Bryn Mawr Classical Review

La nascita di una nuova rivista specializzata è un evento da salutare con favore, qualora si sia in presenza di un prodotto accurato, ricco di contributi stimolanti, vagliati e garantiti da un valido comitato scientifico. E tali requisiti si riscontrano in Scripta. An International Journal of Codicology and Palaeography.

Sotto il profilo formale, il volume si caratterizza per l'ampio formato; il testo è disposto su due colonne per pagina; numerose sono le tavole, generalmente di buona qualità ma stampate solo in bianco e nero. Quanto alla lingua, dei 13 contributi di questo primo volume, 9 sono in italiano, 3 in francese ed uno in inglese.¹

Il volume è introdotto dalla "Presentazione" (p. 7) dei direttori Mario Capasso e Francesco Magistrale, nella quale sono esposti sinteticamente gli scopi di questa nuova rivista di paleografia e codicologia, che intende porsi nel solco del glorioso periodico Scrittura e civiltà, cessato nel 2001. Di conseguenza, l'ispirazione di Scripta vuole perciò essere di stampo malloniano (paleografia intesa nel senso più ampio di storia della cultura scritta), proponendosi di "aprirsi ad un'indagine, su qualsiasi tipologia testuale e su un panorama linguistico assai ampio, che raccordi la tradizione greca e latina, quella del medioevo volgare ed il mondo grafico arabo, armeno, copto, egizio, georgiano, persiano e slavo". L'interesse sarà quindi focalizzato attorno alla cultura scritta nell'ambito della civiltà europea e mediterranea ed ai suoi supporti materiali, con attenzione alla loro evoluzione storica.

Questo vasto panorama è in effetti contemplato, con poche eccezioni, nel presente volume: per meglio chiarire gli argomenti e gli scopi della rivista si fornirà qui un riassunto, necessariamente conciso, dei singoli contributi.

Colette Sirat nel suo "Hommage à Jean Irigoin" (pp. 9-10) traccia un rapido profilo della carriera scientifica e professionale del grande paleografo e codicologo francese, scomparso nel febbraio del 2006.

La breve nota di Mario Capasso, "Σίττυβα in una statua del museo greco-romano di Alessandria" (p. 11), concerne l'identificazione di questo dispositivo (un'etichetta di papiro, pergamena o pelle applicata sul margine di un rotolo per indicarne il contenuto) in una raffigurazione scultorea di una figura maschile togata: ai suoi piedi, appoggiati sopra una capsa, si osservano due rotoli che sembrano provvisti di tali etichette e che costituiscono perciò "l'unica rappresentazione scultorea" conosciuta.

Mario Capasso e Natascia Pellé ("Frederic George Kenyon e la paleografia dei papiri ercolanesi", pp. 13-25) pubblicano per la prima volta alcuni estratti del corso di paleografia greca tenuto da Kenyon all'Università di Cambridge nel 1900-1901 per le Sandars Lectures in Bibliography. L'importanza di questo ciclo di lezioni, intitolato The development of Greek Writing B.C. 300-A.C. 900, va al di là delle analisi paleografiche compiute sui singoli manufatti e consiste soprattutto nel fatto che esse rappresentano "lo stadio più completo e più moderno per struttura e metodi" (p. 25) dello studio di Kenyon nel campo della paleografia ercolanese. Distinguendosi per ricchezza di esempi e di argomentazioni, questo corso costituisce perciò il sicuro anello di congiunzione tra The Palaeography of Greek Papyri (London 1899) e The Palaeography of the Herculaneum Papyri (in Festschrift Theodor Gomperz. Dargebracht zum siebzigsten Geburtstage am 29. März 1902 von Schülern Freunden Kollegen, Wien 1902, pp. 373-380).

In "Uno sconosciuto frammento innografico di Terra d'Otranto" (pp. 27-31) Marco D'Agostino identifica in un foglio pergamenaceo utilizzato come copertina di un codice cartaceo dell'Archivio di Stato di Roma (Stato Civile - Appendice: Libri parrocchiali 1565/1725, I/1) un frammento di un libro innografico tipico della liturgia italogreca, la Παρακλητικὴ τῆς θεοτόκου, sino ad ora conosciuto solo tramite manoscritti di provenienza calabrese. Dal momento che la scrittura è identificabile nella cosiddetta barocca otrantina (databile alla fine del XIII secolo), questo foglio rivela il suo valore come unico testimone attualmente conosciuto di quest'opera liturgica ascrivibile all'area salentina. In considerazione di ciò D'Agostino fornisce un'edizione degli inni qui contenuti.

Flavia De Rubeis si occupa de "La capitale romanica e la gotica epigrafica: una relazione difficile" (pp. 33-43), analizzando le interferenze tra questi due sistemi grafici nelle scritture esposte: a seguito dello studio di iscrizioni italiane di XIII e XIV secolo, l'adesione più fedele al canone della gotica libraria è riscontrabile nelle aree dove maggiori sono le influenze dei centri di cultura, specialmente universitari, come Bologna, Padova e Napoli. Allontanandosi invece da questi poli di irradiazione, come, ad esempio, a Venezia, in Puglia ed in Sicilia, la gotica epigrafica si mostra aperta ad accogliere anche elementi allotri, derivanti ora dalla capitale romanica, ora dalla maiuscola epigrafica greca.

Nello studio "La décoration des manuscrits grecs et slaves (IXe-XIe siècles)" (pp. 45-59) Axinia Dzurova focalizza la propria attenzione sul rapporto intercorrente tra la decorazione dei codici costantinopolitani e slavi di questi secoli. La generale povertà di motivi ornamentali nei manoscritti slavi è ulteriormente confermata dal confronto con alcuni testimoni greci poco conosciuti, il Sofia, Cârkoven istoriko-arhiven institut, gr. 803 ed il Sofia, Narodna Biblioteka Sv.sv. Kiril-i-Metodij, gr. 95 (che originariamente costituivano un unico codice, contenente opere di Gregorio Nazianzeno e di san Basilio), il Sofia, Centralen dârzaven archiv, Rizov 3 (uno sticherario) ed il Plovdiv, Narodna biblioteka Ivan Vazov, P 99 (un evangeliario), tutti databili tra X e XI secolo e caratterizzati da un'ornamentazione nel cosiddetto stile blu. Rispetto ai codici costantinopolitani, la decorazione dei manoscritti cirillici appare asincrona, dal momento che quelli prodotti tra IX e XI secolo per la quotidiana pratica religiosa sembrano ignorare i contemporanei stili presenti nei codici bizantini in minuscola, che inizieranno invece ad essere impiegati, in varianti semplificate, solo a partire dal XIII secolo.

Paolo Fioretti ("Composizione, edizione e diffusione delle opere di Gregorio Magno. In margine al Codex Trecensis", pp. 61-75) discute del volume di A. Petrucci (a cura di), Codex Trecensis. La "Regola Pastorale" di Gregorio Magno in un codice del VI-VII secolo: Troyes, Médiathèque de l'Agglomération Troyenne, 504, I-II, Firenze 2005, aggiungendo alcune interessanti riflessioni circa la metodologia compositiva delle opere di Gregorio Magno e sui centri di copia tra tarda antichità e medioevo.

Maria Rosa Formentin ("Uno scriptorium a Palazzo Farnese?", pp. 77-102) analizza i manoscritti greci farnesiani, attualmente conservati per lo più nella Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, fornendone un esauriente inventario (specialmente per quanto concerne i codices Neapolitani con le segnature III AA, III B, III C, III D, III E) ed aggiungendo anche un utile indice delle filigrane. La studiosa conclude che si tratta di una collezione non omogenea ed eclettica, priva di una progettualità definita: pertanto, in un contesto simile, "si deve negare l'esistenza di un luogo di copia, ma anche di un laboratorio di restauro" a Palazzo Farnese (p. 86).

Judith Olszowy-Schlanger e Patricia Stirnemann ("The twelfth-century trilingual Psalter in Leiden", pp. 103-112) studiano il codice Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, BGP 49 (a. 1170-1180 ca.) sotto il profilo codicologico, paleografico e testuale: esso preserva uno Psalterium Quadruplex, cioè un salterio ripartito su quattro colonne contenenti rispettivamente il testo ebraico, la versione latina di San Gerolamo, la versione greca e la cosiddetta Gallicana latina. Il testo è stato redatto da un copista (se non da più d'uno) cristiano ed occidentale ed il manufatto, nel suo complesso, è stato prodotto nella Francia sud-occidentale, forse per ragioni legate al culto più che allo studio ed alla consultazione quotidiana. La sua importanza, in ogni caso, è dovuta proprio alla sua provenienza, poiché esso "testifies to a particular sophisticated linguistic milieu in a region often neglected by modern scholars" (p. 112).

In "Un atto di vendita di un manoscritto ebraico dei Profeti e degli Scritti stilato a Bologna l'8 febbraio 1485 nel frammento 5 dell'Archivio Capitolare di Modena" (pp. 113-120) Mauro Perani edita per la prima volta il testo ebraico di questo documento, conservato nel codice Modena, Archivio Capitolare, Fr. ebr. B. XXII.5. Oltre a corredare il testo di una traduzione in italiano, egli provvede ad inquadrarlo nel contesto della comunità ebraica di Bologna e Modena tra XV e XVII secolo.

Paolo Radiciotti ("Romania e Germania a confronto: un codice di Leidrat e le origini medievali della minuscola carolina", pp. 121-144) studia un codice in protocarolina appartenuto a Leidrat, arcivescovo di Lione tra il 798 e l'814, e contenente una miscellanea teologica e filosofica, identificandone il contesto culturale di riferimento nella cerchia di Alcuino presso la corte di Carlo Magno. In un secondo momento, tenendo conto dei risultati di questa indagine, l'autore ritorna sulla vexata quaestio riguardante le origini della carolina, per concludere che "gli scribi-intellettuali di età carolingia, che sono in contatto diretto coi manoscritti tardoantichi in minuscola libraria, attuano un processo interno alla loro scrittura usuale, nel senso di una semplificazione della tradizione corsiva [...] attraverso la riduzione dei legamenti" (p. 144). Proprio in questi contesti eruditi, e specialmente nelle scritture personali di singoli scribi, vanno pertanto identificati i primordi di tale grafia, che affonda le proprie radici nella minuscola latina tardoantica.

In "Vingt manuscrits (hebreux, grec, latin-grec, grec-arabe, arabes) pour un seul palimpseste" (pp. 145-156) Colette Sirat, François Déroche, Uri Ehrlich e Ada Yardeni analizzano il palinsesto Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, L 120 sup., contenente nella scriptio superior un Paterikon e redatto verisimilmente a cavallo tra XI e XII secolo nel monastero di Santa Caterina del Sinai. Lo studio dettagliato dei singoli fascicoli permette di determinare che il codice è stato costituito mediante il reimpiego di almeno 20 manoscritti, specialmente arabi ed ebraici, che sono studiati singolarmente e di cui si fornisce una sintetica ma accurata descrizione materiale, grafica e contenutistica.

Gaga Shurgaia, "La scrittura georgiana. Storia e nuove prospettive" (pp. 157-173), ripercorre la storia dell'evoluzione di questa scrittura con ricchezza di dettagli, precisando che "l'alfabeto georgiano nasce come asomtavruli [cioè maiuscola] angolosa, dalla quale si sviluppa la variante rotonda, attestata nel I-II secolo d.C." (p. 172). Da questa trae probabilmente origine la minuscola angolosa, chiamata nusxuri, forse nel corso dell'VIII secolo, da cui si sviluppa in seguito la forma rotonda (come esito di una progressiva corsivizzazione) che è alla base dell'attuale scrittura georgiana, la "mxedruli, attestata già nel corso del X secolo."

In conclusione, il primo volume di Scripta, che si distingue anche per una bassa percentuale di refusi, è ricco di contributi stimolanti e costituisce un valido inizio; ci si augura che in futuro la rivista possa godere di una cadenza regolare e di una costante ampiezza di orizzonti.

Notes:

1. Trattandosi di una rivista che intende proporsi come internazionale, secondo la dicitura del sottotitolo, a mio giudizio si avverte solo l'assenza di abstracts relativi ai singoli contributi, che possano facilitare una prima fruizione; in tal senso, inoltre, potrebbero essere approntati anche un indice dei materiali citati (epigrafi, manoscritti, papiri e sculture) e delle illustrazioni. Si tratta comunque di lievi mancanze, che potranno essere utilmente sopperite nei prossimi volumi. (read complete article)

Sabine Fourrier est l'une des spécialistes reconnues de la coroplastie cypriote. Il s'agit là d'un matériel extrêmement abondant et varié, et qui n'a pas encore reçu le traitement systématique et éclairé qu'il méritait. L'A. en apporte la preuve en abordant le sujet sous un angle très productif, celui du style et de ses implications en termes de particularismes politiques et culturels.

Dans une introduction méthodologique (pp. 13-20), elle s'explique sur sa démarche, rappelant les problèmes que pose la distinction de Gjerstad entre différents styles; Gjerstad expliquait ceux-ci en termes diachroniques, interprétation que Fourrier écarte avec de solides arguments (sont également rejetées les distinctions basées sur des critères ethniques proposées par C. Vermeule : p. 15, n. 9). Reconnaissant les mérites de la série The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus due à J. et V. Karageorghis, qui offre une très utile synthèse des différents types, elle entend cependant s'en distinguer en déterminant plutôt que des types, des styles régionaux. Pour cela elle s'inspire explicitement des travaux pionniers de Francis Croissant pour le monde grec. Le postulat de départ est formulé en termes clairs : "...les figurines en terre cuite (...) révèlent des procédés, des conceptions différentes, bref des styles qui peuvent être rapportés à autant de centres créateurs" (p. 15).¹ Afin de déterminer les caractéristiques morphologiques de la production de chacun de ces centres, Fourrier ne prend en considération que les pièces dont la provenance est assurée. Plusieurs critères permettent de distinguer différentes productions particulières. Ainsi les caractéristiques morphologiques, certains détails techniques et/ou les sources d'inspiration diverses constituent un style propre. Par exemple, la production de Kition se caractériserait par des modèles plutôt empruntés à l'Egypte, tandis que la production amathousienne puiserait son inspiration en Syrie du Nord. Pour ce qui concerne la technique, tous les ateliers n'emploient pas les mêmes procédés (modelage, moulage ou combinaison des deux, selon les centres); les gestes sont aussi différents : éléments rapportés sur un boudin principal ou extraits de ce même boudin par gestes successifs. "Le geste est l'expression du choix", conclut Fourrier (p. 18). Les caractéristiques de la pâte, en l'absence même d'analyses chimiques, sont également déterminantes. Ensuite, une fois chaque style isolé, il convient de lui assigner un centre de production. La méthode pour y parvenir est simple et efficace : elle repose essentiellement sur des critères quantitatifs : le style qui se retrouve majoritairement sur le territoire d'une des cités-royaumes a toute chance d'émaner de celle-ci.

A la suite de l'introduction, la première partie de l'ouvrage est donc consacrée à déterminer les centres producteurs et les caractéristiques de leur production (pp. 21-100). Ainsi sont successivement distinguées les productions de Salamine, d'Idalion, de Kition, d'Amathonte, de Kourion, de Paphos, de Marion, de Soloi, et du nord de l'île (Lapithos et Kazaphani). Pour chacun des sites, Fourrier procède à un rappel des circonstances de découverte, de l'état des publications et de leur degré de fiabilité; ensuite, pour chaque centre, elle tente de déterminer les sites de diffusion en distinguant, lorsque la chose est possible, "le cercle proche", "les sanctuaires de territoire" et "les sanctuaires de frontière", ceux-ci étant identifés par le fait qu'ils sont situés sur une zone au-delà de laquelle la prépondérance quantitative des figurines d'un style disparaît au profit d'un autre (par exemple, le sanctuaire d'Arsos entre Idalion et Salamine). Ceci aboutit à des constatations parfois surprenantes : ainsi, selon Fourrier, "il n'y a pas de production tamassienne distincte d'Idalion", ce qui l'incite à considérer Tamassos comme sanctuaire de territoire d'Idalion (pp. 45-47). On y reviendra. Certaines productions sont diffusées sur une aire très large, comme celle de Salamine, ou celle de Soloi (voir la carte de la fig. 8, p. 88) : dans ce dernier cas, la zone de diffusion compte des sanctuaires aussi riches en trouvailles qu'Aghia Irini (pp. 89-92) et Mersinaki (p. 93).; certains styles sont, au contraire, diffusés sur une zone très réduite, comme celui de Kition (pp. 58-59, 61). Parmi les productions originales, il faut citer le royaume d'Amathonte, où plusieurs sanctuaires non urbains ont produit des types particuliers, lesquels seraient l'indice qu'ils étaient "réservés" à la partie phénicienne de la population (pp. 70, 111 et 124). Pour certains centres, la production et/ou la publication des trouvailles sont très maigres et ne permettent guère de conclusions décisives, comme dans le cas de Marion (p. 85).

La seconde partie, intitulée "Ateliers, sanctuaires et royaumes", est subdivisée en trois chapitres : respectivement "La naissance des styles", "Identités culturelles et territoires politiques" et "Les sanctuaires".

Le premier développement du chapitre I ("Agia Eirini,² Samos et la chronologie de la plastique chypriote archaïque) constitue sans doute l'un des apports les plus déterminants à l'étude de la production plastique de Chypre archaïque. Fourrier y démontre que les difficultés qui ont surgi autour de la typologie de Gjerstad et les tentatives d'ajustement de celle-ci en fonction des découvertes et des publications ultérieures se résolvent aisément si l'on prend en compte la classification qu'elle propose. Ainsi la distinction, fondée en termes morphologiques, entre styles proto- et néo-chypriotes ne serait attestée qu'à Aghia Irini, centre très mineur. Faire du premier une production de Soloi et du second une production de Salamine ou d'Idalion résout élégamment le problème (p. 104). Fourrier démontre ensuite la surinterprétation de la stratigraphie d'Aghia Irini qui a conduit à une "chronologisation" (le néologisme est de moi) excessive des trouvailles figurées (pp. 104-106). Est aussi intégrée la stratigraphie samienne qui avait déjà contribué à jeter le doute sur le classement chronotypologique de Gjerstad (pp. 106-107). Il faut en conclure que l'ancienne chronologie absolue doit être mise en cause, sans que pour l'instant on puisse en proposer d'autre. Fourrier conclut sa démonstration en affirmant que "Les VIIIe-VIIe siècles sont une période charnière pour la naissance des styles, ils représentent aussi une période essentielle dans la constitution, politique, territoriale, des royaumes chypriotes archaïques". Cette question est abordée dans les développements qui ont pour titre "Styles et royaumes" lesquels constituent, selon moi, la principale faiblesse de l'ouvrage.

Fourrier rappelle les débats qui opposent les spécialistes sur l'époque de l'apparition des royaumes historiques; il s'agit de deux positions antagonistes que j'ai appelées ailleurs³ "l'hypothèse achéenne", qui se fonde sur des légendes de fondation tardives et selon laquelle il n'y aurait pas eu de rupture entre Age du Bronze et Age du Fer, d'autre part "l'hypothèse phénicienne", fondée essentiellement sur des sources archéologiques (Il est faux de dire, comme le fait Fourrier, p. 107, que cette dernière hypothèse s'appuie sur des sources écrites, en l'occurrence la chronique d'Asarhaddon) et qui lie l'apparition de la forme étatique d'organisation politique à la pression économique et à l'installation des Phéniciens à Kition (seconde moitié du IXe siècle). L'ensemble des conclusions chronologiques auxquelles parvient Fourrier semble aller dans le sens de cette dernière. N'observe-t-elle pas que les styles se mettent en place à partir du VIIIe siècle (p. 107) ? Que le surgissement des principaux sanctuaires, "signes d'une organisation du territoire par un Etat centralisé", se produit au cours du CG III, de la fin du IXe siècle (notamment à Kition) au début du VIIIe siècle (pp. 107-108) ? Et il en va de même des sanctuaires de territoire (p. 108; voir aussi pp. 121-122). Or, en dépit de ces observations, Fourrier conclut que ce qui se produit à ce moment n'est rien d'autre que "le passage d'un régime royal à un régime monarchique". On serait bien en peine d'expliciter ces deux catégories, inconnues à ma connaissance de l'anthropologie sociale,⁴ et desquelles d'ailleurs aucune définition n'est proposée. Ainsi, à la question "avant le VIIIe siècle, les basileis chypriotes étaient-ils des rois ?", elle pense pouvoir répondre par l'affirmative.⁵ Or les arguments convoqués à l'appui de cette affirmation (l'absence d'un véritable "Age Obscur" à Chypre au CG II, l'inscription si controversée d'Opheltau,⁶ la pérennité de certains symboles comme l'aigle, le titre de basileus attesté dès le VIIe siècle) pèsent de bien peu de poids contre, d'une part, l'absence des corrélats archéologiques de l'Etat au début de l'Age du Fer, tels que l'anthropologie les définit,⁷ et, d'autre part, leur soudaine apparition au CG III,⁸ notamment celles de palais; c'est ce qu'illustrent, dans leur domaine propre, celui des styles de la plastique, les travaux mêmes de Fourrier. L'auteur (p. 109, n. 40) convoque Carlier La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre, Nancy, 1984, p. 505, pour souligner "le lien, non nécessaire, entre système palatial et royauté". Certes, mais précisément, "palais", et "système palatial" sont deux choses différentes; et l'absence du second n'implique pas l'absence du premier. Dans le cas d'Amathonte, le palais est loin d'être le seul critère en cause (voir Petit art.cit. note 2) : interviennent aussi notamment le choix d'une nouvelle capitale, un territoire stable sinon permanent, inaugurant, contrairement à ce qui est affirmé (p. 109), un mouvement centripète (et cela vaut aussi pour les autres cités avec la création des grands sanctuaires centraux : voir p. 108). A cet égard, la comparaison implicite entre le cas d'Amathonte et celui de Kushmeshusha, roi d'Alashiya (p. 109, n. 40), est dénuée de fondement puisqu'on n'a pas retrouvé (identifié ?) la capitale de ce roi. Ainsi l'affirmation conclusive (p. 109), "le VIIIe s. ne date sans doute pas la naissance de la royauté chypriote, mais il date sûrement celle d'une réorganisation des royaumes sous la forme d'États centralisés, autour d'un noyau urbain et d'un territoire défini", est-elle contradictoire : en effet, l'anthropologie a montré que l'un des critères de l'Etat, fût-il "primitif" ou "archaïque", est précisément d'exercer son autorité sur un territoire défini; et que seul le souverain qui dispose d'un tel pouvoir peut à bon droit prendre le titre de "roi".⁹ Au total, les affirmations exprimées aux pages 107 à 109 de l'ouvrage sont en contradiction avec les résultats même obtenus par Fourrier, lesquels, s'ils ne démontrent pas l'apparition au CG III des royaumes cypriotes, constituent cependant un important indice en faveur de cette hypothèse. Ainsi la réponse à la question posée en préambule mériterait pour le moins une discussion plus complète et mieux documentée.

Dans le deuxième chapitre de cette deuxième partie sont rassemblés les matériaux de son étude pour présenter ce qui est appelé "esquisse de géographie historique" (p. 119). On peut considérer que Fourrier y a amplement réussi et la carte synthétique qu'elle présente à la p. 113 (fig. 9) est d'une grande clarté. On y discerne bien la diffusion des modèles. Comme E. Gjerstad et O. Masson l'avaient déjà bien montré pour chacun des deux domaines respectifs, la céramique et l'écriture se répartissent dans l'île en deux grands ensembles, ouest et est. Il en va de même de la coroplastie; Amathonte se situe, quant à elle, à la charnière des deux grandes régions, en présentant en outre des productions particulières (voir supra). Lapéthos est un autre cas particulier en ceci qu'elle adopte les modèles de Kition, avec laquelle elle ne partage pourtant aucune frontière commune, ce qui suppose une forte parenté culturelle. La carte de la fig. 9, comme Fourrier l'admet, est théorique et ne peut prendre en compte les fluctuations régionales et ponctuelles (p. 112 et 119); mais elle illustre une aire de répartition de type culturel qui ne peut être étrangère à l'influence politique des centres de production et donc de décision. Cette carte aboutit à nuancer les délimitations entre royaumes, fondées sur les sources écrites, notamment celles de D.W. Rupp (p. 112). Les conclusions qui en sont tirées appellent cependant quelques réserves. Ainsi peut-on, sur la seule base de la diffusion coroplastique, conclure, par exemple, qu'"Il est peu problable que Tamassos soit resté un royaume indépendant entre 673/2 et le milieu du IVe s.", et conséquemment que les tombes dites "des rois" appartiendraient non à des souverains, mais à une "aristocratie locale" (p. 115) ? Cela semble difficile à admettre dans la mesure où l'existence du royaume est attestée à la fois en amont (liste d'Asarhaddon) et en aval (sources classiques). Peut-on de même affirmer, sur ces mêmes fondements, que Marion, absente de la liste d'Asarhaddon, présentait "une identité culturelle et certainement [mes italiques] politique, indépendante, dès la seconde moitié du VIIe s. av. J.-C...." (p. 118) ? Peut-être est-ce aller trop loin. Il n'en reste pas moins que des données essentielles sont ainsi établies : par exemple, l'existence d'un style propre à Kition où, en dépit de l'exiguïté de la zone où elle est diffusée, la production coroplastique semble bien attester l'existence d'un centre politique pendant l'époque archaïque, ce qui va à l'encontre de certaines hypothèses formulées naguère (p. 115-116). Les conclusions de Fourrier permettent aussi de faire progresser l'interprétation de certaines sources textuelles. Ainsi, pour Amathonte, la coroplastie confirme la présence d'une identité politique forte dès le début du VIIe siècle et donc incite à chercher le royaume dans la liste d'Asarhaddon, qu'il s'agisse de la "Carthage" de Chypre ou de (Kin?)nuria (p. 116); les styles permettent même de préciser quelque peu les limites du royaume, du côté est, mais surtout à l'ouest (pp. 116-117). Les cas de Paphos, de Marion, de Soloi et de Lapéthos sont enfin évoqués. Le poids politique et l'étendue du royaume de Soloi devaient être considérables si l'on en juge par la zone de diffusion de sa production plastique. D'autre part, Fourrier suppose -- avec de bons arguments -- que la création du royaume de Lapéthos eut lieu assez tardivement au détriment d'Idalion (VIe s. ?) et qu'elle fut la conséquence d'une probable manoeuvre kitienne (pp. 117-119). Enfin on en conclut (pp. 119-120) à des modifications dans le nombre et l'étendue des royaumes, modifications qui furent plus nombreuses au nord qu'au sud de l'île; on ne discerne en outre aucun modèle géographique qui serait commun à l'ensemble des royaumes chypriotes archaïques.

Le dernier chapitre (III) de cette deuxième partie est consacré aux sanctuaires (pp. 121-124) et au maillage du territoire qu'ils permettent. Y sont mis en parallèle les exemples cypriote et grec (ce dernier étudié par Fr. de Polignac) qui présentent similitudes et différences (pp. 121-122); parmi les similitudes, notons l'implantation des sanctuaires du haut archaïsme sur des vestiges de l'Age du Bronze. Enfin sont évoqués les différentes catégories de sanctuaires, urbains, péri-urbains, de territoire. Les premiers, représentés par les sanctuaires d'Aphrodite de Paphos et d'Amathonte, ou celui d'Athéna-Anat à Idalion, sont directement en rapport avec le pouvoir royal; à Amathonte en particulier, où des sanctuaires palatiaux ont été mis au jour. A cet égard, Fourrier passe sous silence le cas problématique des sanctuaires palatiaux de Vouni (que ce soit p. 93, malgré la mention du sanctuaire d'Athéna, ou p. 124), où plusieurs sanctuaires sont sis dans la proximité immédiate du grand édifice fouillé par la mission suédoise. On aurait aimé connaître son avis sur la question. Pour ce qui concerne les sanctuaires de territoires, Fourrier suppose, vu le lien étroit qu'ils montrent également avec le pouvoir politique, qu'ils auraient été le théâtre de processions qui les auraient reliés symboliquement au centre politique, comme c'était le cas en Grèce. Cette relation entre royauté et sanctuaires expliquerait de même que beaucoup d'entre eux disparurent avec les royaumes (p. 124).

Dans la mesure où Fourrier n'a pas pris la peine d'établir un catalogue exhaustif des objets sur lesquels elle fonde son analyse, choix qu'elle justifie dans son introduction, elle fournit en annexe la liste des objets, leur numéro de catalogue et les références bibliographiques auxquelles se reporter (pp. 125-173). Les abréviations bibliographiques et la bibliographie figurent en fin de volume (pp. 175-187), de même qu'un index des noms propres (pp. 189-192), une liste des illustrations, le crédit photographique (pp. 193-196) et XXIII planches qui closent l'ouvrage. On a déjà souligné l'importance et la clarté de la fig. 9; il en va de même de toutes les cartes, complètes ou partielles, qui illustrent le propos, et qui sont toutes d'une grande qualité graphique.

Ainsi, en dépit des quelques réserves formulées ci-dessus sur le contenu des pp. 107-109, cet ouvrage marque assurément un étape importante dans la compréhension des types coroplastiques cypriotes et de leur origine, et pour les conclusions que l'on peut en tirer sur l'existence, la nature et l'étendue des royaumes historiques.

Notes:

1. Sur la notion de styles, voir dernièrement Cartens, Panayia Ematousa, II, p. 125, n. 3 et références.

2. On ne voit pas bien pourquoi Fourrier adopte une transcription bâtarde pour ce terme, entre la transcription conforme à la prononciation moderne (Irini) et la prononciation "érasmienne" (Eirènè).

3. Th. Petit, "The First Palace of Amathus and the Cypriot Poleogenesis", dans I. Nielsen (éd.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millenium BC, Åarhus, 2001, p. 53-75 (article que ne mentionne pas Fourrier).

4. Voir, entre autres, H.J.M. Claessen and P. Skalník (eds), The Early State, La Haye, 1978; H.J.M. Claessen and P. Skalník (eds), Study of the State, La Haye, 1981; H.J.M. Claessen and J.G. Oosten, Ideology and the Formation of Early States, La Haye, 1996; Al. Testart, Eléments de classification des sociétés, Paris, 2005.

5. Fourrier s'inspire de la même question posée par P. Carlier, Ktèma, 1996, pour la royauté "homérique". Cependant on peut ne pas se ranger aux arguments de celui-ci, puisque manquent aux établissements égéens pendant les Ages dits "obscurs" la plupart des corrélats archéologiques de l'Etat : voir, entre autres, J. Whitley, "Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece", Annuals of the British School at Athens, 86 (1991), p. 341-365.

6. A cet égard, voir J.-P. Olivier, "Syllabic scripts in the Aegean and Cyprus in the Second and First Millenia", dans J. T. Killen et A. Morpugo (eds), Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 3^e édition, Cambridge , sous presse : l'inscription appartiendrait au CM 1.

7. Par exemple, B. Trigger, "The Archaeology of Government", World Archaeologist, 6 (1974), pp. 95-106; voir aussi Petit, op. cit., n. 2.

8. Voir les travaux de D.W. Rupp cité dans sa bibliographie; cf. supra note 2.

9. Voir les travaux cités note 3; en particulier, Claessen, The Early State, pp. 537-538. (read complete article)

We are grateful for the reviewer's appreciation of our work. However, since the review was so brief and somewhat perfunctory, it inevitably omitted mention of many of the themes and conclusions that we reached in our book, Terms for Eternity, and so, to help orient the reader of BMCR to its contents, we thought of providing the following summary and observations.

Although the review states that "it has been widely noted" that only life and beatitude is called aïdios in the Bible, but not death, punishment, and fire, this has, in fact, never been previously pointed out and demonstrated. Equally important, this same distinction holds for many Christian authors, as we show in detail.

While it is true that our conclusion is brief, we provide individual conclusions and comments not only in the general conclusion to the book but also at the end of each section and author; the reader will, we trust, find these useful. At the same time, it obviated the need to repeat these critical remarks at the end of the book.

The organization of the material is far from being simply chronological; in our systematic investigation we treat each of the philosophical schools in turn, pointing out, for example, the exceptional use of the terms for eternity in the Platonic tradition, and in the Bible (LXX and comparison with Hebrew background, plus the Greek New Testament), and then the reception of both biblical and philosophical language and concepts in Philo and the Patristic authors -- most of whom, as we point out, maintain the terminological distinction found in the Bible, and most rigorously those who supported the doctrine of apokatastasis. We could hardly have done otherwise, beginning with Patristic philosophers without investigating their main sources of inspiration, namely the Bible and the Greek philosophers, who in turn display very different uses of aïdios and aiônios according to their schools.

