Review: [untitled]

Author(s): M. L. West
Reviewed work(s):
Etymologicum Genuinum: les citations de poètes lyriques by Claude Calame
Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 99-100
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/707401
Accessed: 25/03/2010 19:59

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 at
http://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 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
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 99
than what doctrines they held. And even attempt to put together the rhetorical terms
that students of English literature, especially
that job they do imperfectly. Of those which
I checked many proved to be wrong while the earlier periods, are likely to come across
others are to passages which do not bear... I hope students of the classics may find
out what Peters says. this list useful, but it was not designed for
them and so it will not tell them . . . whether
Peters is no lexicographer; but he does
antimetabolemeant to Cicero precisely what
not show himself to advantage as a historian
it did to Rutilius Lupus . . . There is a strong
of ideas either. He is not abreast of recent
need for a careful survey of rhetorical terms
discussions-his note on aisthesis koine, for
. . . But this is not it.' Not, then, a number of
instance, is quite out of date. He records
things for which it might from its title be
doctrines and disagreements without giving
the reasons for them, thus conveying the im-
mistaken, this book is entirely disarming, and
pression that Greek philosophers wrote often light-hearted. The compiler has set out
altogether at random. His notes contain to enjoy himself, and only a very austere
oversimplifications and confusions which are
reader would fail to share his enjoyment.
made worse by an unsatisfactory prose style.Lanham gives first an alphabetical list of
terms, then further lists classified in certain
Not all his sentences make sense. He thinks
aloud in such words as 'The viewpoint isother ways. He illustrates liberally from a
now much more complex' (p. I77). In his wide range of authors: the Bible, Cicero and
other Latin rhetoricians, Shakespeare, Mil-
note on ergon we read that Plato 'has ex-
ton, and many other English writers (some
cellence consist in the specific power that
allows that function to operate well. Aris-
unknown to the reviewer), and so on to Ger-
totle's approach is somewhat different. For
trude Stein, Winston Churchill, and the
him areteis a certain high level of performance
author himself. Lanham is of course not the
with regard to the function, a high level that
first to find irresistibly quaint Puttenham's
is guaranteed by not taking any man as the
englishing of the Greco-Roman terminology:
norm but rather keying function on the 'Broad Floute', 'Cuckowspell', 'Fleering
performance of the "serious man".' Frumpe', 'Privie Nippe', etc.
Whether the book is judged as lexico- But this is something more than a lucky
graphy or as history it has too many omis-
dip of a book. There are useful little essays
sions. Peters's conception of philosophy seems
on 'Mock' (i.e. irony), the Pointed Style,
to be a narrow one which excludes logic,the Senecan Style, Arrangement (and the
ethics, political philosophy, and pretty well
persisting influence of the classical doctrine).
everything except the metaphysics of theLanham does better in a limited space with
transcendent. Under the letter A, for Pathos and Ethos than many who write for
example, we look in vain for aidos, aischron,
a specifically classical readership, he writes
well on Periods, and his development in
akoe, akolasia, akrasia, akron, anapodeikton,
antistrephein,aristokratia.But there is no real
modern terms of the ancient theory of style
principle in Peters's selections. He lists aer
is more attractive than such exercises often
and pyr (without mentioning Theophrastus)
are.
but not hydor;he has a long note on dreams There are, however, some slips or un-
but nothing on rainbows. fortunate omissions. I cannot see why Arti-
The printing is not free from errors: a
ficial Proofs are described as 'properly
couple which might puzzle the reader arespeaking not "proofs" at all'-and would it
'soul' for 'body', p. 28 1. I4, and 'moral'
not be helpful to explain the meaning here of
for 'mortal', p. 154 1. 2. It would have been
'artificial' ? It is not stated that the medieval
helpful if Peters had followed the usualcursus was accentual, and Deesis does not
practice today and given line as well asderive from the Latin for 'god'. In Rhetorica
column in his references to Aristotle. ad Herenniumthe 'juridical' issue (status) is
not about fact but justification, and thesisand
W. E. W. ST. G. CHARLTON
hypothesisseem to have been interchanged.
Universityof Newcastleupon Tyne But all in all this little book is useful, amusing,
and very expensive.
RICHARD A. LANHAM: A Handlist of Universityof Southampton A. E. DOUGLAS
Rhetorical Terms. Pp. 8 + I 48. Ber-
keley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, I968. Cloth, $6.50.
As the author states in his preface, 'this is not CLAUDE CALAME: Etymologicum
an original rhetorical treatise. It is simply an Genuinum:les citationsdepoeteslyriques.
IOO THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
Pp. 54. Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, find it generally accurate. But on p. I5. 5
I970. Paper, L. 1,000. three words of Pindar are overlooked (o6rwm
nSgrrporepov);I7. I7 ,&rov A; 23. IO o'orSw;
EDITINGthe EtymologicumGenuinumis be-
'Hpwciavos om. A' is false; 27. I2, A is mis-
coming as popular an activity as editing read (it has the same as B); 3I. 7 aAK/~cav;
Strabo. Colonna did the letter A in I967.
K. Alpers, who is completing the redaction 39. I adK,/av; and there are other occasional
errors over accents and breathings.
left by Ada Adler, promptly replied with his It would be good to have the same service
edition of the same letter. It is now reported
performed for other Greek poets as an in-
that the irrepressible M. Lasserre is going to terim measure.
knock off the Genuinumtogether with the
Magnum and Symeon. Jam tomorrow; but UniversityCollege,Oxford M. L. WEST
in the meantime everyone interested in the
lyric poets will welcome this neat and in-
expensive little book by Calame. He has set
himself the modest task of reporting the text ToIvo VILJAMAA:Nouns meaning
of A and B wherever they contain a quota-
tion from any of the melic, elegiac, or iambic
'river' in Curtius Rufus: a semantic
poets down to Pindar and Bacchylides. (It study in Silver Latin. (Ann. Univ.
would have cost no extra effort to include Turkuensis, B II3.) Turku: Turun
Timotheus 799 and Polyidus 837.) There is Yliopisto, I969. Paper.
new information worth having about Alc.
375, Alcm. 1 2, Anacr. 349, Ibyc. 316, 338, HEIKKI KOSKENNIEMI: Der nominale
Pind. frr. 219, 320, Simon. 544, iamb. adesp. Numerusin der spracheund im Stil des
4 W., mel. adesp. 969. Curtius Rufus. (Ann. Univ. Tur-
There are some omissions, especially of
entries which are relevant to a poet but do
kuensis, B I I4.) Pp. I 78. Turku:
not name him. The Genuinumcontains entries Turun Yliopisto, I969. Paper.
relevant to Alcm. I30; Anacr. 399 (8o>p)- AFTERbrief analysis of normal categories of
d.t,?v),469; Archil. 1o9, 226, 270 W.; Hippon. singular and plural, Koskenniemi devotes
73. 4 (l~ZerpearaL), li8a, II9, I33, I34, I55 special attention to hostis/hostesto demon-
(Kp?KVSteXOs);Ibyc. 299, 328; Pind. pae. strate that the collective singular is pre-
7a. 7; Semon. 30, 35, 39, 40 W.; Stes. 251, dominant in Curtius except where the
253; mel. adesp. 1039 (clearly Alcman, enemy is envisaged as a gathering of dif-
being quoted for Aadcgves "(a)4cv"; read ferentiated individuals. However, hostiumis
,rap ?e (fcv), I043 (where A usefully gives regularly employed for the genitive, and
~SK?v), none of which Calame includes. The hostibuson occasion for the dative. Thus the
entry dXdrT?, quoted from B alone, is also in characteristic collective usage declines hostis/
A, omitting only the word IlvSapos. Often Next comes
hostem/hostiumlhosti-hostibus/hoste.
Calame does not give the whole entry but a study of miles/eques/pedes,where the sin-
refers us to the Magnum for the gist of the gular is common but less standardized; e.g.
remainder. It is a pity that this procedure out of forty singulars of miles, only thirteen
sometimes robs us of a statement of source: can be labelled 'echte synthetische Kollec-
drpVyeroS, dyKvr[, KVVl;uaw Herodian, tiva'. In his third group, Koskenniemi
advriftcwvPhiloxenus, KeAevOa"aXoAwov" examines words for places (terra, campus,
(II. i. 3I2). The continuation of rparre[irvls solitudo),here establishing a fondness for the
(Ibyc. 338) should have been given: 1 plural at the expense of the singular. Finally
rrapaycoyovaJS ,rpvu!va rrpvlVr,7TsKCaKtC(l~1 'nature' words are analysed (silva/nemusf
KOLU,rjrr. In focusing on the poets' names, saltus/frons,
aqua/unda/nix,harena/sabulum,ignis/
Calame pays too little attention to what the flamma);here no schematic pattern emerges,
grammarian is saying. Readings adopted though there is preference for the plural of
s.w. ad7rearrOrra[ov, darpafis, fiA&a>s$aOAos, aquaand ignis.
dpfX&,gXA?sO, betray that he is not following Koskenniemi's method is to list charac-
the argument, while s.v. Kara~rpo~taa9a& he teristic usages in Curtius and to indicate
actually omits the part relevant to Archi- usesof the same word in authors from Caesar
lochus. Note that v~?iepara in Pind. fr. 325 to Tacitus. The only obvious criticism here is
is shown by the interpretation to be neuter the insufficient use of Livy (e.g. for terra/
plural, so read rrerpav; similarly, !~eOot~r,peovsolitudo);Riemann has noted Livy's fondness
in fr. 47 is neuter participle (sc. darpovAlTyos for plurals of abstract words, and Packard's
or the like). Concordance makes such comparison much
I have checked the collation for A, and easiernow. But in general this study usefully