2009.07.29

Version at BMCR home site
Richard A. Billows, Julius Caesar: The Colossus of Rome. Roman Imperial Biographies. London/New York: Routledge, 2009. Pp. xv, 312; 6 p. of plates. ISBN 9780415333146. $120.00.
Reviewed by Richard Westall

Richard Billows has written a detailed and engaging biography of Julius Caesar that is primarily aimed at an audience unacquainted with the Graeco-Roman world and Classical scholarship. For this reason, the work is not merely a biography, but also an account of the period in which Caesar lived. Structured accordingly, this work is dedicated to providing a rather meticulous chronicle of the political and military history of the last century of the Republic, with some attention to the period's socio-economic realities, as viewed through the lens provided by the life of Caesar.

This book is divided into ten chapters of more or less equal dimensions. After a prologue, in which Billows sets the stage by asking how Caesar came to cross the Rubicon and unleash a civil war, the first chapter is dedicated to setting forth the background for the histoire événementielle of the first century BCE. The second chapter treats of the early years of Caesar's life and recounts the political and military history of the 90s and 80s BCE. The third chapter deals with the 70s BCE, providing a contrast between Caesar's traditional entry into Roman politics and the meteoric rise of Pompeius Magnus. The fourth chapter recounts the events of the 60s BCE, investigating Caesar's involvement -- or lack thereof -- with figures such as Pompeius and Catilina. The fifth chapter focuses exclusively upon the events of Caesar's first consulate in the highly controversial year 59 BCE. The sixth chapter follows Caesar abroad so as to narrate the conquest of Transalpine Gaul in the years 58-50 BCE. The seventh chapter provides a narrative for the political manoeuvres that transpired at Rome during this same period. The eighth chapter provides a respite from the increasing tension of the political and military narrative by focussing upon the literary contributions of Caesar, providing a brief analysis and contextualization of Caesar's oeuvre. The ninth chapter resumes the progression of histoire événementielle with an account of the civil war fought in the years 49-45 BCE. The tenth and final chapter narrates the events leading up to Caesar's assassination, offering an analysis of that event. An epilogue highlights the lasting influence exerted by Caesar even in death, arguing for his unique position in history as the charismatic leader of a political and social movement. The life of Caesar proves a vehicle for narrating the political and military history of the late Republic, whereas that traditional historical narrative in turn affords a proper understanding of Caesar. This is biography in the best of the Classical tradition, and as it must be written -- if the endeavour is to be attempted at all -- for any figure in the Graeco-Roman world.

Billows has written a learned book that is alternately a pleasure to read and quite frustrating. The narrative is replete with details, but proves anything other than tedious. The analyses that accompany this narrative are clear and frequently appealing. The documentation is focussed upon ancient literary sources rather than modern treatments. In short, this "biography" of Caesar will prove of interest and possible use for a general readership as well as for Classicists perhaps wishing to round out or review what they know from prior study of the subject. But the lack of direct citation of the sources is troubling, for it is always the authorial voice of Billows that readers hear. Exemplary is the fact that Caesar left extensive writings, but not once are readers given a direct quote from this invaluable source as to the man's actions and personality.¹ Moreover, Billows is capable of indulging in historical fiction with alarming ease and lack of sufficient notice for the unwary reader. So, for example, he provides guest-lists for two dinner-parties held on the eve of Caesar's assassination. That attended by Caesar is imagined as having included Cleopatra.² That held by C. Cassius is entirely hypothetical. Only in the end-notes does Billows notify his readers of the nature of this historical reconstruction (pp. 282 nn. 1-2). Undergraduates and the ingenuous will have a field day with items like this.

Readers are advised against looking to this work for any particularly new insights into the world of the late Republic. Billows is open to the critical ideas of an "outsider" such as M. Parenti (as regards the credibility of Cicero and later sources for the so-called "Catilinarian conspiracy") and advances credible (to a certain degree) reasons for viewing the political history of the last century of the Republic as dominated by two opposed political movements: optimates and populares. But, as is the case with all recent works of this sort dedicated to Caesar, he shows himself by and large willing to repeat what is to be found within the modern vulgate. Hence, to cite but one example, Billows writes that "Caesar and his officers were enormously enriched" by their conquest of Gaul in the 50s BCE (p. 164). The wealth of Gaul was described in glowing terms by contemporaries, and many of those who associated with Caesar did so for the sole purpose of being "covered in gold".³ But the account of Billows, like that of most of his predecessors from Mommsen onwards, accepts this evidence at face value. In the wake of the Bernard Madoff scandal and similar situations, we would do well to exercise a critical spirit and express scepticism over Caesar's financial gains from his arduous campaigning in the north. In a passage that has been consistently overlooked by modern scholars, Suetonius relates that Pompeius believed Caesar to be financially insolvent on the eve of civil war and for this reason to be desirous of a conflict.⁴ Even had the Romans maintained accounts as is done today and even if these survived, the situation would be complicated, as the proposed modern parallel with Madoff shows. Nevertheless, such a critical questioning of the evidence and hypotheses of this sort are what we might expect of a work that seeks to revolutionise our vision of the late Republic and prove a lasting contribution to the field. Billows has written a book that is highly readable and competently fashioned, but it is unlikely to prove a standard work of reference as was the case with R. Syme's Roman Revolution, M. Gelzer's Caesar, or E.S. Gruen's The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. On the other hand, introductions -- as this book is described on the back cover -- are perhaps not the place for the elaboration of new ideas nor poised to become classics in their fields.

Indeed, it may be questioned whether there was need of yet another biography of Caesar. It might have been thought that the market is already saturated. No fewer than nine books dedicated to Caesar's life (or death) have appeared in English in the last decade, one of these also published by Routledge!⁵ Of these works, two distinguish themselves for their being accessible to general readers and for their being written in a style that is equally engaging: Goldsworthy has shown a talent for the description of military encounters whereas Tatum is quite good at providing a tableau of the political situation. In the midst of this abundance, Billows's work struggles to distinguish itself. Moreover, the price of this book in the hard-cover edition (and in that for "kindle") will make it inaccessible to the general public. The price of $120.00 -- which comes to nearly $0.36 per page -- seems disproportionate to production costs, and is most certain to curtail the work's diffusion. Was yet another biography of Caesar opportune?

The question becomes all the more acute when Billows's work is compared with the "classics" produced by his predecessors in the twentieth century. The most important of these are Meier and Gelzer, both available in English translations.⁶ Written in the same style and available in paperback format, Meier's biography of Caesar suffers from the absence of footnotes, which is no great loss for a work aimed at the general public. The biography of Caesar written by Gelzer, on the other hand, is written in a style that is perhaps less "lively", but has a wealth of documentation that far surpasses what is provided by Billows For example, Billows mentions a six-line poem by Caesar in which he compared the comic playwrights Menander and Terence (p. 35). The poem is not cited, either in the original Latin or in English translation. Moreover, without any supporting proof, the piece is cited as an example of the juvenilia written by Caesar. Turning to Gelzer's biography, we find not only an ampler bibliography on the subject, but also citation of the original poem and the thesis advanced -- convincingly for this reviewer -- to the effect that the poem belongs to Caesar's later years.⁷ Gelzer's work was last revised in German for the sixth edition of 1960, upon which edition the English translation of 1968 is based. Despite its obvious lack of reference to the last half-century of scholarship, however, that treatment indisputably remains the standard scholarly biography of Caesar. Without the scholarly apparatus of footnotes -- ever to be preferred to the solution of end-notes adopted in the present instance -- and reference to modern treatments of various points of detail, Billows's work cannot expect to replace that written by Gelzer. There is urgent need of an updated version of Gelzer, but Billows's book does not meet this need.

Billows places a great deal of interpretative weight upon what he identifies as the two political movements of the late Republic: the optimates and the populares. The thesis is seductive and not without a certain appeal. However, questions obtrude upon this reconstruction. What is the Latin or Greek for "political movement"? In the absence of a linguistic description, can such a social phenomenon be said to exist? The reviewer has grave doubts, in view of the last half-century's research into the language of politics and the democratic nature of the Republic.⁸ By the standards of the contemporary Anglo-American world, the political landscape of ancient Rome was extraordinarily fragmented and highly susceptible to rapid changes of allegiance. Moreover, the factiones identified by our sources cannot be equated with "political movements", as the very notion is part of a denigratory rhetoric aimed at the destruction of political opponents and the positive political identities of optimates and populares are far more nebulous than the word "movement" would imply. Hence, Billows's attempt to resuscitate the nineteenth- and twentieth-century notion of political parties fails to convince despite its aesthetic appeal.

Billows deals with military campaigns in summary fashion, thereby avoiding the problems that emerge when one enters into the details. It is as though Caesar's enemies were mere cannon-fodder waiting to be killed so as to illustrate his greatness as a general. Unwary readers will be surprised to find that there is a long-running debate over the location of the battle of Pharsalus. And they will come away with no idea of what John Keegan has evocatively termed "the face of battle". Popular images from cinema and cable television are all too likely to fill this lacuna for Billows's readers. That is a shame, for the details of military life reveal much about the nature of the Roman achievement and the limits to which it was subject.⁹ Similarly, soldiers fill the legions of Caesar and his contemporaries as if by magic.¹⁰ There is no sense here of the disruption caused by mobilization, such as what has been experienced in the United States and (to a lesser degree) Great Britain in the wake of the attack upon the Twin Towers. Yet, some 50 legions under arms in the early 40s BCE surely affected in visible fashion the human landscape of the towns and countryside of Italy.

Billows is primarily concerned with political and military history, but he does incorporate some of the more important findings of social and economic history into his narrative and analyses. Hence, he shows great sophistication in his treatment of the interest of various members of the gens Iulia in extending the Roman franchise to the citizens of the various city-states of the Italian pensinsula (e.g. p. 40). Similarly, he exhibits commendable caution in accepting the testimony of Cicero and later authors as regards the programme behind the so-called "Catilinarian conspiracy" (pp. 88, 94-96). Yet, he shows a dismaying tendency to relate statistics from ancient authors as though they possess the same empirical value as statistics used in most of the Western world today, even though frequently using qualifiers on the order of "reportedly" or "said to have numbered". As was well shown at the outset of the last century and as has been recently re-stated with great clarity and force, the Graeco-Roman use of numbers is better described as rhetorical rather than empirical.¹¹ Whether dealing with the claim that the Senate had 300, 600, or 900 members (e.g. pp. 36, 52, 241) or the allegation that Caesar purchased for HS 100,000,000 the land upon which he built the Forum Iulium (p. 177), the historian needs to be aware that certain figures recur too frequently in the literary sources to be anything other than conscious rhetorical representations.¹² Likewise important and neglected is the need to contextualize those few numbers transmitted by the sources. How many readers are likely to understand the value of 1,300 talents (p. 63)? Even a minimalist table for currencies in an appendix would have been of use.

The most serious and extraordinary omission from this work is any reference whatsoever to the epigraphic or archaeological evidence. The evidence of monuments, funerary deposits, and coins would have manifestly enriched Billows's narrative, as is shown by a comparison with W.J. Tatum's biography of Caesar and the recent exhibition dedicated to Caesar in Rome, Italy.¹³. The testimony of inscriptions would have been no less eloquent an addition to this work. As it stands, the reviewer can find only four instances in which reference is made to the epigraphic evidence and even that is extraordinarily perfunctory (pp. 265 nn. 11-12, 268 n. 39, 280 n. 23). Yet, without the evidence of the Fasti, we should not know the date of the battle of Pharsalus.¹⁴ Without the evidence of inscriptions from the Greek eastern Mediterranean, we should not know how contemporaries in the provinces viewed Caesar's victory at Pharsalus, praising him as a "saviour and benefactor"¹⁵ and instituting a new era commencing with that victory.¹⁶ Instances of epigraphy's contribution to our knowledge of ancient history are legion, their absence from this work altogether baffling. It is as though the last two centuries of scholarship had never transpired.

The production of this biography is overall of high quality. Copy-editing was excellent, even if one might quibble about using forms such as "Chalkedon" and "Kyzikos" in a work dedicated to Roman history. Errors such as "Roscius of America" (pp. 267 n.65, 289) and "Herrenius" (p. 290) are fortunately extremely rare. Yet, in view of the size of Routledge, the publisher's inability to use appropriate diacriticals in the (surprisingly few) French and German titles appearing within the bibliography is not only annoying, but also inexplicable. The only evident problems emerge in the genealogies and maps provided at the outset (pp. xvii-xxii). On the one hand, unwary readers may assume that Octavian was the natural son of Julius Caesar or find various marriages hard to reconstruct. On the other hand, it would have made more sense to provide two maps for the Forum Romanum and environs (pre-54 and post-46), to indicate Dyrrachium and Antioch-on-the-Orontes rather than Philippi and Actium, and to eliminate infelicities on the order of "Temples of Jupiter Optimus Maximus" and "Homea Galbana". Perhaps, in view of the Barrington Atlas of the Classical World, the failure to show readers the location of most of the cities and regions mentioned in the text is not an irremediable loss. However, geographical notions within the written text are not always as clear or correct as they might be. Hence, the central Italian city of Corfinium -- located roughly 150 km due east of Rome -- is described as being situated "in the northern Appenine region" (p. 205). Knowledge of that fact is crucial to a proper understanding of the diverse strategies followed by the protagonists in the first months of 49 BCE. These errors and infelicities reflect as much Billows's lack of attention to the artistic and archaeological evidence as any failing on the part of the publisher.

"Light" reading for lovers of ancient history, Billows's biography of Caesar is appropriate to a general audience wanting detail but lacking a basic knowledge of the subject. It may even prove of use to those desperately seeking to put lecture-notes into order at the last minute. Stylistically a pleasure to read and crammed full of details, it has something to offer these categories of readers. However, it was never intended nor should be misconstrued as a serious contribution to scholarship on the subject. The work of Gelzer endures.

---

Notes:

1.   Cf. p. 261, the sole instance, where it is Cicero's judgement of Caesar that is cited. A similar criticism was expressed some years ago with regard to CAH Vol. 14: F. Millar, "Emperors need their voices", Times Higher Education 14 Sept. 2001.
2.   A tempting and natural question arises: What did Cleopatra have to say to Calpurnia on this occasion? That would most certainly have been an interesting conversation, as the reviewer has had the chance to witness in modern Rome and elsewhere.
3.   E.g. C. Trebatius Testa, as is indicated by the humorous language at Cic. Fam. 7.13.1: Audi, Testa mi: utrum superiorem te pecunia facit an quod te imperator consulit? Moriar ni, quae tua gloria est, puto te malle a Caesare consuli quam inaurari.
4.   Suet. Iul. 30.2.
5.   M. Griffin, ed., A Companion to Julius Caesar (Oxford 2009); W.J. Tatum, Always I Am Caesar (Malden 2008); P. Freeman, Julius Caesar (New York 2008); L. Canfora, Julius Caesar: The People's Dictator, tr. M. Hill and K. Windle (Edinburgh 2007) [= Giulio Cesare: il dittatore democratico (Bari 1999)]; A. Goldsworthy, Caesar: Life of a Colossus (New Haven 2006); A. Kamm, Julius Caesar: A Life (London 2006); J. Osgood, Caesar's Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire (Cambridge 2006); G. Woolf, Et tu, Brute? The Murder of Caesar and Political Assassination (London 2006); M. Parenti, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome (New York 2003); P. Southern, Julius Caesar (Stroud 2001); R. Jimenez, Caesar Against Rome (New York 2000); idem, Caesar Against the Celts (New York 1996); cf. M. Wyke, ed., Julius Caesar in Western Culture (London 2006). With the exceptions of Griffin 2009 and Freeman 2008, these all appear within the bibliography provided by Billows. Naturally, a similar profusion can be discerned within French, German, and Italian publications. Worthy of being drawn to readers' attention are two works in particular that offer sound, detailed introductions: Y. Le Bohec, César chef de guerre: César stratège et tacticien (Paris 2001); E. Baltrusch, Caesar und Pompeius (Darmstadt 2004).
6.   C. Meier, Caesar: A Biography (New York 1982); M. Gelzer, Caesar: Politician and Statesman, tr. P. Needham (Cambridge, Mass. 1968).
7.   Gelzer, op. cit., p. 140 n.1 (= pp. 126-127 n. 158 in the German edition of 1960).
8.   E.g. J. Hellegouarc'h, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République (Paris 1963); F. Millar, The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (Ann Arbor 1998).
9.   P. Erdkamp, Hunger and the Sword: warfare and food supply in Roman Republican wars (264-30 B.C.) (Amsterdam 1998); J. Roth, The logistics of the Roman army at war (264 B.C.-A.D. 235) (Leiden 1998).
10.   Cf. P.A. Brunt, Italian Manpower 225 B.C.-A.D. 14 (Oxford 1971); N. Morley, "The transformation of Italy," JRS 91 (2001) 50-62.
11.   W. Scheidel, "Finances, Figures and Fiction," CQ 46 (1996) 222-238; E. Wölfflin, "Sescenti, mille, centum, trecenti als unbestimmte und runde Zahlen" Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 9 (1896) 177-192; idem, "Zur Zahlensymbolik," loc. cit., 333-351; idem, "Das Duodecimalsystem," loc. cit., 527-544.
12.   The reviewer admits to a similar "sin of youth", in "The Forum Iulium as Representation of Imperator Caesar," Römische Mitteilungen 103 (1996) 198-224, but finds incomprehensible Billows's lack of awareness of contemporary historiographic debates.
13.   Giulio Cesare : l'uomo, le imprese, il mito [esposizione Chiostro del Bramante, Rome, 23 ottrobre 2008 - 3 maggio 2009], a cura di Giovanni Gentili (Cinisello Balsamo, Milano 2008).
14.   Inscr. Ital. 13.1.190f., 208; characteristically absent from the chronological table provided by Canfora 2007/1999.
15.   A.E. Raubitschek, "Epigraphical Notes on Julius Caesar," JRS 44 (1954) 65-75.
16.   W. Leschhorn, Antike Ären: Zeitrechnung, Politik und Geschichte im Schwarzmeerraum und in Kleinasien nördlich des Taurus. Historia Einzelschriften Heft 81. Stuttgart 1993.

(read complete article)

2009.07.28

Version at BMCR home site
Blanca María Prósper, El bronce celtibérico de Botorrita I. Ricerche sulle lingue di frammentaria attestazione; 6. Pisa/Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2008. Pp. 97. ISBN 9788862271188. €38.00 (pb).
Reviewed by E. Nieto Ballester, Depto. Filología Clásica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Este libro tiene por propósito fundamental un estudio crítico, detallado y preciso, prácticamente palabra por palabra, de la cara A del bronce celtibérico de Botorrita I. Está organizado en torno a catorce capítulos básicos, cada uno de los cuales recoge un estudio muy especializado de cada uno de los sintagmas en que, según el análisis de la autora, puede ser dividida la cara A del bronce I. El estudio, pues, abarca la totalidad de la inscripción, aunque el análisis se detiene tres palabras antes de que concluya esta cara A, justamente cuando aparece el nombre de un magistrado. La razón de ello es que se considera que este nombre no forma parte de la estructura sintáctica del período, sino que debe ser integrado ya en la cara B. Estos catorce capítulos, de desigual extensión, van precedidos de un índice, de los textos de Botorrita I A, B y Botorrita IV y de una muy interesante y clarificadora introducción. Tras estos capítulos hallamos una tentativa de traducción del conjunto de la inscripción (aunque ya hemos encontrado traducciones parciales de cada uno de los sintagmas), unas abreviaturas bibliográficas, una bibliografía muy detallada y rica y, por último, un índice de formas citadas, que abarca formas indoeuropeas, celtibéricas, formas de otras lenguas célticas (galo, galés, antiguo y medio irlandés), formas latinas, formas de las otras lenguas itálicas (umbro, osco, véneto, sudpiceno), formas de otras lenguas indoeuropeas (griego, hetita, antiguo indio, avéstico, antiguo eslavo, lituano, gótico y antiguo alto alemán). Concluyen este índice formas de topónimos (tanto antiguos como modernos), antropónimos y teónimos.

Como es conocido de todos, la aparición en 1970 del bronce celtibérico de Botorrita, en las cercanías de la actual ciudad de Zaragoza, supuso una importante revolución en los estudios sobre las lenguas célticas antiguas, pues se trata del texto de mayor extensión de que se dispone. A esta primera inscripción Botorrita I, numerada K.1.1. en Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum, se han unido con posterioridad otros textos celtibéricos de considerable importancia procedentes de la misma zona (denominados usualmente bronce de Botorrita III, bronce de Botorrita IV). Todo este material, que supone el conjunto de textos más amplio de una lengua céltica antigua, ha suscitado desde un primer momento el interés de los investigadores y ha dado lugar a una historia de exégesis de los textos ya amplia, pero enriquecida notablemente en los últimos tiempos, en gran medida merced a los nuevos textos descubiertos. En esta historia de ensayos que intentan explicar de manera satisfactoria estos textos se inserta por derecho propio este libro de la profesora Prósper.

Estamos, sin duda alguna, ante un libro de gran importancia y trascendencia en esta historia, breve pero intensa, de los intentos de explicación de este texto fundamental. Hallamos, en efecto, que la autora está muy bien pertrechada de un conocimiento extenso y total del conjunto de ensayos sobre la inscripción y sobre la lengua celtíbera en general (Untermann, Beltrán, Tovar, Eichner, Eska, Meid, Rodríguez Adrados, Villar, Jordán, de Hoz, etc.) y propone una explicación que es, en muchos apartados, absolutamente novedosa. El método de trabajo es el único que parece posible en nuestro actual estado de conocimiento de esta lengua y con la escasez de documentación a nuestra disposición. La autora asegura, en la medida de lo posible en algunos casos, una lectura apropiada del texto, exenta de posibles errores (cuando existen algunas dudas la autora explicita con claridad las distintas posibilidades), segmenta el texto en períodos sintácticos a partir del reconocimiento de estructuras básicas (elementos subordinantes, verbos, sustantivos en nominativo como sujeto, en acusativo como complemento directo, etc.) y, a partir de ahí, intenta la explicación del significado de la palabra mediante una batería de procedimientos: (a) comparación con formas conocidas en otras inscripciones celtibéricas, (b) comparación con formas conocidas de otras lenguas celtas, antiguas o modernas, (c) comparación con formas de otras lenguas indoeuropeas, con especial atención a las occidentales (son aquí muy ricas y certeras las comparaciones con el latín y las restantes lenguas itálicas, particularmente osco y umbro). El resultado de todo ello es, en última medida, una propuesta de traducción de la totalidad de la inscripción que es bastante razonable, esto es, que tiene sentido completo, bastante coherente en la mayor parte de los casos. Estamos ante un texto regula, por mandamiento de un organismo de gobierno de las poblaciones de Tocoite y de Sarnicio, un territorio denominado Berkunetaka. Se establecen unas ordenanzas que regulan las posibilidades de construcción en los terrenos próximos a este territorio y las responsabilidades pecuniarias que se derivan de la explotación de tierras en sus inmediaciones y, en su caso, del incumplimiento de la normativa.

Para llegar a esta traducción, como hemos indicado más arriba, la autora tiene muy en cuenta todos los intentos que la han precedido, pero arriesga considerablemente en su propuesta de interpretaciones parcial o absolutamente nuevas. Son muchas las ocasiones en que ello sucede como su interpretación de TIRIKANTAM y de SUA en la primera línea de la inscripción, que cambia no ya solo el sentido de estos términos, sino la comprensión de toda la estructura sintáctica de la oración usualmente aceptada.

Naturalmente, en una obra de esta densidad y novedad, en la que aparecen muchas hipótesis absolutamente inéditas y muchas otras que suponen importantes matizaciones respecto de hipótesis anteriores, es absolutamente imposible que el acuerdo del lector sea total. Así las cosas, y dado el inevitable alto grado de desconocimiento de la lengua celtíbera y las limitaciones que, forzosamente, implica un método de trabajo como el que hemos glosado más arriba, tenemos la convicción de que una parte notable de las interpretaciones propuestas es errónea, pero tenemos también la de que una parte igualmente importante supone un avance respecto de intentos precedentes que, a nuestro juicio, incurrían en un número de errores mayor. Y es que, en el fondo de las cosas, parece que no puede ser de otra manera, en tanto no dispongamos de mayores instrumentos para el análisis, como podría ser la aparición de nuevas inscripciones (resaltamos aquí la gran importancia que ha tenido en la mejora de la interpretación de Botorrita I la aparición, a pesar de su mal estado, de Botorrita IV). Así, por poner tan solo algún ejemplo, consideramos muy brillante y refinada la nueva interpretación de TIRIKANTAM, pero no deja de inquietarnos en cierto sentido. Ciertamente, la aparición de la forma TIRIKANTOS en Botorrita IV parece haber excluido la posibilidad de un femenino de tema en -a o de un sustantivo temático y nos lleva de forma casi inequívoca a un sustantivo de tema en consonante, lo que puede ser un importante obstáculo para las interpretaciones propuestas hasta la fecha. Ello no obstante, la proposición por parte de la autora de un participio activo *dhrg-nt- de un verbo sacado de la raíz *dergh-, de significado "abarcar, recoger", de donde supuestamente llegaríamos a "territorio", supone forzosamente toda una cadena de hipótesis construidas sobre hipótesis: existencia misma de la raíz verbal y del participio con esas formas en celtíbero, interpretación de notación de las oclusivas sonoras, evolución semántica, etc. Además, sabemos que KANTOM aparece en el mismo bronce de Botorrita I y la autora ahí interpreta, a la manera tradicional, "cien". Algo parecido cabe notar en cuanto a la interpretación precisamente de la palabra que sigue en esta primera línea a TIRIKANTAM, BERKUNETAKAM, en donde la autora recoge, con ligeras modificaciones la hipótesis repetida muchas veces de un supuesto resultado del indoeuropeo *perqu-, "encina". Salta a la vista que esta aceptación supone serios problemas de orden fonético cuando se ha señalado previamente muchos ejemplos de desaparición de /p/ en este contexto. También existen problemas si se admite, como posibilidad alternativa, que el celtíbero, como otras lenguas célticas e itálicas, hubiera llevado a cabo una asimilación p. . . q > q. . . q, pues un resultado labial en inicial sería entonces imposible. Así, la autora, de una manera un tanto confusa a nuestro parecer, atribuye el resultado a que se trataría de un préstamo del celtíbero a otra lengua indoeuropea preexistente. Se trata, ciertamente, de una teoría conocida y en absoluto imposible, pero no se puede dejar de reconocer que cuando desconocemos realmente el significado concreto de BERKUNETAKAM recurrir a un préstamo de una lengua no precisada para salvar una etimología "brillante" puede parecer a algunos excesivo. Junto a ello hay que constatar que encontramos también toda una serie sufijal, -uno, -eta, -aka, en donde aparecerían dos sufijos de colectivo-abundancial. La autora propone ejemplos toponímicos españoles como paralelos de esta doble sufijación, pero los hechos, a nuestro parecer, no son iguales. Por último, la proposición de la presencia de la supuesta palabra *percunio, *percuno o algo similar en el topónimo actual Percuñal (Zaragoza), propuesta que remonta a F. Villar, no es muy verosímil, si tenemos en cuenta lo que parece la posible presencia del sufijo colectivo y abundancial -al, lo que apuntaría a un inequívoco origen latino-romance. Otro último ejemplo en una lista que sería muy larga es el del término OTANAUM (BB I.4) en el sintagma KANTOM SANKILISTARA OTANAUM TOKOITEI que la autora interpreta como gen. pl. de un tema en -a con un significado parecido a "multa". Para llegar a esta posibilidad que, insistimos, no es absolutamente imposible, es preciso que se niegue la existencia de una forma OTENEI en BB IV, aunque la lectura usual es ARANTI: OTENEI. Ciertamente, la existencia de OTENEI junto a OTANAM parecería indicar que la vocal tras la dental es muda, esto es, una mera convención gráfica de un sistema de escritura que plantea grandes dificultades, y la única manera de entender una coexistencia de una forma en -AUM y de otra en -EI en lo que parecería el mismo radical sería entender que se trata de una forma flexionada por género, esto es, un adjetivo o un pronombre. La autora, en contra de un consenso relativamente amplio que apunta en esa dirección, entiende que en BB IV hay que leer ARANTIOTENEI como una sola palabra, con lo que desaparecería la supuesta relación. A continuación, una vez desvinculado el término OTANAUM del falso **OTENEI se propone *potHnó- a partir de la conocida raíz indoeuropea *pet-, *pot-, *pt-, "caer". Partiendo de un significado "lo que cae" se entiende que aquello que "recae" o se precipita sobre uno puede ser bien un castigo, una multa. Como hemos indicado más arriba, cada uno de los escalones que esta hipótesis tan compleja requiere, entendido aisladamente, es relativamente verosímil, pero todos ellos, entendidos como una unidad, no nos lo parecen tanto.

Naturalmente, se podrían poner aquí muchos ejemplos de este tipo y otros en los que las hipótesis propuestas nos parecen más verosímiles, pero creemos que los ejemplos aducidos pueden ser suficientes, junto con nuestras consideraciones más generales, para hacerse una idea cabal de este libro. Puede concluirse afirmando que se trata de una obra densa, compleja y sumamente cuidada en todos sus aspectos, incluyendo el tipográfico. En ella se expone toda una teoría de conjunto que aúna y supera en muchos casos todo lo que teníamos hasta la fecha sobre este importante texto. Como no podía ser de otra manera, no creemos que sea una obra definitiva, pero supone sin duda alguna una contribución muy importante, que habrá de ser referencia insoslayable para todo aquel que tenga como objeto de estudio la lengua celtibérica o las lenguas indoeuropeas más en general. Probablemente habremos de esperar todavía mucho para que haya argumentos de peso que confirmen o desmientan tajantemente las teorías expuestas en esta obra, pero mientras tanto este trabajo será de gran utilidad en el progreso de nuestro conocimiento de la lengua celtibérica, un patrimonio cultural de España que se nos desvela cada día más interesante y rico, en gran medida gracias a libros como el presente.

(read complete article)

2009.07.27

Version at BMCR home site
Pia Guldager Bilde, Jane Hjarl Petersen (ed.), Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflict and Coexistence. Black Sea Studies 8. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2008. Pp. 422. ISBN 9788779344198. $63.95.
Reviewed by Yulia Ustinova, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Full text

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

The volume edited by Pia Guldager Bilde and Jane Hjarl Petersen includes mostly papers presented at the seventh international conference on meetings of cultures in the Black Sea region, organized by the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for Black Sea Studies. The articles in the collection treat a wide range of subjects, from archaeology of Greek and indigenous settlements through history and its periodization to religious and cultural ideas. In terms of geography, the majority of papers deals with the Black Sea area, but some reach as far away from Pontus Euxeinos as Magna Graecia. The collection is divided into sections, each consisting of rather loosely connected papers united under the titles 'Setting the Scene', 'Spaces of Identity,' 'Claiming the Land', 'The Dynamics of Cultural Exchange,' and 'Mind the Gap.'

The aims of the editors are large-scale: in the spirit of post-modern rhetoric, they suggest in the Preface to study 'colonial encounters' rather than colonization and to avoid discrimination between the 'the colonized' and 'the colonizer' (p. 10). However, as the titles of several papers in the volume show, the editors failed to impose their ambition on many authors who retained traditional terminology. The lack of unity in this volume reaches however beyond semantic nuances, and even beyond expectable differences in approaches between scholars. Some papers present full-scale research with considerable bearing on the study of Greek colonization (the present reviewer prefers to stick to the old-fashion word), while many articles are publications of single sites or even separate features, which properly belong to archaeological reports rather than to a volume aspiring to propagate a conceptual change. As a result, the reader receives an assortment of papers of divergent quality which share one feature only: all of them deal with Greeks and barbarians.

The first section, 'Setting the Scene', opens with a synopsis of the historical development of the Cimmerian Bosporus by J. A. Vinogradov, who argues convincingly that major changes in the area were determined by dynamic relations between the urban centers and various indigenous peoples controlling the adjacent territories, and suggests a division of the first six centuries of the Bosporan history into seven stages.

P. Guldager Bilde raises an interesting point emphasizing the correspondence between some religious phenomena, in particular mystery cults, in the Black Sea area and in Magna Graecia, which she explains by 'diasporic experience' of the Greeks overseas. The comparison itself is very stimulating and could launch a promising investigation. However, the thesis is blurred by the use of misleading conceptions, old ones, such as 'Dionysos religion' (p. 30) or 'Dionysianism' (pp. 32, 40) which have been discarded in the study of Greek religion a long time ago, and new ones, such as 'diasporic experience' of the Greek colonists. With due respect to the trauma of any continuous break with the community of origin, diaspora--as opposed to other instances of emigration--follows a catastrophe in the native country and diasporic experience is fashioned by this catastrophe first and foremost, which is not the case of the Greek colonization. In the colonial milieu, an advantage of the Dionysiac mysteries over many other mystery cults lay in the absence of the former's attachment to a specific locality. Another reason for the popularity of Orphic and Bacchic practices and ideas could be interaction with local traditions--a cause suggested by Guldager Bilde herself. There could be other factors that are worth an in-depth study, but 'diasporic experience' does not seem to be one of them.

V. Mordvintseva proposes to re-examine current views on the propagation of the Sarmatians into the Black Sea area from the east, using as an indicative group of artifacts phalerae, presumably elements of horse harness, which in her opinion arrived in the Northern Pontic region from the West. The article is a combination of a short survey of phalerae with a detailed historiography of the issue, which hardly leads to the proposed conclusions. A much wider study of archaeological evidence and written testimonies is needed to substantiate the global change of approach suggested by the author.

The second section is entitled 'Spaces of Identity.' In his impressive paper, P. Attema evaluates the situation in the Sibaritide diachronically, making use of landscape archaeology and combining data from the urban settlement and its environment, in order to assess the nature of relations between the indigenous peoples and the Greeks. The results of this research clarify the dynamics of the Greek colonization in the Sibaritide, and contribute to the development of a nuanced approach to colonial situations elsewhere, showing that they may have differed not only from area to area, and also from period to period even in the same place. Modes of domination, exchange, conflict or co-habitation are also discussed by A. Baralis, who examines the chora of the Greek cities in the Aegean Thrace. The article demonstrates that the formation of city territory was a complex multi-dimensional process.

Although placed by the editors in a different section, the article of J. Munk Hojte joins the papers by Attema and Baralis in its keen sensitivity for the importance of local peculiarities and the fluidity of Greek-barbarian relationships. The author analyses factors determining the choice of sites for colonies, taking as his point of reference failed attempts at founding colonies. Due to this original perspective he arrives at thought-provoking insights concerning settlement patterns and modalities of intercultural relationships in the Black Sea area.

Articles by A. V. Karjaka, A. V. Gavrilov, and T. N. Smekalova in the section 'Claiming the Land', as well as contributions by M. Vickers and A. Kakhidze, and E. Kakhidze, to be found in other sections, are publications of excavations of sites and monuments or archaeological surveys of limited areas. Important as they are as accounts of precious archaeological evidence, they lack analytical and comparative aspects present in other contributions.

Four papers in the section 'The Dynamics of Cultural Exchange,' employ archaeological monuments or artifacts as evidence of cultural interaction, social stratification or ethnic complexity. J. H. Petersen emphasizes the elite context in which the kurgan burials at Nymphaion belonged. N. A. Gavriljuk suggests using black-glazed vessels discovered in Scythian burials as social indicators. L. Summerer demonstrates that Greek type decorated clay plaques of the Halys Basin attest to the variety of tastes and demands of the local elite. N. G. Novicenkova uses the excavations of a sanctuary in the Crimea Mountains to attain a better understanding of the relationships between the local tribes and the Greeks and Romans.

Papers in the section 'Mind the Gap' examine personal aspects of cultural interaction in the Black Sea area, focusing on the individual's attitudes to the other. It is noteworthy that all three authors refer, alongside other testimonies, to the story of Scyles in Herodotus and the famous 'Orphic' bone plaques from Olbia. R. Osborne demonstrates that Classical Olbia does not yield significant evidence of divergence between religious beliefs and customs of the local Greeks as compared to other Ionians, and that when the Olbians adopted new political or cultural practices, they borrowed from other Greek cities. Osborne subtly detects that it was not the origin or essence of their practices that made Olbians slightly different from other Greeks, but the selection of ideas and procedures and perhaps the way to articulate them in material form.

Among the authors of the volume, D. Braund is the only one to affirm that his starting point comes from the post-colonial discourse. However, in emphasizing the perspective of the indigenous population alongside that of the Greeks, Braund is far from being alone. He shows that figures like Anacharsis or Zalmoxis were used by Greek authors to draw attention to Greek idiosyncrasies: familiar looked strange when the beholder's eye was barbarian. Furthermore, the Greeks were not all concentrated in urban centers, they penetrated the Scythian land, and their interaction with the Scythians took place in different locations and took different forms, extending beyond economic exchange, and Braund highlights the importance of constructive engagement of the Greeks with their neighbors.

The viewpoint of G. Hinge is different; his article aims to trace 'eschatological ideology' in Herodotus' Book 4, which supposedly served to contrast Scythian nomadism and Greek civilization. That Herodotus' entire work was written to show that 'East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet', is well established; the Scythians in this context are just one of the many non-Greek peoples. However, it is not entirely clear how the five episodes of the 'eschatological string' suggested by Hinge function in this context. For example, figures like Abaris and Zalmoxis can be viewed as bridging the 'gap' between the Greeks and barbarians rather than symbolizing its insuperability, whereas Darius' crossing of the Danube can hardly be regarded as an unsuccessful initiation. Notwithstanding the ingenious presentation of the 'eschatological string' and a number of remarkable insights, Hinge's main thesis still lacks coherence.

The volume is nicely produced and reader-friendly. It is provided with four indices: of geographical names, gods and mythological figures, of ancient proper names, and of ancient authors. Nevertheless, names in the volume seem to be a problem. First of all, the title of the book appears as 'Meetings of cultures: between conflict and coexistence' on the cover, and as 'Meetings of cultures in the Black Sea region: between conflict and coexistence' on the title-page, the words 'in the Black Sea region' printed exactly in the same font as the beginning of the title. Furthermore, in the Preface the editors refer to an article by A. Baralis and A. Riapov (p. 10). Riapov's name is dropped in the contents and in the title on pages 101-130, where A. Baralis appears as the only author. The reader is left to guess 'what's in the name', of the volume and of the article. The editors also made some strange spelling choices. Throughout the volume, the name of M. Rostovtzeff is spelt as Rostovcev (p. 18, 47, 56 and elsewhere). Although a legitimate transcription of the Russian name, this spelling looks rather bizarre. Rostovtzeff himself signed his works in European languages in several ways (Rostowtzeff, Rostovtseff, Rostowcew), and it would be natural to make use of the form most common in his English works, which is Rostovtzeff. A. Khazanov whose most important works were published during several decades in English, chose how to spell his name in this language. Why not to respect his decision, and to invent Chazanov (p. 237), an enigma to non-Russian-speaking readers?

To sum up: Many papers in the volume propose interesting insights into various aspects of Greek colonization. The articles are of uneven quality, treat a large variety of subjects and address readers with divergent interests. As a whole, the collection is a noteworthy contribution to the Black Sea studies.

Contents

Preface (9-12)

Jurij A. Vinogradov, Rhythms of Eurasia and the Main Historical Stages of the Kimmerian Bosporos in Pre-Roman Times (13-27)

Pia Guldager Bilde, Some Reflections on Eschatological Currents, Diasporic Experience, and Group Identity in the Northwestern Black Sea Region (29-45)

Valentina Mordvinseva, Phalerae of Horse Harness in Votive Depositions of the 2nd-1st century BC in the North Pontic Region and the Sarmatian Paradigm (47-65)

Peter Attema, Conflict or Coexistence? Remarks on Indigenous Settlement and Greek Colonization in the Foothills and Hinterland of the Sibaritide (Northern Calabria, Italy) (67-99)

Alexandre Baralis, The Chora Formation of the Greek Cities of Aegean Thrace. Towards a Chronological Approach to the Colonization Process (101-130)

Michael Vickers and Amiran Kakhidze, A Kolchian and Greek Settlement: Excavations at Picvnari 1967 to 2005 (131-148)

Jakob Munk Hojte, The Cities that Never Were. Failed Attempts at Colonization in the Black Sea (149-162)

Alexander V. Karjaka, The Defense Wall in the Northern Part of the Lower City of Olbia Pontike (163-180)

Alexander V. Karjaka, The Demarcation System of the Agricultural Environment of Olbia Pontike (181-192)

Alexander V. Gavrilov, The First Results of the Archaeological Surveys near Cape Cauda and Lake Kacik on the Kerch Peninsula (193-206)

Tatiana N. Smekalova, Archaeological Sites of the Southwestern Part of Bosporos and their Connection to the Landscape (207-213)

Jane Hjarl Petersen, Kurgan Burials from Nymphaion--A New Approach (215-235)

Nadezda A. Gavriljuk, Social and Economic Stratification of the Scythians from the Steppe Region Based on Black-glazed Pottery from Burials (237-261)

Latife Summerer, Indigenous Responses to Encounters with the Greeks in Northern Anatolia: The Reception of Architectural Terracottas in the Iron Age Settlements of the Halys Basin (263-286)

Natalia G. Novicenkova, Mountainous Crimea: A Frontier Zone of Ancient Civilization (287-301)

Emzar Kakhidze, Apsaros: A Roman Fort in Southwestern Georgia (303-332)

Robin Osborne, Reciprocal Strategies: Imperialism, Barbarism and Trade in Archaic and Classical Olbia (333-346)

David Braund, Scythian Laughter: Conversations in the Northern Black Sea Region in the 5th Century BC (347-367)

George Hinge, Dionysos and Herakles in Scythia - The Eschatological String of Herodotos' Book 4 (369-397)

Indices (399-420)

Contributors (421-422)

(read complete article)

2009.07.26

Version at BMCR home site
Elena Gritti, Proclo: dialettica, amima, esegesi. Il filarete / Università degli studi di Milano, Facoltà di lettere e filosofia; 257. Milano: LED, 2008. Pp. 419. ISBN 9788879163859. €36.00 (pb).
Reviewed by Francesca Lazzarin , University of Verona

Testo ricco e gustoso, condotto con l'acribia tipica dell'interprete neoplatonico, il libro di Elena Gritti è condensato, in maniera nascosta (κρυφίως), già nel suo titolo: dialettica, anima ed esegesi sono i termini del processo dialettico attraverso il quale il lettore è portato a sviscerare il significato del sistema filosofico procliano, la sua originalità all'interno della storia del pensiero, il suo ruolo nell'ambito della tradizione neoplatonica. In questa prospettiva, la dialettica si manifesta, infatti, quale struttura fondante dell'attività esegetica: come la causa pre-comprende in sé l'effetto (Elem. Theol. 35 e 65), così la dialettica è la forma del reale e ciò che sta alla base di qualsiasi interpretazione del medesimo; ma il reale può dispiegarsi solo per mezzo dell'anima, natura mediatrice per eccellenza. Gritti usa l'espressione dialettica esegetica (p. 47) per indicare che la dinamica intero-parti, tanto cara a Proclo (Elem. Theol. 66-69), viene riprodotta dai movimenti dialettici di διαίρεσις e συναίρεσις: essi corrispondono, a livello esegetico, al moto discendente dei teologi, che descrivono l'ordine della natura e del divino, e a quello ascendente degli esegeti, che si fanno interpreti dei testi teologici per ritornare all'origine della verità (pp. 48-49).

Intento dichiarato dell'Autrice è affrontare la filosofia di Proclo, per quanto è possibile, da una prospettiva che non sia unilaterale, anche per cercare di integrare i contributi di studiosi dello spessore di André-Jean Festugière e Pierre Hadot, che hanno insistito sul legame fra pensiero neoplatonico e tradizioni religiose. Contributi, senz'altro, imprescindibili, ma che necessitano di una revisione finalizzata ad inserirli nell'orizzonte dell'intero sistema procliano, tenendo conto della varietà della produzione del filosofo e dei rimandi che collegano un'opera all'altra. Da un lato, quindi, uno sguardo 'totale' che permetta di interpretare Proclo alla luce di 'tutto Proclo'; dall'altro il tentativo (ben riuscito) di rintracciare un'istanza epistemologica sottesa all'incedere procliano, che viene orientato da essa e che costituisce, nel contempo, il filo conduttore dei vari approcci esegetici sperimentati dall'autore.

Nel I capitolo si parte dall'analisi dell'espressione φῶς ἀνάπτειν e dei molteplici usi che ne fa Proclo, per spiegare lo statuto della conoscenza umana: "un processo bidirezionale che si realizza nel momento della convergenza" (p. 28) fra l'illuminazione che proviene dall'alto, dalle cause superiori o per intercessione di un dio, e lo sforzo umano, consistente in un'attività originatasi in basso allo scopo di comprendere le realtà più elevate. Anche qui vi è un doppio movimento (dall'alto verso il basso e dal basso verso l'alto), il cui punto di incontro è l'anima umana: e se il significato misterico non è sufficiente a rilevare la portata semantica del φῶς ἀνάπτειν (pp. 26-28), d'altra parte il richiamo alla Lettera VII (341c7-d2), che Gritti giustamente segnala, non ci deve ricordare soltanto la metafora della conoscenza, che si accende all'improvviso come una scintilla (p. 26, nota 3), ma anche il lungo percorso esperienziale ("ἐκ πολλῆς συνουσίας γιγνομένης περὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα αὐτὸ καὶ τοῦ συζῆν": Lettera VII 341c5-d1), indispensabile per accedere alla luce della verità. La fatica dell'esercizio dialettico è infatti preliminare all'illuminazione stessa; e la dialettica � necessaria, sebbene non sufficiente, al coglimento delle realtà divine: un concetto, questo, ribadito nello stesso Parmenide (135d2-6; 136d1-e3), che avrà tanta importanza per la teologia neoplatonica.

Un altro aspetto considerato nel capitolo I è quello del ruolo assegnato da Proclo al Parmenide all'interno del corpus platonico: è noto che Giamblico aveva ripartito il canone scolastico in dodici dialoghi, a loro volta suddivisi in due branche (dialoghi fisici e dialoghi teologici), e che Timeo e Parmenide costituivano l'uno la summa delle dottrine fisiche, l'altro delle dottrine teologiche. Ma andava sottolineato che Proclo, non accontentandosi di riprendere in maniera pedissequa il dettato giamblicheo, avrebbe avvalorato la posizione del Parmenide, quasi monade che concentra in sé quello che, negli altri dialoghi, è esposto soltanto in maniera parziale: il Demiurgo del Timeo, causa particolare in rapporto alla causa assoluta che è l'Uno del Parmenide, porrebbe il primo dialogo in subordine rispetto al secondo, che lo comprenderebbe come la causa il causato (pp. 38-40).

L'esigenza di ricondurre il molteplice all'unità, le parti alla totalità si riscontra ad ogni livello: anche sul piano semantico, nel rapporto dinamico fra etimologia dei termini impiegati da Proclo e polisemia dei medesimi (pp. 43-44). La stessa osservazione si può fare prendendo in esame i modi del discorso teologico (i cosiddetti λόγοι διδασκαλικοί): se valutati alla luce del sistema complessivo procliano, essi non rivelano tanto un bisogno classificatorio, ma un metodo filosofico, e il fatto che la verità può essere espressa in forme diverse, dialetticamente intersecate tra loro (pp. 50-51 e 60-61). Merito dell'Autrice è l'aver superato l'approccio piuttosto unilaterale degli studi precedenti (citati alle pp. 50-51), facendo risaltare la trama di connessioni che impediscono di interpretare i τρόποι διδασκαλικοὶ come il tentativo di offrire un criterio alla 'storiografia teologica'.

Il capitolo II, incentrato sulla natura dell'anima e, più specificamente, sul modo in cui Proclo ha cercato di risolvere la questione plotiniana dell'anima non discesa, muove dalle critiche formulate al riguardo da Giamblico e riproposte da Proclo (pp. 70-72) per arrivare a dimostrare come, in realtà, la teoria procliana risulti influenzata dall'insegnamento di Plotino più di quanto possa sembrare ad uno sguardo superficiale. Proclo vuole trovare il mezzo per garantire all'anima umana la conoscenza degli intelligibili, senza dover ricorrere, alla maniera di Plotino, all'identificazione tra anima e Intelletto primo, ma neppure, alla maniera di Giamblico, alla teurgia come unico rimedio per ovviare alla caduta dell'anima nella dimensione corporea. Per non rinunciare ad un'epistemologia 'forte', Proclo si fonda sulla presenza innata, nell'anima umana, di ragioni essenziali (λόγοι οὐσιώδεις), che appartengono alla catena degli intelligibili in virtù della loro natura iconica (p. 74), in quanto realtà che partecipano dell'Intelletto e, prima che dell'Intelletto, degli intelligibili stessi. La differenza fra le idee psichiche e le idee intelligibili non è, allora, relativa all'essenza, ma al grado; come viene spiegato successivamente (a p. 98), vi sono due generi di causalità, uno per abbassamento o subordinazione di grado (καθ' ὑπόβασιν) e uno per modificazione d'essenza (καθ' οὐσίας ἐξαλλαγήν): il primo si manifesta nella processione interna ad ogni ipostasi, il secondo determina il passaggio da un'ipostasi all'altra, in base al rapporto modello-immagine (p. 98). L'anima umana, che non ha la sua sede nell'Intelletto (come voleva Plotino), non può essere costantemente in contatto con gli intelligibili, anche perché partecipa dell'Intelletto in maniera mediata, essendo stata generata con il concorso di cause diverse (pp. 81-82). Da un lato, quindi, non ha la stessa essenza delle realtà divine; dall'altro, avendo in sé delle "immagini essenziali delle realtà universali" (cfr. In Parm. IV, 948.26-27), ha la facoltà di attingere a queste ultime in conformità con la propria dignità ontologica, cioè psichicamente, ψυχικῶς (pp. 84-85). Ma "la gerarchia ontologica nega la possibilità di spiegare la conoscenza attraverso la presenza degli intelligibili in noi" (p. 85). Ciò che la può spiegare, invece, è il ruolo accordato alla filosofia che, promuovendo lo sforzo del soggetto nell'elevazione alle realtà divine e disponendo l'anima ad accogliere l'illuminazione dall'alto, diviene un complemento necessario per 'salvare' l'epistemologia, pur mantenendo l'anima distinta ipostaticamente dall'Intelletto.

Nell'ultimo paragrafo del II capitolo viene analizzato il rapporto fra λόγος e νόησις, allo scopo di comprendere come possa avvenire l'illuminazione dall'alto e in che modo l'intelletto possa influire sulla ragione psichica. Partendo dal parallelismo 'processione ontologica / processione noetica', l'Autrice passa in rassegna le differenze fondamentali tra l'Intelletto plotiniano e l'Intelletto procliano e le conseguenze che, nei due casi, derivano a livello gnoseologico. È nel Timeo che Proclo ravvisa gli elementi utili a provare lo stretto legame che unisce ragione e intelletto, "per cui il λόγος si perfeziona divenendo νοερός, agisce in maniera intellettiva, (...) grazie alla sua parte più alta l'anima è insieme all'Intelletto" (p. 115). Per evitare di ricadere nella dottrina plotiniana dell'anima non discesa, Proclo parla dell'affinità fra intelletto psichico e Intelletto divino nei termini di un'attività della stessa natura, non di una medesima οὐσία; ma poiché, nella sua concezione, l'attività dell'intelletto, sia umano che divino, dipende dalla propria potenza che, a sua volta, deriva dall'essenza (pp. 110-111 e 117), egli finisce per fare dell'attività intellettiva una manifestazione dell'essenza (che, a livello umano, è rappresentata dai λόγοι οὐσιώδεις) e per mettere l'anima nella condizione di conoscere le realtà divine avendo già in se stessa le potenzialità per farlo. L'originalità dell'interpretazione della Gritti sta nell'aver riportato, sulla base di importanti riscontri testuali, la teoria procliana alle sue origini plotiniane, senza trascurare le differenze che, comunque, caratterizzano ciascun tipo di approccio filosofico.

Nel III capitolo viene ripresa, da un altro punto di vista, la questione del rapporto fra ragione discorsiva e intelletto: se il capitolo precedente si concludeva affermando l'impossibilità, per l'anima individuale, di una νόησις non dianoetica, il III capitolo affronta l'argomento sul piano metodologico, tenendo presente che, per Proclo, il metodo filosofico-dialettico è correlato all'essenza dell'anima. In tale contesto, la dialettica come "gioco impegnativo", ovvero "reale" (πραγματειώδης παιδιά, secondo l'espressione usata in Parm. 137b2), si identifica con la "scienza teologica" (ἐπιστήμη θεολογική), la cui massima rappresentazione è offerta dal Parmenide. L'autrice rivede ed amplia un suo contributo di qualche anno fa¹ per insistere sulle peculiarità del procedimento dialettico, che non può limitarsi ad un esercizio puramente logico, ma è sostanziato dalla corrispondenza con la realtà (p. 125): di qui la "fusione di realtà e metodo" (p.135) e la valenza πραγματειώδης del Parmenide, che si riscontra sia a livello contenutistico, sia a livello strutturale (p. 156). In questo consiste, per Proclo, lo σκοπός del dialogo.

Non manca, nella parte centrale del capitolo, un'esposizione riassuntiva delle interpretazioni del Parmenide nell'Antichità e, nello specifico, della seconda sezione del dialogo, relativa alle varie ipotesi (pp. 154-165); il che permette all'Autrice di dedicare uno spazio anche alla teoria procliana della dialettica, come sviluppata nel Commento al Parmenide, e alle sue tre funzioni fondamentali (pp. 177-184): quella di esercitare la διάνοια, favorendo così il "risveglio dell'intelletto"; quella confutatoria, che ha lo scopo di purificare l'anima dall'errore e dalle falsità; infine, la funzione più elevata, grazie alla quale è possibile l'indagine delle realtà divine. La διάνοια risulterà così, almeno a livello psichico, sussunta ed inverata dalla νόησις (p. 183), come la logica è sussunta e inverata dalla dialettica e gli effetti lo sono dalle cause.

Dopo aver discusso della natura e delle funzioni del metodo dialettico, nel capitolo IV ci si occupa di indagarne la struttura interna: una struttura logica, che ha lo scopo di dispiegare la gerarchia ontologica, caratterizzata da connessione e continuità (συνέχεια). Rielaborazione feconda di motivi noti in seno al neoplatonismo (come viene dimostrato considerando alcuni luoghi del Didascalicus di Alcinoo, alle pp. 192-197), il metodo dialettico di Proclo rappresenta l' "accordo tra leggi causali dell'essere e meccanismi del pensiero psichico, che di quelle rappresentano un analogo gnoseologico" (p. 198). L'esame comparato di passi tratti da diverse opere di Proclo (la Teologia platonica, il commentario al Cratilo e, successivamente, il commento al Parmenide) è finalizzata a chiarire, da un lato, che il filosofo neoplatonico fonda la validità epistemologica del metodo sull'imitazione della realtà e dei processi metafisici (caso esemplare quello di divisione e analisi, che riflettono, in ambito causale, la πρόοδος e l'ἐπιστροφή), al punto che la dialettica viene ad assumere un ruolo anche nella costituzione dell'essenza dell'anima (pp. 199-202); dall'altro che la sua teoria del metodo non va interpretata secondo uno schema rigido, cercando ad ogni costo di scoprire l'ordine assiologico dei quattro procedimenti dialettici nei quali si sviluppa il metodo stesso (divisione, definizione, dimostrazione e analisi), ma va intesa in maniera dinamica, visto che la dialettica è la legge, il λόγος di una realtà dinamicamente concepita e che i quattro procedimenti succitati "offrono differenti punti di vista sulla medesima realtà" (p. 203), che si integrano e interagiscono a vicenda.

Del metodo procliano bisogna poi cogliere, oltre agli elementi riconducibili ai dialoghi platonici, gli aspetti che dipendono dalla logica aristotelica e, inoltre, dal pitagorismo (come viene evidenziato alle pp. 207-210), fermo restando che è l'autorità platonica a fungere da modello essenziale. La dialettica di Proclo risente, in particolare, dell'influenza dell'epistemologia plotiniana, pur senza negare validità alla gnoseologia aristotelica, che va tenuta comunque ben distinta dal metodo che coniuga logica e ontologia: i λόγοι οὐσιώδεις, che costituiscono, per Proclo, l'essenza dell'anima, hanno un valore causativo e non soltanto conoscitivo, in virtù del fatto che sono immagini (εἰκόνες) delle idee intellettive (εἴδη νοερά) (pp. 224-225 e 242-243). Per questo sono πρότερον τῇ φύσει sia rispetto agli universali immanenti alle realtà sensibili (ἔνυλα εἴδη), sia rispetto ai concetti ricavati, alla maniera aristotelica, per astrazione (ὑστερογενῆ), che esistono esclusivamente sul piano mentale e non sono sostanziali (pp. 225 e 236-237), sia per la dialettica stessa (pp. 244-250). Proclo introduce, grazie alle ragioni essenziali, un ulteriore livello gnoseologico e ontologico, che va a costituire il fondamento della scientificità del metodo dialettico (pp. 237-239) e, allo stesso tempo, gli permette di prendere le distanze dalla logica formale aristotelica, dominio della facoltà opinativa, e dalla plotiniana concezione dell'anima non discesa.

Il capitolo V affronta, di nuovo, l'argomento della dialettica procliana, ma ricercandone il fondamento metafisico: un fondamento testimoniato dall'esattezza e dall'inconfutabilità della conoscenza scientifica, la cui certezza viene garantita "dall'alto" (ἄνωθεν), cioè dalla visione intellettiva. "(...) l'inconfutabilità denota i legami necessari stabiliti tramite dimostrazione" (p. 260): il procedimento dimostrativo, infatti, si rivela il più adatto a sviluppare in maniera concatenata e consequenziale l'unità concentrata dei principi intelligibili. Questi ultimi, oggetto della scienza, assicurano stabilità e verità ai discorsi che li concernono e, oltre che ad essi, alla facoltà preposta a conoscerli: tant'è che i tre fattori in questione (oggetti intelligibili, scienza e soggetto conoscente) costituiscono i 'momenti' di un processo circolare nel quale la causa è rappresentata dagli intelligibili e il causato dalle ragioni essenziali presenti nell'anima; ad esse la dialettica, come attività psichica più elevata, deve volgersi, se vuole ritornare ai principi medesimi (pp. 261-264). Ne viene (e l'osservazione è acuta) che non soltanto i λόγοι sono suscettibili di confutabilità, ma le stesse facoltà psichiche, che scivolano nell'errore ogniqualvolta pretendano di operare indipendentemente dalle altre o qualora il percorso conoscitivo si interrompa prima di essersi concluso (pp. 264-267). L'unica facoltà assolutamente inconfutabile risulta l'intelletto, che coglie in maniera simultanea il suo oggetto e, nel contempo, dirige la ragione psichica alla conoscenza dell'essere, imprimendole, tramite l'illuminazione (ἔλλαμψις), la sua proprietà caratteristica: di essere, cioè, tutte le cose, avendo in sé la totalità delle idee. L'anima umana diventa allora "intelletto che dispiega se stesso", pur rimanendo un νοῦς λογικός, ovvero un'ipostasi distinta dalla superiore, dalla quale dipende la sua stessa esistenza (p. 270).

Degni di nota i raffronti finali fra la terminologia utilizzata da Proclo per descrivere la scienza dialettica (in particolare, in relazione al vocabolo συνάρτησις, che corrisponderebbe, da un punto di vista logico, alla τάξις τῶν ὄντων a livello ontologico) e il lessico presente in certi passi di Sesto Empirico, Alessandro di Afrodisia e Plutarco (pp. 295-302).

Nel VI ed ultimo capitolo Gritti riprende il filo dell'introduzione, dichiarando che, nella presente monografia, si è privilegiata, nello studio del pensiero procliano, la ricerca dell'istanza razionalistica a 'scapito' degli argomenti legati al misticismo. Questa scelta non è stata compiuta per trascurarli o per metterli in secondo piano, ma per ripensarli alla luce di una prospettiva più ampia, che non si limiti ad evidenziare il contrasto fra i due aspetti, ma ne faccia risaltare l'armonia: infatti, "razionalismo e misticismo non costituiscono vie alternative ai fini della conoscenza" (p. 338). Tenendo come punto di riferimento il concetto di ἐνθουσιασμός e i modi in cui compare nella letteratura greca (l'ispirato può essere una sorta di messaggero della divinità éo un poeta, che funge da strumento del dio per comunicare la verità; ma vi è anche il caso in cui non perde la propria individualità e vive l'esperienza mistica esercitando attivamente le sue capacità razionali), Gritti passa a tracciare le differenze tra il significato dell'ispirazione divina nel percorso conoscitivo descritto da Plotino, Giamblico e Proclo (pp. 311-325). Ne risulta che quest'ultimo, pur essendo notoriamente influenzato dalla teurgia di Giamblico, propone una mistica "ancora razionale" (p. 337), che si può accostare, per vari motivi, a quella di Plotino, benché il fondamento dell'anima umana non sia più l'Intelletto primo (che, anzi, perde il ruolo di mediatore nel cammino di ritorno all'Uno), ma il fiore dell'anima, centro unificatore di tutte le potenze psichiche e non soltanto della facoltà intellettiva (cfr., in particolare, p. 323). In tal senso, l'ἐνθουσιασμός diviene la massima esperienza conoscitiva dell'anima, che ad esso si dirige in maniera consapevole e non spossessata delle sue facoltà a causa dell'intervento divino, come era per Giamblico (p. 324).

Nel contesto del rapporto fra razionalità e misticismo, l'Autrice si interroga anche sul posto da assegnare agli Oracoli caldaici all'interno della scienza teologica di Proclo. Senza voler pretendere di dare una risposta definitiva, la via che si suggerisce di seguire è quella di considerarli come "l'analogo intellettivo della scienza dianoetica del Parmenide, almeno nella misura in cui esporrebbero il medesimo contenuto, ma senza svolgimento dimostrativo" (p. 328). Gli Oracoli, il cui insegnamento sarebbe immediatamente evidente in quanto frutto di rivelazione, a confronto con il contenuto del Parmenide, assai più complesso e suscettibile di fraintendimenti, esigerebbero allora, nella concezione di Proclo, di essere passati al vaglio della dialettica, allo scopo di comprenderne la valenza dimostrativa (pp. 329-331). D'altra parte, se gli Oracoli erano impiegati dai neoplatonici alla stregua di una 'Bibbia pagana', Gritti sottolinea che, per Proclo, a questo ruolo poteva assurgere piuttosto il Parmenide (pp. 333-334): esso infatti esprime, meglio di qualunque altro dialogo di Platone, l'equilibrio fra componente razionalistica e componente misterica (p. 337).

È difficile rendere, in maniera sintetica e precisa, un lavoro dettagliato ed esaustivo come quello offertoci dal presente studio. Fine conoscitrice dei testi platonici e neoplatonici, Elena Gritti riesce nell'intento di mostrarci le molteplici facce dell'universo filosofico procliano e fornisce numerosi spunti per ulteriori approfondimenti.

---

Notes:

1.   Contributo uscito in Platone e la tradizione platonica. Studi di filosofia antica, a cura di M. Bonazzi e F. Trabattoni, Milano, Cisalpino, 2003, pp. 265-299.

(read complete article)

2009.07.25

Version at BMCR home site
Giovanni Ruffini, Social Networks in Byzantine Egypt. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pp. x, 278. ISBN 9780521895378. $110.00.
Reviewed by Conor Whately , University of Warwick

[Table of contents at the end of the review.]

There has been some significant work done on the economy and society of Byzantine Egypt in the last decade.¹ Although most of those studies have concentrated on the economy of Byzantine Egypt, as well as its relationship with, and impact on, the region's various social groups, Ruffini's new book, Social Networks in Byzantine Egypt focuses squarely on Egypt's social structures, though for some aspects, like the Great Estate, the two are necessarily intertwined. Ruffini's monograph, a prosopographical overview of Oxyrhynchos and Aphrodito, as well as a network analysis--employing social network theory and the computer programs UCINET and Pajek--of those two locations, is an important contribution to the study of Byzantine Egypt in the periodfrom the second half of the fifth century through the Arab conquest. Indeed, one of the most significant features of Ruffini's study is his novel utilization of social network analysis, a theoretical, quantitative tool, which allows us to "measure the extent of a society's centralization, to identify topographical patterns in the formation of its large estates, and to identify the most central...figures in its social networks" (p. 3). This book marks one of the first applications of this method to the ancient world, and despite some drawbacks, its largely successful usage by Ruffini raises questions about its relevance to other significant bodies of evidence from the ancient world, such as Greek and Latin civic inscriptions, the Nessana papyri, and, potentially, the PLRE. As such, Ruffini deserves an audience beyond the papyrologists and students of the economy and society of the sixth and seventh centuries who make up this book's primary readership.

In the introduction, Ruffini provides a tutorial on network analysis specifically aimed at ancient historians, much like this reviewer, who are unfamiliar with this method. This includes its history, a look at its limited use by students of the ancient world, and an overview of the terminology and practice of network analysis.² A key component of this introduction is his discussion of how to make and use a data-set. Its creation is the first step in network analysis, and despite the fact that we (that is, students of the ancient world) lack individuals to interview, in contrast to an anthropologist who would undertake such an analysis, our evidence can still enable us to analyse the social connections from (1) person to person, (2) person to place, (3) place to place, and (4) person or place to event (p. 21). The first and third items are one-node networks where evidence of one type is linked, while the second and fourth items are two-node network, where evidence of two types is linked. It is the former Ruffini is concerned with, and besides telling us how to convert from one to two-node networks, he identifies his data sets, namely, the (1981) Pruneti topographical register for the Oxyrhynchos, and the (1938) Girgis Prosopography for Aphrodito.³ After this, Ruffini provides a discussion of the key terminology (pp. 28-40).

The first chapter of the book, entitled "The Centralized Elite of Oxyrhynchos," is a sometimes dry prosopographical analysis of the Oxyrhynchite nome. Ruffini discusses a host of landowners in this chapter, including Kyria, Alexander, Phib Anastasia, and Apion (pp. 44-53), and their relationships within the Oxyrhynchos. We also find discussions of the estates of Theon and Timagenes (pp. 53-61); Fl. Apion Theodosios Ioannes, Samuel, and Phoibammon (pp. 61-64); Flavius Eulogios (pp. 64-70); Fl. Euphemia and Fl. Anastasia (pp. 70-75); Christodote, and Kometes (pp. 75-80); and the Oxyrhynchite church (pp. 80-91): a dizzying array of elites and properties. It is in this chapter that Ruffini delves into the contentious issue of the "Great Estates", and sides with Gascou, the "fiscal shares" position, and the concomitant belief that these large estates were the exception rather than the rule.⁴ On the other hand, Ruffini also characterizes these estates as the central hubs of the nome's social networks. This seeming incongruity begs the question, if the estates were exceptional, how valuable would an analysis of their networks be if we wanted to use the results to discuss Egypt at large, let alone the Eastern Empire as a whole? Of course, the evidence afforded by the Oxyrhynchos is so substantial that to ignore it would be a mistake. Ruffini makes a number of useful observations over the course of this chapter, including the fact that the urban elites seem to have been quite distanced from their rural holdings, and that many of their social connections were both indirect and vertical. He concludes that the nome was economically centralized, with the rural periphery bound to the urban centre through hierarchical ties.

The second chapter, "The Growth of the Apions," applies network analysis to the Oxyrhynchite topography, marking the first test in this book of this novel approach. In the absence of a detailed prosopography for Oxyrhynchos, Ruffini decides to "use the topographical evidence in Paola Pruneti's register of the Oxyrhynchite nome as a substitute for the social connectivity of the nome as a whole" (p. 95). There is a concise overview of the Flavii Apiones (pp. 96-99), followed by some, perhaps, foolhardy,⁵ though also thought-provoking, discussion of the Apionic population, which delves into the aforementioned issue of fiscal shares (pp. 99-119). Although Ruffini sticks to the Gascou line (supported by Hickey among others, and to my mind ably challenged recently by Sarris 2006) regarding fiscal shares, he rightly qualifies this by noting that whether the Apiones owned the land in question in his analysis or simply had fiscal responsibility for it would not alter his model (p. 99, n. 28). Ruffini concludes that the population under Apionic control was probably around 10,096, noting that this was possibly only a fraction of the total (p. 118).

Next, he turns to one of the chief aims of this chapter, namely his attempt to map the growth of the Apionic estate, a noble task which, hitherto, no scholar has successfully carried out. He begins by looking at the traditional means of answering such a question (pp. 119-127). Ruffini then turns to his network analysis approach, and the results are striking (pp. 127-142). The evidence suggests that the Apionic holdings were scattered throughout the nome, that they came under their fiscal responsibility seemingly at random, that the family's influence was fairly evenly distributed throughout the nome, that there is no geographic sequence to their growth, and that their presence in the region predates the existing (sixth century) bureaucratic structures. Ruffini notes that the evidence seems to confirm the conclusions reached from the previous chapter concerning the nome's centralization. What is more, he also suggests that the growth of the Apionic estate may have changed the region's social geography, while noting that the rate of change seems to have accelerated in the years following the outbreak of the plague in the 540s.

Chapter three, "Aphrodito and the Strong Ties of Village Society," focuses on the village of Aphrodito, the social landscape of which is characterized by strong, horizontal, multiplex ties, that is ties in which a person may be connected to someone by more than one means, such as family. Ruffini notes the village's continuing efforts to promote its right to autopragia, which Zuckerman (2004) argued disappeared in the 550s. While describing the relationships of the village's elite, including Apollos, Dioskoros, and Phoibammon, the son of Triadelphos (pp. 152-163), he makes the plausible suggestion that land acquisition in the village proceeded along social and familial lines (p. 163, 168). In a similar manner, Ruffini claims that the famous petition to Theodora (P.Cair.Masp. 3.67283) shows, due to social networks, a barely discernable distinction between village, community, family, and friends (p. 179). He then turns, briefly, to the murder mystery (P. Mich. 13.660, P. Mich. 13.661), which has received some attention from scholars, and to Aphrodito's relationship to its neighbouring villages (pp. 184-187), as well as to the village and its pagarchs, those officials responsible for the collection of taxes. Ruffini notes that the Flavii, the 'region's political elite,' were in regular contact with Aphrodito society, so laying the basis for his--to my mind unsuccessful--challenge to Banaji's (2001) model of an imperial aristocracy composed by outsiders. This is largely framed around a discussion of the career of Flavius Menas, a man with strong multiplex ties to the village, yet opposed to Aphrodito's leading men as a result of his opposition to securing its right of autopragia. At the end he discusses Zuckerman's supposition that Flavius Ioulianos was the dominant land owner in the village, which Ruffini had referred to at the start of the chapter, and despite his concerns, he fails to discard it, although he concedes that the evidence concerning Ioulianos is insufficient (p. 197, cf. p. 241).

In the last chapter, "Qualifying Aphrodito's Social Network", Ruffini returns to network analysis, and at the end of the opening paragraph he makes the following provocative statements (p. 198): "Aphrodito's social network had a very low degree of hierarchy and was relatively decentralized," which, "coming from a century we picture as having rather rigid social hierarchies...opens the door to reconsidering the realities of village life throughout late antiquity." Much discussion of late antique social structures has focused on ecclesiastical, imperial, and urban elites;with the obvious exception of Aphrodito, village life has been ignored. However, studies of rural life exist, for the countryside in Syria and Palestine have attracted some attention. Thus his rather bold statements are a bit presumptuous. Ruffini discusses his data set much as he did in chapter two, and while doing so he argues that he ought not to combine post-Girgis material with the Girgis material (p. 201, 211). Yet, if one of the aims of chapters three and four is to get at the social connections of the village as whole, and new evidence has been brought to light since the publication of Girgis in 1938, then I think we ought to include this material on the chance that it might uncover not only previously unknown individuals, but possibly hidden connections.⁶ On the other hand, omitting texts that boast a disproportionate number of names, such as P. Flor. 3.297, and P. Cair. Masp. 3.67288 which list 466 and 28 villagers respectively, is sensible. Objections aside, Ruffini's analysis does produce some interesting results, namely that the keys to social connectivity in the village are the owning of land, the ability to write, and the forming of relationships with shepherds (p. 217). The last of the three is the most surprising, though Ruffini notes that the shepherds were important in large part because of their mobility and concomitant connections with Aphrodito's satellite villages, as well as for the security that they offered (p. 226). Ruffini is also interested in the changes in connectivity over time, and here the discussion is less convincing, partially due to the numbers employed (pp. 232-240). His results suggest little change in connectivity over the course of the sixth century. Interestingly, and tellingly, he also finds that Aphrodito's social network is stronger than is statistically likely, which does raise some questions about the applicability of the results. Still, one would be surprised if the villagers were not closely connected socially and his arguments in this regard are surely correct.

In the conclusion Ruffini points out the divergent picture that his prosopographical and network analyses of the Oxyrhynchos and Aphrodito have produced. Where Aphrodito is characterized by face-to-face multiplexity, Oxyrhynchos is characterized by vertical centralizing ties. This begs the question, as Ruffini notes, of whether we should accept these regional differences and search for other such evidence, or ask what is missing from our evidence to make the social structures from the two sites more similar, in keeping with the recent studies of Zuckerman (2004) and Sarris (2006). Ruffini casts asides these two possibilities and instead adopts a middle course of action regarding future work, what he calls the universalizing thesis, one I find attractive: "I rather suspect [Byzantine Egypt] looked quite a bit like Aphrodito in [sic] Oxyrhynchos, in which village networks formed from strong horizontal ties connected to nome-wide networks through centralizing vertical ties" (p. 249).

Much is often made about the application of modern theory to the ancient evidence, and one can be assured that some will find fault with Ruffini's usage of modern network analysis. Indeed, some of the results are unsurprising, such as his conclusions about the close face-to-face ties of Aphrodito, a seemingly timeless characteristic of village life as any long-time resident of a small town (whether in southern Ontario, such as myself, or Byzantine Egypt) could attest. Perhaps what is surprising is the fact that this position has not been adopted more widely before. The same might be said for his observations on the centralized character of social relations in the Oxyrhynchos, given the generally hierarchical character of late antiquity, and the Roman world generally, as this too is unsurprising. Other conclusions, however, such as what Ruffini's analysis has to tell us about the growth of the Apionic holdings, and the role of important individuals and groups (shepherds for example) in Aphrodito, are new. As such, his use of social network analysis has, to my mind, proven its worth, and those with an aversion to numbers and figures should not be put off. Although I am a sceptic of the applicability of the Egyptian papyrological evidence to the whole of the Mediterranean, this analysis has ably dispensed with many of my reservations (p. 252). Ruffini has made an important and provocative addition to modern scholarship on the social history of late antiquity.

Table of Contents:

Introduction
1. The Centralized Elite of Oxyrhynchos
2. The Growth of the Apions
3. Aphrodito and the Strong Ties of Village Society
4. Quantifying Aphrodito's Social Network
Conclusion

---

Notes:

1.   Some of these works include Banaji's (2001, Oxford) Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance, Mitthof's (2001, Florence) Annona Militaris: die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten; Zuckerman's (2004, Paris) Du Village À L'Empire: Autour du registre fiscal d'Aphroditô, Sarris' (2006, Cambridge) Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian, and Bagnall's (2007, Cambridge) edited volume Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300-700, not to mention Hickey's (2001) unpublished University of Chicago dissertation, A Public 'House' But Closed: Fiscal Participation and Economic Decision Making on the Oxyrhynchite Estate of the Flavii Apiones, and Wickham's (2005, Oxford) Framing the Early Middle Ages, notably absent from Ruffini's bibliography, which includes considerable discussion of late antique Egypt.
2.   The common phrase "six degrees of separation" has its origins in social network analysis.
3.   Pruneti, P. (1981, Florence) I centri abitati dell'Ossirinchite: repertorio toponomastico; Girgis, V. A. (1938, Berlin) Prosopografia e Aphroditopolis.
4.   Gascu, J. (1985), "Les Grands Domaines, la cité et l'état en Égypte byzantine (Recherches d'histoire agraire, fiscale et administrative)," T&M 9: 1-90. Sarris (2006), and to a lesser degree Zuckerman (2004), have challenged this view, arguing that the Great Estates were a fixture of the Eastern Mediterranean.
5.   Ancient populations are notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. See the discussion of Scheidel (2007: 38ff, Cambridge) in the recent Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World.
6.   Granted, although it would be a considerable undertaking--which thankfully Ruffini says he is currently undertaking for another project, namely an Aphrodito prosopography--it is surely necessary if the results achieved are going to have any lasting value.

(read complete article)

2009.07.24

Version at BMCR home site
C.D.C. Reeve (trans.), Plato: Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2005. Pp. 392. ISBN 0872207366. $10.95.
Reviewed by David C. Noe , Calvin College

Table of Contents

[The reviewer apologizes to the author for this review's extreme delay.]

In 1992 Reeve recast G.M.A. Grube's well-known translation of the Republic for Hackett. The reception that work received apparently encouraged Reeve to embark on his own version, for as he says in the work's introduction the "...desire to have a translation of my own proved too strong" [viii]. The result is the present volume, from the same publisher, which he hopes "improves on existing translations" [ibid.]

In a brief paragraph in the preface, Reeve explains succinctly his method as follows: "Every translation, even the most self-consciously and flat-footedly slavish, is somewhat interpretative. There is no avoiding that. But I have tried to make this one as uninterpretative [sic] and close to the original as possible." [ibid.] He proceeds to list the one "conscious deviation" from this method, namely recasting oblique speech as direct, and cites Eucleides from the Theatetus as support. Reeve says that "Decades of teaching the Republic have persuaded me that the minimal loss in literalness involved in adopting Eucleides' stratagem is more than made up for in readability and intelligibility" [ibid.] BMCR readers may be more inclined to fault Reeve for striving for literalness than for accommodating his diction to English ears. Although this is not the venue for an extended discussion of theories of translation, and the reader can judge Reeve's success for himself later from the adduced passages, nevertheless we find in Waterfield, Grube, and Shorey (arguably Reeve's chief competitors) somewhat different approaches.¹.

Reeve devotes eighteen pages (ix-xxvii) to a helpful introduction, in which he ably explains various aspects of the dialogue. Sections include: brief biographical portions on Plato and Socrates; a thesis statement and outline of the Republic; discussion of the theory of the forms, The Forms and the Good, Specialization and the Structure of Kallipolis, The Lies of the Rulers, Private Life and Private Property, and Freedom and Autonomy. A good example of Reeve's even-handed approach, and also his care not to corrupt student's perceptions before they have encountered the text directly, is found in this final section, where he writes: "A person's needs, wants, and interests are determined by the natural genetic lottery, by education and upbringing, and by actual circumstances. They also depend on his beliefs, which in turn depend to some extent on the same factors as do his needs, wants, and interests themselves" (xxv). At the conclusion of the same section, Reeve provides a nice summary evaluation of what he believes to be the dialogue's merits: "...even if we retain our liberal suspicion about the possibility of a science of values, we might still, by coming to see merit in the idea of deliberative freedom, also come to see the Republic, not as predominantly a totalitarian hymn to the benefits of repression and unfreedom, but as an attempt to design a city whose members enjoy as much real happiness, and as much real freedom, as possible"(xxvii).

A very select (two-page) bibliography follows, as well as competent, one-paragraph synopses of each book of the dialogue. Finally, there is a brief note to the reader explaining that Stephanus page numberings are taken from Burnet, while S.R. Slings' text was employed as a basis for the translation.

The footnotes provided to the text of the translation itself are modest but still valuable. Readers can form some sense of their frequency by noting that they range from a total of 29 in book I to 68 in book III. Many simply send the reader to the glossary (e.g. pp. 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, etc.) Some provide helpful references to passages outside the text (e.g. note 12 to Odyssey 19 on p. 9) or are intra-textual (e.g. note 19, p. 19). Still others provide helpful clarification.² A very few of these notes are argumentative in nature,³ and some are extensive and erudite.⁴ Following the text there is a short Glossary of Terms, with most English terms paired with Greek originals in parentheses.⁵ The volume concludes with a combined Glossary and Index of Names, and a very thorough and useful General Index.

On the whole the auxiliary elements are more complete than what one finds in Waterfield or Grube, but very similar in scope and quality to Bloom's Basic Books edition.

In order to give the reader some sense of the quality of Reeve's work two representative passages are selected for comparison. The first is a typically stichomythic portion from Book 6.

Reeve (201) construes the conversation between Socrates and Adeimantus on the guardian's interaction with the constitution as follows:

S: But won't our constitution be perfectly ordered if such a guardian, one who knows these things, oversees it?

A: It is bound to be. But you yourself, Socrates, do you say the good is knowledge of pleasure, or is it something else altogether?

S: What a man! You made it good and clear long ago that other people's opinions about these matters would not satisfy you.

A: Well, Socrates, it does not seem right to me for you to be willing to state other people's convictions but not your own, when you have spent so much time occupied with these matters.

S: What ? Do you think it is right to speak about things you do not know as if you do know them?

In contrast, Waterfield (232) gives:

'So the constitution and organization of our community will be perfect only if they are overseen by the kind of guardian who has this knowledge, won't they?'

'Necessarily,' he said. 'But Socrates, do you identify goodness with knowledge or pleasure, or with something else?'

'Just listen to him!' I exclaimed. 'It's been perfectly obvious all along that other people's views on the matter weren't going to be enough for you.'

'That's because I don't think it's right, Socrates,' he said, ' for someone who's devoted so much time to the matter to be in a position to state others' beliefs, but not his own.'

'But you do think it's right,' I responded, 'for someone to talk as if he knew what he doesn't know?'

Finally, the unrevised Grube (160-161) has:

Our constitution then will be perfectly ordered when such a man looks after it -- that is, a man who has this knowledge.

Necessarily, he said, but you also, Socrates, must tell us whether you consider the good to be knowledge, or pleasure, or something else.

What a man! I said. It has been clear for some time that the opinion of others on this subject would not satisfy you.

Well, Socrates, he said, it does not seem right to me to be able to tell the opinions of others and not one's own, especially for a man who has spent so much time as you have occupying himself with this subject.

Why? said I. Do you think it right to talk about things one does not know as if one knew them?

The similarities between Reeve and Grube are unmistakable nor unexpected, as Reeve's revision of Grube must have contributed broadly to his own sense of the translation. It is hoped the three provide the reader with an opportunity to compare the virtues of idiomacy versus literalness. Of them only Reeve has cast the exchange in direct speech, and no doubt it will be a matter of taste whether Waterfield's more conversational style suits.

A second sample for comparison is drawn from one of Plato's poetic flights of fancy, the Myth of Er in Book 10. In a description of the souls' journeys Reeve (320) offers:

Through one of the openings in the heavens and one in the earth, he saw souls departing after judgment had been passed on them. Through the other two, they were arriving. From the one in the earth they came up parched and dusty, while from the one in the heavens they came down pure. And the ones that had just arrived seemed to have come from a long journey, and went off gladly to the meadow, like a crowd going to a festival, and set up camp there.

Waterfield (372) provides:

'From where he was, he could see souls leaving, once they'd been judged, by one or the other of the two openings in the sky and in the earth, and he noticed how the other two openings were used too: one was for certain souls, caked in grime and dust, to arise out of the earth, while the other was for other, clean souls to come down out of the sky. They arrived periodically, and he gained the impression that it had taken a long journey for them to get there; they were grateful to turn aside into the meadow and find a place to settle down. The scene resembled a festival.'

Grube, again the closest to Reeve, has (257):

He said he saw souls leaving by either opening into the heavens and into the earth after their judgment. As for the other two openings, from one souls emerged from the earth covered with dust and dirt, by the other souls came down from heaven clean. And all the time those who arrived appeared to have been on a long journey; they gladly went and camped in the meadow, like a festival crowd.

I suggest, uncontroversially, that the translator has more scope for style and expression in these narrative portions than in the choppy elenchus. In my estimation both Reeve and Grube provide lucid and direct renditions that would serve well as a trot for the beginning student or in a course on ancient philosophy. Waterfield, at least in this passage, clearly makes a more successful attempt at readability by breaking up longer clauses and offering more variety in Plato's strict parallelism.

In conclusion, I believe Reeve's translation is highly commendable for its student helps, simple accuracy, and affordability. It hews more closely to Bloom (also in print) in its approach to translation, and gives off the typical Hackett air of accessibility and ease of use.

---

Notes:

1.   I have selected these three, from Oxford World's Classics, Loeb, and Hackett respectively, as they are nearly ubiquitous. This selection is not intended as criticism of the renderings of Cornford, Ferrari, or Lee (all still in print as well) as each has its merits.
2.   "Euetheia, kakoetheia: Thrasymachus uses euetheia in the bad sense, to mean stupidity. Socrates takes him to mean it in the good sense of being straightforward, and so contrasts it with kakoetheia -- deviousness. See 400e1" p. 26.
3.   E.g. notes 13 (p. 45) and 24 (p. 57).
4.   The best examples are note 10 p. 241, and note 24 on p. 291.
5.   Here are two representative examples: "being (ousia) Abstract noun derived from einai (to be). The being of (e.g.,) justice is what justice really is" (p. 327); also "physical training (gymnastike) Includes dance and training in warfare, as well as what we call physical training. Effects characterized at 401d5-402d9, 410b10-412b1, 522a3-b1" (p. 328).

(read complete article)

2009.07.23

Version at BMCR home site
S. J. Heyworth (ed.), Sexti Properti Elegi. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pp. lxxxi, 217. ISBN 978-0-19-814674-2. £18.50/$49.95/€20.32.
S. J. Heyworth (ed.), Cynthia. A Companion to the Text of Propertius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. xvi, 647. ISBN 978-0-19-922870-6. £105/$250/€194.26.
Reviewed by Antonio Ramírez de Verger, Universidad de Huelva

'There exists no good text of Propertius,' Goold rightly stated some years ago (HSCPh 71, 1967, 59). Until now we have been able to read the text of Propertius in the editions of Barber (OCT, 1960, 2nd. ed.), Hanslik (Teubner-Leipzig), Fedeli (Teubner-Stuttgart, 1994, 2nd. ed.), Luck (Zürich, 1996, 2nd. ed.) and Goold (LCL, 1999, 2nd ed.). Other texts to have appeared recently are those of the radical Giardina (Roma 2005; cf. BMCR 2006.03.20) and the conservative Moya del Baño (with Ruiz de Elvira, Madrid, 2001) and Viarre (coll. Budé, 2005). In addition, a balanced text and worthwhile commentary have been published by G. Hutchinson for book 4 (Cambridge 2006, cf. Dimundo, Exemplaria Classica 12, 2008, 375-82).¹ We also have at our disposal the extraordinary textual commentary by Shackleton Bailey (Propertiana, 1956) and the very useful list of variants by Smyth (Thesaurus criticus ad Sexti Propertii textum, Leiden 1970), together with the very good monographs of Butrica (The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius, Toronto, 1984), and Günther (Quaestiones Propertianae, Leiden, 1997), who is also the editor of the excellent Brill's Companion to Propertius (Leiden, 2006), which contains obligatory reading in the contributions by P. Fedeli 'The History of Propertian Scholarship'), Butrica ('The Transmission of the Text of Propertius') and Tarrant ('Propertian Textual Criticism and Editing').

The edition by Heyworth (hereinafter, H.), accompanied by a very useful and thought-provoking textual commentary (hereinafter, Hc.), now replaces the above-mentioned edition by Barber in the prestigious Oxford catalogue. The introduction, written not in Latin but in English, as were the Sophocles of Lloyd-Jones and Wilson (1990), the Ausonius of Green (1999) and the Vegetius of Reeve (2004), consists of a Preface (vii-lxvii), Bibliography (lxviii-lxxvii), Stemma (lxxviii), and Sigla (lxxix-lxxxi). It is followed by the Latin text (1-190), an Appendix with III vii as found in cod. N (193-5), an Index orthographicus (196-204), and Index nominum (205-17). The commentary (Cynthia), for its part, is divided into a brief Preface (vii-xiii), the Stemma and the Sigla of the edition (xiv-xvi), the rich and extensive commentary itself (1-514), a translation of the elegies (515-607), a comprehensive bibliography (608-615), Indexes of passages cited and of Latin words, and a general Index including proper names and an extremely useful list of subject-matter and topics covered (617-47). Both volumes have been excellently produced by the publisher, with clear print and high-quality paper. Over so many pages I have found extremely few errata.²

The preface deals clearly and precisely with the manuscripts and the bases for this new edition of Propertius:

a) The archetype, N, and the medieval tradition (vii-xi) with an analysis of the Neapolitanus (nunc Guelferbytanus Gudianus 224, ca. 1200) and the florilegium Vat. Reg. Lat. 2120 (Flor. 1);

b) A and its descendants (P, xi-xxviii) with a study of A (Leidensis Vossianus lat. O.38, ca. 1240, which goes as far as II 1 63), the florilegium Par. Lat. 16708 (Flor. 2) and the descendants of A stemming from a lost manuscript of Petrarch (P): F (important for what is missing from A) LPBQ;

c) Poggio's manuscript (L) and the 15th-century tradition (xxviii-xlix), which for H. and Butrica constitutes a third branch in the tradition of the Propertian text, independent of the previous two; H. argues that the manuscript Poggio sent to Niccoli is not the Neapolitanus, but another, now lost one which he calls L, from which descends a series of manuscripts which must be taken very much into account when establishing the text and critical apparatus of Propertius: T (1427), S (ca. 1460-70), J (ca. 1430-45), K (1469), W (1450-75), M (1465), U (1465-70), R (1466), C (ca. 1470-1);

d) The Stemma (xlix-li, lxxviii), on which the conclusion reached is that 'the vital point is to cite the new group of manuscripts accurately' (li);

e) Indirect transmission (li-lii) through the ancient grammarians, Donatus, the codex Salmasianus, Lactantius, Isidore and the Pompeian graffiti;

f) The constitution of the apparatus criticus (lii-liii), which is positive, as is only to be expected from an editor who has carefully collated all the manuscripts used in the edition, for which service we will forever be in his debt;³

g) Punctuation and spelling (liii-lvi), where H. defends modern punctuation conventions for 'a writer of English', just as he also uses modern spelling conventions in his edition (e. g., -es for the 3rd decl. acc. pl.), rightly ignoring medieval orthography;

h) The editions and textual criticism of Propertius (lvi-lxi), in which H. justifies the use of the catch-all symbol S for conjectures proceeding from 15th-c. MSS. ('unauthoritative readings found in fifteenth-century MSS', H. CQ 36, 1986, 199). However, I would have preferred to see all the readings accompanied by at least the sigla of a manuscript⁴ and by the name of the first editor clearly known to have accepted this or that conjecture (cf. the Index below). Citing a manuscript and, if possible, an editor offers rather more than the conformism of a 'nescioquis per coniecturam ante annum 1600' (lxxx). From p. lix on there is an overview of the best contributions made to the text of Propertius from the edition of Scaliger (1577) down to the above-mentioned Thesaurus by Smyth. H. says much, and says it well, in very little space of Scaliger, Heinsius (Adversariorum liber IV, 1742), Passerat (1608), Burman (1680), Lachmann (1816), Baehrens (1880), Housman (CP 29-54, 232-378), Goold (1990 and 1999), Butrica (1984; cf. CQ 47, 1997, 176-208) and Günther (1997). Nor does he forget to mention Luck (1964, 1996), Morgan (CQ 36, 1986, 182-98), Liberman (RPh 66, 1992, 337-44; MEFRA 107, 1995, 315-44; RPh 76, 2002, 49-100) or Giardina (2005), but he does ignore Shackleton Bailey (1956) and Fedeli (1994, 2nd. ed., 1965, 1980, 1985, 2005). These two distinguished scholars deserve a place, it seems to me, alongside those mentioned above, as well as in the bibliography;

i) Divisions, numeration, omissions, fragments, transpositions (lxii-lxiv). Given that antiquity has only handed down to us the division of the books and not of the poems, or their numbering (cf. H. 'Dividing Poems', in Pecere-Reeve, Spoleto 1995, 117-48) -- since the text of Propertius presents numerous omissions, transpositions and fragments -- and also in view of the fact that the state of book II is defective, perhaps due to the loss of some pages of an ancient manuscript, H. presents us with a very different (and very reader-unfriendly) look from that of other editions, the details of which are noted in the Appendix below. Perhaps the numbering of the lines ought to have been changed once and for all (read H., PLLS 8, 1995, 171-2). I, for one, would certainly have been less put out by this editorial approach (Hc. x, n. 3) than I am by the head-swimming experience of reading book II with so many numbers jumping around, so many lacunae, and so many distichs relegated to the end of the poems;

j) The text. In contrast to the editions by Housman that were intended to be 'editorum in usum', the text presented here by H. is 'rather lectorum in usum' (p. lxv) and on the same page H. clarifies what type of edition lies in the reader's hands: 'This may be thought a radical edition; it is certainly not an edition that tries to plot a middle course. But I suspect that there are more couplets that should be deleted, more lacunae marked, and far more places where we need rather to deviate from the MS tradition than to return to it. Without an extraordinary papyrus find, or time travel cheap enough to be exploited by the editors of classical texts, future investigation of the MSS is likely to increase our knowledge of the activities of the humanists while barely affecting our investigation of the text of Propertius'.

In his edition (1-190) H. works, as stated above, on the basis of the existence of a third branch of the tradition of Propertius, made up of a group of 15th-c. manuscripts (TSJKWMURC) descended from a lost manuscript which Poggio Bracciolini took to Florence in 1423 (X for Butrica and L for H.), and which deserves to be cited alongside the two branches that descend from the archetype, N (ca. 1200) and A (ca. 1240) together with their descendents (FLP [BQ]). At the same time he discards manuscripts DVVo (*D), which have been used in previous editions (e.g., Barber 1960; Hanslik 1979; Fedeli 1994); since they are not independent of the archetype, their readings contribute nothing new, and they lack independent authority. The result is an edition that is completely different from all that precede it, including the novel edition by Goold of 1990 and 1999. The Appendix below lists scores of proposals by H., not counting the ones featured in the critical apparatus. There are almost 200 such proposals. Hardly anything has come through the process without having been weighed, analysed, and either emended or subjected to conjecture. It will take a great deal of time and effort to digest such a vast number of novelties in the text of Propertius.

In his monumental commentary, which throughout denotes expertise and professional dedication, H. analyses poems, elegies, lines, words, and punctuation with the skill of a scholar consistent in his own ideas and ruthless with the scalpel of reason and common sense (Housman CP 1058), making sure all the while that everything fits grammar, metre and sense (Luck AJP 102, 1981, 186). We have here 514 pages of textual commentary unparalleled since the 'editio Burmanniana' of 1780 or Shackleton Bailey's 'Propertiana' (a slightly more conservative work) of 1956 (the closest thing to it today being the new Catullus by Trappes-Lomax, 2007; cf. BMCR 28.09.32). My fullest recognition and admiration therefore for this Herculean task of clearing away the dead wood and shedding new light on the work of the great poet from Assisi. I shall limit myself, therefore, to making a few observations on certain passages.

BOOK I

i 5 puellas I do not believe the reference here is to the Muses (an old interpretation due to Vulpius, cf. also Burman, 1680, 3), but to women, matrons or hetairai who, for whatever reason, turn down offers of love; cf. Luck (AJPh 100, 1979, 73-5) and Fedeli (1980, 67-8).

ii 13 In the text H. accepts Hertzberg's praelucent (1845, 11) and is inclined to opt for gaudent depicta in the commentary (Hc. 13), but perlucent (recc., Volscus) is supported by Catullus (69.4 aut perlucidi delicii lapidis) and Varro (ling. 5.31 (140) quod perlucet, ut lapides); cf. Manil. 5.531 et perlucentes cupiens prensare lapillos, with Housman's commentary (1920, 51); Mart. 9.2.9 splendet Erythraeis perlucida moecha lapillis.

v 15 'maestus tremulis nescioquis' says H. on p. 8; in the edition by Barth (1777, 17) we read 'et moestus tremulis Colb. alt.' (cf. Paldamus 1827, 9), the reading of the Parisinus BN lat. 8459 (Butrica, 1984, 340 and 283-5); 20 H. incorporates domo into his text (dub. Heinsius, 1742, 659, Lachmann, 1822, 22; not so in his edition of 1829, 6), but abire domum is 'a colloquial dismissal', as Mankin notes on Hor. epod. 11.20 (1995, 203; cf. Fedeli 1980, 163).

vii 26 H. is right in proposing to read honos (honor Rossberg), accepted by Giardina (2005, 50) and Luck (Exemplaria Classica 12, 2008, 52).

viii A 21 taedae (recc., Ayrmann) is unnecessary (cf. Housman, JPh 22:43, 1893, 117), since the complaints at the door are directed at the beloved (de te), as Goold understands (1999, 61); 22 H. accepts fata (Henry) in place of verba, but the expression 'verba queri' is the one used by the elegiac poets to refer to words of lamentation at the door of the beloved (1.5.17; Ov. Rem. 509; Fast. 3.507); the passages cited by H. (Tib. 1.5.51 2.6.34; Ov. Met. 5.298) have nothing to do with the elegiac context of the Propertian 'exclusus amator'.

viii B 43 H. rightly accepts palmis (Scaliger, Luck) in place of plantis, since it is said that the stars can be touched with the hand or the head, but not with the feet; to the examples presented add Ov. Fast. 3.34 contigeratque sua sidera summa coma.

ix 4 The app. crit. would be clearer thus: empta] illa Fontein, fort. ista; read also solos] sola H. (p. 66 on 2.19.7).

x 13 H.'s recitare for reticere was accepted by Luck (1996, 28 and 368), but reticere dolores from *W or calores (Dousa f. and Guyetus) can be kept, since the poet is telling Gallus that he has learned to be discreet about the passionate love between Gallus and his beloved.

xii 20 I prefer a comma, not a semi-colon, after fuit: Cynthia prima fuit, Cynthia finis erit.

xiii 8 There is no need to change primo to primum; cf. the same expression in Ov. Met. 4.59 primosque gradus vicinia fecit with Bömer's pertinent commentary, 1976, 38-9 ('primosque gradus, sc. amoris: ein seltener und vor Ovid nicht bekannter Sprachgebrauch); the translation is not 'and, having slipped for the first time, to go astray' (Goold, or 'and, having . . . to abandon your stance', Hc. 525), but 'to give up on slipping at the first step (sc. of love)'; see also Fedeli 1980, 304-5.

xiii 13 in the app. crit. H. does not cite vago (Francius, Luck 1996, 34 and 368 : malo codd.).

xv 29 Neither H.'s nam prius e vasto nor other emendations improve the proposal (alta prius retro) by Burman (1780, 151; cf. Ov. trist. 1.8.1-2 in caput alta suum labentur ab aequore retro / flumina; see Hc. 68-9), accepted by Luck and Goold; 39 quid (recc., DVVo), on which H. expresses his doubts in the app. crit., was previously incorporated into the text by Luck (1996, 40; quod on p. 368 is an error).

xvii 11 The proposal by Paldamus (revolvere in his notes; reponere in the text on p. 32) is defended in ch. III of his Observationes criticae on pp. 257-8 of his 1827 edition, which is not cited by H. on p. lxviii.

xviii 11 H.'s proposal, femina, for altera, which is surely a gloss, as he himself points out (Hc. 80), is convincing and deserves to be incorporated into the text in view of the parallel presented (3.15.9-10 nec femina post te / ulla dedit collo dulcia vincla meo).

xix 12 On the meaning of magnus see Weber (CPh 103, 2, 2008, 184-8); 15 the easy emendation harum of Francius, accepted by H., seems unnecessary to me, as veniant would have a concessive-optative force and quarum a demonstrative force (= earum, cf. Szantyr, 1965, 569-72; Bassols, 1967, 252-5).

xx 25-30 I understand these lines as follows: from the air the brothers Zetes and Calais were harassing the fair Hylas (vv. 25-6), intent on snatching kisses from him in suspended flight (v. 27: suspensis ... plumis, cod. Guelf. Helmstadensis 373, Livineius, Luck) and on taking these kisses from him, one and then the other, as he was looking up (28), but Hylas, still in suspense, took refuge at the end of one wing, protecting himself from the trickery of the two birds with a branch (vv. 29-30). If this is a valid interpretation -- and emphatic repetition is prominent in the text -- I fail to see why so many changes have to be made, as the text could be taken as follows:

hunc duo sectati fratres, Aquilonia proles, hunc super et Zetes, hunc super et Calais; oscula suspensis instabant carpere plumis, oscula et alterna ferre supina fuga; ille sub extrema pendens secluditur ala et volucres ramo submovet insidias.

The text of H., it seems to me, does not improve upon that transmitted by the manuscripts;

xx 32 Why can the repetition ibat ... ibat? not be maintained? According to H., who changes the first ibat into unus, because 'Propertius uses repetition for antithesis or addition, not for plangency' (Hc. 90). This seems a very weak argument for changing a text; 49 H. accepts Fontein's brilliant proposal (cui procul Alcides ter 'Hyla' respondet, at illi) for cui procul Alcides iterat responsa, sed illi. Is the change necessary? It depends on whether we tend towards the direct style of Virgil (ecl. 6.43-4) or the narrative style of Val. Flaccus, 3.596-7, since iterat and responsa are very Latin terms.

BOOK II

i 48 solus is preferable to semper (Hc. 112), as it picks up on the uno (sc. amore) of the previous line. Propertius pins his good fortune on love, but his happiness will be more complete if he enjoys just one love on his own, without having to share it with anyone else ('sine rivali', as pointed out by Passerat [1608, 250], cf. 2.7.19 tu mihi sola places; placeam tibi, Cynthia, solus).

ii 3 In the app. crit. H. is tempted by the diuina of a codex of A. Perreius (Burman, 1780, 234). I believe that this reading, accepted by Dousa and Burman in their notes, corresponds better to the sense of her role as 'puella divina': 'Why does this divine face dally on earth?' (from Lyne, CQ 48, 1998, 540).

iii 1-4 It is better to take these lines as the literal words of an interlocutor (cf. Fedeli 2005, 123) and a colon should be placed after haesisti, because cecidit . . . tuus is like an epiphonema of what has gone before.

v 3 hoc merui spectare does not improve the text of the manuscripts, haec merui sperare, a variation of Catull. 64.140 (non haec miseram sperare iubebas); 4 the proposal aliquo is not from Bosscha (1801) but is noted by Burman before he presents his proposal alio (1780, 244, where he devotes three pages to clarifying the passage!); 28 Peiper's verna (also accepted by Goold 1999, 118) for verba destroys the sense Propertius wished to transmit, which is summarised by Lachmann (1816, 120-1) as follows: 'Certe Graecismus iste (referring to verba, an accusative of respect) poetis nimis familiaris est, quo levem Cynthiam Propertius indicat, cuius verba nihil ponderis habeant, certi nihil'; see also Burman (1780, 247: 'sed verba levis Graeco more pro in verbis levis et variabilis') and Fedeli (2005, 190).

vi 5 deiectas is Gebhard's reading, explained paleographically by Hc. (134) from delectas as the regular use of l for consonantal i (here l for i longa).

vii 8 I do not think that it is more that is the corrupt term but perdere (H. prints perdere iure from Allen*; cf. Hc. 140-1), since the verb to be expected would be tollere faces nuptae, as in Catull. 61.121 (tollite, o pueri, faces); cf. Ov. Her. 11.101.

xi 2 H. makes an attractive proposal in the app. crit., suggesting ponat instead of ponit.

xiii 1 In view of the incomprehensible combination armatur etrusca, the option armantur Susa (recc., Beroaldus, Luck, Goold, alii) is preferable to the rare armatur Itura (Pontanus, Hanslik), accepted by H., who in Hc. (162) also proposesarmata est Creta; 11 me iuvet is preferable to me iuvat, cf. 2.34.59, 3.5.19 and 21; 19, 21 on tunc/tum (Hc. 164-5) see also Gaertner, 'Tum und tunc in der augusteischen Dichtersprache', RhM 150, 2007, 211-24; 58 Hc. (171) clearly shows how both here and at 4.1.86 we ought to read in N quid and not qui, because the scribe abbreviates quid consistently in this manner.

xv 1 Propertius opens a makarismos, addressed to himself, with triple anaphora of the interjection o, as in 1.10.1-4. The text of the manuscripts can be preserved if a hiatus is accepted after the second interjection or if we follow the correction by Puccius (ex codd.), as Passerat does (1608, 302; cf. Luck 1996, 86). Housman's proposal (io . . . io . . . io), accepted by H. and Goold, is characteristic of an epithalamium, not a makarismos; 22 I would not question pudet (Hc. 175-6) and replace it with piget, as Giardina does (2005, 146), since Propertius is referring to women who feel embarrassment, not 'regret or irritation', when displaying their breasts after having given birth once or twice, and not to Cynthia, who is one of those in whom carent quoque pectora menda (Ov. Ars 3.781).

xvi B 27 I lean not towards exutis . . . lumbis (Sandbach, PCPhS 5, 1958-59, 3-5), accepted by H. and others, but to the reading excussis . . . lumbis (recc., and, e.g., Beroaldus, Passerat [1608, 311], Broukhusius [1702, 139], Burman [1680, 329], Sh. Bailey [1956, 95-6], Hanslik [1979, 65], Günther [1997, 37, n. 153]); cf. 2.29.35, 2.9.45; Catull. 16.11 qui duros nequeunt movere lumbos. The best explanation of v. 27 I have seen is in the edition by Broukhusius (cf. also 'Notae variorum' [1822, 810])): 'Ego expono: Barbarus iste, me excluso, agitat et calcat mea vestigia, quae in tuo lecto restant, inque iis volutat sese interea, dum lumbos excutit et clunem movet'; 49 tonitrus (Francius), accepted by H., is unnecessary and no reason put forward in Hc. (183) can persuade me to break the poetic zeugma of vidisti from both sonitus percurrere and fulmina desiluisse, as in Aesch. Prom. 115, Sept. 103, Verg. Aen. 4.490 (with Pease's comm. on pp. 405-6), 6.256-7 (with Norden's comm. on p. 205), Ov. Trist. 3.8.37-8 (with Luck's comm. on p. 207), and Augustine civ. 10.54; see also Munro on Lucr. 4.598, Fedeli 2005, 506. Propertius makes use here of synaesthesia to combine two images or sensations proceeding from different sensory domains: seeing and hearing the lightning crossing the sky and leaping from Olympus.

xviii 31 H. accepts Goold's vultus but does not even refer to Watt's cultus (MH 49, 1992, 234), accepted by Fedeli (2005, 551-2).

xix 24 Watt's fallere (ap. Goold) has better support than H.'s tangere; cf. esp. Mart. 14.216.1 (non tantum calamis, sed cantu fallitur ales / callida dum tacita crescit harundo manu); see also Passerat 1608, 324; Fedeli 2005, 575. Hc. himself (192) admits that 'I chose tangere to give each a presence in published texts'; 31 I take the last two lines (cf. Passerat 1608, 324 and Kuinoel 1805, 140), to mean that neither the solitary woods nor the rivers flowing down from the mossy heights will prevent me from having you continually on my lips, changing your name for other fictitious ones so that you can always be present, since everyone seeks to harm those who are absent. Attempts to modify the text (e. g., metuam Jacob for mutem) and try to find out-of-the-way explanations (see Fedeli 2005, 579-583) seem pointless to me; see also Passerat 1608, 325; Enk 1962, 269-70.

xx 31 H.'s suggestion of sitque inter Tityi volucres mea poena iacere (or ligari) is attractive, ingenious and clear, but is it what Propertius actually wrote? For mea poena is a use of abstract for concrete (see Bömer on Ov. Met. 5.373 patientia nostra) and our poet has constructed a powerful image of the poet who, as punishment, vagetur, 'wanders about' among the birds that are devouring a body of nine hectares, as described by Homer (Od. 11.576-9) and Virgil (Aen. 6.596).

xxiv 51 in me (attributed to s by H.) for ut me seems to come from Lachmann (1816, 189).

xxv 1 I do not think that 'the vulnerability of initial letters' (Hc. 218) can justify such a drastic change as Cynthia, defended by Phillimore, Goold and H., for the Vnica of the manuscripts; see also Passerat (1608, 345), Hertzberg (1702, 173) and Fedeli (2005, 707).

xxvii 1 H., like Richmond and Richardson, considers there to be a lacuna before v. 1, since elegiac poems do not start on a regular basis with at, except Ov. Her. 12.1 (about which H. expresses doubts in note 62 because Ovid is not following the model of Euripides, Ennius and Catullus) and am. 3.7.1; why should Propertius not be able to begin an elegiac poem abruptly ('initium abruptum', Enk, 1962, 345) with a iunctura characteristic of an apostrophe (Passerat 1608, 359) or with an 'at indignantis'? Cf. Hertzberg (1845, 183); Bömer (1976, 14) on Ov. Met. 4.1; Bessone (1997, 62); Fedeli (2005, 768).

xxix B 41 In view of the stated opinions of Broukhusius (1702, 186), Heinsius (1742, 706) and Burman (1780, 430), the lemma of the app. crit. should include the following information: excludor Guyetus, def. Broukhusius : secludor Passerat in notis : eludor dub. Burman in notis : deludor Palmer; cf. Palmer, 1880: sanctae casto deludor amore; Otto, Hermes 23, 1888, 38: cultor deludor amoris; Housman, JPh 22, 1893, 87 (=CP I, 316): custos deludor amoris.

xxxii 23 Surprisingly, not even in the app. crit. does H. include the reading pervenit (recc.), defended by Ellis (JPh 15:29, 1886, 17) and accepted by Luck (1996, 130) and Fedeli (2005, 885; cf. also Lachmann, 1816, 216), given that the expression appears in Virgil (Aen. 2.81) and also several times in Ovid (cf., e. g., Met. 5.256; see also Fedeli 2005, 903); 47 see the extensive note by Lachmann (1816, 218) on Tatios veteres; H.'s singular (Tatium veterem) is unnecessary; cf. 3.1.14, Ov. Ars 1.179; Fast. 2.135, Hor. carm. 1.12.37; 58 the reading corripuit, found in the recc., was proposed independently by Luck (AJPh 100, 1979, 88-9) and in verse 33 correpta (Fontein) should also be read.

xxxiii A 21 H. accepts Housman's proposal (pia causa), as does Goold (1999, 206), but I fail to understand the sense of the hexameter in relation to the pentameter ('But you, who through excess of piety are the cause of my pain, once we are free of these nights, let us thrice make <love's> journey', trans. on p. 561). In the hexameter Propertius is referring to Cynthia, who has spent 10 days of secubatio in honour of the goddess Isis and is therefore now appeased (placata) or tranquil (pacata, Oxon. bibl. Bodlei. Canon. class. lat. 31 and Markland) at the cost of the suffering of Propertius (who has had to bear those ten days without her); and with Cynthia in this state, once the ten nights have passed, he invites her to make love three times. The difficulty, then, would seem to lie in nimium, covering a iam nunc (rather than the nunc iam of Hertzberg (p. 222, cf. 2.16.13), since in poetry the phrase used is iam nunc and not nunc iam (cf. 2.19.17, 4.11.93; Tib. 1.3.53,1.5.71, 2.3.3, 4.5.11). The manuscript abbreviations for iam and nunc may have contributed to the corruption. The editor himself recognizes (Hc. 260) that 'The absence of nunc (or something similar) in the couplet also helps show that we are not to read this as a reaction to the actual end of the period of Isiac worship', but with iam nunc Propertius is certainly referring to the ending of the ten days of forced separation.

xxxiv 12 Markland's proposal (tu in place of in) was included in the edition by Luck (1996, 136); 20 nullo in place of stulto should, I think, be attributed in the app. crit. to Heinsius (1640-1680; cf. 1742, 711), as Goold and Luck do, and not to Fontein (1708-1788); 46 if recta is to be changed, because 'the usage is not idiomatic' (Hc. 273), the epithet dura (cf. 1.1.10, 1.17.16, 2.1.78, 4.2.23) would suit the situation described better than the possessive adjective nostra, proposed by H.; 64 it is surprising that in the quotation from Virgil's Aeneid (1.2-3) the editor should write (Hc. 275) Laviniaque venit/litora rather than Lavinaque venit/litora, as defended, among others, by Hertzberg (1845, 236-7), Courtney (BICS 28, 1981, 27) and Goold ('The Voice of Virgil', in Woodman and Powell, eds., Author and Audience in Latin Literature, Cambridge, 1992, 115; and in his edition of Virgil, 1999, 262).

BOOK III

iv 11 It is unnecessary, pace Hertzberg (1845, 244 on 3.1.1: 'sacer de rebus diis sacratis, numquam de ipsis diis, qui sancti sunt, dicitur', although on p. 268 he defends sacrae . . . Vestae with a clear 'recte et docte'), to adopt Postgate's proposal of sanctae for sacrae fatalia lumina Vestae, since Vesta here refers metonymically to fire, as in Ov., Fast. 6.291: nec tu aliud Vestam quam vivam intellege flammam (cf. Bömer 1958, 359); see Sh. Bailey (1956, 141-2), Fedeli (1985, 166), Camps (2001, 71); 14 ducere (recc.) . . . licet (Livineius, Guyetus) seems to me an option not to be rejected outright; cf. 3.8.30, Ov. Rem. 522 with Lucke's comm. (1982, 159); Prud. c. Symm. 1.239-40 gaudia ducunt / festa kalendarum (example quoted by Heinsius, 1742, 658).

vi 31 Instead of the phrase vana canunt, Passerat, Gebhardus, Schoppius (cf. Heinsius, 1742, 719; Burman, 1780, 529; Hertzberg, 1708, 237) and H. prefer vana cadunt, but see Stat. Theb. 3.646 sed quid vana cano; Claud. 15.353-4 (In Gildonem): per somnos mihi, sancte pater, iam saepe futura / panduntur multaque canunt praesagia noctes (example quoted by Herzberg); see, however, Burman (1680, 529-30): 'quod [cadunt] non facile repudiandum . . . eleganter enim cadere pro evenire'; cf. Passerat 1608, 437: 'cadunt, id est, accident, evadunt, eveniunt. Sic cadere pro evenire ubique M. Tullius'.

viii 31 Dardanus, as proposed by Heinsius 1742, 722 (Francius had proposed Dardana for barbara in Ov. Her. 8.12; cf. Burman 1727, I, 108), is unnecessary for barbarus; cf. Fedeli (1985, 296) and Nisbet-Hubbard (1978, 71-2 on Hor. Carm. 2.4.9).

x 21-24 I see nothing wrong in taking it that Cynthia and Propertius, having fulfilled the religious rites of her dies natalis (vv. 19-20), should wish to dine together and spend the night drinking (v. 21: noxque inter pocula currat [surgat is Cornelissen's emendation, accepted by H.], cf. OLD s.v. 'curro', 6), in a very pleasant atmosphere (v. 22) and to the accompaniment of soft background music (tibia . . . rauca) and dancing suited to the night (v. 23: nocturnis [not continuis from Housman] succumbat . . . choreis). Nor do I consider it indispensable to break the parallelism et . . . et (vv. 22 and 24) by changing et sint to adsint (H.); 25 dulcia . . . convivia, not dulcia . . . convicia (Broukhusius ap. Barth. 1777, 221-2: 'convicia i.e. cantus amoebaei iuvenum ac puellarum vult Broukh.'; cf. Burman, 1780, 582 and 700 on 3.25.1) is the appropriate term for the context (cf. Ov. Fast. 1.401, pointed out by Hc., 330; Passerat [1608, 465] quite rightly points to 3.7.43 dulcis conviva and Hor. carm. 3.8.6 dulces epulas).

xi 29 nexerit from s (= cod. Vat. Barberinianus VIII 23 [Hanslik, xiv, xxii; Fedeli 1984, 175]) was proposed independently by Sh. Bailey in the app. crit. to Barber's Oxford edition (1960, 107).

xiii 59 The criticism levelled at Cairns seems somewhat excessive in Hc. 355, since the reading verus haruspex can be interpreted in the way Barth does (1777, 236): 'verus cui creditur, cum Casandrae non fuisset creditum. Nam sic etiam Roma posset a sua pernicie revocari', or as Camps interprets it (2001, 120): 'The poet means 'may I be a true prophet in the eyes of my countrymen', i.e. 'may they believe me (and be warned in time)'', Lee (Propertius, The Poems, Oxford 1994, 90) adroitly translates 'would my country thought me a true prophet!' And the words of v. 61 (certa loquor, nulla fides) ratify, in my view, the verus of this line.

xv 33 sub (Livineius) tacito, close to the sic tacito of W and accepted, for example, by Camps, Fedeli and Luck, should, I think, appear in the app. crit.

xvii 3 flatus (anon. ap. Camps, 2001, 40) Veneris is an unattested combination and insanae Veneris stands in place of insani amoris (cf., e. g., 2.14.18 with Enk's comm. [1962, 207-8] and Hor. Carm. 3.21.2 with Nisbet-Rudd's comm. [2004, 248]); fastus is a standard amatory term in Propertius (cf., e. g., 1.18.5); the poet is beseeching Bacchus to free him from the pride he is enslaved to in the form of the mad sexual attraction (insanae Veneris) he feels towards Cynthia.

xviii 14 Hertzberg ends his commentary on this line as follows (1708, 355): 'quid referam Marcelli ipsius gesta, quid praeterea omnia illa, quae eius nomine mater gesserit?' and Goold translates (1999, 285) thus: 'and all that his mother's influence had procured?'; cf. Lee 1994, 176. None of this is even cited before the unnecessary decision to accept the adjective maturas from Barber in place of maternas (Hc. 384); 29-30 see also Belfiore, Emerita 31, 1963, 4-5.

xxi 7 vix makes perfect sense ('she however [in spite of my having tried everything] hardly ever receives me or does so just once' / 'But she receives me hardly ever or just once after many snubs' [Goold 1999, 292]) and there is no need to replace it with Cornelissen's symmetrical bis.

xxiv 2 I follow the simplest explanation and understand oculis . . . meis as 'too proud in my eyes', that is, 'dall'ammirazione con cui ti guardavo' (Fedeli 1985, 676) or 'oculorum meorum iudicio, quo tuam olim formam probavi' (Kuinoel, 1805, 302; cf. Ov. Her. 17.125), with no need to fall back on the proposed elegis (Schrader) . . . meis.

BOOK IV

ii 57 The six remaining lines (sex superant versus) are the six lines of the inscription below (59-64), without counting vv. 57-8. In passages of Ovid (Trist. 1.7.33-40) and Martial (11.20.1-8) not cited by Hc. the counting of the six lines begins with the direct quotation; cf. Sh. Bailey (1956, 229), Fedeli (1965, 117). In addition, the present tense of the verb (superant) seems to me to be right, not wrong (Hc. 444) if taken as a general present (Bassols 1948, 198-9; Kühner-Stegmann 1912, 114). H.'s proposal of suberunt for superant is therefore unnecessary.

iii 11 Faced with this 'crux Propertiana', I am inclined, pace Morgan (haecine pacta fides? haec noctis iura maritae at CQ 36, 1986, 193-4) and H. (et pacta haec foedera nobis) to opt for a proposal closer to the Neapolitanus (et parce avia noctes) and to the context of a night of love and sex in the pentameter: haecne marita fides et pactae gaudia noctis, / cum rudis urgenti bracchia victa dedi?; cf. 2.14.9, Cat. 61.116-7, Tib. 2.1.12, Ov. Her. 18.108, 19.68-9, Ars 2.308, 3.462 (et vos gaudia pacta date with Gibson's comm.. [2003, 287]: 'pangere is common in the context of marital undertakings'), rem. 107, 400-1, 727-8, Met. 11.306-10. Nor should we reject outright the option of Shilleto's et pactae tum mihi noctes, accepted by Luck (1996, 226), although the position of mihi would be abnormal (cf. Hc. 446); see also Hutchinson (2006, 105).

iv 68 Luck (AJPh 100, 1979, 92) supports, rightly, in my view, Heinsius' succubuisse (Burman, 1780, 778: 'N. Heinsius ad marginem ed. Ald. coniecerat'); 94 H. on p. 164 fails to do justice to the manuscripts and to other scholars in his brief comment 'sunt qui iniuste legant'; Hutchinson (2006, 39) also offers a dismissive 'iniuste sunt qui scribant'); The variant iniuste is found in FLPDVo (Fedeli 1984, 241), and was proposed by Lachmann (1816, 362) and accepted by Jacob (1827, 112, 220: 'Gron. Rheg. Quod iam Lachmannus scribendum viderat'), Tovar (1963, 209), Fedeli (1965, 28 and 153, but cf. 1984, 241) and Hanslik (1979, 167).

v 55-6 I am not as convinced as H. and other editors since Scaliger that this distich is spurious. Without regarding it as highly as Hertzberg does (p. 455 'hos versus Scaliger excidit, nervos scilicet totius elegiae'), I feel, like Lee (1994, 190), that 'Acanthis scornfully quotes i.2.1-2'; Hanslik (1979, 170) and Luck (1996, 240) also keep the distich; see also Sh. Bailey (1956, 242 and PCPhS 1952-3, 16-7).

vi 72 blanditae . . . rosae should be read here rather than the emendation by Lachmann blandae utrimque (1816, 374); this iunctura from Par. Lat. 8458 (cf. Butrica, 1984, 283-4) was an independent emendation by Scaliger (cf., among others, Passerat [1608, 636], Broukhusius [1702, 376], Heinsius [1742, 750], Barth [1777, 312 in the critical notes], Burman [1780, 823], Camps, Hanslik and Hutchinson), and is supported by Plin. Nat. 25.17 (ut radicem silvestris rosae, quam cynorrhodon vocant, blanditam sibi aspecto); see Hutchinson (2006, 167) and Bömer on Ov. Met. 10.555 (1980, 186).

vii 69 Against Housman (CR 48, 1934, 139 = CP III 1235) Sh. Bailey (1956, 252-3) rightly defended sanamus, for which there is no need to find a substitute (Rossberg's sancimus); cf. 1.10.17. The variant solamur, cited by H., is interesting; it is cited by Passerat in his manuscript notes (1608, 651 'alii lib. Solamur, id est, levamus, minuimus').

viii 4 I note the absence in the app. crit. of huc (recc., Paley, Luck, Hanslik), and tibi (recc., Goold); 22 iocos from L was conjectured by Markland and revived by A. Tovar from two Salmanticenses (S and Se) in CPh 59, 1964, 34-5; 36 Palmer's discubitus is unnecessary, since the question quaeris concubitus? would appear perfectly relevant in the context ('Though sexual intercourse is intended', Hc. 478 recognizes).

ix 29 'glaucis is one of Housman's happiest suggestions (CP I 39) in this author' (Sh. Bailey, 259), and it is accepted by Goold and H., in place of longis, but see Passerat (1608, 676), Fedeli (1965, 227) or, even better, Hutchinson (2006, 212): 'P. is probably rendering Gk. tanu/fullos / tani/fullos'; 71-2 after 74 Passerat (1608, 683 'mutanda disticha, ut sequens praecedat'), as H. says (Smyth and other editors mistakenly attribute the modification to Schneidewin and Dilthey).

xi 64 The correction by Scaliger (manu for sinu), followed by many editors (H. included), is a very easy one, but the image Propertius wishes to get across is that Cornelia's eyes were closed in the bosom of her children, in an added detail of filial love (Passerat 1608, 705 'compositi et clausi mihi oculi a vobis, cum in sinu et amplexu vextro exspiravi'; 706 'in complexu carorum emori solent et libenter homines'); cf. 1.17.12 ossaque nulla tuo nostra tenere sinu?; cf. Verg. Aen. 4.686, Ov. Met. 14.743-4 with Bömer's comm., Epiced. Drusi 95-6, Call. Epigr. 48 (Page = AP 7.728.5-6). See also Burman (1780, 911); Luck reflects the intentions of Propertius well in his translation (1996, 275): 'in euren Armen schloss ich meine Augen', as does Tovar in his edition (1963, 240; cf. Ramírez de Verger 1989, 266) 'en vuestro regazo se cerraron mis ojos'.

And now, some final considerations. First of all, if H. and Butrica are right in establishing a third branch in the textual tradition of Propertius (recensio), as reflected in a group of 15th-century manuscripts, we should accordingly and unreservedly accept the establishment of a different apparatus criticus along the lines suggested by Butrica (1984, 170-201) and H.'s edition. However, this theory has been rejected by La Penna (Gnomon 61, 1989, 120-3), Murgia (MD 45, 2000, 195-222), Giardina (2005, 14-7) and Fedeli (2005, 35). Goold (1999, 13) and Hutchinson (2006, 22) are sceptical. Whatever the case, Goold's words are incontestable: 'Whether or not we accept X (Heyworth's *L) as independent, it does not seem to make any practical contribution to the textual criticism of our author'.

