The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History by John V. A. Fine (review)

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES REND US 163 JOHN V. A. FINE. The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History. Cambridge, Mass. and London, I he Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1983. Pp. x, 720. Cloth, U.S. $35.00. ISBN 0-674-03311-6. John Fine has devoted an active retirement to the writing of a book that will reflect his thoughts about the Greeks after having spent most of his academic life at Princeton teaching and interpreting Greek history. He begins with the arrival of the first Greekspeaking people in the peninsula about 2000 B. C. and takes the story to the formation of the League of Corinth by Philip II in 336. Alexander is thus excluded and little attention is paid to the Hellenes in Sicily and the West. Notable absentees are art, literature, philosophy and religion. Discussion of these "could be little more than a summary of the work of experts." But in a history of the Greeks or Romans only the polymath can dispense with such dependence. The book is intended for "those seriously interested in Greek history ... undergraduate or graduate ... teachers of. .. humanistic fields, and the general reading public" (vii). The impossibility of attaining this laudable ambition is demonstrated by Fine's success in achieving his stated aim: not to produce "a smoothly flowing narrativell that will perpetuate "views that have become sacrosanct through tradition," but to incite the reader to reflect. to recognise "the nature and ambiguities of the evidence," for which aristocratic (and therefore, he believes, biased) sources are responsible. His habit is to stipulate controversy and then to continue with a statement such as II A scholar has recently suggested that. ... " Unfortunately, the suggestion often seems to be cited because it is recent rather than because it poses a real challenge to an orthodox view; and the basic study is ignored. Further, this type of interruption does not hold the undergraduate or the layman, whose concentration is further interrupted by the temptation to consult the notes, which are almost entirely bibliographical and inconveniently placed at the end. I limit myself to a few items for comment; I am aware that I am frequently combating these "recent" studies, which tend to obscure Fine's own judgement as well as the received wisdom of scholarship. Fine hesitatingly ("most scholars agree") adopts Troy Vila as Homer's citadel but contradicts Blegen's date, about 1260, for its destruction (9-10). He toys (108-9) with the "higher" and "lower" dates for the early tyrannies; surely the "lower" now merit a decent interment. Similarly, no-one (I hope) places Pheidon in the sixth century (120-121); we all recognise Herodotos' mistaken identification of Pheidon father of Leokedes. That the Athenian archon-list began with Kreon (682/1) is certain; Fine (180) has missed Bradeen, Hesperia 32 (1963) 187-208. ~oughout the sixth century Fine is worried by the acquisition and loss of citizenship, a problem that has been exaggerated. The "impure by descent," who supported Peisistratos and so gained tem- 164 BOOK REVI EWS/ COMPTES RENDUS porOlV nOTolv in the law of 451 (noticed correctly on p.394: "both of whose parents were Athenian")? Hyperbolos was ostracized in 416; IG 13 85 has eliminated 417 (490). In the translation of Thucydides 2.63.2 we; is ignored (106); see Gomme ad loc. " ... For they happened, so to speak, to have a share in nothmgil(194) introduces a fatuous element of chance in Ath.Pol. 2.3: ouo£v?Je; y~p, we; £lTl£lV, tTuYXavov ~£T{XOVT£e;. Rackha~ version satisfies the meaning huyx~vw is often used in this way): II for they found themselves virtually without a share in anything. II BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 165 The fault in the last sentence translated on p.458 lies in the English syntax. and i'~;e~:~~e~~~ IIlse~;t~~~1If~~~ ~~~~~~~~~a:ef~~r~~~~~d~~:S~e~~I~:: to relieve Amphipolis 1I0 bscurell (446) or the motivation of lithe Megarian decreeell a IImysteryll (456; the Athenians had not forgotten the massacre of 446). The government left at Samos in 439 may well have been oligarchic (370). In addition to giving too much power to Perikles, who was always responsible...