previous next


RHETO´RICE GRAPHE (ῥητορικὴ γραφή). The interpretations of this expression offered by the grammarians differ widely. The Lex. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 667, 14, has τὰς γρώμας (γραφάς, Sauppe, Oratt. Att. ii. p. 436) ἃς εἰσῆγον εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον μετὰ ψηφίσματος: καὶ Ὑπερίδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Αὐτοκλέους προδοσίας, ῥητορικῆς ἐκ δήμου. ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ἐκ βουλῆς: οἷον εἰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔδοξε τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τῇ βουλῇ. Meier reads: (διὰ ταύτας) τὰς γνώμας, ἃς (εἶπεν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ, ῥητορικὴν γραφὴν) εἰσῆγον εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον [p. 2.556]μετὰ ψηφίσματος (τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου). Καὶ Ὑπερίδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Αὐτοκλέους προδοσίας (μέμνηται γραφῆςῥητορικῆς ἐκ δήμου, etc. Harpocration, s.v. gives two interpretations of the term: either it is a γραφὴ κατὰ ῥήτορος γράψαντός τι εἰπόντος πράξαντος παράνομον, and he adds by way of explanation ὥσπερ λέγεται καὶ πρυτανικὴ κατὰ πρυτάνεως καὶ ἐπιστατικὴ κατ᾽ ἐπιστάτου (cf. Suidas, s.v. and Bekker, Anecd. p. 299, 21); or some γραφαὶ were so called ὅτι κατὰ διαφόρους νόμους αἱ κατὰ (this κατὰ is not in the MSS., but was inserted by Petitus, Legg. Attic. 3.2, p. 347) τῶν ῥητόρων γραφαὶ εἰσάγονται (cf. Suidas, s. v.). Suidas, s.v. offers a third explanation: ἣν ἠγωνίζοντο οἱ ῥήτορες: οὐ γὰρ πάσας ἠγωνίζοντο τὰς δίκας τῶν παλαιῶν οἱ ῥήτορες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνίας, and the first gloss of ῥήτωρ seems also to bear on the term in question: καὶ πολλοῖς ψηφίσμασι παραγέγραπται ῥητορικὴ ἐκ βουλῆς, εἰ εἰσφέρει τις γνώμην ἀλλὰ μὴ αὐτὸς ἰδίαν γνώμην εἰσηγούμενος (Bernhardy; τύχην ἡγούμενος, MSS.). Modern scholars differ as widely: in Meier's opinion the ῥητορικὴ γραφὴ is the same as the παρανόμων γραφὴ or the δοκιμασίας ἐπαγγελία (cf. Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterth. ii. pt. 1, p. 294 n.); Sauppe supposes it to be the same as the προβολή (this is not likely to be correct on account of ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ἐκ βουλῆς, Lex. Rhet. Cantabr., l.c.); and Lipsius (Att. Process, p. 248, n. 123: cf. p. 325, n. 358) identifies it with the εἰσαγγελία: all however agreeing in interpreting the term as meaning a proceeding against an orator, as in Harpocration's first definition. Yet it may seem strange that, if ῥητορικὴ γραφὴ is merely another name for an εἰσαγγελία against a ῥήτωρ, the term should not occur in any of the speeches delivered in such a trial, and that the expressions πρυτανικὴ and ἐπιστατική, which Harpocration quotes by way of explanation, are not found anywhere else. When Socrates as ἐπιστάτης (Xenoph. Mem. 1.1, 18) refused to put the motion to the vote, his opponents threatened ἐνδεικνύναι καὶ ἀπάγειν (Plat. Apot. p. 32 B). The prytaneis were frequently charged with venality, e. g. Andocides is said to have bribed them, [Lys.] c. Andoc. § 29; cf. Aristoph. Peace 905, and Schol. Thesmoph. 936, etc.; but nowhere is a γραφὴ πρυτανικὴ mentioned. A different meaning of ῥητορικὴ γραφὴ may be deduced from Harpocration's second explanation (without Petitus' κατὰ before ῥητόρων) taken in connexion with the corrupt gloss (1) of Suidas, s. v. ῥήτωρ, and the Lex. Rhet. Cantabr., l.c., viz. that by it a γραφὴ (in its wider sense “public trial;” cf. [Dem.] c. Stephan. ii. p. 1131.9; [Xenoph.] de Rep. Ath. 3, 2) is meant which was brought before a court (for this use of εἰσάγειν cf. Dem. c. Mid. p. 527.39) by ῥήτορες, not in their private capacity, but μετὰ ψηφίσματος, and on that account κατὰ διαφόρους νόμους. The ῥήτορες were not a distinct class, elected and invested with a kind of public authority, as Petitus supposed; they were “public men” who made it their business to lead the deliberations of the people, οἱ δήμῳ συμβουλεύοντες καὶ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ ἀγορεύοντες (Suidas, s.v. cf. Dem. c. Mid. p. 575.189, and Schol.), and as such they were distinguished from the ἰδιῶται e. g. in the νόμος εἰσαγγελτικός, and C. I. A. i. No. 31, 50.21, etc. Sometimes, however, they were invested with a kind of official authority, viz. When they were elected by the people to represent them in court in a prosecution of importance, wherein the state was materially interested [SYNEGORI]. Thus when the Areiopagus, by command of the people, instituted an inquiry (ζητεῖν, ζήτησιν ποιεῖσθαι) and reported (ἀποφαίνειν, ἀπόφασιν ποιεῖσθαι) to the popular assembly, the people elected, if they thought fit, men to bring the case before a court (Dinarch. c. Dem. § 51; Hyper. c. Dem., col. 37); and that such συνήγοροι, or κατήγοροι (as they were officially styled), belonged to the class of ῥήτορες, i. e. men skilled in speaking and experienced in the conduct of lawsuits, is natural (Suidas, ῥήτωρ : συνήγορος, δικολόγος καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν ἀποφαίνων γνώμην). Pericles was chosen for this office (Plut. Per. 10), Alcibiades ([Andoc.] c. Alcib. § 16; cf. Dem. c. Mid. p. 561.145. λέγειν ἐδόκει πάντων, ὥς φασιν, εἶναι δεινότατος), Demosthenes (Plut. Dem. 10), in the Harpalian cause Hypereides, Pytheas, Menesaechmus (Ps.-Plut. Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 846 C), etc. Now the question arises, were such official prosecutors liable to a fine in case they did not obtain one-fifth of the votes at the trial, as was the rule in all criminal suits (except in an εἰσαγγελία κακώσεως, and for a time in an εἰσαγγελία for political offences; cf. also Lys. pro Sacr. Olea, § 37)? and this case did occur: cf. Dinarch. c. Dem. § 54, ὡς ἄρα πολλοὺς βουλὴ ἀποπέφαγκεν ἀδικεῖν τὸν δῆμον οἳ ἀποπεφεύγασιν εἰσελθόντες εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον καὶ βουλὴ ἀπ᾽ ἐνίων τὸ πέμπτον μέρος οὐ μετείληφε τῶν ψήφων. Demosthenes, to discredit the ἀποφάσεις of the Areiopagus, on which the popular assembly relied in ordering the prosecution, had emphasised this point. Since the complainant in a προβολή, who had merely obtained the praejudicium of the people, was not liable if he did not obtain one-fifth of the votes at the trial (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 344), ῥήτορες, when chosen to act as public prosecutors, are still less likely to have been liable to a fine (l.c. p. 952), and to this Harpocration may be supposed to point: κατα] διαφόρους νόμους αἱ τῶν ῥητόρων γραφαὶ εἰσάγονται.

[C.R.K] [H.H]

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