Transcript
NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS ONTHE ATHENIAN ANAKRISISE.Leisi,1toacertaindegree,and RobertJ.BonnerandGertrudeSmith,2toa fargreaterextent,havegainedaclearunderstandingof the Atheniananakrisis.Theirinterpretationgreatlyrestrictsandcurtailsthepreviouslyassumedimportanceand functions of theanakrisis.Infact,BonnerandSmith3make thecategoricalstatementthat thereis nowhereanyindicationin thesourcesthatthe evidencein acase mustbeproducedattheanakrisis. To thisconclusion,which is basedonample proof,Ihavegivenmywhole-heartedsupportand,inaddition,havepointedoutvarious channelsotherthanthepreliminaryhearing throughwhichinformationconcerningtheargu-mentstobeemployedin apendingsuitmightbeconveyed,viz.,arbitration;informalattemptsto settleadispute;voluntary informants;adviserscon-sultedincommonbybothparties;guessworkbasedon stockpleas;discussionsinthemarketplace.4Myonlyreasonforreturningtosohackneyedasubjectliesinthefactthatsomescholars seemtofinditdifficultto reconcilethem-selvesto thethoughtthattheanakrisis wasarelativelyinsignificantand cir-cumscribedthinginthefifthandfourthcentury.ProfessorA. W.Gomme,5forexample,hasraisedaquestionas towhat arrangementsweremadeingraphaiandallothercaseswhichhad not beenbeforearbitrators,formakingeachsideacquaintedwith thegenerallineofevidenceto beofferedbytheotherbeforethedicastery. Heinsiststhat somearrangementmusthavebeenmade. Inshort,heexaggeratestheimportanceof the anakrisiswhenherefersbacktoit thefrequent 864aandaKOtlhatoccurinthe forensicora-tionsofthecanonizedTen.Franz Lammli6has maintainedthatat thepre- 1DerZeugeimattischenRecht(Ziirich,1908). 2 TheAdministrationofJusticefromHomerto Aristotle(UniversityofChicagoPress),I(1930),283-93. 3 Ibid.,p.284.4Trans.Amer.Phil.Assoc.,LXVI(1935),274-95.6 Class.Phil.,XXIX(1934),122-40.Gommebaseshisrejectionof Bonner'sargumentsuponthe discussionofanakrisisin the latter'sEvidencein AthenianCourts,publishedin1905,withoutpayinganyattentionto therestatementandexpansionofthoseargumentsinVolumeIof the AdministrationofJusticefromHomertoAristotle,publishedbyBonnerandSmithin1930,fouryearsbeforehis articleappearedinClassi-calPhilology.Gomme'sarticlereappearedin his bookentitledEssaysin GreekHistoryandLiterature(pp.67-88)andpublishedin 1937(Oxford:BasilBlackwell),buthere,too,considerationofBonner'slatestworkislacking. 6 DasattischeProzessverfahreninseinerWirkungaufdie Gerichtsrede(Paderborn: Schoningh,1938),pp.74-128. 182 NOTESANDDISCUSSIONSliminaryhearing litigantswereobliged bylawto answerthequestionsputto thembytheiropponents;hence,it wasalitigant'sbestsourceofinforma-tionconcerningthemannerinwhich theoppositionintendedtoconductitssideofthe case. ProfessorHarryM.Hubbell,7inanoncommittalandex-tremelycautiousremark, says ifBonnerandSmithare correctitalicsmine],therewas,at least intheFifthCentury,nocompletedisclosureoftheprose-cution's evidence at thepreliminaryhearing..... Thisisbynomeansacompletesurveyof thecontroversybutmerelyanindication of thedivergenceofopinionthat existson theimportance,orunimportance,oftheAtheniananakrisis.Iftheanakrisis hadbeenafertilesourceofknowledgeforlitigantswishingtolearn howtheiropponentsintendedtoconducttheircase,someevidenceof thissituationwould inallprobabilityhave survived intheextantbodyofAtticoratory,which,afterall,isquitevoluminous.Withreference tocasesthat hadcome beforearbitrators,suchevidence8 hassurvived,but astotheanakrisis,Iknow of none.9Here,too,IfindmyselfentirelyinagreementwithProfessorsBonnerandSmith,10whentheysaythat there is noindica-tionthat alitiganteverdiscoveredanythingat theanakrisisregardinghisopponent'sproposed planofconductinghiscase. Let uslook atafewex-amplesofwhatwasnotproducedat theanakrisis.That lawsdidnotnecessarilyhave to besubmittedat thepreliminaryhearingisobviousfromthefollowingpassages:1.HypereidesAgainstAthenogenescol.vi:PerhapsAthenogeneswillpleadinhis turnthat thelawdeclaresthatallagreementsbetween manand hisfellowmanarebinding.2.DemosthenesAgainstTheocrines50-51:Ihearthat inadditionthey plantobringforwardthe lawwhichdemands thatwhateveramount ispaidonadebtshallbestruck outoftheregister.3.DemosthenesAgainstTimocrates144:tospeakalso ofthatlaw,gentlemen,which Ihearthedefendantintendstoemployasprecedent.Theuncertainandguardedmanner inwhichthesethreespeakersrefertocertainlawswhichtheyexpecttheiropponentstouseshowsthattheyhavenodefiniteknowledgeas towhether ornottheselawswillbeintroduced.Ifalllawsbearingontheissue hadregularlybeenintroduced atthepreliminaryhearing,suchsituationswouldneverhavearisen.ButthereareplentyofthemintheextantbodyofAtticoratory.Similarly,inscriptionswerenotnecessarilyintroducedattheanakrisis.IntheorationAgainstLeptines(?112)Demosthenesrefersto aninscriptionandadds, Perchance(arws)he willrecitethisinscriptiontoyou. Againthespeakerisnotpositivewhetherornot hisopponentwilluseadocumentwhich, 7Amer. Jour.Phil.,LXI(1940),241. 8 E.g.,Demos. Vs.Aphobusi.53f.;Vs.Conon26.9ApossibleinstancemaybefoundinDemos. Vs.Leptines98.10Op.cit., I,291. 183 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS accordingtoThalheim,1'had tobedepositedatthetime of thepreliminaryhearing.Certainly,thedepositionsofwitnesses were notpresentedin fullarrayforthepreliminaryhearing,as thefollowingpassages,takenatrandom,willtendto show.1.Isaeus OntheEstateof Astyphilus9:Apparently nothingof this naturewasdoneby Astyphilus:hedidnotsummonanyofhis friendstoattestthispretendedwill,as I shall demonstratebythe evidenceofthose friendsthemselves,unlessoneof them hasbeenhiredbyCleontotestifythat hewas summoned.2.IsaeusOn theEstateofCiron41-42:Diodes, uponhiringa slavetomurderthehusbandof the secondsister, secretlysent themurdererfromAtticaandchargedthe wife withmurder.Thereupon,by frighteningherwithhis boldnessandforcinghertokeep still,he becametheguardianof hersonbythe deceasedanddeprivedhimof hispossessions.Hekeptall the arable landforhimselfandgavehiswarda fewrockyfieldsascompensation.There arepeopleherenow,whoknowthat thisisthetruth,buttheyfear Diocles.Perhapstheywilltestifybut,iftheydonot,I shallproduceothers,whohavethe sameknowledgeof thecircumstances.3.DemosthenesAgainstApaturius37:Perhapssomewitnesseswilltestifyfor himagainst me,since thatistheeasiestwayfor thosewhointend tode-ceiveandtomakeunjustclaims.4. AndocidesOn theMysteries69: Witnesseswillstep uphereandinformyouonthesemattersaslongasyouwishto hearthem.[Someallowancemustbemadefor therhetoricalnatureof thispassage,butstillAndocidescouldnothaveofferedalarge,indefinitenumberofwitnesses,ifithadbeena firm andfastregulationthatall evidencemustbedepositedat theanakrisis.]5.AeschinesAgainstTimarchus69:This factisclearthat,sinceHegesanderisnotwillingtotestifynow,he willstraightwayappearforthe defense.[Aeschinesmakesthis deductionfrom the immediatesituation;accordingo theold,erroneoustheory,theanakrisis wouldhaveyieldedverydefiniteinformationon thispoint.]Theforegoingpassagesshowclearly,Ifeel,thatlaws,inscriptions,anddepositionsofwitnesseswerenotnecessarilydepositedin fullat thepre-liminaryhearingand thatconsequentlythemannerofconductingapendingsuitwasnotrevealed,exceptperhapsinbarestoutline,to theopposition.Thenotionthatadefendantin old Athensmustknowhowhisopponentwillconducthissideof the casein orderto defendhimselfproperlyismodernratherthanancient.Theoretically,everyAthenianlitigantconductedhisowncase.Fromthetabletpostedbythemagistratethedefendantknewwhatlawswereinvolvedandwhattransgressionwaslaidto hischarge.Ifhewasinnocent,hecouldusually producewitnessestotestifyforhim,sinceallimportantactsinAthenswerecustomarilycarriedoutin thepresenceofwitnesses.Technicalities,whichmightconfusealitigant,whenintroducedasasurprise,werefrowneduponbythedicasts.Forthisreasonspecialpleas,whichturnsolelyontechnicalities,canhardlybedistinguishedfromthespeecheson themainissuein theircontent;invariablyin suchcaseslitigants 1Pauly-Wissowa,s.v. a&paKpLtas. 184 NOTESANDDISCUSSIONSOTESANDDISCUSSIONSdo notconfinethemselvesto the technicalquestionbut enterintothegeneralmerits of the suitaswell.Astotheplaintiff,whyshould heknow howtheaccusedplannedto conduct hisdefense? Iftheformerdid notfeel thathehadagoodcase,whichhe could winirrespectiveof thenature of thedefense,hehad betterstayoutofcourt.Perhapsthis wasadeliberate deterrent de-visedbythe Atheniansto aidinkeepingunfounded orinsincerechargesoutofcourtandtodiscouragesycophancy. Certainly,theepobolfine had thisfunction. Justicewasbothasimplerandaspeedier thingin old Athensthanitisinthe worldtoday.On the otherhand,as aninstitution,it wasconserva-tive,asitistoday.Consequently,theanakrisismayhaveretainedsomeofitssrcinalcharacterlongafterasingle judgeceased to havethepowerofren-deringa finaldecision.Therewasnoconstitutedauthorityinfifth-andfourth-centuryAthensto tellamagistratewhen he had carriedhisquestioningfarenoughand when hemuststopinhispreliminary hearing.Likewise,litigantsmightwellhavecarriedtheirquestionsandanswersfarbeyondthe demandsandrequirementsoftheanakrisis. But thesole function ofthe anakrisisinthe fifthandfourthcenturies was todetermine theadmissibilityofacase,notto reveal evidence.ALFRED .DORJAHN NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AMANUSCRIPTOF TACITUS'AGRICOLAINMONTECASSINO ABOUTA.D.1135Itis well knownthatallextantmanuscriptsofTacitus'minorworks de-scendfrom onearchetype,thefamousCodexHersfeldensis. Thismanuscriptwasmentioned for the firsttimein aletterby PoggiowritteninRomeonNovember3,1425,toNiccolo Niccoli.Its fate inthe nextthirty yearsisde-bated;in1455 thecodexwas seen inRomebyPierCandidoDecembrio,but,afterhavingbeencopied,thisarchetypedisappeared.In1902,however,partsofit, containingAgricola13.2totheend,wererediscoveredbyC.Annibaldiinamanuscript preservedinthelibraryofCountA.G.BalleaniinIesi(CodexAesinas).ThisshortsurveyofthehistoryoftheuniquemanuscriptofTaci-tus' minorworks isnecessaryinordertojustifywhat follows.1InItaly,Cassiodorusisthe last whorefers toTacitus(Germania45)intheVariaev.2withthe wordsCornelioquodamdescribente,writtenintheyears523-26.E.A.Lowe,inhisexcellentarticle, TheUniqueManuscriptofTacitus'Histories, 2wasatrueinterpreterofthecommunisopiniowhenhewrote: DuringmanycenturiesafterCassiodorus,Tacitushadshrunk toamerenameinItaly.SofarasIknowwe findnotrace ofanyknowledgeofhiminItalianmedievalwriters.Andnoancientcatalogueknowntous,whe-therof anItalianortransalpinelibrary,mentionsworks ofTacitus. This 1Formoredetails seeSchanz-Hosius,Rom.Lit.,II4(1935),612f.;R. P.Robinson, TheGermaniaofTacitus(1935),pp.xii,1ff.,351 ff. 2 Casinensia,I(1929),259. do notconfinethemselvesto the technicalquestionbut enterintothegeneralmerits of the suitaswell.Astotheplaintiff,whyshould heknow howtheaccusedplannedto conduct hisdefense? Iftheformerdid notfeel thathehadagoodcase,whichhe could winirrespectiveof thenature of thedefense,hehad betterstayoutofcourt.Perhapsthis wasadeliberate deterrent de-visedbythe Atheniansto aidinkeepingunfounded orinsincerechargesoutofcourtandtodiscouragesycophancy. Certainly,theepobolfine had thisfunction. Justicewasbothasimplerandaspeedier thingin old Athensthanitisinthe worldtoday.On the otherhand,as aninstitution,it wasconserva-tive,asitistoday.Consequently,theanakrisismayhaveretainedsomeofitssrcinalcharacterlongafterasingle judgeceased to havethepowerofren-deringa finaldecision.Therewasnoconstitutedauthorityinfifth-andfourth-centuryAthensto tellamagistratewhen he had carriedhisquestioningfarenoughand when hemuststopinhispreliminary hearing.Likewise,litigantsmightwellhavecarriedtheirquestionsandanswersfarbeyondthe demandsandrequirementsoftheanakrisis. But thesole function ofthe anakrisisinthe fifthandfourthcenturies was todetermine theadmissibilityofacase,notto reveal evidence.ALFRED .DORJAHN NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AMANUSCRIPTOF TACITUS'AGRICOLAINMONTECASSINO ABOUTA.D.1135Itis well knownthatallextantmanuscriptsofTacitus'minorworks de-scendfrom onearchetype,thefamousCodexHersfeldensis. Thismanuscriptwasmentioned for the firsttimein aletterby PoggiowritteninRomeonNovember3,1425,toNiccolo Niccoli.Its fate inthe nextthirty yearsisde-bated;in1455 thecodexwas seen inRomebyPierCandidoDecembrio,but,afterhavingbeencopied,thisarchetypedisappeared.In1902,however,partsofit, containingAgricola13.2totheend,wererediscoveredbyC.Annibaldiinamanuscript preservedinthelibraryofCountA.G.BalleaniinIesi(CodexAesinas).ThisshortsurveyofthehistoryoftheuniquemanuscriptofTaci-tus' minorworks isnecessaryinordertojustifywhat follows.1InItaly,Cassiodorusisthe last whorefers toTacitus(Germania45)intheVariaev.2withthe wordsCornelioquodamdescribente,writtenintheyears523-26.E.A.Lowe,inhisexcellentarticle, TheUniqueManuscriptofTacitus'Histories, 2wasatrueinterpreterofthecommunisopiniowhenhewrote: DuringmanycenturiesafterCassiodorus,Tacitushadshrunk toamerenameinItaly.SofarasIknowwe findnotrace ofanyknowledgeofhiminItalianmedievalwriters.Andnoancientcatalogueknowntous,whe-therof anItalianortransalpinelibrary,mentionsworks ofTacitus. This 1Formoredetails seeSchanz-Hosius,Rom.Lit.,II4(1935),612f.;R. P.Robinson, TheGermaniaofTacitus(1935),pp.xii,1ff.,351 ff. 2 Casinensia,I(1929),259. 18585