Chapter II: The Draconian Code (3)

There is one point which, in conclusion, we wish to emphasise, namely the value and the importance of the Platonic code when considered as a supplement to the laws of Dracon in cases where they do not directly reproduce them. It is easy to assert that Plato is an idealist when his ideas do not correspond with one’s pet hypotheses.[229] But what, we may ask, was the source of Platonic idealism, and was this source of such a kind that it would have affected the historicity of his homicide-laws? The idealism of Plato was, we think, derived from the Orphic-Pythagoreans, and also to some extent from the Eleatic philosophers. His theory of ‘ideas’ originated, as Burnet has shown,[230] with the Pythagoreans. So, Glotz rightly says[231]: ‘l’eschatologie de Platon présente une grande cohésion. Elle vient de l’orphisme.’ Was there, then, in Orphism any special doctrine which could have affected Plato’s attitude to homicide? Could such a doctrine have imported new ideas into Plato’s legislation? It is true that murderers were excluded from the famous Mysteries at Eleusis when those Mysteries came under Orphic domination, from 400 B.C. onwards.[232] Murderers were punished by everlasting fire in the Orphic Tartarus,[233] and parricides and matricides were singled out for the most severe punishment. Aristophanes has a line[234] which has been interpreted as referring[235] to human bloodshed,

Ὀρφεὺς μὲν γὰρ τελετὰς θ’ ἡμῖν κατέδειξε φόνων τ’ ἀπέχεσθαι:

but the φόνοι which are here mentioned denote the sacrificial slaying of animals, to which the Orphics objected. Horace[236] puts it more clearly when he says:

silvestres homines sacer interpresque deorum
caedibus et victu foedo deterruit Orpheus.

Orphism, then, stands in the same relation to the Apolline religion of pollution as Christianity does to Judaic religion. It supplements the punishment which angry deities send upon criminals here on earth by a further punishment hereafter. But, considered as modifying factors in the evolution of social law, the Judaic and the Apolline doctrine of pollution are incomparably more important. We have seen that Christianity accepted wergeld in Europe,[237] while Judaism abolished it in Israel.[238] Orphism, as we conceive it, had no effect upon the murder-laws of Greece. Plato was, naturally, sympathetic towards the Orphic religion: still he does not place much trust in merely posthumous punishment for so great a crime as homicide: and hence in his penal code he falls back on the historical Greek laws which were the offspring of Apolline religion, because there was no other code available. Thus he says[239]: ‘Let our prelude include a “myth” which many of those who seriously take to heart such matters in the mysteries have heard and believe firmly, namely, that for such persons (_i.e._ murderers) there is a punishment in Hades: or that it is necessary for them to come back hither to suffer punishment according to nature (by a natural law), to suffer from others what they had done themselves ... for him who is persuaded ... and who terribly fears such punishment, there is no necessity to frame a law, but for him who is not persuaded let the following law be written thus.’ Here Plato, as a prelude to his homicide legislation, definitely states that these laws are intended for the general public and not for Orphic votaries. So again[240] he says: ‘Death is not the extreme punishment: the pains spoken of in regard to such persons (_i.e._ murderers) in Hades are still more extreme: though they who tell such truths accomplish nothing by way of deterrence (ἀποτροπή) for people of such a character: otherwise there would never have arisen matricides and impious attacks on parents. Hence the punishments here in this life for such crimes should rival in efficacy those in Hades.’ Here we see that, despite the Orphic sympathies of Plato, he has to adopt as his legal model the historical Greek murder code which was mainly derived from the Apolline ‘pollution’ doctrine. He has to appeal to the religious sanctions of Apollinism, just as in modern society Christian preachers appeal to Judaic doctrines when a more ideal and higher conception of religion fails to deter the shedder of blood. The homicide code of Plato was therefore not affected by Orphic ideas. It was based on the Attic code of Dracon, and also on local traditions, or, as Glotz would describe it,[241] ‘la vieille jurisprudence des exégètes.’

FOOTNOTES

[1] _Das attische Recht_, vol. i. p. 17.

[2] _Op. cit._ p. 377; Arist. _Ath. Pol._ 35.

[3] Pollux, viii. 125; Plutarch, _Solon_, 19.

[4] _Infra_, p. 269 ff.

[5] _Supra_, p. 180.

[6] Aristotle, _Ath. Pol._ 7.

[7] _Supra_, p. 143.

[8] Dareste-Hassouillier-Reinach, _I.J.G._ No. xxi. ll. 10-19 (vol. i. p. 3 ff.); see also Hicks and Hill, _Gk. Hist. Inscript._ p. 113; Philippi, _Areopag._, p. 335.

[9] Philippi, _Areopag._, pp. 335-337, proposes to restore the end of l. 12 as follows: ἢ βουλεύσεως τὸν ἀεὶ βασιλεύσαντα. For ἐσέσθων (l. 18), Demosthenes gives αἰδεσάσθων, _c. Macart._ 1069. The unrestored inscription has εσεσθ... (l. 18).

[10] Andocides, _de Myst._ 94; Dem. _contra Conon_. 1264, 20.

[11] Gilbert, _G.C.A._ (Eng. trans.), p. 126; Hicks and Hill, _op. cit._ p. 114.

[12] _Ath. Pol._ 57.

[13] _C. Macart._ 1069.

[13A] ἐσέσθων from ἔσίημι.

[14] _Areop._ p. 238.

[15] ix. ch. 9; _infra_, p. 210 ff.

[16] _Tetralogies_, ii. 4, iii. 2, iii. 3.

[17] _Eum._ p. 141.

[18] _Areop._ p. 16.

[19] _Ath. Pol._ 57; _infra_, p. 250.

[20] Homer, _Il._ xviii. 500.

[21] _Op. cit._ p. 190; _supra_, p. 92.

[22] _Op. cit._ pp. 32-40, 173, 439.

[23] See _infra_, pp. 201 ff.; 256.

[24] See _infra_, p. 204.

[25] _Infra_, p. 263 ff.

[26] _Infra_, p. 268.

[27] Philippi, _Areop._ pp. 138-9.

[28] _Supra_, p. 85 f.

[29] _Supra_, p. 143 ff.

[30] _Op. cit._ pp. 311, 324.

[31] _Infra_, p. 209 f.

[32] _Supra_, p. 174 ff.

[33] But see _infra_, p. 213.

[34] P. 302; _supra_, p. 53.

[35] _Op. cit._ p. 173.

[36] See _supra_, pp. 82, 93.

[37] Coulanges, _op. cit._ pp. 169-176, 252, 360, 367, 376.

[38] _Ib._ p. 331.

[39] _Supra_, p. 88.

[40] _Supra_, p. 85.

[41] _Eum._ p. 93.

[42] _Op. cit._ p. 105.

[43] _Op. cit._ pp. 180, 234, 537, 594.

[44] _Areop._ p. 148.

[45] _Laws_, ix. ch. 12.

[46] See, _e.g._, Müller, _Eum._ p. 142, and _supra_, p. 197.

[47] _Exodus_, xxi. 28-36.

[48] _In Aristoc._ 645. _Cf._ Pausanias, i. 28, Aristotle, _Ath. Pol._ 57.

[49] ἀνάκρισις.

[50] _Laws_, ix. ch. 12.

[51] _Supra_, p. 196.

[52] _Infra_, p. 258 ff.; Arist. _Ath. Pol._ 52.

[53] οἵ ἕνδεκα.

[54] _Ath. Pol._ 57.

[55] viii. 120, also viii. 90.

[56] ἀφυλαξία.

[57] Paus. i. 3. 14; Plato, _Euthyphro_, 2; Pollux, viii. 90.

[58] μὴ ἐκ προνοίας.

[59] Aristotle, _Ath. Pol._ 57, 3.

[60] _Ib._ 57, 2.

[61] See _supra_, pp. 88, 200 ff.

[62] _C. Macart._ 1069; ἐντὸς ἀνεψιότητος is usually interpreted ‘nearer than cousins’: we read ἀνεψιούς instead of ἀνεψιοῦ; as the word recurs, we translate it, in the second instance, as ‘cousins-in-law’: we interpret ἀνεψιαδούς as sons of female cousins.

[63] ἐὰν δὲ αἰδέσασθαι δέῃ, ἐὰν μὲν πατὴρ ᾗ ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἢ υἱεῖς, πάντας ἢ τὸν κωλύοντα κρατεῖν. ἐὰν δὲ τοὺτων μηδεὶς ᾖ, κτείνῃ δ’ ἄκων, γνῶσι δ’ οἱ πεντήκοντα καὶ εἷς ἢ οἱ ἐφέται, ἄκοντα κτεῖναι, αἰδεσάσθων οἱ πράτορες ἐὰν θέλωσι, δέκα. τούτους δ’ οἱ πεντήκοντα καὶ εἷς ἀριστίνδην αἱρείσθων.

[64] _Supra_, p. 143 ff.

[65] _Op. cit._ pp. 314-316, p. 324.

[66] _Eum._ p. 93.

[67] _Supra_, p. 174 ff.

[68] _In Aristoc._ 634-5.

[69] See Müller, _Eum._ p. 93.

[70] _In Aristoc._ 643-4.

[71] Glotz takes this word too literally, _op. cit._ p. 311 ff.

[72] _Supra_, p. 178.

[73] _Laws_, ix. ch. 9.

[74] _Supra_, pp. 163, 173.

[75] _Laws_, ix. ch. 9.

[76] Xen. _Mem._ i. 3. 13; see Müller, _Eum._ p. 94.

[77] _Supra_, p. 163.

[78] Plato, _Laws_, ix. ch. 8.

[79] _Supra_, p. 8.

[80] _Supra_, p. 146.

[81] _Supra_, p. 108.

[82] _Supra_, p. 143 ff.

[83] _Supra_, p. 196.

[84] See _infra_, pp. 278, 295, 347.

[85] See _infra_, p. 291 ff.

[86] _Laws_, ix. ch. 9.

[87] See Aeschylus, _Eumenides_.

[88] See Euripides, _Orestes_, 1645 ff.

[89] _Infra_, p. 352.

[90] _Ath. Pol._ 57.

[91] _In Aristoc._ 629-639.

[92] _Laws_, ix. chs. 8, 12.

[93] _In Aristoc._ 639.

[94] _Ib._ 629.

[95] _Ib._ 636.

[96] Ch. 8.

[97] Ch. 12.

[98] _Supra_, p. 161.

[99] _Infra_, p. 240 ff.

[100] _Tetralogy_, i. 5.

[101] _Supra_, p. 192.

[102] _Supra_, pp. 59, 74.

[103] _Areop._ p. 5.

[104] i. 28. 10.

[105] See ix. 36. 4.

[106] Dem. _in Aristoc._ 634.

[107] Dem. _in Aristoc._ 632.

[108] _Ib._ 629.

[109] 528.

[110] _Laws_, ix. ch. 11.

[111] _In Aristoc._ 643.

[112] τὸν πρότερον ἔξεστιν εἰπόντα λόγον μεταστῆναι.

[113] viii. 117.

[114] See Dindorf _ad loc._

[115] _Infra_, p. 233 ff.

[116] _E.g._ Smith, _Dict. Gk. Ant._, _s.v._ φόνος, vol. ii. p. 385.

[117] _Supra_, p. 9 ff.

[118] P. 238; _supra_, p. 81.

[119] _Supra_, p. 7.

[120] _Supra_, pp. 93, 144.

[121] Glotz, p. 521.

[122] Dem. _in Timocr._ 702; _infra_, p. 236 ff.

[123] _De Myst._ 149-150. See also Plato, _Laws_, iv. ch. 2.

[124] P. 523 ff.

[125] _Supra_, p. 189.

[126] E.g. _in Aristoc._ 644.

[127] _Infra_, p. 225.

[128] _Against Meidias_, 528.

[129] _Ath. Pol._ 47.

[130] viii. 99.

[131] Pp. 516-539.

[132] _On the murder of Eratosthenes_, 50.

[133] _Areop._ pp. 112-125.

[134] _Att. Proc._ (1st ed.), p. 307.

[135] _Op. cit._ p. 517.

[136] P. 578.

[137] i. 2.

[138] _Op. cit._ p. 316.

[139] _Supra_, p. 175.

[140] Pp. 319 ff., 377.

[141] _Supra_, p. 173 ff.

[142] _Laws_, ix. ch. 11.

[143] _Infra_, p. 231.

[144] See _supra_, p. 106 ff.

[145] _In Timocr._ 702; _infra_, p. 232.

[146] See Smith, _Dict. Gk. Ant._ vol. ii. p. 386.

[147] 94.

[148] _In Aristoc._ 632.

[149] _Laws_, ix. ch. 11.

[150] _C. Conon._ 1264, 20.

[151] _Ath. Pol._ 39.

[152] 75, 416, 600, 770.

[153] 1294, 1300.

[154] 485.

[155] 340, 810.

[156] 280, 1020.

[157] _Supra_, p. 194.

[158] _Op. cit._ pp. 443, 612 ff.

[159] 1264 (Reiske).

[160] _Cf._ phrase κτείνων ἢ ἐπιχειρῶν in law of Solon _re_ tyrannicide, Andoc. _de Myst._ 98.

[161] Lysias, _c. Simon._ 42.

[162] Plato, _Laws_, ix. ch. 14; Andocides, _de Myst._ 94.

[163] Plato, _Laws_, ix. ch. 13; Dem. _c. Conon._ 1262.

[164] _Gk. Const. Ant._ p. 380.

[165] P. 308.

[166] P. 307.

[167] Pp. 308-309.

[168] P. 306.

[169] P. 312.

[170] _Supra_, p. 214.

[171] Pp. 317, 322.

[172] _Supra_, pp. 60, 76.

[173] _Ancient Law_, p. 217; _supra_, p. 82.

[174] Thuc. i. 2.

[175] See, e.g., _Joshua_, xx. 1-9.

[176] See _infra_, p. 406.

[177] See _infra_, p. 411.

[178] _Andromache_, 1095-1200.

[179] _Supra_, p. 143 ff.

[180] _Infra_, p. 263 ff.

[181] _C. Agorat._ 135, 56.

[182] λαβόντες ἐν δικαστηρίῳ ὡς ἀνδροφόνον ὄντα.

[183] _Laws_, ix. ch. 11.

[184] _Ib._ ch. 12.

[185] Παραπρεσβ. 181-2.

[186] P. 309.

[187] _In Timocr._ 702.

[188] _Infra_, p. 260.

[189] P. 438.

[190] _In Aristoc._ 642. 25-643.

[191] _In Aristoc._ 643.

[192] _Ib._ 632, 20.

[193] _Orestes_, 497 ff.; _supra_, p. 62.

[194] _Supra_, p. 181.

[195] _Op. cit._ p. 321.

[196] _Ib._ p. 322.

[197] _Ib._ p. 235.

[198] _Supra_, p. 174 ff.

[199] _Laws_, ix. ch. 12.

[200] _Ib._ ch. 9.

[201] _Op. cit._ p. 323.

[202] See Art. in Daremberg and Saglio, p. 441.

[203] Dem. _in Androtion._ 593; _in Timoc._ 702.

[204] _Op. cit._ p. 442; Cic. _pro Roscio Amico_, xxv. 70.

[205] i. 26.

[206] ii. 41.

[207] Livy, iii. 48.

[208] Glotz, _op. cit._ p. 350.

[209] _Supra_, p. 84 ff.

[210] _Laws_, ix. ch. 15.

[211] _In Timoc._ 702; _in Androtion._ 593.

[212] _Laws_, ix. ch. 12.

[213] _Ib._ ch. 14.

[214] _Ib._ ch. 15; _cf._ Andocides, _de Myst._ 74: ἄτιμοι ἦσαν τὰ σώματα, τὰ δὲ χρήματα εἶχον.

[215] _C. Theomnest._ 116, 7-8.

[216] viii. 117.

[217] _Supra_, p. 218.

[218] 4C.

[219] 2A-3E.

[220] _Supra_, p. 9.

[221] _Laws_, ix. ch. 12.

[222] 1270 (trans. A. S. Way); _cf._ 1339, also _Her. Furens_, 1280, 1325.

[223] See Eur. _Alcestis_, 534.

[224] _Orestes_, 497 ff.

[225] _C. Simon._ 42; _supra_, p. 225.

[226] _Laws_, ix. ch. 14; _cf._ Andocides, _de Myst._ 74-75.

[227] _Laws_, ix. ch. 9.

[228] _Supra_, p. 164 ff.

[229] See Glotz, _op. cit._ pp. 537, 594, and contrast p. 234.

[230] _Phaedo_, Introduction, p. xliv.

[231] P. 594.

[232] See Smith, _Dict. Gk. Ant._, _s.v._ ‘Eleusinia,’ vol. i. p. 722; Isocrates, _Panegyr._ 42.

[233] Plato, _Phaedo_, 113E-114; _Laws_, ix. ch. 17.

[234] _Frogs_, 1032.

[235] Harrison, _Proleg._ p. 470; Pausanias, ix. 30.

[236] _Ars Poetica_, 391.

[237] _Supra_, p. 9 ff.

[238] _Supra_, pp. 3, 140.

[239] _Laws_, ix. ch. 10.

[240] _Op. cit._ ch. 17.

[241] P. 234.