Pere Fàbregas Salis, Georg Luck (†): A textual commentary on Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book XV. in:

Gnomon, page 504 - 507

GNO, Volume 91 (2019), Issue 6, ISSN: 0017-1417, ISSN online: 0017-1417,

Browse Volumes and Issues: Gnomon

C.H.BECK, München
Bibliographic information
G. Ranocchia: Fleischer, Dionysios von Alexandria 504 dius Claudianus’ In Rufinum, however, is noteworthy inasmuch as it suggests the existence of an Epicurean phase in Claudianus’ early life in the late 4th century AD, when he was living in Alexandria. Here, as elsewhere in the Roman empire, Epicureanism would appear to have died out in Alexandria by the early 5th century AD. In the ‘Summary of Results’,1 F. recapitulates the main outcomes of the book and makes inferences on both the history of Epicureanism in Alexandria and the character of Dionysius᾿ DN. On the one hand, he concludes that there is no hard evidence for any institutionalised Epicurean school in Alexandria. However, the overall evidence suggests uninterrupted Epicurean activities in the city from ca. 300 BC up to ca. AD 400 and Epicurean individuals might have formed circles or networks of some sort at some time during this period. On the other hand, the A. summarises his most important discoveries on Dionysius’ DN, emphasises once again the latter’s special character and assesses its place within early Christian literature, its possible purpose and the role played by this work in the history of anti-Epicurean polemic and philosophical literature. Some fine and humanistic thoughts about the ‘Classical momentum’ of the discussion between materialists and non-materialists mark the end of the book. To sum up, this book is a milestone in the research concerning Dionysius of Alexandria, his DN, the Christian reception of Greek philosophy and the history of Epicureanism. It covers a wide range of historical, philosophical, theological, papyrological, philological and literary topics, which are analysed with acumen and a multi-disciplinary approach. While the (Epicurean) philosophical perspective is predominant, the Classical-philological aspects are never overlooked. The A.’s good arrangement of the material and his clarity of exposition are praiseworthy. The short introductions to each chapter, while suitable for non-specialist readers, sometimes appear too didactic. Various repetitions are detectable here and there. I have found very few orthographic mistakes. In conclusion, F.’s study is of great utility to both scholars of ancient philosophy with an interest in Epicureanism and specialists in patristics, who may especially profit from the chapters on Clement of Alexandria and Origen. This fairly priced book should not be missing from any classical, philosophical or theological library. Rome Graziano Ranocchia Georg Luck (†): A textual commentary on Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book XV. Huelva: Universidad de Huelva 2017. 163 S. (Exemplaria Classica. Anejo. 8.). In its journey through the ages, the last book of Ovid’s met. seems to have suffered more than the rest of the poem. The so-called ‘Lactantian’ branch of the transmission, which preserves a number of true readings and often points out corruption, is almost missing in book 15 (the text is not available in M and N, and U ends at 493). Thus, editors lack an important foundation of the text. So in book 15 it becomes more necessary than anywhere else to investigate the ‘recc.’. It does not strike me as a surprise that someone like Georg Luck, who recognized the depth of interpolation and contamination in this paradosis, chose to work ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 ‘Ergebnisse und Resümee (Teil I und II)’ (451–462). GNOMON 6/91/2019 P. Fàbregas Salis: Luck (†), A textual commentary on Ovid 505 on this particular book. For the same reason, he was more prone than his immediate predecessors to accept conjectures and readings of the ‘recc.’. L. began working on book 15 in 2006 within the research project on the text of met. led by Ramírez de Verger, but he died in 2013 before he could complete the task he had undertaken. But, luckily enough, we can now read a draft of his textual commentary that Ramírez de Verger has prepared for publication, «albeit slightly corrected and with the addition of a select bibliography» (7). The volume begins with a short preface (9–15). In it, L. briefly outlines the particular textual transmission of book 15. He then lists the manuscripts used by Tarrant, Anderson, Magnus and Slater, and remembers the catalogues of Munari (supplemented and corrected by Coulson and Munk Olsen). He also claims, rightly, that the ‘editiones veteres’ can preserve readings of lost MSS. He then assures that neglected manuscripts should definitely be collated for book 15. He lists and makes a few notes on 57 of those ‘neglected’ manuscripts, although 8 of them surprisingly lack book 15. The reader will also find some observations about some MSS scattered through the commentary (e.g. 78–9, 147–8, 213, 363). In a final version of the commentary, these kinds of notes should also appear in the preface, where they would be more helpful. However, I think that L. relied mostly on the data provided by Tarrant, Anderson, Slater, Magnus, Bach and, of course, Heinsius and Burman, and did not collate any manuscripts himself. For instance, at 188 L. regrets that editors are silent about the reading of n, which is caelo (f. 191v). Likewise, L. did not check conflicting reports by editors (e.g. at 357 r, f. 129r, offers niueis … pennis, as Anderson rightly reports; at 363 I read quite clearly in U1, f. 175r, tabuerunt, as stated by Tarrant). In 381 L. considers qualem «a Renaissance conjecture», but Tarrant already documented it in a 12th c. MS (l5, f. 110 v). So there is clearly room for improvement in the collation of manuscripts and in the reports of their reading, but also in the investigation of ‘recc.’