Demosthenes' Speech against Meidias

Harris, Edward M.

doi:10.2307/311355

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Irrera 2014, 479-480. 47 Ruschenbusch 1965, Fisher 1976MacDowell 1976;Gagarin 1979;Harris 1989;MacDowell 1990, 263-265;Cohen 1991;Ober 1991, 208-212;Cairns 1996;Fisher 1998;Harris 2008, 79-82;. Da ultimo sono tornati sul tema Campeggiani 2013;Irrera 2014;Cairns 2020.…”

Section: La Censura Dell ' Assemblea Per L ' Hybris Di Midia Ai Dionisiaunclassified

“…2 Per l'uso retorico e giuridico nella Contro Midia del tema della non tollerabilità dell'offesa recata intenzionalmente cf. Fisher 1976;Harris 1989;MacDowell 1990, 263-265;Cohen 1991;Wilson 1991;Harris 1992;Rowe 1993;Rowe 1994;Cairns 1996;Fisher 1998;Demont 2006;Harris 2008, 10-13;Wohl 2010, 183-188;Hendren 2015;Curado 2016;. Per una definizione del concetto di tolleranza nella Contro Midia che si distingue dal concetto moderno di tolleranza in quanto «si fonda maggiormente sull'idea della sopportazione di oltraggi ritenuti inammissibili alla luce di un codice valoriale unanimemente approvato dai membri della comunità» cf.…”

Section: Introduzioneunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compensazione del danno (timoria) e giustizia come reciprocità nella demostenica Contro Midia, sul pugno

Poddighe

2021

Erga-Logoi. Rivista Di Storia, Letteratura, Diritto E Culture Dell'antichità

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers an analysis of the legal arguments that Demosthenes uses in his speech Against Meidias, concerning the punch to prove that Meidias, who had struck Demosthenes as he exercised his public functions as a choregos, is guilty of hybris, and that he (Demosthenes) deserves adequate (i.e. public) reparation for the outrage suffered. Demosthenes claims his right to a punishment (timoria) capable of repairing the collective, more than individual, damage. This claim appears to allow him, on the one hand, to legitimise, with effective legal argumentation, all the choices made in the aftermath of the episode of the punch, and on the other, to give a strong legal basis for requesting the death penalty for Meidias. The paragraphs 2-3 of the article deal with the choices Demosthenes made after the episode of the punch. Here I intend to show that Demosthenes is able to demonstrate to the judges the relevance of the procedural choices and to qualify them as ‘choices’ precisely because they were motivated and considered at length. In the following paragraphs of the article I discuss the legal argumentation that Demosthenes uses with regard to the ‘measure’ of the penalty required (the death penalty). The aim is to understand what roles the principle according to which Meidias’s hybristic conduct must be assessed from an overall view and the principle of justice as reciprocity play in this argument. The latter must take into account the merit of the epieikes Demosthenes as compared to the hybristes Meidias.

show abstract

Section: La Censura Dell ' Assemblea Per L ' Hybris Di Midia Ai Dionisiaunclassified

Section: Introduzioneunclassified

Compensazione del danno (timoria) e giustizia come reciprocità nella demostenica Contro Midia, sul pugno

Poddighe

2021

Erga-Logoi. Rivista Di Storia, Letteratura, Diritto E Culture Dell'antichità

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of a charge of hubris, on the other hand, the relevant audience is always an actual audience: the Athenians, and more specifically the judges in the lawcourt as the representatives of the Athenians more widely, adjudicate on whether the agent's act discredits the agent or the patient. 50 Harris (1989); (1992); (2008) 79-81; (forthcoming). Contra MacDowell (1990) 13-23; (2009) 247, 252, followed by Fisher (1992) 36-85; Rowe (1995); Martin (2009) 15-48 (at p. 48 he claims the charge is asebeia); Worthington (2012) 158-62; Scullion (2012) 222-31; Eidinow (2015) 74-75.…”

Section: Hybristic Conduct and Disposition In The Graphê Hubreôsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Public Charge for Hubris Against Slaves: The Honour of the Victim and the Honour of the Hubristēs

Canevaro

2018

J. Hell. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the rationale and the implications of the inclusion of slaves as victims of punishable hubris in the law about the graphē hubreōs. It argues that hubris against slaves was a punishable offence in Athens not because slaves had institutionally and legally recognized rights or a modicum of honour, but rather because it was hubris, as a disposition to overstep and overestimate one's claims to honour (although manifested in concrete acts), that was deemed unacceptable. The article also investigates the implications of the law for our understanding of the connectedness of ‘legal’ and allegedly ‘extra-legal’ spaces, as well as advocating an understanding of honour that is not necessarily competitive and zero-sum, but also cooperative and aimed at securing smooth social interaction in all spheres of social life.

show abstract

“…3.5), when explaining the large number of cases in Athenian courts, lists cases of hybris as one reason. For an argument that Demosthenes' case against Meidias was a charge of hybris see Harris (1989), pp. 130-131.…”

Section: IImentioning

confidence: 99%

Did Rape Exist in Classical Athens? Further Reflections on the Laws about Sexual Violence

Harris

2006

Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demosthenes' Speech against Meidias

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Compensazione del danno (timoria) e giustizia come reciprocità nella demostenica Contro Midia, sul pugno

Compensazione del danno (timoria) e giustizia come reciprocità nella demostenica Contro Midia, sul pugno

The Public Charge for Hubris Against Slaves: The Honour of the Victim and the Honour of the Hubristēs

Did Rape Exist in Classical Athens? Further Reflections on the Laws about Sexual Violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About