k σημεῖα τοῦ τοῦτον συκοφαντεῖν ἐγκαλοῦντ ̓ ἀφορμήν. ἀλλ ̓, οἶμαι, μέγιστον μέν ἐστιν ἁπάντων τεκμήριον τοῦ μηδεμίαν λαβεῖν ἀφορμὴν εἰς ταῦτα τουτονὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ μισθώσει γεγράφθαι προσοφείλοντα τὸν Πασίων ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν, οὐ δεδωκότα ἀφορμὴν τούτῳ, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ τοῦτον ἐν τῇ νομῇ μηδὲν ἐγκαλοῦντα φαί νεσθαι, τρίτον δ ̓, ὅτι μισθῶν ἑτέροις ὕστερον ταὐτὰ 1 om. Ζ cum ΣΦ. * ἐγκαλοῦντα Ζ. τὸ τοῦτον Bekk. cum marg. Σ. debtor to the bank. (2) On the partition of the property, plaintiff put in no claim to such stock. (3) After the termination of defendant's lease of the bank, plaintiff let it to others for the same sum and no less; and did not specially transfer to them any banking-stock besides. (4) The plaintiff during the life of his mother, who was perfectly familiar with all these details, made no demand on the defendant; it was only when she died that he set up a fraudulent claim, not for any banking-stock as now, but for a sum of 3000 dr. The claim was submitted to the arbitration of some relatives of the plaintiff, and upon their award the defendant for peace and quietness' sake paid the money and a second time received from the plaintiff a release of first two refer to the defendant, the third to the plaintiff, Apollodorus. The ambiguity arising from the same pronoun being applied to two different persons, would be readily dispelled by the orator's delivery. Cf. § 42 n. πроσоpεiλovтα.] sc. 11 talents § 46.τῇ νομῇ, § 8 fin. μισθῶν ἑτέροις κ.τ.λ.] i. e. to Xenon and the others in § 13. The argument is: assume the defendant defrauded the plaintiff of bank-stock amounting to 20 talents. Then the stock in question could not have formed part of the business when the plaintiff let it to the later lessees. The plaintiff then should either have let it to them at lower terms than to the defendant, or have handed over to the bank an equivalent to the stock alleged to be missing. He did neither; he made no fresh transfer and he charged them the same rent. Therefore the property must have been in the same condition as when the defendant originally leased it from the plaintiff's father.— The context compels us to make Apollodorus the subject of the sentence μισθών—φανήσεται, but the bank, it will be remembered, became the property not of Apollodorus, but of Pasicles, ταῦτα του ἴσου ἀργυρίου οὐ φανήσεται προσμεμισθω13 κὡς ἰδίαν αφορμήν. καίτοι εἰ, ἣν ὁ πατὴρ παρέσχεν, ὑπὸ τοῦδε ἀπεστέρητο, αὐτὸν νῦν προσῆκεν ἐκείνοις ἄλλοθεν πορίσαντα δεδωκέναι. ὡς τοίνυν ταῦτ ̓ ἀληθῆ λέγω, καὶ ἐμίσθωσεν ὕστερον Ξένωνι καὶ Εὐφραίῳ καὶ Εὔφρονι καὶ Καλλιστράτῳ, καὶ οὐδὲ τούτοις παρέδωκεν ἰδίαν ἀφορμὴν, ἀλλὰ τὰς παρακαταθήκας καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τούτων ἐργασίαν αὐτὴν ἐμισθώσαντο, λαβέ μοι τὴν τούτων μαρτυρίαν, καὶ ὡς τὸ ἀσπιδοπηγεῖον είλετο. 14 Μεμαρτύρηται μὲν τοίνυν ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθη ναῖοι, ὅτι καὶ τούτοις ἐμίσθωσαν καὶ οὐ παρέδωκαν ἰδίαν ἀφορμὴν οὐδεμίαν, καὶ ἐλευθέρους ἀφεῖσαν ὡς μεγάλα εὖ πεπονθότες, καὶ οὐκ ἐδικάζοντο οὔτ ̓ ἐκείνοις τότ ̓ οὔτε τούτῳ. ἓν μὲν τοίνυν χρόνον ἡ μήτηρ ἔζη ἡ πάντα ταῦτ ̓ ἀκριβῶς εἰδυῖα", οὐδὲν ἔγκλημα πώποτε ἐποιήσατο πρὸς τουτονὶ Φορμίωνα Απολλό δωρος· ὡς δ ̓ ἐτελεύτησεν ἐκείνη, τρισχιλίας ἐγκαλέσας 949 τ ἀκριβῶς ταῦτ ̓ εἰδυΐα Z cum Σ. ἀκριβῶς εἰδυῖα ταῦτα FΦ. ταῦτ ̓ ἀκριβῶς εἰδυῖα Bekk. when the latter came of age and Phormio's lease expired ; we must therefore conclude that the elder brother acted as agent on behalf of his less experienced younger brother. 13. τοῦδε...αὐτὸν.] Defendant and plaintiff respectively.—-νῦν ' in that case,' referring to the hypothesis εἰ — ἀπεστέρητο. αὐτὸν, standing first in the clause, must mean ipsum. ἐμίσθωσεν.] Granted the lease (on behalf of Pasicles). Below we have ἐμισθώσαντο, referring, as usual, to the lessees. αὐτὴν.] 'Alone;' explained by οὐ παρέδωκαν ἰδίαν ἀφορμήν. 14. ἐμίσθωσαν ... παρέδωκαν.] The plurals refer to the two brothers. ἐλευθέρους ἀφεῖσαν.] Xenon, Euphraeus and the other lessees appear (like Phormio) to have been slaves originally. The family shew their gratitude for their services by giving them freedom (ὡς μεγάλα εὖ πεπονθότες). G. H. Schaefer less satisfactorily understands the words set free from all further claims :' a sense which is at first sight partly supported by καὶ οὐκ ἐδικάζοντο below. ὡς ἐτελεύτησεν.] The speaker insinuates that Apoll. purposely waited till his mother's death, as her familiarity with all the details of her late husband's property would have thwarted ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς πρὸς αἷς ἔδωκεν ἐκείνη δισχιλίαις τοῖς τούτου παιδίοις, καὶ χιτωνίσκον τινὰ καὶ θερά15 παιναν, ἐσυκοφάντει. καὶ οὐδ ̓ ἐνταῦθα τούτων οὐδὲν ὧν νῦν ἐγκαλεῖ λέγων φανήσεται. ἐπιτρέψας δὲ τῷ τε τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικὸς πατρὶ καὶ τῷ συγκηδεστῇ τῷ αὑτοῦ καὶ Λυσίνῳ καὶ ̓Ανδρομένει, πεισάντων τούτων Φορμίωνα τουτονὶ δοῦναι δωρεὰν τὰς τρισχιλίας καὶ τὸ προσὸν καὶ φίλον μᾶλλον ἔχειν τοῦτον ἢ διὰ ταῦτ ̓ ἐχθρὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι, λαβὼν τὸ σύμπαν πεντακισχιλίας, καὶ πάντων ἀφεὶς τῶν ἐγκλημάτων τὸ δεύτερον εἰς τὸ η ἑαυτοῦ Ζ. his plots against Phormio. Her death is described by Apollodorus in Or. 50 § 60, While I was abroad my mother lay ill and was at death's door, and therefore little able to help in retrieving my affairs. It was just six days after my return that, when she had seen me and spoken to me, she breathed her last, when she no longer had such control over her property as to be able to give me all that she desired.' The death took place in Feb. B.c. 360. πρὸς αἷς.] She had left Phormio's children 2000 drachmas, but Apollodorus claims more than that sum also as his own. His avaricious and mean character is shown by his claim to a χιτωνίσκος, a chemise, or 'slave's frock,' perhaps. A man who would make such demands was little likely to omit his present claims, if he had then believed in the justice of them. P.] 15. ἐπιτρέψας, κ.