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

Harrison on Theognis Studies in Theognis, together with a Text of the Poems. By E. Harrison, B.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Cambridge: University Press, 1902. Pp. xii, 336. 10s. 6d. net.

Herbert Weir Smyth

The Classical Review / Volume 17 / Issue 07 / October 1903, pp 352 - 356 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00208512, Published online: 27 October 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00208512

How to cite this article: Herbert Weir Smyth (1903). Review of Ennis B. Edmonds, and Michelle A. Gonzalez 'Caribbean Religious History: An Introduction' The Classical Review, 17, pp 352-356 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00208512

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 128.122.253.212 on 08 May 2015 352 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

REVIEWS.

HARBISON ON THEOGNIS.

Studies in Tlieognis, together with a Text in almost any order as in their present of the Poems. By E. HARRISON, B.A., position. Welcker first suggested the Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. theory of 'catchwords.' In 1867 Cambridge: University Press, 1902. Nietzsche dealt with this method of Pp. xii, 336. 10s. 6d. net. explanation and with the repetitions. In 1869 Fritzsche toyed with the problem of WITH all divergencies of detail criti- catchwords, which he accepted as correct in cism of Theognis during the nineteenth the main; in 1877 K. Miiller came to the century has been well-nigh unanimous on conclusion that similarity of mere words in two points : many of the poems found in adjoining poems constituted the principle of the MSS. are not the work of the arrangement. The high water-mark of this Megarian poet; and their arrangement is theory was reached in the edition of due to some person (or persons) other than Sitzler (1880), who printed the catchwords the original author. Since the date of in special type. This editor is probably Welcker's edition (1826) no scholar has the last to maintain the untenable pro- ventured to defend the proposition that position that the text of Theognis was our text is free from interpolations of expanded because of its use as a schoolbook. considerable extent, derived, on the one Ten years ago Reitzenstein treated the hand, from the elegists before Theognis contradictory theories of his predecessors and, on the other, from accretions sub- with the silence of contempt: to him our sequent to his time. Over three hundred collection represents an expansion made at verses have in fact been referred to a very early date through the influence of definite authors on grounds that are often the symposium. convincing, but more frequently entirely Such in brief was the state of the fanciful. Bergk held that our text was Theognidean question when Mr. Harrison compiled not long after Isocrates; attacked the problem. He is, if I am Nietzsche dated the collection after Cyril not mistaken, the only British scholar and before Stobaeus; Cauer finds evidence since Gaisford and Frere who has of the insertion of foreign matter as early been attracted to the study of the as Clement; while Welcker himself was of Megarian elegist. His book is the most the opinion that the compiler lived at exhaustive discussion of the entire subject. Constantinople and gathered the fragments from later authors after the complete A new theory about Theognis may well Theognis had disappeared. Several be a paradox—and we have a paradox in scholars, such as Rintelin, H. Schneidewin, Mr. Harrison's volume. The pendulum Crueger, and Cauer, maintain that our text has now swung back a century or more is based on two collections at least, the and we return to that happy age of faith latter beginning, according to Schneidewin, which was untroubled by the existence of between v. 854 and v. 1038. Van der the ' compiler.' To Mr. Harrison the Mey thought to discover traces of three critical work of the period since Welcker is collections, the first ending about v. 756, the largely vitiated by reason of his belief that second beginning about v. 769. The study Theognis wrote all or nearly all the poems of metre has sought to disclose traces of current under his name and in the main workmanship later than Theognis (Lucas) ; in the order assigned to them in the MSS. the study of language has led to results With the exception of 903—30 and not dissimilar (Renner, Weigel). A 1221—30 every word is to be attributed quarter of a century ago numerous scholars to Theognis. Even the numerous repeti- endeavoured to discover the clue to the tions which occur in the MSS. from about present arrangement of the poems. 1070 to 1185 are genuine; as are even Didacticism, it is true, lends itself ill to the verses forming the ' Delic epigram' constructive continuity, and liks the (255—6) which was inscribed in the sentences in Emerson's Essays, the temple of Leto at Belos according to elegies of Theognis seem to be ag coherent Aristotle. Mr. Harrison's results are attaiped by a detailed examination of the THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 353 various groups of elegies and by a search- io-Okbv coeval; or, in lxxxv, cites Z 146 ing investigation of their interconnection with approbation (the earliest quotation in thought. from ): eV §e TO KOWICTTOV XTog The text is conservative. Added as an Unrev avrip. In Chapter ii (Methods of afterthought, it is rather a convenience Modern Criticism) Mr. Harrison proposes to the reader than a contribution of an indefensible extension of this principle. critical value. A brief apparatus sets According to his view the passages found forth the readings of A and 0 unless in the MSS. of Theognis and reappearing either MS. is palpably corrupt; variations in