Andocides, On the Mysteries

Greek Learning Greek
41

I’m finding it next to impossible to read it as “But he …” (meaning Diokleides, who hasn’t been mentioned since prepositional ὑπο Δ.ου a while back), which both of Hylander’s alternatives seem to entail.

My mistake. I think you’re right. ὁ δὲ τὴν πόλιν ὅλην συνταράξας must be “the man who”, and ἐξηλέγχθη must mean either “was convicted” or “was proven to be a liar”. Apparently (I hadn’t checked the context), he was in fact convicted and executed (without an explicit specification of the crime), so “was convicted” seems correct.

42

I had to read through this a number of times before I understood how it fit together (I think). I would have thought that the laws of Solon and Drako would not be considered the primary offenders, but the various laws passed later by the groups the democrats didn’t approve of. Also, I would have thought that later laws superseded earlier laws, so I don’t think I understand the relationship of “τῶν πρότερον ἕνεκα γενομένων” to the rest of the sentence correctly.

ἐπειδὴ δὲ βουλήν τε ἀπεκληρώσατε νομοθέτας τε εἵλεσθε, εὕρισκον τῶν νόμων τῶν τε Σόλωνος καὶ τῶν Δράκοντος πολλοὺς ὄντας οἷς πολλοὶ τῶν [τῶν] πολιτῶν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν τῶν πρότερον ἕνεκα γενομένων. ἐκκλησίαν ποιήσαντες ἐβουλεύσασθε περὶ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐψηφίσασθε, δοκιμάσαντες πάντας τοὺς νόμους, εἶτ᾽ ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τούτους τῶν νόμων οἳ ἂν δοκιμασθῶσι. καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι τὸ ψήφισμα.

After that you both selected a council by lot and chose lawgivers, you had discovered many in existence out of the laws of Solon and Drako which many of the citizens were subject to due to having come about first. Having made an assembly you resolved regarding these, and voted, that having reviewed all of the laws, to next engrave in the stoa these of the laws which might be approved. To the clerk: And read the bill for me.

43

εὕρισκον – “they [i.e., the men selected as legislators] were discovering [imperfect]”. A conjecture ευρισκοντες that seems unnecessary to me would be rendered “you were discovering”.

τῶν νόμων τῶν τε Σόλωνος καὶ τῶν Δράκοντος πολλοὺς ὄντας οἷς πολλοὶ τῶν [τῶν] πολιτῶν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν – that there were many of the laws of Solon and Dracon under which many citizens were liable/culpable, i.e., they had committed acts which were criminal under the pre-existing laws dating from the era of Solon and Dracon.

NB: ευρισκω is a verb of the “knowing and perceiving” category that normally takes a participle complement in indirect speech. Best to translate "they were discovering that there were many of the laws . . . ", not “they were discovering many of the laws . . . in existence”.

τῶν πρότερον ἕνεκα γενομένων – on account of the events that had occurred previously, i.e., events that occurred during the tyranny of the Thirty in 404. These are the events referred to in sec. 80: ἐγένετό θ᾽ὑμῖν ὧν ἐγὼ οὐδὲν δέομαι μεμνῆσθαι οὐδ᾽ ἀναμιμνῄσκειν ὑμᾶς τῶν γεγενημένων κακῶν.

After Athens was liberated, although they had the opportunity to wreak vengeance citizens for acts committed during the tyranny [γενόμενον ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν τιμωρεῖσθαι], the Athenians recognized that they needed to reconcile with one another through an amnesty and to set up a democratic government again, with a wholesale revision of the legal code. They voted that in the interim they would be governed by a board of twenty men and that the older code of laws dating from the era of Solon and Draco would be in effect until they could enact the new code. Sec.81: εἵλεσθε ἄνδρας εἴκοσι: τούτους δὲ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς πόλεως, ἕως ἂν οἱ νόμοι τεθεῖεν. τέως δὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς Σόλωνος νόμοις καὶ τοῖς Δράκοντος θεσμοῖς. However, in going through the existing laws, the legislators were discovering that under the existing Solon/Dracon laws, many citizens had at least technically incurred criminal culpability for acts committed during the tyranny. So the Boule voted to subject the laws to a process of revision and to have only those laws that survived the revision engraved in the Stoa.

