Interpreting a Classic: Demosthenes and His Ancient Commentators (review)

This book aims to provide a comprehensive account of the ancient scholarship on Demosthenes. Gibson points out that Demosthenes was widely read in later antiquity, and this created the need for linguistic and historical commentaries on his speeches. Of these, some have partially survived on papyrus, while excerpts have also been preserved in later lexicographers and the Byzantine scholia found in the margins of Demosthenic manuscripts. The purpose of Gibson's study is to clarify some confusing and difficult issues related to the ancient scholarship on Demosthenes and to provide the text and commentary on the main sources.

Gibson's introduction includes an informative outline of key parameters in the debate, such as the accuracy of excerption from an ancient commentary, the significance of date and place, and the intended readership of these commentaries. The first chapter discusses the form and transmission of ancient commentaries, their relation with lexicographic works, and their impact on the Byzantine scholia. Gibson convincingly argues that the scholia do not reveal direct dependency upon the surviving ancient commentaries but were compiled from lexicographic works such as Harpocration or the Suda, and possibly other works lost for us. The second chapter deals with the sources, critical agenda, and readership of the ancient commentaries. Here, Gibson provides a clear account of the purposes and guiding principles behind the composition of these works. He concludes that ancient commentators were familiar with interpretative problems of the Demosthenic text and tried to explain allusions and references to specific events, people, and places and also provide semantic, etymological and textual explanations of difficult or unusual terms. In this and the third chapter, Gibson discusses in considerable detail the scholarship on Didymus. He rejects the view that Didymus was merely a filter for a "golden era" of Alexandrian scholarship and argues that his prominent position as a commentator is due to the vast quantity of his work and its impact on later scholars. In sum, the first part of the study offers an informative account of ancient Demosthenic scholarship written in a clear and accessible style.

The second part of the book contains the texts of ancient commentators of Demosthenes, with English translations, and also linguistic and historical commentary. In the translation, Gibson chooses to leave out many lines from the papyrus texts where only single words or fragments of words are legible; he translates only the most extant sections of the text. This is a valid choice, but readers should be aware of the fact that many important details may be hiding in the leftovers and fragments that have been omitted. Gibson does not provide the readily available text of P.Berol.inv. 9780, the most extensive surviving work of Didymus, while he cites the rest of the texts from reliable modern editions. In the commentary there are interesting discussions on the Spartan mora, the building of the Parthenon, the Helliastic courts, and many other topics noted by the ancient commentators on Demosthenes. An appendix presents and discusses P.Lond.Lit. 179, a prologue and commentary on Dem. 21. The reader will probably find useful the indexes and rich bibliography provided in the last part of this study.

Gibson's commentary is certainly thorough but contains a number of errors in detail, and important bibliography is missing on individual topics. For example:

Page 113: Gibson adopts the text of Pearson-Stephens . The adjective is , or, as here (later Greek), . Therefore the text should be (see LSJ s.v.).

Page 120: Gibson has missed several important contributions to the issue of the theoric fund in recent years (M. H. Hansen, GRBS 17 [1976] 235-46; E. M. Harris in E. M. Harris and R. Wallace, eds., Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History 360-146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian [Norman, Okla., 1996]; C. Carey, Apollodoros Against Neaira [Warminster, 1992] 152-57). As a result, his note on P.Berol. 9780, Col. 8.32-44 is...