THE YEAR'S WORK IN CLASSICAL I STUDIES GREEK LITERATURE THE reading world has been allowed a short rest from controversies as to whether Homer really wrote the Iliad and Odyssey, and we should almost have time to read and appreciate the poems themselves were it not for the supposed Homer's unfortunate vagueness about geography and neglect of soundings, which have given rise to endless discussions about the position of Ithaca and other islands. C. Burrage, in a recently-published pamphlet, 1 reasserts the traditional claim of Thiáki to be identified with Ithaca ; A. D. Fraser proves that Thiáki is Asteris, and Ithaca is Cephallenia, and definitely places all the other Odyssean islands. A. Shewan, more temperate and always tolerant, regrets the uncompromising dogmatism of Professor Fraser. 3 The main arguments for and against the traditional view are summarized by H. L. Jones in an appendix to the fifth volume of the Loeb Strabo. 4 From these scientific exercises we turn for relief and recreation to such a work as F. L. Clark's Study of the Iliad in translation, 5 the bulk of which consists of well-chosen 1 The Ithaka of the Odyssey; Oxford: Blackwell, 1928. 2 Homer's Ithaka and the adjacent islands, in C.P., 1928, 3. 3 The Ithaka problem again, C.P., 1929, I. 4 London: Heinemann, 1928. 5 Camb. Univ. Press for Chicago Univ. Press, 1927. B extracts translated by the author and illustrated by modern parallels. Some minor, but not important points of style and language are discussed by Dietrich Mülder and Milman Parry. The former 1 classifies the Homeric formulae used in addressing the gods under the headings of prayers, curses, etc., and warns his readers against false arguments as to the comparative dates of different portions of the poems which might be based on the recurrence of such phrases. The latter, in two interesting pamphlets, 2 deals with "traditional epithets" and "metrical formulae." In the first volume he observes that Homeric diction, consisting largely of formulae, is influenced very strongly by metrical necessities. In spite, however, of this influence, many epithets applied to the principal characters are not imposed by the form of the verse but are appropriate and significant. In the second treatise certain metrical peculiarities are explained as due to the difficulty of fitting in an established formula when there has been e.g. a change of case or tense. On the purely linguistic side T. W. Allen has an interesting note on Od. K. 10,3 in which he explains αὐλή as a by-form of αὐλός, comparing such pairs as χώρα and χώρος. If he is right, the sense of the passage is vastly improved. Miss G. H. Macurdy writes on Homeric names in -tor, 4 which she considers to be mostly shortened forms of compound adjectives, and not originally nomina agentis, as they appear to be; thus Damastor is supposed to be a short form for Damasippus, Polyktor for Polyktemon, etc. The arguments adduced have little to commend them. T. L. Agar continues his notes on the Hymn to Hermes (vv. 417-484).5 C. Fries criticizes Wilamowitz' opinions on the nature of Homeric kingship. A. Shewan's lecture on Andrew Lang's work for Homer is a fine memorial to that gifted scholar. 1 1 Götteranrufungen in Ilias und Odyssee, Rhein. Mus., 1929, 1. 2 L'épithète traditionnelle dans Homère and Les formules de la métrique d'H. Paris: les Belles Lettres, 1928. 3 Class. Quart., 1928, 3-4; s.v. Miscellanea. 4 Class. Quart., 1929, 1. 5 Ibid., 1929, 1. • Beiträge in Rhein. Mus., 1929, 1. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf has fulfilled his undertaking to produce a work on Hesiod; 2 the chief characteristic of the edition before us is the editor's drastic method of dealing with the text. A new translation of Pindar's Pythian Odes has been made by H. T. Wade-Gery and C. M. Bowra; 3 the volume also contains a general preface and introduction and explanatory prefaces to the separate odes, but no further commentary. As usual, a number of scholars have written either on general questions connected with the scenic poets, or on details of reading and interpretation. Bruno Snell, 4 discussing the real meaning of δρᾶν and δρᾶμα, emphasizes his conception of the hero as consciously determining his own fate by choice and action. A discussion of this theme is followed by the application of its results to the several plays. In the contrasts which he draws between Aeschylus and Homer Dr. Snell is perhaps unfair to the epic poet. A. F. S. Gow, in a considerable body of notes on the Persae, 5 provides many explanations of difficult passages based on archaeological evidence. Starting from the thesis that Aeschylus and his audience knew more about Persia than we do, he fully justifies the supposition. J. Vurtheim's edition of the Supplices & contains a long general introduction, rather disproportionate to the length of the running commentary. Miss J. R. Bacon contributes to the Classical Review some notes on the Prometheus. Sir Henry Sharp's translation of the Agamemnon & is intended for an acting edition; the style is simple and direct. 1 Oxford: Univ. Press, 1929. 2 Hesiodos, Erga; Berlin: Weidmann, 1928. • The Nonesuch Press, 1928. ▲ Aischylos und das Handeln im Drama; Leipzig: Dieterich, 1928. J.H.S., 1928, 2. C.R., 1928, 4. • Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1928. 8 Oxford: Univ. Press, 1928. |