Poine: a study in ancient Greek blood-vengeanceTreston, Hubert Joseph
History
Poine: a study in ancient Greek blood-vengeance
Treston, Hubert Joseph
Criminal law (Greek law); Greece -- Civilization; Greek drama (Tragedy) -- History and criticism; Homicide (Greek law); Vendetta
It is of course possible that for the word ἐκουσίου (voluntary)
Demosthenes wrote ἀκουσίου (involuntary). So Müller would emend the
passage. But, apart from such a solution, the very fact that Nausimachus
was legally entitled to sue, even after a ‘compromise’ or ‘release,’
proves that Demosthenes is rhetorical rather than logical. As the passage
stands, it is in direct conflict with the law of Dracon forbidding
‘amercement’ after conviction, a law which we have already quoted.
We are convinced that such ‘settlements’ were illegal and criminal in
cases of wilful murder. In manslaughter cases, at least one year’s exile
was necessary, with or without trial.[306] In practice some of the
relatives may have drawn up a ‘release’ immediately, and such relatives
could not perhaps take part in expelling the slayer. Our conclusions
on this question will appear more fully later.[307] We have already
referred[308] to ‘the release’ which was given by the dying as a most
important factor in Greek homicide-law. We also admit that ‘settlements’
were occasionally made, though not legally authorised, and it is clear
that such ‘settlements’ could easily be confused with the ‘appeasement’
of relatives in manslaughter cases, especially in the pleadings of an
orator.
We should contrast with this Demosthenic passage another from the speech
_against Aristocrates_,[309] in which there is reference to involuntary
homicide. ‘If,’ he says, ‘the accused be convicted and be found to have
done the deed, neither the prosecutor nor anyone else has control over
him, but the law alone. And what does the law command? That a person
convicted of involuntary homicide shall on certain stated days leave the
country by an appointed road and remain in exile until he has appeased
certain of the relatives of the slain ... above all it is right that the
laws should control everybody and everything.’
Similarly, in his speech against Meidias,[310] a judge who accepted money
in settlement of a prosecution for ‘assault’ is said to have taken no
account of the laws: and another man who ‘settled’ a case of assault is
said ‘to have bidden farewell to the laws.’
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account