Bryn Mawr Classical Review

The Romans is an accessible introduction to the civilization of Rome, and is designed to satisfy the needs of college students in classical civilization or Roman history courses with little or no training in the subject. As such, The Romans accomplishes its goal excellently. This is the 2nd edition, and, according to the editor, it presents "extensive additional and revised material".¹ In truth, with a few exceptions (see below), the two editions differ more in form than substance, the new edition being more 'attractive', with its bright red cover and a beautiful fresco from the Villa dei Misteri in Pompeii. The bibliography, however, has been fully updated, more images have been added, with new and improved maps; the index has been expanded; a preliminary section ("A Note on Classical Literary Sources") is completely new; likewise new is Appendix 5 ("Glossary of Latin Terms in the Text") and a section of "Further Reading." Moreover, while in the 1st edition the bibliography for each chapter was placed at the end of the volume, in the new edition individual bibliographies complete each chapter, a greatly preferable format.² The quality of the editing is high, and the volume is virtually typo-free.³ An impressive and extremely well done web-site complements the book, a feature which will be of great use to students and teachers alike (The Romans). The book comprises nine chapters: the first three and the last are arranged chronologically ("The Origins of Rome", "The Republic", "Twelve Caesars", "The Empire: Stability, Disintegration, Recovery, Fall"), the others thematically ("Religions and Mythology", "Society and Daily Life", "Art, Architecture, and Building", "Latin Literature", "The Roman Army").

Ch. 1 "The origins of Rome" (= "The Founding of Rome" in the 1st edition), with the exception of a new paragraph on Cloelia (p. 11), is virtually unchanged. It describes the origins of Rome from 753 BC up to the beginning of the Republic in 510 BC. The narrative flows well and all the main concepts and events are clearly illustrated, with quotations of significant passages of Virgil, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Livy. A few remarks: the beautiful image of the famous Capitoline wolf (p. 3) states that it is Etruscan art. This is no longer accepted without question; it may be a medieval forgery. The author claims that there is little doubt that the six kings of Rome following Romulus existed, and that they are "enough to fill the time-gap between the historical founding of Rome and the republic." But the only way would be to assume an average length of about forty years for each reign, a very unlikely possibility.

Ch. 2 "The Republic" has been slightly revised in this 2nd edition, with a completely new section on "The Growth of Empire and the Early Provincial System" (pp. 27-8). There is a clear and useful section on the various steps of the cursus honorum and the various assemblies. For the rest, it includes a quick chronological overview from the 4th century to Sulla, laying particular emphasis on Cato the Elder, the Punic Wars, the Gracchi brothers, and Marius and Sulla. Numerous quotations and Kamm's fluent prose make the reading accessible without sacrificing anything essential. My only observation is that the two keyterms optimates and populares are not employed, and, to the novice reader, it is not clear that Sulla and Marius represent these two distinct 'parties.'

Ch. 3 "Twelve Caesars" (= "The Caesars" in the 1st edition) is very similar to the previousedition, and the more evident changes apply to the treatment of Julius Caesar and Vespasian. This section is a very straightforward, well balanced, chronological overview of the 'Suetonian' Caesars, with dates and major events. A completely new and up-to-date bibliography concludes this chapter.

Ch. 4 "Religions and Mythology" (= "Gods, Goddesses, and Mysteries" in the 1st edition) has been substantially revised and expanded, perhaps even to excess, especially in the extremely long list of festivals. In general, however, this chapter has been greatly improved, and it also provides useful sections on the two major Roman philosophical currents, Stoicism and Epicureanism, and on Jews and Christians. The bibliography is completely new.

Ch. 5 "Society and Daily Life" (= "Daily Life, Work, and Entertainment" in the 1st edition) is perhaps the chapter that has been most extensively reworked. The opening paragraph is entirely new, but it lacks clarity, and the social distinctions between nobility, senators, and equestrians are a little confused, especially for someone who is not familiar with Roman social structures (pp. 101-4). The sections on the economy and work are brief but informative, while that on women, which is almost entirely new, is detailed, well written, and easily accessible, with a nice section on the most notorious imperial women. The sections on slavery, education, dress, food, and games, which are virtually unchanged from the 1st edition, are all very clear. The new bibliography is much improved.

Ch. 6 "Art, Architecture, and Building" is, in spite of its brevity, clearly written, but virtually identical to the 1st edition. Personally, I would have liked to have read more on the Roman road system and the forum, and I would have found appropriate the mention of Pompeii in the part that deals with domestic architecture.

Ch. 7 ("Latin literature"), which is practically unchanged, gives a very brief introduction to the literary production of the Romans, from its origins to, roughly, Apuleius, and is divided by genre. To the reader who, like this reviewer, is a literature-focused scholar, this section will necessarily appear unsatisfying. For the first-year student, however, there is more than enough information. My only objection is that, since the target audience of this book is non-classicists, the long explanation on the nature of the Latin meter, with examples in Latin (and with scansion in feet) of hexameters, couplets, and hendecasyllables is completely out of place. Also, in this section the author often provides modern examples of classical reception that, with a few exceptions, will not be very familiar to a non-British reader.

Ch. 8 "The Roman Army" gives a clear and lucid analysis of the various units that comprised the Roman army, without providing excessive and confusing details, yet not omitting any relevant information. The author could have stressed a little more the social consequences of the stationing of the Roman legions in the various provinces, namely how this favored, in many cases, interactions between Romans and locals, with the Roman soldiers often deciding to remain in the places in which they had been stationed even after being discharged from the army.

Ch. 9 "The Empire: Stability, Disintegration, Recovery, Fall" (= "End of an Empire" in the 1st edition), which has been substantially improved and expanded, is a tour de force through the last period of the Roman Empire of the West, up to AD 476. The author justly gives prominence to the 'five good emperors' and to the partial recovery that took place with Diocletian and Constantine. The period in between is dealt with in a couple of pages, with brief mentions of the main events that occurred. The same kind of summary treatment is reserved for the fall of the empire. A very nice section on the legacy of Rome concludes the chapter.

In sum, this book is a welcome introduction, and I would use it to teach introductory courses on Roman civilization and culture. Obviously, every teacher will want to expand and integrate with primary sources, but, as a general background for the students, it serves its purpose. Some sections are better than others, but the overall impression is of a competent treatment. There are shortcomings and simplifications, but the non-scholarly format of this book does not allow for much debate. I have found some (very few indeed) inaccuracies, but nothing that diminishes the value of the book as a whole, which fulfils its purpose very well indeed.⁴

1.   For reviews to the previous edition, see P. H. Barker, CR 47.1 (1997), 217-8; J. Filée, LEC 66 (1998), 194; K. Gross-Albenhausen, Klio 83.1 (2001), 227-8.
2.   The purpose of this book is to serve as an introduction; consequently, the bibliography must be selective. In general, Kamm's selections are very good. I will point out only some further suggestions, being certain that every reader will find notable absences in his/her field of study. In Ch. 1 it is a pity that the author decided to remove from the new bibliographical section R. R. Holloway, The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium (1994), and H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World 753 to 146 BC (1991); similarly, in Ch. 3 Kamm chose to remove F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (1992). In Ch. 4 I would add C. Ando, Roman Religion (2004), and, by the same author (but probably too recent to be included), The Matter of the Gods (2008); in Ch. 5 the only noticeable absences are, in my opinion, R. J. A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (1984), and E. D'Ambra, Roman Women (2006). In Ch. 7 why did Kamm remove R. O. A. M. Lyne, The Latin Love Poets from Catullus to Horace (1980), and G. Williams, The Nature of Roman Poetry (1983)? In Ch. 8 I would suggest J. E. Lendon, Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity (2006), and P. Southern, The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History (2007); in Ch. 9 D. S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay: 180-395 (2004), and J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, The Decline and Fall of the Roman City (2003). In Appendix 1 add D. Feeney, Caesar's Calendar (2007).
3.   I have detected only the following: at p. 169 'Eucilius' should be 'Lucilius'.
4.   At. p. 40 Suetonius is defined as a historian, which is incorrect. The author seems to be confused about Tacitus' dates: at p. 51 Tacitus is said to have been born thirty-five years after the events described at Annals 5.9 (AD 31). Perhaps the author meant twenty-five years? At p. 168 it is said that Tacitus published his Dialogus in his twenties: there is no agreement on the publication date, but certainly not in the 70s (75 is the dramatic date of the Dialogus). At p. 101 it is stated that "Augustus created a senatorial order": I am not sure what this means. At p. 165 why is Petronius' title Elegantiae Arbiter defined as "rather inappropriate"? At p. 171, in mentioning Pliny's letters, the author could have pointed out that some of them, including those on the eruption of the Vesuvius, are addressed to Tacitus. Of the reviewers to the 1st edition (above, n. 1), only Barker had pointed out errors. They have been corrected in this new edition.

Gerald Mara (hereafter M.) presents to the academic community a complex, insightful and quite difficult book, whose audience, it should be immediately said, could only be one of specialists.¹ The reading of his book entails, indeed, not only knowledge of his previous book on Socrates,² where M. traces in more detail the opposition between Socratic logos and ergon, but also a reasonably deep acquaintance with modern democratic theorists such as Richard Rorty, Jacques Derrida, and John Rawls.

The first chapter, which represents a sort of introduction to the central analysis of Thucydides' History and some Platonic Dialogues, elucidates M.'s goals. Beginning with an observation about the different effects of progressive democratization on political practices and on political thought, the author sets out the principal thesis of his book: that the power and justice of democratic institutions need continually to be reexamined, this scrutiny having a valuable comparative source in the works of Thucydides and Plato (cf. 2). This means, in practical terms, that M. will compare Thucydides' narrative and Plato's διαλέγεσθαι with four types of modern democratic theory, viz: rational choice theory (chapter 2), deliberative democratic theory (chapter 3), the interpretation of democratic culture (chapter 4) and postmodernism (chapter 5). The author proceeds to explain the method he will use (reconstructive readings) and the aim he pursues: against the interpretation of both classical authors as enemies of democracy, M. argues that (3):

they address the limits of democracy by extending the borders of what can legitimately be talked about within democratic political deliberations. Neither author believes that establishing democratic political institutions is a sufficient guarantee against mistaken or destructive political acts. And both suggest that the language of democratic political culture resists some intellectual sources whose presence is vital for democracy's well-being. However, these criticisms do not mean that democracy can or should be replaced with any alternative form of politics. Instead, I show the ways in which both authors broaden practical discourse, potentially making democratic politics more thoughtful and more just.

