Review: [untitled] Author(s): Jonathan Barnes Reviewed work(s): Antiochus and the Late Academy by J.

Glucker Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 71 (1981), pp. 205-206 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/299520 Accessed: 04/10/2008 04:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF PUBLICATIONS

205

the commonly held view that allegations of oracularfraud found in the ancient sources (such as Cicero on the Alexandrianoracle) are final confirmationof a decaying system does not withstand the weight of comparativematerial. Indeed it becomes clear that, in all societies in which oracles are used, individual accusationsof trickery are quite common. Almost universally,however, such instances are not used to attack the system as a whole; they are simply classified as exceptions, while the prestige of oracles in general remains consistently high. (See, for example, E. E. EvansPritchard, Witchcraft,Oraclesand Magic amongthe Azande (i937).) L., of course, points in the right direction,but he has perhapsbeen too gentle in his attackon the standardview. My final point concerns the problems of apparent illogicality revealed within certain aspects of Roman religion and, more specifically,how these might be accentuatedor maskedby any modern 'translation' of ancient beliefs. As Quine has put it (Word and Object(1960), 58, quoted by M. Douglas, Evans-Pritchard(I980), III) 'wanton translation can make the natives sound as queer as one pleases. Better translationimposes our logic upon them'. Now this is not a theoreticalissue explicitly discussed by L., but it must be consideredin relationto some of his comments on Roman ' double-think' (36, 76, II7) or confusion. For example, he claims that 'the principles on which divination rested were hopelessly vague' (27) because it was unclear whether signs merely foretold events or actuallycaused them. One must ask here, ' Whose confusion?'. Have we simply imposed our own categories (of either prediction or cause) upon the Romans and, finding them blurred, imputed vagueness? Could one not argue that, if there is a lack of distinction in that area, it is because the principles of divination did not demand it, being rooted in wholly other categories, to which we would better direct our attention? Of course it is impossible to decide. L. has chosen to analyse a religious practice, using categoriesthrough which the Romans appear inadequate. At the other extremesomeonemight be preparedcontinuallyto alterthose categoriesso that the Romans never could appear inadequate. Neither approach can claim self-evident truth, but it is at least importantto realizewhat the costs of each are. In sum, L. has produced a book of great value, which will not only provide a solid basis for further work, but also stimulate discussion of theoretical topics all too often neglected.
King's College London
J. GLUCKER, ANTIOCHUS AND THE LATE ACADEMY and Ruprecht, 1978. Pp. 510. MARY BEARD

(Hypomnemata LVi). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

What was Plato's Golden Chain? Who forged it? Was it gold or pinchbeck? Dr. Glucker's sleuthing starts from the Sosusaffair. In the winter of 87 B.C., Antiochus of Ascalon found himself in Alexandriain the retinue of L. Lucullus. There he received a copy of a work purportedlyfrom the hand of his old tutor, Philo of Larissa,the scholarchof the Academynow exiled in Rome. So hereticalwere the views expressed in the work that at first Antiochus doubted Philo's authorship; but his doubts were allayed by other pupils of Philo, among them Heraclitus of Tyre. In the presence of Lucullus, Antiochus and Heraclitus discussed Philo's book at length: Antiochus composed an attack on Philo, entitled Sosus, which markedhis final break with the Sceptical Academy. Such, in brief outline, is the Sosus affair; but its details are obscure. What was Antiochus doing in Alexandria? What was the precise chronology of the business? What was Philo up to in Rome? Why did his ' Roman books ' so shock Antiochus? Those little questions, quickly answered, are the prelude to a three-pipe problem. G. assiduously collects the clues; he engages in subtle deductions; the scope of his investigationbroadens. First, what was Antiochus' position in Athens? And what were the fortunes of the Sceptical Academy in the lean years after Carneades'death? What happenedto the School and to the succession afterAntiochus? What, indeed, is the exact sense of those key terms of diadochalhistoriography secta and disciplina,Academicus and Platonicus ? And what, materiallyspeaking, -cxoAi and acpecic, was the School property which Plato handed down to his successors? The enquiry moves on: it takes in Plutarch and Favorinus; eventually it comes to the Golden Chain itself, whose links allegedly stretch in unbroken continuity from Plato to the last Academic scholarch of Justinian's day. The Moriarty of the case is Karl Gottlob Zumpt, the third most ingenious schoolmaster in Schulen in Athen und die Germany. In I842/3 Zumpt wrote Ueberden Bestandderphilosophischen Successionder Scholarchen. His main thesis was that the four great philosophical Schools-the Academy, the Garden, the Lyceum, the Stoa-survived at Athens, presided over by a continuous succession of scholarchs, from their foundation in the fourth century B.C. to their closure by the edict of Justinian; Athens was ever the centre of philosophicalthought, and the Schools preserved their heritage through centuries of change.

206

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF PUBLICATIONS

Zumpt's view has been immensely influential: its acceptance by Zeller gave it the seal of authority,and orthodoxhistoriansof philosophyhave all been Zumptians-usually without knowing it. The thesis rested largely on conjecture(Zumpt happily invented scholarchsto fill the gaps left by the ancient evidence); there are familiarfacts which tell against it (does not Seneca, in a celebratedjeremiad(quaestnat vII. xxxii. 2), expresslysay that in his time the schools of philosophy had no successors?); and a few scholars-among them the youthful Nietzsche-dared to question its credentials. But the thesis is neat, elegant,and seductive; and it takes a Holmes to outwit a Moriarty. G. is our Holmes. The threadwhich runs throughhis book and holds it all together is the notion that Zumpt is absolutelywrong: the Schools were not the perdurablematerialentities he imagined; the successions were not the formal transferences of proprietorshipwhich he tidily supposed; Athens was not alwaysvery importantas a centre of philosophy; and, above all, there was no genuinely Golden Chain. The Academy continued to the scholarchateof Philo, and Athenian Academicians are heard of until 44 B.C. But Philo was the last scholarchand the Academy itself did not survive him. There were later men who called themselves Platonists, and Marcus Aurelius founded a Chair of Platonic Philosophy at Athens. But those epigoni, whatever claim they had to the title of Platonicus,were never scholarchsof Plato's Academy. G.'s book requires a longer review than this-and a more competent reviewer than I- to do it justice. I limit myself to three general comments. First, G.'s main thesis seems to me to be established beyond any doubt: the Golden Chain is indeed pinchbeck; the Academy, as a formal unit, ceased to exist with Philo. We may no longer talk blithely of Schools and Scholarchs; and the history of post-Aristotelianphilosophy must be rewrittenwithin a more flexible framework. Secondly, the book contains an astonishinghoard of scholarlytreasures. G. rangeswidely over the whole field of later Greek philosophy; he moves from the fourth century B.C.to the fourth centuryA.D., from the Pyrrhoniststo the Peripateticsand from the Stoa to the Academy, from Rome to Athens and from Alexandriato Jerusalem; he will tell you about anything from the birth of Aenesidemusto the death of Zechariah. My philosophicalbookshelves contain no more impressive display of learning. Finally, the book is fun. Its subject-matter,as I have described it, may sound pretty arid; and displaysof learningare often displaysof dullness. G.'s book is neither tedious nor dry: its main argumentis clear; its learningis lightly carried; its story is engrossing. I learneda great deal from it; I also-what is rarer-enjoyed it vastly. G. promises a sequel: I congratulatehim on The Case of the GoldenChain, and I look forwardto Son of Antiochus.
Balliol College, Oxford BARNES JONATHAN

D. W. MACDOWALL, THE WESTERN COINAGES OF NERO (Numismatic Notes and Monographs CLXI). New York: The American Numismatic Society, 1979. Pp. xvii + 256, 25 pls.

The coinage of Nero is attractiveaestheticallyand interesting in context, but is also complex, raising many problems of classificationand interpretation. Nero's accession naturally called for a new portraitand new reverse types, but in art, design and content these were expressed in strictly traditionaland somewhat uninspired formulae; they were also, surprisingly,confined to gold and silver, for no aes was issued in the West until A.D. 62. From A.D. 62-4, however, the coinage in all metals underwentmuch change and experimentbefore it settled down into an entirely new pattern for the last four years of the reign. A new and more lifelike portraitwas adopted for all metals; the weight standardsof both gold and silver were altered; the titulature was shortened and simplified; an entirely new range of reverse types was introduced, many of which, especially on the aes, were unprecedentedon Romancoinage in their elaborationand three-dimensionaldetail. Moreover this was not merely a decision simply to resume the traditionalaes coinage after an interval; for there are puzzling issues on which the customarySC has been omitted; on others marksof value were introduced, and denominationswhich had previously been struck in copper were produced for a while in orichalcum. These innovationsin the aes, however, did not become permanent, for the traditionalpattern of denominationswas eventually re-establishedtogether with the reopening of a secondarymint at Lugdunum to supply the Western provinces. These changesand innovationshave long been recognizedand variouslyexplained,and in general it is reasonableto see some aspects, as for examplethe dramatically improvedaesthetic quality of the new coinage, as a direct result of Nero's own artistic interests and personalinitiative; it is perhaps less likely that he had strong views on such matters as the introductionof marks of value, and the use of orichalcumas against copper. Hitherto the coinage had not been analysedin sufficientdetail to determinethe phases in which it developed throughout Nero's reign; this defect has now been overcome by MacDowall's very detailed treatment, as a result of which many older interpretations have been decisively excluded, and a coherent pattern proposed for the whole coinage.