Book Notes

Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy

BOB SHARPLES

In 1993 M.O. Goulet-CazŽ and R. Goulet published a collection of papers which marked a major advance in the study of ancient Cynicism. 1 Six of those papers are reproduced, and nine others added, in an equally important collection 2 which traces all aspects of the history and in  uence of Cynicism from Diogenes or Antisthenes (and even earlier: James Romm and R.P. Martin, on Aristeas and Anacharsis) down to Sloterdijk and the Òstudent movementÓ of 1960Õs and 1970Õs Germany (Niehues-Pršbsting; cf. his 343 on whether Rousseau was or was not a Cynic.) Attitudes to Tukh , chance, changed from Bion of Borysthenes onwards (Goulet-CazŽ, 56, 78-9). R. Bracht Banham stresses the rhetorical aspects of Cyni- cism as a performance, and argues that the core value of Cynicism is not self- sufŽ ciency – beggars are far from self-su fŽ cient – but freedom, and especially freedom of speech. J.I. Porter analyses the position of Aristo of Chios, his rela- tion to the literary kritikoi, his views on the unity of virtue, and the connection between his thought and AntisthenesÕ claim that only tautological predications are possible. Miriam Gri fŽ n makes a strong case for the importance of biography in ancient philosophy (42-3); and Goulet-CazŽ rounds off the volume with ÒA Comprehensive Catalogue of Known Cynic PhilosophersÓ (389-413) which will become deŽ nitive. Dirk ObbinkÕs magisterial edition of the Ž rst part of PhilodemusÕ On Piety3 shows how much has been achieved by recent insights into how the sequence of fragments in a roll of the Herculaneum papyri can be reconstructed from the order in which they were listed, in two separate sequences each representing a semi- cylindrical slice of the roll, by the investigators who cut the rolls open. O. shows that PhilodemusÕ defence of Epicurean theology constitutes the Ž rst part of the treatise, the attack on poets and on philosophers of rival schools (to be discussed in a second volume) the second. In the text discussed here P. is concerned to dis-

1 M.-O. Goulet-CazŽ and R. Goulet, Le cynisme ancien et ses prolongements. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1993. See Phronesis 38 (193) 348-9. 2 R. Bracht Banham and Marie-Odile Goulet-CazŽ (eds.), The Cynics: the Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. pp. vi + 456 + 10 illustrations. £45.00/$55.00. ISBN 0-520-20449-2. 3 Philodemus, On Piety, part 1, critical text with commentary. ed. Dirk Obbink. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. pp. ix + 676 + 8 plates. £75. ISBN 0-19-815008-3.

©Koninklijke Brill NV , Leiden, 1998 Phronesis XLIII/ 2 208 BOOK NOTES tance the Epicurean theory of the gods from theories which regard the gods as a Ž ction created to promote moral conformity. From the Epicurean perspective the construction of false gods to promote morality is a stratagem which fails to work and is rightly denounced, but those who construct such theories and those who denounce them alike fail to recognise the true role of the gods conceived by Epicureans as moral exemplars. PhilodemusÕ text supports the view that, for the Epicurean, fear of retribution may be the reason for the foolish avoiding unjust acts, but not for the wise doing so (588-590). P.G. Walsh has translated Cicero, The Nature of the Gods , Òwith introduction and explanatory notes.Ó4 The translation is both lively and accurate; the intro- duction is judicious and informative. The notes are especially strong on the iden- tiŽ cation of the many historical references in the work; their strictly explanatory nature will explain the absence of discussion of the reference in 1.49 to images  owing towards the Epicurean gods, crucial for Long and SedleyÕs location of the gods in our minds, 5 or of the problems in reconciling with the Stoic doctrine of universal providence the claim at 2.167 that Òthe gods attend to important issues, and disregard minor thingsÓ (cf. however, p. 215). Cotta may indeed be wrong to describe the origin of worlds according to Democritus as accidental (p. 161, note on 1.66) – cf. Leucippus fr. 2 – but the referenceto ÒaccidentÓneed not imply that we are dealing with an anachronistic introduction of the Epicurean atomic swerve; cf. Kirk-Raven-Scho Ž eld 419-20 n.1. W. comments, in connec- tion with the triad On the Nature of the Gods, On Divination, on Fate , that ÒThis close concentration on the technicalities of Stoic theology must have been a monotonous taskÓ ( p. xxi). Is the fact that Cicero wrote other, less technical works during the same period really enough to establish this? CiceroÕs Republic features in a collection of reprinted articles in Greek, Italian and English by Ioannes G. Ta•phakos, concerned with Roman reactions to and adaptations of Greekpolitical theory. 6 T. examines the relations between Cato and Polybius, argues that Cicero did not use either Polybius or Dicaearchus as his source for the discussion of the Spartan constitution, investigates the source for

4 Cicero, The Nature of the Gods , translated with introduction and notes by P.G. Walsh. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. pp. xlviii + 230. £37.50.ISBN 0-19-815040-7. 5 Cf. on this, non-committally, Obbink (above) 11, and on the general question of the mode of existence of EpicurusÕ gods id. 4-12; O. suggests that Epicurus himself simply placed the gods outside our world, and that the later doctrine of their location speciŽ cally in the intermundia was an attempt to interpret this. But cf. also O. 308: Òthere is no evidence in (PhilodemusÕ ) De pietate that Epicurus discussed the godsÕ manner of existing apart from anyoneÕ s idea of them,Ó and 326, arguing that col. 12 of On Piety is consistent with the godsÕ being formed in our minds but not with them being separate spatially from us. 6 Ioannes G. Ta•phakos, FantasÛa PoliteÛaw ƒIsonñmou : Melet®mata st¯dialektik¯ t°w ¥llhnorvmaikhw politik°w sk¡chw . Athens: D.N. Papadema, 1995. pp. 176. Price not stated. ISBN 960-206-386-6.