ECHOS DU MONDE ClASSIQUE OASSICAL VIEWS - Memorial ...

ISSN 0012-9356 

ECHOS DU MONDE ClASSIQUE 

OASSICAL VIEWS 

XLIV - N.5. , 9,2000 

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY PRESS 

CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION OF CANADA 

SOCIETE CANADIENNE DES ETUDES CLASSIQUES 

No.1

OS Potter and DJ Mattingly, eds., Life, Death, and 

Entertainment in the Roman Empire (Kelly Olson) 129 

D.E. Hill, ed., Ovid, Metamorphoses IX-XII (A.M. Keith) 134 

Geoffrey Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 502-532 

(James Allan Evans) 138 

Christopher Stray, ed., Classics in 19th and 20th Cen tury 

Ca mbridge: Curriculum. Culture and Community. 

Cambridge Philological Society, Supplementary Volume 

no. 24 (Hugh Lloyd-Jones) 139

Editorial Correspondents/Conseil cOllsultatj/: Leonal'd Curchin. 

University of Waterloo. Katherine Dunbabin, McMaster Univcrsity. 

Elaine Fantham, Princeton University. Robert Fowler. Uni versity of 

BristoL Mark Golden. University of Winnipeg. Debor'ah Hobson. 

Dalhousie University. Shirley Sullivan. University of British 

Columbia. Tran Tam Tinh. Universite LavaL 

REMERCIEMENTSI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Pour l'aide financiere qu'ils ont accordee it la revue nous tcnons it 

remercier / For their financial assistance we wish to thank: 

Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada / Social 

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 

Societe des etudes classiques de rouest canadien / Classical Association 

of the Canadian West 

Dean of Arts, Memorial UnivCl'sity of Newfoundland. 

Brock University 

University of Calgary 

Concordia University 

McGill University 

Universite de Montreal 

Memorial University of Newfoundland 

University of New Brunswick 

University of Prince Edward Island 

Trent University 

University of Victoria 

University of Wa terloo 

University of Western Ontario 

Wilfrid Laurier University

WAYNE B. INGALLS 

cty. initiation normally preceded marriage. The first purpose of trus 

paper is to describe in greater detail those initiatory elements which in 

fact contribute to the theme of marriage in the Nausik..'3 episode. The 

aim of this investigation is not to suggest that this episode in any way 

mirrors an initiation rite. Rather it is to identify elements in the narrative 

which would remind Homer 's eighth-century audience of a fite of 

passage. The second objective of this paper is to explore the significance 

of these initiatory clements with respect to the central wedding 

of the poem, the remarriage of Odysseus and Penelope.' 

INITIATION IN GREEK SOCIETY 

Initiation rites were first analyzed by Van Gennep in 1909. who posited 

a three-stage process: rites of separation, during which the initiand 

is removed from the community and leaves her childhood behind: 

rites of passage, during which the initiand receives instruction 

or is tested before passing into her new state: and rites of incorporation, 

in which the initiand is brought back to the community . introduced 

in her new status and incorporated into her new role) Such 

rites have been described from a number of pre-literate societies 

throughout the world.4 As far as the ancient Greeks are concerned. we 

'Charles r Segal. Singers. Hcr"IXS andCods in the Odyssey (Ithaca 1994) 65-84 

discusses the initiatOI'y elements in Odysseus' return. 

J A. Van Gennep. The Rites of Pilssage. trans. M. Vi zedom and G. Caffee 

(Chicago 1960) iO- 11. BlUce Lincoln. Emerging flOm the Chrysalis: Studies in 

Rituals of Women's Initiation (Cambridge, MA 1981) 99-103 discusses Va n Gennep's 

schema. He notes that. with the exception of the Eleusinian mysteries. most 

female initiands spend theil' time in seclusion, not separation. which he believes 

reflects the limited sociopolitical status open to them. Hence he believes that the 

image of the caterpillilI' emerging from the chrysalis is mort: appropr'iate fOl' female 

initiations. Greek rites, however, seem different. They art: usually celebrated 

at temples of AI'Iemis located on the boundaries of the polis. See S. Colt. 

"Domesticating Artemis." in Sue Blundell and Margaret Williamson. eds .. The 

Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Gn:ecr:: (London/New YOI 'k !998) 27-43. and 

the discussion below. 

4 See, for example. V. Twner. The Drums of Affliction (Oxford 19(8) 198-268. 

who describes the Ndembu rite of Nkang'a. This rite pecedes and incoqx)I'ates 

the girl's marriage. N. Felson-Rubin. Regarding Penelope (PI'inceton !994) 68-74 

modifies Van Gennep's model. foll owing Ten-ence Turner. "Transformation. hieran:::hy 

and transcendence: A reformulation of Van Gennep's model of the Rites 

of Passage." in S. Moore and B. Myemoff. cds .. Secular Ritunl (A msterdam 1977) 

53--70. V Turner had ah-eady emphasized the liminal aspect of the middle phase 

(Foltst of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual Iithaca 19671 93-! II) . Fdson-Rubin 

adds two truesholds thIOugh which the initiand must pass. She admits, however 

(r6s n. S), that hel' "discussion is limited to the maturation of heterosexual men. " 

and other' authodties such as J.5. La Fontaine. Initiation (Manchester 1986) 162-

WA YNE B. INGALLS 

These three. then. play the role of an adult facilitator who normally 

helps the initiand through the ceremonies. 

3. The girls travel away from the city to the bank of a river. Initiatory 

rites usually took place at some distant location, on the borders of the 

polis, often where the young girls were exposed to some danger. [7 Ln 

fact, in this case it turns out to be the bank of a river whose divine 

qualities have just been displayed. This is the river to which Odysseus 

prayed as a suppliant and which rescued him from the sea (5.445- 

452) .[8 Rivers and springs were worshipped in virtually every Greek 

state, and in many places boys and girls cut and dedicated their hair as 

part of their coming-af-age rituals, as Achilles had done. '') 

4. As noted, Arete provides food. Food, which is a normal component 

of every Greek rite, would have been shared with gods. At the very 

least, before drinking the wine, the girls would have poured a libation.'O 

s. The girls are to bathe. Again, a bath to make the initiand pure is 

likely part of any transition rituaL" Ritual bathing is most apparent in 

the temple of Artemis Herera at Lousoi in Arcadia, which was 

equipped with a pool in its sacred precinct.u Bathing also appears to be 

part of the ritual associated with Artemis Alpheionia. The aition for 

these rites is found in Telesilla (717 PMC), as well as in Pausanias, who 

teUs the story of Alpheios' attempted rape of Artemis: when the goddess 

and her nymphs smeared themselves with mud, Alpheios was 

unable to identify Artemis and carry out his plan. The ritual is easy to 

reconstruct. As part of their transition rites, the initiands went down to 

the bank of the river and covered themselves with mud, which was 

'7 Cole (

16 WAYNE B. INGALLS 

chamber. The prayer to Artemis represents her positive thoughts 

about remarriage. Although she prays for death, she prays to the 

goddess who in the case of young girls brings about the death of their 

maidenhood, which is frequently expressed in myth as death,uJ 

The third step in Penelope's preparation is her meeting with the 

disguised Odysseus. Before this meeting. she is again compared with 

Artemis and Aphrodite (19.54). The interview with the disguised 

Odysseus is one of the most important scenes in the poem. 64 As a result 

of this conversation, in which Odysseus assures Penelope that her absent 

husband will soon return, a number of significant events occur. 

First, as Katz has noted. Penelope abandons hope of Odysseus' return.65 

Penelope's attitude is reflected by the replacement of the verb 

KAaiw ("bewail"). which is normally used of Penelope's weeping for 

Odysseus (1.363-364 = 16.450-451 = 19.603-604 = 21.357-358). by 

yoow ("mourn"). This shift occurs between 19.208-209 and 209-2lO. 

Second. Penelope accepts Odysseus as a xeinos and orders him bathed. 

which leads to his discovery by Eurykleia. Finally. after revealing her 

dream. Penelope announces her intention of holding the contest of the 

bow which will result in the slaughter of the suitors. Again. the allusion 

to Artemis and Aphrodite reminds the audience of Nausikaa and 

the parallels with Penelope. Both are preoccupied with marriage. disdain 

their suitors, and are attracted to the stranger whom they interview 

alone. 

After the meeting with Odysseus. Penelope again prays to Ar temis 

for death (20 .6I). That prayer also contains an allusion to the myth of 

the daughters of Pandareus. These maidens (Kopal 74) whose parents 

had been slain by the gods were tended by Aphrodite, given beauty 

and wisdom (e18oc Kat m VUTTl v) by Hera, stature by Artemis. and 

taught how to make famous works by Athena. Like Penelope they had 

been left in their halls. While Aphrodite was on her way to Olympus 

to ask for the accomplishment of fruitful marriage (TEAOC 8aAepO\O 

YOIlOIO) for the maidens. the storm winds snatched them away and 

gave them to the Erinyes. Penelope. who like the daughters of Pandareus 

has been left in her halls, likewise is ready for marriage. b6 It is 

63 So Dowden (above. n. 7) passim. 

64 Austin, Arrhery(above, n. T) 181 ca lls this meeting the "important Scene of 

the poem" and suggests that it generated a sel'ies of similar scenes of a queen 

entertaining a vagrant. including Artte's meeting with Odysseus in Scheria and 

Helen's reception of Telemachos in Sparta. 

65 Katz (above. n. 55) 140-141. 

(,6 Katz (above. n. 55) 149 comments that Penelope's prayel' to AI ·temis for a 

quick and painless death is ambiguous because the wish to J"t'milin a virgin fo'-

[8 WA YNE B. INGALLS 

the audience hears echoes of the initia tory motif prominent in the 

Nausikaa episode. 

D EPARTMENT OF HISTORY 

M OUNT SAINT VI NCENT UNIVERSITY 

HALI FAX . NS B3M 2)6

THE END OF THE IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS 

CW1S, E1 V 01KalOUC q>Cnac.> EKcwcaca y E 

Ka\ TTPlv c' 'APE101C EV TTOYOIC '+'rl

40 MAX NELSON 

tion. and baptism.7 1 He first orders Strepsiades to sit on "the sacred 

bed, "7l then gives him a wreath. and, after Strepsiades expresses his 

fear of being sacrificed, Socrates tells him that all of these things are 

usually done to initiates. Finally. Strepsiades is purified with water (by 

the Clouds) as he covers himself with his cloak.73 A.W.H. Adkins. in a 

now notorious article. suggested that Aristophanes was trying to shock 

his audience by revealing to them Socrates's fondness for using Mystery 

terminology in his philosophical discussions by having him objectionably 

parodying the Eleusinian Mysteries. G.J. de Vries. however. 

demonstrated that Socrates was in fact depicted engaging only in preparatory 

rites, which could be unobjectionably revealed, and that these 

rites were not even necessarily Eleusinian.74 Adkins further claimed 

that Plato had this whole passage of Aristophanes's in mind whe n he 

spoke of 8povwclc in his Euthydcmus, and attempted to redirect the 

comic JXlet's parody against Socrates's enemies, the sophists Euthydemus 

and Dionysodorus.7s But while the same sort of initiatory purification 

is mentioned in both Aristophanes and Plato, other details in the 

7' These stages are noted by Dovel' (above, n. 61) 130. The word )..IV CTT'jptO is 

specifically used at AI". Nu. 143. For references to Mystery initiation in the Clouds, 

see also C. Meautis, "La scene d 'initiation dans les 'Nuees' d'Ahslophane," I?HI? 

1 18 (1938)92--97:5. 8yl. "Parodie d'une initiation dans les Nuees d'AI' istophane." 

RBPh sB (1980) 5-21. and "Encore une d izaine d'alJusions elusiniennes dans les 

Nueesd·Aristophane." RBPh66 (1g88) 6Prr7 (with fw,thel' scholarship cited at 6S 

n. I): most recently, M.e. Marianetti. Religion and Politics in Aristophanes' 

Clouds (Hildesheim etc. 1992) 44--'75. w ho finds elements from various cults, but 

does not always deal convincingl y with the Eleusinian matehal 

71 AI'. N u. 254 (K6.9u;E TOIVVV eTT! TOV IEPOV CKI)..lTTooo). Dover notes (above. n. 

6,) 131 that Plato later said that Socrates had this type of bed at home (Prt. 3IO(2). 

73 Ar. Nu. 255-257 (concerning the wreath), 258--259 (on the initiation: TOUTO 

TTclVTO TOUC TEAOV)..IEVOUC f))..IEic TTOtOV)..IEV). and 260--268 (purification by water 

and head-covel'ing). Similarly. latel' on in the play Strepsiades takes out a bed 

(633). is told to lie on it (694), and has his head covered (727.735. and 740) 

74 AWH. Adkins. "Clouds. mysteries. Socrates and Plato." Antichthon 4 

('970) [3-24. at 13-18 (on Aristophanes's motives) and 23-24 (on Socrates himself 

using the tel'minology): G.]. de Vries. "Mystery tel'minology in Aristophanes and 

Plato." Mnemosyne 26 (1973) 1-8. at 2-3. Burkert (1972) (above, n. 28) 296-297 = 

(1983) 268--269 also plays down the chal'ge af sacrilege here. 

75 Adkins (above, n. 74) 18--19. Adkins's controversial fI'eatment af Plato's 

supposed three different types of usage of Mystery terminology and his claim 

that Plato became increaSingly outspoken about such use «above. n. 741 18--24. 

esp. 22) are righly dismissed by de Vries (above. n. 74) 3--8 and RS.W. Hawtrey, 

"Plata. Socrates and the mysteries: A note." Antjchthon 10 ('976) 22-24. Mystery 

initiates also playa large role in Aristophanes's Frogs. and some have al'gued 

that the Lesser Mysteries are alluded to there as well (see Dover . ed .. Aristophanc:s:Frogs 

[Oxford 1993161-62. with n. [3 far n:ferena:s).

Echos du Monde Classique/C/assicaJ Vie ws 

XLIV, n.S. 19,2000,45-83 

LA SCIENCE PHILOLOGIQUE ET LA QUESTION DES LA NCUES: 

DU LATIN AUX VERNACULAIRES £1' 

D'UN VERNACULAIRE A L'AUTRE ' 

P ASCA LE I-I UMM EL 

I'HILOLOCUE DA NS SA LANGUE: 

PHILOLOGIA PERENf\1fS ET PI-IILOLOCIA NOVA 1 

De mechants esprits reprochent parfois aux philologues classiques de 

vivre penches sur les textes anciens dont la lettre constituel'ait poUI 

eux I'unique aliment de la pensee, Platon pourtant qui Ie premier 

baptisa du nom de philologues ceux quL avant d 'en faire un metiel". 

faisaient simplement profession d 'aimer les discaurs camille iis 

goutaient ran de penseI', enveloppait dans un meme compliment les 

philosophes-philologues et les philologues-philosophes que rien ne 

distinguait, sinon Ie point de vue auquel on se plac;ait lorsqu'on louait 

leur commune inclination pour les beautes de resprit. 'AvaYKll, 0: 6 

PASCALE HUMMEL 

de l'epoque alexandrine celie du mot grammairien : et toute la tradition 

erudite. depuis l'antiquite grecque et romaine jusqu'a I'epoque 

rnoderne. se plut it employer ces mots en alternance quand elle ne se 

complaisait pas ales confondre. Tandis que la philologie semblait plus 

apte a conserver dans son nom 1a haute fonetion polymathique que lui 

avait assignee Platon et que lui reconnaissait explicitement Suetone. 

lorsqu'il la definissait au chapitre x du De illustribus grammar-icis 

camme une « multiplex variaque doctrina », tout en revanche 

paraissait destiner la grammaire a une mission plus modeste. plus 

tournee vel's la lettre des textes que vel's I'interpretation de la pensee. 

Les faits cependant attestent que l'hermeneutique et la grammaire 

furent plus souvent associees que dissociees, et il faHut attendre 

longtemps avant que la lettre et l'esprit ne fussent connes it des soins 

separes. C'est sans doute dans la mise au jour de la solidarite de ces 

deux aspects que reside la verite epistemologique de la philologie qui 

tarda it s'affirmer ou s'accepter comme science, si toutefois elle y 

parvint jamais. De la philosoph ie, dont Platon en faisait la sceur, elle 

garda toujours un farouche attachement it la sagesse dont die pensait 

trouver la verite dans I'etude du langage qui y conduisait. Si Platon 

avait it traduire pour nous Ie terme de philologie, dont Ie sens 

s'imposait it lui avec l'evidence des choses qu'on omet de definir, 

gageons qu'il choisirait de la rendre par l'expression « amour du 

langage» plutot que « de la langue » dont rendrait mieux compte un 

hypothetique *philoglossie. Cet amour du langage equiva lait assurement 

pour Ie philosophe it l'amour de la pensee, tant les deux ne se 

pouvaient, et ne se peuvent. concevoir run sa ns l'autre. Un tel exercice 

de la pensee se ramenait aux yeux du philosophe it ce que nous 

appeUerions volontiers une science du vivant, dont Ie plus fervent 

zelateur ne fut autre que Ie philosophe sans ceuvre. Socrate. Cette 

science qui avait pour objet Ie vivant ne se concevait pas. meme si 

Platon ne repugnait pas it scruter Ie passe de sa propre langue. 

independamment de la langue vivante, a savoir Ie grec, dans laquelle 

elle s'exerc;ait. C'est pourquoi 101 philologie ne pouvait etre d 'abord 

que commentaire. c'est-it-dire langage ajoute au langage. discours 

ajoute au discours. Cette circulation ou circularite discursive se deployait 

tout entiere dans Ie champ clos d'un hellenisme qui n'imaginait pas 

qu'on put lui resister. La pratique premiere de la philologie fut donc 

rien moins que vernaculaire, tant les Grecs cultivaient leur autochtonie 

et vivaient dans leur langue comme en autarcie. Les premiers 

philologues classiques furent grecs. et ils Ie furent en grec. Cest cette 

evidence que nous prendrons pour point de depart ici pour observer 

Gurenbel-g-Jahrbuch 74.1999. p. 303-317.

LA SCIENCE PHILOLOGIQUE 

communautaire de Ia science selon laquelle il importe mains de 

soigner la maniere que de faire circuler. pour I'enrichir ct III 

retravailler sans cesse, une matiere qui en definitive appartient a tous 

et a chacun.'66 

6. RUE DE LA FELICITE 

75017 PARIS 

,(,{, Depuiscetteconference.le plDjet a pris forme i'l OxfOl"d de In rc.)liS.:ltion. 

sous In direction d'Oswyn M UlTa y, d 'une Bibfjothecil Acadcmica Tf"ans/,lliotlum. 

Translations of Classical Scho/al"Ship.

88 MICHA EL HENDRY 

tress' door because he wishes he were inside with the woman in place 

of the other man, the patron of Juvenal 9 surely wishes that he were 

inside with the other man, in place of his wife: he is not so much excJusus 

amator as excJusus EpWI1EVOC. His motivation for listening is no 

doubt a mixture of two different kinds of prurient envy: as in Goodyear's 

interpretation. he envies Naevolus for being man enough to do 

what he cannot, but he also envies his wife for doing-or rather for 

having done to her- what he would very much like to be having done 

to himself. 

My interpretation may seem to disregard the erotic imagery earlier 

in the satire. where Naevolus is the beloved and the patron (or 

someone very like him) his lover, drooling over him (spumanti ... la 

bello. 35) and sending him love letters (blandae ... densaeque tabellae. 

36). Perhaps we should say that the patron is the EpaCTTJC insofar as he 

pursues Naevolus. the EPWI-IEVOC in so far as he is penetrated by him. 

and that his violation of the distinction between active pursuer and 

passive pursued is a great part of his offense. The idea that a freeborn 

Roman man should be willing--even pathetically eager. in this caseto 

allow himself to be penetrated by another man was abhorrent to 

Roman ideals. a fact which has much to do with the point of the satire. 

That the husband should play the role of excJusus amator would be 

shameful enough. even if he were playing a more manly and active 

role: as excJusus epwllEvoC. he is utterly contemptible. Another 

(minor) point in favor of my interpretation is that the patron's wife is 

a total nonentity. as unimportant to her husband as to Naevolus . except 

for producing heirs and avoiding the disgrace of a divorce!o: just so is 

the elegiac husband or rival a mere featureless obstacle, 

At the end of his tirade. Naevolus responds to a mock-sympathetic 

question from the speaker with a single line (90--92): 

iusta doloris. 

Naeuole. calk

MICHAEL HENDRY 

that a two-legged ass would be even more overburdened than the 

four-legged kind, '4 

DEPARTMENT OF ROMANCE LANGUAGES 

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY 

BOWLING GREEN, OH 43403-0230 

in crude passages. and Juvenal's satires hardly qualify as refined poetry-rather 

that asdlus, being less crude and not in effect diminutive. has no advantage over 

asinus in contemptuousness. 

q A1though a two-legged ass might be seen as in some sense one-half of a 

standard four-legged ass and a mule is a "half-ass" (fll .. dovoc) in Greek. I doubt 

that Juvenal intends any reference to mules: Naevolus is certainly not sterile.

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

JOSEPH M. BRYANT. Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient 

Greece: A Sociol0I;Y of Greek Ethics from Homer to 

the Epicureans and StOlCS. SUNY Series in the Sociology of 

Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1996. 

Pp. xv + 575. ISBN 0-7914-3041-3 (cloth), 0-79'4-3042-[ 

(paper). 

This is a study of the moral and social philosophies of tht: ancient 

Greeks in the context of the development of the Greek polis from its 

beginnings to its decline in the fourth century and afterwards. The 

author writes in his Intl'Od uction that "[tlhere has been much talk 

about the nature of the Polis, but little systematic attention to the institutional 

orders within it or their transformations over time [Lleft 

unspecified arc the mechanisms and modalities by which institutions 

a nd class structw'es actually come to sustain congruent constellations of 

norms and values or promote distinctive modes of cognition and affect" 

(6). Bryant attempts to trace the effects of social Stl'UctUI'CS «md 

disl'uptions of those structures) on the "moral codes" of the ancient 

Greeks: this involves presenting both an historical account of deve lopments 

in social organization and analyses of the various nonnative 

ideals generated within those societies. The result is a lengthy

92 


tions between ideologies and institutions. is not without its own problems: 

in the later chapters, some of the transitions from one section to 

the next are rather abrupt. The "interweaving" of historical and philosophical 

material in chapter s 4 and 5 can seem a little haphazard after 

the neat divisions of the preceding chapters: after a long section on the 

ideas of the sophists and Sokrates (4.IV), for example. Bryant requires 

that we "retrace our steps" (200) before studying those of their successors. 

and devotes the rest of the chapter to the history of the pentekontaetia 

and the Peloponnesian War. Further on, the promise of the concluding 

sentence of section S.V ! ("The meteoric career of Alexander. 

must therefore be recounted before we offer our concluding comments 

on the philosophy of Aristotle," 368) is not fulfilled until the beginning 

of the next chapter (377) . after a section on the ideas of the 

Cynics. 

Bryant's historical picture is a familiar one: the powers of the Dark 

Age nobility were challenged and reduced by the "hoplite revolution" 

of the seventh century, and under pressure from the hoplite citizenry. 

the rule of the aristocracy gave way eventually to the collective fX>lis 

ideal: the aristocratic agonal ethos was '''rechanneled' to serve communally 

approved objectives" (95) and curbed by the rule of law. In 

the early classical period. the citizen-soldier ideal was consolidated and 

reinforced by democratizing reforms and "ritualized affirmations of 

equality" (157) through which class tensions were kept from destroying 

the polis from the inside, but after the PeJoponnesian War these 

poleis could not withstand the combined threats to their autonomy (a nd 

indeed existence) posed by conflicts both within and without their 

walls . elite apragmosune, and of course Macedonian imperia lism. 

These developments strained the "Polls-citizen bond" on w hich the 

classical city had been based , a nd the identification of "citizen" with 

"soldier" was now confounded by military professionalization and increased 

employment of mercenary troops: the ethica l frameworks of 

later philosophical schools such as the Epicureans and Stoics reflect tltis 

disruption in their reliance-to varying degrees-on "an individualistic 

ethos that clings desperately to internalized standards of excellence 

and well-being" (46r) as opfX>sed to the "grand fusion of ethike [sicJ 

and politike that had characterized the social philosophies of Plato a nd 

Aristotle" (462). 

This makes for a fairly coherent narrative, and readers may well 

object that some of the developments described here arc too neat. In 

the early parts of the work. for example, Bryant (following Finley) 

presents the Homeric fX>ems as a reasonably faithful depiction of Dark 

Age society and proceeds smoothly from this to the "hoplite revolution" 

and democratization, and the shift from "competitive" to "co-

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 93 

opera ti ve" ethics. This straight forward progression from the pre-polis 

"her o ic code" of the e pics to the dty-state ideal was the n .:ccivcd wisdom 

in the scholarship which Bryant follows. but it needs IT finement': 

when I-Iomer and Hesiod are contrasted bluntly as "the noblema n's 

ba rd and the farmer -poet " r epresenting "t he walTiol'-nobility and the 

peasantry" (35). we may suspect that closer attention to questions of 

context, for example (the Home ric epics were composed si mply "for an 

audknce of banqueting warrior-nobles." 38), might provide deeper 

ins ig ht into the ideologies repl'csented in their works. 

There is . of course. little room in a study of this na tun . .: to disc uss al l 

such d etails. and Bryant's presentation o f these developments docs at 

least w ork on its own terms. The chapters on the Dark and Archaic 

Ages. in any case, seem to be intended simply as a brief s ketch of the 

backgr ound for the much mo r e voluminous chapters 4

94 


a nd Aristotelian ideas and the careers of powerful friends of the philosophers. 

The focus of the last part of the book is summed up in the title of 

Section 6.1II. "Ethics in a New Key: The Retreat from Polis-Citizen Ideals 

and the Interiorization of Moral Value." In the Hellenistic age, 

w hen "the ascendant forces of patrimonial imperium and colonization 

rendered the classical Polis-citizen nexus outmoded in practical terms" 

(402), philosophers from the Cynics to the Stoics discarded the polisoriented 

ideas of virtue favoured by Plato and Aristotle and attempted 

to develop ethical systems which would be "geared to entirely different 

social correlates: not the citizen, but the demilitarized. depoliticized 

subject; not the commune member of an autonomous city-state, but the 

atomized inhabitants of cities and empires" (401). In Bryant's analysis 

these ideas, like their predecessors. are responses to developments in 

the economic and political spheres, but instead of attempting to build 

OJ' reinforce the connection between the individual and his immediate 

community, they seek " to distance the well-being of the individual 

from the collapsing Polis framework and to detach arete. from its 

former dependence on communal service through performance in the 

roles of warrior and self-governing citizen" (461). This is true enough, 

but Bryant's concern with emphasizing this trend and the "apolitical" 

nature of Stoic cosmopolitanism (440), for example. may distort the pictUre 

somewhat. "From the fact that none of the three leaders of the 

Old Stoa-Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus-ever accepted court positions 

and consistently refrained from all political activity themselves," 

writes Bryant, "one can reasonably conclude that fa politika was not 

ranked highly in the scale of 'preferred indifferents'" (441). It is interesting 

to compare this assertion with a more recent remark on the 

same subject: "Chrysippus goes out of his way to emphasize the depths 

of his immersion in the world immediately about him IWlhat is 

most striking about his account of the JXllitical life is just how thoroughly 

traditional it is. ". Though it may not be apparent in Bryant's 

contention that "in the process of securing ... self-contained immunity, 

the Stoic is forced to abandon what is perhaps the most precious dimension 

of the human experience, namely, that Dionysian exultation 

and joy in life that comes only with an exuberant psychic commitment 

l M. Schofield. "Epicw-ean and Stoic political though!." in C j. Rowt: and M. 

Schofield. eds .. The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought 

(Cambridge 2000) 435-456. at «6-«7. in his Introduction to tht: volume. Rowe 

suggests that the apparent "sea-change" hum the Aristotelian conception of 

"ethics" as part of "politics" to the Hellenistic subordination of politics to ethical 

philosophy ca n in fact be seen as "no man: than a minor. and essemially technical. 

shift of emphasis" (5).

96 


efforts will feature a contextual-narrative logic." xiv}' occasional absurdity 

(while some ancient texts are fragmentary, others are 

"preserved in wholistic form," 26 1), and tedious repetition: we are told 

in q uick succession that Philip was "struck down by an assassin's dagger" 

(333), that his plans for war against Persia were "cut short by an 

assassin's dagger " (368), and that it was "an assassin's dagger" that 

claimed his life (377): when fi ve consecutive sentences begin with the 

phrase "In a world where ... " (454), the text begins to sound like the 

voice-over script for a movie trailer. Flaws like these abound. and the 

result is a book w hose virtues would be more apparent if there had 

been fewer assassins' daggers and more editors' scissors involved. 

C.I.e. ROBERTSON 

DEPARTMENT OF A NTI·IROPOLOGY AND CLASSICAL STUDlf.5 

U NIV ERSITY OF WATERLOO 

WATE RLOO. ON NzL 3C I 

JOCELYN PENNY SMALL. Wax Tablets of . the Mind: Cognitive 

Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity. London/New 

York: Routledge, 1997. Pp. xviii + 377. Cloth, Can. 

$1 19·00, US $85.00. ISBN 0-415-14983-5. 

Small's fascinating study of literacy in antiquity is based o n the idea 

(borrowed from Donald Norman) that tools and a person together 

form a cognitive artifact. Her project is to investigate the cognitive artifact 

formed by the conjunction of literacy and the human mind. She 

begins with what she calls an "archeological approach ": that is, she 

exa mines the tools of literacy and attempts to deduce their cognitive 

implications. She does not believe, however, that people in antiquity 

were fundamentally different from people today: "the real distinction 

between the Myceneans and us lies not in basic brain power, but in the 

fact that what we choose to remember differs greatly" (4 ). Here I think 

she may unintentionally mislead the reader about her own JX>sition, 

since in her account choice is not entirely free. For example, "one of 

literacy's most notable effects is that it feeds uJX>n itself. The more literate 

you are the more words you need to remember" (5). Moreover. 

"the balance between the tools constantly shifts. If you change one. 

then chances are the others will also need changes" (241). 

Literacy thus solves a problem of memory only to create a new 

problem of memory: external storage allows words to accumulate over 

time. and these words must be organized for easy retrieval: 

"Acceptance of the new medium was slow, because the ways to use.


much less exploit it were even slower in developing. The rcal pmblcm 

was not the silence of the written word. but the difficulty of finding 

what you wanted among all those unspeaking wo rds" (10). 

Much of Small's study is devoted to the physical tt:chnology of writing, 

publishing, and reading in antiquity. Some of this will be familiar 

to classicists. but it is useful to have so much information in one p lnec. 

with copious references. There


ments demonstrate that people remember better when more than one 

of their five senses is engaged simultaneously" (74). This is not news. 

Small notes that a sequential memorization system works for both sequential 

and non-sequential information: but "[hlow sequential and 

non-sequential information is actually stored in the brain is beyond the 

scope of this discussion " (84). 

Small argues that the rather abstract memory system developed in 

Gr eece was improved by a more concrete system developed in Rome 

and described by the Auctor ad Herennium. According to Small, "no 

Greek source speaks of the topoi as anything other than a mental constr 

uct"; moreover, "only Romans could have developed such a system, 

because the Greeks have little sense of place, as is demonstrated most 

clearly by the virtual absence of setting in their pictorial arts" (95). I 

am not competent to judge this argument, though she presents her case 

persuasively. As the Auctor says, a memory system based on concrete 

places is subject to the physica l limits of human perception: the places 

must be "neither too big nor too small, neither too dim nor too bright, 

neither too crowded nor too far apart, neither too near nor too far 

away" (100). The findings of cognitive psychology support the idea 

that mental imagery is linked to concrete visualization: "Hence it has 

taken two millennia to prove that the Auctor was absolutely cor rect in 

his recommendation that places for memory stor age must comply with 

the constraints of our physical visual system " (107). 

Always in the background of this book is the sense that we are in 

the middle of a change in the technology of literacy which will have 

consequences as important as the changes brought about by the development 

of literacy itself. "If you want to know where the computer 

revolution is headed, then you have to know where it came from " 

(242). Small notes certain patterns in the reception of new technologies. 

Some, then as now, are optimists and some are pessimists. We begin 

by treating a new technology as if it were only a variation on what 

already exists: "[t]he first cars were buggies without the horses in 

front .. .. The first word processors were glorified typewriters, an 

automated delete key .... IWJe consume staggering amounts of paper 

to print everything out, because in the depths of our souls we cannot 

fully trust what we feel we cannot fully control" (243). But the changes 

will occur: "As writing enabled thought to become more sequential. 

less paratactic, so the computer enables thought to be more threadlike 

within its hypertext environment. You will no longer have to doggedly 

follow an author's arguments in his or her order . You will be 

able to pursue each point and its related points in the order you like 

until you have all the threads that compose the work" (243). "Literacy 

is always beginning" (244). This study shows a classicist engaging with

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTE5 RENDUS 

the modern world in the light of antiquity. Sma ll clea rly loves the 

past. but I feel that she loves the future as well. Not the least pleasure 

of this delightful book is the sense of the author's persona lity. I enjoyed 

my hours in the company of her book, and I recommend it both 

for its store of infor mation a nd also for the evidence it gives of its 

author's mind. 

MATTHEW CLARK 

DIVISION OF HUMANITI ES 

YORK UNIVERSITY 

NORTJ-IYORK.ON M3J ,P3 

[ NGVILD SIELID GILHUS. Laughing Gods. Weeping Virgins. 

