Page images
PDF
EPUB

οίον εί τι πέπρακται και γέγονεν έξω που της χώρας, ανάγκη και τούτου πρόκλησιν είναι πλείν ή βαδίζειν ου το πράγμεπράχθης και των άλλων των τοιούτων. όπου δ' αυτά τα πράγματα εφ' αυτών έστιν υμίν έμ

φανή ποιήσαι, τί ήν απλούστερον ή ταύτ' άγειν εις μέ17 σον ; 'Αθήνησι μεν τοίνυν ο πατήρ ετελεύτησεν ούμός,

έγίγνετο δ' η δίαιτα εν τη ποικίλη στοά, μεμαρτυρήκασι δ' ούτοι παρέχειν το γραμματειον 'Αμφίαν προς τον διαιτητήν. ουκούν είπερ αληθές ήν, έχρήν αυτό το Thus we have a proposal only, and appear before the autho. and it may be concluded from rities there (8 18). Cf. ex iure αν κελεύητε, that even if the manum consertum voco in Cicero Challenge had been accepted, pro Murena $26 (with Mr the court would have had to Heitland's note). give a special order for such πλεϊν ή βαδίζειν.] Here, 88 departure from ordinary usage. often, contrasted with one an

Again in Or. 47 (Dem.) katà other, as the ordinary words Ευέργου ψευδομαρτυριών και 16, we for going by sea or by land,' read: έδει αυτόν, είπερ αληθή ην Fals. Leg. 8 164. ουτ' επείγεσθαι & φασιν αυτόν προκαλείσθαι, κλη- βαδίζουσιν ούτε πλείν αυτοίς επ. ρουμένων των δικαστηρίων κομί- ήει. σαντα την ανθρωπον, λαβόντα τον 17. ποικίλη στοά.] The fresκήρυκα, κελεύειν έμε, ει βουλοίμην, coed porch.' So called from its βασανίζειν, και μάρτυρας τους δι- pictures, representing the legenκαστάς εισιόντας ποιείσθαι ως dary wars of Athens and the έτοιμός έστι παραδούναι. But it battle of Marathon (Aeschin. would be idle to suppose that Ctesiph. 8 186). As is well this passage proves that the known, it was this portico which torture might take place in gave the name of Stoics to the open court; all that is meant followers of Zeno of Citium. is that the defendant might Persius III. 53 quaeque docet have produced the girl, when sapiens bracatis illita Medis the court was about to sit, Porticus. challenged the plaintiff to‘ques- The public arbitrators hacl tion' her, and called on the particular buildings assigned jurors to bear witness that he them according to the tribe to was ready to hand her over to which they belonged: thus in be tortured in the usual manner Or. 47 § 12 the arbitration takes and not in public court.

place in the Heliaea, οι γάρ την οδον-έξω της χώρας.] As an Οίνεΐδα και την Ερεχθηίδα διαιillustration of this form of τωντες ενταύθα κάθηνται. Challenge, we find in Or. 32 the expîv] As usual, without av plaintiff (Zenothemis) borrow. We might have had είπερ αλη ing money in Syracuse (§ 4) and θες ήν, ενέβαλεν αν το γραμμα. the defendant challenging him τείον,implying αλλ' ουκ ενέβαλεν, at Athens to sail to Syracuse whereas the sentence as it stands

γραμματείον εις τον εχίνον εμβαλείν και τον παρέχοντα μαρτυρείν, ίν' εκ της αληθείας και του τα σημεία ιδείν

οι μεν δικασται το πράγμα έγνωσαν, εγώ δε, εί τις ήδίΙ8 κει με, επί τούτον ήα. νύν δε εις μεν ουδείς όλον το

πράγμα ανεδέξατο, ουδε μεμαρτύρηκεν απλώς, ως άν τις ταληθή μαρτυρήσειε, μέρος δ' έκαστος, ως δη σοφος και διά τούτο ου δώσων δίκην, ο μέν γραμματείον έχειν εφ' ώ γεγράφθαι διαθήκη Πασίωνος, ο δε πεμ

φθείς υπό τούτου παρέχειν τούτο, ει δ' αληθές ή ψεύ19 δος, ουδέν ειδέναι. οιδί δε τη προκλήσει χρησάμενοι ΙΙ07

