Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Apology for the Manuscript of Demosthenes 59.67Steven JohnstoneIn the fourth century, when the athenians considered changing a law, they treated the process as equivalent to an accusation against the old law. They therefore held a trial and took care to appoint advocates for the old law, citizens who could vigorously defend the voiceless law against the charges of those who would alter it. In this article I would like similarly to defend a law referred to in Demosthenes 59, Against Neaira, against the editors who would change it. In this speech, Apollodoros (whom I will refer to as the author, as he likely was,1 even though the speech has been preserved among those of Demosthenes) accused Neaira of being a foreigner who was pretending to be married to an Athenian citizen. In practice that meant that she and her partner, Stephanos, were attempting to pass off her children as his, and as being, therefore, legitimate Athenians. Apollodoros told a lurid tale of Neaira's life as a slave and prostitute, of the way she cajoled her clients into buying her freedom, of how, even after she settled down with Stephanos, she continued to practice her trade. This included (so Apollodoros insinuated) pimping her daughter, Phano. Stephanos then hatched a scheme to multiply their profits: a former lover of Neaira, Epainetos, was in town and enjoying Phano's company. Stephanos seized him as a moichos2 and [End Page 229] extorted promise of compensation. After he had given assurances and had been released, however, Epainetos sued Stephanos, citing the law against wrongful confinement of a moichos. In accordance with this law, although he admitted having sex with Phano, he denied it was moicheia because she was not of citizen status, because the mother knew, and because he had spent a lot of money supporting the whole household.3 Apollodoros continued:(Dem. 59.67)On top of this he produced the law which does not permit a man to seize a moichos with these women: all those who sit in a brothel or brazenly parade about.This, at least, is what modern printed editions of Demosthenes 59.67 say. All of the manuscripts, however, say something different:On top of this he produced the law which does not permit a man to seize a moichos with this kind of woman: all those who publicly sit in front of a workshop or sell something in the agora.These texts differ in important ways. The first text juxtaposes two actions—sitting and parading—and attaches to each an adverb (or adverbial phrase) that converts the behavior from innocent to salacious.4 [End Page 230] Though expressed with euphemistic delicacy, its meaning is fairly clear: a man cannot be a moichos for having sex with a prostitute.5 The second text describes two actions—sitting and selling—which, in this context, if not the same, are closely allied;6 it localizes each in an economic space (in front of a workshop and in the marketplace); and, finally, it specifies that both are done openly or publicly. This text uses straightforward, non-metaphorical language: here a workshop (ergasterion) seems to be just a workshop. Prostitutes or merchants, sex or business, the lurid or the mundane: much hinges on the judgment of which version to accept.I will defend the manuscript reading. I will begin by presenting the body of evidence that underpins the indictment of the manuscript: passages from Lysias, Plutarch, and Harpokration. I will then rehearse the prosecutors' arguments, examining the textual and philological mechanics behind the emendations of the text. Having established the basis of the charges against the manuscript, I will take up the defense, arguing first that the reasons for changing the text are insufficient. The burden of proof in this case should not lie with those who would retain a grammatical manuscript reading but with those who would alter it. The burden should be more than simply showing that there is something peculiar about the text or that an invented text can be somehow better—those who would emend the text must show that there's something substantially wrong with the received version. In this case, that...