Greek Society 500-300 BC: Oikos & Polis - Assignment Example

It is based around Greek Society 500-300 BC: Oikos & Polis Name: Course: Tutor: Date: It is based around Greek Society 500-300 BC: Oikos & Polis Section B: (20 marks) Q3 Atimia was a penalty that was used in ancient democracy in Athens. This penalty derived one of his honors and could not carry out any political tasks of a Greece citizen. One was not allowed to participate in the national assembly, go to court or offer service in Heliaia as a junior. One’s political life was completely ended when one was barred from participating in the assembly. Depriving one of their rights to go to court meant that one could not protect themselves from enemies, which made one to become a social cripple. This also made one to lose income that could be paid for attending assemblies and service of jury. Atimia was imposed also when one was unable debts that one owed the state after a particular time. There was no maximum limit of fines imposed by a court. They could be higher than an estate of an individual. The debts and status were inheritable. When one acted against the atimia, it was viewed as attacking the power of the citizens, which was represented by the law courts that imposed it. A death penalty was inflicted on one who failed to act according to atimia (Cartledge, 2002). 3 The relevance of atimia to the understanding of (Demosthenes) 59 is the case Athenians who were found guilty of public debt were given a death penalty and their children were imprisoned. In this book, it was clear that atimia was inheritable from parents to children. If someone else attempted to ask for the release of an atimia victim from his atimia or debt, he forfeited the property that he owned. When the proedros attempted to make the vote of the release of an atimia victim, he was made atimos. Demosthenes mentions two laws that show that the atimia includes the property and children of the atimos. These disabilities came to the children as an inheritance that they could not avoid. Property that was included in one’s atimia shared the owner’s outlawry. The law did not protect it nor could get any mortgage. Demosthenes raises an argument that it is against justice to include double penalty to one offence (Trevett, 2006). Q4 The graphe paranomon was legal action, which was introduced under democracy in Athens in the year 415BC. It replaced ostracism that was no longer used after 415BC. Graphe paranomon literally meant suit in opposition to bills that were contrary to law. When one was put under oath and declared that he was bringing such a suit, the legislation was suspended until when the issue was resolved. Athens did not have an operating mechanism of unmaking laws. This meant that a new law was expected not to have any contradiction with the law in use. The suit provided means to review legislation that the assembly passed. This was the same as the present day united state supreme court (Just, 2000). The judges in the court of Heliaia, in Athens, were the same as the attending the national assembly, legal experts and citizens. This judges used general courts and not a devoted panel to issue of legislation. The suit provided a weapon that politicians in Athens used to eliminate and cause damage fellow politicians. Demos in Athens used this to penalize or favor their leaders. The example of the graphe paranomon cited in Demosthenes 59 when Stephanos made a suit in opposition to Phrynion, which was answered with a counter-suit. This made Neaira’s status impossible to clarify in court (Cartledge, 2002). Q5 All the three men in reference to Demosthenes 59 came from a wealthy upper class society. This in assent Athens is considered the class that hard a lot of influence in the shaping of the law. The men including Theomnestos, Apollodoros, and Stephanus were all from a very wealthy background and were all related. However, as the father to Apollodoros died he left most of what he owned to a servant of is known as Phrynion. This coursed a lot of tension among the family line where after the death of his father Apollodoros accused the servant Phrynion of having stolen what he considered to his family inheritance (Grant, 2009). However, this suit flanks in court and the servant retains position of the property. The upper social class was in charge of making the law they were also in charge of debating of issues that affected the nation as a whole. The three men in relat3ion to Demosthenes 59 can be termed to be men of value and principle in that they represented what was just and fair. However, arguments have been raised of whether Apollodoros should be considered as an upper class man. This is considering the fact that his father is considered an ex-slave. Most theorists argue out that Apollodoros cannot be considered to be from the upper class since he was not born of it. However, some do say that a man should be judged from the fact of how much he owns rather than where he originates. The most conclusive theories that can be reached at are that all three men who are related come from one social background (Trevett, 2006). Q6. Apart from Apollodoros’ prosecution of Stephanos, Apollodoros was as son to a wealthy slave in Greece. He also painted vases in Athens, which was during the year 500BC. His name was signed on two cups. The painter was nick named the shadow painter by his fellow painters due to the work he did (Just, 2000). His sense of style led to extremely many vases being dedicated to him. The renowned painter was also in real sense a very influential figure in the political class at that age. One of the most renowned political backgrounds from him was the seven speeches that he delivered in Greek. The speeches are considered the most important part of his career (Grant, 2009). In addition, one cannot mention of his history without considering the fact that his father was a slave who during his time had risen in the social ranks within Athens to become one of the most renowned banker in Athens. This saw his wealth accumulate in numbers also saw him and his family become one of the wealthiest in Athens (Carey, 2001). Another most significant point of Apollodoros life is the case he had against a former slave who in the end inherited most of the property that his father used to own. This caused many tensions between the families, and finally the court decided that the suit was not varied. In his speeches, one can tell that Apollodoros was very intellectual people considering the fact that most of them are considered to have influenced the law of Greek that governs to date (Trevett, 2006). Q 7 The first reason, which can be, documented of why both Theomnestos and Apollodoros prosecuted Neaira was vengeance. Most of the case presented against Neaira was because both of them did not like Stephanus. Stephanus was the first cousin to Theomnestos since the mother to Stephanus and father to Theomnestos were brother and sister. The reason given in court of why the two men persecute Neaira the wife to Stephanus is both men claim that his wife should not be treated as a citizen of Athenian since, by all account, she is not of Athenian citizen. Neaira is charged with being a fornicator who takes up living with her husband after she comes to Athens with her children (Cartledge, 2002). To be more precise the two men are more angered by the fact that the children to Neaira were not from Stephanus but instead were from another man, something both the men considered as blasphemy. In the case against Neaira, extreme measures are taken by both the subjects, where both of them claim that the woman in question, this being Neaira has bridged the city laws by coming to Athens and marring an Athenian. The two men who are closely related, in that Theomnestos is a brother in law of Apollodoros since he has married his sister argued the jury in the court to strip down the woman’s right as an Athenian and make her a slave. The two men also accused the woman of being a prostitute who soled herself for money, which then meant that she was to be given to the capital punishment that is offered to a woman who participates in such ill-mannered behavior (Carey, 2001). Q8. The thing that these two men had in order to prosecute successfully the defendant Neaira was witness. According to [DEMOSTHENES] 59 the first witness to be called to the stand was Euphiletus and Aristomachus. Both witnesses though of different backgrounds since Euphiletus was the son of Simon while Aristomachus was the son of Critodemus testified that the victim was to be considered a prostitute. They both accounted that, in both their separate time, they had seen the accused with multiple male friends. The two accounts to having seen the victim flat with people like Xenocleides was a poet and Hipparchus who was known to be a well-established actor. Both the two mentioned for having flatted with the accused also confirms that she did sell her body for money (Grant, 2009). Another witness who attests to the fact of having seen the accused bought for twenty minae is Philagrus. The witness who helped in consolidating the case against the accused testified that he was in person present when the whole deal went down. All witnesses who were presented to the court testified to having seen the accused once or twice sell her body for money. Most of the witness brought before the court testified that the accused was not from Athens and that where she had come from she had made a name for herself for being a prostitute. Both men Theomnestos and Apollodoros had gone to stun measures to ensure that the accused was not freed. Not all the witnesses presented in the case pointed out that the children of the accused were those of Stephanus rather that they were children of the men with whom she had slept with (Trevett, 2006). Q9 In Demosthenes 59, the issues raised of the citizenship of the Athenians are shown in context. The text the first issue that can be recognized is that an Athenian is considered true Athenian only by blood. In the text, Apollodoros accuses his father in law Phrynion who inherited most of what he has when Apollodoros' father died. He claims that Phrynion stool what was rightly his by accepting to take something that did not belong to him in this account Apollodoros also goes against all orders to see that a woman is striped off her right as a citizen after having been found guilty of sleeping with other men to solicit funds. The character is the central figure in all the issues presented in Demosthenes 59 in that much of the activities occurred around him (Grant, 2009). The citizenship of Athenians is put in question when the accused women if striped off her citizenship according to the law of atimia. The law entailed that a citizen be striped of her rights to being a citizen if she is found guilty of either having public debts or having done something that is consider to be a moral decay in the eyes of the public or law. In this account, the most relevant conclusion that can be reached upon is that affects the citizenship of the Athenians is that their citizenship was not guaranteed by anything. One can conclude that the citizens of Athens lived in fear of being stripped off their rights as citizens of the country. In most occasions, it begs the question of what exactly the law applied to in Greek society (Just, 2000). Section E: (25 marks) 10. Attempt ONE of the following questions: Although the outcome of the case between Theomnestos and Apollodoros was not conclusive in that no valid conclusion was documented, in my own personal view, I think that they both worn the case. First, the kind of evidence they presented to the jury against the accused was in more than one way sufficient to see that the accused was seen guilty in the easy of the jury. Most of the witness pointed out to the fact that the accused was not a legitimate Athenian since she had come from a different city. The other reason why I think the jury would considered to give a verdict of guilty as charged is because both the Theomnestos and Apollodoros presented what seemed to be a solid case against the witness (Carey, 2001). At that era, Athenians considered themselves men of honor and fortitude. This meant that having been accused of being a prostitute the jury would have considered her to be a social menace that was not worthy of being into the society at the first place. The other reason why in my own personal view I think that they were successful has to do with the fact that both of them were from upper class Athenians, which meant that they had advanced influence on the jury. This means that they are considered very influential people in their own right at Athens in this era when the woman was being tried. In addition, one other fact that points to them having won the case is the fact that the defense did not have any evidence that pointed out that what was being passed, as truth by their accuser was true (Grant, 2009). References Carey, C. (2001). "Apollodoros' Mother: The Wives of Enfranchised Aliens in Athens". Classical Quarterly Cartledge, Paul (2002). The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Greece. London: Vintage Grant, Michael (2009). The Classical Greeks. New York: Scribner's Just, Roger (2000). Women in Athenian Law and Life. London: Routledge Trevett, Jeremy C. (2006). "Apollodorus". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony. Oxford Classical Dictionary (Third ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. p. 123 Read More