Cursing for Justice: Magic, Disputes, and the Lawcourts in Classical Athens 3515129146, 9783515129145

Citation preview

Zinon Papakonstantinou

Cursing for Justice

9

7835 1 5 1 291 45

www.steiner-verlag.de

Cursing for Justice

ISBN 978-3-515-12914-5

normative or legislative taxonomies. Further, Papakonstantinou demonstrates how Athenians acting in a self-assessing and long-term agential mode employed curse tablets strategically to advance their individual agenda and position in Athenian society. As a result, Athenian legal curse tablets point to a conceptually malleable perception of “law” and “litigation” driven by utility and self-interest that clashed with claims to justice, the pursuit of the rule of law, and attitudes towards jurors articulated by litigants in Athenian forensic orations.

Hamburger Studien zu Gesellschaften und Kulturen der Vormoderne Band 14

14

Alte Geschichte

Franz Steiner Verlag

Franz Steiner Verlag

papakonstantinou

This book is a comprehensive exploration of curse tablets in the Athenian legal domain. Drawing on sociological and critical theory, Zinon Papakonstantinou outlines a framework for the interaction between curse tablets and legalities, namely in both formal and informal manifestations of the legal sphere, in Classical Athens. By delving into the complex world of Athenian daily life and disputes, Papakonstantinou argues that Athenians involved in litigation deployed binding curses as polysemic acts of conflict management and information control. They also used them as transgressive transcripts that went beyond

Magic, Disputes, and the Lawcourts in Classical Athens

14

Hamburger Studien zu Gesellschaften und Kulturen der Vormoderne Alessandro Bausi (Äthiopistik), Christof Berns (Archäologie), Christian Brockmann (Klassische Philologie), Christoph Dartmann (Mittelalterliche Geschichte), Philippe Depreux (Mittelalterliche Geschichte), Helmut Halfmann (Alte Geschichte), Kaja Harter-Uibopuu (Alte Geschichte), Stefan Heidemann (Islamwissenschaft), Ulla Kypta (Mittelalterliche Geschichte), Ulrich Moennig (Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie), Barbara Müller (Kirchengeschichte), Sabine Panzram (Alte Geschichte), Werner Riess (Alte Geschichte), Jürgen Sarnowsky (Mittelalterliche Geschichte), Claudia Schindler (Klassische Philologie), Martina Seifert (Klassische Archäologie), Giuseppe Veltri ( Jüdische Philosophie und Religion) Verantwortlicher Herausgeber für diesen Band: Werner Riess Band 14

Cursing for Justice Magic, Disputes, and the Lawcourts in Classical Athens Zinon Papakonstantinou

Franz Steiner Verlag

Umschlagabbildung: Drawing of DT 49, courtesy of Dr. Jaime Curbera. (All rights reserved). Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2021 Layout und Herstellung durch den Verlag Druck: Beltz Grafische Betriebe, Bad Langensalza Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-12914-5 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-12919-0 (E-Book)

Editorial In der Reihe Hamburger Studien zu Gesellschaften und Kulturen der Vormoderne haben sich geisteswissenschaftliche Fächer, die u. a. die vormodernen Gesellschaften erforschen (Äthiopistik, Alte Geschichte, Byzantinistik, Islamwissenschaft, Judaistik, Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte, Klassische Archäologie, Klassische und Neulateinische Philologie, Mittelalterliche Geschichte) in ihrer gesamten Breite zu einer gemeinsamen Publikationsplattform zusammengeschlossen. Chronologisch wird die Zeit von der griechisch-römischen Antike bis unmittelbar vor der Reformation abgedeckt. Thematisch hebt die Reihe zwei Postulate hervor: Zum einen betonen wir die Kontinuitäten zwischen Antike und Mittelalter bzw. beginnender Früher Neuzeit, und zwar vom Atlantik bis zum Hindukusch, die wir gemeinsam als „Vormoderne“ verstehen, zum anderen verfolgen wir einen dezidiert kulturgeschichtlichen Ansatz mit dem Rahmenthema „Sinnstiftende Elemente der Vormoderne“, das als Klammer zwischen den Disziplinen dienen soll. Es geht im weitesten Sinne um die Eruierung sinnstiftender Konstituenten in den von unseren Fächern behandelten Kulturen. Während Kontinuitäten für die Übergangszeit von der Spätantike ins Frühmittelalter und dann wieder vom ausgehenden Mittelalter in die Frühe Neuzeit als zumindest für das lateinische Europa relativ gut erforscht gelten können, soll eingehender der Frage nachgegangen werden, inwieweit die Kulturen des Mittelalters im Allgemeinen auf die antiken Kulturen rekurrierten, sie fortgesetzt und weiterentwickelt haben. Diesen großen Bogen zu schließen, soll die neue Hamburger Reihe helfen. Es ist lohnenswert, diese längeren Linien nachzuzeichnen, gerade auch in größeren Räumen. Vielfältige Kohärenzen werden in einer geographisch weit verstandenen mediterranen Koine sichtbar werden, wobei sich die Perspektive vom Mittelmeerraum bis nach Zentralasien erstreckt, ein Raum, der für die prägende hellenistische Kultur durch Alexander den Großen erschlossen wurde; auch der Norden Europas steht wirtschaftlich und kulturell in Verbindung mit dem Mittelmeerraum und Zentralasien – sowohl aufgrund der Expansion der lateinischen Christenheit als auch über die Handelswege entlang des Dnepr und der Wolga. Der gemeinsame Impetus der zur Reihe beitragenden Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler besteht darin aufzuzeigen, dass soziale Praktiken, Texte aller Art und Artefakte/Bauwerke der Vormoderne im jeweiligen zeithistorischen und kulturellen Kontext ganz spezifische sinn- und identitätsstiftende Funktionen erfüllten. Die Ge-

6

Editorial

meinsamkeiten und Alteritäten von Phänomenen – die unten Erwähnten stehen lediglich exempli gratia – zwischen Vormoderne und Moderne unter dieser Fragestellung herauszuarbeiten, stellt das Profil der Hamburger Reihe dar. Sinnstiftende Elemente von Strategien der Rechtsfindung und Rechtsprechung als Bestandteil der Verwaltung von Großreichen und des Entstehens von Staatlichkeit, gerade auch in Parallelität mit Strukturen in weiterhin kleinräumigen Gemeinschaften, werden genauso untersucht wie Gewaltausübung, die Perzeption und Repräsentation von Gewalt, Krieg und Konfliktlösungsmechanismen. Bei der Genese von Staatlichkeit spielen die Strukturierung und Archivierung von Wissen eine besondere Rolle, bedingt durch ganz bestimmte Weltvorstellungen, die sich z. T. auch in der Kartographie konkret niederschlugen. Das Entstehen von Staatlichkeit ist selbstverständlich nicht nur als politischer Prozess zu verstehen, sondern als Gliederung des geistigen Kosmos zu bestimmten Epochen durch spezifische philosophische Ansätze, religiöse Bewegungen sowie Staats- und Gesellschaftstheorien. Diese Prozesse der longue durée beruhen auf einer Vielzahl symbolischer Kommunikation, die sich in unterschiedlichen Kulturen der Schriftlichkeit, der Kommunikation und des Verkehrs niedergeschlagen hat. Zentrum der Schriftlichkeit sind natürlich Texte verschiedenster Provenienz und Gattungen, deren Gehalt sich nicht nur auf der Inhaltsebene erschließen lässt, sondern deren Interpretation unter Berücksichtigung der spezifischen kulturellen und epochalen Prägung auch die rhetorische Diktion, die Topik, Motive und auktoriale Intentionen, wie die aemulatio, in Anschlag bringen muss. Damit wird die semantische Tiefendimension zeitlich weit entfernter Texte in ihrem auch symbolischen Gehalt erschlossen. Auch die für uns teilweise noch fremdartigen Wirtschaftssysteme der Vormoderne harren einer umfassenden Analyse. Sinnstiftende Elemente finden sich auch und v. a. in Bauwerken, Artefakten, Grabmonumenten und Strukturen der jeweiligen Urbanistik, die jeweils einen ganz bestimmten Sitz im Leben erfüllten. Techniken der Selbstdarstellung dienten dem Wettbewerb mit Nachbarn und anderen Städten. Glaubenssysteme und Kultpraktiken inklusive der „Magie“ sind gerade in ihrem Verhältnis zur Entstehung und Ausbreitung des Christentums, der islamischen Kultur und der Theologie dieser jeweiligen Religionen in ihrem Bedeutungsgehalt weiter zu erschließen. Eng verbunden mit der Religiosität sind Kulturen der Ritualisierung, der Performanz und des Theaters, Phänomenen, die viele soziale Praktiken auch jenseits der Kultausübung erklären helfen können. Und im intimsten Bereich der Menschen, der Sexualität, den Gender-Strukturen und dem Familienleben gilt es ebenfalls, sinnund identitätsstiftenden Elementen nachzuspüren. Medizinische Methoden im Wandel der Zeiten sowie die Geschichte der Kindheit und Jugend sind weitere Themengebiete, deren Bedeutungsgehalt weiter erschlossen werden muss. Gemeinsamer Nenner bleibt das Herausarbeiten von symbolträchtigen Elementen und Strukturen der Sinnhaftigkeit in den zu untersuchenden Kulturen gerade im kulturhistorischen Vergleich zu heute. Die Herausgeber

For Elif

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Chapter 2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation . . . . . . 2.1 Binding Curses and the Public Sphere in Classical Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Curse Tablets in the Realm of Athenian Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Sorcerers and Curse Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 23 33 38 42

Chapter 3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Disputes in a Diachronic and Comparative Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Support Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation in Broad-based Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Paradigms of Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 43 48 53 58 61

Chapter 4 Broad-based Disputes in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Lysias 3 (Against Simon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Lysias 4 (On a Wound by Premeditation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Isaeus 6 (On the Estate of Philoktemon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Demosthenes 21 (Against Meidias) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Broad-based Disputes in Forensic Oratory: Information Control and Public Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 64 67 69 71 74 84

10

Table of Contents

Chapter 5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 A Dispute Involving Trierarchs – SLCTA no. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Disputes and Curses among Athenian Elites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Disputes and Space: Residential, Demotic, and Professional Affiliations in Athenian Curse Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 SGD 48: Politicians, Peddlers, and Prostitutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Women in Athenian Disputes and Curse Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Broad-based Disputes and Litigation in Other Athenian Curse Tablets . . . . . . 5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Individual and Collective Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Agency, Power, and Structure: The Case of Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. High-Level Agency in Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Subjectivity and Agency in Athenian Disputes and Curse Tablets . . . . . . . . 6.2 Disputes, Emotions, and Curse Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Broad-based Disputes, Agency, and Magic: The Case of the Athenian dikastai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Dikastai in Athenian Litigation and Curse Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86 87 93 98 105 108 112 116 118 118 120 122 126 127 134 138 145

Chapter 7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 A. Curse Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 B. General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Preface The present book brings together a long-standing interest in Greek disputes, law, and magic, especially binding curses. While there is much evidence for these themes in all periods of Greek antiquity, the present study focuses on Classical Athens. I should state at the outset that the present book is neither a comprehensive survey of the practice of magic nor an exhaustive assessment of law and disputes in Classical Athens. My aim has been rather modest: to link in scholarly discourse the symbolism and practice of binding curses to dominant modes of Athenian dispute behavior and its manifestations (e. g. methods of communication, emotive states, litigation) in a manner that demonstrates the necessity for a processual and contextual analysis. I perceive scholars and other advanced students of Classical Athens as the principal target audience of the book. But it could potentially be of assistance in a comparative context, in studies of magic, disputes, and agency. In writing the book, I have benefitted tremendously from the insightful work of numerous scholars from both sides of the Atlantic. I have made every effort to acknowledge these intellectual debts in the discussion and notes. To be sure, scholarly nuances abound and will undoubtedly continue to exist, especially in connection with issues related to law, disputes, and magic in Athens. I see such diversity and multivocality as a positive token of the dynamism of our field. It is only hoped that the ensuing discussion will complement and further enhance wider debates as well as contribute to the analysis of finer points in studies of all persuasions, irrespective of methodological perspective. The bulk of the present manuscript was written while I held a Fellowship for Experienced Researchers awarded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. I am indebted to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the fellowship, but also for the professionalism and efficiency of all the Foundation staff that I came in contact with – they all did their absolute best in dealing with logistical matters and making sure that I had everything I needed to pursue my research. I held the fellowship intermittently from 2013 to 2016, hosted by the University of Hamburg. I am grateful to Professor Dr. Werner Riess who acted as academic host and made sure that there were always optimal conditions for my work. Moreover, he provided invaluable feedback (including on the complete manuscript), support, and camaraderie throughout my stay in Hamburg and beyond. My heartfelt thanks also go to the entire university community, and most

12

Preface

notably to the faculty, students (especially my research assistant Elisabeth Schick), and staff at the Ancient History section of the Department of History at the University of Hamburg. They generously welcomed me and assisted me in numerous ways, academically or otherwise, during my stay in Hamburg. Among scholars working on Athenian magic, disputes, and culture, special thanks go to Dr. Jaime Curbera for his collaboration, for allowing me to publish his drawing of DT 49 in the cover of the book, and for sending me copies of his, sometimes unpublished, work; to Professor Felice Costabile for providing me with copies of his work; to Dr. Sara Chiarini for sending me a copy of her Habilitationsschrift before publication; as well as to the anonymous reviewer of the Hamburger Studien zu Gesellschaften und Kulturen der Vormoderne for the insightful feedback. Needless to say, I am solely responsible for any remaining shortcomings in the ensuing discussion. Earlier versions of chapters or sections of this book have been presented in conferences, research seminars or invited lectures in universities in the USA (Northwestern University; University of Chicago; as well as in two Annual Meetings of the Society for Classical Studies), Germany (University of Hamburg; and at the 1st Colloquium Atticum, held also in Hamburg), Canada (Western University), Greece (Netherlands Archaeological Institute in Athens) and Turkey (Akdeniz University). I thank the hosts and audiences on all these occasions for giving me the opportunity to present my work and for providing their valuable feedback. My wife Elif was steadfastly supportive and inspirational throughout the writing of yet another book. Her enthusiasm for scholarly inquiry and her insightful comments during our countless conversations on ancient Athens, as well as on broader issues of historical theory and methodology, helped me clarify many points, suggested alternative avenues of analysis, and motivated me to pursue my research. For all these reasons, this book is rightfully dedicated to her. Chicago, August 2020

Chapter 1 Introduction Sometime in the second half of the fourth century,1 a sorcerer in Athens received an unusual in its scope, though not extraordinary in its content, commission. A client, possibly a man of elevated social standing, handed over a list of nearly one hundred individuals with a request that they should be targeted in a magical binding curse. Such curses were the stock-in-trade for sorcerers who were lured to Athens from many parts of the Greek-speaking world by the opportunities afforded by a populous and affluent city. The sorcerer in question duly executed his client’s commission in the form of a single curse tablet (what is today known as SGD 48) which was then deposited west of the urban center of Athens, possibly near a temple.2 The tablet itself contains the most extensive list of targets among extant binding curses from Classical Athens, but other features of the curse also stand out. The ferocious opening plea to “bind, bury, wipe out from mankind”3 all targets is remarkable for its aggressiveness, yet paralleled in other Athenian acts of magic. The list of the targets also invites comparisons to other Athenian curses, e. g. regarding the binding of individuals of diverse genders, ages, professions, and social classes. Texts like SGD 48, as well as most other curse tablets from Athens, open a window to the microcosm of experiences and interactions of Athenians (by which I mean all residents of Attica, irrespective of legal status, gender or age) as they went about their daily lives in their shared lifeworld. But is SGD 48 and other curse tablets in a position to illuminate, and even enhance, our assessment of Classical Athenian society and culture? To answer that question, we first must attempt to understand what Athenians thought that curse tablets could accomplish. Curse tablets were certainly not formal scripts (in the sense that e. g. a decree approved by the Athenian assembly and published on a stone inscription was) but were nevertheless formulaic and the end products of a ritual process, much like many of the formal texts produced in 1 2 3

Unless otherwise indicated, all ancient dates are BCE. Internal cross references refer to chapters or chapter sections (e. g. 4.5). For this tablet and its provenance see Ziebarth 1934, 1A and 1B; Jordan and Curbera 2008. καταδῶ, κατορύττω, ἀφανίζω ἐξ ἀνθρώπων.

14

1 Introduction

Classical Athens. However, even from the brief recreation of the process that led to the production of a tablet like SGD 48, it becomes apparent that the discourses and values that mediated the narrative of this text differed, to a certain extent, from the rhetoric and process expected in state-sanctioned, formal contexts (e. g. a court of law). Curse tablets emerge as communicative actions that to some extent did not unequivocally espouse all aspects of the normative framework and agenda that regulated – on a statutory basis, at least – the interaction of people in controlled/formal contexts. Such a preliminary assessment of the wider position of binding curses in the discursive universe of Athenian social life is of course contingent on the circumstances, motivations, and emotive states behind each curse. If, as commonly assumed, animosities, rivalries, and conflicts can be deduced behind curse tablets and other acts of magic, then what sort of conflict could lie behind a curse tablet with nearly 100 targets like SGD 48, or any other Athenian curse tablet that aimed at incapacitating diverse groups of Athenians?4 At times Athenian curse tablets suggest something of the social milieu of the conflict, e. g. by indicating the professions of targets or by pinpointing to individuals known from other sources. Yet prosopography, useful as it might be, has its limitations in any attempt to understand conflict. Both in premodern and modern societies conflict is a complex kaleidoscope of relationships, emotions, aggressions, and negotiations. The totality of experiences related to a situation of conflict is usually fleeting for most observers. In the case of Athens, curse tablets are mere fragments of such situations of conflict. Nonetheless, curse tablets are indicative of salient patterns of disputing behavior in Athens, especially during the fourth century. One of these patterns, it is argued in this book, is the preponderance of “broad-based” disputes as documented in Athenian literary evidence. Cultural approaches on Athenian conflict and disputes have made great advances in recent decades. Conflict is increasingly seen as performative, whether it was conducted in a court of law or in less formal social settings. Until recently, curse tablets had played only a marginal role in scholarly debates on the cultural value of conflict in Classical Athens, and they have been mostly overlooked in formalist studies that restrictively identify the legal domain of action with civic adjudicatory procedures (e. g. mediation, lawsuits) and institutions (e. g. popular courts).5 It is a major contention of this book

4

5

The ensuing analysis focuses, for the most part, on curse tablets that target broader groups of individuals as they correspond better to patterns of dispute and litigation documented in Athenian forensic orations. By this choice I do not mean to suggest that curse tablets could not have been employed for strictly dyadic disputes, hence targeting a single person. It is nevertheless the case that, at least as far as Classical Athens is concerned, curse tablets that targeted a single adversary were rare – indeed even most fragmentary tablets from Athens appear to target several individuals and thus point to wider disputes. Notable exceptions to this wider trend include Faraone 1999b; Rubinstein 2000 and 2018; Eidinow 2007a and 2016; Riess 2012; Papakonstantinou 2014, 2018a and 2018b. These works organically incorporate curse tablets in analyses of litigation, conflict, and discursive negotiation of violence.

1 Introduction

15

that, building on past scholarship, curse tablets can further enhance scholarly discussions and assessment of disputing behavior in Classical Athens. Since curse tablets are the products of conflicts, all curse tablets are indicative of such disputing behavior, irrespective of whether the dispute implied in the curse ever reached the stage of formal litigation.6 To be sure, we can ascertain that many curse tablets were generated by disputes that were subjected to adjudication by the courts or magistrates of Athens. However, litigation was never a programmatic destination but merely a phase in a universe of collateral acts that constituted Athenian disputes – that was especially so in broad-based disputes. Athenian curse tablets intimate this overlapping seriality and fluidity of disputes and litigation – an example of how these magical texts can throw new light on central aspects of Athenian daily life. The core of the book commences with a chapter (chapter 2) in which salient aspects in the process of producing curse tablets are introduced. This chapter is not meant to be a synopsis of sources and scholarship on magic in ancient Athens. It is rather conceived as a selective, and hence perhaps idiosyncratic, outline of those features of Athenian curse tablets that make them amenable to the analytical discussion in subsequent chapters. The emphasis here is on the logistics of commissioning and generating curse tablets in Classical Athens. A distinction between “legal” and “potentially legal” curse tablets is introduced in accordance with the presumed stage of the dispute in which each curse tablet was commissioned and produced. The concept of curse tablets as communicative actions operating amid the flow of information that was inherent in any Athenian dispute is also introduced in chapter 2, especially in connection with the social background of the agents of Athenian curse tablets. Both points (curse tablets as communicative action; situating curse tablets in the social landscape) are further elaborated in subsequent chapters.

6

Moreover, Athenian curse tablets have been studied mainly from the perspective of magical beliefs and religious practices. See e. g. Faraone and Obbink 1991; Graf 1997; Dickie 2001; Mirecki and Meyer 2002; Collins 2008; Ogden 2008; Edmonds 2019. Though valuable, such scholarly works that focus on magical beliefs and ritual practices in a diachronic perspective (cf. however the contextual approach by Stratton 2007) are largely beyond the scope of the present monograph that approaches curse tablets as communicative actions and embodiments of conflict in the specific cultural milieu of Classical Athens. Finally, there are also some studies that focus on formalist aspects or the typology/taxonomy of curse tablets (e. g. Versnel 1991; Dreher 2018a, German version 2018d), the results of which have been integrated into wider discussions of magic in Athens. Throughout the book by “formal” I refer, for the sake of convenience, to institutionalized, civically endorsed practices of litigation, arbitration, or other modes of interaction between Athenians and the Athenian state. By distinguishing formal adjudication as a separate category of dispute management in Classical Athens I do not wish to minimize the extent and the importance of negotiation and reciprocity between institutional and extra-institutional (or formal/informal, official/ popular etc.) forms of justice and interpersonal interaction. See in general Papakonstantinou 2008; Forsdyke 2012, especially chapter 5. Indeed, it is one of the aims of this study to underscore the reflexivity between “formal” and “informal” perceptions and practices of law and justice as demonstrated primarily through the use of binding curses.

16

1 Introduction

Chapter 3 turns to the wider context of Athenian disputing practices and introduces the concept of broad-based disputes. The concept builds on previous scholarship that foregrounds the role of disputes and litigation as social and performative stages wherein identities, relationships, and statuses were negotiated and articulated. At their early phases broad-based disputes in Classical Athens usually (but not always) began as conflicts that engaged only a small number of primary disputants – often they were dyadic, interpersonal conflicts. Eventually such conflicts evolved to a point where they consisted of a set of practices and interactions that often spanned several years, and in some cases decades and generations of disputants. Furthermore, broad-based disputes were usually cyclical as they involved numerous phases of intense interaction, including at times physical aggression and litigation/mediation between disputants, which alternated with phases of strategic planning. Recruiting solid and extensive networks of supporters was crucial in achieving success (however it was defined by each disputant) in Athenian broad-based disputes. Such networks consisted of kin, friends, and associates but often, because much of disputing occurred in public, also of accidental participants in a dispute (e. g. passersby who had witnessed an incident or other stage of an ongoing conflict). As a result, broad-based disputes infiltrated most aspects of a disputant’s daily life, including domestic and professional, as well as other social interactions. Chapter 4 further elaborates the discussion of broad-based disputes in Classical Athens by examining in greater detail four case studies of such disputes attested in the Athenian forensic orations corpus. One such case study concerns the dispute between Demosthenes and Meidias, a dispute that went on for over twenty years (4.4). The main source for the dispute is the one-sided prosecution speech (21, Against Meidias) by Demosthenes. Despite the biased tone of the speech the broad outlines of the dispute, including its genesis and transmutations over the decades, can be reconstructed with relative confidence. In a fashion typical of Athenian broad-based disputes, the two main disputants engaged in numerous tactical and collateral moves over the years and were active in recruiting large numbers of supporters. The high social standing and wealth of the main disputants certainly accounts for the fact that much of the dispute was played out within the boundaries of the formal legal sphere, as well as for the notoriety of the dispute in mid fourth-century Athens. To be sure, less socially prominent disputants would normally have less leverage in their attempts to influence wider public opinion beyond their core support network. They could, however, engage in broadbased disputes, and there is sufficient evidence that they did. Another case study examined in chapter 4 concerns the dispute, as described in Lysias 3 Against Simon, of two such Athenians (4.1). Both men were after the affections of a young male prostitute, a situation that led to chronic and acrimonious conflict. In this case as well, the two main disputants pursued diverse tactics in different phases of the dispute, while at the same time recruiting a solid core network of supporters and engaging with hundreds of other Athenians as accidental witnesses/participants in single episodes of the dispute. The

1 Introduction

17

diverse social settings (houses, shops, streets of the urban center of Athens) where the dispute was played out over several years is once again notable. The third case study of an Athenian broad-based dispute is based on Isaeus 6, On the Estate of Philoktemon (4.3). The origins of this inheritance dispute can be traced to the life and activities of Euktemon, the father of Philoktemon. During his old age Euktemon, a well-off owner of real properties, presented a child of his mistress, allegedly by a freedman, as his own son. From this act, numerous legal implications and a broad-based dispute ensued, a dispute that involved Athenians of diverse social backgrounds and legal statuses. Based on a fragmentary speech by Lysias (4, On a Wound by Premeditation) the fourth case study of chapter 4 explores the dispute of two wealthy Athenians whose relationship over the years went over phases of friendship, antagonism, litigation, and physical aggression. In addition to the typical for broad-based disputes process of recruiting solid and loyal support networks, this case study also highlights the role of core members of these networks in mediating and negotiating facets of the dispute. The final section of chapter 4 (4.5) pulls together the threads of the case studies, supplemented by other sources, to discuss the dramaturgical aspects of information dissemination and control in the context of Athenian disputes as well as the role of accidental and peripheral participants in Athenian broad-based disputes. Chapters 5 and 6 proceed with an assessment of curse tablets in the light of Athenian broad-based disputes. Since the early modern period magical beliefs and practices were predominantly perceived and persecuted as practices of the socially marginal, underprivileged, and downtrodden.7 In the case of Athens as well, the basic idea behind assessments in early scholarship was that irrationality and superstition, traits allegedly associated with magic, prevailed among the underprivileged. Moreover, it was also presumed that the Athenian underclasses were convinced that in disputes that were ushered into the formal litigation stage, especially the popular courts or other civic settings of adjudication, they had diminished chances of resistance and vindication, hence they turned in large numbers to magic.8 But views are shifting quickly and the plurality of recent commentators on Athenian magic, and curse tablets in particular, readily acknowledge the appeal that acts of magic had for Athenians of all walks of life.9 7

8

9

See e. g. the overview of such early scholarly assessments in Stewart and Strathern 2004, 1–28. This attitude is blatantly obvious among many of the early pioneers in the study of Greek curse tablets. For instance, R. Wünsch described DTA 94 as a “curiosissimum exemplum periculi ab homine inerudito facti”. For more recent proponents of the view that the agents of ancient Greek magic were to be found primarily among the uneducated and downtrodden see e. g. Bernand 1991, 30–34; Dickie 2001, 1–2; Edmonds 2019, 69. This view goes hand in glove with the apparent underrating of the evidentiary value of curse tablets, and other magical texts, by many contemporary classicists. This largely accounts for the absence of curse tablets in many social and cultural histories of Athenian law – but see n. 5 for some notable exceptions. E. g. Gager 1992, 24; Graf 1997, 84–86; Faraone 1999b, 116 (with reference to legal binding curses); Riess 2012, 169–177; Eidinow 2007a, 139–232; Watson 2019, 68–69. Dufault 2018 argued that for the

18

1 Introduction

Elites as well as socially and legally subordinate groups in Classical Athens employed tactical speech acts and magical practices in an attempt to exercise or resist power – although it was most often the case that elites did most of the exercising and subordinates most of the resisting. Wealthy and well-educated Athenians were as likely as their working-class counterparts to partake in magic as a dispute management strategy and as a variable in the constant and dialectic flow of information between disputants. As R. Parker has argued, with reference to legal curse tablets, “the persons commissioning the curses … were surely the persons most affected or imperilled; and this will mean, since the majority of litigation at Athens was undertaken by persons of some wealth, that ‘middle citizens’ and above were among the most important clients of curse-sellers, which is exactly what Plato says”.10 The Platonic passage in question is Republic 364 b-c where the philosopher asserts that “there are begging priests and soothsayers who, going to the doors of the wealthy persuade them that they, by means of sacrifices and incantations, have accumulated power from the gods that can expiate and cure with pleasurable rituals any misdeed of a man or his ancestors, and that if anyone wants to harm an enemy, whether the enemy is a just or unjust man they (i. e. the priests and soothsayers), at very little expense will do it with incantations (epagogai) and binding curses (katadesmoi), since they claim they have persuaded the gods to do their bidding”.11 The main reason why individuals of diverse social and legal backgrounds, including the civic elites, resorted to magic and curse tablets as a discourse and practice was because, it was genuinely and widely believed, such discourses and practices could assist with the favorable development of disputes. Athenians, moreover, insisted in using curse tablets and other means of resistance and power even in circumstances (e. g. availability of abundant alternative resources for pursuing a dispute) that, to a modern observer, the deployment of magic might appear ambivalent or contradictory. The wide social reach of Athenian curse tablets can often be intimated by the social background of the targets of these curses. Prominent and active public figures, many of whom counted themselves in the richer echelons of Athenian society, are often the

10 11

most part social elites were the authors of Greek curse tablets. This view is however predicated on the questionable assumptions that most disputants wrote their own binding curses (instead of resorting to a professional sorcerer) and, secondly, that literacy levels in Classical Athens were low. Literacy would be mostly irrelevant if one accepts, as I do in chapter 2, that binding curses were written and performed almost exclusively by professionals, many of whom might have been itinerant sorcerers from other parts of the Greek-speaking world. On the other hand, literacy skills would be somewhat more pertinent for disputants who resorted to litigation. For literacy in Classical Athens see 2.1, with references in n. 12. Parker 2005, 130. ἀγύρται δὲ καὶ μάντεις ἐπὶ πλουσίων θύρας ἰόντες πείθουσιν ὡς ἔστι παρὰ σφίσι δύναμις ἐκ θεῶν ποριζομένη θυσίαις τε καὶ ἐπῳδαῖς, εἴτε τι ἀδίκημά του γέγονεν αὐτοῦ ἢ προγόνων, ἀκεῖσθαι μεθ᾽ ἡδονῶν τε καὶ ἑορτῶν, ἐάν τέ τινα ἐχθρὸν πημῆναι ἐθέλῃ, μετὰ σμικρῶν δαπανῶν ὁμοίως δίκαιον ἀδίκῳ βλάψει ἐπαγωγαῖς τισιν καὶ καταδέσμοις, τοὺς θεούς, ὥς φασιν, πείθοντές σφισιν ὑπηρετεῖν.

1 Introduction

19

targets of Athenian binding curses. But so are humble shopkeepers and other vendors, workers in the sex trade as well as individuals of non-citizen legal statuses (metics, slaves). Women are also targeted – collectively not as frequently as men, but in higher numbers than what their socially inferior position in the eyes of Athenian law would at face value suggest. Furthermore, Athenian curse tablets point to a number of endemic features of disputing behavior that are well attested in the literary record, including the gender and social status diversity of support networks or accidental participants in broad-based disputes; the chronic character of many disputes as well as the use of collateral strategies (e. g. litigation, mediation, physical violence) in the course of a dispute; and last but not least, the often localized focus (e. g. demes; urban neighborhoods) of episodes of Athenian broad-based disputes. In addition to the discussion of individual curse tablets, two case studies highlight the integrative and interactive role of binding curses in Athenian dispute practices and behavior. The first concerns the targeting of dikastai in Athenian curse tablets, extensively discussed in 6.3 and 6.4. Athenian dikastai, the men who served as jurors in the Athenian popular courts, were collectively represented in forensic oratory as bulwarks of justice and the democracy as well as champions of the interests of the Athenian people. By the same token, litigants (both plaintiffs and defendants) in Athenian courts often forewarned jurors of the wily nature of their opponents and of their endeavors to manipulate and deceive both them and the Athenian public at large. These were clearly discursive stratagems employed by all litigants, to some extent, as they attempted to get on the good side of the Athenian dikastai and demos by promoting a paradigm of argument, as part of a particular dispute, that represented them as loyal and enthusiastic champions of the Athenian democracy. Curse tablets targeting dikastai, on the contrary, allude to these popular juries as malleable and potentially hostile, underscoring both the mercurial nature of Athenian litigation as well as the strategic, albeit often unspoken, priority of all Athenian litigants to trounce their opponents, even at the expense of ideals of justice, fairness, and equality before the law. In these instances, curse tablets operated as antithetical transcripts that counteracted the public pronouncements of litigants on the role of jurors. Signs of such antithetical and resistance transcripts in the pursuit of disputes and litigation can also be detected in the second case study of dispute practices as documented through curse tablets. It is worth noting in this context that resistance transcripts do not originate and operate only from the bottom up but also from the top down. A curse tablet of the late fourth century (SLCTA no. 4), thoroughly discussed in 5.1, intimates details of a dispute involving numerous Athenian naval officials (mostly trierarchs), many of whom were most likely targeted as members of the support network of the adversary of the agent of the curse. Most of the targets can be confidently identified from the epigraphic record and, as it has been argued, the curse tablet is probably linked to a lawsuit of 323/22 or shortly thereafter. Trierarchs were wealthy Athenians of the

20

1 Introduction

liturgical class. There are several known instances from the literary record of trierachs abusing their positions to advance their personal commercial and financial interests while campaigning with the navy. At the same time, and irrespective of how they were represented in curse tablets, these very trierarchs would have adopted the discourse of the willing and generous liturgists whilst in the public domain, including in the courts or in the context of a publicly conducted dispute. Such conflicting interests and representations were surely in the foreground of the broad-based dispute, an episode of which is partly illuminated by SLCTA no. 4. As P. Bourdieu reminds us, one should seek to “establish the relationship between the properties of discourses, the properties of the person who pronounces them and the properties of the institution which authorizes him to pronounce them”.12 Chapters 2 to 5 attempt to throw light in the relationship between discourses and social actors as evinced in Athenian disputes, magic, and litigation and chapter 6 extends the discussion even further, by focusing on Athenian agential behaviors and emotive horizons as transcripts in the context of Athenian disputes and magic. Agency is a foundational parameter in all human interaction, including disputes. Agency can roughly be subdivided into intentions and actions. When dealing with a past society, agents’ intentions are rarely recoverable.13 Their actions, however, are often documented, albeit in a haphazard and fragmentary manner. Athenians during the fourth century developed distinctive types of disputing practices, partly shaped by the institutional and social alignment summarily identified as “the Athenian democracy”. The interaction between the wider social/political framework and dispute perceptions and practices was reflexive: the institutional framework and daily life of Athenians – especially the tendency to conduct much of personal and civic business in public – as well as their dispute practices and behaviors, negotiated with and articulated one another. In chapter 6 I contend that a thorough analysis of Athenian agential behaviors, to the extent that they can be assessed, can further illuminate our understanding of Athenian disputes reached in previous chapters. The institutional and social set up of the Athenian democracy encouraged, and often obliged, citizens, but also individuals of inferior legal statuses, to actively engage with many facets of governance and civic life. From the perspective of an individual, any engagement with the public sphere, including civic institutions, was performed within the limitations of existing social categories 12 13

Bourdieu 1999, 111. In the case of Athens, curse tablets constitute one of the great exceptions to that rule, an issue that is discussed in chapter 6. It should also be noted at this point that cursing is a mediated genre, employing elliptical discourses in a social context of disparities of power, and hence curse tablets should not be considered a priori as a reflection of the full range of genuine intentions of an agent embroiled in a dispute. By the same token, the logistics of commissioning and producing a curse tablet suggest that in some respects (e. g. the case study of dikastai discussed in chapter 6) the intentions deduced from these documents might have been closer to the emotive states and genuine beliefs of their agents than what these agents could admit in public.

1 Introduction

21

and differentials of power. Still, interpersonal interaction in the public domain was for many, if not most, residents of Attica a daily reality. Such behavior is also documented regarding disputes, irrespective of whether they ever reached the formal litigation stage. Especially regarding the role of law in Athenian disputes, evidence – including legal curse tablets – suggests that Athenians conceptualized legal norms as potentially contestable metaphors. Moreover, they had a more inclusive perception of the domain of law than formally enacted statutes and litigation. This last point goes some way in explaining why much of disputing in Classical Athens was conducted outside the formal boundaries of legal institutions. Within such a context, it is argued in chapter 6 that in the pursuit of politics and conflicts for the most part Athenians acted in a “high-level” agential mode, i. e. in a long-term, self-assessing manner that accounted for multiple parameters of individual and collective action. This prevailing individual agency mode can help explain the frequency of broad-based disputes, namely chronic conflicts that were, to a large extent, conducted in the public sphere, including courts of justice and other civic spaces. Agential behavior and disputes fed into established and developing power relationships. Emotions and their various manifestations can open another fascinating window into the complex nexus of interactions that developed in Athenian disputes and indicate something of how Athenians perceived wider power structures. Thus 6.1c and especially 6.2 explore emotions and their role in the development and articulation of dispute practices. Similar to the intentionality of agency, much of the original emotive horizon of disputants can only be conjectured. Nevertheless, emotions often directly translate into actions and can also be discursively crystallized in oral or written form. It is with the latter aspects of the emotive facets of Athenian disputes that chapter 6 is preoccupied, especially with emotions as communicative action, as socially engendered performances, but also as dominance-reinforcing strategies and/or contestations of power structures. Viewed from this perspective, genuine emotions could be channeled and articulated in a manner that was embedded into the strategic development of broad-based disputes as well as the wider cultural values of Athenian society. For instance, Athenian disputants often publicly expressed their rightful indignation at their adversaries’ domestic raids or other intrusions, in keeping with Athenian views on such practices. In a society where the borders between domestic and civic where not always as absolute, one suspects that these articulations of heightened emotions could at times be presented with a touch of rhetorical exaggeration. Concurrently, such feelings were essentially advanced as justification for pursuing the dispute even further through retaliation, litigation or other means. In connection with the emotive aspects of Athenian disputes, it is also worth noting the extent to which the public articulation of dispute-related emotions (anger, indignation, fear etc.) were manipulated

22

1 Introduction

to instill similar feelings on those caught up in these disputes, e. g. accidental witnesses or jurors.14 The book ends with a concluding chapter that weaves together the main threads of the argument. Magic, including binding curses, are documented in many premodern cultures, yet their symbolism and practices relates to conflict in distinct ways across time and space. In Classical Athens, the use of magic in disputes was predicated on a chronic, outward, and inclusive mode of disputes (broad-based disputes) that was symptomatic of the mainstream parameters of social and political life prevalent among Athenians. Concomitant was an evaluative and reflexive high-level personal agency as well as pertinent communicative actions enshrined in Athenian disputes, including the circulation of talk and rumor, and the articulation of specific emotive states. Curse tablets can be invaluable additions to any attempt to document the complex trajectory of Athenian disputes and litigation, as they illuminate aspects of the power negotiation, agential behavior, and emotive states inherent in such practices.

14

See e. g. Rubinstein 2004 and 2013; Sanders 2012; 2014, chapter 5; and my discussion in chapter 6.

Chapter 2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation Insightful introductions to Greek binding curses, from the perspective of magical beliefs and their social context, abound.1 Most of these studies draw directly from Athenian material. Building on this scholarship, the present chapter outlines select aspects of the production and reception, as they pertain to Classical Athens, of binding curses. The ensuing discussion is contingent on the analysis of dispute practices and behaviors, as well as modes of individual agency, as expounded in subsequent chapters. Following a historical synopsis (2.1) of the use of curse tablets in Athens, section 2.2 focuses on legal binding curses vis-à-vis the legal system of Athens during the Classical period; and section 2.3 is largely dedicated to the role of sorcerers as agents in the articulation and communication of legal binding curses in Athens during the period in question. 2.1 Binding Curses and the Public Sphere in Classical Athens Binding curses (καταδεσμοί) were usually produced in the form of inscribed pieces of lead that were folded up or rolled, pierced with a nail and deposited in a grave, well or a sanctuary of chthonic associations. The objective was to influence, by supernatural means, the welfare and actions of persons who were considered as inimical, dangerous or otherwise of interest (e. g. potential lovers) to the authors or agents (by which I mean the person/persons who commissioned them) of curses. Binding curses concern themselves with a wide range of social relationships, including personal and professional rivalries as well as litigation. The earliest written binding curses in Greek have been discovered in Selinous and date to the sixth or early fifth century.2 According to the current orthodoxy, spells written on lead appeared in small numbers for the first time in Athens around the mid fifth

1 2

See chapter 1, n. 5 and 9. Brugnone 1976.

24

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

century and their numbers increased during the fourth. Regarding the Athenian corpus, over 200 binding curses can be dated with confidence to the Classical and early Hellenistic periods, i. e. from the late fifth to early third centuries,3 while many others date from the Roman Imperial period. The Classical and early Hellenistic binding curses differ in significant ways in their form and content from many Roman Imperial magical spells, in that the earlier specimens are usually terse documents that focus on the targets and the action to be taken against them by deities and other spirits.4 There is, in other words, little or no articulation in the curse tablets of the Classical period of the esoteric magical language and ritual that is often encountered in binding curses and magical papyri of the Roman period. Binding curses were in Athens a popular subset of a broader set of magical practices. The question of what magic is and how it interacts with religion (in the sense of a civically sanctioned mode of supernatural worship), medicine (in antiquity a quasiscientific method of influencing human condition), and society at large have been at the center of an old but still ongoing scholarly debate conducted by anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and classicists.5 Although consensus on a number of issues is far from being achieved, it is indisputable that perceptions and practices of magic would inevitably vary between cultures. In areas that have a long history of documented magical practices, such as Greece, there were regional variations as well as adaptations over time. As a result, a universally applicable understanding of magic, especially on a diachronic scale, is virtually impossible. By the same token, topical and processual assessments of magic are feasible and indeed desirable. In the words of P. J. Stewart and A. Strathern, we should approach magical beliefs and practices “not only as a set of cultural symbols expressing a mode of thought about the world, but also as deeply implicated in sequences of action. Such ideas both contribute meaning to action and draw their meanings from it”.6 My objective in this book is to study curse tablets as instantiations of disputes, agency, communication, and emotions in the context of Classical Athens. The choice of my topic is largely determined by the constraints imposed by the extant sources. Currently we have at our disposal a solid corpus of Athenian binding curses, often accompanied by

3

4 5 6

Despite the checkered political fortunes and the gradual dissolution of genuine popular governance in Athens already in the 330s, during the early Hellenistic period (late fourth-early third centuries) Athenians retained some of the features of the social and political set up of the democracy, including legal proceedings and the popular courts. This facilitates the integration of some Athenian legal curse tablets that are tentatively dated to the early Hellenistic period to a narrative of legal disputes and curse tablets of the Classical period. Johnston 1999, 71–81. For a summary and highlights of the debate, especially in anthropological literature, see Collins 2008, 23–26; Gordon 2008; Skouteri-Didaskalou 2008. Stewart and Strathern 2004, ix.

2.1 Binding Curses and the Public Sphere in Classical Athens

25

published linguistic, prosopographical, and historical commentaries.7 But any attempt to locate Athenian curse tablets in their historical context is complicated by the early history of publication and interpretation of these objects. The fact that the majority of curse tablets published in the 19th and early 20th centuries were purchased through the antiquities market, and hence published devoid of their archaeological context, means that their date as well as crucial information regarding the rituals that accompanied their deposition were only partially, and most often inadequately, determined by morphological (letter forms, grammar) and prosopographical clues provided by the tablets themselves. The initial trend in these early publications was to downdate curse tablets. Most significantly, in DTA R. Wünsch dated many of the curse tablets he published to the third century. But a more careful examination of prosopography and grammar by A. Wilhelm and W. Rabehl demonstrated that in fact many, if not most, of these tablets were a product of the fourth century.8 In more recent decades, many curse tablets discovered in situ and subsequently published also date to the fourth century9 and a few even to the fifth. As an example of the latter, in 1941 E. Peek published four curse tablets from Kerameikos which are dated by their archaeological context or letter forms and other linguistic considerations to the mid or late fifth century.10 A preliminary question preceding any discussion of Athenian curse tablets concerns their historical trajectory, specifically the reasons why written binding curses became more widespread in Athens towards the end of the fifth century. The political upheavals and insecurities, as well as the economic downturn experienced by Athens at precisely that time is the obvious historical backdrop. Interpersonal conflict, religious practices, superstition, and magic, the argument goes, are bound to increase in such turbulent times.11 Yet this narrative does not account for all the particularities of the increased use of binding curses in the late fifth century. After all Athenian daily

7

8 9 10 11

DTA and DT are the main, but now in many ways outdated, corpora. There have been numerous publications of new tablets since then – for an updated list up to 2000 one can consult SGD and NGCT. There is no updated list for publications since 2000. Some (e. g. Dreher 2018b, 2018c; Jahn 2018; Chiarini 2020) refer, usually with no concordance to other editions, to an online database of Greek and Latin curse tablets (TheDeMa – Thesaurus Defixionum Magdeburgensis). However, the database in question was for many years password protected and without any indication on its website on how to obtain the password, and hence it was not accessible to many researchers. As this manuscript was finalized (winter 2019-spring 2020) TheDeMa database went offline (http:// www.thedema.ovgu.de/) and thus became entirely inoperative. Professor Werner Riess informs me that the Magdeburg database will be in the future hosted by the University of Hamburg. Wilhelm 1904; Rabehl 1906. E. g. SGD 9 (= Trumpf 1958); Lamont 2015. Peek 1941, nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. For an explicit articulation of this interpretative framework see e. g. Dodds 1951, 195 and 206; Eidinow 2007b, especially 61–66. Such interpretations are sometimes intertwined with the view that perceives the agents of binding curses as members of an underprivileged group, see chapter 1, n. 7. For a review of the early literary testimonia concerning magic and magicians in ancient Athens see Bremmer 1999; Stratton 2007, chapter 2.

26

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

life under the democracy was predicated on constant interpersonal interaction, which inevitably led to publicly conducted antagonisms that frequently escalated to disputes. The pattern can be observed both during war times and relatively peaceful periods. This is not an issue, in other words, of scale and intensity of social conflict but rather of representation of that conflict. Curse tablets, even though deposited in secret, were certainly an integral component of the wider mechanism of representation of disputes. The allusions to binding practices in Athenian literature of the early Classical period, combined with a lack of written curse tablets from the first half of the fifth century suggests that originally, and for part of the fifth century, binding curses were performed in Athens primarily through oral means, and perhaps with the help of writing on perishable materials, but without resorting to writing on lead. The practice of purely or primarily oral spells no doubt continued throughout antiquity, but in Athens starting in the late fifth century a perception was gaining traction that spells that combined written and orally performed rituals were more effective. Furthermore, some features of legal binding curses can confidently be associated with developments in the fourth century, including changes of procedural rules in the Athenian legal system, shifts in Athenian attitudes towards writing,12 and finally popular perceptions of the social role of Athenian courts and of individual participants, primarily as litigants or jurors, in courtroom dramas. Aspects of Athenian disputes and litigation will be expounded in subsequent chapters of the book. Regarding writing, one should note at this point that shifting attitudes towards the written word in fourth-century Athens are also quantifiably documented in commercial (e. g. contracts, banking), everyday (personal graffiti, correspondence), and legal contexts.13 For instance, during the fourth century it became mandatory that judicial pleas, testimonies, and other documentation were submitted in writing.14 Such wider developments certainly contributed to the transition from the almost exclusively oral spells of the first part of the fifth century to a combined format of orally performed and written binding curses in fourth-century Athens. Hence by the late fifth century, sorcerers active in Athens had developed a certain familiarity with the genre of written binding curses. SGD 1 (= Peek 1941, no. 3) is one of the earliest – if not the earliest – of surviving Athenian curse tablets and dates to the mid fifth century or slightly later. It originally contained at least 70 lines of text 12

13 14

For literacy, attitudes towards writing, and the centrality of the written discourse in Athenian civic life, especially during the fourth century, see Pébarthe 2006 and Missiou 2011. For strong indications of widespread literacy among non-elite Athenians even during the late Archaic period see Langdon 2005 and 2015. For the interplay between oral and written communication in Classical Athens see also Eidinow and Taylor 2010. See Pébarthe 2006, especially 315–331 for written documentation in legal proceedings. See also Gagarin 2008, 176–205. Perhaps since 378/7. See Harrison 1968–1971, vol. II, 97–99 for sources.

2.1 Binding Curses and the Public Sphere in Classical Athens

27

and targeted numerous men and women. The tablet was deposited near the hand of a skeleton in a grave in the Kerameikos cemetery. This is admittedly the most elaborate of the early written Athenian binding curses, and it presupposes a period of local integration and adaptation of the practices of binding magic. Other Athenian curse tablets that date to the second half of the fifth century also suggest a fairly advanced level of sophistication in magical texts and rituals practiced in Athens. The existence of binding rituals is also alluded in fifth-century Athenian literature. Aeschylus’ Eumenides contains a “binding song” uttered by the Erinyes against Orestes in the context of a murder trial.15 The Erinyes assumed a moral high ground, arguing for the righteousness of their intention to bind and punish a sacrilegious assassin. In language and content the song is reminiscent of a judicial binding curse, mixed with elements of a “prayer for justice” or “judicial prayer”, a designation that denotes a spell or request uttered against a target that committed some form of crime or injustice.16 Moreover, in Prometheus Bound (52–87) the binding of Prometheus scene bears a strong resemblance to the language and rituals of binding magic. Prometheus was bound in shackles and was impaled with a wedge through his chest. The whole episode, which involves various agents (Kratos, Hephaistos, Zeus), corresponds to an on-stage re-enactment of a binding ritual.17 These allusions to binding magic are near contemporary to the earliest written curse tablets from fifth-century Athens. It should be noted that in both the Eumenides and the Prometheus Bound binding practices are not explicitly acknowledged as magical, which points to magic as a rather underground practice that most people would have hesitated to admit any association with. At the same time, in both cases the playwrights assumed that their audiences would be conversant with the main features of binding rituals. A similar assumption lay behind the thinly veiled threat of revenge by the spirits of the prematurely dead against jurors who might have failed to render a just decision in the mid fifth century.18 The speaker in this case might have been alluding to a curse tablet, or potential curse tablet, against negligent jurors. The familiarity of the Athenian public with binding magic is further corroborated by strong allusions to a binding curse against Thucydides, son of Melesias. This Thucydides was prominent on the Athenian political scene as the opponent of Pericles, primarily in the 450s and 440s. He was eventually ostracized in 443. At some point 15 16 17 18

Eum. 306–396, incorporated in the stasimon performed by the chorus of Erinyes. See Faraone 1985. For “prayers for justice” see Versnel 1991. See Marston 2007. Antiph. 1.31. For this passage see Riess 2012, 173. For avenging spirits and curses activated by those who died precociously and/or unfairly, see also Antiph. 2.3.10–11; 4.1.3–4; 4.2.8; 4.3.7; 4.4.10–11. Antiphon’s Tetralogies (speeches 2, 3 and 4) were not composed for delivery in court but were rhetorical exercises. They provide, nevertheless, valuable insights on social mores as well discourses and behaviors endemic in disputes and litigation in Athens during the second half of the fifth century. See in general Gagarin 2002, especially 52–62.

