QASSICALVIEWS

((HOS DU MONDE QASSIQUE
QASSICALVIEWS
XXVII - N.5. 2, 1983
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY PRESS
CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
SOCIETE CANADIENNE DES ETUDES CLASSIQUES
No.1
ISSN 0012-9356

Echos du Monde Classique/ Classical Views (EMC) is published by
the University of Calgary Press for the Classical Association of
Canada. Members of the Association receive both Classical Views and
Phoenix. Members of the Ontario Classical Association and the
Classical Association of the Canadian West also receive the journal
without further charge. The journal appears three times per year
and is available to those who are not members of these associations at
$9.00 Can./U.S. (individual) and $15.00 Can./U.S. (institutional).
Echos du monde classique/Classical Views (EMC) est publie par
les Presses de l'Universite de Calgary pour Ie compte de la Societe
canadienne des etudes classiques. Les membres de cette societe
rec;oivent EMC et Phoenix. Les membres de la Societe des etudes
classiques ----ere l'Ontario et de la Societe des etudes classiques de
Iiouest canadien rec;oivent egalement la revue sans frais additionnels.
La revue parait trois fois par an. Les abonnements sont disponibles,
pour ceux qui ne seraient pas membres des associations mentionnees
ci-dessus, aux prix de $9 Can./E.U., ou de $15 Can./E.U. pour les
institutions.
Joint Editors/ Redacteurs en chef: Waldemar Heckel, J. C. Yardley
Associate Editor-Redacteur adjoint: Martin Cropp
Department of Classics
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive N. W.
Calgary, Alberta,
Canada T2N 1N4
Archaeological Editor/ Redacteur avec
responsabilite pour I'archeologie: James Russell
Department of Classics
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6T 1W5
Send subscriptions (payable to "Classical Views ll ) to:
Envoyer les abonnements (payables a IIClassical Views ll ) a:
The University of Calgary Press
2500 University Drive N. W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2 N 1N4
Back Numbers: Vols. 9, 10, 12-25 are available at $10 per volume,
vols. 26 (n.s. 1) etc. at $15 per volume.
Anciens numeros: Vols. 9, 10, 12-25 sont disponibles a $10 Ie
volume, vols. 26 (n.s. 1) etc. a $15 Ie volume.

T,S I BROWN
live in the fourth century, a little before Pytheas? 6 The
evidence is too frail to decide the matter.
Jacoby's second reference is to Aristotle's Rhetoric
(3.9, l409a), where we read:
'Hpo66TOO eoo p (00 i)6' tUTOp lTj

article. 14
HAll CARNASSUS OR THUR I I?
11
Be that as it may, enough has been said to cas t serious
doubt 0 n the pos i tive evidence presented by Jacoby, who has
failed to prove that early copies of the History all began
with 'HPOOOTOU Gou P Cou • We need not discuss his attempt
to pinpoint the discovery by Hellenistic scholarship that
Herodotus was originally a Hal icarnassian, since there is
no longer any reason to think there was anything to
discover, 15 but we s ti11 have to deal with the other s ide of
the argument. If Herodotus called himself a Halicarnassian
in the His tory, then how did a writer like Aristotle learn
that he had gone out to Thurii as a colonist?
14 I see no advantage in speculating on the original wording of this
marginal note. It is sufficient to suggest that it existed.
15 Jacoby was attracted by the idea that the "discoverer" may have been
Demodamas of Halicarnassus (and Miletus) when he wrote his study of
Herodotus in 1913 (see esp. col. 213), and he reiterates this opinion
in 1955 (FGrHist IIIB, conunents on 428 F 1). Had such a discovery
been made by Demodamas he would surely have claimed credit for it.
See e. g. Theopompus FGrHist 115 F 154 - where that historian does
plume himself on exposing the authenticity of an Athenian inscription
because the lettering did not fit the alleged date (see esp. W. R.
Connor, Theopompus and Fifth-Century Athens, [Washington D.C., 1968J
89-90) . But of course we have a very large number of fragments of
the Philippica, while we have only one from Demodamas' n£pl
'Ahxapvaaaou. That one fragment does show an interest in questions
of 1i terary authorship - there it is the problem of who wrote the
Cypria. We can only hope other fragments will be recovered and
settle the question of his alleged interest in Herodotus. Legrand's
ingenious arguments based on Plutarch's de exilio (Mor. 604 F) fail
to convince because he does not consider the possibility that
Herodotus' Halicarnassian birth was always known (see Legrand,
Herod. Introd. 14). Given that Herodotus' connection with both
cities was known, there would always be the pride of western Greeks
(not just Timaeus) in claiming him as one of their own. That
interest would not decline with the decline of Thurii.

12
T. S. BROWN
We may begin by considering Herodotus' stay in Athens.
How well known was he? What kind of friends did he have
there? He is supposed to have given lectures in Athens,
and if he did so some people would certainly have remembered
him. 16 Ehrenberg accuses Herodotus of adopting stories
about Athens' early claims to Siris in the interest of
Pericles' own policy in founding Thurii. 17 This seems to
imply that he was some sort of public relations agent for
that policy. But by the time the History appeared it would
be too late to do any good. Nor is it by any means certain
that Herodotus approved of Pericles' imperial policy. 18
We cannot prove that Herodotus knew Pericles personally,
nor, despite literary allusions, that he knew Sophocles.
His popularity in Athens may have come only posthumously
when the History was published. 19 True, as Jacoby himself
points out, Herodotus was rewarded with a gift of money by
the Athenians at some time, on the motion of an Anytus,
16 Jacoby (242) says that Herodotus did not come to Athens to collect
material, but rather to make use of what he had already collected:
"das heisst um Vortrage zu halten uber das was er gesehen und erforscht
hat". He adds that this is shown by the composition of the
History - not of course an observation first made by Jacoby.
17 See Ehrenberg, AJP 69 (1948) 156.
18 See Hdt. 8.3, and comments of Legrand (Herod. Hist. IX, Notice,
81-82) .
19 Aristoph. Aaharn. (525-34) is held to be based on Hdt. 1.4 (see
Stein I s comments in his Herodotos vol. 1, 7th ed. (Berlin, 1962),
on 1. 14) . The Aaharnians was produced in 425 B. C., when Herodotus
had probably died. It is our first evidence for the publication of
the History. Both Myres and Jacoby believe Herodotus knew
Sophocles, but Myres relies chiefly on a poem Sophocles, then 55
years old, wrote for Herodotus, while Jacoby is very reluctant to
regard the poem as hard evidence, but relies chiefly on verbal
resemblances found in Sophocles. Cf. Myres, Hepod. (Oxford, 1953)
12 with Jacuby 234-35. For the poem of Sophocles, see Pluto Mor.
785B. But it may have been written for a different Herodotus.

14
T. S. BROWN
same applies to Protagoras, the sophist for whom Plato shows
such unusual respect. 2 3 There is a freemasonary among men
of letters that would seem to make references to Herodotus
in Athens while he was in Thurii a strong possibility. It
is not as though he were a young man just starting out to
make his way in the world.
One writer who deserves to be mentioned, at least in
passing, is Glaucus of Rhegium. He probably lived late in
the fifth century B. C., and he wrote a work described as
nEpt "t"wv a.pxa(wv nOLT]"t"wv "t"E xat I-I.0UOLXWV. Apollodorus,
citing Glaucus, tells us that Empedocles went to Thurii
just after the colony was founded. 21t If Glaucus mentioned
a philosopher like Empedocles, who does not strictly fit
his theme, then why should he not also have mentioned
other intellectuals who were living in Thurii at that
time? Jacoby disposes of this possibility with a simple
statement: "Selbst die alteste Literaturgeschichte, die
den Besuch der Philosophen und Wundermannes Empedokles
aus lokaler Tradition verzeichnete [i. e. Glaukos], hat
H. nicht beachtet."25 Yet how can he know that Glaucus
23 Protagoras was about the same age as Herodotus (perhaps slightly
older) . Plato's real respect for him is shown in the Theaetetus,
where Socrates is made to challenge his theory that "man is the
measure of all things". Like Hippodamus he would not have stayed
long in Thurii. See also Ehrenberg, AJP (1948) 64, 168-69; W. K.
C. Guthrie, The Sophists (Cambridge, 1971) 262-269.
21t See Apollodorus, FGrHist 241 F 32a (and Jacoby's cOJllllentary); also
FRG (Glaucus of Rhegium), vol. 2, 23-24, esp. fr. 6 = Diog. Laert.
8.51; also Jacoby, "Glaukos" 36, RE VII, 1417-20.
25 See Jacoby (225), though in his article on Glaucus (1420) he says
Empedocles may not have been mentioned for his poetry; i. e. ,
G1aucus did not stay strictly within the limits of his subject.
He also denies that G. was the first Greek to write literary history,
which seems like a contradiction of the statement just quoted.

did not mention Herodotus?
HAll CARNASSUS OR THUR I I?
There are also two brothers, referred to by Ehrenberg
as "sophists of a minor kind" who help us to understand
how intellectuals in Athens kept track of what went on in
Thurii. We get a glimpse of this pair only in Plato's
Eu thydemus. Socrates' friend Crito asks him who these men
are and what their specialty is. Socrates says they are
Chians who went out to Thurii as colonists. But later they
were forced to leave Thurii, and for many years have been
living "in these parts" (n£pi: .ouoo£ .oue; .6noue;). 26
Many other Asiatic Greeks from Ionia went to Thurii, and
as the political climate changed there, others too must
have been forced to leave. Their obvious place of refuge
would have been Athens, and those of them with useful
professional skills would have been able to make a living
there. 27 Any of them might have mentioned Herodotus.
I have tried to show that the pos i tive evidence used
by Jacoby to prove that Herodotus called himself a
Thurian in the History falls short of proof. It has also
been shown that there were other ways for Aristotle (as
a student of PI a to'sIi ving in Athens) to have learned
26 See Ehrenberg, AJP 64 (1948) 169; also Plato, Euthydemus 27lB.C.
27 Thurii was publicized as a Panhellenic enterprise, though actually
it was a part of Pericles I imperial policy. Wade-Gery's attractive
theory that it represented a temporary setback for Pericles at the
hands of his old rival Thucydides (Essays, 239-70) rests on the
slender foundation of the Anonymous Life of Thucydides. Invitations
were general to take part in the colony, but acceptances came
chiefly from Athens' allies, and naturally must have included a
large number of Asiatic Greeks.
15

16
T,S I BROWN
that Herodotus was a Thurian colonist even though the
History did not begin with 'Hpo56-rou 80u PLou .
The burden of proof rests with those who would have us
disregard a uni form textual tradition and substitute a
different reading. As to Herodotus himself, would he not
have preferred to be remembered as a Dorian from Halicar­
nassus rather than as the citizen of a new "Ionian" colony?
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
To S I BROWN

PROPERT I US 3.6
The opening lines impart information of several kinds.
They are given thus by the manuscripts:
Dic mihi de nostra quae sentis uera puella:
Sic tibi sint dominae, Lygdame, delllpta iuga.
Num me laetitia tumefactum fallis inani
Haec referens quae me credere uelle putas?
Omnis enim debet sine uano nuntius esse
Maioremque timens seruus habere fidem.
Nunc mihi, si qua tenes, ab origine dicere prima
Incipe: suspensis auribus ista bibam. 5
Despite the nearly universal assent of scholars, there
good reasons for suspecting this text. The opening is choppy.
One expects from die mihi that Propertius has just encountered
Lygdamus and questions him for the first time; cf. the similar
openings at Theocr. 4.1 £tnt l!OI., w KopuOwv, Verg. E. 3.1
die mihi, Damoeta, Hor. C. 1. 8.1 Lydia, die. We must assume
then that Lygdamus imparts some message after 2 and that
Propertius reacts to it in 3-4, since the relative clause in 4
(wi th haec and the indicat i ve) cannot be, as translators often
make it, a general clause of characteristic. 6 We must
5 The text cited here is that of E. A. Barber (Oxford 2 1960), modified
as explained in the notes. In 1 I think that Propertius wrote not
sentis but sensti. Only Camps observes that Propertius is not likely
to request the slave's opinion, but he merely replaces the notion of
opinion with that of correct opinion; moreover, the reply consists of
factual observations, not interpretation. The syncopated perfect (cf.
eonsumpsti in 1.3.37), attested elsewhere at Ter. And. 882, is consistent
with other examples of colloquial or archaic diction in the
poem (cf. Trankle 156 and 167f. and note 30 below).
6 So, for instance, H. E. Butler (Cambridge and London, 1912) "such
news as thou thinkst I would fain believe". Carrier (Bloomington,
1963) turns fallis into a past tense ("have they been falsehoods, the
reports you gave?").
19

20
J I BUTRICA
assume also that Lygdamus resumes his message after 8 in
response to the new request for information in 7 - 8. These
lines are often said to contain a demand that Lygdamus either
"speak again" or recapitulate in more detailed fashion the
message already given. 7 There is of course no word for
"again", and incipe dicere seems an odd way to say die iterum;
ab origine prima could be an appeal for more detail only if
contrasted with an earlier ab origine. The language suggests
rather that Lygdamus is asked here to deliver his message for
the first time. Both nunc and incipe may be prominent by
their position, particularly the latter, which completes the
syntax of 7; and the promise to listen attentively (suspensis
auribus ista bibam) seems more in place at first hearing than
at second. Moreover, si qua tenes is unlikely if Propertius
already knows what Lygdamus has to tell (cf. esp. Verg. E.
9.32 incipe, si quid habes, with 3.52 quin age, si quid habes
and 5.10-11 incipe... si quos aut... ignes I aut.•. habes "laudes
aut iurgia); quidquid habes would better suit the standard
interpretation. The transmitted order also leaves the reader
uncertain about the relationship between Propertius and
Lygdamus: he cannot know whether the meeting is prearranged
or casual, though nuntius (5) may eventually lead him to
suspect the former. These peculiarities are resolved and
the effectiveness of the passage restored by Housman 's trans-
7 Hubbard 137, "the poet urges Lygdamus to tell him all over again what
he has already told him. Rothstein (42) supports the same assertion by
citing 2.22.49, rursus puerum quaerendo audita fatigat. Such a
situation is depicted at Ter. Bee. 841£f. Pamphilus enters with Parmeno
and, asking him to repeat news imparted just before their entrance,
repeats that news, point by point, in the form of questions; it is perfectly
clear, however, that the message has already been delivered once
ecf. 845 sic te dixe opinor). .

22
J I BUTRICA
reinforced in 5-6, which emphasize the importance of truth;
nuntiu8 shows that Lygdamus has come as a messenger and, more
significantly, that the encounter is not fortuitous. The slave
is shown in turn the reward that can follow a good performance
(2) and the punishment that may attend a bad one (6). But
this further emphasis on truth, which grows out of the poet 's
excitement, has delayed the news so anxiously awaited (a
clever touch psychologically); hence the appeal for news is
repeated in 7-8, and nunc... incipe is fully appropriate and
meaningful. The renewed demand shifts emphasis to fullness
(si qua tenes, "whatever you have to say"; ab origine prima),
adding another aspect to the depiction of excitement, which
is conveyed again by suspensis auribus. Thus a certain
emotional turbulence is established, but of its cause nothing
beyond a connection with Cynthia. The interruption (3-4)
maintains this suspense by delaying Lygdamus' report a little
longer and further heightens the picture of excitement; more
important, it establishes that what the reader will soon hear
pleases the poet. This technique of suppressing another
character's words and depicting only a reaction to them
belongs principally to mime but is used in Hor. C. 1.27 and,
somewhat differently, elsewhere in Propertius. 9
9 Hor. C. 1.27.17-18 quidquid habes, age depone tutis au:ribus; a, miser,
etc.; the question is asked (cf. si qua tenes and aunbus bibam here),
the answer suppressed (since its details are unimportant), and only
the poet's reaction depicted. Nisbet and Hubbard's introductory note
on the ode gives further examples. The clearest instance elsewhere in
Propertius is (I think) 2.9.37. The poet complains to Cynthia about
her inconstancy, reflecting that all women are so (31-36), then says,
nunc, quoniam ista tibi pZaauit sententia, cedam ("now I'll give up,
since you approve that sentiment") and asks the Cupidines (pueri) to
strike him dead; we infer that Cynthia has indicated her agreement with
the statement on the inconstancy of women, implying that she cannot be
expected to behave otherwise. (No cOllDIlentator interprets it thus;
Butler and Barber, followed by Enk, refer sententia to Cynthia's rejection
of Propertius. There is, however, no question of rejection
but of Cynthia I s failure to remain faithful while the poet was absent
for a single night [cf. 19-20, 29-30J, and it is more natural to refer
sententia to the sententia expressed in 33-36. It is suggestive that
2.9 is one of the few earlier elegies where the situation is revealed
only through conversation between the poet and another character
[cf. n. 3]) .

24
J. BUTRICA
hear. Despite the assent of some more recent scholars 11 this
analysis must be rej ected, since it contradicts the only
possible interpretation of 35-37, quae tibi si ueris animis
est questa puel,l,a, / hac eadem rursus, Lygdame, curre uia /
et mea..• mandata reporta. Propertius is supposed to have
invented the speech but says that Cynthia addressed it to
Lygdamus (si of course qualifies only ueris animis); he
wonders whether she was sincere when she spoke it; 12 and he
bids Lygdamus "carry back" a reply answering the charge of
infidelity. Obviously Lygdamus has brought a message from
Cynthia; he wi11 have brought the description of her and her
household as well.
Scholars who do not accept Reitzenstein' s interpretation
regard 9-18 as a series of questions in which Propertius repea
incredulously the contents of the message delivered after 8. 1
11 Cf. Butler and Barber (273), who say that Propertius "imagines a long
speech on the part of Cynthia denouncing himself;" La Penna (74) "si
compiace d' immaginare la scena della donna che...si lamenta e protesta;"
Warden (100) "these clearly visualized scenes with their circumstantial
detail have a dubious status in reality: they are the product of the
poet's wishful thinking and his mistress's (imagined) jealousy...the
little world exists only within the mind of the speaking lover." Day
(90, note 1) refers with approval to Reitzenstein's interpretation.
12 Reitzenstein (64, n.70) says that here the "Wahrhaftigkeitsmotiv" of the
opening returns with a twist: it is no longer a question of Lygdamus
telling the truth, but "the girl's complaint, as the poet imagined it,
should have sprung from her sincere inclination" ("sollen ihrem aufrichtigen
Sinn entsprungen sein"). His position can be maintained only by
ignoring or distorting quae, tibi, and est questa.
13 So Rothstein (42), "der Dichter selbst die Nachricht... im Ton der zweifelden
Frage wiede!"holt"; Abel (42), "er selbst wiederholt in Frageform,
was ihm der Bote soeben berichtet hat"; Camps (79), "the long central
section containing apparently the report of the servant as repeated afte:
him, item by item, by his anxious enquirer"; Hubbard (137) "the poet. ..
himself joyfully rehearses the speech of Cynthia that Lygdamus had repor·
ted." Camps further remarks that "the echoed reporting of this speech..
is unrealistic in the setting provided; but we are hardly aware of this
as we read the poem"; surely the reader becomes acutely aware of the
awkwardness when he reaches 18 (see below).

PROPERT I US 3.6
The technique is found elsewhere, 14 but its use on this scale
is improbable; the poet, anxious for news, lets Lygdamus
deliver a report of 26 lines, repeats it (point by point or
all together?), and only then sends his reply (aurre in 36
suggests more urgency). More compellingly, this interpretation
fails to account for the change of tone and style between 9-14
and 15 -18. Lines 9 -14 are a series of excited questions
(framed by sicine 9 and -ne 12), each occupying a single line,
each expressing the same excitement observed in 1-8. On the
other hand, 15-18 have the s tamp of dispassionate narration;
to edit them with marks of interrogation only begs the
question, and manuscript authority is of no consequence in
matters of punctuation. 15 Various features combine to suggest,
in this context, a more settled mood: the absence of inter­
rogative particles; the balanced tristis.•. tristes beginning
parallel clauses (15); an end to the single-line questions
and the use of enjambment for the first time since 7 in 15-16;
the trico1on in 15-16, with its members joined by e t ... et
(contrast nee, -que, ac in 11,14,13); the "golden" hexa­
meter 17; the elaborate sound pattern of 17, based upon the
soothing a, u, l, m, and n; and the narrative formula that
14 Cf. Hor. C. 1.27.9-10 (uultis seueri me quoque 8WTlere partem Falerni?),
rephrasing another's (suppressed) question. There may be a further
example at Propertius 2.22.13 quaeris, Demophoon, cur sim tam mollis
in omnis, if Propertius is conversing with Demophoon.
15 The punctuation of mediaeval manuscripts has the same authority as any
other mediaeval conjecture; cf. M. L. West, Textual Criticism arui
Editorial Technique (Stuttgart, 1973) 55, ''The critic is at liberty...
to repunctuate, even if he has taken a vow never to depart from the
paradosis." This is particularly true of interrogation marks, which
appear to be unknown in Latin before the ninth century; cf. B. Bischoff,
PaliiogPaphie des romischen Altertwns urui des abendliiruiischen Mittelalters
(Berlin, 1979). Nor are the mss. unanimous in their punctuation· F for
one, has no question mark in these 1ines. ' ,
25

PROPERT I US 3.6
not be spoken by the slave; this is just, but Propertius per­
haps wrote iurgia uestra, as conj ectured by Gruppe. 20 The
other is that Lygdamus has already part1cipated "silently"
after 8, and there seems to be no other sure example of a
character incorporated through both paraphrase and direct
citation. 21 This does not seem an insuperable objection, if
it is just ; conceivably Propertius wished to avoid writing a
piece that could be presented on stage as a mime. At any
rate the device is used effectively. The interruption
reveals the poet I s attitude early in the poem and helps to
maintain suspense, while the participation of Lygdamus varies
what would otherwise have been a lengthy description and
creates a miniature drama with three well-defined characters,
the anxious Propertius, the indignant Cynthia, and the calm
thought it made the poem "slightly more forcible" but retained the
vulgate arrangement in mistaken deference to the punctuation of the
manuscripts (on which cf. note 15) as "the safest course" (272). Some
nineteenth-century editions make Lygdamus' reply consist only of 19-34,
an arrangement approved by Knoche in RhM 85 (1936) 20; against it,
however, cf. Reitzenstein 98, n.127.
20 I.e., "she spoke of your harsh words in complaining tone"; for this
use of refero cf. Liv. 34.33.2 referre... tyrannos, av. M. 5.271
uera referre. Since refero can also mean "utter in reply" (cf. Verg.
A. 1.94, cited in n.16), iurgia could also look forward to Cynthia's
speech; this would require another emendation of nostra. For uester
instead of tuua cf. PI. Stich. 664-5 ibi uoster cenat..., / ibidem
ems est noster (spoken by one slave to another); one could also take
uestra in its normal sense and interpret the line "she spoke of your
quarrel." Confusion of niaa and ura is extremely easy.
21 Propertius 2.8 might be an example. The poet announces in 1 that
another man has stolen Cynthia from him; in 2 he turns to a friend
with the words et tu me lacrimas fundere, amice, uetas?, as though
this friend had just told him to stop weeping. Lines 7-10 contain
words of consolation that are often assigned to the friend of 2; for a
discussion of the problem cf. T. A. Suits in TAPA 96 (1965) 432f., who,
however, suggest s that Propertius in 7-10 only recallswords already
spoken before the poem begins.
27

30
J. BUTRICA
breaking of fai th and implies that Propertius entrusted the
message to him. 26 It seems reasonable to infer hence first
that Cynthia's angry speech is an answer to this message and
second that Propertius in the opening lines wants to know her
reaction to it. The message is obviously not the cause of
the quarrel, which has continued for some time. The reve­
1ation that Cynthia was distressed over Propertius' new
mistress satisfies curiosity about that distress but con­
sciously provokes new interest through the issue of Propertius
fides suddenly raised by Cynthia. The paradox is complete:
Cynthia has become a Lucretia, Propertius a Theseus or
Demophoon.
She charges that the other woman won him by magic (non
me moribus iZla, sed herbis improba uiait 25), then displays
her own famil iarity with the black arts (26 - 30) . It should
not be inferred that Cynthia knows the identity of the other
woman; the accusation is conventional. 27 She concludes with
26 The passage is generally interpreted otherwise. Te teste (19) is taken
as alluding to Lygdamus' presence at Propertius' first pledge of faith
to Cynthia ("is this what he promised me when you were there as
witness?"); seruo..•teste in 20 is supposed to convey "when a slave has
served as witness", though how a Roman would know not to interpret
this as "when a slave is witness" is anything but clear.
27 Cf. 4.7.72, where the same charge is made against one Chloris, and Ov.
H. 6.83-94, imitating the present passage, with Hypsipyle accusing her
rival (Medea!) of the same practices. Lilja (150) seems too generous
to Cynthia when she says that "Cynthia's words... imply that the poet's
love for Cynthia was founded on her character, mores, which is a
foundation more solid than the merely sexual desire produced by magic".
Warden (51) more astutely observes that "witchcraft is invoked to save
the jilted woman's pride;" Cynthia will not believe that Propertius could
find any woman more attractive than herself (for her superbia in this
light cf. especially 3.8.35f.). The catalogue of magical techniques
should be understood similarly; Cynthia shows that her own knowledge
at least equals her rival's. The basic soundness of that knowledge
is established by A. M. Tupet, "Rites magiques chez Properce (III, 6,
25-30),°' REL 52 (1974) 250-262.

32
Propertius reacts thus:
J. BUTRICA
Quae tibi si ueris animis est questa puella, 3S
Hac eadem rursus, Lygdame, curre uia,
Et mea cum mu1tis 1acrimis mandata reporta,
Iram, non fraudes, esse in more meo:
Me quoque consimili impositum torrerier igni
Iurabo, bis sex integer ipse dies. 30 40
Line 38 implies that some act performed by Propertius showed
anger, not fraus. In the context this must be the taking of
the new mistress; 31 thus the poet declares that she is only
a fiction or at least has not really supplanted Cynthia in
his affection. 32 The length of abstinence is presumably
calculated to allay Cynthia's fears of this "rival" and marks
the length of the quarrel. We should not miss, however, that
Propertius speaks of a burning mutual love when Cynthia
only of poena. Her character precludes any declaration of
love (cL 2.8.12 iZZa tamen numquam ferrea dixit 'amo');
instead her superbia is depicted. The s incerity of her
30 Housman's ipse has been adopted for esse in 40, so that Propertius
swears not that he has known no woman for eleven days but that he loves
Cynthia as ardently as she loves him: then supports his oath with the
evidence of his abstention. The archaisms of 39, discussed by Trankle
167£., suit the solemn oath. For the conjecture torrePier in 39 cf.
Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. C. 1.33".6; in 38 Smyth's meum deserves
serious consideration.
31 The singular fraus is used of desertion or infidelity at Propertius
2.20.3, Ov. A.A. 3.32, B. 7.68,10.76,12.122, and elsewhere.
32 It is not likely that he has taken a new mistress but swears falsely;
his eagerness to be reconciled is too apparent.

PROPERT I US 3.6
affection, for the poet, is established by her demeanor; the
haughty speech interposed between the sympathetic depiction
of her distress and the poet's interpretation of it seems
intended to suggest a measure of self-deception on his part.
The final couplet also makes a contribution:
Quod mihi si e tanto felix concordia bello
Exstiterit, per me, Lygdame, liber eris. (41-42)
Formally it rounds off the poem in a kind of ring-composition,
beginning and ending wi th the name of Lygdamus and the pro-
mi se to reward him with freedom; it al so conveys an air 0 f
weariness with this strife that has continued so long.
At last the reader has acquired all the information
necessary to comprehend the situation. The lovers have been
quarrelling for eleven days (twelve by Roman reckoning);
in anger, and probably test, Properti us has sent word
to Cynthia by Lygdamus that he has finished wi th her and
taken a new mistress. As the poem begins he is wai ting for
the slave to return from this errand. When Lygdamus appears,
he demands an accurate report of all he saw and heard. Upon
learning that Cynthia was in tears and shabbily attired, he
bursts out joyfully, for he sees he r condi t ion as a sign
that she is grieved by the quarrel, hence sincere in her love.
The interruption ended, Lygdamus continues, relating the
gloom that prevailed in her house and her proud response to
the notice of dismissal. Convinced of her devotion,
Propertius sends the slave back with a conciliatory message.
33
Propertius 3.6 is neither a solo mime nor, in the strict
sense, a scene from a comedy but 1ies between the two; 33 its
33 Nor is it a rhetorical progyrrmasma, as argued by R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische
Wundererzahlungen Crepr. Darmstadt 1963) 158f. His interpretation
rests upon an irrelevant example of the use of questions in a
progyrrmasma of Theon, on a misunderstanding of the nature and function
of the questions in 3.6, and on an unlikely interpretation of the relationship
of 3.6.9-18 to the passages of Terence and Tibullus discussed
below and in note 37.

34
J. BUTRICA
details are not imaginary but concrete and significant.
Perhaps nowhere else in Propertius is the influence of New
Comedy so clearly evident in both theme and form. 34 Scenes
of a lover discussing his mistress with a slave or parasitus
are a natural feature of New Comedy, as are those of a lover
rewarding a slave with his freedom for some service; 35 more
than that, however, 1ines 1-18 are adapted from a specific
scene of Menander known to us largely through the apparently
close translation in Terence's Heauton timoroumenos. In
Terence there is a preliminary section (242-263) where young
Clinia hears that his beloved Antiphila, whom he has not
since his return from abroad, has been observed in public
with a number of maids carrying quantities of j ewellery and
robes; since he left her with only one serving girl, he
interprets the ancil,l,a8 aurum uestem (252) as proof that she
has taken another lover in his absence and denounces her
faithlessness (256- 263). There is none of this in Propertius 1
but ueri8 animis (35) and the reference to mutual love (39)
reveal a similar concern for the fide8 of Cynthia. The slave
Syrus then allays Clinia' s fears by describing what he saw at I
Antiphila's house (263-307); since his visit was unexpected,
her demeanor can be taken as valid evidence of her true I
disposition (279-281). He reports first that she was weaving \
8tudio8e (285), dressed modestly in robes of mourning (286-7),
without jewellery (288-9), her hair carelessly done (290-1).
Clinia interrupts with an appeal not to deceive him (291-2).
Syrus then relates that her old nurse was weaving, with a
single maid and Antiphila beside her; Antiphila' s dress is
again described (292- 5); then Clinia 's friend elitophon inter-
34 On 3.6 and coaedy cf. Day 89£., Boucher 435, Yardley 135.
35 Yardley 135.

PROPERT I US 3.6
rupts with congratulat ions (295 - 301) . Finally Clinia, wi th
another appeal for truth, bids the slave describe how Anti­
phila reacted on hearing his name; she gave clear proof of
her love, says Syrus, by bursting into tears (304-7). At
this point the similarity ends; Propertius gives his poem an
entirely new direction by having Cynthia question the poet's
fides in a speech that bears only a generic resemblance to
Clinia's denunciation of Antiphila' s supposed infidelity
(256-263) .
Propertius has achieved a notable compression and
concentration here (if Terence reflects the original closely);
three doublets have been simplified. Syrus describes
Antiphila's garments both before and after Clinia' s first
interruption (291-2), at 286-291 and again at 294-5. This
has been reduced to the single description given by Lygdamus
before the poet interrupts at 3-4 (following 8) and then
repeated by the poet in 9-14 (this appropriation by the poet
of one part of the slave's message is the only substantial
deviation from the comic scene, but it can be paralleled in
another scene from Terence; cf. note 7). Syrus twice
mentions Antiphila's weaving, both before and after Clinia's
first interruption, at 285 and again at 294. In Propertius
there is the single reference, after the interruption, in
lS-18. Already in Terence, however, the girl's clothing is
given more attention in the passage before Clinia' s first
interruption and her weaving in the passage after; thus the
direction of the compression is already suggested, at least
in Terence. It is also worth comparing the description of
Cynthia's grieving and weaving household in 15-16 (sad house,
sad serving girls weaving, Cynthia herself weaving) with
Syrus' description in 292 -4, anus / subtemen nebat. praeterea
una anci Z. z'u z'a / erat; ea texebat una (weaving nurse, corres­
ponding to household, maidservant present, Antiphila herself
weaving) . In addition, Propertius has reduced Clinia' s two
35

36
J I BUTRICA
interruptions to one; this was all the easier since the
second follows upon a remark of Clitophon, who has no place
in the elegy. Not surprisingly, Propertius' interruption in
3-4 echoes Clinia's first interruption (cL 291-2 Syre mi,
obsearo, / ne me in "Laetitiam frustra conicias). Thus the
elegy initially follows the scene very closely, even in points
of language, albei t in simplified form: presumably the
resemblance was meant to be noticed.
Propertius occasionally differs from Terence and Menanden
in details. Thanks to the survival of a fragment of the Greek
corresponding to Ter. Heaut. 293-5 (= fr.130 Korte, cited by
Yardley 135), we can see that Antiphila in Menander had only
one serving girl, while Cynthia has several, and that Anti­
phila in Menander was dressed shabbily, as befits one in
mourning, while Cynthia, though distressed, is not sordida.
Such differences might be attributed to the poet's idealization
of Cynthia; 36 in fact the elegist simply had to devise new
motivations for the woman' 5 neglected appearance and for the
lover's joy thereat (both see it as proof of devotion, though
for differentreasons) . 37
The experimentation with form should certainly be
in the light of the emphatically declared adherence to
Callimachus and Philitas that opens Book 3. As a "love poem",
too, 3.6 differs significantly from earlier work. It should
not be missed that for the first time Propertius' continuing
36 On this aspect of his imagination see, for instance, Boucher 467-74.
37 Tibullus 1. 3. 83-92 is inspired by the same scene. It employs two motifs
omitted by Propertius, the lover's absence abroad and sudden return
(cf. Ter. Heaut. 279-281, Tib. 1.3.89-90), and so would appear to show
independent knowledge of the comic original. As in Terence and
Propertius, Delia's neglect of her appearance is a sign of fidelity
(91-92). Like Antiphila and unlike Cynthia, Delia has an old nurse
(83-86); unlike Antiphila and like Cynthia, she has several serving girls
(87-88), but unlike both she does no weaving herself (so that Cynthia
is arguably portrayed here as conspicuously virtuous).

PROPERT I US 3.6
devotion appears to be conditional upon a mutual affection,
though he depicts himself as stili deluded. 38 The first
Cynthia poem of the book that concludes with her rej ection
shows the lovers at odds and involves a feigned rejection;
Propertius apparently does take a new mistress in 3.20. In
the context the prominent placement of hopes for freedom
from a domina at beginning and end may well be as significant
for him as for Lygdamus.
MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY J. BUTRICA
38 Contrast 2.9.41-46, where a declaration of lasting fidelity accompanies
a protest against Cynthia's brief liaison with another man.
37

38
THE LEX CINCIA AND LAWYERS' FEES UNDER THE REPUBLIC
L. A. Curchin
[Demades] Hyper tes dodeketeias 21
It is a well-known fact that Roman lawyers under the
Empire charged substantial, often exorbitant amounts. A
host of literary references attest such fees,l and legis­
lative action was taken by the emperors Augustus, Claudius,
Nero, Trajan and Diocletian to ban or limit them. 2 But a
belief is current that the "Golden Age" of the Republic
was free from such problems; that the Zex Cincia of 204 B.C.
had made lawyers' fees illegal and that Cicero and other
paragons of classical oratory represented their clients
without charge. Standard reference works on Roman
1 Dv. Am. 1.10.39; Petrone 46; Quint. Inst. 12.7.8; Mart. 2.13, 2.30,
8.16.1-2, 8.17; Juv. 7.124-149; Dio Chrys. 7.123; Pliny Ep. 2.20.13,
5.4.2, 5.13.6-7; Tac. DiaZ. 8.1, Ann. 11.5-7; Philostr. VS 1.22.4;
Amm. Marc. 30.4.15, 20; Dig. 4.8.31, 19.2.38.1, 50.13.1.10-13.
Cf. L. Friedlander and G. Wissowa, Sittengeschichte Roms, 10th ed.
(Leipzig, 1922) 184-186.
2 Augustus ordered advocates to provide their services without charge
on penalty of a fine four times the amount of their fee (Dio Cass.
54.18.2); this was the same penalty applied against fraud, peculation
and usury (Cato Agr. 1.1; Lex 17TW1. Tarent. 5; Tac. Ann. 6.16;
Cod. Theod. 2.33.2; Dig. 48.13.15[13]). Claudius set a limit of
10,000 sesterces: Tac. Ann. 11.7; Pliny Ep. 5.9.3-4. For the later
emperors see Tac. Ann. 13.5; Suet. Ner. 17; Pliny Ep. 5.13.8;
Diocletian Edictwn de pretiis 7.72.

L. A. CURCH I N
advocates jump from the lex Cincia to the edicts of the
emperors without suggesting that any viol at ions took
place before the Imperial period. 3 Shatzman goes out of
his way to exonerate Cicero from the charge of violating
the Lex Cincia. 4 Textbooks on Roman law and customs
agree that advocates would necessaril y work without re­
muneration, since they were rich gentlemen providing a
public service for their grateful but indigent clients. 5
39
The fact of the matter is, however, that the charging
of fees, while technically illegal, was a common practice
in the La te Repub 1ic and even - as we shall demonstrate ­
in the Middle Republic.
The conflicting ancient opinions the Lex Cincia
are reflected in Tacitus I account of the Senate debate
in A.D. 47. The opponents of fee-taking held that its
practitioners were mercenary and extortionate. The
counter-argument was that all senators had to earn a
1 i ving, advoca te s no less than others, and without such
remuneration the profession would suffer. Those lawyers
who in the past had pleaded wi thout reward did so because
they were already rich and did not need the money (Tac.
Ann. 11. 5-7). This defence was not wholly convincing,
3 J. Gow, A Companion to School Classics, 3rd ed. (London, 1891) 251;
A. Berger and B. Nicholas, Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed.
(Oxford, 1970) 11.
4 I. Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (Brussels, 1975)
70-71.
5 C. Daremberg and E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et
romaines, vol. 1 (Paris, 1877) 89; J. M. Kelly, Roman Litigation
(Oxford, 1966) 84 n. 1; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Ufe and Leis1n'e in
Ancient Rome (London, 1969) 130; A. Watson, The LaLJ of the Ancient
Romans (Dallas, 1970) 7.

40
THE LEX CINCIA AND LAWYERS' FEES UNDER THE REPUBLI C
as Tacitus himself recognized, but it did enable the fee­
takers to rationalize their actions. There is no reason
to doubt that this line of argument was already current
prior to the Imperial period.
Because the lex Cincia remained in effect, lawyers
were not likely to announce openly that they had accepted
fees. Nonetheless, considerable evidence can be mar­
shalled to show that thi s was the case. Cicero's rival
Hortensius is a splendid example. A bon vivant who
watered his trees with wine and served peacocks at an
augural dinner, 6 Hortensius had made a fortune from law­
suits, which he often won by bribing the juries. 7 His
reward for defending Verres was an ivory sphinx, despite
the fact that Verres was convicted (Plut. Cic. 7.6).
Verres himself had remarked that one needed to make three
fortunes in his province: for himself, one to bribe
the judges, and one to pay his lawyers (Cic. Verr. 1.14.
40) .
Other notorious fee-takers included P. Clodius
Pulcher and C. Scribonius Curio (Tac. Ann. 11. 7). B Q.
Arrius made money through his oratorical skills (Cic.
Brut. 69.243); so, not surprisingly, did the triumvir
Crassus (Cic. Parad. 6.46). C. Staienus pocketed 600,000
sesterces with which he was supposed to have bribed the
jury (Ci c . Cl u • 25 . 6 8) !
Plutarch (Cic. 7.3) remarks that the Romans wondered
6 Varro Rust. 3.6; Macrob. sat. 3.13.1, 3.
7 See Shatzman (n. 4) 345.
B Further references in H. Furneaux, The Annals of Tacitus (Oxford,
1907) ad loco

L. A. CURCHIN
why Cicero never accepted fees or rewards for his advo­
cacy, not even in the famous prosecution of Verres. It
is such comments which have created the impression that
Cicero was too virtuous to accept payment for his legal
services. A much different picture is painted in Pseudo­
Sallust's invective in Cic. 4-5:
If what I accuse you of is false, hand over the account
showing how large a patrimony you received, and what you
have acquired from 1awsuits, and from what fWlds you
bui 1t houses at Tusculum and Pompeii, sparing no expense
.... [You are] a mercenary advocate...with false tongue,
grasping hands, insatiable appetite and fleeing feet.
in 43 B.C.:9
Or again, the speech of Q. Fufius Calenus to Cicero
Is it not true, then, that you...are always waiting, like
the harlots, for a man who will give something, and with
many agents always to attract profits to you, you pry into
people's affairs? .. With these men you make common cause,
and through them you support yourself, selling them the
hopes that depend upon the turn of fortune, trading in the
decisions of the jurors, considering him alone as a friend
who gives the most at any particular time, and all those
as enemies who are peaceably inc1ined or employ some other
advocate.
41
Specific examples may be cited of Cicero's fee-taking.
We may omit, in passing, the allegation that Cicero ac­
cepted a bribe to lessen the sentence against Verres
(Plut. Cic. 8. 1), since this was not a fee as such.
The shipments 0 f gra in and 1 i ves tock whi ch the Sici 1ians
sent Cicero for prosecuting Verres might be dismissed as
an unso 1ic i ted gratuity, although Cicero derived great
political mileage from distributing these provisions a­
mong the electorate (ibid.). But there are more blatant
9 oio Casso 46.6, Loeb translation by E. Cary (London, 1917).

42
THE LEX CINCIA AND LAWYERS I FEES UNDER THE REPUBLI C
cases. In 62, P. SuIla, accused of complicity in the
Catilinian conspiracy, "lent" 2, 000, 000 sesterces to
Cicero to buy a house on the Palatine. When word of
this transaction was circulated, Cicero denied both the
receipt of the loan and the intention of purchasing the
house. This was regarded as a great joke by Aulus
Gellius (NA 12.12.2-4); for it was no secret that Cicero
intended to buy the house, and so he did not intend his
denial of the loan to be taken seriously either. Cicero
defended Sulla and secured his acquittal.
Again in January 61 we find Cicero trying to float
a loan from C. Antonius Hybrida, the governor of Macedonia,
still with an eye to purchasing the house on the Palatine
(whose price - tag was 3,500, 000 sesterces). Cicero was
especially annoyed (Att. 1.12) at hearing that Antonius,
when collecting money, was announcing that a portion of
it was going to Cicero. The clear implication was that
Antonius fully expected to be prosecuted upon returning
from his province, and was paying Cicero in advance to
defend him. 1 0 Cicero tells Atticus that he does not be­
lieve the report; nonetheless, Antonius did lend him the
money (Att. 1.14.7) and Cicero did defend him, albeit
unsuccessfully, in 59.
A further instance occurs in Att. 1.20.7. Cicero's
friend (and apparently former client) L. Papirius Paetus
has offered Cicero a gift of books. Cicero tells Atticus
that he has consulted their mutual friend Cincius, who
says that Cicero should accept the gift. The joke here
is that Cicero could not legally accept gifts because of
10 So W. W. How, Cicero: Se'lect Letters, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1926) 69.
For a more sceptical view cf. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's
Letters to AttiC!US. vol. 1 (Cambridge. 1965) 297.

L. A. CURCHIN
the lex Cincia; but since "Cincius" himself said it was
all right, Cicero pretends to have won an exemption from
the law. Shatzman, supposing that the lex Cincia allowed
gifts up to a certain amount, misses both the joke and
the point. 11 If the law had made such allowances Cicero
would certainly have been fami I iar with them. The fact
is that he knows he is breaking the law and contrives a
facetious and transparent excuse.
In this example, as in the case of the "loan" from
SuI la, Cicero does not take the rex Cincia very seriously; 1 2
and neither, it appears, did his contemporaries. They
sold their services to the highest bidder and changed
sides accordingly. As Kelly rightly observes, "No Iiti­
gant who had Cicero on his side was wholly inops or cala­
mitosus. ,,1 3 This point is further borne out by the
numerous bequests Cicero received from unknown but ob-
vi ous ly weal thy clients. 14 Justice, it seems, was for
the rich, and a wealthy advocate was an asset to one's
believed. ,,15
"A poor man though he speak the truth is not
11 Shatzman (n. 4) 70-71.
12 Cf. J. Carcopino, CiceT'o: The SecT'ets of his COT'T'espondence, vol. 1
(New Haven, 1951) 90: "On the evidence of the Letters Cicero's
respect for the Cincian Law consists in his skill in glossing over
or concealing his violations of it.
13 Kelly (n. 5) 49.
14 Carcopino (n. 12) 100-110; H. C. Boren, "The Sources of Cicero's
Income: Some Suggestions," CJ 57 (1961) 17-18.
15 Men. fro 856 K. Cf. Kelly (n. 5) 33-41 on the bribing of judges.
43

L. A. CURCHIN
lawyers were demanding exorbitant fees from the i r clients. 2 0
The Cincian law, like the sumptuary law, was soon ignored
or bypassed although theoretically sti11 in effect. Hence,
as we have seen, fee-taking was a common if covert prac­
tice by Cicero's time.
Na turally there were a few vi rtuous souls who made
point of never accepting fees or gifts - the elder Cato
(who personally supported the lex Cincia) , some other
early Romans, and (if we may believe his own account) the
younger Pliny21 - but these were the exceptions. Hist­
orians of Roman law should recognize that fees were a
regular feature of the lawyer's trade from at least the
third century B.C.22
CALGARY I NST I TUTE FOR
THE HUMAN IT I ES
LEONARD A. CURCHIN
20 The original Lex cincia presumably covered not only lawyers' fees,
but gifts and bribes in general. The timing of the law (204 B.C.)
in the Hannibalic war, a period of large government contracts and
also of rampant profiteering by unscrupulous publicani (cf. E.
Badian, Publicans and SinneT's [Oxford, 1972J 16-20), suggests that
it was prompted by the need to restrict business profits under the
pressures of a wartime economy.
21 Pluto Cat. M:xi. 1.5; Cic. Sen. 4.10, Off. 2.19.66; Tac. Ann. 11.6;
Pliny Ep. 5.13.8.
22 I wish to thank Dr. G. W. Pinard for assisting with references, and
Prof. S. M. Treggiari for calling Boren's article to my attention.
45

46
THE STUDY OF GREEK SPORT: A SURVEY
D. Kyle
Since the latter half of the nineteenth century, Greek
sport has been a traditional but lesser area of classical
research. 1 Scholars agreed that sport was vital to the
Greek experience but, perhaps because it was somehow associal
with play or hobbies, the study of Greek sport seemed less
serious or prestigious than that of war or politics. Througl
I
much of this century there was general agreement - and Iittl
progress - on the basic issues in the development, operation
and significance of Greek sport. Nevertheless, minor publi­
cations kept appearing on specific problems concerning event
or pieces of evidence, and there were reminders of the
warnings of Greek sport for modern man. 2 Olympic years
customarily saw increases in the publication and republicati
of larger works of uneven quality, usually scheduled and
entitIed - even i f inappropriate ly - for the quadrennial
1 The term "sport" is non-ancient and vague at best. "Athletics" usually
suggests serious competition, training, prizes and the goal of victory.
"Physical education" implies instruction and exercise with the goals of
health and the general development of the body. "Recreation" or "leisu
applies to non-work, relaxation and rejuvenation with pleasure or fun a
the goal. "Sport" is used as a general rubric for all these areas as
well as hunting, dance and even board games. Herein "sport" will refer
to public, physical activities, especially those with competitive
elements, pursued for victory, pleasure or the demonstration of excelle
2 For example, W. W. Hyde, "The Pentathlon Jwnp," AJP 59 (19381 405-417; L
Bowra, "Xenophanes and the Olympic Games," AJP 59 (1938) 257-279; T. Wo
"Professionalism and the Decay of Greek Athletics," School and Society
47 (1938) 521-528.

D. KYLE
market.
In the las t generation, in I ine with the growing interest
in sport in Europe and North America, the study of Greek sport
has intensified and become more "professional". 3 Especially
in the 1970s, advances have been made through the discovery of
new sources and the re-evaluation of theories and bodies of
evidence. Had scholars let the evidence "speak for itself",
or were anachronistic terms, categories and fears imposed upon
the Greeks? Recent philological, historical and archaeological
work has produced excellent special ized studies and some less
than fully successful attempts at surveys or syntheses. Tradi­
tions persist but the subject is being demythologized, and
the future looks promising. Concentrating on Greek sport of
the classical er a, the following is an imperfect survey of
trends and publications intended to make the topic more
accessible to the non-specialist.
From the late nineteenth century until recently, the
conventional picture or schema of Greek sport has remained
3 Meetings of the APA, North American Society for Sport History, California
Classical Association (Southern Section), and other groups have included
sessions on ancient sport; and articles on Greek sport now frequently
appear in journals like the JHS, AJA, Jour>nal of Sport History,
and Can a d ian ,j 0 U r'na Z 0 f His tOT'!J 0 r S po r' t . A1though
still treating sport under "Navigation, Chasse, Sports et Jeux divers",
L 'annee philologique, along with the recent Sport and Recreation Index,
reflects the increase of studies on sport. The Institut fur Sportgeschichte
der Deutschen Sporthochschule and the Kolner Beitrage zur
Sportwissenschaft have been influential, and 1975 saw the introduction
of Stadion as a new international scholarly journal. The activity of
Ares Publishers of Chicago in its "Library of Ancient Athletics" is in
response to a growing demand for works. Courses in ancient sport, as in
medicine, women and other areas, are found in more and more universities;
and such courses, without compromising principles, can help convince
students that the ancient world is neither dead nor irrelevant.
47

so
THE STUDY OF GREEK SPORT
Jiithner planned for six volumes. Though not as definitive
as probably intended, the work is one of the best extensive
studies of Greek sport and athletic life. The focus is broa
a wealth of literary, artistic and archaeological sources is
used; and Brein has added more recent material, especially
the notes. In a familiar format a rather brief historical
overview is followed by generally excellent discussions of
the events. Jiithner wrote for scholars and lacks Gardiner's
appeal but they agree in their athletic idealism and sorrow
for the decline of Greek sport (1. 89-92). Such attitudes
perhaps were reinforced by Jiithner' s closeness to Philostrat
as a maj or source from one of the leas t attractive eras of
Greek sport. JUthner' s Leibesubungen is a fine tribute to
him, but it is unlikely to remain a standard work for very
long.
The studies of H. A. Harris are important for their
treatment of specific problems and pieces of evidence; his
larger works have the tone but not the depth of Gardiner
or Jiithner. 8 In some ways his best book, Greek Athl.etes and
Athl.etics (Bloomington, 1964) updates Gardiner's GASP and
gives a coherent, thorough coverage. The ninth chapter,
"Women in Greek Athletics", was one of the few such studies
at the time. Unfortunately, this book has been less popular
than Harri5' Sport in Greece and Rome (London, 1972), a work
with the intended audience and useful but abbreviated notes
of the Aspects of Greek and Roman Life series. In the first
part of SGR Harris discussed athletics, summarized GAA, and
revised his discussions of the pentathlon, discus and startin
gates. A brief introduction to the Roman era is included,
8 Harris wrote many articles in the 1960s and 70s, often for G&R; for a
full bibliography, see his Greek Athletics and the Jews, eds. I. M. Bar1
and A. J. Brothers (Cardiff, 1976) 7-9. This disappointing, posthumous
work apparently was published as a book in tribute to Harris rather thaI
because of its contribution to scholarship.

D. KYLE
and the schema is evident throughout in Harris' athletic
idealism and references to the modern age. Part Two presents
an interesting discussion of ball games, swimming t weight­
lifting and other "Fringe Act i vities". The emphasis of this
section is questionable in such a supposedly general work t
but the collection of materials does show how much or how
Iittle evidence exists for different activities. Part Three t
on chariot - racing, is the most valuable for its treatment of
Greek equestrian events t the Greek hippodrome, and the Roman
and Byzantine circus. A rather detached appendix, "Athletes
and their Dreams" t on the Onir'ocr'iticon of Artemidorus t shows
Harris in his element revealing unfamiliar items as sources
for technical information about sport. Although the titIe
is too broad and implies that one volume could cover the
topic t SGR will continue to be a widely used introduction to
ancient sport t showing students a broad range of topics t
evidence and problems.
B. Bilinski's two studies on the nature and development
of sport in relationship to Greek society and cuIture
essentially present the schema but from a different perspec­
tive. L 'agonistica spor'tiva nella Gr'ecia antica (Accademia
Polacca 12, Rome, 1959) is a literary and social study of the
themes of praise and criticism of sport t and of the antagonism
between the physical and intellectual realms. Bilinski feels
early Greek athletes were nobles, who harmonized the physical
and intellectual aspects of life, before a social revolution
took place in sport through intellectual criticism and socio­
economic change as Greece passed from a primitive to a pluto­
cratic stage. The philosophical oppos i tion of mind and body,
challenging the Pindaric ideal of ka lokagathia, was related
to the emergence of divis ions of class and labour, the
development of democracy, and the rise of professionalism in
sport. By the time of the Peloponnesian War, sport had gone
51

52
THE STUDY OF GREEK SPORT
from an aristocratic recreation to a lower class occupation.
The socially dominant classes shifted to an intellectual
viewpoint and, by the fourth-century age of spectator sport,
the physical/intellectual antithesis was firmly established
in society and social values. Bilinski's social and intel­
lectual version of the schema is rather forced. He tends to
see all early athletes as nobles and to assume that later
individuals known only as athletes in the sources must be
from the lower classes. Advocates of sport like Pindar speaJ
only for the aristocracy; early critics like Xenophanes speal
out for class -conscious non-nobles against aristocratic
privilege; and later critics represent a major cultural shif"
to the intellectual realm.
The 133 pages of Agoni ginnici. Componenti artistiche
ed inteHettuati neH' antica agonistica greca (Accademia
Polacca 75, Warsaw, 1979) comprise the extensive study
Bilinski had promised earlier. Part One, "DaIle origini
micenee alIa polis", briefly covers the origin and rise of
Greek sport. Part Two, "L' arte e l' intelletto nei giochi
panellenici", and Three, "11 fisico e l'intelletto: equilibl
o supremazia nell' epoca ellenistica e greco-romana", contair
ideas already familiar from Bilinski: professionalism and
decline in sport, and the victory of the intellectual over
the physical realm. The preference of the socially dominant
classes of the fourth century for intellectual pursuits is
shown, says Bilinski, in the increase of the intellectual and
cultural activities associated with agonistic festivals and
in the functions of the gymnasia and ephebeia of Greece,
especially in the West. Bilinski makes such assertions despi
the lack of support for his earlier work, and hi s maj or
opponent promises to be H. W. Pleket, a leading demythologize
of Greek sport.
Wi th their blend of detailed research and common sense,
Pleket's works show that our concepts of amateur and pro-

D I KYLE
fessional and our attitudes about prizes are often anachro­
nistic for Greek sport, and that their terms and categories
(prize and crown games, panhellenic and local games) were
often ambiguous. 9 Challenging the conventional picture,
Pleket argues that from Pindar' s until Roman Imperial times
members of the upper class were not absent from sport
(neither from the running events nor the body-contact sports)
and that the prevailing ideology of Greek sport was a product
of that same class. He discusses examples of upper class
athletes who continued to compete successfully in many
contests and therefore must have been as specialized or
professional as other competitors; and he points out that
social stigma was attached to accepting rewards for athletic
He contends that even in the post-classical era
athletes retained the early aristocratic ethos of sport,
stressing glory, courage, toil and endurance, and that this
ideological continuity was partly due to the continued
involvement of the upper classes, with the gymnasia and
ephebeia retaining significant physical aspects and acting as
a bridge to the world of the Games. Where Bilinski tends to
periodi ze and juxtapose, Pleket tends to see continuity and
s low change. Pleket uses specific studies and often non­
literary texts, while Bilinski is heavily influenced by
literary and philosophical sources. Certainly such dis­
agreements are a positive sign of serious activity in any field.
Burckhardt's long-popular idea that the Greeks had a
special agonistic spiri t and, accordingly, that only they could
9 Most relevant here are "Zur Soziologie des antiken Sports," Mededel-tngen
Nederlands Histonsch Instituut te Rome 36 (1974) 57-87 and "Games,
Prizes, Athletes and Ideology," (see supra n. 4). Also useful are his
"Some Aspects of the History of the Athletic Guilds," ZPE 10 (1973)
197-227 and "Olympic Benefactors," ZPE 20 (1976) 1-18.
S3

S4
THE STUDY OF GREEK SPORT
have raised sport to the level of the Periodos or circuit of
crown games, has come under attack. 1. Weiler's extensive
study of the agon motif in Greek myth and legend, Del' Agon in
MythoB (Darmstadt, 1974), notes versions of the motif and
contends that the Greeks were not special in this respect,
but that their competitiveness is typical of early societies.
If not in some particularly "Greek" circumstances, where then
was the origin of sport? More and more studies are admitting
that, in this area as well, the Greek mainland probably owed
much to Crete and the East. 11 How and when formative
influences produced sport or athletics in Greece remains
uncertain, and the answer varies to some extent with inter­
pretations of the source and significance of sport in Homer.
Chronological exactitude about the emergence of Greek sport
is unlikely, but the relationship of sport to funeral games
and hero-cults - attested in epic and art - is now well
recognized. 12
10 Also see 1. Weiler, "AIEN APlrrEYEIN. Ideologiekritische Bemerkungen Zll
einem vielzitierten Homerwort," Stadion 1 (1975) 199-228, and J. Ebert,
"Zu mythischen Agonen und zum Problem des agonalen Wesens der Griechen,"
Stadion 2 (1976) 307-314.
11 See B. J. Putnam, "Concepts of Sport in Minoan Art," (Diss. Southern
California, 1967), and the earlier W. R. Ridington "The Minoan-Mycenean
Background of Greek Athletics," (Diss . Pennsylvania, 1935). A. E.
Raubitschek, in a paper to APA 1979, "The Competitive 'Agonal' Spirit
in Greek Culture," pointed to Minoan antecedents of Greek sport.
T. Scanlon, in ''The Origins of Women's Athletics in Greece," a paper
to NASSH 1982, suggested that female athletics spread from Crete to
Greece and that the association of games for women with goddesses at
Olympia, Sparta and Brauron may have derived directly or indirectly from
Cretan traditions.
12 On funeral games, see L. Mal ten, "Leichenspiel und Totenkult," MDAI(R)
38-39 (1923-1924) 300-340; K. Meuli, Del' grieahisahe Agon. Kampf und
Kampfspielen im TotenbrCIUch, Totentanz, Totenlage und Totenlob (Cologne,
1968). On the Homeric games, W. Willis' literary study, "Athletic
Contests in the Epic," TAPA 72 (1941) 392-417 is still useful; cf. M. M.
Willcock, "The Funeral Games of Patroclus," BICS 20 (1973) 1-11. Two
important studies are Lynn E. Roller, "Funeral Games in Greek Art," AJA

S6
THE STUDY OF GREEK SPORT
A. Honle' s Olympia in der Politik der griechischen Staatenwel
(Bebenhausen, 1972) should correct ideas about apolitical
Greek sport. Discussing the influence of the Olympic Games
in the political history of Greece and Magna Graecia to
roughly 400 B. C., she argues that the Games and victory at
Olympia formed a s ignificant, though not maj or, factor in the
internal and interstate politics of the Archaic Age but less
so thereafter. The first three sections on origins, early
Sparta, and the Age of the Tyrants contain a good collection
of literary and archaeological materials; Honle seems enthu­
siastic about this age of noble sport as if aristocratic
pol i tical use of the Games at this time was somehow more
acceptable. Chapter Four on the West deals with the perhaps
exaggerated influence of Pythagoras, the self-advertising of
Sicilian tyrants through equestrian wins, and the development
of honours for victors in the West. 14 Chapter Five contends
that decreased training and increasingly democratic politics
account for the decline of success of classical Sparta at
the Games. Chapter Six argues that the panhellenism of the
Garnes of 480 was not sincere because Greek sport and politics
by then had started to decline towards unaristocratic
professionalism and more democratic constitutions. Chapter
Seven discusses Athens' relations with Olympia and the poli­
tical use of victory by Alcibiades and others. Honle' s
suggestion that Solon legislated rewards in order to win the
support of the nobles would generally be challenged. This
short study of just over two hundred pages cannot be expected I
to cover everything. Much more could be done on the pol i tics
of the Periodos and individual states; but Henle still gives a l
14 David C. Young presented a paper, "Professionalism and Record Keeping in
Archaic and Classical Greece," to APA 1979 discussing the role of the
West. I understand that he is preparing a broader monograph on
The Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics.

D I KYLE
L. Moretti I s Iscrizioni agonis tiche greche (Rome, 1953 ) gives
a selection of inscriptions with commentary; and his Olym­
pionikai (Rome, 1957), the lates t and most definitive Olympic
victor 1ist, provides bibliography and commentary on the
victors organized by Olympiads. 21 Important also are J.
Ebert I s work on epigrams and E. J. Morrissey's research on
the elements and structure of inscriptions listing the
agonistic festivals. 22 Exciting developments have included
the discovery of a bronze tablet near Sybaris recording a
victor's dedication of part of his prize, and the discovery
of names inscribed in the tunnel at Nemea. 2 3
Recognized in early studies, the relationship between
sport and various types of Greek art has received recent
attention. 21j Brian Legakis, "Athletic Contents in Archaic
Greek Art," (Diss. Chicago, 1977) catalogues representations
of (non-equestrian) athletics, primarily in vase-paintings,
21 Also see his "Supplemento al catalogo degli olympionikai," Klio 52
(1970) 295-303.
22 J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramne auf Sieger an gyrrmi8chen und hippi8chen
Agonen (Berlin, 1972). E. J. Morrissey, "Studies in Inscriptions
Listing the Agonistic Festivals," (Diss. Harvard, 1974) defines
principles of precedence governing lists in agonistic prose inscriptions
from the early fifth century to late Imperial times.
23 M. W. Stoop and G. P. Carratelli, "Scavi a Francavilla Marittima, ii:
Tabella con iscrizione arcaica," Atti e Memorie della Societa Magna
Grecia n. s. 6-7 (1965-1966) 14-21; Ebert, Epigramne, 251-255. On Nemea
see n. 39 below.
21j For example, A. Furtwangler, Die Bedeuf;ung der Gymnastik in der griechischen
Kunst (LeipZig and Berlin, 1905); W. W. Hyde, Olympic Victor Monuments
and Greek Athletic Art (Washington, 1921). More recently, S. Karouzou,
"Scenes de Palestre," BCH 86 (1962) 430-66; A. F. Stewart, "Lysippan
Studies 3. Not by Daidalos?" AJA 82 (1978) 473-82; R. Thomas,
"Athletenstatuetten der Spatarchaik und des Strengen Stils," (Diss.
Cologne, 1979).
59

D I KYLE
attract attention. 2E The operation of equestrian events has
been 1ess adequately treated, and more work should be forth­
coming on swimming and boat ing. 29
Olympia and the Olympic Games, the showplace if perhaps
not the birthp1ace of Greek sport, have been the subj ect of
many publications, often with considerable redundancy. 30
Many surveys of the festi val, si te and events exist but only
two works will be discussed here - one as the best general
introduction to the Olympic experience and one as the best
illustrated work on Olympia.
28 For example, Werner Rudolph, OlympischeT' KampfspoT't in deT' Antike
(Berlin, 1965); R. H. Brophy, "Death in the Panhellenic Games. Arrichion
and Creugas," AJP 99 (1978) 363-390. Scholars have long wondered about
the cause, site and stages of introduction of nudity in Greek sport.
Of interest, J. C. Mann, "iYMNAZ2 in Thuycdides 1 6.5-6," CR 24 (1974)
177-178 feels that, after an early age of wearing loincloths for
exercising, athletes returned to nude competition at the end of the
fifth century. A. J. Arietl, "Nudity in Greek Athletics," CW 68 (1975)
431-436, after a good collection of testimonia, makes the ingenious
suggestion that public nudity allowed the athlete - despite sexuality
in the contests - to show his self-control over his body. On Roman
reactions, see N. B. Crowther, "Nudity and Morality: Athletics in
Italy," CJ 76 (1980) 119-124.
29 For good introductions, see Harris, SGR, 151-172 or Patrucco, Sport,
373-402. J. K. Anderson, Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1961) is useful on matters of equipment and technique but he
only briefly treats equestrian competitions and he excludes chariots;
cf. Dorothy Kent Hill, "Chariots of Early Greece," Hesperia 43 (1974)
441-446. On swimming and diving: E. Mehl, Antike SchuJimmkunst (Munich,
1927); F. Frost, "Scyllias, Diving in Antiquity," G&R 15 (1968) 180-195;
K. DeVries, "Diving into the Mediterranean," Expedition 21 no. 1
(1978) 4-8.
30 Some more notable ones include: H. Schobel, The Ancient Games, trans.
J. Becker (Princeton, 1966); L. Drees, Olympia; Gods J Artists and
Athletes, trans. G. Onn (New York, 1968); H. Bengston, Die olympischen
Spiele in del" Antike (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1971). R. Patrucco (see
supra n. 25) adds little to earlier works except for a better than
usual treatment of equestrian events; his work is well documented
and his bibliography (407-416) is a good check-list for research up to
1972. On a specific question, see S. G. Miller, "The Date of Olympic
Festivals," MDAI(A) 90 (1975) 215-231.
61

D. KYLE
Olympia to treat non-Olympic events, athletics in poetry,
art and education, and sport in Crete, Mycenae and Early
Greece. No notes are provided but an Olympic victor list is
appended, and information is given about the excellent colour
illustrations and drawings. Surpassing in qual i ty the text
and their own captions, the illustrations make this the best
work of its type. 33 Maj or Greek scholars were involved and
integrated archaeological and artistic evidence, but the
largest share of the writing (128 of 303 pages) fell to K.
Palaeologos , Alternate Rector of the International Olympic
Academy. The discussions are generally sound, but deferential
and not free of errors. The explanation of the ephedro8
(122-123) makes Iittle sense; there is no extensive discussion
of the Iiterary sources; and many i terns of information seem
to have been included more through interest than reliability.
The whole chapter on "Famous Athletes in Ancient Greece"
(264-275) simply tells stories. A serious new edition of the
text is in order, but the illustrations should continue to
make this book highly desirable.
As the queen of agonistic sites, Olympia has been the
earliest and most thoroughly excavated complex of Greek sports
facilities. The past and continuing contributions of the
German Archaeological Institute deserve praise, and Olympia
remains the starting place and basis for comparison for
broader investigations of the sites and facilities for Greek
33 Ill. 17 seems more like a youthful pentathlete than the director of a
palaestra; ill. 49 is probably simply three youths; and the caption to
ill. 105 might point out that the javelin on horseback was not an
Olympic event. The charts (174-175) comparing ancient and modern races
must be meant for a juvenile audience. For a better explanation of why
certain ancient feats of weightlifting might be believed, see N. B.
Crowther, "Weightlifting in Antiquity. Achievement and Training," G&R
(1977) 111-120.
63

D I KYLE
the earlies t extens i ve remains of a Greek gymnas ium as we 11
as the elaborate stadium embellished by Herodes Atticus.
The excavations at Isthmia have brought forth the remarkable
triangular pavement with its starting line, and raised
questions about the shifting topographical relationship
between Greek stadia and temple precincts. 38 Nemea, of
course, is the site of the most exciting ongoing excavations
of a Greek athletic facility.39 The fourth-century stadium,
buil t at a considerable distance from the sanctuary and Temple
of Zeus, has seating arrangements for some 40 ,000 people.
This stadium is fascinating with its vaulted entrance tunnel
complete wi th inscriptions, its starting line and hundred
foot markers, and its hydraulic sys tern. Nemea seems to
confirm suspicions that the second half of the fourth century
was a crucial time in the development of Greek stadia: at
various Greek sites stadia for some reason then became more
architecturally elaborate or they shifted position relative
to their sanctuaries. The completion and final publication
of Nemea will be of tremendous value, and it is fortunate
that this responsibility lies with the talented S. G. Miller.
38 O. Broneer, Isthmia II, Topography and AY'chitectuY'e (Princeton, 1972).
For general introductions, see Broneer' s "The Isthmian Games and the
Sanctuary of Poseidon," GY'eek HeY'itage 1 no. 4 (1964) 42-49 or Y. M.
Walton, "The Isthmian Games," cJHS 13 no. 1 (May 1982) 74-82. On the
changing nature of the prize, see Broneer's "The Isthmian Victory
Crown," AJA 66 (1962) 259-263. On the cult of Palaimon and its possible
connection to a classical monument, see Uavid W. Rupp, "The Lost
Classical Palaimon Found?" HespeY'ia 48 (1979) 64-72. D. R. Jordan and
A. J. S. Spawforth, "A New Document from the I sthmian Games," Hesperia
51 (1982) 65-68, publish a late tablet, probably a judge's ballot.
39 See S. G. Miller, "Excavations at Nemea, the Stadium," Hesperia 51 (1982)
36-37 and other recent reports in Hesperia. The building southwest of
the Temple of Zeus is no longer seen as a palaestra. Miller also offers
an argument against a boy's pentathlon at Nemea, "The Pentathlon for
Boys at Nemea," CSCA 8 (1976) 199-201. For a general introduction, see
D. P. Hart, "The Ancient Nemean Festival," cJHS 8 no. 2 (Dec. 1977)
24-34. D. G. Romano, "An Early Stadium at Nemea," HespeY'ia 47 (1978)
27-31, feels an early stadium may have existed near the sanctuary.
6S

66
THE STUDY OF GREEK SPORT
Together Isthmia and Nemea have kept active the long­
standing debate over Greek starting lines. 40 Did races star1
from one or both ends of the stadium; did competitors run in
lanes and did they turn around individual posts or a single
turning post; what was the proper terminology for starting
devices and how did they operate? Recently Miller published
the discovery of a single isolated block with a socket for a
turning post at the south end of the stadium at Nemea. In
"Lanes and Turns in the Ancient Stadium," AJA 84 (1980) 159­
166, Miller suggests that individual posts were used for
certain races like the diaulos but that there was a common
post for other races like the dolichos, and that, when
appropriate, lanes could be marked out in chalk. This
explanation suits Nemea but it will not be the last word in
the debate.
Whi Ie the Periodos has rece i ved and probably deserves
the greatest attention, recent archaeological activity at
other Greek sites has shown how promising studies of sites
beyond the Periodos can be. 41 A fifth-century starting line
has been found on the Panathenaic Way of Athens raising
questions of the topographical relationship of sports faci­
Iities to other elements of a polis. 42 The discovery of
starting line blocks indicates that the agora of Argos also
40 Cf. H. A. Harris, "Stadia and Starting Grooves," G&R 7 (1960)
25-35; Jiithner, LeibesUbungen, 2. 95-156; Zschietzschmann, (Das Stadion
1. 7-43.
41 I rene C. Ringwood has been an exception in her work on the operation
of local festivals: "Agonistic Features of Local Greek Festivals,"
(Diss. Columbia, 1927) and articles in AJA 37 (1933) 452-458,40 (1936)
432-436,64 (1960) 245-251, and 76 (1972) 17-22.
42 T. Leslie Shear, "The Panathenaic Way," Hespena 44 (1975) 362-65; cf.
similar lines in Asia Minor, G. E. Bean, Aegean Turkey (London, 1966)
107-10, 229, 242-243. For a concise treatment of Athenian gymnasia,
see R. E. Wycherley, The Stones of Athens (Princeton, 1978) 219-235. Al
see S. C. Humphreys, "The Nothoi of Kynosarges," JHS 94 (1974) 88-95 anc
Diskin Clay, "A Gymnasium Inventory from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia
46 (1977) 259-267 for information on the operation and elements of gymna:

D. KYLE
had a racecourse. 4 3 Excavations in the forum (agora?) of
Corinth have uncovered a Hellenistic and two classical race­
courses. 44 Curved, with painted letters marking seventeen
positions, and with an unusually wide gap between the grooves,
the fifth-century line perhaps accommodated only certain types
of races for which an usual starting stance was used. At
Corinth runners apparently turned a single post at either end
and did not run in parallel lanes. On a terrace to the south
of the racecourse Corinth also has a ring, apparently for
heavy events. Such sites of "local" or "prize" games allow
us to investigate Greek sport in civic contexts and to relate
it to internal civic politics and the development of urbani­
zation. Like demythologizing studies, information about
local games should encourage us to acknowledge local variations
in the games and facil i ties of Greek sport, and even variations
in the significance of that sport for various areas and groups.
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN DON KYLE
f3 See the recent annual reports of the French School in ECH; for a map,
see ECH 102 (1978) 788 fig. 26.
·4 C. K. Williams II and Pamela Russell, "Corinth Excavations of 19.80, the
Sports Complex," Hespena 50 (1981) 1-19. Also see C. H. Morgan,
"Excavations at Corinth, 1936-37," AJA 41 (1937) 549-550, and C. K.
Williams II, "Corinth, 1969: Forum Area," Hesperia 39 (1970) 1-2.
67

P, MURGATROYO
instance of the figure in this period shows a completely
innovative development. When Oiotima gives her allegorical
account of the birth of Eros in PIato I s Symposium, she claims
that he takes after his father nopoe and says at 2030 Ka-rcl.
oE a6 -rev na-rEpa tnCBouAoe EO-rL -rOLe KaAOLe Kat -rOLe a.ya30Le,
a.VOPEtOC wv KaL r-rne KaL o6v-rovoc, 3npEu-rf)c OELVOe, a.EC -rLvae
n).,£Kwv unxav6.c, Kat

74
MAG I C IMAGERY APPLI ED TO LOVE
comments non facit hoc verbis, facie tenerisque Lacertis/
devovet et fLavis nostra pue LLa comis. The use of devoveo
here recalls 3£AYW, and in the same way the use of magicus
at 1.8.5f. (in exp!anati.on of the poet's amatory knowledge:
ipsa Venus magico reLigatum bracchia nodo/perdocuit muLtis
non sine verberibus) is reminiscent of Philodemus' uQ.yoC. 14
In the latter passage, Tibullus interestingly fuses the
figure with other imagery (servitium amoris for the first
time). A more substantial innovation is represented by his
introduction of noceo. Twice he plays on the use of this
verb of the harmful effects of magic: at 1.5.47, with regard
to Delia' s charms again, he says haec nocuere mihi, quod
adest huic dives amator, and at 1.8. 25f., after rej ecting
the notion that Marathus' bizarre conduct (in love with a
girl) has been caused by witchcraft and concluding that the
girl's beauty is responsible (reverting to the "L6noc
mentioned above and becoming still more physical), he remarks
sed corpus tetigisse nocet, sed Longa dedisse/oscuLa, Bed
femori conseruisse femur. 15 The final instance of the figure
in the Latin literature examined is also innovative. At 3.3.
49f. Propertius is instructed by a Muse to restrict himself
to love poetry u t per te c Lausas sciat excantare pue LLas/qui
vo Let austeros arte ferire viros. The magical connotation
in excantare is unmistakeable, and the verb most obviously
refers to the "charming" words with which the lover will
lure out girls, like the spells with which the sorcerer
lures crops from fields or gods from the sky. 16
14 The precise sense of magico is disputed, but I think that here Tibullus
means little more than that he is "bewitched" by love. For a fuller
discussion see my commentary ad Zoc.
15 See my commentary on 1.5.47-58 and 1.8.25-26.
16 See OLD and TLL s.v. excanto, Postgate and Rothstein ad Loc.

P. MURGATROYD
treatment and never attained a stage of high development;
and in Greek and Latin amatory writing from Homer until the
sixth century A. D. I have noted only fifty-three definite
examples. However, this very rarity must have made for
interest and impact.
UNIVERSITY OF NATAL
PI ETERMAR I TZBURG
P. MURGATROYD
77

78
THE COLLECTIVE BURIAL OF FALLEN SOLDIERS AT ATHENS J
SPARTA AND ELSEWHERE:
"ANCESTRAL CUSTOM" AND MODERN MI SUNDERSTAND I NG
Noel Robertson
The collective burial of fallen soldiers is a custom
known from monuments - the mound at Marathon, the Lion of
Chaeroneia, tombs in the Cerameicus and elsewhere - and
from works of literature - funeral speeches by several Attic
orators and another by Thucydides, Plutarch's description of
the grave service at PIataea, and a few epitaphs. It is
subj ect to a large misunderstanding, which has prevailed
without contradiction for many years and is repeated in every
work that touches the subj ect. We are told that the Greeks
normally buried fallen soldiers on the field of battle, and
that the Athenians alone did otherwise, bringing home the
dead for burial in the Cerameicus; the only question to be
settled is whether this Athenian peculiarity was from of
old, or was consciously introduced at a certain moment by
Solon (say) or by Cleisthenes or during the Persian Wars
or even as late as the 460s. 1
1 Athenian practice is dealt with under various heads by F. Jacoby,
JRS 64 (1944) 37-66; A. W. Gomme, Rist. Comm. on Thuc. 2 (Oxford,
1956) 94-101; W. Kierdorf, ErZebnis und DarsteUung der Perserkriege
(Gottingen, 1966) 83-95; M. Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginnings of
Athenian Democracy (Oxford, 1969) 175-176; D. W. Bradeen, CQ 63
(1969) 154-155; D. C. Kurtz and J. Boardman, Greek BuriaZ Customs
(London, 1971) 108-112, 121, 247-248, 257; P. Arnandry, BCR 95 (1971)
612-625; R. Stupperich, Staatsbegriibnis und PrivatgrabmaZ im
kZassischen Athen (Miinster, 1977) 1.4-56, 200-238; and N. Loraux,
L'invention d'Athenes. Ristoire de Z'oraison funebre dans Za cite
cZassique (Paris, 1981) 15-75, 355-381. No discussion exists of the
general practice of other Greek cities.

NOEL ROBERTSON
Thucydides is thought to give warrant for this view in
the famous passage which sets the stage for the funeral
speech of Pericles (2.34). The speech and the res t of the
ceremony are said to be Athens' "ancestral custom" - patrios
nomos - and since Thucydides describes the ceremony in
detail, he did not expect it to be fami I iar to readers out­
side of Athens. The ceremony culminates in the Cerameicus:
all the war dead are buried there, says Thucydides, "except
those at Marathon", who were buried on the field because
of their outstanding valour. In the current interpretation
"the ancestral custom" consists mainly in bringing home the
remains for burial in the Cerameicus, a practice which other
Greeks would not have expected, if they were accustomed
to burials on the field, as at Plataea. But then Thucydides
should have mentioned Plataea too as an exception to the
Athenian custom; for of course Athenians were buried at
Plataea. The great scholar Jacoby, in a well known paper
which admini s ters correction fi rmly both to ancient sources
and to modern critics, held that the custom which Thucydides
calls "ancestral" was in fact more recent than the battle
of Plataea, by about fifteen years. In Jacoby's view,
which is very wide ly accepted, Thucydides was ignorant
and wrong about a prominent feature of Athenian public life
which he chose for special mention. Those who disagree
wi th Jacoby do so only to the extent of tracing the innovation
to some earlier juncture. 2
But this exegesis of Thucydides is quite misguided.
In the context the term "ancestral custom" plainly does not
2 Jacoby has been opposed by Gomme, Bradeen and Stupperich. Of those
who treat his dating as conclusive, note especially B. D. Meritt,
H. T. I\'ade-Gery and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists 3
(Princeton, 1950) 109-110, and Page and Kirk as cited in n.lI below.
79

80
THE COLLECTIVE BURIAL OF FALLEN SOLDIERS
specify, and need not even include, the practice of bringing
home the remains. What Thucydides exalts as Athens I "ances­
tral custom" is the whole ceremony - the elaborate collective
funeral, featuring a patriotic speech by a distinguished
public figure, and the collective burial in what he calls
"the fairest suburb of the city". Other writers bear out
Thucydides on this point. The ceremony and the speech are
likewise held up as distinctive of Athens by Demosthenes
(20 Lept. 141) and by Philostratus in the Heroicus (35.13,
p. 51 de Lannoy), who has the Athenian contingent at Troy
layout the body of Aj ax while Menestheus pronounces a
funeral oration! If there was anything else distinctive
about the Athenian treatment of fallen soldiers, it goes
unmentioned by ancient poets, historians, antiquarians,
and commentators. Thucydides then does not imply that the
Athenian practice of bringing home the remains differed
from the practice of other Greeks. We must still explain
why he mentions Marathon but not Plataea as departing from
the ancestral custom of funeral and burial in the Cerameicus;
but that is a separate question. 3
The truth, I suggest, is quite different: all Greeks
brought home the remains of those killed in war whenever
they could, except where special arrangements were made
abroad for burial and grave service. Such arrangements are
rare and show a natural reluctance to part with the dead
unles s every honour was assured.
The leading examples of burial on the battle-field
belong to the Persian Wars. Fallen soldiers were buried on
the field at Marathon in 490 and at Plataea and Thermopylae
3 It is hardly surprising that Thucydides speaks of the funeral speech
as a later addition to the "ancestral custom" (2. 3S .1), but his words
have sometimes been strangely interpreted - or even discounted
altogether, as by Jacoby.

