previous next


A hundred and seventy-two fragments of Isaeos, or notices of phrases or words used by him, have been collected by Sauppe1. Of these, 128 represent 42 speeches of known title. Three of the 42 were, however, suspected by Harpokration2. Three others, and only three, are represented by fragments which are at all considerable. In each case it is Dionysios who has preserved the extract in his comparison of Isaeos with Lysias3.

1. Against the Demesmen, concerning the Farm

1 Against the Demesmen.
(πρὸς τοὺς δημότας περὶ τοῦ χωρίου: VII. in Sauppe, III. in Scheibe). This is the proem of a speech in which the plaintiff claims back from the men of his deme—perhaps that of Sphettos4—a farm which he had just pledged to them—probably as security for some land of the deme which he had rented5. In form, the action would be either an Action for Ejectment (ἐξούλης δίκη) or a Trial of a claim to property (διαδικασία). The avoidance of hiatus suggests a
work later than 360 B.C.

2. Defence of a Guardian against his Wards

2. Defence of a Guardian.
(ἐπιτροπῆς ἀπολογία: X. in Sauppe, VI. in Scheibe). Dionysios has given us two fragments of this lost speech6. Its title is a point which has illustrated
Its title.
the ingenuity of critics. Sauppe identifies it with the lost speech Against Diophanes7. More probably, however, it is to be identified with that Against Hagnotheos. The latter is mentioned by Dionysios (Isae. c. 14), though not in connection with either of the fragments. Now the first fragment (c. 8) begins with these words:—ἐβουλόμην μέν, ἄνδρες δικασταί, μὴ λίαν οὕτως ἀγνοηθέντα πρὸς χρήματ᾽ ἔχειν αἰσχρῶς. Schömann, whom Sauppe follows, was for altering ἀγνοηθέντα to ἀπονοηθέντα. Dobree saw that the corrupt word concealed a proper name. He suggested Ἀγλαοσθένη: it was reserved for Cobet to give Ἁγνόθεον8.

Another puzzle remains. Harpokration quotes

Its relation with the πρὸς Καλυδῶνα.
a speech of Isaeos, ἐξούλης Καλυδῶνι πρὸς Ἁγνόθεον ἀπολογία9, and elsewhere another, πρὸς Καλυδῶνα ἐπιτροπῆς10—the latter also as πρὸς Καλυδῶνα simply. Combining these notices, Scheibe11 infers that Isaeos wrote (1) For Hagnotheos, a πρὸς Καλυδῶνα ἐπιτροπῆς: (2) For Kalydon, a πρὸς Ἁγνόθεον ἐξούλης. Blass vindicates the loyalty of our orator by suggesting that Harpokration is to be emended; that we should read, s. v. Κεφαλῆθεν, πρὸς Καλυδῶνα ἐξούλης (not ἐπιτροπῆς, for which ἐπιστολῆς is a variant), and s. v. ἐπισημαίνεσθαι, ἐν τῇ ἐξούλης πρὸς Καλυδῶνα ἀπολογίᾳ, (καὶ ἐν τῇ) πρὸς Ἁγνόθεον12. It would follow that Kalydon and Hagnotheos have nothing whatever to do with each other, and have been brought into relation by no depravity except that of a text. The character of the two fragments, especially in regard to the êthos, suggests a comparsion with Oration XI.

3. For Eumathes: an Assertion of a Slave's

3. For Eumathes
Freedom (ὑπὲρ Εὐμάθους εἰς ἐλευθερίαν ἀφαίρεσις: XVI. in Sauppe, XII. in Scheibe). Eumathes had been the slave of Epigenes, but had received his liberty from his master.

On the death of Epigenes, one of his heirs, Dionysios, acting for the rest13, claimed Eumathes as a slave. Xenokles came forward and asserted Eumathes to be a freedman. Dionysios then brought against Xenokles an action14 for this assertion (ἐξαιρέσεως δίκη). In this speech Xenokles defends himself, and reasserts the freedom of Eumathes.

The speaker says that he was trierarch in the

archonship of Kephisodotos15 (Ol. 105. 3, 358 B.C.); and mentions a sea-fight in which he was engaged. This was probably the battle at Chios in the first year of the Social War—357 B.C.—in which Chabrias was killed. The speech For Eumathes may probably be referred to 356 B.C.

4. Lastly, Dionysios has briefly analysed, though without quoting extracts, a speech ‘Against Aristogeiton and Archippos on the Estate of Archepolis16.’ The speaker is the brother of the deceased Archepolis. Aristogeiton had already taken possession of the estate. The speaker had summoned him to make restitution (εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν). Aristogeiton had then entered a special plea (παραγραφή), asserting that the property was his under a will: and it was at the hearing of the special plea that this speech was delivered. The issue (ἀμφισβήτησις) was thus twofold,—(1) whether the will is genuine, (2) whether Aristogeiton was justified in taking possession before a legal decision. Isaeos first dealt with (2); and then, in a narrative, showed that the will was fictitious. The speech is cited by Dionysios as an example of Isaean arrangement. One characteristic is the treatment of the second issue in a discussion prefixed to the narrative (προκατασκευή): another is the artistic division of the narrative itself into sections, with the proofs subjoined to each.

1 Or. Att. II. 228—244.

2 Viz. 1. κατὰ Στρατοκλέους, 2. πρὸς Εὐκλείδην τὸν Σωκρατικόν, 3. κατὰ Μεγαρέων:—IV., XV. and XXVIII in Sauppe.

3 Dionysios compares 1. Isaeos Against the Demesmen with Lysias Against Archebiades:—De Isaeo, c. 10: 2. Isaeos, Defence of a Guardian, with Lysias Against the Sons of Hippokrates:—ib. c. 8. 3. Isacos For Eumathes with Lysias For Pherenikos:—ib. c. 5.— See vol. I. pp. 313 f.

4 It is s.v. Σφηττός that Harpokr. names the speech.

5 As Schömann suggests (p. 491), referring to Boeckh, Publ. Econ. II. 337.

6 For the first fragment, see Dionys. Isae. c. 8: for the second, ib. c. 12. Schömann, Sauppe, Scheibe and Blass agree in referring both fragments to the same speech.

7 Harpokration, s.v. παρηγγύησεν, quotes Isaeos ἐν τῇ πρὸς Διοφάνην ἐπιτροπῆς ἀπολογίᾳ. The fact that the guardian is represented by Dionysios as ὑπὸ τῶν ἀδελφιδῶν κρινομένῳ (De Isae. c. 8) is, of course, no objection, as Diophanes might have represented the rest; but the identification seems unsafe.

8 Schömann, Isae. 488: Dobree, Adv. I. 311: Cobet, Var. Lect. 271.

9 s. v. ἐπισημαίνεσθαι.

10 s. v. Κεφαλῆθεν: cf. s. vv. Ἀνθεμόκριτος, ἀφ᾽ Ἑστίας μυεῖσθαι, κ τ.λ.

11 Praef. p. xlvii.

12 Att. Ber. II. 538.

13 Harpokration s. v. ἄγοι cites these words of Dionysios (as quoted by Xenokles in our speech)— ἔβλαψέ με Χενοκλῆς ἀφελόμενος Εὐμάθην εἰς ἐλευθερίαν, ἄγοντος ἐμοῦ εἰς δουλείαν κατὰ τὸ ἐμὸν μέρος. Schömann (p. 485) points out the inference.

14 In such an action the jury could inflict what fine they pleased (i.e. it was τιμητή); and half the τίμημα went to the treasury: cf. [Dem.] Against Theokrines (LVIII.) § 21.

15 In one place, Dionysios has ἐπὶ Κηφισοδώρου ἄρχοντος (De Isaeo, c. 5); in another, ἐπὶ Κηφισοδότου ἄρχοντος (ib. c. 7). The latter is now adopted by Sauppe and Scheibe. Kephisodoros was archon in Ol. 103. 3, 366 B.C., a year which gives no probable clue to the sea-fight. Kephisodotos was archon in Ol. 105. 3, i.e. from July 358 to July 357; and the battle at Chios may, as Clinton suggests, have fallen within his year. But I would observe that it is only the beginning of the speaker's trierarchy which must have fallen within it.

16 Dionys. Isae. c. 15. Sauppe shows by a comparison of 3 fragments (Or. Att. II. 229) that Westermann and Weissenborn err in supposing a speech πρὸς Ἄρχιππον distinct from that πρὸς Ἀριστογείτονα.

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: