California Studies in Classical Antiquity: Volume 8 California Studies in Classical Antiquity, Volume 8 [Reprint 2019 ed.] 9780520316768

Citation preview

California Studies in Classical Antiquity Volume 8

W . KENDRICK

PRITCHETT

T h e Editors are pleased to dedicate this volume of California Studies in Classical Antiquity to W. Kendrick Pritchett upon his retirement as Professor of Greek, University of California, Berkeley. In twenty-eight years of service to the University he has been an outstanding teacher, a scholar of international renown, a dedicated champion of the Classics. One of the many achievements of his tenure as Chairman of the Classics Department at Berkeley was the establishment of this journal in 1968. It is fitting, therefore, that we mark the present occasion by the dedication of this volume, accompanied by our warmest best wishes, to our colleague W. Kendrick Pritchett.

CALIFORNIA STUDIES IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 8

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY LOS ANGELES LONDON

CALIFORNIA STUDIES IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Senior Editors: Remold Stroud, Joan Puhvel Advisory Board: Erich S. Gruen, Philip Levme, Thomas G. Rosenmeyer VOLUME 8

T h e poppy motif used throughout California Studies in Classical Antiquity reproduces an intaglio design on a bronze finger ring of the fourth century B.C., from Olynthus; D. M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus 10 (Baltimore 1941) 136, pi. 26, no. 448.

ISBN: 0-520-09547-2 Library of Congress Catlog Card Number: 6 8 - 2 6 9 0 6 University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 1976 by The Regents of the University of California

Contents

J . G. T. a n d j . K. ANDERSON A Lost City Discovered?

1

W. S. ANDERSON A New Pseudo-Ovidian Passage

7

DARRELL A. AMYX San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases

17

MARIO A. DEL CHIARO The Ghiaccio Forte Votive Terracotta Figurine

33

RICHARD I. FRANK Augustus' Legislation on Marriage and Children

41

ARTHUR E. GORDON Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

53

MARK GRIFFITH Man and the Leaves: A Study of Mimnermos fr. 2

73

RICHARD J. HOFFMAN Epigraphic Notes on IG I2 71

89

STEVEN LATTI MORE Oedipus and Teiresias

105

FRANK A. LEWIS Did Plato Discover the Estin of Identity?

113

L. A. MACKAY The Roman Tragic Spirit

145

vi DONALD J. MASTRONARDE Iconography and Imagery in Euripides' Ion G. B. MILES Georgics 3.209-294: Amor and Civilization

Contents 163 177

STEPHEN G. MILLER The Pentathlon for Boys at Nemea

199

ALDEN A. MOSSHAMMER Lucca Bibl. Capit. 490 and the Manuscript Tradition of Hieronymus' (Eusebius') Chronicle

203

J U D I T H A. SCHAEFFER The Costume of the Korai: A Re-interpretation

241

JO-ANN SHELTON Problems of Time in Seneca's Hercules Furens and Thy estes

257

RAPHAEL SEALEY Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

271

List of Illustrations

Anderson, J . G. T. and J . K., A Lost City Discovered? PI. 1:1. Mouth of the River Fonissa, from Koryfi. PI. 1:2. Saddle connecting Ayios Panteleeimon to main escarpment. Fig. 1. Sketch map of Ano Tarasseis and environs. Anderson, W. S., A New Pseudo-Ovidian Passage PI. 1. Paletta 314 fol. 68 v . Amyx, San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases PI. 1:1-3. San Simeon, HSHM 5705 (SSW 9510). Oinochoe. Pis. 2 and 3:1-3. San Simeon, HSHM 5539 (SSW 9486). Olpe. PI. 4:1-2. San Simeon, HSHM 5649 (SSW 9959). Flat-bottomed aryballos. PI. 5. San Simeon, HSHM 5620 (SSW 9985). Head-pyxis. PI. 6:1-2. San Simeon, HSHM 5619 (SSW 9500). Pyxis. PI. 7:1-2. San Simeon HSHM 5620 (SSW 9985). Head-pyxis. PI. 7:3. San Simeon, HSHM 5619 (SSW 9500). Pyxis (detail). PI. 8:1-2. San Simeon, HSHM 5611 (SSW 9490). Pyxis. Pls. 9:1-2 and 10:1-4. San Simeon, HSHM 5492 (SSW 9519). Pyxis. Del Chiaro, The Ghiaccio Forte Votive Terracotta Figurine Pls. 1 and 2. T h e Ghiaccio Forte Figurine: 73.52. Pls. 3 and 4. Berkeley, UCLMA 8.2628. PI. 5 Berkeley, UCLMA 8.2479. PI. 6. Berkeley, UCLMA 8.2480. Gordon, Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription PI. 1:1. Duenos Vase. Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Abteilung, Berlin. Inv. no. 30894, 3. PI. 1:2. Dressel's drawing of the inscription (from CIL 1*, p. 371).

viii

Illustrations PI. PI. PI. PI. PI. PI. PI. PI.

2:1. 2:2. 3:1. 3:2. 3:3. 3:4. 3:5. 3:6.

View of the Duenos Vase (from Dressel, Ann. Inst. 1880). Duenos vase, Berlin. Unit 1, to show IOVE/SAT. Unit 2, to show PAC(?)ARI. Unit 3, to show DVE(?)NOS. Unit 3, to show FEC(?)ED. Unit 3, to show DV(?)ENO-. Unit 3, to show M]AL(?)OSTA-.

Hoffman, Epigraphic Notes on IG P 71 PI. PI. PI. PI.

1. 2. 3. 4.

T o p of IG I' 71. Extreme left portion of IG I' 71. Enlargement of top of IG I* 71. Entire left portion of IG I' 71.

Mosshammer, Lucca Bibl. Capit. 490 and the Manuscript Tradition of Hieronymus' (Eusebius') Chronicle PI. 1. Lucca Bibl. Capit. 490, Folio 5 r . PI. 2. Lucca Bibl. Capit. 490, Folio 17 v . Schaeffer, The Costume of the Korai: A Re-interpretation PI. 1. Athens, Akropolis Museum. Kore No. 675. PI. 2.1. Athens, Akropolis Museum, Kore No. 680. Pis. 2.2 and 3. Athens, Akropolis Museum, Kore No. 682. PI. 3.1. Athens, Akropolis Museum. Kore No. 671. PI. 3.2. Paris, Louvre, CA 453. T h e Kleophrades painter. Pis. 4.1 and 2. Athens, National Museum. Kore No. 26, from Eleusis. PI. 4.3. Delphi, Siphnian Treasury. East frieze, Aphrodite. PI. 5.1. Delphi, Siphnian Treasury. North frieze, Hera and Athena. PI. 5.2. Berlin, Staatliche Museen. Inv. 1744. From the Heraion, Samos. PI. 6.1. Athens, Akropolis Museum. No. 682. PI. 6.2. Athens, Akropolis Museum, No. 680. PI. 7.1. Altenburg, Inv. 216. PI. 7.2. Munich, Inv. 1383. The Amasis painter. PI. 8.1. Munich, Inv. 1415. PI. 8.2. Munich, Inv. 2300. PI. 9.1. Athens, National Museum. Bronze kore. Inv. 6491. PI. 9.2. Berlin, Inv. F 2159. The Andokides painter. PI. 10.1. Athens, Akropolis Museum. Kore No. 593. PI. 10.2. Samos, Vathy Museum. Terracotta.

Plate 1

M o u t h of the River Fonissa, from Koryfi.

Anderson & Anderson

Anderson 8c Anderson

Saddle connecting Ayios P a n t e l e e i m o n to m a i n escarpment.

Plate 2

J. G. T. AND J. K. ANDERSON

A Lost City Discovered?

On April 26th 1806, Colonel William Leake, journeying westward from Xylokastro along the Peloponnesian coast of the Gulf of Corinth, noted that "the Khan of Kamares stands at the foot of the pointed mountain so conspicuous from almost every part of the Gulf, called Koryfi. It is beyond doubt the ancient Gonoessa, or Donoessa, or Donussa, to which Homer has well applied the epithet of lofty; for it is higher than the Acropolis of Corinth, and more conspicuous from its being more abrupt and equally insulated. Pausanias has accurately described its position, as being between Aegeira and Pellene." 1 "Lofty Gonoessa" has its half-line in the Iliad, where the dwellers in Hyperesie and lofty Gonoessa, Pellene and Aigion, through all the coast land, and about broad Helike, are listed after the men of Sikyon among the subjects of Agamemnon. One of us has suggested 1 that the poet was assigning to the King of Men territories that in his own time were inhabited by supposed descendants of the Achaeans of Mycenae. The view that "the political divisions implied by the Catalogue reflect a real situation which once obtained in Greece" 3 is probably more widely held at present, but there may still be room to doubt whether the poet versified detailed geographic information handed down from the Late Bronze Age,4 or collected traditions which had accumulated subsequently about the still visible ruins of deserted townships. This second possibility might explain both the apparent association of Homeric names with

2

J. G. T. and J. K. Anderson

sites which the archaeological evidence shows to have been abandoned at the end of the Bronze Age, and the disappointing discrepancies between "Homer" and the place-names found in the Linear B tablets from Pylos.5 At all events, it seems that the poet's place-names are seldom if ever merely imaginary. In searching for Gonoessa, we are faced with the double difficulty that the poet's list of towns west of Sikyon apparendy does not follow any geographical order, and that our only other ancient authority, Pausanias, gives conflicting testimony. In his account of the early history of Corinth he notes that the tyrant Kypselos was descended from Melas, who joined the Dorian host against Corinth from "Gonoussa, above Sikyon."* Leake's "Koryfi" overlooks the neighboring territory of Sikyon, and Curtius accordingly argued that the description was applicable to the mountain.7 It would seem more natural to refer it, as the majority of scholars have done, to some place on or above the escarpment south of the city of Sikyon, where ancient remains, both of the Bronze Age and later periods, are not lacking." Our concern is not, however, with this area, but with the town which Leake believed to have stood on the summit of Koryfi. In his seventh book, Pausanias proceeds eastwards through Achaea, and after describing Aigeira and its territory moves on to Aristonautai, the port of Pellene which lay, he says,9 one hundred and twenty stades from the port of Aigeira. It is certain that he travelled along the coast, either by road through the narrow coastal plain or, very possibly, by boat. When, therefore, he records10 that there was once a township called Donoussa, subject to the Sikyonians and destroyed by them, between Aigeira and Pellene, he indicates that it lay somewhere along the coastal route—or rather above it. He implies that it stood on a height by adding that "they say" that the Catalogue of Ships originally listed "the men of Hyperesie" and lofty Donoessa," but that the name was ignorandy changed to Gonoessa in the Pisistratean recension. Pausanias lets this pass, though he often likes to display his superior knowledge in criticising local traditions.11 Modern scholars generally, and probably righdy, reject Donoussa's claim to Homeric glory in favour of Gonoussa "above Sikyon." But there seems no reason to doubt that Donoussa was a real place, and Leake's Koryfi has been generally accepted as its site, though, as Bolte protests,1' nobody seems to have climbed the mountain to look for it. One of us had in fact made the attempt in the winter of 1950,

A Lost City Discovered?

3

but had been driven back by storms. We were therefore glad to find, in May 1974, that a motorable road 14 now exists from the coastal town of Kamari (Leake's Kamares) to the Nunnery of the Panaghia which is prominently visible on the mountain top and is marked upon the British War Office G.S.G.S. 1:100,000 map (Moni Panayias : I. 7 Xilokastron 359E/624N; the altitude is given as 732m).18 O u r ascent was rewarded by the courteous hospitality of the two nuns who had resided on the mountain since before the Second World War, by a church, picturesque but containing little of antiquarian interest, and by a truly magnificent view. The mountain commands not only "all the coast land" from beyond Aigeira to the Corinthia, but the Gulf of Corinth with the mountains of Central Greece beyond. T o the south, a wide saddle, cut off on either side by great cliffs, separates Koryfi from the heights that were once crowned by ancient Pellene (Palati 337E/587N, above modern Pellini). Beyond are the mountains of the Central Peloponnese. We regret that a persistent haze prevented us from doing the scene photographic justice. But of an ancient city there is no sign whatsoever. The mountain top forms a flat plateau, about three hundred yards long from east to west and one hundred from north to south. T h e nunnery lies at the east end and has next it a few small vegetable plots; the rest of the plateau was fallow, with a few thin strips of barley. We searched carefully, and at first enthusiastically, over the whole area, but could find neither worked stone, roof tile, nor potsherd that could not clearly be connected with the modern religious community. We concluded that Donoussa probably stood not on Koryfi itself but upon a foothill. We were attracted by the precipitous bluffs on each side of the River Fonissa, which emerges from the gorge to the West of Koryfi and at its mouth (364E/650N) divides the coastal towns of Kamari and Kato Loutron 16 (pi. 1:1). T h e eastern bluff is reached by taking the road from Kamari to Koryfi (sign-posted Moni Panayias) as far as the underpass below the modern motorway, and immediately thereafter turning right along a passable farm track. This track may be followed westwards for half a mile, through pleasant lemon groves, to the foot of a steep bank whose sides are also planted with lemons, and irrigated from sources higher up the north face of Koryfi. Above this one reaches the north-east corner of an open triangular area, whose northern and western sides, both about a

4

J. G. T. and J. K. Anderson

quarter of a mile long, are formed respectively by the escarpment overlooking the coastal plain and the cliffs above the Fonissa. Towards the south, and especially at the southwest corner, the area has no natural defences, but inclines gendy upward to join the lower slopes of Koryfi. It is called by the local farmers "Ano Tarasseis" (written "Awa Tapaoxrcis by our informant)—the "Upper Terraces." It is in fact divided by the remains of a fairly modern terrace wall running roughly from north to south. But at the time of our visit it was not under cultivation, and we were able to walk over the whole area, and note broken roof tiles and potsherds, strewn over the surface, and in the sides of a ditch that conducts water to the lemon groves. The remains included black-glaze and coarse fragments from cooking pots and wine amphorae. We noted one large squared block (about 4 feet long) not in situ, about the middle of the area. The antiquity laws (of which the farmers stand in great respect) prevented us from gathering pieces for study, but we saw nothing prehistoric, and the completely open south side of the site makes it unsuitable for a fortress. Nor did we find anything certainly Hellenistic, and in this respect the site differs from that of some other Achaean hill towns, which seem to have continued in occupation until after the Roman conquest.17 We cannot of course offer more than a very tentative dating for "Ano Tarasseis," but suggest that a considerable village or small township may have stood here until the fourth century B.C. Can this be Donussa? It seems unlikely that Pellene, which possessed warships18 and no doubt a seaport during the Peloponnesian War, could have been cut off from the sea by a Sikyonian outpost at any time after the prehistoric period. But why did the Sikyonians destroy their own town? They might of course have razed it "to save it from the enemy" before evacuating it, but we would suggest that the repetition of 'S.lkvojplcjv in the first sentence of Paus.7.27.13 may be due to a slip either by Pausanias himself or by some early copyist, and that Donussa was in fact a dependency of Pellene, destroyed by Sikyon. If our dating is close to the truth, we suggest that the sack of this open town might conceivably have been an unrecorded incident of the confused wars in the Peloponnese that followed the Spartan defeat at Leuktra, when Pellene joined with Thebes and the tyrant Euphron of Sikyon against Phlious,19 and immediately thereafter appears as the friend of Phlious, Athens and Sparta.*0 The fact that Pausanias ascribes the destruction to "the Sikyonians" collectively rather than to some legendary

A Lost City

Discovered?

5

prince might perhaps indicate that the destruction took place after the end of the heroic period. Of more interest, from the Homeric standpoint, is the site to the west of the Fonissa. This is reached by following the (sign posted) motor road from Kato Loutron (340E/653N) towards Vrisoula (302E/616N) as far as the top of the escarpment above the coastal plain, and then striking east for a quarter of a mile through vineyards bordered by pine trees and low scrub. Beyond the vineyards a narrow saddle, with steep cliffs on either side, connects to the main escarpment a small tableland (maximum length 50m E-W : 30m N-S) cut off on all other sides by sheer and crumbling cliffs of soft rock. A chapel of Ayios Panteleeimon (marked but unnamed on the British map : 349E/640N) stands in the middle of the tableland. We were unable to explore the top of the hill completely, as all except the immediate surroundings of the chapel was under cultivation, and we did not want to trample the green barley. We did note a few possibly prehistoric sherds. But when we came to examine the west face above and to the south of the connecting saddle, there was no further doubt. We observed on the surface fragments of handmade grey bowls, mottled red and black handmade ware (both Early Helladic?), and wheelmade fragments, including what we suppose to be the foot of a Late Helladic kylix" (pi. 1:2). We conclude that a small Bronze Age site, of great natural strength, occupied this hilltop, which must have been larger than it is today. (The soft sandstone rock is constantly eroding, and exploration of the steep upper slopes is hazardous.) If we are right in placing Donussa at "Ano Tarasseis," its people may have found in ruins on "Ayios Panteleeimon" justification for their Homeric pretences. University of California Berkeley NOTES 'W. M. Leake, Travels m the Morea 3 (London 1830) 385. Cf. Horn. II. 2.573; Paus. 2.4.4; 5.18.7; 7.26.13. *J. K. Anderson, "A Topographical and Historical Study of Achaia," BSA 49 (1954) 72. On the Kingdom of Agamemnon, our position is close to that of A. Giovannini,

6

J. G. T. and J. K. Anderson

Élude Historique sur les origines du Catalogue des Vaisseaux (Berne 1969) 44. "Donner i Agamemnon un état réel où n'aurait pas figuré Mycènes . . . cela n'entrait pas en ligne de compte puisque la tradition faisait venir Agamemnon de Mycènes. Il ne restait donc au Cataloguiste qu'à grouper artificiellement autour de Mycènes une série de cités qui au VII e s. n'avaient rien à voir avec elle." We would however lay more stress on the traditions, and less on the political realities, of the poet's own day. *R. Hope Simpson and J. F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of the Ships m Homer's Iliad (Oxford 1970) 156. 'Denys Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1959) 123-124. 'But see Hope Simpson and Lazenby (supra n. 3) 86-87 for a well-argued defence of the view that Nestor's kingdom in the Catalogue is "a reflection of the Mycenean kingdom." They are however concerned with the presence or absence of "Homeric" names in the tablets; the fact that so many place-names which seem important in the tablets are not found in Homer should also be noted. Giovannini (supra n. 2) 28-30 sets the "Kingdom of Nestor" in Triphylia, still unconquered in the poet's day. •Paus. 2.4.4; cf. 5.18.7, the account of the Chest of Kypselos. 'E. Curtius, Peloponnesos 2 (Gotha 1852) 498. '£. Meyer, Peloponnesische Wanderungen (Zurich and Leipzig 1939) 11, considers it impossible to assign the names of Sikyonian villages that are preserved in literature to different sites. Hope Simpson and Lazenby (supra n. 3) 68-69 have a suggestion for Gonoussa, but acknowledge that the site may be Titane (Paus. 2.11.3-2.12.2). •Paus. 7.26.14. "Paus. 7.26.13. " T h e identification of Hyperesie with Aigeira (Paus. 7.26.2), is acceptable: Hope Simpson and Lazenby (supra n. 3) 68. "E.g. Paus. 2.23.3; 5.2.3 - 5 ; 8.15. 6 - 7 . "RE 7 (Stuttgart 1912) 1587-1588 s.v. "Gonussa," listing earlier travellers. F. von Duhn, "Bericht über eine Reise in Achaia," AM 3 (1878) 61 rejects Koryfi on the grounds that no water would be available on the mountain top and that a Sikyonian township lying directly between Pellene and its port of Aristonautai is unthinkable. He therefore proposes to put Donussa further west, on Cape Avgo, the conspicuous promontory that divides the territory of Pellene from that of Aigeira. He did not, however follow the coastal route, and so did not inspect Cape Avgo closely. Its steep sides and pointed top in fact offer no site for a town; moreover a Sikyonian dependency here would be out of touch with its mother city. "Route à peine carrossable, to employ a phrase familiar to Hellenic travellers rather than the more picturesque description applied at the time. We are indebted to our driver, Mrs. I. E. Anderson, for getting us there and back again. "We have followed Hope Simpson and Lazenby (supra n. 3) 18 in our use of and mode of reference to this map. The rubric 1.7 Xilokastron is omitted in subsequent references. "Leake (supra n. 1) 384 places Aristonautai, the port of Pellene, at Kamari. The ancient remains (chiefly Roman) which confirmed him in preferring this site to Xylokastro have much diminished since 1952, and the whole area has been disturbed by the construction of the modem motorway. "J. K. Anderson, "Excavations near Mamousia in Achaia," BSA 48 (1953) 168.

"Thuc. 8.3.2. "Xen. Hell. 7.2.11. "Xen. Hell. 7.2.18; Anderson (supra n. 2) 91. "We are most grateful to Dr. and Mrs. H. W. Catling for discussing our notes. We cannot of course claim that they "identified" from our inadequate descriptions pieces that they never actually saw.

W. S. ANDERSON

A New Pseudo-Ovidian Passage

While working on the manuscripts of Ovid's Metamorphoses at the Vatican Library in spring 1974, I reviewed the inventory for the recent acquisition known as the Fondo Patetta. 1 One new ms. must now be added to the valuable catalogue that Franco Munari has published and enhanced by two supplements.* Fondo Patetta 314 (membr.) mm. 250 x 165. ff. 1-82 saec. 14. Contains Met. 1.1-10.209, written in at least three distinguishable hands. After f. 5, one leaf has dropped out containing 1.393-468; after f. 40, one gathering is lost containing 4.7486.63; after f. 81 v = 10.209, the remainder of the text is missing. 3 T h e ms. is without interest for the text of Ovid's poem and has no significant amount of glosses or marginalia, with one notable exception, discovered by the scholar who first described the ms. in the inventory, L. Duval-Arnould. In the margin of f. 68 v appear 44 hexameter lines introduced by these words: Isti versus non habentur communiter, sed fuerunt reperti in quodam Ovidio antiquissimo. The lines describe a new and utterly fantastic metamorphosis, of a flamen dialis into a gallus, a rooster with a most typically active libido, a change due to the malicious activities of Venus. The text of the Met. for ff. 59-73 is written by the manus prima. The marginal lines, however, are the work of a different hand, identical with what I call the manus tertia, which wrote ff. 53-58 and 74-8 l v . Since f. 68 v

8

W. S. Anderson

contains 8.689-721, the latter portion of the story of Philemon and Baucis, it is not clear where the interpolator wished to insert these 44 additional lines. As can be seen in plate 1, a space of two lines is erased between 708 and 709, and a curious line drawing of something like a wavy fabric has been marked over the erasure. That, however, is no place for these lines. On f. 69 r , in the margin after 8.726, a later hand otherwise not identified has written: Hie deficit metamorfosis flaminis in gallum. Et versus illi qui sunt in alio latere debentur hie esse. At the end of the edifying tale of Philemon and Baucis, then, namely after 724, a later reader thought these lines could be inserted. In the text here printed for the first time, I have regularized the spelling along familiar lines. A brief apparatus comments on other points. altera sed nostris res dictu horrenda sub annis claruit et toto iam non incognita mundo. namque Iovi sacrum cum plenus numine flamen Vestali praesente choro solemne parabat [-ret man. sec.~\, iamque erat et tenui praecinctus tempora vitta ornatusque caput mitra, pendebat ad imum byssus et in Tyrio radiabat splendidus ostro, turn Venus irridens, "talem te prima sacerdos excipiat," dixit; "lateat sub veste pudoris tectus amor; nostrum tua per modulamina numen gaudeat et dulcis nostra sit cantus in ara." nec mora, flamineas transfixit fiamma medullas. uritur et dum assueta deo praeconia temptat dicere, languentis animi vox querula vulnus nuntiat insani repetito carmine amantis. sensit et ipsa deae tempio praefecta sacerdos iam tandem furiale malum, dumque ora canoris miratur iocunda modis, dum cantibus amens tollitur et tacito collustrat singula vultu, se manibus (?) furiosa ferit; nunc fixa cohaeret obtutu, nunc mota gradu titubante caducum vix tolerat corpus, qualis canit orgia mater. plena deo iam totus habet praecordia flamen. invitant oculi, renuit pudor. ausa pudorem aggreditur vincitque Venus, tumefactus in illam fertur et, oppressam ne rideat ulla sororum,

5

10

15

20

25

A New Pseudo-Ovidian Passage prodigus in cunctas promit sua munera flamen. mox quoque de tanta nullam sine crimine turba dimisisse potest (Veneris sic dona redundant). Iuppiter haud impune tamen sua sacra profanis laesa videns, turpi coeuntes foedere tempio eripit. at crimen mutata veste pudendum dissimulât plumaque tegit miseratus utrumque. vertice cristato flamen decoratus amictu splendidus irradiai, collo caudaque superbit. longior et vox alta manet quae dividat horas, debita quaeque suo persolvat vota Tonanti. sacra sed in parvum luxu peccantia rostrum ora cadunt abeuntque manus pedibusque sub uncis clauduntur remanetque sacro prò flamine gallus. induitur plumas simul et vittata sacerdos statque viro subiecta suo. nec prisca recessit corpore mutato virtus: incensa libido régnât et in multas dispergitur illa sorores.

9

30

35

40

6 distinxi ego 7 splentidus P; sed cf. 35 20 se manibus dubitanter tentavi; legi potest T (aut I aut L) in (aut m)riibus, unde probavi etiam in manibus, luminibus, liminibus. 31 lese P; correxi 32 mutate P; correxi

COMMENTARY

From the twelfth century on, many imitations of Ovid appeared, a recognizable phenomenon of the aetas Ovidiana.* Most of these tend to be written in the elegiac meter. I know of no other extensive set of lines which purport to add an entire story to the repertoire of the Met. A number of infelicities brand these 44 lines as pseudoOvidian. First, the subject of this story is inappropriate not only to this portion of Book 8 but also to any section of the Met., even Books 13-15. In Book 8, Ovid still focuses on the mythological period of Theseus, long before Roman times, the only part of the carmen perpetuum which might conceivably deal with a flamen dialis. As for the later books, they are concerned with the founding of Rome and then the succession of deities or deified figures like Caesar. I see no place where this story would fit. Secondly, the narrator has tried to be Ovidian in his choice of many words or

10

W. S. Anderson

phrases and presumably in the selection of a risqué subject, but his clumsiness repeatedly betrays him. No motivation is assigned for Venus' malicious intrusion. The metamorphosis lacks the clarity we would expect in Ovid. And why Jupiter suddenly pities the two in 33 is a mystery. Thirdly, as notes on individual lines will demonstrate, many words are not only non-Ovidian but also belong to vocabulary of late antiquity or medieval times. Finally, the writer's idea of a flamen of Jupiter bears little correspondence to the flamen known to Ovid. This flamen of our passage wears a fillet around his temples, a mitra on his head (an Asiatic turban which, on a man, connotes effeminacy), and sports a long scarlet linen robe that reaches down to his feet. Such a description would only be possible at a time when one could imagine that a flamen had the liberty to dress in such a ridiculous fashion. In Ovid's day, the flamen dialis lived under the strictest of circumstances, and these affected his attire. On his head, he always had the pointed white cap known as the apex. He always wore the woolen toga praetexta which was woven exclusively by his wife, a white robe with a purple stripe. COMMENTARY ON INDIVIDUAL LINES

1. dictu horrenda: inelegant elision of the final syllable of the supine. sub annis: same phrase in same position in Met. 12.183. 2. claruit: nowhere in Ovid; this usage seems appropriate to the third or fourth century, when the perfect becomes common. See TLL s.v.II.B.2. incognita: same position in Met. 2.46. The clause here, however, is redundant. 3. plenus nutnine: cf. Fasti 6.538, plena dei and Ovid, Frag. 2.1, plena deo. 4. At certain sacrifices where the flamen dialis officiated, Vestal virgins also took part. Here, the writer is consistent with ancient Roman practices. parabat: the imperfect indicative is the consistent usage in 5-7; hence the emendation of the second hand to subjunctive • is without merit. 5. The fillet (vitta) is documented by Varro, who uses the synonym filum in order to exploit a false etymology: jlamines, quod in Latio capite velato erant semper ac caput cinctum habebantfilo,filamines dicti {Ling. Lat. 5.84).

A New Pseudo-Ovidian Passage

11

praecinctus: used by Ovid, though not usually in this position and never to describe the wearing of a fillet. tempora vitta: standard Ovidian phrase, with velatus {Met. 5.110), vinctorum (7.429), circumdata (13.643). 6. ornatusque caput: for the structure, cf. ornata capillos (Met. 11.385). mitra: for the anachronistic, totally improper Eastern turban, see supra p. 10. 7. byssus: soft linen, described by Classical Greek writers as used especially for bandages. It subsequently is employed for a woman's robe, as in Theocritus 2.73 and its first appearance in Latin (2nd cent, A.D.), in Apuleius, Met. 11.3. radiabat: same position, but plural, in Met. 2.4. splendidus ostro: same phrase in Met. 8.8. Tyrio . . . ostro: same phrase in Her. 12.173; same except for Tyrioque in Met. 10.211. 8. turn Venus: abrupt introduction of deity, hardly characteristic of Ovid. irridens: a verb never used by Ovid in the Met. to describe a deity; in fact, it belongs to the typology of blasphemers, e.g., Lycaon in 1.221 or Pirithous in 8.612. prima sacerdos: I assume that the writer refers to the chief Vestal both here and below in 16. 9. excipiat: with an erotic nuance, as in Met. 3.285. sub veste pudoris: a reference to the priest's or priestess' modest robes, but it is not clear which is here meant. 10. modulamina: not found in Ovid or in Latin before Gellius. Normally refers to music, and the context suggested by the next clause supports that sense here. There might be an erotic metaphor, however. 11. cantus in ara: awkward picture. 12. nec mora-, very familiar Ovidian tag, an initial dactyl to start an episode. flamineas: not in Ovid. TLL doubts the legitimacy of this form. But cf. Jerome, Epist. 123.8. transjixit: though common from the time of Plautus, this verb does not occur in Ovid. T h e metaphor with flamma (instead, say, of Cupid's sagitta) is odd. medullas: as the target of passion, cf. Met. 1.473 (used with traicere). 13. uritur et: same initial sequence for Apollo's passion in Met. 1.496.

12

14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20.

21.

22.

W. S. Anderson dum assueta: questionable elision for Ovid. praeconia: good Ovidian word in this position; cf. Met. 12.573. vox querula: as the context suggests, a reference to the elegiac manner and its frequent topic of love, in sharp contrast to the customary praeconia of Jupiter mentioned in 13. The scansion requires lengthening of the short e of querula, also of short -is of languentis (the latter perhaps justified by the caesura). repetito carmine: not an Ovidian phrase. T h e elision with amantis is clumsy. praefecta: rare in Ovid, but it does occur in Her. 12.87. This is the prima sacerdos mentioned by Venus in 8. I assume that deae refers not to Venus, but to Vesta, in accordance with the scene set in 3-4 and to give more malicious pleasure to Venus (who thus destroys the pudor of two traditionally chaste religious types). With the unimaginative verb sensit, the writer apparently suggests that Venus has victimized the priestess, planting amor sub veste pudoris (9). furiale: common adjective in the Met., though never used with such a weak word as malum. Cf. 4.506. ora canoris: a jingling phrase not found in Ovid. miratur iocunda: the reading iocunda I owe to my colleague R. H. Rodgers. What looks like urunda (which is an unorthodox form and causes metrical problems) can be demonstrated to be iocunda: the ligature in oculi 24 is identical. tacitu . . . vultu: same phrase (acc. pi.) in Met. 3.241. collustrat: not used by Ovid, but occurs in Vergil Aen. 3.651. se manibus: my emendation for the indecipherable initial letter and the series of minims and abbreviation sign that precede -bus. T h e verb ferit normally requires an object. Assuming se, we secure satisfactory Latin and a typical scene of an ecstatic person who strikes herself. fixa cohaeret: this phrase has a literal analogue in adfixa cohaesit, Met. 4.553, but Ovid does not use it metaphorically as here. obtutu: Ovid has this noun once only, in Trist. 4.1.39. titubante: in Ovid, employed only to describe drunken staggering. caducum: un-Ovidian and unusual with corpus. qualis . . . mater, awkwardly phrased simile. Orgia is properly used only of Bacchus and is so employed by Ovid in the two occurrences of the word in his poetry. This writer compares the wild priestess with an ecstatic mater, perhaps a maenad.

A New Pseudo-Ovidian Passage

13

I read mat(er) because the abbreviation sign seems the same as in mun(er)a 27, Ven(er)is 29. 23. plena deo: cf. above, 3. We would have expected dea (=Venus). totus: awkward transfer of the adjective from praecordia. 24. T h e writer sets u p a tension between amor (implied by oculi) and pudor which would be appropriate to Ovid, except that in the one case in the Met. where he uses renuere Ovid describes Cupid as the denying force. 25. aggreditur: standard Ovidian word, often used in this position. However, Ovid never attributes such action to a deity, and the metaphorical notion of attacking pudor this way is alien to him. tumefactus: never employed in this erotic sense by Ovid or any other Latin writer. 26. Another line where the writer's narrative awkwardness manifests itself. Whereas we have been led to expect significant interaction between flamen and Vestal, and the phrase in illam / fertur seems to initiate the expected description of wild sexual activity, this pseudo-Ovid misses his opportunity and veers off to report the sexual prowess of the flamen with the other Vestals (sororum/), on the assumption (inconceivable to a Roman of Ovid's day, but typical of a time when Vestals and even nuns could serve as material for risqué stories) that the chief Vestal's sexual downfall could provoke malicious laughter from the other Vestals. 27. prodigus: a rare adjective in Ovid, and never in this erotic sense. promit sua munera: this collocation does not occur in Ovid, either in a literal or metaphorical sense. 28. sine crimine: for the specific application to a sexual misdeed, cf. Met. 2.433. 29. dimississe: awkward use of perfect tense, apparently for metrical reasons. Veneris dona: the phrase, while obvious, does not occur in Ovid, and I can find no examples cited in TLL. T h e half-line parenthesis is a standard Ovidian device. 30. This episode, where a deity resents the profanation of his shrine and punishes the guilty lovers by metamorphosis, is no doubt suggested by the parallel scene in Met. 10.686-704., where Hippomenes and Atalanta profane a shrine of Cybele, victimized by Venus, then suffer metamorphosis as punishment.

