To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Why cantoribus? The reference of the phrase cantores Euphorionis has been much discussed, by the author of this note among others. But what is the sense of cantores? The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Lewis and Short, and the Oxford Latin Dictionary variously classify Tusc. 3.45 as an instance of cantor in the special sense of ‘supporter’, ‘imitator’, or ‘eulogist’. Recently, however, W. Allen suggested that this may be to read too much into the word: ‘… cantor could well have the standard meaning of personal and private recitation of poetry. Since sometime cantare and legere have a semantic identity, however, it may be possible that the word cantores in hi cantores Euphorionis has a meaning no more momentous than that of lector. ’
There was once a man in a certain village in the mountains, who made his living by making up stories, which he used to tell to the people of his village to while away their evenings. One day he went on a journey to a strange village far away in the plains, and there he saw a group of men sitting round another story-teller. Being curious to learn whether his rival was as good a story-teller as he was, he joined the group and listened. He was astonished to find that the story being told was one he had made up himself. So when the story-teller had finished, the man took him aside and said, ‘That was a good story, but it is my story, which I made up, and you must pay me money for it.’ ‘You are wrong,’ said his rival. ‘It is my story, for I made it up myself this morning’.
‘Vergil lässt keinen Zweifel darüber, dass in Wahrheit das Fatum nichts anderes ist als des höchsten Gottes Wille.’ Thus Heinze, apparently following an observation by Seruius auctus, and in turn generally followed by scholars who have subsequently considered the nature of the fata in the Aeneid. But questions concerning the interpretation of the Aeneid are rarely simple; and the question of Jupiter's relationship to the fata may repay further enquiry.
My purpose in this paper is, firstly, to investigate the relationship of the three passages printed below, and, secondly, to illustrate in passing the curious chain of historical accidents which have prevented the truth about that relationship from becoming common lore long ago.
Both patently incorrect readings and long-established emendations have a habit of retaining their places in texts of ancient authors with few or no questions asked. This paper considers two examples of this phenomenon (one of each type) in Book 15 of Diodorus' Bibliotheke.
Hoc tempore velut per universum orbem Romanum, bellicum canentibus bucinis, excitae gentes saevissimae, limites sibi proximos persultabant. Gallias Raetiasque simul Alamanni poputabantur; Sarmatae Pannonias et Quadi; Picti Saxonesque et Scotci, et Attacotti Brittanos aerumnis vexavere continuis; Austoriani Mauricaeque aliae gentes, Africam solito acrius incursabant; Thracias et diripiebant praedatorii globi Gothorum. Persarum rex manus Armeniis iniectabat, eos in suam dicionem ex integro vocare vi nimia properans, sed iniuste, causando, quod post Ioviani excessum, cum quo foedera firmarat et pacem, nihil obstare debebit, quo minus ea recuperaret, quae antea ad maiores suos pertinuisse monstrabat.
A more specific meaning of may be derived from the noun which in the modern Greek dialect of Epirus indicates some type of disease that leaves the scalp at least partially bare of its hair. It is often used with words such as psoriasis, or meaning, possibly, a disease caused by a type of ringworm which destroys the hair of the scalp. At present it is still used in mostly derogatory expressions, or in curses, such as: ‘Psoriasis and ringworm have eaten him up’ or, ‘May psoriasis and ringworm eat you up!’
In the Odyssey, where the word occurs, Odysseus, disguised by Athena as a wretched old beggar, is also deprived of his hair. This may perhaps have caused the inference to the ringworm disease and / or baldness in both passages where the epithet appears in Homer.
additum et praesidium mille legionarii, tres sociorum chohortes duaeque equitum alae, et quo facilius novum regnum tueretur, pars Armeniae, ut cuique finitima, Pharasmani Polemonique et Aristobulo atque Antiocho parere iussae sunt. Corbulo in Syriam abscessit, morte Ummidii legati vacuam ac sibi permissam.
Orestes has revealed himself to Electra and sworn with her to avenge Agamemnon. He outlines his plan and leaves the stage with a prayer to his father, after warning the chorus against indiscretion (581–2). They begin:
Earth nurtures many dread hurts and fears; the sea's embrace is full of monsters hostile to man; lights in mid-air between earth and heaven also harm winged things and things that tread the earth; and one might also tell of the stormy wrath of tempests.
But who could tell of a man's unruly will, and of ruthless woman's unbridled passions, that share her heart with evil powers ruinous to mankind?3 But surpassing all is the wicked female passion whereby wedded union is worsted, among beasts and men alike.
The grammarian Marius Plotius Sacerdos, whose work is to be found in Keil's Grammatici Latini, vi. 427–546, quotes a number of Greek verses, whose authors he does not specify, to illustrate various metres. He derives them from some earlier Greek metrician, whose practice, like Hephaestion's, was to take his examples from the beginnings of poems. In most cases they have been corrupted by copyists who knew no Greek, sometimes so badly that where the verse is not known from another source it can no longer be restored. But unlike corruptions in Greek traditions, they are almost purely visual in nature.
Is there or is there not a reference here to the Megarian Decree? Opinions have differed and no doubt will continue to do so. However, considerable authority has recently been thrown behind the proposition that the matter can be decided on purely linguistic grounds, that merely as a matter of use of Greek the passage cannot contain a reference to the Megarian Decree. This seems, on investigation, to be false, and since confusion appears to persist in the books about the interpretation of Thucydides' text a short discussion may perhaps be of value.
