Wolf "Saepe haec me torserunt." The first question then is, whether the annual revision of the laws here spoken of is the same with the ἐπιχειροτονία νόμων which is described in Dem. C. Timocr. § 20 et seq. This Wolf affirms to be probable, and Schömann (de Comitiis Athen. p. 260.) denies. But as Schömann in a later work has retracted this opinion, (Antiq. juris. publ. Graec. p. 227, note 7.), it may, without going into the subject farther, be assumed that at the beginning of each year either the retiring thesmothets, as Schömann thinks, or the new officers of that name reported to the people on the state of the laws, at the same time that the people itself took measures with regard to projects of new laws. Our next enquiry concerns the meaning of the passage before us. A simple translation is like this: If the thesmothets find that there are inconsistent or abrogated laws, or more than one relating to the same subject, the lawgiver "bids that having inscribed them on [whitened] boards, they publish them in front of the statues of the heroes from whom the tribes are named, and that the prytanes cause an ecclesia to be held, having written upon the programme these words "Nomothetae: (1) and that the president of the proedri put the question between the laws to the people, (2) and that they, [the people?] annul some and leave in force others, that there may be one law, and not more than one, applying to each subject matter." And immediately afterwards the orator says that if there had been two such clashing laws, when it was discovered by the thesmothets, and the prytanes had handed (3) the business over to the nomothetae, one or the other of the laws would have been abrogated! The whole passage is clear and easy, but the brevity of the orator is perplexing as to the customs of his country: the points of doubt are indicated in our translation by Arabic numerals. In the oration against Timocrates the following account is given of this annual revision of the Athenian code, during the first prytany of the year, and on the eleventh of the first month the people voted concerning the laws; and if any were voted against, the prytanes for the time being were to cause the third of the three assemblies, which occurred during their prytany, to be held in relation to these rejected laws. And the proedri for the day were required, as the first business to be done, to consult the people concerning the nomothetae, alterations, was to publish his proposed amendments daily before the naðőri zadɛdovrai [i. e. under what regulations they should sit] and how they should be paid. Meanwhile every citizen who wished statues of the eponymi, that the people might judge in view of the number of new projects of laws how long the nomothetae should sit. τι 1850.] View of Schömann correct. 437 The nomothetae should be taken from the sworn jurymen of the year. Advocates, five in number, should be chosen by the people to defend the old laws before the nomothetae. At the meeting of this body the law ordered (c. Timocr. 33) διαχειροτονίαν ποιεῖν τοὺς προέδρους περὶ τούτων τῶν νόμων, etc. To recur now to the points of doubt in the order in which they are marked: (1) According to Schömann ἐπιγράφειν "hoc loco dictum est pro eo quod alias solemne est: - προγράφειν et νομοθέτας ἐπιγράφειν breviter dictum pro: ecclesiam de nomothetis habendam esse, in Programmate scribere. H. Schelling (de Solon. leg. apud orat. att. dissert. p. 51 1) interprets the passage thus: postquam nomothetas (nomina nomothetarum in tabulis inscripserunt," scilicet ut populus suffragium ferret num illa nomina sibi placerent necne. If Schelling means by the names of the nomothetae the names of individual persons to the number of a thousand and one, or it may be of three thousand and one, it is utterly incredible that the prytanes could have taken this trouble. If he or any one else should conjecture that the prytanes assigned this business to one or another detachment of the sworn judges for the year, that certainly is quite possible.2 At the same time since we learn from the oration against Timocrates that the people determined the rules according to which this body should sit, and how long they should sit, and how they should be paid, it is quite probable, if not almost certain, that they determined also their number. Now this being fixed, the natural course would be for the thesmothets to make a draft by lot out of the annual jurymen, just as they did for the ordinary courts. The nomothetae were merely a court sitting on the laws, and hearing them defended and attacked, instead of a court hearing complaints arising under the laws. We conclude, therefore, that Schömann has understood this passage correctly; and that ἐπιγράφειν is the same nearly as προγράφειν, (spoken of with reference to a subsequent meeting of the people,) or ἀναγράφειν ἐπὶ λευκώμασι οι σανίσι, which seems to denote inscribing, and putting in some public place where the inscription can be consulted.3 There is still an enquiry remaining. Does noɛiv έxxλŋoíɑv mean 1A prize essay published at Berlin in 1842. 2 In one instance by a psephisma, and therefore by vote of the people, the number of nomothetae was fixed at 1001, and the council of 500 was added to the number. Here is specific appointment of a portion of the body by the people. Dem. c. Timocr. 3 * Comp. Platner II. 31. what all seem to have taken for granted that it means; to have an ordinary assembly of the people convened according to the usual for malities; or can ixxλnoía here be used of the meeting of this large committee of nomothetae acting in lieu of the people? If the latter, we must suppose that Eschines leaves out of sight all those intermediate steps which are described in the or. c. Timocr., and hurries forward to the conclusion of the whole matter, to the meeting of the nomothetae, which alone to him was of any importance. This last view will relieve the subject of difficulties; and yet so very marked was the difference between a true ecclesia, and a meeting of the nomothetae, in which all the people, excepting a fractional detachment, would be interlopers, that we can hardly conceive of an Attic orator calling the two by the same name. In § 27 we have an instance of the nice use of terms, where the meeting of each tribe apart is called an άyoga. The convention of the people when called in an unusual way might be called either σύγκλητος ἐκκλησία or σύλλογος, (see Thucyd. 2. 59,) but conversely it would be an incorrect use of language to extend the sense of xxλnoia to other assemblies of a part of the people. (Comp. Plat. Gorg. 456 c.) (2.) "And that the president of the proedri" diazepozoviar didóvai to diμp. Platner interprets this as if the assembly decided which of two inconsistent laws was to be abrogated. Schelling's view would require him to understand diapeigorovíar of a vote of the people between two different sets of candidates for the office of nomothetae. We are not acquainted with any other attempts to explain this clause made by writers on Attic law or polity. Both attempts must be regarded as failures; Platner's, because the people only passed a provisory vote as to whether the old laws satisfied them. It is to this that the words of Demosthenes apply c. Timocr. § 25, Kaì ngwrov μὲν ἐφ ̓ ὑμῖν ἐποίησαν διαχειροτονίαν, πότερον εἰσοιστέος ἐστὶ νόμος καινός, ἤ δοκοῦσιν ἀρκεῖν οἱ κείμενοι. But the words of Æschines cannot refer to this first measure of the people's admitting or preventing all change in the laws, for he immediately adds; "and that they annul these laws and leave in force the others" which the people had nothing to do with. The view which Schelling is forced to take cannot be admitted for reasons already given. Granting that the people decided between detachment A and detachment B of the sworn judges, as the body to compose the nomothetae, so very small a matter would not be deemed worthy of mention by the orator. There remains to explain this passage, Mr. Champlin's suggestion, 1 Platner vs. II. 31. It should be added that he supposes subsequent action of the nomothetae. 1850.1 Agency of the Prytanes. 439 which long ago occurred to ourselves: that by duos here, the nomothetae themselves are to be understood. This view is supported by the fact that avaiqɛiv can have no other subject but what we find in Snug unless the orator expresses himself very enigmatically. Schelling indeed supposed that τούτους has fallen out of the text before αναιρεῖν, while Schömann, feeling the same difficulty, merely observes that the clause following duo must be separated by a colon from the preceding text. He says, "Neque enim ad ecclesiam neque ad Epistatam pertinent, sed ad Nomothetas, populi jussu, post illam ecclesiam, constituendos." It is not against usage for the orators sometimes to ascribe the doings of the courts to the Athenian people. And such, we think, must be the case here, unless to duo be an interpolation or a gloss instead of zoúrois, referring to the nomothetae. The procedure here spoken of is that described in nearly the same words in the or. c. Timocr. § 33, Διαχειροτονίαν ποιεῖν τους προέδρους περὶ τούτων τῶν νόμων. Ὁπότερον δ ̓ ἂν χειροτονήσωσιν οἱ νομοθέται, τοῦτον κύριον εἶναι. Here we find the proedri presiding over the assembled nomothetae just as over an ordinary ecclesia, and this circumstance may be used to show how easy it might be to transfer the name of the demus to this body. (3) What is to be understood by πρυτανέων ἀποδόντων? It has appeared already that when the nomothetae convened, the proedri (with their epistates of course,) were the presiding officers. Of course the agency of the prytanes must be restricted to the time before the meeting. There may be a doubt as to what this agency consisted in. If it consisted in preparing business for this body, as the prytanes would for an assembly and in summoning them to their sitting, then ποιεῖν ἐκκλησίαν, ἐπιγράψαντας νομοθέτας will refer very likely to these same acts of the prytanes, and έxxλnoíav must denote the meeting of the nomothetae, which we have decided against. If it consisted merely in the fact that the prytanes took the initiative in the appointment of the nomothetae, this will be consistent indeed with other facts, but the meaning of anodóvτoor which implies a reference of a subject by a preparing or presiding magistrate to an assembly, will not be exhausted. It may also be conjectured that πρυτανέων here is loosely used for προέδρων, but that does not seem probable. § 40. ἤτοι . . . . "Hoc ordine semper leguntur hae particulae, non vice versa... roi." quoted from Bremi. The single known exception to this remark, occurring Pindar, Nem. VI. 5 is noticed by Hartung, and by the lexicographers. This rule recalls to our minds the similar rule that in hypothetical propositions where size.. 878 occur, our is found with that clause which is regarded as true. See Passow, and Liddell and Scott, voce ovv. The rule is shown to be wholly erroneous by such passages as Soph. Electr. 560. εἶτ ̓ οὖν δικαίως [ἔκτεινας] εἴτε μή· λέξω δέ σοι ὡς οὐ δίκη γ ̓ ἔκτεινας, where the clause, the truth of which is denied, contains the ovv. § 41. γιγνομένων τῶν ἐν ἄστει τραγῳδῶν. Mr. C. after calling attention to the position of iv άore which determines it to be an attribute of zoayodov, adds: “this view of the case relieves the passage from all appearance of being a solecism on account of the use of γιγνομένων.” It is rather the sense of τραγῳδῶν tragedians for tragedies, as in many other passages, which has this effect. 66 § 42. προξενίας ευρημένοι, “ having obtained the rights of a proxenus or friendships." The last word must be condemned as inaccurate, since the proxenia had a very definite idea. § 52. "Demosthenes prosecuted [Midias] for impiety" etc. Rather he brought the public action called a probole against him, which was based upon a judgment of the people favorable to the plaintiff. The γραφὴ ἀσεβείας was a different process. § 62. ὁ χρόνος. "That is the time for making the peace." Would not xaugós rather be used in this sense? We believe that o povos is here used as often, of time in its widest generic sense, duration. § 64. ingázrero, "it was effected," "brought about." nós, "out of regard to," "by means of," " on the part of.” nqάrzev noòs must mean to bring about by management with, to enter into negotiations with, and so effect. 66 § 65. προςέχοιεν . . ὑμετέρῳ “ should think of joining your democratic ranks." Rather should feel favorably inclined towards the cause of Athenians." you § 67. It might be added here that the Esculapia are called a 700ayor as being a sort of introduction or prelude to the great feast of the Dionysia immediately following. § 68. "Besides this festival to Dionysus there were also the lesser Dionysia and the Lenaea." It has been a very general opinion, although not universally received, since Boeckh's treatise on the Dionysia, (Trans. of Berl. Acad. for 1816,) that there were four Attic festivals in honor of Bacchus; the Dionysia Er stel, the Dionysia iv aygois, the Lenaea and Anthesteria. Before Boeckh wrote, the Lenaea were identified by some with the country Dionysia, and by others with the Anthesteria. § 69. ἐπειδὴ etc. Mr. C. follows Bremi in pronouncing this sentence to be without an apodosis, and in finding the proper apodosis in §71. We are not able to see any natural apodosis in that place. |