This paper addresses the uncanny resemblance between the educational industrial complex and the US carceral state. Both schools and prisons comprise carceral apparatuses that use policies, pedagogies, and practices to respond punitively to com­munal transgressions. Moreover, architectural designs and fiscal budgets further reveal symmetries that make learning communities unsafe and complicit with carceral systems. Black and Brown people are disproportionately caught in the frays of punitive disparities, targeted violence, and stereotypes of deviance that drastically impede social thriving. Ergo, this paper (...) responds to the inextricability of punishment that link classrooms to prisons by introducing an abolitionist theological ethic to create educational sanctuaries. (shrink)

The British utilitarians are not generally considered explorers of classical Greek thought. This paper examines the contribution of James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and George Grote to the development of Platonic studies in nineteenth-century Britain. Their understanding of Platonic philosophy challenged prevalent interpretations, and caused a fruitful debate over long neglected aspects of Plato's thought. Grote's Platonic analysis, which comes last in order of time, cannot, of course, be considered in isolation from the relevant debates in Germany. Grote, the erudite (...) historian of ancient Greece, paid considerable attention to the arguments of the German classicists, put forward in many cases a new point of view, and prompted a radical revaluation of Platonic political thought. (shrink)

Our starting point is a somewhat obscure incident which has lately attracted some attention. The year is 429 B.C., and the place is Athens in the third year of the Peloponnesian war. The plague, which had broken out only a year before, was still claiming its victims. Yet military operations were in full swing, and the general Phormio operating in the Corinthian gulf against a Peloponnesian fleet was able to score an impressive victory. The Lacedaemonians were deeply dissatisfied. This was (...) the first sea-fight they had been engaged in, and they found it hard to believe that their fleet was so much inferior to that of the Athenians. They dispatched three advisers to Knemos, the admiral in charge, instructing them to make better preparations for another sea-fight. Additional ships were solicited from the allies, and those already at hand were prepared for battle. It is at this point that the incident in question occurred. Not to prejudge the issue, I quote the text in full leaving the controversial phrases untranslated: 4. And Phormio on his part sent messengers to Athens to give information of the enemy's preparations and to tell about the battle which they had won, urging them also to send to him speedily as many ships as possible, since there was always a prospect that a battle might be fought any day. 5. So they sent him twenty ships, but gave τ δ κυμξοντι special orders to sail first to Crete. Nικας γρ Kρς Γορτνιος πρξενος ν persuaded them to sail against Cydonia, a hostile town, promising to bring it over to the Athenians; but he was really asking them to intervene to gratify the people of Polichne, who are neighbours of the Cydonians. 6. So μν λαβν τς νας. went to Crete, and helped the Polichnitans to ravage the lands of the Cydonians, and by reason of winds and stress of weather wasted not a little time. (shrink)

Twice in this chapter, according to the commentators, Plutarch has confused a pair of military engagements, Spartolos with Poteidaia and Nikias' campaign in the Megarid during 427 with that of Demosthenes in 424. In both instances this view seems to me to be of doubtful validity. In one case I would propose that instead of confusing two campaigns Plutarch simply misunderstood a very difficult passage in Thucydides, while in the second there is only flimsy evidence for rejecting Plutarch's version. (...) His statement that the Athenians under the command of Kalliades and Xenophon were defeated in Thrace by the Chalkidians refers to the battle of Spartolos , but it has become a critical dogma that Plutarch 'gives Kalliades as the commander, clearly by confusion with Kallias son of Kalliades',3 who led the Athenian forces at the battle of Poteidaia . The only apparent reason for this view is the coincidence of the names Kallias and Kalliades, but the frequent occurrence of these names makes this coincidence of no significance. (shrink)

No recent scholar has ever seriously maintained the genuineness of [Andokides] Oration IV, Against Alkibiades. Against it, one need cite no more than Blass, Attische Beredsamkeit , pp. 325–31; Jebb, Attic Orators , vol. i, pp. 133–9; an, pp. 191–210. The speech is quite ‘out of character’ for Andokides, who was certainly far too young ever to have been in danger of ostrakism as an alternative victim to Nikias or Alkibiades; and there is no reasonable doubt that its ‘dramatic (...) date’ is early in 415, and its ostensible speaker Phaiax, the clever young orator of Aristophanes' Knights , ambassador to Sicily in 422 and butt of Eupolis on divers occasions . These conclusions, however, leave open certain other material questions, especially that of the real date of the composition, on which in turn depends the question how far it can be legitimately used as an historical or biographical source. (shrink)

