previous next

Top. XXIV. ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰτίου] the inference ‘from cause to effect.’ ‘If the cause be there (its effect which necessarily follows, must be there too, and) the fact (alleged) is so: if absent, then (its effect is absent too, and) it is not so: for cause and effect always go together, and without a cause (i. e. its proper cause) nothing is’. Brandis, u. s., p. 20, observes, that this like the preceding topics is confined to Rhetoric. Cicero, Top. §§ 58—67, treats of cause in general and its varieties: but has nothing exactly corresponding to this, though he speaks of the great importance of the general topic to orators (65—7). Quintilian, observing that the “argumentatio, qua colligi solent ex iis quae faciunt ea quae efficiuntur, aut contra, quod genus a causis vocant,” is nearly akin to that of antecedent and consequent, V 10. 80, exemplifies it in the four following sections.

‘Leodamas, for instance, said in his defence, when charged by Thrasybulus with having had his name inscribed on the column (as a mark of infamy) in the Acropolis, only he had struck (or cut) it out in the time of ‘the Thirty’, replied that it was impossible; for the Thirty could have trusted him more if the record of his hatred of the people had remained engraved on the column’. The fact is denied on the ground of the absence of a sufficient cause: an example of the second case, the negative application of the topic, ἂν μὴ ὑπάρχῃ.

On Leodamas, see on I 7. 13, and the reff. Sauppe, ad Orat. Fragm. XVI, Or. Att. III 216, thinks it impossible that the two Leodamases mentioned by Ar., here and I 7. 13, can be the same [‘mit Recht’, A. Schaefer, Dem. u. s. Zeit. I p. 129 n.]. He argues that the Leodamas whose name was inscribed on the column as a ‘traitor’ (in proditorum indice inscr.), according to Thrasybulus, before the domination of the Thirty, that is, not later than 404 B. C. (he says 405), when he must have been about thirty years old1, could not have been the Leodamas mentioned by Demosth. c. Lept. § 146, as one of the Syndics under the Leptinean law, in 355 B.C., and consequently, that the latter, the famous orator of Acharnae, must have been a different person, because he would then have been nearly 90. Clinton, F. H. II 111, sub anno 372—3, merely says, quoting Rhet. II 23. 25, “From this incident it appears that Leodamas was already grown up and capable of the duties of a citizen in B.C. 404, which shews him far advanced in years at the time of the cause of Leptines, in B.C. 355.” And this appears to me to be a sufficient account of the matter. Thrasybulus' accusation of Leodamas is mentioned likewise by Lysias, c. Evandr. § 13, et seq.

The circumstances referred to in this accusation and defence, and the meaning and intention of the inscription which Leodamas is said to have effaced, are not quite clear. The use of the στήλη or pillar here referred to was twofold: the object of it in either case was the same, to perpetuate the memory of some act or character to all future time. But the fact or character commemorated might be either good or evil; and in the former case it was the name of a public benefactor, in the latter of some signal malefactor or public enemy, that was inscribed. It is usual to apply the latter explanation to the case here in question, which is probably what is meant; and then it seems the story must be this:—At some uncertain time previous to the expulsion of the thirty tyrants and their Lacedaemonian supporters by Thrasybulus and his friends, the recovery of the city, and restoration of the demus in 403 B.C., the name of Leodamas had been inscribed as a mark of infamy—as a traitor to his country, as Sauppe u. s. and Herm. Pol. Ant. § 144. 11 interpret it—according to custom on a pillar erected in the Acropolis for that purpose. Now if it was ‘hatred to the demus’ that was engraved on it (ἐγγεγραμμένης) as the sign and cause of his imputed infamy, it follows that it must have been erected at some period when the popular party was in the ascendant; Leodamas of course being a supporter of the oligarchs. When his friends were in power and he had the opportunity, Thrasybulus charges him, inter alia of course, with having ‘struck or cut it out’ to efface the record. He denies the possibility of their effect by arguing the absence of all assignable cause, which could have produced it: for this permanent record of his ‘hostility to the people’ would have been an additional recommendation to the Thirty, who would have trusted him all the more for it. Thrasybulus, says Victorius, was accusing Leodamas of being an enemy and a traitor to his country; and one of the arguments he brought forward was the existence of this inscription, the subsequent disappearance of which he attempted to explain. He likewise cites in illustration of the use of the topic Cic. pro Mil. § 32, cum ostendere vellet insidiatorem fuisse Clodium. quonam igitur pacto probari potest insidias Miloni fecisse Clodium? satis est quidem in illa tam audaci tam nefaria bellua docere magnam ei caussam, magnam spem in Milonis morte propositam, magnas utilitates fuisse. And, as Cic. goes on to remark, this is Cassianum illud, cui bono fuerit.

Of στήλη the pillar, and στηλίτης, the person whose name is engraved on it, in its unfavourable sense, where the inscription is a record of infamy—which may be compared with our use of the pillory, the custom of posting the name of a defaulter at the Stock Exchange, or a candidate who has disgraced himself in an examination; the object in each case being the same, exposure of the culprit, and a warning to others2; the difference between the ancient and modern usages, that the latter are temporary, the other permanent—the following are examples: Andoc. περὶ μυστ. § 78, in a ψήφισμα: Lycurg. c. Leocr. § 117, ποιήσαντες στήλην, ἀναγράφειν τοὺς ἀλιτηρίους καὶ τοὺς προδότας: Demosth. Phil. Γ § 42, where an historical example is given, and the whole process described. Isocr. περὶ τοῦ ζεύγους, § 9, στηλίτην ἀναγράφειν.

Of the favourable sense, Victorius quotes an instance from Lys. c. Agorat. § 72, προσγραφῆναι εἰς τὴν στήλην ὡς εὐεργέτας ὄντας. Herm. Pol. Ant. u. s. See also Sandys' note on Isocr. Paneg. § 180.

ἐκκοψαι] Ar. seems here to have arbitrarily departed from his original constr. Having begun with κατηγορεῖν and ὅτι ἦν, he abruptly changes to the infin. as if λέγειν and not κατηγορεῖν had preceded: so that we must supply λέγειν to explain the government of the infinitive. It cannot be the optative.

1 Je n'en vois pas la nécessité.

2 At Milan, says Manzoni, Introd. to the ‘Storia della colonna infame,’ in 1830, the judges condemned to the most horrible tortures some persons who were accused of having helped to spread the plague, and in addition to other severe penalties, decretaron di piu, che in quello spazio (where the house of one of the condemned had stood) s' innalzasse una colonna, la quale dovesse chiamarsi infame, con un' iscrizione che tramandasse ai posteri la notizia dell' attentato et della pena. E in ciò non s' ingannarono: quel giudizio fu veramente memorabile.

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: