Gaisford Dissertation Prize

Gaisford Dissertation Prize-70
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. Possibly this conceals another reference to the speech with another guess at its authorship: thus Blass (n.

Tags: Derrick Rose EssaysMe Talk Pretty One Day Essay ThesisInternational Nuclear Security DissertationCon Penalty EssaysSame Maths CourseworkFour Lines English Writing Paper

For the complex question of the chronology of the Athenian year 416/15 see HCT iv.264–76; Furley (n.

Pernot, Les Discours Siciliens daelius Aristide (New York, 1981), pp. Criticism of the law–giver is a declamatory topos: Libanius, Decl. 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 . 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. 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.

But if this general feeling is correct, why and in what context was the speech written? Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis [Oxford, 1994], pp. Fuqua, 'Possible Implications of the Ostracism of Hyperbolus', TAPA 96 (1965), 165–79. 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. 327–8 also thought the speech was composed in the 390s by Andocides, but that the intended speaker was probably Phaeax.

When in the fourth century did rhetoricians spend their time composing works like [And.] 4? 85–98) in fact uses the speech as one of the main arguments for a dating of the ostracism to 415. 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 Furley (n. Geburtstag (Jahrbiicher fur klassische Philologie, Supp. This is the favoured solution of Raubitschek (above n.

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. 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.

Gaisford Dissertation Prize

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.

Had Plutarch then read the speech, but, not having it to hand as he wrote, misremembered it?

Note that Plutarch also gives the impression of not having read the so-called of Antiphon which he cites at Ale.

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. 19–21): might the origin of this story be a slur on the birth of Alcibiades IV? In [And.] 4 a figure involved in the final ostracism discourses at length about the problems of ostracism. There is thus no direct inconsistency with the supposed occasion of the speech.

Keaney, ‘Theopompus on the End of Ostracism’, AJP 90 [1969], 313–19).


Comments Gaisford Dissertation Prize

The Latest from ©