Thus we have a proposal only, and it may be concluded from ἂν κελεύητε, that even if the Challenge had been accepted, the court would have had to give a special order for such departure from ordinary usage.

Again in Or. 47 (Dem.) κατὰ Εὐέργου ψευδομαρτυριών § 16, we read: ἔδει αὐτὸν, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ ἦν ἅ φασιν αὐτὸν προκαλεῖσθαι, κληρουμένων τῶν δικαστηρίων κομίσαντα τὴν ἄνθρωπον, λαβόντα τὸν κήρυκα, κελεύειν ἐμὲ, εἰ βουλοίμην, βασανίζειν, καὶ μάρτυρας τοὺς δι καστὰς εἰσιόντας ποιεῖσθαι ὡς ἕτοιμός ἐστι παραδούναι. But it would be idle to suppose that this passage proves that the torture might take place in open court; all that is meant is that the defendant might have produced the girl, when the court was about to sit, challenged the plaintiff to 'question' her, and called on the jurors to bear witness that he was ready to hand her over to be tortured in the usual manner and not in public court.

οἷον—ἔξω τῆς χώρας.] As an illustration of this form of Challenge, we find in Or. 32 the plaintiff (Zenothemis) borrowing money in Syracuse (§ 4) and the defendant challenging him at Athens to sail to Syracuse

and appear before the authorities there (§ 18). Cf. ex iure manum consertum voco in Cicero pro Murena § 26 (with Mr Heitland's note).

πλεῖν ἢ βαδίζειν.] Here, as often, contrasted with one another, as the ordinary words for 'going by sea or by land,' Fals. Leg. § 164. οὔτ ̓ ἐπείγεσθαι βαδίζουσιν οὔτε πλεῖν αὐτοῖς ἐπε ῄει.

17. ποικίλῃ στοᾷ.] The fres. coed porch.' So called from its pictures, representing the legendary wars of Athens and the battle of Marathon (Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 186). As is well known, it was this portico which gave the name of Stoics to the

followers of Zeno of Citium. Persius III. 53 quaeque docet sapiens bracatis illita Medis Porticus.

The public arbitrators had particular buildings assigned them according to the tribe to which they belonged: thus in Or. 47 § 12 the arbitration takes place in the Heliaea, οἱ γὰρ τὴν Οἰνεΐδα καὶ τὴν Ερεχθηίδα διαι τῶντες ἐνταῦθα κάθηνται.

ἐχρῆν] As usual, without ἄν We might have had εἴπερ ἀλη θὲς ἦν, ἐνέβαλεν ἂν τὸ γραμματεῖον, implying ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐνέβαλεν, whereas the sentence as it stands

...

σθην οὗτοι δὲ φωραθείεν ...] This sentence, as it stands in the mss, can only mean 'The present witnesses (Stephanus, &c.) used the challenge as a pretext for giving evidence of a will, in the very way in which the court would have believed that the will was my father's, and I should have been debarred from getting a hearing, and in which my opponents would now be palpably convicted of giving false evidence.' This makes nonsense, as the jury in the former trial did believe the witnesses, and Apollodorus was debarred from speaking. äv is quite out of place with ἐπίστευσαν and απεκλείσθην, but not so with φωραθείεν (which cannot here be taken as a simple optative expressing a wish). It thus appears that we should (with G. H. Schaefer) remove av from the aorist indicative and place it with the aor. optative, and read as follows: ws (or wo0') οἱ δικασταὶἐπίστευσαν, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπεκλείσθην...οὗτοι δ ̓ ἂν μάλιστα pwpaleiev. The sense thus gained is fairly satisfactory: the witnesses combined giving evidence of a challenge with giving evidence of a will (made the former a pretext for the latter). The result was that the jury in the previous trial believed the will was really my father's and therefore decided against me without giving me a hearing on my present wrongs; with the further result that by that very means my opponents would be clearly convicted of having given false

P. S. D. II.

evidence; a result quite the contrary of what they anticipated.'

Hermann attempts to explain the passage by the following translation:

'Illi vero, provocationis praetextu usi, de testamento testati sunt eo modo, quo facillime judices hoc patris testamentum esse credere, ego autem ab oranda causa mea excludi debebam [?], ipsi vero falsa testati esse deprehenderentur; atqui contrarium sperabant. Illa enim oûro dé, (hic voce paullum subsistit orator) φωραθείεν τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρ τυρηκότες, ironice dicta esse patet' (Opuscula IV. 27 de particula ἂν I. 7).

