?Post-Structuralist Classics? is not so much a manifesto as an attempt ?to indicate the presence of a new direction now being taken in classical studies?. ?Post-structuralism? is here broadly understood as an attention to ?the inherently theoretical dimension of reading and interpretation with emphasis upon the interdependence of philosophy and literary theory. (?) The subjects covered by the papers include Homer, Hesiod, Heraclitus, Greek tragedy, Plato, Theocritus, Terence, and augustan poetry. (?) Apart from Kofman?s piece (?) none of the articles has appeared elsewhere in its present form. As the editor points out, the volume serves ultimately to highlight the absence of any unified ?post-structuralist? approach. (?) The collection covers a broad spectrum, including theoretical reflections with genuine intellectual force as well as the kind of trivialization which has aroused hostility to the approach. (?) Work of this nature must overcome the common prejudice that traditional scholarship and the exploration of contemporary theory are mutually exclusive realms of competence. The editor makes the point that ?classical studies have always been concerned with meticulous readings and that, while the volume is conceived as an ?important challenge to the conventional practice of classical studies and ancient philosophy?, the contributions exemplify ?the same care and concern for scholarship which has always characterized these domains of intellectual research (?). Theres is much substance to support this claim, but, regrettably, the Greek is haunted by ?barbarous psychai? (?). Secondly, it is perhaps time for greater diversification, a need now to shift concentration from Derrida and to recognize that his work emerges from a rich and fertile tradition of Continental thought, grounded in Classical philology and philosophy, which has too often been ignored. Finally, there are significant contributions to this collection, and in particular, for those deterred by the ?thaumatology? of ?deconstruction?, (?). But does ?Post-Structuralist Classics? provide us with any ?classics? of post-structuralist theory and practice? Ultimately one still feels the need for an engagement with major concerns within the discipline, in work that would be of sufficient significance to persuade others of the productive value of this dialogue between literature and philosophy. At a time when there are certain signs of a hardening of disciplinary boundaries, innovative interdisciplinary work must be scholarly, rigorous, imaginative, and important, such that it can justify itself, in the face of entrenched resistance, by the very read ins and insights it renders possible.? (MICAHEL LYNN-GEORGE in Phoenix, 1990, pp.286-92).