THE ARCHON EUKLEIDES. 299 shall remember them ; on the contrary, 1 I will give my vote pur- suant to the existing laws ;" which laws proclaimed themselves as only taking effect from the archonship of Eukleides. A still farther precaution was taken to har all actions for redress or damages founded on acts done prior to the archonship of Eukleides. On the motion of Archinus, the principal col- league of Thrasybulus at Phyle, a law was passed, granting leave to any defendant against whom such an action might be brought, to plead an exception in bar, or paragraphs, upon the special ground of the amnesty and the legal prescription con- nected with it. The legal effect of this paragraphs, or exceptional plea, in Attic procedure, was to increase both the chance of fail- ure, and the pecuniary liabilities in case of failure, on the part of the plaintiff; also, to better considerably the chances of the defendant. This enactment is said to have been moved by Archinus, on seeing that some persons were beginning to insti- tute actions at law, in spite of the amnesty ; and for the better prevention of all such claims. 2 1 Andokid. de Mysteriis, a. 91. nat ov fivrjaiKaK^au, ovde u^ty (sc. uA/l^) HVTJGIKO.KOVVTI) ireiaopai, ifrrjQiovfiai de /cani Toi)f Kei/tevovf vofiovf. This clause does not appear as part of the Heliastic oath given in Dcraosthcn. cont. Timokrat. c. 36, p. 746. It was extremely significant and valuable for the few years immediately succeeding the renovation of the democracy. But its value was essentially temporary, and it was doubtless dropped within twenty or thirty years after the period to which it specially applied.
- The Oral, xviii, of Isokrates, Paragraphe cont. Kallimachum, informs
us on these points, especially sections 1-4. Kallimachus had entered an action against the client of Isokrates for ten thousand drachmae (sects. 15-17), charging him as an accomplice ot Patrokles, the king-archon under the Ten, who immediately succeeded the Thirty, prior to the return of the exiles, in seizing and confiscating a sum of money belonging to Kallimachus. The latter, in commencing this action, was under the necessity of paying the fees called prytaneia; a sum proportional to what was claimed, and amounting to thirty drachmae, when the sum claimed was between one thousand and ten thousand drachmae. Suppose iat action had gone to trial directly, Kallimaehus, if he lost his cause, would have to forfeit his prytaneia, but he would forfeit no more. Now according to the paragraphe permitted by the law of Archinus, the defendant is allowed to make oath that the action against him is founded upon a fact prior to the archonship of Eukleides ; and a cause is tbe
