In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 122.2 (2001) 296-297 [Access article in PDF] Michel Casevitz, ed. Pausanias: Description de la Grèce. Vol. 5: Livre 5:Élide (1). Trans. Jean Pouilloux, comm. Anne Jacquemin. Association Guillaume Budé for Collection des Universités de France. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1999. xxxix + pp. 1-82 (verso and recto double pp.) and 83-285. 2 maps. 1 plan. Cloth; price not stated. The fifth book of Pausanias (Elis (...) 1) is the third volume to appear in the Budé collection, following Attica (vol. 1, 1991) and Arcadia (vol. 8, 1998). Textual notes are by Michel Casevitz; archaeological notes are by Anne Jacquemin.The text is produced from a new recension of the manuscripts, based on the researches on Pausanias of Aubrey Diller, which were published in TAPA (67 [1936]: 232-39; 86 [1955]: 268-79; 87 [1956]: 84-97; 88 [1957]: 169-88). Diller showed that four manuscripts (V, F, P, Ma) were the only independent witnesses to the text of Pausanias, deriving from a lost exemplar of 1437 owned by Niccolò Niccoli and later in the Library of St. Mark in Florence. The Teubner edition of M. Rocha-Pereira (1973, 1977) was the first text produced on the basis of this recension. The Budé differs from it in various readings and in its excellent notes. Book 5, the first of Pausanias' books on Elis, contains the beginning of his description of Olympia. The notes take account of the German excavations of the site carried out since 1936, reports of which have appeared in the Jahrbücher des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts and the Olympia Berichten.The collaboration of a philologist and an archaeologist as commentators is particularly fortunate, because of important developments in both areas since the extensive commentaries of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Frazer, Hitzig-Blümner). The wisdom accumulated in the earlier commentaries is not neglected, but in most cases the information has been brought up to date very well. For example, the comment on 10.2 (147), on the date of the Temple of Zeus, parallels that of Frazer in its dissociation of the building of the temple from the war between Elis and Pisa. There is a review of ancient texts, including Herodotus and Strabo and the Spartan dedication of a shield of the booty of Tanagra set atop the ridge of the roof, the inscription of which Pausanias quotes. A discussion follows of dedication bases set up nearby and the excavation levels at which they were found (the Praxiteles base, the dedication made by the sculptor Onatas of Aegina, the Mikythos dedications, etc.), suggesting that the temple was built in the general period 480-455. The Budé then takes note of a study by F. Krauss (Mélanges Bohringer, 1957) on the columns of the temple, suggesting that those of the east façade are the most beautiful examples of the Doric style of the temple.The comment on the Altis in 10.1 (146) is equally instructive. Frazer simply comments on Pindar's statement (Ol. 10.55) that the area was called Altis, and the comment of Hitzig-Blümner is also brief. The Budé, on the other hand, considers the etymology of from and cites several references in Pausanias to show that the Altis had limits within the larger area of the grove. [End Page 296]The discussion of the dating of the cult statue of Zeus by Phidias (in the 420s) in comment on 5.11 (156-57) is also good and follows in the tradition of Frazer, but here the Budé editor can call attention to excavation of the workshop of Phidias in 1954-58 and the monograph of Mallwitz and Schiering, which shows, because of pottery and other finds, that work on the statue was going on in the 430s. Consequently, the old controversy on the priority of the Olympian Zeus and the Athena Parthenos is settled in favor of the Athena statue, completed in 438.On 5.15.4, line 20: the reading of the manuscripts' which includes the... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 121.2 (2000) 320-324 [Access article in PDF] David M. Lewis. Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History. Edited by P.J. Rhodes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. xii 1 418 pp. 4 pls. Cloth, $89.95. David Lewis's death in 1994 deprived the world of scholarship of one of the leading ancient historians of our time. His books include a revision of Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals (...) of Athens (with John Gould, 1968), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (with Russell Meiggs, 1969; 2d ed. 1984), Sparta and Persia (1977), Inscriptiones Graecae I3 (editor-in-chief), fasc. 1 (1981), fasc. 2 (1993), and Cambridge Ancient [End Page 320] History, 2d ed. (co-editor), IV (1988), V (1992), VI (1994). Many of his most original ideas are to be found in his articles and reviews, however, and so the Cambridge University Press planned, before his death, a book of his short papers.The volume under review presents a total of thirty-eight papers, four previously unpublished, ranging from the 1950s to 1993. The general contents, notes, and final editing by P.J. Rhodes were discussed with Lewis; some of the notes simply give references, but there is representation of Lewis's words in the longer ones. His passion for precision, reconciling the testimony of inscriptions with the literary references, shows him to care, like Thucydides, for "exact knowledge."The four previously unpublished papers perhaps deserve summary. "On the Dating of Demosthenes' Speeches," read to the Oxford Philological Society in 1970, evaluates critically the testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The dates for Orations 22 (Against Androtion) and 24 (Against Timokrates) given in Ad Amm., relied upon by scholars for Demosthenes' career (e.g., Cawkwell, Sealey), are shown to be unlikely. The dates from Dionysius would be 355/4 for 22 and 353/2 for 24. More likely, however, are 358/7 or 357/6 for 22 and 354/3 for 24. Lewis patiently assesses the evidence of inscriptions for Androtion's career and for the documents cited in Oration 24, which he does not believe to be forgeries. He shows reasons for not putting confidence in the dates of Dionysius. Principally, this involves an analysis of Deinarchos, where his statements can be checked. Dionysius cannot be checked on his Demosthenes, but Lewis argues that his statements cannot be accepted outright. The analysis of Deinarchos is new, but part of Lewis's view there is anticipated in his "Notes on Attic Inscriptions," ABSA 49 (1954) 32, 39-49. Rhodes cites a text from the Agora excavations, soon to be published by John Camp and M.B. Richardson, which will support the date 354/3 for Oration 24.In "The Financial Offices of Eubulus and Lycurgus" (written ca. 1957) Lewis addresses two questions: "When did Eubulus hold the office of treasurer of the theoric fund (), and, with it, control of Athenian finances?" and "When was Lycurgus officially made controller of Athenian finances?" Generally held opinions would be in the 350s and 340s for Eubulus, with specific dates variously suggested, in relation to Demosthenes' speeches. For Lycurgus, either 342-330 or 338-326 is the tenure previously accepted. The decree honoring Lycurgus in [Plut.] Vit. X Or. has Lycurgus serve as treasurer of the public finance for three penteterids. Lewis argues that specific evidence is lacking for Eubulus, but that his moral authority in the reorganization of finances is likely in the 350s and 340s. He examines closely Aeschines 3.25 in assessing Eubulus' authority and argues that the office of controller of the public finance was created in 336, its term defined by the law of Hegemon: hence the period 336-324 should be understood for Lycurgus' tenure."Aristophanes and Politics" was delivered to the Oxford Branch of the [End Page 321] Classical Association in 1957 and had been given earlier in France. Lewis seeks a position that is not so minimalist as that of Gomme (in CR 1938), who had argued that Aristophanes is a dramatist, seeking... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at AthensWilliam C. WestA. Geoffrey Woodhead. The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. XVI, Inscriptions: The Decrees. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1997. xx 1 531 pp. 1 plan. 32 pls. Cloth, $100.A. G. Woodhead characterizes his work as “a still (...) photograph, extracted from a process of discovery, discussion, and reevaluation constantly in motion... a representation of the status rerum... at the end of 1991” (viii). Nonetheless, this is a remarkable book. It reprints and discusses up-to-date texts of Athenian decrees from the Agora and classifies them in five sections: (1) to the fall of Athens in 404 B.C.; (2) from one restoration of democracy to another, 403/2-307/6 B.C.; (3) the “Macedonian Century,” 307/6-201/200 B.C.; (4) Athens and the Roman Republic, 200–86 B.C.; and (5) Athens in the Roman Empire, 86 B.C.