παραπετάσματι διαθήκας εμαρτύρησαν, ώς αν μάλισθ' does not require åv because it 18. els...ov dels.] No single

] • implies not αλλ' ουκ εχρής, which witness has accepted the whole would be absurd, but χρή μεν responsibility ;' cf. 8 38 διείλοντο εμβαλείν αλλ' ουκ ενέβαλεν. So ταδικήματα. εις ουδείς is a much also with ώφελον, έμελλον, έδει, stronger negative than ουδείς. προσήκεν; sed multo latius patet Οr. 21 (Meid.)8 12, έν γάρ ουδέν haec ratio... Omnino, ubicunque έστιν εφ' ώ...ου δίκαιος ών απολωnon potest contrarium opponi, λέναι φανήσεται. Cf. Fals. Leg. reete abest particula.' Hermann 8 201, εν ουδ' οτιούν, de particula år $ xii. On a ο μεν...ο δε.] Cephisophon (SS similar principle we have τί ήν 21, 22)... Amphias (ο Κηφισοαπλούστερον above, which fol- φώντος κηδεστης, S 10).-The lows the analogy of δίκαιον ήν, subject of έκαστος (ο μεν...ο δε) εικός ήν, &c.

is μεμαρτύρηκε implied by the τα σημεία.] Probably the seals former part of the sentence. attached to the will (cf. Becker's This is all that is meant by Charicles, Sc. IX. n. 14), and Dobree's punctuation Distingue not those on the deposition-case ο δε, πεμφθείς' to shew that or éxivos (as supposed in Starke's πεμφθείς is subordinate to παρaddenda to Hermann's Privatalt. έχειν and is not to be taken with 8 65, 9). On the εχίνος cf. Οr. 39 ο δέ. Trans. “ another, that he 8 18, σεσημασμένων των εχίνων, produced the will on being sent and note on Οr. 54 8 27. For by him (Amphias).' the opening of the seals of a will, 19. παραπετάσματι] sc. προφάsee Αr. Vesp. 584, κλάειν ημείς σει, (Or. 4689 πρόφασιν...την πρόμακρά την κεφαλήν ειπόντες τη κλησιν), προσχήματι, 88 a cloak, διαθήκη, και τη κόγχη τη πάνυ or 'pretext,' lit. a "screen' or σεμνώς τους σημείοισιν επούση. • curtain. Plat. Protag. 316 E

ņa] perhaps old Attic, Plat. ταϊς τέχναις ταύταις παραπετάTheaet. 180, Rep. 449' Veitch σμασιν έχρήσαντο, immediately Greek Verbs 8.ν. ειμι.

As first

after προσχήμα ποιείσθαι και person ήειν is rare, but προσήειν προκαλύπτεσθαι. is not. In 6 we have had ως αν μάλισθ' οι δικασται ... απήειν.

επίστευσαν εγώ δε απεκλεί

[ocr errors]

οι δικασται ταύτην την διαθήκην επίστευσαν του πατρος είναι, εγώ δε απεκλείσθην του λόγου τυχεϊν υπέρ ών αδικούμαι, ούτοι δε φωραθείεν τα ψευδή μεμαρτυ

esse

[ocr errors]

στην ουτοι δε 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. αν is quite out of place with επίστευσαν 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: ús (or won') οι δικασται...επίστευσαν, εγώ δε απεκλείσθην...ούτοι δ' αν μάλιστα pwpabeiev. 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 de. cided 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 oŮTOL Oé, (hic voce paullum subsistit orator) φωραθείεν τα ψευδή μεμαρTupnKótes, ironice dicta patet' (Opuscula iv. 27 de particula äv 1. 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' τοσούτ' απέχουσι του τοιουτόν τι ποιείν, ώστε θαυμάζουσι και ζηλούσι και βούλoιντ' αν αυτός έκαστος τοιούτος είναι.

[I suggest ώς αν ει μάλιστα, and perhaps oûtoi ye infra, (though oŮTOL 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.' ώς άν φωραθείεν is a virtual synonym of ώστε φωραθήναι. See Aesch. Ag. 357 (366 Dind.) and my note.

