It has recently been argued by Gabriel Herman that fourth-century Athenian citizens, or at least the majority of them, believed that even under the impact of serious private aggression a man should not pursue revenge. The general ideal, so it is maintained, was to avoid not only violent revenge but also revenge through prosecution. Herman recognizes that other Athenian texts of the same period take the propriety of exacting revenge for granted, and he explains this in part by reference to (...) a supposed ‘double standard’—a rather strange expression in this context, because it suggests that the propriety of revenge in classical Athens depended on the status of the victim of the revenge—which is not in fact the burden of Herman's doctrine. (shrink)

Hamaker's conjecture κομâ (for τολμâ,sic) at Lysias 16.18 was adopted by Rauchenstein in his influential edition of 1869 and soon given powerful endorsement by Jebb and by Shuckburgh. Successive later editors and commentators have seen no reason to demur: Thalheim, Adams, Hude, Gernet and Bizos, Lamb, and finally Edwards and Usher all adopt κομâ, and, where they comment, unanimously cite Aristophanic parallels (especiallyEq.580) in support of a connection between longhaired affectation and ‘oligarchic’ affiliations; some also adduce the expression ảπ’ὂΨεως (...) in justification. But this is an egregious instance of unwarranted tampering with a sound text. τóλμα is a quality conspicuously displayed by Mantitheus, on his own account of his character, words, and actions. (shrink)

It has recently been argued by Gabriel Herman that fourth-century Athenian citizens, or at least the majority of them, believed that even under the impact of serious private aggression a man should not pursue revenge. The general ideal, so it is maintained, was to avoid not only violent revenge but also revenge through prosecution. Herman recognizes that other Athenian texts of the same period take the propriety of exacting revenge for granted, and he explains this in part by reference to (...) a supposed ‘double standard’—a rather strange expression in this context, because it suggests that the propriety of revenge in classical Athens depended on the status of the victim of the revenge—which is not in fact the burden of Herman's doctrine. (shrink)

Hamaker's conjecture κομâ at Lysias 16.18 was adopted by Rauchenstein in his influential edition of 1869 and soon given powerful endorsement by Jebb and by Shuckburgh. Successive later editors and commentators have seen no reason to demur: Thalheim, Adams, Hude, Gernet and Bizos, Lamb, and finally Edwards and Usher all adopt κομâ, and, where they comment, unanimously cite Aristophanic parallels in support of a connection between longhaired affectation and ‘oligarchic’ affiliations; some also adduce the expression ảπ’Ψεως in justification. But (...) this is an egregious instance of unwarranted tampering with a sound text. τóλμα is a quality conspicuously displayed by Mantitheus, on his own account of his character, words, and actions. (shrink)

The article discusses the composition of Lysias’ speech, devoted to the history of music, in Pseudo-Plutarch’s treatise On Music. Close attention has been paid to the unifying mechanisms employed by Lysias to create the coherence and unity of the textual construction. The analysis of the speech presented in the article leads to the conclusion that the employment of clearly marked and coordinated two-part units became the most important technique of the organisation of this speech. The first part of (...) each of eleven pairs Lysias’ speech consists of includes quotations from earlier written sources, the second displays comments and interpreting remarks on these citations. This scheme of organisation of the speech provides the internal order and continuity of thought in the historical part of Pseudo-Plutarch’s work. (shrink)

À l’occasion de l’ouverture du nouveau musée de l’Acropole, en juin 2009, certaines oeuvres archaïques ont fait l’objet d’une présentation plus complète réunissant bases inscrites et statues. C’est le cas pour la célèbre corè d’Anténor, l’Athéna dédiée par Angélitos ou la Nikè offerte en mémoire de Callimachos, mais aussi pour une oeuvre moins prestigieuse, la petite «corè aux bottines rouges » MAcr 683, replacée sur le pilier inscrit MEp 6348, comme l’avait prescrit A. Raubitschek, il y a plus de soixante-dix (...) ans. La double offrande de Lysias et Évarchis, regroupant aparchè et décatè, a retrouvé de plus une partie de son second élément, la minuscule corè MAcr 462. Grâce à divers rapprochements stylistiques faits avec d’autres oeuvres de l’Acropole, cette offrande apparaît comme le produit d’un atelier attique actif à la fin du VIe s., qui participe modestement au mouvement d’accession des gens de métier à la consécration d’offrandes figurées après l’instauration de la démocratie. (shrink)

A reiteration of the main details of the case may be helpful. Euphiletus killed Eratosthenes and was prosecuted for premeditated homicide by Eratosthenes' relatives. The present speech, our sole source of information concerning the case, was written for the defendant, partially or totally, by a professional speechwriter, presumably Lysias. In this speech Euphiletus admits killing Eratosthenes. He pleads, however, that, since he killed Eratosthenes after catching him in the act of adultery with his own wife, this was a case (...) of justified homicide. At the same time, he denies a charge of the prosecution that he had killed Eratosthenes for reasons unrelated to the adultery. The speech was delivered before a court of fifty-one judges especially set up to judge such cases, as is attested elsewhere:T1Arist. Ath. Pol. 57.3: ‘If…a person admits that he has killed someone but claims that he had a right to do so, as, for instance, when he has surprised an adulterer in the act,… then the trial takes place in the Delphinion’. (shrink)

There is a problem in §23 of Against Andokides, the sixth speech of the Corpus Lysiacum. The passage in question runs: κ δ᾽ ον τοτου το τιμματος δδετο γγς νιαυτν … ‘And as a result of the proposed penalty he was imprisoned for nearly a year …’. The speaker's context is as follows: he is castigating Andokides in connection with his trial in 400/399 for impiety and describing his lawless life since his part in the great scandals of 415, the (...) mutilation of the Herms and the profanation of the Mysteries. The problem in the text concerns the words νιαυτν ‘for nearly a year’, as the statement contradicts what we learn about Andokides' imprisonment in 415 from his own defence speech and above all from Thucydides. (shrink)

There is a problem in §23 of Against Andokides, the sixth speech of the Corpus Lysiacum. The passage in question runs: ⋯κ δ᾽ οὖν το⋯του το⋯ τιμ⋯ματος ⋯δ⋯δετο ⋯γγὺς ⋯νιαυτ⋯ν … ‘And as a result of the proposed penalty he was imprisoned for nearly a year …’. The speaker's context is as follows: he is castigating Andokides in connection with his trial in 400/399 for impiety and describing his lawless life since his part in the great scandals of 415, the (...) mutilation of the Herms and the profanation of the Mysteries. The problem in the text concerns the words ⋯νιαυτ⋯ν ‘for nearly a year’, as the statement contradicts what we learn about Andokides' imprisonment in 415 from his own defence speech and above all from Thucydides. (shrink)