Bryn Mawr Classical Review

Florence Bertholet, Anne Bielman Sanchez, Regula Frei-Stolba (ed.), Egypte, Grèce, Rome: les différents visages des femmes antiques: travaux et colloques du séminaire d'épigraphie grecque et latine de l'IASA 2002-2006. Echo. Collection de l'Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire Ancienne de l'Université de Lausanne; 7. Berne: Peter Lang, 2008. Pp. xx, 395. ISBN 9783039112913. $98.95 (pb).

Reviewed by Carlos Sánchez-Moreno Ellart, University of Valencia; Universität Trier (sanchmor@uni-trier.de)

Version at BMCR home site

This volume comprises lectures held at the University of Lausanne (2002-2006) on the subject of women and their relationship with political power in pharaonic Egypt, Greece, the Hellenistic kingdoms and Rome. Understandably, the book focuses on women from the upper classes.

Mireille Corbier outlines in her foreword (XIII-XX) that the approach taken by all the authors mixes both text and image and, to illustrate the tone of the volume under review, makes reference to Fanny Cosandey's book about the symbolic value of the queen of France, who participated in power via her regency but did not have any formal political powers.¹ The foreword insists on this main idea: men exercised political power and women had power only "par défaut ou par delegation" (XI).

In "Les reines dans l´Égypte pharaonique. Statut et representations" (3-24), Annie Forgeau tackles the part played by queens in pharaonic Egypt. Avoiding generalization due to the long period under analysis, she points out that iconography shows how the archetype of Egyptian monarchy is clearly linked to masculinity. The iconography of Hatshepsut is a significant example, for the presence of a female monarch is integrated into the traditional idea through the male iconography of royal attributes plus the traditional false beard. Forgeau refers also to some peculiar cases such as that of Nefertiti represented on stelae with ambassadors, even though this queen is never mentioned in the diplomatic letters preserved both in Egypt and the Near East.

The following contribution, "Les pouvoir des reines Lagides. Son origine et justification" (25-38), by Erhard Grzybek deals with this subject by selecting some significant specific cases, such as the enumeration of the Queen-Pharaohs made by Manetho and later by Diodorus, who offer longer lists than that of Herodotus. The four queens quoted by Manetho, to whom Diodorus added one, reigned over Egypt as actual rulers and significantly they are studied by the author as a source of political legitimacy of the Lagid Queens. Manetho's history can be understood as starting from the constitutional reforms proposed by Arsinoe II about the royalty of women. The royal titles typical of the Pharaoh were significantly focussed on Arsinoe II, at least in hieroglyphic.

The famous Derveni krater is the subject of the paper by Anne-Françoise Jacquottet (41-62) As is widely known, the Derveni krater tells of the myth of Dionysus and Ariadne and the author reconstructs its context by means of other tombs and funerary vases of the same area and interprets it as a symbol of the inclusion of the woman in the heroic universe, essentially masculine.

Concerning the Hellenistic Kingdoms, the first paper is written by Marie Widmer, "Pourquoi reprendre le dossier des reines hellénistiques? Le cas de Laodice V" (63-92) and tackles the highly debated case of queen Laodice V — the powers granted to her by Antiochus III, their nature and the dynastic cult sacred to her.

The following article, by Jean-Yves Carrez-Maratray, is entitled "À propos de la boucle de Bérénice. La publicité des reines Lagides" (93-116). It focuses on the celebrated legend of Berenice's lock and propagandistic coins of it and stresses some parallels with the plaster casts exhibited at the Römer-Pelizaeus-Museum of Hildesheim. According to the author, the image of Io-Isis and that of Heracles of Hildesheim could be those of Berenice and Ptolemy III and could have been inspired by the poem of Callimachus.

Cédric Pillonel offers an interesting paper on "Les reines hellénistiques sur les champs de bataille" (117-145), an area typically masculine. The study embraces not only queens (Arsinoe III, Cleopatra III, Arsinoe IV, Cleopatra VII) but also princesses such as Deidameia and even concubines such as Hypsicrateia, taking into account literary sources.

The article by Anne Bielman Sánchez, "L´eternité des femmes actives. Réflexions sur quelques monuments funéraires feminins de la Grèce hellénistique et impériale" (147-192 explores women's roles by studying the funerary iconography of those periods. This record offers traditional images such as priestesses or midwives, but also women portrayed as doctors or magistrates.

The last part of the book, devoted to the Roman period, covers six essays. The first of them, by Barbara Scardigli ("Die Frau im Prodigienwesen in der römischen Republik" 197-221) tackles the question of the role played by women (vestales, matronae) in prodigia, that is, a fatal event taking place in Rome or in Italy which reveals the anger of the gods and must be expiated in order to re-establish the pax deorum and the mos maiorum.²

Nicole Boëls-Janssen's article ["La vie des matrons romaines à la fin de l´époque républicaine" (223-263)] comments upon the ideal of the Roman matrona. Starting from the famous laudatio of Claudia (CIL VI 15346), dated in the 2^nd century BC, the author traces the evolution of this ideal at the end of the 1^st century BC by pointing out the areas in which the matronae are to be found, which are not limited to the household.

Maria Grazia Granino Cecere deals with "Flaminicae ed evergetismo nell´Italia romana" (265-287). By taking into account the epigraphic evidence devoted to the imperial cult, she outlines the common cases of female euergetism. (such as the reconstruction of buildings, donations of statues or testamentary foundations).

The next contribution (Claude-Emmanuelle Centlivres Chalet, "Not so unlike him. Women in Quintilian Status and Pliny" 289-324) is rightly critical of the usual methodology in these kinds of studies, essentially the uncritical use of the structuralist binary opposition male / female. According to the author, male and female characteristics are not mutually exclusive, and she offers examples of ambivalences in Statius, Pliny and especially Quintilian.

"Felicitas temporum und Kaiserpaar" (324-343), by Doukaina G. Zanni develops a commentary on this notion, created during the reigns of Nerva and Trajan. This contribution is mainly based on numismatic sources, and the analysis reveals that the figure of the empress participates in many contexts of the virtues of the emperor.

The book ends with an interesting paper by Regula Frei-Stolba, "Livie et aliae. Le culte des divi et leurs pretresses: le culte des divae" (345-395) in which she explores the question of the female members of the imperial family who became divinised during the 1^st century AD. She also points out that the priestess devoted to the cult of a divinised emperor (until the end of the Julian dynasty) took on the conventional role of the wife within the family, in this case the idealised model of Livia Augusta. The Flavians, who continued divinising some female members of their dynasty, did not create a priestess for their cult, probably because of the lack of such a model.

This book has been carefully edited and includes the illustrations needed to follow the arguments that depend on a visual examination of the evidence.

---

Notes:

1.   F. Cosandey, La Reine de France. Symbole et pouvoir, XVe-XVIIIe siècle, Paris 2000.
2.   The author relies on the definition advanced by V. Rosenberger, Gezähmte Götter. Das Prodigienwesen in der römischen Republik, Stuttgart 1998.

(read complete article)

Girolamo F. De Simone, Roger T. MacFarlane (ed.), Apolline Project Vol. 1. Studies on Vesuvius' North Slope and the Bay of Naples, Quaderni della ricerca scientifica: serie beni culturali 14. Naples; Provo, UT: Università degli Studi Suor Orsola Benincasa; Brigham Young University, 2009. Pp. 380. ISBN 9788896055007.

Reviewed by Myles McCallum, Saint Mary's University (myles.mccallum@smu.ca)

Version at BMCR home site

Preview

This book is the first of what promises to be a series of publications to disseminate the results of archaeological research undertaken as part of the Apolline Project on the north slope of Mount Vesuvius. This project, which includes researchers from the Università degli Studi Suor Orsola Benincasa di Napoli and Brigham Young University in Provo, developed out of a collaborative research effort between the University of Tokyo and the Università degli Studi Suor Orsola Benincasa di Napoli in 2002, seeks to shed light on the Roman archaeological remains of a long neglected region within of the Bay of Naples. At the book's core is a preliminary presentation of the results of investigations completed between 2006 and 2007, principally at the site of Pollena Trocchia, località Masseria de Carolis. The book contains contributions from Italian, American, and Japanese scholars, most of which are written in Italian with a minority composed in English.

The book is divided into three sections: The Bay of Naples; The North Slope of Vesuvius; and Students' Papers. The fist section seeks to provide the archaeological and historical background to the Bay of Naples into which subsequent discussion of Vesuvius' north slope will be inserted. The third section is a collection of student essays on a wide range of topics related to archaeological activity on the volcano's north slope. For obvious reasons, this review focuses on the first two of these sections.

The first section presents a very broad view of the archaeology of the Bay of Naples, including articles—or perhaps what may be described better as essays—by Pappalardo, Belli, Ciardello, Franciosi, and Grimaldi, covering topics such as the urban development of Pompeii, Roman villas on the Bay of Naples, and the decorative frescoes from Oplontis. In general, these essays present little new information to serious scholars of the Bay of Naples during the Roman period, although they are generally well written and contain useful bibliography. The essays would be of great utility to upper-level undergraduate students in North America taking courses on Pompeii and the Bay of Naples; unfortunately, all but one is written in Italian, thereby making them inaccessible to the audience that might most benefit from them. Overall, the collection is not very tightly connected: there is no overt acknowledgement on the part of authors that they are writing as part of a larger, synthetic work; nor is a direct connection made to the material on Vesuvius' north slope presented in section 2.

Section 2, which is approximately 200 pages in length, presents a few more essays, this time on topics related to archaeological research on the volcano's north slope, the preliminary results from excavations at Somma Vesuvio and Polenna Trocchia, località Masseria de Carolis, and some discussion of the historical context of the archaeological remains at these two sites. This includes an article by Matteo della Corte, written in the 1930's but never published, on Augustus' last visit to the Bay of Naples.

In general, section 2 presents some information that is new and of great interest to those engaged in archaeological research in the Bay of Naples, particularly those focused on the region after the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius. MacFarlane's essay, "Vesuviuan Narratives: Collisions and Collusions of Man and Volcano," presents the historical narratives for eruptions dating to AD 472, 505, and 512, as part of a longer meditation on metonymic vs. metaphoric discourse. As part of this discussion, MacFarlane asks his reader to imagine what future narratives of these late antique eruptions will be once the Apolline project has run its course and published its results; this may be of moderate interest to archaeologists but of little real utility (although it is something that I may bring up in my undergraduate Pompeii course in the future). The data presented by Tomoo Mukai, Cohe Sugiyama, and Masanori Aoyagi on the locally produced coarsewares and finewares from Somma Vesuvio is interesting and generally well- presented, and the same can be said of the results from the excavations at Pollena Trocchia written by De Simone, MacFarlane, Lubrano, Bartlett, Cannella, Martucci, Scarpati, and Perrotta, although in both cases the data is presented in a preliminary fashion and, with respect to Pollena Trocchia, in a rather fragmentary form. Not all of the trenches opened are discussed in the same detail or format, and, as a result, information is lacking with respect to a number of the trenches. The overall occupational history of the site is, however, discussed in some detail and compelling reasons and sound data for dating the site and identifying activities in particular parts of it at different historical periods are presented. Other articles present information on the territory of Nola, what is known of settlement patterns and productive infrastructure on the volcano's north slope in late antiquity, the Constantinian churches of Campania, and some insights on archaeobotanical data from the Vesuvius region during the Roman period. Overall, however, section 2, like section 1, takes a scattergun approach, with no direct or overt elements connecting the various contributions, and with not all of the contributions focused on the archaeological remains found on Vesuvius' north slope. While De Simone and MacFarlane point out in their introduction (page 20) that the work reflects the multidisciplinary nature of the project in its initial years, presumably a determined editor could connect the dots in a more satisfactory manner.

