Preview only show first 10 pages with watermark. For full document please download

On The Athenian Anakrisis

NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE ATHENIAN ANAKRISIS E. Leisi,1 to a certain degree, and Robert J. Bonner and Gertrude Smith,2 to a far greater extent, have gained a clear understanding of the Athenian anakrisis. Their interpretation greatly restricts and curtails the previously assumed importance and functions of the anakrisis. In fact, Bonner and Smith3 make the categorical statement that there is nowhere any indication in the sources that the evidence in a case must be produced at the anakrisis.

   EMBED


Share

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