Nick Fisher

M. M. AUSTIN and P. VIDAL-NAQUET: Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction. Pp. xv + 397. London: Batsford, 1977. Cloth, £9-50, Paper, £4-95. This English version of Economies et societes en Grece ancienne (Paris, 1972) has been much longed for, and will be widely welcomed; already I can report that Cardiff Greek history students write markedly better essays after using it. The great virtue of the book is that it contains both a full and well-presented collection of sources and also an introduction that sketches, and advances, the now flourishing debates on the nature of the economies and social structures of the classical poleis; both parts of the book offer great aid and inspiration to students at all levels. The English version is an improvement on the French in a number of ways. There are adequate indexes, which the original shamefully lacked. There is far more cross-referencing from the discussions in the introduction to the texts chosen to illustrate them. A great many further references to recent work have been added, testifying once more to the impressive breadth of the authors' reading (though I doubt if we needed to be given three times, on pp. 291, 303, and 365, a paragraph on Veyne's view, in Le Pain et le cirque, on the changing role of euergetai). There are a number of small alterations in the text, some of which are noted in what follows. Finally, five new texts are included: the letter from Berezan, on which B. Bravo is building interesting hypotheses on archaic trade (Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, 1974 and 1977), the agrarian law from Locris, the Brea inscription, the new law of 375/4 on silver coinage, and PL Rep. 469 f. The original was widely reviewed* and has since been much praised, and in places criticized; the fullest account, and by far the most penetrating critique was offered by Davies, in Phoenix, 1975 (and cf. also Mosse, REA 1973). Davies's review, itself a stimulating contribution to several debates, is not mentioned in the English version, though I suspect that some of its points have produced minor changes. Here I have space only to signal a few cases where criticism, or further reflection, has produced changes in this edition, and to add some further doubts of my own. Following earlier work by Vernant, Vidal-Naquet, and Finley, the authors hold that relations between masters and slaves in the poleis should not be described in terms of a 'class-struggle', because slaves had no collective conscious-

