after that the fragments we now have were discarded. A history of this sort,
which is suggested by the manuscripts we have, would be quite similar
to the history of the Herculaneum collection as reconstructed by Cavallo:
Philodemus, Cavallo suggested, purchased the core collection of about two
dozen third- and second-century texts while in Athens in the early part of
the first centuryB.C., then settled at Herculaneum and added the majority
of the texts while there. The collection then passed down, maintaining its
basic shape and emphasis, until its destruction inA.D.79.^78
Although such histories cannot be proved, they are reasonable enough,
and they are consistent with such evidence as we have.
79
Probably the
most likely, and the most important, aspect of the history of Grenfell and
Hunt’s second find is that, on almost any reading of the evidence, this
concentration of volumes continued in existence for several generations as
a recognizable whole. No doubt some volumes were discarded, and others
added, over time.
80
Presumably the collection passed down from gener-
ation to generation, either within a single family or passing from one
family to another by sale, gift (from teacher to student, for example),
or inheritance. Quite possibly, the manuscripts represented by our
fragments formed part of a larger collection, the nature of which must
remain unknown to us. But that it did exist as a coherent group of
volumes, and for an extended period of time, seems highly likely, because
otherwise we would have to assume that one person purchased all of
these texts on the used-book market in the third century, a much less
likely scenario. It is the segregation of papyri into distinct collections that
allows us to study all of these phenomena. For the first time, we can draw
upon evidence more detailed than the anecdotes about libraries in litera-
ture and more varied than the single collection in the Villa of the Papyri
at Herculaneum. This allows us, as we have seen, to formulate useful
hypotheses and to move forward, however carefully, toward a more
complete understanding of ancient book collections.
- Above, n. 50, for the earlier texts. For his summary comments on the post
Philodemus history of the library, see Cavallo 1983, 65, but note also the reservations of
Parsons (above, n. 61). - Not all concentrations of papyri fit neatly into the same pattern, however, although
I know of none that is significantly different. In the case of the concentration of manuscripts
found by Evaristo Breccia in 1932, there is no clear pattern of acquisitions concentrated
within a given period of, say, fifty years. Of the fifty two manuscripts represented in that
collection, as many as eleven may date to the first century or early in the second century;
thirty are dated to the second century, but to no more specific date than that; and the other
eleven are later in date, c. 200 or early third century. That is, we cannot demonstrate for the
Breccia 1932 concentration a single period of development comparable to those that appear
in the collections from the Villa of the Papyri and in Grenfell and Hunt’s second find.
If the second century manuscripts in the Breccia 1932 find could be dated more precisely,
however, it might well turn out that that collection, too, had a history similar to that of
the other two collections. See further on the Breccia 1932 collection Houston 2007. - As we have seen, eight new manuscripts nearly a quarter of the concentration
were added c.A.D. 200 or in the early third century. We need not assume that the collection
remained static, even if it appears that it maintained a single primary focus over a period of a
century or more.
Papyrological Evidence for Book Collections and Libraries 261