TheClassicalReview

http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR AdditionalservicesforTheClassicalReview: Emailalerts:Clickhere Subscriptions:Clickhere Commercialreprints:Clickhere Termsofuse:Clickhere

Lucian(F.)Mestre,(P.)Gmez(edd.)LucianofSamosata.GreekWriter andRomanCitizen.Pp.290,ills.Barcelona:PublicacionsiEdicionsdela UniversitatdeBarcelona,2010.Paper,23.ISBN:9788447534067.

HeinzGntherNesselrath
TheClassicalReview/Volume62/Issue01/April2012,pp115118 DOI:10.1017/S0009840X11003155,Publishedonline:09March2012

Linktothisarticle:http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X11003155 Howtocitethisarticle: HeinzGntherNesselrath(2012).Reviewof(F.)Mestre,and(P.)Gmez'LucianofSamosata.GreekWriterandRoman Citizen'TheClassicalReview,62,pp115118doi:10.1017/S0009840X11003155 RequestPermissions:Clickhere

Downloadedfromhttp://journals.cambridge.org/CAR,IPaddress:177.135.166.102on19Sep2012

TH E CLA SSI CA L REV IEW

115

138.8 discussed at p. 72), not to mention salient references to ancient comparanda (Homer, Plato, Xenophon, Strabo, Plutarch and Pliny, among others, all feature). Overall, then, W. has provided a ne translation and commentary for an interesting text. There are, however, some problems. An entertaining and pertinent point pertaining to the understanding of this book comes from the preface, where W. describes how it was that he came to research this text. There, rather fortuitously, he notes: With such a shaky grasp of science and mathematics that I had never before found these works approachable or palatable, I now devoured them with a converts zeal. For those without such a background, or who have not yet been converted, so to speak, this book particularly Apollodorus text whether in Greek or English will be hard going. As noted, much of Apollodorus discussion is lled with technical details such as lengths and widths, not to mention various technical elements, including not just the measurements, but also the components of ancient machines. Indeed, many of the comments of the later interpolators seem to have been intended to clarify the text, and not merely provide evidence of intelligence and ingenuity. There are numerous remarks such as and the gure is appended (159.67), sometimes after Apollodorus text, sometimes after these interpolators own amendments. Many such drawings exist, though they have not been included in this book, probably on grounds of cost. This is too bad, as reproductions of the Byzantine illustrations, or at least greater use of the modern diagrams provided, would have gone some way towards clarifying many of the difculties that await anyone keen to wade through Apollodorus text. Though the commentary helps, the fact that it is appended to the text and translation makes consultation somewhat cumbersome: having to ip back and forth from text to commentary is no straightforward process, though I admit that this particular edition is not unique in this regard, as anyone who has used the Cambridge Classical Texts will attest. This problem is not one that should be directed at W. or even at the editors, for the practice is by no means unusual. Rather, it is unfortunate that this problem was not anticipated beforehand, as it might put off many a general reader who is unprepared to read the book and text from start to nish if overwhelmed by the abundance of technical, mathematical and scientic detail. Apollodorus Poliorktika is a fascinating text that deserves a wider audience, and in this volume W. has made some important strides in that direction. One only hopes that the complexities, which are not claried quite as much as one might like, do not hinder that text from reaching such an audience. University of Winnipeg CONOR WHATELY c.whately@uwinnipeg.ca

L UC IAN M E S T R E (F.), G M E Z (P.) (edd.) Lucian of Samosata. Greek Writer and Roman Citizen. Pp. 290, ills. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, 2010. Paper, 23. ISBN: 978-84-4753406-7.
doi:10.1017/S0009840X11003155

The English title of this collection of papers (most of which were rst presented at a colloquium in Barcelona in 2006) is somewhat misleading: only three of the
The Classical Review vol. 62 no. 1 The Classical Association 2012; all rights reserved

