fice for the sort of criticism that Habermas desires. This is a very interesting claim but it deserves more explication and warrant. Adams has a fine account ofHabermas and a firm grasp of the issues facing contemporary theology. His attention to theology, narrative, and argumentation as well as practices, combines many of the strengths of theological traditions. Scriptural reasoning seems to function as a way to engage across religious traditions. Can this commendable practice be adapted to other circumstances or fields? Can jurists read their authoritative texts together? Is scriptural reasoning only possible for monotheistic traditions? As a specific, historically situated practice, it is no failing to say no to the first and yes to the last questions. For Adams' proposal to have the fruit he wishes it to bear, other practices that engage non-religious traditions need to be imagined. Nevertheless, Adams has written a book worthy of attention and response. Gregory A. Walter St. Olaf College Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes, J aap Mansfe ld, and Malcolm Schofie ld, eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press 2005. Pp. 938. US$210.00 (cloth ISBN-13: 978-0-521-25028-3); US$48.00 (paper ISBN-13: 978-0-521-61670-6). This book, originally published in hardback in 1999, is without a doubt the most important recent product of the notable reevaluation ofHellenistic philosophy that has been taking place particularly since the mid-1970s. The wide range of subjects, the high quality of the essays, and the fact that among the contributors are several of the leading specialists in Hellenistic philosophy make it an indispensable reference work for specialists and non-specialists alike. Given the length of the volume and its multiplicity of topics, it is possible here to provide only an outline of the contents and to offer a few general comments. In between the editors' preface and an extensive epilogue by Michael Frede, there are twenty-two chapters grouped into five parts: Introduction, Logic and Language, Epistemology, Physics and Metaphysics, and Ethics and Politics. The general organization of the work is thus by topic, whereas within each part the discussion is structured by philosophical schools. As a 237 result of this organization and the fact that each chapter is deliberately self-contained for the sake of utility, a given subject may sometimes be discussed by different authors proposing rival interpretations. Part 1 contains t.hree chapters. In the first, Jaap Mansfeld analyzes the extant sources for the Hellenistic period and their diflerent genres. In the second, Tiziano Dorandi examines the chronology of the philosophical schools and, in the third, deals with their organization and structure. Part 2 likewise consists of three chapters. In the first, Jonathan Barnes offers an introduction to Hellenistic logic. In the second, Barnes, Susanne Bozien, and Mario Mignucci examine the logical theories of the Peripatetics, the Megarics, and the Stoics. The third chapter, by Barnes and Dirk Schenkeveld, is devoted to language, focusing on linguistics, rhetoric, and poetics. Four chapters make up Part 3. The introductory chapter, by .Jacques Brunschwig, examines the origin ofHellenist.ic skepticism and the views of Pyrrho, Timon, and the Cyrenaics. The following three chapters offer a detailed discussion of the epistemological views of the Epicureans (Elizabeth Asmisl, t.he St,oics (Frede), and the Academics (Malcolm Schofield>. Jt. is perhaps no exaggeration to say that present-day epislemologists may find in the views of the thinkers and schools discussed therein some interesting and challenging ideas. Part 4, the longest section of the work, contains eight chapters. The first, by David Sedley, bears on physics and metaphysics. Then there is a chapter on cosmology by David Furley, followed by a chapter on theology by Mansfeld. R. J. Hankinson is responsible for the next two chapters, one on explanation and causation, the other on determinism and indeterminism. There follows a chapter on Epicurean psychology by Stephen Everson and one on Stoic psychology by A.A. Long. Finally, Giuseppe Cambiano writes on the relationship between philosophy and the sciences. Part 5 consists of four chapters. In the first, Long examines the Socratic legacy, and discusses the positions of the Cynics and the Cyrenaics. The second chapter, by Michael Erler and Schofield, bears on Epicurean ethics, and the third, by Brad Inwood and Pierluigi Donini, addresses Stoic ethics. The final chapter, by Schofield, is devoted to an examination of social and political thought. The contributions are on the whole accessible, but the reader, in accordance with his or her own expertise, will of course find some parts more comprehensible than others. Untranslated Greek or Latin texts and technical terms have as a rule been excluded from the main text, and t.his enhances the volume's accessibility to non-specialists. It is also worth noting that the discussion of the topics is enriched by the fact that, alt.hough each author presents his or her own interpretation. he or she usually takes into account competing views. The volume also contains a synopsis of the most important historical events, a list of editions of sources and fragments, a list of abbreviations, a 288 bibliography which runs to forty-eight pages, an index locorum, and a general index. The reader will probably be surprised to find that although the Hellenistic age is conventionally deemed to extend from 323 to 31 BC, the volume ends its survey in about 100 BC. This is likely to disappoint those readers interested in, e.g., Aenesidemus' revival of Pyrrhonism early in the first century BC. In the epilogue, Frede justifies that cutoff date by arguing that it is at the end of the second century BC, not late in the following century, that the revival of Aristotelianism and Platonism began within the Stoa. It was then and early in the first century BC that the negative reaction against Plato and Aristotle which had given rise to the Hellenistic schools was replaced by an emphasis on continuity between classical philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy. In response to Frede's argument, it must be emphasized that neo-Pyrrhonism took no part in that revival. Aenesidem us left the Academy because, in his eyes, the Academics were not real skeptics but Stoics fighting Stoics, and it was Pyrrho whom he adopted as a forerunner ofhis radical skepticism. Hence, his neo-Pyrrhonian stance was intimately connected with the figures and the controversies of the Hellenistic age. If one accepts this as a compelling reason for including a discussion of Aenesidemus' position, one may also be moved to regret the absence ofa discussion of the Pyrrhonism expounded in Sextus Empiricus' surviving writings. For even if from a chronological point of view the latter does not belong to the Hellenistic period he most likely lived in the second century AD-he certainly does from a philosophical point of view. First, Sextus' main dogmatic rivals are the Stoics and the Epicureans of that period. Second, Aenesideman arguments, which are Hellenistic both chronologically and philosophically, constitute an important part of Sextus' skeptical arsenal. Thus, both the neo-Pyrrhonists' adoption of Pyrrho as their figurehead and the agonistic connection between their movement and the Stoic, Epicurean, and Academic schools of the HeJlenistic age make one feel that something is missing from the present volume's picture oHhe philosophy of that period. The absence ofa detailed discussion ofPyrrhonism after Pyrrho and Timon is to some extent mitigated by the fact that, in their contributions, Brunschwig and Cambiano refer to some arguments and subjects that are expounded in Sextus' extant works. To be sure, the previous remarks do nothing to undermine the superb quality of the essays that make up the present volume. Hence, anyone interested in Hellenistic philosophy, or ancient philosophy more generally, should include a copy of this book in his private library. Diego E. Machuca Consejo Nacional de lnvestigaciones Cientfficas y Tecnicas (Argentina)