Greek Lyric I ed. by D.A. Campbell (review)

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 369 age, to the monastic life, thus piously foregoing future joy from them. All such aberrations against the natural unity of the family are illustrated by Lambert, who covers familiar ground without startling the reader by novel insights. Indeed he chooses, wherever possible, to let his sources, ancient and modern, speak for him, with the result that verbatim quotation constitutes about half of the text. This procedure is defended (56, n. 7) by a quotation from A. O. Lovejoy, and since the booklet is directed at a general audience, to have the ancient sources presented rather fully in translation is probably useful. But often the quoting from r.1odern sources seems less than necessary. On the whole. however, this essay makes not unpleasant reading. At its start and finish the author draws a parallel between the Christian affronts to family-ties and those engendered by the teachings of certain modern cults, which likewise advocate pursuit of a lIhigherll way. And we can thank Lambert for reminding us that perversity, sanctioned by a rei igion, may become piety if that religion gains, through growth and official recognition, respectability. BROCK UNIVERSITY ALAN D. BOOTH D.A. CAMPBELL (ed.). Greek Lyric I. Loeb Classical Library no. 142. Cambridge, Mass. and London, Harvard University Press, 1982. Pp. xix + 492. ISBN 0-674-99157-5. The first volume of D. A. Campbell's Greek Lyric, prepared since 1977 but held back for want of funds, has now appeared. Subsequent volumes will complete the replacement of J. M. Edmonds' Lyra Graeca. Edmonds' rich collection of testimonia made his edition useful, but his wild supplements to the text - Lobel called the dialect "Triballian ll (~ 36 [1922] 121) - caused scholars generally to ignore the work. Campbell has kept the testimonia but, of course, looked to other models for the text. In the testimonia too he has introduced 370 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS changes by arranging the material conveniently under headings ("biography ", "metre", "ancient editions", etc.) and relegating to footnotes notices that merely repeat other sources' information. The text and apparatus are judiciously constituted on the basis of the two standard editions, DoL. Page's and E. Lobel's Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta (1955) and E.-M. Voigt's Sappho et Alcaeus (1971), though Campbell is slave to neither 0 Numeration follows the former as far as possible. The apparatus could have been much briefer than it is, since in an edition of this kind it might be argued that recording credits for supplements or noting parallel citations in the lexicographers serves no purpose. However, Campbell has pitched the whole book at a higher level than is normal in the Loeb series. For Sappho and Alcaeus, and for this day and age, this pol icy is probably best; we now have an ideal introduction, particularly suited to graduate students, to the more difficult aspects of this field of scholarship. The scraps of papyrus commentary are faithfully reproduced, and every possible word translated, as well as the full context in all quoting authors: material that can easily be overlooked or imperfectly comprehended 0 For his supplements, Campbell chooses from existing suggestions. Occasionally what is printed in the text is too bold, for example at Sappho fr. 1.19, which is a notorious crux and can only be daggered. A few notes on the text. At Sappho fro 96.8, Page was perverse to deny that UEA.a.vva should be adopted (Sappho and Alcaeus, 90); it is a case like the one where Haupt would have written "Constantinopolitanus" for "0 ", should the sense demand it. Campbell rightly follows Voigt. Sappho fr 0 112: ever since Weil wrested the last three verses from a passage in a sixth-century orator, all editors have followed him, even Lobel. The fifth verse, however, will not do; apart from the offensive position of the enclitic, there is a resultative perfect; see J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen uber ~~~f~:t~~ 1(;~04ji~h :~~~~e~c~e~~~:~c~i.;~O~isf{~~u~~~reZUh: ~~i:l~h ~~:~I~ rrcarrywrth this passage (po 1007). His formulation of the rule is unimpeachable; a papyrus now allows emendation of an apparent exception at Tyrtaeus fr. 2013 West (cf. M...