http://www.jstor.orgReview: [untitled]Author(s): John J.

PeradottoReviewed work(
s): Nova fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta by Colin AustinSource: The Ameri
can Journal of Philology, Vol. 91, No. 3, (Jul., 1970), pp. 380-381Published by:
The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29296
7Accessed: 11/07/2008 10:29Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptan
ce of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page
/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in
part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an en
tire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content i
n the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact th
e publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact informatio
n may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup
.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright n
otice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a
not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives fo
r scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and th
e materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes
the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, ple
ase contact support@jstor.org.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. Classical scholars
, however, will find it a reliable and valuable reposi- tory of fact and of docu
mentary and bibliographical information. HUBERT MARTIN, JR. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUC
KY. COLIN AUSTIN, ed. Nova fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta. Berlin, Walte
r de Gruyter & Co., 1968. Pp. 116. DM 20. (Kleine Texte fiir Vorlesungen und Ubu
ngen, 187.) Though certainly still indispensable as a scholarly tool for the stu
dy of Greek tragedy, Nauck's Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta has been rendered in
sufficient by the extensive papyrus finds since its second edition in 1889. The
recent editions of Aeschylean frag- ments by Mette and Lloyd-Jones, and Pearson'
s 1917 edition of the fragments of Sophocles have remedied the deficiency in par
t (though a supplement of Sophoclean papyri fragments discovered since Pearson's
work would be of no inconsiderable service). To these may be added an edition o
f the fragments of the minor tragedians by Snell which should soon be out. But f
or the study of Euripides no aids like these exist. The publication of his fragm
ents is scat- tered, and in some cases the sources are not easily accessible or
are out of print. There have been partial collections since Nauck: von Arnim's S
upplementum Euripideum of 1913 (containing new frag- ments from ten plays), Page
's Loeb Greek Literary Papyri I of 1941 (containing many of the same texts as vo
n Arnim's Supple- mentum plus those which had come to light in the meantime), an
d Snell's 1964 supplement to Nauck (containing new fragments of Euripidean quota
tions in ancient authors). Now there is Austin's work, and, if it does not provi
de us with that much needed single- volume collection of Euripidean fragments, i
t demonstrates the com- bination of patient care, erudition, and good judgment w
hich such a work will require. In the present volume Austin assembles the new pa
pyrus frag- ments of six plays-Archelaus, Cresphontes, Cretes, Erechtheus, Oedip
us, and Telephus-together with the relevant testimonia, loci similes, selected b
ibliography, and the fragments from these plays already known to Nauck, but here
freshly examined. In the first of two appendices, the author includes some shor
t fragments of the Alcmeon and Alcmene, and excerpts from a florilegium in a Flo
ren- tine papyrus; the second appendix contains Euripidean hypotheses preserved
in the papyri. There is also a complete index verborum which brings the concorda
nce of Allen and Italie up to date. The apparatus criticus, at once more economi
cal and more discriminating than Nauck's, includes many fine contributions by Ba
rrett, Kassel, Lloyd-Jones, Page, and Snell. Austin has himself re-examined all
but a few of the papyri in- volved, even the lengthy Erechtheus fragment (Pap. S
orb., 2328) the editio princeps of which he himself published in 1967. The Class
ical scholars, however, will find it a reliable and valuable reposi- tory of fac
t and of documentary and bibliographical information. HUBERT MARTIN, JR. UNIVERS
ITY OF KENTUCKY. COLIN AUSTIN, ed. Nova fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta.