To do that, M. presents three areas in which, according to him, democratic practices and theory are still in need of problematization: the question of civic/human rights, the question of democratic governance, and the question of democratic quality of life. He argues that the four modern democratic theories that are going to be analyzed through the book cannot offer an exhaustive examination of these problems. Thereafter he sets out why, according to him, classical political thought, as expressed in the works of the Athenian historian and of the founder of the Academy, does have the necessary means to offer such a problematization. M.'s main point consists in underscoring within both authors the difference between speeches or arguments, which are explicitly critical toward Athenian democracy, and speech-acts, which are more discursive and conciliatory. This leads him to claim that both authors practise a conversational rather than a deductive form of political thought.

Even though many of M.'s methodological implications are undoubtedly correct, e.g. the importance of dialogical form, which he rightly emphasizes,³ and the stress on the political and historical contextualization of Plato's Dialogues (21), that some arguments are, already in this chapter, hard to follow. It is quite unclear how the ways of theorizing possibilities for improvement attributable to democratic institutions shrink as democratic political theory becomes hegemonic (1). M. offers his own non-dogmatic interpretation of a passage of Plato's Republic, without considering other possible interpretations or undertones.⁴ Moreover, M. seems to accept the Second Letter as genuinely Platonic, without even mentioning in a note the debate over its authenticity.⁵ And in general it must be said that the examination of speech-acts given by M. could have the disadvantage of distracting attention from how pathological the two classical authors consider democracy to be.⁶

This detailed examination of the first chapter was required by the complexity of the book itself, which can be properly understood only if, after reading the introduction, the reader understands that the aim of M.'s investigation is the engagement of Thucydides and Plato with modern democratic theory from a critical point of view, and not the application of modern democratic terms for the interpretation of their works. Once this is clear, it is possible to examine in a more summary way the rest of the book.

Chapter 2 is dedicated to the examination of the contributions made by Thucydides and Plato to rational choice theory. First, M. offers a brief presentation of the central arguments of this theory and a critique of it as a theory which, putting too much stress on private interests, forgets the borders of rationality, i.e. non-strategic and irrational choice. On the basis of this critique, he analyzes, as examples of the different treatment that Thucydides provides of rationality, the speeches of Corcyrean and Corinthian envoys at the Athenian assembly in the first book of the History, the speeches of Euphemus and Hermocrates in Camarina (6.75.3 - 88.2), the Melian dialogue in the fifth book and the debate about the future of Mytilene between Cleon and Diodotus (3.36.6 - 49.1). The main thread of M.'s interpretation is the accentuation of multi-vocality in making political decisions. He claims that Thucydides represents the political γνώμη as the product of interaction of λόγος and ἔργον and, on this basis, argues that the Athenian historian does not represent political debates as a conflict between private strategic interests, as rational choice theory would allege, but as the emergence, through opposing arguments, of psycho-cultural elements that inform the political imagination of the parties involved. (By political imagination must be understood the condition for rational political speech and action.) In particular, a more complex understanding of the λόγος-democracy relation appears from Diodotus' speech, as this Thucydidean character seems to argue, against Cleon's rational choice theory (men are looking only for their interests and these originate outside politics), that emotions and rationality are related in a way that originates in Athenian cultural and political institutions. M.'s assertion that characters such as Philocrates, son of Demeas, and Diodotus are not necessarily historical people, but fictive characters, created by Thucydides to express in an indirect way his own critical opinion of Athenian imperialism, seems problematic.

As for Plato, M. examines in this chapter the Protagoras and the Charmides. These dialogues are dramatically contextualized in the period of the Peloponnesian War (note e.g. the presence of Critias and Charmides in both dialogues, and the presence of Alcibiades in the Protagoras), and, M. argues, this contextualization should allow the reader to look upon the ethical themes at the centre of these works from a political perspective. In particular, M. offers an interpretation of the scene near the end of the Protagoras (the debate about courage which slips into a discussion about hedonism and the μετρητικὴ τέχνη) which tries to show how Socrates, in spite of a strategic rationality, refuses this technical science and privileges a more dialogical way of thinking: rationality should be understood as a perfecting and not as a strategic activity. The analysis of the Charmides develops this claim from another point of view. Critias is the champion of a directive rationality, so to speak: Plato's cousin argues in the dialogue for the power of rationality to exercise political government. It emerges from the discussion that, in M.'s opinion, the political aim of the dialogue in terms of democratic theory is to uncover the illusion and the dangers in aiming to establish a scientific hegemony.

Chapter 3 focuses on deliberative democratic theory, and it begins again with a description of the main theses supported by these theorists. At first sight it seems that deliberative democratic theory could be quite similar to the political thought of Thucydides and Plato as M. represents it. Deliberative democratic theory, in fact, points out how discursive interaction and democratic politics reinforce each other, on the one side by stressing the importance of communicative reasoning, on the other side by recognizing that historical and cultural circumstances constitute situations with which interactive discourse engages. In this respect deliberative democratic theory is preferable to rational choice theory but has the drawback that it does not focus on the teleological significance of discursive political interaction, and shows an overriding focus on procedures. The examination of the classical texts is thematically organized in this chapter: first an analysis of how both Thucydides and Plato treat the relationship of political trust to political mistrust, then a scrutiny of the way in which they represent political judgment through their works. The main point of the first part is to argue that, in the Mytilenean debate and Plato's Protagoras, the classical texts offer a more complex view about the relation between political trust and political mistrust than that presented by deliberative democratic theory.⁷ In the section on political judgment, M. examines the three Periclean speeches in the Thucydidean narrative, the speech of Diodotus, again, and the speech of Athenagoras during the Syracusan debate (6.33-41). According to M., it appears that the Periclean speeches, from which a one-sided conception of Athenian well-being emerges, offer a nondescript form of civic judgment. Conversely, the argumentation of Diodotus prompts the democratic theorist to consider more closely how political trust and democratic judgment intersect. This impression seems to be confirmed by the dichotomy between speech and speech-act in Athenagoras' performance.

M. proceeds with an examination of Plato's Gorgias. Here too, M.'s goal is to show that a 'reconstructive' reading of Socrates' arguments could offer more support to democracy than a literal reading of Socrates' statements. M. asserts, rightly, that for Socrates political judgment is situated between private and public realms and that he has a teleological perspective. Then, he continues, the Socratic critique of rhetoric shows its political significance by pointing out that rhetoric tries to silence rationality as the self-critical element of a human being, by accentuating the role of emotion in making political decisions. This should however not be misunderstood: the Socratic dialogic ἔργον stresses that Socrates does not present himself as an authoritative leader, but as a champion of discursive philosophy. In this insight, M. repeats again his main thesis, that discursive philosophy implies self-criticism, rational but with affective associations, and that it seems to be more firmly grounded, like the sort of self-criticism postulated by modern democratic theories. Less clear, however, is how the stress on παιδεία, which for Plato and Socrates is the first element which could improve a State, slips, with respect to the Gorgias, into the statement that all cultural practices, in theory, exert educative influences on members of a society. Moreover, M. seems to go too far again when he states that Plato includes comedy, and with it a strong democratic point of view, as a critical voice in his works, persuaded as he is that comedy is not criticized by Plato in any of his works.⁸

Chapter 4 analyzes the interpretation of democratic culture according to Rawls' Political Liberalism and constitutes undoubtedly the most complex and least clear chapter of the book. M. concentrates on the investigation of justice in Rawls, Thucydides and Plato. With respect to the ancient authors, he assumes the central role of the fifth century debate over νόμος vs. φύσις, reformulating it as a contrast between culture and nature (where nature is seen as the psychic force in human behavior which cannot be bounded by cultural education). M. presents the Thucydidean narrative of the στάσις on Corcyra as the historian's meditation on the nature and role of φύσις in political communities and argues that the goal of Thucydides in this passage is to show how culture could exercise any influence on human perception of nature. From this point the analysis switches to an examination of the definition of justice in the History: Thucydides does not offer one in his own name, but represents it through his account of the Spartan and the Athenian way of life. He further claims that the two rival cities interpret justice in light of political cultural priorities (so for the Spartans just behavior consists in a sort of conformism, but for the Athenians a sort of self-criticism deeply bound up with Athens' perception of power and its imperialism). In this context, it is not clear how M. could argue that the deceitfulness of the Spartans does not imply a calculated hypocrisy, given the importance of respect for oaths and duty in the Spartan notion of justice both as they express it and as they embed it in their educational system.

On the other side seems to stand Plato's Republic, read by M. as the description of civic community κατὰ φύσιν. Although M. is surely right that the Republic contains historical features, it is hard to agree with him, that the basis of the dialogue is heavily historical and tied with the Corcyrean narrative of Thucydides, or that this work draws heavily on the meanings and practices of democracy, or that what goes beyond democracy are not the insights of pure intellection but the outcomes of critical reflection on both psychic and cultural possibilities. It has to be asked if reading the cave myth as a myth against culture is epistemically legitimate: the reading of the images of Sun, Line and Cave together shows clearly that their epistemic value goes from a sensory to a philosophical knowledge of the world, where the Ideas and the Good transcend the sensory world. Moreover, what does M. mean when he says: 'The political arrangement in the cave binds all of the members in their places, yet interactions among them can also lead to a release from bonds and upward movement'? This reconstruction of the text again goes too far, as there is no mention of such 'democratic' interaction in the text.⁹ Also questionable is the assertion that the metaphor of democracy as a multi-colored garment (557cd) does not imply that for Socrates democracy's political organization is incoherent, but only that the critics are addressed to the broader democratic culture rather than to its arrangement of political power. M. seems to ignore again that παιδεία and politics were for Socrates/Plato two faces of the same coin, and that, therefore, a critique of democratic culture implies a critique of democratic political action.¹⁰

Chapter 5, finally, examines Plato and Thucydides in close dialogue with postmodernism, understood as the democratic theory of critical pluralism. Against this view, M. criticizes postmodernism for not offering an appropriate treatment of otherness, as it limits itself to the defense of 'others' from attempts to demonize them, and it does not pursue critical judgments in politics with a vigor proportional to its stress on the need for searching beneath the categories of difference, otherness and fundamentalism. Furthermore, it offers citizens little guidance for exploring the positive or negative effects of any proposal for collective action. Different again, according to M., is the treatment of these themes in our classical authors. M. examines first the Thucydidean narrative of the invasion of Mycalessus by the Thracians (7.29ff.). The behavior of the Thracians during the invasion is represented by the Athenian historian as similar to that of barbarians, who are moved only by bloodthirstiness. M. argues that Thracian bloodthirstiness is connected with Athenian daring as presented by Pericles funeral speech, showing that Thucydides challenges the Periclean image of Athens and that the other Greeks perceived the Attic city with a turbulent mixture of fear and admiration. Thus the Thracian incursion into Boeotia occurs because of Athens' desire for victory and honor, and the barbarian element, i. e. the bloodthirstiness, which in this case -- so M. -- acts in interaction with Greek culture as praised by Pericles, leads to the most reproachable war actions, i. e. impiety against the gods and genocide. So, concludes M., Thucydides aims to elicit the critical self-examination of democracy, pointing out that otherness (in this case τὸ βαρβαρικόν) and self (i.e. τὸ Ἑλληνικόν) could almost be related.

An examination of Plato's Symposion follows. In this case too, M. looks for an historical and thematic connection between the Mycalessian narrative and the dialogue. Questionable is whether the simple presence of Alcibiades legitimizes this connection from the historical perspective, and whether the device of having the banquet narrated by Apollodorus and his friend at the dramatic date of 416 B.C., while the symposium itself took place much earlier, could be interpreted as a reflection on how memory intersects with privileged symbol systems. Examining the seven speeches of the dialogue, M. argues rightly that the dialogue creates a theme of the question of love at various levels and underscores the substantial otherness of ἔρως as it emerges from the description of Socrates offered by Alcibiades, who affirms that his beloved is not similar to any other human being (221c4-5). In particular the otherness of ἔρως and the way in which it could be accommodated by culture (a theme of the speeches of Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachos, Aristophanes and Agathon) must be stressed, as must the otherness of philosophy with respect to politics (in the speeches of Socrates/Diotima and Alcibiades). This second otherness, because of the discursive and dialogic character of philosophy, is always active within politics. In the conclusion of this chapter, M. puts the problematic image of otherness that emerges from his analysis in comparison with the theories of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler, to claim again that the classical political thought of Thucydides and Plato, interpreted in light of its dialogical and discursive character, questions and obfuscates the problem of otherness, fundamentalism and difference in a more complex and multi-vocal way than postmodernism.

With chapter 6, M. offers his conclusion. He reconsiders the three questions that he posed at the beginning of the introduction (civic/human rights, democratic governance, and the way and quality of life in democracies), and sums up the answers that his examination of Thucydides and Plato has brought to the surface. He then focuses on the contribution of those ancient authors to democratic conversation. Thucydides seems to be comparable with Hannah Arendt, when she affirms that politics is a space between past and future, but presents a more problematic approach to the political problem, for Diodotus' speech shows that: 1) the condition of politics is a pragmatic encounter with difficult dilemmas rather than simply plurality; 2) when these dilemmas are engaged, they require appropriate choice as their solution; 3) political discourse should be--as Diodotus' speech argues--critical and constructive; 4) political dilemmas need to be examined from the perspective of the realities of human nature; 5) the right approach to politics is to cope with persistent and inevitable problems. With respect to Plato, M. underscores again the difference that lies between the content of his arguments and the dialogical context which frames them. According to this reading, the Socratic virtues could be read as 'supportive of a political morality compatible with democratic conventions' and the political portrait of Socrates as a dissident against democracy¹¹ should be considered in a more positive way. Socrates would not be perceived as a critic of Athenian democracy, but a democratic citizen who underscores the need for rationality in democratic politics, and conversely the resistance of the latter against the former. The final words of M. are intended to present a more intriguing point of view on those two authors from the perspective of war and peace.

As I said at the beginning of the review, the book is complex and requires advanced knowledge both of the original texts and modern democratic theories. In my opinion, the strong separation between speech-content and speech-act that M. seems to enforce throughout the entire book is generally questionable. Could the speech-acts only be interpreted as a democratic device that mitigates Socrates' harsh comments on democracy? Moreover, M. declares that it is not possible to equate Thucydides' points of view and those of his characters, but he contradicts himself when he considers Diodotus' speech to be a sort of Thucydidean perspective. Additionally, it must be said with respect to Plato that his political theory, even when expressed in dialogical form, cannot be separated from the other branches of his dialectic system, i.e. metaphysics, ethics and anthropology: political action should be led by knowledge of the Good and not only by 'democratic' conversation. In other words, M.'s image of Thucydides and Plato seems to be only a milder version of the common view on them. Finally, as a European, I should regret the absence, in the bibliography, of any interpreter or scholar who does not belong to Anglophone scholarship.

1.   I am grateful to Mr. Dustin Heinen, University of Florida, who kindly revised the English text of this review, and to the BMCR referee, who made further improvements.
2.   G. M. Mara, Socrates' Discursive Democracy (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997).
3.   Cf. e.g. on Plato, G. A. Press, Plato. A Guide for the Perplexed (London / New York: Continuum, 2007).
4.   The passage in question is Plato. Resp. 533a, in which Socrates, speaking to Glaucon, affirms that Plato's brother would not be able to follow him on the way to the discovery of the Good. He would no longer see an image of the things they are speaking about, but the truth itself as it appears to Socrates. Even though I do not belong to the so-called Tübinger Schule, there is sufficient reason to see in this passage one of Szlezák's Aussparungstellen (cf. T. A. Szlezák, Platon Lesen, Stuttgart / Bad Cannstadt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1993). Namely, there is a point in the dialogue in which it is not possible to say more about the theme, either because Socrates' interlocutor has not yet acquired the philosophical preparation to understand the real essence of the Good (which is the actual point of view of the Tübinger Schule) or because it is not possible to know more about the Good, except that it exists over the Ideas (cf. for this position, F. Trabattoni, La verità nascosta. Oralità e scrittura in Platone e nella Grecia classica, Roma: Carocci, 2005.). M. goes too far in seeing the passage as an examination of the objectivity of philosophical knowledge and as an assertion about the nature of wisdom as a merely questionable point of view. See also Szlezák, Die Idee des Guten in Platons Politeia. Beobachtungen zu den mittleren Büchern (Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2003). On the side of the new skeptical interpretation of Plato, several scholars argue for the ontological transcendence of the Good and consequently for its objective value against opinions. See e.g. F. J. Gonzalez, Perché non esiste una 'teoria platonica delle idee' in M. Bonazzi and F. Trabattoni, Platone e la tradizione platonica (Atti di un convegno platonico tenutosi a Milano nel novembre 2001. Quaderni di Acme, 58) (Milano: LED Edizioni, 2003), 31-67, and R. Ferber, Platons Idee des Guten (2nd edn) (Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1989).
5.   Cf. M. Erler, Platon (= vol. 2/2 of H. Flashar, ed., Philosophie der Antike) (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2007), 311. An acceptance of a contested work (in this case the Alcibiades major), without any mention, even in a note, of the debate about it happens also in chapter 5 (although I am an advocate of the genuineness of this dialogue: see De Brasi, 'Un esempio di educazione politica: una proposta di analisi dell'Alcibiade primo', Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumwissenschaft n. s. 32, 2007, 57-110).
6.   See J.-F. Pradeau, Platon, la démocratie et les démocrates. Essai sur la réception contemporaine de la pensée politique platonicienne (Napoli: Bibliopolis, 2005).
7.   It is questionable whether it is possible to argue that Socrates' treatment of democracy in the Protagoras is more positive than Protagoras' without misreading the general sense of his speech. See the papers in G. Casertano (ed.), Il Protagora di Platone. Struttura e problematiche (Napoli: Loffredo, 2004).
8.   On the criticism of comedy in Plato's Dialogues see A. W. Nightingale, Genres in Dialogue. Plato and the Construct of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), which M. quotes in his references but does not really challenge in his arguments. Moreover M. seems to forget that the platonic dialogues are meant to be the new form of education in the perfect state. Philosophy is, if one reads the Republic and the Laws, the new tragedy and the new ἔπος. See on this point G. Di Panno, Dionisiaco e alterità nelle Leggi di Platone. Ordine del corpo e auto movimento dell'anima nella città tragedia (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2007).
9.  σκόπει δή, ἦν δ' ἐγὼ, αὐτῶν λύσιν τε καὶ ἴασιν τῶν δεσμῶν καὶ τῆς ἀφροσύνης, οἵα τις ἂν εἴη, εἰ φύσει τοιάδε συμβαίνοι αὐτοῖς. I follow the text of the new OCT: S. Slings (ed.), Platonis. Rem publicam (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003).
10.   Not to forget that the aim of the Platonic city--whether it would be realizable or only thinkable as an ethical model for future governments--is its unity and not its multi-vocality. Cf. J.-F. Pradeau, Plato and the City. A new introduction to Plato's political thought (transl. by Janet Lloyd) (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2002).
11.   Cf. D. Villa, Socratic Citizenship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), which M. also quotes.

Cette année 2008 voit la parution d'un nouveau périodique touchant les sciences de l'Antiquité; il porte en particulier sur ce qui est pudiquement appelé la culture matérielle et que l'on désigne généralement par archéologie; il devrait se limiter à la période romaine. Ce nouveau support se veut international, s'intitulant Facta: A Journal of Roman Material Culture Studies, recueillant les articles en anglais, français, italien, et allemand (seule cette langue est absente de la première livraison) et réunissant un comité scientifique de haut niveau. Le premier numéro compte 182 p.; mesurant 17 sur 24 cm, il est imprimé sur un beau papier ivoire, qui malheureusement ne pourra soutenir de grandes figures en couleur.

D'entrée de jeu, les éditeurs, J. Poblome, D. Malfitana et J. Lund énoncent leur politique éditoriale dans un premier article (p. 13-20). Céramologues d'origine, ils ouvrent largement les horizons thématiques et surtout les problématiques; d'ailleurs aucun article portant sur la céramique ne se trouve ici. Les débats qu'ils voudraient voir discuter, sont avant tout d'ordre culturel et économique, afin d'établir des ponts entre archéologues et historiens des textes. Dans des cadres multiscalaires, ils appellent des articles traitant de la dynamique de la culture matérielle, opposée à la stagnation technique et portée sur les faits sociaux et culturels, de l'ethnicité, de l'interaction entre le global et le local. La première livraison, comptant des articles de commande, illustre et nuance cette politique.