44

Your explanation makes perfect sense. Still, reading through the next part made me wonder about τῶν πρότερον ἕνεκα γενομένων:

ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ἑωρῶμεν ὅτι πολλοῖς τῶν πολιτῶν εἶεν συμφοραί, τοῖς μὲν κατὰ νόμους, τοῖς δὲ κατὰ ψηφίσματα τὰ πρότερον γενόμενα, τουτουσὶ τοὺς νόμους ἐθέμεθα, αὐτῶν ἕνεκα τῶν νυνὶ ποιουμένων, ἵνα τούτων μηδὲν γίγνηται μηδὲ ἐξῇ συκοφαντεῖν μηδενί.

ἐνταυθοῖ ἔστιν ὅ τι ὑπολείπεται ἢ μεῖζον ἢ ἔλαττον τῶν γενομένων5 πρότερον ψηφισμάτων, πρὶν Εὐκλείδην ἄρξαι, ὅπως κύριον ἔσται;

91

καὶ οὐ δέξομαι ἔνδειξιν οὐδὲ ἀπαγωγὴν ἕνεκα τῶν πρότερον γεγενημένων, πλὴν τῶν φυγόντων

I find it a little bit strange if he’s really switching back and forth between laws and crimes with this repetition.

And on a separate topic, in 98:

καὶ ἐπεύχεσθαι εὐορκοῦντι μὲν εἶναι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά, ἐπιορκοῦντι δ᾽ ἐξώλη αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ γένος.

And to pray that to the one keeping the oath will be many good things, but to the one breaking it be ruinous things to him and to his family.

I assume that “to his family” is correct (maybe it’s not), but I’m not sure that I understand why “καὶ γένος” can mean that.

45

I find it a little bit strange if he’s really switching back and forth between laws and crimes with this repetition.

Why? Without a specific noun head, τῶν πρότερον γενομένων is nominal, referring vaguely to things in the past; with a noun head it refers to the noun head, of course.

82:

τῶν νόμων τῶν τε Σόλωνος καὶ τῶν Δράκοντος πολλοὺς ὄντας οἷς πολλοὶ τῶν [τῶν] πολιτῶν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν τῶν πρότερον ἕνεκα γενομένων.

Must be the previous events because οἷς, the antecedent of which is τῶν νόμων τῶν τε Σόλωνος καὶ τῶν Δράκοντος πολλοὺς ὄντας, is already a complement of ἔνοχοι.

86:
τὰ πρότερον γενόμενα clearly modifies ψηφίσματα or νόμους and ψηφίσματα.

Same in 89.

91:

ἕνεκα τῶν πρότερον γεγενημένων – clearly means “past events”; “laws/decrees” are nowhere to be found in the vicinity. The jurors must swear: " I will not accept an indictment or a complaint based on the previous events, except against the exiles." Only the exiles who participated in the tyranny are not included in the amnesty.

98:

Again this is part of a prescribed oath. The infinitive ἐπεύχεσθαι is what is prescribed. Strict parallelism with ομοσαντων in the preceding clause would be 3rd person imperative επευχεσθων, but in switching to the infinitive, the subject is conceived as singular rather than plural.

Ιt’s not just a prayer but a prayer and imprecation/curse that confirms the oath (επευχομαι, not ευχομαι). The man who takes the oath confirms it by praying that good things will happen to him if he keeps the oath and bad things will happen to him – and his descendants [γενος] – if he breaks it. A dative pronoun referring back to the subject of ἐπεύχεσθαι is understood.

LSJ cites OT 249 for ἐπεύχομαι + infinitive with αὐτῷ understood:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)peu%2Fxomai

The participles εὐορκοῦντι and ἐπιορκοῦντι are conditional.

Something like this:

“[The oath-taker is to] pray/imprecate [on himself] to have many good things if he keeps his oath, but to be ruined himself and his whole line of descent if he breaks it.”

In direct speech it would be something like επευχομαι εμαυτωι [or just αὐτῷ] εὐορκοῦντι μὲν εἶναι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά, ἐπιορκοῦντι δ᾽ ἐξώλη αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ γένος.

The man taking the oath would say:

“I pray/imprecate [on myself] to have many good things if I keep my oath, but to be ruined myself and my whole line of descent if I break it.”

