Skip to main content

Full text of "Classical Philology 1952-01: Vol 47 Iss 1"

See other formats


January 1952 


A Quarterly Journal devoted to re- 
search in the Languages, Literatures, 
History, and Life of Classical Antiquity 


FEB 197 2 








of Oregon WILLIAM CHASE GREENE, Harvard University 
AUBREY DILLER, Indiana University Yale University 


The Enquéte on Seneca’s Treason . . . . . . . . William Hardy Alexander 
Cyrene andthe Panhellenion. . . . . ... =. =. =... +. S.A.0O. Larsen 
The Lion in the House (Agamemnon 717-36 [Murray]) . . . Bernard M. W. Knox 
Notes and Discussions ea. ee ee ee ee 

JosHUA Waatmouaze: On ‘‘Triballic’’ in Aristophanes (Birds 1615).—G. D Prrcy: Note on Lucan 7. 257- 

58. . AnTHUR LyncH: Aeschylus Agamemnon 550.—C. ArTHUR LyNncH: Aeschylus Agamemnon 286.— 
J. F. Gruuram: Notes on PSI 1307 and 1308, 

a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 
Antony E. RavusirscHexk and Littan H. Jerrery (eds.): Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: A Cata- 
logue of the Inscriptions of the Sizth and Fifth Centuries B.C. (McGregor).—Davip GRENE: Man in his Pride: 
A Study of the Political Philosophy of Thucydides and Plato (Ehrenberg).—ENnzo V. MARMORALE (ed.): Naevius 
poeta: Introduzione biobibliografica, testo dei frammenti e commento (Bruére).—Epuarbp ScHwyZER and AL- 
BERT DEBRUNNER: Griechische Grammatik, Zweiter Band: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (Whatmough).— 
Martin P. Nitsson: The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion (Walton) —P1ERRE 
Amanpry: La mantique apollinienne a Delphes: Essai sur le fonctionnement de l'Oracle (Walton) —PHOTEINE 
P. Boursovuuis: Apollo Delphinios (Walton).—Error» ParaTore: Storia della letteratura latina (Bruére).— 
Franco Carrata: Cultura greca e unita macedone nella politica di Filippo II (Roebuck).—M. P. CHARLES- 
wortTH: The Lost Province or the Worth of Britain (Roebuck).—BarBARA KrysINIEL-JOZEFOWICz: De quibus- 
dam Plauti exemplaribus Graecis: Philemo—Plautus (Hough).—Frirz WEugRLI (ed.): Die Schule des Aristo- 
teles: Texte und Kommentar, Heft V: Straton von Lampsakos (De Lacy).—Marto Atti1xio Levi: Nerone e i suot 
tempi (Salmon).—CorNneELIs BAREND SNELLER: De Rheso tragoedia (Grube).—M. Scuuster (ed.): Catulli 
Veronensis liber (Clausen).— ButtmMann: Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen 
(Shepherd).—A. Bouvet (ed. and trans.): César, Guerre d’ Afrique (Townsend).—Grorer E. McCracken 
(ed. and trans.): Arnobius of Sicca: The Case against the Pagans (Van Sickle).—A.LFRrED Kotz (ed.): C. Iuli 
Caesaris commentarii, Vol. IL: Commentarii belli civilis (Bassett)—Hrtry GotpMan (ed.): Excavations at 
Gézla Kule, Tarsus, Vol. 1: The. Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Waage). 

upKseceIned. gk en KE ee ws Oe a ee ee ee 

Communications for the editors and manuscripts should be addressed to the Editor of Classical Philology, Box I, 
University of Chicago, Chicago 37, Ill. All manuscripts must be typed, double spaced—both texts and notes—with ample 
margins on firm paper (not onion-skin, etc.). 

Classical Philology is published quarterly in the months of January, April, July, and October, by the University of Chi- 
cago at the University of Chicago Press, 5750 Ellis Ave., Chicago 37, Illinois. {| Subscriptions are by volume only. The 
subscription price is $6.00 per volume; the price of single issues is $1.75. Orders for service of less than a full volume will 
be charged at the single issue rate. {{ Postage is prepaid by the publishers on all orders from the United States and its posses- 
sions. No extra charge for countries in the Pan American Postal Union. 4] Postage is charged extra as follows: for Canada 
and Newfoundland, 20 cents per volume (total $6.20), 5 cents per issue (total $1.80); for all other countries in the Postal 
Union, 50 cents per volume (total $6.50), 10 cents per issue (total $1.85). 4] Subscriptions are payable in advance. Please 
make all remittances payable to the University of Chicago Press in United States currency or its equivalent by postal or ex- 
press money orders or bank drafts. 

The following is an authorized agent: 

For the British Empire except North America and Australasia: CamBRipGe University Press, Bentley House, 
200 Euston Road, London, N.W. 1, England. Prices of subscriptions and of single copies may be had on application. 

Claims for missing numbers should be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publish- 

ers expect to supply missing numbers free only when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will 

Business correspondence should be addressed to The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 37, Ill. 

Applications for permission to quote from this journal should be addressed to The University of Chicago Press, and will 
be freely granted. 

Microfilms of this journal are available to regular subscribers only and may be obtained at the end of the volume year. 
Orders and inquiries should be addressed to University Microfilms, 313 North First Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Notice to subscribers: If you change your address, please notify us and your local postmaster immediately. 

Entered as second-class matter June 20, 1906, at the post office at Chicago, Illinois, under the Act of August 24, 1912. 

Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in United States Postal Act of October 3, 1917, Section 
1103, amended February 28, 1925, authorized June 6, 1918. 




Volume XLVII 

Number 1 



ITH the forty-eighth chapter of 
W Annals 15 Tacitus begins the 

narrative of the suppression of 
the conspiracy of Piso. At chapter 59 
entries commence in the gory death- 
register. Gaius Piso, the prospective 
beneficiary of the plot, is the first victim 
and Plautius Lateranus, sturdy and 
unflinching patriot, the second (60.2).! 
“Then came the death of Annaeus Se- 
neca (60.3), a source of unbounded 
pleasure to Nero, not because he had 
caught him red-handed in conspiracy, 
but that he might assail him with the 
sword, since the poison cup had proved 
ineffective (45.5-6).” The proceedings 
against Seneca were taken on the in- 
formation of Antonius Natalis alone; 
this man had been an intimate of Piso 
in all particulars (50.1) and seems to 
have acted as the peripatetic agent of 
the singularly ill-handled conspiracy 

What information had Natalis laid 
before ‘‘the innermost cabal of the 
prince in his brutalities,” as the phrase 
of Tacitus runs (60.4) ? It amounted to 
no more than this (hactenus): ““he had 
been sent by Piso to Seneca, who was 
ill, to pay him a visit and to register a 
strong complaint about his having de- 
clined to receive Piso; it would be better 
if they maintained their friendship on 

[CLasstca, PuttoLocv, XLVII, JANUARY, 1952] 

the basis of an easy coming and going.” 
Seneca had replied that exchange of 
sentiments and frequent interviews 
served no good purpose for either of 
them ; ceterum salutem suam incolumitate 
Pisonis inniti (60.4-5). Evidently on 
these words the interview had ended. It 
may surely be assumed that as from 
one who, though he had been “‘prime 
minister” of the Empire, was yet of 
equestrian origin, there would be em- 
ployed towards Piso, an aristocrat of 
the noblest descent and of the highest 
popular reputation (48.2), whatever his 
failings (48.4), a terminal formula of 
careful politeness. 

Holbrooke observed long since? that 
the words ceterum ... inniti resembled 
somewhat the stylized greeting si tu 
vales, ego quoque valeo with which let- 
ters exchanged between Cicero and 
great Republican dignitaries usually 
began; the practice was pretty much 
out of fashion in Seneca’s time, though 
it had died hard. Furneaux in Volume 
I of his great edition of the Annals 
(footnote ad loc.), commenting on 
Holbrooke’s idea, says that the words 
in question, no matter what use (or 
misuse) of them was subsequently made 
‘“‘may not have been more than a warm 
expression of friendship.” As a matter 
of fact there is no need to feel that they 


were even that. In the formulas em- 
ployed today in the termination of let- 
ters, especially in continental European 
usage, no friendship, warm or otherwise, 
is implied; they are rhetorical expan- 
sions of our “‘yours truly” or even “‘very 
sincerely yours.” 

Yet it is possible that the words 
ceterum innitti are not simply a 
formal compliment addressed by Sene- 
ca to Piso at a moment when the close 
relations of an earlier day had to be 
denied continuance; that was surely a 
moment when the language employed 
might very well be designed to avoid 
rather than to make use of the com- 
monplaces of social intercourse, to ex- 
hibit significance, in short, Seneca may, 
in that light, even be thought of as 
felicitating himself on having achieved 
a good turn of language here, the word- 
ing of which has been preserved with 
scrupulous fidelity by the historian in 
the record. How ironical it would seem 
(and what irony of situation did Tacitus 
ever miss?) if the phrase on which 
conviction of high treason was finally 
made to rest in Seneca’s case, was 
actually a careful turn of language com- 
posed by the highest ranking master of 
expression in those days; that, in short, 
Seneca was in the end caught, no mat- 
ter how unfairly, in a verbal net of his 
own weaving! Or, if that is putting it 
too strongly, how ironical to be caught 
just in a phrase of high courtesy! Taci- 
tus, as ironist, could well be satisfied 
with either. 

We have been assuming up to this 
point that Seneca did in fact make the 
remark ceterum inniti, as Natalis 
maintained. But it must now be re- 
ported that this is denied, if not by 
Seneca (of which more later), at all 
events by Jackson in a footnote to the 
passage 60.6 in the Loeb Tacitus,‘ 
where he is referring to Seneca’s reply 

to the question propounded by Nero 
and his advisers and conveyed to Sene- 
ca at his villa near Rome by the mili- 
tary tribune Gavius Silvanus, namely: 
an dicta Natalis suaque responsa nosce- 
ret, where dicta ... responsaque means 
‘“‘the words used by Natalis [at the 
interview with Seneca on the subject 
of Piso] and Seneca’s own reply.” Says 
Jackson: ‘Seneca denies the possibil- 
ity of his having said salutem suam in- 
columitate Pisonis inniti: — He cannot 
have made the remark in earnest, for 
the only person whose safety he ranks 
above his own is the emperor: he can- 
not have made it out of empty civility, 
for such compliances are alien to his 
nature.” The matter of ‘“‘empty civili- 
ty” we have already discussed; as for 
Seneca denying the possibility, it would 
be more accurate to say that Seneca, 
while not denying the possibility of his 
having used the words ceterum ... in- 
niti, seeks to create the impression of 
the improbability of his having done 
so, which is quite another story. To this 
we shall return later. 

Here too it may be recalled that 
René Waltz, illustrious student of Se- 
neca’s life and character, has written 
as follows in relation to the incident :° 

“Sénéque reconnut qu’ayant refusé d’ad- 
mettre Pison chez lui, il avait regu a ce 
sujet la visite de Natalis, mais nia l’exacti- 
tude des paroles qu’on lui prétait. D’apreés 
Natalis, Sénéque avait dit que sa vie re- 
posait sur le salut de Pison, salutem swam 
incolumitate Pisonis inniti; Sénéque le 
démentit formellement et fit ressortir l’in- 
vraisemblance du propos.” (The italics in 
the French are mine.) 

Waltz cannot, however, demonstrate 
the truth of either of these italicized 
statements, especially the second of 
them, from the account given by Taci- 
tus. That Seneca did his best in an- 
swering the tribune to give his conclud- 


ing remark in the interview with Na- 
talis an “‘invraisemblance”’ is correct 
enough, not however so far as concerns 
the actuality of the remark but rather 
of the construction Nero was putting 
upon it, namely, that of high treason. 
Tacitus has not said (and it would have 
been so easy to do so immediately after 
the first sentence of 61) negavit se wm- 
quam dixisse salutem suam etc. He 
merely shows us Seneca endeavoring to 
make the concluding remark of the 
interview as attributed to him by Na- 
talis and not denied by himself appear 
ridiculously inflated in respect of (a) 
material for a charge of treason® or (b) 
an accusation of special regard for Piso. 
Waltz does not come off any better 
than Jackson in the face of the Tacitean 

Seneca’s answer to the question 
brought him by the tribune consists 
(61.1-3) of the following items: (a) by 
way of acknowledgment: that Natalis 
had been sent to him by Piso; that 
Natalis had registered a complaint in 
Piso’s name against his being refused 
admission to Seneca’s presence; that 
he, Seneca, had put forth as his reason 
for such refusal his poor health and 
desire for (scholarly?) repose; (b) by 
way of implication, since it is not speci- 
fically denied, though, in fact, adum- 
brated by a rhetorical replacement: 
that he had, in concluding the inter- 
view, sent a word of greeting to Piso 
by Natalis. As has been said above, and 
it will bear repeating here, Seneca seeks 
to create an impression of the improba- 
bility of his having said ceterwm ... in- 
niti; he does not deny having said it or 
something like it. The problem before 
him was actually that of finding a 
method of dealing with the fatal words 
in such a way as to take out of them, 
if anyone persisted in maintaining that 
they had been said, the peril now re- 

cognized by him to be involved in 

Ramsay, the able translator of the 
Annals,’ in a footnote on cur salutem 

. anteferret? nec sibi promptum in 
adulationes ingenium (61.3), is surpris- 
ingly downright in his explanation of 
what those words signify: “‘what Sene- 
ca means is that the words of his mes- 
sage to Piso were to be taken in their 
natural courtesy meaning and that they 
were not intended to convey any spe- 
cial compliment to Piso, as though his 
safety were a matter of particular con- 
sequence to himself.’ It never seems to 
have entered Ramsay’s mind that Se- 
neca denied, in effect, as a fourth item 
in his reply to the tribune, having used 
the language ceterum ... inniti, or at 
least claimed that he had been misre- 
ported. I fear that this attitude assumes 
more than anyone has any right to as- 
sume; this will forthwith be made to 

From the form of Seneca’s statement 
cur salutem ... non habuisse, “‘I have 
had no reason for preferring the health 
of any ordinary person [i.e., of any 
person other than the emperor] above 
my own well-being,” it would seem that 
Seneca was deliberately confusing the 
issue — excellent tactics in a summary 
trial where the dice are all loaded 
against you and where bitter enemies 
form the bench. His words may imply 
that he wishes to represent himself as 
possibly having made to Natalis the 
statement ceterum incolumitatem suam 
salute Pisonis inniti, with the two ab- 
stract nouns inversely placed as com- 
pared with their position in Natalis’ re- 
port: ‘‘however, his well-being depend- 
ed on the good health of Piso.” This, 
of course, produces an intolerable flat- 
tery, as he proceeds to add, the flat- 
tery of preferring the mere health 
(salus) of a private citizen to his own 

4 WituiAM Harpy ALEXANDER 

all-around well-being (incolumitas), and 
surely no one could suspect him of 
grossness of adulation to that extent, 
Nero least of all. The choice is thus of- 
fered Nero and his associate judges 
between ceterum salutem suam incolumi- 
tate Pisonis inniti as reported by Na- 
talis and ceterum incolumitatem suam 
salute Pisonis inniti as inferable by in- 
direction from Seneca’s own statement 
in dealing with this item. 

There can be no doubt which they 
preferred. Jncolumitas was in those days 
developing a special sense in relation to 
the emperor, “‘the health, wealth, and 
prosperity |of the sovereign].’’? Compare 
for this sense 14.57.2 where Tigellinus 
is addressing Nero: non se, ut Burrum, 
diversas spes sed solam incolumitatem 
Neronis spectare. A man may talk about 
his own incolumitas and be profoundly 
interested in it; he has two recognized 
loyalties, one to himself and his own 
incolumitas, another, far above that, to 
the incolumitas of the sovereign. But 
when he speaks about his salus being 
conditioned by the incolumitas of any 
person other than the emperor, he has 
introduced a third incolumitas (Piso’s 
in this case), and this is a challenge to 
the incolumitas of the prince himself. 
But this is high treason. 

Therefore the form of the ceterum ... 
inniti sentence as reported by Natalis 
is the form required by Nero and his 
consilium for getting on promptly with 
the business of eliminating Senecé 
under the charge of high treason. Fur- 
thermore, returning now to the earlier 
paragraphs of this paper, I feel sure 
that it was the form of statement actu- 
ally employed by Seneca and that he 
designed it purely as a compliment to 
Piso without thinking through to a 
conclusion the possible consequences, 
under any conditions whatever, of the 
association of his salus with an in- 

columitas linked to Piso’s name, and, 
of course, without ever realizing the 
slant that would presently be given such 
an association under the special cir- 
cumstances attending the discovery of 
the conspiracy. After all, the remark 
was made in conversation; it was not 
a written pronouncement. I regard Se- 
neca’s attempt to sidestep the issue by 
assuming a transposition of the abstract 
nouns in the compliment to Piso as 
rather pitiable and as constituting 
clear evidence that, in effect, he admit- 
ted the charge of which Waltz says, 
most inexplicably, as already reported: 
““Séneque le démentit formellement.”’ 
Seneca did send the message of respect 
to Piso which Natalis reported, and 
no doubt thought of it at the time as a 
sound formula of respect. Facing the 
tribune and the blunt questions he 
conveyed, he saw it from quite another 
angle; there is death in the phrase in- 
columitate Pisonis innitt. Unfortunately 
for Seneca these words were ambiguous 
enough in the circumstances to permit 
them to be construed as implying some 
kind of partnership in the Pisonian 
conspiracy; the language would not 
have to be too precise to furnish what 
Nero and Poppaea and Tigellinus would 
consider evidence of the first quality. 
Even what they got was none too good, 
but it was something they had to use 
in default of better; Seneca was really 
non coniurationis manifestus (60.3). 
Consider a present analogue for all 
this. In some modern country there is 
prevalent fear of a foe who is known to 
be working subversively from within. 
In these circumstances a certain citi- 
zen A is unfortunate enough to have 
had an acquaintance of long standing 
with another citizen B, now under 
condemnation, or virtually so, for 
treasonable communication with the 
potential enemy. In a fairly recent 

—_ “SS Vw 

cr Wy 


period prior to B’s condemnation a 
third party C, acquainted with them 
both, has been engaged in an attempt 
to open the way for a renewal of re- 
lations between A and B who have not 
for some time been on intimate terms. 
A replies to C by letter of which the 
conclusion is as follows: ‘‘I do not think 
that any useful ends for either B or me 
could be served by my making myself 
at home to any further social calls or 
the like by him upon me. However, 
please feel entitled to convey to him the 
assurance of my continued high person- 
al regards.” Presently the authorities 
discover questionable relations of C 
with B; the former, to gain himself 
some consideration, turns over to them, 
among other things, this letter to him 
from A on the subject of A’s resuming 
friendly relations with B. How is A 
going to explain himself out of it? He 
has written his concluding sentence in 
a politeness largely formal, no doubt, 
using refined if stereotyped phraseology, 
but he will have difficulty under the 
circumstances in securing a nontreason- 
able construction for his courtesy. He 
may be as clever as Seneca in his at- 
tempted refutation but, things being 
as we have assumed them to be, it is 
not likely to save him. Of course there 
is the difference that in this supposed 
case writing is involved while in the 
Seneca affair it was a matter of verbal 
report; still, I think, the modern ana- 
logy is reasonably illuminating. 

All the trouble that has arisen in the 
comments of editors and scholars on 
this passage has arisen, in my judgment, 
from the fact that these comments have 

been made in happier times than those 
in which we now live when it is all too 
easy (or should be) to discern exactly 
how Seneca got enmeshed in the net of 
a charge of treason through a piece of 
what could certainly be defended as 
purely conventional politeness ; further, 
because these comments have been 
made by persons who grew up and 
lived out their lives without ever being 
involved in a social and political set- 
ting electrically charged with hate and 
suspicion attending on every word and 
act of those dwelling and functioning 
in high places. The very moment that 
the circumstances of our own lives be- 
gin actively to resemble those attending 
on the Pisonian conspiracy, this pas- 
sage from the Annals and others like it 
are apt to clear themselves up at once 
as if in a revealing flash; we are, in fact, 
left wondering why anyone was ever so 
simple-minded as to miss the point. 

This is only another reminder that 
all sound commentary must be written, 
as nearly as possible, in strict inte- 
gration with the times and the con- 
ditions prevailing when the original 
text was composed, or in times and 
conditions very like them. After all, 
Tacitus had lived through the horror 
of Domitian’s reign. In other words, a 
good editor of a classical text must be 
able, imaginatively at least, to live in 
the circumstances of his author’s period. 
If his own days present a set of cir- 
cumstances resembling that prevailing 
in his author’s day, he may be, and 
generally should be, greatly assisted by 
that fact.!° 



1. The references of this type are to chapters and 
sections of Ann. 15 as given in the revision by Pelham and 
Fisher (Oxford, 1907) of Vol. II of H. Furneaux’s Annals 
of Tacitus (Oxford, 1891). 

2. G. A. Holbrooke (ed.), The Annals of Tacitus (Lon- 
don: Macmillans, 1882), p. 427, note. 

8. See Epistulae morales 15.1; also W. C. Summers's 
note ad loc. in his Select Letters of Seneca (London: Mac- 
millans, 1913). 

4. John Jackson (trans.), Tacitus: Annals. (‘‘Loeb 
Classical Library,” 1937) IV, 313, note. 

5. R. Waltz, Vie de Sénéque (Paris, 1909), p. 436. 

6 Witt1AM Harpy ALEXANDER’ 

6. ‘‘Der Gedanke an Hochverrat, der in dieser Ant- 
wort gefunden ist [i.e., cur salutem...ingenium] kommt 
ihm nicht, wenigstens thut er absichtlich so.” A. Draeger 
(ed.), Die Annalen des Tacitus (Leipzig: Teubner, 1899), 
Vol. Il, Part II, p. 95, note. The is the 
important point. Seneca did not act or speak as one 
recognizing that treason was imputed, even though he 
knew well that it was. He affects to treat the point rather 
as one of personal dignitas. 

7. There are four definite items in the information 
laid by Natalis (60.4-5); three of these are specifically 
and affirmatively dealt with by Seneca at the beginning 

of 61, but the reply to the fourth passes into the field of 

oblique or indirect handling. This really makes this fourth 
point stand out very sharply; it must have been very 
noticeable at the time. 

8. G. G. Ramsay (trans.), The Annals of Tacitus, 
Books XI-XVI: An English Translation (London: 
Murray, 1909), p. 297, note. 

9. This paper makes no attempt to discuss the similar- 
ity of meaning and the difference, if any, as between salus 

and incolumitas in Tacitus’ usage. This might well be 
worth an investigation. As incolumitas becomes so closely 
identified with the Caesar and all phases of his dignity, 
one may guess that it is a more comprehensive word. I 
have attempted to indicate this by the translation ‘“‘health, 
wealth, and prosperity.” In Hist. 1.66.1: verba Fabii 
salutem incolumitatemque Viennensium commendantis 
there seems to be a real difference; salutem refers to the 
lives of the inhabitants of Vienne and incolumitatem to 
their worldly goods and possessions. See G. A. Davies 
(ed.), Histories, Book I, ad loc. (Cambridge: Pitt Press 
Series, 1896). 

10. B. W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the 
Emperor Nero (London: Methuen, 1903), is, as far as I 
have been able to discover, the one Tacitean commenta- 
tor who has detected some very peculiar implications in 
the passage I have examined above. He has stated rather 
summarily (p. 281) the ideas which I have attempted to 
work out in close detail. His whole paragraph is most in- 
forming, however, and deserves the closest reading and 
study, especially in regard to Seneca’s relations with Piso 
in 62 (Ann. 14.65.2). 

— af te ss 

— fn 


HE inscription from Cyrene re- 
[os published by P. M. Fraser 
and later discussed briefly by 
James H. Oliver! contains some re- 
ferences to the Cyrenaeans in con- 
nection with the Panhellenion. It in- 
cludes several documents of which the 
first is a letter of a.p. 134/5 from 
Hadrian to the city of Cyrene, but so 
much of the inscription has been lost 
that scarcely a single sentence can be 
restored with certainty. Yet some con- 
clusions can be drawn from it, both 
concerning the relation of Cyrene to the 
Panhellenion and concerning the nature 
of this organization.’ It is fairly safe to 
conclude that Cyrene was admitted to 
membership, while the reference to the 
two synedroi helps to show that the 
states belonging to the Panhellenion did 
not all have a single vote each, but that 
the system of votes in proportion to 
population used in the later sympolities 
and koina was applied also to the Pan- 
To begin with the admission of the 
Cyrenaeans to the Panhellenion, the 
very existence of the document should 
be sufficient proof, even though lines 
9ff. have been thought — incorrectly 
in my opinion — to contain a challenge 
to the Hellenism of the Cyrenaeans. A 
city is not likely to perpetuate in a 
public place the record of a humiliation, 
of an unsuccessful effort to attain some 
dignity. If Fraser (p. 87) is right that 
the inscription we have is a third cen- 
tury copy, the case is strengthened 
considerably, for this effort to preserve 
the document shows that its contents 
were highly regarded. 

In the second place, we have proof 
that the synedrion of the Panhellenes 
admitted certain cities that were not 
originally Hellenic but had been Hel- 
lenized later. Cibyra was admitted, 
probably during the reign of Antoninus 
Pius, and her Hellenism cannot have 
been of long standing*. Magnesia on the 
Maeander was probably admitted dur- 
ing the same reign.® As to the Hellenism 
of the Magnesians, all that can be said 
here is that with their foundation le- 
gends they protest too much, and that 
it is doubtful that Herodotus regarded 
them as Greeks. Moreover, among 
those members for which we do not 
have reports of action by the synedrion, 
there was at least one city of a non- 
Hellenic origin but later Hellenized, 
namely, Aezani, which belonged al- 
ready under Hadrian, and probably also 
the old Lydian capital, Sardes,’? not to 
speak of such a Hellenistic foundation 
or refoundation as Apamea-Celaenae. 
With these cities admitted, can we be- 
lieve that an old Greek colony such as 
Cyrene was rejected ? We do not know 
just how extensive or inclusive the 
Panhellenion was in practice, and so 
may imagine that Cyrene might never 
have been proposed for membership, 
but not that she was proposed and 
rejected. To be sure, the city had been 
liberal in its interpretation of citizenship 
and had permitted intermarriage with 
Libyans — in fact, the Ptolemaic 
diagramma of the late fourth century 
B.c. specifically provided that the 
mothers of citizens could be Libyans.® 
This might suggest to some that it 
would be natural to challenge the Hel- 

8 J. A. O. LARSEN 

lenism of Cyrene, but surely we must 
avoid attributing Periclean ideas of 
citizenship to all Greeks of all times and 
must remember that in Hellenistic and 
Roman times the Greek blood of many 
‘‘Hellenic” communities, if present at 
all, must have been very diluted. More- 
over, some of the Augustan edicts 
speak of Romans and Hellenes,? and 
here undoubtedly the citizens of Cyrene 
of mixed Greek and Libyan descent are 
included among the Hellenes. Are we 
to think that at the time of Hadrian the 
meaning of the word was being so nar- 
rowed that the Cyrenaeans were re- 
garded as non-Hellenic ? The only pos- 
sible justification for challenging their 
Hellenism would seem to be that the 
city had been transformed into a Roman 
colony. However, it will be shown below 
that at the time in question Cyrene can- 
not have been a Roman colony. More- 
over, the example of Corinth’ suffices 
to show that such a status did not neces- 
sarily disqualify a city from member- 
ship. Apparently, as far as membership 
in the Panhellenion was concerned, Hel- 
lene and Roman were not mutually 
exclusive terms. 

In the third place, Apollonia, the port 
of Cyrene, was a member of the Panhel- 
lenion, directly or indirectly." If this 
community, which we hardly know 
whether we are to classify as a separate 
city or not,!*? was a member, Cyrene 
herself cannot have been excluded. 

In fact, it is possible that Apollonia 
belonged to the Panhellenion only as a 
part of Cyrene. It is likely that the cities 
of the region known to us by name had 
some sort of corporate existence, but 
not even the name Pentapolis can be 
taken as a clear proof of the existence 
of five independent poleis. The name 
might well be applied to a political 
entity containing five urban settle- 
ments or towns, whether a sympolity 

or a single polis such as Athens. Actual- 
ly there is persistent and repeated evi- 
dence which points to something like the 
synoecism of Cyrenaica as the polis 
of Cyrene. Years ago I argued that this 
is implied in the Ptolemaic diagramma 
of the late fourth century B.c.1*> Even 
if this particular organization may not 
have endured long, there are several 
indications of unity at a later date. As 
such there is the koinon attested by 
coins for near the middle of the third 
century.44 There are also the legends 
concerning wars between Cyrene and 
Carthage followed by the establishment 
of a boundary (Sallust Jug. 79; Mela 1. 
38) and the passage of Strabo (discus- 
sed in n. 12) which may mean that the 
other cities of Cyrenaica were subject 
to Cyrene. However, most important 
of all for our period, is the normal 
name applied to the province under the 
Principate. Modern works continue to 
speak of ‘‘Crete and Cyrenaica,” though 
the examples cited in them show that 
the name rather was ‘Crete and 
Cyrene.” The expression avOb7[at0<] 
Kezzne xat Kuoyy[yc] wnteotdAca[c] 
(SEG, IX, 170) in an inscription of 
A.D. 161 is particularly significant as 
implying that the province of the pro- 
consul consisted of Crete and the city 
of Cyrene. The one discordant note is 
the reference to “‘embassies from the 
cities of the province” in the first 
Augustan edict,!* references in the fourth 
edict tolitigants and judges from differ- 
ent cities, and possibly other expres- 
sions in the inscription which may 
suggest that there were other poleis 
besides Cyrene in the province. How- 
ever, even this may not mean that 
all poleis had the same standing, and the 
fact remains that in the name of the 
province the entire district of Cyrenaica 
was called Cyrene. 

In the discussion which follows, 

ancient practice will be followed in ap- 
plying the term “‘province”’ both to the 
combined province of Crete and Cyrene 
and to either of the two component 

It is now time to turn to the newly 
published inscription. Let us do so 
bearing in mind that, if it contains a 
report of action on the application of 
Cyrene for admission to the Panhel- 
lenion, the action was almost certainly 
favorable. A general impression of the 
state of the inscription can most easily 
be gained by glancing at Fraser’s text 
(p. 78) and comparing it with the plate 
(Plate V). The letter of Hadrian of a.D. 
135 begins in line 2.1” After the emper- 
or’s name and the salutation the text 
proper (ll. 6-8) reads as follows: 

6 6 &ey@v tod TaveArnvioun Epérxer emrotet- 
rat woull 
‘ Aa , > : ! + « ~ y ' 
wa S6EavTa wor dvréy[e]ava xat buctv erento 
Thy TpOL 
Kieo¢ 6 xoatiatog avObratos:YY? edtuyei[te. 

Fraser (p. 80) estimates the length of 
the lines beginning with line 6 as about 
70 letters. Thus the missing letters at 
the end of each of these three lines will 
be about 30. Since the text proper of 
the letter is only about two and a half 
lines long, the document is a brief note 
rather than a normal letter and, in all 
likelihood, merely serves as an intro- 
duction to what follows. Clearly a 
question concerning the Panhellenion 
has received the attention of the em- 
peror and, since it is mentioned in a 
letter to the Cyrenaeans, it must con- 
cern Cyrene. Trouble in interpretation 
is caused by égéaxer. The use of this 
verb with an infinitive does not seem 
to have been noticed before and so its 
meaning is hard to determine. Fraser 
Suggests “‘delays” or ‘‘is hesitant,” 
while Oliver translates: ‘The archon 
of the Panhellenion is making them 


consult me by letter concerning [your 
eligibility]. I have replied by a state- 
ment of my opinion ....” Judging by 
other uses of the verb as illustrated by 
the examples in the Lezicon, either 
meaning is possible, but the present 
tense of the verb makes Oliver’s 
translation awkward. The emperor uses 
the aorist to describe his own action, 
and it would make little sense to say: 
“The archon is urging them to consult 
me, and I replied.”” On the other hand, 
it makes perfectly good sense to say 
that the archon is delaying to consult 
the emperor — i.e., he has not con- 
sulted him — but, nevertheless, the 
emperor has sent a written statement 
of his opinion. This also suggests an 
easy interpretation of the mention of 
the proconsul. The latter must have 
supplied the information on which the 
emperor based his decision. 

Hence, in all likelihood, the emperor 
stated that the archon of the Panhel- 
lenion was delaying to consult him on 
the subject whether or not the Cyrenae- 
ans should be admitted. Nevertheless, 
he had written his opinion to the archon 
— and of this statement he is sending 
a copy to the Cyrenaeans, his decision 
being based on information supplied by 
the proconsul. I think there is room for 
this on the stone but, on account of the 
uncertainty, think it best not to at- 
tempt to restore the wording of the text. 
The use of avtéypxya in a communi- 
cation to an official from whom the 
emperor has received no inquiry on the 
subject may seem strange but may 
mean that the inquiry is considered 
delayed for some reason. 

The first words preserved of the next 
document are found in line 9, but the 
wording is such that we must suppose 
that the document began in the preced- 
ing line. This would be natural, since 
on any interpretation it is closely con- 

10 J. A. O. LARSEN 

nected with the emperor’s letter. Fraser 
(p. 85) thinks that the author of the 
statement is the proconsul, Carus, while 
Oliver thinks that it is a note added by 
the ab epistulis. In my opinion, as im- 
plied above, it is a statement of the 
emperor’s ruling, for which there is no 
room in his short letter. It too is brief 
and compressed and ends with line 12. 
This document is even more difficult 
to interpret than the emperor’s letter. 
It reads as follows: 
déyeoOur Set: od wévror Stxare dErotow, tTOv 
10 voc ’Ayardy xal dxperBaic Adpov: adrol 82 
LOayev[ Ets 



Aw Kupjvatwv 37 800 cuvédpoug meurévta[y 
The one point which seems relatively 
certain is that the ruling of the emperor 
was in favor of the Cyrenaeans. If we 
allow in line 8 for a few vacant spaces 
before the beginning of the document, the 
number of missing lettersis about 20. The 
first clause may have been something like 
this: tobc wiv Kupnvatouc cic]déyecbar 
Sei. Then there follows a reference to an 
unjust claim, a reference to the heroes, 
Achaeus and Dorus, a reference to some 
persons of “‘direct descent,’’ a reference 
to the acquisition of a name, a reference 
to the Cyrenaeans, and a reference to 
two synedroi. Before trying to disen- 
tangle this, allow me to give my impres- 
sion of the meaning of d&xpe18dc, which 
Fraser finds ‘‘particularly obscure” and 
which Oliver translates ‘‘and even.” 
My own feeling is that it has the force 
of ‘‘specifically” or ‘‘more exactly,” and 
thus fits a legend according to which 
the Dorians were a_ subdivision or 
branch of the Achaeans and Dorus 
probably a son of Achaeus. As far as I 
know, no such myth or legend has been 
preserved, but the invention of one in 
connection with the foundation story 

of some city would not be impossible. 
It does not matter a great deal, however, 
for the interpretation of this detail 
helps little with the understanding of 
the reference to Achaeus and Dorus. 
Nevertheless, it may be noted that an 
interesting proof of the continued pride 
of the Cyrenaeans in their Doric de- 
scent is the claim of Synesius of Cyrene, 
the Neoplatonist bishop of the early 
fifth century, that he was descended 
from Eurysthenes, ‘‘who led the Dori- 
ans to Sparta,” and that the record of 
this descent down to his father was 
carved on public tablets.* This state- 
ment suggests that mythmakers were 
busy at Cyrene as well as at cities with 
less claim to be Hellenic. 

If the conjecture that the first clause 
in the document rules that the Cyrenae- 
ans are to be admitted into the Panhel- 
lenion is correct, this goes far to explain 
what follows. The ones who have made 
an unjust claim — or, as the context 
will now suggest, an unjust accusation 
— are the Cyrenaeans. The nature of 
the accusation is to be determined in 
part from the fact that their statement 
obviously continues with the claim that 
they themselves are of direct descent, 
the adroit S& iWayevetc indicating a 
marked contrast between the accusa- 
tion against others and their own claim 
to purity of descent. Who are these 
others? It might be natural to think 
of some other city of Cyrenaica and 
particularly of one which might have 
been given a non-Hellenic addition to 
the population through the colonizing 
activities of Trajan and/or Hadrian. 
The latter is reported by Orosius (7. 
12. 6) to have sent colonists to Libya, 
and on the Peutinger table both Cyrene 
and Taucheira are marked as colonies. 
Then there is also Hadrianopolis or 
Hadriane, which appears to be a new 
foundation.” The planting of colonists 

— eee i 

a 2 


at Cyrene, not by Hadrian but by Tra- 
jan, has been confirmed by a recently 
published inscription from Attaleia.*° 
In this L. Gavius Fronto is reported to 
have been put in charge by Trajan of 
3,000 legionary veterans to be settled 
in Cyrene. It has been plausibly con- 
jectured*! that this action belongs after 
the suppression of the Jewish revolt, 
which thus appears to have been put 
down before the accession of Hadrian 
(so Fraser). In all likelihood, the actual 
planting of the settlers can hardly have 
been completed before the reign of 
Hadrian, who, as other evidence shows, 
displayed an interest in Cyrene,”? and 
so we find Hadrian honored as ktistes 
by the polis of the Cyrenaeans and as 
oikistes by the Apolloniates.?* And yet 
there appears no evidence in the in- 
scriptions that either Cyrene or Tau- 
cheira became Roman colonies at the 
time, and Cyrene, in spite of a few Latin 
and bilingual inscriptions, obviously 
remained Greek. It has been recognized 
that Augustus planted Roman citizens 
in certain cities without thereby trans- 
forming them into colonies.*4 This 
principle must have been applied also 
to Cyrene by Hadrian. If the designation 
of the two cities as colonies on the 
Peutinger table is based on more than 
this planting of new settlers, it may be 
due to a later grant of the title. In any 
case, Cyrene herself received colonists 
and so was not in a position to chal- 
lenge the Hellenism of any other city 
on the grounds that it had done so. Of 
course, if the entire Cyrenaica had been 
synoecized as the city of Cyrene, we 
cannot well imagine that she appealed 
to outside authorities against one of 
her parts. As for Hadrianopolis or 
Hadriane, a place known only from 
late itineraries and geographical works,» 
all forms of the name seem to suggest 
a Greek city. 


It is more likely that the objection 
was directed against some community 
or communities outside Cyrenaica, prob- 
ably the ‘‘Hellenes” of Marmarica or 
some city or cities within this district. 
The geographer Ptolemy classed Mar- 
marica as a nome of Egypt, and docu- 
ments have proved that this was cor- 
rect.”® The transfer to Egypt must have 
taken place before the time of our in- 
scription.?” Now it will be remembered 
that before the transfer Marmarica 
belonged with Cyrene and that ac- 
cording to the Ptolemaic diagramma 
sons of Cyrenaean fathers and Libyan 
mothers from this district as well as 
from any other part of Cyrenaica were 
eligible to citizenship. As suggested 
above, the ‘‘Hellenes”’ of the province 
in the time of Augustus must have in- 
cluded descendants from these mixed 
marriages. On the other hand, it will 
be remembered that not one of the 
cities of the Pentapolis was located in 
Marmarica. Hence, the ‘‘Hellenes” of 
the district may have been very few 
and those few may have been very 
largely of Libyan descent, so that those 
of Cyrene might very well consider 
themselves of purer Hellenic blood. It 
seems impossible in the present state 
of our knowledge to know what name 
was applied to these neighbors whose 
Hellenism was challenged. It can hard- 
ly have been the name of a native tribe 
but rather one connected with some 
Greek settlement. For convenience, let 
us call them ‘‘Marmaric Hellenes.”’ 

To return to Hadrian’s statement, in 
all likelihood the emperor ruled that 
the Cyrenaeans should be admitted to 
the Panhellenion. Nevertheless, they 
were wrong in stating that the Marma- 
ric Hellenes had no right to claim 
Achaeus and Dorus as their ancestors 
in contrast to the “straight descent” 
of themselves [i.e., the Cyrenaeans]. 

12 J. A. O. 

This interpretation of the reference to 
pure birth is supported by the reference 
in line 16 to their ancient purity of 
descent. It must thus be the Marmaric 
Hellenes who are accused of having 
acquired the appellation [of Hellene] in 
some irregular manner. The ruling con- 
cerning the synedroi was then probably 
to the effect that, while the Cyrenaeans 
send fi.e., are to send] two synedroi, 
the Marmaric Hellenes are to send one. 
The guess concerning the latter number 
is based on nothing more secure than 
the conjecture that the Marmaric com- 
munity must have been less important 
than Cyrene. That the Cyrenaeans are 
to send two seems certain. Since $7 is 
postpositive, the 76 ]Atv Kupyvatev of Fra- 
ser, who takes teurévtwy as an impera- 
tive, is impossible; Kueyvatwy must be 
construed with what follows and Kve7- 
valwv... TeuTovtTwy must be a genitive 
absolute, as Oliver too seems to think. 

Against this interpretation it may 
possibly be alleged that it would be 
strange to have any community in the 
district of Marmarica represented in the 
Panhellenion. Such a presupposition, 
however, should not be allowed to 
frighten us away from the most natural 
interpretation of the document. There 
is other evidence which suggests that 
the Panhellenion was liberal in its ad- 
mission of members, and so this new 
evidence would merely lend more color 
to the picture and indicate that the 
liberality was even greater than we had 
formerly thought. It is also to be noted 
that, while the other records we have 
of action on the question of the admis- 
sion of members do not suggest appeal 
to the emperor, in the one case of a 
recorded intervention by Hadrian, he 
intervened on the side of liberality. The 
significance of this for the broader in- 
terpretation of the policy of Hadrian 
cannot be taken up here. 


Much of what has been said so far is 
obviously conjectural, but the state of 
the evidence is such that bold recon- 
struction seems warranted provided the 
results are not misrepresented. There 
is, however, one conclusion which seems 
certain, namely that Cyrene was re- 
presented in the Panhellenion. It is also 
likely that Cyrene is the city or province 
referred to as having two representa- 
tives. It remains to discuss the signi- 
ficance of these two representatives for 
the institutions of the Panhellenion. 
From this point of view it matters 
little whether they represented Cyrene 
or some other community. 

The chief conclusion to be drawn 
from the reference to the two synedroi 
is simple. The old theory of Guiraud 
that each city had one representative” 
must be abandoned. The mere fact that 
we have evidence for two representa- 
tives for one community is enough to 
demolish the theory. Guiraud, however, 
does not give it as a theory but as a fact 
supported by evidence, though a quick 
glance is enough to show that he has 
misinterpreted the evidence. He cites 
three inscriptions which prove to be 
concerned with honors bestowed upon 
a representative of Aezani,®° but the 
fact that one representative was honor- 
ed does not prove that the city had no 
more than one. Next he cites three 
examples of dedications at Athens by 
other cities, but in only one of the three 
is it recorded that the agent is a re- 
presentative in the Panhellenion.*! Na- 
turally, even this does not prove that 
the city in question possessed merely a 
single representative, and, even if it 
did, it would supply proof only for one 
city and not for the other members of 
the Panhellenion. To be sure, after 
Guiraud wrote, considerable new evi- 
dence has come to light, and this is now 
conveniently listed by Tod and Oliver. 

Much of it is of the kind already consid- 
ered: references in honorific decrees or 
in records of their cursus to services of 
individuals in the Panhellenion. Thus 
there is nothing to strengthen the case 
for the theory of a single representative 
per community. On the contrary, some 
of the new evidence rather points in 
the opposite direction. In fact, a re- 
cently published inscription has been 
interpreted to mean that Sardes had 
more than one synedros acting on her 
behalf on one occasion.®* This inter- 
pretation seems correct. There is also 
afragmentary Spartan inscription which 
has IT]avéAAynvec followed by two or 
more names.*? It is natural to suppose 
that the men so listed were represen- 
tatives at the same time. In a still more 
fragmentary inscription from Pagae, 
two Panhellenes are listed.*4 In all 
likelihood these represented Megara. 
The three inscriptions suggest that 
Sardes, Sparta, and Megara each had 
more than one representative but do 
not supply completely convincing proof. 
It is barely possible that the lists con- 
tain representatives for more than one 
year. Hence, the special importance of 
our Cyrenaic inscription, which refers 
to two synedroi in such a way as to 
indicate that this must be the number 
of delegates to which the state in 
question is entitled. 

Can we go farther in determining the 
nature of the representation? Oliver 
thinks we can. He writes: ‘Probably 
every affiliated city had two synedroi 

, as each ethnos in the Pylaeo- 
Delphic Amphictyony had two hiero- 
mnemones.” This theory is fully as 

mistaken as Guiraud’s theory of one 
representative for each city. 

Our document, as noted, dates from 
A.D. 135. The Panhellenion appears to 
have been founded in 131/2.35 A few 
years earlier, in 125, Hadrian had writ- 


ten to Delphi concerning some reform 
in representation in the Amphictionic 
League. The one detail which is clear 
from one of the preserved fragments 
is that the representation of Thessaly 
was to be reduced and the votes taken 
away from her to be distributed to 
Athens, Sparta, and other cities.** The 
exact place of this measure in the his- 
tory of the Amphictionic League does 
not concern us. The only point of im- 
portance is that Hadrian’s reform 
clearly marks an effort to adjust re- 
presentation more adequately. Nor is 
there any ambiguity on this point. It 
is impossible to argue that, while the 
numbers of synedroi varied, the units 
represented may have had equality of 
vote, for the document does nor speak 
of synedroi but of psephot, i.e., votes. 
Under the circumstances, when Hadrian 
had struggled with adjusting the re- 
presentation in this older organization, 
we cannot imagine that he adopted a 
more reactionary system for the Panhel- 
lenion. He must have tried to adjust 
the representation also in it to the ci- 
tizen population or importance of the 
communities represented. 

There is one little point which seems 
to call for a remark. It was suggested 
above that the Cyrene represented in 
the Panhellenion was the entire pro- 
vince of Cyrene or Cyrenaica. The re- 
presentation of such a large unit as a 
whole, apparently, would not be unusu- 
al. At least in some cases it appears that 
federal states as such were represented 
rather than their constituent cities. The 
evidence is clearest for Crete.3’ It is 
likely that also the Thessalian League 
was represented as such, though direct 
evidence is lacking.** On the other hand, 
records suggest that Asiatic cities rather 
than the Commune Asiae were repre- 
sented, but this was a koinon of a dif- 
ferent type. Whatever was the case 

14 J. A. O. LARSEN 

with these other organizations, the 
example of Crete is important. If one 
of the two component parts of the pro- 
vince of Crete and Cyrene was repre- 
sented as a unit, it would not be un- 
natural that also the other should be 
so represented. 

Is it possible to go still further in 
determining the system of representa- 
tion in the Panhellenion ? It seems safe 
to conclude that, if the province of 
Cyrene had only two representatives, 
then the delegations as a whole must 
have been small, and it is natural to 
think of the system of one, two, and 
three votes per city known best from 
the statement about Lycia quoted by 
Strabo from Artemidorus (ca. 100 B.c.). 
The latter statement probably gives the 
proportion according to which cities 
were represented, and it has been con- 
jectured that the cities had one, two, 
or three representatives each in the 
federal boule, the smaller of the two 
federal assemblies, and a larger number 
in the federal ekklesia, which in Lycia 
also was a representative assembly.*% 
As already implied, the small delegation 
from Cyrene suggests that the synedrion 
of the Panhellenion corresponds rather 
to the smaller than the larger of the two 
Lycian federal assemblies. There is also 
other evidence which suggests that 
under the Empire it was common to 
classify cities in three classes. Thus 
there is the classification of the cities 
of Asia in three classes in a letter of 
Antoninus Pius to the Commune Asiae.” 

This, coupled with the example of Lycia, 
has led to the conjecture that also in 
the assembly of this organization the 
cities each had one, two, or three re- 
presentatives depending on size.*! On 
the other hand, there is the example of 
the Amphictionic League, for which we 
hear of six votes each for Nicopolis, 
Macedon, and Thessaly in the League 
as reorganized by Augustus. To be sure, 
this statement, often repeated and gen- 
erally accepted, depends on an emen- 
dation in the text of Pausanias but, 
nevertheless, is almost certainly cor- 
rect.22 Hadrian, it may be noted, re- 
duced the representation of at least one 
of the states with six votes. In any case, 
as large delegations as this in the 
Panhellenion seem unlikely, particular- 
ly since many of the representatives 
came from a considerable distance. 
Hence, until further evidence becomes 
available, as good a guess as any is 
that the members had one, two, or 
three votes each. 

As already noted, much of what has 
been argued above is frankly conjec- 
tural. It can, however, be regarded as 
certain that Cyrene was a member of 
the Panhellenion, and that the cities 
and leagues belonging to it had vary- 
ing numbers of representatives and 
votes. As a sort of by-product, it may 
also be noted that the example of Crete 
shows that the members need not 
always be poleis but could also be ethne 
or koina. 



1. P. M. Fraser, ‘‘Hadrian and Cyrene,” JRS, XL 
(1950), 77-87; J.H. Oliver in ‘‘New Evidence on the 
Attic Panhellenion,” Hesperia, XX (1951), 31-33. 

2. For the Panhellenion in general Oliver lists M. N. 
Tod, ‘Greek Inscriptions from Macedonia,” JHS, XVIII 
(1922), 167-80 and Paul Graindor, Athénes sous Hadrien 
(Cairo, 1934). To this can be added Wilhelm Weber, Un- 
tersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (Leip- 

zig, 1907), especially pp. 271ff. The articles TavéAAnves 
(Ziebarth) and ‘‘Panhellenia” (L. Ziehen) in RE, XVIII 
have little to offer. Works listed in this note and in n. 1, 
as well as David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor 
(Princeton, 1950) and A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the 
Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), will be listed 
merely by the names of the authors. 

3. On the question of votes in proportion to popula- 






tion see Larsen, ‘‘Representation and Democracy in 
Hellenistic Federalism,” CP, XL (1945), 65-97 especially 

4. The admission of Cibyra seems to be referred to in 
a mutilated dedication by the city found at Puteoli (7G, 
XIV, 829=JGR, I, 418 =OGI, 497). For the mixed popu- 
lation of Cibyra, see Strabo 13. 631; for her later claim to 
be a Lacedaemonian colony, JGR, ILI, 500. i. 

5. IG, 117, 1091 =OGT, 503. 

6. For evidence on Magnesia and citations of the 
earlier literature see Magie, pp. 894f. Herodotus does not 
include Magnesia among the twelve Ionian cities (1. 142) 
and in another passage (3. 90. 1) lists the Magnetes as a 
separate ethnie group alongside of Tonians, Acolians, 
Carians, Lycians, ete. Does not this suggest that they 
were a non-Greek people? To be sure, reference to them 
by Callinus (in commentary on Frag. 3 Diehl*) and 
Archilochus (Frag. 19 Diehl*) as cited by Strabo (14. 
647f.) indicate that Greeks were early aware of them, and 
that they may have begun to become Hellenized early. 
The elaborate foundation legends suggest a city which 
had to go to great lengths to prove its Hellenism. Otto 
Kern (Die Griindungsgeschichte von Magnesia am Mai- 
andros [1894], p. 25) conjectures that Hellanicus had a 
hand in their formation. Sayce, in his commentary, 
applies Herod. 3. 90. 1 only to Magnesia by Sipylus, but 
there seems to be no reason why it should not apply to 
Magnesia on the Maeander or to both cities or groups. 
Wilamowitz (Hermes, XXX [1895], 177 ff.) takes the 
Magnetes to be a Hellenic tribe. 

7. For Aezani under Hadrian, JGR, IV, 562=CIG, 
3841; for the non-Hellenie origin, Magie, p. 132. For 
Sardes, Hesperia, X (1941), 82, No. 35. 

yo. SEG, 1X, 1; fora summary of the history of Cyrene 
with emphasis on the citizenship see Jones, pp. 351 ff. 

9. SEG, IX, 8. 

10. The membership of Corinth is attested by 7G, IV, 
1600 = Corinth, VIII, i, No. 80; No. 81, also cited by 
Oliver, is too mutilated to have independent value. 

ll. 7G, 11’, 3407 is the inscription on the base of a 
statue of Marcus Aurelius dedicated at Eleusis by ’AxoA- 
hovuitat of xata Kvoyvnv acting through a Panhellene, 
i.¢., a reprenstative in the synedrion of the Panhellenion. 
The document, of course, does not state that the Pan- 
lellene was the representative of Apollonia, but this is a 
natural interpretation. Another possibility is that Apol- 
lonia was a part of the polis of Cyrene and that the Pan- 
hellene in question was a representative of the latter city. 
In fact, in Daremberg-Saglio, 111, 849 Fougéres cites this 
inscription (CZG, 351) as evidence for the membership of 

12. There seems to be little to be found anywhere 
about Apollonia. The only mention in SEG, LX appears 
to be in No, 252, a milestone. In the earlier literature the 
city is the port of Cyrene and is nameless. According to 
Jones (p. 485, n. 11) the first occurrence of the name is in 
Strabo 17. 837. This undoubtedly is correct, but I do not 
understand how he can say that Strabo ‘‘is also the first 
tosay that it was a separate city” (p. 359). Strabo speaks 
ofit as the éxiverov of the Cyrenacans, thus using a word 
applied by Herodotus (6. 116) to Phalerum in relation to 
Athens and by Thucydides (1.30. 2; 2. 84. 5) to Cyllene in 
relation to Elis; ef. the similar usage of Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 9. 56. 5). Strabo also speaks of 
Apollonia and the other cities of Cyrenaica as meguté)hua 
f Cyrene, a word which probably implies subjection. 

13. “Notes on the Constitutional Inscription from 
Cyrene, CP, XXIV (1929), 351-68 at 354f.; the inserip- 
tion is now SEG, IX, 1. 

14. The date is fixed by the fact that some of the coins 
are overstruck on coins of Magas (E. 8. G. Robinson, 
BMC Cyrenaica, pp. cxxxv f.; Jones, p. 359). 

15. The normal form of the name was Creta et Cyrenae 
(examples: Suet. Vesp. 2. 3; Dessau, 961, 1024, 1048, 
1084) or Creta Cyrenae (Dessau, 1072, 1096), in both forms 
abbreviations being used at times (Dessau, 1153, 8981). 
Note that the name of the city in Latin usually is plural 
(Dessau, IIT, p. 615, 8.v.). In Greek the corresponding two 
forms (with or without ‘‘and@’”) are used, the chief differ- 
ence being that the Greek name for Cyrene is singular 
(Dessau, 8819, 8819a; IGR, 1, 968-70; LV, 275, 375, 383- 
85, 390; SEG, IX, 170). The lists given are far from ex- 
haustive, but no evidence which suggests that ‘‘Cyre- 
naica” was used as a part of the name of the province has 
been knowingly suppressed. At first glance the expression 
Kvoynvaixr éxaoyyja used in the Augustan edicts (SEG, 
IX, 8, ll. 14, 56, and 64) seems to be such evidence, but 
the expression tiv Kontixiw xai Kuonvaixiy éxaogyjav, 
‘the Cretan and Cyrenaic province” or ‘*province of Crete 
and Cyrene,” shows that Kvenvaixy here is merely the 
adjective derived from Kveyvy and that the ‘‘Cyrenaic 
province” is not the ‘‘province of Cyrenaica” but ‘‘the 
province of Cyrene.” The entry, ‘‘Cyrenaica provincia,” 
in the index for L’ Année épigraphique, 1927, No. 166 
refers to Oliverio’s Latin translation of SEG, IX, 8. More- 
over, ‘‘Cyrenaica’” and Kvenvaia, which does occur several 
times in the literary sources (cf. Pape-Benseler, 8.v.) may 
mean ‘‘the territory of Cyrene” fully as well as ‘‘the terri- 
tory containing Cyrene and other cities.” 

16. SEG, 1X, 8. In spite of the Greek of the inscrip- 
tion, its language seems important for the meaning and 
use of provincia. Apparently this term and the correspond- 
ing Greek word could be used equally well for Cyrene (or 
““Cyrenaica”’) alone and for Crete and Cyrene combined. 
It might also be argued that the expressions,  xegi 
Kvoryvnyv éxagyyja (ll. 4f.) and % xata Kuenvny éxagyia 
(ll. 14f. and 37), suggest that the province included more 
than the city of Cyrene. 

17. The year is more exactly 134/5, but since the nine- 
teenth year of the tribunicia potestas of Hadrian began 
December 10, 134 (Cagnat, Cours @ épigraphie latine*, p. 
196) the date is almost certainly 135. 

18. Synesius Ep. 57, p. 667 Hercher. Undoubtedly 
this genealogy was on a par with those created at Cibyra 
when the latter city claimed to have been founded by the 
Lacedaemonians (JGR, I11, 500; ef. Magie, p. 241), though 
Cyrene actually was much more Hellenic than Cibyra. 


19. For evidence see Jones, p. 486, n. 15; ef., also 
<. Miller, Itineraria Romana, cols. 875 and 877. 

20. Reprinted in JRS, XL (1950), 84, n. 37 from Tiirk 
tarith kurumu, Belleten, X1 (1947), 101-4, No. 19; ef. also 
. and L. Robert, REG, LXI (1948), 201. 

21. By G. Pflaum quoted by Robert. 



. Cf. the inscriptions assembled by S. Applebaum at 
the end of Fraser’s article, JS, XL (1950), 87-90. 

23. Cyrene: SEG, UX, 54 and 136; Apollonia: 7G, I? 

24. T. R. S. Broughton, ‘‘Some Non-Colonial Coloni 
of Augustus,” TAPA, LXVI (1935), 18-24; ef. J. and 
L. Robert, loc. cit., p. 200 and the literature cited there; 
also Magie, p. 1332 in n. 7. 

25. Miller, Itineraria, col. 877; Jones, p. 486, n. 15. 
The earliest entry is probably in the tin. Ant. 67, which 
is dated under Diocletian by Miller (p. liv). Jones gives 
the impression that the form Hadrianopolis oceurs only 
on the Peutinger table. However, it is found also in Guido 
Geographica 91, p. 522. 12 Pinder and Parthey, while 
Adrianopolis is found in Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia 
5, p. 353. 14 Pinder and Parthey. 

16 J. A. O. LARSEN 

26. Ptol. 4. 5. 1; documents antedating Diocletian: 
IGR, IV, 1624 (listed by Jones; cf. PIR, l*, 296, No. 
1458); P Rainer, 259 of a.p. 237 analyzed by C. Wessely, 
REG, XXXII (1919), 504-7, which, however, is not con- 
vincing by itself for the inclusion of Marmarica in Egypt; 
the land register of Marmarica of a.p. 190/1 given in P 
Vat., 11 published by M. Norsa and G. Vitelli in Studi e 
testi, No. 53 (Citta del Vaticano, 1931), discussed and in 
part translated by A.C. Johnson, Roman Egypt, pp. 58ff., 
No. 18; SEG, 1X, 9, which shows that in the reign of 
Claudius Gothicus the prefect of Egypt, Probus, had put 
an end to a long Marmariec war. The Probus in question 
was not the later emperor but Tenagino Probus; for his 
career see A. Stein, ‘‘Tenagino Probus,’ Klio, XXIX 
(1936), 237-42; A. Alféldi, CAH, XIT, 180; Mattingly, 
ibid., p. 314, n. 1. This document combined with the many 
references to Marmaric wars (cf. SEG, LX, 63) suggests a 
likely reason for the transfer. Egypt was probably the 
best base of operations for such wars so long as there was 
no adequate force in Cyrene itself. 

27. Jones (p. 362) thinks the time was in the first or 
early second century; Romanelli (CAH, XI, 673, n. 2) 
thinks the transfer may have been the result of the Jew- 
ish rising. 

28. Fraser suggests as an alternative ‘‘to suppose an 
abbreviation of 8(pov),” but, ‘‘though perhaps suppor- 
ted by what looks like a contraction-mark onthe stone,” 
he does not favor this. It seems so impossible that it can 
be safely ruled out. Cannot the mark in question be a 
fault in the stone ? 

29. Paul Guiraud, Les Assemblées provinciales dans 
Empire romain (Paris, 1887), p. 64 and n. 6. This is 
connected with his broader theory that in provincial 
assemblies the cities usually had one vote each (p. 65), 
and this though he has just cited the evidence to the 
contrary from Gaul, Thessaly, Asia, and Lycia. On this 
broader issue E. G. Hardy, Studies in Roman History 
(first series, 1910), p. 252 holds that the evidence is in- 
conclusive; Last, CAH, XI, 473 is inclined to believe in 
representation in proportion to size and importance. 

30. Lebas-Waddington, Inscript. d Asie Mineure, 867, 
868, and 869 (=OGI, 507, 505, and 504=I]GR, IV, 576, 
574, and 573). 

31. CIA, II, 471 (=J4, I1*, 3289) contains a dedica- 
tion to Hadrian by Dium through a legatus; CIA, III, 
472 (=1G, I1*, 3290), a similar dedication through a 
presbytes; only CIA, III, 534 (=JG, II’, 3407) records a 
dedication through a Panhellene. This is the dedication 
of Apollonia-by-Cyrene which already has been mentioned. 

32. Hesperia, X. (1941), 82, No. 35. The preserved 
part consists of two fragments not contiguous. On one is 
the name of Sardes; on the other, ovvedgou followed by 
a list of names, number unknown. The Panhellenion is 
not mentioned, but to what other synedrion at Athens 
would Sardes send representatives ? 

33. IG, V, 1, 164. 

34. IG, VII, 192. 

35. Weber, pp. 208 and 268; Graindor, pp. 39f. 

36. A. Bourguet, De rebus Delphicis imperatoriae aeta- 
tis (Montepessulano, 1905), p. 79; Weber, p. 195; cf. also 
J.S. Reid, The Municipalities of the Roman Empire 
(Cambridge, 1913), p. 417; Larsen in T. Frank, Econ. 
Surv. Rome, 1V, 452; CP, XL (1945), 87, n. 110. 

37. Inscriptiones Creticae, I, p. 205, No. 56 as emended 
by Klaffenbach, Klio, X XX (1937), 255 refers to a citizen 
of Lyttus who has been elected by the Cretan League as 
its representative. 

38. Titus Flavius Cyllus, who appears as the archon of 
the Panhellenion in a letter to Aezani (OGI, 504), is 
identified by Oliver (AJP, LXIX [1948], 440f.) with a 
Cyllus of Hypata, at that time belonging to the Thessalian 

League. Since he appears to have served as archon in a.p. 
156 (cf. OGI, 504, n. 4), it is unlikely that he can bethe 
same man as the Cyllus of SIG*, 822, who is thought to 
have been active in a.p. 95, but his connection with the 
family of Hypata prominent in Thessalian affairs is al- 
most certain. In connection with the archonate, there is 
no indication of his origin, but, in view of the importance 
of the Thessalian League as a political unit, it is more 
likely that the League as a whole, rather than its consti- 
tuent cities, was represented in the Panhellenion. The 
importance of Thessaly is indicated among other things 
by its prominence in the Amphictionic League (cf. n. 42), 

39. Strabo 14. 664f.; ef. Larsen, CP, XL (1945), 83f. 

40. Dig. 27. 1. 6. 2. 

41. Most recently Magie, p. 448. 

42. See Paus. 10. 8. 3-5. In this passage Pausanias 
reports that Augustus desired Nicopolis to be represented 
in the Amphictionic synedrion and so arranged that the 
Magnetes, Malians, Aenians, and Phthiotians should 
share representation with the Thessalians, and that the 
votes of these and of the Dolopians, who no longer 
existed as a genos, should be cast by Nicopolis. He con- 
tinues: ‘‘The Amphictyons of my time were thirty in 
number. From Nicopolis and Macedonia and the Thessa- 
lians, from each in number there were ...; from (éx) the 
Boeotians ....”’ The number for the representatives of 
each of the three first units has dropped out. The others 
enumerated, beginning with the Boeotians, number 
twelve. Hence, the joint delegations of Nicopolis, Mace- 
donia, and Thessaly must have numbered eighteen, and 
our missing number must have been six. Apparently e 
dropped out before ex. This is so obvious that the emen- 
dation once made seems not to have been challenged. 

