Michigan (2015) 774pp £120.00 (ISBN 9780472119349)
This is a magisterial volume: in nearly 800 dense pages it offers the first English commentary on Antisthenes, an undeservedly—but understandably—understudied contemporary of Plato, Socrates, and Xenophon. P.’s book opens up the scant remains of and ample testimonia to this philosopher, literary critic, and master of wordplay, who was present at Socrates’ death (Plato, Phaedo 59b) and features alongside his mentor in Xenophon’s Symposium, to further study, and is destined to establish itself as the standard edition for a long time to come. The reviewer states at the outset that he has taken away much from this book, which undoubtedly will repay rereading.
The remaining fragments of Antisthenes and the many testimonia about his life and works—208, in P.’s edition—were previously available in the hard-to-find Socraticorum reliquiae (Naples, 1983-1985) and Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae (Naples, 1990), both edited by G. Giannantoni, or out-of-date editions such as those of Winckelmann (Turin, 1842) or Decleva Caizza (Milan, 1966). P. sensibly retains Giannantoni’s numbering of the fragments and accordingly divides the testimonia into seventeen thematic sections, some of which are necessarily short (e.g. section 14 on ‘Nature, Eschatology, and Theology’: nine testimonia, sixteen pages), some quite long (e.g. section 12 on ‘Language’ and 15 ‘Studies of Homer’: fourteen testimonia, 119 pages and twelve testimonia, 94 pages, respectively). P. includes passages not found in Giannantoni, rejects some, and is not afraid to emend others. These decisions are judicious, the translations accurate, and the commentary clear and helpful (particularly in the section on language, which at points is quite abstract and sophisticated).
Precisely because this book is the first systematic study on Antisthenes’ complete corpus for some time and the material is so intricate and variegated, it is a pity that it seems to have been rushed through the press. Spelling errors and inconsistencies in formatting and referencing abound. Many of these are inconsequential, but some can be quite confusing and detract from the book’s utility (see https://edinburgh.academia.edu/GaryVos).
In a work of this scale, excerpting a multitude of sources from all ages, oversights are unavoidable. So, for example, on p. 325 (T 92C = Anon. Lat. II, Commentary on Aratus, Phaenomena ad l. 426 [pp. 264-265 Maass]), on the unfortunate death of the centaur Cheiron, P. discusses the corruption de cura and guesses that behind it may lurk a medieval word related to English ‘quiver’. Accordingly, she suggests the reading e pharetra, which may gain support from the scholia to Germanicus’ Aratea and fits the sense, but not the palaeography. However, the correct reading had been diagnosed long ago by H. Le Bourdellès, L’Aratus Latinus. Étude sur la culture et la langue latines dans le Nord de la France au VIIIe siècle (Lille, 1985), who convincingly argued that it must have been the medieval cucurra (pp. 232-234). Fortunately, such slips are rare.
Much less rare, however, are inconsistencies in referencing, a tell-tale sign of the transformations the book has undergone from thesis to commentary (cf. p. v). Three systems seem to be used concurrently for publications from the same author published in the same year: (1) traditional differentiation by means of ‘year a’ and ‘year b’ (for example, ‘Goulet-Cazé 1993b’ on p. 332), (2) differentiation by means of an abbreviated title is the preferred method (for example, ‘Huss 1999 [Xenophons Symposion]:364’ on p. 7 and passim afterwards, sometimes italicized, sometimes not), and (3) no differentiation at all (such as ‘Brancacci 2001’ on pp. 487, 494). In the case of methods (1) and (3), checking an argument becomes unnecessarily cumbersome, while method (2) may be a service to the reader, who can bypass the bibliography, but also makes the book longer that it needs to be. The Index of Greek and Latin Words and the General Index are judicious, though one will often need to use both in conjunction to locate a specific passage. An entry on ‘intertextuality’ is desirable, since so much of our knowledge of Antisthenes’ works depends on matters of literary chronology and reception.
In general, P. writes knowledgeably and with confidence. She is not afraid of expressing judgement in complicated matters of influence or literary priority and reconstructions of Antisthenes’ philosophical positions, where feasible; she sensibly withholds judgement where any degree of certainty is unobtainable. P. deserves our gratitude for making this material available in English for the first time and for elucidating a wide variety of texts whose complexity and interdependence are daunting. Those with an interest in classical philosophy in general or the Socratics in particular and those seeking to contextualize classical views on language and literature will find this book a treasure trove. Though P. admits her book ‘is not intended as the final word on Antisthenes’ (p. 23), no one is better placed than she to come up with such an account, which would make for a compelling read. Quibbles aside, Antisthenes of Athens will be the great success this original thinker deserves.
Gary Vos
ANTISTHENES OF ATHENS: TEXTS, TRANSLATIONS, AND COMMENTARY
Michigan (2015) 774pp £120.00 (ISBN 9780472119349)
This is a magisterial volume: in nearly 800 dense pages it offers the first English commentary on Antisthenes, an undeservedly—but understandably—understudied contemporary of Plato, Socrates, and Xenophon. P.’s book opens up the scant remains of and ample testimonia to this philosopher, literary critic, and master of wordplay, who was present at Socrates’ death (Plato, Phaedo 59b) and features alongside his mentor in Xenophon’s Symposium, to further study, and is destined to establish itself as the standard edition for a long time to come. The reviewer states at the outset that he has taken away much from this book, which undoubtedly will repay rereading.
The remaining fragments of Antisthenes and the many testimonia about his life and works—208, in P.’s edition—were previously available in the hard-to-find Socraticorum reliquiae (Naples, 1983-1985) and Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae (Naples, 1990), both edited by G. Giannantoni, or out-of-date editions such as those of Winckelmann (Turin, 1842) or Decleva Caizza (Milan, 1966). P. sensibly retains Giannantoni’s numbering of the fragments and accordingly divides the testimonia into seventeen thematic sections, some of which are necessarily short (e.g. section 14 on ‘Nature, Eschatology, and Theology’: nine testimonia, sixteen pages), some quite long (e.g. section 12 on ‘Language’ and 15 ‘Studies of Homer’: fourteen testimonia, 119 pages and twelve testimonia, 94 pages, respectively). P. includes passages not found in Giannantoni, rejects some, and is not afraid to emend others. These decisions are judicious, the translations accurate, and the commentary clear and helpful (particularly in the section on language, which at points is quite abstract and sophisticated).
Precisely because this book is the first systematic study on Antisthenes’ complete corpus for some time and the material is so intricate and variegated, it is a pity that it seems to have been rushed through the press. Spelling errors and inconsistencies in formatting and referencing abound. Many of these are inconsequential, but some can be quite confusing and detract from the book’s utility (see https://edinburgh.academia.edu/GaryVos).
In a work of this scale, excerpting a multitude of sources from all ages, oversights are unavoidable. So, for example, on p. 325 (T 92C = Anon. Lat. II, Commentary on Aratus, Phaenomena ad l. 426 [pp. 264-265 Maass]), on the unfortunate death of the centaur Cheiron, P. discusses the corruption de cura and guesses that behind it may lurk a medieval word related to English ‘quiver’. Accordingly, she suggests the reading e pharetra, which may gain support from the scholia to Germanicus’ Aratea and fits the sense, but not the palaeography. However, the correct reading had been diagnosed long ago by H. Le Bourdellès, L’Aratus Latinus. Étude sur la culture et la langue latines dans le Nord de la France au VIIIe siècle (Lille, 1985), who convincingly argued that it must have been the medieval cucurra (pp. 232-234). Fortunately, such slips are rare.
Much less rare, however, are inconsistencies in referencing, a tell-tale sign of the transformations the book has undergone from thesis to commentary (cf. p. v). Three systems seem to be used concurrently for publications from the same author published in the same year: (1) traditional differentiation by means of ‘year a’ and ‘year b’ (for example, ‘Goulet-Cazé 1993b’ on p. 332), (2) differentiation by means of an abbreviated title is the preferred method (for example, ‘Huss 1999 [Xenophons Symposion]:364’ on p. 7 and passim afterwards, sometimes italicized, sometimes not), and (3) no differentiation at all (such as ‘Brancacci 2001’ on pp. 487, 494). In the case of methods (1) and (3), checking an argument becomes unnecessarily cumbersome, while method (2) may be a service to the reader, who can bypass the bibliography, but also makes the book longer that it needs to be. The Index of Greek and Latin Words and the General Index are judicious, though one will often need to use both in conjunction to locate a specific passage. An entry on ‘intertextuality’ is desirable, since so much of our knowledge of Antisthenes’ works depends on matters of literary chronology and reception.
In general, P. writes knowledgeably and with confidence. She is not afraid of expressing judgement in complicated matters of influence or literary priority and reconstructions of Antisthenes’ philosophical positions, where feasible; she sensibly withholds judgement where any degree of certainty is unobtainable. P. deserves our gratitude for making this material available in English for the first time and for elucidating a wide variety of texts whose complexity and interdependence are daunting. Those with an interest in classical philosophy in general or the Socratics in particular and those seeking to contextualize classical views on language and literature will find this book a treasure trove. Though P. admits her book ‘is not intended as the final word on Antisthenes’ (p. 23), no one is better placed than she to come up with such an account, which would make for a compelling read. Quibbles aside, Antisthenes of Athens will be the great success this original thinker deserves.
Gary Vos