A Social and Historical Commentary on Demosthenes' Against
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Social and Historical Commentary on Demosthenes’ Against Euboulides Kerry Louise Phelan A major thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisor and Head of Department: Dr. Kieran McGroarty Department of Ancient Classics Faculty of Arts, Celtic Studies and Philosophy National University of Ireland, Maynooth February, 2016 Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... v Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... vii Note on the text ............................................................................................................. vii 1. Introduction 1.1: Introducing Demosthenes’ Against Euboulides .................................................... 1 1.2: Demosthenes and his speech-writing career ......................................................... 2 1.3: Libanios’ Hypothesis for Against Euboulides ..................................................... 15 1.4: The re-enactment of Pericles’ citizenship law in 403/2 BC ................................ 21 1.5: Demophilos’ decree and the extraordinary διαψήφισις of 346/5 BC ................... 25 1.6: Slavery as the penalty of a failed appeal against expulsion ................................ 43 1.7: Concluding remarks ............................................................................................ 49 2. Text and translation ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΕΥΒΟΥΛΙΔΗΝ ............................................... 51 Demosthenes’ Against Euboulides ............................................................................. 67 3. Commentary §§1-7: προοίμιον ....................................................................................................... 86 §§8-14: διήγησις ...................................................................................................... 105 §§15-65: πίστεις ...................................................................................................... 128 §§18-30: Euxitheos’ father ............................................................................... 135 ii §§30-45: Euxitheos’ mother ............................................................................. 168 §§46-51: Euxitheos’ evidence about himself ................................................... 215 §§52-6: Euboulides’ accusations against Euxitheos ........................................ 226 §§57-65: corruption in Halimous ..................................................................... 235 §§66-70: ἐπίλογος ................................................................................................... 250 Tables Table 1: divisions and dates of speeches ................................................................... 262 Table 2: Euxitheos’ family tree ................................................................................ 268 Appendices Appendix 1: Isaeus’ On Behalf of Euphiletos (Isae. 12) .......................................... 270 Appendix 2: Libanios’ life and career ...................................................................... 280 Appendix 3: Pericles’ citizenship law of 451/0 BC ................................................. 282 Appendix 4: the workings of the deme ..................................................................... 289 Appendix 5: the workings of the phratry ................................................................... 293 Appendix 6: the workings of the genos ..................................................................... 298 Appendix 7: Against Euboulides as a public or private action ................................. 302 Bibliography Critical editions of Demosthenes’ speeches ............................................................. 314 Primary sources ........................................................................................................ 314 Secondary sources .................................................................................................... 320 Online sources .......................................................................................................... 336 iii Abstract Demosthenes’ Against Euboulides is a vibrant lawcourt speech which has rarely been given the attention it deserves in modern scholarship. The case focuses on the crucial issue of Athenian citizenship in the mid-fourth century BC and arose from the state’s decision to review citizen membership in every Attic deme. In the deme of Halimous, Euboulides was in charge of proceedings when the demesmen voted against a man named Euxitheos and thereby stripped him of his citizen rights. Euxitheos chose to appeal the decision before a jury and, seeking reinstatement as a citizen, he again faced Euboulides as his main opponent in court. Since citizenship was restricted to those whose parents were both Athenian, Euxitheos must defend the citizen status of both his father and his mother; specifically, he must account for his father’s strange accent and his mother’s humble employment in the marketplace, both of which have been used as evidence that they were of foreign extraction. As such, the speech stands as an important source for Athenian attitudes towards citizenship and status. Moreover, the speaker illuminates a number of topics vital to our understanding of classical Athenian legislation, politics, and society at that time. My thesis seeks to provide the historical context to the speech, and to explain the social and even cultural significance of all its aspects. Primarily, it examines Euxitheos’ life and family background, and the procedural elements of his appeal. Along with the commentary, I include both the Greek text and my own translation of the speech. In addition, I present an extensive introduction which covers key background issues such as the decree, process, and penalty relevant to this case. iv Acknowledgements First and foremost, I must record my debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Kieran McGroarty; without his invaluable insights, support and encouragement at every stage throughout my research, this work simply would not be what it is today. His interest and his patience never faltered, and I will be forever obliged to him for his mentorship. Furthermore, I ought to extend my sincerest thanks to all my colleagues in the Ancient Classics department, on whose doors I often knocked and who continually offered reassurance. I have to particularly thank Prof. David Scourfield for always being so generous with his time and for giving me crucial guidance throughout my postgraduate years. To Dr. William Desmond, Dr. Eoghan Moloney and Dr. Gordon Campbell for their instruction in Greek and, quite often, their perseverance in teaching me. And lastly, Ms. Breege Lynch deserves my sincere thanks for her unwavering assistance in all matters great and small. When I came to Maynooth University as an undergraduate in 2005, I had no idea what the future had in store but I was excited to see where my studies would take me. It is a testament to both the institution and its people that I am currently presenting this PhD thesis here over ten years later. As a doctoral student, my research was endorsed by a John and Pat Hume Scholarship, and I am profoundly grateful to Maynooth University for facilitating and funding my learning. During this project, I was fortunate enough to meet a number of scholars who were a source of inspiration. In particular, two individuals had a significant impact on advancing and informing the directions that I took; Prof. Chris Carey and Prof. David Whitehead deserve specific thanks for taking the time to discuss my research with me and for their subsequent advice and encouragement. v I owe more personal thanks to a number of students, past and present, who I met on my journey and now have the pleasure of calling my friends. Naming all of them here would undoubtedly cause such an increase in page numbers that I would require another volume, so I hope they will forgive me if I do not attempt to mention them all by name. However, I must mention Marty Ryan and Helen Gilmore McVeigh, whose friendships both ensured that the PhD process was a more enjoyable experience than it would otherwise have been. A special thanks must go to my fellow postgraduates and tutors, Stephen Strickland and Stephen McCarthy, who not only endured many Demosthenes- related conversations with me but offered countless cups of coffee and bars of chocolate in my hours of need; I sincerely thank them both for their good ears and sharp eyes. Finally, I need to acknowledge my friends and family at home. I am incredibly lucky to have had Louise, Aileen and Fionnuala in my life since our schooldays; I treasure their loyalty and all the laughter in their company. What my family’s moral support has meant to me over the last years cannot be expressed in any way which would do it justice. They may not always have understood what my research entailed or even why I chose to pursue it but they cheered me on regardless. I ought to thank my dear brothers and sisters for always reminding me to see the bigger picture. But of course, my fondest gratitude goes to my parents. To my wonderfully strong mother, Margaret, who has always been my rock and kept me grounded no matter what. I’ve never had to look very far