Argumentation in Demosthenes's speech Against Timocrates

Title: Argumentation in Demosthenes's speech Against Timocrates
Author: Seres, Dániel
Source document: Graeco-Latina Brunensia. 2021, vol. 26, iss. 2, pp. 225-246
  • ISSN
    1803-7402 (print)
    2336-4424 (online)
Type: Article

Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.

The current study has three objectives. First, it provides an in-depth analysis of the argumentation of the oration Against Timocrates. Second, the analysis focuses on the issues of textual criticism that arose in the 19th century and have been debated ever since. Approaching the problems from a new perspective – augmenting the convincing arguments put forward by E. M. Harris with the analysis of the argumentation – the study argues that the two halves of the speech are in fact parts of a well-planned and precisely edited whole, and that the integrity of the text needs not to be questioned. Third, it supports Rhodes's and Harris's work providing a case-study of how a speech could be constructed to ensure that the arguments are wide-ranging in method and relevant from a legal point of view.
This study was supported by the ÚNKP-20-4 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology from the source of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund.
[1] Badian, E. (2000). The road to prominence. In I. Worthington (Ed.), Demosthenes. Saatesman and Orator (pp. 9–44.) London – New York: Routledge.

[2] Blass, F. (1887–1898). Die attische Beredsamkeit.2 Leipzig: Teubner.

[3] Canevaro, M. (2013). The Documents in the Attic Orators. Laws & Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford: University Press.

[4] Canevaro, M. (2016). The Procedure of Demosthenes' Against Leptines: How to Repeal (And Replace) an Existing Law. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 136, 39–58. | DOI 10.1017/S0075426916000045

[5] Canevaro, M. (2018). The Authenticity of the Document at Demosth. or. 24.20–3, the Procedures of nomothesia and the so-called ἐπιχειροτονία τῶν νόμων. Klio, 100, 70–124. | DOI 10.1515/klio-2018-0003

[6] Canevaro, M. (2020). On Dem. 24.20–23 and the So-Called ἐπιχειροτονία τῶν νόμων: Some Final Clarifications in Response to M. H. Hansen. Klio, 102, 26–35.

[7] Cargill, J. (1981). The Second Athenian League. Empire or Free Alliance? Berkeley – Los Angeles – London: University of California Press.

[8] Cawkwell, G. (1962). Notes on the Social War. Classica et Mediaevalia, 23, 34–49.

[9] Develin, R. (2003). Athenian Officials 684–321 BC. Cambridge: University Press.

[10] Fischer, N. (2001) Against Timarchos. Oxford: University Press.

[11] Hansen, M. H. (1979). Did the Athenian Ecclesia Legislate after 403/2 B.C.? Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 20, 27–53.

[12] Hansen, M. H. (1999). The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Structure, Principles and Ideology. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

[13] Hansen, M. H. (2016). The Authenticity of the Law about Nomothesia inserted in Demosthenes Against Timokrates 20–23. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 56, 438–474.

[14] Hansen, M. H. (2019). The Inserted Document at Dem. 24.20–23. Response to Mirko Canevaro. Klio, 101, 452–472. | DOI 10.1515/klio-2019-0038

[15] Harding, P. (1976). Androtion's Political Career. Historia, 25, 186–200.

[16] Harris, D. (1995). The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[17] Harris, E. M. (2013a). The Plaint in Athenian Law and Legal Procedure. In M. Faraguna (Ed.), Archives and archival documents in ancient societies: Legal documents in ancient societies IV, Trieste 30 September ‒ 1 October 2011 (pp. 156–175). Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.

[18] Harris, E. M. (2013b). The Rule of Law in Action in Democratic Athens. New York: Oxford University Press.

[19] Harris, E. M. (2018). Demosthenes Speeches 23–26. Austin: Texas University Press.

[20] Hornblower, S. (1982). Mausolus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[21] Lane Fox, R. (1997). Demosthenes, Dionysius and the Dating of Six Early Speeches. Classica et Mediaevalia, 48, 167–203.

[22] MacDowell, D. M. (2009). Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford: University Press.

[23] Maffi, A. (2005). Family and Property Law. In M. Gagarin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law (pp. 254–266). Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.

[24] Martin, G. (2006). Forms of Address in Athenian Courts. Museum Helveticum, 63, 75–88.

[25] Martin, G. (2009). Divine Talk. Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes. New York: Oxford University Press.

[26] Navarre, O., & Orsini, P. (1954). Démosthènes, Plaidoyers politiques (Tome I). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

[27] Németh, Gy. (2006). Kritias und die Dreissig Tyrannen. Untersuchungen zur Politik und Prosopographie der Führungselite in Athen 404/403 v. Chr. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

[28] Pecorella Longo, Ch. (2004). Il condono della pena in Atene in eta classica. Dike, 7, 85–111.

[29] Radicke, J. (1995). Die Rede des Demosthenes für die Freiheit der Rhodier. Stuttgart – Leipzig: Teubner.

[30] Rhodes, J. P. (1972). The Athenian Boule. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[31] Rhodes, J. P. (2004). Keeping to the Point. In E. M. Harris, & L. Rubinstein (Eds.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece (pp. 137–158). London: Duckworth.

[32] Rhodes, J. P. (2006). A History of the Classical Greek World 478–323 BC. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

[33] Rhodes, J. P., & Osborne, R. (Eds.). (2007). Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404‒323 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[34] Rubinstein, L. (2005). Differentiated rhetorical strategies in the Athenian courts. In M. Gagarin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law (pp. 129–145). Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.

[35] Schaefer, A. (1885–1887). Demosthenes und seine Zeit.2 Leipzig: Teubner.

[36] Sealey, R. (1993). Demosthenes and his Time. A Study in Defeat. Oxford: University Press.

[37] Serafim, A. (2017). 'Conventions' in/as Performance: Addressing the Audience in Selected Public Speeches of Demosthenes. In S. Papaioannou, A. Serafim, & B. da Vela (Eds.), The Theatre of Justice (Mnemosyne Supplements, 403; pp. 26–41). Leiden – Boston: Brill.

[38] Serafim, A. (2020). Religious Discourse in Attic Oratory and Politics. London: Routledge.

[39] Serafim, A. (2021). "I, He, We, You, They": Addresses to the Audience as a Means of Unity/Division in Attic Forensic Oratory. In A. Michalopoulos, A. Serafim, F. Beneventano della Corte, & A. Vatri (Eds.), The Rhetoric of Unity and Division in Ancient Literature (pp. 71–98). Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter.

[40] Seres, D. (2020). Religious Vocabulary in Demosthenes' Speech Against Timocrates. Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis, 56, 327–340. | DOI 10.22315/ACD/2020/21

[41] Wayte W. (1893). Demosthenes Against Androtion and Against Timocrates with Introductions and English Notes. Cambridge: University Press.