In the final analysis this reviewer finds the complete publication interesting, potentially useful, but a bit of a puzzle. Some sections (essays, preliminary reports, and articles) present new and interesting data, while others present information that is available to readers elsewhere in more detailed publications. The format of the book is uneven and its contents do not form much of a cohesive whole, reading more like a collection of conference papers rather than a focused, book length treatment of archaeological research on the north slope of Vesuvius. To make matters worse, with the exception of the two presentations of preliminary excavation results noted above, the visual evidence is presented poorly, particularly in the essays in section 1, where tiny black and white photographs, drawings, and plans appear in the margins, with few of them labeled and equally few clearly legible. The reviewer is also puzzled about the inclusion of student essays in section 3, something that is likely of little interest to the intended audience. As the volume is in part published by Brigham Young University, perhaps these essays were a required element to secure funding from an academic dean or vice president, but this is pure speculation. Having said this, let me repeat that there are some good things in this volume, but the wheat and the chaff have not been separated; those looking for a presentation of the results from the Apolline project may feel rather let down when they realize that out of a total of 369 pages of text, less than 40 are dedicated to this task. Despite the above criticisms, this reviewer eagerly anticipates future publications of the Apolline Project; the archaeological approach appears sound and the results should greatly expand our knowledge of a part of the Bay of Naples and a historical period that have too long lingered in the shadows of archaeological research focused on the first century AD conducted at Pompeii and Herculaneum.

(read complete article)

Gemma C. M. Jansen, Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, Eric M. Moormann (ed.), Roman Toilets: their Archaeology and Cultural History. Babesch. Supplement, 19. Leuven; Paris; Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2011. Pp. vii, 224. ISBN 9789042925410. €72.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Jane Draycott, British School at Rome (j.draycott@bsrome.it)

Version at BMCR home site

Table of Contents

Over the last few years an increasing level of interest in the grittier aspects of life in the ancient world has triggered research into dirt, pollution, sanitation, and waste management and disposal.¹ The latest contribution to this rapidly growing body of literature originated at the Ancient Roman Toilet Workshop, held at the Royal Dutch Institute in Rome and the American Academy in Rome in 2007. According to the book's editors (the Classical archaeologists Gemma Jansen, Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, and Eric Moormann) it is designed to be used as a handbook by both specialists and non-specialists, to both encourage and assist future work on the subject, and it succeeds in this endeavour, offering something for everyone with an interest in Roman toilets.

Roman Toilets: Their Archaeology and Cultural History contains contributions from thirty-three individuals working in a variety of academic fields, ranging from the expected Classics, Egyptology, Archaeology, and Architecture, as well as Archaeozoology and even Parasitology. Due to the length (and breadth) of the volume, I will summarise the contents before moving on to a general discussion of the work as a whole.

The first chapter (Introduction) gives a succinct summary of previous research and forthcoming work on ancient sanitation. The second chapter (Archaeometry: Methods and Analysis) provides a rundown of the range of scientific techniques that can be used not only to excavate ancient toilets and their cess-pits and sewers; but also to analyse the material recovered, and the questions regarding toilet construction, use, maintenance, and abandonment that can be answered as a result. The third chapter (Non-Roman Forerunners) briefly surveys the archaeological evidence for the use of toilets in Pharaonic Egypt and toilet seats in Jerusalem, before commencing a more extensive examination of the literary and archaeological evidence for waste management in Greece from the sixth to the first centuries BC. The fourth chapter (Roman Sources) surveys the ancient literary evidence for Roman, Jewish and Christian references to toilets, and helpfully includes a comprehensive list of the passages cited. The fifth chapter (Design, Architecture and Decoration of Toilets) discusses the different types of public and private toilets, their decorative schemes, the specific images and texts that can be found in them, and again it helpfully includes a comprehensive list. The sixth chapter (Toilets in the Urban and Domestic Water Infrastructure) examines the logistical aspects of making a toilet work all the way from the flushing mechanism to the sewer system. The seventh chapter (Urination and Defecation Roman-style) attempts to reconstruct people's behaviour once inside the latrine, and addresses the extent to which common assumptions about aspects of this behaviour are in fact correct. The eighth chapter (Location and Context of Toilets) examines the placement of toilets within towns, bath-houses, workshops and private houses. The ninth chapter (Users of Toilets: Social Differences) examines the range of individuals who could or would utilise toilets. The tenth chapter (The Economy of Ordure) explores how the waste contents of toilets, cess-pits and sewers were disposed of and subsequently utilised, such as the use of excrement and urine in agriculture and horticulture. The eleventh chapter (Toilets and Health) examines how hygienic (or, more accurately, unhygienic) ancient toilets were, along with the evidence for the cleaning of toilets, cess-pits and sewers. The twelfth chapter (Cultural Attitudes) examines religious and apotropaic aspects of toilets and toilet usage, the frequency of graffiti images and texts, and the possibility of regional variation in toilet habits.

Most of the chapters contain at least one (and often several) useful case studies of specific ancient toilets to elucidate the discussion, and the subjects of these case studies venture far beyond the usual subjects of the urinals and toilets of Ostia and Pompeii. Included are examples from Carnuntum, Thamugadi (Timgad), and Thugga (Dugga). A concerted effort is made to address the most common assumptions about Roman toilet usage, such as the extent to which Romans used sponge-sticks, or treated the public latrine as a place for socialising, or placed containers at street corners to collect urine for fulling. Further examined is the later reception of certain aspects of Roman toilets. This includes the survival of references to the emperor Vespasian's tax on urine in the modern Italian name for the urinal, the 'Vespasiani', and the (inadvertent) use of rosso antico Roman toilet seats in papal investitures, which gave rise to the theory that they were used to confirm that the candidate was, in fact, a man.

There are some typographical errors (e.g. archeaeometry (p. v), theme's (p. 4), empyting (p. 96)). With thirty-three individuals contributing to twelve chapters that each contain multiple different sections, some repetition of discussion and reference to the same handful of literary and archaeological examples is inevitable with this structure (e.g. 'Greek' portable vessels/commodes are discussed at pp. 25-8, while 'Roman' chamber-pots are discussed at pp. 95-9, but both discussions cite the same literary and archaeological examples; military latrines in Roman Britain are surveyed at pp. 135-9, and the bulk of this discussion is repeated – albeit condensed – in a section on regional diversity in latrine use in the north-western provinces at pp. 183-4). Also inevitable is a certain amount of inconsistency from chapter to chapter (and often from section to section within the same chapter), which is particularly apparent with regard to translations (e.g. cacator cave malum is translated as 'shitter, beware of danger!' on p. 59, then 'shitter, beware of evil!' and 'shitter, beware of the evil!' on p. 170, changes which facilitate the discussion of apotropaism that follows).

Having said that, the handbook's strength is that it provides both highly specific and detailed discussion of individual sites in conjunction with more general thematic discussion of the place of toilets not only within the infrastructure of Roman cities, towns and forts, but also Roman social and cultural life. It is well-produced, with large, high quality colour and black and white photographs, plans and line drawings throughout. It is an important contribution to scholarship on sanitation in the ancient world and will undoubtedly serve as a solid foundation for future research in this area.

---

Notes:

1.   See for example M. Bradley (ed.) (2012 forthcoming) Rome, Pollution and Propriety: Dirt, Disease and Hygiene in the Eternal City from Antiquity to Modernity (Cambridge); B. Hobson (2009) Latrinae et Foricae: Toilets in the Roman World (London); G. E. Thüry (2001) Müll und Marmorsäulen: Siedlungshygiene in der römischen Antike (Mainz); X. D. Raventós and J-A. Remolà (edd.) (2000) Sordes Urbis: La Eliminación de Residuos en la Ciudad Romana (Rome); R. Neudecker (1994) Die Pracht der Latrine: zum Wandel der öffentlichen Bedürfnisanstalten in der kaiserzeitlichen Stadt (Munich).

(read complete article)

Henry Cullen, Michael Dormandy, John Taylor, Latin Stories: A GCSE Reader. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2011. Pp. 190. ISBN 9781853997464. $27.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Alan Ross, St Gabriel's School, Newbury, UK (alan.ross@wolfson.ox.ac.uk)

Version at BMCR home site

This book, written by a group of three English school teachers, sets out to provide a comprehensive set of practice translation passages for school pupils preparing to sit language papers as part of the General Certificate of Secondary Education examination in Latin. Readers unfamiliar with the English school system are directed to a concise overview in a recent review of one of John Taylor's other publications (BMCR 2010.08.72). Since 2004, only one examination board (OCR) has offered GCSE and A-Level examinations in Latin and Greek. There is therefore only a single examination syllabus available to classics teachers (where there is often a choice of two or three for their colleagues in other departments). For the GCSE in Latin, pupils sit two language papers, the first requiring marginally less grammar and vocabulary than the second.¹ Together they form 50% of the award. It is not a coincidence that this book is the latest in a series of textbooks produced over the last decade, all of which are designed to prepare school pupils in Latin and Greek for a specific set of examination regulations, many of them authored by John Taylor.² Here Taylor is joined by Henry Cullen, his colleague at Tonbridge School, and Michael Dormandy, head of Classics at Ashford School.

The book comprises four sections. Section 1 (by Dormandy) contains thirty passages for translation designed to cover the prescription for Language Paper 1. In accordance with the prescription, the passages are stories drawn both from mythology and Roman domestic life. This is the only section of the book which has a noticeable gradation in the complexity of grammar, and as such provides a useful initial selection of passages for use with students during the first weeks or term of the GCSE course. As with all the sections in the book, any vocabulary that is not found in the GCSE list is glossed.

Section 2 (twenty exercises by Taylor) provides more practice for Language Paper 1, with stories taken from mythology. The level of grammar required is constant throughout. These passages are also accompanied by comprehension questions of the same style required in Language Paper 1: pupils are asked to extract information from the passage (without rendering a complete translation), and to offer English derivatives of certain Latin words. The GCSE does not require pupils to comment on the use of accidence or syntax, and no such questions are set. The majority of passages are self-contained stories, though a few are sequential, for example the myth of Jason and the Argonauts spread across four passages.

Sections 3 (30 exercises by Cullen) and 4 (20 by Taylor) both follow the prescription for Language Paper 2. Together they represent the same sort of preparation as sections 1 and 2; section 3 contains passages for translation only, and Section 4 has accompanying comprehension exercises. All are taken from episodes in Roman history.

There is no accompanying key to the comprehension questions in either sections 2 or 4, and thus the book seems designed for use under the supervision of a teacher or instructor, rather than as a tool for self-study. Neither is there a vocabulary list or reference section included. It must be used, therefore, in conjunction with a language course.

Teachers in the English school system will find this an enormously useful resource to provide comprehensive practice for their students preparing for the current prescriptions in the GCSE. It is well tailored to the linguistic requirements and the question-style of the examinations, and should fill a gap in the market for a reading course for this purpose. There are only two deviations from the OCR grammar prescription. The authors note in the preface that section 2 makes use of fear clauses involving timeo + ne, which are not required by the GCSE. The other receives no explanation: passage 82 (p.150) seems to include a final clause involving a gerund ad aquam ferendum. Knowledge of the gerund is not required for GCSE, whereas that of gerundive is. It is conceivable that this is a typographical error for the gerundival construction ad aquam ferendam. This explanation would also excuse the use of the un-classical construction of a gerund taking an accusative object. The book is otherwise a good representation of classical style executed within the confines of the grammatical and lexical prescriptions. Similarly, it is well produced and sensibly laid out. The only other typographical slip which could cause students problems is fractos on p.150 which should be feminine ( fractas).

