8/14/2019 Notes on Cicero

1/6

Notes on Cicero

Author(s): E. CourtneySource: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Jun., 1960), pp. 95-99Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/702918

Accessed: 04/10/2008 05:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Classical Associationand Cambridge University Pressare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/702918?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/702918?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/14/2019 Notes on Cicero

2/6

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 95would be enough to earn him a death-sentence,but if he was also a traitor,thepenalty would be inflicted with additional refinementsby Theodosius. We donot knowwhy Palladasrejoicedso savagelyin his fall, but Palladashad no lovefor those who sought or held power. He would certainly feel no compunctionbecause Gessiuswas a Pagan. He had no more love for Pagans than for Chris-tians, and though by upbringing and professionhe ranked on the Pagan side,he felt no affectionfor it and believed that it was doomed. The fate of Gessiuswas only another testimony that he was right.Wadhamollege, xford C. M. BOWRA

NOTES ON CICEROxTHOUGHo onenowacceptstheopinionof MarklandandWolf that thespeechesPostReditumn Senatu,PostReditumdQuirites,De Domo,De Haruspicumesporsware not by Cicero, and the reaction started early, yet the prosecution scaseseemsto have cast a shadow over them, and with the exception of the De Domothey have hardly been treated by Cicero s editors with the same care as therest of his works. One consequence is that objections to some manuscriptreadings have been too easily swallowed. An example is Quir.I utquod diumscelerati omines . . conceptumamdiucontinerent,d in meunopotiusquamn optimoquoquetuniversaivitatedeficeretcf. Curtius iv. 4. 17 duomiliain quibus ccidendisdefecertrabies rucibusdfixi.Cicero wants their hatred to be exhausted beforethey have finishedwith himself, and although the verb does not suit the quam-clause, the zeugma is of a common enough type; an apt example is quoted byKuhner-Stegmann ii. 566, Sallust Hist. fr. inc. gM ap. schol. Stat. Th. x. 573ut res magisquamverbaagerentur,.l. gererentur).nother result is that severalworthy conjecturesare threatened with oblivion; Sen. I4 elingueErnesti (I donot find E. Lindholm, StilistischeStudienzur Erweiterung er Satzglieder mLateinischen, 47, convincing); Quir. 8 fortunam,Halm. Some casesdeserve more detailed examination.Sen. 23 Non est mei temporis iniurias meminisse quas ego etiam si ulciscipossem tamen oblivisci mallem; alio transferendamea tota vita est, ut benede me meritis referamgratiam, amicitias igni perspectastuear, cum apertishostibus bellum geram, timidis amicis ignoscam, proditores non indicem,dolorem profectionismeae reditus dignitate consoler.

Non indicem as provoked the following conjectures; indicemPeterson, nonvindicem otmann, vindicemMadvig, convincam ulIer.Those involving vindicareshould disappearfrom the apparatus.Housman C.R.xiv (I900) 467a says I donot know, and the lexiconsdo not say, what authoritythere is for the construc-tion vindicompiamn the sense of vindicon impiam r vindicompietatem .he bestI can produce is In Verr. . ii. 28 si inhominibusligendis osspesamicitiaefefellerit,ut vindicemus, issosaciamus . ., where the direct object does not need to berigidly personal, and In Cat. I. I9 quemad custodiendume diligentissimumt adsuspicandumagacissimumt advindicandumfortissimumoreputasti,where the sameI I wish to expressmy thanksto Mr. S. for generoushelp and criticism;neither isWeinstock or reading part of this article, responsibleorthe finalversion.and particularly o Mr. R. G. M. Nisbet

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 95would be enough to earn him a death-sentence,but if he was also a traitor,thepenalty would be inflicted with additional refinementsby Theodosius. We donot knowwhy Palladasrejoicedso savagelyin his fall, but Palladashad no lovefor those who sought or held power. He would certainly feel no compunctionbecause Gessiuswas a Pagan. He had no more love for Pagans than for Chris-tians, and though by upbringing and professionhe ranked on the Pagan side,he felt no affectionfor it and believed that it was doomed. The fate of Gessiuswas only another testimony that he was right.Wadhamollege, xford C. M. BOWRA

NOTES ON CICEROxTHOUGHo onenowacceptstheopinionof MarklandandWolf that thespeechesPostReditumn Senatu,PostReditumdQuirites,De Domo,De Haruspicumesporsware not by Cicero, and the reaction started early, yet the prosecution scaseseemsto have cast a shadow over them, and with the exception of the De Domothey have hardly been treated by Cicero s editors with the same care as therest of his works. One consequence is that objections to some manuscriptreadings have been too easily swallowed. An example is Quir.I utquod diumscelerati omines . . conceptumamdiucontinerent,d in meunopotiusquamn optimoquoquetuniversaivitatedeficeretcf. Curtius iv. 4. 17 duomiliain quibus ccidendisdefecertrabies rucibusdfixi.Cicero wants their hatred to be exhausted beforethey have finishedwith himself, and although the verb does not suit the quam-clause, the zeugma is of a common enough type; an apt example is quoted byKuhner-Stegmann ii. 566, Sallust Hist. fr. inc. gM ap. schol. Stat. Th. x. 573ut res magisquamverbaagerentur,.l. gererentur).nother result is that severalworthy conjecturesare threatened with oblivion; Sen. I4 elingueErnesti (I donot find E. Lindholm, StilistischeStudienzur Erweiterung er Satzglieder mLateinischen, 47, convincing); Quir. 8 fortunam,Halm. Some casesdeserve more detailed examination.Sen. 23 Non est mei temporis iniurias meminisse quas ego etiam si ulciscipossem tamen oblivisci mallem; alio transferendamea tota vita est, ut benede me meritis referamgratiam, amicitias igni perspectastuear, cum apertishostibus bellum geram, timidis amicis ignoscam, proditores non indicem,dolorem profectionismeae reditus dignitate consoler.

Non indicem as provoked the following conjectures; indicemPeterson, nonvindicem otmann, vindicemMadvig, convincam ulIer.Those involving vindicareshould disappearfrom the apparatus.Housman C.R.xiv (I900) 467a says I donot know, and the lexiconsdo not say, what authoritythere is for the construc-tion vindicompiamn the sense of vindicon impiam r vindicompietatem .he bestI can produce is In Verr. . ii. 28 si inhominibusligendis osspesamicitiaefefellerit,ut vindicemus, issosaciamus . ., where the direct object does not need to berigidly personal, and In Cat. I. I9 quemad custodiendume diligentissimumt adsuspicandumagacissimumt advindicandumfortissimumoreputasti,where the sameI I wish to expressmy thanksto Mr. S. for generoushelp and criticism;neither isWeinstock or reading part of this article, responsibleorthe finalversion.and particularly o Mr. R. G. M. Nisbet

8/14/2019 Notes on Cicero

3/6

96 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWapplies. Nor is the rare use of vindexwith a genitive adequate justification (forthis Housman on Manilius v. I40 quotes Val. Max. vi. 3. 8 sontium indices).The manuscript reading will probably stand. In the post-exile speechesproditoress generally applied to Piso and Gabinius,but it has a wider sense inQuir. I3; ibid. 2I he speaksof those qui per simulationem amicitiae nefarieme prodiderunt , and says of them, ulciscar perfidos amicos nihil credendoatque omnia cavendo . His purpose here is to anticipate the fears of those ofwhom he says (AdQ0.F.. 3. 5) cum amici partimdeseruerintme, partim etiamprodiderint, qui in meo reditu fortasse reprehensionem sui sceleris perti-mescunt . He probably means especially Hortensius, whose advice to leaveRome he continually in the letters attributes to bad faith; Ad Att. iii. 8. 4cuius celerempulsi cproditi imus, ii. 19. 3 proditum meisconsiliariisurelyreferto him. It is perhapsodd to find a negative member among the positive ones,but this offence is lessenedwhen it is realized how easily the negative takesthepositive meaning refrain from pillorying ; examples with nullusare collectedby D. R. ShackletonBailey, Propertiana,68-9, on i. 2. 14, and by Nagelsbach,Stilistik9, 99-I00.Har. Resp. 7 hesterno die cum mihi stanti tacens minaretur, voce tantumattigi legum initium et iudici. consedit ille; conticui.

Modern editors print this without any qualms. They must take conseditomean subsided ,which may be possible in itself (Virg. Aen. xi. 350 totamquevidemus consedisserbemuctu),but is not so here after stanti.Older editors wereaware of a difficulty (partlycausedto them by the reading conticuit);Naugeriusread concidit lle, Graevius tacenti tans (for the corruption cf. Housman onManilius v. I72; C.Q iii [I909], 2481).The decisionmust rest on our concep-tion of what was happening at the time, and from Cicero s allusive account inI-2 above it is impossible to clarify this. Something similar is recorded in AdAtt. i. I6. 8-I0 Clodiumthen quaestor)fregi in senatu umorationeerpetuaumaltercatione;hen a summary of his speech; surgitpulchellus uer;an account ofthe altercatiocf. Har. Resp. I7); conticuit t concidit.The course of events thenmight have been: Clodius aedilis interrogat publicanos; Cicero sententiamdicit (stanti;cf. ProMarcello 3 nonest omnibustantibusecesse icere;Mommsen,Staatsrecht,ii. 937 n. I); altercatio; pergit Cicero; gestu et vultu minaturClodius; Cicero iudici mentionem facit; e senatu erumpit Clodius; peroratCicero. Then, with concidit, onticuiwill mean I dropped that subject ; cf.Servius on Aen. ii. 287 ille nihil] scilicetad interrogata: leraque nim verbaexnegotiis ccipiuntignificationem.ut Graevius semendation involves fewer hypo-theses.

I wish now to considersome points which have not been raised previously.Sen. 33 cum viderem . . . servos simulatione collegiorum nominatim esseconscriptos.What is the point of nominatimIt could only be that Clodius was so shame-less in enrolling his henchmen that he did not try to conceal the presence ofslaves in his lists. But why should he ? I agree with those who think that thecollegianvolved were collegia ompitaliciaso the best treatment which I know,S. Accame, Bullettinodel Museo del ImperoRomano, iii [I942], 13 sqq.), anopinion strongly supported by In Pis. 8-9 and Asconius; the connexion of the

I See also Trans. Cambr.Phil. Soc. iii. I45.

8/14/2019 Notes on Cicero

4/6

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 97Compitaliawith slaves is well known (Dion. Hal. A.R. iv. I4). The Compitaliapresupposean organizationby vici(cf., e.g., Wissowa,Religion nd fultus2, 7I),which Cicero in fact stresses,Har. Resp.22, De Domo54 and I29, ProSest.34,AdAtt. iv. 3. 2. The last threepassagessuggestthat we should read vicatim ere.In minusculesgenerally and Insular script (the archetype of our manuscriptsis known to have had the Insularsign for enim) his differs little from noatim rnoiatim, nd nominatim,s Mr. Nisbet points out, would be in the scribe smindfrom its occurrencein 3I and 32.The validity of this emendation is not affected if these were not collegiacompitalicia;or the presence of slaves in other collegia f. J. P. Waltzing, l?tudehistoriqueurlescorporationsrofessionnelleshez esRomains,v. 252-4 (ibid. 25I-2and i. 346-7 do not seem cogent); R.-E. suppl. vi. 982-3; Buckland,RomanLawof Slavery, 4-75.Har. Resp.8 De religionibus sacris et caerimoniis est contionatus, patres con-scripti, Clodius; Publius, inquam, Clodius sacra et religionesneglegi violaripollui questusest.

Mommsen, who proposed (in Baiter s apparatus) to read de religionibustsacriscaerimoniis,eems to have objected to the phrase religionesacrae.Thoughthe only examplewhich I have found is in Arnobius,Adv.Nat. iv. 31 (a passageadmittedly influencedby this speech),xit does not seem to me intrinsicallyob-jectionable. But throughout this passage we find religionest sacra,and in DeDomo33, Io9, De Nat. Deor. ii. 5 religionesacra aerimoniae.part fromanythingelse, as Mr. Nisbet remarks,the rhetoricalform of the sentencewith the figure7rAoK~it is chosen as an example by R. Volkmann, Rhetorik erGriechenndR6mer2I885], 472) demands that sacra hould be a noun in the second clause.Therefore et after sacris hould be deleted.Har. Resp. 29 Sed ut ad haec haruspicum responsa redeam, ex quibus estprimum de ludis, quis est qui id non totum in istius ludos praedictum etresponsumesse fateatur?

Much stresshas been laid on the difficultyof praedictum,ince the responsum(here meaning one clause of the collective responsum,s in 34) did not precedebut followed the ludi.It seems obvious to alter to praedicatum.ne should alsobear in mind that in I8 not only do the manuscriptsread (maiores nostri)fatorumveterespraedicationesApollinisvatum libris ... contineriputaverunt ,but Valerius Maximus i. I. I apparently had the same, Apollinis praedica-tione(s) (so much the strongestauthority) vatum libris .Finally, two notes for the historian.Har.Resp.26 showsthat Clodius was oneof the quindecimviriacrisaciundis; his is not recorded by C. Bardt, Die PriesterderviergrossenCollegienusromisch-republikanischereit, 30-3I, by M. Brissaud,LeCulte hez esRomains,i. I04, by Bouche-Leclercq, Histoirede la divination,v.374, or by Broughton, Magistrates f theRomanRepublic.2

1 Since I have diverged into patristic (I932) 32, are of no practical importance.regions,I take the occasion to add a testi- 2 I hope it will not be ascribedto in-monium; the phrase curiosos culos n Lac- gratitude f I take the opportunityof point-tant. Inst. iii. 20. 2, in connexion with ingout anothererrorof omissionnthiswork.Clodius, s due toHar.Resp. 7 (Brandtnotes The Bernescholia on Lucan ii. 125 have:therelationship f the passages).The quota- MariusCeliumtr. pl. Sillanumde Tarpeiotions of Quir. , Har. Resp.39 by Vincent of saxopraecipitavit.Sex. Luciliuw nni supe-Beauvais,on which cf. Ullman, C.P. xxvii rioris tr. pl .... This seems to have been

8/14/2019 Notes on Cicero

5/6

98 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWHar. Resp. 31 Putant ad me non nulli pertinere magmentarium Tellurisaperire. nuperid patuissedicunt, et ego recordor. nuncanctissimampartemac sedem maximae religionis privato dicunt vestibulo contineri. multa me

movent; quod aedes Telluris est curationismeae, quod is qui illud magmen-tarium sustulit mea domo pontificum iudicio liberata secundum fratremsuum iudicatum esse dicebat.This passage is another where the allusionsare obscure to us, and the onlyfull discussion which I know is that of Mr. S. Weinstock in R.-E. s.v. TerraMater805. This (slightly abbreviated) is as follows.This passage is correctly referred to the house of Q. Cicero in Carinis AdQ.F. ii. 3. 7), which M. Cicero in 54 restored together with the temple ofTellus and expandedat the expenseof the latter (AdQ.F. iii. I. I4); cf. Gilbert,Gesch.und Topogr.d. Stadt Rom,iii. 356, Hulsen-Jordan, Topogr. . 3. 324.Magmentariumas convincingly restored by Mommsen for the manuscriptreading acmentariumolder editions had augmentarium);f. Varro L.L. v. I I2magmentariaana constitutaociscertisquo d (magmentum)mponeretur.his magmen-tariumhen was a storehouse or extra meat from sacrifices2 nd presumablyalsofor other sacralapparatus.It was profaned by being opened and by the build-ing of a vestibule on to it. The repeated reference to the opening in spite of therhetoricalcolouring leaves no doubt of the great antiquity of this constructionand recalls the penusVestae,o which only the Vestals and the pontifexmaximushad entry, and where similarlysacrificialequipmentwas kept. The opening ofthispenuswas a ceremonialoccasion; Fest. 25?penus . . quicertisdiebus peritur,calendar of Philocalus, 7 June, Vestaaperit. 3Other topographersbesidesthosequoted take the same view, e.g. O. Richter, Topogr.d. StadtRom2 in Muller sHandbuch), 24, Platner-Ashby, Dictionary 1I. For many reasons I think itmust be rejected.In the first place, it quite fails to explain the reference to Appius Claudius(cf.AdAtt. iv. 2. 3), by which Mr. Weinstock admits himselfpuzzled. Secondly,the termsrecordornd in the passagefollowingmy quotation vetera, ntiquaeemto indicate that whatever happened to the shrine, it had not taken placerecently. Thirdly, ad mepertineremagmentariumperirehas to be translated it

