The Procedure of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines: How to Repeal (And Replace) an Existing Law

Abstract:

The article offers a novel interpretation of the procedure followed in the case of Demosthenes’ speech Against Leptines, clarifying the workings of the institutions that secured the coherence of the laws of Athens. The procedure of this case of γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδειον θεῖναι seems idiosyncratic: the case came to court over a year after the enactment of the law of Leptines, so Leptines was no longer liable to punishment and the action was only against the law itself; it also involved the proposal of a replacement law. Scholars have argued either that the θεσμοθέται devised a special procedure for these circumstances or that Demosthenes deceived the judges into believing they could enact the replacement law. I argue that there existed two regular uses of the γραϕὴ νόμον μὴ ἐπιτήδειον θεῖναι: (1) to repeal laws that had been enacted irregularly and punish the proposer; (2) as part of nomothesia, to repeal existing laws that contradicted the new bill. This second use is the one that we find in Against Leptines: Demosthenes attempts to repeal Leptines’ law as part of the procedure to enact the replacement law. If the accusation is successful, he pledges to have the new bill enacted by the νομοθέται.