Tyrtaeus, , , and other are rarely recorded, and in general no poets, were inserted by Theognis for the undue importance is attached to the purpose of amendment more or less inferior MSS. The critical notes do not pronounced but without mention of aim at completeness. Of new readings I their source—and that by a poet note the following : 288 s KT\.. to mean " Now the starting nor in the history of Greek literature point of the poet's conception " etc. at large. Thus, in 1004, the point of the ' contemptuous' aoXavpov •7rapai6viperai Trap the repetitions that constitute such a aiOev. And what shall we say of a poet marked feature of Theognis. For the who expects his hearers' patriotism to be solution of the question of these repetitions, warmed by recollection of verses that were so vital to the understanding of the text, the born of a situation other than the present ? pr eliminary point at issue is: which passage is Mr. Harrison explains 1081-82 b = 39-42 imitated I H. Schneidewin thinks that the as meaning ' as I once warned this city of greater part of the verses in his 'second the danger of a tyrant, so now, under more collection' (beginning between 854 and or less similar circumstances, I warn it of 1038) has preserved the older tradition; the danger of a violent party-leader'—a while Schaefer holds that there is scarcely mental status that suggests Mr. Slum (' the a passage in either book a or book f¥ in name at this moment is Warren, but the which the version nearer the end is not the idea is a convertible one, and a positive later version and the work of the expander inspiration for Jarley'). Sometimes, we or compiler. Jordan despairs of certainty : are told, a mere verbal echo is the justifi- ' he who thinks he can discover how the cation of the repetition (1161-62 = 409-10), repetitions originated puts on the wings of or a Se is inserted (1184 a = 367) to connect the son of Daedalus.' Mr. Harrison at- the repeated passage with the lines before tempts the solution of this problem in it. It is not surprising that there should Chapter iii. (Welcker's Theory of the be many passages that fail to show any Genesis of the Text) and reaches the con- satisfactory reason for the repetition. On clusion thattherepetitions proceed from none Mr. Harrison's own showing 1164 other than Theognis himself. Nor is this e-h = 415-18 is not adequately accounted result impeached, it is claimed, by the fact for. The explanation of 1162 a-f = 441-46 that the repeated verses are rarely quoted is lame. Nor do we agree when we are told by other writers. Our best MSS. present that Theognis excised the characteristic no substantial' disagreement as regards features of his earlier verses to make them these repetitions, and Mr. Harrison has fit a new situation (1071-74 = 213-14, done well to include in his text even those 217-18). We may well put the question : that are generally omitted by the editors is this playing with minute variations of though appearing in A. But the explan- words, this backing and filling, this colour- ation that he puts forward to account for less imitation of himself, this meticulous their appearance is open to the gravest scrupulousness in self-correction native to doubt. In many cases, he argue?, we have Greek art in the fifth century or indeed to to deal, not with 'repetitions,' but with any period of Greek literature ? We come intentional variations for which a sufficient nearer to the truth by a realization of the motive is usually apparent; in other cases, fact that in the fifth century a process of where there is no change, or where the imitation existed at large. Theognis was change is immaterial to the sense, ' the himself imitated. The tendency of the context of the second version has generally elegy, like that of the epigram, was centri- provided an excuse, or rather a reason, for petal. Theognis does not epitomize the the repetition,' e.g. 1082 c-f = 87-90, 332 process that was current at and after his ab = 209-10. time. To my thinking the value of Mr. Harrison's discussion of his subject is But is it likely that the hearers or vitiated because he does not look farther readers of the poet were able to recall into Greek literature than Theognis. (The accurately the poem that is repeated or THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 355 habit of microscopic investigation may blind adjoining groups, e.g. 581-82 and 579-80, us, say not a few scientists, to the larger is due, not to a limitation in the vocabulary truths of nature.) Now it is certain that of the language or even to the poet's ' in- in the fifth century imitation was constant sistence on a small number of subjects,' but in the field of the epigram, a form of litera- to the pressure of sympotic custom and ture most akin to the elegy. The very tradition. The only other class of literature stones bear witness to the pre-eminence of showing these librations is the skolia. On Simonides. It is the vogue of Theognis that any other hypothesis the Theognis of our has caused the repetitions through the MSS. is inexplicable. That one and the medium of the symposium ; as it is the same poet should be so enamoured of him- horror vacni that is responsible for the self as to create all the self-echoes is a insertion of the floating elegies whose psychological abnormality. ' Theognis' is a authors had been forgotten. The process we collection of longer or shorter poems in- observe in Theognis is akin to that which has tended for presentation at symposia, not assembled under the name of Simonides and fragments (as our author shows in chapter later under that of Menander and of Publilius v), gradual accretions to the book of the Syrus much that was anonymous, the same Megarian poet that were made during the that was in great measure at work when