I do not think it is possible to show beyond reasonable doubt that the two slaves who open the play either must have been, or cannot have been, visually identifiable by portrait-masks or otherwise as Demosthenes and Nikias. I wish however to point out a piece of evidence that appears to have gone unnoticed.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Theopompos Not Theophrastos:Correcting an Attribution in Plutarch Demosthenes 14.4Brad L. CookModern reconstructions of Theopompos' presentation of Demosthenes are based on five passages, all of which are found in Plutarch's Demosthenes.1 Of these passages, two are favorable to the orator and two are starkly negative, with the fifth being neutral.2 In the negative passages Theopompos attacked the orator with such harshness, branding him unstable, unjust, and unworthy, that the two (...) favorable passages are often overshadowed in modern reconstructions of Theopompos' opinion of Demosthenes.3 Moreover, some scholars, both in the past and again recently, go one step further and argue that one of the favorable texts, Demosthenes 14.4 (F 327), should be attributed to Theophrastos. I argue that the attribution to Theophrastos in this passage is the mistake of a meddlesome scribe in one manuscript and that the reading "Theopompos" of most manuscripts should be accepted. This means that what little survives of Theopompos' opinion of the orator remains complex and not simply negative. The changes made to the other positive text, Demosthenes 18.2 (F 328), I hope to deal with on another occasion.In Demosthenes 14.4 (F 327), Demosthenes stands up to defy the cruel whim of the Athenian mob:[End Page 537]And, in addition,4 Theopompos recounts that when the Athenians were proposing him for a certain prosecution then, when he would not listen, made a commotion, he rose and said "As a counsellor, o men of Athens, even if you don't want to, you will use me; but as a false accuser, not even if you want to."The difficulty with this passage is that not all the manuscripts attribute the statement to Theopompos. The primary dissenting manuscript is Madrid 4685 (14th c.), previously known as Codex Matritensis 55 and commonly cited as N.5 Modern editions of Plutarch follow N and print "," whereas works on Theopompos follow the other manuscripts and print "." This disagreement has not received thorough examination in recent publications.6 A brief review of the arguments [End Page 538] for and against the reading of N, considering first the intrinsic character of the manuscript and then its standing in the manuscript tradition will indicate that we should reject the reading of N and keep the attribution to Theopompos.Every known manuscript and every printed text of Demosthenes 14.4 read "" until 1880. In that year Charles Graux published his examination of N and its reading in Demosthenes 14.4 of "."7 N consists of two parts. The first part contains Nikias–Crassus (the Nikias is from 24.2), Alcibiades–Coriolanus, Demosthenes–Cicero, and Agesilaos–Pompey.8 This first part of N has many readings that are distinct from the other manuscripts, and Graux argued that these readings are superior to those of the other manuscripts, especially in the Demosthenes–Cicero.9 Graux therefore not only accepted "." in Demosthenes 14.4 because of the readings in N but also supported "" by claiming that Theopompos was always hostile to Demosthenes and would never say anything favorable to him; thus Graux saw the reading "" in the other manuscripts as an error in transmission.10 [End Page 539]Response to the Madrid manuscript and Graux's high opinion of it was generally favorable.11 Several scholars, however, rejected Graux's unrestrained praise of N and argued that among the many improved readings there were interpolations.12 Gudeman complained that the scribe of N, a "semilearned librarius," was particularly intrusive with proper names and altered and interpolated the received text. Gudeman listed some of these intrusions in Demosthenes and Cicero; of note are Demosthenes 5.7, 10.3, and 23.6 as well as Cicero 36.7.13 In Demosthenes 5.7 Plutarch attributes a certain detail to Hermippos. N has a semieducated but incorrect gloss on Hermippos, calling him. But the Hermippos here is certainly Hermippos of Smyrna of the third century B.C., a writer of Lives, not the homonymous fifth–century poet.14 In [End Page 540] Demosthenes 10.2 Plutarch quotes Ariston of Chios who records an anecdote of Theophrastos about the orator. At Demosthenes 10.3 Plutarch continues, ""; N replaces with. But... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 124.1 (2003) 150-153 [Access article in PDF] Lisa Kallet. Money and the Corrosion of Power in Thucydides: The Sicilian Expedition and Its Aftermath. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001. xiv + 347 pp. Cloth, $55. Jonathan J. Price. Thucydides and Internal War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. xii + 410 pp. Cloth, $70. These two new contributions to Thucydidean studies are similar (...) in scope and execution. Each pursues a thesis so well defined that dust jacket summaries do them justice. Kallet argues that "the second half of Thucydides' history contains a damning critique of Athens and its leaders for becoming corrupted by money and for failing to appropriately use their financial strength to support military power." Price contends that "Thucydides consciously viewed and presented the Peloponnesian War in terms of a condition of civil strife—or stasis, in Greek." Many, if not most students of Thucydides would find each of these propositions reasonable, and some might argue that book-length narratives are not needed to establish these basic theses one way or another.Nevertheless, Thucydides requires careful study, and each of these books contains strong analyses of many key sections and themes from the History. Both studies shed a great deal of light on Thucydidean historiography beyond their immediate topics. Thucydides, however, enjoys the mixed blessing of popularity among more learned policy makers who trot him out from to time as a founder of realist thinking. In such contexts, tendentious remarks from the Melian dialogue or similarly complex contexts appear as aphorisms, and Thucydides is reduced to a sound bite. Those who are students of Greek culture, political philosophy, international relations, or some related field can easily skim these books for their core arguments but would benefit from closer readings of the particular discussions within them, many of which exhibit considerable insight and originality.Kallet's book builds on the foundations of her earlier research on Money, Expense and Naval Power in Thucydides 1-5.24 (California, 1993). Kallet begins her new work with the Melian dialogue but largely skips over the remainder of Book 5 and concentrates here on Books 6-8. The introductory chapter on the Melian dialogue introduces a core theme, which the Sicilian narrative will extend: where proper strategy uses imperialism as an investment to acquire more tangible revenue or to maintain existing sources of income, the conquest of Melos as a display of power cannot possibly yield enough revenue to justify the initial expense. The Athenians pursue this adventure not because it will improve their financial base but because they wish to demonstrate their power for third parties to observe. The radical realism of the Melian dialogue thus becomes an exercise in traditional (and by Thucydides' standards, wasteful) display of wealth and power. Thus, even as Thucydides' Athenians see themselves as progressive thinkers untrammeled by illusion, they let their illusion of sophistication blind them to the regressive policy that they are actually pursuing. [End Page 150]The following four chapters comprise a fairly discrete monograph on the Sicilian expedition. The analyses of the speeches and major actions in this section of Thucydides constitute a significant contribution to our understanding of Thucydidean narrative. Kallet's discussion of the debate between Nikias and Alkibiades at the opening of Book 6 (31-48) traces issues of public/private, community/individual, and archaic/contemporary in a clear fashion that would make it a useful reading in an introductory class on Thucydides. She traces the language of display and seduction, articulating the means whereby the Athenians succumb to problematic strategic judgments.I particularly enjoyed chapter 2, which explores the relationship between the Ionian revolt in Herodotus and the Sicilian Expedition in Thucydides. I remain uncertain in my own mind as to how much Thucydides has Herodotus in particular in mind and the degree to which Herodotus and Thucydides shared cognitive models that were almost invisible elements of Greek ideology. Given the limited sample of Greek source materials, we may never achieve any certainty, but even... (shrink)

Throughout the Peloponnesian War, no state remained as aggressively hostile toward Athens as Corinth. Following the affairs of Corcyra and Poteidaia, Corinth successfully argued that war be declared against Athens. After ten years of fighting, when Sparta agreed to the Peace of Nikias, Corinth refused to accept its terms and make peace with Athens. We know that Corinth and Athens were directly engaged in hostilities in 419 and 416 and were on opposing sides in the fighting between Epidauros and (...) Argos in 418. After Athens sent forces against Sicily in the summer of 415, Corinth voted independently to support Syracuse and encouraged Sparta to increase hostilities against Athens in both Greece and Sicily. When the Peloponnesian War came to an end in 404 with the final Athenian defeat, Corinth continued to oppose peace with Athens and urged that the city be destroyed. (shrink)

This is the second volume of a three-volume historical and literary commentary of the eight books of Thucydides, the great fifth-century BC historian of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Books IV-V. 24 cover the years 425-421 BC and contain the Pylos-Spakteria narrative, the Delion Campaign, and Brasidas' operations in the north of Greece. This volume ends with the Peace of Nikias and the alliance between Athens and Sparta. A valuable feature of this volume is the full thematic (...) introduction which discusses such topics as Thucydides and Herodotus, Thucydides' presentation of Brasidas, Thucydides and kinship, speech - direct and indirect - in IV-V. 24, Thucydides and epigraphy, IV-V. 24 as a work of art: innovative or merely incomplete? Thucydides intended his work to be `an everlasting possession' and the continuing importance of his work is undisputed. Simon Hornblower's commentary, by translating every passage of Greek commented on, for thefirst time allows readers with little or no Greek to appreciate the detail of Thucydides' thought and subject-matter. A full index is provided at the end of the volume. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Thucydides: The Peloponnesian WarSimon HornblowerSteven Lattimore, trans. Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War. With introduction and notes. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett, 1998. xxii + 513 pp. 4 maps. Cloth, $39.95; paper, $12.95.This translation is generally faithful and readable, with many excellent notes. It is clearly the product of much labor and valuable thought. In accuracy (with the exceptions noted below) it is superior to Warner, though less faithful than Hobbes. (...) However, it is marred by omissions and garbling of names, which should be put right urgently in a reprinting, and the emphasis of the notes is uneven in important respects.1. Omissions: whole chunks of Greek are sometimes omitted.a. The worst, because longest, instance is 5.111.4: an entire eight–line paragraph of Greek has disappeared from the translation of the Melian Dialogue, containing among other things the Athenians' "moderate proposal" that the Melians should agree to accept tributary status.b. At 3.105.2 has disappeared from the translation, which is in fact ungrammatical English at this point ("set up camp at in Amphilochia").c. At 4.121.1 the interesting words have not been translated (did the people of Skione "go up to greet" Brasidas or did they "offer him first–fruits"?). [End Page 646]d. At 6.9.2, Nikias' first speech at Athens before the Sicilian expedition,, is not translated.e. At 7.71.5 (great sea battle in Syracuse harbor) is not translated.2. Proper names garbled: names of persons and places are regularly garbled or got wrong. This is specially regrettable in a book which rightly sees names as important, without however considering how the evidence of epigraphy might bear on the question. See for instance the ingenious note on "Philokrates son of Demeas" on p. 301 (Th. 5.116), or that on the patronymics on p. 414 (note on 8.5), or that on Euphemos ("Good speaker" as Lattimore renders it, though "auspicious" might be closer) on p. 346 (Th. 6.81–87). Here, however, "almost certainly" is much too strong for the various identifications suggested, in view of the commonness of the name Euphemos at Athens; see the entry in vol. II (1994) of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (1987–), a work never cited by Lattimore. In the following list I give Lattimore's page numbers with Thucydidean references in parentheses:27 (1.52) for "Leagoras" read "Leogoras"; 52 (1.107) for "Kitinion" read "Kytinion"; 67 (1.139) for "Milesippos" read "Melesippos" (correct at 2.12); 80 (2.12) for "Diaokritos" read "Diakritos"; 84 (2.19) for "Rhetoi" read "Rheitoi"; 108 (2.66) for "Anaristos" read "Aneristos"; 125 (2.96) for "Triballio" read "Triballoi"; 142 (3.26) for "Kleombrotos" read "Kleomenes"; 144 (3.31) for "Tein" read "Teian"; 175 (3.93) for "Kenion" read "Kenaion"; 214, 261, and 274 (4.56, 5.14, and 5.41) for "Kynosouria" read "Kynouria"; 224 (4.78) for "Striophokos" read the good epigraphically attested Thessalian name "Strophakos"; 225 (4.78) for "Phagion" read "Phakion"; 238 (4.107) for "Gelepsis" read "Galepsos"; 242 (4.118) for "Tomeos" read "Tomeus"; 254 (5.1 and in footnote) for "Pharnakos" read "Pharnakes"; 263 (5.18) for "Spartalos" read "Spartolos," and for "Ptoleon" read "Pteleon"; 308 (6.4) for "Krataimones" read "Krataimenes," and for "Anaxilos" read "Anaxilas"; 310 (6.8) for "Laches" read "Lamachos"; 335 (6.59) for "Hippokles" read "Hippoklos"; 339 (6.65) for "Symaistos" read "Symaithos"; 339 (6.66) for "Anopos" read "Anapos," as also at pp. 355 (6.96) and 381 (7.42), but note that at p. 402 (7.78) the name has come out as "Anopis"; 359 (6.105) for "Laispodios" read "Laispodias"; 386 (7.50) for "Kyrnaians" read "Kyrenaians"; 416 (8.10 n.) for "Speraion" read "Speiraion"; 431 (8.44) for "Kamieros" read "Kameiros"; 465 (8.101) for "Lektos" read "Lekton." Most of these names are, oddly enough, given correctly in the index. "Anapos" is correct on map 3.3. Omission of variant readings of proper names: since Lattimore does sometimes discuss textual variants and emendations, I give some other places where it would have been helpful to flag a variant.a. P. 224 (4.76): Ptoiodoros is... (shrink)

Von Theokrits Leben wissen wir wenig. Geboren wohl zu Beginn des 3. Jh.s. v. Chr. im sizilischen Syrakus, hat ihn das landliche Lebensumfeld gepragt. Eine Reise nach Alexandreia, der Metropole des Ptolemaerreiches, fuhrte ihn vermutlich mit Kallimachos und Apollonios Rhodios sowie dem Lehrdichter Arat zusammen; belegt ist das freundschaftliche Verhaltnis zu dem in Milet praktizierenden Arzt und Epigrammdichter Nikias. Als Todesdatum kommen die 60er Jahre in Frage, aber auch ein erheblich spaterer Zeitpunkt. Die politischen und wirtschaftlichen Veranderungen seit dem (...) 4. Jh. - die Herrschaft der Makedonenkonige bedeutete das Ende der Autonomie fur die demokratisch organisierten kleinen griechischen Stadtstaaten - blieben nicht ohne Einfluss auf die Dichtkunst: Die Abkehr vom Gesellschaftlich-Offentlichen und die Hinwendung zum Elitar-Privaten; der Verzicht auf die grosse Form des Epos und der Tragodie, statt dessen die Bevorzugung kleinerer Formen. Vorausgesetzt ist gleichzeitig ein verandertes Rezeptionsverhalten: Die Werke der alexandrinischen Dichter richten sich nicht an eine grosse Zuhorerschaft im Theater, sie wollen vielmehr den gebildeten einzelnen Leser, der all die literarischen und mythologischen Anspielungen und Variationen bis hin zur Parodie verstehen kann, erreichen und erfreuen. Ebenso unverkennbar ist der Innovationswille bei den Themen der eidyllia Theokrits: die Hirtenwelt mit einer besonderen Akzentuierung des Erotischen, das stadtische Leben, die landliche Arbeitswelt der Bauern und Fischer... Die realitatsgesattigte Darstellung des Alltags der kleinen Leute steht allem Pathos des Heroischen, das Archaik und Klassik pragte, vollig fern. Daruber hinaus stellt die distanzierende Ironie mit ihren Hinweisen auf die Schwachen und Defizite der Protagonisten nicht nur einen deutlichen Gegensatz zur literarischen Tradition dar, sondern auch zu jenen Nachfolgern, die sich oft auf ein idealisierend-verengendes Theokrit-Bild berufen haben: Vergil und andere Bukoliker sowie die Verfasser von Schaferdichtung spaterer Zeit. Deren heile Idyllenwelt entspringt haufig der kitschig-verklarenden Sehnsucht moderner Stadtmenschen nach dem vermeintlich einfachen und naturlichen Landleben. Allein am Wort selbst ist die Bedeutungsverschiebung unverkennbar: Das realitatsnahe "kleine Bildchen" des Theokrit mit seinen oft derb-obszonen Spassen hat wenig gemein mit der romantisierenden Idylle franzosischer Rokokodichtung.". (shrink)

Thucydides reports that in 414/13, after severe losses in Sicily, Nikias wrote to Athens, asking to be replaced in command and saying that it was necessary either to recall the expedition from the island or to send a new army as a reinforcement. The Athenians, however,[When the Athenians had heard his letter,] instead of relieving him of his command, chose two members of the force in Sicily, Menandros and Euthydemos, to act as additional commanders until the selection and arrival (...) of other colleagues, so that the position of sole commander would not cause Nikias suffering in his illness. They also voted to send another force, both military and naval, composed of Athenians on the muster-roll and of their allies. After the selection of Demosthenes, the son of Alkisthenes, and Eurymedon, the son of Thoukles, as Nikias' colleagues, they sent Eurymedon forthwith, around the winter solstice, to Sicily with ten ships and one hundred and twenty talents in silver …. (shrink)