NOEL ROBERTSON
in 479. The cases of Plataea and Thermopylae go together,
for until the victory of 479 the Greeks had no opportunity
to retrieve the dead at Thermopylae, and the arrangements
at both sites will have been decided soon after the victory.
Now at Plataea and Thermopylae the fallen soldiers were of
course recruited from different cities to defend Greece
agains t the barbarians, and special care was taken to s ig­
nalize the common burial and to protect the common graves
thereafter. As we know from Thucydides' record of events
in 429 and 427 (3.58.4-5, 59.2; cf. 2.71.2-4), the Plataeans
were solemnly charged with tending the allied graves, and
Plutarch describes the public ceremony that was still con­
ducted by the archon and the people of Plataea more than
500 years later (Apis t. 21. 2 - 6). At Thermopylae, says
Herodotus (7.228.4), the adornment of the graves was taken
in hand by the Amphictyons who met nearby; and we may
safely assume that the Amphictyons also provided for a yearly
grave service corresponding to the rite at Plataea. 4
This is the minimum that we can say about the dis­
positions at Plataea and Thermopylae. Later tradition is
much fuller. First there is the Greek Oath - the famous
oath that was reputedly sworn by the allied soldiers on
the eve of battle. All versions of the Oath, literary and
epigraphic, contain a vow to bury the dead, coming immedi­
ately after the vow to fight bravely and loyally. A
collective undertaking, by all the soldiers of the allied
4 The grave service at Plataea must be distinguished from the Panhellenic
festival which was celebrated two and a half months earlier
in the festival calendar, on the reputed anniversary of the battle
(Plut. A"rist. 19.8). The two occasions are often confused, as by
the authors of ATL, 3.101, and by F. Bomer, Untepsuchungen iibep die
Religion del" SHaven in Gpiechenland und Rom 1 (AbhMainz 1957 no. 7)
131-134.
81

NOEL ROBERTSON
the original Eleutheria were founded in 478 by the Spartan
regent Pausanias at a Panhellenic gathering which is referred
to by Thucydides (2.71.2). Much more could be said about
the commemoration of the dead at Plataea and Thermopylae,
but these details suffice to show that extraordinary steps
were taken to preserve and honour the graves. 6
The other battle sites of 480 and 479 had no such
sanctity. It is commonly held, but wrongly, that the Greek
fleet likewise buried their dead at Artemisium, Salamis,
and Mycale; this is of course a corollary of the view
described above. From the narrative of events and from
later descriptions of the sites it is clear that there was
no Panhellenic burial-ground at any of these places. After
the victory of Mycale the allies still distrusted the out­
look in Ionia and sailed away in haste (Hdt. 9.106.1). At
Artemisium the Greek fleet recovered wrecks and corpses
after the final engagement (Hdt. 8.18), and the remains may
well have been burnt up on the shore, where in later days
the natives pointed to a strange deposit of black ashy
powder (Plut. Them. 8.6); but since they did not also point
to a burial mound, they evidently be1 ieved that the fleet
6 The origin of the Eleut1)eria and of "the General Council of Greece"
remains in dispute; R. Etienne and M. Pierart, BCH 99 (1975) 63-75,
adopt a minimizing view which is by no means free from difficulty.
For the Panhellenic gathering convened by Pausanias in the year 478,
rather than 479 as commonly assumed, agrees with both the indications
of Thucydides and the silence of Herodotus. Notices of the Athenian
cuIt and stoa of Zeus Eleutherios are collected by R. E. Wycherley,
The Athenian AgoI'a 3 (Princeton, 1957) 25-30; the stoa has since
appeared at Ox. Pap. 39 no. 2889 lines 5-7, the opening of
Aeschines Socraticus' Miltiades (I owe this reference to the kindness
of Professor Homer Thompson), the statue at Hesperia 48 (1979)
180-193 lines 21-22 as restored, a decree of c. 393 for Evagoras of
Salamis. The great stoa which formed the back-drop to the worship
of Zeus Eleutherios was abuilding in the 420's B.C., just when
Thebes dismantled the town of Plataea and Athens welcomed the
refugees.
83

84
THE COLLECTIVE BURIAL OF FALLEN SOLDIERS
carried home the incinerated remains. In any case Plutarch
found only a few commemorative stelae in the shrine of
Artemis Proseoea (Them. 8.6, De Hdt. Ma l. 34, 86 7F) . 7
On Salamis the arrangements are obscure. Perhaps the
Corinthians were invited to erect a po Zyandrion in virtue
of their outstanding contribution. And perhaps the Athenian
too buried their dead on the island. All this depends on
the interpretation of two bits of evidence - a stone
bearing a Corinthian epitaph which was found at Ambelaki
on Salamis and which may der i ve from either the sea - battle
or from the earliel" struggle over possession of the island
(GHI2 24; cf. Pluto De Hdt. Mal. 39, 870E, and [Dio Chrys.]
37.18); and a polyandrion on the Cynosura peninsula which
is mentioned in a fragmentary context in an Athenian
inscription (Hesperia 44 [1975 J 213 line 33). But the
silence of Herodotus, Strabo and Pausanias is decisive
against any collective burial. Herodotus does not scant
the battle of Salamis or its portents and memorials, but in
contrast to Plataea and Thermopylae he says nothing of the
burial of the dead. Both Strabo and Pausanias are very
full on Salamis (Str. 9.1.9-11; Paus. 1.35.2-4, 36.1-2),
and both elsewhere admire the poZyandrion tombs at Plataea
and Thermopylae (Str. 9.2.31, 4.2, 4.16; Paus. 9.2.4),
but not a word of any such on Salamis. Thus the burial of
the fallen at Plataea and Thermopylae was far more unusual
than modern commentators have allowed. 8
7 W. Gauer, Weihgeschenke aus den Perserkriege (Tubingen, 1968) 117-120,
rightly refuses to consider the Artemisium stelae as a grave monument,
and concludes that the dead were taken home for burial.
8 Both the Corinthian epitaph and the poZyandrion of the Athenian
inscription are troubling for reasons which need not be gone into
here. It is often assumed, as by N. G. L. Hammond, Studies in Greek
History (Oxford, 1973) 309, that this poZyandrion was a single
collective burial of all the Greeks who died in the sea-battle; but
such a thing would be unparalleled. The polyandrion was defined by
a subj ective genitive which is swallowed up in a lacuna.

NOEL ROBERTSON
The example of Plataea will account for a few later
instances, notably the Thebans at Chaeroneia. Other early
instances are illusory, with one exception, the Spartans in
the Thyreatis; and this exception, as we shall see in a
moment, explains a great deal.
It is time to look at the evidence for normal practice.
But first we should be aware of a general consideration,
which will not of course decide the issue, but is important
nonetheless. A hallmark of Greek religion, noted by experts
and outsiders alike, is the obsess i ve tendance of the dead
and of the grave, combined with a persistent vagueness about
the afterlife. Yet the doctrine we are considering requires
us to admit that the very dead who deserved best were left
untended. For if fallen soldiers were buried on the battle­
field, it is obvious that one side at least relinquished
any continuing tendance of the graves - not necessarily the
losing side, since battles may be won on alien soil; and,
given the hazards of campaigning, it is also obvious that
many battle sites would be inconvenient for anyone to visit
regularly. Now at Plataea and Thermopylae, as we have just
seen, special provision was made for the tendance of the
graves; indeed the graves here received more opulent and
honorific tendance than any others. 9
85
Nowhere else do we hear of such arrangements. Of course,
it is not uncommon for soldiers killed abroad to be buried
in neighbouring cities. In the year 510 many Spartans died
at Phalerum, fighting against the tyrant of Athens; and
their leader, and perhaps the others too, were buried by
9 R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana, 1941), has
many examples of concern for the maintenance of the grave and for
"renewal of contact between the dead and the living" (especially
pp. 106-141, 220-230, 307-311).

86
THE COLLECTIVE BURIAL OF FALLEN SOLDIERS
the Athenians - not at Phalerum, however, but at Cynosarges,
doubtless in a public burial ground like the Cerameicus
(Hdt. 5.63. 2-4). The Argives who fell at Tanagra in c. 457
were buried in the Cerameicus (GHI 2 35; Paus. 1.29.8), and
so were the Spartans killed in the Peiraeus in 403 (IG II2
11678; Xen. Hell,. 2.4.33). This is like the local burial of
envoys and other foreigners; it is an extra measure of
honour, and has nothing to do with any cus tom of burial on
the battle-field. 10
So now to the pos i tive evidence, which speaks with
voice. To remove the dead from the battle-field for burial
elsewhere was a universal custom, as shown by the first
great instance, the removal of the bodies of the Seven
champions who fell at Thebes, and the removal also of the
bodies of their followers; although the destination of the
bodies is variously reported, their removal for burial else­
where is an essential point in all versions (Plutarch, Thes.
29.4- 5, assembles some details from the tragedians). Since
the Seven died in what the Greeks regarded as the first
great battle ever fought in Greece, the treatment of their
bodies serves as an aition or charter for all subsequent
practice. Homer in the Iliad (7.334-335) and Aeschylus in
the Agamemnon (433-444) assume that the ashes of warriors
fallen round Troy were brought back to their respective
homes. Now Aeschylus, it is obj ected, was an Athenian,
and Homer's lines, which are spoken by Nestor, have been
branded as an Athenian interpolation. Since there is some
inconsequence in Nestor's advice, the 1ines may indeed be
interpolated, but not for Athens' sake: to ascribe to the
1 0 The excavated remains of the Spartan tomb of 403 are fully treated
by F. Willemsen, AthMitt 92 (1972) 117-157.

88
THE COLLECTIVE BURIAL OF FALLEN SOLDIERS
bes t they could", so as to clear the way for a furtive with­
drawal CThuc. 3.109.3). Here the dead were indeed buried
somewhere near the battle-field, but they would have been
carried away had the victors also conceded a retreat under
truce. 12
Outside the historians the evidence is sparse. An
important document is a po Zyandrion epitaph transmitted as
Simonides', which refers to a battle in Euboea CAP 16.26=
Peek, GVI 1) - important because it is commonly taken as the
earliest of its kind, and may still be so even if the con­
ventional date, 506 B.C., is rejected, and also because it
gives both the battIe site and the place of burial.
"Beneath a fold of Dirphys we were overcome", says the
epitaph, "and our tomb is raised at public expense beside tt
Euripus". In the usual view the epitaph commemorates Athens
victory over Chalcis in 506, and will have stood on an
Athenian tomb in Euboea; thus proving that at this date
Athens shared the general custom of burial on the battle­
field. This interpretation is perverse. Since no city is
named in the epitaph, it must have been obvious where the
soldiers came from, and this would not be so if they were
12 The Tanagra inscription has been re-edited by J. Venencie, BeB 84
(1960) 611-616. The remains of the burial mound at Thespiae are
described by Kurtz and Boardman p. 248. According to Jacoby p. 44
n. 28, the retrieval of the Syracusan dead from Himera was a mere
publicity stunt! The battle of 01pae was followed by another battle
nearby, at Idomene, in which many more Ambraciots died, so many
that Thucydides withholds the number as incredible (3.113.6), and it
may be that these too were buried at the scene, as the only recourse
for the stricken city; for Professor Symphorien van de Maele, who
knows the area very well, informs me that a great many undated
burials have been found huddled together at a likely spot. W. K.
Pritchett, The Greek State at War 2 (Berkeley, 1974) 264-269, gives
a checklist of battles in which Thucydides, Xenophon, the Oxyrhynchus
historian and Diodorus say something about the outcome on the field,
as regards the trophy and the recovery of the dead; but no further
certainties emerge. Pritchett himself speaks of a "burial truce"
and even says "the bodies were buried" in cases where the bodies are
simply recovered from the field.

NOEL ROBERTSON
Athenian, buried on alien ground. The only reasonable
inference is that the tomb beside the Euripus was of native
sons, whether Chalcidians or Eretrians, and derived from
some engagement between these hostile neighbours, an engage­
ment which was fought, as the epitaph says, beside Mount
Dirphys, at some inland site on the edge of the plain.
Rightly understood, the epitaph throws a clear light on our
question. The battle site, "beneath a fold of Dirphys", is
not the same as the place of burial, "close by the Euripus" ;
they are, in fact, distinguished. The fallen soldiers, in
other words, were no t buried on the battle - fie ld, but were
carried home to either Chalcis or Eretria and buried at
some prominent spot near the shore. 13
A similar resul t can be argued for a number of other
epitaphs, but sometimes there is residual uncertainty about
the site or the type of monument, so that this source of
information is not so helpful as one might expect. There is,
however, an epigraphic law from Thasos which speaks of a
public funeral for fallen soldiers, just as at Athens, and
shows that the remains were normally brought home for burial
(Pouilloux, Nouv. choix d'inscr. gr. 19).
The general custom is clear, and so we need not canvass
and discount all the departures from custom that were
dictated by the fortunes of war; the Peloponnesians at Olpae
may stand for a number of similar cases. It is also clear
that Sparta shared the general custom. A Spartan mother
expected to see her son's body, if not her son, after a
campaign: "Either with this, or on this", she said as she
gave him his shield (Plut. Inst. Lac. 16, 241F; etc.). More
1 3 This epitaph like the Corinthian epitaph on Salamis (n. B above) is
transmitted with a second couplet which I have left aside; nearly
everyone agrees that it was added by a literary hand.
89

NOEL ROBERTSON
later-day Arcadians made out that the Spartan occupation was
brief, and that the pol,yandrion - where even in Pausanias'
day the Phigaleians offered sacrifice as to heroes - contained
the bodies of one hundred Arcadian patriots, who gave their
lives to fulfil an oracle and thus enabled the Phigaleians to
recover their city. But this story is suspect for its
routine piety and chauvinism, and other bits of evidence
suggest that Sparta actually held Phigaleia about as long
the Thyreatis. The pol,yandrion as a monument of this period
was probably a Spartan tomb, and may have been the focus of
another Spartan festival known from the epigraphic record,
the festival en Ariontias, "in the domain of the goddess
Ariontia" (Moretti, Iscr. ago gr. 16.24-30, 39-43). Ariontia
is the feminine form of Arion, the divine horse which was
the offspring of Poseidon and Demeter at Arcadian Thelpusa
(Paus. 8.25.5 -7); at Phigaleia the same tale was told of
Poseidon and Demeter's conjunction, but the offspring was a
daughter, whose true name Pausanias thought too holy to be
revealed (Paus. 8.37.9,42.1); surely the name was Ari­
ontia. 16
If this reconstruction is right, we have matching
arrangements at Phigaleia and in the Thyreatis. In both
places the po l,yandrion tombs were extraordinary monuments
wi th an extraordinary purpose; the soldiers buried here had
won new land for Sparta and preserved it thereafter as
local heroes, worshipped with choruses and games. Even if
we discount Phigaleia as too hypothetical, the Thyreatis
still has this significance.
91
Now the soldiers buried at Marathon, Plataea and Thermo­
pylae were heroes in the same sense; they had saved Greece
16 The name Ariontia preserves the oldest fonn of the feminine ending,
which became -onsa in Arcadian and -osa in Laconian. Some other
explanations of the name, all very unconvincing, are reviewed by
E. Bourguet, Le dialecte laconien (Paris, 1927) 52-53.

EURIPIDES' HERACLES
have left their mark upon the final product in the form of a
few inconsistencies in the commentary, faults in copy-editing,
and in typographical errors more numerous than one is accus­
tomed to find in oup productions (see list in footnote 9
below) .
All in all, Bond has performed a difficult task very
well. With Wilamowitz towering in the background, he has
sometimes had to write a commentary on Wilamowitz (hereafter
abbreviated Wil.) as well as on Euripides; and because of
Wil. 's elliptical and allusive style of comment and exegesis,
there are often pitfalls in understanding his intention. It
is good to see that Wil.' s mistaken psychologizing of syntax
and of unspoken motivations has been regularly noted and
corrected by Bond; on the other hand, there are some s tate­
ments in the commentary which are there only because Wile
made them (see footnote 2 below). Bond has cast his net
wide and reports for his readers the relevant perceptions
of scholars drawn from commentaries, periodicals, and
dissertations. His tone is often reportorial, sometimes
almost non-committal, rarely sharply polemical (654:
"ineptly challenged as inept by Herwerden" is a rare - and
justified - instance). This is an advantage in a commen­
tary, but on occasion it has, I fear, led to repetition of
an earlier view where an independent and critical reappraisal
was needed. Some of the best notes in the commentary are
those on the intellectual currents of the 5th century as
reflected in particular words and arguments in the play,
and Bond is usually at his best in explaining clearly why
a transmitted reading requires emendation (he offers very
few emendations of his own - e.g. at lines 121-3, 446, 845 ­
and of these few strike me as convincing). He does not
possess the consummate Iiterary tact of Dodds or the
sovereign, unvarying mas tery of Greek language, grammar, and
95

96
DONALD J. MASTRONARDE
style of Barrett - but who does?
The 19-page Introduction covers "The Meaning and Unity
of Heractes" (10 pages), "Euripides' Treatment of the Legend".
"The Date of Heractes", and "The Text of Heracles". In the
first section, Bond finds the essential unity of the play in
the violent antithesis between the confident theodicy which
ends at line 814 and the overthrow of that theodicy with the
appearance of Lyssa at 8l5ff. and suggests that the moral may
be that "men tend to form hasty and ill-considered opinions
about the gods"; friendship and endurance are viewed as two
"shafts of light in this deeply pessimistic tragedy". This
is good as far as it goes, and perhaps one does not expect
more than this in a commentary in this series. I myself
would, however, have liked to see more examples given of
the parallelisms and repeated images noticed by Kamerbeek
and Schwinge (whose contributions are very briefly dismissed
by Bond): it is true that such features should not be taken
to be constitutive of "unity" in themselves, but they do
reinforce the structure and meaning Bond himself posits and
contribute to a unitary texture in the playas a whole.
More could have been done with the complex of notions on
which so much of the human aspirations and worries in this
play revolve: hope (with n6poc; and anop ra), time (with youth
and old age, strength and weakness), change or reversal,
virtue, and wealth (with injustice). For English-language
students reference might have been made to the Introduction
written by Arrowsmith for his translation of Heractes in the
Chicago series; an article which appeared too late for Bond
to refer to may also be mentioned - J. Shelton, "Structural
Unity and the Meaning of Euripides' Herac tes ," Eranos 77
(1979) 101-110. Many of these themes were well discussed in
H. O. Chalk's important article in JHS 82 (1962) 7ff., along
with a theory about arete and bia which I, like Bond, find

