BMCR 2004.10.02, Canfora, Histoire de la litte/rature grecque

Luciano Canfora, Histoire de la litte/rature grecque a\ l e/poque
helle/nistique. Originally published in Italian as Storia della
Letteratura Greca (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1986, 1989). Translated by
Marile\ne Raiola and Luigi-Alberto Sanchi.  Paris:  E/ditions
Desjonque\res, 2004.  Pp. 415.  ISBN 2-84321-066-6.  EUR 45.00.

Reviewed by Jacqueline Klooster, Universiteit van Amsterdam
(j.j.h.klooster@xxxxxx)
Word count:  1634 words
-------------------------------

This volume is the second part of a general history of Greek Literature
by Professor Canfora (henceforth C.), which was first published in
1986. The first volume deals with the period from Homer to Aristotle,
and this one with the period from the death of Alexander the Great (322
BCE) to the death of emperor Justinian (565 CE). This begs the question
of why it is called History of Greek literature in the Hellenistic
Age,[[1]] since, disputed as the term Hellenistic may have been since
J.G. Droysen used it in 1833, surely the implication that the
Hellenistic age went on until well over the boundaries of what some
would consider as the beginning of the Byzantine era needs some
clarification.[[2]]

The book's accomplishment, according to the blurb, is that it paints
the 'vaste aventure de l'esprit' that constitutes the development of
Greek culture in the period mentioned above in a 'rich yet clear
account, revealing the roots of modern western society.' And indeed at
times this book reads more like a Geistesgeschichte than a literary
history. It looks as if it was written for an audience of general
readers who wish to gain an overview of the intellectual and cultural
developments of the period. As a manual for students of the classics
however, it would not fulfil its purpose, since much of the scholarship
on which it is based is clearly outdated.

The book is divided into three parts: Hellenism, the Roman Hegemony,
and Late Antiquity. An extensive appendix containing chronology,
bibliography on different authors, and name index fills the last
hundred pages. At the end of some of the chapters synopses appear,
which briefly treat other authors of the period under discussion, name
their works and refer to the standard text editions. In addition the
volume contains some maps and illustrations, the relevance of some of
which was not always clear. Each of the three parts is subdivided into
smaller sections representing what C. judges to be the main themes of
each era. In general the volume is written in a clear, readable style,
and contains many amusing anecdotes that serve very well to capture the
spirit of the period C. is discussing.

The part concerning Hellenism contains the following chapters: 1, "The
Hellenistic World", sketching the outlines of the Hellenistic world
from a historical and a theoretical point of view (a considerable
amount of attention is dedicated to Droysen and his use of the term
Hellenism); 2, "The Sciences", which treats both the Alexandrian
practitioners of mathematics, astronomy and geography and the
philologists of the Museum; 3, "The New Poetry", which treats the
(mainly Alexandrian) poets of the third century; 4, "Athens, Provincial
Metropolis and Menander", which sketches the descent of Athens into
provincial unimportance, the emergence of the new quasi-bourgeois
society which is reflected in Menander's comedies as much as in the
judicial writings of the age; 5, "Utopists and Historians", which
discusses the influence of Hellenistic philosophy, most importantly
stoicism, on the historiography of the age.

The part entitled Roman Hegemony treats the way in which historians
writing in Greek (Polybius, Posidonius, Flavius Josephus and Plutarch)
dealt with the ascendancy and hegemony of Rome, both in their personal
lives and in their writings. It also contains chapters on the New
Testament, the Second Sophistic, Lucian of Samosata, the Novel and a
chapter entitled "Towards Late Antiquity", which discusses the writings
of Marcus Aurelius, Cassius Dio, Herodian and the emergence of abridged
versions of historical works.

The third part, Late Antiquity in chapter 1, "From Alexandria to
Caesarea", traces the emergence of Christian literature; the way the
Christian message was diffused by writing; how Greek philosophy and
philology influenced Christianity and its writings and how Origen,
Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius chose their respective positions in
dealing with the pagan heritage in their writings. The second chapter,
"Julian the Apostate and the pagan reaction", discusses the
anti-Christian politics and writings of this short-lived emperor. The
third, "The last of the Pagans", treats the last three intellectual
centres of paganism: the school of Libanius in Antioch, the Library of
Alexandria and the Serapeum, destroyed during the war between emperor
Aurelianus and Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. This is followed by the brutal
murder of the learned Hypatia by Christians and the rivalry between the
Neo-Platonist schools of Alexandria and Athens.

