Notices: Reality. (Papersfrom The Norwegian Institute at Athens3.) Pp. 178

NOTICES
B. L  : The Odyssey: Structure, Narration, and Meaning. Pp. xviii

+ 182. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1999. Cased, £30. ISBN: 0-8018-6058-X.
L. argues that the Odyssey is informed by an overarching narrative pattern, awareness of which
can enhance our appreciation of the text. In Chapter I the pattern itself is introduced: Odysseus
arrives on an island where he is faced with a powerful female µgure and a band of aggressive
young men. While Odysseus wins over the female character, the young men are killed with
divine approval (p. 2). The sequence recurs three times, on Scheria, Aiaia, and Ithaca. Chapters
II–V develop some implications this may have for our reading of the epic, focusing µrst on two
pairs of characters—Elpenor–Leiodes (Chapter II) and Alcinous–Eumaeus (Chapter III)—
before moving on to a discussion of divine punishment in the Odyssey and its apocalyptic
overtones (Chapter IV). Finally, L. contrasts Circe, whom he sees as standing within the larger
pattern, with Calypso, whom he locates outside it (Chapter V).
Much of L.’s argument has been published already (cf. Chapter I = GRBS 34 [1993], 5–33,
Chapter III = Phoenix 51 [1997], 95–114, Chapter V = CA 12 [1993], 21–38), and even where he
promises to break new ground he is not always as original as he claims to be (e.g. Chapter IV,
where Au¶arth’s recent work on parallels between Middle Eastern apocalypse and the Odyssey is
not acknowledged). His overall approach is useful, and in Chapters II–V he manages to con-
tribute some valuable readings (e.g. pp. 69–94 on πµ0ψ). However, L.’s results are increasingly
undermined by poorly contextualized comparisons with biblical material (e.g. pp. 109, 121). The
sacred text of Jews and Christians gives way to that of their self-proclaimed successors when by
the end of the book L.’s narrative pattern turns out to be ‘something of a genetic code’ (p. 130).
Rhetoric of this kind may appeal to some of L.’s readers; but I suspect that it will not convince
everyone.
Girton College JOHANNES HAUBOLD
Ø. A , M. D (edd.): Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition,

Reality. (Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 3.) Pp. 178.
Bergen: P. Åstrom, 1995. Paper. ISBN: 82-991411-9-2.
This conference volume contains ten essays on Homer, mostly by established Homer scholars
from around the world. The volume broadly progresses from questions of realia, dating, and
historicity to literary issues. It opens with Carla Antonaccio’s discussion of a tenth-century ..
heroic burial site at Lefkandi. The site doubtless predates the Iliad and Odyssey as we have
them, but to say that it predates ‘any possible circulation of Homeric poetry’ (p. 20) is an
awkward generalization. M. Dickie’s paper uses the evidence of geography and peoples to argue
for the date of Homer. He suggests the second or µrst half of the seventh century, but rules out
an earlier date. W. Kullmann outlines the projection of a seventh-century social and political
reality into the narrative of the Trojan war. Tilman Krischer examines how heterogeneous
thematic elements of sea voyages and land-based rivalries are bound together in the Trojan
Saga, linking broadly historical realities and poetic µctions. Phanis Kakridis compares and
contrasts the µgures of Odysseus and Palamedes, two closely linked rival heroes, ‘geistigen
Helden’ who put their intellectual ability to use. The evidence for the µrst nine years of µghting
at Troy is gathered by Peter Jones. Homer, he argues (by a somewhat circular argument), is
reconstructing the war according to his own agenda, and focusing on the last year, ‘for there, in
the µghting prowess of Achilles . . . lie the seeds of his version of the Iliad’ (p. 109). Malcolm
Willcock examines the importance of Iliad Book 8. Commentators and commentaries µght it
out in this piece, and some wonderfully silly comments (e.g. by Kirk) are exposed. The sources
of the Nekuia are discussed in Odysseus Tsagarakis’s contribution. Nanno Marinatos uses
van Gennep’s familiar concept of liminality to study Circe. Finally, Gordon Howie’s paper asks
© Oxford University Press, 2000

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universitaetsbibliothek Duisburg-Essen, on 30 Jun 2018 at 14:07:17, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00104056
570          
‘whether Homer intended his audience to learn from his picture of the heroic past’ (p. 141).
Actually, this paper is a little less curious than might seem from its opening question.
This collection of essays does, as its subtitle suggests, study aspects of Homer’s ‘Fiction,
Tradition, Reality’, though its contents are somewhat un-adventurous. The book boasts only a
token prefatory note but no introduction, no index, and no shared bibliography.
Northwestern University A. KAHANE
M. J. A     : The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and

Art (Oxford Classical Monographs). Pp. xii + 283, 23 ills. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997. Cased, £40. ISBN: 0-19-815064-4.
This book does two things: it surveys the representation of the sack of Troy in early Greek
literature, particularly the Epic Cycle, and to a lesser extent in art, and through this it presents
a methodology for studying early Greek myth. A. looks for correlations within and between
myths focusing on three principles: narrative continuity, compositional similarity, and allusion
between di¶erent myths (pp. 14¶.). Reasonably, A. suggests that these patterns may re·ect the
conventions of oral poetry.
There are three sections: the µrst (‘The Ilioupersis as Focal Point within the Trojan Saga’) is a
general survey, focusing on the Epic Cycle; the second (‘Tragic Images of the Ilioupersis’) deals
with the use of the theme in tragedy, including not just the expected Hecuba and Troades, but the
Oresteia and the Andromache; and the third (‘Ilioupersis Iconography’) is a comparatively brief
survey of the iconography. The issue of methodology is dealt with only in the comparatively brief
introduction; perhaps more space could have been devoted to these; for example, quite often, A.
argues that an episode in the Iliad or Odyssey should be read in the light of the Epic Cycle, and
deploys a neo-analytic position which I µnd wholly plausible; but a more sustained defence of it
might have been useful for the beneµt of readers who do not buy the neo-analytic line.
Most of the detailed readings of myths work very well, whether the correlations he is dealing
with are relatively obvious (e.g. the con·ict between Neoptolemus and Eurypylus echoes that
between Achilles and Memnon, and in a di¶erent way that between Achilles and Eurypylus’
father Telephus) or less obvious (e.g. the rape of Cassandra echoes the earlier rape of Chryseis at
Thisbe). Occasionally, I felt that A. might have pushed the correlations too far, e.g. apropos of
Euripides’ Andromache in Section 2; while A. successfully unpacks a lot of Ilioupersis imagery
within the play I still feel that it is an exaggeration to claim as A. does (p. 154) that the play
‘re-enacts the fortunes of the family of Priam’.
I might best illustrate A.’s method by focusing on one theme inevitably central to a book on the
fall of Troy, where A. excels, and that is the death of Priam at the hands of Neoptolemus. A.
argues Homer knows the Ilioupersis, and the detail that Priam dies at the altar of Zeus Herkeios
(the problem with this is Iliad 22.59–71, where Priam imagines himself being killed at the gates of
his house instead of the altar; A. explains this as a deliberate suppression); that the episode of
Priam’s supplication in Iliad 24 implies a contrast with the later vicious behaviour of Neotolemus
toward the suppliant Priam; and that condemnation of Neoptolemus is also implied in Od.
11.530–5, where Odysseus tries his best to stress the positive in his dialogue with Achilles, but
admits that Neoptolemus was unreasonably violent. All of this I found persuasive. I was less
convinced by the idea that there is an allusion to the same myth at Od. 22.334–6, where Phemios
considers whether to ·ee to the altar of Zeus Herkeios or fall at Odysseus’ knees (p. 91). A.
explores similar patterns in art (his remarks are now to be read in conjunction with Pipili’s
discussion of Ilioupersis in LIMC 8 [supplement], which appeared in the same year). On two
iconographical representations of the death of Priam (a red-µgure cup by the Oltos painter
and the Vivenzio Hydra of the Kleophrades Painter), a palm tree stands behind the murder,
which A., brilliantly adapting the work of Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood on the symbolism
of palm trees, thinks may represent Apollo’s future revenge. Equally interesting, though for me
less convincing, is the discussion of Polygnotus’ Iliou Persis in the Cnidian Leskhe described
by Pausanias (pp. 250–1); Polygnotus depicted Neoptolemus in the act of killing two minor
Trojans, but omitted the Priamoktonia; A. argues that Polygnotus nevertheless comments on the
Priamoktonia by putting Neoptolemus close to an altar where Laodike, wife of Helikaon, is
seeking supplication. For me, the idea that the altar is supposed to suggest the Priamoktonia
seems too recherché, and surely the lack of reference to the Priamoktonia is the striking thing;

          571
Polygnotus has chosen to omit the one act Neoptolemus was most famous for (thus the Iliou
Persis is more of a Seventh Nemean than a Sixth Paean).
But this is a detail. All in all this is a learned, innovative, and thought-provoking book, and one
which through the methodology it presents successfully elucidates and µnds new meanings in its
target-texts and images.
University of Reading IAN RUTHERFORD
K. D: Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. (Albert Bates

Lord Studies in Oral Tradition 16; Garland Reference Library of the
Humanities 1923.) Pp. ix + 254, µgs. New York and London: Garland
Publishing, Inc., 1995. Cased, $39. ISBN: 0-8153-2073-6.
This book is a study of Nestor as an icon of epic memory and narration. The subject well merits
an extended study. Dickson’s suggestion is that Nestor is a particularly powerful (and in part
generic) representation of a counseling elder and mediator, and a kind of aoidos in his own
right. For example, when Nestor tells how once, in Peleus’ house, he described ‘the generation
and parentage of all the Argives’ (Iliad 7.128) he is, D. claims, e¶ectively recapitulating the
storyteller’s feat in the catalogue. In fact, since Nestor was there, ‘the old man’s inventory is
the authoritative one’, and his recollection is both a case of analepsis (a ·ashback in time)
and prolepsis (a foreshadowing of the Homeric narrator’s catalogue; see pp. 72–3). D. notes
Nestor’s mediating rôle as intercessor and host, as well as the deep ambivalence of Nestor’s
character—both an authoritative counselor and a loquacious detainer. He rightly links this to
the known ambiguity of epic kleos itself (which is part immortal truth, part passing rumor).
The overall structure of this book is clear, but the arguments within each chapter are on some
occasions loose and digressive. Footnoting could have been made more concise. Formulaic
analysis is very detailed, perhaps even overly so, given the ease with which readers can follow up
such matters today with the aid of electronic texts and search engines. There is heavy reliance on
‘high structuralist’ 1970’s style narratology (for recent developments in the µeld see, for example,
D. Herman [ed.], Narratologies [Columbus, 1999], with contributions by Rimmon-Kenan,
Chatman, and others). The book begins by promising to show a link between Thamyris and
Nestor, claiming that ‘what structures their relation is the issue of authority in oral narrative
traditions’ (p. 9), but somewhere along the line Thamyris’ importance seems to wane. I would
have wanted to know more. D. o¶ers some useful thoughts in the conclusion (esp. pp. 219–23) on
the issue of why Nestor’s character and epic itself are such ambiguous constructs with regard to
authority. His answer contributes to an important line of argument that views instances of
slippage, e.g. between authoritative truth and rumor, as evidence for the inexpressible di¶erence
which is at the heart of representation, poetry, and language itself.
M. L. S    : Il serpente e le sue immagini: Il motivo del

serpente nella poesia greca dall’ Iliade all’ Orestea. Pp. 205. Como:
Edizioni New Press, 1997. Paper, L. 40,000.
This book is the author’s dissertation (Marburg, 1994). Sancassano goes through Homer’s
Iliad book by book, through Hesiod’s Theogony, through various lyric poets, and, of course,
through Aeschylus, marking and classifying occurrences of drakon, ophis, hydros, and echidna,
and commenting on various aspects of the imagery and interpretation. There are sections
on man–serpent similes, serpents and portents, serpents and life, the poikilos serpent, oriental
parallels to the Hesiodean representation, Orestes and the serpent, various excursuses, one and
a half pages in the conclusion on serpents and women, etc. Ultimately S. distinguishes between
two conceptions attested in early Greek literature: the µrst is Iliadic and broadly neutral in the
moral sense, the second, which is Hesiodic, plays out the Chthonic/Olympic opposition and
generally views the gêgenês in negative terms. These conceptions, S. suggests, deµne the terms of
subsequent serpent imagery in Greek literature. But this idea is more of an afterthought than an

572          
active guiding thesis. A general index and an index locorum would have made this book
somewhat more useful.
G. W  : Telemachs Reise: Väter und Söhne in Ilias und Odyssee

oder ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Männlichkeitsideologie in der
homerischen Welt. (Hypomnemata. Untersuchungen zur Antike
und zu ihrem Nachleben 124.) Pp. 170. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1999. Paper, DM 58. ISBN: 3-525-25221-8.
W. begins this valuable study by locating the period for which the image of the father–son
relationship presented by the Homeric poems was a re·ection of reality. This, he argues, was the
age of Homer and his audience in the late eighth century (he ignores later datings of the
Odyssey), for social structures presented by the epics as a self-evident background for judging
the main action must be common ground between the poet and his audience. This is good sense,
corroborated by the fact that the same situation is observable in the case of institutions like
xenia and hiketeia, which we know lived on, in precisely the form in which Homer presents
them, until better documented times in Greek history.
Reasonably, too, W. wishes to reintroduce the themes of the father–son relationship and
patriarchy after their comparative relegation by gender studies. After all, he points out, women’s
virtue was determined by the male viewpoint, though he admits that Penelope stands out because
she shapes her fate with a woman’s ‘weapons’. Given the sexual asymmetry, he rightly argues, the
range of emotions between males is correspondingly greater than between males and females;
and this will be true between fathers and sons as well.
W. sees an inherent tension in the relations between Homeric fathers and sons in that the world
of a father can only live on in his son, while for his part the son must remain subordinate to his
father, but at the same time mature and replace his father in order to become a father himself. This
physical father–son relationship feeds and is fed by the pressures of the patriarchal hierarchy
dominant in the society of the poems. It is the main thrust of his book that the Iliad lays bare and
criticizes this situation, and the Odyssey, whether by the same author or not, develops an ideal
articulation of the system.
For the Iliad, W. can fairly point to Hektor as an actual son and father as well as a father-µgure
to Paris, whom he sees as challenging the patriarchal system in his uxoriousness, to Helen and
Hekabe, who represent a threat to his patriarchal heroism, and Andromache. Whether Achilles’
and Agamemnon’s quarrel is to be viewed as so extensively informed by the tensions inherent in
the patriarchy is perhaps less secure, though few would disagree that this is at least part of the
problem. Achilles’ relationship with his actual father, with all Achilles’ guilt, shame, and longing,
is given surprisingly short shrift, despite its cardinal rôle in the meeting of Priam and Achilles.
And the constraints of honour, shame, a¶ection, and fair play, which arguably form the main
tension facing the heroes and their dependants in the Iliad, are considered hardly at all, let alone
their function within the patriarchal society or the father–son relationship. Nonetheless, W.
succeeds in drawing attention to excessive assertion or rejection of the patriarchal principle as
major preoccupations of the Iliad and as major determinants of its plot.
W.’s treatment of the Odyssey, where a three-generational family of fathers and sons partici-
pates directly in the plot right through to the moment of family-solidarity when grandfather, son,
and grandson present a united front against their enemies, naturally concentrates more on actual
rather than metaphorical fathers and sons. Here the overriding tension is between the principle of
generational decay, as announced by Athene/Mentor at 2.274–7, and the son’s need to prove
himself by the standards of his father; W.’s examination of the theme is particularly useful.
His discussion of Odysseus’ testing of Laertes successfully explains Odysseus’ motives on the
simple grounds of realism given the twenty-year separation, and satisfyingly elaborates the
appropriateness of the scar and the orchard-trees by which Odysseus, as the tested party, can
prove his identity, for they are emblems of his initiation and inheritance. Also, W.’s account of
Telemachus’ journey, the titular theme, is full of excellent insights, tracing Telemachus’ growth to
emotional and intellectual as well as physical maturity through his skilful deployment of xenia
and through his conµrmation by his various hosts as the son of Odysseus, and concluding with
his ideally respectful partnership with his father. The concluding contention that the Odyssey was

          573
a response to its society’s needs for solutions to contradictory claims to power, illustrating
paradigmatically the need for recognition of the ‘good’ basileus, unfortunately requires more
argumentation than is provided to carry conviction.
University of Canterbury, New Zealand G. ZANKER
O. P : Le langage de Simonide: Étude sur la tradition poétique

et son renouvellement. (Sapheneia 1.) Pp. 686. Bern, etc.: Peter Lang,
1997. Cased, £43. ISBN: 3-906757-32-3.
This book, a revised version of a thesis written at the University of Fribourg, o¶ers a study of
the poetic vocabulary of Simonides. It takes as its avowed model Ernst Risch’s Wortbildung der
homerischen Sprache (Berlin, 1974), and for the most part organizes the material in terms
of word-formation: µrst the nominal su¸xes, then nominal compounds, followed by a brief
section on compound verbs. It will be evident that verbs get very short shrift, which is a striking
departure from the model; but even nouns and adjectives are not comprehensively covered, so
that there is no question of an overall conspectus of the language of Simonides. Given the
meagre extent of the extant remains of the poet, this seems an odd decision. But then it is far
from clear why this principle of organization was adopted in the µrst place, since there is in the
end remarkably little about word-formation as such (discussion is principally conµned to the
neologisms, of which there are in fact few except among the compounds), and the emphasis is
very much more on other aspects of the words under consideration.
In relation to each word lemmatized, P. gives a complete list of the attestations in Simonides,
together with a thorough discussion of readings and possible restorations, o¶ering a few
suggestions of his own, such as a correction νεττ ρι in West 15.1 or a restoration ξ λυψσ in West
60.5. He then reports the uses of the word in earlier poetry, in respect of both its basic meaning
and its collocation with other items, and then does the same for contemporary and later poetry.
This gives rise to a number of interesting observations on continuations of epic phraseology,
developments in the range of usage of individual terms, and the extent to which Simonides shares
new trends with Bacchylides and Pindar especially. In this respect the book does indeed a¶ord
what its subtitle promises—a study of the poetic tradition and its renewal—and the conclusion
draws together the more important examples discussed separately on the way.
Two chapters deal with problems of morphology and dialect, and here the paucity of material
makes itself felt: for the inµnitive of ‘to be’, Simonides uses ννεξαι twice and ννεξ once in lyric
passages, but εξαι once in an elegiac fragment—a distribution according to genre certainly, but
how signiµcant can such µgures be? Similarly there is one instance of the feminine participle in
-οιτα, so characteristic of much choral lyric, in [Pi.] fr. 107a.6 (a fragment that P. would claim
for Simonides), but a form in -οφτα is transmitted in PMG 600: usage can hardly be determined
on the basis of such skimpy evidence as this. It is claimed that µrst declension genitive plurals
in -αψξ are characteristic of elegiac poems (three examples given), those in -αξ of lyrics (six
examples), but one of the three examples of elegiac -αψξ is in PMG 612, which is designated as
elegiac by P. precisely because of the genitive form, and there is also lyric ρφτι0ψξ in PMG 519
fr. 73c.2. Frustration is inevitable: P. usefully collects the relevant forms, and does his best to make
sense of them, but his main conclusion is a warning against supposing any uniformity.
There are three fairly hefty appendices, one on prosodic and metrical problems, one on the
corrupt text of PMG 579.3, and a lexicon of proper names. An index verborum together with an
index locorum make the volume easy to use, and there is an admirable bibliography.
Wolfson College, Oxford J. H. W. PENNEY
G. C    : Parmenide di Elea. Poema sulla Natura (BUR Classici Greci

e Latini). Pp 295. Milan: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 1999. Paper,
L. 18,000. ISBN: 88-17-17297-9.
C. o¶ers Italian readers a Greek text of Parmenides’ fragments with translation and detailed
commentary. These are prefaced by a long introduction, brief samples of the work of a small
selection of modern critics from Zeller to Patricia Curd, and a bibliography. There are no

574          
indexes. The author’s main interpretative contention is that Parmenides is to be seen not
primarily as a metaphysician or dialectician, but as a theorist of the methodology of natural
science: the language of ‘ways of enquiry’ (fr. 2.2) is taken as indicative of the focus of the
poem; Popper and Hawking are enlisted in support of the case. The commentary contains much
valuable material, although in the nature of the exercise well-trodden ground is often traversed
again. C.’s text is mostly conservative. Interesting idiosyncrasies include fr. 1.3 λαυ1 π0ξρ 6
υ ζσει (‘che porta . . . per tutte le cose che siano’), described as a very slight and absolutely
certain emendation of the reading given in all Sextus MSS; and fr. 8.4–5, where C., dismissing
out of hand all previous solutions, reads the MSS 2υµετυοξ and construes with the following
line—to make Parmenides say that being never was nor will be incomplete.
St John’s College, Cambridge MALCOLM SCHOFIELD
R. D. D (ed.): Sophocles: The Classical Heritage (Classical

Heritage). Pp. xxx + 308. New York and London: Garland Publishing,
1996. ISBN: 0-8153-0334-3.
Dawe’s collection, in English translation, of reactions to various aspects of Sophocles over the
past centuries is a most welcome and valuable initiative. It begins with a letter by Antonio
Riccoboni, describing (with tepid enthusiasm, and a critical outlook caught, along with many
others here, in the vice-grip of Aristotle) the performance of Oedipus Tyrannus at Vicenza in
1585. It then takes us through opinions from seventeenth- and eighteenth-century France
(including those of Corneille and Voltaire), glances at the views of English eighteenth-century
translators, and moves on to Germany, beginning with an extract from Lessing’s seminal
Laocoon and ending with Goethe. We return to England in the nineteenth century with an essay
on Sophoclean irony by C. Thirlwall and a lecture by John Keble; then jump to the twentieth
century for a look at Freud and the ways in which adaptations by modern French dramatists
have been used to re·ect back on Sophocles. The collection concludes with W. Schadewaldt’s
survey of problems and successes in staging Sophocles over the past 150 years. Interspersed
with the actual writings from each age are a scattering of reprinted twentieth-century articles
describing and discussing the work of preceding centuries: P. Vidal-Naquet on the Vicenza
performance and on French seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Oedipus versions, S. Said
and C. Biet on eighteenth-century Sophocles translations, Schadewaldt and R. Harrison on
Hölderlin, and F. Prader on Schiller.
Naturally there are gaps here, for which D. o¶ers an able and regretful apologia (pp. x–xi). His
introduction, ‘The Posterity of Sophocles’, is helpful in preparing the reader to swallow inevitable
gulps of astonishment or indignation provoked by certain points in the collection, and to take a
more dispassionate view. D.’s criticisms are essentially balanced and open-minded; only when
touching on (in justiµcation of their exclusion) the approaches of the school of thought
represented for D. by Vernant and Vidal-Naquet does he overstep the mark of what seems
appropriate in this context, launching a stinging attack which even a reviewer in fundamental
sympathy with his opinions found disproportionate and uncomfortably venomous. Otherwise, the
likely readership of such a volume might have found helpful more consistent contextualization
of each of the authors represented, in terms of their other writings and in terms of a background
sketch of wider attitudes to Sophocles in the time and place in which each wrote.
The collection itself presents a coherent overview of western literary and scholarly reactions to
Sophocles in particular and Greek tragedy in general. Such a collection enables a particularly
acute vision of the besetting tendencies of all readers and critics to respond to any author in
terms set by the standards, tastes, and beliefs of their own time or standpoint. There is a
cautionary tale to be read, about testing the objectivity of one’s own views, in deploring what now
seem the arrogance and pettiness of such criticisms as Voltaire’s of O.T. But also, of course, such
opinions provide valuable insight into the positions and standards of prior generations and of
notable individuals within them: so Keble’s unreasonable and unfulµlled demands of Sophocles
can be seen to stem partly from his Christian outlook, but above all from expectations shaped by
romantic notions of poetry: ‘we may fairly question if [Sophocles] has anything in common with
those who are made poets by Nature and true feeling’ (p. 239). These essays may at times also help
us to understand Sophocles better—particularly in terms of the kinds of reactions his plays have

          575
called forth. It is also interesting to note individuals who possess at least some of the vision
and/or humility required to break through the constraints imposed by their own standards: the
eighteenth-century P. Brumoy, for example, is very much of his time in his attitudes yet defends
the rôle of fate in Greek tragedy thus: ‘if we would receive pleasure from a Greek drama, we are
obliged for a few moments to adopt their system. It is absurd, indeed; but we must forget it is so,
since it did not appear such to the Grecian spectators, with whom we mix . . . Let us . . . not
condemn [Oedipus] on the very principle which renders him most interesting’ (p. 53).
Space does not permit accounts of all the works here. For me, a summary of highlights,
regardless of personal agreement with the views expressed, would include: the detailed
information on the Vicenza performance, on translations from various periods, and on nine-
teenth- and twentieth-century stagings of Sophocles; the passionate insights, however ·awed,
in the extract from Laocoon; the quasi-Platonic dialogue accounts of Goethe’s conversations
on Sophocles; Thirlwall’s masterly account of irony in general and his thoughtful, thought-
provoking view of Sophoclean irony in particular. Di¶erent perspectives, and the picture of our
culture’s relationship with Sophocles which these build up, are what this collection is about, and
the essence of its value.
University of Newcastle upon Tyne SUSANNA PHILLIPPO
M. E  (ed.): Sophocles: Four Dramas of Maturity. Aias,

Antigone, Young Women of Trachis, Oidipous the King. Pp. lxxx +
331. London: Everyman, 1999. Paper, £5.99. ISBN: 0-460-87743-7.
This volume is designed ‘to place Sophokles’ texts µrmly in their original theatrical context, as
scripts for performance’ (p. xvi), developing the approach in E.’s two-volume translation of
Aeschylus (1995–6). It will be followed by Sophocles: Three Dramas of Old Age (2000). E.
himself tackles Aj. and Ant., while Trach. and O.T. are translated by Graham Ley and Gregory
McCart respectively. E. contributes a substantial introduction and bibliography, and the
translator of each play adds about thirty pages of notes. All three contributors have classics
degrees, but now teach in departments of drama or performance studies. The notes make
frequent reference to the productions for which the translations were made, which evidently
di¶ered widely in scale and style. McCart’s O.T. sounds especially attractive, performed at
sunset in a quarry in Toowoomba, with Aboriginal (Murri) choreography and musical accom-
paniment from didjeridoo and clapsticks. The contributors show impressive commitment
to making Greek tragedies work in performance, and their discussions of staging are often
stimulating.
The premise of the book is that performance is the royal road to understanding Greek tragedy,
and the contributors make no apology for drawing conclusions from their own productions about
what must have happened in Athens. An example is their division of choral dialogue between
di¶erent members of the chorus, as when E. attributes Ant. 471–2 to ‘the most hostile, pro-Kreon
member of the group’ (p. 219 n. 49). This may be a useful device for the modern producer, but
can obscure the rôle of the chorus in its original context. There are rather too many dogmatic
pronouncements on controversial issues, and rival views are regularly dismissed with such terms
as ‘fanciful’, ‘over-ingenious’, and ‘totally perverse’. This makes the book less useful for students
than it might otherwise have been.
E.’s Aj. is the best of the translations, although he sometimes lowers the tone a little (e.g. ‘I let
those bastards go’ for νερλα υοΚ 2µ0τυοσαΚ at 373). All three translators keep fairly close to
the Greek text (Lloyd-Jones and Wilson’s OCT), with no more than occasional quirks such as E.’s
insistence on rendering !σπψ as ‘creep’ when it means ‘go’ (e.g. ‘Creep o¶!’, Aj. 1161). At Aj. 692,
‘more’ seems to be a slip for ‘now’. Greek names are transliterated rather than Latinized, yielding
such oddities as ‘Thrakia’ (Ant. 589), but the publishers presumably drew the line at having
‘Sophokles’ on the cover.
University College Dublin MICHAEL LLOYD

576          
J. M    (trans.): Euripides: Iphigenia among the Taurians,

Bacchae, Iphigenia at Aulis, Rhesus. With introduction by Edith Hall.
Pp. liii + 227, 2 maps. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Cased,
£45. ISBN: 0-19-815094-6.
This book is advertised as the second of three volumes of a prose translation of ‘eleven
of Euripides’ most exciting plays’. The µrst volume (1997), which subsequently appeared as
an Oxford World’s Classics paperback, contains Medea, Hippolytus, Electra, and Helen. H.
supplies an introduction and a detailed bibliography, while M. adds sixty-µve pages of
‘explanatory notes’. This division of labour is not wholly satisfactory, as M.’s notes include
literary comments which really belong in the introduction. He translates Diggle’s OCT, but is
inconsistent in reporting Diggle’s indications of inauthenticity or corruption. The translation
is doggedly literal, sometimes to the point of being barely intelligible as English, and on the
whole gives a reasonable idea of the meaning of the Greek. There are also some questionable
interpretations and straightforward mistakes, of which a selection is discussed below.
Iphigenia among the Taurians 272: ρ0ττευοξ is third rather than second person dual. The pious
herdsman prays to ‘Palaemon son of Leucothea’ when he sees Orestes and Pylades, but even this
simple fellow would hardly mistake two Greek heroes for a sea god and his mother. 730: not ‘if
fear prompts him to boldness’, but ‘if he passes from fear to boldness’. 747: M. di¶ers from
Diggle in giving this line to Orestes rather than to Pylades. 752: means ‘may I never live to set foot
in Argos’. 803: the Greek is elliptical, but not as incoherent as M.’s ‘I . . . you . . . my brother’.
854: if "ζ#θνι meant ‘thrust into’, Iphigenia would not be alive to tell the tale. 1234: ε%παιΚ &
Μαυο(Κ η ξοΚ means ‘Glorious is Leto’s son’, not ‘Son of a glorious mother, Leto’s son’. ε%παιΚ
is a ‘determinative’ compound (cf. Bond on Eur., HF 689). 1300: δσατνο( is omitted. 1421: not
‘you will fall into the tyrant’s hands . . . and be killed again’, but ‘you will fall back into the
tyrant’s hands and be killed’.
Bacchae 51: τξ +πµοιΚ is omitted. 75–6: ‘initiates his soul in the Bacchic company’ conveys
little of the memorable ριατε ευαι ,φγ0ξ. 123: it is the Corybants who are ‘triple-crested’, not
the tympanon. 219: ρο0ειξ here means ‘rush about’, not ‘sit’. 487: not ‘This is your insidious
method of corrupting women’, which makes nonsense of Dionysus’ reply, but ‘This [sc. darkness]
is deceitful and treacherous for women’. 623: the disguised Dionysus must not refer to Semele as
‘my mother’. 670: υ. υ0γοΚ τοφ υ/ξ ζσεξ/ξ means ‘the quickness of your temper’, not ‘your
speed of thought’. 854: ‘I want him to win laughter from the Thebans’ is not English. 882:
&σν8υαι ν µιΚ means ‘is slow to move’ rather than ‘moves slowly’. 940: πασ1 µ ηοξ means
‘unexpectedly’, not ‘contrary to what you say’. 1009–10: υ1 δ ωψ ξ νινα δ#λαΚ means
‘customs that are outside justice’, not ‘all that transgresses the laws of justice’, as if ωψ took an
accusative.
Iphigenia at Aulis 366–7: πσ.Κ υ1 πσ0ηναυα / "λποξο(τ γοξυεΚ seems to mean ‘They
continuously exert themselves over a¶airs of state’. M.’s ‘They have problems and toil away at
them’ makes no sense in the context. 369: M.’s ‘it lies in them that they cannot keep the city safe’
misses the stress on α2υο#. Vellacott’s ‘being themselves incapable of sound statesmanship’ is
better. 372: λαυαηεµ/ξυαΚ is predicative: ‘she’ll sit by and let e¶ete barbarians / Jeer at her’
(Vellacott). 384: & ν3 τζαµε#Κ is ‘I, who made no error’, not ‘I, a man with no grievance’. 813:
µεπυα4Κ 5οα4Κ means ‘narrow straits’, not ‘faint currents’ (cf. 1496; Ion TrGF 19 F 18.1). 859: not
‘live apart’, but ‘are not held in common’. γψσ#Κ = ο2 λοιξ ξ (cf. Eur., Hec. 860). 901: ‘since’, not
‘though’. 910: not ‘your name, which ought to be defending me’, but ‘your name, which you ought
to defend’. 1157–8: πεσ6 τ7 λα6 δ νοφΚ goes with 4νενπυοΚ, not with λαυαµµαγρε4τα. 1364:
ποξθσ0ξ η α9σετιξ! νιαιζοξε4ξ means ‘A wicked choice, to commit murder’, not ‘They are
choosing a vile man to commit a vile murder’.
Rhesus 186: ‘war-crazed’ is too strong for ρο σιοξ. 590: δσ0ταξυε νθδ7ξ ποµεν#οφΚ ξε<υεσοξ
means ‘having done no harm to the enemy’. 638: δολο(τα means ‘pretending to be’. 732: for
‘Phrygians’ read ‘Thracians’. 757: λα#υοι is ‘logical’ (Denniston, Greek Particles, p. 562), not
adversative. 833–4: not ‘Why do you . . . undermine the way I . . . see things?’, but ‘Why are you
trying to deceive me?’ (=ζαισε4ξ ηξ<νθξ = λµπυειξ ξο(ξ).
University College Dublin MICHAEL LLOYD

          577
C. A : Classical Greek Theatre: New Views of an Old Subject.

Pp. xix + 191, 74 µgs. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1999. Cased,
£36. ISBN: 0-87745-641-0.
Ashby’s book provides a general and well-illustrated overview of some of the most perplexing
issues regarding the practicalities of ancient Greek dramatic performance. As a theatre
historian deeply committed to theatrical production, his volume is, in part, an appeal to
library-bound classical theatre scholars to engage rather more actively with a hands-on
approach which, he proposes, will provide ‘insight into production problems and performance
situations encountered by the playwrights, actors and technicians of ancient times’ (p. 22). A.’s
new views on an old subject began with a tour of theatre sites in Italy and Greece in order to
‘seek explanations for some of the puzzling contradictions found in the standard histories
of Greek theatre’ (p. xiii). As a ‘Validation (and Discovery) by Experiment’ of his approach to
the old subject of classical Greek theatre and performance, A. o¶ers, in the µnal chapter, an
account of a three-actor production of Euripides’ Ion for the Lubbock (Texas) Community
Theatre in 1997.
A.’s emphasis on the physical and performative dimensions of Greek drama is one which µts
well into studies of ancient drama ranging from M. Bieber’s The History of Greek and Roman
Theatre (Princeton, 1961), to O. Taplin’s Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1977) and, more
recently, D. Wiles’s Tragedy in Athens (Cambridge, 1997). In each of the twelve chapters A.
addresses the issues raised clearly and succinctly, presenting a conclusion at the end of each
chapter. Drawing on textual, visual, archaeological, and epigraphical sources related to
performance and the physical space of the theatre, A. undertakes to amalgamate evidence from a
wide variety of authorities collected in ‘individual caches by scholars working independently’
whose studies must be hunted for in ‘obscure, not readily accessible locations’ (p. 22). While the
author of this volume does introduce the ‘obscure’ evidence in an accessible and well-presented
manner, the reader may not always agree with the conclusions he draws. The µrst chapter, ‘Limits
of Evidence I: The Writings’, examines the limitations of the written materials available to the
researcher—the few surviving texts of ancient drama, the lack of stage directions and visual
descriptions, the problems surrounding the authenticity and accuracy of, for example, Aristotle’s
Poetics, and the lack of understanding of the working theatre by the library-bound authors of
‘The Scholiast’ (p. 12). A. concludes this chapter with the observation that ‘Many so-called truths
about the Greek theatre have been created by over-reliance on questionable evidence. Too often
contradictory testimony has be disregarded, particularly when it con·icted with established
dogma. . . . Many opinions of present day writers are tempered by nineteenth-century classicists
who felt that one of their major tasks was to refute any evidence con·icting with the recorded
views of any member of the Ancients Club’ (by which A. means sources such as Aristotle, Pollux,
and Vitruvius; p. 13). While it is clear that gaps in our knowledge about ancient theatre practice
hamper a comprehensive and deµnitive account of the history of ancient Greek theatre
performance, A.’s somewhat iconoclastic tone is too skeptical. On the vexed issue of the
ekkuklema discussed in Chapter VI, for example, A. notes that ‘Mortuary displays may be
e¶ective, but such a staging technique is not veriµable. Vases frequently show dead µgures
because their presence is necessary for the painter’s telling of a story. . . . No tragic text, however,
speciµes a showing of bodies, nor is there any supporting evidence beyond the pronouncements
of Pollux and the later marginalizers’ (p. 92). Surely the dramatic texts themselves, the use of
demonstrative pronouns, and deictic cues protest against such a verdict (see e.g. Aeschylus’ Ag.
1404–5, 1500–1 and Ch. 973). In the absence of any conclusive written, archaeological, or other
visual evidence, the baby must not be thrown out with the bath water. A. does, however, raise
some interesting practical problems, such as the orientation of Greek theatres and the consequent
e¶ect of natural lighting on performance, which need to be addressed. The reader of this book
would do well to supplement A.’s ‘practical, nuts and bolts’ (p. 114) approach to the study of
Greek theatre with a reading of, for example, David Wiles’s Tragedy in Action.
Somerville College, Oxford RUTH BARDEL

578          
A. C. S : The Forensic Stage. Settling Disputes in Graeco-

Roman New Comedy. Pp. xxi + 512. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997. Cased, £60. ISBN: 0-512-44383-0.
Adele Scafuro has made a vital contribution to a number of areas of scholarship. Most
obviously, perhaps, S. has provided one of the most comprehensive, interesting, and well-
written works on the subject of New Comedy to date. She also has valuable insights for social
and legal historians (both Hellenists and Romanists), philologists, and scholars working more
generally in the µeld of drama. By discussing both Greek and Latin plays, S. also opens out
interesting perspectives on the concerns relevant to studies which span both cultures.
Perhaps one of the most impressive features of the book is its ability to manipulate such a
breadth of material and ideas, and yet to keep within a clear and tightly controlled argument and
structure. S. does this by her focus on the issue of dispute settlement within the plays, a topic
which she covers from a number of angles. This central thematic drive enables her to pursue
interesting and important ideas, but never to the detriment of the coherence of the whole.
The structure of the book re·ects her twin concerns of providing a close reading of the plays
and also looking at social and legal issues. Organized into Parts I, II, and III, which re·ect
groupings of plays and their concerns, the chapters within these three parts are thematically
structured and reveal the di¶erent social and legal concerns which come under the umbrella of
dispute settlement. Thus, for example, S. looks at the processes of law ‘threat, summons and
arrest’ within the context of the pre-trial plays (Part I, Chapter 2), and the resolution of seduction
and rape within the plays thematically centred on reconciliation (Part II, Chapter 6).
Within the central and longest part of the book, S. looks at two speciµc aspects of dispute
settlement (arbitration and reconciliation on the one hand, redress for sexual o¶ences on the
other), devoting a chapter to an interpretation of the legal material followed by a companion
chapter discussing the topic within New Comedy. With this clarity of structure the material is
accessible to both the historian and the literary scholar, and S. is able to discuss both areas in
detail and with sophistication, but without sacriµcing the clarity of her argument. Indeed, her
chapter on the institution of arbitration is probably the best published work on that topic in the
English language. She also covers entrapment and framing (Part III, Chapter 8), the initiation of
justice (Part I, Chapter 2), and paralegal processes for dispute settlement (Part II, Chapter 7).
Her concern with remedies which are not part of formal legal structures highlights a further
strength of the book, or rather, a further strength of S.’s perspective on dispute settlement in the
ancient world. Explicitly within Chapter 7 (‘Arguing Behind Closed Doors’) but also throughout
the entire book, S. shows her skill in moving easily between the formal procedures of Athenian
and Roman law and the culturally determined social actions which, at times shamelessly, precede,
follow, and parallel them. Thus she displays the complexity and subtlety of her vision of the topic
she covers.
In the course of the book S. has to confront two particularly controversial questions within the
study of New Comedy: the use that it can legitimately be put to as a document for social history,
and the relationship between the Greek and Roman plays. The µrst of these two questions S.
µnds herself able to sidestep at least to some extent. The topic she has chosen produces for itself
an easy answer, in that she is able to use the correspondences between the material from
New Comedy and Athenian forensic oratory. This enables her to focus on documenting these
correspondences. She o¶ers an interpretation of them which is valuable and valid but, perhaps for
the reader rather disappointingly, does not explicitly have to address the wider issues in any detail.
The second question, that of the relationship between the Greek and Roman plays, and the
material which comes from them, she does address in greater detail and at several points
throughout the book. She approaches the question in typically sensible and sensitive fashion,
urging caution in the conclusions we draw from the Roman plays.
The Forensic Stage is a very well-written book, serious in tone, but readable, marred only
occasionally by wordiness. S. has added appendices to avoid having to include all the highly
technical material within the chapters themselves. On the whole this works well. They become
treasure troves of material whose density is only occasionally o¶-putting. Again, S. has shown
an ability to manage and manipulate complex material impressively. Her conµdence with the
material—both ‘literary’ and ‘historical’—comes across in a number of ways; for example, her
ability to leave arguments open-ended (e.g. on sexual o¶ences, p. 199) makes her ultimately more
convincing.
The professed aim of the book is to show how the scenarios and strategies of New Comedy
are profoundly a¶ected by Athenian law, that indeed the varied plots of New Comedy centre on

          579
issues of dispute and settlement, and thus the interactions which New Comedy dramatizes
produce a texture invariably woven through with language, rôles, and dramatic moments which
can be seen to be heavily in·uenced by the dynamic of Athenian litigiousness. S. certainly fulµls
this aim, o¶ering a comprehensive and persuasive argument strongly supported by the material.
King’s College, Cambridge ROSANNA OMITOWOJU
N. M : Berenice, da Callimaco a Catullo. Testo critico, trad-

uzione e commento: nuova edizione ristrutturata, ampliata e aggiornata
(µrst published 1984). Pp. 329. Bologna: Pátron, 1997. Paper, L. 37,000.
ISBN: 88-555-2427-5.
This book has now been enlarged to take into account the continuing scholarly interest in
Callimachus’ Coma Berenices (F 110 Pf.) and Catullus’ translation of it (c. 66). The most
signiµcant additions to the original work are separate lists of both Testi Antichi (pp. 297–314)
and Testi Moderni (pp. 315–29), and the documentation of the latest research on verses 55
(pp. 158–60), 59 (pp. 166–70), and 93 (pp. 221–7). After a somewhat brief introduction to
Berenice’s history, which begins with a genealogy of the µrst four Ptolemies and then
concentrates on Berenice’s relationship with her father Magas and on her famous penchant
for perfumes (pp. 15–26), Marinone proceeds with a summary of the poem (pp. 29–54),
highlighting, as one would expect, the more controversial and debatable parts of the work. M.’s
summary forms the main text of his page but the footnotes often consume most of its space.
Certainly, M. does not shirk from the task of consistently recording details of scholars’ views
on any given point, and it has to be said that this is the real usefulness of his book. His
bibliography on the Coma (pp. 263–93), which is, incidentally, given to us clearly listed under
each letter of the alphabet, now supersedes that of L. Lehnus (Bibliograµa Callimachea
1489–1988, Dipartimento di Archeologia, Filologia Classica e Loro Tradizioni, n.s. no. 123
[Genoa 1989], pp. 104–113). But it is the detailed comments in each reference M. mentions
which make his book so valuable.
After the summary, M. presents us with an account of the manuscript tradition, and the
Siglorum Conspectus is given on both the Callimachean and the Catullan texts (pp. 55–61). The
verses of M.’s own version of the text are individually numbered with the Callimachean Greek
inserted µrst (when it exists) followed by the Catullan Latin. There is an opposing Italian verse
translation of the Callimachean verse in italic type followed by that of the Catullan in plain.
Verse 7 is given here as an example:
7 > νε Λ ξψξ βµε,εξ "ξ Aσι υ.ξ Βεσεξ#λθΚ 7 Conone vide in cielo me, di Berenice
idem me ille Conon caelesti in lumine uidit quello stesso Conone nella volta celeste mi vide
The usual apparatus criticus is appended to both Greek and Latin texts: again, each is dealt
with separately. But a list of more serious discrepancies between M.’s respective texts and other
versions, Vitelli, Pfei¶er, Lobel, Mynors, Bardon, and Thomson, is given elsewhere (p. 61).
A criticism which may be levelled at the book is the amount of tautology. Like most modern
commentaries, however, the book will be used encyclopedically and in this respect the enforcing
of an important point in a rhetorical way is not necessarily a bad thing. The commentary itself
(pp. 77–233), 156 pages on a ninety-four-line poem, is comprehensive though. It begins the
way it means to go on with the remarks on verse one stretching over almost three pages
(pp. 77–9), including a discussion of a lectio varia in the Catullus text (dispexit of Calphurnius
and despexit of MSS O and G) which runs to a page-length. And this is the pattern for each entry:
catalogue of sources, summary of sources (very much in the style of L’Année Philologique),
quotations from sources, and discussion on variant and disparate readings. A prime example
of the latter appears at v. 59 (pp. 166–70), where the phrase sidere uti vario is examined with
forty-nine variant and disparate readings catalogued in detail from Calphurnius in 1481 through
to Luck in 1966; something similar occurs at v. 93 (pp. 221–7). After a useful section on tipologia
metrica (pp. 235–43) following on the commentary, M. elucidates the details of the constellation
into which the Coma Berenices was placed (pp. 247–59). This exposition includes M.’s own
constellation-graphs and star-maps, the example on p. 256 being particularly clear and
impressive. M.’s apparently customary devotion to statistics again shows itself in the tables he

580          
gives us of both the annual and the daily dates and times of the risings and settings of Orion,
Aquarius, and the Coma Berenices respectively (p. 258). It is a pity he does not refer anywhere
to S. West’s ‘Venus Observed? A Note on Callimachus, Fr. 110’ (CQ 35 [1985], 61–6). He has
also missed, although this time through no fault of his own, D. Kidd’s very important Aratus:
Phaenomena (Cambridge, 1997). M.’s book ends with a series of glossy pull-out plates of the
various relevant MSS. All in all, then, a useful and clearly presented work. A while ago I had
occasion to ask a colleague a question on Catullus c. 66; at once he took from his shelf his (albeit
1984) edition of Marinone. Enough said!
University of Natal STEVEN JACKSON
L. P  : La forma proemiale. Storiograµa e pubblico nel mondo

antico. Pp. x + 190. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 1997. Paper.
ISBN: 88-7642-069-X.
Beginnings and endings are a fashionable topic among classicists at present. P.’s study deals not
with narrative beginnings, but with the authorial proem which advertises the author’s identity
and the work, and establishes contact with the audience. The book falls into two parts: in the
µrst, P. examines the proem in early Greek historiography down to Thucydides. This, he argues,
is essentially epistolary in character and, moreover, derived from Greek epistolographic
traditions, despite the similarities in Near Eastern royal letters such as Darius’ letter to Gadatas
(Meiggs and Lewis, GHI 12), the two being products of convergent evolution; there are parallels
in philosophic and scientiµc works such as those of Alcmaeon of Croton (pp. 47–53, though
many of the citations depend on restoration). The purpose of such proems is to establish
contact between intellectual µgures, who deliberately distance themselves from the individual
polis and from tradition, and a Panhellenic audience with whom they are not in direct contact
(public recitations apart).
The second part deals with a di¶erent form of the device, the internal proem (also currently à
la mode in Latin poetry, as P. notes), speciµcally that in the middle of the Roman Antiquities of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus. P. sees Dionysius as following Polybius in using this feature to
modify his audience appeal from a universal one, founded on the capacity of history to divert and
educate everyone, to an address to a specialized audience with political interests. P. µnds parallels
for the shift from a universal to a targeted appeal in Isocrates, and for the formal organization
in the placing of the letter to Balbus before Book 8 of the Gallic War in the Caesarian
corpus, though not in the ‘Second Preface’ of Thuc. 5.26, which he regards as being of the same
epistolary type as the µrst and performing substantially the same function.
A secondary and underlying subject is the relation between rhetoric, history, and truth,
especially in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, an issue linked to the important rôle of history in
education: P. is concerned to maintain that the adoption of rhetorical techniques does not
undermine history’s essential truthfulness, and so argues in his µnal section against recent
advocates of the rhetorical character of history such as Woodman (cp. p. 65, directed at Fehling,
and P.’s programmatic comments in the introduction, pp. ix–x).
The work reveals its origins as a doctoral thesis in an uneven texture which oscillates between
minute discussion of particular problems and very broad exposition; consequently, the wider
argument is not systematically developed and can be di¸cult to follow. Much of the detail does
not directly a¶ect the principal thesis; for example, there are some thirty pages, interesting enough
in themselves, on Near Eastern royal inscriptions and correspondence, and much of the section
on Thuc. 5.26 is devoted to a rebuttal of Canfora’s theory of Xenophontic authorship in a
context where one might have thought a citation of HCT V 431–7 (noted by P.) su¸cient; there
are also page-long footnotes in which the reviewing of prior scholarship predominates.
Conversely, the broader issues are less developed than they might have been. The particular
epistolary character in question surely requires closer attention: in the historical proem described
by P. it must be that of the open letter, analogous to the Persian royal letter, which has no
particular addressee in mind and is almost proclamatory, though P. deµnes its function in
linguistic terms as ‘emotivo-conativa’ (pp. 74–5). This is quite unlike those philosophical proems
which name an addressee (e.g. Alcmaeon, Empedocles) and on which the wider audience is
allowed to ‘eavesdrop’, and the modalities of address and the type of bond established must
surely be very di¶erent in the two cases. Again, P.’s view of the historian’s appealing to a
Panhellenic audience requires him to privilege ‘national history’, although this was only ever one

          581
branch of historical writing; parochial horography existed in parallel, and presumably adopted a
very di¶erent author–audience dynamic (though even an author as universal as Ephorus retained
a parochial streak [F236]). The discussion on truth in history and rhetoric might have beneµted
from drawing distinctions between branches of oratory, often tacitly identiµed simply with men-
dacious forensic: authentic disagreement on matters of fact was not unnatural in symbouleutic,
while epideictic adopted di¶erent standards of truth (on which note D. S. Levene, PCPhS 43
[1997], 93–103).
This is, then, a somewhat provisional work, but one full of interesting ideas and shrewd
observations which will stimulate debate.
University of Leeds ROGER BROCK
R. B. S : The Landmark Thucydides: a Comprehensive

Guide to the Peloponnesian War (A newly revised edition of the
Richard Crawley translation with maps, annotations, appendices and
encyclopedic index, with an introduction by V. D. Hanson). Pp. xxxiii
+ 711, ills. New York, etc.: The Free Press, 1996. Cased, $45. ISBN:
0-684-82815-4.
This handsome volume is a joy to handle and a pleasure to read, whether in short bursts or
more continuously; it is a possession, if not for all time, then certainly for a lifetime. The editor
and his contributors have asked themselves the fundamental question: how can one best present
and interpret the work of one of the most fascinating but di¸cult of ancient authors to a
modern audience unfamiliar not only with the work itself but also with the background to it,
political, social, and topographical? Within the scope of a single volume, they have to my mind
answered that question brilliantly.
After a succinct and sound introduction setting out the basic information about Thucydides
and the war he wrote about, the heart of the book is the translation of Richard Crawley; it
is adapted slightly (triremes, for example, replace galleys) and some of the more long-winded
sentences are broken up. No e¶ort is spared not only to help readers µnd their way through
the text, but also to illuminate their reading and put it in a context. Thus, a running headline at
the top of each page contains not only the Thucydidean Book number, but also the year in our
terms in which the event(s) described on the page is/are taking place, the number of the year in
Thucydidean terms (µrst, second, third year of the war and so on), the location of the action
described, and a brief summary of that action. Then, each Thucydidean chapter is accompanied
by a note in the margin giving dates as above and summarizing the content of the chapter. The
translation is further annotated with references to material within the volume itself: references to
other sections of the text; references to a series of eleven specially prepared appendices; and
references to maps, which are provided in quantity and in detail (they are indeed one of the most
valuable elements of the volume). Thus, in the opening chapters of Book 6 the reader is referred
to previous references in Thucydides to the activities of Eurymedon and Laches in Sicily, a map
of Sicily with special reference to Thucydides’ account, an appendix on the dialects and ethnic
groups of the Greek world, an appendix on ‘Land warfare’ (for discussion of the term ‘hoplite’),
and so on. The riches of the volume do not end there. For example, a spreadsheet, ‘Theaters
of operation in the Peloponnesian War’, displays the relationship between many simultaneous
events and also enables an overview of events in a speciµc area (always a di¸culty for the reader
of Thucydides), and there are bibliographies (of ancient and of modern sources) and a very full
index.
Finally, though one might hope that the kind of approach exempliµed in this book could be
applied advantageously to other ancient authors—some of the techniques of hypertext employed
within the covers of a single volume—I fear that the cost will put it out of reach of many of those
who would beneµt most from such an approach. I would love all my students to possess a copy of
this book, but that will unfortunately not be possible.
University of Edinburgh N. K. RUTTER

582          
D. F   : Platon: Philebos. (Platon, Werke: Übersetzung und

Kommentar 3.2.) Pp. 450. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.
DM 128. ISBN: 3-525-30409-9.
This volume perhaps represents the consummation of Dorothea Frede’s engagement with the
Philebus: she had already translated the dialogue into English, with a substantial introduction,
for the Hackett series (the translation being of course incorporated into the Hackett Plato:
Complete Works) and written a number of independent pieces on it, also in English. Now
we have the companion German translation and a commentary (we have actually had it for
three years: the delay in the appearance of this review is entirely the fault of the reviewer). The
commentary is not a line-by-line treatment, rather a series of forty or so short essays matching
the divisions, larger and smaller, of Plato’s argument, with the sorts of material that would
µgure in a traditional commentary appearing—where it appears at all—in footnotes either
to the essays or to the translation itself. The kind of compromise that results (i.e. between
line-by-line and ‘running’ commentary, going back in a way to more ancient models)
works well, giving a very clear sense of the philosophical direction of the whole, and in the
process short-circuiting many of the debates that might otherwise arise over the minutiae of
interpretation. It may seem obvious enough, to those who hold it to be true, that in the case of a
philosophical work (and maybe even of other sorts of work) the shape and demands of
the overall argument should determine the reading of its various elements. Yet the principle is
surprisingly often disputed in practice by readers of Plato, perhaps because of disagreements
about the kind of ‘philosopher’ he is, or about how good he is, either as a philosopher or
as a writer—where the issue of his ‘quality’ may cut either way, depending on whether one
puts more value on consistency and clarity (?), or what may be labelled as open-endedness
(‘tension’, or just lack of closure). F. here casts her vote unambiguously: ‘. . . macht sich
dieser Kommentar zum Ziel, eine einheitliche Interpretation zu vertreten, und versucht, die
Folgerichtigkeit und innere Geschlossenheit des Gesprächsverlaufs zur Entschlüsselung der
einzelnen schwierigen Textstellen fruchtbar zu machen’ (p. 6). Whether or not her ‘einheitliche
Interpretation’ works (as by and large it surely does), this is scholarship of a fundamental kind,
unless localized ‘discoveries’ are useful without the kind of context that any archaeologist
automatically demands. (If no fully articulated interpretation turned out to be possible, that too
is something we should surely need to know practically before anything else.)
In fact, given the overt structure of much of the Philebus, as a clearly articulated debate
between two well-described positions, this particular dialogue is not an especially happy hunting
ground for many sorts of interpreters apart from the determinedly analytical—or develop-
mentalists, looking to see what the ‘late’ Plato (how late?) is doing with Forms; or again
‘esotericists’, or those simply captivated by the apparent concinnities between parts of the
Philebus and the reported contents of the agrapha dogmata. In line with her stated aims, and in
any case reasonably, F. explicitly declines to provide a complete account of the varieties of
interpretation deriving from these and other sources. As commentator, however, she is in
continuous conversation with others; as, for example, she is in the essay on 57e–59d (‘Die
Dialektik als höchste Wissenschaft’, pp. 328–41), which succeeds in giving a short but balanced
introduction to the status quaestionis on central questions (how the more limited notion of
dialectic introduced here relates to the earlier ‘divine method’; what the implications are for
Platonic metaphysics).
Four short appendixes, at the end, take up some issues that are essentially external to the
argument of the dialogue: (I) ‘Die Entstehungszeit des Dialogs und die “sokratische” Frage’
among other things restates F.’s view that Socrates’ return in the Philebus is primarily because of
his identiµcation with the rôle of ‘Gesprächspartner zur persönlichen Überzeugung von
Menschen’ (p. 389; this seems as good an explanation as any, and better than most—though if
indeed Socrates ever went away in the µrst place, the reintroduction of real, two-sided discussion
looks like being another runner); (II) ‘Eudoxos und die “pythagoreische Frage” ’ plays down the
importance of both Eudoxus and Pythagorean theory as such for the argument of the Philebus;
(III) ‘Peras, Apeiron und der “esoterische Platon” ’ sketches in the background to the discussion
of Plato’s ‘oral teaching’ in the context of the Philebus, and points to F.’s own—far from
partisan—position (e.g. that ‘mit dem Postulat des “Einen-Guten” nichts Deµnitives gesagt ist’,
which just means taking him seriously as a philosopher: p. 417); while (IV) ‘Energeia versus
Genesis: Aristoteles’ Kritik am platonischen Lustbegri¶’ explores the way Aristotle responds to
Plato’s theory of pleasure, from which ‘erhellt . . ., dass die Diskrepanz zwischen der platonischen
und der aristotelischen Vorstellung auf einer Komplementarität beruht, die durchaus als Basis

          583
für die Beurteilung der Vor- und Nachteile ihrer divergierenden Au¶assungen dienen kann’
(p. 419). Here and elsewhere there is a sense of a sobriety, economy, and reasonableness
that—when combined with the design of the commentary and the singular clarity of F.’s
writing—makes the volume probably the best currently available basis for serious study of the
Philebus. The commentary has the advantage over Gosling’s, in the Clarendon series, of coming
later, so that it can reconsider Gosling’s proposals, as well as re·ect a wider range of secondary
literature. In any case, overall F. seems to me the clearer of the two, especially on Plato’s strategy
(both on the large and on the small scale).
University of Durham C. J. ROWE
C. G (trans.): Plato, The Symposium. Pp. xlvi + 90. Harmonds-

worth: Penguin, 1999. Paper, £5.99. ISBN: 0-14-044616-8.
Walter Hamilton’s 1951 Penguin had a rather free translation, minimal notes, no bibliography,
and an introduction containing such statements as: ‘In approaching the Symposium we must
set aside our personal views [on homosexuality] as irrelevant and accept this state of a¶airs
as an historical fact’ (p. 12). Gill’s Symposium is a welcome update, o¶ering an accurate,
idiomatic translation, together with a helpful introduction to relevant philosophical and social
issues, judicious, concise notes, and a good recent bibliography. It is an excellent choice for
students and general readers who need an attractive and useful introduction to the dialogue in
translation.
G. states: ‘I have aimed at being as accurate as possible, while also trying to µnd a modern
English equivalent for Plato’s lucid and ·exible Greek prose’ (p. vii). His translation is as accurate,
clear, and idiomatic as promised, achieving a happy mean between Hamilton’s free renderings
and Rowe’s more literal and sometimes less ·uid translation (Plato: Symposium [Warminster,
1998]). The di¶erences are exempliµed in the three translations of the opening sentence ∆ολ/
νοι πεσ6 Dξ πφξρ0ξετρε ο2λ 2νεµυθυοΚ εξαι: ‘I think I may say that I have already rehearsed
the scene which you ask me to describe’ (Hamilton); ‘I believe I’m not unrehearsed in relation to
what you people are asking about’ (Rowe); ‘In fact I’m well prepared to answer your question’
(G.). G.’s Symposium contains a few infelicitous choices of words. For example, ‘boyfriend’
(178c–e and passim), as a translation of eromenos, is inaccurate as well as trivializing, since the
Greek, unlike the English, does not refer to both partners in the relationship. Moreover, I would
have preferred the use of a single English term to translate the important word hybris and
its cognates, translated by G. as ‘treating with contempt’ (175e), ‘abusive violence’ (181c), and
‘insulted’ (222a). But these deµciencies are far outweighed by many excellent translations. For
example, his translation of the poetry at 197c—‘Peace among humankind and windless calm at
sea, / Rest for the winds, and sleep for those distressed’—is accurate and the most graceful I know.
His translation of poesis . . . poietai (205b–c) as ‘composition . . . composers’, preserves both the
sense and the sound of the original in perfectly idiomatic English.
G.’s introduction provides some useful, brief background on Greek homosexuality and the
institution of the symposium. Its main emphasis, however, is on the philosophical aspects of each
of the speeches and of the dialogue as a whole. G. succeeds admirably in giving basic information
to non-specialists while at the same time surveying, in clear and non-technical language,
many important issues raised by recent scholarship. The section on ‘Diotima’s Final Mysteries’
(pp. xxxii–xxxv) is especially good. It sketches the stages in the ascent, gives a clear but not
simplistic account of the convoluted modern controversy about the rôle of interpersonal love,
and o¶ers G.’s own views on this subject. ‘The mysteries seem to suggest’, G. concludes in an
insightful and, I believe, a previously unpublished interpretation, that ‘the philosophical pursuit
of the truth must draw on the same kind of intense, emotional and (in some sense) “erotic” drive
that typically arises within interpersonal relationships’ (p. xxxv). The notes give excellent, brief
explanations of historical allusions, of the meanings of important Greek words, and of the
progress of the argument. Both introduction and notes refer the interested reader to further
reading in the recent scholarly literature. The bibliography includes a good selection of works on
the Symposium and related topics. However, a single bibliography would have been of greater use
to the reader, who will look for a reference to ‘Gill’ in the notes, only to µnd that works by Gill
appear under three separate headings.
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities ELIZABETH BELFIORE

584          
A. A . P , M. M . W   (edd.): Xenophon & Arrian On

Hunting with Hounds. Pp. xii +196, ills. Warminster: Aris & Phillips,
1999. Paper, £16.50. ISBN: 0-85668-706-5.
The idea for this edition is attractive. Arrian wrote his Hunting to complement Xenophon’s.
Hunting was an important ancient activity. Even those opposed to blood sports could µnd
comfort in Arrian. He loves the chase, but is more humane than Xenophon in not liking the
sight of the hare caught in the net, and more sporting in admiring the one that gets away. He
approves of calling the dogs back from killing a brave hare, and is devastated when he cannot
save her from his own hounds (16.5). The main commentator unfortunately uses this oppor-
tunity (p. 180) to tell the reader how she can be killed quickly!
Xenophon claims, disarmingly, to be a mere Eδι<υθΚ (13.4) in the linguistic µelds in which his
opponents of hunting, the sophists, toiled. Yet there is little in the way of literary business in this
edition. Literary form is not a focus of attention. The main aim is to translate and explain the
technical content of the works. There is no discussion either of such interesting features as
Arrian’s customary self-e¶acement. He records the name of his favourite hound Horme for
posterity, and that of his fellow-huntsman Megillus (5.1–6), but not his own. He is merely
‘Xenophon’, in honour of ‘the other Xenophon’.
The translation pursues a literal accuracy, and a learner will beneµt from how it follows the
word order of the Greek most of the time. It must be admitted that the technical language and
linguistic style of the works does not easily lend itself to literalism, but I found myself turning
back to another expert huntsman, Hull 1964 (henceforth H.), for a translation that was accurate
and also captured Xenophon’s style. Xenophon’s characteristically compressed asyndeton is very
hard to capture, but the nice antithesis νιτ ρθσοξ ζιµ0ξρσψποξ (3.9), which H. rendered
‘hate the chase/love people’, is lost in ‘dislike the wild animal/prefer humans’. There is also a
greater warmth in H. when he lets the bitch bestow ‘caresses’ πεσιβοµα# on her puppies (7.3).
Waterfield’s Penguin translation of On Hunting in Xenophon. Hiero the Tyrant and Other
Treatises (Harmondsworth, 1997) also compares very well.
The translation need not have neglected plurals, as in Xen. 12.2, 2ξωοξυαι . . . υοΚ π ξοφΚ:
‘tolerate the hardship’ (‘endure their labors’ H.), 12.3, πσοτ δοιΚ: ‘approach’ (‘approaches’ H.,
even better: ’o¶ensives’ Anderson 1985, p. 17), and 10.22, ‘There are the same inspections and
pursuit and approach and use of the spear’ (‘The routine of inspection and pursuit, the methods
of approach and the use of the spear are the same’ Marchant 1925); nor singulars, as in Arrian
1.1, π0η: ‘snares’. There are other quibbles. Xen. 12.3: υ1 πασαηηεµµ νεξα ποιε4ξ is ‘carry out
the orders that are passed along’, M., ‘execute orders passed on to them’, H., not just ‘obey
orders’. Measuring in modern terms also forfeits authenticity, as Anderson 1985 notes, pp. 38f.
The purse net is µve spans as measured between thumb and little µnger rather than the modern
‘three feet µve inches’ (but this was also H.’s way). ‘These sticks should be easy to pull the nets o¶
at the tops’ takes some fathoming, though cleverly literal for ε2πεσ#τπατυοι υ1 4λσα (2.7). M. is
clearer: ‘These stakes must be so shaped at the top that the nets will pull o¶ readily’. Better
proof-reading would have remedied on p.77 ‘hold’ for ‘holds’, and ‘aganst’ in the next line. The
error ‘one would of thought’ passed on p. 155.
The once contested authenticity of Xenophon’s work is accepted in this edition, but on the
matter of the notorious preface, Vindobonensis A’s shorter version is preferred to the more
elaborate versions in lesser manuscripts, which are held to represent a rewriting of an original
more like A. It is noted that these obscure comparisons between Peleus and Hippolytus (chastity)
and Antilochus and Aeneas (duty to father).
This edition is a welcome contribution, but it does not take advantage of the opportunity to
interest students of literature in a literary tradition which is as old as Hesiod’s Works and Days.
Those fascinated by the purely technical details of hunting may be few and far between.
University of Auckland VIVIENNE GRAY
T. D (ed.): Antigone de Caryste. Fragments (Collection des

Universités de France publiée sous le patronage de l’Association
Guillaume Budé). Pp. cxxxviii + 72 (2–42 text double). Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1999. Cased. ISBN: 2-251-00475-0.
From editing Philodemus’ History of Philosophers Tiziano Dorandi has gone on to produce a

          585
deµnitive collection of the fragments of Antigonus of Carystus; ten of the seventy-six texts
included here are drawn from Philodemus. The thirty-two texts drawn from Diogenes Laertius
rest on new collations.
Collections of the evidence for ancient writers whose works are now lost can be either generous
or restricted in their scope. D.’s edition is of the latter type; a few reports which do not mention
Antigonus by name are included, but they are very much in the minority.
A very full introduction (123 pages, as against forty-one pages of Greek and Latin texts)
establishes the scope of Antigonus’ activity, ascertaining which reports refer to him and which to
others, and giving a systematic account of earlier scholarship. D. follows O. Musso (‘Sulla
struttura del Cod. Pal. Gr. 398 e deduzioni storico-letterarie’, Prometheus 2 [1976], 1–10) in
denying to Antigonus the authorship of the paradoxographical collection attributed to him but in
fact dating from the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century .. Four sections
of the 173 in that collection do, however, make their way into D.’s edition as deriving from the real
Antigonus’ work On Animals. (One of these four, Pseudo-Antigonus 10.2 = 52B Dorandi, is
missing from the index fontium on p. 69.) D. further quotes with apparent approval (p. xvi and
n.2) Musso’s argument (in Michele Psello: Nozioni paradossali [Naples, 1977], pp. 15–17) that
paradoxography, the description of wonders just as such, was not a separate ancient literary
genre at all, but a Byzantine construct.
D. accepts the identiµcation of Antigonus, who he suggests was born c. 290 .., not only as the
author of Lives of the Philosophers but also as the sculptor reported by Pliny (Nat. hist. 34.84) as
both practising and writing on the art. He counters Andreae’s argument that the sculptor worked
on the memorial to the victory of Eumenes II over the Galatians in 184 .., and must therefore
be later than the biographer, interpreting Pliny as implying only that Antigonus worked on the
memorial to the victory of Attalus I in 241 ..
On the character of the Lives D. argues that our evidence is too slight to draw general
conclusions; previous discussions have accepted too readily Wilamowitz’s more generous view
of the amount of material deriving from Antigonus (p. xliv). Nevertheless, D. maintains, in the
case of the life of Polemo there is enough evidence for a reconstruction, which supports the view
that Antigonus was above all interested in portraying the characters of those he remembered from
his youth, rather than in their doctrines or writings; his writings were memoirs rather than
biographies in the Peripatetic or Alexandrian sense. It is possible that they were not concerned
only with philosophers; we simply do not know.
In addition to µfty-four texts deriving from or referring to the Lives, and eight relating to the
work on sculpture and painting, D. also includes ten from On Animals and four (concerned with
sea creatures) from the work Πεσ6 µωεψΚ (on which D. justly remarks that lack of evidence
makes it di¸cult to know how to translate the title). But he distinguishes our Antigonus from
the poet of the µrst century .., and from the authors of a History of Italy and a geographical
description of Macedonia.
D. explicitly acknowledges at the outset that his aim is di¶erent from, and narrower than, that
of Wilamowitz in his Antigonos von Karystos. The great learning shown in D.’s introduction
is directed to the particular aim of identifying what we can and what, given the state of the
evidence, we cannot know about Antigonus’ works. There is full discussion of the extent to which
Pliny and Diogenes Laertius may have drawn on Antigonus; but D. does not cast his net wider
and investigate or list all parallels to his texts. For example, the statement that mice on the island
of Gyarus gnaw iron, attributed to Antigonus by Stephanus of Byzantium (fr. 51A in D.) and also
found in the Pseudo-Antigonus paradoxography (18 = fr. 51B D.), is attributed to Theophrastus
by Pliny, Nat. hist. 8.222. Unless Pliny is mistaken, either the genuine Antigonus was dependent
on Theophrastus, or both drew their information from a common source or tradition. The same
report is also found in the Pseudo-Aristotle Mirabilia (25); D. notes in general terms (p. xxiv) that
material from Antigonus’ On Animals appears in the Mirabilia, and argues that the fact that it
does so is evidence for the existence of the former work.
D.’s collection will form the basis for future discussion of these wider questions. I, at least,
would have referred to ‘Antigonus’ more cautiously in the past if D.’s edition had already been
available.
University College London R. W. SHARPLES
586          
A. J. P  (ed.): Arius Didymus, Epitome of Stoic Ethics. Pp. ix

+ 160. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. Cased, $35. ISBN:
0-88414-001-6.
The last twenty years have witnessed a resurgence of interest in Arius Didymus and his
Epitomai of Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics. The starting point of this renewal is to be found in the
book edited by W. W. Fortenbaugh, On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics. The Work of Arius Didymus
(New Brunswick and London, 1983), and in the article by D. E. Hahm, ‘The Ethical
Doxography of Arius Didymus’, ANRW II 36.4 (1990), 2935–3055, 3234–43; the book by
T. Göransson, Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus (Gothenburg, 1995) must not be forgotten
either. More recently, the Epitome of Stoic Ethics has been translated, partly, by A. A. Long
and D. N. Sedley in The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1987), and, as a whole, twice:
into English by B. Inwood in B. Inwood and L. P. Gerson (trans.), Hellenistic Philosophy:
Introductory Readings (Indianapolis, 19972), pp. 203–32, and into Italian by C. Viano in
C. Natali (edd.), Ario Didimo, Diogene Laerzio, Etica stoica (Rome and Bari, 1999), pp. 35–79.
Pomeroy’s book includes the text of the Epitome of Stoic Ethics together with a new complete
translation and a few notes. It is a real pity the three translations have been published at about the
same time, and therefore independently; a comparison would without doubt have helped in the
comprehension of some rather di¸cult passages.
In the following, I shall conµne myself to P.’s book. The Epitome was transmitted in Stobaeus’
anthology. In a short introduction (pp. 1–8), P. supplies some details regarding Stobaeus’ life and
work (on this subject, some reference might have been made to J. Mansfeld and D. T. Runia,
Aëtiana [Leiden, 1997], noted in the bibliography, p. 130); he gives information on the personality
of Arius Didymus, whom he identiµes with the Alexandrian philosopher Arius: ‘the philosopher-
companion of Augustus, well-known at Alexandria, and the writer with a particular interest in
ethics are likely to be the same person’ (p. 2); he gives an account of the transmission of Stobaeus’
text, summarizing Hahm’s results (useful material can also be found in the article by A. L. Di
Lello-Finuoli, ‘A proposito di alcuni codici Trincavelliani’, RSBN 14–16 [1977–9], 349–76); and
he µnally presents ‘a list of the places where the text varies from Wachsmuth’s edition’ (pp. 5–7),
and explains the criteria of his translation.
The edition of the Greek text of the Epitome and its English translation follow (pp. 9–103).
P. reproduces Wachsmuth’s text with the variants mentioned above. He provides the text with
critical notes that reproduce Wachsmuth’s in a sometimes too abbreviated form. Here are some
passages where the notes are ambiguous or wholly erroneous: pp. 14, 14.27; 60, 16 read
‘pseudo-Andronicus Rhodius’ (edited by A. Glibert-Thirry, Leiden, 1977); on pp. 36, 32 and
elsewhere P. quotes the Scholia ad Lucianum without having ever explained that they contain a
tradition parallel to Stobaeus’ in some passages of Arius’ Epitome (cf. Hahm, art. cit., 2947–74,
and for the Scholia, use Rabe’s edition); p. 40, 4: 6d: about this passage, see R. Bett, Hermes 96
(1998), 385–7; on p. 66, 26 instead of ‘suppl. ·orilegia 46.50’ read ‘Stob. 4.5.50 (vol. 4, p. 212, 2–3
Hense)’—the supplement is by Meineke and Gaisford; on p. 68, 5 instead of ‘suppl. ·orilegia
44.11’ read ‘Stob. 4.2.11 (vol. 4, p. 121, 16 Hense)’; on p. 100, 30.33 the two sentences ‘various
manuscripts of Hesiod’ and ‘manuscripts and quotations of Hesiod’ are too vague. Too often,
the reader will µnd it di¸cult to locate where, say, Wyttenbach, Meurer, Madvig, or Salmasius
proposed their corrections to Stobaeus’ text.
The notes (pp. 105–28) serve to guide the reader in the understanding of Arius’ Epitome and
do not pretend to face the problems these extracts present, nor to be exhaustive (p. 105 n. 2: on
the division of philosophy, see A. C. J. Habets, A History of Division of Philosophy in Antiquity
[Leiden, 1997]). . .
The volume is equipped with a bibliography (pp. 129–30) and a Greek–English glossary
(pp. 131–60), in which there are numerous accentuation . errors.
In conclusion, the book, in spite of its few faults, will. without doubt contribute to make Arius
Didymus’ work known among a wider range of people. It is a useful product of the Arius-
renaissance.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientiµque, Paris TIZIANO DORANDI

          587
A. G  : Eraclide di Taranto: Frammenti. Pp. 332, 3 ills.

Naples: M. D’Auria, 1998. Cased. ISBN: 88-7092-140-9.
Heracleides of Tarentum (a physician of the µrst century ..) is the best known of the
ancient empiricists. Guardasole’s new collection of his fragments is the µrst since that of K.
Deichgräber’s Die griechische Empirikerschule (Berlin, 1930, 19652). The fruit of a thorough
revision of this young scholar’s thesis, the book is an important contribution to the philology of
ancient medical texts, o¶ering many new elements compared with Deichgräber’s, till now widely
considered unsurpassable. More manuscript material has been consulted, and an Italian
translation and a commentary have been included. G. adds four testimonia and sixteen
fragments, three of which appear more extensive than previously.
The introduction (Chapter I, pp. 21–38) presents the little we know about Heracleides’ life
and works, dedicating a few pages to listing the hapax (or infrequent) legomena found in
the fragments. Chapter II, ‘I frammenti, tradizione e ricostruzione testuale’, occupies pp. 39–60.
Pp. 44–57 describe the Galenic manuscripts preserving the pharmacological fragments (index
at p. 309). The brevity of the introduction is balanced by the fact that the author discusses
many questions in detail in her commentary, which adequately clariµes the relations between
Heracleides and the other physicians, both empiricists and non-empiricists. Testimonia (twenty-
µve) are distinguished from fragments (ninety-seven), not separated into literal and non-literal.
The texts are presented in the following order: pharmacology, semeiotics, therapeutics, diaetetics,
and commentaries on Hippocrates. A tabula comparationis of this and Deichgräber’s collections
follows. G. also provides a (selective) index of names and things, indices of the manuscripts,
of places referred to, of proper names, Greek and Latin (according to the Latin alphabet), a
(selective) index of Greek and Latin terms, and one of modern authors.
Due to limitations of space I will indicate here only the most important of this collection’s
contributions to scholarship. Some choices I µnd perplexing. The most important contribution
concerns the manuscripts. G. does not use them merely to arrive at a text of the fragments;
she has thoroughly investigated the manuscripts themselves and describes them exhaustively.
One hopes that this work will prove preparatory for an edition of at least some of Galen’s
pharmacological works. She has also, with the help of Neapolitan Arabic scholars, added an
Italian version of a testimonium drawn from the famous MS arab. 2964 of the Bibliothèque
nationale of Paris. For the sake of prudence the author has not attempted a recension of the
manuscripts, though she does suggest some relationships, and her choice of readings is rather
eclectic. Except for Caelius Aurelianus, the texts which have already received critical editions are
reproduced without apparatus. I am convinced by G.’s demonstration (already presented in a
previous paper) of the interpolation of a passage in MS Marc. App. Cl. V, 7 (siglum Y, see table
on p. 56), which appears in all the printed editions of Galen’s De comp. med. sec. loc. (the passage
is, however, accepted as a part of fr. 2). The Italian version with its commentary will be very
useful for a wider understanding of the texts, more perhaps to the reader well acquainted with
the higher registers of the Italian language. The commentary generally succeeds in avoiding repe-
tition when similar subjects reappear, and does not conµne itself to matters strictly concerning
Heracleides, but elucidates the whole context. For instance, at p. 73 we µnd full information on
Heracleides’ master, Mantias, who is mentioned in test. 14, where Galen links the two (De comp.
med. sec. loc. XII 989 K.). The notes on Realien (plants, minerals, pathologies) are detailed, and
include modern identiµcations derived from Langkavel and Grmek, whose authority would seem
to be implied even when not mentioned explicitly. G. does not diverge from Deichgräber’s
suggested dates (or ·oruit) for Heracleides (75 ..). She suggests precise solutions to many
vexatae quaestiones in medical philology (e.g. p. 95 on the sources of Pliny’s iology). It would,
in my opinion, have been more useful to establish a section of dubia or spuria for certainly or
probably inauthentic testimonia and fragments, such as test. 32, drawn from the false Galenic
commentary in Hipp. Hum., fabricated by Rasarius (and rightly omitted by Deichgräber). I
also think that it would have been better if the author had been more precise about which of the
works quoted are preserved and which are not (e.g. p. 77 on Sextius Niger and Pamphilus)
to avoid misleading readers without prior knowledge of the fate of ancient medical literature.
Certain passages could, moreover, have been translated di¶erently: e.g. fr. 34 p. 155 GυιΚ ποµµ3ξ
δδψλε πε4σαξ: I would have translated ‘che ha dato molta (buona prova)’, rather than ‘garantì
lunga esperienza’. Fr. 40.3: I would take υ3ξ 2σγ3ξ adverbially as strengthening the negation,
not ‘principle’ (cf. also the commentary on p. 169). I observe that at frr. 49, 33–35, vel
certe—causarum, the author prints Drabkin’s text but translates after Benz’s emendation. As to

588          
interpretation of medical doctrine, there are some points—e.g. the identiµcation of diathesis
kardiake and morbus coeliacus at fr. 59a, p. 248—on which I cannot agree with her.
Università di Siena IVAN GAROFALO
L. I , G. S (edd.): Plutarco, Il cibarsi di carne.

(Corpus Plutarchi Moralium 31.) Pp. 239. Naples: D’Auria Editore,
1999. ISBN: 88-7092-161-1.
The editorial activity of the project Corpus Plutarchi Moralium is impressive. This volume is
a collaboration divided fairly equally between the editors, Lionello Inglese and Giuseppina
Santese. S. wrote the large introduction, pp. 7–89, the translation into Italian, and about half
the number of commentary notes. I. analyses and presents the manuscript situation in a
‘Premessa al testo’, pp. 93–116 and 125–7, and is responsible for the constitution of the text, the
apparatus criticus, and the editorial notes of the commentary.
The two speeches entitled De esu carnium both appear in a confused and mutilated state. There
are lacunas and interpolations in Sections 3 and 4 of Speech I, and Speech II ends abruptly. Also
the disposition of the texts is rather obscure. This is certainly not due to the author but to a
posthumous editor.
These circumstances add to the di¸culties of interpretation. The texts have generally been
regarded as inspired by Plutarch’s interests in the Pythagorean belief in metempsychosis. S.
underlines that Plutarch’s target is the Stoic anthropocentric doctrine. She argues convincingly
that Plutarch’s main source and inspiration for De esu was Theophrastus’ Πεσ6 ε2τεβε#αΚ.
Following the lead of Xenocrates, and opposing his teacher, Theophrastus extended the concept
of communio iuris to comprise even animals and maintained that a relation of justice exists
between man and animal. On the basis of such animal rights per se Plutarch founds his
prohibition of slaying animals unnecessarily and/or for the sake of pleasure.
In his handling of the text I. applies a rather conservative practice. The text is badly
transmitted and di¸cult to handle. I.’s scepticism towards emendations generally adopted by
editors is laudable and often rescues correct readings, e.g. at 993B3 εEδ<µψξ V, a Platonic remin-
iscence, H<µψξ Herwerden, edd.; at 993C7 υο(υοξ . . . υ.ξ πσ/υοξ V, υο υψξ Turnebus, edd.;
at 993E1 δφτυαυο(ξυι X, J, S, P, F, διατυαυο(ξυι g, δφτδιατυαυο(ξυι Xylander, edd., a verb
not attested in Plutarch, while δφτυαυψ is found at Adv. Col. 1124B and µts well with ροµεσ/ι in
our context. At 996B5 I. rightly preserves δειµο4Κ V, where Hubert and Helmbold adopt
Bernardakis’s δειξο4Κ because Plutarch refers to Plat. Phaedr. 245C δειξο4Κ ν7ξ 4πιτυοΚ! τοζο4Κ
δ7 πιτυI; but in Plutarch’s text there is no opposition: 4πιτυοξ 2ξδσ0τι δειµο4Κ . . . λα6 ρξθυ1
ζσοξο(τιξ: Plutarch used Plato’s passage carelessly. I. rightly points out that he often makes
such inexact citations. In 997B10 I. is obviously right in printing ρθµφξ νεξοξ X, Π instead of
"λµφ νεξοξ g, edd.
In some cases, however, the conservative approach entices the editor to retain even doubtful
readings. At 993C10 I. keeps π8ταξ λα6 υ3ξ 2ποσ#αξ. S. translates ‘proprio la mancanza di
risorse’, without rendering π8ταξ. She neglects I.’s advice to render—according to Kühner–
Gerth i.275, c—‘sotto ogni riguardo’. At 993D7 I. preserves the relative 6Κ which editors since
Stephanus have deleted: +τοξ πµο(υοξ "λ πεδ#ψξ! +ταΚ =π. ζφυ/ξ Jδοξ1Κ K6Κ¨ δσπετραι
π0σετυιξ, a banal dittography; this explanation also applies to 994A1 "λε#ξθξ Kξ¨. The
accusatives +τοξ and +ταΚ (993D6–7) are not anacoluthic, as I. thinks, nor is "λε#ξθξ (994A1),
which is an example of gender attraction/assimilation ("λε4ξο); cf. K.–G. i.74. At 995B1 Reiske’s
+τα "τρ#οφτι is plausible, and should be accepted: . . . ψΚ < +τ < +τα.
There are quite few mistakes in the book: on p. 176 n. 8 Plat. Resp. 568e should be 568c; K.–G.
i.416 n. 19, cited on p. 180 n. 1, is mistaken; on pp. 66 and 69 ωMα instead of Mα; at p. 144 l. 7 the
accent has been transposed: διαλσαυθριτθΚ.
Apart from I.’s somewhat excessive editorial conservatism, this is a sober edition. S.’s excellent
introduction adds considerably to its merit.
Gothenburg University SVEN-TAGE TEODORSSON

          589
A. M. S   (ed.): Plutarco, Conversazioni a tavola, libro

primo. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento. (Corpus
Plutarchi Moralium 28.) Pp. 357. Napoli: D’Auria Editore, 1998.
ISBN: 88-7092-143-3.
A. Scarcella uses pp. 7–136 for the introduction, and the commentary covers pp. 253–348. S.
describes the institution of the symposion in historical, sociological, and cultural terms, and
detects great di¶erences between (1) the Homeric banquet, which aimed at military planning,
(2) the archaic–classical symposion, the purpose of which was food, drink, and sex, and (3) the
symposion of the imperial period, especially the Plutarchean one (p. 125 n. 170 end), where
intellectual activity had been substituted for the erotic. This rough classiµcation is exaggerated.
S. uses the evidence of vase painting and sympotic poetry to arrive at the generalized statement
(pp. 64–5) that wine and sex were inseparably connected in the classical symposion, and that
all revellers ought to partake in both. Using the absence of reports of erotic activities in
Plutarch’s Table Talks, S. concludes (p. 127.4) that these were non-existent at his time; certainly
also an excessive conclusion: Plutarch’s sympotic writings are not di¶erent from the classical
ones (Plat., Xen.). Searching in vain, S. is sorely frustrated (p. 132): ‘Eros is not there; . . . the
conditions of sexual, even homosexual, amusements are present, but there is no mention of it,
still less a description.’ The frustration makes S. depreciate (p. 133) Q. C. in a coarse language
unworthy of a scholarly text: Q. C. is a ‘symposion of literary, aristocratic, loquacious men (a
symposion of ragamu¸ns and disinherited would be unthinkable), men that are sometimes
disdainful (think of the ‘shadows’), learned men, captious, extremely verbal, a symposion that
evaporates in words, with petty, decorative bickerings, divergent, dissentient opinions about
minimal and marginal questions, spoken with timid surprise and timorous passions. . . . In sum,
a decorous, placid, chatty symposion . . ., precisely the symposion of Plutarch.’
Guided by his biased attitude, S. (pp. 100–5) makes Plutarch a misogynous pederast who feigns
ardour for conjugal love, morality, and respectability. He (p. 100) misreads Amat. 755C, where
the speaker is the pederast Peisias, not Plutarch. S. (p. 103 n. 164) completely misunderstands
Plutarch’s argumentation (756A–768F) that Eros is a real, almighty god, the cause of true
love, equally of both sexes, but only when a¶ection is present, and violence and coercion are
absent. Plutarch ends his speech (769A–771C) with his famous exaltation of conjugal love; see
F. E. Brenk, ICS 13 (1988), 457–71. S. misinterprets (p. 127.4) Q. C. VII 7.710DE. Cleitomachus
the athlete, who left the party when sex was mentioned, was considered typical of his profession;
a philosopher acting similarly would be ridiculous, Plutarch says. At Q. C. VII 8.712E Plutarch
criticizes vulgar people who admit obscene farces in their drinking-parties even when women and
beardless boys are present. S. thinks (p. 128) that the place is the Plutarchean party itself and is
disappointed that no spicy incidents occur. S.’s completely confused reading (pp. 132–3) of Q. C.
IV 1.660E is astounding. The real situation is this: the physician Philo is the host. Philinus, his
guest, has brought with him his son, whom Philo, bantering, calls Soroaster.
The edition, apparatus criticus, and commentary are of varying quality. Footnote 19: S.
misunderstands Te., who has the same opinion as S.; n. 78: reference to 614E10 app. for
emendations, but only that of Amyot is recorded; 615B8 app. should be: !λατυοΚ Re.; 617D8: no
mention of 4µφποξ Wytt.; 618D4: πσοτειπε4ξ T preserved, translated ‘esporre in anticipo’,
πσοειπε4ξ Amyot neglected; 621A6 app.: λαυα<λ σψΚ>, the emendator Steph. not mentioned;
2ξδθξ (‘semplicemente’) not convincing; 621E6 app.: lac. 4–6 Nβσιξ <οOξP> Fu. neglected:
623C4: no mention that the Pindaric line was moved here (Abram.) from 623B8 δ ξαξυαι; 623F5
app. should be: lac. 3–4 T suppl. Turn., 4λσαυοξ Bolk.; 625B6 app. should be: lac. 4–6 T, <υ/ξ
τζοδσ/ξ> Turn.; 625D4–5, 626A7–8, 628B7–8: probable supplements not mentioned; 628C1, 8:
τ#λοφξ, cucumber, translated ‘µco’. S. thinks (nn. 276, 339) that the headings were written by
Plutarch; nn. 327, 330: S. intimates that the terms 4υονοΚ and π σοΚ derive from Epicurus.
Further mistakes: p. 39 γσαυσα; p. 89 n. 145 292F = 792E, γσθτυσιοξ; p. 91 528B = 828B;
p. 94 11BC = 811BC, *σγοξ; p. 105 627C = 629E; p. 123 λσαξ <ψξ! που6; p. 134 "ωαπαυθρI
should be +σλοιΚ δ 4ξδσαΚ "ωαπαυθυοξ; n. 135 top 617B8 = 617D9; 618D3 επειξ = επεξ;
p. 202 app. λαυ ρ Jτφγ#αξ. Commentary, n. 112 understating = understanding, haerts = hearts;
n. 115 world = word; n. 121 Ν#λοξοΚ; n. 136 Rünckgang = Rückgang; n. 155 νεη0µθ = νεη0µ;
n. 172 alteren, leitung, ihrer = ihre, verknünpfte; nn. 205–6 "λµεζρξ, ασγΚ n. 225 end cheks =
checks, n. 243 "ηλοµ0πυοξ = "ηλ µαπυοξ; n. 267: nine spelling errors in eighteen lines (German);
n. 292 anedoctic = anecdotic; n. 324: six errors in µve lines (English), e.g. thought = taught; n. 356

590          
carthy = earthy, cloath = cloth; n. 363 proprios = propios (Spanish); n. 378 ennying = annoying;
nn. 381, 388 Te = T.
This volume detracts from the credit of the CPM. May it remain an exception!
Gothernburg University SVEN-TAGE TEODORSSON
A. M    : Appiano Le guerre di Mitridate (Oscar Classici

Greci e Latini). Pp. xxii + 223, map. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1999.
Paper, L. 15,000. ISBN: 88-04-46860-2.
Mithridates VI Eupator, the indefatigable enemy of Rome, has made a number of friends
among scholars in recent years, notably L. B. Pastor, whose massive study of 1996 (not used by
M.) was reviewed in CR 49 (1999), 202–3, and A. Mastrocinque himself, whose Studi sulle
guerre Mitridatiche appeared as a Historia Einzelschrift in 1999. While the reviewer of Pastor’s
admirable book has regretted that it does not contain a chapter on the source material,
‘inadequate though this is’, M. has accompanied his studies with the publication of an
annotated bilingual edition of the only ancient narrative of the war, Appian’s Mithridateios.
In his introduction, M. brie·y surveys Appian’s work in general and his study of Mithridates in
particular, including an admirably clear discussion of the vexed questions about Appian’s
sources; appropriately, an appendix presents, in translation only, fr. 36 of Poseidonios’ Histories.
Also, the events described by Appian are set into their time and place by a ‘schema cronologico’
and a simple map; a bibliography suggests further reading—clearly, this is a book aimed at an
advanced student readership.
The core of the book is the annotated bilingual edition of the Mithridateios. The Greek text is
taken from the Teubner edition, with two sensible changes—and without the apparatus. This is
legitimate, of course, in this type of book, but it does make it impossible to see that what is
printed as Chapters 118 and 119 here is, in fact, transmitted in the codices as the very beginning
of the work—a fact which has, of course, implications for how we assess the literary structure of
the text.
But then, M.’s edition is not concerned with that. The translation reads ·uently, and it is to the
translation, not the text, that the forty pages of very useful notes refer. They contribute greatly
towards the understanding of the text, ranging from the Latin equivalents of the Roman
technical terms referred to in Appian’s Greek to detailed references to parallel sources and
modern studies on the history described by him, however inadequately.
In sum, M. succeeds in making accessible the Mithridateios for an advanced student readership.
The book will be useful outside Italy as well; it is beautifully produced and, at under £5,
very a¶ordable. It appears in a remarkable series of similarly well produced editions, named
‘Oscar Classici Greci e Latini’ and displaying the image of the Academy Award as the series
logo. How good to know that at long last someone has thought of awarding the ‘inadequate’
Appian an Oscar!
University of Newcastle KAI BRODERSEN
M.   C. G S (trans.): Galeno. Sobre los lugares

afectados. Pp. 406. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 1997. Paper, ptas 1800.
ISBN: 84-7882-277-1.
D. L  N (trans.): Galeno. Sobre las facultades naturales. Sobre

la constitución del arte medica. A Patróµlo. Pp. 259. Madrid: Ediciones
Clásicas, 1997. Paper, ptas 1200. ISBN: 84-7882-276-1.
The two volumes, published in the collection of Greek authors of the Ediciones Clásicas, form
part of a project of translating the entire works of Galen into Spanish, and both are the µrst
Spanish translations of the respective works. G.S.’s is a translation of De locis a¶ectis, one of
Galen’s better-known works, but nevertheless still not included in the CMG. G.S. has corrected

          591
some passages in the Kühn text, using the 1557 Basle edition, and her introduction begins with
a list of these passages, including some in which the Latin translation in Kühn corresponds to
the Basle edition but not to the Greek text used by him. It continues with a short outline of
Galen’s life and career and a description of the work, which is a detailed exposition of Galen’s
theories on the correct practice of medicine and an analysis of his technê iatrikê. The
translation is preceded by a useful synopsis by book and chapter.
The two works chosen by L.N. are De facultatibus naturalibus and the little-known De
constitutione artis medicae ad Patrophilum. She, too, begins with a brief discussion of Galen’s life
(including the incorrect detail that Galen served as an army doctor in the campaigns against the
Germanic tribes) and works, and the two works are also discussed in their own respective
introductions. The µrst is one of Galen’s most important works on physiology, written during his
second stay in Rome and intended as one of four treatises representing a complete course in
physiology. It explains his theory of four primary, and several secondary, natural faculties—a
theory developed from that of the four humours. Based on Hippocratic and Aristotelian
doctrines, it attacks in particular Asclepiades and Erasistratus.
The second work, written for Galen’s student Patrophilus, opens with a prologue discussing,
in strongly Platonizing language, the search for truth and, uncharacteristically, praising the
student’s disposition. The bulk of the text consists of a compendium of various parts of
medicine, covering anatomy, physiology, pathology, therapy, diagnosis, prognosis, and prophy-
laxis, as well as hygiene.
Both authors have produced ·uent and readable translations, which together with the
introductions should make the two volumes very useful for those who have no Greek but a
knowledge of Spanish.
University of Cambridge C. F. SALAZAR
G. D M  (ed.): Achillis quae feruntur Astronomica et in Aratum

Opuscula: De Universo; De Arati Vita; De Phaenomenorum Inter-
pretatione. (Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosoµa dell’Università
di Palermo, Studi e Ricerche 27.) Pp. xxxiv + 97. Palermo: Facoltà di
Lettere e Filosoµa dell’Università di Palermo, 1996. No price or ISBN
provided.
The surviving works of the astronomer Achilles Tatius (who is almost certainly to be distin-
guished from the author of De Clitophontis et Leucippes Amoribus, and dated a century later)
are here ordered and edited by M. as: De Universo / Πεσ6 υο( παξυ Κ (the major portion of
text) and Opuscula, two fragmentary commentaries entitled (1) De Arati Vita / ΗξοΚ Ασ0υοφ
λα6 Β#οΚ and (2) De Interpretatione / Υ/ξ Ασ0υοφ Ζαιξονξψξ Πεσ6 ΕωθηIτεψΚ. A
Praefatio defends the arrangement, and in exact detail traces the manuscript families in the
Stemma Codicum, adding an appendix on the minor (rejected) alternate readings. The following
Conspectus Editionum with only seven items shows how meagre is the work done on these texts,
and the necessity for a comprehensive edition to supplement the edition of E. Maass (Berlin,
1898), and the studies on the scholia for Aratus by Jean Martin (Paris, 1956 and Stuttgart,
1974). M. is admirably clear and meticulous throughout in the printing of his text, the identi-
µcation of quotations and allusions, and the minutiae of the apparatus criticus. He adds
a most welcome and comprehensive series of indexes to assist the study of this less familiar
material—of key terms, stars, names, and passages cited. There is, however, no commentary or
translation of the Greek, and acknowledgements, preface, and apparatus are in Latin.
The main interest is in De Universo—over µfty pages of text under forty headings, covering
sections on the arche, the shape of the cosmos, the substance of the stars with their risings
and settings, the number and movements of the planets, the zodiac band, the nature, size, and
movements of sun and moon, the µve parallels and zones of the earth, details of winds and
comets, and calculations for the length of the Great Year; the di¶erent views discussed are from
both poets and philosophers. (Here, for example, is the only evidence for Xenophanes fr. 28 and
the main reading for Empedocles fr. 27.4, as well as support for Hera to be interpreted as earth
and Aidoneus as air in his fr. 6.2.) The range of sources includes liberal Homeric quotations,
Aeschylus and Aristophanes, most Presocratics, an Orphic argument for an oval cosmos,

592          
substantial evidence for Eratosthenes, some Plato and Aristotle, citations from Epicurus, and a
considerable amount from the early Stoics. The subsequent few pages on Aratus mainly give
material from the poets illustrating lines from the Phaenomena.
This monograph is to be highly recommended as an attractive presentation of a previously
inaccessible text, now produced according to the strictest standards of editing. M. should be
encouraged to produce a supplementary volume, providing a commentary and more information
on the content of this fascinating material to reach a wider readership in the contemporary
climate of interest in ancient cosmology.
University of Wales Lampeter M. R. WRIGHT
H. D. S    , L. G. W      (edd.): Proclus, Théologie

platonicienne, Livre VI; index géneral. Pp. cxxxi + 223. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1997. ISBN: 2-251-00462-9.
With this sixth volume, the µrst modern edition of Proclus’ magnum opus, the Platonic
Theology, is complete. Readers can, at last, recycle their remaining photocopies of the
sigla-µlled pages of the 1618 edition (repr. 1960). It is a lifetime’s achievement for its surviving
editor, Father H. D. Sa¶rey, who initiated the enterprise thirty-six years earlier during his
doctoral work. In this it also serves as a reminder of the true cost of substantial research. Two
scholars are especially thanked in the preface: Prof. L. G. Westerink, who was S.’s close
collaborator for the life of the project until his death in 1990, and Prof. A. Ph. Segonds, who
manages to combine the jobs of publisher and meticulous material contributor. (Neo)-Platonic
studies have been exceptionally fortunate with this rare syndromê of good will. What this
can mean in concrete terms, I should like to convey with a personal episode. While on a visit
to Les Belles Lettres’ bookshop in Paris, I overheard a customer asking for what sounded
like ‘traduction platonicienne’. The assistant promptly proceeded to show Plato’s texts in
Greek–French. But the man insisted that was not what he was asking for. After some argument,
he enunciated more clearly his request: the entire ‘trad-i-tion platonicienne’. So to his satis-
faction down came, copy after copy, all the many works by Plato and Platonists, including
Proclus’ Platonic Theology.
The last extant book of the Theol. Plat. deals with the levels of substantive reality closest to the
corporeal domain. The principles of reality are identiµed with divinity, and particularly with gods
of the Hellenic pantheon and some oriental, notably Hekate. The µrst half of Volume VI refers to
the ‘hypercosmic’ gods, and the second to the ones that are ‘both hypercosmic and encosmic’. The
fully ‘encosmic’ gods, which correspond to the celestial bodies, are not discussed here (probably
because Body is a phenomenon, not a hypostasis). On the other hand, Thomas Taylor, the µrst
translator of the 1618 edition in a modern language, constructed a seventh volume with material
extracted mainly from Proclus’ Commentary on the Timaeus. All this background is raised in the
µrst two of seven introductory chapters. Chapter I (the hypercosmic gods: the hypercosmic order
before and after Proclus; the interpretation of the Phaedrus myth by Syrianus; the assimilative
order according to Damascius and John Lydus) also examines the possible reasons for these novel
distinctions, including the µtting of individual forms. However, there does not seem to be a
discussion of some di¸culties, such as the coherence and metaphysics of the mysterious
‘hypercosmic and encosmic’ order of principles (on the problem, see e.g. L. Siorvanes, Proclus
[Edinburgh, 1996], ch. 3, section on Nature). Chapter II expands on the survival of the Theol.
Plat., whether it is complete, and its posterity. Chapters III, V, and VII, on the novelty of the
Theol. Plat. as a whole, the relation with Damascius’ Commentary on the Parmenides, and the
analysis of the Theol. Plat. sections, are enormously useful in revealing Proclus’ ambitious plans
for Platonism as a theology. A discussion on the problems of harmonizing di¶erent theologies,
and those on the relation of philosophy to theology (as concluded, for example, by J. Dillon)
would have been beneµcial. Chapters IV and VI are on the manuscript material.
The excellent text, which is a pleasure to read, is accompanied by detailed notes com-
plémentaires. I found particularly interesting the ones on autogonos and the concept of causa sui
(p. 125 n. 2), on the lacuna and di¸cult construction on text-page 13 (pp. 129–30 n. 2), on the
notion of cosmic choir-dancing (pp. 131–2), on Dike in the Laws and Orphics (p. 144 n. 2), on the
relation with ‘barbaric’ and theurgic theologies (pp. 151–2), and on ‘sanctuary’ (p.157 n. 1).
Thoughtfully, the twenty-nine pages of comprehensive indices of names (incl. alluded: hoi men,

          593
hoi de, tines, paradoxamenoi) and works of ancient authors cover all six volumes. The superb
work deserves wholehearted congratulations.
King’s College London LUCAS SIORVANES
M. S   (ed.): Démocratie Athénienne et culture: Colloque

internationale organisé par l’académie d’Athènes en coopération avec
L’UNESCO (23, 24 et 25 novembre 1992). Pp. 345. Athènes: Académie
d’Athènes, 1996. Paper. ISBN: 960-7099-41-9.
The Athens conference of which this publication is the product was a response to a UNESCO
call for historical investigations into the relationships between democracy and culture. The
papers appear in many cases pretty much as delivered, though some contributors (notably
Hansen, Hölscher, Farrar, and Sartori) appear to have expanded them and provided full
documentation. The gap between the conference and the publication is unusually long even by
today’s standards (the book claims 1996, but it seems to have reached the journal only in 1998;
the µnal delay is the reviewer’s responsibility). This has inevitably a somewhat depressive e¶ect
on the value of the product, especially as the decade has produced many other democratic
retrospectives and celebrations of Kleisthenes’ anniversary, and hence other such publications,
on both sides of the Atlantic. Further, some papers given in Athens have by now already
appeared elsewhere (e.g. Mogens Hansen’s excellent The Trial of Socrates—From the Athenian
Point of View can be acquired as an independent pamphlet [Copenhagen, 1995]; Robin
Osborne’s paper on ‘Funerary Monuments, the Democratic Citizen, and the Representation of
Women’ appears, with considerable expansion, in Past & Present 155 [1997], 3.33); in other cases
the leading ideas have been incorporated in other articles or books (e.g. the papers by Connor,
Hölscher, Meier, MacDowell, and Schmitt-Pantel).
Many papers consider the relations between the democracy and new literary forms and literary
culture in general. Francisco Adrados o¶ers a general, fairly standard, survey of the new literary
genres (essentially drama, oratory, and philosophy) which were ‘created or transformed’ by the
democratic openness to debate of µfth-century Athens, along with some old-fashionedly gloomy
comments on supposed fourth-century changes, and Constatin Despotopoulos some brief, and
equally dated, remarks on the relation between the democratic system and the rhetorical
and literary achievements of the ‘Age of Pericles’. Christian Meier provides a sharper and more
wide-raging account of the value of Athenian cultural forms for those who participated in the
democracy; Jacqueline de Romilly focuses more precisely on the conµdence-boosting e¶ect on the
people of the fact that they made the µnal decisions, and on the increasing clarity of exposition
with which such political issues, including the nature of popular judgement itself, were contested
in oratory, drama, and history. Douglas MacDowell’s brief paper on comedy concentrates on
Acharnians and Knights, and discusses, as more fully in his subsequent book, what he takes to
be Aristophanes’ position, accepting democracy, but critical of the people’s gullibility and their
choice of leaders. Luigi Beschi o¶ers a detailed and useful survey of the complex debates over
musical styles and performances, emotions, and politics from the sixth to the fourth centuries (on
which more can or will be found in Goldhill and Osborne, Performance Culture and Athenian
Democracy [Cambridge, 1999], and the proceedings of the 1999 Warwick Conference on ‘Public
Performance and Images of Mousike in the Classical Athenian Polis’).
Three papers focus on polis religion. François Chamoux o¶ers an unexceptional, and
unoriginal, account of the pervasiveness of cult and ritual, over the centuries, in Athenian public
life; Walter Burkert demonstrates with his customary penetration and suggestiveness the dense
intermeshing of the ideas of ‘equality’ permeating Kleisthenes’ reforms and polis-religion, in
terms both of the origins of such ideas, and of the introduction of the new tribal structures and
notions of sharing and participation into the organization of the great festivals. Two points
in particular emerge from Robert Connor’s focus on the ‘egalitarian’ functions of ritual and
festivals: that the attempt to win the ‘favour’ of the gods by establishing a form of reciprocity
should recognize the importance of infectious delight and shared joy, conveyed especially by the
terms hilaskesthai and hilasis, as well as the presentation of o¶erings; and, echoing Burkert, that
festival settings and feasting themselves deliberately fostered the ideals of equal shares and free
speech. With these papers, one may compare again many of the papers in Sommerstein et al.,
Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis (Bern, 1993) (especially Osborne on the festival competitions),

594          
Gill, Postlethwaite, and Seaford’s Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford, 1998) (especially Parker,
whose discussion of charis in men/gods relations usefully supplements Connor), and also
Seaford’s own Reciprocity and Ritual (Oxford, 1994).
Several papers consider democratic practices and theory, and contrast the Athenian and more
modern versions. At the highest level of generality, Evanghélos Moutsopoulos o¶ers uplifting
ideals of rationality, freedom, and human development only achievable through democracy (but
which democracies may have gone any way towards delivery is not made clear). Georges Vlachos
identiµes and discusses (somewhat uncritically) certain ideals of freedom and equality, above
all in Demosthenic speeches. Michel Sakellariou embarks on a more extended and useful tour:
he enumerates twenty-two characteristics of Athenian democratic institutions, adduces their
similarities, and more often their dissimilarities, with modern systems, assesses the innovations of
the democracy of Kleisthenes and Ephialtes/Perikles, sketches prevailing social and economic
conditions and pre-existing social groupings, and µnally o¶ers his version of the combination of
particular factors which produced the µnal system. The treatment is often interesting, especially
on the pre-existing egalitarian tendencies of the archaic period, but apart from some reference
to his previous work, it is largely undocumented, and controversial issues are often suppressed.
Cynthia Farrar’s discussion of the ‘boundaries of democratic citizenship’ is the most successful
of these papers concerned with political theory; she integrates well an innovative treatment of
speciµcally Athenian practices, values, and ideologies with the di¶ering practices and theory of
the modern world. I particularly welcomed her subtle treatment of the ‘democratic’ extension and
modiµcation of the values of reciprocity, friendship, and homosexual love (which contrasts in
some ways with Schmitt-Pantel’s treatment of the di¶erence between symposia and public feasts
and meals, explored in much greater detail in La cité au banquet). John Dunn raises the broadest
questions: why it is this Greek term for the system (rather than, say, a Latin, Japanese, or Chinese
term) which has become the one to which all pay at least lip service, and to what, if anything, in
human nature, the Greek ideal seems to speak, and µnds, provisionally, an answer in its promise
collectively to protect the notion of freedom from personal subjection.
A couple of papers raise more speciµc issues concerning democratic institutions and
politicians. Olivier Picard contemplates the relationship between money and democracy, and
speculates illuminatingly on the reasons behind the decision to µnance the courts and other
magistracies by the open, ·exible, and accurate mechanism of misthos, rather than by a liturgy-
style set of contributions by the better-o¶, which would, in the context especially of jury-pay, be
likely to produce the reality, or the fear, of excessive personal connections. Franco Sartori o¶ers
a detailed reassessment of the career of the man who promulgated the misthos ekklesiastikos,
Agyrrios of Kollytos, and defends him, against Aristophanes’ slurs, as a committed and con-
scientious democrat. Finally, archaeological and artistic material is considered in two papers:
Osborne’s, which connects the greater prominence of women on funerary monuments with
Perikles’ citizenship law; and Tonio Hölscher’s, which gives a perceptive account of the new
‘democratic’ uses of public space and buildings and ‘heroic’ sculptural monuments, and µnds,
rather more speculatively, re·ections of political ideas in some vase-painters’ treatments of
Herakles’ attitude to lyre-learning and Theseus’ to leaving Ariadne.
Scattered through the book there are a good few ‘typos’ and some mistakes with Greek
(notably "σατυΚ on p. 129); worth noting especially is p. 102, where Hanes is probably to be read
as Hansen. This is a collection with much of interest, but of very variable quality, lacking clear
editorial control: the words ‘egg’ and ‘curate’s’ come irresistibly to mind.
Cardi¶ University NICK FISHER
N. S : Exile and the Poetics of Loss in Greek Tradition. Pp. xiii +
136. Lanham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman & Littleµeld,
1999. Paper, £21.95. ISBN: 0-8476-8752-X.
The wandering hero is one of the most common µgures in Greek literary tradition. Sultan’s
book is a very suggestive and stimulating reading of this µgure as he appears from Homeric to
Byzantine times. The focus of comparison lies within the Odyssey, since Odysseus is, of course,
the wandering hero par excellence in the Greek world. The book includes passages of the Iliad,
archaic lyric, and tragedy, complemented appropriately with several Byzantine and modern
folksongs gathered throughout Greece. S. stresses continuity of motifs and culture from
Homeric times until the present through well-chosen parallels between ancient and modern

          595
texts. The book explores the male and female ‘discourse of honor’, and the rôle of women and
their songs as depositories of men’s glory, acquired during exile.
The book has two chapters, each followed by a summary. The µrst chapter talks about the
hero’s voice in exile, the second about the hero’s voice of return, i.e. the women’s rôle and their
discourse.
S. starts by discussing the notion of xenitia: although expressed through a modern term, it is an
old concept present every time a hero becomes a xenos. This chapter stresses the di¸culties of
recognizing a good host/guest in a world of wandering heroes and the di¶erence in the ‘scale
of a¶ection’ between the philos ‘one’s own’ and the xenos ‘guest/host’. It focuses as well on the
dangers of dying far from home without the lament of the women of the hero’s clan, who will
propagate the kleos of the hero.
The author shows how ‘xenitia disrupts the cycle of the life at home’ (p. 14). The µeld is left
unplowed, a metaphor for the sterility to which men and women are subjected during a man’s
absence from home. The plowing is also an image of the hero’s wanderings. Both plowing and
wandering constitute a ponos (su¶ering) for the hero. The discourse of men during xenitia is
agonistic and boastful. The hero’s emotions are suppressed and he always has to prove his manli-
ness. On the other hand, the rôles of men and women change during funerals, where women
performing their lament become ‘demonstrative in public and men are silent, inhibited, and
spatially segregated’ (p. 39). There is also a connection between ponos and the etymologically
related poneria ‘cunning’. Odysseus illustrates how both qualities are essential for the hero’s
return.
The second chapter explores the woman’s rôle in the transmission of the man’s adventures. The
hero gains immortal fame through seasonally recurring performance of his life and deeds by
singers. However, before singers possess the hero’s kleos, it has to be told by him to his wife, who
will perform it at his funerary lament. This makes the hero’s kleos completely dependent upon
his reintegration into the home after his period of xenitia. Women’s µdelity is crucial, since
women control home rituals surrounding birth and death. The author goes on to expound how
lamentations as speech-acts represent the ponos of men in battle. Through their laments, screams,
and violent acts directed towards themselves the women re-enact battle. It is then through the
speech-act of the lamentation that the kleos is transferred.
The deµnition of a hero through ponos and poneria works very well for Odysseus, but not
so well for other heroes, like Achilles, who dies in xenitia, or Agamemnon, who is unable to
achieve reintegration. If only women act as witnesses to a hero’s kleos and its propagation
depends on them, who handed down Agamemnon’s kleos to us? Or does Agamemnon not have
one independent from Achilles’ kleos, transmitted in the lament performed by his mother?
Andromache complains about not having heard Hector’s epos; who is witness to it then? The
story of Hector in the Iliad and the story that he might have told his wife certainly allude to
di¶erent levels of narration. So does the story of Odysseus, because we hear it from Odysseus
himself, not from Penelope. Odysseus also hears his own kleos from the bard Demodokos. Who
transmitted it to him while Odysseus was still alive? Odysseus is the only surviving witness of his
sea travels and for this reason it is important that he pass on his own story. However, in the case
of heroes who die in battle, many are the witnesses of their actions, but usually not the women,
who will still perform a lament for them. Do men also transmit the kleos, as might be the case
in other Indo-European societies with heroic poetry? (Cf. Beowulf 3164–77 or Tacitus’ famous
assertion: ‘It is honest for women to cry, for men to remember’ Germania 27.2.)
S.’s is a highly recommendable book for scholars and students alike. Ideas are clearly expressed
and always contrasted against the testimonies of primary sources. Her work enhances our
understanding of the poetics of exile and loss in the Greek world, and invites further thinking
and re·ection.
The University of Calgary REYES BERTOLIN CEBRIAN
A. H. S       , C. A (edd.): Education in Greek

Fiction. (Nottingham Classical Literature Studies 4.) Pp. viii + 208.
Bari: Levante, 1996. Paper, £48. ISBN: 88-7849-141-5.
This unusual grouping of four conference papers and three responses seems at µrst sight rather
at odds with its title. Only two relate to µction as generally understood, the ancient novel or its
relations (Tuplin on the Cyropaedia and Morgan on the Greek novel). The other two deal with

596          
Paideia and Ephebeia in the Wasps (Slater), and with ‘heroic and aristocratic educations’ in
general (van Wees).
Tuplin’s contribution is close to monograph length and the title topic seems designed almost
inevitably for this piece. It comes hard on the heels of a spate of major contributions from Tatum
to Gera emphasizing a renewal of interest in Xenophon’s hybrid work: T. inclines to view it as
largely explicable within Xenophon’s own work (p. 7), and is uneasy with its association with the
novel (unfortunately for the theme of the papers as a whole). A valuable core of this paper is in
the concentration on Xenophon’s views on Persian education (pp. 69–95), of which it is useful to
have a summary, and inevitable re·ections on historicity: T. goes into native Persian texts as well,
and is commendably thorough in his e¶orts to bridge the time-gap between Achaemenids and
Sassanids, and argues (p. 132) that ‘we have no strong reason to think that the Achaemenids did
not engage with history self-consciously enough to generate a tradition of historical literature’. In
the end T. sees much more than coincidental similarity between Greek and Persian, and claims
(p. 153) that even the controversial deathbed scene was at least believed by Xenophon to be
historical. This is challenging and subtly argued, with a wealth of Iranian source-material. It
should be taken seriously in the unfolding evaluation of this perpetually di¸cult text.
John Morgan discusses the Greek novel as Bildungsroman. He is right to say that apart from
Longus the extant novelists do not exploit the genre’s potential for ‘sentimental education’
(extending to Daphnis’ provision of ‘didactic myths’). M. hints that characters tend to learn
from experiences told in digressions. As we should expect, Achilles Tatius is the most di¸cult
text to µnd the measure of, and I am not always sure about Clitophon’s failure to grasp the
‘lessons’ o¶ered to him: ‘The basic structure of learning through experience was one which
the hyperenigmatic Achilleus Tatius toyed with albeit spasmodically and elusively, in order to
undermine his narrator and hint at a “true” story that Clitophon could never have written about
himself ’ (p. 188). It seems much more straightforward to say that Clitophon challenges the
‘lessons’ of ideal romance, if that is what they are. But again, M. raises a stimulating question
with further potential.
The other two contributions avoid the novel altogether. Hans van Wees is concerned with
Heroic and other Archaic literature in the context of education and socialization, and emphasizes
the general tendency towards an increasing di¶erentiation between children and adults. The
paradoxes of Achilles and Telemachus treated as children are raised; it would be worth
contrasting Phoenix’ view of the former with the sketch of Achilles’ schooldays with Chiron
charmingly presented by Dio Chrysostom’s Oration 58. v.W. interestingly starts with the thefts of
Hermes in the latter’s Homeric Hymn. For me the text raises the problem of whether we may be
looking at an ancient fairytale here, and what function such tales might have for a young audience
in early Greek society.
Niall Slater’s paper studies the child-is-father-of-the-man theme in Aristophanes’ Wasps,
and discussion of the ‘re-education’ of Philocleon harmonizes well with the collection’s title.
S. ably shows how Aristophanes’ mock trial acts like Robert Nozick’s ‘experience machine’ in
reprogramming the jury-mad father. It is a pity that space did not permit a similar discussion of
the Clouds.
I had fears that this book would not hang together, and that its disproportions would cause it
to fragment very easily. But this is not the case in the end. When we have stretched our view of
µction to include poetry, the four papers do work together, and the reader is conditioned to
explore the topic of educational presuppositions in creative literature over a still wider range of
texts. We could only have wished for more.
University of Kent at Canterbury GRAHAM ANDERSON
T. K. H : The Pipes of Pan: Intertextuality and Literary

Filiation in the Pastoral Tradition from Theocritus to Milton. Pp.vi +
390. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Cased, $52.50.
ISBN: 0472-10855-7.
Professor Hubbard presents the history of pastoral as the work of predominantly young poets
who seek to a¸rm their identities by imitating and surpassing their poetic forebears. He
demonstrates (with close attention to texts) how each new generation of eclogue writers
engaged with the texts of admired predecessors, in order to create a dialogue with the past

          597
masters of their art. The authors studied here include all the usual crowd who foregather at the
sheepfold with clean hands. Theocritus is allowed to come µrst on grounds of age, but it is
argued that many of his bucolic idylls, which seem to be structured as confrontations between
young shepherds and older practitioners, contain speciµc allusions to earlier Alexandrian verse.
Naturally, Virgil reappears to plague or to inspire every generation which succeeded him. His
in·uence is felt, either in parody or encomiastic rhetoric and apprentice works, or as a µgurative
sledgehammer which overpowers all-comers, in the greatest number of later Latin and vernacu-
lar poets. Nevertheless, the list of those who engaged with Virgil’s pastoral poetic could have
been usefully extended here. It is not clear what kind of audience H. envisages for this study.
For those readers who already grasp the implications of poetry as an art of imitation, there are
few surprises. The signiµcances of well recognized contexts in other literature, and the tactical
advantages of deµning poetic self-representation in terms of shareable and venerable traditions,
will hardly have escaped the attention of potential readers among µnal-year undergraduates
studying literature in the UK. Although H. acknowledges that any one poet’s ideas of Virgil
and capacities for reading his poetry were di¶erent from those of others, especially from our
own, dogmatic assertions that, for example, a character within a poem equals a particular
poet—‘Tityrus (= Vergil)’—suggest unsubtle interpretations which could undermine his
reader’s conµdence.
Most of this book has been previously published (in di¶erent forms) in several periodicals. The
new introduction o¶ers the now obligatory theoretical justiµcation for the whole enterprise, but I
can perceive nothing new here. The exercise is unexceptional; Thomas M. Greene’s The Light
in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry (New Haven, 1982) has clearly been an
inspiration both for the general approach and some discussion of humanist poetry from Italy. But
Alastair Fowler’s seminal Kinds of Literature (Oxford, 1982) does not appear to be known to H.
The Pipes of Pan may be ‘one of the µrst systematic studies of intertextual and intersubjective
dynamics with[in?] a whole genre’, but such exhaustiveness is also exhausting. Specialists in
di¶erent areas of medieval and early modern literature are likely to µnd that comments on their
own patches of material are often second-hand as well as lacking sensitivity to historical nuance.
But the generalities o¶ered across the generic range are very conveniently illustrated. The best
parts of this book are the detailed descriptions and extended quotations from pastoral poetry in
Greek, Latin, Italian, and English. (Non-English texts are accompanied by translations.)
King’s College London RIVKAH ZIM
D. B , D. P     (trans.): Plautus and Terence. Five Comedies:

Miles Gloriosus, Menaechmi, Bacchides, Hecyra, Adelphoe. Pp. xiii +
411. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1999. Paper,
£7.95. ISBN: 0-87220-362-X.
Tragedy, like the dollar, is an international currency. It achieves its e¶ect of inspiring pity and
fear over millennia and irrespective of cultural di¶erences. Comedy, on the other hand, like
many a wine, often does not travel. The joke of today is tomorrow’s mystery; the comic situation
of yesterday is the antithesis of political correctness today. This is very much the case with the
plays of Plautus, many of which can leave students cold, not to mention bemused that such
material could ever have deserved the plaudits it attracted on the Roman stage. In their
translations of Miles Gloriosus, Menaechmi, and Bacchides, therefore, the translators have
sought to reproduce something of what might have been the original e¶ect, but for a modern
(albeit American) audience. Hence English is their prime concern, not scholarly precision
and faithfulness to the nuances of Latin. In tune with this, names and phrasing undergo a
decidedly radical updating, but the resulting exuberance does much to capture Plautus’ verve
and dynamism. Textual problems such as speech attribution, missing lines and even scenes, have
been papered over, but the purpose is an honest one—to make the plays accessible to the general
reader.
Unlike Plautus, Terence is far more amenable to a style of translation closer to the original,
and Berg’s versions of Hecyra and Adelphoe, while modern and with an understandable
smattering of Americanisms, capture well the playwright’s natural elegance. All in all, while these
are not, perhaps, translations on which to build a course of lectures, as a means of providing

598          
insight into the humour of Roman comedy they succeed admirably and have much to recommend
them.
University of Warwick STANLEY IRELAND
R. R   (ed.): Sui Cantica di Plauto. Pp. 32. Comune di

Sarsina, 1997. Paper.
R. R     , A. T (edd.): Lecturae Plautinae Sarsinates I.

Amphitruo. Pp. 97, 4 µgs. Urbino: QuattroVenti, 1998. Paper,
L. 20,000. ISBN: 88-392-0469-5.
In the summer of 1996 two heart-warming events occurred in a small town of north Italy: µrst,
in the presence of a distinguished gathering presided over by A. Traina, Professor Cesare
Questa of the University of Urbino presented a copy of his recently published edition of the
Cantica of Plautus, the fruit of labours over more than thirty years (reviewed in CR 47 [1997],
296–8), to the mayor and corporation of Sarsina, the birthplace of the poet, and two months
later in another ceremony Questa himself was made an honorary citizen of Sarsina. In
connection with these events arrangements have been made for long-term collaboration
between the university institute and the township, in three areas: annual conferences to be held
at Sarsina and dedicated to each of the twenty-one plays of Plautus in alphabetical order
(Lecturae Plautinae Sarsinates), with four contributions each time, at least one of them by a
non-Italian and one on the later history of that play; international seminars to be held every
second year at Urbino, devoted to particular aspects of Plautine research and aimed at young
students and scholars; and, excitingly, new editions of all the plays, aiming to replace the
editions of Leo and Lindsay, now a century old, the series to be called the Editio Sarsinatis, and
based on the advanced understanding of the cantica, and on the vast resources built up at
Urbino by Questa and his colleagues and pupils on the history of the text in manuscripts and
printed editions, and Plautine scholarship in general.
The two booklets brought to our attention here record the ceremony of presentation at Sarsina
and the µrst Lectura Plautina devoted according to plan to the Amphitruo. The former contains a
record of the day’s events by Professor R. Ra¶aelli, colleague of Questa at Urbino and deeply
involved in the planning and arrangement of all these matters, and contributions by two Italian
scholars in praise of the book and its writer, with a reply by Questa himself. The conference on
Amphitruo took place in September 1997; the speakers were Eckard Lefèvre, reinforcing his
previously published view (Maccus vortit barbare [Wiesbaden, 1982]) of the unique partial
dependence of Amphitruo on a Roman version of a Greek tragedy; Renato Oniga on the cantica
in Amphitruo and their place in its construction; Maurizio Bettini on parallel themes (of the
deceit of a wife by the impersonation of a husband, and the heroic child born from that union) in
Arthurian and Irish legends; and Delia Gambelli on the Amphitryon of Molière. To these is added
an illustrated discussion by Grazia Maria Fachechi of the University of Urbino of the charming
miniatures found with this play in a few manuscripts.
University College London M. M. WILLCOCK
J. D  (ed., trans.): Accius, Oeuvres (Fragments) (Collection des

Universités de France dite Guillaume Budé). Pp. cviii + 156 (text
double). Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1995. Cased, frs. 385. ISBN: 2-251-
01383-0.
Dangel abandons an alphabetical arrangement, presenting Accius’ tragedies as mythological
history in two parts, µrst a Trojan cycle of twenty-four plays (like the Iliad, p. 42!), then a group

          599
of twenty-two prior legends loosely ‘Theban’. Each group is claimed to consist of a ‘grande
trilogie’ of successive plays; hence the six Wagnerian sagas displayed on pp. 413–15.
The main e¶ect is to make the work more awkward to consult than Ribbeck’s TRF or
Warmington in ROL, as there is only a one-way concordance from D.’s numeration (pp. 401–11)
and no consolidated index. If this arrangement were simply to clarify the mythology, it would be
a useful way of displaying Accius’ remains; but D., elaborating a romantic idea of Ribbeck’s
in his Römische Tragödie of 1875, is persuaded (pp. 30–47) that she is restoring the original plan
and order of Accius’ lifework. The Trojan cycle comes µrst because Atreus is known to be early
(c. 135 ..), while Tereus in the second group dates from 104 .., with another dozen pieces to
follow. So Accius becomes the author of ‘un genre littéraire inédit’, combining Tragedy with Epic,
annually regaling the age of Lucilius µrst with one, then a whole second programme of grim and
lofty soap-operas in this speciµc order. Pure fantasy.
The text is eclectic, not di¶ering much from Ribbeck and Warmington. D. prints her own
conjectures in ll. 162, 193, 217, 241, 250, 276, 279, 282, 288, 318, 333, 367, 379, 399, 402, 433, 452,
485, 586, 632, 649, and 713, the character of which may be judged from her notes ad loc.; none is
convincing. The apparatus criticus, though tending to super·uity, is clear and self-consistent, with
its own useful bibliography (pp. 99–100).
Her main contribution (pp. 269–362) is a commentaire mythological, dramaturgical, stylistic,
textual, and metrical. Individual notes are generally succinct and to the point, but not without
blemishes of coverage and presentation. This is all in small print, the notes on groups of related
fragments being run together so that references to ‘frg I, ‘frg II’, etc. tend to disappear; these
should have been ·agged. Consulting the notes on Atreus or Tereus, one fails to discover that
these two plays alone have dates, there being no cross-references to p. 14 n. 16 and p. 25 n. 45
where the relevant evidence is quoted in passing.
D. acknowledges the help of J. Soubiran: ‘sa rigueur, son érudition et sa haute compétence
m’ont procuré de précieux avis pour l’établissement du texte, le choix des mètres et la traduction
ainsi que l’interprétation des passages di¸ciles’. This beneµt is particularly apparent in the
competent handling of scansion and the pithiness of the commentaire, where D. frequently
quotes without always accepting Soubiran’s views; and, I fear, by contrast with the quality of the
introduction (pp. 1–101). It seems signiµcant that D. does not include it in her acknowledgement.
This part is ·accid, hagiographical, ill-presented, and pretentious. She compiles doxographical
footnotes without evaluative discrimination or a comprehensive bibliography. She thinks that
‘–100’ is just a preferable alternative to ‘100 ..’. She is not really interested in Accius’ relation to
earlier Latin dramatists or to Seneca, and is superµcial in dealing with the testimonia, which
should have been given a special section. There is nothing about Accius’ fortuna beyond the µrst
century .. The question whether his tragedies eschewed or engaged in contemporary political
commentary and, either way, how he handled that hot potato is not clearly put, and is confused
with a di¶erent matter, the known reception of some revival performances (p. 20). She introduces
the Cercle des Scipions (sic) as familiar (p. 21), falsely states that Horace approved of Accius (p. 27
n. 51, p. 76 n. 148), and misunderstands Velleius Paterculus 2.9.3 (sic, not 2.93) (p. 27 n. 52) and
CHCL 2, p. 388 (p. 30 n. 57). She fails to explain the character of the transmission for the novice
(pp. 85–6, 88–90), and to spell out for the expert (p. 82 n. 161) how far ‘Lindsay’s Law’ about the
order of citations in Nonius helps at all. The Renaissance source described on pp. 86–8 is just
window-dressing. She says ambiguously that she has ‘rassemblé les manuscrits nécessaires à
l’établissement du texte ancien’ (p. 100); this seems to mean Nonius, but it is unclear whether it
makes any di¶erence. The section on Accius’ aims and modus operandi (pp. 30–54) was a mistake.
In short, the introduction displays too much ill-digested learning, too little discrimination.
The book fails to come together. With comprehensive indexes, more cross-referencing, and the
Harvard system for bibliography, it could have. This is partly because of the format, which is
really apt only for less awkward customers than Accius. However, the work is far better in the text
and commentaire than the only previous e¶ort in the series in the same thorny µeld, Daviault’s
Comoedia togata (Paris, 1983), cf. Gnomon 54 (1982), 725–33 and Jocelyn, CR 32 (1982), 154–7;
some of the credit for this must go to Soubiran in the background as well as to Dangel.
University of St Andrews A. S. GRATWICK
600          
G. E . M  : Foroiuliensis poeta: vita e poesia di Cornelio

Gallo. (Scienze Filologiche e Storia-Brescia, 7.) Pp. vi + 108. Milan:
Vita e Pensiero, Pubblicazioni dell’Università Cattolica, 1995. Paper,
L. 27,000. ISBN: 88-343-0466-7.
J.-P. Boucher’s valuable study, Caius Cornélius Callus, appeared in 1966. The publication by
Anderson, Nisbet, and Parsons in JRS 69 (1979) of the papyrus fragments from Qasr Ibrim has
given rise to an extensive bibliography on these few lines, so that a new study of Gallus is most
welcome.
Manzoni structures his book on the same principles as Boucher; a chapter on the life and
political career of Gallus is followed by a chapter on the poet. Let it be said at the outset that M.
succeeds admirably in both areas. A particular strength of the book is M.’s willingness to
incorporate the Qasr Ibrim material into his discussion both of the career of Gallus and of
references to him in other poets.
On Gallus’ origins, M. strikingly argues that Jerome’s description of Gallus as ‘Foroiuliensis
poeta’ is in fact a confused doublet of the overwritten inscription on the Vatican obelisk (see
F. Magi, Studi romani 11 [1963], 44–66), Iussu imp. Caesaris diui f. C. Cornelius Cn. f. Gallus
praef. fabr. Caesaris divi f. forum Iulium fecit, thus rendering the search for the poet’s birthplace
insoluble. M. also raises (p. 52) the intriguing possibility that Horace is alluding to Gallus’ fate at
Carm. 1.18.14–16 and 3.2.26–6 ‘est et µdeli tuta silentio / merces’. In his discussion (pp. 16–17) of
ad Fam. 10.31 and 32, letters from Pollio to Cicero, M. does not challenge the orthodoxy that in
the earlier letter (10.31.6), Gallus is being referred to (‘Quod familiarem meum tuorum numero
habes, opinione tua mihi gratius est’) on the basis of 10.32.5 ‘etiam praetextam, si uoles legere,
Gallum Cornelium, familiarem meum poscito’. But might the fuller reference in the second letter
to ‘Gallum Cornelium, familiarem meum’ denote a person who was not in Cicero’s entourage or
even acquaintance, so that Pollio needs to give the name in full? It is not impossible that Pollio
had more than one familiaris.
In dealing with Gallus as poet, M. handles the complex evidence with skill and originality,
whilst at the same time showing his mastery of the scholarly literature. For example, M. accepts
the Servian tradition of excision by Virgil of laudes Galli from the fourth Georgic. To make the
case that Virgil still paid tribute to Gallus, however, M. identiµes traces of Gallus such as the
nymph Lycorias, recalling Gallus’ Lycoris, at Georg. 4.339, the reference to the river Hypanis at
Georg. 4.370, recalling Gallus’ ‘uno tellures diuidit amne duas’ (preserved by Vibius Sequester),
and the phrasing ‘tua maxima cura’, Georg. 4.354, itself glancing back to the Gallan context
of ‘tua cura, Lycoris’, Ecl. 10.22. After a useful discussion of the fragments themselves, M.
concludes (pp. 91–2) by noting that Gallus ‘si rileva anello di congiunzione tra la prima
generazione di Cinna e Valerio Catone con la più tarda produzione dell’età augustea’.
University of Liverpool BRUCE GIBSON
P. F   (ed., comm.), C. C     (trans.): Q. Orazio Flacco: Le

Opere II. 3, 4: Le Epistole, L’Arte Poetica (Antiquitas Perennis).
Pp. 77–1660. Rome: Istituto Poligraµco e Zecca dello Stato, 1997.
Cased, L. 150,000.
The volumes on the Epistles and Ars Poetica bring to an end the vast edition of Horace’s works,
produced on the occasion of Horace’s bimillenary. This work inaugurates a new series of
classical editions directed by Scevola Mariotti and entitled ‘Antiquitas Perennis’, whose aim, as
suggested by the title, is the reassertion of the importance of the classics today, not only for
scholars, but for the learned public at large. In this sense the choice of Horace to start the
collection is telling, not only in view of his enormous in·uence on European culture, but also of
his own assertions of long-lasting fame. The edition clearly aims to be a ‘monumentum’ of
Horace’s greatness, given the imposing size of the elegant volumes (contained in an ornate box
and with golden lettering on the hard cover), but especially the vast philological and critical
work that lies behind it which the commentary happily displays.
Since the two books on the Epistles are but the second half of the part of the edition dedicated
to Horace’s Sermones, they are not preceded by the introductory essay by Francesco della Corte

          601
that we have learnt to expect from the books on Satires and Odes; the introduction in the volume
on the Satires (on which see K. Freudenburg, CR 47 [1997], 39) is intended for the Epistles, too,
and indeed the commentary refers to it at times, especially in relation to Book 2 and the Ars
(which is regarded as the last poem of the three, and divided into three sections in the manner of
Brink; Epist. 2.1 is dated 14–13 .., whilst Epist. 2.2 is regarded as possibly, but not necessarily,
contemporary with it).
Paolo Fedeli is responsible both for the text and the commentary, while the Italian translation
is the work of Carlo Carena, a gifted translator from both Latin and Greek. Here C. succeeds in
the di¸cult task of rendering Horace’s words in a plain and at the same time elegant style; his
choice of employing hendecasyllables rather than prose can pose a threat, at times, to the ·ow of
diction, but C. manages to achieve a singular balance between everyday words and reµnement
that perfectly beµts Horace’s letter-poems. I particularly enjoyed, for example, the rendering of
the episode of Volteius Mena in Epist. 1.7.46¶., where the tone is, as in the original, at once warm
and ironical (‘Filippo, / il duro, il forte, il celebre avvocato, . . . ’, p. 817).
F.’s textual choices are sensible and restrained; he shows regard for some of the more
adventurous conjectures of, for example, Bentley or Shackleton Bailey, but does not generally
admit them to the text. Mistakes and graphic variants do not µnd place in the apparatus, which is
highly selective and thus extremely clear, even though manuscripts are cited singularly and not
grouped into families, following Borzsák, but with a smaller number of codices. The overall result
is a solid text and an apparatus that is easy to use, albeit not exhaustive.
The commentary opens with a bibliographical note which is rich and up to date without being
excessive. The English reader can be initially surprised at µnding, for example, Fraenkel’s Horace
cited as ‘Fraenkel 1993’, before remembering that this edition is primarily aimed at an Italian
audience, and consequently makes use of Italian translations wherever possible. F. has not
su¶ered constraints of space, thus the commentary is pleasant to read and clear. Each epistle
is preceded by relevant bibliography in the manner of Nisbet and Hubbard, by a summary/
explanation and a general study; then we have the commentary, organized by groups of lines
rather than line-by-line; this allows for the identiµcation of themes in each poem, whose
‘meaning’ is found by accumulation. The main focus is on Horace’s stylistic and poetic devices;
there is not much philosophical discussion or cross-referencing, except where it is justiµed by a
lucid philological analysis. There is some attention to the epistolary characteristics of the poems
(e.g. in Epist. 1.1 [p. 98], 1.8 [p. 1129], and 1.10 [p. 1145]), although the impression is that they are
seen as structural devices ‘imposed’ on the poems (and often forgotten) by Horace, rather than as
constitutive elements generative of meaning (‘Nel congedo [of Epist. 1.10] Orazio recupera il
rapporto con lo schema epistolare’, p. 1160).
In conclusion, this edition does not try to ‘innovate’; we will not µnd here recent but fruitful
notions such as reader response, identity, power, or authority. In fact Fraenkel seems to be
the main in·uence on F.’s approach. Although the debate whether the Epistles (Epist. 1.7 in
particular) are real or µctitious is deemed as ‘ozioso’ (p. 1103), the commentary is constantly
looking for Horace the man alongside Horace the poet (‘Il fatto che egli [Horace] si sia deciso
a inserire il poetico biglietto di presentazione [Epist. 1.9] nella raccolta delle epistole sta a
signiµcare, con ogni probabilità, che Settimio raggiunse il suo scopo facendosi raccomandare dal
poeta’, p. 1138). What we have here is a great deal of philological and critical information, in a
work that openly strives to be that ‘monument’ that Horace hoped for. The print is clear and
elegant; the books are physically easy and enjoyable to read, and F.’s lucid and decorous style
appears particularly beµtting for discussing Horace. The book (as indeed the whole edition) sets
itself in clear ‘dialogue’ with Horace, in the way of Fraenkel or La Penna. We can rightly argue
that the image of Horace it postulates is but a ‘construction’; but it is a beautiful one.
University of Bristol ANNA DE PRETIS
V. G. K : Horace: Poetics and Politics. Pp. ix + 204.

Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1999. Cased, £30. ISBN:
0-333-75471-9.
V. G. Kiernan is a distinguished modern historian who loves his poet and writes about him with
enthusiasm, but, although the book is µnding its way into academic libraries, Horatians will not
µnd much here for them. The book adopts a largely biographical approach to the poems and
does not come fully to terms with the sophistication of the poet. The author wants his Horace

602          
to share his radicalism (so, Horace ‘had to be content with denouncing enemies abroad, instead
of enemies of progress at home’, p. 70); he sighs over the poet’s failure to condemn slavery as an
institution or to address an Epistle to a woman; he µnds Horace’s political accommodation
hard to accept; Horace must have advised Iccius privately, since he neglected the public
opportunity o¶ered by Epistles 1.12 to treat his labour-force humanely. There is some charm in
that, but it is less easy to accept the errors of fact which author or editor have allowed to enter
the text. Some examples: Ti. Gracchus was not tribune in 153 (p. 11), but in 133; Orbilius was
not Horace’s teacher in the local school in Venusia (p. 24), but at Rome; Horace’s friend
Torquatus was not consul (p. 60), a confusion with the consul of 65 .., the year of the poet’s
birth; the Senate voted Octavian his new name not in 28 .. (p. 72), but 27; Augustus is branded
a paedophile (p. 75); Augustus did not celebrate a triumph over the Parthians after the return of
the standards (p. 92); the eve of Augustus’ birthday was not 2nd September (p. 142), but 22nd.
A µnal query: the book was published in England, so why are American spellings adopted
throughout?
Merton College, Oxford J. S. C. EIDINOW
A. S    (ed.): Orazio: umanità, politica, cultura: atti del

Convegno di Gubbio 20–22 ottobre 1992. Pp. 152. Perugia: Università di
Perugia; Istituto di Filologia Latina; Azienda di Promozione Turistica
di Gubbio; Amministrazione communale di Gubbio, 1995. Paper.
This commemorative volume (without indices) contains the following: G. Mazzoli, Italicità
oraziana; N. Horsfall, Orazio e la conquista del mondo: problemi di ideologia e di metaforica;
E. Otón Sobrino, Horacio y el sentido de lo efímero; C. Santini, Due ipotesi sull’identità
di Cassius Etruscus (Hor. Sat. 1, 10, 61–64); A. Setaioli, Orazio e l’oltretomba; I. Lana, La
ricerca della coerenza nel Primo Libro delle Epistole; M. von Albrecht, Orazio e la musica;
D. Estefanía, La amistad en la obra de Horacio; R. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, Numerosus
Horatius. Aspetti della presenza oraziana in Ovidio; M. L. Ricci, Lettori di Orazio fra il IV e il
V secolo; A. Traina, Orazio in Boezio; L. Quattrocchi, Orazio in Heinrich Heine e August von
Platen.
King’s College London ROLAND MAYER
R. A. S: Poetic Allusion and Poetic Embrace in Ovid and Virgil.

Pp. ix + 226, 8 µgs. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press,
1998. Cased, $39.50. ISBN: 0-472-10706-2.
This book o¶ers a view of readership which is heavily informed by the philosophic works of
Martin Buber. In the introduction Smith explains his desire to modify the position of the
‘resisting reader’ with more emphasis on the rôle of the author (p. 15):
Following Buberian principles, however, I would modify Barthes’ formula and suggest that
the reader’s ‘willingness’ . . . must be a granting of permission to be moved (passive) by the
text’s message. The author’s voice is active, for the author in the text speaks through time . . .
S. elsewhere remarks (p. 7) that ‘there is also a sense in which the terms text and author can be
used interchangeably’. We are thus in a critical discourse which emphasizes the rôle of the
author; S. sees his Buberian approach as a counterbalance to more resisting modes of reading in
recent scholarship. It is perhaps not surprising to µnd such comments as the following, on the
shield of Aeneas, where S. suggests that an accepting mode of reading of the shield is called for
(p. 184):
Now Virgil’s text beckons the reader to don the mantle of a ‘model’ or ‘sensitive’ reader and to
employ principles of readership appropriate to a passage of such national pride and pathos.
The reader is expected to agree with the text about certain general ideals. . . .

          603
Curiously, in a book whose theoretical ambitions seems to o¶er a reduced rôle for the reader at
the expense of the beckoning (or even authoritarian) text, S. nevertheless shows a high degree
of independence and ability in his readings of Virgil and Ovid. Indeed, the value of this book
lies not in its methodology, but in its discussions of individual passages from the poems. For
example, S. suggests intriguing connexions between the stories of Polydorus in Aen. 2 and the
Heliades in Met. 2 (pp. 104–15), between (pp. 71–4) Ov., Met. 10.475 ‘pendenti nitidum uagina
deripit ensem’ (from the story of Cinyras and Myrrha) and Virg., Aen. 10.475 ‘uaginaque caua
fulgentem deripit ensem’ (when Pallas is µghting); it might also be worth considering a possible
link between Ovid’s use of ensis and the ensis of Aeneas used by Dido to kill herself (Aen. 4.646,
664). S. also makes useful comparisons with the techniques of Roman art, though his discussion
of Virgil’s ‘non enarrabile textum’ (Aen. 8.625), referring to the shield of Aeneas, could proµt-
ably have drawn on A. J. W. Laird’s treatment of rhetorical terms in Catullus 64, in JRS 83
(1993), 24–9. There is some useful discussion of the scenes of Troy seen by Aeneas at Carthage
in Aen. 1; at Aen. 1.488 ‘se quoque principibus permixtum agnouit Achiuis’, S. reminds us
(pp. 34–7) of Aeneas’ rôle in the µghting in Aen. 2 (which is in any case Aeneas’ own text) and
his use of disguise; this perhaps also preµgures the way in which Aeneas will become like
Achilles in the later part of the poem, subverting the initial impression given by the Sibyl at
Aen. 6.89 ‘alius Latio iam partus Achilles’.
There are occasions, however, where the author’s observations are at best banal. We are told, for
instance, that (p. 84) ‘allusion suggests more than simply an awareness of the literary tradition. It
suggests a deep respect for it’, and that (p. 104) ‘Ovid did not craft his Medea without the former
images of other poets’ Medeas (and their Didos) ·oating through his poetic conscience’. On the
contest of Minerva and Arachne, S. remarks that (p. 64) ‘If one were to use modern terms, one
might say that Minerva has irresponsibly practised reader-response criticism as regards Arachne’s
tapestry’. In a discussion (pp. 192–4) of Ex Ponto 2.1.37–42, where Ovid describes a celebration
of victory, S. misses the fact that Ovid is looking back to his own earlier poem, Tristia 4.2, where
he imagined a triumphal procession after a German victory; as has been shown by S. J. Heyworth,
PCPhS 41 (1995), 145–9, this poem itself alludes back to A. A. 1.217–28, where a triumphal
procession is an excellent opportunity to impress a girl with false or genuine knowledge of what is
going on. A more serious shortcoming is the lack of engagement with Tristia 2 (only given brief
mention, as at p. 192 n. 118). Although an approach which emphasizes the reader’s passivity
before the author is unlikely to be in sympathy with Tristia 2, a text which opens up rather than
closes o¶ the possibilities of multiple levels of reading and readership, the absence of serious
discussion of Tristia 2 is eccentric in a book so concerned with notions of readership in Ovid.
This book is for the most part well produced, though with some errors, such as the reference to
G. B. Townend as ‘Townsend’ (p. 139) and the omission of the Latin text (but not the translation)
of Aen. 8.731 (p. 186), a passage where S. oddly misses the opportunity to add to his discussion of
focalization in the shield, since Aeneas is ‘ignarus’ as he picks up his shield, ‘attollens umero
famamque et fata nepotum’.
University of Liverpool BRUCE GIBSON
C. A . B , C. M  (edd.): Lucan: The Civil War.

Translated as Lucan’s Pharsalia by Nicholas Rowe. Pp. lxxix + 444.
London: Everyman, 1998. Paper, £6.99. ISBN: 0-460-87571-X.
The introduction to this translation ends with the following remark ‘Dr Johnson’s concluding
words on the Pharsalia are as apt now as they were two centuries ago: “The Pharsalia of Rowe
deserves more notice than it obtains, and as it is now more read will be more esteemed”.’ This
edition e¶ectively resurrects Rowe’s translation and allows the possibility that Johnson’s words
might be put to the test.
The publishers are to be congratulated for allowing the editors scope to present the poem
with a generous amount of ancillary material that will help readers interested enough to take up
Johnson’s challenge. This includes the extensive and attractive preface by James Welwood written
after Rowe’s death but printed in the µrst edition, a text summary comprising the arguments
prefacing each book in the µrst edition but here usefully put together at the end and Rowe’s own
notes that are part of the substantial annotation amounting in all to more than one hundred
pages. There are chronologies relating to both Lucan and Rowe, a glossary and a bibliography.
A two part introduction of some thirty pages is divided equally between the original and the

604          
translation. The µrst part (by Martindale), devoted to Lucan, starting with his high reputation
among great writers of the past from Dante to Milton, rehearses arguments in support of the
recent revaluation of the low reputation he has had over the last two centuries. The reader is
drawn into a sophisticated debate about the merits of the original and given a stimulating account
of its reception and in·uence. The second part (by Brown), devoted to Rowe and previous
translators, gives examples from predecessors and sets the translation thoroughly in the context
of Rowe’s life and times. Various topics broached generally in the introduction are further
illustrated in particular examples in the notes, such as Lucan’s borrowing from predecessors and
the debts of subsequent writers like Marvel and Milton. Details of Roman history and myth-
ology are elucidated and there are some indications of Rowe’s deviations from the sense of the
original as well as glosses on words whose meaning has changed since the eighteenth century.
Overall the scholarship is designed to make the poem accessible and the critical comment raises
central questions for debate.
There is, however, one large critical question about the relation between Rowe and Lucan that
might have been addressed more directly. Martindale, who had earlier talked of ‘hyperbolic
rhetoric and extreme verbal ingenuity’ in the Pharsalia (p. xxii), cites approvingly modern scholars
‘who encourage us to read the poem as transgressive and as enacting a kind of deconstruction of
epic forms and styles’ (p. xxvii). He continues: ‘In civil war, moreover, power is obviously
contested, and this produces a fragmented narrative, at war with itself (in this sense one could
argue that the measured rhetoric of Rowe’s version is at times too orderly)’ (p. xxviii). The
disjunction between the Latin original as described by modern critics and the English version
surely warranted more than parenthetical notice. This disjunction is even more marked when
reference is made to the view of a recent writer that ‘Lucan frequently substitutes for the
solemnities of epic an absurdist mode’ which is then called the ‘comic-ugly’ (p. xxix). In her
account of Rowe, Brown points to the Miltonic in·uence and remarks on a¸nities with Dryden’s
Aeneis (1697), the most important source of Rowe’s epic style, and the recently published
Pope’s Homer (1715). There is no indication here that Rowe has stepped outside ‘well-developed
neoclassical idiom’ (p. xxxviii), only that the greatest failure of the expansive translator is to
render Lucan’s ‘fondness for the pithy, contorted paradox’ (p. xxxix). How does Rowe’s English
Augustanism, in direct line from Dryden’s Aeneis, impact upon a Silver Latin poet traditionally
regarded as reacting against the Roman Augustanism of such as Virgil? A sharper critical focus
upon the adequacy of Rowe’s Augustan style might have been expected. Nevertheless the editors
have surely done enough to persuade us that Rowe’s is ‘by far the best version of the Pharsalia in
English’ (p. xviii), even if there is not much competition, with this important proviso that we say
the best complete version. To illustrate her point that the ‘apocalyptic violence of Lucan found an
answering voice in Marlowe’, Brown cites a representative snippet from his translation of Book 1,
justly commending its ‘taut energy’ (p. xxxi). Readers who look up Rowe’s more expansive
version of this passage (on p. 10) may be disappointed to µnd that this taut energy has been
dissipated.
Stirling ROBIN SOWERBY
F. F      : Claudians praefationes. Bedingungen, Beschreib-

ungen und Wirkungen einer poetischen Kleinform. Pp. ix + 263. Stuttgart
and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1999. Cased. ISBN: 3-519-07679-9.
Felgentreu’s book is a slightly revised version of his 1998 Berlin dissertation. It takes as its
subject the twelve prefaces in elegiac couplets that Claudian composed for some of his works of
historical epic and panegyric or invective (Ruf. 1 and 2, III Cons. Hon., Theod., Eutr. 2, Stil. 3,
Get, and VI Cons. Hon.), Books 1 and 2 of his De raptu Proserinae, and his two epithalamia, for
the emperor Honorius and Maria, and for Palladius and Celerina (C.M. 25). By studying the
content, form, and function of Claudian’s prefaces and their antecedents and reception, F.
intends to present a general proµle of these poems and to promote understanding of their
literary qualities, their signiµcance in literary history, and the communicative situation in which
they were composed.
Central to F.’s book is a separate discussion of each of the prefatory pieces. These discussions
do not take the form of a full commentary, but typically cover date and circumstances of
composition, structure, textual, or interpretative problems, and allusions to classical poetry,
frequently engaging with previous scholarship on these issues. To take one point on which F. lays

          605
special emphasis, he sees the three books of Claudian’s panegyric on the consulate of Stilicho as
representing in the poet’s mind a highwater mark in his poetic achievement. F. cites the allusion to
the beginning of Georgics 2 in the µrst lines of Stil. 2, followed by an allusion to the µrst line of
the Aeneid in the preface to Stil. 3: Claudian here invites comparison with Virgil. The reference at
the beginning of Stil. 1 to the poet’s earlier historical and panegyrical works in the interest of
Stilicho leads F. (in an appendix) to propose that Claudian invites the listener/reader to see this
group of poems as a single epic of contemporary history, a ‘Stilichoniad’.
More problematic is F.’s claim that the preface constitutes a distinct genre, with its own
characteristic communicative situation and norms of form and content that shape the
expectations and response of a reader or hearer. In practice, F.’s detailed discussion of the
prefaces does not bear this out. Indeed, it is di¸cult to see what is at stake in claiming generic
status for the prefaces since generic considerations rarely µgure in the rest of the book. F.’s
analysis reveals that Claudian’s prefaces are, in fact, quite various, though the mythological (or
historical or natural historical) allegory or comparison predominates. He identiµes multiple
antecedents for their form and content: the genre, if genre it is, does not predate Claudian. Nor
does reception history bear out such generic claims. With the exception of the verse panegyrics of
Sidonius Apollinaris, metrically distinct prefaces in the manner of Claudian are rare. Poets
increasingly tolerate di¶erent metres within a single poem (for instance, the epithalamia of
Ennodius and Venantius Fortunatus), while content—seafaring as a metaphor for epic com-
position, for instance—can be repeated in a metrically distinct preface and in the proems
to individual books (Fortunatus’ Vita S. Martini). On the basis of the evidence collected by F.,
it is perhaps more persuasive to claim that Claudian’s prefaces, and especially the mythological
comparison or allegory, are creations of a particular time and place, responding to the political
circumstances and ceremonial context in which the poems were µrst recited.
In sum, F. provides a helpful guide to the scholarship on Claudian’s prefaces and some worth-
while observations on matters of text and interpretation. He is less persuasive on the formal
properties of the poems and their literary-historical status, where his book would have beneµted
from a less circumscribed and more wide-ranging approach to the in·uences on Claudian and to
his reception.
Wesleyan University MICHAEL ROBERTS
G. W. S (trans.): The Iohannis or De Bellis Libycis of Flavius

Cresconius Corippus. Pp. ix + 216. Lewiston, Queenston, and
Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1998. Cased, $80. ISBN:
0-7734-8242-3.
Flavius Cresconius Corippus, a sixth-century grammarian from Africa, is known to us through
two works in hexameter verse. The µrst, the Iohannis, written during the reign of Justinian
(527–65), praises the Roman general John Troglita and his actions against rebellious Moors.
The other, In Laudem Iustini Augusti Minoris, was written for the Emperor Justin II on the
occasion of his accession in 565. In Laudem has been translated with critical notes by Averil
Cameron (London, 1979) and Serge Antès (Paris, 1981), but the Iohannis has received less
attention. There is only one manuscript, the fourteenth-century Trivultianus. It is lacunose, and
the text is corrupt, which has left it open to much emendation over the centuries; the standard
text now is that of J. Diggle and F. Goodyear (Cambridge, 1971). For his doctoral dissertation
(Columbia, 1967), S. translated the Iohannis on the basis of the 1886 Petschenig text; this has
now been somewhat reworked in the light of Diggle/Goodyear, though in fact S. still sticks close
to the Petschenig text, with which he is more familiar. There is a short introduction, minimal
notes, limited bibliography, and forty-eight textual notes. The introduction does contain some
useful information, which helps in navigating the historical background to the poem. Granted
the di¸culties in the manuscript, the textual notes are crucial for indicating what text S.
attempts to translate, but they are di¸cult to use and do not clarify S.’s views. It is sometimes
unclear what reading he is following because he does not indicate whose conjecture is being
used. Examples include 6.206 where et armis is conjectured for arene, and in Book 4.1 displicet
is conjectured by Diggle for ductor iacet. At 2.105 S. replaces tantum se iure litebit with tamen
seu iure decebit based on the conjecture of Mazzucchelli (tamen) and himself (decebit). He
follows Petschenig at 3.126 when he replaces dignos with cunctos and again at 3.166 when artis is

606          
substituted for altis. S. follows Bekker at 7.502 when huc is conjectured for hinc. There are good
reasons for the conjectures, but S. does not explain his preference, nor does he always note
where there are serious textual problems, so that users of the translation are left in the dark:
for example, he ignores the lacunae at 6.442 and 7.63. It should be noted that of the forty-
eight notes which S. provides there are fourteen that are based upon Petschenig’s conjectures. In
conjunction with this there are numerous of his conjectures which S. uses, but does not signal
to the reader. Examples include 2.33 where Petschenig’s conjecture of aeratas is chosen over
Mazzucchelli’s armatas, 2.470 where this line is moved post-487 without being noted. In Book 4
ll. 35–7 are moved below l. 201 by Petschenig and S. follows, but he does not note the change.
One µnal example is 6.442 where S. µlls the lacuna with Petschenig’s conjecture without
acknowledgement. S. does not print a text, and it is safest to use S.’s version in tandem with
the Diggle/Goodyear text and its excellent critical apparatus, but cross-reference is made
considerably harder by the absence of line numbers (apart from the coverage of each page,
printed at the top) and the lack of an index. S.’s translation provides a useful but expensive
opening to a text which has deterred all but the specialists, but it has to be used with
considerable caution.
University of Warwick IAN KELSO
O. G: Sport bei Quintilian. (Nikephoros-Beihefte 3.) Pp. 103.

Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1997. Paper. ISBN: 3-615-00189-3.
This monograph will appeal to two sets of readers, those with interests in rhetoric and in
ancient sport, including gladiatorial contests.
Specialists in Roman rhetoric will µnd this work a complement to G. Assfahl’s Vergleich
und Metapher bei Quintilian (Stuttgart, 1932), which o¶ers but a cursory treatment of sport
(pp. 38–44) and gladiatorial combats (pp. 98–100). By Grodde’s reckoning, allusions to these
subjects comprise 15% of all the µgures employed by Quintilian, and this monograph can be used
as a commentary in which G. explains the relevance of the µgure of speech to the rhetorical
context. One interesting result of G.’s statistical analysis is the greater number of references to
athletics than to gladiatorial or military combats (twenty-two to twelve), the former increasing in
the second half of the Institutio Oratoria while the latter nearly disappear (only one example in
Books 10–12).
Scholars of ancient sport will µnd especially valuable the use of the athletic allusions in the
I. O. to assess the place of Greek athletics in the Roman world (pp. 76–9, 90–1). Because
Quintilian, unlike his contemporary Tacitus (Annales 14.20), does not condemn Greek athletics,
G. asks to what extent he was an advocate. Or was he actually hostile but paying lip service to a
form of entertainment favored by his patron Domitian, who established the Capitoline Games in
Rome in .. 86? While asserting that Quintilian’s true feelings must remain elusive and that other
writers did criticize Greek athletics, G. warns against the facile conclusion that the Romans were
generally hostile. Indeed, on the contrary, the complaints about athletics can be construed to
suggest the opposite, that their popularity was signiµcant enough to merit censure. That
Quintilian should employ athletic allusions in his magnum opus, a work aimed at the élite,
indicates that he expected his audience to understand those references.
To be sure, Greek athletics did not become a component of Roman education. Yet Domitian
did build a permanent stadium in Rome for his Capitoline Games, which continued into the
fourth century .. Furthermore, the great imperial thermae were constructed with palaestrae,
which served for some form of Greek exercises. For too long have scholars such as the highly
in·uential E. Norman Gardiner, in his Athletics of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1930), p. 46,
fostered an overly simplistic view that the Romans ‘looked on athletics with contempt’, conjuring
up a Manichaean bipolarity between pure Greek amateur sports and brutal, bloody Roman
spectacles. As Louis Robert emphasized, however, in Les gladiateurs dans l’orient grec (Paris,
1940), gladiatorial sports also became popular in the East, and we now understand better, thanks
to scholars such as David Young, The Olympian Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics (Chicago,
1984), that Greek sports were neither so pure nor so amateur. Erich Gruen, in his Culture and
Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca, 1992), o¶ers a more judicious and sophisticated analysis of
the complex Roman reaction to Greek culture. G. contributes to this reassessment by enabling us
to form a more balanced picture of the attitude in Rome toward the end of the µrst century ..
G. also makes an important contribution to our understanding of the ancient long jump. He

          607
correctly cites Inst. 10.36: quod in certamine saliendi µeri videmus, ut conatum longius petant et ad
illud, quo contenditur, spatium cursu ferantur . . . as evidence not previously noticed for the idea
that a run preceded the jump. Yet his remarks are confusing. Although he proposes (pp. 43–4, 92)
that a rule-change occurred in Roman times converting the event from an earlier standing jump,
he also points out that Greek vase paintings from the classical period indicate some kind of
running jump. Furthermore, in discussing whether the jump was a simple or multiple one, he
states, ‘Die aktuelle Forschung favorisiert eindeutig den fün¶achen Standsprung nach Ebert’,
here referring to the German scholar’s monograph, Zum Pentathlon der Antike (Berlin, 1963),
pp. 49–56. Thus G. ignores the anglophone scholarship, above all the article by W. W. Hyde, ‘The
Pentathlum Jump’, AJP 59 (1938), 405–17, which favors a three-part leap akin to the modern
triple jump.
A textual error occurs on p. 172: ‘quem longissime’ (Inst. 1.11.15) should be ‘quam longissime’.
Furthermore, the few Greek words in the text are printed with the English keyboard; thus, for
example, on p. 15, 9ρµοΚ is printed as ‘a#qlos’.
University of Maryland, College Park HUGH M. LEE
V. H (ed.): Apuleius of Madauros, Pro se de Magia. Pp. 168,

250 (2 vols). Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1997. H·. 195. ISBN: 90-5063-
167-3.
This commentary is conceived as complementary to Butler–Owen (Oxford, 1914), and indeed
we needed fresh help with a text never clearly deµned (court transcript? crafty reworking?
lawyer’s ploy? classroom exercise?) and too long used as a quarry for interesting detail. H.
comes from the Groningen Apuleius Group, and this well-organized, bibliographically copious
commentary is the fruit of an anti-Ciceronian youthful passion and three years’ hard. After
Sallmann, H. concentrates on the Apol. as a literary event (p. 26f.), and, like both Harrison
(2000) and Sandy (1997), after Helm (1955), rightly sees Apuleius as the Latin sophist.
The lucid annotation, only too keen on polysemic interpretations, pursues Apuleian oddities,
alas, more with the help of OLD than of TLL; symptomatic, for H., after all, o¶ers a ‘modern’
reading, not a systematic or deµnitive classiµcation. Sensibly, in the circumstances, no translation
is o¶ered; rather, H. o¶ers a series of discontinuous interpretations, set in a brisk and lively
paraphrase, which does tend to have the e¶ect of smoothing out Apuleius’ stylistic acrobatics.
The legal side is treated rather superµcially and imprecisely; perhaps Crawford’s indispensable
Statutes (London, 1996) appeared too late for H. On 47.3, H. writes vaguely of ‘spells’ used on
crops: though he cites the XII Tables (8.8a, b), the text Apuleius plainly has in mind is that on
‘theft’-by-magic, as in the famous case Pliny cites at NH 18.41 (note too V. Buc. 8.9, with Serv.’s
n., Augustine, Civ. 8.19). Fraenkel (Gnom. 1925, 185 = Kl.B. 2.399f.) had already reproved
Beckmann for not realizing that excantassit referred not to theft but to damage in general (cf. Sen.
N.Q. 4.7; Graf’s recent discussion is unreliable). It is curious that H. cites ‘Paulus’, at 57–60, solely
from an article of 1979 (2.157, n. 1), and the lex Cornelia itself from Amarelli (1988), not as cited
by ‘Paulus’, but according to Cod. Iust. The law leaves us in no doubt that it was limited
to murder; clauses on ‘magic as such’ are fantastical. Apuleius himself will admit of being a
‘magician’, though duly wary of maleµcium (vd. 28.4; no help in H.): that term’s associations
imply a legal development (Apuleius after all writes of leges, 47.3) and deµnition will arrive in the
Sententiae.
Exegesis is never dull, often rather too clever, and sometimes careless. The hunt for multiple
meanings can lead H. away from the plain sense of the context; 98.5 is an extreme case: at nunc
adeo patientem te ei praebes, where H. sees a ‘clear sexual connotation’, as indeed exists (vd.
Adams!), though in explicit contexts. But if here too, then why not trumpet the whole
pathic/pathetic story? Inuidia too—the fount of the whole prosecution—is a term that confounds
H.; here translated ‘jealousy and greed’, there ‘envy’ (66.3, 67.1); reference to TLL would indicate
that ‘spite’ or ‘malignity’ is far preferable (cf. 70.1 cuius infesta<m> malignitatem).
H. has not collated his MSS afresh, but uses with care Helm2; he o¶ers frequent conjectures
but dwells also on the minutiae of Laurentianus 68.2, to the point of printing mere orthographic
oddities and variations, and even of not resolving abbreviations (imp., procons., Cl., Qr.). Such
conservatism is mystifying, though there are passages where H. has done well at least to make us
look harder. A few details: at v. 11 of the poem quoted at 9.14 for Haupt’s brilliant donaci, H.
reverts to the MS dona et (‘excellent sense’). They would take up munera (v. 8), and in turn serta

608          
(v. 5), but that topic is closed (with 9, pro implexis sertis). The poem ends with poetic inspiration
and rivalry: we need reeds and not an isolated quodsi animum inspires (11), with an awkward
reference to the ρε4οξ πξε(να, when simple poetic variation on calamus is peculiarly welcome. At
24.1 rather than accept Rhode’s ostendistis, H. argues that ostendi scis (F ζ) is justiµable, without
noticing that Seminumidam and Semigaetulum, immediately following, presuppose some verb of
accusation or expostulation. At 27.12, printing codd. puerili against Salmasius’ pueruli (not that
he tells us whose the emendation is!), H. eliminates tricolon structure and precision of thought;
no help to cite 43.3 animum . . . puerilem et simplicem (two adjs, not one), far less Met. 3.20.3
puerile . . . corollarium (not as though puer were speciµc). At 83.7, the MS velut alto barathro
calumnias emergit (sc. veritas) retained, after Helm (tentatively) and S. J. Harrison (who o¶ers
the analogy of V. Aen. 8.241–6 as a helpful contribution to understanding the passage). Despite
Helm’s e¶orts, the di¸culty remains: acc. after emergit (H.’s reference to Cat. 64.14 is an own
goal) and the coexistence of two incompatible constructions. TLL refers helpfully to Casaubon’s
correction calumniae, as H. knows (2.206, n. 1). Even more satisfactory is Elmenhorst’s calumnia
se mergit, restoring balance to the phrase (note personiµcation and re·exive already present in
veritas. . .se <ef>fert); cf. Met. 2.6.2, 2.25.5 for similar plunges, and for the construction compare
e.g. V. Aen. 6.512 me fata mea his mersere malis. Note also cases (as 32.6 merguntur) in which the
revival of a reading from F may represent progress.
I am reliably informed that there are passages where H.’s ‘corrected’ English will provoke wrath
or mirth in native speakers. But this is a sharp-witted commentary, for all its faults, and one that
will help readers and attract discussion.
Università di Roma MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
S. B: Prosodie und Metrik der Römer (Teubner Studien-

bücher). Pp. vi + 183. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1999.
Paper. ISBN: 3-519-07443-5.
This is a German translation by Bruno W. Häuptli of La prosodia e la metrica dei Romani
(Rome, 1992), now corrected and revised. Boldrini also contributed the article on Roman metre
to F. Graf ’s Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1997), and our
reviewer issued a health warning to users in CR 49 (1999), 143. It is indeed a pity that no
attempt was made to argue the merits of the case for a ‘pitch’ accent in classical Latin; the
anglophone reader, however, is still well-served by Chapter IV ‘Verse Rhythm’ of L. P.
Wilkinson’s Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge, 1963), an even-handed appraisal of the
evidence. On a point of detail: B. describes the ‘instability’ in archaic Latin of some µnal
syllables, but nowhere that I can µnd the prosody of µnal ‘o’ in the classical period (it may be
there somewhere, but the index is very meagre).
P. B    , S. D  , M . R    : Théories de la Phrase et de

la Proposition de Platon à Averroes. (Études de Littérature Ancienne
10.) Pp. ix + 336. Paris: Éditions Rue d’Ulm, 1999. Paper, frs. 196.
ISBN: 2-7288-0252-1.
The works which constitute this book are the fruit of collective research conducted at the
Center for Ancient Studies, at the École Normale Supérieure, in Paris. It is made up of four
sections, each comprising three communications, except for the last, which comprises µve.
The µrst section deals with the ontological origins of rational language. The µrst two studies,
that of Claude Imbert (‘Le dialogue platonicien en quête de son identité’, pp. 3–20) and that of
Denis O’Brien (‘Théories de la proposition dans le Sophiste de Platon’, pp. 21–42), show how in
Plato the theory of proposition is not, strictly speaking, born in the terrain of logic but in the
contrasting µeld of ontology.
The four next studies (Francis Wolf, ‘Proposition, être et vérité: Aristote ou Antisthène’,
pp. 43–63; Barbara Gernez, ‘La théorie de la lexis chez Aristote’, pp. 67–79; Jacques Brunschwig,

          609
‘Homonymie et contradiction dans la dialectique aristotélienne’, pp. 81–101; Stone Chiron, ‘La
période d’Aristote’, pp. 103–30) prove that the e¶ective contribution of Aristotle sheds light on
the confusing perplexities of his predecessors. Indeed, Aristotle was the µrst to have singled out
the philosophical lieu of the proposition, by rendering to each discipline, metaphysical, dialectic,
or rhetoric, its rightful property.
The third section aims to study Stoic theory. Research made in this section is oriented toward
the deµnition and properties of the proposition in Stoicism (Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, pp. 133–50),
then toward the Stoic theory of the phrase and its in·uence upon grammarians (Fredérique
Ildefonse, pp. 151–70), and, µnally, toward the idea of the utterance in grammatical texts
(Marc Chatter, pp. 171–88). These studies are interesting for two reasons: µrst, they situate the
proposition’s place and its relationship with physical ontology, and secondly, they enable us to
understand how Aristotle had been read afterwards by the Aristotelian tradition.
The studies collected in the fourth section o¶er helpful enlightenment in regard to the
transition from Aristotle to Aristotelianism.
The regulating function of the celebrated unit of the organon, and its in·uence on the
establishment of a new autonomy for the domain of logical research, have been demonstrated by
study of the theory of proposition according to the Syriac Proba (Henri Hugonnard-Rock,
pp. 191–208); also, by the analysis of utterance made by Simplicius and his e¶ort to construct, in
a Neoplatonic framework, the distinction between grammatical category and logical category
(Philippe Ho¶mann, pp. 209–48), as well as by the examination of Averroes’ re·ection on the
problem of propositions containing the verb inesse (Abdelali Elmarani-Jamai, pp. 249–68) and
the problem of indeµnite propositions (Ali Benmakhlouf, pp. 269–80), and, µnally, by the study
of rhetorical premises according to Isarat from Avicenna (Maroun Aouad, pp. 281–304).
The work ends with an epilogue written by Jean Jolivet on the meaning of propositions and the
ontology in Pierre Abélard and Grégoire from Rimini (pp. 307–24), as well as with a twofold
index of ancient and modern authors.
In conclusion, the signiµcance of this collective work consists in the discovery of overlappings
in the Stoic tradition at its philosophical outset as well as in the assessment of that tradition’s
fruitfulness. The essays constitute an innovative scholarly contribution to the Stoic tradition, as
well as to our understanding of the Greek, Syriac, Arabic, and Latin Aristotelianisms; they
enable us to follow successive applications of metaphysical and logical theories to the di¶erent
areas of ancient and medieval linguistic research.
Brown University HÉLÈNE PERDICOYIANNI-PALÉOLOGOU
F. I : La naissance de la grammaire dans l’antiquité grecque.