116

TH E CLA SSI CA L REV IEW

eighteen papers (not counting preface and introduction, pp. 915) are in English, while seven are in French, four in Catalan (one of them accompanied by an English translation), three in Spanish and one in Italian. One must presume that the English book title was chosen mainly for commercial reasons. After a preface by F. Mestre (pp. 910), the Introduction (pp. 1115) by P. Gmez gives an overview of the papers. The rst contribution (bilingual), by C. Miralles, Del meu tracte amb Lluci On my dealings with Lucian (pp. 1925/27 34), presents personal reminiscences of the authors engagement with Lucian and remarks on Lucianic studies in Barcelona, mainly during the latter half of the twentieth century. The rst main section, Lucian the Writer, opens with a well-argued paper, Luciano e lo scetticismo del suo tempo (pp. 3748), in which M. Bonazzi shows that Lucians knowledge of philosophical scepticism may have been more thorough than was hitherto supposed, but that he was not a convinced adherent of an ofcial philosophical school of scepticism (be it Pyrrhonian or Academic). The next paper takes us into the late seventeenth century, considering how Fontenelles Nouveaux dialogues des morts changed the themes, persons and structure of Lucians Dialogues of the Dead by regularly presenting two antithetical speakers (in imitation of Plutarchs Parallel Lives?), thereby reecting the antagonisms of the Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes (J. Carruesco / M. Reig, Fontenelle I els Nous Dilegs dels Morts: unes Vides Paralleles a la manera de Lluci, pp. 4961). We then return to Lucians relationship with Scepticism: in Lucien doit-il tre rang dans la bote des philosophs sceptiques? (pp. 6371), B. Decharneux argues that Lucian inherited a form of scepticisme platonisant issue de la voie trace par Philon et Charmadas and was not a sceptique au sens strict (p. 66). This hypothesis, however, is not really proved: discussing Lucians sceptic stance in the Hermotimus and his jokes about scepticism in the True Story and Philosophies for Sale, Decharneux does not take into account the quite different nature of these works. It is not easy to nd a coherent line of thought in Luciano: Dilogo y compromiso intelectual (pp. 7386) by M. Garca Valds, who looks at some of Lucians prolaliai (Dionysus, A Literary Prometheus, Heracles) and at The Double Indictment, drawing not very original conclusions about Lucians characteristics as a writer. Moreover, she regards Lucian almost romantically as a communicator of truths (su objetivo: develar la verdad frente a la falsedad que imperaba, p. 86), trying to prove this by looking rather randomly at several Lucianic writings on her nal pages. Much better focussed is I. Gassinos Par-del toutes les frontires: Le pseudos dans les Histoires Vraies de Lucien (pp. 8798), in which she convincingly demonstrates how Lucian quite deliberately blurs the borders between pseudos (ction) and logos. P. Gmez and M. Jufresa deal with Lucians Symposium, Lluci a taula: aliments i simposi (pp. 99113), representing it as an anti-banquet, in which elements from philosophical dialogue, sympotic literature and comedy are combined. In Luciano, los Cristianos y Jesucristo (pp. 11520), O. Karavas tries to show that in The Passing of Peregrinus (Chapters 1113 and 16) Lucian draws a positive portrait of Christians and that even the characterisation of Christ as sophist is meant positively (but cf. Peregr. 31). Karavas also thinks that the Syrian from

TH E CLA SSI CA L REV IEW

117

Palestine in Philops. 16 refers to Christ (see also D. Ogden, In Search of the Sorcerers Apprentice [2007], p. 133, not cited here). In The Game of the Name: onymity and the Contract of Reading in Lucian (pp. 12132), K. N-Mheallaigh well brings out Lucians subtle play with names for characters in his writings that may (or may not) hint at a certain degree of identity with himself: while, for example, he uses his own name Loukianos for the narrator and main hero in the tall tales of the True Story, he employs the ctional name Lykinos within contexts clearly embedded in contemporary reality (e.g. Essays in Portraiture and Essays in Portraiture Defended). The rst section is concluded by T. Whitmarshs well-written essay The Metamorphoses of the Ass (pp. 13341), which shows how metamorphosis affects the identity of the narrator and hero of the story. As for the identity of the author, Whitmarsh does not rule out that this might be Lucian himself after all. The second section starts with a clear exposition of Lucians (possible) relationship vis--vis two Roman emperors by A. Billault, Lucien, Lucius Verus et Marc Aurle (pp. 14559). Billault well characterises the four essays with which Lucian apparently tried to win Lucius Verus favour (The Dance, Essays in Portraiture, Essays in Portraiture Defended, How to Write History) and argues that How to Write History was meant as an offer to write Verus history. Billault also thinks that with his Apology Lucian might have addressed Marcus Aurelius in order to attain a higher post in Roman administration than he seems to have had in Egypt between 171 and 175. The next essay, Lhistoria dun citoyen romain de langue grecque (pp. 1618) by C. Darbo-Peschanski, tries to show that Lucians conception of historia (in How to Write History) derives from both a Greek and a Roman rhetorical tradition, aiming to give encomiastic content (loge) a place centrale within historiography (p. 167), as subjects of Roman emperors had no other choice. I nd this rather unconvincing. In Luciano y el viaje: una estrategia discursiva (pp. 16982), J. Gmez Espelosn collects all references to travel in Lucians writings, believing that some of them draw on personal experience. He recognises that Lucian does not seem very much interested in travel as such, with one exception: fantastic journeys to fantastic destinations (exotic islands, heaven, netherworld). According to G.E., such travel is instrumentalised by Lucian to present an external perspective on our world, but does this apply to notions of real travel as well? In an elegantly written piece, D. Konstan looks at the dialogue Anacharsis (Anacharsis the Roman, or Reality vs. Play, pp. 1839) and shows that both its speakers, Anacharsis as well as Solon, fail to grasp the real signicance of sports or theatrical representations vis--vis everyday reality. In this way, Lucian may draw attention to a vitally important ingredient of his own work: playfulness. Lucien et lEgypte (pp. 191201) by A. Martin discusses Lucians references to Egypt. Though most of them are unoriginal, there are a few for which Lucian is our rst or only witness. Martin cites as an example that mummies were participants in funeral banquets (mentioned in On Mourning 6), and illustrates this with archaeological and papyrological evidence. In Lucien ne sait pas dire bonjour (pp. 20315), F. Mestre and E. Vintr consider three hypotheses to make sense of Lucians A Slip of the Tongue in Greeting: (1) the described situation is invented to provide an occasion for a prolalia introducing a melet in praise of Asclepius and Hygieia; (2) it reects a real event, in which Lucian, as an employee in the Roman provincial administration