Les articles de M. Feugère, de E. Giannichedda et de G. Reger nous offrent des réflexions méthodologiques: le premier sur les rapports entre producteurs et consommateurs (p. 21-30), le deuxième sur la taphonomie et un traitement plus interprétatif et efficace des vestiges (p. 51-64), le troisième sur les échelles local, régional et inter-régional (p. 65-74). J. Modée nous livre quant à lui, un réel travail épistémologique sur la définition d'un artefact (p. 31-49). Il s'oppose principalement à la théorie de R. Hilpinen, aux critères d'intention et d'évaluation du producteur; il propose de déterminer l'artefact en soi, avec sa valeur propre, dans une relation causale avec son agent et dans un environnement (culturel, technique, géographique, etc.) particulier.

Un deuxième groupe de contributions peut être considéré comme une réunion de courtes monographies. L. Fiorini et M. Torelli dépassent les limites chronologiques en présentant un atelier de bronzier archaïque, situé à proximité du sanctuaire d'Aphrodite à Gravisca (p. 75-106). M. Mogetta et N. Terrenato traitent des structures romaines, en particulier une fontaine, et du mobilier mis au jour dans la forteresse médiévale de Donoratico; ce site présente l'intérêt d'une occupation romaine d'un site de hauteur étrusque (p. 107-124). Des fragments d'un plat en porphyre sont publiés par F. Slavazzi (p. 149-155); daté d'avant 69 (prise de Crémone), ils correspondent à une vaisselle ostentatoire de l'élite. H. Di Giuseppe (p. 157-182) traite des propriétés de l'aristocratie dans la vallée du Bradano (Basilicate) à partir des vestiges archéologiques, mais surtout à partir des données épigraphiques (funéraires, tuiles, etc.) et littéraires; elle montre l'investissement de l'aristocratie dans des domaines où la céréaliculture et l'élevage étaient dominants et connectés à l'artisanat lainier; elle termine sur les modalités de l'accaparement par l'empereur (sous Claude et Agrippine, Néron ensuite) de ces domaines.

M.-D. Nenna brosse un état de la question, enrichi d'une bibliographie volumineuse, de la production de verre (p. 125-147); elle traite aussi bien des ateliers primaires localisés en Israél ou en Egypte, avec les derniers résultats de ses propres fouilles, que du commerce et des ateliers secondaires éparpillés dans tout l'empire.

Comme nous l'apercevons, cette première livraison privilégie des réflexions en anglais et en français d'une part et d'autre part des monographies italiennes, ce qui est sans doute dû à l'éditeur (Fabrizio Serra). Comme le veulent les porteurs du projet, ce périodique devrait chercher sa place dans le paysage éditorial dans des discours méthodologiques et épistémologiques ou dans la présentation de modèles et de cas de référence. Nous leur souhaitons, comme il le suggère, que "Facta" maneat.

"What happened to history writing in...thirteenth century [Byzantium]?" asks Ruth Macrides in the introduction to her extensively annotated translation, the first into English, of George Akropolites' History. The value of the question stems in large part from the unprecedented circumstances Byzantine historians and chroniclers had to relate after the fall of Constantinople in 1204. For the first time since its consecration in 330 by the emperor Constantine, "New Rome" had been forcibly dislocated into exile within its own empire, with power having devolved to regional potentates and a Western, non-Orthodox ruler, nominally allied with the Crusader states established in the East, in control of Constantinople. Akropolites wrote the most important surviving contemporary Byzantine account of the so-called 'Nicaean empire', covering the period from 1203 to 1261, when the Byzantine government, ousted from Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, gradually reconstituted itself, re-asserted its rule over a much diminished empire, and eventually took back the capital. His proximity to the Byzantine government of his day accounts for both the richness of detail and its deployment in a manner consistent with Akropolites' own political needs.

Macrides' translation of the History forms the centerpiece of what is effectively a larger study of Akropolites' historical work and of his career. In addition to five genealogical tables and two maps, so the reader can find his way across the far-flung geography of the fragmented Byzantine empire and the manifold branches of its ruling clans, Macrides has also written nearly one hundred pages of introduction. Subsection within the introduction focus on a wide variety of subjects pertinent to the understanding of Akropolites' narrative, such as his possible sources as well as use of the History by subsequent historians and chroniclers; questions of dating and chronology; or the treatment of distinct ethnic or political groups, such as the Turks or Latins.

Appended to the translation of each brief chapter of the History is a brief summary of its contents (though for some reason these are placed after the individual chapters, instead of before, where they might have been more useful). Also appended to each chapter is a generously detailed commentary keyed to the contents of the translation. Finally, the volume is anchored by an ample bibliography as well as a robust index. All told this amounts to just to a translation, but as full a study of the History and its author as we are likely to see in a while. Certainly any future study of Akropolites' History, as well as the events which fall under its purview, will owe Macrides a substantial debt.

The translation, based on the 1903 Teubner edition of Akropolites' History by Heisenberg (reprinted in 1978 with some emendations by Wirth),¹ is fastidiously accurate, in keeping with Macrides' pledge "to be as close to the Greek as possible, providing a sense of Akropolites' sentence structure, and reproducing his style" (xi). This is as much of a one to one correspondence between Byzantine and English prose as one may hope to find. It is greatly facilitated by Akropolites' unfussy sentence structure and apparent matter-of-factness. Historians as well as philologists working on this period may be tempted to take issue with this or that rendering of some turn of phrase or choice of words, but in most cases the difference will be in degree or emphasis and not a matter of accuracy. Such debate is translation's contribution to our understanding of texts, and Macrides deserves the gratitude of her colleagues for having judiciously rendered the contents of a work whose relative transparency would seem to encourage a certain complacency about its precise meaning and calculated stylistic effects. Simplicity of style, one is reminded in reading Akropolites, is not an absence of style. His style is as deliberate as the more opaque verbal arrangements of better known Byzantine historians. As Macrides notes in her introduction, Akropolites had received the best education in rhetoric and literature available in his day. If he lacked the temperament (and probably talent) of a Nicetas Choniates in composing bracing narrative history, he nevertheless could have aspired to a more demanding narrative form. The possibility that a paired down narrative style might be a better vehicle for Akropolites' bias is among the interesting implications brought out by the translation.

As part of her profile of the History, Macrides broaches the subjects of language and narrative organization, though she limits the former to matters of classicizing diction (pp.51-54) and defines the latter by "principles of organization" and "chronological sequence" (pp.34-35). One might have hoped for a more expansive definition of narrative character in light of the significant consideration given to this subject in recent studies of mediaeval historiography and of historical writing more generally. Macrides herself, in fact, has previously written about Akropolites' inconspicuous rhetorical artistry,² effectively demonstrating how the formal elements of the History underwrite the partisan verdict in favour of Michael VIII Palaiologos, who had spared Akropolites in the culling that took place after the removal of the Laskarid-Vatatzes dynasty, which had in fact promoted Akropolites in the first place. Under the heading of "Kaiserkritik," Macrides identifies Akropolites' aim as an attempt to depict the previous emperors as sufficiently, though not grossly, deficient so as to warrant the supposed change ushered in by Michael VIII. Akropolites, moreover, figures prominently in his own historical account in a bid to distance himself from his former patrons through dramatic revisionism of his political allegiances. The use of historiography to achieve both a private and wider political purpose is noteworthy; as is the choice of narrative style marshaled by Akropolites in pursuit of this. The answer to the opening question, "[w]hat happened to history writing in...thirteenth century [Byzantium]?" may well be found, as so often in matters of historiography, at the intersection of form and content.

An English translation of Akropolites does not make it likelier that the History will be assigned to undergraduates or read by non-specialists. Interest in Byzantium, unfortunately never very high to begin with, peaks at dramatic moments which dovetail with current curricular interests. The aftermath of the crusades in the East has never had a prominent place in the European historical narrative taught in schools or university survey courses. For most people there is thus little or no historical reference with which to frame the events and figures in Akropolites' text. The price and probable short printing run of such books, both persistent problems in rarefied fields like Byzantine studies, will also discourage colleagues from adding it to their syllabi. The real beneficiaries of the translation and its remarkably thorough commentary will be fellow Byzantinists, both those without sufficient proficiency in Greek who would normally not have the time to delve into such a text, and many who may now use Macrides' commentary as a virtual handbook for this period. If this thoroughness occasionally reaches the point of distraction, as on pages with an average of more than one note number per sentence, it is a concession necessary to ensure that the greatest possible number of ambiguities or questions about the text and its contents are resolved. Besides assignation of dates and names, geography, abridged background of relevant history, laws, and customs, there are glosses on technical words as well as systematic cross-references between parts of the text, citation of relevant scholarship and other sources relating to the same events. Just as important, Macrides notes events known only from Akropolites, a matter of some significance in our own histories of the period. Not a few Byzantinists, and possibly some Western mediaevalists, will reap the benefits of this painstaking labour. What is certain is that all readers of Akropolites' History, in Greek, or any other language for that matter, will have to consult Macrides' commentary from here on.

One minor problem, occasioned perhaps by the same desire for thoroughness, is the dense presentation of the genealogical tables. These attempt to place everyone mentioned in Akropolites' text, as well as those whose identity may be surmised, in the familiar pattern of marriage and offspring. It took me a few passes before I learned how to read this. In a couple of cases there are unexplained lines which simply trail off, or the descendant is not centred under the line (as in the case of Eirene, daughter of Theodore Doukas, the second wife of John II Asan of Bulgaria). Still, Oxford University Press should be commended for its meticulous publication of such a work in this promising series devoted to Byzantium. I began this review by quoting the following question: "[w]hat happened to history writing in...thirteenth century [Byzantium]?" Macrides has laid an important keystone in the groundwork necessary for any answer. In the course of doing so, she has also moved the bar up quite a few notches for this sort of study.

1.   Georgii Akropolitae Opera, ed. A. Heisenberg, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1903), reprinted with corrections by P. Wirth (Stuttgart, 1978).
2.   R. Macrides, "George Akropolites' rhetoric", in E. Jeffreys (ed.) Rhetoric in Byzantium [Papers from the Thirty-fifth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Exeter College, University of Oxford, March 2001] (June 2003) 201-211.

