ἐκεῖ δι ̓ ἑαυτῶν εἶχον μετὰ τούτου τὸ βουλευτήριον καὶ τούτων τῶν κακῶν εἰσιν αἴτιοι. δεῖ δὴ πάντας ὑμᾶς γιγνώσκειν ὅτι τούτοις ἐστὶ μὲν ἡ πρόφασις τῆς συνηγορίας τῇ βουλῇ βοηθεῖν, τῇ δ ̓ ἀληθείᾳ ὑπὲρ αὐ τῶν ἀγωνιοῦνται καὶ τῶν εὐθυνῶν, ἃς αὐτοὺς προσήκει 39 δοῦναι τῶν πεπραγμένων. ἔχει γὰρ οὕτως. ἂν μὲν ἀπογνῶτε τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην, ἅπαντές εἰσιν ἀπηλλα an in all Athenian finance, municipal and national, that whereever there was a ταμίας, dispenser, treasurer, or paymaster, there was by his side an ἀντιγραφεύς to check his expenditure. Thus it is proved by inscriptions that there was αντιγραφεὺς to each deme: and a general in the field disposed of his own military chest subject to a like control (Demosth. de Chers. p. 101 § 47, where, however, the word ἀντιγραφεὺς does not occur). Of the two chief officers who bore this name, the ἀντιγραφεὺς τῆς διοι κήσεως attached to the principal finance minister (see on Lycurgus, above § 35 n.), and the ἀντιγραφεὺς τῆς βουλῆς, the latter must here be meant. I find, it impossible to agree with Boeckh (P. E. bk. II. note 162), that Harpocration is mistaken, and that the present passage relates to subordinate checkingclerks; or that there were three principal αντιγραφείς as Boeckh also states (P. E. p. 186), on the authority of Suidas, who has confounded the ἀντιγραφεὺς with the γραμματεὺς, or secretary of the senate, who prefixed his name to its decrees: or that there was only one, as Schoemann seems to hold in his latest work (Antiq. p. 378, note 4). It seems clear that the ἀντιγραφες was distinguished from the γραμματεύς, by checking financial matters only, not proceedings generally and that Harpocration is right when he says, quoting good authorities : Διττοὶ δὲ ἦσαν ἀντιγραφεῖς, ὁ μὲν τῆς διοικήσεως, ὥς φησι Φιλόχορος, ὁ δὲ τῆς βουλῆς, ὡς ̓Αριστοτέλης ἐν 'Αθηναίων πολιτείᾳ. ἐκεῖ οἵπερ ἐκεῖ τὸ βουλευτήριον] 'Who then with the defendant used to manage the senatehouse.' It is agreed that èkeî here =τότε, a sense of which I cannot find another undoubted example: Soph. Philoct. 395, and Eurip. Ion, 546, 554, have been quoted, but all three passages may be explained otherwise: see Mr Paley's notes on each. καὶ ἐπὶ χρόνου τάσσεσθαι, docetur Anecd. Bekk. p. 188, init.' G. H. Schaefer.-Demosth. says several times δι ̓ ἑαυτοῦ ἔχειν for to hold in one's hands:' Funkhaenel adduces de Rhod. Lib. p. 194 § 14, δι' αὑτῶν εἶχον τὴν πόλιν. Olympiod. p. 1171, § 15, τὸ ἀργύριον τοῦθ ̓ ἅπαν εἶχεν αὐτὸς δι ̓ ἑαυτοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος. de Cor. Trierarch. p. 1234 § 22, πάντα δι' αὑτῶν ποιοῦνται (not to be construed as if it were ποιοῦσιν). § 39. ἂν μὲν ἀπογνώτε] Here, to dismiss' the impeachment, τὴν γραφήν: more usually to acquit' the defendant, c. genit. pers. like καταγιγνώσκειν. 40 γμένοι καὶ δίκην οὐδεὶς οὐδεμίαν μὴ δῷ· τίς γὰρ ἔτ ̓ ἂν καταψηφίσαιτο ἐκείνων, τὴν βουλὴν ὑμῶν ἐστεφα νωκότων, ἧς οὗτοι προέστασαν; ἐὰν δὲ καταγνώτε, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ εὔορκα ἔσεσθ ̓ ἐψηφισμένοι, εἶτ ̓ ἐπὶ ταῖς εὐθύναις ἕκαστον τούτων λαμβάνοντες, ὃς μὲν ἂν ὑμῖν ἀδικεῖν δοκῇ, κολάσετε, ὃς δ ̓ ἂν μὴ, τότ' ἀφή σετε. μὴ οὖν ὡς ὑπὲρ τῆς βουλῆς λεγόντων καὶ τῶν πολλῶν ἀκούετε, ἀλλ ̓ ὡς ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν παρακρουομένοις ὀργίζεσθε. Ἔτι τοίνυν ̓Αρχίαν οἶμαι τὸν Χολαργέα (καὶ γὰρ οὗτος ἐβούλευε πέρυσιν ὡς ἐπιεικῆ δεήσεσθαι καὶ συν Compare [Demosth.] Theocrin. p. 1327 § 17, οὐ καλῶς ἔχει ταύτην ἀπογιγνώσκειν τὴν ἔνδειξιν: on the other hand, ἀπογνῶναι τῆς δίκης, c. Phorm. p. 913 § 22, p. 920 § 45, Anecd. Bekk. p. 183, 24: Απογιγνώσκειν· ἀφεῖναι τῶν ἐγκλημάτων. κολάσετε] The active form, as always in the Orators; κολάσομαι Xenophon, Plato: contr. κολώμαι, apparently only in Aristophanes. “The quotations of fut. act. will show that Hemsterhuis and Porson were quite wrong in asserting that the Attics use only the mid. fut. of this verb,' and that Buttmann, Passow, and even Poppo are scarcely right in calling the mid. fut. usitatior."" Veitch, S. V. καὶ τῶν πολλῶν] Of course to be joined with ὑπὲρ τῆς βούλης: et populi, as Jerome Wolf and Kennedy; rather than maximae partis senatus, as Jurinus, Funkhaenel, Dindorf. §§ 40, 41. Archias also, α member of last year's senate, who poses as an honest man, will probably intercede for Androtion. But you can ask him a few pertinent questions. If he justifies the conduct of the senate, what becomes of his character for honesty? if his advice was not listened to, what can he say for his colleagues ? if he held his tongue, he connived at their proceedings. § 40. τὸν Χολαργέα] His deme was Χολαργος οι Χολαρ γία, of the tribe Acamantis. The names of the demotae occur much oftener than those of the demes, both in authors and inscriptions: hence there is often an uncertainty about the latter. ἐπιεικῆ] In Demosth. (honest, well-principled, respectable,' c. Phorm. p. 915 § 30 ἵν ̓ ἐπιεικεῖς δοκῶσιν εἶναι περὶ τὰ συμβόλαια, Lacrit. p. 925 § 7 οιόμενος εἶναι ἐπιεικεῖς ἀνθρώπους καὶ οἶοι περ προσεποιοῦντο καὶ ἔφασαν εἶναι: in both these instances of commercial honesty. Theocrin. p. 1343 § 66 ἐπιεικῆ δόξαν ἔχων έτελεύτησεν of general respectability. In Plato still more indeterminate, simply = ἀγαθὸς, as I have noted on Protag. 336 D. Αdν. ἐπιεικώς tolerably, both ερεῖν αὐτοῖς. ἐγὼ δ ̓ οἶμαι δεῖν ὡδί πως ἀκούειν Αρχίου, ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ταῦτα, ἃ κατηγόρηται τῆς βουλῆς, πότερ' αὐτῷ δοκεῖ καλῶς ἔχειν ἢ κακῶς· κἂν μὲν φῇ καλῶς, μηκέτι τὸν νοῦν ὡς ἐπιεικεῖ 606 προσέχειν, ἂν δὲ κακῶς, τί δὴ ταῦτ ̓ εἴα φάσκων 41 ἐπιεικὴς εἶναι, πάλιν αὐτὸν ἐρωτᾶτε. κἂν μὲν ἐναντία λέγειν φῇ, μηδένα δ ̓ αὐτῷ πείθεσθαι, ἄτοπον δήπου νῦν λέγειν ὑπὲρ τῆς τὰ βέλτιστα οὐχὶ πειθομένης ἑαυτῷ βουλῆς· ἂν δὲ σιωπᾶν, πῶς οὐκ ἀδικεῖ, εἰ παρὸν ἐξαμαρτάνειν μέλλοντας ἀποτρέπειν τοῦτο μὲν οὐκ ἐποίει, νῦν δὲ λέγειν τολμᾷ ὡς δεῖ τοὺς τοσαῦτα κακὰ εἰργασμένους στεφανώσαι; 42 Οἶμαι τοίνυν αὐτὸν οὐδ ̓ ἐκείνων ἀφέξεσθαι τῶν λόγων, ὅτι ταῦτα πάντ ̓ αὐτῷ διὰ τὰς εἰσπράξεις γέγονεν, ἃς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ὀλίγους εἰσπρᾶξαι φήσει πολλὰ χρήματ ̓ ἀναιδῶς οὐ τιθέντας. καὶ κατηγορή c add vuâs Z Bekk, in Plato and the Orators, Shilleto, de F. L. p. 450 § 340= 392. δεῖν ὡδί πως ἀκούειν ̓Αρχίου] 'You ought, I think, when you hear Archias, to do something of this sort.' Dindorf and Benseler here follow Σ in omitting ὑμᾶς, which even the Zurich editors retain. ἐρωτᾶν ...