180 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
in the section on chiasmus that Pausanias usually employs it for proper names
or god-names. One could add, perhaps unprofitably, to the bibliography. But
Ove Strid's negative virtues are great; he rebuts finally a number of mistaken
theories of what kind of writer Pausanias is, and scholars of late Greek will find
that some of his observations entail results outside the boundaries of this pecu-
liar author. This study alters the balance of scholarly probability towards the
view that in spite of his apparent carelessness and his failure to impress us as a
great literary artist, that is really what he intended to be. May the earth lie light
on him.
Campion Hall, Oxford PETER LEVI
THE LOEB LUCRETIUS
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura. With an English translation by W.H.D.
ROUSE. Revised with new text, introduction, notes, and index by
MARTIN FERGUSON SMITH. (Loeb Classical Library). Pp. lxii + 602.
London: Heinemann, 1975. Cloth, £ 3 4 0 .
Smith's introduction is informative and sensible; the observation that Virgil's
famous tribute (G. 2. 490-2) refutes the story of Lucretius' madness is acute.
On a point on which I am taken to task I remain unrepentant. Lucretius does not
merely give 'no systematic account of Epicurean ethical theory' (p.xxx); he gives
none at all. A passing reference to his affection for Memmius does not amount
to an exposition of the value of amicitia for Epicureans (cf. pp.xxvii, xlviii).
Neither the end of Book III nor the beginning of Book II (p.lii) is 'ethical' in
any specifically Epicurean sense; the sentiments of the latter passage in par-
ticular are about as philosophically profound as those pilloried by Lucretius
himself at 3. 912 ff. If all we had to go on were the D.R.N. itself we should
have a lamentably incomplete notion of Epicurean ethics.
The text is on the whole judiciously constituted, with a bias towards con-
servatism. Conjectures by the editor are found in the text at 1. 703 aliud, 3.
240 et (Smith) quae quis mente (Purmann), 4. 79 turbatnque decoram, 4. 990
rumpere sese (cf. fundere sese, W. Richter, Textstudien zu Lukrez (1974) 89),
5. 1002 turn, 5. 1036 et, 5. 1160 alte, 6. 44 ac, 6. 899 natantes, 6. 1281 pro re
et pro tempore (particularly ingenious); and in the notes at 1. 412 altis, 2. 446
arte, 4. 345-6 aer. . .ater, 4.547 et_conuallibu' cycni intortis, 5.44 tune .. .
insinuantur ('formerly'), 5. 706id]eius ('monosyllabic'), 5. 1010 contra nunc
dant (M.L. Clarke's nunc seperdunt in text), 5. 1442 propterea quod, 6. 954ft
corpora quae faciunt nubis nimbosque penetrant. Some choices invite reserva-
tions. 1. 14 inde ferae, pecudes 'wild creatures and farm animals'; the punctu-
ation (= Ernout) is not ascribed and the asyndeton is not discussed. 1.1044
morare; but why should L., who regularly uses the deponent form, have ad-
mitted this anomaly here? Cf. 3. 628 uagare and 2. 806 largo . . . luce. 3. 84
suadet is printed with no indication that critics have found it unsatisfactory and
with the sort of translation that in Shilleto's day men called 'shady'. 4. 1271
Clausen's corpore ought to be in the text, not the notes; editors should follow
Bertie Wooster's advice to Sir Watkyn Bassett and take a line through that
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Bibiliothèque interuniversitaire de Santé, on 09 Dec 2019 at 03:46:12, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00223652
T THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
ribbonlike seaweed. 6. 976 caenum-, but caeni codd. ap. Wakefield, neglected by
editors, is surely necessitated by eadem . . . haec following? These and other
181
points of difference apart, I have two general criticisms. The first concerns
Smith's notion of a parallel, which (though it is a fault in which he is not alone)
seems to me lax. Examples will be found at 2. 203, 2. 1080, 3. 1 (5. 11 shows
only that e gives possible Latin, which nobody disputes), 3. 244, 3. 267 (the
crucial argument in favour of Lambinus' rejected color is not 2. 680-1 but the
context), 3. 658 (none of the parallel passages proves that serpentis . . . utrum-
que is Latin, which is the point of departure), 4. 166, 4. 414 (the reference we
need is to 3. 198), 5. 412 (the argument from here to 6.864 and back again is
circular; and 2. 152 is irrelevant), 5. 1094, 6. 357 (here the parallel is Martin's,
but since it is useless why mention it?), 6. 736. The second concerns the punc-
tuation, which strikes me as fussy: there are too many paragraphs and too many
commas.
For a Loeb edition the critical notes are full. They do not quite amount to a
complete critical apparatus; this is tantalizing, for with a little greater rigour and
selectivity the student could have been given nearly everything he needed to
know for practical purposes about the problems of the text. As it is presentation
is uneconomical. There are some unfortunate omissions (cf. above on 3. 84)
and a good deal of quite unwanted information; in particular it is a gross waste
of effort and resources repeatedly to sully one's pages with the names of
Wakefield, Merrill, Martin, and Buchner when they concur (as they too often
do) in accepting the impossible. In one respect, however, Smith has outdone
all his predecessors: the ascription of corrections. His patient work on the
editions shows up the delinquencies of past editors (experto credite) and sets
an example for the future. It is odd, however, that not all the transpositions
accepted in the text are ascribed to their authors. The explanatory notes must
have posed a difficult problem; what Smith has provided seems to me on the
whole very helpful, though 'atomic nuclei' (on 2. 134) is guaranteed to confuse
the student with a smattering of physics.
