The University of Chicago Reading Demosthenes A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO READING DEMOSTHENES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS: CLASSICAL LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES BY BRANDEN DAVID KOSCH CHICAGO, ILLINOIS AUGUST 2017 Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .....................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... vi Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 1. Project Overview .................................................................................................2 2. Methodology ........................................................................................................4 3. The Elite Reader ..................................................................................................9 4. Hermeneutics .....................................................................................................13 5. Note on Texts and Translations .........................................................................21 Chapter 1: Reading ..........................................................................................................22 1. Isocrates’ Encomium of Helen ...........................................................................22 2. Isocrates’ Evagoras ............................................................................................28 3. Plato’s Phaedrus ................................................................................................34 4. Isocrates’ Philip and Letter to Dionysius ...........................................................53 5. Isocrates’ Antidosis ............................................................................................56 6. Isocrates’ Panathenaicus ...................................................................................61 7. Conclusion: Toward a Hermeneutic for Demosthenes ......................................69 Chapter 2: Style...............................................................................................................71 1. The Phrase ..........................................................................................................78 2. The Clause .........................................................................................................93 3. The Sentence ....................................................................................................108 4. The Pathetic Paradox .......................................................................................116 5. Conclusion: μέγα καὶ νεανικὸν φρόνημα .........................................................127 Chapter 3: Structure......................................................................................................131 1. The First Philippic ...........................................................................................138 2. The First Olynthiac ..........................................................................................147 3. The Second Olynthiac ......................................................................................153 4. The Third Olynthiac .........................................................................................158 ii 5. The Second Philippic .......................................................................................165 6. The Third Philippic ..........................................................................................169 7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................176 Chapter 4: Inter- and Contra-Text: Reading alongside Thucydides and Isocrates 179 1. Thucydides and the Athenian Character ..........................................................181 2. Isocrates ...........................................................................................................192 3. Conclusion .......................................................................................................222 Chapter 5: Texts .............................................................................................................224 1. The Public Trial Speeches ...............................................................................225 2. The Deliberative Speeches ...............................................................................250 3. Conclusion .......................................................................................................272 Concluding Remarks .....................................................................................................274 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................278 iii List of Tables Table 1. Gildersleeve’s and Wagner’s statistics for the articular infinitive .......................78 Table 2. Frequency of Discontinuity .................................................................................97 iv List of Figures Figure 1. Wooten’s analysis of the structure of Dem. 9.47-75 ........................................171 v Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank the Chair of my committee, Helma Dik. From the time she graciously agreed to serve as external reader of my B.A. thesis, she has continued to support and cultivate my intellectual development. Through her influence and the insight of her scholarship I have come to experience a fullness of meaning in the Greek language that I could not have otherwise. With regard to the dissertation in particular, she has been patient with me and steered my ideas in the right direction when they have gone astray. Further, in our weekly meetings she tirelessly worked with me to help me understand Demosthenes’ at times enigmatic language, and any insight the dissertation provides on this subject owes its genesis in large part to her feedback. The errors are all my own. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to the other members of my committee, David Martinez and Elizabeth Asmis. Both began working with me when I started my Special Field project on Isocrates’ Antidosis. It was in large part through my discussions with them that I was able to conceive of this dissertation project in its current form. Professor Martinez has profoundly contributed to everything ranging from the smallest details of each chapter to the overall conception of the project. He not only carefully worked through my translations with me and identified points at which I had misinterpreted the Greek but also pointed out significant problems with my methodology for each chapter as a whole. I also had the privilege of taking several courses with him during my time at the University of Chicago. The sensitivity to the nuances of Greek syntax he displayed in his teaching was critical to the development of my own Sprachgefühl, and I could not have undertaken a project on Demosthenes without him. Elizabeth Asmis, in turn, constantly challenged me when my ideas were incoherent or when my vi methodology was problematic, but she also fostered the best parts of each chapter and helped me turn them into a dissertation. I am also grateful to the faculty of the Classics Department as a whole for their support over the years. Their feedback on material from the dissertation I presented at the Rhetoric and Poetics Workshop proved invaluable to the further development of the project. I would like to thank Sarah Nooter and Mark Payne in particular for the interest they have shown in the project and for teaching me verse composition, without which I would not have as distinct a conception of Attic prose. To Ralph Johnson too I owe my understanding of prose as well as the cultivation of my humanitas more generally. I would also like to thank Kathy Fox, the department administrator, who over the years has repeatedly gone out of her way to help me when I have gotten myself in a bind. The Franke Institute for the Humanities provided me generous financial support to finish the dissertation. The fellows also created a warm and collegial atmosphere which allowed me to be much more productive than I would have otherwise. I am also grateful for their sensitive feedback on one of my chapters. To my family and friends I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for all the support they have given me over the years. Leon Wash and Jeremy Thompson kept my soul intact, and David Williams, as Hafez would say of a good friend, talked with me deep in the night. I am grateful to my sisters for their moral support. Finally, I would like to thank my parents. Without their material, intellectual, and moral support, this project would not have been possible. vii Introduction According to Plutarch, Demosthenes, when asked whether he wrote out his speeches before delivering them, gave the following response: ... οὐ παντάπασιν ἦν ἔξαρνος, ἀλλ’ οὔτε γράψας οὔτ’ ἄγραφα κομιδῇ λέγειν ὡμολόγει ...1 Demosthenes’ speeches are neither written nor unwritten. Yunis understands the significance of this statement in a literal sense: “Demosthenes’ speeches as we have them are designed for delivery; yet it is inconceivable that while addressing the Assembly