Among the points that may interest readers of BMCR, we note that aiônios is never used by Aristotle, but aïdios over 300 times: he was clearly rejecting the thesis of an atemporal eternity, for which his teacher, Plato, had invented the new term (we show that all attributions of aiônios to presocratic philosophers are late and probably not original); what is more, Simplicius and other commentators on Aristotle never use aiônios either. The Stoics use aiônios only in reference to the repeated aiônes, never for time, space, or other infinite quantities, and the Epicureans use only aïdios for matter and void, the only things that they regarded as eternal. As for the Old and New Testaments, aïdios appears only twice in each, in contrast to hundreds of uses of aiônios. This is a remarkable distribution, and we explained why it might be so. We also illustrate how all this forms the linguistic background to the Fathers.

We did not make this study into an argument concerning universal salvation, as the reviewer would have liked, for a reason that we indicate in the introduction and the conclusion, for we wished to concentrate on the linguistic evidence independently of doctrinal evidence (though of course we show where the linguistic evidence supports certain doctrinal conclusions). To do otherwise might have convicted us of circular reasoning. One of us (Ilaria Ramelli) is now preparing a fullscale study on apokatastasis, in which the thesis of the destruction of the wicked is also examined, along with the reasons that led Origen and his followers to reject it; but to do so in the present monograph would have rendered it tendentious, whereas we wished rather to provide a basis for many kinds of scholarly research.

We hope that these supplementary remarks will be helpful to the reader, even as we express our gratitude once again for the reviewer's kind assessment of our work. We very much hope that our research will prove useful to scholars in ancient philosophy, Patristics, ancient Greek, and classical and Christian thought generally. (read complete article)

Table of Contents

The volume under review contains the proceedings of the eighth Conference on Vulgar/Late Latin. The series started in 1985 and the proceedings, in the course of time, have considerably grown in size. The present volume collects 68 of the 89 original papers delivered at the conference, and reaches over 600 pages although printed in hideously small print. The pieces are organized in chronological order of topics, and cover a period from early Latin and Italic to Dante and 15th-century metalinguistic uses of the word "Latin". The quality of the papers is uneven, from very expert and illuminating to perplexing or irrelevant, but the majority make the book definitely worth having. In the following paragraphs, I give brief presentations of what I thought were the most striking contributions, or at least those from which I learned most. Exclusion from this sample does not reflect necessarily on a given contribution's individual worth.

For clarity's sake, I have attempted to discuss the book's contents by object of study and areas of methodology, rather than follow the chronological succession of the pieces as in the volume. The three areas which I think help us best to envisage the volume's most interesting features are 1) lexical novelties, typically extracted from inscriptions, but also from unfamiliar texts and documents from Late Antiquity or the Early Middle Ages, or reconstructed from a comparative perspective; 2) new approaches to grammatical, typological, pragmatic topics relating to Latin with the help of modern synchronic linguistics; 3) 'vertical communication', i.e. studies devoted to the issue of the intelligibility of Latin to illiterate or barely literate audiences.

In what I call group 1, the single most outstanding paper is Solin's ("Vulgar Latin and Pompeii", 60), a preview of the forthcoming supplement to CIL IV, the Pompeii and Herculaneum inscriptions, on which Solin and others have been working for several years. Solin discusses several graffiti, correcting previous editors' readings on the basis of his own inspection in situ. Here the contents are naughty, the scholarship impeccable. I shall simply attach some marginal notes on details. The syncopated perf. ending -aut in CIL IV 1391 exmuccaut '(she) dried (me) clean of mucus/snot' (i.e. semen), has several parallels in Väänänen's Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes, p. 45; several more can be found in city of Rome's inscriptions: cf. my review of CIL 6.6.3 in CR 58.2 (2008), 532. On CIL IV 2178a NICA CRETEISSIANE Solin suggests NICA C(H)RE(S)TE ISSIME "long may you live, Chrestus, yourself'. If the new reading is correct, the superlative issime from ipse, with the phonetic 'popular' spelling -ss-, is a very important acquisition, and means not 'yourself' but 'master'. Solin's reading thus gives support to a rare form of respectful address which we knew only from Petronius up to now (ipsimus= dominus, but not in address: cf. 69.3 solebam ipsumam meam debattuere 'I was wont to batter my mistress'). For isse, issa as honorifics in Pompeian inscriptions cf. CIL IV 8364 SECVNDVS | PRIME SVAE VBI|QVE ISSE SALVTE, CIL IV 8954, HABITVS ISSAE SALVTEM. On CIL IV 4874, VITALIO BALIAT CAR EST MUSICUS 'long life to Vitalio, because he is a musician', one might consider punctuating 'why? (because) he is a musician', although Väänänen had indeed included a similar case of a possible causal QVARE, op. cit. p. 126. For the treatment in Pompeian inscriptions of word initial qu- cf. e. g. como = quomodo in CIL IV 9251.

Several other valuable papers deal with items of the lexicon in the lower registers of Latin. One of these is Cam ("Nomenclature des realia de la vie rurale: étude du vocabulaire des installations et des équipements de l'écurie dans les textes latins de médecine vétérinaire", 281), on hippiatrics and horsekeeping generally, in which a great deal of technical vocabulary is aptly discussed and convincingly interpreted, starting from a chapter in Vegetius' Digesta artis mulomedicinalis. I found of particular interest Cam's discussion of the 'vulgar' word for 'stable, fold' in Veg. Mul. 1.56, zaca (cratis, quae et zaca uocatur a uulgo), against the concurrent readings/ conjectures iacca (also in TLL) or occa. Cam supports zaca on the basis of a Greek passage in Theophanes, Chronographia, PG 108, 533c, so far ignored by scholars in this connection, where the hapax ζάκα (accusative) occurs with the same meaning. In addition to this and other significant linguistic acquisitions (I mention only the interpretation of the Lt. neologism pontile 'wooden stable floor' and the Greek loan-word bruncarius 'muzzle'), the paper is useful also for its discussion of various Realien of horsekeeping in antiquity, with clarifying, and much needed, drawings.

Béla Adamik ("Remarks on the Changes of Consonantism in Pannonian Latinity as Evidenced by the Inscriptions", 103) shows that consonant change in Pannonian Latin was in step with contemporary trends in other Latin-speaking areas until the perhaps modest-sized Romanized population was either swallowed or forced to move out by mass migrations from East. In this context, the paper is also notable for some persuasive interpretations of substandard inscriptions, and particularly of the names TEOTIGINOS < THEOTECNOS, and IODOROS < DIODOROS, exhibiting respectively yodisation of 'e' in hiatus and the reduction of [dy]+ vowel> [y]+ vowel.

A strong point of the Conference, traditionally, is the search for evidence of spoken Latin at the transitional period from the comparative evidence of the Romance languages in their earliest documented stages. A strong paper is offered by E. Nieto Ballestrer ("Sustantivos latino-romances derivados en -toriu y en -toria en la toponimia de Huesca", 261), whose research concentrates on the linguistically conservative area of Northern Aragon, so immune from common linguistic evolution that even voicing of intervocalic Latin occlusives has not occurred in the local dialect. The local toponomastic allows to recapture items of Latin -orium derivatives which must have been current in the spoken Latin of the area. Similarly impressive is J. Trumper on "Latino Sommerso", Substrate, and the Composite Nature of Late Latin" (301), devoted to fish names in Polemius Silvius, the author of the Laterculus, a kind of Latin Concise in the form of lists of names arranged by thematic areas (edition by Mommsen in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Chronica minora saec. IV.V.Vi.VII (Berlin, 1892), p. 544 (nomina natancium); more recently, Polemius has been discussed in some detail by J. N. Adams, The Regional Diversification of Latin (Cambridge, 2007), 295-9, as a source of Gallic regionalisms. Trumper, an expert in Italian dialectology of the Veneto area, tries to identify fish species in the list, against the background of the rapidly changing fish vocabulary of Late Latin, as a result of language contact. The conclusion to which Trumper reaches is that in the fifth century little Germanic influence is noticeable in the fish names of Polemius' list. M. Loporcaro, in a formidably dense, closely argued paper challenging the belief in open-syllable tendency in Late Latin ("La tendenza alla sillaba chiusa in latino tardo", 336) seeks and finds confirmation from Italian dialectology for the hypothesis that in Late Latin muta cum liquida was heterosyllabic, i.e. made position, at least as a diatopic and diastratic variant, against the Classical Latin norm. M. Lörinczi ("Ideologia linguistica e fondamenti di storia della lingua sarda", 548) makes a persuasive case against M. L. Wagner's view that the treatment of inherited voiceless labiovelars in Campidanese Sardinian was b rather than qu (i.e. Campidanese abba for Lt. aqua). R. Sornicola ("Nominal Inflection and Grammatical Relations in Tenth-Century Legal Documents from the South of Italy (Codex Diplomaticus Amalfitanus)", 510), highlights the tension between the written and the spoken register in the Codice diplomatico amalfitano, a collection of notarial Latin charters and documents going back to the tenth century. These documents, Sornicola claims persuasively, continue lexical and phraseological usages of the ancient Roman legal tradition, and often reflect 'vulgar' usage of very long standing.

In group 2, and one of the best papers, though neither on Vulgar nor on Late Latin is R. Ashdowne's on the 'pragmaticalization' of Latin oaths ("E-vocative Invocation: on the historical morphosyntax of Latin "Oaths"", 13). Ashdowne looks at the gradual weakening of oath phrases from performatives ('I swear to Jupiter this to be true') to asseverative formulas, indicating non-neutral speaker attitude to what is being said ('help me god/heavens! what a naughty thing have I done today!'). The author persuasively interprets the pragmatic function of many (pseudo)-vocative and interjectional formulas in Roman comedy and Cicero (such as hercle, edepol, per deos) -- a topic long overdue for study with up-to-date methodology. However, I am not sure that the author is right to explain the origin of phrases such as (1) per te... obsecro / deos immortalis or (2) per deos atque homines ego te obtestor "I beseech you in the name of god (and man)" from the basic oath form as he takes it to be, e. g. (3) per Iouem iuro (med esse) (Pl. Amph. 435) 'I swear by Jove that (I am that person)'. (1) and (2) are, I think, requests based on the belief that the gods mete out just retribution to the good and the compassionate, i.e. 'before the gods' is used because of the belief that they will remember a good deed. In other words, what proves that (2) is a weakening of the (3) oath form, rather than an independently evolved request?

Another paper in which a general linguistics approach offers important insights is Fruyt and Orlandini on the evolution of the Latin verb ("Some Cases of Linguistic Evolution and Grammaticalisation in the Latin Verb", 230), focussing mainly on grammaticalization and neutralization processes. They start from imperative periphrases such as i et, noli, caue and fac followed by either the infinitive or the subjunctive. I agree with their conclusion that fac is grammaticalized as a polite variation for the imperative, as can be seen clearly from polite phrases in Apul. Met. 1.23 fac libenter deuerseris in nostro 'make yourself at home in our lodgings' and Tab. Vindol. 2.291 iii Idus Septembr[e]s soror ad diem sollemnem natalem meum rogo libenter facias ut uenias ad nos 'on the third before the Ides of Sept., my sister, I have the pleasure to ask you to come to our birthday celebration'. Their next point is a discussion of coepi as a verb focalizer, gradually losing its lexical meaning of 'beginning to' (though the dividing line between the lexical and the focalizing meaning is somewhat obscure to me). Moving on to the quasi-auxiliary usage of habeo with the infinitive, Fruyt/Orlandini discuss instances in Tertullian which seem to pave the way for the Romance conditional, esp. the 'future in the past' function of the conditional, as in habebat reuelari 'was to be revealed' or prouenire habebat "had to happen". (The same topic is discussed from a different angle in another good paper, V. Bourova, "Les participes futurs en -urus / -ndus combinés avec un temps passé de esse en latin tardif. Un conditionnel non abouti?", 271, on the Latin 'failed' constructions for the later conditional). Fruyt/Orlandini then discuss neutralization of perfect participle forms, and weak causativity with iubeo and facio. They argue that iubeo has weak semantic content in stereotyped polite formulas such as iubeo te bene ualere, but I doubt if it is necessary to go back to a supposed pre-literary inherited meaning 'to encourage': in politeness contexts, iubeo is used to reassure the addressee of the speaker's interest in his/her well-being and the mock-assertiveness is part of the politeness 'scenario' of conversation. Facio too can be used with weak semantic content, as an all-purpose expression, typically in the lower, colloquial registers, as one can see from the following parallels: Vetus Latina, Ev. Ioh. 6.21 facta est nauis ad terram 'the ship came near the shore', Sch. Cic. Gron. p. 436.20 Orelli dicimus: fac ad manum illum codicem 'we say, pass that book'. Indeed, commenting on Ter. Ad. 916 quid cessas ire ac facere?, Donatus qualifies the use of facere as ἰδιωτικῶς, that is, probably, 'colloquial'.

Natalya Stolova ("From Satellite-Framed Latin to Verb-Framed Romance: Late Latin as an intermediate stage", 253) studies the transition from Latin to Romance in a typological perspective, focussing on verbs expressing directionality and movement. Romance languages, she argues, have lost most Latin prefixed movement verbs, such as abscedere, abire, deuenire, with few (she lists five) exceptions. She reads the change in the context of Leonard Talmy's typological theory and she finally argues that the cause of the change was an attempt to foreground, in terms of cognitive salience, the path/movement element, as can be seen in the loss of Latin ascendere to Late Latin (in fact only a reconstruction) *MONTARE, It. montare, Fr. monter, in which the mons element is immediately recognizable.

As in previous volumes of the series, 'vertical communication' (my group 3) has produced some important papers. Among these, I single out Biville, who presents a little known grammatical treatise by Cassiodorus on orthography ("Normes "orthographiques" et oralité dans la latinité tardive: le latin du De Orthographia de Cassiodore", 381) and Van Acker ("Dans les méandres de la communication verticale mérovingienne: connaissances passives et perte d'informations", 463). The problem of 'vertical communication' in Cassiodorus' work is in evidence from the start, where in a sort of metaliterary preface the author has his Vivarium brethren interrupt his scriptural exegesis with the outcry: "what's the use of learning all that the Ancients have done, and all the knowledge Your wisdom has taken the trouble to collect for us, if we cannot write it, nor repeat correctly what we don't understand in writing?" -- an excerpt from which it is easy to grasp the rich interest of the following piece. The treatise is also original in contrasting 'modern' and 'ancient' Latin usage, and in assigning precedence, at least for the practical purposes of teaching the monks, to the former. Van Acker attempts to outline the passive Latin competence of Merovingian church-goers listening to the simple, but fully Latinate Passio Memorii (edited by B. Krusch in MGH, SRM 3, 101-4, Vita Memorii presbyteri et martyris), as well as the varying degrees of difficulty presented by different excerpts (in terms of lexicon, sentence length, structure etc.), against the background of the supposed 'spoken language' of the time. My only query is about the clearly high-register dramatic phrase in paragraph 5, ad ille sacer unda sanguinis suis perfusus est ('And that holy man was drenched by his own overflowing blood"), where suis, sic in the MS, is not the genitive. It may be true that a general idea was conveyed by the formularity of the phrase, and by the survival of some left-branching in old French, but was the pseudo-genitive suis, [suwes], really what the old preacher read out? (read complete article)

Augustine is of course best known for his major works, such as the Confessions and the City of God, and there is no shortage of recent studies on these books. Matters are somewhat different concerning some of Augustine's minor works, many of which still wait for helpful and accessible tools for students.

An example of such a text is De magistro (On the master), a philosophical dialogue dating from around 390 AD. In this intriguing text, Augustine explores the essence of teaching, mostly by discussing the nature of language (the basic means of communication between teacher and pupil), and of 'signs' in general. It is argued, among other things, that words taken by themselves cannot teach anything, and that the truth in the meaning of words is living within people. Augustine would not be Augustine if this truth were not identified with Christ. In the end, the inner truth that is Christ appears to be essential for good teaching.

Although Christian religion is the framework for all of Augustine's writings, De magistro is predominantly philosophical and is mainly concerned with words and language, which makes it a relevant text for students and scholars with interest in linguistics.

Secondly, the text is remarkable as a dialogue between Augustine himself and his young son Adeodatus. It has often even been considered a verbatim transcription of a real conversation, which took place between late 397 and middle 389, when Adeodatus was about sixteen years of age.¹

The newly published study by Emmanuel Bermon is a reworked 'dossier d'habilitation' presented at the University Michel de Montaigne - Bordeaux in 2005. After a 50-page introduction, it offers readers a Latin text with facing French translation; the text has been reproduced from the edition by K.D. Daur in the Corpus Christianorum (Series Latina vol 29, Turnhout 1970). The rest of the book, some 500 pages, is taken up with the commentary. It takes the rather unusual form of a running text discussing the text paragraph to paragraph, but without lemmas.

Thus, the commentary is clearly not intended for readers looking for grammatical help, cultural information or rhetorical and literary analysis. Berton rather focuses on the philosophical dimensions of the work. He analyses and discusses the text both within the context of ancient approaches of language (such as ancient grammar or Stoic semantics), and from a modern perspective, using Wittgenstein's Recherches philosophiques as a model. The De magistro, while being called 'chef-d'oeuvre de l' antiquité sur le langage' (p.547), inevitably shows some marked differences from a modern approach such as Wittgenstein's. An ample bibliography and indices conclude the volume. It will be most relevant for personal and institutional libraries of ancient philosophy.

Notes:

1. The biographical information about Adeodatus is entirely to be drawn from Augustine's works and it is regrettably scarce indeed. The De magistro may be said to be the source in which Adeodatus figures most prominently. Except for a longer monologue by Augustine (c. 33-46, likely to be part of a subsequent revision of the text) he remains an active partner in the dialogue until the end. The boy seems sharp-witted, gentle, and eager to learn, a son of whom Augustine is noticeably proud. Possibly, Augustine wrote and published the work as a tribute to Adeodatus, who died young at an unspecified date. Bermon gives the essential data about Adeodatus in his introduction, but in the commentary, he is not concerned with his biography. (read complete article)

Nachdem Nordafrika (Africa) seit 429¹ von den Vandalen beherrscht worden, aber nach dem Ende der letzten Vandalenkönige Hildimer und Geilamir 534, während der Regierungszeit Justinians (527-565), wieder unter oströmische Herrschaft gelangt war, kam es in den Jahren 546/548 zu Aufständen maurischer Nomadenstämme, die von Justinians General Johannes Troglita erfolgreich niedergeschlagen wurden. Prokop hat diese Aufstände in seiner Darstellung von Justinians Rückeroberungen ehemals römischer Territorien als minder bedeutende Nebenkriegsereignisse eher stiefmütterlich behandelt (vgl. bellum Vandalicum 2.28.45-52). Dagegen bietet der afrikanische Dichter Flavius Cresconius Corippus in seinem Epos Johannis eine ausgedehnte literarische Schilderung ebendieser Geschehnisse im Umfang von ca. 4.700 lateinischen Hexametern in acht Büchern. Darin wird der magister militum Johannes als 'grosser Held' gefeiert, der Africa von barbarischen Rebellen befreit und wieder zur römischen Provinz gemacht hat. Dabei stellt sich der Dichter unverkennbar in die Tradition der Vergil'schen Aeneis: Johannes wird zu einem 'zweiten Aeneas', Justinian zu einem 'zweiten Augustus', und Coripp selber lässt als 'zweiter Vergil' die klassische römische Nationalepik in christlicher Verbrämung wieder auferstehen.²

Trotz ihrer offensichtlichen Bedeutung sowohl als historische 'Quelle' wie auch als literarisches Kunstwerk der späten römischen bzw. frühen byzantinischen Zeit -- Heinz Hofmann hat Coripp den "letzten grossen Vertreter röm[ischer] Epik"³ genannt -- gehört die Johannis zu den in Forschung und Rezeption nur wenig präsenten Texten dieser Epoche. Nicht nur ist das Epos abgesehen von Einzelkommentaren zu den ersten drei Büchern⁴ in seiner Gesamtheit unkommentiert geblieben und auch monographisch wenig behandelt,⁵ sondern auch eine deutsche Übersetzung existiert bis dato nicht -- wer die Johannis nicht im lateinischen Original lesen kann oder will, muss auf die englische Fassung von Shea (1998) ausweichen⁶ --, und desgleichen tut auch eine neue kritische Edition not.⁷ Thomas Gärtner (in der Folge 'G.') hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, diese erheblichen Forschungsdesiderate systematisch aufzuarbeiten: Mit seinen Untersuchungen zur Gestaltung und zum historischen Stoff der Johannis Coripps (im Folgenden 'Untersuchungen') hat er gewissermassen die 'Prolegomena' eines auf drei Bände angelegten Projekts vorgelegt, sind doch als zweiter Band eine komplette Neuedition des Texts mit deutscher Erstübersetzung und als dritter Band schliesslich ein quellen- und textkritischer Gesamtkommentar, der "intertextuelle Imitationsforschung und herkömmliche Textkritik zu einer fruchtbaren Symbiose zu führen" gedenkt,⁸ vorgesehen (wobei die Bände 1 und 3 zugleich des Verfassers überarbeitete Habilitationsschrift, angenommen an der Universität zu Köln im Jahre 2002, darstellen).

G.s Untersuchungen gliedern sich in zwei Hauptkapitel mit fünf bzw. drei Unterkapiteln; eingeleitet wird die Arbeit von ein paar Seiten methodischer Vorbemerkungen (S. 1-8), abgeschlossen von einem auf die Coripp-Literatur beschränkten Literaturverzeichnis (S. 129-136). Im ersten, 'diachronistischen' Hauptkapitel (S. 9-57), das m.E. unpräzise als "Einleitung" überschrieben ist,⁹ wird den intertextuellen Vorläufern und Verbindungslinien der Johannis nachgegangen, wird also der Platz von Coripps Epos im Strome der (paganen wie biblisch-christlichen) Literaturgeschichte ausgelotet, während das zweite, 'synchronistische' ("Die Formung des historischen Stoffs in der Johannis", S. 58-127) Coripps Geschichtsbild und -darstellung mit der Parallelüberlieferung Prokops vergleicht und selbige als von unserem Dichter für seine Zwecke umgestaltete und adaptierte partielle 'Quelle' der Johannis zu erweisen sucht.

