The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR
Additional services for The Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
The Fragments of Sophocles The Fragments of Sophocles. Edited, with additional notes from the papers of Sir R. C. Jebb and Dr W. G. Headlam, by A. C. Pearson, M. A., formerly scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge. Cambridge: University Press, 1917.
G. C. Richards
The Classical Review / Volume 31 / Issue 07 / November 1917, pp 167 - 172 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00009240, Published online: 27 October 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00009240
How to cite this article: G. C. Richards (1917). The Classical Review, 31, pp 167-172 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X00009240
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 130.126.162.126 on 16 Mar 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 167 of Juno Regina on the Aventine had NOTE ON THE quattuor arae OF been struck by lightning. Two white A en. V. 639. cows were driven in procession from the When the Trojan women determine Porta Carmentalis to the temple, and to burn the ships, Juno, in the form of there sacrificed by the decemviri sacris Beroe, urges them on: ' iam tempus agi faciundis (Liv. 27. 37). A strange res, I Nee tantis mora prodigiis. En feature of this procession was that two quattuor arae [ Neptuno: deusipse faces images of the goddess were carried in animumque ministrat.' From these it and deposited in the temple. On the altars, and also from foci penetrates other hand, in the lustration-ritual of (1. 660) they snatch the necessary fire. the Fratres Atiedii of Iguvium the ' Rapiuntque focis penetralibus ignem | victims seem to have been always three (Pars spoliant aras), frondem ac virgulta in number. facesque | Coniciunt.' My conclusion therefore is that the I think there is no doubt that these duplication means only particular em- 1 four altars had been erected to Neptune phasis in sacrifice: and that it might by the four competitors in the boat-race. be adopted by individual or State It is true that only Cloanthus is according to circumstances, but, accord- expressly said to have vowed a victim ing to such evidence as we have, was to the gods of the sea (235 ff.), but we especially liable to be so adopted in the may reasonably suppose, with Servius case of vows made either to the dead at ad loc. 639, that the other three had parentatio—the most primitive form, done the same. This seems to me to which Virgil had preserved in A en. V.— be confirmed by what we are told in in the case of vows at a deification, as 699, that only four ships were destroyed in Eel. V., or in the closely connected by the flames. Virgil imagined that 3'early vota for the welfare of the the four competitors had drawn up Emperor on Jan. 3. their ships on the shore near the altars they had erected, and as the fires on 1 In Aen. VIII. 556 we read 'vota metu dupli- these altars were still alight, the four cant matres,' i.e. at a time of particular peril. ships were set on fire first of all, and Servius writes, 'nam inest semper in matnbus thus came to be destroyed while the votum.. . .' Though we must not press ' dupli- cant' here, it seems to me to have a bearing rest escaped. on our question. In ix. 263 foil: the gifts are We may note, however, that the doubled which Ascanius promises to Nisus. Sibyl offers four victims to Hecate (Aen. VI. 243), whom she invokes (247) as caeloque Ereboque potentem. W. WARDE FOWLER.
REVIEWS THE FRAGMENTS OF SOPHOCLES. The Fragments of Sophocles. Edited, with portance to the work that is now to be additional notes from the papers of reviewed than to the volumes which we Sir R. C. Jebb and Dr. W. G. Head- know so well already. Mr. Pearson lam, by A. C. PEARSON, M. A., formerly modestly deprecates disappointment on scholar of Christ's College, Cam- the part of his readers when they find bridge. Cambridge: University Press, how small is the share of his two dis- 1917. tinguished predecessors. (Dr. Headlam did little more than contribute elegant WITH these three volumes Jebb's translations of some important frag- Sophocles is at last complete. Finis coro- ments.) But the solid labour and sound nat opus, and no one, whose opinion is judgment of Mr. Pearson are above all worth considering, will attach less im- praise. He has mastered all the litera- 168 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW ture on the subject that was worth Tyro, it is less likely that this was the considering; indeed, in a later edition case with Nauplius and Thyestes. It he may throw overboard references is possible that as many as twenty-eight to many impossible suggestions and of the titles are to be classed as satyr- theories. He has neglected nothing plays. In the case of three—the Inachus, that would elucidate the subject-matter the Shepherds, and the Banqueters—Mr. (cf. 449 or 776); his notes, exegetical, Pearson discusses the possibility that philological, metrical, are both full and they were pro-satyric: probably, how- sound, and he has given us a most ever, the first and third were satyr-plays. valuable introduction. He