Notes
N O T E S INTRODUCTION 1. For a late composition of Thucydides’ History, see Munn (2000: 303–27). Gomme (1945–81: iii. 498), however, argues that the passages on Corcyra were written before the Athenian reconciliation; cf. Hornblower (1987: 154). 2. D.S. 13.52.2; Arist. Ath. Pol. 34.1. 2. For stasis in Greek political theory, see Cohen (1995: 25–57); Ober (1998). 3. For the terms of the reconciliation agreement, see Dorjahn (1946: 53); Ostwald (1986: 497); Loening (1987: 149); for the political condition of the Greek world, see Funke (1980: 12–17); for the social and economic problems of Athens, see Cloché (1915: 476); Mossé (1973: 12–20, 30); Strauss (1986: 3–6, 114, 173). 4. The danger of history is that it can reduce what happened to a chain of events leading to one inevitable outcome. Compare the remarks of Bernstein (1994: 29): ‘‘The Roman Empire ultimately collapsed, but does its downfall make what happened during its lengthy existence meaningless or count only as a step toward the sacking of Rome by barbarians?’’ 5. Aesch. 1.39, 173, 2.77–78, 147–48, 176, 3.187–95, 208, 235; Dem. 19.196, 277, 280, 20.11–12, 22.52, 24.57–58, 90, 164, 40.46, 58.67; Din. 1.25; Hyp. 2.8; Lyc. 1.61, 124. For the use of the civil war as a historical exemplum by late-fourth-century orators, see Nouhaud (1982: 301–16). Mathieu (1914) suggests that the orators obtained their information about the Thirty from pamphlets on the patrios politeia. But it is also possible that they were drawing from an oral tradition, which would explain why their references are little more than the ‘‘simple commonplaces’’ that Nouhaud (1982: 316) finds objectionable. The speakers were not delving into the civil war so they could use ‘‘historical facts’’ from the past to validate their arguments; rather, the memory of the Thirty had become part of the polis tradition in which they and their listeners were engaging. The civil war, although a historical event, was still a living memory, shaping and shaped by the outlook of the Athenians who were living in late-fourth-century Athens. See Thomas (1989: esp. 196–237), who o√ers an innovative approach to the study of Athenian oral tradition; also more generally Hutton (1993), who collapses the distinction between memory and history. 6. For the composition of Athenian political institutions, see Rhodes (1972: 3–6); Markle (1985; 1990); Ober (1989a: 127–48); Todd (1990a); Hansen (1991: 125–27, 182–86, 248–49). Despite disagreement over the extent to which the wealthy were over-represented, the poorer citizens had to attend in large numbers in order to meet the requisite quorum, and they were probably the majority in each of these institutions. 7. Dover (1974: 5–8); Ober (1989a: 43–49). It is possible that the published version of a speech could vary greatly from that delivered in public; see Worthington (1991). This makes it even more di≈cult to reconstruct a trial or to determine its ∞∂∏ F N O T E S T O PA G E S x i i i – x v i i outcome from a speech in the corpus of Attic orators; see further Todd (1990c). But, assuming that an orator would not render the published version less persuasive , revisions are actually useful for this study. Besides improving his style, the orator might strengthen his arguments or reply to objections raised by the opposing speaker. He might also improve upon his appeals to the jury, thus making it easier for us to uncover common opinions from the Attic orators. 8. Adkins (1978: 144–47). Yet it is also worth noting that speakers sometimes avoided appearing intellectual; see Pearson (1941); Perlman (1961); Dover (1974: 10–13); Ober (1989a: 177–82). 9. Adkins (1960: 197–214; 1972: 117–26); Loraux (1986: 180–202, 217–20, 334–35); Roberts (1986). 10. For the reapplying of aristocratic language and values, see North (1966: 116–17, 135–42); Seager (1973: 20–26); Donlan (1978: 101–2; 1980: 168–80); Whitehead (1983; 1993); Bleicken (1985: 193–95); Ober (1989a: 289–92 with n. 74, 336–39); Thomas (1989: 213–21); Raaflaub (1994: 126–30). 11. See especially Todd (1990c). Questions concerning the logographer’s own attitudes are nearly impossible to answer. Hence Dover (1968: 56) asserts, ‘‘We have no political or ideological grounds for denying the ascription to Lysias of any extant or lost...
OR
Buy This Book in Print