The dative participles εὐορκοῦντι μὲν . . . ἐπιορκοῦντι δ᾽ are in agreement with an understood dative complement of ἐπεύχεσθαι that refers back to the understood subject of ἐπεύχεσθα. In the phrase beginning ἐπιορκοῦντι δ᾽, instead of εἶναι in a construction that calls for a dative complement (“there is to me”, “I have”), we have another εἶναι in a phrase that requires an accusative αὐτὸν and a predicate adjective ἐξώλη agreeing with αὐτὸν. ἐπιορκοῦντι δ᾽ . . . αὐτὸν might seem a little odd in a phrase where both refer to “me” if you consciously analyze the syntax, but the meaning is clear, and the audience wouldn’t have thought twice about it.

ἐξώλη is an accusative singular adjective, agreeing with αὐτὸν.

[Edited multiple times for clarity.]

46

I see now – I had thought that it was neuter plural, like τἀγαθα.

More examples in 103-104

ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, τὴν μὲν ἔνδειξιν ἐποιήσαντό μου κατὰ νόμον κείμενον, τὴν δὲ κατηγορίαν κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ πρότερον γεγενημένον περὶ ἑτέρων. εἰ οὖν ἐμοῦ καταψηφιεῖσθε, ὁρᾶτε μὴ οὐκ ἐμοὶ μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν προσήκει λόγον δοῦναι τῶν γεγενημένων, ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς ἑτέροις μᾶλλον, τοῦτο μὲν οἷς ὑμεῖς ἐναντία μαχεσάμενοι διηλλάγητε καὶ ὅρκους ὠμόσατε, τοῦτο δὲ οὓς φεύγοντας κατηγάγετε, τοῦτο δὲ οὓς ἀτίμους ὄντας ἐπιτίμους ἐποιήσατε: ὧν ἕνεκα καὶ στήλας ἀνείλετε καὶ νόμους ἀκύρους ἐποιήσατε καὶ ψηφίσματα ἐξηλείψατε: οἳ νυνὶ μένουσιν ἐν τῇ πόλει πιστεύοντες ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες. εἰ οὖν γνώσονται ὑμᾶς ἀποδεχομένους τὰς κατηγορίας τῶν πρότερον γεγενημένων, τίνα αὐτοὺς οἴεσθε γνώμην ἕξειν περὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν; ἢ τίνα αὐτῶν ἐθελήσειν εἰς ἀγῶνας καθίστασθαι ἕνεκα τῶν πρότερον γεγενημένων; φανήσονται γὰρ πολλοὶ μὲν ἐχθροὶ πολλοὶ δὲ συκοφάνται, οἳ καταστήσουσιν αὐτῶν ἕκαστον εἰς ἀγῶνα. ἥκουσι δὲ νυνὶ ἀκροασόμενοι ἀμφότεροι,

O men, certainly you indicted* me according to the existing law, but the accusation was made according to the decree that had been made formerly applying to others. Indeed, if you vote to convict me, look out lest it does not belong especially to me of all citizens to give an account of what has occurred, but to many others moreso; first those whom you fought against and were reconciled to and swore oaths to, next fugitives whom you brought back, next those whom, being disenfranchised, you reenfranchised, on whose account you did away with law-stelae, made laws non-binding, and wiped out decrees, who even now wait in the city having faith in you, O men. If indeed you will determine that you are to be receiving the accusations about former events, what opinion do you think they will have about you? Or who of them do you think wishes to stand trial on account of the former events? For many enemies will reveal themselves, and many sycophants**, who will situate each one of them in a trial. Even now both groups have come to listen…

  • LSJ: freq. in Med. with Nouns periphr. for the Verb derived from the Noun, μύθου ποιήσασθαι ἐπισχεσίην submit a plea, Od.21.71;

** Greek, not English/French definition

47

98 fin. καὶ ἐπεύχεσθαι εὐορκοῦντι μὲν εἶναι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά, ἐπιορκοῦντι δ᾽ ἐξώλη αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ γένος.

The man who takes the oath confirms it by praying that good things will happen > to him > if he keeps the oath and bad things will happen > to him > – and his descendants [γενος] – if he breaks it. A dative pronoun referring back to the subject of ἐπεύχεσθαι is understood.

I don’t think this is quite right. The prayer is "for one who keeps his oath there be many good things, and for one who breaks it he be wiped out, he and his family.” It has reference to everyone who takes the oath, i.e. all Athenians, not just to the particular individual himself. There’s nothing to be “understood.”
The only thing that might be thought at all awkward is the acc. εξωλη αυτον (και γενος) in conjunction with the dative, but that’s perfectly in order: “to pray/curse on a perjurer (dat.) that he (acc.&inf.) …”, construction as in first half. (Curses are prayers, of course.)

103 τὴν μὲν ἔνδειξιν ἐποιήσαντό μου. They not you.
εἰ οὖν ἐμοῦ καταψηφιεῖσθε. So not Indeed.
I don’t comment on the rest.

48

It makes more sense, to me at least, for the individual oath-taker to confirm his fidelity to his oath by invoking a curse on his own head if he breaks it than to curse anyone in general who breaks the oath. The oath itself is of course in the first person singular, and I think it follows that the confirmatory curse is, too.

On the Mysteries 31:

οἵ τινες ὅρκους μεγάλους ὀμόσαντες οἴσετε τὴν ψῆφον περὶ ἐμοῦ, καὶ ἀρασάμενοι τὰς μεγίστας ἀρὰς ὑμῖν τε αὐτοῖς καὶ παισὶ τοῖς ὑμετέροις αὐτῶν, ἦ μὴν ψηφιεῖσθαι περὶ ἐμοῦ τὰ δίκαια,

This is a different oath (the Heliastic Oath), but the formula seems to be a self-curse that each oath-taker invokes individually. (I recognize it could be read differently, but I think the most natural reading is that each oath-taker lays the curse on himself and his own family individually.)

Also sec. 126:

λαβόμενος τοῦ βωμοῦ ὤμοσεν ἦ μὴν μὴ εἶναί οἱ1 υἱὸν ἄλλον μηδὲ γενέσθαι πώποτε, εἰ μὴ Ἱππόνικον ἐκ τῆς Γλαύκωνος θυγατρός: ἢ ἐξώλη εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν, ὥσπερ ἔσται.

Not a perfectly clear example, since there is only one oath-taker, but it seems to reflect the same formulaic language.

See also Lycurgus 1.79:

καὶ μήν, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ τοῦθ᾽ ὑμᾶς δεῖ μαθεῖν, ὅτι τὸ συνέχον τὴν δημοκρατίαν ὅρκος ἐστί. τρία γάρ ἐστιν ἐξ ὧν ἡ πολιτεία συνέστηκεν, ὁ ἄρχων, ὁ δικαστής, ὁ ἰδιώτης. τούτων τοίνυν ἕκαστος ταύτην πίστιν δίδωσιν, εἰκότως: τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πολλοὶ ἤδη ἐξαπατήσαντες καὶ διαλαθόντες οὐ μόνον τῶν παρόντων κινδύνων ἀπελύθησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον ἀθῷοι τῶν ἀδικημάτων τούτων εἰσί: τοὺς δὲ θεοὺς οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἐπιορκήσας τις λάθοι οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἐκφύγοι τὴν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τιμωρίαν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὴ αὐτός, οἱ παῖδές γε καὶ τὸ γένος ἅπαν τὸ τοῦ ἐπιορκήσαντος μεγάλοις ἀτυχήμασι περιπίπτει.

I think there are other examples of such oaths, where a self-curse is invoked on himself by the oath-taker individually.

εἰ οὖν γνώσονται ὑμᾶς ἀποδεχομένους τὰς κατηγορίας τῶν πρότερον γεγενημένων, – if they, not you, learn that you

49

Yes of course it’s a potential curse (and blessing) on himself (and yes its language is formulaic), but it casts the net wider, extending it to his fellow oath-takers too. It’s a communal thing. All Athenians are to take the oath, and to prospectively curse anyone who breaks it (including the oath-taker himself, natch).

50

Well that’s embarrassing. And I’ve been complimenting myself how much easier this was getting.

Re: Curses and oaths, compare Deuteronomy 28,29. The language there is God’s oath, I suppose, but the language implies an active promise by the people that isn’t (?) recorded in the text.

51

Demosthenes 24.151:

καὶ γέγονα οὐκ ἔλαττον ἢ τριάκοντα ἔτη. καὶ ἀκροάσομαι τοῦ τε κατηγόρου καὶ τοῦ ἀπολογουμένου ὁμοίως ἀμφοῖν, καὶ διαψηφιοῦμαι περὶ αὐτοῦ οὗ ἂν ἡ δίωξις ᾖ. ἐπομνύναι Δία, Ποσειδῶ, Δήμητρα, καὶ ἐπαρᾶσθαι ἐξώλειαν ἑαυτῷ καὶ οἰκίᾳ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ, εἴ τι τούτων παραβαίνοι, εὐορκοῦντι δὲ πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ εἶναι.

This may or may not be genuine, but even if it isn’t, it shows how the Heliastic Oath was understood in antiquity, and the formula is more or less the same in Andocides 1.98.

52

Yes that’s very close, even down to the stand-alone infinitive. The difference is that it’s not so stated in the anti-tyranny law that stands in Andocides’ speech. Your bolded “to him” is εαυτωι in the Demosthenes, but is absent from the document added in our text (hence your “understood,” of course), which is self-sufficient without it. I don’t know if this has much or any significance, but I thought it a point worth making. (We could add οἱ after επευχεσθαι, but that should entail εξωλει αυτωι.)

53

With respect, my own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the formula of the blessing/curse is essentially the same in Andocides 1.98 as in the document in Demosthenes. In Andocides, it seems to me, καὶ ἐπεύχεσθαι εὐορκοῦντι μὲν εἶναι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά, ἐπιορκοῦντι δ᾽ ἐξώλη αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ γένος is just an after-thought, casually appended in a somewhat syncopated form, after And. has stated that all the Athenians have to take the oath, in order to remind the audience of the blessing/curse each of them had uttered when they took the oath. Everyone in the audience will have been familiar with the exact language. Wouldn’t the formula likely have been the same as in the Heliastic Oath in Demosthenes, which, granted, may or may not be a genuine part of Demosthenes’ speech. Dilts, incidentally, doesn’t bracket it, as he does other documents deemed spurious.

Is it possible that αὐτὸν as it stands in the received text of Andocides conceals αὑτὸν?

I think the curse would have been a more effective deterrent against oath-breaking (assuming you believed in the effectiveness of the curse) if each individual had to personally call it down on himself and his descendants, instead of uttering a general curse against Athenian men.

We could add οἱ after επευχεσθαι, but that should entail εξωλει αυτωι.

Wouldn’t ἐπιορκοῦντι entail εξωλει αυτωι, too?

I have to acknowledge that i"m lined up against not only mwh (which would be enough alone), but also MacDowell and K. J. Maidment’s Loeb on this point.

54

I think the curse would have been a more effective deterrent against oath-breaking (assuming you believed in the effectiveness of the curse) if each individual had to personally call it down on himself and his descendants, instead of uttering a general curse against Athenian men.

But if the framers of the law actually believed in the effectiveness of the curse (and they may have), a corporate curse and a corporate blessing would of course be more effective than an individual curse (which is contained in the corporate curse).

The version in the Demosthenes speech is obviously inspired by something incredibly close to the stele version, but it feels like the change to a specific individual is just the sort of rhetorical upgrade that might be applied when talking about such an oath.

If εὐορκοῦντι μὲν…ἐπιορκοῦντι δ᾽ is specifically intended to apply to the self, but no others, isn’t it missing something? Assuming that αὑτὸν was what was pronounced for ΑΥΤΟΝ on the stele, that would force the issue, but wouldn’t the first half of the phrase be mis-understood until the hearer got to that point? Demosthenes reverses the order of the phrases of the oath not for effect, but because he had to in order to get ἑαυτῷ to come first.

55

I don’t think that wd be grammatical, in the text as given.

Wouldn’t ἐπιορκοῦντι entail εξωλει αυτωι, too?

I don’t think so. To copy what I wrote in first post: ‘The only thing that might be thought at all awkward is the acc. εξωλη αυτον (και γενος) in conjunction with the dative, but that’s perfectly in order: “to pray/curse on a perjurer (dat.) that he (acc.&inf.) …”, construction as in first half.’

