Social M emory in A thenian Public Discourse
A L esson in Patriotism: Lycurgus¶ Against Leocrates
and the Ideology of the E phebeia
Dr. Bernd Steinbock
Department of Classical Studies
3UREOHP /\FXUJXV¶8VHRI.LQJ&RGUXV
as H istorical Paradigm
0HWKRG +RZWR6WXG\WKH2UDWRUV¶
H istorical A llusions
In 330 BC, the leading Athenian statesman Lycurgus charged
the Athenian blacksmith Leocrates with treason for fleeing his
country after the crushing defeat at Chaeronea in 338 BC.
/\FXUJXV¶ prosecution speech is unusual for its exuberant use of
mythological and historical examples. He contrasts, for
instance, /HRFUDWHV¶ cowardice with the patriotic self-sacrifice of
the Athenian king Codrus (Lycurg. 83-87).
The 5th-century author Hellanicus wrote in his Atthis
( F GrHist 323a F23) that the Dorians invaded Attica during
&RGUXV¶ reign, trusting the Delphic oracle which assured their
victory as long as they avoided killing the Athenian king. When
King Codrus learned of this oracle, he disguised himself as a
woodcutter and ventured outside the city-walls to seek death
from enemy hands, thus foiling their invasion.
/\FXUJXV¶ treatment of this myth differs remar kably from
H ellanicus¶ literary version. It reflects a decidedly civic and
patriotic coloring of the story and, to the surprise of many
commentators, enlists Codrus among the ancient A thenian
kings who have become ³HSRQ\PRXV of the ODQG´ (ۂʌȫȞȣȝȠȚ
IJݨȢ ȤȫȡĮȢ).
Previously, scholars have ascribed these differences to
/\FXUJXV¶ rhetorical ability to manipulate a pre-existing literary
version to suit his case (e.g. Vielberg 1991). Yet a reading which
proceeds from the assumption that the orators drew their
historical examples primarily from literary sources has
considerable short-comings. First, it cannot account for every
modification. Why, for instance, is Codrus enlisted among the
eponymous heroes? Second, thanks to Thomas (1989), we now
know that most Athenians did not draw their knowledge of the
past from literary sources. Consequently, a purely intertextual
interpretation tells us very little about the MXURUV¶ likely reactions
to /\FXUJXV¶ use of this story. Third, since it was the RUDWRU¶V
objective to persuade his listeners, there were constraints upon
what an orator could and would say in front of a mass audience.
Using the concept of social memory as an analytical tool
(H albwachs 1980, F entress & Wickham 1992, M isztal 2003),
I propose to resituate the RUDWRU¶V historical paradigms
within the socio-political realm and explore how and why
/\FXUJXV¶ historical allusions might have resonated with his
audience.
3.) Codrus as E ponymous Age-Set H ero
Taking all available µFDUULHUV¶ of social memory into account,
including oral traditions, rituals and festivals, public
commemorations and monuments, I make the case that Codrus
was one of the little-known forty-two eponymous age-set heroes
(Ath. Pol. 53.4-7) who played an important role in the Athenian
military and socio-political system (Davidson 2006). Devotion
to the FLW\¶V gods and heroes and knowledge of their mythology
were essential parts of the religious and ideological instruction
of Athenian ephebes. The eponymous heroes in particular
served thereby as role models of civic virtue and as focal points
of tribal and age-set identity. T he patriotic version of &RGUXV¶
self-sacrifice, used by Lycurgus, was likely told to A thenian
recruits in &RGUXV¶ sanctuary ( I G I 3 84) on their official tour
of the FLW\¶V shrines ( Ath. Pol. 42.3).
A enetus and Codrus on the A ttic red-figured cup by the Codrus Painter, c. 430 B C
(Bologna, M us. C iv. PU 273). Codrus is not shown, as one would expect, in his disguise
as a woodcutter. H is depiction as a departing hoplite, while not literally true, best
captures the essence of his paradigmatic story: his willingness to defend A ttica with
total devotion, just as aspiring hoplites swore to do when they took the E phebic O ath.
/\FXUJXV¶5KHWRULFDO6WUDWHJ\
In light of this elucidation of the Athenian memorial framework,
/\FXUJXV¶ citation of the Ephebic Oath, the self-sacrifices of King
Codrus and the daughters of Erechtheus, as well as his repeated
invocation of the FLW\¶V gods and shrines, gain new relevance for the
appraisal of this speech. They can no longer be interpreted as
diversionary arguments extra causam, but must be seen as integral
elements of /\FXUJXV¶ indictment of Leocrates for cowardice and
treason ± behavior that is diametrically opposed to the hoplite ethos
and religious devotion instilled into young ephebes (cf. Allen 2000).
In this way Lycurgus brings the MXURUV¶ memories of their own
ephebate into the courtroom and taps into emotions and values
that lie at the heart of A thenian collective identity.
5.) Selected Bibliography
Alcock, Susan E., Archaeologies of the Greek Past (Cambridge 2002)
$OOHQ'DQLHOOH³&KDQJLQJWKH$XWKRULWDWLYH9RLFH/\FXUJXV $JDLQVW/HRFUDWHV´
ClAnt 19 (2000) 5-33
Connerton, Paul, How Societies Remember (Cambridge 1989)
'DYLGVRQ-DPHV³Revolutions in Human Time. Age-Class in Athens and the
Greekness RI*UHHN5HYROXWLRQV´LQ6Goldhill & R. Osborne (ed.), Rethinking
Revolutions through Ancient Greece (Cambridge 2006), 29-67
Fentress, James & Wickham, Chris, Social Memory (Oxford, Cambridge 1992)
Halbwachs, Maurice, The Collective Memory (New York 1980) [Originally
published in French in 1950]
Kearns, Emily, The Heroes of Attica (London 1989)
Misztal, Barbara. Theories of Social Remembering (Maidenhead 2003)
0HUNHOEDFK5HLQKROG³$JODXURV'LH5HOLJLRQGHU(SKHEHQ³ZPE 9 (1972) 277-83
Thomas, Rosalind, Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens
(Cambridge1989)
9LHOEHUJ0HLQROI³'LHUHOLJL|VHQ9RUVWHOOXQJHQGHV5HGQHUV/\NXUJ´RhM 134
(1991) 49-68
For questions and comments, please contact bsteinbo@uwo.ca