14

W. S. Anderson

haud impune: familiar Ovidian phrase; cf. 2.474. sacra prof ants: same pair of words in same position in Met. 3.710. 31. turpi foedere: this attenuated sense o f f o e d u s here meaning litde more than "union" is entirely un-Classical. If Ovid wishes to refer to the marital bond or union, he always limits foedus with the adjective coniugiale or genitive nouns like lecti or thalami. T h e r e is no Ovidian example offoedus applying to extramarital sexual intercourse. templo / eripit: here again the writer may be guilty of anachronism. T h e flamen was preparing a sacrum. (3), presumably some kind of sacrifice or offering, to Jupiter when Venus began her malevolent game. Such religious acts normally took place in the space defined as sacred, the templum, at the altar outside the actual building where the cult statue was kept. In Rome, the scene would have been on the Capitoline, in front of the sacred building of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as is depicted in the well-known relief of the Conservatori Museum. This writer seems to imagine the guilty parties pursuing their lust inside the building, and that obliges the angry Jupiter to throw them out. In other words, this writer may imagine Roman worship to have been similar to Christian, to have taken place inside the building. 32. eripit: awkward; one would have expected a verb like expulit. mutata veste: now we see why this writer has dressed his flamen in such outlandish attire. It is going to be adapted to the brightly colored cock into which he turns. Ovid handles metamorphosis quite differently: he never concentrates exclusively on dress, even in the case of Picus (14.388-96), but describes, in bird-changes, how noses turn into beaks, how hands and arms don plumage and become wings, how feathers sprout on the body, how legs and feet turn into talons. pudendum: an otiose un-Ovidian addition to crimen. 33. dissimulat: Ovid uses this verb in this position to describe the way feathers conceal the hair of Cygnus in Met. 2.374 during the process of metamorphosis. This writer's conceit that Jupiter conceals the crime by metamorphosis of attire is very odd. miseratus: the reading is almost certain, and indeed the participle appears in a conventional metrical position; cf. Met. 4.531, 6.135, 11.339. However, although gods do work changes from pity, in this narrative pity is abruptly, even absurdly introduced, without the propriety or preparation that Ovid exhibits.

A New Pseudo-Ovidian Passage

34.

35.

36. 37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

15

utrumque: the scene is not clearly visualized by the narrator; he seems to have forgotten that the flamen has become involved with all the Vestals. vertice cristato: Ovid uses cristatus of a cock in Met. 11.597 and Fasti 1.455. decoratus: never as a participle in Ovid. amictu: does this refer to the scarlet byssus in 7? irradiat: not in Ovid; it appears as transitive verb in Statius, intransitive no earlier than the 4th century. The writer refers back to 7. caudaque superbif. a picturesque phrase not found in Ovid. A curious description of the rooster's crowing, as long and high. It is unclear how the rooster fulfills vows to Jupiter. It may be that the writer thought that the bird could be sacrificed to Jupiter. In fact, it was connected with Mars, Aesculapius, Nox, and the Lares. sacra . . . peccantia: both words might be attributes of ora, but I suspect that the writer meant sacra as a substantive (cf. 30) and object of the participle. The usage would be un-Ovidian. Indeed, Ovid never uses this form of the participle. cadunt: Ovid does not use this verb in descriptions of change: "fall" is too strong. abeunt. . . clauduntur: Ovid does not use two clauses to describe a single process of change. One of the verbs should be omitted. remanetque: un-Ovidian use of this verb at this point. We would expect a simple verb like fit to denote the bird that results from metamorphosis. Then would follow, if desirable, comments on those elements of the human flamen which continued, remained constant in the rooster. See my article, "Multiple Change in the Metamorphoses," TAP A 94 (1963) 4-5. induitur. common in Ovid's descriptions of metamorphosis, but never with plumas. Ovid thinks of feathers covering or concealing. vittata sacerdos: the writer limits himself to mentioning the transformation of the chief Vestal (cf. 8, 16, 25) into a hen. However, from the way the fabula is applied, we may reasonably assume that the other Vestals have been sent to the barnyard too. recessit: familiar Ovidian verb in expected position. However, the sudden shift to the perfect tense is disturbing.

16

W. S. Anderson

43. corpore mutato: same phrase, same position in Met. 9.393. virtus: this witty reference to sexual vigor is not Ovidian, nor is there any story in the Met. which concerns itself with the survival of sexual activity. incensa libido: a vigorous, but not Ovidian, phrase. 44. regnat: as a metaphor of passion and fire, cf. Met. 1.241, 8.829, and 12.221. dispergitur: the only form of this verb employed by Ovid, and once only, is dispersa, to refer to scattered implements. In the sense of "lavish," which seems consistent with the description of 27 and 29, the verb appears in the later Christian writers. Cf. TLL IB1, opes, rem familiarem, pecuniam prodige diffundere . . . largiter praebere. University of California Berkeley

NOTES l Fondo Patetta, Inventario, 4 vols, typed (Vatican 1970). 'Franco Munari, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Ovid's Metamorphoses, B1CS Suppl. 4 (1957). This catalogue listed 390 mss. Munari published a first supplement, containing mss. 391-396, in RF 93 (1965) 2 8 8 - 2 9 7 ; a second supplement, containing mss. 3 9 7 405, in Studio florentina Alexandro Ronconi sexagenario oblata (Rome 1970) 275-280. *I have corrected several misprints that occur in the description of the Inventario. 'See P. Lehmann, "Pseudo-antike Literatur des Mittelalters," Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 13(1927), especially 1 - 1 5 , and F. W. Lenz, "Einführende Bemerkungen zu den mittelalterlichen Pseudo-Ovidiana," Das Altertum 5 (1959) 171-182. Lenz has published critical editions of a number of these Ovidian imitations in Eranos 53 (1955) 6 1 - 7 4 , Maia 9 (1957) 2 0 4 - 2 2 2 , Ovidiana (Paris 1958) 526-540, and RCCM 1 (1959) 9 7 - 1 0 5 .

Plate 1

«1rm mrtn pnurqi rap Htm« pni5td-4r.t3tvn.il tdito ri tma iirtn.tli.tr fylinfc' ofttc. £ (Wim faiiffätr .rr> 0(>t!up itvwmoi« «ti». Cu liin'imS:'« mit pula GtHM C fi-Wsy IczfC.uieteitp «Ott .numtuv. uirfir ,n uVf. .«••«Ill .ttMÜt . 111*' *! 1-11.1 Hl .1x1 I Ii Ml.. ä Ä ' Ä m 'Z t t Z £ ccto.» «*. W yUcm&m (Uttttuwl «iiffivir ti wi4 ustetwUr Vmci' -ifcmnu nuinv mfto Vn^ j T>«T ilTimii .tco v villi ft yi tr TT tJTM if' optetU.Ä I.1ÌW5 U-lllOt Icöttllf **S m? Libiti .It no* ittlU twilwtif nttcur tTMi «••>>' «ro « » « -titi4ti*. 1 «Jxtm Ctipir.ipct- rtmntxphviftnon ' -J-1 f.r rt(M »c n yi. iifm ftrtot» Iti tlfcVt f">""'•* *"»"H«it4 H«"i. - , . ifuA^i —— v_ì™ u. < stiff utta tutte Jitmf fno'wnl ».als HttllÄau W iWi'mie »ititbit rnlnl'tlTii VIT \vtttf r«' Alt4 « K M . >1 «tv gtiKÌMl" faiKp ci. HsiiCTrtifes«' locU)5 I«f huMf i>>«.w tit f..4 r.iF.w4»'""* !iì, »il .vi nì'i'i tviili'fftiAtr t iv' * •Jl .wttwfnt- Otfiif.jìwicnr VHiiUnictvt Uncit'öii^r .ir^iMfit ttnittiit' il.¡-1' i"i'vNi • Is.H.miliar P»tt»t4lifitiar W iiitt tt* ra^i»-.

i|imtnif ^ t t ..tlmP ü t»tl'^it i ^iU.It «wttse ^ ' T rv —**

»'"""'"«»a«

^ ***

P a l e t t a 311. Fol. fi8v. ( N e w \ e r s e s in left m a r g i n . ) F o t o B i b l i o t h e c a \ ' a t i c a n a

DARRELL A. AMYX

San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases*

This article is a sequel to one that was written more than thirty years ago. 1 It is also part of a program to publish, or republish, selected examples from the collection of ancient pottery in the Hearst San Simeon State Historical Monument. 4 Complete publication of the collection, though much desired, must await some cleaning and conservation, and better photographs, of the vases.3 There are, at present, seven Corinthian vases at the monument. At the time of my first visit to San Simeon, in 1940, five pieces were present in the library of the castle, where they were photographed and described, later to be published in the paper mentioned above. Other Corinthian vases then belonging to Mr. William Randolph Hearst were either not seen by me or were for other reasons not included in the paper. Between the seven and the five, there is some duplication. Three of the five pieces then published are still present at San Simeon, two are not. Correspondingly, of the seven vases *I am deeply indebted to Mrs. Ann Rotanzi and her staff for their constant helpfulness and sympathetic interest in our study of the ancient vases in the Hearst State Historical Monument at San Simeon, and to the Hearst Corporation for freely granting permission to pursue these studies. Dr. Dietrich von Bothmer has furnished precious information concerning the later history of the Hearst vases. For other help I am grateful to Thomas Beckman, Evelyn Bell, Darice Birge, Lynn Bettman, Lawrence A. Fleischman, Warren G. Moon, and Lawrence Peck. For financial aid connected with the study of these vases I am indebted to various benefactors, among whom I would mention particularly the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and the Committee on Research of the University of California, Berkeley.

18

Darrell A. Amyx

now at San Simeon, four were not included in my earlier study. A republication of the three overlapping pieces might seem superfluous, except that the original monograph is long out of print, and that new knowledge of the style of these vases has meanwhile accrued. It is, further, of some interest to try to account for all of the Corinthian vases once owned by Mr. Hearst. With the aid of information kindly furnished to me by Dietrich von Bothmer, it is possible to reconstruct a list of these vases, nineteen in all if we include two Etrusco-Corinthian specimens. At the end of this paper, there is a brief Appendix containing some notes on the twelve examples no longer at San Simeon. First, however, let us examine the seven Corinthian vases currently on display in the library of the castle.''

i No. 5705 ( S S W 9 5 1 0 ) , ex Revelstoke (No. 61). OINOCHOE. Plate 1. Trefoil mouth, bifid handle, narrow foot. H. including handle 0.249; H. to lip 0.210; maximum D. of body 0.176; D. of neck 0.074; D. of foot 0.067. Dark yellow-buff clay, good glaze, added red and white colors. Neck, mouth and handle black. Red bands over black at base of neck and in black band between animal friezes; lower part of body black, with red and white over the black near upper and lower edges of this zone; reserved zone, with rays, at base. Two animal friezes: 1, on shoulder, swan and three coursing hounds, all to r.; II, goat to r., between lions, doe facing lion, another goat to r. In the field of each frieze, dot-in-circle rosettes and a few small scratchily incised rosettes. Apparently unpublished. T h e vase is Early Corinthian, barely emerging from the Transitional phase, as is suggested by its wide neck and flattened shoulder. Rough style, somewhat comparable to that of Athens N.M. 12719 (NC 127; classed as Late Transitional by Payne). The presence of coursing hounds on the shoulder of the vase is, to my knowledge, unique, although the subject is not uncommonly found in the bottom friezes of oinochoai and olpai and, occasionally, kotylai synchronous with our vase.5

San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases

19

II

No. 5539 (SSW 9 4 8 6 ) , ex Revelstoke (no. 55). OLPE. Plates 2-3. Ovoid body, narrow neck, widely flaring mouth, trifid handle. H. 0.406; H. to lip 0.380; maximum of D. of body 0.213; D. of mouth 0.170; D. of neck 0.075; base D. 0.127. Intact but glaze peeled from some parts of figure-work; varnished? Dirty buff clay, fairly dull glaze, added red and white colors. Neck and handle black, with once-white (?) pinwheel rosettes on neck; four animal friezes, below each a black band with overpainted red and white bands; fat rays at base. Animal friezes: I, flying bird to 1., between seated sphinxes, between flying birds (the latter long-necked); II, flying bird to r., between does, between lion and female panther, bull facing lion, goat to r.; Ill, boar facing lion, bull to r., flying bird to r. between sphinxes, lion to 1., goat to r.; IV, lion to r., flying bird (long-necked) to r. between goat and ram, lion facing doe, panther facing ram. In the field, filling ornament consisting mainly of incised solid rosettes (the incision is omitted in one or two cases). Bibliography: Catalogue of the Revelstoke Collection, London, Puttick and Simpson, 5 April 1935, No. 33; Amyx apud A. D. Trendall, Annual Bulletin of the National Gallery of Victoria (Melbourne, Australia), col. 3 (1961) 1-5, figs. 1-4 and cover illustration (in color). By the same hand as a closely similar olpe in Melbourne, No. 268/5 (see above; the Melbourne vase is also published in A. D. Trendall, Greek Vases in the Felton Collection (Oxford 1968) 4 and 30, n. 1, and 9 fig. la-lc). After the previous owner of the San Simeon vase, I have called the artist the Revelstoke Painter. The olpe is Early Corinthian, with some lingering traits carried over from Transitional practices. The style is rude but forceful, placing the artist in what Beazley might have called the "Coarser Wing"® of decorators of Transitional and Early Corinthian oinochoai and olpai, in contrast to the more disciplined group consisting of the Painter of Vatican 73 and the Sphinx Painter, and their immediate orbit. Characteristic of the Painter are his avoidance of elaborately symmetrical compositions, his liking for variety in his animals and in his manner of rendering them, his use of thick, boldly incised lines (not canonically arranged) for interior details, and his fondness for large patches of added red coloring. His style, once observed, is not easily forgotten, but up to now no further pieces by his hand have come to light.

20

Darrell A. Amyx HI

No. 5649 ( S S W 9 9 5 9 ) . FLAT-BOTTOMED ARYBALLOS. Plate 4. H. 0.160; mouth D. 0.068; maximum body D. 0.146; base D. 0.104. Intact. T h e r e is a slight indentation on the reverse side of the vase, in the area of the swan's head, damage probably suffered in the kiln; the spot has been smoothed over and retouched, no doubt by the original painter. Dull yellow-buff clay, good black glaze, added red and white colors. Inside of mouth black, tongue-rosette between bands around opening; row of dots on lip, tongues on shoulder, two bands each above and below figural frieze, exterior of foot-ring black; underneath concentric bands around a central dot. In the frieze: vertically opposed palmette-lotus ornament, between cocks; at back, beneath handle, swan to r. In the field, varied rosettes, other incised fillers of irregular shape. Bibliography: Amyx, Cor. Vases 216-220, 229f, and pi. 29:d-f; Benson, AntK 14 (1971) 15 and pi. 3:2, No. 24 (citing further incidental references). Middle Corinthian, fairly early. The vase was unattributed in the original publication, but has since been found to belong to a prolific artist formerly known as the Painter of Athens 282,7 but renamed by Benson in his basic study of the artist, "A Floral Master of the Chimaera Group: the Otterlo Painter," 8 which lists our pooled attributions to this hand. I do not agree with all of the attributions in Benson's list, and there are new attributions to be added, but a discussion of the Painter's Works will appear elsewhere, and it must suffice here just to mention one addition to the list, an interesting flat-bottomed aryballos in the collection of Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dechter, Los Angeles.® On it is represented a padded dancer to r., between sirens. T h e Painter is a specialist in flat-bottomed aryballoi, but a broad-bottomed oinochoe and several alabastra are also known to have come from his hand. By now, more than fifty vases are attributable to him. His is a florid, fairly rough style, distinctive in its eccentric flourishes and "enrichment" of floral complexes and filling ornament. His subjects, usually forming symmetrical compositions, include a number of human (and possibly "narrative") themes worked in among his animals. Occasionally he shows the influence of the Chimaera Group, but (in disagreement with Benson) I find his style basically different. For one thing, he lacks the orderliness and discipline which are characteristic of the Group; for another, he indulges in the application of thick, varied filling

San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases

21

ornament in contrast to the sparse, regular (or totally absent!) filling ornament of the Chimaera Group. He and the Painter of Berlin F 1090 both specialize in flat-bottomed aryballoi and run in courses parallel to that of the Chimaera Group, but neither can have had any close connection with that Group. One has only to contrast the loosely sprawling bravura of the floral piece on the Hearst aryballos with the tightly controlled calligraphic rendering of the palmette-lotus cross on the plate of the Chimaera Group in Berkeley10 to see how great is the difference between the two styles.

IV

No. 5620 (SSW 9985), ex Torr. P Y X I S with handles in the form of female busts ("Head-Pyxis"). Plates 5 and 7:1-2. Said to be from Corinth. H. with lid 0.201; H. of pyxis 0.174; maximum D. of body 0.193; D. of mouth 0.134 (outside), 0.075 (inside); base D. 0.122; D. of lid 0.139. Intact, and the lid belongs. Clear yellow-buff clay; added red, but no white. Inside of mouth black. On top of mouth, enclosed tongues; on edge of lip, interrupted by the female protomai, stepped zigzags. The protomai wear sleeveless chitons and necklaces; details are painted in black and red. The neck of the vase is red on black. On the shoulder, within panels bounded by the female protomai, are three symmetrical groupings: (a) Palmette-lotus cross between seated griffins; (b) vertically opposed lotuses, between seated sphinxes; and (c) siren to r., with spread wings, between seated sphinxes. On the body, bounded each above and below by two-row dicing between pairs of heavy bands (above the frieze, two of these bands are red), a.f.: siren to r., wings spread, between seated sphinxes, between lions, bird to 1., goat to 1., panther facing stag, panther facing goat. On the knob of the lid, whirligig (six, counter-clockwise); on the lid proper, rays, then a.f. between bands of two-row dicing: three times, panther facing goat, then a fourth goat, to 1. Filling ornament: incised rosettes, and dots. Bibliography: Cat. Sotheby 2 July 1929, No. 6, p. 4 and pi. 1; Payne, 307, NC 889 and (details) pi. 28:11, 146 fig. 53c and 151 fig. 57d; Amyx, Cor. Vases, 207-215, 227-229 and pis. 28, 29:a-c, 32:a-b, where a fuller description is given; Benson, GkV 45, List 72, No. 4, "Gruppe der Hearst-Sphingen"; Amyx,Jb. Mainz 6 (1959) 108f; idem, AntK 5 (1962) 5-7 and pi. 3:1-2; L. Banti in EAA VII (1966) 509; Amyx, CSCA 2 (1969) 22, n. 42. Advanced Middle Corinthian. This justly famous pyxis re-

22

Darrell A. Amyx

mained unattributed for many years, but was at last found to belong to an artist whom I have named the Stobart Painter," the central artist of a group of pyxides decorated in a highly refined, attenuated manner which gave rise to the concept of the so-called "Delicate Style" of Middle Corinthian. 12 Thus far nine vases, all pyxides, have been ascribed to the Stobart Painter, and several more are seen to be near him. 18 He is a close follower of the Royal Library Painter, 14 whose style is closely similar, but earlier.

v No. 5619. (SSW 9500). PYXIS. Plates 6:1-2 and 7:3. H. with lid 0.180; H. of pyxis 0.144; D. of mouth 0.085; maximum D. of body 0.171; D. of foot 0.108. Convex-sided, with vertical handles. Intact, and the lid is preserved (a loose fit, but it probably belongs). Yellowbuff clay, dark brown to black glaze, added red color. On knob of lid, whirligig of twelve crescents, alternately red and black; around it, on lid, tongues, red and black bands. On the vase, enclosed tongues, two-row dicing, a.f., bands; underneath vase, concentric bands around a central dot. In the frieze: siren to r., wings spread, between seated sphinxes, between lion and panther (each with head turned), swan facing stag. Filling ornament of rosettes and dots. Bibliography: Possibly Revelstoke (Puttick and Simpson Catalogue, Ancient Greek Pottery, April 5, 1935, No. 36, not illustrated); Amyx Cor. Vases, 223-225, pis. 30:d-f, 31:c, where a fuller description is given; Benson, GkV, 53, List 86, No. 1; Amyx, JbMainz 6 (1959) 108, n. 20; idem, AntK 5 (1962) 6 and n. 22; L. Banti in EAA VII (1966) 234. By the Painter of Hearst SSW 9500 (named after this vase), an artist who already has a history of attributions. In 1943 (Cor. Vases, 224) I attributed to this Painter a pyxis in Boston 15 and cited as "almost certainly" his another, in Amsterdam. 18 T h e r e I mentioned also a pyxis in Bucharest 17 as being "of rougher but related style." T h e foregoing items were transcribed by Benson (GkV 53, List 86) under the title "Maler der eckigen Sphingen" (a name which should be abandoned). Benson listed the first three pieces as certain attributions, and added the fourth as apparently ("wahrscheinlich") by the Painter. O u r Painter appears next in a footnote of mine (JbMainz 6 [1959] 108, n. 20), wherein I proposed the attribution of

San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases

23

the head-pyxis London, BM 1919.11-19.77 (NC 890; BSA 23 [19181919] 41 and pi. 5:4); (tentatively) the pyxides Karlsruhe B 169 (CVA 1, pi. 40:9) and Athens, NM 932 (CC 547), and also the kotyle Athens NM 939, all "of rather mediocre style." He is mentioned once again by me in an article (AntK 5 [1962] 6), wherein I attempted in passing to characterize his style but proposed no f u r t h e r attributions. Later still, the Painter has achieved Encyclopedic immortality (see L. Banti in EAA VII [1966] 234, "Pittore delle Sfingi angulose"),1* but again with no further attributions. A review of all previous attributions, examined critically and in the light of latter-day wisdom, suggests to me that only the first three (of the pyxides in San Simeon, Boston and Amsterdam) can be accepted as wholly safe. But we may add to these, with complete confidence, a pyxis recently in the Swiss market," a vase which closely matches those three in all significant respects. I still find plausible (though not quite demonstrable) the attribution of the head-pyxis in London, likewise the pyxis and the kotyle in Athens. I must (as before) firmly reject the pyxis in Bucharest, and I withdraw my attribution of the pyxis in Karlsruhe: neither of these pieces shows more than a general likeness to the work of our artist. This Painter's style resembles to some extent that of the Stobart Painter (see supra), but it is coarser and heavier. A wide range of individual stylistic traits is not clearly established for him, so it is hard to form a positive belief about the less certain pieces. Until such examples are more securely placed, only the sure, central works should be used to provide criteria for new attributions.

VI

No. 5611 (SSW 9490), ex Revelstoke (No. 116). PYXIS. Plate 8. H. including handles 0.154, to top of mouth 0.147; D. of mouth 0.074; maximum D. of body 0.155; D. of foot 0.116. Convex-sided, with vertical handles. Intact; lid missing. Clear yellow-buff clay, metallic glaze, added red color. Surface apparently varnished, but no repainting. Mouth black. On shoulder, unenclosed tongues, then two-row dicing between pairs of narrow bands; animal frieze; wide black zone, then two pairs of narrow bands, another near foot, edge of foot black. In animal frieze: two confronted owls, between eagles with heads turned, between panthers, panther facing goat; filling

24

Darrell A. Amyx

ornament of rosettes with single and double centers, incised and unincised blobs, dots. Red is freely used, especially for spots on avians. Apparently unpublished. Of the four Corinthian pyxides at San Simeon, this is the only one that still "lacks a painter": i.e., it is by a hand to which no other vase has yet been attributed. Coarse, vaguely Geladakian style, but lacking any strong individual traits. Later Middle Corinthian.

VII

No. 5492 (SSW 9519), ex Hope Collection, via Revelstoke; i.e., Cecil Baring, No. 69. PYXIS. Plates 9-10. H. (restored) to top of handles 0.218, to top of mouth 0.210; D. of mouth (as restored) 0.081; maximum D. of body 0.209; D. of foot 0.128. Convex-sided, with double vertical handles, the juncture of each pair capped by a small disk; spreading foot-ring. Mended, parts of foot and mouth restored; minor restorations and repainting (over cracks) in the animal frieze, and the whole surface apparently varnished. Clear yellow-buff clay, fairly lustrous glaze, added red. On shoulder, enclosed tongues from handle to handle on either side; under the arch of each handle, a small owl (four in all). Below handles, two-row dicing flanked above and below by a wide red band and a narrow black band (bR-Rb sequence); a.f.; two narrow bands; wide black zone with overpainted red bands—two near top, two near middle, two near bottom; two narrow bands; edge of foot black. In a.f.: swan with raised wings, between griffinbirds, between panthers; panther facing doe; in the field, "whirling" rosettes with double centers, small rosettes, dots, blobs. Bibliography: E. M. W. Tillyard, The Hope Vases (Cambridge 1923) 23 and pi. 1, No. 3; Payne, 307, NC 904; Benson GkV 53, List 85, No. la; Amyx, Hesperia 25 (1956) 75; idem, CSCA 4 (1971) 31 No. 20, and p. 40. By the Geladakis Painter, whose works are listed and discussed in the article, "Dodwelliana" (CSCA, loc. cit., 29-40), wherein this piece appears as No. 20 in the list. T o the forty-six vases there attributed to the Painter, a substantial number of addenda (seen mainly in Sicily, in 1974) have been observed and will be cited

PLATES

Plate 1

Amyx

Amyx

Plate 2

San Simeon, H S H M 5539 (SSW 9186). Olpe. A u t h o r ' s p h o t o g r a p h .

Amyx

Plate 3

WH®"6

1-3. San Simeon, H S H M 5539 (SSW 9486). Olpe. A u t h o r ' s photographs.

Amyx

Plate 4

Plate 5

San Sinu-oii, H S H \ 1 r)(>20(S.S\V998f>). H e a d - p y x i s . P h o t o g r a p h by Professor H . R . W . S m i t h .

Amyx

Amyx

1-2. San Simeon, H S H M 5619 (SSW 9500). Pyxis. P h o t o g r a p h s by Professor H. R. YV. Smith.

Plate 6

Plate 7

Amyx

1-2. San Simeon, H S H M 5620 (SSW 9985). Head-pvxis (details). P h o t o g r a p h s by Professor H. R. VV. Smith.

3. San Simeon, H S H M 5619 (SSW 9500). Pyxis (detail). P h o t o g r a p h by Professor H. R. W. Smith.

Amyx

Plate 8

I>

v.' >

1

1-2. San Simeon, H S H M 5611 (SSW 9490). Pyxis. A u t h o r ' s P h o t o g r a p h s .

Amyx

Plate 9

1-2. San Simeon, H S H M 5492 (SSW 9519). Pvxis. Author's photographs.

Amyx

Plate 10

San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases

25

individually in a different publication. Meanwhile, it may be worth reporting here that, contrary to what I stated in CSCA, loc. cit., 31 u n d e r No. 18, there is indeed a stemmed pyxis at Palermo by the Geladakis Painter (uninventoried, from Selinus, Galera Deposit 1, 23 March 1889): tongues, dicing, one a.f.; consisting of floral cross, panthers, and sirens, in an oddly unsymmetrical composition but clearly by the Geladakis Painter. One might have hoped that the discovery of this piece would have solved a minor mystery, that of the identity of NC Cat. 910. Unfortunately this is not the case, for Payne's description (stemmed, with "animals and male heads") partly fits both but exactly fits neither of the two pieces here under discussion. Could his entry be a conflation of these two separate pieces? T h e San Simeon pyxis is a late work of the Painter (beginning of LC I), as is evident from the rendering of the animals (in his typical late style), and by the shape of the vase, especially its double handles, best paralleled in the obviously Late Corinthian redground pyxis Taranto NM 20769 (F. G. Lo Porto, ASAtene NS 21-22 [1959-1960] 213, 216f, figs. 188:d and 192). It is of special interest because of the light that it sheds on the later career of the Painter, which I have discussed elsewhere (C5CA, loc. cit., 40).

APPENDIX CORINTHIAN VASES ONCE HEARST, NOT AT SAN SIMEON

According to a note received from Dietrich von Bothmer in 1959, the seven Corinthian vases now at San Simeon had then already been allocated to the monument and were on view in the library. Another dozen were cited by him as belonging to the Hearst Corporation. These latter included the two vases, no longer at San Simeon, which were published (as Nos. I l l and V) in my paper of 1943 (below, Nos. x-10 and x-11); and also two Etrusco-Corinthian vases (below, Nos. x-4 and x-7). In the Parke-Bernet Auction, Works of Art, Furniture and Architectural Elements Collected by the Late William Randolph Hearst (New York, April 5-6, 1963; hereafter, "P-B Auction"), ten of the Corinthian and Etrusco-Corinthian vases then belonging to the corporation (including the four mentioned above) were sold. Notes seen in Bothmer's archives in 1969, and reviewed by him through

26

Darrell A. Amyx

correspondence in 1974, provided information on the later history of some of these vases, which I have been able in part to verify and bring f u r t h e r u p to date, as indicated in the entries below. W h e r e my knowledge allows, I give brief notes on the style of these vases, but there seemed to be no advantage in trying to place t h e m in chronological order. Instead, for convenience of reference, I introduce them in the sequence of their Hearst Inventory ("Monument") numbers. x-i No. 2363 (PC 8 4 2 4 , SSW 1 2 2 6 8 ) . Christie Sale 2 5 J u n e 1 9 3 6 , No. 67; P-B Auction, Lot 80 (illustrated). Acquired by Mr. Jan Mitchell of New York City, thereafter temporarily on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art; then given by him to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem: see the exhibition catalogue, "The Jan Mitchell Gift to the Israel Museum," Cat. No. 1 2 4 / 1 , Summer 1 9 7 4 , No. 4 , pp. 2 6 - 2 9 . OINOCHOE with trefoil mouth, narrow foot. H . to top of handle 0 . 3 7 9 , to rim 0 . 3 3 0 . Three animal friezes: swans, panther-birds, sphinxes, lions, panthers, bull, boar, goat; mixture of dot-cluster and incised rosettes. Excellent style, related to that of the Sphinx Painter, and conceivably by his close follower, the Cabmed Painter (Amyx and Lawrence, A]A 6 8 [ 1 9 6 4 ] 3 8 9 ) . Incipient Early Corinthian. X-2

No. 2386 (SSW 1 2 , 3 3 3 ) , ex Spink and Son, London. P - B Auction, Lot 71 (illustrated). Acquired by Mr. Jan Mitchell of New York City. BROAD-BOTTOMED OINOCHOE. H . 0 . 2 2 3 . Wide mouth, short neck; lid preserved. Incised verticals on shoulder; on body, a.f. between black-polychrome bands; rays at base. In frieze: siren between lions, goat to r., panther, deer, swan. Odd, rough style. Later Middle Corinthian. x-3 No. 2393 (SSW 1 2 , 3 3 8 ) . POWDER PYXIS (with slip-on lid). Not in P-B Auction, present location unknown (still owned by Hearst Corporation?). Photograph seen in Bothmer Archives. On top of lid; panther and stag, both to 1.; on its vertical face, a.f. (boar to 1., goat to 1., . . .); odd, varied f.o. T h e painting on this vase is modern, by the Shoe Lane Painter (on whom see Amyx, Brooklyn Museum. Bulletin 2 1 : 2 [ 1 9 6 0 ] 9 - 1 3 ) .