Perhaps the most curious aspect of the book is the list of "sources of passages" in a short appendix (pp.188-190). It reveals an intrinsic oddity in the GCSE prescription that almost half of the passages in an exam should be stories drawn from 'mythology.' Inevitably this means Greek mythology, and so there is the danger that school pupils may associate Latin as the primary medium through which the modern world encounters Greek myth. The authors have Latinized names (Ulysses, Hercules, Diana etc.), but we nevertheless find the peculiar situation in which a passage of Latin prose is "based upon" (in the words of the appendix) a Greek version in verse by Euripides.³ The authors do not specify further what exactly they took from their source texts, but an inspection of the passages which are based on works of Latin prose reveals that it is usually the bare outline of a story's plot, rather than any details of syntax or vocabulary. As such, the book is an impressive feat of prose composition! The subject matter of the passages is ultimately dictated by the examination board rather than the authors, but it does raise the point of the marketability and longevity of a publication which is so closely tied to one set of examination regulations. OCR has already made one major change to the style of its language papers since it became the sole board offering the Latin GCSE. A future change would not render the book obsolete, but it could certainly compromise its primary purpose, and therefore it may be off-putting for schools to invest in multiple copies now.

That said, language instructors in other teaching environments should also be able to make good use of this book. The self-contained nature of each passage makes it a useful companion for any ab initio language course. An instructor in a different system should, however, be aware of the extent and limitations of the GCSE grammar prescription. Most notable are the absence of present and perfect subjunctives (and therefore of primary sequence in subordinate clauses), the use of the subjunctive as a main verb, and the gerund (as noted above). The comprehension questions accompanying passages in sections 2 and 4 can easily be ignored if they are not deemed useful, and the entire passage used for translation practice.

Overall this is a welcome addition to the resources available to the schoolteacher in the English system. The more up-to-date publications there are like this (well-tailored to the needs of school pupils, and with engaging story lines) the stronger the position of the subject in departments across the country will become.

---

Notes:

1.   The full set of examination regulations is available here
2.   With Bristol Classical Press Taylor has published Greek to GCSE part 1 (2003), Greek to GCSE Part 2 (2003), Greek beyond GCSE (2008), Essential GCSE Latin (2006) and Latin Beyond GCSE (2009), all aimed at the OCR prescriptions.
3.   The story of Iphigeneia at Aulis in passage 48, page 106, for example.

(read complete article)

Matthias Haake, Michael Jung (ed.), Griechische Heiligtümer als Erinnerungsorte: von der Archaik bis in den Hellenismus. Erträge einer internationalen Tagung in Münster, 20.-21. Januar 2006. Alte Geschichte. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011. Pp. 163. ISBN 9783515098755. €36.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Nathan T. Arrington, Princeton University (nta@princeton.edu)

Version at BMCR home site

This slender edited volume presents papers from a 2006 conference held at the Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, which aimed systematically to analyze Greek sanctuaries as lieux de mémoire that shaped historically based group identities. In an introductory chapter, Michael Jung outlines the methodological premises and scholarly aims of the conference. He adopts the concept of a lieu de mémoire from Pierre Nora's multi- volume work, which offered a melancholic, nostalgic history of France and "Frenchness" in terms of its shifting conceptualizations and configurations of memory.¹ Jung seeks to use this concept to analyze the relationship between ancient Greek memories and the construction (political and social) of group identities. Greek sanctuaries as places of communication, display, and representation offer ideal venues for examining the dynamics of the formation, deployment, contestation, and impact of collective memories. In these spaces rich in myths, dedications, and rituals, particular moments from the past may coalesce into orientation points for living communities. Memory was a means of appropriating the past.

Jung provides a succinct overview of the social and political dynamics of memory and coherently outlines the possible roles of sanctuaries (12-16). Yet the concept of lieux de mémoire as formulated by Nora cannot easily be applied to the ancient Greek world. Certainly Jung is aware of the differences in approaches (13-14), but this reviewer wonders if Nora's terminology retains heuristic usefulness. For Nora, lieux are not necessarily physical places, but include persons, texts, songs, natural features, and so forth. These lieux play a crucial role in the formation of a specifically national identity. They are modern and post-modern phenomena, distinguished from milieux de mémoire, which were authentic, lived memories that (once) imbued the present with meaning. Lieux de mémoire represent a rupture with the past. In Nora's words: "Lieux de mémoire are fundamentally vestiges, the ultimate embodiments of a commemorative consciousness that survives in a history which, having renounced memory, cries out for it. The notion has emerged because society has banished ritual. It is a notion produced, defined, established, constructed, decreed, and maintained by the artifice and desire of a society fundamentally absorbed by its own transformation and renewal."² In contrast to Nora, Jung and the volume's other contributors (with one exception) focus on physical places (sanctuaries), non-national identities, and pre-modern communities with plenty of rituals.³ And yet the term "milieu de mémoire" does not appear once in this book. While Jung reconceives Nora's terminology, he eschews Jan Assmann's concept of cultural memory, deeming Assmann's emphasis on elite or specialist configuration of canonical memory inapplicable to ancient Greece (10-12). ⁴ But this is only one aspect of cultural memory's methodological repertoire (as Jung notes). Assmann's emphasis on ritual and his elucidation of time horizons seem more applicable to ancient Greek sanctuaries than Nora's lieux.

Seven chapters follow the introduction, four of them concerning panhellenic sanctuaries.

Anne Jacquemin begins her contribution ("Le sanctuaire de Delphe comme lieu de mémoire") by contextualizing Nora's work in the French social and political developments of the 1970s and 80s, briefly considering its relevance for other nations. This leads to the question of the applicability of Nora's concept to the ancient Greeks. The oracle and the games represent possible Greek (i.e., panhellenic) lieux de mémoire. In contrast, historical events with panhellenic significance involving Delphi – particularly the Sacred Wars – leave few signs of having acted as lieux de mémoire. Jacquemin accurately notes: "… témoigner d'un événement ne suffit pas à faire un lieu de mémoire" (23). Finally, Jacquemin turns to votive monuments for battles. But rather than interpret these as lieux de mémoire for the ancient Greeks – which would profoundly distort Nora's terminology, since the monuments celebrate combats between shifting constellations of Greek cities rather than symbols of Hellenic identity – Jacquemin shows that they became lieux de mémoire in the Imperial period. Roman writers stressed the votive aspects of the monuments and wove a simplified, Athenocentric, anti-Barbarian, moralizing discourse around Delphi. Jacquemin notes the important role of the elite in creating this memory, but oddly does not correlate her observations with Assmann's concept of cultural memory.

Kai Trampedach continues the discussion of Delphi ("Götterzeichen im Heiligtum: das Beispiel Delphi"), focusing on the damage to Spartan and Athenian monuments before the Battle of Leuktra (371) and the Sicilian Expedition (415), in that order. Gold stars dedicated to the Dioskouroi disappeared from the sanctuary, while a crown of tangled weeds appeared on Lysander in the Monument of the Admirals. Similarly, before the disastrous Athenian expedition to Sicily, crows pecked at the Athenian monument commemorating victory at the Eurymedon. Trampedach reconstructs the iconography of the monuments and notes that both the Spartan and Athenian dedications marked the beginning of their hegemonies. Accordingly, the damage to these monuments signaled the end of their dominance and regional leadership. He argues that these divine signals had a basis in reality – placing particular weight on local oral reports – and that they indicated the manifestation of the god's presence across the sanctuary. Such divine signs carried panhellenic significance (in contrast to signs that appeared in any individual city's sanctuary) and marked Delphi as a panhellenic Erinnerungsort.

Elizabeth R. Gebhard elucidates the memories that framed Titus Quinctius Flamininus's proclamation of freedom in the Isthmian stadium in 196 BC ("Poseidon on the Isthmus: Between Macedon and Rome, 198-196 B.C."). Monuments would have evoked Greek successes in the Persian wars, while recent ruins indexed Roman destruction of Antigonid power. This chapter includes a discussion of the date and formation of this destruction evidence (excavated in 1989), and a lucid overview of the late third and early second century sanctuary's historical context.

Klaus Freitag turns our attention to a third panhellenic sanctuary: Olympia ("Olympia als 'Erinnerungsort' in hellenistischer Zeit"). The author seeks to counter the notion that the Hellenistic period marked a caesura in the sanctuary's use, arguing that cultic and agonal life continued and the sanctuary flourished, even while certain patterns of dedication may have changed. He traces the ways in which dedications responded to shifting political realities, and outlines how they rendered Hellenistic monarchs present, honored particular persons, illustrated alliances, and legitimized rule. Though he hesitates to draw generalizations, Freitag emphasizes the active role that Elis played in fostering a seemingly neutral zone for display. He argues that this panhellenic sanctuary always constituted an Erinnerungsort, and one that offered particular benefits to Elis.

Michael Jung discusses the burials of Leonidas and Pausanias in Sparta, reconstructing the chronology, motivations, and changing meanings of their interments ("'Wanderer, kommst du nach Sparta…' Die Bestattung der Perserkämpfer Leonidas und Pausanias im Heiligtum der Athena Chalkioikos"). Pausanias was first buried near Kaiadas. Later, following the Delphic oracle's instructions for atonement, the Spartans reinterred his body in (perhaps rather near?) the sanctuary of Athena Chalkioikos. Jung hypothesizes that the Delphic oracle was consulted following the earthquake of 461, and that heroic games were established at this time. Leonidas' corpse, too, was moved. Desecrated by the Persians then respectfully buried at Thermopylai, later it was transported back to Sparta. Jung argues that this reinterment occurred on the eve of the Peloponnesian War, and explains the act in the context of Athenian and Spartan competition over the memories of their participation in the Persian Wars. Spartan claims to sacrifice at Thermopylai responded to Athenian claims to leadership at Marathon. The burial of Leonidas next to Pausanias transformed the sanctuary into an Erinnerungsort for the Persian Wars centered on Spartan sacrifice at Thermopylai and Spartan vengeance and victory at Plataiai. This is a compelling reading, although it must remain somewhat speculative given the nature of the evidence. Polly Low's treatment of the Spartan dead now can be added to Jung's bibliography.⁵

The last two contributions discuss inscriptions related to sanctuaries. Matthias Haake examines a deme decree from Rhamnous in honor of Antigonos Gonatas ("Antigonos II. Gonatas und der Nemesistempel in Rhamnous. Zur Semantik göttlicher Ehren für einen hellenistischen König an einem athenischen 'lieu de mémoire'"). The decree moves that the Rhamnousians offer sacrifices and crowns to the monarch during the Nemesia festival.⁶ Haake is interested in the significance of this physical and ritual context. He argues that by the Late Classical period the sanctuary of Nemesis was a lieu de mémoire in which confrontations between Greeks and Barbarians repeatedly were evoked and commemorated. The connection of Helen to Nemesis – and hence the connection of Nemesis to the Trojan Wars – helped prepare the ground for the later stories that Nemesis aided the Athenians at Marathon and that her cult statue was shaped from marble brought by the Persians for a trophy. In honoring Antigonos Gonatas in the Nemesis sanctuary, the Rhamnousians alluded to his victory over the Gauls at Lysimacheia, weaving this success into a history of victory over foreigners and defense of Attica.

The chapter by Renaud Gagné offers a slightly amended French translation of an article that appeared in Classical Antiquity on "The Pride of Halikarnassos," a late Hellenistic inscription found at Bodrum ("Une carte de mémoires: l'épigramme de Salmacis").⁷ It is interesting to note that the paper in Classical Antiquity was not framed as a memory study. Gagné shows that each foundation myth in the epigram presents an aition for a local ritual that evokes and delimits the city's spaces. Ritual time implicates the individual reader by organizing commemorated events, such as birth and marriage, into coherent human time. The most relevant portion of the chapter for the edited book's theme is a discussion of how the epigram negotiates competing memories of the city's ethnic history. Imbued with references to Karian identity, the text still leaves room for Greek and panhellenic readings and associations.

Each chapter in this book makes a concise contribution to scholarship on Greek sanctuaries, history, and archaeology. The Archaic period receives surprisingly little treatment. Jacquemin's discussion of Delphi and Jung's treatment of Spartan burials benefit the most from engaging with the topic of memory. But overall, the concept(s) of memory remain(s) somewhat vague. More cross-referencing amongst the contributors and an introduction or conclusion that summarized and tied together the loose threads between the papers would make the collection more coherent. An index would help, too. As a group, the papers succeed in suggesting the potential to consider the workings of memory in sanctuary settings.

