Hellenism in the East

in politics contrasts with the success ethic of all other politicians. (This is less than fair to Demosthenes' celebrated plea at 18.199 against judging from success.) Among other disagreements I select three: (1) T. refuses to make anything political of P.'s appearance with Eubulus at the defence of Aeschines in 343, and sees him as already leading his own political group, which T. constructs from the men who died with him in 318. But surely two of these, Pythocles and Hegemon, point straight back to a link with Aeschines (Dem. 19.225, 314; 18.285)?; (2) T. denies in toto the political separation of general and orator in the fourth century. This flies in the face of too much evidence (cited in the articles in T.'s bibliography). Apart from anything else, the phraseology of Aesch. 2.184 (EvfiovXov fiev e* TWV TTOXITIKWV, &a>Kicuva 8' IK TWV oTpa.Tr)yd)v) shows that the political dichotomy meant something in Athens in 343; (3) For T., P. was no oligarch in 322-18, because the regime sponsored by Antipater was not an oligarchy, but a moderate democracy, with a property qualification applying to magistracies, but not to assembly or courts (cf. De Ste. Croix on the Five Thousand). But what meaning then attaches to xvpiovs TOV noXiTev^aros teal Ttjs xP^s a t Diodorus 18.18? On these, and many other points, T.'s inferences need scrutiny (especially where the Greek language is concerned). But partiality for his subject is no great vice in a biographer, and a favourable view of Phocion is certainly worth putting. As long as readers keep their heads, this book deserves an affable welcome.