Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T11:21:39.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History in [Demosthenes] 59

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Jeremy Trevett
Jeremy Trevett
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known that Athenian orators, when they made reference to the historical past, usually eschewed prolonged narrative in favour of brief allusions to familiar episodes from Athenian history. Perhaps the most striking exception to this custom is the long and detailed account of fifth-century Plataean history in the pseudo-Demosthenic speech Against Neaera (Dem. 59.94–103). The main interest of this passage, however, lies not in its divergence from contemporary rhetorical practice, but in its clear reliance on Thucydides for its account of the siege of Plataea during the Peloponnesian War. Indeed, it is unique in Attic oratory in the extent of its reliance on an identifiable historical work. Yet, considering its significance, this passage has received very little scholarly attention, and merits a closer reexamination.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 407 - 420
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 Thus Pearson, L. ‘Historical Allusions in the Attic Orators’, CP 36 (1941), 209–29Google Scholar: ‘When an orator allows himself the luxury of a digression into the past history of Athens, he is usually more interested in broad outlines than in exact detail’ (p. 210). For general discussions of the orators' use of historical examples see Pearson, op. cit. and Nouhaud, M., L'Utilisation de I'histoire par les orateurs attiques (Paris, 1982)Google Scholar, passim. These works are referred to by author's name alone, as are Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A., Dover, K. J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1945–1981)Google Scholar and Gernet, L.Dérmosthène Plaidoyers civils IV (Paris, 1960)Google Scholar.

2 The passage is not mentioned by Pearson, nor by O. Luschnat in his examination of references to Thucydides in the fourth century (‘Thukydides’, itE Supp. 12 cols. 1266–91). It is however discussed by Nouhaud, pp. 263–4.

3 The course of relations between Apollodoros and Stephanos is narrated at §§2–10. On the possible political basis of the trial see Macurdy, G. H. ‘Apollodorus and the Speech against Neaera’, AJP 63 (1942), 257–71Google Scholar.

4 The reference to Xenocleides in terms which suggest that he was in Athens (§26) implies that the speech postdates his expulsion from Macedonia in 343 (Dem. 19.231). Demosthenes secured the passing of legislation to transfer money from the Theoric fund to the military fund in 339, and it is certain that Apollodoros would have mentioned this at §5 if he had been able to do so.

5 That Apollodoros was the author was first suggested by Schäfer, A., Demosthenes und seine Zeit (Berlin, 1856–1858), Beilagen pp. 184–93Google Scholar, and is now generally accepted.

6 This is the first mention of the famous fresco. See Harrison, E. B., ‘The South Frieze of the Nike Temple and the Marathon Painting in the Painted Stoa’, AJA 76 (1972), 353–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a full discussion of the literary references to it.

7 Herodotus implies that all of the Boeotians, with the exception of the Thespians and the Plataeans, gave their pledges of soil and water to the Persians when they were requested to do so (7.132.1). At 7.233.1 he says that they were among the first to do so. This is borne out by his assertion at 7.222 that the Thebans were forced to remain at Thermopylae as hostages, but Buck, R. J., A History of Boeotia (Edmonton, 1979), p. 132Google Scholar argues that this charge was false, that the Boeotian League gave their pledges solely as a form of insurance policy with Xerxes, and that they fought loyally at Thermopylae.

8 Herodotus relates that the Plataeans manned some of the Athenian ships at Artemision (8.1), but says that they did not fight at Salamis, having left the fleet after Artemision (8.44.1). Moreover, the fact that Thucydides has the Plataeans claim that they fought at Artemision (3.54.4) suggests that they were not also at Salamis.

9 See Nouhaud, pp. 135–7.

10 The erection of the original monument is described at Hdt. 9.81.1. For a full discussion see Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. M., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1969), pp. 57–60Google Scholar. See too Page, D. L., Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 216–17Google Scholar.

11 ‘ελλ⋯νων ⋯ρχηγ⋯σ, ⋯πε⋯ στρατ⋯ν ὢλεσε M⋯δων, | παυσαν⋯ασ ϕο⋯βω μνημ’ ⋯ν⋯θηκε τ⋯δε. Diod. Sic. 11.33 Provides a different epigram: ‘ελλ⋯δοσ ευρυχ⋯ρου σωτ⋯ρεσ τ⋯νδ’ ⋯ν⋯θηκαν | δουλοσυνασ στυγερᾱσ ῥυσ⋯μενοι π⋯λιασ. This version is problematic: it reads as a replacement for Pausanias' verse, but Thucydides says that the latter was replaced by a list of Greek cities (1.132.3). Yet we should be reluctant to convict Diodorus of such gross incompetence in the case of a well-known piece of verse.

