του, τοσαῦτα δ ̓ αὐτὸν τοῦτον ἀγαθὰ εἰργασμένον ὅσ ̓ ὑμεῖς ἀκηκόατε, τοῦτον οἴεται δεῖν ἑλων τηλικαύτην δίκην ἀδίκως ἐκβαλεῖν. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλο γ ̓ ἔχοις" οὐδὲν ἂν ποιῆσαι. εἰς μὲν γὰρ τὰ ὄντα εἰ βλέπεις ἀκριβῶς, ταῦθ ̓ εὑρήσεις ὧν ἔστιν, ἐὰν, ὃ μὴ γένοιτο, ἐξαπατη50 θῶσιν οὗτοι. ὁρᾷς τὸν ̓Αριστόλοχον τὸν Χαριδήμου ; ποτ ̓ εἶχεν ἀγρὸν, εἶτά γε νῦν πολλοί· πολλοῖς γὰρ u Bekk. exo Z cum 2. · Σται. ἐκβάλλειν Ζ. I Bekk. αὐτὰ Z cum ΕΣΦΒ. theless ruined; the defendant not only paid a rent for the bank but kept up the business for the family of the plaintiff, who, so far from being grateful, takes no account of all this, but even persecutes and calumniates him. Our friend, if for a moment we may call him so, little thinks that honesty is the best policy (as is proved by the defendant's prosperity). The plaintiff at any rate is a case in point; he has (if we are to believe him) lost all his money; had he been a man of sound sense he would not have thrown it away. 49. ἐκβαλεῖν.] In Or. 45 κατὰ Zтepávov A § 70, Apollodorus taunts Stephanus (one of Phormio's witnesses in the present trial) with turning his own uncle out of his patrimony, for arrears of debt: τοκίζων...ἐξέβαλες ἐκ τῆς πατρῴας οὐσίας. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλο γ'.] i.e. If heavy damages are granted the plaintiff, the penalty will prove none other than (will not fall short of) turning the defendant out of house and home. 'Examine the nature of his property closely and you will soon see whose it really is (cf. Teles quoted in § 11 n.) and into whose hands it will fall, if (which heaven forbid) the court is Ꮓ av Z. * Σ. ̓Αρχίλοχον Ζ. misled into condemning him.' The property consists largely of deposits at the bank, invested in different speculations, and incapable of being realised at a moment's notice. If Phormio has to pay damages, there will at once be a run upon his bank; his customers, to secure their property before it is paid away in damages, will claim their deposits, and Phormio, like others before him, will be bankrupt. ἔχοις οὐδὲν ἄν.] Notice the strong affinity or attraction that av has to the negative; which is the reason of the common hyperthesis οὐκ ἂν οἶμαί σε ποιεῖν, &c. Goodwin's Moods and Tenses, § 42. 2, n., and Short's Order of Words in Attic Greek Prose, p. xciv. (3) (b). 50. ̓Αριστόλοχον.] In 45 § 64 Stephanus is described as cringing to Aristolochus the banker in his prosperity, and deserting his son when in great distress after Aristolochus was ruined and had lost all his property. ποτ ̓ εἶχεν ἀγρὸν κ.τ.λ.] ‘He had a farm once,'-'he owned some land in his day; that land has passed to many owners now.' TOTE (olim) is seldom found in so emphatic a position. —πολλοὶ (sc. ἔχουσι τὸν ἀγρόν). ἐκεῖνος ὀφείλων αὐτὸν ἐκτήσατο. καὶ τὸν Σωσίνομον καὶ τὸν Τιμόδημον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τραπεζίτας, οἳ, ἐπεὶ διαλύειν ἐδέησεν οἷς ὤφειλον, ἐξέστησαν ἁπάν των τῶν ὄντων. σὺ δ ̓ οὐδὲν οἴει δεῖν σκοπεῖν οὐδ ̓ 960 ὧν ὁ πατὴρ σοῦ πολλῷ βελτίων ὢν καὶ ἄμεινον σοῦ 51 φρονῶν πρὸς ἅπαντ ̓ ἐβουλεύσατο· ὃς, ὦ Ζεῦ καὶ θεοὶ, τοσούτῳ τοῦτον ἡγεῖτο σοῦ πλείονος ἄξιον εἶναι καὶ σοὶ καὶ ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς ὑμετέροις πράγμασιν, ὥστε ἀνδρὸς ὄντος σοῦ τοῦτον, οὐ σὲ τῶν μισθώσεων κατέ λιπεν ἐπίτροπον καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα ἔδωκε καὶ ζῶν αὐτὸν ἐτίμα, δικαίως, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι τραπεζῖται μίσθωσιν οὐ φέροντες, ἀλλ ̓ αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοῖς ἀ ἐργαζόμενοι πάντες ἀπώλοντο, οὗτος δὲ μίσθωσιν φέρων δύο τάλαντα καὶ τετταράκοντα μνᾶς ὑμῖν ἔσωσε 52 τὴν τράπεζαν. ὧν ἐκεῖνος μὲν χάριν εἶχε, σὺ δ' οὐδένα ποιεῖ λόγον, ἀλλ ̓ ἐναντία τῇ διαθήκῃ καὶ ταῖς ἀπ ̓ ἐκείνης ἀραῖς γραφείσαις ὑπὸ τοῦ σοῦ πατρὸς ἐλαύνεις, διαλύειν.] sc. (τούτους) οἷς ὤφειλον “to settle with, to satisfy, their creditors.' Cf. Or. 37 §12 n. ἐξέστησαν.] Had to give up,' 'were ousted from.' 45 § 64 ἀπώλετο καὶ τῶν ὄντων ἐξέστη. Apatur. § 25, Pantaen. 37 § 49, Ar. Acharn. 615 (K. F. Hermann Privatalt. § 71, 3). Kστῆναι (like ἐκπεσεῖν) would answer as a passive to ἐκβαλεῖν. The regular word for becoming bankrupt is ανασκευάζεσθαι (contrasted with κατασκευάζεσθαι το establish a bank); Dem. Apatur. 33 § 9 τῆς τραπέζης ανασκευασθείσης. Οr. 49 § 68 τοῖς ἀνεσκευασμένοις τῶν τραπεζιτῶν. Cf. infra § 57, ανατρέψαι, η. 51. ἑαυτοῖς ἐργ. πάντες ἀπώλοντο.] This frequent failure of ἐτίμα. Ζ. Η Σ. αὐτοῖς Ζ. om. Z. bankers on their own account, 52. ταῖς ἀραῖς.] Solemn im- ἐλαύνεις, συκοφαντεῖς, διώκεις.] 'Harass, calumniate, prosecute.' διώκεις comes rather feebly after the stronger word συκοφαντεῖς, and in spite of the authority of the Paris MS. there is much to be said for the old order retained by Bekker: ἐλαύνεις, διώκεις, συκοφαντείς. The latter is to some extent confirmed by the Rhetorician Tiberius (περὶ σχημάτων, c. 31), who refers to this passage as an instance of a figure of speech described by 53 συκοφαντεῖς, διώκεις. ὦ βέλτιστε, εἰ οἷόν τε σὲ τοῦτ ̓ εἰπεῖν, οὐ παύσει, καὶ γνώσεις τοῦθ ̓, ὅτι πολλῶν χρημάτων τὸ χρηστὸν εἶναι λυσιτελέστερόν ἐστι; σοὶ γοῦν, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ λέγεις, χρήματα μὲν τοσαῦτ ̓ εἰληφότι πάντ ̓ ἀπόλωλεν, ὡς φῄς· εἰ δ ̓ ἦσθα ἐπιεικῆς, οὐκ ἄν ποτε αὐτὰ ἀνήλωσας. ̓Αλλ' ἔγωγε μὰ τὸν Δία καὶ θεοὺς πανταχῆ σκου πῶν οὐδὲν ὁρῶ, διότι ἂν σοὶ πεισθέντες τουδί καταψηφίσαιντο. τί γάρ ; ὅτι πλησίον ὄντων τῶν ἀδικημά των ἐγκαλεῖς; ἀλλ ̓ ἔτεσι καὶ χρόνοις ὕστερον αἰτιᾷ· ee Z et Dindf. cum ΣτΑ1. διώκεις, συκοφαντεῖς Bekk. 8 γνώση Ζ. 1 παύσῃ Ζ. another Rhetorician (Alexander, περὶ σχημάτων, c. 10) as ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ νοήματος ἐπιμονὴ μετὰ αὐξήσεως. Hig words are: ἐπιμονὴ δέ ἐστιν ὅταν τις πλείω ῥήματα ὀρθὰ ἀλλήλοις ἐπιβάλλῃ, ὡς ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ Φορμίω νος πρὸς τὸν ̓Απολλόδωρον, ἄγεις (sic), ἐλαύνεις, διώκεις, συκοφαντεῖς. δείνωσιν τὸ σχῆμα ἔχει. οὐ παύσει κ.τ.λ.] ‘Do stop, and make up your mind to this truth, that being honourable pays a man better than being very_wealthy. πολλῶν χρημάτων τὸ χρηστὸν λυσ.] Honesty is the best policy. The collocation of the cognate words χρήματα and χρηστὸς may be only accidental. σοὶ γοῦν.] “In your case, at any rate ;' γοῦν is exempli gratia, in illustration of a general maxim. §§ 53-57. But though (for sake of argument) the speaker has pointed out the results which would ensue, if the defendant were condemned, he protests that he can see no ground for such condemnation. Plaintiff brings forward his charge, ever so many h Bekk. διὰ τί Z cum TrΑΙ. years after the alleged offence, and meanwhile has found time forincessantlitigation,especially in public