This collection, the record of an A.P.A. colloquium held in 1971, is evidently a response to events of the 1960s on North American campuses. Many of the less impressive contributions read like attempts by not very intelligent classical scholars to persuade themselves and others that their subject is still 'relevent' (see e.g. pp. 11, 64, 133, 213, 235). Much use is made of L. S. Feuer's The Conflict of Generations (New York, 1969), the work of a scholar of student movements who himself became embroiled in the Berkeley struggles. The brief extract from this work included in the collection (Ch. 6) gives an exaggerated and inaccurate account of 'generational struggle' in Plato and Aristotle (cf. Reinhold's criticisms, pp. 41 ff.). Feuer later treats Plato as a prototype of Paul Goodman, i.e. a middle-aged alienated homosexual intellectual striving to be a student-leader (op. cit., pp. 525 ff.); this, amusing though it is, points to a subject not treated anywhere in this collection, the connections between fatherson relationships and Greek institutionalized homosexuality. The opening chapter by Meyer Reinhold, reprinted from Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 114 (1970), 347 ff., identifies, plausibly, late-fifth-century Athens and (to a lesser extent) the late Republic as the societies which most yield evidence of serious generational conflict. It contains some curious notions: not everyone believes that Aristophanes' sympathies were solely with 'the older generation and its values', that apokeryxis and grapbai paranoias were frequent in the late fifth century, that Eupolis 122b—c (Edmonds) = 92.1.114 (Austin) refers to Nikias' brother, that relationships between fathers and sons in New Comedy are wholly harmonious, or that scholarship has established the genuineness of the Sallustian letters to Caesar. But this remains a useful, well-documented, and sane survey. The remaining chapters might have been expected to offer fuller analyses of societies and texts where conflicts are evident, or explanations for their absence elsewhere. Some do not altogether frustrate this hope. On late-fifth-century Athens, Fred Mench sees in the Hippolytus a strong and clear contrast between Phaedra's 'code' based on shame and concern for reputation and Hippolytus' code based on guilt, conscience, and truth (acknowledgement is paid to Dodds and Adkins), and this clash is said to be characteristic of the generational conflicts of the time. Mench makes some perceptive comments, but one doubts both that this clash (perhaps exaggerated anyway) is seen in generational terms in the play, and also that Hippolytus is at all typical of contemporary youth. Better is Kenneth Reckford on the Clouds: the fullest ancient text on 'the generation gap' draws the most stimulating chapter of the collection, though its colloquial tone and personal references may irritate some. The analysis of the agon is subtle, and the awareness of the interplay between comic structure and the serious treatment of disturbing ideas is salutary. The few Thucydidean passages which concern the political consequences of generational differences are efficiently presented by Felix Wassermann; he makes no attempt to relate these to the other analyses of the troubles of the Peloponnesian War. The Roman Republic is handled by Joseph Plescia, who follows a straightforward account otpatria potestas with an 'explanation' of the fall of the Republic that over-stresses the role played by the populates, seen as revolutionary, educated young men, and, following R. E. Smith, exaggerates the harmony of the pre-Gracchan state. Barry Baldwin chats about the empire sensibly enough, and seems content not to be able to find any serious generational conflict. Other contributions, on various authors, offer less. Carlyn Querbach on the Iliad builds facile generalizations out of false contrasts and distorts the relationship between Nestor and Diomedes. Jay Freyman finds messages of exceptional banality in the Agamemnon. Miriam Balmuth shows that children could complain about their parents and claims that this is 'relevant'. There is an extract from Erich Segal's Roman Laughter. Valerie Broege runs through Catullus and Horace at some length, but finds little original or interesting to say; her version of 'auto-allegory' in Cat. 64 seems particularly confused. The editor points rather portentously to some effective use of contrasts between old and young characters in Aeneid 5. Phillis Forsyth's approach to Persius' preference for old practices and elderly advisers is unsubtle.

everywhere imply its continued importance, which continued in some parts of the empire as late as A.D. 400. Finley rightly discredits the bogus statistics by which A. H. M. Jones tried to show the growing scarcity of slaves from an eightfold rise in prices betwen the fourth century B.C. and the second century A.D. In the end ' serfdom' supplanted slavery in most parts of Europe. The difficulty of explaining this process is compounded by the difficulty of determining its progress by any given date. Finley tentatively connects it with a decline in commodity production and in town populations, and still more with the diminution of the rights of the free poor: the magnates were better able to force them to work under the law of debt or the governmental regulations that created the colonate; chattel slavery, even in 'the central areas', was no longer the sole means by which men could be coerced to work for others. It is not his fault that the facts he adduces are so meagre and that he often (more often than he admits) relies on mere impressions or controversial interpretations of the evidence. Hypothetical conditions are subject to conjectural explanations. Does not honesty demand more Pyrrhonism? He is certainly right to dismiss the humanitarian explanation, as Meyer (whose views in general he contemns) had done in a magisterial sentence (Kl. Schr. 1211), for which ample documentation could be supplied. However, though the Church did not require the liberation of slaves, even if Christians, it did disapprove of Christians being made slaves. In the Christian commonwealth no Christian was an outsider, and it was only on its fringes that war captives could be legitimately enslaved, e.g. the pagan Slavs, who gave their name to the later institutions. If for reasons that must be speculative the slave population could not be kept up, as it was in the United States, by natural reproduction, this restriction doomed slavery, except in the Byzantine empire or in the Iberian peninsula, where Muslims could still be enslaved and whence the institution could be ultimately extended first by the Spanish and Portuguese to the heathen of Africa and America. Discussions of this matter would have been welcome, all the more because Roman law and the doctrines of Aristotle and the Fathers on slavery influenced the institution in its modern form and the apologies made for it. Finley has in fact done little more than sketch his conceptions of the subject, and one will continue to pine for the larger canvas that the master could paint.

