Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T02:01:23.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Diokleides and the Light of the Moon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

K. J. Dover
Affiliation:
University of St. Andrews

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 248 note 1 The argument advanced in this paper is the argument criticized by MacDowell (‘Some object…’). I showed him the draft of an excursus which I had written for the forthcoming continuation of Gomme's Historical Commentary on Thucydides, and he had my full permission to draw upon it and, where he disagreed, to criticize it in print. I believed at the time that publication of the Thucydides commentary would not be long delayed, but as publication before 1968 now seems unlikely I offer my view of Diokleides in isolation. I am grateful to MacDowell for compelling me to reconsider the question and formulate my argument afresh.

page 249 note 1 As on so many points; [Dem.] lviii. 67 provides an amusing example.

page 249 note 2 It is often assumed that the mutilation occurred immediately before the Sicilian Expedition was due to sail, but neither Thucy dides nor Andocides says this, or even implies it; indeed, the implication of Thuc. vi. 27. 1–28. 1∼ And. i. 11 is against it.

page 249 note 3 For similar use of anecdotes cf. Antiphon v. 69 f., Dem. xxi. 58–76.

page 250 note 1 Grote (Everyman edition), vii, p. 236 n. 1, concluded (for two of the three reasons given above) that the herms were mutilated on the night of a full moon, but his recollection of Plut. Alc. 20. 6 seems to have been faulty: ‘Plutarch's observation certainly refers to Diokleides, whose deposition (he says)… shocked all sensible people….’