(Histoire des doctrines de l’antiquité classique 20.) Pp. 490. Paris:
Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1997. Paper, frs. 250. ISBN: 2-7116-
1311-9.
Given that the traditional categories of philosophy—substance, accident, activity, passivity,
etc.—are also categories of grammar, which of the two µelds developed them µrst? It was by
re·ecting on this question that Fréderique Ildefonse began work on this book. Since grammar
seems only to have been worked out as an ‘autonomous discipline’ (pp. 12, 18–25) in the µrst
century ..., when philosophy was already an old friend, these categories must be philo-
sophical in origin, and I.’s book represents an attempt to trace that origin, in a Foucaultian
‘archéologie du savoir’ (pp. 32, 37–9). She µnds that grammatical categories did indeed evolve
slowly out of those developed for logic, and the slowness of that development, the ‘blocage
linguistique’ which prevented the emergence of grammar as a separate discipline (pp. 15, 37, 49,
462) with language itself as its object (p. 25), becomes the subject of her study.
I. locates the development of the grammatical categories in the context of the ‘apophantic’
project common to Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics: philosophy’s task was to enable one to
‘explain reality’ (µ ηοξ διδ ξαι) and to ‘say the truth’ or produce an Yσρ.Κ µ ηοΚ. The Stoic
‘logical topos’ developed this project to the greatest extent and so naturally served as the point of
departure for the grammarians. From the Stoics I. moves directly to Apollonius Dyscolus, the
µrst grammarian whose work is preserved in something like its original form. She argues that
while the Older Stoics had aimed to produce a correct logical language, one that followed the
nature or µ ηοΚ which shaped the universe, their systematic world, permeated by reason, was

610          
abandoned by the Middle Stoa. This change allowed Apollonius to change the emphasis of Stoic
semantics from the structure of the proposition to the individual word (pp. 253f.), and their goal
of constructing a normative language to one of ‘regulating language on the basis of the natural
norm of a language conceived as a rational corpus’ (p. 70).
The oddly ‘Whiggish’ nature of I.’s concept of ‘blocage’, which evokes the image of the
autonomous study of language struggling to escape from its conµnement within philosophy, is
not the only problem hampering her project. The opposite poles are curiously ill-deµned. What
is it about being a part of the Stoic logical topos which prevents the υγξθ πεσ6 ζψξΚ from
being about language itself ? What is it about ‘grammar’ which is supposed to make it a truly
‘autonomous’ study of language, and, supposing that such a study is possible, does this autonomy
ever actually arise in ancient Greece? Further, it seems to me that the Stoics wanted to construct
not a naturally correct language, but the ability to read o¶ the correct logical structure behind
individual utterances of the language. As for Apollonius, how has the conception of the
rationality of language as part of divine reason given way to one of language as a rational corpus,
and why is it so important for him to regulate language against such a rational corpus?
I.’s work amply conµrms the µndings of previous studies that Apollonius’ conception of
language and its functioning, as well as his method, is based on Stoic logic, many of whose
features it preserves. Deµning the di¶erences between them, then, is going to be a subtle and
di¸cult task. I. takes it (p. 251) that the move from logic to a science of language comes when the
study of expressions becomes autonomous, when the Stoic emphasis on the signiµed over the
signiµer is inverted. But this is merely a shift, not a rejection, and only with di¸culty could it be
made to serve as a stable indicator of the di¶erence between grammar and logic. I.’s account of
this shift depends to a very great extent on her investigation of νεσιτν Κ (pp. 229f., 276–300,
465f., etc.), the assignment of words to parts of speech. She claims that while this was conµned to
the Stoic doctrine of the expression and was subordinated to their account of the completeness or
incompleteness of µελυ0, it occupies the central position for Apollonius, mediating between the
signiµed and the signiµer. Yet I doubt that this points to a stable di¶erence between Apollonius
and the Stoics, given that both distinguish between the word-classes on the basis of what they
signify, and it is unlikely that both did not conceive of words as co-signifying many intelligible
items whose compatibility or incompatibility was central to the correctness of the complete
µελυ ξ and hence of the complete sentence.
There are numerous good discussions in this book of both the Stoics (e.g. on case and tense)
and Apollonius (e.g. on verbs), but I miss a discussion of the purpose of the latter’s work: why
does he want to compare expressions to their natural norms? Apollonius points out that
expressions can be justiµed by showing that they derive by a recognizable series of changes or
corruptions from naturally correct forms. As a philologist, he µnds that this demonstration helps
in the correction of texts, and it also justiµes the possibility of the formulation and study of
linguistic rules. This method of pathology, however, is not discussed by I., an omission typical of
her explicit refusal to discuss philology (pp. 28, 463) or other disciplines, so that she never
mentions, for example, the debate between empirical and rationalist physicians and its e¶ect on
other µelds, such as philology.
I. considers herself a philosopher, and this is a philosophical book (p. 28). While that
orientation has its advantages, it has also caused a systematic neglect of some of the contexts
important to the development of grammar, grammatical categories, and the professional self-
understanding of grammarians. Failure to consider these contexts forces I. frequently to rely on
abstract and dubious philosophical considerations and hinders her in solving the very problem
she has set herself.
University of Reading D. L. BLANK
J. I : Tradition et critique des textes grecs. Pp. viii + 304. Paris:
Les Belles Lettres, 1997. frs. 155. ISBN: 2-251-44116-6.
In this remarkable book Jean Irigoin reports on two series of lecture and seminar courses in
Paris: from 1965 to 1979 at the École pratique des hautes études, and from 1986 to 1992 at the
Collège de France. These accounts had previously been published in the respective Annuaires of
the two institutions, and there would have been further reports for courses given at the École
pratique between 1979 and 1992 if the practice of issuing lengthy summaries had not been

          611
discontinued. Presented here in a single volume, with the addition of some new notes and fuller
references, prefaced by the text of I.’s inaugural lecture at the Collège de France in 1986, and
rounded o¶ by his valedictory in 1992, they make an awesome contribution to the study of
Greek texts and their transmission.
Cumulatively this sequence of reports brings out not only the range, methodological
consistency, and sustained energy of I.’s magisterial work, but also the importance of a
continuous tradition of teaching, learning, and collaboration at a very high level of scholarship.
The involvement of colleagues and pupils is frequently recorded, for example in collating
Hippocratic MSS, or contributing readings and conjectures to a seminar on fragments of tragic
lyrics in Ptolemaic texts. For the historian of twentieth-century scholarship this will be an
important source book for the Parisian perspective on Greek texts and their transmission. I.’s
favoured subjects for extended study are the Hippocratic corpus, the tragedians, and Plato and
Aristotle, but there is plenty of diversity, too: Menander and Bacchylides, the Greek Anthology,
Diogenes of Oenoanda, and the historians all µnd a place.
One of the great strengths of his approach is his interest in all stages of the history of texts
from papyri to early printed editions and beyond. In his examination of the processes of
transmission he pays careful attention to the methodology of ancient and Byzantine scholars,
including their metrical studies (he has illuminating things to say on Triclinius, especially on
pp. 126–7), to codicological evidence of all kinds (watermarks, gatherings, scripts), and to the
practice of early printers and editors. These discussions assume a fair amount of basic knowledge
and scholarly interest on the part of the reader, but they are not, as the author stresses, to be
confused with free-standing articles (the notes give essential references to publications elsewhere,
by the author and his colleagues as well as by others, but there is nothing approaching a
systematic bibliography); they do, however, have much to o¶er to anyone studying particular
textual traditions, and they give practical demonstration of the e¶ectiveness of I.’s chosen
methods.
In the introductory lecture, an elegant and thoughtful discussion of the development of critical
method and the study of textual traditions, I. places himself and his specialism in the context
of French scholarship, especially as practised at the Collège de France, which was founded by
François I with the encouragement of Guillaume Budé. The sense of continuity between the
Renaissance and the present is strongly evoked here and throughout the book; and the centre
of gravity is unashamedly France: after all, it was a Frenchman, Bernard de Montfaucon, who
coined the term ‘palaeographia’ and wrote the µrst great book on the subject, and another,
Alphonse Dain, I.’s predecessor at the École pratique, to whom we owe ‘codicologie’. The English
reader will look in vain for Bentley and Porson, but the emphasis here is much more on the
processes of transmission and the intricate business of tracing them than on textual criticism as
such.
The lecture courses of 1989–90 and 1990–91, on the tradition of the Greek tragedians in
antiquity, point up some of the limitations of a very strongly text-focused study. They present
an interesting sketch of the processes whereby Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides became the
canonical tragedians in the Graeco-Roman world; evidence from inscriptions and a wide variety
of ancient sources is used to illustrate di¶erent stages of the story, but there is no mention of the
artistic evidence and relatively little interest in the way performance traditions may have been
developed and modiµed in di¶erent parts of the Greek-speaking world.
It remains true, though, that what I. has to o¶er is always extremely informative and
thought-provoking; his discussion, for example, of the importance of studying the numerus
versuum (1991–92, pp. 269–70) as a way of gauging the µdelity of the texts of plays transmitted in
Byzantine MSS points forward to articles produced since his retirement which show the value of
patiently re-examining the surviving evidence from fresh vantage points.
It is wholly appropriate that a scholar who has done so much for his µeld should conclude the
whole volume with some cheering words about the continuing survival of Greek texts: ‘. . malgré
les menaces actuelles, on doit rester optimiste pour l’avenir. La Grèce en a vu d’autres, et le grec
avec elle’.
Newnham College P. E. EASTERLING
612          
U. R , G. G  (edd.): Grammatica e lessico delle

lingue ‘morte’. (Collana del Dipartimento di Scienze Glottoetnologiche
dell’Università degli Studi di Genova 3.) Pp. x + 286. Genoa: Edizioni
dell’Orso, 1998. Paper. ISBN: 88-7694-254-8.
This index-free volume contains, after a six-page introduction, the following: G. Conti,
Problemi e metodi nella ricostruzione di una lingua morta: il caso dell’eblaita; S. Sani, Coesione e
analogia nella morfologia dell’antico-indiano; L. Radif, Signiµcato e funzione di alcuni avverbi
omerici in -ω (-,); R. Ronzitti, Una metafora eschilea della generazione: ηξοφΚ υλυψξ (suppl.
593–594); M. Mariani, Le basi interpretative del testo antico: il sangue nell’Orestea di Eschilo;
V. Lomanto, Varrone e la dottrina del genere; G. Bonelli, Ermeneutica del greco e funzionalità
della struttura frasale; G. Proverbio, Sintassi e semantica nel sistema dei casi latini; U. Rapallo,
Gli ‘agrammatismi’ del latino; G. Borghi, Composti bimembri nella toponomastica gallica;
M. Vai, Delbrück, Hirt e l’ordine dei costituenti della frase indoeuropea; M. Morani, Lessico
religioso latino e italico a confronto: alcune ri·essioni; M. Scarsi, Superstitionis et religionis
distantia; G. Garbugino, Factio nel lessico politico sallustiano; G. Solimano, Monstrum in Seneca;
G. Cortassa, ΠΑΞΟΙΛΕΙΞ (Diog. epist. 36, p. 54,27 Müseler): lexicis addendum; R. Scarbi,
Tecnica traduttiva nella versione armena del trattalo µloneo Sugli altari; V. Orioles, Sui processi
di ricomposizione fra latino e lingue romanze.
J. V   : Derivation: Greek and Roman Views on Word Forma-

tion. (Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja/Annales Universitatis Turkuensis,
ser. B, tom. 229.) Pp. 227. Turku: Turun Yliopisto, 1998. Paper. ISBN:
951-29-1173-6.
This dissertation—such it clearly is, since the help of a supervisor is acknowledged—collects
and presents the observations of ancient rhetoricians, grammarians, and linguistically minded
antiquarians concerning derivatives and derivation. The authors treated include Aristotle,
Demetrius, Varro, Cicero, Quintilian, Gellius, and the Greek and Roman grammarians,
particularly Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, Donatus and his successors, and Priscian.
The discussion aims not only to trace the history of the concept through the ancient linguistic
tradition, but also to expound the texts in some detail in their own right (explicitly so, p. 18).
The attempt to combine a more general argument with a wealth of particular observation is, no
doubt, often a feature of dissertations, since candidates naturally wish to demonstrate that they
can do both (a plethora of fascinating but often tangential footnotes can be a symptom of this);
but there is a risk that, however competently the two purposes are pursued, they may not always
help one another. In this case, readers interested in the more general aspects will need to work
quite hard to see the wood for the trees, while those interested in the details will often µnd
themselves going back to the original texts; in this connection, more direct quotation would
have saved the reader some trouble. The volume is, however, well produced, and the English is
good.
It is stated at the outset that the ancients had no theory of derivation. One may wonder
precisely what is being denied here. The ancients doubtless had not explicitly worked out a
set of failsafe rules for generating possible derivatives and excluding impossible ones, or for
relating morphology to semantics in this µeld, but have we? Doubtless, also, ancient categories
and assumptions were di¶erent in some ways from those of modern philologists, and are apt to
seem peculiar or undertheorized from our point of view. Yet, on the one hand, the concept of
‘derivative’ used by V. to deµne the µeld of enquiry, i.e. a word consisting of a root plus an a¸x,
looks in practice remarkably like the concept that must lie behind Priscian’s list of derivativa
discussed on p. 89; while, on the other, it does not exhaust the concept of ‘derivation’ even
in modern usage. Certainly, English speakers (even philologists) often talk loosely about one
word being ‘derived’ from another when neither may be strictly speaking a ‘derivative’ in form.

          613
V. notes (p. 92) that derivativum has both a speciµc sense that is reasonably well deµned and a
more general sense that is less clear; that problem may in fact still be with us.
V. from time to time sharply criticizes the ancient writers for vagueness, confusion,
inconsistency, or lack of mastery of their own system, and sometimes confesses ba¹ement as to
what they had in mind (so p. 61); but the interesting part of the enquiry is surely the attempt to
µnd out what their assumptions were. What in fact emerges is that this needs to be done with
reference to a wider background, and in summarizing at the end of the book V. makes it clear that
she has touched on much larger questions, which may be divided into at least three categories.
µrst, there is ancient stylistics, including the theory of neologisms and ancient attempts to lay
down rules of correct lexical formation. Secondly, there is the perennially interesting µeld of
Graeco-Latin interaction, involving ancient attitudes to translation, lexical borrowing or the
formation of calques, and the adoption by Romans of Greek modes of linguistic analysis.
Thirdly, the study of derivations leads to a wider consideration of the often unexpressed
principles of ancient etymology, and the perceived relations between morphology and semantics.
The topsy-turvy appearance of some ancient etymology (e.g. Varro’s statement that nobilis
derives from nobilitas) can be a signal that semantic and philosophical considerations are
outweighing formal ones. Furthermore, one should not underestimate the importance of the
general human tendency to regard linguistic form as evidence for truths about the world, or at
least as creating presumptions that need to be rebutted. Derivation may be used as a rhetorical
device to prove a substantive point, as in Cicero’s example si compascuus est ager, ius est
compascere (mentioned by V. on p. 51); it is misleading to relegate such things, as V. apparently
does, to the province of style. (That this kind of argument is not dead even nowadays is shown
by the example of a professor in a British university, who once found it advisable to explain that
the title of ‘convenor’ of a board of examiners did not necessarily imply a duty to convene the
board.)
Further work on all these areas is promised (p. 166); indeed, a wider survey of the topics
mentioned would not only be interesting in its own right but might also cast further light on V.’s
collection of texts. This book, then, has the air of a preliminary excursion, but it points the way
towards some interesting topics of further enquiry.
University of Newcastle upon Tyne J. G. F. POWELL
J. U. V    : Tabú y eufemismo en latín. (Classical and Byzantine

Monographs 37.) Pp. xx + 605. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1997.
Paper. ISBN: 90-256-1110-9.
U.V.’s study is a revised version of a 1995 doctoral thesis, directed by José Luis Moralejo
Álvarez in the Universidad de Oviedo. He has put an extraordinary e¶ort into the linguistic
study of what the Romans called nefanda. Taboo and euphemism are the key terms that
dominate the book: taboo designates what it is not possible to name, and euphemism the way
in which it can be referred to without naming it. The investigation and analysis are neat,
systematic and—what is more important—they has been carried out on the basis of the new
theoretical contributions of linguistics in the µeld of semantics and pragmatics.
The book is in three parts. A useful introductory section (pp. 1–44) circumscribes the
investigation to the linguistic area of ancient Latin; U.V. accurately deµnes the terms taboo and
euphemism, and presents a status quaestionis in which the anthropological, linguistic, and philo-
logical works of Frazer, Meillet, Candrea, Bonfante, Havers, Benveniste, Mansur, Löfstedt,
Keller, Hey, Struck, Opelt, Nyrop, Da Silva, Galli, Widlak, Montero, Casas, and Senabre are
summarized. Although the works of each one of these scholars are important, none of them
constitutes a systematic investigation of euphemism in Latin. This is exactly the main object of
U.V.’s book.
In Part II (pp. 45–133), U.V. gathers and analyses the opinion of ancient commentators,
grammarians and rhetors on euphemism, linguistic interdiction, euphemistic resources, and the
magical power of the name in the Roman culture. But he is not satisµed with that alone; in many
cases, he gives original solutions such as the one he o¶ers in a passage of Cicero on interdiction:
Cic. Fam. 9.22.4, at honesti ‘colei Lanuuini’, ‘Cliternini’ non honesti, is clariµed when U.V.

614          
interprets it, for the µrst time, in the light of Paul. Fest. 157.12: Sunt qui nefrendes testiculos dici
putent, quos Lanuuini appellant nebrundines, Graeci nefrou/j, Praenestini nefrones.
Part III (pp. 135–540), the longest, deals with the survey and analysis of Latin vocabulary
on taboo and linguistic interdiction. U.V.’s method is constant: each word is studied from
its etymology, then the analysis is centred on the context in which it appears and—when
possible—on the situation in which it is expressed. When Latin examples are not enough, U.V.
also uses comparative linguistics. One chapter is devoted to taboo in relation to wild animals;
another to parts of the body, natural elements, and phenomena; another two, much longer, to
death and sex; and the last three to scatological vocabulary, diseases, and physical defects. The
chapter on the taboo of death is, in many ways, the most rewarding because of the bibliography
gathered, the passages analysed, the loci added, and the original interpretations proposed. The
chapter devoted to taboo and euphemisms about sex, on the other hand, deals with largely settled
points—albeit corrected and enlarged—made in the books of Richlin, Adams, Montero Cartelle,
and André. In each case, U.V. starts from the designations of the interdicted terms and then
proceeds to reporting the euphemistic designations: metaphors, metonyms, diminutives, ellipses,
aposiopeses, pronominal substitutes, phonetic modiµcations, periphrastic expressions.
In a short review it is possible to convey only an impression of the wealth of detail that U.V. has
gathered. In the vast majority of cases, his interpretation of the passages he cites seems
to me plainly correct. He selects his examples with much skill, and he is also adroit in dealing
with them. Typographical errors are not rare, especially in the µrst part, e.g. p. 12 sitemático (for
sistemático), p. 56 atribuído (for atribuido), p. 74 au début d’un sevice divin (for au début d’un
service divin), p. 223 madar (for mandar), and p. 319 n. 4 que ha muerto por amor (for que muere
de amor). The rich bibliography could have done with more careful checking, e.g. p. 551 Cup and
Cuq, p. 553 Gamdrelidze and Gamkrelidze, p. 555 Housmann and Housman, p. 558 Marouzeu
and Marouzeau, McCraken and McCracken, and p. 561 Plobert and Flobert. But, even bonus
dormitat Homerus. The book also has a helpful index uerborum and locorum.
It was clear to me from the outset that U.V. had produced a major book that is very useful
and stimulating in terms of selected passages as well as analysis. U.V. has greatly improved our
understanding of one of the richest areas of the latin language.
Universidad del Sur, Argentina EMILIO ZAINA
L. B : Introduction à la philosophie du mythe, I: Sauver les

mythes (Essais d’art et de philosophie). Pp. 243. Paris: Librairie
Philosophique J. Vrin, 1996. Paper, frs. 125. ISBN: 2-7116-127-6.
Mythology has a number of histories and this is one of them. Brisson’s book gives an account
of the history of the reception of myth by philosophers and of the interpretative systems they
evolve in order to continue to µnd value in it. Thus a system of communication that, as B. sees
it, had its natural place in an oral, pre-literate society astonishingly was ‘saved’ from extinction
and became an instrument in particular of allegory and mysticism. Brisson takes the story
from the beginnings—the impact of writing and the response of Plato to myth—down to
the Renaissance and Marsilio Ficino. A second volume by C. Jamme (Époque moderne et
contemporaine) takes us on to the present day. The word ‘introduction’ is of course a thinly
disguised ‘Einführung’: these two volumes were originally commissioned by the Wissenschaft-
liche Buchgesellschaft at Darmstadt as Einführung in die Philosophie des Mythos (vol. 1, 1996;
vol. 2, 1991).
B., a Canadian who took French nationality in the mid-80s, is well known for his work on
Plato and the Platonists. He dedicates the volume to Jean Pépin, a sign of the sort of urbane
French tradition to which this book belongs. In amongst the careful footnotes, one notices the
particular rôle of French scholarship in these areas—names cited with honour include F. Bu¸ère,
A.J. Festugière, J. Hani, P. Hadot, and R. Turcan. This is a work of synthesis within a tradition.
The excitement of the particular subject lies in the tantalizing mixture of reason, whose nature
is to know its limits, of mythology, as a mode of communication that can transcend those limits
(as the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellchaft ·ier put it, ‘eine zum rationale Denken alternative
Wahrnehmung’), and of irrationality, as a chaos which the µrst two strive to keep at bay. This
concern with the nature of reason had been explored already in L. Brisson and F. W. Meyerstein,

          615
Puissance et limites de la raison: le problème des valeurs (Paris, 1995), mentioned at p. 11, and may
be regarded as part of a di¶erent tradition most notably encapsulated in W. Nestle’s Vom Mythos
zum Logos (Stuttgart, 1942). A recent conference at Bristol, published as R. G. A. Buxton (ed.),
‘From Myth to Reason’: Studies in the Development of Greek Thought (Oxford, 1999), conspicu-
ously rejected the claim that rational thought somehow displaced the pre-rational thought
enshrined in myth. B. now shows a di¶erent way of integrating mythic discourse, at least amongst
philosophers.
Introductory works perhaps uniquely have the right to bring sense to unreasonably large areas.
I am not sure who the neophytes are who will be ‘introduced’ to the subject by this work, but I can
say that I value the conspectus which B. presents and his wealth of learning, reliable judgement,
and generosity of vision. Some parts may seem more questionable or more obvious: the rôle of
writing and the orality of myth need more thought than is possible here (at least B. has raised
interesting possibilities); and it is dreary, if probably inevitable, to be going through Xenophanes
and Plato on myth again. Perhaps too the account of the Eleusinian mysteries (pp. 85–7) looks
rather tired. But these are quibbles beside the magisterial handling of the philosophers after
Aristotle and all the way down to Proclus and the School of Athens.
B.’s method is to home in on particular texts as representative examples of the processes he
outlines in their historical context. Surprisingly, but rationally, he uses Cicero De natura deorum
as his Stoic text and as a useful way of dealing simultaneously with Epicureanism and the New
Academy. He copes deftly with the transmutation of Platonism and its increasing perceived debt
to ‘Pythagoreanism’, and takes the trouble, at least brie·y, to discuss Philo and fragments from
his De providentia (though personally I would have preferred a more typical piece of biblical
‘interpretation’). Plutarch receives larger-scale treatment (perhaps not so deservedly in this
context) and a section on the De Iside et Osiride. It is a shame not to see more than a mention in
passing of Ps.-Heraclitus, Quaestiones Homericae, but at least Numenius and Cronius get an
innings, even if their rôle is, as ever, to be ready to wash the feet of Plotinos. From Plotinos’
systematic view of myth we zoom in on its particular relevance and application to the life-cycle of
the soul. This area closes with a few pages, very helpful indeed, showing Porphyry at work on
Homer’s philosophy of the descending soul, in the De antro nympharum. B. then leaps, with some
attention to the links to the previous period, to the School of Athens with its particular stress on
Plato as theologos. This whole section is dominated by the precocious and overwhelming intellect
of Proclus. In outlining the system of thought which Proclus expounded, B. matches together,
theme by allegorical theme (pp. 134–8), the corresponding areas of the Chaldean Oracles and
the Orphic Rhapsodies, an area of great complexity in which B. is an acknowledged expert.
Finally we see Proclus’ analysis of the true nature of Homer’s inspiration in Books 5 and 6 of his
commentary on the Republic, defending it against Plato’s criticisms.
Ancient myth does not have a distinct Nachleben—as any mythopoeic age is by deµnition lost,
we have nothing but Nachleben. We move seamlessly therefore into chapters detailing Byzantine
response to myth, the rôle of myth in the Latin west, and the Renaissance. The Byzantine chapter,
after rich preliminary historical and educational detail, proposes a passage of Homer (Iliad
8.17–27) and reviews three interpretations of it—by Eustathius, John Tzetzes, and Michael
Psellus. The chapter concludes with a table of allegorical equivalences drawn from a commentary
on the Laws by Plethon, whose mortal remains, B. notes (p. 170), were transferred in 1475 to
Rimini (to Alberti’s Tempio Malatestiano). Macrobius, though he found no earlier place in the
structure, makes brief appearances in the chapter on the Latin west, though in this short chapter
(thirteen pages) the high points are Isidore’s Origines and a poem of Theodulph. The Renaissance
is more engaging: Homer, Egypt, Aeneid, and Metamorphoses are the preliminary themes. Up
rises a characteristically energetic passage of Rabelais (‘Croiez vous en votre foy qu’oncques
Homère, escrivent l’Iliade et Odysée, pensast en allegories . . . ?’, p. 200) wickedly followed only
lines later by a passage of Martin Luther. The chapter does become rather a list (lists have their
usefulness too), but µnally settles down to a look at Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology.
It is hard with a book like this to do much more than expound it, but the reader will see that it
is well worth expounding and combines a wonderful range of information (however much one
might occasionally wish for other things) with humanity and commitment.
University of Birmingham KEN DOWDEN
616          
J. D : Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity.

Pp. xiii + 246, µgs. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Paper,
£16.99. ISBN: 0-415-12991-5.
W. C   : Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity. A Sourcebook for the

Study of New Testament Miracle Stories. Pp. x + 187. London and New
York: Routledge, 1999. Paper, £14.99. ISBN: 0-415-11864-6.
D.’s volume is one of a series of books intended to survey themes in the history of religion
across di¶erent religions in antiquity. This is a worthy aim but a di¸cult one, and D.’s volume
perhaps illustrates this di¸culty.
The book approaches the topic from the view of a scholar in religious studies, and the µrst
third or so is taken up with a survey of Judaism and other Near Eastern religions. When the
Classical period is reached the work is marred by many problems of detail. D. appears to think
that ‘patrician’ is simply a synonym for ‘wealthy’, Lucretius is described as a ‘philosopher’,
the humiliores become Orwellian ‘non-persons’ of the Empire. Most classicists would wish for
qualiµcation when Thucydides’ work is described as an ‘epic’ and all would probably be unhappy
with a direct comparison between Thucydides and the Epic of Gilgamesh. We are told that by
.. 300 there were established churches in the North of England. There is little evidence for
this save the rhetoric of Christian apologists Tertullian and Origen, which should be approached
with great suspicion. There are dissonant chronological shifts in the text; we move from Lucian’s
treatment of Greek deities to that of Cicero without any sense that the distance in time may be an
important factor in their di¶erent approaches.
Another irritation is the system of referencing adopted. Classical texts are only given via
modern translated editions, so the reader is confronted with references such as ‘Horace 1968’,
which perhaps imply a resurrection of a di¶erent sort. Such an approach is unscholarly as it
deprives readers lacking the particular translation used by D. of any means of examining his
citations.
One basic thesis of the book is that martyrdom and the cult of the martyr µgure is a response
elicited by tension in society. For such a thesis to work in the Classical period the Roman Empire
has to be seen as having had a precarious existence. D. dutiµlly obliges by stating that ‘The Roman
state existed in a condition of permanent crisis’. It is di¸cult to recognize this picture. While D. is
right to note that Rome’s rule was harsh to some of its subjects, he fails to recognize that for every
Boudica there was a Cogidubnus; for every zealot, a Josephus. In short, his picture of the Empire
does as little justice to the complexity of its social life as that of the ‘Golden Age’ caricature which
he presents.
D. tells us that monotheism tends to exile God to another world, making his purpose here
inscrutable. This does not seem to be the view of early Christians in the Roman World. Orosius,
for example, took the reverse position, believing that God’s actions on earth were the key to
understanding world history.
C.’s work on miracles, as its subtitle implies, is concerned with comparing the miracle stories
of the New Testament with those found in the wider Classical world. C. concentrates on the
µrst century .., but also cites later pagan material while excluding similar Christian writings.
Her justiµcation for this is that patristic writing re·ects the internal development of Christianity,
whereas pagan sources give us ‘ideas available to the µrst century populace as well [as that of their
own times]’. This methodology at one level begs the question; at another it ignores the fact that
later pagan authors, such as Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana, may well be reacting
in part to Christianity and hence need special treatment.
C. divides her sources into the four miracle categories devised by Bultman for NT purposes,
i.e. healing, exorcism, control of nature, and magic. This approach, while broadly useful, is
problematic, given that these categories can easily overlap. On occasions some degree of
cross-referencing would have been helpful. There is none, for example, between the account of
Christ’s healing of the blind man with mud and spittle in John 9 (p. 62), which falls in the ‘healing’
category, and the later discussion (pp. 187–8) of the use of spittle for ‘magical’—which here
includes healing—purposes. Useful appendices are provided which look at ancient medical texts,
and Jewish texts which parallel some of Christ’s miracles. It is perhaps surprising not to µnd
Luck’s sourcebook, Arcana Mundi, listed in the bibliography.
While this collection of material is welcome, some of the parallels C. draws seem a little

          617
strained, and more nuancing would have been helpful. Christ’s healing miracles normally involve
physical contact or at least His presence, whereas here we have a sequence of pagan healing
miracles which involve dreams and healing at a distance. There is a similar problem with
gods who control wind and waves. Christ’s miracle involves His presence, but the pagan parallels
involve the invocation of a deity at a distance. Celsus’ and Apuleius’ account of Asclepiades’
detecting life in those thought dead would be better placed among the medical texts than the
healing section of the book as they involve no miracle at all. Plutarch Marcellus 20 speaks of a
man behaving as if he were mad, not a mad man. Similarly Pliny N.H. 2.106 speaks of water
tasting like wine, not turning into wine. Pliny seemingly contradicts himself at N.H. 31.13 (not
31.16), but it would be as well to indicate the di¶erence between the two accounts, not merely
list them side by side, and to point out that N.H. 31 is a book dealing with water. C. appears
to misread Dio 46.1, which does not imply that Caesar was able to calm a storm, and Philo’s
storms from Ad Gaium are surely metaphorical, in the tradition of Horace Odes, rather than
meteorological phenomena. In short, C.’s book is a useful adjunct to the literature on this subject,
but unlikely to become a core textbook in the µeld.
University of Keele A. T. FEAR
M. G  : The Living Goddesses. Pp. xx + 286, 130 ills. Berkeley,
Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1999. Cased,
$35. ISBN: 0-520-21393-9.
Few scholars have generated such disparate reactions as Marija Gimbutas, whose work has been
embraced by adherents of the ‘Goddess Movement’, but criticized and even dismissed by
archaeologists and ancient historians. This, her last book (nearly µnished at the time of her
death in 1994, and completed by Miriam Robbins Dexter), should continue to polarize opinion.
There are notable departures from others of her works, but essential aspects remain.
The book consists of two parts. The µrst restates the theory set out in G.’s earlier works,
namely that the peoples of pre-Indo-European ‘Old Europe’ worshipped a goddess of birth,
death, and regeneration. G. µnds evidence for this goddess in a wide range of contexts and
images: female µgurines, animal images, and other symbols (Chapter I), language (Chapter II),
and places of worship (Chapters III–V). A µnal chapter argues that, because religion was gyno-
centric, society must have been too. The second part (Chapters VII–XIII) explores a topic which
had long fascinated G., but on which she had previously published little, namely post-Neolithic
survivals of the goddess from the Bronze Age to the mid-twentieth century.
Criticisms levelled at others of her books hold good here. In particular, she ascribes a universal
pattern of worship to the whole of ‘Old Europe’, and often presents conjecture as certainty.
For example, she almost invariably identiµes female µgurines as manifestations of the goddess,
without addressing what it is that marks these µgures as divinities, rather than priestesses
or ordinary women (or, indeed, monsters in the case of those µgurines which combine human
and animal forms). Similarly, frogs, hedgehogs, butter·ies, bulls, etc. are consistently identiµed as
manifestations of ‘the goddess’. Thus, of bucrania she writes ‘the key to understanding Neolithic
renditions of the bull’s head and horns . . . comes through their resemblance to the female uterus
and fallopian tubes’ (p. 35). Surely this is not the only possible explanation of this intriguing, and
possibly disturbing, image? We could as well be faced with µgures with masculine and feminine
characteristics (or cows, as D. allows [p. 218 n. 21]).
Part 2 consists largely of a broad sweep of numerous goddesses and traditions rather than
a developed analysis. A rather old-fashioned picture emerges, whereby the apparent origins of
numerous goddesses are used to explain their subsequent identity and characteristics. No account
is taken of the crucially important developments in approaches to goddesses as diverse, volatile,
and constantly evolving. Even if particular goddesses do indeed originate in ‘Old Europe’, they
will have evolved beyond their origins, and become integrated into later religious systems. Sadly,
the ‘Living Goddesses’ of the title lack vibrancy and vigour.
The book has been well edited by D., who has supplied a useful introduction and afterword,
and a comprehensive glossary, as well as some informative notes. Some unavoidable unevenness
remains. In particular, the early chapters are richly illustrated, and beautifully presented,
although this is not true of the second part: as D. informs us, G. had planned extensive
illustrations for later chapters, but had not actually chosen any at the time of her death.
Like G.’s previous books, this is certain to µnd an audience among the ‘Goddess Movement’, in

618          
which she has long been regarded as the principal scholarly authority. The volume is not
extensively referenced, and as such is, I imagine, aimed chie·y at a non-academic audience.
However, it is likely to attract more scholars than previously thanks to the recent ·urry of
discussions of prehistoric goddesses amongst archaeologists and others (not least, the excellent
L. Goodison and C. Morris [edd.], Ancient Goddesses [London, 1998]).
University of Keele SUSAN DEACY
E. K: Die Opferrinne-‘Zeremonie’. Bankettideologie am Grab,

Orientalisierung und Formierung einer Adelsgesellschaft in Athen.
Pp. 211, maps. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998. Cased, DM 96.
ISBN: 3-515-07367-1.
This is a detailed and closely argued study of eighth- and seventh-century o¶ering ditches
beneath the tumuli in the Hagia Triada area of the Ceramicus cemetery. K. advances a
distinctive and no doubt controversial interpretation of the pottery from the ditches, and builds
upon it far-reaching theories about the political and social development of Athenian society.
He µrst dismisses the notion that the ditches were, primarily at any rate, associated with the
heroization of the dead. He goes on to reconstruct an elaborate ceremony for them, which, he
believes, was performed on the occasion of the interment. The core of this ceremony consisted
of the setting up and burning of series of vessels on a wooden frame constructed over the length
of the ditch. The ceremony’s meaning was embedded in the vessels themselves rather than in
anything they may have contained. The vessels were mock, pottery versions of oriental metal
ones. Each series of vessels was constituted from four signiµcant categories: (1) vessels for
mixing; (2) vessels for drinking from; (3) vessels for pouring from; and (4) vessels with other
functions, such as eating, storage, or holding cosmetics. This magniµcent display was symbolic
of the oriental banquet type known in Ugaritic as the marzeah. The ceremony gave out the
message that the dead man had enjoyed this type of banquet during life and had participated in
the assimilation of the Athenian élite to its oriental counterparts.
The development of this custom re·ected wider changes in Athenian society. By around
760/750 the ‘élite’ had ceased organizing contribution-feasts, and its claim to status could no
longer be based upon its rôle in distribution. Consequently, the kraters that had been symbolic of
such feasts could no longer serve appropriately as status-markers for their graves, and their use
had been discontinued. After a brief crisis of identity, the élite found a new identity for itself in
the conspicuous life of leisure, of which the chief badge was participation in oriental-style
banquets of the leisured. There is extended discussion of the impact of the two feasting-cultures
on the Homeric epics. The new banquets of the leisured gave rise to the development of the
‘o¶ering-ditch ceremony’ in the last third of the eighth century. Behind these burial practices,
accordingly, K. perceives the transformation of an ‘élite’, deµned by its function in the com-
munity, into a true ‘nobility’, deµned by the life of leisure. This was, in turn, coordinated with the
emergence of the ‘demos’, with the synoecism of the communities around the acropolis, and the
creation of the early agora. The developing interests and ideologies of these two groups resulted
in the con·icts familiar from the historical period.
Specialists in tomb-archaeology will no doubt be divided over the merits of the case. It is
noteworthy that the theories of Whitely and Morris are vigorously discarded here. One feels, as
so often with the archaeology of the period before the historical record begins, that the tail is
given too much licence to wag the dog. Archaeologists must, admittedly, develop some limited
hypotheses about the wider nature of the society they study in order to make sense of their
µnds. But too often they approach their narrow material with the grand expectation that all-
encompassing social and political histories may be written out of it.
The book is furnished with some good paraphernalia, systematic catalogues of the µnds from
the Hagia Triada o¶ering ditches, and twenty-seven pages of plates. Only the most important
works are included in the two-page bibliography, with other references conµned to footnotes.
There is no index.
University of Wales Swansea DANIEL OGDEN

          619
V. P  -D    : L’Aphrodite grecque. Contribution à l’étude

de ses cultes et de sa personnalité dans le panthéon archaïque et classique.
(Kernos Supplement 4.) Pp. xii + 527. Athens and Liege: Centre inter-
national de l’Étude de la Religion antique, 1994. Paper.
This substantial book makes an important contribution to understanding Aphrodite and her
cults, and provides an invaluable tool for further study.
Its µrst part, a series of regional studies, excludes areas such as Crete, Asia Minor, the Aegean
islands, South Italy, and Sicily, and focuses on the areas described by Pausanias. Limitations of
access explain the decision to structure this investigation around Pausanias’ account; but there are
obvious dangers in an investigation of archaic and classical cults based on an author of the
Roman period.
In Part 2 P. investigates the Greek perceptions of the relationship between Aphrodite and
Cyprus. Part 3 sets out a synthesis, on the basis of which P. attempts to determine A.’s divine
personality. In the concluding Chapter III A.’s functions and prerogatives are discussed. P.
associates A.’s connection with the sea with her connection with the sky. A.’s celestial character
is expressed above all in her epithet Ourania, which, P. believes, characterized A. as a goddess who
came from elsewhere. P. believes that Ourania seems a generic appellation. It is di¸cult to see how
this view can be reconciled with the fact that the Greeks speciµcally contrasted A. Ourania to
other personae of A. For example, according to a myth in a passage of Pausanias (cf. pp. 276–81),
Harmonia dedicated three statues of her mother A., which she called Ourania, Pandemos, and
Apostrophia. The epithets betray a mentality in which Ourania did not connote a global image of
A., but a particular persona, contrasted to her other personae. P. associates A.’s chthonic
personalities with her cosmic persona, as articulated in tragedy. A. was also concerned with civic
harmony, hence magistrates in di¶erent places made dedications to her, and was also associated
with the world of war, with regard to which P. o¶ers a subtle and sensitive discussion.
The book ends with a short synthesis, in which P. connects A.’s traits to a basic nucleus of what
she calls the force of the union that the goddess sets in place (p. 469), which also deµnes A.’s
modalities of intervention in the various spheres in which she appears.
Inevitably, in a book of this scope and amplitude, there are aspects one can argue about. On the
methodological side, P. is generally cautious and sophisticated. Our reservations do not detract
from the book’s substantial achievement and value.
E Museis Nostris THE EDITORS
D. K. B  : Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the

Rhetoric of Legitimacy. Pp. xiv + 221. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999. Cased, $39.50. ISBN: 0-691-05980-2.
‘See how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark, in thine ear: change places, and,
handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief ?’ As Lear came painfully to recognize, even
the strongest institutions, which appear to be grounded in the necessary order of the universe,
are in reality the products of historical vicissitudes, and of frequently sordid struggles. Is all that
separates the justice from the thief the fact that the position of the former is supported
by a ‘rhetoric of legitimacy’? Denise Kimber Buell’s argument in this book is that Clement
of Alexandria, a signiµcant µgure in the development of Christian doctrine and orthodoxy,
especially in the East, consistently uses imagery of procreation and childbirth to make his own
positions appear to be ‘natural’ (and consequently ‘legitimate’)—in contrast to those of the
multitude of other early Christian voices. She analyses a number of passages in his theological
and ethical works, bringing together a collection of medical, educational, and religious texts
documenting the ways procreation was imagined and represented in the ancient world.
B. begins with a discussion of scientiµc and popular images for procreation, arguing that
Clement’s use of agricultural imagery to describe procreation is not directly drawn from Aristotle
and the Hippocratic corpus, but can be paralleled in later medical writers and non-specialist
literature. From this general discussion of the process of imagining childbirth, she moves to
discuss Plato’s and Plutarch’s uses of procreative imagery to describe the teaching process. She is

620          
careful to explain that her claim is not that Clement draws directly on either author, but that these
writers’ uses of the metaphors demonstrate their currency in ancient educational discourse—a
discourse into which Clement enters wholeheartedly. From here, she moves on to argue that
Clement represents his opinions as organic reproductions of those of his teachers, and con-
sequently authoritative for their audience. In the second half of the book she focuses on a very
peculiar passage in Clement’s ethical tract, the Paedagogus. He argues in Book 1 of that text that
Pauline passages which draw a metaphorical distinction between di¶erent kinds of Christian
teaching as being either milk for children or solid food for adults cannot be taken to imply the
existence of two qualitatively distinct kinds of doctrine, since milk, blood, and ·esh may be
demonstrated physiologically to be of the same substance. B. argues that what appears here to be
an inclusive position turns out in fact to be exclusive: ‘arguing for Christian unity helps Clement
to establish the boundaries for his version of Christianity’ (p. 148). Her µnal chapter argues that
his tendency to represent a consistently masculine divinity as having feminine characteristics has
the e¶ect of denigrating the female body by implying that it compares unfavourably with a higher
spiritual reality.
The book has three weaknesses. The µrst is that 2ξ0παφτιΚ appears to have been misconstrued
at an important stage of an argument (pp. 138–9), and the transliterations which appear in the
body of the text are inconsistent and sometimes wrong. The second weakness is the exclusive
focus on language and metaphor. The author defends this exclusivity in the µrst chapter:
‘language is constitutive, rather than merely re·ective of reality’, and her aim is therefore ‘to
highlight the means by which a cultural fomation . . . constructs “the real” and persuades those
who participate in it . . . that it is real’ (p. 14). But ‘reality’ cannot be dismissed quite so
easily—what ‘legitimacy’ meant in second-century Alexandrian Christianity is never fully
explained. It is perhaps unfair to blame the author for this omission, as this is a period from
which we have very little evidence. Nevertheless, the institutional context in which the ‘rhetoric of
legitimacy’ was used is surely vital for our understanding of that rhetoric, and even if we cannot
be certain about its nature, the author needed to explain more fully her own views on the
questions which remain open. The third problem is that the starkness of B.’s categories
‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ does not do justice to the nuance of the texts concerned. The
‘Valentinians’, for example, Clement sometimes dismisses as heretics, and at other times engages
in charitable and constructive debate—the Excerpta ex Theodoto are an example of the latter
phenomenon. What makes him interesting as a thinker is that he confronts theological and
cultural problems armed not only with the standard polemical tools of other ancient Christians,
but also with a genuine curiosity about others’ opinions—including both pagans and Christians
with whom he disagreed.
In all, the book is successful in accomplishing its own programme, but I believe that
programme to have been too limited. Its virtue is that it brings to general attention very
interesting links between the ancient discourses of medicine, educational theory, and Christian
theology. There is much interesting work to be done in the further exploration of these links.
Brasenose College, Oxford L. A. H. EMMETT
G. F  , L . P  (edd.): Du héros païen au saint chré-

tien. Pp. 239. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1997. frs. 164.
ISBN: 2-85121-159-5.
This collection consists of nineteen papers from a Strasburg colloquium of the Centre
d’Analyse des Rhétoriques Religieuses de l’Antiquité. Space does not permit comment on all the
papers, but the following will convey some idea of the scope and range of a very worthwhile
volume indeed.
Section 1 is concerned with the pagan hero as such, represented inter alia by the image of
Aristides the Just from Herodotus to Plutarch (E. Oudot-Lutz), and by Livy’s presentation of
ancient worthies and their opposites in the regal period, and of Aemilius Paulus father and son
(M. Chassignet, V. Pfeifer); we could readily say that Livy’s Lucretia has already the ·avour of
a Christian saint in her puritanical fervour and premium on chastity. It would be interesting
to explore the full extent of the ancient miscellanist tradition for further examples: Aelian’s
presentation of Aspasia of Phocaea (VH 12.1) would furnish a no less cherished exemplum.

          621
Apart from the pietas that most obviously qualiµes Varro’s treatment of Aeneas for inclusion,
what is more surprising is that Varro was shown relics of the sow and the pigs, by no means the
only manifestation of a pagan relic-industry.
Other papers in Section 1 and µve papers in Section 2 represent the transition from hero to
Christian saint, the focus of the collection’s title. C. Freyburger treats pagan amicitia and the
Christian virtues: as late as Ambrose, Christians have to be shown the superiority of Theodora of
Alexandria and the soldier who shared her martyrdom to the pagan exemplum of Damon and
Phintias. A. Jacquemin examines the rôle of the Pythia and the archeis alongside the Christian
diaconissa: we actually know of a deaconess Athanasia at Delphi itself in the µfth century ..
It would be worth adding the picture of Heliodorus’ picture of Charicleia, the heroine of the
Aethiopica, as a Delphic secular priestess in late µction. Bernard Laurot treats the wider image of
Alcestis in antiquity beyond Euripides: it would have been worth mentioning the extensive oral
tradition of this tale of self-sacriµce (Aarne-Thompson Type 899): the tale found its way into the
Medieval Turkish Book of Dede Korkut and still surfaces as a modern Jewish tale. We are not
surprised to µnd the famous lararium of saints attributed by the SHA to Severus Alexander, with
Jesus Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana worshipped together: C. Bertrand-
Dagenbach usefully emphasizes the scope and implications of a second lararium in the same Vita,
and the presence of Alexander the Great in the µrst. J.-L. Girard’s paper on the nimbus is a
reminder of a detail all too readily taken for granted, but as applicable to Achilles (Il. 18.205f.) as
to Christian saints.
The six papers in Section 4 deal with saints of both genders and the notion of sanctity itself.
Jean-Marie Salamite touches on a theme familiar to devotees of Peter Brown in exploring
the social appeal of Pelagius; L. Pernot’s treatment of the Decian martyr and orator Pionios
of Smyrna explores less familiar territory, and extends the work of the late Louis Robert on
this µgure, completed by Bowersock and Jones. One notes the rôle here of rhetoric, but of a
non-sophistic, distinctively Christian kind, besides a wealth of distinctively authentic detail.
Three papers on Nachleben illustrate the enormous outreach of the subject: it extends to
Shakespeare’s Coriolanus (Ch. M. Ternes) as well as Beatus Rhenanus (J. Hirstein), and even
reaches the con·ict of Stoic exempla with contemporary native Saints in seventeenth-century
France; it would have been worth tying the µnal treatment of the corpse of Coriolanus to those of
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, and worth noting any correspondences of French
hero-myth of the period to Milton’s Samson Agonistes in England.
Much is necessarily missing from this gallery of honour: most obviously Apollonius of Tyana
as a µgure in his own right, representing the closest thing to any pagan ‘counterpart’ to Jesus
Christ. One misses too any treatment of the self-immolations of Herakles and Proteus
Peregrinus; or of the thought-world of Philostratus’ Heroicus. But such omissions only underline
the magnitude of the task, and the stimulating e¶ect of the collection in prompting still further
lines of enquiry.
J.-C. Fredouille has the task of supplying an introduction to so varied an agenda: he is right to
see breaks as well as continuity in the pattern: pagan heroism is an absolute; Christian sanctity is
participation by grace in the holiness of God. I am less sure whether the more competitive of
stylite Saints would always have seen matters in those terms.
To conclude: this is a handsome and well-documented ensemble; and any scholars interested in
the relationship between rhetoric and hagiography in any quarter of antiquity will µnd something
here to reµne their own perspective.
University of Kent at Canterbury GRAHAM ANDERSON
K. S : Die Rede der Diotima: Untersuchungen zum platonischen

Symposion. (Beiträge zum Altertumskunde, 86). Pp. xvi + 329.
Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1997. Cased, DM 98. ISBN:
3-519-07635-7.
The ‘Speech of Diotima’ is that of Socrates, an account of the Mantineian sorceress’s teaching
about Eros, composed of quoted dialectic and oratory. The exclusive focus on one of the six
speeches on Eros in Plato’s Symposium is defended on the grounds that the degree of truth
in each speech is illuminated by its successors, until Socrates provides the comprehensive

622          
viewpoint (pp. xiii–xiv; cf. pp. xv, 2, 6, 36, 104, 215). Further justiµcation is found in the speech’s
in·uence on later literature. Moreover the author promises (Vorwort, p. v) that this study ‘forms
the foundational point of reference for a commentary to the [whole] Symposium which is in
preparation’. S. does not discuss Alcibiades’ encomium of Socrates, nor the dramatic context
and interactions, in relation to which alternative claims to interpretive priority could be made.
Die Rede der Diotima divides into sections on Diotima’s introduction (201d1–e7), the essence
and character of Eros (201e8–204c6), and its activity (204c7–21 2a7), the last constituting
two-thirds of the book. Discussion of each part is followed by equally extensive detailed notes.
Accomplished and comprehensive, if not succinct, these are generally an advance over Bury and
Dover, presenting stylistically and interpretively signiµcant parallels, linguistic references, and
discussions of textual problems (see pp. 61, 68, 72, 77, 85, 207–8, 211–12, 220–22, 247, 259–60,
276, 279–80, 287–88); they also support interpretive positions.
S.’s dark assertion that ‘what is implied through what is left unsaid compels the reader to
participate independently in the thinking’ (p. 23) leaves it initially unclear whether to expect an
account of unwritten doctrines or perhaps an aporematic undertaking. He presents Diotima not
as Socrates’ double, but as articulating the horizon within which all Socratic philosophizing
appears (p. 9); Socrates, still the undogmatic seeker (pp. 14–15), stands to her as Parmenides to his
goddess, or the poet to the Muses (p. 12). Subsequently S. claims that Diotima’s theory is just as
much Platonic as what Socrates says in other middle dialogues (p. 96), rather confusing the issue.
In fact S.’s achievement is a subtle, albeit questionable, systematization of Diotima’s account
of Eros, conceived as an ontological structure of erotic subjectivity, linked to a metaphysically
oriented but better-grounded treatment of the ascent to the form of the Beautiful. On his view
206b1–3 does not turn from the newly generalized concept of Eros to one species as the medium
of philosophical enlightenment, but asks what activities reveal generic Eros. 207a1–4 shows that
immortality is involved in the goal of all Eros (pp. 99–100). Happiness, he thinks, is a distinct but
connected goal. S. also distinguishes the beautiful, qua erotic object, from the good as the goal of
Eros (p. 102): the beautiful embodies the ‘objective norm’ to which the lover’s conception of
good, and so desire, is directed (p. 164; cf. pp. 200–3), and so elicits the production of good
(pp. 102–3), since Eros is for generation in the beautiful (206e5).
The criticism of Aristophanes, that Eros is not for what is akin (oikeion) unless one calls the
good one’s own (205e), is used to argue that all erotic activity is aimed at self-development, or
self-propagation (p. 113, cf. pp. 215, 233). Happiness is associated with recognizing one’s
‘o¶spring’ as good, and immortality with the reproductive process. S. notes (pp. 122–4) that
‘o¸cially’ happiness only follows from the attainment of true immortality while possessing the
good, possible only in contemplating the form of the Beautiful (212a). Thus while an impulse to
the good is insinuated to drive self-propagation universally, in all non-philosophical cases the
good and the ‘happiness’ it produces are impermanent (cf. p. 129).
In the ‘ladder of love’ (209e–212a), S. µnds a hierarchically organized set of distinct species of
beauty the same only generically (p. 156). At each stage of the ascent, the lover grasps one speciµc
universal (the beauty of bodies, moral character and laws, then mathematical knowledge,
211c3–6; cf. 210b2–c7). These are sequentially more beautiful as they depend on correspondingly
less material objects (pp. 156–7). The genus they share (the characteristic beauty called the ‘great
sea of the beautiful’, 210d4) S. distinguishes strongly from the form of the Beautiful, the cause of
this genus, and object of the µnal step (cf. pp. 167–82). The form only appears as the characteristic
beauty in beautiful things (p. 175). The µnal subsection of S.’s discussion focuses on the problem
whether even the philosopher can attain true immortality, given the metaphysics of particulars
used to support the account of universal reproduction (pp. 187–91; cf. pp. 238–41). His solu-
tion is that within the vision of the form the soul takes on the divinity (immortality) of its object
(pp. 195–6), and he opposes appeal to the anamnesis-model of immortality (p. 197).
The topics concluding the two preceding paragraphs involve serious problems for attempts to
µnd systematic theory in the Symposium. S., who repeatedly discusses and criticizes the proposals
of many recent English-speaking interpreters (prominently Allen, Price, Osborne, and Kahn), as
well as Germans, might perhaps µnd himself subjected to equally telling criticisms, but Die Rede
der Diotima will in any case not be ignored in future work on (this part of ) the dialogue.
Predictably from Teubner, the book is excellently µnished, with few misprints (but note pp. 51–7,
page heading, read ‘2.4’). It includes a wide-ranging bibliography, although only an index
locorum.
University of Auckland DOUGAL BLYTH
          623
H. T    : Studies in Plato’s Two-Level Model. Pp. vi + 143.

Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters, 1999. Paper.
ISBN: 951-653-298-5.
Life has gotten harder for Platonic developmentalists. Recently the hitherto iron grip of
developmentalism has started to slip, and alternative approaches to the dialogues are appearing
more frequently. One of developmentalism’s earliest challengers was Holger Thesle¶, most
notably in his Studies in Platonic Chronology (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 70;
Helsinki 1982), and in his new work T. once again grapples with the old opponent. For the most
part, this is an attack worth taking seriously.
T.’s attack falls into two parts. The µrst half (Chapters I–V) lays out his general methodological
approach to Plato. This approach is dominated by what he calls the ‘Two-Level Model’ (here-
after TLM) of Plato’s work. The general idea of TLM is that Plato’s entire corpus is governed
by a single perspective: he sees the world as divided into two contrasting levels, one the unseen,
unchanging, uniµed world of the divine and the soul, the other the shifting, various human world
of the body and its senses. These levels are characterized by opposite qualities, not ‘polar’
opposites which are diametrically opposed but rather ‘complementary’ opposites which in some
sense coexist. These complements are ‘asymmetric’, the divine level ‘dominating’—in·uencing
and informing—the human level. The goal of all the dialogues is then to win the reader over to a
love and pursuit of the higher level by depicting a person closer to the higher level in dialectical
engagement with at least one person closer to the lower level.
The second half of T.’ s attack then focuses on removing the temptation to see Plato’s positive
philosophical speculations as genuine doctrinal commitments that Plato developed and then
thought twice about. Once we recognize that it was purely TLM itself that Plato really cared
about, we can interpret all of the discussions of Forms and the like in the ‘middle’ and ‘later’
dialogues as a sort of Platonic sideshow, cautious attempts to characterize the deeper structure of
the higher, divine level that were mere thought experiments to which Plato was never committed.
Chapters VI–VIII then go about separating the di¶erent thought experiments in which Plato
engaged. T. µrst distinguishes Ideas—broad concepts like ‘good’ and ‘unity’ which characterize
the divine level as a whole—from Forms proper, which are something closer to universals or
classes. He then further complicates Plato’s attempts at articulating the divine level by outlining as
well a theory of Categories, concepts like ‘being’ which are meant to bridge the gap between the
divine and human levels and explain why the former is accessible from the latter, and µnally a
theory of Principles (the One and the Indeµnite Two) culled from Aristotelian mentions of Plato’s
unwritten doctrine. However much these di¶erent theories may fall into di¸culties (as in the
Parmenides) and sit uncomfortably with each other, what is common to all these attempts at
transcendent metaphysics is that they all µt into TLM, and are best understood not as Plato’s
genuine commitments but as tentative, even ‘playful’ shots at an articulation of the higher level
which Plato never thought he had ultimately achieved.
There are some aspects of this project which are a bit troubling. For one thing, T. has a slight
tendency to stamp parts of the dialogue which do not µt his analysis well as ‘playful’ and then
assume nothing more need be said of them. (This seemed particularly questionable where Plato’s
discussion of Forms of artefacts is concerned [p. 67].) More generally, this relatively brief work
is characterized by quite sweeping interpretive claims, and T. never descends into the details of
the dialogues to ·esh out his view with analysis of speciµc passages. Perhaps a scholar with T.’s
distinguished background is entitled at this point simply to say what he thinks without a rigorous
defense, but even a sympathetic reader will often feel a desire to see the broad interpretive theory
tested on a narrower scale.
Probably the most serious weakness of T.’s piece, however, is that it is not clear that it must
dislodge developmentalism. One might reasonably interpret TLM as a mere assertion of Plato’s
commitment to realism, which would come as no surprise to anyone. Even if the developmentalist
then grants T.’s central claim that the entire Platonic corpus re·ects TLM, she need not then give
up Plato’s ‘middle’ and ‘late’ positive theories as mere thought examples, for the developmentalist
can still reasonably claim that Forms and the like were serious attempts to articulate his realism.
Still, T.’s work is intriguing. Although closer anaysis of speciµc passages might have made his
view more convincing, his interpretation seemed to me to have much explanatory power and to
evoke interesting new lines of thought about the interrelations of Plato’s philosophical projects in
the ‘middle’ and ‘late’ dialogues. The reader may not walk away persuaded, but this is nonetheless
a view worth considering seriously.
University of Arizona SCOTT LA BARGE

624          
R. B , R. A. S , J. D. S (edd.): Aristotle, Virtue

and the Mean. (Apeiron 25.4.) Pp. xxi + 217. Edmonton: Academic
Printing and Publishing, 1996. Cased, $59.95 (Paper, $21.95). ISBN:
0-920980-64-3 (0-920980-65-1 pbk).
This volume of essays is written by scholars interested in interpreting Aristotle’s ethical
doctrine of the mean and virtue with a concern for its signiµcance for modern ethical
discussion. Their approach, therefore, does not limit itself to exegesis but extends to evaluation,
and in so doing often provides new leads to fresh exegetical possibilities. One of the strengths
of the collection is the way in which the same texts and subject matter appear throughout but
approached from di¶erent viewpoints and with di¶erent concerns. This is particularly the case
with the central text EN 106b36–1107a2 with its deµnition of virtue, which the various
contributors not only interpret and translate in di¶ering ways, but vary also in the text which
they accept. It might have been useful had Janet Sisson in her otherwise instructive introduc-
tion assessed the signiµcance of these variations in the treatment of a central text, though it
is arguably more productive to leave the reader to work this out for himself. J. E. Tiles sets
the scene by stressing the practical import of Aristotle’s ethics, which is concerned less with
establishing general laws than with describing how we are to deal with particular circumstances
and come to decisions about them.
It is with the central text we have referred to that A. Gomez-Lobo mainly deals; he interprets
µ ηοΚ as ‘right reason’ rather than human reasoning or norm, and links his interpretation with
the use of the word +σοΚ in EN 6.1; but in interpreting this as re·ecting the idea of a boundary
stone he avoids the normative interpretations of earlier scholars. S. Leighton concentrates on the
mean’s relativity ‘to us’ which he interprets not with Urmson as referring merely to the circum-
stances of particular moral actions but also to the disposition and character of the individual
moral agent at any particular moment, i.e. me in my circumstances, what he calls character
relativity; nor should this, he argues, be taken in the relativist sense of one moral agent as
opposed to another. The issue of alleged limitations of understanding the mean in a quantitative
sense is raised by a number of contributors. R. Bosley provides the background to the notion
of the mean from Pythagoras on. W. A. Welton and R. Polansky review the criticisms of the
deµciencies of a quantitative mean, and in particular that it is unable to account for factors such
as when, how, with whom, etc. They conclude, however, that a quantitative mean can
accommodate such factors so long as one admits a number of continua, each put into its own
context. The apparent triviality or severe limitations of the doctrine of the mean is a theme which
emerges constantly in these essays and is dealt with directly by M. McCullough, who examines
why it appears trivial before rescuing it from the charge by stressing, much as Tiles does, that
Aristotle is not trying to produce a general rule so much as attempting to assist in the practical
attainment of virtue, the how rather than the what. D. K. Glidden, in examining the rôle of the
ζσ ξινοΚ, argues that his function is neither entirely relative to his own social and political con-
text nor is he, at the other extreme, the provider of a transcendent norm, but of a transcendent
view from within his own society; the ζσ ξινοΚ does not just conform to the way people live in his
own society but ‘conforms to the way things ought to be’. T. M. Tuozzo assesses the relationship
of contemplation to moral virtue and argues that it is not seen by Aristotle as opposed to or even
divorced from virtue. He understands µ ηοΚ at EN 1107a1 as referring not to the reasoning
faculty but to a standard, one which has reference to a general rather than a particular situation.
He makes much of Aristotle’s declaration at the beginning of EN 6 that he still needs to establish
a theoretical principle for virtuous behaviour. This principle, he argues, is to be found in
contemplation. The general argument for this rapprochement between the moral and intellectual
virtues is both attractive and persuasive, but the evidence adduced for its application in detail
is slender and less convincing. In the µnal contribution G. N. Terzis extends the scope of the
enquiry by introducing Aristotle’s teleological physiology as presented in the biological works to
elucidate his theory of the emotions in EN.
This is a useful and stimulating collection of essays. Although there remain some fundamental
di¶erences between the interpretations o¶ered, which is only to be expected, there is nevertheless
a degree of convergence which leaves one with the impression that the volume has progressed
thought on Aristotle’s ethics and made a solid contribution to the subject.
University College Dublin ANDREW SMITH

          625
J  - Y   C     (ed.): La vérité pratique: Aristote Éthique à

Nicomache Livre VI (Tradition de la pensée classique). Paris: Librarie
philosophique Vrin, 1997. Pp. 376. Paper, frs. 250. ISBN: 2-7116-
1298-8.
These essays record a lecture series given in Paris in 1993–4 on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics 6.
The collection is structured to provide both a detailed commentary, which proceeds chapter by
chapter, on the themes and topics in Book 6, and a more generally focused account of the issues,
both philosophical and scholarly, that arise for philosophers and historians of philosophy when
they re·ect on this text. The eight essays in Part 1 address the µrst part of the project, while the
seven in Parts 2 and 3 address the second. The contributors are all distinguished philosophers
and scholars, some of them notably so. The work is complemented by a short but useful
bibliography of recent writing on EN 6. The indexing is slight; in particular there is no index of
passages.
The editor and authors celebrate the importance of this Aristotelian work as a contribution to
philosophy. ‘Practical truth’ is in their title; and Paul Ricoeur focuses on this key concept in an
introductory essay which highlights the challenging and problematic nature of Aristotle’s linkage
of action and thought. EN 6 has the aim of showing how rational excellence plays an indis-
pensable rôle in right action, and also how the nature of this rationality is conditioned by the fact
that it is essentially directed upon action. These re·ections gain point, as so often in Aristotle,
when we see how they serve as a corrective to inadequacies in his predecessors’ views. In this case
the principal targets are twofold: a Platonic view of reason as able by contemplation and theory
alone to determine right action, and a Protagorean programme for subjecting reason to deter-
mination by emotional and appetitive elements in human psychology without essential recourse
to reason.
The present volume is animated by a sense of excitement about Aristotle’s discussion of this
matter. A number of contributors emphasize the signiµcance of his contribution to moral philo-
sophy by comparison with Aquinas (principally Pinchard, but also Leandri and Chateau), Kant,
and Heidegger (Guest, also Chateau). A notable omission from this historical cast are the
Utilitarians, since for contemporary analytic philosophers they, together with the deontologist
Kantians, form the two pillars of contrast which deµne the signiµcance of Aristotle’s virtue
ethics. Moreover, consideration of Benthamite calculation of value would be highly pertinent to
any conception of practical reason, including the Aristotelian one.
But how well do the contributors grasp and elucidate Aristotle’s key idea that the conclusion of
practical reasoning is an action, rather than a statement or a thought? They certainly supply
extensive rumination on Aristotle’s distinctions between the various intellectual virtues. Alain
Petit analyses the contrast between science (episteme) and skill (techne), and seeks to show that
phronesis should be reduced to neither of these. That latter virtue is the subject of Bernard
Besnier’s discussion; he correctly emphasizes its unrestricted application, which it shares with
sophia. But then, as Marie-Christine Bataillard argues, the emphasis on contingency and
relativity, which Aristotle appeals to in order to distinguish sophia from phronesis, makes it
hard to reinstate the latter as a genuine intellectual virtue. The concluding analytic chapter, by
Jean-Louis Poirier on EN 6.12–13, carries the suggestive title ‘Socrates was right . . .’. Of course,
as he recognizes, Socrates was also wrong: the elements of human goodness (the virtues) are not
all reducible to knowledge, and so di¶erent individual persons can be variously distinguished in
terms of their possession of virtue, or, more properly, virtues. One cannot be virtuous in any
respect without phronesis, but this particular intellectual virtue needs to be allied to some virtue
of character in order to generate a disposition to good action.
Some intellectual virtues are independent of the sphere of action, notably nous and episteme,
and, in a di¶erent way, techne. Sophia straddles this division; and Aristotle’s account of the
relation between this virtue and phronesis in Chapters VII and VIII seems to me to contain the
core of his message in this treatise. The high value attached to wisdom must not be allowed
to obscure the indispensable rôle that practical sense must play in the human good life. There is
a need for a recognition of diversity and complexity in the range of intellectual virtues which
matches a similar need in the case of the virtues of character. So Socrates was doubly wrong. He
reduced the complexity of virtues of character to one intellectual virtue; and he oversimpliµed
once more with the intellectual virtues, through failure to identify the particular one which must
accompany the non-intellectual operations. Aristotle’s insight, as the contributors here only

626          
partially recognize, is that action is necessitated by intellectual processes, although not itself such
a process; it is a conclusion from reasons.
The volume will provide a valuable resource to all serious students of Aristotle’s epistemology
of ethics. A µnal question in my mind is: why is it so hard to translate phronesis convincingly? The
francophone contributors agree on ‘prudence’; and although this carries unfortunate resonances
of M. Prudhomme, it does have the merit of single-word synonymy over such anglophone
renderings as ‘practical skill’ or ‘practical reasoning’. But none of these renderings (in either
language) seems at all adequate to what Aristotle, who is an ordinary-language philosopher,
wants to highlight as a central feature of human excellence. There is much further work to do
here.
Queen’s University of Belfast J. D. G. EVANS
M. S (ed.): The Crossroads of Norm and Nature: Essays on

Aristotle’s Ethics and Metaphysics. Pp. xxii + 343. Lanham: Rowman &
Littleµeld, 1995. Cased, $55.00 (Paper, $21.95). ISBN: 0-8476- 7939-X
(0-8476-7982-9 pbk).
G. F       : Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance: Heat

and Pneuma, Form and Soul. Pp. xii + 235. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1995. Cased, £30. ISBN: 0-19-824093-7.
The Crossroads of Norm and Nature is a collection of new papers on the relation of Aristotle’s
Ethics with his Metaphysics. May Sim outlines clearly the range of possible options for this
relation, but, more importantly, has managed to gather papers that meet the challenge. They are
grouped in three parts which examine: the ethics in relation to the metaphysics; the methods
that may or not be common to both; the basic concepts of cause, elements, matter–form,
potentiality–actuality which are characteristic of Aristotle’s thought. In more detail, the µrst
part consists of (Chapter I) ‘The Substance of Aristotle’s Ethics’ by Ed Halper, (Chapter II)
‘Human Being, Beast and God: The Place of Human Happiness According to Aristotle and
Some Twentieth-Century Philosophers’ by Deborah Achtenberg, (Chapter III) ‘Senses of Being
in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics’ by May Sim, (Chapter IV) ‘Aristotle’s “Exclusive” Account
of Happiness: Contemplative Wisdom as a Guise of the Political Philosopher’ by Ronna
Burger, (Chapter V) ‘Two Perspectives on the “Ultimate End” ’ by Susanne Hill, (Chapter VI)
‘The Ultimate End of Action: A Critique of Richard Kraut’s Aristotle on the Human Good’ by
Timothy Roche, and (Chapter VII) ‘Reply to Professor Roche’ by Richard Kraut. The second
part comprises (Chapter VIII) ‘Plato’s Ghost: Consequences of Aristotelian Dialectic’ by
C. Wesley DeMarco, (Chapter IX) ‘Working Through Puzzles with Aristotle’ by John J. Cleary,
and (Chapter X) ‘Theories of Meaning and Ontology in Aristotle’s Metaphysics’ by Deborah
Modrak. The third part is composed of (Chapter XI) ‘The Philosophic Background of
Aristotle’s Aitia’ by Julius Moravesik, (Chapter XII) ‘Composition and Unity: An Examination
of Metaphysics H.6’ by Michael Loux, (Chapter XIII) ‘Understanding Process: Re·ections
on Physics 111.1’ also by Michael Loux, and (Chapter XIV), ‘Why the Elements Imitate the
Heavens: Metaphysics IX.8 1050b28–34’ by Helen Lang. In this satisfying volume, readers will
µnd a cornucopia of well analysed and argued material based on a broad reading of primary
sources, from the Presocratics to Proclus (in John Cleary’s article). However, some will feel that
the quest for unity occasionally stretches the evidence too far. Nonetheless, readers will value
the care expended on the semantic nuances of the Greek, such as the background of translating
teleios as complete rather than perfect. Several articles illustrate the complex topics with useful
tabulations or charts. The eighteen-page general index covers most of the concepts and terms,
but there is no general bibliography, which is unfortunate because few of the articles have one in
addition to their annotation.
In Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance: Heat and Pneuma, Form and Soul, Gad
Freudenthal examines an important but overlooked concept in Greek thought: the pneuma.
He concentrates on Aristotle, and presents him within the history of science with the aim of
uncovering the early, materialist ground of Aristotle’s philosophy and theology. F. proposes that

          627
Aristotle’s theory of matter is inadequate to account for the formation and persistence of
compound, physical things, i.e. living beings and inanimate substances (pp. 2–3 and Chapter I.1).
The theory of immanent vital heat is both a parallel account to the forms and an alternative to
them (p. 3), and evidence for it can be found mainly in the biological works and De Philosophia.
More ambitiously, F. claims that vital heat deµnes the entire ‘scala naturae’ (p. 4 and Chapters I.2,
II–III). Hence vital heat facilitates the recovery of the physical foundation of Aristotle’s
worldview. F. conµrms that subsequent philosophers were ignorant of it, but he reckons the
problem of material formation and its persistence to be ‘the blind spot’ which later thinkers, from
the Stoics, through the Neoplatonists to the medievals, tried to account for in a very similar way,
by the introduction of an active agent (pp. 18¶. and Conclusion). Heat’s essential action is
unifying, not separating (p. 19 n. 43), and it is this, rather than just µre, which informs, and
extends to the warming of the sun (but problematical re: µfth element, p. 26 n. 54). Vital heat is
responsible for the inherited characteristics of newborn living things, and therefore responsible
for the Aristotelian rule that ‘man begets man’ (pp. 36–40). Reµned blood is appropriate for
the more intelligent animals (Parts of Animals 2.2, 2.4), and so to the rational man as the most
intelligent of animals (pp. 52–6). Cosmologically, vital heat determines the erectness of living
beings, and the ‘scala naturae’: low animals and hoi polloi bend down more, the higher and more
intelligent stand up (pp. 56–60). Sleep is the testing case: observe what happens when the vital
heat is switched o¶ (pp. 60–2). The upright stance (PA 4.10, 2.10) links with reason and divinity in
Nic. Eth. 10; and the ontological place links with the spatial: God and the higher forms are
literally ‘up’ there (pp. 62–70). For F., ‘Aristotle’s theory of vital heat is a physiological super-
structure whose original cosmological and metaphysical foundations were forsaken’ (pp. 84–5). It
had its roots, and applications, in Greek biology and medicine.
Interested readers will be pleased to see this detailed account of the physiology and theory
about the connate pneuma, the ramiµcations, and the in·uence of medical ideas on Greek
physics, chemistry, and ontology. Some may be sceptical of the interpretation, while others will
be put o¶ by the prospect that Aristotle could have stooped to such literal correspondences with
his abstract subjects. Three stimulating appendices on the chemical and metaphorical properties
of oil add to the physicalist account. The prose style, the book’s numbered chapter-and-section
structure, the general bibliography, the three-page index of Aristotelian passages (not other
authors), and the eleven pages of general index make it very accessible. The question remains,
does it overcome its limitations?
Although both books focus on the possible unity in Aristotle’s thinking, and appear to
complement each other (substance in Ethics and Metaphysics, and the material substance), they
diverge in their method and scope. The collection of articles edited by Sim not only ranges from
ethics to metaphysics and physics, but their examination is consistently philosophical, and for the
most part located within the context of ancient thought. F.’s monograph, on the other hand, is
conµned to the history of physical science; yet the underlying approach, which surfaces prom-
inently in the conclusion, is ‘systematic rather than historical’ (p. 6). Philosophical questions,
including how F.’s interpretation µts with Aristotle’s philosophy, are ‘deliberately excluded from
my discussion’ (p. 69 and n. 30); yet he claims to have found the physicalist basis of Aristotle’s
entire ontology. The two books diverge down to the choice of primary and secondary sources.
This segregation a¶ects F.’s study more, for it leaves it bereft of the full conceptual apparatus of
Aristotle and his period. For example, while Helen Lang’s article illuminates Aristotle’s view of
the celestial bodies and the four elements relative to the philosophy of potentiality, actuality, and
activity, F.’s discussion of them leaves those key concepts out, and is limited to heat, etc. Similarly,
Moravcik, in S., gives a lucid account of principles and elements in Aristotle, but F. is limited to
their physico-chemical properties and interactions in Generation and Corruption, etc. Loux, in S.,
analyses the full range of the problem of unity and composition in Aristotle, and provides the
conceptual frame in which hylomorphism is formulated, but in F., hylomorphism is left as the sole
metaphysical grounding. There is no development, for example, of potentiality–actuality. This
may have been acceptable if a simple hylomorphism were proved to be the primitive that preceded
the rest of Aristotle’s metaphysics, but no such evidence is forthcoming. In F., Aristotle’s teleol-
ogy is raised only to be rejected for its explanatory inadequacy regarding physical entities. The
references to and examination of the Metaphysics are severely limited, so there is no exploration
of what is ‘matter’ and ‘substance’ in Aristotle. Consequently, F.’s main title, ‘Aristotle’s Theory
of Material Substance’, is really subordinate to the subtitle, which well describes the scope and
range of the book.
Further, some readers will question F.’s systematic reading, while others will be dissatisµed with
the treatment of ancient sources. F. deploys (Kuhn’s) ‘paradigm’ and (Lakatos’s) ‘research
programme’ (pp. 112–48) in defence of the scientiµc worth of the mysterious pneuma, without
628          
explaining what precisely they are in the history and philosophy of science and what are their
critiques. In fact, both contain the implicit notion that scientiµc knowledge is based on unifying
and systematic concepts. However, as S.’s survey for instance shows, scholars still disagree on
whether Aristotle’s diverse researches and accounts conform to one unifying and systematic way
of thinking. As we have him, Aristotle aims at clariµcations of natural things as they are, and
is uncomfortable with a revisionist, worldview type of philosophy. In this sense Aristotle may
not be judged alongside known uniµers and systematizers, such as several of the Hellenistic
philosophers, including later Peripatetics, and especially the (Neo)Platonists, who, for their own
reasons, did assert the polarity of active causes vs. passive matter, the existence of one universal
Nature, and connate pneuma. Regrettably, Theophrastus (pp. 93, 148), the Stoics, Alexander of
Aphrodisias, and the Neoplatonists (pp. 192–200) are treated superµcially, and the latter two, it
seems, through studies on medieval thinkers. Thus the ‘blindspot’ (p. 6) could be the creature of
intentional or anachronistic interpretation. More generously, heat–pneuma could be the creature
of an Aristotle close to his earlier, Platonist phase. However, F. is more interested in linking the
vital heat concept with the Presocratics—without discussing how far their reportage in Aristotle
and the Neoplatonist Simplicius is unambiguous or unbiased. There is a useful insertion of
relevant pseudo-Pythagorean sources (pp. 93–4), but no tracing of the Pythagorean ingredients in
Plato. A proximate link with Plato’s Timaeus is summarily dismissed as ‘wrong’ (p. 22), while the
continuity with Plato is ·eetingly accepted (p. 134). On balance, the Timaeus is surely the chief,
reliable source for the merger of cosmology with theology, physics, and biology, including the
notions of one world-soul, of universal heat, and that the shape and position of bodily organs are
determined by their relation to cosmological elements. Aristotle’s De Philosophia betrays Platonic
in·uence (e.g. the Timaeus doctrine that the celestial bodies move volitionally with their souls).
This in·uence would also account for the ambitious revisionism that (perhaps) fuelled the theory
of pneuma and vital heat, at least as F. presents it. At any rate, the two books point to the proµt
that can be gained by bringing together the di¶erent areas of ancient thought.
Kings College London LUCAS SIORVANES
G.  C : Annus Platonicus. A Study of World Cycles in

Greek, Latin and Arabic Sources. (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste
de Louvain 47.) Pp. xv + 287. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique
de Louvain, 1996. ISBN: 90-6831-876-4.
This learned and lucid book, which originated as a PhD thesis of the University of London’s
Warburg Institute, sets out to examine the various interpretations of the doctrine of the Great
Year in classical antiquity, and to follow their survival through Arabic sources to the Western
Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. Mindful of O. Neugebauer’s cautionary remark that
these doctrines must be reckoned among the ‘wretched subjects’, linking and mixing, as they do,
speculations from µelds of knowledge as diverse as astronomy and astrology, mathematics and
arithmology, physics and metaphysics, chronology and millenarianism to name but a few, de
Callataÿ wisely restricts the scope of his study to investigating only those texts in which the
astronomical problem of a general conjunction of the sun, the moon, and the µve planets, either
in one particular zodiacal sign or as the perfect alignment of these bodies in such a way that
an imaginary straight line would traverse all their centres, is explicitly mentioned. But even so,
the range of texts (the more recondite of which are conveniently reproduced in their original
languages in an appendix) discussed is as impressive as the author’s penetration in interpreting
them is remarkable.
De C. µttingly sets out by giving a highly original as well as very convincing account of the
Great Year in Plato, who, famously, nowhere assigns a precise numerical value to this di¸cult
concept. Following Plato’s text closely, he correctly distinguishes between the Perfect Number
mentioned at Tim. 39d (which embraces the period of divine generation) and the Geometric
Number of Resp. 546b–d (which measures the cycle of human begettings). On the assumption
that there is only one mixture at Tim. 35a, he argues that the length of the Perfect Year, i.e. of
a conjunctional cycle of 25,920 years, is only one of the two factors of the Geometric Number,
the other being the number that measures the cycle of metempsychosis (i.e. 1,000), so that the
only possible solution to Plato’s riddle in Book 8 of the Republic would be 25,920,000. Taken by
themselves, these µgures are not new, but de C. further argues with calm authority that they can

          629
help us understand the myth of the alternating revolutions of the world in Pol. 268d–273e, as well
as the Atlantis myth (Tim. 21e–26c, Crit. 106–121c) inasmuch as the inner coherence of these
myths is best explained when one assumes for the Great Year a subdivision into four unequal
periods following the proportion 4:3:2:1, i.e. 10,368 years (Golden Age) + 7,776 years (Silver Age)
+ 5,184 years (Bronze Age) + 2,592 years (Iron Age) = 25,920 years. Even those who remain
unconvinced by de C.’s painstaking analysis will have to admit that his is possibly the most
ingenious overall interpretation of these notoriously di¸cult texts since Proclus.
Turning to Aristotle, de C. takes up a suggestion put forward long ago by Usener and argues
that the ‘greatest year’ ascribed to Aristotle by Censorinus, De die nat. 18.11, was dealt with in the
Protrepticus. This in turn leads him on to discussing Cicero’s Hortensius, as well as those among
Cicero’s extant works in which the conjunctional Great Year is mentioned. With excellent reasons,
de C. maintains, against the explicit testimony of all extant ancient authorities, that the correct
value of Cicero’s ‘vertens annus’ must be 12,960 rather than 12,954 years (though he confesses
himself at a loss to understand the origin of the latter µgure, which Solinus thought to be none
other than the life span of the phoenix).
The story so far told is covered in the µrst of eight well balanced chapters. De C. goes on to
present the Stoic idea of an endless recurrence of identical worlds (and a few muddled ancient
accounts which he places in the ‘lumber-room of astrological speculations’); to single out the µrst,
mainly Christian, opponents of the doctrine (Origen is especially noteworthy here); to devote
a very thorough chapter to the various later Platonic and Peripatetic commentators (with an
excellent account of Macrobius’ confusion of the conjunctional Great Year with the equinoctial
precession); to take a look at the ever-increasing distortion of the notion of a world year in
Islamic philosophy (including Arabic material in Latin translation); to deal with supporters and
opponents of the theory, and its possible implications, in the Western Middle Ages (the death-
blow being dealt by Oresme on the grounds of the incommensurability of celestial revolutions);
and, µnally, to pursue the annus Platonicus up to its ‘last sigh’ in Francesco Piccolomini’s Libri de
natura (Venice, 1596).
Topics such as the Great Year are inexhaustible and will therefore never admit of anything like
a deµnitive treatment. However, de C.’s erudite and elegant book, written in the best tradition of
Warburgian style and method, is likely to remain the standard contribution for many years to
come—for Hellenists and for Arabists, for classical Latinists and for mediaevalists, and not least
for students of the history of ideas in general.
Bibliothèque nationale de Luxembourg LUC DEITZ
J. J. C   , W. W  (edd.): Proceedings of the Boston Area

Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy XII. Pp. xxviii + 331. Lanham, New
York, and Oxford: University Press of America, 1996. Paper, $29.50
(Cased, $65). ISBN: 0-7618-1000-5 (0-7618-0999-6 hbk).
The series of BACAP Proceedings has long since established itself, under the overall guidance
of John Cleary, as one of the major annual publications in ancient philosophy, certainly in the
English-speaking world, and arguably in any language, and this is a distinguished addition to
that series. Like all of its companions, it covers a wide range of topics, in this case ranging from
the Presocratics to Plotinus. There are eight contributions, each with its response, and adorned
with useful bibliographies. As always, there is a helpful analytical introduction from C., and
indices of passages quoted and of names.
Although the volume begins, in fact, with a discourse on Plotinus by Frederic Schroeder, an
acknowledged authority on that philosopher, I propose to take the contributions chronologic-
ally. I begin, therefore, with a discourse by A. A. Long on ‘Parmenides on Thinking Being’
(Colloquium 4, replied to by Stanley Rosen). In this he proposes that Parmenides intends his
Being in fact to be itself a thinking entity, and that this is the true implication of fr. 3. This is
in accord with earlier German scholarship, stemming from Hegel, but counter to the currently
prevailing view; nevertheless, I µnd it most persuasive. After all, for one thing, the human mind is
a thinking entity, and it is part of Being, which is indivisible. I think that Long is making an
important contribution here.
I turn next to two papers primarily on Plato, Christopher Gill on ‘Ethical Re·ection and the
Shaping of Character: Plato’s Republic and Stoicism’ (Coll. 6, replied to by Christopher Dustin),

630          
and Dorothea Frede, ‘Plato, Popper and Historicism’ (Coll. 7, replied to by Nickolas Pappas). In
the former, Gill tries to discern a theory of two distinct levels of ethical consciousness in the
Republic, pre- and post-re·ective, the former socially determined (through good paideia), the
latter the result of dialectic; then he relates the latter to the apatheia of the Stoic sage. There are,
of course, these two levels in the Republic, but I think that Dustin is right to query how far Plato
intends to make a break between them. Nevertheless, Gill’s discussion is most useful. Dorothea
Frede also concerns herself with the Republic, and particularly the account of the decline of
states in Book 8, in an e¶ort to defend Plato against the charge of (malignant) historicism levelled
long ago by Karl Popper. I found her analysis of what Plato is up to in Book 8 most persuasive. It
is a highly rhetorical tour de force, not really intended as a serious account of political develop-
ment; I agree (against Pappas) that the invocation of the Muses at the outset is most signiµcant.
The bulk of the papers, however, concerns various aspects of Aristotelian philosophy. First
we have a thought-provoking contribution by Andrea Wilson Nightingale (Coll. 2, replied to
by Maud Chaplin), on ‘Aristotle on the “Liberal” and “Illiberal” Arts’. She analyses well the
aristocratic Greek prejudice against banausia, in the sense of having to earn one’s living, but she
perhaps creates more of a problem than there really is for Aristotle (since he certainly regards
theôria as profoundly advantageous), by interpreting him as stating that ‘liberal’ pursuits such as
mousike are ‘useless’. I think that what Aristotle means by ou khrêsimos would be better rendered
‘non-utilitarian’, than ‘useless’—a clumsier translation, perhaps, but less misleading. That would
lay the emphasis where it belongs, on the fact that the liberal arts serve no banausic purpose.
Then we have Robert Heinaman, on a subject dear to his heart, the non-identity of praxis with
energeia (Coll. 3: ‘Activity and Praxis in Aristotle’, with a reply by Alison McIntyre). He makes
many good points, particularly as to the relation of praxis to energeia, but also as to that between
praxis and kinesis, and yet di¸culties remain. It seems to me, after all, that Aristotle has two
contrasts in mind, one between poiêsis and praxis, and another between kinêsis and energeia, and
they just overlap somewhat.
Again, Sarah Broadie (Coll. 5: ‘Nous and Nature in Aristotle’s De Anima’: respondent Victor
Caston) is concerned with the age-old problem of the status of the (passive) intellect of 3.4 within
the human compound: in what sense is it ‘separable’, and can it count as part of the form of the
human being? Broadie thinks not, but her respondent, Caston, seems right to challenge her on
this. Both agree, however, on the extreme knottiness of the problem.
A. W. Price, in turn, addresses the equally knotty problem of Aristotle’s doctrine of perception,
by taking a line somewhere between the positions of Myles Burnyeat and Richard Sorabji,
maintaining that perception has both a mental and a physical aspect, and that neither can be
reduced to the other. I found his argument most stimulating and enlightening, but I doubt that
even this will bring the controversy to an end.
Lastly, to return to Schroeder on Plotinus. I found his analysis of P.’s use of the Symposium, in
his doctrine of Eros and of our relation to the One, most enlightening (he shows how Plotinus
uses not only Diotima’s speech but that of Aristophanes as well), but his re·ections on love as
prophecy I found a tri·e dithyrambic. It is not clear to me that Plotinus makes much of prophecy
in the context of love.
All in all, this is an excellent collection of papers, from a distinguished panel of contributors,
and one must salute John Cleary and his colleague William Wians for a µne job of editing.
Trinity College, Dublin JOHN DILLON
K. A  : Die Sinnfrage des Lebens: Philosophisches Denken im Vor-

und Umfeld des frühen Christentums. (Philosophie der Antike 3.)
Pp. 336. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1995. DM 148. ISBN: 3-515-06491-5.
The author presents in the papers collected here what he sees as the bloom of pagan
philosophical teaching on the subject of moral self-improvement. He is at pains to emphasize
that the attempt to understand, educate, and improve the self by purely human means is the
teaching that Christianity had to confront, absorb, and overcome, though he does not here
examine the process. The collection, enlarged from an earlier one of 1991, contains lectures and
articles on Posidonius, Horace, Seneca, Persius, and Tacitus. Socratic thought is held to be the
guiding thread, but the bulk of the volume is concerned with Stoicism, from Posidonius’
defence of Chrysippus’ version of the telos formula to Tacitus’ portrayal of imperial Stoics. The
inclusion of the historian is justiµed by his regret over the attempted suppression of philosophy,

          631
and his recognition that for Helvidius Priscus philosophy really did serve as a guide to life.
Abel’s treatment of Tacitus’ portrayal of Seneca also helps to unify the collection, even if his
conclusion (p. 254), that Tacitus did not use any work of Seneca’s but his speeches, does not
seem to do justice to the echoes of the philosopher’s thought in Ann. 13.27, 14.53–6, and to
what they imply: Tacitus’ readers had clearly not stopped reading Seneca.
The interpretation of Roman writers deploying philosophy requires a combination of skills: a
grasp of the history of philosophy, a knowledge of Roman social and political history, and an
understanding of rhetorical techniques and literary structure. A.’s most signiµcant contribu-
tion comes from the way he has combined the µrst and third. Over thirty years ago, in Bauformen
in Senecas Dialogen (Heidelberg, 1967), he showed how an analysis of the inner structure of
Seneca’s thought could lay to rest once and for all the prevailing view that his works are chaotic in
structure or have no structure at all. Even Erasmus, who admired Seneca’s style and regarded
Caligula as mad, could not resist the in·uence of his assessment of Seneca’s works as ‘harena
sine calce’, and Albertini’s La composition dans les ouvrages philosophiques de Sénèque of 1923
presented the case in a powerful and highly in·uential way. Some of A.’s best contributions in this
volume return to the question, treating works other than the µve he originally treated. Those µve,
De Providentia, De Constantia Sapientis, and the three Consolations, are classiµed in the essay
here on ‘Die “beweisende” Struktur des Senecanischen Dialogs’ as belonging, along with De Ira,
to works designed to free us from the despotism of fortune. The essay demonstrates how varied
and ·exible is Seneca’s treatment of the basic structural elements common to his works. Other
essays in this collection are devoted to individual dialogues, one to the protreptic work
De Brevitate Vitae, others to De Vita Beata, De Tranquillitate Animi, and De Beneµciis, all of
which belong to the category of practical ethics. The last deservedly receives extended treatment;
A.’s demonstration that it has a structure, and an interesting one, is a particularly valuable
contribution.
The book is well produced and well indexed. It is unfortunate that the details of original
publication are not provided in every case, especially as some of the papers appeared in far from
obvious places. But that makes their appearance in one volume particularly welcome.
Somerville College MIRIAM GRIFFIN
J. M . D: The Great Tradition. Further Studies in the Develop-

ment of Platonism and Early Christianity. (Variorum Collected Studies
Series, CS599.) Pp. xii + 332. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997. Cased, £55.
ISBN: 0-86078-671-4.
This reprint of twenty-four articles in their original pagination o¶ers a partial insight into Prof.
Dillon’s breadth and depth of knowledge. Its title in a self-depreciatory manner is called ‘well
worn’ (p. xi), and it covers a wide spectrum of topics in ancient philosophy. Arranged by period,
they range from classical Plato and the early Academy (I, Plato and the Golden Age, pp. 21–36;
II, A Platonist Ars Amatoria, pp. 387–92; III, Speusippus on Pleasure, pp. 99–114), through
Middle Platonism (V, The Formal Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Exegesis, pp. 123–31; VI,
‘Orthodoxy’ and ‘Eclecticism’: Middle Platonists and New-Pythagoreans, pp. 103–25; VII,
Plutarch and the End of History, pp. 233–40; VIII, Logos and Trinity: Patterns of Platonist
In·uence on Early Christianity, pp.1–13), to Neoplatonism (IX, Pleroma and Neotic Cosmos:
A Comparative Study, pp. 99–110; X, The Mind of Plotinus, pp. 333–58; XI, Plotinus, the First
Cartesian?, pp. 9–31; XII, Notre perception du monde extérieur selon Plotin et Berkeley,
pp. 100–8; XIII, Singing Without an Instrument: Plotinus on Suicide, pp. 231–8; XIV, ‘A
Kind of Warmth’: Some Re·ections on the Concept of Grace in the Neoplatonic Tradition,
pp. 323–32; XV, Plotinus and the Chaldaean Oracles, pp. 131–40; XVI, Porphyry’s Doctrine
of the One, pp. 356–66; XVII, Porphyry and Iamblichus in Proclus: Commentary on the
Parmenides, pp. 21–48; XVIII, Iamblichus and Henads Again, pp. 48–54; XIX, Philosophy and
Theology in Proclus: Some Remarks on the Philosophical and Theological Modes of Exegesis
in Proclus’ Platonic Commentaries, pp. 66–76; XX, The Neoplatonic Exegesis of the Statesman
Myth, pp. 364–74; XXI, Damascius on the Ine¶able, pp. 120–9; XXII, Some Aspects of
Damascius’ Treatment of the Concept of Dynamis, pp. 139–48). Two articles on the in·uence of
Platonism on medieval and Islamic philosophy (XXIII, The Roots of Reason in John Scottus
Eriugena, pp. 25–38; XXIV, Solomon ibn Gabirol’s Doctrine of Intelligible Matter, pp. 59–81)

632          
complete the survey. Unfortunately, the four-page general index, which dwells mainly on names,
and the half-page index of Plato passages do not do justice to the wealth of material. Lots more
topics, concepts, and Greek terms should have been indexed and brought to attention, including
the perceptive rendition of hyparxis as ‘subsistence’ (XXII, p. 141). Moreover, a volume on the
Great Platonic Tradition must surely put on display all the Platonist passages, from the classical
to the so-called ‘neo’.
Middle Platonic and Neoplatonic studies have beneµted the most from D.’s rigorous, critical
attention, and his vigorous, clear expression, which retains the spark of younger days (Iamblichus,
Fragmenta [Leiden, 1973]). In the classic articles on ‘Orthodoxy’ and ‘Eclecticism’, for example,
he examines closely what was seen as orthodox by di¶erent Platonists at di¶erent times, and cuts
through the layers of value-bias that existed in ancient as much as in modern scholarship. ‘The
truth is, of course, that no later Platonist, starting from Speusippus and Xenocrates, could be
strictly “orthodox” since Plato did not leave a body of doctrine which could simply be adopted,
but, rather a series of guiding ideas, replete with loose ends and even contradictions, which
required interpretation’ (VI, p. 118). ‘In fact, there is nothing at all wrong with being “eclectic”, if
that means simply that one is prepared to adopt a good formulation, or a valid line of argument,
from a rival school or individual and adjust one’s philosophical position accordingly. In this
sense, most of the great philosophers are eclectics, and eclecticism is a mark of acuteness and
originality, as opposed to narrow-minded sectarianism’ (VI, p. 104).
D.’s ‘strip-mining’ (XVII, p. 48) is actually very sensitive to the material at hand. Thus the
subtlety in the thought of some of the most di¸cult authors in antiquity is uncovered. This is
especially evident in the articles XVI–XXI, which touch on the emotive issue of the rôle of
mysticism vs. rationality in Neoplatonism. Here, the reading of an earlier article of D.’s on
the strict and loose treatment of representation-types, ‘Image, Symbol and Analogy’ in The
Signiµcance of Neoplatonism (Norfolk, VA, 1976), which is not in this volume, is also relevant.
Against the stereotypical perception, D. concludes that oracles and theurgy were the supporters
rather than the masters of philosophy. Moreover, he shows that from Porphyry to Damascius the
transcendent and all truth based on it were discussed in nuanced, critical terms. While outlining
the limits of rational formulation, Neoplatonists acceded to the primacy of philosophy. With
these articles D. expands on the work of ‘Orthodoxy’ and ‘Eclecticism’, to liberate the µeld from
prejudices.
King’s College London LUCAS SIORVANES
A. F  : Streit unter Freunden: Ideal und Realität in der Freund-

schaftslehre der Antike. (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 85.) Pp. 307.
Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1996. Paper, DM 110. ISBN:
3-519-07634-9.
Ancient literature is replete with eulogies of friendship. What is praised is usually the ideal of
friendship rather than its reality. Friendship is conceived as a permanent bond of a¶ection
between two individuals sharing the same tastes, opinions, and ideals. Such friendships were
rare. Actual friendships involve dissension, con·ict, and rupture. What happens then? How far
should we go, for example, in tolerating the faults of a friend? Such matters are less central to
ancient discussions of friendship than the ideal, but they nevertheless received ample attention
both in popular thought and from philosophers.
F. surveys ancient thought on the hazards of friendship and ways of dealing with them.
He takes account of every author with something to say on the matter, from Hesiod down to
Simplicius, and every genre, from popular maxims (e.g. to the e¶ect that ‘one should regard a
friend as a potential enemy and an enemy as a potential friend’, p. 21) to high-powered phil-
osophy. In a µnal chapter he explores motifs that recur throughout ancient literature on friendship,
and in appendices he examines the requirements of ideal friendship: the similarity and agreement
of friends and the permanence of their bond. F.’s bibliography records all the ancient works
known to him that discuss friendship and all the secondary literature on this theme. Apart from
his own judicious re·ections, F. thus provides an invaluable tool for further research on the topic.
F. concludes with some observations on the limitations of ancient thought on friendship. The
distinction between ideal and reality played an important part from the earliest systematic
re·ections on friendship, in the Socratic school and particularly in Aristotle, down to the end of

          633
antiquity. This accounts for the ‘imperturbable optimism’ of ancient accounts of friendship.
Friends deceive, betray, quarrel, and break up, but none of that a¶ects the ideal, which remains
unshakeably consensual and eternal. ‘That was so in all variants, in the conception of Epicurus,
which was most strongly shaped by reality, as in the rigorous stoical dogmatism of Epictetus’
(p. 229). What is missing is a ‘philosophical concept of development, transformation, change.
Only permanence and unity count as genuine and true, not the changeable and discordant’
(p. 229). Aristotle went further than others in exploring the reality of friendship. He asked such
questions as ‘What e¶ect do long absences have on a friendship?’ and ‘What should one do if an
otherwise worthy friend develops an intolerable smell?’ (p. 97). He allowed that a friendship might
outlast the qualities that originally inspired it and that an initially impermanent friendship, based
on a pederastic relationship, might develop into an enduring friendship based on virtue (pp. 88,
229). But Aristotle too reserved ‘truth and genuineness’ for the ‘eternal and unitary’, denying
them to the ‘temporary and disharmonious’. Genuine friendship must be lasting. Hence one can
wish good things for one’s friend, but not at the cost of dissolving the friendship (p. 99).
‘The greatness of ancient thought on friendship’, F. concludes, ‘is to have discerned the
µctional character of the exemplary pair of friends in ancient literature; its limitation is that
it drew no conclusions from this for the theoretical model of friendship’ (p. 229). The ideal
hampered, if it did not exclude, the exploration of reality. F. might have added that the ancient
ideal, friendship between individuals of unswerving virtue and unfaltering, unstinted agreement,
is rather unappealing. (Langeweile, ‘boredom’, does not appear in F.’s index.) Perhaps this is why
it remained a µction.
Trinity College, Oxford MICHAEL INWOOD
T. D. B   (ed.): The Sciences in Greco-Roman Society. (Apeiron

27.4.) Pp. vi + 125. Edmonton: Academic Printing and Publishing,
1995. Cased, $54.95 (Paper, $19.95). ISBN: 0-920980-60-0 (0-920980-
61-9 pbk).
Barnes asks, ‘What role did particular sciences . . . play in the general intellectual, cultural, and
religious life of Greco-Roman Society?’, answering that it was pervasive, especially in astron-
omy. J. G. Lennox discusses ‘The Disappearance of Aristotle’s Biology: A Hellenistic Mystery’
(pp. 7–24), A. Jones, ‘The Place of Astronomy in Roman Egypt’ (pp. 25–52), A. Barker, ‘Greek
Musicologists in the Roman Empire’ (pp. 53–74), D. Pingree, ‘The Teaching of the Almagest in
Late Antiquity’ (pp. 75–98), and R. Beck ‘Cosmic Models: Some Uses of Hellenistic Science’
(pp. 99–114).
Lennox states the problem that Aristotle’s zoological works (mainly the Parts, History, and
Generation of Animals) were an integral part of his philosophy, a ‘research program’ which,
however, save for Theophrastus, subsequently led nowhere (pp. 12–17), not even in Galen. What
was principally in circulation in Hellenistic times was an epitome of Aristotelian writings πεσ6
<ιψξ in two books dealing with particular animals; this sacriµced the methodologically
signiµcant aspects of the originals. This does not by itself explain the failure. For later on, Galen
did have access to the full versions; but ‘if all one had of Aristotle was what is to be found in
Galen, there would be no hint at all of the nature of Aristotle’s zoological research program’;
Galen simply did not get the message. Why? L. concludes in what he calls an ‘unsatisfactory
postscript’ that neither Galen nor anyone else any longer took seriously the possibility of ‘a
demonstrative science of such variable and transient things as animals and plants’, because by
then Greek intellectuals in general concerned themselves only with the ‘less messy, more noble
subjects’. This is indeed an ‘unsatisfactory’ aporia, breaking o¶ where a discussion of Galen’s
own subject might have followed; but by raising such questions, and by indicating what Greek
science was not, it makes an excellent introduction.
Barker gives an authoritative account of the contexts in which the Pythagorean and
Aristoxenian theories of melody were incorporated in education of the imperial period, focusing
on the work of Didymus ‘the musician’, a contemporary of Nero referred to by Ptolemy and
Porphyry, to whom he attributes a theory and practice of harmony which aimed at ‘scientiµcally
grounded historical authenticity (sc. in the performance of ‘the classics’), practical perform-
ability, and mathematical precision allied to metaphysical signiµcance’; this is instructive, but one

634          
has reservations concerning the claims made for Didymus as a sort of ancient equivalent to the
modern musicologist concerned with ‘authentic’ performance.
Jones has now edited the astrological papyri from Oxyrhynchus, and his paper in particular
is outstanding as a survey of the discoveries since the mid-nineteenth century, the problems of
interpreting the material in detail and at large, and the milieux, chronology, and cultural
signiµcance of astrology in Roman Egypt. This is the best and most important piece in the
collection.
The classic of Greek science is Ptolemy’s Almagest. Pingree maps the later antique scholiastic
tradition from Artemidorus, Pappus, Theon and Hypatia, then Proclus and his school, and
focuses on a third anonymous line of composite commentary preserved in one of the oldest
codices (Vat. Gr. 1594). He infers from the scholia on Alm. 8.3, 1.1, 9.1, and 13.2 that we need
as their author a Nestorian Christian Greek who knew his Simplicius, but who was working
outside the Byzantine Empire, sometime before .. 637; this points to Nisibis in Persia; perhaps
it was a student of Theophilus of Edessa, one Stephanus the Philosopher, who brought the
ancestor of Vat. Gr. 1594 to Constantinople c. .. 775. Though the verdict must be ‘not proven’,
the detective work is fascinating.
By contrast, Beck’s piece seems as weak as it is ambitious: obscurum per obscurius. He sets out
to exemplify how religion drew on scientiµc perceptions, choosing the layouts of the augural
templum at Bantia excavated by Torelli in the 1960s and the so-called Horologium Augusti
excavated by Buchner in the late 1970s (Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus [Mainz, 1982]), and
concludes with his own controversial account of the Mithraeum at Ostia in the light of Mithraic
allusions in Porphyry’s De antro nympharum. These involve the interpretation of archaeological
material. However, Beck’s tergiversations concerning Schütz’s important critique (Gymnasium 97
[1990], 432–57) of Buchner’s misinterpretations of the Augustan obelisk and his own misunder-
standing (p. 104 n. 2) of Buchner’s Tafel 4 do not inspire conµdence.
All in all, the volume is remarkably successful collectively and in most of its parts as an exoteric
introduction to the whole subject of ancient science and the historical methods appropriate to
its study. Credit must go here to Barnes as editor. But the contributions of Jones, Barker, and
Pingree are also authoritative surveys and reports in their µelds which will be indispensable for
specialists.
University of St Andrews A. S. GRATWICK
D. G. M  : P.Michigan XIX. Baptized for Our Sakes: a

Leather Trisagion from Egypt (P.Mich. 799). (Beiträge zur Altertums-
kunde 120.) Pp. 115, ills. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1999.
Cased. ISBN: 3-519-07669-1.
O¶ered here is a ‘thick description’ of a signiµcant religious text from the Michigan collection,
written on a leather sheet cut into a ‘keystone’ shape, of unknown provenance, dating probably
to the seventh century. There are thirty-one lines of Greek, sometimes articulated by the scribe
with crosses, indicating that he knew he was writing three di¶erent texts, and with double
slashes (//), indicating that he was aware he was writing metrical texts in continuous script.
Aided by these signs and knowledge of the accentual system of hymnic/liturgical poetry, the
editor produces from the original text a modern articulated and metrical text of seventy-one
lines, containing three di¶erent but related hymns. The µrst and longest (ll. 1–39) is a nutshell
biography of Jesus, touching upon his incarnation, baptism, cruciµxion, and resurrection. The
second (ll. 40–54) has a prologue (ll. 40–5) alluding to Isaiah’s vision (6.2–4) of the seraphim
singing a hymn of praise, followed (ll. 45–54) by an ecclesiastical (i.e. non-biblical) version of
what the hymn itself is imagined to have been. The third hymn (ll. 55–64) quotes or paraphrases
creation themes found in the Septuagint, especially Job 9.8–10 and Jeremiah 5.22. A concluding
sextuplet (ll. 65–71) invites the faithful to marvel at God’s love, evidenced speciµcally in Jesus’
incarnation and baptism, thus closing a ring that opened with the µrst µfteen lines of the µrst
hymn.
The form taken by all three hymns just described is that which is known as the Trisagion, in
which the refrain ‘Holy, holy, holy’ and variations thereof periodically introduce or punctuate
other elements of text. In the third Michigan hymn, it seems, the Trisagion formulas were primary
and were expanded by the Septuagint references, e.g. ‘Holy and mighty (sc. is God), the maker of

          635
the Pleiades and Hesperos and Arktouros and the chambers of the south’ (ll. 58–60; cf. Job 9.9).
In the µrst hymn, however, there may have been what the editor calls contaminatio. Here, it seems,
the ‘biographical text’ had its own separate (primary) existence in abcedarian structure from
alpha to omega. Trisagion formulas were subsequently introduced, sometimes at syntactically
disruptive positions. These placements pose editorial problems of sense division and punctuation,
and (in the English translation) capitalization, some of which are not satisfactorily solved,
especially on p. 38 of the edited/metrical text and p. 39 of the facing translation.
Everything else is admirably done. The introduction (pp. 1–28) is especially clear in its
presentation of the system of stress metrics in Byzantine hymnic poetry and commendably
cautious in laying out scenarios for possible uses of the Michigan Trisagion. Similarly cautious is
the assertion that even if the Michigan Trisagion were produced in Monophysite circles, nothing
internal to the text could be found to support such an origin.
Next, following a physical description of the Trisagion (pp. 29–31), a diplomatic text is
presented (pp. 32–7), printed crosswise, with digitized images on even- and diplomatic text on
odd-numbered pages. This is a very helpful arrangement, but the loose, folded plate, three-
quarters the size of the original document and tucked in a corner pocket at the end of the volume,
is invariably clearer and more decisive than the digitized images. The edited/metrical text
(pp. 38–43) is followed by an extensive commentary (pp. 44–84). This gives separate general
introductions to the three hymns and comments on various religious issues, but is consistently,
one might even say inexorably, geared toward two other concerns: (1) extensive citation of
reference grammars to justify, for the edited/metrical text, the numerous changes necessitated
by the often non-standard or faulty orthography of the original; and (2) extensive quotation
and citation of passages (biblical, patristic, liturgical, hymnic) that provide verbal parallels to
the Michigan Trisagion. These citations show the Michigan Trisagion as part of a ·ourishing
tradition, but on a more practical level they help at times to suggest and reinforce decisions made
about the Michigan text itself. An appendix (pp. 85–7) summarizes the phonological features
of the Michigan Trisagion. The volume concludes (pp. 96–115) with detailed indices, including
(pp. 98–110) a valuable subject index in English and Greek.
Loyola University Chicago JAMES G. KEENAN
H. W. P, R. S. S , A . C , J. H. M .

