the voμoléтαι, whose duty it was to examine carefully whether its provisions were inconsistent with any existing laws, or any main principle of the constitution. If it avowedly involved the repeal of another law, this latter was defended by publicly appointed oúvdikol, and any one else who might be disposed to aid them. The voμoléтaι were not concerned with the merits of the measure, and if they pronounced in its favour on technical grounds, their decision made it law (vóμov), and it was duly registered among the archives kept in the temple of Demeter (ἐν τῷ Μητρῴῳ).

6. The voμoléraι were appointed annually, from the dɩkaσtai of the Heliastic court, at the third кupía èккλŋσía in each year. The manner of their election is uncertain, but it was probably by lot. In a case quoted by Demosthenes (in Timocr., p. 708, 27), they were 1001 in number, but the very specification of the exact number on that occasion makes it probable that it varied, in proportion to the amount and the importance of the business that was before them. The poedpot presided in the court of the νομοθέται, as in the ἐκκλησία, and the vote was taken openly by χειροτονία.

7. Besides the power thus given to individual citizens of introducing alterations in the law, there was a general review of the existing code of old laws at the first kupla èкKλŋola in each year (emixeɩpoтovíα vóμwv), and if any objection was then raised to any of them, the question was similarly referred to the νομοθέται. Α second annual revision by the θεσμοθέται seems to be spoken of by Aeschines (in Ctes., p. 59, 12), though some writers think that this is identical with the other. It seems, however, more probable that it took place towards the close of their year of office; but the whole passage is obscure. If it was an independent revision, any questions arising out of it were equally referred to voμoléraι, who seem in that case to have been specially appointed for the purpose.

8. In addition to all the precautions thus adopted against hasty and inconsistent legislation, a further safeguard was provided in the power given to prosecute the proposer of any law for introducing an illegal measure. This was called γραφὴ παρανόμων, and the proposer was liable to its penalties from the time that the measure passed the Senate till the expiration of a year from the date of its becoming vouos. If this period were allowed to pass without an action being commenced, then by the statute of limitations (πрoleσμías vóμw), the personal liability of the mover ceased; but the same machinery could be brought to bear, as in the case of Leptines, for the abrogation of the law. The first step in the process was an affidavit on the part of the prosecutor that he meant to bring an action, corre

I

sponding to the powμoola in an ordinary suit. In the case of the γραφὴ παρανόμων this was called ὑπωμοσία, a word commonly meaning an affidavit on which to ground an application for the postponement of a trial. The propriety of the name consists in the effect produced by the commencement of the γραφὴ παραvóμwv, by which all further action in respect of the contemplated measure was suspended till the suit should be decided. And in many cases the result was the practical overthrow of a proposal, its mover not caring to proceed further in the face of the threatened action. In such a case he was said ἐᾶν τὸν νόμον ἐν Vπwμorią. If he determined to contest the point, he met the ὑπωμοσία by an ἀνθυπωμοσία, an afhdavit that he meant to defend the action, and then it proceeded in due course to trial in the Heliastic court. If the prosecution was successful, the case being an ayшν тiμηтós, he and the defendant respectively named what each considered an adequate penalty, and the court imposed whichever of the two it thought the more suitable. If the action failed, the measure assailed could be proceeded with from the exact point which it had reached when the vπwμoola was sworn against it; but if it were already vóuos, the prosecutor seems, from the speech against Leptines, to have been bound to propose an alternative measure in its place. If the prosecutor failed to obtain one-fifth part of the votes, he was subject to a fine of a thousand drachmae, and incapable of exercising civic rights (äτμos) till this was paid. In the case of the law of Leptines we find advocates appointed by the State (σúvdikoi) to undertake its defence, of whom Leptines himself was probably one; but this would be because his measure was already law, and as such, under the protection of the State till sufficient cause was shown against it.

INDEX.

The numbers, except where otherwise signified, refer to the
Sections of the Speech.

'Avaypápei év oavidi, Exc. ii. 2. Bathippus, 145.

Επώνυμοι ἥρωες, 94, Exc. ii. 2. Καθημένοι, 165.

Εὖ πάσχειν with acc., 47, 119. Cephisodotus, 146.

Νομοθέται, 92, 93, Exc. ii. 5

and 6.

Naxos, battle of, 77.

Οἰκεῖν, intransitive, 49.
Οὔτε τε, 76.

Optative and conjunctive, 62.
and fut. ind. 62, 133.
Oratio obliqua, irregularities
in, 43, 158.

Orchomenus, 109.

Σίτησις, 107.

Σιτοφύλακες, 32.

Σκαφηφορία, Εxc. i. 10.

Σκιαδηφορία, Εxc. i. 10.
Σπουδαῖος, 75.

Στέρεσθαι, 51.
Συκοφαντία, 152.

Συμμορία, Exc. i. 7 and 8.
Σύνδικοι, 146, 152, Exc. ii. 5
and 8.

Συντέλεια, 23, Exc. i. 7 and 8.

Παρά, 26, 41, 46, 93, 110, 111, Συντριήραρχοι, Exc. i. 6.

138, 164.

Παραγράφειν, 98.

Sicilian expedition, 42, 112,

161, Exc. i. 6.

Παραγράφεσθαι νόμους, Exc. Solon, Exc. ii. l.

ii. 2.

Παρακρούσασθαι, 74.

Strabax, 84.

Παρανόμων γραφή, 34, Εxc. Τέως, 91.

Τί μαθών ; 127.

Τιθέναι νόμον, 3, 55, Exc. ii. 4.
Τιθέσθαι νόμον, 3.

Τιμητός ἀγών, Exc. ii. 8.
Τριηραρχία, 18, Exc. i. 6 to 8.
Τριηραρχοί, voluntary, Exc. i.

7.
Tachus, 76.