Secondly, it is true that the text of Propertius has come down to us in a deplorable condition and that it is necessary to intervene whenever there are doubts regarding the reliability of the paradosis (Butrica 1997, 183), since the question is not whether to opt for a conservative or a radical approach but to decide between a search for the truth and the upholding of a comfortable credulousness (cf. Butterfield, Exemplaria Classica 12, 2008, 23, n. 67; Kenney 1974, 113-4). However, there is a limit to all things and in the noble task of conjecture hypercriticism is one such limit, and I would point to the clarifying contribution of Kenney on this danger in textual criticism ('Ut erat novator: Anomaly, Innovation and Genre in Ovid, Heroides 16-21', Adams and Mayer, Aspects of the Language in Latin Poetry, Oxford 1999, 399-414). The proposals H. makes in the text (cf. the Index below) number almost two hundred (more if we add those confined to the app. crit.), but many of them are put forward in his Cynthia in hesitant terms. I believe that one must be very sure of a conjecture, transposition, lacuna or deletion 'to be embodied in the text', to use the now-famous phrase of Butler-Barber (1933, lxx). Thus, there are doubts in Hc. which are converted into certainties in H.: e.g., on pp. 7, 34 'et would be an improvement', 41 'I follow Postgate (quidvis), partly because this is a possible solution that has been neglected', 61 'if any change is to be made, we should remove both infelicities; hence my embellishment of Baehrens's conjecture: quae cano non', 79 'much the most plausible is revolvere', 83 'I therefore prefer to postulate a lacuna between verses 23 and 24', 87 'and I print it (durus ut) 'faute de mieux'', 89 'Hesitantly I print raram', 115 'The solution, I suggest, is to suppose that et is an error for it', etc., etc., etc.

And thirdly, I do not agree with those who believe that 'Propertius' mental processes were as orderly as his critic's' (Sh. Bailey, 1956, 253) and I do believe that we should be most attentive, not only to the principles of 'reason and common sense', but to Propertius's own sensitivity towards the poetic text (cf. Burman sec. ad Lotichii Secundi Poëmata, Amstelaedami 1754, I, 267: 'sed haec sufficiant pauca, ut pateat quam periculosum facinus admittant illi, qui ad suam trutinam pensant et castigant veterum artificium, verissimumque est, notante Broukhusio, illud Jul. Caes. Scaligeri dictum, paucis mortalibus datas esse aures poëticas'). I certainly do not believe that Propertius could have written lines like Cynthia forma potens; Cynthia verna levis (also Goold 1999, 118) instead of Cynthia forma potens, Cynthia verba levis (2.5.28) or that there is any need to intervene, for example, in 1.13.8, 20.32; 2.1.48, 5.3, 15.1, 16 A.27, 19.24, 25.1, 27.1, 32.47, 33A.21; 3.4.11, 6.31, 8.31, 10.21-4, 13.59, 17.3, 21.7, 21.28; 4.2.57, 7.79, 9.29, 11.64.

Great scholars, such as Housman, Sh. Bailey or Butrica, for different reasons were not able to edit the text of Propertius. Nor should it be forgotten that Goold in his second edition of 1999 changed his mind in 68 passages or that Fedeli introduced 150 changes in his 2005 commentary on book II with respect to his Teubner edition. H. has had the courage and conviction to offer us, in spite of everything, not only a reader-friendly edition, but also a Herculean commentary (a paperback edition is announced for April 2009 at £40), which represent a great step forward in clarifying both the Propertian recensio and emendatio and we must therefore be profoundly grateful to him for having devoted so many years of study to the great poet of Assisi. We will be forever in his debt for his work, which deserves my fullest praise and respect.

APPENDIX: HEYWORTH'S READINGS

Compared with previous editions, H.'s presents many substantial differences. I believe it is worth pointing out the most important differences, and apologize for exceeding the space normally granted for reviews (Trappes-Lomax, for example, includes this useful feature for his readers in his recent textual commentary on Catullus (Swansea, 2007, 21-32). I take as my reference Goold's second edition of 1999 in the Loeb Classical Library, the most innovative to date (I cite in the first place the readings of H., indicating the proposer of each reading, and secondly Goold's). For greater clarity I begin each elegy with the numbering of each editor and go on to give the different readings.

BOOK I

i 1-11, lacuna of two lines (Housman), 12-38 / 1-38

2 Cupidinibus / cu-; 5 Puellas / pu-; 12 ferire (Heinsius on Fast. 1.287 [1661, III 17 (not.); 1742, 248, 655]) / videre; 23 vobis et sidera et umbras (Jeverus) / Manes et sidera vobis; 25 et / aut; 33 nam me (H., Goold); 36 locum / torum.

ii 1-32 / 1-32

8 formae / formam; 13 praelucent (Hertzberg) / praegaudent; 23 vulgo / fuco; 24 nimis (H.) / satis; 25 ergo (H.) / non; sim/sis.

iii 1-46 / 1-46

8 non certis / consertis; 16 et arma / tarda; 26 malaque (H.) / munera; 39 producas (recc., edd. Gryph., Heinsius, Luck) / perducas; 45 lapsam / lassam.

iv 1-28, v 1-2 (Enk) / 1-28, v 1-2

14 discere (Heinsius, Goold, Luck) / ducere.

v 3-32 / 3-32

3 meos / meae; 8 solet / sciet (not reflected in the app. crit. of H., cf. Sh. Bailey [1956, 18-9]); 20 domo (Heinsius) / domum.

vi 1-36 / 1-36

26 hanc . . . aeternae (H.) / huic . . . extremam; 27 longaevo (Fontein) / longinquo.

vii 1-10, 13-4, 11-12 (H.), 15-26 / 1-14, 23-4, 15-22, 25-6

11 laudet (H.) / laudent; solitum (Markland) / solum; 16 (quam (Heinsius) nolim nostros te violasse deos!) / quo nollem nostros me violasse deos; 26 honos (H. from honor (Rossberg) / Amor.

viii A 1-12, 15-18, 13-14 (Carutti), 19-26 / 1-12, 15-18, 13-14, 19-26

7 calcare (Passerat) / fulcire; 13 faciles (Heinsius) / talis; 19 et (Livineius) / ut; victa (Heinsius) / lecta; 21 taedae (recc., Ayrmann) / de te; 22 fata (Henry) / verba.

viii B 27-46 / 27-46

29 Livor (Luck) / livor; 43 palmis (Scaliger, Luck) / plantis.

ix 1-30, 33-4, 31-2 (deleted and relegated to the end of the poem (H.) / 1-34

1 Amores / amores; 3 taces (H.) / iaces; 4 quidvis (dub. Postgate) / quaevis.

x 1-30 / 1-30 8 luna / Luna; 13 recitare (H. 1984) calores (Guyetus, Dousa f.) / reticere dolores; 16 surdas (Heinsius) / tardas; quaecumque / quae cuique; 27 Amori / amori.

xi 1-3, lacuna (H.), 4-8, 15-16 (Housman), 9-14, 17-30 / 1-8, 15-16, 9-14, 17-30

1 tepidis (Heinsius) / mediis; 6 pectore restat amor (Heimreich) / restat amore locus; 18 veretur (Lachmann) / timetur; 21 ei (H.) / ah (Lachmann); 24 omni . . . tempore (Fontein) / omnia . . . tempora; deliciae (Fontein) / laetitiae; 30 Amoris / amoris.

xii 1-20 / 1-20

2 Cynthia (recc., Passerat) / Pontice.

xiii 1-36 / 1-36

8 primum (H.) / primo; 12 inultus (Watt 1992) / amicus; 13 quae cano non (H.) / haec non sum; 25 amores (Lachmann) / amantes; 29 digna et / dignae; 30 partu, gratior (dist. Scaliger; see also Booth CQ 56, 2006, 528-37) / partu gratior.

xiv 1-24 / 1-24

5 altas (Barber 1953) tibi tendat (Barber 1960) / satas intendat; 23 Lyda (Markland) / ulla.

xv 1-14, 17-42, 15-16 (secluded by Pescani and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-14, 17-22, 15-16, 23-42

13-14 visura dolebat, illa tamen longae / visura, dolebat illa tamen, longae; 19 illum (Burman) / illos; 21 ablata (Lachmann) / elata; 29 nam prius e (H.) / alta prius.

xvi 1-10, 13-48, 11-12 (secluded by Lachmann and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-24, 27-36, 25-6, 37-48

13 gravibus . . . querelis / gravius . . . querela; 38 ingratos . . . iocos (Enk) / irato . . . ioco; pota (Heinsius) / tanta; 40 moras, / moras?; 47 nunc . . . nunc (Francius) / nunc . . . et.

xvii 1-28 / 1-28

3 solvit (Madvig) conversa (or resupina) (H.) / salvo visura; 11 revolvere (Paldamus) / reposcere.

xviii 1-23, lacuna (H.), 24-32 / 1-32

16 turgida (Heinsius, Luck) / turpia; 21 tenera . . . umbra (Hall) / vestras . . . umbras; 22 vestris / teneris; 23 an tua quod / ah tua quot; 27 dumosi (Heinsius) / continui.

xix 1-26 / 1-26

1 manes / Manis; 5 Puer / puer; 10 Thessalus / Thessalis; 15 harum (Francius) / quarum.

xx 1-51, lacuna (H.), 52 / 1-52

1 haec / hoc; 2 quod (H.) / id; 4 durus ut (dub. Butrica 1984, 176, 187) / sic erat; 7 hunc / huic; Vmbrae sacra (Hoeufft) / Umbrae rate; 11 nympharum / Nympharum; cupida . . . rapina (edd. vett., Passerat) / cupidas . . . rapinas; 32 unus Hylas ibat (H.) / ibat Hylas, ibat; 33-35 fons . . . quem (H.) / hic . . . quam; 33 Pegae (Scaliger) / Pege; 34 nymphis / Nymphis; 52 nymphis credere / ni vis perdere. xxi 1-10 / 1-10

6 me (La Penna 1952) soror Acca (Scaliger, Luck) / haec soror acta.

xxii 1-10 / 1-10

6 sed (Palmer, Luck) / sic.

BOOK II

i 1-36, 39-48, 51-78, 37-8 (deleted by Fontein and relegated to the end by H.), 49-50 (deleted by Carutti and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-38, III ix 33-4, 39-48, 49-50 (secluded), 51-78

5 cerno (Leo, dub. Fedeli 2005) / vidi; 11 cum poscentes / compescentes; 31 tractus / attractus; 33 et (Lachmann) / aut; 40 intonat ('primus Leidensis' [Leiden BPL 133A, Butrica 1984, 340], cf. Burman 1680, 209; H., CQ 34, 1984, 399) / intonet; 48 semper (H.) / solus; 51 Thesei (dub. Burman in notis) / Phaedrae; 58 habet (Flor. i) / amat; 71 Fata / fata.

ii 1-2, lacuna (Scaliger), 3-8, lacuna (Housman), 13-16, 9-10 (extraneous to this elegy [Housman] and relegated to the end (H.), 11-2 (extraneous to this elegy [Housman] and relegated to the end (H.) / 1-8, (9-12 after xxix 28), 8a-b, 13-16

4 tibi (Heinsius) / tua; 5 it (H.) / et; 6 ut (ed. Gryphiana 1548) / et; 7 ut (H.) / ceu; 11 Mercurio sacris / Mercurio aut qualis; 13 iam, divae quas / iam, divae, quas.

iii 1-10, 13-44, 11-12 (secluded and relegated to the end by H.), 45-6 and 47-54 (fragments, cf. Lemaire, 1832, 162) / 1-10, 13-16, 11-12, 17-29, 32, 31, 30, 33-44 (45-54 ante 3.4.1)

1-4 without inverted commas / with inverted commas; 15 papilla (Dorvillius) / puella; 23 nam / non; 45 saltem (H.) / saltem ut; 47 detrectat / detractat; 50 faciles (Günther 1997, 111) / post haec.

iv fragmentary (H.): 1-4, 5-6, 7-16, 17-22 (H.) / iii 45-54, 1-8, 15-16, 11-14, 9-10, 17-22 13 comitantur (Giardina 1977) / mirantur.

v 1-30 / 1-30

3 hoc / haec; spectare (H.) / sperare; 4 alio (Burman, Luck) /aliquo; 5 tandem (Burman, Luck) / tamen; 18 mihi (H.) / tibi.

vi 1-14, lacuna (Ribbeck), 15-22, 25-6 (Enk), 23-4, 27-40, 41-2 after vii 6 (Sandbach*) / 1-16, III xviii 29-30, 17-40, 41-2 before 7.1 (Luck)

5 deiectas (codd., coni. Gebhard) / delectas; 13 laedunt / laedent; 26 quolibet ire (Schrader) / quidlibet esse; 36 male (recc., Heinsius, Luck) / mala; 39 sed (H.) / nam.

vii 1-6, vi 41-2 (Sandbach*), 7-20 / vi 41-2, 1-20

8 iure (Allen) / more; 11 ei mihi (H.), tum quales caneret tibi, Cynthia (P in ras., recc.) / ah mea tum qualis caneret tibi tibia.

viii 1-6, 9-10, lacuna (Baehrens), 17-40, 7-8 (deleted and relegated to the end (H.), 11-6 extraneous (Dietrich) and relegated to the end (H.) / 1-40

17 Properti; / Properti? ; 19 manes / Manes; 31 fugam et (H. 1984) / fuga; 38 idem (Müller, Luck) / ille.

ix 1-14, 17-20, 29-30 (Housman), 21-8, 31-6, 41-8, 15-16 (deleted by Carutti and relegated to the end by H.), 37-40 (extraneous and relegated to the end by H.), 49-52 (marked as extraneous by Walker and relegated to the end by H.) / ix A 1-20, 29-30, 31-48 and ix B 49-52 (fragment)

13 adusti (H.) / tanti; 15 cum tibi / cui tum (Housman).

x lacuna (Lachmann), 1-26 / lacuna, 1-26

11 ex humili iam carmine; (H.) / ex humili; iam, carmina; 23 culmen (Passerat ex codice quodam Memmii hodie deperdito) / currum (Markland); 25 montes (Butrica 1996) / fontes.

xi lacuna (Lachmann), 1-6 / lacuna, 1-6.

xii 1-24 / 1-24

11 tutos (H.) / tuti.

xiii 1-16, lacuna (Schrader), 17-58 / 1-58

1 armatur Itura (recc., Pontanus, Passerat, Hanslik) / armantur Susa; 11 iuuat (PBT, Burman, Luck) / iuuet; 32 manes / Manes; 37 hinc (Burman in notis) / haec; 40 huc iterum (Kiessling, Fedeli 2005, 379 and 400) / hoc iter; 44 saevis (Heinsius, cf. Burman 1680, 302) de tribus una soror / quaevis de Tribus una Soror!; 45 servatur (recc., Puccius) / servetur; 47 cui si (recc., Hanslik) / qui si; 48 Iliacus Grais (Bergk) / saucius Iliacis; 53 qui / cui; 57 manes / Manes.

xiv 1-32 / 1-10, 13-14, 11-12, 15-32

26 munere (recc., Scaliger, Luck) / nomine.

xv 1-2, 7-10, 3-6 (Carutti), 11-38, 41-54, 39-40 (deleted by Guenther and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-54

1 io . . . io nox . . . io (Housman) / o . . . nox o . . . et o; 10 ista . . . meis (H.) / nostra . . . tuis; 27 vinctae / iunctae; 35 calores (Vat. Chig. H IV 123, Volscus, Beroaldus, Luck) / dolores; 47 me (recc., Heinsius) / haec.

xvi A 1-6, lacuna (Enk), 7-10.

xvi B (Havet) 15-6, 11-2 (Fontein), 17-24, 27-8 (Keil), 25-6, 31-40, 43-6, 29-30 (Carutti), 47-56, 41-2 (marked as extraneous by Fontein and relegated to the end by H.) / xvi 1-12, 17-8, 13-28, 31-46, 29-30, 47-56

34 Musa (PTS, Rothstein) / mensa; 39 Amor / amor; 49 tonitrus (Francius) / sonitus.

xvii fragments: 1-2, lacuna (Tremenheere), 3-10, 11-12 and 15-18, 13-4 (deleted by Günther [1997, 20 and 127] and relegated to the end by H. / after xxii 50: xxii 43-50, xvii 1-2, 13-4, 3-18, 18.1-4

14 nostras . . . manus / nostram necem; 15 libet (Guyetus) / licet.

xviii fragments: 1-4, 5-8+13-14+9-12+15-20 (end of the elegy), 21-2, 23-6+31-2 (Lachmann)+27-30, lacuna+35-6, 33-4, 37-8 / xviii A (1-4 after 17.18) 5-8, 13-4, 9-22 + xviii B 23-6, 31-2, 27-30, 33-8

5 iam actis aetas canesceret (H. 1984) / canis aetas candesceret; 9 undis (codd., Pinotti, cf. Hc. 187) / ulnis; 29 deme mihi / desine! mi.

xix 1-32 / 1-32

10 fanave (Guyetus) / fanaque; 18 Veneri / Veneris; 20 movere / monere; 24 tangere (H. 1984) / fallere (Watt); 25 sua formoso (Postgate) / formosa suo; 29 sic / hic.

xx 1-34 (end of the elegy), 35-6 (omitted by cod. Gron., deleted by Jacob and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-36

7 Niobae . . . superbae (codd., Luck) / Niobe . . . superba; 8 lacrima sollicito (Phillimore) defluit / sollicito lacrimas depluit; 9 me / mi; vincula (Jeverus) / bracchia; 12 insiliamque (dub. Burman in notis) / transiliamque; 23 numquam non (Keil) / non numquam; 24 numquam non (S) / non numquam; 28 tum me, vel tragicae, vexetis, Erinyes, et me / tum me vel tragicae vexetis Erinyes, et me; 31 sitque . . . iacere (or ligari, H.) / atque . . . vagetur; 33 nec / ne (Camps); 35 hoc . . . ius / haec . . . laus.

xxi 1-20 / 1-20 17 nunc quoque quid restat? (dub. Burman in notis) / huic quoque, qui restet.

xxii A 1-10, 13-20 and xxii B (Hall*) 35-40, lacuna (H.), 41-42, lacuna (H.), 21-34 (end of the elegy), fragments (43-50 [recc.], 11-2) / xxii A 1-10, 13-24, 11-12, 25-42 (43-50 constitute the beginning of xxvii, placed after xxii)

4 et nimis (H.) / o nimis; 39 irata . . . ministro / ingrata . . . cubili; 43 sive es (H., Goold); 48 quae (codd.) non venerit (recc.)

ipsa (Guyetus) / quasi non noverit, illa non noverit ille; 50 dicere plura / promere furta.

xxiii = xxiii 1-24, xxiv 1-16, / xxiii 1-24, xxiv 1-10, xxiv A 11-16

1 fuit indocti fugienda / fugienda fuit indocti; haec semita (recc., Burman, Hertzberg) / semita; 4 promissa / commissa; 7 pertulerit (Ayrmann) / pertuleris; 8 haec (Guyetus) scribet (H.) / ut scribat; 10 immundae . . . casae (Heinsius) / immunda . . . casa; 11 venerit (H.) / vertitur; 12 quas (recc., Wassenbergh) / quos; 14 custodum (Hemsterhusius) / custodum et; 21 immisit / mihi misit; 22 capiant (ΠΛ, Luck) / iuverint; 23 clam (Scheidweiler) / iam; 24 liber erit, viles (or multas, H.) / nullus liber erit; xxiv 1 sic (Baehrens) / tu; 4 ingenuo est (Munro) / ingenuis; 5 tam / iam; 8 darem / daret (Barber); 12 duram . . . pilam (Luck 1979, 82) / durae . . . pilae; 13 subit iratam (Heinsius) / cupit interdum.

xxiv B 17-22, lacuna (Mueller), 23-46, 49-52, 47-8 (secluded by Postgate and relegated to the end by H.) / xxiv B17-22, 47-8, 23-46, 49-52

27 libet taetra venena (Hendry 1996) / taetra venena libens; 35 tu mea / tum me; 46 viro est (H.) / viro; 49 offerre (Heinsius) / consuesse; 51 hic / hi; in (Lachmann) / ut.

xxv 1-30, 33-44, lacuna (H.), 45-8, 31-2 (marked as suspect by Baehrens and relegated to the end by H., Hc. 219) / 1-48

2 line in parentheses (Luck) / no parentheses; fuit (Watt 1992) / vehit; 9 deducet / diducet; 14 aves? / aves.; 17 amator (Heinsius) / amor qui; 35 antiqua his grata (Dousa f.) / antiquis grata; 39 renovatis (Barber) / revocatis; 41vidistis / vidisti; 43 patria (H.) Argivas (Barber) / quandam Argiva; 47 suis (Foster) / tuis; 48 semicolon after cuivis / unpunctuated; malum (Carutti) / mala.

xxvi A 1-20, 21-6 (fragment [van Lennep 1747, 125]), 27-8 (deleted by Jeverus and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-20, xxvi B 21-8

1 vidi ego te (γ, Burman) / vidi te; 23 gaza Midae (Palmer) / iam Gygae; munera (Camps) / flumina.

xxvi B 29-58 / xxvi C 29-58

39 montes duo (Palmer) / duo litora; 47 quaerit (H.) / ferret; 49 nam (Vahlen) deus amplexae (Postgate) / quam deus amplexus; 51 negabit (Livineius) / negavit; 57 pro (Havet) / sit.

xxvii lacuna (Richmond), 1-9, lacuna (H.), 10-6 / 1-16

6 terrae / terrent; 7 flemus / fles tu; 8 dubius (H.) / dubias; 9 domibusque / metuisque.

xxviii 1-20, 23-32, 35-46, 33-4 (H.), 47-56, 59-62, 21-2 (deleted by Heimreich and relegated to the end by H.), 57-8 (excluded by Fontein and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-32, 35-46, 33-4, 47-56 (57-8 after 3.18.24), 59-62

5 neque (recc., Guyetus) / non; 10 semper (Markland) / prae se; 11 templa / planta; 12 Pallados / Palladis; 15 per / post; 16 hora / aura; 37 luna / Luna; 47 et (H. 1984, Goold); 51 Antiope / Antiope est.

xxix A 1-22 / xxix A 1-22.

xxix B 23-8, lacuna (Richardson 1976), 29-42 / 23-8, ii 9-12, 29-42

27 intactae (Postgate) / hinc castae; 37 e (Liberman 1992) / in; 41 excludor (Guyetus, Broukhusius, Heinsius) / deludor.

xxx fragments: 1-10, lacuna (Sh. Bailey), 11-12, 19-22, 13-18, lacuna, 23-40 / xxx A 19-22, 1-12 and xxx B 13-18, 23-40

7 semper Amor supra caput improbus instat (H.) / instat semper Amor supra caput, instat; 8 ipse (codd., Luck) / ipsa; 18 Pallados / Palladis; 20 sola (Knauth) / rauca; 33 virginibus / Virginibus.

xxxi + xxxii: 1-4, lacuna (H.), 5-16, xxxii 7-10, 1-6, 11-62 / xxxi, xxxii 1-16, xxxii 7-10, 1-6, 11-62

8 quattuor, artificis vivida signa, boves / quattuor artifices, vivida signa, boves; 10 vel (Bergk) / et; xxxii 3 Preaeneste in (Lachmann) / Praenesti; 13 creber platanis / platanis creber; 15 sonitus (H. 1994) nymphis tota crepitantibus urbe / sonitus lymphis toto crepitantibus orbe; 23 manavit (Giardina 1977) / maledixit (Schneidewin); 25 attendere (H.) / credere; 28 manere (Liberman 1992) / videre; 34 non (recc., Hertzberg) / nec; 35 deam (Clausen 2000) / illam (Barber); 44 facit? / facit! ; 45 iam ante illam impune (H.) / ante illam iam impune; 47 Tatium veterem (H., Goold); 53 et / at; dum (H.) / cum; 54 at (recc., Vulpius) / et; 61 si tu es (H. from seu tu es Luck 1964).

xxxiii A 1-22 / 1-22

5-6 amantes? quaecumque, illa suis (Housman*) semper amara fuit / amantes, quaecumque illa, semper amara fuit.

xxxiii B 25-6 (Reedy*), 23-4, 27-40 (end of the elegy, H.), 41-2 (fragment, H.), 43-4 (fragment, H.) / 23-40, xxxiii C 43-44, 41-2 23 me (recc.) ecfundere (Housman*, Watt 1992) / mea ludere; 36 i (Birt 1911) / iam.

xxxiv 1-66, 77-80 (Ribbeck), 67-76, 81-2, 85-94, 83-4 (deleted and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-46, 51-4, 47-50, 55-66, 77-80, 67-76, 81-94

8 virum est / virum; 12 tu (Markland, Luck) / in; 15 socium (Cornelissen) / dominum; 16 dominum (Cornelissen) / socium; 20 quod falso (H. 1984) / et in nullo (Heinsius); 31 potius (Schrader) memorem Musis / satius Musam leviorem; Philitan / Philitae (Santenius); 39 Amphiaraëae (recc., Unger) nil (Muretus, Luck) prosint (recc.) / non Amphiareae prosint tibi; 45 aut (Stroh 1971) / tu; 46 nostra (H.) / recta; 52 frenatis (Allen 1975) luna / fraternis Luna; 59 me iuvat (PJC, Luck) / me iuvet; 61 Vergilio est (Baehrens) / Vergilio; custodis / cordi sit (Butrica 1997); 85, 87, 89 sic . . . sic . . .. sic (H.) / haec . . . haec . . . haec; 83 aut sim <. . .. . .. . .. . .> / aut sit minor ore, canorus.

BOOK III

i 1-38 / 1-38

1 manes / Manes; 7 in armis. / in armis!; 22 honos / Honos; 29 Pulydamantos (Postgate) / Pulydamantis.

ii 1-26 / 1-26

3 detinuisse / delenisse; 5 Thebanam (Heinsius) / Phoebeam; 16 et / nec.

iii 1-52 / 1-51

6-12 no parentheses / in parentheses; 41 ne (Passerat) / nil; 48 morae (H.) / fugae.

iv 1-13, lacuna, 17-8, lacuna (H.), 14-16, 19-22 / 1-13, 18, 17, 14-16, 19-22

4 tua / nova; 8 ad (Eldikius) / et; equos (Baehrens; armigeros . . . equos, already in Hertzberg 1702, 266) / equi; 11 sanctae (Postgate) / sacrae.

v 1-39, 42, 41, 40 (Housman), 43-8 / 1-2, 5, 4, 3, 6-39, 42, 41, 40, 43-8

2 stant / sat; 9 in arto (Housman) / in arte; 11 incauti (Alton) / in tantum; 14 at (Schrader, Luck) / in; 27 decidit (Hutchinson 1986) / defici; 31 si (recc., Volscus 1482, alii) / sit; arcem / arces; 39 si (recc., Lachmann) / sint; 47 superest / superet.

vi 1-2, 5-12, 3-4, lacuna (H.), 13-42 / 1-2, 5-8, 3-4, 9-11, 14, 13, 12, 15-42

9 sic illam (Havet) / sicin eram; 13 et (Keil) / ac; lacertis, / lacertis?; 19 sono. / sono?; 28 exsucis (Burman) / exsuctis; 29 recentia (Heinsius) / iacentia; 30 raptaque (H.) / cinctaque; 40 ipse (Housman) / esse; 41 tanto / e tanto.

vii 1-8, 29-36, 19-20 (Housman), 37-42, 47-53, 52, 51, 54-64, 17-18, 65-66, 43-46 (H.), 67-70, 13-16 (Postgate), lacuna, 11-12, 9-10 (H.), 25-28 (Carutti), 71-72, 21-24 (deleted by Willymot and relegated to the end by H.); / 1-8, 43-50, 53, 52, 51, 54-66, 17-18, 9-16, 67-70, 25-36, 19-24, 37-42, 71-72

1 vitae es / vitae; 33 Penates / penates; 47 nunc tulit (Barber) et (H.) / noluit hoc; 50 effultum est (H.) / effultum; 57 Aegaei et (Voss) / Aegaei; aequora venti / aequora, venti,; 66 ultimaque haec (Beroaldus) / ultima quae; 43 patrio / patrios.

viii 1-2, 5-8, 3-4 (H.), 9-24, 27-34, 37-40, 25-6 (secluded by Dorvillius and relegated to the end by H.), 35-6 (deleted by Burman and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-2, 5-8, 3-4, 9-40

13 grege si (Butrica 1984, 85) / grege seu; 14 Maenas ut icta vias / maenas ut icta, vias; 31 Dardanus (dub. Heinsius 1742, 722) / barbarus.

ix 1-20, 23-34, 21-2 (H.), 35-46, 57-8 (H.), 47-56, 59-60 / 1-32, 33-4 after II i 38, 35-48, 51, 50, 49, 52-60

7 nervis (Palmer) / rerum; 8 haec ex quo (Sandstroem) / ex aequo; illa (recc., Reid) / ulla; 11 ponit / poscit; 12 iocum (Lachmann) / locum; 17 contingit (Vannini) / concurrit; 23 tu cum (H.) / cum tibi; 25 arcus (Helvetius) / hastas; 37 tepentes (H. in Morgan, CQ 36, 1986, 188-9, n. 28) / paternos; 38 septem (Lipsius) / semper; 48 Oromedonta / Eurymedonta; 59 nunc (H.) / hoc; laudes (H.) / laudis.

x 1-32 / 1-32

1 risissent (Passerat) / visissent; 12 praesentes ('quidam libri teste Passerat' [Barth 1777, 221], Luck) / poscentes; 13 ac / at; 21 surgat (Cornelissen) / currat; 24 adsint (H.) / et sint; 25 convicia (Broukhusius ut vid., cf. Burman 1780, 582) / convivia.

xi 1-4, 7-57, lacuna, 58 (omitted as in N), 65-8 (Housman), 59-64, 69-72, 5-6 (deleted by Georg* and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-57, 58 (stat non humana deicienda manu), 65-8, 59-64, 69-72

10 armifera (Livineius) / armigera; 17 quin etiam (Heinsius) / Omphale; 22 et . . . sustulit (Giardina 2005, 272) / ut . . . tolleret; 23 ut (Puccius [attributed by Hanslik and Giardina to N]) / et; 29 qui (Baehrens) / quae; 32 patres. / Patres?; 35 tua (Hoeufft) / ubi; 37 quam ibi (H.) / tibi; 38 sua . . . erat (Butrica 1993) / tua . . . eras; 40 Philippei sanguinis usta (H.) / Philippeo sanguine adusta; 41 nostro est (H.) / nostro; Anubin / Anubim; 52 accepere tuae / nec cepere tuae; 56 dixerat (Housman) / dixit et; 58 omitted by N / stat non humana deicienda manu; 65 condiderant / condiderunt; 59 [fera tela] (H.) / monumenta; 70 tantum operis belli / tanti operis bellum; 5 venturam / ventorum; mortem / morem.

xii 1-38 / 1-38

7 immunda (H.) / iniecta; 17 marito (Heinsius) / timore; 28 alterna . . . aqua (dub. Camps 2001, 114) / alternas . . . aquas; saeva (Faltin) / scissa; 34 lyras (H.) / lacus.

xiii 1-37, lacuna, 39-40, lacuna (H.), 38, 41-66 / 1-66

8 culti messor (Fontein) / multi pistor; 9 puellas (Markland) / pudicas; 21 gaudent (Stephanus, Enk) / ardent; 35 iunctos (Sh. Bailey) / stratos; 37 lentis (Baehrens) / laetas; 39 Arcadii (Hertzberg) / atque adeo (Watt); 42 dextris (H.) . . . focis / vestri . . . foci; 53 mons / mox; 59 falsus (recc.) / verus; 61 nempe (Housman*) Ilia / neque vilia; 62 Pergamei . . . mali (Housman*, Luck 1964); Maenas / maenas.

xiv 1-16, lacuna (H.), 17-34 / 1-10, 15-6, 11-4, 17-34

5 flectit (H.) / fallit; 14 turma (Gulielmius, Heinsius, Ramírez de Verger 1989, 209, Luck) / turba; vagatur agris (Heinsius) / lavatur aquis; 23 est ulli (dub. Broukhusius 1702, 289) / aut ulla est; 31 sint / sit; dent verba (Enk) / sit acerba (Burman sen.).

xv 3-10, 45-6 (Fisher), 1-2 (H.), 43-4 (Vulpius), 11-42 / 1-46

4Amoris / amoris; 7 iam (Postgate) / cum; 11 vero / vano (Franz); 33 subtractae (Richardson 1976) / sollicito (Nairn); 35 sera tamen, pietas / sera, tamen pietas; 39 tibi gloria; Dirce / tibi gloria Dirce; 40 obitura (Heinsius) / habitura.

xvi 1-14, 19-20 (Struchtmeyer), 15-18, 21-30 / 1-14, 19-20, 15-18, 21-30

7 haec distulero / distulero haec; 12 media . . . via / medias . . . vias; quis (Watt 1992) / his; 20 ecce suis (Fisher) it (Dorvillius) / et cuius sit; 16 concutit (Francius) / praecutit; 21 casus / cursus; 22 talis / tali.

xvii 1-2, 7-8 (H.), 3-6, 9-42 / 1-42

7 amoris (Burman) / in astris; 12 animum (recc., Puccius) / animos; 15-16 colles . . . vites, quas (Guyet) / vites . . . colles, quos; 24 et triplici funera grata gregi (H.) / in triplices funera rapta (Scaliger) greges; 29 onerabo (recc., Passerat) / onerato; 38 libabit (Foster) / libatum.

xviii 1-8, lacuna (Guyetus), 9-28, 31-4, 29-30 (extraneous here, according to Scaliger, and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-24, II xxviii 57-8, 25-28, (29-30 after II vi 16), 31-3

1 ludit / tundit; 2 fumida[que exundant] (H.) / fumida Baiarum; 3 Euboica tubicen Troianus (dub. Heinsius, 1742, 733) / et Troiae tubicen Misenus; 5 olim, [Hesperias] (H.) / ubi, mortales; 9 his pressus / Marcellus; 14 maturas (Barber) / maternas; 19 omnia conchis / ostra smaragdis; 22 via (recc., Burman) / via est; 31 qui / quo (Jacob); 32 hac (Guyetus) / huc.

xix 1-14, 17-20, 15-6 15-6 (Postgate), 21-8 / 1-28

19 [tuum facinus] (Housman) / Clytaemestrae; 22 tondens purpuream (Markland, Luck), regna paterna, comam (Markland, Luck) / tondes purpurea regna paterna coma; 24 Amor (Luck) / amor.

xx 1-14, 19-20 (Lachmann), 15-8, 21-30 / 1-10, 13-14, 11-12, 19-20, 15-18, 21-30 5 stulta, deos/stulta adeo es; 22 vigilata (Palmer) / vigilanda; 25 tacta sic . . . ara (Heinsius) / tactis haec . . . aris.

xxi 1-34 / 1-34

4 Amor / amor; 6 possit / posset; exsomnis (Barber) / ex omni; usque (Heinsius) / ipse; 7 bis (Cornelissen) / vix; 10 Amor / amor; 19 Lechaei (Guyetus, Luck) / Lachaeo; 22 isthmos / Isthmos; 25 in (H.) spatiis (Broukhusius) / vel stadiis; 28 munde (Kuinoel) / culte; 31 aut / et.

xxii 1-5, lacuna, 15-16, lacuna, 6 (H.), 7-14, 17-36, 39-42, 37-8 (deleted by Knoche and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-6, 15-16, 7-14, 17-36, lacuna, 37-42

3 e vite (Haupt, Luck) / in vite; 15 sive et (H.) / si tibi; 6 et / nec; 9 Geryonae (recc., Volscus) / Geryonis; 11 Phasin / Phasim; 13 immissa (H. 1986) / Argoa; 38 curvatas / curtatas; sua / fera.

xxiii 1-24 / 1-24

6 atque eaedem (Heinsius) / et quaedam; 14 bene (recc., Guyetus, Luck) / bona; 16 paravit / parabit (Heinsius); 18 ducitur / dicitur; iocis (recc., Heinsius) / dolis.

xxiv 1-8, 11-14, 9-10 (Tremenheere), 15-20, xxv 1-12, 15-18, 13-14 (interpolated from Tib. 1.8.45 and relegated to the end by H.) / xxiv 1-20, xxv 1-18

2 elegis (Schrader) . . . meis / oculis . . . tuis (Burman); 6 cum (Dousa f.) / ut; Amor / amor; 11 haec / hoc; nunc . . . nunc (H.) / non. . . non; 12 verba loquebar (H.) / vera fatebor; xxv 6 ad insidias (Baehrens) / ab insidiis.

BOOK IV

i A 1-18, lacuna (H.), 21-38, 55-6 (Lange), 39-52, 87-8 (Mueller), 53-4, 61-2 (H.), 57-60, 63-70, 19-20 (deleted and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-33, 36, 35, 34, 37-40, 47-8, 41-6, 49-52, 87-8, 53-70

4 concubuere / procubuere; 7 pater / Pater; 8 murus (H. 1986) / bubus; 9 nunc (H.) / qua; se sustulit; olim / se sustulit olim; 11 curia / Curia; 12 patres / Patres; 23 pauca (Lachmann) / parva; 33 Vrbe / urbe; 38 putat / putet; 45 tunc / hinc; 46 venit et ipsa, sui Caesaris arma Venus (Hollis) / vexit et ipsa sui Caesaris arma Venus; 52 lata (H.) / vera; 88 candida regna (Murgia 1989) canam / regna superba cano; 65 si quis / quisquis; cernet (F, Hutchinson 2006) / cernit; 19 celebrare / celebrante.

i B 71-81, 82 Iuppiter <. . .> (Sandbach*) obliquae signa iterate rotae, 83-6, 89-124, 127-50, 125-6 (interpolated [Richmond] and relegated to the end [H.]) / 71-6, 83-4, 77-82, 89-102, 85-6, 103-40, 143-4, 141-50

77 Orops / Horops; 81 fallitur / fallimus; 94 bene . . . sibi (H.) / sibi . . . bene; equo / equum; 103 haec / hoc; 112 Atrides / Atridis; 113 tu diruta fletum / tu, diruta, fletum; 119 devehor (recc., edd. vett., Hutchinson 2006) / devehar; 128 Lares / lares; 135 fallax / pellax; 139 pararis (Murgia 1989) / parasti; 141 decusserit (H., ut vid.: Hc. 432) / decusseris (Broukhusius); 142 ipsa (H.) suo / ansa tuo.

ii 1-12, 19-44, 13-18 (H.), 45-7, lac., 51-4, lac., 48-50 (H.), 55-64 / 1-4, 51-4, 49-50, 55-56, 5-12, 19-32, 35-6, 33-4, 37-42, 13-18, 43-8, 57-64

2 paterna dei / fatente deo; 4 proelia / proelis (typographical error, ut vid.); 6 forum / Forum; 9 stagnum (Housman*) / spatium; 10 Vertumnus / Vertamnus; 12 Vertumni / Vertanni; 19 falsa es (Lachmann) / alius; 34 Faunus (recc., Heinsius) / fautor; 35 Vertumnus / cum verbere; 40 scirpiculis (recc., ed. Ven.) / sirpiculis (recc., Burman); 52 atque / quoque; 57 suberunt (H.) / superant; 60 pauper pauper (H.) / grata pauper. iii 1-36, 39-40, lacuna (H.), 51-6 (H.), 41-50, 57-72, 37-8 (deleted and relegated to the end, H.) / 1-72

8 ferreus (Postgate) / Persicus; 10 ustus / tu[n]sus; 11 foedera nobis (Watt 1992) / munera nuptae; 34 lecta (Heinsius) / secta; tuas (Lee 1994, 110 'for your parade cloak') / suo; 53 limina (Heinsius) / omnia; Kalendis / kalendis; 56 tori . . . tuam (H.) / tui . . . toro; 46 issem (Heinsius) / essem; 49 rapto (Hoeufft) / adempto; 72 salva (Burman ad v. 61 on p. 763) / grata.

iv 1-2, 9-14 (Sh. Bailey), 7-8 (Postgate), 3-6 (Baehrens), 15-16, 19-86, 17-8 (Housman), 87-94 / 1-2, 9-10, 13-14, 11-2, 3-8, 15-16, 19-82, 85-6, 83-4, 87-92, 17-8, 93-4

2 nemus / scelus; 11 namque (H.) / atque; 12 foro / Foro; 14 e vivo (Waardenburgh) / ex illo; 7 fontem / contra; 15 hunc (Canter) / hinc; fontem / laticem; libarat (Fontein) / libavit; 27 cumque (H. 1999) / dumque; 29 sua Tarpeia / Tarpeia sua; 30 vicinae . . . Iovis (H. 1999) / vicino Iovi; 47 potabitur (Palmer, Luck) / pigrabitur; 48 tu / tum; 50 semper / caespes; 52 hanc (Baehrens) / haec; 55 dic (Passerat) / sic; spatierne / spatiorne; 73 urbi / Urvi; 77sacros (Passerat) / raros; 83 ascensu / ascensus (Jacob); dubius / dapibus (Jacob); 88 ipsa / ipse; 94 iniustae . . . sortis / iniuste . . . mortis (dub. Lachmann).

v 1-19, lacuna (Richardson 1976), 20-54, 55-6 (omitted), 57-78 / 1-28, 45-6, 31-44, 29-30, 47-54, 55-6 (omitted), 57-78

2 perpetuam (H. 1999) / quod non vis; 3 manes / Manes; 7 quae (Guyetus) / quoque; 19 verbis / tenebris; tu (Barber) blanda peruris (H. 1999) / ceu blatta papyron; 20 saxosamque / suffosamque; terat (recc., Beroaldus) / forat; turba (Vat. Barberinianus VIII 23) / talpa; 21 si te Eoa lecta lapis / chrysolithus si te Eoa; 29 moram (Lütjohann) / virum; 61 odoratum . . . Paestum (Schippers, Luck) / odorati . . . Paesti; 71 fuerint (Graevius, Luck) / fuerunt (Passerat); 74 claustra (recc., Beroaldus, Rothstein) / clatra.

vi 1-86 / 1-86

17 celebrant (H.) / Leucas; 18 nunc onerata via est (H.) / non operosa via; 20 pinea; / pinea,; 28 nam / non; 45 audent prope / audent: pro; 49 quodque / quotque; 55 hostes (H.) / arcus; 72 blandae utrimque (Lachmann) / blanditiaeque; 75 irritet / irritat; 79 confectum (Livineius) / confessum; 80 reddit (recc., Ayrmann) / reddat; 81 aequus (Housman) / aliquid.

vii 1-96 / 1-40, 47-8, 41-6, 49-96

1 manes / Manes; 2 exstinctos (Passerat) / evictos; 11-2 (at illi . . . manus) / at illi . . . manus; 19 trivio est (H.) / trivia; 23 euntes / eunti; 33 hocne (Hall*) / hoc; 57-8 cumba (Rossberg) Clytaemestram (Lütjohann) stuprumve in Tartara (Weidgen) Cressae / portat mentitae lignea monstra bovem (Postgate) / unda Clytaemestrae stuprum vehit altera, Cressam / portans mentitam lignea monstra bovis; 59 vecta (recc., Hanslik) / rapta; 64 foedera (Heinsius) / pectora; 79 tumulo mihi, quae / tumulo, mihi quae; ramosis . . . pomifer / pomosis . . . spumifer.

viii 1-18, 21-88, 19-20 (deleted by Butler and relegated to the end by H.) / 1-2, 19-20, 3-8, 11-2, 9-10, 13-18, 21-88.

4 ubi / tibi; 5 nam (H.) / qua; 6 qua / hac; virgo (tale iter omen habet) Housman*) / (virgo, tale iter omne cave!); 10 tenera (recc., Scal.) / temere; raditur (Cornelissen) / creditor; 17 dic, quaeso / dic quaeso; 23 sed vaga iam (Bonazzi) / serica nam; 31 inter stat (H.) / est inter; 39 Nile, tuus tibicen erat / Miletus tibicen erat; Orontes (Morgan*) / Byblis; 41 contractus / concretus; 72 cum / cui; 76 forum / Forum; 78 nudet (Koch) / se det; operta (recc., Koch) / aperta; 82 risit et (H. from risit at Burman) / riserat); 84 suffiit et (recc., Beroaldus) / suffiit ac; 88 res pacta (Mueller) / despondi (Puccius); toto / noto (Heinsius).

ix 1-41, lacuna (Scal.), 65, 66 (= 42) [65-6 transp. Jacob], 43-64, 67-70, 73-4, 71-2 (Passerat) / 1-41, 42 (et gemere abstractum Dite vetante canem?), 65-6, 43-70, 73-4, 71-2

5 quoque / quaque; 11 manifestaque (Luck 1962) / manifestae; 13 deo furtum est (H. 1986) / deo : furem; 18 quaesiti (H., Goold); 20 forum / Forum; 24 murus (Fontein) / lucus; saepserat (Fontein) / fecerat; 36 suscepto / succepto; 40 notas (recc., Broukhusius) / vastas; 43 etsi (H.) / quodsi; 45 autem (H.) / aliquam.

x 1-48 / 1-22, 25-6, 23-4, 27-48

5 primus (Jeverus) / primae; 6 exuviis (recc.) / exuvio; 15 hic / haec; 18 Lare / lare; 19 equus (Guyetus) / eques; 23 inficitur (Phillimore 1916) / insequitur; 32 ab hoste (H.) petit (Heinsius) / ab urbe dedit; 34 vineaque inductum (recc., Volscus, Beroaldus) / vinea qua ductum; 39 Eridano (Passerat) / at Rheno; 42 nobilis (recc., Schuster) / mobilis; evectis (Rothstein) / e rectis; 46 ipse (Damsté) / ense; 47 huc (Broukhusius) / haec.

xi 1-32, 43-4 (Peerlkamp), 33-6, lacuna (H.), 65-6 (H.), 37-42, 45-62, 97-8 (Peerlkamp), 63-4, 67-8, 71-2 (Baehrens), 69-70, 73-96, 99-102 / 1, 6-7, 4-5, 2-3, 8-60, 65-6, 61-2, 97-8, 63-4, 67-8, 71-96, 69-70, 99-102

3 leges / sedes; 8 umbrosos . . . locos (recc., Markland) / eversos . . . rogos; invida (Boot) Parca (Markland) / lurida porta; 9 sat (Dousa pater) / sic; 13 Parcas? / Parcas:; 15 nocti (Sandbach) / tenebris; sedes (Butrica 1984, 199-200) / et vos; Acherontis (Butrica 1984, 200) / paludes; 16 aut (H.) / et; unda / ulva; 27 loquor / loquar; 31 materni hos (Heyne) / maternos; 66 consule quo, fausto (Peerlkamp) tempore, / consul quo factus tempore; 39 et <. . .. . .. . .. . .., et illum> (H.) / et, Persen proavi stimulat dum pectus Achilli,; 41 nec / neque; 53 cuius / cui; sacros (Rothstein) / sacra suos; 61 generosos / generosae; 64 manu (Scaliger) / sinu; 73 natos / Paulle; 82 reddita (Graevius) / credita; 89 laudate: nimis collate / laudate nimis: collate; 103 aquis / avis.⁵

---

Notes:

1.   And if we prefer to go back to older editions, 'Google books' will give us access to a number of editions and commentaries (e. g., Broukhusius, 1702; Barth, 1777; the 'Notae variorum ex editione Graevii at Propertii opera omnia ex editione Kuinoelis. . . in usum Delphini', 1822; Jacob, 1827; Paldamus, 1827; Lemaire, 1832; Hertzberg, 1845).
2.   I ix 26 (H. 15) es must be a typographical error, as Hc. (523) translates 'once a woman is yours'; xiii 8 (H. 19) read -o, not -us in the app. crit.; xv 29-32 (H. 23) read alienos for alicnos; II xxii B 35 (H. 71) read ministret, not minstret; IV vi, not v (H. 168); straightforward, not staight- (Hc. 84); at Hc. 158 there should, I believe, be a comma, not a full stop, after 'others' at the end of l. 20.
3.   The apparatus criticus does not include the manuscripts' later hands, and the numerous conjectures presented in the apparatus come from the indispensable Thesaurus by Smyth (1970), from later scholars cited in the bibliography, or from unpublished conjectures by scholars, which are marked by an asterisk. To these must be added the conjectures that Housman noted down in his copy of the 1880 edition by Baehrens (Hc. xi-xii) but never got round to publishing (made public here for the first time).
4.   Hanslik's edition of 1979 (cf. Kenney, CR 31, 1981, 201; La Penna, Gnomon 54, 1982, 516) is very useful in this regard, since the chronological system of Greek lettering as used by Mynors for Catullus and by Butrica in some of the elegies of Propertius seems to me just as imprecise as that used by H. and other editors.
5.  This review has been translated from the Spanish by J. J. Zoltowski. Thanks are due to the Spanish MEC (FFI2008-01843) and the Junta de Andalucía (HUM2005-04375) for their financial support. I am deeply grateful to Professors G. Luck and L. Rivero García for their many valuable suggestions and corrections. The remaining errors are all my own.

(read complete article)

2009.07.22

Version at BMCR home site
Anne-Maria Wittke, Eckart Olshausen, Richard Szydlak, Historischer Atlas der antiken Welt. Der Neue Pauly. Supplemente Band 3. Stuttgart/Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 2007. Pp. xix, 308. ISBN 978-3-476-02031-4. €179.95.
Reviewed by Richard J. A. Talbert, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

John Pendlebury (1904-1941), archaeologist and hero in the Boy's Own Paper mold, was right when he warned of the passion that maps can generate: "Never if you can help it display a map before a Greek," he advises on the opening page of his Travelling Hints, explaining: "I did so once and the man leapt at me with a short howl, yelled for his friends who promptly appeared from nowhere, and with them tore the map from my hand. Within a minute they had settled down to a five days' quarrel over the places mentioned on it, a business no less keen because one half could not read Latin characters and the other half could not read at all. Within five minutes the map was unrecognizable."¹

To be sure, the present set of maps is far from meriting such uncouth treatment, even if it ultimately fails to fulfill the initial high expectations raised by the volume's handsome appearance. It is, after all, a substantial component of a major encyclopedia project (Der Neue Pauly), in outsize format, its maps lavishly presented in an extensive color palette, and its three co-editors all established figures in the fields of ancient history and cartography. In chronological scope the atlas aims to match DNP, with a span from the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia to the fall of Constantinople in AD 1453. The core comprises 127 pages of maps in color; these are grouped broadly speaking by successive time periods, except for a cluster at the start relating to worldview and exploration (pp. 2-9, the worldviews re-created very traditionally, and all oriented North according to modern convention). Typically, each map page is paired with a facing page of text and bibliography relating to the area or theme mapped; space is also found on these text pages to accommodate 44 other maps of varying size, all of them uncolored. Frontmatter is brief: preface (one page); table of contents (4 pp.); breakdown of the maps by area, culture and period (3 pp.); guidance on use of the atlas, and its transcription of alphabets (2 pp.); abbreviations (5 pp.). Endmatter comprises the continuation of bibliography and tables too extensive to fit within the core of the atlas (19 pp.); a map-by-map listing of the contributor(s) responsible for each, with (where appropriate) details of the previously published map adapted or reproduced here; finally, a gazetteer (33 pp.).

There is much to admire and praise. The mere provision of an atlas is a pathbreaking initiative in the evolution of the Pauly encyclopedia over the past century and more; none accompanies the behemoth Pauly, nor its handy successor Der Kleine Pauly. The amount of effort expended by Wittke and Olshausen (by far the principal contributors) and fifteen fellow scholars is manifestly prodigious. At the same time, thanks no doubt to equal dedication by Szydlak, the style of presentation for the maps (including their elevation tints) is impressively consistent, a boon to users. In fact this presentation matches that of the Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (= TAVO, 1969-1993), in which Wittke, Olshausen and Szydlak were all involved. The map "Das Palmyrenische Sonderreich (250-272 n. Chr.)" (221) well displays this cartography's strengths. Central placement of Palmyra within the frame highlights the city's strategic location in the zone where the Roman and Persian empires meet. Colors readily distinguish the areas claimed by each empire, with hachuring overlaid to demonstrate the remarkable extent of Palmyra's conquests. Route linework in further colors traces Odenath's offensives against Ctesiphon, Zenobia's forays into Asia Minor and Egypt, and Aurelian's retaliatory attack on Palmyra. Nowhere is the map cluttered; the scale adopted is appropriate to the quantity and range of names chosen for marking. Symbols and lettering fonts, too, are clear and suitably sized. The accompanying text summarizes first the nature and development of the Palmyrene state, and then its rapid rise and fall in the third century. In the paragraph summarizing the sources a further sentence would have been desirable, to draw attention to the fragment of Peter the Patrician which preserves the story that Odenath had sought to side with the Persians, only to be rejected by Sapor (frag. 10 = FHG IV, p. 187). Overall, given the unfamiliarity of Palmyra to most students of the third century, the map and text offer informative assistance.

The pity is that the sound cartographic principles reflected by this map have too often been overriden elswhere. Surprising though it seems (and unexplained), only one map (8-9, "Fernerkundung in der antiken Welt") and the two endpapers (showing physical landscape) occupy a double spread. Otherwise all the maps are limited to a single page at most, and frequently less than that in practice because many Key boxes claim considerable space. Such a frame of no more than approximately 7.75 x 12 ins (20 x 30 cm) must have proven a source of repeated frustration. It is nowhere near adequate for presenting Alexander's campaigns satisfactorily, for example, or Rome's three wars against Mithridates VI, as the maps on 113 and 159 strive to do. Both in fact derive from TAVO sheets B V 1 (1985) and B V 6 (1981) respectively, where the main maps measure 12 x 26 ins (30 x 66 cm) and 17.25 x 22 ins (44 x 56 cm), with insets in addition for local detail. In the atlas, the olive-colored lines on the Alexander map (for various generals' forays) serve to confuse users more than inform them, while the congestion within Asia Minor on the Mithridates map renders the region meaningful only to the most conscientious of users. In other instances, too, the maker of a map has chosen to proceed oblivious to the inadequacy of the scale determined for it, overcrowding certain areas regardless rather than exercising restraint or adding an inset. As a result, users will be baffled, not enlightened, by Sicily on 93 (Karte B) and again on 138, for example; Cyprus on 115; central Greece on 119 and again on 135; the area south of Lake Tiberias on 123; and that of modern Tunisia on 147. The inadequate scale for showing the sources of marble (84) leaves the unfortunate impression that the Gebel Fatireh (= Mons Claudianus) quarries were on the Nile or very close, when in fact they are situated more than seventy punishing miles distant from the river.

The use of standard physical bases for maps is a prudent and practical expedient (also followed by TAVO), but flexibility in its application is sometimes lacking. On "Roms Kriege im Osten I (214-129 v. Chr.)" (151), the mismatch between the density of coverage eastwards to the Hellespont and the map's emptiness thereafter (for the full length of the Black Sea) calls for the frame and scale to be rethought. Similar rethinking is in order for the second of the maps on these wars (153) so as to enlarge the presentation of western Asia Minor there. By contrast, a full page for the Iberian peninsula on "Roms Kriege im Westen (206-101 v. Chr.)" (149) leaves that map too empty, because (as the accompanying text explains) the surviving sources lack sufficient detail for us to follow the course of these campaigns closely.

Several instances where the scale chosen could have permitted a more informative presentation are to be found in the maps of Roman provinces (either single ones, or an adjacent group). These maps are intended to illustrate shifts in the provinces' extent and boundaries from their annexation as early as the third century B.C. through the fifth century A.D. Altogether an astonishing amount of space (both map and text) is devoted to this theme, and the results hardly justify it. The case of Sicily (143) is especially striking. Nowhere else in the atlas is the island presented anywhere near as large, and yet here the map's sole concerns are changes in the boundary of the province (actually just a single, early change in over seven centuries, when Hiero II's kingdom was annexed) and the legal status of the leading cities under Roman rule; the use of color for this map is redundant therefore. So much more data could have been added, and to do that would have been easy because, ironically, the map is in fact a stripped down version of an uncolored forerunner "Die römische Provinz Sicilia (ca. 241 v. Chr. -- 535 n. Chr.)" which illustrates the DNP entry 'Sicilia'. There, rivers are named, villas marked, and roads and aqueducts traced. The villas include Piazza Armerina, which is nowhere marked in the atlas even though DNP includes an entry for it, with a plan too. Meantime a column and a half on Sicily's text page in the atlas (142) is left an unused blank. The bibliography there, moreover, is a miscellany that seems to be lifted uncritically from DNP 'Sicilia'; too many specialist items are retained, including an unpublished dissertation by Goldsberry (1973, not 1982), and a 1955 article about the Panormus-Agrigentum road even though the map omits roads. For the latter in any case it would surely be more appropriate to cite the monograph by G. Uggeri, La Viabilità della Sicilia in Età Romana (Rome, 2004). By the same token, further invaluable citations missing from the atlas bibliography (none of them included in the DNP entry either) are E. Manni, Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia antica (Rome, 1981); G. Nenci and G. Vallet (eds.), Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche (Pisa and Rome, 1977-ongoing); and the periodic syntheses in Archaeological Reports (the latest by F. De Angelis, 2007).

This unsatisfying presentation of Sicily in the atlas raises the larger issues of the broad goals envisaged for the volume and of its intended relationship with DNP. A claim to stand alone is made, but then immediately qualified (XIII): "Der Atlas ist als eigenständiges Werk konzipiert, kann aber auch gut in Verbindung mit den alphabetischen Bänden genutzt werden." The Vorwort (V), especially in its section "Voraussetzungen", affirms close linkage with DNP's scope, approaches and materials; indeed it is stated that about sixty per cent of the maps derive from the encyclopedia (which is printed without color throughout). In these entirely justifiable circumstances, therefore, the puzzle arises that a closer meshing was not arranged. Instead, time and again -- as in the case of Sicily -- we find bibliography appended to the alphabetic entries needlessly repeated in the atlas, not to mention occasional lists of rulers (216, 218, 264) which Supplemente 1 (2004) already offers in full. Equally, the excessive space found for tables of text references documenting shifts in the extent and boundaries of Roman provinces -- including the full nine pages 265-73 -- could have been put to far better use in an atlas with the provision of more maps. For example, the course of Xenophon's Anabasis is an ideal cartographic theme, and it is duly mapped in the DNP entry 'Xenophon', but the atlas declines the opportunity beyond incorporating an easily overlooked thumbnail sketch within the map "Fernerkundung in der antiken Welt" (8). Another natural choice is a map to illustrate the democratic process in classical Athens; again the atlas offers none, even though the map "Attische Phylen (nach 508/7 v. Chr.)" could be lifted from DNP 2 (1997) 237-38 and greatly enhanced by the addition of color. The inclusion of such a map could also only help to redress the imbalance that the atlas as a whole may be perceived to reflect in favor of Roman civilization against Greek. Altogether the number of city-plans offered by the atlas is disappointingly small (see list, XII), and curiously so when many more could just have been lifted from the relevant alphabetic entries and Nachträge, among them Delos, Hattusa, Olympia, Pergamum, Pompeii, Portus (Ostia), Priene, Syrakusai, Veii; even provision of a full list of such plans in DNP would be a most welcome enhancement of the atlas. Again, reproduction of DNP's upper plan of Troia (12/1 [2002] 859-60) with color added could help immensely to distinguish periods VI, VIIa and VIIb there.

Incorporation of maps already in DNP aside, the atlas presented greater opportunities for extending DNP's range of maps than were taken. True, the map "Die drei grossen Missionsreisen des Paulus" (228) is a useful such extension, though it is a puzzle that the final journey to Rome should be entirely omitted (despite its mention in the accompanying text), and a pity that the map could not be in color, allowing more distinctive differentiation of the three journeys. A clear instance of an opportunity for extension of DNP not taken at all is the lack of a city-plan to supplement the short entry for Thamugadi. Equally, Hadrian's travels remain without a map, even though DNP 'Hadrianus' includes a section "Die Sorge um das Reich -- Die Reisen." On 149, as mentioned above, the scale for illustrating Rome's second-century campaigns in the Iberian peninsula could readily have been reduced, and space found for an inset of Numantia ringed by Scipio's nine siege camps, which DNP's entry for the site specifically mentions but does not map. More generally, the atlas might have opted to overcome DNP's unexplained reluctance to admit battle-plans, but it silently preferred not to, and that will be further cause for disappointment to many (note that the Rezeption volume 15/2 includes the entry 'Schlachtorte'). Ironically, DNP 'Kalkriese' includes a half-page plan which would look even more appealing in color. The atlas, however, despite its German origin not only omits this plan, but also never even marks either Kalkriese or Saltus Teutoburgensis.

The Vorwort avows a commendable commitment to developing non-traditional cartographic themes, but again some striking opportunities are missed. For example, DNP 'Bodenschätze' offers a map "Mineralische Rohstoffe in der Ägäisregion (ca. 4000 -- nach 1100 v. Chr.)," derived from TAVO A II 2 (1990) which stretches on eastwards as far as Afghanistan and the Indus valley. The basis for extending the limited coverage of the DNP map in the atlas, and in color, was to hand therefore, but no such initiative was taken.² No more was the lengthy "Chronologische Tabelle antiker Wracks (2 Jt. v. Chr. -- 7 Jh. n. Chr.)" in DNP 12/2 (2002) 579-90 made the opportunity for a map -- an enhancement potentially all the more valuable because no map accompanies 'Unterwasserarchäologie' (DNP 15/3 [2003] 922-29) either, even though this is a new field to which the Vorwort (1 [1996] V) specifically commits DNP.

It is cause for regret that the makers of the atlas chose not to elaborate upon how they mean to serve their intended audience. According to their Vorwort, they envisage this as spanning an ambitious range, across the entire spectrum from classical scholars to students and non-professional enthusiasts. Everywhere along it, however, there is liable to be disappointment felt for a variety of reasons. Scholars consulting a work of reference reasonably hope to be informed about the nature and value of comparable existing tools, and about how the present one orients itself in relation to them. The Vorwort does draw attention to the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (though not its Map-by-Map Directory) as an essential resource for topography, but nothing at all is said here of the Tabula Imperii Romani, for example, or Tabula Imperii Byzantini, let alone of The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period (2001).³ Even TAVO is taken granted, although it is in fact unfamiliar to most scholars outside Germany; a paragraph or two about its nature and scope would be fully justified. More generally, no reference is made to the DNP entries 'Kartographie' or 'Kartographie (Rezeption)', still less to my analysis "Mapping the classical world: major atlases and map series 1872-1990," JRA 5 (1992) 5-38. Scholars may be irked when the texts in the atlas are no more than loosely related to the maps they are placed to illuminate, as in the case of the text for "Städtegründungen und Bildungsstätten (4. bis 2. Jh. v. Chr.)" (118-19), for instance. It may not please scholars either that the sections headed "Die Quellen" seem unduly prone to give primacy to texts, while considering other materials and sources of knowledge as secondary. Scholars may query the unexplained decision to maintain the coverage of the atlas so far beyond the end of antiquity to the fall of Constantinople. Granted, DNP itself does extend as far, but only for Rezeption. Thus there are entries 'Karolingische Renaissance', for example, and 'Paläologische Renaissance', but none for Karl der Grosse or individual Palaiologoi, or for the Crusades. In practice the coverage of the millennium from AD 500 that the atlas offers remains very limited -- with a map devoted to the first three Crusades (249), for example, but none of Charlemagne's empire. It might have been more useful, and still sufficiently in line with DNP's scope, to settle for a cut-off date well before 1453, and to expand the coverage for earlier periods.

One divergence from TAVO's practice that all users are likely to regret is the (again silent) decision never to state any map's scale in figures (1:2,000,000 aut sim.) as well as by means of a scalebar. It goes almost without saying that such a statement of scale is useful not only when examining any map but also for comparing it to related ones.

In view of the unavoidably high price of the atlas, it may seem optimistic of its makers to hope that it will see much use by students and enthusiasts. Should these learners gain the chance, however, they are likely to have mixed reactions. Maps showing all or part of the Italian peninsula they should find instructive. These often incorporate the physical landscape informatively and tend not to be overloaded with cultural data: the map "Sprachen im alten Italien vor der Ausbreitung des Lateins" (67) is an attractive example. Less useful by contrast are maps where the complete lack of elevation omits a vital element in learners' understanding, as in the pair "Die hellenistischen Königreiche Indo-Baktriens im 2. und 1. Jh. v. Chr." (133), which stretch from the Indus delta high up across the Hindukush and then north down again to the Aral Sea. Learners will certainly appreciate the four maps which chart the growth of the Kingdom of Pergamum from 241 to c. 185 B.C. (125). All but the most methodical, however, will be deterred by maps which seek to distill an indigestible succession of developments. As many as six Syrian wars (275/74-168 B.C.) form the subject of a single map (123, derived from TAVO B V 16.1), for example. "Die territoriale Entwicklung des Imperium Romanum in republikanischer Zeit" (141) distinguishes nineteen stages by date, and "Die Entwicklung der römischen Provinzen in Kleinasien (2. Jh. v. Chr. bis 5. Jh. n. Chr.)" (183) tops that with twenty-one. Today, such sequences are obvious themes for presentation electronically with overlays that can each be added to a map or removed at will. Almost all students are sufficiently conversant with the use of computers to be aware of this capacity, but they will search this atlas in vain for even a passing reference to digital mapping, let alone for even the briefest discussion by its makers of how they see the new technology influencing and reinforcing their aims. In the era of Powerpoint, GIS and Google Earth, such complete detachment seems unfortunate to say the least. When Rome's Marble Plan is cited (174), no reference is made to the indispensable Stanford Digital Forma Urbis Romae Project. Similarly, in connection with the impressive overviews of roads across the Roman empire (195-99, mostly from DNP 'Strassen' and 'Viae Publicae'), attention is not drawn to the various versions of the Peutinger Map accessible on the web. Much less is there recognition of the interactive maps now available that enable students to trace the course of campaigns and battles in particular (see notably The Mapping History Project).

Ever since 1579, when Abraham Ortelius created a supplement ('Parergon') of classical and biblical maps and attached it to his innovatory Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, the makers of historical atlases have struggled to achieve a satisfying balance of timeframe and themes, map and text. Their efforts are a dominant theme of Walter Goffart's detailed study Historical Atlases: the First Three Hundred Years, 1570-1870 (Chicago, 2003), which confirms -- predictably enough -- that no ideal solution is attainable. Every atlas, like every map, is perforce a set of compromises, the product of multiple choices. In their ambitious endeavor, Wittke, Olshausen and Szydlak make many sound choices and offer much of value. But the sense lingers of opportunities missed, potential not fulfilled, mismatch of material and its intended audience. More effective integration with DNP could have been developed by the historical atlas intended to supplement it; text and bibliography could have been subordinated more to maps. Last but far from least, especially in an atlas which proclaims its commitment to new ways of approaching antiquity, all engagement with information technology and digital mapping should not have been evaded. For a masterly appreciation of how the computer revolution only complicates the bewildering array of choices that the creative mapmaker already has to navigate, one could hardly do better than re-read Denis Cosgrove's (1948-2008) wide-ranging Introduction to his edited volume Mappings (London, 1999). Even so, as Cosgrove himself recognized, the new challenge is one to be welcomed and exploited; a twenty-first century atlas which sets it aside falls short.

---

Notes:

1.   From the volume John Pendlebury in Crete, p. 1, printed by Cambridge University Press in 1948 for private circulation. For his exploits, see now Imogen Grundon, The Rash Adventurer: a Life of John Pendlebury (London, 2007).
2.   Note further in this connection A. Orejas (ed.), Atlas historique des zones minières d'Europe (2 vols., Luxembourg, 2001, 2003).
3.   Note the review of the Atlas by S. Richardson, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65.2 (2006): 125-27.

(read complete article)

2009.07.21

Version at BMCR home site
Response: Frangoulidis on Kirichenko on Stavros Frangoulidis, Witches, Isis and Narrative: Approaches to Magic in Apuleius' Metamorphoses. Response to BMCR 2009.06.33
Response by Stavros Frangoulidis, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki

I would like to thank very much Alexander Kirichenko for the time he spent in reading and reviewing my recent book. However, there are a few comments I wish to make regarding the subject matter of the book and my authorial approach and intentions.

Following J.J. Winkler, the reviewer opts for a narratological reading in which the voices of the writer and of Lucius as narrator and actor are intertwined in the narrative of the Golden Ass.¹ In his brilliant work, Winkler discusses the multiplicity of Lucius' roles and voices within the text. Unlike narratological approaches, I decided to take an entirely different tack and concentrate exclusively on the different attitudes characters display towards magic, either in embedded tales or in the main plot, inasmuch as this approach can offer us new insights towards our understanding of the complex dynamics of the work.

From the very outset, my intention was to highlight Lucius' comparatively good fortune as victim of magic when compared to that of all the other characters in the novel. The intratextual approach pursued in my work further led me to suggest that the novel's final book may be read as a second Metamorphoses, rewritten from a positive perspective. This reading of similarities and contrasts among characters in the various inserted tales and episodes has further shown, I believe, the predominantly didactic aim of the narrative. My reading of the Metamorphoses does not, of course, rule out the possibility of other dimensions (comic, ironic, satiric, etc.), which may emerge from other approaches; but the book yields findings based on the intratextual approach I chose to adopt from the very beginning.

Last but not least, as explained in detail in the book, I attempted to situate the narrative of the Golden Ass in relation to the genre of the ideal Greek novels precisely because the Latin novel both follows and alters the dynamics of the plotline of those novels. It is true, of course, that the narrative of the Golden Ass also incorporates features from other genres, such as epic, tragedy, comedy, elegy, etc., but these have already been the subject of thorough investigation by several scholars, myself included.²

---

Notes:

1.   J.J. Winkler, Auctor and Actor. A Narratological Reading of Apuleius's Golden Ass (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985).
2.   E.g. 'Epic Inversion in the Tale of Tlepolemus / Haemus'. Mnemosyne 44 (1992) 60-74; also 'New Comedy in Apuleius' Tale of Cupid and Psyche'. In Stavros Frangoulidis, Handlung und Nebenhandlung: Theater, Metatheater und Gattungsbewusstsein in der römischen Komödie (Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1997) 145-177.

(read complete article)

2009.07.20

Version at BMCR home site
Christos Karvounis (ed.), Demosthenes. Reden zur Finanzierung der Kriegsflotte. Texte zur Forschung Band 90. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Pp. 143. ISBN 9783534193479. €39.90.
Reviewed by Jeremy Trevett, York University

This volume, published in the series Texte zur Forschung, offers an introduction, Greek text and facing German translation, of three private speeches in the Demosthenic corpus. The speeches (47, 50, and 51) are connected, as the book's title indicates, by their subject matter, the financing and operation of Athens' navy in the middle years of the fourth century BC.

The idea of a thematically linked selection of speeches is a good one, but there are two fundamental features of the book which are likely to limit its usefulness. The first is that the text, which is described as being based on Rennie's 1931 Oxford Classical Text ('Dem Originaltext liegt die Oxfordausgabe von W. Rennie, Demosthenis orationes, III, Oxford 1931 zugrunde': p. 10), is presented without either an apparatus criticus or any discussion of how it was constituted. It is thus unclear where, if anywhere, it diverges from Rennie's edition. (I have not spotted any differences in the passages that I have compared, but under the circumstances have regarded it as a work of supererogation to collate the two systematically.) Since Karvounis has purportedly edited ('herausgegeben': title page) the text, and refers to it as an original text, albeit based on that of Rennie, it is frustrating to be unable to tell how his text differs.

The second feature is the absence, in accordance with the format of the series, of notes or commentary. As a result, the only explication that Karvounis is able to provide is in the book's Introduction. Comparison with Victor Bers' recent English-language translation of speeches 50 and 51, in the University of Texas Press series 'The Oratory of Classical Greece', in instructive.¹ Bers, in line with that series' policy, provides footnotes rather than a commentary, but there are many points, e.g. on matters of prosopography, where he provides necessary information, and on which Karvounis is perforce silent. I do not wish to labour the point but the primary interest of these speeches for most readers is likely to be historical, and I cannot imagine, for example, what reader of the speech Against Polycles would not wish to know, or benefit from knowing, that the shadowy exile Callistratus whom the speaker refuses to transport in his ship (section 46) is the important politician Callistratus of Aphidna. A rather optimistic footnote in the Introduction (p. 42, n. 75) advises the reader who wishes to pursue questions of prosopography to consult either Kirchner's Prosopographia Attica or Davies' Athenian Propertied Families,² but how many of Karvounis' intended readers are likely to be in a position to do this?

The Introduction covers a lot of ground in relatively brief compass, and does so very well. Its sections deal with Athens in the mid-fourth century (11-15); Athens' legal (15-18) and taxation and liturgical systems (18-20); the trireme (20-26); the trierarchy (26-34); and the individual speeches, discussing their content, style and date (34-47). Obviously the coverage of some of these topics is somewhat brief, and there are points on which one might quibble, but Karvounis presents a lot of material with admirable clarity, and the section on the trierarchy in particular provides an impressively succinct and useful summary. Karvounis' scholarship is thorough and up-to-date, though some of the footnotes seem pitched at the wrong level for a (presumably) introductory work: for example, it is (again) hard to imagine many readers following up the references to T. N. Ballin's (excellent, and unpublished) 1978 Washington dissertation, a commentary on [Dem.] 50.³

In addition to the Introduction there is a very brief index, a map of the north-eastern Aegean and Propontis that helps locate some but not all of the places named in the speeches, and two photographs of the reconstructed trireme Olympias.

The translation seems both clear and reliable, so far as this non-native reader of German can judge.

The volume is attractively produced, though the Introduction contains a sprinkling of typos (e.g. Drachen for Drachmen on p. 43, srachliche for sprachliche on p. 47; the word 'immens' appears, as if an item of scribal marginalia, floating without context on p. 14).

Karvounis' credentials as an expert on Demosthenes have been amply established by his substantial and extremely useful commentary on the earlier assembly speeches.⁴ Within the limits that have been imposed on him he has done a good job here, but those limits substantially detract from what could have been an extremely useful contribution to the study both of Demosthenes and of the operations of the Athenian fleet. It is hard not to see this as an opportunity missed.

---

Notes:

1.   V. Bers, Demosthenes, Speeches 50-59 (Austin, 2003).
2.   J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica. 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1901-1903); J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 B.C. (Oxford, 1971).
3.   T. N. Ballin, ''A Commentary on [Demosthenes] 50 'Against Polykles'.'' Diss. Washington, 1978.
4.   C. Karvounis, Demosthenes. Studien zu den Demegorien orr. XIV, XVI, XV, IV, I, II, III (Munich, 2002).

(read complete article)