This revised 2004 doctoral dissertation consists of a commentary on select portions of Aristophanes' Acharnians intended to support the larger theses advanced in the introductory and concluding essays. D.C. is concerned with matters of argumentative, dramatic and political coherence. What is an Athenian (or modern) audience to make of the mercurial hero Dicaeopolis and his arguably treacherous behaviour in achieving and enjoying a private peace with Sparta? And what serious positions, if any, can the poet himself be thought to advocate? Parody, especially the parody of Euripides' Telephus in the first half of the play, is presented as the key to framing and addressing – if not necessarily resolving – such questions, since it allows the poet to present and criticise ideology, and to call attention to his own actions in this regard, and to those of the state and even the audience itself. D.C.'s general critical orientation is heavily and explicitly dependent on Helene Foley's well-known article in JHS 108 (1988), 33–47.Footnote ¹ On her reading, the text of Acharnians is endlessly ambiguous, and therein lies its power, magic and productive sense of the (im)possible. The approach soon becomes dizzying, as one elaborate argumentative or theatrical inversion leads to another, and much of the argument in the opening and closing sections is conducted on an abstract, impressionistic level. Readers committed to the notion that texts are usefully explained via the articulation of ever-expanding, mutually implicating sets of internal complications and contradictions may find this a delightful and revealing piece of work. Others will be frustrated by d.C.'s unwillingness or inability to draw concrete conclusions about the puzzles posed by Aristophanes' comedy.

The bulk of the book consists of a commentary on roughly half of Acharnians: the prologue (1–200), Dicaeopolis' visit to Euripides (383–488), the Telephus-rhesis (489–556), the hero's encounter with Lamachus (572–625), the visits to Dicaeopolis' new marketplace by the Megarian (719–835) and the Theban (860–958), and Lamachus' ultimate come-uppance (1069–142, 1174–234). A generously spaced portion of Greek (often 10–15 lines at a time) is printed, followed by a similarly generously spaced French translation; no apparatus is offered. Discussion of individual sections of text usually begins with paraphrase, followed by exposition, in which d.C. expands in a leisurely and varied fashion on what she takes to be the larger significance of the verse or verses in question. Many of the points put forward seem self-evident or have been dealt with in detail by the standard commentators, to whom d.C. routinely refers (or defers). Little effort is made to improve or expand the interpretation of specific philological or historical points. Instead, the commentary serves to support d.C.'s overall reading of Acharnians, and is significant primarily in that context. Some acute observations are made, for example on p. 24 on the theatrical nature of the Assembly, including the costuming of the participants and the importance of ‘illusion’. All too often, however, d.C.'s arguments lack any obvious firm grounding in the text, for example in her claim that at Ach. 4–8 ‘The implicit idea is in effect that the representation of the Knights responds to the model of Hellas as it is inscribed in tragedy and epic’ (p. 27), or that at Ach. 9–16 ‘suffering in the presence of a play by Theognis comes to resemble one of Heracles’ labors' (p. 29). Readers interested in a Francophone survey of a subset of important issues in Aristophanes' comedy and an introduction to a broad cross-section of the modern secondary bibliography on the author and his work may none the less find this a useful and engaging volume.