THE RHETORIC AND CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ENMITY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS By ANDREW T. ALWINE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010 1 © 2010 Andrew T. Alwine 2 Uxori dilectae 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I must first of all thank my chairman, Andrew Wolpert. He helped me through this process at every step and read more of my writing than anyone should be forced to read. He provided constructive criticism that compelled me to think and rethink my arguments. This study is much better for it. Konstantinos Kapparis was also a very helpful mentor. He was always encouraging and willing to meet with me to chat about all things Greek. Many of my conversations with him, both in person and through e-mail, had great influence on my work for the better. I would also like to express my gratitude to Andrea Sterk and Robert Wagman for their support and their willingness to serve on my committee. In addition to the faculty members mentioned above, I wish to thank Mary Ann Eaverly, Timothy Johnson, Jim Marks, Victoria Pagán, and Gonda Van Steen. It would be difficult to say how much time all of them sacrificed to help me become a better scholar, teacher, and colleague. It is certainly difficult to express how much I appreciate it. Among all of the wonderful graduate students at the University of Florida, I must especially thank Todd Bohlander and David Hoot, who were subjected to the experience of revising my work at various stages of incompletion. I would also like to thank Dustin Heinen, with whom, along with Todd and David, I had many fruitful conversations. I owe more gratitude to my family than I can express in a mere fourth paragraph of a section of acknowledgements. First, I thank my wife, Megan Alwine, who did more to help me through graduate school than I ever could have asked. My parents, David and Margaret Alwine, are the real heroes behind the scenes. Without their love and nurture, I could never have come this far. Finally, I want to thank my two children, Elizabeth and Charlotte. Even in my most stressful and tired moments, they could also restore to me a sense of humor. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................9 Athenian Law ..........................................................................................................................12 Sources for Athenian Law ......................................................................................................15 The Semantics of Enmity ........................................................................................................18 Enmity in Classical Athens .....................................................................................................21 The Rhetoric and Conceptualization of Enmity in Classical Athens .....................................29 2 ENMITY IN PROSECUTION SPEECHES ..........................................................................34 Argument from Probability.....................................................................................................35 Affirming Enmity but Denying Culpability ...........................................................................40 Establishing Motive for Assault .............................................................................................53 Matters of State .......................................................................................................................64 Enmity in Private Disputes .....................................................................................................79 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................86 3 ENMITY IN DEFENSE SPEECHES ....................................................................................89 Attacked by Enemies ..............................................................................................................91 Denying Motive for Assault .................................................................................................110 Attacked by Sycophants .......................................................................................................115 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................123 4 MAKING ENEMIES ............................................................................................................125 The Prevalence of Enmity ....................................................................................................127 The Causes of Enmity ...........................................................................................................130 Spreading Enmity .................................................................................................................143 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................151 5 HARMING ENEMIES .........................................................................................................153 A Formalized Relationship ...................................................................................................154 Non-violent Vengeance ........................................................................................................158 The Limits of Harming Enemies ..........................................................................................169 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................182 5 6 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................185 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................189 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................199 6 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE RHETORIC AND CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ENMITY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS By Andrew T. Alwine May 2010 Chair: Andrew Wolpert Major: Classical Studies This study examines the rhetorical use of enmity in Athenian legal oratory and the conceptualization of enmity in oratory, history, philosophy, and drama. Chapters 2–3 argue that the Attic orators construct narratives about their past hostile relationships with their opponents to support character and probability arguments. Many different strategies were available to Athenian litigants, depending on the particular features of their cases. A speaker in the court room had the flexibility to adapt his presentation of enmity to his own needs. Thus, the rhetorical use of enmity was elastic in its range of application and firmly tied to the whole of a litigant‘s argument. Since litigants frame their accounts of enmity to create probability arguments, they had to be in tune with what the jury would find a probable situation and response. We can therefore use these speeches to learn what types of behavior the jury would believe were characteristic of enemies (Chapters 4–5). Passages from other genres, including history, drama, and philosophy, can also be used as corroborating evidence to support conclusions drawn from the Attic orators. These sources yield a view of society in which Athenian men were frequently engaged in semi- formalized relationships of enmity. They also believed it their duty to harm their enemies; Athenians expected enemies to engage in insults, lawsuits, and political rivalries. However, 7 aggressive violent behavior was, in the Athenian imagination, limited by democratic ideology and institutions. Previous discussions of enmity have posited competing ―codes,‖ one agonistic and one restrained, but this dichotomy is rejected here. The Athenians consistently maintained that they were non-violent and gentle toward one another. Athens was thus a city with two seemingly contradictory aspects. Athenians conceptualized their society as feuding society, although relatively non-violent. 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The members of a society must find ways to mediate violent disagreements if they intend to avoid anarchy.1 The Greeks were well aware of the need for peaceful and non-violent methods of arbitration between quarreling people. In The Works and Days, the ability of humans to effect dispute resolution (dikē, ―justice‖) separates them from mere animals: ―the son of Cronos established the following law for mankind, that fish and beasts and winged birds eat each other since justice is not in them, but he gave to mankind justice, which proves itself by far the best.‖2 Aristotle argues in the Politics that man is by nature a ―political animal‖ (πολιτικὸν ζ῵ον) and therefore naturally forms communities and states (1253a3). Individuals must subordinate their interests to justice,3 which