Notes on the current edition
The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos
1.
Preserved by Dionysios
de Isaeo, c. 17. As the most recent editors of Isaeos—Baiter and Sauppe in their
Oratores Attici, and Scheibe in the Teubner series —print this large extract as Oration XII., instead of placing it among the fragments, it seemed best, for convenience of reference, to follow that example.
2.
Schömann (p. 479) understands the appeal to be made
by the demesmen from the decisions of the Arbitrators; but here I should agree rather with the author of the Greek Argument and with Dionys.
de Isaeo, c. 14, by the latter of whom this speech is described as
ἡ ὑπὲρ Εὐφιλήτου πρὸς τὸν Ἐρχιέων δῆμον ἔφεσις.
3.
Revision of deme-registers.
4.
The earliest recorded instance of such a revision belongs to 445 B.C. (Plut.
Pericl. c. 37). Schömann (p. 478), on the other hand, would date the practice from a law of Demophilos passed in 419 B.C., therein following Harpokration
s.v.
διαψήφισις, whose notice, however, refers, not to 419, but to 346 B C.
5.
That there were two distinct Arbitrations is clear: see § 11,
τῆς προτέρας διαίτης—κατεδιῄτησαν ἀμφότεροι. But two questions occur: 1. How could an issue once tried by arbitration be submitted to a second arbitration? Schömann's explanation seems probable—In the former arbitration, Euphiletos was acquitted in the absence, perhaps through illness, of his adversary, who died soon afterwards (§ 11); and the new demarch, on the ground that judgment had gone by default, applied for a second hearing (
ἀντίληξις τῆς μὴ οὔσης)—which could be done within ten days after the first decision: Pollux VIII. 60—2. Public arbitrators held office for one year only. How then shall we explain
δύο ἔτη τοῦ διαιτητοῦ τὴν δίαιταν ἔχοντος, § 11? To read
τῶν διαιτητῶν...ἐχόντων would be a rough remedy. Schömann suggests that, as the cause could not be decided within the year, the arbitrator was
specially reappointed for a second year (p. 481).
6.
Date.
7.
De Isae. c. 16: but in
ἐγράφη νόμος he
may be referring only to the original institution of the rule.
8.
Analysis.
9.
§ 12.
ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ συστάντων. This is well illustrated by the Demosthenic speech (Or. LVII.) in a similar cause—that
Against Eubulides (345 B.C.?) who is accused by Euxitheos of having intrigued to remove his name from the register of the deme— Cf. Schäfer,
Dem. u. s. Z. III. App. 262 f.