review_rodríguez adrados, francisco_líricos griegos. elegiacos y yambógrafos_[d. l. page]

7/27/2019 Review_Rodríguez Adrados, Francisco_Líricos Griegos. Elegiacos y Yambógrafos_[D. L. Page]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reviewrodriguez-adrados-franciscoliricos-griegos-elegiacos-y-yambografosd 1/5

Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic Poetry

Líricos Griegos: Elegiacos y Yambógrafos Arcaicos (siglos vii-v a. C.) by Francisco R. AdradosReview by: D. L. PageThe Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 8, No. 3/4 (Dec., 1958), pp. 223-226Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/703036 .

Accessed: 02/12/2012 18:54

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 [email protected].

.

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 by the authorized user from 192.168.72.229 on Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:54:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/stable/703036?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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





http://www.jstor.org/stable/703036?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 223

by D. E. Eichholz' and Stanley Smith,begun about I942 in this country, was never

completed.The translators n their copious notes

steer their way very skilfullythrough thevarietiesof Tymphaicearthor

yv',os,show-

ing when lime, when gypsum, and when

plasterofPariswasmeant.Ofthe otherthree

earths, the Melian, the Kimolian,and the

Samian, only the last is, in my view, con-

vincingly translatedas kaolinite,as it was

by Bailey.2Among kaolinitic clays one can find

contrasts in physical properties: thus ifSamian earth were dense, shiny, greasy-because of the size, shape, and mode of

compaction of the platelets-there is noreason to suppose that another kaolinitic

clay could not be light, harsh and, when

rubbed,clinkery-sounding. syv',os-

coveredseveral materialsso I believecould Melianearth.

I agree that the exceedingly ine-grainedquartznowcalled'Milowite'mayhavebeensold as

M'qAt••in Theophrastus' ime, but

consider it equally probable that a very

white kaolinitic clay somewhat induratedwithfine silicamightalso have found useasa pigment n hisdayand later.(Thereflect-ance of a specimenI examinedby a stan-

dard test was 92 per cent., comparedwith88 per cent. for a paper-coating hina-clayfrom Cornwalland 82 per cent. for anotherfrom Georgia, U.S.A.) A painter wouldavoid a shiny, white pigment and wouldchooseone which wouldgive a matt surface.

It is, however,quite possiblethat Pliny'sdepilatorybrand of Melinum (N.H. xxxv.37) could be the abrasive fine silica'Milowite'.

Kimolian earth cannot be sepiolite (=meerschaum), mineralwhich can be used

as a fuller'searthonly locallybecausewhenit is extractedand allowedto dryit becomes

exceedinglyhard and tough: it no longerforms a slurry when mixed with water.There can be no doubt whatsoeverthatKimolianearth, like Englishfuller'searth,was essentially calcium-montmorillonite.3Although Kimolos supplied the classicalworld with one of its most importantdeter-

gents, shiploadsof this mineralcan still be

boughtfrom thosepartsof Melosnearest othe smaller sland. The mineralname cimo-

lite is obsolete. R. H. S. ROBERTSONSee, however, D. E. Eichholz, C.R.,

lxvi (1952), I44-5; lix (I945), 52.2 K. C. Bailey, The ElderPliny'sChaptersn

ChemicalSubjects,i (1932). SR. H.S. Robertson,C.R. xiii(I949), 5I.

REVIEWS

EARLY GREEK ELEGIAC ANDIAMBIC POETRY

FRANCIScoR. ADRADOS: Liricos Griegos:Elegiacosy rambdgrafosArcaicos

(siglos vii-v a. C.). Volumen i. (Colecci6n HispAnica de Autores Griegos

y Latinos.) Pp. xxii+25I. Barcelona: Ediciones Alma Mater, 1956

[1957].Cloth.

