An Historical Commentary on Demosthenes 8, ‘On the Khersonnese’ Stephen Clarke Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Department of Classics and Ancient History The University of Sydney A thesis submitted to fulfil requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2018 This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, the content of this thesis is my own work. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or other purposes. Stephen Clarke 25 January, 2018 Abstract Demosthenes 8 is a crucial speech which has long been neglected and rarely given the attention it deserves. The speech focuses on Athenian relations with Philip in this crucial northern region and why Philip was perceived a threat to Athenian interests in the area. Demosthenes seeks to paint Philip as the one who broke the terms of the Peace of Philokrates, even though the historical narrative is not supportive of this claim. The thesis seeks to provide the historical background to the speech and explain the historical significance and veracity of all aspects relevant to the Khersonnese, an area that it was crucial for both Philip and Athens to control. The speech is a study of the historical aspects raised in the speech only and does not engage in a philological discussion except where it is necessary to explain the history. The thesis demonstrates that Demosthenes is a skilled politician, able to depict Philip’s actions in the worst possible light and that the Khersonnese was indeed so critical to both that war was almost inevitable. The study finds that this speech is a masterpiece of Demosthenic rhetoric, demonstrating all of Demosthenes’ considerable skill and reflecting the themes raised in the corpus of Demosthenes’ sumbouleutic oratory. To The Old Gran, without whom I would never have loved Ancient History. Acknowledgements Writing a PhD is hard – writing a PhD as a part-time student is even more challenging. To undertake and complete something so difficult is not possible without the help and support of many people. Firstly, my wife has endured this almost from the beginning and without her love and support, this project would never have been completed. To my proof-readers, Zac and Cass, friends for such a long time, and Dennis, a long-suffering teaching and HSC marking colleague, I thank you very deeply and recognise that it was very much a labour to read this – I am deeply indebted. Peter Wilson, my Associate Supervisor, later my Supervisor, has overseen the final stages of constructing this PhD and I am immensely thankful that he was here in the last run to see it through with enormous good-humour and forbearance with issues and problems not of our own devising. Finally, Alastair Blanshard, my supervisor (in truth if not on paper after his appointment to the University of Queensland), has supported and guided me through my MA (Research) thesis and now my PhD. I am grateful for his feedback, (generally) good humour and willingness to put up with my oft-times crazy ideas and use of the word ‘clearly.’ I thank you very deeply and sincerely. Table of contents Part I – Introduction to the commentary Summary of On the Khersonnese 1 Rationale for the Commentary 2 Analysis of parts of the speech 5 The relationship between On the Khersonnese (8) and the ‘Fourth Philippic’ (10) and the dating of On the Khersonnese 27 Scholarship on the text 34 Part II – Historical Introduction Athenian involvement in the North down to the end of The Peloponnesian War 39 Athens and the North in the Fourth Century 64 Notes on the manuscripts and scholia 126 Part III – Historical Commentary Commentary, 8.1-8.74 129 Part IV - Appendices Appendix 1 237 Appendix 2 246 Bibliography 251 Abbreviations Works are cited by author and date throughout the work, with the exception of the following: Agora The American School of Classical Studies in Athens, The Athenian Agora ATL McGregor, M. F., Merritt, B. D. and Wade-Gery, H. T., The Athenian Tribute Lists BNJ Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby DR The Dublin Review IG Inscriptiones Graecae PECS Princeton Encyclopaedia of Classical Sites A note on transliteration Throughout the text, Greek names have been transliterated exactly from Greek. This has not been done to names that are commonly known (eg. Herodotus, Thucydides, Athens). Summary of On the Khersonnese On the Khersonese purports to be a published version of a speech delivered by the Athenian politican and orator Demsothenes (hereafter ‘D.’) as part of his campaign to mobilise Athenian opposition to Philip. As explained by one of the scholia on Codex S (Dilts,1983: 134) see below, pp. 126-28), this speech was designed to propel Athens to war with Philip: Ἐν τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ καταφέρεται μὲν τῶν ῥητόρων, ὑπεραπολογεῖται τοῦ Διοπείθους, συμβουλεύει κινῆσαι τὸν κατὰ Φιλίππου πόλεμον. It was delivered in the ekklesia at a key moment in Athens’ relationship with Philip and, at its most basic level, is a speech urging Athens to allow the Athenian strategos Diopeithes to continue his depredations of Philip and his allies in the Khersonnese. This was a strategically important region for both Athens and Philip. The majority of Athenian grain was exported past its coastline; while for Philip, it was a crucial region on the eastern flank of his kingdom that he wished to pacify to control the core areas of it more securely. The speech focuses not on the Athenian strategos (also a political ally of D.), but on the dangers posed by Philip to Athens, characterising him as an enemy of democracy and a direct threat to Athens itself. It calls Athens to punish the politicians who are allegedly in Philip’s pay, to prepare for war and to maintain Diopeithes’ force in the field to counter-act Philip in the Khersonnese. 1 Rationale for the Commentary This commentary aims to place the speech in the historical context in which it was delivered. It is an historical commentary, identifying issues, people and places raised by D. in the text to understand the speech and its intent more fully. The commentary does not engage with philological aspects of the text, except in relation to the rhetorical style of D. or as it impacts on the reporting of historical aspects. Throughout the speech, D. characterises Philip as untrustworthy and a danger to Athenian survival. It will be shown in discussion of the text that Philip has been misrepresented by D. The commentary will provide a context that demonstrates Philip’s policies were primarily concerned with the protection of his kingdom, particularly in the area of Thrace, on the eastern flank of Macedonia. Philip, in almost all instances, exploited situations for his benefit as they arose, rather than possessing a prepared plan for the expansion of his kingdom. It will be demonstrated throughout the thesis that Philip’s actions were justifiable in this context and that D. deliberately misrepresents them to further his own political goals. The thesis will also place the speech in a deeper chronological context, that of the long-term importance of the northern Aegean (hereafter called the ‘North’, see map, pg. 39) to Athens. It will be demonstrated that Athens actively pursued an aggressive policy of territorial acquisition in the North, particularly the Thracian Khersonnese, since the time of Peisistratos, who it will be argued sponsored Miltiades’ mid sixth-century colonisation of the region. It will also be shown that, until the fourth century, the region was most important to Athens not for the grain it supplied, but for the money it generated for Athens by virtue of control of the naval trade in the area. It will be argued that Philip would have been content to 2 allow Athens to co-exist with Macedonia but for the mistrust that existed between Philip and Athens, advanced by the actions of both in the Thracian Khersonnese, which propelled the Macedonian and Athenian states to war. The thesis consists of four separate sections, with content links indicated by page references. Firstly, the thesis will place the speech into a rhetorical context, demonstrating how it is a strong example of Demosthenic (and, indeed, Athenian) rhetoric, utilising all of D.’s skills as a rhetorician. Secondly, a significant historical narrative will provide an historical background to the speech, providing a focus for Athenian relations with, and involvement in, the states in the North. The commentary that follows has been constructed to highlight and investigate areas of interest to the themes outlined above – any aspects of rhetoric will not be discussed in the commentary but will be discussed, as appropriate, in the first part of the thesis. For example, chapters 66 to 74 have few commentary glosses: many relevant ideas raised in this part of the speech have already been discussed previously in the Commentary. Also, D. uses this section to amplify his notion of the good speaker, however, which is discussed in the Analysis of the Parts of the Speech, hence such repetition has been avoided. There are a number of aspects through the speech that are historically interesting, but are not directly relevant to the themes investigated, for example the reference to the Athenian silver mines (8.45). This commentary represents an investigation into aspects of history noted in the speech that directly impacts on our understanding of the North and Athens’ relations with it. Finally, two appendices have been 3 created to demonstrate the extent to which D. used ring structures to create a powerful speech, an aspect of Demosthenic rhetoric that has been under-examined. Through a study of the speech, several notable conclusions have been drawn.