Laughter in the History of Religion. London:Ro utled ge. 

1997· Pp. vii + 173· 

TO IlOVDV YEAOV TW V (;ywv civ8pWTTOV 

Aristotle. De partibus animalium 673"8 

Whether or not Aristotle was correct in the claim that only humans 

laugh, it is as characteristic of our species to laugh as it is to err. Until 

the second half of this century religion. like laughter. has been central 

to the human experience. and Gilhus has produced a first-rate study of 

the place of laughter within the Western religious tradition. Isolating 

the important point that laughter until the Modern period has been 

read as a sign of the opening up of the human body (homologous with 

sexual activity). she identifies ways in which throughout human history 

this transgressive feature of laughter has been both controlled 

and exploited in religious contexts. Where laughter was closely integrated 

with other bodily functions, cultural constructions around the 

body influenced the place of laughter in religious life. Centl'a l to he l' 

study is the point that the importance attached to laughter. with positive 

or negative evaluation of its power. has flu ctuated in tandem with 

views about the human body. 

In her study of the Ancient Near East and Classical Greece,Gilhus 

explores two fundamental types of laughter, erotic/creative and derisive/destructive. 

as these appear in myths and rituals. Erotic laughter-a 

cosmic force-was associated with sexuality and binh in cultural 

contexts where there was a belief in the consubstantiality of the body 

and the universe. Demeter laughs at lambe's opening up of the 

woman's body and life flows. Adapa and Anu or Dionysos la ugh with 

derision. exerting the power of divinity and confirming hierar chies of

100 BOOK REVTEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

power among the gods or between gods and mortals. Laughter among 

the gods feasting at the end of lliad I is both creative and derisive. 

where tension is relieved and community restored by laughter targeted 

at the lame Hephaistos. 

More complete studies of the role of laughter in Greek culture exist, 

which refine many of the points raised by Gilhus in her study of 

religious laughter. Stephen Halliwell (CQ 4I [19911 279-296) develops 

the idea of laughter as a force for the restoration of order. for enforcing 

conformity. for preserving the boundary between friends and 

enemies. The Greeks. as he points out, were inclined to moralizing 

thought and operated within a culture highly sensitive to shame. 

GeJoia, playful laughter belonging to the feast or kamas. was not to be 

isolated from spoudaia. laughter which generated consequences. moral 

correction. Thersites in Iliad 2 or Ares and Aphrodite in Odyssey 8 

were the butt of derisive laughter which restored order. AischroJogia. 

jocular obscenities. were grounded directly in rituals of Demeter and 

Dionysos in Greece. and surfaced later in the humour of Old Comedy. 

Aischrologia is one of the clearest examples of the homology between 

laughter and human sexual activity. as CHhus notes. Its confinement to 

ritual space and time was vital. as Halliwell points out. for its licence 

could easily pose a threat to civic order. the subversive force enjoyed 

by Old Comedy. 

With the fourth century B.C.E., philosophers like Plato and Aristotle 

recognized the appropriateness of critical laughter (the heir of the 

derisive laughter of the gods in the earlier period) as a mechanism for 

social control. but feared its disruptive force in the maintenance of control 

of the individual self. Laughter for Plato represented ignorance 

and stupidity, for Aristotle the ugly. and both sought to undermine 

laughter'S privileged position. Combined with Plato's legacy of the 

separation of body and soul, this desire to restrict laughter influenced 

thinking about humour for centuries. as Gilhus points out. 

With the secularization of the natural world which began with 

philosophic thinking in post-Classical Greece, the ground was laid for 

Christianity to become a religion not based in nature but upon words 

and texts. Aischrologia had no place in religious life: the body. with its 

eroticism, was now alien to spiritual experience. Gilhus notes the consequences: 

"How erotic life was exorcized from religious laughter and 

replaced with spirituality is one of the great dramatic changes in the 

history of religious laughter in the West" (I37). In the climate of asceticism 

in which Christianity took its rise, this was particularly apparent. 

Control of the body entailed control of laughter. Monks and virgins 

were serious: the more the body was closed to the world the more the 

soul could be opened to God. The virgin became a walking symbol of

02 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

scope of this book provides a refreshing corrective to a narrow understanding 

of church history. Topics not developed in the book invite 

further study. Just what were the various subjects which provoked 

religious laughter-the breaking of a tabu. for example-can define a 

community with a fair amount of precision, for what one group finds 

funny another considers dull or in bad taste. The pedagogic role of 

laughter is implicit throughout this historical study. something that 

also bears recognition. 

The weaknesses of the book are minor. The title raises expectations 

which are not fulfilled, for weeping virgins occupy little space in the 

text. (The interplay between laughter and weeping is explored more 

fully in Le rire et Ies Iarmes dans Ia litterature grecque d'Homere a 

Platon by Dominique Arnould )Paris 19901. for example. a book which 

also explores the many subtle differences in types of laughter.> The 

complex interaction between derisive and playful laughter. and the 

role that both play in maintaining social order not only in Classical 

Greece but elsewhere as well. bears more serious study. This aside. 

the book is to be recommended. Classicists. disposed more to spoudaia 

than ge1oia. can ill afford to ignore the importance of laughter. After 

all. the Greeks took laughter seriously. possessing at least 60 wordgroups 

which described and evaluated it (Halliwell 180). 

BONNIE MACLACHLAN 

D EPARTMENT OF CLASSICAL STUDIES 

UNIVERSITY OF W ESTERN ONTARIO 

LONDON , ON N6A 3K7 

MARGARETe. MILLER. Athens and Persia in tlle Fifth Century 

Be. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, '997. Pp. xiv 

+ 258 , 130 figures: maps, glossary, and three indices. Cloth. 

£60.00. ISBN 0-521 -49598--

104 


whole new order of luxury culture," since the Greeks had been well 

acquainted with the wealth of eastern despots long before the Persian 

wars (e.g. Archilochos on Gyges, Kroesos' dedications in Delphoi etc.). 

In this sense. Miller seems to have considerably overstated her case. 

In the third chapter, Miller deals with the matter of cultural exchange 

through trade. There are five subdivisions. She looks first at 

Attic pottery. and then at other traceable imports such as cooking 

ware, coinage. translucent glass. textiles etc. Thirdly she considers the 

matter of foreign sla ves and metics imported into Attica. Fourthly she 

examines the behaviour of Attic traders towards the East, and finally 

she concludes briefly that "Even were there no other reason to suppose 

that Athenians had opportunities to come into direct contact with 

Persians. we would have ample evidence to suggest that indirect contact 

occurred" (88). Thoug h her collectio n of evidence in this chapter is 

impressive. her conclusion is hardly a surprise. For it is a well known 

fact that Athens in the fifth century could not survive witho ut eastern 

trade. since the Athenians painfully experienced hardship at the end 

of the Peloponnesian war. 

In the fourth chapter Miller investigates the geographical contact 

points between Greeks and Persians. Her study moves geographicall y 

from Persians in Greece to Greeks in Persia. She is interested mainly 

in probable reactions of Gr eeks who were exposed to Per sian culture 

in various parts of the world. She assumes that the Greeks' first-hand 

experience of Persia tended mostly to be superficial and often seriously 

biased. What is slightly disturbing in this chapter is that. though 

she convincingly shows that there was ample evidence to suggest that a 

significant number of Greeks visited the Per sian empire. there is no 

indication of the proportion of the Athenians who actually visited Persia. 

In the final chapter of the first part Miller tries to recreate the experience 

of Greek ambassadors who visited Susa 0 1'. more frequently. 

eastern Satrapai courts. She points out that their experiences may have 

been more visual than intellectual. but their experience carried prestige 

and authority in their homeland (1 33). 

In the first chapter of the second part. she looks at the influence of 

Persian metal wares on Attic ceramics. She discusses her subject in 

three aspects: imitation. adaptation and derivation of Attic wares. Since 

the amount of extant ceramic evidence is so limited. as she herself admits 

(1 30), any statement about the general trend seems to be risky. In 

the second chapter Miller explores Persian influence on Athenian 

dress (Le. chiton. kandys. ependys etc.). She concludes that the Athenians 

employed elements of Persian dress not for practical purposes but 

mainly for satisfying their exotic taste (183). Miller sta tes (184) that 

"The garments were borrowed and sometimes modified. but most im-

BOOK Rt'VIL'WS/COMPTES RENDUS 

porlantly they were added to the existing Greek repertoire. and wom 

in conjunction with ordinary G r eek clothing." Since neither did the 

oriental elements of clothing become pennanently a stanJiu "d pen'! of 

Athenian garment, no r do we know the extent of this fashion. it seems 

too hasty to assume that the Persian elements were " .. del ed " In 

"ordinary Greek clothing. " The phenomenon seems morc likely to be 

ephemeral. Herodotus says (1. 133): "the Per sians welcome fo reig n customs 

more than any other people. For instance. they decided th


Over the course of the fifth century the symbolic value of traditional 

aristocratic prestige goods gave way to what we might call semiotic 

value. Perserie items and practices signified the power of wealth, with 

specific I'eference to the East. 

On the contrary. throughout the century the symbolic value of traditional 

aristocratic prestige goods seems to have held undiminished importance. 

Otherwise. in 416 Alcibiades would not have referred to his 

chariots' victories in Olympia. The trend Miller argues for may have 

been only a small part of a broader and more complex cultural Cill'rent 

in Athens. 

The book as a whole. however, is a valuable contribution to the 

study of fifth-century Athens, since there has been no work which has 

so widely and systematically collected related materials in one volume 

as the present work does. What is annoying is that, though Miller sets 

her work as a whole against "a commonplace of modern scholarship" 

(1), she provides only one specific reference to P. Georges' publication 

in I994 as an example. Her arguments often become less convincing as 

she frequently makes no distinction between Eastern cultural influences 

in general and those of specifically Achaemenid Persian culture. 

Moreover, she often uncritically infers tendencies in Athens from notions 

gained from elsewhere in Greece in general. The book is mostly 

free of errors in references and typography. though" I96I" should 

read" 1962" in footnotes 133, 135 and I59 in chapter seven. 

HARUO KONISHI 

D EPARTMENT OF CLASSICS AND ANCiENT HISTORY 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK 

FREDERICfON. NB E3B SA3 

GEORGE CAWKWELL. Thucydides and the Pdoponnesian War. 

London/New York: Routledge. 1997. Pp. x + 162. ISBN 0- 

415-16552-0 (pbk). 0-415-16430-3 (hbk). 

Recording the events of one's own time as they happen the way 

Thucydides claims to have done has the advantage of creating a sense 

of immediacy in the resulting report. The disadvantages. however, 

are perhaps more serious. One only has to go into the microfilm section 

of one's library and read through the newspapers of any year 

selected at random from seventy or eighty years ago to realize how 

much of what seemed of earth-shattering significance at the time has 

disappeared from memory altogether, and how even the significance 

of the remembered things has changed with the passage of time and


well does not quite say but seems prepared to believe that the speech 

Thucydides puts into the mouth of Alcibiades before his fellow genera 

ls (6.47--9)-far more modest in its strategic design than the one attl'ibuted 

to him in the great debate (6.ls)-was obtained directly from 

Alcibiades himself (or his men) when the historian and general were 

both in the Thraceward region during the closing years of the war 

(8 1). 

The fact that there seem to be two Alcibiadeses in the Pcloponnesian 

War is no torious. In 8.86 .4 we see what looks like Thucydides' attempt 

to stitch the two personae together in his narrative. Here Alcibiades 

emerges as a stabilizing influence over the mob, saving it from the 

folly of abandoning Ionia for a dash on Athens to oust the oligarchy. 

an act that Thucydides ungenerously calls "the first great act of service 

to his country." The clear-thinking statesman of this scene is a far cry 

from the crazy dreamer of conquering Sicily, Carthage and points 

west of just a few years previous. If the moderate Alcibiades comes 

from more or less direct contact after ca. 41 2, Cawkwell has a plausible 

idea whence the wild one originates: "It seems probable that Thucydides 

knew Pericles sufficiently to have encountered the young Alcibiades 

at his house. but in any case, by 425 . he was a well-known 

figure .... Thucydides may have formed the view that Alcibiades was 

as wild in his judgement as he was in ambition and. when in exile he 

learned that Alcibiades had urged the sending of a force to Sicily. he 

leapt to the extreme view expressed in his second 'truest ca use' 

(6.6.1)." (81) 

Of course, he did not just "leap to an extreme view": if Ca wkwell is 

right. he crafted the entire debate over w hether to send out the Sicilian 

expedition around it. including the speech he put into the mouth of 

Alcibiades. (The same excessively ambitious mindset is reflected. at 

least in part. by the speech put into Alcibiades' mouth when in Sparta 

after his escape from his Athenian guards.) The account of the decision 

to attack Sicily, therdore. emerges by this argument as a composite of 

history and plausible fiction based on what Thucydides thought he 

knew about the characters involved in the debate. What Cawkwell 

stops short of pointing out is that. once we recognize the ,'ethink evident 

from 2.65.1 I. we are driven to choose between some hypothesis 

such as the one presented here or else to conclude that Thucydides' 

thinking was seriously muddled regarding the single most important 

event recorded in his histor y. 

The choice may be difficult for some who still want to believe that a 

total commitment on the part of Thucydides to a "historica l method" 

would have obviated the generation of fiction, even in brief "patches" 

as suggested here. Nonetheless. it seems to me that Cawkwell follows a

BOOK REVI EWS/COMPTES RENDUS wy 

very pro mising line of criticism by setting a cr edible Thucydides into 

a believable context. As I s


There is much to ponder and enjoy in this book of such modest 

length. In a short review I cannot do justice to all of its chapters. The 

first chapter, "Thucydides." magisterially resolves certain problems 

about the historian's lifespan and sets out a thoughtfu l sketch of his 

age and how he seems to have seen it. His shortcomings included a 

failure to r ecognize the importance of Persia and the strategic genius 

of the general, Dernosthenes. The second of these two shortcomings is 

argued more fully in Chapter 3, "Thucydides and the Strategy of the 

Peloponnesian War." Here Cawkwell illustrates the effective use of 

hindsight. His studies of the fourth century. and particularly how 

Epaminondas and the Thebans dismantled the Peloponnesian League. 

leave no doubt of the strategic possibilities that lay before Athens in 

the fifth century. Alas for the Athenians. only Demosthenes seems to 

have grasped them (with Clean not far behind?). In the second chapter, 

Cawkwell relates the seizure of Amphipolis by Athens to the 

"growing power," the "truest cause" that affrighted the Spartans. 

Brasidas clearly understood the significance of Amphipolis. Perhaps 

Cawkwell is right in attributing to Spartans of the 430S a fear of the 

extent to which the acquisition of this wealthy region upset the power 

balance between the two states. In "Thucydides. Pericles and the 

'Radical Demagogues'" (Chapter 4). Cawkwell examines the historian's 

attitude to the principal Athenian demagogues and, particularly. takes 

on the virtually universal notion that Thucydides was biassed to the 

point of irrational hatred against Cleon. Cawkwell is not convi nced. 

There are three Appendices. The first is on the financial decrees of 

Callias. Cawkwell finds no reason to accept that. even if the decrees 

are to be dated to 434/3. we must assume that Athens had passed a 

war budget before hearing the Corcyrean appeal for alliance (110). In 

the second, we are urged (against de Ste Croix) to adhere to the order 

of the decrees against Megara as reported by Plutarch (114). The third. 

on military service in the Athenian empire. concludes. "military service 

(required of the allies) in the Athenian Empire was not burdensome" 

(120). Did I hear a chuckle from old Geoffrey? The notes are at 

the end and the publisher has done everything to make them impossible 

to find at random (have an extra bookmark or two). There is a nice 

little bibliography and a brief index. 

I have my own views on many of the above topics and they do not 

always mesh with Cawkwell's. No matter. I enjoyed this book and recommend 

it warmly. That sa id. I cannot resist a parting comment. The 

Thucydides who rivets me to my chair is not found in this work, any 

more than he is in anything I have written on him. The real Thucydides 

stares at human nature and reveals its ugliness in his devastating 

account of the Corcyrean civil war. gives sublime voice to the ide-


als of Periclean Athens in the Funeral Oration, then abruptly records 

the depravity of Pericles' fellow citizens under the cripppling stn:'ss of 

the plague, captures for all eternity the cynicism of im peria l Machtpolitik 

in the Mclian Dialogue. When Cawkwell says that "idoliltry" (of 

the historian) "is out of place" (13), he speaks of this Thucydides about 

w hom we always write. The I'ca l one I hold in awe. 

GORDON SHRIMPTON. 

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND ROMAN STUDIES 

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA 

VICTORIA Be V8W 31'4 

D ESMOND C ONACI-IER. Euripides and the Sophists. London: 

Duckworth. 1998. Pp. 128. £12.95. ISBN 0-7156-2816-X. 

This is an unassuming little book. The r eader is cautioned in the Intl'o-duetion 

that Conacher is setting out simply " to consider EU I'ipidcs' development 

of a few leading ideas of the Sophists (a nd. occasionally, of 

their contemporaries) and his refashioning of these ideas in cel'tain 

plays. into dramatic themes of his own." Conachel' is interested in 

Euripides as a "creative dramatist. " rather than as J "philosophic 

thinker": and he is interested in the sophists only in so far as they CJIl 

be pl'esented as sources for the particular "topics" or "themes" he has 

selected for discussion. 

The Introduction, after a brief discussion of earlier wOl'k. especia lly 

that of Nestle and Decharme. treats the nature of the gods. then five 

chapters are devoted to five other topics: the nature and tCJchability of 

virtue: the relativity of virtue; the power and abuses of !'hLloric; n :ality 

and sense perception; llomos and related ideas kspcci,dly llomos 

and phusis). The procedure adopted throughout each chapter is to begin 

with sophistic citations, then to discuss EU T'i pidean passages a nd 

plays where related matter seems to appear. A brief list of these passages 

and plays follows, The section on the gods dea ls fil'st with I-IF 

l34l--6 (shades of Antiphon and the earlier Xenophanes) , then with El. 

737-44 (Critias), and finally with several passages from Teiresias' 

speech justifying the divinity of Dionysus in Bacchae (Pl'Odicus); this 

leads on to a brief discussion of the portrayal of Aphrodite as external 

divine force or as internal human emotion. The fiT'st chapter on vi Hue 

(akin to ideas of Protagoras et al.) is devoted mainly to Hippolytus. and 

mainly to a discussion of aidos and kairos in Hipp. 373-87. (The bibl iography. 

rather patchy throughout the book. is hCI'e pal,ticulariy inadequate: 

the books of Cairns on aidos and of Tredc on ka iros do nol


fea ture: and Claus of [972 is not the last word!) The second chapter on 

virtue deals mainly with Alcestis and Helen (ideas of Antiphon t"t al.) 

and with the charis-theme. The chapter on rhetoric (reference to Corgias 

et al.) focusses on the agon of Troildes and the exchilnges between 

Odysseus and Hecuba in Hecuba . In the next chapter (starting from 

the words of Protagoras. Gorgias et al.) it is argued (77) that Helen is a 

"brilliant parody of the theme of 'appearance and reality' and of the 

various sophistic teachings associated with it": the deception a nd confusion 

arising from false appearances and the destructive power of illusion 

arc explored. The final chapter on llomos (based on the ideas of 

Antiphon et aL. here allowed rather more space. all of fi ve pages) ex· 

plores the concepts of Supplices. HeracJidae and. especially. Bacchae. 

The basis of the book is open to objections. not all of which are met 

by the disarming disclaimers of the Introduction. The selective use of 

fragments. as if they were sound-bites from a manifesto outlining s0phistic 

policy designed to present Euripides with a series of intellectual 

challenges to be incorporated in dramatic "themes." is misleading: and 

our twentieth-century reactions (as 140] "we are reminded of Antiphon's 

explanation ... ") are unlikely to coincide with those of Euripides 

and his contemporaries. More seriously. the arbitrary separation of 

literary (or creative) writing from philosophical (or critical) writing 

does violence to several of the authors who are relevant to this study. 

Thus Critias, who is her e quoted with the sophists. was also a dramatist. 

w hose work has often been aligned w ith, or in some cases even 

attributed to. Euripides. Conacher is not unaware of this problem. and 

has a sliding-scale of sophistry: thus (114), "Critias was not himself a 

Sophist. though he apparently associated with Sophists and shared the 

intel'ests and views of some of them." Similarly. at 29. Democritus was 

"not a sophist but a contemporary of the Sophists." Socrates, too, has an 

ambivalent place: he is the sophists' "frequent opponent in debate" 

(12). but we hear about his "view" (26). and about matters w hich are a 

"sophistic (and Socratic) concern" (roB): despite a reference to Clouds 

(62), this issue is side-stepped. 

However. taken on its own modest terms. this is a useful study . 

"eminently readable" as the jacket blurb claims and very nicely 

printed and produced. It provides a lucid and concise introduction to 

many Euripidean passages which are hard to understand without 

some knowledge of their intellectual background. It concludes with a 

brief "Conspectus of Sophists." featuring the main "teachings and interests" 

of Protagoras. Gorgias. Antiphon. Prodicus. Critias and


Thrasymachus. There is a bihliog l'aphy (highly selective) ilnd an index. 

but no index locorum. 

ELIZABETH M. CRA!K 

D EPARTMENT OF CLASSICS 

KYOTO UNIVERSllY 

KYOTO. JAPAN 606-8501 

j.-TH. A. PAPADEMETRIOU. Aesop as an Archetypal Hero. 

Athens: Hellenic Society for Humanistic Studies. 1997. Pp. 

I I J. ISBN 960-7I84-36-X. 

The intriguing title of this small book, conveying as it does s uggestio ns 

of Jung. Propp. Raglan or Joseph Campbell. seems misleading for 

most of the course. Papademetriou's understandings of "archetypal" 

and "hero" are in fact protean and undefined. The "hero" is of course 

the biographee of the Aesop l?omance (hereafter AR). whose p hysica l 

ugliness and servile origins stand in what is perceived to be impl'Obable 

counterpoint to his brilliance as a savant. This Aesop might well 

be seen as a pr ime specimen of an "archetype" in t1'aditional na lT

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS liS 

I'ccognition of the Socrates figul >c as a model for Aesop. W hat he OVCI'looks. 

thoug h, is the {act that Compton hud seen Aesop as

I16 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

rendering of "anzi un oracolo," but "really a monster" is a long way 

from "anzi un oracolo." Similar objections might be raised against Papademetriou's 

translation of (mOll EOT08f) aAAos AioWTTOS Oll.til ElS 

oAouS. but the salient point here is that Papademetriou actually uses 

the anonymous Greek translator's TEpaS as evidence of the A J?'s putative 

influence on Croce's description of Bertoldo on the grounds that 

various recensions of the AR use the same word in reference to Aesop 

Papademetriou's parallels between the AR and Bertoldo perta ining 

to descriptions of ugliness are in any case too general to convince this 

reviewer of any literary borrowing. At one point Papademetrioll actually 

concedes that the similarities are not all that strong. only to recover 

with the explanation that Croce's descriptions are different beca 

use he wanted to disguise his borrowings from the AR. There is a 

little bit of Wonderland in all of this. And yet there are definite analogies 

between the heroes Bertoldo and Aesop. as Croce and others had 

previously noted. There is nothing gained. though. by Papademetriou's 

single-minded assertions of literary indebtedness to the AR 

on the part of Croce. particularly since he ignores documentation for 

the genesis of Bertoldo that leads through the Dia/oglls SaJomonis et 

Mal'colfiback into the ancient Near East and Biblical literature. Indeed 

anyone compelled to seek a genetic relationship between the AR and 

Bertoldo would probably be well advised to posit a prehistoric common 

ancestor in the Near East where both works have acknowledged 

roots. 

As weak as it is, Papademetriou's case for the literal'y indebtedness 

of Croce to the AR is still stronger than those that he makes for similar 

indebtedness on the part of a Spanish picaresque novel. Lazarillo, and 

Karaghiozes, the protagonist of the Turko-Hellenic shadow theatre. 

O ne chapter is devoted to each of these. There can be no doubt that. as 

others have noted, there is something of the picaro in the Aesop character 

and that there are some ingredients of a general nature COIlUTIon 

to the AR and Lazarillo. Papademetriou himself is unwilling at trus 

point to claim anything more for the AR. He r eviews the findings of 

earlier scholars, uses a catalogue of Gr eek, Latin and vernacular versions 

of the AR to demonstrate that the anonymous Spanish author 

could have known the AR, and allows himself a rather long (and, in its 

context, apparently gratuitous) excursus on the treatment of slavery in 

the A R. While Papademetriou does not find "definitive proof" that the 

AR "exerted a formative influence on the picaresque and particularly 

Lazarillo," he thinks that they "make the case likely" and are enough 

"to stimulate further investigation." In essence, then. the chapter, like 

the one on Karaghiozes, reviews the situation , proposes an agenda. but 

represents little advance of its own.


I pl'csent now a miscellany of further symptoms of what I consider' 

less than exacting scholarship. In the chapter on the piGlrcsquc novd 

(72 11. 115) Papademetl'i ou criticizes Daly (01' postulnting a thirtcenthcentury 

date for a La.tin trans lntion of the AR on the g l "ounds thai the 

tnlllsiatio n was based on a Greek illS. o f the fourteenth century. I low 

docs Papademctriou know this? Will the inS. in questio n not have hrld 

antecedents from which the tl'anslotion mig ht Iwvc been m

lIS BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

named. It is as if Papademetriou has been led by his own investigations 

to a conclusion that does not match his working hypothesis. This is 

of course a function of real scholarship. but in this instance the appropriate 

next step--a return to reassess the evidence and to adjust interim 

conclusions-has not been taken. 

While I find Papademetriou's wor k flawed and unfinished, he has 

succeeded in placing the AR in a new and interesting scholarly environment. 

This, it might be hoped. will have a catalyzing and salutary 

effect on future work. 

ROl


other (231) to 21.1.28 shouJd be 12.1.28, one to Athenaeus (45) 4.194a-d 

should read 4.164b--d, and so on. Some are due to carelessness: while 

discussing the role of reading in fifth-century Athens, Morgan claims 

(ro) that the Kreitton Logos in Aristophanes' Clouds "complains Ithat] 

the lyre and gymnastics have been overtaken by the reading of 

Euripides." Her bald reference to "88gff " puts the reader at the begining 

of the agon, some 72 lines before the Better Argument's paean to 

traditional education's emphasis on music and athletics. The only allusion 

to Euripides in the entire agon comes after the Better Argument 

complains (916-923) that youth don't go to school and the Worse Argument 

prospers instead of acting like 'Telephus, hero of Euripides' 

play of the sa me name. At the most, this might be evidence that 

Euripides was popular among the smart set or that members of the 

audience sometimes memorized lines from plays. But in no way ca n 

Aristophanes' allusion stand as testimony for reading in Athens. Morgan's 

argument has apparently been contaminated by her treatment 

of the Frogs that fo llows immediately. 

In other places she misrepresents her evidence. most often Quintilian. 

When discussing the works of educational writers. she stresses 

(51) that "they are all painting an ideal portrait. Failures are not discussed; 

nor are stupid pupils or lazy teachers." This is simply untrue. 

Quintilian discusses the character of pupils in 1.3.1-6. corporal punishment 

in 1.3.14. and abusive teachers in 1.3.17. Quintilian appears 

again in Morgan's note (48 n. 149) on the male-oriented bias of ancient 

education as a source for the information that "the daughter of Quintus 

Hortensius was not praised for speaking in the la w courts." Actually, 

what Quintilian says is "Hortensia's speech before the triumviri 

is not read just in honor of her sex." including her as the third in a list 

of erudite women (1.1.6). Quintilian's evidence again suffers on 37, 

when Morgan writes: "As Quintilian describes it, children should begin 

to learn to read and write (at the age of seven) by lea rning the 

appearance and names of letters." Quintilian actually says in 1.1.15 

(not " 11.15" as Morgan): quidam litteris instituendos qui minores septem 

annis essent non putaverunt ... meiius autem qui nullum tempus 

va care volunt. ut Chrysippus ("certain people have thought that children 

w ho are below the age of seven should not be taught letters. 

however. they have a better idea who want no time to be wasted. like 

Chrysippus"). In fact. Quintilian himself opts for the middle groundeducation 

should begin at age fo ur. On 169. Morgan translates Quintilian 

(1.4.3) on grammar as follows: "Now the principles of writing 

are related to those of speaking. and reading precedes accurate interpretation." 

Quintilian wrote enarrationem praecedit emendata lectio

124 


of the Praeneste fibula, which reads 'TIL. 1'.3 ::::: Dessau 8561." In supplementary 

note 19 to this page. Marrou refers to the article of D. 

Anziani. "Le Vase Galassi." in Melanges Cagnat. Morgan has clearly 

not only misread Marrou without attribution. she has also obviously 

not checked the references she copied. since they arc completely irrelevant 

to her discussion. Finally. she even misspells Anziani's name 

both here and in the bibliography. 

I have spent some space on this particular piece of Quellen{orsc1wng 

because it reveals the extent of the author's sloppiness. In her 

preface. Morgan thanks many distinguished scholars for rcading part 

or all of her work, but they would have served her better by insisting 

on a much higher degree of accuracy and professionalism, despite the 

risk of hurt feelings. Neither author nor readership benefits from a 

publication of such poor quality as Literate Education. Sadly, the standard 

of the journeyman academic publications from both Oxford and 

Cambridge has declined for some years, which makes their increasingly 

astronomical prices hard to justify. In this journal's sister publication, 

Phoenix. Jeremy Trevett has recently bemoaned the abysmal 

quality of another book from the same publishersY Literate Education 

now joins that less-than-distinguished company. 

NIGEL M. KENNELL 

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS 

MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 

5T. JOHN'S, NF Ale 557 

MARY BEARD and MICHAEL CRAWFORD. Rome in the Late Republic: 

Problems and In telpretations. Second edition. London: 

Duckworth, '999, Pp, viii + 120. UK £10.95. ISBN (}- 

7156-2928-x. 

JOHN R. PATTERSON, Political Life in the City of Rome. London: 

Bristol Classical Press, 2000. Pp. vii + 90. UK £8.95. ISBN 

I -85399-5 14-2. 

Rome in the Late Republic. second edition, is a reprint of the first edition. 

published in 1985 . with short additions to the Preface. Introduction. 

Epilogue, Appendix (Literary sources in translation) and Bibliography. 

The six chapters (1. The Nature of the Problem: 2. The Cultural 

Horizons of the Aristocracy: 3. Religion: 4· Political Institutions: 5. The 

'l J. Trevett. review of r. Hunt. Slaves. Warfare, and Ideology in the Creek J-listorians, 

in Phoenix 53 (1999) 183·

12 6 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

In chapter 6 there appears a discussion of Roman imperialism and 

its connection with the social and economic organization of Italy. Beard 

and Crawford identify two fundamental ways of accounting for the 

growth of Roman control. which is not limited to annexation: deliberate 

pursuit of power. especially for economic reasons, 01' unplanned 

acquisition of power through response to external threats. Although 

the authors suggest that both explanations may be va lid . they appear 

to incline towal'ds the first alternative, for they discern in the political 

structures of Rome and Italy several factors favouring aggressivity: 

annual magistrates anxious to acquire g loria; the need of the Romans 

to justify their Italian hegemony: the enormous benefits derived from 

warfare and expansionism. Direct Roman rule, w hich involved taxes 

collected in money, encouraged urbanization and trade. The expansion 

of Roman power was facilitated by the political and economic unity of 

Italy under Roman leadership and by the military service provided 

by Italian peasants. The ruling classes used the proceeds of victory and 

conquest to dispossess the peasantry, a process that contr ibuted to the 

downfall of the Republic (d. chapter I). 

This is a cardully edited book. I have found only one minor flaw: 

in the Supplement to the Appendix (95--96), Appian belongs to Section 

B (iater authors) rather than Section A (writers of the last two centuries 

B.C.). Although the authors envisage a readership consisting mainly of 

pre-university students, undergraduates and their teachers, they have 

written not an introduction fo r beginners but an advanced discussion 

more suited to the needs of senior undergraduates, graduate students 

and instructors, who will find a clear ddinition of important issues 

with essential bibliography in English. Because this book will be consulted 

by more advanced readers, it would have been helpful to include 

discussion of works in other modern languages. On this point I 

concill' with reviewers of the first edition, who were also justified in 

suggesting that several issues might have received more attention. 

These include the Roman economy, the identity of Oprimates and 

Populares, and the practical meaning of republicanism and monarchy 

in the context of first-century Rome. The quality of their book inspires 

the wish that the authors had revised the whole text to incorporate the 

results of recent scholarship. 

At the end of chapter I, the authors reflect on the question of why 

the Romans were more disposed to accept a form of monarchy in the 

time of Caesar than they had been a generation earlier. It might be 

relevant to note that, in the time of Caesar, intellectuals had begun to 

contemplate the possibility of monarchy. In his treatise De Rc Publica. 

Cicero envisaged the appointment of an ideal statesman to preside 

over the government of Rome (see C.H. Sabine and S.B. Smith, Mar-


grandiose self-promotion and of public building by the imperial family; 

the departure of aristocrats from the area of the Roman Forum to 

the suburbs: their aba ndonment of elaborate fun eri'll monuments in 

defer ence to Augustus and his family. destined even in death to overshadow 

their fellow citizens in the bastion of the Mausoleum: the development 

of games and shows as contexts for the expression of public 

opinion: the new focus of the Campus Martius on entertainment and 

leisure (chapter 6). The book concludes with Suggestions for Further 

Study (directed to students), Suggestions for Further Reading, a Glossary 

(covering Latin terms) and an Index. 

