[isocrates] adversus euthynum 10

[Isocrates] Adversus Euthynum 10Author(s): W. C. HelmboldSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jul., 1953), pp. 175-176Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/267026 .

Accessed: 20/06/2014 09:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toClassical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.209 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:29:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 175

Brutus will find a telling contrast with ur- banitatis color; Livy was born in Patavium in northern Italy and lived there at least long enough to acquire his now celebrated Patavinitas. (3) In his province Brutus will hear some words not standard at Rome, but among the orators this will not be an important consideration since study can eliminate such words; Livy had quite ob- viously an excellent formal education in Latin, wrote on the rhetoric of which he was a master, and - as many a scholar, ancient and modern, has discovered - purged his vocabulary and idiom of Pata- vinitas to the extent in any case of leaving no trace of it in his Histories. (4) What Brutus will miss among the orators of his province is urbanitas in the way they speak their words; that is what Pollio found wrong with Livy's pronunciation, labeling with his incisive wit what he did hear as Patavinitas. Parallels in the Brutus do not, of course, contribute proof for the case of Livy, but they do emphasize strongly the high probability inherent in, the argument for which Professor Whatmough has al- ready presented evidence.

In sections 42-46 of De orat. 3, Cicero touches on the subject of urbanitas. A passage in 43 merits quotation here: Nostri minus student litteris quam Latini; tamen ex istis quos nostis urbanis in quibus mini- mum est litterarum, nemo est quin litteratis-

simum togatorum omnium, Q. Valerium Soranum, lenitate vocis atque ipso oris pressu et sono facile vincat. Cicero surely could no more have found "Soranitas" in the vocabulary and style of the highly literate Valerius's formal writing than Quintilian or we can detect Patavinitas in Livy's. Yet, in the spoken word, Valerius did not have a degree of urbanitas which could be compared with that of even the most casually educated Roman orator.

It may be noted, also, that the brilliant Spanish colonial Hadrian, whose early education in the Latin language could hardly have been rudimentary however keen his interest may have been in Greek, during his quaestorsbip moved the Roman senate to laughter by the non-urban flavor of his pronunciation: (Spart., Hadr. 3. 1.) Quaesturam gessit Traiano quater et Articu- leio consulibus [i. e., A. D. 101], in qua cum orationem imperatoris in senatu aqrestius pronuntians risus esset, usque ad summam peritiam et facundiam Latinis operam dedit. It would be interesting indeed to know whether his pursuit of urbanitas so com- pletely puirified his pronunciation that the Pollios of his day were deprived of even an occasional inward smile.

ALBERT H. TRAVIS

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Los ANGELES

NOTE

1. "Quemadmoduni Pollio Reprehendit in Livio Pa- tavinitatem?", HSCP, XLIV (1933), 95-130. Cf. HSCP, XLJI (1931), 152; The Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy, II

(1933), 186; AJP, LXII (1941), 378f.; "A Last Word on Patavin2itas", CP, XXXVIII (1943), 205.

[ISOCRATES] AD VERSUS EUTHYNUM 10

NU3v 8' 4xZ.6-epov tv au1o -TO npiyFx. So read two of the manuscripts which con- tain this (probably) spurious little speech; the others, according to Mathieu-Br6mond, omit the verb. It is not impossible that the phrase is interpolated,1 to provide, per- baps, a transition to the following sentence. Even so, it is in need of emendation and a vast crop of suggestions has sprouted in the apparatus of Blass, the Bude editors, and

Van Hook. One might, however, be tempted to think of zpa6-?rpov, except that it does not occur elsewhere in the corpus of Isoc- rates and so would not readily suggest itself to a diasceuast. So perhaps &zpa-mc7-7pov, a favorite word, is what we really need: see 4.41, 10. 5, 12. 144, 15. 78. Another imitator of Isocrates uses the word again inEpp. 8. 7.

It may well be doubted whether Pane- gyricus 188, which the editors follow each

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.209 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:29:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS

other in quoting to prove genuineness, really refers to this work; and it is not too much to add that Aristotle, Rhetoric 2. 19. 14 (1392b 11ff.) does not seem to cite this piece, but a lost production which may have brought about the confection of this harmless work. As for I)iogenes Laertius and Philostratus! One surely cites them for the sake of completeness, not for genuine evidence. And so the external testimony vanishes. Who on internal

criteria, all that is important, would ven- ture to attribute this confection to Isoc- rates ? As for Lysias' supposed answer, the speech itself suggests that Euthynus was to reply. The Lysianic work was doubt- less one of the innumerable exercises (like the Apologia Socratis and the erotic epis- tles) which time has intervened to spare us.

W. C. JTELMBOLD

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

NOTE

1. Interpolations are, to be sure, as commoin in spu- rious works that have onee been joined to a corpus, as in genuinie ones: conisider the situation in the Rhesus or the Octavia or the pseudo-Ovidian Heroides (Jachmann,

Stud. zu Juve?2al, p. 259) or the eighth book of Bellum Gallicusn or the Problemata laid at Aristotle's door, or a dozen more.

THE ACTING GOVERNOR OF CISALPINE GAUL IN 63 B.C.

(SALLUST CAT. 42. 3)

The passage with which we are concern- ed (Sall. Cat. 42. 3) reads as follows: ... "item in citeriore Gallia C. Murena, qui ei provinciae legatus praeerat." The man in question was C. Licinius Murena, brother and legatus of L. Licinius Murena, who had been governor in Gaul in 64/63 B.C. and who had left his brother C. Murena in charge when he himself had gone to Rome to stand in the elections of 63 B.C. for the consulship of 62 B.C. The disturbing point is that Cicero (Mur. 89) speaks of Gallia Transalpina as the province governed by L. Murena and as the province in which C. Murena was to be found in 63 B.C. These are the only two passages which enter into the question, since other references to Murena's province speak only of Gallia or are even less specific than that: Cicero Cat. 2. 5; Mur. 42, 53; Har. resp. 42. Naturally the scholars, presented with a choice between two passages, have chosen to follow Cicero and to assume that Sallust made an error.' Alfred Ernout in his Bude edition of Sallust (1947) wrote ulteriore Gallia in the Latin text and "la Gaule cis- alpine" in the French version. The reader for Classical Philology has kindly called my attention to the fact that M. Cary, in CAH, IX (1]932), 499, note 2, is apparently the only scholar to prefer Sallust on this

point, and Cary moderately says, without giving his reasons for so thinking, that "it is not unlikely that temporarily he [C. Murena] was governor of both the Gauls."

It would seem to me too that both Sal- lust and Cicero were correct and that it is possible to be a little more specific than Cary was. In 1931 in this journal2 J. A. 0. Larsen suggested the strong possibility that Narbonese Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul were both under the command of C. Cal- purnius Piso fronm 67 B.C. down to and through 65 B.C. Sallust's statement would seem to urge us to add another possibility to Mr. Larsen's possibility by suggesting that L. Murena's command was for both provinces in 64 and 63 B.C., for we know otherwise of no governor of Cisalpine Gaul for those years; it would then follow that C. Murena, when left in charge by his brother, administered Cisalpine Gaul as well as Narbonese Gaul. If my possibility is accepted as well as Mr. Larsen's, we can understand that Sallust was trying to be precise because he expected his readers to be puzzled in regard to the legality of C. Murena's functioning in Cisalpine Gaul.

WALTER ALLEN, JR.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.209 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:29:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions