The first edition of Fuhrmann’s (F.) text of Anaximenes’ Ars Rhetorica was published in 1966. Reviewers commended the thoroughness of that edition, which was the first to utilize fully the extensive third-century B.C. papyrus fragment and two early Latin translations. The most commonly expressed criticism was that F.’s objectives were inconsistent. Between the time of the papyrus and the Byzantine manuscripts, the text was reworked to agree more closely with the Rhetoric of Aristotle. Where the papyrus survives F. gives preference to the earlier text, but elsewhere he is inconsistent, usually presenting the later revision, but sometimes emending or obelizing in an effort to return to the original version.
F.’s second edition doesn’t address those criticisms, because, as he explains in a brief new preface, “toti operi originarium textum ut redderem, me assequi posse non credidi.” As in the first edition, he frequently points out material that he suspects of lateness in his apparatus. The main goal of this new edition is to consider more specific suggestions put forward in reviews of the first edition and in three articles that appeared not long after the first edition was published.1
There are a total of about sixty changes to the text or apparatus between the first and second editions. The great majority consist of new notes in the apparatus arising from the suggestions made by Kassel, Reeve or Zwierlein. The printed text is changed in about thirty places. About half of these changes are the result of suggestions made by those three scholars.2 Perhaps a few of these changes, such as Reeve’s six-word supplement at 64.9, which he offered only as an example of the sort of thing that may be missing, should not have been incorporated in the text. But in such cases, the angle-brackets will alert readers to consult the apparatus. Most of the other changes are the result of F. thinking twice about attempting to improve upon the transmitted text. He often expresses new confidence in manuscript readings, abandoning the editorial additions, deletions, lacunae or daggers that were printed in the first edition.3 In addition to the proposals put forward by Kassel, Reeve and Zwierlein, F. also introduces two new emendations and prints an addition put forward by Schenkeveld in a review of the first edition.4
The prefatio, indexes and stemma codicum insert are unchanged from the first edition.5 Two items have been added to the conspectus commentationum.6 The volume is well produced. The pages of the original edition have been mechanically reproduced and an unobtrusive change in typeface can sometimes be seen in the relatively few lines that were changed for the new edition. I noticed only two minor typos, both of which were introduced in the new edition.7
1. In the order of their appearance: R. Kassel, “Textvorschla+ge zur Rhetorik das Anaximenes,” Philologus 111 (1967) 122-126; O. Zwierlein, “Zum Text der Anaximenes-Rhetorik,” Rheinisches Museum 112 (1969) 72-84; M. D. Reeve, “Notes on Anaximenes’
2. 4.22 (references are to page and line of F.’s text), 18.2, 24.4, 27.15, 30.21, 33.3, 34.4, 45.16, 46.19-20, 52.23-53.2, 62.21, 64.9, 70.16, 70.19, 82.13, 96.16.
3. 25.16, 33.7-8, 37.3-4, 42.8, 49.13, 61.25, 86.23-24, 89.1.
4. 24.1, 72.26-27, 89.23.
5. The entry for
6. Barwick 1966-1967 and Stapleton 1977; the entry for Fuhrmann 1964-1965 has been expanded.