DE NOVIS LIBRIS IUDICIA 379

J. GLUCKER, Antiochus and the Late Academy (Hypo- mnemata, 56). Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. 510 p.

The title of the present book may give the impression of being a study on "Antiochus' possible influence as a philosopher and as an author on several of his contemporary and later philosophical writers". But at p. 391 the author uses these very words as a descrip- tion of the philosophical sequel to the present work, which itself is not doxographical but historical. It may perhaps be characterized as an attempt to sketch the 'setting of life' of Platonic philosophy in the time of Antiochus of Ascalon and in later philosophy. The main purpose of the book is to oppose an opinion about the history of the Platonic school which is almost common, although recently some doubts have been raised (cf. J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, London 1977, 2. This book was not yet accessible to the author). This opinion originates from K. G. Zumpt (1792-1849) and may be described as follows: Plato's school at Athens, the Academy, existed in unbroken continuity from Plato until Justinian, who closed it in 529. Sometimes it is even asserted that also during the sceptic period (from Arcesilaus to Philo of Larissa) there has been an understream of dogmatism, the sceptic attitude only being meant as a weapon against Stoicism. Details of the structure of this school changed in time, but even the Antonine 8vx8ox«t did not affect the main ancient element in that structure-the scholar- chate with its regular succession (cf. p. 333). The data on which this thesis is founded are small in number and importance, but the general scarcity of the sources for that period seems to have favoured the acceptance of such a bold scheme. The present author has made a new and fresh investigation of the sources. His conclusions are that there is no sign of the Academy as an institute later than the time of Philo of Larissa, and that Antiochus of Ascalon was not Philo's successor. After being Lucullus' 'camp-philosopher' -about the political significance of this function the author makes some very interesting observations-he founded a private school, which did not survive long after his death. Marcus Aurelius' appointment of professors of philosophy did not mean a reorganization of, among others, the Academy. There was no Academy at that time, in fact nothing more than a Peripatetic School, as J. P. Lynch has shown in his Aristotle's School. It was only the religious devotion to philosophy and to paganism of the school founded by Plutarch of Athens, teacher of Syrianus and Proclus, that made Athens once more, albeit for a brief period, a centre of philosophical studies (cf. p. 378). This centre, however, 380 was not the direct continuation of the Academy; and, in consequence, there cannot be a question of the Academy being closed by Justinian in 529. Thus, according to the author, Plato's Academy came to an end after three centuries in the first half of the first century B.C. From that time onwards Asia is the new philosophical stage. It is there, he says, that we find what appear to be the first glimmer- ings of the new Platonism which we now call Middle Platonism (p. 375). This means that Antiochus of Ascalon should not be con- sidered the 'arche-type' of Middle Platonism (cf. p. 98, n. 4). The latter opinion was also defended recently by J. Dillon, but he indicates Alexandria as the birth-place of Middle Platonism. Also in opposition to Dillon (52-53) the author follows the statement of Numenius that Antiochus, before becoming Philo's pupil, attended the lectures of Mnesarchus, the head of the Stoic School, who, like his master Panaetius, considered Stoicism to be a correctio veteris Acaderniae. This emphasis on the Academic ancestry in the school of Panaetius and Mnesarchus may have made him leave the Stoics for Philo's Academy. The scepticism in the latter, however, may have brought him back to a theory of knowledge which he learnt in the school of Mnesarchus, and have made him describe himself as the successor of the 'Old Academy' (cf. p. 30, n. 65). It must be clear that the man whose name is in the title of this book is, in the opinion of the author, not a very important member of the Platonic family. The author mentions with agreement Augustine's characterization of Antiochus as faeneus ille Platonicu.s (p. 379). Elsewhere he speaks of "the spurious concoction labelled 'Old Academy' by Antiochus". But Antiochus is the central figure in this book, because his opposition to Philo of Larissa in fact means discontinuity in the Platonic institute called 'Academy'. The Platonic «lpeatq ('school of thought') continued to exist, but the Platonic axoxi (school as institute) had come to an end. (See the interesting observations on these terms in ch. 4.) The book begins with a discussion of the Sozus affair, in which the conflict between Philo and Antiochus came to the fore. A subtile analysis of the, mostly Ciceronian, texts leads the author to an interesting explanation of this intricate affair. The above survey gives but an indication of the subject matter of this work and its, in my view, convincing conclusions. It does not do justice to the depth of the way of thought and to the acute- ness of interpretation displayed in it. That the author has worked out in a fascinating manner a new hypothesis concerning a so famous philosophic institute may be sufficient to attract the attention of the interested reader.