-
Special Plea against Callimachus
- University of Texas Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
18. SPECIAL PLEA AGAINST CALLIMACHUS introduction From the speech itself the dating of 402 bc seems most likely. It is one of several speeches (by Andocides, Lysias and even, perhaps, Plato’s Apology of Socrates) that result from attempts to settle scores after the Peloponnesian War and the brief but tragic tyranny of the Thirty that followed it (404–403). The Athenians were remarkably successful in bringing an end to the civil strife that had plagued the city during the several years of Athens’ decline at the end of the war and especially during the tyranny. One of the mechanisms of this success was a treaty between the oligarchs, who had supported the Thirty, and the democrats, who had been driven into exile but eventually returned and regained control of the city. The treaty included an oath to be sworn by everyone ‘‘not to recall past wrongs.’’ Of course, there were some who attempted to get around the oath. This is the first speech that we have that results from a special plea (paragraphē ), an innovation in Athenian judicial procedure that was designed to put teeth into the treaty and its oath. Indeed, this appears to be the first case in which it was employed. The special plea is essentially a counter-charge by the defendant that the prosecutor’s charge is inadmissible. As is explained in 2–3, it reverses the order of who speaks, putting the prosecutor on the defensive and increasing the risk he takes in bringing his suit. It is uncertain what happened in cases in which the special plea failed: some argue that this also decided the original case (for the prosecutor); others claim that another trial was held on the original charge. Several more paragraphē speeches are found among the speeches of Demosthenes (32–38), but they all deal with commercial matters. The events that gave rise to the case are quickly related (5–8): Callimachus is on a vendetta against those who took a role in the confiscation of some money from him. Our speaker thought that he had settled with him through an arbitration (10), but Callimachus resurrected the case (12). The rest of the speech consists of several interwoven themes: anticipations of Callimachus’ arguments (13–15, 35– 41), descriptions of the speaker’s impeccable record (16–18, 58–68), discussion of the treaty and oath of settlement (19–34, 42–46), and attacks against Callimachus’ character (47–57). The speech offers several interesting lines of argumentation concerning probability, the nature of law and treaties, and the idea of judicial precedent (which did not have the binding force that it has in common-law systems today). 18. special plea against callimachus [1] If any others had already disputed over such a special plea (paragraphe ̄ ), I would begin my words with the case itself. But as it is now, we are compelled to speak first about the law according to which we have come to court, so that you may cast your vote with an understanding of what we are disputing, and none of you will be surprised that I am speaking before the prosecutor even though I am the defendant. [2] When you came back from Piraeus,1 you saw that some of the citizens were eager to bring malicious prosecutions2 and were attempting to break the treaties.3 Since you wished to stop them and to 18. special plea against callimachus 97 1 The tyranny of the Thirty was overcome by democratic forces that stationed themselves for a time in Piraeus, Athens’ port, about seven kilometers (four to five miles) from the city itself. ‘‘Those in Piraeus’’ came to mean the democrats, as opposed to ‘‘those in the city.’’ 2 The Greek is the verb sykophantein, and so the person bringing a malicious prosecution is known as a sykophant (see below, 3, and Series Introduction; cf. also now Christ 1998). 3 The treaty included an oath of resolution (see the introduction to the speech) for past wrongs. [3.139.97.157] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 06:02 GMT) show others that you did not make this treaty under compulsion but because you thought it would benefit the city, on Archinus’ suggestion you enacted a law that if anyone should bring a suit contrary to the oaths, the defendant could make a special plea: the magistrates would introduce this issue first, and the man who brought the special plea would speak first. [3] Whoever lost would pay a one...