Page images
PDF
EPUB

αρχούντος υμίν (έν 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 ου 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 μεν γραφής εκκρουομένης, δικών δε ουκ ουσών, 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 ειπείν.] 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 (S 84).

εισελθείν εις σάς. (Hermann, δίκην ιδίαν )( γραφήν ύβρεως.] Privatalt. $ 61, 19.) Cf. Οr. 54 8 1, ad fin.-διά τον χρόνου γιγνομένου-γραφής εκπόλεμον. This suspension of κρουομένης.]See note on Οr.3692, lawsuits, which the plaintiff ίν' έκκρούοντες 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 § 17); and ούτε φιλανθρωπία λόγων ούτ' the only process that was avail- επαγγελιών μέγεθος. Μidias,875, able under the circumstances ούτε κλαύσαντα ούτε δεηθέντα...

[ocr errors]

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 ωμολόγησε, και τα χρήματα αποστερείν ενεχείρησεν α της τραπέζης είχεν αφορμήν, δίκην ηναγκάσθην αυτω λαχείν, επειδή τάχιστα εξουσία εγένετο. ΙΙ03 γνους δ' ούτος ότι πάντα εξελεγχθήσεται και κάκιστος ανθρώπων περί ημάς γεγονώς επιδειχθήσεται, μηχανάται 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 reply (they are at any rate the προς τους δικαστές ποιήσαντα, only reply given in this speech) where perhaps bribery is tacitly to that portion of Phormio's meant. (Cf. Shilleto on Fals. leg. plea which traversed his oppo. § 117.)

nent's suit on the ground that μέτριοι...ταπεινοί.] i.e. both it infringed the statute of limi. moderate and reasonable in tations' (Or. 36 § 26). But it their terms.’ Fals. leg. 8 15, may be noticed on Phormio's μετρίους λόγους, where Shilleto side that at least 18 years had quotes Ulpian : ήγουν επιεικείς, elapsed since the death of φιλανθρώπους.

Apollodorus' father, and eight 5. ίνα...συντέμω.]Thereason for since that of his mother, before the speaker's hurrying over this the suit was instituted ; and part of his statement is partly during the interval the plaintiff because the overtures of recon- found time for ever so many ciliation on Phormio's side, lawsuits in cases where his which he takes credit to him. private interests were but parself for candidly admitting, are tially concerned (Or. 36 $ 53). really more to Phormio's credit παρεγράψατο κ.τ.λ.] See notes than to his own.

on p. 2. For μάρτυρας ως αφήκα, δίκην] i.e. the suit κατά Φορ- see Or. 36 SS 24, 25; and for the μίωνος, to meet which a special depositions on the lease,' ib. plea is put in on Phormio's § 4, and on the 'will,' ib. & 7. behalf in Or. 36. The words 6. πρότερον λέγειν.] «Malim επειδή τάχιστα εξουσία εγένετο πρότερος, Dobree. Cf. Isocr. are possibly meant as a partial 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 μέν τότε πολύ λήν 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 μαρτυρείν αίτιοι τούτων εγένοντο. περί μεν δή των άλλων των μεμαρτυρηκότων, όταν προς εκείνους εισίω, τότε ερω περί

8 1, φεύγων την δίκην πρότερος λέγω του διώκοντος. See on Or. 34 8 4, κατηγορείν του διώκοντος, and ibid. 8 1,, εν τώ 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 n.) 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=I. 474, 485 of 2nd Germ. ed.)-For

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

7. ουκ αν οιδ' 8 τι άλλο είχον.] åv is often attracted to the negative and separated from its verb (e. g. είχον) by the interposition of olda (as here) or otoual, δοκώ, φημι (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. I. 76, 4.) It is quite unnecessary to accept the sug. gestion of Cobet ουκ οίδ' αν και τι (Νου. Lect. 581), or that of Dobree distingue avròs oủk äv, οίδ' ότι, άλλο είχον.'

προς εκείνους εισίω] 8ο. εις δικαστήριον. “When I proceed against them,' Endius and Scy. thes, contrasted with oúrooi, the present defendant. Compareg17, 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

[ocr errors]

ών δ' ουτοσί Στέφανος μεμαρτύρηκεν, ήδη πειράσο8 8 μαι διδάσκειν υμάς. λαβέ δ' αυτήν την μαρτυρίαν και

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

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

1 testimonium omisit 2. 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 a trierarchy at so λούμενοι υφ' ετέρων.- εξ αυτής, advanced an age. But the name ex ipsa, perhaps, rather than was far from uncommon, and

-On επίλαβε το ύδωρ cf. the deme may have been asnote on Οr. 54 8 36.

ex ea.

signed at random by the writer Στέφανος Μενεκλέους κ.τ.λ.] of the document. Like many, if not most of the The name "Ένδιος Έπιγένους documents inserted in the Λαμπτρεύς is given in one MS. speeches of the Attic Orators, only (cod. Ven. Φ.). An inthis 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 Λαμπτρευs whose father may 46 § 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, Ekúons 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 supposes 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 παρεϊναι 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 διαιτητής 'Αμφίας ο Κηφισοφώντος κηδεστής: 'Απολλόδωρον δε ουκ έθέλειν ανοίγειν είναι δε τα αντίγραφα των διαθηκών των Πασίωνος.]

h Tà Bekker (cf. Arg. line 9). TdS' (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 raür' (as Dobree proposes) we must rather awkwardly get the predicate out of τα αντίγραφα. The speaker him

expresses the sense better in $S 10, 23. (Westermann, U. 8. p. 108.)

SS 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

willpublicly 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 discre. pancy, 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 witness only, instead of with many (as my opponents have made it qut); and of course I should

6

« PreviousContinue »