Page images

century, that "satiric, convivial, gnomic, and love epigrams are developing rapidly" in the fifth century, and that "the epigram was early considered a distinct branch of literature." To a considerable extent her disagreement with Reitzenstein is due to her less skeptical attitude toward the epigrams attributed to classical poets in the literary tradition, and to her inclusion of material from Archilochus, Theognis, Euenus, and others that is usually treated as elegy rather than epigram. To a less degree the difference may be due to the elasticity of descriptive terms: who shall say whether the mere appearance of the name of the dead or of the dedicator extra metrum is sufficient to stamp an epigram as "a recognized form of Kunstdichtung"? All depends upon Reitzenstein's understanding of the terms employed; Miss Gragg is evidently attaching a different import to them.

In general the conservative attitude toward Reitzenstein's ingenious theories is commendable, especially in respect to the contention of the German scholar that the "literary" epigram necessarily presupposes the collection in book form of inscribed epigrams; nor are we disposed to object to the charity of the author in recognizing the authenticity of epigrams ascribed to early poets in MSS. But we must demur to the inclusion of the short elegiac poems of Euenus, Theognis, and others in an account of the epigram. Not that these poems do not belong in such a study, but simply that the writer, having once included them, immediately imposes upon herself a larger task-the history of rà èλeyeîa and not merely of the epigram. For whatever connection they may have with epigram, their precise relation cannot be appreciated if they are considered apart from longer elegies. Miss Gragg does not need to be reminded that historical study of the epigram before 300 is impossible; the only historical introduction to the Hellenistic epigram is through rà èλeyeîa in the broadest sense.

The essay bears every trace of careful workmanship: it shows an admirable command of the sources and of the interpretative material; it contributes interesting notes on the influence of other types, on meter, and on dialect; and it serves a very useful purpose in the mere collection of the scattered remains of early epigram, and in the convenient tabulation of recurrent details and formulas in the inscribed epigram. Although a defect in the plan has given rise to partial truth or total error, in execution the study is a model Erstlingsarbeit. HENRY W. PRESCOTT


P. Terenti Afri Hauton Timorumenos. Edited, with Introduction,
Notes, Critical Appendix, and Index, by F. G. BALLENTINE.
Boston: Benj. H. Sanborn and Co., 1910. Pp. xxi+129.
This is a difficult book to review. It shows careful study of Terentian
literature (with one odd gap, noted below), and independent examination

of the play itself. But the editor fails to keep clearly in mind the class of readers for whom he was, in theory, writing. The book forms part of a series professedly intended for college students. Such students will find much that it contains of no help, mere extraneous erudition; they will also miss much which they have a right to expect.

Of the sixteen pages of the Introduction four treat briefly the production of the Hauton, its plot, characters, and reputation. The other twelve present a new feature in editions of Terence, an excellent discussion of the Influence of Terence upon English comedy. There is not a word, however, about Terence's life and work, his merits and his weaknesses, his countrymen's estimate of him, his place in the history of Greco-Roman comedy and in Latin literature, his meter and prosody, stage performances, etc. Mr. Ballentine explains the omission of "the meter, prosody, etc., of Terence' as due to the fact that they are found in practically all of the annotated editions of Terence. But nowhere does he enumerate such editions or give a list of books or articles to which the intelligent student may go for light on the important topics named above. Yet the Notes and the Critical Appendix are full of references (e.g., to metrical matters, the illustrated MSS) which assume a large measure of the knowledge which the editor nowhere helps the student to acquire, at least in any systematic way. Too often, also, there are no notes on lines or groups of lines which, as the reviewer knows from experience, trouble college students. Help is not always given where it is first or most needed; amicum is genitive in 24, iniquom in 27, yet the form is first discussed in 606. One other fault in the presentation of the editor's stores of information is the fact that often books which have passed through many editions, such as the Latin Grammar of Stolz and Schmalz and the Antibarbarus, are cited without indication of the edition he was using.

The best part of the book is the Critical Appendix. Here the editor shows independence, knowledge, judgment, good taste. He is in general a conservative, yet is capable of innovation. He made good use of Professor Warren's Bibliography of Terence and his copy of Umpfenbach's edition, with Warren's own corrections and additions (see the Preface). Only a hint of the good things can be given. He rightly retains suum in Per. 7, keeps the MSS verse-order in 3 ff., retains 6-9 (with simplici, however, in 6), 48–50, and keeps agrum in 63 (of course he declines to insert it in 64). At 72 he gives a good text in reading At enim me quantum, etc. In 83 he declines to emend meruisti to commeruisti. In 135 he reads dignum quovis (instead of quovis dignum), correcting Umpfenbach's report of A's reading. For other good textual notes see on 176, 183 (here he omits magna as a gloss, and retains usque; iam inde usque a pueritia, it might be added, makes an adjective with familiaritas needless), 192. Punctuation comes in for a good share of attention, with results usually good: see on 82-83, 114, 128, 140, 163, 181.

The change in 162, however, gives an unnatural place to hodie: no one need be afraid of medial incision (see Professor Goodell's paper, "Bisected Trimeters in Attic Tragedy," Classical Philology I, 145–66).

In the commentary there is much of interest and value. Especially good are the notes describing various expressions as "proverbial" and the notes bringing Terence's verses beside their Greek originals, real or supposed (see, e.g., on 61-62, 63-64, 293-95). In the latter connection, however, the editor has missed a chance (see, e.g., on 440) to bring out the wide difference which sometimes obtains between Terence's verses and those cited by ancient authority as his originals. Professor West, in his edition of the Andria and the Hauton (1888), pp. xxix, 154-55, showed very briefly but well how such a discussion might illuminate the question of the originality of Latin literature. The lack of such a general discussion is emphasized by the fact that the Index contains no caption referring to Greek at all and does not contain the name of Menander or that of Philemon. The citations from modern English plays help at times. Notes giving reminiscences of Plautus in Terence and reminiscences of Terence in later Latin authors are also good and helpful.

The author seems oddly unfamiliar with American work which touches Terence more or less closely. A knowledge of Miss Saunders' dissertation, Costume in Roman Comedy 30-39, would have eliminated from p. 57 the groundless statement that the Prologus carried an olive branch; the two passages cited from Livy are in no way relevant and the illustrated MSS are against Mr. Ballentine's view. In the note on 46 there should have been a reference to Professor Flickinger's paper, "On the Prologue to Terence's Heauton," Classical Philology II, 157-62. Study of Professor Clement's paper on "The Use of enim in Plautus and Terence," in AJP XVIII, 402–15, and of Professor Kirk's on "Etiam in Plautus and Terence," ibid. 26-42, would have led to better notes (e.g., on 72, 235, etc.) on these two poor words, so shamefully treated by editors and critics of Plautus and Terence. On 313 a reference might have been added to Professor Harkness' paper in AJP XXXI, 154-74, "The Final Monosyllable in Latin Prose and Poetry."

In a number of places I differ from Mr. Ballentine in interpretation, in others again I think more helpful matter might have been added to his notes, even by one who kept steadily in mind the college student. But for detailed discussion of such points there is here no room.

To sum up, there is in this book abundant evidence of long, faithful, and fruitful study of Terence. It is to be hoped that Professor Ballentine will continue that study. Increasing experience in editing will brush aside the weaknesses which this book shows on the side of presentation.



Libanii Opera. Recensuit RICHARDUS FOERSTER. Vol. V. Declamationes i-xii. Leipzig: Teubner, 1909.

Foerster, with this volume, begins a series of four that are to be devoted to the more definitely sophistic works of Libanius. The Declamations were more read in the Middle Ages than the Orations and consequently survive in more MSS, and have been more exposed to the carelessness of copyists: the greater the opportunity for emendation. Nor had the editor for this part of his task any MS so trustworthy as the Augustanus and Chisianus had proved for the Orations. He has forsaken the order followed by Reiske, and arranges, according to the subject-matter, first the mythographical, then the historical and ethical compositions, but he has put first of all the Apology of Socrates because of its kinship to the Orations. Here Libanius assumes the rôle of a friend of Socrates attacking Anytus. The speech is written with the ardor and the fellow-feeling to be expected from one who was himself an instructor of youth, and Libanius neglects the charge of impiety to defend Socrates from what he thought a graver accusation. Foerster explains certain obscurities in the argument by the theory that Libanius had before him that notorious speech by Polycrates the sophist which Isocrates had attacked, and that he is refuting this speech point by point, though, as the fragments of Polycrates show, he did not follow it slavishly. Here Foerster differs from Dindorf and Cobet. Anthologists and grammarians neglected this Apology and it survives in few MSS. Reiske omitted from his collection the declamation that follows, "On the Silence of Socrates," though it was evidently popular. A pupil of Socrates pleads to be allowed to talk with his master in prison, alleging, against the historical evidence, that this privilege was denied to all. The composition bristles with the regular sophistic commonplaces, nightingales and swan songs, Marsyas and Orpheus.

What the readers of Libanius preferred were the mythographical exercises that follow, the speeches of Menelaus and Odysseus to recover Helen, Achilles replying to Odysseus as he might have replied in the Ninth Iliad, for the Trojan saga still fascinates beyond every other theme. Orestes defends himself before a jury, Poseidon and Ares bring charge and countercharge over the death of Halirrhothius, and the volume ends with imaginary speeches by Themistocles and Cimon, which had considerably less vogue. Foerster rejects from the corpus and assigns to Choricius on the grounds of style, the speech of Patroclus, the 'Pýropos λóyos and the "Apology of a Father." More than once he speaks of forthcoming dissertations, presumably by his pupils, which will support with fuller arguments than he can give his editorial decisions.

The English quotation on p. 451 might have been revised to make sense, and we note that though this is a volume of declamations, "Orationes" appears on the back of the cover.

November, 1910


Die Entstehung der Odyssee und die Versabzählung in den griechischen By AUGUST FICK. Goettingen, 1910. M. 7.


In this work of his advanced years Fick assumes the entire truth of the theories with which his name has long been associated; there are no doubts and no misgivings-his most common expressions are "sicher," "zweifellos," and "ohne Zweifel"; there are no more facts of any value to be found regarding the language or the origin of the Homeric poems; Ruth need expect no gleanings in the fields of this thrifty Boaz.

According to Fick the Odyssey consists of four original poems put together by botchers and blockheads. The four poems are a "Nostos" consisting of 1,944 verses divided into eight books of 243 verses each, composed in Chios about 700 B.C.; a "Gegennostos" of 1,215 verses, or five books of 243 verses each, composed in Rhodes a little after 700 B.C.; a "Tisis" of 3,520 verses and an introduction of 110 verses, composed in Crete early in the seventh century; a "Telemachie" of 1,760 verses composed in Laconia about 620 B.C. The two "Nostoi" were blended by Alcman; later poets without poetic ability and with no sense of humor started to piece out and interweave with their own wretched verses these four poems; the absurdity of the one was surpassed by the ignorance of the next: "Dieser Unfug kann nicht von unserem Einleger in den Nostos herrühren, denn es ist rein undenkbar, dass ein halbweg vernünftiger Mensch sein immerhin doch ganz verständig begonnenes Werk in so verrückter Weise fortsetze" (p. 150). It was Kynaithos beyond all others who brought ruin and disaster, he it was who "geschädigt und verwüstet die alten herrlichen Dichtungen." The poems were mutilated by Kynaithos about 500 B.C., in Sicily, where he produced his version; he created the character of the blind poet Demodokos in order to praise himself; he has long been concealed behind this mask, but has been found out at last (p. 183): "Es kann wohl keinem Zweifel unterliegen, dass in diesen Einlagen der blinde Kynaithos unter der Maske des Demodokos selber steckt und sich in seiner masslosen Eitelkeit selbst verherrlicht." The plan of the present Odyssey "is a crime against human intelligence" (p. 168): "Billig fragt man da, wie kam Kynaithos, denn dieser wird als Verüber dieses Verbrechens gegen den gesunden Menschenverstand nachgewiesen werden, zu einer so unsinnigen Anordung?"

Each of the four original poems found in the Odyssey was composed in pure Aeolic Greek, since they can be rewritten in that dialect; verses that cannot be so changed reveal the later hand. The following examples will show how simple the change from the present traditional form to the pure original:

κ 35: καί μ' ἔφασαν χρυσόν τε καὶ ἄργυρον οἴκαδ' ἄγεσθαι. Simply drop the pronoun μ', insert γὰρ, substitute ἔφαν for ἔφασαν, drop οίκαδ', insert avrov, and behold we have a pure Aeolic verse,

καὶ γὰρ ἔφαν χρυσόν τε καὶ ἄργυρον αὐτὸν ἄγεσθαι.

« PreviousContinue »