The volume under review is the latest instalment in the series Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities (RUSCH). The series, created in conjunction with Project Theophrastus, was originally conceived as a vehicle for publishing the interim results of Project Theophrastus. The aims of RUSCH were subsequently broadened to include the publication of editions, with facing translation and interpretative essays, of the extant evidence for the early Peripatetic philosophers besides Aristotle and Theophrastus. The idea was to provide scholars and advanced students with an alternative to the collections of fragments produced by F. Wehrli and published under the collective title Die Schule des Aristoteles (the second, expanded and corrected, edition of this commendable project was published in 1969). One obvious improvement is this: Wehrli did not provide a translation of the texts he edited, whereas all the volumes published in RUSCH have a facing translation. To date, the following volumes have appeared in the series: Demetrius of Phalerum (2000), Dicaearchus of Messana (2001), Lyco of Troas and Hieronymus of Rhodes (2004), Aristo of Ceos (2006), Heraclides of Pontus (2008), Strato of Lampsacus (2011), Paxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea (2012), Phaenias of Eresus (2015).
We have no precise dates for the activity of Clearchus of Soli, but a few of our ancient sources tell us that he was not only a Peripatetic philosopher but also a direct student and an associate of Aristotle. We have no reason to doubt his affiliation to the early Peripatos and close acquaintance with Aristotle. Hence, his activity can be safely dated to the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the third century bce. Plutarch of Chaeronea tells us that Clearchus distorted many views of his teacher (On the Face of the Moon 920 F; Text 116 in the volume under review). But since the early Peripatos was hospitable to different positions, we can take this testimony to be evidence of how his views were received in the later philosophical tradition, rather than evidence of how Clearchus considered his philosophical contribution with respect to Aristotle. In fact, this contribution remains elusive even after the publication of this volume due to the sparse and fragmentary nature of the extant evidence.
A first goal of any collection of sources (where ‘sources’ is to be understood in the broad sense of testimonies rather than in the strict sense of fragments) is to offer a collection as complete and reliable as possible. The list of concordances on pp. 286–306 helps us establish that the collection is fuller than the ones published by Wehrli (19692) and I. Taifakos (2008). The sources have been selected and edited by Dorandi, organised as follows: Writings (T 1); Plato and the Academy (2–11); Ethics (12–66); Literary Studies (67–104); Natural History (105–15); Unassigned Texts (116–23); Doubtful (124–9); Spurious (130).
The editorial criteria adopted are not different from those followed in other volumes on early Peripatetic philosophers published under the aegis of Project Theophrastus. What is new in this edition, compared with the previous ones, is the addition of a Subsidium interpretationis, which consists of a set of critical and exegetical notes to supply additional textual or exegetical information. The Subsidium, written in Latin, combined with the bridge texts that White presents in the facing translation provide readers with much-needed context. They jointly offer a first orientation for the information collected in the first part of the volume.
While the first part of the volume consists of the collection of sources, the second is best described as a selective discussion of the evidence gathered in the first part. This discussion takes initially the form of an in-depth study of the putative evidence that Clearchus was influenced by Plato in his views on the soul (R. Schorlemmer) with a focus on his dualistic account of the soul in the treatment of sleep (F. Verde). This is a locus classicus of scholarship: interpreters have often tried to establish whether Clearchus was a free thinker or a rebellious student and whether he was drawn more to Plato than to Aristotle. In light of this, it makes sense to start the reassessment of Clearchus’ contribution to ancient thought from there. We cannot rule out a Platonic, or even an Orphic and Pythagorean, influence on Clearchus, as suggested by Schorlemmer, but the overall impression is that we cannot make significant progress on this front due to the lack of clear and complete evidence.
The extant evidence for the following lost works is discussed: On education (W. Ax), On love (White) and On the ways of life (W. Fortenbaugh). While it is true that Clearchus comes across as a multifaceted author whose interests fit well with what we know about the cultural horizon of the early Peripatos (p. 9), we would like to be able to establish connections among those interests so as to delineate a coherent intellectual, or even philosophical, profile for Clearchus. Unfortunately, the evidence makes it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve this goal. We can only say that Clearchus concerned himself with the topics of paideia and eros as well as with a certain number of kinds of bioi (most likely with the intention of establishing the best mode of life for an ethical agent).
The extant evidence for Clearchus betrays a keen interest in popular and ancient wisdom transmitted in the form of sayings (paroimiai). This interest fits well with the testimonies on the activity of the early Peripatos since not only Aristotle but also Theophrastus and Dicaearchus are credited by our ancient sources with collections of maxims. The evidence is discussed in separate but well-coordinated essays by A. Zucker and G. Verhasselt. They offer a convincing analysis of what remains of this interest.
The final two essays deal with topics that fall within the scope of Peripatetic natural philosophy. The first is concerned with the interest on the part of Clearchus for the study of animals (O. Hellmann). We must evaluate this evidence in the context of what we know not only for Aristotle and Theophrastus but also for Eudemus and Phaenias. At the very least we can say that there was a sustained and coordinated effort to study animals and plants from within the theoretical framework that Aristotle provided in his extant biological works. The second essay (Mayhew) focuses on Clearchus’ putative explanation of the so-called face of the moon preserved by Plutarch. The problem for any Peripatetic philosopher is how to account for what we see on the surface of the moon vis-à-vis the Aristotelian claim that the moon is made of a special simple body different from earth, water, air and fire. A solution in line with the Aristotelian doctrine would consist of claiming that the moon is not only made of this special simple body but rather, due to its proximity to the sublunary world, a mixture of this special celestial body and the sublunary bodies. Instead, according to Plutarch, Clearchus argued that the so-called face of the moon is an image of the ocean reflected on the moon. This testimony enjoyed great fortune well beyond the narrow boundaries of antiquity. What matters to us is that Plutarch used this evidence to claim that Clearchus was not a loyal student of Aristotle. But Plutarch is projecting his own expectations on loyalty and philosophical allegiance back onto Clearchus.
We should be grateful to the contributors to this volume for reassessing the sparse and meagre evidence on Clearchus, which is far from being an easy, or for that matter rewarding, task. In fact, it is at times a frustrating experience due to the almost complete lack of evidence. In the process, however, they have produced a solid piece of scholarship, which goes beyond what has been accomplished by previous scholars (most notably, S. Tsitsiridis [2013]). The volume will remain the reference book on Clearchus for quite some time.