28

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

towards the end of his career, possibly soon after his return from exile in the late 430s, he was involved in a lawsuit. Aristophanes records that during the trial the elderly Thucydides was paralyzed in the jaw and was thus unable to defend himself.19 The scholia vetera, which most likely drew from Classical Athenian sources, further elaborated that Thucydides was unable to plead his defense as if his tongue had been tied from within. The language of these passages fits very well the language and actions envisaged in Athenian judicial curses.20 In the Acharnians (703–718) Aristophanes presents a different explanation for this incident, namely that Thucydides was completely outperformed by the prosecutor in court. This suggests that in the years following the trial in question there were at least two narratives in circulation regarding this incident. In the version recorded in the Wasps and the scholia, a version ostensibly sympathetic to Thucydides, the mishap was attributed to a binding curse while the version presented in the Acharnians was clearly hostile to the elderly statesman. To be sure, there were in the Greco-Roman world other known instances of sudden lapses of public oratorical skills. In such instances, usually orators and public figures attributed their sudden inability to speak to binding magic.21 In addition to corroborating the point that theater audiences in fifth-century Athens were familiar with the language and rituals of binding magic, the passage from the Wasps points to a crucial aspect of magical rituals: the need for publicity. In the ancient world magical rites were furtively conducted, and scholars working on ancient magic are right to underscore a degree of secrecy as a vital component of the performance of binding curses.22 At the same time, the act of commissioning a binding curse presumed a set of widely shared beliefs on magic and the netherworld as well as a particular social framework that encouraged, and to a certain extent assisted, in articulating and disseminating meanings emanating from magical practices. Therefore, magical professionals and their clients had to carefully balance ritual secrecy with a certain degree of public awareness of the existence of magical spells. In the need to generate some publicity and knowledge over the existence of a spell, magical binding curses shared a feature with public imprecations which proclaimed curses against e. g. enemies of the state or potential desecrators of graves, that were publicly performed and/or displayed in inscriptions.23 Moreover, in many instances the existence of a binding curse was as-

19 20 21 22

23

Vesp. 946–948. See the discussion by Faraone 1989. See Faraone 1989, 152–155. E. g. Dickie 2001, 38–40; Eidinow 2007a, 140–141; Edmonds 2019, 53–90. Edmonds’ emphasis on the secretive aspects of binding curses and his view of them as “cheating” (2019, 33; 69; 89) in competitive contexts is at odds with the view advanced here that considers curses a hybrid private and public communicative action that was organically integrated in Athenian disputes. van Effenterre and Ruzé 1994–1995, I, nos. 104 and 105; Strubbe 1991. Graf 1997, 128–129 argues for a temporal distinction between public imprecations, which concern future events, and curse tablets, which allegedly address past and/or ongoing conflicts. Yet curse tablets explicitly refer or strongly

2.1 Binding Curses and the Public Sphere in Classical Athens

29

sumed because of the predicament of the alleged victim.24 Even without a concrete rumor linking a calamity to an act of magic, on such occasions the existence of a magical act would still be suspected and blamed on the enemies of those who suffered.25 It was therefore in the interest of the agents of curses to publicize their existence and possibly parts of their content, not merely because of the suggestive power that a malefic act could have on an opponent or because of the satisfaction that the deposition and the public acknowledgment of a curse tablet could elicit for the agent.26 Spreading information regarding the existence or even the contents of a curse tablet was an act, to borrow a phrase, “poised between an explanation and an assertion”.27 By disseminating the contents of a curse the agent, their support network, and the collaborating sorcerer fulfilled a necessary step for enhancing the curse’s effect upon the targets. In this fashion, agents, supporters, and sorcerers set in motion the wheels of talk and rumor, which were further energized by additional stories emanating from the adversary and their supporters. In that sense curse tablets were a powerful currency in the exchange of negative reciprocity that usually characterized Athenian disputes. Microhistories of conflict were thus circulated and negotiated, and were eventually crystalized as suspicions and accusations. Magical spells in the form of curse tablets were, in other words, socially communicative acts that intended to generate meaning and engage further the opponents in a dispute. Most importantly, curse tablets were also instruments of power in the form of dynamic interventions in the actualized power relations that existed between disputants.28 By exercising symbolic power through curse tablets and other acts of magic disputants also sought to counteract or equalize any power inequalities and other negative circumstances that they confronted in their daily lives or in the course of a dispute.29 Considerations of power, to be sure, often exceeded the boundaries of a single dispute. Thus, in addition to manipulating the affective landscape of the opposition, the knowledge or at least the suspicion that a transcendental (read magical) interference

24 25 26 27 28 29

allude to future events as well – e. g. formal litigation, see 2.2 – which binding curses attempted to manipulate through communicative strategies, including the partial public dissemination of the contents of curses. For examples beyond Classical Athens see Graf 1997, 161–169. For a late prayer for justice that illustrates the dynamic of rumor, calamity, and revenge see Kotansky 2020. See the comments by Gager 1992, 21; Riess 2012, 177–188 and passim; Alwine 2015, 34; Watson 2019, 83. White 2000, 58. Curse tablets were embedded in relations of communication which were inseparable from relations of material or symbolic power accumulated by agents or institutions. Cf. for a comparative argument Bourdieu 1991, 167. By this assertion I do not mean to imply that curse tablets were used solely by the weak, poor or otherwise disadvantaged, a point I elaborated in chapter 1. Even in disputes between wealthy and socially prominent individuals a disputant might perceive a weakness or flaw in their dispute strategy that they could try to counteract by resorting to magic.

30

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

had been attempted also aimed at negotiating wider public perceptions of conflicts. In this way curse tablets operated as everyday forms of resistance and negotiation, often juxtaposed or complementing formal/state-endorsed structures.30 The case of Thucydides demonstrates the importance of the public perception (in addition to the perception and reception by the intended victim) of curses in the pursuit of disputes. Information on real or presumed magic against high-profile individuals could become part of daily lore in Classical Athens and further reinforce the impact on the lives of the individuals that were allegedly targeted. In the Laws (933b) Plato decries men who were terrified at the sight of wax voodoo dolls on doors, streets or tombs of their ancestors. It is quite likely that the same author also alludes to the practice of oral transmission of news regarding curse tablets, and the way they infiltrated public consciousness, when he claims that sorceries, incantations, and binding spells affected their intended victims as they made them believe that they can inflict real harm.31 In such situations, many Athenians who thought of themselves as targets of an alleged act of binding magic were likely to respond with an attempt to unbind the curse by instigating a counter-curse. Such retaliatory curses were perceived as instruments meant to counteract the harmful effects that their agents knew, or suspected, were in operation against them.32 The fact that rumors of magical spells were performative and perlocutionary, but also imbued with power and conflict, must have made the acts of commissioning and writing counter-spells even more meaningful. These features of Greek binding magic come across in some of the extant tablets. For instance, following a list of male and female targets the author of DTA 46 targets anyone who might have committed spells against them, thus suggesting that such spells, along with violence, litigation, and a host of other practices, were major catalysts in the development of a dispute.33 Moreover, an early fourth-century opisthographic curse tablet from Athens (NGCT 24 = Jordan 1999, no. 1) further illustrates this point, especially how magical spells were perceived and countered by Athenian dispute rivals. On side A the author of the curse explicitly articulates a counter-curse: “Whoever put a binding spell on me, whether woman or man or slave or free or foreigner or citizen or family member or stranger, whether for spite towards my work or my deeds, whoever put a curse on me before Hermes eriounios or katochos or dolios or anywhere else, I put a counter-spell on all my enemies”.34 30 31 32

33 34

The point is further elaborated in chapter 6. Pl. Leg. 933a. Besides the evidence from the tablets themselves, professionals specializing in counteracting or unbinding curses were possibly alluded in Athenian literature already since the fifth century. See Magn., CAF fr. 4, with an alternative reading in Kassel-Austin, PCG, fr. 4; cf. Hsch. I, 4432 and II, 1722. DTA 46.II.3–4, restored by R. Wünsch [κ]αὶ εἴ τις [ἄ]λλος κατδησν. Εἴ τις ἐμὲ κατέδεσεν | ἒ γυνὴ ἢ νὴρ ἒ δῦλος ἒ ἐ|λεύθερος ἒ ξένος ἒ ἀσ|`σ´τος ἒ οἰκεῖος ἒ ἀλλώτ|ρτος ἒ ἐπὶ φθόνον τὸν | ἐμει ἐργασίαι ἒ ἔργοις, | εἴ τις ἐμὲ κατέδεσ|εν πρὸς τὸν Ἑρμεν τὸ|ν

2.1 Binding Curses and the Public Sphere in Classical Athens

31

The agent of this curse had clearly come to believe that he was himself the target of a binding spell. It is likely, although not necessary, that the counter-curse on side A was related to the binding curse against two antidikoi on side B of the same tablet. If both curses refer to episodes of the same dispute, then we can envisage the following situation of conflict: the agent of NGCT 24 had a dispute with Dion, the main target of side B, that eventually ended up in court. The agent of the curse bound Dion and at least one more person, ostensibly a member of Dion’s support network, on side B. But the agent of the curse also had grounds to believe that he was the target of a curse commissioned by his adversaries or other individuals involved in the same dispute. He therefore commissioned a reciprocating spell (side A) in addition to the more specific curse on side B. Side A also suggests something of the socially embracive nature of Athenian disputes: individuals without or with limited legal capacity (women, slaves, foreigners) were clearly perceived as capable of initiating aggressive binding spells and, by extension, of playing some part in disputes.35 NGCT 24 is therefore indicative of the way in which binding magic practitioners exploited the idiosyncrasies of Athenian social and political life, especially the continuous, partly unmediated social interaction between individuals of all genders, legal statuses, and social backgrounds as well as the relatively open access, at the informal level, of most aspects of the political and legal process to Athenian residents. By spreading the word that a curse was in operation sorcerers and their clients aimed at psychologically manipulating their opponents by creating feelings of frustration and fear of imminent harm. Dissemination of similar allegations of binding cursing must have been done in an ambiguous and heterroglossic manner. After all, a vague notion that a dangerous spell was in operation could have proved more suggestive – and hence more influential – to the prospective victim than a detailed report of the contents of a curse. Allegations of the ethereal and magical, in other words, could easily produce concrete action that extended the dispute further in time. For targets of binding curses, however, the possibility of pernicious consequences as a result of a curse was very real and the need for reprisals was urgent and mandatory. Many targets of magic responded by resorting to the supernatural themselves – as the agent of NGCT 24 did with his counter-curse or the petitioner in an oracular tablet in the sanctuary of Zeus in Dodona who, being aware that he was the target of a curse by an adversary in a dispute, asked Zeus if it was worth going to court.36 Despite their often esoteric language, furtive contexts of production, and arcane rites of deposition, binding curses depended partially on their integration in daily social interaction to enhance their effectiveness.

35 36

ἐρ‫ׅ‬ι‫ׅ‬όνιον ἒ πρὸ`ς´ τὸν | κάτοχον ἒ πρὸς τὸν δό|λιον ἒ ἄλλοθί πο, ἀντι|καταδε`σ´μεύω τὸς ἐχ`ρ´θ̣|ὸς ἅπαντας (text after Jordan 1999, no. 1, side A). I discuss further side B of NGCT 24 in 2.2. Lhôte 2006, no. 141 bis.

32

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

Commissioning a curse or counter-curse was also one of the ways in which individuals took advantage of the institutional and social alignment of the Athenian public sphere in order to disseminate or discover through informal channels details of the tactics and resources of their opponents. Consequently, disputants attempted to preempt the oppositions’ moves and gain an upper hand in a dispute. This was especially so regarding disputes that reached the stage of formal litigation and were adjudicated by one of the Athenian officials or courts. Forensic orations often strongly allude to the fact that litigants were aware, even before the dispute reached its day in court, of the main strategic arguments that the opposition were planning to deploy.37 A prominent example of the latter strategy can be found in Against Nikostratos ([Dem.] 53). Apollodoros’ narrative of the dispute, which was really a stage in a series of long-drawn quarrels, incorporates several conflict-management strategies that are often attested or implied in Athenian binding curses and forensic orations, including the involvement of a wider group of individuals beyond the main interested parties in the dispute, in this case as actively involved bystanders;38 the intermingling, in the context of a dispute, of individuals of public notoriety and wealth (Apollodoros, Nikostratos) with tradesmen, in this case Lykidas the miller who acted as the front man of Nikostratos in a procedure against Apollodoros (53.14)39 as well as two slaves (53.19–25); and last but not least, an awareness of the legal and rhetorical tactics of the opposition, including the role of suspected false witnesses in the proceedings (53.15) as well as the process of becoming acquainted with the arguments that a litigant was planning to present in court (53.14).40 Regarding the latter strategy, in the Against Nikostratos Apollodoros claimed that while he still considered Nikostratos to be a friend, he confided to him the arguments to be presented in court against some other individuals that Apollodoros was about to sue. Shortly afterwards Nikostratos performed an about-face and began acting in a hostile manner against Apollodoros. Consequently, after the legal process

37

38 39 40

It is often asserted (e. g. Harris 1995, 10–11) that forensic speeches were extensively revised after they were delivered in court and with the benefit of hindsight, i. e. the full knowledge of the arguments of the opposition and the verdict of the jury. While this was very often the case, forensic orations themselves demonstrate how advance acquaintance, often well before the trial, of the main arguments of a counter litigant was very plausible. This was especially so given that much of disputing was conducted in public and in informal settings. The presence of allusions to the arguments of the opposition in forensic orations, therefore, cannot be attributed solely to the revision for publication of the drafts of speeches delivered in court, and it is certain that on many occasions references to the tactics and arguments of an adversary were also articulated in court. [Dem.] 53.17. Cf. e. g. Lys. 3 and Dem. 54 and discussion of this theme in chapter 4. Cf. the references to chaff-sellers and a groats-seller in SGD 48. For knowledge/anticipation of strategies and arguments of the opponent in a formal legal context see also e. g. Lys. 26.3; 26.16; 30.17; 31.27; Dem. 21.24–36 and 186; 22.17; 23.90–92; 24.144; Aeschin. 3.55; Isae. 9.32; 10.22. Lycurg. 1.55–64; Hyp. 3.23. Litigants were also aware of the identities of the main supporters and witnesses of the opposition, e. g. Dem. 21.139 and 208 and the discussion of this theme in chapters 4 and 5.

2.2 Curse Tablets in the Realm of Athenian Litigation

33

against the unnamed party had commenced, Nikostratos colluded with Apollodoros’s enemies and divulged the contents of his prosecution arguments. Strategic argumentation in Athenian courts and other forums was a prominent exponent of dramaturgical action, i. e. interactive communication between two or more actors that entailed, in a dynamic manner between the various parts involved, role-playing, identity, and status negotiation as well as programmatic presentations of feelings, desires, cognitions, and beliefs.41 Countering the opposition in the public sphere by raising group support, commissioning curse tablets, rumor mongering, legal maneuvers, and numerous other practices were deeply embedded features of the dominant conflict-management paradigm of democratic Athens. Many of these practices were conducted in a candidly hostile manner against adversaries or other threatening individuals. Yet essentially the success of such practices rested on a thinly camouflaged appropriation of dominant values and morality thus transforming them, especially through talk (the latter often categorized in scholarship as “gossip”), into mechanisms of social control.42 2.2 Curse Tablets in the Realm of Athenian Litigation Can curse tablets provide additional insights on Athenian interpersonal disputes? Most importantly, why were curse tablets considered an apposite medium to be employed in the performance of such disputes? Several interpretative avenues, raised by such questions, are explored throughout the book. In the present section I provide some introductory material and thoughts, especially in connection with the process of commissioning and dedicating legal binding curses. A curse tablet always implies some conflict or antagonism, at least in the mind of the agent of the curse. In many cases, Athenian curse tablets point to established chronic disputes (“broad-based disputes”) of the type more thoroughly analyzed in chapters 3 and 4. During these disputes Athenian disputants chose what they thought were opportune moments to resort to magic, and given the popularity of the practice it is likely that many did so more than once in the course of the same dispute. Regarding legal curse tablets from Athens, one can indeed delve a little deeper and explore more 41

42

The dramaturgical aspects of Athenian disputes, especially litigation, have been insightfully analyzed by scholars, including D. Cohen 1995, Scafuro 1997, and Allen 2000. For foundational articulations of the concept of dramaturgical action in social sciences see Goffman 1956 and Habermas 1984–1987, vol. I, especially 85–94. For “gossip” as social control in ancient Athens see Hunter 1990 as well as 1994. As Fenster and Smail 2003, 1–11 point out “talk” is a more neutral concept, and thus preferable to the pejorative implications of “gossip”, in any attempt to assess oral communication and its capacity to “serve as a legitimate and widely acknowledged legal, social, and moral agent” (Fenster and Smail 2003, 9). For a comparative view of talk and “gossip” as catalysts of power relations see Besnier 2009.

34

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

specific questions regarding the process and timing of their production. One might explore, for instance, the question of the circumstances or stage of legal proceedings during which legal curse tablets were written and dedicated. There is also the question of prosopography, especially the extent to which the social backgrounds or even the exact identities of some of the agents and targets in curse tablets can be determined. These are not questions of purely antiquarian interest: if we can better comprehend the processes involved in creating and depositing legal curse tablets and the people who commissioned them, we will be in an advantageous position to assess the function of the tablets themselves, the legal system within which they operated as well as wider legalities in ancient Athens.43 Athenian legalities were perceptions, resources, and practices of law, including both formal statutory norms and institutions as well as informal but socially embedded values and cultural rules of normative character. Athenian legalities were in turn enmeshed and articulated within the wider Athenian network of moral standards and regimes of value that largely regulated Athenian interpersonal interactions. Curse tablets were integral components of this mosaic of Athenian legalities. When viewed in the context of Athenian broad-based disputes, as elaborated further in chapters 3 and 4, almost all curse tablets were potentially legal, in the sense that the dispute that generated a curse tablet could reach the stage of formal litigation. On the other hand, litigation was not axiomatic and many, indeed most, Athenian disputes were handled outside the realm of formal adjudication. For the sake of convenience in the present section I will focus primarily on the Athenian legal curse tablets that bear the signs of forthcoming litigation. I define as legal the curse tablets that were almost certainly associated with a formal legal context. The best indication is a reference to unambiguously legal terms (e. g. syndikoi, synegoroi, martyres, dikastai). It is also likely that curses that include no direct reference to judicial proceedings but instead consist primarily of lists of names, or refer to the binding of the tongues and the paralyzing of the cognitive faculties of targets, might had been produced for a legal context as well.44 While it was once thought that legal curse tablets were inscribed and dedicated after the end of judicial proceedings, the current orthodoxy is that they were dedicated before the inception or during the formal legal process.45 Several legal tablets corroborate this conclusion. For example, a curse tablet concerning an endeixis, a technical 43

44 45

Ewick and Silbey 1998, 22–23 (cf. also Silbey 2005) defined “legality” as the totality of “meanings, sources of authorities and cultural practices that are commonly recognized as legal, regardless of who employs them … Legality operates as both an interpretative framework and a set of resources with which and through which the social world (including the part known as the law) is constituted”. Lists of names, see e. g. DTA 1–24; 26–37; 40–46. Binding tongues and mental faculties, e. g. DTA 47–51; 54; 57–59; 61; 64; 80. It is, for instance, likely that some legal curse tablets from Athens were deposited before the trial but after the commencement of preliminary legal proceedings. See e. g. n. 52. For a review of past

2.2 Curse Tablets in the Realm of Athenian Litigation

35

legal term pertinent to the public denunciation that resulted in the immediate arrest of the accused or to a public order for a material surety, refers to what the target was going “to contest in the month of Maimakterion”.46 Regarding the reference to Maimakterion in the editio princeps it was argued that the trial was held in that month47 while D. Jordan (SGD 49) restored a reference to a dike before the contested event in Maimakterion. This restoration is by no means secure. Yet, given the legal content of the curse, there is a high probability that the event to be contested in Maimakterion was indeed of legal nature, in which case the curse would have been dedicated before the proceedings in question. Likewise, the author of a legal curse tablet of the early fourth century refers, in a context of an adynaton, to the conclusion of a trial in a manner that almost certainly indicates that legal proceedings had not yet been completed: “just as they [the deceased] return home [come back to life], in the same way may my rivals reach the end of the lawsuit”.48 As L. Robert has noted with reference to the same tablet,49 reaching the end of the lawsuit (τέλος λαβόντον τῆς [δίκ]ης) must be considered semantically equivalent to τυχεῖν τέλο(υ)ς δίκης encountered in DTA 103 (with a new edition in SLCTA no. 4).50 Moreover, a tablet of the early fourth century from Kerameikos containing three legal curses also provides clues as to the timing of its dedication.51 Column I refers to a dike blabes in which an Athenodoros had brought forward (δικάζεται) while in column II there is a reference to a similar dike introduced by a Smindyrides. Finally, in SLCTA no. 2 (revised edition of DTA 129) a reference to a dike can also be restored.52 The present tense in all these instances has a progressive and continuous meaning, which likely suggests that the lawsuits in question were imminent. The argument that at least some of the extant legal curse tablets were inscribed and dedicated before the end of judicial proceedings is also corroborated by generic references to the judicial apparatus of Athens. For instance in DTA 94 the agent of the

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

scholarship that advocated a post-trial deposition of legal curse tablets see Moraux 1960, 41–44. See also Dreher 2018b. Ll. 3–4, ἣν ἀγωνίζεσθαι μέλλει ἐν τῷ Μαιμα[κτ]ηριῶνι μηνὶ, Abt 1911, no. 5 (= SGD 49). See also Ziebarth 1934, 1030–1031; Ottone 1992, 42–44; and Costabile 2000, 64–69 for a discussion of SGD 49 and other aspects of the production of curse tablets in the context of imminent litigation. Abt 1911, 156. SGD 42 = Robert 1936, no. 11, ll. 3–4: καὶ ὅσπερ οἳ παρ[ὰ] ταύτην ἀφίκνõνται οἴκαδε νοστõσι ὅτως οἱ ἐνθαῦτα ἀντίδικοι τέλος λαβόντον τῆς [δίκ]ης. For parallels to the adynaton construction see Voutiras 1998, 10. 1936, 13. For DTA 103 see Wilhelm 1904, 122–125; Papakonstantinou 2018a and chapter 5.1. See SLCTA no. 1 for a new critical edition with references to past bibliography, to which Costabile 2007a should also be added. Based on a different reading of col. II, 7–9, Costabile 2001, 189–190 (cf. Costabile 2007a, 180–181) argued that the tablet was deposited while preliminary proceedings (e. g. testimonies) were still ongoing but before the disputants had reached the adjudication in court phase. This interpretation is not entirely incompatible with the reading in SLCTA no. 1, II, 7–9.

36

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

curse pleads with the underworld spirits to help him defeat his opponent Diokles “in any court”.53 In this instance formal litigation was clearly anticipated, although proceedings had not advanced far enough to be more specific about the date of the trial or the type of lawsuit. The reference to any court also hints to the possibility of several phases of litigation, a course of events not unusual in Athenian disputes, especially among wealthy disputants of high social standing.54 The last point is supported by the plausible identification of Diokles targeted in DTA 94 with Diokles from Pithos who is mentioned in Dem. 21.62 as chorus master, and who was also targeted in NGCT 1 (= Willemsen 1990, 142–143).55 The sense of impending litigation is also conveyed by the reference in DTA 94 to the dikaiomata, i. e. the pleas or legal documents that the agent of the curse claims that Diokles was preparing against him. Similarly, in DT 49, 18–22 the agent of the curse seeks to impede his opponent Theagenes and his support network “in a court of law and before the arbitrator, if they act against me”.56 Like the adversary of Diokles in DTA 94, the agent of DT 49 was not exactly sure, at the time the tablet was commissioned, of what exact legal path Theagenes and his supporters were going to pursue. But it is apparent that some kind of formal arbitration or litigation was envisaged at a later stage of the dispute. That this stage was thought of as not too far in the future is suggested by the assertion that some supporters of Theagenes (DT 49, ll. 7–12) were preparing speeches, most likely as witnesses or supporting speakers in court, in consultation with Theagenes. In these and other curse tablets, it was natural for the opposing parties to target all individuals who might have had any connection with or wielded any influence on the outcome of a dispute, irrespective of whether the persons in question were actually expected to directly and actively participate in legal proceedings. It is also noteworthy that DTA 94 and DT 49 suggest that disputes that involved Athenians of diverse social and professional backgrounds were perceived and evolved in a broadly overlapping manner. Both tablets were deposited at a fairly advanced stage of the disputes but before or at an early phase of formal proceedings, and certainly before the conclusion of adjudication.

53

54 55 56

δέσποτα κάτοχε | καταδνύ[ω] Διοκλῆ ς τὸ | ἐμὸν ἀντίδικον· τὴν γλ|ῶτ(τ)αν καὶ τὰ{ι}ς φρένας | καὶ τοῖς Διοκλς βοηοῖς | πάντας κα(ὶ) τὸν λόγον | αὐτο(ῦ) κ(α)ὶ ς μαρτυρί|ας καὶ τὰ δικαιώματα | α ἃ παρασκεά|ζεται ἐπ’ ἐμὲ καὶ κάτε|{κα}χε αὐτόν· ἅπαντα τὰ δι|καιώματ Διοκλν τὰ ἐπ’ ἐμὲ | παρασκευάζεται μ | ἀνύσ{σ}αι το(ὺ)ς βοθο(ὺ)ς το(ὺ)ς Διοκλέ|ο(υ)ς καὶ ἡτ(τ)ᾶσθαι Διοκλν | ἀπ’ ἐμο(ῦ) ἐν παντὶ δικα|στρίωι καὶ μθ’ ἓν ἀντι̣ | Διοκλῖ δίκαιον. Costabile 2000, 65–67 and Costabile 2001, 196–198 argues that the expression ἐν παντὶ δικαστρίω implies that the presiding magistrate had not assigned the dispute to a particular court; this in turn implies that the curse was commissioned at an early stage of the legal proceedings. Cf. DT 49. For a similar argument see Faraone 1999b, 113. For the identification see Willemsen 1990, 143; Riess 2012, 163, n. 596. καὶ ἐπ[ὶ δ]ικαστη[ρί]ου καὶ παρὰ διαιτητεῖ [ἐὰν] ἀντιποιῶσ[ι] μηθα[μ]οῦ φαίνεσθαι μήτ[ε] ἐ[ν] [λό] γωι μήτ[ε] ἐ[ν] [ἔργ]ω[ι].

2.2 Curse Tablets in the Realm of Athenian Litigation

37

The psychological and emotive aspects of curse tablets should also be considered. I will have more to say about this in chapter 6, but again some preliminary remarks are in order. Athenian disputes were multivalent and protean interactions that often mutated into altered interpersonal or group relationships. The relative flexibility of the Athenian legal system and the openness of Athenian social life and public sphere were crucial parts of this process. In many instances, formal litigation was by no means an end to a dispute as the latter could continue in a different guise. For instance, following the completion of formal litigation a disputant could resume his/her relationship of conflict with an adversary by pursuing what had been up to that point a side issue in the dispute, elevating its importance and starting all over again with all the means available (social pressure, self-help, litigation etc.). The field of magic also offered solace and an additional strategy in pursuing a dispute, a form of self-help that was for some Athenians more easily accessible than litigation.57 For instance disputants could resort, before or after litigation, to the so-called “prayers for justice”.58 As far as Classical Athens is concerned, it is best to think of prayers for justice not as stand-alone discourses but rather as a stage in the continuum of dispute behaviors, articulated within the general framework of the value system and magical perceptions prevalent in the Athenian public sphere. Prayers for justice, to the extent that they can be identified, were semantically related and sometimes combined with legal curse tablets, and were written with the hope of obtaining by supernatural means vengeance for wrongs that the agent had already suffered. They often begin with a conditional sentence of the kind “If so and so did something harmful or detrimental to me [the agent of the curse)]” and proceed with a request for retribution. The nature of these prayers suggests, contrary to the legal curses, a context of production following an important milestone in a dispute, e. g. after the outcome of litigation was known. NGCT 24 (= Jordan 1999, no. 1), discussed in the preceding section regarding the counter-spell on its side A, can also partly be read as a prayer for justice. It begins with the “whoever put a binding spell on me” (εἴ τις ἐμὲ κατέδεσεν) and proceeds to seek vengeance by reversing the binding spell. Side B, on the other hand, reads like a typical judicial curse, and proceeds to target Dion and Granikos, the antidikoi of the agent of the curse. The remainder was not fully read in the editio princeps59 but it seems to refer to the particulars of the dispute, possibly concerning a portion of something that the agent of the curse had to give up. That level of detail regarding the issues of a dispute, if that indeed is what is going on here, would be unusual for Athenian legal curse tablets. Hence one wonders whether side B actually refers – again, unusually for Athens – to a

57 58 59

For self-help in Classical Athens see Hunter 1994, especially chapter 5; Christ 1998b; Fisher 1998; Lanni 2016, 36–43. By the same token, it must not be presumed that all “prayers of justice” were engendered in the context of formal litigation. See Jordan 1999, 117 and NGCT 24.

38

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

court verdict, in which case side B could also be understood as a prayer for justice. The agent of the curse, in other words, received an unfavorable verdict and sought justice and vengeance for what, unjustly from his point of view, he was required to surrender. A revised critical edition of the tablet in question will surely assist in settling many of these points. It should also be noted that a legal curse tablet of the fourth or early third century from Lokroi Epizephyrioi provides a parallel for the use of binding curses in the aftermath of litigation.60 In this case the agent of the curse targets the syndikoi and a witness of a lawsuit, and then refers to the prytanis, i. e. the magistrate who exacted payment, hence alluding to past judicial proceedings. In sum, the wider pattern that emerges is that in Athens legal curse tablets were for the most part considered by disputants as an expedient strategy of self-help in disputes before the conclusion of formal litigation or arbitration. This is confirmed by most of legal curse tablets from Athens that provide any relevant clues. There is, however, a possibility that a small number of tablets (including “prayers for justice”) might have been dedicated after the end of litigation. In such cases we are probably dealing with a post-litigation stage of an active and ongoing dispute. At any event, a case-by-case examination (whenever possible) of the circumstances that led to the creation of each curse tablet is the best course.61 2.3 Sorcerers and Curse Tablets Even though the focus of this book is on the organic and interactive association between curse tablets and disputes, the process of consecration and deposition of binding curses, after a disputant had commissioned the sorcerer, is also of relevance. In the remainder of this chapter I will focus on the process and mentalities behind the production of legal curse tablets, in keeping with the wider themes of the book, although much of the discussion also applies to other “genres” of curse tablets (e. g. against sport competitors or tablets commissioned by spurned lovers). Several aspects of Athenian curse tablets, from the materials used to writing forms, can further illuminate the process of generating these magical texts, and hence dispute practices. There can be no doubt that a group of sorcerers willing to undertake the writing and ritual deposition of curse tablets and other magical acts was readily accessible in Athens, especially during the fourth century.62 The number of extant curse tablets from Classical Athens attests the popularity of the practice, yet the relative scarcity of references to binding magic in Athenian literature alludes to its underground char60 61 62

See Costabile 1999b, no. 3, 42–53. Cf. Jordan’s (2000, 101–103) objections and alternative readings, but see Costabile 2001, 200–201. Papakonstantinou 2008, 123–125. For the portrayal of sorcerers in Greek literature see Carastro 2006, especially chapters I and II.

2.3 Sorcerers and Curse Tablets

39

acter – I have already noted this ambivalence between perception and practice. Given this background, the question then is how exactly the relationship between disputants and sorcerers was negotiated in the context of Athenian disputes? Was the sorcerer mainly the conduit of the disputant’s wishes, the enabler of his/her maleficent designs and dispute tactics? And were Athenian disputants ever tempted to take matters into their own hands (as they often did, e. g. in connection with various forms of self-help, including the exercise of physical violence) and perform magical rites without the involvement of a sorcerer? The extant material record of Athenian magic provides a preliminary answer to the last question. Specialist tool kits used for the writing of curse tablets from ancient Athens – including unused lead tablets – point to a level of professionalism that is usually encountered among experts, in this case sorcerers.63 Moreover, the few curse tablets from Classical Athens that have been discovered in situ – as opposed to tablets acquired through the antiquities trade, as was the case for almost all tablets published by R. Wünsch – and then published with reference to their archaeological context suggest an advanced and complicated deposition ceremonial that once again points to professional expertise.64 The creation and deposition of a binding spell, in other words, in the form of a lead tablet was a fairly complicated technical task that required specialized knowledge of arcane magical ceremonials, access to niche tools and materials, as well as the mettle to engage in disagreeable and often punishable activities, including digging up graves at night in order to deposit the tablets.65 The most likely scenario is that the overwhelming majority, if not all, of Athenian curse tablets were produced by sorcerers who were members of a small but recognizable professional sect. For an Athenian wishing to engage in magic as part of a dispute, the sorcerer was the person with legitimate competence, the person widely recognized as cognizant of and capable of evincing the “authoritative”, i. e. allegedly effective, magical discourse. Such recognition of the right to articulate magical formalism, the magical rituals and recipes that “worked”, was never institutionally attributed but relied on performative efficacy.66 The range of individuals targeted as well as the scope of the disputes that seem to have generated the extant curse tablets from Athens suggest that engaging the services of a professional sorcerer in Classical Athens would not have been particularly demanding or expensive. Athenian disputants who wished to resort to magic knew or 63 64 65 66

Curbera 2015a. Trumpf 1958; Lamont 2015; Lamont and Boundouraki 2018. For the process of manufacturing and depositing a curse tablet see Ogden 1999, 10–25; Eidinow 2019b. In connection with the same point, there is also a strong argumentum e silentio: if magic was practiced widely by average Athenians without the involvement of professional sorcerers, one would expect the practice to be reflected in Athenian literature, especially in genres (e. g. comedy and forensic oratory) where ridiculing, belittling, and defaming others was habitual.

40

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

could easily find out the specialist sorcerers available. The disputants provided details of the dispute, names of adversaries, and the focus of the spell (e. g. upcoming litigation; commercial rivalry), paid the fee, and let the sorcerer take care of the rest. A crucial unknown is whether sorcerers were also charged with disseminating some information regarding the existence of the curse, a stage of the binding ritual aimed at instilling fear and uncertainty in the opponent and hence preempting their next moves during a dispute. The fact that written curse tablets were performed and deposited in secretive and relatively inaccessible locations would have made sorcerers suitable mediators to a euphemized version of the curse in public. The passage from Plato (Republic, 364b–c) referring to the practices of itinerant sorcerers active in Athens suggests that this was a possibility. That was despite the fact that the act of communicating the existence of a curse was at face value antithetical to the alleged secrecy of the magical ritual that supposedly guaranteed a privileged line of communication between the sorcerer and the underworld deities. Can the tablets themselves shed further light on their authors and the process of integrating them in Athenian disputes? Several Athenian curse tablets display great deficiencies in transcription,67 spelling and other grammatical deviations, as well as alternative dialect renderings. Moreover, in many cases writing in curse tablets was scrambled and at times the names of some targets were rendered in retrograde.68 Scrambled and retrograde writing were intentional and are today widely interpreted as magical techniques, similar to the piercing of a tablet with a nail, that aimed at enhancing the spell’s potency by intending to distort the acts, speech or even physical well-being of the targets.69 None of the above can be very conclusive regarding the interaction between disputants and sorcerers. While many sorcerers active in Athens clearly favored the practice of scrambling their magical texts, others refrained from it. As a result, some Athenian curse tablets were written in a neat and orderly manner – some almost in the stoichedon style that resembled formal civic inscriptions.70 Similarly, spelling and grammar can be of little help in identifying the backgrounds of sorcerers. Athens was essentially a melting pot for most of the Classical period, so the presence of social actors who were native speakers of some dialect other than the dominant in Athens Ionic Greek, or even of people who were not native speakers of Greek but who lived permanently in Athens, can hardly be surprising. Indeed, both groups are well-documented in the literary and epigraphic record from Athens during the Classical period. The authors of some legal binding curses also exhibit expert knowledge of technicalities (language, proceedings) of the formal legal system, suggesting a certain famili-

67 68 69 70

DTA 127 and SLCTA no. 2; Willemsen 1990, 145. SLCTA no. 1. It is also possible that some of what appears as scrambled writing in Athenian curse tablets was the result of scraping off older spells for recycling the lead tablets. See Curbera 2015a, 107–108. See e. g. SLCTA no. 1. See also discussion and other examples in Gordon 1999.

2.3 Sorcerers and Curse Tablets

41

arity with the latter. To be sure, many of these details could have been furnished by the clients of sorcerers. Especially male Athenian citizens had plenty of opportunities to engage with the legal system of their city, mainly as jurors or litigants. But members of subaltern groups also had opportunities to become involved in litigation informally or formally. For instance, women and non-citizens of different statuses could attend lawsuits and attempt to exert some influence through social pressure. At times members of these underprivileged, socially and legally, groups could engage directly in litigation. In column III of a curse tablet from Kerameikos (SLCTA no. 1) the main target is female and the reference to the court of the polemarch points to a trial in which metics or other foreign residents were involved.71 This cognizance of legal technicalities by Athenian residents and agents of curses comes across in legal binding curses as well. As noted in the preceding section, SGD 49 refers to a forthcoming trial in the month Maimakterion and to an endeixis; DTA 94 refers to the dikaiomata;72 and the tablet from Kerameikos (SLCTA no. 1), which contains three curses pertaining to legal proceedings, refers in columns I and II to dikai βλάβης. The references to this type of dike corroborate the impression conveyed by the forensic corpus that this particular procedure was quite common in Athenian litigation.73 This was no doubt aided by the wide semantic scope of βλάβη in Athenian law.74 By the same token, many legal curse tablets only refer to litigation in the most generic terms, usually by references to witnesses or forms of assistance that supporters of the adversary were expected to furnish in forthcoming legal proceedings. On balance, then, the evidence suggests the indispensable role of specialist sorcerers, irrespective of their ethnic background and familiarity with the Athenian legal system, in the production of curse tablets aimed at mediating Athenian disputes. Sorcerers active in Athens were cultural bricoleurs of dispute exigencies, popular values, and supernatural beliefs which they articulated in the curse tablets that Athenians entrusted them with. At the same time, the disputants who commissioned the curses were also in a position to know their contents, and it is likely that in addition to sorcerers, disputants and their core supporters might also have been responsible, to some degree, with spreading rumors about the existence of a malicious curse. The emergence of curse tablets as communicative action in the context of disputes was therefore a dynamic partnership between sorcerers and disputants.

71 72 73 74

([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 58.2. The extent of the involvement of socially and legally underprivileged individuals in Athenian disputes and litigation is further expounded in the ensuing chapters. It is likely that DT 67.5 also refers to written documentation in the context of legal proceedings. See Osborne 1985, 56–57. Todd 1995, 279–282.

42

2 Binding Curses in Classical Athens: Sorcerers, Agents, and Litigation

2.4 Conclusion Athenians were familiar with the practice of binding magic since at least the early fifth century and committed many of these spells in writing, in the form of curse tablets, with increasing frequency since the second half of the same century. Curse tablets became integral components of Athenian disputes. They were strategic discourses, whose content had to become publicly disseminated, at least partially, even if the rituals accompanied their deposition remained a well-guarded secret. Many Athenian curse tablets refer directly to formal litigation. Litigation itself was a strategy and a public performance as part of a dispute. Although not all Athenian disputes reached the formal adjudication stage many Athenian feuds, especially among well-heeled citizens, resulted in numerous bouts of litigation or state-sponsored arbitration. Binding spells negotiated these strategic moves between litigants and their interactions with the divine as well as the mundane public sphere. Sorcerers, the authors of these curses, were mediators and perhaps instigators of these transcripts, and hence it might be appropriate if they are in a sense considered members of the support network of agents who commissioned such binding curses.

Chapter 3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes Athenians are often portrayed, by many ancient and modern commentators, as litigious and antagonistic in a social setting that in principle espoused radical egalitarian ideals yet in practice encouraged the emergence of social and economic inequalities. This picture is not necessarily a mirage, but rather an overexposed representation of conditions of conflict and political interaction in Classical Athens. After all, it might come as no surprise that for ancient authors and literary audiences – who are largely to be credited with the survival of certain writers and genres of Greek literature at the expense of others – the conflictual and extraordinary was at times more appealing that the uneventful and mundane. In the case of Classical Athens, the survival of a substantial corpus of evidence on disputes and other forms of interpersonal and group interaction allows for a thorough appraisal of dispute practices and perceptions, in a manner that also takes into account individual and collective agency as well as the role of magic in such disputes. The present chapter is devoted to developing the evidentiary and methodological framework for the study of broad-based disputes, a prominent mode of disputing behavior in Classical Athens. Subsequent chapters will be devoted to magic, especially binding curses, in connection with such disputes. 3.1 Disputes in a Diachronic and Comparative Perspective Disputes are an endemic and fundamental feature of daily life in most human, premodern and modern, societies. For decades the typology and development of disputes has attracted much scholarly efforts by historians, anthropologists, and other social scientists of all persuasions. On the social/micro level, disputes most commonly arise out of interpersonal confrontation, but how disputes develop – and then assessed by contemporaries or future commentators – depends on the complexity of the society within which such disputes occur. In general, some basic categories include interpersonal/ intersubjective, intergroup, and interstate disputes. Crucial factors to consider are the pretexts out of which disputes could arise as well as the underlying causes, which could

44

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

extend from rule infringement to competition for material or symbolic resources. Moreover, the way disputes are perceived and carried out encodes power structures, ideologies, and a range of identities. Once again, it is important to emphasize that all the above is contextual and idiosyncratic and, similar to perceptions and practices of magic, one should not expect anything near a universal model of human disputes to emerge. Yet, useful comparisons can still be drawn between disputing modes in different societies. In the words of P. H. Gulliver, an anthropologist who devoted most of his life to the study of disputes, “a social relationship constitutes a problem-solving process as well as a rule-patterned process”.1 Ancient Athens, especially during the Classical period, is in fact a prime example of a case study for the analysis of such rule patterns and problem-solving processes. The two might not always overlap. In Classical Athens, for instance, there was usually a disjuncture between publicly evinced pledges to the idea of the rule of law – an example of a rule pattern –, pledges that were often blatantly undermined by practices adopted by disputants in pursuing problem-solving processes.2 That was because in Athens, as in many agonistic societies, there was often a disconnect between some endogenous, subjectively embedded social norms and their corresponding exogenous, state-sanctioned prescriptions. In Athens such endogenous and exogenous norms were not universally hierarchized. For instance, while for formal statutes and the judiciary the rule of law and the interests of the Athenian demos took precedence over individual concerns, in practice most Athenians promoted their personal and familial agendas parallel to, or oftentimes contrary to, wider civic considerations. Otherwise put, during the Classical period the institutional and judicial apparatus of Athens provided a well-established, albeit socially and ideologically malleable, framework for the pursuit of political and social life, including disputes. Furthermore, Athens sported a fairly developed network of economic activity and a diverse population of hundreds of thousands of citizens, resident foreigners, and slaves. Our evidence for Athens during the period in question provides ample evidence for the genesis, development, and potential settlement of interpersonal and group disputes. Interpersonal/intersubjective disputes were born out of conflicts between individuals or small groups within Athens, what legal anthropologists often call infra-group disputes.3 Such disputes often had a different dynamic than other modalities of conflict (e. g. interstate disputes) as well as a separate legal and ideological framework for their pursuit. Even though there is a substantial corpus of evidence especially regarding Athenian interpersonal disputes, that evidence is selective and germane to only limited episodes of conflict within a particular dispute. In most cases of known Athenian disputes we lack direct evidence for most of the wide-ranging stages that usually constituted a sin1 2 3

Gulliver 1979, 75. See further 3.4, 6.4 and chapter 6, n. 52. Roberts 2013, 31–32.

3.1 Disputes in a Diachronic and Comparative Perspective

45

gle dispute. To complicate the picture even further, wide-ranging stages of Athenian disputes usually consisted of numerous sub-stages which frequently involved different dispute participants beyond the core of the main antagonists and their closest supporters. Our evidence for specific Athenian disputes, in other words, is at best a haphazard and episodic patchwork of narratives of sub-stages of conflict within a broader dispute. This having been said, dispute management in Classical Athens parallels numerous modes of disputing in state and stateless societies, as identified by legal anthropologists.4 In Classical Athens disputants typically engaged in ritualized and performative acts of dispute management and resolution, including public showdowns between disputants and their supporters; emotional outbursts; acts of self-help; and many others that were contingent on social and economic positioning and an individual’s performed identities.5 Such features of dispute behavior are dominant in stateless societies. But Athens, like most state societies, could also showcase a developed, and at times convoluted, system of formal adjudication that often consisted of several layers of preliminary proceedings followed by formal litigation. There were also distinct control and enforcement mechanisms for the implementation of court or arbitration verdicts. In Athens some of the formal legal proceedings aimed at resolving or at least easing the management of a dispute, often by cooling off antagonisms through a process of controlled interaction (e. g. by collecting testimonies) and negotiation of disputing parties. If that was indeed the intention behind preliminary adjudicatory proceedings, such efforts were not always crowned with success. In Athens, the very process of litigation organically engendered new possibilities of further litigation between the disputing parties.6 Also worth noting is that the interpersonal dynamic between disputants and their supporters often changed as they vacillated between formal (state-sponsored adjudication) and informal (interaction not involving state entities) phases of their dispute. At the end, and besides the protocols of the wider pattern, every dispute was a microcosm and a reflection of the people embroiled in it. All these points will be further expounded in the ensuing discussion. Interpersonal disputes in Classical Athens can be broadly assessed as broad-based, developmental/processual, and cyclical. In fact, the last two attributes (processual and cyclical) can be considered, for the purposes of our analysis, as endemic features of broad-based disputes. As J. L. Comaroff and S. Roberts pointed out in a comparative context, perceiving disputes as processual “envisions dispute[s] as normal and inevitable rather than pathological and dysfunctional”.7 Because of their processual character

4 5 6 7

Roberts 2013, especially chapters 7 and 8. Disputants, in other words, could in the course of a broad-based dispute exhibit diverse behaviors such as aggression, evasion, conciliation, friendliness, and more, according to the context and the audience/participants of a sub-stage of a dispute. For series of legal confrontations in Classical Athens see Osborne 1985. Comaroff and Roberts 1981, 5.

46

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

and their customary time span (often over many years) Athenian broad-based disputes usually involved instances of alleged rule-breaking as well as competition over resources. Athenian broad-based disputes were multivalent and adjustable to conditions and agents’ behavior, but in general terms consisted of one or more of three basic intertwined phases: bilateral conflict and negotiation, with each side consisting of the main disputants and a core group of supporters; informal mediation often with the help of non-strictly-aligned kin and other supporters; and finally formal arbitration and/or adjudication. This is not meant to imply that all Athenian broad-based disputes were bound to experience these three phases, sequentially or not. Typically, however, Athenian broadbased disputes did experience at least two of the phases but often in a diffused way. Hence it was quite common, especially in disputes involving high-profile and wealthy Athenians, for multiple instances of litigation to be spawned out of a single broadbased dispute. In other cases, disputes that reached formal litigation, for which we are better informed as they have been documented in the forensic orations corpus, did not seemingly experience some of the other phases, e. g. informal mediation by kin and supporters. From a methodological standpoint it is advisable not to demarcate these phases as distinct conflicts8 but recognize them as organic components of a dispute. It is certainly the case that each phase had its own dynamic and subscript, but at the same time different phases of a broad-based dispute were also interweaved by underlying strategies and communicative actions – including, at times, acts of magic. Three other points should also be emphasized at the outset – all will be expounded in the ensuing discussion. The first is that in the context of Classical Athens interpersonal disputes should not necessarily be subsumed or otherwise associated with formal/state-endorsed mediation, litigation, and adjudication. Just as formal litigation – whenever a dispute reached that stage – was not a mere epiphenomenon of disputing, similarly the evolution from dispute to litigation was in Athens never inexorable. Secondly, in the context of Classical Athens disputes should not presuppose – nor did they necessarily aim towards – a final or sometimes even temporary denouement. Thirdly, these prominent features of dispute management in Classical Athens were intimately connected – indeed in many cases were predicated upon – notions and manifestations of individual and collective agency.9

8

9

This is the approach undertaken e. g. by Johnstone 1999, whose competent analysis of forensic discourses in Athenian courts is somewhat affected by his insistence on the exceptionality of litigation (1999, 4 and passim) and the demarcation of court battles from other stages of Athenian disputes. Even though I acknowledge that litigation created a different set of challenges and dynamic for disputants, I view litigation as organically intertwined with pre- and post-litigation stages of disputes. Similar patterns of disputing are well attested in anthropological literature, see e. g. Gulliver 1979; Caplan 1995.

3.1 Disputes in a Diachronic and Comparative Perspective

47

To sum up, broad-based disputes were a salient type of dispute in Classical Athens. In this book I am primarily concerned with dyadic interpersonal disputes that initially brought in opposition two individuals/disputing parties and which eventually, as was customary in Athens, widened out to incorporate broader groups of kin and other Athenian residents as support networks to the primary disputants.10 I should emphasize at this point that other types of disputes certainly existed in ancient Athens, e. g. disputes involving more than two principal parties such as intergroup disputes within a community, or interstate disputes. The reason I decided to concentrate on dyadic interpersonal broad-based disputes is primarily because they are widely attested in the literary and epigraphical record of the Classical period. Typically, broad-based disputes in Classical Athens commenced as interpersonal disputes between parties (primary disputants) that were usually locked in a persisting and enduring relationship, e. g. of co-residence or residential proximity (e. g. neighbors), kinship or professional/ corporate association (e. g. fellow magistrates). At other times disputants were tied by a more transient relationship of a determinate character that entailed specific obligations and/or agential behavior (e. g. merchants involved in an occasional commercial transaction; or competing parties pursuing the amorous attention of the same person). Relationships between the principal disputants may in fact have fallen anywhere in the continuum between persisting and occasional interaction. However, in all these cases the disputes that such diverse relationships gave rise to could branch out into a series of interconnected quarrels. In Athens sometimes phases of a dispute developed into novel collateral disputes, usually manifested as new focalizations and extensions of existing disputes, and litigation.11 Such collateral disputes and litigation were nevertheless organically and dialectically connected to the central/ original broad-based dispute. Forensic orations abundantly illustrate procedural flexibility, which extended to both the formal and the informal spheres of conflict, that was characterized by multistranded and often continuing legal challenges centered on the core and the collateral antagonisms of disputants locked in a broad-based dispute. Legal curse tablets sometimes also echo the expectation of collateral legal conflicts. For instance DTA 94 binds Diokles, the main opponent of the agent of the curse, in “every court” which has been technically interpreted to mean that the presiding magistrate had not yet assigned, at the time the curse was deposited, the dispute to a particular

10

11

It goes without saying that a dyadic dispute constituted merely one stage in the intertwined biographies of the original disputants and their support networks. In this book I attempt to look at the role of support networks in a much wider sequence of social interaction, namely in disputes of which litigation was only a stage. D. Cohen 1995, 92 acknowledges, but does not sufficiently elaborate, this aspect of disputing in Classical Athens: “as in feuding societies, there is a tendency for the conflict to broaden as the principle of solidarity draws in third parties”. Instead, the focus of Cohen’s insightful book is on the discursive aspects of litigation and the use of the courts in interpersonal competition for honor.

48

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

court.12 While this is certainly plausible, the reference to every court could also suggest the anticipation of further legal action in the future from Diokles or his associates as that particular dispute developed. 3.2 Support Networks Athenian broad-based disputes were usually multilateral and socially expansive. Especially broad-based disputes of well-off and socially prominent Athenians could engage throngs of individuals, often in the hundreds, develop numerous side conflicts, and last for years or even decades.13At the same time, there was a concentrated quality in these disputes as they negotiated, articulated, and evinced a myriad of meanings, values, emotions, and social dramas. Much of this activity could and did develop informally in an extra-normative (often with modulating use or abuse of statutory norms, as it suited the disputants’ interests) and extra-legal (outside formal adjudicatory mechanisms) manner between the disputing parties and their support networks.14 Support networks were in Athens a recognizable social aggregation which took the form of a social alliance. Such networks were units which usually took years to cultivate and articulate but once in place they were perceived and employed by Athenian disputants as social investments. Each Athenian (man or woman, citizen or otherwise) typically belonged to more than one social groupings, and his/her positioning in a dispute emerged through a combination of circumstances and individual interests. Custom and embedded values were, in many cases, the main catalysts for the alignment of individuals with support networks, usually revolving around an oikos.15 But personal expediency and calculation also played a role, in which case one’s support to a side of a dispute was conditioned by lasting relationships, shared interests, and dependencies, financial or otherwise, that were not necessarily directly linked to kinship or oikos affiliation. Once recruited and consolidated, and for as long as they remained committed, members of support networks in Athenian disputes were in principle loyal and reliable action-sets that exhibited conflict solidarity:16 they perceived the wider parameters of a dispute 12 13 14 15 16

See 2.2 and n. 53. Scafuro 1997 also recognizes the open-ended nature of Athenian disputes, as documented in the forensic corpus and other sources. See Scafuro 1997, especially 31–42 for the importance of extra-judicial methods in pursuing disputes in Classical Athens. See also Johnstone 1999, especially chapter 1. See E. Cohen 2000, 36: “in Attic society individuality was negated by the mutual dependence, and interrelated empowerment, inherent in the oikoi”. For oikos networks in Classical Athens see E. Cohen 2000, especially 32–36. For conflict solidarity see Bartos and Wehr 2002, 70–82. The authors view conflict solidarity as a trait of group conflicts, but the notion is clearly applicable to Athenian broad-based disputes that commenced as dyadic interpersonal conflicts and consequently recruited and consolidated groups of core supporters.

