Page:History of Greece Vol VIII.djvu/225

 RESOLUTION IS CARRIED. 203 tion them. It is remarkable that he does not name Theramenes as taking any part in this last debate. The substantive amendment proposed by Euryptolemus wa^ that the generals should be tried each separately, according to the psephism of Kannonus ; implying notice to be given to each, of the day of trial, and full time for each to defend himself. This proposition, as well as that of the senate moved by Kallix- enus, was submitted to the vote of the assembly ; hands being separately held up, first for one, next for the other. The pry- tanes pronounced the amendment of Euryptolemus to be carried. But a citizen named Menekles impeached their decision as wrong or invalid, alleging seemingly some informality or trick in putting the question, or perhaps erroneous report of the comparative show of hands. We must recollect that in this case the prytanes were declared partisans. Feeling that they were doing wrong in suffering so illegal a proposition as that of Kallixenus to be put at all, and that the adoption of it would be a great public mis- chief, they would hardly scruple to try and defeat it even by some unfair manoeuvre. But the exception taken by Menekles constrained them to put the question over again, and they were then obliged to pronounce that the majority was in favor of the proposition of Kallixenus. 1 1 Xenoph. Hellcn. i, 7, 38. TOVTUV 6e dia^ftporovovfievuv, rd fisv Trpurov lupivav TTJV TE.vpvxTo?.[iov vKouoaauhiov (5e Mevsitf.eovf, KOI ntd.iv dia^Eioo- roviac yevofiEvijf, iKpivav rr/v rf/f /fouP.jJc. I cannot think that the explanations of this passage given either by Schomann (De Comitiis Athcn. part ii, 1, p. 160, scq.) or by Meier and Schumann (Der Attische Prozess, b. iii, p. 295 ; b. iv, p. 696) are satisfac- tory. The idea of Schomann, that, in consequence of the unconquerable resistance of Sokrates, the voting upon this question was postponed until the next day, appears to me completely inconsistent with the account of Xenophon ; and, though countenanced by a passage in the Pseudo-Platonic dialogue called Axiochus (c. 12), altogether loose and untrustworthy. It is plain to me that the question was put without Sokrates, and could bo legally put by the remaining prytanes, in spite of his resistance. The word ixo/toaia mu& doubtless bear a meaning somewhat different here to its technical sense before the dikastery ; and different also, I think, to the other ense which Meier and Schomann ascribe to it, of a formal engagement te prefer at some future time an indictment, or ypa$t) irapavonuv. It seems to m here to denote, an objection taken on formal grounds, and sustained