This book is a close study of the History of the Destruction of Troy, a late-antique literary production attributed to Dares Phrygius, who Isidore of Seville referred to as ‘the first pagan historian’, and supposed eyewitness to the Trojan War. C.'s work is largely an intellectual history of ancient reception. C. traces Dares’ rise and decline as a chief authority in the early Middle Ages. While Dares would eventually be recognised as a forgery with the rise of humanism, his authority endured well after serious criticism took hold.
C. provides an impressive overview of the history of medieval manuscript cultures, codicology, forgery and reception. The book is written in accessible language, assuming no prior knowledge on the part of readers. It is divided into six thematic and largely chronological chapters, with a separate introduction and conclusion. The introduction invites readers to consider the opportunities provided by forgery to ‘comprehend all the rich complexity – and sometimes the instability – inherent in the concept of antiquity itself’ (p. 4). The remaining chapters are an exercise in exploring this ‘complexity’ and ‘instability’. In addition, C. provides a thorough review of scholarship in the fields of literary theory on forgery and reception studies that informs the rest of the book and foreshadows the remaining chapters (p. 37).
Chapter 1, ‘Dares Forged: Histories Real and Imagined in the Classical and Late Antique Worlds’, begins with ancient quests for origins and the value placed on ‘firsts’ (p. 43). This quest for origins, and in particular firsts, is what placed Dares on the map as the ‘first pagan historian’. C. lays out the conflict between poetry and prose, and the appeal of historiography written without embellishment that lent Dares credibility, which was bolstered by its supposed translation by Cornelius Nepos. C. introduces important divergences of Dares from both Homer and Virgil, including the depiction of Aeneas as a traitor, which would be used by later writers to downplay Rome's heroic origins, and as a source of contention for later critics.
In Chapter 2, ‘Dares Compiled: From Ancient History to Medieval Genealogy’, C. provides a fascinating account of the use of Dares by a variety of medieval chroniclers and continuators. Frankish, Anglo-Saxon and Hungarian chroniclers used Dares as a foundation for their own chronicles and to prove their own claims to ancient origins. C. examines the way in which ‘these de facto anthologies stitched together’ sources such as Dares in combination with Old Testament accounts and patristic sources such as Jerome (p. 79). Dares rarely existed by itself, but was usually stitched into larger narratives. C. details examples by Frankish authors who established the Franks as having Trojan origins and as rivals to the Romans (p. 89). Dares was used by the infamous medieval forger Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Britanniae, most famous for its impact on Arthurian mythology.
In Chapter 3, ‘Dares Translated: Historical Veracity and Poetic Fiction’, C. examines the manuscript tradition to discuss the role of Dares in debates over the utility of ‘pagan’ sources. The chapter opens with monastic practices of appending verses to supposed pagan texts (p. 120). C. discusses attempts by medieval poets to restore the value of verse as a historical medium, including several medieval authors who rendered Dares into verse. As C. notes, later medieval authors grew to believe that Dares was a poet himself. This process was part of a greater debate occurring during the period about truth versus falsity, and a growing moralising discourse around poetic and historical accounts, including for variety a surprisingly recognisable debate around authorial voice. This chapter provides an excellent case study on the fluidity of medieval transmission and reception.
Chapter 4, ‘Dares Attacked: Early Modern Criticism and the Formation of an Ancient Canon’, traces the earliest stages of criticism of Dares’ credibility. Early critics questioned Dares’ authenticity by comparing him to other accounts of Trojan refugees, in particular Dares’ accusations of treason against Aeneas (p. 173). Lorenzo Valla's exposure of the Donation of Constantine based on the anachronistic ‘barbarism’ of the Latin would be applied by later writers against Dares, and in particular the preface of pseudo-Nepos, yet it would take some time for Dares to lose his place in the canon. C. ‘cautions us against reading the latter period [early modernity] as an Ur-moment of a critical classical scholarship’, but rather argues for seeing it as a period of surprising continuity with the later Middle Ages (p. 180). C. highlights the rise of philology, while debunking this period as one of clear-eyed scholarship.
Chapter 5, ‘Dares Printed and Philologized: The Ebbs and Flows of a Forger's Fortunes’, details how the advent of printing helped prolong Dares’ creditability and influence into the early modern era. C. argues that, while print and technologies served as ‘catalysts for criticism’, in some cases spurious texts gained momentum (p. 215). Renewed interest in encyclopaedias and bibliographies led to authors like Dares being included in authoritative lists without concern for authenticity. The work of medieval scholars was frequently accepted without question. However, with the rise of post-reformation Church politics, Dares’ fortunes declined around the year 1600. Protestant scholars attacked the idea of ‘pagan revelation’ and the value of ‘pagan’ sources. Close attention was paid to Dares’ Latin, which was deemed once more to be too barbaric (p. 248). Here C. draws further attention to the complexities of reception and the double-edged sword of the printing press in Dares’ fortunes.
Chapter 6, ‘Dares Survives: Webs of Misattribution and the Persistence of the Distant Past’, takes the conversation beyond Dares to include the fate of his ‘fellow-travellers’, sources that accompanied Dares’ History in the manuscript tradition, printed together in later books, or were otherwise associated. The anthological nature of medieval compilations filtered into print and led to confusion and misattribution (p. 253). At times Dares was printed without attribution or misattributed to compilers and contributors. Those who denied Dares’ authenticity accepted similar works without question. Still Dares maintained his supporters who dismissed criticism or were unaware of it. Thus, C. skilfully recounts the tenacity of Dares’ survival into the eighteenth century during a period where scholars were increasingly sceptical of the authenticity of ancient sources.
C.'s conclusion, ‘The Perennial Quarrel: Dares between Ancients and Moderns, Truth and Falsehood’, provides a useful summary, which ties the disparate threads of the thematic chapters together. C. ends with an interesting anecdote from Thomas Jefferson, who rather than being concerned with questions of authenticity or fact, dismissed Dares as ‘dull’. This is an interesting note compared to the discussions that dominated the book around the value of historiography versus poetry, the clash of the ancients and the moderns, and philological methodology. Such concerns rarely enter the mind of the pleasure reader.
This is a commendable book. Its engaging prose makes important connections across the chronological spectrum. It will be of great appeal to popular readers interested in the intrigues of monks and humanists, and to Classicists and medievalists interested in the history of reception. It would make an excellent addition to interdisciplinary syllabi as an introduction to manuscript transmission, and as a cautionary tale on our assumptions of sources and authenticity.
The choice to omit a bibliography forces readers to comb through the footnotes for references that are at times difficult to locate. Citations are sometimes lacking, though this is in part because much of this work is original, dealing with an impressive array of unpublished and neglected manuscripts. Many examples seem difficult to relate back to the subject at hand or to be of passing relevance. The book, while impressive in scope, could have been trimmed down with no loss of effect. The focus on the Latin West does make one wonder about the text's reception in the East, especially in late antiquity, where forgery played a significant role in theological debates.
