Kommentare
25.) Pp. xii + 215. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Cased, €88. ISBN: 3-11-017771-4. text published in: Classical Review 56, 2006, 270-272 THE FLORIDA For
many years, Apuleius’ works other than his novel Metamorphoses
remained rather
neglected by scholars. Particularly his Florida,
a collection of some 23 fragments
from epideictic Latin speeches, were often considered too fragmentary or simply
too exotic for extensive study. However, with the renewed scholarly interest in the
Second Sophistic, even marginal Latin texts such as the Florida
are
now being given
serious attention. To
the already existing standard editions of the text (Helm, Vallette, Augello)
have now
been added translations (notably the English one by John Hilton in S.J. Harrison (ed.),
Apuleius,
Rhetorical work,
translated by S.J. Harrison, J.L. Hilton and V.J.C. Hunink
[Oxford, 2001]) and commentaries. There is a full commentary published by the
author of this review (Apuleius
of Madauros, Florida edited
with a commentary [Amsterdam,
2001]) and a commentary on Florida
16
by A. Toschi (Apuleio Neosoμsta,
Discorso per la sua statua a Carthagine [Parma,
2000]), and recently a new historical
commentary was published by L. La Rocca (il
filosofo e la città, commento storico
ai Florida di Apuleio [Roma,
2005]). Of course, many articles and notices also re·ect
this new interest in Apuleius’ rhetorical works. [p.371] Benjamin
Todd Lee. It is the reworked version of a doctoral thesis at the University of Pennsylvania
which started in 1997 and was completed for publication in the course of
2004. After a brief introduction (35 pp.) and the Latin text (24 pp.) follows a modest
commentary (131 pp.). The volume is concluded with a bibliography and two indexes. In
the Introduction L. discusses the title of the collection, Apuleius’ life and times,
his surviving and lost works, important aspects of the Florida
such
as the date,
the contents and the structure, and the relation with Apuleius’ other works. Epideictic
oratory, Second Sophistic and intertextuality receive attention in separate paragraphs
too, while the manuscript tradition and the manuscript organisation of the
fragments are also discussed. All this is useful enough, but it rarely opens up
new perspectives. The
Latin text is based on the edition of Vallette, except in μfteen places
where a di¶erent
reading has been adopted. On a curious note, L. has printed all instances of incipit
and
explicit
of
the MSS in the main text. Given the fact that the MSS divide this
limited material in no less than four books (an obvious argument to suggest that
the text we have is an extract from a lost original in four books of normal
length), this
leads to an unusual number of extra titles in the text, which do not seem to be
of great
use. In
the commentary, each fragment is introduced by a longer note that analyses the text
as a whole, usually in a few paragraphs (although the longer pieces such as 9,
16 and
18 receive fuller treatment), followed by short notes on individual words and phrases.
Here, L. focusses on elements of textual criticism, idiom and lexicography, while
also explaining di¸cult turns or grammatical points. Realien
are
given attention wherever
necessary and parallel places are provided with due moderation. Generally speaking,
the notes do not enter into signiμcant points of interpretation (literary
or historical),
and secondary literature is largely left out of account. Thus, the notes seem
helpful for a reader who wishes to study the Latin text without losing his or
her way
in a wealth of scholarly material. The modest dimensions of the book add to its practical
usefulness. But
is this enough for a new commentary on this text? I think not. As a writer of a recent
commentary on the Florida,
I acknowledge that my view of this book may be not
entirely impartial and neutral. But I think it is fair to say that a commentator
of any
given ancient text may be expected to be aware of his or her position, to take account
of work previously done and to make clear what he or she intends to add to the
present state of research. L.’s book does not bring any substantial novelties,
either in
terms of method, or in terms of form or content. The book seems to have undergone
little revision since 2000, since it engages hardly at all with Toschi (2000), which
has not even reached the bibliography, or Hunink (2001). At many places, engagement
with the discussions in these two commentaries would seem necessary and
useful. Some examples are Flor.
2.10
pinnarum
remigia (the
eagle’s wings compared
with oars); 2.11 (a highly complex construction where the syntax may be incomplete);
3.10 crines
propenduli (a
special description of hair, which also links this text
to a passage in Met.
5);
9.10 praeco
…
(a long-winded comparison, of which the relevance
is not immediately clear); 9.14 (the problem of a ‘book division’ in the MSS in
the middle of the text of Flor.
9);
and 16.7–9 (the plot, standard themes and stock characters
in New Comedy). If
L. had chosen a markedly different approach, such as La Rocca, the publication of
his book would have been justiμed as a work in its own right. As it is, it
must be [p.371] concluded
that it cannot count as an innovative contribution to Apuleian scholarship. It
may well, none the less, be useful as a work of easy reference for students of
the Latin, offering help on many individual points. latest
changes here:
30-07-2012 16:01 |
|