). The interpretations of this expression offered by the
grammarians differ widely. The Lex. Rhet. Cantabr.
14, has τὰς γρώμας
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.
) τὰς γνώμας, ἃς
(εἶπεν ἐν τῷ
δήμῳ, ῥητορικὴν γραφὴν
εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον
[p. 2.556]μετὰ ψηφίσματος
(τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου
Καὶ Ὑπερίδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Αὐτοκλέους
ῥητορικῆς ἐκ δήμου,
Harpocration, s.v. gives two interpretations of the term: either it is a
γραφὴ κατὰ ῥήτορος γράψαντός τι ἢ
εἰπόντος ἢ πράξαντος παράνομον,
and he adds by way of
explanation ὥσπερ λέγεται καὶ πρυτανικὴ ἡ κατὰ
πρυτάνεως καὶ ἐπιστατικὴ ἡ κατ᾽ ἐπιστάτου
s.v. and Bekker, Anecd.
p. 299, 21); or some γραφαὶ
were so called ὅτι κατὰ διαφόρους νόμους αἱ 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
is the same as the παρανόμων
or the δοκιμασίας
(cf. Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterth.
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.
p. 248, n. 123: cf. p. 325, n. 358) identifies it with the
: 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
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
which Harpocration quotes by way of
explanation, are not found anywhere else. When Socrates as ἐπιστάτης
refused to put the motion to the vote, his opponents threatened ἐνδεικνύναι καὶ ἀπάγειν
p. 32 B). The prytaneis were frequently charged with
venality, e. g. Andocides is said to have bribed them, [Lys.] c.
§ 29; cf. Aristoph. Peace 905
, and Schol. Thesmoph.
etc.; but nowhere is a γραφὴ πρυτανικὴ
mentioned. A different meaning of ῥητορικὴ
may be deduced from Harpocration's second explanation
(without Petitus' κατὰ
) taken in connexion with the corrupt
gloss (1) of Suidas, s. v. ῥήτωρ,
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.
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
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,
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
) and reported (ἀποφαίνειν,
) to the popular assembly, the people
elected, if they thought fit, men to bring the case before a court (Dinarch.
§ 51; Hyper. c. Dem.,
col. 37); and that such συνήγοροι,
(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
ὁ τὴν ἰδίαν ἀποφαίνων γνώμην
). Pericles was chosen for
this office (Plut. Per. 10
([Andoc.] c. Alcib.
§ 16; cf. Dem. c.
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
and for a time in an εἰσαγγελία
for political offences; cf. also Lys. pro
§ 37)? and this case did occur: cf.
Dinarch. c. Dem.
§ 54, ὡς
ἄρα πολλοὺς ἡ βουλὴ ἀποπέφαγκεν ἀδικεῖν τὸν δῆμον οἳ
ἀποπεφεύγασιν εἰσελθόντες εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον καὶ ἡ βουλὴ ἀπ᾽
ἐνίων τὸ πέμπτον μέρος οὐ μετείληφε τῶν ψήφων.
Demosthenes, to discredit the ἀποφάσεις
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,
to act as public prosecutors, are still less likely to have been liable to a
p. 952), and to this Harpocration may be
supposed to point: κατα] διαφόρους νόμους αἱ τῶν
ῥητόρων γραφαὶ εἰσάγονται.