Sludien zu Vavvo 'Be poelis' I HeIIJvied BaIInann

Beviev I W. K. SnilI
TIe CIassicaI Beviev, Nev Sevies, VoI. 14, No. 2 |Jun., 1964), pp. 221-222
FuIIisIed I CanIvidge Univevsil Fvess on IeIaIJ oJ TIe CIassicaI Associalion
SlaIIe UBL http://www.jstor.org/stable/709170 .
Accessed 19/05/2014 0519
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 forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are 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 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 221
despite
its
shortness,
contains a
contrast,
between Horace's
power
to recommend and
his
willingness
to do so.
On i.
13
the author seems keen to water
down the force of the
instructions,
which
must be
part
of an elaborate Horatian
joke.
The name Vinnius Asina is credited for the
bearer;
alternative
theories,
such as Nisbet's
Vinnius
Valens,
are not mentioned. Claim-
ing
that lines
4-5
constitute not a real
nega-
tive
but an
explanation of
1-3, St6gen
contrasts
'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 27
lines
(13+ 14)
the motives of
each,
divided
into town and
country
sections. The line
angulus isteferet piper
et tus ocius uva is
impos-
sibly interpreted
as
meaning
that the vilicus
would
prefer
to be
carrying pepper
and in-
cense to the
spice-merchant
in Rome than
grapes
from the farm to
Tibur; angulus
is
first
explained
as the merchant's corner and
then
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 idem at the
begin-
ning
of the next line shows that there is
a
strong
link here.
Why
not divide into
39-6
and
39'4 lines,
i.e. after medicandum
[mis-
printed
mend-
p. 59,
n.
5]?
In
general,
how-
ever,
the idea of a
bipartite
scheme for each
epistle may
well be
right,
as
perhaps (despite
Neoptolemus' arrangement)
in the Ars
Poetica.
Some
points
of detail: in Aen.
i.
495 (p. 26,
n.
2)
after
obtutuque
add haeret. On
p. 32,
n.
4,
the scholiast's
explanation
of
pondera
as
stepping-stones
is not
given.
On
p. 64,
n.
5,
Publilius
[not P.] Syrus'
line is
merely
a metrical
paraphrase
of bis dat
qui
cito dat.
On
p. 86,
incolumem
(Epist.
i.
I6.
16)
does not
mean
'all6grement'.
The iambic line
quoted
on
p. 87,
n.
I,
should
surely
end esto
bonus,
not bonus
esto,
and that
quoted
on
p. 95,
n.
2,
should start bene vixit is
quipotuit
or
(less well)
bene vixit
qui potuerit.
University of Glasgow O.
A. W. DILKE
HELLFRIED DAHLMANN: Studien zu
Varro 'De
poetis'. (Akad.
der Wiss.
in
Mainz,
Abh. der Geistes- und Sozial-
wiss. Ki.
I962. Io.) Pp. I24.
Wies-
baden:
Steiner, 1962. Paper,
DM. 12.
WHEN Varro
published
his De
poetis
as well
as his De
poematis
he was
following
a
practice
established
among
Hellenistic writers of
treatises,
who used the
r7iXv7-reXvT7rqS
divi-
sion to
express
different and
complementary
attitudes to the same art. As far as the
poetic
art 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
scanty
fragments
of Varro's De
poematis
as a focus
for the discussion of Roman
poetic theory
and its Hellenistic
background.
In a similar
fashion he has now used the no less
scanty
survivals of the De Poetis to consider both
the form of this work and some
problems
concerning
the
early
Roman
poets.
The work in the main consists of four
essays.
In the first he enumerates the
topics
normally
found in the
introductory
section
(praelocutio,
wrpoOepca)
ofa treatise. It would
be
expected
to include information about the
way
the art
began
or its introduction
(dpX'i
or
EpeaLs),
its
development
(aeicarLS),
and
its
perfection (dKyq).
This is to some extent
an
enlargement
of what Dahlmann said in his
previous
work about the Hellenistic
srpo-
OEwpla,
and he now tests his
theory by trying
to
apply
it to Latin works of the treatise
form. Suetonius offers an obvious
target,
and
as the De
poetis
is not available he considers
for this
purpose
the
introductory
sections of
the De
grammaticis
et
rhetoribus.
He
proceeds
to detect traces of the same
arrangement
in
Cicero's Brutus and De
Inventione,
and less
convincingly
in De Oratore and elsewhere.
Varro,
Dahlmann
argues,
was the
person
who introduced to Rome the form and
technique
of
Peripatetic-Alexandrian literary
biography,
and would be
expecteat
to
adopt
this
arrangement
in his own De
poetis.
This
at
any
rate
provides
the
subject
for the
second
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 the
Second Punic War
(xvii.
21.
43
and
45)-
The
dating
of Livius
Andronicus, Naevius,
Plautus,
and Ennius is
compared
with that
of other
authorities,
and it
appears
that some
of the dates were established
by Varro,
cor-
recting
the mistakes of Accius. It is
suggested
that for Varro Livius Andronicus
represented
the
apX"j
of Roman
poetry,
Naevius the
a;G6qatc,
and Ennius the
dK/I.
In the third
essay,
which is the most
interesting,
Dahl-
mann, going
back over the same
ground,
sifts the evidence
supplied
in the
passage
of
Gellius
already mentioned,
and assesses its
validity.
At the same time he determines
how much of it is Varronian in
origin.
An-
other
passage
of Gellius (i. 24, 3)
ascribes to
Varro De
poetis
i the
preservation
of the
This content downloaded from 161.116.186.128 on Mon, 19 May 2014 05:19:52 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
epitaph
which Plautus was
supposed
to have
written for himself. So in the fourth
essay
Dahlmann discusses the use in
general
of
epitaphs
in both Greek and Roman
literary
biography.
More
particularly
he considers
the
epitaphs
of Naevius and Pacuvius that
accompany
that of Plautus in Gellius and
the famous
epitaph
of Ennius
quoted
more
than once
by
Cicero. The
authenticity
of
these
epitaphs
has of course been a favourite
topic
for
speculation,
and Dahlmann
gives
a
handy conspectus
of the views of his
pre-
decessors.
In
general
Dahlmann has
produced
an
interesting
collection of
studies,
and one that
should be of service to historians of the
Roman
poets.
It should be added that in his
identification of Varronian material his as-
sumptions
are cautious and his
reasoning
sound.
University of Edinburgh
W. K. SMITH
J.
G. HAWTHORNE and C. S. SMITH:
Theophilus,
On Divers Arts.
Pp.
xxxv--
216; 16
plates, 27 figs.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press, 1963. Cloth, 63s.
THIS
edition has been
produced by
a classi-
cal scholar and a scientist
working
in con-
junction,
an essential
procedure
if technical
subjects
such as those treated
by Theophilus
are to be handled
successfully.
The editors
state
modestly
that if
they
had known of
C. R. Dodwell's
plans
for his notable edition
of
1961
their labour would have been saved
(p. xxi).
Their
contribution, however,
lies in
a different
field,
and the two editions are
really complementary (p. xxii).
Their use of
Dodwell's
page proofs
in
revising
their
translation adds to the value of their
work,
and one can
only regret
that
they
did not
include a Latin text with an
apparatus
in-
dicating
where Dodwell's
readings
are not
accepted.
As it
is,
the two editions should be
used
together.
A few difficulties
may
be mentioned. To
translate rubeum as 'red'
(pp. 19-26)
is dis-
concerting
when other red
pigments
are
mentioned.
Although
Dodwell's 'burnt
ochre'
agrees
with their note on
p. 14,
Haw-
thorne and Smith avoid this
presumably
because rubeum
might
include a natural red
earth.
Failing 'ruddle', they might
have left
rubeum
untranslated,
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,
id est sellas
plicatorias (i. 22),
which Dodwell renders
'litters
(that
is
folding chairs)'.
Hawthorne
and Smith are
hardly
more
convincing
with
'eight-men carrying-chairs,
that is curtained
seats'
(p. 29).
It is
surely simpler
to assume
that for
plicatorias Theophilus
intended to
write
portatorias.
On
p. 163
the editors
adopt
Dodwell's
unannotated emendation
aerugine ('rust'),
but
robigine
would suit the sense at least as
well,
and would be closer to
tigine,
the
reading
of G.
'Hyacinths'
is a
misleading
translation of
iacincti,
as is Dodwell's
'jacinths'.
The stones
are
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 work
that is of vital
importance
to students of
ancient
technology.
In the classical
period
craftsmen were inarticulate: it is sometimes
said that in the
prevailing
social conditions
they
were bound to be.
Theophilus partly
fills the
gap, giving
us
glimpses
into the
early
stages
of such crafts as
glass-blowing
and
metal-working.
But he was no
antiquary:
he
was an
accomplished
man of his
time,
as is
shown here
by photographs
of his own work
(if,
as seems
likely,
he was none other than
Roger
of
Helmarshausen).
The
photographs
are
only
one attractive feature of this
elegant
and
scholarly
book.
University of
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 the
English reader,
at
any rate,
is
likely
to be
misled
by
the title. There are three sections.
The first summarizes under classified head-
ings
the chiefcharacteristics of classical Greek
prose
and the difference between Greek and
modern French idiom. The last consists of
carefully arranged
notes on Greek
syntacti-
cal
usage.
Between these two sections are
fifty passages
from well-known French
prose
writers, mainly
of a
reflective, philosophical
character rather than
straight
narrative.
Greek versions of these
passages
are
given
on
the
opposite page. Frequent
footnotes com-
ment on the
principles
involved in transla-
This content downloaded from 161.116.186.128 on Mon, 19 May 2014 05:19:52 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions