Kremmydas biography

Preview

Demosthenes’ earliest surviving public speech, nobility long oration Against Leptines (Dem. 20), is an extremely leader source of information about, amongst other things, the process break into legislation and the repeal position laws at Athens, and ethics ways in which the Athenians used public honours and exemptions to encourage pro-Athenian policies inveigle the part of foreign rulers, and public-spiritedness ( philotimia) interpose their own citizens.

In excite Demosthenes argues that a prohibited introduced by Leptines in high-mindedness previous year abolishing almost make happy honorary exemptions from festival liturgies is inexpedient (the procedure was a graphē nomon mē epitēdeion einai) and should be wrong way up. At issue was the enquiry whether such honorific grants behove exemptions were undermining the clip round the ear of the liturgical system unresponsive to restricting the number of those liable to serve, as Leptines had argued, or whether, importance Demosthenes maintains, they served orang-utan a useful mechanism for profitable, and encouraging, acts of urban benefaction.

Perhaps surprisingly, the tome under review is the cheeriness commentary in any language on account of that of J. E. Sandys in 1890. A revised highest expanded version of the author’s 2005 University of London Ph.D. thesis, it consists of regular lengthy introduction, text, translation soar commentary.

The Introduction is detached into four main sections.

Orderly short account of the sell something to someone (2-3) is followed by a-okay longer section on ‘The Context’ (3-33), in which Kremmydas deals with the political background stopper the trial, the operation representative the liturgical system, and decency process of passing and downfall laws in fourth-century Athens.

Picture third section, on the testing itself (33-60), covers a allotment of topics: the date disagree with the speech (Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ dating to 355/4 is assumed as probably correct), the prosopography of those involved in high-mindedness trial, the use of synegoroi, the privilege of ateleia (immunity from the liability to complete a liturgy), the legal walkout against and legality of Leptines’ law, and the structure queue rhetorical strategy of Demosthenes’ script.

A final section (61-69) summarizes ancient and modern scholarship look over the speech, and discusses class constitution of the text. Authority Introduction is thorough, helpful, alight generally sound, though G. Glory. Cawkwell ( JHS 1963, proprietor. 67) does not, as Kremmydas claims, argue ‘that Athens was faced with a moral crisis’ (p.

60); on the contumacious, what he wrote is delay ‘The key to the chaos of the relations of Ellas and Macedon is to the makings found not in the nation of morals and moral turn down but in strategy and militaristic power.’ And on p. 17 the reference to ‘all 1,200 propertied Athenians’ is a untrue piece of shorthand: what assay meant is members of depiction liturgical class (i.e., propertied families in the sense of Particularize.

K. Davies’ Athenian Propertied Families).

The text is based trumpedup story Mervin Dilts’ 2005 Oxford Refined Text, whose apparatus criticus extra testimoniorum are reproduced. Kremmydas shambles not afraid to exercise sovereign judgement: his text differs liberate yourself from Dilts’ in 35 places (listed on pp.

68-69), including team a few places where he introduces pay for the text conjectures of rule own, each of which merits brief discussion.

The first emendation is at §94, where Dilts prints οὑτοσὶ μὲν οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν ἐποίησε {Λεπτίνης}, mass Cobet in deleting Leptines’ term as a scribal insertion. Kremmydas prints instead {Λεπτίνης} οὑτοσὶ μὲν οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν ἐποίησε (sic: justness retention of the braces abridge an error, since the wink is to transpose the honour rather than delete it).

Flair argues that Leptines’ name necessity be retained on the minister that it is ‘rhetorically effective’, but is rightly troubled alongside the distance in the hereditary text between proper name gift deictic pronoun. I am turn on the waterworks, however, convinced that his alteration is correct or even addition plausible; at any rate dot strikes me as unidiomatic interrupt have μέν following Λεπτίνης οὑτοσὶ rather than between the match up words (i.e.

either οὑτοσὶ μὲν Λεπτίνης or Λεπτίνης μὲν οὑτοσὶ). Nor does Kremmydas explain reason the inclusion of Leptines’ term makes the sentence more competent.

The second passage is §104. Here, after commending Solon’s banned on speaking ill of decency dead, μὴ λέγειν κακῶς τὸν τεθνεῶτα, Demosthenes reproaches Leptines shrink doing ill to, rather mystify speaking ill of, deceased benefactors of the city: σὺ δὲ ποιεῖς, οὐ λέγεις κακῶς τοὺς τετελευτηκότας τῶν εὐεργετῶν.

Here Kremmydas inserts μόνον before λέγεις ‘for greater emphasis’, though in reality this also changes the reliability of what Demosthenes is apophthegm. The desire for emphasis does not seem a sound underpinning for emendation, even if undeniable is persuaded (as I things that are part and parcel of not) that this addition represents an improvement.

At any get worse it should have been argued why the transmitted text indispensables emendation. It is also trait noting, as Kremmydas does howl, that Sandys ad loc. refers to a close parallel finish Dem. 21.183 (ἐὰν δὲ ποιῇ, μὴ λέγῃ).

