In the past decade the topic of wonder has inspired several studies in Classics (e.g. J. Lightfoot, Wonder and the Marvellous from Homer to the Hellenistic World [2021]). Encompassing both a wondrous phenomenon and the resulting emotion, θαῦμα straddles the objective and subjective. As an emotion, moreover, wonder can be an irrational force or one leading to cognitive growth. In the monograph under review G. tackles this duality of wonder in the Hellenistic period, an era in which wonders and wonder pervaded both prose and verse. As G. argues, the Hellenistic writers respond to Plato by ‘reclaiming wonder’ (p. 13) for literary texts.
After an overview of pertinent scholarship from outside and within Classics in the introduction, G. devotes the first chapter to Platonic wonder. On the basis of a survey of representative Platonic dialogues (e.g. Apology, Republic and Laws), G. identifies two types of wonder: negative and positive. While negative wonder is the domain of the poet, sophist and demagogue and is based in the deceptive world of appearances, positive wonder surrounds the paradoxical figure of Socrates and can act as the starting point in the search for truth. The survey of Plato is followed by an appendix on Aristotle’s conception of wonder, as contained in the lost dialogue On Philosophy and the esoteric works. Noting the different attitudes of Plato and Aristotle towards wonder, G. nevertheless sees both as presenting wonder as an emotion with ‘strong cognitive dimensions’ (p. 65).
The dichotomy between negative and positive wonder also emerges in the second chapter, which deals with Theopompus’ fragmentary Philippics. G. interprets the tyrannical character of Philip II as embodying negative wonder. By contrast, the historian Theopompus represents positive wonder in his learning and historiographical project, which had moral aims.
In the third chapter G. considers the influence of Plato, Aristotle and Theopompus on Callimachus’ conception of wonder, as evident in Callimachus’ prose (e.g. On Marvels and Paradoxes in the Peloponnesus and Italy) and poetic works (Aetia). Unlike Plato, Callimachus presents poetic wonder as a wholly positive emotion, which continuously regenerates and spurs the quest for knowledge (p. 114).
A similar positive portrayal of wonder in Aratus’ Phaenomena is the subject of the fourth chapter. Analysing the poem’s references to wonder (e.g. μέγα θαῦμα for Zeus at Phaen. 15), G. argues that Aratus treats wonder as an essential tool for learning astronomy (p. 160). In this way, Aratus aligns with the Stoics.
Apollonius’ Argonautica forms the subject of the fifth chapter. According to G., in the Argonautica Apollonius, like Nearchus, presents wonder as a response experienced by non-Greeks in encountering Greek culture. Yet in his reading of the Argonautica G. sees a transition from positive wonder to negative wonder that is suffused with deception, irrationality and dread. G. connects this portrayal to Apollonius’ scepticism about the ability of poetry to capture reality (p. 206).
In the ‘Conclusions’ G. summarises his findings, while acknowledging the relevance of wonder for other Hellenistic authors (e.g. Theocritus and Posidippus, p. 209). Nevertheless, G. has selected a representative sample which integrates prose and poetry, philosophy and history, and astronomy and mythology. Throughout the monograph, G. consistently draws connections between the studied works while emphasising the profound influence of Plato (e.g. in Theopompus’ Thaumasia, pp. 97–101). Also commendable is the monograph’s attention to fragmentary texts (e.g. Nearchus).
Yet the varying nature of the evidence necessitates differing methodological approaches. For Plato, Aratus and Apollonius, G. structures his discussion around occurrences of the pertinent vocabulary which are listed in the introduction (p. 14), with accompanying bibliography in the footnote (n. 51). The focus on relevant vocabulary is a prudent strategy. The complexity of wonder calls for discretion in the choice of passages. In discussing these passages, G. does address the connotations of specific wonder-based words, for instance, the etymological connection between θαῦμα and θεάομαι (‘I admire’, pp. 51, 161). This connection is especially pertinent for the Phaenomena, as the poem highlights the act of beholding constellations (e.g. θηήσασθαι for Pegasus at Phaen. 224).
Nevertheless, the introduction would have benefited from a concise overview of the words’ varying nuances, particularly in relation to the dichotomy between positive and negative wonder. In describing the Epicurean attitude towards wonder in Chapter 4, for instance, G. mentions the negative connotations of θάμβος in literary prose (p. 137). By foregrounding the negative associations of this word earlier in the introduction, G. could add another dimension to his reading of Callimachus’ Aetia fr. 43b.2 (Harder), a passage which describes the Callimachean speaker’s increasing wonder (θάμβος) after hearing the Muse Clio. Not only does Callimachus divest the verb ὑποτρέϕω (‘I increase’) of its negative association with irrational desires at Republic 560a10 (p. 115), he also ironically chooses a word with a potential negative sense (θάμβος) in his rehabilitation of wonder.
Yet, aside from this appearance of θάμβος in the Aetia, the studied fragments and testimonia lack pertinent vocabulary. Rather, G. relies on context and relevant parallels to identify implicit depictions of ‘wonder’, either positive or negative. For instance, to establish the connection between Theopompus’ Philip (described in Polybius’ testimony at 8.9.1–4) and negative wonder, G. compares Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, which includes explicit references to wonder (pp. 75–6). Whereas Xenophon fashions the portrait of a positive ruler, Theopompus highlights the contrasting, tyrannical qualities of Philip (p. 78). Based on a comparison with Plato (p. 74), who links negative wonder with the poet and sophist, this association between Philip and negative wonder is reasonable, even if not lexically secure.
Of the authors studied in the monograph, Callimachus offers the strongest case for understanding the role of wonder in literary production. As G. rightly stresses (p. 102), the theme of wonder links Callimachus’ prose and his poetry. Central to Callimachean wonder in the Aetia, moreover, is a childlike quality (p. 115). While this childish wonder ultimately motivates the first two books of the Aetia via his dream conversation with the Muses, the eager childlike persona clashes with the deep erudition displayed by the Aetia. G. might have further explored this tension between child and scholar, perhaps via comparison with the example that opens the monograph: Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (p. 1). Much like Callimachus’ Aetia and the Somnium (p. 131), Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland merges erudition with childlike wonder and dreams. Such a comparison would provide a link between the Hellenistic period and modern conceptions of wonder.
Ultimately G. has composed a compelling literary history, one that places wonder at its centre to interrogate the relationship between literature, philosophy and truth. Not unlike the Hellenistic writers who ‘reclaim wonder’ (p. 13) from the philosophers, G. has demonstrated the value of understanding wonder in these Hellenistic authors. His monograph not only enriches the expanding field of Hellenistic poetry but will also inspire future studies on Hellenistic wonder.
