id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
grbs-561	Phillips, David D.	Why Was Lycophron Prosecuted by Eisangelia?	2006	20	.pdf	application/pdf	8165	309	53	DAVID D. PHILLIPS 377 ing to this scheme, 333 is not a definite date but a terminus ante quem non:6 nowhere in his defense does Lycophron state that he departed for Lemnos immediately after the wedding, and we have no reason to presume that he did so.7 While accepting 333 as “probably correct,” David White- head has recently called into question both the identification of Dioxippus’ victory mentioned in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus and the validity of 330 as a terminus ante quem.8 Grenfell and Hunt’s restoration e]fiw [ÉO]lu[mp¤an] is admittedly conjectural, as Whitehead observes, but it has been accepted by all sub- sequent editors and accords with the independent testimony for Dioxippus’ Olympic victory. fr.13).4 A date of 333 for Lycophron’s trial accords with the independent terminus ante quem of July/August 330, when Demosthenes (18.250) indicates that eisangelia prosecutors who garnered less than one-fifth of the jury’s votes were fined 1000 dr.,5 which would appear to rule out a characterization of eis- angelia as “risk-free.”	cache/grbs-561.pdf	txt/grbs-561.txt