As long as we had only the evidence of Pausanias, it 
was natural to take for granted that the distribution of 
votes given by Pausanias as that of his own times was the 
one which resulted from the reorganization of Augustus. 
This continues to be the view even now when we know 
that Hadrian readjusted the representation. Cf. E. A. 
Freeman, History of Federal Government? (1893), pp.105f.; 
H. Biirgel, Die pylaeisch-delphische Amphiktyonie (1877), 
p. 298; Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, I, 254 
and n. 1; Bourguet, op. cit., p. 80; Busolt, Griechische 
Staatskunde, p. 1298; Larsen, Econ. Surv. Rome, 1V, 449. 
Pausanias cannot be describing the distribution after 
Hadrian’s reforms, for the latter wished to readjust re- 
presentation in favor of Sparta and Athens, while 
Pausanias still assigns only one seat to Athens and does 
not mention Sparta at all. Hence, it is natural to con- 
tinue to think that his description, probably taken from 
a predecessor, refers to the distribution of seats resulting 
from the work of Augustus. It is hard to take seriously the 
reconstruction in the Columbia dissertation in political 
science by Eleanor H. Grady, Epigraphic Sources of the 
Delphic Amphictyony (Walton, N.Y.: The Reporter Co., 
1931), p. 30, n. 1. 

Such is the evidence on the basis of which it has been 
concluded that Augustus increased the number of votes 
in the Amphictionic council from twenty-four to thirty, 
that he gave representation to Nicopolis and Macedonia, 
and that he gave these two and Thessaly each six votes. 
As in so many cases for which we have only one account, 
it has been accepted as though it were the inspired word. 
In the present instance the case is stronger than for many 
unique accounts. The details are not such as Pausanias 
or anyone else is likely to have invented, and the account, 
when emended as indicated above, is coherent and 
plausible, except that the votes transferred from others 
to Nicopolis seem to number more than six. It may be 
noted that one of the letters of Hadrian contains a 
reference to twelve votes. Bourguet (pp. 79f.) takes this 
as areference to the votes of Thessaly and Nicopolis, but 
thisand other problems involved cannot be discussed here. 

y be 
ns a 
, but 

(Agamemnon 717-36 [Murray]) 


in the third stasimon of the Aga- 

memnon, comes unannounced from 
the mouth of the chorus with all the 
abruptness and dark ambiguity of an 
oracular response. The opening phrase 
abandons the theme of the preceding 
lines, Helen and Troy (the connecting 
word o}tw¢ comes seventh in the sen- 
tence); the closing words provide no 
verbal link? with the following strophe, 
which resumes the abandoned theme. 
The parable’s apparent thematic in- 
dependence of its context is emphasized. 
by a formal device, the reappearance in 
its end of its opening words, dOpevev... 
Souorc, Sdn0r¢ TeoceHoé—Oy ; this is a well- 
known technique for marking off a self- 
contained digression, which is already 
fully developed in Homer — it appears, 
for instance, in the long digression 
which explains the origin of Odysseus’ 
scar in Odyssey 19.3 The lioncub parable 
is a separate unity formally marked off 
from its context, and this, together with 
its emphatic position, central in the 
central stasimon of the tragedy, suggests 
that its meaning is of more than local 

It has, of course, its local application. 
The context suggests that the lioncub 
is Helen, and the man who takes it into 
his house Paris, or more generally, 
Troy. This interpretation, demanded by 
the context in which the parable ap- 
pears, is discussed and developed at 
length by the modern critics. 

The parallel is exact and significant. 
Troy adopts and maintains, 2pevev, 
Helen, and at the outset of her life at 

Ts s parable! of the lion in the house, 

[CLassicaL PuiLoLocy, XLVII, January, 1952] 

Troy, év Srdtov mpoteActotc, sheis gentle, 
&ucoov. The phrase év 616tov mpoteAetotc 
has a striking appropriateness, for zpo- 
téheva, “preliminaries, are strictly ‘“‘cere- 
monies previous to the consummation 
of marriage” ;* this is a sarcastic reflec- 
tion on the yauoc, the “marriage” of 
Helen and Paris. The connotations of 
the word zpotéAcrx also suggest the in- 
congruous idea of virginity, an ironical 
reference to the promiscuity of Helen, 
which the chorus has already referred 
to specifically earlier in the play; zo- 
Avdvopog... yuvarxécg they call her in 
the parodos (62).? She was delightful to 
those who are held in honor, to the 
elders (each of the disputed readings 
yepapoic and yepatoic suggests the other) ; 
the phrase refers, as Headlam pointsout,® 
to the famous passage in liad 6, where 
even the old men of Troy are for a mo- 
ment swayed by Helen’s beauty. The 
epic forms and usages found in these 
lines, the locative Séuorc, the forms 
ToAéa, ott, and (adopting Casaubon’s 
reading) Zox’ emphasize the reference 
to the Homeric scene. 

The antistrophe describes the de- 
struction brought to Troy by Helen, 
the lioncub. When the time came, ypo- 
vio0eic, she repaid those who had shel- 
tered her, yao... teogetow duciBov, 
with blood, «twat. 8 otxocg ép defy. She 
was wéya aivoc toAvxtovoy for the Tro- 
jans, pla tao moAAaS, TAG TAVY TOAARC 
boyac drécac’ Sxd Toote are the words 
the chorus uses of her later in the play 

This is the immediate dramatic rele- 
vance of the parable of the lioncub, 


18 BERNARD M. W. Knox 

and with this interpretation of it the 
modern commentators have, so far as I 
have been able to ascertain, rested con- 
tent.° But even within the limits of the 
stasimon in which the parable appears 
another significance, an abstract one, 
is suggested by parallel and echo. The 
lioncub is a type of the bBoug vedToucx 
of the fourth strophe of the stasimon 
(763-70). Just as the lioncub, when 
the time comes, ypovicbetc, reveals the 
temper of its parents, anéderZev HOoc 70 
mpoc¢ Toxéwy, SO the new hybris, veaTov- 
cav... USorv, appears, when the time 
comes, dte TO x¥oLtov LOAN YAO TOxOD, & 
spirit invincible, &u«yov (769), like the 
lioncub, &uxyov &Ayoc, black ruin for 
the house, peratvac werdBporowy “Atac, 
like the lioncub which is a priest of 
ruin, tepeve t1¢ &tac, and this black ruin, 
like the lioncub, resembles its parents, 
eidouévac toxedotv (771). The lioncub 
image is thus associated with the pro- 
cess of the reappearance of evil from 
generation to generation which is the 
central problem of the trilogy ; and thus 
indirectly associated with the house of 
Atreus and the individual characters in 
whom the whole process is worked out 
to an end and the problem to a solution. 

That this apparently simple and di- 
rect story of the lioncub should contain 
complicated and indirect significance 
ought to surprise no one; the charac- 
teristic ambiguity of the choral odes of 
the Agamemnon is well-known. It is 
particularly striking in passages where 
the dramatically obvious meaning is, as 
in this case, a justification of the Trojan 
war and its hero, Agamemnon. The 
lines in the parodos, for example, which 
compare Agamemnon and Menelaus, 
robbed of Helen, to eagles robbed of 
their young, (49-59), cannot fail to sug- 
gest to the audience Clytemnestra rob- 
bed of her daughter Iphigenia, for the 
image is more appropriate to her situ- 

ation than it is to theirs. The lines of 
the second stasimon which in general 
terms condemn Paris and Troy (369-80) 
are equally applicable to Agamemnon, 
so much so that the chorus, as if real- 
izing where its words are leading, pulls 
up short and emphatically repeats the 
name of Paris otocg xai Ilapuc (399). In 
both cases a confident statement of sup- 
port for the war and the war-aims of 
its leaders has, as it develops, suggested 
to the audience, if not to the chorus 
itself, the dark and complicated reality 
behind the bright facade of the “‘of- 
ficial” view. The lioncub parable is 
equally ‘‘official’”’ on the surface —Troy 
which took in Helen has got what it 
deserved — but below the surface there 
is conscious foreboding and unconscious 
prophecy of disaster to come. And this 
is made clear as the pattern of the whole 
trilogy unfolds; this parable is the cen- 
ter of one of the main designs, an ela- 
borate pattern of imagery which ex- 
tends throughout the Agamemnon and 
into the central and final play of the 
trilogy. It is a complex knot of sug- 
gestions which evoke simultaneously all 
the principal human figures of the 

Headlam, who saw so much, seems to 
have glimpsed this too. At any rate, in 
his pioneering article Metaphor (1902),"° 
he remarked, with reference to this 
passage, “There are more parallels than 
have commonly been observed in Aga- 
memnon 718 seq.” He did not discuss 
them in this article, and in his later 
comment on the passage he seems to 
have abandoned his earlier view, for he 
states there, with exclusive emphasis, 
“the lion-cub is Helen and the herds- 
man Paris.’’ He adopts Wecklein’s con- 
jecture Bobtas for the outs of the MSS, 
and this conjecture, brilliant though it 
is, has the effect of limiting the signi- 
ficance of the parable, for it puts an 

-_ ns te i. | 


overwhelming emphasis on the surface 
meaning — Helen the lioncub and 
Paris the shepherd, who took her into 
his house. This is the best reason for 
suspecting it, for it may safely be said 
of the text of the choral odes of the 
Agamemnon that any conjecture which 
lessens or removes dramatic ambiguity 
is for that reason alone suspect. Head- 
lam’s adoption of Bodtac is a rare ex- 
ample of the pitfall into which his 
brilliant critical method led him when 
carried to extremes; his insistence on 
the traditional and proverbial element 
in Greek poetry! (an admittedly cor- 
rect emphasis) led him in this case to 
create a ““commonplace,’’? to use his 
characteristic word, where it did not 
exist, and to impoverish the text. 

The received text, o}twc &vip,'* sug- 
gests initially Paris or Troy, just as the 
lioncub, in the context of the stasimon, 
suggests Helen. But avy is indefinite 
in the proper manner of the parable, 
and may be any man; for example, 
Menelaus, who took the lioncub into 
his house when he married. Helen. The 
reference to marriage ceremonies in the 
words év B.6tov mpoTeActouc is even More 
appropriate for Menelaus and Helen 
than for Paris and Helen. The parable 
as a whole is rich in meaning when so 
understood; in return for her bed and 
board, yaprv yxe teopetow duetBwv, she 
brought her husband’s house blood and 
ruin, aluat. 8° olxoc EpdeOy, she is péya 
sivec moAvxtovey for the Greeks no less 
than for the Trojans, she is indeed a 
priest of ruin, tepeds tig &tac, for the Pe- 
lopidae. This implication of the story 
of the lioncub reveals the mental dis- 
turbance that lies behind the confident 
tone of the chorus’ comparison. Mene- 
laus is to blame for marrying Helen; the 
chorus hints at the general discontent 
with the war, its unworthy cause and 
its disproportionate losses — a sub- 

dued echo of the strong disapproval 
which the chorus expressed openly in 
the second stasimon. 

Of this meaning of the lioncub par- 
able the chorus, as a character in the 
play, is perhaps half-, perhaps fully con- 
scious. But the parable means much 
more than this, much more than the old 
men, in dramatic time and place, can 
possibly realize. As so often in the Aga- 
memnon, they say more than they 
know, ét. yao Oéo8ev xatanvever merle, 
worrayv aAxdv, Eduputos diay, the force 
of their singing comes from on high. 
And in this ode perhaps more than any 
other in the play, they are the unwitting 
medium of a superior knowledge. 

The full import of the parable is made 
clear enough to the audience as the play 
progresses. Lions have already been 
mentioned in a significant context, the 
sacrifice of Iphigenia (uaAcpdv Aedv- 
ztwyv, 141), and in the scene which im- 
mediately follows the stasimon con- 
taining the parable Agamemnon boasts 
of his achievements at Troy in a figure 
which recalls the conclusion of the story 
of the lioncub. He speaks of the Greek 
army at Troy as a raw-fed lion leaping 
over the wall to lap its fill of the blood 
of kings (827-28). 

Srepfopamy 5é mbpyov OunotHs AEwv 
&Syv Erevgev atuatog tupavvexod. 

These two suggestions that the lion- 
cub is connected with Agamemnon, 
(these references to the lion connect the 
two contexts most significant for Aga- 
memnon’s past, the sacrifice of Iphigenia 
and the slaughter at Troy) are confirmed 
by the one human character who sees 
clearly in the murky atmosphere of the 
play. Cassandra calls Agamemnon the 
“noble lion” (Agovtog edyevodc, 1259), 
and not content with this she calls 
Aegisthus (1224) and Clytemnestra 
(1258) lions too. She explains the full 

20 BERNARD M. W. Knox 

implications of the parable at a moment 
in which her prophetic frenzy brings be- 
fore our eyes the past, present, and 
future of the house of Atreus, a moment 
too in which the unconscious prophecies 
contained in the parable of the lioncub 
are about to be fulfilled. 

“The lion”, says Headlam, ‘“‘which is 
common on Lydian coins and still ex- 
tant on the ancient gates of Mycenae, 
was probably the badge of the Lydian 
dynasty of Pelops. That seems to be the 
reason why the term is applied to the 
various members of the family.’ Head- 
lam’s guess that the lion was the badge 
of the dynasty of Pelops is supported by 
a more specific piece of evidence. In 
Pausanias’ description of the chest of 
Cypselus (5.19), Agamemnon’s shield, 
which appeared on one of the panels, is 
described in the following words: ©480¢ 
dé éxi tod “Ayauéuvovos TH contd: Excotiy 
Eywy THY xepadny dAéovtoc.!® But this 
connection of the lion with the house of 
Pelops can hardly be “‘the reason why 
the term is applied to the various mem- 
bers of the family’; Headlam’s state- 
ment explains how it was possible to 
call Agamemnon, Clytemnestra and 
Aegisthus lions, it does not explain 
what effect is so produced. The fact 
that the lion was the heraldic device 
of the house of Pelops may have been 
the germ of the Aeschylean conception, 
but the significance of these repeated 
lion images is surely their reference to 
the central parable of the lioncub, and 
the identification of the lioncub of the 
parable with Agamemnon, Clytemnes- 
tra and Aegisthus. 

Aegisthus the lion is of course a sar- 
casm. He is no true lion, as Cassandya’s 
phrase makes clear; Aéov7’ &vaAxtv she 
calls him, a strengthless lion; he is 
rather a wolf, as she says later (1259) 
or a woman, as the chorus calls him in 
vs. 1625. Yet, like the lioncub, he was 

taken into the house, by Clytemnestra, 
and kept there, epee; that this con- 
notation of the English word “‘kept”’ is 
also possible for toégewv is clear from 
such phrases as teégetv yuvaixa, teégery 

Xpovcbeic 8 aréderkev Hog td mod¢ 
toxewyv, in time he showed himself a 
true son of Thyestes, and he is &u«yov 
&yoo olxétatc, invincible bane to the 
household, in the final scene of the play 
where, in the moment of victory, he 
browbeats and threatens the chorus. 

This is an ironic suggestion, and one 
which is not immediately suggested by 
the words of the chorus; it does not 
emerge clearly until Cassandra supplies 
the connection. But the two chief fig- 
ures of the tragedy are linked to the 
lioncub in so many ways that the 
parallel is unmistakable. And in the 
case of Agamemnon it presents itself 
immediately. It is suggested in the 
opening words of the parable by a 
striking echo. 

The opening words pee dé AEovtoc 
ivev recall the only previous mention of 
lions in the play; the verbal echo is pre- 
cise. The echo in Agovtog tv ... otdd- 
uaotov Of Spdcorc waxrco dy Acévtwy, T&v- 
twv 7 &ypovéumy gLAoudotors Onpa@y 
oBerxcAotor teoTtva is clear. The opening 
words of the parable contain a remi- 

iscence of Calchas’ prayer to Artemis 
(141-43), a fruitless attempt to avert 
the evil that follows, the death of Iphi- 
genia. This echo of the first stasimon 
brings into the context of the lioncub 
parable Agamemnon’s great crime, 
which is also Clytemnestra’s justi- 
fication for the murder she is plan- 

The same ominous suggestion is made 
again in the next line év @1dtov 70- 
tedetotc. This repeats the unusual meta- 
phor of lines 224-27, grax 8 obv Outyp 
yevéoa, Duyate d¢ Toréuwy gowyay 


yal TeoTéActa vadyv, “he had the daring 
to become the sacrificer of his daughter, 
to further his warlike ambitions, a pre- 
liminary ceremony for the sailing of his 
ships.’ This brings into connection with 
the lioncub the same crime, but by an 
even more direct allusion than before; 
at the same time it recalls an earlier 
appearance of this same metaphor, vss. 
65-66, Siaxvarouévynsg 7 ev mpoTteActouc 
xuuaxo06, “the spear shattered in the 
preliminaries of the fighting,’ which 
adds to the suggestions with which the 
parable is loaded the memory of the ten 
years of battle at Troy. In this one word 
mootéAeta Aeschylus reminds us of the 
two counts on which Agamemnon is 
guilty, the two acts for which he is 
shortly to die, the murder of Iphigenia 
and his responsibility for the general 
slaughter of the war. 

This is only the beginning; as the 
parable unfolds the full wealth of its 
allusive narrative, the identification of 
Agamemnon with the lioncub becomes 
startlingly clear. For the lion is the 
emblem of the dynasty of Pelops. Hence 
the young Agamemnon in his father’s 
house is appropriately described as Aéov- 
toc iviv, “the lion’s whelp,” the pride 
and hope of the royal line. In his child- 
hood he was gentle, a delight to his 
elders, fondled in their arms. This idyl- 
lie description of the childhood of the 
young prince is disturbed by yet a third 
intrusion of the same terrible theme 
which haunts the opening lines, the 
murder of Iphigenia; the lioncub is 
called edprAsrada, fond of children. As 
a description of a lioncub it is an 
awkward word, a lioncub is not usually 
fond of children, though children may 
be fond of a lioncub, and most of the 
translators render the word by some 
such phrase as ‘“‘by the children loved.’’!8 
Yet the force of the verb in compounds 
of this type is generally active and ap- 

plied to Agamemnon the adjective 
bears its proper meaning and produces 
a savagely ironical effect. Agamemnon 
may have loved his child, but he killed 
her to further his warlike ambitions. 

Xpoviabeic 8 anéderkev Ooo to mod¢ 
zoxéwv. When the time came, when he 
grew up, he reverted to the temper of 
his forebears, Atreus and Pelops. Un- 
bidden he contrived a feast, Sair’ &x:- 
Aevatos eEtevécv; Iphigenia’s sacrifice 
again, for these words contain a re- 
miniscence of that same prayer of Cal- 
chas which has been recalled before. 
“May Artemis contrive no windless 
calm” prays Calchas, “hastening a 
second sacrifice ... which shall be no 
feast,” un tuvac... a&mrotag tevEy, oTev- 
douéva Ovolav Erépav tiv ... KdatTov 
(150-51). The lioncub brought to the 
house blood and confusion, «tua. & 
otxog épve0y, Iphigenia’s blood, the 
blood of all those who fell at Troy, and 
the blood still to be shed. Like the lion- 
cub, Agamemnon is a great evil that 
kills many, wéya civoc moAuxtévoy; this 
word zoAvxtovoc has been used by the 
chorus before, in a context which clear- 
ly refers to Agamemnon (461); he is 
blamed for the losses at Troy: tév 
TOAVKTOvOY yao obx KaoxoTror Oeot. 

The four distinct references to the 
death of Iphigenia (g:Aéduaotov, mp0- 
tedetous, cdprrdrada, Sait’ Erevéev) bring 
Clytemnestra, as well as Agamemnon 
to mind, for Iphigenia’s death is the 
most important link between these two. 
And Clytemnestra, like her husband, is 
symbolized in the parable of the lion- 
cub; its allusive phrases present her 
past, her present and her future. Aga- 
memnon took her in, like the man who 
took in the lioncub; refers 
to Clytemnestra’s marriage as well as 
Iphigenia’s death and Agamemnon’s 
crime. Clytemnestra at first was gentle, 
&uepov; it was Agamemnon’s misfortune 

22 BERNARD M. W. Knox 

that he failed to realize that the lioncub 
had grown up, failed so badly that he 
told Clytemnestra to take his concubine 
into the house and treat her kindly. 
EvgrAérad« is magnificently appro- 
priate, for Clytemnestta’s driving pas- 
sion is her love for her daughter and 
hatred for that daughter’s murderer. 
When the time came she showed her 
lion heart — the chorus is unconsciously 
prophecying things to come — in return 
for her bed and board, yéouw ... tp0- 
pevdoty auetBwv, unbidden she contrived 
a feast, duit axtrevotoc étevEev, with 
slaughter of sheep, wndropdévorc, adv 
&zatc. What the sheep stand for is made 
clear many lines later (1057) when Cly- 
temnestra, failing in her attempt to 
make Cassandra follow Agamemnon 
into the palace, tells the chorus that 
she herself must go inside, she has no 
leisure to remain, the sheep are stand- 
ing ready for the sacrifice, éortyxev 
7dy UNA med¢ cpayac. She is speaking 
of Agamemnon. 

Aituatt 8 otxoc épde0n, the house was 
a bloody confusion; later Clytemnestra 
speaks in exultant metaphor of the rain 
of blood’® that soaked her as she struck 
Agamemnon for the first, second and 
third times. The lioncub is tegete z1¢ 
&tac, a sort of priest of ruin; Clytem- 
nestra later uses the priestly language 
of sacrificial technique when she tells 
how she killed her husband (1384-87), 
and then claims that the deed was done 
by “‘the ancient spirit of revenge,”’ x«- 
ards &Acotwe (1501), who, in her shape, 
made the final sacrifice, émOueuc. 

Before she goes into the palace to her 
death Cassandra in her final prophetic 
frenzy sees that she will herself fall a 
victim to Clytemnestra, and couches 
this prophecy in terms of the parable 
of the lioncub. ‘““This two-footed lioness, 
who sleeps with the wolf while the noble 
lion is away, will kill me... 

aity dtirousg Aéatva ovyxomwpevy 

Abxw Aéovtog Evysvots &novoig 

The two-footed lioness is the lioncub 
grown up and about to become tepetc 
tic &ta>, a priest of ruin. 

The parable of the lioncub is a cen- 
tral reference-point for the recurrent 
lion image of the play. The context in 
which it appears suggests the official 
interpretation, a specific identification, 
Helen the lioncub who brings disaster 
on those who give her shelter. But the 
following strophe and antistrophe which 
echo the words and ideas of the parable, 
suggest an abstract significance: the 
lioncub is a symbol of reversal to type, 
of hybris that resembles its parent: and 
this connects the parable with the house 
of Pelops, where in each generation the 
evil strain in the race comes out. The 
specific references to the individual 
members of that house emphasize a new 
series of identifications, and for each of 
them the parable has a wealth of mean- 
ing. They are initially suggested by the 
significant echoes with which the words 
of the parable are packed and finally 
confirmed by Cassandra who speaks out 
clearly, no longer from under veils, as 
she says, xal why 6 yenowds odxér’ éx 
zxarAvuuatwv.... The lioncub is not 
only Helen, but Aegisthus, Agamemnon, 
and Clytemnestra. 

It is characteristic of the Oresteia 
that not even this rich complexity ex- 
hausts the significance of the parable. 
Another identification of the lioncub, 
which, more sinister and of longer pro- 
phetic range than those already dis- 
cussed, is far beyond the comprehension 
of the chorus, is suggested by the terms 
of the parable, developed as the trilogy 
moves on towards the second act of 
violence, and confirmed by a specific 
reference of the chorus of the Choe- 
phoroe at the moment when Clytem- 


nestra has just been led off to her death 
at the hands of her son. The lioncub 
is also Orestes. 

This parallel is the most strikingly 
exact of all five. In the dramatic time 
of the Agamemnon it is Orestes who is 
the lion’s whelp, the young heir of the 
house that took the lion as its heraldic 
device. It is to him that the description 
of the lioncub’s childhood is most im- 
mediately appropriate, for he is still a 
child. Tpégetv, the word which appears 
in the parable, in one form or another, 
four times (20peYe, veotpdgou, teogetony, 
reoce0pégOy), implies childhood, and it 
is this word which Clytemnestra, speak- 
ing of Orestes, uses in the following 
scene when she explains to Agamemnon 
that Orestes has been sent abroad 

Teéger yap adtov evuevng dSopvEevoc 
Utedqrog 6 Dwxevs.... 

"Ev Btétov mpotedctorc, in the preli- 
minaries of his life he was gentle, a 
delight to his elders, often held in the 
arms, like a nursling child; Orestes was 
fondled in the arms like a nursling child, 
but he was no ordinary child, he was 
the lion’s whelp. 

Many of these particulars of the lion- 
cub’s childhood are recalled much later, 
in the Choephoroe, when the nurse Ki- 
lissa, grieving over Orestes’ reported 
death, remembers how she took care of 
him in his infancy. ’Opéotny ... dv 
eéNoewa, “Orestes ... whom I reared.” 
At the moment when the lioncub, now 
full grown, is about to kill his mother, 
the nurse recalls the helplessness of his 
childhood, the crying in the night, the 
work he caused her; “for a child that 
has no intelligence must be looked after 
like a dumb beast,” +6 wh} gpovoiv yap 
@onepel Botov teégewv dvayxy. This is a 
reference to the parable, the dumb 
beast that was looked after like a child. 

And in her famous complaint about the 
indiscipline of the child’s belly, vé« 8 
vndv¢ adtapxyg téxvwv, “the child’s 
young belly is its own law,” she recalls, 
though in a different sense, the words 
of the lioncub parable, yaoted¢ avey- 

Xpoviabeic 3 anéderev HOo0c 76 med6 To- 
xéwv. In the fulness of time he showed 
the temper of his parents, Agamemnon 
and Clytemnestra. Xpoviofetc is one of 
the most significant words in the 
passage, “in time’’ is the characteristic 
cry of all the characters of the trilogy: 
“in time”’ says Calchas, ‘‘this expedition 
captures Priam’s city,” ypdve wev &ypet 
ITptdmov médw a&d_e xéAcvb0c; “though it 
took time, it came,” says Clytemnestra 
of her revenge, }A0e, obv yoove ye wh; 
“in time has justice come for Priam’s 
sons,” guode pév Sixx prada ypdve, 
sings the chorus of the Choephoroe, as 
Clytemnestra is led off to her death. 

Xdowy yao teopevouy duet Bev, returning 
thanks to those that reared him, the 
opening of the Choephoroe shows us 
Orestes dedicating a lock of hair on 
Agamemnon’s tomb; this is the §pe- 
mrnp.a, a symbolic thanks-offering which 
children made to their parents on com- 
ing of age.? Orestes gives his mother 
thanks for his upbringing later in the 

The physical intimacy of the bond 
between mother and child is suggested 
in the parable by the words &yddxxrtov, 
“torn from its mother’s milk,” and ¢- 
Aduactov, “loving the breast.’’ What- 
ever the precise meaning of &yaraxtov, 
it suggests the mother’s milk, aA, just 
as gtAduactoyv suggests her breast, y«- 
otéc. And these two words, closely as- 
sociated, as here, recur in three of the 
most terrible passages of the Choe- 

When the chorus describes Clytem- 
nestra’s dream, (526-29), they tell 

24 BERNARD M. W. Knox 

Orestes how, in the dream, she gave 
suck to a serpent to which she had 
given birth. ‘She herself, in her dream, 
gave it the breast... and with the milk 
it drew a clot of blood.” 

Xo. adtH Tedccaxve waotov Ev THVEtCaTL. 

Op. ual mHs &tEwWTOV Ob8ap Hy Srd otUyoUE; 
Xo. dav év yaraxte OeduBov atuatog omkout. 

A few lines later, (544-46), Orestes iden- 
tifies himself with the serpent of the 
dream and resolves on his mother’s 
death. He repeats the significant words, 
“the breast that nourished me... the 
kind milk.” 

++ uaotov auoeyaox Endy OpertnoLov 
Opéuhw 7 EuerEev atuatog plrov vara. 

Much later, at the climactic moment of 
the play, when Clytemnestra facing 
death at her son’s hands, points to her 
breast and reminds him of the bond 
between them, the same words appear. 
“This breast ... from which you drew 
the nourishing milk” (896-98) 

*Extoyes, © mai, tévde & aldcou téxvov, 
uaotdv, TedG @ GY TOAAG Sh Botlwv cux 
obAoroy éequcrtac evtpapec yarn. 

Two of these passages refer directly to 
the dream of the serpent but all three 
use the words of the parable of the lion- 
cub. And when Clytemnestra is led off 
to her death, the chorus, in its song of 
triumph, emphasizes the connection by 
referring directly to the lioncub parable 
of the Agamemnon. “It has come to the 
house of Agamemnon, the double lion 

..? (937-38) 

Euore & é¢ Séuov tov ?Ayauéuvovoc 
SumAods Agwv.... 

The words recall not only the dizouc 
Aéatva2? of Cassandra, but the opening 

words of the parable itself X¢ovto¢ tywv 
d/ ots. 

In the final play of the trilogy, when 
the chorus of Furies pursues Orestes to 
Delphi to exact blood for blood, Apollo 
expels them from his shrine. “For such 
beings as you” he says, “‘this oracle is 
no fit dwelling-place, you should in- 
habit the cave of a blood-supping lion” 

Aéovtog d&vtPOV aluatoppdqou 
olxety torabtac elxdc, 

They might have replied that the house 
of Pelops, which they have inhabited 
for generations, answers his description 
precisely. In each generation the chil- 
dren of the house have gone through the 
cycle of the parable, from auspicious 
beginning to bloody end; each gene- 
ration has carried one step farther the 
sequence of blood for blood, made un- 
bidden a feast, and taken its turn as a 
priest of ruin. 

This speech of Apollo, which occurs 
in the opening scene of the Humenides, 
is the last reference to the lion. As the 
action of the final play develops to- 
wards the solution of all the conflicts 
of the trilogy, human and divine, the 
familiar cycle is interrupted. The par- 
able is no longer appropriate. Orestes, 
tried and acquitted by a court of law, 
a vew institution which stands for a 
new concept of justice, leaves the stage 
a free man, free of the curse, of that 
repetitive pattern imposed on the lives 
of Pelops’ descendants by the system 
of private vengeance, a pattern which 
is metaphorically represented, both as 
a general phenomenon and as a complex 
of individual destinies, in the parable 
of the lioncub. 





1. Headlam refers to it as a ‘‘fable,” the accepted 
equivalent of Adéyoc, the word employed by Aristotle in 
his discussion of rhetorical “examples,” xagadeiypata, 
Rhet. 2.20. Of invented examples (as distinct from histor- 
ical ones) Aristotle proposes twoclassifications, xagaBpoAy 
and Aéyos. The two examples he gives of Aéyou both concern 
animals which think and talk in the Aesopian manner; as 
examples of xagafody he instances ta Lwxoatimd, the 
everyday comparisons which are typical of Socratic teach- 
ing. The lioncub story falls somewhere in between the 
two types; it is not an everyday occurrence, but it is not, 
like the talking hedgehogs and horses of the Adéyout, an 
impossibility. (Martial [2. 75] relates a story similar to 
that told by Aeschylus, Maximus Tyrius [31. 3 (Hobein, 
Teubner text)] describes a young Carthaginian who 
brought up a lion as a pet, Plutarch [De cohibenda ira 
14. 462E] mentions lioncub pets as something common 
and makes a similar statement in De fraterno amore 
8.482C, moAAoi 82 ..., Aéovtas toépovtEs xai Gyax@vtes; 
Aelian [xeQi C@wv 5. 39] speaks of the docility of lion cubs, 
\weqmbets ye wiv... moadtatds got. ... xai guronalotyc, 
and gives a list of famous people who brought them up as 
pets, Hanno, Berenice, Onomarchus tyrant of Catana, 
and the sons of Cleomenes.) The connotations of the 
English word ‘‘parable” make it preferable to ‘‘fable” in 
this particular case, for the story, like the parables of the 
Old and New Testaments, means much more than 
appears at first sight. It is only when the parable is 
applied to specific persons that the full meaning emerges. 
In this respect it is like Christ’s parable of the wicked 
husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-41), which the high priests and 
elders accept because they do not realize that it applies to 
them. (For an enlightening discussion of Biblical parables 
see T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (2d. ed.; Cam- 
bridge, 1945] pp. 57ff.). 

2. The old interpretation of xégavta (738) as ‘‘so” is 
now generally discredited. (See Liddell and Scott ad verb.) 
Hesychius glosses xadégevta with xagayoetjpa evSéwc 

3. Od. 19. 392-94. 

avtixa 8’ Eyva 

Ov TH KOTE PL Us TAacE Aeux@ Sd6vtL 

Tagvnodvd’ é06d6vta pet’ AdtTéAUxOv TE xai vias 

and Od. 19. 464-66 

58 doa opiow ed xatéAekev 

4g we Ongevovt’ EAacev atc Aeux@ Sddvtt 

Tlagvyncdévd’ é006vta obv vidow AitoAvxovo 
This type of ‘‘Ringkomposition’ is discussed at length by 
W. A. A. van Otterlo in Untersuchungen tiber Begriff, An- 
wendung und Entstehung der griechischen Ringkomposition 
(‘Mededeelingen der Nederlandsche Akademie van We- 
tenschappen,” Afdeeling Letterkunde, Deel 7, No. 3 
[Amsterdam, 1944], reviewed in CR, LX [1946], 96).The 
Homeric passage is discussed on pp. 16-18. 

4. For Wecklein’s conjecture Bobtas for otws (718), 
which makes the parable point almost exclusively to 
Paris, see below. 

5. Headlam-Thomson, The Oresteia of Aeschylus, I1 
(Cambridge, 1938), 81-83; Verrall Agamemnon (2d. ed.; 
Macmillan, 1904), p. 92; Gilbert Murray Aeschylus (Ox- 
ford, 1940), p. 215; Franz Stoessl, Die Trilogie des 
Aischylos (Baden bei Wien, 1937), p. 17. 


. Headlam-Thomson, op. cit., p. 11 (on vs. 65). 
. The same tradition appears in Eur. Cyclops 181 
éxet ye MOAAOIc idetar yanoupévy. 

8. Op. cit., p. 82. 

9. Not so the ancient. In the scholia which Triclinius 
calls oxOAta xadaré (published by Dindorf in Philologus, 
XX [1863], 17-29, and printed as scholia to this portion 
of the play by Wecklein) there occurs a note on 718 
&9Qepev dé A€ovtos which runs as follows tyouv avébge- 
wev avtov dvijg tic extebévta’ tov “AAcEdvdgov Aéyet. 

10. CR, XVI (1902), 434 ff. 

11. Headlam (op. cit., p. 82) quotes with approval 
Wecklein’s defense of his conjecture — ‘‘without this 
word (Bovtac) we should not know what 731 wndogévotoiw 
meant.” But sheep are the traditional victims of the lion 
(cf. Iliad 5. 554-56, 10. 485, 12. 299-801, 303, 24. 41-43, 
Odyssey 6. 130-34), and pydo@évotow supplies an ex- 
pected detail. 

12. See for example Headlam op. cit., notes on 228-31, 
339-40, 389-91 (p. 47), 1269-71, 1360, CR, XIV (1900), 
12, col. 2. 

13. See for example Headlam op. cit., notes on 349, 
707-10 (p. 81). 

14. For ottws used to introduce a parable see Ar. 
Vesp. 1182, Plato Phaedr. 237 b (both cited by Headlam), 
and Ar. Lysist. 785. 

15. Op. cit., p. 29. Cf. also A. Y. Campbell, Agamem- 
non (London, 1940), p. 77. ‘‘There is reason to suppose 
that every mention of a lion in this play glances at some 
member of the family.” This would have been a familiar 
figure to the Athenian audience of the Vth century; 
Herodotus has several passages in which a man is spoken 
of (or to) as a lion, cf. Her. 6.13 td6xee 58 A€ovta texeiv 
(Pericles), 5. 56 tAo% Aéwv (addressed to Hipparchus), 
5. 92 aletoc... té€er.. . Aéovta xagtegov @pynotyv (Cyp- 

16. Phobos appears on Agamemnon’s shield in Iliad 
11. 37. 

17. Toépew yuvaixa, Eur. 1.A. 749; tavtas (i-e., 
mogvas) teépewv, Diphilus 87 (Kock); &ott 5’ étaiga to 
toépovt, cunqood, Antiphanes 2 (Kock). Aegisthus is 
later addressed as ytvat (1625). and Clytemnestra is 
avde6BovAov xéae (11). 

18. ‘‘The happy children loved him well,” (Murray); 
‘‘By the children loved” (Plumptre); ‘‘a fondling for the 
childrens’ play” (Morshead); ‘‘the childrens’ pet” (A. Y. 
Campbell); ‘‘the innocent sport of children” (Thomson) 
Headlam writes ‘‘the friend of childhood” and Verrall 
‘*made friends with youth.” 

19. Aipate 3’ olxog épve%y is reminiscent of Aga- 
memnon’s account of his own murder in Homer, Od. 11. 
420, daxedov 9’ Gxuv aipate Siev. 

20. Headlam, op. cit., on vss. 729-30. 

21. So effectively that the MSS at Agamemnon 1258 
read dixhoug Aéatva, usually corrected to dizovs. (Por- 
zig, Die attische Tragédie des Aischylos (Leipzig, 1926], 
argues unconvincingly for reading duxA0vc.) 


(Birds 1615) 

Some years ago (HSC P, XX XIX [1929], 
1-6) I discussed an inscribed South Italic 
vase, showing that it contains a fragment 
of Dorian farce. I now learn that Altheim 
(Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache {1951}, 
p. 427), like Krahe, whom he quotes, thinks 
that the plain Greek 6ASertép’ d&pov “Pick 
up the basket” is ““komédienmessapisch.” 
In this he apes A. D. Trendall (Friih- 
italiotische Vasen [1938], p. 25). But it is 
absurd for Trendall, who knows evidently 
no Messapic, to sit in judgement, even with 
Beazley to emulate. The retrograde di- 
rection of the writing is paralleled exactly 
by Walters (Ancient Pottery, II [1905], 
262) (also Doric); and if it were not, still 
there is nothing in vopapetteBA0 which can 
be Messapic. The word 6AferttHp (i. e€., 6A- 
Fertye) is justified in my paper already 
cited; cf. of Awpretg dABaxra (ibid., p. 4), 
i. e., dAFaxnua. 

But Trendall seeks to justify his “comedy 
Messapic” (comedy Messapic forsooth) by 
an appeal to what he considers Triballic 
in Aristophanes — comedy ‘Triballic” 
forsooth! He gives no reference. But the 
reference is plain. It is Birds 1615, 1627, 

1677-78; and these (except 1615) are all 
as much Greek as émterBetns in 1530. So 
the commentators; but it is Greek with a 
Thracian flavor (cf. P-W, s. v. “Thrake’’; 
Sprache 410.40) 

I write this note only because I have 
the correct reading at 1615 vaBatoatpes, 
(the Pafaxatped of Suidas is merely a 
further step in the corruption), which, it 
is suggested by Green and other editors, 
stands for v} with a divine name, in the 
accusative. That name, I now see, is the 
Thracian epithet of Zeus Bedcodpdoc, see 
DAG, 243, which may be a derivative of 
the pre-Keltic belsa “campus” of Virg. 
Tolos. (tbid., 158). Cf. the local names 
Belsa (ibid., 179, modern Beauce, Orléan- 
nais), Belsinuwm (Gers; ibid., 84). Read, 
therefore, vy) (or vx?) Bedootpdev. The 
meaning is ‘“Campestris,” which is used 
of a god in CIL, II, 4083 (cf. VITI,10760 
with Diz. Epigr. 4.617, and Campesium in 
EE, IX, 1005, references which I owe to 
A. D. Nock). The alternation te: 89 bet- 
ween Greek and Thracian is normal. 


NOTE ON LUCAN 7.257-58. 

haec est illa dies mihi quam Rubi- 
conis ad undas 
255 promissam memini, cuius spe movi- 
mus arma, 
in quam distulimus vetitos remeare 
[haec eadem est hodie quae pignora 
quaeque penates 
reddat et emerito faciat vos Marte 
haec, fato quae teste probet, quis 
iustius arma 
260 sumpserit; haec acies victum factura 
nocentem est. 


257 258 om. ZMUV et cum 256 et 259 (ob 
arme bis in fine positum) P, in quo man. 
256 et 259 addidit, non hos duos; habent 
GZ?, non interpretantur c a, eiecit Ouden- 
dorpius, ex 346-8 et I 340-5 ut videtur 
confictos. nec ferri potest haec (dies) quae 
hodie reddat et absurde versu 258 eis 
praedia quibus 265-7 ius mundi promittit: 
accedit ut his interpositis disiungantur 
sensus inter se cohaerentes.! 

These lines form part of an exhortation 
addressed by Caesar to his veterans before 
the battle of Pharsalus. Verses 257—58 may 
be interpolated and are expelled by Hous- 


NotTEs AND DiscussIOoNs 27 

man preceded by Oudendorp, Hosius, and 
others; but it is not clear that expulsion is 
the solution to the problem they present. 
Their omission by ZMUV can be explained 
adequately as caused by homoeoteleuton, 
homoearchon or a combination of both 
factors, the eye of the scribe passing from 
triumphos to colonos or from haec (257) to 
haec (259). They are not necessary to the 
grammar or meaning of the passage, and 
therefore when once omitted their chance 
of restoration would be lessened. It should 
also be observed that G, though heavily 
interpolated, does at the same time pre- 
serve a large amount of genuine tradition 
other MSS have failed to retain; with no 
other MS do the fourth-fifth century frag- 
ments N and II so often agree. Housman 
recognizes these facts and expels the verses 
wholly on internal grounds.” 

The chief internal difficulty is caused 
by the word hodie, the expression dies ... 
hodie being so foreign to Lucan’s style it 
seems impossible to disagree with Hous- 
man’s judgment nec ferri potest. This dif- 
ficulty however concerns a single word; it 
may be advantageous therefore to examine 
first the two general objections advanced 
against the lines. 

The more substantial of these would 
seem to be the charge that it is absurd to 
promise grants of land to those to whom 
is promised also rule over the nations 
(265-67). But an examination of the verses 
concerned will prove the objection ill- 
founded : 

261 si pro me patriam ferro flammisque 
nunc pugnate truces gladioque exsol- 
vite culpam: 
nulla manus, belli mutato iudice, pura 
non mihi res agitur, sed, vos ut libera 
265 turba, precor gentes ut ius habeatis 
in omnes. 
ipse ego privatae cupidus me reddere 
plebeiaque toga modicum conponere 
civem ... 

The thought is that the soldiers must be 
victorious in order to avoid the guilt of 
civil war and retain their freedom and the 
privileged place they enjoy as Romans 
among the nations of the earth; and that 
Caesar will retire to private life,? thus 
restoring its former powers to the Roman 
citizen body. In this there seems to be 
nothing making absurd the previous pro- 
mise of land to each veteran. The soldiers 
are not to rule as individuals each with a 
grant of specific authority. Rather they 
are to rule the nations collectively as Ro- 
man citizens; the idea is as general as is 
Vergil’s in Romanos, rerum dominos, gen- 
temque togatam or tu regere imperio populos, 
Romane, memento.* 

When one passes to Housman’s second 
point, while judgment becomes more sub- 
jective, it is difficult to understand in 
what sense the lines are supposed to inter- 
rupt the current of Caesar’s thought. The 
whole passage emphasizes the crucial na- 
ture of the battle about to begin. In 
254-56 its importance is presented chiefly 
from Caesar’s point of view; in 257-58 
from the point of view of the soldier; while 
in 259-60 the fate of commander and 
soldier alike is stressed if failure comes; 
victum takes in everyone.’ Nor is any 
weight cast into the scale by Caesar’s 
complaint that he has been deprived of his 
triumph and his soldiers of their lands 
(1. 340-45); or by Pompey’s exhortation 
to his troops to fight if they wish to see 
their wives and children again (7. 346-48). 

My own suggestion would be that 
257-58 are genuine and hodie correct ;* but 
that in 254 Lucan wrote haec est illa acies, 
which became corrupted into haec est illa 
dies throwing the passage into confusion. 
If acies is read for dies, all difficulty disap- 
pears: hodie is not only unobjectionable 
but pointed; and the one remaining 
blemish in the lines, the awkwardness of 
the anaphora haec (dies) ... haec ... haec 
... haec (acies) is removed.’ 

G. D. Percy 


28 Notes AND DIscussIONS 


1. A. E. Housman, M. Annaei Lucani Belli civilis 
libri decem (Oxford: Blackwell, 1926), ad loc. In the 
apparatus of Hosius’ third edition (Leipzig: Teubner, 
1913), of which Housman’s apparatus is a selection, 
257-58 are reported as added by the correctors of MV as 
wellas Z. 

2. Op. cit., ix, xx—xxi. 

3. The suggestion is part of the vilification of Caesar 
notable in Lucan. Caesar’s actual state of mind has just 
been described as aeger quippe morae flagransque cupidine 
regni (240). 

4. Aen. 1. 282; 6. 851. 

5. Cf. 263. Housman is probably following Oudendorp 
(Leyden, 1728) who notes: non apte inseritur hic mentio 

militum, cum in seqqg. versibus adhuc de se loquatur Caesar 

. But this is scarcely correct; and in any case Caesar 
turns from himself to his soldiers and back to himself 
again repeatedly throughout the speech. Note that 257-58 
expand the idea first suggested by remeare (256), just as 
261-63 follow naturally as a fuller expression of nocentem 

6. Hodie is to be taken with the clause that follows. 

7. For a different point of view see G. Bernstein, Die 
Versauslassungen in Lucans Bellum civile (Jena Diss.; 
Borna-Leipzig: R. Noske,1930), pp. 25-27. Bernsteinargues 
that the verses are genuine, but supposes them to be a 
marginal addition made by Lucan after the speech had 
been composed; hence the confusion in the MSS tradition. 


In the dialogue of Greek tragedy the 
syntax of a short speech is often dependent 
upon the syntax of the preceding speech. 
In Greek generally the antecedent of a 
relative pronoun may be omitted and the 
relative put into the case of the omitted 

Verse 549 of the Agamemnon reads 


“How did that happen ? Were you, during 
the absence of your king, in fear of some 
persons ? 

The letters of verse 550 in the manu- 
scripts are 


Scaliger’s (or Auratus’) substitution of &¢ 
for év and the word-division +6 odv for 76- 
cov have altered the sense. 

Scaliger’s line (universally accepted, as 
far as I know) 

@¢ viv, TO ody 3y, xal Oavety moAAH ya—LC 

is translated by Fraenkel (Aeschylus: 
Agamemnon [Oxford, 1950]) as follows: 
“So much that now, in thine own words, 
even death were a great boon.” But is it 
reasonable for the chorus to have been so 
frightened in the king’s absence that now, 
upon his return, they wish to die ? If their 
fears were not on the king’s account but 
on their own — as they must have been 
while the king was at Troy, for twva¢ in 

this context could not mean Trojans — 
then the king’s arrival ought to alleviate, 
not intensify those fears. And is it reason- 
able to go back eleven verses to 539 for an 
explanation of +6 odv (if indeed verse 539 
can be thought to explain 16 ov)? In a 
persuasive note Fraenkel justifies 8) in 
formulas of quotation, and although he 
obelizes that part of verse 539 upon which 
the explanation of +4 cdv 8, would have 
to rest, he insists that the general meaning 
as given in his translation is clear. 
Because &v (550) can be a relative the 
omitted antecedent of which was a parti- 
tive genitive with tivéc (549), because this 
partitive genitive contributes to the vague- 
ness which the frightened chorus feels 
is necessary, and because viv (550) makes, 
with the imperfect étper¢ (549), a contrast 
sufficiently strong to justify the assump- 
tion of a verb “I fear’’ in 550, it is proposed 
here that the reading of the manuscripts 
be restored with the following word- 
division and the following translation: 

&v viv técov 8H: xal Oavety moAAH yapuc 

“(I feared some of those) whom, as a mat- 
ter of fact, I now fear just as much. And 
death can bring great joy.” The xéet of 
verse 550 will be Clytemnestra’s, not the 



Notes AND Discussions 


Editors do not agree upon the inter- 
pretation of verse 286 of the Agamemnon 
(references are made in this paper to the 
verses as numbered in Smyth’s Aeschylus 
(“Loeb Classical Library”; New York, 
1926]). The meaning of vwtiow is a cause 
of editorial disagreement; and the lack of 
a verb amid a plethora of subjects is a 
cause of editorial complaint. 

Some aspects of the problem are revealed 
by the comments on verses 286-88 in Notes 
to the Agamemnon of Aeschylus (F. Fletcher, 
Oxford, 1949) which say in part, “As these 
lines stand in the MSS., with zedxy 7d at 
the beginning of 288, we seem to have two 
subjects and no verb with them. Wecklein’s 
qmevxzo (‘pressed onward’), which I adopt, 
avoids this difficulty and gets rid of the 
unnecessary 76 before xypvoogeyyéc. veri- 
oat, which elsewhere means to ‘turn the 
back’ or ‘cover the back’, I take to mean 
here ‘spread its light over’ (not ‘skim the 
surface’, as L. and S. give, which would 
be inconsistent with trepteAye, ‘soaring 
high’). Headlam translates ‘to clear the 
broad sea’s back’.”’ 

The editorial dissensions, not all of 
which are presented by Fletcher, indicate 
that the text of this passage may be cor- 

It is suggested here that the reading of 

the manuscripts could easily have arisen 
from an uncial original which read 

123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213 1415161718 

This text, which eradicates vwtica. and 
furnishes a verb, means “judged the sea 
narrow” or “ranked the sea narrow” or 
“treated the sea as narrow.” The signal 
fire made little of the distance it traveled 
over water. 

The verb tim with o¢ and a predicate 
accusative (as required in the uncial line 
above) is not found elsewhere in Aeschylus, 
but Iliad 9. 302-3 read of ct Oedv dc ticove’. 

How, then, could révtov dote veotiout 
arise from mévtov a¢ otevov tice ? The omis- 
sion of one of the two consecutive C’s (8 
and 9 supra) would bring about the wrong 
division ote vovtice; the Sorte thus creat- 
ed would demand the infinitive ending 
-out; and the necessity of making a re- 
cognizable verb form out of the remaining 
vovttoa. would produce vewtioat. 

The reading proposed here, although it 
leaves some difficulties in the surrounding 
lines, does remedy the outstanding dif- 
ficulties of the passage, and may deserve 
attention as a step in the right direction. 



The very able and distinguished papy- 
rologist, Medea Norsa, has recently pub- 
lished two Latin military texts. One of 
these, PSI 1307, contains parts of two 
columns. Only a few letters from the right 
edge of the first are preserved; the second 
column is more substantial but is in- 
complete on the right and below. There 
is nothing to indicate its original width, 
but the editor is doubtless correct in as- 
suming that only half or less of the column 
has survived. Some lines project to the 
left and may indicate paragraphs, but too 
much is lost to understand the arrange- 

1307 AND 1308 

ment of subject matter. On the basis of 
the hand Miss Norsa dates the text in the 
first century. One may add that the gen- 
eral absence of cognomina also points to 
an early date. 

The text concerns assignments and 
activities of legionary soldiers, and Miss 
Norsa quite rightly cites P Gen. Lat. 1. 
The Dura acta diurna, which were not 
available to her, may also be compared.” 
There are, however, no dates or statements 
of strength in the columns extant. 

One of the projecting lines (II, 17) is 
read by the editor as follows: excubuerunt 

30 Notes AND Discussions 

ad aqulujlam et si qiuis. Aquula is explain- 
ed as a diminutive of aqua, meaning in 
this context perhaps a small stream or 
canal. But it seems better to read and 
restore: excubuerunt ad aqulillam et sig[na. 
What was taken to be the tail of a g may 
be explained as the oblique hasta of m or 
some such letter at the end of the line 
below. The men in this entry stood guard 
at the shrine housing the legion’s eagle 
and standards.? This watch is already 
known from an inscription from Acquin- 
cum which mentions an eaxcubitorium ad 
tutel(am) signor(um) e[t] imagin(um) sacrar- 
(um);4 from the assignment signis in P 
Gen. Lat. 1;> and from the oath which is 
found in some of the Dura papyri: parati 
erimus excubare ad signa domini nostri... .® 
Its appearance here is further evidence 
that it was a regular part of the military 
religion in all periods of the empire. 

Another projecting line (5) in the same 
column has been read: Blalebius T[usc]us 
habeatur primus intler. One may suggest 
that the’ name is followed by hastatus 
primus, i. e., the title of one of the ranking 
centurions in the legion.’ It may be noted 
that the name and title of another centuri- 
on of high rank, the princeps, begin the 
following line. 

Another suggestion affects several lines. 
It is that in a number of instances the 
character read as 7 is really the sign for 
centurio/ centuria. In II, 19, e. g., for iwari 
Turranius et tesser[ari, one should read 
(centuria) Vari Turranius etc.; in II, 18 
for iners Antistius i(n) servili ser[, (centuria) 
Nep{i] Antistius (centuria) Servili Sem[pro- 
nius?;8 in II, 22 for iuratu Lucretius, 
(centuria) Firmi Lucretius; and perhaps in 
I, 5 for jmi Lepidian., jm (centuria) Le- 
pidiant.® Other possible occurences of the 
sign are in II, 16 after Bassus, in II, 11 
and 21 after Varius, and in I, 14 after 

On the basis of these readings, one may 
compare with our text an inscription from 
Coptos which lists centuries from the JJI 
Cyrenaica and from a_ second legion, 
perhaps the XXJJI Deiotariana.” It be- 
longs to the early first century (Augustus 

or Tiberius),!* and hence is more or less 
contemporary with the papyrus. Among 
the 18 centuries of the second legion are 
(centuria) Firmi and (centuria) Vari, both 
in cohors VI.% Since the two names are 
so common, one cannot assume that the 
legion in the papyrus is necessarily that 
represented at Coptos. However, if the 
(centuria) Neri known in the X XII Deiota- 
riana were found to belong to this same 
period, the grounds for identification would 
be much stronger.'* 

Some scattered observations on lines in 
column II may be worth recording. Line 
13: — ad pondera macelli duos ad caf. Miss 
Norsa suggests that the men were pos- 
sibly engaged in “sorveglianza annonaria,” 
also comparing the macellarios in Vegetius 
1.7. Another parallel is found in JZS, 2415 
(Lambaesis): ... sig(nifert) leg(ionis) III 
Aug(ustae) agentes cura(m) macelli. The 
supervision of weights need not have been 
connected with the annona. Line 14: — 
unam quibus signum suu[m. Actually of 
the last three letters only the second is 
certain. Signum may mean “watchword” 
here, in which case it would be followed by 
the word in the genitive. Line 15: — vigiles 
alnomera recognitos in{. The reading ad 
nomen (suggested by the editor in a note) 
seems better paleographically. Perhaps we 
have here an inspection and roll call; ef. 
Livy 28. 29. 12: ... stipendium ad nomen 
singulis persolutum est. 

PSI 1308, the second text, is so small 
a fragment that its precise character re- 
mains obscure; Miss Norsa showed good 
judgment in resisting the temptation to 
call it a pridianum. The column preserved 
is incomplete above, to the left, and below, 
but possibly not much of the beginnings 
of lines is lost. Some lines, usually indented, 
contain military ranks or consular dates 
or both; they evidently serve as headings 
for the names appearing in the other lines. 
The consular dates, one may assume, are 
dates of enlistment. 

Miss Norsa assigns the papyrus to the 
third century on the basis of these dates, 
identifying Avito cos (1.4), Aspero cos (I. 14), 
and: Anton{[in]o [co]s (1. 17) as consuls of 



NotTEs AND DIscussIoNs 31 

209, 212, and 213. Left unexplained, how- 
ever, are claro it: cos (l. 2) and Hom: cos 
(]. 6). It seems better therefore to date the 
papyrus in the middle of the second 
century with the following identifications: 
Claro it(erum) cos: 146; Avito cos: 144; 
Hom(ullo) cos: 152. Anto[ni]no [co]s could 
be a consulship of Antoninus Pius quite as 
well as of Caracalla; however, the reading 
itself is doubtful. Further, if the year were 
213, one would need Antonino IIIT cos. 
Anton{inu]s, simply a soldier’s cognomen, 
is perhaps the correct reading. Aspero cos 
apparently could only be one of the con- 
suls of 212, but again the reading seems 
very questionable. The papyrus is so badly 
preserved at this point as to make any 
reading difficult. Following the initial a, 
however, there seem to be six letters, not 

five; the last two might be either ¢o or t 
and an abbreviation point. In any event, 
it seems impossible to reconcile Aspero 
with what can be seen on the photograph. 
The offices and ranks in the headings 
should throw light on the nature of the 
document. Caligati (1. 13) designates a 
category of milites, roughly “enlisted men,” 
and is not just a reference to their boots.!® 
For gub in |. 4 it is difficult to suggest any 
expansion except gub(ernator) which would 
indicate that this is a list of sailors. Fab(er) 
or fab(ri) in 1. 8 supports this possibility. 
However, the only other well preserved 
heading, ascita (1. 11), is puzzling. 

J. F. GInu1aAm 



1. Papiri Greci e Latini (Pubblicazioni della Societa 
Italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri greci e latini in Egitto 
[Florence, 1949]), XIII, Fase. 1, 103-9. Because of Miss 
Norsa’s unfortunate illness the fascicle was seen through 
the press by another. 

2. J. F. Gilliam, Yale Classical Studies, X1 (1950), 
209-52. Cf. also P Mich. 455. 

3. Their names presumably follow in the next two or 
three lines. The combination aquila et signa is of course 
quite common; see TLL, II, 372. 

4. ILS, 2355 (a.p. 216). 

5. See A. von Premerstein, Klio, III (1903), 43. 

6. Yale Classical Studies, XI (1950), 230-36. 

7. Cf. ILS, 2651: has(tatus) pri(mus) leg(ionis) XX 
(Dalmatia, before a.p. 10). 

8. In (centuria) Neri only the first two letters of the 
name seem certain. For the name, cf. n. 14. 

9. Cf. Lepid{ at the end of IT, 3. 

10. In I, 14 in is a misprint for i(n). 

11. CIL, II, 6627 (with Mommsen’s notes) = ILS, 
2483. On the identity of the second legion, see J. Lesquier, 
L’armée romaine @ Egypte @ Auguste @ Dioclétien (Cairo, 
1918), pp. 45, 139; Ritterling, RE, XII, 1793, s8.v 
“*Legio,” who takes it to be the Y XII Deiotariana. 

12. On the date see Lesquier, op. cit., p. 57 and the 
references in n. 11. 

13. The latter may be the genitive of Varius, not 
Varus, as Lesquier, op. cit., p. 550 and Ritterling, loc. cit., 
1797 assume. Cf. II, 11 and 21 of our text. 

14. The century appears in a fragmentary, undated 
inscription, C7L, III, 6600. See Lesquier, op. cit., pp. 136, 
541; Ritterling, loc. cit., 1797. 

15. For the term, see TAPA, LX XVII (1946), 183-91. 

16. For gubernator and saber as titles in the navy, see 
ILS, Ill, 1, p. 506; C. G. Starr, Jr., The Roman Imperial 
Navy 318.c. — a.v. 324 (Ithaca, 1941), pp. 42, 51, 56, 60, 
61, 65, n. 46. 


Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: 
A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the 
Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C. Edited by 
Antony E. RavBITscHEK with the col- 
laboration of LILIAN H. JEFFERY. Cam- 
bridge, Mass.: Archaeological Institute 
of America, 1949. Pp. xv + 545. $ 15.00. 
During the last generation epigraphical 

studies have made tremendous advances. 

We have learned to publish collections of 

documents by types; to supply adequate 

bibliography as well as photographs of all 
fragments; to study inscribed stones as 
monuments of more than a single dimen- 
sion; to provide the reader with every pos- 
sible means of control. On these principles 

Raubitschek, with the collaboration of 

Miss Lilian H. Jeffery, now publishes the 

inscriptions on the dedications of the sixth 

and fifth centuries B.c. found on the Athen- 
ian akropolis. The bulk of the responsi- 
bility is Raubitschek’s (see p. x) and I am 

sure Miss Jeffery will not be offended if I 

direct most of my comments to him. 
The 393 inscriptions are classified ac- 

cording to the monuments which they 
graced. Each classification receives a gen- 
eral introduction and each text is pre- 
ceded by a brief description and exhaustive 
bibliography, and followed by commen- 
tary ; the latter, too, is liberally punctuated 
with bibliography. The information con- 
tained in the dedications and texts is gath- 
ered and discussed in a series of valuable 
appendices, whose nature is suggested by 
the titles: ““The Formulae of the Inscrip- 
tions,” ‘“‘Some Technical Aspects of the 

Early Attic Dedications,’ “The Early 

Akropolis Dedications as Historical Docu- 

ments,” and ‘‘Archaeological Summary.” 

The book is equipped with a full set of in- 


The conception of the book is admirable 
and Raubitschek is an ingenious and _pa- 
tient worker who wrings the utmost from 

a text, no matter how fragmentary it may 
be. The execution of the task, however, is 
not wholly faultless and raises certain im- 
portant questions in my mind. So, having 
acknowledged the scholarship and effort 
represented by this volume, I shall not, 
I trust, be deemed wholly ungracious if I 
dwell upon its shortcomings. For, although 
we have progressed markedly in epigraphic 
method, there is ground still to be won 
before we can rest in satisfaction. 

On p. 448, in a discussion of letter forms, 
Raubitschek refers to his “attempt... to 
present a relative chronology together with 
illustrations which make the reader in- 
dependent from the assertions and con- 
clusions suggested here.”” But this is pre- 
cisely what he has not done, and in all too 
many cases the critical reader, eager to 
pursue an argument based on letter forms, 
must search for photographs in other publi- 
cations. We are told (p. 8), for example, to 
“Notice the Ionic forms of lambda and 
sigma and the shape of the phi” in No. 3, 
which is not illustrated; must the reading 
of such a book as this be restricted to a 
well stocked library ? I am aware that it is 
not always easy to obtain photographs; yet 
a serious effort ought to have assured better 
resvits than this. 

On the other hand, several of the monu- 
ments are accompanied by drawings or 
tracings; these are often instructive, some- 
times pointless. Why is No. 303 honored 
with a tracing (p. 327), when only a frag- 
mentary sigma is extant ? More flagrant is 
the treatment of No. 301 (JG, I?, 396), a 
two-lined fragmentary dedication noting 
the despatch of a colony to Er{- - }. Rau- 
bitschek employs a full page (p. 324) for 
his tracing; in it he restores EP[ ETPIAN], 
but he prints in his text ’Ep[etplay vel 
-vOe%¢] (his accentuation). He then states 
that with his preferred restoration “its 
second line is two letters longer than the 



Book REVIEWS 33 

first,” and cites a parallel. As it happens, 
he has probably chosen the wrong alter- 
native; the case will be argued in the third 
volume of The Athenian Tribute Lists (in 
press as this review is written). And the 
absence of Eretria from Period III might 
have made him chary of denying evidence 
in the tribute lists of a colony (or kler- 
ouchy ¢) after 446 B.c. The tracing is sheer 

The handling of No. 135b is typical of 
Raubitschek’s fondness for riding two hor- 
ses with consequent failure to achieve a 
firm seat on either. This penchant is seen 
at its worst on pp. 150-51. In the first 
place Kimon almost certainly did not re- 
turn from ostracism in 457 B.c.; Raubits- 
chek does not even hint that there is a 
problem, finding 457 an apt date for his 
purpose of the moment. Then, he seems to 
like Mayor’s thesis that the Athenian gen- 
erals entered office before the end of 
February (it enables him to add a bio- 
graphical detail concerning Xenophon son 
of Euripides). Yet Pritchett’s answer to 
Mayor is a strong one; it is accepted by 
Ehrenberg (AJP, LXVI [1945], n. 39 on 
pp. 128-29) and, it would seem, by Larsen 
(CP, XLI [1946], n. 18 on pp. 95-96), and 
deserves more than a passing and self- 
protective reference. Finally, because it is 
temporarily convenient, Raubitschek flirts 
with Gelzer’s rather disreputable view that 
this same Xenophon wrote the anonymous 
"AOnvateov Torteta and, citing an equally 
disreputable date, wanders into an irrele- 
vant discussion of the pamphlet. This fickle 
reluctance to take a stand, coupled with 
his habit of piling detail upon theories that 
in other circumstances he would hesitate 
to favor, inspires antipathy in the reader. 