12 Thucydides says of Pausanias' voyage to the Hellespont that he was δημοσíᾳ μ⋯ν ουκ⋯τι ⋯ξεπ⋯μϕθη, ἰδíα δ⋯…⋯ϕι⋯μενοσ τ⋯σ 'ελληνικ⋯σ ⋯ρχ⋯σ (1.128.3).

13 The same error is found at Lye. Leocr. 128, and indeed in the bracket at Thuc. 1.131.2.

14 Thus Fornara, C. W. ‘Two Notes on Thucydides’, Philologus 111 (1967), 291–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 A sceptical view of the accuracy of this excursus is provided by Rhodes, P. J., ‘Thucydides on Pausanias and Themistocles’, Historia 19 (1970), 387–400Google Scholar.

16 Thus Bonner, R. J. and Smith, G., ‘Administration of Justice in the Delphic Amphictyony’, CP 38 (1943), 1–12, p. 2Google Scholar: ‘Since the distich had been inscribed as an offering to the god, the matter involved religion. Hence, as a religious matter which was international in its scope, the Plataeans brought it before the Amphictyony.’ Contra, Gernet ad loc. wrote that ‘Le fait n'est pas attesté aileurs. Et le role qu'est attribué aux Platéens dans l'humiliation de Pausanias apparaît fantaisiste.’ I can see nothing inherently implausible in Apollodoros' account.

17 Thus Bonner, and Smith, (op. cit. n. 16), p. 2 n. 10Google Scholar: ‘Thucydides is interested in the incident merely as an illustration of the presumption of Pausanias and naturally omits details.’

18 See Hornblower, S., Thucydides (London, 1987), pp. 81–3Google Scholar for Thucydides' minimisation of the importance of Delphi in Greek affairs.

19 The conviction of Ephialtes by the Delphic Amphictyony is recorded at Hdt. 7.213. See Waters, K. H., Herodotos the Historian: his Problems, Methods, and Originality (London, 1985), pp. 106–8Google Scholar for a discussion of ‘the quite remarkable prominence of oracles in the work of Herodotos’ (p. 106).

20 Fornara (op. cit. n. 14).

21 On the potential reliability of orally transmitted material see Thomas, R., Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 ⋯ξαπ⋯ναιωσ is found once in Hippocrates, 8 times in Thucydides, but nowhere else in Attic prose, ⋯ξαπ⋯νησ is found 6 times in Thucydides, 3 times in Aristophanes (all in Ploutos), but only once in the works of the Attic orators (Isaeos 1.14), for whom ⋯ξαπ⋯νησ was the regular word for ‘suddenly’.

23 If Apollodoros was using Thucydides directly, it is possible that he found the adjective διαβατ⋯σ too poetic, and preferred a more periphrastic construction.

24 In such contexts ἂνευ often means simply ‘without’ (Ar. Lys. 143; Plato, Symp. 217a; Tod 127.11–13: πἂ[λ]ε[μ]ον δ⋯ κα⋯ εἰρ⋯νην μ⋯ ⋯ξεῖναι κορκνρα⋯οισ ποι⋯σασθαι [ἂ]νευ 'αθηναíων), but it can also mean ‘without the consent of’ (Aesch. Cho. 431; Soph. OC 926; Aeneas Tact. 10.4).

25 δ⋯κα was emended to δὐο by Palmer, but the manuscript reading was defended by Grote, G., A History of Greece (London, 1884), vi. 353 n. 3Google Scholar: ‘because the Pseudo-Demosthenes introduces a great many other errors and inaccuracies respecting Plataea, besides his mistake about the duration of the siege. The ten years’ siege of Troy was constantly present to the imaginations of these literary Greeks.' Lortzing, F., De orationibus quas Demosthenes pro Apollodoro scripsisse fertur (Berlin, 1863), p. 49 n. 10Google Scholar rejected this explanation but agreed that the text is sound. He suggested that Apollodoros was misled by the text of Thuc. 3.68: τ⋯ν δ⋯ γ⋯ν δημοσιὼσαντεσ ⋯πεμíσθωσαν ⋯πι δ⋯κα ἒτη, και ⋯ν⋯μοντο πηβαῖοι. I share his reluctance to emend the text, since Apollodoros may have been simply mistaken, or else may have wished to exaggerate the bravery of the Plataeans.

26 Blass, F., Die altische Beredsamkeit (Leipzig, 1887–1893) iii (1). 538Google Scholar thought that ‘Der Platāer Thaten und Leiden werden ausführlich erzählt, und zwar, soweit es Ereignisse des peloponnesischen Kriege sind, nach Thukydides, den der Verfasser zuweilen fast wörtlich ausschreibt.’

27 This pedantic streak reveals itself in the repeated and detailed quotation of laws (see especially Dem. 46 passim) and in the extremely detailed records which he kept as trierarch (Dem. 50.30). No doubt this concern for accuracy was a product of his background in banking (Dem. 49.5).

28 On Plataean refugees at Athens see Lys. 23.2–6. Note too the Plataean graveyard at Athens: Hondius, J. J. E., Novae inscriptiones Atticae (Leiden, 1925), pp. 126–30Google Scholar. Gomme (endnote ad 3.20–4) believed that these men provided Thucydides with his information on the siege.

29 See Westlake, H. D., Thessaly in the Fourth Century B.C. (London, 1935), pp. 16–17Google Scholar on the valley of the Spercheios: ‘in historical times it enjoyed no political unity and little independence, being divided between the Aenianes, the Malians, an d the Oetaeans, whose feuds other powers turned to their own advantage’.

30 I owe this suggestion to Dr S. Hornblower.

31 Jacoby, F., ‘Der Verfasser der Hellenika von Oxyrhynchos’, Gött. Nachr. (1924), 13–18Google Scholar.

32 This seems to be the clear implication of TI (Porphyry apud Eusebius, PE 10.3, p. 464b: καἰ τ⋯ γ⋯ρ 'εϕ⋯ρου ἲδιον, ⋯κ τ⋯ν δαιμ⋯χου κα⋯ 'αναξιμι⋯νουσ αὐταισ λ⋯ξεσι7nu; ἒστι7nu; ὃτε τρισχιλ⋯ουσ ὂλουσ μετατιθ⋯ντοσ οτιχουσ;

33 Compare Thuc. 1.22.1–2 with its stress on accuracy and on the need to include every detail: ὃσον δυνα7tau;⋯ν ⋯κριβε⋯α περ⋯ ⋯κ⋯στου ⋯πεξελθ⋯ν (1.22.2).

34 For Athenian autochthony see: Hdt. 1.56.2; Thuc. 1.2.5; Ar. Wasps 1076; Isoc. 4.24; 12.124. But note Rosivach, V. J., ‘Autochthony and the Athenians’, CQ 37 (1987), 294–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the suggestion that Athenian claims of autochthony may date no earlier than 470. See too Parker, R., ‘Myths of Early Athens’, Bremmer, J. (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology (London, 1987), 187–214, p. 195Google Scholar. On the Athenian monarchy see Thuc. 2.15.1.

35 On the religious duties of the Basileus Archon see [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 57.1–2.

36 See Eur. Suppl. 349–53, 403–8, 429–37 and Plut. Theseus 24.

37 [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 8 relates that originally the Areopagus elected the archons, but that after the time of Solon they were selected by κλ⋯ρωσισ ⋯κ προκρ⋯των, whereby each tribe elected two candidates, from whom the archons were chosen by sortition. This account is accepted by Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), pp. 146–8Google Scholar, but the reform is attributed to Cleisthenes by Hignett, C., A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford, 1952), pp. 321–5Google Scholar.

38 Hansen, M. H., ‘ΚΛΗΡΩΣΙΣ ΕΚ ΠΡΟΚΡΙΤΩΝ in Fourth-century Athens’, CP 81 (1986), 222–9, pp. 224–5Google Scholar.

39 That the date of the month is a gloss has been disputed by Rhodes, P. J., Thucydides History Il (Warminster, 1988)Google Scholar, who notes that the date is also given in the text as quoted in the papyrus commentary.

40 [Plut.] Life of Aeschines reports contradictory traditions: that Aeschines was a pupil of (variously) Isocrates, Plato or Leodamas (840b), and that he received no formal rhetorical training (840f). For a full discussion see Harris, E. M., The Political Career of Aeschines (Diss. Harvard, 1983), pp. 52–3Google Scholar, who argues that he is unlikely to have had the money or the leisure to have received a rhetorical education.

41 See in particular Aesch. 2.115, 172–6.

42 Thus rightly Nouhaud, p. 109.

43 For a discussion of the extent of orators' knowledge of Thucydides see Nouhaud, pp. 113–18.

44 Thus Gomme, A. W., ‘Thucydides and Fourth-century Political Thought’, More Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford, 1962), 122–38Google Scholar. The one exception is Philistos (FrGrHist 556), on whom see Gomme, p. 128.

45 Thucydides' name is almost certainly to be restored at Hell. Oxy. Florence fr. B 32. That Theophrastus mentioned him emerges from Cicero, Orator 39.

46 I should like to thank Prof. D. M. Lewis, Dr D. C. Innes, and Dr S. Hornblower for reading this article and suggesting several improvements to it. I owe a particular debt to Dr Hornblower for making available to me material from his forthcoming commentary on Thucydides I—III.