Dobree says: Sensus est: ita rem administrarunt, ut tunc quidem judices deciperent; postea autem hoc palam fieret, quamvis id non praeviderent.— Qu. de modorum permutatione. Similis locus F. Leg. 424. 16' τοσοῦτ ̓ ἀπέχουσι τοῦ τοιοῦτόν τι ποιεῖν, ὥστε θαυμάζουσι καὶ ζηλοῦσι καὶ βούλοιντ ̓ ἂν αὐτὸς ἕκα στος τοιοῦτος είναι.

[I suggest ὡς ἂν εἰ μάλιστα, and perhaps oÛToί ye infra, (though οὗτοι δὲ might mean 'yet these' &c.). They gave their evidence so, that if the dicasts were ever so much persuaded, and I was stopped from further proceedings then, yet they will be detected in having lied.' ὡς ἂν φωραθεῖεν is a virtual synonym of ὥστε φωραθῆναι. See Aesch. Ag. 357 (366 Dind.) and my note.

For the use of dè in apodosis, cf. Or. 21 (Mid.) p. 547 § 100, ei dé 5

τις πένης μηδὲν ἠδικηκὼς ταῖς ἐσχάταις συμφοραῖς ἀδίκως ὑπὸ τούτου περιπέπτωκε, τούτῳ δ ̓ οὐδὲ συνοργισθήσεσθε; and for ὡς ἂν with optative equivalent to ὥστε, see Plat. Phaedr. p. 230 в, kal ὡς ἀκμὴν ἔχει τῆς ἄνθης, ὡς ἂν εὐωδέστατον παρέχοι τὸν τόπον,

see how this willow is in full blossom, so as to fill the place with fragrance!' Symp. p. 187 D, τοῖς μὲν κοσμίοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὡς ἂν κοσμιώτεροι γίγο νοιντο οἱ μήπω ὄντες, δεῖ χαρί. ζεσθαι. Ρ.]

§§ 19-23. To prove this, take the evidence of Cephisophon. He deposes to a document having been left him by my father, inscribed 'Pasion's Will;' thinking that to depose to this only was a mere trifle, and that he could not safely go so far as to add (what in itself would have been a simple matter) 'that this was the document produced by the deponent.'-Now, had Phormio's name appeared outside, the deponent might reasonably have kept the document for Phormio; further, had it really been endorsed 'Pasion's Will,' it would have belonged to me by inheritance like the rest of my father's property, and I should of course have appropriated it, feeling that, with a lawsuit before me, the will, if its terms were those alleged, would be rather detrimental to my interests. The fact that, in spite of the alleged endorsement, it has been produced to Phormio, not to myself; and been let alone by me, proves the forgery of the will and the falsehood of the deposition of

Cephisophon. However, I dismiss him for the present, especially as he has given no evidence on the contents of the will, which by the way is a strong proof of the falsehood of the deposition of Stephanus and his friends. Cephisophon, the very person who deposes to having the document, did not dare to depose to its identity with that produced by Phormio; and yet the present witnesses (Stephanus and his friends) have declared that it is a copy of the other, though they cannot claim to have been present when the will was drawn up, never saw it opened before the arbitrator, and indeed have deposed that I refused to open it. If so, have they not clearly charged themselves with having given false evidence?

Maprupía.] The wording of this deposition is identical with that of the speech itself (§§ 18 and 20), with the exception of the clause ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς, (naturally suggested by Karαλειφθῆναι,) and the description of the witness as Κεφάλωνος Αφιδναῖος. Κεφάλων is a parallel form of Kepaliwv and is found elsewhere (Plut. Arat. 52). One Κηφισοφών Αφινδαῖος is mentioned in inscriptions as trierarch and commander of the fleet, and it has been proposed to identify him with the witness in this case, though the name of the trierarch's father is not given (Boeckh, Seewesen p.442). The composer of the deposition may have been led to assign Cephisophon to Aphidna by a passage in Or. 59 κατὰ Νεαίρας