Similar is the tendency towards the 
“double recension’? demonstrated in the 
commentary (p. 59) on No. 57: ‘The shor- 
ter form 6éAw for 2¢@ was already in 
use at that time [ca. 480 B.c.], in Attika as 
well as elsewhere.” But the restoration 
printed is the proper name Qcdox[xpec]. 
Compare p. 73 (on No. 68), where the pur- 
pose of the reference to JG, I?, 823 is ob- 
scure, with Raubitschek’s present reading 

[CLasstcaL PuiLoLocy, XLVII, JANuaRY 1952] 

of his text. Again, his commentary (p. 6) 
on No. 2 is incomprehensible, for here the 
closed form of the spiritus asper does not 
appear. And on p. 340 (on No. 317) the 
date 540/39 is adopted for the second re- 
turn of Peisistratos, whereas on p. 492 it 
has become 539/38. In this connection (the 
dating of Peisistratos) Raubitschek would 
do well to consult Adcock, CQ, XVIII 
(1924), pp. 174-81. On p. 422 the author 
refers for the meaning and significance of 
anapyhy and dSexa7yv to Beer and Nilsson; 
but on p. 424 he cites, in almost the same 
terms, Rouse and Geffcken. 

The most common expressions in this 
book are “‘it is tempting” and “it may be 
assumed”’ (vel sim.). It should be said at 
once that Raubitschek is not the man to 
resist temptation; cf. Nos. 15, 72, 132, 212. 
The epigraphist today deals with the most 
vital and perhaps the only new evidence 
that is likely to be granted to the histori- 
an. He must therefore exercise the most 
scrupulous caution. He must never feel 
embarrassment when he ‘leaves a text 
without restoration; and he must specify 
clearly when his supplements are printed 
by way of example. Even the latter aim at 
reproduction of the original, however, and 
when I read, as on p. 6 (on No. 2), “The 
restoration does not pretend to be correct,” 
I feel that it should not have been in- 
cluded in the text. No. 103 has an initial 
letter as the sole survivor in each of three 
lines. The commentary (p. 107) reads: 
“The restoration is uncertain,” surely a 
gem of understatement. Cf. Nos. 214, 215, 

The readings and reconstructions are 
more than daring. I should myself like to 
see the epigraphic dot of uncertainty em- 
ployed with greater freedom; ef., eg., 
Nos. 1, 57, 149, 155, 169, 326. In No. 61 
I cannot see the evidence for the two dots 
of punctuation after zpdrov. The reading 
of No. 147 is wrong. The restoration (un- 
metrical) of No. 148, preferred to Fried- 
lander’s (metrical), produces lines of un- 
equal length. Why is not the upsilon print- 
ed in No. 325? 

Some of the comments on meter are 

34 Book REVIEWS 

puzzling. No. 6 does not contain eight dac- 
tyls in its second line. Nor is it very pen- 
etrating to account for a line of eight 
dactyls by “the great amount of infor- 
mation which has been crowded by the 
poet into this one line” (p. 12); one might 
as well say that the line contains a lot of 
words. The commentary on No. 67 (p. 71) 
I do not understand; cf. Nos. 82 (p. 88), 
46 (p. 49). The author does not hesitate to 
call an inscription metrical on very slim 
evidence; cf. Nos. 149 (p. 167), 214 (p. 245). 

There are also more errors than one 
would expect in a volume which was in 
manuscript as long ago as 1940 and which 
presumably has been subject to revision 
over a period of years. The dates given on 
p. vii for Kirchhoff’s work are incorrect. 
In No. 3 (p. 8) omicron for omega is also 
an Attic touch. The reasons for the unique 
spacing of the last line in No. 46 are set out 
in reverse on p. 48; in fact, space forbade 
adherence to the stoichedon pattern and 
the “harmony” is quite accidental. Rau- 
bitschek refers throughout to Epigrammata, 
by Friedlander and Hoffleit; but the for- 

mer’s name is not once spelled correctly 
and the latter receives credit only on p. 431. 

On p. 150 he appeals to Athenian Studies 
Presented to W. S. Ferguson, on p. 449 (and 
elsewhere) to the same volume under a dif- 
ferent title and with an erroneous date. In 
general the spelling is Greek, though not 
consistently so; ef. ‘“Cyzicus” on p. 125, 
“Koronea”’ on p. 203, ““Thoukydides”’ on 
p. 493 and “‘Thukydides” elsewhere. 

Raubitschek’s command of the biblio- 
graphy is encyclopedic; his employment of 
this knowledge, however, needs discipline. 
Citations are excessive and hence rather 
uneven in quality. I do not believe that the 
mention of a subject or problem should 
automatically admit an author to a schol- 
arly bibliography. The listing of text books 
(some of doubtful origin) suggests osten- 
tation and tends to submerge studies of 
genuine worth. 

The book is crammed with interpre- 
tation, naturally, and most of it is admir- 
able, despite a characteristic urge to pass 
beyond reasonable conjecture. Some stirs 

doubt. On p. 340 it is observed that Mega- 
kles must have been at least 35 years old 
in 550 when his daughter married Pei- 
sistratos; he must have been a good deal 
more than this, for his own marriage to 
Agariste cannot be placed much later than 
575 B.c. Raubitschek (p. 329 on No. 306) 
suggests that éxoixo. and &rorxor, to 
Thucydides, differed in meaning; the dif- 
ference, probably, is between “‘immi- 
grants” and “emigrants.” An inscribed 
ostrakon does not prove that an ostracism 
took place; Raubitschek belatedly corrects 
himself on this point in his discussion of 
Kallias son of Didymias on p. 183, but by 
p. 463 he has forgotten his reservation. The 
first hexameter of No. 168 does not empha- 
size to me “that the monument was erected 
not from spoils but from the ransom” 
(p. 193). [should also question whether‘ an 
increasingly democratic society . . . existed 
at Athens from the time of Solon” (p.464). 
In the same context Raubitschek writes 
these sentences: “Since political activity 
was linked with considerable wealth in 
earlier times, the members of the aristo- 
cracy were, or at least had been, rich. The 
educational and cultural element, which 
plays a more important part in the modern 
conception of aristocracy, was then almost 
exclusively confined to participation in the 
great Hellenic games.” I am not sure that 
I understand this, especially the second 
sentence; if I do, I am sure I disagree 

The English could be improved and 

would thus add clarity. The awkward and 
incorrect “‘as to” is common. Other blem- 
ishes occur on pp. 43 (“Parthenos”’ for 
“Athena” can scarcely occur “for the first 
time” in three separate documents), 190 
“unaccounted prytaneis’’), 322 (com- 
mentary on No. 298), 357 (singular for 
plural). The discussion of the demes on 
pp. 467-68 is unnecessarily involved. 

I note errors that slipped by in the proof 
on pp. 49 (‘‘troche’’), 167 (line 3), 203 (last 
two lines transposed), 291 (last line), 355 
(read &y@v), 235 (accent of Ovyétee), 
(read “‘Nem.”), 251 (read ‘“‘iambi’’), 457 
(read ‘‘Supplement’’), 479 (read ‘“‘pedes- 

Book REVIEWS 35 

tal”). The punctuation is frequently in- 
consistent; here and there the type is 
broken (e.g., pp. 9, 76, 136, 344). 

The Index, of considerable detail, has 
been carefully prepared; the only error I 
have observed is the entry JG, I?, 199+-207 
+ 208 on p. 544. The study as a whole 
needs a Table of Abbreviations. 

A book of this nature is an important 
contribution to epigraphic progress and to 
our understanding of the Hellenes; it tends 
to become a standard work of reference. 
And in this case the author has, in the 
appendices, rendered a particularly inter- 
esting and notable service by his thorough 
analysis of his materials. Here he studies 
the monuments, their physical characteris- 
tics, and the artists named; he is thus 
enabled to add scores of details to our 
knowledge of the Athenian potters and 
their profession as well as of the dedicators. 
The appendix as a whole supplements the 
already full individual commentaries. I 
think it is here that Raubitschek has made 
the most significant advance in method. 

Raubitschek’s enthusiasm leads him fre- 
quently into recklessness ; nevertheless, his 
book has great merit and belongs in every 
epigraphist’s library. 

Matcoitm F. McGrecor 
University of Cincinnati 

Man in his Pride: A Study of the Political 
Philosophy of Thucydides and Plato. By 
Davip GRENE. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 1950. Pp. xiv + 231. 
$ 4.00. 

This is an ambitious book. It is also an 
interesting and thoughtful book, although 
it is an impressive attempt rather than a 
satisfactory achievement. The attempt, as 
the abstract on the cover tells us, was 
directed towards “seeing fifth century 
Athens through the eyes of Thucydides 
and Plato”; but this narrows the issue 
too much, and we had better accept the 
more general implication of the subtitle. 
With this, the main title (taken from a 
poem by Yeats) fits well. The book is con- 

cerned with that period of anthropocentric 
thought which is dominated by the figure 
of Socrates, first the living and then the 
dead Socrates. Politics then for the first 
time had become a subject of theoretical 
thought, and though this was largely due 
to the sophists, it is right—partly, but not 
solely, because of the fullness of our evi- 
dence— to turn to Thucydides and Plato to 
study its deeper strata. 

Thus, the book is naturally divided into 
two sections, and while it seems adequate 
to speak of Thucydides under the heading 
of ‘““The Man who looked on,” it is never 
explained and may puzzle readers who have 
forgotten Rep. 496D why Plato is called 
“The Man in the Duststorm.” Such coining 
of halfpoetical and unusual phrases, fre- 
quently vague and sometimes even unintel- 
ligible, is a significant feature of the whole 
book. It would be unfair to call it for that 
reason unscholarly ; but it must be said that 
too much of the argument is expressed in 
terms which make it difficult to follow the 
author’s reasoning, and more than once the 
impression can hardly be avoided that 
emotional and irrational language takes 
the place of cool and reasoned argument. 
This is particularly so in the Plato section, 
and I must confess that there I sometimes 
felt out of my depth (though the fault may 
not be entirely on one side). I hasten, 
however, to add that frequently Professor 
Grene finds particularly happy and strik- 
ing phrases. 

A full account of the contents of the book, 
although it is not a long one, cannot be 
given, if only because an adequate résumé 
could not be brief enough for a short re- 
view, and if it could, it would distort the 
intricate and complex texture of Professor 
Grene’s argument. Thus, a few important 
points alone will be discussed, but I hope 
they will truly reflect the character and the 
undeniable originality of the book. 

Athenian politics before and during the 
time of the Peloponnesian War, as Grene 
tries to show, were pure and _ undis- 
guised power politics. Neither Roman nor 
British imperialism can be compared as 
they were both ruled by some kind of 

36 Book REVIEWS 

“philosophy” which made the empire the 
outcome of a genuine belief in one’s own 
cultural superiority. There was nothing 
comparable in the Athenian empire; the 
embellishment of the ruling city created 
eternal values, but it seems very doubtful 
whether even that can be taken as a justi- 
fication of imperialism. The decisive point 
is that the Athenian imperialists did not 
regard it in that way; on the contrary, they 
openly admitted Athenian “tyranny” over 
the allies. Political theory there was, but 
it did not—as so frequently—serve a poli- 
tical power by throwing a cloak over its 
real nature. Athenian political thought 
culminated in the theory of the right of the 
stronger and the ideal of the tyrannical 
man. “The tyranny which haunted the 
minds of fifth-century Athenians and took 
shape tentatively in Alcibiades and ac- 
tually in Critias... was a philosophically 
conceived monster bred of the collapse of 
any collective political morality.” But was 
it only “‘a cynical joke of history” that this 
“philosophical growth” remained insigni- 
ficant in practical politics ? 

One of the causes of the development 
just described was, according to Thucy- 
dides, democracy. Professor Grene sees 
this, though it is unfortunate that he some- 
times is not certain about his facts (e.g., 
were the Five Hundred still chosen by a 
mixed procedure of election and lot ?). 
More important, however, is that he re- 
gards Athenian politics simply as the 
struggle of two parties which “the issues 
of the empire, international commerce, 
trade as opposed to agriculture, universal 
as opposed to limited franchise, split ... 
like a knife.” This, to put it mildly, is 
greatly exaggerated, and when we also 
learn that ‘‘the administration in the per- 
son of the ten generals embodies something 
which we could call party administration,” 
we suddenly realize that the picture re- 
flects the general outlines of American 
rather than Athenian politics. It is remark- 
able how little those so-called party poli- 
tics actually influenced the composition of 
the board of the strategi. Nobody can deny 
that Thucydides’ sympathies are with the 

conservatives rather than the radicals, but 
he was not ‘“‘an anticipation of the later 
oligarchic philosophy” (whatever that may 

Even more significant than Thucydides’ 
attitude to democracy are his views on the 
empire. The issue of the morality of power 
politics, as Professor Grene rightly stresses, 
“does not clearly divide oligarchs from de- 
mocrats,” and “the anti-imperialist posi- 
tion of the conservative wing [ ?] is more 
or less forced upon them.” Grene detects 
behind Thucydides’ position the knowl- 
edge “that the inspiration toward power, 
both in the individual and the nation, is 
the most basic of human qualities.’’ That 
is to say, “historical necessity”’ is at work, 
and war in all its forms is its result, tragic 
but inevitable. If the empire was a major 
cause of the war, it was itself a product of 
historical necessity. The mark of stateman- 
ship (which the historian can explain to 
later generations) is to understand the 
inevitable consequences of ‘‘men’s fear, 
honor, and greed,” and thus to face the 
next contingency (which no one can pre- 
vent from happening) with as much skill 
and wisdom as possible. 

This philosophy of history, pessimistic 
or perhaps rather realistic, is not the whole 
story as far as Thucydides is concerned. 
In a stimulating chapter, Grene somewhat 
artificially combines the evidence of three 
very different passages in order to reveal 
the extent to which Thucydides allows for 
the interference of chance. He even speaks 
of Thucydides’ awe in the face of the 
ironies of chance, and discovers pity and 
moral judgment in the historian’s dealing 
with events (and with such events only) 
which are outside the control of necessity. 
The attitude of “it might have been dif- 
ferent if...’? makes no sense unless there 
is a true freedom of choice. And yet, there 
is still something beyond necessity. We 
cannot appreciate the genius of great men 
of action without the belief in some es- 
sential freedom of the will. Thus, Grene 
finds that in Thucydides’ philosophy, the 
creative work of the great statesmen from 
Themistocles onwards represents what is 

a ee ee ee ee ee a! 

iia wait ena tat toe eee ae oe ees a CO 

Book REVIEWS 37 

outside both of necessity and of chance. 
When he deals with Pericles as he emerges 
from his three speeches in Thucydides, I 
find myself in full agreement with his 
picture of the man whose greatness is 
one of “complete personal responsibility 
without the blessing of divine sanction or 
hereditary legitimacy.” Pericles was above 
the fear and the greed, and it is this that 
gives the man and his work that unique 
position which Thucydides with all his 
heart admired, and with which he vied in 
the austerity and courage of his own work. 

It is perhaps easier to elucidate the poli- 
tical philosophy of the historian than that 
of the philosopher. That, at least, is the 
impression one gets from Grene’s book; 
the common view is rather the opposite. 
Grene tries as far as possible to isolate 
Plato’s political thought from the whole of 
his philosophy; but his own book is ample 
proof that this is impossible. Those who 
praise or condemn Plato for his political 
philosophy (largely identifying it with cer- 
tain modern doctrines) usually misrepre- 
sent him because they look at special parts 
rather than at the whole. Grene never 
attempts to systematize either the Republic 
or the Laws. In a kind of philosophical bio- 
graphy, with full regard to the decisive 
events of Plato’s life, to the unique form 
of the dialogues and Plato’s attitude to the 
art of writing, above all with full regard to 
the stages of his philosophical development, 
Grene discusses a number of aspects of his 
theme all of which make some contribution 
to the total picture. This contribution is 
not always quite clear, and some of the 
conclusions remain highly hypothetical. 
Nevertheless, he gives us a good deal to 
think and to re-think. 

For various reasons it is impossible for 
me to reproduce Grene’s argument in this 
section even to the limited extent possible in 
the case of Thucydides. It would be worth 
while, for instance, to discuss in some detail 
the remarks on Plato’s “true rhetoric” and 
its relations to Hros. But I had better con- 
centrate on what seems to me the most 
remarkable result, though here, too, much 
remains hypothetical: the development of 

the political planner from the Republic to 
the Laws. This is usually traced asa devel- 
opment from the almost Utopian to the 
deliberately practicable. Grene opposes 
this view. He rightly takes the Republic 
rather than any later book as an attempt 
at planning with the aim of putting the 
scheme into practice. It is the state of the 
Republic which forms the basis for all the 
futile attempts in Syracuse. In the earlier 
parts of the Republic Grene sees “the 
model or the mechanical-toy state,” which 
(as shown in the later parts) can be brought 
to realization by the philosopher-king. He 
can be educated, and thus become “the 
expedient for bringing the model state to 
life,’ while the guardians are merely “‘the 
puppets who will go through the proper 
motions in the imaginary city.” Plato, 
however, neither in theory nor in practice, 
found an answer to the question how to 
bring his well-trained philosophical ruler 
into active contact with those he was to 
rule. When in his very old age Plato once 
more returned to the problem of the best 
state, “the drive to realization was spent.” 
Now “he can give thought and care to the 
details of what will never come to pass.” 
It is a fine and consistent construction, 
and in Grene’s own treatment not quite so 
simplified as it may appear from this 
résumé. Still, it is a subject for careful and 
extensive investigation rather than for an 
essay which in an equally sweeping manner 
deals with a number of other Platonic 
dialogues. One need not be an expert on 
Greek philosophy (a claim the reviewer 
can certainly not make) in order to feel 
that many of Grene’s ingenious arguments 
are not yet safely founded. Much is left 
out—naturally enough; but I regret that, 
for example, the picture in the Statesman 
of the roArttxh téxvn is completely neglec- 

Grene rejects the view that Plato in his 
old age became scientific and practical. 
His own version, though not entirely new, 
is based on a number of original and in- 
teresting observations. It is useful to be 
reminded how improbable the assumption 
is that the man who wrote Philebus and 

38 Book REVIEWS 

Timaeus also thought of the pedantry of 
the Laws as something to be put to prac- 
tical use. If the Plato of the Laws seems 
“different from any we have known,”’ this 
will be so partly because ‘‘the old man had 
at last exhausted the tension of his crea- 
tivity.” If that seems not quite sufficient 
to explain the particular character of the 
Laws, we may with Grene turn to Plato’s 
remark, however incidental it may be, that 
this work of his was ‘‘the object of a sober 
old man’s game” (685 A). The Laws are 
not a textbook for constitutional and ad- 
ministrative practice; they may be the intel- 
lectual game of a superb brain no longer 
intent on the purposeful drive toward 
uniting “‘life and design.” 

It will have become clear that Grene’s 
book has obvious and considerable weak- 
nesses, that it is uneven in its treatment, 
that it does not fully live up to its pre- 
tensions. There are also a few factual 
errors such as the dates of the Dorian 
Migration (p. 164) and of Thucydides’ gen- 
eralship (p. 55). In spite of all this, the 
book is well worth studying, though one 
would have wished that the author had 
displayed in greater detail and clarity the 
course of his own labors. As it is, the 
reader, though impressed by the courage 
and the independence of mind with which 
the great questions of the subject are being 
tackled, will finish the book very much 
like a man still hungry after a dinner which 
consisted of hors d’ceuvre only. 


Naevius poeta: Introduzione biobibliogra- 
fica, testo dei frammenti e commento. 
Edited by Enzo V. Marmorate. (“‘Bi- 
blioteca di studi superiori, Filologia la- 
tina,’ Vol. VIII.) 2d ed. Firenze: “‘La 
nuova Italia,” 1950. Pp. 268. L. 1300. 

The first edition of this penetrating and 
substantial study was published in Catania 
early in 1945; owing to the war it did not 
attract the attention it merited, particular- 
ly outside of Italy. The present re-edition 

has been improved by the addition of a 
bibliography and indices, the notes have 
been placed at the foot of the page instead 
of in the text, and the commentary to the 
fragments has been revised and augmented 
in many places. In every essential respect, 
however, the work remains the same. The 
greater part of the extensive introduction 
examines problems bearing on the bio- 
graphy of the poet (pp. 15-143); the re- 
mainder (pp. 143-81) deals with his plays 
and epic poem. This is followed by the 
fragments of Naevius’ works, together with 
apparatus and commentary. 

It is cogently argued that Naevius was 
by birth a Capuan (pp. 15-21). Gellius 
(NA 1. 24. 3) characterizes the epitaph 
that Naevius supposedly wrote for him- 
self as ‘plenum superbiae Campanae”’ and 
in the next paragraph cites the first book 
of Varro’s De poetis as the source of an 
analogous epitaph attributed to Plautus; 
therefore Gellius may be assumed to have 
derived “plenum superbiae Campanae” 
from Varro’s De poetis as well. Until Livy’s 
time ‘““Campanus”’ meant “‘Capuan”’ rather 
than “Campanian” (p. 17 and n. 7). Con- 
sequently Varro attested Naevius’ Capuan 
origin. Thus Marmorale, in both the 1945 
and 1950 editions. In a recent article, how- 
ever, H. T. Rowell points out that it is by 
no means self-evident, as Marmorale be- 
lieves, that the characterization in Gellius 
stems from Varro;} it is, he inclines to con- 
sider, Gellius’ cwn judgment, probably in- 
fluenced by Ciceronian references to Ca- 
puan superbia; nevertheless Varro was 
Gellius’ source for the statement that Nae- 
vius was ‘“Campanus,” and ‘‘Campanus” 
to Varro meant “Capuan.’’? Marmorale 
mentions this article several times, but 
apparently does not grasp the precise prob- 
lem about which it centers.? Rowell’s de- 

1. “The ‘Campanian’ Origin of Cn. Naevius and its 
Literary Attestation,” Memoirs of the American Academy 
in Rome, XIX (New Haven, 1949), 17. 

2. Ibid., pp. 20-21 and 31. 

3. P. 3, n. 11: “Il Rowell mio Naevius, ma 
non deve averlo letto attentamente, se, pur dicendo quasi 
sempre le stesse cose da me dette nello studiare le fontl 
della biographia di Nevio, afferma che il suo é il primo 
studio completo delle fonti stesse (p. 17), che le opinioni 

anteriori alla sua ma con la sua concordanti sono solo 
‘easuali’ piuttosto che risultati di un’indagine metodica 

Book REVIEWS 39 

monstration, in any event, reinforces be- 
yond possibility of cavil the persuasive 
case made by Marmorale. Like his fellow 
townsmen prior to the punitive measures 
taken by the Romans in 210 B.c., the poet 
was a Roman citizen without voting pri- 
vileges (pp. 21—26). 

Tothe established data on Naevian chro- 
nology Marmorale adds the hypotheses 
that Naevius served under P. Claudius 
Pulcher in 249 B.c., and that he was 
stationed at Agrigentum at the time of the 
Carthaginian assault of 254 (pp. 26-39). 
The first is inferred from Frag. 45 (47)4 
of the Bellum Punicum: “superbiter 
contemptim conterit legiones.” This 
had been suggested as a possibility by 
©. Cichorius,> who gives good reasons for 
referring the verse to Claudius, consul 
in 249. Marmorale contends (pp. 38-39) 
that the indignation here apparent makes 
it “anything but improbable” that Naevius 
was part of Claudius’ force at the time of 
the latter’s disastrous attack on Drepanum. 
Possibly so, but it might also be advanced 
that had this been the case, the poet would 

in all likelihood have been killed or cap- 
tured in the fiasco.* Naevius’ presence at 
Agrigentum in 254 also rests upon a num- 
ber of superimposed hypotheses, but is of 
much greater intrinsic probability. The 

hint is given by Frag. 19 (7): “inerant 

signa expressa, quomodo Titani, / 
bicorpores Gigantes magnique At- 
lantes / Runcus ac Purpureus filii 
Terras’”” which became of cardinal impor- 
tance in reconstructing the poem upon its 
being shown by H. Fraenkel’ to be a de- 
scription of the temple of Zeus at Agri- 
gentum; this identification enabled L. 

ibid.).” But Rowell is here speaking only of the views of 
various scholars, including Marmorale, regarding the 
Source of the comment in Gellius 1. 24. 3 on the epitaph 
attributed to Naevius, not of the totality of sources for 
the biography of the poet. 

4. In this and following citations from the Bellum 
Punicum, the first number is that in W. Morel’s Frag- 
menta poetarum latinorum (Leipzig, 1927), the one in 
Parentheses that of the present edition. 

5. Rémische Studien (Leipzig, 1922), p. 45. 

6. See Polybius 1. 51 for the heavy personnel losses 
(about two thirds) suffered by the Romans in this affair. 
7. “Griechische Bildung in altrémischen Epen II,” 
Hermes, LXX (1935), 59-61. 

Strzelecki to make his thesis that the 
poem began with the opening phase of the 
first Punic war, and that the story of 
Aeneas was inserted as an apologue, much 
stronger than would otherwise have been 
possible.2 The fragment is assigned by 
Priscian to the first book of the Bellum 
Punicum and indicates that the siege of 
Agrigentum in 262 B.c. was here included. 
In a postscript to a note on Naevius’ epic 
published three years later, A. Klotz raised 
the possibility that a description of the 
decorations of the temple of Zeus at Agri- 
gentum, which are known to have included 
scenes from the Trojan war, introduced the 
tale of Aeneas, but prefers the hypothesis 
that the transition was effected apropos of 
the presence of the Romans in Segesta 
in 260.9 Marmorale in 19451° and shortly 
thereafter Rowell" independently devel- 
oped Klotz’s suggestion; both conclude 
that it represents the truth. Marmorale 
further supposes that Naevius belonged to 
the Roman detachment at Agrigentum at 
the time of the Punic cowp de main of 254. 
Except for the siege eight years before, 
this is the only time Agrigentum comes 
into prominence during the war; in 262 
Naevius, who lived until the end of the 
century, could hardly have reached mili- 
tary age; the vividness of the description 
indicates that he had seen the temple with 
his own eyes. It is unlikely that Naevius 
had time for sightseeing during his Sicilian 
service; it may therefore be conjectured 
that he observed the temple while on duty 
in Agrigentum in 254. (Despite the attrac- 
tiveness of this theory, it must be remem- 
bered that we do not know that there was 
a Roman detachment in Agrigentum in 
254, much less the period during which it 

8. De Naeviano belli Punici carmine quaestiones 
selectae (Cracow, 1935), pp. 10-11. Previously it had been 
generally believed that the poem began with the story of 
Aeneas and did not come to the war itself before the third 
book, a theory which made it necessary to displace three 
of the eleven fragments assigned to one of the first three 
books on ancient authority. 

9. ‘Zu Naevius’ bellum Punicum,” Rh. 
LXXXVII (1938), 190-92. 

10. See pp. 89-91 of the 1945 edition and pp. 30-33 of 
the present one. 

11. ‘The Original Form of Naevius’ Bellum Puni- 
cum,” AJP, LXVIII (1947), especially pp. 32-39. 


40 Book REVIEWS 

may have been stationed there.) This 
would place his birth some twenty years 
earlier, which is consistent with what is 
known of the poet’s chronology. 

For the first three books of the Bellum 
Punicum Marmorale follows Strzelecki’s 
order with few changes. Frag. 34 (6) he 
accepts as Naevian and relates with Ci- 
chorius to the siege of Agrigentum, whereas 
Strzelecki had followed the MSS of Festus 
which attribute it to Ennius; Frag. 17 (9) 
he places at the departure of Aeneas from 
Troy; Strzelecki had tentatively assigned 
it to the prologue. This is a statement from 
Servius Danielis (Aen. 9. 712) that Naevius 
in the first book of his epic had said that 
the island Prochyta was named after 
Aeneas’ sister. Marmorale believes that 
this sister would figure in the exodus, and 
that this furnished the pretext for the 
aetiological detail. This is reasonable. In 
the second book Frags. 7 (25), 8 (26) and 
9 (27), which Strzelecki does not include 
in the first three books, Marmorale inserts 
after the fourth fragment of the second 
book (10 [24]). The first of the three is 
clearly appropriate here; the other two are 
so fragmentary that it is hard to form an 
opinion. For the five fragments of the 
third book Marmorale follows the Strze- 
leckian order without change. 

The famous ‘‘blande et docte percontat 

Aenea quo pacto / Troiam urbem 
liquerit’’ (23 [28]), which is assigned by 
Nonius to Book 2, Marmorale, with Strze- 
lecki, takes to refer to Dido. He is surely 
right. In the first edition Verg. Aen. 1. 
748-53 are here cited with the comment 
“T neviani blande et docte non vi sono pit, 
ma la loro eco rimane ancora nei versi di 
Virgilio” (p. 103*); in the present one, 
there has been added the acute observation 
“che pero gia ottanta versi prima aveva 
messo a partito il blande neviano: cf. Aen. I 
670 sg. nunc Phoenissa tenet Dido blan- 
disque moratur vocibus”’ (p. 246). 

For the last four books and the frag- 
ments of uncertain position Marmorale’s 
presentation corresponds for the most part 
with that of Morel. Frag. 63 (58), which 
Leo had not accepted as a Saturnian and 

which Morel had excluded from the poem 
has, as a result of E. Fraenkel’s demon- 
stration (RE, Suppl., VI, 640) been read- 
mitted. It is surprising to find the fami- 
liar “‘fato Metelli Romae fiunt con- 
sules” (46) in the Bellum Punicum. Mar- 
morale argues (pp. 63-71) that although 
the verse appears to be a senarius it was 
not part of a play, for it was not Naevius’ 
practice to attack people by name from the 
stage ;!* that, pace Leo and his followers, 
the verse is an acceptable Saturnian; final- 
ly, it stood in the sixth book of the Bellum 
Punicum and referred to L. Caecilius Me- 
tellus, consul in 251 and 247 B.c. Fato, he 
believes, meant in the epic “by the will 
of the gods who wished to save Rome” 
(p. 69). At the time of the election of the 
Q. Caecilius Metellus who was consul in 
206 the verse was lifted from its context 
and slyly circulated as propaganda against 
the consul (whether with or without the 
poet’s consent Marmorale does not say); 
from Metellus or his entourage it elicited 
the equally well known Saturnian in reply. 
This is farfetched. If the Metelli could post 
(Marmorale reminds us that this has been 
shown to be the meaning of Pseudo-Bassus’ 
proposuerunt [pp. 86-87]) a single Sa- 
turnian of their own in reply to the Nae- 
vian verse, the poet could by the same 
token have composed and posted his 
Saturnian shortly before.> The truth 
would seem to be that the epigram was 
designed to be as comprehensive a lampoon 
as possible, aimed principally against the 
consul of 206 but not excluding the two 
Metelli who had previously held the consul- 
ship. The first of these was L. Caecilius 
Metellus Denter, who attempted to attack 
Arretium during his consulship in 284 and 
12. Cie. Rep. 4. 10-12, discussed pp. 50-51, furnish 
stronger evidence that Naevius did not attack from the 
stage nominatim than Gellius statement (of Varronian 
origin) in 3. 3. 15 that the poet was jailed ‘‘ob assiduam 
maledicentiam et probra in principes civitatis de Grae- 
corum poetarum more dicta” does to the cont rary. It will 
be noted that the iambic septenarii which according to 
Gellius (7. 8. 5) Naevius directed against Scipio and 
according to Marmorale (p. 105) preceded and may have 

determined his incarceration do not mention Scipio by 

13. Cf. E. Paratore, Storia della letteratura latina 
(Florence, 1950), p. 32. 

was catastrophically defeated,!* the second 
L. Caecilius Metellus, consul in 251 and 247. 
In the year following his first consulship 
this Metellus won an important victory at 
Panhormus, and whatever else is known 
about him is to his credit. Nevertheless 
Naevius, as an enlisted veteran of the 
Sicilian war, may not have shared the high 
regard in which this dignitary was held by 
the general public. Pseudo-Asconius char- 
acterizes this verse as “dictum facete et 
contumeliose in Metellos,’!> that is, in- 
sulting to the Metelli and cleverly so. To 
a Roman of 206 fato would imply that it 
was through no merit of his own that 
Metellus had become consul, and that his 
consulship boded no good for Rome; the 
verse would further carry an unpleasant 
reminder of the disastrous consulship of 
the first Metellus and cast a gratuitous 
slur upon the second one. A verse so in- 
geniously packed with venom must have 
been composed with malice aforethought. 