I don’t know how trustworthy the given text of the law is. It wasn’t part of Andocides’ speech itself—he had the clerk of the court read it out—and presumably it was inserted into the text of the speech subsequently, as with the documents in other orators, many of which are not authentic or entirely accurate. What does MacD say on the subject? I haven’t consulted either him or Maidment, nor anyone else.

Too many unknowns for me. It seems impossible to figure out just what the laws were and which were in force at any particular time. And they were all called Solon’s!

56

Fritzsche’s edition of Thesmophoriazusae has a relevant note on line 349.

Aristoph. Thes. 331

εὔχεσθε τοῖς θεοῖσι τοῖς Ὀλυμπίοις…

…εἴ τις ἐπιβουλεύει τι τῷ δήμῳ κακὸν
τῷ τῶν γυναικῶν ἢ 'πικηρυκεύεται
Εὐριπίδῃ Μήδοις τ᾽ ἐπὶ βλάβῃ τινὶ
τῇ τῶν γυναικῶν, ἢ τυραννεῖν ἐπινοεῖ
ἢ τὸν τύραννον συγκατάγειν,…

…κακῶς ἀπολέσθαι τοῦτον αὐτὸν κᾠκίαν
ἀρᾶσθε, ταῖς δ᾽ ἄλλαισιν ὑμῖν τοὺς θεοὺς
εὔχεσθε πάσαις πολλὰ δοῦναι κἀγαθά.

The following is a single person swearing upon many and just himself.

Aeschin. 2 87

ἢ πῶς οὐκ εἰκότως οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς φονικαῖς δίκαις ταῖς ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ κατέδειξαν, τέμνοντα τὰ τόμια τὸν νικῶντα τῇ ψήφῳ ἐξορκίζεσθαι, καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν πάτριόν ἐστιν ἔτι καὶ νῦν, τἀληθῆ καὶ τὰ δίκαια ἐψηφίσθαι τῶν δικαστῶν ὅσοι τὴν ψῆφον ἤνεγκαν αὐτῷ, καὶ ψεῦδος μηδὲν εἰρηκέναι, εἰ δὲ μή, ἐξώλη αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐπαρᾶσθαι καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν αὑτοῦ, τοῖς δὲ δικασταῖς εὔχεσθαι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ εἶναι; καὶ μάλα ὀρθῶς καὶ πολιτικῶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι·

Demosthenes makes it into a personal oath.

Dem. 19 172

ἐπεὶ εἰ μὴ διὰ τὸ τούτους βούλεσθαι σῶσαι, ἐξώλης ἀπολοίμην καὶ προώλης, εἰ προσλαβών γ᾽ ἂν ἀργύριον πάνυ πολὺ μετὰ τούτων ἐπρέσβευσα.


He references Martin Ostwald’s discussion here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/283612

After dating it to 410/09 by the Kleigenes reference in the inscription, MacDowell writes that:

[Ostwald] takes the view that the decree was essentially a modernized version of the old law quoted in Ath. Pol. 16 10, which he attributes to Drakon, and that it was in its turn superseded in or soon after 403 by the law quoted by Hyp. 4. 7-8. However, the account of it given in Lyk. 124-7 (cf. also D. 20. 159) indicates that it more probably remained unannulled in the fourth century.

Among these references, the only one that I think might be relevant to our conversation is the Aristotle one, which does contain a similar formula

Aristot. Const. Ath. 16.10

ἦσαν δὲ καὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις οἱ περὶ τῶν τυράννων νόμοι πρᾷοι κατ᾽ ἐκείνους τοὺς καιρούς, οἵ τ᾽ ἄλλοι καὶ δὴ καὶ ὁ μάλιστα καθήκων πρὸς τὴν τῆς τυραννίδος κατάστασιν. νόμος γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἦν ὅδε. ‘θέσμια τάδε Ἀθηναίων καὶ πάτρια: ἐάν τινες τυραννεῖν ἐπανιστῶνται [ἐπὶ τυραννίδι] ἢ συγκαθιστῇ τὴν τυραννίδα, ἄτιμον εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ γένος.’

But the phrase ἄτιμον εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ γένος is all over the place, actually. See, for example IG IX,1² 3:718

57

The sentence from Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution isn’t necessarily relevant: it’s not a curse, it’s a penalty for a violation of the law: "he and his lineage are to be disenfranchised – “ἄτιμον εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ γένος”.

The curse, which confirms the oath, takes the form of ἐξώλη αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ γένος, calling down not just human punishment but divine retribution.

What we are looking for is a curse that confirms an oath, not a judicial punishment

Aeschines 2.87 is a self-curse that confirms the oath of the winner in a trial for murder. He has to swear to the accuracy of his version of events, and he confirms the oath with a curse on himself and his lineage, as well as a blessing on the jurors.

Similarly, in Demosthenes 19.172, Demosthenes confirms his assertion of his veracity (not quite an oath) with a self-curse on his own head.

The Heliastic Oath quoted in Demosthenes 24.151 (whether or not genuine) also embodies a self-curse.

I think these passages illustrate how a Greek would confirm an assertion of an oath with a curse his own head, and demonstrate what Andocides had in mind in the confirmatory curse appended to his quote or paraphrase of the (obsolete) law in 1.98. I think that the in terrorem effect of the curse is more powerful if it is directed at each speaker himself, rather than at the group of oath-takers as a whole: “May I and my lineage be utterly destroyed,” appended to an oath delivered in the first person, as opposed to “May anyone who breaches this oath and his lineage be utterly destroyed,” which wouldn’t really relate to the first-person oath that precedes it. I recognize that this is a little difficult to wrench out of And.'s Greek, but And.'s Greek doesn’t always follow the strict rules of syntax, and this seems to be a casual add-on to the rest of the oath. The curse/blessing isn’t important to And.'s point, which is precisely that the law and the oath contained in it are no longer in effect.

58

Regardless of “what Andocides had in mind”—the question of original intent that bedevils constitutional law—, that is not what the quoted text of the law says. I’m happy to leave it at that.

59

I’m having some difficulties (possibly related to sleep deprivation and traveling with a young child), and will fully translate a few sections starting at 130.

Ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, βραχύ τι ὑμᾶς ἀναμνῆσαι περὶ Καλλίου βούλομαι. Εἰ γὰρ μέμνησθε, ὅτε ἡ πόλις ἦρχε τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ ηὐδαιμόνει μάλιστα, Ἱππόνικος δὲ ἦν πλουσιώτατος τῶν Ἑλλήνων, τότε μέντοι πάντες ἴστε ὅτι παρὰ τοῖς παιδαρίοις τοῖς μικροτάτοις καὶ τοῖς γυναίοις κληδὼν ἐν ἁπάσῃ τῇ πόλει κατεῖχεν, ὅτι Ἱππόνικος ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἀλιτήριον τρέφει, ὃς αὐτοῦ τὴν τράπεζαν ἀνατρέπει. Μέμνησθε ταῦτα, ὦ ἄνδρες.

However, men, I wish to remind you of a small matter concerning Kallias. Aye, if you remember, when this city ruled Greece and was at its most happy, Hipponikos was the richest person in Greece, nevertheless, all of you know that at that time a rumor gripped the most worthless slaves and the weak women throughout the city, that Hipponikos reared a guilty person in his household, who was upsetting his scales. You remember these things, men.

I’ve seen εἰ γάρ a number of times, but this time looked it up in Denniston. I assume that this is simple “conditional” usage, as opposed to wish. He mentions that it’s almost confined to answers in Drama, hence the “Aye.”

60

131

Πῶς οὖν ἡ φήμη ἡ τότε οὖσα δοκεῖ ὑμῖν ἀποβῆναι; οἰόμενος γὰρ Ἱππόνικος υἱὸν τρέφειν ἀλιτήριον αὑτῷ ἔτρεφεν, ὃς ἀνατέτροφεν ἐκείνου τὸν πλοῦτον, τὴν σωφροσύνην, τὸν ἄλλον βίον ἅπαντα. Οὕτως οὖν χρὴ περὶ τούτου γιγνώσκειν, ὡς ὄντος Ἱππονίκου ἀλιτηρίου.

How indeed does the rumor of that time appear to you to have turned out? Hipponikos thinking that he reared a son, reared an offender against himself, who has overturned his wealth, his moderation, the whole rest of his life. Therefore indeed it is necessary that you know about this one, that he is an offender against Hipponikos.

Does ἀποβῆναι refer to whether the rumor was confirmed by events, or how it came about in the first place? I went with the first, but the second was my first thought.