Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:25:38.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhetoric and history in [Andocides] 4, Against Alcibiades*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David Gribble
David Gribble
Affiliation:
6A Mandalay Road, Clapham, London SW4 9ED
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The work transmitted to us as the fourth speech in the manuscripts of Andocides is an invective against Alcibiades on the occasion of the last ostracism to occur in Athens, the ostracism of Hyper bolus. Despite a challenging article by Raubitschek1 pointing to certain authentic-looking details in the speech, most scholars would probably now agree that [And.] 4 is neither by Andocides, nor a genuine speech delivered on the occasion of the last ostracism, but is most likely to be a product of the fourth century. But if this general feeling is correct, why and in what context was the speech written? When in the fourth century did rhetoricians spend their time composing works like [And.] 4?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , December 1997 , pp. 367 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1997

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 P. C. Ghiggia, [Andocide] Contro Alcibiade (Pisa, 1995). It has not been possible to respond to it here.Google Scholar

1 A. E. Raubitschek, ‘The Case against Alcibiades (Andocides IV)’, TAPA 79 (1948), 191–210Google Scholar(= Raubitschek, The School of Athens [New York 1991], 116–31).Google Scholar

2 Also, the Olympic Games referred to in the speech (§§25–31), must be those of 416 J. Hatzfeld, Alcibiade [Paris, 1940], p. 130 n. 3.Google Scholar But W. D. Furley, ‘Andokides IV (‘Against Alcibiades’): Fact or Fiction?’, Hermes 117 (1989), 138–56 argues that [And.] 4, though published in 415, purports to represent a speech given on the occasion of an ostracism held in 417 or 416. Furley is thus compelled to maintain that the author of the speech was prepared to engage in deliberate and obvious anachronism in order to update the invective against Alcibiades with the material regarding Melos and the Olympics. The true date of the ostracism would be important for arguments regarding the authenticity of the speech if there were any agreement as to what the true date actually is; there is, however, no such agreement. The latest discussion of this ostracism (P. J. Rhodes, 'The Ostracism of Hyperbolus', in S. Hornblower and R. Osborne [edd.], Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis [Oxford, 1994], pp. 85–98) in fact uses the speech as one of the main arguments for a dating of the ostracism to 415. Cf. also C. Fuqua, 'Possible Implications of the Ostracism of Hyperbolus', TAPA 96 (1965), 165–79.Google Scholar

3 This is an important proviso. Since the speech has been ‘published’, this raises the question of the relationship between the published speech and the original which it purports to represent. There is a wide variety of possible relationships, including, for example, that between the written and originally delivered versions of the speeches of Demosthenes, or that between the Apology of Plato and the speech actually delivered by Socrates at his trial.

4 Thus A. Schroff, Zur Echtheitsfrage der vierten Rede des Andokides (Erlangen, 1901).Google Scholar

5 Thus L. C. Valckenaer, in J. O. Sluiter, Lectiones Andocideae (Ludgduni-Batavorum, 1804), pp. 17–26.Google Scholar

6 Furley (n. 2) believes the ostracism of Hyperbolus in fact took place in 417. If he had accepted the date for the ostracism implied by the speech itself, thus arguing for A2 or A3 (i), he would have avoided the difficulty pointed out in n. 2 above.

7 Thus Dover in HCT iv.287–8, arguing that the speech was composed by Andocides in the 390s and that the intended speaker was Leagoras, Andocides' father:cf. Dover, Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacwn (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), 191–2.Google ScholarDover later abandoned this viewpoint: Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford, 1974), p. 8, n. 1.Google ScholarE. Drerup, ‘Die Anfange der rhetorischen Kunstprosa’, in Untersuchungen zur dlteren griechischen Prosalitteratur. Wilhelm v. Christ zum 70. Geburtstag (Jahrbiicher fur klassische Philologie, Supp. 27 [1901], 219–351), pp. 327–8 also thought the speech was composed in the 390s by Andocides, but that the intended speaker was probably Phaeax.Google Scholar

8 This is the favoured solution of Raubitschek (above n. 1). Cf. also F. Vater, Dissertatio, qua Andocidea Oratio de Ostracismo Phaeaci Vindicatur, sive Rerum Andocidearum Caput Quartum (Neue Jahrbücher fur Philologie und Pädagogik, suppl. 11 [1845], 426–447).

9 All other accounts of the speech so far proposed can be grouped under this heading.

10 See n. 2, above.

11 Discussions of the testimonia: F. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit (Leipzig, 1887–982), pp. i.336–7;Google ScholarR. Jebb, The Attic Orators, (London, 1893), pp. 134–5;Google ScholarL. Gernet, ‘Notes sur Andocide’, part II:‘Le discours Contre Alcibiade’, RPh 57 (1931), 313ndash;26; Raubitschek (n. 1), 191–2; Furley (n. 2), 138–40.Google Scholar

12 [Plut.] Mor. 835: the speech referred to is called which ought to mean a defence given on an occasion when Phaeax was prosecutor. But it is likely that [And.] 4 is intended.

13 Harpocration s.v. Photius Bibliotheca 488a.

14 In addition, D.L. 2.63 ascribes a work Aiatvos to Aeschines of Sphettus, the Socratic. Possibly this conceals another reference to the speech with another guess at its authorship: thus Blass (n. 11), p. i.337; cf. ii.345, n. 1; and J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971), p. 522. But why attribute [And.] 4, the most obvious feature of which is its dramatic date of around 415, to Aeschines, whose activity as a speech writer belongs to the 360s (D.L. 2.62)? Philostratus (VS 481) says that Aeschines the orator began the tradition of declamatory speeches. Perhaps, as Doreen Innes suggests to me, the speech mentioned by Diogenes is really [And.] 4, but Diogenes has misunderstood an attribution to Aeschines the orator. Such an attribution would be consistent with the account of [And.] 4 offered at the end of this article: cf. n. 124 below.Google Scholar

15 15 Schroff (n. 4), pp. 8–9.

16 For other ways of emending the text see M. H. E. Meier, Commentationes de Andocidei quae vulgofertur oratione contra Alcibiadem, in Meier's Opuscula Academica (1861–3) pp. i.75ff., pp. 146–8; Blass (n. 11) p. i.337; Raubitschek (n. 1), p. 210.Google Scholar

17 There is a remarkable overlap of material between [And.] 4 and Plut. Ale. (cf. Appendix II below). Had Plutarch then read the speech, but, not having it to hand as he wrote, misremembered it? But then he would surely have remembered and mentioned the most important feature of the speech for the present context, namely that it is written for the occasion of the ostracism which he is actually discussing at this point of Ale. Perhaps, then, Plutarch had not read the speech himself, and is here recording a notice he found in a source which referred to the speech. Cf. Gernet (n. 11), pp. 321–2; Raubitschek (n. 1), p. 210; D. A. Russell, 'Plutarch, Alcibiades 1–16', PCPS n.s. 12 (1966), 37^47, pp. 43–44. Note that Plutarch also gives the impression of not having read the so-called of Antiphon which he cites at Ale. 3.1.

18 Raubitschek (n. 1), pp. 191–2.

19 Furley (n. 2), pp. 150–3. Furley's other points are arguments that the speech was composed by a contemporary Athenian, not that it was composed by Andocides: the speech is ‘inspired by the resentment of a less glamorous rival’ (p. 153), and its speaker belongs to the ‘oligarchic’ camp (p. 154). Both of these considerations, even if valid, would apply equally well to Phaeax (and indeed a great many other contemporary Athenians). For other objections to Furley, see Rhodes (n. 2), p. 90.

20 The main ground for trying to maintain Andocidean authorship of the speech is thus apparently a desire to preserve the traditional attribution at all costs. Thus Drerup (n. 7), p. 331: ‘Ich kann mich. nicht dazu verstehen, unsere Uberlieferung anzutasten.’

21 S. Feraboli, ‘Lingua e Stile della Orazione “Contro Alcibiade” attribuita ad Andocide’, SIFC 44 (1972), 5–37,Google Scholar summarized by M. Edwards, Greek Orators IV. Andocides (Warminster, 1995), pp. 208–11.Google Scholar

22 I doubt whether the stylistic differences between [And.] 4 and the other speeches of Andocides can be explained away simply by attributing them to ‘the different purpose and circumstances of our speech’ (Furley [n. 2], p. 149). Cf. Jebb (n. 11), pp. 135–6, and now Edwards (n. 21), p. 134.

23 Presumably meaning ‘revolutionary conspiracy’. Though an odd word, this goes better in combination with than the variant reading (which might refer to a charge of having squandered one's patrimony).

24 Meier (n. 16), pp. 96–108; Jebb (n. 11), p. 135.

25 H. B.Mattingly, ‘The Practice of Ostracism at Athens’, Antichthon 25 (1991), 1–26, pp. 24–5: so far five ostraka bearing Phaeax's name have been found. See Davies (n. 14) no. 13921 for the other ancient texts relating to Phaeax.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 We would have to assume that Plutarch (Ale. 13.1) is wrong in making Phaeax, like Alcibiades, a young man at the start of his political career: cf. Davies (n. 14), p. 522.

27 Cf. Furley (n. 2), pp. 142–3; Rhodes (n. 2), p. 90.

28 Thuc. 6.52–61, Plut. Ale. 22.

29 Cf. Raubitschek (n. 1), p. 207.

30 Aristophanes, Knights 1377–80.

31 See J. Carcopino, L'ostracisme athenien (Paris, 1935), pp. 57–72; and most recently Rhodes (n. 2), p. 89.Google Scholar

32 FGH 328, F30.

33 Raubitschek (n. 1), p. 197.

34 On pre-ostracism activity see Carcopino (n. 31), pp. 71–2;G. M. Calhoun, Athenian Clubs in Politics and Litigation (Bulletin of the University of Texas 262, Texas, 1913), pp. 139–40.Google Scholar

35 Jebb(n. 11), pp. 137–8.

36 The speaker indicates that Alcibiades will speak after him (§§25, 39, cf. 7): there is no suggestion that Nicias, the other named figure, will speak.

37 In particular, the purpose of mentioning Nicias as one of the figures involved is presumably to make it clear to the reader that the speaker is not Nicias.

38 Such scene-setting devices suggest a strong desire to imitate real speech: cf. Plato, Apol. 17clO, 20e4, 27bl–2, 30c2–3. It is, of course, also normal for published versions of really delivered speeches to retain the ‘dramatic’ details of the original trial: cf. E. Hall, ‘Lawcourt Dramas: the Power of Performance in Greek Forensic Oratory’, BICS 40 (1995), 39–58.

39 See especially Gernet (n. 11), pp. 313–20; and cf. also Fuqua (n. 2), pp. 172–5.

40 Cf. D. C. Innes, ‘Gorgias, Antiphon and Sophistopolis’, Argumentation 5 (1991), 221–31, p. 222.Google Scholar

41 D. A. Russell Greek Declamation (Cambridge 1983), pp. 32–3.Google Scholar

42 R. Kohl, De Scholasticarum Declamationum Argumentis ex Historia Petitis (Rhet. Stud. 4, 1915), nos 112–19; cf. Russell (n. 41), pp. 47–50, 123–4.Google Scholar

43 Alcibiades won the aristeia at Potidaea (Plato Symp. 220e), won an Olympic victory, and after a series of victories against the Spartans enjoyed a triumphal return to Athens in 407 at which he was said to have been awarded a golden crown by the city (Plut. Ale. 33a).

44 Cf. Sopater 8.2.4–10 in C. Walz, Rhetores Graeci (Tubingen, 1832–6): henceforward RG.

45 Thuc. 8.73.3.

46 Russell (n. 41), p. 112 (‘the declaimers studied Thucydides minutely’). Note esp. the Sicilian speeches of Aelius Aristides, and cf. L. Pernot, Les Discours Siciliens daelius Aristide (New York, 1981), pp. 25–9.

47 Russell (n. 41), p. 32. Cf. esp. [And.] 4, §§10, 13.

48 On Sopater's interest in ‘tragic’ forms, see D. C. Innes and M. Winterbottom, Sopatros the Rhetor. Studies in the Text of the the, BICS Suppl. 48 (London, 1988), p. 11. Such comparisons to the action of tragedy were also characteristic of fourth-, though not fifth-century Athens: seeGoogle ScholarP. J. Wilson, ‘Tragic Rhetoric: the Use of Tragedy and the Tragic in the Fourth Century’, in Silk, M. S. (ed.) Tragedy and the Tragic (Oxford, 1996), which includes an analysis of the relationship between tragedy and politics in [And.] 4.21–3.Google Scholar

49 Russell (n. 41), pp. 33–9.

50 Ibid., ch. 3.

51 Ibid., pp. 63–5.

52 Cf. Aesch. 3.194; Dem. 18.219.

53 Criticism of the law–giver is a declamatory topos: Libanius, Decl. 26.4, Decl. 33.9, with Russell (n. 41), p. 91. Cf. Pericles in the Funeral Speech (Thuc. 2.35), where such criticism also serves a rhetorical-structural purpose.

54 §§14,18, 21, 23, 30.

55 On the necessity of state supervision of the /3i'os of citizens, cf. Aristotle, Pol.

56 Compare the way Plutarch uses the more dynamic and controversial Phaeax as a foil to Alcibiades in his account of the ostracism of Hyperbolus in Ale, whereas in Nic. he had depicted Alcibiades and Nicias as the two main contestants. Cf. C. B. R. Pelling, ‘Plutarch and Thucydides’, in Stadter, P. A. (ed.), Plutarch and the Historical Tradition (London, 1991), pp. 10–40, p. 28, and p. 37, n. 48.Google Scholar

57 The details the speaker gives about himself in the last two paragraphs of the speech have been seen as an uncomfortable afterthought, in a place where we might have expected an appeal for pity. But throughout the speech the speaker has maintained that his past actions do not now require defence, and he has concentrated instead on prosecution, which he has just brought to a triumphant rhetorical conclusion in §§39–40, so that an appeal for pity would be bathetic. His tactics are in keeping with traditional rhetorical practice: brief summary of what he has argued in the course of the speech , and reaffirmation of his opponent's bad character .

58 Russell (n. 41), 52,69.

59 These are listed by Kohl (n. 42).

60 The classic example is Ajax and Odysseus competing for the arms of Achilles. Cf. also RG 8.98, 403. This type of exercise, the ultimate ancestor of which is perhaps Demosthenes' On the Crown, was classed under stasis pragmatike by Syrianus (RG 4.226).

61 Russell (n. 41), pp. 111–17.

62 Sopater, RG 8.4, 8.10.

63 Libanius, fr. 50 Forster; RG 5.10, cf. 6.468.

64 Libanius, Decl. 12.

65 Xen. Mem. 1.2.12ff; Isoc. 11.5–6. Replying to the charge that Socrates corrupted Alcibiades is an important theme in Libanius' Defence of Socrates. Note also the preoccupation with the education Alcibiades received from Socrates in Plut. Ale. 4–6.

66 Lysias, fr. 4 Thalheim; Antiphon, fr. 67 Thalheim.

67 Yet according to Thuc. 6.15.4 fear of which must include his erotic life, was one of the main origins for the Athenians' belief that Alcibiades was aiming at tyranny.

68 Cf. Innes (n. 40), pp. 221–2.

69 IG 1371 (R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Collection of Greek Historical Inscriptions 2[ Oxford, 1988], p. 69), 11. 8ff. Alcibiades too young: A. Andrewes, in HCTiv.49. See also Hatzfeld (n. 2), pp. 68–9. Cf. also Aristides 3.119–20 with the scholion ad loc. (Dindorf iii, 510).Google Scholar

70 Raubitschek (n. 1), pp. 198–9.

71 On public prosecutors, see M. Lavency, Aspects de la logographie judicaire attique (Louvain, 1964), p. 84, n. 1; and Sommerstein on Aristophanes, Ach. 685.Google Scholar

72 O. W Reinmuth, in RE 18.1683; cf. Raubitschek (n. 1), pp. 203–5. But Mattingly (n. 25), pp. 13–14 doubts the historicity of the ostracism of Alcibiades II and Callias.

73 Cf. Schroff's (above n. 4) demolition of many of Meier's arguments, and in general Raubitschek (n. 1).

74 Thuc. 4.101.2.

75 Ath. 5.218bc suggests a date in the years before 421: see Davies (n. 14), p. 262.

76 Raubitschek (n. 1), p. 199. Note that Hipponicus did lead an expedition against Boeotia in summer 426 (Thuc. 3.91.4).

77 Melos fell at the beginning of winter 416/5 (Thuc. 5.116.2–4). The ostracism imagined by the speaker must have taken place in or before the eighth prytany (Philochorus, FGH 328, F 30) of the Athenian year, i.e. before the end of May 415 at any rate, allowing a maximum of 7–8 months for the conception, gestation, and birth of the child. For the complex question of the chronology of the Athenian year 416/15 see HCT iv.264–76; Furley (n. 2), pp. 141–4, and the works cited there. The idea that the woman had been enslaved in an Athenian attack on the island earlier in 416 is impossible to reconcile with §22 of the speech (Blass [n. 11] pp. i.335, n. 5). For other suggestions, see Raubitschek (n. 1), pp. 200–1; Furley (n. 2), pp. 141–3. As Donald Russell points out to me, it may be significant that Alcibiades' son by his wife Hipparete (Davies' Alcibiades IV) was actually born at around this time (see Davies [n. 14], pp. 19–21): might the origin of this story be a slur on the birth of Alcibiades IV?

78 The only instance is §36, add. Blass].

79 Like [And.] 4, later theorizing on ostracism concentrated on the final ostracism in the search for the cause of the institution's obsolescence (W. R. Connor and J. J. Keaney, ‘Theopompus on the End of Ostracism’, AJP 90 [1969], 313–19). In [And.] 4 a figure involved in the final ostracism discourses at length about the problems of ostracism.

80 When the author says (§3) that there is no accusation or defence associated with ostracism, and no secret vote reading he means that none of the institutions of a formal trial are present: Raubitschek (n. 2), p. 196. There is thus no direct inconsistency with the supposed occasion of the speech.

81 Cf. Plut. Arist. 7.2; D.S. 11.87 (on petalismos).

82 Cf. Ar. Pol. 1284b20–2.

83 Cf. Aristotle (Pol. 1302b 18) and Theophrastus (fr. 640B Fortenbaugh with Connor-Keaney [n. 79]) note the existence of institutions resembling ostracism in other cities (and cf. D.S. 11.87 for Syracusan petalismos). So on this point the author of [And.] 4 is either contentious or pedantic.

84 Ar. Pol. 1284a3fT, cf. Ath. Pol. 22.3; Demetrius of Phaleron fr. 95 Wehrli; Theophrastus fr. 640B Fortenbaugh; Plutarch Arist. 7.2 (where Plutarch questions this traditional interpretation of ostracism). This is also Thucydides' view of ostracism: 8.73.3.

85 It is right to point out that there had apparently been no ostracism held in Athens since the ostracism of Thucydides in the 440s (though Aristophanes, Knights 855–7 shows that it was still seen as an active political tool). This would go some way towards providing a context for these lengthy observations on the institution.

86 Lys. 1.2 (where the speaker underlines the importance of the Athenian law on adultery by pointing to similar punishments in oligarchic law systems) is also odd, but does not go nearly as far as [And.] 4.6. For ostracism as an inherently democratic institution, cf. Ar. Pol.

87 The desire of the author to use every opportunity to bring in details of constitutional history also explains the peculiar request (§7) to the audience according to Theophrastus (fr. 640B Fortenbaugh), on the day of the ostracism Raubitschek (n. 1), p. 197 took §7 of the speech as an attempt by the speaker to give an official character to an informal meeting, rejecting the association with the role of the archons on the day of the ostracism ('their only duty was to guard the ballot boxes'). But (i) the only time when the archons were ever involved in assembly procedure was the day of the ostracism, and (ii) if there had been debates on the day of the ostracism (as the author of the helped in their organization.

88 Ar. Pol. 1284ab.

89 Thuc. 6.1.1 dates the beginning of Athenian plans to send a major expedition to Sicily to the winter of 416/15 when ambassadors were first sent to assess the appeal of the Egestans. The ambassadors returned at the beginning of spring and the Athenians immediately voted to send an expedition of sixty ships with Alcibiades and Nicias in command (Thuc. 6.8). We know from IG i393 (Meiggs and Lewis, no. 78) that it was at one stage contemplated to appoint just one general (presumably Alcibiades): see HCTiv.224–5.

90 Thuc. 6.15–18.

91 Plut. Arist. 7 with Carcopino (n. 31), p. 72 and Calhoun (n. 34), pp. 139–40. On the gossip associated with Cimon's ostracism see §33 of the speech with Plut. Cim. 15.2–3, 17.2. For the gossipy comments inscribed on ostraka see Meiggs and Lewis (n. 69), p. 42, andD. Lewis in A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks (1984), pp. 605–6.Google Scholar

92 Raubitschek (n. 1), p. 207 adds that the expedition may have been so popular, and Alcibiades' involvement so important to it, that the speaker may have preferred not to mention it.

93 A. R. Burn, ‘A Biographical Source on Phaiax and Alkibiades?’, CQ 4 (1954), 138–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

94 Cf. §10:

95 On anecdotes see R. Sailer, ‘Anecdotes as Historical Evidence for the Principate’, GR 27 (1980), 69–83;Google ScholarK. J. Dover, ‘Anecdotes, Gossip, and Scandal’, in The Greeks and Their Legacy (Oxford, 1988), pp. 45–52.Google Scholar

96 §§ 13, 17, 22.

97 It is important to remember, however, that if the speech is authentic the speaker may be short of time (cf. §10), and the stories he recounts familiar to his audience.

98 F. Wehrli, ‘Gnome, Anekdote und Biographie’, MH 30 (1973), 193–208, pp. 193–4; A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (19932), pp. 65–73. Like such works, [And.] 4 avoids the well-known public deeds of its subject, preferring those more personally revealing episodes which do not figure in the historians (cf. Plut. Alex. 1, Nic. 1).Google Scholar

99 Russell (n. 17), p. 37, n. 5 warns that 'there is no good reason for thinking that Satyrus' anecdotes about Alcibiades. come from a formal Life'.

100 [And.] 4.30, cf. Ath. 534d.

101 Translation slightly adapted from D. M. MacDowell, Demosthenes. Against Meidias (Oxford, 1990), pp. 173–5.Google Scholar

102 It is hard to believe that, as early as 415, people were saying this sort of thing about Alcibiades, or that if they were, a speaker would choose to highlight this in a speech against Alcibiades. The context for this passage is perhaps the Aristotelian belief that the purpose of ostracism was to remove the superb and outstanding individual from the community (Pol. 1284a3ff.).

103 Thuc. 6.28, 6.15.4: cf. [And.] 4.24, 27. On allegations of tyranny against Alcibiades see R. Seager, 'Alcibiades and the Charge of Aiming at Tyranny', Historia 16 (1967), 6–18.

104 Thuc. 6.15–16.

105 For an equally unlikely anecdotal elaboration of this story, cf. scholion to Aristides Or. 3, 119–20 [iii, 510 DindorfJ): Alcibiades set the tribute so high that the allies were forced to sell their own children to pay it. On Thurii (founded in 443 B.C.), see A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester, 1964), pp. 198–9.Google Scholar

106 This statement has traditionally been read as a vaticinium ex eventu, though taken alone there is nothing particularly unlikely in a speaker mentioning the possibility of a Spartan-led naval revolt of the allies before 413: this had been a fear even in the 420s (Thuc. 2.24, 3.36.2). Cf. Raubitschek (n.l), p. 201.

107 Rhodes (n. 2), pp. 90–1.

108 Cf. Aristides, Or. 3.119–20 (n. 105 above), which cannot derive from Plutarch since the story of Alcibiades' raising the tribute is the only anecdote of the speech not found in Plut. Ale.

109 Plut. Ale. 16.6, etc.

110 Xen. H.G. 2.2.3; Isoc. 4.100, 12.63.

111 Cf. §23: ‘[Alcibiades turned the Melian woman] from a free woman into a slave, he killed her father and relatives, and uprooted her city’.

112 In §11, does not refer to such unorthodox influence. The power and fearfulness referred to by the speaker consist in Alcibiades' oppressive raising of the tribute: the point is not that Alcibiades' actions display excessive influence, but that they lead the allies to hate and fear him, and through him Athens.

113 In this context, it is important that in §31 (already objected to by L. Radermacher, WS61 [1939], 165, on the grounds that it forces the genitive to perform two different tasks after is the wrong supplement: the objection to Alcibiades' behaviour has not been that he has demonstrated his illicit authority over the allies, but that he has mishandled them. In a work like [And.] 4,1 am not sure whether it is a valid objection to Radermacher's own suggested supplement, (which he wants to refer to the Melian slave anecdote) that the Melians were never Athenian allies.

114 In Satyrus' version of this story (534d), the point is even further submerged through the loss of the original Olympic context. See Russell (n. 17), p. 43.

115 [And.] 4.26, Plut. Ale. 12.3, D.S. 13.74 all present differing accounts of the original incident which led to this trial.

116 There were also other anti-Alcibiades trials in the 390s: at Isoc. 16.1–4, Alcibiades IV complains that his enemies have ‘often’ brought trumped-up charges against him designed to attack the reputation of his dead father. Lys. 14 and 15 are speeches written for such a trial.

117 Plut. Ale. 1.3.

118 For example, Satyrus in the work discussed above (Ath. 12.534bff.) quotes the orators Lysias and Antiphon, the comic poets Eupolis and Pherecrates, and the Socratic Antisthenes. On comedy and oratory as a source for anecdotes, see Dover (n. 95), esp. pp. 49–50.

119 Cf. Aristophanes, Clouds 1052–3, Frogs 1069–71.

120 Comedy is our only other source for this detail: Aristoph. Ach. 715–16, fr. 205 KA.

121 The Peri Politeias ascribed to Herodes Atticus is another work purporting to be a speech delivered in the late fifth century. Unlike [And.] 4, this speech does not contain the sort of features which might lead one to distinguish it from later declamation, but the case for regarding it as a fifth-century composition has been made: see H. T. Wade-Gery, ‘Kritias and Herodes’, CQ 39 (1945), 19–33; and cf. Russell (n. 41), p. 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

122 Cf. Russell (n. 41), pp. 15–20; Innes (n. 40), p. 222.Google Scholar

123 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, ‘Klagen üiber den Verfall der Beredsamkeit’, inWilamowitz, Der Glaube der Hellenen (Berlin, 1932) pp. ii.545–8; Russell (n. 41), pp. 17–18; Innes (n. 40), p. 222. Modern scholars of the history of rhetoric have been suspicious of this later association of the beginnings of (artificial, decadent) declamation with the onset of Asianism and rhetorical decline: see Blass (n. 11), pp. iii.2, 350; F. Wehrli, Demetrios von Phaleron. Die Schule des Aristoteles iv (Basel/Stuttgart, 1968), p. 84;Google ScholarK. Heldmann, Antike Theorien iiber Entwicklung und Verfall der Redekunst, Zetemata 11 (Munich, 1982), pp. 98–122. But one does not have to believe in the idea of a simple starting date for declamation in order to think that the early Hellenistic period may well have been the time that declamation really took off.Google Scholar

124 Philostratus VS 481. Note that there is some evidence for an ancient ascription of [And.] 4 to Aeschines the orator: see D.L. 2.63 with n. 14 above.

125 Quint. 2.4.41.

126 P. M. Fraser,Callimachus. The Fifth Hymn (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 4–5.Google ScholarPtolemaic AlexandriaGoogle Scholar(Oxford, 1972), pp. 314f, 321;Google ScholarR. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968), pp. 96,99f.Google Scholar

127 Cf. Blass (n. 11), pp. iii.2,265–6.

128 Thus Callimachus' Hecale describes how Theseus was entertained by an old woman before vanquishing the Marathonian bull, while his Victoria Berenices describes Heracles' rustic dinner before his combat with the Nemean lion. This characteristic of Alexandrian poetry is further explored in an unpublished paper —Dichter und Dichtung am Ptolemaerhof) given to the 23rd meeting of the Mommsen Society in June 1995 by Arnd Kerkhecker. I am most grateful to him for letting me see a copy of this paper, and for suggesting to me these points of contact between [And.] 4 and Hellenistic poetry.

129 G. Zanker, ‘The Nature and Origin of Realism in Alexandrian Poetry’, AE 29 (1983), 125–45, and Realism in Alexandrian Poetry (Kent, 1987), esp. ch. 1.Google Scholar

130 See A. W. Bulloch, Callimachus. The Fifth Hymn (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

131 2.4.41.

132 See Russell (n. 41), pp. 18–19.

133 Demetrius was political supremo in Athens under Cassander from 317 to 307 B.C. Since this political activity must have kept him pretty busy, it is probable that most of his prodigious literary output was produced later during his time with Ptolemy (from before 297 B.C. until after 283 B.C.). On Demetrius see E. Bayer, Demetrios Phalereus der Athener (Tiibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft 36, Stuttgart/Berlin, 1942);Google ScholarC. Mosse, Athens in Decline 404–86 (London and Boston, 1973), pp. 102–8;Google ScholarE. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (Nancy, 19792), pp. 50–1; Fraser (n. 126), pp. 314–15; Pfeiffer (n. 126), pp. 96, 99–104;Google Scholar and I Williams, 'The Peripatetic School and Demetrius of Phalerum's Reforms in Athens', Ancient World 15 (1987), 87–98. Demetrius' fragments are collected in Wehrli (n. 123).Google Scholar

134 He studied under Theophrastus (Wehrli frs. 2–4, 27), and later helped Theophrastus to find a home for the School (Wehrli fr. 5).

135 As one would expect from the author of works entitled Demetrius was interested in ostracism, arguing on the basis of Aristides' ostracism that he was wealthy, since ‘only those from the great houses and those who incurred envy through the prestige of their birth were liable to ostracism’ (fr. 95 Wehrli).

136 Wehrli frs. 91–8. Demetrius' interest in historical figures is also suggested by works attributed to him with the titles Aristides, Cleon, Dionysius, etc. (D.L. 5.81).

137 For Demetrius'rhetoric see Wehrli frs. 156–73.

138 Though Wehrli fr. 185 (Rutilius Lupus de Fig Sent, et Eloc 2.16) is apparently from a funeral speech.

139 Wehrli fr. 175.

140 This work may have been a dialogue. Note Wehrli fr. 81 where a speaker addresses an audience with much use of rhetorical questions.

141 Raubitschek (n. 1), pp. 209–10.

142 Although in Plut. Nic. 11, Theophrastus is recorded as claiming that Phaeax and not Nicias was the person with whom Alcibiades was competing Plut. Ale. 13.8 states simply that ‘some’ (i.e. presumably Theophrastus) claimed that it was Phaeax and not Nicias with whom Alcibiades held negotiations So it is possible that Theophrastus agreed with the main account according to which all three were involved in the ostracism, disagreeing only as to the identity of the figures who had done the final deal. It is certainly not safe to conclude that the reason for the appearance of Phaeax in Ale. but not in Nic. is that Plutarch had been reading Theophrastus in between writing the two Lives. This variation is caused by Plutarch's different purposes in the two Lives. Cf. Pelting (n. 56), pp. 28 and 37, n. 48; W R. Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth Century A thens (Princeton, 1971), pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

143 See Davies (n. 14), no. 13921. Davies' Phaeax II was still alive in 322.

144 See A. E. Taylor, Plato: The Man and His Work (London, 1926), pp. 548–50. Eristratus is actually identified as ‘the nephew of Phaeax’ in this dialogue, the dramatic date of which is roughly the same as that of [And.] 4.Google Scholar

145 See n. 93, above.

146 Burn (n. 93), p. 140. In particular, the two descriptions of Alcibiades' relations with Callias ([And.] 4.13–15; Plut. Ale. 8.3–5) have close points of similarity, and the anecdotes in Plut. Ale. 16.5–6 (the Taureas, Agatharchus, and Melian captive stories) appear in the same order as they do in the speech.

147 Burn (n. 93), p. 141.

148 Russell (n. 17), p. 43 maintained that [And.] 4 can be shown to be derivative on the source of Athenaeus: he argued that since the list of cities which subsidized Alcibiades at Olympia is longer in the version of this episode in Athenaeus (12.534d) than in that of [And.4], it follows that Athenaeus presents an earlier version of this anecdote than [And.] 4. But in the similar story in which the King gives Themistocles cities in Asia to support him, Thucydides (1.138.5) lists only three cities, whereas Neanthes and Phaenias (Plut. Them. 29.7) list five cities, and Athenaeus (1.29f–30a) six, i.e. the versions with the more cities are the later versions. Thus in the story found in [And.] 4 and Athenaeus, the fact that the speech has fewer cities may indicate that it is the earlier version.

149 Plutarch's purpose in recording these varying interpretations of Alcibiades' actions is apparently to underline the difficulty of interpretation which surrounds him. Compare Ale. 3 (Antiphon records various libellous stories about Alcibiades, but can they be believed?), and Ale. 8 (variations are recorded for an anecdote concerning Callias: Alcibiades either hits Callias and then offers his body to Callias for punishment, or, as in [And.] 4, plots against his life, forcing Callias to make his fortune public).

150 The existence of another ‘mitigating’ version of the story, where Alcibiades' actions are a legitimate revenge for an injury done to him by Agatharchus (Dem. 21.147 with scholiast ad loc.), suggests that in Ale. we are dealing with another version of the story known to Plutarch, rather than an invention on Plutarch's own part.

151 Cf. the variation in the story of Alcibiades' relations with Callias in Ale. 8, or in that of the chariot team incident in Ale. 12. On built-in variation in Alcibiades anecdotes, cf. Gernet (n. 11), pp. 324–5.