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 main ground for trying to maintain Andocidean authorship of the speech is thus apparently a desire to preserve the traditional attribution at all costs.
nicht dazu verstehen, unsere Uberlieferung anzutasten.’ I doubt whether the stylistic differences between [And.] 4 and the other speeches of Andocides can be explained away simply by attributing them to ‘the different purpose and circumstances of our speech’ (Furley [n.
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.. he had depicted Alcibiades and Nicias as the two main contestants. Compare the way Plutarch uses the more dynamic and controversial Phaeax as a foil to Alcibiades in his account of the ostracism of Hyperbolus in Ale, whereas in Nic. It is, of course, also normal for published versions of really delivered speeches to retain the ‘dramatic’ details of the original trial: cf. Hall, ‘Lawcourt Dramas: the Power of Performance in Greek Forensic Oratory’, BICS 40 (1995), 39–58. 112 (‘the declaimers studied Thucydides minutely’). There is a remarkable overlap of material between [And.] 4 and Plut. Perhaps, then, Plutarch had not read the speech himself, and is here recording a notice he found in a source which referred to the speech. But then he would surely have remembered and mentioned the most important feature of the speech for the present context, namely that it is written for the occasion of the ostracism which he is actually discussing at this point of Ale. 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). 220e), won an Olympic victory, and after a series of victories against the Spartans enjoyed a triumphal return to Athens in 407 at which he was said to have been awarded a golden crown by the city (Plut. Such scene-setting devices suggest a strong desire to imitate real speech: cf. Alcibiades won the aristeia at Potidaea (Plato Symp.