matters, protracted the proceedings beyond midnight, to the disgust of all the bystanders, and at last even of themselves. They then, with an evasive object, put in a challenge, offering to surrender certain slaves to be examined by torture as to the assault, and they will make much of this challenge. But had it been a bona fide offer, it would have been made not at the last moment, but long before.

ἡ δίαιτα.] Civil actions at Athens, before being brought into court, were almost invariably referred to arbitration. The Arbitrators (διαιτηταί) were either public and appointed by lot (κληρωτοί), or private and chosen (αἱρετοί) by the parties to the impending suit. In cases brought before a public arbitrator the parties might appeal to a higher Court; whereas the decision of a private arbitrator was final. See esp. Or. 21 (Meid.) § 94 τὸν τῶν διαιτῶννόμον. The δίαιτα here described was of the former kind. (See further Diet. Antiq. s. v. δίαιτα and Excursus to Kennedy's Demosth. Leptines &c. p. 395-403.)

ἐποίησαν—ὥραν.] ‘They prolonged the time beyond midnight. For the plural νύκτες in the sense nocturna tempora cf. Plato Phileb. 50 D νῦν οὖν λέγε πότερα ἀφίης με ἢ μέσας ποιήσεις νύκτας, Protag. 310 c, and Symp. 217 D πόρρω των

νυκτών. Ar. Nub. 1, τὸ χρῆμα τῶν νυκτῶν ὅσον.

οὔτε—διδόναι.] ‘by refusing to read aloud the depositions or to put in copies of the same.' The depositions were indispensable, and the defendants' refusal would obviously protract the proceedings, and lead to lengthy debates between the Arbitrator and the parties to the suit.τῶν παρόντων sc. μαρτύρων. καθ ̓ ἕνα = ἕκαστον, one by one,' singillatim. Or. 9 § 22, καθ ̓ ἕν ̓ οὑτωσὶ περικόπτειν καὶ λωποδυτεῖν τῶν Ἑλλήνων (Buttmann's index to Midias s.v. κατά).

ούτωσί.] ‘merely, sic temere, Homer's αὕτως, οι μάψ οὕτως, 'just bringing our witnesses up to the altar and putting them on their oath and nothing more,' without allowing them to proceed with their depositions.

λίθον.] The mss have βωμόν, retained by the Zurich editors (Baiter and Sauppe), but altered into λίθον by Dindorf and Westermann, on the authority of Harpocration, who has the following article : λίθος· Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Κόνωνος *τῶν τε παρόντων καθ ̓ ἕνα ἡμῖν ούτωσὶ καὶ πρὸς τὸν λίθον ἄγοντες καὶ ἐξορκοῦντες (sic). ἐοίκασι δ' Αθηναῖοι πρός τινι λίθῳ τοὺς ὅρκους ποιεῖσθαι ὡς ̓Αριστοτέλης ἐν τῇ ̓Αθηναίων πολιτείᾳ καὶ Φιλόχορος ἐν τῷ γ' ὑποσημαίνουσι.

challenge, offering to surrender (lit. that they are willing to surrender) certain slaves, whose names they wrote down, to be examined as to the assault.

The πρόκλησις, or challenge, demanding or offering an enquiry into a special 'issue' before an Arbitrator very frequently related to the testimony of slaves presumably cognisant of the matter in dispute. In many cases the challenge would take the form of demanding that the opponent's slaves should be given up to torture (to elicit facts which that opponent was alleged to have concealed or misrepresented) (Dict. Antiq. p. 398 a.) Harpocr. πρόκλησις· εἰώθεσαν, ὁπότε δικάζοιντό τινες, ἐξαιτεῖν ἐνίοτε θεράπαινας ἢ θεράποντας εἰς βάσανον ἢ εἰς μαρτυρίαν τοῦ πράγματος, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκαλεῖτο προκαλεῖσθαι, τὸ δὲ γραμματεῖον τὸ περὶ τούτου γραφόμενον ὠνομάζετο πρόκλησις. (See Or. 45 § 59-62, and Or. 59 § 124-5.)

In the present instance Conon offers to allow certain slaves to be examined. The plaintiff evidently refuses, and this refusal, he says, is sure to be made a strong point against him. He therefore insists that the πρόκλησις in question was a mere ruse to protract the proceedings before the Arbitrator,

and that had it been a bona fide offer it would have been made at an earlier date, and with all the proper formalities (§ 27-29).

τοὺς ἐχίνους.] All the legal documents (μαρτυρίαι, προκλή σεις &c.) produced during an arbitration or, indeed, any preliminary examination, e.g. an ἀνάκρισις, were enclosed in one or more caskets, or έχῖνοι (possibly of a cylindrical shape), which were sealed up and carefully preserved, to be ready in the event of an appeal. See Or. 45 §§ 17 and 57, Or. 39 § 17, and cf. Or. 48 (Olymp.) § 48, τὰς συνθήκας πάλιν σημή νασθαι, τὰ δ ̓ ἀντίγραφα ἐμβαλέσθαι εἰς τὸν ἐχῖνον.

τῷ δικαίῳ τούτῳ.] this plea.

ἤδη διαίτης ἀποφαινομένης.] 'when the award was just being announced. ἀποφαίνεσθαι, in middle of the διαιτητής Dem. Or. 33 (Apat.) § 19, els ὢν (sc. ἄνευ τῶν συνδιαιτητών) ἀποφανεῖσθαι ἔφη τὴν δίαιταν § 20 ἐρήμην κατ' αὐτοῦ ἀπε· φήνατο τὴν δίαιταν (cf. § 21 τὴν ἀπόφασιν ἐποιήσατο): in passive (as here) of the award itself. Reiske's Index (to which these references are due) is wrong in rendering it as a past tense, sententia iam pronuntiata.

certain witnesses, boon companions of his own, deposed that they found the defendant's son and myself fighting in the market-place and that the defendant did not strike me. On my own part, I produce the evidence of strangers who came up by accident, attesting that they saw me struck by the defendant. What motive could these strangers have had for giving 'false evidence' on my side?

30. ὧν ἕνεκ ̓ ἐκκρούων ταῦτ' ἐποίει.] As delay and evasion were the object (ὧν ἕνεκα) of the defendant's conduct (§ 27 ἐπὶ διακρούσει and § 29 διακρούσεως ἕνεκα), we may at first sight suspect (with Westermann) that ἐκκρούων is an interpolation ; it may, however, be defended on the ground that it enables the speaker to reiterate emphatically the real motive of his opponent,-'his purpose, his evasive purpose, in SO doing.' In this view, we may, if we please, punctuate the passage thus : ὧν ἕνεκα, ἐκκρούων, ταῦτ' ἐποίει. Cf. fals. leg. § 144, ἐκκρούσας εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν, and see Or. 36 § 2 and Or. 45 § 4.

ἀξιώσας.] sc. τὸ δίκαιον γενέσε θαι, “to have claimed to have this plea allowed him,' i. e. the plea founded on his appeal to the evidence of his slaves.

ἠλέγχετο.] The construction is, οὗτος ἠλέγχετο ταῦτα πάντα πρὸς τῷ διαιτητῇ ἅπερ (accusative) νῦν παρ' ὑμῖν ἐλέγχεται. Thus the nominative to ἠλέγχεTo is the same as that of ἐδείκνυTo in the next clause, and no change of construction is requisite.

πᾶσι.] not masc., but to be taken with τοῖς ἐγκεκλημένοις.

31. ἐμβάλλεται.] sc. εἰς τὸν ἐχῖνον (§ 27), Or. 49 § 65, έμβαλομένου ἐμοῦ ὅρκον εἰς τὸν ἐχῖνον. Trans. 'puts in a false deposition endorsed with names which, I take it, you will recognize, when you hear them.'

ἐπιγράφεται.] Οr. 53 § 14, κλητῆρα ἐπιγράφεται. The phrase hardly means 'to give in one's list of witnesses' (L and S), but rather to have their names inscribed as witnesses.' ἐπιγράφεται, it will be noticed, is previous in order of time to ἐμβάλλεται. This ὕστερον πρότερον enables the speaker to lead up more easily to the mention of the names of the witnesses.

Westermann draws attention to the following μαρτυρία as indisputably authentic, and therefore serving as a standard by which others purporting to be original depositions may be tested. (See note on Or. 35 (Lacr.) § 10.)