-
ISOCRATES 20. AGAINST LOCHITES
- University of Texas Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
ISOCRATES . AGAINST LOCHITES introduction It is commonly believed that the beginning of this speech, which would have contained the narrative of events, has been lost. But it is possible that the speaker, who makes a point of his poverty, was able to afford only this short, prepared speech. The testimony of witnesses, together with his own improvised connecting comments, may have provided the bulk of the narrative. The function of this text, then, was only to underline the importance of the affair. The speaker seems to attempt to obscure whether the speech arose from a graphē hybreōs (a public suit for hybris, “wanton violence”) or a dikē aikeias (a private suit for assault). The emphasis at the beginning of the speech on who struck the first blow and the later reference (19) to the prosecutor’s receiving personal compensation suggest that this case was a dikē, but most of his arguments deal with hybris. There are several interesting arguments in this speech; some of them would shock a modern jurist. It opens with a discussion of the importance of legislation restricting physical assault (1–3), touching at several points on the intent of the legislators. It also casts an eye on the recent tyranny of the Thirty, “the oligarchy” (4, 11), which helps to date the speech to ca. 402–400. The speaker anticipates his opponent’s argument concerning the seriousness of the case by arguing that even minor transgressions are indications of serious moral depravity and that it is for the latter rather than the former that Lochites should be punished (5–9), a surprising legal principle indeed, as if simply being See the Introduction to Dem. 54, where the same types of cases are discussed. against lochites 111 depraved, without acting out that depravity, were punishable. He then restates this argument, substituting the character of those involved with the tyranny for the seriously depraved, even though Lochites is too young ever to have been involved with the Thirty (10–14). The rest of the speech develops an argument about equality in justice, in which the speaker attempts to make the judges identify with him (15–22). isocrates 20. against lochites [1] That Lochites did indeed strike me and started the fight all who were present have testified to you. You must not think this wrong similar to others, nor should you assign equal punishment for injuries to the person as for property damage. You know that the body is the most personal concern for all people: we have established laws and we do battle over its freedom; we desire democracy and we do everything else in life for its sake. Therefore, it is reasonable to restrain with the greatest punishment those who do wrong in this regard, which you take very seriously. [2] You will find that those who have enacted our laws have been especially mindful about our bodies. First, they have created both private and public suits without a preliminary deposit for this wrong alone, so that to the extent that each of us may be able and willing, he may punish those who injure him. Next, while in other charges the wrongdoer is liable to prosecution only by the victim, in a case of violent assault (hybris), inasmuch as it is a matter of public concern, any citizen who wishes may bring a graphē to the Thesmothetae and come before you. [3] The legislators thought that the act of striking each other was so terrible that even for verbal abuse they enacted a law requiring those who say something forbidden to owe damages of five hundred drachmas. Indeed, what degree of punishment must be inflicted on behalf of victims of physical abuse, when you appear to be so angered on behalf of victims of mere verbal abuse? [4] It is amazing if you believe those who committed hybris during “Started the fight” is an archaic legal expression found in Draco’s law, more than two centuries earlier. Dikai and graphai; see the Introduction, VE. For the Thesmothetae, see the Introduction, IVA. [54.159.116.24] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 14:40 GMT) 112 isocrates 20 the oligarchy deserve death, but you let those doing the same things during the democracy go unpunished. They should rightly receive a greater punishment, for they are showing their depravity more clearly. If someone dares transgress the laws now when it is not tolerated, what would he have done then when those in control...