T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W 61

inherited the Platonic tradition, that is, the Academic Sceptics (Chapter 6), the
Middle-Platonists (Chapter 7) and Numenius of Apamea (Chapter 8); finally, the conclud-
ing chapters of the book (Chapters 911) aim at demonstrating that Plotinus interpretation
of UP was the most effective (p. 308).
In this book G. has tried to challenge the illuminist paradigm that regards the later
Platonists (such as Numenius and Plotinus) as unfaithful followers of Plato, by showing,
on the one hand, that the fundamental philosophical problems of the inheritors of the
Platonic tradition are the same as Platos and, on the other hand, that these problems
are, above all, metaphysical problems, such as the relationship between the intelligible
world and the sensible one, the derivation of the intelligible world from the idea of the
Good/One, the role played by the Soul in the organisation of the chaotic matter and so
on. In trying to achieve this objective, G. has developed a research methodology that
could be regarded as more philosophical than philological, because he makes use of the
philosophical categories of modern philosophy (such as materialism, mechanism, etc.) in
order to demonstrate the correctness of his argument, instead of focusing on the philologic-
al analysis of the common philosophical terminology used by Plato and his successors and
describing how this developed over the centuries without losing its specific identity.
Although G.s argument is convincing, I cannot avoid warning about the risks of applying
a modern conceptual framework to ancient philosophy; G. is aware of this risk (see p. 20)
but dismisses it too quickly, saying that these terms need only serve as labels, the contents
of which must be specified (p. 20). The situation is much more complex than that. In order
to use these concepts with certainty, we should be able to define first what ancient materi-
alism, nominalism, mechanism, etc. were, how they differ from their modern variants and
why they are more effective than historically grounded concepts in explaining the ancient
philosophical thought. In conclusion, the main argument of the book, according to which
the history of Platonism must be conceived of as the history of the different interpretations
of its basic metaphysical structure, could be defended much more effectively if one made
use of a different approach, which tried to conciliate the philosophical analysis of the
sources available with the strictest philological and historical rigour.

Kings College London NICOLA SPANU

menhir78@hotmail.it

A COMPANION TO ARISTOTLE, POLITICS

D E S L A U R I E R S ( M . ) , D E S T R E ( P . ) (edd.) The Cambridge
Companion to Aristotles Politics. Pp. xvi + 426. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2013. Paper, 18.99, US$29.99 (Cased, 55, US$85).
ISBN: 978-0-521-18111-2 (978-1-107-00468-9 hbk).
doi:10.1017/S0009840X14001930

This valuable addition to the Cambridge Companion series offers fourteen essays from dis-
tinguished scholars, twelve philosophers and two political theorists. The chapters track the
Politics eight books, allowing readers to engage the text with parallel commentaries at
hand. The editors introduction frames the Politics historically and theoretically and pro-
vides a useful and non-prejudicial road map for the volume. A comprehensive, well-
organised guide for further reading, prepared by T. Lockwood, is appended.
Considerable attention is paid to the relation between Aristotles ethical and political
theories. D. Frede reads the Nichomachean Ethics as itself political. Because it is guided

The Classical Review 65.1 6163 The Classical Association (2015)