P. J. Smith identifies three important gaps in the modern scholarship on the ancient Megarid: (a) the absence of any serious study of Megarian inscriptions since that of Dittenberger in IG VII of 1892; (b) the very preliminary nature of published topographical surveys (the 1972 work of Sakellariou and Pharaklas is said to be 'not very thorough because of circumstances in Greece at the time' (1)); (c) the tendency of modern historical studies of Megara to concentrate on the period to the end of the fourth century BC. This useful study of the topography, archaeology and institutions of the Hellenistic and Roman Megarid goes some way in addressing gap (b).

The publication, based on a McGill dissertation of 2000, is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 is a short survey of the geography and geology of the Megarid. Chapter 2 is of a catalogue of 47 known Megarian sites. Some of these (like Megara, Aegosthena and Pagai) are well-known, but most of them are obscure rural fortifications or tower sites. The catalogue, which lies at the scholarly heart of this study, is clearly organised, giving the modern name of the site, its location, a bibliography, a report of visible remains and their dating, and an overview of the ceramic material and inscriptions at each site. There follows in each case a discussion of their identification (many of them are impossible to locate with certainty: an Appendix and series of maps are dedicated to the identification of Nisaia and Minoa (153-66) and another to the identification of Ereneia (167-72)). This is followed by a brief discussion of the settlement patterns from the Neolithic to the Roman period. Smith identifies two sudden increases in the number of sites: a lesser one in the Middle Helladic period and one in the Classical period. He observes that the Hellenistic period saw a slight increase in the number of sites from 42 to 43 (80); the Roman period saw a substantial drop, but most of the lost sites were military installations no longer needed under the Romans (2). There is a short note on the main roadways, signalling and defence systems in the Megarid, and Smith draws the conclusion that, in the fourth century, the whole Megarid was well served with interstate lines of communication (92).

Chapter 3 consists of a summary of ancient Megarian history. Smith emphasises Megarian 'would-be neutrality' (105) and commercialism, suggesting that the city of Megara in the archaic period exported clay cultic figurines to its colonies 'as a religious connection to the cult centre' (98). Chapter 4 draws on epigraphical texts to survey the Hellenistic and Roman political and religious institutions of Megara and to sketch the relations she enjoyed with other states in the same period. This chapter performs several useful services. The overview of Roman and Hellenistic magistracies is unprecedented in its level of detail; Smith also proposes a reconstruction of the Megarian cultic calendar on the basis of comparative evidence from Megarian colonies and other Doric states (143: it is a great shame that the process of typesetting has mangled the transliteration of Greek at this point) and makes a good case for the Apollo as the most important deity to residents of the Megarid. The collection of data on Megarian interstate relations from the beginning of the Hellenistic period is also unique and leads to some interesting points on the impact of Megarian commercialism on its diplomatic habits. A survey of honorific decrees (unfortunately Smith fails to discuss Urban's controversial redating of Megarian proxeny decrees to the era of Demetrius Poliorcetes¹) and the evidence for Megarian dikastai as interstate arbitrators leads Smith to suggest that the Megarians were 'perhaps the first nation in history' to pursue a 'policy' of neutrality (129). One wonders, however, whether neutrality was really a passive reaction to larger external pressures rather than a substantive policy. The section on the Roman period highlights changes and continuities in Megarian political and religious institutions; Smith offers the idea that Megara's position as a commercial centre and route hub allowed her to maintain the level of prosperity that is suggested by the evidence for frequent dedications of honorific statues (which are usefully catalogued at 146-7) in the first four centuries of the Imperial period (133).

Chapter 5 offers some important conclusions: importantly, Smith observes that the number of inhabited settlements in the Megarid remained unchanged at 15 between the Classical and Hellenistic periods (149). As Smith points out much earlier (2), the number of attested settlements and/or cemeteries increased from 15 to 20 between the Hellenistic and the Roman periods. Such a conclusion militates against the literary impression of a decline in the vitality of Hellenistic and Roman Greece: in the case of Megara, it may be the case that the infrequency with which Megarian affairs postdating Alexander are mentioned in the literary sources is an upshot of her neutrality rather than her decline. The pattern should also be compared with the results of recent archaeological surveys that have pointed to an overall drop in the number of attested rural settlements in the later Hellenistic period whilst recognising regional deviations.² Caution, of course is necessary, as the sample from Megara is very small. An appendix reproduces the texts of inscriptions cited, but Smith offers no new readings and does not appear to have autopsied the material.

The main scholarly contribution of this work is the catalogue of sites; the account of political and religious offices and the considerations of the honorific epigraphy of Megara are also welcome. The maps which illustrate these sites must be among the most detailed ever published for the Megarid. This is a book based on careful scholarship;³ the topographical surveys draw on previous studies and personal autopsy were carried out by Smith in 1996. However, in many senses, this is a preliminary publication: the scanty nature of the evidence leads Smith to remind us of the many difficulties in reconstructing Megarian history (he is cautious about his own reconstruction of the Megarian calendar, given that Megara, Aegosthena and Pagai may have used separate calendars and the possibility that the Megarians did not give names to some or all of their months (150)). One therefore eagerly awaits further work on the ancient Megarid, in particular that of Adrian Robu at the Université de Neuchâtel (on the relations between Megara and its colonies) and ongoing archaeological publication. The inscriptions of ancient Megara still await a modern edition. Some of Smith's broader conclusions need reworking: in particular, his ideas about the Megarian 'policy' of neutrality ('much like Switzerland' (150)) would benefit from reconsideration in the light of recent scholarship on the nature of Greek interstate relations. Smith's collection of material for the Megarid as a whole also offers a potential case-study for thinking about the ways in which Greek communities functioned in clusters other than the polis. The data collected in this publication requires integration in the broader picture of epigraphical and documentary habits and settlement patterns in Hellenistic and Roman central Greece. It should also be said that the standard of production frequently disappoints in terms of formatting, transliteration, typography, and reproduction of photographs.

1.   R. Urban, Wachstum und Krise des achäischen Bundes. Quellenstudien zur Entwicklung des Bundes von 280 bis 222 v. Chr., Weisbaden, 1979, 66-70.
2.   See Shipley, G., 'Between Macedonia and Rome: Political Landscapes and Social Change in Southern Greece in the Early Hellenistic Period' ABSA 100, (2005) 315-330, at 328-30 and Oliver, G., War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens, Oxford, 2007, 108-9.
3.   One item of relevant bibliography not mentioned is Lohmann's survey of shepherds' precincts in the Megarid: H. Lohmann, 'Antike Hirten in Westkleinasien und der Megaris: Zur Archäologie der mediterranen Weidewirtschaft', 63-88 in Walter Eder and Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp (eds.), Volk und Verfassung im vorhellenistischen Griechenland, Beiträge auf dem Symposium zu Ehren von Karl-Wilhelm Welwei in Bochum, 1.-2. März 1996, Stuttgart, 1997.

Anika Nicolosi's has published an impressively erudite, elegantly produced edition, with text and exhaustive commentary, of several fragmentary poems by Archilochus and Hipponax. Three famous fragments (amounting to barely 125 lines of legible text in all) are subjected to detailed scrutiny here -- the so-called Strasbourg Epode(s), a choice piece of poetic invective variously attributed by scholars to Archilochus or Hipponax (in recent editions printed as Hipponactean dubia, frr. 115-117W and 194 Degani), the "Cologne Archilochus" (frr. 196 + 196aW), and the "New Archilochus," which refers to the fragment of Archilochus recently published by Dirk Obbink in 2005 (P.Oxy. 4708). The last item is arguably the most exciting, both because it is a recent addition to the corpus of fragments and for what it adds to our understanding of Archilochean poetics, but Nicolosi only treats this fr. in an appendix, presumably because it came to light too close to the publication of her own edition for her to offer a fuller study.

Nicolosi's choice of frr. seems rather random: nothing in particular unifies them beyond the fact that two of them are invective poems, and all three were written by poets who were lumped together in antiquity as "iambographers" (though, interestingly, none of the frr. examined in this edition are actually in iambic verse). It is easy to imagine various thematic selections from these poets (one might, for example, collect poems that attack a single target, or constitute psogoi -- the "Lycambes-Neobule poems" for Archilochus, to which the Cologne Archilochus would belong, or the "Bupalus poems" for Hipponax), but Nicolosi makes no attempt to explain why she decided to bundle these particular frr. together in one volume. No startling revelations about these frr. emerge from the commentary, although this is not surprising, given the amount of scholarly attention (with the exception of the new Archilochus fragment) these relatively few lines have already received. The questions and controversies are familiar enough: did Hipponax in fact pen the (unattributed) Strasbourg epodes? Are the two frr. 115W and 117W (116W is only an illegible scrap), which come from the same papyrus, actually from a single poem? Did Archilochus in fact compose the Cologne epode, or was it a later forgery? What do we do with the poet's "I" in that epode? Should we read the poem autobiographically, or generically? Nicolosi assiduously discusses all the evidence for, and scholarship on, such questions. This is undoubtedly useful in itself, but in the end our conception and understanding of these fragments remains more or less the same as it was before. She rehearses, for example, a century of thematic and linguistic arguments that point to, reasonably enough, Hipponactean authorship for the Strasbourg epodes over against an earlier tradition (beginning with its first editor, Reitzenstein) attributing them to Archilochus, though this has long been more or less the communis opinio. In the case of the Cologne Archilochus, once again, all the arguments about authenticity, literary dynamics, and the relationship between frr. 196aW and 188W, are expansively presented, but with little new to offer.

In terms of what Nicolosi explicitly sets out to do, however--to offer a full, updated commentary on these texts, while affirming or discarding various scholarly approaches to them--there is little to complain about. This is clearly a work of consummate philological skill, which anyone with even a passing interest in these fragments will want to consult. With its thirty pages of bibliography and extensive indices all trained on what amounts to a handful of verses, one can truly say that Nicolosi leaves no stone unturned.

In her review of my book Apariencia y Realidad en el Pensamiento Griego. Investigaciones sobre Aspectos Epistemológicos, Eticos y de Teoría de la Acción en Algunas Teorías de la Antigüedad (hereafter AR), Reyes Bertolín Cebrián (RBC) presents a number of objections and criticisms that appear to me unfounded and clearly subjective.

First, she claims that, although I have done a good job explaining the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle in great detail, I have presented those authors and their doctrines in a manner that would not necessarily appeal to the students in classics. Honestly, I do not understand the nature of this objection, as I never intended my book for the students of classics (i.e. people dedicated to Greek and Roman literature, history, and so on), but for the classicists who are involved in ancient philosophy; as RBC herself notes, my book is intended mostly for philosophers in general or scholars interested in ancient philosophy.

