previous next

IV. Answer to a special plea (πρὸς παραγραφήν), Or. XXIII

IV. Against Pankleon.
Against Pankleon. [Or. XXIII.]—The speaker had formerly indicted Pankleon, a fuller living at Athens (§ 2), for some offence not specified; and believing him to be a resident-alien, had summoned him before the Polemarch, who heard cases in which foreigners were concerned. Pankleon thereupon put in a ‘plea to the jurisdiction,’ on the ground that he was a Plataean by birth, and, as such, entitled at Athens to the rights of an Athenian citizen: and that, therefore, the action ought not to have been brought before the Polemarch. This plea (παραγραφή) gave rise to a previous trial to decide whether the action, in its original form, could be brought into court (§ 5). In such a case the first speech was usually made by the maintainer of the special plea1: here it is evidently made by the opponent2. The date is uncertain.

With a promise that he will be brief, the speaker comes

Analysis.
to the facts. Pankleon, on being summoned before the Polemarch, stated himself to be a Plataean by birth, son of Hipparmodôros, and enrolled in the Attic deme of Dekeleia. On inquiry3, the speaker learned that Pankleon was in fact a runaway slave of a Plataean named Nikomêdes. A few days afterwards, Nikomêdes actually claimed Pankleon as his slave; but the latter was rescued by a gang of bullies (§§ 5—12). He had once before been brought before the Polemarch by a certain Aristodikos, and had blustered, but had eventually given in. Before doing so, he had withdrawn for a time to Thebes—a signal proof that he was no Plataean (§§ 13—15). If the judges bear in mind these plain facts the speaker is confident of a verdict (§ 16).

As in the last speech, so here all is narrative; there is no argument but the logic of facts. These are not stated with the same conciseness and clearness as in the former case; but there is no better ground here than there for suspecting, with Francken, the work of an epitomist4.

1 See e.g. the speeches of Demosthenes For Phormio and Against Pantaenetos, and that of Isokrates Against Kallimachos.

2 Meier and Schömann, Att. Proc. p. 648. The speaker makes a full statement of the facts. He would have assumed a general knowledge of the case on the part of the judges, and would have addressed himself rather to particular points, if Pankleon had spoken before him.

3 The particulars of the inquiry are curious. The speaker goes to look for the Dekeleia men at a barber's shop in the Hermae street (leading from the Old to the New Market-place), a regular resort for the men of that deme—τὸ κουρεῖον τὸ παρὰ τοὺς Ἑρμᾶς ἵνα οἱ Δεκελεῖς προσφοιτῶσιν (§ 3). He seeks the Plataeans, again, at the cheese-market in the Old Agora—hearing that on the first of every month ἐκεῖσε συλλέγονται οἱ Πλαταιεῖς (§ 6).

4 Comment. Lys. p. 238 ‘excerpta ex Lysiaca.’ At p. 164 he says only ‘equidem spondere ausim, hanc Lysiacam esse; sed aut non satis ab auctore aut satis superque ab aliis refictam.’ Dobree notices, and appears to endorse, a doubt of its genuineness; but without assigning grounds (Adv. I. 245).

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: