Dalhmann Review

8/12/2019 Dalhmann Review

1/3

http://www.jstor.org/stable/709170.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Pressand The Classical Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 161.116.186.128 on Mon, 19 May 2014 05:19:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/709170?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/709170?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/3

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 221despite its shortness, contains a contrast,between Horace's power to recommend andhis willingness to do so.On i. 13 the author seems keen to waterdown the force of the instructions, whichmust be part of an elaborate Horatian joke.The name Vinnius Asina is credited for thebearer; alternative theories, such as Nisbet'sVinnius Valens, are not mentioned. Claim-ing that lines 4-5 constitute not a real nega-tive but an explanation of 1-3, St6gencontrasts 'ce qu'il faut faire' (I-Io) with'ce qu'il faut 6viter'(I 1-19).In i. 14 the first 17 lines concern the dis-agreement between Horace and the vilicus(1-9 facts, Io-I7 causes), the remaining 27lines (13+ 14) the motives of each, dividedinto town and country sections. The lineangulus steferet piperet tus ocius uvais impos-sibly interpreted as meaning that the vilicuswould prefer to be carrying pepper and in-cense to the spice-merchant in Rome thangrapes from the farm to Tibur; angulusisfirst explained as the merchant's corner andthen paraphrased as 'ton bout de terrain'.The most artificial main division is of i. 16,where the first part is said to end at line 35.On the contrary, the word idemat the begin-ning of the next line shows that there isa strong link here. Why not divide into 39-6and 39'4 lines, i.e. after medicandummis-printed mend-p. 59, n. 5]? In general, how-ever, the idea of a bipartite scheme for eachepistle may well be right, as perhaps (despiteNeoptolemus' arrangement) in the ArsPoetica.Some points of detail: in Aen.i. 495 (p. 26,n. 2) after obtutuquedd haeret.On p. 32, n. 4,the scholiast's explanation of pondera asstepping-stones is not given. On p. 64, n. 5,Publilius [not P.] Syrus' line is merelya metrical paraphrase of bis dat qui cito dat.On p. 86, incolumemEpist. i. I6. 16) does notmean 'all6grement'. The iambic line quotedon p. 87, n. I, should surely end esto bonus,not bonus sto,and that quoted on p. 95, n. 2,should start benevixit is quipotuitor (less well)benevixit quipotuerit.Universityof Glasgow O. A. W. DILKE

HELLFRIED DAHLMANN: Studien zuVarro Depoetis'. (Akad. der Wiss. inMainz, Abh. der Geistes-und Sozial-wiss. Ki. I962. Io.) Pp. I24. Wies-baden: Steiner, 1962. Paper,DM. 12.WHENVarropublishedhis Depoetisas wellashis Depoematise wasfollowinga practice

established among Hellenistic writers oftreatises, who used the r7iXv7-reXvT7rqSivi-sion to express different and complementaryattitudes to the same art. As far as the poeticart was concerned there were some well-known precedents. In a previous study,published in 1953 (reviewed in C.R. lxix.209), Professor Dahlmann used the scantyfragments of Varro's De poematisas a focusfor the discussion of Roman poetic theoryand its Hellenistic background. In a similarfashion he has now used the no less scantysurvivals of the De Poetis to consider boththe form of this work and some problemsconcerning the early Roman poets.The work in the main consists of fouressays. In the first he enumerates the topicsnormally found in the introductory section(praelocutio, wrpoOepca)ofa treatise. It wouldbe expected to include information about theway the art began or its introduction (dpX'ior EpeaLs), its development (aeicarLS),andits perfection (dKyq). This is to some extentan enlargement of what Dahlmann said in hisprevious work about the Hellenistic srpo-OEwpla,nd he now tests his theory by tryingto apply it to Latin works of the treatiseform. Suetonius offers an obvious target, andas the De poetis is not available he considersfor this purpose the introductory sections ofthe De grammaticis t rhetoribus.He proceedsto detect traces of the same arrangement inCicero's Brutus and De Inventione,and lessconvincingly in De Oratoreand elsewhere.Varro, Dahlmann argues, was the personwho introduced to Rome the form andtechnique of Peripatetic-Alexandrian literarybiography, and would be expecteat to adoptthis arrangement in his own De poetis. Thisat any rate provides the subject for thesecond essay. Gellius twice quotes Varro,De poetis i as his authority when he is at-tempting to synchronize Greek literary his-tory with Roman literary history up to theSecond Punic War (xvii. 21. 43 and 45)-The dating of Livius Andronicus, Naevius,Plautus, and Ennius is compared with thatof other authorities, and it appears that someof the dates were established by Varro, cor-recting the mistakes of Accius. It is suggestedthat for Varro Livius Andronicus representedthe apX jof Roman poetry, Naevius thea;G6qatc,nd Ennius the dK/I. In the thirdessay, which is the most interesting, Dahl-mann, going back over the same ground,sifts the evidence supplied in the passage ofGellius already mentioned, and assesses itsvalidity. At the same time he determineshow much of it is Varronian in origin. An-other passage of Gellius (i. 24, 3) ascribes toVarro De poetis i the preservation of the