S (edd.): Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 45 (1995).
Pp. xl + 829. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1998. Cased, H·. 230. ISBN:
90-5063-228-8.
Edited to the usual high standard, and shedding illumination upon many highways and byways
of the ancient world, this issue of the invaluable digest of the year’s publications on Greek
inscriptions shows that epigraphical research continues unabated. Indeed, there is no better way
of getting one’s bearings in the welter of new and revised material. What stands out on this
occasion is the relatively high number of late Roman or Byzantine inscriptions.
Although I have not made a direct comparison, I do not recall seeing quite so many ‘late’ texts
in one volume, many of them accessible via the lemmata ‘mosaic inscription’ and ‘Christianity’ in
the indexes. It is hoped that this heralds a rebirth in Byzantine studies, as we reap the fruits of a
wider consciousness that archaeology is a cooperative enterprise. More archaeologists in some
parts of the world are now aware of the obligation to stop ignoring, casting aside, and even
destroying ‘late’ remains in their haste to get at older material, as if it ever was acceptable for a
specialist in one period to damn to oblivion evidence interpretable by a specialist in another.
The result is that we see a clear need for Byzantine and late Roman specialists, to process material
that clearly does exist in the µeld in some quantity. Meanwhile, the rise in the number of such
publications suggests that the demand may be stimulating a market: let it happen!
To concentrate on Byzantium, among militaria there are epitaphs from a sixth/seventh century
.. military cemetery in Istanbul (nos. 850–61), naming foederati, bucellarii, excubitores, etc., and
a sixth-century legionary at Dioskourias in Colchis (1874). I noted en passant an optio princeps
from Palmyra (1910, .. 302).
Most ‘late’ texts concern religion in one way or another. It is striking how many early churches
were built by wealthy bishops, whether from their own resources or their fund-raising. A mosaic
inscription from Eleutherna in Crete (1267) announced to visitors in the narthex of the church all

636          
they needed to know: Who built it? Answer: Eufratas, bishop (he attended the Council of
Chalcedon in .. 451). Whose church is it? Answer: St Michael the Archangel’s, ‘by whose
intercession grace will be delivered to us’. Other early church mosaics from Galilee (1954) and the
Negev (1975) name ecclesiastical and civil/military benefactors, without making it clear who paid
what for the building; but one perhaps from near Bostra, now in Amman (2028), is quite explicit:
‘Lord God of St Theodoros, aid all who live in this village, for they provided the craftsmen’s
wages and the labourers themselves.’ For Palestine, at least, there is a synoptic study of church
building as compared with civic by L. Di Segni (1931).
Inscriptions can also tell us things about people’s beliefs. A fourth/µfth-century .. metrical
epitaph for bishop Pientios at Amorium (1722) is a case in point: Pientios’ soul was already in
heaven; the tomb preserved his physical remains here on earth until the Day of Judgement and
the Resurrection of the Body, when he would ‘taste ambrosia’. Since the body was needed for
resurrection, it appears, cremation—involving the virtual destruction of the body—was avoided.
A di¶erent aspect of funerary practice is revealed by a series of seventh/eighth-century ..
incense-burners inscribed, ‘O God, who received the incense of saint Zacharias, receive this!’
(1344, Sicily). Zacharias is explained, through a Byzantine liturgical text, as Zacharias ‘the
incense-burner’, the father of St John the Baptist, who could purify houses from demons.
The objects concerned are nearly always found in tombs, and the purpose of puriµcation in the
funerary rite is thus clariµed.
As well as Biblical texts inscribed on fountains (1862) and monastery walls (1958, 1963), and
exorcism and prayer formulae written on gems and amulets which are Christian-in·uenced, at
least (2197, 2315), late Roman Mammon is served by C. Roueché’s survey of the evidence of
associations of aurarii, goldsmiths, charged with a rôle in collecting the Emperor’s taxation in
gold from the cities of the East.
Besides the Byzantine, there is, as ever, much earlier material. See the oldest Greek inscription
inscribed on stone hitherto discovered in Cyrenaica, from the µrst half of the sixth century ..
(2170, Cyrene). It contains the name ‘Proklos’, here not a Greek transliteration of Latin
‘Proculus’, common in the Roman imperial period, but a hypocoristic (simpliµed, familiar form)
of Prokles. Also of primary importance is the revelation of early Hellenistic milestones in Persis,
derived from a chorographic initiative of Alexander the Great that would have far-reaching
consequences for the Romans (1879–80).
Finally, there are synthetic studies involving inscriptions, summarized as ‘Varia’ (2208–360). In
short, no researcher can fail to proµt from this book.
Beckenham N. P. MILNER
G. P     : Les usages des graveurs dans la notation d’uspilon et des

phonèmes aspirés: le cas des anthroponymes grecs dans les inscriptions
latines de Rome. (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres
de l’Université de Liège, 270.) Pp. 523. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1995.
Paper. ISBN: 2-87019-270-3 (2-87019-070-0 hbk).
G. Purnelle’s intention is to study the transcription of some Greek phonemes appearing in Latin
inscriptions, i.e. initial aspiration, the occlusives aspired, the rho aspired, and the vowel uspilon.
The studied corpus is limited to epigraphical sources and, from these, only the anthroponyms
have been singled out for study.
The work opens with an introduction (pp. 9–20) wherein P. presents some issues concerning
the transcriptions of the Greek sounds into Latin and those of the Greek sounds in Latin
inscriptions. He then proceeds to a corpus description, followed by the results of the statistical
method applied, a presentation of the inscription engraving techniques, and an account of the
manner whereby Greek names were introduced into Latin inscriptions. The introduction ends
with a description of P.’s research and a presentation of the work’s structure. To these is added a
complete and rich bibliography (pp. 31–9).
The µrst part of the book, which comprises seven chapters, deals with the study of the sign
H in the transcription of the aspired phonemes. The phonemes concerned are examined suc-
cessively. First, the author examines the initial aspiration, more speciµcally, the history and the
analysis of the written forms, the transcription of the initial aspiration, the interaspiration, and
the initial aspiration (Chapter I); he then studies the aspired occlusives, i.e. the history and the

          637
analysis of the written forms, as well as the transcription of the aspired occlusives CH, PH, TH in
Latin words, the particular uses of the sign H, the variety of Greek inscriptions, the rare written
forms and spirantization, the aspired groups CHT, PTH, the aspired consonants followed by a
liquid, and the occlusive aspired geminates (Chapter II). Chapter III presents the transcription of
the aspired initial and internal rho. In the next three chapters, the author moves on to consider
di¶erent general phenomena that concern the totality of the aspired phonemes: the transcription
of names containing two aspired consonants (Chapter IV); the faulty use of the sign H: H
parasite and H displaced in some forms (Chapter V); and µnally, the irregular appearance of the
transcriptions of aspired consonants in private inscriptions and in the lists of names (Chapter
VI). The µrst part concludes with a chronological development of the sign H transcription and its
use in the notation of the aspired phonemes (Chapter VII).
The second part consists of an examination of the vowel upsilon. It seeks to clarify the problem
of the transcription of upsilon (Chapter VIII), the faulty and hypercorrect uses of the sign Y
(Chapter IX), the irregular appearance of upsilon in the transcription (Chapter X), and its
variations (Chapter XI). This part ends with some remarks on the phonetic evolution of the
aspired occlusives and upsilon, the trancription and the pronunciation of the Greek phonemes
that are foreigner to Latin, the di¶erent types of transcribers, and Latin spelling.
The book ends with information on the results of examined inscriptions, and faulty uses of the
signs H and Y, with annexes of the rare or special written forms transcribing the aspiration, the
aspired occlusives and upsilon, as well as with an index of inscriptions and an index of names and
roots.
In sum, the originality of this extraordinary work consists in the manner whereby the author
studies its object. Indeed, P.’s study draws as much from epigraphy in a broad sense as from
linguistics in a strict sense (p. 26). As a result, the author attempts to assess the work of
transcribers and more particularly to specify their reasons for using various spelling modes. It is
a work of integrity, well articulated and consequently recommended for research scholars and
students of Greek philology alike.
Brown University HELEN PERDICOYIANNI-PALÉOLOGOU
M. G, S. P      (edd.): CIL: Supplementa Italica.

(Nuova serie 15.) Pp. 237. Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1997. L. 70,000.
ISBN: 88-7140-115-8.
Supplementa italica pursues its astonishing course, not only with a regular ·ow of volumes, full
of important and fascinating material, but also now with the second volume of cumulative
indices, covering Volumes VIII–XIII. It seems most useful to signal and query one or two
changes: the indexing of the dates of inscriptions is a splendid innovation; on the other hand,
it seems idiosyncratically old-fashioned to distinguish u and v; and the suppression of most
‘Conguagli’ seems a pity. Hard-pressed scholars like to be able to µnd unpublished inscriptions
quickly, a form of pigritude which it is hard to condemn. And it is odd, given the growing
interest in the topic, not to index MSS sources. The computerized indexing procedure is of
course what enables so much to be indexed; but it is perhaps not unreasonable to ask the
indexers to reduce words to their nominative or µrst person singular forms before indexing
them. How many users of these volumes will be able to think immediately of all the possible
forms of a word in which they are interested?
University College London M. H. CRAWFORD
J. K , V. B : Inscriptions grecques et latines de Novae

(Mésie Inférieure). Pp. 276, µgs, ills. Paris: De Boccard, 1997. Cased.
ISBN: 2-910023-03-6.
This corpus of 184 inscriptions from the Roman fortress and early Byzantine site of Novae in
northern Bulgaria includes all epigraphic µnds published down to 1995. Until now, some of the
texts have not been subject to such careful consideration as in this volume, and others have
appeared in works not generally available in western libraries. The majority are in Latin and

638          
have been studied by the editors. Professor V. Velkov submitted a provisional manuscript for
the remaining eleven inscriptions in Greek, but sadly died shortly thereafter. Consequently, the
preparation of the full text and commentary on the Greek inscriptions was carried out by Alain
Bresson and Thomas Drew-Bear.
An introduction brie·y reviews the history of the site and the results of the Bulgarian/Polish
excavations. It includes detailed site maps showing the µnd-spots of inscriptions found during
systematic excavations. The full bibliography for this section and the extended discussion of
important texts is welcome, as are the appended indices. The photographs are clear and invariably
useful companions to the text.
The volume contains µnds of particular interest. A torturer (quaestionarius) erected an altar
dedicated to Dolichenus (no. 26). A statue-base was set up in .. 184 by L. Maximius Gaetulicus
who, as primipilus of Legio I Italica, fulµlled the vow he had made as a simple soldier (tiro) in
the British legion XX Valeria Victrix (no. 46). Gaetulicus, as centurion, is also attested both on
Hadrian’s Wall and at Newstead in the Antonine period (RIB 1725 and 2120). Remarkable are
the two statue-bases found in situ within a peristyle house immediately outside the west gate of
the fortress; one (no. 67) in honour of a former legate of the I Italica, set up by the optiones of the
legion, the task executed by the optio of the praetorium, and the other (no. 68) dedicated to a
senator by beneµciarii in the legionary legate’s o¸cium. The second dates to the reign of Severus
Alexander, the µrst to the reign of Gallienus. Fragments of two bronze statues were discovered
within the courtyard where the inscriptions had been set up, and su¸cient survived to fully
restore the heads of both. Also, it is probable that the building, given its prominent location and
its dedications, served as an extramural praetorium. Although not all found in situ, evidently no
fewer than eleven altars and statue-bases were set up by primipili of the legion in the principia’s
internal courtyard. A µnished building inscription, which was painted but not engraved, is a
notable µnd (no. 57), as is a fourth-century Greek dedication to the legion by two supply o¸cers
(primipili) from the province of Hellespontus (no. 178).
The thorough and sound discussion of the texts is exemplary. Only in the case of no. 39 is
caution perhaps still required in accepting that this crude altar proves that a municipium had been
founded close to the legionary fortress. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the restoration
of augustalis m(unicipii) N(ovensium) remains suspect. The authors have produced a volume
which will prove as useful for those interested in Roman and late Roman Novae as for students of
Roman military history.
The University of Nottingham ANDREW POULTER
B. R  : Inscriptions latines d’Aquitaine (ILA). Arvernes. Pp. 214,

3 µgs, ills. Bordeaux: Institut de Recherche sur l’Antiquité et le Moyen
Age, 1996. ISBN: 2-9-10023-05-2.
This book continues the replacement of CIL XIII by a series of civitas-catalogues, begun with
the publication of the inscriptions of the Nitiobriges in 1991. Its structure follows the model
established by previous volumes, adopting slight changes developed by them for the conveni-
ence of the reader (p. 57). However, I was pleased to see that Remy has not copied Maurin’s
practice (ILA. Santons, 1994) of including gra¸ti on ceramics, which massively overloaded the
latter’s text. (I guess that the presence of the Lezoux workshops in R.’s area would anyway have
made this impractical.) As is a feature of ILA, R. lays out his inscriptions according to the
conventions of P.E.T.R.A.E. (‘Programme d’Enregistrement, de Traitement et de Recherche
Automatique en Epigraphie’). I have discussed the principles of the series and the strengths and
weaknesses of the P.E.T.R.A.E.-system in a recent review of the µrst two catalogues (Britannia
27 [1996], 479–80). I will not repeat my criticisms here, except again to regret the editors’
continuing refusal to exploit the beneµts of modern technology: I remain convinced that most
of the material collected would be cheaper to publish and easier to access on CD-ROMs. As far
as content is concerned, R.’s work is characteristically comprehensive and accurate. Without
doubt he has done a great service in providing a modern presentation, usually supported by
good photographs, of the CIL-inscriptions and of subsequent discoveries (or, frequently, redis-
coveries) down to 1963 (the date of publication of Wuilleumier’s supplementary Inscriptions
latines des Trois Gaules [ILTG]) and 1993 (just as R. was µnalizing his text). Thus, for example,
it is useful to have a reasoned refutation of ILTG’s association of nos. 5 and 6, and a full
up-to-date description and discussion, with detailed bibliographic references, of the famous

          639
stumpy Mercury of Lezoux and its Latin inscription, no. 40. However, the volume as a whole
points up a major question of epigraphy—the extent to which the inscriptions that have
survived accurately re·ect the activities of the society that generated them.
Thanks to the literary evidence the Arverni are among the best known of the peoples of Gaul.
They made their µrst major appearance µghting the Romans under their powerful king Bituitus
around the end of the second century ..; and towards the end of the µfth century .., led
by bishop Sidonius Apollinaris, they o¶ered the last signiµcant resistance to the Visigothic
occupation of central Gaul. In the intervening years they produced, for example, Vercingetorix,
and commissioned a colossal bronze statue of Mercury for their great sanctuary on the
Puy-de-Dôme. Modern archaeology has signiµcantly added to this picture. Though the site of the
civitas-capital of Augustonemetum (Clermont-Ferrand) is very disappointing, elsewhere there
have been very fruitful excavations including, for example, the later Iron Age settlement at Aulnat
and the huge pottery districts of the Allier valley. On this basis one would be justiµed in expecting
Arvernian inscriptions to be numerous and informative, but this is not the case. R. is able to list
only 109 authentic inscriptions, most of which (especially the more recent µnds) are either cheap
and brief, or fragmentary. As a result, the inscriptions alone tell us very little about how the
Arvernian civitas was run, or what sort of life was lived there. As R. himself concedes, ‘Pendant
le Haut-Empire, nous ne connaissons quasiment rien des institutions de la cité des Arvernes’
(p. 19); and (p. 41), ‘L’épigraphie est quasiment muette sur la vie économique de la cité arverne’.
This is odd because the Arverni lived in that area of Gaul which enthusiastically adopted
MacMullen’s ‘epigraphic habit’ (see P. Février et al., Histoire de la France urbaine, tome 1: la ville
antique [1980], p. 49). Proof that the problem derives from the later destruction of inscriptions
rather than their original deµciency comes from the Puy-de-Dôme sanctuary site at Orcines,
which must eventually have become crammed with honoriµc and ex-voto dedications, but which
here is represented by only about three full, but trivial, inscriptions (44, 53–4) and a mass of
fragments.
Consequently, most of R.’s explanatory text is devoted to explaining the Arvernian inscriptions
from the general historical and archaeological background or from those found elsewhere. They
themselves add little, if anything, to our understanding of the area in Roman times. On its own,
therefore, this work will probably be of interest to the general reader mainly for its introduction
(pp. 11–49), which amounts to a very useful potted history of the Arverni and of modern
archaeological and epigraphic research in their civitas (see especially the discussion of
determination of civitas-boundaries: pp. 15–18). However, thanks to R.’s generous provision of
classiµed indices and his careful referencing of secondary works, used with others in the series it
will be invaluable to scholars undertaking specialist studies in, for example, onomastics and
religion.
University of Nottingham J. F. DRINKWATER
J. E : Agonismata: Kleine philologische. Schriften zur Literatur,

Geschichte und Kultur der Antike. Pp. viii + 431. Stuttgart and Leipzig:
B. G. Teubner, 1997. Cased, DM 138. ISBN: 3-519-07430-3.
No one who has had occasion to consult E.’s Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen
und hippischen Agonen (tucked away as vol. 63 fasc. 2 [1972] of Abhandlungen der Sächsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig) can be in doubt about the high quality of painstaking
scholarship to be found in these forty-four reprinted articles and notes. The title tells us the
theme that connects most of the items. They range from the conjecture "ζδσο<ι>Κ at Aesch.
Cho. 866 to the µrst publication of a bronze plaque containing an epigram similar to (but not
identical with) the one already known from Paus. 6.10.4 with the joint signatures of Eutelidas
and Chrysothemis. The majority of the articles are epigraphical and concern epigrams for
athletic victors, lists of victors, regulations for the contests, and so forth. My own special
interest being inscribed epigrams, I am perhaps biased when I dwell particularly on the
importance of E.’s contribution to the study of such epigrams. As readers of my CEG 1–2 will
know, E. read the manuscripts of both volumes and contributed much to the µnal result. The
volume under review reprints a µrst publication (1996) of an early epigram (see above) and
contains two articles sorting out epigrams that also belong with CEG addenda. Various
interesting epigrams from Hellenistic and Roman times receive attention, e.g. in ‘Neues zu den
Inschriften für Aurelios Heras aus Chios’.

640          
The publication of Kleine Schriften is always welcome, but particularly so in epigraphical
studies where one tends to spend much time chasing up individual articles and to breathe a sigh
of relief when one µnds a short cut.
The above was written and sent to the editor on 4 October 1999. On 7 October, I received a card
from Joachim Ebert’s family, announcing that he died on 1 October, aged sixty-nine.
21 Leckford Road, Oxford P. A. HANSEN
L. D L  : Die archaische Tyrannis. Pp. 479, 1 map. Stuttgart:

Franz Steiner, 1996. DM 188. ISBN: 3-515-06920-8.
The study of archaic Greek tyranny has undergone a growth in popularity in recent years.
De Libero’s book is to be added to James McGlew’s Tyranny and Popular Culture in Ancient
Greece (Ithaca, 1993), Nino Luraghi’s Tirannidi arcaiche in Sicilia e Magna Grecia. Da Panezio
di Leontini alla caduta dei Dinomenidi (Florence, 1994), and Daniel Ogden’s The Crooked Kings
of Ancient Greece (London, 1997). Essentially, however, it covers very di¶erent ground to these
other works. While methodologically and structurally similar to Luraghi’s book, it is geograph-
ically distinct: De L. deals only with the tyrannies of Greece and the Aegean, excluding those of
Cyrene and Cyprus, as well as those of the Greek West. There are no such similarities between
De L. and the other two works: De L. adopts a stance largely opposed to McGlew with the
emphasis heavily on the aristocratic nature of tyranny, while her focus primarily on the réalités
of archaic tyranny is in obvious contrast to Ogden’s concern not with what stories about tyrants
might tell us about the archaic experience itself, so much as what the structure of the tyrant
stories might disclose about how the experience was rationalized and remembered.
I have begun by placing this work in relationship to the most recent scholarship—all but
McGlew’s work published too late for consideration, and that also perhaps too late for full
incorporation—precisely because this is a central concern of this book: to take full account of
scholarly debate. The bibliography is thus very long and admirably complete. Further, not only is
the history of ‘tyranny studies’ fully explored, but so also are the trends and developments in
archaic history as a whole. Sometimes, however, one feels that De L. is so intent on placing her
work µrmly in its intellectual context that her own voice is somewhat mu¹ed. One is thus often
left to search for the truly novel interpretations contained herein—not a vain search, but a search
nonetheless.
The book is a revised version of her Habilitationschrift and bears all the hallmarks of such.
This is in no way a criticism, for the text is extremely well organized and accessible as a result.
After the introduction, the µrst section addresses the question of how the Greeks themselves used
the term tyrannis in the archaic period. There is, of course, scant evidence for consideration, but
De L. nevertheless reaches a number of conclusions. First, no one ever declared himself tyrannis;
it was a term applied externally. Secondly, its force was either positive or negative, depending
on context. Thirdly, in the course of the seventh century the term comes to be used in Greek
contexts, whereas it had previously focused on non-Greek µgures.
The second section, the ‘Darstellung’, is the very core of the book: a detailed analysis, polis by
polis, thirty-three in all, of all the evidence for archaic tyranny in Old Greece. As far as I am aware
this is an exhaustive treatment. Some of the entries are simply a reference to the single source that
records a tyranny in a particular area. Such brief entries, however, are every bit as vital as those
on Corinth or Samos, not least because they allow one to consider the full geographic spread of
tyranny. What strikes me is the complete absence of stories about tyranny in areas such as Aitolia,
Acharnania, and Achaia (as well as more obviously Sparta): is this merely a function of our
evidence, or does it have wider implications for archaic tyranny? De L. does not address such
questions here but undoubtedly the organization of her work makes this a valuable research tool,
much more so than its most obvious predecessor, Helmut Berve’s Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen
(Munich, 1967).
In the third section, De L. explores a number of themes central to archaic tyranny: its impact
on the political order, on religion, and on the economy. It is here that the main thrust of the work
is developed. Tyranny, De L. argues, despite the peculiarities of individual cases, was ultimately
always an aristocratic phenomenon, the result of aristocratic inµghting. The evidence of early
laws, not really discussed here, such as the mid-seventh-century examples from Dreros or Chios,
would seem to indicate there was a desire among the élite to carefully deµne and delimit political
and religious positions, and one could then suppose that this re·ects a genuine fear of particular

          641
people becoming too powerful. Notably, Crete, where so many of these early laws are found, is
not recorded as having endured any tyranny. I am, however, unsure whether one can completely
abandon the notion that a tyrant could not have survived without the cooperation of the ruled as
a whole; that is demos, as well as aristocracy. There is strong evidence in the traditions of the
beneµcent tyrant to suggest the existence of a reciprocal relationship between tyrant and demos
that must, in part, relate to his rise to power.
To sum up: this is a handsome book, in structure, content, and argument (and indeed produc-
tion), and would grace any shelf.
University College London JOHN-PAUL WILSON
M. M   : Aristokraten und Damoden. Untersuchungen zur inneren

Entwicklung Spartas im 7. Jahrhundert V. Chr. und zur politischen
Funktion derDichtung des Tyrtaios. Pp. 347. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,
1998. Paper, DM 144. ISBN: 3-515-07430-9.
When scholars set out to write books on early Sparta, they should have either new evidence, new
methods, or a fresh and compelling reinterpretation of the existing evidence. M. promises all
three in the Introduction (Part 1): to reduce the known sources (e.g. Pausanias and Strabo) to
their ‘authentic’ essence, to draw upon Homer’s epics and other neglected archaic sources,
to apply ethnology, anthropology, comparative studies, and philology to a re-examination of
Sparta in the time of the Messenian wars and its internal con·ict (Part 2), the Great Rhetra and
its consequences (Part 3), and the New Spartan Order and Tyrtaeus (Part 4). M. also promises
to put Sparta in the context of early Greece through the use of common sense, so that we may
fairly conclude that there was an aristocracy in Sparta (as represented by Alcman), much like
aristocracies in other Greek cities, separated from the damos by its hold upon material wealth
and its ancestral claims.
Some examples will serve to demonstrate the author’s methods for better and worse.
On Lycurgus M. asks the vital questions: which author is the µrst to mention Lycurgus, which
earlier authors might have been expected to mention Lycurgus, and what is the signiµcance of the
omission? Tyrtaeus, for instance, does not name Lycurgus, and Herodotus and Pindar do not
necessarily link reform, eunomia, and Lycurgus.
M. places the story of Terpander’s coming to Sparta to calm stasis (Herodotus’ kakonomia) in
the context of the conquest of Messenia, and links him with Alcman’s reference to division. (The
First Messenian War is dated 700/690–680/670.) M. concludes that the First Messenian War was
a partial conquest continued in the Second Messenian War, and that the conquered Messenians
were formed into helots only after the second war.
M. discusses secret societies (e.g. the krypteia) for forty-one pages (142–83): six pages on
German secret societies, two pages on the Avesta, and then a passage from Pausanias that
Teleklos chose beardless youths for his attack upon Messenia. M. suggests that the krypteia
might have been an independent force within society and even that the Partheniai were a similar
secret society—since only males are mentioned. Ingenious and interesting as this argument is, a
sceptic might point out that comparative arguments furnish us only with possibilities and not
with proof, that the youth of prosperous societies all pass through stages of adolescence, and
that Pausanias’ source may have had no better evidence than similar exploits of Greek beardless
youth. That the krypteia was such a secret society—or that the Partheniai were—are interesting
speculations but no more.
M. does a thorough job of demolishing the traditional evidence for the chronology of the First
and Second Messenian Wars, but does less well in supporting an alternative. We know that Sparta
gained possession of Messenia, but we know just as well that all our literary sources are suspect.
To seek the most plausible account is to µnd the most adept author. Here is where common sense
should have been applied to place Sparta into the context of the early Archaic Age when the
Spartan aristocracy waged war on the Messenian aristocracy as the heroes of the Iliad waged war
on the Trojans, occupying a part of the land, harassing the enemy, and at last compelling the
aristocrats to desert their land and leave behind the mass of peasants laboring in the µelds. An
aristocratic war of conquest implies the earliest date.
M., in a line-by-line analysis of the Great Rhetra, makes the valid point that an emendation is
useless unless it is supported by ancient Spartan evidence, yet the revolutionary nature of the
rhetra is lost in the analysis.

642          
The author is certainly correct that Sparta is best understood in the context of Greece, that the
early Spartan polis was aristocratic, that the aristocracy was not monolithic, that tensions existed,
characterized by the Partheniai, that the conquest of Messenia and the rise of the damos created
further tensions and a series of compromises, but beyond the main points, by the end of the book
M. has trained the reader so thoroughly in criticism and scepticism that this reader, at least, µnds
M.’s speciµc conclusions no more compelling than the traditional account. To be sure, the
traditional account, as M. demonstrates, is a ·imsy tissue, but any argument based on the sources
for early Archaic Greece will be ·imsy, M.’s no less than others’, and the situation might not even
change should Egypt reveal some day a complete text of Tyrtaeus.
Nonetheless, this is a thought-provoking book, rewarding, and well worth reading.
University of Oklahoma ALFRED S. BRADFORD
V. P  : Untersuchungen zum Lelantischen Krieg und verwandten

Problemen der frühgriechischen Geschichte. (Historia Einzelschriften
109.) Pp. 189. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1997. Cased, DM 76. ISBN:
3-515-06970-4.
A generation or so ago most students of Greek History would have been put through their
paces on the Lelantine War, a subject whose possible importance was suggested by the fact
that Thucydides singled it out among the run-of-the-mill border con·icts of the distant past,
and whose complexity was assured by the diverse and fragmentary evidence about chronology,
participation, conduct, and outcome. In those days a reshu¹ing of the evidence would have
provoked reactions, probably incredulous, but at least interest would have been aroused. Now a
dozen invitations to review this publication of a 1992 Heidelberg dissertation are declined: the
Lelantine War evokes the worst of old approaches to ancient history, especially to Archaic
Greece, where the paucity of evidence challenges the wits, and it might seem inappropriate to
show too much interest. Thus the volume reverts to the editors or is passed over in silence. That
P. can devote 160 pages to the topic suggests that he has left no stone unturned (contrast the
µve lines in C. Orrieux and P. Schmitt Pantel, History of Ancient Greece, English translation,
[Oxford, 1999]), and indeed there is detailed discussion of sources, the local topography
and history of Eretria and Chalcis, the involvement of Euboean cities in colonial foundations,
chronology, the nature of the µghting, the participation of other places in the con·ict, and
causes. Discussion is all very clear and sensible, the morsels of evidence are carefully chewed,
and reasonable conclusions reached, but one has to wonder about the object of the exercise.
Osborne’s Greece in the Making (London, 1996) provides an interesting contrast to P.’s narrow
focus: Osborne does allude to the Lelantine War a couple of times for its Hesiodic association
through the funeral games for Amphidamas of Chalcis, but he devotes far more attention to
Lefkandi and the ways in which the archaeological µnds there illumine the development of
Greek communities in the Dark Ages. It could be argued that this attitude is too stand-o¸sh,
since one can make inferences about the aristocratic culture of warfare from the conduct of this
con·ict: thus the Lelantine War could proµtably have joined Osborne’s category of things which
are ‘good to think with’. Nevertheless, his is a far more enlightening approach to Archaic
Greece. By contrast, P. glances at the evidence from Lefkandi, but this is not central to his task.
The result is an old-fashioned text, worthy and solid, but not in tune with current debates about
the emergence of poleis or colonization.
University of Warwick MICHAEL WHITBY
D. W. T : Warriors into Traders. The Power of the Market

in Early Greece. Pp. xv + 296, 17 µgs, 10 tables, 4 maps. Berkeley,
Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1997. Cased,
£35/$45. ISBN: 0-520-20269-4.
In the conclusion to this challenging book David Tandy declares: ‘if my attempts here prove
open to charges of theoretical or evidentiary aggressiveness, let me respond by asserting that

          643
only in this way can studies such as this one have some impact on the economic and social crises
of our own time’ (p. 229). Here, in this apologia for what has come before, one recognizes
the essence of both the strengths and weaknesses of T.’s work. The strengths: the ambitious
scope—T. asks big questions and o¶ers big answers; the application of theoretical approaches
from other disciplines—economic, anthropological, and demographic theory; and the unwaver-
ing historiographical drive. The weaknesses: the insistence on shoehorning even the most
in·exible piece of evidence into the book’s overarching theoretical framework; the death-
defying leaps of faith between the evidence and historical interpretation; and the disregard for
alternative readings of evidence where it might detract from his ‘thrust’.
T.’s central argument is that between 800 and 700 .. there was a dramatic economic
transformation in the Greek world that acted as a catalyst to the development of new social
and economic institutions from which the polis emerged. It is in the poetry of Homer and of
Hesiod, as well as in the archaeology of death and of cult, T. argues, that we observe the carefully
considered responses of di¶erent sectors of society to this great change.
The two important structural changes within Greek society were µrst, a signiµcant rise in
population, and second, a rapid expansion of trade, initially driven by Phoenicians, but soon
aided and abetted by Greeks eager to get in on the act.
In Chapters IV and V, T. presents the core of his book, the repercussions of these structural
changes. In the ninth century, T. argues, Greek society was integrated by small-scale redistributive
systems, focused on local leaders, the Homeric basileis. While the underpopulation of the Dark
Ages initially limited the impact of the population increase, ultimately more Greeks meant less
land per head. Con·ict grew over the issue of land use: at a time when people were seeking out
new land for growing grain, the continued use of good land by the nobility to graze herds
of livestock, which were no more than a status symbol, inevitably created tension. This led
some Greeks to settle elsewhere, others to turn to trade. This internally driven growth in trading
activity, coupled with the external impetus of the Phoenicians, led to a third major repercussion:
the movement of what T. calls ‘unobligated wealth’ into Greek communities, directed primarily at
the existing élite. This precipitated the collapse of the redistributive system as wealth was no
longer reliant on status, rather the reverse, and in its place emerged what T. characterizes as a
limited-market system. Again the conclusions are attractive, but the route to them is problematic.
There are con·icting signals as to who exactly is involved in these limited markets and who
exactly is getting rich: the existing nobility, we are told at one point, are amassing this unobligated
wealth, but at the same time he suggests it is those without access to land who are turning to
trade.
In Part 2, T. examines the responses to the drastic changes examined in Part 1. The bene-
µciaries of this economic transformation, insofar as their wealth grew, were largely the existing
élite, the basileis. This group, however, attempted to obscure this reversal in status and wealth
through a variety of strategies, while maintaining and demarcating their position. Thus the
Homeric epics and Hesiod’s Theogony are presented as justiµcations for the social and economic
position of the basileis, at the same time marking out the deµning qualities of this élite, qualities
further deµned through other means such as the symposion and warrior burial. These so-called
‘tools of exclusion’ are explored in Chapters VI and VII, the latter devoted to a discussion of the
epics. It is the former that impresses most, however, with its invaluable analysis of a wide range of
archaeological phenomena.
In Chapter VIII T. turns to what he calls ‘the response from the periphery’. Hesiod’s Works and
Days is characterized as a written rather than an oral poem, thus free from the social control
of the basileis and able to criticize the new world order. This is an attractive overall reading of
the poem, but again there are problems with some of the details of T.’s analysis. Often he tries
to wring too much from the text; thus, when Hesiod says that the greater the cargo, the greater
the proµt (ll. 644–5), T. argues that Hesiod therefore knew he was guaranteed a µxed price at a
controlled market. Perhaps, but it reads more like simple exaggeration than economic analysis to
me.
On the whole, the second half of this book convinces more than the µrst, although it is often
subject to the same limitations. I have read few books on archaic Greece more ambitious in their
intent. In many ways, however, it is too ambitious and ultimately the weaknesses outweigh the
strengths.
644          
N. F. J    : The Associations of Classical Athens. The Responses to

Democracy. Pp. xvii + 345. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999. Cased, £40. ISBN: 0-19-512175-9.
This project extends and reµnes Jones’s earlier work (see Public Organization in Ancient
Greece: A Documentary Study [Philadelphia, 1987]). In recent years scholars have published
detailed studies of particular groups. Hetairiai, eranoi, thiasoi, orgeones, gene, phratries, demes,
tribes—such groups show considerable di¶erences in their purposes, internal organizations,
constituencies, and relations to the state. Documentation is uneven, interpretation contro-
versial—many of them are far from well understood. The subject lends itself admirably to the
particularist approach of the Real-Encyclopädie; it is di¸cult to generalize about it.
The µrst problem confronting J. is to say what he means by ‘association’ and explain how this
deµnition can accommodate all the material he will treat in the book (Chapter I and Appendix
2). He appeals to Aristotle’s various discussions of koinoniai, particularly that in Book 8 of the
Nicomachean Ethics (misspelled ‘Nichomachean’ throughout). He also puts a great deal of weight
on the famous law of Solon regarding associations. The ultimate point of this discussion should
not be only the interpretation of Aristotle or Solon, but also the establishment of a program or
method of research. J.’s interpretation of ancient texts is uniformly interesting and strong, but
he is inattentive to modern theoretical work on the nature of associations. In his introductory
chapter he alludes once to the sociological literature, and then only to suggest that Aristotle has
anticipated the distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (p. 29; the distinction crops up
again only at pp. 245–6). He gives no further explanation, citing only ‘Tönnies 1988’, a reprint of
some work by the (nineteenth-century) sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies, which unfortunately does
not appear in the bibliography.
The central argument of the book, suggested in its subtitle, is that Athenian associations took
their characters in response to perceived shortcomings of the central government. For example,
the democratic ideology emphasized egalitarianism and direct rule; citizenship was exclusionary
(see pp. 47–9). Associations of disgruntled aristocrats, peasants, women, metics, and slaves
coalesced in reaction. The pace of discussion is leisurely, its scope capacious. J. does not hesitate
to leave the argument in pursuit of interesting tangents and controversial details. In places
narrative degenerates into a catalogue.
The discussion of the Cleisthenic demes and tribes is for me the most successful part of
the book. Demes and tribes are components of the central administration of the state, and it is
questionable whether it is reasonable to speak of them as developing in ‘response’ to perceived
shortcomings of the democracy. J. argues that alongside the ‘constitutional’ deme there existed
a ‘territorial’ deme composed of all residents, including women and metics (Chapters II–IV).
The integrity of this informal community increased in proportion to its distance from the city
center. By contrast, the tribes had little vitality as communities and developed as instruments of
representation (Chapters V–VI). J. explains that internal community is strong in groups that have
no rôle in administering state a¶airs (e.g. demes), while groups that manage state a¶airs tend to
have little internal community (e.g. tribes).
J. gives much less space to the other associations of Classical Athens: one chapter on the
phratries (Chapter VII), another on the plethora of remaining associations (Chapter VIII).
The book ends with a chapter on the Cretan City in Plato’s Laws (Chapter IX). There follows a
conclusion summarizing the µndings of the book and outlining the history of the associations
in the Hellenistic period. The appendices include a useful catalogue of ‘Post-Macedonian
Associations at Athens’ and a list of ‘The Documents of the Internally Organized Phylai’.
The strength of the book is in the details. There is much to think about—and disagree
with—here. For instance, did demes have precise geographic boundaries? Is it likely that the state
founded ‘generic phratry shrines’ at the city center? (I would say not.) It is unfortunate that
J. could not consider W. R. Connor’s very di¶erent interpretation of associations and particu-
larly the thiasos in Athens (in J. Ober and C. Hedrick [edd.], Demokratia: A Conversation on
Democracies, Ancient and Modern [Princeton, 1996], pp. 217–26).
The book deserves to be widely consulted; I will not be the only one to regret that J. did not
widen his focus to include the Hellenistic period.
UC Santa Cruz and Oberlin College CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR

          645
J. P. S : Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens.

Pp. x + 274. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1999.
Cased, £37.95. ISBN: 0-8078-2469-0.
This book is a revision of a dissertation submitted at Brown University in 1992. Discussion falls
into two parts. The µrst three chapters are devoted to the ‘prehistory’ of record keeping in
Athens, treating in turn the political uses of writing by Drakon and Solon, the evidence for
archives in the sixth century, and the indications that the Athenian boule maintained an archive
during the µfth century. The last four chapters treat the classical state archive, beginning with
the establishment of the archive in the Metroon, then turning to its holdings, organization of
documents, and the uses to which records were put.
Recent scholarship has emphasized monumental, as opposed to textual, qualities of Athenian
writing. Documents are not only written texts; they are objects, and their physical qualities carry
various meanings. The process of reading itself has received much attention. It is an activity with
a history; in ancient Athens it involved an interaction of oral and literate practices. S. describes
this scholarship as an ‘orthodoxy’—an exaggeration in my view—and conceives his book as a
challenge to it. It does not seem to me, however, that he seriously engages with these arguments.
Terms such as ‘literacy’, ‘orality’, ‘reading’, and ‘monument’ are not discussed, nor are they to be
found in the index. In establishing his own positions, S. sometimes uses this ‘orthodoxy’ as a straw
man. Despite the tenor of his arguments, to my knowledge no one has (or presumably would)
disputed that all sorts of texts were produced in ancient Athens on all sorts of materials, and that
these texts could be and indeed were on certain occasions read by certain people.
Two or three controversial points are at the heart of the book. First, S. argues that archival
practices in Athens go back to the sixth or even seventh century. For example, he maintains that
the Athenian archon-list must have been kept in writing from the seventh century on, and that a
central state archive was maintained by the boule for most of the µfth century, probably from the
time of Kleisthenes. Secondly, he suggests that these archives were from earliest times essential to
the administration of the Athenian state. Finally (and this, it seems to me, is an implicit presump-
tion which informs much of the book), he believes that the Athenians used their texts much as
moderns do, in ways so familiar as to require little explanation. There is no direct evidence to
support these conclusions. Still, his arguments are made vigorously, and they will doubtless elicit
reactions, pro and contra. In my opinion he is wrong on all three counts.
Fruitful debate of the arguments in this book will require preliminary agreement on the terms
of the discussion: What is an archive? What is a document? S. provides little guidance. He
gives one paragraph (pp. 5–6) to discussion of the idea of the ‘archive’, citing only one book on
archival method and nothing on the general history of record-keeping. He justiµes his working
deµnition by etymology and circular appeal to Athenian attitudes (never documented). The
deµnition is su¸ciently broad that it can be applied to any writing, whether or not it was in
present use or superannuated and preserved as part of some collection. Language elsewhere is
sometimes ill-advised. For example, he speaks of ‘minutes’ of meetings of the boule and ekklesia,
and describes the deposition of documents in the Metroon as ‘publication’.
Readers may wish (as I do) that S. had considered the history of the Athenian archives within
a framework of larger historical questions. He might, for example, have situated Athenian
practices within a comparative context, or considered why the Athenians (or for that matter any
state) should have come to keep permanent records at all. He might have integrated his history of
record-keeping into an account of Athenian politics or society (‘democracy’ is another word that
does not appear in the index). He might have considered the implications of medium for the
meaning of the document.
The book will not command universal assent, though it should stimulate debate. The press did
an inexcusably poor job of printing Greek. In other respects the book is well produced.
UC Santa Cruz and Oberlin College CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR

646          
M. T , K. H    (edd.): Alexandria and Alexandrianism:

Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by The J. Paul Getty
Museum and the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities
and Held at the Museum April 22–25, 1993. Pp. x + 292, 191 ills, 1 map.
Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1996. Paper, $50. ISBN: 0-89236-
292-8.
This volume consists of a collection of papers µrst delivered at a symposium; as the title
indicates, the contributions focus on the ethnicity and history of Alexandria, as well as the
art and architecture of the city. Central to many of the chapters is the examination of the
interaction between Greeks and Egyptians, and the way these peoples worked together to forge
a unique, Alexandrian artistic style.
Several papers focus on the city’s plan and the rôle Alexander played in designing it. These
are not only very clearly presented but provide important contributions to the question of the
layout of this city, of which so little is extant. If there is an area which can be criticized it lies in
attributing elements of the city’s infrastructure to Alexander himself. For example, Green argues
that he was responsible for its water supply system. While ancient authors, such as Arrian, may
relate that Alexander designed the layout of the city, it should be remembered that sources often
exaggerate the rôle founding fathers played in establishing a city’s most important structures.
In addition to examining the physical remains of the city, several contributions explore
Alexandria’s reception in history. Green and Gonheim, in particular, give interesting insights into
the way in which modern writers, such as Cavafy and Durrell, have used the city as a literary
metaphor. Although these writers have represented Alexandria in vastly di¶erent ways, they have
seen it as a symbol of sensuality and have described it as a place in which the past and present
merge.
Contributors who focus on Alexandria’s ethnicity tend to argue that Alexandria was, for the
most part, not fully integrated within Egypt. To this end, several authors indicate that the city was
known in the Roman period as Alexandria ad Aegyptum. In addition, contributors tend to argue
that Alexandria’s Egyptian and Greek populations were largely not integrated with one another.
Therefore, although Green and Kahil perceive Serapis as an example of the interaction between
Egyptian and Greek cultures, the contributors in the main argue that these two peoples did
not in·uence each other. Bianchi, in particular, maintains not only that Egyptians and Greeks
recognized the di¶erence in their artistic styles but that the Egyptian élite produced Egyptian art
in order to perpetuate the distinction between the Greeks and themselves. In this view, only
the Egyptian and Greek lower orders shared ideas with one another. However, the di¸culty
with compartmentalizing Alexandria’s population is that it does not allow for any grey areas. An
Alexandrian was either Greek or Egyptian but never both. As such, it is assumed that the two
populations did not intermarry and that a person’s identity was never called into question.
In other words, this view of ethnicity does not take into account that Alexandrians could have
several overlapping identities and that these identities changed according to context. Another
di¸culty in viewing Egyptians and Greeks as two distinct groups is that it tends to lump all
Greeks together, thereby not only obscuring their di¶erences, but also ignoring di¶erences
between them and Macedonians. In addition, it is a shame that very little attention was given to
Alexandria’s sizeable Jewish population. Not only did Jews constitute a considerable proportion
of the city’s population, but an examination of the interaction between them and both Egyptians
and Greeks would illustrate just how complicated the city’s ethnicity was.
The majority of the contributions concentrate on Alexandria’s artistic remains. Given the
amount of attention paid to Alexandrian literary style, it is interesting to focus on the deµnition
of Alexandrian artistic style. However, as some contributors point out, this is an onerous task,
because in order to categorize all of the diverse artefacts emanating from the city as Alexandrian
one has to be both contradictory and too general. For example, one has to take into account that
some portraits are idealized yet others are realistic. This is very nicely emphasized by Stewart,
who illustrates the di¸culties in deµning Alexandrian artistic styles by providing an interesting
exposition of the way in which art historians in the past deµned art as Alexandrian.
Finally, while most of the contributions focus on Hellenistic and Roman Alexandria, there are
several interesting chapters on late antique and Islamic Alexandria. Bowersock gives a vivid
description of the city in late antiquity, the centre of Neoplatonic thought that vied with

          647
Constantinople for pre-eminence. In contrast, Udovitch argues that Islamic Alexandria was
provincial and secondary to Cairo because of Arabic distrust of the sea.
All in all, this volume not only provides interesting reading but is well put together. Above all,
the editors did an excellent job of ensuring that the book was coherent and tightly organized by
having the contributions focus on closely related subjects. The volume is also nicely presented in
addition to being well illustrated, and is a welcome contribution to Alexandrian and Ptolemaic
studies.
University of Exeter EIREANN MARSHALL
C. T  : Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und

Monatsfolgen. (Bibliothek der Massischen Altertumswissenschaften,
series 2, 98.) Pp. xv + 300. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1997. Paper, DM 78.
ISBN: 3-519-07619-5.
The millennium bug has proved something of a bugbear; in antiquity, the time-reckoning plague
hit every month, and a¶ected many areas of Greece. On Keos, nobody knew what day it was.
Surely a comic exaggeration? Although one-third of Alan Samuel’s Greek and Roman
Chronology: Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity was devoted to Greek civil calendars
and an index of month names, the uncertainty on Keos was overlooked (rev. D. M. Lewis, CR
89 [1975], 69–72, at p. 70). For a Keian, knowing what day it was may have a¶ected one’s
chances of a meal; for the epigrapher and chronographer, Catherine Trümpy’s study of
month-names and the succession of months in ancient Greece provides a feast.
T. presents a well-researched and comprehensive guide to the evidence for the many names
(well over 200) of months used among the communities of ancient Greece; where possible, the
order of the months is reconstructed and related to the corresponding period in the Athenian
calendar. T. also considers the etymology of the names used for months and the religious festivals
from which many of the names derive.
A wealth of epigraphical evidence is exploited: where Samuel omitted the calendar of an
unknown Arkadian community (‘A New Logos Inscription’, Hesperia 27 [1958], 74–8), T. o¶ers a
detailed discussion (pp. 253–8). The indices do not allow one to locate easily speciµc inscriptions,
but various searches are facilitated. For example, August/September was Metageitnion in Athens,
Boukatios in Delphi (p. 201), Itonios at Tauromenium (p. 165), and Heraion on Tenos (p. 63). We
know that Maimakterion in Athens (November/December) corresponded with the month of the
same name in Keos (at Ioulis, pp. 55, 60), Ephesos (p. 97), Phokaia (p. 109), and Siphnos
(pp. 11819); all followed the Ionian calendar system. Maimakterion appears also in Mytilene
and Kyme (p. 248); although both communities belonged to a di¶erent calendar system, the
Lesbian–Asia Minor–Aeolian, their use of the month may well have corresponded to the same
late-autumn or winter month in Athens (p. 252). The common timing of some months and
festivals fails to overturn the implications suggested by the overall organization of the material.
The adoption of month names and civic calendars followed a broadly geographical pattern over
µve dominant regions: Ionia (pp. 10–119), West Greece (pp. 120–215), Central Greece, Thessaly,
Boeotia, and Lesbos (pp. 216–52), Arcadia/Cyprus (pp. 253–61), and Macedonia (pp. 262–5).
The political impact of the Hellenistic and Roman periods (pp. 266–75) led o¶ into di¶erent
directions.
T. has produced an extremely useful study of Greek month names which will no doubt be
used by a wide-ranging academic community. The diversity of Greek civic calendars was surely
a real bug in antiquity. One is only left wondering why the Keians were singled out for their
chronological confusion. Whom would the comics of antiquity mock today? What di¶erence—a
day or a year—when celebrating the end of a millennium, even in Ioulis?
University of Liverpool GRAHAM OLIVER

648          
H. B : Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit. Von Diokletian und

Konstantin bis zum Ende der konstantinischen Dynastie (284–363).
Pp. 213, 24 ills. Berlin: Oldenbourg Akademie Verlag, 1998. Paper.
ISBN: 3-05-003281-2.
This volume is the µrst to appear of a new series of ‘study books’ providing German students
and their teachers with selections of translated source material to introduce them to important
aspects of the history and culture of the ancient world. Brandt focuses on key elements of the
transformation of the Roman empire in the time of Diocletian’s Tetrarchy and Constantine
(‘die konstantinische Wende’), with much briefer sections devoted, as a sequel, to Constantine’s
successors and to Julian. It is a compact and well-organized treatment. The book begins with
four chapters of narrative summary presenting the broader context of the period, divided into
clearly designated sections which signpost the speciµc themes to be illustrated in the translated
sources (these themes focus principally on four areas: the changing structure of imperial rule;
the religious transformation; monetary and economic reform; and the external relations of the
Roman empire). The ‘main meat’ of the book is then provided by thirty-seven translated source
extracts chosen to take up the themes which have been highlighted in the µrst part, even down
to repeating the same numbered headings; each extract is given generous discussion relating
both to the nature of the evidence and to the issues which arise from it.
Although the need for a manageable format obviously imposes limitations on the choice
of material (it is a very ‘emperor-centred’ selection, for example, and particularly restricted when
it comes to the post-Constantinian era), as a teaching and study aid to open up knowledge of a
key period of historical change this little volume seems to me a model of its kind. The sources are
well chosen and su¸ciently few in number to permit the provision of serious and substantial
discussion which exposes the reader to current issues of interpretation and the relevant modern
scholarship; notes and bibliography provide a valuable conspectus of recent academic output,
mostly (but not exclusively) the products of the current generation of German experts on this
period. The material chosen also strikingly re·ects the rich variety of evidence available to
students of late antiquity, in which literary texts keep company with (well illustrated) archaeo-
logical monuments, coins, and inscriptions. In contrast to some random anthologies of translated
source material, the tightly organized structure of this volume makes for a markedly coherent
‘textbook’ to accompany a concentrated course of study on the period: it is designed for use as a
whole, not to be dipped into selectively.
In a foreword the editors of the whole series proclaim the intention of increasing awareness
among a wider range of German students of the roots of the uniµed modern Europe to which
their nation now belongs. It is perhaps sad to re·ect that only those very few British students in
this same modern Europe who are conversant with German will be able to beneµt from this
laudable enterprise.
University of Durham E. D. HUNT
W. L  : Constantius III. Studien zu seiner Tätigkeit und

Stellung im Westreich 411–421. (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe
Alte Geschichte 44.) Pp. xi + 232. Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt, 1998.
Paper, DM 44. ISBN: 3-7749-2873-8.
This study, a dissertation directed by G. Wirth at the University of Bonn, investigates the career
of the soldier Constantius III, who served during the troubled reign of the western emperor
Honorius (395–423) and brie·y became emperor in 421. In his introduction, L. suggests that
Constantius has been a ‘dimly understood µgure’ (pp. 1, 5); scholarly monographs exist for
other contemporary generalissimos, such as Stilicho, Aëtius, and Boniface, not to mention
Constantius’ wife, Honorius’ sister Galla Placidia. Hitherto, however, there has been no
monograph focusing on Constantius, whom L. calls ‘the most in·uential man in the western
half of the Roman Empire’ (p. 6) c. 410–21, a period that saw momentous events such as the
sack of Rome (410), the revolts of Constantine III and Jovinus in Gaul (407–13), the entry of

          649
the Visigoths into Gaul (412), the marriage of Athaulf and Galla Placidia (414), the settlement
of the Goths in Aquitania (418), and the growing in·uence of the bishops of Arles. Scholarly
accounts of these developments do not discuss Constantius in any internally consistent manner,
so L. proposes to create a ‘gänzingen Constantiusbildes’ (p. 5). Recognizing that the source
material is insu¸cient for the creation of a stand-alone biography, L. essays to weave the
existing vignettes (‘Einzelbeobachtungen’, p. 6) of Constantius into a narrative of the events in
the context of which his activities were carried out.
L.’s µrst chapter (pp. 17–51) covers the circumstances in which Constantius rose to power
after the death of Stilicho in 408, such as the sojourn of Alaric the Goth in Italy, rivalries at the
court of Honorius, and the revolt of Constantine III in Gaul in 407. Constantius µrst appears as
Magister peditum in Gaul in 411 (p. 47), when Constantine III was suppressed.
Chapter II (pp. 52–84) considers Constantius’ career from 412 to 414, and asks, ‘What was the
basis of his authority?’ (p. 5). L. sees Constantius as a supporter of Honorius and the Theodosian
dynasty. As of 411 he had an important, but not a leading, rôle (p. 62). Confrontation with the
courtier Olympius, who L. argues was not killed in 409/410 as conventionally thought, resulted
not from di¶erences over policy (they agreed on using the Church to strengthen the state,
and on loyalty to the emperor) (p. 65), but from a naked power struggle. One result of this was
Constantius’ delegation of the suppression of the Gallic usurper Jovinus (411–13) to Claudius
Postumus Dardanus: Constantius had returned to Ravenna to protect his own interests and to
pursue a struggle for in·uence with Heraclianus, the Count of Africa (pp. 59–60). The naming of
Heraclianus to the consulate in late 412 indicates that his patron Olympius was still alive; only in
late 412, or early 413, did Constantius have Olympius murdered (p. 66). The subsequent revolt
and death of Heraclianus left Constantius pre-eminent at court.
Chapters III and IV turn to Constantius’ period of predominance. The third looks at Gaul,
where his successes against the Goths, and his alliance with bishop Patroclus of Arles, magniµed
his reputation and solidiµed his support. The fourth picks up at the same point as the third, but
focuses on the Italian situation, and the consolidation of C.’s in·uence through the holding of the
consulate again in 414, 417, and 420; his acquisition in 415 of the rank of Patrician; and his
marriage with Galla Placidia in 417. His career culminated with his elevation to the emperorship
in 421; he died not quite seven months later. The µfth chapter gives a brief overview of the sub-
sequent fate of the Roman west up to the ·ight of Placidia to Constantinople in 422/423 with her
and Constantius’ infant son, the future Valentinian III.
The book concludes with four appendices, bibliographies of primary and secondary sources,
and an index (pp. 184–232). The µrst appendix argues that Melitius was Praetorian Prefect of
Gaul, not of Italy, as usually thought. The second investigates the signiµcance of the comedy
Querolus for events in ‘northern Gaul’ (actually the area of the Loire). The third looks at
Hydatius as a source for the ecclesiastical politics of Italy and Africa. And the fourth considers
the inscription of Albenga (CIL 5.7781), debunking suggestions that it was authored by Rutilius
Namatianus.
In only a few places would one like to have seen L. throw his net a bit wider. For example, there
is the question of the immediate predecessors of Constantius. An expansion of the discussions of
Varanes, and Turpilio and Valens (p. 25 n. 28), could clarify the pesky question of just when C.
became Magister peditum. There is a gap in the fasti between 409 and 411, and Constantius’
appointment could have been as early as 409, if his predecessor Valens departed o¸ce at the same
time as the Magister equitum Allobichus.
Otherwise, L. e¶ectively uses his prosopographical methodology to suggest personal a¸li-
ations and thus to recreate some possible attitudes, rôles, and activities of the participants in
secular and ecclesiastical politics. The book helps to correct the rather one-dimensional past
portrayal of Constantius as involved primarily with Gaul and Galla Placidia by plausibly
reconstructing his activities in and related to Italy and Africa. The study is thoroughly
documented, cogently presented, and, as L. initially desired, able to µll a signiµcant gap in the
scholarly literature.
University of South Carolina R. W. MATHISEN
650          
D. H    : Periclitans res publica. Kaisertum und Eliten in der Krise

des Weströmischen Reches 454/5–493 n.Chr. (Historia Einzelschriften
133.) Pp. 362. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999. Paper, DM 148. ISBN:
3-515-07485-6.
For a long time, the µfth century .. has arguably received less than its fair share of scholarly
attention. Reasons for this neglect are not far to seek. For the West in particular, helpful
literary sources are comparatively thin on the ground: the best historical narratives the period
can rise to are the fragmentary accounts of Priscus or Olympidorus, the epigraphic habit is
largely, although not exclusively, conµned to funerary inscriptions, and coins are of poor
quality and peculiar design. Such a dearth of raw materials for the historian makes even
narrative di¸cult, and analysis often speculative.
This book is a welcome attempt to plug the gap, by studying a number of di¶erent aspects of
the political and military history of the period between the assassination of the Magister militum
Aëtius by the emperor Valentinian III in 454 and the overthrow of Odoacer by the Eastern-
sponsored Ostrogoths in 493. The author justiµes his perception of the period as one of ‘crisis’
by reference to the ‘catastrophe’ of 454, when the death of Aëtius triggered the murder of
Valentinian himself and thus the end of the house of Theodosius I, the dissolution of the
coalition of nobles and generals who had backed the former Master, and the Sack of Rome by the
Vandals under Geiseric. All this led to a rapid succession of emperors, the alienation of large
sections of the civil and military ruling classes, and the political break-up of the Western Empire
due to a combination of unauthorized and ‘legal’ initiatives by the Germanic kingdoms. Dirk
Henning’s treatment of this is divided into two main sections, each drawn together with a
concluding chapter. The µrst part is Rome-centred, with brief accounts of the ten rulers of
the West from Petronius Maximus’ eleven weeks in 455 to Odoacer, a chapter on what we know
about principal o¸ce-holders (which conµrms how much we do not know), and judicious, if
occasionally simplistic, attempts to plot the emperors’ ·uctuating relationships with the power-
brokers of the West and with Constantinople. The second brings the non-Roman peoples more to
the fore, with surveys of the Goths, Burgundians, Vandals, and Franks, and their e¶ect in
exacerbating the divisions within the Roman state. He concludes, perhaps predictably, with a look
at the mechanisms of collapse, and the continuity and survival of the troubled ruling élites of the
West.
Thorough attention to the sources (in the case of Sidonius featuring a welcome treatment of
literary in·uences alongside his historical signiµcance), good bibliographical support and a
sustained sense of the complexity of these years make this book a brave and worthwhile attempt
to make sense of a ba¹ing period. Some drawbacks, however, should be noted. The presentation,
though clear, bears traces of the book’s origin as a dissertation; frequent sub-headings and
near-note form in parts make for ease of reference but can diminish overall coherence of
argument. On content, it would be helpful to have a more critical consideration of problems of
methods used and questions asked. On sources, the impact of the eccentricities of their survival
on what can be said of the µfth century needs acknowledgement.
There are also di¸culties with the choice of topic, which could have been dealt with without
detracting from the main focus of the book. The argument, that these forty years are the ones of
‘crisis’ for the Roman Empire, is taken as read and would have been greatly strengthened had the
author set the period more µrmly in its wider context at the outset, clariµed his assumptions
about what he means by ‘crisis’, and discussed the signiµcance of the events of the preceding
decades, notably the settlement of de facto independent Germanic enclaves over much of the
heartlands of the Western Empire after 407. A closer look at preceding generations might also
have alerted him to the importance of changing attitudes towards Roman and ‘barbarian’
identities; the Gaul into which Sidonius was born in about 430 was very di¶erent from the largely
secure Roman province his grandfather knew. And sensitivity to the dilemmas facing the most
loyal of ‘Romans’ might have led to caution over loaded terminology, e.g. the use of such terms as
‘secession’ and ‘rebellion’ of Aegidius’ attempt to continue the policies of Aëtius in Gaul after
461. Without this background, the book remains a useful narrative guide to the upper echelons of
Roman (and other) societies at a time of confusion, if not of crisis, but it does not tell us what the
Roman Empire meant to the peoples of the West in the µfth century, nor does it explain why, or
whether, it fell.
St Salvator’s College, St Andrews JILL HARRIES

          651
F. P , J. S (edd.): Usurpationen in der Spätantike:

Akten des Kolloquiums ‘Staatsstreich und Staatlichkeit’ 6.–10. März
1996 Solothurn/Bern. (Historia Einzelschriften 111.) Pp. 174. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner, 1997. Paper, DM 68. ISBN: 3-515-07030-3.
This collection presents papers from a seminar devoted to usurpation and legitimation in late
antiquity. The focus of papers is primarily on the century between Diocletian’s usurpation (284)
and Theodosius I’s death (395). Some concentrate on speciµc periods or individuals: Frank
Kolb, ‘Die Gestalt des spätantiken Kaisertums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Tetrarchie’; Joachim Szidat, ‘Die Usurpation Iulians. Ein Sonderfall?’; Timothy D. Barnes,
‘Christentum und dynastische Politik (300–325)’. Valerio Neri, ‘Usurpatore come tiranno nel
lessico politico della tarda antichità’, investigates the use of the term ‘tyrant’ in various sources,
especially panegyrics and historiography, a complicated business since one person’s tyrant is
another’s legitimate ruler. François Paschoud, ‘Le tyran fantasmé: variations de l’Histoire
Auguste sur le thème de l’usurpation’, argues that literary representations of tyrants, especially
in Ammianus, in·uenced the SHA. Noël Duval, ‘Les résidences impériales: leur rapport avec
les problèmes de légitimité, les partages de l’Empire et la chronologie des combinaisons
dynastiques’, and Roland Delmaire, ‘Les usurpateurs du Bas-Empire et le recrutement des
fonctionnaires (Essai de ré·exion sur les assises du pouvoir et leurs limites)’, consider important
aspects of all rulers, the place from which their power emanates, and the personnel thorough
whom it is articulated. The remaining four contributions are more general in conception:
proceedings are opened by Egon Flaig, ‘Für eine Konzeptionalisierung der Usurpation im
spätrömischen Reich’, who argues for an imperial system based on acceptance by key groups
rather than on dynastic considerations, and closed by Ekkart Zimmermann, ‘Der Staatsstreich
und seine politischen und gesellschaftlichen Voraussetzungen’, a sweeping sociological survey
which attempts to illuminate late antique coups through modern comparisons; Jochen Martin,
‘Das Kaisertum in der Spätantike’, and Alexander Demandt, ‘Grenzen spätrömischer Staats-
gewalt’, are also wide-ranging, though the latter adds little to Flaig’s discussion.
There is much of interest here, which it would have been easier to track down if the editors
had provided an index. A testimony to the quality of contributions is that one is left wanting
more: only Martin, and to a lesser extent Flaig, range into the µfth and sixth centuries. Imperial
instability in the µfth-century West is explained by the change in the composition of the army, but
Roman generals like Constantius III and Majorian might not have regarded this as so decisive.
The greater stability of the East is ascribed to its polycratic structures, with which it is di¸cult to
disagree, but closer investigation of the revolts of Basiliscus and Vitalian or the careers of Aspar
and Illus might have clariµed the nature of this Eastern balance and how it developed; equally the
confrontations between Anastasius and the Constantinopolitan patriarchs Euphemius and
Macedonius or his o¶er to the Hippodrome crowd to resign in 512 (quickly followed by harsh
repression) could conµrm the superiority of imperial power in the East—especially since the
pattern is repeated during Justinian’s reign. But all that might be another conference.
M . J. H  , D. P , M . J. R . G   (edd.): «Roman-

izaciön» y «Reconquista» en la península Ibérica: nuevas perspectivas
(Acta Salmanticensia, Estudios Históricos & Geográµcos). Pp. 354.
Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1998. Paper, ptas
3,000. ISBN: 84-7481-896-6.
This collection of essays (all in Spanish) has perhaps a narrower focus than its title implies. The
papers arose from a conference assessing the work of Abilio Barbero and Marcelo Vigil, in
particular their seminal works ‘Sobre las origines sociales de la Reconquista’, BRAH 156 (1965)
and La formación del feudalismo en la península iberíca (Barcelona, 1974), which emphasized
regional di¶erence in Spain over the then dominant tendency to see Spain as a unity. The papers
here are presented in four sections ranging from historiography and the teaching of history in
Spain to feudalism in the High Medieval Spain. Section 3 is devoted to classical antiquity. Here

652          
Ruiz contributes a useful paper on the nature and development of the Iberian aristocracy.
Lomas essentially defends B&V’s views on North West Spain. Part of his discussion involves
Priscillianism, but oddly there is no mention of Chadwick’s Priscillian of Avila (Oxford, 1976),
nor Jones’s ‘Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?’, JThS 10
(1959), despite its being germane to the argument. Mangas o¶ers a more nuanced account of
the same region, emphasizing that the survival of native custom need not indicate ‘resistance’ to
Rome, and underlining the coalescence of Roman and native aspects of life. The sharpest attack
on B&V comes from Arce, who, in a short, but powerfully argued piece, demolishes their view
that there was a limes in the north of Spain. Salinas de Frías discusses Roman propaganda
surrounding the Cantabrian Wars and µnds the image of a completely barbarous region, a
tradition which he suggests may go back as far as Polybius, at odds with the reality of the times.
S. argues his case powerfully, though may overstretch his argument in parts. He also suggests
that from Strabo’s description of the Iberians we should see the captives on the gemma Augusta
as symbolizing Cantabria and Asturias. González Roman’s paper deals with the south of Spain
and suggests a model whereby assimilation of the local aristocracy as Roman clients allows us
to see both continuity of native structures and their gradual acculturation. The establishment of
colonies poses a problem for this model which CG goes some way to avoid by pointing out that
some discretion to enrol natives in colonial foundations was permitted. Nevertheless these
colonies were imposed on towns which had taken the wrong side in the Civil Wars and CG
needs to confront a potential punitive motivation for them. Hidalgo de Vega and Rodríguez
Gervás discuss concepts of µdes and clientela in the Theodosian period, particularly as used by
Pacatus as propaganda against Magnus Maximus. Two more metahistorical pieces are added by
Prieto Arciniega on Vigil’s impact on the way ‘Romanization’ has been approached in Spain,
and Ubiña, who looks at the fall of Rome in Spanish historiography. The medieval section
contains three papers on Visigothic Spain dealing with feudalism and inheritance where there is
material of interest for students of this µeld. In general, the papers in this collection have much
to o¶er, but, like so many collections of Acta, its editing has perhaps neglected to give it a focus
which would make its entire contents appeal to a speciµc readership.
D. P. K    : Investment, Proµt, and Tenancy. The Jurists and the

Roman Agrarian Economy. Pp. xiv + 269. Ann Arbor: The University
of Michigan Press, 1997. Cased, £29.95. ISBN: 0-472-10802-6.
This is Kehoe’s third monograph on Roman estate management, and the µrst half of it is an
elaboration of a previous article. Readers of his previous work will immediately recognize the
argument, approach, and much of the content. K. starts with the hypotheses that ‘µnancial
stability’, which he imagines as a real alternative to proµt-making, was the dominant aim of
Roman estate owners, and that tenancy, rather than direct exploitation, was preferred by them
to achieve this aim, and then seeks to illustrate and add detail to these hypotheses through an
intensive study of relevant passages in the Justinianic Digest and Code. Chapters I and II try to
elicit a coherent attitude to estate management from the rules about tutorship and bequests.
Chapters III and IV examine the ‘normative’ tenant of the jurists and the division of costs
and income between landlord and tenant. It is not easy or illuminating reading. Concision
of expression is avoided. The faint trail of argument often meanders, and revisits ground
already covered or peters out into a dead end. In sad contrast to his previous books, there is no
compensatory intellectual sparkle or drive; K. himself seems weary of the topic.
There are also severe problems of interpretation. The assertion that the jurists give us the most
direct and comprehensive insight into the economic attitudes of the Roman élite is arguable, if
not wrong. Like this book, the Codes are not su¸ciently speciµc to time or place. Their interest
is limited to aspects which involved legal instruments. Hence their relative silence on direct
management as opposed to leasing, which does not re·ect reality. So too their almost complete
silence on sharecropping as opposed to cash rents, which also, as others have convincingly
argued, illustrates their social élitism. That guardians were meant to follow ‘conservative’
management practices, and that legacies to fund benefactions aimed to achieve a regular income,
are not surprising µndings; to claim that this sort of aim was typical of élite attitudes is a step
of faith, not logic. A reader not dazzled by the aura of the jurists may well conclude that once
their rulings are stripped of legal jargon and pedantry, little more is normally left than a banal

          653
common sense and constant fear of fraud. K.’s arguments tend to come unstuck on the
reconstructable realia of Roman agriculture. Intensive viticulture, for example, was (and is) a very
capital-intensive and risky investment; even olive and wheat production, especially if market-
oriented, were far from risk-free. Yet in Roman Italy, and in the provinces, many of the élite chose
to invest in viticulture or oleiculture, and so on. Was this aiming at ‘µnancial stability’? K. tries to
argue, reprising his last book, that landowners pushed the ‘risks’, or at least the investment costs,
onto their tenants. But, even if we leave aside the fundamental question of how common tenancy
was, K.’s visionary norm of the ‘improving tenant’, calculating his own long-term interest (in
a, for K., surprising µt of economic rationalism), is still belied by the overwhelming evidence
for tenant apathy, cheating, and arrears. Undoubtedly there were indolent rentier Romans, who
simply let out all their property and were indi¶erent to its decline while perhaps even claiming or
believing K.’s excuse that this was for ‘µnancial stability’. But in a highly monetized economy (by
premodern standards), in which agricultural yields, imports/exports, and prices ·uctuated from
area to area and year to year, and where, pace K., most tenants did not pay rent reliably, especially
if it was due in cash, let alone invest in the farm they leased, it took more than seeking to avoid
risk to ensure ‘µnancial stability’. The narrow perspective of K.’s book excludes mention of
the abundant evidence for directly managed estates in the Roman world, worked by servile,
tied, and wage labour. Also excluded is the extensive debate about changes in the rural economy
in the Roman world of the Principate, not least in Italy, which is the focus of K.’s book: was it
·ourishing or in decline, what was happening to intensive viticulture, was tenancy on the increase
along with imperial ownership, and so on? The evidence of the jurists can and should be used in
economic history, as scholars such as Capogrossi Colognesi, de Neeve, and Frier have shown, but
to get useful responses, you have to frame your approach properly.
King’s College London D. W. RATHBONE
F. B    : Heinrich Siber und das Römische Staatsrecht von Theodor

Mommsen. Ein Beitrag zur Rezeptionsgeschichte Mommsens im 20.
Jahrhundert (Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft). Pp. 278. Hildes-
heim, Zurich, and New York: Olms-Weidmann, 1999. Paper, DM 74.
ISBN: 3-487-10910-7; ISSN: 0175–3622.
Heinrich Siber (1870–1951) was Professor of Civil Law at Leipzig. Between 1933 and 1944 he
published a number of articles on Roman constitutional law. A monograph encapsulating his
ideas and entitled Römisches Verfassungsrecht in geschichtlicher Entwicklung (Lahr, 1952) was
published posthumously; it is rarely referred to in either English- or German-language
scholarship today (see Crook’s review in JRS 45 [1955], 167¶.).
This Göttingen dissertation, supervised by Jochen Bleicken, has nothing at all to say about
Siber’s career or intellectual development; it lacks even a biographical sketch (for which see
Gnomon 24 [1952], 173¶.). It simply takes three aspects of Roman politics—the tribunate,
‘nobility’, and the principate—and compares the way they were treated by Siber with the way they
had been treated by Mommsen in the Staatsrecht. The approach is validated by the fact that Siber
explicitly claimed that he was rejecting Mommsen’s picture of the Roman constitution as
a coherent system in favour of one which emphasized historical change. Thus Mommsen saw
the tribunate as a plebeian magistracy parallel to the patrician consulship which existed from
(virtually) the beginning of the republic; Siber emphasized its revolutionary origins and traced
the historical development which eventually—with the Lex Hortensia in 287 ..—led to its
full integration into the constitution of the Roman state. B. concludes that Siber’s analysis
failed to live up to its radical claims. This is hardly surprising: the traces of historical change
which primarily interested Siber as an academic lawyer were legislative enactments, and he was
therefore unable to integrate social or cultural changes into his account of the Roman political
élite (‘Nobilität’). Not that Siber was unaware of social factors; his analysis of the Roman world
under the principate begins with an account of the spread of citizenship and its e¶ects—but he
was not able to link that with his representation of the Augustan constitutional innovations.
While this study testiµes to careful reading of the relevant sections of Siber’s Verfassungsrecht
and Mommsen’s Staatsrecht, it has little else to recommend it. There are the formal shortcomings
of a dissertation—frequent repetitive summaries of what has already been stated; the absence of
an index; and a large number of typing errors, most of them merely irritating (pinceps, p. 188),

654          
though Sherman-White (bibliography, p. 274) should not have been allowed to pass. B. does not
claim to hold anything other than conventional views about what actually happened in either
early or Augustan Rome (frequently citing his supervisor). He pays remarkably little attention to
Geizer’s view of the nature of nobilitas. It is not clear that he is aware of some important recent
scholarship (particularly in English—but the absence of any reference to Zanker is also striking),
e.g. on whether the ‘constitution’ of 27 .. was actually a process that went on over a period of
several years. The question whether the very idea of a ‘Verfassung’ throws more light on Rome
or on the imperatives of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Germany is not raised. Certainly
some, if not all, of these questions legitimately lie outside the scope of this dissertation. More
disappointing is the absence of any real attempt to locate Siber’s interpretations within a wider
framework, either of Siber’s own intellectual development or the historical context (with a
Positivist German legal tradition having to give legitimacy to revolutionary movements in both
1918/9 and 1933).
In the UK, such a dissertation might just have been awarded an MPhil. It is regrettable that
there are UK PhD dissertations that represent very much more substantial original contributions
to ancient world scholarship which cannot µnd as reputable a publisher as Olms, and are not
therefore reviewed or noticed in academic journals. There is a case for a more even, as well as
wider, international dissemination of PhD dissertations, perhaps in electronic form.
University of Nottingham THOMAS WIEDEMANN
B. B. P (ed.): Ancient Economic Thought: Volume 1. Pp. x + 271.

London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Cased, £47.50. ISBN: 0-415-
14930-4.
This volume collects nine papers exploring economic thought in di¶erent ancient societies: two
focus primarily on economic thought in Indian literature; two deal with Hebraic or ‘Rabbinic’
economic thought, three with Greek, and two with Roman. The volume has its origins in a 1994
conference at which the speakers were asked to present papers outlining the state of the question
in their particular µeld of expertise. There is no ‘current of ideas’ or single thesis to hold the
volume together, a fact that Price admits in her introduction but suggests is preferable to the
alternative, that the volume become bogged down in a ‘stultifying historiographic or theoretical
dogmatism’ (p. 14). The editor, however, should have tried to pull the papers together in
some manner; at the very least to explore what the di¶erent contributors mean by ‘economic
thought’, about which there is live debate. Meikle, in a recent book—not to be found in this
volume’s bibliography, along with much of his earlier work on the same topic—entitled
Aristotle’s Economic Thought (Oxford, 1995), comments of his own work: ‘the title . . . is
admittedly an odd one for a book which argues that Aristotle did no economic thought, but it
is handy’ (p. 197 n. 31). Lowry, in his important book The Archaeology of Economic Ideas
(Durham, 1987), had earlier adopted a related view. He too suggested there was no ‘economic
thought’ if we conceived ‘economics’ purely in terms of the market, since market theory was
of little use in explaining the workings of the ancient economy. By o¶ering an alternative
deµnition of ‘economics’, however, with the emphasis on the ‘e¸ciency concept’ and on admin-
istrative procedure, he suggested, one could recognize coherent and programmatic ‘thought’ in
the Greek texts. It would have made for a much more coherent volume if this debate had been
addressed.
Leaving aside the weaknesses of this volume as a uniµed whole, however, and turning to the
individual papers, there is much of value. Those papers which impressed most were those about
which I knew least (a coincidence?). Thus the two papers on Indian economic thought—S.
Ambirajan, ‘The Concept of Happiness, Ethics and Economic Values in Ancient Economic
Thought’, and Kishor Thanawala, ‘Kautilaya’s Arthasastra. A Neglected Work in the History of
Economic Thought’—are the best here, easily fulµlling the brief of providing the reader with a
clear, concise, and informative account of previous scholarship in this area, while introducing the
newcomer to a chronologically and intellectually diverse range of ancient Indian texts. More than
this, however, they conduct an implicit dialogue with other papers in this volume and with the
wider debate I outlined above. Thus A.’s paper draws a series of useful parallels and contrasts
between the ideas present in the Indian texts and those of Plato and Aristotle. In particular, A.
observes that both Indian and Greek thinkers saw economics as a subset of ethics and politics, an

          655
idea echoed and ampliµed later in the paper of Lois Baeck, ‘Greek Economic Thought. Initiators
of a Mediterranean Tradition’.
The papers in this volume which least persuade concern, conversely, those topics about which
I have thought most (also a coincidence, I hope!). Bertram Schefold’s ‘Re·ections of Ancient
Economic Thought in Greek Poetry’ is an abridged, but barely revised version of an older paper,
translated from the German. It has su¶ered badly through this process, but was already outdated
and disjointed.
Murray C. McClellan’s ‘The Economy of Hellenistic Egypt and Syria. An Archaeological
Perspective’ implies a dichotomy between the economic rationality of the state administration
and of the individuals operating within this administration, but this is never explained, and one
is left far from certain what this paper might tell us about economic thought in the Hellenistic
period.
The remaining papers fall between these two poles. The distinguished economist Mark
Perlman writes entertainingly about the impact of economic thought in the Jewish and Christian
traditions on modern economics, and his focus on the di¶ering attitudes in them to usury is taken
up in Ephraim Kleiman’s paper on Rabbinic thought. Gloria Vivenza points out the contrast
between the Roman concept of benevolence and Adam Smith’s theory of ‘self-interest’, and yet
acknowledges in, for example, Seneca (De ben. 6.14.3–4) a recognition of Smith’s doctrine. The
last paper, by Alan Samuel, turns the reader’s thoughts towards medieval economic thought by
examining the structural economic changes that took place during the transition from Roman to
medieval Europe.
Notwithstanding the mixed quality of the papers and the lack of any unifying theme, it should
be clear that there is great deal here to stimulate further discussion, and ultimately one can ask no
more than that.
N. C : “Imbecillus sexus”—Le donne nell’Italia antica. Pp. 111.

Brescia: Grafo edizioni, 1999. Paper. ISBN: 88-7385-418-4.
This book comprises four loosely connected studies which C. has resumed from earlier
publications: an overview of Roman society at the transition from republic to principate; a
broad sketch of women’s place within it; a disquisition on the e¶ects of Christianity on Roman
women’s lives; and a brief survey of birth control methods, child exposure included. C. has
written for an audience of Italian students and educated readers, not for scholars. Controversies
are avoided, the topics discussed conventional and unsurprising. In the English-speaking world
the book will have no serious impact and cannot rival existing alternatives. The select but
copious bibliography is a valuable resource.
C.’s views are rigidly uncompromising, and the impression of Roman women’s lives they leave is
bleak. In a male-dominated and hierarchical world where the force of tradition was unrelenting,
women were inferior, dependent beings commonly assimilated to slaves. Poor women, prostitutes,
and those who actually were slaves were especially marginal µgures, and even respectable women
were valued chie·y as instruments—the means by which new citizens were brought into being and
male-prescribed duties within the household fulµlled. Marriage and the family were functional
institutions whose purpose was to preserve the social and ideological status quo, and held no
place for sentiment within them. The egalitarian message of Jesus of Nazareth posed a threat
to the traditional structure of society, but the teachings of Paul and the growth of ecclesiatical
forms controlled by men never allowed its potential for change to be realized. Worse, through
association with Eve Christianity demonized women, and through sexual repression utterly
depersonalized them.
C. is evidently concerned with the general picture. No exceptions or contradictions that any
historian familiar with the full range of evidence will recognize by their omission are permitted to
obscure the stark, essentially one-dimensional, portrait. The book is so generalized in character
that at times it approaches the absurd, as in the claim that Paul’s well-known suspicion and fear
of female initiative and sexuality were more or less common to all men of his era (p. 49), where
the obvious question of how it could possibly be known what every man in Roman Italy of the
mid-µrst century thought (let alone Paul himself ) is simply ignored. Describing women’s daily
lives is said to be a special feature of the book, but for self-evident reasons only representations of
female ideals, or their absence, are forthcoming.

656          
The historian’s task is to recover the past but not to blame it because it is not the present. ‘It is
presumptive’, Syme said long ago, ‘to hold judgement over the dead at all, improper to adduce
any standards other than those of a man’s time, class and station.’ C. repeats the common
feminist lament that the male sources for Roman women’s history are misogynistic. But can it be
plausible that all men in Roman society hated all women all the time? The patriarchal and
hierarchical character of Roman society disadvantaged women, as it did many men, and that
must be clearly stated in any historical analysis. Yet it does not follow that disadvantaging was
based on hate, even if various powerful and articulate males assumed that others in society,
women included, were inferior to them. To judge the past on the basis of modern ideology
produces cliché and polemic, not history. It is unfortunate that ‘misogyny’ has become such a
meaningless term.
University of Victoria K. R. BRADLEY
P. S    , L . S  (edd.): Female Networks and the Public

Sphere in Roman Society. Pp. xiv + 139, µgs. Rome: Institutum
Romanum Finlandiae, 1999. Paper. ISBN: 951-96902-9-8.
We no longer need lament the imbalance of scholarship between Greek and Roman women.
This collection on Roman women attests, like Larsson Lovén and Strömberg’s 1998 volume,
the breadth and liveliness of Scandinavian classical scholarship on the topic. These papers by
Finnish and British scholars originated in an interdisciplinary colloquium at Rome in 1995 and
represent the culmination of a three-year research project funded by the Finnish Academy on
the topic ‘Female Networks in Ancient Rome’.
I have few substantive criticisms, but do regret the lack of any introductory explanation of how
the papers cohere or just how this topic was conceived. Papers by Maria-Leena Hänninen (‘The
Dream of Caecilia Metella’ and ‘Juno Regina and the Roman Matrons’, shown in reverse order in
the contents), Katariina Mustakallio (‘Legendary Women and Female Groups in Livy’), and
Marjatta Nielsen (‘Common Tombs for Women in Etruria: Buried Matriarchies?’) involve
collective activity, chie·y religious or ritual, by women in ancient Italy. But the contributions by
Paivi Setälä (‘Economic Opportunities for Women in the Roman Empire’), Mary Beard (‘The
Erotics of Rape: Livy, Ovid and the Sabine Women’), and Jane F. Gardner (‘Women in Business
Life: Some Evidence from Puteoli’), while valuable in themselves, have little obvious connection
with female networks, apart from Gardner’s negative conclusion that legal and social restraints
excluded women from small services, such as witnessing formal agreements, which cemented
Roman male networks.
My main criticisms are editorial, beginning with the bibliography and the unnecessary
repetition in Beard’s and Mustakallio’s re-telling of Livy’s Sabine women legend. It would
also have been more logical to group together Setälä’s and Gardner’s papers, and Beard’s and
Mustakallio’s, and to have explained why we get two papers by Hänninen on overlapping topics.
That said, the papers themselves are very rewarding, not least because they treat areas hither-
to neglected (women’s commercial activities and funerary groupings), and because of the fresh
insight into Roman women’s public rôles, challenging conventional wisdom about their minimal
religious importance (Hänninen, Mustakallio).
Inevitably, I have some quibbles. Hänninen’s grasp of prosopography and the politics of
religion is less secure than her knowledge of religious ritual. Beard’s persuasive insistence on
the multivalent character of ancient discourse on rape as both erotic and political su¶ered
unnecessarily from her failure to distinguish between rape and abduction (as in ‘Rape of the
Sabine Women’). Mustakallio’s vigorous demonstration of female actors and heroines in Livy’s
narrative overargued the case a little, especially towards the end, but provided an impressive
counter to prevailing views of woman-as-victim in Roman civic legends. Gardner’s fascinating
analysis of female transactions in the Puteoli tablets might more accurately have been called
‘Women in Financial Life’, and her (or the editors’?) failure to italicize the Latin word tutor could
cause confusion. Nielsen inaccurately states (p. 109) that non-manus marriage was a second
century ... innovation, and should have edited the archaeological detail supporting her
cautious speculation about the intriguing phenomenon of Etruscan all-female burials.
But I thoroughly enjoyed reading this varied, lively collection. It will be a boon for my courses

          657
on Roman history, religion, and women’s history. A valuable addition to scholarship on women in
antiquity, it will be welcomed by scholars and students alike. It needs to be in every university
library.
The University of Queensland SUZANNE DIXON
R. S : Origines Gentium Siciliae. Ellanico, Antioco,

Tucidide. (Kókalos Supplement 14.) Pp. 258. Rome: Giorgio
Bretschneider, 1998. Paper, L. 300,000. ISBN: 88-7689-178-1.
In this book dealing with the origins of the pre-Greek peoples of Sicily, S. focuses on three main
literary sources: Hellanicus, Antiochus, and Thucydides. Chapter I (pp. 11–39) deals with the
other literary sources for the ethnic population of Sicily, looking at passages in the Odyssey and
Hecataeus (FGH I). Chapter II (pp. 43–126) concerns Hellanicus of Lesbos (FGH 4, 323a,
608a), best known to most scholars because of Thucydides’ criticisms (1.97.2) of his Attike
Xyngraphe (cf. 2.2.1, 4.133.2; both of these passages almost certainly drawing on Hellanicus’
Priestesses of Hera at Argos). He is especially signiµcant in being the µrst to write a history of
Athens, the founder thereby of a long series of Atthidographers. S. deals with the transmission
of the fragments of Hellanicus, his Troika and Priestesses, and what he has to say about the
ethnography of Sicily, in particular the Sicani and the Sicels, with much of the material dis-
cussed being of a mythical or quasi-historical value.
Chapter III (pp. 12997) deals with Antiochus (FGH 555), opening with a discussion of the
transmission of the fragments of this author (pp. 129–42). Several of the fragments are
translated, with the Greek text in footnotes. The most important of these is F2: ‘Antiochus of
Syracuse . . . in his account of the settlement of Italy recounts how each of the oldest inhabitants
came to possess some part of it, and says in these words that the Oinotrians were the µrst of
those reported to have inhabited it: Antiochus, son of Xenophanes, has written this down
as comprising the most trustworthy and certain of the ancient tales concerning Italy’ (my
translation). Thucydides (6.2) presumably made use of Antiochus in his account of the pre-Greek
peoples of Sicily. Dating Antiochus is di¸cult; he wrote after Herodotus, and is generally
assumed to have been motivated by Herodotus’ lack of attention to the Greeks in the west (due
to their lack of contribution to the struggle against the Persians). Detailed discussion by S. of
Hippys of Rhegium (FGH 554) might have been appropriate: did he exist and, if so, did he write
a Sikelika, Ktisis Italias, Chronika, and Argolika, upon which Antiochus drew, or was he an
invented µgure, with Antiochus deserving the title of the µrst historian of the western Greeks?
Chapter IV (pp. 201–55) deals with Thucydides and what he has to say about the peoples of
Sicily, and the question of the reliability of his account and its sources. Thucydides has little to
say about the origins of the non-Greek peoples, but even this is valuable; more of his attention is
directed towards the origins of the Greeks in Sicily (6.3–5).
The book is clearly set out, and S. has chosen a sensible series of topic points, such as the
reliability of the sources and the information that can be derived from them about the pre-Greek
peoples of Sicily. Whether the work needed to be arranged with a chapter on each of the three
main sources of literary evidence is uncertain, and while the reader is left with a clear indication
of what each source has to say—as well as their shortcomings—a more integrated approach,
looking at overall themes and subject, and what each of the three authors contributes to these,
would have been just as, if not more, appropriate. The book has no index, no list of ancient
passages cited, and no consolidated bibliography. The lack of these items made it a more di¸cult
one to use than might otherwise have been the case. S. has made some use of L. Pearson, The
Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and his Predecessors (Atlanta, 1987), the standard English
account of the western Greek historians (S. Hornblower, Greek Historiography [Oxford, 1994] is
also of some use on Antiochus and Hellanicus), but largely deals with Italian literature and some
important German scholarship. The footnotes are often lengthy, detailed, and useful. This book
will no doubt become the standard account of what these three ancient historians can (and
cannot) tell scholars about the origins of the peoples of Sicily.
University of New England, Australia MAT THEW P. J. DILLON

658          
S. D (ed.): The Legacy of Mesopotamia. Pp. xii + 227, maps,

ills. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Cased, £50. ISBN: 0-19-
814946-8.
This handsomely produced volume follows the tradition of the well-known Oxford series which
surveys the impact of ancient cultures on later periods up to and including modern times. That
this new volume is entitled The Legacy ofMesopotamia and not The Legacy of Babylon is
indicative of its broad historical and geographical perspective. Though names of µve authors
appear on the cover, the majority of the more general studies are the work of Stephanie Dalley,
an eminent Assyriologist, with the others contributing in their areas of specialization.
D. takes the theme of Legacy very seriously and the book is therefore not a general
introduction to the cultural and archaeological history of the Near East from 3000 .. to
.. 700 but a multidisciplinary examination of the in·uence of Mesopotamian culture on Israel,
Greece and Rome, Parthia, and Iran. Given the geographical centrality of Mesopotamia and its
historical importance as the Cradle of Civilization, an assessment of its cultural in·uence
on adjacent civilizations is long overdue and also highly topical. The broad perspective, both
geographical and chronological, allows the inclusion of an extremely informative and important
study by Alison Salvesen on the Aramaic–Syriac culture which dominated the Near East from the
Achaemenids to the Rise of Islam. This wide-ranging book should therefore be of interest to
both Graeco-Roman historians and classicists, as well as scholars of the Old Testament and of
pre-Islamic Iran. For the classical scholar the chapters on Mesopotamian in·uence on the Greek
and Roman world, especially on cultural interchange during the Hellenistic period, when the
region was under Greek political and cultural domination, are particularly valuable. D. is well
informed on Graeco-Roman sources on the Near East, and readers will µnd useful critical
evaluation of the knowledge of the orient as shown in the writings of Herodotus, Ctesias,
Berossus, Isidore of Charax, and Pliny the Elder. As one would expect, much emphasis is placed
on the transmission of wisdom literature, of religious cults, of astronomy, and of sciences to
the Jewish and Graeco-Roman worlds. Here D.’s constant reminder to the reader of the strong
scribal tradition in Mesopotamia is entirely correct. It was undoubtedly the mastery of Greek by
Babylonian scribes which facilitated the transmission of Mesopotamian ideas, tales, and scientiµc
knowledge to the Hellenistic world. There is little evidence of direct translation of cuneiform
material into Greek (the discovery of cuneiform texts with parallel phonetic transcription in
Greek letters [p. 112] shows no more than a possible fascination rather than serious attempt by a
Greek to master the Babylonian language). A multilingual scribal class, on the other hand, could
compose in di¶erent languages without resorting to direct translation. Salvesen’s chapter includes
a valuable but all too brief section on the history of Christianity in Mesopotamia and answers the
oft-asked question as to why the Christians in the Kirkuk area of modern Iraq call themselves
Assyrians (pp. 156–7). I am particularly pleased to see that D. is familiar with Manichaean
sources from Central Asia which show clear traces of Mesopotamian background, especially in
the use by the sect of a version of the Book of Enoch which includes earlier Babylonian material
di¶ering from that preserved in later Christian versions of this important Jewish apocryphal
work. A fascinating study of the impact of the discoveries by Layard and Woolley on the artistic
fashion of more contemporary British society by Henrietta McCall concludes this important
work, which should not be ignored by classical scholars, given the intensity of recent debate on
the origins and originality of Graeco-Roman culture.
Some minor points of correction and comment: the information on Abraham and the Sons
of Heth (i.e. Hittites) from Genesis 23.4 (p. 60) has to be balanced with the seemingly con·ict-
ing statement in Deuteronomy 7.1. Libanius, as a great defender of Hellenism, could not have
possibly written a treatise called ‘Against the Priests’ (p. 153 n. 2)—the edict of 382 referred to by
Salvesen is known to us from his famous speech ‘Pro Templis’ (Oration 33.34). Theodor bar Koni
published his famous Liber Scholorium, which contains invaluable material on both Manichaeans
and Mandaeans, in 791/2 .. and not at the end of the sixth century as stated (p. 165)—his
diocese in Mesopotamia was based in a city (al-Wasit) which was very much a post-Islamic
creation. Manichaean texts were found at Turfan in the Tarim Basin and not in the Gobi Desert
(p. 165), and the fact that texts were written in a script clearly derived from Mesopotamian Syriac
deserves to be mentioned and discussed in Chapter VII together with the literary legacy of the
Mandaeans (p. 143).
Macquarie University SAM LIEU

          659
M.   M   : The Ancient Mesopotamian City. Pp. xv + 269,

19 ills. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Cased, £37.50. ISBN:
0-198-15062-8.
Mesopotamia remains the cradle of urban civilization not only for western Asia but also for the
Mediterranean world. Numerous politically independent city-states appeared in the region of
the Tigris and Euphrates river systems at the beginning of the third millennium, and ·ourished
in the course of the following 1500 years or so. Yet, despite its importance for the origins and
history of urbanism, and in contrast to the widespread interest shown in the cities of the Greeks
and the Romans, for many the study of this region and its cities remains e¶ectively the preserve
of Mesopotamian ‘specialists’. In part this can be explained by the lack of striking, easily
accessible archaeological remains. Many of the sites are e¶ectively artiµcial mounds of
mudbrick (‘tells’), which are not only remote but also, centred on modern Iraq and stretching
into northern Syria, they are situated in some of the most politically sensitive areas of the
Middle East. In part it is due to the lack of easily accessible translations of the original texts
and documents that the history of this region has largely remained the preserve of scholars.
This book attempts to redress this imbalance by opening up to the ‘interested reader’ (intro-
duction, p. xiv) topics which the author regards as central to understanding the cities and urban
life of ancient Mesopotamia.
The introduction explains the aims and scope of the book. The µrst three chapters respectively
deal with the city and society, the origins and character of the Mesopotamian city, and the
Mesopotamian view of the city and its adjacent territory. They e¶ectively set the scene for the
study of the politics, economy, and social and cultural achievements of the cities of ancient
Mesopotamia, which are themes of the subsequent chapters. Chapter IV, ‘The Urban Land-
scape’, examines the physical city, whilst Chapters V and VI discuss the social organization
and government of the cities. Chapters VII–IX examine economic aspects of the cities, and
Chapter X discusses the religious and educational achievements. Chapter XI, ‘The Eclipse of the
Ancient Mesopotamian City’, attempts to answer the question ‘What happened to the ancient
Mesopotamian city?’. In the µnal chapter M. summarizes his conclusions and attempts to place
the Mesopotamian city in the more general history of urbanism.
Chronologically the book is wide-ranging. It begins with the origins of urban life in the region
before 3000 .., and traces their subsequent development. However, M. argues for the historical
continuity of the cities. He maintains that the Mesopotamian cities not only survived loss of
independence after their integration into the Persian empire in 539 .. and their subsequent
incorporation into the empire of Alexander the Great, but also many of the traditional features
of the cities even continued into the µrst century .. (p. 245). Consequently the individual
chapters are equally wide-ranging. The value and importance of the discussion of the topics of
each chapter obviously varies according to the quality and quantity of the available evidence.
Some of the chapters (e.g. Chapter IV) give the reader the ‘·avour’ of what these cities were like.
On the other hand, evidence on some subjects is deµcient, and M. openly admits that at times it is
insu¸cient even to give the basic outline of the subject (e.g. Chapter V ‘Social Organization’,
p. 100; ‘. . . we have to resign ourselves to the fact that certain aspects of urban life in
Mesopotamia will never be known to us . . .’, p. 262).
The text is complemented by a series of line drawings of the major sites where appropriate. The
inclusion of other illustrations and some translated documents also introduces the lay reader to
the nature of the primary evidence. There is a map of the chief sites mentioned in the text, and
a chronological chart. Both will assist the reader unfamiliar with locations of the cities and basic
chronology of the area. M. has tried to avoid lengthy footnotes within the body of the text.
Instead he o¶ers detailed bibliographic references at the end of every chapter. Whilst stylistically
this maintains the unity of the text, it means that the reader who wants to follow up a particular
point cannot check the nature of the evidence without e¶ort. Again the ‘interested reader’ might
not be totally conversant with the urban theories of Max Webber or M. I. Finley, which are at
times discussed.
The cities of Mesopotamia are not only crucial for understanding the achievements of
Mesopotamian civilization, they also represent our earliest evidence for urbanism in the Near
East. Whilst some of the ideas in the book might be disputed, it nevertheless o¶ers a starting
point to the cities of Mesopotamia for both the lay reader and the undergraduate student.
University of Wales Swansea E. J. OWENS

660          
P. A , P. C  (edd.): Geographica Historica. Pp. 278,

µgs. Bordeaux and Nice: Ausonius, 1998. Cased, frs. 298. ISBN:
2-91023-12-5.
This volume of articles makes a solid, if rather unspectacular, contribution to our ideas about
and knowledge of ancient geography. There is a little for everyone: studies of individual sites
or regions, discussions of the textual sources, combined with the occasional wider re·ection on
the relevance and importance of geography towards an understanding of the Graeco-Roman
world.
The editors themselves make solid contributions to the theme. Patrick Arnaud, in addition to
an analysis of place names in the extant itineraries, ‘Les toponymes en -iana/-ianis des itinéraires:
des villes de Ptolémée aux grandes domaines?’, writes a valuable introduction, which contains
some of the best writing in the book; as an overview of the sources and the uses which can be
made of them, it is well worth reading by scholars interested in ancient geography. His overall
perspective, in which Quellenforschung remains the key tool for ancient geographers, might not
be shared by many. Indeed, one might µnd the list of approaches o¶ered here rather limited.
However, as an introduction to a collection of articles, it serves its purpose. Patrick Counillon,
his fellow editor, contributes ‘Μιν3ξ "σνοΚ’, which analyses the textual data we possess for
harbourage in Cyprus.
Amongst the papers presented, several deal with the sources available for the study of ancient
geography; C. Meuret, ‘Outils mathématiques et données itinéraires: ré·exions sur l’évaluation de
la circonférence terrestre chez Ptolemée’, P. Janni, ‘Cartographie et art nautique dans le monde
ancien’, and J. Desanges, ‘Du bon usage d’Agatharchide ou de la nécessité de la Quellen-
forschung’, all occupy themselves with questions about the sources, although from di¶ering
perspectives. These studies µt well with the title and stated purpose of the volume, at least as
outlined in the introduction. None are particularly exhaustive, however, being merely illustrative
of the scope of our problems.
From the perspective of the researcher interested in concrete problems of site-identiµcation
and regional analysis, the most valuable contributions in the volume might well be the two articles
devoted to the geography of relatively under-researched areas, Mauretania and the Euphrates
valley. A. Arnaud-Portelli, ‘Babba Iulia Campestris, cité perdue de Maurétanie Tingitane?’, and
J. Gaborit and P. Leriche, ‘Géographie historique de la vallée du Moyen Euphrate’, should both
be useful to other scholars. Portelli’s piece, unlike that of her co- contributors, deals with a very
speciµc problem; it will therefore prove most useful to most researchers interested in the urban
development of the region. However, both articles provide, via the discussion and references,
good background surveys to the areas they deal with.
It has to be noted that there is a clear imbalance in this volume in terms of the regions it
embraces. For example, a number of studies deal with the western Mediterranean. F. Prontera,
‘La Sicilia nella tradizione della geograµa greca’, Y. Marion, ‘Pline et l’Adriatique orientale:
quelques problèmes d’ interprétation d’Histoire Naturelle 3.129–152’, and V. Vedaldi Iasbez,
‘La Venezia orientale nella geograµa tolemaica’, all concentrate on a comparative analysis of
data given by the major geographers of antiquity—Strabo, Pliny, and Ptolemy. By contrast,
apart from Counillon’s piece on Cyprus noted above, only one short article in the collection deals
with an area of the Eastern Mediterranean, that by R. Descat, ‘Pline et la Carie’, which notes,
rather unremarkably, that Pliny made lists, but provided no coherent picture of the region.
Furthermore, as might perhaps be expected, several pieces are devoted to Gaul in antiquity,
which range from R. Chevalier’s ‘Géographie, topographie, archéologie et histoire de la Gaule’
(an overview of the importance of geographical information on the history of the age) to
J.-P. Bost’s ‘Les routes d’Aquitaine dans les itinéraires antiques’ and J.-L. Fiches’s ‘Ambrussum,
l’équipement d’une station’, which both deal with more speciµc problems.
The typical problems inherent in creating volumes of this type are thus manifest here: the
articles lack a cohesive theme and, despite any claims to the contrary found in the introduction,
methodologies do vary. There is little apparent order to the pieces, and several are too bland to
have any immediate impact on ancient scholarship. On the other hand, the reader is presented
with a variety of approaches, which in itself might spark further re·ection. Read together with
the introduction, the pieces combine to illustrate many recent trends in ancient geographical
writing. Thus, what is lost through lack of focus might perhaps be redeemed by the volume’s
appeal to a wider readership.
Keio University ROGER M. BATTY

          661
C. S  (ed.): Nature et paysage dans la pensée et l’environment des

civilisations antiques. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 11–12 juin 1992.
(Université des Sciences humaines de Strasbourg: Travaux du Centre
de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques, 14.) Pp. 223.
Paris: De Boccard, 1996. ISBN: 2-911488-02-4.
This volume publishes a series of seventeen conference papers—contemporary with the
Leicester–Nottingham Ancient History Seminar published as C. Shipley and J. Salmon (edd.),
Human Landscapes in Classical Antiquity: Environment and Culture (London, 1996)—which
explore the di¶erences between ‘nature’, ‘environment’, and ‘countryside’. They range in scope
from Bronze Age sacred gardens in the Near East to the writings of Basil and Augustine. Some
are mainly archaeological in content, others more literary.
Unlike Human Landscapes, which was edited into a carefully presented volume, this set of
papers has a looser structure; there is no index, nor a concordance to passages cited. The µrst
paper, by D. Beyer, deals with the sacred gardens of Emar in north Syria, and takes as its starting
point the Jewish tradition of the Garden of Eden (pp. 11–19). Excavations have revealed a terrace
with holes for the planting of small trees and shrubs in pots. These remains are compared with a
model sacred site now in the Louvre. A. Farnoux continues the archaeological thread with a
consideration of the paintings from the west house at Thera (pp. 21–30), arguing that a realistic
representation of the natural world does not necessarily imply a speciµc location.
A.-M. Adam considers the appearance of vegetation and landscapes in Etruscan funerary
paintings such as the tomb of the Hunting and Fishing at Tarquinia (pp. 31–8). The contextual
setting of death is contrasted with the iconographical themes of growth and life. The natural
world also contrasts with the organized ‘normal’ world of the city. It might have been worth
considering how the iconography of Athenian µgure-decorated pottery placed in Etruscan tombs
extended such themes. C. Siebert considers the representation of grottos in archaic and classical
art, mostly from Athenian black- and red-µgured pottery (pp. 47–57). There are helpful line
drawings which turn the two-dimensional drawings into a three-dimensional view of the scene
that the ‘artist’ had envisaged. M. Halm-Tisserant discusses space and perspective on archaic
µgure-decorated Greek pottery, especially the Attic black-µgured Panathenaic amphora in the
Bibliothèque Nationale (pp. 39–45). He raises important issues about the presentation of
perspective in two-dimensional art. X. Lafon completes the archaeological and art historical
contribution with a discussion of the representation in Roman wall-painting of maritime villas
(pp. 129–43).
R. G. A. Buxton explores the ancient Greek deµnition of a mountain which can range
from outcrops like mount Olympos to the Kronion at Olympia, standing a mere 123 m high
(pp. 59–68). There are helpful observations on the uses of a mountain, which should be linked to
H. A. Forbes’s consideration of the ‘wilderness’ in the Greek countryside (in Shipley and Salmon,
Human Landscapes). The rôle of the mountain in antiquity is explored through A. Chioniotis’s
detailed study of ancient Crete (pp. 91–107); this can now be usefully read alongside O. Rackham
and J. Moody, The Making of the Cretan Landscape (Manchester, NY, 1996). Chioniotis provides
an appendix of plants and herbs with ancient references. Topographical disputes in the ancient
world were sometimes formalized through agreements—see, for example, the series of boundary
disputes between Methana and its neighbours Troezen and Epidauros (discussed in C. Mee
and H. Forbes [edd.], A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the
Methana Peninsula, Greece [Liverpool, 1997], pp. 270–3, nos. 9–11)—and Fr. Gschnitzer relates
an inscription (IG ix.12 609) to the topography of West Locris (pp. 79–89).
Several contributions consider the use of landscape in speciµc authors. D. Lenfant draws on a
number of ancient authors, including Herodotus, Ctesias, and part of the Hippocratic corpus, to
explore how the environment, if not spatial settings, in·uenced di¶erent peoples (pp. 109–20).
W. D. Furley explores the theme of nature and violence in Thucydides through the case studies of
Pylos and Sphacteria, and the Athenian expedition to Sidly (pp. 69–78). From a Roman position,
H. Pavis d’Escuriac examines the appearance of nature and countryside in the correspondence of
Pliny the Younger (pp. 183–92), and M. von Albrecht discusses the natural world in Catullus (46)
and Horace (c. 4, 4.7, 4.12) (pp. 145–57). Looking to the Greek east, A. Jacquemin considers
natural curiosities such as sacred groves as observed by Pausanias (pp. 121–8). The Late Antique
dimension is explored by A. M. Ritter through the writings of Basil and Augustine (pp. 193–8).
The perspective of the Italian countryside through Goethe’s eyes is presented by E. Chistmann
(pp. 159–81). This provides a route for exploring the working of the Roman agricultural economy.

662          
The volume is drawn together by an essay on ‘Les proto-paysages’ by A. Roger (pp. 199–205),
which starts with a re·ection on A. Berque, Les raisons du paysage: de la Chine antique aux
environnements de synthèse (Paris, 1995). Siebert sums up his edited volume as ‘un panorama
incomplet des paysages de l’Antiquité orientale et classique’ (p. 10). The view may be incomplete,
but the essays point us to new vantage points.
University of Wales Swansea DAVID W. J. GILL
K. P- W  : The Sanctuary of Aphaia on Aigina in the

Bronze Age. Pp. ix + 193, 74 pls, µgs. Munich: Hirmer, 1998. DM 120.
ISBN: 3-7774-8010-X.
The importance of prehistoric Aigina has long been appreciated, notably via the long-running
excavations at the Kolonna site. In this volume, Pilaµdis-Williams addresses the Late Bronze
Age record of the Aphaia sanctuary, a site better known from its Archaic and later remains, and
in so doing, adds a new dimension to our understanding of the island as a whole by revealing a
key aspect of its cult history. Over and above the historical importance of her conclusions,
however, the methodological approach adopted places this work at the forefront of research
into the archaeology of cult. The Bronze Age record of the Aphaia site is of a kind familiar at
sanctuaries of all periods throughout the Greek world; fragmentary material displaced in the
course of a complex developmental sequence over centuries, often excavated many decades ago
and documented according to the standards of the time. How, therefore, should one interpret
such later selections and regroupings (deliberate or fortuitous) without reliable information
about the real nature of the original assemblage and its context? It is greatly to P.-W.s’ credit
that she addresses these issues head-on, and her study deserves to be widely used by scholars
facing these all-too-common circumstances elsewhere.
The chief contribution of this study is the creation of an analytical framework for site
characterization which complements and extends Renfrew’s work at Phylakopi to address the
speciµc circumstances of open-air cult places. Taking as her starting point Renfrew’s study as the
most systematic model of sanctuary identiµcation yet proposed, P.-W. o¶ers an admirably
thorough critique, eliminating or ranking overlapping behavioural correlates, addressing the
varying circumstances of open, built, and overbuilt sites, and taking a robust view of unduly
general terminology (for example, in apposite criticism of simple distinctions between o¸cial and
popular cult). Whilst it certainly will not be the last word on a complex and challenging area of
analysis, this study signiµcantly advances the archaeology of cult.
The most striking feature of the Bronze Age record at Aphaia is the large quantity of terra-
cotta µgurines (unusually, more plentiful than pottery), with a wide variety of female, animal, and
group subjects, and also the larger µgures generally characteristic of cult activity. Pottery shapes,
unsurprisingly, resemble a normal settlement assemblage, with the low percentage of plainwares
typical of such circumstances of preservation and retrieval. Other small µnds are also predictably
few—a helmet and arrowhead, thirty-µve seals, and terracotta anchors. Exceptional is a small
collection of zoomorphic rhyta, especially hedgehogs, which P.-W. convincingly relates to the
character of the cult. The catalogue of generally fragmentary and worn material is thorough, and
the commentary includes a useful review of scholarship on terracottas, whether common types or
the kourotrophoi, which are unusually frequent and also help to deµne the nature of the deity.
There are a number of points where speciµc conclusions, especially regarding kourotrophos
typology and chronology, could be disputed, but the clear presentation and full illustration of the
data facilitate critical evaluation of the author’s conclusions, and these uncertainties should not
detract from the overall thrust of the work.
In characterizing the deity/ies worshipped, P.-W. rightly highlights the exceptional aspects
of the record, notably the kourotrophoi and rhyta, and makes telling (if perhaps too limited)
comparisons with other Bronze Age shrines, especially Epidauros. Her conclusions concerning
the distinctive and highly local nature of Britomartis o¶er an interesting comparison with the
later Aphaia cult, yet she treads carefully in resisting the temptation to retroject from the
later cult. The principal focus of the book is the presentation and evaluation of the record from
Aphaia. Consideration is given to the physical location of the site and its place within the social
topography of the island, as well as to comparison with the material record of other sites on
Aigina and elsewhere, but only in comparatively limited fashion—clearly these must be important
areas for future research. In short, this is a thorough, succinct, and modestly understated work

          663
which delivers much more that its title suggests. It deserves to be used as a springboard for future
research on Aigina and in the broader pursuit of Greek sanctuary archaeology.
King’s College London CAT HERINE MORGAN
Z. B  : ]ξα αησουιλ ιεσ τυιΚ ΑιηιΚ Μαλψξ#αΚ

(∆θνοτιε ναυα υοφ ασγαιοµοηιλο δεµυ#οφ, 62). Pp. 230, 67 pls.
Athens: Ypourgeio Politismou, 1998. Price: drs 10,000. ISBN: 960-214-
190-5 (ISSN: 1108-1244).
Those who think not enough archaeology has been done in Laconia in recent years will take
especial pleasure in contemplating this all too rare phenomenon, a monograph devoted to a
single Laconian site. Bonias o¶ers a comprehensive and meticulous report (with a detailed µnds
catalogue, pp. 123–220) on the excavation of a rural sanctuary at Aigiés near Gýtheio, near the
probable site of ancient Aigiai.
Despite its poor state of preservation, the site was particularly rich in µfth-century µnds;
votives continued sporadically in the fourth century and the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
There are two archaic building phases; a Roman phase is represented by a single wall fragment.
The sculptures, evidently vandalized by the early Christians (against whom B. exhibits
unnecessary spleen), include cult statue fragments of c. 540–520 .. and the early classical
period, and parts of an over-life-size male µgure of the late second or early µrst century .. The
pottery is mainly of c. 650–500 .., with some second- and third-century .. lamp fragments. Of
particular interest is an inscribed spherical haltêr (jumping-weight) of c. 525–500 .. dedicated
by Tachistolawos to Timagenes (see now SEG 38.328); B. suggests that the names are those of a
victorious pentathlete and a local hero of Aigiai respectively. The large assemblage of mainly
female terracotta µgurines dates from the seventh century on, with a marked falling o¶ in the late
classical and Hellenistic periods. The principal cult deity is identiµed as Artemis. Like the lamps,
the only coins (third- and fourth-century ..) may indicate a revival of local interest in old cult
places.
B.’s brief discussion of Aigiai as a perioikic polis (pp. 115–20) was evidently written too long
before publication to take account of recent work (it is not, in fact, certain that Aigiai was a polis
in classical times). His comments on the excavation and µnds, however, have an important bearing
on perioikic Laconia: for example, his observation that the fourth-century and Hellenistic
artefacts sometimes imitate those of other regions, and his suggestion that innovations in
Laconian art were due mainly to the perioikoi because of their geographical position, their
relative autonomy, and their di¶erent understanding of artistic issues (p. 16).
The invaluable data so fully presented here are an important addition to the evidence for
ancient Laconia, and will play a signiµcant rôle in future discussion of Sparta’s dependent
territories.
University of Leicester GRAHAM SHIPLEY
J. M . C  , R . V. N: Old Smyrna Excavations: the

Temples of Athena. Pp. xxviii + 214, 42 µgs, 30 pls. London: The British
School at Athens, 1998. Cased, £50. ISBN: 0-904887-28-6.
The successive temples of Athena at Old Smyrna were excavated in 1948–51 as part of a joint
Anglo-Turkish project directed by Akurgal and Cook, who was then the Director of the British
School at Athens. A series of articles in the BSA presented the history of the site, the develop-
ment of the fortiµcations, the pottery, and the inscriptions. However, it was agreed that the
account of the architecture of the temples should await the publication of the domestic archi-
tecture by the Turkish team. This appeared in 1983: E. Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna I, Wohnschichten
und Athenatempel (Ankara). Preparation of the volume under review then resumed. Cook died
in 1994, but it has been seen through to completion by Nicholls. The stated objective is to set
out the character, date, and an interpretation of the physical remains of the temples. The wish

664          
to correct ‘misunderstandings’ in Akurgal’s publication was clearly an important consideration
as well. Regrettably the joint project did not lead to an integrated report.
Part 1, by Cook, deals with the architectural sequence revealed by the excavations which
were on the north-east side of the tell, just inside the line of the fortiµcations. There is a brief
description of the main features in each phase, enlivened by reconstructions, and their likely
date is deduced from the associated pottery. Part 2, by Nicholls, contains a detailed analysis of
the architecture: City Wall I (820–740 ..), the Inner Defence Platform (740–690), Temple I
(690–630), Temple II (630–610), Temples IIIA–C and IVA (610–600), Temple IVB (580–545),
Temples IVC and IIID (545–494), and Temple IVD (460–300). The µnal chapter sets the
developments at Old Smyrna in their wider context.
Temple I was a simple apsidal structure which may have had a thatched roof. This was replaced
by a rectangular temple (II) with a peristyle of wooden columns. Late in the seventh century the
monumental Temple III was under construction but c. 600 .. the Lydians captured and sacked
Smyrna. Temple III was completely dismantled and can only be hypothetically restored. Never-
theless, it is clear that the columns, of white tu¶, had Aeolic capitals. There has been considerable
debate about the origins of the Aeolic order. Nicholls believes that the Aeolians and Ionians
had brought the Mycenaean concept of wooden columns to East Greece and used them in
their palaces. Under Palestinian in·uence, the plain abacus of the Mycenaean capitals eventually
took the form of a decorative volute. The Aeolic order evolved µrst and was followed by the Ionic
order early in the sixth century. Nicholls identiµes Phocaea as an architectural ‘centre of
excellence’ which had a prominent rôle in these innovations and may have supplied the skilled
craftsmen who supervised the construction of Temple III. There was an attempt to rebuild
Temple III in the early µfth century, around the time of the Ionian Revolt. The more modest
Temple IV started life as an interim shrine while Temple III was under construction and con-
tinued in use until the late fourth century, when Old Smyrna was abandoned.
This report has had a lengthy and di¸cult gestation but it provides an impressively detailed
insight into the process of monumentalization in Greek architecture and the evolution of the
orders.
University of Liverpool CHRISTOPHER MEE
H. H : Sotades. Symbols of Immortality on Greek Vases.

