Sir Richard C. Jebb The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos 2.21.9

View: By Chapter

The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos. Sir Richard C. Jebb. London. 1876.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Perseus

The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos (English) (The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos. Jebb, Richard Claverhouse, author. London: Macmillan, 1876.)

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.