Vanderspoel, 'Etudes sur la correspondance de Synesios de Cyrene'
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-v2n01-vanderspoel-etudes

2.1.16, D. Roques, *Etudes sur la correspondance de Synesios de
Cyrene.*  CollectionLatomus, 205.  Brussels, 1989.  Pp. 274; 3
Maps.  1.300 F.  ISBN2-87031-145-1.
  Rev. by J. Vanderspoel

   As R. remarks in the ``Avertissement au Lecteur,'' his
seventeenchapters ``constituaient un preambule indispensable'' to
his book on Synesiusand (mainly) Cyrene (Synesios de Cyrene et la
Cyrenaique du Bas-Empire[Paris, 1988]), and provide the
chronological framework for it.  The presentchapters, discussing
letters or groups of letters to one individual or on acommon theme
(the exception is Ch. 17, on the de reg. and de prov.),
wereessentially complete in 1982 and, according to R., are as valid
now as then,in spite of recent articles, especially in English,
propounding views quitedifferent from R.'s own.  R. claims to have
taken full account of this work,but he mentions it in no more than
3 footnotes (2 to the Preface) and theBibliography, often
inconsistently.  Two articles ascribed to W. Leibeschuetzat p.5,
n.2, are listed under J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz in the
Bibliography,while of the two credited to J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz,
one is found under T.D.Barnes in the Bibliography (a mistake), and
the other is absent.  A. Cameroncan be thankful that he is cited
consistently in both 5, n.2 and theBibliography, and perhaps that
his views were deemed worthy of longerdiscussion at p.19, n.26. 
All the works mentioned in n.2 are baldly rejectedin n.3 for
attempts to restore an early chronology for S.'s visit
toConstantinople, ``sans bonnes raisons a mon sens'' (5).  In the
``IndexAuctorum Recentiorum,'' Barnes is supposedly cited at 5, n.2
and Cameron at5, nn.2, 3 and 19, n.26.  In fact, Cameron is visible
at 5, n.3 only in theplural ``ils'' used by R. to reject all
articles since 1982, while Barnes isnamed.  J. Bregman's book
(Synesius of Cyrene [Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1982])appears only in
the Bibliography.  Most of these do not appear at all in the1988
book, where R. admits that his Bibliography rarely goes beyond
1981.  

   It is difficult to believe that R. took very seriously articles
that hecites so haphazardly and rarely.  His views were apparently
formed longbefore he ever saw the works which shook the
chronological foundations of hisearlier book before the ink was
dry, or for that matter, wet.  However muchone might wish to admire
R. for his tenacity, it is misguided.  It isespecially so when he
states (17) that S.'s embassy to Constantinople and thedate of Ep.
13 (dating S.'s episcopate) are two of three fixed points in
thechronology.  Barnes and others have argued vigorously against
both of thesedates and questioned the third ``fixed'' date, the
outbreak of hostilitieswith nomads.  Even if R. were to have
concluded that his dates were correct,one would expect his
discussion to proceed with full consideration of viewspublished
after 1982.  In Ch. I, ``Le probleme chronologique'' (11-19),
andbriefly in Ch. VI, R. discusses the date of the embassy, with
his remarks arelimited to a few pages and one note disputing a
recent view (19, n.26). Later, he states that S. could not have
arrived at Constantinople before theend of Aug. 399, but suggests
``un contact deja effectif'' (211) between S.and Aurelian by
Sept./Nov. 399 on the basis of letters to the PraetorianPrefect. 
Many will prefer a longer acquaintance and consequently an
earlierdate for the embassy.  Ch. IV, ``L''ordination episcopale de
Synesios: 1erjanvier 412'' (47-64), dates the episcopate, but no
recent view is cited.  R.discusses the minimum age for bishops, but
himself notes that some wereordained sooner.  Dating S.'s birth a
few years earlier eliminates thisproblem and any suggestion that S.
was too young for an embassy in 397. Moreover, R.'s discussion of
S.'s birthdate (Ch. II:  ``La date de naissancede Synesios''
[21-36]) is flawed:  terminology for age cannot be relied upon,nor
can a remark in a letter of reconciliation (Ep. 117:  ``That I am
notonly older than you, but already an old man, ``is clear from my
skin'' asPherecydes says'') have reliably precise consequences for
S.'s birthdatewithin a three month period.

   In sum, one has little confidence in R.'s chronology.  His
system is arelative chronology based on three ``fixed'' points, of
which two are hardlyfirm.  This does not invalidate all that R.
concludes about the letters andgroups of letters, as they relate to
each other or even to the generalchronology of S.'s life, but every
specific date must be treated withcaution.  A full reexamination is
needed, and R.'s contribution is hisability to find some important
details.  His book is best read as anexplanation for positions
taken in his other book.

John Vanderspoel
University of Calgary