Über Ciceros "Somnium Scipionis" by Richard Harder

Review by: Paul Shorey

Classical Philology, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1930), pp. 211-212
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/262728 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 04:58

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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of 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 to
Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 04:58:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BOOK REVIEWS 211

Love of Nature among the Greeks and Romans. By HENRY RUSHTON

FAIRCLOUGH."Our Debt to Greece and Rome Series." New
York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1930.
ProfessorFaircloughwas designatedand preparedfor the writingof this
book by his dissertationon TheAttitudeof theGreekTragedianstowardNature
(Toronto, 1897). He has read widely both in the originaltexts and in the
modernliteratureof the subject, has gathereda great deal of material,and
has made an interestingas well as a usefulbook. The themehas been abund-
antly discussed,as his own Bibliographyamply shows, and there was little
that is new left to be said by the authoror his reviewers. If I were required
to criticizeI could only say that ProfessorFaircloughprotests with unnec-
essary emphasisagainst the outworncommonplacethat the ancientswerein-
sensitive to the beauty of nature, and that his enthusiasmfor his subject
sometimestempts him to enlist in its service all his admirations. It may be
true in some esotericsense that "the Parthenonsculpturesfurnishthe most
convincingevidence we can present of the Greek love and enthusiasmfor
nature." But if so, this sentimentmay be stretchedto cover the entire cult
of beauty in the philosophyof Plato and in ancientliteratureand art. Is it
certainthat laetassegetesin Georgicsi. 1 really means that the harvestswere
happy in the romanticand Wordsworthiansense? But wherethe resultis so
pleasing,why cavil for a strict and literal relevancy?
PAUL SHOREY

Uber Ciceros "Somnium Scipionis." Von RICHARD HARDER."Schrift-

en der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft" (6. Jahr), Heft 3.
Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1929.
Here are thirty-six large pages of commentarywith learned footnotes
on the eleven small pages of Cicero's Dreamof Scipio. ProfessorHarder
rightlyrecognizesthe essentialdependenceon Plato, and disclaimsthe inten-
tion of attemptingfurtherinvestigationof Cicero'ssources. What he gives
is primarilya close analysis of the courseof thought in Cicero,with indica-
tions of the divergencesfrom Plato and some speculationas to the reasons
for them. The philologian'sfaith in the unlimitedpower of Analyse, how-
ever, soon involves him in what I am unable to distinguishfrom Quellen-
forschung,but which he would perhapsdistinguishby the fact that 2hedoes
not attempt to name the intermediariesbetween Ciceroand Plato. He be-
lieves that the two pages on the vanity of fame (12-18) are a Hellenistic
declamationincorporatedin the main argument by Cicero so awkwardly
that we can detect the junctures. For example,the words (16) "in quo vix
dicere audeo quam multa hominumsaecula teneantur,"said of the magnus
annus,he thinks a rhetoricalevasion unsuitableto the personof Scipio, and
so betrayingCicero'sundigestedsource. Perhaps. But in view of Cicero's

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 04:58:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
212 BOOK REVIEWS

personal preoccupation with fame, and his observations in the poet Archias,
I see no reason why he could not himself have extemporized these reflections
with no further inspiration than his memories of Plato Rep. 486 A and
Theaetet. 174 D ff., neither of which is mentioned, I believe, in Harder's
notes. Similarly I feel no need to look beyond Cicero's owni personality for
the higher place, compared with Plato, which he assigns to the life of the
statesman, that is, to the practical as opposed to the theoretic life. Plato
himself, as Harder points out, sometimes, as e.g. Symp. 209 A, seems to as-
sign the highest place to the (philosophic) statesman. But it is a mistake
to find this idea in Phaedo 82 A, which is ironical. The 7roXtTLKIalperry there is
the unphilosophic virtue of the ordinary citizen, as indicated more explic-
itly by the qualification 7roXLTLK7VYEin Rep. 430 C.
In general, my only criticism of Harder would be this, that he is over-
confident in the powers of sheer philological analysis. On page 125, note 1,
he undertakes to tell us precisely how Cicero (18 in fine) mistranslated a
sentence of a hypothetical lost Greek source.' The student who so chooses,
however, may disregard these ingenuities of speculation anid profit by the
wealth of interesting illustration collected in the footnotes. They are not
absolutely exhaustive. I find, for example, nothing on parallels with Lu-
cretius and on the astrology which Professor Murray discovers in the piece.
PAUL SHOREY

Lucian, Satirist and Artist. By FRANCIS G. ALLINSON."Debt to

Greece and Rome Series." Boston: Marshall Jones Co., 1926.
Pp. ix+204. $1.75.
The firstfourshortchaptersarein a senseintroductory.In the firstthree
are presentedthe essentialfacts about Lucian'speriodand life and his impor-
tance for our twentieth century. The "naturalborn ally for the Humanists
againstthe Obscurantists"(p. 12)is a worthyfoe of charlatanismin any age-
that of the Antoninesor our own. Chapteriv containsa briefgeneralsurvey
of the style and techniqueof the satirist.
In chaptersv and vi we have a presentationof the satirists' attitude to-
wardphilosophyand ethics and the supernatural.Underthe latter head are
groupedthe gods,the appliedsuperstitutionof the day, and Christianity.The
chapteron philosoplhy may be confusingto the lay readerto whomthe various
sects will mean but little. This could hardly have been preventedwithout
enlargingthe scopeof the book. Chaptervii demonstratesLucian'sskill as an
artist in dramaticdialogue,as a creatorof definiteliterary types (e.g., the
misanthrope),as a master of polemic,as a fascinatingstory-teller. For this
I If the alleged defects in the logic require us to guess, my guess would emend in
the first clause the two accusatives mundum and mortalem to nominatives thus: "et
ut mundus ex quadam parte mortalis ipse deus aeternus, sic fragile corpus animus
sempiternus movet."

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 04:58:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions