Reviews 303 in achieving his neosophistic goal to put ancient, sophistic rhetoric on the road to journey toward contemporary concerns (p. 58). Michelle Baliff The University of Georgia Pierre Chiron (ed.), Pseudo-Aristote, Rhétorique à Alexandre (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, Collection des Universités de France, 2002) CLXXIV + 269pp. The Rhetorica ad Alexandrian (hereafter Rhet. Ah) is one of the two major classical Greek rhetorical handbooks, the other being Aristotle's Rhetoric, and is commonly viewed as the poorer of the two works. It takes its name from the dedication at the start of the work: "Aristotle to Alexander [the Great]: Greetings". Scholars and students who have had to use Loeb edition of the Rhet. Ah, edited by H. Rackham (Aristotle Vol. XVI), published in 1937 (reprinted in 1987), or the Teubner edition of M. Fuhrmann, published in 1966, will welcome with great delight Chiron's edition. Chiron's long introduction and copious, detailed notes, in addition to text and translation, make this book a valuable scholarly resource (though anyone without a reading knowledge of French will still have to use the Loeb of course). The very long Introduction (pp. VII-CLXXIV) is practically a book in itself. Chiron covers in great detail the structure of the Rhet. Al. (pp. VII-XL), its date and authorship (pp. XL-CVII), its relationship to ancient rhetoric and the influence of ancient rhetoricians on it (pp. CVII-CLV), the manuscript tradition (CLV-CLXVII), and finally the various manuscripts of the work and editions (pp. CLXIX-CLXXIV). The date and authorship of the Rhet. Al. are controversial issues; seldom has a dedication caused so much trouble. Chiron assigns the Rhet. Al. to the period 340-300, and for stylistic and philosophical reasons rejects, rightly, the attribution to Aristotle. Chiron seems content to follow Quintilian (3.4.9), who ascribes the authorship to another of Alexander's teachers, Anaximenes of Lampsacus. This is the generally accepted author of the Rhet. Al., but even so Chiron urges caution, given that the text may well have been altered from its original composition, and is even a composite. This conclusion, not novel to be sure, comes from a very detailed analysis of the "source tradition" on the Rhet. Al. and a comparison of it with Aristotle's Rhetoric. So too does Chiron's view on the influence of the Rhetoric on the Rhet. Al. The text and translation are on pp. 2-116; Chiron follows for the most part the divisions of Bekker's text of 1881, and the apparatus criticus contains the variant readings pertinent to Chiron's text. The Rhet. Al. is not an easy work to read; it is full of technical Greek terms, descriptions of the various functions of speeches, types of examples to give, and so on. Chiron's transla­ tion is good, faithfully reproducing the Greek while not causing confusion 304 RHETORICA by being overly literal. He also inserts sub-titles to what the Rhet. Al. deals with next, which aid the reader immensely There are 761 notes at the bottom of each page of translation and in almost one hundred pages (pp. 117-201) of "Notes Complémentaires". These contain an abundance of cross-references to other ancient sources (especially identifying relevant passages in other rhetorical works which are very helpful), while references to modern liter­ ature (mostly French at that) are kept to a minimum. This is hardly the place for a detailed critique, so let me give just one example of a topic in which I have my own scholarly interest: Rhet. Al. 29 on the exordium. Chiron gives us almost fifty detailed notes, though curiously little mention is made of the Demosthenic exordia or the Budé text of the exordia edited by R. Clavaud (1974). The edition also has an index of proper names (pp. 203-205), a lengthy index of Greek terms (pp. 207-258), and a concordance of previous major texts with differing divisions: Erasmus (1539 and 1550), Bekker in the Berlin Aristotle (1881), Hammer's revision of Spengel in the Teubner (1894), and Fuhrmann's recent Teubner (pp. 259-268). Chiron cites the works of other scholars on the Rhet. Al., works that are mostly...