1) Cf. D.L. 7.160 (SVF 1.351).
2) Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, 2. vols. (Göttingen 1948, several repr.).
3) See Cic. OV. III. 7, Ad Att. xvi.11.4. Van Straaten marks oV substantial chunks from this section as ‘fragments’ (OV. I. 93-101 = Fr. 107; 105 = Fr. 81; 110-1 = Fr. 97). Larger selections are presented by Alesse, frs. 61-66. We must note that no explicit reference is made to Panaetius in these passages.
4) Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus had each written a PerÜ kay®kontow: see D.L. 7.4; cf. 7.107 f., 7.174; Sextus, M. 11.194; cf. DPhA II 358, nr. 184, 411, nr. 15).
5) Sedley, D.N. (1989), Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World, in: M.T. GriYn and J. Barnes (eds.), Philosophia Togata. Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society (Oxford), 97-119.
6) The methodological issues involved in editing fragmentary evidence of an-cient philosophers (and others) exercise scholars up to the present day. See now W. Burkert & al. (eds.), Fragmentsammlungen philosophischer Texte der Antike —Le raccolte dei frammenti di loso antichi (Aporemata 3) (Göttingen 1998).
7) M. van Straaten, Panétius, sa vie, ses écrits et sa doctrine, avec une édition des frag-ments (Amsterdam-Paris 1946); cf. id., Panaetii Rhodii fragmenta, coll. iterum (Leiden 1952; repr. 1962).
8) Panezio di Rodi e la tradizione Stoica (Napoli 1994).
9) The appellation ‘testimonies’ (A.: ‘testimonianze’) seems more apposite than ‘fragments’ since the latter suggests direct quotation from otherwise lost treatises, which type of evidence we simply do not have in the case of P. In Cicero’s OV. a particular treatise of P. can be identi ed as the main source, viz. his On appro-priate action(see suprain text). For this reason A. prints these texts together as deriv-ing from that treatise. But even so, we are evidently dealderiv-ing with an indirect and Latin rendering of the Greek original. Contrast the verbatim quotations from Chrysippean treatises used as proof-texts by Galen and Plutarch in the course of their anti-Stoic polemics. This material however presents problems of its own kind. 10) In certain respects Von Arnim faced the same dilemma as A. in dealing with sources such as Cicero. In De nibusbook 3 Cicero presents a coherent account of Stoic ethics. Snippets of this text are scattered all over Von Arnim’s volume on ethics (III) on an—only up to a degree Stoic—thematic principle of organization. Here the wish to produce ‘fragments’, i.e. small texts, has prompted a scissors-and-paste approach which has deprived us from an overview of the complete argu-mentative structure in which these passages feature.
11) In addition to the unattributed passages from Cicero, I may note that Gal. De foet. form. 6, IV p. 700 Kühn, printed by A. as fr. 127 and absent from Van Straaten, oVers nothing which justi es ascription to Panaetius as distinguished from the Stoics in general.
Robert Parker, Athenian religion. A history. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996. xx, 370 pp. Pr. £ 40,00.
This is a book about Athenian religion, not about religion in Athens. That is to say, Parker limits himself to polis religion, i.e. the way the community shapes and lives its religion, and how these processes develop over time. Religion is contextualized both in the sense of being seen
as an integral part of community life and as being part of “history”. This is a completely valid point of view. So I cannot see why P. should try to convince his readers that there is no other point of view. He does so by setting out quoting Durkheim on the social nature of reli-gion (p. 1), next stating, albeit in a diVerent context, that “the reli-gious experience of the individual was almost entirely shaped by his or her city and the subgroups of which it was made up” (p. 3), and nishing oV by denying the common distinction between public and private: “there could exist no authentically private religious domain in Attica” (p. 7). All quite true, because P. quali es his words with “almost” and “authentically”. There is a spectrum ranging from private (or, if one prefers, not so very public) to utterly public. P. has chosen to con-centrate on the public end. That does not mean there is any reason to deny the existence or minimize the importance of the other end. There are many things which, depending on one’s de nition of what religion is (it is a pity P. is not very clear about his conceptual appa-ratus), can be called “religious” and which P. does not discuss.
There is another way in which this study is of limited scope. Although P. says that he will deal with actual social forms and institutions, and with traditional procedures with which worshippers approach the gods, he hardly informs us about the contents of those procedures. In this instance, however, he does not pretend that this choice—again com-pletely valid, no misunderstanding about that—is the only possible or best one. Indeed, he promises us a second volume where this kind of thing (“practices and attitudes”) will be discussed on a thematic basis, without giving any details as to what such a volume would contain— logically it would be restricted to polis religion too. Obviously, it was diYcult to keep “practices and attitudes” out of the present text. But P. only rarely lapses into purple passages like the following: “In this perspective (i.e. worshippers not participating in cult in order to receive bene ts, but doing so after bene ts have been received) Greek religion does not appear as a mechanism for controlling the world; it is rather a celebration of achievement . . . an aYrmation of value” (p. 187). So if treatment of the actual ongoings and their motivation is largely reserved to the second volume, what is it that P. is doing in the pre-sent eleven chapters, two annexes and four appendices?
synoikism and what went before, with the four original phylai and the
gene (about all of which we know hardly anything) and about the 8th-century renaissance, religious and otherwise (but the supposed link between religious development and emerging polis is not easily estab-lished). All (meagre) evidence is listed, with an excellent summing up on pp. 26-28, but we are left with mainly question marks. Only the subject of chapter 3: mountain peak sanctuaries and tombs of heroes, is somewhat better documented. But the archaeological information that shows the existence of many mountain shrines is not very helpful in their interpretation. The rise to prominence of heroes in the 8th and 7th centuries is discussed, but no single image appears: heroes are “of a spectacular diversity” (p. 38). The 7th century is a period of con-tinuity, though there is major change in the eld of iconography: the blossoming of mythological vase painting.
There are four appendices. Appendix 1 is a two-page account of supposed rattle-shakers in late geometric images of what might be heroic cult. These rattle-shakers are a problem, but the scenes are otherwise puzzling too. So there is actually nothing we can say about these images. This is P. caricaturing himself. Appendix 2 oVers an extensive checklist of genewhich adds up to a major contribution on the subject. Appendix 3 lists (the few known) local religious associations other than demes. Appendix 4 adds an overview of private religious associations:
orgeones, thiasotai, eranistai, and so on, from the 5th century down to the 1st, breaking through the chronological con nes of the main text.
In the course of the 350 pages summarized above, many hundreds of items are discussed and annotated. The most valuable contribution made by P.’s book is the establishment of what is reasonably well attested, and of what is largely or utterly speculative. In his unrelenting examination of “the evidence” P. demolishes interpretations of individ-ual cults or festivals, and even complete histories of ancient Greek/Attic religion. Although willing to give precedence to an ancient voice above a modern one, and suspicious of modern readings for which no ancient support is forthcoming, P. is aware of the often dubious status of the evidence itself, and tries to work his way round ancient explanation by using the supposedly more “neutral” evidence provided by epigraphy and archaeology (in that order; as P. stresses, there is a lot that archae-ology cannotshow). This procedure tends to “make things worse” and we are left with very little certainties and even probabilities. P. does not easily take recourse to comparative evidence in support of some inter-pretation (scarce instances can be found on pages 77 and 187). This is tough. P. teaches methodological lessons, as in his repeated warn-ing that the moment of attestation, even allowwarn-ing for the vagaries of preservation, does not, or not necessarily, show anything about the tim-ing of the phenomenon attested (“the evidence-trap”, p. 197). Probably nobody will deny the validity of these lessons, but I doubt whether the outcome of their rigorous application will please all of P.’s audience. There have been and will be grumbles about his being unimaginative and so on—which is exactly what he set out to be: imagination has but little place in this strictly empirical book. I think we ought only to be thankful to be put back with both feet on the ground. Nothing will stop us from a new ascent into the air if we want to, but a ight of the imagination is much safer if we know what the runways look like. P. has been mapping them out for us, signalling every crack and pothole. Considering the state they are in, it has been a work of heroic proportions.
a good impression of what persisted, what emerged, or what changed in Athenian religion in the context of the development of Athenian society at large and of particular events. This might be the reason that some of the reviewers who have already written about P.’s work do not seem to have been reading the same book. Apparently it is hard to understand what his vision on Athenian religion actually is. But then P. removes so much of existing interpretations, while hesitating, under-standably, to bring up his own. There is no convenient summing up, and the reader is left with many intelligent essays on many subjects which, however, refuse to combine into a coherent story—but I cer-tainly do not intend to say that the book is otherwise incoherent; it could rather be called single-minded in its systematic pursuit of some sort of factual basis for our pronouncements on ancient religion. It might be the very nature of this book which makes it a work of ref-erence, rather than a monograph. This is a book to keep coming back to, because it is so well documented (it is a pity the OUP decided that a piece of cloth would raise the price too high; the present binding will not stand up to frequent use, which is, however, to be expected). To make it more eVective as a work of reference, the subject index might have been somewhat more extensive.
Except for the binding, which I already referred to, this is a book as one expects the OUP to make them. Proof-reading and printing are of a very high standard (I noted only the following: p. 53 lacks a note gure 43; p. 138: Ericthonius; it is of course a small disaster that the maps at the front were mixed up, even if it was noticed before the book was distributed). The contents, however, easily beat the book pro-duction. This is a book which should be in the bookcase of everyone with a scholarly interest in ancient religion. I am eagerly awaiting the promised second volume.
2253 LJ Voorschoten, Welterdreef 85 F.G. Naerebout
G.E.R. Lloyd, Adversaries and Authorities. Investigations into ancient Greek and Chinese science (Ideas in context). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996. xviii, 250 pp. Pr. £ 14,95.
To come straight to the point: the present reviewer is of the opinion that silent admiration is the most tting reaction to the work in hand. But keeping quiet about it certainly will not induce others to read it, while I think they should. This collection of essays, modestly stated to consist of preliminaries or ‘sighting shots’, testi es to the superior learn-ing of its author (and of his sinological collaborator Nathan Sivin—
