8/4/2019 Tupin, In Lysias Against the c Dealers

1/5

in Lysias 'against the Corndealers'

Author(s): Christopher tuplinSource: Hermes, 114. Bd., H. 4 (4th Qtr., 1986), pp. 495-498Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476533 .Accessed: 19/08/2011 04:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHermes.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4476533?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4476533?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

8/4/2019 Tupin, In Lysias Against the c Dealers

2/5

Miszellen 495Noch ein paar Worte zu diesementscheidendenKommentarsatz: ie An-

nahme derselben falschen SchreibweiseTI4pwt auch in der Erlauterungsprichtm. E. nicht gegendiese Deutung,sondern st lediglichAusdruck inergewissenKonsequenzdes Schreibers.Natuirlichtehtder Inhalt der Erlaute-rung &ivTiTof n[Xi4uvttxo6 in dem gegebenen Zusammenhang nicht im Ein-klang mit der Verschreibungdennein Dativ Plural etwa anstelle eines ver-meintlichenDativs Singularst syntaktisch usgeschlossen).Aberist eine sim-ple Verschreibung eshalbunglaubwurdig,weilsie sichlogisch nicht rechtfer-tigen laJ3t?!DaB der Begriff xaTaxpncn; auch bei - vermeintlich - falschlichem Ge-brauchdes Duals verwendetwerdenkonnte,zeigt z. B. Schol. zu A 6 8aciyl-uiv: 6tEoTIJoav f t Tov 6utXbv xwrpxa llot4 'ATTIXi Im ubrigen findetsich eine ganz entsprechendeAusdrucksweise . B. Schol. Arat. 1023t6o&iOObVtE I8uX& &pt1tq ?pXPaaTo iVTi inrUVTtIXO.

Halle (Saale)/DDR WOLFGANG LUPPE

?YMnPIAEOAI IN LYSIAS 'AGAINST THE CORNDEALERS'Although regularly included in selections of Lysianic speeches andmentioned n workson Athenianeconomichistoryandinstitutions,Lysias22has not otherwisereceiveda greatdeal of interpretative ommentin recenttimes, a majorexceptionbeing a characteristicallyonciseand subtlediscus-sion by R. J. SEAGER n Historia 15, 1966, 172- 184 (reprinted n A.ANASTASSIOUnd D. IRMER edd.), Kleinereattische Redner, Darmstadt1977, 242- 263. A recent ssueof Hermeshas now seenthe appearance f abriefnotebyG. R. STANTONHermes113,1985,121 123. Itsmainpointis toinsistthat in section12the speakeraccuses hesitopolaiof havingsometimessold grainat pricesvaryingby as much as a drachma n the courseof a single

day, and withthat one canhave no quarrel, or thisviewseemsto meto bein-contestably orrect.ButSTANTONlSo inpassing)referswithapproval o oneof the major contentionsof SEAGER'Srticle,viz. that both the prosecutorand defendantpersistently xploitthe ambiguitiesof the verbouj.upiaoOai,and this perhapspr9vides fair opportunity o raisesome doubtsabout thatcontention.For in this matter, it seemsto me, SEAGER's lucidationof thespeechis too subtle.In ? 5 thespeaker nterrogates ne of thesitopolai andasksif he admits ohavingaccumulated orn in excessof the permitted50phormoi(kXcio dltIovaujlrpicaaOat EEvTIjXovLa popPi&v). The sitopolesreplies y& tivipV XoVTWVX?X?VOVTzOV OcVciptaijlrv. According to SEAGERhe means the verb,auvF7tptdginv,o be understoodas referringnot to accumulation-buyingutto buying n conjunctionwith othermerchants, . e. to cartel-buying.Surrep-tiously, by the ambivalenceof his answer[that is, by the ambiguity n thesense of ougptpiacOatl]he tries to assimilate the falsehood [that themagistrates old himto accumulatemore than50phormol]to the truth[that

Hermes, 114. Band, Heft 4 (1986) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart

8/4/2019 Tupin, In Lysias Against the c Dealers

3/5

496 Miszellenone of themhad in the previousyeartold him to operatea cartel o keeppricesdown] and so place upon the magistrates he responsibility or both of hiscourses of action, the legal and illegal alike'. (SEAGERassumesthat themerchantdid indeed indulge in illegal accumulation, his being actually alikely consequenceof the operationof a cartel,which removedany incentivefor the importers o releasetheirstock a smallamount at a time.) SEAGERfurtherargues hat in the remainder f the speechthe prosecutor ometimesaccepts he useof ougipiaaOat to mean 'to buyin a cartel' n order o turn tagainst the defendantby makingeven cartel-buying ppear llegal.Thereseemto me to be twolines of objection o this readingof the speech.First, t is of coursetrue thatougnpiaoOatcoulddescribebothaccumulation-buyingand cartel-buying nd that, if the merchanthad actuallyengaged nboth practices,he might have the privatesatisfactionof knowingthat hisanswerslurredover the distinctionbetween hem. But it must surelyremainaprivate satisfaction. He cannot reasonablyhave expected his reply to beunderstood n the senseSEAGERequires, specially ince the juryhas not yetheardanything romhim aboutcartel-buying.Nor couldhe in anycasehaveexpected o getawaywith sucha slurring; orhe must have realized hat, if hisadversary houghtthat he wasconfusing hings n this way andthat therewasany dangerof anyone being misled,he (the adversary) ould perfectlywellmake the distinctionquite clear. If the sitopolesmeant to claim 'No, I neveraccumulated orn illegally,but I did join a cartelon the magistrate's dvice'he should havesaid so explicity.As it is, he willnaturallybe understoodo besaying 'Yes, I did accumulatellegally,butonly becauseI wastold to do so'.Thisclaimmight or might not be true. In ?? 7- 10 the speakerdeniesthatitwas true. No currentmagistrateadmitted o giving suchadvice (not perhapssurprising, incetheproposedcourseof actionwasillegal), houghAnytusac-knowledged having given quite different advice, that the sitopolai shouldforma cartel,during hepreviousyear'. In the framingpassages,??6- 7 and? 11, he also argues hat the claimwould be irrelevant, venif it were rue. Inboth these passageshe isconsistentlyusingougnpiaoact to mean accumulateby buying'.This hasactuallybroughtus to the second ineof objection.Doesthespeakerever in fact accept the alternativesense of oauIipiaaOct,which SEAGERallegesthe merchant o have insinuated nto the discussionby his replytointerrogation?He does not seemto do so in ?? 6- 11, wherehe proceedsonthe assumption hat the merchanthas acknowledgedaccumulation-buying.He is not '[insinuating]hat ougnpiaoOaiin any form is an offence'; he ismerelyassuming hatthe merchanthas admitted o ouIipiaoOal in thesensewhichmakes it an offence and then denyingthat he did so on instructionsfroma magistrate.To do anythingelsewouldbe gratuitouslyo makeAnytusappearto have advisedillegal action. But Anytus is (for him) a 'friendly'witness: why unnecessarilyput him in the wrong? (Note than when thespeaker n ?? 6 -7 and ? 10 allowsfor the sakeof argument hat the magis-tratesmighthavesaidwhat themerchant aysthatthey said,he is not puttingAnytus' nnocence n doubt: hemagistrates e is talkingabouttherearethoseof the current year.)

I Like SEAGER (174) 1 follow THALHEIM in readingoi gtv vUvin ? 8 and identifying Anytus asone of the previous year's sitophylakes.

8/4/2019 Tupin, In Lysias Against the c Dealers

4/5

Miszellen 497So much for ??6 10.Doesthespeaker ndulge n equivocationanywhere

else? ?? 11- 16 deal with the merchant'sclaim(madeat a councilmeeting)thattheyactedas theydidforthecity'sbenefit,so thatcorn couldbe ascheapas possible.Hiscounter-argumentsre(a)that themerchantsdid not actuallysell off corn at a fixedpricebut kept upping t, as thoughtheywerebuying tfrom the importersn verysmallbatchesat ever-risingprices,and(b) that itwould be out of characterfor sitopolai to care about the city's interestsanyway.The wordusedhereto describewhatthe merchantsdidis, of course,oUp)rpiaoOcu.SEAGERlaimsthat at its firstappearance,n the quotationofwhatthe merchants aidin theirjustificationbeforethe Council,we havethemerchants exploitingagainin theirturnthe ambivalenceof oaugpiaoOat'.But, as we (and thejury)have it, the formulations chosenby theprosecutor,not by the merchants we cannotbe at all surewhatexactly theysaid to theCouncil)and so far as the prosecutor s concerned hereis no reasonwhyheshouldnot be understood o be attributingo the merchants xactlythe sameadmission viz. of accumulation-buying)hichone of themhasalreadymadeunder nterrogation.In the final section, ?? 17 22, the speakerarguessuccessively(i) theyhaveadmittedconspiringagainst he emporoi: o acquit hem s togo againstthe latter's nterests;(ii) you cannotreasonablyacquit peoplewho admitto breaking he law,especiallysince you have in the past condemnedmen for the samebreach,even whentheydeniedit;

