No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2014
The only reference to the Athenian general Lamachus in the Platonic corpus is at Laches 197c6 where Nicias compares Laches to him. In response to Laches' criticism that Nicias is embellishing himself with his words (κοσμεῖ τῷ λόγῳ, La. 197c3), and trying to deny that those agreed to be courageous are indeed courageous, Nicias says:
Οὔκουν σέ γε, ὦ Λάχης, ἀλλὰ θάρρει‧ φημὶ γάρ σε εἶναι σοφόν, καὶ Λάμαχόν γε, εἴπερ ἐστὲ ἀνδρεῖοι, καὶ ἄλλους γε συχνοὺς Ἀθηναίων. (La. 197c6–8)
This paper was originally presented at the Australasian Society for Classical Studies 33rd Annual Conference, and I am grateful to those who commented on it there. I am indebted to my colleagues James Ley and Anthony A. Hooper, as well as to Classical Quarterly's anonymous referee, for their insightful comments and recommendations. My sincerest thanks to Professor Rick Benitez for prompting this inquiry, commenting on an earlier draft of it, and for his endless inspiration and encouragement.
1 All translations of the Laches are my own. Unless otherwise noted, all other translations, as well as all Greek texts, are from the Loeb editions.
2 See e.g. Allen, R.E. (tr.), The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 3. Ion, Hippias Minor, Laches, Protagoras (New Haven and London, 1996), 61–85, at 81 n. 14Google Scholar; Emlyn-Jones, C. (tr.), Plato: Laches (London, 1998)Google Scholar, 112 n. c6; Saunders, T.J. (ed.), Plato: Early Socratic Dialogues (London, 1987), 110 n. 1 [2005 ed., tr. I. Lane, pp. 69–83]Google Scholar; Sprague, R.K. (tr.), in Cooper, J.M. (ed.), Plato Complete Works (Indianapolis, 1997), 664–86, at 682 n. 6Google Scholar; Sprague, R.K. (tr.), Plato: Laches and Charmides (Indianapolis and Cambridge, 1992), 13–49, at 43 n. 64Google Scholar; Waterfield, R. (tr.), Plato: Meno and Other Dialogues (New York, 2005), 35–66 and 188Google Scholar.
3 See Thuc. 6.8–15 and 20–3 for Nicias' objections to the expedition and reluctance to accept leadership of it; see 6.15–18 for Alcibiades' opposing views. For Nicias' recommended strategy see 6.47; for that of Alcibiades see 6.48; and for that of Lamachus see 6.49.
4 Smith, C.F. (tr.), Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War, Vol. 3. Books 5–6 (London, 1921)Google Scholar.
5 Perrin, B. (tr.), Plutarch: Lives, Vol. 3. Pericles and Fabius Maximus. Nicias and Crassus (Cambridge, MA, 1943, 1955)Google Scholar.
6 However, despite his skill and experience in battle, Plutarch notes that Lamachus' authority was undermined in the eyes of his soldiers by his poverty (Nic. 15.1.5–2.1 and Alc. 21.6.8–9).
7 φιλοκίνδυνος also has the negative connotation of fool-hardiness (LSJ).
8 See LSJ, s.v. An example of Lamachus' harshness or savagery could perhaps be seen in Against Agoratus, where Lysias notes (67.2–4) that one of Agoratus' brothers ‘… was caught in Sicily making traitorous signals, and by Lamachus’ order he was executed on the plank’; see Lamb, W.R. (tr.), Lysias (London, 1930), 278–333Google Scholar. In Daremberg, C. and Saglio, M. Edmond (edd.), Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines (Paris, 1877–1919), 1523–30, at 1526Google Scholar, in the entry on ‘strategos’, G. Colin contends that such punishment was unusual. The less usual such executions were, the more savage Lamachus could be seen to be for ordering them. See Hamel, D., Athenian Generals (Boston, MA, 1998), 60–3 for a discussion of whether or not such executions were indeed unusualGoogle Scholar.
9 Lamachus' loss of the ten ships in 424 b.c. could similarly be interpreted as the result of recklessness, foolishness or lack of caution. However, this is speculative, as the sources offer us no information regarding how this loss reflected on Lamachus, and whether he was blamed for it in any way.
10 Alcibiades by this time was of course no longer in command of the Athenian forces, after disappearing on his way back to Athens to stand trial for the profanation of the Mysteries (see Thuc. 6.53, 61).
11 The exact dramatic date of the dialogue is irrelevant for my purposes in this paper. All that is required is that it lies after the production of Aristophanes' Acharnians in 425 b.c., which is not disputed.
12 Henderson, J. (tr.), Aristophanes. Vol. 1: Acharnians. Knights (London, 1998)Google Scholar. This line is repeated at 1071. Unless otherwise noted, all translations of Acharnians are Henderson's.
13 See also 964–5, where the epithet traditionally denoting Ares, ὁ δεινός, ὁ ταλαύρινος (e.g. at Hom. Il. 5.289; 20.78; 22.267), is used to describe Lamachus. Aristophanes also uses it as an epithet of war itself at Peace 241. For a discussion of this see Olson, D.S., Aristophanes: Acharnians (New York, 2002), 309 (on lines 964–5)Google Scholar. See also the most recent discussion of Lamachus in Acharnians, in Sidwell, K., Aristophanes the Democrat (Cambridge, 2009), 139–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sidwell suggests that the identification of Lamachus with ‘War’ may have pre-dated Aristophanes' portrayal of him in Acharnians. He speculates that Cratinus identified Lamachus with ‘War’ in one of his plays, possibly the comedy Horae (140), and that Aristophanes appropriated this identification. I am grateful to the referee for drawing this to my attention.
14 Sommerstein, A.H. (tr.), Aristophanes:Acharnians (Warminster, 1980), 141Google Scholar.
15 For Lamachus' helmet as adorned with crests and feathers see lines 575, 965, 1109 and 584, 988, 1103, 1105, 1182 respectively; for his Gorgon shield see lines 574, 582–5, 1124, 1181. For the historical Lamachus' possession of such a shield, see Olson (n. 13), 223 (on lines 572–4).
16 For example see Ach. 577 and 593.
17 Aristophanes' Lamachus, however, must of course be distinguished from the historical Lamachus. While the historical Lamachus could be seen as bellicose, Aristophanes' Lamachus is undoubtedly an extreme caricature. After Lamachus' death Aristophanes presented Lamachus in a positive light in Women at the Thesmophoria (841) and Frogs (1039). My concern in this paper is, however, solely with the perception of Lamachus at the time of the dramatic date of the Laches, which comes before the production of both Women at the Thesmophoria and Frogs.
For a discussion of the complexities of the Aristophanic view of Lamachus see Sidwell (n. 13), 143–4, 271. For an exploration of Aristophanes' choice of Lamachus rather than another ancient Greek general as the personification of bellicosity in Acharnians, see Ercolani, A., ‘Sprechende Namen und politische Funktion der Verspottung am Beispiel der Acharner’, in id. (ed.), Spoudaiogeloion: Form und Funktion der Verspottung in der aristophanischen Komödie (Stuttgart, 2002), 225–54, at 233CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 For a discussion of Plato's use of comedy, see Brock, R., ‘Plato and comedy’, in Craik, E.M. (ed.), Owls to Athens (New York, 1990), 39–49Google Scholar (once more, I am grateful to the referee for drawing this to my attention).
19 See La. 195a7; 195a11–b1; 195b2–6; 196a8–b9; 196c5–6; 197c2–5; 197c6–8; 197c9–10; 197d7–9; 197e5; 197e9; 199e16–200a3; 200a4–c2.