DOCSLIB.ORG

330 BC the Oration on the Crown

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
330 BC the Oration on the Crown 330 BC THE ORATION ON THE CROWN Demosthenes translated by Thomas Leland, D.D. Notes and Introduction by Thomas Leland, D.D. Demosthenes (383-322 BC) - Athenian statesman and the most famous of Greek orators. He was leader of a patriotic party opposing Philip of Macedon. The Oration on the Crown (330 BC) - An oration in defense of Ctesiphon, an Athenian citizen who proposed that Demosthenes should receive a crown for his extraordinary merit. Aeschines, Demosthenes’ political rival, attacked Demosthenes in his “Oration against Ctesiphon.” “The Oration on the Crown,” Demosthenes’ response, is regarded as the finest work of ancient eloquence. INTRODUCTION To the Oration on the Crown THE Oration on the Crown is justly considered the greatest speech ever made by Demosthenes, and if Demosthenes is the first of orators, it is the greatest speech ever delivered by man. It certainly is the most interesting of the extant orations of the Athenian statesman. First of all, it was the last speech he made at Athens, and he spoke at a time when the liberties of Greece had been irreparably lost by the defeat on the field of Chaeronea. The effect of it was to prove that the patriotic spirit of independence still survived in the hearts of the Athenians, and that the glory of Demosthenes, amid the downfall of Athenian ascendancy, remained undimmed by the aspersions of the orator’s enemies. It is moreover most interesting because of its autobiographical character. When great and good men speak of their own lives and their own motives they always find attentive readers. Hence the apology of Socrates, the letters of Cicero, the Confessions of Augustine, the Vita Nuova of Dante, even the highly colored pages of Rousseau, and the Essays of Montaigne, not to speak of Pepys’s Diary, possess a special fascination, because they reveal the intimate thoughts and character of exceptional men, and admit the reader to the closest personal acquaintance with the writers. The egotism of Demosthenes in this famous speech is quite unreserved, but it is equally excusable, in that it is dictated by the necessity of self-vindication, and while it adds a vivid charm to his arguments, it at once claims the sympathy of the modern reader. The circumstances under which this oration was delivered are as follows. The battle of Chaeronea was in some sense the result of the policy of Demosthenes. Philip of Macedon in his invasion of Greece had partisans at Thebes, as well as at Athens, and when Thebes seemed to waver in its opposition to the invader after the capture of Elataea by Philip, Demosthenes proposed an embassy to Thebes to secure the coalition of Theban and Athenian forces in giving battle to the invader. The embassy, led by Demosthenes, was successful. The united armies marched to meet Philip, and a battle was fought and lost by the Greeks at Chaeronea in 338 B.C. A little time afterwards Ctesiphon (who appears for the first and last time in history on this occasion) proposed in the council that a crown of gold, i.e., of olive leaves entwined in gold, the usual decoration given to political or military merit at Athens, should be offered to Demosthenes as an acknowledgment of his patriotic services to the republic. His services had not been merely those of an orator whose speeches had for years alternately warned and encouraged the people against the wiles and machinations of Philip of Macedon. For instance, when the news of Chaeronea reached Athens wild consternation spread over Attica. It was rumored that the conqueror was preparing to march upon Athens and every preparation was made to resist him. To Demosthenes was intrusted the repairs of the fortifications, and upon this work he expended three talents of his private fortune, in addition to the grant made from the public treasury. Although Philip spared the territory of the Athenians, restored their prisoners without ransom, buried their dead on the field, and sent their bones to Athens, this was merely through reverence for that city as “the eye of Greece,” the home of letters and arts. His acts anticipated the profession made by his son, Alexander the Great, that he would prove himself the “Shield of Hellas.” The credit and influence of Demosthenes seemed, however, to have crumbled into the dust, and the motion of Ctesiphon was doubtless intended to put the confidence of the people to the test, and give the orator, if necessary, an opportunity of self-vindication. Events proved that the proceeding of Ctesiphon was a wise one. The Macedonian party in Athens had now collected all their forces to overthrow the statesman who had counselled that alliance with Thebes, which had been proved illusory by the disaster at Chaeronea, and had terrified his fellow-countrymen with prophecies of Philip’s vengeance on Athens, prophecies which the moderation of the victorious king had proved false. The Athenian assembly took a nobler view of the matter, and awarded the crown, but immediately afterwards Aeschines, the rival of Demosthenes, a man charged by this latter with receiving bribes from Philip, opened the attack by indicting Ctesiphon as the author of an illegal measure. Ctesiphon’s measure, passed in the shape of a decree by the council, or upper legislative body, and the assembly ordered, “that Demosthenes should be presented with a golden crown, and that a proclamation should be made in the theatre, at the great Dionysian festival, at the performance of the new tragedies, announcing that Demosthenes was rewarded by the people with a golden crown for his integrity, for the goodness which he had invariably displayed towards all the Greeks and towards the people of Athens, and also for his magnanimity, and because he had ever, both by word and deed, promoted the interests of the people, and been zealous to do all the good in his power.” Aeschines, the orator who challenged this decree, was at that period considered the second orator in Greece. He was the leader of the Macedonian party, and the deadly enemy of Demosthenes. He was moved against his rival by bitter feelings of jealousy and revenge. The indictment was formally drawn up against Ctesiphon, but no one doubted that the real object of the attack was Demosthenes. Ctesiphon was accordingly accused of having violated Athenian law in three points by the wording of his decree. First, because it was unlawful to make false allegations in such a state document as the decree. Secondly, because it was unlawful to confer a crown to a state official who had not yet rendered a report of his term of office; and Demosthenes was both guardian of the walls, and a treasurer of the theoric fund, the public contributions to civic and national spectacles. Thirdly, because it was unlawful to proclaim the honor of a crown at the Dionysian festival, at the performance of the new tragedies; the law being, that if the council gave a crown, it should be published in the bouleterion or council hall, if the people, in the Pnyx, at the popular assembly. It will be seen that the gist of the indictment lies in the first of these points, viz.: in the inquiry, whether the high character and public services credited by Ctesiphon to Demosthenes were matter of fact or no. The indictment was preferred just before the Dionysian festival, of 338 B.C., at which the crown was to have been conferred, and had the effect of arresting the award. But the proceedings were, in legal parlance, “continued” i.e., suspended, for some seven years; and it was not until the end of that period that Aeschines uttered his speech against Ctesiphon, and maintained, with considerable force and ingenuity, the points made in his indictment of the decree. In the mean time events in the conflict with Macedonia had passed into a new phase. Two years after the battle of Chaeronea “fatal to liberty,” the death of Philip by the hand of an assassin had raised high the hopes of Greece that deliverance was come. But his successor, Alexander, took up with untiring vigor the campaign against the independence of Greece. He utterly destroyed the city of Thebes, characteristically sparing the house of Pindar. Thebes had rebelled upon his succession to the throne, and Athens, suspected of assisting the rebels, only escaped the wrath of the conqueror by abject submission. As Alexander knew that the chief menace to his authority lay in the power of oratory at Athens to rouse the patriotic passions of the people, he demanded the surrender of the orators and chiefly of Demosthenes; even the just and clement Phocian urged upon his countrymen to make this sacrifice for the tranquillity of the city, but the people dissented. In 334 B.C. Alexander passed over into Asia, where it was expected he would perish before the countless hosts that Darius sent to meet him. The battle of Issus proved these expectations to be groundless. Yet in 330 Agis, King of Sparta, made another and final struggle to fling off the Macedonian yoke, and while Athens kept a strict neutrality, was defeated in battle and slain by Antipater, whom Alexander had left as his viceroy in Greece. Sparta was now occupied by a Macedonian garrison, Phocion corresponded in a friendly manner with Alexander, and Persian spoils were accepted from the latter and set up in the Acropolis. Cowed and subdued by the overwhelming sense of Alexander’s successes and feeling that resistance to Macedonian ascendancy was hopeless, the Athenians seemed to be sunk into a lethargy, from which not even the voice of Demosthenes was raised to awaken them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alexander the Great and Hephaestion
    2019-3337-AJHIS-HIS 1 Alexander the Great and Hephaestion: 2 Censorship and Bisexual Erasure in Post-Macedonian 3 Society 4 5 6 Same-sex relations were common in ancient Greece and having both male and female 7 physical relationships was a cultural norm. However, Alexander the Great is almost 8 always portrayed in modern depictions as heterosexual, and the disappearance of his 9 life-partner Hephaestion is all but complete in ancient literature. Five full primary 10 source biographies of Alexander have survived from antiquity, making it possible to 11 observe the way scholars, popular writers and filmmakers from the Victorian era 12 forward have interpreted this evidence. This research borrows an approach from 13 gender studies, using the phenomenon of bisexual erasure to contribute a new 14 understanding for missing information regarding the relationship between Alexander 15 and his life-partner Hephaestion. In Greek and Macedonian society, pederasty was the 16 norm, and boys and men did not have relations with others of the same age because 17 there was almost always a financial and power difference. Hephaestion was taller and 18 more handsome than Alexander, so it might have appeared that he held the power in 19 their relationship. The hypothesis put forward here suggests that writers have erased 20 the sexual partnership between Alexander and Hephaestion because their relationship 21 did not fit the norm of acceptable pederasty as practiced in Greek and Macedonian 22 culture or was no longer socially acceptable in the Roman contexts of the ancient 23 historians. Ancient biographers may have conducted censorship to conceal any 24 implication of femininity or submissiveness in this relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Penalties in Action in Classical Athens
    Classica Cracoviensia XVII, 2014 DOI: 10.12797/CC.17.2014.17.07 JAN KUCHARSKI (UNIVERSITY OF SILESIA, KATOWICE) peNALtieS iN ActiON iN cLASSicAL AtHeNS A preLiMiNArY SURVEY1 SUMMARY: This paper attempts to look at the inner workings of the punitive system in ancient Athens. After a brief survey of the range of penalties avail- able in Classical Athens (capital punishment, exile and outlawry, disenfran- chisement, financial penalties, imprisonment, corporal penalties), it proceeds first to examine their nature (as they frequently fail to meet our criteria of punishment), and then to map them on the substance vs. procedure controversy regarding the Athenian legal system. The last two sections of the paper are devoted to the manner in which penalties were imposed (summary punish- ment, punishment by sentence, “automatic” punishment) and executed (private vs. public execution of court verdicts; coercive measures etc.). KEYWORD: Athenian law, enslavement, corporal penalties, capital punish- ment, exile, outlawry, disenfranchisement, financial penalties Afraid of what? That I suffer what Meletus has assessed (timatai) for me? That, I can’t even say to know for a fact whether it is good or evil. Should I then choose an assessment from what I know to be an evil? As imprison- ment? What good is living in prison, forever a slave to the ever­‑present 1 This study is part of a project funded by the Polish National Science Centre (NN103 429640). 117 JAN KUCHARSKI command of the Eleven? Perhaps a fine then, with imprisonment until I pay? But it comes down to the same as before since I have no money from which I could pay.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Freed Athens? J
    Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and Sources Edited by Eric W. Robinson Copyright © 2004 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd The Beginnings of the Athenian Democracv: Who Freed Athens? J Introduction Though the very earliest democracies lildy took shape elsewhere in Greece, Athens embraced it relatively early and would ultimately become the most famous and powerful democracy the ancient world ever hew. Democracy is usually thought to have taken hold among the Athenians with the constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes, ca. 508/7 BC. The tyrant Peisistratus and later his sons had ruled Athens for decades before they were overthrown; Cleisthenes, rallying the people to his cause, made sweeping changes. These included the creation of a representative council (bode)chosen from among the citizens, new public organizations that more closely tied citizens throughout Attica to the Athenian state, and the populist ostracism law that enabled citizens to exile danger- ous or undesirable politicians by vote. Beginning with these measures, and for the next two centuries or so with only the briefest of interruptions, democracy held sway at Athens. Such is the most common interpretation. But there is, in fact, much room for disagree- ment about when and how democracy came to Athens. Ancient authors sometimes refer to Solon, a lawgiver and mediator of the early sixth century, as the founder of the Athenian constitution. It was also a popular belief among the Athenians that two famous “tyrant-slayers,” Harmodius and Aristogeiton, inaugurated Athenian freedom by assas- sinating one of the sons of Peisistratus a few years before Cleisthenes’ reforms - though ancient writers take pains to point out that only the military intervention of Sparta truly ended the tyranny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Olynthiacs and the Phillippics of Demosthenes
    The Olynthiacs and the Phillippics of Demosthenes Charles Rann Kennedy The Olynthiacs and the Phillippics of Demosthenes Table of Contents The Olynthiacs and the Phillippics of Demosthenes..............................................................................................1 Charles Rann Kennedy...................................................................................................................................1 THE FIRST OLYNTHIAC............................................................................................................................1 THE SECOND OLYNTHIAC.......................................................................................................................6 THE THIRD OLYNTHIAC........................................................................................................................10 THE FIRST PHILIPPIC..............................................................................................................................14 THE SECOND PHILIPPIC.........................................................................................................................21 THE THIRD PHILIPPIC.............................................................................................................................25 THE FOURTH PHILIPPIC.........................................................................................................................34 i The Olynthiacs and the Phillippics of Demosthenes Charles Rann Kennedy This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
    [Show full text]
  • Demosthenes, Chaeronea, and the Rhetoric of Defeat
    CHAPTER 6 Demosthenes, Chaeronea, and the Rhetoric of Defeat Max L. Goldman Introduction For years Demosthenes urged the Athenians to oppose the rising power of Macedon, which had come to prominence in the second half of the fourth century through the diplomatic and military efforts of its king, Philip II.1 Demosthenes finally convinced the Athenians and the Thebans to form an al- liance, which faced Philip at Chaeronea in the late summer of 338 BCE. Philip’s decisive victory in that battle had immediate consequences for the political landscape of the Greek world and modern historical narratives tend to treat Chaeronea as a turning point, as the moment when mainland Greece ceased to engage in independent foreign policy actions.2 Although this turned out to be the case, it was not immediately clear at Athens that the new order established by Philip after the battle was irrevocable. When Demosthenes was selected to deliver the funeral oration (logos epitaphios) for the Athenians who died at the battle of Chaeronea, he faced a particularly challenging task because the soldiers, whose deaths he needed to praise, had died fighting a losing battle, a battle he had vigorously advocated for. In his funeral oration, Demosthenes needed to discuss the defeat and his role in it in a way that created a sense of continuity with the past, that minimized the potential disruption such a defeat can inflict on a community, and that gave the Athenians a way to understand their defeat and his role in it. There can be no doubt that Demosthenes delivered the oration for the dead of Chaeronea.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sweep of History
    STUDENT’S World History & Geography 1 1 1 Essentials of World History to 1500 Ver. 3.1.10 – Rev. 2/1/2011 WHG1 The following pages describe significant people, places, events, and concepts in the story of humankind. This information forms the core of our study; it will be fleshed-out by classroom discussions, audio-visual mat erials, readings, writings, and other act ivit ies. This knowledge will help you understand how the world works and how humans behave. It will help you understand many of the books, news reports, films, articles, and events you will encounter throughout the rest of your life. The Student’s Friend World History & Geography 1 Essentials of world history to 1500 History What is history? History is the story of human experience. Why study history? History shows us how the world works and how humans behave. History helps us make judgments about current and future events. History affects our lives every day. History is a fascinating story of human treachery and achievement. Geography What is geography? Geography is the study of interaction between humans and the environment. Why study geography? Geography is a major factor affecting human development. Humans are a major factor affecting our natural environment. Geography affects our lives every day. Geography helps us better understand the peoples of the world. CONTENTS: Overview of history Page 1 Some basic concepts Page 2 Unit 1 - Origins of the Earth and Humans Page 3 Unit 2 - Civilization Arises in Mesopotamia & Egypt Page 5 Unit 3 - Civilization Spreads East to India & China Page 9 Unit 4 - Civilization Spreads West to Greece & Rome Page 13 Unit 5 - Early Middle Ages: 500 to 1000 AD Page 17 Unit 6 - Late Middle Ages: 1000 to 1500 AD Page 21 Copyright © 1998-2011 Michael G.
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Isaeus 9 and Astyphilus' Last Expedition David Welsh
    WELSH, DAVID, Isaeus 9 and Astyphilus' Last Expedition , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 32:2 (1991:Summer) p.133 Isaeus 9 and Astyphilus' Last Expedition David Welsh SAEUS 9, ON THE ESTATE OF ASTYPHILUS, can be conveniently I studied through part of the family stemma of the litigants.1 The speech relates that the professional soldier Astyphilus died on military service at Mytilcnc, and subsequently in Athens Cleon, his first cousin and the speaker's opponent in the suit, took possession of the estate in the name of his own son. x I Thudippus Euthycrates = sister of Hierocles = Theophrastus I I I Cleon Astyphilus speaker I son Cleon maintained that Astyphilus had adopted this son before his departure and invoked a will deposited with a certain Hierocles. The (unnamed) speaker, Astyphilus' uterine half­ brother by the remarriage of Euthycrates' widow to Theo­ phrastus, denounces the will as a forgery and contends that he has a stronger claim to the estate.z One of his chief arguments is 1 The following works will be cited by author's name: A. R. W. HARRISON, The Law of Athens: The Family and Property (Oxford 1968);]. K. DAVIES, Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 B.C. (Oxford 1971); W. WYSE, The Speeches of Isaeus (Cambridge 1904); A. P. BURNETT and C. N. EDMONSON, "The Chabrias Monument in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 30 (1961) 74-91; T. T. B. RYDER, Koine Eirene (London 1965); S. HORNBLOWER, Mausolus (Oxford 1982). 2 Since Cleon and his son were respectively the first cousin and first cousin once removed of Astyphilus on the paternal side, either would normally have enjoyed legal precedence over the speaker in the order of succession to the 133 WELSH, DAVID, Isaeus 9 and Astyphilus' Last Expedition , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 32:2 (1991:Summer) p.133 134 ISAEUS 9 AND ASTYPHILUS' LAST EXPEDITION based on Astyphilus' alleged hostility to Cleon because Thudippus was said to have killed Euthycrates in a fraternal quarrel over partition of the family estate.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards
    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Poetry and the Dēmos: State Regulation of a Civic Possession
    is is a version of an electronic document, part of the series, Dēmos: Clas- sical Athenian Democracy, a publicationpublication ofof e Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org]. e electronic version of this article off ers contextual information intended to make the study of Athenian democracy more accessible to a wide audience. Please visit the site at http:// www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home. Poetry and the Dēmos: State Regulation of a Civic Possession S is article argues that poetry – the Homeric epics and the works of the tragedians – enjoyed an importance to the democratic government of Athens equal to that of the city’s laws. Like laws, poetry was powerful. Like the law, too, poetry was regulated and, at times, manipulated ac- cording to the political needs of the city and its rulers. P C e pervasive civic importance of poetry in Athenian democracy during the fi h and fourth centuries has been obvious since ancient times. e fi gure Demades in Plutarch calls the theoric fund, which paid for the entrance fee into dramatic festivals for all citizens, the “glue of the democracy” (ὡς ἔλεγε Δημάδης, κόλλαν ὀνομάζων τὰ θεωρικὰ τῆς δημοκρατίας) (Plut. Platonic Questions b). Casey Dué, “Poetry and the Dēmos: state regulation of a civic possession,” in C. Blackwell, ed., Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy (A.(A. MahoneyMahoney andand R.R. Scaife,Scaife, edd.,edd., e Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org], . © , C. Dué. In Aeschines’s oration Against Timarchus, Aeschines asks his jury to apply wisdom from the poetry of Euripides in their judgment of the case before them: Σκέψασθε δέ, ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰς γνῶμας ἃς ἀποφαίνεται ὁ ποιητής.
    [Show full text]
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History
    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
    [Show full text]