Herculaneum in Word and Text

Roman Wall-inscriptions were the social media of ancient Roman culture. Some were painted on buildings to advertise information, while others were used by private individuals to record their experiences (e.g., through images, prayers, greetings to friends, favorite quotations of poetry) by writing with charcoal or scratching texts into wall plaster.

The Latin Papyri from Herculaneum are not only fewer in number than the Greek Papyri, but also in far worse condition. Indeed, Scott’s initial assessment that they contained ‘nothing intelligible’ has been the predominant, enduring viewpoint for well over a century (Scott 1885). For this reason, conclusions about the content and nature of the Latin library at Herculaneum have been difficult to reach, especially when contrasted with the apparent uniformity of the Greek collection. However as technology has advanced, so too has our ability to access and assess the Latin collection.

Using the multispectral images, the Oxford (O) and Naples (N) disegni, alongside the original papyri, this paper presents a more detailed analysis of Philodemus’ De dis 1 (PHerc. 26). In particular it focuses on columns 12 to 15, arguing that these columns provide further insight into the Epicurean concept of πρόληψις (‘preconception’), a kind of mental image or sketch of a concept. In particular it addresses the question of whether προλήψεις are innate or whether they are gained over time.

Editing the Greek and Latin library from Herculaneum presents great challenges to classical scholarship. These papyri were preserved by being carbonized in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (Sider 2005). They have either been opened invasively, which has left them badly damaged, or not opened at all. There is also the problem, or advantage, that all the texts, so far, have been unique, and are not subject to the vagaries of Medieval transmission.

It was a common belief in antiquity, shared by many today, that Epicureans eschewed literary studies (e.g Cicero, In Pisonem §70, most interpretations of Epicurus fr. 568 Usener). Philodemus is one exception; Demetrius Laco is another. In his works, he cites a variety of authors: other philosophers, as we would expect, but also literary authors and scholars working in such disparate fields as medicine and grammar. The later two groups are rather unexpected in Epicurean texts, biased as they are usually taken to be against literature and the liberal arts.