3.2 Support Networks

49

concurrently and acted in tandem with the main disputant to advance or manipulate facets of the dispute in a manner that was considered expedient and advantageous. Support networks, especially as deployed in Athenian broad-based disputes, were a microcosm of everyday life. Court speeches handily illustrate how core support networks could be mobilized, often at short notice,17 to succor the disputant in a physical and performative manner, e. g. in a public brawl or as supporting speakers or audiences in court. In the case of a factory near Laurium that was part of a disputed estate Xenokles, a disputant resident in Athens, collected many of his close relatives and associates and travelled with them to that location. These supporters, who ostensibly had no other business in Laurium, gave up their own activities and made the trip to act as witnesses in Xenokles’ attempt to take possession of the factory.18 Exhibiting high-level individual agency19 in this case Xenokles and his kin, friends, and associates anticipated and acted in accordance with the legal implications of their actions and a possible future lawsuit, despite the fact that at the time they attempted to take over the factory the dispute had not reached a formal legal stage. Publicity and performativity were in Classical Athens central features of prevalent disputing modes: honor and public performance of one’s status were greatly valued and their validation by as many fellow-Athenians as possible, spearheaded by an individual’s core support network, could greatly enhance one’s social standing. Besides physical assistance, as it was to be expected Athenian disputants and litigants duly exploited the full range of Athenian perceptions and practices regarding support networks to advance a competitive narrative of their dispute. Hence disputants, and especially litigants in court, foregrounded or underplayed wider beliefs about support networks, including the fundamental principle in alliance networking of aiding and abetting one another at a time of crisis. Thus, in Against Timokrates Demosthenes accused the defendant that he introduced a law which contravened the interests of the Athenian people. The motive, Demosthenes argued, was greed and not the desire or the expectation to assist people that would normally be considered to be integral members of one’s support network: “not one of these men are your kinsman (suggenes), or a member of your household, or has any natural claim on you”, the last group possibly consisting of kin and non-kin close associates.20 The implication here is that greed was reprehensible and contrary to the dominant Athenian value system. Nevertheless, an Athenian was expected to eagerly aid their kinfolk and other household members (especially those with whom they shared a daily routine based on co-residence) as well as

17 18 19 20

E. g. Lys. 1.23–24. Isae. 3.22–23. For agency in Athenian disputes see chapter 6. Dem. 24.195: οὐδεμίαν γὰρ ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχοις ἄλλην πρόφασιν δι᾽ ἣν τοιοῦτον ἐπήρθης εἰσενεγκεῖν νόμον, ἢ τὴν σαυτοῦ θεοῖς ἐχθρὰν αἰσχροκέρδειαν: οὔτε γὰρ συγγενὴς οὔτ᾽ οἰκεῖος οὔτ᾽ ἀναγκαῖος ἦν σοι τούτων οὐδείς.

50

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

close associates during a dispute or other time of need.21 More importantly, the passage from Against Timokrates implies that the aid that an individual could direct towards their intimate social network could – and in Athens habitually did – manifest itself through controversial or marginally lawful actions.22 The fact that much energy in Athenian disputes was expended in informal, extralegal interaction and mediation further enhanced the importance of large and powerful support networks consisting, if possible, of individuals of means and reputation. The size and especially the composition of a disputant’s support network could go a long way in determining his chances of a successful or respectable outcome in a dispute.23 The Athenian evidence also suggests that core members of support groups perceived themselves as partisan actors willing, and in a sense sometimes obliged, to act in a manner that would normally be regarded as objectionable or even opprobrious, e. g. by committing perjury, suppressing evidence, and harassing the opponent and his supporters. Opposition support groups are therefore often portrayed in forensic orations as morally unscrupulous, and the same general impression is conveyed in some curse tablets. As an example, we can turn again to DTA 94 where the tongues and mental faculties of the βοηθοί of Diokles, the main target of the curse, were bound (ll. 3–6) followed by a bid to hamper their efforts (ll. 13–15).24 It is also worth noting that in Athenian curse tablets supporters of an adversary are usually targeted en masse as a support network in a dispute.25 While loyalty among close kin was typically anticipated, it should also be noted that the composition of these social aggregations was always under negotiation and subject to frequent mutations, the result of the labile character of daily social interaction and the largely managerial nature of Athenian social life. It was thus not unusual for individuals to switch allegiances between different disputants in the middle of a dispute, sometimes more than once.26 As a result, it was not uncommon for interpersonal alli21 22

23

24 25 26

On this point see also Christ 2012, with a wider discussion of the Athenian evidence. The point made by Demosthenes, and allegedly shared by jurors, was that unlawful acts in support of one’s network of kin and associates were still legally punishable but morally tolerable (and even righteous), in view of the intimately shared interests and emotions between kinsmen and friends. But greed, unrelated to the principle of helping one’s support network, was both legally and morally reprehensible. The recruitment and deployment of support networks in Athenian disputes bears strong similarities with many preindustrial societies in which interpersonal interaction and mediation played a crucial role in the development of disputes. To quote Roberts 2013, 138, summarizing his arguments on the value of support networks in numerous premodern African societies, “the strength of a disputant’s position is determined in part from the size and quality of the support group he is able to convene. The man with a large group of prestigious, vociferous and articulate supporters begins with an inevitable advantage in the bargaining process.” In Athens, support networks were often consolidated by attitudes of friendship or enmity, see Alwine 2015, 48–51. See chapter 2, n. 53 for full text. See e. g. SGD 19 (= Strӱd 1903, no. 4). See e. g. Isae. 5.13–14.

3.2 Support Networks

51

ances to lapse into enmities and disputes. Viewed in this light one can perceive Classical Athens, to borrow an expression by the anthropologist R. Paine, as a “coterie of rival interest-based quasi-groups”.27 Much of the same social dynamic in the operation of core support networks is also observable in the recruitment and retention of peripheral or secondary dispute support networks. Secondary support networks consisted of a wider group of individuals that Athenian disputants were always mindful of cultivating and recruiting for the purpose of deploying them in disputes.28 Such secondary support networks usually comprised occasional participants, accidental witnesses to a single episode/outburst of conflict that was part of a wider antagonism, or other individuals peripherally connected to a broad-based dispute. Core support networks tended to be engaged for long spells or even for the entire course of a dispute, whereas secondary networks had only a temporary involvement and were only rarely called upon to participate in more than one stage of a dispute.29 It is also important to underscore that, contrary to core support network members and their enduring relationship with the main disputants, the engagement of peripheral dispute participants that constituted secondary networks was often the result of chance encounters in the Athenian public sphere. We can summarize our findings regarding the basic compositional parameters of support and other participant networks in Athenian broad-based disputes in Table 1. While the forensic orations corpus provide numerous examples of disputes of elites which involved Athenians of lower social and legal statuses30 as members of support networks or accidental participants (dispute type 2), detailed accounts of historical interpersonal conflicts between working-class disputants which drew wealthy and socially eminent Athenians in their orbit (dispute type 4) are rare.31 The scarcity of evidence for disputes type 4 goes hand-in-hand with the evidentiary scarcity for disputes type 3, namely disputes where the main protagonists and all or most other participants were of middling and/or lower social backgrounds.32 The rarity of documented cases of type 27 28

29 30 31

32

Paine 1967, 282. In Hyp. Eux. 12 the speaker reminds the jurors how, in a previous trial, the prosecutor recruited men from his tribe and beyond to assist him in court as supporting speakers (synegoroi) and ostensibly as sympathetic members of the audience. Cf. Aeschin. 1.47 where it is suggested that, from the perspective of a disputant, his personal friends or the enemies of the opposition were more likely to support a partisan agenda. Incidental witnesses, for instance, were occasionally called upon to testify on a particular incident for which they had first-hand knowledge. See chapter 4.1. For the complexities of social and legal statuses in Classical Athens see Kamen 2013. As far as the literary record is concerned, there are fictional accounts of disputes of middling and working-class Athenians in performative genres such as comedy, e. g. in Menander and other comic authors. While such accounts can be useful in corroborating disputing beliefs and practices, they were also heavily mediated for rhetorical (in the case of Menander comic) effect. Instances of type 3 disputes might be recorded in some Athenian curse tablets, including legal curse tablets, that do not seem to indicate the involvement of elites, in a central or peripheral way, in the dispute.

52

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

3 and 4 disputes can be partially accounted for by inherent biases of the literary record, especially the corpus of court speeches which overwhelmingly records disputes between elite or upper middling-class disputants. Table 1 Typology of Athenian broad-based disputes based on the social identities of main disputants, support networks, and other participants. 1- Elite disputants. Support networks and peripheral participants primarily of elite status.

2- Elite disputants. Support networks and peripheral participants of diverse (elite, non-elite) statuses.

3- Middling-/working-class disputants. Support networks and peripheral participants primarily of middling-/working-class statuses.

4- Middling-/working-class disputants. Support networks and peripheral participants of diverse (elite, non-elite) statuses.

But the dearth of evidence for conflicts generated by disputants of middle and lower social origins that did not engage elites as support networks or accidental participants (dispute type 4) should not be treated merely as a quirk of the evidentiary record. Social and economic inequalities in Classical Athens contributed to consolidating conditions that made some types of disputes more likely to emerge than others. For instance, individuals of lower working statuses (e. g. sex workers) or reduced legal statuses (e. g. slaves) were routinely interacting with Athenian elites by providing services to them. The same elites had more resources and time to pursue disputes, and they were in a position to essentially coerce those of lower social, economic, and legal statuses to join in disputes of elites as part of the support networks or the cohorts of peripheral participants (type 2 disputes). Elites could easily shun working-class individuals from their disputes, but the evidence suggests that typically they did not, no doubt because it was calculated by elite disputants that substantial support networks of non-elites could prove expedient in pursuing a dispute successfully. On the contrary slaves, sex workers, street peddlers, and other disadvantaged individuals could hardly exercise any influence upon elites to make them become actively involved in their disputes, e. g. in a type 4 dispute. For all these reasons we should seriously consider the possibility that historically, and given the prevalent set of values, institutional alignments, and modes of daily life in Classical Athens, disputes in which the main disputants, on the one hand, and the majority of the support and peripheral networks, on the other, were interlocked in asymmetrical social relationships (especially type 2 disputes) were more likely to occur and be recorded. Regarding the extant curse tablets there are certainly some, including SGD 48, that point towards type 2 disputes (which are also attested widely in forensic orations) but, equally importantly, there are also some curse tablets that point towards

3.3 Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation in Broad-based Disputes

53

type 3 – e. g. possibly DTA 68 and DT 49 – and perhaps type 4 disputes.33 If that is the case, the latter constitute a substantial gain in our efforts to assess Athenian disputes. 3.3 Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation in Broad-based Disputes Xenokles’ attempts to take over the factory near Laurium, as relayed by Isaeus and outlined in the previous section, illustrate the adaptability of Athenian disputants to both legal and extra-legal forms of interaction and negotiation with their opponents. Regarding legal/normative avenues of interaction in the context of a dispute, Dem. 22.25–27 provides some examples of the options available to Athenians who wished to resort to the civic legal system, especially in cases of theft and impiety. In this instance Demosthenes attributes this feature of the Athenian legal system to Solon who, according to the orator, “provided many avenues through the law” to injured parties.34 Thus Athenians, when suffered theft, could resort to self-help and arrest the thief; involve the archons and ask them to make the arrest; bring a written indictment; or sue the thief before the public arbitrator. Similarly, in cases of impiety, the offended party could arrest, or indict, or sue before the Eumolpidae, or provide information to the archon basileus. Such diverse options were in place, Demosthenes argued, nearly for every other offence. The passage should not be seen as an attempt to enumerate legal options pertaining to particular offences in an accurate fashion – as a matter of course comprehensiveness and factual accuracy were not very prevalent in the Athenian courts – but rather as a reflection of the multivalence of Athenian legalities as perceived by Athenians themselves.35 This feature of the Athenian legal system was quite crucial in a context of multiple and continuous litigation, especially involving elite disputants. Thus, quite often a verdict by a popular court did not terminate a dispute but merely marked the transition from one stage of the dispute to another. In the case of Xenokles, his attempt to take over the factory at Laurium and other assets of the disputed estate of Phyrros was followed by at least two additional lawsuits – Isaeus 3, the source for this dispute concerns the second of these lawsuits – as well as numerous other countermoves by the opposition who tried to establish that Xenokles had no legal right to the estate. Other aspects of the Athenian legal institutions at times also encouraged the proliferation of disputes and the high-level agential behavior of their protagonists. For instance, partly due to the notoriously terse, especially on the substantive side, nature of

33 34 35

See 5.3 for a discussion. Dem. 22.26, πολλὰς ὁδοὺς δῷ διὰ τῶν νόμων. See Osborne 1985, 42–43 for a discussion of this passage.

54

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

Athenian statutes36 and the method of electing jurors, which in practice entailed the lack of thorough formal training in legal matters for most of these jurors, verdicts by popular courts were often influenced by circumstantial factors. The wide range of evidence marshalled by Athenian litigants could touch on their or their opponents’ past life and character, including their patriotism and record of benefaction or their neglect towards their civic obligations, their known crimes as well as any unaccounted offences.37 Such arguments often prevailed in Athenian courts, even in instances where hostile reviews of an opponent’s character and public services were immaterial to the legal technicalities of the lawsuit. A major side effect of the strategy/practice of employing non-germane evidence in court was that it likely contributed to the prolongation of broad-based disputes through rekindled interpersonal conflict. The deployment of evidence that went beyond the strict array of factual information directly pertinent to the dispute was often justified by the assertion, commonly articulated by litigants in Athenian courts, that the Athenian dikastai (jurors) did not merely embody perceptions and values espoused by the wider body politic, but that the interests of the community were paramount in the minds of the jurors as they delivered their verdicts.38 Athenian litigants, in other words, asserted that the dikastai were the eyes and ears of the Athenian demos in court. Moreover, the collective presence and verdicts of the dikastai in the courts were frequently represented – at times forcefully, based on how expedient such an argument was for a speaker  – as tantamount to popular rule.39 Such idealizing representations of the dikastai and other Athenian officials were skillfully weaved into court rhetoric, often at the expense of more realistic attitudes towards them,40 as well as at the expense of a more focused articulation of evidence/arguments in court. Hence remonstrations by court speakers that their opponents were undermining the interests of the demos and should therefore be punished were as frequent as invocations to an alleged record of public acts pointing to the fervent support of these same interests by the speakers themselves or their supporters and associates. This was a largely autopoetic process, based on the principle of production of reality through the collectively recognized representation of reality in democratic Athens. The premises of the dominant representation of social conditions

36 37 38 39 40

On the balance between substantive and procedural provisions as well as legal indeterminacy in Athenian law see Lanni 2016, 47–61; Wallace 2018. Character, patriotism, and record of benefaction of litigants, e. g. Antiph., 2.2.12; Isae. 4.27–29; 5.39–47; 6.60–61; 7.37–41; 10.25; Dem. 25.76; Lys. 25.12–13. Neglect of civic duties/expectations by a wealthy citizen, e. g. Din. 1.95–98. Embodiment of public perceptions, Aeschin. 1.89. Interests, e. g. Hyp. Dem. fr. 9. For the notion that the welfare and interests of the community were paramount in the course of Athenian litigation see Wallace 2017. So in Dem. 24.152, where the negligence and invalidation of judicial decisions is portrayed as resulting in the subversion of popular power (δήμου κατάλυσις). For the Athenian dikastai, see further 6.3 and 6.4.

3.3 Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation in Broad-based Disputes

55

in democratic Athens, including the primacy of the interests of the demos, that court speakers appeared to take for granted were in fact reinforced and instantiated to all interested audiences on a daily basis through public discourse, formal or informal (e. g. assembly, courts, street talk). The practice of employing in court arguments peripheral or seemingly irrelevant to the legal basis of a lawsuit was so widespread that at times it was openly acknowledged by litigants who, for example, encouraged jurors to take into consideration during their deliberations divine omens or to place greater weight on circumstantial evidence, emotions, and their personal assessment of a litigant than the critical examination of proof, including testimonies of witnesses.41 It was then left to the dikastai to determine which, if any, of this evidence would play a role in their deliberations and verdicts.42 Hence in the infamous trial against Timarchos the plaintiff Aeschines praised the members of the Areopagos court for habitually rendering their verdicts on the strength of the rhetorical pleading by litigants and formal testimonies, as well as the perceptions and investigations of the jurors themselves. Consequently, Aeschines invited the jurors in the trial of Timarchos to reach a decision in a similar manner, by relying largely on the perception they had of the life and reputation of the defendant.43 In another part of the same speech Aeschines again urges the jurors to render a verdict on the basis of the reputation of the defendant.44 Furthermore, litigants at times presented a case and sought an outcome that did not fully correspond to the strict scope of a lawsuit, but rather aimed at the long-term objectives of a dispute. Isaeus 6 On the Estate of Philok41

42

43 44

Divine omens, Antiph. 5.81. Circumstantial and/or extraneous evidence, Isae. 4.12; Hyp. Lyc. 9–10. Anger and revenge over deliberation, Din. 2.8. At the same time, other litigants expressed trepidation at the prospect that jurors might be swayed by extraneous factors, e. g. anger and class envy, Hyp. Eux. 31–32. The extent to which evidence that went beyond the strict confines of the issue under adjudication was employed in Athenian courts has been intensely debated. For a range of views see e. g. D. Cohen 1995; Johnstone 1999; Lanni 2016 arguing for the centrality of evidence of peripheral relevance versus Rhodes 2004; Griffith-Williams 2012 who argue for some form of narratological coherence in the argumentation of Athenian litigants in court. See also my discussion in 4.5 where the issue is approached from the perspective of information control in the framework of broad-based disputes. Aeschin. 1.92–93. See also Aeschin. 1.153–154. Aeschin. 1.127–131. But in 170–176 the same speaker warns jurors of a forthcoming attempt by the defense to mislead them by focusing on matters (relations of Athens and Macedonia) irrelevant to the charge against Timarchos. Aeschines’ line of argumentation, similar to many speakers in Athenian courts, was based on a malleable notion of relevance and not on what could have been demonstrated. E. g. hearsay (not solid proof) regarding Timarchos’ prostitution was considered relevant by Aeschines, but not rumors unrelated to Timarchos’ sexual pursuits. But while on the defense in the trial on an embassy to Macedonia Aeschines, in an obvious instance of rhetorical double standard, (2.145, with a cross-reference to Aeschin. 1.129) urged jurors not to take into consideration rumors and reputation, which in that instance were presented as slander generated by Demosthenes. Cf. Aeschin. 3.192–193 where the orator complains that sometimes jurors act as if they are bewitched (literally: hearing an incantation) and they forget what the issue they are supposed to render a verdict about is.

56

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

temon, a prosecution speech that is discussed in greater detail in chapter 4.3, was delivered in a lawsuit concerning perjury, that was part of a complex inheritance dispute. Towards the end of the speech (6.51–52) the speaker points out to the jurors that what they were really about to deliver a verdict on was whether youths that had no family connection to the contested estate were to be allowed to enjoy part of the property. And also whether a widow, daughter of the patriarch of the family Euktemon, would be allowed to lead a life befitting a citizen woman or whether, if the opposition won the case, she would be claimed by a hostile relative as his wife in her capacity as heiress. Such pleadings were seemingly at odds with the dikastic oath according to which the tendency of court speakers and jurors to mull over marginally relevant evidence was contrary to their statutory mandate. This point was even raised by some litigants who were no doubt apprehensive that the prevalent public perception of their reputation, character, and record could harm them in court.45 Moreover, some litigants went even further by publicly castigating the tendency of Athenian juries to allow themselves to be influenced by marginal, circumstantial or irrelevant evidence. Lycurgus memorably advised jurors, at the beginning of his prosecution speech Against Leokrates, to desist arguments “on any subject except the one on which you are going to vote”.46 But a few decades earlier Demosthenes had argued that jurors were true to their oath if they delivered an honest judgement as shaped by the speeches delivered in court. It was the responsibility of litigants and other speakers in court, Demosthenes continued, to refrain from misleading the jury, and jurors should not be blamed if they occasionally failed to comprehend a point made by speakers.47 As A. Scafuro pointed out, “[a]n abstract juristic principle of adherence to the laws, as articulated, for example, in the dikastic oath, thus existed side by side with the practice (and in many cases the necessity) of posing alternative interpretations of the law for dikasts to choose between”.48 These nefarious, and possibly contradictory, social expectations on the role of jurors as articulated by court speakers must have enhanced even further, for litigants and casual observers alike, the aura of unpredictability of Athenian court judgments. Moreover, to a certain extent such conditions surely enticed disputants, especially those feeling betrayed by a court verdict, to further pursue a broad-based dispute within or outside the formal legal apparatus. In all contingencies, a long-term strategy as well as a wide and committed group of supporters could go a long way in promoting the interests of disputants in a court of law and other manifestations of a broad-based dispute. 45

46 47 48

Dikastic oath, Dem. 24.149–151 is probably a late reconstruction. The oath is alluded to and partially quoted in many court speeches and other texts, e. g. Aeschin. 3.6. See recently Mirhady 2007 and Sørensen 2018, both with references to earlier scholarship. For litigants reminding jurors the statutory limitations in considering evidence see e. g. Antiph. 5.11–12; 6.9–10. Lycurg. Leok. 11: πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ περὶ οὗ μέλλετε τὴν ψῆφον φέρειν. Dem. 23.96–97. Scafuro 1997, 53.

3.3 Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation in Broad-based Disputes

57

Even when, in the minds of the disputing parties, formal litigation was a viable option, evidence suggests that the first and preferred choice for many Athenians was to attempt to resolve the dispute in an informal manner through private mediation before resorting to formal litigation and the courts.49 This tendency was especially prevalent in broad-based disputes which typically embroiled a wide range of active participants, e. g. in inheritance disputes. In Classical Athens lack of written documentation regarding many aspects of family life combined with strong popular values and beliefs – which often clashed with the letter of the law – on the relationships, rights, and obligations of family members created the conditions for chronic broad-based disputes contesting the estates of deceased Athenians. In such and similar contexts the role of a support network was greatly aggrandized. Support networks could provide advice on how to pursue a dispute, including the appropriate legal track for any offences committed or injuries suffered. In a passage from Demosthenes’ Against Konon (Dem. 54.1), which demonstrates the catalytic role of support networks in the development of broad-based disputes as well as the multivocality of the Athenian legal system, the plaintiff Ariston describes how his friends and relatives believed that the defendant was liable to summary seizure as a highwayman, or to public indictment for hubris. Nonetheless, they urged and advised Ariston that these legal proceedings would have been unsuitable for a relatively young plaintiff, as Ariston was at the time. He, therefore, in deference to his support network’s advice, pursued a private suit for assault and battery. Support networks also played an organic role in informal mediation or arbitration. In Lysias 32 (Against Diogeiton), a dispute on the inheritance of three minors and its alleged mismanagement by their uncle, following a number of altercations the opposing parties attempted to mediate the dispute informally – an arbitration by the friends of both parties, as the speaker puts it.50 An attempt to informal arbitration of an inheritance broad-based dispute is also attested in Isaeus 1 (On the Estate of Kleonymos), where the speaker refers to such an informal arbitration that rendered a verdict of sharing a disputed estate51 as well as Isaeus 2 (On the Estate of Menekles) in which disputants, before resorting to litigation, also voluntarily submitted to the informal arbitration of their support networks.52 In many instances (e. g. Lys. 32 and Isae.1) informal arbitration did not produce a mutually satisfactory outcome, so disputants further pursued their dispute by resorting to formal litigation. Informal mediation was also pursued, with various degrees of success, in disputes not related to inheritance issues. In the dispute between Demosthenes and Meidias, for

49 50 51 52

For private settlement and mediation in Classical Athens see Scafuro 1997, part II; Lanni 2016, 44–46. Lys. 32.2 and 32.11–18. Isae. 1.16; 28–29; 51. Isae. 2.29–30. For other instances of voluntary, extra-legal arbitration between disputants see e. g. Isae. 5.31–33; Andoc. 1.118–119; Dem. 59.45–47.

58

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

instance, associates of the latter approached Demosthenes and attempted to persuade him to drop his impending lawsuit.53 Overall, informal mediation or arbitration as well as other forms of settlementdirected talk (e. g. challenges and dares), ranging from coordinated efforts that drew in large portions of a disputant’s support network to inchoate attempts to approach an opponent, might have temporarily diffused tensions in the course of acrimonious and time-consuming disputes. But in general we should view them as part of grand strategies of disputing behavior, especially as endeavors and opportunities to a) elicit information about an opponent’s intentions and tactics; b) communicate dispute objectives and limitations to adversaries; c) operate as ruses aimed at sidetracking or even intimidating an opponent;54 d) and last but not least, consolidate, rally, and advertise support networks while negotiating aspects of the dispute.55 Hence these and other (e. g. adjudication in a civic court) mechanisms of dispute management facilitated the flow of discourse and interaction between the two disputing sides and presented disputants embroiled in broad-based disputes with the socially acceptable opportunity to adjust their objectives and strategic conduct without losing face. To borrow a phrase from E. Goffman, a pioneer in the sociology of interaction, such collective occasions of informal dispute mediation were not about justice but face.56 3.4 Paradigms of Argument Throughout its course until its eventual end, a broad-based dispute was characteristically governed by a dynamic of interaction and interdependence between disputing parties. In Classical Athens typically each party came to a dispute with a set of preferences regarding potential maximum and minimum outcomes, as well as a set of assessments regarding strengths and weaknesses of themselves and their opponents, costs, outside influences, the role of the normative framework, and social values. It is expedient at this point to introduce the concept of the “paradigm of argument” in Athenian broad-based disputes.57 A disputant’s paradigm of argument consisted of 53 54

55 56 57

Dem. 21.151. In the case of the dispute between Demosthenes and Meidias, after their unsuccessful attempt to persuade Demosthenes to drop the charges (probably for hubris) the associates of Meidias argued, always according to Demosthenes, that due to his wealth Meidias will likely get away with it by securing an acquittal or paying a small fine, thus turning Demosthenes into a laughingstock (Dem. 21.151). If undertaken collectively, publicly performed acts of self-help or self-defense (e. g. Lys. 1.23–27) might have the same effect on mobilizing and consolidating support networks. Goffman 1967, 44. For paradigms of argument in disputes see Comaroff and Roberts 1981, 84–85 and passim. They define a paradigm of argument as a “coherent picture of relevant events and actions in terms of one or more implicit or explicit normative referents. Any such “paradigm of argument” is sited ultimately

3.4 Paradigms of Argument

59

all the discourses and actions, as well as their public representation, employed by the disputant in the course of a dispute. Paradigms of argument were foundational aspects of a disputant’s strategy, especially regarding the representation of the dispute at the familial and civic levels. The primary objective of a paradigm of argument was to advance the disputant’s agenda as part of a dispute. Discourses and actions mutated as a broad-based dispute evolved, hence a paradigm of argument as well as the correlated tactics of a disputant were always malleable – a work in progress. An Athenian disputant, then, in practice had to reconsider and adjust their micro-strategies (regarding phases of a dispute) and their overall paradigm of argument several times in the course of a dispute, especially in the context of long-drawn broad-based disputes. For instance, a disputant might, as a dispute evolved and based on information received regarding the adversary’s state of mind and tactical moves, depart from his/her initial preference set and paradigm of argument and seek to maximize gain on certain issues and minimize exposure/risk on others. The changing affectual state of disputants as well as cultural and social factors (e. g. social class) also determined the formation and parameters of paradigms of argument. Continued and cumulative information exchange that could potentially affect disputants’ paradigms of argument was supplemented by other variables that might disrupt or divert the dynamic of the dispute. Chance events, e. g. the death of a family member or close associate, certainly played a role in the emergence and articulation of phases of disputes. By the same token, parties in a dispute very often chose what they thought of as an apposite juncture to pursue more vigorously a long-term antagonism or seek a temporary truce, only to re-ignite the conflict at some later point. Athenian broad-based disputes should therefore be envisaged as operating in a continuous process of accretion and rejection of issues and people: as an interpersonal dispute developed, the multiplex relationships that interlocked Athenians into kinship, friendship, and community networks became increasingly involved. Publicly performed disputes – and most Athenian broad-based disputes had at least some episodes performed in public – often brought forward issues that might had remained dormant or suppressed for years. These issues at times intersected the original/main dispute or developed into fully-fledged disputes of their own – sometimes both occurred to some degree. This ebb and flow created a web of side-disputing that was an integral part of the opposing parties’ tactical configuration of the long-term development of the wider dispute as well as of what they were ultimately hoping to get out of it. Temporary conflagrations could be manifested through acts of violence. in the requirements of a particular case and is not fixed or predetermined” (original emphasis). Regarding the need for flexibility and fluidity, the same authors also point out that the construction of a paradigm of argument “may vary over a number of hearings of the same dispute before different agencies, since the perceptions, expectations, and strategies of the opposing parties may change or become progressively refined” (1981, 85).

60

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

Disputes that involved individuals resident in the same locality were more likely to escalate into physical violence before they reached formal litigation. Indeed physical violence, along with various manifestations of magic, were popular tactics available to Athenian disputants in their attempts to navigate the ups and downs of broad-based disputes.58 In addition to physical violence, other forms of self-help were widely employed in Athenian broad-based disputes, including litigation, rounds of negotiation, rumor-mongering, and other forms of social pressure. Such and other facets of a dispute fed into a process of continuous readjustments of paradigms of argument. At the same time, as disputing Athenians flexibly revaluated and adjusted their strategic conduct and practices, they attempted to anticipate and manipulate those of their opponents. Hence a clear preoccupation with the future relations of disputants and their supporters is also discernible. One should also not neglect in this context the socially embracive nature of Athenian broad-based disputes, and the involvement of numerous, at times even hundreds, of Athenian residents of all backgrounds in them. The recruitment and consolidation of core and secondary support networks, as expounded in 3.2, was intentionally pursued by elite protagonists of disputes as a resource in effective dispute management by adjusting their paradigms of argument depending on the audience and context of interaction. Disputing parties locked in a bilateral monopoly relationship, such as neighbors or kinfolk, had a greater incentive to reach a partial resolution to their dispute, to the extent that their continued relationship was important and unavoidable. However, the corpus of forensic orations suggests that even in such cases disputants did not actively seek a final settlement. Instead, a settlement often represented merely an episodic and transient accommodation that was integrated into a disputant’s wider paradigm of argument, as they marked the end of one phase of a dispute but without achieving its final resolution. Hence overarching enmities and antagonisms were rarely fully resolved but were carried over to later conflicts or continued by a next generation of disputants, who often in a way “inherited” not only disputes but also paradigms of argument.59 The speaker of Lysias 19 (On the Property of Aristophanes) highlights some typical features of such an inherited dispute: at the time the speech was delivered he was only thirty years of age, never had a conflict with his father, never had been the subject of a complaint by another citizen, and never found himself involved in litigation.60 And yet he was defending the property left by his deceased father against the charges brought by his father’s enemies who had been planning and scheming, according to the speaker, “for a long time”.61

58 59 60 61

For the practice and discourses of violence in Classical Athens D. Cohen 1995; Fisher 1998; Riess 2012. E. g. Isae. 5 and 8; Lys. 14.1–3; 17; Isocr. 16.2–3; Dem. 57.61; 58.2. Lys. 19.55. Lys. 19.1–3, quotation in 19.3 (ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου).

3.5 Conclusion

61

Much of the disputing behavior, and hence the paradigms of argument, of Athenians were dictated by the plurality of notions of morality and justice as well as an understanding of the role of statutory law and the courts in social interaction. It cannot be emphasized enough that the notion of the rule of law, as debated by Athenian intellectuals and propagated by the courts, was merely one of the many legalities that Athenians were faced with in their daily life. In fact it can be argued that the notion of the rule of law as a teleological process that contributes to social equilibrium and peace was not, for most Athenians, the most intuitive attitude towards law and the legal institutions.62 That appears to have been the case both for formal litigation as well as disputes with legal implications that unfolded outside the realm of the courts. Instead, during all phases of broad-based disputes most Athenians adopted, to the extent that their resources and interests allowed, a zero-sum approach towards cases of conflict with little consideration of traditional views of morality and justice, despite indignantly sanctimonious claims to the contrary in forensic oratory.63 3.5 Conclusion Athenian broad-based disputes were highly performative. They were also developmental and cyclical. Sources often intimate that what might appear to the casual reader as a one-off dispute, e. g. adjudicated in a court and known through a forensic oration, was in fact merely a phase in a series of conflictual interactions between individuals or groups. In such phases the process of reassessment and, if necessary, readjustment of a disputant’s preference set and choice of tactics was repeated, embroidered, and refined, especially during advanced stages of the dispute. The source material also indicates that as long-term antagonisms developed, they were articulated in sequences of events that could comprise acts of intense conflict, disagreements over multiple issues, collateral attacks, transient truces, and ambivalent co-existence followed by rekindling of confrontation over dormant or new matters, fueled by the residual feelings of animosity over past conflicts. All this back and forth between disputants and their support networks were part of the double contingency of interaction, i. e. a reciprocal mode of exchanging discourses and acts, observed in most documented Athenian disputes.64 62

63 64

D. Cohen 1995 is an insightful analysis of that aspect of Athenian legal culture, especially as it pertains to the operation of the popular courts. The contingent loyalty of many Athenians towards any notion of the rule of law is also evident in court practices and strategies that often deviated from discourses of compliance with statutory norms and social customs. See e. g. Wallace 2017 and my discussion in 6.4. Cf. also the complementary discussion by Chiarini 2020, chapter 4, based on a diachronic reading, beyond Classical Athens, of curse tablets. In sociology the concept of double contingency in human interaction is often examined in connection with an assumed consensus of values and norms that forms the backbone of interaction

62

3 Interpersonal and Group Conflict in Classical Athens: Broad-based Disputes

The conflictual interaction that developed in the course of a dispute was crystalized in a disputant’s paradigm of argument, which consisted of all discourses, acts, and, critically, representations of a dispute. These paradigms were biased and militant, as they were promoted by disputants, but also fluid and malleable. Support networks were crucial for the propagation of paradigms of argument, and hence disputants were eager to rally the strongest possible alliance of supporters around them. Popular morality, e. g. regarding the close links and loyalty that family members exhibited toward each other, often dictated the socially expected stance on a dispute. But expediency and other considerations at times prevailed, frequently while a dispute was underway. All this is amply demonstrated in forensic orations – more on this point in chapter 4 – and alluded to in curse tables – more on this point in chapter 5. Many of the antagonisms, controversies, and ambivalences of Athenian disputing behavior were articulated in litigation and formal arbitration, though often in a distorted or specious manner. An Athenian litigant’s typical paradigm of argument depicted himself as patriotic and committed to the interests of the demos. Opponents, on the other hand, are routinely portrayed as manipulative of jurors and the legal apparatus in general as well as subversive to the ideals of the democracy. In the wider scheme of a dispute, however, litigation was for most disputants a prime opportunity to advance several strategic aims of a broad-based dispute, including parsing the intentions and objectives of an opponent, articulate and communicate a one-sided agenda, and rally the support network.

between social actors. For an overview of past scholarship see Vanderstraeten 2002. In the case of Classical Athens, the evidence (including forensic orations) clearly points to a set of values on social and political issues (e. g. the family, the democracy) that were widely shared by Athenians, and hence had acquired authoritative status, even if they were not always statutorily enacted. The existence of shared values in Classical Athens was not, however, instantiated as comprehensive cultural determinism. Diverse views and behaviors always existed, but it is revealing that irrespective of their personal perspectives on particular issues litigants in Athenian courts always attempted to toe the line of mainstream morality, or at the very least they tried hard to maintain the appearance that they did not deviate much from it.

Chapter 4 Broad-based Disputes in Action The present and subsequent chapters further elaborate the model of Athenian broadbased disputes, introduced in chapter 3, by looking at specific case studies of such disputes as represented in court speeches and curse tablets. Court speeches provide a more thorough, though certainly partial, understanding of aspects of these disputes. Due to their content and the constraints associated with their production (short texts in lead tablets, protocols of ritual deposition) curse tablets were terse, but can also be revealing, regarding dispute perceptions and practices as well as individual agency. In order of presentation, this chapter discusses, in sections 1–4, the broad-based disputes expounded in Lysias 3 (Against Simon); Lysias 4 (On a Wound by Premeditation); Isaeus 6 (On the Estate of Philoktemon); and Demosthenes 21 (Against Meidias). Many more broad-based disputes are attested, in detail or outline, from Classical Athens. The case studies presented here were selected with the objective of highlighting the complexity and diversity of practices, strategies, and procedures adopted during a broadbased dispute, as well as representative agendas and backgrounds of core or peripheral participants in such disputes. Hence the dispute between Demosthenes and Meidias as well as the dispute recounted in Isaeus 6 bring to the foreground the habitual interaction of disputants of high social standing with individuals of diverse social backgrounds and legal statuses in the course of broad-based disputes; the dispute described in Lysias 3 highlights the involvement of an inordinate amount, in the hundreds, of accidental witnesses/participants in a dispute; the succession of periods of friendship, collaboration, and enmity in the course of the interpersonal relationship of disputants is emphasized in the dispute described in Lysias 4; the same speech by Lysias also points to the use of informal mediation, undertaken by core support networks, as a pivotal crossroads for the development of a broad-based dispute; and finally the engagement and internal divisions of several generations of an extended family, as they took sides as core supporters in a broad-based dispute, is well illustrated in Isaeus 6. It should be noted that in all these cases the main disputants were either integral members of the higher social echelons (as in the Demosthenes and Meidias dispute) or of the affluent urban middle class. This is due to a well-known deficiency of the forensic corpus which overwhelmingly records cases of litigation in which the main

64

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

litigants were urban and relatively well-off (and in many cases very wealthy) Athenians. Nevertheless, in most cases discussed here individuals of all genders as well as legal and social backgrounds eventually became embroiled in what started as instances of interpersonal conflict, in keeping with the modalities of broad-based disputing as adumbrated in chapter 3. Finally, section 5 expounds facets of Athenian broad-based disputing that emerge from the four case studies. That includes the use of reported speech; the representation and manipulation of publicly performed acts of self-help (e. g. home raids; acts of physical violence); the interest that disputes and litigation elicited among the wider Athenian public; as well as the engagement of accidental observers as participants in Athenian broad-based disputes. 4.1 Lysias 3 (Against Simon) The origins of the broad-based dispute described in Lysias Against Simon went back to the competition of two adult men, an unnamed Athenian and a certain Simon, for the amorous interest of a young male prostitute named Theodotos.1 Erotic disputes do not usually take pride of place in Athenian forensic orations, although we should confidently assert that they were a frequent occurrence in Athenian daily life. In this case, the contentious courtship for the interest of Theodotos eventually reached the stage of formal litigation in the form of a charge, brought by Simon and tried at the court of the Areopagos, for wounding with intent to kill. Lysias’ lively exposition allows us to follow various stages of escalation of the dispute. It all started when two well-to-do Athenian men became sexually attracted to the same boy. According to Lysias one of these men, the defendant in the lawsuit initiated by Simon, attempted to win the boy’s heart by kindness, while the other (Simon) by compulsion. But as the competition for the boy’s charms intensified, the two sides consolidated and rallied their support networks and resorted to acts of abuse and violence against each other. Thus one night, the defendant claimed, Simon and his associates barged into his house in a drunken state and entered the women’s quarters, only to be removed by force by “people who appeared on the spot” and some of Simon’s friends who felt ashamed for his actions.2 On another occasion, always according to the narrative of Lysias, Simon and perhaps some associates gathered in front of a house where the speaker was dining and provoked him to step outside. In the ensuing melee

1 2

For the professional and legal standing of Theodotos see E. Cohen 2000, 168–171. For procedural aspects of the lawsuit and strategies of argumentation adopted by the speaker in Lysias 3 see Phillips 2007, especially 83–88; Griffith-Williams 2013. Lys. 3.7, οἱ παραγενόμενοι καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλθόντες … ἐξήλασαν βίᾳ.

4.1 Lysias 3 (Against Simon)

65

Aristonikos, one of Simon’s friends, was injured by a stone thrown by Simon himself.3 In these and subsequent instances presented by the speaker, Simon clearly imposed on his opponent his preferred choice of the arena where phases of the dispute were played out. This was most likely perceived by Simon as an advantageous move, since it gave him the choice of carrying out a phase of the dispute in favorable for him circumstances, although it is presented by the defendant as ultimately resulting in the public disgrace of Simon and his supporters. Such choices of the spatial deployment of phases of the dispute were also crucial components of the ongoing information control, “a potentially infinite cycle of concealment, discovery, false revelation, and rediscovery”.4 Moreover, the speaker of Lysias 3 likely assumed the initiative on other occasions and engaged in similarly provocative and aggressive acts against Simon. The speaker, however, is silent regarding any incidents when he himself or members of the intimate core of his support network were the instigators. Even though counter-aggression was usually expected in a social setting, especially among male citizens, assuming the mantle of victimhood was by and large considered an apposite strategy in court.5 Following these scuffles, the defendant opted for the tactic of physical distancing and moved abroad, taking Theodotos with him, to let things cool off. After some time, and upon his return to Attica the speaker moved to Piraeus, while Theodotos moved in with a certain Lysimachos, whose house was near the house that Simon rented. Hearing the news, one day Simon invited some friends to join him for eating, drinking, and watching Lysimachos’ house. At some point later the same day the speaker went to Lysimachos’ house and after a short visit he came out with Theodotos.6 Simon and his friends being already drunk sprang upon them. A street brawl and chase around the streets ensued: while some of Simon’s party refused to join the action, Simon, Theophilos, Protarchos, and Autokles, the last three members of the core network of supporters of Simon, allegedly dragged the boy along. At that point Simon claimed that the speaker attacked and injured him (hence the lawsuit) but the speaker claimed that, expecting the boy to escape, he left by another street and produced witnesses “who were then present” to testify that no injury befell Simon at that moment.7 Meanwhile, Theodotos managed to run away and found refuge at a fuller’s shop owned by a certain Molon. When his pursuers followed him there Theodotos cried for help. “A crowd of people came running up” who immediately transformed themselves into active participants in the quarrel shouting out, according to the speaker, their indignation for the actions of Simon and his friends.8 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lys. 3.7–9. Goffman 1956, 8 referring to information exchange in interpersonal interaction. Information exchange and control in the context of Athenian disputes is further discussed in 4.5. Demosthenes in Against Meidias assumes a similar attitude, see 4.4. Lys. 3.11–12. Lys. 3.13–14: τοὺς παραγενομένους ὑμῖν παρέξομαι μάρτυρας. Lys. 3.15–16: συνδραμόντων δὲ ἀνθρώπων πολλῶν.

66

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

The result was another fistfight between some of the involved bystanders and Simon’s friends. Simon’s group extricated the boy and went on their way. Soon they encountered once again the speaker and yet another violent brawl took place. At that moment, according to the speaker, “those present were all supporting us, as being the injured party”.9 Some of these accidental eye witnesses appeared in court to testify in support of the speaker.10 Referring to the same incident in a different part of the speech the speaker claims that the fray was witnessed by more than two hundred people who saw that Simon suffered no injury.11 Simon, on his part, laid out a number of accusations against the defendant. It was claimed that the defendant defrauded Simon of money,12 an accusation that suggests a collateral conflict and possibly a wider horizon of animosity between the two men. Further accusations of violence and intimidation were also made, presumably in the now lost prosecution speech delivered by Simon. Hence it was alleged that on an unknown occasion the defendant physically assaulted Simon in front of his house.13 Moreover, Simon accused the defendant that on yet another occasion he and Theodotos went to Simon’s house with potsherds in hand threatening to kill him.14 Not surprisingly, the defendant in his speech dismissed all these accusations. The defendant’s version of the events is suggestive of the intricacy of social relationships and the multiplicity of existing mechanisms of pursuing conflict in fourth-century Athens. As already pointed out it is certain that, for the purposes of his oration in court, the defendant exaggerated some parts of the story or remained silent over others. What is important however, as it is usually the case with forensic oratory, is that it is highly unlikely that a speaker in an Athenian court would present a series of arguments whose conceptual and factual premises would greatly diverge from the daily life experiences and expectations of the jurors hearing the case. What is especially valuable for our purposes is how this dispute between Simon and the unknown defendant illustrates emblematic features of Athenian broad-based disputes. For instance, the narrative of Lysias’ speech for the defendant highlights the chronic and developmental nature of the dispute, with phases of intense activity and physical violence alternating with periods of regrouping and distancing (e. g. when the defendant and Theodotos left Athens, Lys. 3.10). Regarding physical violence employed as strategy in Athenian disputes, the entire speech is replete with vividly described examples, including attacks and raids in the domestic sphere.15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Lys. 3.18: καὶ τῶν παραγενομένων ὡς ἀδικουμένοις ἡμῖν ἁπάντων ἐπικουρούντων. Lys. 3.19. Lys. 3.27: καὶ ταῦτα πλεῖν ἢ διακοσίων ἰδόντων ἀνθρώπων ἔξαρνός ἐστι. Lys. 3.22–26. Lys. 3.27. Lys. 3.28–29. For physical violence and home raids, in addition to Lysias’ Against Simon (Lys. 3.6–7; 23; 29) see also e. g. Lys. 4, discussed in the ensuing section; Lys. Fr. 17 Gernet-Bizos; Dem. 21.78–79; 53.15; and

4.2 Lysias 4 (On a Wound by Premeditation)

67

The dispute between Simon and his adversary also demonstrates the crucial role of support networks. One would expect that in the course of the dispute the two rivals solicited the assistance of their closest friends and associates. The speaker describes himself as a man eager to be of service to the city,16 which should point to a man with at least some public visibility and possibly civic, including political, ambitions. One would therefore expect such a man to be able to rally a sizeable and loyal support network – indeed the defendant hinted17 at the existence of such a group which was however, the speaker implied, not activated in connection with this case, despite the fact that the speaker was on the defensive. Yet if any of the accusations for repeated machinations and physical assault that Simon leveled against the defendant came even close to reality, one could hardly imagine the speaker performing all these acts on his own along with the boy Theodotos. It is much more likely that the speaker’s support network was considerable and active throughout the course of the dispute, a fact that the speaker on the grounds of expediency attempted to overlook in his defense speech in court. On the other hand, the speaker repeatedly argued that Simon did perpetrate his outrageous acts of abuse and assault in collaboration with a group of supporters, some of whom are named in the speech. 4.2 Lysias 4 (On a Wound by Premeditation) Lysias 4 (On a Wound by Premeditation) is a partially preserved defense speech for a lawsuit that was heard before the Areopagos.18 What survives clearly adumbrates the contours of a broad-based dispute. The main disputing parties, the defendant (disputant A) and plaintiff (disputant B) had been acquainted and interacted for many years.19 If the account of A is to be believed they had a checkered relationship, periodically alternating between friendship, tolerable co-existence, and conflict. Both disputants were well-off. Sometime before the specific incident that led to the trial, disputant A was assigned a leitourgia and had challenged B for an exchange of property (antidosis) on the grounds of insufficient

16 17 18 19

Dem. 47.55–59, which describes how the speaker’s opponents stormed into his house and terrorized family members and slaves. Cf. also Aeschin. 1.58–59 for another example of an evening raid to a residence and professional space. Dem. 22.57 for alleged home raids during which furniture was carried off. And [Dem.] 59.40 for a group of men carrying off Neaira from the home of her protector/lover. Curse tablets (e. g. SGD 1 = Peek 1941, no. 3) that target members of a household (kin, slaves) might also allude to circumstances whereby a stage of a dispute was conducted in the domestic sphere. Lys. 3.9. Lys. 3.33. For a comprehensive analysis of procedural aspects and the arguments used in Lys. 4 see Spatharas 2006a; Phillips 2007, 88–91. The names of the disputants are not preserved.

68

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

means to carry out the task.20 Moreover, disputant B had numerous servants/slaves in his house,21 another indication of wealth. The two men were in hostile terms shortly before the lawsuit. This enmity is vaguely alluded as the cause of the request for an antidosis submitted by A at the expense of B. Even though the process of the property exchange had commenced, it was suspended and reversed as the two parties were reconciled by their friends (philoi) in what must have been an informal mediation by their support networks.22 It was at that time, A asserts, that the two parties resolved to share an unnamed female slave (hereafter C) who A claimed that both disputants had paid for.23 As further proof of the reconciliation A narrates how he proposed B as a judge in the choral competitions of the Dionysia. B’s willingness to vote in favor of A’s tribe was presented as additional proof of the rapprochement. Disputant A even names two individuals, Philinos and Diokles, who had seen B’s voting tablet with the name of A’s tribe. Sometime after these events, the relationship between A and B turned sour once again. The reason, argued A, was the attachment of both disputants towards C. That clearly marked a new stage in this broad-based dispute. In a typically Athenian act of self-help, following a drinking party24 A forced himself in B’s house and physically assaulted him.25 The intrusion and assault were not denied by A. What was disputed, at least as far as the trial before the Areopagos was concerned, was whether the assault was premeditated as well as the gravity of the injuries suffered by B. Disputant A claimed that, in self-defense, he inflicted only a black eye on B, while the latter claimed serious injuries and made a show of them by being carried on a stretcher (kline) around Athens shortly after the attack.26 The home invasion and brawl brought C, a person of reduced legal capacity, in the center of the dispute. A’s narrative suggests that she was physically present in B’s house when the incident under adjudication occurred, and A subsequently attempted to exploit B’s refusal to submit C for testimony through torture on the grounds (false, as A claims) that C was of free status and not a slave.27 A number of servants/slaves in B’s house were also present during the brawl and B volunteered to submit them to testimony through torture, a suggestion dismissed by A because of the attachment and partiality of the servants towards their master.28

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Lys. 4.1–2. Lys. 4.15. Lys. 4.2. Lys. 4.8. The same slave became the bone of contention between the two disputants at a later point in the dispute. Lys. 4.7–8. Lys. 4.5–8. For domestic raids see n. 15. Lys. 4.9. Lys. 4.13–14. Lys. 4.15–16.

4.3 Isaeus 6 (On the Estate of Philoktemon)

69

4.3 Isaeus 6 (On the Estate of Philoktemon) Isaeus’ On the Estate of Philoktemon is a prosecution speech delivered in 365/4 or 364/3.29 It concerns a bewildering inheritance broad-based dispute that spanned three generations. At some point or another in the course of the dispute numerous Athenians of all social and legal backgrounds, from well-off citizens to freedmen and slaves, became embroiled in it. The origins of the dispute dated back to the activities of Euktemon, father of Philoktemon. Euktemon was an Athenian from Kephisia, father of three sons and two daughters. All sons predeceased the father, the last to die being Philoktemon who fell in action in Chios, probably in the 370s.30 Before his death Philoktemon, a man of wealth who served in the cavalry and as a trierarch,31 allegedly made a will in which he adopted his nephew Chaerestratos, also a man of wealth.32 However, the will was not recognized by a court, a procedural irregularity. When Euktemon himself died at the advanced age of ninety-six Chaerestratos, since his uncle Philoktemon who had adopted him was already deceased, proceeded to claim his grandfather’s estate. The claim was challenged by Androkles, a collateral relative of Euktemon, who brought forward a declaration (diamartyria) against the claim by Chaerestratos. Androkles’ declaration was supported with a number of arguments, including the allegation that Euktemon had legitimate sons by another woman. Chaerestratos disputed that and sued Androkles and his associate Androtion for perjury. The prosecution speech written by Isaeus was delivered in court not by Chaerestratos but by a friend of the family who acted as synegoros.33 What was really at stake in this intra-familial conflict was the estate of the patriarch of the family Euktemon. And it was Euktemon’s life course that set the stage for the complexities of the broad-based dispute carried out between Chaerestratos and Androkles. Euktemon’s wealth was primarily in real properties including synoikiai (lodging houses), frequently doubling as brothels.34 Two such establishments owned by Euktemon, one in Piraeus and one in Kerameikos, are mentioned in the speech.35 Euktemon was in the habit of collecting rent and other proceeds from his synoikiai in person and while doing his rounds, and in old age, he befriended Alke, a retired prostitute of servile status from his Piraeus brothel who was managing Euktemon’s lodging-house/brothel in Kerameikos.36 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Isae. 6.14 where it is stated that the speech was delivered fifty-two years after the departure of the Sicilian expedition in the summer of 415. Isae. 6.27. Isae. 6.5. Like his uncle, Chaerestratos also served as trierarch, Isae. 6.1. His name was probably Aristomenes, see APF, 564. For synoikiai in Athenian curse tablets see 5.3 and 5.6. Isae. 6.19–20. Isae. 6.19–21. For Alke see Eidinow 2019a, 75–76.

70

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

Eventually Euktemon began an affair with Alke and moved in the synoikia in Kerameikos with her, to the chagrin of his wife and sons. After some time Euktemon was persuaded to present the eldest of Alke’s sons, allegedly the son by a freedman according to the speaker of Isaeus 6, as his own legitimate son. Euktemon’s family originally resisted but later relented in the face of a threat by the old man to marry a sister of Demokrates of Aphidna, a well-known public figure, and have children by her.37 Thus the child of Alke was admitted in Euktemon’s phratry and recognized as citizen.38 From this act, numerous legal complications and a broad-based dispute regarding the disposal of Euktemon’s estate arose between Euktemon’s legitimate descendants on one side and the sons of Alke (or by another woman named Kallippe, as Androkles would have it) and their supporters on the other. Euktemon made a will with arrangements for his newly adopted child and deposited it in the presence of witnesses.39 But then, allegedly under the influence of Alke and Androkles, he attempted to annul it and he hurriedly liquidated many of his assets.40 Alke and Androkles, always according to the speaker, put in place a number of other legal maneuvers in attempting to seize Euktemon’s estate in its entirety,41 while Euktemon was bedridden of old age. The dispute with its multiple collateral moves continued unabated after Euktemon died, first with a confrontation over the right to bury the deceased and the state of affairs in the house when Euktemon passed.42 Moreover after Euktemon’s death Androkles inscribed the two boys that the prosecution argued were the sons of Alke – the one that Euktemon had adopted and his brother – as having been adopted by Philoktemon and Ergamenes, the latter being another son of Euktemon.43 Moreover, again after Euktemon’s death, Androkles claimed for himself the right to marry one of Euktemon’s daughters who had been recently widowed, in her capacity as heiress.44 Even this detailed summary does not do full justice to the multiplicity of collateral conflicts, legal and extra-legal ruses as well as the social diversity that characterized this broad-based dispute. This dispute highlights the circumstances of how well-off and even ostensibly respected Athenians could become entangled in a dispute with sex workers and other individuals of various legal and social statuses that frequented the numerous lodging-houses/brothels of the urban landscape of Athens and Piraeus. And there can be no doubt that Isaeus’ speech preserves only a sliver of the complex

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Isae. 6.22–25. The opposition argued that the child in question was the son of Euktemon not by Alke but by a Kallippe, an Athenian citizen. See Isae. 6.13–14. Isae. 6.27–28. Isae. 6.29–34. Isae. 6.35–38. Isae. 6.38–42. According to the speaker Androkles and Alke cleared out all the furniture from the house while Euktemon was on his deathbed. Isae. 6.43–45. Isae. 6.46.

4.4 Demosthenes 21 (Against Meidias)

71

universe of interactions that transpired in the course of this dispute. Chaerestratos himself and his synegoros who delivered the speech clearly anticipated further litigation as part of the same dispute: even if the opposition lost the current case and the estate was deemed adjudicable, they expected that Androkles and his associates would bring forward a competing claim and fight another lawsuit on the same estate.45 Finally, a fourth-century Athenian inscription refers to the plaintiff of the lawsuit for which Isaeus 6 was written as Chairestratos son of Phanostratos, and not as the son of the Philoktemon which one would expect if the legality of the adoption of Chairestratos by Philoktemon was universally and legally accepted.46 If the inscription dates after the speech by Isaeus then it is likely that Chairestratos lost the lawsuit discussed here. In that contingency, it is also very likely that the dispute continued under a different guise in the courts and the social/public sphere of Athens. 4.4 Demosthenes 21 (Against Meidias) Another example of a broad-based dispute, this time involving wealthy but also publicly prominent and politically active Athenians, was the well-publicized conflict between Demosthenes and his supporters against a group of influential men, including Aphobos, Thrasylochos, and especially Meidias.47 We know almost everything regarding the interactions of these individuals through Demosthenes’ speeches. In his prosecution speech against Meidias, provoked by physical assault in 348 (Dem. 21 Against Meidias, probably written in 346) Demosthenes provides, for the benefit of the jurors, a detailed and one-sided outline of his cause célèbre with Meidias and other Athenians associated with him.48 This includes a retrospective of his interactions with Meidias, going all the way back to 364/3 when Demosthenes reached legal majority. Even though many of the details of the dispute between Demosthenes, Meidias, and their supporters are not directly substantiated by any other sources, the general pattern of

45 46 47

48

Isae. 6.52. IG II2 2825. Facets of this dispute have been extensively discussed from variant and often oppositional perspectives. See most importantly D. Cohen 1995, especially 90–119; Roisman 2003 and 2005, 75–79; Riess 2012, 131–140; Lanni 2016, 159–163. These and many other studies offer precious insights on particular aspects of the dispute and my aim is to supplement them by approaching the enmity between Demosthenes and Meidias as an example of a prominently performed, cyclical broad-based dispute. There is some uncertainty, engendered by the claim (Aeschin. 3.52; Plut. Dem. 12) that Demosthenes and Meidias settled out of court, as to whether Demosthenes’ Against Meidias speech was ever delivered in a court of law. But the fact that the speech was eventually published strongly suggests that a trial did take place. See Harris 1989. Moreover, if a compromise was reached shortly after the assault at the Dionysia of 348, the deluge of attacks by Meidias in the following months, as described by Demosthenes, would be more difficult to account for.

72

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

the dispute fits with the model of broad-based disputing detected in many other Athenian forensic orations. What differentiates the dispute of these two conspicuous Athenians was the sheer number of individuals and the intensity of interaction involved, either by a disputant’s immediate and embedded support network or by accidental or peripheral participants. The social standing, wealth, and influence of the two main disputants can certainly account for many peculiarities, including the notoriety and magnitude (in human and institutional terms) of the dispute. At the time of his father’s death Demosthenes was around eight years old, so according to the terms of his father’s will Aphobos, Therripides, and Demophon were appointed guardians and executors of the deceased’s estate.49 The three men allegedly mismanaged the estate and were capable of returning only a fraction of its original value when Demosthenes turned eighteen. As a result the latter filed a lawsuit against Aphobos, but before it came to trial Thrasylochos, a brother of Meidias, challenged Demosthenes into taking over a trierarchy assigned to him or submit to an antidosis.50 Demosthenes claimed that before he even had the opportunity to assess the challenge Thrasylochos and Meidias stormed into his paternal home and bullied the young Demosthenes, his even younger sister, their mother, and other members of their family. Thrasylochos and Meidias were allegedly aggressive and used abusive language.51 Demosthenes claimed that the request to undertake the trierarchy was a ruse by Aphobos to distract from Demosthenes’ claim of his paternal estate. But Demosthenes accepted the trierarchy and spent 20 mnai for the service. The phase of the dispute concerning Demosthenes’ inheritance and the challenge to antidosis by Thrasylochos date to 364/3.52 Following these events Demosthenes sued Meidias for slander. It is usually assumed that the slander charge was in connection with Meidias’ behavior when he stormed, alongside his brother and their associates, in Demosthenes’ paternal home.53 Demosthenes won the arbitration by default and when Meidias did not pay the fine imposed by the arbitrator Demosthenes brought a suit for ejectment which he was not able to bring to trial due to all the ruses and distractions that, as Demosthenes claimed, Meidias continuously brought up against him.54 The slander and ejectment lawsuits are usually dated to 364–362.55 This would result in an almost thirteen to fourteen year gap between the legal conflicts in the 360s and the resumption of hostilities in the early 340s. Although not impossible, this is a very long time for an old enmity to be rekindled with such passion and violence without 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

For these early events see primarily Dem. 27, 28 and 29. Dem. 21.77–80. Dem. 21.79. Dem. 28.17. Cf. Harris 2008, 20–22 and 75–76. McDowell 1990, 3. Dem. 21.81. See MacDowell 1990, 3–4 for a more detailed narrative of these events with legal commentary. MacDowell 1990, 4; Harris 2005, 138.

4.4 Demosthenes 21 (Against Meidias)

73

any other conflicts in the intervening time. It is more likely that there were additional conflicts – including instances of conflict that did not result in formal litigation – between the two men and their support networks between 362 and 348 that, for whatever reason, Demosthenes chose to omit in his Against Meidias oration.56 Be that as it may, from 348 to 347/6 Demosthenes and Meidias performed a barrage of attacks, accusations, and intimidations against each other. Demosthenes had undertaken the choregia for the men’s dithyrambic chorus of his tribe for the Dionysia of 348. According to Demosthenes, before the festival Meidias attempted to sabotage his chorus in numerous ways. Among others, Meidias was accused of breaking into the house of a goldsmith with the intention of destroying the golden crowns and costumes that were destined to be used by the chorus on the day of the performance (21.16); of bribing the instructor to undermine the training of the chorus as well as the archon who supervised the conduct of the festival (21.17); and last but not least, of punching Demosthenes on the day of the performance, in the theater and in full view of hundreds of Athenians (21.18).57 Demosthenes retorted with a formal accusation of offending the festival, through a probole procedure in the Athenian assembly. Even though the assembly condemned Meidias, no penalty was imposed but Demosthenes could at least claim the moral high ground, with the assent of his fellow citizens. That seemed to have been satisfactory for Demosthenes, who initially refrained from prosecuting the assault incident. The next cycle of confrontation between the two disputants is more difficult to date, but in all probability these series of events occurred a few months after the Dionysia in the spring of 348 and the subsequent condemnation of Meidias by the popular assembly. So in the summer and fall following these events (348/7) Meidias resumed the initiative, first by promoting, through his agent Euktemon, a charge of desertion against Demosthenes (21.103) and secondly by attempting to implicate him in the homicide of Nikodemos of Aphidna (21.104).58 Neither of these accusations stuck, so Meidias continued by attacking Demosthenes in a speech, presumably in the assembly (21.110) and then, in the summer of 347, during Demosthenes’ dokimasia (vetting) for the council of 500 (21.111). The latter attempt by Meidias certainly failed, since we know that Demosthenes served in the Athenian boule in 347/6. It is revealing for the manner that disputes were perceived in fourth-century Athens that, following the Meidias’ assault in the Dionysia in 348, Demosthenes depicted himself as a model of self-restraint. Not only he did not hit back when punched but fol-

56

57 58

According to a passage (Dem. 21.82) summarizing the testimony of Demosthenes’ witnesses the slander case was decided eight years before the delivery (possibly in 347/6) of the Against Meidias speech, hence around 354/3. However, the language in the passage in question suggests that it is almost certainly a later interpolation. For some conjectures regarding the specific reason for Meidias’ assault see MacDowell 1990, 8. For the assassination of Nikodemos, see Dreyer 2000; Riess 2008, 84–86.

74

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

lowing the favorable for him verdict in the probole procedure he did not reciprocate, he would have his audience believe, to any of the accusations and nuisances that Meidias threw his way. At the end Demosthenes argues that, after he had endured patiently a succession of provocations by Meidias since the spring of 348, he brought the matter of the assault during the Dionysia of that year to court, probably in 347/6. Demosthenes certainly wanted to portray himself as a man capable of pushing back adequately yet as not overlitigious, a fine line indeed in fourth-century Athens, especially for affluent and well-positioned men. In reality, it seems more likely that Demosthenes responded to the rapid succession of challenges by Meidias with countermoves of his own. Much of that was certainly known to his audience, and Meidias’ defense speech would have revealed more details. The one-sided depiction by Demosthenes of the progression of the conflict was another exercise in skillful information management and dissemination in the context of a cyclical broad-based dispute. 4.5 Broad-based Disputes in Forensic Oratory: Information Control and Public Reception The preceding outline of select Athenian broad-based disputes aimed at highlighting central features of this prevalent mode of disputing behavior. In the case of the narrative in Lysias 4, for instance, we are confronted with a dispute that was processual and cyclical that went through different phases of enmity and reconciliation that, on the face of it, lasted several years. Much of the interpersonal relationship between disputants A and B was conducted in the public sphere or, in the case of acts that were carried out in domestic quarters, were witnessed by several people. These incidents illustrate the process of expanding a disputant’s support network by recruiting individuals with whom one had a persisting relationship, in this instance because of co-residence. On the grounds of being present when a domestic raid in B’s house took place, the slaves attached to that household were immediately perceived by both sides of the dispute as integral parts of the core support network of disputant B. As a result, B eagerly offered his slaves as potential witnesses, but A turned down that prospect because of the slaves’ attachment to B. Even though these slaves were accidental witnesses (or, put in another way, the dispute encroached on their lives), their position in the household of B automatically made them, in the eyes of A and the Athenian public, core supporters of B and therefore partisan.59 The behavior of the disputants following the domestic invasion and physical attack against B is also symptomatic of Athenian agential behavior in attempting to control

59

Popular beliefs on the nature and reliability of slaves certainly played a role in the depiction of B’s slaves as devoid of individual agency, a view echoed in numerous other Athenian texts.

4.5 Broad-based Disputes in Forensic Oratory: Information Control and Public Reception

75

and manipulate the flow of information – and indirectly public opinion – in the context of broad-based disputes.60 In a society where interpersonal interaction was key, information filtering and control could be effectively executed through reported speech, a communicative technique of great dramaturgical capabilities. Reported speech, as well as other speech patterns, were in Athens powerful mediums of individual agency, information control, and discursive negotiation. In the context of Athenian disputes, broadcasting the story in court was a salient act of reported speech. Indeed Athenian courts, with their informal emphasis on extra-statutory norms and character portrayal, were especially receptive and conducive to such methods of information control.61 Another modified form of reported speech consisted in broadcasting parts of a story, including arguments and narratives of a dispute, in the public sphere in an inchoate or impromptu manner and beyond the normative confines of the courts. These were usually highly performative practices often accompanied, as demonstrated by some of the instances of disputes outlined above, by violence or other acts of physical action – e. g. disputants playing out a stage of their dispute in public, or a disputant and his supporters relaying their version of a dispute. Such practices could have been expedient especially on the eve of a trial. An example of the latter concerns Demosthenes, who allegedly acted as logographer of Timarchos in the lawsuit brought in by Aeschines. According to Aeschines, in the days before the trial Demosthenes went up and down the agora expounding the main line of defense of Timarchos and denigrating the alleged arguments of the prosecution.62 Moreover, the same speaker claimed in his prosecution speech against Ktesiphon that the opposition had been canvassing about the upcoming trial in the agora, in an apparent attempt to influence public opinion.63 Demosthenes in Against Timokrates portrayed a similar strategy when he claimed that a group of trierarchs and public figures, accused of illegally seizing the cargo of a ship in Egypt, paid newsmongers (logopoious) to spread their side of the story in the agora.64 Finally, the so-called letter of Pasion, a fourth-century note written on a metal tablet, also provides insights on the dialogical process of articulating and disseminating arguments and strategies deployed in disputes. In this instance Pasion, the author of the

60

61

62 63 64

Attempts to influence public opinion on the eve of trials are documented especially in connection with high-profile cases, e. g. Aeschin. 3.1. New Comedy and other texts also suggest that manipulative behavior was typical of Athenian disputants, especially in pre-trial interactions. See Scafuro 1997, chapter 2. By “extra-statutory” and “extra-legal” I refer throughout this book to arguments and strategies that occurred or derived from contexts outside the strict confines of the formal legal system (arbitrators, lawcourts, etc.) of Classical Athens. Once such extra-statutory norms and arguments were adopted by a litigant, they were integrated into wider Athenian legalities, and assumed a quasi-legal character and role. For this point see also Johnstone 1999; Lanni 2016; and the discussion in 6.4. Aeschin. 1.94 and 119 for Demosthenes as the logographer. Aeschin. 3.1. Dem. 24.15–16.

76

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

letter, instructed a friend or associate to punish and prosecute certain men named in the letter that, Pasion alleged, were wronging and plotting against him.65 Besides speech and written discourse, other performative acts also had powerful communicative value. In the case of the dispute in Lysias 4, one can argue that ultimately by engaging in the act of being carried around the city in a stretcher B’s intention was clearly to raise awareness of A’s aggressive demeanor and the injuries he suffered in A’s hands, at the hope of stoking public empathy for the upcoming lawsuit and future stages of the dispute.66 Again, there are other parallels for such behavior in the Athenian annals of dispute management. For instance, a similar strategy was employed by Archippos in his dispute with Teisis, details of which are preserved in a fragmentary speech by Lysias.67 At some point in the course of this dispute Archippos was whipped and falsely imprisoned by Teisis. When he was released, his brothers carried him on a stretcher (kline) in the market, where his injuries were publicly displayed to congregated traders and outraged passersby. The immediate concern was to elicit sympathy and even recruit some supporters or witnesses. In the long run, Archippos and his brothers wished to recalibrate the public’s perception of the dispute. Moreover, the recreation of this imagery in court engendered a compelling visual discourse that aimed at turning the dikastai as quasi-witnesses and manipulate their emotive state.68 Correlatively, in Demosthenes 54 the defendant Ariston narrates in detail the assault he endured in public and the humiliating bodily state with multiple injuries, witnessed by many passersby and other Athenians, that he found himself in after the attack.69 Such acts, which besides streamlining information of a dispute also meant to gauge public opinion, were usually combined with accentuated affective states and other embodied cultural practices (e. g. intonation, body language, laughter, crying etc.) that increased the intersubjectivity of the performance. Moreover, demonstrations of physical incapacity, as a result of assault or other forms of physical violence, in a publicly striking manner were also meant to partly counteract the ideology of machismo and physical bravado that Athenians often exhibited in the course of disputes. To be physically abused – even treated as a slave, as in the case of Archippos – was at some level humiliating. By exhibiting the signs of this humiliation in public, victims of physical attacks rerouted public perceptions of their dispute, adjusted expectations regarding forthcoming moves, and attempted to influence and alter those of their opponent. Forensic oratory also provides valuable insights and details on other individual and collective operational modes, including the behavior patterns of disputants, in Athenian broad-based disputes. In connection with the genesis and development of

65 66 67 68 69

See Jordan 2003 with the comments by Sosin 2008. See also Spatharas 2008 for the objectives of displaying in public injuries emanating from assault. Lys. Fr. 17 Gernet-Bizos. See Todd 2000, 347–351; Spatharas 2006b. For such strategies in Athenian courts see O’Connell 2017. See the discussion by Riess 2012, 59–60.

4.5 Broad-based Disputes in Forensic Oratory: Information Control and Public Reception

77

a broad-based dispute, two features of the narrative in Lysias 3 stand out. The first is the process of spreading the dispute out in space, when stages of interpersonal conflict between Simon and the speaker were performed in public. Secondly, and related to the spatial broadening of the dispute and its performance in the Athenian civic space, are the circumstances whereby a dispute could come to encompass multiple Athenians, who were for the most part virtual strangers to the two main disputants, as accidental or peripheral participants. Similar to the broad-based dispute described in Lysias 3, a large number of Athenians also engaged, intimately or peripherally, with various stages of the dispute between Demosthenes and Meidias. Because much of this dispute was conducted in or through civic institutions (courts, assembly, boule) many of the accidental participants in this case were active agents in these civic bodies whose venues dominated the Athenian civic center. Given the social and economic standing of the disputants, wealthy Athenians also figure prominently in the narrative of the dispute as provided by Demosthenes. Many more, to be sure, witnessed episodes of the public performance of the dispute but for the most part they remain anonymous in Against Meidias, and are only indirectly evoked. At any event, some of these accidental participants eventually became so closely intertwined, frequently unwillingly, with a stage of the dispute, that were called upon to act as witnesses for one of the disputants or had their involvement presented as an exemplum of the sinister behavior of a disputant’s opponent. Such a person that was accidentally caught in the crossfire between Demosthenes and Meidias was Straton. Straton was an Athenian apragmon – a man inexperienced and disinterested in legal and public affairs – who was appointed as public arbitrator to adjudicate Deimosthenes’ charge of slander against Meidias in connection with the latter’s involvement in the events of the dispute dated to 364/3. Straton had apparently delivered a verdict against Meidias by default, but then Meidias managed to get his revenge on him by striking him off the roll of arbitrators and by disenfranchising him.70 Because of his demoted legal status Straton could not directly testify in court but Demosthenes nevertheless paraded him in front of the jurors as exemplifying the depravity and cruelty of Meidias’ character.71 In addition to Straton, hundreds of other Athenians of all backgrounds and legal statuses had a connection with some stage or another of this high-profile dispute. For instance, the serving archons were implicated in Meidias’ initial efforts to rescind Straton’s verdict (Dem. 21.85–86). The council of 500 was at some point the stage of the attempt to pin the assassination of Nikodemos to Demosthenes or his friends – according to the orator, the members of the council were subjected to the intimidating practices of Meidias while in session (21.116–117). Demosthenes also recruited Athe-

70 71

Dem. 21.83–88. Dem. 21.95–96.

78

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

nians who participated in the naval campaign in Euboea in 358/7, in which Meidias served as trierarch, as witnesses for Meidias’ selfish and rapacious behavior during the expedition.72 These witnesses must have participated in that campaign, perhaps as trierarchs or members of the crew of warships. Counting rich men of influence and with an extensive liturgical record among one’s supporters was greatly valued in a course of a dispute between elites, and Meidias certainly had his share of such supporters. Philippides of Paiania, Mnesarchides and Diotimos of Euonymon, all three wealthy Athenians with a record of trierarchies and other liturgies, were eager to serve as witnesses for Meidias.73 Furthermore, as many stages of their dispute played out  – literally spread out in space and performed – in public, thousands of others accidentally witnessed at some point or another some episode of the Deimosthenes versus Meidias dispute. Both disputants could attempt to draw many of these accidental witnesses to the inner core of the dispute, either by soliciting their testimony or by evoking the alleged perspicacity and fairness of eyewitnesses and of Athenians in general. Such arguments, whenever made, assumed an illusory coherence and consistency of the composition and behavior of the Athenian public. An example of the latter practice concerns the popular assembly that voted in favor of Demosthenes during the probole hearing in 348. Following the hearing Meidias ostensibly demurred the verdict on the grounds that the popular assembly on that day was not representative of the Athenian demos. In his prosecution speech Deimosthenes turned Meidias’ assertions on their head and endeavored to tarnish his archenemy’s reputation by suggesting that all this was another token of Meidias’ arrogance, impertinence, and elitism towards the popular assembly.74 The Athenian assembly was then discursively equated to the jury, and the jurors were asked to take into consideration Meidias’ attitude as if they were themselves eyewitnesses of the probole hearing several months ago.75 In this way the jurors were manipulated by Deimosthenes to feel personally and directly involved in his broad-based dispute with Meidias. The Demosthenes versus Meidias dispute also provides another reminder of the critical importance of public visibility for the development of a dispute, especially one that pitted notable and well-resourced disputants. Demosthenes repeatedly and realistically claimed in Against Meidias that details of his dispute with Meidias were well known among Athenians. Referring to the antidosis challenge of Thrasylochos in 364/3 and the events that followed Demosthenes argued that “all this happened a long time ago, though I expect some of you remember it, for the entire city had heard of the

72 73 74 75

Dem. 21.167; see the commentary by McDowell 1990, 385–386. Dem. 21.208. Dem. 21.193–201. A similar strategy of selectively and deliberately conflating the popular assembly and the jury of a trial is adopted in Aeschin. 1.80–85. See Fisher 2001, 215–216.

4.5 Broad-based Disputes in Forensic Oratory: Information Control and Public Reception

79

challenge, and their plot and their bullying”.76 In parts of the speech Demosthenes also describes how Athenians who were not involved in the dispute approached him and goaded him to prosecute Meidias.77 In this manner Demosthenes partly endeavored to excuse the time lag between the assault of Meidias and the prosecution, but at the same time such strong assertions in front of a people’s jury must reflect some degree of interest by the Athenian public for this long-standing dispute. Overall, the public interest for disputes, especially for the lives and conflicts of well-known Athenians, as well as the appeal of the courts as a source of exchange of partisan narratives and other tales, were factors that recalibrated the dynamic of broad-based disputes involving prominent disputants. In such conditions, both sides in a dispute would have had to take measures to appear that they did not overstep public mores while maintaining strong support networks. Public interest in disputes of prominent Athenians, especially by members of lower legal and social statuses, hinged on the nature and composition of the Athenian public sphere. As the episode involving the alleged binding curse in the trial of Thucydides, discussed in chapter 2, demonstrates, in Classical Athens the content of high-profile legal and assembly proceedings were quickly shared in the Athenian public sphere, especially in all the discursive, communal spaces (e. g. agora, civic festivals). That was because the dominant institutional and social framework in democratic Athens encouraged the active engagement of male citizens in the sphere of governance, combined with a daily life that presupposed, and was largely dependent on, continuous interpersonal interaction of all (irrespective of legal status) Athenian residents – otherwise put, structure produced agency (practically translated as intentions and action) and agency informed/reproduced structure.78 The conditions of continuous and often unrestricted interaction of all residents of Attica as well as the concomitant blurring of identities (e. g. between persons of different legal statuses) that at times occurred as a result of that interaction were fundamental in the dissemination and negotiation of information regarding broad-based disputes.79 The domestic sphere was also fertile ground for the dissemination of news regarding civic matters, disputes, and litigation. In Against Neaira Apollodoros reconstructs a plausible for the jurors scenario of how these same jurors might be discussing in the aftermath of the trial the details of

76 77 78

79

Dem. 21.80: καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ μὲν παλαιά, ὅμως δέ τινας μνημονεύειν ὑμῶν οἴομαι: ὅλη γὰρ ἡ πόλις τὴν ἀντίδοσιν καὶ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν τότε ταύτην καὶ τὴν ἀσέλγειαν ᾔσθετο. Dem. 21.2; 216 and 226. This is not to say that I perceive agency and structure as antinomies – on the contrary, as I try to expound throughout the book, in the case of Classical Athens the two were in a dialectical relationship and hence constitutive of each other in a perceptible and reflexive duality. This point is further elaborated in chapter 6. For interaction of individuals of diverse backgrounds in Classical Athens see E. Cohen 2000; Vlassopoulos 2007; Gottesman 2014; Matuszweski 2019.

80

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

a broad-based dispute as well as the trial verdict with their families.80 Once narratives about disputes as well as other aspects of public life circulated in the Athenian public and domestic spheres, they were subjected to a process of continuous re-negotiation and elaboration, and often distortion. This process was essential in shaping communal perceptions of social relationships, pressing political issues as well as other matters that had somehow achieved notoriety in the Athenian community. The intense interest of Athenians for disputes and legal conflicts was most visibly demonstrated by the numbers of spectators (περιεστηκότες) attending a trial. The performative aspects of Athenian litigation partly accounts for the appeal that formal legal proceedings held for the large numbers of spectators who often thronged Athenian courts.81 In the well-publicized trial of 343 against Aeschines regarding an Athenian embassy to Macedonia, the defendant could claim that almost the whole city was in attendance in court.82 Furthermore, and if we are to believe speakers in the Athenian courts, the wider public, in addition to exhibiting an intense and consistent interest in the content of high-profile disputes and legal battles, was also able to grasp the longterm ramifications of these conflicts for the fortunes of the city.83 This principle is summarily articulated by the speaker of Against Demosthenes, attributed to Dinarchos, when he claimed that “in the case of the average defendant no one knows or troubles to inquire, when he is convicted, what has been his sentence. But with men of note everyone hears the news and praises the jury, when they have not sacrificed the interests of justice in deference to the reputation of the defendants”.84 Women as well as children and other groups, some of non-citizen statuses (e. g. foreign visitors) regularly attended the proceedings of Athenian trials. By the second half of the fourth century the practice was so widespread and accepted, even though technically outside procedural guidelines, that it could be depicted as a regular occurrence in a trial heard by a popular jury. So at the peroration of a speech in defense of Euxenippos the speaker asked the defendant to seek the jury’s permission to sum-

80 81

82 83 84

[Dem.] 59.110–111. E. g. Antiph. 6.24. This passage from Antiphon’s On the Choreutes is a prime example of an Athenian litigant engaging in a dialogue with the jurors of a trial regarding the witnessing of a former trial in the course of the same broad-based dispute. In such instances, as in the case of identifying the body of jurors with the entire civic body, litigants engaged in a common, for Athenian standards, intellectual leap and assumed (and thus implicitly requesting from their audience also to assume) extensive and shared knowledge of the details of a dispute by a wide group of Athenian citizens and residents. For spectators in Athenian courts see also 6.4. Aeschin. 2.5. The habitual attendance of trials by casual spectators was intertwined with the high-level agential behavior, discussed in more detail in chapter 6, that Athenians normally exhibited in the course of disputes and civic life. Din. 1.27: τοὺς μὲν γὰρ τυχόντας τῶν κρινομένων, ὅταν ἁλῶσιν, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν οὐδὲ ζητεῖ πυθέσθαι τί πεπόνθασι: τοὺς δ᾽ ἐνδόξους πάντες πυνθάνονται, καὶ τοὺς δικάζοντας ἐπαινοῦσιν, ὅταν τὸ δίκαιον μὴ προῶνται ταῖς τῶν κρινομένων δόξαις.

4.5 Broad-based Disputes in Forensic Oratory: Information Control and Public Reception

81

mon his friends and bring his children to the speaker’s platform.85 In addition to the members of the audience intimately connected to a litigant, the well-publicized trials attracted variegated crowds of curious onlookers who had at face value no direct link to the dispute and the trial. Hence Aeschines, in his prosecution speech against Timarchos, points out the presence of young men of unspecified age (νεωτέρων – they could have been below or above the age of majority), elders as well as citizens of other states among the audience.86 The presence of family members, close supporters as well as other interested individuals – irrespective of whether they were directly related to the dispute  – enhanced the performative aspects of litigation and in many respects encouraged the employment of well-crafted court narratives (e. g. favoring cultural and other extra-legal matters over technical statutory points) and contributed to the prolongation of disputes by their protagonists. On their part spectators of trials, as actors in a drama, often attempted to influence their outcomes through emotional outbursts, heckling, and other peer pressure techniques directed at litigants and jurors.87 In such a context, Athenian litigants asserted that details of high-profile disputes, at times even decades old, infiltrated public discourse. Thus in a defense speech delivered in the early 410s Euxitheos, a Mytilenean tried in Athens, refers to past miscarriages of justice in Athenian courts or cases where the culprit remained undetected.88 In one such high-profile case (Antiph. 5.69–71) the Athenian hellenotamiai were wrongfully accused of embezzlement and then executed, only to be posthumously exonerated. This infamous case, the speaker maintained, was still remembered by older members of the audience while the young had also heard of it. Similarly, in the case of a forensic speech delivered in the mid 350s, the speaker refers to an old dispute between Eupolis and his nephew Apollodoros who were involved in a broad-based dispute related to property and inheritance.89 The speaker invited older members of the audience (πρεσβύτεροι) to reminisce aspects of the old but still ongoing dispute by emphasizing the magnitude and frequency of the legal battles between the two men as well as the notoriety (ἐπιφάνειαν) and interest that their dispute had generated in the Athenian public sphere.90 The inclusion of this argument once again suggests an expectation on the part of the speaker that Athenians would have had a genuine interest in the disputes of others, especially of the rich and famous. And one can imagine how disputes involving prominent Athenian figures, such as Thucydides the political leader in the 85 86 87 88 89 90

Hyp. 4.41. Aeschin. 1.117. Cf. also Aeschin. 3.56 where it is claimed that a large number of Athenian and visiting onlookers were attending the trial; and Hyp. Against Diondas 17, edition Horváth 2015, in which the speaker asserts that many Thebans were in attendance in court. For using children in court to gain sympathy see Hyp. 2, fr. 15b.9; Aeschin. 2.179. For emotional outbursts in Athenian courts see 6.2. Antiph. 5.67–71. Isae. 7. Isae. 7.13.

82

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

fifth century or the dispute between Demosthenes and Meidias in the fourth, would have generated even more public interest than the dispute between Eupolis and Apollodoros. Indeed, in many respects disputes and lawcourt dramas, as well as other public rituals of status performance, were a form of popular pastime in Classical Athens. Public settings that hosted performances of antagonism were cultural spaces of leisure and entertainment, especially in the shape of formal litigation in the popular courts.91 Similarly, disputes between lesser known individuals often elicited considerable short-term interest from Athenians, especially concerning episodes of conflict carried out in public. However, such disputes were less likely to sustain a long-term interest and engagement of the Athenian public. In the case of the episodes of the broad-based dispute described in Lysias 3, the involvement of persons who were not directly related to the litigants and their families was spontaneous and massive. The speaker claims that during the melee at Molon’s fuller shop a crowd of bystanders appeared at the scene and took sides in the dispute, expressing their indignation at the actions of Simon and his friends while physically trying to protect Theodotos (Lys. 3.16). A little later, when Simon and his group met up with the speaker outside Lampon’s house again a crowd of bystanders, that might have included some individuals who were previously present at the fuller’s shop, supported the speaker and Theodotos as being the wronged parties (Lys. 3.18).92 This was a case of a quarrel that spilled out on the public sphere and transformed itself into a veritable public spectacle. Perhaps more noteworthy in this instance was the eagerness of accidental witnesses and passersby, who stumbled upon a stage of a dispute between two unrelated to them men, to refrain from being passive observers. Instead, they exercised their agency by abandoning the business they were conducting at that moment and became active, albeit temporary, participants in the dispute.93 This behavior is well documented for Classical Athens, where the expectation that accidental witnesses would be interested and engaged in public performances of conflict prevailed.94 So when Pittalakos exposed his injured body, the result of an alleged raid by Hegesandros and Timarchos, in the Athenian agora, a crowd of curious passersby “as always happens” on similar incidents came running up.95 Even disputes that 91 92 93

94 95

For disputes and litigation as cultural spaces of leisure and entertainment see Lanni 2016, 155. Disputants that perceived themselves as victims of an attack actively called out for the assistance of bystanders, e. g. Men. Sam. 573–582. For a discussion of the evidence regarding the involvement of bystanders and other Athenians in disputes see Humphreys 1985, 330–333; Hunter 1994, especially 120–151; Fisher 1998, especially 88–89 and 1999; Sternberg 2006, 76–103, who emphasizes group dynamics in determining the mode of bystander intervention; Spatharas 2008. For bystanders and publicity in Athenian acts of violence see Riess 2012, 51–65. See e. g. Antiph. 2.1.9. Aeschin. 1.60: ὄχλου δὲ συνδραμόντος, οἷον εἴωθε γίγνεσθαι. Part of the emphasis of this passage is on the habitual curiosity of Athenians as well as their eagerness and readiness to engage publicly with other people’s disputes.

4.5 Broad-based Disputes in Forensic Oratory: Information Control and Public Reception

83

lacked sensational public performances of physical violence could trigger the interest and interference of Athenian passersby. An illuminating example concerns the dispute between Athenogenes, an Egyptian resident in Athens and active in the perfume business versus an Athenian, probably called Epikrates.96 In the course of that dispute Epikrates and his core network of supporters confronted Athenogenes in the Athenian agora, in the perfume stalls, regarding the contents of a contract that had been signed between the two protagonists of the dispute. As Epikrates and his supporters maintained, in the process of finalizing the contract Athenogenes insidiously concealed the range of debts attached to the perfume shop that Epikrates was buying. While this scene was ongoing, a crowd of bystanders gathered, overheard the argument, and actively expressed their views on the issue under dispute.97 During public demonstrations of interpersonal conflict, often engaged bystanders did not merely cheer for either side of the dispute but at times also attempted to rhetorically or physically mediate an ongoing quarrel or even acts of physical violence by seeking to achieve an unofficial and extempore denouement to the stage of the quarrel that was playing out before their eyes. Moreover, it was anticipated that upstanding and judicious citizens who happened to stumble upon a public quarrel would act as a safety net for the mistreated (e. g. Dem. 54.25). In the case of the dispute over Theodotos in Lysias 3, an attempt for temporary mediation/settlement by bystander intervention occurred when numerous passersby or other accidentally involved persons removed by force Simon and his supporters from the speaker’s house (Lys. 3.6–7), as well as when a different group of people were physically assaulted in their effort to extricate Theodotos from Simon’s associates (Lys. 3.16–17). Another example is provided in [Dem.] 53.17 when Apollodoros claims that passersby stepped in and saved him from an attempt on his life by Nikostratos. Voluntary intervention did not end the civic duty of an accidental witness. Such witnesses to acts of violence or other aspects of a dispute were expected to make themselves available for testimony if the need arose. Hence in On the Estate of Phyrros Isaeus (3.19) maintains that, as a matter of course, accidental witnesses were expected to testify regarding the events they witnessed. The eagerness with which bystanders in Classical Athens involved themselves in the frays of others, as well as other acts of allegedly unprovoked and altruistic intervention, have been attributed to civic ideology and communal expectations of social responsibility that dictated engagement in support of the weak and the unjustly treated.98 This view, however, might be overemphasizing the civic altruism of Athenians. There is no denying that, once involved in disputes of others, accidental participants might have

96 97 98

Hyp. 3. Hyp. 3.12: πολλῶν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων συλλεγομένων καὶ ἐπακουόντων τοῦ πράγματος, διὰ τὸ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τοὺς λόγους γίγνεσθαι, καὶ κατατεμνόντων αὐτόν, κελευόντων τε ἀπάγειν ὡς ἀνδραποδιστήν, τοῦτο μὲν οὐκ ᾠόμεθα δεῖν ποιεῖν. Hunter 1994, 120–151; Tzanetou 2005; Sternberg 2006, 93.

84

4 Broad-based Disputes in Action

incurred some long-term legal obligations, e. g. to appear as witnesses in formal proceedings. Yet regarding the documented acts of spontaneous involvement in disputes more mundane, and perhaps even egoistic, considerations related to the cognitive and psychological disposition of passersby and other accidental participants in disputes might have also played a role.99 4.6 Conclusion The preceding discussion highlights practices, strategies, and behaviors pursued by Athenians in the context of chronic broad-based disputes. The chapter began with an analysis of four case studies of such disputes. Assault, control of an estate, competition for the amorous attention of a person, and many other reasons could be the spark for such disputes. Alternatively, such incidents or causes could serve as a pretext to rekindle an ongoing dispute. The fact that interpersonal enmities and disputes often metamorphosed over the years and assumed diverse focal points of conflict also comes across clearly in the case studies examined. Litigation was one of the many strategies at times adopted by disputants, and the performance in court was an effective means to communicate objectives, negotiate with the opposition, and shape public opinion. The discursive elements of litigation, including the delivery of prosecution or defense orations, were supplemented by the presence of members of a litigant’s support network in court. These interested, even biased, bystanders could also affect the course of litigation by emotive displays, pressure towards the jurors and other members of the audience, and other means. While litigation was usually only a part of a dispute, forensic orations are among the few available sources for dispute practices outside the courts. Forensic orations are notoriously lopsided, but nevertheless evidence of numerous commonplace extra-legal dispute practices does emerge. For instance, the use of reported speech and dramatic performativity often employed in the courts was also in operation in conveying, manipulating or negotiating information and objectives of a dispute in the wider public (e. g. agora, civic institutions) and domestic spheres. Moreover, disputants had to take into consideration an innate interest, and at times even fascination, of the Athenian body politic with the disputes of others, especially of the rich and famous. This proclivity was manifested in the circulation, at times for decades, of details and news re-

99

For instance, the attested frequency of intervention in the disputes of unknown persons by passersby might point to a perception of spectating or marginally participating in disputes and conflicts of others as a temporary diversion from everyday chores, in the form of an impromptu interactive public spectacle. As already pointed out (4.5 and n. 91) the same perception of conflict as a diversion opportunity for many peripheral participants partly underlaid spectator and other popular interest in formal manifestations of disputes, e. g. legal proceedings.

4.6 Conclusion

85

garding specific disputes and litigation as well as in the eagerness of most Athenians to actively engage in a phase of a dispute of unknown persons if they chanced upon it. Many of these Athenian practices and attitudes towards disputes can also greatly assist in assessing binding curses, the focus of the next chapter.

Chapter 5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes In the present chapter we turn to curse tablets as integral conduits and catalysts of conflict behavior in Classical Athens. Many aspects of the wider magic belief system as well as the process and method of commissioning and producing curse tablets, as expounded in chapter 2, certainly contributed to shaping the contents of binding curses in Classical Athens. Moreover, and because curse tablets were inseparably intertwined with ongoing disputes, the peculiarities of Athenian dispute practices, as discussed in chapters 3 and 4, should also be taken into consideration in any analysis of Athenian binding curses. With this background in mind, the objective of the present chapter is to provide a thorough reading of extant Athenian binding curses from the Classical and early Hellenistic periods, especially, but not limited to, the so-called legal binding curses. By and large curse tablets reflect the dominant modes of disputing behavior, including broad-based disputes, identified in the forensic orations and other literary genres. But given the unique circumstances of their production, they also provide alternative perspectives as well as a wealth of details that allow us to reconstruct more confidently the microcosm of Athenian conflicts. The chapter begins with a case study of a broad-based dispute involving Athenian trierarchs as it can be reconstructed through a curse tablet. It continues with sections on diverse facets of Athenian disputing behavior as documented by a range of curse tablets. A section is dedicated to what appear to be disputes between elite or middling-/working-class Athenians as the main disputants (disputes types 2 and 3 respectively, Table 1, p. 52) as reflected in curse tablets; followed by a section on familial and spatial affiliations in connection with Athenian disputes, again as documented in curse tablets; then a section on SGD 48 (= Jordan and Curbera 2008), a curse tablet that highlights the intermingling of social classes and legal statuses in the context of an Athenian dispute; and a section on women in Athenian curse tablets and disputes. The chapter concludes with a section that examines aspects of the organic intertwining of binding cursing and formal litigation as articulated in Athenian curse tablets.

5.1 A Dispute Involving Trierarchs – SLCTA no. 4

87

5.1 A Dispute Involving Trierarchs – SLCTA no. 41 SLCTA no. 4 is an Athenian curse tablet that was discovered in Piraeus and was first published by R. Wünsch in his 1897 edition of Attic curse tablets.2 A. Wilhelm (1904) recognized the names of a group of trierarchs among the targets of the tablet and suggested that the curse was motivated by a lawsuit of 323/2 or shortly thereafter involving naval officials. Given the combination of names, known by other sources, to be connected to Athenian naval affairs, Wilhelm’s is still the most plausible interpretation and one that is widely accepted by scholars.3 The latest critical edition (SLCTA no. 4) provides more clarity on prosopographical matters and allows us to locate the curse and the broad-based dispute that generated it more precisely in its historical and social context. Moreover, the tablet provides additional insights on disputing behaviors of wealthy Athenians. The extant part of the tablet targets a total of 25 individuals. The bulk of the individuals targeted appear to have served as trierarchs, syntrierarchs or in other offices associated with the Athenian navy. And in one case, a target can be tentatively identified with the proponent of a civic decree related to the navy. The dispute that generated the curse under consideration was about to reach the phase of formal litigation. The front man of the impending lawsuit was Demokrates.4 He was most likely the treasurer of the trireme builders (ταμίας τριηροποιικῶν) in 323/2.5 Among the other individuals targeted several are mentioned in the supervisors’ accounts, primarily in connection with financial obligations or receipt of payments. Thus Κινείας (l. 6) is probably Κινέας Λαμπτρεύς, trierarch in 323/2 who paid various amounts for repairs and equipment replacement for the trireme Stilbouse.6 Ὀλυμπιόδωρος (l. 5), Καλλένικος (l. 6) and Μνησίμαχος (l. 11) can be identified with Ὀλυμπιόδωρος Πειραιεύς, Καλλένικος and Μνησίμαχος who served as syntrierarchs in 323/2.7 All three are mentioned in the same inscription in connection with the state of the equipment of their triremes.8 For Φιλοκλῆς (l. 7) there are three possibilities: a) Φιλοκλῆς Ἐροιάδου, a trierarch in 323/2

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

I have also discussed SLCTA no. 4 in Papakonstantinou 2018a. DTA 103. E. g. Eidinow 2007a, 305; Riess 2012, 176. SLCTA no. 4, A, 10–11: τὸν περὶ τὴς δίκη[ς] δικαζ[ό]μενον. Dreher’s (2018b, 299) discussion of alternative syntactical possibilities in interpreting this part of the tablet are partly based on a conjectural emendation of the participle δικαζ[ό]μενον in A.11 in the genitive plural as well as on some discarded readings by Wünsch in A.2–3, all of which are ruled out by the text in the tablet. See Wilhelm 1904, 122 and SLCTA, 217, the latter with a drawing of the tablet and text. IG II2 1631.249. IG II2 1631.448–450, 586–588 and 652. For Kineas see also LGPN II Κινέας 11 and APF no. 12883. Olympiodoros, IG II2 1632.317; Kallenikos, IG II2 1632.244; Mnesimachos, IG II2 1632.318. For these individuals see LGPN II Ὀλυμπιόδωρος 63 and APF no. 11407; LGPN II Καλλένικος 1 and APF no. 7769; LGPN II Μνησίμαχος 5 and APF no. 10335.

88

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

who paid for repairs and equipment for the trireme Voitheia9 b) Φιλοκλῆς Κεφαλῆθεν, also trierarch in 323/2 who paid for repairs and equipment for the trireme Pallenis10 and c) perhaps less likely, Φιλοκλῆς the naval architect of Hebe.11 Πασίων (l. 5) was very likely Πασίων (II) Πασικλέους Ἀχαρνεύς.12 Not much is known about this Pasion but he hailed from a wealthy family with a long record of association with the navy – his uncle Apollodoros, the orator and public figure, served repeatedly as trierarch and syntrierarch.13 It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that, given his family’s wealth and liturgical record, Pasion II could have served in a naval office in the 320s.14 Δημόφιλος (l. 7) might be identified with Δημόφιλος Δημοφίλου Ἀχαρνεύς, a public figure who proposed a decree of the assembly in 323/2 or earlier concerning naval equipment.15 Ἀρχῖνος (B, 1) can be identified with Ἀρχῖνος Δειραδιώτης, a supervisor of the dockyards in 333/2.16 This was a dispute that engaged numerous prominent and well-off Athenians. Conflicts involving such individuals, as the example of the dispute between Demosthenes and Meidias discussed in chapter 4 also demonstrates, could spread over several years and gain great notoriety. In the case of the curse tablet under discussion, the fact that many of the targets ostensibly had a link to the Athenian navy in 323/2 seems to point to the navy and its diverse operations as the epicenter of the dispute. To corroborate this assumption, Athenian naval records frequently refer to litigation, strongly suggesting a high frequency of disputes connected to the activities of the Athenian navy. Most of the navy-related disputes that we are aware of were linked to financial matters, and it is possible that SLCTA no. 4 also originated in the context of such a dispute. More specifically it is conceivable that this could have been a dispute over the state of a particular trireme that was fought out primarily between a trierarch and the Athenian state, the latter personified in the mind of the agent of the curse in a civic official – note again the singling out of the treasurer of the trireme builders Demokrates as the main target. It is also possible that alleged financial mismanagement in connection with a trireme was the pretext for rekindling or extending an ongoing interpersonal broad-based dispute between Demokrates, or somebody very close to him, and the agent of the curse. Under such circumstances, and in keeping with the pattern of broad-based disputes, all the secondary targets of the curse had a direct connection to the dispute as associates, friends, or witnesses of the main target. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

IG II2 1631.444–446. IG II2 1631.474–478. IG II2 1631.603. LGPN II Πασίων 6, APF no. 11672, XIII. For testimonia see APF no. 11672, XII. Wilhelm 1904, 122 read Ἀπ[ολλ]όδωρος on l. 6 (see APF no. 1413) but I could not confirm the reading. IG II/III2 1631.657–658; for Demophilos see LGPN II Δημόφιλος 6 and 22, APF no. 13346. IG II2 1623.4; for Archinos see LGPN II Ἀρχῖνος 11 and 24.

5.1 A Dispute Involving Trierarchs – SLCTA no. 4

89

It is also important to remember that, as argued by A. Wilhelm and other scholars, the curse tablet under examination was in all likelihood deposited shortly after the service of the trierarchs and syntrierarchs targeted in the spell in 323/2 or thereabouts. If this chronology is right, then the dispute in question arose during the Lamian War or its immediate aftermath. This was a very tumultuous and action-packed period for the Athenian navy as well as fertile ground for the emergence of multiple disputes and grievances that might have been engendered through the activities of the navy and its commanders. Under what circumstances could a trierarchy evolve into a lengthy broad-based dispute? In fourth-century Athens public and private funds were expended for the construction and maintenance of the fleet, a fact that partly accounts for the detailed records that were produced on the subject. There is also extensive evidence regarding the powers and responsibilities of Athenian trierarchs and syntrierarchs, the offices ostensibly held by numerous targets of SLCTA no. 4. The trierarchy was an annual liturgical service of the highest order that could incur considerable expenditure, hence the need to share costs and responsibilities, especially during the fourth century.17 Starting in 358/7 trierarchs were pooled into symmoriai of sixty men for the purposes of assigning the specific monetary sums due by each trierarch. While initially thrierarchic symmories spread costs evenly among their members, after 340 costs were levied proportionally to an individual’s wealth.18 In addition to shouldering the cost of restoring and maintaining Athenian triremes, trierarchs served as captains of their ships and were also responsible for returning the triremes to the docks in good order. Upon their return to Piraeus the ships were inspected by the board of supervisors (epimeletai) who could hold the trierarchs financially liable in cases of loss or damage. Furthermore, trierarchs were also closely monitored regarding income and expenses related to their trireme while on campaign. On the other hand, the office of the treasurer of the trireme builders, the position that Demokrates who was flagged as the main target of the curse tablet under examination had held, was an annual elected magistracy. The incumbent was entrusted with public funds for the construction of triremes. The record suggests that treasurers of the trireme builders often delayed the return of naval equipment.19 As one can imagine, such circumstances of thorough financial reckoning and accountability could easily lead to disputes. For instance, the extant records of the epimeletai and other naval inscriptions suggest that at times individual trierarchs challenged in court the financial penalties imposed by the supervisors.20 Ll. 10–11 of the curse tab-

17 18 19 20

For the Athenian trierarchs see Gabrielsen 1994. See Christ 2007, 68. For the trierarchic reforms see Dem. 14.16–17; 18.102–108. For the ταμίας τριηροποιικῶν see Gabrielsen 1994, 151–152. E. g. IG II2 1629  – II/III2 1629.746–749; 794–799. IG II2 1631.116–119; 140–143; 148–151; 184–186; 279–283.

90

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

let under consideration at face value suggest that the dispute was litigated as a private lawsuit (δίκη). However, one should be wary of the manner in which technical legal language was employed in curse tablets. It is often the case that legal terms in curse tablets were not always consistent with the semantic purview of the same terms as used in a court of law or formal documents. One example concerns the syndikoi and synegoroi, terms that are mentioned in several legal curse tablets from Classical Athens. In forensic orations the syndikoi emerge as a board of officials involved in lawsuits associated with confiscated property or loans while the synegoroi were the well-attested supporting speakers in court.21 Nevertheless, it appears that in legal curse tablets the two terms (and often antidikoi as well) were used rather loosely and interchangeably in the general sense of supporters in court, usually with reference to the main target of the curse.22 In Athenian curse tablets these terms at times might also encompass individuals who would have had very limited opportunities to support a litigant in a formal trial or arbitration. For instance, DTA 106A targets men and women of unknown legal statuses and social backgrounds as well as a Lydian. All were perceived as syndikoi of the targets. In this instance syndikoi seems to allude to a support network that could succor a disputant within or beyond the strict confines of the formal legal system. Broad-based disputes involving trierarchs and other naval officials were likely, given the wealth and high social position of the opposing parties, to escalate to formal litigation. Forensic orations provide specific examples of this process, and highlight strategies of dispute management that litigants, as individual agents, adopted in pursuing a legal path to such disputes. Disputes over the conduct or the financial dealings of trierarchs were apparently common enough that a special genre of suits, the dikai trierarchikai, was available to disputants.23 An example of a dispute and litigation related to naval matters, at times also involving trierarchs, is [Dem.] 47. The speech alludes to a request to return naval equipment which escalated into a dispute and a physical fight. Eventually the two parties, both wealthy Athenians who served as trierarchs, sued each other for assault. The party that was found guilty in the original trial subsequently sued, in the trial for which [Dem.] 47 was written, the witnesses of the counter litigant for providing false testimony. Suing, or otherwise targeting a prominent supporter/associate of the counter disputant/

21 22

23

Rubinstein 2000, 45 and 64–65. Syndikoi: DTA 39, 66, 81, 88, 106 and 107; DT 62 and 63; SGD 9 (= Trumpf 1958), 49 (= Abt 1911, no. 5), 51 (= Fox 1913, 76–80) and 71 (= Ziebarth 1934, no. 3); NGCT 1 (= Willemsen 1990, 142– 143); SLCTA no. 1, III, 2 and 4. Synegoroi: DTA 38, 63, 95; SGD 68 (= Ziebarth 1934, no. 2); NGCT 15 (= Jordan 1995); SLCTA no. 5. Antidikoi: SGD 6 (Peek 1941, no. 4), 19 (= Strӱd 1903, no. 4) and 42 (= Robert 1936, no. 11); possibly DT 77; NGCT 12 and 24B. At times antidikos in singular appears to have had a more restricted semantic purview in legal curse tablets referring to the counter litigant, often by name: DTA 94; SGD 51 (= Fox 1913, 76–80). Sometimes more than one of these terms are used in the same tablet, e. g. SGD 51. For the dikai trierarchikai see E. Cohen 1973, 14 n. 31 and passim.