Political Life in the City of Rome is a carefully produced book. I noticed 

only one misprint: the censor of 179 S.C who dedicated the temple 

of the Lares Permarini was M. (not L.) Aemilius Lepidus (34): the 

praenomen is correctly given on 35. 

At this point, I would like to offer a number of suggestions. On the 

question of accessibility of the Senate and magistracies, it might be 

worthwhile to distinguish more cleady between two groups. namely. 

the novi homines and those with senatorial-but not consularforebears 

(25-28). Citing Livy 40.52, Patterson notes Ihat the censor 

Aemilius Lepidus set up a commemorative inscription on the temple of 

the Lares Permarini (34). The last sentence of Li vy indica tes that 

Ae milius placed a copy of the same text in the temple of Jupiter on the 

Capitol, a fact that further illustrates the vigorous self-advertisement 

of the aristocracy. It might have been helpful to point out that the Porticus 

Octavia. discussed on 37 , although located in the Circus 

Flaminius, is not the same structure as the Porticus Octaviae, shown in 

the plan on 33. The Porticus Octavia, built by Gn. Octavius, praetor in 

168 B.C, was restored by Octavian after 33 B.C, while the Porticus 

Octaviae was built by Octavia, sister of Augustus, after the death of 

her son Marcellus in 23 B.C, on the site of an earlier JX>rtico dedicated 

by Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus after l46 B.C (on these buildings 

see F. Coarelli, Guida archeologica di Roma (Milan5 19891 242-247. 

and L. Richardson, Jr. A New Topographical DictionaIY of A nciem 

Rome [Baltimore 1992] 317-318). On 51, Patterson discusses "the principle 

of a ten-year interval between offices." This phrase refers to the 

interval between initial and subsequent tenure of the same magistracy. 

Because this book will often be adopted in courses on Roman 

civilization and history, a more detailed index would have been desirable. 

In its current form, the index does not, for instance , list 

"Tribunal," "Rostra " or "Graecostasis." or individual temples . all ke y 

parts of the evidence. I would have liked to see regular documentation 

of the ancient sources that are discussed by the author.

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 12 9 

To conclude. Patterson refer s at the end of chapter 5 to the economic 

distress of the urban poor. Displaced from the land by the gl'owth of 

slave-operated estates, and politically marginalized . they continued 

nonetheless to serve in grcnt numbers in the armies of Rome (68-70) 

"Long years of military campaigning by the rural poOl' unde l' the 

leader s hip of men like Pompey or Caesar. combined with the ambitious 

individualism of their commanders. were in the end to Jctld to 

civil war and the collapse of the Republic" (70). It is noteworthy that 

the authors of two recent books on the political life of the LJlc Romnll 

Republic should observe the danger posed to free institutions by the 

stl'uctural impoverishment and political nullification of underprivileged 

citizens. 

DoNALD W. BAIWNOWSKI 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 

MCGILL UNIVERSITY 

M ONTI

130 


reciprocal distrust existed between Roman married couples" (115). 

Dupont also falls victim to sensationalism, claiming that husband and 

wife rarely engaged in sexual intercourse. but the Roman house nonetheless 

was "a hotbed of sexual activity" between masters and slaves 

(117). In addition. neither Dupont nor Careopino consider s archeologicalor 

artistic evidence, thus omitting a large body of valuable source 

material. Volumes such as these do little to alleviate the suspicion that 

social history is somewhat frivolous. Of course, some effort has been 

made to correct this: exceptional studies, for instance, have appeared 

on the Roman family (B. Rawson. ed., The Family ill Ancient Rome: 

New Perspectives [Cornell University Press, 19861: B. Rawson, cd .. 

Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome fOx ford University 

Press, 199r]; and B. Rawson and P. Weaver, eds., The Roman Family 

in Italy: Status. Sentiment, and Space [Oxford University Press. 1997)). 

But these volumes are unfortunately too specific to be used in a general 

undergraduate course on Roman social history. Excellent sourcebooks 

abound as well ([J. Gardner and T. Wiedemann, eds., The Roman 

Household: A Sourcebook [Routledge, 1991]; J. Shelton, ed., As 

the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social HjstOlY fOx ford University 

Press, 1998), but up-to-date textbooks are scarce, and we are 

left with dated studies like Carcopino's which focus only on the elite or 

on "great men," on the moral causes of Rome's collapse, or on trivial 

details of "daily life" (often unhelpful because given in isolation). 

This new volume edited by D.5. Potter and D.J. Mattingly should 

remedy this situation to a great extent. The editors did not want to 

write another "sourcebook," but instead aimed to give non-specialists 

"a starting point informed by the latest developments in schola rship 

for understanding the extraordinary range of Roman society." I thus 

review it here in its capacity as a textbook for courses on Roman social 

history. 

The work as a whole is divided into three parts: "Social Structures 

and Demography," "Roman Religion," and "Bread and Circuses" (one 

wonders why, in a volume that has the word "death" in the title, ther e 

is no extended discussion of death or burial practices, but this is a minor 

quibble). Pages xi-xiv (" A Note on Papyrological and Epigraphic 

Sources") contain a useful introduction to the primary evidence for the 

student, noting that information about Roman society derives from 

many different kinds of sources. Definitions are given for 

"epigraphy" and "papyrology" (xii-xv), and bibliographies are provided 

for important works. The Introduction (D.5. Potter) contains 

much information necessary for a student of Roman society: thumbnail 

sketches of such diverse topics as Roman history (until the time of 

Augustus>. the system of Roman government, extent of imperial re-

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS '3' 

sources, administrative machinery, Romanization and la nguage. food 

supply. the army. 

Chapter One is "The Roman family" (Ann E. Hnllson). It gives a 

brief summary of the imponant aspects of the Roma n family. with 

ddinitions and names. She includes up-ta-date research on demography. 

patria potestas (28), women and female status in the Ro ma n family 

and in Roman society (31-33: although a later section o n education 

140-421 deals mainly with men), ideals of marriage (35), child ren (36). 

There is space too devoted to family life in Roman Egypt (52), as well 

I32 


what on the topic of marriage, family, and sexual relations: we find 

statements such as "slave marriages received at least a degree of social 

recognition and respect" (94): that companionate marriage was confined 

to the upper classes (95); that ovulation does not occur during 

breastfeeding (96). Unfortunately, much of Roman demography remains 

speculative. but this chapter is a succinct and informative introduction 

to a complex subject. 

The tone of Chapter Four ("Roman Religion, " David S. Potter) is 

pitched a little above the rest of the book: the methodologies and terms 

used here seem too sophisticated for the average non-specialist or undergraduate 

(and the chapter is very long). PottCI' has sections on religion 

and politics. religious practices and festivals. the importance of 

precedent. prophecy. augury and haruspicium. the calendar. sacrifice. 

He emphasizes that there was no eHort to control worship at Rome 

unless the elite felt a particular god was dangerous. and that private 

magic and prophecy were not outlawed either: important points for 

laymen. But his suggestion that there was an "active/passive" split in 

Roman religion (113-11 4) is a concept which would not be immediately 

apparent to non-specialists. and the section for instance on Varro (115) 

is too complex for a general audience. While this chapter contains 

valuable material. it will need much explanation to make it accessible 

to students. 

Chapter Five ("Feeding the City: The Organization. Operation. and 

Scale of the Supply System for Rome. " Greg S. Aldrete and David 1. 

Mattingly) asserts that the Roman state took an active role in encouraging 

and overseeing the supply of foodstuffs and other material to 

Rome (172). such as wine. grain. and oil. The amount of food needed to 

feed Rome is estimated (173) and crises are outlined (174). The authors 

also treat grain warehouses. harbours. types of boats (179-182). and 

look at the many guilds associated with sea travel. ship-building and 

maintenance (such as rope-makers and grain-measurers). Although 

the authors admit that "attempts at quantifying ancient trade are 

highly dangerous" (192) . nonetheless the scale of imports to Rome is 

estimated based on the number of ships per day at Rome's harbours 

and the amount of labour necessary (most of which was likely seasonal). 

They conclude that "the entire supply system was more complex 

and more deliberately organized than has often been admitted " 

(202-203), and this chapter is enlightening and readable. 

Chapter Six. ("Amusing the Masses: Buildings fo r En tertainment 

and Leisure in the Roman World," Hazel Dodge) stresses the importance 

of theatrical and amphitheatrical amusements in the Roman empire 

based on the physical remains. Dodge begins with a history of 

Greek and Roman theatres (emphasizing the religious link with a


temple 01' shrine}, and she stl'csses cl'Oss-cuiturization (the influence of 

C r eek theatres on Roman structures, and later vice versa). A short 

section on the history of gladiatorial combats precedes a discussion of 

the physical structures used to display such games (264) and the techniques 

of their construction (227). Fewer amphitheatres survive in the 

East than in the West, a question of different structurcs being used to 

house the combats rather than the extent of Romaniziltion (231). Ci rcuses 

and chariot-racing arc also discussed (236: and Dodge r eminds us 

that, because of their vast size . no Roman circus has evcl' been COIllpletely 

excavated). Baths and bathing arc also included hel'c (243-249: 

Dodge begins with a section on the Greek bathhouse before moving 

on to Roman customs). Laudably, the Eastern portion of Rome's empire 

receives much attention in this chapter, as in the discussion of cir 

cuses and stadia, for instance (241), and baths and bathing in Rome's 

East(Tn provinces (253). 

Chapter Seven ("Entertainers in the Roman Empi["(:," David S. Potter) 

is another chapter not no nTlally found in a textbook on Roman 

social history, but an important one because, as the aurhol' states, public 

entertainment was centJ'al to the exposition and formation of social 

values (256). Potter locates four categories of enterti.liner: gymni.lstic, 

scenic, circus, i.lnd amphitheatrical. Some trends are identified. such as 

that entertainment tended to be urban, and thi.lt Greek and Ita lian entertainment 

tended to be different (258). The extended section on Republican 

performi.lllce and the ambiguous status of actor·s includes a 

few puzzling statements, such as that politicians of the diJy wCl"e "welladvised" 

to maintain good relations with actors, and th,lt (he ·'best performers 

achieved considerable influence in the Imperial palace" (274) . 

Potter's discussion of gladiators and giaditorial combats (305-322) is . 

however, sensible and straightforward, dealing with origins. schools. 

training, equipment, structure of a combat, and the official system of 

J·anking. But again this chapter seems a little too sophisticated and 

complex for the non-specialist: the digression on circus-colol's (292), for 

instance , would be far above the heads of most students: brief mentions 

of Oscan (266) and infamia (283) are not graced with explanations 

In addition, there is far more attention given here to Creek precedents 

rather than Eastern practices in the Imperial period (an extensive section 

on Greek athletics, for instance [26off.)). 

The bibliography is useful and up-to-date. with basic works in English 

and more sophisticated material f OI' the advanced or eager student. 

The editors characterize the volume as "the story of Roman 

domination" (14), which is slightly misleading (how is the family characteristic 

of such domination?), and the projected comp

134 


though the book does not marry precisely with existing sourcebooks 

(Shelton, Gardner), with some car e it may be profitably integrated 

into a course on Roman social history. Its excellent use of ulTle-date 

material and methodology should successfully supplant other widely 

used but dated or inaccurate texts of social history. 

