PP TUTORIAL 1 Speeches 2009

Uroth

Informations

• Publié par: Zaup
• Nombre de lectures: 51
• Langue: English

Extrait

AH 2a – Past and Present
Tutorial 1:

SP E E C H E S

This tutorial is divided into three parts. In the first two parts, you are asked to read, think and
comment on a famous speech/speeches (given below). In the last part, you are asked to compare
how the two authors use speeches in their writing. So here goes:

PART 1: ‘THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE’

Read Herodotus’ Histories Book 3. 80-84. (Don’t worry, it’s not too long and pretty interesting…)

Think about the following questions.

1. What is the context for the Debate (ie, what has happened just before)?
2. Did this Debate ever take place? Why does Herodotus use the form of speeches?
3. What do you think that the Constitutional Debate tells us?
4. In the Debate, what does Herodotus tell us about non-Greeks?
5. What does he tell us about the Greeks?
6. What does he tell us about his attitudes to non-Greeks?
7. Is he trying to write history in any sense that we would understand?
8. If not, does that undermine his usefulness to us as historians?
9. Are there any ways of discovering whether Herodotus’ attitudes, as seen in book 3,
were typical?
10. Do you agree that Herodotus did have particularly set views about tyrants and kings?
11. Why did Herodotus write this material? What do you think was his audience, and
what was he trying to achieve?

Read at least ONE of the following (though TWO would be ideal)

Brannan, P.T. (1963), ‘Herodotus and History: the Constitutional Debate’. Traditio 19, 427-439
Christ, R. (1994), ‘Herodotean Kings and Historical Inquiry.’ Classical Antiquity 13 (2) 167-202
Fehling, D. (1989), Herodotus and his ‘sources’: citation, invention and narrative art. Liverpool. Chs. 3, 5
and summary.
Gammie, J.G. (1986), ‘Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants, Objective Historiography or Conventional
Portraiture.’ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43 (3) 171-95
Gray, V. (1995), ‘Herodotus and the Rhetoric of Otherness.’ American Journal of Philology 116 (2) 185-
211
Grene, D. (1961), ‘Herodotus; The Historian as Dramatist’. Journal of Philosophy 58, 477-489
Hegyi, D. (1973), ‘The Historical Authenticity of Herodotus in the Persian Logoi.’ Acta Antiquae Academiae
Scientarum Hungaricae 21, 73-87
Keaveney, A. (1996), ‘Persian Behaviour and Misbehaviour – some Herodotean Examples’ in Athenaeum 84
(1) 23-48
Lateiner, D. (1989), The historical method of Herodotus Toronto. Chs. 7-8, 10.
Lewis, D.M. (1997), ‘Persians in Herodotus’ in P.J. Rhodes, ed., Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern
History by David M. Lewis. Cambridge. 345-361.
Romm, J.S. (1998), Herodotus. New Haven & London. Chs. 7, 11-12.

For a commentary see Asheri, D. (et al.), (2007), A Commentary on Herodotus Books 1-4. Oxford. 471-477

1
PART 2: ‘THE DEBATE OVER MYTILENE’

Read Thucydides Book 3.37-49 (It is a bit long, but well worth it!)

Think about the following questions.

12. What is the context for the speeches? (i.e. what has happened just before)?
13. What information do these speeches give us about the events to which they refer?
14. Were these speeches ever delivered? If not: why does Thucydides use the form of
speeches to deliver the information he wants?
15. What is the effect of using speeches – in place of a narrative of events?
16. What do we learn from these speeches about Athenian attitudes to democracy?
17. What do we learn from these speeches about Athenian attitudes to the Delian League?
18. What do we learn from these speeches about Thucydides’ attitude to both democracy
and the Delian League?
19. Is he trying to write history in any sense that we would understand?
20. If not, does that undermine the usefulness of these speeches to us as historians?
21. Are there any ways of discovering whether Thucydides’ attitudes were typical?
22. Why did he write this material? What do you think was his audience, and what was he
trying to achieve?


