PSEPHISM OF KANNOSCS 197 As soon as the resolution was read in the j;ublic assembly, Euryptolemus, an intimate friend of the generals, denojnced it as In the particular case before us, Euryptolemus was thrown back to appeal to the psephism itself; which the senate, by a proposition unheard of at Athens, proposed to contravene. The proposition of the senate offended against the law in several different ways. It deprived the generals of trial before a sworn dikastery ; it also deprived them of the liberty of full defence during a measured time : but farther, it prescribed that they should all bo condemned or absolved by one and the same vote ; and, in this last respect, it sinned against the psephism of Kannonus. Euryptolemus in his speech, endeavoring to persuade an exasperated assembly to reject the proposition of the senate and adopt the psephism of Kannonus as the basis of the trial, very prudently dwells upon the severe provisions of the psephism, and art- fully slurs over what he principally aims at, the severance of the trials, by offering his relative Perikles to be tried first. The words dl^a (KOOTOV (sect 37) appear to me to be naturally construed with Kara rb Kawuvov ^^t<T//a, as they are by most commentators, though Dr. Thirhvall dissents from it It is certain that this was the capital feature of illegality, among many, which the proposition of the senate presented, I mean the judging and con- demning all the generals by one vote. It was upon this point that the amend- ment of Euryptolcmus was taken, and that the obstinate resistance of So krates turned (Plato, Apol. 20 ; Xenoph. Memor. i, 1, 18). Farther. Dr. Thirlwall, in assigning what he believes to have been the real tenor of the psephism of Kannonus, appears to me to have been misled by the Scholiast in his interpretation of the much-discussed passage of Aris- tophanes. Ekklczias. 1089 : Tovrl rb irpu.-'/fia Kara. TO Kavvuvov oa<j>u( "P/jQia/ta, (Sivelv (5ei /IE fiiaheTujfifievov, Ildif ovv diKuxelv u//0ort'paf ivvfjcto fi.au; Upon which Dr. Thirlwall observes, " that the young man is comparing his plight to that of a culprit, who, under the decree of Cannonus, was placed at the bar held by a person on each side. In this sense the Greek Scholiast, though his words are corrupted, clearly understood the passage." I cannot but think that the Scholiast understood the words completely wrong. The young man in Aristophanes docs not compare his situation with that of the culprit, but with that of the dikastery which triad culprits. The psephism of Kannonus directed that each defendant should be tried sepa- rately : accordingly, if it happened that two defendants were presented for trial, and wen: both to be tried without a moment's delay, the dikastery could only effect this object by dividing itself into two halves, or portions; which w;is perfectly practicable, whether often practised or not, us it was a numerous body. By doing this, K^VCIV diaAfAjj^ufvov, it could try both the defendants at once: but in no other way. Now the young man in Aristophanes c< mparcs himself to the dikastery thus circumstanced ; which comparison s signified by the jmn of flivtit