touches me, is due to me that the shrineis being opened ; would this not haveto be quodmagmentariumperituror, possibly, aperit) It would require strongevidence to overthrow the translation it is my duty to open the shrine .Fourthly, Ad Q.F. ii. 3. 7 shows that the house on the Carinae was let out inFebruary 56 and apparently in perfect condition; some of the referencestorepairsof Quintus house in the letters of this periodspecificallyreferto that onthe Palatine, damaged in October 57 (AdAtt. iv. 3. 2), and there is no reasonwhy all of them, including Ad Q.F. iii. I. I4, should not mean this; so Miinzer,R.-E. vii A I294, Drumann-Groebe, vi. 648-9. Fifthly, the antithesis betweennuper atuisse nd nuncprivato estibuloontinerihows that aperire oes not meanopen at all, but disclose,open up the approachesto by clearing away what

completely overlooked by the reference Mapiov . . . dA,ov (3rRtuapxov: clearly thebooks (Drumann-Groebe, M. Ziegler, Nic- well-known Lucilius) 7rr6 rov KarwTrAovcolini, R.-E., Broughton)not only as con- KareTKprl^vaev,Orrep U5 lS dAoosderrovOeO.firmingthedisputednameLucilius,but also I In Baiter sapparatus.as giving a tribune Caelius or Coelius not 2 Magmentare a kind of exta.mentioned elsewhere.This scholium con- 3 This instance of intransitive aperiretradicts Dio Cass. fr. I02. I2 Boiss. o vlos should be added to Thes. L.L. ii. 2I6. 2I-22.

8/14/2019 Notes on Cicero

6/6

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 99nowsurrounds t; sublatoprivatovestibulo is Manutius s laconicnote. Finally,how could Cicero defend himself and his brotheron the same chargewhich heproceedsto makeagainstotherswith the plea that it happeneda long time ago ?

Cicero then is here on the offensive,and this alone suits the context, which istoo long to quote. It is Appius Claudius who has incorporatedthe shrine intohis house, and Cicero is connected with the businesssolely because the templeis under his curatio;he house of Quintus has nothing to do with it. Long afterI had inferredthis, I discoveredAd Fam.viii. 12. 3, where Caelius,prosecutinghis quarrelwith Appius Claudius in 50 B.C.,remarks praeterea coepi sacellumin domo quod est ab eo petere . Varro, R.R. iii. 2. 5 (dramatic date 54 B.C.)gives him a house in the CampusMartius,but there is no reasonwhy he shouldnot have had two, like Q. Cicero.One may translate Some think it my duty to remove the obstructionsfromround the shrine. They say that not long ago it stood in the open.I should add two points. In the absence of more evidence one cannot safelyidentify the Argiletanumedificiumf Ad Att. i. 14. 7 (6I B.C.) with Quintushouse on the Carinae, as Gilbert, iii. 354 (-5) n. 3, does. Secondly, there is noground for referringto the temple of Tellus the allusions in 58 below (vestrismonumentisuum omeninscripsit),Ad Fam. . 9. 5 and 15,AdQ.F. ii. 8 (Sjogren),2.There is one problem in these speeches about which I cannot come to anyfirm conclusion, but to which I should like to draw attention. I have notbeen able to get any clearpictureof what is happeningin Har.Resp.22-26 andtherefore I am left in perplexity about the meaning of scaena.Ritschl, ParergaPlautina, ix-xx, saw the difficultybut cleared it away by accepting the theoryof spuriousness,and no subsequent book on theatrical antiquities, so far as Ican discover,has taken account of it froma freshviewpoint; nor is it discussed,for example, by A. Muller, Philol. suppl. vii. Perhaps some student of theRoman stage can solve this.King sCollege, ondon E. COURTNEY