5.1 A Dispute Involving Trierarchs – SLCTA no. 4

91

litigant, was a classic collateral move in broad-based disputes of wealthy citizens in fourth-century Athens. What made such a move expedient in this instance was the fact that in both trials a considerable number of individuals were formally involved as witnesses to the assault or the circumstances of the request for the naval equipment – in the latter case the witnesses consisted of a state magistrate and the members of the board (symmoria) to which the plaintiff of [Dem.] 47 belonged.24 In another example in [Dem.] 50 we hear the story of Apollodoros, the wealthy orator and almost certainly author of the speech, who had served as trierarch in 362. Polykles, the man appointed to succeed Apollodoros failed to do so. As a result, Apollodoros sued for damages claiming that, because of Polykles’ negligence, he was forced to remain in office beyond the end of his term and consequently suffered great financial losses.25 In both cases the litigants made consistent attempts to broaden as much as possible the group of participants in their respective disputes. In [Dem.] 47 the plaintiff argued that initially he privately requested from his opponent Theophemos the missing trireme equipment, as dictated by the city’s laws. When the latter refused, he made sure that he summoned his opponent in front of the dispatching board and the overseers of the dockyards. In addition to attempting to settle the matter, for the plaintiff of [Dem.] 47 the summons was clearly an attempt to make the circumstances of the dispute known to a broader group of reputed citizens and potential witnesses. The members of both of these boards – the dispatching board and the overseers of the dockyards  – did indeed serve as witnesses for the plaintiff in the second trial.26 The plaintiff of [Dem.] 47 also made Theophemos’ refusal to provide the equipment known to the council of 500.27 Moreover, when the plaintiff of [Dem.] 47 visited Theophemos’ house, in a last-ditch attempt to recover the equipment, he was accompanied by witnesses. When Theophemos refused to co-operate and became abusive the unknown plaintiff of [Dem.] 47 attempted to recruit additional witnesses among the passersby outside Theophemos’ home.28 In the dispute between the trierarchs Apollodoros and Polykles ([Dem.] 50) and while on campaign Apollodoros recruited as many Athenian citizen witnesses as he could find in Thasos, many of whom must have sailed in the trireme that Apollodoros had under his command as trierarch, to publicly confront his successor Polykles who had procrastinated in replacing him. This meeting took place, according to Apollodo24 25 26 27 28

[Dem.] 47.24. For another example of a broad-based dispute involving trierarchs see Dem. 24, especially 11–17 with an outline of the history of the dispute and its protagonists. [Dem.] 47.26–27. [Dem.] 47.33. [Dem.] 47.34–36. See also [Dem.] 47.60 where, on the occasion of the forceful entry of Theophemos and his associates in the house of the plaintiff with the intention to carry off furniture in lieu of payment due from the assault trial, the slaves of the plaintiff ’s neighbor attempted to recruit witnesses among the passersby.

92

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

ros, in the agora of Thasos.29 The narratives of both [Dem.] 47 and [Dem.] 50 echo practices of disputants in broad-based disputes expounded in greater detail in chapter 4. Once again Athenian litigants – in these cases trierarchs – chose to conduct encounters that could escalate to confrontation and even physical violence in front of numerous witnesses, e. g. while civic boards or other groups of representatives were in session or alternatively in the agora and the streets of the city. The fact that for most Athenians much of the seriality of day-to-day life was conducted in public meant that staging dispute encounters in publicly accessible locations resulted in heightened opportunities to recruit supplementary accidental witnesses – a strategic priority in the realm of dispute management and litigation for most Athenians involved in broadbased disputes. In addition to such cases where the dispute revolved primarily around the expectations and responsibilities of the office of the trierarchy, many disputes could also arise from the financial dealings and general behavior of trierarchs and other naval officers while on campaign. It should be remembered that generals, trierarchs, and other naval officials were in principle members of the economic elite of the city who had numerous and diverse financial interests in Attica and abroad. As it has been convincingly argued, at times these elites, acting individually or collectively, could even exploit their presence as trireme commanders in overseas naval campaigns in order to pursue private commercial and financial interests.30 Trierarchs’ military or financial dealings with state entities or private individuals during their term in office could directly interfere with the operation of the navy and the pursuit of Athenian state interests. In one case Apollodoros claimed that during his service as trierarch, and while on campaign in the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the Hellespont areas, he had to take out two loans from two Athenian merchants active in the area in order to finance the operation of his ship.31 Moreover, in Dem. 51.13–14 the speaker alludes to the opportunities for personal enrichment for serving trierarchs, at the expense of the best interests of Athens and other Greek cities.32 A case in point were Thrasyboulos, Ergokles, and their associates during a naval campaign in 389 in the coast of Asia Minor and the Hellespont. Charges of embezzlement, bribing, and corruption were directed primarily against Ergokles – Thrasyboulos died on the field – alleging, among others, profiteering and oppression

29 30 31

32

[Dem.] 50.29. Gabrielsen 2015. [Dem.] 50.17. In [Dem.] 50.23 and 56 Apollodoros refers to additional loans, contracted after the original one and while still on campaign, also with the intention of providing for his trireme and its men. Apollodoros claimed that these loans were contracted after his term in office had elapsed and while he was waiting to be replaced by his successor. See also Dem. 21.167–168 where Demosthenes produced witnesses for his accusation that while on campaign as trierarch Meidias disobeyed instructions and used the trireme under his command for his personal enrichment.

5.2 Disputes and Curses among Athenian Elites

93

of the populations of friendly cities.33 By the same token, rumors of peculation and profiteering in naval campaigns could be misleading and a smokescreen to undermine an individual’s reputation, property, and civic status. That was exactly what was claimed regarding the rumors surrounding Diotimos’ naval campaign in Asia Minor in 388. Shortly after the campaign, word spread in Athens that Diotimos had accumulated 40 talents of unaccounted cash from shipmasters and merchants, who allegedly paid the Athenian general to ensure protection. But upon his return to Athens Diotimos was apparently able to demonstrate the slanderous nature of these rumors.34 Be that as it may, the point is that Athenians during the Classical period, and especially in times of peril, financial difficulty or food shortages, were susceptible in believing stories of illicit enrichment, through embezzlement or other means, of generals, trierarchs, and other prominent Athenians involved in naval operations. Some such activities most likely occurred – the practices of Thrasyboulos and Ergokles were an example – thus providing fertile ground for even unsubstantiated allegations to thrive (Diotimos?). Moreover, and besides the implications for the effectiveness of naval campaigns, such practices could also exacerbate the antagonisms for political positioning and social recognition that existed among members of the Athenian elite, and thus increase the possibility that they might generate, or refuel old, disputes. Overall, the dispute that generated SLCTA no. 4 was ostensibly a broad-based, court-adjudicated dispute that involved individuals that nursed multifaceted, longterm familial, political, and financial agendas. Triremes of the Athenian fleet were administered by elite individuals who often juggled the exigencies of personal interests, liturgical obligations, and a sense of service to the city. The references in the curse tablet in question to numerous socially prominent Athenians who had served as trierarchs or other positions associated with the navy, as well as the inclusion among the targets of the curse of any other individual who might have been implicated35 fit well with the general outline of disputes generated among or because of trierarchs attested in the forensic orations corpus. 5.2 Disputes and Curses among Athenian Elites As the preceding case study suggests, binding curses can assist in elucidating Athenian patterns of interpersonal interaction as well as individual behaviors and modes of agency in contexts of conflict. In that respect curse tablets are especially valuable because they illustrate the agent’s immediate, cognized goals but also allude to long-term 33 34 35

Lys. 28 and 29. The story is recounted in Lys. 19.50–51. According to this narrative, Diotimos volunteered to produce his accounts, but the matter was not put to the proof. SLCTA no. 4, side A, l. 8 καὶ σ[ύ]νδικ̣οι καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος.

94

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

aims – this is a point that will be elaborated further in chapter 6 in connection with concepts and practices of individual agency in Classical Athens. One should also be reminded that even though Athenian disputes were most often socially embracive in the recruitment of the support networks of disputants (cf. chapter 3.2), it is a reasonable assumption that the protagonists of interpersonal disputes were primarily drawn from the same social and at times professional circle.36 In turn, this means that in many instances one can not only reasonably adumbrate some details of the dispute that generated a binding curse but also reach some conclusions regarding the social background and the agenda of the agent of the curse by identifying his/her main targets in a curse, i. e. the adversaries in a dispute. Curse tablets are usually quite explicit about the adversaries and the objectives of the spell. At face value this suggests that Athenian curse tablets were generated by specific situations of interpersonal conflict and not by generic grievances of the agent of the curse against certain individuals. The extant corpus of Athenian binding curses is also especially informative regarding the higher echelons of Athenian public life and politics. This is the case for some of the earliest specimens of Athenian legal curse tablets which ostensibly targeted prominent members of the Athenian social and political elite. Hence a voodoo doll accompanied by a tablet containing a legal curse targeted a certain Mnesimachos. As it has been argued, this Mnesimachos could quite possibly be identified with a choregos of the early fourth century and the defendant in a lawsuit in which Lysias wrote the speech for the prosecution.37 Another set of voodoo dolls encased in lead tablets containing legal curses and dated to the last quarter of the fifth century is also pertinent and revealing regarding the identity and social background of the targets, particularly of Theozotides. He was a wealthy Athenian and well-connected public figure active in the late fifth and early fourth centuries who, similar to Mnesimachos mentioned above, was the target of a forensic speech authored by Lysias.38 The rarity of the name makes the identification between the Theozotides targeted in the voodoo dolls and the individual who features in the Lysianic corpus more plausible. In yet another example (SGD 6 = Peek 1941, no. 4), in two legal binding curses unearthed in the Kerameikos and dated roughly to the same period as the magical ensemble cursing Theozotides, a certain Smindyrides is included among the targets. Similar to Theozotides, the name is very rare in Athens and is attested for the period in question only in connection with a Smindyrides who was allegedly involved in the destruction of the hermaic stelae in 415.39 A Smindyrides is also targeted in another tablet from 36 37 38 39

Osborne 1985; Christ 1998a, 79. The main disputants could of course attract and engage a wide network of supporters from diverse backgrounds, as SGD 48 (= Jordan and Curbera 2008) discussed in the ensuing section as well as other curse tablets indicate. SGD 9. See Trumpf 1958; Jordan 1988; Costabile 1999a, no. 1; Costabile 2000, no. 2; Faraone 1999b, 116–117. NGCT 11. See Costabile 1999a, 2.2 = Costabile 2000, 3.2. For Theozotides see APF, 222–223. Andoc. 1.15.

5.2 Disputes and Curses among Athenian Elites

95

Kerameikos (SLCTA no. 1, col. II), and it is once again likely that he can be identified with the target bearing the same name in the near-contemporary SGD 6.40 The vandalism of the Hermaic stelai in 415 also comes up in an early fourth-century curse tablet, discovered in Kerameikos, which bears the shape of a ship and appears to be targeting a commercial vessel, its crew and cargo. At the end of side B the agent targets [Ἀ]νδοκδης ἑρμοκο[πίδης].41 This is undoubtedly a reference to the famous orator Andokides whose name was implicated in the scandals of the mutilation of the Hermaic stelai and the profanation of the Eleusian mysteries. Andokides felt the repercussions of his alleged involvement with these notorious events for the rest of his life. Among others, he was prosecuted for impiety in a trial that took place most likely in 400.42 We know that besides his political activities, Andokides also actively engaged in commercial enterprises. Indeed, he appears to have been a major entrepreneur, specializing in long-distance trade.43 Viewed in this light it is reasonable to suggest that the curse tablet against Andokides was commissioned by a business rival or even an ex-associate (e. g. crew member) in one of Andokides’ entrepreneurial endeavors. According to the reading of the first editor, in addition to Andokides the curse also targeted the crew of a ship, presumably belonging or connected to Andokides, as well as other individuals, possibly associated with the manning, maintenance or provisioning of yet another ship that might have belonged to the orator.44 Very often one of the objectives of the agents of curses that seemingly originated in business rivalries appears to be the professional and financial ruin of their business adversaries. Andokides himself profited greatly from his entrepreneurial undertakings and there should be no doubt that he was at odds with other powerful commercial interests in the city of Athens. Hence his potential business failures would have paved the way for great profit for other Athenian entrepreneurs. Furthermore, although the bulk of the spell against Andokides is dedicated to specific commercial undertakings in which the orator was involved, the curse is noteworthy for the emphatic reference to Andokides’ role in the mutilation of the herms in 415.45 Binding curses ostensibly motivated by business rivalries often concealed a complex network of motives, interests, and long-term strategies. So once again, several possibilities present themselves. For instance, the author of the curse might have genuinely resented the role of Andokides in the events of 415 and believed that a well-known act of sacrilege would motivate further the divine spirits to execute the curse against his target. Not incompatible with the previous possibility is an additional consideration, 40 41 42 43 44 45

For the possible identification see Costabile 1998, 36–37; 2000, 55; and 2001, 188–189. Costabile 2004–2005, no. I; Costabile 2007b, no. I. For an alternative reading of this tablet see Curbera 2016, 110–111. MacDowell 1962, 204–205. Andoc. 1.62; Lys. 6.48; APF, no. 828, especially p. 31. Costabile 2004–2005, 160–166.; Costabile 2007b, 216–222. Furley 1996.

96

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

corroborated by the fact that the curse was most likely produced in the first years of the fourth century, hence around the time or soon after Andokides’ impeachment for asebeia in 400/399.46 The trial of Andokides no doubt brought back memories of the mutilation of the herms and the profanation of the Eleusinian mysteries to a wider segment of the Athenian population who treated with suspicion and ill will Andokides and his involvement in the public affairs of Athens. Although not all Athenians shared this view, as suggested by the fact that Andokides was acquitted of the asebeia charge, the agent of the curse inserted the spell into the contemporary, public discourse on the role of Andokides in the infamous events of 415. Even if the primary consideration of the spell and the dispute behind it, in other words, lay in the domain of lucrative maritime trade, a reference to a notorious and disreputable event associated in public consciousness with the target of the curse was, just like irrelevant and defamatory comments in court, considered a solid communicative, dispute-pursuing strategy. The spell against Andokides is therefore a great example of how an Athenian at the turn of the fourth century could concurrently engage in diverse action domains and discourses, namely business, politics, litigation. Experience and expertise in a wide range of activities were tokens of individuals exhibiting high-level agency  – a point that will be further expounded in the subsequent chapter. In the case of the Andokides curse this high-level individual agency can be documented for the target and can be deduced for the agent of the curse. Andokides, a well-known public figure, was targeted as a business rival and as a person who was perceived as disrespectful of the moral values and religious practices of the community, and perhaps even as an opponent of the democracy itself. Interestingly, a detail of the asebeia trial reveals how such agential behavior was feasible beyond the realm of binding curses and magic. In his defense speech Andokides points out that a certain Agyrrhios, one of the supporters of the chief prosecutor Kephisios, was also his business rival with whom he had a dispute regarding a tax auction.47 The identity of the person who commissioned the binding spell against Andokides is of course unknown, but the context of Andokides’ life in the early fourth century is sufficiently known to allow a reasonable reconstruction of the place of the curse in conflicts and disputes prominent in the Athenian public sphere, and especially among the Athenian moneyed elites, during the same period. If, as argued in chapter 2, agents of binding curses increased their potential effect on the intended victims by making their existence known through rumor-mongering and other communicative strategies, then some of the objectives of the curse against Andokides were to sabotage his business dealings and undermine his public stature, especially in connection with the asebeia trial.

46 47

The arguments for dating this curse tablet in the early years of the fourth century are expounded by Costabile 2004–05, 168–169; 2007b, 224–225. Andoc. 1.133–135.

5.2 Disputes and Curses among Athenian Elites

97

The use of binding magic as a conflict-management resource by elite Athenian disputants is also suggested by numerous other curse tablets. In most cases the context of the dispute and the personal history of the targets are less known than in the case of the curse against Andokides. Nonetheless, even in the cases of obscure contexts a careful reading of certain curses provides valuable clues for various types of elite disputes and the role of binding magic in the process of dispute management. A good case study concerns local situations of conflict and other disputes that did not obtain the publicity accorded to the religious scandals of 415. DTA 24, a fourth-century curse tablet inscribed on two sides of a lead strip, is an example of a curse that refers to local factional strife. It targets nine individuals, with a certain Phokion topping the list of side A. A. Wilhelm first identified the Phokion in question with the famous Athenian public figure of the fourth century.48 Once this identification is considered plausible, then several other features of the curse fall into place. For instance, l. 2 of side A targets a Eupheros and an Aristokrates. We know that members of the family of Kallistratos of Aphidna, the prominent Athenian statesman of the first half of the fourth century, bore the same names.49 Given the other circumstantial evidence linking Phokion and Kallistratos, it seems quite plausible that the Eupheros and Aristokrates targeted in DTA 24 were the two brothers of Kallistratos.50 Moreover, side B of the same tablet targets five individuals, including a Euthemon and a Nikomenes. A Euthemon Eupolidos Halieus51 and a Nikomenes Hieronos Halieus52 are attested in decrees from the deme Halai Aixonides.53 Since DTA 24 was allegedly discovered in the territory of the same deme, and given that side A of the tablet ostensibly refers to prominent Athenian public figures, it is quite plausible that the Euthemon and Nikomenes targeted on side B should be identified with the two individuals prominent in Halai Aixonides deme politics in the 360s. It has been reasonably suggested that DTA 24 is a judicial spell and that the individuals cursed on both sides of the tablet belonged, at least in the mind of the agent of the curse, to the same political group.54 A. Wilhelm conjectured that the historical context of the curse was a series of administrative reforms in connection with the offices of treasurer and demarch.55 The references to individuals prominent in state (side A) and

48 49 50 51 52 53

54 55

Wilhelm 1904, 115–118. Regarding DTA 24 see also Nisoli 2003. See APF, no. 8157, IV; Hochschulz 2007, 16–17. Nisoli 2003, 272–279. LGPN II, 168, no. 2; APF, no. 5475. LGPN II, 335, no. 2. IG II2 1174; IG II2 1175; IG II2 2820. An Astyphilos from Halai Aixonides, who proposed the decree recorded in IG II2 1175, was also targeted in Athenian curse tablets, thus pointing to another branch of a complex local network of interconnectivities and disputes between prominent figures of that deme. See Nisoli 2003, 276–278. Nisoli 2003. Wilhelm 1904, 117–118.

98

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

local (side B) politics are not inconsistent with this interpretation.56 Overall, it is very likely that the dispute that generated DTA 24 was connected with issues that the aggregate of public men targeted in the curse would be involved with, especially issues of intra-elite factional conflict that had wider implications on the local (deme) and civic-wide level. In other words, the agent of DTA 24 was most likely another public figure involved in a multi-stage showdown with the targets and he seems to allude to different stages of a dispute with local and civic repercussions. Such a multifaceted dispute that involved numerous individuals would inevitably invite variant assessments and the pursuit of far-flung objectives through the employment of different strategies, including magic. 5.3 Disputes and Space: Residential, Demotic, and Professional Affiliations in Athenian Curse Tablets While the lifestyles, business, and civic activities of the rich and famous were a fertile ground for the emergence of conflicts, there should be little doubt that most residents of Attica, irrespective of their gender and legal status, could at some point in their lives become embroiled in a dispute. But how likely it was for the less privileged to pursue their disputes through formal adjudication mechanisms, magistrate hearings, arbitrations, or lawsuits? Demosthenes lists a busy life (ἀσχολία), a lack of interest in public affairs (ἀπραγμοσύνη), inability to speak (τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι λέγειν), and lack of resources (ἀπορία) as the main reasons for shirking from litigation and other forms of formal redress.57 Nevertheless, the legal system of Classical Athens consisted of several layers of complexity. For small-scale or less complicated disputes, e. g. claims involving low amounts of money, legal procedures were more straightforward and hence more accessible to Athenians of limited monetary or other resources. Going all the way to a popular court, on the other hand, would have been a more intimidating prospect, as the passage from Demosthenes implies, for some Athenians. But even then there were mitigating factors, even for the poorest of Athenians. Courtroom drama was a prominent form of public embodied performance that many Athenians were familiar with as witnesses, jurors, or even casual spectators, even if they had never themselves acted as the plaintiff or defendant of a lawsuit. That means that if one of these numerous Athenians on the periphery or in ancillary roles within the legal system ever found themselves in the center of it, for instance as litigants in a lawsuit, chances are that they

56

57

DTA 24, side B, contains references to two women, Meideia and Syra, the latter almost certainly a slave. It is likely that the two women played only an auxiliary role in the dispute that instigated DTA 24 but their inclusion in the list of targets is, once again, a reminder of the involvement of individuals of inferior legal statuses in various facets of Athenian public life. Dem. 21.141.

5.3 Disputes and Space: Residential, Demotic, and Professional Affiliations

99

had a good reckoning of the general procedure, etiquette, and discourse dominant in Athenian lawcourts. Such experience would have been extremely useful for a prospective litigant who was unable to hire a logographos. No wonder, therefore, that Athenians were reputed to be philodikoi (“eager to engage in litigation”), a reputation that for the most part also tallies with the conclusions of scholars who have studied patterns of participation in the Athenian legal system during the Classical period.58 Within this context of Athenian disputes and litigation, one can further elaborate on the role of curse tablets as tools of information management. Borrowing J. Scott’s categorizations, we can view Athenian curse tablets as a resource in pursuing disputes that manifested itself both as a “public” and “hidden” transcript.59 In the case of Athens, these categories need further amplification. In chapter 2 I argued that Athenian curse tablets stood at the intersection of private and public, the secretive and the disseminated.60 But at the same time, curse tablets were an oppositional discourse as well as, at times, a reflection of the normative social and statutory framework. In all these capacities, curse tablets were purveyors of meanings, emotions, agency, and resistance. These facets of curse tablets were especially crucial in the context of disputes. The re-evaluation and adjustment of objectives, preferences, and operational strategies during different phases of broad-based disputes was performed on the basis of the disputant’s knowledge, through direct information exchange and other communicative means (including curse tablets), concerning the corresponding objectives, preferences, and strategies of their opponent. The dominant (with temporary lapses) institutional alignment in fifth- and fourth-century Athens, a form of direct democracy that advocated the primacy of the interests of the Athenian demos and encouraged the full engagement of all citizens in politics and other aspects of public life, nuanced to a significant extent the manner in which discourses of domination or resistance, partially articulated through curse tablets, could be disseminated. Hence, even though veiled articulations of opposition (through popular stories, songs, rumors etc.)61 to the dominant paradigm of power relations did exist in ancient Athens, at the same time the existence of relatively open spaces of interaction (popular assembly, courts, council of 500, shops) between rich and poor fueled, and at times necessitated, a more direct confrontation between hidden and public transcripts regarding civic politics, but also interpersonal disputes. Curse tablets can further illuminate such behaviors and practices. In this section I argue that patterns of affiliation detected in Athenian curse tablets can be suggestive 58 59 60 61

E. g. Bers 2009; Lanni 2016, 131–138. I am borrowing the analytical categories of public and hidden transcripts from J. Scott’s insightful analysis of practices of domination and resistance among groups with asymmetrical holds on power. See Scott 1990. For an analysis of the categories of private and public (which do not exactly overlap with modern categorizations that emerged post-industrial revolution) in the ancient world see the essays in Benefiel and Keegan 2016. For such strategies of resistance to power in ancient Greece see Forsdyke 2012.

100

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

of wider modes of dispute behavior, especially for disputes that engaged individuals not otherwise attested in the extant literary or epigraphic record. Numerous curse tablets indicate a pattern of dispute engagement in clusters that corresponded to one or more of the affiliations (residential, demotic, or professional) that in many respects governed daily agential behavior and interaction of Athenians. In urban neighborhoods, rural villages or other population clusters, most Athenians would have been acquainted with, or at least been aware of, other Athenians affiliated with the same cluster. This familiarity and proximity must have facilitated interaction which could lead to amicable or hostile relations and the fast flow of news and other information in a formal and informal manner.62 These population clusters, in other words, operated as communication communities within which information regarding broad-based disputes could seminally circulate and transcripts of opposition and resistance flourish. The implications of these sedimented relations of familiarity could extend to the formal legal sphere as well. This broader picture is substantiated especially by Athenian forensic orations, which emphatically point to the neighborhood, the village or other population clusters as crucial nuclei or catalysts of disputes. In the case of the dispute on the estate of a certain Phyrros, the matter revolved around the nature of his relationship with an unnamed woman, sister of Nikodemos.63 The latter and his supporters alleged that the woman in question was the lawfully wedded wife of Phyrros, and thus their daughter Phile had the legal right to claim Phyrros’ estate following his death. But the opposition, the adopted son of Phyrros and his supporters, while not denying that a relationship did exist between Phyrros and the sister of Nikodemos, provided testimony by acquaintances and neighbors of the couple regarding frequent scenes of disorder, quarrels, singing, and partying at their residence, in other words behavior unbecoming a respectable married couple.64 On the grounds of this evidence provided by the neighbors the side of the adopted son successfully convinced an Athenian jury that the sister of Nikodemos was a mistress and not a wife of Phyrros, and that therefore their daughter was illegitimate and thus unable to make a legal claim on the estate. In another example, in Against Timarchos Aeschines recounts an incident concerning Diopeithes of Sounion, a public arbitrator who, in a case submitted to him, was partial towards one of the litigants who hailed from the same deme and with whom Diopeithes was acquainted for many years.65 62

63 64 65

See e. g. Lys. 17.8 where neighbors are called in to testify that the plaintiff had been contesting for three years the ownership of a house in a rural deme. And Lys. 23.3 and 6–7 where it is expected that certain social spaces (barbershop; fresh cheese market) in Athens, where Athenians of Dekeleian and Plataean origin congregated, would be the best sources for specialist information sought by the speaker. Isae. 3. Isae. 3.13–14. Aeschin. 1.63.

5.3 Disputes and Space: Residential, Demotic, and Professional Affiliations

101

Among the extant curse tablets, an example that further elucidates agential behavior emanating from locality affiliation, especially in instances of conflict management in local-caliber disputes, is SGD 45.66 If in the case of DTA 24, discussed in the preceding section, the agent of the curse was pursuing a dispute related to demotic and civic factional strife, in SGD 45 the focus seems to be exclusively on the local level. SGD 45 binds eight individuals, six men and two women. Although none of the targets can be identified securely, the names of all but one are qualified by a demotic or kinship term. Most targets came from neighboring demes of southwestern Attica (Aigilia, Anaphlystos). Nausistratos from Aigilia, mentioned first, was presumably the main target. Nikonymos (l. 2) and Kleostrate (l. 6) were his offspring. An Aristaichmos from Anaphlystos, perhaps a descendant of the target bearing the same name (ll. 4–5) in our curse, is mentioned as a member of the genos Kerykes in an inscription of the late first century.67 Smikythos from Aigilia (l. 3)68 might be identical or related to a Smikythos, son of Deinostratos, from Aigilia, a diaitetes c. 330.69 The curse concerns a dispute whose epicenter was to be found in southwestern Attica and which most likely involved locally prominent individuals. Family ties played a role, but the consequences of the dispute were clearly felt by other residents in the area as well. Given the attested family connection between some targets of the curse, it is plausible that we are dealing with a locally high-profile inheritance and property quarrel. Considerable financial gain as well as a person’s and a family’s social standing were often at stake in such disputes.70 On other occasions as well some of the targets of curse tablets were linked through an affinal or other kinship relationship (e. g. SGD 1 = Peek 1941, no. 3; NGCT 12 = Costabile 1999a, no. 2.3; SLCTA no. 5)71, residence in a certain location or other locality affiliation. Examples of the latter include DTA 87 in which an individual, in all likelihood a tavern owner himself, targets several tavern owners in a certain quarter in Athens; as well as DTA 55A and B72 which is targeting several individuals based 66 67 68 69 70

71 72

Couilloud 1967, no. 1. See also Gellar-Goad, Papakonstantinou and Riess 2018, 273–274 and Humphreys 2018, 474–476 for some additional prosopographical possibilities. PAA no. 163780. PAA no. 826635. IG II2 1927.178; PAA no. 826640. Cf. also SGD 2, which ostensibly targeted at least six individuals from the same deme (see Peek 1941, 95 for commentary). Humphreys 2018, 471–478 explores further the possibility that some other Athenian curse tablets (e. g. NGCT 15 = Jordan 1995; see Humphreys 2018, 472, n. 69) could reflect disputes that revolved around regional or familial clusters of antagonists and their support networks. However, her overall distinction between curse tablets of the wealthier class and curse tablets of the “under-class” fails to take into consideration the continuous interaction and shifting of roles and identities of individuals of diverse genders and social backgrounds in Athenian broadbased disputes. For kin groups targeted in Athenian curse tablets see also DTA 55; 77 (= Rabehl 1906, 44); 102. For NGCT 12, in addition to the editions by Costabile 1999b, 2.3 and 2000, 3.3, see also the comments by Wolicki 2012. Rabehl 1906, 42.

102

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

in Piraeus.73 Moreover DTA 25 refers to neighbors and so does DTA 68, a two-sided, fragmentary and possibly legal curse tablet from Athens.74 The latter binds at least twenty individuals, men and women, of various professions, including a miller, several tavern-keepers, a procuress, a boxer, and a prostitute. Some targets are clearly of non-Athenian origin (B.9, Lykios; B.10, Lyde) and one (B.15) is identified as a slave. Moreover, DTA 68A strongly suggests that many of the targets frequented or were otherwise associated with the same lodging-house/brothel (συνοικία).75 Athenian curse tablets that targeted individuals on the basis of their locality affiliation at times exhibited an enmity, and often explicit aggression, against persons linked by their professional affiliation. This is hardly surprising, given that in the urban center of Athens there were in operation several known clusters of specialized, and at times down-market, professional endeavors. Financial considerations and intra-group rivalries seem to be at the core of such curse tablets that alluded to disputes that involved individuals identified by their profession. To return to DTA 68, the curse itself is formulaic and somewhat repetitive, containing names of targets followed by a formula binding bodily parts and at times the speech, memory, and workplace of the accursed. DTA 68 is suggestive of how individuals of various professions could interact in democratic Athens, but the nature of the dispute is not very clear.76 It should be noted that DTA 68 and some other Athenian curse tablets do not, at face value, bear any signs of the social cross-fertilization between elite and working-class Athenians that is evident in many literary narratives (as well as the narratives emerging from some curse tablets; cf. subsequent section on SGD 48) regarding Athenian disputes. Although it cannot be ruled out, the lack of references in some curse tablets to diverse social groupings/ classes should not necessarily lead us to believe that curse tablets that bear no outward tokens of intra-status interaction reflected disputes that were restricted to a single professional or other social domain. Regarding, for instance, the role of a lodging-house/ 73

74 75 76

See also the discussion of SGD 48 (= Jordan and Curbera 2008) in the ensuing section for an assessment of local/demotic interpersonal interaction and networks as well as the targeting of individuals from the same or neighboring demes. SGD 2 (= Peek 1941, no. 6) most likely also targets several individuals from the same deme. For DTA 55 see also Bayliss 2003 for context and some alternative readings. For DTA 68 see also Papakonstantinou 2013. For Athenian neighborhoods as hotbeds of hostility in Athenian curse tablets see also 6.2. Cf. also DTA 87, which refers to neighbors. See 5.6 for further discussion of sex workers and tavern-keepers in Athenian curse tablets, including additional commentary on DTA 68. The assortment of professions targeted in DTA 68 has perplexed some commentators who suggested that the targets might belong to an association or society or that DTA 68 might be a blanket curse, therefore the agent of the curse just listed all those that they wanted to harm. See e. g. Eidinow 2007a, 199. For the scholarly notion of a “blanket” curse, see 5.4. Cf. also Curbera 2015a, 108– 109 who interprets DTA 95 and 102, both targeting individuals of diverse genders and backgrounds, as containing multiple curses. See also SGD 11 (= Peek 1957, 207) for another curse tablet targeting individuals of various professions (stallholder, tavern-keeper, procurer) and statuses (slaves and free).

5.3 Disputes and Space: Residential, Demotic, and Professional Affiliations

103

brothel (συνοικία) in the dispute behind DTA 68, one should be reminded that wealthy and otherwise respectable Athenians at times owned, frequented or otherwise associated themselves with synoikiai, often in a manner that drew in these establishments and their habitués in broad-based disputes. An example is provided by Isaeus 6, On the Estate of Philoktemon, which outlines aspects of a dispute discussed in more detail in chapter 4.3. Euktemon, the patriarch of the extended family at the heart of this inheritance dispute, was an owner of synoikiai. It was his habit to personally collect rents from these establishments and the amorous affair that he developed with the manageress of his synoikia in the Kerameikos that engendered family friction and numerous legal complications in connection with the process of bequeathing Euktemon’s estate. By the same token, it is also possible that a curse tablet like DTA 68 reflected a dispute that emerged and developed primarily within the confines of a certain segment of the tavern and sex trade in Athens, i. e. largely devoid of the implications alluded in Isaeus 6. Another instance of a dispute seemingly involving several persons linked by professional affiliation is DT 49, a curse tablet of the late fourth century. Here many of the targets are identified as cooks/butchers (mageiros). Theagenes, mentioned first and twice more in the text of the tablet is obviously the main target. He is represented as being in collusion with other individuals, ostensibly against the agent of the curse. The tablet employs explicitly violent language (ll. 15–17: “All these I bind, I hide, I bury, I nail down”)77 and anticipates litigation. In ll. 9–11 Pherekles’ tongue and spirit are bound in connection with his potential testimony in support of Theagenes and the text of the tablet ends (ll. 17–21) with a curse against all future actions of the agent’s adversaries in a court or arbitration.78 Moreover, in a legal curse tablet of the first half of the fourth century the agent of the curse targets “those inscribed here, both men and women who are here inscribed” followed by an adynaton prescription that his opponents in court shall see an end to the trial when the dead make a journey home.79 Following this preamble there is a list of individuals bound by the curse, often emphasizing their demotic affiliation, but at times also their profession. The result is a mix of well-off, notable Athenian citizens as well as targets of underprivileged social statuses or professions.80 The list of targets includes a woman (“daughter of Euphranor”, ll. 11–12), a “saffron-seller” (l. 23), perhaps short for spice-seller, and several individuals identified with their demotics including Aristophon of Azenia (l. 29), known for his public career and successful judicial record.81 An Aristophanes Aristom[edous] target77 78 79 80 81

τούτους ἅπαντας | καταδῶ ἀφα[ν]ίζω κατ[ο]ρύττω καταπαττα|λεύω. For the possible identification of some of the targets of DT 49 see Ziebarth 1899, 110; Wünsch 1900, no. 10, 63–64; Gager 1992, no. 44. SGD 42 (= Robert 1936, no. 11): Καταδ[έω] τὸς ἐνθαῦτα ἐνγεγραμμένος καὶ ἄνδρας καὶ γυν|αῖκας ὅσοι ἐνθαῦτα ἐνγεγραμένοι εἰσίν, πρὸς Ἑρμῆν Κάτοχον καὶ Γ|ῆν καὶ Περσεφόνειαν καὶ ὅσπερ οἳ παρ[ὰ] ταύτην ἀφίκνõνται οἴκαδε νοστõσι ὅτως οἱ ἐν|θαῦτα ἀντίδικοι τέλος λαβόντον τῆς [δίκ]ης. For this pattern see also the ensuing section and the discussion of SGD 48. Oost 1977. Cf. APF, no. 2108.

104

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

ed in the same curse (l. 25) was very likely a nephew of Aristophon. Along the same line, in SGD 1 one of the targets, Peithandros of Paionidai, was probably the father of a secretary of the boule and the demos in the mid fourth century.82 The same tablet also targets prostitutes (ll. 23, 30–31) as well as well as household members of a lower social order (therapon, ll. 68–69).83 It is expedient to contrast modes of disputing strategies and other transcripts of social interaction that emerge from curse tablets that target primarily elite Athenians (as assessed in the preceding section) to strategies and transcripts ostensibly deployed in curse tablets that target primarily working-class or underprivileged Athenians (as discussed in the present section). At the most basic level, they illuminate modes of interaction and conflict between elites (5.2) or laborers in the entertainment, sex trade, and other sectors of the Athenian economy (5.3). Thus, given the apparent social composition of the target lists, the adversaries of all the individuals targeted in DTA 68 and DT  49, in other words the persons who commissioned the curses in question, most likely belonged to the same social milieu as most of their targets. As a result, some curse tablets (including DTA 68 and DT 49) can illuminate agential behavior and conflict-management practices of non-elite residents of Athens. Curse tablets suggest that non-elite Athenians actively exploited the institutional apparatus of the Athenian democracy as well as other options and strategies, including magic, in the course of a dispute. Moreover, individuals of metic or citizen status but of modest social backgrounds and limited economic means at times anticipated their disputes to reach formal arbitration or litigation.84 Finally, in literary narratives almost always broad-based disputes contain an element of physical violence which is also implied in the violent/ aggressive language of some of the tablets targeting individuals practicing market professions as well as in the tablets targeting primarily elite Athenians.85 Curse tablets indicate that similar to their elite counterparts, participants in a dispute involving working-class professionals often exhibited a self-assessing attitude. As a result, they were eager to re-evaluate, adjust, and eventually pursue collateral, complementary or alternative modes of action towards the pursuit and satisfactory resolution of a dispute. In DT 49, for instance, and in addition to the cognitive faculties, acts 82 83 84

85

Peek 1941, 93. Cf. also SGD 44 (= Peek 1941, no. 9), a tablet of the mid fourth century, which targets numerous individuals, men and women, including a member of the Areopagos and two potters. For a curse tablet referring to a dispute involving metics see SLCTA no. 1, with previous editions and discussion in Costabile 1998, 2000, 2001, 2007a, as well as Jordan 2004. It is possible that in NGCT 14 = Jordan 2008 the agent of the curse was also a metic. Non-citizens of metic or slave status are also targeted in SGD 20 (= Young 1951, 222–223); DT 64 (metics); SGD 48 (= Jordan and Curbera 2008, metics; see ensuing section). A person named in an Athenian curse tablet (SGD 54 = Woodward and Austin 1925–1926, 73–74) is identified as a citizen (polites). For metics in Classical Athens see recently Kennedy 2014; Wijma 2014; and Akrigg 2015 with references to past scholarship. Riess 2012, chapter III; Watson 2019, especially 73–76.

5.4 SGD 48: Politicians, Peddlers, and Prostitutes

105

or body parts that would be used in a court of law (e. g. mouth, tongue, speech), the agent of the curse also binds the feet, hands, and eyes of some targets.86 At face value this focus on bodily parts can be interpreted as an attempt to physically incapacitate opponents and hence prevent them from attending court hearings or other legal proceedings.87 But in a context of a broad-based dispute where conflicts were multivalent, ongoing, and long-lasting the same reference to limbs and eyes could also allude to the wider reach of the dispute and the potential damage that the targeted opponents could inflict on the agent of the curse in a variety of social (including professional) contexts. DT 49 and other curse tablets, in other words, echo a prevalent in Classical Athens perception and practice of disputes as multi-stage affairs that encompassed networks of supporters or adversaries in a manner that was symptomatic of engaged, high-level individual and collective agents. 5.4 SGD 48: Politicians, Peddlers, and Prostitutes SGD 48 is an Athenian curse tablet of the third quarter of the fourth century.88 A recent edition of the tablet provided an extended and improved text: we can now read the names of 97 individuals, but the actual number was certainly over 100. Many were male and Athenian citizens, as can be surmised by the demotics that qualify the names of many targets. The list includes several Athenians prominent in politics and public life, including Xenokles of Sphettos,89 Polyeuktos of Sphettos,90 and the notorious sycophant Aristogeiton of Pithos. Moreover, among the targets we find two metics (ll. 20 and 50), a painter, and individuals involved in the grain trade (chaff-sellers and a groats-seller)91 as well as four women and one man identified as prostitutes. So, the obvious question is, what context could have prompted the agent of this curse to target such a large and diverse in social backgrounds group of individuals? SGD 48 does not provide any direct clues as to the dispute or disputes that generated it. Given the extensive number of targets, it has been surmised that this is a blanket curse, which would indicate that the author has included names of opponents and

86 87 88 89 90 91

For an overview of the practice of targeting body parts in curse tablets, including legal curse tablets, see Versnel 1998. Graf 1997, 123. Ziebarth 1934, no. 1 dates it to c. 323, accepted by SGD 48, p. 164 and Habicht 1993, 114. Gager 1991, 145 proposes 350–325 which is more consistent with the prosopography of the latest edition by Jordan and Curbera 2008, 143, who suggest 345–335. APF, no. 11234. Hansen 1983, 175. The fact that the chaff and groats vendors are identified by their profession points to small-scale street hawkers, like the ones that are known to have populated the Athenian agora and nearby locations. See Wycherley 1957, especially 193–206.

106

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

antagonists from various grievances and contexts.92 Such an assumption is however unnecessary. In fact, the entire notion of “blanket” or “saturation” curses in Athenian magic is questionable. It is equally feasible that all named opponents were associated in the mind of the author of the curse with stages of a single dispute. In that spirit J. Gager maintained that we “must suppose that the targets constituted, at least in the eyes of the client, a party (political?) of some sort”.93 D. Jordan and J. Curbera suggested that the curse focuses on the members of a hetaireia.94 And S. Humphreys maintained that the origins of the curse must be sought among the Athenian sycophants and the ill will that their practices engendered.95 The presence of women and individuals of various social and professional backgrounds among the targets does not invalidate these arguments. The field of possibilities is wide open, and a number of other possible scenarios can be envisaged. It is for instance highly likely that, with several public figures featuring in the dispute, the author of SGD 48 might have considered litigation as a possible recourse, although there is no unequivocal sign of that in the text of the curse. The sheer number of targets points to a chronic broad-based dispute. It is likely that the original spark of the dispute was to be found in the conflicting political, economic, or even personal interests of some of the most socially prominent Athenians targeted in the tablet. A dispute that commenced in the higher echelons of the Athenian political establishment could easily spill over among other, at times subaltern, groups. Some of the individuals involved in phases of the dispute might have been implicated accidentally, e. g. as many bystanders became involved in the dispute outlined in Lysias’s Against Simon. Alternatively, the involvement of individuals of diverse backgrounds in SGD 48 might have been directly correlated to the kernel of the dispute. For instance, the involvement of grain sellers (ll. 39–40; possibly 73) might point to a financial or other motive related to the operation of the market, perhaps connected to provisioning or price manipulation.96 The reference to five workers in the sex trade (ll. 119–123) could again point to several possibilities, e. g. the world of the symposion, or a brothel. All these individuals of subaltern status were clearly perceived by the instigator of the curse as fully engaged social actors that could influence the development and outcome of the dispute. If the dispute ever reached the litigation stage, some of these individ-

92 93 94 95 96

Humphreys 2010. Similar explanations have been advanced for other curse tablets that contain a large number of targets, e. g. Alwine 2015, 53–54 and n. 73. Gager 1992, 146. Jordan and Curbera 2008, 144. Humphreys 2010, 86. Cf. Lys. 22 (Against the Grain Dealers) for a narrative, from a plaintiff ’s perspective, of profiteering by grain sellers and the Athenian public’s repugnance of such practices. In the speech by Lysias the accused grain sellers bought large quantities in bulk and then sold them in inflated prices, but also were able to credibly claim poverty for themselves (Lys. 22.13), as a small-scale retail vendor could ostensibly do.

5.4 SGD 48: Politicians, Peddlers, and Prostitutes

107

uals could have acted as witnesses or in other capacities. In addition to their first-hand knowledge of aspects of the dispute, the targets of the curse could have contributed to constituent or peripheral conflicts through other acts, including information manipulation through talk. The reference to the words and deeds of a target in SGD 48.106 is revealing in that regard. SGD 48 is illuminating regarding the dynamic of disputes in Classical Athens in an additional way. Many of the male targets of the tablet are qualified by their demotic. For the most part they are listed in clusters of individuals originating from the same deme, or from neighboring demes of the same tribe. For instance, ll. 13–17 target four Athenians from Thorikos and one from Kephale, all members of the Akamantis tribe. Moreover, ll. 29–33 and possibly 34 target individuals from Piraeus. And ll. 74–92 target 15 Athenian citizens registered at Kydantidai. In side B of the tablet, ll. 98 and 100–102 target four Athenians also from Kydantidai. But all four of these names are also encountered in Side A, so it is likely that in this instance the same persons are targeted twice, a common feature of many curse tablets.97 Even allowing for the repetitions, the agent of SGD 48 targeted at least 16 men from Kydantidai as well as seven or eight from Piraeus, with numerous other demes also represented among the targets. The case of the targets from Kydantidai is especially illuminating: this was a relatively small deme, which elected one or two representatives to the Athenian council of 500,98 so the 16 individuals from the deme in question was, comparatively speaking, a high number. Family members are also cursed in clusters. The involvement of blood kin and affines in Athenian disputes is well documented, including in some of the case studies of Athenian broad-based disputes discussed in the previous chapter. Intra-family disputes were quite common, but so was the closing of ranks when vital interests of the family group were at stake. The latter appears to have been the case in SGD 48. For instance, ll. 2–3 target Eunomos and his notorious brother, and prominent sycophant, Aristogeiton from Pithos. Ll. 60–61 target Strombichos and Strombichides from Euonymon, possibly brothers; the target of l. 64, Eukrates from Euonymon was probably their uncle.99 And ll. 62–63 curse the well-attested Polyeuktos from Sphettos and his son Sostratos.100 These features of the prosopography of SGD 48 point to strong familial and regional networks of support but also diversity in terms of the demotic origin of its targets. Such features are in fact quite common in Athenian curse tablets. SGD 1 (= Peek 1941, no. 3) also seems to point to similar circumstances as it targets blood kin (brother,

In SGD 48 Democharides from Thorikos and Aresandros from Piraeus are targeted four times, see Jordan and Curbera 2008, 139–140. 98 Traill 1975, 69. 99 Jordan and Curbera 2008, 141. 100 See Jordan and Curbera 2008, 141 for testimonia. For the tendency and the expediency of targeting individuals, in the context of Greek magic, in lists and groups see Gordon 1999. 97

108

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

sister, 55–62), affines (wife 71) and other members of a household (attendants/slaves, 68–69).101 Furthermore, a number of targets in the same tablet are identified as members of the Paionidai deme, thus pointing to a local nucleus of the dispute. In other instances, familial networks of support are evident in the tablets targeting tavern-keepers, prostitutes, and merchants.102 Hence DTA 87A.1 targets the tavern-keeper Kallias and his Thracian wife while in the same tablet the brother of a Sosimenes is cursed (DTA 87A.5).103 Moreover, DTA 55 targets the daughter and future son-in-law of an Epainetos as well as the wives and children of all targets of the curse while DTA 77 begins with an attack on a certain Kallistrate, her brother, and children.104 Domestic slaves frequently came in the same category of oikos-centered networks. Again, in DTA 87 domestic slaves (oiketai) are targeted, twice as individuals (A.5 and 6) and once as a group (B.1 the oiketai of Aristandros).105 All in all, SGD 48 exhibits all the marks of a broad-based, cyclical dispute that unfolded in a society where unhindered and constant interaction of individuals of all genders and backgrounds was the norm. The sheer number of targets, as well as the inclusion of prominent Athenians in the roster of opponents, points to the upper echelons of Athenian society as the epicenter of the dispute. Targeting individual adversaries and oppositional support networks demarcated by familial, professional, or regional affiliation suggest numerous stages of the dispute performed in diverse settings of the Athenian public sphere. All these features certainly contributed to what must have been a very colorful and at times lively dispute, the details of which unfortunately elude us. 5.5 Women in Athenian Disputes and Curse Tablets The references to women in SGD 48 raise the wider question of the scale of their involvement in broad-based disputes and litigation. Women of different social and legal backgrounds figure prominently in Athenian curse tablets, and their role and agency

101

The targeting of slaves in Athenian curse tablets is securely attested in some cases and is strongly suspected in others, yet in many instances it is difficult to document conclusively the presence of slaves in Athenian binding curses. For instance, it is likely that many of the sex workers targeted in curse tablets were of slave status. Also, references to foreign ethnics (e. g. Lydians in DTA 106a and 68b; Egyptians in SGD 41 = Müstenberg 1907, no. 3) might be indirect references to slaves or individuals of lower legal status. 102 See also 5.5 and 5.6. 103 Cf. DTA 69; 76 for other husband and wife pairs of targets. 104 For DTA 77 see Rabehl 1906, 44. The context of the dispute is uncertain. Gager 1992, 91 suggests that it might be related to “competition and jealousy regarding erotic matters”; Riess 2012, 171 considers it a separative love spell. For ancient Greek love magic, including curses, see Faraone 1999a. 105 Cf. SGD 51 (= Fox 1913 76–80); SGD 15 (= Thompson 1936, 181) and DT 46 for targeting the members of a household (oikia) as well as DTA 81 for a fragmentary reference to “residents” (oikountas), possibly alluding to an oikos-centered network.

5.5 Women in Athenian Disputes and Curse Tablets

109

in broad-based disputes and litigation should be re-evaluated. It is obvious that for the agents of e. g. DTA 24 and SLCTA no. 3, both binding curses of legal and/or political overtones, women were actively implicated in the development of the dispute. A similar perception informs several other legal curse tablets which target men as well as women. For instance, DTA 39 targets seventeen individuals, six of whom are women. The use of the plural object in the binding formula “all those who are their friends and support them in court”106 at the end of the spell suggests that many, if not all, of the targets of the curse were perceived as members of the support network of the main antagonist. Whatever the nature of the dispute, and despite the fact that the agent of the curse would have had to confront a more restricted team of opponents in court, the agent of DTA 39 clearly perceived the individuals targeted as a more or less coherent group that presented a threat. A similar situation is suggested in DTA 106A which targets seven individuals but only the names of five survive, three men and two women. DTA 106A also binds all those acting as syndikoi of the named targets. Similar to DTA 39, no primary adversary seems to stand out among the targets of the dispute, so in this case as well the focus was probably a network of supporters. The agents of both DTA 39 and 106A clearly anticipated these support networks to be somehow involved in forthcoming litigation and that they could, individually and collectively, gauge some influence over the deliberations of the court. Another complementary possibility is that the agents of DTA 39 and 106A anticipated several collateral conflicts, including legal battles, as part of a broad-based dispute in which most of the targets of the respective curses were also expected to be involved. Notable in DTA 106A, as in DTA 39, is the direct involvement of women in legal curse tablets. Satyra, one of the women targeted in DTA 39, bears a name frequently associated in the ancient world with prostitutes.107 But the name is also attested for Athenian citizen women during the Classical period.108 We are perhaps on safer ground with DTA 102 which targets a Galene, daughter of Polykleia.109 Prostitutes named Galene and Polykleia are attested in Athenian Middle Comedy, and hence their identification with their namesakes targeted in DTA 102 is plausible.110 Moreover the agent of DTA 107 targeted a Galene, identified as “belonging to Pherenikos” (ἥτις Φερεν[ί]κω,

106 107 108 109 110

καὶ τοὺς τούτων | συνδίκο(υ)ς πάντας | καὶ φίλους. Kapparis 2011, 241. See PAA no. 812650 ff. The same Galene is most likely targeted in DTA 107 as well (= Gager 1992 no. 40). Wünsch in DTA 26; Wilhelm 1904, 112; Gager 1992, 126. For DTA 102 see also Papakonstantinou 2013. Cf. the revised text of DTA 95, as restored by A. Wilhelm, which is another example of an inclusive curse tablet that binds individuals of varying genders, deme affiliations and, in all probability, social and professional backgrounds (including possibly a prostitute). Moreover, it is likely that SGD 39 (= Müstenberg 1907, no. 1) also targeted Athenian men as well as some workers in the sex trade.