Second, RBC suggests that the title of AR might be "a bit misleading" since the book is not focused on a general discussion of "the problems of appearance and reality, but only as these concepts relate to the idea of good". Probably RBC failed to read carefully my chapter 6 (where I discussed in detail some important issues of Aristotle's epistemology, with a special focus on the Aristotelian theory of perception and imagination or "appearance": phantasia); she also needs to study more carefully my chapter 9, where I dealt with the Stoic criterion of truth (the "cognitive presentation": kataleptike phantasia). This being so, it is untrue that I concentrated my discussion on the distinction appearance-reality only as related to the idea of good. An important part of my research was to examine the possibility of extending the theoretical criteria, so to speak, to the practical domain. I have tried to do that when discussing Plato (chapters 1-4), but I have found some evidence of that in Aristotle and the Stoics (chapters 5-9). This can be a very debatable suggestion and, in fact, constitutes a central point of my book. Unfortunately, in her extremely general review RBC did not realize that; she just mentions in passing (and in a descriptive manner) that my goal is "to explain whether the ancient philosophers considered truth only as a theoretical criterion or also practical". RBC also complains that I do not offer "a survey of all theories of antiquity" (italics are mine). Of course, I do not do that, but I never intended to do it. As it is clearly announced in the subtitle of my book and in my Introduction, my survey focused just on some theories of antiquity (Algunas teorías de la antigüedad), not on all of them.

Third, RBC objects that in AR "Analysis of these sources (sc. Plato's, Aristotle's, and Stoics's texts) by other philosophers or historians of philosophy is rarely mentioned in the body of the text or in the footnotes". This remark could not be more unfair: although it is true that I am particularly interested in the primary texts (as any scholar is), it is untrue that other scholars or philosophers are "rarely" mentioned in the body of the text or the footnotes. For instance, in chapter 1 other scholars' and philosophers' views, such as C. Kahn, E. Anscombe, A. Gómez-Lobo, R.E. Allen, J. Austin, J. Stuart Mill, I. Vasiliou, D. Davidson, G. Vlastos, T.C. Brickhouse and N. D. Smith, and H. G. Gadamer are referred to and sometimes briefly discussed. Within the same chapter 1 I have devoted at least one page and a half to discuss a suggestion by E. Anscombe that may be useful to understand a passage in Plato's Gorgias. In chapter 4, in discussing some aspects of Plato's Theaetetus, I have cited or briefly discussed the views by W. Wieland, L. Gerson, D. Bostock, M. Burnyeat, E. L. Gettier, J. Moravcsik, J. Annas, F. Aronadio, A. Nehamas, T. Irwin, C. D. C. Reeve, H. H. Benson, A. Brancacci, D. Sedley, S. Waterlow, G. Fine, J. McDowell, G. Trindade Santos, F. Trabattoni, F. Ferrari, G. Ryle, C. Kahn, E. Spinelli, and others. Something similar might be said of the other chapters of my book, but I omit to list the scholars quoted and discussed there for the sake of brevity (I just would like to briefly mention that at the final section of chapter 7 I offer a discussion where I make Aristotle have a dialogue with J. Searle; the last section of my chapter 2 establishes some links between Plato and R. Rorty, and states why Plato would not agree with Rorty on some important points.

Finally, RBC also objects that AR "lacks a general conclusion that would have brought together commonalities and differences between the three studies". That is true, but it is also true that each chapter is endowed with partial conclusions. RBC also appears to complain that my book is mostly about my own reading of the ancient authors, which explains why, in her view, I'm not particularly concerned with the modern literature. Despite this, RBC admits at the same time that I am familiar with the current literature; besides the fact that this two statements seem to be in contradiction, it is simply false that I do not discuss the literature. As indicated above, all the chapters of my book state a central thesis and offer some arguments to prove it; in doing so, I refer to a number of papers and books published in the last decades (mostly in English, but also in Spanish, Italian, French, and German), both in the footnotes and in the body of the text. Sometimes I agree with the cited scholars and philosophers, sometimes I disagree; in the latter case, I always try to offer a reason for my disagreement.

To conclude, my interpretations in AR can be mistaken, my arguments weak or even invalid. But in order to turn down an argument one must present a better argument, showing that, either the premises of the other argument are false or the conclusions do not follow. As far as I can see, neither of these is done by RBC in her review. I am in the habit of receiving criticism and indeed I do share the idea that criticism is a healthy way of recognizing one's error, so that is not the point here. It just seems to me that the readers of BMCR have the right to receive a little more balanced judgment when reading a critical review. Regrettably, RBC's review is extremely general (she used 676 words to review a 376 page book), she never cites a page number of AR or gives a precise reference to justify her views. I do not intend to engage in a sterile discussion with my reviewer; she surely had her reasons for doing the job she did. However, I do hope that my remarks in this response are helpful to the BMCR readers, although I do not assume that anyone should agree with my interpretations of ancient texts.

The origin of this book was the discovery of a bilingual inscription. The marble slab on which the inscription is engraved was acquired by the Usak Archaeological Museum in 2000, where it was viewed by William Tabbernee, one of the most eminent scholars in early Christian studies, and particularly in Montanism. The inscription was a petition addressed by peasants from an imperial estate to the emperor Septimius Severus. The text of this inscription will be added to the dossiers regarding peasant complaints assembled by Tor Hauken ten years ago (Petition and Response: an Epigraphic Study of Petition to Roman Emperors, 181-249, Athens 1998). The extraordinary significance of this text does not reside in the petition itself, but in one of the two toponyms cited in it: the petition was sent from colonis Tymiorum et Simoensium (ll. 10-11).

Tymion, together with Pepouza, was the birthplace of Montanism. It is the very place where, according to the prophetic utterances by Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, the "New Jerusalem" would descend on the world. The more famous and important of the two toponyms was Pepouza, an episcopal seat until the 7th century and beyond. The obscure toponym of Tymion was cited only by the anti-Montanist Apollonius, in Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica (V 18.2); then it disappeared from the historical record.

Much research has been dedicated to the identification of this double cradle of Montanism, beginning with the pioneering works by Ramsey. Further investigation was prompted by some peculiar early Christian inscriptions from central Phrygia, commonly identified as "Montanist" (W. Tabbernee, Montanist inscriptions and testimonia: epigraphic sources illustrating the history of Montanism, Patristic monograph series 16, Macon: Mercer University Press 1997).

The discovery of this new inscription and the very precise identification of the spot in which the inscription was discovered have put an end to this issue, allowing a reliable identification of the very important site of Pepouza.

A German-Turkish-American archaeological expedition is now at work under the direction of Peter Lampe. The second part of the book reports on the first four seasons of digging in Pepouza (2001-04).

The inscription from Tymion is bilingual, Greek (5 lines), and Latin (10 lines) and fragmentary. The text is inscribed in a pseudo-aedicula, the Greek lines in the tympanum and the frame, the Latin ones in the epigraphic field. The Greek lines contain details about the publication of the text: the original had been hung in the colonnade of the Baths of Trajan in Rome. The imperial titles allow us to date the text to between 205 and 208 A.D. The petition of the tenant farmers complains about unlawful exactions, and asks the procurator to send the question to the governor of the province of Asia. This inscription was published by Hauken et al. in "Epigraphica Anatolica" 2003 (cf. p. 54 n. 16, where the authors of the book speak of "lack of collegial courtesy and professional ethics shown with the premature publication of this new inscription from Phrygia"). Discrepancies between the two editions are minimal, and do not influence the meaning of the text. Only a mysterious cluster of letters found in line 6 (the first Latin line), "Aug ADPEDIPATA dominis" etc., is problematic. Hauken was not able to solve the difficulty with this expression, while the current editors suggest "AD PED(eplana) I(n) PA(la)T(in)A (sc. domo) = "in front of the ground floor in the palatine palace complex". This solution, however, is much too complicated to be convincing, in my opinion.

The book is a well printed trilingual publication. The twelve chapters offer the English and German texts in two columns, side-by-side. Footnotes are in English in the chapters written by William Tabbernee (n° 1-5), in German in those written by Peter Lampe (n° 6-12). The Turkish texts, without any footnotes, follow each chapter. The correspondence between English and German is perfect. The reviewer does not know Turkish. The quality of the illustrations is generally good. However, as far as the pictures are concerned, the method adopted to display them is regrettable: all illustrations are numbered sequentially and provided with the number of the chapter and number of the picture (e.g. Fig.12.17). The pictures are in color and in black and white. For obvious typographic reasons, the color pictures are grouped in final tables, but their references do not change, so the reader is often obliged to search throughout the book or at the end. Some rare errors make searching even more difficult (e.g. at p. 184: "Figs. 5.2 and 14.1" but fig. 14.1 does not exist). Two big maps are included at the end of the volume (n° 13.1 and 13.2).

The Introduction is by both authors. William Tabbernee wrote the first five chapters, while Peter Lampe contributed chapters 6-12. The division between the two authors corresponds to a sharp division in content. Tabbernee's chapters deal with Montanism, and with the geography and history of Roman Phrygia. Lampe's chapters are reports of the archaeological expeditions. The two parts of the book are thus not closely linked with each other. The historical and epigraphic chapters are centered on Montanism and related epigraphy; the excavations of the huge city of Pepouza have not shown any evident connection with Montanism so far, but attest a deep Christian faith widely diffused in the area (see above).

The inclusion of a full history of the studies about the siting of Pepouza and Tymion (chap. 2 and 3) is useful, but the presention of the material in a chronicle-like scheme is open to criticism. This produces an unnecessarily long discussion, full of completely useless details (e.g., the visits by Tabbernee to the Usak Archaeological Museum July 19-21, 2000; all the visits to many different places previously identified with Pepouza; and the lengthy report of a wrong hypothesis about the origin of the stone described at pp. 85-107).

As far as the archaeological reports are concerned, the description of the donkey path which linked the city with the big eastern marble quarry is very interesting. The path crossed a deep canyon and went along the Ulubey river, following a well-defined route. Sometimes it was wide enough to allow two loaded donkeys to pass one another, but sometimes the route was divided into two paths. Above the donkey path a clay pipeline brought water to the city: "positioned higher than the river, the aqueduct was also able to irrigate areas within the territory of Pepouza that were elevated above the riverbank" (p. 165). On the canyon slopes, many graffiti depicting crosses were discovered.

The huge monastery carved into the rock is difficult to date. The presence of Byzantine graffiti and analyses of C14 confirm a dating compatible with the literary sources: "the monastery was inhabited at least until the 8th century and, according to C14 dating of a fragment of a wooden beam...at least until the second half of the 9th century C.E." (p. 204). The monastery complex was structured on three floors, with at least 63 rooms. Traces of various woodwork show that the complex was destroyed in a fire. The central room has a half dome; it stems from a natural grotto and was higher than all other rooms at level A. Level B was a row of at least 26 rooms, while level C is smaller, with only 18 rooms. This structure was reused after being abandoned by the monks, but with a continuous deterioration of the complex.

The discovery of ancient Pepouza opens new perspectives on early Christianity and on Montanism in particular. The four campaigns directed by Peter Lampe have revealed the remains of a Roman bridge, probably of the Severan period, a square building, several villas, and a huge monastery carved in the limestone rock on a slope near the city. While this is a good start, we remain far from having a general picture of the extensive archaeological site of Pepouza.

Gentle readers,

Bryn Mawr Classical Review is moving -- to Bryn Mawr. Since our inception in late 1990, we have been hosted on the server of the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts at the University of Pennsylvania. There are many reasons for that persistence. One of us was then at Penn, the CCAT founded by Bob Kraft was already a leader in humanities computing, and since then inertia, respect for readers' habits, and the very kind generosity of Penn humanities computing have all made it simple to stay as we were. The time has come now to move homes, with the journal coming to reside fully within the College whose extraordinary tradition in Classics gave it birth.

The senior editors are grateful to our colleagues at Penn, most notably in recent years Warren Petrofsky and Jay Treat, but going back many years to others, including Bob Kraft and the late Jack Abercrombie and the inimitable Ira Winston, and others whom we are sorry not to be able to catalog comprehensively here.

Links to the old addresses will "resolve" (as they say) to the new site, but of course there will be some hiccups in finding familiar material. This is an opportune moment to say that there are other sites from time to time that seem to take it upon themselves to archive BMCR postings. Go now, then, to have a look at http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu to see the new site and make sure you can recognize the real thing. Many readers will also want to bookmark our blog site, where new reviews are posted and comments encouraged/welcomed/posted. The URL there is http://www.bmcreview.org.

With best wishes,

As stated in the "Preface" (ix), this edition of the 'Old Oligarch' was begun by J. L. Marr, who discussed previous drafts with P. J. Rhodes, and finally asked the latter to join him in finishing the book. The final version of the volume was produced by Rhodes, although both authors share joint responsibility for the book as whole (including Greek text, English translation and the various interpretations expressed along the work). The result is a very complete approach to this small treatise, too often neglected by literary critics and ancient historians, thus providing an analysis capable of attracting the attention of specialists, students and general public as well. This kind of balance is not easy to maintain, but Marr and Rhodes (henceforth M&R) have managed to achieve it, by combining an incisive introduction with an easily readable translation (without betraying the recognized immaturity of the anonymous author) and an illuminating commentary that usually refers the reader to the English version, but does not disregard the Greek original.

The Introduction (pp. 1-29), although fairly short, is divided by M&R into eleven smaller sections which offer an easy and well-informed approach to the main lines of discussion concerning the treatise. In the first (The Name 'Old Oligarch'), they address the problem of an expression which , although widely used by English-language speakers, may nevertheless lead to error, by suggesting that the author is an old person and a traditional oligarch. In fact, the reality is probably the opposite: the author is almost certainly a young (and relatively immature) person who, although being opposed to the democratic regime, does not express the opinions of a conventional oligarch (whose arguments he partially discredits in his discussion). Nevertheless, the expression reflects the difficulty, felt already in antiquity, of attributing this work to Xenophon and is thereby a practical way of dealing with the problem of authorship implied by the traditional title, 'the Pseudo-Xenophontic Athenaion Politeia'. M&R have chosen to refer to the author as 'X' (following Gomme), meaning that the author is unknown rather than that they are using an abbreviation for Xenophon. M&R tend to share the standard position among scholars that Xenophon is not the author of the treatise, but correctly call attention to the fact that the arguments (discussed at length in section 4) are not as conclusive as some scholars usually maintain they are.

In the second section (The Title of the Work), the authors discuss the pertinence of attributing to the treatise the title 'Constitution of the Athenians' ('Athenaion Politeia'), rightly considering it to be no less misleading than the expression analysed in the previous section, because it may suggest a kind of objective constitutional and institutional history of Athens (somehow comparable to the Aristotelian 'Athenaion Politeia'), when the treatise is, on the contrary, a generalising work, with a strong argumentative character, with almost no factual details such as might reasonably be expected from a constitutional historian (e.g. dates, facts and names). This title probably results from a misappropriation of the first five words of the opening sentence and is due to a later commentator and not to the author of the treatise. This generalising nature of the work also makes it hard to fix the date which should be assigned to it (as discussed in section three: The Date of the Work), because the lack of internal and external evidence makes it very hard to establish both a date after and a date before which the treatise must have been written. The dates assigned by scholarship oscillate from the 440s to the fourth century (a conspectus is given in pp. 31-32); M&R give preference to 425-424, a possibility first proposed by W. Roscher. As they pertinently assert (p. 6), one important consequence of this date is that it turns the treatise into "the earliest surviving example of a literary text in Attic prose, and the earliest prose critique of Athenian democracy".

The next section, 'The Authorship of the work', is the longest. Diogenes Laertius (II.57) makes it clear that its attribution to Xenophon was already disputed in antiquity. Modern scholars tend to consider the two short pieces of the 'Constitutions of the Athenians and of the Lacedaemonians' as separate works, and to identify Xenophon as the author of the 'Constitution of the Lacedaemonians', but not of the 'Constitution of the Athenians'. In reviewing the arguments generally used by scholars to justify this opinion (concerning style and chronology), M&R do not challenge that perspective, because they too find Xenophontic authorship highly improbable, but their analysis has the undeniable advantage of showing that the grounds for denying that authorship are neither irrefutable nor self-evident.

Section five (The Author and his Immediate Audience) addresses the confrontational character of the work. In fact, throughout the treatise the author gives the impression of quarrelling with a group of antagonists and interlocutors, whose argumentation he anticipates and responds to, thus achieving a certain vivacity. The presence of imaginary opponents can be detected some twenty times all through this short work. These interlocutors are sometimes referred to in the singular and other times in the plural, and, unlike the author of the treatise, who is Athenian, they are perceived as being foreigners (primarily Spartans), because although they share an anti-democratic perspective, their understanding of democracy is superficial, as can be inferred from the answers given to their somewhat naïve criticism of Athenian democracy. As for the place where the 'debate' took place, it has sometimes been suggested that the author was in exile when he wrote it, but M&R argue convincingly that the treatise was produced in Athens, by an Athenian, perhaps in the context of a rhetorical classroom exercise. This possibility would be consistent with the theory that the author is still very young and rooted in an oligarchic circle of family and friends. M&R speculate (commentary on 2.20) that he may have been a pupil of Antiphon, the orator and sophist, and this a conjecture is not improbable, on chronological, political and social grounds.

The analysis of the way the author of the work responds to his imaginary interlocutors, made in section six (The Author's Argument: the Self-interest Theory), shows that he considers their anti-democratic criticism to be pertinent, although objecting that this regime was effective as a whole in Athens, because the demos managed to pursue its own self-interest successfully. Consequently even if the author shares the oligarchic and aristocratic idea that democracy is a bad form of government, he recognises nevertheless that the system is effective, owing precisely to the self-interest theory. Acknowledgement of this fact enables him to have a deeper and more realistic understanding of the democratic regime, unlike his antagonists, who follow the traditional oligarchic perspective, which proves in the end to be more superficial.

In section seven (The Two-fold Class Division: the Demos versus the Oligoi), M&R note that throughout the treatise the term demos is used over forty times, usually in the political narrow sense of 'lower class', because for the author democracy is the rule of the poor (majority) over the rich (minority) in order to preserve their mainly economic self-interest. M&R correctly call attention to the fact that this two-fold class division and the restricted and pejorative sense given to the word demos, together with the idea that it corresponded essentially to the urban and landless poor, are a too simplistic way of perceiving Athenian society around 424 and therefore a fantasy--even if this fantasy is occasionally shared by modern scholars. Section eight (Class Designations and Class Labels) adds some further elements to this analysis, by discussing the several terms used to describe the two opposing political classes in which the Athenian citizen body was divided. As expected from the partial author's perspective, the words with a positive connotation are always applied to the members of his own class (the oligoi), and the opposite to the demos.

The last three sections are devoted to other stylistic features of the work, to its structure and finally to the facing Greek text. The critical apparatus supplied in this edition is highly selective and aims at including mainly different readings of the text, especially when it differs from that of Bowersock.¹ Before beginning the treatise, M&R present a very useful conspectus of the dates assigned to it by different scholars (pp. 31-32) and a Select Bibliography (pp. 33-34) of twenty four titles, with a section on Xenophon, another on the 'Constitution of the Athenians', and Rhodes' commentary on the Aristotelian 'Athenaion Politeia'.² Some readers will perhaps miss a more extensive list; certainly other works could easily be suggested. On the other hand, throughout the commentary many other studies are mentioned and considered, some of which discuss the treatise directly (e.g. p. 78, on Bechtle). This clearly shows that the first intention of M&R has been to provide a guiding select bibliography, and the works indicated by them are in fact important.

As already remarked, the English translation is easily readable; indeed it is so elegant that the immature style of the author is concealed. However, the most important and certainly most useful part of this book is the extensive (pp. 59-168) commentary provided by M&R. The perspective adopted is mainly historical and political, although there are also frequent philological and stylistic comments. M&R have pertinently chosen to direct their approach first to the treatise in itself, second to comparison with other ancient testimonies and finally to discussion of modern scholarship. It is a principle of the series in which this volume was published that the lemmata in the commentary refer to the English text of the translation and not to the original, and this corresponds to M&R's pedagogic intentions. Even though a full Greek text is provided, a very positive consequence of this option is that the regular non-classicist reader is also capable of following the commentary with no serious difficulties.

The volume includes in addition seven short appendixes (pp. 169-175). These usefully complement the Introduction and further elucidate the stylistic and ideological characterization of the author.