San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases

27

x-4

No. 3972 (SSW 9525), ex Revelstoke (Puttick and Simpson Sale Catalogue, No. 90). P-B Auction, Lot 47. Acquired by Milwaukee Public Museum (No. 11525/18783). BROAD-BOTTOMED OINOCHOE. H. 0.229. Steeply sloping shoulder, tapering neck. Tongues on shoulder, then four bands, a.f., two bands. In a.f.: siren facing goat, swan facing ram. Gaudy polychrome coloring (retouched?), no filling ornament. Published as possibly Corinthian by H. R. W. Smith, AJA 49 (1945) 467-470, figs. 2:8 and 3:2a-2c), but the shape is typically Etruscan. The style of the animals, not specifically Etruscan-looking, uncomfortably recalls that of the (modern) Dunedin Painter (see CSCA 1 [1968] 13-34, especially 27, n. 23). x-5 No. 3983 (SSW 10,092). P-B Auction, Lot 17. Acquired by Mr. Jan Mitchell of New York City. PYXIS, Convex-sided, without handles, squat shape; lid preserved. Maximum D. of body 0.165. (I know this vase only from photographs made by H. R. W. Smith). Firm glaze, added red color. On lid: chain of alternately inverted lotuses, calyxes cross-hatched (a cruder, simplified version of the type shown in Payne, 154, fig. 62,F). On the vase: tongues, tworow dicing, a.f. (goats facing panthers,. . .), bands, frieze of vertical zigzags in clusters of four bands. Fairly coarse style, with heavy, slashing incision. Attributed (CSCA 4 [1971] 16, under No. 2) to the same hand as the plate, London, BM 1920. 10-14.3, which is apparently the vase intended by Payne as NC 1032 (in spite of some discrepancies in his description). As I should have noted, the plate is published by Mme. Callipolitis-Feytmans (BCH 86 [1962] 131, 15If, No. 28, figs. 8 and 16). In agreement with Payne, she takes the plate to be MC, but if it is it must be very late in that period. I believe that the pyxis is already (incipient) Late Corinthian I. x-6 No. 4006 (PC 8 4 6 7 , SSW 1 2 , 3 1 1 ) , ex Spink and Son, London. P-B Auction, Lot 34. Acquired by Mr. Jan Mitchell of New York City, and now on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (L 6 3 . 2 1 2 ) . KYLIX. D . including handles 0 . 2 0 3 ) . (a) Floral complex between griffin-birds; (b) bird to r., head turned, between griffin-birds. Late Corinthian I "birdie cup" (see AJA 65 [1961] 12 and n. 40

28

Darrell A. Amyx

for a description of the type), but the decoration is less debased than that on most late cups of this kind. *-7 No. 5566 (PC 7634), ex Revelstoke No. 7. P-B Auction, Lot 96. Acquired by Milwaukee Public Museum (No. N-l 1526/18782). O L P E . H . 0.470. Four a.f. Etrusco-Corinthian, belonging to Colonna's Gruppo delle Pissidi (StEtr 29 [1961] 72-74; Amyx in Studi in Onore di Luisa Banti [Rome 1965] 5), but thus far I have not been able to attribute it to any particular hand. x-8 No. 5622 (PC 7646, SSW 9499), ex Revelstoke No. 35. P-B Auction, Lot 52. Acquired by Milwaukee Public Museum (No. N-l 1534/18787). K O T Y L E . D . (including handles) 0.267. Two bands, vertical wavy lines, two bands, a.f., two bands, rays. In a.f.: goat to 1., between panthers, swan to 1.; assorted f.o. Common type of Middle Corinthian kotyle, with routine decoration. x

"9 No. 5634 (PC 7639), ex Revelstoke No. 6. P-B Auction, Lot 73 (illustrated). Acquired by Mr. Lawrence A. Fleischman, of New York City (Kennedy Galleries). OLPE. H. 0.285. Bulbous body, very narrow neck, flaring mouth. Incised verticals below neck; then two a.f., broad black-polychrome zone, rays. In a.f.: (I) lion facing goat (twice), panther to 1.; (II) lion to r., bull facing panther, swan to r., lion to r., two boars confronted; f.o., dot-cluster rosettes. Uncanonical style, recalling that of the strange olpe Rome, Villa Giulia 46,781 (see Axel Seeberg, Corinthian Komos Vases [London 1971] 2f (b) and 10, n. 6, and references there cited). Late Transitional. x-io No. 5644 (PC 7633, SSW 9509), ex Revelstoke, No. 60, P-B Auction, No. 72. Acquired by Galerie Mine. Maspero, Paris. B O T T L E . H. 0.150. Globular body, tall cylindrical neck. Bands, zone of vertical zigzags in nine groups of four each, two animal friezes: (I) siren between sirens (twice), bull to 1. between panthers, panther to r.; (II) siren between sirens, between panthers, panther to r., siren between sirens f.o., "shaded" rosettes and dots. Published (with fuller description) in Cor. Vases, 226, 232 and

San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases

29

pi. 31:a (V); and listed by I. Jucker, AntK6 (1963) 51, No. 21. Apparendy by the same hand as a lid in Palermo, from Selinus, MonAnt 32 (1927), pi. 84:5. Cursory, mechanical renderings, manifestly Late Corinthian 1. x-i 1 No. 5645 (SSW 1 0 , 0 9 1 ) . P - B Auction, Lot 7 2 . Acquired by Mr. Lawrence A. Fleischman of New York City (Kennedy Galleries). B R O A D - B O T T O M E D O I N O C H O E . H. including handle 0 . 1 5 9 ; maxim u m D. of body 0 . 1 3 0 ; D. of base 0 . 1 2 5 . Wide neck, low shoulder, squat shape. Light yellow-buff clay, glaze fired red-brown; added red and white colors. Incised verticals, two-row dicing, a.f., bands. In a.f.: bull to r. between lion and panther, young swan facing goat; f.o. of incised rosettes with double centers, incised blobs, dots. Published (with fuller description) in Cor. Vases 221-223, 230f, pis. 30:a-c and 31 :b (III), wherein there is also a discussion of its relation to the Scale-Pattern Group. At that time, distracted by the absence of "scaly" (inside-out) rosettes in the f.o., I failed to see that the style of this vase places it squarely within the Scale-Pattern Group. Indeed, it is extremely close to the three pyxides NC 916918, given to one artist by Payne (308; cf. Benson, GkV 43, List 71, "Maler der Ringhenkelpyxiden" and L. Band in EAA VI [1965] 582 and fig. 672, "Pittore delle Pyxides con Ansa Anulare"), whom I propose to rename the Pushkin Painter after his pyxis in Moscow (NC 918; republished by N. Sidorova in Die gr. Vase [Rostock; supra n. 7] 540 and pi. 96, with two views of the vase). Besides the pyxides NC 916918, this Painter also decorated several amphoriskoi: compare, for example, Syracuse NM 43,341, from Giardino Spagna (NSc 1925, 188 fig. 15), and Lausanne, Mus. Hist. 4287 (S. G. Zervos, Rhodes [Paris 1920] 40 fig. 60 and 65 fig. 131). A fuller account of the Pushkin Painter will be published elsewhere. Middle Corinthian. x-i 2 No. 5695 (PC 7574). Not sold in P-B Auction (still owned by Hearst Corporation?). BROAD-BOTTOMED O I N O C H O E . T W O a.f.? I have no further information about this vase. T h e dispersal of a collection of antiquities necessarily creates problems for scholars having an interest in the material which it contained. Of the nineteen Corinthian and Etrusco-Corinthian

30

Darreil A. Amyx

vases reported to have been owned by William Randolph Hearst, seven, as we have seen, remained at San Simeon as a part of the Hearst State Historical Monument. The other twelve we have tried to locate, or at least to follow to their next owners, in most instances with apparent success. Nevertheless, there are gaps and uncertainties. I shall be very grateful for any further information that will help to establish the actual present location of any of the "missing" or doubtful pieces. Meanwhile, it is hoped that this recapitulation will be of use to others who may be interested in the same objects. University of California Berkeley NOTES 'D. A. Amyx, Corinthian Vases in the Hearst Collection at San Simeon, University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology, 1:9 (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1943), hereafter Cor. Vases. Other abbreviations are as prescribed by the American Journal of Archaeology 74 (1970) 1 - 8 , with the following additions: a.f.—animal frieze. CSCA—California Studies in Classical Antiquity. D. - Diameter. EAA-Encyclopedia dell' Arte Antica Classica e Orientale, I - V I I (Rome 1958-66). f.o.—filling ornament. GAV—Jack L. Benson, Die Geschichte der korinthischen Vasen (Basel 1953). H.—Height JbMainz—-Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 1—left. NC—Humfry Payne, Necrocorinthia (Oxford 1931), numbers in Catalogue. Payne—Humfry Payne, Necrocorinthia (Oxford 1931), text and illustrations. r.—right. ' T h r e e papers have already appeared: CSCA 4 (1971) 8 1 - 9 1 , "The Baring Amphora at San Simeon," by Evelyn Bell; ibid. 115 - 1 2 3 , "Etruscan Vases at San Simeon," by Mario A.Del Chiaro; and CSCA 5 (1972) 103-111, "The San Simeon Fruitpickers," by Helena Fracchia. T h e r e is a fairly complete file of negatives of record photographs of the San Simeon vases in my office in Berkeley. Apologies are due for the uneven quality of the illustrations for the present article. My luck with the camera has been better on some pieces than on others. Three of the vases are illustrated from excellent photographs made many years ago by the late Professor H. R. W. Smith. 4 In each instance, I cite the vase first by its "Monument" number (the same applies to the vases mentioned in the Appendix, even though they are no longer at San Simeon). T h e r e are two other systems of numbering by which the Hearst vases are sometimes identified: the "Pacific Coast" numbers (preceded by "PC"), and the "San Simeon Warehouse" numbers (normally preceded by "SSW"). For Attic vases, it is worth noting that Beazley often cites the "SSW" number without benefit of prefix, hence it seems desirable to give all known Hearst numbers for any particular vase, as I have done in this article. My files contain a concordance of "Monument" and "SSW" numbers, available free on request, for the ancient vases at San Simeon.

San Simeon Revisited: Corinthian Vases

31

'For examples in the lowest frieze of oinochoai, see Hommages ä Albert Grenier (Collection Latomus 68 [1962] 129 and nn. 4 - 5 . They appear also, not infrequently, on olpai, such as Megara Hyblaea 1 - 1 0 2 1 (located in Syracuse, N.M., in 1974), G. Vallet and F. Villard, Migara Hyblaea, II: La ciramiqut archaique (Paris 1964) 35f, pis. 15-17 and 18:1. On kotylai: Corinth CP-2391, Amyx and Lawrence, Corinth VII:2 (in press); Florence, MA, 76,138; and others. •Cf. Beazley, AÄV 2 , 122-158 (chs. 10-12). 'Lawrence, A]A 63 (1959) 360f and 66 (1962) 187 ("The Painter of Athens 282"); N. Sidorova in Die griechische Vase (Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock, 16 [1967]) 541, with references; Axel Seeberg, Corinthian Komos Vases (London University: Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin, Supplement No. 27, 1971) 64, 68, nn. 2 8 - 2 9 . 'Benson, AntK 14 (1971) 13-24, figs. 1 - 8 and pis. 1 - 5 . •Parke-Bernet Sale Catalogue, New York, Dec. 1, 1972, No. 177 (illustrated); E. Bell, A]A 77 (1973) 244. '•Berkeley, UCLMA 8/104. H. R. W. Smith, CVA, University of California 1, 17 and pi. 6 : 4 a - 4 b ; Benson, GkV 39, List 60, No. 7; Lawrence, AJA 63 (1959) 352f, No. 10 (with attribution to the Chimaera Painter); Callipolitis-Feytmans, BCH 86 (1962) 154, No. CM-67 and 153, fig. 17 (profile). "So named because one of his vases, the pyxis London BM OC 310 (A 1375) was first illustrated i n j . C. Stobart, The Glory that Was Greece (London 1911) 112, No. 1. " O n the question of the "Delicate Style," see AntK 5 (1962) 6-8. "Some of these attributions are mentioned in AntK 5 (1962) 6f, the others in CSCA2 (1969) 22, n. 42. " T h e works of this Painter are listed and discussed in CSCA 2 (1969) 19-23. "Boston, MFA 92.2602 (Arthur Fairbanks, Catalogue of Greek and Etruscan Vases, I [Boston 1928], pi. 47 No. 482); also published by L. Banti in EAA VII (1966) 234, fig. 300. "Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Museum 1279: G. A. S. Snijder, Algemeeru Gids, 1937, pi. 55, middle. "Bucharest, N. M. 0454: Emil Coliu, La collection de vases grecs du Musee Kalmderu (Bucharest 1937) 40f, figs. 21f and pi. opp. 136; now published also in CVA Bucharest 1, 22 and pi. 15:1-5. " T h e pyxis in Karlsruhe is there wrongly cited as a lid ("coperchio"). "Münzen und Medaillen, A. G., Basel, Auktion 40, 5 - 6 Dezember ¡969, 24 and pi. 11, No. 42.

MARIO DEL CHIARO

The Ghiaccio Forte Votive Terracotta Figurine

Although more than seventy years have intervened, an Etruscan votive deposit has served once again to link the University of California with Etruria. As early as 1902, the Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley (henceforth UCLMA) acquired a sampling of ex-votos from a fortuitous find made by Italians in 1885 on the "Vignaccia" property located at the outskirts of Cerveteri (ancient Caere)} In sharp contrast to this chance discovery, the University of California, Santa Barbara excavations at "Ghiaccio Forte," an Etruscan site near Scansano (Province of Grosseto, Tuscany) and some eighty kilometers northwest of Caere, 2 brought to light a votive deposit which included a terracotta figurine (pis. 1 and 2) that finds its closest typological and stylistic parallels in a number of specimens f r o m the Caeretan Vignaccia deposit now in Berkeley (pis. 3-6). 3 In general, the Ghiaccio Forte ex-votos display male and female heads, human and animal figures (bulls, cows, calves, and a boar) of both terracotta a n d bronze, and terracotta models of external and internal anatomical parts. 4 Of primary importance, the Ghiaccio Forte statuette—through analogies with its Berkeley counterparts 5 —will contribute much toward the interpretation of the Ghiaccio Forte votive deposit and the identification of the deity or deities associated with the yet undiscovered temple which must have stood nearby on Poggio Ghiaccio Forte and whence the deposit was derived. All of the figurines—the o n e f r o m Ghiaccio Forte, and those in Berkeley—

34

Mario A. Del Chiaro

are unpainted, hollow with vent-hole,® and represent a barefooted woman (goddess?) dressed in light chiton undergarment and heavy mande draped over the shoulders and across the left arm. In cases where the head is preserved, the figure presents a matronly aspect by reason of the mande drawn up over the head or headdress. The stance is rendered in contrapposto with the weight of the body borne by the right leg, left leg bent, right arm straight down to the side with piglet or small boar suspended by its hind legs from the right hand, the left arm—with one exception—cradled to support a torch, 7 a pitcher grasped in the left hand. Ghiaccio Forte, no. 73.52. Plates 1 and 2. Provenience, Ghiaccio Forte. Preserved height, 17.5 cm. Head missing. AJA 78 (1974) pi. 78, fig. 13; NSc (in press). Berkeley, UCLMA, no. 8.2628. Plates 3 and 4. Provenience, Caere. Preserved height, 19.1 cm. Head missing. Berkeley, UCLMA, no. 8.2479. Plate 5. Provenience, Caere. Height, 25 cm. Restored at shoulder line, upper thighs, and corner of base including left foot to above the ankle and folds of mantle below pitcher. Berkeley, UCLMA, no. 8.2478 Provenience, Caere. Preserved height, 22.5 cm. Head and lower portion of the figurine from just above the ankles are missing. Berkeley, UCLMA, no. 8.2480. Plate 6. Provenience, Caere. Height, 23.5 cm. The head may not belong to this figurine. Berkeley, UCLMA, no. 8.2481 Provenience, Caere. Height, 27 cm. Maule-Smith, pi. 2c.

The Ghiaccio Forte Votive Terracotta Figurine

35

Of the five UCLMA terracotta statuettes here listed, no. 2481 bears only a piglet, whereas the remaining four specimens—like the Ghiaccio Forte figurine—include a torch. 8 Despite the thickness of the base, 9 1 believe that nos. 8.2628 (pis. 3 and 4) and 8.2479 (pi. 5) are f r o m a single mould. Likewise, nos. 8.2478 and 8.2480 (pi. 6) must be from a single but different mould. Although the composition of the clay may be consistent at a given site, irregularity in clay color—as present in our figurines—is not unusual for manufactured terracottas, which are often described as "buff, greyish, greenish, tan to yellowish, orange to reddish," etc., variations probably due to technicalities in firing or, as may sometimes be the case, the result of conflagration. In addition to the typological parallel drawn between the Ghiaccio Forte votive figurine and the Berkeley Vignaccia statuettes, stylistic similarities are directly apparent when comparison is made with special attention to the rendering of the drapery. The salient features shared in common in the configuration of the drapery for three of the figurines—Ghiaccio Forte no. 73.52 (pis. 1 and 2) and UCLMA nos. 8.2628 (pis. 3 and 4) and 8.2479 (pi. 5)— are to be seen in the "v"-shaped folds flanked by two vertical folds below the breasts, the sinuous "v" folds running from stomach to groin, and the heavy swirling folds to the trailing end of the mantle below the pitcher. Such stylistic congruity indicates that all three figurines may actually be products of a single mould or matrix. Some differences may be noted—the absence of clay matrix below the trailing edge of the mantle, and the more pronounced curve and height to the torch on the Ghiaccio Forte votive. Such discrepancies, however, may find their explanation in the reworking (cutting, pinching, etc.) performed before firing once the figurine was removed from its already well-worn mould. T o judge by the blurry surface of the statuette, which reveals a minimum of retooling, the mould must have proved especially serviceable. If a progression for the production of the three terracottas were to be conjectured on the evidence of "wear and tear," UCLMA no. 8.2479 would represent the earliest "edition," and the Ghiaccio Forte specimen the latest. Granted that the statuettes are derived from a common mould or at least have their original source in a common prototype, it can be then assumed that the missing head for two of the terracottas was mantled and bejeweled—as noted for UCLMA no. 8.2479. Hence the Berkeley statuettes provide tangible clues for the

36

Mario A. Del Chiaro

study and identification of the "blurred" objects and attributes present on the Ghiaccio Forte figurine; i.e., piglet, torch, and pitcher. Furthermore, not only is there good reason to believe that the three figurines were produced from a single mould, but it can now be demonstrated that strong commercial and cultural contacts existed between Caere and Ghiaccio Forte. In short, despite the "Ghiaccio Forte" provenience, the terracotta vodve statuette in all probability originated at Caere—either imported to Ghiaccio Forte or "purchased" at Caere. 10 This noteworthy link between the ancient town at Poggio Ghiaccio Forte and the more important Etruscan city to the south is further substantiated by a number of Caeretan Genucilia plates—of both the "head" and "star" type— which have been unearthed at the former site during the summer of 1973.11 These characteristic Etruscan red-figured plates manufactured at Caere throughout the last third of the fourth century B.C. accord chronologically with the terracotta votive statuettes presented in this paper. In their preliminary study of the Vignaccia deposit, Maule and Smith recognized or associated a number of deities—Menrva (Minerva or Greek Athena), Maris (Mars, Greek Ares), Artumes (Greek Artemis), Letun (Greek Leto), and others—which, after various considerations, have prompted the authors to speculate that the Vignaccia Temple was dedicated to Artumes}1 For the Ghiaccio Forte figurine and its Berkeley counterparts, it remains to be pointed out that, typologically, there are parallels and prototypes known f r o m votive deposits discovered in South Italy and Sicily which, according to Maule and Smith, can be correlated with chthonic worship. 13 In the Greek cities of Magna Graecia—strongholds of chthonic religion—terracotta votive figurines representing women bearing piglet and torch were particularly popular during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. 1 4 Although Greek Artemis may possess the attributes piglet and torch when paired with Hekate,' 5 the chthonic association is normally made with the Greek goddesses Demeter and her daughter, Kore/Persephone; i.e., Etruscan "Ceres" and Phersipnai to whom the pig was sacred. Several Paestan votive figurines offer an important geographical, typological, and stylistic intermediary with our Etruscan examples. 16 However, these, like the other South Italian specimens, show women holding piglet a n d torch but no pitcher as known for the Ghiaccio Forte and Caeretan Vignaccia statuettes. Perhaps, in such instances, the pitcher or oinochoe reflects its Etruscan function during sacrifice and/or

The Ghiaccio Forte Votive Terracotta Figurine

37

libations. This "transmittance" or influence in Etruria from South Italian sources is, I have found, paralleled in the field of Etruscan red-figured vase-painting at Caere throughout the second half of the fourth century B . C . 1 7 Since excavations at Poggio Ghiaccio Forte are only in their initial stage, the individual finds scant even though remarkable, and vestiges of the temple to be associated with the votive deposit as yet unlocated, it would be premature to pose anything but the most brief and tentative hypothesis as to the nature of the cult and its deity or deities. Well-known Etruscan sites (Caere, Veii and others) have yielded terracotta anatomical models similar to those unearthed from the Ghiaccio Forte votive deposit—heart, arms, hands, legs, feet, breast, male and female genitalia, etc.18 On the evidence of these types, together with a figurine possibly representing a chthonic goddess, there exists a strong implication for the presence of a Healing and/or Fertility Cult catering to the populace's human, animal, and agricultural needs. 19 Very much in keeping with other Etruscan centers large and small, the economy of the Etruscan town which occupied Poggio Ghiaccio Forte was doubtless based on both stockbreeding and agriculture. From the votive finds thus far excavated, the chronological range of the cult at this site appears to extend from the sixth to the early decades of the third century B.C., 2 0 at which time I believe the town was destroyed by advancing Romans. University of California Santa Barbara NOTES 'Ex-votos from the Vignaccia deposit at Caere have subsequently found their way into four additional, widespread collections: Berlin, Siena, Boston, and Dunedin (New Zealand). For information surrounding the discovery and distribution of the Vignaccia deposit, see Q. Maule and H. R. W. Smith, Votive Religion at Caere, Prolegomena, University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology 4 (1959)—henceforth Maule and Smith— 40 and 101 f. "For the University of California, Santa Barbara excavations conducted on Poggio Ghiaccio Forte under my direction and with the financial assistance of the Abraham Foundation of New York, seeAJA 77 (1973) 327-331; AJA 78 (1974) 385-390; Archaeology 27 (1974) 2 7 0 - 2 7 3 ; and NSc for both 1973 and 1974 (both in press). "That the Berkeley terracotta figurines from the Vignaccia deposit at Caere o f f e r close analogies to the Ghiaccio Forte specimen must be credited to my student, Bonnie Magness who has also provided, during the course of a seminar devoted to the Ghiaccio Forte finds of 1973, other pertinent data incorporated in this paper.

38

Mario A. Del Chiaro

4 See supra n. 2. 'I wish to thank Dr. Frank Norick of the Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology for his kind cooperation in obtaining photographs and for permission to publish the Berkeley Vignaccia figurines. T h e back of the individual figurines is crude and unworked with round vent-holes—not always consistent in size and placement—cut through before firing once the figurine was removed from the mould. 'Owing to the often highly worn and indistinct character of the modeling, the Staff- or stalklike object cradled or held by the female figurines can, in some instances, be taken for a "thyrsos" rather than "torch." This is especially true if the "head" or tip of the staff is missing altogether. 'Additional figurines in Berkeley, UCLMA nos. 8.2583 and 8.2584 bear no torch; the left hand is empty and placed near the hip. These last two specimens and UCLMA 8.2481 must be from the same mould. Another example, UCLMA no. 8.2586 (height, 15.5 cm.), is a small version of the three terracottas just mentioned. Deserving of mentioned here are two terracotta figurines representing a woman with piglet which, in sharp contrast to the "dangling" piglet, is held upright and horizontally across the torso with forelegs and hindlegs firmly grasped in each hand—its head to the right in the former example, to the left in the latter. For additional examples of the type from Magna Graecia, Greece and elsewhere, see M. Santangelo in ArchCl IV (1952) 49, n. 3. *I believe the height or thickness of the base or plinth on the figures produced in a single mould can be varied during the application of the clay to the mould, or cut away (shortened) upon removal according to the wish of the craftsman. Likewise, certain details and objects (torch, etc.) can be easily added or modified (curved, twisted, heightened, shortened, deepened, etc.). " O f course there remains the possibility that certain Caeretan moulds for terracotta figurines found their way to Ghiaccio Forte where they were utilized. Precedent for such practice does exist in Etruria, as is demonstrated by a number of architectural revetments or frieze-plaques. For example, the "transportation" of such moulds by workmen has been documented for diverse Etruscan sites: a single source for specimens at Veii and Vellern; another for Caere, Tarquinii, and Orvieto; see E. D. Van Buren, Figurative Terracotta Revetments in Etruria and Latium (London 1921) 3; A. Andren, Architectural Terracottas from EtruscoItalic Temples (Lund 1940), p. cxix and "Osservazione sulle terrecotte architettoniche etruscoitaliche," Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institute! i Rom 31 (1971) 1 - 16; and J. Small, "The Banquet Scene from Poggio Civitate," StEtr 39 (1971) 2 5 - 6 1 . "See AJA 78 (1974) 388 and NSc (in press). See also M. Del Chiaro, The Genucilia Group: A Class of Etruscan Red-figured Plates (Berkeley 1957), chs. Ill and V. "Maule and Smith, 72. For some different ex-voto types from the Vignaccia deposit see Echoes from Olympus: Catalogue (University Art Museum, Berkeley 1974), nos. 76—79 for which should be noted the range of clay color in the description. "Maule and Smith, 68ff.

"P. Orsi, "D'una cittä Greca. Una terracotta presso Granmichele in provincia di Catania," MonAnt 7 (1897) 204; F. Winter, Die antiken Terrakotten 3: Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten (Berlin, 1903), 116; R. Higgins, Greek Terracottas (London 1967) 86f. "Ibid., 66 and 86; M. Santangelo, "Bronzetto di offerenta a cerere proviente da Veio," ArchCl 4 (1952) 46ff. "A. Levi, Le Terrecotte figurate del Museo Nationale di Napoli (Florence 1926), 97, figs. 7 9 - 8 0 . "M. Del Chiaro, Etruscan Red-Figured Vase-Painting at Caere (Berkeley 1974). "Supra n. 2. " I t may very well be that the curative or healing powers expected of the deity or deities to insure personal health and fertility were extended to include livestock and agri-

The Ghiaccio Forte Votive Terracotta Figurine

39

culture. A m o n g s t t h e small statuettes of bulls, cows, and calves on bronze and terracotta, two m a t c h i n g b r o n z e bulls discovered about o n e year apart—the first in spring 1972 (NSc in press), t h e second d u r i n g s u m m e r 1973 (ibid.) were undoubtedly yoked together, since a small f r a g m e n t a r y yoke—very m u c h like those known in Tuscany today—fits perfecdy over the neck of o n e specimen. " A provocative small Archaic bronze kouros, which I believe dates to the second q u a r t e r of t h e sixth century B.C., provides the earliest ex-voto thus far encountered f o r t h e Ghiaccio Forte deposit; M. Del Chiaro, " T h e Archaic Bronze Kouros f r o m Ghiaccio Forte," A] A 79 (1975), 84f a n d Archaeology 27 (1974) 270.

PLATES

Plate 1

Del Chiaro

Del Chiaro

Plate 2

Plate 3

Del Chiaro

Del Chiaro

Plate 4

Plate 5

Del Chiaro

Del Chiaro

Plate 6

e

li

C3 CT

RICHARD I. FRANK

Augustus' Legislation on Marriage and Children

We are often told that it is impossible to legislate morality. The ancient Romans would have disagreed. One striking example of such an effort is the series of laws sponsored by Augustus to penalize sexual indulgence, promote child-bearing, and restore the family. T h e texts of these laws have been partially restored 1 and their provisions have been precisely defined by modern scholars.2 Much still remains to be said, however, about their character and meaning. My aim here is to propose an interpretation of these laws, with special attention to their origin and historical significance. i Some time around 100 B.C. the Romans discovered romantic love. It was an unsettling influence, and the results are recorded in Latin literature. At first romance was evidently imported, to judge from the derivative and Alexandrian character of early elegy.3 A generation later, however, romance and poetry have become part of a new way of life. Its poet was Catullus, and here is the vignette in which, with exquisite economy, he sums it all up: Holding his sweetheart Acme on his lap, Septimius said: "If I do not, my darling, love you to distraction, if I am reluctant

42

Richard I. Frank to love you unswervingly in all the years to come and as distractedly, moreover, as ever human can, then may I, on the roasting sands of Libya or India, come upon a lion, green eyes and all." . . . In response Acme, head arching gendy backwards, with her brightly colored lips kissing the love-drunk eyes of her lover, said: "Septimius, my darling, may I be your slave for ever and you my master. For a much greater and far fiercer fire burns within the marrow of my bones." . . . And so with good omen they began their journey into love, each lover loved with responsive passion. Septimius would rather have his darling Acme than all the lands of Britain and Syria, while Acme is faithful to Septimius alone and finds in him all love and delight. Who ever saw any couple more happy? Who ever saw a love more fortunate? 4

Now, apart from the irony, the noteworthy feature of the vignette is the implicit contrast between old and new values. Septimius is a young Roman gentleman; he could be serving with Caesar in Britain or with Crassus in Syria, earning honor and status for himself and his family. Instead, he prefers to stay at home in inglorious repose with a girl whose name, make-up, and sophistication reveal her to be a courtesan from the Greek East. No chance here, then, of a legal or socially respectable marriage. This was a common experience among the gilded youth of the city, as Cicero observed when defending Caelius. And more and more such young men were repelled by the traditions and values associated with respectable marriage and fatherhood. Marriage was, after all, officially described as "for the sake of producing children," surely the reverse of a romantic view. Indeed, it was generally agreed even by conservatives that marriage was necessary but unpleasant. Thus Quintus Metellus in 131 B.C.: "If we could live without wives, fellow-citizens, . . . we would be free of much trouble; but since nature has ordained . . . ."5 So there was a new way of life, a new set of values. It was cultivated by the sophisticated young men about town, scions of the

Augustus' Legislation on Marriage and Children

43

Roman nobility for the most part, but including as well sons of the Italian gentry like Catullus himself. They prized culture, sophistication, and pleasure. It was in the great metropolis that they flourished; they prided themselves on their urbanitas and called themselves urbaniSoon, too, these young men about town were joined by young women about town, equally cultured and sophisticated, equally intent on pleasure. In the last generation of the Roman Republic the women of the Roman aristocracy were notable for their divorces, their adulteries, and their reluctance to bear children. 7 T h e r e was then a real break with Rome's traditional morality, and it was centered in the upper class. Augustus set himself to reverse the trend. Let us examine how and why. ii

T h e first attempt at f u r t h e r reform was in 29 B.C. Augustus, fresh from his great victory and his magnificent triumph, introduced a law to penalize celibacy and require respectable marriages. But vigorous opposition developed and the victor of Actium decided to withdraw his proposal. 8 Probably this was connected with his efforts to reach a compromise settlement with the aristocracy, culminating in the "restoration of the Republic" on January 13, 27 B.C.9 O u r main evidence for this episode is an elegy of Propertius. He and his Acme, Cynthia, are happy that the threat has passed, that they will not be forced to part. Then Propertius adds that the law would have forced him to procreate soldiers for Augustus' army, and he rejoices that he has escaped this humiliation: "Why should I provide sons to win triumphs for Rome? No, no one of my blood will serve as a soldier . . . you mean everything to me, Cynthia, more even than having children and continuing my line."10 T h e success of the opposition to Augustus' proposed reform was deeply resented by writers close to the government. Livy wrote gloomily of "our modern age, when we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them"; Horace insists that "he who wishes to be called Father of his country must have the courage to curb vice."11 A body of literature was produced centering round the values of discipline, austerity, and religion. The connecting link seems to have been the fear that a people softened by self-indulgence would lose its power. "Could Rome maintain empire without the virtue that had won it?"12

44

Richard I. Frank

Augustus did not act again for ten years, the while steadily strengthening his position. In 24 B.C. he returned from victories in Spain and was met with unparalleled demonstrations of loyalty. In the following year he first crushed a conspiracy of nobles, then carried through a series of measures by which he regained much of the powers which had been shared with the Senate in 27. To be precise: he received proconsular authority over the provinces, while in Rome itself he held preeminence by virtue of tribunician authority. T h e latter provision is significant; the tribunicia potestas became, in Tacitus' words, the "official cloak for Augustus' monarchical power." 13 By it Augustus became patron of the urban plebs, a leader in the popularis tradition shaped by the Gracchi, Marius, and— above all—Caesar. This became a leitmotiv in Augustan ideology, a key element in legitimizing the new regime. 14 In 18 B.C. the moment came. Two years before the regime had gained a great diplomatic victory by recovering the standards lost to Parthia, and in 19 a formidable plot by nobles was crushed amid scenes of riot and bloodshed. Soon after Augustus returned from the East, again covered with glory, again welcomed with extravagant honors. It was at this juncture that he assumed "supervision of laws and morals" and put through a series of measures which, it was claimed, would curb bribery, conspiracy, extortion, violence, adultery, and extravagance. The whole constituted a comprehensive program of reform, and culminated in the celebration of Secular Games in 17 B.C. to mark the dawn of a New Age. The pater patriae acted to reform and restore the social order. 15 Part of this program was the lex Julia on adultery and another de maritandis ordinibus: "to encourage marriage by members of the various classes of citizens." These were supplemented in A.D. 9 by the lex Papia-Poppaea, and these three acts, which remained in force over 300 years, constitute the basis of Augustus' marriage legislation.

in T h e basic premise of this legislation was that marriage was a duty incumbent on all Roman men between 25 and 60 years of age, and on all Roman women between 20 and 50. Widowed and divorced persons within these age limits were expected to remarry. Exemptions were granted to free-born persons who had procreated at least

Augustus' Legislation on Marriage and Children

45

three children, and to freed persons who had procreated four; in general these numbers represented the "quota" expected of each citizen. Failure to procreate was punished by diminution of the right to inherit from anyone except cognates to the seventh degree. Unmarried persons could inherit nothing, persons married but childless could inherit only one half, persons with insufficient live or dead children somewhat more according to a complicated set of rules. In such cases the remainder of a legacy went to residuary heirs, but only if they themselves had children, and only to the permissible limits; whatever remained from the legacy was adjudged "vacant" and lapsed to the state treasury. Childless spouses were especially limited in leaving bequests to each other, being limited to onetenth. 16 A second basic feature of the laws was the close relation established between marriage, rank, and status. T h e state's fiscal powers were used to penalize marriage between citizen and noncitizen, senatorial and freedman, and—above all—slave and free. Such unions were matrimonia iniusta\ their children were branded as illegitimate, did not count towards earning rights of inheritance, and were themselves unable to inherit. They could not even be issued official birth certificates or be entered in a town's list of inhabitants (album)." We can see something of the workings of this law in an official manual for treasury officials in Egypt which was compiled ca. A.D. 170. This indicates that great attention was given to collecting lapsed inheritances, but it shows that the aim was to penalize people of means. Men with estates under 100,000 sesterces were exempt, women with estates under 50,000 sesterces. Since the lowest rank of imperial procurators earned 60,000 sesterces a year it will be seen that 100,000 sesterces constituted a modest accumulation, equivalent to about $2500. The equestrian census of 400,000 sesterces indicates the lower level of a gentleman's estate. The fiscal penalties of the marriage laws therefore affected everyone with any significant accumulation of wealth. 18 Another indication of the wide application of the laws is the fact that they were the subject of special commentaries, notably Gaius' in 15 books and Ulpian's in 20.19 T h e third basic feature of the laws was that preference was given candidates for political or bureaucratic office who had three legitimate children. Thus one specific provision known to us is that such men had first choice when governorships of provinces were

46

Richard I. Frank

distributed to ex-magistrates. Of course this affected only members of the u p p e r classes, and it has been doubted that this policy was of much significance. Nevertheless the evidence indicates that even young men just starting a career were anxious to have the privileges f a t h e r h o o d brought, for those without the children went to great pains to get it by imperial grant. Indeed, one can say that for 300 years this was an important factor in the life of every young man anxious to make a career in the bureaucracy. 20

IV

T h r e e particular aspects of the marriage laws deserve emphasis here. First, violations by senators, especially those involving adultery, were tried by the Senate. This is somewhat puzzling, since otherwise the Senate concerned itself only with senators charged with extortion and treason, more obviously political in character. It has recently been suggested, and I agree, that this was because the marriage laws were considered to be "of outstanding importance f o r the preservation of the social and political order." 21 Closely connected with this was the phenomenon of delation— i.e., the practice of informing to gain rewards. It seems from our sources that violations of the marriage laws were the main subject of informers' reports, and that this was a heavy burden on senators. T h u s we are told that one of Nero's acts of generosity was to reduce the rewards paid informers against violators of the Papian law to one-fourth the former amount; it is significant that one of the marriage laws is mentioned here as the main—or, to be literal, the sole—source of income for informers. Under Domitian delation became a general threat hanging over the propertied classes: "No will was safe f r o m them, no position secure; to be childless or a parent was equally of no avail."22 But the most revealing passage is the locus classicus on the marriage laws, Tacitus' three-chapter discussion. Tiberius' relaxation of some provisions prompts Tacitus to a discussion of the origins of law, then the history of legislation at home, finally the establishment of monarchy by Augustus. From then onwards restraints were stricter. There were spies, encouraged by inducements from the Papian-Poppaean law, u n d e r which failure to earn the advantages of parenthood meant loss of property to the state as universal parent. T h e

