<i>Meidias Tyrannos</i>: Meidias' Tyrannical Attributes in Demosthenes 21

Hendren, T. George

doi:10.5406/illiclasstud.40.0021

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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

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: 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

Meidias Tyrannos: Meidias' Tyrannical Attributes in Demosthenes 21

Cited by 1 publication

References 35 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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About