---

Notes:

1.   P. Nora, ed., Les lieux de mémoire, Paris, 1984-1992. Portions of this project were translated into English in two separate publications: L. D. Kritzman, ed., Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, New York, 1996-1998; D. P. Jordan, ed., Rethinking France: Les Lieux de Mémoire, Chicago, 2001-2010. German version: E. François and H. Schulze, eds., Deutsche Erinnerungsorte, Munich, 2001.
2.   P. Nora, "General Introduction: Between Memory and History," in Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, Vol. 1: Conflicts and Divisions, New York, 1996, 6.
3.   Cf. the more comprehensive approach of the papers gathered in E. Stein-Hölkeskamp and K.-J. Hölkeskamp, eds., Die griechische Welt: Erinnerungsorte der Antike, Munich, 2010.
4.   Recently translated: J. Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination, Cambridge, 2011.
5.   Low, P. 2010. "The Power of the Dead in Classical Sparta," in M. Carroll and J. Rempel, eds., Living through the Dead: Burial and Commemoration in the Classical World, Oxford and Oakville, 1-20.
6.   SEG XLI 75.
7.   SEG XLVIII 1330; "What Is the Pride of Halicarnassus?," Classical Antiquity 25 (2006), 1-33 = SEG LVI 1192.

(read complete article)

Craig A. Gibson (trans.), Libanius's Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Writings from the Greco-Roman world 27. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Pp. xxix, 572. ISBN 9781589833609. $64.95 (pb).

Reviewed by Luigi Pirovano, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (luigipirovano@virgilio.it)

Version at BMCR home site

Preview

Il corpus di opere tramandato sotto il nome di Libanio di Antiochia è in assoluto uno dei più ricchi e voluminosi che ci siano giunti per un autore antico, paragonabile forse solo a quello, altrettanto vario ed imponente, di Cicerone.¹ Tale abbondanza, se da un lato rappresenta uno strumento di grande importanza per la nostra conoscenza dell'autore e dell'epoca in cui visse, dall'altro scoraggia operazioni di studio complessive, tanto che a tutt'oggi non sono disponibili traduzioni complete ed alcune parti ancora attendono di essere trasposte in una lingua moderna.² In questo panorama appare dunque benvenuto il libro di Gibson, che offre la prima traduzione moderna dei Progymnasmata di Libanio nella loro interezza e si configura come uno strumento interpretativo di grande utilità, sia per coloro che si interessano alla figura del retore di Antiochia che per gli studiosi della retorica nel mondo antico.

Il volume si inserisce nella pregevole collana "Writings from the Greco-Roman World" (Society of Biblical Literature), che annovera alcune pubblicazioni di grande importanza per lo studio dei progymnasmata nelle scuole antiche³, ed è opera di uno studioso che da tempo si occupa degli "esercizi preliminari"⁴ e dell'opera di Libanio.⁵ Il risultato è senza dubbio all'altezza delle aspettative che un tale binomio poteva suscitare presso gli studiosi del settore.

L'introduzione è sintetica ma completa: dopo aver offerto una breve panoramica sulla vita e gli scritti di Libanio (pp. XVII-XX), Gibson si sofferma sui progymnasmata attribuiti al retore di Antiochia (pp. XX-XXII) e sul problema di autenticità che caratterizza molti componimenti della raccolta (pp. XXIII-XXV). L'autore non apporta specifici elementi di novità, ma si limita a presentare — e a recepire, almeno nella sostanza generale — i risultati delle analisi di Foerster, Münscher e Norman,⁶ secondo cui molti degli esercizi preliminari non sarebbero genuinamente libaniani: "In summary, then, we can say that the collection of progymnasmata translated in this volume includes model exercises composed in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries C.E. by Libanius, a student of Libanius (Severus of Alexandria), an imitator of Libanius (Pseudo-Nicolaus), and other unknown authors" (p. XXV).⁷

Il testo greco è sostanzialmente quello stabilito da Foerster (vol. VIII, pp. 1-571), da cui l'autore si distacca solo occasionalmente, segnalando ogni volta le motivazioni della propria scelta in una nota ad loc.⁸ In alcuni casi Gibson recupera il testo della tradizione manoscritta, rifiutando le emendazioni o integrazioni proposte da Foerster, mentre in altri mette in luce l'incoerenza del testo di Foerster e propone nuove correzioni. In alcune occasioni la soluzione testuale non viene tentata direttamente sul testo greco, ma è proposta exempli gratia nella traduzione. Le scelte testuali ed interpretative proposte da Gibson appaiono in genere condivisibili e ben argomentate; per alcune correzioni l'autore riconosce il proprio debito nei confronti di Malcolm Heath, editor del volume.

Ogni gruppo di esercizi è preceduto da una breve introduzione, nella quale Gibson descrive le caratteristiche dell'esercizio in questione e riassume le principali problematiche teoriche affrontate nei manuali. Questo quadro riassuntivo si rivela funzionale a comprendere i "modelli" di esercizio composti da Libanio e, dove possibile, a ricostruire la posizione del retore di Antiochia a proposito di qualche aspetto particolare. Tutte le introduzioni si chiudono con un riferimento alle questioni di autenticità relative ai singoli componimenti e, nel caso, con un elenco delle precedenti traduzioni in una lingua moderna.

La traduzione è precisa e puntuale: Gibson non elude le difficoltà e si sforza di cogliere fino in fondo tutti gli aspetti e le sfumature del testo greco, anche nei passaggi più oscuri e difficili da interpretare. La scelta di indicare esplicitamente — dove possibile — i differenti κεφάλαια o passaggi di ogni componimento consente di comprendere la struttura teorica su cui si fonda la realizzazione di ogni esercizio.

Il commento è costituito da una fitta serie di note a piè di pagina, tanto sintetiche quanto precise. La prima annotazione di ciascun esercizio contiene le informazioni necessarie per inquadrare il componimento, relativamente al quale Gibson fornisce i paralleli conosciuti (distinguendo opportunamente tra i casi in cui la fonte citata contiene il medesimo thema oppure fornisce anche una elaborazione — parziale o completa — dell'esercizio: cfr. p. XXVII) ed eventuali indicazioni bibliografiche di carattere particolare. Nelle altre note sono invece contenute informazioni di vario genere: (a) chiarimenti relativi alle scelte di traduzione, o alle difficoltà di comprensione insite nel testo; (b) scelte filologiche; (c) rimandi "incrociati" ad altri modelli di esercizio presenti nella raccolta, nei quali ricorrono analogie contenutistiche o di altro genere; (d) riferimenti ad opere poetiche, storiche o mitologiche utili alla comprensione del testo (e, dove possibile, indicazione delle probabili fonti di Libanio). Particolarmente interessanti mi sembrano i rimandi interni, che consentono di maneggiare con facilità l'abbondante materiale e di osservare agevolmente come i medesimi temi (soprattutto quelli mitologici ed epici) potessero essere utilizzati, a seconda delle esigenze e con differenti prospettive, per la proposizione di diversi esercizi progimnasmatici.

In generale, le informazioni offerte da Gibson sono puntuali e dettagliate. Qui di seguito vorrei offrire alcune aggiunte o precisazioni:

- pp. 141 e 167 n. 14: Gibson sottolinea a ragione l'unicità del locus communis contro il medico avvelenatore (κατὰ ἰατροῦ φαρμακέως), adducendo quale unico termine di paragone nella letteratura progimnasmatica il locus communis contro il medico assassino (κατὰ ἰατροῦ φονέως) di Giovanni Sardiano (93.6 R.) e Dossapatre (377.13 W.), e ricordando altresì la frequenza di "medici avvelenatori" nelle declamazioni greche e latine. Ai paralleli addotti da Gibson si può aggiungere, nella tradizione progimnasmatica latina, il caso di Emporio, che tra gli esempi di locus communis annovera quello in veneficam virginem (p. 564.19- 22 Halm), all'interno di una classificazione parzialmente simile a quella proposta dai commentatori bizantini di Aftonio.

- p. 317 n. 456: τί οὖν φασιν οἱ θαυμάζοντες τὴν ἄμπελον καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐλαίας αὐτὴν ἄγοντες, ὅταν φαίνηται καί τῶν ἄλλων μὴ βλάπτειν χείρω βλαβερωτάτη οὖσα πάντων τῶν φυτῶν; Gibson rifiuta giustamente la correzione introdotta da Reiske e recepita da Foerster (τῶν ἀνθρώπων : τῶν ἄλλων mss.), ma propone un'interpretazione a mio giudizio non del tutto convincente: "What, then, are those people saying who admire the vine and rank it above the olive tree, since (as they claim) it seems not to do worse harm than the rest, although it is (supposedly) the most harmful of all plants?". Il cambio di prospettiva, segnalato nelle aggiunte tra parentesi, non trova giustificazione nel testo greco. Credo che tutta la frase introdotta da ὅταν esprima il punto di vista dei detrattori della vite; il periodo sembra acquisire un senso migliore interpretando χείρω nel senso di "meno", "in misura inferiore", e intendendo τῶν ἄλλων come neutro plurale: "che cosa dunque dicono coloro che ammirano la vite e la antepongono all'ulivo, nel momento in cui la vite, che è (certamente) la peggiore di tutte le piante, sembrerebbe anche più dannosa di ogni altra cosa?".

- p. 357 n. 2: ai dati forniti da Gibson aggiungo che l'etopea di Medea è stata tradotta in italiano da G. Ventrella (in F. De Martino, Medea in via Arpi, Bari 2005 [Kleos 10, 2005]), oltre che analizzata da A. Martina ('L'ethopoiia di Libanio su Medea che si accinge a uccidere i propri figli', Studi sull'Oriente Cristiano 7.1, 2003, 49-66) e dallo stesso Ventrella, che la riconduce alla categoria delle etopee "pragmatiche" ('Libanio e l'etopea 'pragmatica': la dolorosa auto-esortazione di Medea', in E. Amato - J. Schamp (edd.), ἨΘΟΠΟΙΙΑ. La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l'époque impériale et tardive, Salerno 2005, pp. 112-122).

Come si può vedere, si tratta di osservazioni marginali e del tutto secondarie, che in nessun modo mettono in discussione il valore scientifico e l'utilità del lavoro di Gibson: non semplicemente la prima traduzione in una lingua moderna del corpus di progymnasmata attribuiti a Libanio, ma anche uno strumento interpretativo di grande precisione e comodità, che consente di "addentrarsi" nel mondo degli "esercizi preliminari" del retore di Antiochia e, più in generale, di accostarsi allo studio dei progymnasmata dal punto di vista "concreto" dei modelli di esercizio composti dai maestri.

