Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:49:47.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Five Talents Cleon Coughed Up (Schol. Ar. Ach. 6)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Edwin M. Carawan
Edwin M. Carawan
Affiliation:
Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the opening lines of Aristophanes' Acharnians, Dicaeopolis counts first among his greatest joys ‘the five talents Cleon coughed up’, and he professes his love of the Knights for this service ‘worthy of Hellas’. The ancient scholiast gave what he thought an obvious explanation from Theopompus (F 94): he tells us that Cleon was accused of taking bribes to lighten the tribute of the islanders, and he was then fined ‘because of the outrage (ὑβρ⋯ζειν) against the Knights’. Evidently Theopompus connected the charges against Cleon with some earlier proceedings instigated by Cleon against the Cavalry. There is, as often, some difficulty in determining what Theopompus said and what the scholiast inferred, and, aside from that editorial problem, the scholiast's all-too-simple solution faces at least three major objections regarding the legal and political implications of such a trial. On the strength of such objections it was long ago supposed that Dicaeopolis rejoices not at a recent political defeat for the demagogue, but in recalling a theatrical expose in Babylonians of the previous year. This theory of a stage trial, however, encounters obstacles of its own in any reconstruction of the lost play. In recent work there have been many comments but no altogether satisfactory solution on this problem. It is the view of many that Cleon indeed suffered some political defeat in the year preceding Ach.; but, by this approach, ingenious solutions are required to make sense of the scholia. The assumption of a stage-trial, involving the Knights and Cleon in Babylonians, is still found persuasive by others, but if we are to discount the fragment of Theopompus, which has supporting testimony elsewhere in the scholiastic tradition, we would like to have something more than mere inference that Cleon was tried and convicted in Babylonians. The purpose of this paper is to find a more cogent explanation for these lines in Ach. and the equally puzzling scenario in Theopompus. It will be helpful to begin with the broad outlines of the problem (section I), and then proceed to re-examine the prevailing views, the stage-trial theory (II) and historical theories based upon the scholia (III).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , May 1990 , pp. 137 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schol. Ach. 6Google Scholar in Venetus (et al.): … ⋯ζημιώθη γ⋯ρ ⋯ Κλ⋯ων π⋯ντε τ⋯λαντα δι⋯ τ⋯ ὑβρ⋯ζειν τοὺς ἱππ⋯ας. παρ⋯ τν νησιωτν ἔλαβε π⋯ντε τ⋯λαντα ⋯ Κλ⋯ων ἵνα πε⋯σ τοὺς Ἀθηνα⋯ους κουφ⋯σαι αὐτοὺς τς εἰσφορς. αἰσθ⋯μενοι δ⋯ οἱ ἱππες ⋯ντ⋯λεγον κα⋯ ⋯πῄτησαν αὐτ⋯ν. μ⋯μνηται Θε⋯πομπος (=F94). Cf. Connor, W. R., Theopompus (Washington, 1968), pp. 53–9Google Scholar, with nn. pp. 157–9; Jacoby, , FGrHist II B Komm. 370f.Google Scholar As Connor observes, the first comment (⋯ζημιώθη, κτλ.) appears to be the scholiast' own inference, since in the Ravenna MS., this comment comes after the name-citation: … παρ⋯ τν νησιωτν ἔλαβε π⋯ντε τ⋯λαντα ⋯ Κλ⋯ων … οἱ ἱππες ⋯ντ⋯λεγον κα⋯ ⋯πῄτησαν αὐτ⋯ν. μ⋯μνηται Θε⋯πομπος. ⋯πλ⋯στως ⋯λλ⋯τρια καταφαγών, αὐτ⋯. ⋯ζημιώθη γ⋯ρ ⋯ Κλ⋯ων π⋯ντε τ⋯λαντα δι⋯ τ⋯ ὑβρ⋯ζειν τοὺς ἱππ⋯ας.

2 Lübke, H., Observations Criticae (Berlin, 1883), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar This view is accepted by (among others) J. van Leeuwen in his commentary on Ar. Ach. (1901) ad loc.; by Douglass Parker in his classic translation of Acharnians (1961); and by MacDowell, D. M. in G&R 30 (1983), 145.Google Scholar See also Reckford, K. J., Aristophanes' Old and New Comedy (Chapel Hill, NC, 1987), p. 131Google Scholar n. 13. Müller-Strübing, H., Aristophanes und die historische Kritik (Leipzig, 1873), pp. 119–81Google Scholar, argued that these lines refer to a defeat of Cleon' fiscal policy in the assembly. Similar views were held by Busolt (supposing Cleon was hellenotamias in 427/6) Griech. Gesch. iii.2: 994Google Scholar; Croiset, M., Aristofane et les partis à Athènes (Paris, 1906), p. 83Google Scholar; and, in recent work, Kraus, W., Aristophanes' Politische Komödien (Vienna, 1985), pp. 32–3Google Scholar with n. 4. See further below, nn. 7–12.

3 On the role of Callistratus and the question of whom Cleon charged in regard to Bab., cf. Ach. 377–8, 502–3Google Scholar with scholia, and see Mastromarco, G. in Quaderni di Storia 10 (1979), 153–96Google Scholar; and, in this journal, Halliwell, S., CQ 30 (1980), 33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, arguing that Aristophanes himself was recognized ‘author’ of Bab. and Ach.; MacDowell, D., CQ 32 (1982), 21–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, insisting that ‘the plays of 427–5 belong to the “secret” period, when Aristophanes was in a subordinate position’ (24). Whoever was generally recognized as ‘poet’ of Bab. there can be little doubt that Aristophanes' authorship was well enough known (Eg. 512–16Google Scholar) that he was bound to be implicated in proceedings against Callistratus. In fact, it is sometimes supposed that it was because of the legal liability that Aristophanes finally assumed authorship in his own name for Knights; cf. Kraus, , p. 114.Google Scholar In the most detailed discussion of the case, Steffen, V., Eos 47 (1954), 7–21, and 48 (1956), 67–73Google Scholar, also argues that Aristophanes was named as defendant. The question of procedure is still uncertain. The scholia and hypothesis II to Eq. refer to a γραφ⋯ ξεν⋯ας, but this is probably a mistaken inference of the scholiast or his source. Wilamowitz, , ‘Über die Wespen des Aristophanes’, Sitz. Preus. Akad. Wis. 1911, p. 462Google Scholar n. 2 (= Kleine Schriften i.286 n. 2), suggested προβολ⋯. Ostwald, M. in From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law (Berkeley, 1986), p. 207Google Scholar suggests that the procedure followed the decree of Cannonus (cf. Xen. Hell. 1.7.20); the actual charges may have been ⋯δικ⋯α εἰς τ⋯ν δμον. Evidently Ar. was then threatened with further prosecution after Knights, but arranged a settlement, as Wasps 1284–91Google Scholar would suggest (though Halliwell, , 35Google Scholar n. 11, doubts that these lines refer to a clash after Knights). This problem and the general question of the law on comedy will require more detailed treatment in a further study.

4 Rosen, R. in Old Comedy and the lambographic Tradition (1988 = American Classical St. 19)Google Scholar makes a generally persuasive case that conventions of such invective (esp. in Knights) were influenced by the iambic tradition (though some connections seem forced). Rosen suggests (63 with nn. 9–10) that the tradition of legal proceedings by Cleon against the poet of Bab. is purely conventional; he cites Gelzer' caution, RE Suppl. 12.1398, that the scholia seem to be based upon inference from comedy. Kraus, with constructive treatment of conventional features in political satire, accepts the historicity of the quarrel, pp. 30–3, 61, 113–14; see esp. 167–78 on the ideological dispute between poet and demagogue.

5 Hypothesis Ar. Eg. 11: … ⋯ δ⋯ χ⋯ρος ⋯κ τν ἱππ⋯ων ⋯στ⋯ν, οἳ κα⋯ ⋯ζημ⋯ωσαν τ⋯ν Κλ⋯ωνα π⋯ντε ταλ⋯ντοις ⋯π⋯ δωροδοκ⋯ᾳ ⋯λ⋯ντα. Cf. anon. vit. Ar. 12.3–4: … κα⋯ αἴτιος αὐτ γ⋯γονε [⋯ Ἀριστοφ⋯νης] ζημ⋯ας π⋯ντε ταλ⋯ντων, ἃ ὑπ⋯ τν Ἱππ⋯ων κατεδικ⋯σθη, ὡς φησιν ⋯ν Ἀχαρνεσιν … δι⋯χθρενε δ⋯ αὐτο Βαβυλων⋯οις δι⋯βαλε τν Ἀθηνα⋯ων τ⋯ς κληρωτ⋯α ⋯ρχ⋯ς παρ⋯ντων ξ⋯νων. ‘τ⋯ κ⋯αρ εὐφρ⋯νθην ἰδών, τος π⋯ντε ταλ⋯ντοις οἱς Κλ⋯ων ⋯ξ⋯μεσεν.’ Although the passage preceding in 12.3 has to do with the performance of Knights, it is clear that the clause κα⋯ αἴτιος…π⋯ντε ταλ⋯ντων begins a new sentence belonging to the discussion of Ach. 6 and Bab. The jumbled account in vit. Ar. 12.3, however, is possibly the source of the error in J. Tzetzes schol. Nub. 549a: Clouds 550Google Scholar implies a crushing defeat for the demagogue, and Tzetzes, confusing the chronology, apparently supposed the five-talents fine was prompted by Eq.: τουτ⋯στι γρ⋯ψας κατ᾽ αὐτο τ⋯ν τν Ἱππ⋯ων κωμῳδ⋯αν ⋯πο⋯ησα π⋯ντε ταλ⋯ντοις αὐτ⋯ν ζημιωθναι.

6 For procedures against bribery and corruption, see, most recently, MacDowell, D. M. in RIDA 30 (1983), 57–78Google Scholar; Hansen, M. H., Eisangelia (Odense, 1975), esp. pp. 44–9Google Scholar; Roberts, J. T., Accountability in Athenian Government (Madison, WI, 1982), esp. pp. 14–29Google Scholar; and Carawan, E., in GRBS 28 (1987), 185–90Google Scholar. Cf. Muller-Strübing, , p. 128.Google Scholar For a ten-fold fine against rhetores, cf. Dinarchus 2.16–17. Alleged embezzlement on the part of hellenotamiai was punished by execution in the case mentioned by Antiphon, 5.69. See further below, nn. 20 and 24.

7 Müller-Strübing's theory depends upon the argument that Cleon held office as ‘Finance Minister’, (ταμ⋯ας τν δημοσ⋯ων προσ⋯δων) for the four-year term beginning in 426. In support of the argument from silence (cf. Müller-Strübing, , pp. 125–6Google Scholar, on Clouds parabasis), W. Rennie, in his commentary on Ar. Ach. (London, 1909), pp. 86fGoogle Scholar, assumes that Clouds 591f.Google Scholar (ἣν Κλ⋯ωνα τ⋯ν λ⋯ρον δώρων ⋯λ⋯ντες κα⋯ κλοπς …) would suggest Cleon had not as yet been convicted. A very useful study of Cleon's policy and his treatment in Ar. is given by Ostwald, , Sovereignty, pp. 205–7.Google Scholar

8 Lübke's theory on this issue is part of a general argument against the view that Ar. was charged under a law restricting comic licence, and the argument on that score is sound; cf. Halliwell, in CQ 34 (1984), 83–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Sommerstein, in CQ 36 (1986), 101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In support of the stage-trial theory Tzetzes' comment on Nub. 549Google Scholar is sometimes cited, but see above n. 5.

9 Lübke's theory would seem to find some support in the reference to Acharnians prologue in the comment by Gregory of Corinth (in Walz, Rh. Gr. 7.1345) on Hermogenes περ⋯ μεθ⋯δον δειν⋯τητος, 36.11. Hermogenes cites the first lines (ὅσα δ⋯ δ⋯δηγηαι…ἥσθην δ⋯ βαι⋯) as an obvious example of the ‘interweaving’ (πλοκ⋯) of the laughable and bitter, characteristic of comedy. Gregory then explains, χα⋯ρειν ον ἔφη, ὅτι ⋯ Κλ⋯ων εἰσ⋯χθη ⋯παιτο⋯μενος παρ⋯ τη στρατιωτν[sic] π⋯ντε τ⋯λαντα, ἅπερ ⋯φε⋯λετο ⋯π⋯ τν νησιωτν ἵνα πε⋯σ τοὺς Ἀθηνα⋯ους ⋯πικουφ⋯σαι το⋯τοις τοὺς φ⋯ρους. Connor insists (pp. 55–6) that Gregory here implies a stage trial, as the ambiguous term εἰσ⋯χθη is used a few lines later meaning ‘was brought on stage’; and he supposes the context in Hermogenes would also suggest reference to a stage trial. Neither point is convincing: εἰσ⋯γειν of course is regularly used of prosecution, ‘to bring before the court’, as Connor notes. The context in Hermogenes, moreover, lends little support to the stage-trial theory (so far as I can see). Connor concludes, however, that, though Gregory assumed Ach. 6Google Scholar refers to a stage trial, this is likely to be his own inference from the allusion in Hermogenes, and was not suggested by Theopompus himself.

10 Connor, though willing enough to see pervasive influence of Old Comedy in the digression On the Demagogues (102–3), is none the less inclined to accept ‘the simplest hypothesis’ (56) that ‘Ach. 6 and Theopompus F 94 both refer to a historical event in which Cleon was somehow forced to part with five talents’. For the common assumption that Theopompus readily followed the slanders of Old Comedy, cf. Bloch, H. in HSCP suppl., vol. i (1940), 354–5Google Scholar, supposing the identification of Hyperbolus' father as Chremes (F 95) derives from comedy.

11 On ‘absurdist’ technique in Old Comedy, cf. McLeish, K., The Theatre of Aristophanes (New York, 1980), p. 67.Google Scholar The parody of Euripides' Telephus is a unifying device, imposing a comic logic of its own, and the phrase ἄξιον γ⋯ρ Ἑλλ⋯δι is meant to be an obvious echo (schol. Ach. 8 = fr. 720, Nauck). Cf. Rau, P., Paratragodia (1967 = Zetemata 45), 19–42Google Scholar; and now Foley, Helene in JHS 108 (1988), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Against the stage-trial theory, see esp. Croiset, , p. 68Google Scholar; and Kraus, , pp. 32–3.Google Scholar On the assumption that the chorus of Bab. were enslaved allies, see further Kraus, , pp. 104–7.Google Scholar This traditional interpretation, going back to Wilamowitz (Kl. Schr. i.286) was rightly challenged however by Norwood, in CP 25 (1930), 1–10Google Scholar; his suggestion that the chorus are to be identified as followers of the god, whom he has come to release, should not be lightly disregarded. The view that the chorus were subjugated allies is based upon the apparent identification of some among them as ‘Samian’ (Σαμ⋯ων ⋯ δμ⋯ς ⋯στιν ὡς πολυγρ⋯μματος, fr. 64 Edmonds); but this is obviously a play upon πολυγρ⋯μματος.

13 Schol. Ach. 378Google Scholar: ⋯κωμῴδμσε γ⋯ρ τ⋯ς τε κληρωτ⋯ς κα⋯ χειροτονητ⋯ς κα⋯ χειροτονητ⋯ς ⋯ρχ⋯ς κα⋯ Κλ⋯ωνα παρ⋯ντων τν ξ⋯νων. See Lübke, , p. 18Google Scholar; but cf. anon. vit. Ar. 12.4, δι⋯βαλε τν Ἀθηνα⋯ων τ⋯ς κληρωτ⋯ς ⋯ρχ⋯ς παρ⋯ντων ξ⋯νων. The note in vit. Ar. 12.3, αἴτιος [⋯ Ἀριστοφ⋯νης] ζημ⋯ας π⋯ντε ταλ⋯ντων, would also indicate an expose of corruption, but rather than imply a trial of Cleon on stage, it suggests that Bab. stirred public outrage. The notion in schol. Ach. 378Google Scholar, that libel of Cleon was among the charges against Aristophanes is also contradicted by what we know of the law on comedy, as there appears to be no restriction against ⋯νομαστ⋯ κωμῳδεν in this period; see nn. 3–4, and 8 above.

14 A possible role for hippeis in Bab. cannot be altogether discounted, especially as they may have been nearly stock characters in early comedy (as suggested by the familiar black-figure amphora depicting a chorus of ‘Knights’ in the Berlin Museum, no. F 1697). Likewise we cannot disprove the alternate hypothesis that a trial of Cleon in Bab. was in fact inspired by an earlier prosecution, whether by hippeis or others.

15 With Knights 225–7Google Scholar: ΔΗΜΟΣ. ⋯λλ᾽ εἰσ⋯ν ἱππες ἄνδρες ⋯γαθο⋯ χ⋯λιοι | μισοντες αὐτ⋯ν, οἳ βοηθ⋯σουσ⋯ σοι, | κα⋯ τν πολιτν οἱ καλο⋯ τε κ⋯γαθο⋯, cf. schol. Eq. 226Google Scholar: Θε⋯πομπος (F 93) ⋯ν δεκ⋯τῳ Θιλιππικν φησιν ὅτι οἱ ἱππες ⋯μ⋯σουν αὐτ⋯ν. προπηλακισθε⋯ς γ⋯ρ ὑπ᾽ αὐτν κα⋯ παροξυνθε⋯ς ⋯πετ⋯θη τ πολιτε⋯ᾳ κα⋯ διετ⋯λεσεν εἰς αὐτοὺς κακ⋯ μηχανώμενος. κατηγ⋯ρησε γ⋯ρ αὐτν ὡς λειποστρατο⋯ντων. See also Müller-Strubing, , pp. 131–3.Google Scholar

16 Cf. schol. Eq. 225Google Scholar, οἱ ἱππες ⋯π⋯θοντο αὐτ, ⋯πε⋯ ὅτε ν ες αὐτν, κακς αὐτοὺς δι⋯θηκεν. Tzetzes, J. on Clouds 549aGoogle Scholar, ἱππεὺς περιδ⋯ξιος, tends to confirm his status in the cavalry. See Davies APF8674; Bourriot, F., ‘La famille et le milieu social de Cleon’, Hist. 31 (1982), 404–35Google Scholar; and now Bugh, G., The Horsemen of Athens (Princeton, 1988), pp. 107–14.Google Scholar

17 Connor, , The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (Princeton, 1971), p. 152Google Scholar n. 32, based upon schol. Eq. 627 and Suda s.v. ‘hippeis’, ἔξην δ⋯ αὐτος ⋯πιτιμν κα⋯ κομν. Bugh, however, notes ⋯πιτιμν is omitted in Koster's edition of Suda, and, he argues, ⋯πιτιμν here means ‘to show honour’ (i.e. in ceremony) not ‘to impose fines’ as Connor supposed (since it follows reference to sacrificial processions, hippades). If the Cavalry held authority to discipline their own membership, it is highly unlikely that their competence to impose fines extended beyond the 500 drachmas to which the council itself was limited in the fourth century. The official role of hippeis, then (as Connor suggested in Theopompus, p. 57Google Scholar) was probably no more than that certain officers initiated legal action which was later to come before the proper judicial body.

18 Gilbert, G., Beiträge zur innern Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter des peloponnesischen Krieges (Leipzig, 1877), pp. 133–42Google Scholar, argues that a charge of lipostratia was prompted by the inactivity of the hippeis in summer campaign 427, and the 5t was a proposed reduction in the katastasis. Cf. Busolt, GG 3.2: 994 n. 6; Gomme, , HCT 2: 290Google Scholar. On the role of Cleon in raising eisphora, see Thomsen, R., Eisphora (Copenhagen, 1964), pp. 168–70Google Scholar; and cf. Ostwald, , Sovereignty, p. 205Google Scholar n. 23. Aristophanes clearly implies, however, that Cleon had profited from Miletus and Mytilene: Eq. 361, 830–5 and 923–40).Google Scholar

19 On F 93, cf. Connor, , pp. 52–5Google Scholar; Jacoby, , FGrHist II B Komm. 370f.Google ScholarFornara, 's solution, ‘Cleon' Attack Against the Cavalry’, CQ 23 (1973), 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is now accepted by Kraus, , pp. 32–3Google Scholar, and Bugh, , p. 112.Google Scholar

20 On procedure in προβολ⋯, cf. Ath. Pol. 43.5; Isoc. 15.314; Dem. 21, esp. 218, Ἀριστοφν ⋯ποδοὺς τοὺς στεφ⋯νους ἔλυσε τ⋯ν προβολ⋯ν See also Lipsius, , Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (Leipzig, 1905–1915), pp. 215–16Google Scholar; and Carawan, , GRBS 28 (1987), 170–8.Google Scholar Another possible procedure, with simple fine in the amount of the damages, is suggested by Ath. Pol. 54.2, on euthynai in the fourth century. Presumably Cleon could have been charged with adikion in the accountings of bouleutai, mid–summer 426; but such a painless remedy probably applied only in petty offences (cf. MacDowell, , RIDA 30 [1983], 58Google Scholar), and such a scenario does not help to explain the role of hippeis. Admittedly, we have no certain instance where proceedings for bribery per se were initiated by προβολ⋯, but I think it is a reasonable conclusion that the so-called ‘accountings’ of Cimon (Plut. Per. 10.5 = Cim. 14.4) were in fact initiated by προβολ⋯: see my arguments in GRBS 28 (1987), 202–5.Google Scholar In any event, the fact that προβολ⋯ was a regular procedure against sycophancy would certainly suggest that it was a proper remedy against official misconduct involving financial gain.

21 The connection between this passage in Knights and the allusion in Ach. 6 was noted by Bugh, , p. 111Google Scholar (who kindly sent me a draft of his chapter on this episode).

22 Cf. Ath. Pol. 43.5. The rule calling for probolai in the sixth prytany was possibly introduced along with restrictions of eisangelia in the fourth century, but it is likely that, prior to the rule, probolai against official misconduct were ordinarily initiated around mid year. For the date of the Lenaia, see Mikalson, J., The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton, 1975), pp. 109–10 and 200–1.Google Scholar The Lenaia would have occupied at least 4 days (consecutive) during the period Gamelion 12–21. There was a day or two devoted to procession and other observances before the dramatic contests; and thus the performance of Acharnians was no earlier than Gamelion 13 or 14, and perhaps a few days later. The κυρ⋯α ⋯κκλησ⋯α in the sixth prytany is likely to have been no later than Gamelion 9 or 11 (when assemblies are later attested). On the bouletic calendar see Rhodes, P. J., The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1972), pp. 224–8.Google Scholar

23 For similar revision in Frogs after the death of Sophocles, cf. Gelzer, T., Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes (1960 = Zetemata 23), pp. 26–31Google Scholar; Russo, C., Aristofane Autore di Teatro (Florence, 1962), pp. 311–16Google Scholar; Dover, K. J., Aristophanic Comedy (Berkeley, 1972), pp. 180–3.Google Scholar See also Russo, , p. 339Google Scholar, on Ecclesiazusae 1154–62Google Scholar, and Reckford, , pp. 134–5Google Scholar. In Ach. 300Google Scholar, Aristophanes evidently draws upon recent events to give advance publicity to his next lampoon of Cleon; presumably the late-breaking story made the news sometime after the allotment of choruses in late summer or fall of 426. If the clash with Cleon in the Knights were a sequel to Bab., we would expect it to have come a year earlier.

24 For false prosecution and προβολ⋯ cf. Xen. Hell. 1.7.35, and see n. 20 above. The officers charged with ‘dereliction of duty’ possibly included one or both of the hipparchs mentioned in Eq. 242–3Google Scholar, Simon and Panaitios. Bugh supposes, pp. 90–2, that one or the other may have been a hero of the recent victory at Solygeia. The scholiast suggests that they were advocates of the hippeis against malicious charges: ὡς συκοφαντο⋯μενοι ⋯πικαλονται εἰς βο⋯θειαν τοὺς ἱππ⋯ας. References to the Cavalry as ‘conspirators’, in Eg. 626–30Google Scholaret passim, probably reflect partisan rhetoric: there is no mention of conspiracy proceedings (eisangelia) in the scholia, though various explanations of ξυνωμοσ⋯α are given (schol. Eq. 236, 257, 476–8Google Scholar) and the scholiast attempts to explicate the proceedings in council parodied in Eq. 626–30Google Scholar. Charges of dereliction or desertion (⋯στρατε⋯ας or λιποταξ⋯ου) were ordinarily heard before military juries, as in Lysias, 14, 15Google Scholar; cf. Lipsius, , 452–5Google Scholar. The charges in Lys. 14.5–7 suggest an interpretation of the law suitable to our case: the younger Alcibiades is accused of taking refuge in the cavalry to avoid more hazardous duty in the ranks of the hoplites.

25 Cf. schol. Ach. 378Google Scholar and anon. vit. Ar. 12.3, and see above nn. 3–5, 8–9, 13.

26 For their helpful comments on an early draft of this paper, I am indebted to Elizabeth Bobrick and Kenneth Reckford; and to Douglas MacDowell for his constructive remarks as referee for CQ.