The Arginousai Trial

Bibliographic Data

ID4808461
AuthorsA Andrewes (corresponding author)
Year1974
Volume28
Issue1
Pages112
Publication date1974-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhoenix (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8299 • E-ISSN: 1929-4883
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/1087236
OpenAlexW2317459167
LanguageEN
Citations received27

THE TRIAL of the generals who won the victory at Arginousai in 406 has been studied for the light it throws on Athenian law and procedure,' and has been held up as an example of the excesses of mob rule at Athens or of the hysteria induced by the long war.2 The mere facts of the case have been discussed less often, apart from Cloch6's full analysis of many possibilities in RHist 130 (1919) 5-68. Xenophon's version holds undisputed sway in our textbooks, and even Cloche, who gave serious attention to the alternative version of Diodoros, did not comment adequately on the oddity of Xenophon's narrative, which he and others somewhat languidly supplement with hypotheses which might make it more intelligible. This is not a situation which Mary White would tolerate patiently, and I am glad to dedicate to her a re-examination of the earlier part of the story. Xenophon ends the battle of Arginousai with the statement (Hell. 1.6.34) that 25 Athenian ships were lost, with their crews except for the few that were carried towards land. The generals decided (35) that Theramenes and Thrasyboulos and some of the taxiarchs should go with 47 ships to the Athenian wrecks and the men on them, while the rest went against Eteonikos' ships off Mytilene; but the storm prevented them. It is not here stated that either party actually set off,3 and there is no hint so far that anyone has done anything culpable. The next chapter starts abruptly with the statement that those at home deposed these generals, except Konon. No reason is given for this drastic action: Xenophon of course knows what was the matter, and so do we, which makes it easier to slide over the difficulty, but in fact the charge is not stated till 1.7.4, in the assembly. This is a quite extraordinary order of presentation, though generations of historians have passed it by without much protest. Hatzfeld (ed. Bud6, note compl6mentaire to page 60) charitably remarks that the narrative manque parfois de clart6; Cloch6 (35-36), realizing that something has to intervene between the battle and the deposition of the generals, borrows some material from Diodoros and argues, a

Classical Antiquity Studies · Computer Science · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub