Sharples and van der Eijk are to be thanked and congratulated for their production of this book which, by bringing together much of what is known about this important text, quite distinctly indicates also what still needs to be done for a full understanding of it. Journal of Theological Studies, vol 61, no 1, April 2010 Sharples and van der Eijk have made a significant contribution to students of patristics and the late antique world. I hope that this excellent translation will fuel greater study of Nemesius, not only as a witness of lost antique philosophical and medical sources, but as an apologist and theologian in his own right. Sobornost (incorporating Eastern Churches Review), 31:1 Nemesius' treatise On the Nature of Man is important for several reasons. It is a work that summarizes and quotes the works of classical and Hellenistic philosophers on a wide range of subjects, cosmological, psychological and philosophical, and is thus an important quarry for earlier philosophers whose works no longer survive as such. It is also of great interest in itself, giving a comprehensive account of a Christian understanding of human nature and its relationship to the cosmos and to God from the late fourth century, a period contemporary with the theological reflection of the Cappadocian Fathers. In comparison with them, Nemesius' knowledge of classical and Hellenistic philosophy seems more extensive and certainly more explicit. Nemesius' treatise is also of enormous importance for later Christian reflection on the nature of man and the world, principally in the Byzantine east, where along with Gregory of Nyssa's On the Creation of Man it was a fundamental text (and indeed often attributed in the manuscript tradition to the better known Cappadocian Father), but also in the Latin Middle Ages through translation. Despite this wide-ranging importance, it is only with this excellent annotated translation by R.W. Sharples and P.J. van de Eijk (itself based on an unpublished translation by J.M. Urmson) that it has been made readily accessible. Their translation is based on Morani's critical text published in the Teubner series in 1987. Before that there had been an edition by Mattaei, poorly reproduced in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, and a translation into English by W. Telfer. Telfer's translation was less useful than Sharples and van der Eijk allow, being rendered into a post-Kantian philosophical diction with a rather idiosyncratic theological commentary. Sharples and van der Eijk's interests lie in ancient philosophy and its history and (with van der Eijk) in ancient medicine. Nemesius, though not a medical doctor himself (he was a Christian bishop, which would not in itself exclude professional medical knowledge, though it would be unusual), is deeply interested in medical matters and displays wide medical learning. Naturally, the expertise of the translators colours their presentation of the treatise. In their introduction and extensive and often lengthy notes, they clarify Nemesius' own views and his knowledge of the learned tradition, both philosophical and medical (though these were less distinct in late antiquity than they are today, as a good deal of recent patristic research has revealed), and also place him in the context of the development in late antiquity of the understanding of man in his relation to the world and God. The annotation is less strong on theology, so that the extraordinarily close parallels that exist, for instance, between Nemesius and Gregory of Nyssa go mostly unexplored. The translators are conscious of this and refer the reader to Telfer, but I fear that any readers who follow this advice will notice something of a difference between the sharp observations of the translators and the rather woollier comments of Telfer. The influence of Nemesius also is little explored, though it is not ignored. It would appear that Nemesius' treatise was scarcely known for over two centuries, being perhaps discovered by Maximus the Confessor who makes extensive (unacknowledged) use of Nemesius, especially for the understanding of the passions and the nature of providence. Maximus' use of Nemesius is reflected in John Damascene (who quotes Nemesius more precisely, though again without acknowledgement), and thereby passed into the general Byzantine consciousness. Ancient translations of the treatise into Syriac, Arabic, Armenian and Georgian suggest wide-spread interest in Nemesius throughout the eastern Christian world. Even though this translation does little more than make the reader aware of the wide-ranging influence of this treatise, its clear presentation of the work in its late antique context will mightily assist any exploration of this influence. This is a very welcome addition to the already immensely distinguished series, Translated Texts for Historians. Early Medieval Europe, Vol. 18 (4) ...its clear presentation of the work in its late antique context will mightily assist any exploration of this influence. This is a very welcome addition to the already immensely distinguished series, Translated Texts for Historians. Early Medieval Europe Vol. 18 (4)
