An historical commentary on Lykourgos against Leokrates

This thesis is an historical commentary on Lykourgos' prosecution speech Against
Leokrates. The introduction comprises various sections. The first is a brief
consideration of the specific historical background to the oration in Athens and
the wider Greek world. The second looks at the orator Lykourgos himself, one of
the most significant figures of Classical Athenian history who could be described
as a fourth-century equivalent of Perikles. Lykourgos was 'Controller of Athenian
finances' for more than a decade following the Athenians' defeat by Philip at
Khaironeia in 338 B.C. During this period, Lykourgos used his dominant position
effectively to rebuild Athens structurally, aesthetically and culturally. He could
thus be considered to be of far greater significance than his much better-known
contemporary Demosthenes, even if it is accepted that he was a less effective
orator. There are, however, reasons to believe that he was in fact not less
effective, for the ancient view of Lykourgos as a prosecutor was that his 'pen was
dipped in blood'. This has, indeed, proved a puzzle in tenns of this one surviving
speech, which Lykourgos has unanimously been deemed to have lost. The
remainder of the introduction looks in detail at eisangelia, the procedure under
which Lykourgos prosecuted Leokrates, and the sole reference to the outcome of
the case (Aiskhin. 3.252), and re-evaluates this assessment. It concludes that there
are juridical and rhetorical reasons to suggest that Aiskhines has been
misinterpreted and that Lykourgos in fact won this case, failing by one vote on a
second ballot to secure a majority for a punishment of execution. The introduction
concludes by re-evaluating the structure of the speech which has been
overwhelmingly seen as a mass digression into poetic quotations. It suggests that
previous assessments of the speech as a failure have worked against an objective
consideration of Lykourgos' tactics, and have therefore masked the structure
inherent to the speech as a whole. The commentary itself has an historical, rather
than rhetorical or linguistic, focus, and is subdivided into sections which reflect
the structure outlined in the introduction.