disclaims He does not as a rule insert fragments any knowledge of archaeology, but he under the titles unless there is definite has managed to include references to evidence from antiquity, but mentions most of the important matter under any theories in the notes on the frag- this head. He has exactly followed ments of uncertain attribution. One Horace's maxim about publication, but wishes that it had been possible to involuntarily, for the work went to make two volumes of the work instead press at the beginning of 1913, and has of three, as they would have been much been delayed by the war. more easy to use; but it is unfair to It was time that the Fragments of complain, as the third volume contains Sophocles should be re-edited. Since a most useful pair of indices to the notes Nauck's last edition (1889) a hundred in the whole ten volumes. new fragments have been added. Not Throughout the edition Mr. Pearson only have the papyri given us important is very chary of drawing inferences from additions in the plays 'Axai&p avWoyoi, the fragments of the Latin dramatists, Eurypylus, Niobe, Tantalus, Tyro (to and I am inclined to think he is right; which we hear the Inachus may now be but I could wish that he had committed added), but the labours of Rabe and himself to a definite view on the relation Reitzenstein have also made the mate- of the Little Iliad to the Iliupersis rial larger. By correcting the number abstracted by Proclus. Mr. Allen's in the Vita, Mr. Pearson makes Aristo- view, that Aristotle did not distinguish phanes of Byzantium and Suidas agree between two poems, does not really in attributing to Sophocles 123 plays. account for all the facts. Monro His own list of titles numbers 135. (Odyssey, p. 343) has shown clearly that He thinks that we can still identify the conclusion of the Little Iliad was with certainty about 112. It is probable omitted by Proclus in favour of the that few who consider the subject other account. The varying details will be found to disagree with him of the oifKav icpL
.EPICTETUS: THE DISCOURSES AND MANUAL. Epictetus: the Discourses and Manual. than Epictetus, but by the use of a Translated, with introduction and natural and lucid English style, which notes, by P. E. MATHESON. TWO eschews artificial makeweights, he has vols. 7"X4J*. Pp. 245 + 280. Ox- succeeded in reproducing the placid ford : The Clarendon Press, 1916. tone of serious gravity which is charac- 3s. 6d. net each vol. teristic of the original. I am sorry that space does not permit me to quote MR. MATHESON is justified in remark- extracts in illustration. ing that a translation of Epictetus is The rigid terminology of the Stoics not out of season at the present time. is a constant source of difficulty for By constantly insisting on the illusory their translators. In Epictetus the im» value of externals, and the supreme portant words are not numerous, and importance of a moral judgment, the for the most part Mr. Matheson has free exercise of which is unassailable by found suitable renderings. ' Apprehen- stress of fortune or gusts of passion, he sive,' which he accepts for KaraKiprrncr^, offers a bracing stimulus when civilisa- is well warranted, but, in view of Zeno's tion itself is in danger. It is scarcely symbolical comparison of KardXifyfrK doubtful that there was room for a new with the closed fist (Cic. Acad. 2. 144), English version. Although the transla- ' clenching' might perhaps be sug- tions by Elizabeth Carter (1758) and gested. For opel-i? and e««X«n? I George Long (1877), both of which should prefer ' inclination ' and ' aver- have been reprinted in recent years, are sion ' to the somewhat clumsy ' will to of substantial merit, they have not made get' and ' will to avoid.' the way smooth for English readers The introductory matter includes a who are unacquainted with the Stoic brief, but clear and accurate, account cast of thought. For Epictetus deserves of such Stoic doctrines as are relevant a wider hearing than he can receive to the understanding of the text. The from scholars, and Mr. Matheson's statement that Epictetus ' does not call excellent translation, which marks a attention to' the distinction between notable advance upon its predecessors, vporiyfieva and onrotrporfy/xiva (p. 20) will help to obtain it for him. Epic- perhaps requires qualification. It is tetus—or rather Arrian, his reporter— true that he does not mention the words, did not aim at any elaboration of style. but the doctrine that certain things are The impression which the record pro- choiceworthy in the absence of over- duces upon its readers is due to the riding circumstances is clearly indicated simplicity, sincerity, and earnestness of in 1. 2.15,1 1. 22. 12, 2. 5. 25, and else- the speaker. All irrelevant considera- where. tions are brushed aside, sometimes with ironical scorn, and the truth is driven 1 The note on this passage entirely misses home by the reiteration, in a series of the point by failing to observe that the answer hammer-like strokes, of a few essential is given by Epictetus. The vexed question of TjHovTi as Trporjyjjitvov, which is clearly involved, dogmas. Mr. Matheson is less rugged cannot be discussed here.