Bryn Mawr Classical Review 02.04.04


Michael Armstrong, Wolfgang Buchwald, and William M. Calder III, Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. Bibliography 1867-1990. Revised and Expanded after Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen and Guenther Klaffenbach. Hildesheim, Munich, and Zurich: Weidmann, 1991. Pp. xii + 166. ISBN 3-615-00062-6. DM 58.


Reviewed by Robert L. Fowler, University of Waterloo.

"We are neither complete nor consistent." Thus the first sentence in the preface, which could be read either as laudable honesty or as an illegitimate attempt to disarm criticism -- for bibliographies should be complete and consistent. But when the editors go on merely to admit missing the odd review (and omitting "every libelous reference to Wilamowitz in every adulatory essay on Friedrich Nietzsche"), no one with experience in work of this kind can blame them. When your subject is someone like Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1848-1931) there will always be addenda (a few are served up below). Anyhow where would addenders be without something to add to? This is a much-needed contribution to Wilamowitz studies, to be greeted with enthusiasm.

The old Wilamowitz-Bibliographie ended in 1929, having been presented to Wilamowitz for his 81st birthday. Although a fine work, it has long needed correction and supplement. The late Wolfgang Buchwald, whose services to Wilamowitz scholarship were many, for years collected material, which his widow passed on to W.M. Calder III. These additions, as well as the continuation of Hiller-Klaffenbach published by Buchwald in the sixth volume of Wilamowitz' Kleine Schriften, have been incorporated here. Calder and many other scholars have made their own contributions. A bibliography of works about Wilamowitz (a mere 27 pages of items) has been added. Reprints and editions of correspondence form the bulk of the material after 1931 -- enough to fill 15 pages, with 13 new publications of letters and documents in 1989 and 1990 alone. The last item is number 992. New also is a very useful index of names, so that you can quickly remind yourself (for instance) where it was that Herr Flach published his impotent and amusing diatribe against Wilamowitz on the subject of the Eudociae Violarium (Pseudo-Eudocia to everybody but Flach). The list of Wilamowitz' lectures and classes has been repeated. (The reader will look in vain for a sabbatical in over fifty years of teaching; finally in 1929 at the age of 81 we meet the blunt and evocative "nicht gelesen".) An important feature of the old bibliography, naturally repeated and updated here, is the revealing "Mitarbeit" sections in which the remarkable extent of Wilamowitz' assistance to other scholars is documented. The old bibliography ended in 1929 with item number 763; the new one ends the year 1929 with item number 825. Taking (pretty well at random) the entry for Aristoteles und Athen (1893) as an example, I found the following differences from the old to the new. Reference to two discussions of the work (that is, of its place within Wilamowitz' life and oeuvre; academic discussions in specialist literature, except for reviews, have obviously been omitted) have been given. Two reviews not mentioned by Hiller-Klaffenbach have been uncovered. A reviewer identified only as "FTR" has been revealed as Franklin T. Richards. ("r." in Historische Zeitschrift still resists identification.) "Rev. instr. publ." turns out to be Revue de l'instruction publique en Belge. We learn that Wilamowitz replied to Eduard Meyer's review and are directed to a discussion of this exchange in the Mnemosyne volume on Meyer. On the other hand I was perplexed to see information about the dedication of the book removed, for this is often significant, as Calder (whose preface is dated "The 142nd Birthday of Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff") has frequently reminded us. Misprints are few in the book, but a confusing one happens to occur in this entry for 1893: "Aristoteles und Athen. 2 vols. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892...)". A check through an entire year revealed a similar degree of industrious tidying-up, including the movement of several misdated items; Hiller-Klaffenbach is now definitely obsolete .