THEplan of the book is promising.There is a short general introduction(pp.ix-xxv) followed by a general bibliography.Then for each poet (Archilochus,

Callinus, Tyrtaeus, Semonides, Solon, Mimnermus, Phocylides, Demodocus,and-as if this were a workof the sixthcentury-Asius fr. I) a specialintroduc-tion and bibliography; text with translation opposite; beneath the text,sources and very brief apparatus criticus; beneath the translation, short

explanatory notes. Introductions, translations,and explanatory notes are in

Spanish.The general introduction and (especially) the introduction to Archilochus,

with which one starts,make a favourable mpression.The editor,who has read








THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 225

great, and their charactersometimes so repellent, that the utility of the bookseems to me seriously diminished. Among oversights which ruin the metrenote especially Arch. 76 -ovS' 05or O~VE 8' (0; 158. I8 -avvaavrEs for rav'roa-;

170o.6 Se•Wo'Sfor 8e&8-; Tyrt. 6. 16 'pXEoa0or aPXE-E; Sem. 8.5 d

rAovro&sfor-At?-; Solon 7. 3 d L c'v for d'E6v; 19. I2

d•-g•left out; 28. I EVxdWLEOaor

-~EaOa;Phoc. 7. 1 XPW"v

or trisyllabicXpqtwv; add two peculiar categories,(a) the printing of Efor r7,Arch. 72

a•SEp7E,06. Io APXE-or A~PX?-,metre not

affected; Tyrt. 7. I 'HpaKAEOS or -osg; Mimn. I I. 5Alc-ado

[sic]; Solon 2. 3and Sem. 8. 7I E8or &4;he reverse errordisfiguresArch. 216. I Ov,Tyrt.I. 54 n.

7-qmyudawv,em. 8. 29 dwawv'4ue; (b) metre ruined by omission of

paragogic nu, Arch 177. 8, 211. I, Solon 5- 7, I1. 6, Sem. 8. 72; and by its

inclusion,Arch. 164,Solon I. 37. In the followingexamplesthe fault evidentlyis not always to be charged to the printer: Arch. 53- 3, Porson's law broken

(the lines are by Lasserre,not Archilochus); 120. 2, no caesura (again, theline is not by Archilochus) ; 132 .10

•- KaKoi3cfa- ; 132. 12, [a]E[O]

3o, hiatus supplied by the editor (in the next line the unmetrical viv is pre-sumably a mere misprint) ; I33. 6, ariv ovl-; 133- 9

-- Va

-iar[pcs r]paqEaa&

7[-kv k, no caesura; 158. 9 -~E'rE XEpavlY 8[ (the bracket is the wrong wayround in the text), four consecutivelong syllables; 158. 13, no diaeresis n themiddle of the line; I58. 14 - - T

_']JLE['1n]pav EqlmdvrI aA[1v; 208. I, 7rEpL-

0b/to~?; Callinus 2. I, short syllable before atjvpv-; Sem. 8. 43,

7roA•q•?Here

are some three dozen places where the text as printed does not scan: I havenot included quite all that I have noted, and I do not guarantee that I have

noticed all.The text is further disfigured by such aberrations as Arch. I63. 3 XeLdvos;

171. 2 cKE]vUaacVos; 220. 2 CKOVwv;230 7po•VLP1pv;Solon I. 48Aarpv'e•;

23. 3dyaaEElv;Sem. 8, 34 d~al; more insidious are Solon I. I4, 3' for 'g, and Sem.2. 11 Aap v for AaflYv.Smaller misprintsare common (in the bibliographiestoo); punctuation is sometimes erratic (e.g. Arch. 7. 5 and 8; I6o; Callinus

I. 5) ; and without special search I have markedforty-nineerrorsof accent or

breathing. Much more distressingare such monsters as Sem. 8. 116,6rol•'aev,a remarkable lapse for

&lwE'KLpcev,nd Sem. 2. 13 aqwvqpvovs (!) for &Sctp-

ipvovg.