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/3

222 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWepitaph which Plautus was supposed to havewritten for himself. So in the fourth essayDahlmann discusses the use in general ofepitaphs in both Greek and Roman literarybiography. More particularly he considersthe epitaphs of Naevius and Pacuvius thataccompany that of Plautus in Gellius andthe famous epitaph of Ennius quoted morethan once by Cicero. The authenticity ofthese epitaphs has of course been a favouritetopic for speculation, and Dahlmann givesa handy conspectus of the views of his pre-decessors.In general Dahlmann has produced aninteresting collection of studies, and one thatshould be of service to historians of theRoman poets. It should be added that in hisidentification of Varronian material his as-sumptions are cautious and his reasoningsound.University f Edinburgh W. K. SMITH

J. G. HAWTHORNEnd C. S. SMITH:Theophilus, On Divers Arts. Pp.xxxv-- 216; 16 plates, 27 figs.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1963. Cloth, 63s.THISedition has been produced by a classi-cal scholar and a scientist working in con-junction, an essential procedure if technicalsubjects such as those treated by Theophilusare to be handled successfully. The editorsstate modestly that if they had known ofC. R. Dodwell's plans for his notable editionof 1961 their labour would have been saved(p. xxi). Their contribution, however, lies ina different field, and the two editions arereally complementary (p. xxii). Their use ofDodwell's page proofs in revising theirtranslation adds to the value of their work,and one can only regret that they did notinclude a Latin text with an apparatus in-dicating where Dodwell's readings are notaccepted. As it is, the two editions should beused together.A few difficulties may be mentioned. Totranslate rubeum s 'red' (pp. 19-26) is dis-concerting when other red pigments arementioned. Although Dodwell's 'burntochre' agrees with their note on p. 14, Haw-thorne and Smith avoid this presumablybecause rubeummight include a natural redearth. Failing 'ruddle', they might have leftrubeum ntranslated, as they do with prasinus(p. 16), where Dodwell's 'earth green' is re-jected, although no alternative is proposed.Could this be malachite ?A puzzling phrase is octoforos,d est sellas

plicatorias (i. 22), which Dodwell renders'litters (that is folding chairs)'. Hawthorneand Smith are hardly more convincing with'eight-men carrying-chairs, that is curtainedseats' (p. 29). It is surely simpler to assumethat for plicatoriasTheophilus intended towrite portatorias.On p. 163 the editors adopt Dodwell'sunannotated emendation aerugine ('rust'),but robiginewould suit the sense at least aswell, and would be closer to tigine, thereading of G.'Hyacinths' is a misleading translation ofiacincti,as is Dodwell's 'jacinths'. The stonesare certainly blue (p. 72) and almost cer-tainly sapphires, being harder than quartz(p. 191).However, the translation, notes, and dia-grams dispose of most of the major difficul-ties, and this is an excellent edition of a workthat is of vital importance to students ofancient technology. In the classical periodcraftsmen were inarticulate: it is sometimessaid that in the prevailing social conditionsthey were bound to be. Theophilus partlyfills the gap, giving us glimpses into the earlystages of such crafts as glass-blowing andmetal-working. But he was no antiquary: hewas an accomplished man of his time, as isshown here by photographs of his own work(if, as seems likely, he was none other thanRoger of Helmarshausen). The photographsare only one attractive feature of this elegantand scholarly book.University f Bristol D. E. EICHHOLZ

Louis SECHAN, IDOUARD DELA-BECQUE: Essais de stylistique grecque.(Publications de la Facult6 des Let-tres d'Aix-en-Provence, 30.) Pp. 199-Paris: Klincksieck, 1961. Paper,25 fr.IN this country this would be called a hand-book of Greek Prose Composition, and theEnglish reader, at any rate, is likely to bemisled by the title. There are three sections.The first summarizes under classified head-ings the chiefcharacteristics of classical Greekprose and the difference between Greek andmodern French idiom. The last consists ofcarefully arranged notes on Greek syntacti-cal usage. Between these two sections arefifty passages from well-known French prosewriters, mainly of a reflective, philosophicalcharacter rather than straight narrative.Greek versions of these passages are given onthe opposite page. Frequent footnotes com-ment on the principles involved in transla-

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Dalhmann Review

Documents

Transcript of Dalhmann Review