Athenian Homicide Rhetoric in Context
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ATHENIAN HOMICIDE RHETORIC IN CONTEXT BY CHRISTINE C. PLASTOW Thesis submitted to University College London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND LATIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON 1 DECLARATION I, Christine C. Plastow, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ABSTRACT Homicide is a potent crime in any society, and classical Athens was no exception. The Athenians implemented legal methods for dealing with homicide that were set apart from the rest of their legal system, including separate courts, long-established laws, and rigorous procedures. We have, however, limited extant sources on these issues, including only five speeches from trials for homicide. This has fomented debate regarding aspects of law and procedure, and rhetoric as it relates specifically to homicide has not been examined in detail. Here, I intend to examine how the nature of homicide and its prosecution at Athens may have affected rhetoric when discussing homicide in forensic oratory. First, I will establish what I will call the ideology of homicide at Athens: the set of beliefs and perceptions that are most commonly attached to homicide and its prosecution. Then, I will examine homicide rhetoric from three angles: religious pollution, which was believed to adhere to those who committed homicide; relevance, as speakers in the homicide courts were subject to particular restrictions in this regard; and motive and intent, related issues that appear frequently in rhetoric and, in some cases, define the nature of a homicide charge. I will suggest that there is a gap between the ideology and the reality of homicide prosecution at Athens, and that the way that Athenians spoke about homicide and its prosecution in rhetoric did not always hold up in practice. I will also argue that the physical courtroom context of the trial and the beliefs and perceptions of those present greatly influenced the rhetoric of homicide. This is particularly noticeable when comparing rhetoric from the homicide courts and from the dikastic courts. As a whole, I hope to approach law and rhetoric as symbiotic forces in the case of homicide, and to show how the rhetoric of homicide can reflect more broadly on classical Athenian society. 3 CONTENTS Declaration ............................................................................................................... 2 Abstract .................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 6 Note .......................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Draco’s laws and Athenian homicide legislation ............................................. 10 1.2 The courts and their jurisdiction ....................................................................... 16 1.3 Homicide procedures and their restrictions ...................................................... 18 1.4 The speeches ..................................................................................................... 24 1.5 The scope, approach, and structure of this project ........................................... 28 Appendix: Kai in Draco’s Law .............................................................................. 34 2 The Ideology of Homicide: Shape and Usage......................................................... 36 2.1 Creating ideologies ........................................................................................... 39 2.1.1 Draco .......................................................................................................... 39 2.1.2 The laws and the courts ............................................................................. 46 2.2 Demosthenes 23: a case study in the rhetorical application and manipulation of homicide ideology .................................................................................................. 57 2.2.1 Vividness and the dikastic context............................................................. 59 2.2.2 Antiquity, immutability, and authority ...................................................... 61 2.2.3 Justice and comprehensiveness .................................................................. 63 2.2.4 The shifting lawgiver ................................................................................. 66 2.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 71 3 Religion, Ritual, and the Rhetoric of Pollution ....................................................... 74 3.1 The religious context of homicide trials ........................................................... 76 3.1.1 Why pollution for homicide? ..................................................................... 76 3.1.2 Why the silence? ........................................................................................ 81 3.1.3 Creating religious context .......................................................................... 86 3.2 The rhetoric of pollution ................................................................................... 96 3.2.1 The Tetralogies .......................................................................................... 96 3.2.2 Antiphon 6 ............................................................................................... 101 3.2.3 Demosthenes 21 ....................................................................................... 108 4 3.2.4 Antiphon 5 ............................................................................................... 112 3.2.5 Lysias 13 .................................................................................................. 116 3.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 119 4 Rhetoric and Relevance......................................................................................... 123 4.1 What was ‘irrelevant’ in an Athenian homicide courtroom? ......................... 129 4.2 The relevance rule as rhetoric......................................................................... 135 4.2.1 Lysias 3 and 7 .......................................................................................... 135 4.2.2 Antiphon 6 and 5...................................................................................... 140 4.2.3 Lycurgus 1 ............................................................................................... 145 4.3 Tracing the effects of the relevance rule ........................................................ 149 4.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 155 5 Hows and Whys: Intent and Motive as Rhetoric .................................................. 157 5.1 Defining and redefining intent ....................................................................... 159 5.2 Motives for killing .......................................................................................... 176 5.3 The accuser’s motivation ................................................................................ 182 5.3.1 Homicide accusation as character assassination ...................................... 183 5.3.2 Homicide accusation as political or legal manoeuvre ............................. 188 5.3.3 Lysias 13: political killing, political prosecution .................................... 194 5.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 203 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 207 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 210 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, my thanks go to my supervisor Chris Carey, who has been an unfailing guide as I wrote this thesis. When I began, I hardly knew where I was going with it, and it would not have grown into the shape that it did without our discussions and good-natured arguments. I also thank the staff of the Greek and Latin Department at UCL for their support and the opportunities they have offered me; particular thanks go to Peter Agocs, David Alabaster, Dimitra Kokkini, and Antony Makrinos. Spending three months working at Yale University was a great privilege, which could not have occurred without the support of the Yale UCL Collaborative Exchange Programme and the UCL Doctoral School. I am very grateful to Victor Bers for his warm welcome, insightful comments, and continued support. My thanks also go to the graduate students of the Yale Department of Classics for making me feel so welcome, particularly Rachel Love and Jennifer Weintritt, and Bryant Kirkland for allowing me to speak at the Work-in-Progress seminar. I am also grateful to Adriaan Lanni for meeting with me while I was in America, and for her supportive and constructive comments. For advising on the workings of the modern UK legal system and providing the highest level of