EUR I P I DES' HERACLES
misguided. Bond does refer to Chalk, but I wish that he had
made more references to him and fewer to Adkins' contribution
in CQ 16 (1966) 209ff., which is repeatedly cited in the
commentary and only twice (on 57 and on 1335) somewhat firmly
rebuffed. There is a tendency in this discussion toward what
I would call "minimal ism" in appreciating the wider impli­
cations of what happens in the play. For instance, Bond is
eager to show that Hera's hatred is to be accepted at face
value and not interpreted as a symbol of anything; but I
think he comes too close to suggesting that her intervention
is pos i tive ly rational or lawful. Granted that her role is
traditiona1 and appropriate , that does not ensure that the
intervention is devoid of a wider meaning, if a wider meaning
is suggested by the way the rest of the play probes the
problem of the status of humanity and virtue and happiness in
the universe. (For more on such minimalism, see on 1341-6,
below, p. 111).
It will not be out of place, I think, to show here how
Bond's hesitant approach to repeated themes affects several
points in his commentary. The note on 1186 refers (belatedly;
it would be useful to the student to make this point earlier)
to the instances of the image of flying away into the air to
vanish: in this play the image is associated with (sudden,
unexpected) loss of good fortune, and the fact that Euripides
uses the metaphor several times suggests that at 69 it is
meant to be noticed, though Bond suspects it is "threadbare"
there; after 69 and 510, it seems to me ominous that Heracles
uses n'Hpunoc; playfully at 628 (as protector of his friends
he is not secure, as he wrongly believes, but will soon
"vanish" and become their slayer), and that use in turn
affects the use at 1158 (so already Delulle, rejected by
Bond). Secondly, the repeated scenic gesture of unveiling
and looking up at the light instead of at darkness, a mark
97

EURIPIDES' HERACLES
III
we have an instantaneously developed threat (elicited by 1240. as Bond
notes). to which the perfect is unsuited. Wil. 's xat. xpa't"cLv does not
fall prey to this objection. but it involves the strained assumption of
a misunderstanding between Heracles and Theseus. l338f. : "The
interpolation would have been an early one...." is a strange statement:
most interpolations were in tragic texts by the Roaan period. The
Favorinus papyrus is 3rd century. but the work itself was written in
the first half of the 2nd century. 1341-6: for the most part a
fine note. staying clear of Verrallism. but perhaps erring rather on
the side of minimalism - that is. too readily discounting a dissonance
by reference to the "rhetoric of the situation" (on this problem in
general. see D. J. Conacher. "Rhetoric and Relevance in Euripidean Drama."
AJP 102 (1981) 3-25). I am sorry (for reasons on which I shall elaborate
in another place outside this review) to find the stateaent (p.400)
that the lines "may well represent Euripides' own considered view".
1352: Bond is tempted to keep \J.up(wv. but it gives poor sense within
its own line and is not really needed for the rhetorical contrast
between 1352 and 1353. where the opposition is carried primarily by
novwv oT) (vs. f£>pwv: the connection in thought is correctly explicated
by Bond); the of] serves to strengthen that contrast and does not mean
"as men know" (as Bond suggests in his note on 1353. perhaps misapplying
part of Wil. 's note on the sufficiency here of a sUIIDlary phrase
instead of a grandiose enumeration of labors).
1410-1417: both in his notes on these lines and in an
appendix (pp. 417 - 418) Bond has helpfully highlighted the
dramatic and textual difficulties of the dialogue, and I can
confirm from tutorials with graduate students that the tone
and import of these lines strike many readers as problematic.
(Difficulties of tone and meaning in Euripidean endings are
not, however, rare: cf. Ale., Held., Or.) Bond finds the
dispute between Theseus and Heracles unedifying and speaks of
Theseus' inhumani ty and of Heracles' acrimony. I don't think
that the lines need be acted with quite so much harshness as
that. To me, the dramatic point of the passage is to display
the common humanity of Theseus and Heracles and to show that
j udg ing and learning can work both ways - there can be no
facile judgment of the proper amount of tears of grief nor of
how "low" a hero may feel and act. Theseus had "cured"
Heracles by reminding him of his bravery, but in this scene
Heracles reasserts that he cannot just return to the status
quo ante in his feelings of self-sufficiency. The fact that

112
DONALD J I MASTRONARDE
the argument used to "cure" Heracles at 1250 recurs in a
failing effort at 1410 is not a problem, but a deliberate
effect desired by Euripides (just as Heracles' suicide­
decision echoes Megara' s, but in the different circumstances
is, in dramatic terms, judged differently), an effect which
underscores the lability of man's understanding of his place
in the world. There is a comparable "inconsistency"
(troubling to many scholars, who posit interpolation as the
cause) in the use of mythological references in exhortation
in Phoen. 1688 and 1732-1733: in the former passage Antigone
appeals to Oedipus' conquest of the Sphinx to dispel the old
man's despairing refusal of aid, but in the latter she dis­
misses reminiscence of the Sphinx in order to bring lamentate
(and the play) to an end. In the appendix, Bond suggests that
1410-1417 might work better if placed in the earlier scene of
argumentative exhortation, between 1253 and 1254. In that
position many new problems arise, however: (1) 1410 is not
so good after 1253 because Heracles has just rej ected the
value of his previous toils (they are small in comparison
with his present woe and they were futile); (2) in 1413 the
burden placed upon 00 I. by Bond's interpretation seems too
great; (3) at 1414 Theseus is denying what at 1250 and 1252
wanted Heracles to be1ieve and remember; (4) the mot i vat ion
of the tu quoque argument in 1415 is unconvincingly explained
by Bond ("stung perhaps by the repeated argument and the
sanctimonious tone"); (5) if Heracles argues back so force­
fully before 1254, this would detract from the decisiveness
of his entering into a c!lJ.d.A.u A.0ywv at 1255 (this decision
was crucial: a1though he is not necessarily swayed by TheseLJs
arguments as a whole, the activity of debate and consideration
has the therapeutic effect of shaking Heracles' from his
instinctive resolve to die). 1422: Bond thinks that
6UOX0IJ.I.OLU yfj is defensible, if less pointed than 6UOXOIJ.I.OL'

BOOK REVI EWS/COMPTES RENDUS
117
Gregory Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans. Baltiaore and London, The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979; paperback 1981. pp. xviii + 392.
Cloth, $15.00; Paper, $7.95.
N. 's main purpose is to examine the connections
between the worship of heroes in cult and their prai se in
epic poetry. The book does not so much offer a thesis
take the reader on a journey through a mysterious laby­
rinth of myths, formulae, rituals and Indo- European be­
havioural patterns. If the reader wishes to make a map of
his travels upon completion, he will find that it causes
him much trouble, since the book abounds in by-ways, detouIS
and changes of direction. In fact, it is doubtful whether
there is a coherent system of roadways to be charted. N.
is amazingly agile in leaping from one topic to the next;
but all too often he relates pieces of evidence that have
no significant relation to one another, or draws unjusti-
f ied conclusions from those which do.
Here is a specimen. In chapters 5 and 6, N. explores
the formulaic use of the words akh08, penth08, menis, algea,
kleos and a few others. Examination of specific contexts
in which these words are used shows how closely formulae
are rela ted to the overall themes of the epic (more on this
below). This verbal exacti tude extends even to the names
of the characters: Achilles' name is formed from akhos
and laos; akhos is also the root of Akhaioi. (These
etymologies are argued in Ch. 5 and an appendix with the
linguistic learning that characterizes N. 's work.) Achilles'
akh08 (his being deprived of Briseis) causes his menis;
thi s in turn causes akhos for the Achaeans, the laos, be­
cause Achilles withdraws from battle. Akho8, or pentho8,
however, is the reverse side of kleo8; one warrior's fame,
i.e. his killing someone in battle, invariably causes
penthos for someone else. Conversely, in our Iliad, the

BOOK REV I EwslCOMPTES RENDUS
especially the apt employment of the Prague School's
linguistic terminology (p. 239).2
N.' s general method (as distinct from the peculiari­
ties of his logic) will not find favour with all. He
119
believes that the overall themes of the epic are reflected
at the most particular levels in the employment of formulae.
This is in accordance with an earlier the s is 3 which N.
worked out in order to meet a certain objection to Milman
Parry's theory of oral poetry. The highly traditional
nature of epic diction in Parry's scheme has been fel t by
many to amount to a straitj acket which prevents the poet
from saying what he wants to say. According to N., how­
ever, everything the singer wants to say is as traditional
as the way he says it. The themes themse I ves determine
the development of formulaic systems; ergo (?), all
formulae are appropriate in their contexts, and the poet
has perfect freedom. For example, the formula aristos
Akhaion refers to quite a large theme pervading both
Homer's songs: whether the man who has bie or the man
who has me tis is best. The tit1e is not conferred indis­
criminately, and in those places where it is used (e.g.
ad. 8. 78, on which more below), we may assume that this
theme is operative. Another example is the word menis:
except for the gods, it is used exclusively in connection
wi th the poem's subject, Achi lIes' anger towards Agamemnon.
Other types of anger are described differently. There is
one except i on, II. 13.460, where Aeneas is angry wi th
2 Ch. 13 on iambos is a revision of an earlier article in Arethusa 9
(1976) 191-205.
3 "Formula and Meter", in Oral Literature and the Formula, edd. B. A.
Stolz and R. S. Shannon (Ann Arbor, 1976), pp. 239-60.

120
BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS
King Priam. Therefore his anger "must have been the
central theme of another epic tradition - this one
featuring Aeneas as its prime hero" (p. 73 n. 2). This
preposterous conclusion is actually made more probable
by further arguments in Chapter IS (the idea is not, of
course, new), but taken by itself it is a good example of
a method N. himself calls literal-minded (p. 4). Many
readers will not endorse this technique or the theory
that supports it, but N. gives fair warning of his "the­
oretical underpinnings" in the introduction, so that one
can take them or leave them.
The book's claims are mu1 tifarious and extravagant.
and I cannot report everything; two maj or themes are
singled out here for detailed comment. In part I, N.
wants to show tha t the Iliad and the Odyssey constitute
an artistic unity. As Monro pointed out, the Odyssey
never repeats or refers overtly to any part of the Iliad.
This could mean that the Odyssey does not know the other
epic, but N. rightly believes that allusion is deliberately
avoided (and unnecessary, one might add). Like everything
else, this circumstance will be a function of the tradition
the two stories evolved in such a way as to be independent
but complementary. To prove this. N. needs a passage from
the Odyssey which "unmistakably alludes to an Iliadic scene
without duplicating it" (p. 21). He finds it in the first
song of Demodocus, Od. 8.72-82. Taking up Aristarchus'
guess 4 based on the Embassy Scene in Iliad 9, that Odysseus
and Achilles argued whether Troy should be taken by force
4 See p. 24. It is no more than a guess; the scholia know of no other
"tradition" in which this incident occurred, or we would be told the
title of the poem. What Achilles and Odysseus quarrelled about was
a zetema. To look to Iliad 9 for an answer is to follow the principle
of explaining Homer from Homer.

BOOK REV 1EWS/COMPTES RENDUS
strategem, N. examines the use of the phrase "the
best of the Achaeans", as the two heroes are called by
Demodocus. He finds that Odysseus is never given this
jealously guarded title in the Iliad (but see below!),
whereas the Odyssey everywhere confers it on him. This
is odd, because in the latter poem he is given credi t
for sacking Troy by the device of the horse. It is as
if the kleos of Achilles in the Iliad has pre-empted that
of Odysseus in the Iliad. Again, evolution is respon­
sible. Achilles' superiority 1ies in hi s hie, Odys seus '
in hi s meti s. The very us e of the phrase "the best of
the Achaeans" in Od. 8.78 is enough to establish his
thesis, says N., because when decoded it really means
121
"the traditions of the Iliad and the Odyssey respectively:
Achilles/hie and Odysseuslmetis". But there are other
connections between the Embassy Scene and the song of
Demodocus: the quarrel in the latter occurs at a feast,
and the word dais or a derivative occurs three times in
the opening lines of Odysseus' speech; the quarrel is the
pematos arkhe, and Odysseus says (II-. 9.229) that a great
pema threatens the Achaeans; the quarrel occurred as a
resul t of a Delphic oracle, and the only reference to
Delphi in the Iliad occurs in the ninth book (405); and
whereas the "best of the Achaeans" are quarrelling in the
Odyssey, in the Embassy Scene Phoenix refers to the am­
bassadors as aristoi, thus undermining "the ethical stance
of the Embas sy... from the heroic perspect i ve of Achi lIes"
(p. 58; I merely report this, I am not even sure what it
means). These "convergences" amount to corroborative
evidence (as if four bad reasons equal one good one) tha t
a stock epic theme of the enmity of Achilles and Odysseus
is employed in both passages, "details and all". Further
confirmation is found at lines 3l2f., where Achilles'
hatred for dissemblers, though di rected in the first

124
BOOK REV I EWS/COMPTES RENDUS
found in other contexts. It seems that Achilles is a
perna not only alive, when he quarrels with Agamemnon and
withdraws his services, but a perna also when he dies.
Back to Odyssey 8. Achilles and Odysseus quarrel; it
was the "beginning of pain". N. disagrees (p. 24) with
Calhoun that Agamemnon's misunderstanding of the oracle
consisted in thinking that Achilles and himself had been
meant rather than Achilles and Odysseus; that would in­
volve Agamemnon acknowledging that Achilles and Odysseus
were better than he (that is, when he eventually realizes
the true meaning of the oracle). The oracle had said
that when Achilles and Odysseus, whom it dubbed "the best
of the Achaeans", quarrelled, it would presage the des­
truction of Troy. What Agamemnon failed to foresee, but
traditional thematic associations make clear, is that
quarrels precede pernata. This is the "will of Zeus"
(Od. 8.82), and so is the False Dream of Agamemnon (IL
2.5); there it is explicitly said that Agamemnon failed
to reali ze that "pains" were corning. (The word there is
not perna but a 1gea; no matter, for a 1gea is used at Il.
1.2 to describe the results of Achilles' rnenis which re­
suI ted from the eris which was the boule of Zeus...).
Demodocus therefore alludes to the Iliad, but...not to
our Iliad! In his, Achilles and Odysseus are the antago­
nists, and the subject is not geras but the relative
merits of bie and rnetis. "I have little doubt that such
an Iliad was indeed in the process of evolving when it
was heard in the Odyssey tradition which evolved into our
Odyssey" (p. 65).
This shift to a Iliad is surprising in view of
the original purpose of the argument; but perhaps it does
not matter, since N. is really trying to show the mutual
respect and interdependence, not of our Iliad and Odyssey
but of the tradi t ions they represent. On the other hand,

BOOK REV I EWS/COMPTES RENDUS
at the Hellespont and his translation to the Isles can be
127
both known to the Iliad and relevant to its understanding.
Homer's knowledge of the cult is argued mainly in Chapter
20, where we learn first (and usefully) that the comparison
of a hero's might to the elemental power of wind and fire
is an Indo-European motif. Achilles, N. continues, is not
only compared to such forces, he fights with them. He
saves the ships from fire, and the Trojans' onslaught is
sometimes compared to a wind. The flash of Achilles'
shield is compared to a glimpse of the moon during a storm
(Il. 19. 374ff.); this puts us in mind of the Hellespont,
where hi s shrine was. Now etymologically pontos means
"dangerous crossing", and Pindar says (Isthm. 8.51) that
Achilles "bridges a return" for the Achaeans. Also,
Achilles' tomb "shines" across the sea to men (Od. 24.80-4
- but telephanes is all that the text says). Achilles'
as soc iation with the sea continues wi th his mother Thetis,
who appears in Aleman as a deity of cosmic importance, on
the same elemental level as her son's fire and wind. B This
very old complex of ideas about the nature of the heroes
and thei r pos thumous careers, together with the idea of
ritual antagoni sm, argues for a mutual interdependence of
cuI t and epic at an early stage of the latter's development.
Here we touch a matter that affects much of the book.
Hero-cuI ts in which tombs were venerated do not appear, as
archaeology shows, before the eighth century. Of course,
a hero-cuI t does not have to be centred on a tomb; there
are ninth-century offerings at the grove of Akademos, and
8 In vie·w ·of the mileage that N. gets out of fire here, and elsewhere
in connection with Demophon, it is astonishing that he does not di scuss
the practice of cremation in Homer (cf. Herakles on Oeta). But
does not this discrepancy between Homer and the universal belief of
hero-cuIts rather make against N.' s eschatology?

BOOK REV I EwslCOMPTES RENDUS
My point is that N. has not given it sufficient thought,
or if he has, he has not given us his argUJIents. He is
satisfied wi th saying tha t the cult of heroes "was a
129
highly evolved transformation of the worship of ancestors,
within the social context of the city-state". 11 He seems
to assume that, if some attitude is found in a hero-cult
in archaic times and supposedly paralleled in epic, it
must have co-existed wi th epic in the Dark Ages. He finds
cult-related ideas at the most basic and oldest levels of
the epic language. It is a curious admission, then, that
without the evidence of cuI t and those myths directly
connected wi th cuI t the ri tual antagonism in the Iliad
would have been very hard to detect (p. 142). Indeed it
would. N. might be right to infer backwards from cult
practices to epic, asserting that attitudes connected with
the former have forerunners in the latter; but this is far
different from finding a ritual element in the very genesis
of epic poetry, deep in the Dark Ages and beyond.
There is much to stimulate in this book, but much more
to infuriate. In hi s foreword, James Redfield claims the
status of vi s ionary for N.; perhap s I do not have the
necessary sympathy, but I confess that I would liken N.,
at least in this book, more to a Kabbalist than to the
author of Reve lation.
UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO ROBERT FOWLER
11 P. 115. N. refers here to Snodgrass, loco cit. (the paper having been
read at a conference in 1977), but Snodgrass has more to say than N.
reports. A reference is decidedly missing to W. Burkert, Grieahisahe
Religion del' arahaisahen und kwssisahen Epoahe (1977), pp. 3l2ff.,
where the facts are stated succinctly to N.' s detriment. (N. was able
to use this admirable book, since he lists it in his bibliography; he
has since reviewed it. A reference to pp. 230 and 311 should be added
to p. l2l§4 n.4; a reference to p. 314 may be added on p. 7.)

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS
portat (line 58) "more vivid and circumstantial than vehit (line 57)
131
suggesting the weight [sc. of Pasiphae' s monstrous wooden cowJ" (p. 41).
Propertius, however, uses the two verbs with apparent synonyJIity at 4.1
46f.: vexit et ipsa sui sanguinis arma Venus,/arma resurgentis portanB
victricia Troiae, and here it is rather the f01'1l of portat which is
impressive, giving a heavy self-contained spondee for the opening foot
of the line. Warden's evaluation of Propertius' exploitation of mythology
is sound and sensible, though he provides no fresh insights into this
fundamental aspect of the poem and he should have taken account of the
allusion in lines 47-8 to the myth of Protesilaus and Laodaaia, detected
by J. C. Yardley, BICS 24 (1977) 85, and supported by what seems to be a
further allusion to the same myth in a similar context at line 83 of 4.11:
ubi secreto nostra ad simulacra loqueris. (Yardley's article and that
by Frances Muecke in the same journal, 21 [1974J 124-32, are conspicuously
absent from the bibliography.)
It is well established that 4.7 is remarkable for its ever-shiftilli
tonality (cf. esp. Muecke, with the qualifications sugeested by Yardley),
but should there be any who still need to be convinced, Warden's lenithy
discussion of the details of the poem will undoubtedly succeed in
convincing them. Many will, however, find his assess.ent of the Ileaning
and purpose of the poem as a whole rather less successful. He is content
to characterise the poem thus: "the worlds of myth and reality, the
beauty and exaltation, the spites and the jealousies, the paradoxes of
love, the promise of immortality and the prospect of decay are moulded
and patterned into a poetic vision" (p. 78). This is certainly true,
but it will not be enough to satisfy those who feel that the reader's
response to the poem should be conditioned by his knowledge of Cynthia,
whether she be alive or dead, Hostia, a prostitute, or a .ere fiction.
In a "polemical appendix" (pp. 78-81), Warden dismisses the need to
concern oneself with this question and all the problems which it brings.
He states dogmatically that "the poet gives us one way or another
within the individual poem all the information we need, all the infor­
mation that exists" (p. 80) and that "the 'factuality' of Cynthia's

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS
133
William S. Anderson, Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1982. Pp. 494. Cloth US $27.50, paper US $8.95.
This book of over 500 pages represents great value at the astoundingly
low price of U.S. $8.95 for the paperbound edition. Its scholarly value
is no less, for it contains collected papers of a leading Latinist whose
views on Juvenal in particular have over the past twenty-five years
played a major role in interpreting ancient satire. All except one of
the papers ("Persius and the Rej ection of Society") appeared in readily
available publications, but the convenience of one-volume consultation,
the helpfUl slDlllIlaries of the Preface and the Index all warrant a place
for the book on library shelves. With the exception of the last essay
("Juvenal and Quintilian"), most Latin passages are translated or para­
phrased so that even the Latinless undergraduate can profitably consult
the book. An added bonus for students is that every article is a model
of clarity: statement of the problem, survey of scholarly views on it,
A. 's position and approach, summary.
The essays fall into three groups, with some 140 pages devoted to
Horace and approximately twice that number allotted to Juvenal, while
Persius receives some forty pages of attention. The introductory essay
("Roman Satirists and Literary Criticism") falls outside this division
but deals with an issue that concerns A. throughout the essays - the
distinction between the writer of satires and the persona proj ected by
him in his satires. This is nicely illustrated by the observation that
Horace projects an older, more serious persona in his earliest work, the
Satires, than in his later works.
The first two Horatian essays elaborate on the notion of a created
image. In "The Roman Socrates," A. explains how Horace gradually moves
away from Lucilian Ubertas to Socratic sapientia: "This [Socratic]
satirist, the speaker in the Sermones, is one of the greatest achieve­
ments of Horatian poetry." A specific instance of the satirist's
changing persona, his relations with his father as represented in
Satires 1.4 and 6, is examined in the next paper.
I found the next two essays on Horace unconvincing. In "Horace,

134
BOOK REV I EWS/COMPTES RENDUS
the Unwilling Warrior: Satire 1.9," A. himself seems to realize that
he is "forcing" the evidence: "The military metaphor ... cannot be
totally disregarded" (p.96); "Since ... the metaphor [in adiutorJ pre­
cedes the specific dramatic image [in ferre secundas J, it might also
possess momentarily a valid military significance" (p. 98); "It is not
unlikely, however ..." (ibid.). TriViality still seems to be the
principal quality of Satires 1.8 in spite of A. 's complex explanation
that the Priapean garden represents the values of the present in
opposition to the evils of the past.
The two concluding Horatian essays show A. at his best. In
"Venusina lueerna: The Horatian Model for Juvenal," he brings to bear
the resources of philology (typical meanings of lueerna for Romans) and
logic (Juvenal' s satires "do not in the least resemble the putative
model") to argue that the Juvenalian phrase refers to the Sallustian
pessimism of Epodes 4, 7, 6, the Roman odes of Book 3 and Odes 3.24.
The second of these papers ("Imagery in the Satires of Horace and
Juvenal") is especially fruitful, as A. concentrates on a single
stylistic feature to confirm immediate impressions. In Satires 2.1,
for instance, Horace explores the ambiguity and implications of the
phrase ultra legem tendere opus: jurisprudence or the "laws" of
writing satire. In contrast, "rarely does the Juvenalian simile have
the opportunity to expand into a complete picture" (p. 139).
Although two articles on Persius intervene, the essay just
described leads naturally to Juvenal. Just as Juvenal does not allow
similes and metaphors to develop into complete pictures, so, the first
two Juvenalian essays explain, the satires of Book 1 and satire 6 are
limited, not to rational explanation, but to "the immediate, uncritical
reaction to specific instances of vice" (p. 201).
Of the remaining four Juvenalian articles, I single out two for
special emphasis. ''The Programs of Juvenal' s Later Books" should put
to rest for all time the consequences of mistakenly supposing that
satire 1 serves as the programme piece for the entire collection.
(Ribbeck, because of their lack of indignation, believed that satires
10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 were the work of an interpolator.) A. demonstrates

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS
135
that after satire 6 the first satire in each book announces the programme
for the rest of the book. The disavowal of the indignatio of satire 1
and Book 1 is most obvious in satire 13, where Juvenal aocks his com­
panion's intolerance and urges the need to ferre incorrmoda vitae.
Similarly, satire 10 advocates the sardonic laughter of Deaocritus instead
of the emotional involvement of Heraclitus that prevailed in the earlier
satires. In "Lasciva vs. ira ... ," A. qualifies H. A. Mason's influential
essay "Is Juvenal a Classic?". As summarized by A., Mason's position is
that "Juvenal has become Martial set to a different tune." A. argues
that Mason has given excessive emphasis to Juvenalian wit, aaintaining,
for instance, that what was a joke in Martial (3.53) has in Juvenal
(3.212-222) become "subordinate to what must be called larger thematic
purposes" (p. 373).
Of the remaining two Juvenalian papers ("Anger in Juvenal and
Seneca" and "Juvenal and Quintilian"), both of which are i.IIportant, I
shall mention only part 1 of the second paper, where A.' s view that
Juvenal's few references to Quintilian are implicitly critical is over­
subtle.
The publisher is to be congratulated for the inspired decision to
include these papers in its Collected Essays series and for keeping the
price so low; 1 Anderson is entitled to relish the collected evidence of
eighteen years of fruitful, influential shaping of scholarship on
ancient satire.
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA G. N. SANDY
1 Photoreproduction of the articles is responsible for the low cost and
for perpetuating a few misprints, none of which will cause confusion;
and for a few now quaint expressions such as, "Few men would utterly
spurn the fairer sex" (p. 310).

BOOK REV I EWS/ COMPTES RENDUS
139
general readers for whom Sherwin-White (The Roman Citizenship 2 [Oxford,
1973]) can be a nightmare. Evidence for the spread of Roaan cuIture,
especially the dissemination of Latin as the language of the peninsula,
is skilfully integrated into the political narrative. The importance
of Roman roads, coinage, architecture, and religion is highlighted by
Sl rather fine black and white photographs. A minor criticism relating
to these is that the reader is never referred to relevant illustrations
at appropriate points in the text or notes.
Although it is characteristic of books in this series not to become
embroiled in scholarly argument, nonetheless Professor Salmon has made
clear his views on certain historical controversies. Casual readers
are not encumbered with scholarly minutiae and bibliographical references,
but specialists will have to take careful notice of the reassessments
of certain problems handled by Salmon in the six appendices which con­
clude the study. For example, in Appendix I he argues against the
belief of Sherwin-White (Roman Citizenship S8f.) that municipiwn was a
designation only of states incorporated as civitates sine suffregio.
Livy (8.14.2) makes it clear that Lanuvium was a municipiwn whose
burgesses became cives optimo iure. Salmon also clarifies the signi­
ficance of the Caerite Tables and the distinction between honorary
citizenship (hospitium publicum?) and civitas sine suffrogio which had
confused even Livy and Aulus Gellius.
Appendix III deals with the Formula Togatorwn. Salmon seems to
have modified his views slightly from those expressed in Samnium (305)
but still maintains that the quotas prescribed by the fOrDlUla were
probably based on a percentage of the number of men that were of of mili­
tary age rather than a specific number of soldiers. This seeas prefer­
able to Toynbee's view (Harmibal's Legacy, Oxford, 1965, II. 130, n. 2)
that the alteration of the formula in 193 B.C. to a percenta,e bRsis
was only "an emergency measure" carried out on a single occasion.
Appendix V deals with the implications of Livy's statellent (40.42.
13) that the people of Cumae in 180 B. C. applied to the Roman senate for
permission to substitute Latin for Oscan as their official language.

BOOK REV I EWS/COMPTES RENDUS
the author intends, lead the reader to the context of the aaterial
141
provided. In addition to the source-material the author aakes a thorough,
scholarly use of references to abundant ancient writers.
It seems that of notable value is the encourageaent to 20 beyond what
is provided and to consider, and reconsider, the docuaents on which inter­
pretation and evaluation are based (p. 17). The introductory COJJmlents on
methodology might indeed have been expanded, although this no doubt can
be left to instructors. The author's awareness of the distortions and
reshaping which arise in a writer like Cicero, particularly in works of
differing purpose at different times, is apposite indeed (p. 2).
It is refreshing to have modern writing on the primary material kept
to a minimum in what is intended as a guide to tutorial use; the student
is not overwhelmed by such but kept closely attached to the sources
which are rendered in contemporary idiom, accurate, clear and crisp.
It is instructive to compare the versions provided with earlier ones,
e.g., source 29, Cicero, Orationes PhUippicae (Philippics) 2, 23-4
with the Loeb. In this regard a sourcebook such as Lewis and Reinhold's
(of course of much wider scope), is surpassed. All sources in Beryl
Rawson's book are given in unabridged contemporary English, usually her
own, with a marked gain in understanding for those not reading the
original. At the same time a problem over choice of reading is pointed
out (p. 176), as are the keywords, e.g. gratia and amicitia (about the
latter it might have been a good idea to note that amici, familiares
and necessarii are not synonyms [p. 37], the latter being the widest
term) . In Appendix 4 technical terms are defined, often with reference
to a discussion in the body of the book - a valuable aid to the student.
This book is well organized; it opens with a summary guide to what
follows and proceeds to deal with the relationship between these men
(often with keen psychological insight).
TRENT UNIVERSITY A. M. YOUNG

POEMS/POEMES
GOOD PRECEPTS, OR COUNSELL
In all thy need, be thou possest
Still with a well-prepared brest:
Nor let the shackles make thee sad;
Thou canst but have, what others had.
And this for comfort thou must know,
Times that are ill won't still be so.
Clouds will not ever powre down raine;
A sullen day will cleere againe.
First, peales of Thunder we must heare,
Then Lutes and Harpes shall stroke the eare.
rebus adversis bene praeparatum
pectus obdurat. graviter laborans
ne nimis plores, Licini, quod obstant
tristia fata:
tu feres quod non alii tulerunt?
cogita, luctum sapiensque leni:
mox malum fiet melius. fidesque
mox recreabunt
qui tremens audit tonitrum canorae,
atque manantem Pater hunc in agros
nubibus nigris modo misit imbrem.
moxque movebit.
POLLY GARTER NO PHILHELLENE 1
Robert Herrick
P. Murgatroyd. University of
Natal, Pietermaritzburg
Est mihi grata parum mollissima Graecia; Graeeo
Carus erat pulcher. paene puella, puer. 2
Non opus est nec erit pulchra mihi virgine; pulcher
Sit mihi (namque earet pene puella) puer.
1 ''Nothing grows in our garden, only washing. And babies."
(Polly in Dylan Thomas's "Under Milk Wood". 1954).
2 Appendix Ausoniana 6.2.
Herbert H. Huxley
University of Cambridge
31 December 1982
143

ANNOUNCEMENTS/ ANNONCES
write to: Professor David W. Rupp, Department of Classics, Brock
University, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2S 3Al, Canada.
CANADIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITIITE IN ATHENS
SlJt.t.ffiR COURSE IN GREECE: 9 MAY - 8 JUNE 1983
TIlE TOPOGRAPHY AND MONUMENTS OF ANCIENT GREECE
145
This course will be conducted by Drs. Helena Fracchia and Maurizio
Gualtieri of the University of Alberta, and will be open to Canadian
undergraduate and graduate students of Classics, Ancient History, Art
and Archaeology. Some space may be available for students in other
disciplines and for the interested amateur.
The study-tour will visit the major sites and museums of Athens and
Attica, central Greece, the Peloponnese, and Crete; and, where possible,
will travel to excavations in progress. The study-tour schedule is
compact, with an occasional half-day free, and is physically demanding.
The cost of the program in Greece will be $1,400. Tuition (if
academic credit is desired), meals other than breakfasts, and transportation
to and from Greece are not included. Fees are subject to
change without prior notice. Participants should arrange their own
travel from Canada through local travel agents or student travel services.
Each participant will be responsible for two 25-30 minute oral
reports to be delivered at two of the sites visited. Details of these
assignments and a pre-session reading list will be sent to students
accepted for the program. In addition, those students who seek academic
credit for the course will write a three hour final examination at the
end of the program.
Students who wish to apply for academic credit for the course must
enrol in Brock University's Classics 400: Study in Mediterranean Lands
on a Letter of Permission and pay the tuition fee of $253. Intention to
apply for credit should be indicated on the application form.
Enquiries should be directed as soon as possible to Professor David
W. Rupp (Chairman), CM Summer Program, Department of Classics, Brock
University, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2S 3Al. (The formal deadline for
applications is February 28th.)

146
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ ANNONCES
UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SCHOOL
at San Giovanni di Ruoti, South Italy
(Classics 475: Practical Methods in Classical Archaeology)
For several years now the Department of Classics at the University
of Alberta has been conducting an archaeological excavation at San
Giovanni di Ruoti in Southern Italy. The excavation has so far brought
to light the impressive ruins of a large rural villa built and re-built
in successive phases between the 1st and 5th centuries A.D. The latest
phase of the building, dating from around 450 A.D. is proving to be of
unique value in the study of the little-known period between the late
Roman world and the beginning of the Middle Ages. The buildings at San
Giovanni included a large apisdal hall for use by the resident dominus,
together with other residential and service rooms. One of these containe
an unusual mosaic pavement. The people who lived at San Giovanni appear
to have enjoyed a fairly high level of material wealth, illustrated by
the rich assortment of finds from the excavation. These include household
utensils and ornaments of bronze, iron and worked bone, as well as
quantities of pottery and glass.
As part of the programme of excavation the Department of Classics
runs a field school at the site, which offers students an introduction
to the techniques of practical archaeology. The field school is
organized as a 6-week course coinciding with the University of Alberta's
sununer session during the months of July and August. The course, which
may be taken for credit, is designed to introduce students to a range
of archaeological skills which will normally include field survey,
stratigraphic excavation, the processing and recording of finds and
environmental sampling. Students are expected to work Monday to Friday
from 6:00 a.m. until noon. Weekend trips are arranged to places of
historical and cultural interest including Pompeii, Paestum and Metaponto
Inexpensive accoDDDodation is available for students in the vicinity of
the excavation site.
For further details please write to:
Professor A. M. Small
Department of Classics
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2E5