-A.D. 203 (xi). The reader is thereby helped to an appreciation of Athenian diplomacy and bureaucracy within the framework of recognized historical periods. [End Page 458]A total of 342 inscriptions are presented: 28 in section 1; 78 in section 2; 149 in section 3; 76 in section 4; and 10 in section 5. Two phases of Agora excavation are represented: 1931–45 and 1946–67. After each section an appendix on material discovered after 1967 lists new discoveries with appropriate references. New studies and new texts are assimilated in the presentation of each item up to the end of 1991. Decrees of the Athenian state form the bulk of the collection, but decrees of other bodies, such as demes, gene, orgeones, etc., are also included. Excluded by intention (vii) are the decrees on councilors and their officers (Agora XV) and the decrees honoring ephebes.For each item Woodhead gives an extensive lemma, with brief description of the stone, dimensions of the letters, and bibliography of previous texts and works contributing to their understanding. Each text is followed by a commentary. He frequently comments on the lettering and style of engraving before entering upon discussion of individual lines.For section 1, the fifth century, the texts of IG I3 (1981) are printed, but for the others, in sections 2–5, the best available text is chosen. Where a new fragment of an old text has been discovered in the Agora, the full text of the entire inscription is given. As many decrees were set up on the Acropolis, it is clear that some material was “thrown or brought down from the citadel for reuse” (3). In the case of the Brea decree (no. 7), the contribution of the Agora fragment is slight, but in that of the treaty between Athens and Argos of 417/6 (no. 19) it is significant, providing the length of the line, 76 letters.When an archon is cited in the prescript of an Agora decree, Woodhead supplies a full discussion of the archonship, seeking to show how opinion was formed concerning the date of the office and the calendar. The earliest to be discussed is Polyzelos, 367/6 B.C. (section 2); the latest, Flavius Macrinus, A.D. 116/17 (section 5).In section 2, the fourth century to 307/6, Woodhead calls attention (41) to the spread of Athenian bureaucracy in the increased detail in the prescripts of decrees, the appearance of new formulae, such as that indicating hortatory intent (cf. A. S. Henry, ZPE 112 [1996] 105–19), and stock phrases enumerating the merits of laudandi in honorary decrees. The inevitable restoration of in the prescript of no. 101 brings in this formula for the first time in Agora decrees, although it is known from elsewhere “as early as 334/3” (154). The Agora contributes very significant decrees on the nomothesia (nos. 73, 75, 106C) and Athens’ regulation of the Eleusinian Mysteries (nos. 56, 57).The next section, 307/6 to 201/200, represents for Athens “the high-water mark of its bureaucracy” (167). The texts classified here attest the variety of documents... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Attic Document Reliefs: Art and Politics in Ancient AthensWilliam C. WestCarol L. Lawton. Attic Document Reliefs: Art and Politics in Ancient Athens. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. xxii 1 167 pp. 96 pls. Cloth, $100. (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology)Although long recognized as a distinct genre, the reliefs on documents have not been collected comprehensively and studied for their own sake. They are set above the texts of honorary (...) decrees, alliances and documents concerning [End Page 465] foreign affairs, decrees concerning cults, accounts and inventories, public dedications, and other inscriptions. Previous work on the subject (Binnebössel 1932; Meyer 1989) sought to relate the reliefs to other genres of art. Lawton notes that the document relief is “the only genre of Greek art that explicitly and consistently refers to contemporary events in the political sphere” (4). The style of the sculpture of the reliefs is shown to be conservative, “following rather than setting the sculptural trends of their own day” (73).The aim of illustrating documents with reliefs seems to be the desire to highlight certain relations to the text (deities as representative of cities; heroes, personifications of Demos, Boule, and Demokratia; individuals honored set amid the appropriate divinities, etc.). Expenses for inscribing were sometimes shared, as by cities of the empire or by individuals who received honorary decrees, but the cost of inscribing probably also included the reliefs (23–24). They would have been commissioned by authority of the secretaries of the assembly (or other political group such as deme or tribe) in consultation with sculptors and masons. Thus the relief contributes to the artistic display, just as certain features of the layout of the text on the stone (stoichedon style, intentional use of vacat, chequer pattern) serve to articulate the elements of the text and create an attractive monument. Lawton asserts that most of the document reliefs had a votive function, as they were set up in sanctuaries (29).Lawton presents a catalogue of 187 reliefs, arranged in two parts (dated and undated) and listed in chronological order within each part. Each item is accompanied by a lemma giving its most accessible publication, location, measurements, iconographical description, and bibliography. Thus 62 are classified as dated and 125 as undated. Although they range from the middle of the fifth to the second half of the second century B.C., the overwhelming preponderance fall in the fifth and fourth centuries. Statistics make the point effectively: fifth century, 28 total (12 dated, 16 undated); fourth century, 148 total (46 dated, 102 undated). Five are classified “late 5th-early 4th century,” bringing the grand total to 181. Of the dated group in the fourth century, only 9 can be put after 323 and only 4 after 318/17. One might justifiably conclude that the document relief is a phenomenon of the classical period, continued occasionally after it.Lawton offers excellent analyses, with concise discussion of relevant interpretations, in terms of type of inscription, iconography, style, and chronology. Where problems in interpretation still persist, she is careful to note the probabilities.Possibly the earliest surviving document with a relief is the Miletos decree (no. 63 = IG I3 21), which is put by Meritt and others about 450 because it uses the three-bar sigma, but in the 420s by H.B. Mattingly. Lawton summarizes fairly the arguments for both datings but does not insist on either. Rather, she notes the frequency of document reliefs from the 420s onward.IG I3 68 (no. 1), on the collection of tribute, is presented as the earliest securely dated inscription. Perhaps here the case is stated too positively, as the date 426/25 depends on the identification of the proposer Kleonymos with the man [End Page 466] who proposed a decree favoring Methone in the first prytany of that year (Meiggs and Lewis, no. 68, p. 188). Hence the date is probable, rather than certain. Secure dates for several decrees of the fourth century come from the name of the archon in the heading, but in cases where insufficient text is preserved for certainty (as in IG II2 133, no. 30) it should be noted that the stoichedon pattern provides... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Eleusis and Athens: Documents in Finance, Religion and Politics in the Fifth Century B.CWilliam C. WestMaureen B. Cavanaugh. Eleusis and Athens: Documents in Finance, Religion and Politics in the Fifth Century B.C. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. xxiv 1 238 pp. 2 plates. 4 foldout texts. (American Classical Studies, 35)Maureen Cavanaugh states (vii) that she aims “first, to present a new text with detailed commentary of two Eleusinian account (...) inventories (IG I3 386– 87); and second, to offer a new date for the Eleusinian First-fruits decree (IG I3 78).” Having produced her text from examination of the stone in the Eleusis Museum at various times in 1978–80, she reviews the scholarship on the board of the Epistatai at Eleusis, from the creation of the board in 460 B.C. through the fourth century. The understanding of the working of this board of officials justifies her search, in part 1 of this book, for a date for the elusive First-fruits decree. She concludes that it was passed ca. 435 B.C.In part 2 she presents a thorough study of the opisthographic inventories of the Epistatai of 408/7 and 407/6 B.C. (fourteen fragments reconstructed as a single stele). The texts of IG I3 386–87 are presented conveniently on four foldout pages at the end of the book, preceded by photographs. Though small in scale, the photographs are clear and help the reader to appreciate the layout of the texts of both inscriptions in three columns beneath a heading which runs over the entire width of space used. Her text improves that of IG I3 386–87 (published 1981) in several individual readings (letters read as certain, which are dotted by C.; letters read as certain by C. which had been restored by earlier editors), but the basic character of the text and layout is not changed. The most significant difference between Cavanaugh’s text and that of IG I3 is her restoration [End Page 637] of nineteen lines at the end of the last column of no. 387, based on the appearance of these items in no. 386.A conclusion summarizes the activities of the overseers of the sanctuary in this year, near the end of the Peloponnesian War. Students of Athenian history will now use Cavanaugh’s text as the definitive document and will need to consider the implications of her proposed dating of the first-fruits decree. Set in the years leading up to the Peloponnesian War, it may be seen as a text of the period of Pericles’ leadership, seeking to bring honor to an Athenian sanctuary, rather than as a document of the late 420s, as, e.g., in Meiggs-Lewis no. 73. Cavanaugh’s date is fully supported by thoroughgoing discussion of all fifth century texts relating to this board.William C. WestUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillCopyright © 1997 The Johns Hopkins University Press... (shrink)