Marmorale is at his most persuasive 
when he maintains that Naevius was not 
imprisoned in 206 as a direct consequence 
of this jibe, but by an act of arbitrium on 
the part of Q. Caecilius Metellus during his 
brief dictatorship at the end of 205. Me- 
tellus was acting on behalf of Scipio to 
punish Naevius for his attacks on the 
aristocratico-demagogic party of which 
Scipio was the leading figure (pp. 91—112), 
culminating that year in the scurrilous 
verses which Gellius (7. 8. 5) quotes with 
the remark that they were directed against 
Scipio. Naevius was released early in 204 
through the good offices of the tribune 
M. Claudius Marcellus, son of the distin- 
guished commander the poet had celebrat- 
ed in his Clastidium (pp. 124-31). 

The fragments of the plays are well pre- 
sented and explained. Professor Marmorale 
has done scholarship a great service in 
providing a modern critical and exegetical 
edition of this significant poet; the ex- 
haustive introductory essay constitutes 
one even greater. It is thoroughly docu- 
mented, forthright and thought out with 

14. Polybius 2. 19. 8; ef. 22Z, ILI, 1213. 
15. To Cie. Verr. act. pr. 29. 



rare ingenuity. Whether the author’s rea- 
soning convinces or not, and except where 
the evidence is hopelessly inadequate it 
usually does, there is never any uncertain- 
ty as to where he stands and why. 

University of Chicago 

Griechische Grammatik, Zweiter Band: Syn- 
tax und syntaktische Stilistik. By Epvu- 
ARD ScHWYZER +. Vervollstindigt und 
herausgegeben von ALBERT DEBRUNNER. 
(Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 
herausgegeben von WALTER O?TrTo f. 
Zweite Abteilung, Erster Teil, Zweiter 
Band.) Miinchen: C. H. Beck’sche Ver- 
lagsbuchhandlung, 1950. Pp. xxiv-+-714. 
DM 48; bound, DM 54. 

Miller’s Handbuch—only in German 
does a handbook fill a shelf, or a Grundriss 
run to six volumes—Miiller’s no longer, 
but + Otto’s (whose next ?), like the Fed- 
eral budget, grows by what it feeds on. 
The Greek grammar, originally (1885) but 
a part of a subdivision for which a single 
volume sufficed, is now inflated to two 
volumes of 1556 pages, without the in- 
dexes that are to make a third by them- 
selves; and without the indexes it is now 
well-nigh impossible to find any particular 
tree in this tremendous forest. The third 
edition was called for but a mere decade 
and a half after the first; it has taken half 
a century to reach the end of the fifth— 
and the first section of it was published a 
year over a decade and a half ago. Two 
wars might be thought enough hindrance, 
but the inveterate standpat attitude of 
your antiquated pundit can aggravate 
even the obstruction to grammatical stud- 
ies thrown up by the Kriegsherren, 
Hohenzollern or Hitler. Latinists and Hel- 
lenists alike at least in cisatlantic regions, 
when willy-nilly they must on occasion 
exercise themselves over a matter of gram- 
mar, are now far removed from all modern 
conceptions of language, and have done 
at least as much to cut the underpinning 
from beneath their own ungainly edifices 

42 Book REVIEWS 

as any scientist. Apart from the handful 
of comparativists, it is either arid theoreti- 
cal linguists or corybantic sociologists who 
busy themselves most today with the stuff 
of which literature is made. 

In his syntax, Schwyzer, who died in 
1943, takes a position mid-way between 
scholastic grammar of the traditional phi- 
lologist and the more daring ventures of 
modern doctrinaires who in this field of 
investigation have not succeeded in push- 
ing exploration as far as in phonology and 
morphology. As for the structuralists, 
Schwyzer seems hardly to be aware of the 
principle of syntactic oppositions in de- 
scriptive analysis, even though his work 
is essentially descriptive, if also incident- 
ally comparative and systematically histo- 
rical. After a short introductory section 
(pp. 1-17) devoted to analysis (Bedeutung 
und Funktion der Wortarten und Wort- 
formen), comes the substantial descriptive 
part of the work (pp. 18-602), while syn- 
thesis (Wortgruppen und Satzlehre, pp. 
602-98) is quite compact; and then a final 
part, extremely brief, devoted to ‘‘syn- 
taktische Stilistik‘’ (pp. 698-742). The 
bibliography is by no means confined to 
items listed (pp. xix—xxiii) additional to 
those already enumerated at the beginning 
of the first volume (pp. xxv—xlvii, with 
additions), but is systematically worked 
into the body of the work, page by page. 

There is a curious story told how Good- 
win’s Moods and Tenses was introduced to 
Henry Jackson by a Harvard man (who 
afterwards came to a bad end), and by 
Jackson to English Grecians; no one seems 
to have performed the same service, or 
perhaps could, for the Germans, and 
Goodwin, everywhere else known by the 
familiar abreviation MT finds no entry 
into Schwyzer’s main bibliography in 
which he has managed to stock a good deal 
of useless lumber, but (so far as I can find) 
is mentioned only on pp. 248 and 301, only 
in the edition of 1889, and only in the same 
breath as Fiiisting (1850), Aken (1861), 
and Baumlein (1846). It is difficult to 
imagine just what use Schwyzer made of 
all the bibliographical items that he names, 

and even more difficult what use he ex- 
pected his readers to make; if much less 
difficult to imagine what use they will be 
likely to make of them. 

But for its comprehensive sweep, minute 
detail, thoroughgoing accuracy, abundance 
of illustration, and sound learning, there 
can be few rivals to Schwyzer, and fewer 
—if any— betters in the treatment of either 
Greek or any other syntax in any lan- 
guage. This is high praise, and is meant to 
be. Criticism is reduced to small points. 
For example (p. 344, cf. 584; the reference 
to I 802 should read 803), Schwyzer ex- 
plains 8e%o0v and the like in dependent 
relative sentences (ofc? odv 6 dSp%cov) as 
a merely formal equivalent of the negative 
uh Seconc, where the use of the subjunctive 
in the direct form makes no difficulty. But 
in the formula oto0a...6... (&..., &¢...), 
certainly colloquial and usually considered 
interrogative, dependent imperatives are 
of the 8p%éo0v-type only (zotnoov, oiurexzZov), 
moveite at Ar. Ach. 1064 being corrupt 
as van Leeuwen (zone?) and Rennie 
(xovettw) saw. Moreover at Eurip. Her. 
451, 4A” ofof 6 wor oburpazov (cf. Frag. 
Hermippos ap. Ath. 11. 476 D) the imper- 
ative is accompanied by a dative of the 
agent (note the sympathetic dative, or the 
sociative), which points toa petrified verbal 
adjective, the -c- (for an older -oo -) being 
assimilated to the rest of the sigmatic 
aorist, and being in fact regular in oburpxtov. 
Accordingly, the 2nd. sg. aorist imperative 
active is originally an indeclinable (neuter) 
gerundive and the olo«-formula not 
necessarily a question at all. This quite 
apart from Kretschmer’s much more du- 
bious theory of an Indo-European objec- 
tive conjugation submerged in the sig- 
matic aorists and in other tenses (the k- 
perfect, the w-perfect, and the ¢-preterite), 
a type of conjugation familiar in the Ugro- 
Finnish languages, and said to occur in 
Basque, Georgian, and elsewhere. Such 
speculations would at best get little more 
than the mere mention given to this one 
by Debrunner. Yet is striking how fre- 
quently a personal object is implicit in 
Greek érotnoe on vases, or in Latin fecit. 

—J ote fm fw A & 2 eT 

Book REVIEWS 43 

Terminological novelties such as ‘‘fien- 
tiv” (pp. 257, 340) in contrast to “‘stativ” 
(both are “‘infektiv’’) draw fine distinc- 
tions which are at least implicit in the 
meaning of the root («Adc is “‘stativ,” 
but oveva “fientiv’), not formal at all. 
“Kupitiv” (p. 322) seems quite unneces- 
sary. These will be far less useful, or in- 
teresting, to readers not chiefly concerned 
with grammar, than Schwyzer’s brief notes 
on the history and appositeness—or lack 
of it—of old-established, usually ancient, 
terms familiarity with which has blurred 
appreciation of their force. Thus the use of 
syncretism as if it had to do with xepzvvuur 
arose in reference to the reconciliation of 
opposed Protestant factions at the time 
of the Reformation (p. 12, n. 1, after 
Wackernagel); inchoative (for incohative; 
so Bloomfield constantly wrote hypo- 
choristic) should be given up (p. 221, n. 1) 
in favour of “metaptotisch” to describe 
ynpioxw: éynpay, senesco: consenur. Actually 
-sk- is progressive in force, not ingressive 
or inchoative.t Not “‘genus verbi’’ but di- 
athesis is the better term for the contrasts 
some ancient plagosus Orbilius exemplified 
in tontw: tTUmTowat (p. 222, n. 4, Dion. 
Thrax 48 Uhlig; on the adoption of this 
verb as a paradigm Sandys has some 
edifying remarks in his Select Private Ora- 
tions of Demosthenes, II, 234-39). But I 
miss Debrunner’s own explanation of uéon, 
uecdt yg, uéoov as an echo of Semitic usage 
that left the philosopher Zeno of Citium, 
who presumably learnt a Semitic language 
before he learnt Greek, at a loss when he 
came to fit the Greek forms into the frame- 
work of his native terminology (IF, XLVI 
[1928], 219); but perhaps the author him- 
self no longer holds to that explanation; 
in fact reflexive forms are common enough, 
although it is not in strict accord with the 
methods of Semitic grammar to call the 
reflexive a voice. 

Schwyzer stresses the fact, often over- 
looked (but cf. Goodwin MT [1891], p. 391, 
n. 1, reprinted from HSCP I, [1890], 67, 
n. 1; known to Schwyzer only at second 

1. I have not blundered here. Any reader who thinks 
I have should think again. 

hand) that in the idiom of 03 uy with the 
future indicative or aorist subjunctive, 
good manuscripts (e.g., Rav. at Clouds 296, 
Ven. 474 at Clouds 367 and 505) write o%- 
uh oxoyys, i.e., a prohibition preceeded by 
the independent negative “No.” But it is 
not made clear that Goodwin himself em- 
phatically rejected this notion (suggested 
by Gildersleeve) as an explanation of the 
construction or even as its source. 

Especially satisfactory is the recognition 
(p. 333) that the alternation of optative 
and subjunctive in final clauses as in Hat. 
1. 185 (quoted on p. 323; ef. Thuc. 2. 5.4; 
6. 96. 3; but note that the reading is not 
always certain, e.g., Hdt. 2.161 &oxy: &exor, 
Thue. 2.3.4 mpoapéporvto: mpoapépwvrat, 
3.22.8 }: etn) is essentially an alternation 
between oblique and direct expression. 
Goodwin MT, p. 115 is more downright 
still in his statement of the usage. 

In matters of grammar the facts are 
rarely in dispute; interpretation of them 
is far less frequently so than in literary 
criticism, which is apt to become a mere 
exchange of opinion. Schwyzer’s Greek 
Syntax is a model of completeness in its 
collection of the facts, of judicious clarity 
in its concise formulation of what the facts 
mean, and of wise restraint in the far more 
difficult problems of historical develop- 
ment or of comparison with the idiom of 
other Indo-European languages. This edi- 
tion is not likely to need revision before 
the year 2000. 


Harvard University 

The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its 
Survival in Greek Religion. By Martin 
P. Nitsson. 2d ed., rev. (“‘Skrifter 
Utgivna av Kungl. Humanistiska Ve- 
tenskapssamfundet i Lund,” Vol. IX.) 
Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1950. Pp. xxiv 
+ 656 + 203 figs. Kr. 50. 

In the study of the religious life of 
prehistoric Greece there have been two 
works of paramount importance. Evans’ 
essay on the Mycenaean Tree and Pillar 

44 Book REVIEWS 

Cult, though published at a time (1901) 
when the excavations in Crete had only 
just begun, revealed many of the basic 
features of the cult and has strongly in- 
fluenced most subsequent investigation. 
In 1927 Nilsson produced his comprehen- 
sive study of the vastly increased body of 
evidence which a generation of excavating 
had brought to light. His sober judgment 
and his scrupulous adherence to the sound 
principle that Minoan religion must. pri- 
marily be explained within its own frame- 
work won for him general recognition as 
the foremost authority on the subject and 
established his work as a classic. Now he 
has performed the great service of bring- 
ing this work up to date. 

Despite the years of war much new evi- 
dence has been uncovered in the past 
quarter century and there has been much 
pertinent discussion of the problems of 
Minoan religion, including the full-length 
studies by Persson (1942) and Picard 
(1948). All of the new material has been 
incorporated into the present work, and 
as before Nilsson is careful to indicate the 
views of those scholars whose interpre- 
tations differ from his own, though in 
general he avoids polemical discussion. 
Some measure of the labor that has gone 
into the revised edition is given by the 
fact that it contains 75 additional pages 
and 95 more illustrations than its prede- 

Yet what is perhaps its most impres- 
sive feature is how little fundamental 
change has been necessary. The new mater- 
ial takes its place unobtrusively through- 
out the volume, and only rarely has 
Nilsson been obliged to modify an es- 
sential argument or retract an opinion. 
This is the best possible proof of the va- 
lidity of the conclusions put forth in the 
original edition. They have stood the test 
not merely of time but of abundant new 
evidence and full discussion. 

The one major change is a greater re- 
cognition of the distinction between 
Mycenaean and Minoan religion, and of 
the continuity between Mycenaean and 
Homeric religion. To this end the intro- 

ductory chapter has been much revised, 
chiefly along the lines already indicated 
by Nilsson in his Homer and Mycenae 
(1933). More important is the new inter- 
pretation put forward of the H. Triada 
sarcophagus. Nilsson now believes that 
this was fashioned for a Mycenaean prince 
by Minoan craftsmen who utilized the 
forms of Minoan divine cult to serve the 
ends of the Mycenaean cult of the Great 
Dead (pp. 440-42). This would account 
for much that is otherwise difficult to ex- 
plain, but it also seems to remove the 
chief evidence for Minoan divinization of 
the dead, to which, however, Nilsson still 
adheres (cf. pp. 442-43, 625). 

Other notable additions or changes may 
be listed briefly. Two appendixes are ad- 
ded to the Introduction, one (pp. 34~40) 
on mythological representations in My- 
cenaean art, the second (pp. 40—50) on 
suspect objects, the Thisbe hoard, the 
“Ring of Minos,” and the “Ring of Nestor” 
(cf. also p. 313, n. 20 on ivory and stone 
statuettes of dubious authenticity). Two 
important gold rings from Thebes (ef. 
Arch. Anz. LIV [1939], 231, fig. 3) are 
here for the first time adequately repro- 
duced (p. 179 and figs. 82, 83). The discus- 
sion of alleged Minoan connections with 
Asia Minor (pp. 222-24) is much revised. 
Pages 393-95 bring up to date the discus- 
sion of the hypothetical Great Minoan 
Goddess, perhaps the most hotly debated 
problem in Minoan religion, though Nils- 
son’s view seems to the reviewer incontro- 
vertible. Chapter XIV on the Continuity 
of the Cult and the Cult Places is strength- 
ened by the addition of a considerable 
amount of new evidence. The Master of 
Animals now receives recognition as 4 
major Minoan divinity (pp. 513-16). Final- 
ly, the closing chapter, on the Hero Cult 
and the After-life, contains significant new 
material on Mycenaean tombs and a valu- 
able discussion (pp. 616-19) of the im- 
portant paper by Mylonas in AJA LII 
(1948) 56-81. 

Misprints, though fairly frequent, are 
rarely misleading except where a page 
reference from the earlier edition has been 

Book REVIEWS 45 

retained unchanged (on p. 346, n. 21 for 
“above, p. 220” read “257”; on p. 352, n. 
42, second line, for “‘p. 231” read ‘‘268”’). 
A “statuette in Philadelphia’? mentioned 
on p. 50 is not accounted for by the cross- 
reference (read ‘‘Baltimore’’?), and Miss 
Helene J. Kantor’s name unfortunately 
appears throughout as Krantor. Although 
no significant omissions were noted, a 
fuller discussion of the ““Temple Tomb” at 
Knossos (cf. p. 241) and of the ivory 
“Triad” of Mycenae (p. 313, n. 20 on p. 
314 and addendum, p. xxiv), to which 
others have attached such importance, 
would have been welcome. 

For an arduous and self-imposed task 
well done Nilsson deserves our warmest 
thanks. His title of emeritus has meant no 
lessening of his productive vigor and his 
recent works have put all students of clas- 
sical antiquity more than ever in his debt. 
Now that his Geschichte der griechischen 
Religion is finished and in print, would it 
be ungracious to express the hope that he 
will undertake next a revision of his Grie- 
chische Feste ? 

Francis R. WALTON 
University of Chicago 

La mantique apollinienne a Delphes: Essai 
sur le fonctionnement de l’Oracle. By 
PIERRE AMANDRY. (“Bibliothéque des 
écoles frangaises d’Athénes et de Rome,” 
Fasc. 170.) Paris: E. de Boccard, éditeur, 
1950. Pp. 291 + 6 pls. 

It is surprising, in view of the fame of 
the Delphic oracle, how little we really 
know of the way in which it functioned. 
Perhaps its very fame has contributed to 
our ignorance, for to the writers of the 
classical period the whole procedure of 
consultation was so familiar that they 
simply take it for granted. Later, in the 
age of the oracle’s decline, though our 
sources are more abundant and more 
specific, speculation, learned or popular, 
on the nature of the divine inspiration 
tended to overshadow and obscure all 
other questions, and even to color or 

distort in some degree the accounts of 
actual practice. Our traditional picture, 
current since the seventeenth century, of 
the method by which the divine will was 
revealed is in all essentials derived from 
these late sources, in particular from a 
passage of Lucan and from the hostile re- 
ports of certain Christian apologists. It is 
the great merit of Amandry’s work that 
this whole picture has now been subjected 
to a searching criticism. As a result much 
that we have hitherto accepted as fact 
must be discarded or radically modified. 

We may note at the outset two com- 
mendable features of the-book: a biblio- 
graphy (pp. 7-13), which not only lists the 
work of his predecessors but summarizes 
their views, and an appendix (pp. 241-60) 
containing the relevant Greek or Latin 
texts. The main body of the work is di- 
vided into three sections, of which the first 
concerns the methods of divination em- 
ployed. Since Lobeck, it has been generally 
admitted that the phrase dveitAcv 6 Ocdc¢ 
implies the use of cleromancy, but at the 
same time most scholars relegate this use 
to the pre-Apollonian period. That the lot 
was however at least one of the regular 
modes of consultation is now formally at- 
tested by an inscription of the fourth 
century B.c., previously published by 
Amandry in BCH, LXIII (1939), pp. 
183ff. Late but apparently trustworthy 
sources add that the lots were placed in 
the basin of the tripod and there shaken 
by the prophetess to determine the god’s 
will. As to ecstatic revelation by an in- 
spired prophetess, the earliest allusions are 
to be found in the Phaedrus of Plato 
(where pavtixy is regarded as a form of 
divine possession, pavia), and even here 
nothing is said of the wild and disordered 
behavior of the Pythia which has so long 
been accepted as part of the conventional 
picture. Amandry rightly emphasizes the 
difference between the Pythia and such 
figures as Cassandra or the Sybils. The 
Pythia was, in a restricted sense, #vco<, 
but there is nothing to indicate that she 
was at any time chosen on the ground of 
special psychic qualities; she was not a 

46 Book REVIEWS 

voyante. Rather it was her function, pri- 
marily at least, to determine the divine 
decision, generally between fixed alter- 
natives, not to predict the future. The 
relatively few representations of oracular 
consultation which can safely be referred 
to Delphi (chap. 6) are all most readily 
interpreted in terms of cleromantic rites; 
it is noteworthy that there is no hint of 
anything resembling a Dionysian frenzy 
in these scenes. The evidence for onei- 
romancy (chap. 3) and other forms of di- 
vination (chap. 5) is slight, and for the 
most part can be accounted for by the 
pretensions of Delphi and its god to be 
the source of all divination. There is a 
good, though necessarily inconclusive, dis- 
cussion of the supposed Thriai in the 
Homeric Hymn to Hermes. 

A number of diverse problems connected 
with the consultation of the oracle com- 
prise the second section (chaps. 7-14): the 
times when the oracle was available; the 
offering of the pelanos, with a full discus- 
sion (pp. 86-103) of the religious signi- 
ficance of the term; the preliminary sacri- 
fice; the personnel of the sanctuary; the 
role of the laurel, the sacred spring, and 
the tripod; and finally the formulas com- 
monly employed in the questions and 
responses. This last is especially illuminat- 
ing. As a rule the god was presented with 
a choice of alternatives, or, if the petitioner 
had already determined on a course of 
action, Apollo was asked to specify what 
divine or heroic aid should be invoked to 
further the project. The first type of 
question is eminently suited to determina- 
tion by means of the lot, and the second 
is not incompatible with it; in any case 
the fact that the oracles were delivered 
orally allowed the god and his ministers a 
certain latitude. 

It is the third and final section, “Hi- 
stoire et légende”’ that is at once the most 
difficult and the most provocative. As is 
well known Delphi’s importance declined 
seriously in the Hellenistic Age and even 
more under the Empire, yet it is precisely 
from this later period that the authors, 
from Diodorus on, emphasize ecstatic 

states and direct inspiration. How far this 
may represent a real change in the oracular 
method is uncertain, but here, if at all, is 
the time and place to look for possible 
Dionysian influence, just as popular belief 
may now have assimilated the Pythia in 
some degree to the stereotype of the 
Sybils. Even more important, however, 
in determining the attitude of late anti- 
quity was the ancient tradition of the 
oracle of Ge to which Apollo succeded (a 
tradition not yet confirmed by archeology, 
the oracular nature of the Mycenaean cult 
at Delphi being still problematical), for 
from it arose the belief that the agency of 
the divine inspiration was a rvedua évbov- 
s.aotixé6v emanating from a crevice in 
the earth. Best seen in the transparently 
aetiological account of the oracle’s disco- 
very given by Diodorus (16. 26), it derives 
apparent confirmation from the materialist 
theory of inspiration enunciated by the 
Stoic Lamprias in Plutarch’s De defectu 
oraculorum. Against this is the fact that 
no such crevice seems ever to have existed. 
Why then does Plutarch appear to coun- 
tenance the idea? Amandry’s solution 
seems to be correct: Plutarch in other 
treatises expressly rejects the Stoic thesis, 
and proposes other, quite different theories 
of inspiration in which the crevice plays 
no part; his concern, evidently, was not 
with the actuality but with philosophic 
theories. That popular belief from late 
Hellenistic times on accepted the crevice 
and its fumes is of course a different 

Amandry repeatedly admits that the 
results of his investigation are in large 
part negative, and that, pending fresh 
discoveries, many details of the function- 
ing of the oracle must remain uncertain. 
With all due reserve and modesty he pro- 
poses in his concluding chapter a tentative 
reconciliation of the ascertainable facts 
and of the tradition. The Pythia was 
“inspired,” in the sense that, purified by 
the laurel of Apollo, by the waters of the 
sacred spring, and by her obligation of 
chastity, she was in a “state of grace,” 
which enabled her to become a suitable 

Book REVIEWS 47 

vehicle for the divine revelation; but 
neither the device for producing artifical 
emanations proposed by Holland nor Nils- 
son’s suggestion of self-hypnosis is re- 
quired. The primary function of the tripod 
was to contain the lots; the fact that the 
god “‘spoke”’ from the tripod could easily 
suggest its use as a seat for the Pythia 
while she delivered the oracles. Her al- 
leged frenzy is merely a late elaboration of 
the Platonic wavia, but it combined with 
the Aristotelian and Stoic doctrine of ter- 
restrial emanations to create the image of 
the oracular process which has ever since 

There are a number of points on which 
one might willingly and perhaps profitably 
take issue with the author. His emphasis 
on the chthonic nature of the ritual should 
not lead us to disregard the fact that to 
the classical Greeks Apollo was an Olym- 
pian of the Olympians, and in any case 
too sharp a distinction between the terms 
chthonic and Olympian is apt to introduce 
into Greek religion a clarity of outline that 
it did not always possess. Again, his inter- 
pretation of literary passages seems at 
times oversubtle. Does, for example, Plato 
in Phaedrus 244 A-B (cf. pp. 49-50) really 
imply that the prophetesses of Delphi and 
Dodona engaged either in two kinds or in 
two qualities of divination? Is he not 
simply contrasting their services as “‘in- 
spired’”’ agents of divinity with their per- 
sonal unimportance? These criticisms, 
however, scarcely affect the main argu- 
ment of the work, and this appears es- 
sentially sound, highly stimulating, and of 
the first importance. 

Francis R. WALTON 
University of Chicago 

Apollo Delphinios. By PHOTEINE P. Bour- 
BOULIS. (Laographia, Suppl. 5.) Thessa- 
lonike, Greece, 1949. Pp. 83. 

Briefly stated, it is the author’s thesis 
that Apollo Delphinios is an Ionian crea- 
tion, that the myth associating him with 
Theseus is older than the “Cretan” myth 

of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, that the 
maritime character of the god first arose 
during the Ionian migrations to Asia 
Minor by an extension of his functions 
as “‘Averter of Evil,’ and that the identifi- 
cation of the dolphin with the god depends 
not on the mere fact that dolphins com- 
monly accompany ships but that they were 
regarded as animal-guides, divinely leading 
the colonists to the destined spot for settle- 
ment. The maritime Apollo was then ac- 
cepted by the Dorians (and so carried, e.g., 
to Crete), and his cult was further spread 
from Ionia by the colonization of the Ar- 
chaic period. Finally, the festivals of the 
god at Athens and Aegina are associated 
with the opening of navigation in the 

Parts of this thesis are not unattractive, 
especially the explanation of the dolphin 
as a supernatural animal-guide, for which 
there are numerous parallels. Again, grant- 
ed that our sources are insufficient for 
any final judgments, the interpretation of 
the festivals is also plausible. In the dating 
of the myths, however, the argument is 
often halting and unconvincing, and the 
evidence hardly warrants such definite 

There is a useful listing (pp. 10-18) of 
sources, both literary and epigraphical, 
with the relevant passages given in full. 
Unfortunately it is not complete. We may 
add the mention of a temple at Hyrtakos 
in Crete (SEG, IV, 599), of a priesthood at 
Nisyros (Eph. Arch. [1913], p. 8) and of a 
theophoric name at Gorgippia in South 
Russia (Latyschev, Insc. Ponti Euxini, 
IV, 432 B II. 7). 

Francis R. WALTON 

University of Chicago 

Storia della letteratura latina. By Ettore 
PaRATORE. Firenze: Sansoni, 1950. Pp. 
991. L. 1400. 

The present history of Latin literature 
is just that, rather than a handbook of 
factual and bibliographical data. In almost 
a thousand pages there are only a handful 

48 Book REVIEWS 

of footnotes, no learned references, nothing 
of a polemical nature. Instead of the tra- 
ditional rubrics (archaic, golden, silver, etc.) 
the account is separated into nine divi- 
sions: (1) the origins (pp. 1-13), (2) from the 
Tarentine war to the conflict with the East 
(pp. 15-84), (3) the following period to the 
death of Sulla (pp. 85-157), (4) the age of 
Caesar (pp. 159-333), (5) that of Augustus 
(pp. 335-519), (6) the Julio-Claudian dy- 
nasty (pp. 521-647), (7) the Flavians and 
Trajan (pp. 649-756), (8) the Antonines 
(pp. 757-97), and (9) the late Empire 
(pp. 799-984). These divisions, which cor- 
respond to distinct periods of Roman poli- 
tical history, bring into relief the intimate 
connection between the political and cul- 
tural (and specifically literary) history of 
Rome, which is stressed at the outset (p. 2) 
and which constitutes one of the basic 
principles of the book. 

Each division is introduced by a chapter 
setting forth the climate, literary and poli- 
tical, of the period in question, and the 
part played by contemporary writers in 
determining and in reflecting it. More im- 
portant authors are discussed in separate 
chapters, in some instances of considerable 
length (Cicero 62 pp., Virgil 44, Petronius 
30, St. Augustine 22); lesser figures are 
grouped in chapters usually at the end of 
the divisions. The History is illuminated 
throughout by a critical approach at once 
balanced and independent, immense fa- 
miliarity with the Latin writers, and a 
perspicacious understanding of literary and 
human values. 

Apropos of the time-honored separation 
of Roman culture into pre- and post- 
Hellenic phases, the second beginning in 
the latter half of the third century B.c. and 
attaining considerable development before 
the end of the Hannibalic war, it is main- 
tained that much of the legendary material 
having to do with the founding and early 
days of Rome is of indigenous rather than 
Greek origin; that Rome had by no means 
been exempt from Greek influence in the 
so-called pre-Hellenic phase, so that there 
was some justification for Aristotle’s state- 
ment that Rome was a Greek city; finally, 

that in the second part of the third century 
the influence of Greek letters remained re- 
latively limited, not at all comparable in 
extent or importance to that exercised in 
the following century through members of 
the Scipionic circle. 

In the chapter on Plautus it is observed 
that his popularity among scholars is to be 
explained on philological rather than 
aesthetic grounds; should it be established 
that Plautus was a technically incom- 
petent piecer-together of Greek comic 
themes, his essential greatness would not 
be in the least diminished, for ‘what grips 
every reader of Plautus by the throat... 
is the overflowing liveliness which perme- 
ates every scene from beginning to end, 
which, save for Aristophanes, is without 
parallel in world literature” (p. 44). Yet 
his cynicism (“homo homini lupus’’) and 
lack of moral sensitivity deny him uni- 
versality; Ballio of the Pseudolus is his 
only immortal creation, and ‘‘in intuitive 
understanding of the lowest and most tri- 
vial human beings, Petronius is much 
deeper than Plautus”’ (p. 57). 

The second period of Greek influence, 
that associated with Panaetius and Poly- 
bius and the younger Scipio, had far- 
reaching consequences. The fusion brought 
about at this time between Greek thought 
and Roman political tradition formed the 
background for the characteristically Ro- 
man concept of humanitas. This not only 
recognized the paramount value of the in- 
dividual human being and the moral obli- 
gations with which he is invested, but, 
with the introduction of subjective lyric 
poetry by Q. Lutatius Catulus and his 
fellow poets at the end of the second cen- 
tury, went on to reveal him as a creature 
of passion and of suffering (p. 96). 

The comprehensive chapter on Cicero is 
the kernel of the book. Done with admir- 
able skill, it makes clear the tremendous 
significance of Cicero’s achievement. The 
influence of Cicero’s verse, paralleling on 
a much smaller scale that of his prose (as 
a model to those whose delicacy of taste 
outweighed their originality) is not over- 
looked (pp. 175-76); his role as forerunner 

Book REVIEWS 49 

of Augustan civilization in its fundamental 
aspects is well discussed (p. 214); the 
cliché of his ‘“‘eclecticism”’ is exploded; in 
fact he strongly favored Stoicism and the 
doctrine of the later Academy (since Posi- 
donius and Antiochus of Ascalon the two 
schools had become _ interpenetrated), 
whereas unlike Seneca he did not show the 
least eclectic tendency toward Epicurean- 
ism, but remained consistently hostile to 
it (p. 221). His frequent shifts of political 
position are explained by his hatred of 
extremes, of bloodshed, of excessively 
obvious injustices; “if his political faith 
appears to change, his fidelity to the most 
obvious moral values of social existence 
remains constant, and it is precisely these 
values that are most apt to be forgotten in 
periods of radical upheaval” (p. 180). After 
noting that the conclusion of the T’usculans 
is that one should not put undue faith in 
abstract reason, but rather to rely on an 
“impassioned ethical sense” (appassionata 
eticita), the author remarks that it was in 
Cicero that the spiritual disquiet that was 
to produce rich artistic fruits in the Aeneid 
and reach a critical stage in Seneca before 
being assuaged by the Christian faith first 
manifested itself at Rome; it was not for 
nothing that Cicero’s philosophical works 
were deeply appreciated in the Middle 
Ages (p. 225). 

Of the chapters on the Augustans, that 
on Virgil is the most sympathetic, the one 
dealing with Ovid the least. Credit is given 
to the psychological finesse of the latter 
poet in the Heroides, but the Metamorpho- 
ses are dismissed as superficially pictures- 
que and lacking in constructional integrity, 
and the author has little good to say of the 
Fasti and the poems from exile; of the 
latter he uncharitably observes that their 
defects cannot be blamed on the poet’s 
sufferings since (a) in great poets suffering 
customarily results in the highest poetry 
and (b) Ovid had already started on the 
downward path before misfortune came 
upon him (p. 499). With regard to Virgil, 
the Eclogues are “the most authentic Virgil, 
where the spring of his inspiration gushes 
forth with the most continuous and un- 

[CLassicaL PutLotocy, XLVII, JANUARY, 1952] 

broken freshness” (p. 375); the Georgics, 
for all the ‘“‘haud mollia iussa,” could never 
have been written save by spontaneous in- 
spiration; at most Maecenas, perceiving 
that the work was in harmony with Oc- 
tavian’s moral and political program, en- 
couraged and supported the poet (p. 376). 

After reviewing the question of the 
identity of the Vergilius mentioned in 
Horace Carm. 4. 12 (the studium lucri of 
the Horatian figure has been thought to 
allude to Virgil, whose great wealth is 
attested by Donatus),! the author points 
to the parallel between Virgil and his fel- 
low North Italian Manzoni with respect to 
certain inconsistencies between their pri- 
vate and artistic personalities, and warns 
us that “judgment on the art of each 
should be kept apart from considerations 
on their empiric personalities; the ideal 
figure that is implicit in their works will 
always be more valid and more enduring 
than that which biographical details may 
suggest”’ (p. 387). 

Horace and Livy are well handled; of 
the historian it is acutely remarked that 
despite his reputation as artist par excel- 
lence, his work contains more grey, arid 
stretches than that of any other Latin 
historian. Many readers who form their 
judgments at first hand will agree. How- 
ever, the reason given, viz., that this dul- 
ness is a result of the great extent of Livy’s 
work, is questionable, for it is probable 
that the series of lost books in which the 
last hundred years of the Republic were 
recounted were among the most highly 
colored and dramatic of the entire history. 

In the section dealing with the Julio- 
Claudian dynasty the chapters on Seneca 
and Petronius deserve especial mention; 
that on Lucan (who is appropriately com- 
pared to Goya) contains good observations 

1. This is one of the very many instances where the 
points at issue in philological problems are summarized 
and current views pro and con set forth and evaluated; 

another example is the paragraph (p. 378) demolishing a 
recent attempt to interpret the first book of the Georgics 
in terms of Pythagorean numerology; see also the in- 
cisive pages (819-26) which survey the question of the 
priority of the Octavius of Minucius Felix vs. Tertullian’s 
Apologeticus and advance telling arguments for the 
priority of the former. 

50 Book REVIEWS 

on his method and style, e.g., the Ovidian 
origin of his concern with purely visual 
values (pp. 602-3); in the final three sec- 
tions the chapter on Juvenal and that on 
St. Augustine stand out particularly; in 
the latter, apropos of the De civitate Dei, 
we are well reminded of the timeliness of 
St. Augustine’s assertion of the superiority 
of absolute moral values over contingent 
political ones in an age so prone to patho- 
logical worship of the state as is our own 
(p. 942). 

This History is a notable book. Perhaps 
the greatest of its many merits is the de- 
monstration it provides of the enduring 
vitality of Roman humanitas as manifested 
in Latin literature.? 

Ricuarp T. BRUERE 

University of Chicago 

Cultura greca e unita macedone nella politica 
“di Filippoll. By FrancoCarrata.(“Uni- 
versita di Torino, Pubblicazioni della 
Facolta di lettere e filosofia,” Vol. I, 
Fasc. 3.) Torino, 1949. Pp. 45. 

In this brief study Professor Carrata 
assesses the significance of the career of 
Philip II in Greek history. There is copious 
reference, at least by citation of titles, to 
the scholarly work of recent years on the 
historiography of the fourth century, on 
the career of Philip and on the Hellenic 
League, but its significance seems to have 
escaped the author in many respects. To 
him Philip is a barbarian, attracted by the 
rich spiritual life of Greece, but failing to 
understand that its source was in the free 
life of the city state (pp. 16ff.). This 
quality was lacking in Macedonia; to re- 
medy that deficiency Philip desired to 
absorb the Greek world—to create a great 
political organism, spiritually and materi- 

2. There are a certain number of slips and misprints, 
most of which have been already discovered, A list of 
some sixty has been sent this journal by the publiskers, 
with the assurance that they will be corrected in the forth- 
coming edition de luxe. The following additional points 
have been noticed: ‘Sciah” is a word of Indo-Iranian 
origin, and is not connected with “Caesar” (p. 264); for 

(Catullus) 103 read 93 (p. 303); finally Canopus was not 
on the island of Pharos (p. 735 n. 1). 

ally strong. The Hellenic League which was 
designed to effect this union between Ma- 
cedonia and Greece was a failure, destruc- 
tive of that very Greek spirituality which 
Philip desired. With this view of the signi- 
ficance of Philip’s work it is not surprising 
that we learn in the concluding section 
that Alexander’s work had no element of 
universality and that the Hellenistic Age 
was essentially noncreative. We are finally 
informed (p. 45) that “the only positive 
value which illumines and_transfigures 
Hellenism is in the luminous civilization 
of Rome together with the fervid message 
of Christ.” 

It might be argued that Macedonia’s 
consolidation as a northern power or that 
the aim of a Persian conquest should be 
given equal importance in an assessment 
of Philip with his concern to absorb 
Greece. Carrata, however, has concen- 
trated on the latter, but in a manner which 
will scarcely win support. Surely the work 
of the last generation on the fourth cen- 
tury has shown that the Greeks them- 
selves were attempting to turn from the 
particularism of the city state; the at- 
tempts to establish a common peace, the 
attempted utilization of the symmachy to 
that end, the experiments with federal 
organization, the appearance in fact and 
in theory of the “monarch”’ are indicative 
of impulses towards new political creation. 
In the Hellenic League Philip attempted 
to give them expression and, at the same 
time, make allowance for the still strong 
feeling of particularism. Professor Carrata 
sets all this aside with his basic assumption 
that the politically creative energy of 
Greece still lay wholly in the city state. 
There is no attempt to come to grips with 
the fundamentals of the problem posited 
by the League: the relation between syn- 
edrion and constituent members, between 
synedrion and hegemon; and no expla- 
nation of why Macedonia was not a mem- 
ber of the League if Philip was attempting 
to absorb the spiritual values of Greece 
for his country. 

While some of Professor Carrata’s cri- 
ticism of his predecessors is pertinent (cf. 

Book REVIEWS 51 

the remarks on Philip’s deification, pp. 
27-32) their views are scarcely to be set 
aside by a few sentences leaving funda- 
mental problems unattacked— problems 
which must be reworked to support such 
a hypothesis as that of the author. 

University of Chicago 

The Lost Province or The Worth of Britain. 
By M. P. CHaRLeswortu. (“Gregynog 
Lectures,’ 1948.) Cardiff: University of 
Wales Press, 1949. Pp. viii + 89 + 2 
maps. 8s. 6d. 

“T have tried to set out why the Romans 
first conquered and afterwards remained 
in this island; then in what ways its oc- 
cupation proved useful and profitable to 
them; finally, what they have bequeathed 
to us.” Mr. Charlesworth thus describes 
his aim in the preface to the small book in 
which his lectures, delivered at the Uni- 
versity of Wales in 1948, are printed. The 
aims are admirably achieved. After a clear 
and able sketch of the conquest and oc- 
cupation of Britain, the main question of 
why Rome chose to hold the island, when 
other frontier territory, Dacia and the 
areas beyond the Rhine, were sacrificed, 
is discussed. Before the middle of the 
second century the island was apparently 
an economic liability, the worth of which 
raised some doubts in semi-official circles, 
probably represented by Appian’s remarks 
(Praef. 5). Political reasons, the effect of 
a free Britain on Gaul, and strategic con- 
siderations, Britain as one shore of an 
“Atlantic Lake,’ had their effect in out- 
weighing the expenses of occupation. Char- 
lesworth points in particular, however, to 
Britain’s value as a source of man power 
for the army, as a defense-reserve, and as an 
admirable training ground for recruits. 
These last considerations continued to be 
a factor until the necessities of defense 
elsewhere in the Empire resulted in the 
withdrawal of the troops, but after the 
middle of the second century the economic 
development of Britain’s mineral wealth, 

agricultural production, particularly of 
grain, and industry presumably changed 
the loss to a profit in Roman accounts. 
Mr. Charlesworth sketches the permanent 
effects of the occupation in his final lecture, 
emphasizing the importation of species of 
fruit trees, flowers, and vegetables, many 
of which he ascribes to a Roman rather 
than a medieval date. 

The book is attractively printed on good 
paper and has two useful maps; one is of 
Roman Wales and the other of the Saxon 
shore defenses on the Channel, possibly 
planned originally by Carausius and per- 
fected by Constantius. There are brief 
notes and a bibliography. 

University of Chicago 

De quibusdam Plauti exemplaribus Graecis: 
Philemo— Plautus. By BarBara Kry- 
SINIEL-J OZEFOWICz. (‘Torun Society of 
Sciences, Philological-philosophical Sec- 
tion,” Vol. II, No. 2.) Torun, 1949. 
Pp. 109. 

The author’s approach to this familiar 
problem stems from Plautine excellence in 
sermonibus (Varro Ex Nonio 374.6), in 
which she believes Plautine color will be 
found. This resolves itself into an as- 
sumption that Greek sermones reflected 
total consistency of character and on this 
she evaluates the Plautine plays (pp. 8-9). 
Color of Plautus is revealed by that which 
contradicts the mores naturamque persona- 
rum agentium, the leges psychologicas, or the 
oft-cited rationem fabulae. To identify these 
she appeals constantly to the Greek lex 
dramatica, asserts that nemo negabit that 
such and such would not obtain in Phile- 
mon, and shudders at how plane abhorret 
ab usu Graeco some “‘obvious” Plautine ad- 
dition. This approach is not new; it savors 
of the familiar, but unquoted, Langen col- 
lections of inconsistencies and the fre- 
quently cited Leo. One has the uncom- 
fortable feeling that Mme K.-J. might 
have revised her opinion of the perfection 
of Greek Comedy had she not apparently 


se ease Se § £2 8S Se Se See 

ease Ste eR Se ES 4 EE —mee 

52 Book REVIEWS 

ignored the work of such men as Prescott, 
Wheeler, Beare, Duckworth, Harsh, and 
the reviewer. If these strictures seem harsh, 
and if some allowances must be made for 
the tribulations of Polish scholarship even 
in the 30’s (for this work, though com- 
pleted in 1939, was not published until 
1949 because of tempora adversa), honesty 
compels a protest against the continental 
tendency to ignore British-American scho- 
larship without even the lip-service of re- 
futation. A careful reading leaves the un- 
mistakable impression that Plautine scho- 
larship is just where Leo and Fraenkel left 
it a generation ago, and that in her efforts 
to separate the ridicula of Plautus from the 
res severas of the Greek Mme K.-J. has but 
perpetuated the senseless bludgeoning of 
Plautus initiated by Jachmann’s utter in- 
ability to recognize a joke or to understand 
the vis comica. Two simple examples will 
illustrate what the reader will find on al- 
most every page: the great number of 
orders given at Trin. 577 are used as evi- 
dence that certain scenes must have been 
omitted by Plautus, but Mme K.-J. does 
not even mention the humorous effect of 
the i modo’s; she sees no humor in the 
Lysimachus-Pasicompsa scene (Merc. 3.1) 
and entirely misses the point of the de- 
laying tactics (566). It should, unfortuna- 
tely, be pointed out that to assume Most. 
905 means the house is “not good”’ so that 
it may contradict 907 (p. 107) is sheer mis- 
translation. The evidences for omitted 
Greek scenes are the usual arguments (all 
treated as though they were new): charac- 
ters with small parts who “clearly” did 
more in the Greek (e.g., Thesprio, but she 
leaves Grumio alone), duplication of action 
(Plautus doubled something because it 
would delight the audience), off-stage 
action (as though there could be no such 
thing in Greek), suggested action not car- 
ried out (e.g., deception of Pseudolus by 
Simo at Pseud. 1019 is demanded by the 
lex artis dramaticae Graecae!), two major 
events in one scene (because they “‘must”’ 
have been separated in the original, e.g., 
purchase and recognition in EHpid. 5.1 
{p. 60]). Each Plautine scholar will make 

his own list of complaints which will only 
confirm the impression that the author’s 
plausible sounding arguments depend more 
upon intuition than upon evidence, and 
that subjectivity of interpretation in Eu- 
rope is in need of such a check-rein as that 
administered here by Harsh (AJP, LVIII 
[1937], 282-95) two years before Mme K..-J. 
wrote. Perhaps the most difficult pill for 
Americans to swallow is the bland remark 
(p. 7) “sed antequam ad restituendum 
uniuscuiusque fabulae exemplar accedimus, 
liceat nobis quasi uno aspectu omnes 
comoedias poetae Romani complecti’’—as 
if Prescott had not pointed out thirty years 
ago that this was the only proper approach 
(CP, XIV [1919], 135). 

Plautine scholars will wish to study 
Mme K.-J.’s reconstructions of Philemon 
and evaluate each on its merits. In general 
she believes that Plautus omitted many 
scenes from the Greek in order to make 
room for his ridicula and expanded some 
Greek material which he deemed suitable. 
This resulted in rearrangement of scenes and 
compression of characters. Mercator: Acan- 
thio’s greater Greek role is largely trans- 
ferred to Eutychus. The dream was Lysi- 
machus’, not Demipho’s. The girl entered 
the houses of both senes. Demipho’s wife, 
not Lysimachus’, appealed to her father, 
who, rather than Eutychus, reprimanded 
Demipho (5.4, because for Eutychus to do 
so “‘a more comoediae Graecae abhorrere 
videtur,” p. 37). In this play Mme K.-J. 
illustrates most completely how literally 
she takes every word: p. 27 on moral prin- 
ciples, p. 29 on the Lysimachus-Pasi- 
compsa scene (see above), and passim in 
which every word of the dream must come 
literally true (though she does not even 
mention the same dream in the Rudens or 
what bearing its presence there might have 
on her interpretation). Line 1007 (brevior 
fabula erit) clinches the argument that 
Demipho’s wife had a part (to me it is 
merely funny), and Dorippa should have 
more reason to return to the city, i.e., to 
suspect Lysimachus, than her ingenium be- 
cause line 677 conflicts with 277. Line 803 
shows that the pater scene was omitted. 

ma- ™—. tw et 

a ee ee ee ee ee, | 

SF VF eet 

cw Vvieaegc' fF = wa mm s 


She even finds evidence of conversations 
between Acanthio and Syra (ll. 670, 805; 
ef. Phil. Frag. 125 [p. 39]). Finally, if Plau- 
tus breaks “psychological laws” in re- 
turning to res serias after his insertion of 
the exile ioci (p. 40), she might have cited 
as the reason Frank’s well-known inter- 
pretation of the exile scenes (AJP, LIII 
[1932], 243-48). 

Epidicus, which she claims for Philemon 
because Epidicus = epidikazomenos =: epi- 
dikasian of the Phormio (perhaps her most 
convincing conjecture), saw the fidicina 
(who was the daughter) married to Stra- 
tippocles a la Phormio; Chaeribulus mar- 
ried the captive. There was more about the 
miles and Periphanes, not Stratippocles, 
was the one who returned from the wars. 
If Mme K.-J. could not have read Keyes 
on the half-sister (774 PA, LX XI [1940]), 
she would at least have done well to read 
Wheeler (AJP, XX XVIII [1917], 237-64) 
before claiming credit for reviving Dziatz- 
ko’s theory to the detriment of Kuiper. 

Pseudolus is claimed for Philemon on the 
basis of two (unconvincing) fragments 
which suggest Sardios as the title and 
name of Harpax. Proof of the shortening 
of the play rests on the usual arguments: 
Callipho must have had a larger role be- 
cause he promises help, but in 1.5 he 
couldn’t have promised aid in Simo’s pre- 
sence (“ab usu fabulae Graecae plane 
abhorret,” [p. 78]). Various other details, 
especially the much-discussed sponsio, are 
exasperating to read, tedious to record, and 
important only to the Plautine specialist 
who must decide for himself whether 
Mme K.-J.’s imagination (like Dorippa’s 
ingenium) is a surer guide to Philemon than 
is Plautus. 

Trinummus had more about the treasure 
because it is in the title. Various scenes are 
suggested by the alleged discrepancies: 3.2 
must have preceded 2.2 so that Lysiteles’ 
conversation with Lesbonicus (the real 
scoundrel) may be what Philto objects to 
(this is “shown” by 282, where Lysiteles 
is a scoundrel, conflicting with 272, where 
he is virtuous as a result of Philto’s re- 
primands). Stasimus was a good slave 

Book REVIEWS 53 

looking after Charmides’ interests; Plautus 
made him a rascal. The ager-dowry motif 
was differently handled, the senes’ re- 
lationship more fully dealt with, and both 
youths’ wives introduced. Such changes 
are based on inconsistencies concerning 
the recipt of the house-money (ll. 125, 402), 
literal interpretations of Philto’s complaints 
(pp. 86, 88-89) and other dubious argu- 

Mostellaria has been changed, as proved 
by the double occurence of the house build- 
ing motif (ll. 101, 760), of which one must 
be a Plautine expansion (101 is the victim: 
“cum versus 760 sq. cum fabula ita co- 
haereant, ut amoveri ab ea non possint, 
aliter iudicandum est de versibus 101 sq. 
... ete. etc.” [p. 102]). The scare-Theopro- 
pides-away-from-the-house motif, which 
Plautus inserted and hence had to fore- 
shadow (p. 103) does not fit with the cau- 
tious character of the senex. Perhaps 
Mme K.-J. would be less suspicious of 
foreshadowing had she read Harsh on 
Dramatic Preparation (Chicago, 1935, pp. 

Several numerals in line references are 
garbled: p. 56 for 316 read 361, p. 60 for 
653 read 635, p. 87 for 227 read 277. 

Two separate papers, published in 1938 
but only just received, were included in 
the material for review: Die Technik des 
Plautinischen Miles Gloriosus (“Society of 
Friends of Science,”’ Vol. 1X, No. 4[Wilno, 
1938], pp. 41) and De Plauti Aulularia 
evusque exemplari Graeco (“Comptes rendus 
des séances de la Société des sciences et des 
lettres de Varsovie,’ Vol. XX XI, Classe I 
[ Warsaw, 1938], 7-18). Both papersshow the 
pattern of interpretation already well de- 
veloped. The first, in which one notes with 
relief Duckworth’s article (CP, XXX 
[1935], 228-46) cited, maintains that the 
Miles Gloriosus is altered from an original 
unified plot featuring both the hole-in-the- 
wall and the twin-sister tricks. In the 
Aulularia Euclio found the treasure only 
when, at the marriage sacrifice of his 
daughter to Megadorus (by whom she is 
accepted without dowry to save her honor), 
the Lar discloses it so that she may marry 


54 Book REVIEWS 

Lyconides properly. Plautine changes have 
left Euclio’s character inconsistent in bis 
frantic guarding of the treasure while simul- 
taneously letting cooks, etc. into the house ; 
discovery of the treasure during the play 
would relieve all difficulties. The author’s 
general attitude toward Plautus, which 
underlies both this and the later work, is 
well illustrated by her assumption (p. 9) 
that any lack of motivation must be Plau- 
tine not Greek (contrast Harsh, AJP, 
LVIII [1937], 293) and by so typical an 
argument as (p. 8): ‘““Nam nullo modo con- 
cedi potest, iam exemplar Graecum tam 
imperfectum fuisse, ut tot obscuritates in- 
eptiasque, quot in fabulis inveniamus, 
continuerit.”” Perhaps it is some small mea- 
sure of ironic justice that this review ap- 
pears in a journal so closely associated with 
the name of Henry Washington Prescott, 
who exploded such notions thirty years 

Joun N. Houcu 
University of Colorado 

Die Schule des Aristoteles: Texte und Kom- 
mentar, Heft V: Straton von Lampsakos. 
Edited by Fritz WrEHRLI. Basel: Benno 
Schwabe, 1950. Pp. 83. Fr. 11. 
Following the plan of the earlier fasci- 

cles, this edition of Strato contains 150 
fragments (pp. 9-40) and a bibliography 
and commentary (pp. 41-83). The Greek 
and Latin texts of the fragments are, as 
before, supplied with critical notes, taken 
from standard editions. There is some ad- 
ditional material, especially in the notes 
to Diogenes Laertius, but the editor has 
made no new conjectures. 

The text and critical notes might be 
improved at the following points (referen- 
ces are to page and line): At 14.24, the note 
to elvax. refers to the first occurrence of 
this word in the line. At 15.14 Wehrli reads 
moet in place of xotetrx. in Brandis’ 
text, apparently without reason. At 16.27, 
for Cicero De deorum natura read Cicero 
De natura deorum. In the notes to 17.7 and 
34.21, Bernardakis’ symbols R and M do 
not refer to manuscripts, but to emenders 

(Reiske and Meziriac). At 18.8, in the ci- 
tation of Sextus, for III 33 read III 32; 
and at 35.1, for II 12 read IT 11. In the 
notes to 25.24 and 25.29 for omisit read 
omiserunt. At 26.11 moAddv is apparently 
a slip, though it is intended as a correction 
of an error in Diels. At 28.7 the readings 
éxi ... el¢ are departures from Schmidt’s 
text of Hero, where the readings are 
...¢tl. There is no critical note, and 
Schmidt’s text is clearly the better. Frag- 
ment 111 (33.29) should be identified by 
reference to Volume VII, page 3, line 21 
of Bernardakis’ edition, rather than to p. 
697 b of the fifth volume of Wyttenbach. 
The largest number of fragments (41 of 
150) are from Book 5 of Diogenes Laertius; 
the largest amount of text (over 8 pages) 
is from the late commentators on Plato 
and Aristotle, especially Simplicius and 
Olympiodorus. Plutarch, Sextus Empiri- 
cus, and the Doxographers also make im- 
portant contributions. From Hero’s Pneu- 
matica Wehrli has taken seven passages, 
six of which contain no explicit reference 
to Strato. These six might better have 
been labeled zweifelhaft or wnsicher, as 
their ascription to Strato (made first by 
Diels) has been ‘seriously challenged. In 
this connection Wehrli might well have 
mentioned A. Schmekel, Die positive Phi- 
losophie, I (Berlin, 1938), 113-116, where 
the problem is discussed at some length. 
The commentary on the various frag- 
ments indicates the main lines along which 
Webhrli interprets Strato’s philosophy. It 
is eclectic in character, he says (p. 56): 
“atomistisches und aristotelisches Gut 
findet sich zu keiner ganz iiberzeugenden 
Einheit zusammen”. Elsewhere Webhrli 
finds in Strato tendencies toward posi- 
tivism (pp. 71, 81), sensualism (74), and 
empiricism (79). It is unfortunate that the 
evidence is not sufficient to permit a clear 
reconstruction of Strato’s thought. His 
radical departures from the teaching of 
Aristotle are of major importance for the 
history of the Peripatetic school. 
Pattie De Lacy 
Washington University 

Book REVIEWS 55 

Nerone e i suoi tempi. By Marto ATTILIO 
Lev. (“Biblioteca storica universitaria,” 
Ser. II, Vol. I.) Milano: Istituto editori- 
ale cisalpino, 1949. Pp. 234. L. 1000. 

The deservedly high reputation of its 
author should ensure the wide circulation 
of this book among all students of the 
principate: and their perusal of it will be 
rewarding. For all will find something here 
to stimulate and profit them, not indeed 
in the factual sphere (since it is hardly 
likely that many new facts about Nero can 
emerge at this late date), but in the point 
of view and in the way that the events of 
the reign are marshalled, organized and 
interpreted. Levi is too sound a historian 
to embark on a crude attempt at mere 
whitewashing in the manner that seems to 
have become so fashionable for the Early 
Empire in recent years: he has no illusions 
about Nero’s character. But he does seek 
to offer an explanation of why the events 
of his reign took the course they did, and 
it is this that makes his book so interest- 
ing. Briefly Levi’s view is this: Nero’s ac- 
cession coincided with the climax of a 
cultural struggle, Hellenistic influences 
versus genuine Roman traditions, which 
had been going on from the days of the 
late Republic and which during the reigns 
of Caligula and Claudius appeared to be 
moving steadily in favour of the oriental 
elements. In Nero the romanizing party 
had high, and at first seemingly justified, 
hopes of finding another Augustus (the 
significance of Nero’s Augustan blood does 
not escape Levi). But these hopes were 
rudely shattered in 58 when Nero failed 
to win senatorial co-operation for his pro- 
posal to abolish all indirect taxes. Nero at 
once abruptly departed from Julio-Clau- 
dian traditions and showed himself a true 
descendant of the Domitii Ahenobarbi. 
The measures and policies, which resulted 
from his now wilfully personal rule, met 
with varying success but on the whole by 
64 his prestige seemed pretty firmly 
established. In that year, however, oc- 
curred the disaster of the great fire in 
Rome, and Nero never really succeeded 

in overcoming the ensuing storm of un- 
popularity ; consequently his reign moved 
inevitably on to its melancholy conclusion. 

A bald summary such as this unfortun- 
ately gives no idea of the wealth of learning 
and the acuteness of observation with 
which Levi everywhere supports his thesis; 
but readers are bound to be impressed, 
e.g., by the freshness of his account of 
the literature of the Neronian age, or by 
his reconstruction of the campaigns of 
Corbulo, or by his appendix on religious 
conditions at that time. True, the book 
has some shortcomings: the description of 
events in Britain is pretty sketchy; the 
remarks on imperial finances and on 
auctoritas would carry more weight if Levi 
had availed himself of Sutherland’s Ameri- 
can Journal of Philology articles and of 
Grant’s From Imperium to Auctoritas, 
which, even though recent publications, 
were in circulation at the time of his 
book’s composition; some of his confident 
assertions (e. g., concerning the death of 
Claudius on p. 151) ought perhaps to be 
expressed much less dogmatically; the 
lack of maps and genealogical charts 
seriously handicaps the reader; and mis- 
prints unfortunately are not few or con- 
fined to non-Italian words. But, of course, 
any book can have cavils raised against it 
on the score of comparatively minor mat- 
ters. The really important thing is whether 
the book can be accepted as authoritative 
in its main outlines; and this is something 
that every student of the period will have 
to decide for himself. The present reviewer 
finds Levi’s methods of reasoning at more 
than one point somewhat inconsequential : 
e.g., his view is that Nero could not 
simply ignore the senate when it proved 
reluctant to approve his taxation proposal 
in 58 since that would have run counter 
to his “‘Augustan” program (p. 144); 
yet, on receiving this’ check by the senate, 
Nero proceeded at once to jettison Augus- 
tan principles entirely. Would an emperor 
who was prepared to murder his own 
Augustan mother early in 59 have tamely 
allowed himself to be balked by a handful 
of senators in 58? Then again, in his ac- 

56 Book REVIEWS 

count of the sources for Nero’s reign, Levi 
insists on the quite marked discrepancies 
between Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio; yet, 
somewhat perversely, he concludes by 
suggesting that all three of them might 
have a common origin (p. 40). Other 
students of Nero’s reign may share the 
present writer’s doubts on these and si- 
milar points; but, whether they do or not, 
it is abundantly clear that they will neglect 
Levi’s book only to their own definite 

McMaster University, 
Hamilton, Ontario 

De Rheso tragoedia. By CORNELIS BAREND 
SNELLER. (Dissertation, Utrecht, 1949). 
Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1949. Pp. viii 

Written in very readable Latin, this 
doctoral dissertation might well serve as 
a model of what a dissertation ought to be. 
The author has obviously mastered the 
literature of his subject; he deals with it 
firmly and sensibly, without heat but also 
without any undue respect for the very 
eminent authors of very foolish theories, 
indeed with a quiet irony that is very re- 
warding to the reader. 

First we find an impressive bibliography 
on Rhesus, from 1600 on, though mostly 
since 1800, which is useful and seems 
complete. A brief introduction then pre- 
sents the most important, contradictory 
but equally eminent, theories. The main 
views are, of course, either that Rhesus is 
not by Euripides and probably dates from 
the fourth century, or that it is by Euri- 
pides as a young man. 

The arguments from structure and dra- 
matic feeling are then dealt with in the 
course of a brief summary of the play; 
certain weaknesses are admitted, but not 
as being non-Euripidean, any more than 
the fact that ‘‘vim fabulae nostrae pro- 
priam in rapida ac ‘motoria’ actione esse 
positam.’’ The absence of a ‘“‘prologue”’ 
and the traces of two in our authorities, 

are sensibly discussed. More interesting 
perhaps is the metrical question. Here 
Mr. Sneller bases his argument on previous 
studies of the frequency of resolved syl- 
lables, of dactyls in the third foot, of two 
tribrachs in the same lines, and the like. 
While he recognizes that the value of these 
arguments is largely cumulative, he be- 
lieves them to be strong enough for us to 
date the play, if written by Euripides, not 
as an early tragedy, but as produced after 

After dealing with a number of other 
arguments for an earlier date, each of 
which he manages to demolish in itself, 
though the cumulative effect is not quite 
destroyed, the author passes on to the 
linguistic arguments, and here his con- 
clusion is, I believe, quite established : “nil 
ergo lucubratio nostra attulit quod ful- 
crum satis solidum praebeat iis qui ob res 
linguisticas Rhesum ab Euripide abiudi- 
cent.”’ The ancient authorities are then 
reviewed and it is shown that, on any 
reasonable interpretation, the genuineness, 
not only of a Rhesus but of this Rhesus has 
all the evidence in its favour and can prob- 
ably be traced back to Aristotle himself. 
Indeed the very full review of the evidence 
on this and other points might well serve 
as a warning of the fantastic improbabili- 
ties which even the greatest scholars will 
not infrequently produce in all seriousness. 

Mr. Sneller then proceeds in his last 
chapter to strengthen the conclusion ar- 
rived at in the metrical discussion (that 
Rhesus should be dated ‘‘haud multo post 
Hippolytum’”’) by connecting the referen- 
ces to Thrace in the play with contempor- 
ary events, namely with the career of 
Sitalces. He does this so precisely that he 
feels sure the play can be dated between 
427 and 424. Now if I do not find this very 
convincing, it is because, though I admit 
that contemporary events inevitably in- 
fluenced the feelings of the tragedians (and, 
in this play, quite possibly, the attitude to 
Thrace), I cannot feel that such exact cor- 
respondence between historical events and 
the dramas is either probable or necessary. 
There is the further danger that the search 




for contemporary references will blind us 
to tragic significance, for example, of Hec- 
tor’s attitude to Rhesus (see p. 105). It 
must be admitted, however, that those 
who accept the method will find the argu- 
ment free from allinherent improbabilities. 

Students of Euripides will in any case 
be grateful for this highly competent, read- 
able and very useful review of the prob- 
lems of Euripides’ Rhesus. 