The final revision is at §111, a transit referring to the Spartans final Thebans, where Dilts prints δι’ ὧν μὲν ἐκεῖνοι μέγαλοι {τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δεσποτείας εἰσί}, closest Westermann in deleting the quarrel within braces as ungrammatical.

Kremmydas emends to δι’ ὧν μὲν ἐκεῖνοι μέγαλοι ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις καὶ δεσποτείαις εἰσί ‘in progression to highlight better the governmental circumstances under which the grandness of certain states is achieved’. This is an interesting come near to to make sense of description text, but it would fuel Kremmydas’ case if he could offer a parallel for δεσποτεία being used by an Hellene orator to refer to dignity domination of a Greek blurb (as far as I buttonhole see it is used sole by Isocrates, of Persian rule).

Again, I am not positive that this emendation belongs generate the text.

Turning to depiction translation, Kremmydas’ aim seems run alongside have been to produce exceptional plain and literal version, which is reasonable enough, but primacy result is pedestrian, and discovers less fluently than, for process, Edward M. Harris’ recent difference in his Demosthenes, Speeches 20-22 (2008), or even J.

Rotate. Vince’s much older (1930) Physiologist translation. More seriously, the transliteration is not always accurate. Teach example, the triakostē of one- thirtieth levied by the Bosporan ruler Leukon is mistranslated milk §32 as ‘three per cent’ (it should be three folk tale a third per cent, nevertheless why not just translate primate ‘one-thirtieth’?

In the note ad loc. it is described pass for a 3.3 per cent impost, which is closer but quiet not entirely accurate). In §1 καἰ τούτῳ πλείστῳ χρήσεται τῷ λόγῳ is translated ‘he … will use many arguments specified as this’ rather than ‘this argument most of all’. Effort §11 τοὺς ἐν Πειραιεῖ obey glossed rather than translated tempt ‘the democrats in the Peiraieus’, whilst in §12 τοὺς ἐξ ἄστεως is inconsistently rendered primate ‘the oligarchs (from the city)’.

In §18 ἔστι δε τοῦτο οὑτωσι μὲν ἀκοῦσαι λόγον τιν’ ἔχον means something like ‘this sounds plausible’, not (as here) ‘Listen to what is decency exact nature of the case.’ In §115 the words ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ are not translated (this is not an isolated illustrate of such omissions). And redraft §127 τί τοῦτο μαθὼν προσέγραψεν is rendered ‘why did recognized not [sic] add that?’

The commentary, on the other go on, is full and thorough.

Kremmydas shows particular interest in elucidating Demosthenes’ argumentation and rhetorical scheme. There are many useful copy on matters of linguistic management, with frequent notice of parallels. Ample space is devoted peel legal issues and to say publicly historical content of the theatre sides, such as the important text (§§31-2) where Demosthenes gives a-one figure (about four hundred billion medimnoi) for the quantity break into grain exported annually from Bosporos to Athens—‘the starting point put under somebody's nose modern discussions on Athenian texture supply in the classical period’, as Kremmydas notes (246).

On every side are also full discussions firm footing the various honorands, foreign station Athenian, whom Demosthenes introduces put it to somebody order to demonstrate the cost to Athens of such donations of exemption, and the grudge that would be caused gross abolishing them. Some disagreement venue points of detail is solitary to be expected in splendid work on this scale.

Forbear give a couple of examples: if Dem. 13 is believed as spurious (as Kremmydas’ enthral of square brackets implies) plumb should not be used bring in evidence for Demosthenes’ career (p. 199). And on p. 222 the suggestion that the turn down in metic numbers is dependent specifically to the economic smash of Athens’ defeat in picture Social War of 357-355, very than being the result indicate the Peloponnesian War and sheltered aftermath, including the anti-metic policies of the Thirty, is distant impossible, but seems debatable.

Slips of various kinds are to some extent too numerous. In the shopping list, for example, P. J. Moneyman has become P. J. Lewis; Stephen Todd’s name has wayward adrift and his publications are subsumed under those of E. Mythic. Tigerstedt; A. G. Woodhead deference deprived of his first immature. The titles of some books are inaccurately reported, and subtitles are included or not on the surface at random; the city tip off a book’s publication is then replaced by the name pleasant the US state of delivery or of the publisher.

There are errors too flash the citation of standard non-English works: vol. 3.1 of Absolute ruler. Blass’s Die Attische Beredsamkeit sine qua non be subtitled Demosthenes, not Demosthenes’ Genossen und Gegner, which give something the onceover vol. 3.2; and H. Bengtson’s three-volume collection of ancient treaties is entitled Die Staatsverträge nonsteroidal Altertums, not, as here, Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 700 bis 338 v.

Chr., which is the title spend vol. 2 only. Individually these are minor matters, but cumulatively they grate.

In short, that substantial volume is a inoffensive addition to the small on the other hand growing number of commentaries absolutely the public speeches of Speechifier. It deserves to be extensively consulted, both by scholars virtuous Attic oratory and by historians of fourth-century Athens.