And what is one to say about

N7Al~•g(nominative) in Arch. 154. 6

and 7? Or dapdcqXvn Arch. 124. Io? In the translation, oyendoa voz for

wl]v)v KAvdaasn Arch. 28. 9 gave me such a shock that I read much of thetranslation with considerable care, but without any comparable result; onthe contrary, I found it as lucid and accurate as the nature of the material

permits.Finally, the representationof papyrus-textsneeds drastic revision through-

out. I give a single characteristic specimen, Arch. 128 = P. Oxy. 2310 fr. 3:line 2, delete bracket after Le(in general, there are too many brackets acci-

dentally omitted or included or turned back to front); line 7, omitted stopafter et; line

9, placedtoo far to the

right (in general,the relative

positionsof

lines are often haphazard); line Io, accent should not be there, a stop should;line I I, accent omitted; line 13, a

VK]pv'E..

is, if not actually impossible, too

riskyto put into the text; line 14, one extra missing letter is marked; lines 16and 17, these speculative readings should be relegated to the notes; line 18,]os' Irp[ does not representwhat is in the papyrus

(]..[.]d...[), even if the

letters rspwere reliable (and they are not); line I9, badly misplaced in rela-tion to the line above.








226 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

It is a great pity that the reader's confidencein a book potentially-and in

some respectsactually-so attractiveand useful shouldbe soseverelyshakenbyhis observationthat there are some hundreds of corrections,majorand minor,

to be made beforehe can concentrateon reading. Moreover, the presentbookis Volumen: I implore the editor to re-double vigilance over subsequentvolumes.

TrinityCollege, ambridge D. L. PAGE

FRAGMENTS OF HESIOD

REINHOLD MERKELBACH: Die Hesiodfragmente uf Papyrus. Pp. 56; 6

plates. Leipzig: Teubner, I957. Paper, DM. 6.40.

OURstore of Hesiod fragmentson papyri has grown steadily in recent years:Merkelbach now gives us twenty-three, as against Rzach's nine in 1913-Although there is no reason to suppose that the mine is now exhausted, the

presentedition, assemblingmaterial hitherto scattered in periodicals, and bya scholar who has already done important pioneer work, will be generallywelcomed.

There has been a broad measure of agreement about which fragmentscanbe consideredgenuinely Hesiodic. Of doubtfulones, Merkelbach includes the

single-word fragment from P. Oxy. Io87 of K'(vKos ydaos, a poem whose

genuineness was disputed in antiquity (cf., for different views, Ath. ii 49bwith Plut. Mor. 730e). On the other hand, he excludes P. Mich. 11 (cf.T.A.P.A. liii. 133 ff.), which K6rte rightly questioned: Page included it in

his appendix to the Loeb Hesiod, but agreed that 'the groundsfor attributionto Hesiod are too slight'. Merkelbach sometimes suppressesscholars' doubtsabout certainfragments,e.g. N, which Rzach labelled 'fragmentumdubium',and M 2, whose attribution to the Hesiodic Catalogue was questioned byRobert: and we might perhapshave had more discussionof the genuinenessof

the lines in F 4 (26-33) which are athetized in the papyrus tself,especiallythe

difficulty pointed out by K6rte at 28 (Merkelbach simply says 'd4yqpos tatt

dy'4pwsngew6hnlich').Merkelbachgives two separateseriesof notes, one containing full informa-

tion about the papyrus text, the other concerned with conjectural supple-ments, parallels, and comments on particular points of subject-matter.The

palaeographical notes are the product of minute and careful work. Thefacsimiles (mostly reduced to four-fifthsof the original size) vary in clarity,but are good at their best; occasionallyone can note minordisagreementswiththe readings as reported; e.g. E 2. 14 the rrof a possible 'rr7'p'Paav r drdfl-aavseemsdiscernible.Merkelbachwould, however,have helped the palaeographerby giving possible dates for the papyri, and the mythologist by discussingtheorder of

fragmentsof the same

papyrus (e.g. F).As regards supplements, 'im Text habe ich etwas mehr erganzt als heutefiblich ist; in dieser weitgehend formelhaften Poesie st6rt eine sinngemai3richtige, im Wortlaut aber nicht treffende Erginzung den stilistischenEin-druckweniger als dies bei anderen Dichtern der Fall ist'. Even so, Merkelbach

generally handles conjecturalsupplementswith caution: this is not at all an

'all my own work' edition, and the great majorityof Merkelbach'sown con-

jectures are concerned with style rather than substance. His standard of






review_rodríguez adrados, francisco_líricos griegos. elegiacos y yambógrafos_[d. l. page]

Documents