Torture and rhetoric in Athens

Journal of Hellenic Studies

Volumn 116, Issue , 1996, Pages 119-131

  Mirhady, David C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84983723950     PISSN: 00754269     EISSN: 20414099     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/631959     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. J.W. Headlam, ‘On the $ in Attic law’, CR vii (1893) 1–5.
2. See C.V. Thompson, ‘Slave torture in Athens’, CR viii (1894) 136
3. Headlam 136–137.
4. See e.g. R.J. Bonner, Evidence in Athenian courts (Chicago 1905) 72
5. J. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (Leipzig 1905–1915) 889 n. 91
6. A.R.W. Harrison, The law of Athens ii (Oxford 1971) 147–150.
7. G. Thür, Beweisführung vor den Schwurgerichtshöfen Athens. Die Proklesis zur Basanos (Vienna 1977).
8. Thür's conclusions have been followed recently by M. Gagarin, ‘The nature of proofs in Antiphon’, CP lxxxv (1990) 22–32
9. S. Todd, ‘The purpose of evidence in Athenian courts’, in Nomos. Essays in Athenian law, politics and society, P. Cartledge, P. Millet & S. Todd, eds. (Cambridge 1990) 19–40, esp. 34–5.
10. Sympathy with the views of Headlam and those expressed here has now been expressed by the social historian, V. Hunter, Policing Athens. Social control in the Attic lawsuits 420–320 BC (Princeton 1994) 70–95.
11. Headlam 1.
12. Pollux vii 62: $.
13. The Suda, s.v., mentions private arbitration as well. Cf. Dem. xlv 15–16.
14. See recently D.C. Mirhady, ‘The Oath-Challenge in Athens’, CQ xli (1991) 78–83.
15. Thür 211–214.
16. Isoc., Trap, xvii 55: $.
17. Lye, Leocr. i 32: $.
18. [Dem.], Ev. xlvii 5: $.
19. [Ant.], Tetr. i 4.8: $.
20. Dem., Pant, xxxvii 40: $.
21. [Dem]., Neaera lix 121: $.
22. Lys., Olive-Stump vii 37: $.
23. Aesch., Emb. ii 127: $.
24. See Dem. xlv 16.
25. Cf. Harrison 149 n. 4.
26. Thür 190–2 is inclined to accept the legal, if not the practical possibility of a basanos before the dicasts in private disputes. In public disputes, moreover, where a whole day was allocated to the disputing positions, he sees the completion of Aeschines' challenge as more practically possible. I am more persuaded by Demosthenes's simple denial of the possibility in xlv 16. The rhetorical flash of Aeschines' challenge seems little diminished by the fact that its fulfilment was a legal impossibility.
27. Andocides i 25–6 and 35 makes analogous mock challenges.
28. Dem. Aph. 3 xxix 11: $. See also xxix 38 and 51–3 and xxx 35.
29. Thür 211–213.
30. Thür 152–158.
31. See Mirhady (n. 8)
32. Thür 205–206.
33. Headlam 5.
34. Thür 111–31 affirms the integral presence of the verb $ in reference to the slaves.
35. There are several passages in Attic literature in which a speaker expresses a willingness to undergo fire, voluntarily, in order to demonstrate good faith: Soph. Ant. 265–266
36. Xen., Symp. 4.16
37. Ar., Lys. 133
38. Dem., Conon liv 40. But in these situations the pain to be endured is not meant to elicit any information or to act as a test. They also appear, accordingly, to illustrate something different from the mediaeval ordeal.
39. I follow here the arguments of Thür 207–211.
40. Lys., Olive-Stump vii 37: $.
41. vii 36: $ The ‘reversal argument’ (hypothetische Rollentausch) is common; it is discussed by Solmsen, Antiphonstudien (Berlin 1929) 10–14
42. Thür 269–271.
43. Isoc, Trap, xvii 54: $.
44. See Thür 294–296.
45. [Dem.], Ev. xlvii 35: $.
46. Dem., On. I xxx 27: $.
47. Cf., Dem. xlv 62.
48. On such partial admissions and the procedural consequences of them, see Thür 152–158.
49. [Dem.], Tim. xlix 57: $.
50. Thür 208 n. 12.
51. [Dem.], Neaera lix 120: $.
52. [Dem.], Neaera lix 125: $.
53. Lye, Leocr. i 28: $. Here the verb for the judges' ‘knowing’ is $ since they can have direct knowledge of the refused challenge, which can be removed from the evidence jar and read aloud.
54. i 29 $. Cf. i 35–6 and Thür 268–269.
55. Lys., iv 11: $.
56. Thür 209; cf. 178–181.
57. Is., Ciron viii 10: $.
58. Dem.,Aph. 3 xxxix 21 also presents such a situation, but the argumentation is slightly different. In III, below, I shall discuss how Is. viii is notable for its confusion of the functions of martaria and basanos.
59. Dem., Steph. I xlv 59: $.
60. [Dem.], Call, lii 22: $.
61. Thür 212 mentions three other passages that he says are predicated on the Beweisfunktion of the basanos, Isoc. xvii 54, Is. viii 10
62. Dem. xxx 37.
63. None of these affects Headlam's thesis in any way that has not already been dealt with. The parallel employment of the bananas-challenge and the oath-challenge in Dem. xxix 25 ff. underlines that the function of both challenges is the same, to propose an alternative means of settlement.
64. Dem., On I xxx 35: $.
65. Ant., Stepmother i 7: $…
66. Ant., Stepmother: …$. Thür quotes the passage fully several times elsewhere.
67. [Dem.], Nicostr. liii 24: $.
68. Dem., Conon liv 27: $.
69. In [Dem.] xlvii 13–15 the speaker uses as evidence against the good faith of his opponent that, despite allegedly offering his slave for torture, he did not have her available immediately to hand over.
70. Ant., Her. v 47: $.
71. See Thür 294–295.
72. Dem., Aph. I xxvii 1: $.
73. Cf. Dem. xlviii 40 and Iv 35.
74. On the role of the private arbitrators, see Thür 33 n. 36 and 228–231.
75. Thür 294 gathers the relevant passages: Ant. vi 18, [Ant.], Tetr. i 4.8
76. Lys. vii 43
77. Isoc. xvii 54
78. Dem. xxx 35
79. Lycurgus i 28–29.
80. See Bonner 46–54
81. G.M. Calhoun, ‘Oral and written pleading in Athenian courts’, TAPA i (1919) 177–193
82. cf. F. Pringsheim, ‘The transition from witnessed to written transactions in Athens’, in Festg. Simonius (1955) 287–297
83. Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Heidelberg 1961) 2.401–9
84. Thür 89–90.
85. See R.J. Bonner, ‘The institution of Athenian arbitrators’, CP xi (1916) 191–195
86. H.C. Harrell, Public arbitration in Athenian law (Columbia, MO 1936) 27–28.
87. See D. Mirhady, ‘Non-technical pisteis in Aristotle and Anaximenes’, AJP cxii (1991) 5–28.
88. Ath. Pol. 53.3: $. No particular weight should be put on the order. In 53.2 ‘laws’ and ‘testimonies’ are reversed.
89. Cf. Harpocration, S.V. $ and SIG3 953.20–3.
90. Thür 132–48 argues in great detail against identifying the challenge as an atechnos pistis on the grounds that since its authenticity must be supported by marturiai, its evidentiary force is reducible to the marturiai. However, while it is correct not to make this identification because the substitution made by the rhetoricians would cause us to label the basanoi and oaths as atechnoi pisteis twice Aristotle supports the authenticity of contracts through marturiai and yet recognizes them as atechnoi pisteis (1376b2–5).
91. Aristotle, Rhet. i 15 1376b31: $.
92. Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex. 16.1: $.
93. Cf. Rhet. Alex. 36–18 and 31.
94. See Thür 210
95. Todd (n. 4) 27–31.
96. See also G.R. Morrow, Plato's law of slavery in its relation to Greek law (Urbana 1939) 82 n. 48, on Laws 11.937b: ‘Plato uses the word $ … in its precise legal sense … In the strict sense of the word neither the slave-informer nor the slave put to the torture could be called a $.
97. Cf. [Ant.], Tetr. 1.2.7, 1.3.4 and 1.4.7
98. Lys., vii 37
99. Isoc, xxi 4
100. Dem., xxx 36
101. Hyperides, fr. 5 Jensen.
102. See Thür 209–210.
103. Isoc, Trap, xvii 54: $.
104. Isaeus, Ciron viii 12: $.
105. Dem. xxx 37 follows Isaeus almost verbatim.
106. Plato, Laws xi 937a-b, allows slaves to testify ($) and to speak in court only at trials for murder and only on the condition that they be made accountable through the dikê pseudomarturion. Attic law had no such provisions. Thür 309 calls the comparison of basanos and marturia hollow.
107. Cf. Ant., Stepmother i 8
108. Chor. vi 25
109. Lye, Leocr. i 29.
110. Thür 227–34 points out that, in those disputes that refer explicitly to the dispute-ending quality of the basanos, the references to aphesis and apallagê correspond to the other methods of mutually ending disputes.
111. Isoc, Trap, xvii 54: $.
112. Arist., Rhet. i 15 1376b30–31: $.
113. Anax., Rhet.Alex. 16.1: $.
114. Cf, Lye. 1.29.
115. See Plut. Dem. 5.5
116. Mirhady, ‘Pisteis’ (n. 63) 6–7.
117. [Dem.], Ev. xlvii 8: $.
118. [Dem.] lix 122 $. Cf., n. 36 above.
119. For financial support I am indebted to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Killam Memorial Trust. For helpful comments on earlier drafts, thanks are due to P. Harding, P. Kussmaul, E. Harris and, not least, G. Thür, as well as the readers for JHS. After completion of my paper, Professor Michael Gagarin kindly sent me his paper, ‘The torture of slaves in Athenian law’ CP xci (1996) 1–18; Professor Gagarin takes a position quite different from mine.