NEGLECTED HYPERBOLE IN JUVENALITis no doubt legitimate for the commentator and the lexicographerto followthe example of the scholiast in their treatment of ancient poetry, and to pointout on occasions the prosaic reality that lies behind its imagery. But if thetranslator swork is to retain some of the freshnessand vitality of the original,he mustsurelyavoid suchtemptations,and give us, in so faras his own languageallows, what the poet says rather than a collection of glosseson his text. Thisappliesespecially,perhaps,to the translationof satire: for an importantfeatureof this genre is hyperbole, and, in particular, the exaggeratingmetaphor, andif the translator (unduly influenced, it may be, by commentaries and dic-tionaries) is content to tone down the satirist s language and neutralize itsimagery, he thereby robs the poet of one of the more useful weapons in hisarmoury.A simple illustrationof the point is provided by Juvenal 3. 254 f., where thepoet uses the word mons o denote a block of stone that topples from its dray ina crowded Roman street and crushes the unfortunatewretches who happen tobe alongside. Here Lewis and Short s entry is: transf., a mountain, i.e. a(heaped up, towering) mass, a heap, a quantity ; and the scholiastcomments

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 99nowsurrounds t; sublatoprivatovestibulo is Manutius s laconicnote. Finally,how could Cicero defend himself and his brotheron the same chargewhich heproceedsto makeagainstotherswith the plea that it happeneda long time ago ?

Cicero then is here on the offensive,and this alone suits the context, which istoo long to quote. It is Appius Claudius who has incorporatedthe shrine intohis house, and Cicero is connected with the businesssolely because the templeis under his curatio;he house of Quintus has nothing to do with it. Long afterI had inferredthis, I discoveredAd Fam.viii. 12. 3, where Caelius,prosecutinghis quarrelwith Appius Claudius in 50 B.C.,remarks praeterea coepi sacellumin domo quod est ab eo petere . Varro, R.R. iii. 2. 5 (dramatic date 54 B.C.)gives him a house in the CampusMartius,but there is no reasonwhy he shouldnot have had two, like Q. Cicero.One may translate Some think it my duty to remove the obstructionsfromround the shrine. They say that not long ago it stood in the open.I should add two points. In the absence of more evidence one cannot safelyidentify the Argiletanumedificiumf Ad Att. i. 14. 7 (6I B.C.) with Quintushouse on the Carinae, as Gilbert, iii. 354 (-5) n. 3, does. Secondly, there is noground for referringto the temple of Tellus the allusions in 58 below (vestrismonumentisuum omeninscripsit),Ad Fam. . 9. 5 and 15,AdQ.F. ii. 8 (Sjogren),2.There is one problem in these speeches about which I cannot come to anyfirm conclusion, but to which I should like to draw attention. I have notbeen able to get any clearpictureof what is happeningin Har.Resp.22-26 andtherefore I am left in perplexity about the meaning of scaena.Ritschl, ParergaPlautina, ix-xx, saw the difficultybut cleared it away by accepting the theoryof spuriousness,and no subsequent book on theatrical antiquities, so far as Ican discover,has taken account of it froma freshviewpoint; nor is it discussed,for example, by A. Muller, Philol. suppl. vii. Perhaps some student of theRoman stage can solve this.King sCollege, ondon E. COURTNEY

NEGLECTED HYPERBOLE IN JUVENALITis no doubt legitimate for the commentator and the lexicographerto followthe example of the scholiast in their treatment of ancient poetry, and to pointout on occasions the prosaic reality that lies behind its imagery. But if thetranslator swork is to retain some of the freshnessand vitality of the original,he mustsurelyavoid suchtemptations,and give us, in so faras his own languageallows, what the poet says rather than a collection of glosseson his text. Thisappliesespecially,perhaps,to the translationof satire: for an importantfeatureof this genre is hyperbole, and, in particular, the exaggeratingmetaphor, andif the translator (unduly influenced, it may be, by commentaries and dic-tionaries) is content to tone down the satirist s language and neutralize itsimagery, he thereby robs the poet of one of the more useful weapons in hisarmoury.A simple illustrationof the point is provided by Juvenal 3. 254 f., where thepoet uses the word mons o denote a block of stone that topples from its dray ina crowded Roman street and crushes the unfortunatewretches who happen tobe alongside. Here Lewis and Short s entry is: transf., a mountain, i.e. a(heaped up, towering) mass, a heap, a quantity ; and the scholiastcomments