The translation is updated Rouse and reads rather stiffly, though outright
translationese of the kind found at 6. 1264-5 is uncommon. Again the odd
point may be singled out. 1. 92 petebat = 'was sinking' rather than 'sank' (cf.
Kenney in D. West—T. Woodman, Quality and pleasure in Latin poetry (1974),
pp. 27-8). 1. 173 certis . . . secreta 'particular . . . distinct' misses the word-
play, as does 'wayward' for incertis at 5. 782; cf. 3. 622-3, but contrast 1. 336,
912, al., where similar points are carefully brought out. How far a translator
ought to go in such matters and what (for instance) he is supposed to do with
inter sese esse necesse est at 2. 445 I should not care to say. 1. 767 alternis
gignuntur = 'one gives birth to another' (Latham) rather than 'are produced
alternately'. 2. 1 mart magno = 'out at sea' (Latham) rather than 'over a great
sea'; worth noting because this is a kind of nuance commonly missed, as I
obliquely remarked at Didaskalos 1. 2 (1964) 12. 2. 659 dum — 'provided
that'. 2. 1131-2 = 'their age finds its strength and vigorous maturity breaking';
cf. Kenney on 3. 490; F. Leo, Ausg. kl. Schr. ii.39; Housman on Lucan 1. 103,
Class. Papers, p.41; Goodyear on Aetna 77; Dilke on Stat. Achill. 1. 6 f.;
Fraenkel, Horace, p. 215 n.2 ; add Virg. Eel. 2. 58-9, Ov. Her. 7. 35 (many of
these references by courtesy of Mr. R.G. Mayer). 3. 663 'assuage the burning
pain' renders dolorem rather than what is printed, dolore. 5. 56-7 = 'the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Bibiliothèque interuniversitaire de Santé, on 09 Dec 2019 at 03:46:12, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00223652
182 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
necessity that compels everything to abide by the compact under which it was
created' (Latham; cf. P. Boyance, Lucrece et I'Epicurisme (1963), p.212 n.l).
5. 381 pio nequaquam 'most unnatural'—hardly the mot juste in this of all
poems? 5. 1190 seuera 'solemn'; but may not this much-discussed word here
mean 'inflexible', i.e. 'fixed in their motions'? Cf. Hor. C. 1. 35. 19, Virg. G. 3.
37, and Cicero's use of the word applied to iudices et sim. 5. 1242 plumbique
potestas 'strong lead'; but as we all know, and L. knew, lead is not strong; better
'serviceable' (Latham) or 'useful'. 6. 862 = 'the earth surrounding the spring is
of looser texture' (Latham), which allows a straightforward construction of the
Latin.
I have noticed one non-trivial misprint, ergo omitted from the text at 6. 1246.
This is an extremely useful edition, excellent value for money in these inflation-
ary days. A corrected and revised second edition should give worthy service for
many years to come.
Peterhouse, Cambridge E.J. KENNEY
VIRGIL IN REVERSE
WiLHELM OTT: Rucklaufiger Index zu Vergil. (Materialien zu Metrik
und Stilistik, 8.) Pp. viii + 296. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1974.
Paper, DM. 64.
This is not the first backward-running or reverse index. Buck and Petersen's
Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives, for example, was designed to
help papyrologists and epigraphers faced with fragments which contain only
the ends of words. Nor of course is this the first concordance to Virgil. But it
is, as far as I know, the first reverse index to an individual classical poet* and so,
accepting the editor's claim that the only reason there are not more of such
indexes is that there is so much work involved in compiling them, we may pro-
ceed to ask what benefits are offered and whether these are solely in usum
editorum or might conceivably be sought by the general student and reader
of Virgil.
First, this is an index of word-forms used by Virgil (thus amo, but not amas)
arranged in alphabetical order starting with the last letter and working back-
wards: thus amo follows asylo and precedes Priamo. This brings together words
of like endings or rather of endings which look alike, for the Index has been
compiled by a computer and computers, whether mechanical or human, are
servants which will do only what they have been programmed to do. Since
neither, roots or meanings are given for the entries, one must (for example)
look up the three entries for the word-form amare to find that two of them are
the present infinitive active of amo and the third the masculine vocative singular
of amarus, and fifty references to sine to find out how often Virgil uses the pre-
position and how often the imperative of sino. Care must consequently be exer-
cised in using the index to establish statistics about Virgil's use of certain forms
of ending, but with this caution it will be possible to discover what adverbial
forms in (e.g.) -iter Virgil uses and how often: suppliciter, aliter, crudeliter,
molliter, accipiter, Iuppiter, pariter, grauiter, breuiter (which of these are of a
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Bibiliothèque interuniversitaire de Santé, on 09 Dec 2019 at 03:46:12, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00223652
