T H E

274 CLASSICAL REVIEW

but not at once fulfilled (785 f., 795ff.,801 f.) have something in common with
Demosthenes' 'but first I will explain briefly . ..', a promise which the orator
does not mean to keep but which nevertheless sustains us and holds our atten-
tion for as long as he wishes.
The last essay in the book, on lyrics in the parabases (pp. 191-224), draws
our attention to traditional religious elements and to divergences from tradi-
tion.
University of St. Andrews K. J. DOVER

TZETZES ON THE FROGS

W. J. W. KOSTER: Scholia in Aristophanem. Partis iv, fasc. iii. Johannis
Tzetzae Commentarii in Ranas et in Aves. Pp. v+691-1168 (cont. from
fasc. ii); 2 plates. Groningen: Wolters, 1962. Cloth, fl. 75.
T H E third volume of the new edition of the Aristophanes scholia consists mainly
of Tzetzes' notes on the Frogs. For a general description of this edition the reader
may refer to reviews of previous volumes (D. Mervyn Jones in this journal,
lxxv [1961], 120 and 288; H. Erbse in Gnomon xxxiii [1961], 457-61, and
xxxiv [1962], 348-51). Tzetzes' notes on this play, like those on the Plutus and
Clouds, exist in two recensions, and at the many points at which they differ
Professor Koster prints the two in parallel columns (though the arrangement
is occasionally hard to understand, as on p. 854). The interlinear glosses are
printed with the main corpus of scholia. Koster has written a commentary,
the first aim of which is to show how Tzetzes drew upon the old scholia or
altered them; but it also throws light on some of the scholia recentiora, which
can now be seen to derive from Tzetzes. Besides this there are notes, often of
considerable length and erudition, on the style and content of what Tzetzes
wrote, and where the scholia are directly relevant to the play Koster's com-
mentary extends to a discussion of problems in the play itself.
The interest of this volume is greater to the Byzantinist or historian of classical
scholarship than to the classical scholar. We learn a good deal about Tzetzes—
his dislike of most of the Frogs (arg. i. 12 ff., et passim), his feuds with other
scholars (507, 843, 897), his other writings (1328), and his habit of quoting
from memory (1225, 1318), which it is important to remember when con-
sidering the accuracy of his quotations. For the interpretation of the play he
is not often useful. But it is only fair to say that%he (or at any rate some manu-
scripts of his works) anticipates a few modern readings or conjectures in the
text, e.g. 204 dOaXdrrevTos, 269 rcb KU>TTI(X>, 475 Taprqaala, IO36 the attribution
of parts, 1322 Treplj3a\' (cf. Maas, Greek Metre, p. 31); sometimes, disagreeing
with the old scholia, he offers an explanation of his own independently proposed
by modern scholars, e.g. on 135, 249, 316, 644 (cf. now Ed. Fraenkel,
Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes, pp. 132 ff.), 706, 1119. Tzetzes is undeniably
useful to the editor of the old scholia, which he often quotes verbatim or pre-
serves in a more complete and uncorrupted form than is known elsewhere;
hence some emendations are anticipated at sch. 141, 826, 944, 964, 1301, and
at 1505 his reading £l<f>os is a great improvement (cf. Stanford's ed. ad loc).
Assuming (and it is a big assumption) that Tzetzes can be trusted to be
accurate, there are some small additions to our knowledge at 86 (Xenocles),
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 275
142 (the plot of a Euripidean play), 190 (Diomedes Cholargeus), 359 (perhaps
a new fr. of Hipponax), 418 (registration of children in a phratry), 688 (the
plot of Phrynichus' Antaeus; cf. Nauck2, p. 720), 840 (Euripides' early life),
1080 (Eur. Auge), 1240 (Eur. fr. 516 N. 2 ).
Two other points are worth noting. At 733 Koster shows the importance of
distinguishing the various strata of scholia by demonstrating that various
scholia about the (/xip/xaKos rite are not scholia vetera and derive for the most
part from the well-known passage of Tzetzes, Hist. f. 726-61, thus losing their
status as independent evidence. At 1225 Tzetzes is the best source for fr. 819
N. 2 of Eur. Phrixus; the tradition of these and the old scholia that there were
two plays of the name is now confirmed by P. Oxy. 2455 and 2456.
A word about the transcription: in the Ambrosianus the second scribe's hand
is one of the most difficult that a classical scholar is ever likely to have to read,
and unfortunately a few mistakes have occurred on the page shown on plate 2.
(a) P. 933 1. 11, evprjoerai Koster; the manuscript reads evp-qveias, which
restores sense and syntax; 'you are much more likely to find'. For the weak
aorist form cf. Manetho Apotelesmatica v. 137 and sch. Aesch. P.V. 59.
(b) P. 934 1. 15, dvayvovs dvaypa<j>§ Koster; the accentuation in the manu-
script precludes this, and the natural interpretation of the compendia is
avacrras draorao-ei; is it a figurative expression 'resurrecting yourself again' ?
(c) P. 935 I.17, TToaaiv Koster; roawv looks more likely and is at least as good
in sense.
(d) P. 939 1. 3, o-oi Koster; poi is certain and better sense.
The volume ends with Tzetzes' notes on the Birds, previously edited by
J. W. White in Harvard Studies [1901], 69-108. Koster corrects a few minor
errors of White and adopts his useful procedure of marking with an asterisk
the notes which do not correspond in content to the old scholia. It might also
have been worth while to add White's list of the few interesting points in what
is mainly a series of interlinear glosses. At 84 vpwv would be an easy correction,
making Tzetzes guilty of one less error (cf. on Frogs 1401).
A fourth volume, of indexes, is announced.
Lincoln College, Oxford N.G.WILSON

A METAPHYSICAL ANAXIMANDER
PAUL SELIGMAN: The Apeiron of Anaximander. A study in the Origin and
Function of Metaphysical Ideas. Pp. x+181. London: Athlone Press,
1962. Cloth, 42^. net.
THIS investigation combines two aims which might perhaps better have been
treated separately—to reconstruct from the evidence the basic doctrines of
Anaximander on Apeiron and Adikia, and [to determine their philosophic
significance in the light of certain considerations about the nature of meta-
physical thinking generally. The account of the doctrines was substantially
completed before the publication of C. H. Kahn's Anaximander and the Origins of
Greek Cosmology in i960, and it necessarily covers much of the same ground.
Like Kahn, Seligman maintains that according to Theophrastus Anaximander
was the first to use the word Arche. (For a denial of this, which seems to me
preferable, see Kirk and Raven, pp. 107-8, and now Guthrie, A History of