OASSICALVIEWS - Memorial University of Newfoundland

ISSN 0012-9356

EOIOS D'U MoNDE CiASSIQUEI .

OASSICALVIEWSXL - N.5. 15, 1996

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY PRESS

CLASSICAL ASSOClATION OF CANADASOClETE CANADIENNE. DES ETUDES CLASSIQUES

No. 3

Echps du Monde Classique / Classical Views (EMC / CV) is publishedby the University of Calgary Press for the C\assical Association ofCanada. Members of the Association receive both EMC / CV andPhoenix. Members of the Classical Associ:;ltion of the Canadian Westalso receive EMC / CV without further charge. The journal appearsthree times per year and is available to those who are not membersof these associations at $20.00 Cdn./U.S. (individual) and $35.00Cdn./U.S. (institutional). Residents of Canada must add 7% GST.ISSN: 0012-9356.

Echos du Monde Classique / Classical Views (F;MC / CV) est publiepar les Presses de l'Universite de Calgary pour le compte de laSociete canadienne des etudes classiques. Les membres de cettesociete re90ivent EMC / CV et Phoenix. Les membres de la ßociete desetudes classiques. de l'ouest canadien te90ivent egalement EMC / CVsans frais additionnels. ta revue parait trois fois par an. Lesabonnements sont disponibles, pour ceux qui ne seraient pasmembres des associations mentionnees ci-dessus, au prix de $20.00Cdn./U.S., ou de $35.00 Cdn./U.s. pour les institutions. Lesresidents du Canada doivent payer la 7% TPA. ISSN: 0012-9356.

Send subscriptions (payable to "Classical Views") to: .

Envoyer les abonnements (a l'ordre de "Classical Views") a:

The University of Calgary Press2500 University Drive N.W..Calgary, Alberta, CANAD'A, T2N 1N4

Back Nl,lmbers /Anciens numeros:

Vols. 9, 10, 12-25: $10 each/chacun. Vols. 26-28 (n.s. 1-3): $15. Vols.29-39 (n.s. 4-15): $18

Editors/Redacteur~:James L. Butrica, Mark A. Joyal, and Nigel M.Kennen, Department of Classics, Memorial University ofNewfoundland, St. John's NF, A1C 5S7, CANADA. Tel.: 709-7378593. FAX: 709-737-4569. E-Mail: [email protected],[email protected], or [email protected]

Manuscripts should be sent to one of the editors. Authors arestrongly encouraged to consult the Notes to Contributors which followthe Table of Contents and to submit a diskette along with theirmanuscript (Microsoft Word 5.1 or higher for the Macintosh ispreferred, but we can translate most standard programs). Articlesand reviews relating to archaeology and ancient art will normally bepublished in tpe first issue of each volume, for which the submissiondeadline is 30 January each year. Opinions expressed in articles andreviews are those of the authörs alone.

Editorial Correspondents IConseil consultati{- Leonard Curchin,University of Waterloo. Katherine Dunbabin, McMaster University.Elaine Fantharn, Princeton University. Robert Fowler, University ofWaterloo. Mark Golden, University of Winnipeg. Deborah Hobson,Dalhousie University. Shir]ey Sullivan, University of BritishColumbia. Tran Tarn Tinh, Universite Laval.

REMERCIEMENTS/ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Pour ]'aide financiere qu'ils ont accordee cl la revue nous tenons clremercier I For their financial assistance we wish to thank:

Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada I SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Societe des etudes classiques de l'ouest canadien I ClassicalAssociation of the Canadian West

Dean of Arts, Memorial University ofNewfoundland.

Brock University

University of Calgary

Concordia University

McGill University

Universite de Montreal

Memorial University ofNewfoundland

University ofNew Brunswick

University of Prince Edward Island

University ofVictoria

University ofWaterloo

University ofWestern Ontario

Wilfrid Laurier University

ECHOS DU MONDE CLASSIQUECLASSICAL VIEWS

XL, n.s. 15, 1996 No. 3

ARTICLESRoger Brock, The Tribute ofKarystos 357Benjamin Victor, Four Passages in the Andria ofTerence 371Rory B. Egan, A Reading ofthe Helen-Venus Episode in Aeneid 2 379Peter White, Martial and Pre-Publication Texts 397

REVIEWARTICLEPeter E. Knox on Alan Cameron, Callimachus and his Critics 413

BOOK REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUSLeonard R. Palmer, The Greek Language (Vit Bubenik) 425Christian Brockmann, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung von

Platons Symposion (Mark A. Joyal) 4321. Malkin, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean

(Noel Robertson) 4401. Malkin and Z.W. Rubinsohn (eds.), Leaders and Masses in the

Roman World. Studies in Honor ofZvi Yavetz (Helene Leclerc) 443M. Owen Lee, Virgil as Orpheus. A Study ofVirgil's Georgics

(A.G. McKay) 451Robert Alan Gurval, Actium and Augustus: The Politics and

Emotions ofCivil War (D.M. Hooley) 454K.W. Arafat, Pausanias' Greece: Ancient Artists and Roman

Rulers (Christopher Jones) 458G.P. Goold (ed. and trans.), Chariton. Callirhoe

(GeraId N. Sandy) 462J.R. Morgan and R. Stoneman (eds.), Greek Fiction: The Greek

Novel in Context (Wade Richardson) 465Michael Roberts, Poetry and the Cult of the Martyrs: The Liber

peristephanon ofPrudentius (Alan D. Booth) 470A. Velazquez, E. Cerrillo and P. Mateos (eds.), Los ultimos

romanos en Lusitania (Leonard A. Curchin) 480

Index to volume XL, n.s. 15 483

NOTES TO CONTRIBUTORS

1. References in footnotes to books and journal articles shouldfollow the forms:

E.R. Dodds, The Creeks and the Irrational (Berkeley 1951) 102-134[not 102ff.]

F. Sandbaeh, "Some Problems in Propertius," CQ n.s. 12 (1962) 273-274 [not 273f.]

For references which require departures from the above formats,see the most recent edition of The Chicago Manual of Style.Abbreviations of names of periodieals should in general followl 'Annee Philologique.References to these standard works should follow the forms:

V. Ehrenberg, RE 3A.2 1373-1453

IC 2/32 10826

CIL 4.789

TLL 2.44.193

2. Citations of ancient authors should take the following form:

Pi. Smp. 175d3-5 not Plato, Symposium 175d

Tae. Ann. 2.6.4 not Taeitus, Annales (or Annals) II.6

Plu. Mor. 553e not Plutareh, De sera numinis uindicta (or De sera) 7

Abbreviations of names of Greek and Latin authors and worksshould in general follow LSJ and the OLD.

3. Contributors should provide translations of all Latin and Greek,apart from single words or short phrases.

4. Manuscripts submitted for consideration should be double-spaeedwith ample margins. Onee an article has been accepted, theauthor will be expected to provide an abstract of approximately100 words, and illustrative material, such as tables, diagramsand maps, will have to be submitted in camera-ready form.

5. The journal will bear the cost of publishing up to six plates/illustrations per article; fees will be charged for plates/illustrations beyond this number. The cost of the additional halfpage plates/illustrations is $12 each, of the additional full-pageplates/illustrations $20 each.

6. Authors of articles receive 20 offprints free of charge; authors ofreviews receive 10 offprints free of charge. Additional offprints canbe ordered at a modest cost.

AVIS AUX AUTEURS

1. Les n~ferences aux ceuvres modernes doivent etre formuleescomme le montrent les exemples suivants:

A.T. Tuilier, Etude comparee du texte et des scholies d'Euripide (Paris1972) 101-123 [non pas lOHT.]

P. Grimal, "Properce et la legende de Tarpeia," REL 30 (1952) 32-33[non pas 32f.]

Dans les cas exceptionnels formuler selon les regles de l'edition laplus recente de The Chicago Manual of Style.Pour les titres de periodiques, utiliser les abreviations employeesdans L 'Annee Philologique.eiter comme suit ces ceuvres de base:

V. Ehrenberg, RE 3A.2 1373-1453IG 2/32 10826eIL 4.789TLL 2.44.193

2. Les references aux auteurs antiques doivent etre formuIeescomme le montrent les exemples suivants:

PI. Smp. 175d3-4, non pas Platon, Banquet 175dTac. Ann. 2.6.4, non pas Tacite, Annales 11.6Plu. Mor. 553c-e, non pas Plutarque, De sera numinis vindicta (ou De

sera) 7-8

Utiliser les abreviations employees dans les lexiques LSJ etOLD, toujours avec les chiffres arabes.

3. Priere de traduire toutes les citations du latin ou du grec, sauf lesmots simples et les locutions courtes.

4. Les manuscrits soumis a l'evaluation doivent etre en doubleinterligne avec d'amples marges. Une fois une communicationacceptee, l'auteur doit en fournir un resume de 100 mots environ,et le materiel d'illustration-tableaux, diagrammes, cartes-doitetre soumis sous forme prete a la reproduction.

5. La revue s'occupe des frais d'edition jusqu'a six planches/illustrations par communication; l'auteur doit porter les frais audela de ce chiffre. Le coüt de chaque planche/illustration en demipage est de 12$, et le coüt de chacune en page est de 20$.

6. L'auteur d'une communication re~oit gratis 20 tires apart;l'auteur d'une revue critique en re~oit 10 gratis. On peutcommander des tires apart suppIementaires a un coüt modeste.

ABSTRACTS/RESUMES

THE TRIBUTE OF KARYSTOS

ROGER BROCK

Les fragments de la liste des tributs payes a AthEmes indiquent que lesmontants verses par la ville de Karystos diminuerent de 12 talents en454/3 av. J-C. a 71/2 en 451/0 et a 5 en 450/49. Cette communicationsuggere que tandis que la provision d'un terrain pour une clerouquiepourrait expliquer la premiere diminution, la deuxieme diminutions'explique peut-etre par suite d'une exemption octroyee par Athene surdes taxes de port a verser par le port de Geraistos.

FOUR PASSAGES IN THE ANDRIA OF TERENCE

BENJAMIN VICTOR

L'auteur discute le texte et l'interpretation de Terence, Andria 234-235,343-345, 459-462, et 922-930.

A READING OF THE HELEN-VENUS EPISODE IN AENEID 2

RORYB. EGAN

L'auteur presente l'argument que la soi-disant "episode d'Helene" del'Eneide (2.567-588), souvent rejetee comme inauthentique, est en fait deVirgile, en affirmant que la figure identifiee par Enee comme "Helene"est en verite Venus deguisee.

MARTIAL AND PRE-PUBLICATION TEXTS

PETER WHITE

Cette communication repond a celle publiee dans Ramus 24 (1995) 31-58Oll D. Fowler pretend que les poemes de Martial furent con~us a partir dela place qu'ils devaient occuper dans le corpus existant. En apportantl'evidence de Martial lui-meme et celle d'ecrivains ulterieurs tant anciensque modernes, la presente communication indique que les poemesauraient bien pu circuler dans de petites editions privees avant d'etrepublies dans de plus grands recueils.

Echos du Monde Classique I Classical ViewsXL, n.s. 15, 1996, 357-370

THE TRIBUTE OF KARYSTOS

ROGER BROCK

The Athenian Tribute Lists have been a fundamental resouree forthe study of the fifth-eentury Athenian empire sinee Meritt, WadeGery and MeGregor produeed their eomprehensive publieation of thefragments. 1 The annual reeord of finaneial eontributions by Athens'allies (strietly speaking, of the aparche, the quota or tithe of onesixtieth dedieated to Athena) allows historians, by traeing generaltrends and loeal fluetuations and anomalies, to monitor Athens'relations with her allies over the period from the transfer of thetreasury of the Delian League from Delos to Athens until the laterstages of the Peloponnesian War. Given the fragmentary andineomplete nature ofthe evidenee, the interpretation ofmany aspeetsof the material eontinues to be a matter for debate; oeeasionally,however, that debate is illuminated by the diseovery of new evidenee.

In 1972 Meritt published a new fragment, part of the list for thefirst year for whieh payments were reeorded, 454/3 B.e., eontainingthe quotas for a number of the island states; the figure for Karystosrepresents a tribute of 12 talents. This information is striking in tworespeets: only a handful of eities are reeorded as paying as mueh atany time in the period before the Peloponnesian War, and theaddition of the new figure means that the tribute paid by Karystoswas redueed twiee in the spaee of five years, sinee the next reeordedfigure, for 451/0, is 71/2 T., but the payment for the following year 1Sonly 5 T. 2 The purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons for thesurprisingly high initial figure and for the unusual double reduetionin the tribute of Karystos.

Meritt was apparently not greatly surprised: in a footnote, hesuggested that the initial high payment was probably inflated byinstalments of an indemnity imposed after Karystos' foreedineorporation into the Delian League, whieh had been paid off by

1 B.D. Meritt, H.T. Wade-Gery and M.F. McGregor, The AthenianTribute Lists, 4 vols. CCambridge/Princeton 1939-53), hereafter ATL;Volume II is the definitive publication of the texts.

2 B. Meritt, "The Tribute Quota List of 454/3 B.C.," Hesperia 41 (1972)403-417; the three figures are now JG 13 259 11.16, 262 1.23, 263 IV.26.

357

358 ROGERBROCK

450/49.3 This explanation is open to question: not only is there noother evidence for such an indemnity, but a number of proceduralobjections can be raised. We know of two other cases before thePeloponnesian War in which indemnities were imposed on allies,Thasos and Samos, and in neither case was payment of theindemnity incorporated in the tribute payment: in the former case,Thasos' tribute was set at 3 T., presumably to compensate for thedrain on resources caused by the indemnity paYffients (the reverse ofthe scheme proposed for Karystos), only rising to 30 T. some twentyyears later, while Samos never appears in the tribute lists at all, asshe should do if indemnity payments were incorporated in orassimilated to tribute.4 Moreover, the appearance in the decree ofKleonYffios of special provisions for those paying indemnities (viz.Samos and Thera; JG 13 68.21-5) reinforces the impression that suchpayments were regarded as distinct from tribute (and since theywere not part of the tribute-Gomme points out that they wereactually repayments of capital debt-there is no reason to assumethat the Athenians would have felt obliged to dedicate a tithe fromthem).5

To this practical objection may be added some more generalconsiderations. It may be doubted whether Athens would, as early inher hegemony as the late 470s, have added insult to injury bymaking Karystos pay for the cost of her own subjugation, some 100talents (below); true, she had been regarded as a medizer in 480 andsubjected to harsh treatment (Hdt. 8.112, 121), but passions ought

3 Meritt (above, n. 2) 417 n. 43.

4 On Thasos, see R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 85-86;she was still apparently paying 3 talents in 447 and 446 (JG 13 264 IV.9,265 1.94, 106, 11.66; ATL 111.44) but 30 talents is restored for 445 (JG 13

266 111.8, following ATL) and preserved for 443 (JG 13 268 111.15). On theSamian indemnity, see G. Shipley, A History of Samos 800-188 B.C.(Oxford 1987) 294-296; had it been assimilated to tribute, one wouldexpect Samos to appear in the lonian panel, like, say, Miletus; hercolony Amorgos was separately assessed by 433 at the latest (Shipleyop.cit. 118).

5 Cf. the commentary of R. Meiggs and D.M. Lewis, A Selection ofGreek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford2 1988) 187; repayment of capital:A.W. Gomme, "Thucydides ii 13.3," Historia 2 (1953/4) 1-21, esp. 19. H.Mattingly ("The Tribute Quota Lists from 430 to 425 B.C.," CQ n.s. 28[1978] 83-88, esp. 85-88) has suggested that Thera was not yet payingtribute in 426, which would reinforce the procedural objection; for theadministrative distinction between tribute and indemnity, see id., "Themysterious 3000 talents of the first Kallias decree," GRBS 16 (1975) 1521, esp. 19-20.

THE TRIBUTE OF KARYSTOS 359

to have cooled over the ensuing decade, and Karystos couldreasonably have pointed out to Athens and her allies that she had infact been the first Greek city to resist the barbarian in 490, makingcommon cause with Athens (Hdt. 6.99), and had received preciouslittle thanks for it. 6 Furthermore, there is no positive evidence thatan indemnity was imposed shortly afterwards7 on Naxos, which wasnot merely being forced into the League, but attempting to secedefrom it; the fact that Thucydides says nothing in the case of Naxosbut notes, in very similar terms, the imposition of an indemnity forThasos and Samos8 suggests that we should read this developmentas another step in the deterioration in Athens' treatment of herallies, though he makes the point only obliquely.9 Indeed, we oughtperhaps to be more struck than we usually are by Athens' impositionof indemnities; there can have been no clear precedent for suchtreatment of cities who were notionally her allies in perpetuity.Perhaps in the early years the presence in League forces suppressingrevolts of allied contingents on a larger scale than was the norm later

() The independent Karystian dedication of a bronze bull (mo i!.pyovTOU Mf}OIKOU at Delphi (Paus. 10.16.6) was presumably intended to asserttheir contribution to the defence of Greek liberty. It is intriguing thatthe sources record no criticism of the cities which gave earth and waterto Darius before Marathon, Aegina apart, although they must have beennumerous (Hdt. 6.48-9). P.J. Rhodes describes Karystos as "a fair targetfor an anti-Persian league" (CAR y"l 42) and no doubt 480-79 counted formore than 490, but major medizers in the later invasion such as Argosand Thessaly had escaped serious reprisals.

7 Absolute and relative chronology in the Pentekontaetia arenotoriously hard to establish: most recently, E. Badian, From Plataea toPotidaea (BaItimore 1993) 100, places the incorporation of Karystosbetween 476/5 and 471/0; P.J. Rhodes in CAR V~ 44-6 (with 506) suggests475-69, S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 1 (Oxford1991) 150, "perhaps 472," and Gomme in RCT 1.408 "c. 474-472."Corresponding estimates for the revolt of Naxos are 465, 475-69 [thoughobviously later than KarystosJ, "probably early 460s" and "c. 469-468 to468-467."

81.101.3: XPrlllOTa TE ÖCO i!.OEI c':mooouvOl OlIT1KO TO~aIlEVOI KOI TaAomov <pEpEIV; 1.117.3: XPrlllOTO TO ovoAw8EVTO TO~aIlEVOI KOTO XpOVOVCOTTOOOUVOl; the variation in formula reflects Thasos' payment of tribute.

9The sequence would be: forcible incorporation (Karystos, 1.98.3)forcible re-incorporation, regarded as figurative enslavement (Naxos,1.98.4)-forcible re-incorporation and indemnity (Thasos 1.101.3),running parallel to the more general deterioration in relations traced in1.99. The fact that Thucydides does mention the indemnity in the case ofThasos and Samos means that its absence in the case of Naxos may be abit more than simple argumentum ex silentio.

360 ROGERBROCK

acted as arestraining influence, as weH as limiting Athenianexpenditure. 10

When Thera was, like Karystos, forced into the Athenian empirein 430 or 429, an indemnity was apparently imposed on her, as wehave seen, but the context was entirely different: not only wasAthens by now unquestionably the imperial hegemon, she was alsoat war and probably in need of additional revenue, particularly forthe costs of the siege of Potidaea, since the winter of 430/29 saw thefirst dispatch of apyvpoA6yol vfiec to Lycia and Caria (Th. 2.69; cf.3.19, 4.50)Y

The size of the implied penalty is also questionable: if oneassumes, on the basis of the first reduction in tribute from 12 to 71/2T., an annual payment of 5 T., and takes a date in the late 470s forher incorporation, Karystos would have paid about 100 T.indemnity. Analogy with the costs of reducing Thasos and Samoswould imply the deployment at Karystos of forces of a similar size forseveral months/2 and though Thucydides says Xp6v~ svveßT)cav, itis hard to envisage a city which had been sacked by the Persiansonlya decade earlier offering such sustained resistance.

If the hypothesis of an indemnity is discarded, then the figure of12 T. should represent the tribute assessment for Karystos, perhapsfrom the time she entered the League, and we are bound to ask,first, why her tribute was so high, secondly, how she paid it (arelevant question even if we were to accept the indemnity theory),

10 Th. 3.10.6 and 11.4 imply that allied forces joined in suppressingearly revolts, and we know that the Chians and Lesbians contributed 55ships in the Samian revolt (1.116.2, 117.2), but the implications of theMytilenean speech (3.10.2-11.5, admittedly tendentious), combined withthe decline in the number of ship contributors, make it likely thatAthens will have borne an increasing proportion of the expense ofreducing recalcitrant allies.

11 On apyupoAoyol VT]EC see L. Kallet-Marx, Money, Expense and NavalPower in Thucydides' History 1-5.24 (Berkeley 1993) 121, 136-138, 160164, 200-202, arguing, against the orthodox view that their mission wasto collect tribute arrears, that they were intended to obtain additionalrevenues; cf. also A.G. Keen, "Athenian campaigns in Karia and Lykiaduring the Peloponnesian War," JHS 113 (1993) 152-157, esp. 153; P.J.Rhodes, Thucydides History III (Warminster 1994) on 3.19.1.

12 For these costs, see Hornblower (above, n. 7) on Th. 1.101.3, andcompare the expenditure on Potidaea in the late 430s (Th. 2.70.2). It isunlikely that a siege or blockade of Karystos would have required navalforces on the scale needed for Thasos or Samos; in fact there seems to beno evidence for a Karystian fleet.


and finally, why her tribute was reduced twice in such a short spaceoftime.

As noted above, a tribute of 12 T. piaces Karystos in the top tierof allied contributors: very few cities paid as much or more, althoughher assessment is still less than half of the pre-war maximum (30T., paid by Thasos and Aegina).13 She was also apparently for a longtime the highest payer in Euboea; only in the reassessment of 425/4was she finally overtaken by Chalkis and Eretria (while, strikingly,her own assessment remained the same).14 This is surprising in viewof the generally greater prominence in the historical record of Chalkisand Eretria, and suggests that some re-consideration of the relativeimportance of Karystos is in order.

It is reasonable to assurne that the level of tribute assessed forKarystos was one which the Athenians expected her to be able topay: the Athenians were not fools, and ought to have been able tomake a fairly accurate estimate of the resources of a city so elose tohorne. It also seems very likely that Karystos was able to pay(though we cannot gauge the strain involved), since there is noindication of arrears; moreover, had the initial assessment been tooheavy, she would presumably have had recourse to an appeal ufsome sort. 15 The problem, therefore, is to identify the resources which

1:1 Any estimation of the relative prosperity of Karystos is not affectedby debates over the relationship between the tribute lists and totalAthenian revenue and the suggestion that some substantial cities werepaying wholly or partly in kind (e.g. A. French, "The tribute or theallies," Historia 21 [1972] 1-20; RK. Unz, "The surplus of the Athenianphoros," GRBS 26 [1985] 21-42), so that the tribute lists under-representtheir contribution; the annual payments of 50 T. by Samos, often takcnto be the maximum of which any city would ordinarily have been capablc(though cf. Gomme [above, n. 5] 18-19) remain a useful yardstick, and thecontrast with the great number of cities making small payments remainsa strong one.

14 Admittedly, there are many uncertainties and imponderable ractors.including the extent (if any) of land expropriations and/or Atheniansettlement at Chalkis and Eretria and the point at which tributepayments began: it is possible that both were ship-contributors down to450 (ATL 111.294). For discussions, see Meiggs (above, n. 4) 565-570 andT.J. Figueira, Athens and Aegina in the Age of Imperial Colonisation(Baitimore 1991) 225, 256-260. The failure to raise Karystos' assessmcntin 425/4 has been explained as a tribute to sterling service by her troopsin the Corinthia in the previous summer (Th. 4.42-3; Meiggs [above, n. 41569-570); conversely, we do not hear of troops from elsewhere in Euboeaserving with the Athenians until the Sicilian expedition (Th. 7.57.2, 4).

15 It is unfortunate that we do not know at what date the appealsmcchanism was instituted: the authors of ATL (JIJ.79-80) considered that

362 ROGERBROCK

made such a level of payment supportable; this in turn may help toilluminate the ensuing double reduction.

Agriculture does not seem likely to have been an importantelement in Karystian prosperity, for although her territory is quiteextensive, much of it is mountainous, the cultivable areas are limitedand the soil not usually deep, though it is better watered than Atticaand so probably produced a higher ratio of wheat to barley; localconsumption must have absorbed domestic cereal production, thoughthe fast-ripening wheat which Theophrastus mentions as a specialityof the Karystia (HP 8.4.4) may have helped to maximise yields, andThucydides implies that there was abundant pasturage on Euboeain the fifth century (2.14.1, 7.28.1, 8.96.2). 16 0ther goods may weIlhave benefited from the proximity of the large Athenian market,especially fish: Archestratus remarks on the richness of the

it was little used before the Peloponnesian war, but as Meiggs (above, n.4, 240-241) notes, it is implicit in the Chalkis decree; he would push itsinstitution back to 450 (compare Meiggs and Lewis [above, n. 5] 197-198).I would suggest that something of the sort may weIl have been needed assoon as fresh allies joined after the initial assessment of Aristeides, ifsubsequent individual arrangements were not part of the agreedsettlement and so did not have his imprimatur; it also seems to menatural that the allies should have been involved in the assessmentprocess as long as the League treasury was on Delos. Of course, wecannot exclude the possibility that there was a punitive element in theinitial assessment of Karystos (one notes the possible implications of thename KapuCTovlKOC: Meiggs & Lewis [above, n. 5] no. 48.27), and Athens'attitude to her may have become more moderate by the late fifties.

16 The broader approach to resources taken here is derived from L.Nixon and S. Price, "The size and resources of Greek cities," in O.Murray and S. Price, ed., The Greek City {rom Homer to Alexander(Oxford 1990) 137-170. On the territory of Karystos, see D.R. Keller,Archaeological Survey in southern Euboea, Greece: a reconstruction o{human activity {rom neolithic times through the Byzantine period (diss.Indiana 1985) eh. 3. Hs northern border cannot be located withcertainty: M.B. Wallace (The History o{ Karystos (rom the Sixth to theFourth Centuries B. C. [diss. Toronto 1972] 59-66) suggested thatsouthern Euboea was divided in the fifth century in "a ratio of three(Eretria) to a half (Styra) to one and a half (Karystos)" (66). Theresources of Karystos are discussed briefly by H.-J. Gehrke, Jenseits vonAthen und Sparta; das dritte Griechenland und seine Staatenwelt (Munich1986) 147-148 with 193, who mentions pottery and fish as trade goods;other possibilities are low-grade timber (R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber inthe Ancient Mediterranean World [Oxford 1982] 204, 206, 209) andchestnuts (Kapua KapUCTla), Eubulus fr. 135KA, cf. Theophr. HP 4.5.4there are still extensive chestnut woods on the slopes of Mt. Ochi.Exploitation of the local ornamental cipollino marble (Strab. 10.1.6) doesnot seem to have begun until the Roman period (Pliny Nat. 36.48.7)


Karystian fisheries, and the nearness of the Athenian agora willhave given Karystian fish the advantage of relative freshness,espeeially for that eostly delieaey the tunny, a large (though seasonal)fish whieh also retained its value when preserved in a variety ofways.17

Although export goods are likely to have made a signifieanteontribution to the prosperity of Karystos, the biggest single souree ofineome must have been taxation, in partieular harbour dues from theport of Geraistos in the south-east of her territory.18 Geraistos was aharbour of great importanee from the earliest times, as the largestand safest anehorage on the otherwise exposed and dangerous southeastern eoast of Euboea, the natural objective of vessels erossing theAegean in a south-westerly direction from the Bosphorus and theBlaek Sea, a staging-point for traffie to and from Athens and astarting point for voyages from Greeee to Asia Minor; the reeentdiseovery of parts of a paved road between Geraistos and Karystosalso suggests that some goods eould have been transshipped. \!}

Geraistos will therefore have reeeived a large volume of traffie, and

17 Karystian fisheries: Arehestratus apo Ath. 302a, 304a; euring oftunny: D.W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Fishes (London 1947) S.U.

8vvvoc. Keller (above, n. 16, 70-71) notes that the area is still impol-lanlfor tunny (and other fish) today. For fish as potentially a valuableresouree, see Nixon and Priee (above, n. 16) 153 and n. 26; T.W. Gallanl(A Fisherman's Tale [Miscellanea Graeca 7] Gent 1985) is seeptieal of theoverall signifieanee of fish in the Greek diet and eeonomy but eoneedesthat it eould be an irregular eash erop and, beeause of its often highpriee, potentially luerative (see esp. 37-44).

18 On taxation in this eontext see, again, Nixon and Priee (above, n.16) 145, 154-155; the parallel between Karystos and Byzantium in theirresourees in fish and taxation and their high tributes is noteworthy,despite their differenee in absolute size. Cf. also E. Rusehenbuseh,"Tribut und Bürgerzahl im ersten athenisehen Seebund," ZPE 53 (1983)143.

19 For the dangers of the outer eoast of Euboea, exemplified by thefate of the Persian "Deep Sea Squadron" in 480 (Hdt. 8.7-13), see H.J.Mason and M.B. Wallaee, "Appius Claudius Puleher and the Hollows ofEuboea," Hesperia 41 (1972) 128-140, esp. 136-137 Ooeating the Hollowsnorth-west of Cape Kaphereus); a saerifiee for safe land-fall at Geraistoswas already appropriate in Homerie times (Gd. 3.173-9). Strategieimportanee: X. HG 3.4.4, 5.4.61, Plu. Ages. 6, D. 19.326, Arr. An. 2.1.2;Philip II exploited both this and its revenue potential to thedisadvantage of Athens in the late 350s (0. 4.34: eq..I\J811Ta XP~lJaT'

ESEAESE). Route to Blaek Sea: Th. 3.3.5. Road: D.R. Keller and M.B.Wallaee, "Pre-modern land routes in southern Euboea," EMC / CV 9(1990) 195-199.

364 ROGERBROCK

the paucity of alternative anchorages in the region might also haveenabled the Karystians to charge a higher than normal rate of tax.Karystos was also on the route taken by the Hyperborean offerings toDelos, which How and WeHs interpreted as the amber route, and ithas recently been argued that the Cyrenean donations of grain tocities including Karystos in the 320s were motivated by concern overtrade routes. 20 In addition, Geraistos was the site of a sanctuary ofPoseidon of great prestige and antiquity21 which will have broughtmaterial benefits to the area.

Thus, a combination of natural resources and advantageouspositioning made Karystos a prosperous city by the time of thePersian Wars: she is one of the few cities attested as havingfortifications in the Archaic period, she built a treasury on Delos andshe struck her own coinage. 22 The events of 490 and after will

20 On harbour taxes, see H. Francotte, Les Finances des Cites Grecques(Liege 1909) 11-18, 58; G. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde, I (Munich1920) 613-615; A.H.M. Jones, The Roman Economy, ed. P.A. Brunt(Oxford 1974) 153, 171; 2 or 21/2% was the norm. Hyperborean offerings:Hdt. 4.32-3 with W.W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, 1(Oxford 1912) ad loc.; Cyrenean grain donations: P. Brun, "La stele descereales de Cyrene et le commerce du grain en Egee au IVeme S. av.J.C.," ZPE 99 (1993) 185-196. It is noteworthy that the AqlEvo<puAaKEcwere an important board of magistrates at Karystos in Hellenistic andRoman times (JG XII.9.8-9). The revenue potential of harbour taxes isclearly illustrated by the Athenian imposition of a 5% tax in place oftribute in 413 (Th. 7.28.4, with HCT ad loc.).

21 On Geraistos and the sanctuary, see RW.M. Schumacher, "Threerelated sanctuaries of Poseidon: Geraistos, Kalaureia and Tainaron," inN. Marinatos and R Hägg, ed., Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches(London 1993) 62-87, esp. 77-80.

22 Fortifications: F.E. Winter, Greek Fortifications (London 1971) 6164, 108; the surviving archaic walls at Archampolis on the east coast(largely unpublished) are also extremely impressive; for a summary, seeD.R Keller, "Archampolis: an early Iron Age settlement and sanctuaryin southern Euboea," AJA 88 (1984) 249. Delian treasury: Meiggs (above,n. 4) 123. Coinage: C.M. Kraay, Archaie and Classical Greek Coins(London 1976) 92; S. Hurter and E. Paszthory, "Archaischer Silberfundaus dem Antilibanon," in A. Houghton, S. Hurter, P. ErhartMottahedeh, and J. Ayer Scott, eds., Festschrift für Leo Mildenberg(Wetteren 1984) 111-125, nos. 12 and 13 (Plate 14); we now have fourtetradrachm obverse dies (I owe this information and the precedingreference to the EMC / CV referee). For coining in particular as an indexof prosperity, see Nixon and Price (above, n. 16) 155-158. One might alsonote that Karystos produced one of the most distinguished of archaicathletes, the boxer Glaukos (H. Wankei, Demosthenes: Rede fürKtesiphon Über den Kranz [Heidelberg 1976] on D. 18.319).


certainly have disrupted her prosperity in the short term, but theydid nothing to affect its sources and foundations, and we may believethat the Athenian judgement of Karystian resources was weilfounded.2:1

We therefore come to the question of what lay behind the doublereduction of Karystos' tribute in the 450s. Before the discovery of thenew fragment, the drop in tribute was commonly explained asoccasioned by the imposition of a cleruchy on Karystos at this time2-1;Karystos is not explicitly mentioned, but the sources speak of"Euboea" (D.S. 11.88.3, Paus. 1.27.5, L Ar. Nu. 213) and thecleruchy could be interpreted as a pre-emptive strike against apotentially dissident state who might side with a Cycladic rebellion.From the fact that Karystos does not appear in the sources for theEuboean uprising of 446 either as arebel or as the object of asettlement or sanctions one might also infel' that she did not revoltor, if one takes literally references to "all Euboea" in Thucydides(1.114.2) and later sources, that any insurrection was trivial, andattribute this to the presence of a cleruchy. Conversely, if otherEuboean states already had c1eruchies, we might expect either thatthe presence of a c1eruchy should have prevented rebellion, or that wcwould hear of harsh sanctions in response to the killing of Athcniancleruchs, in line with the punishment of Hestiaia in retaliation f()rAthenian deaths.~!i Recent archaeological work in the Karystia hasstrengthened the case for a cleruchy there by reveahng a substantialincrease in occupation (including military sites) and agriculturalexploitation of the western promontory of the Karystian bay in thc

~:l Clearly the Athenians concentrated in the autumn of 480 onvictims worth fleecing; whatevcr the Andrians may have claimed, theyand the Parians (also targeted in 490; Hdt. 6.132-6, 8.111-2) offered richpickings: Andros was paying 12 T. in thc 450s, Paros a little over 16 T.

2-1 Meiggs (above, n. 4) 121-123; E. Erxleben, "Die Kleruchicn aufEuböa und Lesbos und die Methoden der attischen Herrschaft im 5. Jh.,"[(lio 57 (1975) 83-92; Figucira (above, n. 14) 161-225 (er. 168 n. 19 for thcmethodology and its !imitations).

~;) Cycladic connection: Meiggs (above, n. 4) 122-123. Trcatmcnt ofHcstiaia: Th. 1.114.3 and (for thc motivc) Plu. Per. 23.4. Figucira (above,n. 14, 166-167, 233) believes that therc wcre cleruchs p,"csent, but thatthey failed to prevent revolt, in line with his generally sccptical line oncleruchies as garrisons (c.g. 172-176). P.A. Brunt ("Athenian SettlementsAbroad in the Fifth Century B.C.," in E. Badian, cd., Ancient Societyand Institu.tions [Ehrenberg Studiesl rOxford 19661 81) suggests that "thesettlement only aggravated discontent."

366 ROGERBROCK

classical period.26 The problem has therefore become to decidewhether the earlier or later reduction in tribute is to be associatedwith the cleruchy (or whether the explanation can be stretched toaccommodate both). The question might be clarified if it could beestablished that reduction of tribute following a cleruchy was madepro rata according to the number of settlers, but this does not seemlikely: in a properly cautious discussion which starts from the case ofLesbos, Figueira posits a norm around 200 drachmas per man, buthe is obliged to offer an alternative account of the cleruchy in theChersonese, which would otherwise give about half that figure, andto take the two reductions for Karystos together, although he iswilling to canvas alternative explanations for one of those reductionselsewhere.27 In any case, such calculations are bound to be frustratedby the fact that there are few instances in which we have reliabledata both for the number of settlers and for the tribute before andafter the cleruchy; the former remains uncertain for Karystos. 28

Moreover, it is improbable that the land expropriated was, or wasfeIt to be, of the same quality in all cases, and indeed, as Nixon andPrice (above, n.16) have noted, neither land nor population can havebeen the only factor in the assessment of tribute: the impact of landexpropriation on the overall prosperity of a polis must have variedwidely. Accordingly, while it remains possible to associate bothreductions with the cleruchy at Karystos by treating the second as anadjustment, the economic arguments do not form a firm basis for thisscenario, and the absence of evidence for such adjustments in othercases must to some extent tell against it.29

26 D.R. Keller and M.B. Wallace, "The Canadian Karystia Project,"EMC / CV 5 (1986) 155-159; "The Canadian Karystia Project, 1986," EMC /CV 6 (1987) 225-227; "The Canadian Karystia Project: Two classicalfarmsteads," EMC /CV 7 (1988) 151-157; Figueira (above, n. 14, 225)remarks on the strategie location.

27 Figueira (above, n. 14) 196-197; alternative explanation: 225. Itmight also be feit contrary to expectation that he arrives at the samefigure for Lesbos, where there was surely some punitive intent, and forsettlements where no such intent is evident.

28 Meiggs (above, n. 4, 123 n. 3), combining the evidence of PlutarchPer. 11.5, Paus. 1.27.5 and D.S. 11.88.3, proposes 250; Figueira (above, n.14, 171 n. 27, 196, 225) suggests a maximum of 250 (probably less); andErxleben (above, n. 24, 86) apparently 500.

29 The suggestion that the second reduction was an adjustment orsignals an otherwise unattested reinforcement of the cleruchy is made byErxleben (above, n. 24) 86, followed by P.J. Rhodes in CAH 'fl. 60.


