2012.10.61

Martina Paul, Fibeln und Gürtelzubehör der späten römischen Kaiserzeit aus 'Augusta Vindelicum'/ Augsburg. Münchner Beiträge zur Provinzialrömischen Archäologie, 3. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2011. Pp. 182; 18 plates. ISBN 9783895007835. €38.00.

Reviewed by Maurizio Buora (mbuora@libero.it)

Version at BMCR home site

In tutto il Novecento, ma soprattutto partire dal classico lavoro di Erwin Keller, apparso nel 1971,¹ gli studiosi tedeschi non hanno cessato di occuparsi degli elementi metallici dell'abbigliamento e in particolare delle "Zwiebelknopffibeln" (d'ora in poi ZkF) sotto l'aspetto tipologico e cronologico. La città di Augsburg ha dato finora appena 44 ZkF e un'ottantina tra fibbie ed elementi di cintura. Non è moltissimo per quella che fu la capitale della Raetia secunda, se paragonato alle 49 ZkF rinvenute a Bregenz e alle almeno 200 rinvenute rispettivamente ad Aquileia e a Spalato. Martina Paul, allieva di Michael Mackensen che dirige la collana in cui appare quest'opera, ha saputo continuare con grande attenzione e notevole approfondimento l'analisi di questo materiale, presentato in ottimi disegni.

Il volume contiene il testo leggermente riveduto di una tesi magistrale discussa nel 2010 all'Università di Monaco. L'ampia analisi antiquaria considera dapprima e ZkF (pp. 34-55) e pochi altri tipi (Ringfibel, Armbrustspiralfibeln e Bügelknopffibeln), quindi gli elementi della cintura, in modo particolare le fibbie (pp. 60-83). Apprezzabili tabelle di sintesi permettono di avere sott'occhio gli elementi di datazione dei singoli oggetti o dati statistici. Tre approfondimenti sono dedicati alla scansione cronologica delle fibule e degli elementi di cintura (pp. 85-87) alla loro origine e diffusione (pp. 87-88), ai siti di rinvenimento nell'area urbana e infine alla presenza dei soldati in età tardoantica ad Augusta Vindelicum. Dopo il catalogo (pp. 105-115) figurano tre appendici, ovvero un elenco degli esemplari della forma di trapasso tra fibule a cerniera e ZkF del tipo Richborough, alle ZkF del tipo Keller/Pröttel 3 / 4 A-D e infine ad alcuni corredi. Chiude il volume una bibliografia di oltre 500 titoli.

Di grande interesse è l'ulteriore precisazione del tipo Richborough la cui prima individuazione si deve a Bayley e Butcher.² È possibile che futuri studi possano ampliare di molto la carta di distribuzione.

L'Autore si domanda (p. 85) come mai manchi qui qualunque esemplare di tipo 6: secondo le statistiche effettuate per la Raetia ce ne dovrebbero essere ad Augsburg almeno una o due, ma dobbiamo sottostare alla casualità dei rinvenimenti. La percentuale degli altri tipi corrisponde ai dati già noti altrove.

Una grande attenzione è dedicata all'analisi dei possibili rapporti tra gli elementi della divisa studiati e la presenza in città degli equites stablesiani, indicati anche nella Notitia dignitatum e ipotizzati in numero di circa 200. Come sempre è difficile raccordare i dati archeologici e quelli storici e Augsburg anche in questo caso non fa eccezione.

Le fibbie costituiscono in generale un materiale più volte studiato, in varie aree e sotto più punti di vista, ma difficilmente sono esse considerate come attendibili fossili guida. Qualche pezzo (es. E76) fu già preso in considerazione dal Keller.

Il volume viene ad arricchire non solo la bibliografia su Augsburg, già resa importante dagli studi di Bakker³ e di Ortisi,⁴ ma costituisce un punto di riferimento fondamentale per lo studio della tarda antichità nell'Europa continentale.

Lo studio è ottimo per la Germania, ovvero, come onestamente riconosce l'A. (p. 34), è valido all'interno di un panorama già ampiamente indagato; sembra che ora i tempi siano maturi per affrontare il problema della diffusione e degli eventuali caratteri regionali delle ZkF e di altri elementi dell'abbigliamento, dalla Britannia al Caucaso, alla luce dei rinvenimenti che progressivamente si vanno pubblicando.⁵

---

Notes:

1.   E. Keller, Die spätrömische Grabfunde in Südbayern, Münchn. Beitr. Vor-u. Frühgesch. 14, München 1971.
2.   J. Bayley, S. Butcher, Roman Brooches in Britain: A Technological and Typological Study based on the Richborough Collection, London 2004.
3.   La bibliografia elenca ben 40 contributi scritti da Bakker, da solo o con altri collaboratori, nell'arco di poco più di un ventennio a partire dal 1985.
4.   Il volume di S. Ortisi, Die Stadtmauer der raetischen Provinzhauptstadt Aelia Augusta-Augsburg. Die Ausgrabungen Lange Gasse 11, Auf dem Kreuz 58, Heilig-Kreuz-Str. 26 und 4, Augsburger Beitr. Arch. 2, Augsburg 2001, costituisce una sorta di premessa al presente studio.
5.   Per l'Oriente vanno ricordati almeno i fondamentali lavori di V. Soupault, Les éléments métalliques du costume masculin dans les provinces romaines de la Mer Noire IIIe- Ve s. ap. J.-C., BAR Int. Series 1167, Oxford 2003, e V. Soupault-Becquelin, "Fibules cruciformes en bronze provenant de Syrie et leurs parallèles dans la partie orientale de l'Empire" in M. Kazanski (ed.), Qal 'at Sem'an, volume IV: Rapport final, Fascicule 3: Les objects métalliques, Bibl. arch. et hist., T. 167, Beyrouth 2003, pp. 49-54.

2012.10.60

Eckart Olshausen, Vera Sauer (ed.), Die Schätze der Erde – Natürliche Ressourcen in der antiken Welt. Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 10, 2008. Geographica Historica, Bd. 28. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2012. Pp. 425. ISBN 9783515101431. €64.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Lukas Thommen, University of Zurich (Lukas.Thommen@access.uzh.ch)

Version at BMCR home site

Preview

Der jüngste Band des Stuttgarter Kolloquiums zur Historischen Geographie, der sich den natürlichen Ressourcen in der Antike widmet, ist gerade aus umwelthistorischer Sicht von besonderem Interesse. Die 24 Beiträge decken zwar völlig unterschiedliche Bereiche ab und haben divergierende Anliegen, sind aber in vieler Hinsicht eine Fundgrube, v.a. auch zu weniger aufgearbeiteten natürlichen Materialien und anderen Facetten der Umweltgeschichte. In der Einleitung wird offen dargelegt, dass das breite Spektrum gewollt ist und gar nicht speziell nach gemeinsamen Nennern gesucht wurde. Dennoch lassen sich verschiedene Beiträge bestimmten Sachthemen zuordnen, die auch über den Index zu erschliessen sind und Einblick in neue Forschungen geben. Insgesamt geht es um „Fragen des Vorkommens, der Gewinnung und Nutzung von Rohstoffen", um Technologisches, Organisatorisches, Handel, Eigentumsrechtliches und Wirtschaftliches, also um den Umgang mit Ressourcen, nicht zuletzt unter dem Stichwort der Nachhaltigkeit (p. 8).

Eine wichtige Grundlage dazu bildet der kurze Beitrag von Herbert Graßl (p. 137–141), der Belege zu der antiken Vorstellung vom Nachwachsen von Metallen und anderen Rohstoffen vereinigt. Auf diesen Sachverhalt verweist auch Ulrich Fellmeth im Zusammenhang mit den Silberminen von Laureion (p. 123), auf die er im Rahmen der natürlichen Ressourcen Athens eingeht (p. 119–125). Graßl hält zudem fest, dass mit der Zeit auch die Erschöpfung von Ressourcen festgestellt wurde, was im 3.Jh. n.Chr. zu einem Bewusstseinswandel geführt habe — ein Thema, zu dem man gerne Ausführlicheres erfahren würde. Peter Emberger rechnet in seinem Beitrag zur antiken Bodennutzung (p. 87–101), auf die in der Agrarliteratur immer wieder grosse Aufmerksamkeit verwendet wurde, durchaus mit „Nachhaltigkeit" (p. 100), freilich ohne dies mit dem Problem des Raubbaus aufzuwiegen.

Naturwissenschaftlich interessant ist der Beitrag von Svenja Brockmüller & a. zum Sund von Lefkada in Nordwestgriechenland (p. 49–66), in dem sowohl eine Hebung des Meeresspiegels als auch Verlandung im Zusammenhang mit Übernutzung der angrenzenden Landstriche festzustellen sind. Einen guten Überblick zu den Methoden der Vegetationsgeschichte bietet Ulrich Kull (p. 221–243), der darauf verweist, dass in der Antike kaum Holzwirtschaft, aber auch kein Kahlschlag betrieben wurde und erst späte Schäden seit dem 19.Jh. das karge Bild südlicher Landschaften prägen (p. 231. 233f.).

Unter den Beiträgen zu den Rohstoffen stechen zunächst diejenigen zu den Metallen hervor. Iris von Bredow befasst sich auf schwer verständliche Weise mit dem Transport von Metall bzw. metallenen Gegenständen im östlichen Mittelmeer, von dem die Griechen in früharchaischer Zeit ausgeschlossen gewesen sein sollen, während die Phöniker gerade auch Rohmaterial aus Südostkleinasien und Zypern verschifften (p. 37–48). Sven Günther (p. 143–154), Matthäus Heil (p. 155–173) und Alfred M. Hirt (p. 193–203) wenden sich in ihren Artikeln der Organisation des Bergbaus zu, den die Römer in der Regel verpachteten und im Falle von Vipasca (Lusitanien) von den Erträgen 50% an Abgaben erwarteten (p. 147f.). Ein ausführlicher Beitrag von Denis Morin und Adonis Photiades (p. 281–335) beschäftigt sich eingehend mit der Geologie von Laureion und der beachtlichen antiken Ingenieurstechnik in den neu erforschten Tiefenschächten, die auch im Bildmaterial auf der dem Band beigelegten DVD reichhaltig dokumentiert sind. Die Beiträge von Josef Fischer (p. 127–135) und Hans-Peter Kuhnen (p. 205–219) befassen sich mit Metallabbaugebieten nördlich der Alpen und stellen diese mit der Besiedlungsgeschichte in Zusammenhang, während Peter Rothenhöfer und Micheal Bode (p. 345–360) sich zu Herkunft und Verteilung von Blei in Germanien Gedanken machen. Verdienstvoll ist der Aufsatz von Johannes Engels (p. 103–118) zu den in der Literatur meist übergangenen fossilen Werkstoffen (Asphalt, Pech, Teer etc.), die vielfältige Anwendungsbereiche kannten. Wichtig ist auch Peter Herz' Abhandlung zu den Gerb- und Färbstoffen (v.a. Alaun), die in der Antike ebenfalls in grossen Mengen benötigt wurden (p. 175–191). Eine gute Einführung zur Gewinnung und Verwendung von Salz bietet schliesslich Isabella Tsigarida (p. 377–396).