M&R's volume is not of course as monumental as Rhodes' commentary on the Aristotelian 'Athenaion Politeia', nor could it be, because the Greek original treatise now analysed is not comparable in importance to that fourth-century work. At any rate, it should be asserted that M&R's book has all the qualities necessary to become a standard work of reference among the studies that deal with the 'Old Oligarch'--and it is also fair to recognise that it will not be easy to improve on it.

Notes:

1. Bowersock, G. W., 'Constitution of the Athenians', in reissue of Xenophon, vol. vii. Scripta Minora [text and translation] (Loeb. London: Heinemann / Harvard UP, 1968), 459-507 and 515.

2. Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. (OUP, 1981; reiussed with addenda 1993). (read complete article)

Every student familiar with the material culture of the Aegean Bronze Age would readily acknowledge that rhyta are among the most appealing, yet enigmatic classes of artifacts. While by no means the most common vessels, they are surely one of the most conspicuous. No other...vessel was made in so wide a range of forms and media, nor with such a consistently high degree of artistry.(1)

This statement from the Introduction to Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (hereafter ABAR) is so obviously true that one simply assumes that whole of the subject has often been scrutinized and written about. So it is startling to realize that ABAR is the first comprehensive study of this polymorphic vessel since G. Karo's 1911 article "Minoische Rhyta" established the basic typology and functional analyses. Since 1911, of course, the number of rhyta and the range of their archaeological contexts have increased dramatically, so it is not surprising that ABAR has been many years in the writing. Publication has been also been held up by delays beyond the author's control (which did, however, allow some last-minute inclusion of recently-identified rhyta).

The Greek word rhyton (τὸ ῥυτόν) is derived from the verb rhein (ῥεῖν), "to flow". Just like rhyta of the Classical period, Bronze Age rhyta have two openings: a larger 'primary'opening and a smaller, 'secondary' one--the latter at the tip, base, or lower body of the vase, or, in zoomorphs, usually at the muzzle. From the very earliest EM II-III rhyta to the latest LM/LH IIIC specimens, the diameter of the secondary opening remains a remarkably consistent +/- 0.5 cm. It is the diameter of the primary opening (wide or narrow) that varies and that, rather than the range of shapes, affects the function of each type of rhyton.

ABAR is essentially divided into two parts. In the first part, the author proposes a typology of four types of rhyta--two with wide primary openings and two with narrow--each sub-divided into two classes (Footed or Footless), with each class described and documented by profile drawings and photographs (Chapter 1). Koehl then considers the formal development and origin of each class. This analysis of a very complex 'shape' will surely be the basis for all subsequent studies of chronological sequences and regional distinctions. The typology is followed by a complete catalogue of the 1,340 rhyta known to the author (Chapter 2). Organized by type and class, and further sub-divided into 'groups' (contemporary rhyta made of the same material and having the same profile), this, too, will be invaluable for future comparative studies and for placing new finds within a firm structure.

Each of these chapters includes 'Foreign imitations of Aegean Rhyta', classifying and cataloguing rhyta made outside the Aegean but clearly dependent on Aegean prototypes and having no close equivalents in the local repertory (13 Egypt, 21 West Asian, 10 Cypriot). Chapter 2 also catalogues 'Representations of Aegean Rhyta' within and outside the Aegean, from frescoes (36 examples), seals and sealings (5 ex.), and in Linear A and B texts (5 ex.)

The second part of ABAR will probably be the 'meat and drink' for many readers: why rhyta, how did they function, who used them, where were they used?

Chapter 3 ('The Mechanical Functions of Aegean Rhyta') examines how rhyta were handled, filled, and emptied. The author rightly insists that the consistently small size of the secondary opening means that only liquids could have been used in rhyta--as anything else would have clogged this opening. Koehl conducted extensive experiments to determine how each rhyton type worked, testing his hypotheses, first on a cache of 5 diverse MM III rhyta from Kommos, and later with full-scale reproductions of seven different types. Two examples:

1. Type I rhyta-- almost all figural zoomorphs with a secondary opening in the muzzle--can best be filled by immersing the vessel in the liquid up to the handle so that liquid seeps into the secondary opening-- making it appear that the animal was drinking. By placing the thumb over the primary opening, the rhyton is sealed and may now be removed from the liquid without the loss of more than a few drops. To empty the rhyton, lift the thumb and tip the vessel forward. Wine and oil were both tested and behave exactly the same. The Type I rhyton may thus be understood as a libation vessel, most likely for wine or oil, or possibly water. (260-63)

2. Type III (wide opening, footless) includes the conical rhyta, the most popular type in the Aegean and the only ones depicted in art. Koehl experimented with placing wool in the tip, adding crushed coriander, and pouring in wine while holding the tip closed with a finger. Once the rhyton was filled, the finger was removed and a lightly-scented wine emerged in a thin but continuous stream; at the same time, the wool trapped the lees and bits of coriander. Thus, Koehl concludes that these rhyta simultaneously purified, strained, and flavoured liquids, and then filled other vessels with this 'perfumed' drink. (269-71)

Chapter 4 ('The Uses of Aegean Rhyta') first analyzes the find contexts of rhyta, noting synchronic and diachronic distribution patterns. Tables 5-13 give details of 165 contexts from 39 different habitation and cemetery sites. Comparisons are difficult: the number of Pre- and Palatial contexts is much smaller than the Neopalatial contexts; and most Neopalatial rhyta are from domestic contexts while most Mycenaean rhyta come from funerary contexts. Nonetheless, it is clear that rhyta occur most frequently with drinking vessels (cups, kylikes, goblets), vessels in which liquids were stored (bridge-spouted jars, stirrup jars) or pouring vessels (small jugs and, especially, beak-spouted jugs: Koehl suggests that rhyta + beak-spouted jugs constitute the Aegean 'libation set'). (277-79)

Despite their divergent uses, it comes across strongly that the different forms of rhyta were thought of as the same category of vessels--as may be inferred from different types and classes being stored together in various cult repositories, at times to the exclusion of other vessels.

A series of short essays now examines the many locations of rhyton use: Rhyta in Tholos Tombs (327-29); in Peak Sanctuaries (329-30); in Processions (330-32); in Foundation Deposits (332-333); and in Ritual and Industry (333-335). Considering the rhyton's ritual associations, Koehl notes that the earliest (MM IIB Malia) Type IV rhyton (wide opening, footed) is shaped like a pithos. He suggests that libations would have been poured from a vessel that metaphorically stands for the event being celebrated--in this case, an occasion related to viticulture, such as the harvest and pressing of grapes or opening pithoi to taste the new wine (282, 333).

Another essay certain to provoke discussion is 'Rhyton Use and Gender' (335-337). A gender contradiction arises: on the one hand, all but one rhyton in human form are of females (such female figural rhyta, Koehl thinks, were perhaps also used by women); yet, on the other hand, all the images that depict rhyta together with human figures associate the vessel exclusively with males. Women are never shown either carrying or standing with rhyta. Though numbers are small (and the timescale long), Koehl identifies the specific group of males who handled rhyta as priests ('Rhyta and Priests', 337-342). Furthermore, based on the vessel's distribution in LH I-IIIB:1 and LM II-IIIB burials, Koehl suggests that one or two members of each LBA Aegean community officially served as priests at any one time. It is a pity we cannot know if this possible custom of burying priests with their libation sets started in the Minoan era: although rhyta are found in Prepalatial and Protopalatial Minoan burials, the contexts are too disturbed for any conclusions to be drawn.

Chapter 4 concludes with 'Aegean Rhyta in Extra-Aegean Contexts' (342-350). Significantly, they were the onlyAegean vessels that were adopted for ritual use in Egypt, Cyprus and the Levant. The Egyptian evidence is especially compelling. The only Aegean vessel imitated in Egypt in the early 18^th Dynasty is the Type III conical rhyton. At Tel el-Dab'a, two miniature conical rhyta were discovered along with many small handleless cups in an outdoor cult spot, indicating that it was the site of some ritual that involved drinking or toasting. Strainers made as matching sets were found nearby which suggests that, as in the Aegean, the rhyta were used to strain a mixed beverage. All four rhyta from Tel el-Dab'a are clearly based on LM IA (or LC I) prototypes. As such, they provide another synchronism between LM IA and the beginning of the 18^th Dynasty, supporting the traditional, or "low chronology" (343).

Egyptian imitations of Aegean rhyta found in graves during the mid 18^th Dynasty are similar in profiles and decorations to LM IB rhyta, a circumstance which implies that Aegean imports continued to arrive in Egypt even though no such specimens are known. Quite possibly, imported rhyta were made of precious metals--like those depicted on tomb walls in the Valley of the Nobles at Thebes--and, hence, did not survive. As it happens, one of the latest painted representations (in the tomb of Horemheb at Saqqara [temp. Thutmosis IV-Amenophis III]) shows a rhyton being used within an Egyptian context: a servant holds up a conical rhyton before one of four seated guests, one hand held under the tip. A dark spot painted on the servant's hand may represent a spot of liquid, perhaps, as Koehl suggests, perfumed oil dripping from the tip to be daubed on the guests. (345)

By an extraordinary chance, a recently-found painting on a MC III jug from Akroteri, Thera, shows for the first time a rhyton being used in the Aegean itself (add to the catalogue [as P2]: Chr. Doumas in [P. Valavanis ed.] Great Moments in Greek Archaeology, 247, fig.24, Athens 2007. Kapon Editions). It pictures two facing wasp-waisted youths dressed in kilts standing on either side of a large, sinuous, leafy plant. The youth on the left pours a liquid from a narrow-necked libation jar into a Type IV cup rhyton held by the youth on the right. Liquid drips from the bottom of the rhyton onto the plant (very much in line with Koehl's reconstruction of ritual libations, p. 352. The closest comparanda for this cup-rhyton are Phylakopi #1329, 1330 [but why does Koehl call them 'bowls'?]).

The Summary and Conclusions (Chapter 5) reviews the chronological and regional variations in the use of rhyta throughout the Aegean. It describes (with diachronic details given on Tables 27-29) the developments in the morphology, mechanical workings, uses (Types 1, II, IV for libations, Type III for flavouring and straining), and evolving meanings of rhyta over time.

Koehl's great accomplishment lies exactly in what he set out to do: to explain the 'how, why, when and where' of rhyta. When I put down ABAR, I had the strong feeling that, now at last, we have a good chance of understanding the role these fascinating vessels played in Aegean life. (read complete article)