---

Notes:

1.   L'opera omnia di Libanio è consultabile nella monumentale edizione in dodici volumi di R. Foerster: Libanii Opera, Lipsiae 1903-1927.
2.   Cfr. P.-L. Malosse, 'Actualité et perspectives de la recherche sur Libanius', in U. Criscuolo - L. De Giovanni (edd.), Trent'anni di studi sulla Tarda Antichità: bilanci e prospettive. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21-23 novembre 2007), Napoli 2009, p. 232.
3.   R.F. Hock - E.N. O'Neil, The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Classroom Exercises, Atlanta 2002 (SBLWGRW 2); G.A. Kennedy (ed.), Progymnasmata. Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, Atlanta 2003 (SBLWGRW 10). Cfr. anche, nella collana "Texts and Translations", R.F. Hock - E.N. O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, Volume 1: The Progymnasmata, Atlanta 1986 (SBLTT 27).
4.   C.A. Gibson, 'Learning Greek History in the Ancient Classroom: the Evidence of the Treatises on Progymnasmata', CPh 99, 2004, 103-129; 'Alexander in the Tychaion: Ps.-Libanius on the Statues', GRBS 47, 2007, 431-454; '"Women's sacrifices" in [Libanius] Progymnasmata 12.29.6', Philologus 152.2, 2008, 343-345; 'Two technical Terms in Greek Progymnasmata Treatises', RhM 152.2, 2009, 141- 149; 'The Alexandrian Tychaion and the Date of Ps.-Nicolaus "Progymnasmata"', CQ n.s. 59.2, 2009, 608- 623; 'Was Nicolaus the Sophist a Christian?', Vigiliae Christianae 64.5, 2010, 496-500.
5.   C.A. Gibson, 'The Agenda of Libanius' Hypotheses to Demosthenes', GRBS 40, 1999, 171-202.
6.   R. Foerster - K. Münscher in RE 12, Stuttgart 1925, coll. 2518-2522, s.v. "Libanios"; A. Norman (ed.), Libanius: The Julianic Orations, Cambridge 1969, p. XLIX.
7.   Sul tema si veda ora anche J. Ureña Bracero, 'Algunas consideraciones sobre la autoría de los 'progymnasmata' atribuidos a Libanio', in J.-A. Fernández Delgado, F. Pordomingo, A. Stramaglia (edd.), Escuela y literatura en Grecia antigua. Actas del Simposio Internacional, Universidad de Salamanca, 17-19 Noviembre de 2004, Cassino 2007, pp. 645-690.
8.   Dal momento che Gibson non fornisce un elenco, non sarà inutile riportare qui le variazioni apportate al testo di Foerster: p. 47 n. 5 (65.15 F.): interpretazione di παραπλησίους come femminile, con proposta alternativa di leggere παραπλησίας (Heath); p. 47 n. 6 (65.16 F.): segnalazione di una lacuna, colmata ipoteticamente nella traduzione; p. 73 n. 33 (93.3 F.): οὐ κατὰ παιδείαν BaPL edd. Gibson, οὐ κατὰ πόδας B Foerster; p. 137 n. 64 (153.1 F.): πρὸς αὐτοὺς <καὶ> ἐφ' οἷς Heath Gibson, πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐφ' οἷς codd. Foerster; p. 151 n. 8 (166.16 F.): lacuna segnalata (con proposta di integrazione) da Foerster, colmata ipoteticamente nella traduzione; p. 165 n. 13 (180.11- 12 F.): ὡς οὐχ ὅθεν ἄξιον codd. Gibson, ὡς οὐχ ὅθεν <οὐκ> ἄξιον Foerster; p. 181 n. 20 (197.19 F.): segnalazione di una lacuna e integrazione nella traduzione (con ipotesi alternativa di correzione); p. 185 n. 22 (200.6 F.): segnalazione di una lacuna, colmata ipoteticamente in nota (Heath); p. 265 n. 273 (276.13 F.): προσγενόμενοι PaPar Walz Gibson, προσγινόμενοι Foerster; p. 317 n. 456 (328.6-7 F.): τῶν ἄλλων codd. Gibson, τῶν ἀνθρώπων Reiske Foerster; p. 415 n. 216 (428.9-11 F.: segnalazione di una lacuna, colmata ipoteticamente nella traduzione (Heath)); p. 457 n. 31 (496.10 F.): τῆς νίκης τὸ τῆς μάχης codd. Gibson, τῆς νίκης <ἢ> τὸ τῆς μάχης Foerster; p. 461 n. 35 (499.13 F.): διπλοῦς Gibson, διπλῶς Par., om. Foerster; p. 467 n. 46 (509.1 F.): αὐτὴν codd. Gibson, αὑτὴν Foerster; p. 471 n. 49 (513.2 F.): ἐν κέρδει <εἶναι τὸ> λιπεῖν Gibson (Heath), ἐν κέρδει λιπεῖν Foerster; p. 477 n. 61 (518.23 F.): φύσεων Gibson (Heath), φύσεως codd. Foerster; p. 477 n. 64 (519.12 F.): τὸ <δὲ> μήπω Gibson, τὸ μήπω codd. Foerster; p. 479 n. 68 (521.11 F.): περιβαλὼν codd. Gibson, περιβαλὸν Foester; p. 481 n. 69 (522.11 F.): ὀργάνων BaPa edd. Gibson, ὀργάνου Schneider, ὀχάνων Foerster; p. 485 n. 78 (528.4 F.): colmata exempli gratia in traduzione la lacuna segnalata da Foerster; p. 485 n. 79 (528.5 F.): segnalazione di una lacuna, colmata ipoteticamente nella traduzione (Heath); p. 495 n. 102 (535.3 F.): διηρημένω BaPa edd. Gibson, διῃρημένω Foerster; p. 497 n. 107 (536.20-22 F.): segnalazione di corruzione e integrazione ipotetica in traduzione; p. 501 n. 113 (539.17 F.): <τῶν δὲ> γυναικῶν ἱέρεια / ἱέρειαι Gibson, γυναικῶν ἱερεῖα codd. Forster.

(read complete article)

Stephanos Matthaios, Franco Montanari, Antonios Rengakos (ed.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts. Trends in classics - supplementary volumes, 8. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2011. Pp. viii, 592. ISBN 9783110254037. $182.00.

Reviewed by Joseph McAlhany, Carthage College (jmcalhany@carthage.edu)

Version at BMCR home site

A volume dedicated to ancient scholarship and grammar, especially one weighing in at a door-stopping 592 pages, might reasonably conjure up visions of Carlyle's Teufelsdrockh or Eliot's caricatured Casaubon, and while this volume has not entirely escaped those dry-as-dust ghosts, it offers a thorough and at points lively portrait of current research in ancient scholarship and grammar. All the contributions result from an international conference held in Thessaloniki in 2008, and the standard caveats of conference proceedings apply here: the quality of work is variable, the coverage imbalanced. Nonetheless, scholars who are prone to travel the byways of classical scholarship, as well as those who are curious about how technical matters can contribute to our understanding of antiquity, will find items of interest.

Following Franco Montanari's introductory piece on "Ancient Scholarship and Classical Studies", which provides a succinct and stimulating overview of the field, the remaining 25 contributions are divided into four sections, the boundaries of which are not always pellucid (see below for the full menu). And despite the general title, as well as Montanari's own recognition that ancient scholarship embraces diverse subfields (e.g., biography and rhetoric), this volume emphasizes technical grammar, and Greek grammar in particular. In fact, the opening words of the introduction more accurately describe the contents: "Ancient Greek Scholarship—the γραμματικὴ τέχνη in its original designation—and the linguistic theories which were developed in the frame of this discipline…" (p1). There are passing references and some subsidiary treatments of Latin scholarship or grammar, but Ax on Quintilian along with Bonnet and Visser each on later Latin grammarians are the only real representatives. Even within the narrower purview of Greek grammar, there is a glaring absence of any engagement with Stoic grammar.

These gaps in coverage result from the conference proceedings rather than editorial choice, but greater selectivity in final publication would have made for a more coherent and useful volume. Nonetheless, there are some gems here that demonstrate in exemplary ways how technical scholarship intersects with other forms of ancient thought, and these will appeal to a broader swath of classicists: Richard Hunter's keen reading of Plato's Ion as a neglected document in our understanding of ancient scholarship, Philemon Probert's careful complication of what Atticism entails, and C. C de Jonge's untangling of Dionysius of Halicarnassus' analysis of Thucydides are notable examples. Otherwise, narrowly focused individual contributions will be of interest to particular scholars—looking for the latest on the fragments of Orus in Stephanus of Byzantium's Ethnika? You're covered. Curious about the status of the participle as a part of speech in grammars after 400 CE? Check it out here.

The volume is nicely produced, and typos are fairly rare and rather obvious. In addition to a useful bibliography, there is an index locorum and a general index. Most, but not all, the Greek and Latin is translated, and the translations are generally, though not universally, accurate.

Table of Contents

I. "Philologia perennis": History and New Perspectives
F. Montanari, Ancient Scholarship and Classical Studies
II. The Ancient Scholars at Work
R. Hunter, Plato's Ion and the Origins of Scholarship
M. Fantuzzi, Scholarly Panic: πανικὸς φόβος, Homeric Philology and the Beginning of the Rhesus
S. Matthaios, Eratosthenes of Cyrene: Readings of his 'Grammar' Definition
E.Pontani, Ex Homero grammatica
R. Nünlist, Aristarchus and Allegorical Interpretation
M. Schmidt, Portrait of an Unknown Scholiast
J. Lundon, Homeric Commentaries on Papyrus: A Survey
B. K. Braswell, Didymus on Pindar
P. Bing, Afterlives of a Tragic Poet: The Hypothesis in the Hellenistic Reception of Euripides
S. Chronopoulos, Re-writing the Personal Joke: Some Aspects in the Interpretation of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν in Ancient Scholarship
K. Spanoudakis, Ancient Scholia and Lost Identities: The Case of Simichidas
III. The Ancient Grammarians on the Greek Language and Linguistic Correctness
J. Lallot, Did The Alexandrian Grammarians have a Sense of History?
L. Basset, Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek: The Case of the 'Pre-positive Article'
P. Probert, Attic Irregularities: Their Reinterpretation in the Light of Atticism
I. Sluiter, A Champion of Analogy: Herodian's On Lexical Singularity
IV. Ancient Grammar in Historical Context
A. Wouters–P. Swiggers, New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar: The ἐπίρρημα Chapter in P. Berol. 9917
W. Ax, Quintilian's 'Grammar' (Inst. 1.4-8) and its Importance for the History of Roman Grammar
F. Lambert, Syntax before Syntax: Uses of the Term σύνταξις in Greek Grammarians before Apollonius Dyscolus
G. Bonnet, Syntagms in the Artigraphic Latin Grammars
L. Visser, Latin Grammatical Manuals in the Early Middle Ages: Tradition and Adaptation in the Participle Chapter
V. van Elst, Theodosius and his Byzantine Successors on the Participle: A Didactic Approach
M. Billerbeck, The Orus Fragments in the Ethnica of Stephanus of Byzantium
V. Ancient Grammar in Interdisciplinary Context
C. C. de Jonge, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Scholia on Thucydides' Syntax
A. Luhtala, Imposition of Names in Ancient Grammar and Philosophy
M. Chriti, Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle: The 'Arbitrariness of the Linguistic Sign'
(read complete article)

Andrea Tessier, Vom Melos zum Stichos: il verso melico greco nella filologia tedesca d'inizio Ottocento. Trieste: Edizioni Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2011. Pp. 157. ISBN 9788883033056. €14.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Alfonso Natale, Università di Salerno. Liceo "Marcantonio Flaminio", Vittorio Veneto (anatale@unisa.it)

Version at BMCR home site

Il denso volumetto di Tessier comprende, oltre alla premessa, sei capitoli non numerati che in parte riprendono alcuni suoi precedenti lavori, e che trattano l'arduo argomento della sticometria, intesa come definizione del verso e individuazione dei suoi confini nei canti della melica greca.

L'indagine dello studioso ripercorre anzitutto le tappe del dibattito scientifico sul versus tra i secoli XVIII e XIX, che vide come principali protagonisti Hermann e Böckh. È in questo periodo che per la prima volta il concetto di stichos è contrapposto a quello di colon non sulla base del criterio quantitativo noto da alcune testimonianze antiche (raccolte a p. 12), per cui il primo sarebbe una sequenza superiore, il secondo inferiore alle tre sizigie, ma in base a un criterio quantitativo e tassonomico, per cui qualunque sequenza, indipendentemente dalla sua estensione, assurge allo statuto di verso se è dimostrabile la sua indipendenza ritmica da altre sequenze.

Tessier esamina dettagliatamente i contributi di Hermann e Böckh che hanno portato in modo progressivo -- e travagliato -- al paradigma scientifico ancora oggi comunemente condiviso, per cui il confine ritmico, che articola nel loro svolgersi le masse meliche, è individuato in base ai certa indicia della fine di parola, dello iato (haud brevians) e della sillaba finale adiaphoros.¹

Presupposto dell'indagine di Hermann era la preminenza, sulla tradizione grammaticale, dell'ingegno del filologo, che individuava i ritmi congiunti nel verso da una legge certa e immutabile, prescindendo dalla observatio dei poeti (pp. 20-21). Böckh obiettava a questa posizione, in cui si poteva ravvisare una petizione di principio, la necessità di indizi oggettivi, che guidassero il critico anche ai fini dell'ecdotica. Tessier, con continui e puntuali riferimenti, dimostra che dei tre criteri cosiddetti böckhiani quello dello iato e quello dell'ultima sillaba indifferente furono identificati più volte anche da Hermann, ma che quest'ultimo riteneva il criterio della pausa verbale per lo più insicuro e poco cogente.

Tessier sottolinea che questo è il punto di maggior distacco con la dottrina di Böckh, in cui, com'è noto, la fine di parola è indizio di per sé necessario (anche se non sufficiente) per la determinazione dei confini stichici. Nel sottolinearne l'importanza, Böckh si rifaceva alla dottrina metrica antica, di cui era rimasta traccia nel precetto efestioneo πᾶν μέτρον εἰς τελείαν περατοῦται λέξιν (14, 22 Consbruch). Tessier inoltre ricorda la polemica fra Böckh e Ch. W. Ahlwardt (pp. 35-39), che rivendicò la primogenitura della norma relativa alla pausa verbale. Di fatto, Ahlwardt precedette Böckh di qualche anno nella enunciazione del criterio, ma negò la validità degli altri due.

Dal canto suo Hermann, obiettando che il sistema böckhiano si basava su una campionatura troppo ristretta, limitata agli epinici di Pindaro, e poteva pertanto anche non essere valido per i poeti scenici, propose una classificazione più complessa, che distingueva i versi in nexi (ossia in sinafia), non nexi (divisi da pausa verbale) e seminexi (gli asinarteti, che ammettono l'una e l'altra opzione fra le loro componenti). Di conseguenza sanciva la liceità di una responsione antistrofica fra sequenze in sinafia (cui tributava lo statuto di stichoi) e versi delimitati da pausa verbale, e/o dagli altri criteri.² Hermann inoltre ipotizzava due diverse entità 'sovrastichiche', i confini delle quali erano determinati dalla pausa verbale: esse erano il sistema, composto esclusivamente da versi nexi, e la strofe, che poteva comprendere tutti i tipi di verso o anche più sistemi.

Nei contributi di Hermann e Böckh sono ricordati, com'è noto, altri criteri, ma entrambi li ritengono non vincolanti per la definizione del confine stichico: l'interpunzione e la pausa sintattica, il cambio di personaggio, e quello che nella formulazione di Böckh suona come comparatio metrorum diligens et usus veterum cognitio; in quest'ultimo criterio va riconosciuta una "norma di equilibrio e di misura" (p. 83), e non l'apertura a un'interpretazione soggettiva.

Sulla pausa sintattica Tessier (pp. 66-67) riferisce gli interessanti risultati di un'indagine di Giannini sulle Olimpiche 6, 7, 8 e 9, realizzata nel 2008: in questi carmi soltanto nel 25% dei casi sembra riscontrabile la coincidenza fra fine di verso e pausa sintattica; di qui sembra potersi dedurre la sostanziale indifferenza di quest'ultima ai fini sticometrici. Nei canti della tragedia è tuttavia riscontrabile la tendenza opposta: ciò è suggerito dai risultati dello studio di Stinton sui canti delle tragedie non frammentarie, ove, su 694 fini di verso individuate dallo studioso («period-ends» nella sua terminologia, vd. sotto) soltanto 112 non corrisponderebbero a una pausa di senso.³ Di opinione diversa è Tessier, che ritiene la percentuale degli enjambement sul totale degli stichoi "una ratio piuttosto sostenuta" e dubita (p. 82, n. III) dell'attendibilità della sticometria di Stinton, per la presumibile alta incidenza che può aver giocato in essa il criterio maasiano, invero alquanto infondato, che proibisce la contiguità degli ancipitia.

Quanto alla cognitio metrorum, interessanti risultano le considerazioni di Tessier sulla Pitica 12 (pp. 79-81): in base a tale criterio egli propone di riconoscere un verso autonomo anche nel secondo colon di questo carme, benché esso, a differenza degli altri cola della strofe, non sia delimitato da uno dei due certa indicia; l'estensione uguale a quella degli altri stichoi, così determinati, sarebbe un argomento a favore di tale ipotesi.

Anche in altri casi, Tessier documenta la tendenza da parte degli editori a evitare la ripartizione stichica: così nella Nemea 6 Snell e Maehler stabiliscono otto versi, contro i nove individuati da Böckh, per eliminarne due di minore estensione; similmente, nel canto pseudo-amebeo di Agatone in Tesmoforiazuse 101-129, la sticometria di Austin e Olson, attenendosi ai soli criteri 'böckhiani', individua due sole pause di verso. Zimmermann, invece, tenendo conto di altri criteri non 'cogenti', come i cambi di persona (poco importa se fittizi), ne individua ben dieci. In tutti questi casi Tessier biasima il pavor seiungendi di alcuni editori e si dichiara favorevole a un'analisi meno cauta, che valorizzi i presupposti teorici di Böckh in ogni loro aspetto.

Una parte del dibattito scientifico, di cui Tessier ripercorre le linee, riguarda il problema della divisione di parola metrica per mezzo del confine stichico. Si tratta in particolare di prepositive (comprese alcune congiunzioni subordinanti) e postpositive, collocate rispettivamente all'inizio e alla fine del verso. Böckh tende ad ammettere il fenomeno in Pindaro, sia pure come eccezionale, e interviene per eliminarlo solo in alcuni casi (Tessier, pp. 51-53, con tabelle sinottiche). Anche Tessier, in modo deciso, lo ammette, come dimostra la sua analisi di alcuni passi del dramma: ad esempio in Sofocle, Elettra 841, egli giudica un'inutile normalizzazione metrica gli interventi recepiti da Lloyd-Jones e Wilson, per evitare che un γάρ chiuda il verso (pp. 68-69); viceversa, negli Acarnesi individua dei versi chiusi da prepositive monosillabiche: l'articolo ὁ a v. 207 e la congiunzione ἤ a v. 569 (pp. 69-74). A sostegno del primo esempio richiama il cosiddetto schema Sophocleum ricorrente nei trimetri del tragico (p. 72). Tornando al testo pindarico, Tessier osserva come anche le elisioni siano evitate se occorrenti in fine di verso. Böckh, in particolare, si dichiarò in un primo momento propenso a conservare la paradosis nel caso di un polisillabo eliso in fine di verso, intervenendo solo sulle particelle. In seguito tuttavia cercò di ovviare all'elisione dei polisillabi con una diversa suddivisione stichica (vd. Tessier pp. 53-55). Un'altra questione trattata nel volume è quella della duplice etichetta verso/periodo, vocaboli che talora definiscono indifferentemente il verso 'böckhiano', talora indicano invece fenomeni diversi. Tessier osserva come si sia creata, soprattutto nella bibliografia anglosassone, una tassonomia non cristallina che implica una gerarchia di sequenze di diversa estensione e importanza. Mentre Rossi e, in un primo momento, Irigoin, ritenevano il periodo un raggruppamento, intermedio tra verso e strofe, di "sequenze legate da una comunanza metrico-ritmica significativa" (Tessier p. 63), Irigoin avrebbe in seguito distinto periodo (= verso 'böckhiano') e verso (sequenza in sinafia prosodica ma non verbale con la successiva). Va inoltre ricordata la distinzione fra periodo maggiore e minore cui allude Stinton, e che è poi ripresa da West e Parker (Tessier, p. 62), nonché il discrimine, ugualmente emerso nella bibliografia 'anglofona', fra verso lirico (=periodo) e verso recitativo. La distinzione fra periodo e verso è conseguenza, secondo Tessier, della stessa cautela che porta a delimitare una sequenza autonoma solo in presenza di iato e/o brevis in longo (vd. gli esempi sopra), producendo versi molto lunghi, ai quali sembra meglio adattarsi un'etichetta tassonomicamente superiore a quella di verso.

Ma è documentabile nella prassi ecdotica anche la tendenza opposta, che porta a recepire con disagio sequenze che sembrano troppo brevi per costituire dei versi, benché l'occorrenza dei segnali 'böckhiani' dimostrino la loro indipendenza ritmica. Questo è il caso di alcune successioni docmiache, unite nella colometria manoscritta (per lo più 'dimetri'), all'interno delle quali ricorrono indizi di fine di verso. Seidler, che articolava i docmi in sistemi di tipo hermanniano (e quindi composti di versi nexi, vd. sopra), giustificava queste pause, ritenute meno 'forti' di quelle sticometriche, perché corrispondenti a esclamazioni, interrogazioni o allocuzioni. Böckh invece riaffermava il suo sistema teorico, salvo mostrare in un secondo momento alcuni ripensamenti nella sua edizione dell'Antigone (Tessier, p. 89). Anche Conomis mostrò la tendenza a conservare i segnali di fine di verso in presenza di pausa sintattica o di cambio di interlocutore, intervenendo dove queste circostanze 'attenuanti' non si presentassero. Tessier non condivide né l'atteggiamento dello studioso, né la proposta, avanzata più di recente da West, di riconoscere nelle pause tra i docmi una period-end più tenue, una sorta di staccato che non comporta la fine di verso, fenomeno comunque non dimostrabile.⁴ Tessier ammette invece stichoi anche non docmiaci brevissimi, costituiti da un solo molosso (Ἄπολλον in Agamennone 1080) o da un cretico (in Pindaro, fr. 107, 14 Lavecchia).

Un'altra interessante questione è relativa a quello che Tessier definisce il tabu del dattilo acataletto finale, ossia l'assunto che una sequenza che si chiude con un doppio breve (l'elemento biceps della terminologia maasiana) non possa essere ritenuto finale di verso; ciò porta ad evitare di segnare il confine sticometrico dopo una sequenza dattilica 'pura' (ossia con il biceps finale non contratto né catalettico) anche laddove sia presente uno iato: è il caso degli alcmani di Sofocle, Filottete 1205 (seguito fra l'altro da un cambio di battuta), e di Aristofane Pace 116. Tessier non si pronuncia in questa sede sull'interpretazione di questi passi, ma ripercorre la storia della questione, dimostrando che per il tabu non vi sono reali appigli nell'opera di Böckh: esso si è affermato a partire da Fraenkel, e poi con Maas. Tessier ripercorre poi le posizioni di Wilamowitz, Schroeder, Korzeniewski, Dale, e affronta, fra l'altro, la correlata e dibattuta questione della quantità della sillaba chiusa con vocale breve in fine di verso (pp. 106-107). Fra i numerosi passi esaminati, segnalo Edipo a Colono 228-235, una lunga successione dattilica ove Rossi individuava, in assenza di indizi 'böckhiani', un lungo pnigos di ventisei dattili:⁵ anche in questo caso è individuabile il presupposto che gli alcmani non possano costituire sequenze autonome. Refusi (pagina); picolo (8); das (15); sächische (19); dipaniarsi (25); Zeir (29); Pindarico (44); contiungunt (52); c-est (63); 1981 (64: 1978); yeld (68); Berlinese (78); v. 8 (79); infra (82); manca una parentesi (94); Pindarischen (135); Österreichischen (141); frühgeschichte (143).