Berlin, Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1968. Pp. 116. DM 20. (Kleine Texte fiir Vorles
ungen und Ubungen, 187.) Though certainly still indispensable as a scholarly too

l for the study of Greek tragedy, Nauck's Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta has bee
n rendered insufficient by the extensive papyrus finds since its second edition
in 1889. The recent editions of Aeschylean frag- ments by Mette and Lloyd-Jones,
and Pearson's 1917 edition of the fragments of Sophocles have remedied the defi
ciency in part (though a supplement of Sophoclean papyri fragments discovered si
nce Pearson's work would be of no inconsiderable service). To these may be added
an edition of the fragments of the minor tragedians by Snell which should soon
be out. But for the study of Euripides no aids like these exist. The publication
of his fragments is scat- tered, and in some cases the sources are not easily a
ccessible or are out of print. There have been partial collections since Nauck:
von Arnim's Supplementum Euripideum of 1913 (containing new frag- ments from ten
plays), Page's Loeb Greek Literary Papyri I of 1941 (containing many of the sam
e texts as von Arnim's Supple- mentum plus those which had come to light in the
meantime), and Snell's 1964 supplement to Nauck (containing new fragments of Eur
ipidean quotations in ancient authors). Now there is Austin's work, and, if it d
oes not provide us with that much needed single- volume collection of Euripidean
fragments, it demonstrates the com- bination of patient care, erudition, and go
od judgment which such a work will require. In the present volume Austin assembl
es the new papyrus frag- ments of six plays-Archelaus, Cresphontes, Cretes, Erec
htheus, Oedipus, and Telephus-together with the relevant testimonia, loci simile
s, selected bibliography, and the fragments from these plays already known to Na
uck, but here freshly examined. In the first of two appendices, the author inclu
des some short fragments of the Alcmeon and Alcmene, and excerpts from a florile
gium in a Floren- tine papyrus; the second appendix contains Euripidean hypothes
es preserved in the papyri. There is also a complete index verborum which brings
the concordance of Allen and Italie up to date. The apparatus criticus, at once
more economical and more discriminating than Nauck's, includes many fine contri
butions by Barrett, Kassel, Lloyd-Jones, Page, and Snell. Austin has himself reexamined all but a few of the papyri in- volved, even the lengthy Erechtheus fra
gment (Pap. Sorb., 2328) the editio princeps of which he himself published in 19
67. The 380 380
REVIBEWS. REVIBEWS. resulting versions are more accurate than most of the editio
nes principes. Cautious and conservative when it comes to restoration, Austin op
enly eschews the lacunaphobia of editors like von Arnim (of whom he remarks: "..
. in lacunis explendis extra fines iustos saepe vagatur novus vates dum versus
totos pro ingenii ubertate ipse factitare gaudet. In Phaethonte rescribendo sati
s effrenate bacehatus est "). Austin's text is the very image of austerity. Thos
e restorations which are plausible but still inconclusive are few, offered as sp
ecimens only, and demurely confined to the apparatus. A few small points of deta
il: P. 13: In dealing with the fragments of the prologue to the Archelaus, Austi
n places Pap. Hamb., 118a after 228N2. He might have mentioned the very plausibl
e suggestion of Stoessl (R.-E., s. v. prologus) that fr. inc. 846N2 (which Austi
n quotes in a note) fits quite reasonably between 228N2 and the Hamburg papyrus
frag- ment. 228N2 mentions Danaus and the fifty Danaids reaching Argos; in 846N2
we learn that Aegyptus and his fifty sons arrive; Hamb., 118a begins with a ref
erence to Lynceus and Hypermestra. P. 28: In 362N2 Erechtheus is offering Poloni
an advice to some- one addressed merely as teknon. Austin follows Wilamowitz in
identifying a grandson, Ion, presumably adopted by Erechtheus, as this teknon. B
ut if Ion had been old enough to succeed to the throne, it is unlikely that Prax
ithea would have failed to mention him in her long speech (360N2) or that she co
uld have said (at lines 22-4) el 3' v v E OLKOtS avr' OqXeLIv UTavXVs apv, . . .
OVK lv vtv T?E7reUov eE s paXr?v Sopds; Webster (The Tragedies of Euripides [19
67], p. 129) supposes that in this play Xuthus is the young adopted son in quest
ion, a suggestion already made thirty years ago by Owen in his edition of the Io
n. P. 49: Among the testimonia for the Cretes, Austin does not include that port
ion of Hyginus, 40 which indicates that Pasiphae's passion was a punishment mete
d out for her long neglect of sacrifice to the goddess-a point which may not be
irrelevant to Euripides' play (see Webster, op. cit., p. 89). But enough of argu
able minutiae so obviously overshadowed by the careful competency and balance of
the whole book, in the face of which one cannot but look forward eagerly to the

author's Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta now in prepa- ration

for the "Kleine Texte " series. JOHN J. PERADOTTO. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
AT BUFFALO. G. J. D. AALDERS H. WZN. Die Theorie der gemischten Verfassung im Al
tertum. Amsterdam, Adolf M. Hakkert, 1968. Pp. vi + 132. Fl. 20. This book outli
nes the origin, history, and development of the "mixed constitution "-a favorite
subject among classical historians and philosophers. There is little emphasis o
n the actual working of resulting versions are more accurate than most of the ed
itiones principes. Cautious and conservative when it comes to restoration, Austi
n openly eschews the lacunaphobia of editors like von Arnim (of whom he remarks:
".. . in lacunis explendis extra fines iustos saepe vagatur novus vates dum ver
sus totos pro ingenii ubertate ipse factitare gaudet. In Phaethonte rescribendo
satis effrenate bacehatus est "). Austin's text is the very image of austerity.
Those restorations which are plausible but still inconclusive are few, offered a
s specimens only, and demurely confined to the apparatus. A few small points of
detail: P. 13: In dealing with the fragments of the prologue to the Archelaus, A
ustin places Pap. Hamb., 118a after 228N2. He might have mentioned the very plau
sible suggestion of Stoessl (R.-E., s. v. prologus) that fr. inc. 846N2 (which A
ustin quotes in a note) fits quite reasonably between 228N2 and the Hamburg papy
rus frag- ment. 228N2 mentions Danaus and the fifty Danaids reaching Argos; in 8
46N2 we learn that Aegyptus and his fifty sons arrive; Hamb., 118a begins with a
reference to Lynceus and Hypermestra. P. 28: In 362N2 Erechtheus is offering Po
lonian advice to some- one addressed merely as teknon. Austin follows Wilamowitz
in identifying a grandson, Ion, presumably adopted by Erechtheus, as this tekno
n. But if Ion had been old enough to succeed to the throne, it is unlikely that
Praxithea would have failed to mention him in her long speech (360N2) or that sh
e could have said (at lines 22-4) el 3' v v E OLKOtS avr' OqXeLIv UTavXVs apv, .
. . OVK lv vtv T?E7reUov eE s paXr?v Sopds; Webster (The Tragedies of Euripides
[1967], p. 129) supposes that in this play Xuthus is the young adopted son in q
uestion, a suggestion already made thirty years ago by Owen in his edition of th
e Ion. P. 49: Among the testimonia for the Cretes, Austin does not include that
portion of Hyginus, 40 which indicates that Pasiphae's passion was a punishment
meted out for her long neglect of sacrifice to the goddess-a point which may not
be irrelevant to Euripides' play (see Webster, op. cit., p. 89). But enough of
arguable minutiae so obviously overshadowed by the careful competency and balanc
e of the whole book, in the face of which one cannot but look forward eagerly to
the author's Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta now in prepa- rat
ion for the "Kleine Texte " series. JOHN J. PERADOTTO. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW Y
ORK AT BUFFALO. G. J. D. AALDERS H. WZN. Die Theorie der gemischten Verfassung i
m Altertum. Amsterdam, Adolf M. Hakkert, 1968. Pp. vi + 132. Fl. 20. This book o
utlines the origin, history, and development of the "mixed constitution "-a favo
rite subject among classical historians and philosophers. There is little emphas
is on the actual working of 381 381