BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS Phoenix 46 (1992) 1. p66


BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS

XENOPHON, HELLENIKA I-II.3.10. Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by PETER KRENTZ. Warminster, Wiltshire: Aris & Phillips. 1989. Pp. iv, 204, 6 maps.

THE PREVIOUS COMMENTARY on the Hellenika, that of G.E. Underhill in 1906, obviously does not reflect current scholarly opinionor controversy. With this volume on the so-called continuation or "earlier"Hellenika, part of a series of Classical texts with commentary, PeterKrentz has tried partially to fill the gap. It follows the usual format ofall the texts in this series. In addition to what is mentioned in the titleKrentz also includes a short bibliography of books, which, except for thehistories of Beloch and Busolt, date mainly from the last two decades. Allarticles that he considers relevant are listed with full bibliographical detailat the appropriate points in the commentary. There are six outline maps.The index includes almost nothing except ancient names and places.

The introduction includes a biographical summary of the ancientauthor, discussion of many of the controversies surrounding thecomposition of the Hellenika, a brief sketch of Thucydides' account ofthe Peloponnesian war until it breaks off somewhere in 411, an outline ofthe Xenophontine chronology of the Ionian War with the various solutionsproposed for the so-called missing year, and a brief explanation of themanuscript tradition on which the text is based. In this even-handedpresentation he makes the telling point that thus far none of the unitarianshas proven the statistical evidence about Xenophon's use of differingvocabulary in the earlier and later portions of the Hellenika invalid(5). Presumably this is to justify the scope of this book.

Krentz attempts, using the reported readings of Marchant,Hude, and Hatzfeld, to put together a text that gives the greatestweight to manuscripts B and P which according to D. F. Jackson[5] are the most important. The translation, facing theGreek text on the left, for the most part reads smoothly and conveys thesense fairly accurately. Nevertheless, Krentz does seem at times to giveless than sufficient attention to the use of aorist participles which indicateactivity prior to the main verb (e.g., *metanoh/santes*, 1.7.19, wherethe changing of the mind regarding the procedure invoked against thegenerals of Arginusae must occur before the Athenians would conclude thatthey had erred against the gods) and the position of some adjectives (e.g.,*pollou/s*, 1.7.8, where "many" refers not to the number gatheredby Theramenes but rather to the many among the group who had shavedtheir heads).

The commentary deals infrequently with grammatical and syntacticaldifficulties of the Greek text (which is often hard to read because of poorprinting) but addresses itself mainly to the translation. It usually addsdetails from other ancient sources, as well as providing a broad listing ofscholarly views about recorded events. The discussion generally stimulatesthought about the nature and significance of the narrative. However,like the bibliography, most of the articles referred to (especially abouthistoriographical matters) have been published in the last two decades.In spite of W. P. Henry's (sometimes deservedly) caustic repudiation[6] of most of the scholarship that preceded his owntime, it deserves greater consideration than it receives from Krentz.

Moreover, while a commentator is expected to express his own viewsabout controversies arising from the narrative, the facility with whichfacts recorded in other ancient authors, but missing in Xenophon, aretaken as proof of some kind of bias (e.g., 91, 92, 105, 113, 115, 130, 142,173, 178) is annoying. There are other explanations. For example, in hisnote on 2.1.17 Krentz points out that Plutarch has Lysandros meet withAgis in Attika before going to Asia with the fleet. That Xenophon omitsthe visit "credits Lysandros with the strategy that proved triumphant"(174). Such a comment clearly ignores Xenophon's own account (1.1.35,36) where Agis made the proposal to try to cut off Athens' grain supplies,a proposal that was approved (*do/cantos de\ tou/tou*, 1.1.36). Thismotion was surely made to and approved by the ephors or the gerousia(since it involved sending ships) and so had become Spartan policy longbefore Lysandros became admiral. That Xenophon does not recounta visit is certain. That he gave the credit for developing the winningstrategy to Agis is also certain. The question of Xenophon's personalattitude toward the states, people, and events he discusses is much morecomplex than bald statements that he was pro-oligarchic, pro-Spartan, oranti-Theban (157) would suggest to anyone consulting this commentary.[7]

Naturally, the chronological references in the text also draw thecommentator's attention. Most of the comments are quite sensible (Krentzfollows D. Lotze).[8] However, to reject some of thestatements on Sicilian and Persian affairs (e.g., 1.1.37; 2.1.8, 9; 2.2.24)as interpolations, but to accept others (2.1.13-15; 11.3.5) as genuine,especially in light of Krentz's own expressed view that Xenophon writes"imprecisely" (91) with a "rough quality" (138), may be contradictory.Furthermore, one should perhaps be cautious about using Diodorus tofind fault with the time frame in the Hellenika, for he often includesevents from two Athenian archonships (parts of three Roman years) undera single consul (e.g., 14.79-82.1).

Finally, Krentz perhaps is guilty of overemphasis by repeatedlymentioning Xenophon's fascination with the ideal leader (e.g., 150, 171,175), his ethical concerns (e.g., 95, 101, 103, 105, 123), and the use offoils (e.g., 145, 148, 153). Xenophon also includes material that simplyexplores the causes or results of the process of events. Not everything inthe Hellenika is propaganda or didacticism (170).

This volume is useful mainly as an introduction for undergraduatesto the scholarly literature about the section of the Hellenika it covers.Still, it seems rather hasty in its discussion of controversies, perhaps tooready to reflect current opinio communis of Xenophon's unreliability,and somewhat unconcerned about the Greek text, which really oughtto be the final authority in such a debate. These faults, whether theresponsibility of the editor-author or caused by the constraints placedon him by the nature of this series, make it difficult to recommend thisvolume wholeheartedly.

PETER J. RAHN
CHAMPLAIN REGIONAL COLLEGE
LENNOXVILLE, QUEBEC


Notes

[5]
D. F. Jackson, "The Papyri ofXenophon's Hellenica," BASP 6 (1969) 45-52 and "The TLDVManuscripts of Xenophon's Hellenica and Their Descendants,"TAPA 105 (1975) 175-187.
[6]
W. P. Henry, Greek HistoricalWriting (Chicago 1966).
[7]
See, e.g., K. von Fritz's review of Henry,Greek Historical Writing in Gnomon 40 (1968) 556-568.
[8]
D. Lotze, "Die chronologischenInterpolationen in Xenophons Hellenika," Philologus 106 (1962)1-13.