. If I counted correctly, there are 351 MSS (excerpta aside) for book 15 and all of them should ideally be collated. After the preface, one finds the commentary (17–154). I cannot review L.’s notes line by line, but I will try to produce a brief specimen of its salient points, but also of its shortcomings. In his review of the OCT text,1 L. regretted that Tarrant did not cite enough conjectures and readings of the ‘recc.’. In this aspect, L.’s book is certainly a step forward, although in some cases further details would be welcome. I offer two examples: 281 L. advocates for bibebantur («Heinsius and Burman ex codd.»), which is not cited either by Anderson or Tarrant. The reading deserves at least a place in the apparatus. However, two clarifications are called for: Heinsius did not edit bibebantur, but Burman did, indicating that the reading was found in «duo Medic.» (Laurentianus 36,8, f. 191v; Laurent. 36,13, f. 45v). Similar cases are those of 157 abstulerint; 713 tenentur. 407 L. rightly defends the conjecture igne of Bach (again ignored by Anderson and Tarrant) instead of the transmitted aede. Igne must refer to the fire of the altar in which the nest of the phoenix is burned according to different testimonia (e.g. Tac. ann. 6.28.5; Plin. nat. 10.4–5; Claud. carm. min. 27.92–6). On the other hand, L. fails to record the reading orbe (not very likely) and to quote Lact. Phoen. 122, which might be used to defend aede. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 ExClass 9, 2015, 249–71, esp. 250. GNOMON 6/91/2019 P. Fàbregas Salis: Luck (†), A textual commentary on Ovid 506 I have chosen these two examples precisely because Tarrant himself admits that he would now mention them.1 But I could have chosen other readings or conjectures that L. rescued from ‘oblivion’ and that seem especially worth considering to me: 93 victusque; 149 validisque; 169 fragilis; 225 fugit/ruit; 276 surgens; 302 quae; 593 de more; 594 en; 627 tabo (it may well be «rectius», as Heinsius put it; but morbo is certainly possible); 649 renuere (this also seems right to me); 684 ter; 723 pacato. However, there are some variant readings and conjectures that were still unfairly left out. For instance: 24 L. merely refers to 33, where the line is almost literally repeated. He should have indicated that Capoferreus wanted to delete both lines 24 and 25 and read in 33 ac ni paruerit, multa ac metuenda minari. There is nothing wrong with 25, but it is fair, I think, to suspect line 24 (I would then read in 33 et, nisi paruerit, multa ac metuenda minari). The development of the story becomes more consistent if the god Hercules only threatens Myscelos once, after Myscelos has refused to obey in the first place. 39 L. supports, as most editors do, the brilliant emendation of Muretus and Scaliger o cui ius caeli bis sex fecere labores (following Burman, he also attributes it to Meursius).2 But he omits two very elegant proposals: one by Bulaeus o cuius caelum bis sex vicere labores (attested in Heinsius’s notes); another one by Heinsius himself o cuius caelum bis sex meruere (or auxere) labores (teste Magno). I think they are both right to regard fecere as corrupt. Gauthier Liberman stands for meruere. Let me support Heinsius’ proposal with ars 2.217–8 ille, fatigata praebendo monstra noverca / qui meruit caelum [Hercules]; Sen. suas. 1.1; Sen. Ag. 811–2 (with Tarrant’s note); Cic. leg. 2.19. Cf. also Val. Fl. 5.38. 236 L. misses the reading lenta … tabe («nonnulli» Heinsius). This is not bad at all. Cf., e.g., 2.807; trist. 5.2.15; Manil. 1.880; Plin. nat. 2.156. However, lenta … morte is probably still to be preferred. 444 L. compares debere with 817, but they are not exact parallels («In dieser Verbindung ohne Parallele», Bömer). See Burman on Val. Fl. 5.21. L. should have mentioned Heinsius’ excellent conjecture se efferre. 610 L. misses the conjectures of Burman populo mirante, populo spectante or nullo prohibente. At any rate, the most important achievement of the book lies in the insightful discussion of many readings, conjectures or difficult places. We get to see a great critic at work, even if one may agree or disagree on this or that particular point. Just a couple of examples: 426–30 I find very compelling his discussion of these lines. If we are to keep them, L.’s reconstruction seems the best option available so far. Line 427 is indeed the weakest one, but the corruption can be explained away, I think: first nec non Cecropiae was altered to nec non Cecropis by analogy with Amphionis; after that an attempt was made to keep the meter by interpolating et and scanning Ce- as short (which is altogether impossible in Ovid): nec non et Cecropis. The reading nec non Cecropiae appears in a Vossianus cited by Heinsius (L. reports it as a Vaticanus), which happens to be our Leidensis B.P. Voss. Lat. Q. 25 (f. 150v) – the reading is actually nec non cycropie. But Heinsius (not Crispinus) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 Tarrant himself has reviewed the book (‘Editing Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Past, Present and Future. Postscript: A New Chapter Begins’, in L. Rivero, Mª C. Álvarez, R. Mª Iglesias, J. A. Estévez (eds.), ‘Vivam! Estudios sobre la obra de Ovidio / Studies on Ovid’s poetry’, Huelva Classical Monographs 10, Huelva 2018, 36–45). L.’s book has also drawn the attention of Gauthier Liberman, who, after reading it, produced some notes that he has very kindly shared with me. 2 But cf. A. Ramírez de Verger, ‘Suum cuique: Editors and Commentators on Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in ‘Vivam!’ op. cit., 81–102: 101–2. GNOMON 6/91/2019 P. Fàbregas Salis: Luck (†), A textual commentary on Ovid 507 argued that 426–30 break the sequence of the transformation of Troy into Rome (424–5, 431). This is a very strong case against the authenticity of the lines, as L. admits. On the other hand, I do not find as compelling his discussion of 502, which Heinsius deleted. L.’s proposal to emend it (finxit me velle for finxit voluisse) is clever, but not a great improvement. But I totally agree on his defence of the less well attested version of 504 arguit immeritumque pater proiecit ab urbe (Heinsius’ text). Finally, let me focus on some entries of L.’s commentary that might look like a mere collection of parallels intended to justify the transmitted text. One might wonder why L. felt the need to do so. In some cases his instincts point out difficulties in the text that may need either to be explained away or corrected. I will produce one example (we could add 444, discussed above): 92–3 Tarrant’s text runs nil te nisi tristia saevo / vulnera dente iuvat. According to OLD it is the sole instance of vulnus (s.v. 1) in the specific sense of ‘wounded flesh’. L. compares tristia … vulnera with 7.849 vulnera saeva and 13.531 crudelia vulnera, which do not remove the difficulty. I thought of viscera or corpora, but they are ruled out by 88–9. G. Liberman (per litt.) brilliantly suggests funera (cf. OLD s.v. funus 2a) and supports it with am. 2.6.41. But the transmitted text might be defended with Petron. 121 vers. 120 concisaque vulnera mande (although Colladonius suggested funera or viscera; viscera is also a proposal by Liberman). Lastly, it is regrettable that the book came out with many misprints (many of them pointed out by Tarrant: see above) and without indexes. One also misses a comprehensive bibliography (that on 157–63 is too ‘select’, in my opinion). To sum up, we can only be grateful that L.’s commentary, though unfinished, did not remain unedited. For the acumen of L.’s textual discussions (see lines 426–30) guarantee that this book will be a crucial and indispensable tool for future editors of book 15, and it will certainly be a stimulus for further thought on the text. However, as I have tried to show, there are still many codices awaiting collation and not every conjecture ever made has been taken into account. Only when editors have at their disposal a complete catalogue of variant readings and conjectures will they be able to produce editions that might claim to be somewhat less provisional than our present ones. Meanwhile, as L. stated in his unforgettable article ‘Textual Criticism Today’,1 «the struggle goes on». Barcelona Pere Fàbregas Salis * Georg Korting: Varus’ Untergang. Textkritische Anmerkungen zu Florus 2,30,34b. Heidelberg: Propylaeum 2017 (online). 174 S. I should say at the outset that this work was sent to me online and that to the best of my knowledge a print version does not currently exist. It does, however, have a cover image, with a reproduction of Florus 2.30.33–34 from Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Class. 31 (B), the second oldest of our manuscripts (s. x1; the oldest is Heidelberg, Pal. Lat. 894 [N; s. ix], one of the two principal manuscripts of the periochae of Livy) and I understand that a print version will follow: it is to be hoped that the many presentational errors in the electronic version (e.g. page numbers missing in ch. 1, hyphenated words in the middle of a line, italic for non-italic and vice-versa, the ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 AJPh 102, 1982, 164–94: 194. GNOMON 6/91/2019

Chapter Preview



As a critical journal for all classical studies, the GNOMON fosters the links between the distinct classical disciplines. It has thus an exceptional position among the classical review journals and allows familiarization with research and publications in neighbouring disciplines. The reviews address an international readership from all fields in classical studies. The GNOMON publishes reviews in German, English, French, Italian and Latin.

The GNOMON is published in eight issues a year.


Der GNOMON pflegt als kritische Zeitschrift für die gesamte Altertumswissenschaft die Verbindung zwischen den verschiedenen Disziplinen der Altertumswissenschaft. Er nimmt dadurch eine Sonderstellung unter den Rezensionsorganen ein und bietet die Möglichkeit, sich über wichtige Forschungen und Publikationen auch in den Nachbarbereichen des eigenen Faches zu orientieren. Die Rezensionen im GNOMON wenden sich an ein internationales Publikum, das aus allen Teilgebieten der Altertumswissenschaft kommt. Die Publikationssprachen im GNOMON sind: Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch, Italienisch und Lateinisch.

Der GNOMON erscheint acht Mal im Jahr.