OUSEION - Memorial University's Digital Archives Initiative ...

BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 223
rather than the Herodotean eTTllJaAAov (1.94.5.3.104.3.4.181.4). we cannot
discount the possibility that Konon's source used the Ionicism consciously."
The first among several problems with this sequence is that it
does not indicate where. or why. Casaubon made his proposition. Although
Herodotus uses eTTI lJaAAov it is not particularly "Herodotean."
Why does Brown think it an Ionicism? Why would a Greek of the Imperial
period not use a locution attested in numerous non-Ionic passages
from Plato through late Byzantine times? At 18.9-10 Brown says that
"According to LSI S.v. [EKl-lEIAiccw] the word was used solely by writers
of the first and second centuries A.D." More accurately. LSI only cite
instances from those centuries while other lexicographical resources
show copious instances from other periods. But what is the point of the
prevaricating observation in the first place?
Brown sometimes fails to maintain precise control of his data. On
5.35 some of his words-"Ancient writers were apparently fascinated
by reports of curious distributional anomalies among the cicadas"echo
those of I.C Beavis (Insects and Other Invertebrates in Classical
Antiquity [1988] 97)-"The subject of curious distributional anomalies
among cicadas evidently held a certain fascination for the ancients."
Beavis. though. an authority of whom Brown's readers ought to be
made aware. is nowhere named. Brown can echo his own words too. as
he does on 138 where the information on the location of CVAEOC TTEOiov
is repeated within seven lines. although without its geographically significant
typo "Argolis" (for "Argilos"). There is a seeming contradiction
in citing an inscription (ca. 207 B.C) documenting a Thessalian foundation
for Magnesia on the Meander and then saying. on the same page.
that either Konon or Strabo is the earliest source for a Thessalian connection
with Magnesia. On a related point: why is he confident. without
suggesting purpose or motive. that Plato invented the Cretan city of
Magnesia?
Notes on the Island of Achilles increase the confusion already present
in the ancient documentation. It does not help that Brown shows no
awareness of the recent spate of publications on the islands sacred to
Achilles in the Black Sea. The physical reality of at least two such islands
undercuts Brown's assumption that Konon. who does not name the island.
refers to Leuke. Although Brown refers in one note to both Leuke
and Berezan island. in another he seems to suggest that the Island of
Achilles had no real existence: "The White Island ... probably had its
origin in Hesiod. who wrote that the Trojan and Theban heroes were
translated to the Islands of the Blessed." There is a legitimate analogy
here. possibly even a causal connection in one direction or the other. but
Hesiod does not mention the White Island. which is a concrete geographic
entity. unlike the Hesiodic islands.