The fact that the tribute of Karystos was reduced twice alsoreopens the question of the dating of the deruchies there, elsewherein Euboea (perhaps) and on Andros and Naxos. Since any datebetween 453 and 450 is now possible for Karystos, we could chooseto follow Diodorus (11.88.3) in dating those in Naxos and Euboea to453/2, which would mean dissociating them from the deruchy inAndros, for which the tribute records imply a date dose to 450; wemight then go further and posit a piecemeal programme ofsettlement over 5 years or SO.30 If on the other hand we prefer tocontinue to associate all the deruchies in the area with a singleexpedition of Tolmides around 450,:11 we are left with an earlierreduction of tribute between 454/3 and 451/0 to account for.

Figueira32 suggests "an Athenian-sponsored intervention againstdissident aristocrats/ oligarchs" as a possible hypothesis to explainthe earlier, larger reduction (or, conceivably, both), citing the presenceof Euboean exiles with the Boeotians at Koronea in 447/6 (Th.1.113.2), but, besides being otherwise unattested, this requires us tosuppose that the Athenians, having done the Karystians the favour(in Athenian eyes) of promoting a more democratic atmosphere, if nota change in constitution, did them the further favour of cutting theirtribute by more than a third, at a time when, in the upheavals afterthe Egyptian disaster, their own short-term need for revenue musthave been quite acute.

It should be admitted at once that in the present state of theevidence any explanation is bound to be very largely speculative; theonly justification for adding another hypothesis can be the hope thatit may seem sufficiently plausible and suggestive to encourage othersto improve and strengthen it. My starting point is Figueira's

:10 Diodorus seems to be listing the events of more than one year in11.88, however. The date is discussed by Meiggs (above, n. 4) 12]-124,456, 565-570; Erxleben (above, n. 24) passim; and Figueira (above, n. 14)225. The fact that Diodorus refers to "Euboea" rather than Karystos issome small encouragement to believe that other areas may have beeninvolved, but if only 250 settlers were involved (above, n. 28), they areunlikely to have been further divided; perhaps we should think in termsof expropriation of the land of particular oligarchs (as at Chalkis in 506and, perhaps, after 446 [Figueira (above, n. 14) Appendix Cl) whichwould also explain the Euboean exiles at Koronea (below).

:Jl The reduction in tribute for Andros and Karystos before 450 shouldbe a decisive bar to placing a single expedition by Tolmides after thatdate: the Athenians will not have given up tribute before receiving theirquid pro qua.

:12 Figueira (above, n. 14) 225.

368 ROGERBROCK

observation that the dates of the settlements he defines as cleruchiesappear to form a cluster in a few years either side of 450, and hispersuasive argument for a range of economic motives for Atheniancolonial activity.33 In this period, it seems that the Atheniansadopted a policy in the case of certain states of exchanging incomefrom tribute for land for her poorer citizens,34 although this was at atime when one might have expected them to seek to increase (or atleast maintain) revenue to offset the impact of losses in Egypt andthe consequent replacement of equipment. Assuming, then, that oneor other of the reductions of the tribute of Karystos was granted onthis basis as a result of the cleruchy, one can envisage a possibleexplanation on similar, economic, lines for the other, namely thatAthens reduced her tribute in exchange for exemption from harbourtaxes at Geraistos for Athenian vessels (and/or those sailing toPiraeus).35 There is a plausible motive to hand in the increasingsignificance of imports of grain from the Black Sea to Athens, sinceGeraistos lay on the most direct route; assuming that the impact oftaxes imposed in transit was passed on to the consumer, such ameasure will have helped to keep prices lower, particularly sinceAthens controlled the Thracian Chersonese (reinforced in the early440s), Lemnos and Imbros,36 the other obvious staging-posts in theAegean, and Skyros, which they had cleansed of pirates. Moreover,

33 Figueira (above, n. 14) 161-225; the observation about dating is on168-169-Mytilene is the only exception. Contrariwise, apart from earlyactivity at Skyros and continuing attempts to occupy the Strymoncrossing, all of Figueira's colonies fall after 449.

34 Not all reductions in the tributes of high payers around 450 can beexplained in this way, of course: Sermylia's reduction from 7.4320 T. to5.5500 T. is more likely to be linked to continued efforts to coloniseEnnea Hodoi, and it is hard to envisage a cleruchy at Phaselis (6 T. to 3T.), which was in any case a favoured ally (Meiggs and Lewis [above, n.5] no. 31); perhaps the Athenians made allowance for a diminution ofbenefits from active campaigning against Persia. Aeolian Kyme (12 T. to 9T.) is an enigma.

35 French (above, n. 13, 17) had already suggested that importantharbours in subject states might have paid their contribution wholly orin part in "goods and services," but his discussion was only concernedwith military affairs, which were of benefit to League members generally.Wallace (above, n. 16, 180-181) mentioned as a speculative hypothesisthe idea that the Athenians could have seized Geraistos in 450.

36 Reinforcement of Thracian Chersonese: Plu. Per. 11.5, 19.1, D.S.11.88.3. It is often suggested that Lemnos was also reinforced about thistime (and perhaps Imbros too): Brunt (above, n. 25) 80-81; Meiggs (above,n. 4) 424-425; cf. also Figueira (above, n. 14) Appendix B.


the re-establishment of Persian power in Egypt will have disruptedimports of grain from there, at least in the short term, and thereforerendered the Athenians more concerned to make at least one sourceof supply as secure as possible.37

Such an explanation may be sufficient in itself; it is, however,possible to extrapolate it into a more speculative picture of Athenianaims in the late 450s, since her cleruchy policy could be interpretedas an attempt to convert income from tribute into other types offinancial asset. At first sight, as I have remarked, a deliberatereduction of income from tribute does not appear to make sense inthis temporal context; however, it seems very probable that theaftermath of the Egyptian disaster saw widespread disaffectionamong Athens' allies and an unwillingness to continue to paytribute.38 Faced with uncertainty over the level of revenue they couldexpect in future (and, perhaps, over the prospects for further lucrativecampaigning against the barbarian), it would have been entirelyprudent for the Athenians to try to exchange future tribute income forassets in land or financial indemnities where possible: the landwould be much harder for the allies to withhold, let alone retrieve,and the Karystians at Geraistos would have had at least as muchdifficulty in obliging reluctant Athenians to pay taxes as theAthenians would in obtaining payment of tribute.:19 In the event, this

:17 In the event, renewed Persian control seems not to haveinterrupted access to Egyptian grain for long, to judge by Psammetichus'gift to Athens in 445/4 (Philochorus FGH 328 F119, Plu. Per. 37.4), nordid subsequent Egyptian revolts (S. Isager and M.H. Hansen, Aspects ofAthenian Society in the Fourth Century [Odense 19751 23-25), but theAthenians were not to know that. A date c. 450 for Pericles' expeditionto the Black Sea, suggested by ATL (111.114-7) would fit weil with thepolicy concerns outlined above but seems unlikely on other grounds (Plu.Per. 20.1 with P. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch's Pericles [ChapelHili 19891 ad loc.); R. Develin, Athenian Officials 684-321 B.C.(Cambridge 1989) 95, places it probably in 436/5.

38 Forcefully restated recently by D.M. Lewis, "The Athenian TributeQuota Lists, 453-450 BC," ABSA 89 (1994) 285-301, esp. 292-297.

:19 These considerations may in part have informed the Atheniandecision to impose a cleruchy, rather than an indemnity, on Mytilene in427 (Th. 3.50.2). I assume that some sort of decree on stone andassociated oath would have given the Athenians a locus standi atKarystos. Neither the estate of Oionias at Geraistos (Attic Stelai 11.3114: W.K. Pritchett, "The Attic Stelai, Part 1," Hesperia 22 (1953) 225-299 =JG 13 422.375-8) nor the possible grant of a Euboean estate to Lysimachusin the 460s (D. 20.115, Plu. Arist. 27.2; J.K. Davies, Athenian PropertiedFamilies (Oxford 1971) 51-52) implies a substantial Athenian presence inthe Karystia apart from the cleruchy, though there have may been some

370 ROGERBROCK

turned out not to be the way forward: perhaps the allies saw throughthe ploy, but at all events from the mid-440s normal tributecollection resumed and, though the cleruchies remained, newsettlement was channeled into colonies, some with a Panhellenicaspect.

To some readers this will no doubt seem rather too modern andsophisticated a picture, even as a hypothesis. Nevertheless, theyears either side of 450 were aperiod of momentous change andupheaval in Athens' financial and political affairs,4O about whichthere remains a great deal of uncertainty, and it might be sensible tobe as open-minded as possible; ßPOTo'iöv OVOEV EOT' 6:TTW~OTOV.

More importantly, the question of the tribute of Karystos reminds usthat in reconstructing the history of the Athenian empire we oughtnot to focus exclusively on allies who were powerful, obviouslywealthy or rebellious: even the apparently quiet and unexcitingTToAEIC ofthe empire mayaiso have a tale to tellY

THE SCHOOL OF CLASSICSTHE UNlVERSITY OF LEEDSLEEDS LS2 9JT

expropriation of individuals (those known to have opposed joining theLeague?) after the original incorporation.

40 A point made very clearly by D.M. Lewis in his recent summary inCAR'fl 121-127, esp. 126.

41 I am grateful to Peter Rhodes and Francis Cairns for helpfulcomments on an earlier version of this paper, and particularly indebtedto the EMC / CV referee for a wealth of constructive and stimulatingcriticism.

Echos du Monde Classique / Classical ViewsXL, n.s. 15, 1996, 371-377

FOUR PASSAGES IN THEANDRIA OF TERENCE

BENJAMIN VICTOR

Unless noted otherwise, I give the Oxford text of Lindsay et al. as thepoint of departure.

Andria 234-235

sed quidnam Pamphilum exanimaturn video? vereor quid siet.opperiar, ut seiam nurn quid narn haee turba tristitiae adferat.

235 nurn Donatus: nune libri

All reeent editors read turba tristitiae with the manuseripts. Bentleyeonjectured turbae tristitia on purely logieal grounds: Parnphilus'gloorny looks portend trouble, not the other way round. Leo sineediseovered that elision of a genitive singular in -ae is exeeedingly rarein republiean drama, this line and Hau. 710 being the only examplesin Terenee (at Hau. 382 and Ad. 25 either a genitive or a dative maybe understood; there are some half-dozen reasonably eertain eases inPlautus and perhaps two in the tragie fragments). 1 After Leo'sprosodie diseovery, the reading of the rnanuseripts here should nolonger be kept; turba would in any ease be a natural slip after haec.Leo hirnself wished to read turba tristitiae ferat; he was apparentlyunaware ofBentley's eonjecture. 2

Andria 343-345

Charinus and Parnphilus stand at one end of the stage. Davusenters out of breath. He says that he is looking for Parnphilus andhas good news for hirn. He eontinues:

(DA) sed ubi quaeram? quo nune prirnum intendarn? eH(to Pamphilus) eessas eonloqui?

DA habeo. PA Daue, ades resiste. DA quis hornost, quime .. ? 0 Pamphile,

te ipsurn quaero.

I Plautinische Forschungen (Berlin2 1912) 339-355.

2 Leo (above, n. 1) 353.

371

372 BENJAMIN VICTOR

At 344 the manuscripts have DA abeo, which gives an acceptablesense, though it is somewhat abrupt. Donatus also knew DA habeo(i.e., "I understand [where to look]"). That is puzzling, since we donot learn where Davus thinks he may find Pamphilus, and to letsuch things hang is un-Terentian.

One of the lemmata in Donatus has adeo-the scholion followingit could have been written either for adeo or abeo: "adeo videtur quasiconstitisse, dein quasi elegisse quo pergat." We should considerreading PA adeo. Daue, ades resiste. Adeo and abeo are often confused (cf Ph. 140, Sen. HF 321), as are abeo and habeo (cf Eun.342, 852).3

Andria 459-462

Davus is talking to Simo on one side of the stage; he has been tryingto trick Simo by telling hirn that Pamphilus (Simo's son) has leftGlycerium, the apparently Andrian woman with whom Pamphilus isin love. On the other side, Glycerium's servant Mysis enters. She isbringing the midwife Lesbia to Glycerium's house. The manuscriptsgive:

MY Ita pol quidem res est ut dixti, Lesbia:fidelem haud ferme mulieri invenias virum.SI ab Andria est ancilla haec. quid narras? DA ita est.MY sed hic Pamphilus SI quid dicit? MY firmavit fidem.

SI hem.

MY You were absolutely right, Lesbia: a man who stayswith his woman is nearly impossible to find.

SI That serving-girl is from the Andrian woman's house.What have you to say?

DA That's right.MY But our Pamphilus ...SI What is she saying?MY has confirmed his promise.SI What!

The assignment of speakers has always been troublesome. For Simo

3 The assignment of speakers was made after the text left Terence'shands; editors should be accordingly ready to change it. See J. Andrieu,Etude critique sur les sigles de personnages et les rubriques de scene dansles anciennes editions de Terence (Paris 1940); id., Le dialogue antique(Paris 1954) 218-224.

FOUR PASSAGES IN THE ANDRIA OF TERENCE 373

to ask confirrnation of his own assertion using quid narras? (usuallyimplies impatience: "what are you talking about?," "what have you tosay for yourself?") has seemed awkward. DA quid narras? ita est(Lindsay, followed by Marouzeau) is better, but I still cannot helpfinding quid narras? inappropriate. Ifit expresses impatience, Davusis impertinent for no reason. If on the other hand it merely expressessurprise, Davus would in effect be admitting to his master that he iscaught off guard; that would be uncharaeteristic of a wily slave.Bentley, followed by the German editors, wrote DA quid nw'ras? SIita est; Davus is then trying to lead Simo to doubt that his son isbeing talked about. But would Davus try to imply that Mysis has noconneetion to Glycerium as she leads someone into Glycerium'shouse? Finally, how does Simo know that Mysis is Glycerium'sservant (ab Andria est ancilla haec), and, if he knows, why does heneed to say so? The lines should be arranged as follows:

MY Ha pol quidem res est ut dixti, Lesbia:fidelem haud ferme mulieri invenias virum.DA ab Andria est ancilla haec. LE quid narras? ita est.MY sed hic Pamphilus DA quid dicit? MY firmavit fidem.

SI hem.

MY You were quite right, Lesbia: a man who stays withhis woman is nearly impossible to find.

DA That serving-girl is from the Andrian woman's house.LE What are you talking about? That's how it isoMY But our Pamphilus...DA ([0 himself) What is she saying?MY has confirmed his promise.SI Whatl

Davus believes that Mysis will continue by saying "Pamphilus, too,is unfaithful to Glycerium." That is just what he wishes Simo tohear; Davus therefore identifies Mysis as Glycerium's servant, lestSimo make any mistake. Lesbia finds Mysis' sentiment obvious; shcassents impatiently. Then, to Davus' horror, Mysis continues along avery different path. Davus exclaims quid dicit? to hirnself as he seeshis error.

Andria 922·930

The Andrian Crito asserts before Simo, Chremes and Pamphilusthat Glycerium is not Andrian, but an Athenian citizen forced to passher childhood on Andros. Simo is disinclined to believe hirn, thinking

374 BENJAMIN VICTOR

this yet another trick to preserve Pamphilus' lien with the woman.Crito is questioned, thus beginning the discovery which will resolvethe plot of the play:

(CR) nam ego quae dico vera an falsa audierim iam sciripotest.

Atticus quidam olim navi fracta ad Andrum eiectus estet istaec una parva virgo. turn ille egens forte adplicatprimum ad Chrysidis patrem se. SI fabulam inceptat.

CH sine. (925)CR itane vero obturbat? CH perge. CR tum-is mihi

cognatus fuitqui eum recepit. ibi ego audivi ex illo sese esse Atticum.is ibi mortuost. CH eius nomen? CR nomen tarn cito?

Phania? hemperii! verum hercle opinor fuisse Phaniam; hoc certo scio,Rhamnusium se aiebat esse. CH 0 Iuppiter! (930)

928 cito nb: cito tibi cett.

Above is the Oxford text. Its speaker-assignment, derived from thefirst hand of the codex Bembinus, is the simplest of those retained bythe editors. Bentley had

CR nomen tarn cito? PA Phania. CH hem,perii. CR verum hercle etc.,

while Marouzeau preferred

CR nomen tarn cito tibi? PA Phania ... CR hem?perii, verum hercle etc.

The attribution of hem perii to Chremes, derived from the medievalmanuscripts, can be safely rejected. It is senseless to give Chremesan expression of despair, for he is here getting the first inkling thatGlycerium may be his own lost daughter. In both the last twoarrangements Phania is a prompt whispered by Pamphilus.4 Thatidea, too, can be excluded. In a dissertation of 1845 a certain J.B.Loman pointed out that Pamphilus has renounced such methods atline 918 (ni metuam patrem, habeo pro illa re illum quod moneamprobe) and does not change his mind before deliberating about it out

4 That Pamphilus whispers Phania to Crito was already proposed inantiquity (it is mentioned in the Donatus commentary and followed by acorrector of the codex Bembinus).

FOUR PASSAGES IN TRE ANDRIA OF TERENCE 375

loud at lines 943-944 (egon huius memoriam patiar meae voluptatiobstare cum egomet possim in hac re medicari mihi?).5 Loman hirnselfread

CR nomen tarn eito tibi. PA hem.perii. CR verum hercle etc.

He was followed by Fleekeisen, Umpfenbaeh and Dziatzko. We arehere approaehing the truth: perii should probably be spoken byPamphilus, who has most to lose should Crito fail to persuade Simo.6

Rem, however, is more appropriate in Simo's mouth. Crito, eaughtunprepared by the request for the Athenian's name, thinks aloud,saying Phania in a hesitant tone; Simo shows annoyanee (''hemiraseentis") at the stranger who seems unsure of his own story;Pamphilus is then afraid that Crito will not be believed and all willbe lost; finally Crito eontinues, verum here marking a resumptionafter interruption, as at An. 769.

Something is very wrong with lines 926 and 927. To begin with,what is the value of tum? If tum here expresses simultaneity ("duringthat period") it is otiose and eonfusing (Bentley: "si enim eognatus,utique nune et semper"). It must then express sequenee ("and afterthat" or "finally"), whieh leads us to another problem. In the passageas transmitted, there appears to be a sueeession of two distinetpersons: the father of Chrysis, to whom the shipwreeked AthenianPhania first turned, then Crito's relative, who agreed to lodge hirn.Now, why should Terenee, or for that matter Menander, have neededthe seeond of the two? Crito is related to Chrysis (he is ealledsobrinus Chrysidis at line 801; indeed, he has eome to Athens in thefirst plaee to claim Chrysis' estate); he is therefore related to herfather. Moreover, Glyeerium was raised by Chrysis' family (809:semper eius dictast esse haec atque habitast somr). The state of affairsat the time of the action-Glyeerium is believed to be Chrysis' sister;Crito has the right to Chrysis' property held by Glyeerium; Crito hasfrequented the house where Phania stayed and heard his story-isexplained simply and naturally if Phania had just one benefactor onAndros: he happened at first upon Chrysis' father; this same manopened his house to hirn; Phania remained there, as did Glyeeriumafter his death. If he rather had two benefactors, then upon his

5 Specimen critico-litterarium in Plautum et Terentium (diss. Amsterdam1845) 82.

6 Perii mayaIso be spoken by Crito in disgust at his lapse of memory.So Lindsay and Marouzeau understood it.

376 BENJAMIN VICTOR

death the second of them must have passed his little girl back to thefirst, our text never hinting why. Lines 926 and 927, then, havesuffered interpolation. Emendation must accordingly be radical, andmay not pretend to certainty. I would suggest, purely for example'ssake: CHpergedum. CR is mihi cognatus fuit;1 domum eum recepit.7

There remain little glitches. Line 928 will not scan as a trochaicseptenarius unless either tibi or Phania is deleted. But should it bea septenarius? A transition to iambic octonarii occurs somewhereafter 926 and before 929 (the uncertainty of 926-7 does not allowmore precision); the scene then continues in that metre. Retain bothtibi and Phania, keeping the metre consistent by removing is to theend of 927 with Marouzeau. This position for a sentence-initialmonosyllable was a favourite with Terence, but the manuscriptscannot be counted on to leave it there.

Finally, it is preferable for the impatient and suspicious Simo toask eius nomen? at line 928. We have, then:

(CR) nam ego quae dico vera an falsa audierim iam sciripotest.

Atticus quidam olim navi fracta ad Andrum eiectus estet istaec una parva virgo. turn ille egens forte adplicatprimum ad Chrysidis patrem se. SI fabulam inceptat. CH

sine.CR itane vero obturbat? CH pergedum. CR is mihi cognatus

fuit;domum eum recepit. ibi ego audivi ex illo sese esse

Atticum. isibi mortuost. SI eius nomen? CR nomen tarn cito tibi?

Phania? SI hem.PA perii! CR verum hercle opinor fuisse Phaniam; hoc certo

scio,Rhamnusium se aiebat esse. CH oIuppiter!

(CR) Now whether the things I tell you be good informationor bad can be tested. A man of Attica was onceshipwrecked and cast out upon Andros, and that littlegirl along with hirn. Then, destitute, he turned first,as luck would have it, to Chrysis' father.

SI He's starting his tale.CH Let hirn go on.

7 The way has been partly shown by Bentley, who read CH perge tu.CR is mihi cognatus fuit.

FOUR PASSAGES IN THE ANDRIA OF TERENCE 377

CR Must he interrupt me so?CH Do please go on.CR That man was a relative of mine; he took hirn into his

house. There I learned straight from hirn that he wasfrom Attica. He died there.

SI His name?CR You want his name right off? Phania?SI Humpf!PA I'm done for!CR No, I do believe it was Phania. Anyway, I'm sure of this

much: he said he was from Rhamnus.CH 0 Jupiter!

CENTRE D'ETUDES CLASSIQUESUNIVERSITE DE MONTREALMONTREAL, QC H3C 3J7

Echos du Monde Classique/Classical ViewsXL, n.s. 15, 1996, 379-395

AREADING OF THE HELEN-VENUS EPISODE IN AENEID 2

RORYB. EGAN

The passage known as the "Helen episode," verses 567-588 of Book 2in modern editions of the Aeneid, is not part of the text of the poemas received through the mainstream of the manuscript tradition. Theverses are known to us primarily from being quoted in the ServianVita of Vergil and in the commentary of Servius auctus at Aeneid2.566. Modern editors have restored them to the context from whichthey are alleged to have been removed by Vergil's editors and literaryexecutors. The passage is usually marked off by brackets or someother editorial indicator of the questionable pedigree which has forcenturies now been the subject of controversy about the reliability ofthe testimonia and the identity of the author of the lines. A prefatoryhistory of the controversy will not be needed with this essay sinceseveral such surveys have already appeared in print in recent years.Among them is Thomas Berres' study of the "Helenaszene," a workwhich will probably stand for some time as a major watershed in thehistory of scholarship on the matter.!

Berres, being one of those who consider the Helen episode to beVergil's work, makes one ofthe principal elements in his monographa demonstration of the interconnections between the Helen episodeand the Venus episode that immediately follows it. Elaborating onarguments previously advanced by others, he shows that these twosections are integrated with one another verbally and thematically insuch a way as to form an entity which he designates as the "Helena-

! T. Berres, Vergil und die Helenaszene mit einem Exkurs zu denHalbuersen (Heidelberg 1992), with a lengthy bibliography (241-243). Forother surveys, see RG. Austin, ed., P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos LiberSecundus (Oxford 1973) 219; G.B. Conte, "Elena," in EnciclopediaVergiliana 2 (Rome 1985) 190-193; id., The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genreand Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets, tr. C. Segal (lthaea/London 1986) 196-199. Addenda would now include D. GaU reviewingBerres in Gnomon 67 (1995) 407-411; D. GaU, Ipsius Umbrae CreusaeCreusa und Helena (Stuttgart 1993) 63-72, with bibliography on 101-103;N. Horsfall, A Companion to the Study of ViT-gil (Leiden 1995) 300 andreviewing Gall (1993) in CR 45 (1995) 162-163. GaU (1993) 72-73 acceptsthe verses as authentie but suggests plaeing them after 770. The presentpaper implicitly argues against that suggestion.

379

380 RORYB.EGAN

und Venusszene.,,2 That entity, however, he considers unfinished andintended for future revision. Its unfinished condition he attributes tothe problem that the author faced in reconciling the contradictionsbetween Aeneas' report of his own encounter with Helen and thereport of her activities given by the ghost of Deiphobus in Book 6(511-530).3 Those apparent contradictions have for about twomillennia now been perceived as grounds for the exclusion of theHelen episode and/or as evidence against its Vergilian authorship. Inwhat follows here I shall accept Berres' arguments about theintegration of the two sections, and indeed go beyond them in anattempt to show that the linkage is even stronger and morefundamental than Berres has realized. If that attempt is successful,however, it will ipso facta undermine the basis on which Berres setshis explanation for what appears to be the unfinished condition ofthe "Helena- und Venusszene," because there will no longer be anycontradiction apparent between this scene and the one in whichDeiphobus gives his report in the underworld.

I shall proceed on the assumptions that Vergil wrote the verses inquestion and that he intended them for the place identified byServius auctus, the one into which modern editors have inserted orreinserted them. As I pursue a reading of the verses in situ I hope toestablish points of evidence that will vindicate that initialpresupposition.4 The process will entail examination of a number offeatures of the Helen episode which I believe have been overlooked ormisconstrued in the past. To this end I begin by citing the sequenceof verses below, following Mynors' text5 but with a few editorialmodifications such as the elimination of square brackets andparagraph indentations, which have an expressiveness of their owneven though they were never part of Vergil's lexicon nor even that ofany interpolator. Their removal, then, is calculated to prevent ordiscourage readers from perceiving the text of Vergil in the way thatMynors or other editors intend. A similar motive accounts for my

2 See Berres (above, n. 1) 89-97 and 195-208.

3 See Berres (above, n. 1) 86-87, 209 and 214-215.

4 This is not to dismiss casually the arguments of those who deny theauthenticity of the "Helen episode," such as G.P. Goold, "Servius andthe Helen Episode," HSCP 74 (1960) 101-168, or C.E. Murgia, "More onthe Helen Episode," CSCA 4 (1971) 203-217. Unlike others, such asBerres (above, n. 1) 1-4, and Conte, Rhetoric (above, n. 1) 196-200, I donot engage directly with them on their own grounds but rather attemptto provide countervailing arguments and interpretations which might beweighed against them.

5 R.B. Mynors, ed., P. Vergili Maronis Opera (Oxford 1976).

THE HELEN-VENUS EPISODE IN AENEID 2 381

temporarily breaking off the quotation in mid-sentence at theparticular point that I do (590). Such adjustments can not becompletely effeetive, partly because ofthe visual medium in which weare working. Ideally I would present these lines orally, as they wouldoriginally have been presented to ancient audiences whose eyes couldnot anticipate what was to come a few lines later. Such audienceswould include both the fictive audience of Aeneas' speech at Carthageand audiences of real Romans listening to Vergil's poem. In themodern world, however, another factor likely to limit the success ofeditorial adjustments to punctuation and other textual notations isthat there will be few readers of this essay who have not in someway lost their innocence regarding this passage through previousexperiences conditioned by editors, translators or commentators:

At me turn primum saeuus circumstetit horror.obstipui; subiit cari genitoris imago 560ut regem aequaeuum crudeli uulnere uidiuitam exhalantem, subiit deserta Creusaet direpta domus et parui casus Iuli.respicio et quae sit me circum copia lustro.deseruere omnes defessi, et corpora saltu 565ad terram misere aut ignibus aegra dedere.iamque adeo super unus eram, cum limina Vestaeservantem et tacitam secreta in sede latentemTyndarida aspicio; dant claram incendia lucemerranti passimque oculos per cuncta ferenti. 570illa sibi infestos euersa ob Pergama Teucroset Danaum poenam et deserti coniugis iraspraemetuens, Troiae et patriae communis Erinys,abdiderat sese atque aris inuisa sedebat.exarsere ignes animo; subit ira cadentem 575ulcisci patriam et sceleratas sumere poenas."scilicet haec Spartarn incolumis patriasque Mycenasaspiciet, partoque ibit regina triumpho,coniugiumque domumque patris natosque uidebitIliadum turba et Phrygiis comitata ministris? 580occiderit ferro Priamus? Troia arserit igni?Dardanium totiens sudarit sanguine litus?non ita. namque etsi nullum memorabile nomenfeminea in poena est, habet haec uictoria laudem,exstinxisse nefas tarnen et sumpsisse merentis 585laudabor poenas, animumque explesse iuvabitultricis Hamam et cineres satiasse meorum."

382 RORYB.EGAN

talia iactabam et furiata mente ferebar,cum mihi se, non ante oculis tarn clara, uidendamobtulit et pura per noctem in luce refulsit . . . 590

This entire passage is part of the narrative of events at Troy thatAeneas is presenting to Dido and her court at Carthage. The textabove begins at the point where Aeneas, having witnessed thevicious slaying of the aged Priam as the Greeks are rampagingthrough the city, has taken refuge on the roof of Priam's palace. He isreporting (560-563) on his own worried imaginings, paranoiddelusions perhaps, about the fate of his father, wife and son whohave become separated from hirn. At 567, the beginning ofthe "Helenepisode," Aeneas says that he espies Tyndareus' daughter hauntingthe threshold of Vesta. Vesta is of course a figure of Roman cult andone closely connected with the Penates,6 which in the Aeneid are oneof the more conspicuous symbols of the transfer of religious powersand practices from Troy to Rome. The Penates, Vesta and Aeneashave in fact already been presented together earlier in Book 2 (289297) when the ghost of Hector appears to Aeneas in a dream andentrusts those divinities to his care at a time when Troy herself ismoribund and a new horne (which every reader will know is to beRome) must be found for the Penates and Vesta.7 In the Helenepisode the reference to Vesta is likely to carry for Roman readers notonly a reminiscence of the earlier passage in the same book but alsoa whole range of associations, Roman and non-literary, some ofwhich we might be able to recover. It is noteworthy, for instance, thatthe verb seruare is used here. Although that verb can simply mean"to occupy," it does suggest some sort of custodial role which, in aRoman context, must elicit thoughts of the Vestal virgins whosemandatory chastity makes the appearance of the adulterous HelenaB the more outrageous here. By the same token, her reputation forunchaste behaviour will prompt recollections of unchaste Vestals inRoman history. In Roman terms, too, the very presence of anyunauthorized person in the sanctuary of Vesta would be a breach ofreligious law.8 It is aB the more outrageous when the transgressor is

6See G. Radke, "Die dei Penates und Vesta in Rom," ANRW 17.1 (1981)361-363; E. Montanari, ''Vesta,'' in Enciclopedia Vergiliana 5 (Rome 1990)516.

7 cr. R. Heinze, Virgil's Epic Technique, tr. H. Harvey, D. Harvey, F.Robertson (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1993) 21.

8 See Radke (above, n. 6) 359, 361.


herself perceived to be inimical to the sanctity and safety of thehousehold whose interests are protected by the Roman Vesta.

Once Aeneas has identified the female figure as Helen, he goes onto the further conclusion that she is fearfuI of Greeks and Trojansand of the anger of her husband. The phrasing is very economicalhere and no doubt pregnant with allusions to earlier literature andart, both Greek and Roman, dating from the cyclic epics down toVergil's time, in which Menelaus confronts Helen in the same angryand menacing way that Aeneas adopts towards the apparitionbefore him.9 In conjunction with his surmise about her circumstancesand motives, Aeneas remarks that she has hidden herself away andthen adds that she was sitting inuisa. This word carries a doubleentendre, although most commentators insist on one meaning overthe other, sometimes in quite dogmatic terms. 10 Helen is both "hated"and "unseen." From her own perspective, and that of almosteveryone else, she is invisible since she had hidden (abdiderat sese),while to Aeneas she is detested. She infuriates Aeneas. As he putsit, fires flash forth in his mind (an appropriate metaphor, albeitperhaps overwrought, given the incendiary surroundings and thcVestal associations) inspiring hirn to avenge Troy by exacting apenalty from her. The contemplated penalty is described assceleratas, not a simple word to interpret. 11 Hs difficulties have ledsome to seize on it as another symptom of a clumsy, and thereforeun-Vergilian, passage. But there are some positive things to be saidabout its distinctiveness and its complexity. Conte, for instance, seesit as an instance of enallage with models in Greek tragedy.l~

Whatever its connections with Greek literature might be, it also hasa Roman side. The word of course suggests not only that thepunishment will be for foul and impious deeds but that the

9 On the hostile reunion of Helen and Menclaus in the liter3l-y undartistie tradition, see L. Kahil, "Helena," in LTMC 4.1 (1981) 499-500 and536-552, espeeially items #208-372. Artistie renderings include a seetionof the Tabula Iliaca (#370 Kahil) and a Pompeian wall painting in theHouse of the Menander (#368 Kahil).

10 See, e.g., J. Conington and H. Nettleship, The Works of Virgil witha Commentary COxford~ 1884) on 574; T.E. Page, ed., The Aeneid of VirgilBooks T- VT (London 1964 [1894)) on 574; Austin Cabove, n. 1) on 574 and"Vil-gil, Aeneid 2.567-88," CQ n.s. ] 1 (1961) 189. E. Paratore in L. Canali,tr. and E. Paratore, eomm., Vilgilio Eneide (Milan 1985) on 574, is anexeeption in reeognizing that both meanings ean be in effect.

11 cr Austin Cabove, n. 1) on 576; Murgia (above, n. 4) 213-214;Berres Cabove, n. 1) 10-12.

1~ Conte, Rhetoric Cabove, n. ]) 205.

384 RORYB.EGAN

punishment itself is foul and impious, a point which is emphasizedin 583-584. But the participle sceleratus is itself a word rife withfamiliar associations for Roman readers aware of the history andtopography oftheir own city. In Roman contexts sceleratus relates toa variety of notorious moral outrages, one of which seems particularlygermane to the circumstances of the Helen episode. The campussceleratus was an area near the Colline gate where, according to Livy(8.15), unchaste Vestals were buried alive. Aeneas is not explicitabout how he is thinking of disposing of Helen, but what is certain isthat he is eontemplating the punishment of an unchaste woman in aeontext that has Vestal assoeiations, a woman who in Aeneas' wordsis in fact "guarding the threshold ofVesta" (limina Vestae seruantem).This raises the real possibility that the difficult word sceleratasentails one of those mythieal foreshadowings of Roman history andinstitutions that abound in the Aeneid. The phrase poenas sceleratasis even analogous to the Livian campus sceleratus in that both thepunishment and the loeation are tainted by assoeiation with theimpious behaviour of the persons being punished. Another parallel isafforded by limen sceleratum at Aeneid 6.653, and indeed somethinglike this seems to be a common feature of the usage of sceleratus.J:l Itis, furthermore, eharacteristieally Vergilian that such a striking wordshould be multi-referential, earrying as it does a moral relevanee tothe actions that Aeneas is contemplating as weIl. The full enormityof those aetions is not apparent to us, nor to Aeneas, exceptretrospectively, a point to whieh I shall revert presently. In themeantime it is to be recognized that the punishment would havebeen sceleratas, morally reprehensible, because it involves a heroexerting violence against a woman. But this has to be weighedagainst the woman's deserts and the prospeets of her getting off withimpunity, even with happiness and suecess, and eonsequentlyagainst the potentially benefieial effects that it would have onAeneas'. reputation. The countervailing considerations are similar tothose with which, in Euripides' Orestes, Pylades in eomparableeireumstances attempts to eonvince the maddened and vaeillatingOrestes of the merits of killing Helen. 14 Had she been a more virtuouswoman (yvvalKa CW<ppOvEcTEpav 1132), Pylades argues, Orestes' actwould be infamous (8vcKAETlc 1133) whereas the reality is that she isevil (KaKfic 1139) and Orestes' reputation will improve as a result

l:~ See also the examples in OLD s. u. seeleratus.

14 Cr. Heinze (above, n. 7) 28; Austin (above, n. 1) on 584; K.J.Reckford, "Helen in Aeneid 2 and 6," Arethusa 14 (1981) 86-93; Berres(above, n. 1) 14-15.


(1140-1152). This is the sort of moral and pragmatic quandary thatis agitating Aeneas' infuriated mind as he describes it in 588: taliaiactabam et furiata mente ferebar.

At just this point, as he is tossing these things around in hismind, contemplating what he is to do about the woman who isinfuriating hirn, something happens that abruptly changes the wholetenor ofthe scene. She presents herselfto Aeneas (mihi se .. . obtulit)so as to be seen (uidendam). The gerundive is eloquent here with itssuggestions of purpose and necessity l5; she intends to be seen andseen she shall be. She is, moreover, clear to his vision to a degreethat she has not been previously (non ante oculis tam clara) as sheshines forth through the night with a clear brilliance (pura per noctemin luce refulsit). The woman who now presents herself in suchrefulgence to Aeneas' view can hardly be anyone but Helen, or atleast not anyone but the woman whom Aeneas had just recentlyspotted in the bright light ofthe incendia, and whom he identified asHelen. There is nothing in the excerpt quoted above which could leadany reasonable reader to any other conclusion. No auditor listeningto these verses recited could suspect that the woman is any otherthan the one about whom Aeneas has been talking from 567 on. Noreader or auditor, that is, who has read or Iistened to the passagewithout prejudice induced by editors or commentators or byknowledge of what comes next in the text. As far as I know, though,there is no documented instance of any reader reaching thatconclusion. Every reader known to me assurnes that the woman whois the subject of obtulit and refulsit in 590 is a different person fromthe one about whom Aeneas has been talking all along. In order tosee any reason for this universal assumption it is necessary toconsider factors that are external to the text quoted above. The mostimportant such factor is the questionable status of the "Helenepisode" itself when it is considered in combination with the lines ofthe poem that immediately follow those quoted above.

In any case, that figmentary unprejudiced auditor or reader whohas reached this point (590) should now be surprised, as wasAeneas hirnself and as his audience at Carthage must have been, torealize that that woman is someone other than Helen. Thisrealization is abruptly and dramatically introduced to the reader bythe first two words of the following verse which, by specif)ring asubject other than Helen for obtulit and refulsit, belie our naturalassumptions that it is Helen. I cite here again the last three verses of

15 For a brief review of the Vergilian gerundive, see A.P. Bagnolini,"Gerundio e gerundivo," Enciclopedia Vergiliana 2 (Rome 1985) 716-717.

386 RORYB.EGAN

the previous excerpt, this time in context with the verses that followthem.

talia iactabam et furiata mente ferebar,cum mihi se, non ante oculis tarn clara, uidendamobtulit et pura per noctem in luce refulsit 590alma parens, confessa deam qualisque uidericaelicolis et quanta solet, dextraque prehensumcontinuit roseoque haec insuper addidit ore:"nate, quis indomitas tantus dolor excitat iras?quid furis? aut quonam nostri tibi cura recessit? 595non prius aspicies ubi fessum aetate parenternliqueris Anchisen, superet coniunxne CreusaAscaniusque puer? quos omnis undique Graiaecircum errant acies et, ni mea cura resistat,iam flammae tulerint inimicus et hauserit ensis. 600non tibi Tyndaridis facies inuisa Lacaenaeculpatusue Paris, diuum inclementia, diuumhas euertit opes sternitque a culmine Troiam.aspice (namque omnem, quae nunc obducta tuentimortalis hebetat uisus tibi et umida circum 605caligat, nubem eripiam; tu ne qua parentisiussa time neu praeceptis parere recusa):"

With alma parens at the beginning of 591 the author and hisnarrator reveal significant information about the true identity of theapparition, information that had been withheld, not just from thereader, but earlier from the narrator hirnself as he participated inthe event. The figure who was not previously so clear is in fact notHelen, the human paragon of sensuous beauty, but her divinecounterpart, Aeneas' mother Venus. The phrase alma parens marksa brilliant rhetorical coup in which two master story-tellers, Aeneasand Vergil, bring their respective audiences up short with a dramaticTTapa TTpocooKiav which replicates the hero's own earlier experience.The third word of the verse, confessa, tells us that the hero's motheris contributing to the sudden change by admitting to her trueidentity, after previously denying or concealing it. That, at any rate,is what the dominant semantic force of the verb confiteor almostrequires here. Venus, as she assumes the appearance that shecustomarily has in divine company, is now admitting to be thegoddess (deam) that she really iso In describing how she does soAeneas uses the word refulsit. It is unlikely to be mere coincidencethat the identical word has been used in another context where


Venus' identity is suddenly made known to her son after he has forsome time failed to identify her properly.16 On that occasion in Book 1(407-408) Venus also provides advice and information to her son,although there it is before, rather than after, making her identityknown.

When Aeneas' meeting with Venus in Mrica is described in Book1, we are of course given explicit reasons for his failure to recognizeher. She is wearing hunting garb whieh leads hirn to believe that shemight be Diana or a loeal huntress. As there is no suggestion of acomparable disguise in the Helen episode, it is reasonable to askwhy Aeneas made the mistake that he did, particularly sinee hehirnself teIls of the bright light afforded by the flames. In order toanswer that question we might review Aeneas' cireumstanees at thetime, as he hirnself describes them. Just before the epiphany he hasbeen having delusions about the fate of his family members. Theseare interrupted by the woman's appearanee to hirn as he is, in hisown words, erranti. Almost all interpreters have assumed thaterranti has to mean "wandering" in the most literal of senses; i.e.,"wandering around on foot from one plaee to another." Some indeedhave aetually eited the use of erranti as one of those diffieulties orflaws which readers are disposed to notice in a passage whieh theyknow has been discarded. The putative flaw lies in the fact thatAeneas, being on the confined space on top of what is left of Priam'spalaee, from whieh he does not deseend until much later (632), eannot really be wandering around. This in turn has led to theconclusion that he must be somewhere else and therefore that the"Helen episode" must have been intended for another context. 17 Quiteapart, though, from whatever merits might lie in arguments basedon the presumed dimensions of the palaee roof, it is possible thaterranti has a different meaning or additional meanings here. Camps,for one, has obviated the apparent problems eonneeted with theconventional reading of erranti by citing lexieal paralleis thatdemonstrate that the word eould mean "as I hesitated."18 Whileadmitting Camps' reading as one possibility, I would also argue that

!fi Berres (above, n. 1) 43 notes the recurrence of the word without ofcourse attaching the same significance to it.

17 See the discussion by Austin (above, n. ]) on 570; Paratore (abovc,n. 10) 340-341; Berres (above, n. 1) 94-97 with earlier literature cilcdthere.

!H A.W. Camps, An Introduelion to Virgil's Aeneid (Oxford 1969) 124125.

388 RORYB.EGAN

the circumstances of the distraught and delusion-prone hero19 lendsome force to another possibility. Aeneas is, after all, making mentalmistakes at this time-wandering with his mind at least as much aswith his feet. Such an interpretation of erranti is easilyaccommodated within the semantic range of errare and its cognatesas attested for almost every phase of the language. 20 By the timeAeneas comes to use the word erranti in reporting his thoughts andactions to Dido he has long since come to realize himself how deludedand erratic they were. His words to Dido suggest that his visionmight have been erratic or unfocussed too as he moved his eyes fromone thing to another. The presence of erranti in the same verse withoculos per cuncta ferenti reinforces the suggestion that he iswandering with his eyes. Indeed the verse has reminded more thanone reader of the errant or erratic eyes (oculis ... errantibus) of thedistraught Dido on her funeral pyre (4.691).21

So Aeneas is in effect telling Dido that his cognitive and visualacuity was impaired when he mistakenly identified the figure asHelen despite the brightness of the light afforded by the flames, orpossibly because of its brilliant intensity. This latter possibility is atodds with the conventional understanding that the bright light(claram lucem) ofthe flames is an aid to perception of the apparition.But the recurrence of the adjective clara a few verses later, this timewith a different referent, suggests a cinematic shift in the optics. Thefirst time the adjective is used it applies to the light of the flames, tothe conditions in which the apparition is situated, whereas in thesecond instance it applies to the apparition herself. The bright lightof the flames, as they glare and coruscate, we might imagine asrendering the apparition visible but also interfering with the clarityand definition of her lineaments. There is, then, a contrast but nocontradiction caused by claram (or the manuscripts' reading clara) in569 and clara in 589. In its latter occurrence, where the referent ofthe adjective is the apparition herself and she is said to have beenmore clearly resplendent than previously, she is standing out againstthe contrasting darkness of the night. Now she is actively refulgent,whereas previously she had been the passive object descried byAeneas amid the brightness of the fires. The changing atmosphericsaccompanying the shift of the apparition from a passive to an activerole bring about the changed perception on the part of Aeneas, in

19 On his mental condition, see Reckford (above, n. 14) 86-89.

20 See OLD s. v. erro 5; TLL s. v. erro, esp. II.B.2.

21 cr. Berres (above, n. 1) 94-96, with the earlier literature citedthere.


whose mind the human Helen is transmogrified to the divine Venus.This mystical development, once it is realized that human andgoddess are one, affords yet another parallel with Euripides' Orestes(1683-1690), in which the vilified, threatened and exonerated Helenis finally apotheosized.

In the ensuing verses Venus clarifies a number of other things toAeneas, and to uso She promises to remove completely the cloud thathas been blurring his mortal vision. Notably, as she exoneratesHelen, she uses the same word-inuisa-that Aeneas had applied toher earlier, and she uses it with the same double effect. It is notHelen whose face is so hateful to Aeneas, nor is the Helen who hasnot even been visible to hirn responsible for Troy's misfortunes. It is,rather, the gods who are responsible. The exoneration of Helen ha~

at least a couple of its literary models 01' precedents in the passagein Book 3 of the Iliad where Priam excuses Helen personally in termsthat are quite similar to those used by Venus here (164-165)::u

00 Tl ~Ol alTlfj kcl' 8EOI VV ~Ol ahlol ElcIV.

0'( ~Ol E<pwp~fjCav TT6AE~OV TToAvöaKpvv 'AXalwV

You are not at all to blame as far as I um concerned.No, in my view the gods are to blame for stirring upthe lamentable hostility of the Greeks.

Vergil's "citation" of Homer here (and particularly of Priam) isanother ingredient that serves to cement the Helen-Venus episodetogether and to integrate it with its larger context. Priam's palaceserves as the setting for the whole Vergilian scene, and it is Priam'sdeath that triggers Aeneas' bout of emotional distress and hisimpetuous reaction to the illusory Helen. The very situation andcircumstances in which the Vergilian exoneration occurs have someanalogies with the context of the Hornene exoneration as weil.Aeneas is situated on a high vantage point witnessing the hostilitiesof Greeks and Trojans just as the Homeric Priam was when, in thecompany of the other Trojan elders, he watched an earlier episode ofGreek-Trojan hostilities from the walls near the Scaean gates. As ifto underscore the analogies, Vel'gil calls to mind those very gates inhis own episode by including an explicit reference to them (612) inthe course ofVenus' exoneration of Helen. There would also appeal' tube yet another reminiscence of the same Homeric teich.oskopeia earlierin the Helen-Venus episode when Aeneas describes thc divinc

'l.'l. cr. G.N. Knauer, Die Aeneis und Hamer (Göttingen 1964) :181.

390 RORYB.EGAN

manifestation ofthe Helen-Venus figure (qualisque uideri/ caelicolis etquanta solet, 591-592), because the Trojan elders, in the presence ofPriam and Helen, had described her in terms of divine beauty asweB:

aivwc a8aVClTTJCl 8Eijc Eie WTTa EOlKEV (3.158)

She is uncannily like immortal goddesses in her appearance.

It bears emphasizing here that this particular line occurs precisely inthe teichoskopeia, that is in the very context that contains theexculpation of Helen and the survey of the opposing forces. In bothcases, moreover, Helen is in one way or another identified withdivinity. Thus the recently slaughtered Priam, whose death is theclimactic event of Aeneas' description of the fall of Tror and whosepalace is the scene of the Helen-Venus episode, haunts that episodeas a sort of textual revenant.

In the light of the proposition that the person initially perceivedas Helen is identical with Venus, I would return to the postponedconsideration of sceleratas. Aeneas, as Hatch has pointed out, isrelating his account of the incident some time after it had occurred.Thus the course of action he describes hirnself as contemplating somesix years earlier might only have seemed impious to hirn upon sobreretrospection.24 Certainly a later consideration of his inclination toattack the apparition would take on a new enormity once he hascome to realize that he would have been attacking his own motherand a divinity at that. That consideration provides an ironieinversion ofwhat is recognized as a corresponding scene in Euripides'Orestes, for Orestes was to override his bad reputation for matricidethrough an attack on Helen (1140-1152) whereas Aeneas, by hiscontemplated attack on Helen, would have diminished his reputationeven as he rendered hirnself guilty of matricide.

Once the argument has been presented that Aeneas falselyidentified the figure as Helen, it now seems appropriate to reconsideran old suggestion first found in Servius auctus. According to thatcommentary Vergil's use of inuisa in reference to Helen at 601 is anaBusion to the variant of the Helen myth which has a phantom ofHelen appearing at Troy while the real Helen was elsewhere. Thesuggestion has found little favour among modern commentators and

23 cr. R.D. Williams, ed., The Aeneid of Virgil: Books 1-6 (London/Basingstoke 1972) 251; Conte, Rhetoric (above, n. 1) 200.

24 Cr. N.L. Hateh, "The time element in the interpretation of Aeneid2.575-76 and 585-87," CP 54 (1955) 255-257; Reckford (above, n. 14) 87.


has been declared "dearly absurd" by Austin. 25 Any pereeivedabsurdity, however, must be eonsiderably diminished with thereeognition of Helen as a figment of Aeneas' imagination working onan apparition of Venus. It is diminished even further when onereeognizes that an earlier literary context featuring a Helen whovanishes from human sight has actually figured in the "Helenepisode." I refer onee again to Euripides' Orestes, where Orestes isaetuallY at the point of killing Helen when she is saved by theintervention of Apollo as a deus ex machina (1625-1690). Not only isVergil evidently alluding to one Euripidean variant of the Helenlegend, but with his reference to the Helen who has to fear GreeksandJor Trojans (571-573) he actually seems to recall several otherEuripidean plays such as Andromaehe, Electra, Hecuba, Helen,Iphigenia in Tauris and Troades, as noted long aga by Heinze.'26 Undersuch cireumstances, can it be all that absurd to suppose with Serviusauctus that Vergil, in his use ofinuisa in reference to the "unseen" orthe "not seen" Helen, is evoking reminiscences of Euripides' Helen andthe variant tradition of a phantom Helen? Just a few verses earlier,after all, Vergil virtually quotes the Orestes, in which the evanescentHelen is threatened by another infuriated hero bent on revenge forthe misfortunes that Helen has caused his family. By doing so andthen having the exonerating deity (in this case Venus) call her inuisa,the poet arouses in the mind of the erudite reader the wholesituation of the Helen episode in the Euripidean play. A further effectof inuisa is to allow the poet to present the tradition of thesimulacrum of Helen allusively without induding it as part of hisnarrative. As this tradition had had a significant prcsenee in earlierliterature, and conspicuously in the Helen of Euripides,27 an allusionto it in a passage of the Aeneid that displays other Euripideancolouring is almost to be expected. A further eonsequence of thcallusion to that tradition is of course to underscore the possibilitythat the Helen-Venus scene begins, as I have argued, with themaddened, irrational hero's misperception of the figure as Helen. Thedevice of having the narrator present his own past delusions ormisperceptions enables the author to incorporate parts of the Helentradition without subscribing to their authenticity or creating logicalconflicts with the rest ofhis narrative. In a similar way Vergil's dose

25 Austin Cabove, n. 1) on 601.

'26 See Heinze Cabove, n. 7) 29, 61. Heinze did not believe that Vergilwrote the "Helen episode."

27 For arecent survey of the tradition, see N. Austin, Helen o( Troyand her Shameless Phantom (lthaca 1994).

392 RORYB. EGAN

identifieation or eonfusion of Helen with Venus allusively aeknowledges another element from the Helen tradition that would be no lessineompatible with his narrative. It has long been reeognized thatHelen's taking refuge in the temple ofVesta is the poet's variation onthe older tradition that she took refuge in the temple of Aphrodite. 28

While the temple of Vesta replaees that of AphroditeNenus here inAeneid 2, just as Aeneas partially replaees the Menelaus of traditionas the person threatening Helen's life at the time of the saek of Troy,Helen nevertheless retains a elose assoeiation with AphroditeNenusas her protegee.

For those who are reeeptive to it, the reading whieh I have justproposed will eonsolidate or reinforee the ease for the Vergilianauthorship of the eontroversial passage and establish it more firmlyin its immediate eontext as part of the larger Helen-Venus episode. Iwould at this point ally my arguments with those of one of the morereeent proponents of the authentieity of the "Helen episode." G.B.Conte has eompared Aeneas' meeting with Helen, his hesitationabout whether to attaek her and the interruption of his deliberationsby Venus, with the ineident in Iliad 1 where Aehilles, with drawnsword, faees Agamemnon and deliberates about attaeking hirn, onlyto be interrupted by Athena. The Homerie Agamemnon, Aehilles andAthena are respeetively represented in the Aeneid by Helen, Aeneasand Venus. Conte points out that the Vergilian version of theHomerie episode "straddles" the Helen episode and the Venusepisode and unites them. He expresses ineredulity at the notion thatan interpolator eould aehieve sueh a smooth integration of hisinterpolation with the authentie Vergilian eontext in whieh it isplaeed. 29 Conte's argument from the Homerie evidenee is eogent on itsown as a defenee of the authentieity of the Helen episode but it isneeessarily strengthened by our realization that the reeast episodefrom Euripides' Orestes also straddles and binds the Helen andVenus episodes. It is further strengthened by the fact that theVergilian Priam, his palaee and the poet's evoeation of his Homerieanteeedent envelop and unif)r the two parts of the Helen-Venusepisode. Finally, now, the single female apparition who is the eentralfigure of both parts of the Helen-Venus episode is yet anotherelement that straddles, integrates and unifies the two parts. One

28 It goes back at least as far as Ibycus in the sixth century. See thereferences to literature and art in Austin (above, n. 1) on 572; Kahil(above, n. 9) 552 and #370.

29 See Conte, Rhetoric (above, n. 1) 200-204. Horsfall, eR (above, n. 1)163 demurs.


effeet of all sueh aeeumulated indieations of unity and cohesion is toconsolidate the ease for the authentieity of the "Helen episode"against that in favour of the putative interpolator. Before closing, Iwould entertain some additional factors that militate in fiwour of itsauthentieity.

Outside of its immediate environs in Book 2 there are two otherepisodes in the Aeneid which in one way 01' another are irnplieatedwith this one and whieh would therefore be affected by this newreading of the Helen-Venus episode. The first of thern has beeneonsidered earlier from another perspective. In the first book of thepoem Venus appears to Aeneas in Mrica in the guise of a loeal Puniehuntress whom the confused Aeneas variously identifies as a nymph01' the goddess Diana before eventually reeognizing her as his mother.This ineident, in whieh Venus deceives and eonfuses Aeneas but alsoprovides helpful information to hirn in a erisis, is in a general wayanalogous to the Helen-Venus episode as we now read it. But there isanother, more speeifie, way in which the two ineidents reeiproeallyclarify one another. When Aeneas at last reeognizes his mother in theCarthaginian eountryside just as she is departing from hirn, hequerously asks her why it is that she eruelly deludes hirn with falseimages "so many times" 01' "all the time":

Quid natum totiens, erudelis tu quoque, falsisludis imaginibus? (407f.)

The word totiens, with its suggestion that Venus habitually deludesher son in this way, has exereised some commentators who find noevidenee to support the complaint.:1o Now, aceording to the readingproposed in this essay, there is one earlier instanee of Venusdeluding her son before making her true identity clear to hirn, for theepisode in Book 2 has aetually preeeded that reported in Book 1,even though the author presents thern in reverse order. So thereader, confused and eurious about Aeneas' complaint in Book 1,finally sees things clarified after encountering Venus' earlier delusionof her san in Book 2. 31 (Thus the omniseient poet onee again playswith his readers before revealing the truth to them, in mueh thesame way that the omniscient goddess temporarily deludes, but

30 See, e.g., Conington and Nettleship (ahove, n. 11) on 1.406.

:11 C.G. Heyne, ed., P. Virgilius Maro (Leipzig:l 1800) on 1.407 cites thepassage in Book 2, apparently as an example of the grounds for Aeneas'complaint in Book 1, hut without suggesting that Venus deluded Aeneasin the same way that I suggest.

394 RORYB.EGAN

eventually informs, her confused son.) Conversely, having beenalerted in Book 1 to Venus' habitual deception of her son, the readeris partially prepared for the duplicity of the Helen-Venus episodewhen it does come along.

The other incident in the Aerleid for which the new reading of theHelen-Venus episode has some implications is Aeneas' meeting withthe ghost of Deiphobus in Book 6. Commentators, particularly thosewho are opposed to restoring the Helen episode to Book 2, take a cuefrom Servius and Servius auctus and point out that Deiphobus'report in Book 6 of Helen's activities and whereabouts on the night ofTroy's fall is contradictory to the description of her taking refuge fromboth Greeks and Trojans in the Helen episode (574-575).32 As notedabove, Vergil is here partly motivated by consideration of thetreatment of Helen in earlier literature. His character Aeneas isreporting on the reasons that he perceived at the time for Helen'spresence there. At this point he has not yet heard Deiphobus' reportand he is free to speculate, correctly or incorrectly, on the motivationsof the person whom he believes to be Helen. Any contradiction whichmodern readers might see is consequently not likely to be one whichwould exist in the mind of Aeneas or of Vergil. In any case the wholeissue is rendered moot by a reading of the Helen-Venus episodeaccording to which Aeneas did not really see Helen anyway.

If Aeneas did not really see Helen, then the principal reason citedsince antiquity for the removal of the "Helen episode" must bediscarded. The other ancient explanation offered-that it wasunseemly for a hero to be angryat a woman (Servius on 592)-hasalways lacked conviction, as several people have noted.33 Now, if bothof the Servian explanations for excision of the verses are rejected, itdoes seem incumbent upon one who argues for their authenticity tooffer, if only tentatively, some alternative explanation. Accordingly Ioffer the following hypothesis which, I submit, derives someplausibility from this new reading of the episode.

For several generations modern readers have had before themessentially the same text that has been reviewed in this essay.Heretofore, however, it has not been apparent to any of them thatAeneas does not really see Helen. It is quite possible that this pointalso escaped some, most, or all of the first generation of readers asweIl (even without the editorial biases that have affected modernreaders). In that event, the author or some early commentator wouldhave been constrained to advise readers of this, perhaps by means of

32 cr. Austin (above, n. 1) 218; Berres (above, n. 1) 17-19.

33 See, e.g., Austin, CQ (above, n. 10) 186.


a marginal note to the eifect that Aeneas does not really see Helen.An uncomprehending early redactor, upon reading such a note, wouldnaturally excise all of the verses which ostensibly described Aeneas'sighting of Helen. That redactor's legacy includes the ex post factaexplanations of the Servian commentaries and the whole longcontroversy about the authenticity ofthe passage.14

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS

UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA R3T 2M8

14 I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness for the astute advice andcriticism on many points provided by the editor, Professor Butrica, and bytwo anonymous editorial referees. I am also grateful to Ms. MonicaLarson who, as an undergraduate studying Aeneid 2 with me severalyears ago, provided the initial stimulus for this essay.


MARTIAL AND PRE-PUBLICATION TEXTS

PETER WHITE

In arecent article D.P. Fowler has challenged a hypothesis that Ihelped to revive some years years ago, to the effect that Martial'sepigrams circulated informally among selected individuals in smallassortments before they became available to a wider public as thebooks which at a still later stage were transmitted to us.! Withinterest in the ancient book now very much in the forefront ofclassical studies, it was opportune for this question to be reopened.My purpose in the following pages is both to take issue with thcmost important of Fowler's arguments and to enlarge the cvidence bywhich a different interpretation can be reached. The points overwhich we disagTee can be arranged under the following heads.

1. Codex and Roll Editions of the Epigrams

Fowler's discussion begins with the pieces that lead off book 1 of thcEpigrams: a prose letter and foul' choliambic lines that follow it, 1.1to the lector (Hic est quem legis ille, quem requiris), and 1.2 to thcbook-buyer who desires to have Martial's poems in the readilyportable form of a codex (Qui tecum cupis esse meos ubicumquclibellos). It is the last of these pieces that especially attraets hisattention, for two reasons. It first of a11 sets up a case that he wantsto develop about the "interplay of indeterminacy" (34) between twoimplied readers of Martial, a first-time book-roll reader and a rcreader who turns again to Martial after his books have been collectedand republished in codex form. Let me stress here that throughout

I am grateful to EMC/CV both for editorial advice and for hospitalityunavailable from Ramus.

1 Fowler's paper appears under the title "Martial and the Book," inRamus 24 (1995) 31-58. The paper of mine with which he is concerned is"The Presentation and Dedication of the Siluae and the Epigrams," JHS64 (1974) 40-61 (or more exactly, 44-48). It should be noted that at aboutthe same time, and independently of my paper, Mario Citroni also madecautious use of the brochure hypothesis in his Martial commentary (M.Valerii MarÜalis Epigrammaton Liber Primus [Florence 1975]). SeeCitroni 7 for earlier views on the subject.

397

398 PETERWHITE

his article Fowler is concemed above all to explicate the reader'sengagement with Martial's epigrams as they present themselveswithin the setting of the published book. The sophisticatedinterpretations that he offers will be little affected whether oneconcludes that Martial circulated some work before publishing it ornot.

Nevertheless, at a secondary level of argument Fowler appeals toEpigr. 1.2 in order to put forward a fundamental alternative to thebrochure hypothesis. References in Martial's work that mightotherwise seem to point to the existence of pre-publication texts caninstead be read as backward glances within a comprehensive codexedition to earlier (but also published) editions of each book as a roll.Here, however, Fowler has scanted several problems that underminethe value ofhis counterproposal.

The text of Epigr. 1.2, our sole testimony to a codex edition ofMartial, runs as follows:

Qui tecum cupis esse meos ubicumque libellosEt comites longae quaeris habere viae,

Hos eme, quos artat brevibus membrana tabellis:Scrinia da magnis, me manus una capit.

Ne tarnen ignores ubi sim venalis et erresVrbe vagus tota, me duce certus eris:

Libertum docti Lucensis quaere SecundumLimina post Pacis Palladiumque forum.

The first question is whether the libelli here advertised are to beunderstood as several "books" of Epigrams combined into a singlecodex, or whether each libellus constitutes a separate codex. Thereferences in the singular to "I" and "me" in lines 4-6 will not sufficeto establish that a single codex is meant, since Martial is likely to befollowing the convention which treats the person of an author and thework of an author as convertible terms.2 And the plurals in lines 1-3(especially hos eme in line 3) point more naturally to separate codicesthan to one big one, an inference which would also be consistent withMartial's emphasis on the handiness of the new format. 3 No doubt

2 As in this example in which Cicero designates three texts simply bythe names of their authors: Cottam mi velim mittas; Libonem mecumhabeo et habueram ante Cascam (Att. 13.44.3).

3 E.T. Sage noted the logical implication of the plurals in TAPA 50(1919) 174. It would be less natural to take hos as referring to themultiple copies of one comprehensive codex that is on sale, since in thatcase Martial should strictly have said "buy one of these" rather than

MARTIAL AND PRE-PUBLICATION TEXTS 399

an important part of the reason that the codex ultimatelysuperseded the book roll was that it could incorporate much moretext than a roll. But some early codices contained single books of theIliad or single gospels just as a roll would have done, and it cannotbe ruled out on grounds of typology that single books of the Epigramsappeared in codices as well.4

It would be possible to approach the first question moreconfidently if we could be sure what Martial meant by breuibustabellis in line 3. He might be referring to what in a modern bookwould be called trim size and mean that his codex had small pages(like the Mani text that has become the most celebrated example ofan early codex). Or he might mean that the codex edition of hispoems was unusually compact, containing more text (and thereforepresumably more "books" of epigrams) than could be fitted into aroll, like the codex of Ovid's Metamorphoses that he describes in14.192." Or he might mean that his codex edition was both smalland compact at the same time. As far as the evidence of 1.2 goes,while it certainly indicates that some of the epigrams appeared in acodex edition, it does not reveal whether Martial combined two ormore books in that edition.

Since it remains possible if not obvious that he did so, however,let us pursue the hypothesis and ask whether it can be otherwisedetermined how many books of Epigrams the codex edition would

"buy these." But the more important point is that in the end it isimpossible to resolve exactly what Martial means.

4 G. Cavallo has argued that in its early stages the transition from rollto codex produced "una realta !ibraria assai complessa e fluida: corpusculadi testi della stessa specie variamente composti ... ma anche codici eheriverberavano ciascuno il contenuto di un singolo rotolo; corporadell'opera di determinati autori ... edizioni di testi strutturati in piü!ibri sia complete ... sia !imitate a qualehe 0 ad un solo !ibro"; cf. his"Codice e storia dei testi greci antichi: Qualehe riflessione sulla faseprimitiva deI fenomeno," in A. Blanchard, ed., Les debuts du codex: Actesde la journee organisee Cl Paris les 3 et 4 juillet 1985 par l'Institut dePapyrologie de la Sorbonne et l'Institut de Recherches et d'Histoire desTextes, Bibliologia 9 (Turnhout 1989) 180.

"The Apophoreta contain several gift tags for books explicitlyidentified as codices (nos. 184, 186, 188, 190, and 192), of which at leasttwo (184 and 192) and perhaps a third (186) are also described ascontaining the complete text of the respective works. It is worth noting,however, that in one of these cases (192, Ovid's Metamorphoses) Martialdraws attention to the bulkiness of the resulting codex (haec tibimultivlici quae structa est massa tabella), by contrast with his emphasis onhandiness in the description of his own codex at Epigr. 1.2.

400 PETERWHITE

have included. Fowler observes that "a popular guess is 1-7, becauseof the reference in 7.17.6 to a set of authorially-corrected texts ofseven books sent to the library of lulius Martialis" (34; thepossibility of a seven-book edition is floated again on 49). Yet in theepigram accompanying the authorially corrected texts, Martial callsthem libelli, a word which, as Fowler says, is norma11y associatedwith rolls rather than codices; he speaks of plural "books" ratherthan of a single tome; and he envisions that they will be stored in anidus (litera11y "pigeon-hole"), which is more appropriate to thestorage of ro11s, which were stacked on top of one another, than ofcodices.6 Since nothing in the wording of the poem signals a codexformat, the inference must derive from the fact that Martial saysthat he is sending his friend seven libelli at the same time. But ifthat can serve as the criterion of a codex edition, then we will have tocope with more than one. Two books after 7.17, in 9.84.9-10, Martialsays that he is sending another friend a11 his work of the last sixyears ("omne ... nostrum ... bis trieteride iuncta . . . opus"). Exhypothesi, that would entail an overlapping codex edition containingbooks 4 through 9 of the Epigrams. In 4.82 Martial indicates that heis sending two libelli and potentia11y therefore a separate codex ofbooks 3 and 4.7 While none of these hypothetical editions can beshown to be impossible, it is apparent that there is little to groundany of them either. The multi-book codex of Martial would be (atbest) an entity with no definable extension.

Fina11y, two points about the textual environment in whichMartial's readers would have come upon his epigram about thecodex. Many commentators on 1.2 have noted that Martial seems tobe describing a format that he considers exceptional for a literary

6 For nidus and its implications, see C. Wendel, "Der antikeBücherschrank," in W. Krieg, ed., Kleine Schriften zum antike Buch- undBibliothekswesen (Cologne 1974) 67 = NAWG 1943, 272-273. Fowlerappears to hold that Martial's use of terminology appropriate to bookroUs rather than to codices is an element of play with the general readerthat has carried over into the poem to Iulius Martialis, even thoughaccording to his hypothesis that poem must have been expresslycomposed to accompany a multi-book codex: "the fiction is preservedthroughout that the reader is unrolling a set of book-roUs, not turningthe pages of a codex" (34).

7 For other pieces in which Martial indicates that he is sending two 01'

more libelli at the same time, see 1.52.2, 4.14.12, 5.18.4, 7.68.3, and9.58.5.

MARTIALAND PRE-PUBLICATION TEXTS 401

text in his day.8 That impression is reinforced by statistics on therelative frequency of the two book formats among manuscripts of theancient period. During the first century A.D., rolls represent virtually100 percent of the surviving examples (252 rolls to 1 codex); in thesecond century, they represent 98.5 percent (857 to 14); and in thethird century they still represent 81.5 percent (406 to 93).9 Theseconsiderations strongly suggest that readers of Martial who missedthe novelty codex edition and came across his poem about it in anylater text almost certainly read it in a book roll, not in a codex (thusperhaps adding a third layer to the interplay of indeterminacy thatFowler has noticed).

But, more importantly, contemporaries of Martial who missed thecodex edition may have lacked any opportunity to read 1.2 later on.This poem, together with 1.1, which was likewise written tointroduce a colleetion of Martial's work, is transmitted by only one ofthe three families of manuscripts that preserve the Epigrams.Moreover, the two epigrams are not located where they are printed inmodern editions: in the manuscripts, 1.1 and 1.2 stand between theprose letter and the choliambics about Cato with which Martial sayshe will conclude the letter. Fowler appears to accept the moderntransposition without giving his reasons. He may believe that themisordering is simply the result of careless copying at an early stageof the tradition, or he may subscribe to a more complicatedhypothesis which envisions a detached folio of the archetype thatbecomes wrongly reattached. lO But other reconstruetions to explainthe placement of 1.1 and 1.2 have been proposed that are no lessdefensible. The peculiar textual tradition of the Epigrams has longsuggested to some critics that our corpus represents an impertectamalgamation of texts circulating after Martial's death rather than afinal revision carried out by the poet hirnself. On that hypothesis, 1.1and 1.2 may have entered our corpus as novelties culled from thecodex edition and inserted, for lack of a better location, as the first

8 For example, Citroni in his commentary: "MCarziale) stessopresenta questi codici come qualcosa di singolare sia per la forma ehe peril materiale ... e ne segnala i pregi piu evidenti ... come se si trattassedi cose nuove e poco note. E poiche ... si allude ai vantaggi dei codexnella lettura in viaggio, si dovra credere ehe il codice in questo periodovenisse usato solo in casi particolari, per ottenere edizioni maneggevoli."

9 Figures from C.H. Roberts and T.C. Skeat, The Birth of the CodexCLondon 1983) 37.

10 For these possibilities, see the discussion in Citroni's commenlary13-14.

402 PETERWHITE

poems of a posthumous compilation. l1 In that case, of course, most ofMartial's contemporaries could not have had a codex edition in handor in mind when they encountered references to prior libelli inMartial's work.

For aIl the unknowns surrounding it, the codex edition of Martial'sepigrams remains an issue weIl worthy of the speculation Fowler hasdirected to it. Only it is not a touchstone that can be effectivelyexploited to clear up other mysteries.

2. Abridgments and Brochures

I pass now to Fowler's treatment of evidence indicating that certainof Martial's books circulated in abridged form as weIl as in the formin which we have them. The epigram 12.4 is a presentation to theemperor that begins Longior undecimi nobis decimique libelli / artatuslabor est et breve rasit opus. Fowler accepts (at least for the sake ofargument) the conventional view that Martial is here describing aselection he made from books 10 and 11 and tendered privately tothe emperor. He denies that the piece has any bearing on theexistence of smaIl, informal brochures, however, because "theexistence of a special epitome for the emperor of two published booksestablishes nothing about normal publication" (41, Fowler's emphasis). It is one of the points of difference between us that Fowlerattributes to the moment of publication in the first century a decisiveimportance which does not appear quite so evident to me. Butbecause 12.4 seems to afford such clear evidence for poems presentedin a smaIl, private assortment, I am content to accept the stipulation, "but an assortment made from published, not unpublished,work." Either way, it bears on what appears to be Fowler's coreobjection to the brochure hypothesis, since it reveals that Martialtook poems he had arranged to be read in one textual configuration(in the published books 10 and 11) and rearranged them (if only bysuppressing material) to be read in another.

In the second couplet of the poem to the emperor, Martialindicates that he has sent an abridgment of his work because theemperor may be too busy to read more (plura legant vacui, quibus

11 This was the hypothesis of E. Lehmann, Antike MartialausgabenCDiss. Jena 1931) 55-56. On the tendency toward accretion of material inthe course of textual transmission, note Michael Reeve's warning that"Most analogies suggest . . . that revision of collections like Martial'sepigrams consists largely in pruning, the process most liable to bereversed in transmission," in L.D. Reynolds, ed., Texts and Transmission:A Survey of the Latin Classics COxford 1983) 244.


otia tuta dedisti: / haec lege tu, Caesar). In 1974 I should have putmore emphasis on statements of this sort than I did. In otherpresentations too Martial couples expressions of concern abouttaking up the emperor's time with insistence on the smallness of thebook he is sending. So in 5.6 he asks Domitian's chamberlain topass along his timidam brevemque chartam at some moment whenthe emperor is relaxing. In 12.11 he again asks the chamberlain tocommend a timidwnque brevemque libellum if (as Martial says hescarcely dares to hope) the emperor should be at leisure to peruseit. 12 In 8.24 he asks that the emperor patiently entertain arequestto be found in the timido gracilique libello he is reading, and in 8.82he offers his parva carmina in the confidence that a god IikeDomitian can make time for the Muses as weIl as for business. In2.91 he speaks of poems in festinati libelli that have "detained"Domitian's eyes. 13 Since Martial in these presentations appeals tothe same convention as in a poem avowedly written to introduce asmall assortment, it seems fair to surmise that on these occasionstoo, what he sent was a brochure rather than a full-sized book ofverse. 14 Martial's insistence that his books for the emperor are onlylittle books, in fact, differs noticeably from the way he characterizesthe books he intends for the public at large. While acknowledging

12 The epigram 12.11 should be particularly nettlesome for proponentsof the view that all Martial's references to libelli are to published books.It stands in a book datable (on the evidence of 12.2) to the consulate ofArruntius Stella, which fell in 101 or 102, when Trajan was emperor.Eut Parthenius, the imperial chamberlain to whom the poem isaddressed, was murdered during Nerva's reign some four or five yearsearlier. Obviously, then, Martial cannot be referring in 12.11 to our book12 of the Epigrams. And it seems unlikely that he would be referring tobook 11, since that book already contains it own presentation poem toParthenius (11.1).

13 In all these passages, let me emphasize that it is not the use oflibellus alone that establishes smallness but the fact that it is qualifiedby other words indicating size. As E.T. Sage noted (above, n. 3), libellusand tiber are in practice interchangeable terms. Libellus has affectiverather than denotative force, and can refer to a book that is either largeor small (as can liber).

14 Another convention that often figures in presentations directed tothe palace is the conceit that Martial's libelli of verse there compete withlibelli from vulgar petitioners for the emperor's favor (5.6.12-15, 8.24,8.82.1-2, 11.1.5). Libelli in this sense of petitions is a standard term ofimperial bureaucratese, and it refers of course to texts which are muchshorter than books. That is another reason for thinking that the bookswhich Martial sent to the emperor were at least sometimes shorter thanhis published books.

404 PETERWHITE

that his annual instalments of the Epigrams may look small bycomparison with other poets' output, he often boasts of his ability tofill up book after book with new material despite generic imperativesthat put a premium on brevity.15

Fowler does not comment on the repeated implication in thesepieces that Martial's books for the emperor were shorter than hispublished books. But the line that he would take can probably bededuced from his treatment of a collection addressed to a priuatuswhich is similarly represented as being small. 16 In a prose letter that

15 1.16, 1.45, 3.68.11 (a longus libellus), 4.89, 7.81, 7.85, 8.29, 10.1,11.108.1 (longus libellus). At 2.1 Martial contrasts the ideal measure ofthe books he publishes with an unwieldy hypothetical book of 300epigrams. The epigrams 1.16, 1.118, and 7.81 make it clear that the idealmeasure he has in mind is about a hundred epigrams, which is roughlythe size of each of the numbered books (apart from book 1, which is 30percent longer than any other).