Trinity College, 
University of Toronto 

Catulli Veronensis liber. Recensuit Mau- 
ritius Schuster. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 
1949. Pp. xiv + 153. $ 2.25. 

This book contains much well-arranged, 
useful material: besides Praefatio, Appara- 
tus and Index nominum, an Appendicula 
Graeca, Index metricus, Index uerborum et 
locutionum and, appended to each poem, 
enough notes to provide the basis for a 
commentary. Like most modern editors 
Schuster builds his text chiefly on O and G; 
Hale’s R he reduces to r. The readings of R 
(or r) should be corrected at 47.4, 97.8 and 
102.1 after Hale’s report in CR, XX (1906), 
160. Again, to judge from Hale’s list in 
CP, III (1908), 233-43, Schuster’s state- 
ment on p. vi about the deteriores is er- 

The criticism of Catullus has now reach- 
ed a point where sobriety rather than 
novelty is expected of an editor. Perhaps 
a novelty of this edition is that eighteen 
instances of hiatus occur in the text. So 
fond of hiatus is Schuster that he not only 
rejects several facile corrections, as at 
66.48, 67.44, 99.8, but at 57.7 sets aside an 
approved reading of O, altogether the best 
MS of Catullus, to preserve the hiatus. 
Schuster concerns himself a good deal 
with orthography, but seems uncritical; 
for the chief MSS of Catullus are too late 
to be authoritative and should not be 
followed even in matters of aspiration, 
Where the medieval scribes were wilder 
than Arrius. For example, Arpocratem at 

Book REVIEWS 57 

74.4 and 102.4 is wrong on two counts, not 
to mention the monstrosity at 66.54. And 
we should not now be reading Gnidumque 
at 36.13 or Gnosia at 64.172 after Hous- 
man’s “Prosody and Method II,” CQ, 
XXII (1928), 1-10. To write set because 
of a variant sed and woster wherever the 
MSS offer a variant noster is merely trivial ; 
such variants originated in the ordinary 
confusion of medieval abbreviations and 
tell nothing about the ancient spellings. 

Miscellanea critica. 6.12:—Scaliger 
should be mentioned, and wales belongs 
to Schwabe. 10.9-10:—The conjectures of 
Westphal and Muretus might be noticed, 
at least to indicate that other scholars have 
had some trouble with these lines. 29.20: 
—The spondee is scarcely defended by the 
proper name in line 3. 31/.5:—The cor- 
rection was first made by Schwabe. 34.6: 
—Read Jouis. 51:—Add R. Lattimore, 
CP, XXXIX (1944), 184-87. 56.5-7:— 
Schuster seems to be unaware of Hous- 
man’s note in Hermes, LX VI (1931), 402, 
which incidentally obviates Schwabe’s in 
puella. 57.9:—Schuster prints the inverted 
et, but does not mention the most famous 
criticism of this passage. 61.206:— Hein- 
sius is credited with the initial correction 
here, but what about Muretus at 57.9 and 
Guarinus at 64.288? 63.92:—tuos Usener 
(1865), Schwabe (1866), Ellis (1867). 
64.153:—iniacta did not originate with 
Ellis. 64.282:—Add Housman’s aperit, a 
conjecture based on O. Schuster’s refer- 
ence to Ov. AA 3.185, which he borrows 
from Ellis, only bears out what Housman 
says in CR, IV (1890), 340. 64.324:—Correct 
the reference to CQ, [IX (1915), 229. 66:— 
Compare now the text of R. Pfeiffer, Calli- 
machus, I (Oxford, 1949), 112-23. 71.4:— 
certe belongs to Peiper. 113.2:— Maeciliam 
Lachmann. P. 114:—liquéfaciens and tepé- 
faciet are not examples of diastole. 

These criticisms concern details only and 
are not set down to impugn the general 
worth of this liber doctus et laboriosus. 


Amherst College 

58 Book REVIEWS 

Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken 
Religionen. By Rupoitr BuLtmann. 
Ziirich: Artemis-Verlag, 1949. Pp. 263. 
Fr. 13.80. 

Professor Bultmann’s book is an im- 
pressive work of condensation of the much 
belabored theme of the religious origins of 
Christianity from its Jewish and Hellenis- 
tic roots. For wealth of content, clarity of 
exposition, and aptness of illustration his 
little volume would be hard to match. 
Moreover it is not a summary account de- 
signed to save the uninitiated reader from 
the labor of weightier tomes. It is a book 
with a very definite point of view, which 
needs, at least in respect to the pages de- 
voted specifically to Christianity, supple- 
mentation, if not correction. 

No one would question Bultmann’s de- 
scription of early Christianity as a “‘syn- 
cretistic phenomenon.” But the central 

unity of the new syncretism is not sought 
in the concrete situations of human re- 
sponse to an historic person. Rather the 
endeavor is made to discover ‘‘a uniform, 
a new and peculiar Grundauffassung of 

human existence.” Thus for Bultmann the 
essential elements of original Christianity 
are not made up of what Jesus actually 
did or taught, or what He actually was in 
His own Person in His historic existence; 
but they are to be found in the new com- 
plex of ideas which faith in the Christ pro- 
duced in respect to the nature of man and 
his relation to the cosmos and to God and, 
in particular, to man’s setting in time and 
eternity. Christianity is therefore a new 
mythology, developed as such even before 
the work of St. Paul (for Phil. 2:6-1] is a 
pre-Pauline “Christ-hymn’’): 

the chief thing is that Jesus’ Person and 
work were interpreted with the ideas of the 
Gnostic salvation-myth: he is a divine form 
of the heavenly Light-world, the Son of the 
Highest, who was sent hither by the Father, 
veiled in human form, and who brought 
salvation through his work (p. 219). 

Such a central motif is the occasion of 
Bultmann’s arrangement of his material. 
The first part is an excellent review of the 
Old Testament inheritance. Then follows 

a section on Judaism—chiefly devoted to 
Pharisaism, though there is a brief chapter 
on Hellenistic Judaism. Into this part is 
inserted the discussion of the ‘‘Proclama- 
tion of Jesus.”’ This is viewed first as a pro- 
test against “legalism” and the conception 
that God’s judgment is revealed in Volks- 
geschichte. Since, according to Bultmann, 
Jesus rejected the “hope” of Judaism in 
both its nationalistic and its apocalyptic 
forms, the call of Jesus to men is purely 
one for an individual decision here and 
now in face of a Kingdom imminently im- 
pending, a Kingdom entirely outside of 
history. He made no claims to any sort of 
Messiahship ; He was merely the Verkiinder 
of the approaching crisis. The Church made 
Him the Verkiindigte. 

It is significant that Bultmann does not 
discuss the issues which led to the death of 
Jesus. Yet it is certainly the Passion nar- 
rative (including the Resurrection ac- 
counts) which are the focal center of the 
gospels and of early Christian preaching. 
But his radical view of Jesus’ personal 
claims for Himself cannot cope with the 
religious causes of the passion, because it 
cannot see Jesus’ “‘fulfillment”’ of Judaism 
in proper historical perspective. The death 
and resurrection of Jesus have become 
merely part of the “mythology” of the 
early Church. 

The third section of the book traces the 
Greek inheritance, and this is followed by 
a section on Hellenism, devoted to Stoi- 
cism, astralism, the mystery-religions and 
Gnosticism. This leads into the final sec- 
tion on early Christanity, which is chiefly 
given over to an exposition of St. Paul and 
the Fourth Gospel. While it is perfectly 
true that there is a pre-Christian Gnosti- 
cism, we know little of it. And it is a dan- 
gerous procedure to explain St. Paul from 
expressions which later Christian Gnostics 
developed and systematized. Thus, for 
example, the characteristic Pauline phrase, 
“in Christ,” is for Bultmann “‘in no way... 
a formula of mysticism but much more 4 
Gnostic-cosmological formula.’”’ In Christ 
man is freed from the slavery of inimical 
cosmic powers; though in Paul the ‘“‘pow- 

Book REVIEWS 59 

ers’ do not place man in a situation of 
fate and destiny, but of guilt. And the 
powers of guilt are: the “flesh,” the Law, 
sin and death. 

The foregoing remarks, though chiefly 
negative, should not be interpreted as a 
slight to Bultmann’s very real achieve- 
ment. Specialists in Judaism and in Hel- 
lenistic religion will doubtless have little 
criticism of the conclusions reached in 
these areas. It is the treatment of Chris- 
tianity which is so individualistic and 
peculiar. To those already familiar with 
Bultmann’s larger exegetical and theo- 
logical works his views set forth here will 
not come as any surprise. But the unwary 
reader needs to be warned that Bultmann’s 
“mythological” school of thought regard- 
ing the beginnings of Christianity is 
neither new nor is it by any means widely 

Massey H. SHEPHERD, JR. 

Episcopal Theological School 

César, Guerre d’ Afrique. Texte établi et 

traduit par A. Bouvet. (“Collection des 

Universités de France publiée sous le 

patronage de |’Association Guillaume 

Budé.”’) Paris: Société d’édition ‘‘Les 

belles lettres,” 1949. Pp. li + 128. 

This is a very satisfactory and useful edi- 
tion of the Bellum Africum with the Latin 
text and a French translation on opposite 
pages in the manner of the Loeb Classical 
Library, but the addition of an extensive 
introduction, more complete notes, and an 
apparatus criticus make it a much more 
valuable volume. 

The introduction begins with a short ac- 
count of Caesar’s campaign in Africa and 
continues with an excellent discussion of 
authorship, style, historical value, and 
manuscript tradition. With respect to 
authorship Bouvet rejects Hirtius, Oppius, 
Asinius Pollio, and Sallust and accepts the 
more plausible conclusion of Nipperdey 
and Barwick that both this and the Bellwm 
Hispaniense were probably the work of 
some obscure person writing under the 
direction of Hirtius. On the basis of litera- 

ry style, familiarity with military affairs, 
and detailed knowledge of the campaign, 
Bouvet shows convincingly that the ac- 
count must have been written by an 
eyewitness, probably an officer of lower 
rank, who was completely devoted to 
Caesar and his cause, but who nonetheless 
has written a reliable account. To support 
this conclusion he cites several instances 
where the account reflects the stylistic 
peculiarities and grammatical irregularities 
of the common soldier. Fina'ly, the discus- 
sion of the manuscripts and the manuscript 
tradition at the end of the introduction 
along with the critical notes to the text 
itself reflect the meticulous and scholarly 
care devoted to establishing an accurate 

By following the original as closely as 
possible, Bouvet facilitates comparison of 
the French translation with the Latin text. 
The translation is particularly successful 
in bringing out the peculiar flavor of the 
soldiers’ speech. 

Many will find the notes the most valu- 
able feature of this edition, especially those 
dealing with military questions and related 
textual problems. The comments on stra- 
tegy, the size and identity of army units, 
as well as his explanations of military 
terms are excellent. Places mentioned are 
carefully identified and located, but re- 
ferences to the Atlas archéologique and 
other evidence on topographical matters 
will usually be found in the index des noms 
propres rather than in the notes. 

On political and economic matters the 
notes are unfortunately much less complete 
and satisfactory. The explanations of such 
terms as conventus civium Romanorum, 
civitas libera et immunis, and negotiatores, 
for example, fail to bring out their im- 
portance in the Romanization of Africa; 
nor do the notes provide adequate biblio- 
graphical guidance for further study. The 
note to chapter 32, where the document 
mentions Marius and the Gaetulians favor- 
ed by him, might include some discussion 
of clientage and citizenship grants. In con- 
nection with chapter 43, where Messius is 
said to have made a march through the 

60 Book REVIEWS 

kingdom of Juba, the note should briefly 
discuss the boundary question including 
the fossa regia. Since Juba is mentioned 
frequently in the Bellum Africum, it would 
have been helpful to give the reader alittle 
more information about this king and his 
kingdom, and his relationship to the Civil 

On economic affairs, however, the notes 
offer practically nothing. This is especially 
regrettable in view of the valuable data in 
the Bellum Africum on agricultural pro- 
ducts of the particular areas involved in 
the campaign, and the villa system of land 
tenure which prevailed in parts of Africa 
at that time. 

Finally, either in the introduction or in 
the notes, the historian would expect a 
more illuminating discussion of the great 
importance of chapter 97 for a study of the 
Romans in the African towns, and especi- 
ally the terms of settlement which Caesar 
imposed upon Africa after his victory. The 
distinction between Leptis Minor and 
Lepcis (Leptis Magna) is made clear, but 
Bouvet seems to be completely unaware 
that the larger city was called Lepcisrather 
than Leptis at this time. In his note on 
this chapter, moreover, he states that it 
was Lepcis which was forced to pay the 
tribute, without informing the reader that 
opinions differ on this point. (On the spel- 
ling Lepeis and the reasons for believing 
that the author of the Bellum Africum had 
Leptis rather than Lepcis in mind, see 
Townsend, “The Oil Tribute of Africa at 
the Time of Caesar,” CP, XX XV [1940], 
274-83.) Then, too, the implications in- 
volved in emending the manuscript read- 
ings irrogatis or togatis to locatis, rather 
than levatis, merit more attention. 

M. Bouvet is primarily interested in 
textual criticism and military affairs, and 
these are unquestionably the most im- 
portant problems for any editor of the 
Bellum Africum. His sound and careful 
scholarship in these respects makes this a 
particularly valuable edition. 

Prescott W. TowNsEND 
Indiana University 

Arnobius of Sicca: The Case against the 
Pagans. Newly Translated and Annotat- 
ed by GrorGE E. McCracken. (“‘Anci- 
ent Christian Writers: The Works of the 
Fathers in Translation,” eds. JOHANNES 
7 and 8.) 2 vols. Westminster, Md.: 
Newman Bookshop, 1949. Pp. 659. 
$ 6.75. 

Arnobius, the pagan rhetorician who late 
in life became a convert to Christianity and 
composed a book in its defense, is one of the 
most baffling personalities inthe long list of 
ancient Christian writers. It is obvious that 
he undertook to champion the Christian 
cause without any adequate knowledge of 
Christian doctrines, knowing nothing about 
the Old Testament and very little about 
the life and teachings of Christ. Hence he 
was compelled to limit himself to attacking 
his former religion; but in that field his 
encyclopedic knowledge of both Graeco- 
Roman and Oriental mythology enabled 
him to produce a devastating exposé of 
their puerility, inconsistency, and im- 
morality which won him the grudging 
respect of his new coreligionists. His work 
was not widely used by subsequent Chris- 
tian writers, and was not influential in the 
Middle Ages. Only one manuscript of in- 
dependent authority (C. Parisinus 1661) is 
known to exist, and it is in bad condition. 
At least twenty-eight printed editions of 
the text have been produced, but even now 
not all of the disputed readings have been 
cleared up. The Adversus nationes was first 
translated into English by Hamilton Bryce 
and Hugh Campbell in 1871 (Ante-Nicene 
Fathers, Vol. VI, pp. 405-543 [Buffalo, 
1886]); but the subsequent publication of 
improved texts and the critical labors of 
many scholars have rendered this fine 
production obsolete. In undertaking to 
incorporate these fruits of scholarly ac- 
tivity into a new translation Professor 
McCracken and the editors of the “An- 
cient Christian Writers” series have done 
yeoman service to the cause of Christian 

The work before us is more than a trans- 

Book REVIEWS 61 

lation. Professor McCracken has undertaken 
to shed all possible light on both Arnobius 
and his book; and in both fields his achie- 
vement is outstanding. His fifty-four page 
introduction summarizes the vague and 
contradictory data on the author’s life, 
describes his place in the history of Chris- 
tian literature, traces the manuscript 
tradition of the Adversus nationes in so far 
as it is known, and briefly sums up the 
list of modern scholars who have worked 
upon it. The translation is based principal- 
ly upon Reifferscheid’s text, with oc- 
casional readings from Marchesi’s edition 
and others. In general it reproduces the 
meaning of the original faithfully but not 
slavishly, in good, unaffected English. In 
a very few cases the translator seems to 
have been betrayed into imitating Arno- 
bius’ ponderous phrases, but they do not 
affect the value of his work noticeably. 
The uncertain state of the text makes it 
inevitable that there will be differences of 
opinion on what Arnobius actually said. 
Thus in 1. 50it would seem that Hildebrand 
was correct in reading, “nam cum videret 
futuros suos esse gestarum ab se rerum 
divinique operis adrogatores ...’ instead 
of “nam cum videret futuros vos 
derogatores,’’ which lends more emphasis 
to the point that Christ avoided the im- 
putation of practicing magic by causing 
humble men to perform the same miracles 
as he himself had done. Again, was it neces- 
sary to veil the franker parts of Arnobius’ 
discussion of pagan mythology as thickly 
in cireumlocutions as Professor McCracken 
has done ? Certainly our modern taste re- 
volts at some of the filth which Arnobius 
dragged into the light of day; but Bryce 
and Campbell handled the story of Acdestis 
(5.5-7) much more clearly than McCracken 
has done, without offending sensitive 

The notes to this translation are unfortu- 
nately relegated to the back part of each 
volume; but they are ample in quantity 
and superb in quality. Few indeed are the 
questions which might arise in a reader’s 
mind on which they will not throw some 
light. Volume I carries an adequate biblio- 

graphy, and Volume II contains a fair 


Ohio Wesleyan University 

C. Tuli Caesaris commentarii, Vol. 11: Com- 
mentarii belli civilis. Edited by ALFRED 
Kuotz. 2d ed. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 
1950, Pp. xxii + 169. $2.35. 

This revision of Klotz’s Commentarii 
belli civilis (first edition, 1926) offers sev- 
eral changes besides the new Teubner for- 
mat and the brief summaries of the nar- 
rative at the top of each page. The readings 
of N, Codex Neapolitanus s. XII/XIII, 
have been added to the apparatus from 
Fabre’s Budé Guerre civile (1936). Thus 
Klotz now lists eight MSS instead of seven 
(SLTVURW) in his Preface and also cites 
facsimiles and descriptions in Chatelain 
and elsewhere. The old stemma, taken over 
from Holder, has been replaced by a sim- 
plified version of Fabre’s. The new Index 
nominum has a slightly modified arrange- 
ment and one or two corrections. 

There is much more material in the Pre- 
face to the editio altera, though we shall 
still need that of the first edition for its 
fuller account of scribal errors. Pp. vii—xiv, 
dealing with the argument that Caesar did 
not leave the Bellum civile in a finished 
state, represent pp. ix—xi of the old Pre- 
face—expanded mainly to answer Bar- 
wick’s “‘Caesars Commentarii und das Cor- 
pus Caesarianum” (Philol., Suppl. 31, 
Heft 2 [1938]). The treatment of the style 
and syntax of the Civil War (pp. xiv—xix) 
is entirely new and highly interesting. 
Among the topics taken up are colloquial 
elements, some peculiarities in case con- 
structions and the verb, and plural nouns 
for singular. In connection with the last a 
reference to Lofstedt’s “Plural statt des 
Singulars” (Syntactica I? [Lund, 1942] 
27-65) would have been in order. 

The text proper is little changed, except 
for somewhat more punctuation. In an 
examination of 65 chapters I have not 
found a single place where N alone is the 

62 Book REVIEWS 

source of a reading. But N occasionally 
supports what was cited merely as a con- 
jecture in the first recension; cf. 1. 14. 4, 
where N¢ shows the circa which Nipperdey 
proposed. Again in the revision we note a 
conservative editorial method full of good 
sense. At 1. 32. 7 illis se oneri non futurum 
of the MSS—‘“‘Man beachte die in dieser 
Wendung liegende bittere Ironie” (Dobe- 
renz-Dinter ad loc.)—is still preferred to 
Oudendorp’s illi, se onert non defuturum. 
In the case of 2. 24. 1, given the difficulty 
of identifying the site of Anquillaria, it is 
surely as sound to keep the biduique iter of 
the codices with Klotz’s editions as to 
emend bidui- to tridui- with Kubler. The 
division of the work into two books instead 
of the traditional three is again followed— 
with the customary numbering according 
to three books to match the references in 
the handbooks and dictionaries. 

One textual change indicative of the 
new grammatical lore in this edition is 
redit for rediit (3. 18. 2) and perit for periit 
(3. 22. 2) and their interpretation in the 
apparatus as perfects. It might, however, 
be better to print redit and perit in the 
manner of the Budé Livy. 

The new apparatus gives on the whole 
more information and in a more compact 
form. We see that N often has omissions 
or differs from the other MSS in word or- 
der; cf., for example, 1. 19. 4, 3. 51. 5. 
When something which was in the old ap- 
paratus has been dropped, the loss, it 
seems to me, is not great. At 2. 31. 8 app., 
for instance, to list ut spe, the correction 
of Aldus Manutius IT, as Klotz did in 1926, 
is unnecessary. Caesar certainly used wti as 
well as wt, if we can put any faith in the 
codices (cf. uti in §6 of this very chapter), 
and Meusel’s clever construing of wt ipse as 
uti spe does not reduce the number of 
letters involved. 

I have noted the following misprints: 
(p. xvi) read 315 instead of 165 in ‘Arch. 
f. lat. Lex. 13 (1904), 165’; (2. 19. 3) the 
section number 3 is omitted; (3. 44. 5 app.) 
read quam quae with the 1926 edition and 
Meusel’s Tabula coniecturarum for quem 
quae; (3. 102. 3) read diutissime for ditu- 

tissime. In priusquam telum adigi possit aut 
nostri propius accedercnt (2. 34. 6) the possit 
must be a typographical error, repeated 
from the earlier edition, for posset. Since 
possit is not mentioned in Klotz’s appara- 
tus either time, one would infer that the 
MSS have it. But other editors give posset 
without comment. Furthermore, if Klotz 
had meant to print possit, presumably it 
would have been entered at p. xvii along 
with the unusual present solvantur of 
legem promulgavit ut sexenni die sine usuris 
creditae pecuniae solvantur (3. 20. 5). For 
grammatical problems are very carefully 
considered in the new Preface and appara- 
tus. In fact, this edition is one more work 
of Klotz’s showing his great mastery of the 
matter, text, and language of Caesar. 

Epwarb L. Bassett 

University of Washington 

Excavations at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus, Vol. I: 
The Hellenistic and Roman Periods. 
Edited by Hetty GotpMan. Princeton, 
N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950. 
Pp. viii +- 420 + pls. and plans bound 
separately. $36.00. 

Contents: I. Buildings and Habitation 
Levels (H. Goldman); II. Chronology of 
the Levels; III. Coins (D. H. Cox); IV. 
Lamps (H. Goldman and F. F. Jones); 
V. Stamped Amphora Handles (V. Grace); 
VI. Pottery (F. F. Jones); VII. Terracotta 
Figurines (H. Goldman); VIII. Inscrip- 
tions (A. E. Raubitschek); IX. Miscellan- 
eous Finds; Stratigraphic Tables of Ca- 
talogued Objects; List of Abbreviations; 

A short review can hardly do justice to 
the excellence of this publication, a quality 
for which all the contributors deserve their 
shares of credit. Both as a whole and in its 
separate sections the report is well organ- 
ized and the material is clearly presented 
and illustrated for ready reference. The 
careful recording and description are the 
more commendable in that the limited 
area of the excavation produced objects 
of hardly more than ordinary importance; 

ie ail ame om «& eh et Fre A 

— em sf te 

Book REVIEWS 63 

as Miss Goldman states in the Foreword, 
“this volume in no sense represents a study 
of Hellenistic and Roman Tarsus. That 
great city lies in large part under the 
flourishing modern town....” But such 
restricted and closely controlled digging is 
far more productive of facts, if not of finds, 
than more ambitious undertakings, which 
usually prevent the detailed recording that 
is a major virtue of this publication. 
Two sections deserve special mention. 
The pottery, the largest and most un- 
wieldy body of material, has been very 
ably handled by Miss Jones; the text and 
illustrations give a complete and easily 
grasped account of the various kinds of 
both table and kitchen wares. The terra- 
cottas form the most interesting body of 
material and their interest and value has 

been appreciated in great measure by Miss 
Goldman’s informative comments. The 
stratigraphic table of the catalogued ob- 
jects is a useful addition which should be 
standard equipment in excavation reports. 
It is the cost alone of these volumes that 
one can object to. Excavation reports 
have now priced themselves beyond the 
resources not only of the unsubsidized in- 
dividual, but also of many college libraries. 
Perhaps archeologists had better accept 
the fabric of the Fates and not try to main- 
tain unchanged the high material quality 
of their publications in an age which has 
debased that of almost everything else. 


Cornell University 


{Not all works submitted can be reviewed, but those that are sent to the editorial office for notice are regu- 
larly listed under ‘Books Received.” Offprints from periodicals and parts of books will not be listed unless they 
are published (sold) separately. Books submitted are not returnable.] 

ABDUL-HAK, SELIM, and ANDREE. Catalogue 
illustré du Département des Antiquités gréco- 
romaines aw Musée de Damas. (‘‘Publica- 
tions de la Direction Générale des Anti- 
quités de Syrie.””) Damas, 1951. Pp. 180 + 
60 pls. + plan. 

Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa, 
lettere, storia e filosofia, Ser. II, Vol. XIX 
(1950), Fase. TII-IV. Firenze: ‘“‘La nuova 
Italia’? Editrice, 1950. L. 2000 a year. 

Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and 
Sciences in the U.S., Vol. I, No. 2 (Fall, 
1951). New York: Ukrainian Academy of 
Arts and Sciences in the U.S., Inc., 1951. 
$ 1.50 a copy. $ 8.00 a year. 

BeazLeY, J. D. The Development of Attic 
Black-figure. (‘‘Sather Classical Lectures,”’ 
Vol. XXIV.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: 
University of California Press, 1951. Pp. 
xiv + 127 + 49 pls. $ 6.50. 

BLANKEN, GERARD. Les grecs de Cargése 

(Corse): Recherches sur leur langue et sur 
leur histoire, Vol. I: Partie linguistique. 
Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaat- 
schappij N.V., 1951. Pp. xx + 322. FI. 

BLEGEN, Cart W.; CAsKEY, JOHN L.; and 
Rawson, Marion. Troy: The Third, 
Fourth, and Fifth Settlements, Vol. II, Part 
1: Text; Part 2: Plates. Princeton: Prince- 
ton University Press (for the University of 
Cincinnati), 1951. Pp. xxii + 325; xxiv + 
318 ills. $ 36.00. 

BREITENBACH, Hans Rupotr. Historiogra- 
phische Anschauungsformen Xenophons. 
(Dissertation, Basel.) Freiburg in der 
Schweiz: Paulusdruckerei, 1950. Pp. 159. 

Donpps, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. 
(‘Sather Classical Lectures,’’ Vol. X XV.) 
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of 
California Press, 1951. Pp. xii + 327. $5.00. 

EHRENBERG, Victor. The People of Aristo- 
phanes: A Sociology of Old Attic Comedy. 
2d ed. rev. and enl. Cambridge, Mass.: 
Harvard University Press, 1951. Pp. xx + 
418 + 19 pls. $ 5.00. 

Ernovut A., and MEILuet, A. Dictionnaire 
étymologique de la langue latine: Histoire 
des mots, Vol. II: M-—Z et Index. 3d ed. 
Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1951. Pp. 

64 Books RECEIVED 

FarquHarson, A. 8S. L. Marcus Aurelius: 
His Life and His World. Edited by D. A. 
Rees. New York: William Salloch, 1951. 
Pp. viii + 154 + 1 pl. $ 2.00. 

FRANKEL, HERMANN. Dichtung und Philo- 
sophie des friihen Griechentums: Eine Ge- 
schichte der griechischen Literatur von 
Homer bis Pindar. (‘‘Philological Mono- 
graphs,” published by the American Philo- 
logical Association, ed., JoHN L. HELLER, 
No. XIII.) New York: American Philo- 
logical Association, 1951. Pp. xii + 680. 
Order through Lancaster Press, Inc. (Lan- 
caster, Pa.) and B. H. Blackwell, Ltd. 

GOHEEN, Ropert F. The Imagery of 
Sophocles’ Antigone: A Study of Poetic 
Language and Structure. Princeton. N. J.: 
Princeton University Press, 1951. Pp. 171. 
$ 3.00. 

Hermathena, No. LXXVII (May, 1951). 
Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co.; London: 

Y € 

Longmans, Green & Co. 3 s. 

Hout, Ernst. Um Arminius: Biographie 
oder Legernde? (Sitzungsberichte der deut- 
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Ber- 
lin, Klasse fiir Gesellschaftswissenschaf- 
ten, No. 1 [1951].) Berlin: Akademie-Ver- 
lag, 1951. Pp. 27. DM 2.10. 

Roman Empire. (‘‘The Jerome Lectures,” 
Second Series.) Ann Arbor: University of 
Michigan Press, 1951. Pp. viii + 183. 
$ 3.50. 

KELLEHER, Patrick J. The Holy Crown of 
Hungary. (‘Papers and Monographs of the 
American Academy in Rome,” Vol. XIII.) 
Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1951. 
Pp. xii + 124 + 36 pls. 

Knicut, W. F. Jackson. Accentual Sym- 
metry in Vergil. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 
New York: MacMillan Co., 1950. Pp. x + 
108 + table. $ 1.50. 

La Penna, ANTONIO. Properzio: Saggio 
critico seguito da due ricerche filologiche. 
(“Studi di lettere, storia, e filosofia,”’ 
pubblicati dalla Scuola normale superiore 
di Pisa, Vol. XXIII.) Firenze: ‘““La nuova 
Italia’? Editrice, 1951. Pp. viii + 201. 

Marte. De Nous in het Systeem van Plato’s 

Philosophie. (Dissertation, Amsterdam, 
1951.) Amsterdam: Jasonpers; Univer- 
siteitspers, 1951. Pp. viii + 297. 

MADDALENA, ANTONIO. Thucydidis Histori- 
arum liber primus: Introduzione, testo 
critico e commento con traduzione e indici. 
(“Biblioteca di studi superiori,’’ Vol. XV.) 
Firenze: ‘“‘La nuova Italia’”’ Editrice, 1951. 
Pp. Ixxxvi + 95. 

DE MONTMOLLIN, DANIEL. La poétique d’ 
Aristote: Texte primitif et additions ultér- 
ieures. (Dissertation, Neuchatel.) Neu- 
chatel: H. Messeiller, 1951. Pp. 375. 

Mytonas, GeorGe E. (ed.). Studies Pre- 
sented to David Moore Robinson on his 
Seventieth Birthday, Vol. I. St. Louis, Mo.: 
Washington University, 1951. Pp. Ixx + 
876 + 111 pls. + figs. in text. $ 25.00. 

NEUGEBAUER, Kart Anton. Die griechi- 
schen Bronzen der klassischen Zeit und des 
Hellenismus. Edited by Cart BLiMet. 
(Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Katalog der 
statuarischen Bronzen im Antiquarium, 
Vol. II.) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1951. 
Pp. 110 + 40 pls. DM 32.50. 

Scranton, Rospert L. Monuments in the 
Lower Agora and North of the Archaic 
Temple. (Corinth: Results of the Excava- 
tions Conducted by the American School of 
Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. I, Part 
III.) Princeton, N. J.: American School of 
Classical Studies at Athens, 1951. Pp. xvi 
+ 200 + 83 figs. in text + 76 pls. + fold- 
ing pls. A—O. $ 10.00. 

SUNDWALL, JoH. Kleinasiatische Nachtrdge. 
(‘Studia orientalia,’”’ edidit Societas orien- 
talis Fennica, Vol. XVI, No. 1.) Helsinki, 
1950. Pp. 50. Mk. 208; $ 0.90. 

Witkins, Ernest H. The Prose Letters of 
Petrarch: A Manual. New York: S.F. 
Vanni, 1951. Pp. 143. $ 4.50. 

ZitLiacus, Henrik. Untersuchungen zu den 
abstrakten Anredeformen und Hoflichkeits- 
titeln im Griechischen. (‘‘Societas scienti- 

arum Fennica, Commentationes human- 
arum litterarum,” Vol. XV, No. 3.) 
Helsingfors: Nordische Antikvarische 
Buchhandlung; Akademische Buchhand- 
lung, 1949. Pp. 111. Mk. 330.