(iii) you must punish them to deter other sitopolai from committingoffences;(iv) you must reserve your pity for (a) Athenian officials who havesufferedpunishmentnthepastfor failingto restrain he merchants'malefac-tions and(b) the emporoiagainstwhomtheyhave combined.For it is neces-sarynot to angerthe latterby absolvingthose who admit to havingplottedagainstthem.SEAGER oldsthat theprosecutor s now'[reaping]he rewardof the seedsof ambiguity so carefully sown throughout the speech' and is effectivelycreatinga 'mythicaldelictof conspiring gainst heemporoi'.The realchargeis nowforgottenand it is for thismythicalone that the prosecutors seeking ohave thesitopolaicondemned.But we do nothave to understandhespeaker'stacticsin thisway. In the passage n questionrepetitionof a prudentialargu-ment (do not upsetthe emporoi)framesa morestrictly egal argument theyhaveadmittedbreaking he law). Now thelatterpropositionson the face of itsimplya reneweddeploymentof the argumentof ?? 6-7 and ? 10 - thebreachof the law is accumulation f grainbeyondthe permitted50phormaiand the reference o pastcasesshowsthat the speakerdoesnot have in mind(and does not intendthe jury to have in mind) merely the specialcircum-stancescreatedby Anytus' advice.Theframingprudential rgumentneed notbe seen as assimilatingbreachof the law to conspiracyagainst the emporoi.The speaker is merely making the point that the emporoi (whosegoodwillis so vital)willbeparticularlydiscontented f they see theirenemiesacquittedon a chargewhich heyhaveactuallyadmitted.Logically peaking thardlymatters what that charge was. Certainly t is not necessaryfor thespeaker o pretend hat it is one of conspiringagainstthe emporoi.In short,he is not inviting he jury to condemn hemfor a non-existent rime.Rather,32

8/4/2019 Tupin, In Lysias Against the c Dealers

5/5

498 Miszellenand mutatismutandis ikemanyanother orensicorator,he is inviting hemtocondemn he defendants or a real crimeand to do so on groundsof sectionalinterest.It is a simpler trategy han theone suggestedby SEAGER,hough nno way a less reprehensible ne2.

University of Liverpool CHRISTOPHER UPLIN2 Mr. SEAGERhas kindly read this note and would concede that my interpretation of theargument is probably correct.

JUVENAL VIII. 241tantum igitur muros intra toga contulit illi 240nominis ac tituli, quantum tint Leucade, quantumThessaliae campis Octauius abstulit udocaedibus adsiduis gladio; sed Roma parentem,Roma patrem patriae Ciceronem libera dixit.

241 in PSGU: non : sibi Jahn: unda Weidner: vix K. F. Hermann: tumin Munro: vi Owen, F. de Ruyt (RBPh 23, 1944, 246-250): igni D. S. Robert-son (CR 42, 1928, 60-61) : ima P. T. Eden (Mnem. ser. iv. vol. 38, 1985, 349).?propter Antonium et Cleopatram,quia bello navali sub Leucade promunturioEpiri devicti sunt ab Augusto>quantum in Leucade, the reading of P, is unmetrical, such a hiatusbeing impossible: the worse MSS read non, which is not satisfactory in sense;as (1) non cannot be left unexpressedwith the second quantum; (2) if it could,it would not convey Juvenal's meaning, which is that Cicero gained the sametitle as Augustus but more gloriously; sed alone shows this.< The latest com-mentator (E. COURTNEY, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal, London1980, 420) remarks simply >>INThis has not been plausibly emended>Leucaswas famed for its precipitous cliffs