causes where his personal interests were but partially affected. While prosecuting so many others, how came he to let Phormio alone? The presumption is that the plaintiff was never really wronged by him, and that the claim now put in, so long after the event, is utterly false and groundless. To meet these charges, it will be much to the purpose to produce evidence of the bad character of the plaintiff, and also of the integrity and kindly feeling, the generosity and the public services of the defendant. 53. ἔτεσι καὶ χρόνοις ὕστεpov.] i. e. 'years and ages later,' 'ever so many years after,' 'years and years later.' The phrase is curious and is perhaps rightly suspected by Seager, who suggests the emendation ἔτεσι καὶ χρόνοις τοσούτοις ὕστερον (Classical Journal 1829, Vol. 30, No. 59, p. 109). It is defended by G. H. Schaefer who refers to Pausanias x. 17. 3, ἔτεσι δὲ ὕστερον μετὰ τοὺς Λιβύας ἀφίκοντο. ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι τοῦτον ἀπράγμων ἦσθα τὸν χρόνον ; ἀλλὰ τίς οὐκ οἶδεν ὅσα πράγματα πράττων οὐ πέπαυσαι, οὐ μόνον δίκας ἰδίας διώκων οὐκ ἐλάττους ταυτησὶ, ἀλλὰ δημοσίᾳ συκοφαντῶν καὶ κρίνων τινάς; οὐχὶ Τιμομάχου κατηγόρεις; οὐχὶ Καλλίππου τοῦ νῦν ὄντος ἐν · τίνας οὔ ; Dobree. We may compare Lysias 3 § 39 οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι...ὀργιζόμενοι παραχρῆμα τιμωρεῖσθαι ζητοῦσιν, οὗτος δὲ χρόνοις ὕστερον. But the two phrases ἔτεσιν ὕστερον and χρόνοις ὕστερον, however defensible in themselves separately, do not apparently occur in combination elsewhere; and it may therefore be worth while to suggest either ἀλλὰ τοσούτοις χρόνοις ὕστερον, or simply ἀλλὰ χρόνοις ὕστερον just as in the passage of Lysias above quoted. In the latter case ἔτεσι καὶ may be a corruption of a marginal gloss ἔτεσι κ' i.e. twenty years, a transcriber's note explaining χρόνοις by referring to $ 26 παρεληλυθότων ἐτῶν πλέον ἢ εἴκοσι, and § 38 ἐτῶν ἴσως εἴκοσι, (Mr Shilleto suggests as a parallel to ἔτεσι καὶ χρόνοις, Cic. Verr. II. 3. 21 tot annis atque adeo saeculis tot.) ἀπράγμων.] Often used of quiet and easy-going people who shrink from litigation. Or. 40 § 32 ἀπράγμων καὶ οὐ φιλόδικος. Cf. ἀπραγμοσύνη and its opposites, πολυπράγμων, νεῖν,—πραγμοσύνη. So also, in the next line, πράγματα πράττων, as is clear from the rest of the sentence, refers to the plaintiff's incessant litigation. Or. 27 § 1 οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει δικῶν οὐδὲ πραγμάτ των. κατηγόρεις.] Young students are apt to confound the imperfect κατηγόρεις with the present κατηγορείς. κρίνων τινάς.] The force of the sentence is much improved by Dobree's almost certain emendation κρίνων τίνας οὔ; οὐχὶ Τιμομάχου κατηγόρεις; κ.τ.λ., where the loss of οὐ would be accounted for by οὐχὶ following immediately after. Οr. 37 § 14 πολλὰ δεηθέντος καὶ τί οὐ ποιήσαντος; 47 § 43 δεομένων ἁπάντων καὶ ἱκετευόντων καὶ τίνα οὐ προσπεμπόντων ; Τιμομάχου κ.τ.λ.] All these prosecutions are almost certainly connected with the naval operations extending over the plaintiff's protracted trierarchy of seventeen months in the Thracian Waters (in B. c. 362— 361). In his speech against Polycles (Or. 50) Autocles, Meno, and Timomachus are mentioned as successive commanders of the fleet (SS 12-14 and Or. 23 § 104-5); and while he there speaks in general terms of the maladministration of all the commanders (§ 15 τὰ τῶν στρατ τηγῶν ἀπιστα), he uses the strongest language against Timomachus, mainly for his treasonable collusion with an exiled relative, Callistratus. (See next note.) Timomachus was condemned, and put to death (Schol. on Aeschin. 1 § 56). Καλλίππου τοῦ νῦν ἐν Σικε λίᾳ.] The context shows that this Callippus (who must not be confounded with the plaintiff in the speech of Apollodorus πρὸς Κάλλιππον Or. 52) can be Σικελίᾳ; οὐ πάλιν Μένωνος; οὐκ Αὐτοκλέους; οὐ 961 54 Τιμοθέου; οὐκ ἄλλων πολλῶν; καίτοι πῶς ἔχει λόγον σὲ ̓Απολλόδωρον ὄντα πρότερον τῶν κοινῶν, ὧν μέρος none other than 'the son of Philon, of the deme Aexone,' who, at the request of Timomachus, conveyed Callistratus on board an Athenian trireme to Thasos from his place of exile in Macedonia, after Apollodorus had stoutly refused to allow his own vessel to be used for so unlawful a purpose (Or. 50 § 46-52). He may, with great probability, be identified with Plato's pupil of that name, with whom another of Plato's disciples, the well-known Dion of Syracuse, lived on friendly terms at Athens on his banishment from Sicily in в.c. 366. In August 357, Dion, with a small force, started from the island of Zacynthus, and during the absence of Dionysius the younger, made a triumphal entry into Syracuse, attended by his friend Callippus who was one of his captains, and is described by Plutarch as λαμπρὸς ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι καὶ διάσημος. Ultimately, in the spring or sum, mer of 353, Dion was assassinated by Callippus, who after usurping the government for thirteen months, was defeated in battle by a brother of the younger Dionysius, and after wandering about in Sicily and establishing himself in Southern Italy, at Rhegium, was shortly after (probably in B. C. 350) him. self killed by his friends, with the very sword (as the story runs) with which he murdered Dion. (Plutarch, Dion, 17, 2858; Plato Ep. vii.; Diodorus xvi. passim.) In the present passage Apol lodorus is stated to have prosecuted Callippus τοῦ νῦν ὄντος ἐν Σικελία. The Athenian fleet (with Callippus) reached Athens from the Thracian coasts in Feb. 360, and Callippus started for Syracuse from Zacynthus in Aug. 357, so that the plaintiff's prosecution of him cannot well be placed later than the spring of 357, though it may have been two years earlier in 359, and in any case about the same time as his prosecutions of Timomachus, Meno and Autocles. (A. Schaefer Dem. u. s. Zeit, III. 2. 158-161.) If the present speech is as late as 350 B.C., Callippus was still alive; at any rate, the news of his death cannot have reached Athens. οὐ Τιμοθέου ;] The charge a gainst Timotheus, the celebrated Athenian general, may have been connected with his defeat at Amphipolis B. c. 360. At first sight the allusion might be explained of the plaintiff's private suit (Or. 49) against the general for sums borrowed from Pasion (cf. above § 36 n.); but the context appears to point expressly to public indictments (δημοσίᾳ in the previous sentence and τῶν κοινῶν in the next); though this reason is not conclusive, as the first part of the previous sentence refers to δίκαι ιδιαι. 54. 'Απολλόδωρον ὄντα κ.τ.λ.] Aculeatum et amarum dictum. Reiske. It is not like Apollodorus, it is inconsistent with his true character, to be going out of his way to undertake public prosecutions where his own interests |