16 Another piece that ostensibly concerns small collections sent to aprivatus (1.44) should not really be at issue since Fowler acknowledgesthat he is not "confident that I have a satisfactory reading myself' (43).He nevertheless insists that "there are no grounds for thinking that it isevidence for brochure publication." The poem is as folIows:

Lascivos leporum cursus lususque leonum

quod maior nobis charta minorque gerit

et bis idem facimus, nimium si, Stella, videtur

hoc tibi, bis leporem tu quoque pone mihi.

In common with other interpreters (including now the commentatorsCitroni and Howell), and citing E.G. Turner's dictum that "themanufacturer's and retailer's unit is the made-up roll and ... the Greekword XapTIlC, Latin charta, does not mean a sheet but a roll," I tookMartial to be referring to two small volumina sent privately to Stella.Fowler, after raising some issues that do not require comment here (1.44is thematically related to the epigram following it; use of the codexformat may somehow be involved in Martial's witticism), counters that"charta . .. suggests single sheets rather than books, and one might takethe reference to be to the pieces of papyrus on which Martial composeshis poems, a polar expression for 'every scrap of paper': looking indeed toa stage before publication, but to the foul papers of the poet Oatertranscribed into the published book) rather than to informal brochures"(44, Fowler's emphasis). No paralleIs are cited for the sense "sheet ofpaper" that Fowler assigns to charta here. Though it is sometimes usedgenerically to mean papyrus as writing material (as we use the word"paper"), I have not elsewhere observed that it can specify a single sheetof papyrus as opposed to a roll, whereas in Martial's parlance, at anyrate, it often figures both in the singular (1.66.7, 5.6.7, 10.93.6, 12.3.4)and in the plural (2.8.1, 7.51.8, 10.2.11, 12.95.3) in contexts where thereference is unmistakably to book rolls. As for the possibility that charta


prefaces book 12 of the Epigrams, Martial writes that after prolongedinactivity he has bestirred hirnself to produce paucissimis diebussome poems with which to celebrate a visit from Terentius Priscus.With the opening poem of the book he then tenders a brevis libellus toPriscus. To conclude that Martial is talking about a small brochurerather than the published version of book 12, however, would inFowler's view be erroneous because that conclusion allows no roomfor the element of "generic pretence": "The hypothesis takes tooseriously the conventions of the epigram, which is always bydefinition an impromptu poem dashed off and collected in a littlebook" (43). I have suggested above that this is not quite Martial'sown view of his epigram books, but the more interesting problemhere concerns the limits of "generic pretence." That Martial might atany given moment be pretending rather than representing a reality,no prudent interpreter would venture to deny. But consider the truthclaim behind the proposition that "we never need hypothesise inMartial publication of the epigrams in private brochures" (50-51). Forit to be tenable, every single passage in which Martial seems to referto a smal1 collection (a considerable number now) must be a case ofgeneric pretence, and Martial can never have been reflecting anactuality in which pretence was grounded. In the total absence ofcontemporary evidence, such a position is not provably false, but it isextreme. That it does not correspond to literary practice wherecomparative evidence is available I will show below in section 5.

3. Anomalies of Arrangement within the Book

Throughout the Epigrams are scattered a number of prescntationpieces which read like liminary utterances yet occupy locations atsome distance from the opening of their respective books. Towardsthe end of book 4, in 4.82, Martial asks a friend to "commend these

.. maior minorque may be a polar expression, no paralleis are offered insupport. But polarity would have been more clearly indicated if Mal,tialhad used the adjectives in either the positive 01' the superlative degree.The comparative degree suggests a field of only two items rather thanextremes within a larger field. (The closest paralleis that I have foundfor ihe expression in 1.44.2-maior deeeptae fama est et gloria dextrae: / sinon errasset, feeerat illa minus at 1.21.7-8, minor ordo maximusque ai4.2.3, and maiorem Aleiden nUlLe minor ipse eolit at 9.64.6-involvesimple pairs rather than polar concepts.) Finally, the suggesiion thaiMariial is tal king about scribble paper rather than actual book rollsignores the point of tu quoque pone in line 4: Mariial must have "servedup" the iwo ehartae to Stella in the same way thai Stella is now inviicclto retaliate by serving up a dinner.

406 PETERWHITE

books as weIl to Venuleius ... if two are too much to read, then rollup one and the work so divided will be shortened."17 When anothercollection of epigrams is being presented in 5.80, Martial uses aseries of future tenses (si uacabis, si legeris, tibi debiturus hic est ...libellus nam securus erit) implying that the recipient has yet to readthe book, though the poem stands fifth from the end of it. A quarterofthe way through book 7 comes a poem (26) that is personified asan emissary to Apollinaris: Martial gives instructions about makinga tactful approach and then says (in a book which, as it stands, hasbeen presented to at least two prior recipients) "let his sophisticatedears be treated to this carmen first."18 In 11.106, when there are onlythree poems left in the book, Martial says to another friend, "if youare free for a hello caIl, just read this." I inferred that such poemswere originally written to introduce privately presented brochuresand that they landed in their present, more or less awkwardlocations when they were later carried over into the published books.

With the broad lines of Fowler's response, which is to find inthese poems "not awkwardness but a sophisticated play" (46) thatenlists our readerly appreciation of"absurdity" (47) and "bewilderingparadox" (49), one can have no wish to quarrel. Fowler also pointsout justly that some of these pieces are integrated into their presentlocations by thematic links to poems before and after them. But itshould be obvious that he and I are arguing about the poems as theyexist in two different poetic states. The considerations which heraises about the poem in the published book are not directlypertinent to my argument about the poem in a private brochure.Even a critic who does not accept the brochure hypothesis wouldpresumably admit that in many cases the writing of a poem precedesthe idea of the published book in which the poem is ultimately toappear. If that is true, some at least of the effects of placementwithin the book must be seen as secondary constructions on the part

17 Much of Fowler's discussion of this poem turns on the word pliceturin line 7, which he finds "a little puzzling ... not the obvious word touse of a roll" (48). He suggests that it could mean "roll to the end as ifread" or that it "might even suit a codex better, with the pages foldedback," but has no paralleIs to offer in support of these eccentricrenderings. For plicare as the vox propria of rolling up a volumen, see L.Holtz, "Les mots latins designant le livre au temps d'Augustin," in Lesdebuts du codex (above, n. 4) 110-l1I.

18 According to the text which Fowler follows, hoc facetae carmeninbuant aures. Lindsay in the OCT printed haec-facetum carmeninbuant aures, which emphasizes that a collection of poems rather than asingle poem is meant.


of the author. And while some effects may be created by theadjustment of existing poems or the addition of new ones (it can bedemonstrated that Martial, for one, took the opportunity ofpublication to create such effects), others require no furtherintervention at all. Some effects may be virtually automatie. For anypoem that contains a complex of ideas, one location will activate oneresonance, another another. Indeed it is not inconceivable, given thecompetence of readers as weIl as of writers, that readers may detectconnections which the poet altogether failed to realize.

4. Arrangement in Modern Poetry Books

It is possible to deal less abstractly with the issue Fowler raises.Literary critics concerned with the arrangement of poetry books facetwo not inconsiderable handicaps when dealing with texts of theRoman period. Few Latin poets commented on their practice in thisregard,19 and though we know of some poetry books that came out inmore than one edition and therefore perhaps featured differentarrangements, in no case do we actually have different editions tocompare. On the other hand, we are often very weIl informed aboutboth the aims and the publication history of modern poets, and thisinformation can help to orient our expectations about Latin poetrybooks.

Comparative data are especially pertinent to one of Fowler'scomplaints about the brochure hypothesis. Holding that every aspectof the Epigrams must be fully meaningful within the publishedsetting, he insists that "they are complex and sophisticated textswhose existence in the published books is central" (56). Hence for hirnit is perverse to speak of awkward placement or other traces ofprevious states (cf. 39: "there is a basic problem with the assumption that the poem is inadequate or ineffective in the published book:how then do we motivate its inclusion there?"). But if we prescindfrom critical ideology and ask whether as a matter of fact poemspublished by sophisticated poets have been known to carry suchtraces, the answer is evidently yes. W. B. Yeats' poem "To Some IHave Talked with by the Fire" begins:

19 One who did is Ovid, who at Pant. 3.9.53 claims that he collectedand published the verse epistles which make up books 1-3 of thatcollection sine ardine (a claim similar to that which Pliny makes aboutthe arrangement of his prose letters at Ep. 1.1.1). Not that a critic isobliged to take either Ovid or Pliny at his word. Statius also touches onthe arrangement of his Siluae in the letters that precede books 1-4.

408 PETERWHITE

While I wrought out these fitful Danaan rhymes,My heart would brim with dreams about the timesWhen we bent down above the fading coalsAnd talked of the dark folk who live in soulsOf passionate men, like bats in the dead trees ...

As the deixis of "these fitful Danaan rhymes," the self-explanatoryretrospect, and the evocation of fireside friends all suggest, the poemwas conceived as a dedication and originally appeared as such in the1895 edition of Poems. As the Yeats corpus burgeoned, however, thispiece forfeited its dedicatory status and became one poem amongothers in The Collected Poems of 1933. So also with the poem thatbegins "There was a green branch hung with many a bell." It wascomposed in 1891 to introduce Representatiue Irish Tales, a collectionof stories by Yeats and other Irish writers, to which tales the twelfthline "I also bear a bell-branch full of ease" alludes. But later Yeatsdid not scruple to tear these verses free of the bell-branch and toincorporate them into successive collections of his poetry.

In 1838 William Wordsworth brought out his Sonnets Collected inOne Volume. On page 63, in the midst of a seetion of "MiscellaneousSonnets," appears one addressed "To the Lady Mary Lowther" whichbegins "Lady! I rifled a Parnassian Cave/ (But seldom trod) of mildlygleaming ore" and goes on to present her with a medley of poems.This was at least the third appearance of a poem which had itsorigin in 1819 when Wordsworth made a selection of poems by divershands and presented them privately as a Christmas gift to LadyLowther. 20 On the following page in Sonnets stands a poem to theEarl of Lonsdale which Wordsworth first published in 1814 as thededication of his unfinished opus The Excursion. And finally, as anoteworthy example of awkward location, consider the piece thatWordsworth placed at the end of the seetion "Miscellaneous Sonnets"under the title "Conclusion To ---". The poem begins:

If these brief Records, by the Muses' artProduced as lonely Nature or the strifeThat animates the scenes of public lifeInspired, may in thy leisure claim apart.

and trails a footnote explaining that the third line "alludes toSonnets which will be found in another Class" (evidently refenmg tothe series of "Political Sonnets" which follows). The note betrays that

20 See C.R. Ketcham, ed., Shorter Poems 1807-1820 by WilliamWordsworth (Ithaca NY 1989) 286-287.


Wordsworth has converted the dedication of one set of poems into theconclusion of another.

Examples could be multiplied with little difficulty. For the wholequestion of placement, Wordsworth's CEuvre makes a valuable studybecause he was so forthcoming on the subject and because in thecourse of his career he published and re-published so many of thesame poems in different arrangements. For the narrow purpose ofthis debate with Fowler, it will serve to have noted resemblancesbetween some of Martial's presentation pieces in the Epigrams andsome recycled dedications by Yeats and Wordsworth. But the varietyof formats and text states which students of modern poetry confrontas a matter of course also raises a more fundamental question, andone which merits at least a moment's thought on the part ofclassicists. J.J. McGann, who has edited Byron's work, offers thisanalysis to explain why he and many other editors of modern poetryhave moved away from the goal of constituting a definitive texttoward that of producing "reading texts" instead:

The editor of modern texts does not typically work in the sortof darkness that surrounds the classical editor.. . For theeditor of late modern works especially, the first and crucialproblem is not how to discover corruptions, but how todistinguish and finally choose between textual versions .The wide range of published and prepublished textual formswhich the modern editor has at his disposal corresponds tovarious sorts of "intention" conceived by the author alone, orby the author working in concert with the literary institutionof his time and place. Under these conditions, the criticaleditor is not normally seeking an author's final intentions,since he does not need such an ideal text in the same wayand for the same reasons that the editor of cIassical textsdoes. On the contrary, the editor of modern texts is typicallyconcerned to distinguish the type and character of actual,achieved, and largely uncorrupted textual forms. 21

McGann is of course talking here about the problem of establishing atext, but his comments would seem to apply a fortiOl-i to choosingamong authorial arrangements. As he observes, classicists have nosuch wealth of textual resources to draw on. But that is merely anaccident of history. If it is possible to suppose that even in Martial'stime poets worked their public and managed their stock like Yeats

21 J.J. McGann, A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago 1983)57-58.

410 PETERWHITE

and Wordsworth, then we must ask whether the centrality of "the"published text is not merely a comfortable illusion we have acceptedbecause we lack contemporary materials and we have long beenconditioned to think in terms of a stemmatic archetype.

5. Independent Evidence for Pre-Publication TextsFowler's argument against the circulation of Martial's poems beforepublication was evidently advanced as a preliminary and partialstatement, since there are considerations in favor that he has not yetchosen to engage with. One has to do with the many poems in theEpigrams (as on births, deaths, marriages, and anniversaries) whichcommemorate events that occurred on specific dates. It is reasonablyweIl established (and Fowler agrees) that Martial put his books intogeneral circulation each year around the time of the Saturnalia inDecember. If he did not circulate his poems informally before then,and ifhe generally avoided the practice of recitation,22 apparently hisfriend Quintus Ovidius could not have read or heard the poem for hisbirthday on April 1 (9.52) until seven months later. I find thatimplication socially bizarre. It seems even more bizarre to supposethat the emperor, whom Martial could not normally expect toencounter in person, did not receive a poem that honors his birthdayin October (9.39) until December. And there are many more than twoproblems of this kind.

But a more serious omission is that Fowler has not yet takenaccount of evidence for circulation independent of Martial. If thequestion "Did Martial circulate his epigrams privately in smallassortments?" concerns activity in areal world outside books, thenorms of activity in that world are relevant to an answer. We mayrespond to the evidence of the Epigrams skeptically if we have noreason to think that anybody else ever circulated poems informally.But the more widespread the practice appears to be, the more likelyit becomes that Martial had a part in it.

A century before Martial another epigrammatist, Antipater ofThessalonica, presented a book of poems as a birthday present to aRoman grandee (AP 9.93). He describes it as a 13f13Aoc ~IKpf) that heturned out in a single night. The younger Pliny, who also cultivated areputation as a poet of light verse, sent an as yet unpublishedcollection of his work to a friend with a letter implying that he mighthave been expected to send only a sampling (Ep. 4.14.6). To another

22 This being another position which Fowler has embraced in his zealto vindicate the textuality of the Epigrams (36-37).


friend he sent his Latin renderings of a few poems he selected from acollection of epigrams that the friend had produced in Greek (4.18).Ovid says that the verse epistles which make up books 1-3 of theLetters {rom Pontus were sent individually to their respectiveaddressees before he collected and published them (Pont. 3.9.51-53).Statius says that all the poems in book 1 of the Siluae were in thehands of the persons honored by them long before he published thebook, and he indicates that the same was true for many poems inthe following books as well. 23 Statius' practice is particularly relevantfor our judgment of Martial's, because the Siluae were addressed toseveral of the same people and concerned several of the sameoccasions as the Epigrams. Whether one chooses to conclude thatpoems did often circulate privately at Rome or that it was a commonpretence that they circulated privately, it is clear that Martial'stestimony is part of a much broader picture. And since there isnothing to indicate that poems circulated in aseparate world fromprose, a proper assessment of it would also have to take account ofdata such as we have about the circulation of Cicero's dialogs prior totheir publication.

Finally, against the supposition that our ancient testimonyamounts to nothing more than generic pretence, one may appealagain to the behavior of modern poets. Arecent editor of Wordsworthreports that "his smaller pieces he had begun to collect inmanuscript, both for safekeeping and for circulation among familyand friends. Several such collections survive.,,24 In 1913 Yeats had 50copies printed of Poems Written in Discouragement. This brochureconsisted of five poems disposed on eight pages and was not for sale.Three ofthe five poems had not appeared anywhere else before andnone had yet circulated in a trade edition. 2G T. S. Eliot had 22 copiesof a brochure containing "Cape Ann" and "Usk" from "Landscapes"printed privately for distribution to friends at Christmas in 1935; thepoems did not circulate publicly until the following year. Twelve

:l:l Serum erat continere, cum illa uos certe quorum honori data sunthaberetis, Siluae 1 pr., p. 1.10-11 Courtney; ceteris indico, ne quisasperiore lima carmen examinet ... dolenti datum, 2 pr., p. 31.10-11; adVrsum quoque nostrum ... scriptam de amisso puero consolationem superea quae ipsi debeo Iwic libro libenter inserui, quia honorem eius tibilaturus accepto est, 2 pr., p. 31.18-22; mulla ex illis iam domino Caesaridederam, et quanto hoc plus est quam edere!, 4 pr., p. 88.28-29.

24 J. Curtis, ed., "Poems, in Two Volumes," and Dther Poems, 18001807 by William Wordsworth (lthaca NY 1983) 3.

25 See A. Wade, A Bibliography of the Writings of W. B. Yeats, 3d ed.,rcv. R. K. Alspach (Bungay, Suffolk 1968) 114, no. 107.

412 PETERWHITE

copies of a 33-page edition of Poems Written in Early Youth wereprivately printed in December of 1950, seventeen years before thefirst trade edition appeared. 26 In these cases there can be noquestion of generic pretence because we possess the texts inquestion.

6. Epistemological Starting Points

Although there have always been good reasons to believe thatMartial circulated poems privately in small assortments before hepublished them, it remains in the end only a hypothesis, no morecapable ofbeing proved now than in 1974. The challenge that Fowlerhas mounted to it likewise rests on hypotheses: that at a certainpoint Martial abandoned the book-roll format and began to publishmulti-book codices, that he playfully continued to speak of rolls evenwhile producing codices, that he was only pretending when heclaimed to be circulating little collections of epigrams, that Latinpoets did not recycle poems as modern poets have done. In thecontinuing absence of proof, the choice between the two positions isbest left to individual tastes.

On this subjeet, however, tastes are apt to be influenced in partby epistemological preconceptions. Most of the evidence on which Ihave relied is drawn from poetic texts. For it to be acceptable, onemust accept first (as I do) that Latin poetry can represent anexternal reality, though of course in a different mode or modes thanan oration of Cicero would, or a narrative by Tacitus, or Augustus'Res Gestae, or a papyrus proces-verbal. Literary critics, especiallycontemporary British ones, often experience discomfort when Latinpoems are exploited for unliterary ends. But in the present case, thedisagreement is rooted in something deeper than discomfort.Fowler's position is not simply that poetic values are apt to bemisperceived or overlooked when poems are treated as socialdocuments, but that fundamentally poems do not refleet a socialreality at all: "no feature of a text can ever establish such an externalcontext because all features may be imitated in a wholly fictionalsetting" (40). This is textual solipsism. Epistemologically it wouldseem to be an impossible position from which to try to defend anyclaim about the movements of books among readers.

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICSUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOCHICAGO, IL 60637

26 See D. Gallup, T. S. Eliot: A Bibliography, rev. ed. (New York 1969)31, item A 30, and 84-85, item A 56.


REVIEW ARTICLE

ALAN CAMERON, CALLIMACHUS AND HIS CRITICS l

PETER E. KNOX

Late one afternoon in the spring of 1984 the opportunity for acelebration did not pass unnoticed (OVOE EAov8avEv) and theoccasion called together a group of graduate students and facultyfrom Columbia University's Classics Department for a celebratorysymposium at a local establishment. I found myself seated next toAlan Cameron, not by design (OVK ETTlTOO, but, as Homer puts it, WCalEv TOV o~olov ä:YEl 8EOC Ec TOV o~olov. There I learned the truth ofthe saying that beer requires also its portion of conversation (AECXll),and our talk turned to Callimachus. That was when I firstdiscovered that Cameron and I shared certain heterodox views aboutthe Prologue to the Aetia, particularly its date and its relationship tothe rest ofthe poem. At the time I was also formulating a somewhatunorthodox hypothesis about the Epilogue, which was published thefollowing year.~ In a footnote I acknowledged Cameron's contributionsto my thinking on the subject and expressed gratitude in particularfor the opportunity to read in draft his paper-then about 35 pagesin length, as I recall-on "Callimachus and his Critics." In thc yearsthat followed I saw subsequent drafts of the work and had severaloccasions to cite it in articles of my own, going so far in 1993 as torefer-rashly, as it turned out-to a "completed manuscript.":J Elevenyears after our first conversation on the subject of Callimachus his"paper" has appeared as a book of over 500 pages-truly a ~Eya

ßIßAiov, though not the sort that would dismay the author of thcAetia. Cameron's book covers a broad array of topics related not onlyto Callimachus but to the poetry and society of the third century. Thcpages bristle with a lively and vigorous polemic as Cameronchallenges virtually every commonly held view about Callimachus. Itis pleasant to imagine that the object uf Cameron's study would havc

I Alan Cameron. Callimaclws and his Critics. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1995. Pp. xiv + 534. Cloth, US $49.50. ISBN 0-69]04367-1.

~ "The Epilogue to the Aetia," GRBS 26 (1985) 59-65.

:1 "Philetas and Roman Poetry," PLLS 7 (1993) 80, n. 40.

413

414 PETER E. KNOX

approved of this aspect of the book in particular. Contemporaryadmirers of Cameron's work will recognize here the hallmarks of hisstyle as a scholar: evidence long known but inadequately digested isreappraised; new or overlooked evidence is brought to bear on oldproblems; long accepted chronologies are sorted out afresh. My ownfamiliarity with the genesis of the book and my predisposition toaccept some of Cameron's more controversial conclusions-datingback to that early symposium-render me perhaps a less than idealguide to this important new work. What follows is an attempt tooutline without bias its main contributions, while indicating alsoareas where Cameron is less likely to carry conviction.

The opening chapter, "Cyrene, Court and Kings," offers a scepticalreassessment of the current scholarlY consensus on the facts ofCallimachus' life and background. Cameron's new formulation isbased on a fresh appraisal of the sources, and he presents acompelling defense of his hypothesis that Callimachus was not, as inthe prevailing view, a penniless school teacher from Cyrene, elevatedto his position in the Museum through Ptolemaic patronage.Cameron takes his point of departure from the biographicaltestimonia, zeroing in on Tzetzes' identification of Callimachus as aroyal page, vEavlcKoc Tiic avAfic (= Test. 14.c Pf.). The "information"that Callimachus was a school teacher at Eleusis comes from theSuda, and these two pieces have generally been combined to createthe story of Callimachus' rise from obscurity. Cameron reverses theweight traditionally given to these testimonia and argues withevidence from other sources that "the title of royal page was certainlynever conferred on village school masters" (5). On the contrary, to callsomeone an elementary teacher was a common form of abuse inantiquity, and this reference in the Suda probably derives from sucha lampoon having been directed at Callimachus and later mistakenas biography. Having disposed of this fiction, Cameron proceeds toredate the "Cyrenean period" of Callimachus' verse to a later stage ofhis life and sketches a family tree for the poet that locates hirn as amember of the Cyrenean nobility with access to the highest circles atcourt. How Cameron ultimately relates these data to the evolution ofthe poet is best illustrated by his conclusion: "The fastidiousness forwhich he has become a byword was perhaps after all more thanmerely apose; but it was as much social as intellectual" (23). Thisstyle of argumentation shows Cameron at his best, but it alsoillustrates an aspect of Cameron's own style of polemic, againstwhich the reader should be on guard, since Cameron will at timesemphasize a point that he must later overturn. Here he is anxious tocombat the notion that Callimachus' encomia of the great are the

CALLIMACHUS AND HIS CRITICS 415

natural product of his humble beginnings, and in this he is largelysuccessful. But his assertion that "panegyrics of the great were aroutine phenomenon of the age ... but they were not to Callimachus'taste" (12) is seemingly contradicted by the arguments in hisconcluding chapter: e.g., "not to mention the obscure poets of theAttalid court, both Theocritus and Callimachus wrote many encomiaon rulers" (463). Both statements contain an element of truth, forCallimachus is restrained in his praise, rather more like Ovid thanother Romans more influenced by later Greek poets. But the readersurrenders to the rhetoric of Cameron's depiction of an elitist poet atcourt, whose protestations of poverty are a traditional pose. This isjust one area in which Cameron's revaluation of the evidence opensnew possibilities for critics of the Roman Callimacheans in assessingthe pose of poverty in their relations to powerful patrons.

In the following chapters (11-111) Cameron fleshes out this newpictllre of Callimachus by re-examining the evidence beh ind moderncharacterizations of Callimachus and his contemporaries as secludedscholars, cut off from their own Hellenic culture and isolated [Tomsociety. Cameron begins by releasing Callimachus and his colleaguesfrom the "birdcage" in which they have been confined by modernreadings of a famous passage from the Silloi of Timon of Phlias,quoted by Athenaeus (I 22 D = SH 786):

TTO.A..A.ol ~EV [30CKOVTat EV AlyvTTT~ TTO.A.VCPV.A.~

[31[3.A.IOKOl XOPOKITat clTTEfplTO 0llPIOWVTECMOVcEWV EV TO.A.6:p~.

On the usual interpretation, Timon is caricaturing the scholars of theMuseum, imagining them as rare creatures, cut off from real life;Cameron revives the earlier reading of this excerpt by Scaliger, that"the point is not the seclusion of these birds as oddities, but theirvalue as delicacies for the table" (32). This launches Cameron onto acourse of establishing that the poets associated with the Libraryparticipated in a society in which public performance of poetrycontinued with 1ittle disruption from the classical past. Some of thismaterial has been surveyed by Cameron before4

; the importance ofhis contribution here is the specifically Hellenistic context heprovides, especially in 11.6 (47-53). Cameron sllggests a positiveanswer to the question of whether Callimachus' hymns were pub1ic1yperformed (11.8); but it could be maintainted that the backgrounddescribed by Cameron points in a different direction. Performance at

4 "Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzantine Egypt,"Historia 14 (1965) 470-509.

416 PETER E. KNOX

public festivals might not consist with the pose of fastidiousnessadopted by CaIlimachus: unlike the crowd of professional poets whoperformed at public festivals in hopes of reward, CaIlimachus dideschew the public (AP 12.43 CIKXaivw TTCXVTa Tel bTWOCla) andmight fit more comfortably in the company of those poets whocomposed gratuita carmina (Sen. Nat. 4 praef) , poetry for a morelimited circle for which they would not expect public honors.Cameron's cogent arguments for the vitality of the symposium as asetting for literature provide a social context for such forms ofunremunerative poetry, although admittedly the more likelycandidates are the epigrams that proliferated in this period. It mayweIl be, as Cameron suggests (83-84), that some of these were the"erotic elegies" performed by a participant at a symposium recordedby Gellius (19.4), but the evidence for other types of Greek eroticelegy might encourage a note of caution.G

Caution is not much in evidence in the following chapters (IVVIII), which set out in detail the core of Cameron's argument aboutthe literary and cultural setting of the Aetia, which he has onlyadumbrated before. 6 It is here that Cameron is most controversialand his argument is most likely to encounter heated resistance. Tosummarize, Cameron argues (IV) that the Prologue to the Aetia isnot, as Rudolf Pfeiffer hypothesized, a late composition prefixed to anedition of his complete poetry published near the end of his life.Rather, the Prologue belongs to the earliest edition of the work intwo books released ca. 270 BCE. Cameron draws attention to theexternal evidence for an earlier date for the Prologue and suggeststhat the elose thematic links between the Prologue and the so-caIledDream (fr. 2), which certainly belonged in the first version, areevidence of simultaneous composition. In Chapter V this line ofargument is pursued in tracing the connections between the Prologueand fr. 178 "The lcian Guest," now generally agreed to have been theopening episode of Book II. These links to the plan of Books 1-11,Cameron argues, fix the context of the Prologue in the earliest versionof the Aetia. Turning then to the later books of the poem in ChapterVI, Cameron adopts, with some modification, my hypothesis that theEpilogue, which alone among the fragments of III-IV shows eloseaffinities with I-lI, owes its current position in the poem to laterrevision.7 From this foIlows an account of the consequences of this

GJ.L. Butrica, "Hellenistic Erotic Elegy: The Evidence of the Papyri,"PLLS 9 (1996) 297-322.

6"Genre and Style in Callimachus," TAPA 122 (1992) 305-312.

7 "The Epilogue to the Aetia: An Epilogue," ZPE 96 (1993) 175, n. 1.


dating of the Epilogue for the chronology of the Iambi. Cameron thenaddresses the only serious obstacle remaining for this framework forthe publication of the Aetia, the repeated references in the Prologueto the poet's old age. In 270 he would have been between forty-fiveand fifty years old, old enough to refer to hirnself as an old man,according to Cameron. His survey of the evidence for a11usions toadvanced age by poets and his review of ancient attitudes about oldage will convince a11 but those who wish to remain unconvinced forother reasons having nothing to do with Callimachus. At the veryleast Cameron's argument demonstrates how fragile a peg this wasupon which to hang the hypothesis of a late Prologue when Pfeifferfirst proposed it in 1928. Finally Cameron turns to the literarycontext in which he locates Callimachus' polemic agains the critics hecalls "Telchines." Cameron's point of departure is the FlorentineScholia, where three contemporaries of Callimachus are identifiedamong his critics-Asclepiades, Posidippus, and Praxiphanes.Cameron refutes the arguments of scholars since Pfeiffer who haverejected this identification. He counters objections such as thoseraised chiefly by Mary Lefkowitz (that we cannot rely on the qualityof ancient biographical information) with a detailed analysis of theLiues of Aratus and Nicander. Cameron's insistence on evaluatingeach piece of evidence on its own merits in this case restores thcbalance in favor of the ancient commentators.

Thc resulting outline of the evolution of the Aetia differs radicallyfrom the currently prevailing model: first, the original two-bookversion produced ca. 270, with Prologue and Epilogue framing adialogue between the poet and the Muses; then, ca. 243, a finalversion with two new books appended to thc original. Thisreconstruction has many virtues-it is the most economical way toaccount for the evidence-but it unsettles a host of closely heldbeliefs about poetry and literary polemic in the third century.Cameron's arguments rest on many props, and critics will doubtlesskick out more than a few. Is it safe, for example, to draw conclusionsabout the presence of possible source referenccs in earlier epitomesfrom those found in the Palatine manuscript of Parthenius (124125)? Probably not. But the overall account providcd by Cameron 01"such epitomes in ancient scholarship and his reconstruction of such acommentary for Callimachus, thc remnants of which are to be foundin the Florentine Scholia and the Diegeseis, will withstand the lossof this and probably a few more props. Some, clinging to Pfciffer'shypothesis of a later date for the Prologue, will object that thc"Telchines" identified by the scholiast do not make sense a sopponents of Ca11imachus. But these ojections fall by the wayside if,

418 PETER E. KNOX

in addition to the compelling internal arguments, it can be shownthat the Prologue responds to the intellectual climate of thebeginning ofthe third century, not its later stages. To this Cameronturns in chapters IX-XVII.

This part of the book contains a great deal of closely argued anddetailed examination of the supporting evidence for Cameron'sredating of the Aetia Prologue in the work of other contemporaries,most of which will need to be sorted out by specialists in these poets.For example, Cameron establishes a new relative chronology forworks of Theocritus, Posidippus, Sotades, and Apollonius on thebasis of topical and literary allusions in their works (IX). He alsoargues against the now standard view of the importance of Hesiod asa model for Hellenistic poets, editing the "Hesiodic initiation," positedby critics since E. Reitzenstein, out of the Somnium (XIII).8 And heoffers a re-appraisal of Ep. 27 (= AP 9.507) on Aratus (XIV). OnCameron's reading, "what Callimachus objected to was elegies thatpushed mechanical imitation of either Homer or Hesiod too far" (386).Cameron dismisses interpretations of Ep. 28 (= AP 12.43) as astatement of literary theory (most notably that of Richard Thomas)and, building upon the interpretation of Albert Henrichs, concludesthat "the primary importance of the poem is surely erotic rather thanliterary" (399). Cameron surveys the status of Cyclic poetry in theperiod to support his contention that "without further indication,depreciation of Cyclic poetry does not imply criticism of either Homeron the one hand, or Antimachus or Apollonius on the other."Traffickers in decoding machines for the literary polemic of Hellenisticpoetry will find little comfort from Cameron. The following briefchapter (XV) also disposes of the alleged rejection of epic poetry inthe Hymn to Apollo. The following chapter on Theocritus furtherbuttresses Cameron's argument that Callimachus' polemic does nottarget contemporary epic poetry. The success or failure of Cameron's

8 Critics anxious to defend the hypothesized initiation (and perhapstheir own writings on it) will pounce on some omissions in Cameron'sargument. For example, on 367 Cameron asserts that in the Aetia therewas "no drinking from springs," without accounting for the fact thatCallimachus did mention springs on Parnassus in this part of the Aetia.His later dismissal of this reference to the Hippocrene-which is not inthe lemma-and Aganippe (371) attributes to the Oxyrhynchus scholia anexplanation not to be found there; cf. Pfeiffer's note: "quid autemcommentarius de Heliconis fontibus exposuerit, nondum perspicuum est."The motivation for Callimachus' references to Aganippe and Perrnessosmust accordingly remain obscure, but some connection with laterreferences to drinking from them as a source of inspiration remainsplausible.

CALLIMACHUS AND HIS CRITIes 419

readings of these poems will depend on whether his interpretation ofthe literary import of the Prologue is convincing. This is the core ofhis argument, to which we now turn.

Central to Cameron's reading of the Aetia Prologue is theproposition that Callimachus' principal concern is not epic poetry, butelegy, not length but monotony. The case is stated in three closelyargued chapters (X-XII); they will be the focus of criticism, and uponhis success here rest Cameron's chances to displace Pfeiffer'sreconstruction of the Prologue's literary significance. Cameron arguesthat the case for a fashion for epic poetry contemporary withCallimachus has been overstated. His chief target in this part of hisbook (X) is the influential monograph by Konrat Ziegler, Dashellenistische Epos: Ein vergessenes Kapitel griechischer Dichtung(1966), a book often cited but little read. Other scholars, too, arecaught in the fallout, most notably critics of Roman poetry who haveinvested heavily in the hypothesis of a vogue for epie in theHellenistic period. Cameron wipes the slate clean to reconsider,fragment by fragment, testimonium by testimonium, the evidence forthis genre. His conclusion may be put suecinctly: "There is in fact nosolid or explicit evidence for long historical epics at any timc in thcHellenistic world" (268). What Cameron finds is eonsiderableevidence for hexameter encomia and panegyrics. It may be objectedthat he presses the case for continuity with Byzantine encomia toomuch, but the paralleis Cameron points out are at least ascompelling as the competing inferences which are based on Jittlemore than circular argumentation from modern theories. Equallydaunting is Cameron's marshalling of the evidence to show that fewif any of these works can be dated to the time of Callimachus' AetiaPrologue. Cameron's bravura display is as entertaining as it isenlightening. Does not Martin West identify a fragment of the lostgenre of historical epic? Cameron dispatches it. This scrap of verse,which eluded the editors of SH, is quoted by Servius on Aeneid12.691: cVPISovco MOKTlOovk '(TTTOTO AOYXTl. First noticed in 1964,the fragment, which Servius ascribes to "Homerus," was presumed tocome from one of those massive epics on Alexander or his successors.Cameron assigns it to Callimachus, on the grounds that for thcimitation to be recognized it had to come from "a poem of somedistinction that continued to find both readers and copyists" (282).His candidate: Callimachus' Galateia. If there ever is a revisededition of the SH, the line will surely warrant entry at least amongCallimachus' dubia.

If it is not long epic poetry that Callimachus attacked and theTelchines defended, then what? Cameron's answer ties together

420 PETER E. KNOX

neatly the evidence of the Prologue itself and the identification of theTelchines in the Florentine scholia (302): "we know from theirepigrams that there was one poem on which Posidippus andAsclepiades did cross swords with Callimachus, not an epic but epicin style and dimensions ... Antimachus' celebrated elegy the Lyde."Cameron teases out of the surviving poetry traces of a lively literarypolemic in the early third century with his identification ofCallimachus' Cydippe as a target of criticism in Asclepiades' epigramin praise of Antimachus (AP 9.63). On his reading, Callimachus'Cydippe is the descendant of Codrus who is contrasted unfavorablywW ~;:,,·,Yde (306-307):

. /\00n Kai yEVOC Ei~1 Kai oüvo~a' TWV 0' aTTe KoopovCE~VOTEpn TTacwv Ei~l 01' 'AvTi~axov.

Hence Callimachus' riposte, an epigram directed not only atAntimachus but Asclepiades: /\00n Kai TTaxv yp6:~~a Kai OU TOpOV.Cameron describes a literary climate in the early third century inwhich most critics judged that the prime representative of narrativeelegy was Antimachus: Callimachus staked out a minority positionand fired back at salvos like the one aimed by Asclepiades. He tookhis best shot in the Aetia Prologue, a work he intended as thestylistic antithesis to Antimachus. Cameron adopts the interpretation of the Florentine Scholiast that lines 9-12 of the Prologuecontrast the long and short poems of Mimnermus and Philitas.Building upon the work of E.L. Bowie and others, Cameron arguesfor identifying the "big lady" of Mimnermus as his Smyrneis and theNanno as the model shorter work, to which Philitas' Demeter is acounterpart. The longer, bad poem of Philitas is another "big lady,"his Bittis. Cameron defends the supplement proposed for thebeginning ofline 9 by Wimmel [KWIOC OUK] äp' EfjV, and in defendingthe identification of Bittis in 10 attempts to cut the knot by aspectacularly simple proposal of his own for the supplement at thebeginning of the line. A number of suggestions litter the apparatuscritieus in the attempt to identify the objectionable work of Philitas"the quest for the magic monosyllable," as Cameron puts it. His ownsolution-on (317)-remains conjectural, but it satisfies not onlyCameron's hypothesis of the literary situation, hut also-what theothers fail to do-the rhetorical requirements of this passage.

Where in this do we find Antimachus? "Nothing could be morepointed and tendentious than not to cite the Lyde in such a context"(316). Cameron drives horne his point that Callimachus' attention isfocused on elegiac poetry and the appropriate style for elegiacnarrative, and that Antimachus' chief fault lay in his failure to


differentiate between epic and elegiac style. Not every reader ofCallimachus and his Critics will be convinced, but most will admireCameron's bold use of the evidence provided by Gregory Nazianzen,which others have overlooked, and the sheer chutzpah of his"supplement" for the fragmentary epigram attacking the Lyde (337):

AVOll Kai TTaxv YPO:lllla Kai OV Top6v' <il yap "OWIPOCaVVTOlloc aVTOC EllV, 'AvTlllaxoc OE TToAvc>.

As Cameron comments (337), there is no evidence that Callimachu::idisapproved of Antimachus' epic Thebaid. This suggests at least oneother possibility for his absence from the Aetia Prologue: whileCallimachus praises the short poems of Philitas and Mimnermusand criticizes their longer works, were Antimachus to have beenincluded, ironically, his point would have had to be the reverse.

If Callimachus dues not refer to epic, then what is thc EV O:ElcllaOlllvEKEC of !ine 3 in the Prologue? Cameron turns to this question inthe füllowing chapter (XII), surveying competing cxplanations andendorsing the one proposed by L. Adam, also recently supported byR. Hunter. On this interpretation OlllVEKEC refers to "continuous,linear narrative" (343) and carries with it some pejorative connotations by association with the manner of Cyclic epic, as criticized byAristotle in the Poetics. Hut it i8 EV which in this context secures th('negative assessment, suggesting as it does monotonY-llovoEloEla,the antithesis of Callimachean TToAvEloEla. Such a reading mustremain speculative, but it suggests a more interesting use ofCallimachus by his closest reader among Roman puets, Ovid, thanthe one outlined by Cameron in his conclusiun to this section on 359361. Ovid's allusions to this part of the Prologuc in the Preface to hisMetamorphoses contain a number of subtle plays on the literarybackground. Hut his reference to the Metamorphoses as a perpetuunt .. . carmen pointedly omits the reinforcing EV: his own O:Elclla OlllVEKECwill not be monotonous.

Cameron's reassessment of Callimachus and the litcrary climateof the third century has potential consequenccs for the criticalevaluation uf his contemporarics, many of which are raised byCameron in the course of his argument. Of course, the potentialimpact on criticism of Roman poetry is also significant, and Cameronmakes a start in his final chapter on the "Augustan Rccusatio." Inthis area Cameron's argument is lcss compelling, and I partcompany with him on a ntlmber of issues, beginning with thc SixthEclogue. Cameron, like Callimachus, bcgins with his own Tclchilws,a largely imaginary and cxaggerated foe referrcd tn variously ::l::i thc"Clausen school" or the "Clausen-Thomas schoo!." Having success-

422 PETER E. KNOX

fully-to my mind-read criticism of epic out of the Aetia Prologue,Cameron now tries to read it out of Roman imitations. Thefundamental flaw here is one common to many approaches to Romanpoetry, of assuming that in imitating Callimachus, Virgil (orPropertius or Ovid) intends to echo precisely the sense ofthe original.As Cameron correctly notes (459), unlike Callimachus, ''Virgil wasindeed faced with a vogue for epic." In fact, it was predominantly epicof a panegyrical type, which was more a phenomenon of Romanliterature than Greek.9 And in this context it is misguided to try tomitigate Virgil's criticisms of that genre here in the opening of Eclogue6 where he is prevented from writing such a poem by Apollo.Cameron's description of Virgil's relationship to these earlier poemsmisstates the facts (459): "we owe most of our knowledge of two onCaesar's Gallic wars, by Varro of Atax and Furius . . . to the factthat Virgil did a number of lines the honour of careful imitation." Infact we owe our knowledge of Furius' Annales-7 out of the 9fragments-largely to Macrobius' list of alleged borrowings by Virgil(Sat. 6.1). Macrobius, however, is hardly a sure guide in suchmatters, and every one of these unremarkable "borrowings" can bebetter explained by reference to Furius' models in Homer, Ennius, orLucretius. The two remaining fragments have no counterpart inVirgil. The evidence for Virgil's approval of Varro's BellumSequanicum is even slimmer. Two fragments survive. One, cited byPriscian for a rare form, has no equivalent in Virgil. The other iscited by Servius on A. 10.396, but only because Varro hadtransferred it uerbatim from Ennius. There is, in fact, no evidencethat Virgil admired any of the panegyrical epics fashionable in firstcentury Rome, and Eclogue 6 is positive evidence that he thought itturgid. Cameron denies a note of polemic in Virgil's pingues oues(459), but this dubious position cannot be defended by referring onlyto the positive associations of pinguis in agricultural contexts,inc1uding the more than 20 instances in the Georgics. The contexthere plainly plays on both the positive sense of the term and itsliterary associations which, pace Cameron, are entirely negative(OLD S.u. 7b). In fact, Cicero uses precisely this term to characterizepanegyrical epic when he mentions Metellus Pius, qui praesertimusque eo de suis rebus scribi cuperet ut etiam Cordubae natis poetis12ingue quiddam sonantibus atque peregrinum tamen auris suasdederet (Arch. 26). Contrary to Cameron's assertion that "too sharp adepreciation of epic would risk depreciating Varus's achievements as

9 A. Hardie, Statius and the Siluae: Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in theGraeco-Roman World (Liverpool 1983) 39.


weIl," Virgil pays his friend the compliment of praising hirn whileavoiding the bombast associated with such panegyrics. Therein liesthe Callimachean point of the Augustan poet, and seen in thiscontext it is still one of the "surprises of Latin literary history," asClausen put it in 1963, that the poet who wrote this subtledepreciation of contemporary epic style would set hirnself to correct itin a new style of epic in the AerLeid. Virgil's imitation of Callimachusis not inert repetition of Callimachus' objections to born bastic elegiacnarrative, but a sophisticated adaptation of his strictures on style tothe contemporary Roman literary scene of the first century with itsvogue for epic.

Cameron is on firm ground in arguing that the evidence does notsupport the notion that the Roman poets rejected epic as a genre,but he goes too far in attempting to separate out the roles of epic andpanegyric. His assertion that Ovid refers to the Metamorphoses as hismaius opus (Trist. 2.63) because it contains praise of Augustus (469)is an unintended reductio ad absurdum of this line of argument.Cameron's own style of argument may be employed in demonstration: maius connotes, first and foremost, size, and in this respect theMetamorphoses is unquestionably Ovid's maius opus. The point thatOvid is endeavouring to make is that the inclusion of encomium(uestri praeconia nominis, Tr. 2.65) in his major work is evidence ofthe seriousness Ovid attaches to the panegyric. Cameron makessimilarly heavy weather of Fast. 2.3-4, in a passage dedicated toAugustus:

nunc primum uelis, elegi, maioribus itis:exiguum, memini, nuper eratis opus.

The reference here is not internal, as Cameron alleges (470), nor isthis a reference to the treatment of Augustus. As Ovid explicitlystates in the next couplet (not quoted by Cameron), he is pointing acontrast between his narrative Fasti and the earlier Amores and Ars:

ipse ego uos habui faciles in amore ministros,cum lusit numeris prima iuuenta suis.

The contrast is drawn between Ovid's larger-scale narrative elegy(maioribus uelis), the Fasti, and his earlier elegies on a smaB scale(exiguum opus). Ovid neatly reverses the rhetorical stance ofthe AetiaPrologue and, being Ovid, points out the irony (8): ecquis ad haecillinc crederet esse uiam? The irony would be aB the richer if, as seemsprobable, these lines originally stood as the prologue to the poem. AsCameron astutely observes in a different context (475), "imitation bya creative poet normally transforms rather than reproduces." It

424 PETER E. KNOX

would have been useful to have borne that in mind in treating Virgiland Ovid.

The book concludes with three short appendices, two of themrevised versions of papers which appeared earlier. Callimachus andhis Critics is attractively produced. Misprints are few (my favorite is52 "Pamprepigus") and rarely such as to obscure the argument: e.g.,115 for "three" fifths, read "two"; 118 for "is" the Aetia Prologue, read"in"; 283 after "Eumenes II (197-159/8)," supply "is meant"; 296, n.185 for "HW" read "HE"; 425 for "reader," read "reader"; on 432 aformatting command has gone awry. Cameron's bibliography isselective, which obscures the vast amount of secondary materialdigested in this book, most of which is acknowledged in the notes.His decision to cite by name and year works not included in thebibliography after their first appearance in the notes is not withoutsome loss of precision. In addition to a few "ghost" citations-e.g., on27, n. 23 "Henrich [sie] 1993 in Bulloch 1993," 01' 80, n. 65 "Borgu1983"-this results in a number of instances in which the readermust backtrack a long way to find the full citation; for example, theantecedent for 40, n. 107 "Habicht 1988" is to be found on 25, n.10-a considerable inconvenience for the reader who will not consultthis book as continuous, linear narrative.

This is an important book which deserves to be read with care byevery scholar interested in the life and literature of the third centuryBCE. It ought to go without saying that no one should write aboutthe relationship of the Roman poets to their Hellenistic modelswithout thoroughly evaluating Cameron's arguments, but since manyprobably will, I think it necessary to register my sentiments here. Itis rare in our discipline that so formidable achallenge is mounted tothe common wisdom. The opportunities opened by Callimachus andhis Critics will be relished both by those who endorse Cameron'srevisionist approach and those who resist. No one who takes thetrouble to sift through the arguments and the evidence presentedhere will have reason to complain of the experience.

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICSUNIVERSITY OF COLORADOBOULDER,COLORADO 80309

BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTESRENDUS

LEONARD R. PALMER. The Greek Language. BristolClassical Press, 1996 (reprint of 1980 ed., Faber andFaber). Pp. xii + 355. f:14.95. ISBN 1-85399-466-9.

The plan of Palmer's monograph on the Greek language follows thatof another classic work ofhis, The Latin Language. It is divided intotwo parts presenting an outline history of the Greek language (PartI) and a comparative-historical study of Greek grammar (Part 11).The six chapters in Part I are devoted to the prehistory of thc Greeklanguage, the earliest texts (with an abridged grammar ofMycenaean), the Greek dialects, the literary languages (poetry andprose), and post-Classical Greek. Part 11 deals in three chapters withwriting and pronunciation, phonology, and morphology. As thcheadings show, Palmer's book caters to audiences whose interestsare literary as weIl as to those whose interests are philologicaVlinguistical; it is written in a lucid style which makes it accessible toboth students and scholars of the Greek language.

Given the fact that the book has been in circulation since 1980, Iwill limit my comments to various thought-provoking statements byPalmer; I will also add several titles to the bibliography whercwarranted by the current interest in a pertinent topic.

In Chapter I (7), apropos of the affinities of Greek to other IElanguages, Palmer mentions Armenian and Indo-Iranian, which inparticular share the augment with Greek. It is of some importanccfor our ideas about late PIE, reconstructed traditionally on the basisof Hellenic and Indo-Aryan, that one may add two other languagcs tothe list of those exhibiting the augment: Phrygian and (perhaps)Ancient Slavic. The Phrygian aorist form e-da-es "he created, made"corresponds to AGr E-8f]-KE (-k- is borrowed from the perfect) andVedic a-dha-t "he put" (cf. Neumann 1988, 9); apropos of the latter,certain accentual peculiarities in the formation of the aorist inarchaic Serbian dialects led A. Vaillant to postulate thc existcncc ofthe augment in Ancient Slavic (cf. Szemerenyi 1970, 279). Quitcremarkably, there are only two IE languages where augment hassurvived until the present day: Modern Greek and East Iranian

425

426 BOOK REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUS

Yaghnobi in Tajikistan (in the latter a-vu "he was," cf. Skt aorist abhu-t and AGr E-<pO "he grew, arose").

Palmer (7) pinpoints lexical isoglosses linking Greek, Indo-Iranianand Armenian (with the last Greek shares the prothetic vowel, e.g.aVf]p, Arm ayr vs. Skt narah "man"); one could add some importantAlbanian-Greek isoglosses to this list (Alb marr "take," AGr llaPf]"hand" [cf. also 1l0pTITW "grasp"]; Alb elb, AGr ä:A<p1 "barley"; Albbathe, AGr <paKoc "bean, lentil (porridge)"; Alb darke, AGr ÖOpTIOV"supper" < *dorkw-om; Alb diell "sun," AGr EAf), lonic E'tAf) "heat" <*swel-wa [cf. Hesychius yEAav "sunlight" and Hesychius' Laconiangloss ßEAa· nAIOC "sun"]).

It may come as a surprise to students of classics that Greek hasno special genetic links with the Western (centum) group of IElanguages (ltalic, Celtic, and Germanic). As emphasized by Palmer(8), Latin and Greek are less closely related than Greek andSanskrit (or Avestan, one might add). It is enough to juxtapose acouple of nominal or verbal paradigms of Homeric Greek and VedicSanskrit to realize this point.

In 1969 Palmer published a well-known monograph TheInterpretation of Mycenaean Creek. Chapter 11 of the book underreview (38-52) outlines and exemplifies basic grammatical phenomena ofthis earliest documented variety of AGr (14th-13th c.). One ofthe most remarkable Mycenaean forms is the double sigmatic future(50 and 312) e-wep-ses-o-mena "to be woven" (passive participle to theroot *HI-webh-, seen in Germanic weave, Classical Greek v-<patvw.Its relics are seen in the so-called "Doric" (misnomer!) future in -cEW,known from Homer (eccElTat "will be" < *es-ses-etai) and Attic<PEV~OVllat "I will ilee" « pheuk-se(h)-omai < *pheuk-ses-omai); as soonas the second -s- underwent weakening to -h- in the prehistory ofGreek, the sequence -e(h)o- or -e(h)e- was open to vocalic contraction,hence the "Doric" future tense forms in -ou- or -ei-.

Of equal importance is the Mycenaean form pe-pith-menos (spelledpe-pi-te-me-no), the mediopassive participle to TIEl8w "persuade,"which may be classified as either the aorist (because of the zerograde seen in the imperative m80v "obey!") or the perfect (because ofthe reduplication and the athematic morphology, cf. TIETIEICIlEVOS < pepeith-menos "convinced, trusting"). Classical Greek uses the e-gradein both the present (TIEI8oIlEVOC) and the perfect theme (TIETIEICIlEVOC).In agreement with Mycenaean, the zero-grade is found in thePhrygian form te-tik-menos "indicted (?)" < PIE *dis "show" (cf.Neumann 1988, 10) and Vedic dis-amana (present mediopassiveparticiple), vs. Classical ÖE-ÖElY-IlEVOC, with e-grade. One maysurmise that the zero-grade form pe-pith-menos harks back to the

BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 427

prehistorical stage of Greek when the aspectual triad present-aoristperfect was not fully crystallized in the mediopassive voice (in Vedicthe reduplication appears also in the active aorist).

Ancient Greek dialects are dealt with in Chapter IH. The salientfeatures of Arcado-Cypriot, West Greek, Aeolic, and Attic-Ionic aresurveyed and their interrelations examined in considerable detail;here, one would appreciate some dated and localized inscriptionalevidence. Regarding the characteristics of the Arcado-Cypriot dialect(59), Palmer's proposal that in Mantinea a special sign (cav,transcribed a) suggests a sibliant (cerebral or patatal) is notparticularly compelling. More likely, in view of north Arcadianspellings such as OZIL: (for ÖTIC) we are dealing with a dentalaffricate [tS

], a voiceless counterpart to [d'], spelled Z elsewhere.Regarding the dialect geography of ancient Greece a reference

could be made to Coleman's (1963) study. Given the importance ofAttic-Ionic one could include two more specialized studies of itsinscriptional variety: the classic by Meisterhans and Schwyzer(1900), superseded now by the monumental Grammar of AtticInscriptions (1980) by L. Threatte. A more linguistically orientedaudience would be interested in Lupas' pioneer study of Atticphonology (1972).

Chapter IV contains an authoritative treatment of the"Homerische Frage" after the decipherment of the LB script(especially the issue of the Proto-Aeolic stratum, the significance ofthe Arcado-Cypriot words and the formulaic diction). Chapter V isdevoted to the stylistic analysis of Herodotus, Thucydides andIsocrates, with whom Greek artistic prose reached its technicalperfection. Herodotus' style of linking clauses and sentences byrepeating key words has been labeled Eipo~Evll, "strung along" (148);a somewhat similar "folksy" style has been described as "linearprogression of discourse" (f'rom Old to New, which becomes Old andso on) in a variety of contemporary narrative genres.

Chapter VI examines the origin of Hellenistic Koine, itsgrammatical development, its coexistence with the ancient dialectsand their ultimate demise. Regarding the fricativization of the oldaspirates (178), one could mention that our inscriptional evidencefrom Egypt, Syria and Palestine, and Asia Minor indicates that itsonset varied enormously according to the native substrate. To the"negligible elements from other dialects" in the Koine, such as 008'ElC vs. Attic 00SElc (189), one could add certain compromise forms,such as TTpaccw "do," Aaoc "people," vaoc "temple." Their appearance in inscriptions may be best explained as a contribution from the"mild" Doric dialects (those of Corinthia, Megaris and eastern


Argolis), adjacent to Attic-Ionic in the Saronic gulf. Regarding thelinguistic situation in the former Doric territories during the lastthree pre-Christian centuries (190), the pejorative term "watereddown form" should be abandoned. The so-called Aegean Doric Koine,Achaean Koine (in the Peloponnese), and the North-West GreekKoine are "supraregional interdialectal formations" eliminating localpeculiarities and showing strong influence of the advancing AtticIonic Koine. The term "Great Attic" (with Debrunner-Scherer 1969) ispreferable to "imperial Attic" (191) when one refers to the pre-Koinestage during the fifth century (the era of the First Maritime Leaguedominated by Athens).

Apropos of "Christian" Greek (194-196) Palmer refers to "apersistent strangeness for the scholar steeped in the classicaltradition" without putting his finger on it; this matter is more than"the pervading style ... determined by OT Greek," and its detailsshould not be "outside the scope of an outline history of the Greeklanguage." It is enough to mention such features as the progressiveaspect in the biblical (or "Jewish") Greek calqued on that of Hebrewand Aramaic (of the type fiv oloacKwv, ''he was teaching," vs. "good"Attic EOloacKE), or the use of the "redundant" possessive pronoun (ofthe type yvvi) ... fic E1XEV Ta 8vyaTplov aVTfjc TIVEVlla oKa8apTov"whose [her] daughter was possessed by an impure spirit" in Mark7:25). The number of studies dealing with Semitisms in BiblicalGreek is endless (e.g. Aerts 1965, Beyer 1968, Black 1954, Hili1967). Apropos of the origins of Koine one could enrich thebibliography (319-20) with two older classics, Kretschmer (1900) andThumb (1901), evaluated critically by Radermacher (1947). Thereare important studies and grammars of Hellenistic Greek based onthe Egyptian papyri (Gignac 1976, Mandilaras 1973, Mayser 1906).For more linguistically oriented audiences there are Teodorsson'sinfluential studies of the phonetic system of the Attic dialect (1974)and the Ptolemaic Koine (1977). An interesting study on the rapportof Koine and Atticisms was written by Fräsen (1974).

Chapter VII deals briefly with writing and pronunciation. ToJeffery's study ofthe local scripts of Archaic Greece (1961) one couldadd three significant works which include epigraphic material fromclassical and Hellenistic Greece: Guarducci (1967-78, in 4 volumes),Klaffenbach (1957) and Woodhead (1959). In matters of the phoneticreconstruction of Ancient Greek Allen's Vax Graeca (2d ed. 1974) isthe best known and perhaps the most authoritative. Older Frenchmonographs by Vendryes (1938) and Grammont (1948) are nevertheless worth consulting.

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 42.9

Chapters VIII and IX present a much needed historical treatmentof the phonology and morphology of ancient Greek for classicalscholars; but historical linguists would also be weIl advised to perusecarefuIly pages 246-315. Chapter IX is divided into two sections: theformer is devoted to word formation (of nouns, adjectives and verbs),the latter to inflexions (nouns, indeclinables, pronouns, numeralsand verbs).

Apropos of the nominal inflexion, Iwander whether most readersin the nineties are comfortable with "a vrddhied suffix -eu-" (277) or"a vrddhied root" (307); here "the lengthened grade" would be farpreferable. Regarding the voice (292) in AOVEl '''he washes' (anexternal 'subject')" understand "(an internal 'object')." Regarding theaspectual trichotomy in PIE (293), Meillet's term "themes" ispreferable to "tense stems."

On 300 Palmer explains anomalaus accentuation in the infinitive(AlTTE1V) and the participlc (AlTTWV) in the 2nd (strong) aorist byrcference to the state of affairs in IE, where thc accent was on eitherthe pre- or the post-radical syllablc (hence the zero-grade in thc fOOt).

One could observe that the latter case is better preserved in Vedic(contrast the athematic imperative ril?--ta with AlTT-ETE). In Greek theaccent in the middle voice imperative is on the post-radical syIlablc(AlTT-ou) but the accent in the active one (AlTT-E) is historicallyanomalaus.

The notation q'" for the labiovelar !kw/ (301 and passim) has beenlargcly abandoned in favor of h"'.

On 302 Palmer discusses the dilemma about the formation of thcsigmatic aorist: phonologically speaking thc intervocalic -s- should bcobliterated but it has been "prescrved (or restored) by analogy." Onccould add that one of the Doric dialects, Laconian, weakcned -s- Lo-/L- (or evcn zero), e.g. vlKahoc (fifth century) without apparcntlyresorting to either prophylaxis (or therapy). An unllsual directiol1 ofanalogy is observed in the formation of the innovative perfect in -h(e.g. M-AV-KO, KE-KAl-KO) in that thc root vowel is shortened from itsqllantity in the present (AÜ-, KAlv-). Thc influence from thc middlesuggested by Palmer (306) runs against thc principlcs of analogicalinnovations (claimed to procced from thc unmarked to the markedforms), but it may be the best explanation.

On 311 Palmer argues convincingly against thc hypothesis thattraces the sigmatic future back to the subjunctive of an s-aorist (erthc Labn future faxa and its "optative" faxim). His main reason isthe fact the future often has the e-grade, unlike thc zero-grade fOllndin the aorist (contrast TTEico~Ol < *penth-s-omai with ETT080v < *epnth-on). Instead he proposes to link this -s- with that fOllnd in thc


so-called desideratives (cf. Latin quaesOJ and supports his proposalby the existence of reduplicated futures (e.g. OEOE~OIlOl), which have acounterpart in Sanskrit intensive-desideratives (e.g. yu-yut-s "eagerto fight").

And finally (314) Palmer points out that the gerundive suffix -TEOis not to be connected genetically with its Sanskrit counterpart-tavya; both suffixes are usually claimed to go back to PIE *-tewyo.On the basis of the Mycenaean form qe-te-a, interpreted qWeite(j}a "tobe paid," Palmer suggests that the gerundive in -TEO is a parallelfrom -ti- nouns. « *-tejo) rather than from -tu- nouns seen inSanskrit « *-tew-yo).

The number of monographs which could be added to the eightrepresentative titles listed by Palmer (320) is practically endless.Since only Germans, Frenchmen, and an American (Buck 1933) arerepresented, one could add a comprehensive historical Greekgrammar by a Greek, Jannaris (1897).

Linguistically oriented audiences might argue that there shouldbe one more chapter devoted to matters of syntax, but one finds anumber of observations about syntax passim in Palmer's monograph.The chapters on literary languages (poetry, prose) could besupplemented by a chapter (or seetion in a chapter) devoted to whatancient Greeks themselves said about their language. Given thecurrent interest in linguistic historiography, one could argue that theGrammmatici Graeci (in six volumes) should be brought to theattention of university students of Greek.

In summary, Palmer's monograph represents an authoritativesynthesis of our knowledge of ancient Greek grammar from the pen ofa leading scholar in the field. Its merits have been well known since1980. This review is meant to focus the attention of its readers onsome of the pressing issues which are being debated currently byclassical scholars and historical linguists and to suggest wherefurther progress may be expected. Serious students of the Greeklanguage would be well advised to place the paperback edition ofPalmer's monograph (at an affordable price) dose to their fingertips.

Bibliography

Aerts, Willem John. 1965. Periphrastica: An Investigation into the Use o{dVGI and EXEIV as Auxiliaries or Pseudo-Auxiliaries in Greek {romHomer to the Present Day. Amsterdam: Hakkert.

Beyer, Klaus. 1966. Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament: Band 1,Satzlehre. Teil 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Black, Matthew. 1954. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 2ded. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

BOOK REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUS 431

Coleman, Robert. 1963. "The dialect geography of ancient Greece,"Transactions of the Philological Society, 58-126.

Debrunner, Albert and Anton Scherer. 1969. Geschichte der griechischenSprache. II. Grundfragen und Grundzüge des nachklassischenGriechisch. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Frösen, Jakko. 1974. Prolegomena to a Study of the Greek Language in theFirst Centuries A.D. The Problem of Koine and Atticism. Diss. Helsinki.

Gignac, Francis T. 1976. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Romanand Byzantine Periods. Vol. I. Phonology. Milan: 1st ed. Cisalpino-LaGoliardica.

Grammont, M. 1948. Phonetique du grec ancien. Lyon.

Guarducci, Margherita. 1967-78. Epigraphia Greca. I-IV. Rome: IstitutoPoligrafico dello Stato.

Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Jannaris, Anthony N. 1897. An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of lheAttic Dialect. London: Macmillan.

Klaffenbach, Günther. 1957. Griechische Epigraphik. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Kretschmer, Paul. 1900. Die Entstehung der Koine. Vienna:Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Lupas, Lina. 1972. Phonologie du grec attique. The Hague: Mouton.

Mandilaras, Basil G. 1973. The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri.Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences.

Mayser, Edwin. 1906. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus derPtolemäerzeit. Leipzig: Teubner.

Meisterhans, K. and Eduard Schwyzer. 1900. Grammatik der attischenInschriften. Berlin: Weidmann.

Neumann, GÜnter. 1988. Phrygisch und griechisch. Vienna:Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Radermacher, Ludwig. 1947. Koine. Vienna: Rohrer.

Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1974. The Phonemic System of the Attic Dialect400-340 B. C. Lund.

___. 1977. The Phonology of Ptolemaic Koine. Lund.

Threatte, Leslie. 1980. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. Berlin: deGruyter.

Thumb, Albert. 1901. Die Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter desHellenismus. Strassburg: Trübner.

Vendryes, Joseph. 1938. Traite d'accentuation grecque. Paris.

Woodhead, Arthur G. 1959. The Study of Greek Inscriptions. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


Szemerenyi, Oswald. 1970. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

VITBuBENIK

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS

MEMORIAL UNlVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLANDST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND AlB 3X9

CHRISTIAN BROCKMANN. Die handschriftliche Überlieferungvon Platons Symposion. Serta Graeca. Beiträge zurErforschung griechischer Texte, Band 2 (Wiesbaden: Dr.Ludwig Reichert Verlag 1992). Pp. x + 282, 64 plates, 1figure. DM 98. ISBN: 3-88226-554-X.

The past forty years have been unusually productive ones for thestudy of the textual traditions of individual Platonic dialogues. KR.Dodds' edition of the Gorgias (1959) deserves pride of place as thework which set a standard for the evaluation and presentation of thetextual evidence of a single dialogue. Other notable contributionsfollowed with some frequency, among which must be counted Bluck'sedition of the Meno (1961), Carlini's editions of the dialogues in thefourth tetralogy (1964) and his monograph on the tradition of thePhaedo (1972), Moreschini's editions of the Parmenides and Phaedrus(1966), Berti's several studies on the Crito (1966 etc.), Sling's editionofthe Clitophon (1981), Moore-Blunt's edition of the Epistles (1985),Boter's substantial work on the tradition of the Republic (1989),Jonker's Amsterdam dissertation on the traditions of the Timaeusand Critias (1989), and Vancamp's editions ofthe Hippias Major andHippias Minor (1996). And of course we now have the first volume ofthe new Oxford Classical Text of Plato (1995). It has become anestablished and uncontroversial principle in Platonic textual studiesthat the only way in which our knowledge of the manuscript traditioncan be advanced is through the thorough examination of thetraditions of individual works, unencumbered by assumptions aboutmanuscript affiliations which may hold good only for single works. Inthe book under review-a revised Berlin dissertation written underthe supervision of Dieter Harlfinger-Christian Brockmann hasturned his attention to the tradition of the Symposium.

Let me state at the outset-since many of my comments will be ofa negative kind-that this book is an ambitious and substantialcontribution to our knowledge of the transmission of the Smp., andin some respects compares favourably with much of the scholarship

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 433

cited above. Brockmann has provided us with an assessment of themanuscript tradition of Smp. which is the first to be based uponfresh collations (undertaken either from photographic reproduetionsor in. situ) of all the medieval witnesses cited in the catalogues ofWilson and Brumbaugh-Wells (55 in total), as weIl as the one knownpapyrus (P.Oxy. 843), the foul' sixteenth-century printed editions,and Ficino's Latin translation (1484). He has also briefly andtantalizingly traced (5-16) some of the pertinent highlights in thctreatment of the Platonic text from the Rennaissance to the presentday (including consideration of Robin's Bude edition, which wasrevised by Vicaire and Laborderie and appeared in 1989). He hasmade intelligent and impressive use of codicological, palaeographical,and historical evidence to reassess or reassign the dates of severalmanuscripts and hands, frequently challenging scholarly orthodoxy inthe process. In his reports of certain manuscripts he has often gonefarther than previous scholars in identifYing strata of editorialactivity. The book is handsomely produced and contains 64 plateswhich are usually keyed to specific arguments that Brockmannmakes; this colleetion of plates is especially useful since it containsspecimens from some manuscripts of which examples are otherwisenot very accessible. The author presents his arguments in a lucidand engaging style-no small feat given the technical nature of muchofthe material which he must cover.

Brockmann has made some methodological decisions about thcplan of his work which have inevitably affeeted the quality andusefulness of the final product. Given the largc number ofmanuscripts in which Smp. is preserved, as weil as the length of thedialogue itself (over 70 OCT pages), it is understandable that he hascollated only a fraction of Smp. for most secondary witnesses (172a1174d3, 202d8-204c6, 219d3-222a6, and 222c1-223d12, comprisingabout one-seventh ofthe whole); this procedure is unlikely to distortin any serious way the conclusions he has reached about theaffiliations of these manuscripts. It is however a more serious mattcrthat he has restrieted his collations of the primary manuscripts toapproximately two-thirds of the dialogue. In Brockmann's defence itmay be urged that his purpose, after aIl, has not been to produce anedition of Smp. but only a definitive study of the stemmatic relationsof the manuscripts for this one dialogue. Yet this argument will notdo. A primary witness to Plato's text may sometimes shift itsaffiliations even within the course of a single dialogue\ hence onc

J See W.S.M. Nicoll, "A problem in thc textual tl'adition of Plato'sPoliticus," CQ 25 (1975) 4]-47 (on T); for a similar casc in CI secondary


risks overlooking important stemmatic evidence by performing only aselective collation of these manuscripts. Since Brockmann hasidentified as primary witnesses only three manuscripts that containall of Smp.-Clarkianus 39 (B), Marcianus 4.1 (T), Vindobonensissuppl. 7 (W)-their complete collation would surely not have delayedthe finish of this project unreasonably. Perhaps a more seriousconsequence of Brockmann's decision to collate small sampies ofsecondary witnesses and a larger proportion of primary witnesses isthat it involves hirn in a petitio principii: while the determinationthat a manuscript is derivative can frequently be made with confidence on the basis of previous research, this is by no means alwaysthe case, so that the prior assertion that a manuscript is secondarywill necessarily prejudice the way in which that manuscript isinvestigated. In the present instance this criticism does not involvesimply an abstract matter of principle, as we shall see when weconsider Brockmann's evaluation of Marcianus 185.

It may seem captious to complain that in his research Brockmannhas failed to consider the rich indirect tradition of Smp.; he did not,after all, undertake to do so in the first place. But there are tworeasons why this is a serious shortcoming. First, a thoroughinvestigation of the indirect tradition would unquestionably shedhistorical light on the primary manuscripts of Smp. and provideevidence for the antiquity of attested readings, both true and false,as well as for the state of the text of Smp. in late antiquity andearlier. Moreover, a full account ofthe indirect tradition could lead tothe identification of possible primary evidence beyond that alreadyaccepted as such. Secondly, Brockmann's decision not to include anextensive examination of the indirect tradition represents a lostopportunity to make a lasting contribution to the study of the historyof ideas. The Symposium has always been among Plato's mostinfluential and widely read dialogues, from the time of Xenocratesand the early Academy to Ficino and beyond. The degree to whichSmp. has been quoted, misquoted, paraphrased and alluded to, bywhom, in what contexts and for what purposes-questions such asthese are fruitfullines of inquiry that deserve to be pursued (as J ohnWhittaker and John Dillon have made amply clear in connectionwith the text of the Timaeus 2

). We are frequently told, for instance,

manuscript (Coisl. gr. 155), see E.A. Duke, "The place of ParisinusGraecus 1813 in the tradition of the Phaedo," RHT 21 (1991) 254-256.

2 See J. Whittaker, "Timaeus 27d5ff.," Phoenix 23 (1969) 181-185; id.,"Textual comments on Timaeus 27c-d," Phoenix 27 (1973) 387-391; J.Dillon, "Tampering with the Timaeus: ideological emendations in Plato,


that Smp. 202d8-203a8 was antiquity's central and indispensabletext in so far as it articulated for the first time a systematic theory ofOaI110VEc. This is doubtless correct, but the view is trotted out muchmore often than it is argued and defended, and the issue certainlymerits a more detailed and more subtle investigation than it has sofar received. Brockmann could have provided the basis for such astudy; to find a model for this task of collection he had to look nofurther than Boter, whose book includes 75 pages of testimonia fromthe Republic (even at that Boter admits that his list is likely to beincomplete).3 The omission is an especially curious one, sineeBroekmann early on (4) quotes Kristeller's remark with approval:"The more we are convinced that Plato and his tradition eonstituteone ofthe eentral themes of Western thought up to the present day,the more the task imposes itself of studying in detail the majorphases of this tradition, not only in terms of the doctrinal transmission and transformation of Plato's thought, but also in terms of thetextual history of his works as they were copied, translated andeommented upon." It is an unaeeeptably narrow interpretation ofthese sage words that would restrict them to the study only of themedieval and Renaissance traditions.

Brockmann classifies as primary sources B, T, and W, as weIl asP (Vaticanus pal. 173), whieh contains excerpts amounting to aboutone-quarter of the dialogue (all of which Broekmann has eollated, 3 n.11). The most important respect in which Brockmann departs fromRobin, and so too from Vicaire-Laborderie, is in his assessment ofMarcianus 185 (D) as derivative and secondary. In denyingindependent value to D and in traeing its descent from B (through anintermediary), Broekmann is in fact swimming against the eurrent ofmost modern opinion about the stemmatic position of D for the otherdialogues whieh it preserves. The Oxford editors, taking their eueespeeially from research of the past three deeades (in particular thatof Carlini and Berti), have recently aceepted the independenee of Dfrom B for dialogues of the first two tetralogies; Moreschini has usedD as an independent witness in his editions of Phdr. and Prm.(whieh belong to the third tetralogy), as has Carlini for the fourthtetralogy; Slings and Boter aeeept its primary status for Clit. and R.

with special reference to the Timaeus," AJP 110 (1989) 50-72; also ingeneral Whittaker, "The value of indirect tradition in the establishmentof Greek philosophical texts or the art of misquotation," in J. Grant, ed.,Editing Creek and Latin Texts (New York 1989) 63-95.

:J G. Boter, The Textual Tradition of Plato's Republic (Leiden/NewYork/K0benhavn/Köln 1989) 291-365.

436 BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS

respectively. Indeed, Brockmann is hirnself prepared to grant theindependence of D in these dialogues (59) and to accept thehypothesis that for them D and B descend from the same lost manuscript. Now, in order to defend his thesis that for Smp. D descendsfrom B, he must first confront the fact (discussed first by Schanz, andmore recently by Berti) that in this dialogue each manuscriptpreserves stichometric numbers which do not occur in the other. Thishe attempts to do by arguing that it was D's lost exemplar thatmade good the omissions in B. This argument can be nothing morethan a possibility, of course, but Brockmann buttresses it with thefurther observations that nowhere does D agree with T, W or P intruth against B (53), and that D shows five omissions which wereoccasioned by the palaeographical make-up of B (57-59). Brockmanncannot make the first of these two claims with a high degree ofconfidence, since he has not collated either D or B in its entirety. Asfor the second claim, Brockmann hirnself acknowledges that the fiveomissions involve homoeoteleuton (57), but he argues that it was notthe homoeoteleuta that caused the omissions, but rather the factthat the words causing the omissions always stand one or two linesdirectly or almost directly above each other in B. One such examplewould not be sufficient to prove D's dependence on B, he contends,but five examples preclude the possibility of coincidence. Perhapsthis is so, but the argument can only be convincing if it is corroborated by evidence of other kinds, e.g., an omission of a complete linein B which is not caused by homoeoteleuton. At any rate, Boter'sdemonstration (94-95) that D is characterized by longer omissionsthat resulted from homoeoteleuton is surely damaging toBrockmann's case (Boter cites seventeen examples from R.). At bestBrockmann's argument against the independence of D has not beenproved; given the bulk of data supporting its independence in otherdialogues, it will be necessary for the next editor of Smp. to work theevidence over afresh.

Brockmann is elsewhere not always as rigorous as he could be inhis assessment of textual evidence. His treatment of W is a case inpoint. Of the three manuscripts (apart from the fragmentary P)which he accepts as primary, this is the latest (to be dated probablyto the second half of the eleventh century); and while nobodyseriously doubts that W is a primary witness for Smp., as it is for allthe dialogues contained in its oldest part, it should be possible todemonstrate its independence from B (895) and T (ca. 950) throughseparative readings. So it hardly inspires confidence that the first setof evidence adduced by Brockmann (239) consists of a list of nineteenomissions in W which do not occur in B or T. One manuscript copied

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 4:17

I"rom alloUwr manuscript. will almost always display omissions thatdo not occur in thc exemplar; th<,,'rt'fi)re nothing can be infi'rrcd I"romBrockmann's list 01" omissions about W's indcpcnd('ncc I"rom Band '1',especially since several of them involve homoeoteleulon. Nor docsBrockmann's li:;;t of additions in W which do not occur in B 01' T (240)contribute anything of substance to the proof 01" W's inckpendl'nc(',sinn' these additions are all 01" a trivial natun~. What wc most Iwcdto see is a colleetion of readings in W which pn'servc thc (rufhagainst both B anel T (01', alternatively, against B in somt' cas('s antil' in olhers), 01' which are plausibl(: yct patently distinct I"rom (11<'corrcsponcling readings in Band '1'; anel we would hope to C'ncounl<'rjust such a colleetion in the final list (240-24] l. Wh;lt we lind,how('v('r, is a list 01" rl'adings pC'culiar tn W which are cithcr I1wr('blunc!('rs by thc scribc or c!emonslrably inferior Lo Uw f<>xttransmitled in Band 'I' In t!w first categ'ury an', ('.g., ] 7:3c2 "Wiv W,VIJIV 13'1': ] 7Bb:1 <pact W, <p IlC 'I 81' (subjl'ct 01" the verb is singuLlri;194al TOV VOVV CWKpO:TEi W, TOV ovv CWKpO:Tll BT (SO(Tates i:.; Uwspeaker in extended orafio oh/iqllo); ] 97a] P1lv W, IJEV 13'1': 20;1c7CKIlPoC 20:k7, CKAIlPoC BT; in Uw s(~concl category ma)' be courl!l'd177d;1 Ko:AAlcTa W, Ko:AA1CTOV BT; 179d6 olaplJxerv~cac8C:XI W,olaplJxervacBal BT (tI$, imp('rti'ctivl' se('m~; pl'<'!i.·I'"hl!'): 2] ~h';\

l'llTOPOVV TE W, IllTOPOVV oll BTD (TE is a banal norm"llzaLlon l()

n'placl' conlwetive 0,')).

Tlw primary status ur W is t1wr<'fi)J'(.' n$1 provec! b.y an)' of t l1<'s\'data, ('v('n though W's indcpcn<!t'nc(' IWCc! not 1)(' quvst iOlll'c!; 11<>1' d()(\w thn'(' items 01" supplt'll1<'nLlry malt'ri,,1 which BrockllLlnnaddun's latcr in tlw book n'pl'l's('nt ;1 signific;lI1t l1;lI'V('S( (2!);)-2r)LI, inUH' discussion of th<, n~lationship bctwl'('n primary wilJH~sscsl. 'I'11l'collalion ofthis manuscript filr <111 01" Sn/jJ. may v"dl hav(~ tunwd up('vid('nce to validat<' the primacy of W. H('rc too (lw 1;ICk 01' an.\'consicl('ralion 01" tlw indin'd traclition scriously harnlH'rsBrockmann's ef'f()rts, sinc<' it is probablc that points (Jr contact could1)(' c!<'!Honstrated lwtwcen it <lnd rC<ldings in W; ;1S Diels andSchubar( p()intcJ out ('arly in this ccnlllry, th(' tl'xl of TM. in Wshows sig'nifican( artiniti('s with (hat pres('rvl'd in tlH' anonYll1ousTh('u('/eflls commentary (a papyrus of thc second century 1\.D.),1 ;mdtl1Cr<~ are good reasons to suppose that, fi)r SO!1le clia!oglles ;d I('<ls(,W rcpn~scnts an older rcc<~nsion of (\w text than l'itlwr B 01' '1';' It

I11 Diels, W. SclJllbart. (·<ls., /\IIIIIIVlIll'r J{nlllll/('II(rtr _~11 !'ln(lIlI.'

'f'hl'nl'fl'f. IJerlilll'/' K!rt,..;,..;ilwr(n(l', ~ (Ikrlin ·19Wil.

·'See. e.g., .1. Blll'llL'l., Vin<lici;l!' Plalonlt',\t' I," C() H (I~)l-~) ~;ll; 11AllilH', llis{nir(' dll {e.r((' de I'!n{nll (1';lris EIl!)) 2;11'1-241; C"r1illi is mol'!'


would have been extremely useful too if Brockmann had identifiedpIaces where W shows possible misreading of majuscule script orincorrect word division. He has done this for B (a manuscript whichadmittedly is prone to these errors of transcription), but paradoxically this is the one manuscript for which such evidence is notrequired: being our oldest witness B is eo ipso an independent source;strictly speaking, there is no need to fumish any evidence at all toprove this fact (though the list of majuscule confusions is potentiallyuseful in helping us to reconstruct B's source or proximate source).

Brockmann rightly views P (tenth or eleventh century) as aprimary witness for the excerpts of Smp. that it contains (153-155),but his decision to align it stemmatically with Trather than with Wdeserves examination, since this decision marks a break with scholarly consensus. In fact the only conjunctive errors which Brockmannprovides to support his thesis of a close relation between P and T arethe shared omissions in 180d5 (ön), 210b1 (br!) , and 218b4 (TE). Itwould surely be rash to overturn the conclusions arrived at by Dodds,Bluck, Carlini and others on the basis of what is likely to be thecoincidental falling out of a very few small words.

Notwithstanding this methodological flaw, the conclusionsreached in this book (248-254) about the relationship between theprimary witnesses is sound, though by no means surprising.Brockmann constructs abipartite stemma, with B the solerepresentative of one branch (this is where D would go if itsindependence were accepted), and TWP the representatives of thehyparchetype "V. This arrangement is in essential agreement withthe conclusions arrived at for some other dialogues, e.g. Grg., Men.,and the fourth tetralogy. I find especially attractive Brockmann'shypothesis that "V must have been a miniscule manuscript producedsome time between 850 and 950; his evidence is (a) that TWP do notdisagree one from another through misreading of majuscule characters, and (b) that "V must predate T (ca. 950) and postdate the introduction of miniscule (roughly 850). Brockmann has a candidate for "V,namely the lost first volume of Parisinus gr. 1807 (A), the famous"Paris Plato," usually dated to ca. 850-875. This suggestion isplausible, especially since A was unquestionably the main source forT (possibly through an intermediary, as Brockmann and some otherscontend).

Brockmann's greatest contribution has been to identify the scribesand owners of secondary manuscripts and to propose new dates for

skeptical: Studi sulla tradizione antica e medieuaZe deZ Fedone (Rome1972) 53-55, 170-171.


some of them. Our knowledge of the study of Plato in the late MiddleAges and Renaissance has been much advanced by his efforts; hisdiscussion (125-146) of Bessarion's manuscripts (Veneti 184, 186,189, also 185) deserves special mention. I append some furtherobservations: Brockmann's date of the fourteenth century forMareianus 189 (126) cannot be right; it is written in one hand and isin part a copy of Laurentianus 85.9, which is securely dated to thefifteenth century. Brockmann's interesting discussion of Vatieanus gr.225 (85-87) can be supplemented now by A. Pontani, "Primi appuntisul Malatestiano D.XXVII.1 e suIla biblioteca dei Crisolora" (in F.Lollini, P. Lucchi, eds., Libraria Domini. I manoseritti della BiblioteeaMalatestiana: testi e deeorazioni [Bologna 1995] 353-386); Pontaniindependently confirms Brockmann's date of the early fourteenthcentury for Vat. 225 and its companion volume Vat. 226. Brockmannhas too readily accepted L. Perria's identification of the hand ofRoudnice VI.Fa.1 (Lobe.) with that of W (237-238), thus drawing thedate of Lobe. down by at least three centuries; it is rather in anarchaizing hand of perhaps 1400 or later (see D.J. Murphy, "ThePlato manuscripts Wand Lobeouieianus," GRBS 33 [1992] 99-104).If Brockmann is correct that Vat. 1029 is an offspring of Lobe. Citmay instead be agemellus), the date ofthe eleventh century which heassigns to this manuscript must also be radically altered (Vat. 1029shows definite archaizing traits as weIl and has usuaIly been datedto the fourteenth century). Brockmann also suggests plausibly thatParisinus 1808, usually dated to the thirteenth century, may be aproduct ofthe eleventh or twelfth century (162). This new date maypossibly mean that the manuscript is earlier than Wand that thework of the first correcting hand which Theiler and Dodds first drewour attention to is rather earlier than originally thought. Par. 1808deserves more than a partial collation.

MARK A. JOYALDEPARTMENT OF CLASSICSMEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND8T. JOHN'S, NF A1C 587

440 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS

I. MALKIN. Myth and Territory in the SpartanMediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994. Pp. xviii + 278. Cloth US $59.95. ISBN 0-52141183-1.

This is a book mainly about the interpretation of certain myths.Myths often express, sometimes they strikingly express, socialattitudes and notions of identity. Malkin is concerned with theattitudes of Spartans towards the lands and cities that they came tooccupy, starting with Laconia: "Why here? Why usT (1). Mter theSpartan homeland, the investigation takes us in turn to severalother places in the Peloponnesus, to Melos and Thera and Cytheraand Lyctus in Crete, to Tarenturn and Cyrene, to the western sitesbriefly occupied by Dorieus, and to Heracleia Trachinia. The associated myths are the return of the Heracleidae, some adventures ofHeracles, some stops on the way by Menelaus and Cadmus, and thedetour of the Argonauts in Libya. Cults as wen as myths are probedfor Spartan attitudes: most extensively, the festival Carneia atThera and Cyrene, and the shrines of Zeus Ammon in Libya.

Malkin thinks ofhis work as factual reconstruction, for attitudes,no less than events, are historical facts, "facts of mentalite," andindeed attitudes, as he truly says, are sometimes more importantthan events. Unfortunately, for most of the period in question, i.e.,for the Archaie Age, facts of any kind' are in short supply, the facts ofwhat people did as wen as the facts of what people thought. SoMalkin is obliged to look for both kinds at once. "There will be muchhistorical enquiry of the more familiar type, analysing contemporaryhistorical contexts and events, in the belief that myths were not just'refleetions' of contemporary events but sometimes informed thosevery events or were moulded by them" (3). This is really a shyadmission that attitudes can only be identified and understood inthe light of those other facts-of what we know of contemporaryconditions and events. Throughout the book there is a constantirresistible regression from the histoire de mentalite to the history ofevents.

For example, Malkin argues at length that Sparta was actuallyahead of other cities in colonizing and during the eighth centuryplanted settlements on Melos and Thera and in Triphylia and otherplaces (eh. 3, "Spartan colonization in the Aegean and thePeloponnese"). For only thus can certain myths about Cadmus andabout Minyans be turned to his purpose. Or again, he is at pains toestablish the existence and location of certain emblematic cults andmonuments, of Menelaus and of Phalanthus in the area of


Tarentum, of the Antenoridae on the edge of Cyrenaica (chs. 2, 4).For only thus can he attribute any political or ethnic tendency to themyths about these figures. The deductions are not only flimsy, asany deductions would be in such matters; they are embarrassinglyad hoc.

That is not the only problem of method. Our sources for the mythsare mostly late (e.g., Callimachus and Lycophron, Diodorus andStrabo), and myths are liable to change, even more than the record ofevents. Apart from Tyrtaeus, about the closest we ever come tooriginal attitudes are in Pindar's odes for Cyrenaean and otherDorian victors and in Herodotus' account of Dorieus. One mightexpect Malkin to give some attention to context-to Pindar's orHerodotus' purpose (these are fashionable questions anyway). Withlater writers one might expect some effort in source criticism. Inshort, the myths as we know them are always part of a literarytradition, which must be acknowledged at the outset. Yet Malkinseldom discusses intention. When he does, the result can be extravagant. He holds that Stesichorus, writing his Geryonei"s as a Dorianchauvinist, brought Heracles to western Sicily for a wrestling matchwith the eponym Eryx and thus provided the mythical charter whichDorieus took in hand two generations later. He admits that thcfragments do not hint at such a thing (210: a "disappointing" fact).But for Malkin it is decisive that Stesichorus was a native or aresident of Dorian Hirnera.

It is a related weakness that Malkin does not consider the historyand affinity of the myths he happens to select, except to say that,e.g., Heracles' combat with Antaeus or his immolation on Oeta wasquite famihar before the story acquired any ethnic or territorialsignificance. But the significance for Spartans will depend on whatthe same or similar stories meant to other Greeks. Greekseverywhere, in the homeland and in the furthest corners of theMediterranean, carried their local history back to the Heroic Age, tothe sudden advent of some ancestor or champion, from the offspringof Deucalion down to the general diaspora after the Trojan War. Themyths of Heracles and Menelaus treated in this book do not appearto differ in spirit from innumerable other myths. Here 01' there Malkinasserts some distinguishing feature, but it is not convincing. He saysthat Spartan myths at Tarenturn and Heracleia Trachinia showunusual hostility towards native peoples (chs. 4, 8). In truth, suchhostility recurs on every side-between Athenians and Pelasgians,between lonians and Carians, between colonists and their neighbours in every land from the Black Sea to the far west.


Yet there is a subject here, waiting to be grasped. A few Spartanmyths of migration and settlement are insistent and peculiar: theyare attached to cults of Apollo. Apollo guides the founding hero or theparty of settlers, and ever after the event is commemorated by hisritual. At Sparta and Cyrene it is the festival Carneia, which alsofigures in the common tale of the Dorian migration and in thesettlement stories of other Dorian cities in the Peloponnesus. AtAmyclae the festival Hyacinthia is the avowed occasion for sendingout colonists to Tarentum. The same festival, though unnamed, isvery likely behind the foundation stories of Melos and Thera andLyctus. For in all cases a company of able-bodied youths, instead ofbeing enrolled as citizens at horne, are designated as outsiders("Partheniae," "Minyans" etc.) and go forth to found a new cityabroad. Even within the Peloponnesus, Patrae is founded in asimilar fashion, by "Achaeans" who slip away from Amyclae andbring its distinctive coming-of-age ritual to their new horne (Paus.7.18.5, 19.3-8).

Malkin does not ignore Apolline ritual. The festival Carneia, soprominent in Pindar and Callimachus, receives more than twentypages (52-7, 64-6, 145-58). But he does not ask how myth and ritualare in principle related. Instead, he simply assurnes that at each citythe ritual was designed to evoke either the actual events of Spartanhistory, including the Dorian migration (though that event is onlyclaimed as probable, not certain), or else the myths which hadattended these events at the time (as in a supposed cult of theAntenoridae at Cyrene). Yet he also says, as a gloss upon the Dorianmigration, that the ritual "seems to recall a pastoralist-nomadicpast" (156). Just for amoment, and almost by accident, we get astartling glimpse of a very different possibility. The festival Carneia,in other words, once belonged to a people for whom seasonalmigration, i.e., the custom of transhumant pasturing, was a way oflife: it typified that way of life. If so, the festival is prior to allrecorded (or purported) history, from the Dorian migration onwards,and prior to all the myths of art and literature. It is also of thelongue duree, and has helped to shape both attitudes and events.

Malkin has previously written a book on Religion and Colonizationin Ancient Greece and some substantial articles. With his colleaguesat the University of Tel Aviv, he edits the Mediterranean HistoricalReview. He will undoubtedly pursue these topics further and withincreasing effect, but he should pause to consider questions of


method and principle.

NOEL ROBERTSONDEPARTMENT OF CLASSICSBROCK UNIVERSITYST. CATHARINES, ÜNTARIO L2S 3A1

1. MALKIN and Z.W. RUBINSOHN, eds. Leaders and Masses inthe Roman World. Studies in Honor of Zvi Yavetz. Leiden!New York/Cologne: E.J. BrilI, 1995. Pp. 243. ISBN 90 0409917 4.

Personne ne saurait nier l'importance de l'muVTe de Zvi Yavetz enhistoire romaine. Ce savant a jete une lumiere nouvelle sur nosconnaissances en ce domaine en etudiant, tout au long de sonmouvre, la question nouvellc mais difficile des rapports entregouvernants et gouvernes a Rome. 11 etait donc normal que l'onchoisit ce theme pour ces melanges en son honneur et a l'occasion deson depart a la retraite. Les articles couvrent une periode plus largeque celle qu'il a etudiee: toute l'epoque republicaine, le Haut-Empireet l'Antiquite tardive, et sont autant de marques de respect et depreuves d'amitie envers Yavetz, et ce de la part de grandsspecialistes de la recherche en Antiquite greco-romaine: W. Eck, E.Gabba, A. Giovannini, M. Griffin, E.S. Gruen, F. MilIar, C. Nicolet, Z.Rubin, W. Schuller, F.W. Walbank et P. Vidal-Naquet.

Avant la bibliographie usuelle dans ce genre de parution,quelques pages, tres interessantes et meme emouvantes, retracentla vie du jeune Juif qu'etait Zvi Yavetz, de sa jeunesse dans une villemultilingue comme Czernowitz-Cernati-Cernivtsi a la creation deI'Universite de Tel Aviv, en passant par les camps de la guerre,l'evasion par le Danube, les khibbutz (ix-xiii). Evenementamusant a retenir de cette vie bien remplie, Yavetz passa au debutdes annees 60 deux ans a I'Universite d'Adis Abbeba. C'est la, enEthiopie, ou regnait un empereur entoure d'une cour de "senateurs,"qu'il fut l'observateur des rapports entre princeps et plebe et qu'ilecrivit la premiere version de son celebre livre.

Le premier articIe de ces melanges, signe W. Eck, respecte letheme impose ("Plebs und Princeps nach dem Tod des Germanicus,"1-10). L'auteur etudie les reactions de la plebe envers Pison apres lamort de Germanicus en combinant les renseignements fournis parTacite et ceux d'un nouveau senatus consultum qui sera publieailleurs par l'auteur de meme que A. Caballos et F. Fernandez. Ce


nouveau document apporte plus de precision au sujet desevenements et du deuil qui ont suivi la mort de Germanicus. Parexemple, Eck montre, en suivant l'itineraire de Pison, que celui-ci aattendu pres d'un an avant de revenir a Rome; il discute del'emplacement de sa maison dans la capitale et traite aussi de laduree et de la date de son proces.

Le second article est celui de E. Gabba ("Riflessione sul cap. 13delle Res gestae divi Augusti," 11-14) et porte donc sur la fermeture deJanus Quirinus.

A. Giovannini (15-32) reprend la question de "Catilina et leprobleme des dettes" qu'avait deja etudiee Yavetz dans "The failureof Catiline's conspiracy" (Historia 12 [1963] 485-499). Giovanninirappelle d'abord l'etendue de la crise economique qui frappait toutesles classes sociales: dans l'reuvre de Ciceron, on en trouve encore desechos vingt ans apres son consulat (Off. 2.84). L'auteur complete lefameux article de Yavetz en se penchant non pas sur la situation dela plebe, mais sur celle de la classe dirigeante elle aussi endettee. Ilrappelle que, pour ses membres, le manque de liquidite etait chosenormale. Il faut donc chercher pourquoi les creanciers ont voulu, en63, se faire rembourser en pieces sonnantes et sans delai. Car c'estbien cela qui provoqua la crise pour la classe dirigeante. L'auteur faitdonc un rapprochement interessant aves les crises de 49-46 av. J.-C.et de 33 apr. J.-C. qui furent bel et bien causees par une penurie deliquidites qui entraJ:na une paralysie des transactions, une haussedes taux d'interet et une baisse de la valeur des biens immobiliers.Ce manque de liquidites serait en partie cause par la tendance desfinanciers romains a investir, deja en 63 av. J.-C. selon Giovannini,leurs capitaux dans les provinces. L'auteur, rappelant a ce propos lecas de P. Sittius (Cic. Sul. 56), demontre que l'on pouvait y faire debien fructueuses affaires depuis que les campagnes de Pompee enOrient avaient retablie la confiance parmi les milieux financiers.C'est cette "relance des affaires" en provinces qui crea la crise en!talie. Giovannini montre que Catilina ne voulait pas abolir lesdettes: ce programme electorallui aurait en effet mis a dos la totalitede la classe dirigeante dont les votes lui etaient necessaires puisqueses membres etaient a la fois creanciers et debiteurs. Il aurait plut6tdesire une reduction des taux d'interet et des modalites deremboursement plus favorables comme ce fut le cas lors des deuxautres crises mentionnees ci-dessus.

L'article suivant, celui de M. Griffin ("Tacitus, Tiberius and thePrincipate," 33-57), ne semble pas, apremiere vue, s'attaquer a denouveaux problemes. Cependant, l'auteur les aborde sous un anglenouveau. Par exemple, Tacite aurait voulu demontrer en faisant le


portrait d'un Tibere tyrannique et hypocrite que c'est le regime luimeme qui est hypocrite et opprimant. Ceci exphque aussi pourquoiI'historien a choisi de commencer les Annales avec l'accession deTibere. De meme, le debat qui a heu lors de cet avenement estmarque par le refus du pouvoir, ce qui devient chez Tacite un refusideologique du principat lui-meme. Par cet episode, Tacite montreclairement que le nouveau regime installe par Auguste ne peutfonctionner avec des debats !ibres entre senateurs comme au tempsde la n~pub!ique. C'est aussi a cause de caracteristiques "inherentes"au regime que certains comportements et attitudes se retrouventd'un regne a I'autre (les exemples les plus connus sont ccuxd'Auguste et de Claude, Livie et Agrippine, Agrippa Postumus ctBritannicus). Griffin s'attaque ensuite au portrait de Tibere le tyran.Ce jugement est bien sur celui que porte sur l'empereur la classesenatoriale. Mais pourquoi le considere-t-elle ainsi? D'une part parceque l'empereur impose des restrictions aux nobles dans lespossibilites d'acquerir la gloire militaire, apanage de I'ancienneclasse dirigeante. Griffin propose ainsi une nouvelle explication a lanomination de gouverneurs de province a qui il fut interdit dc screndre dans leur province et/ou au maintien des memes personnagesau meme poste pour de longues periodes de temps. D'autre part,Tibere est un tyran aux yeux de 1a c1asse dirigeante parce qu'ilpermet la continuite d'une innovation "augusteenne," les proces demaiestas. Ce que Tacite leur reproche, ce sont d'abord les motifsd'accusation: des proces ont heu pour des paroIes prononcees et nonpour des actes commis; puis l'imprecision des procedures utilisecsdans les cour senatoriales qui, a leur tour, encouragent l'apparitiondes delateurs. L'auteur reprend aussi certaines discussions qui font,de mesures attribuees par Tacite a Tibere, des mesures creees parAuguste. Malgre tout l'interet que suscite cet article, il y a une ombreau tableau: il est parseme de nombreuses coquilles. Je ne veux enmentionner qu'une seule, mais elle est de taille: a la page 55, 21'11'"paragraphe, ll. 7-10, il faut remplacer 1e deuxieme "Tacitus" de laphrase par "Tiberius" et !ire "Indeed, if we compare Annals 1.72 withSuetonius' account (Tib. 58.1), it is clear that Tacitus himself injectssomc ambivalence into Tiberius' actions."

L'artic1e de E.S. Gruen ("The 'fall' of the Scipios," 59-90) ne mesemble pas vraiment respecter le theme choisi pour ces melanges. Enetfet, il n'y est pas question des rapports entre gouvernants ctgouvernes; l'article ne s'interesse qu'aux derniers. Sa lecture cn estcependant captivante: c'est beaucoup plus que simplement un autrcarticle sur un sujet deja trop traite. Gruen rep1ace toute l'atfaireentournant 1e proces des Scipions dans un contexte plus large que ne


l'avaient fait ses nombreux predeeesseurs. Il nous apporte denouveaux arguments pour expliquer les tensions internes quiexistaient dans l'aristoeratie, tensions ereees par les sueees externeset l'opposition, d'une part, entre ambitions individuelles et, d'autrepart, entre les interets de la meme classe soeiale. Ces points deGruen sont: le triomphe, la prorogation des eommandements,l'argent et le butin. L'auteur diseute par exemple des eriteres quipermettent ou non le triomphe. Il montre ainsi que la periode allantde la fin de la deuxieme guerre punique jusqu'a la "ehute" desSeipions se earacterise par des diseussions et eontroverses sur desquestions eomme qui a droit au triomphe et pourquoi (parralele entreM. Claudius Mareellus, vainqueur de Syraeuse, et Seipion). Par lameme oeeasion, nous avons d'interessants eommentaires surl'ovation et ses titulaires. A eause de ees tensions internes dans laclasse dirigeante, les senateurs refusent d'elever trop rapidementSeipion, mais aeeeptent de voter eertains honneurs moindres adespersonnages plus obseurs. L'auteur, en diseutant ehaque eas detriomphe et d'ovation de la periode, demontre que les senateursdeeident en ee domaine selon les eonsiderations du moment: il n'y apas de reglement a suivre d'ou l'ineonsistanee et l'impossibilite depredire les resultats des votes. Des triomphes sont aeeordes aumerite, d'autres sont refuses pour des motifs mineurs de proeedure,eertains sont empeehes par le droit de veto d'un tribun, d'autreseneore ont lieu malgre le droit de veto d'un tribun. Gruen montredone que la lutte pour obtenir un triomphe se fait de plus en plurdure vers la fin de l'epoque alors que s'ajoute un nouvel element,l'opposition entre ennemis politiques (par exemple, Caton eontre Q.Minueius Thermus). Suit une diseussion sur la prorogation despouvoirs qui fut aeeordee a Seipion I'Mrieain mais fut plus tardrefusee a Asiagenus. La prorogation se fait tres rare apres la guerred'Hannibal. Le eas d'exeeption est eelui de T. Quinetius Flamininus(eos 198) dont le eommandement eontre Philippe V fut prorogejusqu'en 194. Cependant ees prorogations annuelles, eomme eelles deSeipion, ne furent pas faeiles a obtenir: ainsi la premiere prorogationde Flamininus ne fut aeeordee que paree qu'une menaee gauloiseobligeait les deux eonsuls arester a Rome. Le refus de la prorogationdu eommandement de L. Seipio Asiagenus (eos 190) peut dones'expliquer non seulement par les agissements de ses ennemis maisaussi (surtout!) par la "politique" du senat en matiere deprorogation. Un autre element qui joua dans ee refus etait la peurressentie devant la gloire personnelle des Seipions: en effet leseonsuls de 189, Manlius Vulso et Fulvius Nobilior, furent, eux,proroges dans leur eommandement. L'auteur parvient done a


expliquer un cercle vicieux: c'etait pour enrayer la montee del'individualisme que l'on s'etait oppose aux Scipions par le refus dutriomphe ou de la prorogation; or, les difficultes a obtenir untriomphe provoquent un regain d'ambition personnelle, doncd'individualisme. Le troisieme aspect de cette tension interne dansla classe dirigeante est le butin et l'argent qui permettaient auxgeneraux de donner a la population de somptueux spectacles. Lepremier a utiliser ainsi le butin et a commencer la surenchere entregeneraux fut, encore une fois, Scipion l'Africain. La classe dirigeanteeut peur de cette nouveaute et remit en question le droit du general,jusqu'alors inconteste, de distribuer le butin selon son bon plaisir.Enfin Gruen, apres une interessante demonstration, conclut qu'il n'ya eu qu'un seul proces, celui d'Asiagenus en 187. Ce que 1'0n ainterprete comme le proces d'Africanus en 184 serait son interventiondevant les senateurs pour defendre son frere d'une accusationd'appropriation de fonds publies. Le contexte de cette intervetion, sitheätrale qu'elle frappa l'imagination des contemporains, fut malcompris par les ecrivains posterieurs. Gruen rappelle que Polybe nementionne pas de proces mais seulement une tentative de poursuitecontre Africanus. De plus, la conclusion de ce proces n'est rapporteepar aucune source ancienne. Ainsi, au cours de ce long article, Gruena demontre que "l'affaire des Scipions" ne represente pas unevendette contre eux: "[the investigation undertaken in 187] takes itsplace among efforts to restrict prorogation, to establish clearercriteria for triumphs, to limit prerogatives with regard to moneysobtained in war, and to challenge the questionable behavior ofimperatores in foreign lands" (87). 11 n'y a pas eu de "chute" desScipions.

L'article de Fergus Millar (91-113) est la version publiee d'unecommunication de seminaire dont on a conserve le ton. Avec un titrecomme "Popular politics at Rome in the late Republic," on revient autheme choisi pour ces melanges. Millar s'interesse a la periode qui vade 70 a 50 av. J.-C., c'est-a-dire du moment Oll les tribuns retrouventles pouvoirs qu'ils avaient perdus sous Sylla jusqu'a la veille de lagueITe civile entre Cesar et Pompee. L'auteur se demande quelleetait la veritable signification, en politique, de l'expression populusRomanus? 11 rappelle le röle actif que jouaient, d'une part, lescomices centuriates dans les elections et, d'autre part, celui descomices tributes dans le vote des lois, car c'est en effet le populus, etnon le senat, qui a seulle pouvoir de votes des lois (leges, plebiscita).Millar retrace ainsi l'evolution de l'empire du point de vue du populuset ajoute un nouvel element a notre connaissance de la machinepolitique en verifiant si l'expansion et l'exploitation de l'empire


satisfaisaient les interets des electeurs, du peuple souverain. Cenouveau point de vue explique differemment la tranquillite du peuplequi caracterise l'epoque anterieure a celle etudiee ici. La violence dela foule n'apparai:tra en politique qu'a la fin de la Republique, car, acette epoque et pour la premiere fois, le populus se sent lese desfruits de la conquete.

L'article suivant complete quelque peu celui de W. Eck. C.Nicolet, dans "Le Tabula Sariensis, la plebe urbaine et les statues deGermanicus," (115-127), propose une nouvelle restitution dufragment 11, col. b, 11. 1-11 de cette fameuse inscription en faisant leparralele avec d'autres textes tels le Senatus Consultum de 23 apr.J.-C. sur les honneurs funebres accordes a Drusus (CIL 6.912 =31200) et les dedicaces adressees respectivement a Germanicus etDrusus (CIL 6.909-910). Apres avoir resume les hypotheses de W.Lebek ("Schwierige Stellen des tabula Siarensis," ZPE 66 [1986] 3148), l'auteur discute longuement du sense du mot ordo et de celui del'expression tribus urbanae qui apparaissent dans le texte. Tribusurbanae signifierait les 35 tribus urbaines, car, acette epoque,l'expression est en effet utilisee pour designer les Gitoyens quihabitent a Rome ou y sont nes, c'est-a-dire la plebe urbaine. L'ordoserait alors le senat a qui la plebe aurait demande son approbation.L'auteur fait preuve, comme a son habitude, d'une grandeconnaissance des problemes d'interpretation lies aux ordres et auxtribus. On s'etonnera cependant de ce que l'auteur ne nous donnepas, dans l'article, sa nouvelle lecture du texte.

Suit un article de Z. Rubin, "Mass movements in Late Antiquityappearances and realities" (129-187), ou l'auteur se penche sur lacelebre rebellion des Bagaudes en Gaule et en Espagne et celle desCircumcellions en Afrique, mouvements dans lesquels on a vu desinsurrections populaires de protestation sociale qui luttaient contrel'oppression du gouvernement romain et de ses classes dirigeantes.Comme bien d'autres savants, Rubin leur eherehe des precedents. Laou il fait preuve d'originalite, c'est lorsqu'il nous invite a la prudenceen demontrant que les supposes precedents pointes du doigt par sespredecesseurs n'en sont pas. Un examen minutieux soulignedavantage les differences entre ces rebellions que les similitudes.L'article est donc aussi une critique des sciences hisotriquessovietique et marxiste (par example, A.D. Dmitrev et E.A.Thompson) pour qui ces revoltes sont des tentatives de renversementde l'ordre social etabli. La discussion sur ces pretendus precedentsamene l'auteur a traiter, par ricochet, de nombreux autres pointsdont certains sont d'une importance capitale alors que d'autres nesont que des details qui nuancent cependant notre connaissance de


cette periode. Outre les Bagaudes et les Circumcellions, il analysed'autres insurrections populaires comme la revolte de Maternus enGaule sous Commode et celle des Boukoloi (Bucolici) en Egypte en172-173. Rubin conclut qu'aucune n'est une revolte spontanee depaysans ou une explosion de nationalisme. Il precise aussi lesdefinitions antiques des mots "usurpation" et de "usurpateur" entraitant, par exemple, de Sampsigeramus qui, pour defendre saregion d'Emese contre Shapur I, leva une armee de paysans: l'auteurmet l'accent sur la realite face a la propagande hostile, sur laterminologie employee et enfin sur la distinction entre evenementsisoles et continuite d'un meme mouvement. Rubin, en insistant sur lefait que les termes Bagaudes et Circumcellions ont plus d'unesignification et recouvrent plusieurs types de manifestations (debutd'usurpation facilement matee, troupes de voleurs professionels,deserteurs qui ont fui le service ou l'enrolement, revolte d'un peupleavec sentiment nationaliste et separatiste), met en questionl'importance que l'on a accordee aces revoltes. De plus, chaquesection de l'article comporte d'interessantes digressions: passage surSaint Maunce d'Augune dans la discussion sur les Bagaudes, celuisur la revolte de Firmus en Mauretanie en 375 et celle de son frereGildo en 397 et le role que joua Optatus, eveque donatiste, dans lemouvement circumcellion. L'article se termine, pour fin decomparaison et de contraste, sur la discussion d'une autre rebellionpopulaire beaucoup moins connu des classicistes: celle desMazdakites au yeme siecle, mouvement populaire issue desenseignements d'un "faux prophete," Mazdak. Un seul point negatif:la lecture de ce long article est rendue malaisee par la presence denombreuses coquilles qui distraient l'attention du lecteur.

Puis vient un article de W. Schuller, "Soldaten und Befehlshaberin Caesars Bellum Ciuile" (189-199). L'auteur prend le contre-piedd'un theme etudiee par Yavetz dans Caesar in der öffentlichenMeinung (WHERE?? 1979) 163-165. Yavetz s'etait interesse al'attitude de Cesar envers ses soldats et officiers; Schuller, ens'appuyant sur le Bellum Ciuile, etudie l'attitude des soldats et desofficiers devant la uirtus et la fides.

F.W. Walbank, "Polybius' perception of the one and the many"(201-222), transpose au IIeme siecle av. J.-C. les etudes de Yavetz surles gouvernants et la plebe. L'auteur montre d'abord qu'il n'y a pasreellement de contradiction entre le fait que d'une part Polybeconsidere le peuple (oi TToAAoi), grec ou romain, come une foule auxpensees aussi changeantes que la mer, et d'autre part les convictionspro-democratiques de l'historien grec. Walbank etudie les liens entrela masse (oi TTOAAOO et le "un" qui peu etre chex Polybe un general,


un homme politique, un demagogue, un tyran, un roi. La distinctionentre ces deux derniers n'est pas toujours uniquement une questionlegale mais porte souvent un jugement de valeur: un bon tyran peuty etre appele roi alors qu'un mauvais roi peut y etre designe tyran.Malgre les termes positifs parfois employes par Polybe au sujet decertains rois, il reste que l'auteur, en bon Acheen, est loin d'etre"royaliste," qu'il se mefie de cette forme de gouvernement qui porteen elle un defaut dangereux. Polybe, au fameux livre VI, demontre satheorie du cycle des constitutions, l'anacyclosis: les differentes etapesen sont la monarchie primitive, la royaute, la tyrannie, l'aristocratie,l'oligarchie, la democratie, l'ochlocracie (masse/foule), puis le retour ala monarchie. La superiorite de la masse sur le roi est que lapremiere possede une raison et des idees morales et qu'elle s'en sertalors que le monarque, qui les possede aussi, peut decider degouverner sans elles. ARome, le declin des constitutions a ete stoppeapres les decemvirs lorsque fut instituee une constitution "mixte."Dans une teIle constitution, les rapports dirigeants/masse ontchange par rapport a l'anacyclosis. Mais Rome et sa constitutionmixte aussi doivent decliner, depuis 168 selon Polybe, depuis queRome jouit d'une domination universelle et des fruits d'un empire.

Le dernier article est signe P. Vidal-Naquet, "Enlightenment onthe Greek city-state" (223-236). Il ne respecte pas le theme choisimais sa lecture en est tres interessante: l'auteur y fait preuve d'unevaste erudition. L'article porte sur l'historiographie moderne et dudanger de l'anachronisme dans lequel vit le Moderne lorsqu'il affirmequ'il est capable de "penser comme Pericles" et que Pericles auraitpu penser comme lui (223). Vidal-Naquet souligne aussi le dangerque representent les mots que nous utilisons: ainsi le terme"republique" ne recouvre pas la meme realite que res publica dememe que notre democratie n'est pas celle de l'Antiquite. Meme aAthenes, les intellectuels et philosophes ne sont pas entierement enfaveur de la "democratie" puisqu'ils avancent qu'elle doit etrecontrölee, que la societe doit etre hierarchisee et qu'ils professent unegrande admiration pous Sparte. C'est en partie a cause de cetteadmiration d'Atheniens envers Sparte qu'eut lieu au xvme siecle ledebat entre Athenes et Sparte OU s'opposaient le luxe et la corruptionde la premiere a l'austerite de la seconde. Ce que des gens commeVoltaire admiraient d'Athenes, c'etait son commerce et sa liberted'expression, non pas son regime politique. Pendant la revolutionfran9aise, les Montagnards prirent Sparte comme modele. En effet,puisque la democratie doit mener a la vertu, il etait evident que lacite de l'Attique ne pouvait servir d'exemple a suivre. Pendant lesannees Thermidor, la perception change: Sparte represente la droite,


voire l'extreme droite, et n'est plus aussi populaire. Le debat alors setransformera: les Fran9ais seront pro-Ath~mes et les Allemands proSparte. A la meme epoque, se developpera outre-Rhin le mythedorien. L'opposition France-Allemagne, repercutee dans le domainescientifique dans le debat AthEmes-Sparte, se rencontre tout le longde la deuxieme moitie du XIXC et de la premiere moitie du XXC siec1e.Le modele athenien en France saura sauvegarder sa preeminencejusqu'a ce que le colonialisme et la "mission civilisatrice" de laFrance (surtout en Algerie) rendent populaire le modele de Rome.

Je pense que la lecture de ces melanges en l'honneur de ZviYavetz est fortement a recommander. La plupart des artic1es sonttres interessants et s'adressent autant a un public de specialistesqu'a celui des etudiants. Ce serait meme pour ces derniers une bonneinitiation a la recherche en etudes c1assiques puisqu'on y trouve nonseulement des artic1es par les meilleurs specialistes, mais aussi unvaste echantillon de sujets dans quatre langues.

HELENE LECLERCCENTRE D'ETUDES CLASSIQUESUNlVERSITE DE MONTREAL

MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3C 3J7

M. ÜWEN LEE. Virgil as Orpheus. A Study of Virgil'sGeorgics. Albany: State University of New York Press,1995. Pp. xiv + 171. Paper US $14.95. ISBN 0-7914-27846.

Father Lee's earlier writings on Vergil are staples of North Americanc1assical studies programmes: Fathers and Sons in Virgil's Aeneid(1979) and Death and Rebirth in Virgil's Arcadia (1989). Vergil's Liedvon der Erde comes last "with the hope that more readers will cometo know and love 'the best Poem' through its pages" and at the sametime share his own perception of Vergil's new Orpheus, supremeembodiment of music's power, as Vergil's "signature figure" in theGeorgics and, more contentiously, to perceive Octavian in the newAristaeus, a culture hero capable of atoning for past errors, acreature gifted with revivifYing powers, and a hero destined forgodhead.

Chapter I "Orpheus and Aristaeus" (1-17) marshals evidence toaccent Vergil's innovative account of the descent, of Eurydice's deathby snakebite and Orpheus' backward look, and the poet's death atthe hands of women; Chapter 11 ''Virgil and Octavian" (19-28) points


up an era of prosperity, increase and abundance and the interlacingof their careers; Chapter III ''Virgil's Sourees" (29-41) ranges fromHomer to Cornelius Gallus; Chapter IV ''Virgil's Sounds" (43-49),explores Vergil's music, his sensitivity to sounds and the sonicdevices that transformed his treatise on agriculture into symphoniepoetry; Chapter V "Book 1: The Land" (51-66) grapples with Vergil'stheodicy (125-145), a new Golden Age, with labor improbus whichconquers all at its centre, conceived not as vindictive but as deterrentto paradisiac sloth and the excesses of materialism, a countersermon against disorder and vacuity in the present, suggestive of"some first great movement from Gustav Mahler" (65). Chapter VI"Book 2: Trees and Vines" (67-78) emerges as a scherzo embracingjoy in his Frühlingszauber (vv. 315-345) with a measure ofgravitas inthe paean to Italy. The poet's sacerdotal tone, recalling the didactic,mystical role of Orpheus, aligns with the shift to the god of tragedyand the agon. Chapter VII "Book 3: Animals" (79-89), on the bookwhich Otis identified as the adagio movement, calls for comment ondurus amor, the sexual instinct that harasses animate creatures andthe mythic boy Leander, reflected in Rome's declining sexualmorality. Chapter VIII "Book 4: Bees" (91-100), on the book that isCharles Segal's allegro ma non troppo, measures the apian regimenagainst that of the well-ordered monastery and accents the imageryofthe army and the commonwealth. Chapter IX "The Epyllion" (101126) is rich in its nuanced reading and Jungian reflection on the stuffof Vergil's vision and the collective unconscious, the cauldron ofancient thought patterns or archetypes that Jung called the "twomillion-year-old Self' inside uso Father Lee uses Jung's ideas powerfully and provocatively. The descent/ascentjourneys of Aristaeus andOrpheus, both caught in their sexual crises (like Homer's Achilles) aresuggestively subjected to rebirth, with the anima figure and proteanOld Wise Man as guardians ofthe rite de passage.

The psychologieal "reading" is complemented by astute commentson the language and structure of the epyllion and the concentricpattern and symmetries, where Gilbert Norwood's guidance is vital.Father Lee accepts the Servian notice of an edited eulogy of Gallusjust as Richard Thomas senses Gallan elements in the Orpheusepisode. He also views the Orpheus section, composed in the style ofGallus, as one poet's tribute to a contemporary, the Aristaeus sectionas a discernible tribute to Homer's style (124). Octavian's Orphicpoet has an emphatic message for the princeps: "He can rebuild hiscivilization once he acknowledges his debt to the artist who, descending to intuitive depths, knows life more profoundly and understandshuman failures and loss" (125). Chapter X "The Sphragis" (127-139)


highlights the dismemberment of Orpheus in Jungian terms as anelement of rebirth, a case of fructi:fYing symbolism, and reviews thecentral questions raised in his analysis. Horace's Odes 1.24 and 3.4are adduced to register Horace's recognition of Orpheus as Vergil'ssignature figure, and underscore the purpose of Vergil's Poem of theEarth as lene consilium for a leader in need of cautionary counsel.

Father Lee's mellifluous "valedictory" to Vergil offers profit andpleasure at all levels; the only valid response to it is enjoyment.Studies of the Georgics elsewhere have accented agricultural lore,social and political factors, usually oscillating between optimism andpessimism, more often accenting Vergil's critical response tocontemporary change and to the oppression of nature and thenatural spirit. Because Vergil's Laudes Italiae (G. 2.161-176)associate Saturnia tellus with wars, military harbours (Portus Iulius)and with doughty earlier fighters from the Sabine highlands down toOctavian's civil war era, scholars sense uneasiness, lightly veiledhostility or mendacity in the overall "message." Father Lee is moreaware of the multiple associations and traditions that are at workwithin the verses: concepts, myths and phrases come aliv.e accordingto their context. Christine Perkell's stance (The Poet's Truth: A Studyof the Poet in Virgil's Georgics [Berkeley 1989]) appeals to FatherLee: Vergil's art was less concerned with conventional demands forconsistency than with "oppositions that are not capable ofresolution."

Father Lee's reader-response, wayward to some scholars, isoptimistic and hopeful; a seasoned literary critic, he concerns himselfwith vexed questions of interpretation as his thesis requires; hehandles complexities with habitual acuteness, with suggestive musical and dramatic analogues contributing to a subtly orchestratedstrategy of persuasion. For sensible insights and judicious musicalanalogues, Virgil and Orpheus is a preferred introduction to Dryden's"best Poem of the best Poet."

ALEXANDER G. McKAyDIVISION OF HUMANITIES/ CLASSICAL STUDIES

YORK UNIVERSITY

NORTH YORK, ONTARIO M3J 1P3


ROBERT ALAN GURVAL. Actium and Augustus: The Politicsand Emotions of Civil War. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1995. Pp. viii + 337, 6 plates. Cloth. ISBN:0-472-10590-6.

How can one like a book so unkind to one's accustomed notions? Andunkind Gurval is-to broadly accepted conceptions of the politicalsignificance ofthe battle of Actium, ofthe program of early Augustanpropaganda that ostensibly featured Actium as its centerpiece, of theusual assumptions about contemporary Roman poets' role in thepromulgation of that program. Yet while pursuing its revisionary,dismantling analysis with a vengeance, and for all the protests adiscomforted reader's mind makes along the way, this engagingstudy makes for an enlightening, and finally satisfying tour offamiliar ground, reminding us once again of the heuristic power of theskeptical eye.

A remarkable strength of this study is Gurval's ability to considera wide range of evidence, disparate in character. In the first twochapters, historical and material evidence pertaining chiefly toOctavian's tripIe triumph in 29 and the dedication of the Temple ofApollo on the Palatine in 28; in the remaining four chapters, literaryreactions to the phenomenon of Actium by Horace, Propertius, andVergil. Gurval seems perhaps a little happier in the first of theseareas, and his strongest proofs for the direct case he wants to make(Octavian did not immediately begin exploiting Actium for itspropaganda value) is to be found here. The literary material is alsohandled weIl; Gurval's readings are infomed and sensitive. But theelusiveness of literary "evidence," a fairly conventional and sometimes unexciting exegetical presentation, and the rather narrowgauge of interest (the role of "Actium" in these poems) makes theselater chapters rather less immediately compelling than the first two.Still, Gurval's reading of the poetry raises in the end more complexquestions than those addressed earlier, and many readers will findin it occasion for interested reaction.

Chapter 1 examines implications of Octavian's decision to mounthis tripIe triumph on three consecutive days, celebrating, successively, the Illyrian campaign, Actium, and the pacification of Egyptthereby"shrewdly [choosing] not to exalt his individual campaigns bythe interval of days to distinguish his triumphs" (34). Gurval pointsout that Actium, significantly, was celebrated on the second day, notthe culminating third. The uncomfortable fact that Actium was avictory over Romans in a civil war is the reason for the subtleobfuscation: not something to crow about too overtly, as Julius


Caesar's experience in his fourth (African) triumph-where placardsof the vanquished Metellus Scipio and M. Porcius Cato were greetedwith groans of unexpected sympathy-may have taught the youngOctavian (24). Placing the Actium triumph between victories overforeigners altered the tenor of the celebration, focusing publicattention on the restoration of peace rather than the problematicvictory whose abiding historical consequences were not yet clear.Gurval likewise scrutinizes evidence for an Actian triumphal archthought to have been erected in 29 and finds it to be, at best, inconclusive, in spite of considerable scholarly opinion contra. Turning tonumismatic evidence, an important and expertly handled resource forthis study, Gurval considers the so-called "triumphal" issues ofOctavian and raises doubts about their dating and whether Actiumor perhaps Naulochus was the victory they celebrated. Finally,Octavian's foundation of an Actian victory city, Nicopolis, and ActianGames is subjected to deflating regard: Octavian's new city is seenas less a triumphal vaunt than a "practical endeavor, a deli berateand serious response to an urgent local problem" (68), i.e., the needto provide adequate political administration, via synoecism, to alately-disrupted region. The Actian games may have been a continuation or reinauguration of traditional games held at thc site, and theirconnection to the dedication of Nicopolis or their connection withfestivities celebrated in Rome very uncertain. Both celebratory ge::;tures are, in any case, to be seen in the context of the traditions ofthe Greek east rather than as trappings of a developing imperialideology in Rome itself.

In Chapter Two, and back in Rome, the Temple of Apollo on thePalatine, dedicated in 28 and usually feIt to be an immediateassertion of the public link between Octavian and Actian Apollo, isreconsidered. Gurval finds little substantial indication of an earlyassociation between Octavian and Apollo, or of explicit connectionbetween the vow of the temple (in 36) with Naulochus or itsdedication (in 28) with Actium. Specialists may have something tosay about Gurval's treatment of the historical evidence; the nonspecialist may find Gurval's revisions of the communis opinio a bitpattcrned and predictable and will wonder a little at his insistanceon demonstrably explicit connections between the Actium celebrations, Apollo, and Octavian's evolving self-configuration when implicitresonances seem likely to have been clear enough. But Gurval'sanalysis is conscientious and opens up large areas for furtherdiscussion. And more important than any particular element ofGurval's comprehensive reappraisal is his demonstration of thevulnerability of easy assumptions about Octavian's manipulation of


a planned, coherent ideological program (with Actium designedly atits center); the impression Gurval's study leaves is of initialreluctance, in the period immediately after Actium, to exploit thevictory rhetorically and of cautious experiment in the promulgation ofthe winner's public image. How Octavian feIt about Actium seems tohave changed over time, as did the ideology it eventually becamesymbolically central to.

Perspective shifts in the third chapter, focusing now on poets'references to the event. The reader will by now come to expect Gurvalto find reservation and qualification rather than heartfelt endorsement; sure enough, even Horace's Epodes 9, for all its celebratory air,is seen to betray a decidedly mixed attitude toward the event. I haveno trouble with this conclusion, but find the analysis that leads to itsomewhat labored. A little oddly, Gurval does not, but for an extended footnote reprising others' views, enter into analysis of Odes1.37, but does go on to make the interesting claim that in theremaining odes Horace, troubled by the ambivalent significance of theevent, makes no direct reference to Actium. Symbolic reference in theGigantomachy of 3.4 is duly observed as noted by many but isdismissed, a little perversely, as not explicit.

On to Propertius (Chapter Four), in two parts: first, 2.1, 2.15,2.16, 2.34, and 3.11. References to Octavian's victories (imbedded inrecusatio) in 2.1.27-34 are read for their shadows of dark implication;fair enough, but Gurval's observation that "the dramatic postponement of Actium and its triumph until the denoument of this epiccatalog of Octavian's wars irrevocably shatters the fragile illusionthat the victorious general endeavored to create by his carefullyorchestrated arrangement of triumphs" (179) reaches rather far.Octavian, who after all did not exactly want the victory to gounnoticed, would have to have read Gurval's book to be really upsetby Propertius's placement of the event in his catalogue. Gurval goeson to contend that the elegiac references to Actium in 2.15 and 2.16show fewer traces of sympathy with Anthony's cause than generaldismay over Roman killing Roman. In 2.34 a "subtle rebuke" isoffered to Vergil for being the sort of fellow to undertake Actian/epicthemes. From this plausible ground Gurval moves to the difficult3.11, arguing that it shows no evidence of change of mind aboutOctavian's victory, that it too is haunted by the unpleasant memoryof civil strife, even while it denounces Cleopatra, praises Octavian,and rebukes Rome for cowering before the threats of a degradedwoman. Gurval makes acute observations while leaving a sense ofissues unaddressed; here the difficuIty may lie in his looking for"evidence of attitude toward Actium" and for hints (sometimes


minute) of reservation rather than looking at the elegy qua poem andparticularly at the shifting registers of voice there (as it bears directlyon how Actium is used in this elegy).

Actium through the eyes ofVergil, uiz., the ecphrasis of the shield(A. 8.626fO, makes for one of Gurval's best chapters. In it hecontends that while "the contribution of the Aeneid to the glorificationof Actium and its victor should not be undervalued or denied," thepassage "served more to mold a new 'Augustan' conception andideology of the Actian victory than to endorse or transmit any priorpropaganda of the battle" (213). In making his case, Gurval leads usthrough the various depictions of the shield, effectively underminingclaims (still prominently in the air) that the passage constitutes amoment of unambiguous optimism and national pride. Whendiscussing the depiction of Actium itself, Gurval asks not how theattendant images on the shield correspond to Augustan triumph, but"how the confrontation at Actium relates to the encircling images ofwarfare, treachery, and civil conflict that visually and emotionallyprepare the reader for the dramatic centerpiece" (230). That centerpiece is triumphant, but textured (of course) with the pensivecomplexity of Vergilian awareness-a vision so potent that it wouldbecome the definitive formulation of Actium's symbolic place inAugustan ideology.

It is in the context of Vergil's defining formulation that Gurvaldiscusses, in his last fuH chapter, the exceedingly problematicPropertius 4.6. Rather than refleet the early anxiety of Horace'sEpodes 9 or even the disquiet Propertius hirnself reveals in his earliertreatments, 4.6 represents areaction to the Vergilian "myth" ofActium. Under Gurval's analysis, the poem becomes a counterformulation, stripped of Vergil's reassuring constructions of epochalconfliet and achieved order: an exercise in Callimachean deflation.The reservation one has about this intriguing idea has to do with itsessentially negative charaeter. The poem becomes the sum of thethings it does not do in Vergilian terms and, as the sometimes toocarefully deliberate exegesis itself betrays, so becomes a ratherlifeless, grudgingly reactive thing. Many will find more fun and pointin the poem than is registered here.

Actiwn and Augustus is not without problems, yet it is beyondquestion an important new work-Iearned, carefully presented,original in conception and execution. Text and plates have beenbeautifully produced by the press; the bibliography and indexes arefüll and useful. Students of Augustan history will need to take this


book into account.

D.M. HOOLEYDEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS

UNlVERSITY OF MISSOURI

COLUMBIA, MO 65211

K.W. ARAFAT. Pausanias' Greece: Ancient Artists andRoman Rulers. Cambridge University Press, 1996. ISBN 0521 55340 7 (hardback).

For some quarter of a century, there has been lively debate on bothsides of the Atlantic about the role of Greek culture under Romanrule. The immediate impulse was aseries of lectures by GIenBowersock on "Sophists and the Roman Government in the SecondCentury A.D.," delivered in Oxford in 1966. Those lectures becameBowersock's well-known book of 1969, Greek Sophists in the RomanEmpire; and they also stimulated a paper read by Ewan Bowie tothe Oxford Philological Society in 1967, which he developed into aninfluential essay, "Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic,"published in Past and Present in February 1970.

The positions of Bowersock and Bowie, while not diametricallyopposed, nevertheless differed strongly. Bowersock portrayed thesecond- and third-century sophists, and also Galen, as public figuresdeeply engaged in the Roman empire, while Bowie emphasized whathe called "archaism," "the Greeks' preoccupation with their pastland] dissatisfaction with the political situation of the present" (4);though he allowed that "most Greeks were in no real sense antiRoman, and their absorption in the Greek past complemented theiracquiescence in the politically defective Roman present" (41).

Pausanias, the "Periegete" or travel-writer of the mid-secondcentury, was no sophist and had no known public career, and isabsent from Bowersock's book. Bowie gave hirn a page, seeing hiscomparative neglect of monuments later than 150 RC. as anothermanifestation of "archaism"; "the intervening years were of nointerest to a Greek, and their lack of interest was due to the political(rather than cultural) decline that they represented" (23). Thoughmarginal to this debate, therefore, Pausanias has long been one ofthe most studied of Greek authors, and by far the most studied oneof the second century, because of the information he supplies for theart and archaeology of Greece. Two massive commentaries appearedabout a hundred years ago, that of Hitzig and Blümner in Germany


between 1896 and 1906 (absent from Arafat's bibliography) andthat of Sir James Frazer in 1898; and in the present generationthere has been a lavishly illustrated Greek translation with explanatory notes, an Italian edition and commentary, started in 1967 andnow almost complete, and a Bude edition which has just begun; andthere is also an excellent Teubner text by M. Rocha-Pereira, alrcadyin its second edition. Of the many shorler studies, two recent onesmay be singled out, Christian Habicht's Sather Lectures, Pausanias'Guide to Ancient Greece (1985) and the proceedings of one of theEntretiens Hardt, Pausanias historien (1996).

Arafat traces the present volume to "its author's fascination withPausanias, who has been ... 'a friendly presence' in the study, inthe lecture room and on site for ten years" (xiii). He or his pub!ishercalls the book "the first systematic and detailed study of Pausanias'view of Roman involvement in Greece" Ci), and credits only two otherauthors with attempting the topic, Jonas Palm in 1959 and BetteForle in 1972 (2). Yet this is precisely the subject of Habicht'spenultimate chapter, "The Roman World of Pausanias," which iscertainly no less "systematic" than either Palm or Forte. That wouldnot matter so much if Arafat had something original and exciting tosay: the problem is that what he does have is not enough to justify abook. An article by John Elsner in Past and Present, "Pausanias: AGreek Pilgrim in the Roman World," seems to be a particular irritantfor Arafat (er 8 n. 13, 10 n. 21, 11 n. 22, 12 n. 27, etc.), and thisbook would have lost nothing if it had been kept to a comparablclength.

Arafat's thesis, approximately stated, is that while Pausaniashas a "preference" for the past, he does not view the Greece of hisday with "a sense of inevitable decline and fall" (Elsner's phrase, towhich Arafat returns several times, 142, 159, 214). The first part ofthe book, after an "introduction" of over forty pages, is given toshowing that Pausanias is interested in Greek art of the distantpast, and concerned to observe stages in it: he looks for the inventorsof artistic techniques such as those of bronze-working, he notes anddiscusses the materials of early cult-objects. Most of the rest of thebook is given to a discussion of Pausanias' treatment of Romans whoimpinged on Greece; first, emperors to whom he pays !ittle or noattention; then Mummius and Sulla; next, Caesar and Augustus;after them, the Roman emperors from Nero to Marcus Aurelius;finally, second-century benefactors such as Herodes Atticus. The lastchapter, though entitled "Conclusions," is in fact aresume, since very


little here has not been said already. Throughout the book, indeed,the reader has a sense of word-spinning, of laborious musings overtrifles: an example is the paragraph on 141 which begins,"Pausanias' omission of Nero's own view is itself perhaps notsurprising," and ends (alas all too aptly), ''hardly a controversialobservation." To the same category belong the barely-concealeddigressions: thus 143, "Although Pausanias does not discuss Nero'sitinerary in Greece, it is worth digressing briefly here to consider it,since it sheds important light on Nero's relations with Greece and onhow other writers report his visit."

As a specimen of Arafat's own contribution, let us take the firstextended illustration ofhis thesis that he gives (4). "During his tourof Corinth, Pausanias says that 'Augustus was emperor of Romeafter Caesar, the founder of the present city of Corinth' (2.3.1). Itseems remarkable that he had to introduce Augustus and to speIlout his place in the sequence of Roman rulers. The inference thatAugustus was somehow unfamiliar to Pausanias' intended readersmay seem highly improbable, however logically it may appear tofoIlow." And so on for another ten lines, which include the suggestionthat Augustus may have passed into "folk-history" for Pausanias'readers. The author is actually discussing atempie of Augustus'sister, the Younger Octavia, and in that connection calls her "thesister of Augustus (AÜYOVCTOC) who was king of the Romans(ßacIAE\Jcac) after Caesar." True, this is the first mention ofAugustus in the work, and in that sense he is "introduced," but itdoes not follow that Pausanias thinks hirn unknown to his readers:compare Herodotus' first mention of Themistocles, "There was acertain man of the Athenians who had recently joined the ranks ofthe leaders, whose name was Themistocles, and he was called son ofNeocles" (7.143.1). What really deserves comment in this sentence ofPausanias is his use of the calque AÜYOVCTOC, which he laterexplains as equivalent to the Greek CEßacToc (3.11.4). He is thefirst extant author to reserve this name for the first emperor, a usewhich also starts to occur in contemporary inscriptions. 1 On the otherhand, Arafat does weIl to eliminate 8.27.1 from any discussion ofPausanias' attitude to Rome (202), so evident is Clavier's addition ofE1TI before apxiic; though the paradosis is now defended at enormouslength by Simon Swain.2

1 J. Rouge, RPh 49 (1969) 83-92, especially 91 on Pausanias.

2 C. Habicht, Pausanias 119-120; S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire(Oxford 1996) 353-356.


On the general question of Pausanias' stance on Roman rule overGreece and its effect on the objects which he describes, Arafat maybe said to have landed more or less in the correct place (howevcrbumpy and circuitous the preceding flight); above all, he is right toemphasize his artistic aims over any political ones. To take oneexample: it has often been observed that Pausanias is very off-handabout one of the monuments of Athens which most strike the modernviewer, the tomb of the Commagenian prince Julius Philopappus onthe HilI of the Muses. In one of his excursions into Hellenistic historyin Book I, he observes that Demetrios Poliorketes freed the city, andyet left a garrison on the "so-called Mouseion." This, hc goes on tuexplain, is a hilI opposite the Acropolis "where they say Musaeussang and was buried when he died of old age; and later a tomb wasbuilt there to a Syrian man" (avopl CUPC}), 1.25.8). Christian Habichtsaw "disdain" in this remark (137): in a lengthy discussion (192193), Arafat suggests that Pausanias is so brief because the monument was not a benefaction of Philopappus, and "was not relevant to[the author's] purpose except in that it currently occupied the hiHwhose history he was engaged in detailing." Pausanias is not reallydescribing the Hill of the Muses so much as a statue on the Acropoliscommemorating Olympiodorus, the Athenian statesman of the earlythird century (1.25.2-26.3): but it is surely true that, however conspicuous the monument of Philopappus is for a modern viewer, türPausanias "the tomb of a Syrian man" was enough.

Arafat's emphasis on Pausanias the viewer and connoisseur istherefore a valuable corrective to "political" interpretations. Partlyunder the influence of Herodotus, Pausanias is concerned to locatewhat he sees, and also his own work, in a temporal continuum. He isalert to the development of the arts, to the rise and fall of states; hisfrequent references to objects or customs surviving to his own time, oroccurring within it, point the same way. Habicht has proved that hisuse of phrases such as ETI' hl0Ü, KaT' E~E always refers to his own lifespan: l

; but it is also worth noting how frequently he uses themisleadingly named "epistolary" imperfect in such phrases,4 as if hewere conscious not only of past time, but of a future time when hcwould be merely an author, a name on the label of a book-roll or atthe head of a codex.

Is he an "archaizer"? He certainly uses an archaic style, indebtedto Thucydides no less than to Herodotus; especially striking is his

:l Habicht, Pausanias 176-180.

41.1.2, 1.2.5, 1.4.5, etc.


liking for the archaic pronouns 01, c<päc, c<pwv and C<plc1. 5 We canalso agree with an observation of Wilamowitz, cited and endorsed byHabicht (135): "his interest was completely drawn by the distantpast of Greece; the age of heroes was closer to hirn than the recentpast." But for all his attention to cults and customs, it is thematerial objects that principally attract hirn, and Arafat is to bepraised for seeing this, and for insisting on the paramountcy of hisartistic interests. What we now need is for someone to show howPausanias as a writer, as an imitator of fifth-century historians andtheir style, matches his own artistic aims to his subject-matter. Thisis the kind of archaism that calls for further exploration; the questionwhether second- and third-century sophists were expressing"dissatisfaction with the political situation of the present" is overduefor retirement.

CHRISTOPHER JONES

HARvARD UNIVERSITY

CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138

CHARITON. CALLIRHOE, G.P. Goold ed. and trans. LoebClassical Library 481. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press, 1995. Pp. 425 + viii. ISBN 0674-99530-9.

The publisher's "blurb" makes a strong case for the appeal ofChariton's historical romance:

Chariton narrates the adventures of a strikingly beautifulyoung bride named CaBirhoe, beginning with her abductionby pirates-adventures that take her as far as the court ofthe Persian king ... and involve shipwrecks, several ardentsuitors, an embarrassing pregnancy, the hazards of war, anda happy ending.

Goold hirnself makes the case that "romance" is the operative term:"Chariton's theme, however, is not historical at aB; it is a love story"(12). He also shows on the basis of the colophon to Book 2 containedin the second-century Michailidis papyrus fragment that Charitonintended the novel to be "less . . . a love story than a femalecharacter study" (14); accordingly, the feckless "hero" of the novel,

5 cr. O. Strid, Über Sprache und Stil des Periegeten Pausanias(Stockholm 1976) 99 ("neben Herodot hat vor allem Thukydides alsVorbild gedient"), and 84 on these pronouns.


Chaereas, does not have a rightful pIace in its original title: TheStory of Callirhoe.

Like the editors of other volumes in the Loeb Classical Libraryseries, Goold does not aspire to provide the fuIl-fledged apparatuscriticus of a definitive critical edition, which would in any case be outof pIace in a work that depends on a single late manuscript and fourfragments that correspond to slightly less than 6% of the extant text.Instead, the textual notes signal deviations from the readings of thesingle manuscript. Goold has also incorporated some 50 unpublishedtextual conjectures of John Jackson as weIl as the conjectures ofearlier editors and scholars such as C.G. Cobet, "the most giftedGreek scholar to deal with Chariton" (23).

The volume is equipped with a 19-page introduction, to which 1shall return, a map that plots Callirhoe's journey from Syracuse toBabyIon and back again, and a detailed index. All three adjunctswill be helpful to both the casual reader and the specialist. Thctranslation effectively represents Chariton's "educated KOIVf)" (1). Thefollowing example, chosen completely at random, is representative ofthe smooth, steady and unforced advancement of Goold's prose (andthe often overwrought nature of Chariton's narrative):

But Rumor arrived there first: naturally swift, on thatoccasion she made extra speed to report this extraordinarysituation. So everyone quickly assembled on the seashore,and every kind of emotion was expressed at the same time:people wept, marveled, inquired, and disbelieved, astoundedat the strange tale. When Callirhoe's mother saw herdaughter's funeral offerings, she shrieked, "I recognize themall, but you, my child, are the one thing missing! Astrangesort of tomb robbers! They have left the clothing and the goldand have stolen only my daughter!" (3.4.1-2)

The same page identifies a formulaic quotation of Homer and reportsone of Jackson's textual conjectures.

Introductions in the Loeb Classical Library series appear toprovide less scope for editors to develop the scholarly underpinningsof their volumes than their Bude counterparts enjoy. Some of thcissues addressed by Goold would have benefitted from fullertreatment. Chariton's "remarkable success" (3) is gauged by fourfragments from the sands of Egypt ovcr aperiod of some 500 years.If this numer of fragments is the measure of "remarkable success,"the 43 papyrus fragments from Egypt during the same time spanrecently categorized by Susan Stephens as "Anonymous philosophical


prose" must represent the remains of best seIlers beyond the dreamsof any writer. 1 Persius appears to have known of Chariton's novelbecause he lived in a household of three women (5). Are we tounderstand from this that Chariton composed his novel for a femalereadership? Historical inconsistencies and difficulties withcharacterization are taken by Goold to be indications that Charitonwas a pioneer in a new genre (14). The assumption seens to be thatskills in these two areas of narrative manipulation necessarilyimproved with the passage of time. Heliodorus, however, at the otherend of the chronological spectrum and the acknowledged master ofnarrative control among the ancient Greek novelists, has allowed theEpicurean monument of about 300 B.C. in Athens to clash with thedramatic date of the Aethiopica at the time of Persia's domination ofEgypt; and his difficulties with the characterization of Theagenes arenotorious. The question of Xenophon of Ephesus being a "slavishimitator" of Chariton is still open to debate (15). James N.O'Sullivan, for instance, has recently come to the opposite conclusionregarding the priority of Chariton or Xenophon. 2 Finally, the notionthat the pirate Theron was "a man of flesh and blood" because thereis a famous criminal of the same name in Apuleius' Golden Ass isopen to question (12). I am sceptical. In Apuleius (5.7.5) we aredealing with a make-believe robber, the "famous Haemus" ("Bloody"),son of the "equally famous Theron" ("Predator"). The names seem tooappropriate to their calling to belong to flesh-and-blood criminals.

Apart from the qualifications stated in the previous paragraph,Goold's introduction does an admirable job of conveying within arestricted range to casual and specialist readers alike "a synthesis ofall that the best scholarship has achieved" (vii). Armed with theuseful information provided in the introductory survey and suppliedthroughout the body of the volume with explanatory notes andreferences to the many classical authors, especially Homer, quotedand paraphrased by the literary magpie Chariton, all readers willderive maximum value from this most welcome edition.

GERALD N. SANDYDEPARTMENT OF CLASSICAL, NEAR EASTERN

AND RELIGIOUS STUDIESVANCOUVER, B.C. V6T 1Zl

1 S.A. Stephens, "Who read ancient novels?", in J. Tatum, ed., TheSearch for the Ancient Nouel (Baitimore 1994) 415.

2 J.N. O'Sullivan, "Xenophon of Ephesus: His compositional techniques and the birth of the novel," Untersuchungen zur antiken Literaturund Geschichte 44 (Berlin 1995) 145-170.


J.R. MORGAN AND R. STONEMAN, eds., Greek Fiction: TheGreek Nouel in Context. London: Routledge, 1994. Pp. x +290. Cloth, US $74.95, ISBN 0-415-08507-1, Paper, US$23.95, ISBN 0-415-08506-3.

This carefully titled work offers "newcomers to the field" a collectionof essays by a wish-list of that field's most active scholars. Includedare new readings ofthe canonical romances of the "Big Five" and, inan effort to provide a broader context and a new focus for Greekfiction in general, introductions to "neighbouring forms and paralleltraditions." The eye is guided through more than a thousand years offictive composition.

There are sixteen essays, and brevity was appreciated. Most arearound twelve pages in length, plus endnotes and individualbibliographies. Despite this hint of equivalence, the studies varyinevitably according to the writers' need to define or redefine. I meanno impertinence in noting how the subjects offer the reader a byproduct, a bonus, in the approaches of the contributors themselves.

J.R. Morgan's Introduction sets out how these exemplars (as wcmay term them) fall within a variety offictional genres and illustratccurrent literary and social interests, having owed their inspiration tothe need to continue in fantasy the functioning of social relationships,with all their play on human emotions, now put at risk in theimpersonal, centralized kingdoms of the imperial era. This has beensaid before, and it may bc worth saying again, but the analysis, onefeels, may be more correct or applicable to such creativity and ourunderstanding ofit than it would be for our own period.

This is of course a refinement of the doctrine of causality. Morgandoes not accept literary similarities to other genres as a function of"causal derivation," though he proposes something not very different,more subtly and flatteringly put: "resemblances. . not as signs ofparentage so much as of deliberate self-Iocation by individual writersof fiction within the pre-existing frameworks of Greek literature" (2).

In his "Cyrus," James Tatum sympathizes with those who mayfind Xenophon's treatment dull, a "patriarchal fantasy" (25). Thcsolution is to "read" it correctly, as a deeply erotic text. Despite suchefforts, "Cyrus" should not become fashionable soon, and politicalerotics will remain for some a good oxymoron.

Brigitte Egger's "Callirhoe" tracks the audience or readership ofthis novel (see also Gerald Sandy on 133-135). Here we enterdebating country: reader-response, feminist criticism, constructions,decoding. Clearly the novel as a genre is no longer in danger of notbeing taken seriously, will never more be viewed as a subliterary


enterprise pitched at an intellectual underclass. The danger now isin going too far, and Egger warns us not to abandon romanticappeal, to women certainly. My own unease is at how the clevernessof the ancient author in delivering the emotional content is in directproportion to the cleverness of its recognition by modern analysis.

It seems safest to take the novels as having been written forwhoever could read them, men and women, wherever they wereavailable; and as having been enjoyed alike by men and women,though not in the same manner or for the same reasons. The skillfulauthor, male by the accident of physiology and thus to some extentdemarcated by a male psychology, provides an adventure storydesigned to appeal to the separate fantasy needs of women andmen.

The differing physiques of male and female must play aninescapable and determinative role in the directions that thesefantasies take. The facts are that males are larger, and thereforealways in a position to exercise brote physical dominance, and freer,in that the outcome of any encounter of reproductive significance doesnot encumber later independence. To me the novels answer thefollowing implicit question: how will the author celebrate humanrelationships in ways that ensure society's orderly-yes, maleconstructed--continuance? Males and females share equally in theauthor's resolutions. Egger is therefore right on target to refocus onromantic entertainment. A clever, though male, writer will exploitnarcissistic elements on the female (males have others) whose verypresence reflects survival and fulfillment strategies in a man's world.

Analysis of the romantic appeal, or at least the way it ispresented in novel convention, is the next step, and here too Egger islargely sound in addressing the "gaze," the beholding of the femaleparagon by the men and the women in turn. It is the common trigger(I would add) that implies mutual romantic enjoyment, thoughindulged in with a qualitative difference: men will covet, womenadmire. The "gaze" travels effectively and displaces weIl to theaudience, male and female.

The remarkable "Greek gaze" comes first in Homer. The innocentappreciation of physical beauty, especially of Nature, is the mostheartening of all Greek gifts to us, amazing in Homer for its maturityboth as an esthetic and as a compositional device. In "Callirhoe" thedevice may have travelled better than the esthetic. Egger cites thefeminist view of "the male gaze" as "an expression of patriarchalpower." It may be a remnant too of that old esthetic. But in theGreek novel the men look and lust, and luckily tend to fall into akind of hypnosis that prevents any red-blooded move on the prize.


Here then is a serviceable way to signal erotic appeal while"containing sexuality" (in the phrase of Lawrence Wills). The girlstays chaste and society works.

David Konstan's ''Xenophon of Ephesus" would rescue the storyfrom its dismal reputation, as he has it, by tracing the author's skillin structuring the amatory combinations. He sees male-femaleequality of emotional and physical initiative in the youngheterosexual protagonists, in contrast both to todays's romances andto the leading-following roles in the novel's coeval homosexuals,reminiscent of the Platonic pseudo-educational model. Rarely do eventhe peripheral sexual encounters where elements of coercion exist (asin pirate/captive, MantolHabrocomes) eschew the hope of a lastingrelationship. Here the message of the staying power of passion increating unions that are mutual and lasting is less easilysustainable.

J.R. Morgan in "Daphnis and Chloe" brings an expert famiharityto plot analysis and is particularly neat in appreciating the author'salmost novel-busting reaetions to the generic stereotype, thoughperhaps reinventions would suit a writer better. And Morgan'sdeconstruction of the work into three separate but intertwinedauthors-Eros, the protagonists, and Longus-in the service of acomplex ethos of fietion revealing deep-Ievel truths, rises to thebrilliant. But his skill has no convincing answer for our Winklerianpessimism in seeing a spunky Mowgli-girl turn into a vapid andsilent Frau. I have no doubt that Longus was on top of his game,and has designs for his three rape stories. But "musical beauty" viasadistic myths? We would be dispapointed in Longus if, for all hiscleverness, "ChIoe has to be acculturated into the passive rolebecause that is the only way that she can escape the sterility ofinnocence" (70).

B.P. Reardon's "Achilles Tatius" is a rock-solid presentation of theauthor's ambitious narrative craft. Reardon redefines and realignsthe familiar elements of ego-narrative, psychology, realism, melodrama and comedic ambience in the service of a sophisticated tale inthe novel convention. Viewed as a whole, it resists being classificd asa "comic novel." It is off-beat, says Reardon, but delivers on itsundertaking as a sincere contribution to the genre.

J.R. Morgan's "Aethiopika" is itself an affectionatc cxercise inHeliodoran irony, offering its own riddle to stimulate the knowledgeable reader to "interpretive action": when and how (if ever) willMorgan setUe down to describing the complexities of the author'stechnique in a dull, conventional way? The answer is never, and thathe doesn't need to, because he describes them through a deconstruc-


tion of the novelist's deconstruction of a giraffe. Morgan tempts themodern reader into complicity, flatters into engagement, in much thesame way as the ancient novelist. May I add as a parallel theoutsider's view of the village cricket match in A.G. Macdonell'sEngland, Their England?

With half of Creek Fiction now done, we enter the less familiarterritory of context, where the aim for the contributors is more toinform than to interpret. Richard Stoneman's polished "Alexander"proposes a narrative based on history, with additional material toprovide excitement and a view of the hero's significance. Yes, and thetag of "adding to history to explain history" (118) well serves andperhaps reconciles a modern debate over fictitious and romanticelements in the recent Merchant-Ivory film "Jefferson in Paris."