fifth century, and reflects certain aspects of Meleager collected his Garland. In the case political, social, and ethical thought of that of Theognis many of the anonymous poems period, just as the collection of p7jpriyLs Mr. Harrison puts forward that they are almost entirely restricted to a novel and inadequate explanation. Surely a definite part of the first book. his precision of statement and the insistence Chapter iv (The Theory of Catchwords) of the poet require that we regard the seal is over-long.. Mr Harrison admits that as something more than ' merely the word some of the links connecting the poems may ©eo'yviSos' or even (in the modified state- be purely superficial, that is mere verbal ment) ' not any word in particular, but the echoes, but he has laid the ghost of Muller's whole tenour of the poem.' Verses 19-26 theory. Where there is continuity, it are regarded as the preface to theirs* book, depends, not on external similarity of mere in which Theognis is assumed to include his words common to adjacent groups, but to truly gnomic ideas; and to this end, it is actual connection of sense. Even the argued, i\ei'A.os must be interpreted arrangement by initial letters (which ap- as void of immoral connotation. In 368 pears also in the Anthology) is subordinate OUTC yap tv epScdf dvSavo) oure Kaicuis Mr. to connection of ideas. Mr. Harrison asks Harrison actually sees a reference to moral us to see in the present arrangement a and immoral verse (not the natural senti- proof that Theognis himself was consciously ment of Solon's Ttaa-iv aStiv )(a.\tTr6v), and a or unconsciously (the italics are our own) direct allusion, in the last word, to the guided by these principles. The proposi- MoDo-a iratSiK^, which is therefore held to be tion may be inverted: since the ' Attic as genuine as the first book. Nor does this skolia' show traces of conscious or uncon- fanciful explanation stop here : o-o6<> at the scious arrangement, they are therefore the end of the book of amatory verses is work of one poet. The mere fact of attribu- regarded as an echo of o-o<£i£o/*eVai in 19 tion to Theognis is no proof of Theognidean (' when I play the sage '), as ra/xtjjs in 1242 authorship. Mr. Harrison does not do full is held to link ft with a' (504, 1186). justice to the symposiac character of the The arguments in favour of the genuine- poems, which has a deeper significance than ness of /3' are insufficient even with the help to explain a few cases of non-connective Se or of Croiset, whom Mr. Harrison calls to his yap. It is not merely that the poet foresaw support. The absence of reference to these the use of his poems as skolia : the bulk of his erotic elegies (except in Lysis 212 E, Anth. elegies was actually ' published' at symposia, Pal. 10, 40), if their author was so cele- and their sympotic use is their determining brated a poet as Theognis, is not accounted feature whatever the contents. Evidence for; nor is the increase in the number of this assertion is seen, for example, in the of Atticisms in /3' satisfactorily explained. constantly recurring pairs and in the simi- It is, again, hard to follow Mr. Harrison in his larity of introductory words such as ouSets, attempt to show the reason for the separation i) ttoXXoC, xprj. The same motive inof the erotic from the didactic poems when 356 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. he assures us that the character of /?' was There are, too, many interesting and novel not repugnant to the spirit of the times. suggestions. Thus, on p. 265 attention is What evidence has he to prove that the less directed to such proper names as 'AKCIST^OS, guarded utterances of Greek poets were KA.eapioros and "Apyvpvs, which point to the relegated to a place apart? Then, too, I poet's sojourn in Boeotia; the difficult find myself in some straits to understand verses 261-66 are interpreted on the the o-o<^o's echo in conjunction with the assumption that a Greek drank confusion hypothesis that Theognis may have pub- to his enemies in cold water (though we lished the didactic collection before the involuntarily think of ); in 884 second book and that the latter existed for eXa^poVepos is referred to Ovpi in 877 for some time apart from the first. In chapter its antecedent, and the two poems are vii the second book is discussed at length ; brought into direct connection (despite but I do not believe many will be convinced the distance of iXcupporepos from 6vft.e); that the MoCS (rwOiuras discussion of the date and birthplace of T

DUFF'S LUCRETIUS III.

T. Lucreti Gari de Rerum Natura Liber one hand the student of Lucretius would Tertius. Edited with Introduction, Notes, have liked a fuller discussion of points on and Index by J. D. DUFF, M.A., Fellow of which Mr. Duff puts forward a new view, Trinity College, Cambridge. Pp. xxiv, 111. on the other such discussion as there is 2s. tends a little to overweight the book for the Ma. DUFF has followed up his useful little purposes of the schoolboy and to make the book on Lucretius V. with an edition of the notes on certain passages disproportionately third book which will be very heartily long : this is especially obvious with regard welcomed. It professes to be no more than to the question of the presence of the quttrta a school edition, but at the same time con- natura in the anima on p. xiv. of the intro- tains a good deal of material which is at duction and the notes on lines 284,428, 544, any rate new to English readers and full of 819, and 843-861. It would perhaps have suggestive hints. His work has in this way been a better plan if Mr. Duff could have a considerable interest for the more advanced assumed in such passages, as he has done else- scholar, but it has its disadvantages : on the where, the results of arguments which could