Page images
PDF
EPUB

αρχούντος υμϊν (εν τρόπον δε, ουκ ίσως καλόν υιεί περί μητρός ακριβώς είπεϊν), επειδή καταπλεύσας ήσθόμην και τα πεπραγμένα είδου, πολλά αγανακτήσας

και χαλεπώς ενεγκων δίκην μεν ουχ οδός τ' ην ιδίαν 4 λαχείν (ού γαρ ήσαν εν τω τότε καιρώ δίκαι, αλλ' ανε

βάλλεσθε υμείς διά τον πόλεμον), γραφήν δε ύβρεως γράφομαι προς τους θεσμοθέτας αυτόν. χρόνου δε γιγνομένου, και της μέν γραφής εκκρουομένης, δικών δε ουκ ουσων, γίγνονται παιδες εκ τούτου τη μητρί. και μετά ταύτα (ειρήσεται γαρ άπασα προς υμάς ή αλήθεια, ώ άνδρες δικασται) πολλοί μεν και φιλάνθρωποι λόγοι παρά της μητρός εγίγνοντο και δεήσεις δν τρόπον δε (se. έγημε)-ακρι- was a public action,

So just βώς είπεϊν.] Cf. $ 27, διεφθάρκει

below δικών ουκ ουσων means, as ήν εμοί μεν ου καλόν λέγειν. This the courts continued closed for affectation of dutiful delicacy private suits. υμείς refers to the of feeling towards his mother in citizens generally, who are said, the early portions of the speech in the medial sense, “to have is rather inconsistent with the had the sessions (τάς δίκας) apparently gratuitous insinua- postponed.' tion towards its close, where he 4. γραφής ύβρεως προς τους θεbroaches the suspicion that his σμοθέτας.] Isocr. Οr. 20, κατά own brother Pasicles (who was Λοχίτου $ 2, περί της ύβρεως... eight years old at his father έξεστι τώβουλομένη των πολιτών Pasion's death) was really her γραψαμένω προς τους θεσμοθέτας son by Phormio ($ 84).

εισελθείν εις υμάς. (Hermann, δίκην ιδίαν ( γραφήν ύβρεως.] Privatalt. 8 61, 19.). Cf. Οr. 54 8 1, ad fin.-διά τον χρόνου γιγνομένου-γραφής εκπόλεμον. This suspension of κρουομένης.]Seenote on Οr.3682, lawsuits, which the plaintiff ίν' εκκρούοντες χρόνους έμποιώμεν. found in force on returning For χρόνου δε γιγνομένου, Reiske from his trierarchy in E.C. 368, ingeniously, but perhaps unwas due to the hostilities be- necessarily, proposes χρόνου δ' tween Athens and Thebes in έγγιγνομένου, which at any rate the period between the battle of modifies the slight inelegance of Leuctra in B.C. 371, and the the triple repetition γιγνομένου death of Epaminondas at the ...γίγνονται...εγίγνοντο. Cf.Οr.47 battle of Mantineia in B.C. 362. . 8 63, χρόνον εγγενέσθαι. The courts were not sitting for φιλάνθρωποι λόγοι.] “Kindly ordinary business, perhaps be- overtures.' (Blanditiae. G. H. cause there was no pay for the Schaefer.) De Corona, $ 298, dicasts (cf. Or. 39 g 17); and ούτε φιλανθρωπία λόγων ούτ' the only process that was avail. επαγγελιών μέγεθος. Μidias,875, able under the circumstances ούτε κλαύσαντα ούτε δεηθέντα...

υπέρ Φορμίωνος τουτουί, πολλοί δε και μέτριοι και 5 ταπεινοί παρ' αυτού τούτου, ίνα δε, ώ άνδρες Αθη

ναίοι, συντέμω ταύτα, επειδή ποιείν τε ουδέν άετο δεϊν ων τότε ώμολόγησε, και τα χρήματα αποστερείν ενεχείρησενά της τραπέζης είχεν αφορμήν, δίκην ηναγκάσθην αυτω λαχείν, επειδή τάχιστα εξουσία εγένετο. ΙΙ03 γνούς δ' ούτος ότι πάντα εξελεγχθήσεται και κάκιστος ανθρώπων περί ημάς γεγονώς επιδειχθήσεται, μηχαναται και κατασκευάζει ταύτα, εφ' οίς Στέφανος ουτοσί τα ψευδή μου κατεμαρτύρησεν. και πρώτον μεν παρεγράψατο την δίκην, ήν έφευγε Φορμίων, μη είσαγώγιμον είναι έπειτα μάρτυρας, ως αφήκα αυτόν των εγκλημάτων, παρέσχετο ψευδείς, και μισθώσεώς

τινος εσκευωρημένης και διαθήκης ουδεπώποτε γενο6 μένης. προλαβών δε μου ώστε πρότερον λέγειν διά το

ούτε φιλάνθρωπον ... ουδ' οτιούν προς τους δικαστές ποιήσαντα, where perhaps bribery is tacitly meant. (Cf. Shilleto on Fals. leg. § 117.)

μέτριοι...ταπεινοί.] i.e. both moderate and reasonable in their terms. Fals. leg. 8 15, μετρίους λόγους, where Shilleto quotes Ulpian : ήγουν επιεικείς, φιλανθρώπους.

5. ένα...συντέμω.]Thereason for the speaker's hurrying over this part of his statement is partly because the overtures of recon. ciliation on Phormio's side, which he takes credit to him. self for candidly admitting, are really more to Phormio's credit than to his own.

δίκην] i.e. the suit κατά Φορulwvos, to meet which a special plea is put in on Phormio's behalf in Or. 36. The words επειδή τάχιστα εξουσία εγένετο are possibly meant as a partial

reply (they are at any rate the
only reply given in this speech)
to that portion of Phormio's
plea which traversed his oppo.
nent's suit on the ground that
it infringed the statute of limi.
tations' (Or. 36 § 26). But it
may be noticed on Phormio's
side that at least 18 years had
elapsed since the death of
Apollodorus’ father, and eight
since that of his mother, before
the suit was instituted ; and
during the interval the plaintiff
found time for ever so many
lawsuits in cases where his
private interests were but par-
tially concerned (Or. 36 $ 53).

παρεγράψατο κ.τ.λ.) See notes
on p. 2. For μάρτυρας ως αφήκα,
see Or. 36 SS 24, 25; and for the
depositions on the lease,' ib.
§ 4, and on the 'will,' ib. $ 7.

6. πρότερον λέγειν.] “Malim πρότερος, Dobree. Cf. Isocr. . παραγραφή προς Καλλίμαχον,

παραγραφής είναι και μη ευθυδικία εισιέναι, και ταυτ' αναγνούς και τάλλα, ως αυτό συμφέρειν ηγείτο, ψευσάμενος, ούτω διέθηκε τους δικαστές, ώστε φωνήν μηδ' ήντινούν έθέλειν ακούειν ημών προσοφλών δε την επωβελίαν και ουδέ λόγου τυχεϊν αξιωθείς, ως

ουκ οίδ' εί τις πώποτε άλλος ανθρώπων, απήειν βα7 ρέως, ώ άνδρες Αθηναίοι, και χαλεπώς φέρων. λόγον

δ' εμαυτώ διδούς ευρίσκω τους δικάσασι μεν τότε πολλήν συγγνώμην ούσαν (εγώ γαρ αυτός ουκ αν οίδ' και τι άλλο είχον ψηφίσασθαι, των πεπραγμένων μεν μηδεν ειδώς, τα δε μαρτυρούμενα ακούων), τούτους δε αξίους όντας οργής, οι τω τα ψευδή μαρτυρεϊν αίτιοι τούτων εγένοντο. περί μεν δή των άλλων των μεμαρτυρηκότων, όταν προς εκείνους εισίω, τότε ερώ περί

8 1, φεύγων την δίκην πρότερος λέγω του διώκοντος. See on Οr. 34 8 4, κατηγορείν του διώκοντος, and ibid. 8 1,. εν τω μέρει λεγόντων. - προλαβών φθάσας, . having got the advantage of me.”

ευθυδικία εισιέναι.] We might expect the acc. as in Or. 34 § 4, ευθυδικίαν εισιόντα, ου κατηγορείν του διώκοντος (cf. Οr. 36 Arg. 1. 25 άπτεται της ευθείας η.) but the dat, is found in Isaeus, Or. 6 (Philoctem.) 8 53, μη διαμαρτυρία κωλύειν αλλ' ευθυδικία εισιέναι.

την επωβελίαν.] The legal fine of one-sixth of the amount claimed (lit. one obol in each drachma, or 6 obols), inflicted on the plaintiff in private suits (see on Or. 56 § 4) if he failed to secure a fifth part of the votes. In the present case, Apoll. had to pay, in addition to costs, about £800, a sixth part of 20 talents. (Boeckh, Publ. Econ. Book III. § 10=1. 474, 485 of 2nd Germ. ed.)-For

ουδέ λόγου τυχεϊν cf. 8 19, απε, κλείσθην του λόγου-τυχείν.

7. ουκ αν οίδ' ό τι άλλο είχον.] äv is often attracted to the negative and separated from its verb (e. g. elxov) by the interposition of olda (as here) or otoual, δοκώ, φημί (as elsewhere). (Cf. note on Οr. 37 (Pant.) 8 16, ουδ' αν εί τι γένοιτο ψήθην δίκην μου λαχείν, also Goodwin's Moods and Tenses $ 42, 2, and Shilleto on Thuc. 1. 76, 4.) It is quite unnecessary to accept the suggestion of Cobet oủk old' åv 8 TI (Nov. Lect. 581), or that of Dobree distingue αυτός ουκ άν, οίδ' ότι, άλλο είχον.'

προς εκείνους εισίω] 8ο. εις δικαστήριον. “When I proceed against them,” Endius and Scythes, contrasted with oútool, the present defendant. Compare &17, επί τούτον ήα, infr. 8 41 όταν είσίω προς... and Or. 54 8 32 ad fη. εισιέναι, or εισελθεϊν, is used of either litigant (e.g. in Or. 40 g 1, of the plaintiff; and ib. § 5 of

ών δ' ουτοσί Στέφανος μεμαρτύρηκεν, ήδη πειράσο8 μαι διδάσκειν υμάς. λαβε δ' αυτήν την μαρτυρίαν και

ανάγνωθι μοι, ίνα εξ αυτης επιδεικνύω. λέγε" συ δ'
επίλαβε το ύδωρ.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.

1104 [Στέφανος Μενεκλέους Αχαρνεύς, "Ένδιος Έπιγένους Λαμπτρεύς 8, Σκύθης Αρματέως Κυδαθηναιεύς

1 testimonium omisit Σ. uncos in hac quoque oratione additamentis huius generis addidimus Z.

8 Λαμπρεύς Βekker's Berlin ed. (1824). immo Λαμπτρεύς' Ζ, and Bekker's stereotyped Leipsig ed. (1854). the defendant); and also of the poor a patriot as not to have lawsuit itself in Or. 34 § 18. Cf. undertaken any public services Οr. 34 81, ουδεμίαν πώποτε δίκην up to the age of 45 or there.. προς υμάς εισήλθομεν, ούτ' έγκα. abouts (8 66), would have emλούντος ούτ' εγκαλούντες ούτ' έγκα- barked on å trierarchy at so λούμενοι υφ' ετέρων.-εξ αυτής, advanced an age. But the name ex ipsa, perhaps, rather than was far from uncommon, and et ea.--On επίλαβε το ύδωρ cf. the deme may have been asnote on Οr. 54 8 36.

signed at random by the writer Στέφανος Μενεκλέους κ.τ.λ.] of the document. Like many, if not most of the The name "Ένδιος 'Επιγένους documents inserted in the Λαμπτρεύς is given in one MS. speeches of the Attic Orators, only (cod. Ven. Φ.). An in. this deposition may be regarded scription, however, of B. C. 325 as spurious. Its purport is to be gives the name Κριτόδημος Ενfound in SS 9–26 and in Or. δίου Λαμπτρεύς whose father may 46 8 5. The names of Tisias, be the "Evdios of the text, though Cephisophon and Amphias are the name is not a rare one. given in SS 10, 17, and Or. 468 5. Lastly, Σκύθης is naturally Stephanus and Tisias, as well an uncommon name for an as Pasion and Apollodorus are Athenian, though found as such assigned to the deme Acharnae in an inscription. The name in the documents only (88 28, of his father, 'Apuateus, does 46), not in the speech itself. not occur elsewhere, except in Στέφανος Αχαρνεύς appears in Stephanus of Byzantium, who an inscription as trierarch in

makes it mean an inhabitant B. C. 322, but this is not likely of Harma' which he wrongly to be the defendant in the supposed to be a deme of Attica, present action, for at that date whereas it was really the name the latter, if (as is not impro- of a part of the ridge of Parnes. bable) he was about the same age (Abridged from A. Westermann's as Apollodorus, would be about Untersuchungen über die in die seventy; and we can hardly Attischen Redner eingelegten suppose that one who was so Urkunden, pp. 105-8).

μαρτυρούσι παρεΐναι προς τη διαιτητή Τισία 'Αχαρνεϊ, ότε προκαλείτο Φορμίων Απολλόδωρον, ει μη φησιν αντίγραφα είναι των διαθηκών των Πασίωνος το γραμματείον ο ενεβάλετο Φορμίων εις τον εχίνον, ανοίγειν τας διαθήκας τας Πασίωνος, ας παρείχετο προς τον διαιτητήν 'Αμφίας ο Κηφισοφώντος κηδεστής: 'Απολλόδωρον δε ουκ έθέλειν ανοίγειν είναι δε τα αντίγραφα των διαθηκών των Πασίωνος.]

.]' h tå Bekker (cf. Arg. line 9). 7d8' (Sauppe). 'Sequebatur enim quod hic deest testimonium Pasionis, cf. § 10 ad fin.' Z,

[ocr errors]

προύκαλείτο...ανοίγειν.] Challenged him, (in the event of his denying that the document Phormio put into the box was a copy of Pasion's will.) to open the will of Pasion which &c.' On éxivov see note on Or. 54 § 27.

είναι τα αντίγραφα κ.τ.λ.] Α loosely expressed sentence. Tà αντίγραφα των διαθηκών cannot be construed as the subject, and unless we alter tà into ráde (as the Argument has it) or taüt' (as Dobree proposes) we must rather awkwardly get the predicate out of τα αντίγραφα. The speaker himself expresses the sense better in SS 10, 23. (Westermann, u. s. p. 108.)

$S 9—14. It is deposed that Phormio challenged me to open the will, produced (it is alleged) before the arbitrator ; that I refused the challenge and would not open the 'will ;' that the document to which they depose is a counterpart of the original will ; and then follows the copy.

Let us examine this evidence. In the first place, why should one have refused to open the document ?

Oh! to prevent the jury from hearing the terms of the will.'

But, I reply, the witnesses deposed to the will as well as to the challenge, and thus the jury would hear the terms of the

will' publicly recited from the 'copy' whether I opened it or not. What was I to gain by refusing ? Why ! even if they had given no challenge, and had made a mere assertion, and if some one had produced a document purporting to be Pasion's will, it would have been my interest to challenge them and to open the will. In this case, (1) had the contents differed from the terms of the deposition, I should have appealed to the bystanders to bear witness to the discrepancy, which would have been a strong proof that the rest of their case was got up for a purpose. (2) Had the contents agreed, I should have required the producer himself to give evidence. Had he consented, I should have had in him a responsible witness ; had he declined, here again I should have had proof enough that the affair was a fabrication. On this hypothesis, I should have had to deal with one wit. ness only, instead of with many (as my opponents have made it qut); and of course I should

« PreviousContinue »