In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Dike Phonou: The Right of Prosecution and Attic Homicide ProcedureDavid C. MirhadyAlexander Tulin. Dike Phonou: The Right of Prosecution and Attic Homicide Procedure. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1996. x 1 135 pp. Cloth, DM 56. (Beiträge zum Altertumskunde, 76)The normal means of seeking redress in Athenian law was through a dike, which the victim brought to the appropriate magistrate, who then conducted the case through the (...) various stages of the Athenian legal process, an initial inquiry, possibly a public arbitration, and finally a trial before a democratic court. What distinguishes homicide from almost every other offense, however, is precisely that its victim cannot seek legal redress because he is dead. So who does? [End Page 639]This short book is devoted to the single aim of supporting the “traditional view” that it was only the members of the victim’s family who had the right to seek this redress through a suit for murder (dike phonou). In a wider-ranging book (almost as short as this one, Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators), Douglas MacDowell argued in 1963 against that restrictive interpretation: though Athenian law enjoined the relatives (or in the case of a slave, the owner) of the victim to prosecute, it did not order others not to. Others have since followed MacDowell’s lead. Tulin relies on three disparate pieces of evidence, to each of which he devotes one chapter: Drakon’s Code (IG I3 104), [Dem.] 47.68–73, and Plato’s Euthyphro 3e7–5d7.He gives the entire text of Drakon’s Code in Greek, translates most of it in a footnote, but then discusses specifically only the four lines (20–23) that relate most directly to his argument, although he points out many peripheral issues along the way, such as the authenticity of the code and the possibility of interpolation. Without reviewing the evidence in detail, he takes as established that in archaic conceptions of homicide, murder was viewed initially as a violation of a kinship unit, not “any larger corporate entity” (11). Yet the Code itself is an indication of interest, and indeed control, being taken by the larger corporate entity, and the roles it ascribes to the ephetai in the place of the family of the victim need discussion, since they touch directly on Tulin’s central thesis; they do not get it. Ultimately the issue of restrictiveness will be decided on the basis of whether the jussive infinitives that form the injunctions of the Code are to be understood inclusively or exclusively. To Tulin they seem exclusive and restrictive; to me they could be inclusive, calling upon an ever wider circle to take responsibility for sharing in the prosecution. Viewed in isolation, this piece of evidence is inconclusive.In [Dem.] 47.68–73 the speaker, the Trierarch, is concerned to show his own scruples with regard to legal procedure, which prevented him from laying charges for murder against his opponents even after they had killed his old wetnurse. Tulin analyzes the passage in great detail, giving the Greek text twice and reproducing theLoeb translation. Although the presentation is unnecessarily awkward, Tulin is successful in showing that it is in fact the lack of the requisite family or owner’s relationship to the victim that has compelled the Trierarch not to pursue a prosecution for murder. It would have required him and his family to commit perjury with regard to their relationship to the deceased. One lapse in Tulin’s account sticks out, however: his interpretation of the clause (47.69). He translates it as a protasis to the infinitives set out in the funeral nomima: “if there be anyone related to the woman, let him...” (23). But the position of the clause after the second of the three infinitive clauses strongly suggests that it be made to follow that clause as an indirect question: “and (you, Trierarch, must) make a proclamation at the tomb whether there be some relative of the woman.” It becomes clear several lines later that the Trierarch will make this proclamation, since no relative [End Page 640] is required for it. The proclamation involves not... (shrink)
No categories