ἐρωτᾶτε] The construction changed for the sake of variety: see above § 36. The argument is ingenious but sophistical: the charges against the senate (2 κατηγόρηται τῆς βουλῆς) are assumed as proved. § 41. ἐναντία λέγειν] course an imperfect infinitive, though Funkhaenel goes out of his way to deny the fact: cf. § 25. The reading ἀντιλέγειν has slight MS. authority, but is preferred by Cobet, Nov. Lect. p. 523, and is certainly neater. §§ 42-46. As a last argu- § 42. ὀλίγους...πολλὰ χρήματα] ὀλίγους, for which Jerome Wolf σει τούτων, πρᾶγμα ῥᾴδιον, οἶμαι, διαπραξάμενος, τῶν μὴ τιθέντων τὰς εἰσφορὰς, καὶ φήσει πᾶσαν ἄδειαν ἔσεσθαι τοῦ μὴ τιθέναι τὰς εἰσφορὰς, εἰ 43 καταψηφιεῖσθε αὐτοῦ ὑμεῖς δ ̓, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, πρῶτον μὲν ἐκεῖνο ἐνθυμεῖσθε, ὅτι οὐ περὶ τούτων δικάσειν ὀμωμόκατε, ἀλλ ̓ εἰ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τὸ ψήφισμα εἶπεν, εἶθ ̓ ὅτι πάνδεινόν ἐστι, κατηγορίαν ποιούμενον ὡς ἀδικοῦσί τινες τὴν πόλιν, αὐτὸν ἀξιοῦν ὧν ἀδικεῖ μειζόνων ὄντων μὴ δοῦναι δίκην· πολὺ γὰρ δήπου μεῖζόν ἐστ ̓ ἀδίκημα γράφειν 44 παρὰ τοὺς νόμους ἢ τὴν εἰσφορὰν μὴ τιθέναι. ὅτι τοίνυν οὐδ ̓ εἰ φανερῶς ἔμελλεν ἁλόντος τούτου μηδεὶς εἰσοίσειν μηδ ̓ ἐθελήσειν εἰσπράττειν, οὐδ ̓ οὕτως ἀποψηφιστέον, ἐκ τῶνδε γνώσεσθε. ὑμῖν παρὰ τὰς εἰσφορὰς τὰς ἀπὸ Ναυσινίκου, παρ ̓ ἴσως τάλαντα ὰ καταψηφιεῖσθε αὑτοῦ Ζ. καταψηφιεῖσθ ̓ αὑτοῦ Bens. proposed ἐνίους, is not said in disparagement of A.'s services, as G. H. Schaefer imagined: for Benseler rightly points out that the words are put into his own mouth (φήσει). The argument that a few rich and unscrupulous men were not ashamed to withhold large sums due to the public, and to persecute him for compelling them to disgorge, A. thought likely to weigh with an Athenian jury, always ready to suspect oligarchical insolence. Hence also πρᾶγμα ῥᾴδιον. διαπραξάμενος] Dobree corrects διαπραττόμενος and brackets τῶν μὴ τιθέντων τὰς εἰσφοράς. Cobet, who approves of both changes, remarks on Dindorf's neglect of Dobree, quo nemo melior Demostheni interpres et emendator obtigit.' Dobree is, of course, a man after Cobet's 6 own heart as a contemner of the MSS.: but in the present case I believe them to be right. ἄδειαν...τοῦ μὴ τιθέναι] impunity for non-payment' of the property-tax. In Timocr. § 31 ἄδειον τοῦ μή τι παθεῖν ἀηδὲς ἢ δεινὸν there is a different shade of meaning; ἄδεια is referred to the penalty, not the offence, exemption from unpleasant or serious consequences.' For the legal sense of ἄδεια, ‘a vote of the people promising indemnity,' see Dict. Antiq. s. v. § 43. πάνδεινον ... κατηγορίαν ποιούμενον. αὐτὸν ἀξιοῦν] it is monstrous in one who complains of others wronging the state to expect to escape punishment himself.' § 44. παρὰ τὰς εἰσφορὰς τὰς ἀπὸ Ναυσινίκου] Upon all the [property] taxes from the time of Nausinicus,' K. rightly. IIapà τριακόσια ἢ μικρῷ πλείω, ἔλλειμμα τέτταρα καὶ δέκα ἐστὶ τάλαντα, ὧν ἑπτὰ οὗτος εἰσέπραξεν, ἐγὼ 607 δὲ τίθημι ἅπαντα. ἐπὶ μὲν δὴ τοὺς ἑκόντας τιθέντας οὐ δεῖσθε ̓Ανδροτίωνος, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς ἐλλείποντας. 45 ἔστι τοίνυν ὑμῖν νυνὶ σκεπτέον εἰ τοσούτου τιμᾶσθε τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ τοὺς κειμένους νόμους καὶ τὸ εὐορκεῖν· εἰ γὰρ ἀποψηφιεῖσθε τούτου φανερῶς οὕτω • Eλelμμатα Z Bens. cum libris praeter k. · ἑπτὰ τάλαντα Z Bens. cum ΣΥΩkrs. expresses proportion,-'according to,' Jelf § 636, iii. k. quoting Lept. p. 467 § 32 πapà тàs τριάκοντα μυριάδας δίδωσιν ὑμῖν μυρίους μεδίμνους, 'on every 300,000 bushels gives you 10,000.' [Demosth.] Erot. p. 1402 § 4 παρὰ τοὺς χρωμένους τὸ πλεῖστον διαλλαττόντων, ‘(circumstances) differing according to the use made of them.' Thucyd. VIII. 29. 2 παρὰ πέντε ναῦς is however wrongly referred to this head, and translated 'for every five ships'; the meaning is within five ships, i.e. allowing pay for five ships over, 60 when there were really only 55. (Classen's acute handling of this difficult passage is well worth study.) The archonship of Nausinicus falls B.C. 378-7 (the Athenian year beginning in July) at the breaking out of the war called in § 15 'the last war with the Lacedaemonians.' The elo popà was then remodelled and the συμμο pía introduced for the first time. Boeckh treats this subject at great length in P. E. book IV. chs. vii.-ix.: the results are given more clearly, as well as concisely, in Dict. Antiq. s. v. Eisphora. Compare also Grote ch. 77 (vII. p. 100 ff.). Schoemann, Antiq. p. 457 f. The W. D. present passage is discussed by Grote, in opposition to Boeckh, in an excellent note (vII. p. 102 ed. 1862). Boeckh thought that the whole 300 talents here mentioned were levied in the single year of Nausinicus' archonship: this looks, as Grote observes, as if he adopted the reading ἐπὶ Ναυσινίκου (Taylor's conjecture, approved by Reiske). Grote on the other hand gives good reasons for his opinion that 'a total sum of 300 talents or thereabouts, had been levied (or called for) by all the various property taxes imposed from the archonship of Nausinicus down to the date of the speech,' a period of about 23 years. This, it must be added, is the only admissible rendering of ἀπό. ἐγὼ δὲ τίθημι ἅπαντα] ‘I will assume however that he levied the whole.' In Timocr. § 162, where the argument is precisely similar, the amount of arrears collected by Androtion and his associates (oûTO, including Timocrates himself) is reduced to five talents. § 45. εἰ τοσούτου τιμᾶσθε] 'Whether you value the constitution and the established laws and the observance of your oaths at this (miserable) price of 7 or even 14 talents.' 4 |