Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ Againstleokrates

Theatre World Trends in Classics – SupplementaryVolumes

Edited by FrancoMontanari and Antonios Rengakos Scientific Committee Alberto Bernabé ·Margarethe Billerbeck Claude Calame ·Philip R. Hardie ·Stephen J. Harrison Stephen Hinds ·RichardHunter·ChristinaKraus Giuseppe Mastromarco ·Gregory Nagy TheodoreD.Papanghelis ·GiustoPicone Kurt Raaflaub ·Bernhard Zimmermann

Volume 45 Theatre World

Critical PerspectivesonGreek Tragedyand Comedy

Studies in Honour of Georgia Xanthakis-Karamanos

Edited by AndreasFountoulakis, Andreas Markantonatos and Georgios Vasilaros ISBN 978-3-11-051491-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-051978-5 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-051896-2 ISSN 1868-4785

Library of CongressCataloging-in-Publication Data ACIP catalog record forthisbook hasbeen applied foratthe Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists thispublication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic dataare available on the Internet at http:// dnb.dnb.de.

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Logo: Christopher Schneider,Laufen Printing and binding: CPI booksGmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Eleni Volonaki Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates

1Poetry in Oratory

Poetry was the means of education for rhetores in matters of eloquence and syn- tax.¹ The significanceofpoetry in the training of the ancient rhetoric is clearly reflected in the rhetorical handbooks, wherequotations of poetic maxims are il- lustrated together with stylistic devices.² Aristotle drawsexamples and citations from Homer and the tragic poets in his Rhetoric,assuming that logographers should have had awide knowledge of poetry.Oratory relied on poetry and,therefore, the style of the first orators was highlypoetical and influenced by the example of tragedy. Thus, Antiphon, the first logographer known to us from his written oratorical speeches, employs poetic style and Lysias went to the other extreme, whereas Isokrates established the independence of prose from poetry. Nevertheless,Isokrates emphasises the significance of examples and prototypes taken from poetry by an orator who speaks in front of alarge audience (Isokr.2.42 – 44,48–49).³ Athenian judgesshowed prejudice towardaparticularlyeducated speaker, but they surelyadmired and appreciated the poets and their work. Aristotle speaksofthe Athenians’ general knowledge of the mythological stories,which intensifies the enjoyment of the audience (Rhet. III. 1.9. 1404a). In Aristophanes’ Wasps (579–80) Philokleon,the addicted judge,delivers apseudo-legal speech in defence of jury attendance and he lists the typesofentertainingperformances he can expect to witness in court; these are recitations from tragedy, aulos-reci- tals, and competitions in rhetoricalentreaty by rival suitors for the hand of arich heiress.These three kinds of performance obviously refer to tragedy, comedyand the rhetorical debate (agon). Aristophanes’ parody, at this point,obviouslyre- veals acomic tone and thereforeisexaggerated,⁴ but must have related to reality since otherwise it would not seem amusingtohis audience.⁵ Thus, it maybein-

 Perlman 1964,160 –61.  E.g. Rhet. Ad Alex. 18:1433b11–14,particularlywhere Euripides is quoted.  Poetry was the means of education of orators in matters of structureand eloquence, cf. Perl- man, 1964,160 –61.  Carey 2000,198–203.  Hall 2006,353.

DOI 10.1515/9783110519785-015 252 Eleni Volonaki ferred that Athenian judgeswereexpected to be pleased to hearquotations from tragedy. It is true thatnowhereinthe orators can we find anydenial of the importance or the value of general education or culture. Orators mayhavebeen well aware of the appeal and influenceofpoetry on their audience but,onthe other hand, therewas an inherent antagonism to- wards experts together with agrowingtendency to develop aprosaic-oratorical style independent of poetry.This probablyrestricted the use of poetry and de- creased the number of direct quotations from poetry made by Attic orators in the fourth century BC.Itistrue thatall the extant quotations from poetry are lim- ited to asmall number of forensic speeches delivered in public trials; the three speeches of Aischines, Against Timarchos (346 BC), On the False Embassy (343 BC), and Against Ktesiphon (330 BC), the speechesofDemosthenes, On the Crown (330 BC) and On the False Embassy (343BC), and the speech of Lykourgos, Against Leokrates (330 BC). It is obvious that the poetic quotations in forensic oratory are all included in the speeches that involvethe political rivalry between Aischines and Demos- thenes,inparticular the political trials that followed their Embassy to Philip II for the peace negotiations, and indirectlyLykourgos’ political agenda supporting Demosthenes at the time.All these trials wereheld within aperiod of six years, between 346 and 330BC. Political and culturalprogrammesthat en- hanced the revitalization of fifth century drama,re-established the classicaltra- gedians and recorded publiclyfor the first time their victories mayhaveplayeda significant role to the inclusion of quotations from poetry at this specific period.⁶ Moreover,itmay have been the crucial and intensive time in the Athenian political arena, before and after the Athenian defeat at the battle in Chaironeia (338 BC), which actuallyencouraged the use of the specific rhetoricalstrategyinorder to influencethe Athenian audience.Onthe other hand, it mayhavesimplybeen arhetorical technique introduced by Aischines, an actor himself, to build up the pleasure of the audience⁷ and attract theirapproval of his own case in the trial; Aischinesmay have firstlyencouraged Demosthenes, and subsequentlyLykour- gostorespond and make use of the specific rhetorical frame of poetic quotations in their own speecheseither for prosecution or defense.

 The first date, 347/6BCisthe time during Euboulos’ tenure as overseer of the theoric fund, when the records of victors at the Great Dionysia werefirst inscribed,whereas 330BCisconnect- ed with Lykourgos’ first attempt to stabilize, protect and preservethe works of the threetrage- dians,Aischylos,Sophoklesand Euripides;cf. Hanink 2014,9ff.  ForAristotle’sview that the general knowledge of the mythological stories intensifies the enjoyment of the audience, cf. Arist. Poet. 26,1461b 27ff. Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates 253