KELLY OLSON 

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY 

CALGARY. AB TzN IN4 

D.E. HlLL. ed. Ovid. Metamorphoses IX-XII. with introduction. 

translation. and notes. Aris & Phillips Ltd .. Warminster 

. 1999. Pp. vii + 230. 

The publication of D.E. Hill's third volume of text and translation. with 

commentary. of Ovid's Metamorphoses 9-12 in Aris & Phillips' successful 

Classical Texts series testifies to the ongoing renewal of interest 

in Ovid's poem among members of both the scholarly community' and 

the Latinless r eading public at la rge. l The preface to the new volume 

(like those to the earlier volumes) makes it clear that Hill's work is designed 

to engage the latter group, but there is much here to interest 

the more advanced student of Latin. 

An Introduction (1-8) discusses "Ovid's life and works," "Metre," 

"Text," "Translation," and "Notes." As Hill scrupulously notes at the 

outset (I), the introduction is taken almost verbatim from the first volume 

(on Met. 1-4, published in 1985: also reprinted in the 1992 volume 

on Met. 5-8), and it reflects the sentimental preoccupation w ith Ovid's 

I Since 1980 a flood of books and al·ticles on the MetamorphoSt:s has


Facing the text, Hill provides a line-by-line translation in what he 

calls "a six-beat blank verse effect" (7). While it does not begin to approach 

the sheer readability. let alone the poetry. of A.D. Melville's 

1986 verse translation of the Metamorphoses. Hill's translation successfully 

captures many characteristic features of Ovidian poetry- the 

Latin poet's penchant for punning wordplay and all kinds of verbal 

repetition. his love of paradox and pointed epigram. and his jarring 

juxtaposition of highly elevated diction, especially learned mythologica 

l and geographical epithets. with comparatively colourless a nd even 

prosaic words-and Hill's notes repeatedly draw attention to these figures 

of Ovidian style. Hill strives for and usually achieves fidelity to 

Ovid's Latin (very occasionally rendering his translation difficult to 

construe unless one can read the Latin) without departing from the 

length of the Latin text: thus Hill's notes (keyed to the English translation) 

are never more than one line off from the Latin original 

At 87 pages in length. over a third of the volume (text and translati 

on combined. by comparison, take up half) . Hill's notes constitute the 

most valuable part of the book. Headnotes to episodes are uniformly 

excellent. listing the literary (a nd sometimes artisitiC) sources for the 

episode. and often including translation of key passages of earlier fX>'" 

etry to which Ovid alludes. especially Homeric and Vergilian epic 

(Homer from Richmond Lattimore, Vergil from David West, to whom 

the book is dedicated). Hill thereby sets the Metamorphoses fi r mly in 

the classical epic tradition. even as he notes Ovid's often ironic and 

parodic engagement with the epic world-view. Hill often provides 

Frazer's translation of Apollodorus' summary of the myths Ovid retells, 

a practice which is particularly helpful in the (numerous) cases of 

obscure tales that Ovid narrates only briefly and allusively. The third 

volume contains considerably more in the way of transla ted material 

than the first, a praiseworthy extension of the emphases of the notes in 

the ea rlier volumes of the series. Notes on individual words and single 

lines of the translation also regularly include discussion of interpretive 

issues and metrical and stylistic features, as well as explanation of allusions 

and elucidation of textual problems. Hill draws widely on the 

work of earlier commentators: indeed his notes are in constant dialogue 

with the commentaries of F. Bomer? W.s. Anderson, and 

nolds, ed .. Tc:xtsand Transmissions (Oxford 1983) 276-282. the la ttel' cited by Hill 

in his Intl'oduction (6) . 

7 P. O vidius Naso. Metamorphosen: Kommc:ntar. Buch Vfll-IX (Heidelbt:I'g 

1977): P. O vidius Naso. Metamorphosen: Kommc:ntar. Buch X-XI (Heidelbel'g 

1980); P. Ovidius Naso, MetamOl'phosen: Kommentar, Buch XII-XIII (Heidelberg 

,gB2).

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS '37 

C. M.H. Murphy. Commentaries on many ancient authors. t'spccinlly 

on Ovid 's older contemporary Vergil. also constitute the bulk of the 

entries in Hill's Bibliography. A brief Index to headwords (almost entirely 

proper names) in the notes concludes the volume. Typogl'aphical 

errors, usually self-evident (although the note on 10.155 is keyed to the 

headword "Phrygian," not found in Hill's translation of the line), ore 

rela tvely frequent in the commentary. but I note only two in the text. 

neither problematic (her for haec. at 10.614: and a stray' at 11.320). 

Published in Britain for an educated (if perhaps increasingly L,atinless) 

readership still excited by classical literature. this volume will 

find a restricted readership in North America, one confined almost 

exclusively to college and university campuses I should think and even 

then limited. I always use A.D. Melville's Oxford World Classics translation 

of Ovid's Metamorphoses when I teach the poem in translation. 

as much for E.J. Kenney's superb introduction and notes as (or the 

elegance of Melville's translation, and that single volume is also less 

expensive for students than Hill's multi-volume (and still incomplete) 

set. I once ordered the first of I-lill's volumes (on Met. [-4) for an upper-level 

undergraduate Latin cou rse on Ovid, but found (hat the facing 

translation encouraged linguistic sloppiness and la ziness not in the 

weaker but in the stronger students, a disappointing discovery that 

hilS sent me back to the standard English commentaries on individual 

books of the poem as well as Anderson's two multi-volume commentaries.s 

When next I teach Ovid's Metamorphoses to undergraduates, 

however, whether in Latin or in translation, I plan to put Hill's user 

friendly volumes on library-reserve so that my students can avail 

themselves of his helpful and accessible notes on this influential Lltin 

poet. 

A.M. KEITH 

VICTORIA COLLEGE. UNIVERSIn' OF TORONTO 

TORONTO. ON MSS I K7 

s Tht: rt:ct:nt publication of his commt:ntary on Ovid 's Metamorphoses, Bouks 

1-5 (Norman and London. 1996) is a wt:lcomt: complt:mt:nt to that on Mer. 6-10


GEOFFREY GREATREX. Rome and Persia at War. 502-532. Leeds: 

Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd., 1998. Pp. xvi + 301, 13 

maps. 

The war between Rome (or to use a serviceable label coined by Le· 

merle, the "protobyzantine empire") and Sassanid Persia is hard to 

confine by dates. Greatrex excerpts the period from 502. when king 

Kavadh of Persia launched an invasion o f Mesopotamia, until 532. 

when Justinian negotiated an "Endless Peace" and paid well for it. 

Gr eatrex compares it "in certain respects" to the Peloponnesia n War 

between Athens and Sparta. The Peloponnesian War spanned only 

three fewer years: both conflicts were interrupted by periods of peace 

and both attracted first-rate historians. But the differences are greater 

than the similarities. Procopius took Thucydides as one of his models 

and would have liked the comparison, but in fact the war years from 

502 to 527 were only the prologue for his Persian Wa rs. The interruption 

between the end of the "Anastasian War" in 506 and the renewal 

of warfare in the last year of justin I's reign took up most of the period, 

and finally the peace of 532 decided nothing, even though it was 

without term. The 502-532 "war " was merely a period of normal relations 

between Persia and Rome which had been going on since Constantine 

I, who had been preparing for a Persian war before death 

overtook him. "Normal relations" consisted of peace interrupted by 

wars, both "cold " and "hot," invasions, and rivalry for influence 

among frontier ethnic groups. Still, the period of "normal relations" 

from 502 to 532 is worth careful consideration. 

Greatrex does a good job of it. He devotes a section to the complicated 

history of Sassanid Persia at this period, which cannot be omitted, 

for Persia'S internal conditions drove its foreign policy. Persia's 

attacks were more like razzias intended to win booty for the treasury 

than all-out war. Their ultimate aim was a subsidy from Rome: the 

emperor Anastasius, who enjoyed a reputation for prudent fisca l management, 

agreed to 500 gold pounds per yea r for peace in 506. The 

long period 506-525, covering the rest of Anastasius' reign and most 

of justin 1'5, which gets a single chapter. is treated as the "aftermath " 

of the Anastasian War. Rome seized advantages when she could do so 

without risk. and in the frontier areas Christianity. backed by Rome, 

fought for converts with Zoroastrianism, which was backed by Persia . 

From the Persian viewpoint justinian. who became empel'or in 527. 

must have seemed particularly aggressive. 

Greatrex's chapters on the campaigns of 530 and 531 are particularly 

instructive. His analysis of Belisarius' defeat at Ca llinicum is to 

be recommended. though whether the Ghassanids under al-I-Iarith


about these men and theil' achievements: but MI'. Stl'ay is not a ci


book contains excellent chapters on "Women and the Classical Tripos. 

1869-1914" and "The Compulsory Greek Debates, 1870-1919" by two 

authors who have lately taken the new subject of the history of classical 

studies in Part II of the Tripos, Claire Breay and Judith Raphaely. 

Women tended to favour the archaeological section in Pan II, which in 

its early years included not only art and archaeology but mythology. 

religion and "(Domestic) Antiquities." Its details are set out and its history 

is told in the third section of Dr. Beard's chapter (113f.) 

One notable promoter of archaeology was Sir Sydney Colvin, Director 

of the Fitzwilliam Museum and Slade Professor of Fine Art. 

Another was Karl Waldstein, later Sir Charles Walston, born in America 

and with degrees from Columbia University and from Heidelberg, 

who appeared in Cambridge just at the right time, followed Colvin in 

both offices, and in the words of Dr. Beard "dined, clubbed and lectured 

his way into" a Readership in Classical Archaeology, which he 

held from 1883 to 1907. Dr. Beard gives an interesting accowlt of this 

person, though she resists mentioning that his son, elevated to the 

House of Lords by a Labour government, was the husband of the dazzling 

American beauty who played an important part in the life of 

Graham Greene. Sir Charles was an equivocal figure, but made a 

most important contribution to the creation of the Museum of Classical 

Archaeology and the establishment of Greek archaeology in Cambridge. 

Another person who did much for the establishment of archaeology 

and for the two museums was Winifred Lamb, who is the 

subject of a chapter by David W.J. Gill. 

Section D in the reformed Part II of the Tripos that was instituted in 

1879 was in Dr. Beard's words "a distinctive combination of religion, 

material culture and 'Sittengeschichte' " She makes (104) the interesting 

point that the interests of the so-called "Cambridge Ritualists" reflected 

this combination, so that instead of being "at odds with the conventions 

and subject boundaries of their day," Jane Harrison, Gilbert 

Murray and F.M. Cornford were "very predictable daughters and 

sons of classics section D as originally defined." When changes in the 

Tripos were made in 1918, this section was transformed into one devoted 

entirely to art and archaeology. It is not quite clear how this 

happened, but Dr. Beard puts the blame on Walston, and reminds us 

(13d that "Jane Harrison left Cambridge only a couple of years after 

the new 1918 Part II had been first examined." 

Walston also helped to organise the Greek Play, which became a 

popular institution in Cambridge, and whose first thirty years (1882- 

1912) are the subject of an entertaining chapter, with attractive illustrations, 

by the present Regius Professor of Greek, Patricia Easterling. 

One strong supporter of the play was Sir Richard Jebb, and his mod-

3 

UNIVERSITY OF 

CALGARY 

PRESS

ECHOS DU MONDE ClASSIQUE OASSICAL VIEWS - Memorial ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?