As is obvious from the wide scope of this literary history, C.
possesses considerable erudition, which enables him to write essays on
the most diverse topics. He does so in a pleasant, sometimes personal
style. It is clear that he has his favourites. The chapters on
historiography convey much more enthusiasm than the one about the
Alexandrian poets, who receive less attention than one would expect in
a literary history of the Hellenistic age. Throughout the book C.
displays a predilection for the picturesque anecdote and often uses it
to good effect. The main aim of the book, as stated above, clearly is
in the first place to trace a history of ideas and mentality rather
than a simple history of who wrote what and in what genre. This
explains for example the relatively large amount of attention dedicated
to the Neo-Platonist martyr Hypatia, who mainly wrote on mathematics,
and whose works do not survive at all. It is clear that she functions
more as a demonstration of the intellectual climate of the age than as
a sample of its literary achievements.

In this connection, one of the things that to me seemed slightly
problematical was the fact that this volume does not contain an
introduction explaining what the boundaries of (Greek) literature are
according to C. and why he chooses to single out certain authors to
discuss at length, while naming others only in the synopses.[[3]] A
reasonable criterion could for instance be the importance of an author
as example of his own age, or his influence on later tradition, or the
simple availability of his writings. However, if we consider for
instance the treatment of the third century poet Aratus of Soloi,
author of the Phaenomena who appears only in the synopsis, it seems
that none of these criteria apply. Aratus is an important example of
the erudite poetry of the age (the 'new poetry' as C. calls it), was
widely read in his own and later periods, and has left us a readable
poem. This looks like a somewhat subjective choice. It does of course
not mean that it isn't defensible, but it is nowhere justified.

Similarly problematic is the question of what made C. decide to end his
history of Greek literature in the sixth century. Of course any
chopping up of history into periods remains arbitrary, but it would
have been interesting to have an idea of what led the author in this
case. Throughout the book one also keeps wondering about the title: why
is it called History of Greek literature in the Hellenistic Age? If we
look at C.'s own definition of Hellenism we are much wiser (p.10):

"Its specific character consists in the fact that, far from being a pure
and simple expansion of Greek civilisation, this historical process has
engendered a radically new syncretistic civilisation, which owes its
originality to the fact that it cannot be reduced to any of the sources
that constitute it."

If this is true, which I am sure not everyone would agree, do we need
to apply it also to the periods of Roman hegemony and the later,
Christian era? The division of the book into three parts seems to imply
a negative answer to this question.

Another point, already touched upon, is the fact that C. seldom
includes recent scholarship in his discussions of the main authors.
This means, to give only one example, that he does not in the least
doubt the tradition of the quarrel between Callimachus and Apollonius,
nor does he mention anyone who does so in his bibliography. This makes
his literary history untrustworthy in its details for one who wants to
learn the Stand der Forschung on certain subjects. It might certainly
be argued that the broad scope of the history and its attempt to trace
the development of mentality in the Greek writing world do something to
compensate this wrong. The discussion of some of the nineteenth century
theories (as of for example Wilamowitz, Droysen, et al.) on the other
hand is an unusual feature of this book. C. often gives us his personal
opinion on the faults and merits of their theories: he turns out to be
a great champion of Droysen, and vigorously attacks this historian's
critics whom he accuses of not having read Droysen's work well enough.

Some small typographical mistakes I noted: p.21 Equos Troianus; p.71
Aitiai; p.129 avant JC instead of apre\s JC (Appianus Alexandrinus);
p.264 Simonide Hsiode, no comma, which makes it as if there was a poet
of this composite name.

This book is a readable if somewhat unevenly balanced account of the
way Greek thought and writing developed in an ever-extending region
where Greek was spoken, under different hegemonies (the Hellenistic
monarchies, the Romans, the Christian emperors and the Church). Its
strong point is the clear characterization of the eras of Greek
literature that most people, excluding specialists, are not very
familiar with, at times highlighting some of the more unexpected and
marginal figures. The weak points are the neglect of contemporary
scholarship and the lack of theoretical justification of C.'s choices.
This makes it difficult to decide for what kind of audience this book
could be of use. The specialist will probably be annoyed that much of
the information does not convey the state of the art in Greek literary
criticism, while the novice might enjoy reading it but would have to
supply himself with more recent scholarship to be really up to date.

------------------
Notes:


1.   I have chosen to literally translate into English all quotations
and titles of chapters in the book to facilitate the reading of this
review.

2.   Cf. Pauly (1997) s.v. Byzanz. Or compare P. Green, From Alexander
to Actium, Berkeley 1990, p. xv: The Hellenistic Age has one great
advantage: it is clearly definable. Its unity was first perceived, its
limits set, even its name invented by Droysen. (Green goes on to state
that the limits of the Hellenistic age are to be set at 323-30 BCE.)

3.   I regret the fact that I could not obtain volume 1 of this book to
check if this did contain an introduction. At any rate I still think
that, if part two is to be read independently, it should contain an
introduction of its own.