In thePolitics, Aristotle maintains, contrary to his predecessors, that there is a distinctive mode of authority that husbands should exercise over their wives. He even coins a word for it: γαμιϰή, ‘the marital art’ or ‘marital rule’ (Pol. 1.3, 1253b8–10; 1.12, 1259a37–9). Marital rule is supposed to differ from the authority that fathers have over their children and from the kind of rule that citizens exercise over one another. Yet it is not clear whether there is any conceptual space between (...) political and paternal rule for marital rule to occupy. Where fathers rule and children are ruled, citizens take turns ruling and being ruled. Husbands, however, either share their rule with their wives, or they do not. If they do not, then marital rule seems indistinct from paternal rule; if they do, then it seems indistinct from political rule. To add to the confusion, Aristotle says that husbands properly rule their wives politically, but without alternating in positions of ruling and being ruled. On its face, this idea seems flatly contradictory. Political rule just is shared, reciprocal rule, and so if the husband rules permanently and his wife is merely ruled, then his rule cannot be political. So Aristotle's own description of marital rule appears inconsistent, and in any case it is difficult to see how marital rule could have the distinctive character that he insists it does. (shrink)

The political outlook of the so-called ‘Anonymus Iamblichi’ has been a subject of controversy in the scholarly literature, with some commentators judging him to be a committed democrat, while others see in him a partisan of aristocracy or even oligarchy. This disagreement is not surprising, for the text contains passages that seem to pull in opposite directions. The article suggests that we move beyond the one-dimensional oligarch-or-democrat model traditionally employed and instead approach the issue from a fresh angle, applying the (...) more nuanced typology for understanding ancient social criticism developed by Josiah Ober.The article begins by situating the author within the social landscape of classical Athens. The resulting characterization presents the author as a representative of a distinctive social type: the Athenian ‘rich quietist’, who prefers private economic endeavours to engagement in public affairs, and who is ideologically committed to democratic government but also highly critical of how democratic society treats its wealthy citizens. This characterization helps make better sense of the seemingly contradictory political indications in the text. In particular, fragments 6 and 7 should be read as a single line of argument, which takes the form of an ‘immanent critique’ of contemporary Athenian democracy. According to ‘Anonymus Iamblichi’, democratic society rightly praises the rule of law as a distinctive democratic value, but it falls disappointingly short of that ideal in its treatment of its own wealthy elite citizens. (shrink)

A board of ¿law-guardians¿, or nomophulakes, has long been associated with the Athenian regime of Demetrius of Phalerum (317-307 bc). The duties of Demetrius¿ officials have been surmised from an entry on nomophulakes in the Atthis of Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F64), which lists their central functions as the supervision of ma-gistrates and the prevention of illegal resolutions by the assembly and council. This understanding of the fourth-century nomophulakes stands in contradiction to the explicit testimony of Pollux (8.102), who asserts that (...) Demetrius changed the name of the hendeka, the eleven Athenian gaolers, to nomophulakes. A case is made here for the acceptance of Pollux, a case based on textual grounds and on comparison with other reforms associated with Demetrius. It is further argued that Philochorus¿ description applies ¿ as the sole excerpter of the Atthis to give a temporal context, the Lexicon Cantabrigiense, indeed states ¿ to nomophulakes created in the aftermath of Areopagite reform in the mid-fifth century, and that Demetrius¿ officials were linked to these early nomophulakes through their inheritance of different aspects of nomophulakia associated with the early Areopagus. (shrink)

This article examines a simile preserved in the fragmentary book 5 of Cicero's De Re Publica, which figures the ideal statesman in terms of a farm bailiff and a household steward. Through a philological, philosophical, and socio-cultural explication of these similes and their context within De Re Publica, this article argues that Cicero draws upon Greek philosophical treatments of household and political relations and reworks traditional Roman political ideology so as to refigure the conceptual relationship between the statesman and the (...) state: from the farmer of res publica to its subservient, yet still overseeing, bailiff. By casting the ideal statesman in the decidedly servile role of a public bailiff, Cicero subordinates his statesman to res publica, yet also empowers him to act as its jurisprudential overseer, and this change marks a significant and perhaps strikingly original contribution to Roman political thought. (shrink)

A familiar theme in Greek myth is that of the deadly gift that passes between a man and a woman. Analysis of exchanges between men and women reveals the gendered nature of exchange in ancient Greek mythic thinking. Using the anthropological categories of male and female wealth , it is possible to arrive at an understanding of the protocols of exchange as they relate to men and especially to women. These protocols, which are based in part on the distinction between (...) metals and other durable goods as "male" and textiles as "female," are closely related to the gendered division of labor. Anxiety about women as exchangers derives in part from their status as objects exchanged in marriage , and partly from a misogynist and pessimistic strand of Greek thought that discounts any female economic contribution to the oikos. Indeed, the majority of destructive exchanges take place within the context of marital crisis. While some texts, beginning with the Odyssey, show the positive side of women's economic role, tragedy tends to follow the Hesiodic distrust of women as exchange partners. Passages from the Agamemnon and the Trachiniai are analyzed to show how in situations of perverted reciprocity brought about by marital discord, even women's traditional gifts of textiles may become deadly. (shrink)

The Punishment of Dirce was a theme that intrigued both artists and patrons of the Roman period. It appeared in diverse locations and media, notably as a wall painting in the House of the Vettii in Pompeii and the Toro Farnese once displayed in the Baths of Caracalla in Rome. In all representations, Dirce struggles with the bull that will trample her to death. Traditional studies of this imagery have focused on the formal characteristics of these representations, studying issues of (...) workshop practice and the relationship between originals and copies. Scholars seldom analyze the meaning of the myth in depth. While most studies note that Dirce often appears in the guise of a maenad, they dismiss this observation. Additionally, it is rarely noted that Dirce's semi-nudity has any role in this story. In fact, her nudity is highly significant, for it was not part of the literary accounts. This study offers a fresh interpretation of Dirce's punishment considering the function of gender. Using literary sources such as Euripides, Plautus, Lucian, and Petronius, as well as visual images in a variety of media including wall painting, sculpture, gems, medals, and lamps, it is argued that artists and patrons combined maenadism and nudity to portray Dirce as a specifically female social transgressor. As a semi-nude maenad, the queen abandons accepted female decorum. These attributes allow the viewer readily to identify Dirce as guilty of hubris against family and society. (shrink)

This article addresses the problem of veracity in ancient historiography. It contests some recent views that the criteria of truth in historical writing were comparable to the standards of forensic rhetoric. Against this I contend that the historians of antiquity did follow their sources with commendable fi delity, superimposing a layer of comment but not adding independent material. To illustrate the point I examine the techniques of the Alexander historian, Q. Curtius Rufus, comparing his treatment of events with a range (...) of other sources that reflect the same tradition. The results can be paralleled in early modern historiography, in the dispute between J. G. Droysen and K. W. Krüger on the character of Callisthenes of Olynthus. Both operate with the same material, but give it different “spins” according to their political perspectives. There is error and hyperbole, but no deliberate fiction. (shrink)