It is likely that most of the decorative techniques employed on bucchero are derived ultimately from metalware. Not only many of the techniques but also some of the motives to be observed on bucchero are found also on impasto pottery. But on impasto they are employed rather at random, whereas bucchero evolves a number of distinctive decorative schemes, which in many cases are related to the shape of the pot. Decoration on early bucchero can be quite lavish, often making use of several techniques together; but some of these, such as rouletting, are discarded by the end of the seventh century, and few survive far into the sixth. Completely plain pots are normal for the sixth century and later, and are by no means unknown even in the earliest period of bucchero production.
SILVERING
Some bucchero pots seem originally to have had a silver overlay covering the entire exterior and, on open shapes, the interior as well. The evidence comes from very small fragments of silver leaf found still attached to the surface. In one instance chemical analysis has shown that the adhesive agent used is a compound of mercury (Ramage, 17f.). The total number of pots which still show these traces is very small, but this may be due to such a fragile surface having perished over the centuries. It may be significant that almost all the bucchero from the Camera degli Alari (Ramage, 39ff.) – one of the very few tomb-chambers found intact – shows evidence of silvering.
Recent studies have helped to make the development of the amphora clearer: Dohrn and Colonna have examined the impasto types; Verzár has tackled the evolution of the later bucchero amphorae.
The amphora of Type 1 is characterized by the conical neck and the ribbon handles from shoulder to rim. There is a clear line of development from the earliest types to the ‘Nikosthenic’ shape, and the latter is in no way derived from the Villanovan biconical urn as once suggested (by Gallatin, AJA 30 (1926), 76ff.).
Types 1a and 1b are often decorated with a double spiral on the body, which has given rise to the term ‘spiral amphora’. These types (especially in impasto) are also sometimes called ‘anfora laziale’, although they are as common on S. Etruscan and Faliscan sites as in Latium.
The typology of the impasto amphora is summarized by Colonna (MEFR 82 (1970), 637ff.). His view is that the shape begins very squat (Type A), the body narrowing to globular during the first half of the seventh century (Type B). The latter type occurs not uncommonly, the narrower and later Type? almost exclusively in bucchero. This agrees well with the later development of the shape in bucchero, where the most noticeable trend is the progressive narrowing and heightening of the body. This in itself would tend to discredit Dohrn's conclusion (Dohrn 1965, 149) that the impasto amphora develops from narrow to broad. Dohrn would place the very broad examples from the Vaccareccia tombs at Veii (Palm, 61ff.: Tomb 1 no.2, Tomb 4 no.8, Tomb 5 no.3 etc.) typologically late in his series.
The earliest bucchero of Cerveteri by far surpasses in quality all pottery previously produced in Central Italy, and indeed in the whole W. Mediterranean area. The production of the thin-walled bucchero of GROUPS 1–3 required careful preparation of the clay, skilled control of firing, and great precision at the wheel. In excellence of technique, as well as in other aspects, favourable comparisons may be made with Protocorinthian pottery. Is it possible that these technical improvements may be due to the presence of immigrant Corinthians at work in Cerveteri workshops? The influence from Corinth can, however, be overstated. In the typological analyses at attempt has been made to trace, where possible, the earlier history of specific types in impasto. By this means one can see bucchero emerging from an earlier native tradition – early bucchero evolving as a gradual refinement of impasto shapes and technique. Moreover the decorative styles and techniques belong for the most part to this same native tradition, with some taken from native metalware. Of the Protocorinthian shapes copied by the earliest bucchero only the kotyle attains real popularity, whereas among purely native shapes there are the amphora Type 1a, jug Type 1a and kyathos Types 1a-c. There is also an Oriental element, which we see most clearly in the oinochoe Type 2a and in the style of the earliest incised animal friezes. It is later – after the middle of the seventh century – that Protocorinthian influence becomes really dominant with the appearance of the olpe, oinochoe Type 3a, cup Type 1c and the later incised friezes.
Bucchero has been called the national pottery of Etruria (H.B.Walters, History of Ancient Pottery ii (London, 1905), 301). In the archaic period it is a common feature of most Etruscan sites, over an area extending from the river Arno in the north to the river Sele south of Salerno. Within this area there are several regional styles of bucchero, of which the S. Etruscan is the first to be established. In this study ‘S. Etruria’ is applied in a narrow sense to that part of Etruria of which the most important centres are Cerveteri, Veii and Tarquinia. Vulci, which is usually described as a city of S. Etruria, belongs, as far as bucchero pottery is concerned, more to Central Etruria, which includes the area around Lake Bolsena and Orvieto and westwards to the coast (see Chapter 5, and FIGS.427–8). Technically the bucchero of Central and N. Etruria and of Etruscan Campania is inferior to that of S. Etruria: the fabric is generally heavy and the shapes less harmonious. Unlike the relief ware of the North, the bucchero of S. Etruria relies to a great extent on shape alone for its visual appeal. It is often pleasing to the eye, and at its best it has a considerable elegance. But quite apart from this its widespread occurrence in deposits of all types makes its study of considerable value for Etruscan chronology.