Erfreulich ist die internationale Zusammensetzung der Autorschaft, wobei die fremdsprachigen bzw. übersetzten Beiträge allerdings auch sprachliche Probleme mit sich bringen. Ivan A. Ladynin setzt die im Bosporanischen Reich gefundenen ptolemäischen Fingerringe zu dem Getreideexport in Beziehung (p. 245–260). Anna Maria Seminara beschäftigt sich mit Olivenöl in Linear B-Täfelchen (p. 361–376), dessen Einsatz als Zahlungsmittel freilich erhebliche Deutungsprobleme aufwirft.

Nach dem reichen Spektrum wissenschaftlicher Beiträge zu natürlichen Ressourcen endet der Band mit einem durchaus gedankenreichen und anregenden Festvortrag des Ökonomen Siegfried F. Franke (p. 397–415), der bei dem Historiker allerdings auch einen schalen „neoliberalen" Beigeschmack hinterlässt. Die Rede zieht in Anlehnung an einen Artikel von Christian Bartsch in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung vom 27.3.2007 (elektronische Version 3.4.2007) wenig differenziert über die Arbeit und Bedeutung des Weltklimarates IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) her. Es ist zwar durchaus berechtigt, auf fehlerhafte Zukunftsprognosen und den teilweise religiös anmutenden Nimbus von Umweltberichten sowie deren politische Instrumentalisierung hinzuweisen, doch führt die geforderte Deregulierung etwa der Gentechnik nicht selbstredend zu einem besseren Umgang mit den Ressourcen und mehr Wohlstand. Historiker und Ökonomen können sich kaum aus der Verantwortung beim Klimawandel ziehen, indem der diesbezügliche Anteil des Menschen für unerheblich erklärt wird. Wir bleiben als Zeitgenossen weiterhin gefordert, auch mit Erkenntnissen aus der Vergangenheit zu einem reflektierten Verhalten in der Gegenwart beizutragen und dafür lassen sich in diesem Band viele wertvolle Informationen finden.

2012.10.59

Rosario P.A. Patané, Impero di Roma e passato troiano nella società del II secolo. Il punto di vista di una famiglia di Centuripe. Quaderni del Museo civico lanuvino 3. Roma: Aracne, 2011. Pp. 189. ISBN 9788854840652. €13,00.

Reviewed by Giacomo Biondi, Istituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monumentali, Catania (g.biondi@ibam.cnr.it)

Version at BMCR home site

Il volume nasce sulla scia di recenti studi sull'uso di arte e memoria nell'età della Seconda Sofistica e, in particolare, sul significato politico-culturale degli interventi di evergetismo nella creazione di spazi urbani commemorativi del passato all'interno di grandi città di cultura greca. È dedicato alla ricomposizione e contestualizzazione storico- culturale di un ciclo statuario marmoreo, che uno dei consoli del 149 d.C., Sosio Prisco, avrebbe dedicato in un luogo pubblico di Centuripe, una città dell'entroterra siciliano, della quale la famiglia del console sarebbe stata originaria. Il ciclo scultoreo avrebbe compreso esponenti della dinastia giulio-claudia, un eroe locale, Lanoios, e i ritratti di membri della facoltosa famiglia del dedicante, i Pompeii Falcones (PIR² VI, 1998, Stemma 29). Nonostante l'assenza di figure della casa regnante, il monumento sarebbe stato "un chiaro esempio di propaganda con richiamo alla storia mitica della città e al rapporto della famiglia del committente con Roma e con l'imperatore" (28). Il "passato troiano", cui si allude nel titolo, sarebbe stato rievocato dagli esponenti della gens Iulia e da Lanoios, "centuripino approdato nel Lazio al seguito di Enea" (69) e mitico fondatore eponimo di Lanuvio, una città del Lazio, alla quale Centuripe era legata da un rapporto di cognatio documentato da un'epigrafe tardo- ellenistica.

La città siciliana è annoverata da Plinio tra le comunità Latinae condicionis. In età imperiale, si arricchì di vari monumenti in opera cementizia, pubblici e privati, che hanno fatto pensare e interventi finanziari imperiali e all'esistenza di un'agiata "borghesia" locale.

Il contesto di rinvenimento delle sculture facenti parte, secondo l'Autore, di un unico gruppo è quella che ormai, nella letteratura archeologica, viene definita come "area presso l'ex Mulino Barbagallo", nella vallata orientale della collina di Centuripe. Qui, dopo rinvenimenti fortuiti e scavi clandestini, all'inizio degli anni '50, furono avviati scavi di recupero che portarono in luce un articolato complesso architettonico, con almeno tre fasi costruttive medio- imperiali. Sulla base di un'iscrizione menzionante un sacerdote augustale, fu naturale supporre che uno degli ambienti messi in luce potesse essere sede di un collegio di Augustales e che nei pressi potesse sorgere il foro. Si è, infine, ipotizzato che tutto il complesso potesse essere parte del foro,¹ ipotesi, questa, accettata ed elaborata dal Patané.

Il gruppo, al di là della sua composizione, è datato tra il 128, l'anno di una probabile visita di Adriano a Centuripe, e il 149 d.C., l'anno del consolato del dedicante (28). Arco temporale, questo, che va senz'altro ristretto, perché Sosio Prisco, morto all'età di sessantadue anni nel 180 d.C.,² nel 128 avrebbe avuto solo una decina d'anni.

La rilettura del complesso architettonico, con cui si apre il primo capitolo, è utile, purché si tenga presente che è basata su resti profondamente danneggiati dal tempo e dai vandali nei sessant'anni intercorsi dallo scavo. Va precisato che il mosaico all'interno di un distinto corpo di fabbrica al margine sud dell'area, con l'eccezione del primo editore che lo ritenne di età antonina, non è mai "stato datato all'epoca di Adriano o degli Antonini", come crede il Patanè (41). Esso, saldamente collocabile tra il tardo II e gli inizi del III sec. d.C., data anzi l'ultima fase costruttiva medio-imperiale, a cui appartiene il corpo di fabbrica che lo ospita. Né, in assenza di nuovi lavori, c'è motivo di sospettare che tale struttura possa appartenere ad una fase anteriore (43-44). Le partizioni ricavate in epoca tarda all'interno di uno degli ambienti di età medio-imperiale, inoltre, dal momento che non presentano il fondo impermeabilizzato né un bordo superiore, non possono essere lette come vasche (39). Né si capisce che ruolo avrebbero potuto avere delle vasche all'interno di un impianto per la produzione di calce, di cui, in base a tracce di bruciato nel terreno e di fuoco su qualche scultura, prima si congettura (40) e poi si dà per certa l'esistenza (48). In assenza di un forno o di chiari indizi della sua esistenza, è arbitrario supporre che i marmi rinvenuti in zona si trovassero lì per essere calcinati (40, 49). Poco convincente, infine, mi sembra il riconoscimento del pavimento del foro di età repubblicana in un piano acciottolato emerso in un saggio del 1987, presso l'area scavata negli anni '50; l'identificazione di un settore così importante si basa solo sulla presenza di un frammento di capitello con tracce di riutilizzo e di uno di mattone sagomato, trovati sull'acciottolato, e sul rinvenimento, avvenuto in passato nei dintorni, di due epigrafi di carattere pubblico (31-33).

Di nessuno dei marmi, quasi tutti recuperati in seguito a ritrovamenti fortuiti o a scavi clandestini condotti per cunicoli, si conosce la posizione stratigrafica. Non è detto, quindi, che le sculture, frammentarie, lì rinvenute facessero parte di un unico ciclo. La testa del presunto Lanoios, anzi, sembra testimoniare il contrario. A differenza delle altre sculture, infatti, non fu trovata in corrispondenza di uno degli ambienti medio-imperiali, ma "sul muro" perimetrale di uno di questi.³ Tenuto conto dell'accentuato scoscendimento della zona, quindi, è legittimo supporre che la suddetta testa sia rotolata dalla zona a monte del complesso medio-imperiale, a cui questa e le altre sculture si vorrebbero rapportare, solo dopo l'abbandono e il successivo interro delle strutture. Nel ricomporre il gruppo scultoreo, all'interno del quale vengono inclusi cinque ritratti di non sicura provenienza dall'area dell'ex mulino, nei singoli pezzi sono ravvisati dei tratti di omogeneità "con caratteristiche che si ripetono costantemente, a partire dal marmo: sempre lo stesso", ma, come si asserisce in nota, solo "ad un primo esame" e in assenza di un'indagine di laboratorio sui marmi, "che sarebbe opportuna" (48). I ritratti, in genere attribuiti al I sec. d.C., vengono ora datati al II. Al di là della validità di una tale datazione, un elemento importante, che confligge con la loro asserita omogeneità, è che l'unico ritratto del gruppo attribuibile con sicurezza al II sec. d.C. grazie alla tipica acconciatura traianea, a differenza di tutti gli altri, ha iride e pupilla incise. Non ci sono immagini, inoltre, che consentano di constatare l'asserita analogia, nella resa delle ciocche dietro l'orecchio destro, tra il suddetto ritratto e quelli dei personaggi giulio-claudi (57, 60). La levigatezza di una testa di Augusto, infine, considerata uno stilema di età adrianea (57), è in realtà – come testimonia il primo editore, che a quattro giorni dal rinvenimento ne vide la "la bella e calda patina", poi scomparsa – un effetto dell'energico e paventato intervento di improvvisati restauratori.⁴ . Non mi sembra provato, in definitiva, che i ritratti dei membri della famiglia giulio-claudia facessero parte del gruppo che avrebbe dedicato Sosio Prisco.

A tale gruppo, in realtà, si possono riferire solo due epigrafi con dediche del console del 149 d.C: una alla nonna paterna, Clodia Falconilla, e una allo zio paterno, Pompeo Prisco. Non c'è alcuna prova della dedica di altre statue da parte dello stesso personaggio. È inesatto, pertanto, affermare che "dalle iscrizioni sappiamo che devono esserci due fratelli" (72) tra i componenti del presunto ciclo scultoreo, vale a dire il padre, Pompeo Falcone, oltre allo zio del dedicante. Quella di una terza pietra con dedica a Pompeo Falcone è una lontana ipotesi, prospettata nel caso in cui un frammento, ora tra l'altro ricomposto nella lastra menzionante la dedica allo zio paterno, esposta nel Museo di Centuripe, non fosse stato pertinente a quest'ultima.⁵ Mancano, di conseguenza, i presupposti per cercare tra i marmi dell'ex Mulino Barbagallo il ritratto di Pompeo Falcone, riconosciuto, invece, nella citata testa con acconciatura traianea, dal volto lacunoso (72-73). Decadono anche le attribuzioni a Clodia Falconilla e a Pompeo Prisco di una testa di dama con tipica acconciatura flavia, dal volto molto consunto, e di una testa maschile stilisticamente appartenente al I sec. d.C., perché proposte solo in base ad una presunta somiglianza fisionomica con il precedente ritratto (72-75). Tanto più che non è certa la provenienza delle due teste dall'area dell'ex mulino.