Pp. xvi + 205, 108 µgs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Cased, £70.
ISBN: 0-19-815061-X.
Some of the works of the potter Sotades, and of the Sotades Painter—notably the British
Museum’s white-ground cups—have become familiar. Others have not, and it is the great virtue
of this well-illustrated (but overpriced) book that it brings them together. Herbert Ho¶mann
addresses from the beginning the identity of potter and painter, a crucial issue, since his mission
is to convince readers both of the connection between Sotadean vase-shapes (primarily the
distinctive forms of rhyton) and the scenes they bear, and of the essential unity of those scenes.
One might expect a close deµnition of the criteria by which these works have been grouped:
we have Beazley’s lists, the basis of the catalogue (pp. 151–74), but no further discussion and,
regrettably in a study much concerned with potting, only one proµle drawing.
Noting that the Sotades inscriptions are apparently written by di¶erent hands, H. claims that
‘the name may designate neither a potter nor a painter but possibly the silversmith (toreutes)
who created many of the precious-metal originals which then became the models for the pottery
vessels’ (p. 148), and that most of the rhyta are ‘mechanical replicas of works in precious metal’.
However, this view undermines the main purpose of the book, and H. has already modiµed it:
‘the silversmiths’ motifs were developed and varied by the potters, whose products thus displayed
a certain creativity of their own, particularly in their painted decoration’ (p. 7), again blurring
the distinction between potter and painter. Accordingly, Sotades now becomes ‘an expert
and imaginative coroplast’ (p. 148), whose images, far from being ‘mechanical replicas’, have
‘profundity’ (p. 150).
H. never disentangles potter and painter. What, then, of the imagery? The belief that ‘there
must be a sense connection between the di¶erent images in a vase’ (p. 210), and that ‘the plastic
bestiary of these rhyta always correlates in meaning with the painted decoration’ (p. 13) is, like
much else, asserted rather than argued, the closest to justiµcation being that the ‘iconology’ which
H. uses enables him to discover and interpret ‘symbolical values . . . often unknown to the artist

          665
himself and perhaps even di¶ering from what he intended consciously to express’ (p. 3); similarly,
the viewer understands ‘at whatever subconscious level’ (p. 20), and ‘the audience comes to intuit’
meanings (p. 32) and see ‘implicit sense’ (p. 59). There is merit in this, but also the danger of
giving carte blanche to interpret according to preconception. Here, it is too often used as a
Procrustean rack; for example, for H., the female µgure on pp. 86–7, Fig. 46 ‘can only be Athena’.
True, if she is to µt H.’s theory; but he produces no objective reason why this inherently improb-
able conclusion should be reached.
The problem this illustrates is fundamental to the book, which dances with dogma from the
µrst pages, undervaluing much previous scholarship, which has been more concerned with the
wider signiµcance of scenes on painted pottery than H. admits. His discussions of individual
pieces are stimulating and well documented, the scenes wide-ranging; in Chapter I, they include
satyrs and maenads, departing warriors, pygmies and cranes, all seen as sharing a ‘mystic
Dionysian character’, a theme which dominates H.’s interpretations. Throughout, one misses
a sense of how the Sotadean oeuvre µts contemporary developments in vase-painting. Without
broader assessment of Dionysian imagery (H. wrote too early to use T. H. Carpenter, Dionysian
Imagery in Fifth-century Athens [Oxford, 1997]), it is hard to see how distinctive the Sotadean use
of Dionysos is. Similarly, the departure of the warrior (pp. 26, 32, Fig. 9a,b), rightly producing
a reference to Perikles’ funeral oration, is nonetheless not overtly related to contemporary wars
(or to war in general), but subsumed into the view that ‘the vases these pictures decorate were
primarily religious o¶erings, and that all religions were principally concerned with death’ (p. 32).
While this may be true, it is an explanation which suggests that H. has had some di¸culty µtting
this vase into the framework he has constructed from the beginning, and with which he has
constrained his interpretations. Perhaps the obvious, as well as the subconscious, should be given
a chance. One µnal omission is the consumer, whose rôle in determining which images were
popular needs to be considered alongside H.’s ‘holistic interpretation of the Sotadean oeuvre’
(p. ix), in case the latter gives Sotades too great a prominence as an artist able to create and
maintain close control over a large body of work.
King’s College London K. W. ARAFAT
C. C. M : Classical Bronzes. The Art and Craft of Greek

and Roman Statuary. Pp. xvii + 241, ills. Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press, 1996. ISBN: 0-8014-3182-4.
Parts of this detailed and well-documented, yet eminently readable, book have been published
in earlier versions (p. xi), but the reiteration of technical matters makes it self-contained, and
the detailed discussions accessible. Mattusch’s is not the last word on technique—see now, for
example, the analysis of the clay cores from the Riace bronzes (G. Lombardi and M. Vidale,
Journal of Archaeological Science 25 [1998], 1055–66)—but she fully presents the state of the
art. This is not a technical treatise, and it discourages us from equating technical and stylistic
advances. As M. notes, kouroi exist in marble and bronze, with bronze-casters initially follow-
ing established types, rather than immediately exploiting the medium (pp. 8, 21); that came in
the µfth century with the advent of action µgures, notably athletes (p. 22).
M.’s main plea is to redeµne ‘original’ and ‘copy’, arguing convincingly that ‘copying, or
reproduction with moulds, is a fundamental characteristic’ of bronze statuary (p. 149). This is
most fully set out in Chapter V, and traced back to the Geometric period (pp. 150, 217).
M. uses literary sources to illustrate technique and demonstrate the prominence and signiµ-
cance of bronzes. She asks important questions of the sources, e.g. how many statues would
Pliny and Pausanias have seen (pp. 33–4, 65, although there is no mention of Pausanias’ note that
Nero took 500 bronze statues from Delphi [10.7.1]). There are some omissions: for example,
in discussing gilded statues, she cites Pausanias on the statue of Phryne (p. 28), but does not
mention that most other sources say it was golden. M. would have found more ammunition in
Athenaeus, who refers to works such as Alcetas’ On the Dedicatory O¶erings at Delphi (13.591c),
or Hegesander’s Statues of Men and Gods (5.210b). These could have informed writers such as
Pausanias, and would, if preserved, have given us a fuller picture of the quantity, range, types,
and distribution of ancient statuary of all media.
M. rightly asks what we have lost, but also concentrates on what we possess through a broad
range of examples set in their historical context and treated for their technique and wider
signiµcance in the development of sculpture. In Chapter II, she considers groups such as the
666          
Eponymous Heroes at Athens and Delphi, seeing them as variations on a small number of basic
types. This is technically credible, and sensible in speeding the work—here one sees why M. is
keen to establish the quantity of bronze production in the Classical period. The method has the
virtue of being e¶ectively invisible, since the changes made to the basic types would be su¸cient
to disguise their shared origin. M. argues that the Riace bronzes are based on the same model
(p. 64); she notes Rolley’s ‘di¶ering opinion’ (n. 63), but does not explain or respond to it (nor
does she mention dissenting voices on the identity of ‘Kleobis and Biton’, pp. 4–5, 149).
Chapter III, ‘Portraits’, mainly concerns Lysippos, his contemporaries, and his in·uence.
Chapter IV, ‘Bronzes of Uncertain Date’, uses a fourth-century stele listing bronzes on the
Athenian Acropolis to begin an intriguing, but brief, discussion of issues such as the lifetime of
statues, and whether they were allowed to deteriorate, moving to problems caused by restoration
methods, such as the di¸culty of accurate dating. This leads to discussion of pieces from the
Agora and of the Piraeus bronzes. The latter have recently been thoroughly treated by Olga
Palagia (ed.), Greek O¶erings (Oxford, 1997), pp. 177–95, but M. comes to some of the same
conclusions, notably that the Apollo may be second century .. It is worth adding that the study
of the Riace cores mentioned above also revealed that the technique of the cores of their chests
and legs is also used on the Piraeus Apollo (and, incidentally, the Getty bronze); it is not clear,
however, that this is a chronological pointer. Chapter V, as mentioned, argues for more careful use
of ‘original’ and ‘copy’, stressing that di¶erent styles were used in one period, a point made also
in Chapter VI about the Foundry cup and the Vani torso. Chapter VII reiterates the central points
of the book and deals more with the art market than even the µrst chapter, which, despite its title
(‘Art, Market and Product’), does not tackle issues such as the relationship between producer and
consumer, the process and importance of commissioning, and the relative ease of acquiring
bronze or marble statuary. The client appears (e.g. pp. ix–x, 100, 160, 190), but retains a low
proµle. This is, perhaps, for a future book; if so, it is to be hoped that M. will write it.
King’s College London K. W. ARAFAT
F. C : Revixit ars. Arte e ideologia a Roma. Dai modelli

ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana. Pp. xix + 595. Rome: Edizioni
Quasar, 1997. L. 135,000. ISBN: 88-7140-092-5.
This book is structured as a selection of individual studies which the author has been
developing for about thirty years. However, the selection is not a haphazard one, despite the
diversity of topics addressed. It seeks to produce a deeper understanding of a single theme,
namely the relationship between two artistic cultures, Greek and Roman, in one historical
phase, namely the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world.
Reading this collection of studies and articles is, above all, a process of veriµcation and of
experiment which the reader undertakes with the author (who continually demonstrates the
honing of his skills in researching and interpreting evidence of all kinds), a shared journey along
an uneven path, with glimpses of insight into a speciµc intellectual problem. This, I believe, is the
greatest strength of the book, beyond the particular scholarly advances and details present in
each chapter.
As early as his study of Polykles (1970), Coarelli announced a coherent plan of research: ‘One
will only truly understand the origins of Roman art when one has undertaken fundamental study
of the artistic culture of Rome in the second century .. The course of that century saw the µnal
demise of “middle Italic” art when, from the dissolution of that homogeneous world, emerged
the basis of a new culture.’
Superµcially, some of the articles in this collection appear to be far from the principal focus of
C.’s research. However, they do show us a way in which his project has been advanced, by starting
from points of departure apparently distant from the central theme. These points of departure
range from interpretation of the paintings of the François tomb to examination of the tomb of
the Scipios, from trade in works of art to functional and ideological study of the Roman house,
and the more modest manifestations of visual culture such as reliefs and terracottas. All of
C.’s individual studies are open to diverse forms of interpretation. They may focus on broad
cultural issues, on the oblique character of possible meanings, on the impact of geographical and
historical conditions. The author seeks to understand and locate the object under study, to set it

          667
in a context which is meaningful, and which in turn provides information about the circumstances
in which the object is set.
Reading the ancient world like this, on di¶erent levels, with disciplinary distinctions overcome
(C.’s research shows accumulated expertise as archaeologist, topographer, and epigrapher),
enables the author to draw together diverse strands of research into a central thread of know-
ledge, and also enables us, from time to time, to check against one another the contributions of
the di¶erent disciplines.
The demise of the rich tradition of middle Italic artistic production, characterized by its use
of Hellenizing models derived from Magna Graecia, is set in the context of the troubles of
its middle- and lower-ranking consumers, and of the breaking up of small and middle-sized
land holdings. The dissolution of a homogeneous culture was the result of these processes. The
growth of large senatorial and equestrian land holdings worked by slave labour was the point of
departure for artistic production specialized for distinct, separate élite and plebeian markets.
The dichotomy between Greece and Rome is shown throughout the book to be one which
is limited by the starkness of such a simplistic distinction, but one which was very solid when
considered in the light of its reality in an historical context. The appropriation of Greek models
by élites is viewed less in a generalizing manner than in terms of its actual and varied reality. This
gives the relationship between Greece and Rome a signiµcance which µts well with its historical
circumstances, and which is in line with the transformations which Roman society underwent in
the same period. Only in this way can the generic dependence of Roman artistic production, a
cliché which goes back as far as ancient literary sources, be viewed in an historical context. The
Greco-Hellenistic frames of reference of some late republican individuals (such as T. Quinctius
Flamininus), derived from the monarchies of the eastern Greek world, can be deµned by their
contrast with the classical Greek references present in the behaviour of L. Aemilius Paullus, who
seems to have taken to himself and re-elaborated Cato’s stance. Also in Paullus’ behaviour—
he addressed Perseus in Greek while his monument at Delphi was inscribed in Latin—we see
underlined the possibility of grasping another characteristic feature of the late republic and early
empire, namely the public–private distinction.
This, perhaps, is the most innovative lesson of this book: openness to discussion and
collaboration between disciplines, and willingness to be receptive to new approaches and new
interpretations when studying the ancient world.
Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples IDA BALDASSARRE
F. G. L P  : I vasi italioti della Collezione Ragusa di Taranto.

Pp. 79, 65 pls. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1999. Paper. ISBN: 88-
7689-142-0.
The Ragusa Collection, currently in the collector’s house in Taranto, includes bronzes, terra-
cottas, coins, lamps, glass, and pottery, both Greek and the Italiote material catalogued here.
Most of it was collected in Taranto and its hinterland; the vases catalogued here are proto-
Lucanian, Apulian, Gnathian, and Campanian, and form an interesting stylistic sequence,
with a conspectus of shapes and themes which is perhaps more interesting than entirely
representative. The µrst item, a bell-krater from c. 440–430 .., is among the early works of the
Pisticci Painter, himself credited by Trendall with pioneering work in establishing red-µgure in
Southern Italy. Its rather polite satyrs and maenad and its B-side mantle µgures are very like
their Athenian contemporaries. Thereafter the particular charms of the various Italiote fabrics
assert themselves, and can be charted in the admirably clear plates. We move through rather
enigmatic ritual and drama, animal studies and elegant ·orals, until we reach a µne kernos,
and a group of six µsh plates, two with sinister, beaky river-perch. The collection was clearly
assembled with knowledge and a¶ection, and few of the vases are run-of-the-mill workshop
output. Monster-spotters will like no. 17, an Apulian pelike with a scene identiµed by Lo Porto
as a dramatic presentation of Perseus, attacking a lumpy and pneumatic ketos; no. 87, a µne
Campanian hydria, has a pair of naked warriors in improbable headgear squaring up for an
awkward spear-and-shield encounter. My own favourite is the Apulian chous, no. 16, which
shows, between a pair of concerned Pans, a prone Herakles sleeping o¶ a very demanding
picnic, stretched on his lion-skin amid the debris.
University of Glasgow ELIZABETH MOIGNARD

668          
H. H    : Stadtrömische und italische Girlandensarkophage

I. (Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs 6.2.1.) Pp. 188, 112 pls. Berlin: Gebr.
Mann, 1996. DM 198. ISBN: 3-7861-1890-6.
Such was the popularity of garland sarcophagi that this volume, with its catalogue of 186
entries, represents only those from the city of Rome and Italy of the µrst two centuries ..
Herdejürgen’s primary interests are to provide a secure and detailed chronology, and to identify
coherent workshop groups. Her main tool is meticulous stylistic analysis and comparison: as
few of the sarcophagi themselves are securely dated by external evidence, many other types of
relief are examined to establish period styles, which are then used to put the sarcophagi in a
chronological sequence. The sarcophagi in turn are compared with each other to suggest the
workshop groupings. Each sarcophagus is thus conµdently dated, and an impressive proportion
of the corpus assigned to a workshop.
The discussion is arranged according to chronological bands. The earliest (pre-Hadrianic),
although covering over a century, contains only µfteen pieces, a disparate group with little in
common with the later series. The much-discussed sarcophagus of Tebanianus in Pisa is given
the surprisingly early date of .. 100, separating it µrmly from the Porta Viminalis garland
sarcophagus dated 30–40 years later, despite what others have perceived as close similarities. H.
assigns the beginning of mainstream sarcophagus production in Rome to the early Hadrianic
period (.. 120–30). Mythological scenes now predominate in the lunettes and are varied in
subject. The garland sarcophagus in New York, usually dated Antonine, H. puts at the beginning
of the sequence, with the Actaeon sarcophagus in the Louvre (often dated earlier) towards the
end. The µndspot of the New York piece provides her name for the earliest of the three major
workshops she identiµes in Rome, the ‘Via Cassia’. The next decade (late Hadrianic, 130–40)
H. sees as the high point of production, although these chests are already generally lower than
previously (a trend which continues on Antonine sarcophagi), and the scenes are regularly
reduced to two µgures. Only c. 10% now have mythological scenes: Dionysiac themes, sea
creatures, and masks (both theatrical and Dionysiac) are preferred. The ‘Via Cassia’ workshop
continues and is joined by two new major workshops, designated the ‘Via Labicana’ and ‘Via
Salaria’ (after the µndspots of catalogue nos. 59 and 60). Garland sarcophagus production
at Ostia also begins in this decade, using motifs more closely related to those on grave altars
and urns. There are also some garland sarcophagi made elsewhere in Italy; three pieces from
Campania are assigned to the same workshop.
The Antonine period is subdivided into early (140–50), middle (150–75), and late (last quarter-
century). Production in Rome now tails o¶ and there is little new iconography; µgured scenes are
rare and masks predominate in the lunettes. The three main Roman workshops continue but their
products become increasingly stylized, abstracted, and tired. By contrast, Antonine sarcophagi
made elsewhere in Italy are more numerous and bigger, but it is di¸cult to put them into work-
shop groups. At Ostia, H. suggests, some workshops specializing in urns turned to sarcophagi,
something she denies happened at Rome.
H. produces a coherent picture of the rise and fall of the garland sarcophagus over the course
of two centuries, but the whole ediµce of her chronology relies on acceptance that stylistic
analysis can deµne period style within very narrow limits, and I am not entirely convinced of
this. H. cites (but does not illustrate) numerous dated reliefs as comparators, but the criteria she
uses are both subjective and di¸cult to grasp. The grouping of sarcophagi in workshops is less
problematic and more convincing. Weaker, however, is the brief discussion of the signiµcance of
the iconography used. H. draws a distinction between the older range of motifs used on grave
altars, urns, and the earliest garland sarcophagi (and also found on Antonine sarcophagi in
S. Italy), and a ‘newer’ repertoire which arrives with the mainstream production of Hadrianic
sarcophagi. The former H. suggests expresses ‘apotheosis through pietas’, whereas late Hadrianic
and Antonine themes were designed to evoke a di¶erent response (she speaks of the ‘trans-
formation’ and Dionysiac rapture looked for after death). These tantalizing ideas are so
undeveloped they might have been better omitted altogether.
Despite these reservations, this is an impressive book: an important group of sarcophagi is
analysed in depth by the scholar who knows them best. The catalogue entries alone contain a
wealth of painstaking research and analysis of iconography and sources. It is a worthy addition
to the ASR series and will be the standard work on the subject for many decades to come.
University of Edinburgh GLENYS DAVIES

          669
M. M  : Marmor in Rom. Anlieferung, Lager- und Werk-

plätze in der Kaiserzeit. Pp. 190, maps, ills. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1997.
Paper, DM 68. ISBN: 3-89500-014-0.
It is no exaggeration to say that John Ward-Perkins invented the modern study of the ‘marble
trade’ in the Roman world. At the centre of Roman studies in Rome for three decades and
travelling widely, he was uniquely placed to appreciate the empire-wide spread of architectural
and stylistic styles, as well as their interaction with local traditions and the far from passive
rôle that supplies of imported stone played in this process. Interest in marble studies has
substantially increased since Ward-Perkins published his µrst major and still fundamental
work in JRS 1951, ‘Tripolitania and the Marble Trade’. In the last two decades since his death,
there has been a positive explosion of interest and research. This work has in part borne out
Ward-Perkins’s belief that the study of marble should not just be carried out from an artistic
point of view, but also should be approached from commercial, scientiµc, and constructional
standpoints. The book under review is a welcome contribution to the literature on this subject.
In some respects Maischberger’s monograph plugs a gap in the publication of material relating
to the use and transport of decorative stones. There has been much work carried out by scholars
such as C. Fant, M. Waelkens, and F. Rakob on the quarries themselves; O. Williams-Thorpe,
L. Lazzarini, and K. Matthews among others have made major progress in the µeld of
provenance studies and scientiµc analysis; and Fant, M. Fischer, and P. Pensabene have all written
extensively about the distribution of this material and its commercial and technological
implications. The material from Rome, always important as this was the main destination for
decorative stones until the Hadrianic period, has often been discussed almost at a tangent.
M. has collected together and discusses all the marble and other decorative stone elements
(blocks, columns and other architectural pieces, sculpture) which have been found in Rome and at
Ostia and Portus. M. draws upon nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century work, but it has been
partly made possible by the discovery of a huge cache of marble pieces from the Fossa Traiana
area at Portus and by the conservation work which has been carried out on the banks of the Tiber
in the Marmorata area in the last two decades.
M. starts with a more or less standard general discussion of the movement of marble to
Rome in the late republic and then in the imperial period. In this section he discusses the
epigraphic evidence which underpins much of our knowledge of this subject as well as the
so-called Ward-Perkins model, published in 1980, which clearly is still applicable to the study of
marble today.
Section 2 deals with the material from Ostia and Portus, and discusses its context and
chronology. Section 3 provides an examination of the transport of marble from Portus to
Rome—no mean feat! Section 4 moves to Rome and the Aventine district, where discoveries of
decorative stones in various forms have been made since the sixteenth century. M. brings together
material from a wide range of sources, giving dimensional and chronological details.
Section 5 discusses the µnds from the Campus Martius, and it is from here that we potentially
have some of the best evidence for Ward-Perkins’s stockpiling of marble. This is very much a
thorny issue, much discussed since the idea was put forward twenty years ago. Many scholars
(including the current reviewer) have asserted that there is very little evidence for such a practice
to have taken place anywhere in the empire, let alone Rome. The evidence presented by M. might
in fact make many of us re-evaluate our approach.
Four incredibly useful Appendices are included which give much raw data from sites in Rome
arranged according to marble type, use and size of piece, and epigraphic evidence. There is a
thematic bibliography which is useful but not extensive.
This monograph, which is the publication of a PhD thesis submitted to the University of
Berlin, has much to commend it, not least the fact that it collects together material which would
otherwise be very disparate and not easily accessible to anyone not based in Rome. It is very
well produced, as we have come to expect from our German colleagues, although some of the
maps are perhaps a little heavy-handed. This volume will be an invaluable reference work for all
students of marble in the Roman world.
Trinity College Dublin HAZEL DODGE

670          
L. T  : La scultura romana di Venosa e il suo reimpiego. (Archeo-

logia Perusina 13.) Pp. 179, 77 ills. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1996.
Paper, L. 500,000. ISBN: 88-7689-143-9.
Todisco provides a catalogue of sculpture found in and around Venosa—ancient Venusia. The
pieces, many rather fragmentary, are described and, importantly, plates of each piece are
provided. Most of the material would appear to be from funerary contexts. Discussion of the
pieces follows the catalogue and includes that of the lion in funerary contexts at a more general
level within Italy. A distribution map of such pieces is provided for Italy (TAV. LXXVII), which
highlights a regional distribution that is slanted towards southern Campania and northern
Apulia. Whether such regionalism was carried over into the representation of the human
form is uncertain, especially since the funerary reliefs from Venusia show a marked similarity to
those from other regions of Italy. Some architectural sculpture, including a Doric frieze, is also
discussed. The book provides a guide to the sculpture of a single site that, alongside other
similar catalogues in this series, will build up into a valuable guide to regional di¶erences within
the µeld of statuary in Italy. The price, however, may prevent its purchase.
University of Reading RAY LAURENCE
J.- L. L    : Recherches sur les Messapiens IVe–IIe siècle avant

J.-C. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 292.)
Pp. x + 661, 149 µgs, 11 pls. Rome: École française de Rome, 1996.
ISBN: 2-7283-0360-6.
Polybios (3.88.3) once described the Messapians as a people who formed part of a greater ethnic
unit inhabiting southeastern Italy known as the Iapygians, but previously (2.24.11) he had
regarded them as a separate cultural entity. This apparent contradiction highlights a problem
involved with the study of the native cultures of southeastern Italy: the µrst question one must
always address is, just who were the Messapians? J.-L. Lamboley’s mammoth volume attacks
this question from historical, archaeological, and philological viewpoints, and gives us a
glimpse of how the Messapians were perceived by those around them, and, more importantly,
how they perceived themselves.
As is to be expected for a people who left so few written records, over half the text of L.’s work
is dedicated to cataloguing the archaeological material from all over Messapia. This serves the
dual purpose of providing an invaluable tool for research and also deµning the geographical
limits of Messapian culture. As Messapia cannot be perceived as having µxed borders, L. sets his
geographical limits in the areas of ancient Calabria where µnds of wares deµned as ‘Messapian’
are most prevalent. The second half of the work is an examination of the Messapian people from
economic, cultural, and linguistic standpoints. Here, archaeology is combined with history and
epigraphy as L. looks at transport and roads, agriculture, urbanism and urban centres, political
and social organization, art, and architecture. The aids to the reader are tremendous; there is no
lack of maps, tables, and diagrams; moreover, plates provide a visual image of almost every site,
and L.’s excellent cross-referencing makes the volume very user-friendly. The book culminates
with a chapter on culture and religion, where the depth of L.’s research and dedication to this
large project shines through.
Past researchers have tended to treat the Messapians as a purely Italian cultural unit. One
strength of the work lies with the thesis that they were, in fact, a people immutably bound to the
Dalmatian coast. Because of their position in Italy, the Messapians shared a strong economic and
material bond with the peoples of Illyria. L. demonstrates that links between the two shores
of the southern Adriatic pre-dated Greek colonization and were characterized by ancient trade
routes, and cultural and religious links. Despite their proximity to Greek urban centres, both
cultures were largely devoid of poleis, and Messapian cities in particular bore none of the classic
hallmarks of Greek urban centres, lacking agorai, theatres, palestrai, and the like. At times, the
two coasts also experienced large population movements; this is clearly evident at the end of
the third century, as the Romans slashed and burnt their way into the southeast to get at the
rebellious city of Tarentum (as evidenced by late third-century destruction layers throughout the
region). Many Messapians set sail across the Adriatic as refugees, escaping Roman vengeance.

          671
However, no matter how much we see the Messapians and their fellow Illyrians as ethnically
distinct, the material remains of their culture in Italy demonstrates that they were, from the
outset, heavily in·uenced by the Lakonian Greeks of Tarentum. L. speaks of Messapia as being
within a Greek triangle, consisting of Tarentum, Syracuse, and the Illyrian and Epirote coasts.
One of the strongest points of the work is L.’s analysis of the Hellenization of Messapia. The
region was one of the µrst in the west to experience Greek culture by the means of a large colony,
and was therefore Hellenized before much of the rest of Italy. Materially, Messapia has a strong
link to Tarentum from the sixth century onwards. From that point, they adopt the Greek script,
construct Greek-style temples, and inhumation begins. Grave goods show that the Messapian
aristocracy had a particular a¸nity for the Greek culture of their neighbours. It is at this point
that the Messapians begin to adopt Greek-style pedigrees, many of them claiming Odysseus as a
primogenitor and city founder (recently explored by I. Malkin’s Return of Odysseus [Berkeley and
London, 1998]). Although L.’s work on Messapian religion is good, the omission of the rôle of
the Odysseus myth within their culture is a lost opportunity to have explored another way by
which the Messapians deµned themselves.
Though the Messapian élite had adopted Tarentine customs, it does not follow that they
served as the colony’s political underlings. It is one of the few ·aws of the work that L. sees the
Messapians as politically too close to the Tarentines, and more should have been made of the
e¶ects of several disastrous wars fought between them. Messapia, like all of Magna Graecia,
was politically fragmented, with petty rulers constantly vying for power. At times, some of these
appealed to Tarentum for aid against their enemies, while others were vicious opponents of the
Greek city and the condottieri brought in to µght its wars. Still, this is a minor criticism and
should not detract from L.’s achievement. Until this point, the only publications concerning the
Messapians have been of the nature of essay collections, such as I Messapi (1991), exhibition
catalogues, such as F. D’Andria’s Archeologia dei Messapi (Bari, 1990), or archaeological reports
or surveys, such as J.-P. Descœudres and E. Robinson’s La ‘chiusa’ alla Masseria del Fano (Lecce,
1993) and G.-J. L. M. Burgers’s Constructing Messapian Landscapes (Amsterdam, 1998). L. has
succeeded in writing the deµnitive work on Messapian archaeology and history. His exhaustive
research, attention to detail, and excellent presentation have combined to shed a new light on the
study of Messapia, and has paved the way for a new look at the importance of the indigenous
peoples of southern Italy.
University of St Andrews JOHN SERRATI
J. T. B   (ed.): The Mills-Bakeries of Ostia. Description and

Interpretation. Pp. 217, 30 µgs, 100 pls. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1999.
Cased, NLG 245. ISBN: 90-5063-058-8.
The book combines a series of studies of bakeries in Ostia with a thorough catalogue of the
evidence. The intention is to describe each of the premises in detail, paying careful attention to
changes in the building itself from the µrst century .. through to late antiquity. The study is
enriched by the example of Casseggiato dei Molini—a building we know to have burnt down
and been abandoned in the late third century .. (p. 32). The machinery found in bakeries
provides key evidence for the nature of mechanization in the Roman empire. The bakery mill
stones quarried near Orvieto and utilized as far away as Pompeii reduced the amount of labour
power needed for milling to a degree where, according to Bakker (p. 111), a town such as
Ostia would have required a mere 178 millstones in twenty bakeries to cater for the needs of its
estimated population of about 40,000 inhabitants. A map of the distribution of bakeries in
Ostia demonstrates their association with store buildings (horrea). Thi£$accounts for only those
buildings found with mills within them. The association of milling as an activity with the
presence of a pavement in durable basalt blocks (also used for paving Ostia’s streets) could be a
valuable key for the identiµcation of similar structures associated with this type of mechanized
production elsewhere within the city, where the apparatus does no appear in situ. The descrip-
tion of each individual building is detailed and illustrated with the numerous plates. However,
for me, these descriptions do not answer all the questions that need to be posed: do bakeries
occupy a particular type of building, what was the nature of the organization of space within
these structures, and how di¶erent are the bakeries from other properties at Ostia? In other

672          
words, are we dealing with a discrete set of buildings—the bakery—or a series of buildings
in which milling, kneading, and baking took place? This seems a key question for the
understanding of Roman urbanism—did function dictate the form of architectural space
utilized within the Roman system? These studies would suggest from the evidence presented
that architectural space was adapted to the functional needs of milling, kneading, and baking.
Further work on structures that can be deµned as ‘not bakeries’ would clarify these distinctions.
B.’s concluding chapter does not simply arise from the study of the architecture in the earlier
parts of the book—other factors are introduced, in particular literary evidence and the work
of Sirks (Chapter VI) on the corpus pistorum. This shows once again that conclusions seldom
simply arise from the study and description of the architectural details of buildings in Ostia.
How these studies interrelate to the literary evidence remains unclear, but the texts shape the
conclusions made to an extent where the archaeological evidence is not heard. Clearly, there
is a need to move away from description towards more analytical techniques to evaluate the
evidence from Ostia.
University of Reading RAY LAURENCE
H. F  , F. K : Der römische Limes in

Österreich. Pp. 312. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1997. ISBN: 3-7001-2618-2.
The authors have produced a guide to the Roman sites and monuments along the Roman
frontier in Austria. It is intended to replace the manual published by Vetters and Kandler for the
‘14th International Conference on Roman Frontiers’ held in Austria in 1986. Nevertheless, the
format and the intended readership di¶er. Vetters and Kandler catered for a specialist audience,
whereas Herwig Friesinger and Fritz Krinzinger are writing for the interested amateur as well as
the specialist.
The µrst half of the new book contains general introductions to the history of research, the
Celtic background, the historical development of the frontier, extramural settlements, the
army, Romans and Germans, and early Christianity; nothing new here, but useful for the general
reader. The following site-by-site discussions are clear if somewhat dull, although the concise
contributions by eminent scholars (e.g. M. Kandler, H. Ubi) are sound. Unfortunately, inter-
esting topics such as the appearance of late-fourth-century towers apparently replacing forts at
Zieselmauer, Taismauer, and Wallsee are not adequately explained. The remarkable remains of
the Bacharsdorf burgus should have encouraged a wider discussion of this kind of fortiµcation
and its rôle. Details of importance to the specialist (e.g. the late-fourth-century OFARN tiles
from Zeiselmauer noted in the earlier guide) are omitted. More could have been made of the
standing remains, equally of interest to the amateur and specialist.
The bibliography for each section is of beneµt to the specialist, and the helpful notes on getting
to each of the sites excellent for the visitor, as are the list of museums and opening times. The
accompanying map is not easy to read and the range of photographic illustrations (despite the
use of colour) is not as imaginative as that provided by Kandler and Vetters. However unfairly,
any judgement of the standard of this new book is inevitably coloured by the lavishly illustrated
and excellent guides produced for the Roman frontier in south-western Germany by Beck and
Planck, and for the Hungarian frontier by Z. Visy, quite exceptional works, which do cater very
well both for the Roman archaeologist and the non-specialist audience.
Despite its minor deµciencies, this guide is better organized than the book it replaces, and
contains excellent site-plans and information on access to museums which were not supplied in
the edition by Kandler and Vetters. Whether visiting the monuments themselves or using the text
as a source for the latest information on Austrian research on the upper Danubian frontier, F. &
K. have published a book of enduring value.
University of Nottingham ANDREW POULTER

          673
B. K: The Obelisk Base in Constantinople: Court Art

and Imperial Ideology (Institutum Romanum Norvegiae, Acta ad
Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia. Series Altera in
8°). Pp. 194, µgs. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1998. Paper. ISSN:
1120-4672.
The obelisk erected in c. 391 on the spina of the Hippodrome is, on account of the reliefs
which decorate its two-tiered base, the most important early Byzantine imperial monument
at Constantinople. In this sober study K. µrst surveys scholarly work on the monument, and
then provides clear descriptions of the four imperial reliefs on the upper block and the lower
block’s two self-referential narrative scenes (the adventus of the obelisk and a chariot race);
Aphrodisias is plausibly, if not conclusively, suggested as the origin of the sculptures on stylistic
grounds. There are detailed photographs of most, but not quite all, parts of the reliefs, although
many of the items cited for comparative purposes are not shown. The identity of the members
of the imperial college and their entourages has been much disputed. Here K. proceeds sensibly,
pointing to the clear domination of the Theodosian house over the older but now enfeebled
Valentinian family in the West, especially through the dynastic future represented by the
imperial princes; on the other hand she does not attempt to attach identities to the various civil
and military µgures in the entourages, preferring to see these as anonymous representatives of
their di¶erent hierarchies. The last two chapters place the images in the broader context of
developing imperial ceremonial and the cosmic symbolism of the Hippodrome; this monument
to commemorate victory over the usurper Maximus dates, by coincidence, from the decade in
which the imperial o¸ce was transformed from its predominantly military function to a more
passive rôle in which ceremonial commemorations came to replace actual successes. K. is here
on less certain ground: her choice of Anastasius’ accession in 491 to illustrate the importance
of the Hippodrome a century earlier is dubious, since the Hippodrome only acquired a rôle
in imperial accessions during the late µfth century, and the actions of the dowager empress
Ariadne are misrepresented (pp. 143); it is debatable how long the full anniversary celebrations
for the foundation of Constantinople continued to be observed in the form described in the
Malalas chronicle tradition (p.46). But K.’s forte is the description of the sculptures, and it is for
this that her book will be valued.
R. D  ’I     P : Tra µlosoµa e poesia. Studi su

Seneca e dintorni. (Testi e Manuali per L’Insegnamento Universitario
del Latino 57.) Pp. 266. Bologna: Patron Editore, 1999. Paper,
L. 31,000. ISBN: 88-555-2491-7.
This volume of revised articles with indices contains the following, of which the last appears in
print for the µrst time:
I—Seneca: L’interitus mundi nella Consolatio ad Polybium di Seneca e i ‘condizionamenti’
del destinatario; L’esilio nelle tragedie di Seneca. Autobiograµa, meditazione µlosoµca, modelli
letterari; Aurea mediocritas: la morale oraziana nei cori delle tragedie di Seneca; Venit ad pigros
cana senectus: un motivo dei cori senecani tra µlosoµa ed attualità.
II—Seneca e dintorni: ‘Vivi nascosto’. Ri·essi di un tema epicureo in Orazio, Ovidio e Seneca;
Studi sugli epigrammi attribuiti a Seneca (I: Il padrone del tempo; II: Tra elegia ed epigramma:
tracce di una poetica); Il ‘primo’ Lucano: a proposito di Iliacon, fr. 7 Mor.; Numerosus Horatius:
aspetti della presenza oraziana in Ovidio; ‘E¶etto-Argo’: in viaggio con la mitica nave da Accio
a Draconzio.

674          
W.- H. F : Gegenwärtige Vergangenheit. Studien zur antiken

Literatur und ihrem Nachleben. Pp. 207. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1999. Paper, DM 60. ISBN: 3-525-25752-X.
This book is a collection of essays by the veteran scholar W.-H. Friedich and is divided into six
parts.
The µrst concerns Graeco-Roman historiography (pp. 9–115). In the preliminary remarks
(pp. 9–10) F. has produced a very clever distinction between Historiography and Biography when
dealing with Plutarch. The µeld of Biography, and above all borders with Historiography, need
further research. (A splendid introduction is o¶ered by C. B. R. Pelling, ‘Biography’, OCD3,
pp. 241–3, with a very well chosen bibliography at the end of each contribution: Greek and
Roman biography). F. dedicates a paper to the Herodotean and Non-Herodotoean elements
(pp. 11–21), where he rightly emphasizes that History is a daughter of Epic, a point also in need
of further research as a factor in the origins of Historiography alongside genealogies and
geography, as assumed traditionally. In the article on Herodotus as the man who introduced
criticism of myths F. o¶ers three examples: Helen’s abduction to Egypt (pp. 22–6), where F. o¶ers
a very good interpretation of the oral tradition in Herodotus, the ring of Gyges (pp. 27–38),
showing very well the connection of historiography with drama and poetry, as well as with
philosophy and obviously with the historical context, and µnally the preservation of Croesus in
the µre (pp. 38–50), which is a rationalist interpretation; there is also an appendix (pp. 51–9)
about culpability and repeated sins, which is a combination of the ideology of tradition and
Athenian illustration for interpreting the epoch of Herodotus. In the article on Thucydides in
education (pp. 60–87) F. has observed very well that the expression ‘Peloponnesian War’ re·ects
an Athenian standpoint, with the astute remark that Theopompus, when continuing Thucydides’
work, went beyond the year 404 .. for the period of the Peloponnesian War. This means that it
was not clear when the Peloponnesian War ended. All this in relation to the name designating this
general war among the Greeks gives rise to an important point: the two ways of looking at this
con·ict, the Athenian and the Spartan. Finally, in ‘Historiography and Experience in Antiquity’
(pp. 88–115), F. has pointed out very well that during his exile Thucydides learned other versions
of events; he compares himself with other exiles: Xenophon in Elis, Androtion in Megara,
Philistus in Epirus, and Timaeus in Athens. Exile has given much objectivity to historians; it is
a topic worthy of further research. F. has also cleverly pointed out that Herodotus felt himself
at home everywhere; he provides a good treatment of Polybius, Flavius Josephus, Sallust, and
Tacitus, as well as good thoughts on Thucydides, Xenophon, Velleius Paterculus, and Cassius
Dio.
The other papers are miscellaneous: fathers and sons in Attic comedy (pp. 117–37), where F.
has shown a fashionable sociological approach when dealing with Aristophanes’ Clouds and
di¶erent pieces of Plautus. In ‘The Plane-trees of the Great King’ (pp. 139–45) he as established a
good comparison of Herodotus 7.31 with Plato’s Phaedrus.
The rest of the papers are concerned with comparison and reception of classical literature
in modern German literature: poetic inspiration (pp. 147–71), the Bayadère and Goethe
(pp. 173–84), and Orpheus (pp. 185–202). Undoubtedly, comparative literature and the classical
tradition can throw much light on our knowledge of antiquity. German scholars are very keen to
see the in·uence of the classical world in Goethe.
This collection of stimulating essays µnishes with an index of names and subjects (pp. 203–7).
These essays, which are full of suggestions, re·ect long experience in the research and teaching of
classics.
Madrid J. M. ALONSO-NÚÑEZ
R. J. B  (ed.): The Unpublished Lectures of Gilbert Highet. (Hawaii

Classical Studies 2.) Pp. xiii + 318. New York, etc.: Peter Lang, 1998.
Cased, £34. ISBN: 0-8204-3824-3.
This memorial volume contains the following:
Greek literature: Pandora’s Box; Aristophanes; Aristophanes’ Frogs; Plato’s Phaedrus;
Menander’s Dyskolos; Dio Chrysostom.

          675
Latin literature: Julius Caesar; Vergil’s Aeneid; Tibullus the Rebel; Petronius’s Dinner Speakers;
Apuleius’s Golden Ass; Apuleius’s Cupid and Psyche.
Classical tradition: Dante’s Comedy; Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar; America’s Classical Heritage;
In Search of Classical Oratory; Schliemann’s Excavations; Housman’s Critical Prose; Cavafy’s
Waiting for the Barbarians; Joyce’s Ulysses; Kazantzakis’s Odyssey; Mankiewicz’s Julius Caesar;
Auden’s The Shield of Achilles; Decipherment of Linear B; Endurance of the Classics; Two
Cultures: The Arts and Sciences; Classical In·uences on Today’s World; Classical In·uences On
Modern Literature; Advice to a Barnard Freshman; Then and Now: The Classics Profession.
W. M . C    I II, B. H  (edd.), C. B (trans.): ‘The

Wilamowitz in Me’: 100 Letters between Ulrich von Wilamowitz-
Moellendor¶ and Paul Friedländer (1904–31). (Department of Special
Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA, Occasional
Papers 9.) Pp. xxv + 227. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Cased, $40. ISSN: 1041-1143.
‘But that which I have now become . . . for many years I have become in battle against you, or
perhaps better, against the Wilamowitz in me.’ The sentence comes from a twenty-three-page
letter (no. 75) written in 1921 by Paul Friedländer (1882–1968) to Ulrich von Wilamowitz
(1848–1931); it sets out Friedländer’s feelings and plans following First World War service (he
had won the Iron Cross). In scholarship, Friedländer would now initiate, rather than engage
in, current debates, and would edit central, not peripheral, µgures—the latter a reference to
Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius, his (to date unsuperseded) 1910 Habilitationsschrift
(letter 24), in which Wilamowitz took detailed interest (letters 25–7). Much of Friedländer’s
later work would be on Plato.
Frankness, unhostile confrontation, and mutual respect stamp the relationship from the time
of Friedländer’s Herakles, described (letter 6; 1906) as a continual attack on Wilamowitz’s own
work but written especially for him. The letters, mostly Friedländer’s, are dominated by textual
discussion (e.g. nos. 30–32 on Wilamowitz’s Sappho and Simonides [1913], no. 36 where
Friedländer convinces Wilamowitz of the authenticity of Hes. Th. 721, still disputed [n. 176], and
so on). But from Friedländer’s visit to Greece and Italy in 1907–8 a note of warmth appears.
In 1913–14 (letters 34, 38–40) Friedländer anxiously sought frank assessment of his career
prospects, contemplating school-teaching in the limited job market until Wilamowitz secured
his position. Most of the translated letters (pp. 195–207) describe Friedländer’s wartime
experiences—frustration at his long lack of promotion, his threatened arrest, discussion of books
he has found to read and of academic a¶airs, concern for Wilamowitz’s family (Tycho was killed
in 1914), his administrative experiences as a local commandant (‘not without stimulation’: letter
58).
This latest portion of Calder’s publication of Wilamowitz’s correspondence (bibliography,
pp. xxiii–xxv) is also an act of homage from a scholar for whom Friedländer never achieved
due recognition, missing the chair at Basel in 1914 and that at Marburg in 1920 despite
recommendations from (respectively) Wilamowitz and Diels, and spending the latter part of
his life as a Jewish exile in the USA, where he was elevated to professor in Los Angeles only
four years before retirement. The letters (including those also translated) appear in the original
German (Wilamowitz’s di¸cult hand deciphered by Bernhard Huss), with an informative English
commentary and useful indices of persons and ancient citations.
King’s College London MARY WHITBY

676          
S. D (ed.): Antike Rhetorik und ihre Rezeption. Symposion zu

Ehren von Professor Dr. Carl Joachim Classen D. Litt. Oxon. am 21. und
22. November 1998 in Göttingen. Pp. 181, ills. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,
1999. Paper, DM 88. ISBN: 3-515-07524-0.
This unindexed Festschrift contains the following essays, along with a list of the honorand’s
distinguished publications: K. Nickau, Peripateticorum consuetudo. Zu Cic. Tusc. 2.9;
O. Wenskus, ‘Gespräche’ unter Freunden. Rhetorik als Briefthema bei Cicero und Plinius;
M. Vielberg, Bildung und Rhetorik in den Pseudoklementinen; H. Bernsdor¶, Hesiod—ein
zweiter Vergil? Zur poetischen Ethopoiia P. Oxy. 3537; U. Schindel, Das carmen de µguris
(RLM 63¶); M. Winterbottom, In Praise of Raphael Regius; S. Döpp, Oratio panegyrica . . . in
laudem atque encomium urbis Carolshaviae—Analyse eines Stadtlobs von 1722; W. Ax, Les
lauriers de César. Zu einem humoristischen Fall moderner Rezeption der römischen Rhetorik.
T. B   (ed.): Literary Imagination, Ancient and Modern.

Essays in Honor of David Grene. Pp. 405, maps. Chicago and London:
The University of Chicago Press, 1999. Paper, £13.50. ISBN: 0-226-
07425-0.
This elegant volume, which includes an index, covers all the interests of its honorand. The
essays likely to be most of interest to our readers, contained in Part One, are as follows:
M. Ostwald, Atheism and the Religiosity of Euripides; J. Redµeld, Poetry and Philosophy in
Aristophanes’ Clouds; S. Nelson, Calypso’s Choice: Immortality and Heroic Striving in the
Odyssey and Ulysses; W. Doniger, The Homecomings of Odysseus and Nala; M. Douglas,
A Bird, a Mouse, a Frog, and some Fish:—A New Reading of Leviticus II; W. R. Johnson,
Confabulating Cephalus: Self-Narration in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (7.672–865); T. Breyfogle,
Memory and Imagination in Augustine’s Confessions; S. Benardete, Metamorphosis and
Conversion: Apuleius’s Metamorphoses; N. Thompson, Against Entertainment: Plato and the
Poets Revisited.
The book ends with a grumpy essay by the Chicago guru, Saul Bellow, who complains
on p. 385 that, while the past gave us Athens and Jerusalem, the present gives us the trial of
O. J. Simpson. The past, however, also gave us the trials of Socrates and of Jesus.
G. A, T. H, R. K, H. P

(edd.): Römische Lebenskunst. Interdisziplinäres Kolloquium zum 85.
Geburtstag von Viktor Pöschl. Heidelberg, 2.–4. Februar 1995.
(Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften n.f. 2. Reihe, 97.)
Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1995. ISBN: 3-8253-0334-9.
As its subtitle indicates, this is a Festschrift for Victor Pöschl—‘Victor carissime’ of Alföldy’s
Oratio (p. 9). Edited by Heidelberg colleagues and published with remarkable speed, it records a
colloquium held in honour of a scholar, whose international reputation dates from the late
1940s and whose scholarly activity continued up to his death on 1 February 1997. Pöschl was a
wide-ranging latinist and a man of genuine culture. His two dissertations treated Cicero and
Sallust; later he became celebrated especially for his work on Horace and Virgil.
The individual contributions come from Pöschl’s ex-pupils and associates. One (C. Meier) is an
unannotated ‘Rekonstruktion’ of an oral paper; the rest are revised and annotated to a greater or
lesser degree. Certain of their titles echo the volume title in widely distributed µelds: P. Schunck
writes of ‘Lebenskunst’ in Montaigne, A. Wlosok in Christine de Pisan (with some µne colour
illustrations from MSS), and C. Meier in Roman politics. Another group of papers handles

          677
classical themes: J. Dion o¶ers a hypothesis about stellar interest in Virgil’s Georgics;
C. Neumeister handles the ‘use of time’ in Seneca’s Letters; E. A. Schmidt discusses ‘Römisches
Lachen’ in theory and practice (from Aristotle to Bakhtin and beyond); and E. Simon investigates
(with monochrome illustrations) that ‘uno¸cial’ but important goddess Nemesis in the Roman
world.
A last group of papers clusters more or less closely around Horace, an abiding interest
of Pöschl’s. S. Borzsák looks at Horatian emphases on Mercury, especially in Odes 1.10, and
introduces some considerations from ancient ethnography. B. D. Frischer writes about Horace’s
‘Sabine farm’—the villa at Licenza—in Horace’s verse and in reality. (Students of Horace ignore
at their peril the villa, which can be ‘visited’ at http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/horaces-villa.)
W. Görler carefully teases out the lexicography of carpere etc. and its consequences. Finally
G. Thome surveys the erotic odes of Book 4 in a broader context. Inevitably some of those
writing on Horace felt themselves overshadowed by their honorand, none so explicitly as Thome,
who starts his paper with the (over-) pessimistic ‘Von einer Neu-Untersuchung der einschlägigen
Oden sind keine sensationellen Entdeckungen zu erwarten: Das Wesentliche zu einzelnen
Gedichten wie zu verbindenden Grundzügen ist schon gesagt, nicht zuletzt vom Jubilar selbst’
(p. 131)—see rather, for example, his views on Odes 4.11 (pp. 150–1 and n.55).
Although a mixed volume, Römische Lebenskunst merits purchase by any library serving a
serious classics department in view of the high quality of many of its papers. The last cluster
constitutes a substantial contribution to Horatian studies, hence a few before and after addenda
to them: to Borzsák, F. Cairns QUCC 42 (1983), 29–35; to Görler, W. S. Anderson CJ 88 (1993),
115–22; and µnally, to go along with Frischer’s real Sabine farm, the real Horace of G. Williams
in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Homage to Horace. A Bimillenary Celebration (Oxford, 1995), pp. 296–313.
University of Leeds FRANCIS CAIRNS
J. M . B  , A . G B , R . G 

F      (edd.): La tradición en la Antigüedad. (Antigüedad y
Christianismo. Monograµas históricas sobre la Antigüedad Tardía 14.)
Pp. 737, ills, maps, µgs. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 1997. Paper.
ISSN: 0214-7165.
This volume is mainly a collection of short articles, though it also contains some notices of
archaeological µnds and book reviews. The articles are grouped into three sections: History and
Historical Theory (seventeen pieces), Epigraphy (one piece), and Art and Archaeology (µfteen
pieces). All but two of the articles are written in Spanish, and many have a strong bias towards
the Iberian peninsula. Late Antiquity is notoriously di¸cult to deµne, and a good number of
the pieces here which deal with the Visigothic period in Spain might be regarded by some as
concerned with the early medieval rather than late classical period, and one discusses classical
allusions to be found in the tenth-century Byzantine Poem of Digenis Akritas. Another piece by
Amorós on the concept of tradition in Plato’s Republic falls µrmly before Late Antiquity.
The overall theme of tradition is handled in various ways. A number of pieces deal with the use
of classical themes in later literature. Martín Rodríguez examines the use of Juvenal by Christian
writers of the fourth century. Her piece centres on Prudentius’ use of Juvenal as an intertext and
the way that the later poet reconµgures the themes of the earlier satirist to µt his own di¶erent
moral position. Similarly Martínez Cavero examines the process whereby Orosius adopts the
pagan prodigia he found in his reading of Roman history to µt his new Christian version of
Rome’s past. This is a useful piece, but perhaps lacks a discussion of Orosius’ use of Biblical
material, which would have given a more rounded view of the Christian historian’s approach
to these matters. Moving closer to medieval times, Elvira contributes a useful natural history of
the dragon, examining how Christian dogma and Northern European mythology mutated the
original conception of this creature found in Pliny and Solinus.
Other articles concern the material rather than the literary world. Garen analyses the
transmission of Sassanid art motifs to Visigothic Spain. She sees this phenomenon as the product
of local craftsmen selectively copying small decorative metal items imported from the East. G.
sees the process as a local one with no central control or impetus. The weakness of the piece is
that there is no suggestion of how the original oriental metalwork arrived in Spain.
Kanitz deals with the transformation of the temple of Diana at Ephesus into a Christian

678          
church. His piece contains not only a discussion of this speciµc site and the archaeological
remains associated with it, but also looks in general at the conversion of temples into churches
and the replacement of pagan by Christian cult. He suggests that this transformation at Ephesus
took part in two stages, the µrst being inspired by the Council of Ephesus in .. 431, the second
following in the early Byzantine period. He considers that the form of the new church would have
been similar to those found at Agrigentum and Syracuse. This chronology is informed by K.’s
view that Christian cult tried to make links with the pagan past in order to cultivate pagan
support. While such a reading is possible, some discussion of the opposite viewpoint—that
Christian cult is meant to annihilate, not be parasitic on, pagan practice—would have been
useful. After all, Bishop Gregory of Agrigentum certainly had no time for the former pagan
inhabitants of the temple which he turned into a church.
Mateos Cruz considers a whole town rather than an individual building, looking at the
development of the townscape of Merida during the µfth and sixth centuries .. Rather than
a complete break with the past, he sees the classical past living on alongside new Christian
structures with only a gradual shift to a new Christian topography. The piece usefully
compliments many of the ideas discussed in Markus’s The End of Ancient Christianity
(Cambridge, 1990), which lacks a Spanish dimension.
Several pieces deal with iconography found on mosaics. Some of these are disappointing, such
as Blázquez on mosaic portraits in Spain and the Near East, where we have little more than a
simple list of late Roman mosaics with little attempt to place them in the context of the
development of this art form or to compare the two areas with one another. San Nicolás Pedraz,
too, when dealing with the theme of Dionysus in India, after noting that this topic is of Greek
origin on mosaics, is content to catalogue Roman examples rather than explore any evolution or
lack of it in this subject.
Fernández Nieto examines the impact of tradition on the mental world of Late Antiquity
by discussing a spell designed to protect crops from hail engraved on a slate dating from the
Visigothic period. He traces this form of magic back to the archaic Greek period and then,
with a careful reading of intermediary examples, shows how this magical tradition was gradually
Christianized over the ages and managed to receive the Church’s blessing. His conclusion that
magic was one area where we can see a continually developing tradition throughout antiquity is
convincing. The piece, though centred on a Spanish artefact, ranges widely over the ancient world
and would prove stimulating reading to anyone working in this µeld.
This volume therefore casts its net widely and most students of Late Antiquity will µnd items
of interest within it. The close focus of many articles on the Iberian peninsula will, however, mean
that its greatest appeal will be to students of this particular region.

Notices: Reality. (Papersfrom The Norwegian Institute at Athens3.) Pp. 178

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notices: Reality. (Papersfrom The Norwegian Institute at Athens3.) Pp. 178

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notices: Reality. (Papersfrom The Norwegian Institute at Athens3.) Pp. 178

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTICES

B. L  : The Odyssey: Structure, Narration, and Meaning. Pp. xviii

Ø. A , M. D (edd.): Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition,

© Oxford University Press, 2000

M. J. A     : The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and

© Oxford University Press, 2000

K. D: Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. (Albert Bates

M. L. S    : Il serpente e le sue immagini: Il motivo del

© Oxford University Press, 2000

G. W  : Telemachs Reise: Väter und Söhne in Ilias und Odyssee

© Oxford University Press, 2000

O. P : Le langage de Simonide: Étude sur la tradition poétique

G. C    : Parmenide di Elea. Poema sulla Natura (BUR Classici Greci

© Oxford University Press, 2000

R. D. D (ed.): Sophocles: The Classical Heritage (Classical

© Oxford University Press, 2000

M. E  (ed.): Sophocles: Four Dramas of Maturity. Aias,

© Oxford University Press, 2000

J. M    (trans.): Euripides: Iphigenia among the Taurians,

© Oxford University Press, 2000

C. A : Classical Greek Theatre: New Views of an Old Subject.

© Oxford University Press, 2000

A. C. S : The Forensic Stage. Settling Disputes in Graeco-

© Oxford University Press, 2000

N. M : Berenice, da Callimaco a Catullo. Testo critico, trad-

© Oxford University Press, 2000

L. P  : La forma proemiale. Storiograµa e pubblico nel mondo

© Oxford University Press, 2000

R. B. S : The Landmark Thucydides: a Comprehensive

© Oxford University Press, 2000

D. F   : Platon: Philebos. (Platon, Werke: Übersetzung und

© Oxford University Press, 2000

C. G (trans.): Plato, The Symposium. Pp. xlvi + 90. Harmonds-

© Oxford University Press, 2000

A. A . P , M. M . W   (edd.): Xenophon & Arrian On

T. D (ed.): Antigone de Caryste. Fragments (Collection des

© Oxford University Press, 2000

A. J. P  (ed.): Arius Didymus, Epitome of Stoic Ethics. Pp. ix

© Oxford University Press, 2000

A. G  : Eraclide di Taranto: Frammenti. Pp. 332, 3 ills.

© Oxford University Press, 2000

L. I , G. S (edd.): Plutarco, Il cibarsi di carne.

© Oxford University Press, 2000

A. M. S   (ed.): Plutarco, Conversazioni a tavola, libro

© Oxford University Press, 2000

A. M    : Appiano Le guerre di Mitridate (Oscar Classici

M.   C. G S (trans.): Galeno. Sobre los lugares

D. L  N (trans.): Galeno. Sobre las facultades naturales. Sobre

© Oxford University Press, 2000

G. D M  (ed.): Achillis quae feruntur Astronomica et in Aratum

© Oxford University Press, 2000

H. D. S    , L. G. W      (edd.): Proclus, Théologie

© Oxford University Press, 2000

M. S   (ed.): Démocratie Athénienne et culture: Colloque

© Oxford University Press, 2000

© Oxford University Press, 2000

A. H. S       , C. A (edd.): Education in Greek

© Oxford University Press, 2000

T. K. H : The Pipes of Pan: Intertextuality and Literary