How and why did the Greek city-states come into being? The study of Greece in the Archaic period is changing due to new discoveries and interpretations. The 14 essays presented here explore many aspects of this rapidly changing world. The essays detail re-interpretations of archaeological material, emphasize the diversity in patterns of settlement, sancturies and burial practices of the Greek-speaking world and trace the complex trends and motivations underlying the expanding exchange of goods and the settlement of new communities. Local studies of archaeology and iconography revise our image of the peculiarity of Spartan society, and texts, from Homer and Hesiod to a newly discovered poem of Simonides, are given fresh interpretations, as are significant developments in maritime warfare, the roles of literacy and law-making in Crete, the emergence of a less violent lifestyle and the articulation of rational political thought.

winter 480/479 but rejecting his crossing the lines to the Athenians at Plataea (see now CAH 4.605). He translates Thucydides 2.99.2: rwv yap MaKeSovwv elol Kal AvyKr/oral Kal 'EXifjuwrai Kal d\Xa eOvrj 'for the race of Macedonians includes as well the Lyncestians, the Elimiotes and the other peoples'. In my opinion one ethnos cannot include another ethnos, and Thucydides was describing not ethnic relationships but the extent of Perdiccas' rule as king of Macedones, which rule included the Lyncestians etc. as allies in war and subject to the Macedones, a distinct ethnos. How this rule came about is explained in a passage which B. like Edson rejects, Justin 7.4.1 (see my interpretation in The Macedonian State [1989], 43f.). In chapters 8 and 9 B. deals admirably with the reigns of Amyntas III and his three sons. He tackles the career of Philip thematically with relatively little on the military side (e.g. nothing on his defeat by and then victory over Onomarchus), and in general he agrees with Ellis and Griffith. He takes the view, as I do, that in 346 Philip hoped to bring the Greek states into a Common Peace, and he writes excellently of Philip's relations with Athens especially. In chapter 10 he draws what he calls a 'minimalist picture of Macedonian institutions', and he criticises always with courtesy any opposing views, of which he may regard mine as the other extreme. In chapter 11 he makes valuable comments on the level of culture which has been revealed by excavation, especially at Aegeae. His views on Sindos and the Vergina tombs have been overtaken by recent discoveries at Aiane and at Vergina. This book is an important contribution to Macedonian studies which are constantly expanding. It is based on thorough knowledge, long reflection and a practical outlook, which sees geographical and economic factors playing as important a role as national character and the policies of kings. His courtesy towards other scholars and especially to his Greek colleagues is exemplary, and they will be as grateful as university students and general readers for the benefit of his views.

read or heard of, provided it is civilized and fashionable enough and bears some relevance to his portion of the Torah. Plato looms large mainly because one reads more of him—and Stoic doctrines because they are 'in the air'. Philo is evidence for early Middle Platonic interpretations: he is no Middle Platonist. Nor is Plutarch. True, some of his works are 'Platonic' and reveal Middle Platonic elements. But then, some are Stoic or Peripatetic in tone and inspiration, and some are influenced by Academic or Pyrrhonian scepticism. I suspect that a study of his philosophical development (if feasible) might disclose periods of more dominant influence of this or that school of thought. Proper attempts at a consistent (though always, of course, somewhat eclectic) Platonism emerge only in the second century A.D. with Taurus (the Syrian!) in Athens and Gaius and his pupils in Asia Minor. (Apuleius is another problem. If my suggestions in Antiochus 139-41 have any value, he may well have learnt his Platonism still in Carthage: this might help explain the differences— so well demonstrated by Dillon—between him and Albinus.) It is only in the second century that the epithet Platonicus ('Middle' and 'Neo' are nineteenthcentury additions, useful as they may be) comes into use. All this implies that in future surveys of the area, one may have to redraw the map, both literally and metaphorically—which would leave more space for the 'loose ends' of Ch. 8—and indeed, for some early Christian Platonists—who are far more relevant than the faeneus Platonicus of Ascalon. So much for matters of 'high policy', on which I beg to differ from Dillon—and Dillon may, of course, continue to differ from me. All this detracts nothing from the pleasure one has at reading a handbook which is learned, thorough, reliable and honest, at the same time being readable, lucid, technical enough for those who wish to pursue the matter farther (though not for the complete professional), without being too technical for the general reader with a smattering of Greek philosophy and an interest in a Platonism different from that current in present-day courses and handbooks. It is also a book which often rises above the general mediocrity of its subjects, without relying on Plotinus to perform the miracle. Lector intende: laetaberis.

