PUNTOS CRÍTICOS DE MAYOR INCIDENCIA DELICTIVA

dehvery, see Dover (1968b) 168-70 and Todd (1990c) 167. The methodological points which follow are heavily indebted to Stephen Todd’s reading of the Attic Orators.

30 See Todd (1990c) 167 and Todd (1993) 37. 31 See Chapter 4.4.i.

32 On the nature of Athenian law, see Todd (1993) 3-73. On the embeddness of Athenian law in society, see p. 14n. 15; on the function of laws, see p.l61n.59; on evidence, see Carey (1994a), (1994b) 175-9.

truth from arguments of an advocate bent on winning a verdict from an ignorant tribunal is a more delicate operation than many people seem to suppose.33

On the other hand, the manner in which the orator constructs events in his speech gives us an insight into the opinions and mentalities o f his audience. The jurors were the one group who, above all others, the orator could not afford to alienate. Consequently the orator has to construct his version of events within the ideological parameters of his audience, the citizen-Jurors.^^ in this regard, the difficulties o f the sources and the nature of the Athenian judicial system become less problematic. Although we may possess a single version o f the dispute, the orator will utilise his audience’s ideological commitments in his construction of events, however fictitious that construction may be. The admissibility o f a wide range of evidence permits the orator to paint a more vivid scenario, utilising a wider range o f his audience’s ideological commitments. As a historical source, the Attic Orators are problematic with regard to events, but invaluable with regard to their audiences’ attitudes and mentalities.

The studies below attempt to reconstruct the citizen-juror’s attitude to judicial activity in three jury court speeches. I have adopted the following methodological approach when interpreting the individual speeches. Firstly, each speech is examined within its judicial context, investigating the litigants, the history o f the dispute, the procedure adopted, the date and contemporary climate into which he delivered the speech.3^ Particular attention has been paid to the challenges facing the litigant and the strategies he deployed to counter these problems. This is because the manner in which judicial activity is portrayed may be dependent on the issues at stake in the courtroom contest. As we often possess only one side of the argument, the reconstruction o f the case contains an element of uncertainty. But it is possible to gain an impression of the issues that were problematic for the speaker by carefully analysing the speech, paying particular attention to its structure and comments made about the opponent’s tactics.^^ Secondly, I have examined the orator’s construction of his own and his opponent’s judicial activity in his speech and considered how these constructions contribute towards the overall argument of the case. Thirdly I have highlighted anything in the orator’s construction of judicial activity that appears unusual from a modem perspective

Wyse (1904) Preface. His verdict on the Athenian jurors as ‘an ignorant tribunal’ is perhaps more a comment on Wyse and his era than on the Athenian juror.

See Todd (1990b) 158-67 on the ideology of the citizen-juror.

See Todd (1990c) 168-9, 175 for these principles, which he puts into practice in his analysis of Lys.30 (see Todd (1996)).

The position of information within the speech, particularly towards its conclusion, and the relative time apportioned are useful indicators of the weight an orator intended material to have in his argument (see Carey (1994a) 102).

4: Judicial Activity in the Attic Orators 66

and yet from an Athenian perspective is normative and unjustified.^^ Throughout, I have resisted a piecemeal approach of lifting and combining statements from a variety of speeches, and instead have analysed a few speeches in their e n tir e ty A lth o u g h this produces a certain degree of repetition, I think this produces a sharper analysis because the portrayal of judicial activity is understood within the judicial context which generated this portrayal.^^

4.4. i Judicial Activity in Lysias 25: Defence on a Charge o f Subverting the Democracy In spite of the manuscript title of Lysias 25, it is usually accepted that this speech was written to be delivered at the defendant’s dokimasia.^^ In his speech, the defendant gives no details of the arche he has been appointed to or the technical reason why his appointment has been challenged.^^ But it is obvious from the content of the speech that the prosecution challenged his appointment because they thought he was associated with the Thirty on account of his presence in the city during their r e g i m e . ^ ^

Consequently their prosecution is probably invalid under the terms of the Amnesty.^3 Given his generalising tone and aloofness of argument, it is possible that the defendant was a member of the political elite, who, having been tainted with oligarchic associations, retired from the political limelight but was now recommencing his political career.^ His attackers could well be political rivals, intent on blocking this resurgence. The trial probably took place in or around 399, at a time when commitment to the Amnesty was severely strained."^^ The defendant employs two major tactics in his defence. The first is to argue that, although he was present in Athens under the Thirty, he was not involved in the oligarchic government. To prove this, he lays down a litmus test of political intent: judge people by their actions, not their location.^ He presents

See Cartledge (1990b) 42 and n.6, Todd (1993) 68-70 and Carey (1994b) on the ‘otherness’ of Athenian law and Todd (1990c) 174-5 on the significance of unjustified statements in the orators.

I chose the three speeches analysed in Chapter 4.4.i-iii because each speech focuses on modes of judicial behaviour and the speeches fall within the Age of Aristophanes. I also wanted variety in the sample, so selected speeches written by a different authors for different situations. Lys.25 and Isoc.18 are also important sources for the judicial reforms at the end of the fifth century (see Chapter 7.2-4).

See Todd (1990c) 164, 168 on the dangers of a piecemeal approach.

See Adams (1970) 253, Gemet and Bizos (1974-89) 2.111, Edwards and Usher (1985) 269. On

dokimasia, see A//i.Po/.45.3, 55 with Harrison (1968-71) 2.200-3, MacDowell (1978) 167-9, Rhodes

(1981) 542-3,612,614-9, Roberts (1982) 14-5,20-1, Hansen (1991) 218-20, Todd (1993) 115-6,285-9. In the years after the democratic restoration, individuals with oligarchic associations were challenged at their dokimasia not on technical grounds but simply on their oligarchic links (see Section E5 o f the Catalogue in Todd (1985)).

42 E.g. Lys.25.1-2.

43 Only those who had held certain archai under the Thirty were not covered by the Amnesty (see