Well-founded, thoughtful insights mixed with a lot of rambling

I enjoyed reading Classics at University, so I looked forward to reading this book.

First off: This book would have deserved a thorough editing! The author rambles and loves to go on tangents - as he well recognizes after the fact. The first chapter is a prime example. It could‘ve been parred down to a few succinct remarks.

The book got for me really interesting in chapter 2 when the author expounds the contribution of the Greek mathematicians by iuxtaposing Mesopotamian mathematics, the Greek approach and how the Islam scholars took this approach even further. The focus is nearly entirely on Greek mathematics and science. You don‘t have to read in-depth the mathematical details to understand the fundamental differences and why they matter longterm for a our modern world.
The exploration into the revival of Greek mathematics during the renaissance where the competitive spirit along with the mathematical tools of old are rediscovered is in my opinion brilliant. And it was quite the discovery for me to learn how the mathematicians and scientist came by this process of re-discovery to find new avenues of mathematics and its applications. I wondered whether the sheer number of mathematicians and there exchange of ideas furthered this new course as well.
What I missed in chapter 2 was an explanation of the cultural setting of the Greek invention of proof and showcasing spectacular solutions. I suspect the rise of the Sophists which coincides may be an explanation. The explanation of witty courtiers at the Hellenistic courts given for the cultural setting of Hellenistic scientist and mathematicians squares with what happend in literature, e.g. Kallimachos and Theokritos.
Chapter 3 explores in depth the Greek canon of literature (and the added canons of Roman, Christian and finally scientific canons). Indeed the Greek canon has deep roots in the Athenian polis of the 5th century - hence its emphasis on performance (in courts, on the stage, etc). I missed a reference that tragedy and comedy were not only put on stage, but had deep religious roots in the cult of Dionysos and Athens as well. It is this „Sitz im Leben“ which distinguishes the Greek Canon and Netz makes it really clear that although the Greek canon persevers, the ideal of the Greek polis it is routed in does not and is often in direct contradiction to the later political reality. He could‘ve added that for a short period when Christianity was not yet the established state religion, the new Christian canon and its authors again spoke from a „Sitz im Leben“ again. Their discourses and sermons were again rooted in life and actual strife - like those authors of the ancient Greek canon.
I found Netz‘s observations on the Islamic reception and work on the canon and again the reception since the renaissance illuminating: the discovery of the very plurality of Greek writings battling itself and with Koran teachings and thus leading to new discoveries.
Netz makes an important point why the Greeks mattered esp. in the Renaissance where they gave a big push to the development of a whole new science and mathematics. At least there and then there writings became obsolete. I am not sure about their literature which still is enjoyable and stands for itself.
To sum it up: a book that gave me a lot to think about.

I received an ARC via netgalley. The review is left voluntarily.

Western civilization is based and founded upon the ancient Greeks. The ways in which they looked at the world and how they sought to investigate it continues to underlay our own perspectives and endeavors.

To that end, it would seem axiomatic to recognize the ancient Greeks matter. But Reviel Netz wants to focus on the question of why the ancient Greeks should matter to us in Why the Ancient Greeks Matter: The Problematic Miracle That Was Greece.

One thing the author definitely does not want to do is to try to take away, diminish, or minimize the contributions or uniqueness of what took place in Greece during the Classical period: it was a “miracle” of sorts, and the author spends much time comparing and contrasting what kind of things were considered and developed in Mesopotamia and Greece, which all the more highlights how amazing the developments in learning which took place in Greece. The author specializes in matters of mathematics and science, and this becomes plainly evident in the examples he selects, whether you can follow with those examples or not.

The author’s main concern, however, is in the way we understand why the Greeks matter. For us today, we generally look at the Greeks in terms of a canonical set of important poets, playwrights, mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers, and have enshrined them on a pedestal.

The author takes a contrarian position about even the idea of an ancient Greek canon: he well points out how contradictory the canon proves (Plato vs. Aristotle vs. others, etc.), but most importantly, how the very idea of the development of ideas into a kind of canonically received wisdom worked very much against how the Greeks worked and saw themselves.

Instead, the author posits how the Greeks were very much in competition with each other, and how all of their developments were very much within and a part of this competitive environment. One of the main features which distinguished the Greeks from those who came before them in the ancient Near East was the individuality which competition can engender: all the wisdom of Mesopotamia was handed down without many names attached to them, but such was not the case with the Greeks. Instead, the Greeks very much were aware of the ideas of others, and would write in competitive ways: see, here, this is what so-and-so has said, and this is where they’re actually wrong, and this is the better idea,” etc. The goal was not to enter some kind of “Greek Hall of Fame”; instead, the goal was to displace whoever was currently upheld as the avatar or embodiment of a given field or discipline.

The author then argues how the consolidation and canonization which took place in Late Antiquity completely violated this trend and was very much a break in the tradition. The author then well argued how the developments which would begin to take place in the Renaissance and afterwards really came about once moderns no longer saw themselves as far inferior to the greats of the Classical tradition, but instead as continuing the conversation with those of the Classical tradition, and yes, competing again against them. And now that many of the disciplines have returned to this kind of competitive format, we are seeing a lot of advancements and developments in science and technology, as well as other fields, just as had been done in former times.

Thus the Greeks matter, less as these canonical figures to idolize, and more because of their inquisitional and competitive spirit and nature. It might be a controversial thesis, but certainly not one without merit, and worth considering.

What I think the book lacked - and this might be more an invitation to further consideration in the field and less a criticism of the author - was in terms of that moment in Late Antiquity during which those matters which had involved a conversation, dispute, and competition led to attempts at synthesis and preservation. I would imagine this would all have a lot to do with two major factors: the advent of Christianity and the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire. Decline and collapse of the Roman Empire and the Classical world cannot be overstated in terms of the influence: it’s very hard to imagine you can continue a conversation when the “barbarians” are at the gate and looking to burn everything down. It’s understandable why the goal in Late Antiquity was to try to preserve what had been learned and developed as opposed to really attempting to further advance it. But Christianity is also a major player, since the Christian ethos works very differently from this Classical competitiveness: Christianity suggests God came in the flesh in the days of Augustus and Tiberius Caesars, and the record of God’s communication with mankind was preserved in the Old and New Testaments. That kind of perspective looks skeptically on any kind of innovation and development, and certainly of the endeavor to make a name for oneself by besting all who came before you in terms of understanding a given field or discipline.

Our society and culture today has been profoundly shaped by both impulses: that of the ancient Greeks and that of Christianity. Our struggle has always been in terms of when and how it would be good to develop and innovate in competition versus when we should defer to the received wisdom of those who have come before us in humility. Nevertheless, it is good to be reminded how the ancient Greeks were not Late Antique Christians and philosophers and did not approach knowledge and insight in the same ways. We are the heirs of internally contradicting trends and impulses, and we do well to recognize as much.

The ancient Greeks are often seen as a model, but the author argues that the traditional view of the Greek canon as a fixed and timeless set of values overlooks the real strength and enduring value of Greek thought. Rather, that author argues, the real strength of the Greek legacy is of debat, conflict and dissent i which ideas are subject to commentary and examination in the public realm. Very timely.