For the use of dè in apodosis, cf. Or. 21 (Mid.) p.547 g 100, el de

5

[ocr errors]

ρηκότες. καίτοι το γ' εναντίον ώοντο τούτου. ίνα δ'

8 είδητε ταύτα ότι αληθή λέγω, λαβέ τήν του Κηφισοφώντος μαρτυρίαν.

τις πένης μηδέν ήδικηκώς ταϊς εσχάταις συμφοραίς αδίκως υπο τούτου περιπέπτωκε, τούτω δ' ουδε συνοργισθήσεσθε ; and for ως αν with optative equivalent to ώστε, see Plat. Phaedr. p. 230 B, kai ως ακμής έχει της άνθης, ως αν ευωδέστατον παρέχοι τον τόπον, • see how this willow is in full blossom, so as to fill the place with fragrance !' Symp. p. 187 D, τοις μεν κοσμίοις των ανθρώπων, και ως άν κοσμιώτεροι γίγνοιντο οι μήπω όντες, δεί χαρίζεσθαι. 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 ?

Μαρτυρία.] The wording of this deposition is identical with that of the speech itself (S$ 18 and 20), with the exception of the clause υπό του πατρός, (naturally suggested by katadelgonvat,) and the description of the witness as Κεφάλωνος 'Αφιδναίος. Κεφάλων is a parallel form of Κεφαλίων and is found elsewhere (Plut. Arat. 52). One Κηφισοφών 'Αφινδαίος 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 Οr. 59 κατά Νεαίρας

m

m

20

« είναι δε το γραμμα

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. " [Κηφισοφών Κεφάλωνος Αφιδναίος μαρτυρεί καταλειφθήναι αυτό υπό του πατρός γραμματείον, εφ' ώ επιγεγράφθαι διαθήκη Πασίωνος.] τη

Ουκούν ήν απλούν, ώ άνδρες δικασται, τον ταύτα μαρτυρούντα προσμαρτυρήσαι τείον, και αυτός παρέχει, τούτο,και το γραμματείον εμβαλείν. αλλά τούτο μεν, oίμαι, το ψεύδος ηγείτο όργης άξιον, και δίκην αν υμάς παρ' αυτού λαβείν, γραμματείον δ' αυτό καταλειφθήναι μαρτυρήσαι φαύλον και ουδέν. έστι δε τούτ' αυτό το δηλούν και

κατηγο21 ρούν ότι πάν το πράγμα κατεσκευάκασιν. ει μεν γάρ

επήν επί της διαθήκης Πασίωνος και Φορμίωνος” ή «πρός Φορμίωναή τοιούτο τι, είκότως αν αυτήν ετήρει τούτω ει δ', ώσπερ μεμαρτύρηκεν, επήν διαθήκη Πασίωνος,πώς ουκ αν ανηρήμην αυτήν εγώ, συνει

η testimonium om. Σ. $S 9—10, where a person of * This belongs to Pasio, and to that name bribes one Stephanus Phormio," or "for Phormio," or of Ercadæ to charge Apollo- anything of that sort, he would dorus with causing the death of reasonably have kept it for him.' a woman at Aphidna. (A. West- πως ουκ άν ανηρήμην...] “I ermann u.8. pp. 108-9, cf. 8 8 should of course have approsupra.)

priated it.' The plaintiff actu20. εμβαλείν] 8ο. εις τον

ally says that if the terms of εχίνον, 8 17.-οργή, the indigna- the will were such as alleged tion of the court.-αν λαβείν and if it had been really in. depends, like the previous scribed • Pasion's Will' (@caońkn clause, on ηγείτο.

is emphatic : 'had the endorseγραμματειον δε.] Whereas to ment been, not merely, This give evidence of a document is Pasion's,' but. This is Pasion's having been bequeathed to him, will,'&c.'),then he would certainwas a trifle of no importance.' ly have claimed it as heir to his Kennedy.

father's property and, finding it Πασίωνος και Φορμίωνος.] At detrimental to his own interineptus Pasio fuisset, si hoc ests, would have kept it close.' inscripsisset; de utrisque enim, The effrontery of this statement et Phormione et filiis, in eo is sufficiently startling. constituerat' (Lortzing Apoll. As regards the phrase διαθήκης p.78).-ετήρει τούτω sc. Φορμίωνι. αναιρείσθαι, it may benoticed that “If the inscription had been, in Isaeus Or. 6 (Philoct.) SS 30

6

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »