For ostracism as an inherently democratic institution, cf. 640B Fortenbaugh), on the day of the ostracism Raubitschek (n. 197 took §7 of the speech as an attempt by the speaker to give an official character to an informal meeting, rejecting the association with the role of the archons on the day of the ostracism ('their only duty was to guard the ballot boxes'). 16.1–4, Alcibiades IV complains that his enemies have ‘often’ brought trumped-up charges against him designed to attack the reputation of his dead father. 12.534bff.) quotes the orators Lysias and Antiphon, the comic poets Eupolis and Pherecrates, and the Socratic Antisthenes. Unlike [And.] 4, this speech does not contain the sort of features which might lead one to distinguish it from later declamation, but the case for regarding it as a fifth-century composition has been made: see (Berlin, 1932) pp. 8 (variations are recorded for an anecdote concerning Callias: Alcibiades either hits Callias and then offers his body to Callias for punishment, or, as in [And.] 4, plots against his life, forcing Callias to make his fortune public).
This would go some way towards providing a context for these lengthy observations on the institution. 1.2 (where the speaker underlines the importance of the Athenian law on adultery by pointing to similar punishments in oligarchic law systems) is also odd, but does not go nearly as far as [And.] 4.6. The desire of the author to use every opportunity to bring in details of constitutional history also explains the peculiar request (§7) to the audience according to Theophrastus (fr. There were also other anti-Alcibiades trials in the 390s: at Isoc. For example, Satyrus in the work discussed above (Ath. ascribed to Herodes Atticus is another work purporting to be a speech delivered in the late fifth century. Demetrius was political supremo in Athens under Cassander from 317 to 307 B. Since this political activity must have kept him pretty busy, it is probable that most of his prodigious literary output was produced later during his time with Ptolemy (from before 297 B. Thus in the story found in [And.] 4 and Athenaeus, the fact that the speech has fewer cities may indicate that it is the earlier version..
–56 argues that [And.] 4, though published in 415, purports to represent a speech given on the occasion of an ostracism held in 417 or 416. 2) believes the ostracism of Hyperbolus in fact took place in 417.
Furley is thus compelled to maintain that the author of the speech was prepared to engage in deliberate and obvious anachronism in order to update the invective against Alcibiades with the material regarding Melos and the Olympics. If he had accepted the date for the ostracism implied by the speech itself, thus arguing for A2 or A3 (i), he would have avoided the difficulty pointed out in n.
79]) note the existence of institutions resembling ostracism in other cities (and cf.
So on this point the author of [And.] 4 is either contentious or pedantic. A recent commentary on the speech came to my notice just as this article was going to print: P. The ambassadors returned at the beginning of spring and the Athenians immediately voted to send an expedition of sixty ships with Alcibiades and Nicias in command (Thuc. 21.147 with scholiast ad loc.), suggests that in Originally composed for the Gaisford Dissertation Prize 1994, this article has benefited tremendously from the general guidance and many specific suggestions of Doreen Innes, Arnd Kerkhecker, Christopher Pelling, Peter Wilson, and, in particular, Donald Russell. But (i) the only time when the archons were ever involved in assembly procedure was the day of the ostracism, and (ii) if there had been debates on the day of the ostracism (as the author of the helped in their organization. 6.1.1 dates the beginning of Athenian plans to send a major expedition to Sicily to the winter of 416/15 when ambassadors were first sent to assess the appeal of the Egestans. On comedy and oratory as a source for anecdotes, see Dover (n. The existence of another ‘mitigating’ version of the story, where Alcibiades' actions are a legitimate revenge for an injury done to him by Agatharchus (Dem. As Donald Russell points out to me, it may be significant that Alcibiades' son by his wife Hipparete (Davies' Alcibiades IV) was actually born at around this time (see Davies [n. 19–21): might the origin of this story be a slur on the birth of Alcibiades IV? In [And.] 4 a figure involved in the final ostracism discourses at length about the problems of ostracism. There is thus no direct inconsistency with the supposed occasion of the speech. Keaney, ‘Theopompus on the End of Ostracism’, AJP 90 , 313–19). For the complex question of the chronology of the Athenian year 416/15 see HCT iv.264–76; Furley (n. Pernot, Les Discours Siciliens daelius Aristide (New York, 1981), pp. Criticism of the law–giver is a declamatory topos: Libanius, Decl. His tactics are in keeping with traditional rhetorical practice: brief summary of what he has argued in the course of the speech , and reaffirmation of his opponent's bad character . before the end of May 415 at any rate, allowing a maximum of 7–8 months for the conception, gestation, and birth of the child. The idea that the woman had been enslaved in an Athenian attack on the island earlier in 416 is impossible to reconcile with §22 of the speech (Blass [n. But if this general feeling is correct, why and in what context was the speech written? Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis [Oxford, 1994], pp. Fuqua, 'Possible Implications of the Ostracism of Hyperbolus', TAPA 96 (1965), 165–79. Since the speech has been ‘published’, this raises the question of the relationship between the published speech and the original which it purports to represent. 327–8 also thought the speech was composed in the 390s by Andocides, but that the intended speaker was probably Phaeax. When in the fourth century did rhetoricians spend their time composing works like [And.] 4? 85–98) in fact uses the speech as one of the main arguments for a dating of the ostracism to 415. There is a wide variety of possible relationships, including, for example, that between the written and originally delivered versions of the speeches of Demosthenes, or that between the Furley (n. Geburtstag (Jahrbiicher fur klassische Philologie, Supp. This is the favoured solution of Raubitschek (above n. But throughout the speech the speaker has maintained that his past actions do not now require defence, and he has concentrated instead on prosecution, which he has just brought to a triumphant rhetorical conclusion in §§39–40, so that an appeal for pity would be bathetic. The ostracism imagined by the speaker must have taken place in or before the eighth prytany (Philochorus, FGH 328, F 30) of the Athenian year, i.e. The details the speaker gives about himself in the last two paragraphs of the speech have been seen as an uncomfortable afterthought, in a place where we might have expected an appeal for pity.