Thegreatest numberofquotations from poetryistobefound in Aischines, Against Timarchos 1.119–154and in Lykourgos, Against Leokrates 1.83 – 110, 131– 133. Moreover,amongthe tragedians thequotations aremostly from Euripides.⁸ It maynot be acoincidencethat in both cases, that of Aischinesagainst Ti- marchos and that of Lykourgosagainst Leokrates the legal proof is very weak or even non-existent.Both orators relyonmoral rather than on strictlylegal arguments, and the quotations from poetry maybeseen as asubstitutefor proof from laws and for evidence by witnesses. In Lykourgos’ case, quotations from poetry are an integralpart of an elaborate section of proofs and examples that aim to proveLeokrates’ guilt of treason.⁹ The present paper focuses on the tragic frag- ment from Euripides’ Erechtheus,which is the first quotation from poetry included in the section of proofs,exploring its appealand influenceupon the judges. Furthermore, it will examine whether the quotation from Euripides’ tragedy, among other quotations from poetry,constitutes proof or example or aspecific rhetorical device employed for political purposes at the time. AccordingtoAristotle (Rhet. Ι.15.13), poetryisusedasproof,evidence or example.¹⁰ It is plausiblethatLykourgos includesall quotations from poetry, as well as otherforms of documentaryevidence, withinalegalistic frame of proofs andex- amples to support hiscaseoftreason.Inorder to understand theappealofEuri- pides’ tragicabstract from Erechtheus,inparticular, upon theaudience, we need to examinebriefly thecaseofprosecution againstLeokrates. Afterthe disaster of the

 Aischinesincludes in his first speech five quotations from Homer,three from Euripides and one from Hesiod. Lykourgosincludes in his quotations Euripides,Homer and Tyrtaios,epigrams on the Spartans whohad fallen at Thermopylae and on the Athenian victors at Marathon and finallytwo quotations from un-known poets.Inthe other two speeches of Aischines they are all from Hesiod and epigrams.Demosthenes quotes Hesiod, Euripides,Sophokles, and an epi- gram. Amongthe tragedians,Euripides is quoted mostly, Sophokles onlyonce, whereas Aischy- los,not at all. Acomparison with Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric shows the same preferenceinthe quotations from the tragedians;Euripides againholds the primacyand is quoted seventeen times,while Sophokles is quoted onlyfivetimes and Aischylos is not quoted at all; cf. Perlman 1964,163 – 165  These examples can be divided into threegroups:a)examples of patriotism and piety (1.75 – 97), b) quotations from poetry demonstrating the spirit of Athenian and Spartan patriotism (1.98–110) and c) examplesofpunishment enacted by the Athenians and the Spartans for crimes similar to that of Leokrates (111–122).  [13] περὶ δὲ μαρτύρων, μάρτυρέςεἰσιν διττοί, οἱ μὲνπαλαιοὶ οἱ δὲ πρόσφατοι, καὶ τούτων οἱ μὲνμετέχοντες τοῦ κινδύνου οἱ δ᾽ἐκτός. λέγω δὲ παλαιοὺςμὲντούςτεποιητὰςκαὶὅσων ἄλλων γνωρίμων εἰσὶνκρίσεις φανεραί, οἷον ᾿Aθηναῖοι Ὁμήρῳ μάρτυρι ἐχρήσαντο περὶ Σαλαμῖνος, καὶ Τενέδιοι ἔναγχος Περιάνδρῳ τῷ Κορινθίῳ πρὸςΣιγειεῖς, καὶ Κλεοφῶνκατὰ Κριτίου τοῖςΣόλωνος ἐλεγείοις ἐχρήσατο, λέγων ὅτι πάλαι ἀσελγὴς ἡ οἰκία: οὐ γὰρ ἄνποτε ἐποίησε Σόλων εἰπεῖνμοι Κριτίᾳ πυρρότριχι πατρὸς ἀκούειν. 254 Eleni Volonaki city of Athens in thebattleatChaironeia, in 338BC, theAthenians votedstrict measures to protecttheir city from thethreatbyPhilipIIand theexpansion of Macedonian power. Amongthese measures,theyvoted that citizens were forbid- dentolet theirfamilies(wivesand children) flee away from thecity, whereasthey themselveswerecommittedtoserve as guardians. Leokrates,mostprobably(otherwise Lykourgoswould have clearlystatedso),leftAthensbeforethisparticular decree wasmadeand went firsttoRhodesand then to Megara fortrade, together with hisfamilyand allhis belongings.Eight yearslater, he returnsbacktoAthens, when Lykourgosdenounced himwithaneisangelia fortreason (330 BC). Thecase is notlegallyfounded butismainlybased upon Lykourgos’ attempttopresent Leokrates as atraitor andanenemy of thecityofAthens, itsgodsand itsconsti- tution, andshouldtherefore be condemnedtodeath,asother traitors hadbeen convictedinthe past.

2Lykourgos and Euripides’ Erechtheus

Euripides’ Erechtheus involves the mythical story of Erichthonios, who was born from the bowels of the earth after it receivedthe seed spread by Hephaistos during his attempted seduction of Athena. The newborn was entrusted to the three daughters of Kekrops,the first autochthonous king of Attica, who was bornhalf man and half snake from the soil of future Attica. As an adult, Erichthonios becomes the king of Athens with the name of Erechtheus,before being buried in the soil from which he was born, by astrokeofPoseidon’strident; he had defeat- ed and killed the god’sson, Eumolpos, the king of Thraceand allytothe Eleu- sinian rivals.However,this victory would have never materialized withoutthe sacrifice of one of Erechtheus’ daughter.¹¹ Euripides presents on the Athenian stagethe wisdom of the autochthonous king and founder of the city of Athens. The homonymous tragedybecomes even more interesting,since it was performed between 423and 422BC, towardthe end of the first phase of the Peloponnesian War, and probablyinconnection with the beginning of reconstruction of the temple of Athena Polias, known as Erech- theion.The historic narrative of the war,which makes Erechtheus an enemyof Eumolpos, the son of Poseidon is dramatized duringthe dramatic festival of the Great Dionysia, afact that attributes apolitical dimension to Euripidean tragedy. The battle between Erechtheus and Eumolpos takes place on the dramatic stage, at the foot of Akropolis,before the citizens who claim theirautochthony

 On the myth, cf. Calame 2011, 2–3. Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates 255 back to the history of the city of Athens, and, who at the moment,fight to defend and protect their city duringthe Peloponnesian war.¹² This episode from Euripi- des’ tragedyinvites the audience to recall the earlyhistory of Athens and their legendary birth, as related to their mythical king,the renowned founder of their city.AsHanink (2014, 28)has stated, ‘Lycurgusframesthe lengthypassage of Euripides’ Erechtheus in such away thateffectively rewrites literary history’. Lykourgosreflects, through the specific citation, Euripides’ own dramatization of Erechtheus’ myth and the values which his tragedyenhances, but also his own personality,his relation to the social and spiritual environment of his time, his political stance towardthe city of Athens and its constitution. Lykourgosechoes Euripides’ dramatization of aglorious but damagingmo- ment in the well-known history of Athens; duringthe period of the Archidamian War(431– 421BC), Euripides appears to treat in adramatic form the themes of the epitaphios logos.¹³ It is striking,aswillbeshown later,that Lykourgoshimself employs all themesofthe epitaphios logos,alsothe form and style of epideictic oratory in his forensic speech in order dramatize the supposedtreasonable action of Leokrates; even his long citation of Euripides’ Erechtheus is included in awide and extended section concerning the idea of patriotism. From section 80 in the speech Against Leokrates,Lykourgosbegins to appeal to the past for historical examples of patriotism and reverencefor the gods. First- ly,hepraises all the Greeks who foughtatPlataia and their oath(1.80 –81), un- derliningtheir bravery and commitment for liberty.Insubsequence, the city of Athens is glorified as a ‘shining example of noble deeds for the Greeks’ (1.82– 83). Theexample of the noble death of Kodros,the king of the Athenians, is contrasted with Leokrates’ treacherous actiontoabandon his country (1.84–86). The condemnation to death of Kallistratos,anAthenian politician who playedalead- ing role in the formation of the Second Athenian Leaguein378,isemphasised as an exemplary punishment of the Athenians for treacherous actions(1.93). Anoth- er rather fantastic story is narratedassuitable to younger men to hear; the filial piety of aman who stayedbehind to save his father duringthe eruption of Mount Aitna (1.95 – 96). Lykourgosthen calls for the audience’sattention to listen to the story of Eumolpos, the son of Poseidon and Chione, who had come togetherwith the Thracianstoattack Athens. Erechtheus, the king of Athens at the time, con- sulted the Delphic oracle about how he might secure avictory against them.The

 Ibid., 3ff.  Sonnino 2010,41; Loraux 1986,65; Cropp 1995, 148; Hanink 2014,31with n.28. 256 Eleni Volonaki oracle’sresponse was that he must sacrifice his daughter,Erechtheus obeyed and so was able to expel the invaders (1.98 – 99).¹⁴ Lykourgossummarizes the plot of Euripides’ Erechtheus,which has reached us in fragmentary condition, either through citations or through the intermediary of apapyrus,itself incomplete.¹⁵ He then cites along monologue by Praxithea, who accepts the sacrifice of her daughter in the name of the civicprinciples which are praised throughout the speech in order to provethatLeokrates’ behaviour wascompletelyopposite to them. Accordingtothe orator,Praxithea’svir- tues as presented in her monologue made her worthyofthe city of Athens(Ly- kourgos Against Leokrates 1.100):

ἄξιον δ᾽, ὦἄνδρες δικασταί, καὶ τῶν ἰαμβείων ἀκοῦσαι, ἃ πεποίηκε λέγουσαν τὴνμητέρα τῆςπαιδός. ὄψεσθε γὰρ ἐναὐτοῖςμεγαλοψυχίαν καὶ γενναιότητα ἀξίαν καὶ τῆςπόλεως καὶ τοῦ γενέσθαι Κηφισοῦ θυγατέρα. ‘The iambic verses he wrote for the girl’smother areworth hearing, gentlemen of the court, for in them youwill see the magnanimity and nobility that made hereworthyofour city and to be Cephisus’ daughter’.¹⁶

The Athenians’ victory over Eumolpos is acommonplaceofAthenian epideictic oratory,particularlyinepainos,¹⁷ used both by Euripides and Lykourgosinadif- ferent context in each case, dramatic and forensic. Beyond the encomiastic nature of the story,inthe specific trial, the mythic quotation mayalsoberelated to the recent history of the Athenians, after the battle at Chaironeia, when Alexand- er the Great had razed the city of Thebes, supposedlykilling 6,000 of its inhab- itants and enslaving another 30,000 (Diod. Sic. 17.11.1– 14.1). The story of Eumol- pos’ invasion is also quoted by Demosthenes in his epitaphios logos that he was elected to deliverfor those who died at the battle of Chaironeia in 338. The same story enhances the encomiastic tone of epideictic arguments and historic examples thatLykourgosisusing to emphasise Leokrates’ guilt for treason.¹⁸

 Forthe story that Erechtheus’ other daughters committed suicide and despitethe sacrificeof his daughter,Erechtheus himself died in battle as he led the Athenians to victory over Thrace, cf. Hanink 2014,32with n. 32. Thereisalso evidenceofancient texts that refertoclassical tragedy, which suggests that Erechtheus was relatively well known in antiquity (ibid. 33).  Calame 2011,3–4.  All citationsfromLykourgos Against Leokrates in translation have been takenfromWor- thington /Cooper /Harris 2001.  On the commonplaces of epideictic oratory,cf. Thomas 1989,218, Ziolkowski 1981,74–137, Loraux 1986,241– 251, Volonaki 2014,16–33,Hanink 2014,34–35.  Forthe interrelation between Lykourgos1,Against Leokrates and Demosthenes 60, Epita- phios,cf. Loraux 1986,393,n.40. Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates 257

Lykourgosobviouslyrecognised in the particular myth of Erechtheus apro- totype which had inspiredand educated the ancestors of the Athenian judges. The orator’schoice to cite the myth in the tragic presentation of Euripides’ Erech- theus maybegiven two explanations; firstlyEuripides’ tragedyadds validity and authority since Athenian classical tragedyhas widelyacquired recognitionand fame by the late fourth century,and particularlythe Euripidean tragedy, and sec- ondlyEuripides’ version of the myth has an emphatic dramatic impact upon the audience because of the contrast created between awoman who sacrificedher own daughter for the sake of the city and supported the civic values from the classicalperiod of the Athenian history and aman, Leokrates, who was acoward and traitor of the city at acritical moment of danger in the city of Athensafew years before the time of the trial.

3Praxithea’sSpeech

The orator employs twice the adverb ‘justly’ to explain whyhis citation has to be heard by the audience. This maysuggest thatthe audience would be expectedto react with thorybos and thereforethe orator needstocalm them by emphasizing the significance of Euripides, as aclassicaltragedian and his specific play.¹⁹ Firstly, Lykourgosappeals to justice in order to make the judgeslisten and accept the deeds of the ancestors (1.98: ἐφ᾽ οἷςγὰρἐκεῖνοι ποιοῦντες ἐφιλοτιμοῦντο, ταῦτα δικαίως ἂν ὑμεῖς ἀκούσαντες ἀποδέχοισθε ‘Justice demands that youlisten to the deeds for which theywon respect and take them to heart’). It is obvious that Euripides’ tragedyreflectsthe ancestral civic values, which Lykourgoswish- es here to reinforce and make the audience adopt them, as if they weretheir own beliefs so that they willconvict Leokrates.The distance between the Athenians’ ancestors from the classical period and the present time of the trial expands to a period of over acenturyand the link is apparentlyEuripides’ tragedy. Secondly, Lykourgospraises Euripides, just before the citation of Praxithea’smonologue, for having chosen the specific myth as athemefor his tragedy; moreover,the orator assigns Euripides with specific motivation for composing the tragedy Erech- theus,bystatingthatthe dramatic poet setanexample of the citizens’ love of their country (1.100):

 cf. Allen 2000,31. 258 Eleni Volonaki

διὸ καὶ δικαίως ἄντις Εὐριπίδην ἐπαινέσειεν, ὅτι τά τ᾽ἄλλ᾽ὢνἀγαθὸςποιητὴςκαὶτοῦτον τὸνμῦθον προείλετο ποιῆσαι, ἡγούμενος κάλλιστον ἂνγενέσθαι τοῖςπολίταις παράδειγμα τὰς ἐκείνων πράξεις, πρὸς ἃς ἀποβλέποντας καὶ θεωροῦντας συνεθίζεσθαι ταῖςψυχαῖςτὸ τὴνπατρίδα φιλεῖν. ‘Euripides therefore deserves our praise because, in addition to his other poetic virtues,he chose to makeatragedyout of this story,believingthat their deeds would serveasanex- ample that citizens could look to and studyand thus acquire in their hearts the habit of lovingtheir country’.

It becomes clear that Lykourgosuses Euripides’ voice to add authority to his appeal to ancestral civic virtues, which are incorporated within his epideictic argu- mentationand style of the speech. AccordingtoWilson (1996, 314), Lykourgos’ choice of quotation implies ‘avery nostalgic view of tragedythatvirtuallyassim- ilates it to the profoundlyidealizing genre of the epitaphios logos’.²⁰ Such aview strengthens the idea that Lykourgosattempts to advancethe glorification of Ath- ens of the first empire and connect it with the glory of classicaltragedy.Inthe third quarter of the fourth centuryAthens still enjoyedastrong tradition of dramatic performance and each year anumber of new tragedies and comedies came up at dramatic festivals.Lykourgosmade alaw to assure the status of the three tragedians by making acopyoftheir tragedies, depositingtheirscripts in the archive,and building statues of the poets to be placed in the centreofthe city; thus Lykourgos’ lawwas meant to reinforce the Athenian identity of tragedy. AccordingtoHanink (2014, 70 – 87), Lykourgos’ vision of Euripides is avi- sion of agreat and wise citizen and Euripides’ poetry was the product of his own civic values; after explaining how Euripides is not onlyagood poet but also agood man, adevoted and bravecitizen, she concludes that Lykourgos presents Euripides as the democratic poet and as aparadigmofAthenian patriotism and citizenship. Thus, in her opinion, Lykourgoseffectively reclaims Gree- ce’smost popular tragedian for Athens by choosing Euripides and assigns trag- edytoamost important place in the city’shistory.Moreover,given the theatrical and historical rivalry between Athens and Macedon and the fact that dramatic competitions became morepopular in Macedon afterthe expansion of the empire, Lykourgosmay aim to remind to the whole of Greece that Athens is the home of tragedy, and particularlyofEuripides. On balance, Haninkemphasises the theatrical effect of Lykourgos’ recitation of (Erechtheus’ wife) Praxithea’s lines from Euripides’ Erechtheus and particularlynotes that ‘the jurors will

 Forthe close relation between epitaphios logosfor Diogneitosand Praxithea’sspeech, cf. Tsagalis 2007,13and Hanink 2014,38. Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates 259 have heard in Lycurgus’ single voice apluralityofvoices (Praxithea’s, Euripides’ and Lycurgus’own)’.²¹ Lykourgos’ voice becomes more authoritative through Euripides’ voice –poetic and moral influence, and more rhetoricallyeffective through Praxithea’s voice – female and argumentative impact.²² The orator praises Euripides ‘ἐπαι- νέσειεν, ὅτι τά τ᾽ἄλλ᾽ὢνἀγαθὸςποιητής’ in ahonourific language, which maysuggest that the poet is worthyofanofficial status in Athens and deserves adecree to be honoured for his own service to Athens and for his choice to pro- duce Erechtheus.²³ On the other hand,the honourific languagemay be delibera- tivelyand excessively used to stress the importance of Euripides’ Erechtheus as a fundamental playofAthenian past and heritage. Lykourgos cites fifty-five verses from Euripides’ Erechtheus,which presentPrax- ithea to explain with arguments whyshe is goingtooffer herdaughtertobesacri- ficedfor the safety of the city.Her powerful wordsplayadecisive role to the devel- opment of the tragic plot.Onthe onehand, Praxithea presents her decision to offer her daughter forsacrificeinfuture tense and on theother hand sheexplainsthe reasons forwhich this particular sacrificehas to be made. Ifweconsiderthe fact that Euripides’ tragedywas presented beforeanaudiencewho had startedtodis- pute the Periklean ideology,duringthe Peloponnesian War, we will realize that Praxithea’sspeech acquires apoliticaland social tension. In order to understand Lykourgos’ aims of hischoicetocitePraxithea’sprologuefromEuripides’ Erech- theus,it’sworth exploringthoroughly thecontent of herspeech. Themonologue starts with areference to thenobilityshown when grantinga favour,emphasizing that thedelay of grantingafavour leadstothe opposite of nobility (δυσγενέστερον ‘less honourable’)(l. 1–3).Thisstatement highlights the contrast betweenthosecitizenswho should be honoured fortheir nobledeeds andthose whoshouldbedishonoured fortheir inactivity;the implication may be that Praxitheashouldbehonouredfor hernoble deed to offerher daughter forsacrifice,whereas Leokratesshouldbepunished fornot protecting hiscity at atimeofdanger.Insubsequence,Praxithea announcesher decision to give herdaughter to be killed (l.4: ἐγὼ δὲ δώσω τὴν ἐμὴνπαῖδα κτανεῖν); thefuture tenseunderlines herdetermination andcertainty.She then givesthe reasonsof herdecisionand Euripides uses thephrase, λογίζομαιδὲπολλά (LSJ II2: ‘reckon, consider that…’), showingthatthe mother’sdecisionisthe resultofaseriousand

 Hanink 2014, 36  On Lykourgos’ authoritative voice, as was developed through Praxithea’sspeech, consisting of political ideals,philosophical views and poetic virtues,cf. Allen 2000.  Forthe honourific languageand the moral authority assigned to Euripides by Lykourgos, cf. Hanink 2014,40–53. 260 Eleni Volonaki difficult process, whereshe hadtoconsidermanyaspects of thesacrifice. Therea- soning of herdecisionisbased upon threefundamentalcommonplacesofthe epainos in funeral speeches, firstlythe city of Athens is thebestofall (l.4–6), and, secondly,the people of Athens arebornfromthisearth (αὐτόχθονες)(l. 7–8).Inorder to emphasisethe importance of beinganAtheniancitizen,Praxi- thea refers with contempt to allthe othercitiesas‘foundedbymigrationswith menimportedfromhereand there’ (l.8–10), as well as to thecitizenswho become aliens when leavingtheirown cities (l.11– 13). Thethird common placein- volvesthe worshipofthe ancestral gods andtheiraltars, as well as thepatriotism of theAthenians,bothimportant reasonsfor whichwomen bear theirchildren(l. 14– 15). Following theideaofthe patriotism,Praxithea posesarhetoricalquestion stressingthe contrastbetween theone andthe many: ‘WhymustIdestroy them when Ican give onegirltodie forall?’ (l.16–18); similarly, knowingthe numbers, shearguesthatone family’slossismuchlessofdestruction than thelossofthe entire city (l.19–21). In anotherrhetorical question,she assuresthatifshe had boys instead of girls, shewould send to fightthe enemyofthe city andwould notbeafraidifhedied; moreover,she wishes ‘shehad children whofought andshine amongmen than mere figuresofmen born in ourcityfor nothing!’ (l.22–27). Thephrase ‘μὴ σχήματ᾽ἄλλως ἐνπόλειπεφυκότα’ contraststhe brave Athenianstocowardcitizenswho do notfight fortheircountry,and this versecan be seen as an effectivedramaticreference to Leokrates’ behaviour andaction. In l. 28–29,Praxitheareferstothose motherswho crywhentheir children go to thewar andtheirlamentationisthe causefor theirchildrentolose courageatthe battle.Takingintoaccount themetaphorthatPraxithea is giving herdaughtertobesacrificed as if shehad sent ason to thewar,for theprotection andsafetyoftheir country, shepresentsherself as abrave mother whowillnot cry butwillbestrongatthe moment of giving herdaughter to be killed.She is further contrasted with allthosemothers whoprefertohavetheir children alive,who give them badadviceratherthangood(l. 30 –31); thecontrast is strengthened by the statementthatshe hatesthem, showingthatshe wouldhavenever withheld her children from supporting theircountry,eventhoughshe appearstobeatadisad- vantageous position,since herdaughterwillreceive asingle crown(l. 34–35), whereasall thecitizenswho fightfor theircountry winthe honour of public burial andanequal renown (l.32–33). Here,again,Praxithea is depicted as superior to anyother citizeninthe city,who sacrifices herown childfor thecityeventhough shewillnot getinreturngreat honours. Nevertheless, it is preferable to lose her childthaneverything(l. 36– 40); here,the importance of thecityofAthensfor its people is emphasised to strengthen Praxithea’spatriotism. Lines35–36 implythat theother twosisters died as well, andaccording to Apollodoros(3.15.4), they com- Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates 261 mitted suicideout of sympathy forher.²⁴ In l. 41– 42,Praxitheaemphaticallypres- ents herselfasthe saviourofthe city even when othergovernors will rule;the future tensestressesher certaintythather action will bringsafetyfor thecity(‘ἐμοὶ σωθήσεται …, τήνδ᾽ἐγὼσώσω πόλιν’). Herself-confidence reflects thearrogance of theheroic persona,eventhoughitisthe daughter’ssacrificethatwillactually save thecity. Thesametonecan be discernedwhenshe assuresthe people that againsther will no onewillharm theancestraltraditionallaws, theolive tree, thegoldenGorgon, thetrident standing uprightoverthe city’sfoundations,or theworship of that cannot be destroyed by Eumolpos andthe Thracians (l.43– 49). Praxithea’sspeechcloseswithtwo apostrophae,the firstone instructing thecitizenstotakeher daughter andsavethemselves, sincefor onesinglelife thereisnochancethatshe will notsavethem(l. 50–52); again, here theheroine stresses thefactthatshe will save thecityand that thecitizens’ safety will bring them victory(‘σῴζεσθε, νικᾶτ᾽ …τήνδ᾽ἐγὼσώσω πόλιν’), andthe second onead- dressing thefatherlanditself, callinguponher ownlovefor it,and wishingthatall citizens will do thesamesothattheylivehappilywithout sufferingharm(l. 53– 55). As has become clear,Praxithea’sspeech is an encomiastic speech consistingof thecommonplaces of an epitaphios logos. Themainthemes of herargumentation are autochthonia (‘born from the earth of the city’)and philopatria (‘patriotism’). Athens is the greatest of allthe Greekcities and the autochthonyindicates its great- ness.Fame andglory arethe rewards for those whodie in battle andthese arecon- nected with themen of the city,ifPraxithea hadsons,but sinceshe only has daughters,the glory is to be assignedtothe daughter whowillbesacrificed.Bravery as opposed to cowardiceispraised as well as active participation in civic matters instead of inactivity.Finally, the things that countmost in thecity arethe ancestral laws andthe traditions,whichare of preeminentimportance. AccordingtoLykourgos, Praxithea’smonologue, and subsequentlyEuripi- des’ tragedy, Erechtheus,contributed so that men placed more devotion to their country to such an extent thatthey would never think to abandonordis- graceit, as Leokrates did (Lykourgos, Against Leokrates 1.101):

ταῦτα, ὦἄνδρες, τοὺςπατέρας ὑμῶν ἐπαίδευε. φύσει γὰροὐσῶνφιλοτέκνων πασῶντῶν γυναικῶν, ταύτην ἐποίησε τὴνπατρίδα μᾶλλον τῶνπαίδων φιλοῦσαν, ἐνδεικνύμενος ὅτι εἴπερ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῦτο τολμήσουσι ποιεῖν, τούςγ᾽ἄνδρας ἀνυπέρβλητόντινα δεῖ τὴνεὔ- νοιαν ὑπὲρτῆςπατρίδος ἔχειν, καὶ μὴ φεύγειν αὐτὴν ἐγκαταλιπόντας μηδὲ καταισχύνειν πρὸς ἅπαντας τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ὥσπερ Λεωκράτης.

 It is also said that Erechtheus himself died in battle as he led the Athenians to victory over Thrace; cf. Hanink 2014,32with n. 32. 262 Eleni Volonaki

‘These verses,gentlemen, formed part of our fathers’ education. Though all women by nature lovetheir children, the poet portrayedthis woman as lovingher country morethan her children. His point was that if women will have the courage to do this,men have all the morereason to placedevotion to their country ahead of everythingelse. They should not abandon their country and flee or disgrace it in front of all the Greeks, as Leokrates did’.

Lykourgos uses theverbs ‘ἃ πεποίηκε’ (1.100), ‘ἐπαίδευε ~ ἐποίησε ~ ἐνδεικνύμενος’ (1.101)topraisethe poet and describe the effect of hisverses, whichheassigned to Praxithea’srole. Lykourgos’ languageemphasises Euripides’ poeticidentity and action, ‘composed’, ‘educated’ and ‘showed’.The orator recallsEuripides’ poeticau- thority,fame and popularityand ascribes himthe intentionnot onlytooffer examples of imitation to theAthenians butalso to educate them with thevirtues of autochthonia andpatriotism.Through Euripides’ voice, Lykourgosacquires an authoritative voicehimself to validate the same examples of heroism, as the onepre- sented by Praxithea, and himself educatethe Athenian audiencetolovetheir country,protect it andsupport its interests.Lykourgos, however, delivers hisspeech in the heliastic court,duringaneisangelia – oneofthe mostseriousand importantpro- ceduresavailable for prosecutionagainst politicians and officials,²⁵ and hisinterpre- tationofEuripides’ tragedyand poetryasawhole is adjusted in such as wayasto persuadethe judges that Leokrateswas atraitor of thecity of Athens and should thereforebeconvicted. In this context, theoratorunderlines Euripides’ alleged point (‘ἐνδεικνύμενος’)that if womenhavesuch acourageasthat of Praxithea to lovetheir countrymorethantheir children, then men should have ‘all themorerea- sontoplacedevotion to their countryaheadofeverythingelse’ (1.101). The contrast betweenfemale andmale patriotism is deliberatelystressedtoimplythat Leokrates has actedonthe other extreme,neither as Athenianmen ought to show theirlove for their country noraswomenheroines, like Praxithea, have proven their patriotism, butheabandoned hiscountry and disgraceditinfront of allthe Greeks.

4Lykourgos’ Rhetorical Strategy: Persuasion of Tragic Citation

After examining Lykourgos’ citation of Euripides’ Erechtheus,inparticularPrax- ithea’smonologue as prologuetothe tragedy, as well as the orator’sexplanatory comments on the poet’sagencyand motivation in his use of Erechtheus’ myth to compose atragedy,and the specific verses assigned to Praxithea, it is important

 Forafull list of all cases tried by an eisangelia,cf. Hansen 1975. Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates 263 to turn to the question, how effective this citation can be in the forensic context and whythe orator resorts to it. AccordingtoAristotle (Rhet. Ι.15.13), poetry can be used as independent proof among other atechnai pisteis,like laws, decrees,oaths, wills, treaties, witnesses etc., as akind of evidence presented instead of witnesses or as an example. In this sense, poetic citations constitutelegal evidence,upon which Leok- rates’ conviction is founded. Poetry,asawhole (tragic, epic and lyric), comprises aseparate and completesection of Lykourgos’ speech.²⁶ Lykourgos has stated in the beginning of his speech thathewill not tell lies nor will he present material irrelevant to the main prosecution case (Against Leokrates 1.11):

ποιήσομαι δὲ κἀγὼ τὴνκατηγορίαν δικαίαν, οὔτε ψευδόμενος οὐδέν, οὔτ᾽ἔξω τοῦ πράγμα- τος λέγων. οἱ μὲνγὰρπλεῖστοι τῶνεἰςὑμᾶςεἰσιόντων πάντων ἀτοπώτατον ποιοῦσιν: ἢ γὰρ συμβουλεύουσιν ἐνταῦθα περὶ τῶνκοινῶνπραγμάτων ἢ κατηγοροῦσι καὶ διαβάλλουσι πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ περὶ οὗ μέλλετε τὴνψῆφον φέρειν. ἔστι δ᾽ οὐδέτερον τούτων χαλεπόν, οὔθ᾽ὑπὲρὧνμὴβουλεύεσθε γνώμην ἀποφήνασθαι, οὔθ᾽ὑπὲρὧνμηδεὶς ἀπολογήσεται κατηγορίαν εὑρεῖν. The charge Iamabout to bringisjust and contains no lies or irrelevantmaterial. Most of the men whocome beforeyou act in the strangest way: they either give youadvice about public business or makechargesand accusations about everythingexceptthe issue about which youare going to cast your vote.Neither of these –givinganopinion about matters youare not discussing and findinganaccusation to make about crimes no one is on trial for– is hard to do.

It is true that Lykourgosdoes not make anyirrelevant accusations against Leok- rates concerning either his privateorpubliclife.The onlythemes, that mayseem extraneous, are the various poetic citations (epainos)included in the encomiastic section. As Lykourgosstates at the end of his prosecution speech, he has kept his promise not to use irrelevant material (1.149):

ἐγὼ μὲνοὖνκαὶτῇπατρίδι βοηθῶνκαὶτοῖς ἱεροῖςκαὶτοῖςνόμοις ἀποδέδωκα τὸν ἀγῶνα ὀρθῶςκαὶδικαίως, οὔτε τὸν ἄλλον τούτου βίον διαβαλὼνοὔτ᾽ἔξω τοῦ πράγματος οὐδὲν κατηγορήσας. ‘By defendingour country,our temples,and ourlaws, Ihaveconducted this case in afashion both just and correct, without attacking therestofthis man’slifeormaking irrelevant charges.’

It can thus be inferred that poetry is not regarded as irrelevant material but,on the contrary,itconstitutes evidence to provethatLeokrates is atraitor and that

 Dorjahn 1927,89–90 264 Eleni Volonaki the judgesshould convict him, if they are interested in the safety and welfareof their city (1.149):

ὑμῶνδ᾽ἕκαστον χρὴ νομίζειν τὸνΛεωκράτους ἀποψηφιζόμενον θάνατον τῆςπατρίδος καὶ ἀνδραποδισμὸνκαταψηφίζεσθαι, καὶ δυοῖνκαδίσκοιν κειμένοιν τὸνμὲνπροδοσίας, τὸνδὲ σωτηρίας εἶναι, καὶ τὰςψήφους φέρεσθαι τὰςμὲνὑπὲρἀναστάσεως τῆςπατρίδος, τὰςδ᾽ ὑπὲρἀσφαλείας καὶ τῆς ἐντῇπόλει εὐδαιμονίας. ‘Each of youmust now realize that avotetoacquit Leocrates is avotetocondemnour country to death and destruction.Thereare two urns placed beforeyou, one for treason, the other for survival, and youare castingyour votes either to destroy our country or to keep it safe and prosperous.’

As it appears,the prosecution main argument involves the safety of the city (σωτηρίας), and Lykourgosappears to act as apublic prosecutor who is mainly concerned with the protection of the laws, the ancestral traditions, the gods and the temples and aboveanything else the country itself. Thus, the orator’sfunda- mental point of persuasion is that Leokrates is atraitor because he had aban- doned his country when it needed to be saved. In this framework, Lykourgos’ choiceofEuripides’ Erechtheus is ideal in many aspects.First of all, Euripides’ tragedy hadbecome very popular in thefourth century and hadgreatly influencedthe dramatic activity of that period. TheEuripidean tragedyhad been inspired in its structurebut also in the use of myth by thesoph- istic movement which had developed after the middle fifth century.²⁷ Praxithea’smonologue in Euripides’ Erechtheus reflects the rhetorical influence and is structured upon aseries of arguments that explain the mother’sde- cision to give her daughter for sacrifice. Though all women by nature love their children, the poet portraysPraxithea as loving her country more than her children (Lycurg. Against Leokrates 1.110). Hence, Praxithea argues whythe love of her country is the most importantinher life and confidentlyemphasises in the beginning and the end of her speech thatshe will save her city.Lykourgos employs this prototype of argumentation for patriotism and self-sacrifice in the name of one’scountry to provethat Leokrates is guilty because he had acted quite contrary.The contrast between apatriot woman –Praxithea– and a traitor man – Leokrates– adds to the dramatic effect of Praxithea’sargumenta- tion and becomes even more effective for persuasion.

 On the influenceofrhetoric upon the dramatic compositions of fourth-century Athens, cf. Xanthakis-Karamanos 1979,66–76. Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates 265

Lykourgos’ choice to perform Praxithea’smonologue in court is significant,²⁸ because in Euripides’ and the heroine’svoicehesucceedstopresent pisteis (‘proofs’)insupport of his own caseagainst Leokrates.Hestrengthens rhetorically anddramatically hisprosecutionagainst Leokratesbyaneisangelia,which is not legally substantiated, as canbeinferred from that fact that Lykourgosasks the judges to act as legislators in the specific case (1.9)and accept theaccusation of treason for Leokrates. Lykourgosplaces more emphasis on theimportanceofpoetry andthe lessons it had taught thecitizens in the past andmay,byimplication, do the same in the present, rather thanthe laws,bringingthus abalancetothe absenceofasound legal case.²⁹ Moreover,his choiceofPraxithea’smonologue, from Euripides’ Erech- theus,isinaccordancewith the epideictic style, themes andargumentation, which arepredominantinthe speech Against Leokrates. Lykourgos reinstates thedramatic figure of Praxithea,ashad been presented by Euripides acentury earlier,during aperiod of reconstruction of the city of Athens after its defeat by Philip II of Macedon; hisaim is to persuade the judges to accept self-sacrificeand patriotism as thevaluestobesharedbyall forthe protectionof their city at themoment.The presentation of Praxithea’smonologuebyLykourgos associates the heroic andtragic values of the individual sacrificebyErechtheus’ daughter from the mythical past with thepolitical values of acommon sacrifice ex- pected by all the citizens at the end of fourth century in Athens.Inthis context, Leokrates is called to be convicted, becausehehas betrayed thosepolitical values. Hence, Praxithea’smonologue is part of the section that consists of epideictic rhetorical elements and arguments usedasproofs (‘pisteis’). The first theme of epideicticrhetoric is the autochthonia – acommonplaceofpraise in funeralor- atory.³⁰ The second theme relatingtothe role of maternity praises the sacrifice of an individual for the safety of the whole citizen group, aheroic value that constitutes acommonplaceofpraising those who died on the battlefield in funeral speeches. The third themeisagain connected with the heroic values of the archa- ic period thathavebeen democratized duringthe fourth century and are identi-

 Even though thereare usuallyindications in forensic speeches that the secretary of the court would read the poetic citations,there is no such indicationinthe speech Against Leokrates and it can be assumed that Lykourgoshimself plays the roleofanactor for Euripides’ tragedy – a rolethat demands dramatic skills,aswell as the roleofarhapsodos and alyric poet for the sub- sequent citationsinthe speech. On the question, whocitespoetic abstracts in court, cf. Dorjahn 1927,92–93 and Bers 2009,37–39.  According to Hermogenes (On the Ideas B389), Lykourgos’ speeches often include mythical, historic and poetic digressions.Thus,itmay be suggestedthat this was astandardrhetorical strategyofLykourgosaimingmainlytopersuade the judges for his case on each occasion.  Forthe commonplace, cf. Todd 2007,26ff. 266 Eleni Volonaki fied with the political values of classical Athens. In particular, the noble death, glory and common welfareare values for which citizens used to fight to save their city.Praxithea’sfinal appeal to the country itself constitutes the outline of heroism and political ideal thatLykourgosattemptstopresent in order to sub- stantiate his case against Leokrates.³¹ Lykourgos’ genuine interest in poetry is clearlyreflected in his lawtoestab- lish apublic archive with the scripts of the tragedies, as well as the fact thathe was responsible for the reconstruction of Dionysos’ theatre. Tragedyconstitutes a reliable sourceofauthority and as such it is employed to strengthen Lykourgos’ accusation in court.The theatrical effect of Lykourgos’ recitation of Praxithea’s lines from Euripides’ Erechtheus has been discussed above.³² Lykourgos’ primary role in the revival of dramatic performances and competitions of the classical tragedians giveshim the authority to perform himself Praxithea’smonologue so that the judgeswill approvehis recitation and accept it as akind of evidence. There is, however,another important aspect to Lykourgos’ personality,and this relates to his programme of religion. Lukourgos’ membership of the genos Eteoboutadai is central to understanding his moral and political authority.Ly- kourgos, the son of Lykophron, was one of the most influential politicians in Ath- ens in the period between the Athenian defeat at Chaironeia in 338and the death of Alexander the Great in 323.³³ He belonged to the aristocratic genos of the Eteo- boutadai, two branches of which controlled two major cultsinAthens, thoseof Athena Polias (one of Athena’spriestesses was Praxithea), and those of Poseidon Erectheus. Lykourgosinheritedthe priesthood of Poseidon. His grandfather Ly- kourgoswon the honour of burial in the Kerameikos and his prominence under the democracy mayhavebeen responsible for his execution by the Thirty. One of Lykourgos’ main interests wasreligion.³⁴ The politician Stratokles credited him with preparingadornment for the goddess Athena, solid gold Vic- tory statues, and gold ornaments for ahundred basket carriers in the Panathe-

 Forananalysis of heroic and political values presented in Praxithea’smonologue, cf. Calame 2011, 5–8.  cf. 2. Lykourgosand Euripides’ Erechtheus.  Lykourgosdied probablyin325/4 BC. The main ancient source for the life of Lycurgusisthe biography found in Pseudo-Plutarch, Livesofthe TenOrators (Moralia)841a-844a with the de- creeat851e-852e. The discovery of several inscriptions,manyofwhich arecollected in the val- uable work of Schwenk, 1985, has contributed significantlytoour knowledge of Athens in the time of Lykourgos. Morerecent studies on Lykourgos’ roletothe formation of the constitution in relation to Kleisthenic democracyare included in the significant work editedbyAzoulay/Is- mard2011, which based both on inscriptional and literary evidenceclarify further the political and religious shifts in Lykourgan Athens.  Parker 1996,242– 255. Euripides’ Erechtheus in Lykourgos’ AgainstLeokrates 267 naic procession.³⁵ In 344 he passed amajor lawabout religious cults,³⁶ provi- sions for the cults of numerous deities, including Zeus the Saviour, Athena, Am- phiareus,Asclepius,Artemis of Brauron, Demeter,and Kore. As it becomes clear, Lykourgosappears to have taken the religion and the cultsofthe polis with great seriousness.³⁷ On balance, Lykourgos’ authoritative voice as apolitician who made innova- tions on the sphere of drama and religion adds validity and persuasion to his performance of Praxithea’smonologue. By virtue of his statusasEteoboutad, ‘Lykourgoswas in aposition to embodyPraxithea in arather strongsense, and to share her solemn priestly authority’.³⁸ The choice of Euripides’ Erechtheus is associated with Lykourgos’ ownreligious background, his personal involve- ment in the religious, theatrical and dramatic restructureofhis time. Lykourgos employs an authoritative voice through his status as as Eteoboutad, areformer of cultureand religion, and as an administrator of public finances in order to quiet- en down the dicasticthorybos that might break out due to the Athenians’ prejudice against an excessive use of poetry in court or even towardthe presentation of an oldplayofEuripides, Erechtheus. Thus, Lykourgoswould be able to perform himself, undisturbed,Praxithea’smonologue and establish his case. Only for onevote, Lykourgoslost thetrial against Leokrates. It is,however,im- pressive that he succeededingainingsuch alarge number of votes, even though Leokrates’ alleged offencecould notbeincluded in theimpeachmentlaw (‘eisagel- tikosnomos’)and was notdirectlyconnectedwiththe decrees votedafter the battle at Chaironeia in 338BC. It is most probable that Lykourgos’ authoritative voiceand rhetorical strategyinhis useofEuripides’ tragedy(butalsoofpoetry as awhole), significantly contributed to approachingsoclose to the victory.

Bibliography

Allen, D. S. (2000), ‘Changingthe Authoritative Voice: Lycurgus’ Against Leocrates’,in: CA 19, 5–33. Azoulay,V./Ismard, P. (2011), Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes,Paris. Bers,V.(1994), ‘Tragedyand Rhetoric’ in: I. Worthington (ed.), Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action,London /New York, 176–195. Bers,V.(2009), Genos Dikanikon: Amateur and Professional Speech in the Courtrooms of Classical Athens,Washington,DC.

 Plut. Moralia 852b.  Schwenk no. 21  Fisher 1976,145.  Lambert2015.04.24. 268 Eleni Volonaki

Calame, C. (2011), ‘Myth and Performanceonthe Athenian Stage: Praxithea, Erechtheus, Their Daughters, and the Etiology of Autochthony’,in: CPh 106, 1–19. Carey, C. (2000), ‘Observersofspeech and hearers of action’,in: O. Taplin (ed.), Literaturein the Greek and Roman Worlds,Oxford, 192–216. Collard, C. /Cropp, M. J. /Lee, K.H. (eds.) (1995), Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays, vol. 1, Warminster. Cropp, M. J. (1995), ‘Erechtheus’,in: Collard, C. /Cropp, M.J. /Lee, K.H. (eds.), Euripides: Selected FragmentaryPlays,vol.1,Warminster,148–94. Dorjahn, A. P. (1927), ‘Poetry in Athenian Courts’,in: CPh 22, 85–93. Fisher, N. (1976), Social Values in Classical Athens,London. Hall,E.(1995), ‘Lawcourt Dramas: The Power of PerformanceinGreekForensic Oratory’,in: BICS 40: 39–58; revisited in ‘Lawcourt Dramas: Acting and PerformanceinLegal Oratory’,in: E. Hall(2006), The Theatrical Cast of Athens,Oxford, chapter12. Hall,E.(2006), The Theatrical CastofAthens,Oxford. Hanink, J. (2014), Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy,Cambridge. Hansen, M.H. (1975),Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’sCourt in Athens in the Fourth CenturyBCand the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians,Odense. Lambert, S. (2015), Review of Hanink(2014), in: BMCR 2015.04.24. Loraux, N. (1986), The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City. Trans. A. Sheridan, Cambridge. Parker,R.C.T.(1996), Athenian Religion: AHistory,Oxford/New York. Perlman, S. (1964), ‘Quotations from Poetry in Attic Oratorsofthe FourthCentury’ in: AJP 85, 155–172. Petrie, A. (1922), Lycurgus: The speech againstLeocrates,Cambridge. Schwenk, C. (1985), Athens in the Age of Alexander the Great: The Dated Laws and Decrees of the Lykourgan Era338–322 BC,Chicago. Sonnino, M. (2010), Euripidis Erechthei quae extant,Florence. Todd, S. C. (2007), Lysias Commentary1–11,Oxford. Thomas,R.(1989), Oral Tradition and Written Record in Athens,Cambridge. Tsagalis,C.C. (2007), ‘CEG 594 and Euripides’ Erechtheus’,in: ZPE 162, 9–13. Ullman, B.L. (1942), ‘History and Tragedy’,in: TAPA 72, 25–53. Volonaki, E. (2014), ‘NarratologicalElements in Epideictic Oratory’,in: Platon 59, 16–33. Wilson, P.J. (1996), ‘Tragic Rhetoric: The Use of Tragedyand the Tragic in the Fourth Century’, in: M.S. Silk (ed.), Tragedyand the Tragic: Greek Theatreand Beyond,Oxford, 310–331. Worthington, I. /Cooper,C.R. /Harris, E.M. (2001), Dinarchus, Hyperides, &Lycurgus,The OratoryofClassical Greece, vol. 5, Austin. Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. (1979), ‘The InfluenceofRhetoric on Fourth-CenturyTragedy’,in: CQ 29, 66–76. Ziolokowski, J.E. (1981), Thucydidesand the Tradition of Funeral Speeches at Athens,New York.