Das erste Hauptkapitel beginnt mit einer ausführlichen Inhaltsparaphrase, in welcher -- in Vorwegnahme der Hauptergebnisse des Kommentars -- die wichtigsten intertextuellen Vorbilder und Bezugstexte bereits genannt werden ("a. Die stoffliche Strukturierung der Johannis und die wichtigsten intertextuellen Verbindungslinien", S. 9-25). In Anknüpfung daran wird einerseits die Johannis im Bezugssystem der lateinisch-epischen Tradition verortet ("b. Literarischer Bezugsrahmen und Gattungszugehörigkeit der Johannis", S. 26-32), womit sich G. von der von Hofmann (1988) vertretenen These, Coripps Epos gehöre zu einer zur institutionalisierten Rezitation bestimmten "neue[n] Gattung für die historisch-panegyrischen Texte der nicht-christlichen Epik der lateinischen Spätantike",¹⁰ absetzt, und andererseits der prägende Einfluss der Aeneis (und, an zweiter Stelle, auch der Pharsalia Lucans) auf Szenenkomposition und narrative Struktur des Coripp'schen Epos aufgezeigt ("c. Die Bedeutung antiker Vorbilder für die Grossgliederung der Johannis", S. 33-40). Auf den beiden folgenden Seiten werden sodann einige literarisch-epische Vorbilder, welche der Charakterisierung des Protagonisten Johannes Troglita als christlicher Figur dienen, angerissen ("d. Die Funktion klassischer Vorbilder in Hinblick auf die Ethopoiie des epischen Helden", S. 41-42). Leider ist dieses Kapitelchen jedoch viel zu kurz und zu kursorisch geraten -- falls dieser Aspekt tatsächlich nur zwei Textseiten hergibt, so wäre eine anderweitige Eingliederung (sei es ins vorangegangene Unterkapitel c., sei es in den Kommentar) m.E. sinnvoller gewesen. Von grosser Wichtigkeit sind dagegen G.s Ausführungen zur "besondere[n] Funktion von Anspielungen auf christliche Dichtungen" (e., S. 43-51): Hat man früher die Bedeutung biblisch-christlicher Poesie für Coripp oft unterschätzt oder zuweilen gar negiert, so betont G. deren permanente Einflüsse in formaler wie inhaltlicher Hinsicht. Dabei dient "[d]ie christliche Grundhaltung Coripps ... vor allem als ein Medium zur werthaften Kolorierung des beschriebenen Geschehens" (S. 47), das Christentum und seine literarischen Erzeugnisse sind Mittel zur Darstellung einer schwarz-weissen Weltsicht. Aus diesem Grund lehnt G. auch die Auffassung Hofmanns (1989) von Coripp als 'patristischem' Autor¹¹ (m.E. zu Recht) ab, denn anders als bei den Kirchenvätern ist "[d]as Christentum ... bei Coripp eben nicht Endzweck, sondern argumentatives Instrument" (S. 48). Mit ein paar Beispielen zu Gebrauch und Funktion intratextueller Selbstzitate und Querverweise innerhalb des Epos ("f. Funktion corippischer Selbstzitate in Hinblick auf Sinngebung und Aufbau der Johannis", S. 52-57) schliesst das erste Hauptkapitel.

Analog zur Inhaltsübersicht, die G. an den Anfang des literarisch-intertextuellen Teils gestellt hat, eröffnet er den historischen Teil mit einem chronologischen "Überblick über die Phasen der in der Johannis berührten historischen Handlung", beginnend mit der Herrschaft des Vandalenkönigs Thrasamund (seit 496) und endend mit Johannes Troglitas Sieg gegen die aufständischen Mauren (546/548), sowie einem "Vorausblick auf die grundsätzlichen Tendenzen der corippischen Erzählweise" (a., S. 58-65), deren Hauptcharakteristikum darin besteht, dass die Kriegshandlungen, die vor dem Feldzug des Johannes stattgefunden haben, dem afrikanischen Tribunen Liberatus in Form einer epischen Rückblende, als metadiegetische Binnenerzählung, in den Mund gelegt sind (Joh. 3.41-4.246). Da zu dieser früheren Kriegsphase, nicht jedoch zu den Kampagnen des Johannes, die ja die eigentliche histoire der Johannis darstellen, eine ausführliche Prokop'sche Parallelüberlieferung existiert, drängt sich für den historischen Teil ein Vergleich zwischen der Coripp'schen Liberatus-Erzählung und den Schilderungen im bellum Vandalicum auf. Als erstes Exemplum wird die "Rolle des Antalas in der ersten Johannis-Hälfte im Vergleich zur Darstellung bei Prokop" (b., S. 66-96) extensiv untersucht. Es zeigt sich, dass der Berberführer Antalas von Coripp in tendenziöser Weise zum anti-byzantinischen Erzfeind schlechthin ("das personifizierte Unglück von Afrika", S. 66) stilisiert und somit als Gegenfigur zur 'Leuchtgestalt' des Johannes konstruiert wird, während Prokop einen viel differenzierteren Antalas zeichnet, der während des ersten Maurenaufstands 535 noch loyal gegenüber Ostrom war (vgl. bell. Vand. 2.12.30) und erst später die Seite wechselte. Hauptzielsetzung Coripps ist, so G. (S. 64), "eine Art von Schwarz-Weiss-Malerei, die die unter Johannes gegebenen ... Gegebenheiten ... zur Grundlage der poetischen Sinngebung erhebt und in die Perspektive der historischen Vergangenheit zurückprojiziert. Aufs Ganze betrachtet liegt der Gestaltungsweise Coripps vor allem das typisch epische Bestreben zugrunde, die Komplexität des Geschehens auf das Wirken einzelner prominenter Personen zu reduzieren, nämlich das des Antalas auf maurischer und das des Johannes auf römischer Seite."

Das letzte Unterkapitel analysiert sodann die "Corippische und prokopische Erzählweise im detaillierten Vergleich: Verlust und Wiedereinnahme von Hadrumetum und die Entscheidungsschlacht zwischen Johannes Sisiniolu und Stutias" (c., S. 97-127). Zusammengefasst ist G.s These die, dass sich anhand eines Vergleichs der Darstellungen der beiden Ereignisse bei Coripp und bei Prokop¹² eine Abhängigkeit des Dichters vom Historiker postulieren lasse ("diejenige Johannispartie, wo sich der Einfluss der Paralleldarstellung des Historikers Prokop ... am nachhaltigsten zeigt", S. 97), dass jener aber seine 'Quelle' mit ähnlichen Absichten wie bei der tendenziösen Negativzeichnung des Antalas ummodelliert habe, d.h. dergestalt verfahren sei, dass die Byzantiner grundsätzlich in ein möglichst gutes, deren Gegner aber in ein schlechtes Licht gerückt würden.

Summarisch betrachtet, mag G.s These von der 'epischen Transformation' und der tendenziösen Dualisierung des historischen Stoffes, der Ereigniszusammenhänge und der menschlichen Charaktere zum Zwecke der Glorifizierung des Johannes bzw. (indirekt) des Justinian und, damit einhergehend, der Legitimierung des oströmischen Hegemonialanspruchs vor den maurischen Barbaren absolut zu überzeugen. Gewisse Fragezeichen wären dagegen bei der Bewertung der 'Quellenhaftigkeit' von Prokops Geschichtswerk zu setzen. Obzwar einzelne wörtliche Reminiszenzen eine (punktuelle?) direkte Abhängigkeit nahelegen mögen (vgl. z.B. S. 108 und 112) und eine solche chronologisch durchaus als möglich zu erachten ist (vgl. S. 112-113 mit Anm. 156-158), bleiben m.E. einige Fragen unbeantwortet, bzw. werden neue aufgeworfen: So wäre beispielsweise zu überlegen, ob wir, falls wir von der postulierten Coripp'schen 'Umgestaltung' der Prokop'schen 'Quelle' tatsächlich ausgehen wollen, diese nicht auch als gezieltes Anschreiben des Epikers gegen den Historiker lesen und darin eine poetologische Stellungnahme sehen könnten. Ferner wäre bei der Bewertung der 'Objektivität' Prokops vielleicht ein wenig mehr Vorsicht geboten gewesen, kann doch die Darstellung aus der Feder eines Historikers theoretisch von ebensolcher Tendenziosität und/oder Selektivität geprägt sein wie die eines Dichters -- dies zeigt sich ja nicht zuletzt auch genau darin, dass die Niederschlagung der maurischen Nomadenaufstände, die Haupthandlung der Johannis, von Prokop nur sehr kursorisch abgehandelt wird (bell. Vand. 2.28.45-52; s.o.).¹³ G. scheint der Versuchung, den Text des Historikers als 'objektiv', den des Epikers als 'subjektiv' zu lesen, zuweilen nolens volens erlegen zu sein, was sich etwa aus einer problematischen Behauptung wie der, dem Feldherrn Belisarius komme "objektiv die grösste historische Bedeutung" (S. 64) zu, oder dem Versuch, "eine kurze Biographie des Antalas ... unter Heranziehung der oben gewonnenen Ergebnisse, aber unter Weglassung der corippischen Werturteile" (S. 94) zu entwerfen, ersehen lässt.

Raum für weitere Untersuchungen und Überlegungen ist also gegeben -- zumal es sich bei der Johannis um einen leider wenig 'kanonischen', aber umso faszinierenderen Text aus einer wichtigen geschichtlichen Epoche handelt, dessen Studium für alle Disziplinen der Altertumswissenschaften lohnt. G. hat mit seiner Monographie der Coripp-Forschung wichtige Impulse gegeben und neue Denkräume eröffnet. Wir können gespannt sein auf die Bände 2 und 3.

Kleinigkeiten:

Einige vom Inhalt des Buches unabhängige Kritikpunkte seien abschliessend genannt: (1.) Gerade angesichts der vergleichsweise geringen, aber durchaus vorhandenen wissenschaftlichen Rezeption hätte man sich einen (wenigstens selektiven) Forschungsüberblick als 'Vorspann' dringend gewünscht. (2.) Desgleichen stellt die Tatsache, dass das Buch über keinerlei Indizes verfügt, ein Manko dar -- es ist zu hoffen, dass die Schlagwort- und Stellenverzeichnisse des zu erscheinenden Kommentars auch die Untersuchungen inkludieren werden. (3.) G.s Entscheidung, Originalzitate unübersetzt zu lassen, ist zwar angesichts deren (besonders in der zweiten Buchhälfte) hoher Zahl als aus ökonomischer Sicht durchaus verständlich zu werten und mag mit Blick auf die angekündigte Johannis-Übersetzung auch sinnvoll sein, doch hätte zumindest den nicht wenigen griechischen Passagen eine Verdeutschung beigefügt werden sollen, da das Buch auch Lesern, die nicht über eine flüssige Lesekompetenz in beiden Sprachen verfügen, zugänglich sein sollte. (4.) Schliesslich irritieren, aus rein formaler Sicht, die streckenweise inflationär verwendeten Sperrungen zur Worthervorhebung, die -- so mein Empfinden -- die Ruhe des Schriftbilds stören, sowie einige exorbitant lange Fussnoten, die an die Unsitten gewisser 'Wälzer' des 19. Jhs. erinnern (vgl. z.B. S. 27-29 Fn. 25 und 27-29; S. 35-36 Fn. 43 und 44; S. 71-72 Fn. 84; S. 74 Fn. 89; S. 82 Fn. 101; S. 84 Fn. 110).

Notes:

1. Sämtliche Jahreszahlen beziehen sich auf die Zeit nach Christus.

2. Zum literarisch-politischen Programm der Johannis vgl. in erster Linie deren distichische praefatio; zur Vergil-Nachfolge Coripps insb. praef. 15-16: Aeneam superat melior virtute Iohannes, / sed non Vergilio carmina digna cano.

3. Heinz Hofmann, Art. "Corippus, Flavius Cresconius", in: DNP 3 (1997) 165-166, Sp. 165. Dagegen hat man in früherer Zeit die Johannis i.d.R. als historische und v.a. als ethnographische Quelle zwar anerkannt, nicht jedoch ihren Status als vollgültiges literarisches Werk; vgl. z.B. Franz Skutsch, Art. "Corippus", in: RE IV (1900) 1236-1246, Sp. 1238-1239: "[S]teht das poetische Interesse erst in zweiter oder dritter Linie; videtur historiam composuisse, non poema... [D]ie Johannis aber ist nicht nur wertvoll durch ihren Bericht vom Untergang des Vandalenreiches und vom maurischen Kriege, sie bietet eine Schilderung von Land und Leuten, wie sie eben nur einem eingeborenen Beobachter, der seine Eindrücke gewissenhaft wiedergiebt, möglich ist."

4. 1. Buch: Maria Assunta Vinchesi, Flavii Cresconii Corippi Iohannidos liber primus. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento, Neapel (1983) -- 2. Buch: Vincent Zarini, Berbères ou barbares? Recherches sur le livre second de la Johannide de Corippe, Nancy (1997) -- 3. Buch: Chiara O. Tommasi Moreschini, Iohannidos liber III, Florenz (2001).

5. Zwei Monographien sind in jüngerer Zeit erschienen: Jean Urban Andres, Das Göttliche in der 'Iohannis' des Corippus. Antike Götterwelt und christliche Gottesvorstellung im Widerstreit?, Trier (1997) -- Vincent Zarini, Rhétorique, poétique, spiritualité: La technique épique de Corippe dans la Johannide, Turnhout (2003).

6. George W. Shea, The Iohannis or De Bellis Libycis of Flavius Cresconius Corippus, Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter (1998).

7. Die bis heute massgebende Edition ist die von Jacob Diggle & F. R. D. Goodyear, Flavii Cresconii Corippi Iohannidos seu de Bellis Libycis libri VIII, Cambridge (1970). Zu den Problemen dieser Ausgabe vgl. v.a. Jean Urban Andres, Concordantia in Flavii Corippi Ioannida, Hildesheim u.a. (1993) 594-615; vgl. ferner die Rezensionen von D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Gnomon 43 [1971] 516-519), A. Hudson-Williams (CR 22 [1972] 219-221) und J. Delz (MH 29 [1972] 294).

8. So G.s Ankündigung in seinem Vorwort, S. 7.

9. Die Überschrift "Einleitung" rührt wohl daher, dass das erste Hauptkapitel als 'Einleitung' zu dem zu erscheinenden Gesamtkommentar gedacht ist (in diesem Sinne G. im Vorwort, S. 5).

10. Heinz Hofmann, "Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der nichtchristlichen Epik der lateinischen Spätantike", in: Philologus 132 (1988) 101-159, S. 133.

11. Heinz Hofmann, "Corippus as a Patristic Author?", in: VChr 43 (1989) 361-377.

12. Zum Kampf um das von maurischen Freischärlern besetzte Hadrumetum/Justinianopolis im Jahre 544 vgl. Joh. 4.8-81; zur fatalen Schlacht zwischen dem byzantinischen General Johannes Sisiniolu und dem maurischen Insurgenten Stutias im darauffolgenden Jahr vgl. Joh. 4.103-218; zu Prokops Parallelüberlieferung beider Begebenheiten vgl. bell. Vand. 2.23ff.

13. Wollen wir das Gedankenspiel vom Coripp'schen unwriting der Prokop'schen 'Quelle' weiterspinnen, so wäre auch dieser Aspekt zu berücksichtigen. (read complete article)

Those who will read this interesting but somewhat puzzling book might well wonder to what extent its title¹ tallies with its contents, mainly a paraphrasis of Thucydides' book eight, which includes a number of discussions not only or even mainly pertaining to the part played by individuals in history. The general introduction (p. 1-18), an abridged version of a 2003 paper ("Geschichte und Kontingenz. Einleitende Überlegungen für eine Thukydideslektüre"), first discusses, so to speak sub specie aeternitatis, the nature of history as what happens, the factors and actors which make history, the part played in it by contingency, and the nature, aim and utility of history as the writing of what happens. This introduction, which may be called philosophical or epistemological, seems to me to be a clear and clever piece of empirical or analytical thinking, but it raises some issues : one may miss more awareness of the various meanings of the word history and of the relativity and historical dependency of any conception of history both as the framework within which an individual or a group lives and as its transformation into writing. A subsequent section of the book shortly sets the birth of history in the context of Greek culture and thought. It is not original but prudent and says nothing which can arouse controversy. However it raises an issue concerning the whole book : for whom is it meant ? The foreword mentions the "nachdenkliche Leser".

The bulk of the book is a paraphrasis of book eight interspersed not only with translations from the Greek (fortunately produced in italics but unfortunately not always fully indicating the divisions of the text first introduced by E. Fr. Poppo and generally observed after him), but also with Heitsch's short remarks and longer discussions. The explanatory paraphrasis is divided into three parts (8.1-28 : the events of autumn 413 till autumn 412 ; 8.29-60 : the events of winter 412/411 and 8.61-109 : the events of summer 411), each of which is followed by a useful "Rückblick" which however does not avoid mere repetition of elements contained in the preceding analysis. Heitsch's observations are mixed with straightforward paraphrasis in such a way that one must read Thucydides if one wants to be sure what belongs to whom. This may not be misleading for hardcore specialists of Thucydides, who may anyway need no such paraphrasis, but it may prove so for those readers whom Heitsch addresses with information such as the following : "Agathon, (den der Leser vielleicht aus Platons Symposion kennt)" (p. 114), "Sestos (an der Westküste des Hellesponts)" (p. 157). Heitsch seems to justify his explanatory paraphrasis thus (p. 17-18) :

"Thukydides verweist den Leser auf seine Erzählung und damit auf die von ihm rekonstruierte Geschichte, lässt ihn mit ihr allein. Und tatsächlich sind denn auch seine Einblicke in die Natur der Geschichte von uns heute m. E. nur durch eine deskriptive Analyse seiner Erzählung wiederzuerkennen."

I cannot help thinking "Deskriptive Analyse" is somewhat euphemistic. That must not make one blind to the merits of what is not mere paraphrasis but elucidation of what (no small amount !) is implicit and unclear in Thucydides' text. Scholars will be especially grateful to Heitsch for the longer discussions embedded in the paraphrasis, but they may well regret that this embedding prevented the author from thoroughly discussing the issues and exposing and refuting contrary views. The generally light footnotes are neither uninteresting nor unimportant but they are no compensation. The use of secondary literature is limited, and readers who are neither hardcore specialists nor uninterested in these matters will too rarely be spared the effort to check if Heitsch is exposing an original view or one that has already been stated (compare p. 93, on the tautology of 8.58.2, with Andrewes 1981, p. 140² and see below on the second and third Spartan-Persian treaties). Though one may not be fully happy with Heitsch's use of the paraphrasis, this reviewer, after reading Thucydides' Greek, was somewhat relieved to read Heitsch's almost always clearer German. But it must be acknowledged that only the original text can provide the intellectual enjoyment and excitement that is traditionally associated with Thucydides at his best. Thus Heitsch's analysis of 8.65-66, which focuses on the missing information in Thucydides' report, does not make it look like what Andrewes 1981 (p. 164) thinks it is, "one of Thucydides' most powerful pieces of political description".

Heitsch provides stimulating views or discussions which may be useful even if they are sometimes problematic : thus (p. 58 n. 55) on the Daric stater (surprisingly little money, as is acknowledged) Tissaphernes gives for each prisoner of Iasos (8.28.4). Heitsch rebukes the view that Thucydides intends his (Greek) readers to understand that Tissaphernes dupes the Spartans. In that case, he argues, Thucydides would have indicated the amount in Greek currency (twenty silver Attic drachmai). The objection seems to me to be futile, because Thucydides probably expected his readers to know the worth of the στατὴρ Δαρεικός, abridged Δαρεικός, a phrase and word well enough attested in Greek literature and inscriptions (Hultsch, Metrologie, p. 485 ; Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, IV.1, p. 75 n. 2 ; see also M. Alram, Encyclopaedia Iranica online, s. v. Daric, with more recent bibliography). Heitsch's second objection is better : the low price results from "an arrangement with Tisaphernes about the booty, out of which the Spartans had in other respects done very well" (Andrewes 1981, p. 69).

He further argues (p. 63-64) that, since we cannot think Thucydides was unaware that the second Spartan-Persian treaty (8.37) was less advantageous to the Spartans than the first (18), something must be wrong with 8.36-37 as they stand, for the second treaty (8.37) is, Heitsch argues, supposed by Thucydides (8.36.2) to be more advantageous to the Spartans.³ But Thucydides only says that the Spartans, considering the first treaty not to be advantageous enough, wanted another one. This does not imply that he thought the second treaty was more advantageous to the Spartans than the first (the second treaty is, I believe, actually more advantageous to the Spartans, but that is not my point). Heitsch builds on this premise the view (inter alia) that 8.37 may be due to the posthumous editor of book eight. He holds (p. 91-92 n. 101, cf. 95-96) the same view on the third treaty, 8.58, with which, he argues, neither 8.57 nor 8.59 tally. He helpfully stresses that this treaty does not explicitly say the fleet will come, but does it follow from this being only implied that 8.58 doesn't tally with 8.57 and 8.59 ? Heitsch's views on 8.37 and 8.58 are to be found (differently and forcibly but, I believe, hardly more successfully argued) in Schwartz 1919, p. 72-75, which neither Heitsch nor Hornblower 2008 mention.

I venture to doubt Heitsch's postulate of Thucydides' awareness (p. 64) : even if one could consider book eight as an opus limatum, one could not expect of any ancient historian, even Thucydides, what is expected of modern historians. His standards of political and strategical thinking were or may have been as different from ours as his standards of accuracy. Furthermore Heitsch seems to be inconsistent, for he himself more than once notes or hints that Thucydides' analysis may be insufficient. Thus, like Andrewes 1981 (p. 95, attributing the idea to D. Lewis, who retracted it), he thinks (pp. 74 ff) that Alcibiades was never threatened with death by the Peloponnesians, contrary to what Thucydides explicitly says (8.45.1). Heitsch thinks this threat is Alcibiades' invention and he quite ingeniously speculates on his strategy. But if Thucydides was so easily misled by Alcibiades or his circle, what are we to think of his critical faculty, and how can we be sure he was aware that the second Spartan-Persian treaty was (if it was) less advantageous to the Spartans than the first ? Another case (if one follows Heitsch's analysis) is the well-known chapter (8.87) in which Thucydides exposes various explanations, including his own, of why Tissaphernes did not bring the Phoenician fleet to the Peloponnesians. Heitsch (p. 95) accepts the view originally broached in Lewis 1958 that the fleet was kept in store for an upheaval in Egypt. He then proceeds to explain why Tissaphernes did not tell the real reason for not bringing the fleet (the satrap, Heitsch suggests, did not want to display the weakness of the kingdom). After Herbse 1989 (here not quoted by Heitsch), Hornblower 2008, p. 1004-1005, effectively challenges Lewis' hypothesis and thinks one has to conclude that Thucydides' view is both pondered and correct. Should we go further than Thucydides himself and hold him to be right when he himself is not sure ? It might be no bad thing if modern scholars gave more thought to their notion of Thucydides' reliability and excellence as an historian and to the way they use it to corroborate their own views on what he does, would or should have said.

Other challenging, if speculative, discussions (outside those pertaining to Alcibiades) are, for instance, p. 80-82, on how Thucydides' judgement in 8.46.5, which tallies with the complaint he attributes to the Peloponnesian soldiers at Miletus (8.78), may have been influenced by a source favourable to Alcibiades or Alcibiades himself ; p. 103-108 on 8.65-66 as being "der angemessene Ersatz für das, was der Leser hier eigentlich erwartet" and one of the many signs that book eight is unfinished ; p. 141 on Thucydides' failure to state what the Four Hundred's embassies were empowered to grant to the Spartans ; p. 152-154 on Theramenes' future attitude to Antiphon and what Thucydides would have said about it (a characteristically speculative but entertaining piece of writing). However stimulating Heitsch's discussions may be, they raise methodological issues. He says in the foreword that he is not primarily interested in the question of the extent to which book eight is unfinished (contrast p. 148 n. 186, "dass das 8. Buch nicht überall jene Form hat, in der Thukydides selbst es hätte veröffentlichen wollen, davon bin ich mit Andrewes und anderen überzeugt" ; p. 132 n. 150 ; p. 172 n. 221), but this question proves essential to many of his discussions. His attitude towards this problem does not seem to me consistent, for he occasionally (p. V-VI, 173) considers facts which he might have attributed to the book's unfinished state as due to other factors, e. g. Thucydides' strategy towards his reader or his unavoidable failure to "impose upon events a logical pattern which they did not possess" (Adcock 1963, quoted p. VI), a failure which is supposed to account for the dullness of 7-44. This case illustrates a recurrent problem in the understanding and interpretation of book eight, since the same facts may be viewed quite differently according as one considers the book partly a posthumous editor's juxtaposition of more or less finished passages (for such a case, see Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica book eight with the notes of my edition) or as an in fieri whole entirely operated by the author himself (I do not imply that these alternative views are always mutually exclusive). Another methodological issue, already pointed to above, is what the word history means when one asks such a question as "welche Möglichkeiten hätte die Geschichte noch bereit gehalten, wenn beide, die Oligarchen in Athen und Alkibiades als Stratege der Flotte auf Samos, in wohlverstandenem Interesse Athens auf dem Boden einer Realpolitik rechtzeitig zueinander gefunden hätten ?" (p. 141-142). Heitsch often speaks of the part played by chance and opportunity, especially missed opportunities, in history. This seems to be one of the keys of Heitsch's book, as one is aware when one reaches its very end and conclusion : "Was man von der Minute ausgeschlagen, gibt keine Ewigkeit zurück" (p. 174, see also p. 107). These words illustrate a personal aspect of the book written by a veteran scholar (born 1928), whose attitude to history seems to be somewhat disenchanted and pessimistic. This feeling, which Heitsch thinks was also Thucydides', may well have influenced the way the former views the part played by individuals in history and especially Alcibiades' part.⁴

The reader who expects a thorough study of the part played by individuals in history as far as book eight is concerned will be disappointed, though Heitsch has something to say about Agis, Antiphon, Theramenes, Tissaphernes and a lot about Alcibiades, which is dispersed and might better have been gathered in a monograph or paper on this much discussed personality (Heitsch's references to the literature on the subject are too few). The following passages illustrate his attitude to this fascinating but controversial man : "so einfach wie genial" (p. 79, about Alcibiades' argumentation, such as stated in 8.46 ; "genial" p. 169 about the man himself), "der wechselnden Interessenlage des ungewöhnlichen Mannes" (p. 76 n. 76), "gibt Thukydides ein ungeschminktes Bild von der egozentrischen Haltung dieses aussergewöhnlichen Mannes" (p. 127), "egozentrisch" (p. 169, about the man himself). Alcibiades is one "den sein Ingenium aber auch befähigte, Situationen realistisch einzuschätzen, Konzeptionen zu entwickeln, entschlossen zu handeln und gegebenenfalls auch sein eigenes Leben mutig einzusetzen" (p. 173). But history was not favourable to what may seem to be in Heitsch's somewhat romantic view a kind of unfortunate great man. It is (almost unavoidably) not always clear what in Heitsch's portraiture of Alcibiades belongs to reality, what to Thucydides and his informants, what to Heitsch himself. He may well show a bias towards Alcibiades when he challenges (p. 135) Thucydides' view (8.88) that, when he promised the Athenians at Samos to spare no effort to avoid Tissaphernes' bringing the Phoenician fleet to the Peloponnesians, Alcibiades had known ὡς εἰκός for some time (ἐκ πλέονος, "seit längerem" Heitsch) Tissaphernes' intention not to bring the fleet. Thucydides' view is in keeping with 8.46.1, where Alcibiades is said to advise Tissaphernes to maintain a kind of balance between the two sides through not bringing the fleet and other resources to the Peloponnesians. Thucydides' view in 8.88 is very logical if one remembers 8.46.1, so that I am inclined to take ὡς εἰκός (on which Heitsch doesn't comment) as meaning as was natural (so Westlake 1969), as is logical, almost as expected, rather than as was probable (so Andrewes 1981, p. 293, 456 ; Hornblower 2008, p. 1007, comparing 8.46.5, but there we have at least as far as can be conjectured from his actions and the passage is about Tissaphernes, which makes no small difference, for Thucydides could be informed of Alcibiades' thoughts more easily than of Tissaphernes'). On the other hand one could argue that, if 8.46.1 and 8.88 belong to different strata of composition, we are not entitled to interpret the latter in the light of the former. Certainly, Alcibiades emerges as a much more cynical figure if we follow Thucydides in 8.88, but we should resist idealization. If we do, we may be more prepared to understand why history, to speak like Heitsch, was not there when the unreliable and cynical man knocked at the door and we may avoid exaggerating the responsibility of chance, history or those who were not able to seize the opportunity Alcibiades supposedly might have offered them.

The translations from the Greek are accurate, except seemingly in 8.58.6 (p. 92), where textual criticism and accuracy in translation have a bearing on historical analysis (see Hornblower 2008, p. 930-931) : ἐφ' ἑαυτοῖς (the transmitted and commonly accepted text, which I suppose Heitsch translates) cannot mean auf eigene Kosten. Weil 1972 conjectures ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν, which he translates "à leurs propres frais", but, unless I am mistaken, ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν would be better Thucydidean Greek (cf. 8.8.1, translated "par leurs propres moyens" by Weil himself !, and 8.63.4). Heitsch, who refers his reader to no edition, rarely quotes and more rarely discusses the Greek ; where he does (p. 42 n. 39 ; p. 83 n. 87 ; p. 85 n. 92 ; p. 107 n. 110 ; p. 121 n. 138), his notes are far from being always satisfactory. The confusing note on p. 42 about 8.23.5 is (I believe) both wildly speculative and wide off the mark : "die Unsicherheit des Textes könnte irgendwie mit der Tatsache zusammenhängen, dass Thukydides hier nicht voll informiert ist und -- vermutlich -- eine endgültige Darstellung auf später verschob". On p. 146 n. 183 Heitsch notes that Thucydides in 8.96.5 summarizes what he says at greater length in 1.70, but, if one carefully examines the structure of the sentence in 8.96.5, it appears problematic enough for one to consider Krüger 1861's view that part of it is interpolated. Of course one may argue that the problematic construction betrays the unfinished state of book eight. On p. 157 Heitsch speaks of Mindaros' 86 ships (8.103.1) and, after others, rightly remarks that they should be 87 : "73 + 16 - 2 (die nach 103,2 bei der Verfolgung verloren gingen)". There would be no problem if 3 instead of 2 were read in 8.103.2. Now 3 is the number indicated by Diodorus 13.39.1, whose testimony is generally discarded because "it would be unwise to take this as based on different and better evidence than that available to Thucydides" (Hornblower 2008, p. 1047, referring to Busolt ; 88 is a mistake for 86 in Hornblower's note). But does the transmitted text offer us the evidence available to Thucydides ? I am not sure it is wise to discard Diodorus' testimony here and/or the change of 2 into 3 proposed by Stahl 1883, who suggests, as a less plausible alternative, that the ship may have disappeared in the tempest mentioned in 8.99. In his foreword Heitsch might have warned his reader of the textual uncertainties with which book eight teems.

Those who are not scholars may read Heitsch's book with enjoyment or profit. Specialists might miss a more scholarly approach than the descriptive analysis or explanatory paraphrasis offered by the author. His approach raises other issues, mentioned above. However this book can be commended to scholars for the stimulating remarks and discussions embedded in the paraphrasis. One constantly feels its author is conversant with Thucydides' work, manner and thought. The personal aspect of the book, which in a way expresses the disenchanted view of a veteran scholar on history (with a few hints at contemporary history, p. 82 ⁵, p. 105 ; p. 112 n. 117), commands respect. There is a short bibliography and an index personarum. The book is not free from misprints, but they are harmless.

Notes:

1. Cf. E. Heitsch, Geschichte und Situationen bei Thukydides, Stuttgart/Leipzig, 1996.

2. Full references of works quoted in this review are available in previous standard commentaries and/or in S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides. Volume III : Books 5.25-8.109, Oxford, 2008.

3. Cf. E. Heitsch, Der Vertrag des Therimenes. Von den Schwierigkeiten einer Thukydides-Interpretation, Hermes, 134, 2006, p. 26-43.

4. "Ich denke, es war auch in den Augen des Historikers ein Unglück, dass zwischen ihm [Alcibiades] und den Oligarchen eine Verständigung, für die es in einem bestimmten Augenblick politische Möglichkeiten wohl gegeben hätte, nicht zustandegekommen, offenbar gar nicht versucht worden ist" (p. 173-174).

5. "Dass die Masse es hinterher besser weiss, ist eine bekannte Erscheinung". (read complete article)