Page images
PDF
EPUB

9

Ἠκούσατε μὲν τῆς μαρτυρίας, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ, νομίζω δ' ὑμᾶς, εἰ καὶ μηδὲν τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθάνεσθέ πω, τοῦτό γε αὐτὸ θαυμάζειν, τὸ τὴν μὲν ἀρχὴν τῆς μαρτυρίας είναι πρόκλησιν, τὴν δὲ τελευτὴν διαθή κην. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ ̓ ἔγωγ ̓ οἶμαι δεῖν, ἐπειδὰν, ὃ τῶν μετ μαρτυρημένων ώσπερεὶ κεφάλαιόν ἐστιν, ἐπιδείξω ψεῦ δος ὂν, τηνικαῦτ ̓ ἤδη καὶ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ποιεῖσθαι το τοὺς λόγους. ἔστι δὴ μεμαρτυρημένον αὐτοῖς προκα λεῖσθαι Φορμίωνα ἀνοίγειν τὰς διαθήκας, ἃς παρέχειν πρὸς τὸν διαιτητὴν Τισίαν ̓Αμφίαν τὸν Κηφισοφῶντος κηδεστήν· ἐμὲ δ ̓ οὐκ ἐθέλειν ἀνοίγειν· εἶναι δὲ ἃς αὐτοὶ μεμαρτυρήκασι διαθήκας, ἀντιγράφους ἐκείΙΙ νων. εἶθ ̓ ἡ διαθήκη γέγραπται. ἐγὼ τοίνυν περὶ μὲν τοῦ προκαλεῖσθαί με ἢ μὴ ταῦτα Φορμίωνα οὐδέν πω

have preferred the former, and so would every one else; for where (as here) there is room for cool calculation, no one would be so foolish as to abandon his own interests and do what would damage his case; and yet, by deposing that I refused to open the will,' these witnesses represented me as doing what is improbable, unreasonable, and contrary to all experience.

In brief, the first point which the plaintiff attempts to make in proving the evidence to be false, is that assuming he was challenged to open the 'will,' he sees no reason why he should have refused a challenge which it would have been to his interest to accept. On the other side, it may be noticed that the plaintiff had a strong reason for refusing to open the 'will' and thus give express recognition to an important document, the contents of which as he himself says elsewhere (§ 21) were detrimental to his own interests.

(A. Schaefer, Dem. III. 2. p. 171). So far, the case clearly tends against Apollodorus.

9. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ'...] ‘Nevertheless,' 'however,' 'not but that.' The ellipse which this combination of particles always involves may be here supplied by some such words as οὐ μὴν ὑμᾶς τοῦτο χρὴ θαυμάζειν) or (παραλείπειν τοῦτο χρὴ) ἀλλ ̓ ἔγωγε κ.τ.λ. Kühner's Gk. Gr. § 535, 7. τῶν μεμαρτ...κεφάλ.] sc. ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐθέλειν ἀνοίγειν.—τηνικαῦτα sc. in §§ 1528.

10. ἃς παρέχειν.] sc. μαρτυροῦσι. For the infinitive in the relative clause influenced by the principal verb, cf. Or. 36 § 25.

εἶθ ̓ ἡ διαθήκη γέγραπται.] 'Then follows a copy of the will,' or (with Kennedy) and then the will is set out.' 'Deinde sequitur (in testimonio eorum) testamentum exscriptum, sequitur exemplum testamenti.' Seager, Classical Journ. lx. p. 267.

11. περὶ.....ὑπὲρ.] These prepositions are here, as often, prac.

λέγω, οὐδὲ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὰς διαθήκας ἀληθεῖς ἢ ψευδεῖς εἶναι, ἀλλ ̓ αὐτίχ ̓ ὑμᾶς περὶ τούτων διδάξω· ἀλλ ̓ ἃ μεμαρτυρήκασι, μή μ' ἐθέλειν τὸ γραμματεῖον ἀνοίγειν. ὡδὶ δὴ σκοπεῖτε. τοῦ τις ἂν ἕνεκαὶ ἔφευγεν ἀνοίγειν τὸ γραμματεῖον ; ἵν ̓ ἡ διαθήκη νὴ Δία μὴ φανερά 11C5 12 γένοιτο τοῖς δικασταῖς. εἰ μὲν τοίνυν μὴ προσεμαρτύρουν τῇ προκλήσει τὴν διαθήκην οὗτοι, λόγον εἶχέ τιν ̓ ἂν τὸ φεύγειν ἐμὲ ἀνοίγειν τὸ γραμματεῖον προσω μαρτυρούντων δὲ τούτων καὶ τῶν δικαστῶν ὁμοίως ἀκουσομένων, τί ἦν μοι κέρδος τὸ μὴ ἐθέλειν ; οὐδὲ ἓν δήπου. αὐτὸ γὰρ τοὐναντίον, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, κἂν εἰ μηδὲν προὐκαλοῦντο οὗτοι, λόγῳ δ ̓ ἐχρῶντο 13 μόνον, καὶ παρεῖχέ τις αὐτοῖς γραμματεῖον ὡς διαθήκην, ἐμὸν ἦν τὸ προκαλεῖσθαι καὶ ἀνοίγειν ταύτην, ἵν ̓ εἰ μὲν ἄλλ ̓ ἄττα τῶν ὑπὸ τούτων μεμαρτυρημένων 3 κελεύειν ἀνοίγειν Φ (γρ. in margine). recte, opinor; sin, deleam καὶ ante ἀνοίγειν G. H. Schaefer.

1 εἵνεκεν Ζ.

tically synonymous. Cf. infr. § 50, and Fals. Leg. § 94, p. 371, οὐ περὶ τοῦ εἰ ποιητέον εἰρήνην... ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ τοῦ ποίαν τινά.

τοῦ τις ἂν ἕνεκα ἔφευγεν κ.τ.λ.] 'What reason would any one have had for declining, &c.' • Malim ἕνεκεν καὶ ἔφευγεν ... Latine porro,' says Dobree, who would similarly read in Or. 37 § 27, τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκα καὶ ἔπειθον, ut in tali re usitatum est dicere.' (Cobet, Nov. Lect. 606.)

νὴ Δία.] Or. 36 § 39, and Or. 54 § 34 n.

12. εἰ μὴ προσεμαρτύρουν.] 'Had they not deposed to the will, as well as to the challenge, I might reasonably have declined to open the document (purporting to be a copy of the will) : but, as they actually deposed to both, and as the jury would have to hear the will whether I opened it or not, what

was the use then of my refusing
to open it??

κἂν εἰ.] The ἂν strictly be
longs to the apodosis ἐμὸν ἦν,
but is here, as often, put as
early as possible. Cf. Or. 36 § 42,
οἶμαι...κἂν εἰ... λέγοι, κάλλιον
είναι. Sometimes the construc
tion of the apodosis shews that
κἂν εἰ is regarded as much the
same as καὶ εἰ, e.g. Plato Meno
72 c, κἂν εἰ πολλαὶ καὶ παντοδαπαί
εἰσιν, ἓν γέ τι εἶδος ταὐτὸν ἅπασαι
ἔχουσι. Kühner, Gh. Gr. § 398,
p. 210. Buttmann calls this
“ ἂν consopitum," where its force
is, as it were, dormant. It is pe-
culiar to the later or middle Attic.
§ 13. ἐχρώμην.] Οr. 36
§ 47, ἵνα—ἐφαίνετο 1.

ἀλλ ̓ ἄττα τῶν κ.τ.λ.] = ἄλλο ἅττα ἢ τὰ, i.e. had the contents of the alleged will been different from the terms deposed to by these witnesses.' For this

ἦν τἀκεῖ γεγραμμένα, μάρτυρας εὐθὺς τῶν περιεστηκότων πολλοὺς ποιησάμενος τεκμηρίῳ τούτῳ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὡς κατασκευάζουσιν, ἐχρώμην· εἰ δὲ ταῦτ ̓ ἐνῆν, τὸν παρασχόντ ̓ αὐτὸν ἠξίουν μαρτυρεῖν. ἐθε λήσαντος μὲν γὰρ ὑπεύθυνον ἐλάμβανον, εἰ δ ̓ ἔφευγε, πάλιν αὐτὸ τοῦθ ̓ ἱκανὸν τεκμήριον ἦν μοι τοῦ πεπλάσθαι τὸ πρᾶγμα. καὶ δὴ καὶ συνέβαινεν ἐκείνως μὲν ἕνα εἶναι, πρὸς ὃν τὰ πράγματα ἐγίγνετό μοι, ὡς δ ̓

rather uncommon use of άλλος with gen. (like ἕτερος, ἀλλότριος, διάφορος) cf. Xen. Mem. IV. 4. 25, πότερον τοὺς θεοὺς ἡγῇ τὰ δίκαια νομοθετεῖν ἢ ἄλλα των δικαίων. This is one of the nonDemosthenic uses that strike us in this oration.-Dobree suggests ἄλλ ̓ ἄττα ἀντὶ τῶν.

τεκμηρίῳ κ.τ.λ.] sc. τούτῳ ἐχρώμην τεκμηρίῳ ὡς καὶ τἄλλα κατασκευάζουσι.-In the next clause αὐτὸν (to give evidence himself') is contrasted with the several witnesses, οἱ περὶ Στέφ

ανου.

ἐθελήσαντος μὲν.] i.e. εἰ μὲν ἠθέλησε contrasted with εἰ δ ̓ ἔφευγε. We should naturally expect ἐθελήσαντα, as the use of gen. absolute, in reference to the same person as the acc. ὑπεύθυνον, is somewhat exceptional, the rule being that the gen. absolute is generally found only when there is no other case in the sentence to which the participle might attach itself. Cf. however, Xen. Cyr. Ι. 4. 2, ἀσθενήσαντος αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ πάππου) οὐδέποτε ἀπέλιπε τὸν πάππον. (Kühner, Gk. Gr. § 494 b, Madvig, Gk. Synt. § 181 R. 6.)

ὑπεύθυνον.] Liable to a proseeution for ψευδομαρτυρία.

καὶ δὴ καὶ κ.τ.λ.] Kennedy translates : 'And the result was,

that in that way, I had one person to deal with,' doubtless intending by the categorical form of the sentence to shew that in the Greek the conditional is only implied and not directly expressed, in other words συνέβαινεν (like ἠξίουν... ἐλάμβανον...ἦν above) is put without ἄν.— Μalim καὶ δὴ κ ἂν συνέβαινεν et mox ἔστιν οὖν ὅστις ἂν ὑμῶν,” says Dobree, comparing § 33 bis, and also proposing in § 34 τίς γὰρ ἂν ἀνθρώπων. The last two emendations are accepted in Dindorf's text.

[All the imperfects in this remarkable sentence, which does not read altogether like the style of Demosthenes, depend on the preceding iva, in which case it would have happened that, &c.' The addition of av would be quite out of place here, though it is necessary in the clause ἔστιν οὖν ὅστις [ἂν] ὑμῶν, which passes into quite a different construction. P.]

ἐκείνως.] ‘In the former case, lit. 'in that other way,' under the hypothesis just mentioned (as opposed to the fact ὡς οὗτοι μεμαρτυρήκασι), sc. εἰ τὸν παρασχόντ ̓ ἠξίουν μαρτυρεῖν, including the subsequent subdivision of that supposition into the two further hypotheses, ἐθελήσαντος μὲν κ.τ.λ. and εἰ δ ̓ ἔφευγε κ.τ.λ.

οὗτοι μεμαρτυρήκασι, πρὸς πολλούς. ἔστιν οὖν ὅστις 14 ἂν ὑμῶν ταῦθ' εἵλετο; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐδένα ἡγοῦμαι. οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ κατ ̓ ἄλλου πιστεύειν ἐστὲ δίκαιοι. καὶ γὰρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, ὅσοις μὲν πρόσεστιν ὀργὴ τῶν πραττομένων ἢ λῆμμά τι κέρδους ἢ παροξυσμὸς ἢ φι λονεικία, ταῦτα μὲν ἄλλος ἂν ἄλλως πράξεις πρὸς τὸν αὑτοῦ τρόπον· ὅσοις δὲ τούτων μὲν μηδὲν, λογισμὸς δ ̓ ἐφ ̓ ἡσυχίας τοῦ συμφέροντος, τίς οὕτως ἄφρων ὅστις ἂν τὰ συνοίσοντ ̓ ἀφεὶς, ἐξ ὧν κάκιον ἔμελλεν ἀγωνιεῖσθαι, ταῦτ ̓ ἔπραξεν; ἃ γὰρ οὔτ ̓ εἰκότα οὔτ ̓ 1106 εὔλογα οὔτ ̓ ἂν ἔπραξεν οὐδεὶς, ταῦθ ̓ οὗτοι μεμαρτυ ρήκασι περὶ ἡμῶν.

15

Οὐ τοίνυν μόνον ἐξ ὧν ἐμὲ μὴ ἐθέλειν τὸ γραμμα

k Bekker (st. Leipsig ed.).

1 συνοίσοντα Ζ.

πρὸς πολλοὺς.] sc. τὰ πράγματα γέγονέ μοι.

14.. οὐ...οὐδὲ κατ' ἄλλου πιστ τεύειν.] • Well then, you cannot fairly believe it of any one else either.'

ὅσοις. τῶν πραττομένων.] The participle is best taken not as gen. after ὀργὴ but after ὅσοις, which is neuter. Cf. § 15, ὅσα... τῶν πεπραγμένων. 'In every course of action attended by anger, or by getting of gain, or by any exasperation ('keen resentment,' 'strong provocation') or by a spirit of jealousy, one man may act in one way, another in another, according to his individual character.'

παροξυσμὸς.] This word, found twice in the New Testament (Hebr. x. 24, Acts xv. 39), is never used by Demosthenes, nor indeed does it appear to occur elsewhere in the sense of 'exasperation' in any of the earlier Greek writers. In the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, 1243

'av deesse vidit Schaeferus' Z.

(Liddell & Scott) it is a medical
term, in the sense perpetuated
in our ‘paroxysm. The verb
however is found in Dem. 57849,
ἡ πόλις πᾶσα...ὀργιζομένη παρώ-
ξυντο, and ib. § 2 ; also the adj.
in Or. 20 (Lept.) § 105, λόγοι
παροξυντικοὶ πρὸς τὸ πεῖσαι.

λογισμὸς κ.τ.λ.] ‘A calm cal-
culation of one's interest.' [The
phrase seems rather unusual,
like ἀφεὶς τὰ συνοίσοντα, giving
up what was likely to prove his
interest.' P.]

§§ 15-19. Again, the witnesses depose to a Challenge as well as to a Will. Now Challenges are meant to meet the case of those transactions, which it is otherwise impossible to bring before the court. In the present case, what call was there for a Challenge? The arbitration took place in Athens, and they have deposed that the original will was produced before the arbitrator ; if this was true, they ought to have put the

THE UNIVERSITY OF MIENICAN ISRARIES

τεῖον ἀνοίγειν μεμαρτυρήκασι, γνοίη τις ἂν αὐτοὺς ὅτι ψεύδονται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πρόκλησιν ὁμοῦ διαθήκῃ μαρτυρεῖν. οἶμαι γὰρ ἅπαντας ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι ὅσα μὴ δυνατὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀγαγεῖν ἐστι τῶν πεπραγμένων, 16 τούτων προκλήσεις εὑρέθησαν. οἷον βασανίζειν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν· ἀνάγκη τούτου πρόκλησιν εἶναι

original will into the box and the producer should have proved it by evidence, in which case the jury, after weighing the credibility of the deposition and inspecting the seals of the will, would have decided accordingly; and, had I thought myself wronged by the verdict, I might have proceeded against the deponent in question. But, as it is, no single witness has undertaken the whole responsibility; no! they have cleverly divided it, by one witness (Cephisophon) deposing to having a document inscribed 'Pasion's Will; and another (Amphias), to having produced it after being sent to do so by the former witness; but whether it was genuine or not, was 'more than he knew.'-In fact, Stephanus and his friends have made the Challenge a mere mask under cover of which they might depose to a will, so that the jury were led to believe that the will was my father's, and I myself was debarred from being heard on my wrongs, and so that by these very means my opponents might ultimately be convicted of having given false evidence-a result which they hardly expected.

15. μὴ ἐθέλειν.] ἐθέλω is the proper form in Attic prose, θέλω in Attic verse, but the latter is occasionally found in Dem. in such formulae as ἂν θεός θέλῃ. (See Veitch Gk. Vbs.) The Paris

Ms Σ has θέλειν, which was adopted in Dindorf's earlier editions.

προκλήσεις.] Harpocr. s. v. εἰώθεσαν ὁπότε δικάζοιντό τινες, ἐξαιτεῖν ἐνίοτε θεραπαίνας ἢ θεράποντας εἰς βάσανον ἢ εἰς μαρτυρίαν τοῦ πράγματος, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκαλεῖτο προκαλεῖσθαι, τὸ δὲ γραμματεῖον τὸ περὶ τούτου γραφόμενον ὠ νομάζετο πρόκλησις. παρὰ πολλοῖς δέ ἐστι ῥήτορσι. Δημοσθένης δ ̓ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Στεφάνου καὶ περὶ ὧν πρόκλησις γίνεται δηλοί.

16. βασανίζειν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν.] In Dobree's Adversaria, we have the suggestive note

Qu. interrog. Qu. the fact. As a general rule doubtless this examination of slaves took place in private, before a magistrate or arbitrator or other authorized person, in the presence of a number of bystanders either concerned as witnesses or merely present out of curiosity (Or. 47 § 12); and the text as it stands would seem to imply that administration of torture in open court was not allowed. -We find Aeschines (Fals. Leg. § 126) proposing to question' certain slaves in public: ἄγωμεν δὲ καὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας καὶ παραδιδῶμεν εἰς βάσανον...παρέσται δὲ ἤδη ὁ δήμιος καὶ βασανιεῖ ἐναντίον ὑμῶν, ἂν κελεύητε... κάλει μοι τοὺς οἰκέτας δεῦρο ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα... At this point (it is important to notice) follows a Challenge which Demosthenes declines.

« PreviousContinue »