74 BOOK REVIEWS
metal-work (including the minting of coins),
carpentry and (perhaps) ropemaking
(p. 97). In her discussion of "The Poet and his
Audience" H. rather superficially outlines the
passages which illustrate the thesis that the
Greek poet's intention was either to persuade
or delight, and a large part of her final chapter
on "The Beginnings of Criticism" is a para-
phrase of relevant sections of the Protagoras
and the Frogs. In each of these chapters both
the author and the reader become bogged
down in a morass of textual references whose
significance is either presented on an obvious
and superficial level or is left clouded in doubt.
The publisher's blurb on the dust jacket of
this book states that while "Aristotle is justly
famed as the founder of literary criticism ..
he was not its inventor. . . his criticism was
shaped, not only by the ideas newly current in
the fourth century, but also by the literature,
critical attitudes and language which he in-
herited. It is this inheritance with which Miss
Harriott is concerned." In the actual book
which H. has written we have unfortunately
only the raw material for such a work as the
publisher describes. A study which would
definitively trace the development of the
major concepts in literary criticism from
Homer to Aristotle is earnestly to be desired.
Such a work will benefit from the data which
H. has collected, but if it is to make a really
valuable contribution to our knowledge of
early literary criticism it will have to transcend
her study, significantly, in terms of analytical
rigor and sophistication.
LEON GOLDEN
Florida State University
Military Theory and Practice in the Age of
Xenophon. By J. K. ANDERSON. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1970. Pp. viii+419; 19 pls.+8 figs.
in text. $12.50.
The summation of this work on its jacket,
"the equipment, training, drill, and tactical
handling of Greek heavy infantry in the
Classical period," sums it up very well except
in one point. Anderson, that is, concentrates
on the Spartans and gives only side glances at
other armies. The topic richly deserves in-
This content downloaded from 128.143.023.241 on August 26, 2016 08:00:06 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
vestigation. The Spartan military system was
far from blindly conservative; the Theban
innovators owed much to their opponents.
The discussion is extensive and thorough.
Particularly in respect to hoplite equipment
Anderson goes beyond Snodgrass, Arms and
Armour of the Greeks, and gives nineteen
plates of vase paintings and sculptures to back
his interesting arguments. In dealing with
close-order drill he also presents diagrams;
but even so only a reader who has maneuvered
a company from column of squads to com-
pany front will be likely to follow all the
tactical discussion. In a long appendix the
author seeks to solve the disagreement be-
tween Thucydides' lochoi and Xenophon's
morai; the conclusion is that Thucydides was
in error in his comments on Spartan military
organization.
In several respects one cannot feel entirely
happy with this work despite its ample docu-
mentation. Anderson ascribes "prosaic effi-
ciency" to the Spartans; accordingly he omits
strategy, asserting that they never thought
beyond ravaging the enemy's farmland. What
of Decelea? and Lysander's plan of opera-
tions? to go no farther. For the author's
purpose the reliability of Xenophon is a
crucial matter, yet there are only casual,
somewhat slighting judgments on Xenophon's
works (cf. pp. 158, 162, 199, 205). The efforts
to wrest useful meaning from the Cyropaedia
go much too far, especially in the chapter on
the "battle of Thymbara" (cf. recently
Momigliano's comments on fabula and
historia in Rivista storica italiana, LXXXI
[1969], 286 ff.). Incomplete criticism pro-
duces acceptance of the idea troops could
carry thirty days' supplies, on which see the
sober calculations of Watson, Roman Soldier,
pages 62-66.
The literary development is somewhat
jerky. I have rarely noted as many typograph-
ical errors in a product of a university press.
Some of the mistakes cannot be charged to
the printer; Pelopidas becomes "Phoebidas"
on page 221, and W. S. Ferguson is British on
page 331.
CHESTER G. STARR
University of Michigan