is presented by Lord, C., ‘On the early history of the Aristotelian corpus’, AJPh 107 (1986)Google Scholar, 145 ff., who considers the catalogue of Diogenes Laertius and Hesychius to be the inventory of the books taken to Scepsis by Neleus. None the less, the arguments that point to the Alexandrian origin of the list abound. Another pointer in this direction may be the clear distinction between the lists of works of Aristotle and Theophrastus in Diogenes' work, as this might reflect the work of the Alexandrian philologists in separating the two authors' corpora, according to Regenbogen (n. 31), 1377 ff. There are no traces of a similar process in other culture centres like Athens or Pergamum.
48 At least in the original version of the list. Meteorology, like the rest of the subcorpus, does appear in the late appendix, that probably corresponds to an attempt to complete the catalogue of Aristotelian works adapting it to Andronicus' edition. See Moraux (n. 4), 252.
49 In Diogenes Laertius' list. Notice that the text Περῖ ϕύσεως in Hesychius' catalogue consists of just one book.
50 The absence of the other works has been generally explained as a result of transmission problems. See Moraux (n. 4), 186–91, Blum (n. 2), 129–30.
51 De Caelo 700, 3–8 (see n. 8).
52 On the Alexandrian origin of Theophrastus' list, see Regenbogen (n. 31), 1366–70 and Blum (n. 2), 124 ff. On the similar oblivion concerning the works of Theophrastus from the third to the first century b.c., see Barnes (n. 2), 4. On Theophrastus' life in Diogenes Laertius' work, see Sollenberger, M.G., Diogenes Laertius' Life of Theophrastus (Rutgers, 1984)Google Scholar.
53 However, it has to be emphasized that the version of the Meteorology that Posidonius seems to know predates Andronicus' edition. Posidonius clearly knows a Meteorology consisting of three books, not four. On the spurious character of Mete. 4 see Hammer-Jensen, I., ‘Das sogenante IV. Buch der Meteorologie des Aristoteles’, Hermes 50 (1915), 113–36Google Scholar; Jaeger, W., Aristoteles (Berlin, 1923)Google Scholar, 412 ff.; Regenbogen (n. 31), 1418; Solmsen, F., Aristotle's System of the Physical World. A Comparision with his Predecessors (Ithaca, NY, 1960)Google Scholar; Gottschalk, H.B., ‘The authorship of Meteor. IV’, CQ 55 (1961), 67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Baffioni, C., Il IV libro dei «Meteorlogica» di Aristotele (Naples, 1981), 34–44Google Scholar. In the opinion of Barnes (n. 2), 15, a likely indication of Mete. 4 as an independent text can be seen in a fragment of Philochorus (fourth–third c. b.c.; FGrH 328, F 173: Ath. 14.72.12, 656b, cf. Arist. Mete. 380b 21).
54 See Sandys (n. 6), 101 ff., on the importance of the zoological interest of Ptolemy II (Diod. Sic. 3.36.3 ff.) in the early stages of the Museum. Tanner (n. 2), 80–1, building on the argument of Thompson, W.D'Arcy, On Aristotle as a Biologist (Oxford, 1913)Google Scholar (see Guthrie, W.K.C., A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. VI. Aristotle, An Encounter [Cambridge, London and New York, 1981], 29–30Google Scholar), points to the possibility that the germ of the Alexandrian collection of Aristotelian texts on natural science can be found in the books that were used by Aristotle to teach Alexander in his childhood.
55 So Primavesi (n. 4), 58–70 states, on the basis of the preservation of an obsolete, pre-Alexandrian, numbering system in Andronicus' edition: the use of a sequence of letters in alphabetical order. See also Goldstein, J.A., The Letters of Demosthenes (New York and London, 1968), 269Google Scholar. The author interprets it as a sign of the presence of Neleus' texts in Andronicus' edition. However, the old system might equally have been preserved in other places, and not only in the cellar of Scepsis, given that the scant circulation of the Aristotelian treatises during the Hellenistic period seems to be a general phenomenon.
56 Grayeff (n. 6), 77 n. 1.
57 Nº 92 Düring, 97a Hein; Düring (n. 4), 230 and 245–6, understands that the following items (93–9) give the list of works found in Apellicon's library. They would be, then, just ὑπομνήματα, quick drafts or sketches, and personal letters – not important treatises. See also Hein (n. 44), 437–8 on items 98–100 of his edition of the list. On the marginal character of the texts of Apellicon's library in the Corpus, see Moraux (n. 4), 298 and Blum (n. 2), 117.
58 This article has been elaborated in the context of the research project La memoria escrita: estudio integral de las colecciones papirológicas españolas (ref. FFI2012-39567-C02-01/02, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity).