Read at least ONE of the following (though TWO would be ideal). All available via JSTOR!
Andrewes, A., ‘The Mytilene Debate: Thucydides 3.36-49’, Phoenix 16.2 (1962), 64-85
Andrews, J.A., ‘Cleon’s hidden appeals (Thucydides 3.37-40)’, CQ 50.1 (2000), 45-62
Arnold, P.E., ‘The persuasive style of debates in direct speech in Thucydides’, Hermes 120.1 (1992), 44-57
van der Ben, N., ‘The textual problem in Diodotus’ speech, Thudydides 3.44.2’, Mnemosyne 40.1/2 (1987),
18-26
Bosworth, A.B., ‘The historical context of Thucydides’ funeral oration’, JHS 120 (2000), 1-16
Gills, D., ‘The revolt at Mytilene’, The American Journal of Philology. 92.1 (1971), 38-47
Meritt, B.D., ‘Athenian covenant with Mytilene’, The American Journal of Philology 75.4 (1954), 359-368
Smith, C., ‘Review: Hornblower’s Thucydides’, CR 49.1 (1999), 18-20
Westlake, H.D., ‘The commons at Mytilene’, Historia 25. 4 (1976), 429-440
Wilson, J., ‘Strategy and tactics in the Mytilene campaign’, Historia 30. 2 (1981), 144-163
For a commentary see Simon Hornblower’s A Commentary on Thucydides (various volumes)

PART 3: ‘COMPARING SPEECHES’

Just a couple of concluding questions here to think about:

1. What differences and similarities do you find between the speeches in Herodotus and
those in Thucydides?
2. Which of these speeches were the most persuasive for you – and why?

2
TEXT for Part 1:

Herodotus, Histories 3.80-84


80. When the tumult had subsided and more than five days had elapsed, those who had risen against
the Magians began to take counsel about the general state, and there were spoken speeches which
some of the Hellenes do not believe were really uttered, but spoken they were nevertheless. On the
one hand Otanes urged that they should resign the government into the hands of the whole body of
the Persians, and his words were as follows: "To me it seems best that no single one of us should
henceforth be ruler, for that is neither pleasant nor profitable. Ye saw the insolent temper of
Cambyses, to what lengths it went, and ye have had experience also of the insolence of the Magian:
and how should the rule of one alone be a well-ordered thing, seeing that the monarch may do what
he desires without rendering any account of his acts? Even the best of all men, if he were placed in
this disposition, would be caused by it to change from his wonted disposition: for insolence is
engendered in him by the good things which he possesses, and envy is implanted in man from the
beginning; and having these two things, he has all vice: for he does many deeds of reckless wrong,
partly moved by insolence proceeding from satiety, and partly by envy. And yet a despot at least
ought to have been free from envy, seeing that he has all manner of good things. He is however
naturally in just the opposite temper towards his subjects; for he grudges to the nobles that they
should survive and live, but delights in the basest of citizens, and he is more ready than any other
man to receive calumnies. Then of all things he is the most inconsistent; for if you express
admiration of him moderately, he is offended that no very great court is paid to him, whereas if you
pay court to him extravagantly, he is offended with you for being a flatterer. And the most important
matter of all is that which I am about to say:--he disturbs the customs handed down from our fathers,
he is a ravisher of women, and he puts men to death without trial. On the other hand the rule of many
has first a name attaching to it which is the fairest of all names, that is to say 'Equality'; next, the
multitude does none of those things which the monarch does: offices of state are exercised by lot, and
the magistrates are compelled to render account of their action: and finally all matters of deliberation
are referred to the public assembly. I therefore give as my opinion that we let monarchy go and
increase the power of the multitude; for in the many is contained everything."
81. This was the opinion expressed by Otanes; but Megabyzos urged that they should entrust matters
to the rule of a few, saying these words: "That which Otanes said in opposition to a tyranny, let it be
counted as said for me also, but in that which he said urging that we should make over the power to
the multitude, he has missed the best counsel: for nothing is more senseless or insolent than a
worthless crowd; and for men flying from the insolence of a despot to fall into that of unrestrained
popular power, is by no means to be endured: for he, if he does anything, does it knowing what he
does, but the people cannot even know; for how can that know which has neither been taught
anything noble by others nor perceived anything of itself, but pushes on matters with violent impulse
and without understanding, like a torrent stream? Rule of the people then let them adopt who are foes
to the Persians; but let us choose a company of the best men, and to them attach the chief power; for
in the number of these we shall ourselves also be, and it is likely that the resolutions taken by the best
men will be the best."
82. This was the opinion expressed by Megabyzos; and thirdly Dareios proceeded to declare his
opinion, saying: "To me it seems that in those things which Megabyzos said w