τ.λ.] The plaintiff submitted the claims to the arbitration of Deinias and Nicias (§ 17), his own father-inlaw and brother-in-law respectively. Pollux: ἔλεγον δὲ ἐπιτρέ ψαι δίαιταν, καὶ ἡ δίαιτα ἐκαλεῖτο ἐπιτροπή. δοῦναι δωρεάν.] By making a present' of the 3000 drachmae, Phormio satisfies Apollodorus without admitting his legal claim to the sum. τὸ προσὸν.] Not the 2000 drachmae of $ 14; for they were already given by the mother (ἔδωκεν ἐκείνη), but the • additional articles' χιτωνίσκος καὶ θεράπαινα. [τὸ προσὸν may however refer tοπρὸς αἷς κ.τ.λ. supra. He got the 3000 and the 2000 also that had been left to Phormio's boys. He got from him 5000 in all, and gave him a full release from all further claims; and yet now again he says Phormio has kept back some of Pasion's money ! But (he argues) the discharge then given justifies the παραγραφή now put in. Ρ.] ἀφεὶς.....τὸ δεύτερον.] The former release is mentioned in § 10 fin. This second release is solemnly given in the temple of Athene on the Acropolis. Isocr. Trapez. § 20, ταῦτα συγγράψαντες καὶ ἀναγαγόντες εἰς ἀκρόπολιν Πύρωνα......δίδομεν αὐτῷ φυλάττειν τὰς συνθήκας. 16 ἱερὸν τῆς ̓Αθηνᾶς ἐλθὼν, πάλιν, ὡς ὁρᾶτε, δικάζεται, πάσας αἰτίας συμπλάσας καὶ ἐγκλήματα ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου τοῦ πρὸ τούτου (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι μέγιστον ἁπάν των), ἃ οὐδεπώποτ' ᾐτιάσατο. ὡς τοίνυν ταῦτ ̓ ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τὴν γνῶσιν τὴν γενομένην ἐν ἀκροπόλει, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν παραγενομένων, ὅτ ̓ ἠφίει τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἁπάντων ̓Απολλόδωρος, λαμβάνων τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον. 17 18 ΓΝΩΣΙΣ. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. Ακούετε τῆς γνώσεως, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ, ἣν ἔγνω Δεινίας, οὗ τὴν θυγατέρα οὗτος ἔχει, καὶ Νικίας ὁ τὴν ἀδελφὴν τῆς τούτου γυναικὸς ἔχων. ταῦτα τοί νυν λαβὼν καὶ ἀφεὶς ἁπάντων τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ὥσπερ ἢ πάντων τεθνεώτων τούτων ἢ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ γενησομένης φανερᾶς, δίκην τοσούτων ταλάντων λαχὼν τολμᾷ δικάζεσθαι. Τὰ μὲν οὖν πεπραγμένα καὶ γεγενημένα Φορμίωνι 0 · ἀφίει Ζ. 16. συμπλάσας. ] • Having concocted,'' heaped together,' 'raked up.' τὴν γνῶσιν.] • The award of the arbitrators. Or. 27, § 1, τοῖς οἰκείοις ἐπιτρέπειν and τοῖς ὑπ' ἐκείνων γνωσθεῖσιν ἐμμένειν. Cf. § 17.—ἐν ἀκροπόλει. So supr. τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς ̓Αθηνᾶς. Pollux, διῄτων δ ̓ ἐν ἱεροῖς. Cf. Or. 54 § 26, τὸν λίθον, n. λαμβάνων.] • On the receipt of this money,' viz. the 5000 drachmae. 17. τούτων.] τῶν μαρτύρων τῶν παραγενομένων, § 16. τοσούτων ταλ.] § 3, ταλάντων εἴκοσι. τολμᾷ.] It was acting in open defiance of the law to bring an action after a full acquittance had been given. §§ 18-21. Anticipation of the arguments likely to be brought forward by the plaintiff. He will repeat what he stated before the arbitrator, that his mother destroyed his father's papers at the defendant's instigation. If so (1) how came the plaintiff to make a partition of his patrimony, without any papers to determine its amount? Unless those claims were false and fraudulent, which the plaintiff will scarcely admit, he must have gained possession of his father's papers, and his mother could not have made away with them. (2) Why was no question raised when the plaintiff's younger brother came of age and was receiving from his guardians an account of πρὸς ̓Απολλόδωρον ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἅπαντ ̓ ἀκηκόατε, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι. οἶμαι δ' ̓Απολλόδωρον τουτονὶ 950 οὐδὲν ἔχοντα δίκαιον εἰπεῖν περὶ ὧν ἐγκαλεῖ, ἅπερ παρὰ τῷ διαιτητῇ λέγειν ἐτόλμα, ταῦτ ̓ ἐρεῖν, ὡς τὰ γράμματα ἡ μήτηρ ἠφάνικε πεισθεῖσα ὑπὸ τούτου, καὶ τούτων ἀπολωλότων οὐκ ἔχει τίνα χρὴ τρόπον ταῦτ ̓ 19 ἐξελέγχειν ἀκριβῶς. περὶ δὴ τούτων καὶ ταύτης τῆς αἰτίας σκέψασθε ἡλίκ ̓ ἄν τις ἔχοι τεκμήρια εἰπεῖν ὅτι ψεύδεται. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, τίς ἂν ἐνείματο τὰ πατρῷα μὴ λαβὼν γράμματα ἐξ ὧν ἔμελλεν εἴσεσθαι τὴν καταλειφθεῖσαν οὐσίαν ; οὐδὲ εἰς δήπου. καίτοι δυοῖν δέοντα εἴκοσιν ἔτη ἐστὶν ἐξ ὅτου ἐνείμω, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἔχοις ἐπιδεῖξαι ὡς ἐνεκάλεσας Poloμai Z (see Veitch, Gk. Vbs., and Dindf. Praef. p. xiii.). their trust? (3) On what pa- 18. τὰ μὲν οὖν κ.τ.λ.] Transition from the διήγησις οι πρόθεσις to the πίστεις or proofs (Ar. Rhet. III. 13), from the brief recital of the transactions between plaintiff and defendant (SS 4-17) to the legal and other arguments. τῷ διαιτητῇ.] Pollux: πάλαι δ' οὐδεμία (?) δίκη πρὶν ἐπὶ διαιτητὰς ἐλθεῖν εἰσήγετο. Cf. 54 § 26, ἡ δίαιτα n. τὰ γράμματα.] Not Pasion's will, but his private papers and ledgers or banking-books, τὰ γράμματα τὰ τραπεζιτικά (Or. 49 §§ 43, 59 quoted below in note on § 21, ἐκ ποίων γραμμά των). Cf. Οr. 49 § 5, οἱ τραπεεῖται εἰώθασιν ὑπομνήματα γράφεσθαι ὧν τε διδόασι χρημάτων, κ.τ.λ. and Or. 52 § 4. P. S. D. II. 19. ἐνείματο.] Who would have taken his share of his father's property, if he had not the books from which alone he could know the amount of property left?' He refers to the division of the patrimony decided on by the guardians in consequence of the elder brother spending largely out of the common fund, § fin. This event took place eighteen years before the date of the speech; which, if we could assume that the partition was in the same year as the father's death, viz. 370, would belong to B.c. 352. This however we cannot assume, indeed the language of § 8, πολλὰ ἀναλίσκειν, κ.τ.λ., implies that the elder brother's course of extravagance lasted some time before the partition was decided on. We may therefore perhaps place the partition in B.c. 368, and the speech in B.C. 350. See Introduction. 2 |