Augustus' Legislation on Marriage and Children

47

spreading encroachments of these informers grievously affected all citizens, whether in Rome, Italy, or elsewhere, and caused widespread ruin and universal panic.23 Clearly Tacitus regarded the laws as a means of repression, and he was probably thinking of his own class. This view is supported by laws passed at the same time to curb the use of bribery in elections and extravagant expenditures on houses and dinner parties. These obviously applied mainly to the senatorial class.24 A second aspect is the nationalist and traditionalist character of the program of which the marriage laws formed a part. Thus in exhorting knights to have children Augustus asked "How can the state be preserved, if we neither marry nor have children? . . . it is neither right nor creditable that our race should cease, and the name of Romans be blotted out with us, and the city given over to foreigners—Greeks or even barbarians."25 Along with this go Augustus' laws aimed at checking extension of citizenship to manumitted slaves,26 his strict requirement that the toga be worn by anyone entering the Forum or Circus, and his expulsion of foreigners from Rome in a time of food shortages.27 But the spirit of Augustus' reforms is revealed most clearly in the official hymn written by Horace to celebrate the dawn of the New Age: Now Parthia fears the fist of Rome, the fasces Potent on land and sea; now the once haughty Ambassadors from the Caspian and the Indus Sue for a soft reply. Now Faith and Peace and Honor and old-fashioned Conscience and unremembered Virtue venture To walk again, and with them blessed Plenty, Pouring her brimming horn. 28 Behind these laws and ideas lies a basic archaizing tendency, an urge to revive the institutions and values of the past. Sir Ronald Syme has summed it up: "The New State of Augustus glorified the strong and stubborn peasant of Italy, laboriously winning from the cultivation of cereals a meagre subsistence for himself and for a numerous virile offspring." 29 It was against this line of thought that Ovid wrote "Let others praise the 'good old days,' I am glad to be alive now; this age suits me, for we have culture."30 Finally, it is significant that the basic laws on marriage and adultery (as well as election bribery) were not passed by the Senate

48

Richard I. Frank

but rather by the Tribal Assembly. That is, Augustus used his tribuncian authority to have these laws enacted originally as plebiscites by the assembly o f all the people.31 This clearly connects his reform program with the anti-senatorial policy Augustus pursued from June 23, when he resigned his consulship and received in its stead the tribunician authority. By this act Augustus detached himself from the nobility and assumed leadership of the plebs, and this policy provides a key to what has been called "shaping the image of the Principate." 32

v Image is, I think, a clue to the origin and significance of Augustus' marriage laws. They sprang from the political struggle out of which the Principate emerged, and they were an important part of the national program devised to legitimize the new regime and the new ruling class. W e are dealing, therefore, with elements of a political ideology. N o need, therefore, to dwell upon the various edifying themes which have shaped the views of most students, for example: "providing an ennobling influence on the morals of the people" (1891); 33 "establishing new foundations for a barbarized society" (1893); 34 "attempting to check the prevalent immorality" (1931)35; "the new frivolity . . . [of] the governing nobility . . . the one [class] which it was essential to preserve" (1934);36 "the influx of wealth, amusements, and luxury . . . had destroyed the ancient severity of morals and led to a mad pursuit of dissolute pleasure by both men and women" (1950).37 Let us follow, rather the lead of Sir Ronald Syme, who labels Augustan social and economic policies "perverse anachronisms" and concludes that "the whole conception of the Roman past upon which [Augustus] sought to erect the moral and spiritual basis of the New State was in a large measure imaginary or spurious . . . ."38 But there is more to be said. An ideology has an important function: it provides the basis for the formation of an historic bloc, the process by which a dominant class establishes hegemony, gains mass support, and thus establishes a stable regime.39 This is especially important in an empire, where regional and ethnic differences inevitably pose special problems. Let us begin with the dominant class of the new regime, the knights; Syme concluded it was "the cardinal factor in the whole social, military and political structure of the New State."40

Augustus' Legislation on Marriage and Children

49

This feature of the Augustan settlement was due to Augustus himself. Caesar had aroused suspicions among the knights by his ties with Catiline, and at his assassination they rallied to the Liberators. After Philippi, however, the knights felt threatened by Antony's policies, and Augustus seized the opportunity to win them over. After 36 they were actively engaged in his service, committed to defending Italy against "Egyptian aggression"; Actium sealed the alliance, and its importance in the regime's mythology reflects this fact. 41 From the propaganda of each side we can see that the outlines of Augustan ideology took form in the struggle which ended at Actium. Antony sneered at his rival's Italian origins, the low social rank of his family, and the fact that his father and grandfather had engaged in banking ("money-changing"). T o this Augustus replied that Antony followed Eastern ways, lived a dissolute life, and was guilty of adultery. 42 All these charges were of course not without foundation. Augustus himself stated in his memoirs that he was born into an equestrian family. 43 Antony was notorious for his affairs and in fact had only contempt for traditional morality. T o Augustus' reproaches he replied, "What does it matter where or with whom a man takes his pleasure?" 44 And chance has preserved a jocular inscription in Alexandria from one of his friends, a dedication "To the Inimitable Lover." 45 Personality as well as policy therefore combined to make Augustus the leader of the Italian gentry. They were relatively untouched by the urban and cosmopolitan ways which had transformed the Roman aristocracy, and so from the first it was natural for Augustus to stress the moral, rustic, and Italian character of his cause. Once established, the Principate came to depend more and more on the equestrian class. And, in turn, this class was put on a new basis and reorganized to allow incorporation of men who had proved their worth in the state's service, in the bureaucracy and— above all—in the army. Since the reforms of Marius the professional soldiery had been recruited mainly from rural Italy, and as veterans were promoted to the equestrian class it became more completely rustic and Italian in origin. By the last years of Augustus' reign the equestrian class was almost 50 percent drawn from the professional army. T h e remainder were mainly from the gentry of Italy, the local elites (domi nobiles) which were still formed by agrarian morality.48 Syme concluded that "the change from Republic to Empire

50

Richard I. Frank

might be described as the provinces' revenge upon Rome." 47 One might just as well say that it was the triumph of rusticitas over urbanitas, of agrarian morality over urban sophistication. vi Augustus' marriage laws, then, must be seen as part of an ideology designed to affirm the traditions of the gentry and soldiers reared in the hinterland of Italy. A century later Tacitus could continue to speak of "the country towns of Italy, still austere and old fashioned," and Pliny could write of a country town "which still retains intact much of its honest simplicity along with the rustic virtues of the past." 48 Of course neither the ideology nor the laws changed morality. T h e u p p e r classes continued to avoid marriage and children, and indeed the deeper causes seem to have become stronger and more pervasive—notably the profound psychological conflicts between upper-class men and women. 4 ' What Augustan ideology did accomplish was to reinforce backward-looking, archaistic, tendencies in Roman imperial culture. Rural, patriarchal, and traditional institutions were held up as models even as the mores of society, especially the upper classes, were becoming increasingly urban and individualistic. Hence the persistence and dominance of the idea, already familiar to Livy, "that the past had been better than the present and that history was essentially a story of constant decline." 50 Augustan legislation had aimed at reform and restoration; it succeeded only in fostering nostalgia for old values and contempt for new realities. University of California Irvine NOTES 1

Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqw, ed. K. Burns and O. Gradenivitz (ed. 7, Tübingen 1909) 112, 115-116; cf. translation by N. Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization, 2 (New York 1955) 4 8 - 5 2 . 'P. Joers, Die Ehegesetze des Augustus, pp. 1-65 of Festschrift Theodor Mommsen (Marburg 1893); P. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford 1930) 3 1 - 3 9 , 119-121, 133-135; H. Last, "The Social Policy of Augustus," CAH 10 (1934) 425-464; M. Kaser, Roman Private Law, tr. R. Dannebring (Durban 1965) 238-275. For details see section III infra.

Augustus' Legislation on Marriage and Children

51

*G. Luck, The Latin Love Elegy (ed. 2, London 1969) 4 7 - 6 9 . •Catullus 45, translation adapted from K. Quinn, Catullus: An Interpretation (London 1973) 227. *Oratorum romanorumfragmenta, cd. 2 by H. Malcovati (Turin 1953) 107-108; cf. K. Quinn, Catullus: The Poems (London 1970) 224 -228 (on Catullus 45); H. Sanders, A Latin Marriage Contract," TAP A 69 (1938) 104—116 (on legal definition of marriage; liberorum procreandorum causa); Cicero, Pro Caelio 12.28-30 (dissipation of youth); K. Hopkins, The Later Roman Aristocracy (diss. King's College, Cambridge University 1963) 6 7 - 7 0 and 190-207 (on effects of individualism and concubinage). •Last (supra n. 2) 437-441; cf. Quinn (supra n. 4) 2 0 4 - 2 1 8 on urbani\ on urbanitas see E. Ramage, Urbanitas (Norman 1972). 7 J. Balsdon, Roman Women (New York 1963) 4 5 - 6 2 ; Hopkins (supra n. 5), 169—214 (individualism, contraception, low birth rate). 'Joers (supra n. 2) 3 - 2 8 , corrected by Th. Mommsen, Roemisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899) 691, n. 1. •R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 303-324. '•Propertius 2.7.13-14 and 19-20; cf. W. Camps Propertius Elegies II (Cambridge, Engl. 1967) 100, and W. Nethercut, Propertius and Augustus (diss. Columbia University 1963) 5 1 - 6 7 . "Livy, Praefatio 9; Horace, Carm.3.24.27-29; cf. G. Williams, "Poetry in the Moral Climate of Augustan Rome," J RS 52 (1962) 2 8 - 4 6 . "Syme 441. " A free translation of Tacitus, Annals 3.56: Id summi fastigii vocabulum Augustus repperit, ne regis aut dictatoris nomen adsumeret. . . . " H . S.Jones, "The Princeps," CAH 10 (1934) 127-158. "Jones, 143-151; A. v. Premerstein, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats (Munich 1937: AS AW 15) 157, 166-175. "Corbett (supra n. 2) 117-121; Käser (supra n. 2) 243-244. "Corbett, 3 0 - 3 9 and Käser, 2 4 1 - 2 4 3 (Matrimonia Iniusta); H. Sanders, "A Birth Certificate of the Year 145 A.D.," AJA 32 (1928) 309-329. '"W. Uxkull-Gyllenband, Der Gnomon des Idios Logos (BGU 5.2: Berlin 1934), 4 (date), 4 0 - 4 2 (exemptions); OCD (ed. 2, 1970) 404 (equestrians) and 882 (procurators); 400,000 sesterces was reckoned equivalent to £ 4,000 by G. Highet.yuvrnai (Oxford 1954) 35. '•F. Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (Oxford 1946) 186-188. " D i o 53.13.2 (fathers); cf. Last (supra n. 2) 452 (doubt); Pliny, Epp. 10.2 and 9 4 - 9 5 , with notes ad loc. of A. Sherwin-White, The Utters of Pliny (Oxford 1966) 557-560, 6 8 9 - 6 9 1 (privileges of parenthood). " P . Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1970) 22. "Suetonius, Nero 10 (Nero); Pliny, Panegyricus 34.1 (Domitian). "Tacitus, Annals 3.28.4-6, trans. M. Grant, Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome (ed. 2, Harmonsworth 1971) 133. " D i o 54.16 and Suetonius, Augustus 34 link marriage and sumptuary laws; Aulus Gellius, N.A. 2.24, describes the latter. " D i o 56.7.5, trans. E. Carey, Dio's Roman History, 7 (London 1924) 19; cf. Joers (supra n. 2) 53, n. 5 (argument must be Augustan). "Suetonius, Augustus 40.3; cf. Last (Supra n. 2) 429-434. "Suetonius, Augustus 40.5 (toga), 42.3 (expulsion). "Horace, Carmen Saeculare 53—60, trans. J. Michie, The Odes of Horace (New York 1965) 257, 259. "Syme (supra n. 9) 450. "Ovid, Ars Amatoria III. 121-122; cf. B. Otis, "Ovid and the Augustans,"

52

Richard I. Frank

TAPA 69 (1938) 1 8 8 - 2 2 9 , esp. 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 . " T h . Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 2.2 (ed. 3, Leipzig 1887) 8 8 1 - 8 8 3 . " Z . Yavetz, Plebs and Prmceps (Oxford 1969) 8 3 - 102. " V . C a r d Ihausen, Augustus and seine Zeit (2 vols., Leipzig 1891) 897. " J o e r s (supra n. 2) 1. » T . Rice Holmes, The Architect of the Roman Empire, 2 (Oxford 1931) 42. "Last (supra n. 2) 440. " R . Paribeni, L'età di Cesare e di Augusto (Bologna 1950) 3 7 9 - 3 8 0 . " S y m e (supra n. 9) 451, 4 5 2 - 4 5 3 . " H . Portelli, Gramsci et U bloc historique (Paris 1972) 1 0 - 1 2 , 7 4 - 7 7 . "Syme, 355. "Syme, 2 7 0 - 3 1 2 (esp. p. 275: "the magnificent lie"); L. Polverini, "L'aspetto sociale del passaggio dalla repubblica al principato," Aevum 38 (1964) 241 — 285,439 — 467, and 39 (1965) 1 - 2 4 , at pp. 2 7 5 - 2 8 1 and 4 3 9 - 4 4 8 . " K . Scott, " T h e Politicai Propaganda of 4 4 - 3 0 B.C.", MAAR 11 (1933) 7 - 4 9 . "Suetonius, Augustus 2.3. "Ibid., 69.2 (Suetonius' opening comment in 69.1 shows that in fact the difference between the two was more in "image" than reality). " P . Fraser, "Mark Antony in Alexandria," JRS 47 (1957) 7 1 - 7 3 (àfiiiiyrov àpo6uriois). "Polverini (supra n. 41) 2 8 2 - 2 8 5 , 4 4 8 - 4 5 7 . " S y m e (supra n. 9) 476. "Tacitus, Annals 16.5; Pliny, Ep. 1.14; cf. R. Anderson, Rise and Fall of Middle Class Loyalty to the Roman Empire (diss. University of California, Berkeley 1965). 3 8 - 5 1 . " S e e Juvenal, Sat. 6 and Highet (supra n. 18) 9 1 - 1 0 3 . M A. D. Leeman, "Are We Fair to Uvy?," Helikon 1 (1961) 28-39, at p. 31.

ARTHUR E. GORDON

Notes on the Dueños-Vase Inscription in Berlin

T h e earliest Latin inscriptions, from perhaps the seventh to the fifth century B.C., are among the most interesting of all, especially in respect to the problems that they present—problems of authenticity, for example (as in the case of the gold Fibula Praenestina 1 ), or interpretation (the Duenos Vase, or the Forum Cippus), or simply text (the Arval Hymn, of indeterminate age, which appears, badly written and in garbled form, only in an inscription of A.D. 218, as quoted from the Acta of a meeting of the Brethren 2 ). T h e present notes on the Duenos Vase (first called the Dressel vase) are occasioned by the fact that on April 2, 1973, through the courtesy of Dr. Ulrich Gehrig and Herr Berthold Kaeser, my wife and I, together with Mr. Edward M. Armstrong, an American friend (not a classicist) from Stuttgart, were allowed to examine the vase "in Ruhe," as Dr. Gehrig had promised, in the Antikenabteilung of the Staatliche Museen preussischer Kulturbesitz, in Charlottenburg, (West) Berlin. Its inventory number is 30894, 3. It was formerly in H. Dressel's dwelling in Berlin (C1L l 2 : 2:1 [1918] no. 4, p. 371: "nunc Berolini apud Dresselium"), then in the Altes Museum, Berlin (W. Krogmann [infra n. 3] 6, §2). (Pis. 1:1 and 2.) T h e vase consists of three small clay vessels, brownish black in color, joined together with cylindrical arms, also of clay, to form a sort of equilateral triangle. Photographs show the difficulties of reading the inscription except when the vase is examined by hand, partly because of the doubly curved surface on which the inscrip-

54

Arthur E. Gordon

tion is cut; a n d they all fail to d o justice to the c h a r m a n d petiteness of t h e vase: it invites being h a n d l e d . T h e date is entirely conjectural: Seventh century B.C.? (Pinza, Giglioli, Ducati, Degrassi) Sixth century? (Palmer, Pisani ["ca."], Gjerstad) Fifth century? (most scholars, including Marin, Cencetti) F o u r t h century? (Kent, Ernout). S t a n d a r d editions of the inscription: E. Lommatzsch, CIL l 2 : 2: 1.4 (with p p . 717, 739, 831, with select bibliog. to 1940); H. Dessau, ILS 8 7 4 3 (both these with drawing no. 2 by Heinrich Dressel, who h a d a c q u i r e d a n d first published the vase: Bull. Inst. 1880, 137f; Ann. Inst. 52 [1880] 158-195, with plate L [with acknowledgments to Fr. B u e c h e l e r f o r h e l p in i n t e r p r e t i n g the inscr., p p . 176ff]); R. S. Conway, AJP 10 (1889) 445-459 (with his own drawing?) and Ital. Dial. 1. ( C a m b r i d g e 1897) 329-331 (with explanatory woodcut); W. M. Lindsay, Handb. of Latin Inscrs. (Boston a n d Chicago 1897, r e p r . A m s t e r d a m 1970) 19-23 a n d Short Histor. Latin Gramm.2 (Oxf o r d 1915, r e p r . 1937) 199, §2; Ernst Diehl, Inscr. Latinae (Bonn 1912) p. vii (with drawing) a n d Altlat. Inschr.3 (Berlin 1930, repr. 1959, 1964 by K. Schubring [Kleine Texte 38/40]) 720; E. H. Warmington, Archaic Inscrs., 4 (1940) of his Remains of Old Latin, newly e d . a n d transi. (London and Cambridge, Mass. [The Loeb Class. Libr.]) 54-57; Atilius (Attilio) Degrassi, Inscr. Lat. Lib. Rei Publ. 1 (Florence, ed. 1, 1957, ed. 2 1965, repr. 1972) 3f, no. 2 (ed. 2, also p. 315) a n d ILLRP, Imagines (Berlin 1965 [CIL, Auctarium]) 261, no. 366 a - f (5 photos plus drawing); Alfred Ernout, Recueil de textes latins archaïques2 (Paris 1957 and repr.) 7-9, no. 3; L. R. P a l m e r , The Latin Language (London 1954) 346 no. 2, cf. p. 62; Vittore Pisani, Testi latini arcaici e volgari2 (Turin 1960) 6-9, no. A 4 (with select bibliog. to 1959). T h e bibliography of the vase a n d its inscription, since 1889 (at t h e latest) generally called "Duenos" f r o m what seems to be the n a m e of its m a k e r in unit 3 of the inscription as p r i n t e d below, is o n e of t h e longest f o r any single Latin inscription, including several books, 3 some seventy articles, reviews, or s u m m a r y reports, and over fifty interpretations. A good presentation of all work published u p to 1925 is given by G o l d m a n n , who summarizes (pp. 1-18, 171) thirty-seven a t t e m p t s at i n t e r p r e t i n g the whole inscription, t h r e e m o r e d e v o t e d to a single word, a n d two claims of forgery. (For m a n y m o r e items, see R. G. Kent, Language, 2 [1926] 207, and esp. D. St. Marin, Atti della Acc. Naz. dei Lincei, 1949, Memorie, cl. di sc. rnor., stor. e fil., ser. 8, vol. 2, fasc. 8 [1950] 420-429, f o r interpre-

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

55

tations nos. 37-52, and partial ones nos. 7-10.) Both claims of forgery are frivolous or superficial. They are not based on examining the vase itself or on Dressel's account of his acquiring the vase. This is about as clear and satisfactory as could be expected, given the fact that he himself was not present when the vase was found, though he acquired it soon after. In the case of C. G. Cobet, the eminent Dutch Hellenist, who apparently thought the whole thing an attempt to make f u n of foolish scholars, the claim of forgery was based on his disgust with Dressel's and H. Jordan's interpretations (Jordan's in Hermes, 16 [1881] 225-260). I. Netushil's claim was based on orthographical peculiarities of the inscription, 4 as though the language of Archaic Latin would be the same as that of Classical Latin. Dressel, Ann. Inst. (vol. cited supra) 158-160, had satisfied himself that the vase had belonged to a votive collection—obviously no longer in situ—in the valley between the Quirinal and Viminal hills, Rome, near the southern slope of the former and the church of S. Vitale. Dimensions: Dr. Ulrich Gehrig of the Museum staff, Berlin, in a letter of October 5, 1972, gives the height of the triple vessel as 3.4-3.6 cm. (Dressel, Ann. Inst. 160, and Krogmann, p. 6, gave 3.5 cm.), the side of the equilateral triangle as 10.3-10.5 cm. (Dressel and Krogmann as 10.5); Dressel and Krogmann gave 4.5 cm. as the maximum width, and Krogmann 3 mm. as the thickness, of each bowl, Krogmann giving also 2 cm. as the diameter of the hole in the middle. Dr. Gehrig in a letter of October 25, 1972, informed me also that the maximum circumference of the whole piece is 32.3 cm. and that the hole in the middle goes right through, as we ourselves saw later in Berlin. T h e material is described as "local" (Dressel) or "Italic" (Ducati) bucchero. Krogmann, p. 6, §2, claimed that the piece was made by hand without wheel, but Dr. Gehrig assures me that, while the joins connecting the three bowls were made by hand ("modelliert"), the bowls themselves were made on the wheel ("gedreht"). The inscription was cut or scratched when, Dressel notes (p. 160, fin.—but see infra), the clay was still soft, before firing, with the point of a stylus of perhaps bone or wood, the cuttings being of varying depth but nowhere very deep; it runs from right to left round the surface of the three vessels (including the three joins), partly in a single line (a little of unit 1, nearly all of unit 2, a little of unit 3, as shown below), but mostly in two lines, one below the other. (See pi. 1:2.)

56

Arthur E. Gordon

T h e inscription, if looked at from the side (pi. 2), appears upside down (and therefore seems to run from left to right), not because it was cut with the vase standing upside down, as Dressel conjectured (ibid.), but on the contrary (as may be found by testing with three glasses tied together) because it was cut with the vase standing right side up (i.e., open at the top, as the potter made it— see pi. 1:1), and with the potter/cutter standing over it as he cut and touching it as little as possible while it was still unfired; if he then cut the inscription from right to left and legibly to himself, it would appear upside down and left to right to anyone looking at it from the side when the vase was finished and standing open at the top (pi. 2). Presumably the artist simply did what came naturally to him without thinking of his readers; perhaps in fact he made the vase for himself. 5 1 therefore agree with A. D. Fraser (AJP 53 [1932] 217) in his opposition to Kent (p. 210). The latter, noting a remark made by T h e o d o r Bergk (1884) about the inscription's being properly legible only when the vase is placed upside down, had inferred that the vase was intended to be placed somewhere, in fact buried, with the opening downward, the inscription being addressed to the three deities—one in each cavity—whose names Kent and some others, following W. Deecke (1886), have thought appear in abbreviated form at the beginning of unit 1—Jupiter, Vejove, and Saturn (IO., VEI., SAT., pi. 3:1). While finding Fraser's explanation of the meaning of the inscription one of the most far-fetched (he believes the potter to be slyly lampooning a rival potter), I consider his explanation of the writing's appearing upside down much more sensible: though expressed very briefly and perhaps not clearly enough, it seems to be essentially the same as mine, involving "a purely mechanical consideration." T h e datings of the inscription, all conjectural, go from the seventh century to about 200 B.C., a period of four to five centuries, the arguments being archaeological, linguistic, metrical, or palaeographical, mostly comparative in character. Since I am not persuaded by the metrical argument, that the inscription is in hexameters, so not earlier than "about 200 B.C." (Florence M. Bennett, Proc. APA 41 [1910] xxi-xxiv—others have claimed it to be in saturnians, etc.: see below), and since there is so little material with which to compare it linguistically, I put more weight on the archaeological and palaeographical arguments. Pinza and Ducati were agreed 6 that this type of pottery could not possibly be dated later than about 600 B.C. (the seventh century was their preferred

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

57

dating), and G. Q. Giglioli {Not. Scavi 1935, 239f) implied his agreement. Similarly, Degrassi (ILLRP 1.3, no. 2), noting that, although most scholars have assigned the vase to the second half of the fifth century, "little vases of the same shape have been found with protoCorinthian vases of the seventh century," dated our vase in this century 7 ("ca. 600 B.C.?" Imagines, p. 260) "unless you grant that the inscription was cut on an older vase." This seems ruled out by Dressel's observation that the inscription was cut before the vase was fired. (This I find disputed only by E. Gjerstad, who, however, could not handle the vase personally and depended entirely on photos: Septentrionalia et Orientalia, Studia B. Karlgren . . . dedicata [Stockholm 1959 Kungl. Vitterh. Histor. och Antikv., Akad. Handl. 91] 134, repeated in his Early Rome, 3 [Lund 1960 Skr. utg. av Svenska Inst, i Rom, 4°, 17: 3] 161.) Palaeographically, a date as late as Lommatzsch's "fifth century of the City" (i.e., ca. 350-250 B.C.), based on the presence of the letters C (for G) and Z (though this latter is disputed—I strongly doubt its presence here) and the (supposed) rhotacism of pacari, or Miss Bennett's "about 200 B.C." at "the earliest" seems to be quite impossible (and my wife agrees) if one compares the writing of the Fibula Praenestina (probably, though not yet certainly, authentic—see supra n. 1), the Forum Cippus, or the Castor and Pollux dedication from Lavinium, with that of the Scipionic epitaphs (late third century?) or the Hercules dedication of 217 B.C.8 T h e presence of C for G here in the Duenos inscription, in virco near the end of unit 1 (pi. 1:1)—if indeed, as is generally agreed, this is a word and is intended for virgo—merely places the inscription as probably not later than the third century B.C., by which time we have the earliest evidence of the form G in inscriptions and coins, 9 though we sometimes find C carelessly written for G in later inscriptions. 10 Z is different and more difficult, but whether it is a Z or V (as I am convinced) or some other letter (see infra, on the text, and pi. 3:1), it seems to be of no use in dating the inscription. T h e r e seem to be no other examples of Z thus far found until we get to the model 21-letter Latin alphabet incised, before varnishing and firing, on an Etruscan (Caeretan) clay dish, of the "Genucilia Group," recently published by Lidio Gasperini and dated by him in the fourth century (ca. 350 or 350-300) B.C.11 (in which the Z, placed between F and H, before the creation of G, has the thin form of the Greco-Etruscan sign, not unlike our printed capital I with serif at top and bottom 12 ). We must then wait till the late Republic, when Z came into use to transliterate Greek loan-

58

Arthur E. Gordon

words such as zona. T h e late literary tradition of an early Z in Latin— Velius Longus's finding it in the Carmen Saliare (ed. Keil, Gramm. Lat. 7.51.5f) and Martianus Capella's saying (3.261) that "Appius Claudius abhors" it quod denies mortui (for which Mommsen suggested dentis morsus: Ròm. Forsch. 1 [Berlin 1864] 304, n. 36), dum exprimitur, imitatur—seems much too weak and uncertain as proof. 13 T h e supposed rhotacism of pacari (or pakari—pi. 3:2), a critic has pointed out, may have no bearing on the date of the inscription. T h e form has caused difficulty for philologists.14 In so early an inscription as this, one would not expect rhotacism, which is commonly thought to have been not completed till about 350 B.C. 1 5 Cf. Numasioi in the Manios inscription (CIL 1 2 :2.3 = Dessau 8561 = Degrassi, ILLRP 1) with halatorem in the Forum Cippus inscription (CIL I 2 : 2.1 = Dessau 4913 = Degrassi, ILLRP 3), where the -orseems to be original. 16 "Most likely," my critic writes, "the truth is that on the basis of pacari we must revise the old view of the passive infinitive ending -if s coming from *-sei and admit an etymological [i.e., original] r, whatever the origin. If this is so, pacari has of course no bearing on the dating question one way or the other." 17 I therefore incline to agree with Pinza, Giglioli, Ducati, and Degrassi in dating this vase tentatively in the seventh century or, at the latest, at the beginning of the sixth, though it should be noted that a palaeographer, the late G. Cencetti, "Ricerche sulla scrittura latina nell'età arcaica," Part I (Bull. Archivio paleogr. ital., n.s., 2-3 [1956-57, Rome 1957] 179f, n. 2), agreed with Marin (supra p. 54) 459f, on palaeographical and linguistic grounds, in dating it about 450 B.C. T h e lettering, like that of the gold Fibula Praenestina, the Forum stone Cippus, and the Castor—Pollux bronze, is strongly archaic and could be Greek or Etruscan if the language were not, despite its (to me at least) general incomprehensibility, Latin, some of the peculiarities of the writing being undoubtedly due to its being cut on a doubly curved surface. There is considerable irregularity in both size and shape of individual letters. (Dressel's table of letter shapes—Ann. Inst., p. 165—does not do justice to their multiplicity.) Noteworthy: the angularity of the letters (due perhaps to the difficulty of cutting on such a surface), the lack of horizontal strokes (note esp. the T's), E with down-slanted bars and long vertical, fivestroke M, open P, R like a closed P. Four letters seem to have been corrected, one added, and one damaged; these six, plus another stroke, remain somewhat uncertain, but for four of these the

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

59

intention seems clear. T h e order of the units of writing adopted here is that generally agreed upon, but several editors or commentators read differently: D. Comparetti, one of the few who seem to have examined the vase itself, reverses units 2 and 3, going from SIED to DVENOS (Museo ital. di ant. class. 1 [Florence 1885] 179f); so also E. W. Fay, AJP 30 (1909) 12If, 124, and Wochenschr. f . klass. Phil. 23 (Berlin 1911) 987, who divides the text into five lines; Elliott, Trans. Oxf. Phil. Soc. (1888-89) 21 and S. Ferri, La Parola del Passato, 20 (1965) 45f put the units in the order 3, 1,2. Transcript, with some letters modernized, and as read from right to left as the inscription was cut, and as one sees it looking f r o m above the vase as I believe the writer cut it (drawings by J. S. G.): join 2

vessel 2

unit l

j. 3

vessel 3

¿\6vWAJAjM\Z3TI0T310\d\0\AQ3TiA

vessel 3

unit 3

vessel I

a3'l^oJillv^l/v\¿0JOC^l3037"/inTAT;M(J3M/op^c)V^07/l^|^l/0l

vessel 1

unit 2

j. 1

j. 2

vessel 2

j. 1

vessel 1

adTATlOlAMQmJVllomyQMOMtlMOw'ANiVtlQSyJlQlMdOWlVQ

(it is hard to decide just where the readings of the vessels and those of the joins begin and end), i.e., iove\satdeivosqoimedmitatneitedendocosmisvircosied (49 letters) astednoisiopetoitesiaipac( ?)arivois (32) due( ? )nosmedfec( ? )edenmanomeinomdu( ? )enoinemedmal( ? )ostatod. (47) (Total: 128) (For my reason for presenting the text without word divisions except as indicated, see below.) Unit 1 (which must have been the first one to be cut, if I am right in my view of the manner of writing): The vertical cut next to IOVE (pi. 3:1) my wife and I at first agreed with Dressel (Ann. Inst., p. 164) and Lommatzsch in considering, not a letter nor an accidental cut, but a mark of separation added later (presumably by the first hand) to separate what appear to be, as noted by Thurneysen in 1899 (Zeitschr.f. vergl. Sprachf. 35, 194fin.), the two closest letters in the whole text except in the group DV(?)E in unit 3 (pi. 3:5). It

60

Arthur E. Gordon

suggested that IOVE is a word, a unit of sense. But, if it is a separator, it may be unique: I can recall no other example in Latin. (For Greek—"a vertical line (Crete)"—see Jeffery, [supra n. 12] 50, 308f.) A mere separator of letters it does not seem to be: the E and S would be perfectly clear without it. And this would be even more rare than a word-separator, perhaps unique. Vetter, however (supra n. 5) 710, interprets the vertical cut as a mark made by the cutter to indicate where he should begin the inscription, but he believed that before beginning to write the cutter realized that the space was inadequate for the first unit of his text, so he began at a point that proved to be four letters to the right. But I cannot see what difference it could make to the cutter where he began his first line; there was room for it no matter where he began it. T h e present tendency seems to be to disregard the cut, to read iovesat, and to interpret this as iurat—which seems most easily to fulfill the need for a verb and to solve the problems created by IOVE and SAT if considered as separate words, though both Walde—Hofmann and Ernout—Meillet consider the equation iovesat = iurat uncertain: see below, A d d e n d u m . I remain baffled, but I do consider the cut a marker of some sort, not presently understood. T h e second letter beyond the cut certainly looks like an A corrected from an E, as Dressel (p. 161) and Lommatzsch state. There is a slight, insignificant horizontal cut below the I of QOI. T h e E of EN DO is certain, the thin vertical that is visible being beneath the E: apparently an accidental scratch. Otherwise the text seems clear. T h e eleven editors cited at the beginning (Lommatzsch— Pisani) differ in their reading and interpretations. Lommatzsch and Ernout (edd. 1-2) read iovesat . . . sied without a break, but the former feels certain (p. 371, col. 2, fin.) that "iovesat, i. q. iurat," is correct, "sed de hac re," he adds, "videant doctiores," and Ernout adds another reading, with word division and punctuation—iovesat deivos qoi med mitat, nei ted endo cosmis virco sied—as an example of "arbitrary" word-division, which he wrongly attributes to "the editors of* CIL, which (i.e., Lommatzsch) in actual fact presents no worddivided text as its own (p. 371), but only quotes (col. 2) Buecheler's (Rhein. Mus. N.F. 36 [1881] 235) and Thurneysen's (p. 212) readings, and later (p. 831) Dirichs's and Krogmann's, as examples. Dessau reads love sat. . . mitad (this d by a slip), etc. (as above), which he quotes f r o m Buecheler, who in fact (ibid.) adds a comma after mitat\ Dressel (p. 178) had read love Sat(urno), etc., with comma after mitat; Conway in both places (AJP, p. 448, Ital. Dial. 330) read

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

61

io vei sat.. . sied, comma (AJP, not in Ital. Dial.) (io vei sat as assumed abbreviations, perhaps nowhere else attested, for "Jove, Vejove, and Saturn," nominative case (but he fails to give the full Latin forms for those names, AJP, p. 454); Lindsay first (Handb.) read Ioueis (? -ues) at .. . mitat, . . . Virco sied, comma, later Iouesat . . . mitat, . . . sied / asted comma"; Diehl reads iovesat. . . mitat, . . . sied / asted; Warmington Io. Vei. Sat. deivos . . . mitat: . . . sied. Asted, for Iovem, Veiovem, Saturnum, accusative, objects of "an omitted verb such as orat 'prays' or iurat 'swears'" (p. 56); Degrassi Iovesat . . . vois, with no punctuation except a vertical line-break after sied. Unit 2 (which some connect with unit 1 without a break, e.g., Degrassi): T h e only uncertain letter is the C in PACARI (pi. 3:2) which looks most like an E but not at all like the other E's here and which Dressel (pp. 161-163) thought corrected from—he finally decided—K, largely on the basis of what he thought was the change from K to C in FECED, unit 3 (pi. 3:4). My wife and I incline to agree; but we consider these letters among the least certain of all those here. Lommatzsch thought the intended letter to be C in both words, but left unidentified the original letters. Perhaps the final results were intended as K's, or perhaps the cutter was uncertain whether to write C or K, confused by the practice that seems to have developed in writing the three guttural signs C, K, and Q, i.e. C before E and I, K before A, Q before O and U,18 and so, in PACARI (pi. 3:2), he perhaps first wrote C, then corrected it to K, and vice versa in FECED (pi. 3:4), first K, then C. But inspection of neither the vase itself nor photographs gives any assurance of certainty. Dr. Gehrig writes (March 12, 1973) that Dressel's "Umzeichnung" (rendering, drawing?) of the C in PACARI, the C in FECED, the long cut after IOVE (pi. 3:1), and the manner of writing the D (I suspect that he means the Z) in DZENOI (unit 3—pi. 3:5) are "ganz korrekt wiedergegeben" (Dressel, Ann. Inst. 52 [1880] Tav. L). (On DZENOI, see infra.) T h e r e is an accidental cut under the E of COSIED at the end. For the latest study of this line, see Dumézil (supra n. 17). Unit 3: For DVENOS (pi. 3:3) only Dirichs (supra n. 3) reads DVFNOS, as the name of "the Sabine potter." He there says that Dressel had told him in 1919 "that F can be read here just as well as E." Although my wife, our friend, and I failed to study this letter in Berlin since I had not marked it for special attention, I inclined to agree with Krogmann (supra n. 3) 7, that Dirichs overlooked "the lowest horizontal stroke of the letter, made somewhat unclear

62

Arthur E. Gordon

because of a slight damage, but certainly present," which seemed shown by some of the photographs. But in answer to my request for assistance, Dr. Gehrig replies by letter of March 22, 1974: Bei d e r Ü b e r p r ü f u n g des zweifelhaften Buchstabens "E" . . . neige ich m e h r zum Urteil von Dressel, der . . . auf S. 2 sagt: "dass man hier ebensogut ein f wie ein e lesen kann." Die dritte Haste das E, die Krogmann sieht, ist eigentlich n u r am Rand einer Beschädigung zu erahnen. Vielleicht ergibt ein Photo bei guter Beleuchtung ein eindeutigeres Bild. Das Photo werden wir f ü r Sie in den nächsten Tagen machen lassen. T h e two enlargements kindly sent still leave the matter uncertain, though my wife thinks that they show the left end of the (supposed) lowest horizontal, to the left of the damage. There are several E's but only one other F in the text for comparison. In any case I greatly favor E, as producing a possible Latin name (or word), as against Dirichs's "Sabine" Dufnos, which he seems alone in reading. He himself later reads duenoi, "für einen Reichen" (p. 95). O n the C of FECED (p. 3:4) see above, on unit 2. My wife and I read DVENOI (pi. 3:5), not DZENOI, on the basis of our independent examination of the vase; our friend concurred independently, being helpful and enlightening. Certainly a letter has been added between D and E, where there was not enough space. T h e left stroke of the added letter is partly in ligature with the vertical of the following E (reading right to left). Our friend concluded (with Breal, unknowingly 19 ) that the writer's stylus, while making the left stroke of the V, had slipped into the vertical of the E, which looks like a double stroke, before he pulled it right to make the (lower) angle. T h e u p p e r slanted stroke of the supposed Z we agree with Pauli and Thurneysen 2 0 in thinking insignificant: it hardly exists and is paralleled by other similar slight, accidental strokes. Furthermore, Thurneysen noted (p. 207) that the combination DZ is neither Greek nor Italic, and it is a fact that DVENOI, Duenoi or duenoi, makes sense as a possible Latin word—an archaic dative singular, like the populoi Romanoi quoted by the fourth-century A.D. grammarian Marius Victorinus"—preceded, as it is, in the same unit by what seems to be the phrase Duenos med feced, which I find the only intelligible phrase in the whole inscription: "Duenos (a name, "Goodman," or "A good man," archaic form of bonus, cf. duellum: bellum") (has) made me." Duenoi has also been the reading, or the p r e f e r r e d reading, of most scholars (41 out of 67 checked, as

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

63

against 20 in favor of dzenoi—though only about six of all these seem to have examined the vase personally), including Michel Bréal (who, as noted above, was the first to read duenoi, with the assistance of someone who examined the doubtful readings for him and of Dressel himself, who gave him "toutes les vérifications": op. citatis [supra n. 19] 152 fin., cf. 148, 160; and 87, cf. 83, 93), Cari Pauli (supra n. 20) 30-35, R. Thurneysen (pp. 194, 203, 206f), and, since 1926, Devoto, Dumézil, Gjerstad, Goldmann, Kent, Kretschmer, Krogmann, Leumann, Marin, Peruzzi, Pisani, Ribezzo, Vetter, Warmington, and Weinstock 23 (of whom only Goldmann and Krogm a n n seem to have examined the vase itself), but not Cencetti, Degrassi, Diehl, Lommatzsch, Pagliaro, or Palmer 24 (of whom only Lommatzsch—and he not for certain, to judge from CIL I 2 — examined it personally); Ernout was unsure, but seems inclined to favor duenoi.2* At the end of the unit, in MAL(?)OSTATOD (pi. 3:6), we think that the uncertain letter looks intended as an L (though there is no other L here for comparison) rather than N (the other examples of which do not resemble it in the least), but originally an A (though a little more slanted than the one next to it), written perhaps by dittography, the writer simply repeating the A by oversight. 26 Dressel could not decide what had been originally written, but he printed "(n)" as his final reading, though noting that it did "not appear at all like an n," but "rather like v or a," and adding: "but after the clear and undoubted mention of manus in the first part of this inscription [he means this unit 3, which he thought a separate, second, and later inscr.] the sense seems here to require the repetition of the same word" (p. 185, cf. 161, 163, 164). One or two others have read mado(s), to mean "drunk" (cf. madidus). Lommatzsch seems alone in presenting the text, approximately as above, without separate sentences or words. 27 I follow him in the belief that, while a single phrase and a few more words appear recognizable and intelligible, no word-division and no interpretation of all the more than fifty proposed since 1880 have won general approval, and to me (who do not claim to be a philologist) the sense of the whole, as well as of nearly all the details, remains unclear. T h e language certainly seems to be Latin, though Dressel himself felt compelled in 1889 to exclude the inscription from CIL 15 (the inscribed Instrumentum Domesticum of the city of Rome) on the g r o u n d s (see part 2: 1, p. 775) that some (unnamed) persons had decided that it was a kind of provincial Latin, written in non-Latin

64

Arthur E. Gordon

characters, and that in particular Zvetaieff had included it in his Inscriptiones Italiae Inferioris Dialecticae (Moscow 1886); but in fact Zvetaieff entitles it (p. 80, no. 285) "Inscriptio Latina Antiquissima," quotes six interpretations of it as Latin, and includes in his book (p. 180) Deecke's additional interpretation of it, again obviously as Latin. Nor do such experts as Buck (A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian [Boston, etc. 1904, rev. 1928] or Vetter (Handb. der italischen Dialekte, 1 [Heidelberg 1953]) or Pisani (Le lingue dell'Italia antica oltre il latino2 [Turin 1964]) include it in their books on the nonLatin Italic languages. Buck in fact cites duenos from what must be this inscription in his Compar. Gramm, of Greek and Latin (Chicago 1933, 4th impr. 1948) 82, sect. 80.4, Vetter clearly accepted it as Latin in several of his publications from 1903 to 1939 (29. Jahresber. des K. K. Staatsgymnas. im XVII. Bezirke von Wien [Vienna 1903] 3-6, Gnomon 3 [1927] 707-714, Glotta 27: 3-4 [1939] 147f), and Pisani includes it in his Testi latini arcaici e volgari, edd. 1, 2 (1950, 1960), as well as having written about it from 1927 on (Arch, glottol. ital. 21 [1927] 118-125). Palmer, while admitting (p. 62) that "the sense of the whole still escapes us," nevertheless presents the text (p. 346, no. 2) divided into words as well as units, sentences, and clauses. Similarly Degrassi (27 words in two sentences, the second beginning with Duenos)'. "Interpretatio adhuc ignota, praesertim cum cuinam usui vasculum destinata sit nesciamus." T h e r e is also the question of form: is it in verse—saturnian? hexameter? some other kind? The first editor, Dressel {Ann. Inst. p. 181), accepted Buecheler's opinion that it is in saturnians, and Buecheler himself the next year {Rhein. Mus. N.F. 36 [1881] 243f) still inclined to believe so ("Manches scheint dafür zu sprechen . . ."), but when he came to edit volume 1 (Leipzig 1895, repr. Amsterdam 1972) of his Carmina Latina Epigraphica he did not include it among his 17 saturnians (or anywhere else in the two volumes of carmina)-, nor did Lommatzsch include it in his supplement to Buecheler (1926, rep. 1972), and in his edition of the inscription in CIL l 2 : 2:1 (1918, with further notes in fasc. 2 [1931]—3 [1943]) he does no more than say that Buecheler, Osthoff {Rhein. Mus. N.F. 36 [1881] 481-489), and others believed in its saturnian character, without noting Buecheler's apparent change of mind, but with a reference to Fr. Leo, Der saturnische Vers {Abh. Göttingen, phil.-hist. K.I., N.F. 8: 5 [1905] 5, n. 2, where Leo says, "Die Dvenosinschrift gibt keine einigermassen sichere Handhabe sie hierherzuziehn. Bücheler Rhein. Mus. XXXVI 243 f." No more successful was Miss Bennett's

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

65

seeing it as in hexameters (supra p. 56, on the dating): even with her own reading of the inscription, which seems to be unique, her hexameters appear quite impossible, as noted by Mary B. Peaks, Proc. APA 42 (1911) xlf, who sensibly remarks that "inscriptions in verse, other than epitaphs, are exceedingly rare before the empire." E. Baehrens's cretics (jahrb. f . class. Phil. 30 [1884] 833-836), Otto Keller's accentual verses, "epic Saturnian" (Der saturn. Vers, 2. Abh. [Prag 1886] 32-34, cf. Berl. phil. Wochenschr. 20 [1900] 698-700, 1117f), E. W. Fay's anapests (AJP 30 [1909] 124), and Dirichs's iambic "Reklamestrophe" (supra n. 3) 75, seem hardly worth more than mentioning: they all suffer from one basic weakness or another, such as the fact that the wording—I mean the breaking-up into words—is so uncertain, especially that of unit 2, that we cannot be sure of the length of syllables, or (as in Fay's case) the lines require rearranging and/or rewriting (Fay has five lines, with ast ednoisi opetoite sjaipa karivois his last line). No one, in my opinion, has understood the inscription as a whole, though there have been many conjectures, some tentative, some dogmatic. For me, only the D VENOSMEDFECED of unit 3, and perhaps the MEDMITAT of unit 1 and the DVENOI (if this is correct) of unit 3, make satisfactory sense. T h r e e of the latest interpretations will show how far apart scholars have been in their views. 1. Einar Gjerstad, Septent. et Orient, and Early Rome (1959, 1960), loc. citatis (supra n. 23), reads the text thus: Iovesat deivos qoi med mitat: "Nei ted endo cosmis virco sied asted, noisi opet oites iai pakari vois." Duenos med feced en manom einom duenoi; ne med malos tatod! In Classical Latin: Iurat deos qui me mittit: "Ne in te comis virgo sit adstet, nisi ope utens ei pacari vis." Bonus me fecit in bonum atque bono; ne me malus dato! He translates into English: He who puts me on the market swears by the gods: "Thy girl shall not be amiable to thee, shall not stand by thee, unless thou wilt befriend her by using (my) assistance (ope utens)." Goodman has made me for a good purpose and for the benefit of a good man; may a bad man not present me!

66

Arthur E. Gordon 2. Vittore Pisani, Testi latini (ed. 2, 1960) 9,fin., reads it thus: iouesat deiuos qoi med mitât nei ted endo cosmis uirco sied / ast ednois iopetoi tesiai pakari uois / duenos med feked en manomeinom duenoi ne med malostatod.

H e translates into Classical Latin: iurat deos qui me uendit—nisi in te comis uirgo sit, ast cibis futuitioni (i.e. futuitionis ergo) ei pacari uis—: bonus me fecit in felicem exitum: bono ne e me malum stato. In addition to his notes (which he remarks "do not pretend to give a definitive solution"), his 1927 article "Sull'iscrizione di Duenos" (Arch, glottol. ital. 21, 118-125, esp. 125) with its Italian translation (though his text here was different in several respects), and his 1959 article "Altlateinisches iopetoi und die Duenos-Inschrift" (Rhein. Mus. N.F. 102, 303-307, where his text is the same as that of 1960 except that in 1959 he wrote malo statod as two words, as he admits in 1960 "probabilmente si avrà da dividere"), I have his Italian version in a letter of April 4, 1974: Giura per gli dèi chi mi [the vase] vende—ove ["if'] la vergine non ti sia propizia, ma ["in that event, then"] tu [the recipient of the vase] voglia rendertele accetto con (questi) cibi (stregati) al fine del coito (= onde poterti congiungere carnalmente con lei)—: un esperto (= intenditore di incantesimi) mi ha fatto per un felice esito; ad un esperto (= capace de usare dell'incantesimo) non può venire da me (alcun) male. 3. Georges Dumézil (1969), whose pages (supra n. 17) are mainly on "La deuxième ligne," offers this Classical Latin text (14f, 16-20, 24 n. 1, of his book): iûrat deòs qui mê mittit, ni in tè cómis uirgô sit adstet nobis ope tùtèlae pâcàri uóbls bonus mé fêcit in mànum unum bonó né mè malo statò, which he translates (in several scattered pieces): Celui qui m'envoie (ou: remet) jure par les dieux, S'il arrive que la jeune fille ne soit pas envers toi [le mari, p. 15], de bon caractère, de relations faciles (ibid.), / qu'il nous échoie en obligation, à nous, (de faire) que l'accord s'établisse pour vous (p. 16), / un bonus, un homme probe (loyal, respectant les dieux

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

67

et sa parole) m'a fait en vue du bien, d'un bon usage, seulement. Qu'il ne s'installe pas, au détriment de l'homme probe (= le bonus de la première phrase, mon factor), une situation caractérisée par une utilisation improbe de moi (qui le déconsidérerait, le désachalanderait, ou le ferait complice involontaire d'une faute contre les dieux) [en rattachant DVENOI à ce qui suit et en donnant à stare une valeur impersonnelle (cf. adstàre à la deuxième ligne)]; or un homme probe m'a fait, en vue du bien seulement, pour un homme probe; qu'il (= mon factor) ne reste pas marqué par une utilisation improbe de moi (donc qu'il ne soit pas déconsidéré, ou mis dans un "état" religieusement mauvais) [en rattachant DVENOI à ce qui précède et en donnant à statò le même sujet qu'a fecit] (p. 24, n. 1). Gjerstad (op. citatis [supra n. 23] 137 and 162, resp.) thought it "justified to infer that the Duenos vase, like the corresponding Greek pyxides [with a ref. to Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. Pyxis], was used as a container for cosmetics and other toilet articles [with reff. to Athen. Mitt. 18 (1893, not 1903) 167 and Langlotz, Griech. Vasen

Univ. Wurzburg, no. 683]." For Pisani (Testi latini*, 8, end of note on line 1) "si ricave che lo scopo del vasetto è amatorio, e la forma di esso ha permesso a vari studiosi di stabilire che si tratta di un arnese per la preparazione di un incantesimo erotico, probabilmente di un filtro." For Dumézil (pp. 20, 21, 23) the vase is "un objet que remet au mari le tuteur, ou le porte-parole des tuteurs de la jeune fille, soit lors du mariage, soit dès les fiançailles, et l'inscription qu'il porte ne fait que noter un engagement verbal accompagnant le "don" de la jeune fille." "La promesse sous serment enregistrée dans l'inscription du vase ne concerne pas le don même de la jeune fille, mais la future vie conjugale des deux époux, exactement le comportement de la femme dans le ménage." "La remise (QOI MED MITAT) du vase n'était certainement pas un simple geste d'amabilité. . . . Avec le serment qu'il porte, la vase . . . était comme une cautiô . . . pour la clause accessoire d'intervention. Il est probable aussi qu'il a servi, une seule fois, à quelque rite religieux, dans lequel les trois ouvertures [the three openings of the vase] prenaient peut-être un sens (il y avait en effet dans l'affaire trois intéressés: les deux contractants [the girl's father and her husband-to-be] et la virgo.)" If philologists could agree on what type of inscription this is—a

68

Arthur E. Gordon

religious offering? a love-charm or incantation? a curse or execration? a domestic gift? a dedication combined with a curse? a sly lampoon f r o m one potter to another? a form of marriage contract?— I should probably accept it, with the proviso that f u r t h e r documentation of early Latin might result in changes in the interpretation. Until such time, I can only emphasize our lack of comparable material (Degrassi can present only nine Latin inscriptions of the seventhf o u r t h centuries, one of which may be Sabine: ILLRP 1-7, 1271, 1271 a) and, as I believe, the incomprehensibility of the inscription as a whole. T h e artist who m a d e the vase seems to have been "Duenos" (which I incline to think his name rather than a descriptive adjective), and the inscription seems to be a titulus loquens, the vase itself represented as talking in the first person (med).2s

ADDENDUM

T h e u n k n o w n critic mentioned above (one of two who read this paper b e f o r e its acceptance) disapproves of my failure to take a stand on the meaning of the inscription. But in this I am in the company of such eminent scholars as Dessau (1906), Ernout (1916, 1957), W a l d e — H o f m a n n (1938), Lommatzsch (1918, 1931, 1943), Stolz— L e u m a n n (1928), Palmer (1954), Degrassi (1957, 1965), Ernout— Meillet (1959), and the latest editor of archaic Latin inscriptions, A n t o n i n o De Rosalia (Iscrizioni latine arcaiche [Palermo 1972] 10). Most of these men do indeed present a text with word divisions and two (or three) sentences, generally at second hand (e.g., Dessau f r o m Buecheler), though they o f f e r no interpretation and indicate, m o r e o r less strongly, that the interpretation is uncertain. Even for the first a p p a r e n t word, IOVESAT, both Walde—Hofmann, Latein, etymol. Wörterbuch,3 (Heideiburg 1938) 1.733, s.v. 1. iüs, and Ernout—Meillet, Diet, étymol. de la langue latine* (Paris 1959) 330, col. 1, s.v. iüs, consider the equation iovesat = iürat questionable, the latter observing of the inscription that "le sens est obscur et contesté." E r n o u t alone, in ed. 1 and 2 of his Recueil, says of iovesat "sens incertain," and of the whole text, in ed. 2, "l'interprétation, très incertaine." My illustre incognito finds Dumézil's interpretation "extremely

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

69

convincing and far superior to those of Gjerstad [whom he rightly calls "no philologist": he was an archaeologist/historian] and (especially) Pisani." He would like me to emend "toitesiae to toiteslai (= tutelae)," which he says is "epigraphically supported" and would yield "a wholly new key to the understanding of the situation." This suggestion, I assume, comes from Dumézil, who (pp. 247f of his Coll. Latomus paper = 18-20 of Idées romaines, but recast) ascribes the spelling of TOITESIAE for *TOITELAE (= tutelae) to one or two errors or blunders, perhaps the S, depending on the etymology of -êla, and the I for L. (Dumézil notes correctly the poor L—the only other L here—towards the end of unit 3, which he finds "plausible." I suggest above that this L was originally an A, perhaps by dittography following the preceding A.) My critic's "epigraphical support" must come, not from the present text, where the I is perfectly clear and undamaged, but from the fact that (as my wife and I note in our Contributions to the Palaeography of Latin Inscriptions, Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Arch. 3: 3 [Berkeley 8c Los Angeles 1957] 106) "Cutters not infrequently confuse I and L, the serif of one and the serif plus bar of the other somehow coming out about the same. Obviously the cutter sometimes misunderstood the letter he was cutting, or misinterpreted the drawn letter." But these confusions are of a much later period, and I have been unable to find citations of known examples from the early period. I therefore hesitate to accept Dumézil's emendation. Dumézil's thesis is very learned and well argued; it leaves no loose ends; but it rests on the premise that the inscription is badly written (p. 254 = 24, where he favors the idea that the vase was only one of a series or group already made for any buyer who wanted it, rather than custom-made for a particular person) and that the corrections and editing that it shows left several other errors untouched. I am not convinced that the presence of some corrections means that it is proper to assume other mistakes, such as the spelling of TOITESIAI and the I after NOIS (p. 247 = 18), both of which I find particularly difficult to accept. Dumézil may indeed turn out to have the right interpretation, but until or unless more evidence becomes available, I am unwilling to accept his dependence on supposed errors on the part of the cutter. University of California Berkeley

70

Arthur E. Gordon NOTES

'See my The Fibula Praenestina: Problems of Authenticity, Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Studies 16 (in press). 'See A. E. Gordon and Joyce S. Gordon, Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions, 3 (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1965) 4 1 - 4 6 , no. 276. T h e Hymn is said by P.S.N, in The Oxf. Class. Diet. edd. 1 (1949) and 2 (1970), s.v. Carmen Arvale, to have been "already obscure before the time of Aelius Stilo [a teacher of Cicero's: Cic. Brut. 207] (see Schanz-Hosius i, p. 18)," but the ref. here is rather to the Salian Hymns and Quintilian's statement (1.6.40), Saliorum carmina vix sacerdotibus suis satis mtellecta, cf. Varro, de I. L. 7.2. No doubt, to judge f r o m its quoted inscriptional form, the Arval Hymn was no more intelligible. 'Emil Goldmann, Die Duenos-lnschrift (Heidelberg 1926) 176 pp., 2 plates; J. F. K. Dirichs, Die urlateinische Reklamestrophe auf dem sogenann. Dresseischen Drülingsgefäss des sabmischen Töpfers Dufnos (bisher Duenos) .. . (Heidelberg 1939) 120 pp., 1 plate; J. A. Pia«*, L'inscription de Duenos, nouveau déchiffrement, traduction, date (Conférence faite le 17 Janvier 1926 à la Soc. des Sciences et Lettres de Loir-et-Cher) (Blois, dated at the end of Febr. 20,1926) 39 pp., 2 plates (Lommatzsch, CIL l':2:3 [1943] 831, lists this as publ. at Pavillons-sous-Bois 1938—a reprint?), summarized by J. B. Hofmann, Indogerm. Jahrbuch, 12 (1928) 202; Willy Krogmann, Die Duenos-lnschrift (Berlin 1938) 31 pp., 2 plates. 4 C. G. Cobet, Mnem. n.s. 9 (1881) 441-444, foUowed by L. Ph. C. Van Den Bergh, Verslagen en Meded. der tum. Akad. van Wetens., Afd. Letterkunde, ser. 3, 1 (Amsterdam 1884) 2 4 9 - 2 5 2 (transi, for me by Cora Harschel): "a mere mystification"; I. Netushil, Filol. Obozrenie, 11 (Moscow 1896) 121-126 (transi, for me by Phyllis A. Reed), answered at length by G. Herbig, Bursian, 106 (1900, publ. 1901) 4 4 - 4 6 . ' T h e r e seem to be two other ways in which the artist could have produced the writing as it now appears: (1) with the vase closed at the top and the artist sitting, or standing, and cutting right to left, legibly to himself, as Dressel seems to have conjectured (ibid.: "La scrittura, eseguita sul vaso tenuto capo vol to . . ."), and (2) with the vase open toward the artist, who sits, or stands, and cuts as in no. (1); but both ways would be unnatural and improper because possibly harmful to the vase, which presumably should rest on its base while still soft before being fired. Cf. E. Vetter's similarly mechanical explanation, Gnomon, 3 (1927) 709. 'G. Pinza, Mon. prim, di Roma e del Lazio ant. (Milan 1905 [Mon. Antichi dei Lincei, 15] 6 4 7 - 6 4 9 , 781; P. Ducati, "Sui primi tre documenti di lingua latina," Rend. Acc. Bologna, cl. disc. mor. 4: 2 (1939) 13-15. 'According to my friend and colleague, D. A. Amyx, this is a sound argument, proto-Corinthian never being found in context later than the seventh century except perhaps in the case of an heirloom and even then not much later than the seventh. •Photos: Fib. Praen., CIL l':2:1, no. 3, p. 370, Degrassi, Inscr. Lot. lib. reipubl.. Imagines (CIL, Auctarium [Berlin 1965]) 259, no. 365; For. Cipp., CIL 1*, no. 1, p. 367, Degrassi 273, no. 378 a - d ; Cast.—Poll., Degrassi, 25, no. 30; Scipionics, Degrassi 8 9 - 9 3 , nos. 132138; Here., Degrassi 43, no. 59. •See A. E. Gordon The Letter Names of the Latin Alphabet, Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Studies, 9 (1973) 58, n. 76. "See A. E. Gordon and Joyce S. Gordon (supra n. 2) 1 (1958) no. 83 line 5; vol. 3 (1965) nos. 288 col. 1 line 39, 302 line 5, 338 lines 8, 19. "L. Gasperini, in Roma medio repubblicana, aspetti culturali di Roma e del Lazio nei secoli IV e III a. C. (Rome 1973) 71 f, no. 46, and Tav. XV, and "Alfabeto modello latino su piattello etrusco del 'Gruppo di Genucilia'," Ann. della Fac. di Lett, e Filos. of the Univ. of Macerata, 5 - 6 (1972—73) 529-537 (knowledge of these and a copy of both I owe to Dr. H. Krummrey of the CIL headquarters, Berlin). On the date, see the Macerata paper, p. 534. This is the earliest Latin model-alphabet thus far discovered, much earlier than those found at Pompeii—CIL 4.2514-2518.

Notes on the Duenos-Vase Inscription in Berlin

71

" C f . L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece . . . (Oxford 1961, repr. 1963, 1969) Table o f Letters at the end, Zeta, or Margherita Guarducci, Epigrafia greca, 1 (Rome 1967) Alfabeti greci arcaici, at the end; G. Buonamici, Epigrafia etrusco (Florence 1932) 122, fig. 27, no. 7; M. PaHottino, Etniscologia• (Milan 1968, ristampa integrata 1973) 388. " C f . K. P. Harrington, Proc. APA 29 (1898) xxxiv-xxxvi; G. Hempl, Trans. APA 30 (1899) 2 4 - 2 8 , 3 5 - 3 9 ; F. Sommer, Hcmdb. der laiein. Laut- und Formenlehre*'' (Heidelberg 1914—a new ed. of the Lautlehre, by R. Pfister, has been announced as forthcoming) 25, § 4; E. H. Sturtevant, Pron. of Greek and Latin' (Philadelphia 1940, repr. Groningen 1968) 175, § 202; C. D. Buck, Comp. Gramm. (Chicago 1933, 4th impr. 1948) 74. , 4 Cf. Sommer, 190, 593, 594; R. Kühner—Fr. Holzweissig, Ausführt. Gramm, der latein. Sprache, 1* (Hannover 1912, repr. 1966) 690, first par. (quoted infra n. 17); Fr. Stolz—M. Leumann, Latein. Laut- und Formenlehre (Munich 1926-28, repr. 1963) 328 s ; L. R. Palmer (supra p. 54) 279. "Sommer, 190; Stolz—Leumann, 1 4 0 " ; Palmer, 230; cf. Kühner—Holzweissig, 174 ("ca. 300 B.C."). " C f . Sommer, 365; Stolz—Leumann, 238, § 176; Palmer, 237, B 4; but Kühner—Holzweissig, 963, med., seem to derive the -or of amator, etc., from -ös. " C f . Kühner—Holzweissig, 690, imi.: "Die Form auf ri [in the pass, infin.] lautete ursprünglich si (vergi. Paul Fest. 48.19 Th. dosi "dari"); sie erweist sich dann leicht ebenfalls [like the form in -t] als Dat. Sing., aber von einem ¿-Stamme, der bei den vokalisch auslautenden Verbalstämmen in Anwendung kam; freilich ist pacari in der Duenosinschrift belegt, die sonst den Übergang des s zu r nicht kennt und demnach r als ursprüngliches r erweisen würde." G. Dumézil, Idées romaines (Paris 1969 [pp. 1 3 - 2 5 = Collection Latomus, 102 (Brussels 1969) 2 4 4 - 2 5 5 , "avec quelques modifications"]) 15 agrees: ". . . PAKARI . . . a prouvé que le -ri des infinitifs passifs n'est pas issu de - sei par rhotacisme . . . " " C f . Sommer, 2 6 - 2 9 ; Pallottino, 387, n. 2. "Michel Bréal (who was the first to read duenoi here), Mèi. d'arch. et d'hist.. École Franç. de Rome, 2 (1882) 160, repeated in Rev. Arch. n.s. 44 (1882) 93. " C a r l Pauli Altitalische Studien, 1 (Hannover 1883) 34f; Thumeysen (supra p. 59) 207. "Marius Victorinus, ed. Keil, Gramm. Lot. 6 (1874, repr. 1961) 11, line 13—12, line 1 ; p. 17, lines 1 8 - 2 1 . He quotes populoi Romanoi as a dative "pro populo Romano" "ex libris antiquis foederum et legum" (11, line 14). " C f . Sommer, 1 14, 341; Palmer, 62, 225. " G . Devoto, Riv. di fil. 55 (1927) 390-396, esp. 391, 392, and Stona della lingua di Roma (Bologna 1940 Storia di Roma, 23) 71; G. Dumézil, (supra n. 17); E. Gjerstad, Septem, et Orient, (supra p. 57) 137f, Early Rome, 3.162; Goldman (supra n. 3) 14If; Kent, (supra p. 54) 214; P. Kretschmer, Wiener Ztschr. f . Volkskunde, 34 (1929) 34, as previously in Ztschr.f. die Österreich. Gymnasien, 57 (1906) 495, 496, 500; W. Krogmann (supra n. 3) 6, 7, 8, 9, 21; M. Leumann, in ed. 5 of Stolz—Schmalz's Latein. Gramm., 1: Latein. Laut- u. Formenlehre (Munich 1928 repr. 1963) 46, sect. 5 Anm. 2, and Ciotta, 18 (1930) 245: Marin (supra p. 54) 430, 446; E. Peruzzi, La Parola del Passato, 13, fase. 62(1958) 331, 338; V. Pisani, Arch, glottal, ital. 21 (1927) 125, Rhein. Mus. N. F. 102 (1959) 304, 305, and Testi latini (loc. cit.); F. Ribezzo, Rtv. indo-greco-ital. 14 (1930) 90, 20 (1936) 35 [159], as also previously; E. Vetter, Gnomon, 3 (1927) 714, Gioita 27 (1939) 147; E. H. Warmington (supra p. 54) 54, 55, 57; S. Weinstock, Gnomon, 13 (1937) 335 (by implication). " G . Cencetti, BuU. deU'Arch. paleogr. ital., n.s., 2 - 3 , 1 9 5 6 - 5 7 (Rome 1957) 181, n. 3; A. Degrassi, Inscr. Lot. Lib. Rei Pubi. 1 (loc. cù.); E. Dìehl, Altlat. lnschr.* (supra p. 54) 720; E. Lommatzsch, CIL 1*: 2:1.4 ("DZE secunda littera postea inserta: DVE non recte Bréal T h u m , alii"); A. Pagliaro, Atene e Roma, 36 (1934) 164, 172f; Palmer, loc. cit. " A . Ernout, loc. cit. : "dimoi: texte altéré: duenoi? datif du duenos? In ed. 1 he had added: "Des interprétateurs lisent dze noine 'dié noni", ce qui est invraisemblable, phonétiquement et morphologiquement."

72

Arthur E. Gordon " C f . L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars . . . (Oxford

1968) 156. "Dumézil presents it thus also, but only as a preliminary text. " F o r a bibliography on tituU loquentes (but only of the type in which the object is represented as speaking, whether an image of a deity, a human being, or an animal) see M. S. Beeler, The Venetic Language, Univ. Calif. Publ. Linguistics, 4:1 (1949) 5, n. 1; M. Torelli, in Dialoghi di Archeologia, 1: 1 (Jan. 1967) 43, n. 8.1 have none for the type in which the deceased speaks in the first person, but one might collect a fair number of Latin inscriptions of this sort in verse by running down the first lines of the inscriptions in Buecheler— Lommatzsch's CarminaLatma Epigrahica, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1895- 1926, repr. Amsterdam 1972): initia carminum, 2: 859-880; 3:161-167.

Plate 1

Gordon >s Vase. Staatliche Muitiken-Abteilung, Berlin. 0894,3. View from above.

Irawing of the inscription p. 371).

Plate 2

Gordon

1. View of t h e D u e n o s Vase ( f r o m Dressel. An Inst. 1880). 2. D u e n o s Vase, B e r l i n . Side view

Plate 3

1. U n i t 1, t o s h o w I O V E S A T . 2. U n i t 2, to s h o w P A C ( ? ) A R I . 3. U n i t 3 , to s h o w D V E ( ? ) N O S . 4. U n i t 3, to s h o w F E C ( ? ) E D (above). 5. U n i t 3, to s h o w D V ( ? ) E N O - . 6. U n i t 3, to s h o w M ] A L ( ? ) O S T A - ( b e l o w , e n d of u n i t 1, SIED). All p h o t o g r a p h s by courtesy of S t a a t l i c h e M u s e e n , A n t i k e n Abteilung, Berlin.

MARK GRIFFITH

Man and the Leaves: A Study of Mimnermos fr. 2*

All Greek poets worked in the shadow of Homer. T h e connections between the Homeric poems and the different genres that flourished in the succeeding five h u n d r e d years or so are complex and various, and none is more difficult to pin down than that between t h e epic and the earliest surviving poets of the "Lyric Age." T h e c h a n g e of mood from the heroic world of Achilles to the archaic world of Archilochos and Solon is clear enough, 1 but there is less r o o m f o r certainty in describing the attitude of those archaic poets to their epic predecessors and contemporaries. 2 T h e poetry of e.g. Archilochos is undoubtedly quite different f r o m that of H o m e r in its approach and intention, yet it consistently displays similarities of word and phrase to the Iliad and Odyssey, most f r e q u e n t perhaps in the elegiacs, yet scarcely less so in his iambic and epodic verse. 3 T h e same is true to a greater or lesser extent of most early lyric poetry, 4 and we need not doubt that the use of "Homeric" phraseology was at least in part d u e simply to convenience: here were a ready-made poetical vocabulary and metrical technique, which had been highly refined and developed over h u n d r e d s of years; no serious poet would fail to make use of this c o m m o n stock. T h e language of poetry simply was the language of the epic. In the case of elegy, of course, the connections with epic are strongest and most obvious. Although we know almost nothing about the early history of this genre, 5 the metre, vocabulary, and *I should like to thank Professors C. R. Beye and T. G. Rosenmeyer for their constructive criticism of this paper.