La presenza di statue di privati, i Pompeii Falcones, in un luogo pubblico, presuppone che anche il complesso architettonico che avrebbe accolto il monumento scultoreo, le terme (49) o il presunto foro (80), fosse frutto dell'evergetismo del dedicante o di altri esponenti della gens Pompeia (70-72). Non c'è, però, nessuna testimonianza certa al riguardo. La sola iscrizione, molto frammentaria, che citi un non meglio definito Pompeo, al genitivo (47), unico termine integrabile dell'epigrafe, non può, infatti, far "nascere il sospetto che un Pompeius sia l'evergete cui si deve la costruzione di qualcuno degli edifici" dell'area dell'ex mulino, dove è stata rinvenuta. E, a maggior ragione, non può portare a dedurre, tout court, un "atto di evergetismo di questo tipo, con la costruzione di edifici di questa portata" (68).

La parte conclusiva del primo capitolo è dedicata al messaggio politico-propagandistico che il console del 149 d.C. avrebbe voluto esprimere con il suo atto di evergetismo. Tale messaggio sarebbe passato attraverso la rievocazione della saga di Enea e della cognatio tra Centuripe e Lanuvio, richiamata dall'eroe Lanoios. Nello stesso tempo, le statue dei familiari di Sosio Prisco avrebbero ricordato i ruoli da questi ricoperti "ai massimi livelli nell'amministrazione dell'impero" (81). La presenza dell'eroe locale nel gruppo scultoreo, però, non è sorretta da alcuna evidenza epigrafica né da altri indizi oggettivi. L'assegnazione a Lanoios di una testa precedentemente attribuita ad un principe della dinastia giulio-claudia si fonda solo sul confronto tipologico con una testa di Perge assegnata ad un altro, omologo, eroe fondatore (83-84). Né la nonna né lo zio del dedicante, inoltre, i soli personaggi documentati con sicurezza nelle epigrafi, occuparono alcuna carica amministrativa. Tutto fa pensare, in realtà, come suppose già W. Eck, ad una dedica avvenuta all'interno di un contesto privato.⁶

In mancanza di epigrafi o di altri dati che documentino con sicurezza il finanziamento di alcun edificio da parte dei Pompeii, la proposta di assegnazione dei monumenti di Centuripe databili tra il II e gli inizi del III sec. d.C. all'evergetismo della gens Pompeia o, più specificamente, dei Pompeii Falcones, avanzata nel secondo e ultimo capitolo (95-111), si basa, in sostanza, sull'idea che tali monumenti non possono non essere frutto dell'opera della facoltosa famiglia, essendo questa di origini locali. Va tenuto presente, però, che anche le ipotesi di un'origine centuripina o genericamente siciliana dei Pompeii Falcones, prospettate agli inizi degli anni '90,⁷ sono state messe in dubbio qualche anno dopo e che, in un recente lavoro sul nipote di Sosio Prisco, console nel 193 d.C., sono del tutto ignorate.⁸

L'idea dell'operato su vasta scala della ricca famiglia senatoria a Centuripe e le conseguenti implicazioni politico- propagandistiche rimangono, in definitiva, suggestive ipotesi in attesa di validi riscontri. Di ciò, onde evitare la loro diffusione come comprovati fenomeni storici, è bene sia consapevole chi si accosta al volume senza una conoscenza pregressa dei temi trattati. Per il resto, il lavoro è utile per la disamina di alcuni monumenti medio-imperiali di Centuripe e, soprattutto, per la collocazione cartografica di questi nel moderno tessuto urbano e per la ricomposizione della testa del presunto Pompeo Falcone su una statua di togato.

---

Notes:

1.   R.J.A. Wilson, Sicily Under the Roman Empire, Warminster 1990, 113.
2.   Cfr.: H. Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berolini 1892, n. 1106.
3.   G. Libertini, 'Centuripe. Nuove indagini sulle costruzioni presso il Mulino Barbagallo. Campagna di scavo 1950- 1951', in Notizie degli scavi di antichità , 1953, 358.
4.   P. Griffo, Nuova testa di Augusto e altre scoperte di epoca romana fatte a Centuripe, Agrigento 1949, 9.
5.   W. Eck, 'Senatorische Familien der Kaiserzeit in der Provinz Sizilien', in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 1996, 116-117.
6.   Eck, cit., 121-122.
7.   Rispettivamente: Eck 1996, cit.; O. Salomies, Adoptive and Polynymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire, Helsinki 1992, 123-125.
8.   Rispettivamente: C. Marek, 'Ein neues Zeugnis aus Kaunos für den Senator Pompeius Falco', in Museum Helveticum, 2000, 90; D. Okoń, 'Der Konsul Q. Pompeius Sosius Falco -- Ein Nachfolger von Kommodus?', in Eos, 2008, 109-113.

2012.10.58

Laura Gawlinski (ed.), The Sacred Law of Andania: a New Text with Commentary. Sozomena, 11. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2012. Pp. xi, 285. ISBN 9783110267570. $154.00.

Reviewed by Hugh Bowden, King's College London (hugh.bowden@kcl.ac.uk)

Version at BMCR home site

Table of Contents

The Mysteries of the Great Gods of Andania are one of the better documented mystery cults in the Greek world, leaving aside the Eleusinian Mysteries. Pausanias has a number of things to say about the cult in his book on Messenia (esp. 4.26.6-8, 33.4-5), and an inscription relating to the first celebration (or the restoration) of the festival, discovered in 1858, survives, cut in two and built into the doorway of the church in Konstantinoi in Messenia, where the front face is still easily readable. The text has been republished many times since the initial discovery, as Gawlinski outlines in the introduction to the text and translation (pp. 61-2), and a complete translation is included in Marvin Meyer's sourcebook (preview online).¹ The inscription, which is probably part of a longer original text, gives detailed instructions about the organization of the festival, including oath-taking, the order of the procession, the provision of camping facilities, the financing and provision of sacrificial victims, and other practicalities. Inevitably it reveals nothing about the performance of the mysteries themselves, beyond requiring silence from the participants in the festival who are not being initiated while the rites take place somewhere out of sight.

Laura Gawlinski's contribution to the scholarship on the inscription and the mysteries is an excellent new edition of the text, based on careful autopsy as well as previous editions, and following current epigraphic conventions, accompanied by parallel translation and followed by a detailed commentary.

The first chapter addresses 'The Text and its Context' (pp. 1-32). The usual date for the inscription is 91 BC (year 55 of the Achaean era), but Petros Themelis has argued that it should be redated to AD 24 (year 55 of the Aktian era). ² Gawlinski offers a full and balanced discussion of the competing proposals, concluding that she is 'not fully persuaded' by Themelis' arguments (pp. 3-11). On the other major matter of debate, whether the inscription marks the creation of a new festival or the revival of an existing one, she comes down firmly in favour of the latter point of view (pp. 12-16).

The second chapter (pp. 33-59) discusses the topography of the sanctuary as described in the inscription, and of the area near Konstantinoi, where the festival is presumed to have taken place, and its relationship to the city of Messene. This includes a careful analysis of Pausanias' account of his travels in the area, which benefits from Gawlinski's own exploration of the area on foot.

Text and translation come in Chapter Three. The text itself is presented on left-hand pages, with a full critical apparatus below, and a detailed epigraphic description below that. Since the stone is fairly well preserved, the final text is not significantly different from earlier editions, although Gawlinski offers a new and preferable restoration for the second part of line 55 (lost when the stone was cut in half) that makes more sense of the funding arrangements. She also restores the word μέρη in a space at the start of 96. The differences between Gawlinski's text and that printed by Nadine Deshours, in the most recent monograph on the Andanian mysteries,³ have no implications for the interpretation of the inscription, but Gawlinski's edition is now clearly to be preferred to all its predecessors.

The facing translation keeps closely to the text but is very clear. Words for which there is no clear English equivalent are generally transliterated, and then given a full discussion in the commentary. Meyer, who did not have the luxury of providing detailed notes, let alone a commentary, offers translations which do not always enlighten ('Egyptian tunic' is not a great improvement on kalasiris), but sometimes might seem preferable. In line 29, describing the order of the procession at the festival, Meyer has '... then the director of the games, the priests of the sacrifices, and the flute players'; Gawlinski offers us '... then the agonothetes, the hierothytai, and the auletai'. She does explain the meaning of the first two terms in the commentary (pp. 138-9), but the discussion of οἱ αὐληταί would leave those unfamiliar with the word no clearer about what these 'players' played. For the intended readership of this volume however, this is probably not important.

Chapter Four (pp. 97-246) is the commentary. Obscure words are helpfully discussed. Since the inscription has detailed regulations about women's dress, the commentary is an excellent place to go for cosmetic vocabulary. On p. 127, for example, Gawlinski discusses φῦκος ('a rouge made from seaweed') ψιμίθιον ('a white, lead-based make- up') and ἀνάδεμα ('a ribbon-like band used to tie up the hair') with references to (mainly classical) texts. Not all the problems of what the terms might mean are resolvable, and Gawlinski indicates clearly the limits of current knowledge. When it comes to discussing ritual, there are frequent references to parallels, most often drawn from Sokolowski's volumes of Leges Sacrae and Clinton's edition of Eleusinian inscriptions. The bibliography on which the discussion is based is up-to-date, with several items dating from 2010 and at least one from 2011.

The commentary is followed a by a one-page appendix giving the text of Syll.³ 735, which includes an oracle about the Mysteries requested by Mnasistratos. Unfortunately, the text in line 17 is a mess.

There are three indexes. Somewhat confusingly, and without indication, the first of these, the Index Verborum, gives references to the lines of the inscription, while the other two, Ancient Sources and the rather brief General Index, refer to page numbers. It is not a bad idea to do this with an Index Verborum since it allows quick access to the relevant places in the commentary as well as the text, but it has its downside. References in the text to protomustai play a role in the discussion of the nature of the document in Chapter One, but there is no way to use the index to find one's way to this discussion. And at the very least, if neighbouring indexes are using different referencing systems, the reader deserves to be told.

Inevitably not everything in Gawlinski's text will convince every scholar. Since they first became the subject of serious academic study a bit more than a century ago, 'mystery cults' have tended to attract more than their fair share of speculation, and hypotheses for which there is relatively little firm evidence have sometimes been accepted as hard fact. One looks to commentaries on texts to anchor discussion firmly to what can be said with confidence. In general this volume does this task well, but there are places where it might be seen to be extending speculation rather than resolving it. For example the inscription calls for the supply of three piglets, 'when one purifies in the theatre' (l. 68). Gawlinski comments (p. 169), 'the involvement of a theatral space in a purification calls to mind thronosis ... This was used as a preliminary purification (myesis) in the Samothracian Mysteries.' The latter claim is backed up by a reference to Kevin Clinton's discussion of myesis at Eleusis and Samothrace,⁴ with a note that Clinton 'tentatively suggests the circular Theatral Area ... as a possible location for the rite at Samothrace'. But Clinton is only repeating a hypothesis of A.D. Nock, based on a references in Plato to thronosis in the cult of the Corybants in Athens, and a passage of Strabo (10.3.19) that connects the Corybantes with the Kabeiroi and the Kabeiroi with Samothrace (elsewhere Strabo is scathing about those who make such confident connections: Strab. 7 fr. 50): there is no actual evidence for thronosis at Samothrace, and therefore no basis for drawing parallels between the Samothracian Theatral Area (not, it should be noted, the actual theatre in the Samothracian sanctuary) and the theatre (of uncertain location) mentioned in the inscription.

A more fundamental issue relates to the identity of the Great Gods and of 'the gods for whom the Mysteries are celebrated' (so described in ll. 2-3 and 28-9). Gawlinski has a discussion of 'deities' in the first chapter (pp. 17-22), where she presents 'the prevailing trend', which follows Pausanias in seeing the mysteries as belonging to Demeter and Kore, and 'recent scholarship', which emphasizes the role of the Great Gods themselves. She notes that the masculine form τοὺς θεούς can refer to a group of mixed gender, and therefore suggests that 'the gods for whom the Mysteries are celebrated' could have included goddesses, and in particular Demeter. As for the Great Gods themselves, she states after a brief discussion (p. 21) that 'The Great Gods should be identified as the Dioskouroi, perhaps as a result of syncretism between two separate cults'. Line 24 refers to women who are to be dressed εἰς θεῶν διάθεσιν. The word θεῶν here is usually translated as 'gods' (thus Meyer; Deshours translates it 'dieux'), but Gawlinski argues that since the people dressing up are women, the word should be understood as 'goddesses', and that it refers to Demeter and Kore, even though Kore is never mentioned in the inscription. Neither in the discussion of 'deities' nor in the translation or commentary does she refer to the more usual translation. The whole discussion assumes that phrases like 'Great Gods' or 'the gods for whom the Mysteries are celebrated' were simply convenient ways of referring to groups of gods whose identity was otherwise known. This seems a questionable assumption, especially in mysteries, where the opportunity to discuss any aspects of cult was restricted. The worshipers at Andania may simply not have known who the gods were to whom they were offering cult.

The issues are important for making sense of Greek religion, but they are only a small part of what is in the inscription. It is unlikely that there will ever be scholarly agreement about the precise nature of the Andanian Mysteries, but from now on the debate will be grounded in a fully reliable text, and a commentary that puts it into its widest context.

---

Notes:

1.   Marvin W. Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook: Sacred Texts of the Mystery Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean World, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999, 49-59.
2.   Petros Themelis, 'Τα Κάρνεια καὶ ἠ Ἀνδανία' in E. Simantoni-Bournia et al. (edd.) Ἀμύμονα ἔργα. Τιμητικὸς τόμος γιὰ τὸν καθηγητὴ Βασιλη Κ.Λαμπρινουδάκη, Athens, 2007, 509-28.
3.   Nadine Deshours, Les mystères d'Andania: Étude d'épigraphie et d'histoire religieuse, Paris: De Boccard, 2006.
4.   Kevin Clinton, 'Stages of initiation in the Eleusinian and Samothracian mysteries', in Michael B. Cosmopoulos, M.B. (ed.), Greek mysteries: the archaeology and ritual of ancient Greek secret cults, London and New York: Routledge, 50-78.

2012.10.57

Amanda Wrigley (ed.), Translation, Performance, and Reception of Greek Drama, 1900-1960: International Dialogues. Comparative drama, Special double issue, Vol. 44.4, Winter 2010; Vol. 45.1, Spring 2011. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 2011. Pp. 182. ISBN 00104078.

Reviewed by Geraldine O'Neill, The Open University (g.oneill@open.ac.uk)

Version at BMCR home site

[The Table of Contents follows this review.]

This special double issue of Comparative Drama contains a collection of essays from new and established scholars on ancient Greek drama.. In her introduction, Amanda Wrigley, guest editor, comments on the particular focus of the essays and common themes that are discussed. She then gives a useful synopsis of each essay. This is followed by brief comments on the Research Notes section that indicate areas that, she suggests, warrant further treatment. She concludes with comments on the Afterword by Lorna Hardwick and some thoughts on the collection's place in the established literature on this topic.

The first essay begins, appropriately, in Greece itself. Eleftheria Ioannidou considers the politics at play in performances of Greek drama in ancient theatre spaces in Greece during the twentieth century. At the heart of her argument is Michel Foucault's concept of heterotopia, that is, "geographical as much as ideological places, which, unlike utopias, organize the community's imaginings around an existing site". She focuses on the emergence of the ancient theatre of Epidaurus as the "sacred" theatre used, almost exclusively, for productions of Greek drama. She identifies three phases in the use of ancient theatres in modern Greece: first, the newly excavated theatre of Dionysus in the late nineteenth-century symbolised the resurrected Greece; second, the excavations of ancient theatres in the first half of the twentieth century led to an interest in founding drama festivals; but the crucial step came in the postwar period with the establishment of the Epidaurus Festival. Throughout her essay runs the idea that performance in ancient Greek theatres provides an unbroken link with an ancient national heritage.

In the second essay Debra Caplan presents an interesting study of adaptations of Greek tragedy—in particular, plays with a maternal figure—for the modern Yiddish stage. First, she gives an account of the antipathy which Jewish teachers felt towards Greek culture, believing it to be fundamentally opposed to their moral values and religious practice. The Greek theatre was viewed as another manifestation of Greek culture and, therefore, was forbidden by the Rabbinic authorities. However, early in the nineteenth century, followers of the Jewish Enlightenment tried to introduce European-style drama (although specifically not Greek drama) into Jewish literature. Writers came to adapt European classics for the Yiddish stage and in 1897, in New York, Jacob Gordin published a version of Medea which proved to be very successful. For several decades after this, adaptations of Greek drama became a feature of the Yiddish stage. A character as challenging as Medea is to the idealised Yiddisher Momma had to be substantially revised. For example, Jacob Gordin portrays Medea as driven to insanity by her children's adoration of their new stepmother. However, after Medea kills them, there is no triumph on her part. She is haunted by her actions. In Z. Libin's play Henele, or the Jewish Medea, Henele commits suicide after she kills her daughter. She cannot live with the knowledge of what she has done.. In 1935 writer Mendl Elkin adapted Oedipus into Yiddish, again substantially adapting the character of Jocasta. It too was published with great success. Debra Caplan ends with a summary of the fundamental tensions that existed between Jewish culture and the Hebrew Bible on one hand and Greek tragedy on the other.

In the third essay Simon Perris considers Gilbert Murray's translation of Euripides' Trojan Women(1905). He explains how it came to be perceived as the archetypal antiwar play after Gilbert Murray (who was the first scholar to do this) had identified the play with the sack of Melos by Athens during the Peloponnesian War. Simon Perris is chiefly concerned with detecting in the translation many of the "causes" with which Murray was associated in his lifetime: war, peace and internationalism. He describes the fluctuation in the play's reception depending on the political situation of the country in which the play was performed. For example, the pacifist tone of the play did not go down well during a tour of the United States in 1915. However, in 1919 a postwar production of Trojan Women in support of the League of Nations, in Oxford and later in London, drew a different response: people in the audiences could identify with the wartime sufferings of the women. Over and above this, Simon Perris comments on the quality and style of the translation itself. He quotes actress Sibyl Thorndike who referred to the "deeply moving music of Murray's verse".

Essay number four by Niall W. Slater is also concerned with the translations of Gilbert Murray to some degree. Principally, it discusses how Harley Granville Barker, theatre director and playwright, along with his actress wife, Lillah McCarthy, toured the northeast coast of America with two of Murray's translations, Trojan Women and Iphigenia in Tauris. He explains how Granville Barker claimed to have been inspired to stage outdoor productions of Greek tragedy: having seen the ancient theatre at Syracuse in Sicily and then the Yale Bowl in America, he believed that outdoor stadia replicated the performance conditions of the ancient Greek theatre. Consequently, he organised a tour of five universities along the northeast coast of America with the intention of staging his productions in their sports stadia. The focus is primarily on the production of Iphigenia in Tauris, on its staging and costumes. But he also comments on the use of outdoor venues and, using reviews of the time, speculates as to who actually attended these productions.

Trojan Women comes to the fore again in Robert Davis' essay. On this occasion it has been renamed Trojan Incident as a production of the Federal Theatre Project under its director, Hallie Flanagan, in 1938. The rather comical title of this essay "Is Mr. Euripides a Communist?" belies a sinister interrogation of Hallie Flanagan by the House Special Committee on Un-American Activities in December 1938. The Federal Theatre Project came into being as part of Roosevelt's New Deal, mainly to provide work relief in the short term. But the long-term goal was to establish "theatres so vital to community life that they will continue to function after the program of the Federal Project is completed". Trojan Incident was the first Greek tragedy to be produced under the new project. Hallie Flanagan was inspired by a visit to Greece with her husband, Philip H. Davis, a Vassar professor of Greek. It was Davis who wrote the play, which was set in a distinctly modern world: all references to classical figures and place- names, except for Greece and Troy, were removed. For its time, the play was very innovative in making the text relevant to contemporary crises, such as Fascism in Italy and Germany, Franco's Spain, and the bombing of Guernica. Robert Davis gives an enthralling account of the play and its reception and the fate of the Federal Theatre Project.

Betine Van Zyl Smit's essay deals with the use of the theatre in the construction and development of national and community identities, in this case, the Afrikaner identity in South Africa. She focuses on translations and productions of Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus. She describes the recognition of Afrikaans as an official language in 1925 and how this inspired Afrikaans poets, authors and playwrights not only to create new works, but also to translate into Afrikaans the great works of world literature, such as Greek and Latin classics. She then describes three landmark Afrikaans translations and performances of Oedipus in 1927, 1938 and 1955, including details of the translators as well as relevant historical information. There are also interesting references to two South African actors, the veteran actor André Huguenet and the young Athol Fugard. The links between the development of an Afrikaans theatre and a national identity recall the subject matter of the first essay in this collection: the use of ancient theatres in modern Greece to reaffirm a national identity and heritage.

Essay number seven by Gonda Van Steen is a fascinating account of how opposing political ideologies used the same line of poetry for political propaganda. The line of verse is from Aeschylus' tragedy Persians (405) "Now the struggle is for all", which the Persian Messenger says that the Greeks shouted before they faced the Persian forces at the battle of Salamis in 480 BCE. On 28 October 1941 BBC radio broadcast a play by Louis MacNeice entitled "The Glory That Is Greece" which celebrated Greek dictator Ioannis Metaxas' rebuff to the ultimatum for passage, followed by the Fascist Italian invasion of Greece. In the play there is a very clear analogy between the Fascist Italian invaders as the Persians of old against the resurgent Greek army of the day, coupled with civilian resistance representing the fifth-century Greek forces. However, just five years later, there was a completely different interpretation of the same line of verse by the Greek Right when they used a production of this tragedy by the Greek National Theatre to celebrate the same anniversary. Against the background of the Civil War, the production was used to renew patriotic fervour against Communist forces, Greek and non-Greek alike. "The struggle is for all" became the slogan for anticommunist propaganda, a clear case of cynical manipulation of a line of verse.

The final essay by Michael Simpson discusses T. S. Eliot's play The Elder Statesman(1958) and how the writer draws on Sophocles' Theban plays, Oedipus The King, Oedipus at Colonus, and Antigone. He portrays this particular work of Eliot's as a reaction to the contemporary theatre represented by John Osborne's Look Back in Anger(1956) and Berthold Brecht's Berliner Ensemble in Britain also in 1956. The essay is an intricate analysis of Eliot's play. Not only does he detect inspiration from Sophocles' Theban plays but he also draws parallels between the main character and the figure of Anthony Eden, recently retired Prime Minister against the background of the Suez Crisis.

In Research Notes, Michele Valerie Ronnick details how William Sanders Scarborough, a former slave and first African-American classicist, provides the only eyewitness account of a screening of a film of The Oresteia at Cambridge University in 1921. Giulia Torello presents a study of Alberto Savinio's Alcesti di Samuele(1949) and his use of Euripides' Alcestis to reflect the war against totalitarianism. Claire Warden discusses how Ewan MacColl adapted Aristophanes'Lysistrata as a tragicomedy,Operation Olive Branch (1947), for the highly influential Theatre Workshop. C.W. Marshall highlights two translations of Aristophanes, Frogs (1957) and Birds(1959), into the Scottish language by Douglas Young and their reception.

Lorna Hardwick in the afterword places this collection within modern scholarship. She identifies problems facing researchers in this field. She also comments on the struggle for "ownership" and how ancient drama texts have become "icons of struggle, used both to legitimize and to subvert".

In conclusion: for devotees of ancient drama, this book is a veritable treasure trove to explore, to learn from and to enjoy. It fully lives up to Comparative Drama's claim to encourage "studies that are international in spirit and interdisciplinary in scope". It also confirms the universal and timeless appeal of Greek tragedy.

List of Contents

Greek Drama in the First Six Decades of the Twentieth Century: Tradition, Identity, Migration, Amanda Wrigley, Guest Editor, 371
Toward a National Heterotopia: Ancient Theaters and the Cultural Politics of Performing Ancient Drama in Modern Greece, Eleftheria Ioannidou, 385
Oedipus, Shmedipus: Ancient Greek Drama on the Modern Yiddish Stage, Debra Caplan, 405
"The Kingdom of Heaven within Us": Inner (World) Peace in Gilbert Murray's Trojan Women, Simon Perris, 423
Touring the Ivies with Iphigenia, 1915, Niall W. Slater, 441
Is Mr. Euripides a Communist? The Federal Theatre Project's 1938 Trojan Incident, Robert Davis, 457
Oedipus and Afrikaans Theater, Betine Van Zyl Smit, 477
"Now the struggle is for all" (Aeschylus's Persians 405): What a Difference a Few Years Make When Interpreting a Classic, Gonda Van Steen, 495
Oedipus, Suez, and Hungary: T. S. Eliot's Tradition and The Elder Statesman, Michael Simpson, 509
Michele Valerie Ronnick: African-American Classicist William Sanders Scarborough and the 1921 Film of the Oresteia at Cambridge University, 531
Giulia Torello: Alberto Savinio's Alcesti di Samuele in the Aftermath of the Second World War, 533
Claire Warden: Politics, War, and Adaptation: Ewan MacColl's Operation Olive Branch, 1947, 536
C. W. Marshall: Aristophanes and Douglas Young, 539
Afterword: Lorna Hardwick, 545

​

2012.10.56

Lucie Pultrová​, The Latin Deverbative Nouns and Adjectives. Acta Universitatis Carolinae: Philologica monographia, 162. Praha: Université Charles de Prague; Éditions Karolinum​, 2011. Pp. 180. ISBN 9788024619446. (pb).

Reviewed by Jeremy Brightbill, University of Chicago (brightbill@uchicago.edu)

Version at BMCR home site

[The Table of Contents is listed below.]

This will be a helpful reference book for anyone who is interested in a diachronic approach to Latin linguistics. As the title suggests, its focus is clearly defined: Latin nouns and adjectives that derive directly from verbs, i.e. excluding those that arise from primitive roots or derive from other parts of speech. The introductory chapter does a good job of situating the work in relation to previous scholarship and spelling out its goals. While there have been many works on historical and comparative Latin grammar, there have been few recent studies of how the particular classes of word formation originated and changed over time. Traditional historical grammars have also failed to distinguish consistently between inherited and analogical word-formation types: sometimes a particular form derives directly from Indo-European, but the pattern is then generalized by analogy to other words that share certain features with them. The importance of this distinction is seen throughout the present work, most clearly, for instance, in the formation of perfect passive participles (20-8).

In layout, Pultrová divides the subject matter on a broad level into adjectives and personal nouns on the one hand, and impersonal nouns on the other. Participles and infinitives are included in the analysis, as these are types of deverbative nouns and adjectives that were grammaticalized as part of the verbal paradigm. Through comparison with them, parallels with other word-formation types can be elucidated.

For each type of word formation, Pultrová begins with a survey of previous scholarship on the subject. Often there has been wide disagreement among scholars, and Pultrová does an admirable job in evaluating previous proposals and presenting ideas of her own, while remaining non-dogmatic in areas where certainty is impossible. For example, for the suffix -ndo-, found in gerundives and in adjectives such as oriundus, at least four different origins have been proposed: it could be from 1) *-n̥d^h, found in the Vedic infinitive; 2) *- n-i̯o-, as in the Vedic gerundive; 3) *-tn-, the oblique stem of ancient r/n-stems; and 4) the suffix of the middle participle *-meno-, still used in Greek. Pultrová discusses some disadvantages to each suggestion, and finally opts for the fourth one, but with modifications of her own: the PIE form *-mno- would have passed into Latin via the sequence *-mno- > *-nno- > *-ndo-, due to assimilation of nasals and then dissimilation. In favor of this argument, she notes that adjectives of the oriundus type are formed exclusively from deponent verbs, which are vestiges of the original middle voice system (31-2). When the middle voice disappeared from Latin, the suffix -ndus was left without a function; the natural next step was to grammaticalize it as part of the verb paradigm, thus creating the gerundive with passive meaning (57).

Some of these points depend on the author's original hypothesis about stress and medial vowel weakening in Latin, published previously¹ and only summarized in this volume (Appendix 1.5). Briefly put, the traditional theory explains alternations like faciō and cōnficiō by positing a time when all Latin words were stressed on the first syllable, and short medial vowels were then weakened. Pultrová argues that this view is no longer tenable due to the large number of exceptions, and the fact that the exceptions all fall into specific word-formation categories. Her own hypothesis is that "Latin 'reduced' vowels stand in place of original zero-grades (be it in the root or in the stem) in non-initial syllables," which then vocalize differently in initial and medial syllables according to a clear system of rules (150). Whether a compound was formed before or after the vocalization process took place determines why reduction occurs in some compounds and not in others (such as laudāre > collaudāre). In addition to this hypothesis about vowel reduction, Pultrová makes extensive use of a classification system of Kurzová,² in which the fundamental PIE verb division was between active and inactive diathesis: "Active verbs express intentional actions ascribed to an external agent oriented to an external goal, namely imperfective (= present) or perfective (= aorist), whereas inactive verbs express processes (= medium) and states (= perfect), which have no such orientation to external actants" (37, summarizing Kurzová p. 120). Pultrová finds great explanatory power in this system for determining, for instance, why certain suffixes combine only with certain forms of the verb base (143-4).

The volume is nicely laid out, with clear formatting and no obvious factual or typographical errors. As an aide to reference, it includes an "Alphabetical index of interpreted nominal suffixes" and an "Index of Latin words."

The most significant problem with this book is a frequent lack of clarity in the writing. Much of the technical terminology from Latin linguistics and Indo-European studies will be unfamiliar even to a more general audience of classicists; this terminology is sometimes explained, but often is not, and the reader has to figure it out from context, or by searching for outside reference works. For instance, p. 19 explains the formation of the present participle by using the terms "hysterodynamic" and "acrostatic" from Indo-European studies; these words are not defined until their second occurrence, on p. 66. The problem of terminology is compounded by traces of non-native English throughout the work; it is often difficult to tell if a particular odd expression is accidental, or has a technical meaning. Despite these difficulties on the level of wording, the arguments as a whole are clearly presented and well organized, and will be useful to anyone who wishes to know more about Latin word formation.