62 T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W

by a grand end view of the human good (p. 29), Eth. Nic. embeds ruling and being ruled
into its very structure. F. Miller reinforces this interdependence as he interprets Book 1s
sketch of the polis development as introducing ruling and being ruled into the text. Within
household, village and city, just rule is some variation of the rule of reason, reflecting the
moral psychology of Eth. Nic. (p. 62). M. Zingano sees political justice as the hinge linking
Eth. Nic. and Politics and interprets the latter as completing investigations begun in the
former (p. 200).
Many of these essays acknowledge the importance of nature for Aristotelian ethics and
politics but do so allusively. P. Destres chapter focuses explicitly on the meaning of
nature, especially in connection with the practical good of self-sufficiency (pp. 3034).
Though it is offered later in the collection, readers unsure about this concept might
begin here.
A. Rosler, however, challenges strictly ethical readings of the Politics, arguing that
much of the text depends on a distinctively political perspective (p. 145). This encourages
readers to interpret the Politics in more complex ways. However, Rosler seems hasty in
interpreting Aristotles politicality largely as an acceptance of contemporary Greek prac-
tices, including political particularism and the valorisation of war (pp. 165, 1678).
Other essays consider specific social and political foci. K.M. Neilsen examines prop-
erty, emphasising that Aristotles support for private over communal ownership is not a
simple embrace of property rights. He instead relies on habituation and correct laws to
prevent social divisiveness but is too sanguine about cultures ability to foster generosity
and public spirit (p. 88). P. Pellegrins essay on natural slavery argues that Aristotle
endorses the institution only within the household and that he is critical of the public slav-
ery of most Greek cities (p. 100). Nuanced readings of the Politics treatment of this insti-
tution are needed, but Pellegrin should comment on the slavery practised in Book 7s city
according to prayers.
Going beyond the household, M. Deslauriers argues that inequality within Aristotles
polis contributes not merely to economic self-sufficiency but to education in the virtues.
Like all organic entities (pp. 1389), the city needs differences to thrive. This instructive
reading may none the less call for more theorisation distinguishing social difference from
political inequality. D. Morrison examines the common good, helpfully positioning
Aristotles claim within a number of alternative conceptualisations. For Morrison, the com-
mon good is the happiness (living well) of citizens related as members of a structured part-
nership; however, Aristotle under theorises problems arising when the common good and
justice towards individuals clash (p. 193). C. Horn further explores the relation between the
individual and the community in his essay on law, governance and obligation. For Horn,
Aristotle endorses a normative individualism that legitimates politics for its contribution
to citizen well being. This perspective none the less accommodates civic loyalty within a
system of laws avoiding arbitrary rule (p. 242). In assessing Aristotles political theory
mostly from the standpoint of modern moral philosophy, Morrison (p. 191) and Horn
(p. 224) might recall Rosler. The identity of citizens within regimes is politically conten-
tious (Pol. 3.1); the character of law depends on the character of the regime (3.11).
Recognising contentions dangers, Book 5 focuses on faction (stasis). A. Hatzistavrou
reconstructs this analysis of civic collapse, tracing interactions of social and psychological
causality. Like Morrison (p. 186), Hatzistavrou (p. 295) sees Aristotle as a social scientist
who avoids the binary of methodological individualism versus social holism.
While commentators sometimes link Book 3s examination of the role of the multitude
in governance to republican theories of democracy, M. Lane and B. Garsten urge caution.
Through careful investigation of classical Greek civic practice and disciplined textual ana-
lysis, Lane argues that Aristotles limited acceptance of the multitudes political role is
 T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W 63
really a logical argument showing that appeals to virtue or wealth as justifications for non-
democratic ruling unravel when they are confronted by aggregations of those same quali-
fications in multitudes (pp. 2634). In allowing the collective multitude to elect and moni-
tor officials, however, Aristotle points towards a representative democracy that is not
robustly participatory (p. 269). Garsten, too, questions whether Aristotles understanding
of political agency can be easily assimilated to the individualism of modern democratic
theory (p. 327), but endorses Aristotles more original (p. 342) theorisation of how polit-
ical communities may act together when some citizens rule over others within conditions of
equality.
R. Krauts concluding essay underscores Aristotles importance for modern political
theory while returning to the political importance of Eth. Nic. Kraut finds Aristotles
goodness as flourishing richer than J. Rawlss (Theory of Justice) goodness as rational-
ity. Applied politically, the Aristotelian framework (informing the contemporary work of
A. Sen and M. Nussbaum) focuses not on enhancing subjective satisfaction but on enab-
ling human capabilities (p. 371).
The volumes analytic framework engages Aristotles text as a systematic investigation
of political puzzles aiming at clear resolutions (Destre, p. 312). This challenges readers to
interrogate the structure of Aristotles political theory through their own rigorous criticism.
While broadly sympathetic to Aristotle, the authors do not hesitate to detect argumentative
shortcomings, inconsistencies and failures. This approach also means, however, that
aspects of the text less compatible with systematic practical philosophy are sidelined. At
times, the authors analyse the work that Aristotle would need to compose in order to
argue systematically.
There are puzzles in Aristotles text that cannot be attributed to argumentative inad-
equacy or cultural prejudice. If Aristotle depends on the purposiveness of nature
(Pellegrin, p. 107; Morrison, p. 195), why does he emphasise (regarding natural slaves
1.5) natures many failures? If kingship is the constitution that is everywhere the best
(Zingano, p. 213), it is a troublingly depoliticised regime that is more like household man-
agement (3.14). The best possible city (introduction, pp. 78; Horn, p. 238; Destre,
p. 316) relies on unnatural slavery (7.11).
The texts politicality also includes a rhetoric, and not simply an argument, that moves
across its books ( pace intro, p. 6). This rhetoric assumes an audience. Is the text an authori-
tative statement of a master-scientist in politics (Frede, p. 33) or is it multivocal and con-
tentious (the aggressive claims of the pro and anti democrats of Book 3, pace Lanes
logical focus)? Deslaurierss Aristotle sees integrated differences, but his political audi-
ences may see contentious inequalities (5.1). Is every positively stated view Aristotles?
Perhaps only the committed legalist sees law as reason unaffected by desire (Horn,
p. 242). Appreciating Hatzistavrous typology, why is faction, imaged in tales of sex
and violence, introduced when it is (M. Davis, The Politics of Philosophy [1996])? Are
the prejudices of aristocratic Greek males (Miller, p. 62) reinforced by Book 1s poetic
references? Can Euripides Iphigenia affirm without horrible irony the superiority of
free Greeks to slavish barbarians (1.2)? Does the context of Sophocles Ajax support the
claim that silence becomes a woman (1.13)?
The analytic focus takes the volume in directions different from these. It would be
churlish to be critical of that choice given the insights that the essays offer. However,
the need for such choices reminds us that Aristotles Politics has multiple sides that will
continue to challenge and therefore to educate its readers.

Georgetown University GERALD MARA

marag@georgetown.edu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.