Gerald Sandy's task in "New Pages" is to introduce authors likeAntonius Diogenes, Iamblichus and Lollianus, and the fragments oftheir tales. He achieves this with abrief history of scholarship(including the missteps), itself a review. The newly discoveredfragments of Lollianus' Phoenicica turn out both to validate the titleof the Roman novel, the Satyrica of Petronius, and to redirectinterpretation of it, as does the Iolaus, with its prosimetrum. We giveup some of the uniqueness of the Satyrica in return for a clearerartistic picture, and are freer to reject Heinze's theory of parody ofGreek fictional prose. I would add that the shared amalgam of plot,scenario and tone (so far as we can tell) should have modified CostasPanayotakis' new view of the Satyrica as a work of "eccentricinnovation in the area of literature," shaped on the Roman theatre(Theatrum Arbitri [Leiden 1995] x).

With Chion of Heraclea as her principal exhibit, PatriciaRosenmeyer in "The Epistolary Novel" develops the links betweenepistolary fiction and the novel. We return to comparing reality withinvention, as we note the impulse behind such writing to be, inRosenmeyer's words, "the illumination of a historical figure," much inthe way of the Alexander Romance. Rhetorical strategies are evenmore varied, and there is clear political emphasis.

Simon Swain finds more links with the novel in "Dio and Lucian."Dio's vehicle is the speech, as in the Euboicus, replete with novelisticingredients from love to historiography. While homosexuality ispresent, the tenor of the time is set by Plutarch's affirmation ofconjugal love and licit sexual equivalence between partners. Theworldly Lucian's contribution is satire for social comentary. With hisattacks on credulity in the supernatural he also finds a modern echo,I would add, in current intellectual worries over the alleged increas-


ing ascendance of emotions and personal beliefs over empiricism andthe scientific method (Source: the New York Times, June 1995).

Ewen Bowie closes the seetion on the Greek context, begun at"Alexander," with "Philostratus." The two works analysed, theHeroicus and Apollonius, contain many features of novelisticnarrative, finds Bowie, while presenting a contrasting view of eros,"the power at the heart of the novels" (190). For Apollonius eros iswholly negative, to be mistrusted and feared. There is somethinghere of Lawrence Wills' finding in a later seetion on the Jewishnovella where "erotic tensions are played out ... in reverse image ofthe Greek novel ... piously repudiated, not channelled" (230).

The final part of Creek Fiction is entitled "Other Traditions,"parallel works of story-telling in the cultures of Egypt, Judaism, earlyChristianity, and Byzantium. Any similarities have little to do withdirect links, though their independent inspiration in familiar erasand landscapes is rightly claimed to provide plenty of insight intohuman values and narratives. Perhaps most marginal for us hithertowas "Egyptian Fiction in Demotic and Greek," and John Tait'sintroduction is learned and eye-opening.

A Judeo-Christian heritage secures the interest of Lawrence Wills'"Jewish Novellas," with their links to the Old Testament, andRichard Pervo's "Christian Fiction." Of particular interest in theformer was the demonstration of, not "channelling" of erotic forces,Graeco more, but suppression in a wider interest, or sublimation intosomething mystical.

The "Christian" contribution inc1udes, briefly, the Gospels andActs. Effective it is to see the former distinguished in a single page(240) and taking their place amid the stories of "heroes . greatteachers, leaders and sages." Such resemblances, Pervo reminds us,are seen in different quarters as fundamental 01' without relevance.

This comprehensive book closes with essays by Judith Perkins on"Representation in Greek Saints' Lives" and, to take things into themedieval world, "Byzantine Developments" by Suzanne MacAlister.In seeking to enrich the genre with such a range of fictive creation theeditors will surely have achieved their aim.

WADE RICHARDSON

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS

MCGILL UNIVERSITY

MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3A 2T7


MICHAEL ROBERTS. Poetry and the Cult of the Martyrs: TheLiber peristephanon of Prudentius. University of MichiganPress, 1993. Pp. x + 222. US $37.50. ISBN 0-472-10449-7.

In his Preface, Prudentius, according to an accepted emendation,dates his birth to the consulship of Salia, that is, to AD 348, andindicates that he is writing in his 57th year, hence, modern scholarscalculate, in 404 or 405. 1 The poet represents himself as one whohas renounced, tardily, a secular career and is now seeking, in hisremaining years, to establish a distinctly Christian identity; inparticular, he desires to redeem a blemished soul by devoting hispoetic talents to the composition of works that honour the Christiangod, combat heresy and clarif)r doctrine, crush traditional Romanreligion, glorif)r martyrs and apostles (37-42). These lines refer,evidently, to the hymns of The Daily Round (37-38), to at least one ofthe doctrinal epics The Diuinity of Christ and The Origin of Sin (39),to the two-book epic Reply to Symmachus (40-41), and, finaIly, to thepoems grouped under the rubric Crowns in modern editions (42).2Arguably this description of project-cum-product may encompass TheFight for Mansoul and Twofold Nourishment as weIl and thus theentire Prudentian corpus as we know it. In this case, its constituent

1 Latin writers, whose standard system of age-calculation anddesignation corresponds more or less with our own, often confuse (as dowe) the year of life in course with the last year of life completed; thusthey will use, for example, vicesimo aetatis anno where they mean vigintiannos natus. At first glance then, one should admit that Prudentius mayhave composed the Preface in 404, 405, or 406. Again, after a fairlycommon ancient practice, Prudentius may have counted the yearsinclusively, which would allow a composition-date of 403. (In this review,the works of Prudentius are cited after Thompson's Loeb edition.)

2 It cannot be proved absolutely that the title Peristephanon isPrudentius'. In Crowns as it appears in modern editions, all the piecesbut one treat western martyrs. C 10 addresses Romanus, who, othersources tell us, suffered at Antioch: with its 1140 lines, this piece ismarkedly longer than the others; it may be held, moreover, to differ fromthe others in nature, to be rather a polemical treatise against traditionalreligion than acelebration of martyrdom and martyr-cult; again, it isplaced before or after Crowns in the manuscripts. For these reasonsRoberts accepts initially (9) that it was not included by Prudentius in hiscollection; he remarks later (132) that its presence is intrusive in thepilgrimage-sequence C 9, C 11, C 12. Otherwise, he takes C 1 - C 9 and C11 - C 14 to represent the order and extent as established by the poethirnself for the omnibus edition of his works dated to 405. While Robertsrecognizes some conscious grouping of pieces within Crowns, he discernsno general principle governing its arrangement.


works may each have received the poet's final touch by 405. Now thecorpus no doubt took several years to complete. If then, as thePreface suggests, Prudentius did not apply his poetic skills toChristian writings before a conscious and still recent conversion froma life of secular involvements, this rupture and the inception of hisChristian project could not be placed reasonably before (say) 395. C 2(537-540) was composed in Tarraconese Spain in the territory of theancient Basques. C 1 (94-96; 115-117) was written in the sameregion, on the banks of the Ebro, to celebrate two martyrs of a townqualified as nostrum. The lines nostra gestabit Calagurris ambos/martyros/ / quos veneramur in C 4 (31-32) invite identification ofoppidum nostrum with Calahorra. So in the last lustre of the fourthcentury, a converted Prudentius would have retreated to ancestralholdings in this town's vicinity, there to commence and to completeby 405, inter alia, all the pieces that now comprise Crowns.

Such is the reconstruction for which Roberts expresses preferencein his Introduction. The fourth century, it is generally accepted, hadseen the cult at martyrs' shrines develop in both extent andintensity.3 By the century's end, Roberts affirms, a novel perspectivehad evolved whereby "worshippers at such shrines feIt themselvesremoved from normal everyday circumstances of time and piace" (5).Prudentius, whose conversion Roberts links with the formulation of alofty general mission-"nothing less than to give expression in hispoetry to the mental, spiritual, and material world of the late fourthcentury Christian" (3)-would accordingly offer in Crowns "selfconscious attempts to give appropriate expression to the newconceptual world of the martyrs" (6). Prudentius is not of courseproducing pabulum for the masses, but addresses himself rather tothe educated upper classes; the autobiographical sketch proffered bythe Preface begins by recalling his boyhood initiation to grammaticeand his adolescent immersion in rhetoric, the twin poles of a liberalformation and the common denominators of culture that marked anantipodal distinction between, say, fishmongers and the gentility. Itis natural that a cultivated martyrologue writing for a similarlycultivated public should exploit the devices of rhetoric and mine theclassical poets, but the more so for a Prudentius, Roberts asserts, inlight of the historical context (5): "As the conversion of Romanaristocrats gained momentum toward the end of the fourth century,new cultural forms emerged that combined Roman and Christian

:) See for example A.H.M. Jones, The Laier Roman Empire 284-602: ASocial, Economic and Administrative Survey (Oxford 1964) 957-964.


elements in a stable synthesis. Prudentius' poetry shares thesequalities."

In short, Roberts accords to Prudentius an originality of purposeon two scores: the poet feels called to present a new view of the worldbased upon the martyr-cult, and to invent a new idiom to articulatethis view. In the past, Roberts complains, scholars have paidinsufficient attention to Crowns and hence have failed to discern theimportance of the poet's evidence for the history of the martyr-cultand his unique contribution to the development of Christian letters.N01' does he feel this neglect to have been rectified in any satisfactorymeasure by the recent studies of Palmer and Malamud4

: for theformer would stop short of investigating and appreciating the personal, original contribution that Prudentius delivers through hischosen medium of poetry; and while Malamud does subject C 11, C13, and C 14 to literary analysis, thus tackling "the project leftlargely untouched by PalmeI''' (4), she vitiates her interpretation bydetaching it from the historical context, which, she implausiblycontends, defies reliable reconstruction. Accordingly, in this firstvolume of the series Recentiores: Later Latin Texts and Contexts,Roberts proposes to concentrate upon these questions (7):

(i) "what is the relation between martyr text and martyr cultin the Peristephanon?"(ii) ''howare the beliefs about and the practice of the martyrcult embodied in the text?"(iii) "what is Prudentius' poetics of the martyr text?"

He proceeds to warn us that "the book is also aseries of readings ofthe individual poems-or most of them-that make up thePeristephanon" (8). These textual analyses are certainly discursive. 5

4 Anne-Marie Palmer, Prudentius on the Martyrs (Oxford 1989);Martha A. Malamud, A Poetics of Transformation: Prudentius andClassical Mythology (Ithaca 1989).

5 This quality results, in large part, from Roberts' penchant to reporttoo fully the analyses of others and indeed to borrow their words inorder to do so; in consequence, it is often difficult to distinguish his owncontributions and to find their place in the progress of his reasoning.This task is made no easier by Roberts' tendency to belabour the obvious,and to be diffident in advancing ideas of his own. Again, many of hiscomments do little more than parade technical terms from the thesaurusof literary criticism. Finally, his usage of English is often odd. A fewexamples of these traits follow, cited in the order of their occurrence:

22 n. 38: "linguistic multivocality corresponds to the multiplicity of reference."

39-41: "Bloodshed, too, is essential to a passion" occurs in a struggle to establish anotherwise easily recognized equivalence between mors and sanguis.


But Roberts does insert pointers which make it not impossible tofollow the thread of the general argument.

The first question receives particular attention in Chapter 1, "TheMartyr in Time and Place," where, as the title intimates, Robertsfinds the poet principally concerned with the telescoping of spatialand temporal dimensions, a multifaceted mystery whose core isbelief in the martyr's simultaneous presence at his tomb on earthand at Christ's feet in heaven. Now, a hostile critic might explicatethe mystery in either lifeless or sarcastic prose, repainting its everyaspect as a patent absurdity. Prudentius, on the other hand, ascelebrant-exponent, uses his poetic skills to preserve the magicalaura of the mystery's every facet, animating as he unfolds. Chapter2, "The Martyr Narrative: Between Heaven and Earth," probesfurther the poet's exploitation of his craft to this end, showing how heimbues with a visionary glow the three stages into which hisaccounts of martyrdom typically fall-verbal exchange with a tyranni-

57: "The syntactical form 01' Damasus 33.1, asyndetic enumeration, is especiallyappropriate with its radical abbreviation to the brevity 01' the epigram."

71. "The figure 01' interpretativ (theme and variation) guarantees that sedifeSllInmllln means the same as episcopale solium, i.e., the office 01' bishop."

79-80: After citing C 6.25-27, lines each complete in itself and all beginning withearcer, Roberts comments: "Anaphora 01' carcer, with tricolon, gives special emphasisto Fructuosus' eulogy 01' prison."

108: "This chapter has been devoted La a range 01' strategies 1'01' amplifying thenarrative scope 01' martyr texts" (which means, 1 think, "This chapter has examinedthe various means by which Prudentius expands tales 01' martyrdom").

109: "Yet one principle that does receive some prominence is association byecclesiastical status 01' the martyr."

116-117: "On reading further this interpretation will, 1 think, seem less likely .ßut the rejected sense still plays a role in the interpretation 01' the passage."

126: The statement, "Petruccione is certainly right in arguing that Prudentius seesCyprian as a second Paul," begins arepetition 01' Petruccione's case which concludes(127): "The African bishop is, in Prudentius' account, a second Paul."

135: having cited C 2.533-536, lines each complete in itself and all beginning ClI i 0 I'

{fui, Roberts comments: "The polyptoton/anaphora, end-stopped lines, and high degree01' syntactical parallelism rein force the sense that the passage is exemplary 01'devotion to the martyrs."

145-148: "Here, 1 recognize, 1 am venturing into the treacherous waters 01' abiographical reading 01' poetry, and a highly speculative one at that . Whatever isthought 01' this construction, the identification 01' martyr and devotee in this poem isespecially marked."

176: "In the next line the effect 01' a mirror image is carefully ref1ected in thcchiastic word order, with the second half 01' the line sending back a reversed image 01'the first."


cal inferior, labours inflicted in the guise of tortures, victory in survival of the body and salvation of the soul. In effect, Prudentius"proves" the cycle's reality by the device of repraesentatio. Since he(and his contemporaries) experience a melding of past with presentin their cultivation of the martyrs, he becomes an actual eye-witnessto the martyrdoms. Again, the poet (and his contemporaries) canattest that these passions were indeed microcosms of the generalrealization of heaven's realm upon earth. For in the empire of thedecade 395-405, Christians could believe themselves witness to thealmost universal fusion of heaven with earth. In Chapter 3, "TheRoad to Heaven," Roberts focusses upon the imprisonment-drama,the episode in the labours-stage that follows the commencement oftorture. The fortitude displayed by the martyr in his sealed dungeon,which is nevertheless penetrated by light, is an allegory for victoryover the tomb and hell, for victory of the soulover the potentialcorruption of the flesh, for the victory of the Christian god's perfectregime over the tainted role of secular authority. Here, of course,Prudentius is explaining how his well-nigh perfect world is prefiguredin the suffering of the martyrs, which imitates the passion of Christ.Then, in Chapter 4, "The Martyr as Bishop and Teacher," Robertstreats the pedagogical function of the execution. Our attention isdirected particularly to the case of Cyprian (C 13), whom Prudentiusrepresents as a second Paul, as another gentium magister. Robertsexamines the image of this bishop as vocal vehicle for the holy ghost,and concludes that the poet intends a general affirmation ofepiscopal authority in his world, the past era of the martyrdomshaving re-consecrated every bishop as inspired leader and teacher forposterity. Chapter 5, "Poet and Pilgrim," looks to the poet's depictionofhis own role in the new world. Roberts analyzes C 9, C 11, and C12, where Prudentius represents hirnself as an anguished petitionermaking the journey from Spain to Rome in quest of relief from somethreat to his horne and future well-being. On the way, he imploresthe help of the teaching-notarius Cassian, martyred at Imola. AtRome he shares, by reconstructing from its notae, the end ofHippolytus, a schismatic priest whose body was rent asunder likethat of his homonym in pagan myth but victoriously preserved: as hewas being rushed to his end, Hippolytus returned to Romanorthodoxy, the faith established by the prototypic martyrs, Peter andPaul. The poet, who reports his difficulties resolved by Hippolytus'intercession, next witnesses the festival of the apostles; the capital isembraced by the perfect peace once promised the empire through thebaptism of blood wrought by the archetypal emperor-persecutor Neroand now realized through the piety of the Theodosian dynasty.


Tended initially by a faithful and (seemingly) insignificant few, thetombs of these martyrs, like those of Hippolytus and others, havesince been adorned as ready gateways to heaven through the construction of basilicas. The poet, successful thanks to the martyrs inthe empire's reformed heart, becomes the artery whereby their cult,with those of Cassian and Hippolytus, is channelled to his home inSpain and to his local bishop, Valerian. Yet, as Roberts proceeds tostress in the Conclusion, while Prudentius may appeal' to conduct usthrough the dimensions of space and time in terms familiar to thecommon human view, he ever strives to express the subversion oftemporal and spatial distinctions, as it is experienced in the cult ofthe martyrs: the past becomes the present, the local becomes theuniversal, the part becomes the whole, the corporal becomes thespiritual, the locus of these dimension-warps being the martyr'stomb.

So much then for an outline of Roberts' argument. What onemisses is a cogent demonstration that Prudentius' world-view andhis expression of this view are in fact novel products of a specifichistorical moment, to wit, the decade 395-405. If they are not, thenPrudentius' main purpose in Crowns may be other than Robertsimagines.

It is in Chapter 1 that Roberts presents the essentials of his casefor Prudentius as retailer of a new world-view. Crowns is unified,principally and deliberately, he maintains, by the poet's recurrence toconcepts that contravert perceived dimensions in time and space.These concepts are evoked at the start of C 1, whose first twenty-onelines should then be taken as programmatic, as an effective index ofinterconnecting topics to be explored and explained in the collection:

(i) death has released martyrs from their bodily suffering at apoint in our past time, but their passion still exists in ourpresent with all the grace and power demonstrated andreleased thereby (C 1.1-3);(ii) the Christian god has chosen to glorifY specific towns orcities with the blood and example of martyrs, and has thusgranted to particular communities the salutary honour ofcommemorating and experiencing their passion by theestablishment of a cult at tombs which house the humanremains; at the same time, however, cach martyrdom can beshared by Christians throughout the world (C 1.4-12);(iii) at the moment of death, the martyr's soul has ascendedto heaven, where his person now enjoys an everlasting life;nevertheless, this same person continues to exist on earth,his presence here enduring in his corporeal remains (C 1.1-3;8-9);


(iv) martyrs are deathless patrons ever accessible at theirtombs to the community as a whole and to its individualmembers, but at the same time they are in heavenpresenting worthy petitions to the eternal judge as theyreceive them (C 1.13-18);(v) despite the importance of local loyalties, the martyrs areaccessible for the same service to all Christian communitiesand their every member throughout the world (C 1.10-12; 1921).

For the development of these topics within the collection, Robertspoints to (inter alia) the celebration of Vincent, who was raised atSaragossa and martyred at Valencia (C 4 and C 5). As the latter,tortured, then imprisoned, lies at death's threshold, the turba {idelisgathers to kiss his wounds, to lick his blood, and to drench napkinstherein. The latter action creates contact-relics imbued with everliving blood that will permit to future generations the same directand individual participation in the martyr's suffering (C 5.333-344).Pertinent to topic (i) in particular, this aetiology is of course relevantto all the other topics as weIl. Topic (ii) is also addressed vividly in C5 where the magistrate is foiled, miraculously, in his elaborateefforts to fragment and obliterate Vincent's corpse. In the event, sothe poet avers, his whole body was committed by the cum sanctorumpia to the protection of an unassuming grave, "to keep it for the lifeto come" (C 5.505-512). Consequently, Vincent's entire experiencewill remain an integral part of the local community's life until theworld's end. And it may always be disseminated throughout theglobe by contact-relics. Prudentius does not neglect topic (iii) either inC 5. The era of the persecutions terminated, an altar enclosed by ashrine is constructed over the resting-place of Vincent's bones: "Theydrink in the aura of the heavenly offering, which is shed on themthere below. Thus the body; but the martyr himself was received intothe dweIling-place of god, which holds him in company with theMaccabees and beside Isaiah who was cut asunder" (519-524).6

6 Prudentius evokes of course the vision of John, dated by modernscholars to the 90s and linked in the ancient Christian tradition to apersecution launched by the "bald Nero" (Revelation 6:9-11, cited afterthe New English Bible):

"When the (Lamb) broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath thealtar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for God's wordand for the testimony they bore. They gave a great cry: 'Howlong, sovereign Lord, holy and true, must it be before thou wiltvindicate us and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of theearth?' Each of them was given a white robe; and they were toldto rest a little while longer, until the tally should be complete of


Present forever in heaven above, so too the martyr is perpetuallypresent on earth, beneath an altar erected over his relies to honourhis saerifiee. Here, moreover, elaboration of topie (iv) ean be reeognized. For at the earthly altar, not only ean the faithful eontinuethrough the generations to share the martyr's salvation-winningpassion, but they ean also profit from direct eommunion with hisperson, now triumphant in salvation and simultaneously resident inheaven, "at the feet of god" (C 3.213). As the poet speeifies, Vineentextends direct patronage to the loeal eommunity by being present tohear its eolleetive and individual prayers and by eommending, tromhis eoneurrent proximity to Christ in heaven, worthy petitions to god(545-548):

adesto nune et pereipevoees precantum supplicesnostri reatus effieaxorator ad thronum patris.

Roberts eorrectly diseerns, here and elsewhere, not parallelismbetween the realms of heaven and earth, but rather their assimilation. Prudentius does not relate the eonstruction of an audienee-hall,a court to honour Vineent, his fellow martyrs, and Christ. But, in hcease of Hippolytus, he does signal the eonstruetioll of a basiliea asthe erowning step in the loeal evolution of a martyr's eult afterestablishment of an altar (C 11.195-230). Hippolytus' basiliea servesto house the throngs of loeals and pilgrims from all classcs of soeiety(Roman patrieian rubs shoulders with plebeian), and it nurturesthese alumni in its (and their patron's) embraee. Prudentius urgesthe establishment of this eult in Spain, intending no doubt the usc ofeontaet-relics, whieh would be housed under the altar of a basiliea.

So Roberts certainly shows ongoing attention on Prudentius' partto a teleseoping of the horizontal and vertieal at a martyr's tomb.There the past, present and future are fused. Physical distance nolonger separates the world's faithful. The divisions enshrined insocial and politieal hierarehies are levelled. Heaven above melds withthe earth below. Again, that a poet should ehose to eelebrate thisworld-view in the period 395-405 is eomprehensible, as Robertspoints out. For that deeade was heralded by Theodosius' eomingfrom the east to save the poet's world from Maximus, and bylegislation finally outlawing traditional religion; then it was bIesttowards its start by Theodosius' seeond eoming to erush the idolater

all their brothers in Christ's service who were to be killed asthey had been."

478 BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTESRENDUS

Eugenius. Thus in an empire that upheld its official suppression ofpaganism in the wake of Theodosius' ascension,7 Prudentius mightwell believe hirnself witness to the birth of the Church's supremacyon earth, to the global realization of the triumph marked by Christ'ssacrifice and reaffirmed by his martyrs, whose heroic passions andinfluence now deserved particular commemoration. To this point,then, we may readily follow Roberts. To accompany hirn farther andto recognize in Prudentius one of the first exponents of a new worldview is more difficult. For the concepts to which the poet recurs arealready inherent in the records of the New Testament, and they areretailed, for example, in the letter of Ambrose, dated to 386, wherethe bishop reports discovery of the remains of Gervasius andProtasius. In fact the poet's world-view and concerns, as presentedby Roberts, would be equally familiar and pertinent in the yearsfollowing the death of Julian the Apostate, whose caustic remarks onthe cult of the martyrs are notorious, or even in the epochinaugurated by the battle of the Milvian Bridge.

Let us move now from the notion of a novel world-view to thematter of Prudentius' innovative artistry, the other domain exploredby Roberts. It is here that Palmer, invoking a standard assessment,finds the poet "original" (205):

Prudentius' originality lies in his translation of his owninvolvement in martyr cult and its literature into a poeticform which represents both a revivification of the forms andlanguage of the secular poetic tradition, and a new departurein the development ofmartyr literature. For the Church in thefourth century, the martyrs replace the old heroes of epic andvictory ode. They spiritualize and extend the ancient heroicideal, but also combine features of both solider and victoriousathlete in their battle against persecution. Thus Prudentiusmoulds for their celebration a new form of poetic panegyricwhich contains elements of both epic and lyric verse.

As Palmer acknowledges, the figures of martyr-athlete and martyrsoldier are already enshrined in the New Testament, but Prudentiusdoes fuse into this imagery the piety of both Vergil's Aeneas and thepatriot evoked by Horace's dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. NowPalmer investigates the scope of this blending of martyrology withclassical poetry, and, in Roberts' estimation, "within traditionalcategories of philological research, she has written a book that laysthe groundwork for appreciation of the poetic achievement of thePeristephanon" (4). For his part, Roberts would break new ground by

7 cr. Ambrose, On the death of Theodosius 1-2.


exploring how Prudentius aetually exploits the blending-process toevoke the complex of notions and emotions stirred by the martyr-cultin both his world and himself; thereby he seeks "to begin to plot thepoetics of the Prudentian martyr text" (8). If, however, we dismissthe contention that Prudentius offers a novel view of the world, then,in the final analysis, the essence of Prudentius' uniqueness and thereason for its having escaped past notice are to be identified thus(194):

Polysemy is an important constituent of Prudentius' poeticsof martyrdom. Language that can be understood at a varietyof different levels is especially well-suited to expressing thetemporal and spatial indeterminacy associated withveneration of the martyrs. Attempts to impose a unitarymeaning on Prudentius' Latin are likely to be misguided andrun the risk of meeting an impasse.

In C 3, Prudentius fabricates an account of the martyrdom ofEulalia, a 12-year-old from Merida, who, during a persecution,thirsted to bear witness to the faith. A proteetive mother confined herto a country-estate. But the girl escaped by night, sped to thetribunal in town, resisted the magistrate's temptations and threats,and achieved her pure desire. Roberts' analysis (91-103) demonstrates, persuasively to my mind, how Prudentius' use of languageand allusion presents Eulalia as an inversion of Eve and Dido, andequates her noeturnal journey with Aeneas' catabasis, the exodusfrom Egypt, and Christ's descent into hell. So here and elsewhereRoberts certainly does shed light upon the poet's ability to infuse histext with multiple levels of allusion and meaning, harmonized,however, to produce a single message: the path to individual andcommon salvation, as is proved by testimony from the full range ofhis world's heritage, lies in association with the martyrs tmoughtheir cult. On the other hand, it had long been the recognized duty ofa cultured convert from secular preoccupations to apply his literarytalent to advancement of the Christian cause, and to redireet his ownand his world's acquaintance with the pagan c1assics to Christianends. One thinks, for example, of Jerome's exhortations to Paulinusof Nola at Epistles 53.7 and 58.8-11. So I am wary of Roberts'suggestion that Prudentius, in some inspirational flash, suddenlyconceived and speedily realized the project of forging a new idiom. Hemay be seen rather to exploit a mode of expression that had longenjoyed currency.

To conc1ude. Roberts pertinently compares Prudentius' case withPaulinus, who in conversion voices inquietude about his eventualjudgement before the Christian god. On the question of context and


the matter of Crowns as evidence für the martyr-cult's history, greaterattention should perhaps be accorded Prudentius' personal situationat his presumed moment of writing. If the poet composed andarranged Crowns in retirement from the world and in his later 50s,he did so at the approach of life's final stage, whose inception istraditionally set at the age of 60 years. He would then, not unnaturally against the religious climate discernible in his day, wish tobring his person, and the geographie area destined for his death, intoclose proximity with the martyrs. Does not the former high functionary set out to achieve so much by casting himself as a humblenotarius or amanuensis to Christ and his martyrs, especially thosefrom Spain, and by invoking the traditional identification of authorwith book? Thus, like the martyrs, he exists in this world, moreparticularly, in the environs of Calahorra as heaven's witness, butalready he is beneath the celestial altar. In short, the ChristianHorace would attain through Crowns a more certain and blessedimmortality than that won by his pagan model with Odes.

ALAND. BOOTHDEPARTMENT OF CLASSICSBROCK UNIVERSITYST. CATHERINES, ÜNTARIO L2S 3A1

A VELAZQUEZ, E. CERRILLO AND P. MATEOS, eds. Losultimos romanos en Lusitania. Merida: Museo Nacional deArte Romano, 1995. Cuadernos Emeritenses, 10. Pp. 229.

In recent years the Late Roman and post-Roman periods haveenjoyed a surge of scholarly popularity, despite the spotty nature ofour source material. These periods mark the cmcial transition fromclassical antiquity to the Middle Ages, and as Enrique Cerrillo pointsout in the introductory essay of this volume (11-48), historians arefond of documenting both the new features that characterize eachperiod, and the traditional elements that persist from the precedingage. In few places is such an investigation more challenging thanLusitania, the westernmost province of the Empire and a region forwhich written evidence is scanty even in classical times. The workunder review is aseries of eight essays by various Spanish historianswith the aim of identifying the "last Romans" in Lusitania: who werethey, how did they live, what language did they speak, what religiondid they practise? Naturally such questions can be answered only inpart, especially since the approach taken is not always


anthropocentric-there are two papers on the Lusitanian Church,two on the monuments of Merida, and an incongruous commentaryby Javier Arce (219-229) on Hydatius' mention of camels inGallaecia-and since the chronological canvas stretches from thethird century to the eleventh. Then, too, the absence of contributionsby Portuguese scholars is conspicuous in a book whose geographiefocus coincides largely with the territory of modern Portugal.

The problems of the Late Empire are weIl known: rampantinflation, barbarian invasions, and the flight of the urbanaristocracy. The first of these is impossible to gauge without specificdata on prices, and the only known Lusitanian fugitive is ValeriusFortunatus, who became a Roman senator to escape decurial dutiesin his native Merida (Symmachus Orat. 8.3). The impact of theVisigoths and Suebi on life in Lusitania is also diflicult to assess,since Visigothic records deal almost exclusively with kings, wars andchurch councils. That many of the Roman cities survived is clear,because they are still occupied today (Olisipo-Lisbon, SalmanticaSalamanca, Ebora-Evora, etc.), but modern habitation of these sitesprevents systematic archaeological exploration. One would expect thecountryside to be culturally conservative, and here archaeology doesconfirm the continuity of rural communities (though we have no ideaof their administrative organization) and of Roman villas, which inthe sixth and seventh centuries are often associated with Christianbasilicas.

Pablo Diaz (49-72) shows that the Church was practically theonly Roman institution that survived and progressed in theVisigothic period, its organizational structure (a disciplined hierarchyand centralized power) echoing the old Imperial bureaucracy. Evenso, as Josep Gurt points out in his survey of Lusitania's Christiantopography (73-95), we have little information on the transition fromadministrative to ecclesiastical province. Another institution in whichcontinuity from Roman times can be traced is language. AsEustaquio Sanchez demonstrates (97-123), modern Spanish preserves many archaie Latin words which do not survive in the othcrRomance languages. Although Latin was apparently still spoken inSpain in the sixth and seventh centuries, the collapse of the Romaneducational system meant that Latin was not taught except inmonastic schools; the resulting illiteracy no doubt acceleratedchanges in pronunciation and spelling, and the loss of case endings.At the same time, Spanish Latin was infiltrated by Germanie andArabic words which permanently affected the vocabulary.

After the administrative reforms of Diocletian, Emerita (Merida)was chosen as the capital of the Diocesis Hispaniarum. This


promotion inevitably had an impact on architecture and urbanplanning, as we can see from the construction or restoration of publicbuildings, private houses and extramural workshops in the earlyfourth century. The latest evidence for these rebuildings is ablypresented by Pedro Mateos (125-152). After the barbarian invasionsof the fifth century we have epigraphie testimony for further publicreconstruction at Merida in 483, and the Emeritan bishop Paulundertook a vigorous building campaign in the following century. TheChristian iconography of Merida and its paralleIs elsewhere in Spainare investigated by Maria Cruz (153-184). In particular she showsthat the curious lunar plaque inscribed et ante luna sedis eius (Ann.epig. 1983, 488), hitherto supposed to represent a pagan cult of theVisigothic period, is likelier a Priscillianist Christian document of thelate fourth century, the words of the inscription coming from Psalms71 and 96. Lastly, Luis Caballero and Fernando Arce (185-217)examine the last gasp of c1assical influence in Visigothic sculptureand architecture, and the new artistic currents of the Islamic age.

Like Byzantium at the eastern end of the Empire, Spain at theopposite extremity seems to have suffered less damage to itsc1assical heritage than the provinces in the centre. Though theavailable evidence is sketchy, this collection of essays amplyillustrates both innovation and continuity in the society and cultureof the sub-Roman era in Lusitania. Up-to-date chapter bibliographies and a generous selection of plans and half-tone photographswill increase the book's usefulness to the student of Late Antiquity.

LEONARD A. CURCHINDEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND CLASSICAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOOWATERLOO, ONTARIO N2L 3G1

ECHOS DU MONDE CLASSIQUECLASSICAL VIEWS

INDEX TO VOLUME XL, n.s. 15, 1996

ARTICLES

Roger Brock, The Tribute ofKarystos 357V. Bylkova, Excavations on the Eastern Boundary of the Chora

of Olbia Pontica 99M.B. Cosmopoulos, Recherches sur La Stratigraphie

Prehistorique d'Eleusis: Travaux 1995 1Rory B. Egan, A Reading of the Helen-Venus Episode in Aeneid 2 :3 79Robert L. Fowler, How the Lysistrata Works 245H. Fracchia and M. Gualtieri, The Imperial "Villa" at Ossaia

(Arezzo, Italy): Preliminary Data on the Territory ofRomanCortona 157

J. Freed, Early Roman Amphoras in the Collection oftheMuseum of Carthage 119

Sophia A. Georgacopoulou, Jeu d'Ironie Tragique et Jeu deVoix CI La Fin du Livre 2 de La Thebaide de Stace 275

C. Kosso, A Late Roman Complex at Palaiochora NearKarystos in Southern Euboia, Greece

C.W. MarshalI, Amphibian Ambiguities Answered 251Niall Rudd, Classical Humanism and its Critics 283G.C. Schaus, An Archaeological Field Survey at Eresos, Lesbos 27Benjamin Victor, Foul' Passages in the Andria of Terence 371Peter White, Martial and Pre-Publication Texts 397H. Williams, Susan-Marie Cronkite Price and Gerald Schaus,

Excauations at Stymphalos, 1995 75J.C. Yardley, Roman Elegy and Funerary Epigram 267

REVIEW ARTICLE

Peter E. Knox on Alan Cameron, Callimachus and his Critics 413

BOOK REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUSWarren D. Anderson, Music and Musicians in Ancient Greece

(David A. Campbell) 305K.W. Arafat, Pausanias' Greece: Ancient Artists and Roman

Rulers (Christopher Jones) 458

483

INDEX TO VOLUME XL, n.s. 15, 1996 484

Christian Brockmann, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung uonPlatons Symposion (Mark A Joyal) 432

D. Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery ofAbundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art(C.J. Sirnpson) 241

N.T. Croally, Euripidean Polemic. The Trojan Wornen and theFunction ofTragedy (John R Porter) 313

V. Gabrielsen, Financing the Athenian Fleet. Public Taxationand Social Relations (L. Migeotte) 237

Monica R Gale, Myth and Poetry in Lucretius (John G. Fiteh) 339G.P. Goold (ed. and trans.), Chariton. Callirhoe

(Geraid N. Sandy) 462Robert Alan Gurval, Actium and Augustus: The Politics and

Emotions ofCiuil War (D.M. Hooley) 454Waldernar Heckei, The Marshals ofAlexander's Empire

(D.J. Mosley) 331L. Kallet-Marx, Money, Expense, and Naual Power in

Thucydides' History 1-5.24 (L. Migeotte) 234David Kovacs (ed.), Euripides. Cyclops, Alcestis, Medea (D.J.

Conacher) 308Richard A Lafleur, Loue and Transformation. An Ouid Reader

(Paul Murgatroyd) 351M. Owen Lee, Virgil as Orpheus. A Study ofVirgil's Georgics

(AG. McKay) 451RO.AM. Lyne, Horace. Behind the Public Poetry

(Philip Hardie) 3431. Malkin, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean

(Noel Robertson) 4401. Malkin and Z.W. Rubinsohn (eds.), Leaders and Masses in the

Roman World. Studies in Honor ofZui Yauetz (HelEme Leclerc) 443J.R Morgan and R Stonernan (eds.), Greek Fiction: The Greek

Nouel in Context (Wade Richardson) 465Leonard R Palrner, The Greek Language (Vit Bubenik) 425John R Porter, Studies in Euripides' Orestes (Elizabeth M.

Craik) 322Michael Roberts, Poetry and the Cult of the Martyrs: The Liber

peristephanon ofPrudentius (Alan D. Booth) 470Raphael Sealey, The Justice ofthe Greeks (David C. Mirhady) 325Raphael Sealey, Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat

(D.J. Mosley) 328J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, ed., Kommos: An Excauation on the

South Coast ofCrete. Volume I: The Kommos Region andHouses ofthe Minoan Town. Part I: The Kommos Region,

485 INDEX TO VOLUME XL, n.s. 15, 1996

Ecology) and Minoan Industries (L. Day) 231Richard Sorabji, Animal Minds and Human Morals:

The Origins orthe Western Debate (John Rist) 348Valerio Ugenti (ed. and trans.), Giuliano Imperatore)

Alla Madre degli Dei (D.F. Buck) 346A. Velazquez, E. Cerrillo and P. Mateos (eds.), Los ältimos

romanos en Lusitania (Leonard A. Curchin) 480J. Whitehorne, Cleopatras (Adrian Tronson) 334

MISCELLANEA

Paul Murgatroyd, Creusa Iasoni 355

OASSICALVIEWS - Memorial University of Newfoundland

Documents

Transcript of OASSICALVIEWS - Memorial University of Newfoundland