---

Notes:

1.   Concetto, quest'ultimo, trattato in modo non sempre privo di ambiguità: si vedano le considerazioni di Tessier, p. 21.
2.   Al centro del dibattito fra questi studiosi è l'Olimpica XIV di Pindaro, ove ai vv. 1-2, separati da iato (λαχοῖσαι / αἵτε) corrispondono i vv. 13-14, fra i quali si divide il vocabolo φιλησί- /μολπε. Mentre per Hermann era questa un'esemplificazione calzante delle sue teoria, Böckh, dopo aver in un primo momento giustificato questa eccezione come apparente, in considerazione del composto verbale, optò in seguito per un intervento atto a eliminare lo iato ai vv. 1-2. La storia dell'ecdotica di questo passo è trattata da Tessier nel secondo capitolo (pp. 19- 57), passim.
3.   P. Giannini, 'Enjambement, colometria e performance negli epinici di Pindaro', in G. Cerboni Baiardi, L. Lomiento, F. Perusino (edd.), Enjambement. Teorie e tecniche dagli antichi al Novecento, pp. 65-80; T. C. W. Stinton, CQ 37, 1977, pp. 27-66 (= CP, pp. 310-361).
4.   Sulla questione, Tessier rinvia in particolare all'analisi di E. Medda, SemRom 3, 2000, pp. 115-142.
5.   L. E. Rossi, 'La sinafia', in E. Livrea, G.A. Privitera (edd.), Studi in onore di Athos Ardizzoni, Roma 1978, p. 802.

(read complete article)

Luis Rivero García, Juan A. Estévez Sola, Miryam Libran Moreno, Antonio Ramírez de Verger (trans.), Publio Virgilio Marón. Eneida: Volumen II (Libros IV-VI). Alma mater. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2011. Pp. xxviii, 179. ISBN 9788400092832. €25.00.

Luis Rivero García, Juan A. Estévez Sola, Miryam Libran Moreno, Antonio Ramírez de Verger (trans.), Publio Virgilio Marón. Eneida: Volumen III (Libros VII-IX). Alma mater. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2011. Pp. xxiv, 176. ISBN 9788400093396. €24.00.

Luis Rivero García, Juan A. Estévez Sola, Miryam Libran Moreno, Antonio Ramírez de Verger (trans.), Publio Virgilio Marón. Eneida: Volumen IV (Libros X-XII). Alma mater. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2011. Pp. xxiii, 395. ISBN 9788400093402. €37.00.

Reviewed by Giampiero Scafoglio, Seconda Università di Napoli (scafogli@unina.it)

Version at BMCR home site

Questi volumi proseguono e completano l'edizione dell'Eneide a cura di A. Ramírez de Verger (testo e apparato critico), L. Rivero (traduzione), M. Librán (note di commento), J. A. Estévez (verifica dei manoscritti, delle edizioni e delle testimonianze indirette). Ciascun volume comprende tre libri (dal IV al XII), una bibliografia (divisa in editiones e commentationes) funzionale alla lettura dell'apparato critico, un conspectus codicum et subsidiorum. Il quarto e ultimo volume include anche gli indici dei nomi, dei passi citati, dei loci similes e di (alcuni) temi ed espedienti letterari. Non capisco per quale motivo quest'ultimo indice comprenda principalmente voci attinenti alla sfera amorosa, che certamente è parte integrante dell'Eneide, ma non ne esaurisce la ricchissima gamma tematica.

Per un giudizio complessivo si può confrontare il mio review-article dedicato al vol. I (libri I-III del poema, con un'ampia introduzione dal taglio monografico), in "BMCR" 2010.01.03. Infatti i volumi II, III e IV conservano l'impostazione e le principali caratteristiche del primo, di cui confermano altresì le qualità e le carenze (imputabili quasi sempre alla finalità ambiguamente indecisa tra concezione scientifica e compilazione divulgativa). Mi limiterò perciò a discutere qualche punto, che funga anche da esempio del modo in cui è condotto il lavoro di revisione testuale, traduzione e commento.

IV, 93-95, egregiam uero laudem et spolia ampla refertis / tuque puerque tuus: magnum et memorabile nomen, / una dolo diuum si femina uicta duorum est (Giunone a Venere, sull'innamoramento di Didone): la scelta di nomen con Geymonat e Conte vs numen, presente nella maggior parte della tradizione manoscritta, è resa plausibile anche dalla congruenza del sostantivo con l'aggettivo memorabile, che si riferisce (ironicamente) alla fama più appropriatamente che a un dio. La struttura della frase risulta ugualmente decisiva a V, 767-768, ipsi quibus aspera quondam / uisa maris facies et non tolerabile nomen (i Troiani che rimangono in Sicilia), dove nomen del Mediceus (M) è preferibile a numen del Palatinus (P) in quanto meglio appaiato con facies del primo emistichio, ma è consigliato altresì dalla tradizione indiretta (Servio ad Aen. IV, 560; Tiberio Claudio Donato).

Non mi convince invece la scelta di VI, 383, gaudet cognomine terra (Palinuro), dove terra soppianta terrae, presente nei principali codici: non nego che l'ablativo sembri lectio difficilior -- perciò è preferito dai maggiori editori moderni (da Mynors a Geymonat, da Goold a Conte); tuttavia mi sembra stridente la successione di due ablativi con diversa funzione, di cui il primo (cognomine) dipende dal secondo, creando inevitabilmente un'ambiguità, poiché è forte la tentazione di legarlo direttamente al verbo. Una maggiore audacia avrebbe giovato a VI, 851-852, tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento / (hae tibi erunt artes) pacique imponere morem, dove paci viene dalla maggior parte della tradizione manoscritta e compare nelle principali edizioni; ma forse è preferibile pacis, che Hirtzel accoglie al seguito di Servio e che E. Kraggerud difende con ottimi argomenti, insieme col plurale mores (SO 66, 1991, 115-117; Gymnasium 118, 2011, 457-462).

Di contro, è apprezzabile il coraggio dimostrato a IX, 128-130, Troianos haec monstra petunt, his Iuppiter ipse / auxilium solitum eripuit non tela neque ignis / exspectans Rutulos (la trasformazione delle navi troiane in Ninfe marine, nell'interpretazione fuorviante di Turno): il participio exspectans (Giove) di M è preferito (in modo plausibile, per il significato) all'indicativo exspectant (i Troiani) di P, del Vaticanus lat. 3225 (F) e del Romanus (R), accolto dai principali editori. Ugualmente coraggiosa la scelta a IX, 486-487, nec te tua funera mater / produxi (dal lamento della madre di Eurialo): la lezione manoscritta funera, confermata anche dalla traduzione indiretta (Servio, Macrobio, Tiberio Claudio Donato), è recuperata credibilmente a scapito dela congettura funere, che risale a Bembo e piace ai maggiori editori moderni (Mynors, Hardie, Goold, Conte); tuttavia la conservazione della lezione manoscritta richiederebbe una revisione della punteggiatura, con l'aggiunta di una virgola tra te e tua.

X, 244-245, crastina lux, mea si non inrita dicta putaris, / ingentis Rutulae spectabit caedis aceruos (dalla profezia di Cimodocea a Enea): Servio conosce l'esistenza delle due lezioni spectabit (R) e spectabis (M, P e Veronensis = V) e propende nettamente per la prima; il Servius auctus riconduce la seconda a Velio Longo, a conferma dell'origine antica della corruzione. La presenza di altre apostrofi rivolte a entità naturali o inanimate (personificate) nell'Eneide ha favorito la diffusione della forma spectabis nella tradizione manoscritta e potrebbe perfino deporre a suo favore; tuttavia tale forma rischierebbe di sembrare maldestramente appaiata col precedente putaris (riferito senza dubbio a Enea), da cui paradossalmente può aver avuto origine la corruzione. Il contributo degli eruditi antichi non è meno importante a X, 444, socii cesserunt aequore iussi (gli uomini di Turno, che obbediscono al suo comando di lasciare il campo di battaglia): la tradizione manoscritta offre la lezione iusso (concordato con aequore), che Servio interpreta pro ipsi iussi; con questa spiegazione collima la congettura iussi, che compare nell'edizione Aldina del 1501 ed è accolta da Harrison e Goold, mentre la lezione manoscritta (ritenuta evidentemente difficilior) continua a figurare nelle principali edizioni moderne. D'altronde mi chiedo per quale motivo, se proprio si vuole regolarizzare, non si opti per il più semplice e ovvio iussu.

XI, 81-82, uinxerat et post terga manus, quos mitteret umbris / inferias caeso sparsuros sanguine flammas (i giovani catturati da Enea per offrire un sacrificio umano al defunto Pallante): la lezione sparsuros dei codici del secolo IX, avallata dalla spiegazione di Tiberio Claudio Donato (uinciri praecepit ea ratione, ut rogi Pallantei flammas suo sanguine spargerent) più che dal parallelo omerico citato in apparato (Il. XXIII, 181-182, dove Achille dice che il fuoco divorerà i giovani destinati al sacrificio sul rogo di Patroclo), mi pare effettivamente migliore di sparsurus (scil. Enea), che pure è presente nella maggiore parte della tradizione manoscritta; infatti non sarà Enea ad amministrare il barbaro rito, il cui compimento è passato deliberatamente sotto silenzio da Virgilio. Sull'aderenza alla tradizione manoscritta, oltre che sulla regolarità della forma, si basa invece la scelta di XII, 605, filia prima manu flauos Lauinia crinis / et roseas laniata genas (quando la ragazza apprende il suicidio della madre): la lezione manoscritta flauos, che potrebbe sembrare facilior, è preferita (con i principali editori moderni, da Mynors a Geymonat, da Perret a Goold, compreso Giancotti, pur con qualche dubbio) alla variante di tradizione indiretta floros, che Servio definisce antiqua lectio spiegando: id est florulentos, pulchros, et est sermo Ennianus -- tuttavia Conte accoglie quest'ultima, al seguito di M. L. Delvigo (Testo virgiliano e tradizione indiretta. Le varianti probiane, Pisa 1987, 81-96) e di S. Timpanaro (Virgilianisti antichi e tradizione indiretta, Firenze 2001, 77-93).

Per la traduzione, mi piace citare l'ultimo monologo di Didone (IV, 651-662), che mette alla prova la sensibilità più ancora che la competenza del traduttore, per il vibrante contrappunto di note solenni e note patetiche, note struggenti di nostalgia e note frementi di rabbia, in un sussulto di orgoglio che agonizza e declina nel rimpianto, per poi si risollevarsi e raggiungere il culmine nel proposito suicida:

'dulces exuuiae, dum fata deusque sinebat,
accipite hanc animam meque his exsoluite curis.
uixi et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi,
et nunc magna mei sub terras ibit imago.
urbem praeclaram statui, mea moenia uidi,
ulta uirum poenas inimico a fratre recepi,
felix, heu nimium felix, si litora tantum
numquam Dardaniae tetigissent nostra carinae!'
dixit, et os impressa toro 'moriemur inultae,
sed moriamur' ait. 'sic, sic iuuat ire sub umbras.
hauriat hunc oculis ignem crudelis ab alto
Dardanus et nostrae secum ferat omina mortis'.

"Despojos dulces mientras destino y dios lo permitía, / recibid esta alma y libradme de estas cuitas. / Viví y al cabo recorrí la jornada que Fortuna me diera / y ahora una imagen grande de mí irá bajo las tierras. / Fundé una ciudad preclara, vi mis propias murallas, / por vengar a mi esposo castigo recibí de mi enemigo hermano, /feliz ¡ay de sobra feliz, sólo con que jamás / carenas dardanias hubieran arribado a nuestras costas!' / Dijo, y clavando su boca sobre el lecho: 'Moriremos sin venganza, / pero muramos' dice. 'Así, así me place marchar bajo las sombras. / Desde alta mar engulla con sus ojos este fuego el cruel / dárdano y consigo porte el augurio de nuestra muerte'.

Come si vede, il testo spagnolo è così fedele da consentire un riscontro quasi uerbum de uerbo (quando è possibile, finanche la disposizione delle parole coincide), senza degenerare però nel ricalco meccanico. Al contrario, l'andamento sintattico e ritmico tende a riprodurre il flusso dei sentimenti e, in certa misura, ci riesce. Qua e là si può avanzare qualche riserva, e.g. sull'espressione "una imagen grande de mí", dove forse sarebbe stato preferibile l'articolo determinativo, non soltanto per un motivo congiuntamente linguistico e culturale (tale immagine è l'umbra, che corrisponde alla persona nella sua unicità), bensì per rendere più solenne il tono di quel particolare snodo del discorso.

Le note di commento talvolta sono felicemente congruenti, con riferimenti puntuali ed essenziali a problemi specifici e con richiami bibliografici pertinenti. Qualche esempio dal vol. II: p. 4, n. 1, sulla passione amorosa di Didone; p. 41, n. 192, su IV, 436 (ma non ugualmente bene p. 42, n. 197, sul v.449, dove sfugge l'ambiguità dell'espressione lacrimae uoluuntur inanes); pp. 80-81, n. 83, sulla clamide dorata donata da Enea al vincitore della regata nautica (V, 250 ss.). Particolarmente accurate risultano le note ai libri VII, VIII e IX (vol. III), di argomento geografico, etiologico, storico-culturale e antropologico (città e popolazioni italiche, leggende e tradizioni arcaiche etc.). Talvolta, invece, le note rivelano una certa superficialità, un'eccessiva sinteticità e qualche lacuna bibliografica, soprattutto per il libro VI, che per la pregnanza e la complessità dell'argomento avrebbe meritato più spazio e, almeno in alcuni punti (come gli episodi di Palinuro, Didone e Deifobo, nonché l'esposizione filosofica di Anchise), una maggiore attenzione. Una carenza, questa, non imputabile all'Autrice, ma alla mole dell'opera, che fornisce comunque una visione d'insieme dell'Eneide largamente attendibile e apprezzabile.

(read complete article)

Marios Philippides, Walter K. Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Farnham; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Pp. xxiv, 759; 36 p. of plates. ISBN 9781409410645. $220.00.

Reviewed by Mark Bartusis, Northern State University (bartusis@northern.edu)

Version at BMCR home site

Preview

The siege and fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 continue to capture both the popular and scholarly imagination. Based on decades of research and a mastery of the sources, Marios Philippides and Walter K. Hanak have written a big book, not, as one might expect, a narrative of the siege and fall but rather studies of "the sources relating to or purporting to relate to the events linked with the two-month siege and the ultimate fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks" in 1453, and "of the military planning and operational approaches in the course of the siege" (p. xiii).

The book is divided into eleven chapters. The first three deal with the sources. Chapter 1 (pp. 3-91) lays out the twelve known eyewitness accounts of the siege, plus thirteen contemporary non-eyewitness accounts, sixteenth- century Greek accounts, and what little can be gleaned from patriarchal and Ottoman documents, and Turkish sources generally. Chapter 2 (pp. 93-137) deals with four alleged eyewitness accounts. The authors conclude that the account of "Riccherio," often used by scholars as an eyewitness account, is actually a scholarly work written by a sixteenth-century Frenchman, and that the Russian eyewitness account of Nestor-Iskander should be regarded as reliable.¹

Chapter 3 (pp. 139-91) focuses on the memoirs of the Byzantine official George Sphrantzes, a participant in the siege and close friend of the emperor, and the much longer work (called the Chronicon maius, or the Pseudo-Sphrantzes, or Pseudo-Phrantzes) that was once attributed to Sphrantzes, but now is known to be a sixteenth-century fabrication by Makarios Melissourgos, one-time bishop of Monemvasia, who also forged some Byzantine documents. In a long section (pp. 160-87), the authors quote many passages from Pseudo-Sphrantzes, as well as from other accounts of the siege, to show that they are all based on the authentic eyewitness account of Leonardo Giustiniani, the Italian archbishop of Mytilene. While adding little to our knowledge of the siege, the account of Melissourgos, they conclude (p. 152), nevertheless should be regarded as one of the most important Greek literary works of a very dark era.

Chapter 4 (pp. 193-288) makes the transition from historiography to topography. It begins, as its title promises, with the "Myths, Legends, Tales" that emerged in reaction to the fall of Constantinople, whether lamentations over the cultural loss or stories about the fate of well-known personages, first and foremost the Byzantine emperor himself. But over half of the chapter examines the legendary burial places of Constantine XI and the site of the execution of the high official Loukas Notaras. Chapter 5 (pp. 297-357) continues the topographical theme by describing the four miles of the land walls, the civil and military gates (the former for leaving the city, the latter for communication between the inner and outer walls), the towers, and the curtain walls between them.

Chapters 6 through 10 involve a variety of subjects connected with the siege: a study of the diplomatic maneuvering following the accession of Mehmed II (pp. 359-73); a study of the life and death of the Genoese condottiere Giovanni Longo Giustiniani (pp. 377-87, 515-46), who came to Constantinople in late January 1453, was mortally wounded and left the field, causing his troops to withdraw, thereby allowing the Turks to enter through that part of the land walls;² a study of the construction of the fort of Rumeli Hisar on the straits north of Constantinople (pp. 399-412); a long study of the role of artillery in the siege (pp. 387-96, 413-27, 475-92, 502-05, 551-60), including discussion of Urban, the (probably) Hungarian engineer who, unable to receive a satisfactory salary from the Byzantine emperor, entered the employ of the Turks, and of the bombards, including the "monster" which, according to one source, fired stone balls of 1200 pounds. In addition there are brief treatments of what is known of skirmishing outside the walls (pp. 492-501), mining and countermining (pp. 505-12), and the construction and destruction of a single siege tower (pp. 512-15); and several studies of naval operations around the Golden Horn (pp. 429-73). The authors conclude that the fall of Constantinople had little to do with gunpowder, but rather the versatility and adaptability of the sultan in his tactical thinking. Even then it was only the absence of Giustiniani that made the sultan's success possible.

After a brief concluding chapter (pp. 561-68), there are a number of appendices which includes a useful chronology of the siege (pp. 571-78) and a list of some 222 men who are known to have been inside the city at the time of the fall (pp. 625-61). An extensive bibliography is followed by indexes of all the proper nouns used in the book (people, places, titles of written works); there is no topical index.³

The first three chapters are the most successful. This section may be far too long, wordy, and poorly organized, but nonetheless it is a thorough treatment of the sources and the scholarship (which at times overlap) up through the middle of the twentieth century. The authors have scoured the libraries and archives for all sorts of manuscripts and the earliest of obscure printed editions. There is nothing else like it, and I can't imagine it being superseded any time soon.

As for the topographical studies, which begin a third of the way through Chapter 4 and continue through Chapter 5, the extensive and detailed discussions of churches, walls, monasteries, and gates, are strengthened by the many photographs, but marred by the absence of useful maps and plans. Only a small fraction of the geographical and topographical features listed in the index are shown on the three maps of the city and sometimes the maps do not agree among themselves or with the text.⁴

Chapters 6 through 10 are devoted to military studies.⁵ The authors conclude that Mehmed II was a brilliant strategist (pp. 434, 500, 553) who employed an "elastic offense" demonstrating "flexibility" (pp. 553, 554). By this they mean he was willing to try new ideas when his earlier plans did not succeed, but this could just as well be interpreted as evidence of his incompetence as a military planner and tactician. As for the defenders, the authors state that they employed an "elastic strategy" as well, reacting to changes in the sultan's tactics with an "elastic response" (p. 497). However, the word "elastic" is not used here in its normal military sense implying defense in depth. In fact the defenders in 1453 used a traditional linear defense, as was almost always the case in medieval siege warfare, and because there were not enough men for both the inner and outer land walls, they were forced to abandon the layered linear defense that the land walls were originally intended to provide and position themselves solely along the outer wall.⁶ Oddly, the decision is both commended and condemned by the authors: "In our view, the defense of the outer and lower wall was more efficient as a strategy precisely because it was easier for the defenders to organize sorties and to harass the enemy continuously" (p. 492), though later they write that the Byzantines committed "a fundamental error in planning their defensive strategy" by "position[ing] their men on these lesser walls," which "proved detrimental in the final outcome" (pp. 566-67).

Some very basic questions about the siege are not addressed or addressed only briefly: Why did Mehmed II decide to take Constantinople? How many defenders were there? How large was the Ottoman army, what was its composition, and how was it deployed? Given Mehmed's resources, and given that the Turks outnumbered the defenders by something like ten to one,⁷ why did it take almost eight weeks to take the city? And why was Mehmed so hesitant to order general assaults (the authors mention four, including the final successful one)?

Finally, there are some minor mistakes,⁸ and the book could have used more editing: there is much repetition and many awkward turns of phrase. Perhaps as much as a third of the text consists of quotations from the sources along with their English translations. And the book was typeset cheaply.⁹

Despite my many reservations about the book, it will be justifiably a central reference point for anyone who has a serious interest in the fall and the historiographical tradition that followed it. The work of Philippides and Hanak, here and elsewhere, is a necessary step toward future synthesis and narrative of one of the most famous events ever.

---

Notes:

1.   It is unclear to me why the short treatments of the eyewitness account of the Florentine merchant Tetaldi (Tedaldi) and of an "influential" pamphlet on the siege by Aeneas Silvius, the future Pius II, composed not long after the fall, appear in this chapter and not Chapter 1.
2.   The authors regard the mercenaries serving with Giustiniani, along with a contingent of soldiers, mainly from Chios, raised by Cardinal Isidore who arrived in Constantinople to implement the union of the Eastern and Western churches which the Greek church had agreed to at the Council of Florence in 1439, as the core of the city's defenses (p. 377).
3.   It appears that someone else did the indexing; at least this is the only way I can explain why there are separate entries for synonyms such as "Pera" and "Galata" (and no cross-references).
4.   The authors state repeatedly that the outer wall terminated just above the Adrianople Gate (pp. 302, 307 note 39, 308), and that the moat, if it extended beyond the Adrianople Gate at all, did so "intermittently" (?) (pp. 302, 307 note 39, 310). Yet Maps 2 and 4 show the outer wall extending all the way up to the southern corner of the Tekfur Saray. As for the moat, Map 2 extends it all the way up to the western side of the Tekfur Saray, while on Map 4 the moat terminates at the Adrianople Gate but then resumes for a little stretch in front of the Tekfur Saray.
5.   Fully one-third of the second half of the book is based on two earlier articles by the authors, reprinted here for the most part paragraph by paragraph and with only slight revision and without acknowledgement. W. Hanak, "The Constantinopolitan Mesoteikhion in 1453: Its Topography, Adjacent Structures and Gates," Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines, n.s. 4 (1999), 69-98, and M. Philippides, "Urban's Bombard(s), Gunpowder, and the Siege of Constantinople (1453)," Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines, n.s. 4 (1999), 1-67. Perhaps it would have been appropriate to state at the beginning of the volume which parts had been published previously.
6.   Had the defenders abandoned the outer wall and its towers without rendering them unusable, these fortifications would have been occupied by the Turks during the siege and turned against the defenders.
7.   M. Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society, 1204-1453 (Philadelphia, 1992), 129-31.
8.   In a book with "military studies" in its subtitle, there are certain mistakes one should not make. All of the mercenaries fighting with Giovanni Giustiniani are called condottierri (pp. xvii, 389, 505, 555, 560). We are told that artillery "triangulation" has something to do with "not firing head on but at an angle" (p. 488), and that this method of aiming will somehow "achieve more impressive results" against stone walls (p. 370). In another passage we learn that the Turks had "rifles" (p. 486).
9.   Until one gets to the bibliography (p. 667 to be specific), there is a complete absence of hyphenation, and this leads to some unattractive composition (see, e.g., p. xix). Breathings on capital Greek letters often seem to just float in space (e.g., pp. ix, 117). In a curious lapse, throughout much of the book the Greek character stigma ϛ appears wherever a final sigma ς is called for (and at least once vice versa [p. 361]). In the bibliography the two characters are used almost interchangeably (e.g., p. 707).

(read complete article)