Table of Contents

1. Preliminaries 

1.1 Subject and aim of work 

1.2 Ways of classification of word-formative means

1.3 Commentary on the present work 

1.3.1 Method

1.3.2 Technical and terminological notes 

1.3.3 Basic frame of the work 


2. Adjectives and personal nouns 

2.1 Chapter organisation

2.2 Adjectives of participial character 

2.2.1 Adjectives with the suffix -nt- (present active participles) 

2.2.2 Adjectives with the suffix -tus (perfect passive participles) 

2.2.2.1 PPP beside inherited root aorists 

2.2.2.2 PPP beside reduplicated perfects 

2.2.2.3 PPP beside Latin -s -perfects 

2.2.2.4 PPP beside "simple" perfects 

2.2.2.5 PPP beside -u-/v -perfects 

2.2.2.6 Participles in -tus in deponents and semideponents 

2.2.2.7 Adjectives in -tus not acting as PPP 

2.2.3 Adjectives with the suffix -tūrus (future active participles)

2.2.4 Adjectives in -ndus (not gerundives) and -bundus 

2.2.5 Adjectives with the suffix -vus/-uus 

2.2.6 Summary – adjectives of participial character
2.3 Non-actual adjectives of action 

2.3.1 Adjectives with the suffix -nus 

2.3.2 Adjectives with the suffix -mus 

2.3.3 Adjectives with the suffix -us 

2.3.3.1 Simplicia in -us 

2.3.3.2 Compounds in -us 

2.3.4 Root adjectives – compounds 

2.3.5 Compounds with the suffix -t- 

2.3.6 Adjectives with the suffix -ulus 

2.3.7 Adjectives with the suffix -āx 

2.3.8 Adjectives with the suffix -cundus 

2.3.9 Adjectives with the suffix -ius 

2.3.10 Adjectives with the suffix -cus 

2.4 Modal adjectives 

2.4.1 Gerundive 

2.4.2 Adjectives with the suffix -bilis 

2.4.3 Adjectives with the suffix -ilis 

2.4.4 Adjectives with the suffix -tilis 

2.4.5 Adjectives of purpose 

2.5 Nomina agentis 

2.5.1 Nouns with the suffix -tor 

2.5.2 Root nouns 

2.5.2.1 Simplicia 

2.5.2.2 Compounds 

2.5.3 Compounds with the suffix -t- 

2.5.4 N omina agentis in -us and -a 

2.5.4.1 Simplicia 

2.5.4.2 Compounds of the type agricola
2.5.5 Substantives with the suffix -ius 

2.5.6 Subst. flāmen 

2.5.7 Substantives in -ō, -ōnis 


3. Impersonal nouns 

3.1 Definition and classification 

3.2 Names of actions, states and results of actions 

3.2.1 Grammaticalized action nouns 

3.2.1.1 Infinitives 

3.2.1.2 Gerund 

3.2.1.3 Supine 

3.2.2 Feminines with the suffix -tiō 

3.2.3 Masculines with the suffix -tus (4th declension)

3.2.4 Neuters with the suffix -ium 

3.2.4.1 Compounds

3.2.4.2 Simplicia 

3.2.5 Feminines with the suffix -tūra 

3.2.6 Root nouns 

3.2.7 Feminines with the suffix -ti- 

3.2.8 Masculines in -us and feminines in -a 

3.2.9 Feminines in -iēs, -ēs (5th decl.) and -ēs (3rd decl.)

3.2.9.1 Feminines in -iēs, -iēī 

3.2.9.2 Feminines in -ēs, -is 

3.2.9.3 Feminines in -ēs, -eī 

3.2.10 S-stem verbal nouns

3.2.10.1 Neuters in -us, -eris 

3.2.10.2 Neuters in -us, -oris 

3.2.10.3 Masculines in -or, -ōris 

3.2.11 Less productive, secondary derivatives

3.2.11.1 Feminines in -iō 

3.2.11.2 Feminines in -ēla 

3.2.11.3 Feminines in -ia(e) 

3.2.11.4 Feminines with the suffix -dō, -dinis 

3.2.11.5 Feminines with the suffix -gō, -ginis 

3.2.12 Summary 

3.3 Impersonal participants in action

3.3.1 Neuters with the suffixes -men and -mentum 

3.3.1.1 Neuters in -men 

3.3.1.2 Neuters in -mentum

3.3.2 Substantives in -mo-/-mā- and -no-/-nā-

3.3.2.1 Substantives in -mus, -ma 

3.3.2.2 Substantives in -num, -nus, -na 

3.3.3 Nomina instrumenti and loci with the suffixes ending in -lum, -la, -lus and -rum, - ra 

3.3.3.1 -lum, -la, -lus 

3.3.3.2 -rum 

3.3.3.3 -ulum, -ula, -ulus
3.3.3.4 -bulum, -bula 

3.3.3.5 -brum, -bra 

3.3.3.6 -culum, -cula 

3.3.3.7 -crum 

3.3.3.8 -trum 

3.3.3.9 -strum

3.3.3.10 Summary

3.3.4 Masculines with the suffix -ti- 

3.3.5 Masculines in -ex 

3.3.6 Instrumental nouns in -ō, -ōnis
4. Conclusion 


Appendix 1: Sound phenomena resulting from the analyses of word-formative types

Appendix 2: Adjectives with the suffix -idus 


Bibliography 

Resumé 

Alphabetical index of interpreted nominal suffixes 

Index of Latin words

​

---

Notes:

1.   Pultrová, L. The Vocalism of Latin Medial Syllables. Praha, 2006.
2.   Kurzová, H. From Indo-European to Latin. The Evolution of a Morphosyntactic Type. Amsterdam- Philadelphia, 1993. ​

2012.10.55

Lauren Hackworth Petersen, Patricia Salzman-Mitchell (ed.), Mothering and Motherhood in Ancient Greece and Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012. Pp. xii, 260. ISBN 9780292729902. $55.00.

Reviewed by Marguerite Johnson, University of Newcastle, Australia (Marguerite.Johnson@newcastle.edu.au)

Version at BMCR home site

Preview

This volume is the partial result of a panel, 'Motherhood in the Ancient World,' sponsored by the Women's Classical Caucus for the 2007 APA/AIA Annual Meeting. Four of the ten essays in the volume were delivered at that session (Taraskiewicz, Strong, Jones and Lively) with the remaining six commissioned by the editors, Lauren Hackworth Petersen and Patricia Salzman-Mitchell (Lee, Hong, Tzanetou, Augoustakis, Salzman-Mitchell and Woodhull).

The book begins with a clear Introduction (Chapter 1) by the editors, which establishes its parameters, its interdisciplinary nature as well as its place within established studies such as the works of Demand and Dixon.¹ The Introduction also offers readers some interesting and scholarly food for thought, including consideration of the seemingly eternal dilemma facing researchers in the field of women's lives in antiquity: the dichotomy between the private and 'real' world of women and the public images and representations usually manufactured by upper-class men. This most salient issue is answered in part in many of the essays, which is a refreshing and scholarly rigorous commitment to this introductory premise. The Introduction also addresses the overlap between ancient motherhood and modern mothers and does so in an unlaboured, non-excessive manner (feminism is far from over—or unnecessary).² Finally, the editors ask: '... where do we go from here?' and accordingly outline some areas in need of further study, for example, the lives of high-profile mothers such as Cleopatra and Julia Domna.

The unravelling of the complex web of reality and publicity in what remains of the lives of ancient women, mothers included, is one of the aims of this study. In order to even partially achieve some sense of historical balance, indeed 'truth,' the modern scholar must spend a good deal of time on the minutiae, the unexplored and the seemingly marginal. In the opening two essays, both scholars have done so. Mireille M. Lee on 'Maternity and Miasma: Dress and the Transition from Parthenosto Gunē ' and Angela Taraskiewicz on 'Motherhood as Teleia : Rituals of Incorporation at the Kourotrophic Shrine' both utilise archaeological evidence (votive items, vases and coins, for example) to explore the bodily adornments and performative nature of (particularly) pregnancy, in the case of Lee, and ritual processes attending the life-journey of the betrothed bride, in the case of Taraskiewicz.

Yurie Hong's 'Maternity in Hippocratic Gynecology and Embryology' provides a detailed appraisal of excerpts from three Hippocratic texts: Diseases of Women I, On Generation and On the Nature of the Child. This is a more traditional, non-interdisciplinary study (not a criticism) that offers a strong blend of philological acumen and interpretive insight. Here the author demonstrates how such sources furnish a particular construction of not only the maternal body but also the maternal-foetal relationship with a focus on the textual emphasis on the ambivalence and anxieties concerning birthing and maternal child-rearing.

The role of the mother in Greek tragedy is explored by Angeliki Tzanetou in 'Citizen-Mothers on the Tragic Stage.' As the author admits, this is an ambitious topic, and consequently the article only achieves an introductory discussion or 'overview' (113) of mothers/ motherhood in tragedy and their 'civic import' (97). Some case studies, such as Praxithea from Euripides' fragmentary Erechtheus, provide an excellent taste of where this research can go.³ Similarly, Anise K. Strong's piece, 'Working Girls: Mother-Daughter Bonds among Ancient Prostitutes,' is fascinating, but the material is spread too thinly to sustain a compelling argument. As with Tzanetou, Strong provides some case studies, including an effective survey of Neaira.

Patricia Salzman-Mitchell takes the reader from the works of the Homeric poets to the Augustan age in 'Tenderness or Taboo: Images of Breast-feeding Mothers in Greek and Latin Literature.' Like Tzanetou's article, Salzman-Mitchell grounds the opening of her analysis in some sound discussion of prior scholarship. This is an interesting piece, although I disagree with some of the conclusions (the incestuous scopophilic implications of the scene between Hecuba and Hector at Iliad 22.79-84 and the view that breast-feeding in antiquity was, in essence, a practice aligned with taboo). As with Strong's chapter, the genre of each piece under examination was not taken into consideration in terms of its potential impact on interpretations.

Cleopatra as mother is discussed by Prudence Jones in 'Mater Patriae: Cleopatra and Roman Ideas of Motherhood.' As this is a narrow topic with manageable source material, it works well as a chapter. The contrast between Cleopatra's self-representation as mother to her Egyptian subjects and Octavian's handling of the very same topic within a Roman context is fascinating reading and Jones moves as effortlessly between Egyptian and Roman cultures as she does through her various sources (including coins, statuary and literature). The connections made between the maternal Cleopatra and Isis are also more convincing and smoother in their articulation than the application of a similar methodology (reality or historical ideology expressed via mythology) in the previous chapter, which included a discussion of the suckling of Romulus and Remus by the she-wolf.

'Mater Amoris': Mothers and Lovers in Augustan Rome' opens with Genevieve Lively's discussion of the controversial New York Times article on motherhood by Ayelet Waldman (2005). In 'Truly, Madly, Guiltily,' Ayelet admits that she loves her husband most of all and that outside the core of this par amor are her satellites —their offspring. This modern meditation on the pressures and imposed expectations and societal ideals of motherhood leads Lively to consider corresponding bonds in antiquity. Ideas that Ayelet disowns in her article are reinstated by Lively as far as the ancients are concerned as she demonstrates their privileging of parental over marital relationships. Lively's treatment of good and bad mothers, based on textual and visual materials, is an effective adjunct to the previous chapter on Cleopatra and also provides additional material for consideration in light of Salzman-Mitchell's treatment of breast-feeding mothers.

The Roman world, particularly the literary world, is further treated in 'Per hunc utero quem linquis nostra: Mothers in Flavian Epic' by Antony Augoustakis. The topic here is non-Roman mothers in Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica, Statius' Thebaid and Silius Italicus' Punica. Again, there are some useful connections between this paper and some of the ones that precede it, particularly those by Jones and Lively, which contribute to a strong scholarly cohesion as the collection draws to a close. As the latter two scholars include discussions of mothers as outsiders, Augoustakis discusses the Saguntine mothers of Silius Italicus, mothers who 'reverse the act of founding a city' (207), the story of Hypsipyle in Statius and her own careless mothering skills, and Valerius Flaccus' treatment of the same heroine. The paper draws to a conclusion with a brief look at Flavian art, which, as a collective artefact, completely elides motherhood, relegating it to 'an unimportant theme when compared, for instance, to the Augustan imagery of fertility and abounding motherhood in the Ara Pacis.' (218). This is smooth, concise and insightful scholarship that wrestles with complexities and dichotomies and does not claim to have answered all the conundrums unearthed along the way.

Finally, extending Augoustakis' interest in landscape, Margaret L. Woodhull examines the literal landscape of imperial Rome, or what remains of it, in her treatment of five monuments built by or for women from the Julio-Claudian to the Antonine eras: the porticoes by Octavia and Livia, the temple for the Deified Matidia, the 'lost monuments' regarded as Sabina's 'consecration altar,' and the temple of divaFaustina (226). Woodhull is interested in the inclusion of maternal motifs on the monuments and the deployment thereof over time in relation to 'changing realities of dynastic inheritance' (225). She ably demonstrates that the power of the imperial mother remained strong and stable in succession politics, contra the customary view that such feminine (particularly iconographic) power was on the wane by the second century. Woodhull is an effective reader of these monuments (their material and literary remains) and provides insightful and compelling interpretations. This paper is refreshingly positive in the conclusions it makes and in this sense it was a wise choice to end the collection.

As indicated earlier, at times some of the scholars attempted very ambitious projects and their chapters only managed to survey the topics undertaken. Additionally, more attention needed to be paid to genres and their specificities in some instances. While the contemporary relevancies were useful and thoughtful, they might profitably have been augmented by some feminist theory—something lacking overall from the book, where theory in general was not a compelling component of any of the chapters.⁴ Nevertheless, the work offers some thoughtful analyses, is well organised and makes a contribution to our knowledge of women's lives in the ancient world.

---

Notes:

1.   Nancy Demand, Birth, Death, and Motherhood in Classical Greece (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994); Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Mother (Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 1988) and The Roman Family (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). Important works also discussed include Rosa María Cid López (ed.), Madres y maternidades: Construcciones culturales en la civilización clásica (Oviedo: KRK Ediciones, 2009) as well as Patricia Watson, Ancient Stepmothers: Myth, Misogyny, and Reality (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
2.   For example: 'should a recent mother disclose in a job interview that she has young children ... Does the public display of motherhood help or harm a mother in a position of power ... ? Also, the question of whether to conceal or reveal publicly the motherly body (in pregnancy or lactation) is of pointed concern for modern mothers.' (3)
3.   Had the author omitted the material on Aristophanic comedy, which opens the article, there would have been additional scope for a more detailed discussion of the main topic.
4.   While reading this collection, I was nostalgic at times for the force of previous collections, such as Feminist Theory and the Classics, edited by Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz and Amy Richlin (London: Routledge, 1993) and painstakingly reviewed by Simon Goldhill in BMCR 94.01.15 and Woman's Power, Man's Game: Essays on Classical Antiquity in Honor of Joy K. King, edited by Mary DeForest (USA: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1993). While these were far from uniformly finessed and sophisticated productions, they had an arresting forcefulness in their unabashed (and at times unwieldy) implementation of a range of feminist theories.

2012.10.54

Patrizia Mascoli (ed.), Iohannes de Segarellis. Elucidatio tragoediarum Senecae: Thebais seu Phoenissae. Quaderni di Invigilata Lucernis, 40. Bari: Edipuglia, 2011. Pp. 149. ISBN 9788872286487. €24.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Ioannis Deligiannis, Research Centre for Greek and Latin Literature of the Academy of Athens, Greece (deligiannis@academyofathens.gr)

Version at BMCR home site

Table of Contents

The volume contains the editio princeps of Giovanni Segarelli's (Iohannes de Segarellis) interpretation rather than commentary of Seneca's Phoenissae. P. Mascoli, who some years ago produced the critical edition of Nicholas Trivet (or Trevet)'s commentary of the same text,¹ made every effort to provide a text as accurate and reliable as possible, given that Segarelli's interpretation of Seneca's tragedies is preserved in only one manuscript (Paris, BnF, lat. 10313 = P).

In the brief introduction (pp. 9-28), Mascoli discusses issues related to both the author and his text. Unfortunately the biographical information on Segarelli is rather limited, and Mascoli mostly relies on the information collected by K. Hafemann;² she also makes use of two epistles of Segarelli, which however do not shed any more light on either Segarelli's life or the circumstances under which his work was produced. Considering that the text is preserved in only one manuscript, an understandably very short chapter deals with its manuscript tradition, followed by the description of the codex; the conclusions about the place (the Italian peninsula) and time of the manuscript production (chronologically close to the autograph, i.e., before 1400) are rather general, while the technical details on the letter forms etc. do not necessarily add any more information on the manuscript.

More enlightening is certainly Mascoli's study of the composition of Segarelli's elucidatio, where she discusses Segarelli's dedicatory epistle to Nicolaus Rubeus, which precedes the text; judging from Mascoli's quotations, the epistle is apparently included in Hafemann's edition, although it would be extremely helpful if the editor had provided it in an appendix in this volume too. Mascoli analyses and explains the content of this epistle as well as the subscriptiones following the elucidatio of each of Seneca's tragedies, and makes some sound conclusions on the composition and nature of Segarelli's interpretation. The latter is discussed in a separate chapter ("Il metodo esegetico"), but it could well be further expanded and enriched with examples from the text.

Special notice should be made of the editorial criteria followed by Mascoli, who clearly states that for consistency she follows the criteria used by Hafemann. Certain limitations and difficulties imposed by the fact that the text is preserved in a codex unicus are reasonable, but the adoption of the copyist's spelling with all its late medieval peculiarities on the basis of its chronological proximity to Segarelli, assuming thus that Segarelli himself must have written his elucidatio in the same spelling raises methodological questions.³ I understand that whether to keep the medieval spelling or to change it into classical Latin is an editorial decision, but maintaining the medieval spelling would be expected only in cases of autograph manuscripts, and definitely not in copies – even if unique ones – of the original. It is rather unsound to assume that the copyist's spelling and language, no matter how close chronologically the copy is to the original, reflect the author's spelling and language. Late medieval spelling and phrasing as well as examples of use of the common daily language could well be discussed, as they are by Mascoli, in this chapter, while for the text she could have adopted the classical Latin spelling, which would surely make the text at least more comprehensible to readers not familiar with the medieval Latin spelling.

For the last two chapters of the introduction Mascoli returns to two more issues related to the nature and content of the elucidatio: Segarelli's critical approach to his text, limited but present, and his comments on the language and style of Seneca's tragedy. They both are valuable additions to her introduction, but it would have been better if they had been incorporated in or placed immediately after the "Il metodo esegetico" chapter.

Despite my comments on the editorial criteria, Mascoli has undoubtedly provided an generally good edition of the text itself. She has made some clever corrective conjectures where the text is problematic, identified quotations from other authors made by Segarelli in his elucidatio, and pointed out Segarelli's readings that differ from those of from the Senecan manuscript tradition he followed. . Some inconsistencies in the composition of the apparatus or in conventional signs ([…] and <…>) used in the text by Mascoli, and some corrections and suggestions will be listed and discussed, where necessary, below.

Suggestions-Corrections 38.23 supp[osite]] textus in codice breviatus: dubitanter conieci; supposit(a)e with reference to mortis is a safe completion of the abbreviation, but it could well be supp[osita] with reference to via; if the ending was -(a)e, it would be expected to be indicated somehow. 39.19-20 … expositus est Edippus a patre pedibus perforatis … cum natus fuit ut vorarentur a feris …: if the Plural vorarentur is the manuscript reading, perhaps it should be corrected to singular voraretur with reference to Oedipus, and not his feet (pedes). 49.10 … revoca antiqum [sic]: undoubtedly antiquum. 67.18 … dampnavit me morti <………> illo s. Appolline …: in the apparatus: stⁱple in cod. non liquet; perhaps stipulante (Abl. Sing.) with reference to the following Appolline. 91.20 … cohoperturam tristitiam mictiantem …: in the apparatus: mictiantem] fortasse pro mysticantem; perhaps for minctiantem = emittentem, although I have never come across minctio as a verb and I am not even sure if it ever existed as a verb, and even so, such a use of it in a text like this would admittedly be rather inappropriate, despite its meaning fitting in the context. 93.2 … inducias i. terminum et spatium treugale …: in the apparatus: treugale sic, sed legendum videtur, ut puto, treguale; not necessarily, given that treuga (and tregua) is an alternative form of treva (= truce).⁴

Inconsistencies 39.16 mons] meus P; the correction is justified, given that the reference is made to the preceding word Cytheron , and it is assumed that it was made by Mascoli, although in other cases she clearly states her corrections (e.g., 44.20 longe] longo P ego correxi; 63.4 situs] correxi ex sitis; 89.25 equanimi] equamini P ego correxi); the same applies to 88.6 vibrat] vibratu P, 88.10 amplectens] ampplentens P, 91.6 Polinicem] Polinices P, etc., without any indication where the correct reading was found or who might have provided it.

The same practice is followed for the "silent" emendations of readings in the text by the use of the signs […] and <… >; e.g., 38.10 paren[ti]s, 39.5 and 50.19 suff[ic]it, 40.2 pre[te]ritos, 40.14 atti[n]gerunt, 48.5 invi[c]tum, 52.19 [sit], etc. Cf., however, 47.13 [optimo] supplevi ex Senecae rec. A, 60.7-8 [timida … libamine] in the text, and in the apparatus: timida … libamine expunxit P (in other cases the deletions of words or phrases found in P are stated only in the apparatus: e.g., in 38.5 the text has … sequens carmen sunt …, and the apparatus: certamen ante carmen expunxit P; the same in 40.14-15: the text reads … comprehenderunt et comederunt …, while in the apparatus we read: et comederunt ante comprehenderunt expunxit P; 42.4 currunt ante cucurrit expunxit P, while the text has …Thebani cucurrit …; 82.22 the text has … i. tube enee, and the apparatus: ante tube add. turbe P).

This inconsistency extends to the use of phrases like sed lege or legendum followed by the correct reading instead of the manuscript reading which precedes; e.g., 44.23 peraga sic, sed lege perage; 47.3 vix sic, sed lege vis; 48.25 torrex sic, sed lege torrens; 67.5 quodam sic, sed lege quosdam; 97.9 inditas sic, sed lege inclitas; 97.13 auxit sic, sed legendum hausit, etc. It would certainly make more sense to place the correct reading in the text and the manuscript reading in the apparatus. A case worth- commenting on is that of the reading Antheon (39.25) in the text, which is explained in the apparatus: Antheon sic, sed lege Actaeon (the same in 44.16: Antheone sic, sed lege Actaeone); this identification of Antheon with Actaeon is surely helpful for the reader, but it could be extended to other personal names as well; e.g. in 55.24-25 … Sparte est civitas Lacedonie [sic] … dicta a Sparto filio Feney, filii Inachi …: with Feney apparently in the place of Phoronei; or in 79.13 … adiuvantibus eam [sc. Agavem] duabus eius sororibus, s. Anthyone et Yncho …, apparently for Autonoe and Ino respectively; the same in 109.1: ... proles Cadmis. Agave et Y[n]cho Cadmi filie et Anaone.

Despite the observations discussed above, the volume remains a valuable addition to the studies of the reception of classical texts in Late Medieval period and the philological interests and production of the time. Bringing to light texts that are still in manuscripts and thus not accessible to modern readers is always commendable and creditable. The book is completed by a bibliography, placed immediately after the introduction, Seneca's text in O. Zwierlein's 1986 Oxford edition, a truly useful addition to the volume, and two indices (locorum and nominum).

---

Notes:

1.   N. Trevet, Commento alle Phoenissae di Seneca, edizione critica a cura di Patrizia Mascoli, Bari 2007.
2.   Der Kommentar des Iohannes de Segarellis zu Senecas 'Hercules furens'. Erstedition und Analyse, Berlin-New York 2003.
3.   See p. 23: "Si è rivolta peraltro particolare attenzione nel mantenere l'uso vocalico e consonantico del copista, che presumibilmente, vista la vicinanza cronologica, non si allontanava molto dalla lingua di Segarelli stesso, la quale sicuramente rispecchiava i connotati principali della lingua 'dotta' di quel periodo. Si è deliberatamente evitato, dunque, di uniformare il testo agli usi del cosiddetto latino classico, in quanto si sarebbero di conseguenza persi proprio i moduli grafico-espressivi caratteristici dell'età tardomedievale."
4.   C. Du Cange, et al., Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, Niort : L. Favre, 1883‑1887, vol. 8, col. 170a, s.v. treva.

2012.10.53

Fred Eugene Ray, Land Battles in 5th Century B.C. Greece: A History and Analysis of 173 Engagements. Jefferson, NC; London: McFarland, 2011. Pp. vii, 315. ISBN 9780786467730. $35.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Matthew P. Maher, University of Winnipeg (ma.maher@uwinnipeg.ca)

Version at BMCR home site

Preview

Fred Eugene Ray's book comprises an investigation of every historically (and occasionally archaeologically) attested land engagement in the Greek world throughout the course of the 5th century BCE. Ray attempts to reconstruct the historical context of each battle in an effort to satisfy his objective of a comprehensive tactical-level survey of every engagement. While Ray naturally relies heavily on the ancient historical and modern sources for his analysis of the more significant battles (as is the general trend in studies of ancient Greek military history), in order to make sense of the specifics surrounding the more obscure engagements, he relies instead on what he calls "logical reconstructions" (p .1). In this regard, the methodology adopted is aimed at resolving issues lacking in direct evidence through both the correlation of "various peripheral indicators" (p. 1) and the heavy use of analogs in an approach he believes is "valid for stretching slim battlefield data to their logical limits" (p. 2).

After outlining the objectives, sources of evidence, and methodology of the book in the Preface (pp. 1-3) and Introduction (pp. 5-6), Ray proceeds in Chapter 1 (pp. 7-20) to establish the foundation for the rest of the book by way of an overview of the general characteristics of 5th century Greek warfare. Beginning with the most distinctive element of the Greek army, the hoplite, Ray briefly describes the origin of these citizen soldiers before providing a detailed description of the typical hoplite arms and armour and how they were employed in battle. Next, looking at the hoplites collectively, the author explores the typical Greek phalanx, its standard structure and divisions, as well as the characteristic tactics involved in fighting in such a formation. Besides noting the muscular demands of the system of concerted pushing in phalanx fighting, the author also focuses on the importance of valor and courage, the confidence in one's commander and ability to win, and the importance of group mentality in overcoming an aversion to killing. The rest of the chapter is concerned with the role played by the other elements comprising the typical 5th century Greek army, the light infantry and horsemen.

With this background information established, the succeeding chapters examine the specifically attested 5th century BCE battles in chronological order. Chapter 2 (pp. 21-58) begins in 500 BCE and includes all engagements before the Persian landing at Marathon in 490 BCE.¹ In this chapter, Ray establishes the general formula by which each of the battles throughout the book is examined. First, he provides the historical background surrounding the combatants and the root of the conflict before attempting to assess the total numbers of each side. Next, based on both the local topography and the typical deployment and maneuvers of men in the phalanx (and, if present, the accompanying light infantry and cavalry), a reconstruction of the battle and its outcome are provided. As with the troop numbers and deployments, the estimated casualties from both sides are most often established by Ray using fixed arithmetical formulae. Considering the chronological scope of this book, it is not surprising that the remaining chapters are largely devoted to the two major conflicts that engulfed Greece during the 5th century: the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars.

In the short Conclusion (pp. 287-88) Ray brings together his most important observations in an attempt to dispel a number of misconceptions about 5th century Greek warfare. For example, Ray argues that the patterns show that the Greeks' arms and tactics were not superior to those of the Persians, and instead, it was the terrain that most often dictated which fighting style was best for each engagement. His analysis also overturns the fallacy that the Greeks fought better when fighting on home soil – in fact, he found that the opposite was true. Ray's analysis also demonstrates that the Greeks were not averse to employing deception or surprise attacks to achieve victory. Finally, Ray's careful catalogue of engagements helps to dispel any preconceived notions about the martial characters of both Athens and Sparta. Indeed, despite the popular notion of the invincible and aggressive Spartans, Ray demonstrates that in terms of total numbers it was actually Athens that initiated more battles during 5th century than any other Greek state, "while no army ducked battle more often than that of authoritarian and supposedly warlike Sparta" (p. 287). Similarly, Ray's catalogue of battles show that, again, in terms of total numbers, Sparta actually lost almost as many battles as they won during the course of the 5th century. Bringing the book to a close are four statistical tables which lay out all 173 land engagements of the 5th century explored in the book and the different factors surrounding each.

In the Introduction, Ray himself admits that piecing together these battles "is an unavoidably imprecise process that calls for a great deal of guesswork, and it's a must to use its result with great care and no small amount of skepticism" (p. 5). So first the skepticism, and foremost in this regard is the author's general unwavering use of fixed arithmetical formulae employed in his reconstructions of most battles. This is most apparent in his calculation of troop strengths and casualties. For example, the author derives most of his casualty estimates based on the rigid assumption that in a normal hoplite battle, losses for the victors should be around 3-5% and those for the losers should range between 15-25% (with pursuit, though considerably less if not pursued). Similarly, Ray's appraisal of total troop numbers is also problematic. When the number of troops is not known, the author will often employ the number of troops that are recorded by the ancient sources to have been present at a different battle, often separated by a considerable length of time. For instance, in the very first battle described in the book (in ca. 500 BCE between Corinth and Argos) Ray assumes that Kleonai (Argos' ally) mustered 500 men because that is what they contributed at the Battle of Mantinea in 418 BC (p. 25). The problem with this rationale is clear: these two battles are separated by over 80 years and it is idealistic to assume the troop strength of a small polis would remain unchanged over three generations. Ray also employs another questionable method of estimating total hoplite numbers which is again related to his unwavering use of fixed statistical formulae. Centred around the idea that a normal trireme held some 40 hoplites, the author assumes that because Chios could boast 100 ships, it must have had an army of 4000 hoplites (p. 239). When the number of ships in a fleet are known, Ray uses the same formula again and again. Reconstructing the number of available spearmen based solely on the number of ships warrants skepticism, since at best, that number would represent a minimum number of hoplites. Finally, at other times, in the absence of any ancient references, the number of troops in a given battle provided by Ray are at best simply guesses.

The reconstruction of an army's troop strength is of great importance because the number of troops almost always determines the deployment and outcome in the author's analyses. A case in point is Ray's questionable examination of the Battle of Marathon (pp. 60-68). Deviating considerably from generally accepted accounts of this battle, Ray argues that including auxiliaries, the Persians and Athenians were on relatively even footing, with around 6000-6500 men per side. Ray argues that the inflated Athenian number (i.e., ca. 10,000 troops) was a result of the "confused unit strength of the four clans from Solon's time with the lesser complements that now resided within the ten new tribal taxeis" (p. 62). One must ask: why would the Athenians be confused? Herodotus himself could have talked to survivors or relatives of participants and there is no need to assume a confusion with Solon's reforms some 100 years earlier. Because Ray readily accepts the traditional figure of only around 200 Athenians lost, we are left to wonder why he refuses to accept the traditional figures given for the number of participating Athenian troops. Ultimately, I think the best argument that the Athenians and Persians were not evenly matched at Marathon and that the former were indeed outnumbered, is the famous pincer movement that sealed the Greek victory. Simply put, if the Greeks and Persians were evenly matched at Marathon, then there would have been no need for the Greeks to have thinned their ranks in the centre and there would have been no cause to employ Miltiades' celebrated maneuver.

Equally problematic is the author's exploitation of the most limited and fragmentary data in his reconstructions. The use of such projected and analog information warrants caution on the part of the reader. A clear example of this propensity for stretching fragmentary information to its logical limits can be found in the author's analysis of the Battle of Dipaea (pp. 121-122). The only documented evidence of this battle comes from one sentence in Herodotus and one from Isocrates, both of whom state the Spartans were victorious over a group of Arkadians, while Isocrates alone alludes to the fact that the Spartans may have also been outnumbered.² Nonetheless, from this fragmentary information, Ray proceeds to assume that the Arkadians outnumbered the Spartans two to one; that the Spartans surprised the Arkadian host before it was all together; that the troops lined up in the plain south of Dipaea; that the men from Orchomenos were on left wing; and that the Spartan right beat Orchomenos' troops on the left, after which the Arkadians panicked and fled. Such an analysis based on limited information is fraught with so much assumption as to be essentially useless.

On a more superficial note, the large number of abbreviated symbols ensure that the tables provided at the back of the book are incredibly difficult to navigate. Furthermore, a table listing which ancient sources refer to which battles would have been useful. Finally, the book would also have benefited from considerably more maps and battle plans: the book contains only three simple maps and of the 173 engagements, only 13 are provided with any type of diagram.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, Ray's endeavour has produced a carefully and well-researched book, the result of which is an important catalogue of Greek land engagements in the 5th century BC. Furthermore, his survey represents a very useful reference to anyone interested in classical combat. Although not a classicist, Ray provides in the introductory chapters sufficient technical background to the topic such that amateur or academic may easily follow the events laid out in the subsequent chapters. Moreover, although technical in places, this book is written with a poise and polish that cannot help but draw in the reader. Indeed, although filled with rational statistics and hard data, Ray's graphic descriptions of events on the battlefield evoke a sense of emotion often lost in analyses of ancient battles. Indeed, whether envisioning the fear that must have possessed the last of the Athenians as they were picked off one by one trying to escape Syracuse after their failed siege, or the calmness of the Spartans as they awaited certain death on that final morning at Thermopylae, or even the confusion felt by the allied Greeks at Plataea as they lost their way retreating during the night, it is clear that Ray's narrative puts the reader firmly in the shoes of the soldiers and provokes all of the appropriate and intended emotional responses.

Table of Contents

Preface, pp. 1-4
Introduction, pp. 5-6
I. The Spearmen: Greek Hoplite Warfare (500-401 B.C.), pp. 7-2
II. Arguing with Socrates: Territorial Disputes, the Ionian Revolt, and the Rise of Sparta and Gela (500-481 B.C.), pp. 21-58.
III. The Strength of Lions: Marathon, Himera, and the Invasion of Greece, pp. 59-108
IV. Prelude to Collision: The Pentacontaetia (478-432 B.C.), pp. 109-149
V. Danger and Glory: The Archidamian War (431-422 B.C.), pp. 150-198
VI. Daring and Destruction: The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Invasion (421-413 B.C.), pp. 199-236
VII. A World at Spear's Length: The Decelean/Ionian War to the End of the 5th Century (413-401 B.C.), pp. 237- 286
Conclusion, pp. 287-288
Tables, pp. 289-306
Bibliography, pp. 307-312
Index, pp. 313-315

---

Notes:

1.   The title of this chapter claims to cover the battles between "500-481 B.C." although I presume it is a typographical mistake and should instead read "500-490 B.C." since only the battles before Marathon (490 BC) are described.
2.   Hdt. 9.35; Isoc. 6 99.