The editors have occasionally included a cross-reference to places where Wilamowitz corrected or reinforced an earlier discussion; this part of the work could be greatly expanded. When a complete index locorum Wilamowitzianus is finally compiled (so as to make "exegesis of an excellence no longer possible available to grateful epigoni", as Calder puts it with characteristic pungency) this task will be very much easier. Wilamowitz changed his mind often, but because his own indexes were so selective it is easy to miss discussions of this or that passage, treated in passing in entirely different contexts. Anyone who has a list of cross-references is encouraged to send it to Calder for inclusion in any future edition. In the margin of my copy of the old bibliography I find that part of "Hieron und Pindaros" in SPAW for 1901 (= Kleine Schriften 6.234-85) was retracted at Sappho und Simonides 147 n. 2, while "Commentariolum grammaticum IV" (Index scholarum...Gottingae, Winter 1889-1890 = Kleine Schriften 4.6 60-96) was modified at Sappho und Simonides 196 and Pindaros 217. (Incidentally I do not see why the individual notes in the "Commentariola grammatica" are not all identified when those in the "Parerga" and the "Lesefruechte" so helpfully are.) A search through the margins of Wilamowitz-books would turn up more but I shall save that for private communication. Other addenda: item 41, "Parerga," Hermes 14 (1879) 161-86 = Kleine Schriften 4.1-23: in parergon 17 read "Anacreon 374, 415 Page, Pindar frag. 128 S-M" for "Anacreon 374 Page"; in parergon 18, after "N. 9.28" add "N. 1.64", and for "frag. 139a-b S-M" (which doesn't exist) read "frag. 128c S-M"; in parergon 19, the author quoted by Seneca is actually the rhetor Dorion, and the attempt to find a verse and attribute it to Philoxenus is problematic to say the least; Page, to whom the reader is referred, does not so much as mention this, so that the reference is unhelpful. Read "'Philoxenus' apud Sen. Suas. 1.12". Items 137 and 220, Euripides Hippolytos griechisch und deutsch and Griechische Tragoedien uebersetzt I: also discussed by B.L. Gildersleeve at AJP 20 (1899) 110. "Mitarbeit" section for 1912: add A. Korte, Hermes 47 (1912) 276-313 (Wilamowitz contributed supplements to the papyrus of Eupolis' Demoi papyrus, fr. 99 Kassel-Austin). "Mitarbeit" section for 1923: add HJF Milne, APF 7 (1923-1924) 3-10 (Wilamowitz contributed supplements to the papyrus of Dionysius' Bassarica). Item 582: Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff's book on Sophocles was reprinted by Weidmann in 1969 and 1977. For reviews, I wonder whether the Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur C: Bibliographie der Rezensionen und Referate (1900- ) has been sufficiently exploited. Not all the reviews of Ilias und Homer listed in this reference work are found in the bibliography, and not all of them will fall under the rubric "ephemeral notices in the popular press" which the editors have omitted on purpose. A review of Aischylos-Interpretationen by Wessely was reported by Hiller-Klaffenbach in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung (1916) 303; the new editors confess "reference not found". IBZ says Wessely's review was in the Allgemeines Literaturblatt for that year, suspiciously on p. 303.

The skepticism which first greeted Calder's efforts to make the history of modern classical scholarship, and more particularly the life of Wilamowitz, objects of study in their own right has been forced to retreat by the explosion of interest world-wide. Why classicists should resist the notion is not clear and could itself form the subject of an historical treatise. No scientist doubts that Einstein's life and thought could usefully occupy a scholar's whole career; no psychologist doubts this for Freud, no historian for von Ranke or Gibbon. Modern historians puzzling over the lunacy of the twentieth century return repeatedly to the fin de siecle but they do not realize as much as they should that classical learning was the commonest cultural denominator of the day. The formation, values, ideals, presuppositions, methods, battles, influence of classical learning's leading exponent become matters of central interest. In Germany of 1877 a young Prussian professor of Classics could celebrate the Kaiser's birthday with a fiery speech "On the Splendor of the Athenian Empire." Why? The answer is not so easy; "nasty German chauvinism" is a racist evasion. For those undisturbed by deconstructionist fancy, the search begins with experiential facts such as those provided in heaps by this excellent bibliography.