118

TH E CLA SSI CA L REV IEW

of Egypt, (improbably) chose the wrong Greek word to greet a higher ofcial; (3) he made a comparable mistake, but in Latin. The authors decline to give a clear preference for one of these hypotheses; I nd no. 3 the most convincing. In the last essay of the second part, B. Rochette looks at all passages where Lucian deals with non-Greek languages and their speakers, and compares the results with Lucians appreciation of Greek (La Problmatique des langues trangres dans les opuscules et la conscience linguistique des Grecs, pp. 21733). The conclusions drawn from this survey, however, seem far-fetched: although Lucian (as possibly a non-native speaker and writer of Greek) may have had a heightened awareness of the plurality of languages in his world, he can hardly be called un jalon important dans llaboration de la conscience linguistique des Grecs (p. 233) his writings were not taken seriously enough for that in his own time or in later Antiquity. The book concludes with an annotated (and illustrated) catalogue of early editions and translations of Lucians works in the Library of the University of Barcelona (L. Gonzlez / L. Boll, Edicions conservades al Fons Antic de la BUB, pp. 23750), a collective bibliography (pp. 25369), an index locorum (pp. 27382) and an index nominum (pp. 28590). All in all, this collection is a mixed bag, with some good, but also not a few mediocre contributions. Some of the English sections would have proted from a check by a native speaker (see, e.g., the second paragraph on p. 12, and the abstract of Gmez and Jufresas paper on p. 99). Georg-August-Universitt, Gttingen HEINZ-GNTHER NESSELRATH heinzguenther.nesselrath@phil.uni-goettingen.de

TA B L E M ANNE R S N A D E A U (R.) Les Manires de table dans le monde grco-romain. Pp. 493. Rennes / Tours: Presses Universitaires de Rennes / Presses Universitaires Franois-Rabelais, 2010. Paper, 24. ISBN: 978-2-75351128-6.
doi:10.1017/S0009840X11003167

Despite its expansive title, what this book offers is a narrow study of Greek table manners in the second century C.E. as evidenced in the works of Plutarch, Lucian and Athenaeus. Roman practices are considered only in so far as they impinge on the banquets described by those authors. Whatever the merits of the cultural and chronological focus, the narrowly circumscribed source base is a signicant limitation. Fortunately, N. regularly ventures beyond his self-imposed limits. He is happy to discuss earlier authors who are quoted by Athenaeus; he regularly adduces Homer and sometimes archaic poetry to look for continuities and discontinuities in Greek practice; and he occasionally embarks on substantial and wider-ranging digressions, on for example the appearance of handbooks on table manners in the fourth century B.C. (pp. 12336), the symbolic signicance of sh (pp. 37988) and the spread of Roman dining practices in the Greek world (pp. 40147). But there is no consistency in the breadth and depth of analysis. Nor is there any discussion of visual or epigraphic evidence (except for a cursory glance at the dining regulations of the second-century Athenian Iobacchoi [IG II2 1368] on p. 111).
The Classical Review vol. 62 no. 1 The Classical Association 2012; all rights reserved