74

Mark Griffith

dialect of the earliest surviving elegists (Kallinos, Archilochos, Mimnermos, Tyrtaios, Theognis, Solon 6 ) show clearly their closeness to the Ionian tradition of the epic poems. But in general, the differences between the various genres (iambic, elegiac, etc.)7 of early lyric are m u c h less striking than their similarities, and in each case the question arises: Did individual poets feel themselves to be part of a poetical tradition from which they could consciously borrow, to which they could allude, and with which they could be sure that the audience was sufficiently familiar to draw the desired parallels a n d enjoy the poet's innovations? Or did they merely use the epic words a n d phrases, much as the epic poets themselves did, to aid the process of composition, 8 with no further "literary" motive? T h e answer need not be the same for every lyric poet. 9 T h e p u r p o s e of this p a p e r is to examine in some detail the use by one particular poet, Mimnermos, of the "epic tradition," to try to clarify what h e felt his position to be in relation to the heroic past and its poetical heritage. It has long been observed that Mimnermos quite frequently employs phrases similar to some found in Homer, 10 but I think it is interesting to examine precisely how and why he uses these phrases, and what these Homeric "allusions" (if indeed they can be so called) contribute to the meaning of his poetry. I have restricted myself largely to Mimnermos fr. 2," as the most substantial and also the most fully worked-out piece of his extant poetry, 12 and at the same time one in which the Homeric allusions are most striking. T h e aim of the study is really twofold: first, to help us to appreciate Mimnermos' art to the full, and to u n d e r s t a n d what he is saying in the poem; and second, to try to define m o r e exacdy the attitude of at least one Greek around 600 B.C. towards the Homeric epic. T h u s Geistesgeschichte is here subordinated to literary criticism; but both are needed if we are fully to appreciate what is going on in Mimnermos' poetry. 13 In an area where so much is uncertain, and what survives is so f r a g m e n t a r y , it is all too easy of course, in the desire for neatness and completeness, to imagine connections where there are none. We d o not possess more than a few lines of the epic poetry on themes other than the Wrath of Achilles and the Return of Odysseus, although we are confident that such poetry existed in a b u n d a n c e in the time of Mimnermos, etc.14 We know little about the process of composition or the occasions of performance of Greek lyric poetry, 1 5 and even less about the method of its preser-

Man and the Leaves: A Study of Mimnermos fr. 2

75

vation for posterity.18 Nevertheless, I think that the internal evidence of Mimnermos* own poetry is consistent and convincing. Mimnermos fr. 2 (Stob. 4.34.12)

5

10

15

T)fieis 8\ ola re vkka vei irokvavQepxy; iaprf capos, or' aiif/' avyqis avverai -qekiov, Toi? '¿Kekoi TrrjxvLOP ètri xpóvov àvdecriv ÌJ/STJS TeprrófieOa, irpòs deàv eiSóres otire KOIKÒV OVT' àyadóv Krjpes 8è TrapecrrqKacrL pAkaivai, r) fièv e\ov(ra rékos yrjpaos dpyakéov, 7) 8' èrépT) Oavórovo' piwvda 8è yiverai 17/3-175 Kapnós, óa-ov r' erri yi)v K&votTcti rjékios. aìrràp en-qv 817 rovro re'Xo? rrapap€L\fi€Tai ii>pr\v. vkka jd pev T avepos xvtt, T) S'airoAijyti is often translated as if it means "one grows while another dies" (e.g. E. V. Rieu "one generation flourishes while another nears its end"); but 4>vtt here may mean rather "is bringing forth life" ("putting forth shoots") (see L.-S.-J. s.v. frr)t. (wfiia—that is named after them. If then Simmias is taller than Socrates, or shorter than Phaedo, we must say that there is tallness or shortness in Simmias. For this very reason, however, there is something misleading about the sentence Simmias is taller (ov\ ¿>5 rois pr/fiacn keyerai OVTOJ Kai TO dkr)d€ evi dSvvarov ttov. Cornford camouflages the effect of the Greek by switching to the translation unity in 11, so that Plato's omission of the definite article appears innocuous. Superficially, however, what Plato writes directly conflicts with the basic principle that whatever participates in the one is one. 17 We now see that there is a difficulty attached to any case of participation where participating form and form participated in are distinct. T h e fact that a thing participates in the one, for example, explains how it is one, yet—if we drop the definite article, as Plato does three times over in 11—requires that it is not one. T h e controversy over self-participation merely raises the question whether this pattern is completely general for all cases of participation—whether it never fails that a participant form both is and is not the forms in which it participates. T h e existence of any case of non-self-participation, however, is sufficient to raise the question of a distinction between an estin of identity and a copulative estin}* T h e connection comes to the fore in the Sophist. Plato there has demonstrated the non-identity of the different from the remaining four megista gene. In the case of these four forms, therefore, the different is distinct from the subjects that participate in it, and Plato's contrast—'not in virtue of its own nature but by participating in the different' (255e5-6)—is entirely appropriate. Plato immediately goes on to explore further cases in which a participant form and the form in which it participates are non-identical (255e8ff). Motion (and implicitly other megista gene) participates in a variety of forms with which it is not identical. T h e point that the different is distinct from certain (if not all) of its participants is now seen as a special case of the fact that any form and certain (if not all) of its participants are non-identical. And the different is the very form in virtue of which these nonidentities are said to hold. This, however, is to state the point shorn of the paradox that appears to accompany it. For as Plato shows, these cases of nonidentity commit us to saying that a subject can be any number of things which it also is not. As one might say with the notion of the is of identity in mind, a subject is predicatively many things with which it is not identical. Now Plato expressly undertakes to disarm the apparent paradox, in what generally is read as a statement of two different uses of estin. Is this reading of what Plato says correct? Does Plato have the counterpart of our notion of the is of identity?

Did Plato Discover the Estin of Identity? iv.

123

T H E W H O L E - P A R T AND R E L A T E D FALLACIES; T H E F A L L A C Y OF T R A N S L A T I O N

I have tried to sketch the philosophical background against which the treatment of contexts of the form A is both B and not B becomes of pressing importance to Plato. Granted that some treatment of such contexts is demanded, what shows it is a notion of an estin of identity that for Plato does the needed work? Before we look in Plato's text for an answer to this question, there are some theoretical issues concerning the cogency of the notion of an estin of identity which must first be raised. The existence of an estin of identity in Greek seems intuitively compelling by analogy with the seeming naturalness of the comparable notion in English, the so-called is of identity, which appears in some sense pre-theoretical, and a noncontroversial datum of English grammar. Any reasoning along these lines, however, is in danger of committing one or more of a number of fallacies. It is important to have these fallacies clearly before us, f o r if we are not on our guard against them we may be convinced that there is an estin of identity in Greek on grounds that make the notion wholly trivial. The whole-part and related fallacies.—We may begin with a question about English grammar. What is it for there to be an is of identity in English? We have an intuitively clear idea of which the identity sentences of English are. Thus, we can distinguish our sentences 2 J o h n is bald 3 J o h n is the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo, on the grounds that only the latter is a statement of identity. What does our ability to discriminate these two sentences amount to? One way of seeing that they are different is to study their latter halves. bald and the man who broke the bank function quite differently. the man who broke the bank is a singular term, 19 and purports to name an individual (if 3 is true, it names John). But it is not obvious that bald names anything at all, for it is not a singular term. A n d if we do decide that behind 2 there is to be found a Platonizing sentence 12 John participates in baldness, where bald is now replaced by a bona fide singular term, we do not expect to be told that what baldness names is, once again, John. 40 Clearly the grounds for classifying 2 and 3 as different kinds of sentences are strong. 3 is an identity sentence, and 2 is not.

124

Frank A. Lewis

T h e r e is then an entirely trivial sense in which anyone will agree to recognizing an is of identity. A n is of identity is any is that appears in a sentence like 3 (and outside such special contexts as ¿s the same as). What makes this declaration trivial is that it comes without any theory of the internal grammar of the sentences concerned. T h e phrase "an is of identity" is here merely shorthand f o r "an occurrence of is in an identity-sentence," and we still have not been told what grammatical features they are that make certain sentences but not others identity-sentences. T o suppose notwithstanding that we have been given a substantive notion of an is of identity, as a piece of theory about English grammar, would be to infer from a characterization of a whole sentence, f o r which one has possibly no internal analysis, to conclusions about the sentence-parts that properly belong only in a theory of the internal grammar of the sentences of the language. A proper theory of English grammar, however, is not constructed by means of inferences of this sort. T o suppose otherwise is to commit what I call f o r short the whole-part fallacy. Various other arguments again appear to confuse a trivial notion of an is of identity f o r a substantive one. For example, we have seen how very differently expressions like bald and the man who broke the bank perform. How is it that what appears to be one and the same context, John is .. ., can accept such very different completions? It is implausible to say that the word John functions differently in 2 and 3. T h e d i f f e r e n c e then must lie in the use of is in the two sentences. This argument overlooks the possibility that the d i f f e r e n c e lies, not in different uses of the context John is . . ., but in the different expressions that are put to completing it. If bald and the man who broke the bank function as differently as they do, why can this not be the only difference that makes 2 and 3 d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentence? T o acknowledge the difference between bald and the man who broke the bank, yet still demand that we also recognize different uses of is in 2 and 3, runs the risk of a fallacy analogous to the whole-part fallacy. In the whole-part fallacy, we infer f r o m the fact that a whole sentence is taken to be an identity sentence, that it must contain a special is of identity. In the present instance, we infer f r o m the fact that the predicate of a sentence (in 3, the man who broke the bank) functions in a way distinctive of identity-sentences, that again the sentence contains a special is of identity. T h e r e is again a wholly trivial sense in which we can happily recognize the existence of an is of identity: f o r by "an is of identity" we may mean here no more than "an occurrence

Did Plato Discover the Estin of Identity ?

125

of is in a sentence whose predicate functions in a way distinctive of identity-sentences." To suppose, however, that our argument has produced a substantive notion of an is of identity is in danger of confusing once more a trivial notion for a substantive one. Notice that if such a theory is not trivial, it is in danger of redundancy. Methodological economy suggests that we postulate the ambiguity of is only as a theory of last resort, when there are no other clear-cut features for distinguishing the identity sentences of English. If then criteria for the occurrence of an is of identity do come to light, let these be the features distinctive of an identity sentence, and the ambiguity theory can be dropped. What remains in favor of a substantive theory of a special is of identity? One motivation is the urge for uniformity. What is distinctive to identity sentences should at least be some single feature that is common to them all. In fact, however, there is a variety of distinguishing features for identity sentences: lexical,81 syntactic,42 and morphological. 23 We cannot even preclude the possibility that the characteristic feature is something that has been deleted from the sentence: for example, a deleted definite article in the predicate complement. 24 The translation fallacy.—A further fallacy concerns the relations between one language and another. Suppose that the is of identity is, after all, well-defined for English. What may we infer for the sentences of Greek whose English translations contain such a use of is? To suppose that we have been given a good test for a substantive notion of an estin of identity in Greek is to commit what I call the translation fallacy. It is to take presumed facts about the language into which one is translating for facts about the language being translated. We can and frequendy—perhaps most often—do translate between languages without any true theory of grammar for the language we are translating. Yet any translation scheme we adopt, however tacit or provisional, already embodies some theory of grammar for the language being translated. To this extent, our translations reveal what was already assumed in our translation scheme, and offer no independent evidence for the properties of the language being treated. It is clearly possible, for example, on the basis of the translations we make, to regiment Greek so as to fit the preconceptions we have from English grammar. Our results, however, will be true of Greek only by virtue of what we take to be true of English. And if the credentials of an is of identity in English are themselves not altogether certain, we can say only that it is true

126

Frank A. Lewis

by virtue o f a certain hypothesis about English—not even by virtue o f firmly established facts about English—that there is an estin of identity in Greek. So conceived, the notion will be entirely trivial. Not all inferences based on our translations between one language whose properties are known and another whose properties are not need be fallacious. T h e attempt to make translations, and the testing o f different translation schemes, can lead to better knowledge o f the language being studied. But the fact, if it were a fact, that the is o f identity is well-defined for English would not o f itself guarantee the existence o f a special estin o f identity in Greek. Equally, the fact that the identity-sign is well-defined and all its properties known for certain logical languages does not o f itself guarantee that the notion o f a special is o f identity must appear in any proper grammatical theory o f English. It will be useful to consider one further example of the translation fallacy. As we shall see below, Plato regards what I shall call a participation language as the vehicle of the most philosophical illumination, in which the philosophical commitments o f one's language are most clearly exhibited, and which is free o f the ambiguities and other eccentricities o f ordinary Greek. In the participation language, identity and non-identity are expressed unequivocally by the idioms metechei tautou and metechei thaterou. Sentences in participation language containing these expressions may be translated into sentences o f ordinary Greek in which the verb estin appears. We will be guilty o f the translation fallacy, however, if, on the grounds o f these translations alone, we call such occurrences o f estin an estin of identity. For nothing has yet been said about the translation scheme which underlies the translations we have made. In particular, nothing shows we must choose a translation scheme which recognizes different senses of estin. T h e fact that the grammar o f identity sentences in participation language is fully known o f itself has no consequences for our theory of ordinary Greek. Arguments against the is of identity.—I have indicated a number o f fallacies which might lead one to suppose that English does admit the notion of a special is o f identity. This is not yet to show that the notion itself is mistaken. Nevertheless, there are good grounds for supposing that the notion o f a special ¿5 o f identity has no proper place in the account o f English. It is implausible, as we have seen (p. 125 supra), that the is o f identity is the sole feature distinctive o f identity sentences. Suppose, therefore, that in general the is of

Did Plato Discover the Estin of Identity ?

127

identity co-occurs with other features that mark the assertion or denial o f identity. Then where other markers for (non-) identity also occur, it is gratuitous to suppose that is is ambiguous into the bargain. T o claim, however, that is is ambiguous where no other markers for identity appear raises two questions. First, if is has a special sense f o r identity once, it should have it always at appropriate occurrences in any identity sentence. Thus for the sake of a small class of cases in which other markers for identity are lacking, we are asked to reserve a special sense for is at appropriate occurrences in every identity sentence in the language. Why not rather say that—in some few, exceptional cases—the whole sentence is ambiguous, and that the syntactic criteria for identity have failed? T h e notion of a special ¿5 o f identity, secondly, seemed appropriate, if at all, in cases where other markers for identity or non-identity are lacking. But the number of such cases may be smaller than imagined. It is often a fact about the world, and not a fact about the grammar of a sentence, that it asserts or denies an identity (cf. n. 24).

v . SOPHIST 2 5 5 E 8 - 2 5 6 D I O

I turn now to the passage at Sophist 255e8ff in which Plato is said to undertake the disambiguation o f the Greek word estin. In this passage, Plato discusses the relation of a single form, motion, to each in turn o f the four remaining megista gene—those "greatest kinds" he has singled out for special notice at 254c3ff. I give only the bare bones o f the passage; the numerals indicate those sentences I extract and translate for purposes o f further discussion below. 13-27 Sophist 255el l-256dl0 (Motion and rest) . . . klvt)5 ccrrt TTctvTotTTcuTiv erepov CTTOCTCO)9 [13] . . . Ov qracrtg ap" koriv [ 14] . . . ' T o r t 8e ye [15] 81a TO pwexetv tov OPTO? [16] (Motion and the same) . . . t) Kivrjcris erepov tocvtov eariv [17] . . . Ov tocvtov apa eoriv [18] 'AAAd p.i)v ocvtt) y' "qv tccvtov [ 19] 81a to fieTexeiv av irdvr' ain-ov [20]. 77T Tr)v klv7)(tlv 8ri tocvtov T' elvai Kai fir) tocvtov [19, 18] opx>kory-qreov tea I ov Svcrxepavriov. ov yap orav eivai/xev ocvrqv ravrdv Kai tocvtov, 6(iouos eiprjKafiev, aXX' frirorav pAv

128

Frank A. Lewis

tocvtov, dux tt)v ixedegiv tocvtov irpova rov LvpinCS-q" iLkk-qviKa 25 (1972) 277-297; R. F. Willetts, "Action and Character in Euripides' lori," JHS 93 (1973) 201-209. In my approach to the serious aspect of Ion I agree on many points with A. P. Burnett, Catastrophe Survived: Euripides'Plays of Mixed Reversal (Oxford 1971) 101-129, and C. Wolff, " T h e Design and Myth in Euripides' Ion," HSCP 69 (1965) 169- 194. T h e present study also agrees on many points with the recent study of Athenian imagery in the play by Immerwahr, which R. S. Stroud kindly brought to my attention after the first version of this study was com-

172

Donald J. Mastronarde

pie ted. In what follows I shall refer mainly to points on which we disagree, but Immerwahr's discussion is a very good one and it is to be hoped that it will be made more widely available in its English version. 'See A. M. Dale (ed.), Euripides. Helen (Oxford 1967) xxiv-xxviii, for the metrical statistics, which are the best evidence and clearly indicate the grouping of these three plays within a few years ca. 412. T h e precise order of composition and the dates of first production of IT and of Ion are uncertain and do not matter to the interpretation of the plays; for speculation, see T. B. L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (London 1967) 163. 'See, most recently, B. M. W. Knox, "Euripidean Comedy," in A. Cheuse and R. Koffler (edd.), The Rarer Action: Essays m Honor of Francis Fergusson (New Brunswick, N. J. 1970) 6 8 - 96. 4 For two quite different views typical of the critical debate, see Burnett, CPh 57 (1962) 8 9 - 1 0 3 , who gives a spirited and at times excessive defense of Apollo (her chapter in Catastrophe Survived is more moderate, but still somewhat too favorable to Apollo), and T . G. Rosenmeyer, The Masks of Tragedy (Austin, Texas 1963) 105-152, who reflects the tradition unfavorable to Apollo. I believe that Apollo is neither so good nor so bad as critics on the two sides of the debate have painted him (cf. the excellent remarks of S. A. Barlow, The Imagery of Euripides [London 1971] 50); and both sides seem to me to misplace the emphasis of the play when they assume that Euripides in this play is most interested in the god Apollo and his nature. This is not to deny that the play at several points casts an ironic light on Apollo: though one of the Olympians, he has a hand in the event which creates so much confusion and disorder (the rape, carried out in a chthonic environment; cf. p. 167 infra); though he is a god of prophecy, his own plan for the reunion of Ion and Kreousa is frustrated mainly because, though he can provide an innocent calm which Ion is reluctant to leave and a shimmering brilliance which dazzles Kreousa, he is ill-equipped to understand or deal with human emotions; and, of course, in the end a less flawed representative of Olympian order, Athena, must speak on his behalf. But it is not the purpose of this study (nor, I would argue, of the play) to define Euripides' attitude toward Apollo. »Cf. Burnett, Catastrophe Survived, 128; Wolff, 189, 'A favorite word of Burnett's, but not really the right term for the favor which gods occasionally show toward men in Euripides. 'Some aspects of the imagery not treated here are discussed by Burnett, Wolff, Immerwahr, and Barlow. 'Cf. Hartmann, RE 2A1 ( 1921) 509 s.v. Schlange: "Für die Griechen war die S. in erster Linie das Tier der geheimnisvollen Erdentiefe." Cf. also E. Küster, Die Schlange in der griechischen Kunst und Religion [Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 13:2 (Giessen 1913)] 8 5 - 1 0 0 ; Eitrem, RE 11' (1921) 119-125 s.v. Kekrops. •E.g. A. R. 4.1513-1517. "E.g. Kekrops, and, in some versions, Erichthonios and Erechtheus; the Erinyes born from Earth impregnated by Ouranos' blood (Hes. Th. 185) have snakes for hair; the Giants, sons of Earth, came to be shown in art with serpents for legs from about 400 B.C., but Typhoeus or Typhon, a monstrous son of Earth who also fights the Olympian order, has serpent-heads in Hes. Th. 820ff and appears in Greek art with snake-legs in the first half of the sixth century: see Francis Vian, La guerre des Géants: le mythe avant l'époque hellénistique [Etudes et Commentaires, XI (Paris 1952)] 13-14, 20. "E.g. Pytho at Delphi, slain by Apollo; the dragon which guarded the spring Dirke, slain by Kadmos. "E.g. in the legends involving Kadmos and Jason. "See supra pp. 169-171 and nn. 38 and 39. "Cf. Willetts (supra n. 1) 207, commenting on that fact that by participating in the action Apollo is reduced to the human level and made prone to error. "Parts of this pattern have been noticed by previous critics, but their interrelation and the connection with the serious theme of the play have not been clearly stated.

Iconography and Imagery in Euripides' Ion

173

though Immerwahr (supra n. 1) come« closer than earlier critics. J. C. Kamerbeek, "On the conception of 0 E O M A X O 2 in relation to Greek tragedy," Aín ser. 4, 1 (1948) 271-283, has a paragraph (p. 281) on the assimilation of Kreousa's behavior to the dcopaxia of the Giants. Burnett, Catastrophe Survived (supra n. I) 107-129, also uses the term dco/iáxo« with reference to Kreousa (p. 122), discusses Ion as the new Erechtheus (pp. 105-109), and notes the symbolism of the poison used by Kreousa (pp. 119-120). Wolff (supra n. 1) notices the myths of violence (p. 177), lists the snake-imagery and remarks that there is a great deal of emphasis on birth from the earth (pp. 182-183). Conacher, 282 and 284, notes the connection between the theme of autochthonism and Athenian xenophobia.. " A reader of the first version of this study suggests that the image in 1-2 is rather one of suffering. T h e use of iicrpifiotv could support that view, but Hermes' tone does not invite me to put emphasis on that word, whereas nakatbv oltcov (ancient, so longestablished, secure) recalls for me the phrase deüv «So? ao-fatkks aUC(Od. 6.42; Hes. Th. 128; cf. Pindar N. 6.3). "Cf. also lines 223, 461f, 910. " T h e question may arise whether autochthonism may not also be a source of Athenian civilization and order as well as a sign of primitivism and possible violence. T h e Athenians certainly took great pride in their autochthonism just as they took great pride in their political order and in their culture (as praise of Athens in the Greek poets, especially the tragedians, and the orators demonstrates). But the favor of Athena and of the Attic soil rather than the fact of being earth-born per se is usually seen as mainly responsible for Athens' glories: and in any case the animal/Giant imagery of the play and the unpleasant display of virulent xenophobia seem to me to place the major emphasis on the darker aspect of autochthonism. " T h e prologue of Ion is a good example of the way Euripides carefully chooses the details of his apparently matter-of-fact introductory monologues in order to prepare for major and minor themes of a play. For a few more examples see ch. 2 of my dissertation, "Studies in Euripides' Phoinissai" (University of Toronto 1974). "See Barlow (supra n. 4) 4 6 - 4 8 . Likewise in Phoinissai Euripides uses the teichoskopia (Phoin. 88—201) to present Antigone's initial state of youth and innocence, the state from which she must grow later in the play. "Cf. Immerwahr (supra n. 1) 2 8 8 - 2 8 9 for another approach to the symbolism of sun (cf. n. 40 infra). "Many scholars have unnecessarily assumed that the artworks described were physically represented on stage: e.g. A. S. Owen (ed.), Euripides. Ion (Oxford 1939) 8 2 - 8 3 . See, however, N. C. Hourmouziades, Production and Imagination in Euripides ['EÁA17vurii 'AvúfxuTnariKTi 'Eraipcta, 93. P h o t o : A l i s o n F r a n t / . 2. (right) Sanios, Vathy M u s e u m . T e r r a cotta. P h o t o : DAI A t h e n s .

Plate 10

JO-ANN SHELTON

Problems of Time in Seneca's Hercules Furens and Thyestes

Seneca's experiments with the use of dramatic time are among the most interesting, though least studied, aspects of his style as a dramatist. 1 I would like to examine specifically two apparent problems of temporal confusion in opening scenes of his tragedies, and to demonstrate that Seneca has manipulated the dramatic time in order to provide an explanation for the actions of his characters. T h e first problem arises in the opening scene of the Thyestes. In 65-67, the Fury insists that the ghost of Tantalus, whom she has brought from the Underworld, remain in the house of Atreus to witness Thyestes' grisly feast (crúor / spectante te potetur. . . . Siste, quopraeceps ruis?). We can expect, then, that Tantalus will be present for this meal (spectante te). The dramatization of the feast begins at 920 in Act 4. As early as 105-106, however, the Fury dismisses Tantalus from the house (gradere ad infernos specus / amnemque notum). Has the Fury forgotten her earlier insistence that he remain? Was Tantalus indeed present at the feast? Why was he allowed to leave the house at 105-106? Anliker, in his valuable work on the prologues of Seneca's tragedies, suggests that there is a discrepancy in the opening scene because Tantalus seems to depart before the feast begins.2 A second problem of temporal confusion occurs in Hercules Furens. In 67, Juno expresses her fear that Hercules will, in the future, actively challenge Heaven (iter ruina quaeret). In 74, however, she suddenly describes this challenge as a present reality

258

Jo-Ann Shelton

(iquaerit ad superos viam). Why has the tense changed from future to present? How has her fear become reality? Here Anliker believes that J u n o has confused the sequence of events which she herself causes; 3 she anticipates, and her own thoughts change possibility to reality. He calls this passage a "causal anachronism." 4 Anliker offers two different explanations for the confusion in each o f the passages: discrepancy and causal anachronism. I think, however, that there is one explanation for both these apparent problems. T h e time o f the opening scenes is not a part o f the temporal sequence of the following acts. Seneca uses these opening scenes as distinct temporal units in which time moves forward at a much different speed than it does in Acts 1, ff. Anliker has seen problems in Seneca's plays because he believes that these two opening scenes are expository prologues, and that they therefore inform the audience o f the events of the play before they actually occur, a common function of the dramatic prologue. These two scenes are not, however, prologues of this type. 5 In the first place, the speakers are not simply foretelling or predicting future occurrences; they are discussing present events (cf. H.F.: 5 8 - 5 9 , de me triumphat et superbifica manu / atrum per urbes ducit Argolicas canem, and 68, robore experto tumet—emphasis mine). Moreover, the events o f Act 1 do not follow in temporal sequence the events o f the opening scene. In fact, Acts 1, ff. repeat the events of the prologue. O n e temporal point or moment receives dramatic treatment twice: first in the opening scene, and then in a later act. T h e effect of this division of the same temporal moment is to produce for the audience two points of perspective of the dramatic events: the superhuman perspective of the opening scene and the human perspective o f the rest of the play.® In Thyestes, for example, a Fury brings the ghost o f Tantalus from the Underworld to pollute the house of Atreus: Perge, detestabilis umbra, et penates impios furiis age: certetur omni scelere. (23-25) She enumerates a long list of horrors which his presence in the house will cause and then culminates the list with a description of Thyestes' feast: liberum dedimus diem tuamque ad istas solvimus mensas famem: ieiunia exple, mixtus in Bacchum cruor

Problems of Time in Seneca

259

spectante te potetur. Inveni dapes, quas ipse fugeres. (63-67) She insists that he remain for the feast: siste, quo praeceps ruis? (67). Tantalus argues with her and, at first, refuses to carry out his role as polluter: mittor ut dirus vapor tellure rupta vel gravem populis luem sparsura pestis, ducam in horrendum nefas avus nepotes? (87-90) His hunger, however, drives him on and he yields to her demands: flagrat incensum siti cor et perustis flamma visceribus micat. Sequor. (98-100) Once he has yielded, the Fury describes the effect of his presence in the house: suum infensi invicem sitiant cruorem—sentit introitus tuos domus et nefando tota contactu horruit. actum est abunde. (102-105) But what exactly has the presence of Tantalus effected? Surely the feast of Thyestes! He was ordered to remain for it; he yields; he p e r f o r m s the duty he mentioned in 87-90 (cf. 105: actum est abunde)-, he departs (105: gradere ad infernos specus). In this opening scene, as the audience witnesses the argument between the Fury and the ghost, dramatic time has progressed from the arrival of Tantalus in the house to the actual moment of the meal (105: actum est abunde— perfect tense). Tantalus was, then, present for the banquet. In fact, he caused it. We have witnessed not a prediction of events, but an actual representation of the events which culminate in the banquet. This last temporal moment, the banquet, is, however, the same moment which is dramatized in Act 4. T h e opening scene, therefore, is not a real prologue because in Act 1 we move, first, back in time, and, second, into the human realm to watch the human actions which lead to the same feast, and to the same point in time where we left Tantalus and the Fury. Anliker is mistaken. There is no discrepancy here. Rather Seneca has distorted the normal

260

Jo-Ann Shelton

sequence of time so that events which are, in fact, occuring simultaneously are described linearly. 7 In other words, the polluting by T a n t a l u s and the planning by Atreus occur at the same time, although their respective actions are dramatized in different parts of the play. T h e opening scene reveals Tantalus' participation in the banquet. A similar distortion of time occurs in the Hercules Furens where we witness from two different perspectives, first divine, then h u m a n , the events which lead to Hercules' insanity. First J u n o a p p e a r s on stage complaining of the confusion in the universe now that mortals e n t e r Heaven and leave the Underworld. 8 She describes f o r us a sequence of events and mental attitudes, and, as she speaks, the point of time moves forward rapidly. Hercules is assuming rights allowed only to the gods (toto deus / narratur orbe, 39-40). Recently he accomplished the impossible: he conquered the U n d e r w o r l d and destroyed the strict boundary between mortal and immortal {foedus umbrarum pent, 49). As a result, he is now even m o r e p r o u d and boastful (spolia iactantem patri / fraterna, 51-52; de me triumphal, 58; and robore experto tumet, 68). She therefore fears that, filled with confidence about his strength, he may challenge Heaven (iter ruina quaeret, 67). Now he is actually challenging Heaven (quaerit ad superos viam, 74). We can readily perceive the change in his mental attitude and the sequential movement from o n e event to the next even as J u n o is speaking. T h e shift in tense f r o m quaeret (future) to quaerit (present), which worried Anliker, signifies that dramatic time has advanced in this scene, from Hercules' r e t u r n from the Underworld to his insane attack on Heaven (dramatized in Act 3). T h r o u g h Juno's words, we perceive, even as they are occurring, the progressive stages in the developm e n t of Hercules' pride, ambition and madness. We advance in time to the point of Hercules' mad challenge to Heaven, indicated by J u n o ' s description in 74. When J u n o leaves the stage, we retreat to a time corresponding to the beginning of her speech. In Act 1, f o r example, the characters are unaware that Hercules has left the U n d e r w o r l d , although J u n o has already described this event as a past occurrence: effregit ecce limen inferni Iovis et opima victi regis ad superos refert. (47-48) vidi ipsa, vidi nocte discussa inferum et Dite domito spolia iactantem patri f r a t e r n a . (50-52)

Problems of Time in Seneca

261

atrum per urbes ducit Argolicas canem. viso labentem Cerbero vidi diem pavidumque Solem. (59-61) T h e time of Act 1 precedes rather than follows the time of the opening scene. Now we watch, from a human perspective, the dramatization of the events which lead to Hercules' insane challenge to the gods in Act 3: inferna nostros regna sensere impetus: i m m u n e caelum est, dignus Alcide labor, in alta mundi spatia sublimis ferar, petatur aether. (956-959) vincla Saturno exuam contraque patris impii regnum impotens avum resolvam. (965-967) J u n o does not, as Anliker thinks, confuse the sequence of events. She is describing events and states of mind even as they occur. Once again Seneca presents simultaneous events linearly. Although Juno's descriptions and Hercules' thoughts and actions occur at the same time, they are presented dramatically in different parts of the play.9 Therefore, Hercules' challenge, which in reality occupies only one temporal moment, is presented twice to the audience, at 74 and at 959ff. Why does Seneca distort the temporal sequence of events and present to his audience two aspects of the same action? His dramatic techniques are, of course, dictated by his dramatic intentions, and he has employed this temporal distortion in order to clarify his interpretation of the myth. Because Seneca is interested in the human responsibility for actions, his dramatic intention is to illustrate an inner process, to represent on stage how psychological, not external, forces determine the behavior and actions of his characters. In both plays, the central figures exhibit an excessive need for self-assertion 10 which ultimately produces for them not fulfilment, but degradation and disaster. In the Hercules Furens we watch one character, Hercules, as he strives to exceed his abilities, but consequently causes his own humiliation. 11 T h e treatment in the Thyestes of a similar theme is somewhat more complex since we are presented with two main figures: Atreus, who exhibits a truly paranoid need for self-assertion, but does not, in the play, appear to suffer, and Thyestes, who suffers terribly, but is not, within the time of this

262

Jo-Ann Shelton

play, guilty of overreaching. 12 His suffering is, as we shall see, nonetheless the result of his own lack of self-control. A pervasive and generalized Lust, for example, is the force which determines the behavior of the members of the family of Tantalus. They are driven by their immoderate desires for power, wealth, sex and food. Their hunger and gluttony are metaphors for all the forms of the Lust which disrupts the house. 13 hos aeterna fames persequitur cibos, hos aeterna sitis. (149-150) Atreus and Thyestes are repeating a family pattern. Tantalus had tried in vain to assert himself by deceiving the gods. T h e preparation of the feast on Pelops represents his perverse lust for power, just as the retreating food and water in Hades symbolize the torment of lust, and serve as a warning to the ambitious. nec dapibus feris decerni potuit poena decentior. stat lassus vacuo gutture Tantalus (150ff) T h e chorus here emphasizes Tantalus' eternal degradation more than his crime, just as the playwright stresses Thyestes' degradation rather than his previous crimes.14 Seneca is emphasizing the frightening strength of uncontrolled Lust, and its power to torment and degrade a man. Tantalus' eternal hunger causes him to snatch at the food he knows will retreat, and to yield to the Fury's demands (98100). Thyestes' hunger, both literal and metaphorical, causes him to trust a brother he knows is evil, and to eat a banquet he should suspect. 15 His inability to control his desires makes him responsible for his own suffering. He was not forced to return to the palace or to partake of the food. Atreus follows the pattern of Tantalus in his plan to prove his dominance: he prepares a meal of children. While, however, he sadistically delights in his successful torture of Thyestes, he has certainly debased himself in the eyes of the world. The final gruesome banquet in our play reveals the ultimate depravity to which ambition will drive men, and it was caused, of course, not by a need for food, but by both Atreus' and Thyestes' exaggerated and perverted lust for power and wealth. Before, however, we witness the feast which is the result of their lust, Seneca wants us to understand why the feast occurred. 16 T o illustrate the inner processes of his characters, Seneca has manipulated the structure of the play to provide for his audience a

Problems of Time in Seneca

263

s u p e r h u m a n perspective of events. The ghost of Tantalus in the opening scene plays a more direct role in the play than simply an obvious reminder of the family pattern of grisly "child feasts." In o r d e r to dramatize effectively that Lust is present in the house and controls the actions of his characters, Seneca actually portrays on stage this psychological force. Seneca uses the ghost of Tantalus as a visible representation of Lust: 17 supraque magnos gentium exultet duces Libido victrix. (45-46) imple Tantalo totam domum. (53) Tantalus, that is Lust, fills the house with his presence, remains while Atreus is plotting, and thus causes the feast. As stated earlier in this paper, the polluting by Tantalus and the planning by Atreus occur at the same time, although their respective actions are dramatized in different parts of the play. But Tantalus is the Lust in Atreus' mind. T h e opening scene provides a vivid dramatic presentation of what is usually not visible to humans: an emotion at work motivating an action. Acts 1, ff. then provide a dramatization of the physical actions which result from the psychological motivation. By dividing the temporal moment, Seneca creates not simply two points of perspective (superhuman and human), but also two levels of explanation for the action of the myth. When we watch Atreus plan and execute the feast, we realize that Lust is present in his mind, motivating him and causing his actions. Wolfgang Clemen has spoken of Seneca's emphasis on the inner drama and the "variety of approach in Seneca's contemplation of what goes on in the minds of his characters." 18 He has elsewhere emphasized the necessity of "preparation" by the dramatist so that the audience is not "overwhelmed by the impact of . . . inner and outer events following closely one upon another." 19 Seneca's manipulation of dramatic time in Thyestes is an example of such dramatic preparation and provides the audience with an understanding of the inner processes of the characters. Seneca similarly manipulates the dramatic time in the Hercules Furens as a method of revealing the human causes of the action of the myth. He uses the myth to show that pride motivates Hercules' actions, pride in his strength and his divine birth. Such an emotion is a personal disorder, 20 like Atreus' lust for power, and Seneca demonstrates that Hercules is, therefore, himself responsible for

264

Jo-Ann Shelton

the m u r d e r of his children. If we compare the different nature of the "mad scene" in Seneca's play with that in Euripides' play, we can better understand Seneca's interpretation. In Euripides' play, the mad outburst is sudden, and provoked by the presence of Iris and Lyssa.21 Herakles goes mad even as he is piously purifying himself (928-30), and Euripides is able to demonstrate the gods' cruelty by showing that they would, without apparent reason, strike down Herakles even while he was performing a pious de*"1 subsequent refusal to purify himself (936 ff.) is an ' uon that he is now mad. Seneca's interpretation, on the other hand, suggests that Hercules is already possessed by the madness of excessive pride when he begins the sacrifice.22 He refuses to purify himself before the sacrifice, although Amphitryon has advised him to cleanse his hands which are still bloody from the slaughter of Lycus (918-919). Instead, Hercules wishes that he could dedicate as a preliminary offering not wine, but the blood of his enemy, Lycus (920-924). In other words, impiety is clearly a part of his character even before the "mad scene." No Lyssa appears in Seneca's play. Hercules enters the manifest stage of his madness even as he is boasting: si quod etiamnum est scelus latura tellus, properet, et si quod parat monstrum, meum sit—sed quid hoc? medium diem cinxere tenebrae. (937-940) T h o u g h Hercules thinks he can handle any disruption in the world, he cannot control the disruption in himself. 23 Seneca makes it obvious that pride and boastfulness are elements of his madness. From this brief comparison of the two "mad scenes," we see that Seneca represents Hercules' madness as a gradual and internal development, not a sudden and external blow. His pride and desire to assert his power led to insolence, rivalry with the gods and then greater insanity. But how can Seneca present on stage an explanation of the development of the proud thoughts in Hercules' mind? Let us look again at the "mad scene." T h e murder of his family is the final act of madness, but the first manifest indication of Hercules' madness is his insane challenge to the gods (956-959). T h e audience, as we have seen, learns twice of this challenge, once in Juno's speech, once in Act 3. Juno's speech is a dramatic device employed by Seneca to reveal Hercules' thought processes. Her divine nature enables her to perceive things hidden from mortal sight. She can, therefore, perceive, and she in turn reveals to us, through her words, the

Problems of Time in Seneca

265

development which is taking place in Hercules' mind. He is successful in his exploits (cf. 33); he is worshipped as divine (39-40); he has stormed the Underworld and returned (47ff); he is proud and boastful (51, 58); he is challenging Heaven (74-75); he is his own worst enemy (85). Once again the opening scene provides an explanation of a psychological development. When we go back in time, to the level of physical action (Acts 1, ff.), and watch from a hum' 7 " 1 r^-Foective the same sequence of events (from Hercules' return to ,iirnate insanity), we now have an understanding of the forces determining his behavior. In 609-610, for example, he boasts that he could have ruled in the Underworld if it had pleased him to d o so. T h e dramatic characters do not realize the dangerous rivalry with the gods which he is expressing, but we understand because we know how his mind is working (cf. 64-66 of Juno's speech where she fears that victory in the Underworld is a prelude to an assault on the power of Jupiter himself). Again, in Act 3, Hercules' madness seems a sudden occurrence to these characters; we, however, are well aware of the mad pride which has led to the development of this irrationality because Juno's words have disclosed Hercules' thoughts. We may identify ourselves with the characters' reactions, but we can at the same time reject their attitudes because the dramatist's skillful manipulation of time, and consequent preparation of two points of perspective, have given us superior knowledge of the thoughts in Hercules' mind. T h e ghost of Tantalus is a dramatic representation of Lust; Juno's speech is a dramatic device through which the processes of Hercules' mind are disclosed to the audience. In both plays, Seneca has used superhuman figures; he is not, however, suggesting that the gods control human actions. 24 Quite the opposite. He insists on human responsibility for human actions25 and his use of superh u m a n figures in the opening scenes is simply a technique which allows him to dramatize for his audience processes not normally visible to humans, and to explore, therefore, the psychology of his characters; they do not appear again after the opening scenes. Tantalus is a rather obvious symbol of Lust. Juno's function as a dramatic figure is more complex, and serves two purposes. At the beginning of the scene, when she expresses her jealousy of her husband's mistresses, she appears as a divine personality, the jealous goddess of myth. In this role, as a divinity, she has the power to reveal the thoughts in Hercules' mind. As the scene progresses, however, she emerges more as an evil force than a personality, as

266

Jo-Ann Shelton

Vergil's J u n o similarly appears on one level as the divine personality and on another level as the force of disorder and irrationality. Juno's second function in the play, then, is to represent irrationality. T h o u g h she speaks at first of obstacles which she has created for Hercules, she later admits that he himself is his own worst enemy: quaeris Alcidae parem? nemo est nisi ipse: bella iam secum gerat. (84-85) et se vincat et cupiat mori ab inferis reversus. (116-117) T h e differences in the mad scenes of Euripides and of Seneca reveal that Seneca considers Hercules' madness an extension of his boastfulness and self-assertion, not a cruel divine blow. When Juno states at the end of her speech that she herself must become mad (107-109), Seneca wants us to realize that Hercules' enemy is not a goddess, but the irrational force which dwells in his mind and motivates his actions: stabo et, ut certo exeant emissa nervo tela, librabo manu, regam furentis arma. (118-120) It is madness, not Juno, which directs his weapons. She, like Tantalus, is a vivid dramatization of the disorder in the human mind. T h e danger of personal disorder is expressed in the Stoic belief that in a rational universe disorder begins on a personal level first, but may cause more widespread, even cosmic disorder. 26 T h e disorder in the mind of Atreus, for example, produced disorder in the universe when the sun hid (1035-1036). Hercules' pride does not, in the end, produce cosmic disorder. In the violent stage of madness Hercules is only imagining the disorder in the universe. His delusions are one indication of his insanity.27 Seneca used the Hercules and Thyestes myths to show that men, not gods, are responsible for human misfortunes because they allow themselves to be controlled by irrational passions. To provide effective dramatization of his beliefs, he experimented with the development of dramatic time; he made the opening scenes temporal units separate from the sequence of the other acts; he divided one temporal moment and allowed the audience to witness it twice, but from two

Problems of Time in Seneca

261

different perspectives. He thus produced a level of psychological explanation for the actions of the characters in the myth. University of California Santa Barbara

NOTES 'Two scholars have addressed themselves specifically to these problems. Kurt Anliker, Prologe und Akteinteilung m Senecas Tragödien (Bern 1960), has made a thorough study of the dramatic and poetic effectiveness of the prologues. Owen, "Time and Event in Seneca's Troades," WS 4 (1970) 118—137, has noticed in the Troades the same overlapping of event and manipulation of time which I have noticed in the Hercules Furens and Thyestes. See also Motto and Clark, "Senecan Tragedy: Patterns of Irony and Art," CB 48 (1972) 6 9 - 7 6 , who discuss Seneca's manner of presenting pictures in clipped segments rather than as a continuous sequence. Herington, "Senecan Tragedy," Anon 5 (1966) 449, suggests that Senecan plays have a tripartite structure, and he has assigned tides to each part: T h e Cloud of Evil; T h e Defeat of Reason by Passion; T h e Explosion of Evil. The title. Cloud of Evil, refers, according to Herington, to the Prologue of the play. •Anliker, 2 8 - 2 9 . 'Ibid. 4 6 - 4 8 . 'Ibid. 47. "Es liegt gewisse rm as sen ein 'kausaler Anachronismus' vor." 'Herington (supra n. 1) 449, says that "a Senecan Prologue has none of . . . the detailed, lively narrative of a Euripidean." (He does, however, think that the time of a Senecan prologue represents time prior to the action of the first act.) 'Such division of the temporal moment is, of course, not a novel technique. Homer uses this technique frequently. The plans of the gods and the actions of men occur simultaneously, but are described linearly. Consider also Iliad 15. Zeus sends two messengers to earth, Iris and Apollo. They probably depart Olympus at the same time, but their departures and fulfillment of their missions are described linearly. 'Owen (supra n. 1) 124 speaks of the counterpoint between real and dramatic time in the Troades. He says that "the experienced dramatic present has become iterative." 'Owen, "Commonplace and Dramatic Symbol in Seneca's Tragedies," TAPA 99 (1968) 307, says that Juno's descent to earth is an inversion of the deification theme so prominent in this play. "It (the motif of astronomical figures) has become a vivid symbol of the overreaching which is the key to Hercules' personality and his tragedy." T h e r e are other examples in both these plays of this distortion of dramatic time. T h e sun in the Thyestes retreated in horror at Atreus' deeds only once. However, the event is described by a number of different people so that, although they are in reality all describing the same event it seems to happen a number of times. Compare the speeches of Nuntius, 776ff; Chorus, 789ff; Atreus, 892ff; Thyestes, 990ff. In the third choral ode of the Hercules Furens (830—894), the chorus speaks as if it knew that Hercules had returned from the Underworld, but not that he had gone off to punish Lycus. Are we to imagine that this choral ode begins at the same temporal moment as the speech of Theseus, which the old men do not seem to have heard? By dividing the representation of this one temporal moment into two parts, Seneca is able to show us two reactions to Hercules' return: Theseus' and the chorus'. Compare also Medea, 843-851. Medea has finished her invocation to the gods of the Underworld (fieracta vis est omnis) but the chorus begins to speak in 849 as if it were only then occurring (Quorum cruenta maenas . . . rapitur}). See Owen (Supra n. 1) 118-137, on similar distortion in Troades.

268

Jo-Ann

Shelton

"All Seneca's main characters have a reputation which they believe they must maintain or even exceed, and they create a self-image which they then manipulate. Note especially Medea's use of her own name to express the development towards what she feels is the fulfilment of her character: Medea superest (166); Medea .... Fiam (171); Est et his motor metus / Medea (516—17); Medea nunc sum: crevit mgenium malis (910). Phaedra accepts her lust as an inherent characteristic of the women in her family (113ff)- Oedipus boasts of his intelligence, especially his clever solution to the Sphinx riddle (92-102). "Lycus, a subordinate character, serves, of course, as a foil for Hercules. Lycus' ambition and defeat should offer a warning to Hercules to curb his own ambitious spirit. "Herington (supra n. 1) 458, suggests that Thyestes is the most clearly Stoic of Seneca's characters. Tobin, "Tragedy and Catastrophe in Seneca's Theatre," CJ 62 (1966) 70, maintains that Thyestes is an innocent victim. However, though he may, in our play, be a victim, it is dear that he was, in the past, driven by the same exaggerated lust for power which now drives his brother. He was as cruel to Atreus as Atreus is now cruel to him. See lines 220ff. "Aureus is on three occasions compared to a hungry or ravaging animal: 497ff (hunting dog); 707-708 (ieiunia .. . tigris; cf. 65: ieiunia exple); 732-735 (leo . . ., pulsa fame). When Thyestes speaks in 446ff of the immoderate desires he has conquered, he stresses gluttony, though his past immoderation was a desire for power, wealth and sex. Poe, "An Analysis of Seneca's Thyestes," TAPA 100 (1969) 362ff, suggests that Seneca has used eating, an animal function, as a symbol for all Lust in order to make a connection between violent passions and animal (rather than rational and god-like) behavior. "See n. 12 supra. "Tobin (supra n. 12) 70, says that Thyestes is tragic because his very foundation is disturbed and his personal morality is shaken when he realizes that he has participated in this heinous crime. Tobin believes that Thyestes is an innocent victim, but I suggest that he is shaken because he realizes he has not, in fact, controlled and conquered his lust. "Poe (supra n. 12) 361, believes also that Seneca is investigating in the Thyestes not just cruelty but the source of this cruelty. "Compare the comments of Herington (supra n. 1) 447 and 448, where he suggests that in Senecan tragedy evil is material. He uses as an example of this statement the ghost of Tantalus "whose advent sears the orchards, dries up the streams and melts the mountain snow." Herington says that Tantalus is an external manifestation of evil. "A Senecan tragedy tells what evil feels like to an acutely sensitive mind under abnormally evil conditions." "Wolfgang Clemen, English Tragedy before Shakespeare, trans. T. S. Dorsch (London 1961) 224. "Clemen, Shakespeare's Dramatic Art (London 1972) 4. ,0 Cf. De Ben 2.13.1: O superbia, magnae fortunae stultissimum malum . . . ut omne beneficium in iniuriam convertis. Ep. 106.6: superbia is a morbus animorum like avaritia, crudelilas and mvidia. See also Ep. 56.10 and Ep. 75.11. "G. Karl Galinsky, The Heracles Theme: The Adaptation of the Hero m Literature (Oxford 1972) 58, compares Iris and Lyssa to Kratos and Bia in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. Their appearance, he says, "points up the profoundly unjust and cruel nature of the gods' repugnant treatment of the noble Herakles." D. J. Conacher, Euripidean Drama—Myth, Theme and Structure (Toronto 1967) 80, points out that "unlike the Bacchae and the Hippolytus, it (the Heracles) implies no motivation other than the external, arbitrary, divine one." Like Athena's attack on Ajax in Sophocles' play, the initial stimulation towards madness comes from an external force. Eugene M. Waith, The Herculean Hero (New York 1962) 27, suggests that "Euripides lays great stress on the externality of the means by which the great forces of Heracles are perverted." "For a contrary opinion, see Herington (supra n. 1) 455, who believes that in the Hercules Furens "the genesis of evil is placed . . . outside the body of the action." The opinions of Waith, 3 3 - 3 4 , seem to contradict one another. Although he says that Juno is

Problems of Time in Seneca

269

responsible for the murders, he also states that "in Seneca's depiction of his hero there is a suggestion that in some sense he wills his own destruction . . . (He performs labors that) are essential to the manifestation of his heroic v a l o r . . . . Even in his madness he consistently pursues the same goal, saying that if the earth and the Underworld can provide no more antagonists he must try the heavens." "Hercules' mind, having dwelt so long on his ability to destroy monsters, has now created its own monster. In 938-939, ji quod parol / monslrum, meumsit, the word meum can be understood as "for me" or, ironically, "of me." "Juno is the only divinity to appear anywhere in Seneca's tragedies, and in only three plays do supernatural figures appear in the opening scenes: these two plays and the Agamemnon. "Euripides' Herakles blames Hera and fate for his misfortune: "Hpaç ¡uà vXifyévm .. . tvxj) (1393). Compare Waith, 29: "The real criminal is a goddess, but the human agent must acknowledge his guilt and bear the sorrow of knowing what he has done, even though no one blames him for it." Seneca's Hercules accepts responsibility for his crime: hoc union meum est (1268), and insists on punishment. Cf. Phaedra 195-197: Deum esse amorem turpis et vitio favens / finxit libido, quoque liberior foret / titulum furori nummis falsi addidit. See also Ep. 98.2: Errant, entm, Lucili, qui aut boni aliquid nobis out malum iudicant tribuere fortunam, and Ep. 53.8: Quart vida sua nemo ctmfitetur , , . vitia sua confiten sanitatis indicium est. " T h e universe is a unity and composed of one material: Ep. 92.30: totum hoc, quo contmemur, et unum est et deus; et socii sumus eius et membra. The soul is the microcosm; the universe is the macrocosm: Ep. 65.24: Quem in hoc mundo locum deus obtinet, hunc in homme animus. Quod est illic materia, id m nobis corpus est. One passion, not checked by reason, leads to total destruction of the mind; cf. De Ira, 1.7.2-4; 1.8.1-2 and Ep 85.8-10. The idea that Rome was a force which was destroying itself was a common theme in Latin literature. See Dutoit, "Thème de la force qui se détruit elle-même," REL 14 (1936) 365-373. "Amphitryon is used as a foil whose remarks, because he does not see what Hercules sees—falsum caelum, 954—, allow us to judge for ourselves the seriousness of Hercules' delusions. Cf. the banquet scene in Act 3 Scene 4 of Macbeth where Macbeth is the only person who "sees" Banquo's ghost and where Lady Macbeth's words allow us to judge how seriously Macbeth's mind has been affected. Hercules upset the order of the universe when he returned from the Underworld. Later he sent his family there, perhaps in his place. Cf. Phaedra 1150- 1153 and 1165- 1166: natus et genitor nece / reditus tuas luere. And earth becomes a Hell for Hercules: 1218, inferis reddam Herculem.

RAPHAEL SEALEY

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

T H E PROBLEM

In 411 there was a revolution in Athens. T h e traditional Council of 500 was dismissed from office on the 14th of Thargelion, a month before its term was due to expire, and a new Council of 400 took office, probably on the same day. The new regime lasted about four months, including approximately two months of the new Attic year 411/0. Then the Athenians assembled in the Pnyx, deposed the 400 and instituted a new system. Thucydides' account of this step says (8.97.1): They put an end to the 400 and voted to hand over affairs (to pragmata) to the 5000; these were to consist of those who could serve as hoplites; and they voted that no one should receive state-pay in any office. This new system has sometimes been called "The Constitution of the 5000" or "The Constitution of Theramenes"; perhaps the most felicitous name for it is "the intermediate regime," a term proposed recently by P . J . Rhodes. Thucydides' phrase, "to hand over affairs to the 5000," is vague, and therefore the nature of the intermediate regime is problematical. A view which has been widely accepted holds that in the intermediate regime the right of voting was restricted to the so-called 5000, those whose property qualified them for service as

2 72

Raphael Sealey

hoplites. This may be called "the standard view." Some historians have a d d e d refinements to this view. K. J. Beloch argued that the documents preserved as chapters 30 and 31 of Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians were passed at the fall of the 400 and stated the provisions of the intermediate regime. Taking issue with this thesis, W. S. Ferguson argued that chapter 30 alone of Aristotle's treatise states the constitution of the intermediate regime and was passed at the overthrow of the 400. C. Hignett was skeptical about the value of both these apparendy documentary chapters but adhered to the standard view. That view can indeed be defended more effectively on the basis of some statements of Thucydides than from AristoUe's more puzzling account of the revolution. On the standard view the 5000 alone constituted the primary assembly in the intermediate regime, since persons lacking the property-qualification for hopliteservice were excluded from voting. In fact in some passages (8.67.3; 8.72.1; 8.93.2) the language used by Thucydides envisages the 5000 as constituting an assembly. A more recent view sees the 5000 in a different light. It holds that, when the 400 were deposed, only eligibility for political office was restricted to the 5000, who were defined by the propertyqualification for hoplite-service; the right of meeting and voting in the public assembly was to be held by all adult male citizens, as in the traditional constitution. Some passages of Thucydides (8.68.2; 8.92.11) can be cited in support of this view. If it is correct, two decisions reported by Thucydides as taken by the Athenians when they overthrew the 400 cohere very closely together. He says, in the passage translated above, that the Athenians voted to hand over affairs to the 5000 and that no one should receive state-pay in any office. Men of hoplite-property could be expected to discharge political offices without pay, and thus the two decisions together were designed to save money. Furthermore, if this view of the nature of the intermediate regime is correct, it has a bearing on the causes of the revolution. During the months preceding the establishment of the 400 those planning revolution issued a specious program, which Thucydides reports thus (8.65.3): They put about openly a program to the effect that state-pay should not be allowed to anyone except those serving in the armed forces, and that participation in affairs (methekteon ton pragmaton) should be restricted to not more than 5000 and namely to those most able to benefit the state with their property and their persons.

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

273

Here, as at 8.97.1, Thucydides uses a vague phrase ("participation in affairs") to refer to the nature of the 5000, and in both passages h e associates that notion with a proposal to allocate state-pay for a r m e d service only. If in the intermediate regime only eligibility for office was restricted to the 5000, it would seem to follow that this was the restriction envisaged in the program issued by the revolutionaries in the months before the Council of 400 was set up. In o t h e r words, they did not argue for a restriction on the right of voting, but their propaganda tried to convince the Athenians by alleging considerations of economy. It is another question, what part that propaganda played among the causes of the revolution or how m u c h it counted for alongside of other factors such as terrorism. But at least that propaganda must be recognized as one of the elements forming and reflecting public opinion. 1 Most historians believe that the intermediate regime lasted till some time in the summer of 410. T h e n , it is supposed, the Athenians were encouraged by the victory at Cyzicus and so they abolished the intermediate regime and restored the traditional democracy, perhaps with some modifications. This change has left a very few reflections in literary texts and some in Athenian institutions. If the intermediate regime restricted the right of voting, the restoration of democracy was a considerable change. If, on the o t h e r h a n d , the intermediate regime merely restricted eligibility for office but accepted the traditional principle of adult male suffrage, the change supposedly made in 410 was much less significant. This paper will approach the problem by concentrating on the change or changes carried out in 410. After preliminary inquiry into chronology, it will examine first the texts and then the institutions which may shed light on measures taken in 410. It will conclude that the changes carried out in 410 were small and technical; they did not affect constitutional principle.

CHRONOLOGY

Some ingenious hypotheses about the order of events in 411/0 have p e r h a p s encouraged the belief that a major constitutional change was carried out in the later part of that Attic year, but in fact the hypotheses assume such a change without confirming its occurrence. T h e r e f o r e a chronological framework needs to be established afresh. Diodorus (13.49.2) says that the movements of Mindarus, which led to the battle of Cyzicus, began "when winter

214

Raphael Sealey

was already coming to an end." There is a good chance that Diodorus drew indirecdy on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia for the campaign of Cyzicus. 2 Thucydides probably regarded the beginning of summer (and of spring) as a fixed time in the solar year and placed it not later than the first week of March. 3 The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (9.2) seems to have followed Thucydidean practice in reckoning seasons. 4 So confidence may be placed in Diodorus' statement that winter was already coming to an end. Hence the battle of Cyzicus must have been fought some time later than the beginning of March 410. Xenophon's account of maneuvers in the preceding winter can easily be harmonized with this. He reports the battle of Abydus (Hellenica 1.1.5-7) and shows that it was fought after the winter of 411/0 had begun (1.1.2). After the batde of Abydus the Athenians withdrew to Sestus; then they kept forty ships in the Hellespont but sent others out in different directions to raise money (1.1.8); Thrasyllus was sent to Athens to make a report and to ask for reinforcements and ships. Some time later Theramenes and Thrasybulus came to Sestus, each with twenty ships, from Macedon and Thasos respectively; each of them had raised money (1.1.12). Alcibiades took command of the combined force and led it out on the expedition which culminated in the battle of Cyzicus. It is credible that the money-raising operations occupied much of the winter and that the Athenians brought their naval detachments together in the Hellespont in readiness for the opening of the new campaigning season. T h e movements of Theramenes also call for note. In the late summer of 411 he was in Athens and took part in the overthrow of the 400. His next activities are known from Diodorus (13.47.3-8; 13.49.1). He took thirty ships to the Euripus, where most of the Euboeans in cooperation with the Boeotians were building a mole across the strait from Chalcis to the neighborhood of Aulis; he was unable to stop this, since he was outnumbered. Then he sailed to the islands, ravaging territory and exacting money; at Paros he overthrew an oligarchy and exacted money from those who had taken part in it. Next he joined Archelaus of Macedon in besieging Pydna, but as the siege was protracted, he sailed away before Pydna fell to join Thrasybulus off the coast of Thrace. Clearly these operations must have taken several months, but it is not possible to estimate when they began. Indications can be found of a latest possible date for the battle

Constitutional

Changes in Athens in 410 B.c.

275

of Cyzicus. Mindarus as Spartan navarch was killed in the battle and his secretary took command (Xenophon, Hellenica 1.1.18 and 23); his term of office had not yet expired. It is reasonable to suppose that the term of office of the navarch came to an end in the late summer or the fall; 5 so the batde was fought before that season. Philochorus® says that within the Attic year 411/0 the Spartans made an offer of peace and the Athenians rejected it. It is often reasonably conjectured that the Spartans made the offer because they had been defeated at Cyzicus and that the Athenians rejected it because they were elated at their victory. If this conjecture is correct, the battle was fought appreciably before the end of the Attic year 411/0. W. S. Ferguson claimed to date the battle more precisely to April 410, and his claim has been widely accepted, but the grounds require examination. An inscription records Athenian dealings with Archelaus of Macedon. A. Wilhelm assigned it to the year 411/0; it could be associated with the operations of Theramenes at Pydna. Its prescript is of traditional type. Noting this and following Wilhelm's dating, Ferguson inferred that the intermediate regime was replaced by the restored democracy well before the end of the Attic year 411/0. He regarded this change as a consequence of the battle of Cyzicus. Accordingly between the battle and the end of the Attic year he had to allow time for the constitutional change, the passing of the decree about Archelaus, and the rejection of the Spartan offer of peace; hence he thought that the batde was fought not much later than April. 7 Later B. D. Meritt 8 argued persuasively for assigning the decree about Archelaus to 407/6. Thus a main item in Ferguson's case for so precise a date as April collapsed. In short the batde of Cyzicus was fought after the beginning of March 410 but before the term of the Spartan navarch expired and probably before the end of the Attic year 411/0. T h e battle may have been fought at any time in the period of several months between these limits. Some preference may be felt for a date early in this period, since the maneuvers leading to the battle, as reported by Xenophon and Diodorus, do not appear to require much time; but arguments of this kind are treacherous, and time must be allowed for Mindarus with Pharnabazus to besiege and capture Cyzicus. Many historians have supposed that the intermediate regime was replaced by the restored democracy after the battle and in consequence of the new confidence which the Athenians gained on learning of their victory. J. Hatzfeld took a different view and his argument rested on the list of generals for 410/09. He recognized

276

Raphael Sealey

seven o r eight generals of that year and noted that they belonged to different tribes. So he supposed that the rule whereby one general was elected from each tribe was restored with the democracy and in time for the election in 411/0 of generals for 410/09. The generals were regularly elected in the first prytany after the sixth when the omens were favorable. Hatzfeld concluded that Theramenes left Athens for the Euripus in January 410 and the democracy was restored prompdy after his departure, in time for the elections to be held in February. 9 There are weaknesses in this argument. It has lately been shown to be likely that the Athenians abandoned the tribal rule for selection of generals long before 410;10 the distribution of the known generals of 410/09 among the tribes may be accidental. Moreover, if a considerable change in the constitution was carried out in 410, the time for electing generals for the coming year may have been altered in consequence. As Aristotle remarks (AP 44.4), even in normal times a special resolution of the Council was required before the election of generals could be held. Before questions of chronology are dismissed, it will be appropriate to pay attention to a theory developed by B. D. Meritt. 11 The obverse of the Choiseul Marble (I.G. I2, 304A) lists the sums issued by the treasurers of Athena in 410/09 to officers of the Athenian state. T h e second payment, coming in the second prytany of the year, was made to the athlothetai for the expenses of the Greater Panathenaea. Meritt supposed that payments for the festival were always made before the festival was celebrated; hence this payment would be made before the 28th of Hecatombaeon. It would follow that the whole of the first prytany of 410/09 had passed before the 28th of Hecatombaeon. So Meritt supposed that the Council of 500 for 410/09 took office sometime within the last two months of 411/0; hypothetically he suggested that it took office about the middle of Scirophorion. Aristode (AP 32.1) says that, but for the revolution, the Council of 500 of 412/1 was expected to stay in office until the 14th of Scirophorion; the Council of 500 for 411/0 could be expected to take office straight afterwards. But Meritt connected the early taking of office by the Council of 410/09 with the supposed constitutional change of 410. That is, he accepted the hypothesis (to be scrutinized below) that the intermediate regime did not have a Council of 500 chosen by lot, an institution characteristic of the democracy; and he supposed that, when the democracy was restored, the Council of 500 for 410/09 took office at once. Meritt's theory is of some importance to the present paper,

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

277

which seeks to estimate the magnitude of any constitutional changes carried out in 410; for that theory implies a constitutional change sufficient to require the immediate taking of office by the Council for 410/09, and this would be reflected in a payment made by the treasurers of Athena in the second prytany but supposedly before the 28th of Hecatombaeon. As Meritt saw, his theory at once raised a difficulty. T h e obverse of the Choiseul Marble records the payments made by a single board of treasurers of Athena. It is likely that those treasurers took office at the Panathenaea on the 28th of Hecatombaeon. 12 Meritt's theory implies that the first two payments listed on the obverse of the Choiseul Marble were made before the 28th of Hecatombaeon 410/09, but were recorded as made by the board of treasurers of Athena who took office on that day. Such an eccentricity of bookkeeping would be amazing, since the responsibility of financial officers was at stake. In fact the starting-point for Meritt's theory is weak; it can and has been pointed out 13 that payments for the expenses of the Panathenaea may have been made after the festival. Thus the theory collapses and fails to provide grounds for supposing an important constitutional change in 410.

TEXTS

T h r e e literary texts mention or may be thought to mention the end of the intermediate regime. 1. Aristotle, after narrating the rule of the 400 and their replacement by the 5000, says (AP 34.1): TOVTOVS

fL€V

OVV

d Kvdfiat, ois KXciyevr)^ irpoyros eypafifiotrevev.

APXEI

It is known f r o m the obverse of the Choiseul Marble (I.G. I 2 , 304A) that the year when Cleigenes was first secretary to the Council was 410/09. T h e sentence about the period of validity of the decree has given rise to ingenious conjectures. T h e hypothesis has been suggested that the Council of 500 chosen by lot was characteristic of the restored democracy and accordingly that the intermediate regime did not have a Council of 500 chosen by lot but something else. Now d u r i n g the rule of the 400 Alcibiades replied to their envoys at Samos by saying that he did not object to the rule of the 5000 b u t h e insisted that the 400 must be removed f r o m office and the Council of 500 must be restored; Thucydides reports this reply (8.86.6) and it contributed to the overthrow of the 400. So the hypothesis is that in the intermediate regime there was a Council of 500 chosen not by sortition but by election. 16 T h u s the statement preserved by Andocides about the Council where Cleigenes was first secretary would have a good deal of force; that Council would be the first Council of 500 chosen by lot since the revolution began. This hypothesis plays a part in Meritt's theory on chronology, considered supra; according to his theory the Council where Cleigenes was first secretary took office early because its installation m a r k e d the restoration of democracy. T h e hypothesis u n d e r consideration does not do justice to the reply m a d e by Alcibiades to the envoys of the 400. Thucydides states t h e reply thus (8.86.6): H e (Alcibiades) sent them (the envoys of the 400) away with the reply that he did not object to the rule of the 5000 but he b a d e them remove the 400 and set u p the Council as b e f o r e , the 500. Kai Kadtordvai tj)v (Hovk-qv (ixnrep Kai nporepov rov? 7revTaKoaiovs.

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

281

T h e demand of Alcibiades was not for any council, however selected, that happened to number 500 but for the Council "as before," that is, the traditional Council. But the traditional Council was chosen by lot. This demand of Alcibiades stimulated very much the agitation in Athens against the 400. So it is not inconceivable that a Council of 500, chosen by lot from among the 5000, was set u p prompdy when the 400 were overthrown. T h e crucial sentence of Andocides about the period of validity of the decree of Demophantus should be approached from another point of view. Neither it nor the following sentence ("If anyone overthrows the democracy . . .") is introduced by any connective particle; this double asyndeton is unique in the documents quoted by Andocides in this speech. T h e crucial sentence interrupts the train of thought; in most decrees the substantive provisions begin immediately after the formulaic statements of officers on duty and of the proposer, but in this text the crucial sentence is inserted before the substantive provisions. After the statement that the recommendations were drafted by Demophantus, the positive proposals might be expected to follow immediately, but instead they are preceded by the statement about the period of validity of the decree. T h e substantive proposals are couched in the stock phrases characteristic of decrees. T h e idiom archei chronos in the crucial sentence can be paralleled both in epigraphic and in literary texts. 17 T h e double asyndeton and the interruption in the train of thought can best be explained by recognizing that the crucial sentence is not part of the decree but it is an explanatory insertion m a d e by the orator himself. 18 If that sentence comes from Andocides, not f r o m the document, the proper question to ask is, how did he know the information which he purports to give? He was probably not in Athens in 4101B and he was not well informed on fifth-century events in which he played no part (cf. 3.3-9). No document springs to mind which could tell him that the Council of 410/09 was the first Council chosen by lot for more than a year. In fact there is an obvious place whence Andocides could derive the genuine information of the crucial sentence: in the preamble to the law he read the name of the secretary, Cleigenes. He adds the information that Cleigenes was not merely secretary at the time when the law was passed but first secretary of the year. He may have had access to a list of the first secretaries of the Council. Such a list is likely to have been kept, in view of the habit of identifying Councils

282

Raphael Sealey

of different years by their first secretaries. But in describing the Council where Cleigenes was secretary as a Council of 500 chosen by lot, Andocides may have merely added a somewhat ponderous flourish; that the annual Council numbered 500 and was chosen by lot was common knowledge, and that Andocides was capable of ponderous flourishes appears from his well-known remark about his uncle's embassy to Persia (3.29). In short, in formulating this crucial sentence, Andocides may have sought merely to say that the law of Demophantus came into force with the conciliar year 410/09, and he may have drawn that information f r o m the preamble of the law. Thus his remark does not supply adequate grounds for supposing that the intermediate regime did not have a Council of 500 chosen by lot, and the reply of Alcibiades to the envoys of the 400 creates a slight presumption that the intermediate regime did have such a Council. 3. After recording the overthrow of the 400 and the transfer of affairs to the 5000, Thucydides continues (8.97.2): Later frequent meetings of the assembly were also held, and in these they voted lawgivers (nomothetai) and other measures concerning the constitution. Indeed at first the Athenians appear to have conducted their political affairs in the best manner, as far as my experience goes; for the mixing between the few and the many was moderate, and this first raised the city up out of its previous misfortunes. T h e first sentence in this passage provides factual information about measures taken in meetings of the assembly, but it does not say how long these frequent meetings continued. T h e second T v sentence (Kai ovx VKia"ra ° Ttp&rov xpövov eiri ye iyuov 'A&qvaioi (ftaivovrai ev TTokiTevcravres) gives a judgement and has been variously understood. Some readers have taken epi ge emou closely with ton proton chronon to mean "for the first time in my life (thus, for example, Classen ad loc.: "Thuk. sagt damit aus, dass die Athener zum ersten Mal während seines Lebens ihren Staat vorzüglich gut eingerichtet haben"). Against this H. C. Goodhart (The Eighth Book of Thucydides' History [London and New York 1893] 154-155) objected: "ton proton chronon ought by all analogy to mean 'at first,' and tous protons chronous actually has that sense in vii, 87, 1. This is f u r t h e r supported by the regular use of to proton 'at first' which (with allowance for uncertainty of MSS.) seems clearly

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

283

distinguished f r o m proton 'for the first time.'" So Goodhart cited with approval Jowett's translation: "in its early days this government was the best which the Athenians ever enjoyed in my time." T h e rendering offered above follows their line of thought. Thucydides' j u d g e m e n t says accordingly that in the first part of the ensuing period the Athenians conducted their affairs well. It seems to follow that in the later part of the ensuing period Athenian affairs were conducted in a manner which Thucydides did not find so good. But the language is vague; it does not indicate whether the change f r o m the first to the later part of the ensuing period was a change of institutions or a change in the policies which the Athenians pursued. T h e first sentence says that lawgivers were appointed in the subsequent meetings of the assembly; Thucydides' word for them is nomothetai. Officials concerned with revising the laws are known to have been in office from 410 till 404, but the tides attested for them are different. Lysias (30.2) shows that the title of Nicomachus while he held such an office was anagrapheus ton nomon. T h e decree of 409/8 ordering republcation of the law of Dracon calls the responsible officials anagraphes ton nomon.20 T h e law of Demophantus, considered supra, says that Demophantus drafted (sunegrapsen) the proposals; this suggests that he bore the title sungraphetis. Should the anagrapheis and sungrapheis of 410-404 be identified with the nomothetai mentioned by Thucydides? This question has been considered most recently by R. S. Stroud (supra n. 20, 20-24) and he offers two arguments against the identification. First there is the difference in title; it is not clear why Thucydides might prefer the term nomothetai and avoid the technical terms anagrapheis and sungrapheis, since at 8.67.1 he used the term sungrapheis for a board appointed to draw up proposals on the constitution some months earlier. T h e second argument is chronological. Lysias, attacking Nicomachus, sought to emphasize the enormity of his behavior and said (30.2) that Nicomachus had kept himself in office for six years. He was still in office in 405/4 (Lysias 30.9-14; cf. 13.11-12). If he had been in office ever since the fall of 411, where Thucydides gives the installation of the 5000 followed by assemblies creating nomothetai, then surely Lysias would have said that Nicomachus had kept himself in office for seven years. T h e first of these two arguments is not inevitable. Book 8 of Thucydides' work is unfinished and different parts of it may have been revised and polished to different degrees; his choice of words

284

Raphael Sealey

in different passages may reflect different stages in his thought. Moreover, reasons can be suggested why he might prefer to say sungrapheis at 8.67.1 but nomothetai at 8.97.2, even if the official tide for the latter board was anagrapheis (or sungrapheis). The board(s) active in 410-404 began a comprehensive revision of the laws, so Thucydides could best communicate the nature of their task to a general Greek, not a purely Athenian, audience by using the nontechnical term nomothetaiBut the board of 8.67.1, instructed to make recommendations for the better administration of the city, did not attempt general revision of the laws but confined itself to the single recommendation for suspending the graphe paranomon; it was set u p in a tense situation and its report contributed to the revolution. T h a t is, it did not behave like the type of board which the Greeks commonly called nomothetai, and that term would have been misleading; it was better to call it by the technical name of sungrapheis. T h e chronological argument depends on a question crucial for understanding Thucydides' statement at 8.97.2. Aristotle (AP 33.1) says that the 400 were overthrown when they had ruled about four months and about two months of the archon-year had elapsed. It is customary to say that the 400 were overthrown in the fall of 411, and this is correct, provided that "fall" is understood in an elastic sense; no precise date within the solar year can be given. Thucydides adds that later there were frequent meetings of the assembly and in these lawgivers were appointed. T h e question is, how long an interval does "later" (husteron) cover? The chronological argument against identifying Thucydides' nomothetai with the anagrapheis (and sungrapheis) of 410-404 assumes that "later" (husteron) covers an interval of only weeks or at most a few months. In that case the appointment of anagrapheis (and sungrapheis?) in 410 might supersede the nomothetai of 411 and might be a consequence of a major constitutional change, the replacement of the intermediate regime with the restored democracy. But an alternative possibility deserves consideration. Thucydides does not give any temporal limit for the frequent assemblies, which occurred "later"; possibly the word "later" and the assemblies cover an interval lasting into the summer of 410. Indeed at 3.68.3 Thucydides uses the word husteron to cover an interval of about a year; reporting the Spartan treatment of Plataea after its surrender, he says: For about a year (eniauton men tina) they let political refugees f r o m Megara and those Plataeans who had adhered to their

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

285

cause and survived live in the city; but later (husteron de) they destroyed it entirely to the ground and from the foundationstones they built an inn near the temple of Hera. . . . Here it will not do to say that husteron marks a subsequent short interval, following after the expiry of the year mentioned in the first clause; for the men and de link the two clauses together closely. Again at 5.4.3 husteron covers the interval from the capture of T o r o n e by Cleon in 422 to the conclusion of the peace of Nicias in 421." If husteron and the frequent assemblies of 8.97.2 cover a relatively long interval, lasting well into 410 and even into the Attic year 410/09, it would follow that the nomothetai of that passage may be identical with the anagrapheis (and sungrapheis) of 410-404. Moreover, it would follow that Thucydides recognized, not a single major constitutional change from the intermediate regime to a restored democracy in 410, but a series of small steps following the overthrow of the 400 and lasting well into the year 410, and when he wrote 8,97.2, he did not consider any of those steps important enough to deserve separate and detailed treatment. 23 T h e conclusion to be drawn from this examination of the three texts is that none of them necessarily indicates a major constitutional change in 410. Furthermore the passage of Thucydides may suggest something quite different, namely a protracted series of minor changes which did not affect constitutional principle. But such an inference from Thucydides' remarks can only be drawn with hesitation, since he did not write the history of 410.

INSTITUTIONS

Several features in Athenian institutions have been thought to reflect the intermediate regime or its suppression by the restored democracy. 1. T h e decree of Andron preserved in [Plutarch] Lives of the Ten Orators (833e) provides for the trial of Antiphon and others and has several unusual features in the preamble. The text says that the decree was passed "by the Council," when one would expect it to have been passed "by the Council and the people"; a reference to the people may have been lost in the transmission of the text. Alternatively the decree may have been passed by the Council alone since the decree did not constitute a final decision but merely

286

Raphael Sealey

referred the case to a popular court for trial.24 The decree is said to have been passed on the twenty-first day of the prytany, but the n u m b e r e d day within the prytany is not given in decrees so early. Moreover neither the name nor the serial number of the prytany is given; therefore, on any view about the changes of 411-410, the date as given by reference to the prytany is unintelligible and must reflect corruption of the text, possibly the result of an unintelligent gloss. O n e feature of the preamble is very difficult to explain. The epistates or president for the day and the secretary both belong to the same tribe, Antiochis. This was impossible in traditional practice; the president for the day was chosen from the tribe on prytanyduty, and numerous decrees of the period ca. 444-368/7 show that in that period the secretary was chosen from the other nine tribes.25 Evidently during the intermediate regime there was some irregularity in the organization of the Council.26 2. T h e theoretical constitution given by Aristotle in AP 30 provides for selecting twenty hellenotamiai, who should take charge of all secular revenues. T h e obverse of the Choiseul Marble (I.G. I2, 304A) names eleven hellenotamai for 410/09 and this suggests that the number had been raised from ten to twenty. The kolakretai, who formerly handled domestic expenses of Athens, are absent from AP 30, and it has often been said that the kolakretai are not attested after 411. Ferguson (supra n. 1) took the view that AP 30 preserves the constitution of the intermediate regime and that in consequence responsibility for domestic finances was transferred from the kolakretai to the hellenotamiai, whose number was raised to twenty. In fact the comparison of the institutional change with the constitution of AP 30 does not prove that that constitution was ever adopted by the Athenians but only that it includes an idea which was current ca. 411. But the details are a little more complex. T h e kolakretai are not attested after 418/7, and in 415/4 a payment was made to the athlothetai by the hellenotamiai; one might expect such a payment to come not from the hellenotamiai but from the kolakretai. Moreover the epigraphic records attesting hellenotamiai d o not prove that they still numbered ten as late as 411 but allow the possibility that the number was raised to twenty a few years earlier; the reason for supposing that they were first raised to twenty in 411 is drawn from AP 30.27

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

287

3. T h e theoretical constitution given by Aristotle in AP 30 provides for selecting a single board of ten treasurers of the sacred property of Athena and of the other gods. Since the 420s or p e r h a p s earlier there had been two boards of treasurers, one for Athena a n d one for the other gods. In 1926 Ferguson (supra n. 1) cited the amalgamation of the two boards of treasurers into a single board as an item in AP 30 which was carried out, although he admitted that the amalgamation is first attested for 406/5. In 1932 h e a r g u e d that the amalgamation was first carried out in time for t h e opening of the year 406/5, there being separate boards in the preceding years. Although the evidence is inconclusive, the opening of 406/5 is the most likely date for the amalgamation. 28 4. Payments for the diobelia are attested on both surfaces of the Choiseul Marble, that is, in the records for 410/09, 408/7 and 407/6. T h e word has been restored in a financial record which should probably be dated 404/3. 29 Wilamowitz thought that the diobelia was a general distribution to the citizens, 30 but this is unlikely as the sums are small. T h e diobelia should surely be associated with the payments of two obols mentioned by Aristophanes in The Frogs 139-141. T h e same play (line 1466) says that the j u r o r s gulp down public revenues, a statement which shows that dicastic pay had been restored by 406/5. It is not unreasonable to associate Aristophanes' allusion to dicastic pay with his reference to payments of two obols. O n e thus reaches the theory of K. J. Beloch, that the diobelia provided pay for jurors; later he added that it also provided pay for the Council of 500. 31 Beloch's theory goes admittedly beyond the evidence, but it is difficult to escape the conjecture that the diobelia included pay for political service in some form. Such pay had been abolished in the revolution of 411 and the prohibition was reiterated in the fall of the year, when the intermediate regime was installed. It appears that in 410 state-pay for political service was restored, although not necessarily in the form obtaining before the revolution. 5. Resuming a hypothesis of K. J. Beloch, A. Andrewes has a r g u e d that in 410/09 and the next few years there were two boards of generals in office, the ten elected by the city and others elected by the fleet, which operated in the Hellespont and the Propontis. In 410/09 o n e of the generals attested on the obverse of the Choiseul

288

Raphael Sealey

Marble (line 35) was Pasiphon, who belonged to the same tribe as Alcibiades. Andrewes holds that the Athenians still elected one general f r o m each tribe; he infers that the radical democracy, restored in 410, passed over Alcibiades in electing generals for 410/09, for, he supposes, Alcibiades was committed to the moderate constitution of the 5000. Theramenes and Thrasybulus were with Alcibiades at the batde of Cyzicus; Andrewes holds that they too p r e f e r r e d the moderate constitution. Thrasybulus at least probably remained with Alcibiades in the next few years but in 407, when Alcibiades visited Athens, he sailed to the coast of Thrace. Alcibiades himself in 407 approached Athens by a roundabout route, visiting Samos, the Ceramic Gulf, Samos again, Paros and Gytheum, and when at last he approached the Peiraeus, he hesitated to land. Apparently Alcibiades and Thrasybulus feared that they were not popular with the restored democracy. Thrasyllus on the other hand is regarded by Andrewes as a man of the radical democracy. In the winter of 411/0, after the batde of Abydus, he went to Athens to get reinforcements, but he stayed in Athens right through 410, repulsing an attack by Agis. At last in 409 he led a force to Ionia but, instead of joining the generals in the Hellespont, he waged a campaign of his own on the Ionian coast; only after he had been defeated at Ephesus did he join the force in the Hellespont late in the season, and even so for some time the troops of Alcibiades were unwilling to fraternize with his. In 407 Thrasyllus sailed straight to Athens, when Alcibiades preferred a slow and cautious route. 32 T h e inference drawn from Pasiphon's term as general can no longer be upheld; more recent examination of the lists of generals suggests that the Athenians abandoned the tribal rule in electing them long before 410. 33 But Andrewes' study of the movements of the generals and especially of the eccentric campaign of Thrasyllus in Ionia throws important light on the relationships between them; Thrasybulus and probably Theramenes were content to collaborate with Alcibiades, but Thrasyllus wished to act independendy. It does not follow that the divergence sprang f r o m different views about the best constitution for Athens. T h e crucial question is the constitutional views held by Alcibiades, and the evidence bearing on these is his reply to the envoys of the 400 as reported by Thucydides (8.86.6) and translated supra. That reply falls short of a declaration of support for a moderate constitution of the 5000, supposedly realized in the intermediate regime. Alcibiades said that he did not

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

289

object to the rule of the 5000 but he insisted on the removal of the 400 and the restoration of the Council of 500 "as before." In demanding the restoration of the traditional Council of 500 Alcibiades came very close to demanding the restoration of the traditional democracy. Thus his constitutional views, so far as discernible, do not suggest that he would be unacceptable to the regime governing Athens in 410/09. T h e thesis of Beloch and Andrewes, that there were two independent boards of generals in and after 410/09, is not proven. It is possible that all the men attested as commanding forces in the years 410/09-408/7 were regularly elected by the city of Athens.

CONCLUSIONS

From the preceding study of institutions two facts emerge. First, when the 400 were overthrown, a Council took office, but although it may have numbered 500 and may have been chosen by lot, its internal organization was in some way irregular. Secondly, in 410 state-pay, apart from pay for armed service, was restored in some form u n d e r the name diobelia. At this point a suggestive observation made by P. J. Rhodes (supra n. 1, 126-127) should be called to mind. If the intermediate regime restricted eligibility for office to men of hoplite-property without restricting the franchise, it may have merely enforced laws technically valid in the democracy. The archonship had been opened to zeugitai, in addition to the upper two Solonic classes, in 457 (Aristotle, AP 26.2). The law was not explicitly altered to admit thetes. Aristode (AP 7.4 fin.) indicates that in his own time thetes were admitted as candidates through tacit non-enforcement of the law. It may be that this practice of admitting thetes to office was resumed in 410, when the reintroduction of state-pay made it possible. From the study of texts it appeared that no literary text necessarily says or implies that a change of constitutional principle was carried out in 410. Furthermore it is possible that the frequent assemblies of Thucydides 8.97.2, which carried measures about the constitution and set up nomothetai, continued well into 410. That is, the Athenians may have engaged in a process of revising and clarifying constitutional rules without disputing issues of basic principle. The task of revising the laws, begun in 410, was com-

290

Raphael Sealey

pleted in 399. 34 T h e silence of the literary sources about the supposed major constitutional change of 410 is itself significant. T h e orators make several allusions to the revolution of 411, but they d o not mention the supposed restoration of democracy in 410. 35 T h e evidence bearing on 410 allows the hypothesis that at the overthrow of the 400 eligibility for office was restricted to men of hoplite-property but all adult male citizens retained the right to vote; that at the same point a Council of 500 chosen by lot was installed, but its internal organization was irregular, p e r h a p s in consequence of the fact that its members could only be drawn from m e n of hoplite-property; that for several months frequent meetings of the assembly were held to consider constitutional matters; that in these meetings in 410 one or more commissions to revise the law were set u p a n d the members included Nicomachus; and that in 410 state-pay in the form of the diobelia was restored a n d the restriction of eligibility for office to men of hoplite-property was tacitly a b a n d o n e d . On this view the year 410 saw, not a single change of revolutionary magnitude, a restoration of democracy, but a series of changes of detail, the most significant being the introduction of the diobelia. This latter step may well have been taken when finances became somewhat easier, after Alcibiades won the battle of Cyzicus a n d set u p a customs-station in the territory of Chalcedon (Xenophon, Hellenica 1.1.22). Apart f r o m modifications in institutions, there may have been a change of spirit. Thucydides does not describe directly the mood of the Athenians in relation to the constitution when they finally overthrew the 400. But he summarizes the outlook obtaining among the mutineers at the Peiraeus a few days earlier, when they chose as their slogan the rule of the 5000 (8.92.11): For they still concealed their desires behind the slogan of the 5000, instead of inviting openly 'anyone who wishes the demos to rule'; they were afraid that the list of the 5000 might really exist and someone speaking to a member of the list might fail of his p u r p o s e through ignorance of his membership. This spirit of caution is very different from that reflected in the law of D e m o p h a n t u s some ten or eleven months later (Andocides 1.96-98; supra). T h a t law provides penalties "if anyone overthrows the democracy at Athens or holds any office after the democracy has been overthrown." T h e word demokratia had had a varied

Constitutional

Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

291

history and at first its overtones had been somewhat deprecatory; in the new mood of 410 the Athenians were willing to boast of their demokratia. 36 T h e question of the nature of the intermediate regime, whether it restricted the right to vote or merely eligibility for office by a property-qualification, must ultimately be answered from some statements of Thucydides. This paper has sought to show that the evidence of 410 accords fully with the theory that the intermediate regime only restricted eligibility for office. It may not be inappropriate to draw attention to the two Thucydidean passages supporting that theory. First, there is his statement (8.68.2) about the speech which Antiphon made in his own defense when "the acts of the 400 later overthrown were attacked by the demos (hupo tou demou)." T h e text is corrupt, but some reference to the demos as the ultimate power in the intermediate regime seems inescapable. 37 Secondly, at 8.92.11 (translated in part supra) Thucydides says that the mutineers at the Peiraeus chose the term "the rule of the 5000" as their slogan for reasons of caution, their real desire being for the rule of the demos. P.J. Rhodes (supra n. 1, 115-116 and 120) objects that Thucydides here attributes a "real" motive and that it is as mistaken to accept such statements and reject the professed motives as to accept the professed motives alone. But Thucydides based his attributions of motive on his knowledge of the facts, and Rhodes has not o f f e r e d any reason for regarding as improbable the motive attributed to the mutineers. O n the other hand in some passages (8.67.3; 8.72.1; 8.93.2) Thucydides speaks of the 5000 as if they were to constitute a primary assembly, that is, as if the right of voting was to be restricted to them. A suggestion which may explain these passages may be reiterated here: if the 5000 were alone to be eligible for office, it could be expected that they would be more diligent than other citizens in attending the assembly whose decisions the officeholders would have to carry out. A passage of Lysias (12.67), which has not been cited in this context, lends some slight support to the view that the intermediate regime did not restrict the suffrage. Pleading before a popular court in 403/2, Lysias says that Theramenes prosecuted Antiphon and Archeptolemus "because he wanted to appear trustworthy to the multitude of you." Antiphon and Archeptolemus were prosecuted under the intermediate regime, and so although the remark of Lysias may be tendentious, at

292

Raphael

Sealey

its face value it suggests that that regime was akin to the democracy restored in 403/2. There remains a final argument in favor of supposing that the intermediate regime merely restricted eligibility for office. Both in stating the public program issued by the conspirators before overt acts of revolution took place (8.65.3) and in narrating the overthrow of the 400 (8.97.1) Thucydides associates closely the restriction of affairs to the 5000 with the prohibition of state-pay for political office. On the theory here advocated those two measures cohered logically together.38 University of California Berkeley

NOTES 1 Reconstruction of the revolution of 411 must depend almost entirely on Thuc. 8.47-98. Aristotle's account (AP 29.1-34.1) adds a document (the decree of Pythodorus, AP 29.2-3) and some dates but little else of value. From [Lys.] 20.13 it appears that, when the 5000 were listed, they numbered something like 9000. Previous attempts to establish the correct relationship between Thucydides' narrative and Aristotle's information were superseded by C. Hignett's exhaustive study in A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford 1952) 2 6 8 - 2 8 0 and 3 5 6 - 3 7 8 ; for a different view see M. Lang, "The Revolution of the 400: Chronology and Constitutions," AJP 88 (1967) 176-187. The standard view of the intermediate regime has been defended recendy by P. J. Rhodes, "The Five Thousand in the Athenian Revolution of 411 B.C .,"JHS 92 (1972) 115-127; see also K.J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte II', 2 (Strassburg 1916) 311 - 3 2 4 , and W. S. Ferguson, "The Constitution of Theramenes," CP 21 (1926) 7 2 - 7 5 . T h e other and more recent view was presented by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, "The Constitution of the Five Thousand," Historia 5 (1956) 1 - 2 3 ; its bearing on the causes of the revolution was pointed out by the present writer. Essays in Greek Politics (New York 1967) 111-132. *C.f. R. J. Littman, "The Strategy of the Battle of Cyricus," TAPA 99 (1968) 2 6 5 - 2 7 2 ; I. A. F. Bruce, An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Cambridge 1967) 2 0 - 2 2 . 'This view was defended by A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 3 (Oxford 1956) 699-715. It has been disputed, for example by B. D. Meritt, "The E n d of Winter in Thucydides," Hesperia 33 (1964) 2 2 8 - 2 3 0 and "A Persian Date in Thucydides," CP 61 (1966) 182-184; and it has been defended, for example by W. K. Pritchett, " T h e Thucydidean Summer of 411 B.C.," CP 60 (1965) 259-261 (Pritchett argues that for Thucydides winter ended "with the true evening rising of Arcturus [March 6]") and more recently in The Choiseul Marble, Univ. Calif. Publ. CI. St. 5 (1970) 94-95 (I shall refer to this work as "CM"). Thucydides says (5.20.1) that the Archidamian War lasted "precisely ten years with a difference of a few days"; since he reckoned years by summers and winters, it follows that he thought he could determine the beginning of the seasons to within a few days. The doubts expressed by Andrewes (in A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K. J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 4 [Oxford 1970] 18—21) are not valid. In particular, since the

Constitutional

Changes in Athens in 410 B.c.

293

archon's calendar could diverge from the lunar calendar by at least thirty days (W. K. Pritchett, Ancient Athenian Calendars on Stone, Univ. Calif. Publ. CI. Arch. 4, no. 4 [1963] 330-340), and since the archon could intercalate single days in succession to a number of four at least (Pritchett, ibid, 340-342; note especially W. B. Dinsmoor, Hesperia 23 [1954] 299), Andrewes' attempt to ascertain the Julian equivalent for 25 Elaphebolion 422/1 by reckoning back from the new moon which began 421/0 is insecure. 'For discussion and bibliography on this disputed question see Bruce (supra n. 2) 6 6 - 7 2 , who, however, prefers a different view. ' T h e basic study is K. J. Beloch, "Die Nauarchie in Sparta," RhMus 34 (1879) 1 1 7 - 1 3 0 ; see also U. Kahrstedt, "Die Antrittszeit der spartanischen Nauarchen," Forschungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden fünften und des vierten Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1910) 155-204. Some difficulties remain: Cnemus was in command for more than twelve months (Thuc. 2.66.2; 2.93.1); Lysander in 407 appears to have taken up his command well before the late summer (Xen. Hell. 1.5.1; cf. 1.4.2-3). A new study of the navarchy might be desirable. •F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker III B328 F139. 'W. S. Ferguson, Cambridge Ancient History 5 (Cambridge 1940) 485. T h e inscription is I.G. I', 105, also accessible as R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford 1969) No. 91 (I shall call this collection "Meiggs/Lewis"). 'Athenian Financial Documents (Ann Arbor 1932) 107-115; "Archelaos and the Decelean War," Classical Studies presentad to Edward Capps (Princeton 1936) 246-252. This date is accepted (e.g.) by Meiggs and Lewis. 'J. Hatzfeld, "La fin du régime de Théramène," REA 40 (1938) 113-124; followed by F. Sartori, La crisi del 411 a. C. nell' Athenäum Politeia di Aristotele (Padova 1951) 7 6 - 7 9 . T h e normal time for electing generals is given by Aristotle, AP 44.4. " C . W. Fornara, The Athenian Board of Generalsfrom 501 to 404, Historia Einzelschriften Heft 16 (1971). For objections see P. J. Bicknell, Studies in Athenian Politics and Genealog), Historia Einzelschriften Heft 19 (1972) 112. Fornara's theory does full justice to the statement of Aristotle, AP 61.1, and therefore solves more difficulties than alternative hypotheses do. "Athenian Financial Documents (supra n. 8) 9 4 - 1 1 5 . " I t is very likely that in 433/2 the treasurers of Athena took office at the Panathenaea. For the inscription recording payments by those treasurers to the two successive expeditions sent to Corcyra (I.G. I*, 295 = Meiggs/Lewis No. 61) shows that the two payments were both made within the first prytany of the year but by two different boards of treasurers of Athena (or strictly speaking, by boards of such treasurers with two different secretaries). Further the first of the financial decrees of C allias (I.G. I*, 91 = Meiggs/Lewis No. 58A, lines 27—29), whatever its date, provides that the treasurers of the other gods are to render their accounts "From Panathenaea to Panathenaea, like the treasurers in charge of the property of Athena"; but this sentence refers directly not to term of office but to accountability at the Greater Panathenaea (cf. I.G. I 1 , 324, line 1). It is conceivable that the term of office of the treasurers of Athena was changed by 410, but there is no evidence at present to suggest that. See Pritchett, CM 104, n. 2. "Pritchett, CM 104-107. "For an interpolation of comparable extent see C. W. Fornara, "The Tradition about the Murder of Hipparchus," Historia 17 (1968) 400-424, especially 410-418. Sentence A seems to be a distant echo of Thucydides'judgment (8.97.2) on the intermediate regime. T h e sentence in parentheses in AP 33.1 about the advantages derived by the Athenians f r o m Euboea echoes Thuc. 8.96.2 in meaning and words. In other texts the reference of ovroi can be difficult to determine. For example, in Herodotus 8.85.1 W. W. Goodwin, a man well versed in syntax, understood this pronoun in a different way from most readers (HSCP 17 [1906] 99-100). " I follow H. Oppermann's Teuber text of 1968. U. Wilcken emended the text to make the ninth change into the rule of the 5000.

294

Raphael

Sealey

"E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums IV', 2 (Stuttgart 1956) 303 with n. 2; Hignett (supra n. 1) 279 and 378; Rhodes (supra n. 1) 117 with n. 24. "/.G. I*, 377; Aeschin. 3.62 (where some editors have unnecessarily deleted chronos); cf. D. M. MacDoweU, Andocides on the Mysteries (Oxford 1962) 136. "This was suggested by Hatzfeld (supra n. 9) 122. But commentators on the speech have assumed that the sentence is part of the decree; thus W. J. Hickie, Andocides de Mysteriis (London 1885) 145-146; A. D. J. Makkink, Andokides' eersle rede met mleiding en commentaar (Amsterdam 1932) 267; MacDoweU, 136. " T h e visit when he spoke speech 2 was brief and was probably later than 410; see the remarks of G. Dalmeyda in the Bude edition. " R . S. Stroud, Drakon's Law on Homicide, Univ. Calif. Publ. CI. St. 3 (1968). A text is also accessible as Meiggs/Lewis No. 86. "Nomothetai seems to have been non-technical. It was used by Aristotle in the Politics (2.1273b30— 1274b8 repeatedly, also 7.1334a3); likewise Xenophon (Mem. 1.2.31) uses it of Critias. Evidently it was easily understood by a general Greek audience. But a hasty check in Lid dell/Scott/J ones suggests that anagrapheus only occurs in passages reporting Athenian legal procedure; sungrapheus has a similarly technical sense (in addition to its meaning of "historian" or "prose-writer"). "Passages where husteron covers a long interval but Thucydides is thinking in terms of lengthy periods (e.g. 1.3.3; 1.126.12; 2.68.5; 3.82.1; 6.59.4) do not bear on the present question. But some other passages, where husteron covers an interval of a year or more, may be comparable to 8.97.2; they include 1.69.1 (from the restoration of Athens after the Persian Wars to the building of the Long Walls), 1.112.1 (three years), 2.31.3 (annual invasions of the Megarid after the first invasion of 431), 2.65.12 (from the aftermath of the Sicilian expedition to the arrival of Cyrus), and perhaps 6.15.3 (from Alcibiades' advocacy of the Sicilian expedition in 415 to the failure to renew his command in 406). "Possibly one of these steps should be recognized in the new rule, first applied in 410/09, whereby the councillors cast lots by means of letters for seats (Philochorus, FGrHistUl B328 F140). " T h i s is perhaps the most important feature of the decree; it does not indicate any increase in punitive powers of the Council under the intermediate regime. P . J . Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 185-190 cf. 182, suggests tentatively from Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae 943 - 9 4 4 , that there may have been such an increase in the Council's powers under the intermediate regime, but he admits that the case is uncertain and is not helped by the decree of Andron. On the decree of Andron see also Ste. Croix (supra n. 1) 1 6 - 1 7 . " W . S. Ferguson, The Athenian Secretaries, Cornell Studies in CI. Phil. 7 (1898) 1 4 - 2 7 ; cf. Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 134-135; idem (supra n. 1) 126 with n. 93. " T h e decree honoring Pythophanes (l.G. II', 12 = l.G. I', p. 297 = Meiggs/ Lewis No. 80) has a highly irregular prescript but can best be assigned to the rule of the 400, as argued by Ste. Croix (supra n. 1) 17-19. "See Pritchett, CM 108-116, especially 110 (tribes of hellenotamiai till 411), 111 (kolakretai) and 112 (tribes of hellenotamiai from 410). Cf. Rhodes, Athenian Boule (supra n. 24) 99, n. 4. T h e payment to the athlothetai in 415/4 is recorded in l.G. I*, 302, line 57 = Meiggs/Lewis No. 77, line 67. " W . S. Ferguson, The Treasurers of Athena (Cambridge, Mass. 1932) 3 - 7 . T h e most recent study is W. E. Thompson, "The Treasurers of Athena and the other Gods," Hespena 39 (1970) 5 4 - 6 3 . " A . M. Woodward, "Financial Documents from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 32 (1963) 144-155, especially 150.

Constitutional Changes in Athens in 410 B.C.

295

" U . von Wilamowiu-Moellendorff, Aristoteies tmd Athen 2 (Berlin 1893) 2 1 2 216. For additional arguments against this view see K.J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte II 1 , 1 (Strassburg 1914) 397 - 398. Theories about the diobelia are collected and discussed by James J. Buchanan, Theorika: A Study of Monetary Distributions to the Athenian Citizenry during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (Locust Valey, N.Y. 1962) 3 5 - 4 8 . A modified form of Wilamowiu's view, to the effect that the money was distributed to poor citizens only, has been widely accepted, for example, by A. M. Andreades, A History of Greek Public Finance 1 (Harvard 1933) 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 ; Buchanan, loc. at.; Meiggs/Lewis p. 260. " K . J . Beloch, "Zur Finanzgeschichte Athens IV," RhMus 39 (1884) 2 3 9 244; and supra n. 30. " K . J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichie II', 2 (Strassburg 1916) 3 2 1 - 3 2 2 ; A. Andrewes, "The Generals in the H e l l e s p o n t , " / / « 7 3 (1953) 2-9. T h e evidence for the movements of the generals is Xen. Hell. 1.1.8; 1.1.12; 1.1.33-34; 1.2.1-17; 1.4.8-19. "Fornara, supra n. 10. Aristode (AP 61.1) says that the Athenians originally elected the generals one from each tribe but later elected them indiscriminately f r o m all citizens; he does not say when the change took place. Fornara (68-69) rejects Andrewes' inference f r o m Pasiphon's term; but from Xen., HeU. 1.4.10-11 (the election of Alcibiades "in exile" for 407/6 and his curious route to Athens) he infers that the position of Alcibiades and apparendy of Theramenes and Thrasybulus in 409/8 and 408/7 was not "official." But even this inference is insecure; the Athenians had voted the recall of Alcibiades in 411/0 (Thuc. 8.97.3), and therefore Xenophon's description of him as "in exile" in 407 is inaccurate. "See, among other studies, S. Dow, "The Law Codes of Athens," Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 71 (1953-57, published 1959) 3 - 3 6 ; idem, "The Athenian Calendar of Sacrifices: the Chronology of Nikomakhos' Second Term," Historia 9 (1960) 2 7 0 293 (with bibliography); idem, "The Walls Inscribed with Nikomakhos' Law Code," Hesperia 30 (1961) 5 8 - 7 3 . " T h e fact that Polystratus was tried twice for his share in the revolution ([Lysias] 20) does not necessarily imply a change of regime; Athenian prosecutors could find ways of bringing a case into court a second time without waiting for a change of constitution. "See my paper, "The origins of demokratia" in CSCA 6 (1973) 253-295. The fragmentary inscription, I.G. I*, 114, reflects the same spirit as the law of Demophantus; cf. H. T. Wade-Gery, "A Document of the Restored Democracy of 410 B.C. (I.G. I* 114)," CQ 24 (1930) 116-118. " T h e corruption seems to arise from conflation of two alternative versions of the same clause; possibly both versions come from Thucydides. Miss Ruth S. Scodel has suggested to me privately that, if the intermediate regime restricted the right to vote and so the 5000 were a primary assembly, demos may have been a permissible word for that assembly. "Professor W. K. Pritchett kindly read a first draft of this paper and saved me f r o m several errors. I thank him also for the reference to Goodwin (supra n. 14).