Ancient people, like modern, spent much of their lives engaged in and thinking about competitions: both organised competitions with rules, audiences and winners, such as Olympic and gladiatorial games, and informal, indefinite, often violent, competition for fundamental goals such as power, wealth and honour. The varied papers in this book form a case for viewing competition for superiority as a major force in ancient history, including the earliest human societies and the Assyrian and Aztec empires. Papers on Greek history explore the idea of competitiveness as peculiarly Greek, the intense and complex quarrel at the heart of Homer's "Iliad", and the importance of formal competitions in the creation of new political and social identities in archaic Sicyon and classical Athens. Papers on the Roman world shed fresh light on Republican elections, through a telling parallel from Renaissance Venice, on modes of competitive display of wealth and power evident in elite villa...

AcknowledgementsINTRODUCTION1 The trouble with 'aristocracy' Hans van Wees (University College, London) and Nick Fisher (Cardiff University) PART I: ELITES IN THE ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN: APPROACHES AND MODELS 2 Genealogical and dynastic behaviour in archaic and classical Greece: two gentilician strategiesAlain Duplouy (Universite Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne) 3 Investigating aristocracy in archaic Rome and central Italy: social mobility, ideology and cultural influences Guy Bradley (Cardiff University)4 Roman elite mobility under the Principate Laurens E. Tacoma (University of Leiden)PART II: HEREDITY AND SOCIAL MOBILITY AT ATHENS5 Who were the Eupatrids in archaic Athens? Antoine Pierrot (Universite de Montpellier 3) 6 Aristocracy and the Attic genos: a mythological perspective Stephen Lambert (Cardiff University) 7 'Aristocracy' in Athenian diplomacy Noboru Sato (University of Kobe) PART III: COMPETITION AND STRATIFICATION IN THE AEGEAN8 'Aristocratic' values a...

Durant toute l’Antiquité, l’historien Thucydide a constitué une référence obligée et un modèle qui a inspiré nombre de continuateurs et d’imitateurs, en milieu grec et à Rome, que ce soit pour sa méthode ou pour les caractéristiques formelles de son œuvre. Cet engouement, qui a perduré jusqu’au Moyen Âge byzantin et ne s’est pas démenti à la Renaissance, redouble à partir du xviiie siècle, au moment où l’histoire se construit comme « science » : la Guerre du Péloponnèse devient alors le paradigme de l’histoire « véritable », rationaliste et positiviste. C’est aussi au xviiie siècle que se construit une certaine image de l’Athènes classique, largement tributaire de la vision qu’en donne Thucydide. Cependant, depuis quelques années, l’héritage documentaire auquel son nom est attaché se voit de plus en plus contesté par les historiens et les archéologues spécialistes de cette période. La fortune de Thucydide, les modalités de sa réception ont donc varié selon les époques, et ce sont ces fluctuations qu’il a paru nécessaire d’étudier sur la longue durée, de manière aussi exhaustive que possible, en croisant les points de vue disciplinaires

oldest generations. Adulescentula (3.57), on the other hand, is used merely as a feminine correspondent to adulescens (cf. puella/puer), with which it is juxtaposed. Cf. funiculus (3.37; note funes in the next line, and see TLL VI.1.1592.44 'uocem sermonis plebei'), lectulus (1.25, 3.48), riuulus (3.22; cf. It. riuolo, Friul. riul), adulescentulus (1.31). Word order is not dealt with, but one should not stress unduly P.'s omissions. Within the limits which he has set himself P. has produced an excellent monograph.

