C.'s book, based on his doctoral thesis of 1996, is the first monograph on the Hellenistic ephebate, one of the most significant but understudied institutions of this period. The volume comprises an introduction, five chapters, a short general conclusion, a catalogue of all ephebic inscriptions within his chronological and geographical framework, two maps, an index of texts and a general index. In the introduction, C. explains the chronological and geographical limits of his research and his approach. He positions himself within French scholarship in the epigraphic tradition with its strong institutional focus, rather than in the tradition of historical anthropology (Vidal-Naquet).
In the first chapter C. analyses the history of the term ephèbos, justly criticising the modern use of this term for young men in general and in particular for those involved in rites de passage. He shows that, unlike other derivations from hèbè, the word is not attested before the fourth century. The term ephèbos was coined at the time the ephebate was established in Athens as an educational institution and is mostly used in this technical manner throughout the Hellenistic period. In contests, for example, ephèboi was never an age-category; contests for ephèboi were open only to boys following the educational programme. The chapter ends with a history of the early Athenian ephebate.
The second chapter is devoted to the earliest attestations of ephebes outside Athens. Building on the first chapter, C. convincingly argues that the new institutions mirrored the Athenian model. He discusses ‘certain cases’, ‘hypothetical cases’ and ‘negative cases’, and ends with comparable educational programmes in Syracuse and Cyrene. Only explicit references to ephebes are certain attestations, references to neoi make the presence of ephebes likely, references to gymnasiarchs do not. C.'s choice to consider Rhodes a negative case despite the double attestation of an ephebarch is therefore surprising. Missing is an introductory discussion of relevant terms that engages with the broader selection of terms used by N. Kennell (Ephebeia. A Register of Greek Cities with Citizen Training Systems in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods [2006]). Strikingly absent, moreover, is a history of the gymnasium and the gymnasiarchy. As the ephebate and the gymnasium were partially overlapping institutions, the emergence of one can never be fully understood without the other.
In the third chapter, on the status of ephebes in the gymnasium, C. collects the evidence on the age of ephebes – ranging from 14 to 18 – and on the duration of the ephebate – from 1 to 3 years. C. seems to go too far when he concludes that the age of a citizen was not his actual age (based on his date of birth), but was assigned by vote when he was presented to the assembly of the deme for registration before his ephebate. As C. mentions, births were registered at the Athenian phratries and similar procedures may have existed elsewhere. Egyptian epikrisis documents, which fall outside C.'s chronological and geographical scope, give the age of a boy upon registration in the gymnasium in years, months and even days. The chapter likewise includes a terminological analysis of the other groups in the gymnasium, such as paides and neoi, a discussion of the admission to the ephebate, of the ceremonies at the beginning and end of the ephebate, of ephebic lists and of the oath.
In the fourth chapter, C. argues that the military aspect of the ephebate was pronounced and not in decay. This conclusion is based on the observations that (1) contests for ephebes included (para)military events and that (2) young men in the city were involved in policing the territory. Without an analysis of the place of military training within the educational programme, or evidence for a role for (ex-)ephebes in the defence of the territory, his argumentation remains weak, however. Why the ephebate spread around the same time that citizen armies became less important, and whether the military role of the ephebes changed under the pax romana might be interesting angles for further research.
The stronger fifth chapter discusses the place of ephebes in processions and other civic festivities. The visualisation of the community in such festivities is a fashionable topic in current research (see e.g. A. Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire. Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor [2009], pp. 86–109). The part on processions is particularly interesting. C. convincingly shows that the ephebes, unlike other age-groups, were a symbol for the city.
The book apologetically opens with a quote from Louis and Jeanne Robert on the dangers of publishing too soon. They remind us that an author needs time to gain expertise, to address lacunas, to correct mistakes and to shorten the work. Although C.'s expertise and diligence are obvious, his choice for this particular quote is coloured by a hint of irony, as shortening was clearly not his strong suit. The book is extremely lengthy and detailed. This choice for completeness, or lack of conciseness, reflects at the same time C.'s greatest achievement and weakness.
As a work aimed at epigraphists, the book has great value. All relevant texts are listed in a catalogue, and with the index one quickly finds C.'s careful and detailed discussions of any text. C. has, moreover, a keen eye for terminology, and avoids anachronisms. By showing that earlier initiation practices, or other youth programmes, were not called ‘ephebate’, he convincingly establishes its specific institutional nature. This approach helps him to build a sound chronological framework for the early ephebate. His analysis of terms like paides or neoi is useful for anyone working on texts applying these terms.
The focus of the book lies in the institutional character of the ephebate; it is not a history of the ephebate. First, it is not a history of the ephebate in the Aegean and Asia Minor, because the region only represents the practical limits of C.'s research, not a theme in the book. C. does not avoid digressions on other regions – in fact he does not specifically deal with the Aegean and Asia Minor until the second half of the book – but he uses these to mitigate lacunas in the evidence, not to examine the specificity – or exemplariness – of this region. Second, since the book is not intended as a historical study of the ephebate, it leaves many questions open. Most strikingly: what was the ephebic programme, or, more bluntly, what did ephebes do all day? C. discusses the military element and the processions, but does not cover the whole spectrum of athletic, cultural and political activities. In his general conclusion C. connects the success of the ephebate to its ability to diffuse the values of the city, and one wonders why he did not make this theme more central in the book. How exactly were these values passed on? How intensive was the programme? What activities represented which values? One should of course not blame the author for the considerable deficits of his sources, but a discussion of the instructors of the ephebes, for example, is remarkably absent in this respect.
Because C.'s perspective is that of an epigraphist, the flow of the text is determined by the sources rather than by a general argument. The style further challenges the reader, as ideas sometimes get lost in a stream of superfluous words or in C.'s fancy for listing all possible hypotheses for even minor points. Although the absence of a synthetical approach seriously impedes the user-friendliness of this book, it will and should be used for years to come. With his critical stance towards specific terms, in particular of the word ephèbos itself, and towards unfounded extrapolations from the Athenian model, for example about the age of the ephebes, C. shows himself a true expert.