110

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

ll. 2–3).111 Is that a reference to a female slave or to an intimate sexual relationship as it has been surmised by some scholars?112 If the latter, then perhaps this is another reference to Galene the hetaira. Pherenikos is the main target of DTA 107, and it is worth noting that Galene is cursed before three males that are identified as Pherenikos’ syndikoi. Even more explicit are the references to female tavern-keepers, procurers, and several prostitutes in DTA 68, SGD 48 and other tablets, discussed extensively in previous sections of the present chapter. In many cases some of the female targets bear names that indicate servile status and/or foreign origin. It is worth noting that whenever a woman’s profession is designated or deduced in an Athenian binding curse, it points to a person that was involved in the Athenian public sphere by way of being active in professions or businesses that would have put them in regular contact with numerous Athenians on a daily basis.113 It is to be expected that women active as prostitutes, vendors, and tavern-keepers could interact more freely with men and women of all statuses, and thus they could potentially be connected with various stages of broad-based disputes, including some disputes that resulted in formal litigation. In general, citizen women in Classical Athens had limited legal competence in the courts and could be represented indirectly only through a male kyrios, usually through a male guardian or other male representative.114 Non-citizen women’s legal competence was even more restricted. On occasion women, ostensibly of various legal statuses, could attend legal proceedings as spectators to lend support to a male litigant. But in general, there is little evidence for the formal involvement and the physical presence of women in Athenian courts. A fourth-century legal curse tablet from Kerameikos (SLCTA no. 1) throws additional light on the scope of women’s participation in disputes and especially litigation in Classical Athens.115 This curse is part of a tablet that contains three curses, possibly referring to three separate disputes.116 Alternatively, it is also plausible that all three curses refer to different phases of a single inheritance dispute.117 Column III refers explicitly to the court of the polemarch, charged with hearing cases in which metics or

111 112 113

114 115 116 117

See Rabehl 1906, 47, for an emendation. Wilhelm 1904, 112; Gager 1992, 126–127. See also DTA 30.10 targeting Ilara the tavern owner; DTA 68 which targets at least 3 female tavern owners (A.5 and 13; B.6); DTA 87A.8 for Mania the tavern owner; SGD 11.7–8 (= Peek 1957, 207) targeting Myrtale the elderly tavern-keeper; SGD 52 (= Ziebarth 1934, no. 5) for a Euphrosyne who is identified as in charge of a net-weaving workshop; DT 52.11 (with a new edition by Jordan 1999, no. 2), targeting prostitutes; Lamont 2015, targeting the tavern-keeper Phanagora and quite possibly her husband. DT 47 possibly alludes to labor (in a context of a brothel?) of three women but does not specify the nature of work. See 5.6 for further discussion of tavern owners in Athenian curse tablets. See in general Gagarin 1998. For previous critical editions see n. 84 of the present chapter. As suggested in SLCTA, 211–214. As suggested by Rubinstein 2018, 315–316. Cf. Jordan 2004, 297; Eidinow 2007a, 167 and 173.

5.5 Women in Athenian Disputes and Curse Tablets

111

other foreign residents were involved.118 Ll. 1–8 of column III are dedicated to a comprehensive binding of Eirene who was clearly the main target. More specifically, the agent of the curse targets Eirene’s mind, spirit, tongue, and deeds germane to a forthcoming trial. However, ll. 8–17 switches to the plural and targets “all their witnesses” (ll. 9–10) and “all their associates in the trial” (ll. 16–17).119 If these references are taken literally, they might imply the active presence of an unnamed κύριος or προστάτης of Eirene, depending on her legal status. An example of a dispute involving a metic woman and her prostates is provided by Dem. 25.56–58. In this instance Zobia, a metic, was brought in front of the state auctioneers (poletai) by her former Athenian lover Aristogeiton, for allegedly failing to pay her metic tax. Zobia’s unnamed prostates, an Athenian citizen, testified in her support. To return to SLCTA no. 1, III, although in the mind of the agent of the curse Eirene was a protagonist in the dispute, her exact role in the trial and even her legal status are unclear. It is possible that she was a litigant, perhaps (though not certainly) of metic status, in a lawsuit tried at the polemarch’s court, but based on the text it is also possible that she could have belonged to the network of supporters of a male litigant.120 Despite the limitations that formal legal institutions imposed on Athenian women, it is evident that in most Athenian legal curses women are envisaged as part of the network of legal adversaries, usually designated as syndikoi, antidikoi or synegoroi.121 In these instances, women were targeted in curse tablets because it was believed that they could influence the course and outcome of disputes, including formal legal proceed[Arist.] Ath. 58.2. For metics in Athenian law and litigation see Hunter 2000 and Patterson 2000. I reproduce the text of SLCTA no.1, III: καταδ[έ]ω ΝΗΗΝΕ̣ΡΙ πρὸς τ̣[ὸν] | Ἑρμῆν τὸν ἐριόνιον καὶ [π]|ρὸς τὴν Φερσεφόνην καὶ [π]|ρὸς τὴν Λήθην καὶ νõν αὐ|τῆς καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ γλῶσαν | καὶ ἔργα τὰ περὶ τῆς πρὸς ἡ|μᾶς δίκης λέγει, καταδέ|ω ἅπαντ᾽ αὐτῆς : κταδέ| ω {δεω} δὲ καὶ τὸς μάρτυ|ρας αὐ̣[τ]ῶν ἅπαντας καὶ | τὸν [πολ]έμαρχον καὶ τὸ | δικαστ̣[ήρι]ον τὸ τõ πολεμάρχο | πρὸς τὸν̣ [Ἐ] ρ̣ι̣ούνιον Ἑρμ̣ῆ̣ν̣ | καὶ πρὸς τὴν Φερσεφόν[ην] | καὶ πρὸ̣ς τ̣ὴ̣ν Λήθην, κα[τ]αδ[έω] | καὶ̣ [συδίκ]ος ἅπαντας τὸς με|{ε}τ᾽ἐκε̣[ί]νων καὶ ἅπα[ν]τας. 120 See Papakonstantinou 2014, 1032–1033. Costabile 2001, 187–191, considers Eirene as the plaintiff and interprets SLCTA no. 1, III, 6–7 (ἔργα τὰ περὶ τῆς πρὸς ἡ|μᾶς δίκης λέγει) as the act of collecting testimonies and other evidence for a forthcoming trial. More recently, Dreher 2018b, 302–303 and n. 41, prompted by the active voice verb (λέγει, SLCTA no. 1, III, 7; see previous note for full text) that governs the part of the curse that refers to a trial, also argued that Eirene was the plaintiff of the dike. However, the verb in question has a wide semantic scope and it is not necessary to assume that it refers to the words of Eirene during the actual trial. Ιt could very well be that it refers more broadly to Eirene’s words in connection with or concerning the trial. See Papakonstantinou 2014, 1033 and Eidinow 2007a, 440. This could, in other words, be a reference to speech and acts by Eirene before the formal trial and hence allude to e. g. gossip mongering or other communicative strategies. As to her exact role as a litigant, if she was one, there are no securely attested cases of women acting as plaintiffs in Athenian courts, but there are a few known instances where women were prosecuted – through a male representative – as defendants, see Gagarin 1998, 40. The possibility that women were considered legally incompetent to act as plaintiffs, i. e. as active instigators of a lawsuit, in Classical Athens would accord with their lower legal standing in the eyes of Athenian law. So overall, if Eirene was a litigant, the higher probability is that she was a defendant. 121 See 5.1 and note 22 for references. 118 119

112

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

ings. Beyond the domestic sphere, women’s involvement in a dispute could materialize in a number of ways.122 Women certainly could initiate and conduct broad-based disputes, but their limited legal competence in practice meant that disputes with at least one woman as a main disputant are rarely echoed in Athenian forensic orations. Regarding disputes between male disputants, women could act as surrogates or members of the core support network of the main disputing parties and carry out numerous acts in connection with these disputes. Moreover, women could potentially become formally or informally involved in most stages of a broad-based dispute between male disputants, from the initial stages to litigation and beyond. In addition to direct involvement, similar to men women could be active in spreading rumors against a disputant’s opponents, in heckling counter litigants and witnesses from the audience gallery at court, and in engaging in magical or counter-magical acts. A similar argument can be made regarding other members of subaltern groups in Classical Athens, including metics and other non-citizens of free status, as well as slaves. In the eyes of the persons who commissioned legal curses Athenian members of these subaltern groups wielded, through their involvement in formal or informal aspects of broadbased disputes and litigation, considerable power in influencing the outcome of disputes and trials.123 5.6 Broad-based Disputes and Litigation in Other Athenian Curse Tablets Few Athenian curse tablets can match the prosopographical wealth of SGD 48 or the capacity of SLCTA no. 4 in illustrating the potential development of an Athenian broad-based dispute. Nevertheless, viewed in its totality the corpus of extant Athenian curse tablets can provide additional valuable insights on disputing behaviors and practices in Classical Athens. This is especially so in the domain of litigation and other manifestations of the formal legal system. Curse tablets are typically quite specific on the targets but less so regarding the circumstances that prompted the commissioning of a binding spell. As already pointed out, most disputes in Classical Athens had the potential to reach the stage of formal arbitration or litigation, although certainly not all of them did. Authors of curse tablets were mindful of making explicit whether the prospect of litigation loomed on the horizon by referring to targets as witnesses, collaborators in court or in some other fashion that firmly pointed to the judicial institutions of the city.124 This was no doubt because

122 See also the comments by Eidinow 2007a, 186–187. 123 For non-citizens in Athenian curse tablets see 5.3, n. 84 and 5.4, n. 101. 124 Furthermore, as Rubinstein 2018 points out, legal curse tablets could have been commissioned in connection with private or public suits as well as trials that were perceived by participants as stages of an ongoing multi-layered legal battle.

5.6 Broad-based Disputes and Litigation in Other Athenian Curse Tablets

113

adjudication was a defining stage in a broad-based dispute. By the same token, curse tablets that do not refer explicitly to some aspect of formal litigation largely reflected an extra-legal, including potentially pre- or post- formal litigation, stage of the dispute. The heightened focus on litigation among curse tablets is not accountable merely on the grounds of the frequency or popularity of litigation but rather of the potentially devastating consequences of litigation, including at times the loss of citizenship and/ or property, exile and even death, to the defeated parties of some lawsuits. The distinction between litigation and other stages of a dispute is frequently heeded in the narratives of many court speeches, but also in curse tablets. In the latter case, space constraints necessitated brevity and hence the articulation of the distinction between different stages of a dispute in an often allusive or metaphorical manner. The most common strategy for achieving this end was by referencing the various roles allocated to opponents in a dispute, presented as targets in a curse tablet. DTA 39, discussed in the preceding section, targeted both men and women, among the latter possibly including some prostitutes (l. 9 Satyra; l. 18 Eukolyne), as well as all their supporters/associates in court (syndikous) and friends (philous).125 A similar turn of phrase, namely “associates in court and others”, is encountered in the curse tablet that targets trierarchs and other individuals associated with the Athenian navy discussed in 5.1.126 In both of these examples the agents of the tablets seem to distinguish between those perceived as being actively and perhaps formally involved in litigation (“syndikoi”) from those who were not (“friends”, “others”). All participants in a quarrel, from core network supporters to accidental witnesses, could impact in various degrees the course and outcome of the dispute, including any formal adjudication. Hence Athenians could not easily underestimate the clout of those frequently referenced in curse tablets as “friends” and “others” vis-à-vis those who ostensibly had a more direct presence/involvement in formal litigation (e. g. “syndikoi”, “synegoroi”). Rather, such distinctions between formal and informal participants in litigation highlight Athenians’ understanding of the gradual and cyclical nature of broad-based disputes as well as the level of individual agency that a dispute’s numerous participants, who were cognizant of the nature of the interaction they were involved in, were expected to exercise in the course of such disputes. Likewise, a group of curse tablets (DTA 68; 84 and 87; DT 70–73; SGD 43 = Robert 1936, no. 12) that target Athenian residents of diverse legal statuses and occupations provides another window to patterns of disputing and litigation in Classical Athens.127 These tablets have usually been interpreted as portraying life and feuds in a particular

125 126 127

See 5.5 and note 106 for text. Wilhelm’s 1904, 119–120 revised reading of DTA 95 also includes a reference to Eukolyne, possibly the same prostitute as in DTA 39 and DTA 160. SLCTA no. 4, A, 8: καὶ σ[ύ]νδικ̣οι καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος. In addition to the tablets discussed in the present section see also SGD 52 (= Ziebarth 1934, no. 5), targeting a male and a female net weaver and their workshops.

114

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

subsection of the Athenian population, namely professionals from the entertainment and sex business,128 or as attempts to control and manipulate that sector of the Athenian market.129 Such interpretations appear plausible to a certain extent as many of the targets of these tablets are designated as tavern-keepers or involved in prostitution (procurers, prostitutes) – one should not forget, however, that in some curse tablets individuals involved in such and other humble professions figure next to prominent public personae of well-heeled backgrounds.130 But is it possible to move beyond such interpretations and examine whether such tablets can contribute to our inquiry regarding dominant modes of disputing in Classical Athens? DTA 68, aspects of which were also discussed in 5.3, is one of the curse tablets targeting tavern-keepers and other market professionals. The agent of the curse cast their net wide by targeting over 20 individuals of diverse statuses and professional affiliations. Among the targets there is a miller (A.1), tavern-keepers (A.5; A.12; A.13), owners and equipment of ergasteria which, in this context, alludes to brothels (A.2; A.5; A.7; A.9; A.11; A.12–13); a boxer (A.9); and a procuress (A.14). Side B as well targets several tavern and brothel owners as well as a prostitute (B.14) and her slave (B.15). Many of the targets were women and some were not Athenian (e. g. Lydians, A.5 and 9; B.10). This is an impressive list that provides an exciting, albeit limited insight, in the life and interactions of subaltern groups that are almost invisible in most literary works and forensic speeches. It is worth emphasizing, however, two points. First, if Wünsch’s reading of martyras (witnesses) in A.10 is correct, then this was a dispute that was about to reach the formal adjudication stage. If this was in fact a dispute that, as commentators have suggested, emerged and developed exclusively in the world of taverns and brothels, it is telling for the nature of Athenian democratic institutions and society, as well as suggestive of perceptions of adjudication and the legal system beyond the social elites of Athens, that the adversaries in such a dispute would resort to litigation, rather than pursuing the dispute solely (or at least primarily) through negotiation and self-help outside the state legal realm. Secondly, the tablet bears clear signs of a broad-based dispute, especially the recruitment of large swaths of individuals, many of whom might have had only a peripheral, transient, or accidental involvement with the core of the dispute. In that case, it is worth remembering that these were individuals that were targeted not only because of their profession, gender or legal status but also, and perhaps primarily, because of their role as organic participants (principal or ancillary) in the broad-based dispute that generated the tablet. This is, in other words, a curse tablet that is embracive in its scope, presumably as was the broad-based dispute that generat-

128 129 130

Dickie 2001, 83–85. Gager 1992, 161. For other curse tablets targeting tavern-keepers and sex workers see note 113 as well as DTA 72; 73; 74; 75; 84; SGD 48 (= Jordan and Curbera 2008). E. g. SGD 48 (= Jordan and Curbera 2008); SGD 42 (= Robert 1936, no. 11).

5.6 Broad-based Disputes and Litigation in Other Athenian Curse Tablets

115

ed it, that targets large numbers of individuals who also happen to be practitioners of certain trades and professions. Even though it might be the case that the initial spark that generated the dispute might have been an issue directly related to the operation or business practices of a tavern/brothel, on balance DTA 68 and other tablets of similar content should not necessarily be attributed exclusively to some overwhelming desire of the agent of the curse to control or harm large segments of the entertainment or sex business of Athens. Moreover, such curse tablets might be reflecting situations whereby stages of a dispute were publicly performed in taverns and brothels, engaging many of the individuals targeted. DTA 68 itself points in that direction. Side A.6 targeted a lodging-house (synoikia) and all those who resided in it – probably a reference to prostitutes in a brothel and perhaps frequent customers. Moreover, following a list of brothel-owners targeted on side B, there is reference to a certain Melas, also owner of a brothel, who is singled out for being targeted alongside his courtesan Lakaina (pallaka) and a slave, whose name does not survive (B, 12–15). All that tells us more about Athenian disputing practices than the overarching intentions of the agent of the curse. The engagement of groups of individuals associated by residence, tight kinship or professional links was, as already pointed out, a salient characteristic of broad-based disputes. But at the stage of the dispute reflected in DTA 68 – possibly in light of the forthcoming litigation – the main concern of the agent of the curse was the wide appeal, in terms of the support network, of their opponent and not the daily nitty-gritty of the operation of the taverns/brothels whose owners were targeted. Other Athenian curse tablets that target tavern owners or workers in the sex trade and other market professions point in the same direction. A group of at least five tablets that were found together targeted men and women involved in the entertainment and sex trade in Athens.131 A tavern owner Ophilion seems to be one of the prime targets as he is mentioned first in four of the five tablets.132 Several other men and women were targeted in more than one tablet, including Ophelime (DT 71 and 72), Olympos (DT 70, 71 and 72; SGD 43), Pistios (DT 70 and 72; SGD 43) and Manes (DT 70 and 71; SGD 43).133 In this case the initial cause of the dispute probably originated in a professional milieu – note how the agent of these curses repeatedly targets the work (ergasia) of tavern-keepers and several of their female employees. A similar pattern emerges from DTA 87 which also targets men and women who owned taverns, but also other individuals of subaltern and working backgrounds. One is a certain Karpos who

131 132 133

DT 70–73 and SGD 43 (= Robert 1936 no. 12). For the context of discovery see Robert 1936, 15. DT 70–72; (DT 70 = DTA 70; DT 71 = DTA 71); SGD 43 (= Robert 1936, no. 12). An Ophelion is also targeted in DTA 91. DT 72 and 73 are written on two sides of the same tablet, see Abt 1911, no. 1. It is likely that DT 73 also targeted tavern owners. For a discussion of this dossier and other Athenian curse tablets targeting tavern-keepers see also Lamont 2015, 172–173.

116

5 Curse Tablets in Athenian Disputes

is designated as slave, possibly of a Sosimenes, as well as fabric seller (DTA 87A.5). A Kittos targeted in DTA 87A.7 was a craftsman of some sort, possibly a rope-maker.134 This Kittos was almost certainly the individual targeted in DT 72.6. Although not a tavern-keeper himself, his business was ostensibly adjacent to many taverns, hence his engagement with disputes that emerged in that quarter of Athens. Kittos therefore exemplifies a prominent pattern in Athenian broad-based disputes, discernible in the literary record and, to a lesser extent, the curse tablets: the fluidity of secondary support networks as well as the trend of members of support networks to, at times, crisscross between disputes. Thus besides Kittos, some supporters of disputants are targeted in more than one curse tablets that, at face value, were generated by different disputes. Among the supporters of Ophilion – if he is indeed the main adversary of the agent of the group of tablets introduced in the previous paragraph  – there is an Agathon (DT 70.3), a tavern-keeper who is also targeted in DTA 87.5.135 In DT 72, again among the supporters of Ophilion there is a Melas (l. 5) who also features in DTA 68, where he is cursed alongside his slave and courtesan (ll. 12–15). The partial overlap of support networks in some curse tablets was closely linked to the pattern of recruitment of a disputant’s support network in the course of a dispute. In DTA 87 two of the targets, the tavern-keeper Kallias (l. 1) and Kittos (l. 7) are designated as neighbors (geitonas), most likely of the agent of the curse. The fragmentary DTA 25 also seems to refer to neighbors (geitonas) twice. In discussing proximity of residence or business one is reminded of the targeting of all the residents in a specific lodging-house in DTA 68.A.6 as well as of the targeting of the domestic slaves of Aristandros in DTA 87B. The importance of association by location for disputants and their supporters – a point elaborated in 5.3 – was practically translated in the tendency to recruit most members of a support network from one’s nearest and dearest, including kin, neighbors, and business associates. Consequently, and since many disputes of non-elites were primarily of local caliber, at times it became inevitable that some support network members (e. g. tavern owners; prostitutes) were, as curse tablets suggest, embroiled in multiple concurrent broad-based disputes. 5.7 Conclusion The objective of the preceding discussion was to assess how the evidence afforded by Athenian curse tablets fits the wider pattern of Athenian broad-based disputes. Athenian curse tablets document the engagement of both social elites and the working poor in disputes and magic. But most importantly they document the trend of Athenian 134 135

For the meaning of kanabiourgos, the profession of Kittos, see Gager 1992, no. 62; Eidinow 2007a, 323, n. 21. An Agathon is also targeted in DTA 85A.

5.7 Conclusion

117

disputes to involve a cross-section of individuals of diverse genders, social classes, and legal statuses as members of support networks. Moreover, some of the curse tablets allude to the chronic nature of Athenian disputes, as they envisage multiple stages of interaction, as well as to prominent patterns of recruitment of support networks based on kinship, residence or professional affiliation. Last but not least, Athenian curse tablets often illustrate legal strategies adopted in the context of disputes, as well as alternative discourses on popular morality and the legal system without, however, substantially undermining the latter or dominant dispute modes. Discourses evinced in Athenian curse tablets, in other words, were oppositional and even confrontational, but not heretical or subversive towards the established order.

Chapter 6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions Disputes, and the set of practices that were commonly employed in Classical Athens to pursue them, were inextricably linked as constitutive elements and as catalysts of socially embedded configurations of agency and institutional alignments. This issue is discussed in chapter 3 and will be further elaborated in the present chapter in light of the preceding analysis of Athenian broad-based disputes as depicted in contexts of litigation and magic. Civic settings as well as more fluid and casual contexts of interpersonal interaction hedged discursive and behavioral performances in multiple ways, e. g. by communally embedded blueprints of behavior, civic institutions, and gender/ age/legal status distinctions. Equally importantly, agential behaviors were integral facets of the interface, at times even change, of societal and institutional alignments. Aspects of individual and collective agency are amply documented in Athens but were rarely conceptualized and articulated as such by Athenian authors. In the present chapter, section 6.1 attempts to outline a conceptual framework of Athenian agency, especially individual agency in the context of disputes. The dramaturgical aspects of Athenian agential behavior in the context of disputes were also intimately associated with the emotive world, the focus of 6.2. Athenian dikastai, the jurors who manned the Athenian courts, were active social agents themselves but also the recipients of agential behavior manipulations and emotive performances by disputants who pursued parts of their conflicts through the formal legal system. A thorough examination, in sections 6.3 and 6.4, of the role of dikastai as articulated in two genres of dispute discourses, namely binding curses and forensic speeches, highlights the proactive and malleable nature of Athenian agential behavior. 6.1 Individual and Collective Agency We must now turn to agency, a concept central in any attempt to comprehend conflictmanagement tactics and resources in Classical Athens. Regarding Athens, as well as in connection with most premodern societies, it is in principle more fruitful to focus on known instances of execution/manifestation of agential behavior, especially in at-

6.1 Individual and Collective Agency

119

tested situations whereby agents act with intentionality and in a proactive manner.1 Cognition and temporality in the execution of purposeful acts materialize in agency through their manifestation in social space – an additional, spatial element to agency can therefore be added. Furthermore, the social standing of the agent, his/her social environment, the availability of resources and the agent’s ability to self-reflect and adjust strategies and objectives inform a person’s agency. Hence agency, like all social behaviors, is culturally constructed as each society and each individual within a certain social group formulates and negotiates specific modalities of behavior. This broad picture can be further elaborated by selectively employing sophisticated models of agency assessment, as elaborated by social theory. S. B. Ortner defined agency as “the capacity of social beings to interpret and morally evaluate their situation and to formulate projects and try to enact them.”2Agency, in this assessment, refers to individual and collective purposive actions as well as the intentions that inform them. Moreover, as A. Giddens has pointed out, agential behavior refers to a “continuous flow of conduct”, in other words agency and all its implications has a critically temporal, read historical, component.3 Agency is exercised primarily in three modes: individual (or personal), collective, and proxy.4 Individual agency can be manifested in various gradations. Low-level agents tend to focus on the mechanics and the immediate consequences of their actions, i. e. on how they act. Their actions are usually confined to everyday, routine acts as low-level agents most often lack the skills and a sense of self-efficacy necessary to undertake successfully more complicated tasks. By contrast, high-level agents tend to set their plans and establish their objectives in an encompassing manner, taking into consideration their motives and the long-term social and personal implications of their actions, i. e. they identify why they act. High-level agents are more resourceful, are more adaptive to setbacks and have a clearer appreciation of themselves vis-à-vis other social agents and society at large. In practice, most people fall somewhere between the two extremes (high-low) personal agency modes, and it is possible that the same person would exhibit traits of high or low agency in different situations based on a number of variables (e. g. unfamiliarity of a situation or task involved). Neverthe-

1 2 3 4

Contrary to documented instances of agential behavior, cognitive aspects of agency in historical, especially ancient, societies are more elusive as they are rarely recorded in extant sources. Ortner 2006, 56. Giddens 1979, 55; 1984, 5–14 and passim. Giddens’ analysis of agency focuses almost entirely on capabilities/actions at the expense of intentions. The focus in the remainder of this chapter is on individual and, to a lesser extent, collective agency. Proxy agency, the state of seeking to influence one’s environment and improve one’s life conditions through the help and services of others, was not unknown in ancient Athens but was less common in comparison to modern and some ancient (e. g. Rome) societies.

120

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

less, individuals tend to incline towards one of the personal agency modes: high-level agents usually tend to think and act in high-level terms and vice versa.5 a. Agency, Power, and Structure: The Case of Athens How can these insights on human behavior contribute to our understanding of Athenian disputes and the strategies employed therein, including litigation and binding curses? Evidence for agency in Athenian disputes can be gleaned primarily from the forensic orations corpus as well as from binding curses. I would like to argue that one can identify some major parameters, with reference both to historically located modes of activity (e. g. specific patterns of social organization; institutions) and subjectivities (e. g. Athenian perceptions and evaluations towards interpersonal relationships), that fostered agential behavior and praxis. A careful reading of forensic orations can adumbrate certain patterns or specific case studies of high-level agential behavior in the course of Athenian disputes. As for binding curses, they were consecrated in secretive rituals but also manifested themselves as interventions in public life, e. g. the courtroom in the case of legal curses, and as proactive responses to disputes ranging from intra-elite conflicts to antagonisms confined to the microcosm of the household or the neighborhood. Curse tablets were personal responses to particular challenges faced by the individuals, and in some cases their friends and associates, who commissioned the curses. In other words, as manifestations of individual agency, they reveal something of the individual or group motivations, intentions, and goals of people involved in interpersonal or intergroup disputes in the public sphere of Classical Athens. Agency is always a manifestation of power, and Athens was no exception. Power through agency could be articulated in numerous ways on the individual and collective level. Institutions and other structural components of a society are obvious enablers of material and cultural power.6 Institutional and structural sites of power included, in the case of Athens, the courts of justice; entrenched familial relationships of hierarchy and domination; resources; procedures; and widely held principles. Such structural components in Athens often, but not always, transcended individual, at times even collective, agential behaviors. A key factor in assessing Athenian disputes is the relationship 5 6

For high and low levels of personal agency see Vallacher and Wegner 1989 and 2012. For human agency and the related concept of self-efficiency see Bandura 1989 and 1997. For the relationship between agency and structure see Giddens 1984 and 1989. Giddens 1979, 64, defines structure as “rules and resources, recursively implicated in the reproduction of social systems”. See also the discussion in Giddens 1984, 16–28. Resources are intimately interrelated to conditions and relations of power or, as Giddens 1979, 69 puts it, resources are “the ‘bases’ or ‘vehicles’ of power.” Institutions and institutional alignments (e. g. democracy, oligarchy etc.) are aggregates of resources and therefore part but not the totality of structure (for a slightly different reading of institutions by Giddens see 1979, 106–111).

6.1 Individual and Collective Agency

121

between agential behavior and these structural generators of power. In many cases that relationship between agency and structure was complex and uneasy, especially in the course of disputes. At the same time, it can be asserted that no matter how asymmetrical the distribution of resources, during Athenian disputes agency was always in a dialectical and interactive relationship with structural depositories of power.7 Even the most downtrodden members of a strictly hierarchical society have opportunities to articulate a transcript of opposition and resistance to the most privileged instantiations of power and structure.8 Athenian institutions and state-controlled entities during the democracy had the capacity, as they enacted statutory enactments and other policies, to confer power and enable or impose constraints on individuals; yet disputants as well as other interested individuals were also at times capable, through their agency, to mediate, manipulate, and partly control the operation of state and social structures. The forensic orations corpus points to a wider pattern of agential behavior, which highlights the reflexivity between individual agency and structure, that is often discernible in the rhetoric employed by elite Athenians involved in disputes. Often during litigation such elites adopted strategies and discourses that can be categorized either as i) instrumental/strategic, aimed at achieving specific short- or long-term objectives and/or ii) aimed at normative consensus, in other words aimed at reinforcing normative structures and by extension an individual’s or group’s social standing. These two rough categories were not strictly demarcated or antinomical, but they regularly informed each other. One example, by way of illustrating this pattern of elite court rhetoric, concerns the discourse of elite munificence. The Athenian forensic corpus is replete with examples of well-off litigants who meticulously reminded their audiences, and often bragged about, their performances of liturgies or other services to the city. At face value such services were normative actions, as the litigants in question performed their obligations under Athenian law and custom. At the same time these acts, performed by an individual over the course of several years or even by numerous generations of the same family, had a strategic dimension as they targeted the acknowledgement of elevated social status, social capital as well as the goodwill of the Athenian demos in adverse for the agents circumstances, e. g. during lawsuits. Moreover, one can also assess agency and its interplay with power and structure in the context of the relationship between formal/civic norms and settings of litigation vis-à-vis customary rules and out-of-court dispute management techniques. Even though some Athenian litigants opportunistically portrayed popular courts as impregnatable bastions of law, justice, and morality, the reality was that the courts, and the justice system at large, was a fluid ideological domain constitutive of numerous legal-

7 8

For a wider, comparative perspective on this issue see Sewell 1992. For interaction of structure and communal agency in the governance of Classical Athens see Ober 2008. Scott 1985 and 1990.

122

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

ities.9 In Athens, therefore, there existed an organic relationship between state-sponsored and informal modes of conflict management practices and agency. For Athenian disputants categorizations of formal and informal dispute management practices, to the extent that they were articulated by authorities and popular morality, were in practice essentially indistinguishable, in the sense that very often in the course of disputes Athenians employed or smoothly alternated between methods and discourses that most modern commentators would ascribe to either one of these categories (formal/ informal, private/public). As the sample of disputes discussed in chapter 4 strongly demonstrates, in reality most Athenian disputes, especially broad-based disputes, including those that reached the stage of formal litigation, were carried out both in the private and public spheres and by recourse to formal and informal means. b. High-Level Agency in Athens As the preceding discussion strongly suggests, one can patently observe the effects of both structure and agency in the development of a distinct mode of dispute management in Classical Athens.10 Modes of agency exhibited by Athenians stood at the crossroads of the mundane, namely the micro-politics and daily disputes, and larger forces and formations as they interacted in an integral and constant manner. Regarding disputes, the institutional and social alignment of democratic Athens, with the prevalent ideology of democracy and egalitarianism, and its concomitant expectation of active involvement in public life constituted the social and cultural framework for the deployment of Athenian agency, especially in connection with disputes. Both agents’ subjectivities and intentions as well as wider social and political structures could at times prompt or impede aspects of disputes. However, disputes were clearly considered in Classical Athens as a legitimate – in the sense of socially acceptable and legally recognized – means to manage interpersonal conflict. Thus, broad-based disputes could more easily develop and thrive, as well as spread out to engage considerable numbers of Athenian residents often drawn, as pointed out in the preceding chapter, from the same or territorially contiguous population clusters. On the individual level, the strategies adopted by Athenians in the management and resolution of broad-based disputes were indicative of high-level personal agency, characterized by self-evaluative, adaptive, and conscious of long-term implications social behavior.11 High-level personal agency was predicated on the knowledgeability

9 10 11

On this point see further chapter 2.2 and 3.3. See also Papakonstantinou 2017. This understanding of high-level agency, in other words, takes into consideration the alleged intentions of actors as well as carrying out the actions necessary to achieve – to the extent that it is possible – their intentions.

6.1 Individual and Collective Agency

123

of actors and the domain of action. Hence in most routine daily activities (e. g. labor, commute, household chores) and interactions where the scope of initiative was limited Athenian social actors adopted a low-level agential behavior with a view towards the immediate context of interaction. But when circumstances were favorable, especially when actors found themselves in a domain of action that proactively encouraged engagement, e. g. in contexts of participatory politics, shared governance, and administration of justice, then actors could potentially, if other variables were also conducive, exhibit high-level agency. Athenians were fully aware of the limitations of and challenges to the opportunities for articulating individual agency in the social and institutional framework of the Athenian democracy. Women, slaves, and other individuals of lower legal statuses were excluded from most (but not all) institutional facets of the Athenian democracy. Even among adult male citizens who fully qualified to participate in all institutional aspects of the democracy, practical obstacles often hampered their participation in civic life. Hence for many Athenian citizens who resided in distant demes the practical constraints of arduous and time-consuming travel to the urban center, combined with the need to focus on day-to-day necessities were often difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Be that as it may, it was also the case that there were some possibilities, even for Athenians who lived in remote areas of Attica, to participate in collective action and manifest their agency, including in deme politics, phratry activities, local festivals, and theatrical performances. As for those of lower legal and social statuses there were opportunities, albeit marginal, to make their presence known in public life and state institutions from which they were formally excluded. It was this particular social and institutional framework, with the high degree of institutional openness that characterized civic decision-making bodies and the easily accessible social spaces – including shops and the open-air markets – in the Athenian public sphere, that largely accustomed inhabitants of Attica to think and act in a high-level agency mode.12 In addition to being accessible spaces, the Athenian agora, courts, assembly meeting location, and other publicly available sites were also active dialogic and reciprocal spaces in which the exchange of often contending discourses was a daily occurrence. Athenian public spaces were in other words “zones of transcourse”,13

12

13

For shops as accessible social spaces see e. g. Lys. 24.20 where the speaker argues emphatically that most Athenians were in the habit of frequenting shops: “for each of you is in the habit of paying a call at either a perfumer’s or a barber’s or a shoemaker’s shop, or wherever he may chance to go” (ἕκαστος γὰρ ὑμῶν εἴθισται προσφοιτᾶν ὁ μὲν πρὸς μυροπώλιον, ὁ δὲ πρὸς κουρεῖον, ὁ δὲ πρὸς σκυτοτομεῖον, ὁ δ᾽ ὅποι ἂν τύχῃ). I borrow the term from Kaplan and Kelly 1994, 129: “The points where a structure is most intermixed with materials, acts, and voices alien to it, the zones of thickest transcourse, are sites of struggle over extension, contraction, and transformation, and even sites of struggle to encompass when agents of two or more social systems are actively engaged with each other.”

124

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

a confluence of individual subjectivities, civic ideologies, and (individual or collective) articulations of power that co-existed, interacted, and influenced each other. It is reasonable that in the midst of this intense cultural process, and especially in the context of broad-based disputes as demonstrated in chapter 4, Athenian disputants resorted to lateral thinking and behavior that often transcended strict age, gender, and legal status divisions. Concurrently, Athenian disputants could inhabit multiple subject positions (e. g. male, citizen, father etc.; or female, metic, wife etc.) in an attempt to navigate the complexities of their interaction, including in the course of disputes, with fellow inhabitants of Athens and state institutions. In such a context, Athenians were by and large cognizant of the structural framework wherein their actions occurred and must have been aware, even implicitly,14 of the potentially transformative power that individual and collective agency could have. Athenians, especially residents in or near the urban area of Athens, intentionally engaged in a number of acts that had clearly defined, long-term implications for the individuals in question and often for the city-state of Athens as a whole. Hence Athenians participated in big numbers in the popular assembly which decided on issues that affected the entire polity.15 Despite the questions surrounding their composition, Thucydides’ narratives of debates in the Athenian assembly during the Peloponnesian war allow valuable insights into the dynamics of assembly meetings in late fifth-century Athens. For instance, in the Mytilene debate (Thuc. 3.37–49) speakers deliberated not only the immediate fate of the rebels in the Aegean island but also the best way to serve Athenian interests and the message that Athens, as an imperialist power, wanted to send to her subjects, allies, and indeed the entire Greek world through this affair. Furthermore, in the debate before the Sicilian expedition (Thuc. 6.8–26) the discussion in the assembly regarding the long-term benefits that could accrue to Athens out of a military intervention in Sicily was pivotal to the demos’ overwhelming vote in favor of the expedition. Even if we allow that some of the arguments put in the mouths of assembly speakers by Thucydides and other ancient authors are rhetorical constructions, one would reasonably expect that long-term consequences and matters of civic expediency would

14

15

The degree to which social actors in Classical Athens were aware of the conditions that informed their actions and their active involvement in the reproduction of social systems was contingent on many factors, including gender, education, legal, and social status. Even in the case of Athenians who had only a partial understanding of social and political conditions, such a state of affairs was not necessarily incompatible with high-level agency. The argument I am advancing here is that high-level agency was the dominant – although certainly not the only – mode of agential behavior in Classical Athens among residents who had some familiarity, exposure, and engagement with the political framework of the Athenian democracy as well as the social conditions and the moral/ ideological landscape that the institutional alignment of the Athenian democracy entailed. For widespread participation in the assembly and courts of Classical Athens see also the discussion by Ober 1989 and Lanni 2016, both with references to past scholarship.

6.1 Individual and Collective Agency

125

have been carefully considered and debated in a people’s meeting that decided important issues of state, including war. That was especially so since, in the case of the popular assembly, it was the Athenian assembly-goers who were going to bear the brunt of any decision they were going to vote for. Parallels are to be found in several defining moments in Athenian history during the Classical period, for instance the decision to award amnesty to oligarchs after the restoration of the democracy in 403. Even decisions on more humdrum issues, as e. g. the award of honors or citizenship to individuals who benefitted Athens had long-term implications: they encouraged the persons in question to continue their acts of munificence and invited other wealthy individuals to emulate them, all to the benefit of Athens and its people. Speakers in the popular assembly no doubt hammered these points home to the audience, who could not have failed to realize the import of their decisions. Assembly participants were therefore able to think and act individually at a high-level agency mode and vote, in an instantiation of collective agency, according to what they thought were their best interests. The same pattern is detected in other spheres of life in Classical Athens. For instance, inhabitants of Attica regularly engaged in religious civic or regional festivals, oikos rituals, and other acts of interaction with the divine with the firm belief that their acts propitiated the gods who were expected to reciprocate with well-being and prosperity for the individuals, their families, and their city. Moreover, through communal worship, processions, athletic contests, theatrical performances, and other features of these festivals participants re-enacted and negotiated, on the basis of a shared symbolic and ideological horizon, the meaning of what it meant to be a member of the Athenian community as well as the image that Athens projected to the rest of the Greek world. Athenian broad-based disputes that were formed and developed in the specific social and cultural framework of democratic Athens also encouraged the display of high-level agential behavior. An elaborate forensic discourse could, by itself, be a manifestation of high-level agency when it aimed at a long-term effect.16 An example is Aeschines’ prosecution speech against Timarchos.17 The plaintiff in this case orchestrated a complex narrative which incorporated details from diverse episodes from the early life of the accused, in many cases stretching back decades.18 Despite the content of the speech, its objectives were forward-looking: the ultimate aim was to permanently neutralize, through disenfranchisement, a central political opponent and consequently ease up the pressure piled on Aeschines by hostile political factions. Such arguments and rhetorical strategies, consistent with a high-level agential behavior, were symptomatic of a wider trend in Athenian forensic oratory: most extant court speeches employ arguments based on the long-term consequences of the dispute for the litigants, the 16 17 18

This point is further developed in 6.3. Aeschin. 1. See Fisher 2001.

126

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

jurors, and the Athenian public at large. The implication is that not only were litigants high-level agents, but that the same applied to the jurors, since they were able to assess and render a verdict on the basis of the arguments presented to them. c. Subjectivity and Agency in Athenian Disputes and Curse Tablets Agency, as used throughout this book, straddles cognitive and operational aspects of human behavior. When researching premodern societies one can document, for the most part, the actionable aspects of agency. For all intents and purposes, even though agency is encoded in a person’s hexis, in our Athenian sources it emerges chiefly as a mode of social praxis: as the totality of choices made and acts publicly executed in a particular cultural context by an individual or a group towards the realization of certain objectives. Internal components of agency can be conceived as partly coterminous with subjectivity, as they consist of an actor’s cognitive and affective horizon “of (culturally constituted) feelings, thoughts, and meanings”.19 Expediency, interests, and well-defined goals were powerful catalysts of agential action in the politics and disputes of Athens. Yet agential action was not exclusively driven by what J. Habermas called “egocentric calculus of utility”.20 Cognitive and other hard to trace factors certainly accounted for much of the agency exercised by Athenians. That was especially the case in the course of disputes when some action was prompted by subjective states, including cognitions, intentions, emotive states or preferences that at times could not squarely accommodate with the prevalent framework of norms and values. Emotional outbursts, further discussed in the ensuing section, are at times echoed in the forensic corpus as instances of multivalent behavior in Athenian disputes: publicly performed and partly choreographed to reflect gender/class/age stereotypes, such emotive expressions were also, one suspects, genuine articulations of deeply felt inclinations. At the same time, and given the complexity of motivations and behaviors, much of the agential action of Athenian disputants must have appeared to many contemporary observers episodic, enigmatic, and ostensibly spontaneous, as opposed to carefully planned and calculating. Echoes of these multifaceted conditions that influenced agential behavior are clearly visible in the long-term assessment and planning of disputants as displayed in known Athenian disputes (including the disputes extensively discussed in chapter 4) as well as in curse tablets that were ostensibly associated with broad-based disputes. Curse tablets, as acts of information control, took center stage in the interplay between agency and 19 20

Ortner 2005, 34. Cf. also Ortner 2005, 37 referring to subjectivities as “complex structures of thought, feeling, reflection, and the like, that make social beings always more than the occupants of particular positions and the holders of particular identities”; and Ortner 2006, chapter 5. Habermas 1984, vol. I, 88.

6.2 Disputes, Emotions, and Curse Tablets

127

structure as Athenians tackled institutional constraints and explored informal means to exercise their agency and advance their interests. In chapter 2, I approached curse tablets as antithetical transcripts. Interactive or even oppositional transcripts, such as curse tablets, could be enacted, or remain implicit as the case might be, through daily practices as well as the established institutional framework, including at times the popular assembly or the courts of justice. The resourceful, evaluative, and long-term nature of the agential behavior of most Athenian disputants is thus also alluded to in Athenian curse tablets. That includes DTA 94 in which the agent of the curse entreats the underworld deity to assist in defeating his opponent in “any court”, thus referring to future collateral litigation as part of an ongoing dispute as well as DTA 107 which binds the actions as well as future plans of the opponent and his supporters against the agent of the curse.21 What distinguished acts of magic, and curse tablets in particular, as valuable instances of agency was that they often went beyond the legal/institutional framework of dispute management. Because of the dual nature of their execution (dedication through magical ritual, allegations of binding magic through news flow) curse tablets could be flexibly and efficiently deployed during Athenian interpersonal and group relationships, on and off the stage of the public sphere. These qualities endowed curse tablets with additional agential power than more straightforward acts of social interaction, as suggested by the diversity of objectives and of the individuals targeted in extant tablets. In the context of convoluted and chronic broad-based disputes, and the propensity of Athenian disputants to act in a high-level agential mode, curse tablets and other manifestations of magic could therefore at times operate as dominance-reinforcing strategies and/or contestations of power structures.22 6.2 Disputes, Emotions, and Curse Tablets A disputant’s emotional reaction to various facets and stages of a dispute was fundamental in pursuing a conflict resolution strategy that might have included the use of binding magic. Perceived situations of injustice23 fueled feelings of hatred, revenge, an-

21

22 23

Other curse tablets that explicitly anticipate future stages of a dispute, and were therefore symptomatic of a long-term, adaptive agential behavior, include DTA 96 and 97. Cf. also Curbera 2015b, no. 4 (revised edition of DTA 120), DTA 98, and SLCTA no. 1, col II, all of which generically refer to the “plans” and “designs” of targets to frustrate the agents of the curses. The agents of these curses clearly perceived the multifaceted and up to a point uncharted nature of the developing dispute. Such disputes would have necessitated flexible and adaptive strategies, which were intrinsic to a high-level mode of agency. For an anthropological parallel of using magic, or allegations thereof, in a discursively multivalent manner see Besnier 2009, especially 166–188. For perceptions and articulations of injustice, especially in connection with greed, in ancient Athens see Balot 2001.

128

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

ger, and desire that would have provided adequate motivation to seek the services of a professional sorcerer. Often such emotions and perceived injustices openly justified the magical act in Athenian curse tablets. For instance in DTA 98 the agent of the curse binds his targets because he believed that he had been wronged (ἀδικούμενος) – and presumably still felt the consequences of these allegedly injurious practices – by his targets.24 While it is reasonable to expect that the emotive engagement of social actors was especially heightened at certain key points (e. g. inception; following an unsuccessful trial) of a long-lasting dispute, the dominant pattern of broad-based disputes, with its constant attempts to recruit outsiders into a solid support network, continuously spurred intense interpersonal interaction and heightened passions. Hence feelings of exasperation and other strong emotions could crop up at any time during a dispute. At the starting point of an interpersonal grievance, disputants would have reacted to bad news, e. g. fraudulent behavior by a presumed friend or relative, with a number of feelings, possibly including surprise, sadness, indignation, anger, and an incipient sense of injustice. Research in human cognition strongly suggests that feelings that signal a problematic situation often elicit a systematically thorough, bottom-up appraisal and processing of the conditions that generated the negative emotive state. Such an attributional analysis scrutinizes and identifies specific referents of the conflict including the reasons behind it, the normative framework that governs it, its agents and prospects. If a dispute or other negative situation can be associated with specific human agents the result is usually a cocktail of negative and often deeply sedimented and enduring aggressive emotions. If an individual attributes a negative situation to more elusive and impersonal reasons (e. g. the structure of the political system) the result is a more hard to pinpoint, and possibly low intensity, sad mood. In cases when individuals are faced with negative emotions or feelings, they attend to them as a source of information that often results into action.25 There is often, in other words, a close and reflexive link between cognitive as well as affective states and agency. For our purposes, it is crucial that as long as a specific emotional state is ongoing, in our case during a phase of a dispute, the individual continues to appraise the state of the dispute on the basis of said emotions and his/ her individual goals. Based on the informational value placed on the emotion and the situation at hand (e. g. a major affront by a fellow citizen that could seriously affect the subject’s standing in the community), the affected individual proceeds to consider and execute various forms of social praxis. In turn, agential behavior could further generate or modify emotive states. In Classical Athens, especially in the context of disputes,

24

25

For discussions of DTA 98 see Eidinow 2007a, 229–230; Riess 2012, 194–195 with a discussion of “prayers for justice” and 203–204. For an articulation of feelings of injustice in Athenian curse tablets see also NGCT 14 (= Jordan 2008); 23 (= Petrakos 1997, 477–479, no. 745a, from Oropos); 24 (= Jordan 1999, no. 1); DTA 102; 158. Schwarz 2012.

6.2 Disputes, Emotions, and Curse Tablets

129

agency was often dominated by emotion – or otherwise put, emotions were the matrix through which individual agency, and agency’s concomitant acts of resistance or the pursuit of individual projects, was often substantiated. A person or group of people were often expected, in other words, to exercise their agency partly, and at times largely, through their emotions. In Classical Athens emotionally-driven agency often attempted to manipulate the outbursts and other dramatically inflated actions of adversaries, especially in the context of disputes. The display and use of emotions in public had to conform to certain, mostly unwritten, rules and conventions of individual conduct. In a court of law, for instance, a speaker or witness always had to be mindful to make his emotions, as well as his attempt to arouse the emotions of the jurors, appear in conformity with basic presumptions of the egalitarian ideology of the democratic courts. Thus, pointing out a punishable injustice was acceptable as long as it could be demonstrated that such action did not serve only private exigencies, but that it was also in the best interest of the community. As a result, over time particular rhetorical conventions developed for the emotional manipulation of jurors and audiences in court.26 For instance, self-advancement and praise could be perceived as overweening behavior and trigger the audience’s envy unless it was couched in a narrative of adversity, usually in defense speeches, or presented in the guise of adherence by an elite speaker to communal values.27 Moreover, direct calls to anger and hatred towards the opposing litigant seem to have been more easily tolerated in public prosecution speeches than in private prosecution or defense speeches. However, the forensic orations corpus suggests that openly postulating personal enmity as grounds for conviction could risk alienating the jury.28 In Demosthenes’ Against Konon, one of the rare cases of direct appeals to anger in a private prosecution speech, the speaker constructs a thorough case of repulsive anti-social behavior by the defendant who, it was argued, committed physical violence, perjury, and other villainous acts. As the argument escalates from the private dispute to the defendant’s malignity towards communal practices and institutions (including the courts), the speaker perorates with a suggestion to the jury (54.42) that protecting the community from an impudent man should not be regarded as a private matter, and therefore it should be acceptable to loathe the defendant and other men like him. Similarly, in Lysias’ Against Theomnestos the prosecuting speaker openly calls for the jurors’, and by

26 27 28

Christ 1998a; Johnstone 1999, 111–120; Bers 2009, 77–98; Rubinstein 2004 and 2013; Sanders 2012; Griffith-Williams, 2016. For emotions in Classical Athens, including in the context of litigation and curse tablets, see also Eidinow 2016. Most 1989; Spatharas 2011. For a discussion of enmity as a legal and social practice in Classical Athens see Alwine 2015.

130

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

extension the community’s, anger against the defendant on the grounds that the latter and his father were cowards who fled the battlefield.29 In most cases, however, speakers pursued circuitous, albeit at times no less explicit, rhetorical strategies while describing their own feelings and trying to generate powerful emotions among the jurors. A case in point is the dispute behind [Demosthenes] Against Nikostratos (53). In this case the speaker Apollodoros, who was in all likelihood the author of the oration as well, carefully constructed a picture of himself as a law-abiding, peace-loving country-dweller who was taken in by a deceitful Nikostratos and his brother Arethusios, neighbors who feigned friendship but whose subsequent duplicity led Apollodoros to considerable financial loss and even to an attempt on his life.30 Throughout his speech Apollodoros made no secret that his goal was to exact punishment, and hence seek vengeance, against his country neighbor Nikostratos and his brother. The objective was stated emphatically twice in the opening sections of the speech (53.1: τιμωρεῖσθαι; 53.2: τετιμωρῆσθαι; cf. 53.15) and the point was driven home by the speaker’s claim that, if he won the lawsuit, he was willing to waive the monetary reward granted to any citizen who had filed a successful apographē. Following the introduction, several sections of the oration were dedicated to adumbrating the background of the dispute (53.4–13). Nikostratos’ misfortunes and accidental enslavement led to numerous requests for loans directed to Apollodoros. Apollodoros further underscored that he initially considered himself to be an intimate friend of Nikostratos (53.4; 53.12) and that Nikostratos was also in friendly terms with him and assisted him with his affairs (53.4–5). This elaborately crafted picture of mutual friendship aimed at augmenting even further the feelings of indignation at the subsequently treacherous behavior by Nikostratos, described in detail in 53.13–29. The build-up of the emotional background of the dispute between Apollodoros and the brothers Nikostratos and Arethusios was culminated in 53.18: with reference to a past legal battle, Apollodoros claimed that he had the opportunity to seek the death penalty for Arethusios, a penalty that the speaker asserted was fully commensurate with the crimes Arethusios had committed against him. This indirect admission that Apollodoros really wished – or at least seriously contemplated – the physical destruction of his opponents could have created a powerful but unpredictable emotional response by the jurors. Hence the speaker immediately proceeded to mitigate it by noting that in the context of that past legal battle he opted for the imposition of a heavy fine instead, because he did not want to be deemed responsible for the death of an Athenian citizen. 29 30

Lys. 10.28–29. For Apollodoros as the author of [Dem.] 53 see Bers 2003, 10–15. For the tendency of many Athenian litigants to present themselves as self-restrained (e. g. Dem. 24.6), in opposition to their aggressive adversaries, see Herman 2006. It should also be pointed out, however, that on balance, the strategy of disputants and litigants to present themselves as restrained and peaceful in court was for the most part a tactical ploy, as suggested by the literary record and curse tablets. See, among others, D. Cohen 1995; Johnstone 1999; Allen 2000; Christ 2012; Riess 2012.

6.2 Disputes, Emotions, and Curse Tablets

131

Despite the occasional rhetorical flourish, there should be little doubt that real indignation and a spirit of revenge were powerful motives that guided Apollodoros throughout the series of legal battles with Nikostratos and Arethusios. In instances of disputes where genuinely strong emotions prevailed, one would expect that such emotions would have been in some way articulated in other stages of a dispute as well. In Isaeus 1, On the Estate of Kleonymos the speaker, a nephew of Kleonymos, outlines the choices that his uncle made during his lifetime regarding the disposition of his estate after his death. Kleonymos had no children. The speaker points out that he and his siblings were orphans and were originally under the guardianship of Deinias, a brother of Kleonymos. The two uncles of the speaker, Deinias and Kleonymos, had at some point a quarrel of an unknown nature. Subsequently, the speaker claims, Kleonymos considered Deinias his bitterest enemy (Isae. 1.10). Undoubtedly as a result of this animosity and other negative emotions that he harbored against his brother (cf. Isae. 1.10: “under the influence of this anger”,31 a point that the speaker repeats several times, 1.11; 1.13; 1.15; 1.18; 1.19; 1.43) Kleonymos wrote and deposited in official custody a will. With this document he disowned his nephews that were under the tutelage of Deinias and instead bequeathed his estate to Pherenikos and Poseidippos, two other family members. Nevertheless, after Deinias’ death Kleonymos received in his house his underage kin, including the speaker, brought them up and looked after their interests. Kleonymos’ active interest and alleged affection towards his nephews is underscored (1.17; 1.20; 1.28), no doubt in sharp contrast to the enmity and anger towards Deinias. Moreover, at some point after the rapprochement between the speaker and his brother with Kleonymos, the latter fell out with Pherenikos and Poseidippos. The speaker provides examples that proved, as he claimed, the condition of enmity of Kleonymos, during the last years of his life, against the beneficiaries of his will (Isae. 1.31–32). Kleonymos never got around annulling or changing his will, although he apparently tried to do so while on his deathbed. Consequently, the speaker does not dispute the validity of the will but rather constructs an argument on a vaguely defined sense of justice as well as on the basis of the shifting emotive states of Kleonymos and the actions that resulted, or should have resulted, from them, e. g. in the form of a revised will. The underlying premise of the speaker’s argument and of the overall episode is that animosity and other aggressive and negative feelings were expected to elicit particular modes of processing of problematic situations as well as specific forms of individual agency. In the case of curse tablets and other forms of binding magic we can also assert with certainty that strong emotions, including a desire for revenge, retribution, and justice as perceived by the agents of curses, were powerful motives that prompted magical

31

ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ὀργῆς.

132

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

acts. The formulaic nature of most Classical Athenian curse tablets makes it difficult to gauge directly the emotional background of the disputes that generated them. The mediation of the sorcerer and the use of standardized rituals and discourses of magic are additional complications. Yet the highly personal, and often aggressive, tone of Athenian curse tablets suggests that they communicate, in a fairly unadulterated fashion and in accordance with the desires of the agent of the curse, a subjective and perhaps biased but certainly hostile image of the adversaries of disputes based on the feelings/intentions/designs of the agents of curses.32 Furthermore, the occasional use of violent language and the systematic pursuit of punitive strategies in the curse tablets suggests, by analogy to conflict-management practices revealed in forensic orations, that a shared emotive landscape underlay conflicts whose resolution was sought in the courts and/or through acts of magic. SGD 48 (= Jordan and Curbera 2008), the Athenian curse tablet containing the most extensive list of targets, opens with an unusually aggressive heading which requests the binding, burial, and elimination from mankind of all targets. The degree of aggression and hostility evinced by this tablet is remarkable but hardly unique. Invocations in some Athenian curse tablets to the goddesses of vengeance Erinyes (DTA 108) and the Praxidikai (DTA 109), who are called in to supervise the execution of the spell, are suggestive of the powerful emotions and sinister motives of the agents of curses. In one of these curses, DTA 108, the agent explicitly stated that one of the objectives was to make Sosikleia, the target of the spell, become the subject of hatred by her friends. The same background of hostile attitude is alluded to in other Athenian curse tablets. DTA 87, a binding curse from fourth-century Athens, targeted a group of individuals identified by name, plus an unknown number of slaves. The agent of the curse in question identified most targets by profession (tavern-keepers, a cloth-seller, a rope-maker, a prostitute) and legal status (slaves) and, in addition to the attacks to their businesses and bodily parts, he/she also bound the targets to the grave (l. 9), another way of saying that he/she sought their physical destruction.33 The agent of DTA 87 crucially singled out two of the targets as neighbors, a fact that suggests that what was at stake was not merely, or at least not exclusively, a dispute among petty merchants but rather a complex network of troubled relations and hostility among individuals who habitually engaged with each other in the same quarter of the city. Moreover, a fragmentary legal curse tablet (DTA 25) refers to neighbors at least twice and includes also a reference to 32

33

By making this argument I do not mean to assert an orthodox, coherent, and straightforward meaning of curse tablets (or any other text, written or orally performed), as perceived by their agents, sorcerers, and targets, to the extent that the latter were aware of the existence or part of the contents of a curse. What I am asserting is that during the process of creating a curse tablet, an agent of a curse must have recorded in a most sincere, according to his or her view, and effective manner the grievances and malefic wishes towards the targets. Cf. DTA 55, especially A.16–20 and B.7–9, also consigning targets to the grave. For commentary see Gager 1992, no. 64 and Riess 2012, 190.

6.2 Disputes, Emotions, and Curse Tablets

133

witnesses.34 As in the case of the dispute between Apollodoros, Nikostratos, and Arethusios, DTA 25 also points to the Athenian neighborhood, be that an urban district or a cluster of houses in the countryside, as a hotbed of heated and at times aggressive interpersonal relationships and emotions that drew numerous individuals into conflicts of various configurations. Other Athenian curse tablets refrain from explicitly aggressive language and adopt a mediated/elliptical discourse of violence. But in these cases as well, we have no reason to doubt a strong emotive background and an urge for violence, discursive or physical. Some tablets also allude to attempts to manipulate the emotive outbursts of the opposition, especially in a formal legal context. Hence the agent of DTA 105B requested that the words and deeds of the adversaries shall appear cold and possibly passionless (if we accept Wünsch’s restoration) in a court.35 Such injunctions should be understood as embracing both the formal aspects of litigation articulated through speech, e. g. orations, testimonies, but also the emotive and performative aspects of their delivery. In connection with the latter, it is crucial to keep in mind that, even though relevant statutes did exist in Athens, at the level of personal agency emotive expressions were largely self-regulated and, as a result, Athenian disputants could adjust the public representation of their affective state and preempt potential attempts (through magic or otherwise) of their opponents to manipulate it. Consequently, Athenians were versed in the various affective roles that specific contexts called for, and they engaged in their public performance skillfully. For instance, based on the circumstances of a trial a litigant could adopt with conviction and passion the discourse of quietism, thus presenting himself as a modest and peace-loving person adverse to confrontation or, at other times, get into the role of the distressed, victimized persona that was unjustifiably accused and prosecuted.36 Furthermore, in Classical Athens lingering feelings of interpersonal animosity could transform a dispute, sometimes in a manner that transcended the strict circumstances of the original conflict. In the incomplete Lysias 4, an original quarrel of an unknown nature between the two litigants led to embedded enmity (Lys. 4.4, ἐχθρός) and a slew of quarrels and lawsuits on a diverse range of issues (property exchange, possession of a slave girl). Hence hatred and animosity could often lead to a long-term commitment to a zero-sum game whereby the two main opponents tried to hurt each other in diverse ways. In DT 49, a curse-tablet that binds Theagenes and several other individuals, some of whom are identified as mageiroi, the agent of the curse envisioned legal 34 35 36

For emotions and power in Greek curse tablets, including the social and gendered construction of emotions, see Faraone 2003; Salvo 2012 and 2016. Cf. DTA 106 A and B, also in a formal legal context. For quietism and disengagement in ancient Athens see e. g. Aeschin. 1.1; 3.216–218; Carter 1986. The fact that emotional outbursts and discourses of victimhood were usually anticipated by the opponents of court speakers suggests their frequency and popularity in Athenian litigation. E. g. Din. 1.109–110; Hyp. 2., fr. 15b.9; 5.40.

134

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

proceedings through formal arbitration or a full-blown trial in a court.37 In addition to the common in judicial curses attempt to incapacitate his opponents’ speech in court (ll. 11–12; 18–22) the agent also explicitly aimed at a more permanent physical harm as he requested from the executioners of the curse to bind, hide, bury, and nail down his opponents (ll. 15–17).38 In SGD 42 (= Robert 1936, no. 11), a legal curse tablet of the first half of the fourth century which targeted some notable Athenians, the agent pleaded with the chthonic deities and requested that his opponents shall reach the end of the upcoming trial only when the deceased went back home.39 A similar request is encountered in SLCTA no. 4, also a judicial tablet of the fourth century.40 The most plausible interpretation of these requests is that the agents of the curses actually wished that ultimately their enemies shall share the fate of the deceased, to whom the tablets were entrusted, before the completion of legal proceedings. In ancient Greece animosities could linger for long periods of time, spanning (and spinning) a series of conflicts. Far from serving as pressure-release resources of conflict resolution, litigation and binding curses often exacerbated and prolonged the problem as they prompted follow-up lawsuits and counter-curses by disgruntled parties. While in court, litigants were of course more reluctant to admit that their litigious behavior in general or a given prosecution in particular was attributed to their aggressive emotional state or to their very real wish to physically harm their opponent. On the contrary, Athenian litigants were very eager to present revenge, animosity, mendacity, rascality, and other forms of malevolence as motives of their opponents.41 6.3 Broad-based Disputes, Agency, and Magic: The Case of the Athenian dikastai A high-level of individual agency was eminently apposite in the context of broad-based disputes. Such disputes, as I have pointed out repeatedly, were socially embracive and cyclical, as they unfolded through a series of interconnected conflicts. In such contexts Athenians that became embroiled in disputes knew that they had to brace themselves for a long-drawn fight as well as for the prospect of facing numerous adversaries who rallied around their main opponent as his/her support network. By exercising their

37 38 39 40 41

Wünsch (in Ziebarth 1899, p. 110 and again in Wünsch 1900, no. 10, 63–64) first identified three of the targets as cooks mentioned in New Comedy and Lucian. For a lawsuit involving indirectly a cook see [Dem] 59.18. See the discussion in Graf 1997, 122–123. See the comments by Robert 1936, 12–14 and Bravo 1987, 195. Regarding this point, and in connection with SLCTA no. 4, see also the comments by Robert 1936, 13 and Bravo 1987, 213. DT 69, an erotic defixio, also expresses a similar sentiment. E. g. Andoc. 2.5; 2.171; 3.78. Isae. 1.9–10; 1.33; 5.13; 7.11–12; 9.36–37. Lys. 9.7; 9.13; 16.1; 16.8; 16.18; 18.9.

6.3 Broad-based Disputes, Agency, and Magic: The Case of the Athenian dikastai

135

high-level individual agency Athenian disputants typically formed their own support networks and planned their medium- and long-term strategies for the dispute. Whenever a broad-based dispute reached the formal mediation or litigation stage, additional opportunities were presented to disputants to exercise their agency and plan and execute collateral moves in the hope of deflecting and ultimately prevailing in – or at least extracting tangible gains in the form of material resources and honor from – a dispute. A formal trial, irrespective of its outcome, presented litigants and their supporters with plenty of opportunities for further feuding and litigation. Prevailing practices in Athenian courts further enhanced this trend. For instance perjury, or the suspicion that it had been committed, as well as other practices that violated the letter of Athenian statutes were rampant in Athenian trials during the period of the democracy.42 It is easy to perceive how, in addition to their legal implications, such practices could further exacerbate personal emotions and antagonisms, thus creating the conditions that could potentially usher in additional instances of conflict. During formal litigation, especially in one of the Athenian popular courts manned by untrained citizens picked at random minutes before a trial, the dynamic of a broadbased dispute certainly changed. During a formal trial the base of a dispute broadened even more as the jurors (dikastai) became for a day directly engaged with the dispute. From the litigants’ perspective, in addition to all the other factors and special interests that had to be taken into consideration, when they entered the courtroom they also had to juggle with all types of preconceptions and biases that the jurors embodied. In general, most extant court speeches employ arguments based on the long-term consequences of the dispute for the litigants. As noted already, the implication is that not only were the litigants high-level agents but that the same applied to the jurors at large, since they were able to follow and decide on the basis of these arguments. Moreover, at times arguments presented in an Athenian courtroom had direct or indirect implications for the city of Athens, and therefore for the jurors as well, hence inviting once again that group to collectively exercise their high-level agency. An example of such a forensic argument that presupposed high-level agency often encountered in extant orations, especially of wealthy litigants, is the explicit shift of the normative discourse of benefaction into a strategic advantage. Wealthy litigants invariably reminded the jurors of the past good services that a litigant and other members of their family (often extending to several generations) had offered to the city through liturgies and other forms of benefaction.43 Such arguments were accompanied by a commitment that the litigant would continue to act in a similarly beneficial for Athens manner if he prevailed

42 43

D. Cohen 1995, 107–111 and passim. Accusations of perjury, e. g. Isae. 8.11; 9.19. Perjury was presented as common occurrence in Athenian litigation, Andoc. 1.7. For testimonia see chapter 3, n. 37. For a discussion of the discourse of benefaction in Athenian courts see Johnstone 1999, 93–108.

136

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

in the trial.44 The litigants in such cases, in other words, appealed to the high-level agency of the jurors by inviting them to decode and evaluate such claims. Usually these assertions were accompanied by conflicting claims of the opposition, hence overall jurors had to assess which of the litigants in front of them could benefit most the Athenian demos in the long run. Such rhetoric of long-term expediency is exemplified in the peroration of Lycurgus’s Against Leokrates (1.150) in which the prosecutor argues, through a striking animistic imagery, that the city, her trees, harbors, and dockyards were begging for the conviction of the defendant and that such a conviction would guarantee the safety and prosperity of Athens in the future. Given the centrality and clout of emotive and high-level agential arguments in deciding the outcomes of trials, and therefore shaping the future of broad-based disputes, it comes as no surprise that attempts to please and manipulate the dikastai were among the cornerstones in every litigant’s strategy. Discourses on Athenian dikastai uttered in public, especially in popular courts, centered around two themes: a) the trust that the speaker professed in the collective judgment of the jurors and his conviction of their commitment to uphold, through their verdicts, the laws and wellbeing of the city45 and b) the fact that attempts, attributed to the speaker’s adversary and his network of supporters, were underway to manipulate and mislead the jurors through a litany of misrepresentations, emotionally charged performances, appeals to lower instincts as well as other forms of discursive maneuvers.46 Allusions to attempts of opponents to manipulate jurors were often supplemented by claims of inexperience, civility, and pacifism of speakers – in themselves, such claims might have constituted an attempt to control juries.47 Rhetorical claims of attempted manipulation of Athenian juries were often substantiated in the everyday practice of Athenian courts. The propensity of Athenian juries to deliver verdicts on the basis of extra-statutory norms, discretionary evidence, and hearsay, and the high turnover and lack of legal expertise of Athenian dikastai, exposed the latter to multiple and at times even clumsy attempts to influence them – for instance, through the presentation of seemingly contradictory evidence/arguments by the same or opposing litigants.48 What is more, such attempts to mislead or even deceive juries 44 45 46

47 48

E. g. Lycurg. 1.149–150. E. g. Din.1.107–109; see Johnstone 1999, 52. E. g. Antiph. 6.51; Lycurg. 1.33; 1.150; Din. 1.66; Demades 1.3; Hyp. 1.10–11; Dem. 22.21; 23.92; 24.177; Aeschin. 1.94; 170–176; 178–179. For actual or rhetorical representations of attempts to manipulate the Athenian dikastai and the legal system in general see most recently the essays in Carey, Giannadaki, and Griffith-Williams 2018; Edwards and Spatharas 2019, especially O’Connell 2019. Lack of experience with litigation, e. g. Isae. 8.5; 10.1. See e. g. Isae. 6.57–58 for seemingly contradictory evidence employed by the same litigant. Athenian litigants attempted to deal with contradictory, as well as incriminating, facts, evidence, and testimonies in the context of disputes in a variety of ways. One common strategy was to attempt a discursive relocation of the value attached to a statement or act that was in apparent contradiction with some other statement or act marshalled in the context of the same dispute. Hence a statement

6.3 Broad-based Disputes, Agency, and Magic: The Case of the Athenian dikastai

137

were at times successful. A glaring example concerns the disputed estate of Dikaiogenes (Isae. 5). Upon his death without issue his cousin, also called Dikaiogenes, was awarded one-third of the estate on the basis of a will with which the deceased posthumously adopted him as his son. The remaining two-thirds of the estate were divided between the deceased’s four sisters. But twelve years later the surviving Dikaiogenes claimed, on the basis of another will of the deceased, that he was the rightful owner of the entire estate. The dispute reached the popular courts but despite the incongruity of the claims by Dikaiogenes, especially regarding the contradictory wills, the court decided in his favor, deprived other family members of their shares and awarded the estate in its entirety to him. In looking back at the earlier trial the speaker of Isaeus 5 openly maintains that jurors were on that occasion misled, but he allocates all the blame to Dikaiogenes and his supporters.49 The alleged institutional integrity of the Athenian democracy and the claim, often articulated in court, that Athenian juries were a true reflection of the composition, behavior, and beliefs of the Athenian citizen body were behind such spurious and crude attempts to exonerate the jury of a popular court for a misinformed verdict. Besides discourses and behavior in court, curse tablets were another popular strategy in the attempt to influence and manipulate Athenian dikastai. Because of their instantiation in a context that lay outside the strict confines of the formal Athenian legal system, Athenian curse tablets referring to jurors offer an alternative perspective and at times a more nuanced picture on the dynamic between disputants and dikastai. In that sense, the Athenian dikastai constitute an ideal focus point for underscoring the heteroglossia and constructed dialogue that sometimes existed between discourses enunciated in a court of law or other formal contexts, on the one hand, and discourses committed to curse tablets and possibly other informal stages of a dispute, on the other.50 Devoid, to a great extent, of the need to conform to publicly pitched niceties and platitudes on the role, character, and susceptibility of dikastai or to retort to the rhetorical subterfuges of wily opponents, the agents of curse tablets present the group of Athenian citizens that were entrusted with deciding important aspects of disputes and lives not only as mercurial and pliable but also, and perhaps most importantly, as susceptible to the machinations of magic. In the ensuing section I will attempt to illuminate aspects of Athenian dispute management and individual or collective agency through a thorough analysis of the representation of dikastai in Athenian curse tablets.

49 50

or act could be presented metaphorically, hypothetically, or even factually but as an aberration, e. g. as one-off deviant behavior associated with special circumstances. Furthermore, in some cases what appears to a modern reader as an apparent contradiction might have been merely an instance of situational conflict. The latter occurs when norms or facts that are not essentially incompatible are discursively elaborated in such a way as to evoke conflicting paradigms of argument. For situational conflict in a comparative context see Comaroff and Roberts 1981, 74. Isae. 5.8–9. For the concept of constructed dialogue see Tannen 2007.

138

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

6.4 Dikastai in Athenian Litigation and Curse Tablets51 Jurors in Athenian popular courts were rightly considered as an important cornerstone in the process of promoting, as part of the democratic constitution, the seemingly antithetical concepts of popular sovereignty and the rule of law.52 As Athenians themselves recognized, both of these objectives were in theory served by the popular courts and the jurors were the crucial link in the control exerted by the Athenian demos over the judiciary: in the words of an Athenian litigant to the jurors, “the voice of your laws is your own voice”.53 Such assertions were idealizations, aimed at pleasing and placating jurors who most usually, as many litigants also implied, acted at a whim and at times on the basis of extra-statutory norms and the litigants’ reputation and public record.54 That was partly because Athenian dikastai were not legal specialists, but Athenian citizens randomly selected by lottery among a pool of eligible candidates from the ten Cleisthenic tribes. Despite – or, as some Athenians saw it, because of – their lack of specialist background jurors were charged with meting out justice in a vast array of cases. In reality, jurors in popular courts were often swayed by sentiment and were thought of as representing the interests of the democratic demos at the expense of the moneyed elite.55 That conviction was ostensibly shared by the social and financial elites themselves who, in more controlled contexts, conceded that the legal apparatus of democratic Athens, including the collective judgement of jurors, was set up in a way that benefitted the people while being antithetical to the elites’ personal interests.56 Nevertheless upper-class litigants often capitalized on the mercurial emotional landscape of Athenian courts as well as entrenched beliefs on the role of juries in defending the

51 52

53 54

55 56

This section draws from Papakonstantinou 2018b. The notion of the rule of law is somewhat applicable to Classical Athens as a broad principle of constitutionality and legitimacy. See Canevaro 2017 for a summary of the debate from a proponent of the rule of law in ancient Greece. Cf. also Forsdyke 2018. However, in its everyday reception and negotiation, statutory law was often resisted and remolded in the course of disputes and litigation, resulting in multiple fluid legalities. See among others, Osborne 1985 and 2018; Ober 1989; Papakonstantinou 2008, especially 1–17; Lanni 2006 and 2016; and Riess forthcoming. Dem. 42.15: τὴν τῶν νόμων φωνὴν ὑμετέραν εἶναι. For the narrative of jurors as cornerstones of good governance see e. g. also Dem. 21.177 and 224; 24.90. See Lanni 2016, 119–149. Depiction of jurors as representatives of the people and enforcers of justice often coincide in the same forensic speech with warnings or allusions to jurors’ partiality. See e. g. Dem. 21.183 where Demosthenes insinuates that Athenian dikastai were more likely to mete out a lenient sentence to a rich man but impose the full severity of the law on litigants of poor and middling social backgrounds. For the Athenian dikastai as representatives of the interests of the demos see Ober 1989, 141–148 and Johnstone 1999, especially 93–108. E. g. [Xen.] Ath.Pol. 1.16–18; 3.7; Theophr. Char. 26.5. But litigants who advanced for themselves a narrative of poverty and social inferiority warned that the Athenian legal system could be skewed in favor of the rich, e. g. Isoc. 20.19–20.

6.4 Dikastai in Athenian Litigation and Curse Tablets

139

democracy and popular interests by appealing to the emotive instincts of jurors and by striving to enumerate, to a flattering degree, their allegiance to the dominant values of the Athenian citizenry.57 Athenian legal binding curses were always forward-looking as befitting high-level agential behavior, as they were produced and deposited while the dispute was ongoing but before the trial had commenced.58 The question then becomes how and why would an Athenian litigant target a dikastes of a forthcoming trial? The question hinges partially, but not exclusively, on the extent to which disputants and litigants could influence jurors in advance of a trial. We must therefore explore this issue before proceeding further with the examination of references to dikastai in legal binding curses. It is agreed by most scholars that starting in the late fifth century, and perhaps as early as c. 409, groups of jurors were allotted to specific courts early in the morning on the day of the trial.59 A few decades later, perhaps as early as 378/7, Athenians began to allot individual jurors to courts on a daily basis.60 The punctilious allotment procedure is described in detail in [Arist.] Ath.Pol. 63–65 and was no doubt implemented with an eye towards the incorruptibility of the courts. It is true that at the very least the allocation procedure guaranteed that litigants could not possibly know in advance the identities of the jurors who would hear their cases. This principle was somewhat compromised by some features of the selection system, e. g. the fact that the pool of potential jurors (6,000 for the fifth century and possibly around the same number in the fourth) was selected for an entire calendar year. Moreover, even though there was a requirement of tribal representation, at times jurors from the demes of litigants or from demes in and around the urban settlement of Athens were probably more forthcoming in volunteering for service. Hence on occasion, jurors from certain tribes might have been overrepresented. As a result, a litigant might expect that potential jurors from the demes in question might have had a highest chance of being allocated to his trial. Such limitations did not fundamentally undermine the integrity of the system. However, they might help explain the occurrence of jury bribery accusations during the fourth century as well as the tendency of some agents of legal curses to refer or even target potential dikastai in their curse tablets. Confidence of Athenian disputants in their dikastai was further eroded by stories of attempts to bribe or otherwise tamper with juries. In a notorious case that possibly contributed to the implementation of a system of daily allocation of juries to a particular court, Anytos was reportedly acquitted in 409 from a charge of treason after

57 58 59 60

For the preponderance of emotive over juristic factors in Athenian litigation see Din. 1.55 and references in chapter 3, n. 37. See also chapter 2.2 on the timing and context of production of legal binding curses in Athens. MacDowell 1978, 35–40; Boegehold 1984; Boegehold et al. 1995, 22. [Arist.] Ath.Pol. 63–65. See MacDowell 1978, 35–40.

140

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

bribing the jury.61 Furthermore, in a speech delivered in 388 (Lys. 29.12), the prosecutor claimed that the defendant Philokrates and his associate Ergokles, two men accused of embezzlement, went around Athens bragging that they had bribed over 2,100 potential jurors.62 According to another speech by Lysias referring to the same events and individuals, this was part of a wider campaign to influence Athenian public opinion through the disbursement of illicitly obtained cash.63 Even as late as 345 there were accusations against men who allegedly attempted to bribe members of the popular assembly and the courts.64 Although the accuracy of these reports could be doubted on the grounds of rhetorical exaggeration they cannot be altogether dismissed, especially in view of the existence of a public procedure against jury tampering, the graphē dekasmou, in fourth-century Athens.65 Moreover, these stories and other passages in Athenian literature of the Classical period, e. g. the admission by the “Old Oligarch” that courts with fewer jurors are easier to bribe, betray a lingering fear and an explicit recognition that Athenian courts, despite the use of mass juries, were susceptible to potential bribery attempts.66 Such fears were largely unjustified. The establishment of the daily allocation of jurors in the early fourth century in conjunction with the large number of jurors assigned to each court and the fact that Athenian lawcourts implemented the secret ballot for jurors, must have presented insurmountable practical difficulties for most litigants and jurors prone to venality. To the extent that there is any truth in the reports of alleged jury tampering in the Athenian orators, they probably involved high-profile trials where litigants sensed an ambivalent public sentiment regarding their cases. In such instances, it is plausible that some litigants felt that they could endeavor to sway, by bribery or other means, part of the public opinion and perhaps even potential jurors, in the hope that that could be sufficient in swinging the jury vote to their favor. Attested attempts during the 340s and 330s to tamper with juries in the short interval following the lottery allocation and before the beginning of the trial should be understood in the same spirit.67 Nevertheless, it appears that during the fourth century, especially after the establishment of the procedure of random allocation of individual jurors to specific courts on the morning of the trial, it would have made little sense for litigants to even contemplate to exercise direct and large-scale leverage over a trial’s jury.

61 62 63 64 65 66 67

[Arist.] Ath.Pol. 27.5. For a discussion of this passage see Roy 1993. Lys. 28.9. Aeschin. 1.86. Cf. Isoc. 18.11 where a friend of the plaintiff is denounced as a corrupter of the courts. For reservations regarding Lys. 29.12 see Todd 2000, 295. For the Athenian law against jury bribery see [Dem.] 46.26 and the discussion in MacDowell 1983, 63–39 and Conover 2010, 282–285. For other aspects of bribery in Classical Athens see Hashiba 2006. See [Xen.] Ath.Pol. 3.7. Dem. 19.1 and perhaps Aeschin. 3.1.

6.4 Dikastai in Athenian Litigation and Curse Tablets

141

Instead many disputants who faced the prospect of litigation attempted to tilt the odds in their favor by other means that suited Athenian institutional structures and social life, including employing skillful speechwriters, engaging in campaigns of defamation through talk, and magic. Regarding the dikastai, four curse tablets (SLCTA no. 5; SLCTA no. 3; SLCTA no. 6; and SEG 58:266) should be added to the body of evidence elucidating the dynamic between litigants and jurors in Classical Athens.68 Especially regarding SLCTA nos. 5 and 3, the latest critical edition, in addition to providing a number of new readings, should remove any lingering doubts on the accuracy of Wünch’s readings of dikastai in the tablets in question.69 SLCTA no. 5 (= DTA 65; Rabehl 1906, 43), a fourth-century curse against Kallias and all those who might assist him in court, includes a reference to Καλλίου μάρτυρες ἢ δικασταὶ. It is very likely that the Kallias in question along with the Hipponikos targeted in l. 3 of the same tablet belong to the famous Kallias-Hipponikos clan, prominent in Athenian public life since the sixth century.70 The collocation “witnesses or jurors” in line 4 is unique among Athenian curse tablets. In this case the disjunctive conjunction seems to be inclusive, i. e. the agent of the curse implies that some witnesses and jurors will favor Kallias. It is entirely legitimate to consider the reference to the dikastai in this tablet as a tacit admission on the part of the agent of the curse that jurors would most likely side with Kallias on the strength on the latter’s case. Alternatively, targeting the dikastai might denote a perception, on the part of the agent of the curse, of a partisan or even compromised jury.71 Besides attempted bribery, a course of action that as we have already pointed out presented insurmountable practical difficulties, the author of this tablet could have envisaged a number of other options in Kallias’ presumed attempt to win over jurors. For instance, in the context of the widespread perception that Athenian jurors were susceptible to rhetorical manipulation, during the course of a trial often litigants accused their opponents of trying to unduly influence the jury through sophistry, rhetorical tricks, and false promises.72 Speakers in Athenian forensic orations naturally denounced such practices themselves, but very often this righteous attitude was nothing more than another rhetorical strategy designed to gain the sympathy of the jury. Moreover, while in court it was customary for Athenian litigants to attempt to elicit

68

69 70 71 72

In a fragmentary curse tablet from Athens (SGD 16 = Strӱd 1903, cols. 55–57, no. 2), the editor read –αστης which could have been a reference to a dikastes. For a literary reference to a curse against Athenian dikastai see the fictitious forensic oration by Antiphon (4.2.8) in which the speaker threatened to turn the wrath of avenging demons to the jurors if the latter condemned him unjustly. Doubts on the readings of dikastai in DTA 65 and 67, see e. g. Ottone 1992, 39. Wilhelm 1904, 119; APF, 269. For this possibility see Eidinow 2007a, 175–176. Rhetorical tricks: Lys. 12.38; Aeschin. 1.175–6; 3.168; Dem. 35.41; 40.53–4; Isae. 11.4. See in general Hesk 2000. False promises: Dem. 20.100.

142

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

the jury’s pity in their favor, stir up laughter, evoke salacious imagery or channel the jurors’ anger towards their opponent.73 It was also not unusual for litigants to discursively interact with jurors in expedient moments in the course of a trial. In Against Timarchos (1.159) Aeschines addressed a direct question to the jurors with the expectation that they would shout their response while in Against Ktesiphon (3. 201; 205; 208) the same speaker repeatedly dictated to the jurors how to react to Demosthenes’ arguments when the latter rose to the speaker’s podium. Such behavior by litigants and jurors was not merely tolerated but was actually expected and at times even actively encouraged. Lastly, it was certainly the case that Athenian jurors were subjected to peer pressure and often harassment by trial audiences and bystanders during and after the completion of judicial proceedings.74 All these practices were part and parcel of disputant strategies to sway the jury and by extension the outcome of a trial and the course of the dispute. The extent to which all these practices influenced jurors is open to discussion. Curse tablets, on the other hand, provide a different starting point for assessing litigants’ attitudes towards the dikastai. In discussing the attempts in SLCTA no. 5 and other legal binding curses to influence Athenian jurors one should not lose sight of the fact that the trials that curse tablets envisaged were merely stages of disputes that for the most part unfolded beyond the strict confines of the courts and other facets of the formal legal system of Classical Athens. The main question in connection with this point is whether the agent of SLCTA no. 5, in other words the opponent of Kallias in a forthcoming trial, had credible information to believe that part of the jury would be in favor of Kallias. Given the high-profile litigants involved, it is not unlikely that the dispute and subsequent trial associated with SLCTA no. 5 were fairly, perhaps even widely, known in Athenian society beyond the small groups of insiders that consisted of the main disputants and their close associates. As already pointed out in chapter 4.5, Athenians were mindful of disputes and trials involving public figures and members of notable families. They kept abreast of the proceedings of such trials and often discussed their implications for years to come.75 In such a climate, the agent of SLCTA no. 5 might have felt that the publicity that the dispute had received would have allowed Kallias to mobilize his support network more efficiently. Moreover, Kallias’ adversary would have been aware that publicity for the dispute would have intimated the particulars

73 74

75

Johnstone 1999, 109–125; Allen 2000, 147–151 and 2003; Rubinstein 2004 and 2013; Sanders 2012 and 2014, 79–99. Lascivious stories, e. g. Aeschin. 1.40–43. Stirring up laughter, e. g. Aeschin. 1.135. For laughter in Aeschines’ Against Timarchos see Kamen 2018. Peer pressure by audiences during trials: Din. 1.30, 1.66 and 2.19 remind the jury of the judgmental surveillance of bystanders. Cf. Aeschin. 1.117 and 3.246–247. Assessment by onlookers after the trial: Dem. 25.98; Din. 2.19. For trial bystanders and peer pressure in Athenian courts see Bers 1985 and Lanni 1997. A case in point is the trial of Thucydides, son of Melesias, in the late 430s. See chapter 2.1.

6.4 Dikastai in Athenian Litigation and Curse Tablets

143

of the case to a wider section of the Athenian public, thus possibly resulting in tilting public opinion, including potential jurors, in favor of Kallias and his supporters. While it is difficult to ascertain the exact motives of the agent of SLCTA no. 5 behind his targeting of Athenian dikastai, other curse tables provide additional details regarding the desired effect of binding curses targeting jurors. SLCTA no. 3 (= DTA 67) is a fourth-century judicial curse the main target of which, and presumably the main adversary in the dispute, was a certain Krates. In addition to Krates side A targets 10 other individuals, including two women, as well as “those who side with them” (τοὺς μετ’ ἐκείνων). Following the list of targets, the author of the curse envisages a context of formal litigation (side A, ll. 8–11). First, using a similia similibus formula, he requested that just as the lead tablet and the retrograde text are cold and written backwards (eparistera), so the words of Krates and those who stand with him should be cold and nonsensical (ll. 8–10).76 That these words of Krates were to be uttered in court is corroborated by a reference to the mnemonic skills of the dikastai (τῶν δικα[στῶν μν] ήμην, l. 11). The text breaks off at this point, but it is not difficult to reconstruct the train of thought of the agent of the curse: first he targets the speech of Krates and his supporters in court, in the hope of rendering them unintelligible and ineffective. He then, in an attempt to enhance the effect of Krates’ distorted speech, proceeds to target the cognitive faculties of the dikastai, the main recipients of Krates’ speech and ultimate adjudicators of the lawsuit. This interpretation of SLCTA no. 3 is supported by a reference to the dikastai in another fourth-century legal binding curse from Athens ( Jordan 2008 = NGCT 14 = SEG 58:266). It invokes the god Palaimon and binds Aristophanes, ostensibly the main adversary, and five other individuals, presumably his supporters in an upcoming trial. The agent of the curse requests from Palaimon to make his adversaries appear to the jurors (dikastai) to say unjust things and to render whatever the witnesses do useless.77 In both cases the underlying sentiment is one of mistrust and suspicion towards the jurors, a group which was perceived as being prone to partisanship, as it is perhaps suggested by the attack towards the μάρτυρες ἢ δικασταί of SLCTA no. 5. In SLCTA no. 3 and SEG 58:266 one can also detect a belief that the jurors could and should be manipulated if that served the objectives of the agent of the curse. In addition to these instances of targeting dikastai in Athenian binding curses a reference to a dikastes can now be read in a revised reading of DTA 124 (= SLCTA no. 6), a fourth-century tablet from Athens.78 The writing in this tablet is severely scrambled, possibly the result of a dedicatory ritual by the sorcerer that aimed at harming the targets. But the term dikastes can be clearly read and it is possible that it qualified a 76 77 78

See Graf 1997, 132; Eidinow 2007a, 362–363. Ll. 7–9: καὶ δικασταῖ ἄδικα δοκωῖεν̣ λέγειν, καὶ μάρτυσιν ἅτε πράτο̣[υ]σιν ἄχεια γένε. See also the discussion in Jordan 2008, 140–141 and Versnel 2010, 311–312. See also Curbera 2015a, 118–119.

144

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

personal name. If in this case dikastes referred to a particular individual, then we might infer that the agent of the curse could have somehow convinced himself, in an irrational and unsubstantiated manner, that the target of l. 5 would be assigned as juror to his forthcoming trial.79 Alternatively, the individual qualified as dikastes might have been targeted for reasons unrelated to a legal dispute. In such a contingency, dikastes would serve to identify an individual known e. g. to be a member of the annual pool of potential jurors or prone to volunteer for jury service, as in the fictional case of Philokleon in Aristophanes’ Wasps. This survey of dikastai as targets in Athenian binding curses illuminates facets of broad-based disputes but also something of the cognitive and emotive processes that prompted Athenian disputants to target certain groups at the exclusion of others. Targeting the dikastai might have involved considerations of their integrity, their susceptibility to rhetorical manipulation in court, and the degree to which public opinion might have weighed on the dispute in question – all issues that also surface in forensic orations, especially in high-profile trials. Such considerations were probably behind the targeting of some prominent Athenians and the dikastai in SLCTA no. 5, as well as behind the insinuations of bias on the part of some members of the jury in the tablet in question. In other instances when the litigants were less well known, as it was perhaps the case for SLCTA no. 3 and SEG 58.266, it is less likely that the agents of these curses would have expected the public opinion to be swayed against them at the outset of their trial or that, for whatever other reason, jurors would tend to be more sympathetic towards their adversaries. Hence the authors of these legal curses did not articulate any suspicions of overt partiality on the part of the jurors. Instead, they focus on impairing and manipulating the mnemonic and cognitive faculties of the dikastai, whoever they might have been, in forthcoming litigation in an attempt to influence the said jurors’ perception of the trial and its litigants. Overall, Athenian curse tablets that target dikastai are a convenient sounding board to test Athenian attitudes towards dispute management, and the concomitant role of law and litigation, as reflected in the better documented forensic orations corpus. In the Athenian courtrooms, as described by extant forensic speeches, Athenian litigants acknowledged the centrality of jurors in deciding the outcome of a trial and they addressed them accordingly. I have already discussed aspects of the dialectical but largely antinomic attitude of Athenian litigants towards mass juries. Athenians in court presented juries as paragons of justice and bulwarks of the interests of the demos on the one hand, while openly professing their fears that juries were mercurial and susceptible to the wiles of misinformation and skillful oratory, on the other. 79

That does not mean, to be sure, that the agent of the curse could have securely known in advance that the target in question was going to be formally selected as a juror – a point misconstrued by Dreher 2018b, 304–305. Conviction, perception, wishful thinking, and reality did not always coincide in Athenian curse tablets.

6.5 Conclusion

145

The professed primacy of justice over expediency80 as well as the attitudes of expressed trust and concealed suspicion towards juries that emerge from forensic orations are largely challenged by legal binding curses targeting dikastai. The consistent frustration, skepticism, and even open hostility towards jurors and other court officials articulated in legal curse tablets are indicative of notions of dispute management (and life in general) and its concomitant use of the legal system that go beyond the conventional picture of adjudication depicted in Athenian forensic oratory. This dissonance and heteroglossia in the representation of dikastai and the formal legal system in curse tablets and forensic oratory cannot be accounted for simply in terms of context shifts (sorcery rituals versus formal adjudication procedures). Legal spells suggest a much wider, inclusive, and conceptually malleable perception of “law” and “litigation” on the part of Athenians, in keeping with the socially embracive and ideologically malleable nature of broad-based disputes that extended far beyond the strict confines of formal legal proceedings and the courts. This perception of law and litigation acknowledged the polysemy of Athenian legalities and was driven primarily by a transactional approach to disputes. Moreover, as part of the same perception, considerations of utility and self-interest as well as emotive states dominated and drove forward broad-based disputes as well as their various components, including formal litigation and acts of magic. In such a context, social networking practices and binding curses appeared to have had, in the mind of the agents of binding curses, equal and at times greater clout in deciding the outcome of a dispute than statutory rules and court proceedings. In this context, pragmatism, self-interest, and mistrust towards civic institutions often overrode the desire, professed by many litigants in court, to reach a fair resolution to disputes. In this manner trials and the influential dikastai that decided their outcome simply fed into the pattern of long-standing broad-based disputes endemic in Athenian society. 6.5 Conclusion Agency is an inextricable component of disputes, especially in a society like Classical Athens where dominant social, familial, and political paradigms were formulated on the presumption of constant and essentially unfettered interaction of all social actors. Athenian agential behavior, in daily life and especially in the course of broad-based disputes, was locked in an organic and reciprocal relationship with institutional and structural alignments. Cognitive and emotive forces often provided impulses for agential behavior, but Athenians mostly interacted, especially in the context of politics and disputes, on a high-level agential mode, i. e. in a manner that was reflective, adap-

80

E. g. Lycurg. 1.146.

146

6 Athenian Curse Tablets: Agency and Emotions

tive, and cognizant of the long-term impact of their actions. Most of these dominant modes of agential behavior and dispute practices coalesced in the representation of the dikastai in forensic orations and curse tablets. While performing in a court of law Athenian litigants enthusiastically endorsed the collective orthodoxy that the dikastai were cornerstones of an egalitarian political and judicial apparatus and that they feverishly promoted, through their verdicts, the interests of the Athenian demos against insidious internal or external forces. However, litigants often warned dikastai of the malicious attempts of their opponents to manipulate both the group of jurors adjudicating a case as well the Athenian public at large. In curse tablets, largely antinomical narratives that straddled between the secretive and the public, disputants targeted the dikastai and approached them with open suspicion and hostility. Both in public and in private, disputants acting in a high-level agential fashion understood that the dikastai, as well as other representatives of the civic institutions/structures, were crucial in advancing or undermining the long-term objectives pursued in a dispute.

Chapter 7 Conclusion In SGD 51 (= Fox 1913, 76–80), a legal curse tablet of the fourth century, the agent of the curse singles out Aristoboulos as his main opponent in court (antidikos) and binds his body, force, hand, feet, tongue, and household (oikia) as well as his support network (syndikoi). Thus in a few lines the sorcerer encapsulated the essence of Athenian disputing behaviors as well as the role of curse tablets in these disputes. Athenians were agonistic and antagonistic, but were also performative and agential. The institutional and social alignment endemic in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries, especially the dominant ideology of egalitarianism and the essentially unfettered interaction of Athenians of different genders, ages, social backgrounds, and legal statuses, contributed to the emergence of distinct modes of disputing in Classical Athens. All these embedded features of Athenian life blended into a dominant paradigm of broadbased disputing that was interactive and corporeal, hence the reference to body parts in curse tablets;1 flexible and embracive in the recruitment of support networks, as suggested by the references to a household (oikia) and unnamed groups of associates (syndikoi); and finally cyclical, interactive, and inducive of a self-assessing approach, as alluded to by different phases/strategies of pursuing the dispute (speech, physical acts, litigation). In the preceding chapters I attempted to bring forth this intertwining nature of disputes, curse tablets, and agency in the context of the Classical Athenian democracy. Magical curse tablets were texts that were committed to writing but were not supposed to be read in public. Instead, their malicious contents were often indirectly and partially communicated by word of mouth. The process of the ritual production and the structuring of the public meaning of a curse was primarily an agentically strategic act of social interaction and conflict management that was based on the assessment that a public enunciation and dissemination of the existence of a curse, with the intention of relaying edited information to an adversary, was an expedient instance of communica-

1

References to strength and body parts could also be interpreted in a more context-specific way to refer to e. g. labor, especially when a curse tablet underscores the professions of the targets.

148

7 Conclusion

tive action that contributed to the beneficial, for the agent of the curse, development of a dispute. This inherent ambivalence, born out of the straddling between the secretive and the publicly disseminated, contributed to the interpretative malleability of curse tablets. Sorcerers were central actors in integrating curse tablets in the exigencies of ongoing disputes and everyday life at large. These sorcerers marketed themselves as monopolizing the effective usage of magically efficacious utterances, and hence claimed to be able to pronounce an authoritative discourse of magic, evinced through mystical rituals and esoteric language, and ostensibly sanctioned by their privileged relationship with deities. For that reason, sorcerers must have contributed to the communicative deployment of curse tablets. A sorcerer spreading oral rumors about an existing curse, fortified by his/her alleged expertise in the arts of magic, could have gone a long way in instilling feelings of trepidation in the targets. Beyond that, a disputant and his/her core supporters must have done the remainder of the work, thus transforming a secret magical ritual into a strategic discourse in the context of a dispute. If we step back from the specifics of curse tablet production, and the dissemination of their contents, and attempt to gauge something of the wider role of these acts of magic in Athenian disputes, it becomes apparent that binding spells allow precious glimpses of how Athenians responded to situations of conflict that generated powerful emotions as well as how they adapted to the challenges they faced in their interaction with the Athenian public sphere and civic institutions. Furthermore, Athenian legal curse tablets often point to a specific phase of a multifaceted broad-based dispute. For our purposes, clues about forthcoming formal litigation are especially valuable indications of wider perceptions of the role of binding magic as it pertained to broad-based disputes as well as of the power and limits of individual agency of the disputants who commissioned curse tablets. Once consecrated and their contents disseminated, curse tablets joined the complex trajectory of Athenian broad-based disputes. Athenian broad-based disputes, as defined in chapter 3 were initially dyadic interpersonal conflicts that escalated to a series of interconnected confrontations, manifested in diverse ways within or beyond the formal legal apparatus, that engaged swaths of Athenians of all walks of life over a number of years (often decades). Something of the seriality and complexity of these disputes is intimated in forensic orations which focus, inevitably, on the legal aspects of disputes. In addition to divulging strategies of pursuing various stages of a broad-based disputes, including the overarching paradigms of argument of disputants, Athenian court speeches highlight the centrality of core and peripheral support networks and provide details for the recruitment of such networks in the open social spaces of the Athenian democracy. In chapter 4 I explored four case studies of Athenian broad-based disputes, ranging from disputes between prominent and wealthy Athenians (Demosthenes and Meidias) to disputes that originated in erotic antagonisms (Lysias 3 Against Simon), to disputes that emerged from the checkered relationships of individuals that were in all

Chapter 7 Conclusion

149

likelihood locked in a symbiotic relationship (old friends or associates? neighbors? in Lysias 4, On a Wound by Premeditation) or, finally, to an inheritance dispute (Isaeus 6, On the Estate of Philoktemon) that was played out among the members of an extended family. In all these occasions disputes were long-drawn and cyclical, characterized by public demonstrations and enunciations of the disputants’ strategies, and engaged large numbers, sometimes up to hundreds, of other Athenians as core and peripheral support networks. Athenian curse tablets, legal or otherwise, bear out many of these features of Athenian broad-based disputes. As always, one has to be mindful of the context of the dispute, including the social background and legal status of its main protagonists. While much of that can be ascertained in broad-based disputes attested in the literary record, the same is not the case for curse tablets. Besides the fact that curse tablets were biased and lopsided in their perspective, we must also never forget that often they reflected anxieties and animosities at a particular moment in a course of a long dispute, and never the dispute in its entirety. For legal binding curses, that moment was usually right before or during the initial stages of formal litigation. For other curses that do not contain any explicit references to the Athenian system of adjudication, having recourse to litigation was in many cases a viable possibility. Regardless of whether one can situate curse tablets at a fairly precise point in the trajectory of a dispute (as in the case of legal curse tablets) or not (as in the case of potentially legal curse tablets), it is apparent that curse tablets also had specific objectives. Legal curse tablets in particular aimed at manipulating information flow and affecting the emotive landscape of a dispute and should be seen as operating alongside, or even complementing, formal litigation. Both of these objectives (manipulation of information flow; upending the emotive horizon of the dispute) were achieved primarily through the public dissemination of the threat of a prospective curse or details about the content of an actual curse.2 Thus in a way curse tablets can be viewed as transcripts that at times went beyond normative or legislative taxonomies. This does not mean, however, that legal curse tablets were perceived by Athenians as subversive to the civic legal apparatus. On the contrary, due to their polysemic contents and practices of dissemination, magical discourses infiltrated the civically authorized discourse of dispute management as articulated through statutory legislation and formal litigation. Binding curses and other magical rituals, in other words, aimed at negotiating the institutionally privileged spaces of dispute management but at the same time institutional spaces, discourses, and other practices also at times dictated the parameters of magic – the extensive use of technical legal terminology, often in a distorted manner, in curse tablets comes to mind as an example.

2

See also 2.1, especially in connection with counter-curses.

150

7 Conclusion

Beyond these general parameters of the operation of Athenian legal curse tablets within the wider institutional milieu of the Athenian democracy, extant curse tablets also highlight other salient aspects of Athenian disputing behavior. In addition to SGD 51, which opened this chapter, one can also recall SLCTA no. 4, SGD 48 (both discussed extensively in chapter 5) as well as numerous other tablets. These curses attest to the seriality of disputing behavior, the socially embracive nature of support network recruitment as well as the centrality of affiliation to a residential, familial, or professional cluster in the deployment of Athenian disputes. We can hardly begin to comprehend Athenian curse tablets, and the disputes they were embedded in, without an appreciation of the cognitive and social parameters of agency. My approach to agency encompasses both intentions and actions. But whereas the latter were oftentimes documented – e. g. in forensic orations, which often recorded acts performed in the context of disputes – the intentions of social actors were not usually explicitly articulated, especially in a public context, including formal litigation. Agency was in Classical Athens highly performative, and hence in chapter 6 I investigated the communicative and discursive components of agency, particularly as represented in Athenian institutional life (popular assembly and courts) but also curse tablets. I have argued that for the most part, Athenians acted in a high-level agential mode and thus in a manner that was self-assessing and appreciative of long-term objectives. Cognitive and emotive aspects of behavior were also integral components of the agential trajectory of Athenian disputants. Following recent scholarship, I view emotive outbursts and performances as socially engendered, but also as dominance-reinforcing strategies and/or contestations of power structures. Emotionally driven behavior was in other words itself a transcript of resistance and negotiation, depending on the circumstances and perspective of a disputant or litigant. The complexities of agential behavior in the context of Athenian disputes, and their intricate impact on Athenian society at large, are exemplified in attested acts of violence and their representation in court speeches, curse tablets, and literature. Given wider societal expectations it is no coincidence that, in the context of broad-based disputes, acts that were represented as hubristic and reflective of violent emotions feature prominently in narratives of such disputes, especially in forensic speeches. One example concerns the uninvited and often destructive intrusions of a party to a dispute in the domestic quarters of their antagonist.3 These encounters were a recurring 3

For my purposes, it makes little difference whether the events described in a particular forensic oration were always a comprehensive, honest, and accurate representation of the events that actually took place. When, in other words, an Athenian litigant described the ignominy suffered at the hands of his opponent during e. g. a domestic raid, for the purposes of evaluating agential behavior it is not of the utmost importance to ascertain the veracity of every little detail regarding the alleged raid. What matters is that the audience (jurors, bystanders in a trial, and the Athenian public at large) considered domestic raids that involved physical violence, in the manner described by litigants, as habitual agential behavior in the context of a dispute.

Chapter 7 Conclusion

151

topos in Athenian broad-based disputes and are always represented by those at the receiving end as violating the most fundamental norms of domestic privacy in a forceful and insulting way. So, if we accept the premise of the preponderance of high-level agential behavior by Athenian disputants, then why were such acts perpetrated in the first place? Their frequency suggests that, despite the indignation expressed, such acts of aggressive domestic intrusion were stock micro-conflicts and countermoves available to Athenians, and that they were intentionally pursued by disputants embroiled in broad-based disputes. Acts of aggression, magic, and other practices aimed at influencing the course of a dispute were part of the double contingency of interaction observed in all Athenian disputes. Such interaction was by no means symmetrical but was conditioned by, and in many respects contributed to, the production of a normative order and relationships of power instantiated in action. Hence these acts of physical or discursive aggression were clearly perceived by Athenian disputants as opportunities to assert their dominance in the dispute in a physical manner and showcase the breadth of their support – note that domestic intrusions were conducted by groups consisting of the main disputant and supporters. However, the same acts were almost certainly to be represented, especially if the dispute reached the litigation stage, as flagrant violations of domestic life. Disputants that engaged in such acts walked a fine line, in other words, and it was up to their judgment and their individual/collective agency to decide how to balance an emotionally aggressive and intrusive act performed in a context (broad-based dispute) of quest for honor and resources, with the danger of being marked as purveyors of overweening arrogance and other uncontrollable emotions. Similar to other modes of interpersonal agency, the use of magic reflected the continuous and unimpeded interaction between social classes, legal statuses, and genders that, as already pointed out, was pervasive in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries. Athenians actively engaged in agential discursive and physical behavior towards their opponents in disputes, but also interpolated their agency in the institutional apparatus and its representatives. In chapter 6 I examined as a case study of this trend the treatment of the Athenian dikastai, the jurors who manned the popular courts, in forensic oratory and curse tablets. What emerges are two largely antinomical discourses: one, evinced in the courts, that placed trust in the collective judgement of the dikastai as representatives of the Athenian demos versus one, articulated more forcefully in curse tablets, that expressed suspicion and even hostility towards the same group and hence attempted to manipulate it. This case study, too, encapsulates the highly agential nature of curse tablets, underscores their assumed tone of resistance that translated into a powerful communicative tool, and highlights how seamlessly embedded they were in Athenian disputes, social, and institutional life.

Abbreviations APF: CAF: DTA: DT: LGPN: NGCT: PAA: PCG: SEG: SGD:

Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 BC, Oxford, 1971. Kock, T., Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, vol. I–III, Leipzig, 1880–1888. Wünsch, R., Defixionum Tabellae Atticae (= IG III.3 Appendix), Berlin, 1897. Audollent, A., Defixionum tabellae, Paris, 1904. Fraser, P. M. and E. Matthews, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Oxford, 1987-present. Jordan, D. R. 2000, “New Greek Curse Tablets (1985–2000)” GRBS 41, 5–46. Traill, J. S., Persons of Ancient Athens, Toronto, 1994-present. Kassel, R. and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci, Berlin, 1983-present. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Amsterdam, 1923-present. Jordan, D. R. 1985, “A Survey of Greek Defixiones Not Included in the Special Corpora” GRBS 26, 151–197. SLCTA: Curbera, J. and Z. Papakonstantinou 2018, “Six Legal Curse Tablets from Athens” in W. Riess (Ed.), Colloquia Attica: Neuere Forschungen zur Archaik, zum athenischen Recht und zur Magie, Stuttgart, 211–224.

Bibliography Abt, A. 1911, “Bleitafeln aus Münchner Sammlungen” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 14, 143–158. Akrigg, B. 2015, “Metics in Athens” in C. Taylor and K. Vlassopoulos (Eds.), Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford, 155–176. Allen, D. 2000, The World of Prometheus: The Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens, Princeton. Allen, D. 2003, “Angry Bees, Wasps, and Jurors: The Symbolic Politics of orge in Athens” in S. Braund and G. W. Most (Eds.), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, Cambridge, 76–98. Alwine, A. T. 2015, Enmity and Feuding in Classical Athens, Austin. Balot, R. K. 2001, Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens, Princeton. Bandura, A. 1989, “Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory” American Psychologist 44.9, 1175– 1184. Bandura, A. 1997, Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York. Bartos, O. J. and P. Wehr 2002, Using Conflict Theory, Cambridge. Bayliss, A. 2003, “Curse-Tablets as Evidence: Identifying the Elusive ‘Peiraikoi Soldiers’” ZPE 144, 125–140. Benefiel, R. and P. Keegan 2016, Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden. Bernand, A. 1991, Sorciers grecs, Paris. Bers, V. 1985, “Dikastik Thorubos” in P. A. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (Eds.), Crux: Essays in Greek History Presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix on his 75th Birthday, London, 1–15. Bers, V. 2003, Demosthenes, Speeches 50–59, Austin. Bers, V. 2009,  Genos Dikanikon: Amateur and Professional Speech in the Courtrooms of Classical Athens, Washington, D. C. Besnier, N. 2009, Gossip and the Everyday Production of Politics, Honolulu. Boegehold, A. 1984, “Many Letters: Aristophanes Plutus 1166–67” in A. Boegehold, K. Rigsby, et al. (Eds.), Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, Durham, NC, 23–29. Boegehold, A. et. al. 1995, The Lawcourts at Athens. Sites, Buildings, Equipment, Procedure, and Testimonia, Princeton. Bourdieu, P. 1991, Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge, MA. Bravo, B. 1987, “Une tablette magique d’Olbia pontique” in Poikilía. Études offertes à Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paris, 185–218. Bremmer, J. 1999, “The Birth of the Term ‘Magic’” ZPE 126, 1–12. Brugnone, A. 1976, “Defixiones inedite da Selinunte” in Studi di storia antica offerti dagli allievi a Eugenio Manni, Rome, 67–90. Canevaro, M. 2017, “The Rule of Law as the Measure of Political Legitimacy in the Greek City States” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 9.2, 211–236.

154

Bibliography

Caplan, P. (Ed.) 1995, Understanding Disputes. The Politics of Argument, Oxford. Carastro, M. 2006, La cité des mages: penser la magie en Grèce ancienne, Grenoble. Carey, C., I. Giannadaki, and B. Griffith-Williams (Eds.) 2018, Use and Abuse of Law in the Athenian Courts, Leiden. Carter, L. B. 1986, The Quiet Athenian, Oxford. Chiarini, S. 2020, Devotio Malefica. Die antiken Verfluchungen zwischen sprachübergreifender Tradition und individueller Prägung, Habilitation thesis. Christ, M. R. 1998a, The Litigious Athenian, Baltimore. Christ, M. R. 1998b, “Legal Self-Help on Private Property in Classical Athens” AJPh 119, 521–545. Christ, M. R. 2007, “The Evolution of the eisphora in Classical Athens” CQ 57, 53–69. Christ, M. R. 2012, The Limits of Altruism in Democratic Athens, Cambridge. Cohen, D. 1995, Law, Violence, and Community in Classical Athens, Cambridge. Cohen, E. 1973, Ancient Athenian Maritime Courts, Princeton. Cohen, E. 2000, The Athenian Nation, Princeton. Collins, D. 2008, Magic in the Ancient Greek World, Malden, MA. Comaroff, J. L. and S. Roberts 1981, Rules and Processes: The Cultural Logic of Dispute in an African Context, Chicago. Comaroff, J. and J. Comaroff 1992, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination, Boulder. Conover, K. 2010, Bribery in Classical Athens, PhD Dissertation, Princeton University. Costabile, F. 1998, “La triplice defixio del Kerameikós di Atene. Il processo polemarchico ed un logographo attico del IV sec. a. C. Relazione prelimimare” MEP 1, 9–54. Costabile, F. 1999a, “ΚΑΤΑΔΕΣΜΟΙ” AthMitt 114, 89–104. Costabile, F. 1999b, ‘Defixiones da Locri Epizefiri: nuovi dati sui culti, sulla storia e sulle istituzioni’ MEP 2, 23–77. Costabile, F. 2000, “Defixiones dal Kerameikós di Atene – II. Maledizioni processuali” MEP 4, 37–122. Costabile, F. 2001, “La triplice defixio: nuova lettura. Processo e norma libraria attica nel V–IV sec. A. C. Defixiones dal Kerameikós di Atene – III,” MEP 6, 143–208. Costabile, F. 2004–2005, “Defixiones dal Kerameikós di Atene. IV” MEP 7–8, 137–192. Costabile, F. 2005–2006, “Καταδεσμοί από τον Κεραμεικό Αθηνών. Νέα στοιχεία στην ανάγνωση” Eulimene 6–7, 139–161. Costabile, F. 2007a, “La triplice defixio dal Kerameikós di Atene. Processo e norma libraria attica nel V–IV sec. a. C.” in F. Costabile (Ed.), Enigmi delle civiltà antiche dal Mediterraneo al Nilo. Atene, la Magna Grecia, l’impero di Roma, vol. 1, Reggio Calabria, 161–202. Costabile, F. 2007b, “Defixiones dal Kerameikós di Atene. Andocide, l’ atimia, Natyrinos, i generali macedoni, maledizioni sopra la tomba di Lissos”, in F. Costabile (Ed.), Enigmi delle civiltà antiche dal Mediterraneo al Nilo. Atene, la Magna Grecia, l’impero di Roma, vol. 1, Reggio Calabria, 203–250. Couilloud, M.-Th. 1967, “Deux tablettes d’imprécation” BCH, 513–517. Curbera, J. 2015a, “From the Magician’s Workshop: Notes on the Materiality of Greek Curse Tablets” in D. Boschung and J. Bremmer (Eds.), The Materiality of Magic, Köln, 97–122. Curbera, J. 2015b, “Seven Curse Tablets from the Collection of Richard Wünsch” ZPE 195, 143–156. Curbera, J. 2016, “Five Curse Tablets from the Athenian Kerameikos” ZPE 199, 109–118. Dickie, M. W. 2001, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World, London. Dodds, E. R. 1951, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley. Dreher, M. 2018a, “‘Heiliges Recht’ and ‘Heilige Gesetze’: Law, Religion, and Magic in Ancient Greece” in P. Perlman (Ed.), Ancient Greek Law in the 21st Century, Austin, 85–103.

Bibliography

155

Dreher, M. 2018b, “Rechtliche Elemente in den antiken Fluchtafeln” in G. Thür, U. Yiftach and R.  Zelnick-Abramovitz (Eds.), Symposion 2017. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Vienna, 289–312. Dreher, M. 2018c, “Das Magdeburger Fluchtafel-Projekt” in W. Riess (Ed.), Colloquia Attica: Neuere Forschungen zur Archaik, zum athenischen Recht und zur Magie, Stuttgart, 237–245. Dreher, M. 2018d, “Recht, Religion und Magie im antiken Griechenland” in W. Riess (Ed.), Colloquia Attica: Neuere Forschungen zur Archaik, zum athenischen Recht und zur Magie, Stuttgart, 193–208. Dreyer, B. 2000, “Der Tod des Nikodemos von Aphidnai und die Meidias-Rede des Demosthenes” AHB 14, 56–63. Dufault, O. 2018, “Who Wrote Greek Curse Tablets?” in R. Evans (Ed.), Prophets and Profits: Ancient Divination and its Reception, London, 31–49. Edmonds, R. G. 2019, Drawing Down the Moon: Magic in the Ancient Greco-Roman World, Princeton. Edwards, M. and D. Spatharas (Eds.) 2019, Forensic Narratives in Athenian Courts, London. Eidinow, E. 2007a, Oracles, Curses and Risk among the Ancient Greeks, Oxford. Eidinow, E. 2007b, “Why the Athenians Began to Curse” in R. Osborne (Ed.), Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution. Art, Literature, Philosophy, and Politics 430–380 BC, Cambridge, 44–71. Eidinow, E. 2016, Envy, Poison, and Death: Women on Trial in Ancient Athens, Oxford. Eidinow, E. 2019a, “Social Knowledge and Spiritual Insecurity: Identifying ‘Witchcraft’ in Classical Greek Communities” Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 14.1, 62–85. Eidinow, E. 2019b, “Binding Spells on Tablets and Papyri” in D. Frankfurter (Ed.), Guide to the Study of Ancient Magic, Leiden, 351–387. Eidinow, E. and C. Taylor 2010, “Lead-Letter Days: Writing, Communication and Crisis in the Ancient Greek World” CQ 60, 30–62. Ewick, P. and S. S. Silbey 1998, The Common Place of Law: Stories of Popular Legal Consciousness, Chicago. Faraone, C. A. 1985, “Aeschylus’ ὕμνος δέσμιος (Eum. 306) and Attic Judicial Curse Tablets” JHS 105, 150–154. Faraone, C. A. 1989, “An Accusation of Magic in Classical Athens (Ar. Wasps 946–48)” TAPA 119, 149–160. Faraone, C. A. 1999a, Ancient Greek Love Magic, Cambridge, MA. Faraone, C. A. 1999b, “Curses and Social Control in the Law Courts of Classical Athens” Dike 2 (1999), 99–121 (also published in D. Cohen (Ed.), Demokratie, Recht und soziale Kontrolle im klassischen Athen, München 2002, 77–92). Faraone, C. A. 2003, “Thumos as Masculine Ideal and Social Pathology in Ancient Greek Magical Spells” in S. Braund and G. W. Most (Eds.), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, Cambridge, 144–162. Faraone, C. A. and D. Obbink (Eds.) 1991, Magika hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Oxford. Fenster, T. and D. L. Smail (Eds.) 2003, Fama: The Politics of Talk and Reputation in Medieval Europe, Ithaca, NY. Fisher, N. 1998, “Violence, Masculinity, and the Law in Classical Athens,” in L. Foxhall and J. Salmon (Eds.), When Men were Men: Masculinity, Power, and Identity in Classical Antiquity, London, 68–97. Fisher, N. 1999 “‘Workshops of Villains’: Was There Much Organised Crime in Classical Athens?” in K. Hopwood (Ed.), Organised Crime in Antiquity, London, 53–96. Fisher, N. 2001, Aeschines: Against Timarchos, Oxford.

156

Bibliography

Forsdyke, S. 2012, Slaves Tell Tales: And Other Episodes in the Politics of Popular Culture in Ancient Greece, Princeton. Forsdyke, S. 2018, “Ancient and Modern Conceptions of the Rule of Law” in M. Canevaro, A. Erskine, B. Gray and J. Ober (Eds.), Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science, Edinburgh, 184–212. Fox, S. 1913, “Two Tabellae Defixionum in the Royal Ontario Museum” AJPh 34, 74–80. Furley, W. D. 1996, Andokides and the Herms: A Study of Crisis in Fifth-Century Athenian Religion, London. Gabrielsen, V. 1994, Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations, Baltimore. Gabrielsen, V. 2015, “Naval and Grain Networks and Associations in Fourth-century Athens” in C. Taylor and K. Vlassopoulos (Eds.), Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford, 177–213. Gagarin, M. 1998, “Women in Athenian Courts” Dike 1, 39–51. Gagarin, M. 2002, Antiphon the Athenian: Oratory, Law, and Justice in the Age of the Sophists, Austin. Gagarin, M. 2008, Writing Greek Law, Cambridge. Gager, J. 1992, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, Oxford. Gellar-Goad, T., Z. Papakonstantinou and W. Riess 2018, “Magic in Ancient Athens: A Complete Translation of Attic Curse Tablets” in W. Riess (Ed.), Colloquia Attica: Neuere Forschungen zur Archaik, zum athenischen Recht und zur Magie, Stuttgart, 261–276. Giddens, A. 1979, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Berkeley. Giddens, A. 1984, The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley. Giddens, A. 1989, “A Reply to My Critics” in D. Held and J. B. Thompson (Eds.), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics, Cambridge, 249–301. Goffman, E. 1956, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York. Goffman, E. 1967, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, New York. Gordon, R. 1999, “What’s in a List. Listing and Graeco-Roman Malign Magical Texts,” in D. Jordan, H. Montgomery and E. Thomassen (Eds.), The World of Ancient Magic. Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 4–8 May 1997, Bergen, 239–277. Gordon, R. 2008, “Talking of Magic” in J. Petropoulos (Ed.), Greek Magic. Ancient, Medieval and Modern, London, 139–149. Gottesman, A. 2014, Politics and the Street in Democratic Athens, Cambridge. Graf, F. 1997, Magic in the Ancient World, Cambridge, MA. Griffith-Williams, B. 2012, “Oikos, Family Feuds and Funerals: Argumentation and Evidence in Athenian Inheritance Disputes” CQ 62, 145–162. Griffith-Williams, B. 2013, “Violence in Court: Law and Rhetoric in Athenian and English Assault Cases” Greece & Rome 60, 89–100. Griffith-Williams, B. 2016, “Rational and Emotional Persuasion in Athenian Deliberative Oratory” in E. Sanders and M. Johncock (Eds.), Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity, Stuttgart, 41–56. Gulliver, P. H. 1979, Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-cultural Perspective, New York. Habermas, J. 1984–1987, The Theory of Communicative Action, translated by T. McCarthy, vol. I–II, Boston. Habicht, C. 1993, “Attische Fluchtafeln aus der Zeit Alexanders des Großen” ICS 18, 113–118. Hansen, M. H. 1983, “Rhetores and Strategoi in Fourth-Century Athens” GRBS 24, 151–180. Harris, E. M. 1995, Aeschines and Athenian Politics, Oxford. Harris, E. M. 1989, “Demosthenes’ Speech Against Meidias” HSCP 92, 117–136.

Bibliography

157

Harris, E. M. 2005, “Feuding or the Rule of Law? The Nature of Litigation in Classical Athens. An Essay in Legal Sociology” in M. Gagarin and R. W. Wallace (Eds.), Symposion 2001: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Vienna, 125–142. Harris, E. M. 2008, Demosthenes, Speeches 20–22, Austin. Harrison, A. R. W. 1968–1971, The Law of Athens, vol. I–II, Oxford. (new edition, foreword and bibliography by D. M. MacDowell, London 1998). Hashiba, Y. 2006, “Athenian Bribery Reconsidered: Some Legal Aspects” PCPhS 52, 62–80. Herman, G. 2006, Morality and Behaviour in Democratic Athens: A Social History, Cambridge. Hesk, J. 2000, Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens, Cambridge. Hochschulz, B. 2007, Kallistratos von Aphidnai: Untersuchungen zu seiner politischen Biographie, Munich. Humphreys, S. C. 1985, “Social Relations on Stage: Witnesses in Classical Athens’ History and Anthropology 1, 313–369. Humphreys, S. C. 2010, “A Paranoiac Sycophant? The Curse Tablet NM 14470” ZPE 172, 85–86. Humphreys, S. C. 2018, Kinship in Ancient Athens: An Anthropological Analysis, Oxford. Hunter, V. J. 1990, “Gossip and the Politics of Reputation in Classical Athens” Phoenix 44, 299–325. Hunter, V. J. 1994, Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420–320 B. C., Princeton. Hunter, V. J. 2000, “Introduction: Status Distinctions in Athenian Law” in V. J. Hunter and J. Edmondson (Eds.), Law and Social Status in Classical Athens, Oxford, 1–29. Jahn, K. 2018, “Die Datenbank zur digitalen Erfassung aller Fluchtafeln – Der Thesaurus Defixionum Magdeburgensis (TheDeMa)” in W. Riess (Ed.), Colloquia Attica: Neuere Forschungen zur Archaik, zum athenischen Recht und zur Magie, Stuttgart, 247–259. Johnston, S. 1999, Restless Dead. Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece, Berkeley. Johnston, S. 2008, “Magic and the Dead in Classical Greece” in J. Petropoulos (Ed.), Greek Magic. Ancient, Medieval and Modern, London, 14–20. Johnstone, S. 1999, Disputes and Democracy. The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens, Austin. Jordan, D. R. 1988, “New Archaeological Evidence for the Practice of Magic in Classical Athens” Πρακτικά του ΧΙΙ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας, vol. IV, Athens, 273–277. Jordan, D. R. 1995, “A Course Tablet Against Opponents at Law” in A. Boegehold et al., The Lawcourts at Athens. Sites, Buildings, Equipment, Procedure, and Testimonia, Princeton, 55–57. Jordan, D. R. 1999, “Three Curse Tablets” in D. R. Jordan, H. Montgomery and E. Thomassen (Eds.), The World of Ancient Magic. Papers from the First International Samson Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, Bergen, 115–124. Jordan, D. R. 2000, “Three Texts from Lokroi Epizephyrioi” ZPE 130, 95–103. Jordan, D. R. 2003, “A Letter from the Banker Pasion” in D. R. Jordan and J. Traill (Eds.), Lettered Attica: A Day of Attic Epigraphy. Proceedings of the Athens Symposium, 8 March 2000, Athens, 23–39. Jordan, D. R. 2004, “Towards the Text of a Curse Tablet from the Athenian Kerameikos” in A. Matthaiou (Ed.), Ἀττικαὶ ἐπιγραφαὶ εἰς μνήμην Adolf Wilhelm, Athens 2004, 291–312. Jordan, D. R. 2008, “An Athenian Curse Tablet Invoking Palaimon” in A. Mathaiou and I. Polinskaya (Eds.), Μικρός ἱερομνήνων. Μελέτες εἰς μνήμην Michael H. Jameson, Athens, 133–144. Jordan, D. R. and J. Curbera 2008, “A Lead Curse Tablet in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens” ZPE 166, 135–150. Kamen, D. 2013, Status in Classical Athens, Princeton.

158

Bibliography

Kamen, D. 2018, “The Consequences of Laughter in Aeschines’ Against Timarchos” Archimède 5, 49–56. Kaplan, M. and J. D. Kelly 1994, “Rethinking Resistance: Dialogics of ‘Disaffection’ in Colonial Fiji” American Ethnologist 21.1, 123–151. Kapparis, K. A. 2011, “The Terminology of Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World” in A. Glazebrook and M. M. Henry (Eds.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean 800 BCE  – 200 CE, Madison, 222–255. Kennedy, R. F. 2014, Immigrant Women in Athens: Gender, Ethnicity, and Citizenship in the Classical City, London. Kotansky, R. 2020, “A Silver Votive Plaque with a Judicial Prayer against Slander” GRBS 60, 139– 157. Lamont, J. L. 2015, “A New Commercial Curse Tablet from Classical Athens” ZPE 96, 159–174. Lamont, J. L. and G. Boundouraki 2018, “Of Curses and Cults: Private and Public Ritual in Classical Xypete” in G. Vavouranakis, K. Kopanias and C. Kanellopoulos (Eds.), Popular Religion and Ritual in Prehistoric and Ancient Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean, Oxford, 125–135. Langdon, M. 2005, “A New Greek Abecedarium” Kadmos 44, 175–182. Langdon, M. 2015, “Herders’ Graffiti” in A. P. Matthaiou and n. Papazarkadas (Eds.), Axōn: Studies in Honor of Ronald S. Stroud, vol. I–II, Athens, 49–58. Lanni, A. 1997, “Spectator Sport or Serious Politics? οἱ περιεστηκότες and the Athenian Lawcourts” JHS 117 (1997), 183–189. Lanni, A. 2006, Law and Justice in the Courts of Classical Athens, Cambridge. Lanni, A. 2016, Law and Order in Ancient Athens, Cambridge. László, H. 2015, Der ‘Neue Hypereides’. Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen, Berlin. Lhôte, É. 2006, Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone, Geneva. López Jimeno, M. del A. 1999, Nuevas tabellae defixionis Áticas. Estudio filológico, lingüistico, epigráfico y de realia de las nuevas tabellae defixionis Áticas posteriores a la publicación de los corpora clásicos. Con textos, traducción, índices y láminas, Amsterdam. MacDowell, D. M. 1962, Andokides On the Mysteries, Oxford. MacDowell, D. M. 1978, The Law in Classical Athens, Ithaca. MacDowell, D. M. 1983, “Athenian Laws about Bribery” RIDA 30, 57–78. MacDowell, D. M. 1990, Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oration 21), Oxford. Marston, J. M. 2007, “Language of Ritual Cursing in the Binding of Prometheus” GRBS 47, 121–133. Matuszweski, R. 2019, Räume der Reputation: zur bürgerlichen Kommunikation im Athen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart. Mirecki, P. and M. Meyer (Eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, Leiden. Mirhady, D. 2007, “The Dikast’s Oath and the Question of Fact” in A. Sommerstein and J. Fletcher (Eds.), Horkos. The Oath in Greek Society, Exeter 2007, 48–59. Missiou, A. 2011, Literacy and Democracy in Fifth-Century Athens, Cambridge. Moraux, P. 1960, Une defixion judiciaire au musée d’ Istanbul, Brussels. Most, G. W. 1989, “Self-Disclosure and Self-Sufficiency in Greek Culture” JHS 109, 114–133. Müstenberg, R. 1907, “Drei attische Fluchtafeln” Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 10, 375–377. Nisoli, A. G. 2003, “Defixiones politiche e vittime illustri. Il caso della defixio di Focione” Acme 56, 271–287. Ober, J. 1989, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People, Princeton. Ober, J. 2008, Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens, Princeton.

Bibliography

159

O’Connell, P. A. 2017, The Rhetoric of Seeing in Attic Forensic Oratory, Austin. O’Connell, P. A. 2019, “The Story about the Jury” in M. Edwards and D. Spatharas (Eds.), Forensic Narratives in Athenian Courts, London, 81–101. Ogden, D. 1999, “Binding Spells: Curse Tablets and Voodoo Dolls in the Greek and Roman Worlds,” in V. Flint, R. Gordon, G. Luck and D. Ogden (Eds.), Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Vol. II, Ancient Greece and Rome, London, 1–90. Ogden, D. 2008, Night’s Black Agents: Witches, Wizards and the Dead in the Ancient World, London. Oost, S. I. 1977, “Two Notes on Aristophon of Azenia” CPh 72, 238–242. Ortner, S. B. 2005, “Subjectivity and Cultural Critique” Anthropological Theory 5.1, 31–52. Ortner, S. B. 2006, Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject, Durham, NC. Osborne, R. 1985, “Law in Action in Classical Athens” JHS 105, 40–58. Osborne, R. 2018, “The Elasticity of Athenian Law” in C. Carey, I. Giannadaki and B. Griffith-Williams (Eds.), Use and Abuse of Law in the Athenian Courts, Leiden, 32–41. Ottone, G. 1992, “Tre note sulle defixiones iudiciariae greche di età arcaica e classica” Sandalion 15, 39–51. Paine, R. 1967, “What is Gossip About? An Alternative Hypothesis” Man n. s. 2.2, 278–285. Papakonstantinou, Z. 2008, Lawmaking and Adjudication in Archaic Greece, London. Papakonstantinou, Z. 2013, “Two Boxers in a Fourth-century B. C. Athenian defixio” in P. Mauritsch and C. Ulf (Eds.), Kultur(en). Formen des Alltäglichen in der Antike. Festschrift für Ingomar Weiler zum 75. Geburtstag, Graz, 367–377. Papakonstantinou, Z. 2014, “Some Observations on Litigants and their Supporters in Athenian Judiciary defixiones” in A. Martinez Fernandez, H. Velasco Lopez, B. Ortega Villaro and H. Zamora Salamanca (Eds.), Agalma. Ofrenda desde la filologia clasica a Manuel Garcia Teijeiro, Valladolid, 1027–1035. Papakonstantinou, Z. 2017, “Binding Curses, Agency and the Athenian Democracy” in I. Xydopoulos, E. Tounta, and K. Vlassopoulos (Eds.), Violence and Community: Law, Space and Identity in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean World, London, 142–158. Papakonstantinou, Z. 2018a, “Disputes, Magic and the Athenian Navy” in B. Biscotti (Ed.), Kállistos Nómos. Scritti in onore di Alberto Maffi, Torino, 121–132. Papakonstantinou, Z. 2018b, “Jurors (dikastai) in Athenian Legal Binding Curses” in W. Riess (Ed.), Colloquia Attica: Neuere Forschungen zur Archaik, zur athenischen Recht und zur Magie, Stuttgart, 225–236. Parker, R. 2005, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford. Patterson, C. 2000, “The Hospitality of Athenian Justice: The Metic in Court” in V. J. Hunter and J. Edmondson (Eds.), Law and Social Status in Classical Athens, Oxford, 93–112. Pébarthe, C. 2006, Cité, démocratie et écriture. Histoire de l’alphabétisation d’Athènes à l’époque classique, Paris. Peek, W. 1941, Inschriften, Ostraka, Fluchtafeln. Kerameikos, ergebnisse des ausgrabungen III, Berlin. Peek, W. 1957, Attische Grabschriften, II: Unedierte Grabinschriften aus Athen und Attika. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst 1956, no. 3, Berlin. Petrakos, V. Ch. 1997, Οι επιγραφές του Ωρωπού, Athens. Phillips, D. 2007, “Trauma ek pronoias in Athenian Law” JHS 127, 74–105. Phillips, D. 2008, Avengers of Blood: Homicide in Athenian Law and Custom from Draco to Demosthenes, Stuttgart.

160

Bibliography

Rabehl, W. 1906, De sermone defixionum Atticarum, Diss. Berlin. Rhodes, P. J. 2004, “Keeping to the Point” in E. M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (Eds.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London, 137–158. Riess, W. 2008, “Private Violence and State Control. The Prosecution of Homicide and its Symbolic Meanings in Fourth-Century BC Athens” in C. Brélaz et P. Ducrey (Eds.), Sécurité collective et ordre public dans les sociétés anciennes, Geneva, 49–101. Riess, W. 2012, Performing Interpersonal Violence: Court, Curse, and Comedy in Fourth-Century BCE Athens, Berlin. Riess, W. forthcoming, “Attische Richter zwischen rule of law und Egoismus: Das Zeugnis der Komödie und der Fluchtafeln” in Symposion 2019. Akten der Gesellschaft für Griechische und Hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte. Robert, L. 1936, Collection Froehner I. Inscriptions grecques, Paris. Roberts, S. 2013, Order and Dispute: An Introduction to Legal Anthropology2, New Orleans. Roisman, J. 2003, “The Rhetoric of Courage in Athenian Orators” in R. Rosen and I. Sluiter (Eds.), Andreia. Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, 127–143. Roisman, J., 2005, The Rhetoric of Manhood. Masculinity in the Attic Orators, Berkeley. Roy, J., “Lysias 29.12: Jurors from the Piraeus,” ElectronAnt 3.3, 1993, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ ejournals/ElAnt/V3N3/roy.html (accessed June 6, 2020). Rubinstein, L. 2000, Litigation and Cooperation. Supporting Speakers in the Courts of Classical Athens, Stuttgart. Rubinstein, L. 2004, “Stirring Up Dicastic Anger” in D. L. Cairns and R. A. Knox (Eds.), Law, Rhetoric, and Comedy in Classical Athens. Essays in Honour of Douglas M. MacDowell, Swansea, 187–203. Rubinstein, L. 2013, “Evoking Anger Through Pity: Portraits of the Vulnerable and Defenceless in Attic Oratory” in A. Chaniotis and P. Ducrey (Eds.), Unveiling Emotions II. Emotions in Greece and Rome: Texts, Images, Material Culture, Stuttgart, 135–166. Rubinstein, L. 2018, “Team-speaking and Complex Litigation in Athenian Judicial defixiones: A Response to Martin Dreher” in G. Thür, U. Yiftach and R. Zelnick-Abramovitz (Eds.), Symposion 2017. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Vienna, 313–320. Salvo, I. 2012, “Sweet Revenge: Emotional Factors in ‘Prayers for Justice’” in A. Chaniotis (Ed.), Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World, Stuttgart, 235–266. Salvo, I. 2016, “Emotions, Persuasion and Gender in Greek Erotic Curses” in E. Sanders and M. Johncock (Eds.), Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity, Stuttgart, 263–279. Sanders, E. 2012, “‘He is a Liar, a Bounder, and a Cad’: The Arousal of Hostile Emotions in Attic Forensic Oratory” in A. Chaniotis (Ed.), Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World, Stuttgart, 359–387. Sanders, E. 2014, Envy and Jealousy in Classical Athens: A Socio-psychological Approach, Oxford. Scafuro, A. 1997, The Forensic Stage. Settling Disputes in Graeco-Roman New Comedy, Cambridge. Schwarz, N. 2012, “Feelings-as-Information Theory” in P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Los Angeles, 289–308. Scott, J. C. 1985, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New Haven. Scott, J. C. 1990, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, New Haven. Sewell, W. H. 1992, “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation” American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29. Silbey, S. S. 2005, “Everyday Life and the Constitution of Legality” in M. D. Jacobs and N. W. Hanrahan (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture, Oxford, 332–345.

Bibliography

161

Skouteri-Didaskalou, E. 2008, “Magic as a Point of Reference in Anthropological Theory” in J. Petropoulos (Ed.), Greek Magic. Ancient, Medieval and Modern, London, 150–159. Sørensen, A. D. 2018, “Hippodamus of Miletus and the Character of the Athenian Dikastic Oath (Arist. Pol. 2.8)” GRBS 58, 324–348. Sosin, J. 2008, “The New Letter from Pasion” ZPE 165, 105–108. Spatharas, D. 2006a, “Wounding, Rhetoric and the Law in Lysias IV” RIDA 52, 87–106. Spatharas, D. 2006b, “Λυσίας, Κατὰ Τείσιδος (απ. 17 Gernet-Bizos): μια ερμηνευτική προσέγγιση” Ariadne 12, 47–67. Spatharas, D. 2008, “ταῦτ᾽ ἐγὼ μαρτύρομαι: Bystanders as Witnesses in Aristophanes” Mnemosyne 61, 177–191. Spatharas, D. 2011, “Self-Praise and Envy: From Rhetoric to the Athenian Courts” Arethusa 44, 199–219. Sternberg, R. H. 2006, Tragedy Offstage: Suffering and Sympathy in Ancient Athens, Austin. Stewart, P. J. and A. Strathern 2004, Witchcraft, Sorcery, Rumors, and Gossip, Cambridge. Stratton, K. 2007, Naming the Witch: Magic, Ideology, and Stereotype in the Ancient World, New York. Strubbe, J. H. M. 1991, “Cursed Be He that Moves my Bones” in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (Eds.), Magika hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Oxford, 33–59. Strӱd J. H. W. 1903, “Ἀττικά μετ ̓ ἀρῶν μολύβδινα ἐλάσματα” AE, 55–60. Tannen, D. 2007, Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse, Cambridge. Thompson, H. A. 1936, “Pnyx and Thesmophorion” Hesperia 5, 151–200. Todd, S. C. 1995, The Shape of the Athenian Law, Oxford. Todd, S. C. 2000, Lysias, Austin. Traill, J. S. 1975, The Political Organization of Attica. A Study of the demes, trittyes, and phylai, and their Representation in the Athenian Council, Princeton. Trumpf, J. 1958, “Fluchtafel und Rachepuppe”, AM 73, 94–102. Tzanetou, A. 2005, “A Generous City: Pity in Athenian Oratory and Tragedy” in R. Sternberg (Ed.), Pity and Power in Ancient Athens, Cambridge, 98–122. Vallacher, R. R. and D. M. Wegner 1989, “Levels of Personal Agency: Individual Variation in Action Identification” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57.4, 660–671. Vallacher, R. R. and D. M. Wegner 2012. “Action Identification Theory” in P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume One, London, 327–348. Vanderstraeten, R. 2002, “Parsons, Luhmann and the Theorem of Double Contingency” Journal of Classical Sociology 2.1, 77–92. van Effenterre, H. and F. Ruzé, 1994–1995, Nomima. Recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec, vols I–II, Rome. Versnel, H. S. 1991, “Beyond Cursing: The Appeal to Justice in Judicial Prayers” in C. Faraone and D. Obbink (Eds.), Magika hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Oxford, 60–106. Versnel, H. S. 1998, “καὶ εἴ τι λ[οιπὸν] τῶν μερ[ῶ]ν [ἔσ]ται τοῦ σώματος ὅλ[ο]υ[.. (… And Any Other Part of the Entire Body There May Be …). An Essay on Anatomical Curses” in F. Graf (Ed.), Ansichten griechischer Rituale: Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert, Stuttgart, 217–267. Versnel, H. S. 2010, “Prayers for Justice in East and West: Recent Finds and Publications” in R. Gordon and F. Simón (Eds.), Magical Practice in the Latin West. Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza 30. Sept. – 10. Oct. 2005, Leiden, 275–354.

162

Bibliography

Vlassopoulos, K. 2007. “Free Spaces: Identity, Experience and Democracy in Classical Athens” CQ 57, 33–52. Voutiras, E. 1998, ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΟΣ ΓΑΜΟΙ. Marital Life and Magic in Fourth Century Pella, Amsterdam. Wallace, R. W. 2017, “Law and Community in Ancient Athens, and the Prosecution of Socrates” Ivs Fvgit, 20, 249–263. Wallace, R. W. 2018, “Administering Justice in Ancient Athens: Framework and Core Principles” in P. Perlman (Ed.), Ancient Greek Law in the 21st Century, Austin, 10–24. Watson, L. 2019, Magic in Ancient Greece and Rome, London. White, L. 2000, Speaking with Vampires: Rumor and History in Colonial Africa, Berkeley. Wijma, S. M. 2015, Embracing the Immigrant. The Participation of Metics in Athenian Polis Religion (5th – 4th century BC), Stuttgart. Wilhelm, A. 1904, “Über die Zeit einiger attischer Fluchtafeln” JÖAI 7, 105–126. Willemsen, F. 1990, “Die Fluchtafeln” in W. K. Kovacsovics (Ed.), Die Eckterrasse an der Gräberstrasse des Kerameikos, Kerameikos XIV, Berlin, 142–151. Wolicki, A. 2012, “A Note on a Defixio from the Kerameikos (SEG 49.316)” ZPE 180, 250–252. Woodward, A. M. and R. P. Austin, 1925–1926, “Some Note-Books of Sir William Gell” ABSA 27, 67–80. Wycherley, E. R. 1957, The Athenian Agora III. Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, Princeton. Wünsch, R. 1900, “Neue Fluchtafeln I” RhM 55, 62–85. Young, R. 1951, “An Industrial District of Ancient Athens” Hesperia 20, 135–288. Ziebarth, E. 1899, “Neue attische Fluchtafeln” Nachrichten von der Gessellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, 105–135. Ziebarth, E. 1934, “Neue Verfluchungstafeln aus Attika, Boiotien und Euboia,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 33, 1022–1050.

Indexes A. Curse Tablets Costabile 2004–2005, no. I (= Costabile 2007b, no. I): 95–96 Curbera 2015b, no. 4: 127 n. 21 DT 46: 108 n. 105 DT 47: 110 n. 113 DT 49: 36, 53, 103 and n. 78, 104–105, 133–134 DT 52 (= Jordan 1999, no. 2): 110 n. 113 DT 62: 90 n. 22 DT 63: 90 n. 22 DT 64: 104 n. 84 DT 67: 41 n. 72 DT 69: 134 n. 40 DT 70: 113, 115 and n. 131–132, 116 DT 71: 113, 115 and n. 131–132 DT 72: 113, 115 and n. 131–132, 116 DT 73: 113, 115 and n. 131–132 DT 77: 90 n. 22 DTA 1: 34 n. 44 DTA 2: 34 n. 44 DTA 3: 34 n. 44 DTA 4: 34 n. 44 DTA 5: 34 n. 44 DTA 6: 34 n. 44 DTA 7: 34 n. 44 DTA 8: 34 n. 44 DTA 9: 34 n. 44 DTA 10: 34 n. 44 DTA 11: 34 n. 44 DTA 12: 34 n. 44 DTA 13: 34 n. 44 DTA 14: 34 n. 44

DTA 15: 34 n. 44 DTA 16: 34 n. 44 DTA 17: 34 n. 44 DTA 18: 34 n. 44 DTA 19: 34 n. 44 DTA 20: 34 n. 44 DTA 21: 34 n. 44 DTA 22: 34 n. 44 DTA 23: 34 n. 44 DTA 24: 34 n. 44, 97, 98 and n. 56, 101, 109 DTA 25: 102, 116, 132–133 DTA 26: 34 n. 44, 109 and n. 110 DTA 27: 34 n. 44 DTA 28: 34 n. 44 DTA 29: 34 n. 44 DTA 30: 34 n. 44, 110 n. 113 DTA 31: 34 n. 44 DTA 32: 34 n. 44 DTA 33: 34 n. 44 DTA 34: 34 n. 44 DTA 35: 34 n. 44 DTA 36: 34 n. 44 DTA 37: 34 n. 44 DTA 38: 90 n. 22 DTA 39: 90 n. 22, 109, 113 and n. 125 DTA 40: 34 n. 44 DTA 41: 34 n. 44 DTA 42: 34 n. 44 DTA 43: 34 n. 44 DTA 44: 34 n. 44 DTA 45: 34 n. 44 DTA 46: 30 and n. 33, 34 n. 44 DTA 47: 34 n. 44 DTA 48: 34 n. 44

164

Indexes

DTA 49: 34 n. 44 DTA 50: 34 n. 44 DTA 51: 34 n. 44 DTA 54: 34 n. 44 DTA 55: 101 and n. 71, 102 and n. 73, 108, 132 n. 55 DTA 57: 34 n. 44 DTA 58: 34 n. 44 DTA 59: 34 n. 44 DTA 61: 34 n. 44 DTA 63: 90 n. 22 DTA 64: 34 n. 44 DTA 66: 90 n. 22 DTA 68: 53, 102 and n. 74–76, 103–104, 108 n. 101, 110 and n. 113, 113–116 DTA 69: 108 n. 103 DTA 70: 115 n. 132 DTA 71: 115 n. 132 DTA 72: 114 n. 129 DTA 73: 114 n. 129 DTA 74: 114 n. 129 DTA 75: 114 n. 129 DTA 76: 108 n. 103 DTA 77: 101 n. 71, 108 and n. 104 DTA 80: 34 n. 44 DTA 81: 90 n. 22, 108 n. 105 DTA 84: 113, 114 n. 129 DTA 85: 116 n. 135 DTA 87: 101, 102 n. 75, 108, 110 n. 113, 113, 115–116, 132 DTA 88: 90 n. 22 DTA 91: 115 n. 132 DTA 94: 17 n. 7, 35–36, 41, 47–48, 50, 90 n. 22, 127 DTA 95: 90 n. 22, 102 n. 76, 109 n. 110, 113 n. 125 DTA 96: 127 n. 21 DTA 97: 127 n. 21 DTA 98: 127 n. 21, 128 and n. 24 DTA 102: 101 n. 71, 102 n. 76, 109 and n. 110 DTA 105: 133 DTA 106: 90 and n. 22, 108 n. 101, 109, 133 n. 35 DTA 107: 90 n. 22, 109 and n. 109, 110, 127 DTA 108: 132 DTA 109: 132 DTA 120: 127 n. 21

DTA 127: 40 n. 67 DTA 158: 128 n. 24 DTA 160: 113 n. 125 Lamont 2015: 25 n. 9 NGCT 1 (= Willemsen 1990, 142–143): 36, 90 n. 22 NGCT 11 (= Costabile 1999a, no. 2.2; Costabile 2000, no. 3.2): 94 and n. 38 NGCT 12 (= Costabile 1999a, no. 2.3; Costabile 2000, no. 3.3): 90 n. 22, 101 and n. 71 NGCT 15 (= Jordan 1995): 90 n. 22, 101 n. 70 NGCT 23 (= Petrakos 1997, no. 745a): 128 n. 24 NGCT 24 (= Jordan 1999, no. 1): 30–31, 37–38, 90 n. 22, 128 n. 24 NGCT 83 (= Costabile 1999b, no. 3): 38 and n. 60 SEG 58:266 (= Jordan 2008; NGCT 14): 104 n. 84, 128 n. 24, 141, 143–144 SGD 1 (= Peek 1941, no. 3): 25 n. 10, 26, 67 n. 15, 101, 104, 107–108 SGD 2 (= Peek 1941, no. 6): 25 n. 10, 101 n. 70, 102 n. 73 SGD 3 (= Peek 1941, no. 1): 25 n. 10 SGD 4 (= Peek 1941, no. 2): 25 n. 10 SGD 6 (= Peek 1941, no. 4): 90 n. 22, 94–95 SGD 9 (= Trumpf 1958; Costabile 1999a, no. 1; Costabile 2000, no. 2): 25 n.9, 90 n. 22, 94 n. 37 SGD 11 (= Peek 1957, 207): 102 n. 76, 110 n. 113 SGD 15 (= Thompson 1936, 181): 108 n. 105 SGD 16 (= Strӱd 1903, no. 2): 141 n. 68 SGD 19 (= Strӱd 1903, no. 4): 50 n. 25, 90 n. 22 SGD 20 (= Young 1951, 222–223): 104 n. 84 SGD 39 (= Müstenberg 1907, no. 1): 109 n. 110 SGD 41 (= Müstenberg 1907, no. 3): 108 n. 101 SGD 42 (= Robert 1936, no 11): 35 n. 48, 90 n. 22, 103 n. 79, 114 n. 130, 134 SGD 43 (= Robert 1936, no. 12): 113–115 and n. 131–132 SGD 44 (= Peek 1941, no. 9): 104 n. 83

B. General Index

SGD 45 (= Couilloud 1967, no. 1): 101 SGD 48 (= Ziebarth 1934, 1A and 1B; Jordan and Curbera 2008): 13–14, 32 n. 39, 52, 86, 94 n. 36, 102 and n. 73, 103 n. 80, 104 n. 84, 105 and n. 88, 106, 107 and n. 97, 108, 110, 112, 114 n. 129–130, 132, 150 SGD 49 (= Abt 1911, no. 5): 35 and n. 46, 41, 90 n. 22 SGD 51 (= Fox 1913, 76–80): 90 n. 22, 108 n. 105, 147, 150 SGD 52 (= Ziebarth 1934, no. 5): 110 n. 113, 113 n. 127 SGD 54 (= Woodward and Austin 1925–1926, 73–74): 104 n. 84

165

SGD 68 (= Ziebarth 1934, no. 2): 90 n. 22 SGD 71 (= Ziebarth 1934, no. 3): 90 n. 22 SLCTA no. 1: 35 n. 51–52, 40 n. 68 and 70, 41, 90 n. 22, 95, 104 n. 84, 110, 111 and n. 119– 120, 127 n. 21 SLCTA no. 2 (= DTA 129): 35, 40 n. 67 SLCTA no. 3 (= DTA 67): 141, 143–144 SLCTA no. 4 (= DTA 103): 19–20, 35, 87–93, 112, 113 n. 126, 134 and n. 40, 150 SLCTA no. 5 (= DTA 65): 90 n. 22, 101, 141–144 SLCTA no. 6 (= DTA 124): 141, 143–144

B. General Index A Aeschines: 55, 75, 80–81, 100, 125, 142 Aeschylus: 27 Agency: 11, 20–24, 43, 46–47, 49, 53, 63, 74– 75, 79–80, 82, 93–94, 96, 99–101, 104, 108, 113, 118–137, 139, 145–148, 150–151; high-level individual agency 21–22, 49, 53, 80, 96, 105, 119–120, 122–127, 134–136, 139, 145–146, 150–151 agora: 75, 79, 82–84, 92, 105, 123 Aigialia deme: 101 Anaphlystos deme: 101 Andokides: 95–97 antidikoi: 31, 37, 90, 111, 147 Apollodoros (orator): 32, 79, 81–83, 88, 91–92, 130–131, 133 arbitration/mediation of conflict/ dispute: 14–17, 19, 36, 38, 42, 45–46, 50, 53, 57–58, 62–63, 68, 72, 75, 77, 83, 90, 98, 100, 103–104, 112, 121, 134, 135 Aristogeiton of Pithos: 105, 107 Aristophanes (playwright): 28, 144 Aristophon of Azenia: 103–104 assembly: 13, 55, 73, 77–79, 88, 99, 123–125, 127, 140, 150 B boule (council of 500): 73, 77, 91, 99, 104, 107 Bourdieu, P.: 20

broad-based disputes: 14–17, 19–22, 33–34, 43–49, 51–61, 63–82, 84, 86–93, 99–116, 122, 124–128, 134–136, 144–145, 148–151; accidental/peripheral participants 16–17, 19, 22, 51–52, 63–64, 66, 72, 74, 76–78, 82–84, 91–92, 106, 113–114; comparative perspective 43–46; support networks 16–17, 19, 29, 31, 36, 42, 47–53, 57–68, 72–74, 79, 83–84, 90, 94, 101, 105, 107–109, 111–113, 115–117, 128, 134–136, 142, 147–150 C conflict (comparative perspective): 14–15 curse tablets in Athens: 17–20, 23–28, 38–42, 50, 62, 67, 69, 79, 89, 93, 95, 99–103, 106, 107–110, 113–115; agents of 13, 18, 20, 28–29, 31, 34, 38–42, 88, 95–96, 103–106, 109, 112, 115–116, 120, 127–128, 132–133, 143–144, 148; as communicative action 13–15, 24, 29, 41, 99, 126–127; as manifestations of agency 29, 93–94, 101, 104–105, 120, 126–127, 148; as manifestations of emotions 24, 31, 37, 128, 131–134, 146, 149; as representations of conflict 14–15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 29, 33, 52–53, 63, 86, 94, 97–98, 102–103, 106–107, 112–117, 126, 132, 142–144, 147–150; as scripts 13–14, 18–19, 29–30, 99, 127, 134, 146, 149, 151; counter-curses 30–32; legal 15, 21, 26–28, 33–38, 40–41, 47, 51, 86–87, 90, 94, 102–103,

166

Indexes

105, 109–113, 120, 134, 137, 139, 141–143, 145, 147, 149–151 D democracy: 19–20, 24–26, 33, 54–55, 62, 79, 96, 99, 102, 104, 114, 120–125, 129, 135, 137–139, 147–148, 150 Demosthenes: 16, 49–50, 53, 55–58, 63, 65, 71–80, 82, 88, 92, 98, 129, 138, 142, 148 dikastai/jurors: 19–20, 22, 26–27, 32, 34, 41, 50–51, 54–56, 62, 66, 71, 76–81, 84, 98, 100, 118, 125–126, 129–130, 134–146, 150–151 dikastic oath: 56 E elites: 16–19, 29–30, 32, 36, 46, 48, 51–54, 58, 60, 63–64, 67–72, 74, 77–78, 80–81, 84, 86–99, 10–104, 106, 114, 116, 120–121, 125, 129, 135, 138, 142, 148 emotions: 11, 14, 20–22, 24, 37, 45, 48, 50, 55, 76, 81, 84, 99, 118, 126–139, 144–145, 148–151 Erinyes: 27, 132 Euonymon deme: 78, 107 extra-legal norms/adjudicatory mechanisms: 15, 32, 41, 45–48, 50, 53, 57–58, 63, 68, 70, 75, 81, 84, 112–113, 121–122, 127, 136–138 G Gager, J.: 106 Giddens, A.: 119 Goffman, E.: 58 Gulliver, P. H.: 44 H Habermas, J.: 126 Halai Aixonides deme: 97 Humphreys, S.: 106 I information control: 17, 55, 65, 74–84, 99, 107, 126, 149 Isaeus: 17, 53, 55, 57, 63, 69–71, 83, 103, 131, 137, 149

J Jordan, D.: 35, 106 K Kallias (public figure): 141–143 Kallistratos of Aphidna: 97 Kephale deme: 107 Kerameikos: 25, 27, 35, 41, 69–70, 94–95, 103, 110 Kydantidai deme: 107 L Laurium: 49, 53 lawcourts: 14–15, 17, 19–21, 24, 26–28, 31–33, 35–36, 38, 41, 45–49, 51–58, 61–67, 69, 71, 74–77, 79–82, 84, 89–90, 93, 96, 98–99, 103, 105, 109–113, 118, 120–121, 123–125, 127, 129– 130, 132–148, 150–151; see also litigation/ formal legal proceedings legalities: 34, 53, 61, 75, 138, 145 litigation/formal legal proceedings: 11, 14– 24, 26–30, 32–38, 40–42, 45–49, 51, 53–82, 84–88, 90–96, 98–100, 103–106, 108–115, 118, 120–122, 125–130, 133–151 Lokroi Epizephyrioi: 38 Lycurgus: 56, 136 Lysias: 16–17, 57, 60, 63–67, 74, 76–77, 82–83, 94, 106, 129, 133, 140, 148–149 M magic (in Classical Athens): 13–15, 17–18, 20–25, 27–31, 33, 37–40, 42–44, 46, 60, 86, 94, 96–98, 104, 106–108, 112, 116, 118, 127–128, 131–134, 139, 141, 145, 147–148, 151; comparative perspective 24 martyres/witnesses: 16, 22, 32, 34, 36, 38, 41, 49, 51, 55, 63, 65–66, 70, 73–74, 76–78, 80, 82–84, 88, 90–92, 98, 107, 111–114, 129, 132–133, 141, 143 Meidias: 16, 57–58, 63, 65, 71–74, 77–79, 82, 88, 92, 148 metics: 19, 41, 104–105, 110–112, 124 Mytilene: 81, 124

B. General Index

N non-elites: 17–18, 25–26, 29, 41, 51–52, 86, 98–99, 102–104, 106, 112, 114–116, 138 O oikos: 48, 108, 125, 147 “Old Oligarch”: 140 Ortner, S. B.: 119 P Paine, R.: 51 Paionidai deme: 104, 108 paradigm of argument: 19, 58–62, 137, 148 Parker, R.: 18 Peek, E.: 25 Pericles: 27 perjury: 50, 56, 69, 129, 135 Phokion: 97 Piraeus: 65, 69–70, 87, 89, 102, 107 Plato: 18, 30, 40 prayers for justice: 27, 37–38, 128 public opinion: 16, 75–76, 84, 140, 143–144 public sphere: 20–21, 23–33, 37, 42, 51, 71, 74–75, 79, 81–82, 96, 108, 110, 120, 122–123, 127, 148 R Rabehl, W.: 25 reported speech: 64, 75, 84 Robert, L.: 35 rule of law: 44, 61, 138 S Scafuro, A.: 56 Scott, J.: 99 self-help: 37–39, 45, 53, 58, 60, 64, 68, 114

167

Selinous: 23 sex workers: 16, 52, 55, 64, 69–70, 102–106, 108–110, 113–116, 132; see also synoikiai Sicily: 124 slaves: 19, 30–32, 44, 52, 67–69, 74, 76, 91, 98, 102, 104, 108, 110, 112, 114–116, 123, 132–133 sorcerers: 13–14, 18, 23, 25–26, 28–29, 31, 38–42, 128, 132, 143, 147–148 Sphettos deme: 105, 107 Status (legal, social): 13, 16–17, 19–20, 31, 33, 41, 49, 51–52, 62–63, 68–70, 77, 79–80, 82, 86, 90, 93, 98, 102–104, 106, 108, 110–114, 117–118, 121, 123–124, 132, 147, 149, 151 Stewart, P. J.: 24 Strathern, A.: 24 syndikoi: 34, 38, 90, 109–111, 113, 147 synegoroi: 34, 51, 69, 71, 90, 111, 113 synoikiai: 69–70, 103, 115 T taverns: 101–103, 108, 110, 114–116, 132 Thorikos deme: 107 Thucydides (historian): 124 Thucydides, son Melesias: 27–28, 30, 79, 81, 142 trierarch: 19–20, 69, 72, 75, 78, 86–93, 113 V violence (in Athenian disputes): 14, 19, 30, 39, 59–60, 64, 66, 72, 75–76, 82–83, 90, 92, 103–104, 129, 132–133, 150 W Wilhelm, A.: 25, 87, 89, 97 Wünsch, R.: 25, 39, 87, 114, 133