Body-Abuse: The Rhetoric of Hybris in Aeschines' Against Timarchos Nick Fisher Aeschines' speech Against Timarchos {346l5 bc) 1 makes repeated and rhe-torically effective use of the term hybris, and of its law, the graphe hybreos: the term and the law are discussed ...

Dans un article fondateur paru en 1934, Marcel Mauss invitait anthropologues, sociologues et historiens à étendre leurs investigations aux techniques corporelles, désignant par cette expression les façons dont les hommes se servent de leur corps dans une société donnée. Cet art d'utiliser son corps varie d'une société à une autre, d'une époque à une autre : c'est pourquoi penser le corps ou le représenter ne se réduisent pas à une somme de connaissances scientifiques, mais relèvent bien d'une histoire, avec ses rythmes propres, ses ruptures et ses évolutions spécifiques. Depuis près de quarante ans, la recherche scientifique s'est évertuée à mettre en évidence cette histoire principalement à partir de l'avènement du christianisme, plus exactement à partir de l'émergence de nouvelles subjectivités, dans le but d'élucider les relations complexes que notre modernité décèle derrière les usages des plaisirs ou le souci de soi. Mais avant cette modernité, comment pensait-on le corps ? Quels étaient les systèmes de représentations mentales qui structuraient l'appréhension corporelle dans ses tâches et ses emplois quotidiens ou exceptionnels ? Si l'éducation ou la tradition impriment des marques culturelles indélébiles sur le corps de tous et chacun, comment les corps ont-ils fonctionné dans les sociétés de l'Antiquité ? Le colloque international tenu sur ce thème à l'université Rennes 2, dans le cadre de la Celtic Conference in Classics, se proposait d'apporter quelques réponses à ces questions et de livrer, par des études de cas, quelques clefs de compréhension. Les sociétés des cités grecques ou de l'Empire romain ont édicté des conduites, sanctionné des écarts, selon leurs normes propres, souvent bien éloignées des nôtres, parfois si proches aussi. Et, loin de réduire le corps à n'être qu'un instrument de savoir-vivre ou un carcan étroitement surveillé, les Anciens ont surtout développé une pensée pour que le corps sache vivre et mieux vivre dans le monde

Arising out of a conference on ‘Erôs in Ancient Greece’, the articles in this volume share a historicizing approach to the conventions and expectations of erôs in the context of the polis, in the Archaic and Classical periods of ancient Greece. The articles focus on (post-Homeric) Archaic and Classical poetic genres – namely lyric poetry, tragedy, and comedy – and some philosophical texts by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle. They pursue a variety of issues, including: the connection between homosexual erôs and politics; sexual practices that fell outside societal norms (aristocratic homosexuality, chastity); the roles of sôphrosynê (self-control) and akrasia (incontinence) in erotic relationships; and the connection between erôs and other socially important emotions such as charis, philia, and storgê. The exploration of such issues from a variety of standpoints, and through a range of texts, allows us to place erôs as an emotion in its socio-political context

There was not then one kind of Strife (Eris), but over the earth there are two. One a man would praise when he understood her, but the other is blameworthy: and they have wholly different spirits. One stirs up evil warfare and battle conflict, a cruel being: her no mortal loves; but ...

... Although I am grateful to all the faculty at Stanford, I owe special thanks to Lisa Maurizio, Steven Johnston, Andrea Night-ingale, John Gould and Kenneth Dover during their visits, Michael Wigodsky, and Mark Munn. ... Hellenica. 2 vols. Translated by Carleton L. Brownson. ...