αρχοῦντος ὑμῖν (ἓν τρόπον δὲ, οὐκ ἴσως καλὸν υἱεῖ περὶ μητρὸς ἀκριβῶς εἰπεῖν), ἐπειδὴ καταπλεύσας ᾐσθόμην καὶ τὰ πεπραγμένα εἶδον, πολλὰ ἀγανακτήσας καὶ χαλεπῶς ἐνεγκὼν δίκην μὲν οὐχ οἷός τ ̓ ἦν ἰδίαν 4 λαχεῖν οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ τότε καιρῷ δίκαι, ἀλλ ̓ ἀνε‐ βάλλεσθε ὑμεῖς διὰ τὸν πόλεμον), γραφὴν δὲ ὕβρεως γράφομαι πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας αὐτόν. χρόνου δὲ γιγνομένου, καὶ τῆς μὲν γραφῆς ἐκκρουομένης, δικῶν δὲ οὐκ οὐσῶν, γίγνονται παῖδες ἐκ τούτου τῇ μητρί. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα (εἰρήσεται γὰρ ἅπασα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀλήθεια, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ) πολλοὶ μὲν καὶ φιλάνθρωποι λόγοι παρὰ τῆς μητρὸς ἐγίγνοντο καὶ δεήσεις ὃν τρόπον δὲ (se. ἔγημε)—ἀκρι βῶς εἰπεῖν.] Cf. § 27, διεφθάρκει ἢν ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ καλὸν λέγειν. This affectation of dutiful delicacy of feeling towards his mother in the early portions of the speech is rather inconsistent with the apparently gratuitous insinuation towards its close, where he broaches the suspicion that his own brother Pasicles (who was eight years old at his father Pasion's death) was really her son by Phormio (§ 84). δίκην ἰδίαν ) γραφὴν ὕβρεως.] Cf. Οr. 54 § 1, ad fin. διὰ τὸν πόλεμον. This suspension of lawsuits, which the plaintiff found in force on returning from his trierarchy in r. c. 368, was due to the hostilities between Athens and Thebes in the period between the battle of Leuctra in B.C. 371, and the death of Epaminondas at the battle of Mantineia in B.c. 362. The courts were not sitting for ordinary business, perhaps because there was no pay for the dicasts (cf. Or. 39 § 17); and the only process that was available under the circumstances was a publie action. So just below δικῶν οὐκ οὐσῶν means, as the courts continued closed for private suits. ὑμεῖς refers to the citizens generally, who are said, in the medial sense, 'to have had the sessions (τὰς δίκας) postponed.' 4. γραφὴν ὕβρεως πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας.] Isocr. Or. 20, κατὰ Λοχίτου § 2, περὶ τῆς ὕβρεως... ἔξεστι τῷ βουλομένῳ τῶν πολιτῶν γραψαμένῳ πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας εἰσελθεῖν εἰς ὑμᾶς. (Hermann, Privatalt. § 61, 19.) χρόνου γιγνομένου-γραφῆς ἐκκρουομένης.] See note on Or. 3632, ἵν ̓ ἐκκρούοντες χρόνους ἐμποιῶμεν. For χρόνου δὲ γιγνομένου, Reiske ingeniously, but perhaps unnecessarily, proposes χρόνου δ' ἐγγιγνομένου, which at any rate modifies the slight inelegance of the triple repetition γιγνομένου ...γίγνονται...ἐγίγνοντο. Cf.Or.47 § 63, χρόνον ἐγγενέσθαι. φιλάνθρωποι λόγοι. ] Kindly overtures.' (Blanditiae. G. H. Schaefer.) De Corona, § 298. οὔτε φιλανθρωπία λόγων οὔτ' ἐπαγγελιῶν μέγεθος. Midias, §75, οὔτε κλαύσαντα οὔτε δεηθέντα... ὑπὲρ Φορμίωνος τουτουὶ, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ μέτριοι καὶ 5 ταπεινοὶ παρ' αὐτοῦ τούτου, ἵνα δὲ, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθη ναῖοι, συντέμω ταῦτα, ἐπειδὴ ποιεῖν τε οὐδὲν ᾤετο δεῖν ὧν τότε ὡμολόγησε, καὶ τὰ χρήματα ἀποστερεῖν ἐνεχείρησεν ἃ τῆς τραπέζης εἶχεν ἀφορμὴν, δίκην ἠναγ κάσθην αὐτῷ λαχεῖν, ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα ἐξουσία ἐγένετο. 1 103 γνοὺς δ ̓ οὗτος ὅτι πάντα ἐξελεγχθήσεται καὶ κάκιστος ἀνθρώπων περὶ ἡμᾶς γεγονὼς ἐπιδειχθήσεται, μηχανᾶται καὶ κατασκευάζει ταῦτα, ἐφ ̓ οἷς Στέφανος ο τοσὶ τὰ ψευδῆ μου κατεμαρτύρησεν. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν παρεγράψατο τὴν δίκην, ἣν ἔφευγε Φορμίων, μὴ εἰσαγώγιμον εἶναι· ἔπειτα μάρτυρας, ὡς ἀφῆκα αὐτὸν τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, παρέσχετο ψευδεῖς, καὶ μισθώσεως τινος ἐσκευωρημένης καὶ διαθήκης οὐδεπώποτε γενο6 μένης. προλαβὼν δέ μου ὥστε πρότερον λέγειν διὰ τὸ οὔτε φιλάνθρωπον οὐδ ̓ ὁτιοῦν πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς 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. § 15, μετρίους λόγους, where Shilleto quotes Ulpian : ήγουν ἐπιεικεῖς, φιλανθρώπους. 5. ἵνα...συντέμω.] The reason for the speaker's hurrying over this part of his statement is partly because the overtures of reconciliation on Phormio's side, which he takes credit to himself for candidly admitting, are really more to Phormio's credit than to his own. δίκην] i. e. the suit κατὰ Φορμίωνος, to meet which a special plea is put in on Phormio's behalf in Or. 36. The words ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα ἐξουσία ἐγένετο are possibly meant as a partial reply (they are at any rate the παρεγράψατο κ.τ.λ.] See notes 6. πρότερον λέγειν.] • Malim πρότερος, Dobree. Cf. Isocr. παραγραφὴ πρὸς Καλλίμαχον. παραγραφὴν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι, καὶ ταῦτ ̓ ἀναγνοὺς καὶ τἄλλα, ὡς αὑτῷ συμφέρειν ἡγεῖτο, ψευ σάμενος, οὕτω διέθηκε τοὺς δικαστάς, ὥστε φωνὴν μηδ ̓ ἡντινοῦν ἐθέλειν ἀκούειν ἡμῶν· προσοφλὼν δὲ τὴν ἐπωβελίαν καὶ οὐδὲ λόγου τυχεῖν ἀξιωθεὶς, ὡς οὐκ οἶδ ̓ εἴ τις πώποτε ἄλλος ἀνθρώπων, ἀπῄειν βαη ρέως, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, καὶ χαλεπῶς φέρων. λόγον δ ̓ ἐμαυτῷ διδοὺς εὑρίσκω τοῖς δικάσασι μὲν τότε πολ λὴν συγγνώμην οὖσαν (ἐγὼ γὰρ αὐτὸς οὐκ ἂν οἶδ' ὅ τι ἄλλο εἶχον ψηφίσασθαι, τῶν πεπραγμένων μὲν μηδὲν εἰδὼς, τὰ δὲ μαρτυρούμενα ἀκούων), τούτους δὲ ἀξίους ὄντας ὀργῆς, οἳ τῷ τὰ ψευδή μαρτυρεῖν αἴτιοι τούτων ἐγένοντο. περὶ μὲν δὴ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν μεμαρ τυρηκότων, ὅταν πρὸς ἐκείνους εἰσίω, τότε ἐρῶ· περὶ § 1, φεύγων τὴν δίκην πρότερος λέγω τοῦ διώκοντος. See on Or. 34 § 4, κατηγορεῖν τοῦ διώκοντος, and ibid. § 1, ἐν τῷ μέρει λε γόντων. προλαβὼν == φθάσας, having got the advantage of me.' εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι.] We might expect the acc. as in Or. 34 § 4, εὐθυδικίαν εἰσιόντα, οὐ κατηγορεῖν τοῦ διώκοντος (cf. Or. 36 Arg. 1. 25 ἅπτεται τῆς εὐθείας n.) but the dat. is found in Isaeus, Or. 6 (Philoctem.) § 53, μὴ διαμαρτυρίᾳ κωλύειν ἀλλ ̓ εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι. τὴν ἐπωβελίαν.] 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 οὐδὲ λόγου τυχεῖν cf. § 19, ἀπε, κλείσθην τοῦ λόγου-τυχεῖν. 7. οὐκ ἂν οἶδ' ὅ τι ἄλλο εἶχον.] av is often attracted to the negative and separated from its verb (e. g. elxov) by the interposition of οἶδα (as here) or οἴομαι, δοκώ, φημί (as elsewhere). (Cf. note on Or. 37 (Pant.) § 16, οὐδ ̓ ἂν εἴ τι γένοιτο ᾠήθην δίκην μοι 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 ouк old' av 8 τι (Νου. Lect. 581), or that of Dobree distingue αὐτὸς οὐκ ἂν, οἶδ' ὅτι, ἄλλο εἶχον. πρὸς ἐκείνους εἰσίω] sc. εἰς δικαστήριον. “When I proceed against them,' Endius and Scythes, contrasted with οὑτοσὶ, the present defendant. Compare§17, ἐπὶ τοῦτον ᾖα, infr. § 41 ὅταν εἰσίω πρός... and Or. 54 § 32 ad fin. εἰσιέναι, οι εἰσελθεῖν, is used of either litigant (e.g. in Or. 40 § 1, of the plaintiff; and ib. § 5 of ὧν δ ̓ οὑτοσὶ Στέφανος μεμαρτύρηκεν, ἤδη πειράσο8 μαι διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς. λαβὲ δ' αὐτὴν τὴν μαρτυρίαν καὶ ἀνάγνωθί μοι, ἵνα ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐπιδεικνύω. λέγε· σὺ δ ̓ ἐπίλαβε τὸ ὕδωρ. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. [Στέφανος Μενεκλέους ̓Αχαρνεύς, Ἔνδιος Ἐπιγένους Λαμπτρεὺς, Σκύθης Αρματέως Κυδαθηναιεὺς f testimonium omisit Σ. uncos in hac quoque oratione additamentis huius generis addidimus Z. 8 Λαμπρεὺς Bekker's Berlin ed. (1824). and Bekker's stereotyped Leipsig ed. (1854). the defendant); and also of the lawsuit itself in Or. 34 § 18. Cf. Οr. 34 § 1, οὐδεμίαν πώποτε δίκην πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰσήλθομεν, οὔτ ̓ ἐγκαλοῦντος οὔτ ̓ ἐγκαλοῦντες οὔτ ̓ ἐγκαλούμενοι ὑφ ̓ ἑτέρων.—ἐξ αὐτῆς, ex ipsa, perhaps, rather than ex ea.- -On ἐπίλαβε τὸ ὕδωρ cf. note on Or. 54 § 36. Στέφανος Μενεκλέους κ.τ.λ.] Like many, if not most of the documents inserted in the speeches of the Attic Orators, this deposition may be regarded as spurious. Its purport is to be found in §§ 9-26 and in Or. 46 § 5. The names of Tisias, Cephisophon and Amphias are given in §§ 10, 17, and Or. 46§ 5. Stephanus and Tisias, as well as Pasion and Apollodorus are assigned to the deme Acharnae in the documents only (§§ 28, 46), not in the speech itself. Στέφανος ̓Αχαρνεύς appears in an inscription as trierarch in B. C. 322, but this is not likely to be the defendant in the present action, for at that date the latter, if (as is not improbable) he was about the same age as Apollodorus, would be about seventy; and we can hardly suppose that one who was so • immo Λαμπτρεὺς Ζ, poor a patriot as not to have The name Ενδιος Ἐπιγένους Lastly, Σκύθης is naturally an uncommon name for an Athenian, though found as such in an inscription. The name of his father, Αρματεύς, does not occur elsewhere, except in Stephanus of Byzantium, who makes it mean an inhabitant of Harma' which he wrongly supposes to be a deme of Attica, whereas it was really the name of a part of the ridge of Parnes. (Abridged from A. Westermann's Untersuchungen über die in die Attischen Redner eingelegten Urkunden, pp. 105-8). 1104 μαρτυροῦσι παρεῖναι πρὸς τῷ διαιτητῇ Τισίᾳ Αχαρνεῖ, ὅτε προὐκαλεῖτο Φορμίων ̓Απολλόδωρον, εἰ μή φησιν ἀντίγραφα εἶναι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῶν Πασίωνος τὸ γραμματεῖον ὃ ἐνεβάλετο Φορμίων εἰς τὸν ἐχῖνον, ἀνοίγειν τὰς διαθήκας τὰς Πασίωνος, ἃς παρείχετο πρὸς τὸν διαιτητὴν ̓Αμφίας ὁ Κηφισοφῶντος κηδε στής ̓Απολλόδωρον δὲ οὐκ ἐθέλειν ἀνοίγειν· εἶναι δὲ τὰ ἀντίγραφα τῶν διαθηκῶν τῶν Πασίωνος.] h Tà Bekker (cf. Arg. line 9). Tád' (Sauppe). Sequebatur enim quod hic deest testimonium Pasionis, cf. § 10 ad fin.' Z. προὐκαλεῖτο...ἀνοίγειν.] • 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 exivov see note on Or. 54 § 27. εἶναι τὰ ἀντίγραφα κ.τ.λ.] Α loosely expressed sentence. rà ἀντίγραφα τῶν διαθηκών cannot be construed as the subject, and unless we alter rà into Táde (as the Argument has it) or raÛT' (as Dobree proposes) we must rather awkwardly get the predicate out of τὰ ἀντίγραφα. The speaker himself expresses the sense better in §§ 10, 23. (Westermann, u. s. p. 108.) §§ 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 witness only, instead of with many (as my opponents have made it out); and of course I should |