37

ταῦτα. ἀλλ ̓ ὅμως ἃ τοῖς εἰκόσι, τοῖς χρόνοις, τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἐξελέγχεται ψευδῆ, ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖν οὐκ ὤκνησεν οὑτοσὶ Στέφανος.

Εἶτα λέγει περιιών ὡς ἐμαρτύρησε μὲν Νικοκλῆς ἐπιτροπεῦσαι κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, ἐμαρτύρησε δὲ Πασικλῆς ἐπιτροπευθῆναι κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην. ἐγὼ δὲ αὐτὰ ταῦτ ̓ οἶμαι τεκμήρια εἶναι τοῦ μήτ ̓ ἐκείνους τάληθῆ μήτε τούσδε μεμαρτυρηκέναι. ὁ γὰρ ἐπιτροπεῦ- 1113 σαι κατὰ διαθήκας μαρτυρῶν δῆλον ὅτι καθ ̓ ὁποίας ἂν εἰδείη, καὶ ὁ ἐπιτροπευθῆναι κατὰ διαθήκας μαρ38 τυρῶν δῆλον ὅτι καθ ̓ ὁποίας ἂν εἰδείη. τί οὖν μαθόν τες ἐμαρτυρεῖτε ὑμεῖς ἐν προκλήσει διαθήκας, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ

Ο παθόντες Η. Wolf et Dindf (1867). Dindf. (1846 and 1855) cum libris.

τοῖς εἰκόσι ἐξελέγχεται ψευδῆ.] • That which the facts, the dates, the probabilities of the case, shew to be false, Stephanus the defendant has not scrupled to bear witness to. K. For τοῖς εἰκόσι see esp. §§ 9-14. τοῖς χρόνοις seems inexplicable, except as a rhetorical flourish, for we have had nothing like an argument from dates; and Dobree rightly asks Quomodo?. Even τοῖς πεπραγμένοις is barely justifiable, unless it is to be referred to §§ 15-18.

§§ 37-39. Phormio attempts to prove the existence of the will, by going about saying that Nicocles gave evidence to having been guardian, and Pasicles to having been in wardship, under the will. Why then were not the terms of the will deposed to by Nicocles and Pasicles, instead of by Stephanus and his friends? Was it because the former did not know the terms? If not, much less could the latter. How then came the latter witnesses to depose to one

μαθόντες Bekker Z et

set of facts, the former to ano-
ther? It's the old story; they
divided the responsibility of the
wrong; the guardian and ward
deposed to the guardianship as
being under the will, and the
other witnesses, under cloak of a
challenge, deposed to the contents
-the scandalous contents of the
“will.

37. κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην.] Οr.
36 § 8 Φορμίων τὴν μὲν γυναῖκα
λαμβάνει κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, τὸν
δὲ παῖδα ἐπετρόπευεν.

καθ ̓ ὁποίας ἂν εἰδείη.] ‘would know the purport of (the terms of) such will. [The repetition of the clause δῆλον—εἰδείη seems needless, and perhaps is due to a copyist. P.]

38. τί μαθόντες.] Madvig, Gk. Synt. § 176 (b) R.; or Goodwin's Moods and Tenses § 109 (b). ['What then induced you to give evidence of a will in connexion with a challenge, instead of letting them prove it for you?' P.]

ὑμεῖς.] sc. οἱ περὶ Στέφανον.— ἐκείνους Nicocles and Pasicles.

ἐκείνους εἰᾶτε; εἰ γὰρ αὐ μὴ φήσουσιν εἰδέναι τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν αὐταῖς, πῶς ὑμᾶς οἷόν τ ̓ εἰδέναι τοὺς μηδαμής μηδαμῶς τοῦ πράγματος ἐγγύς; τί ποτ ̓ οὖν οἱ μὲν ἐκεῖνα, οἱ δὲ ταῦτα ἐμαρτύρησαν; ὅπερ εἴρηκα 39 καὶ πρότερον, διείλοντο τἀδικήματα, καὶ ἐπιτροπεῦσαι μὲν κατὰ διαθήκην οὐδὲν δεινὸν ἡγεῖτο μαρτυρεῖν ὁ μαρτυρῶν, οὐδ ̓ ἐπιτροπευθῆναι κατὰ διαθήκην, ἀφαι ρῶν ἑκάτερος τὸ μαρτυρεῖν τὰ ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις ὑπὸ τούτου γεγραμμένα, οὐδὲ καταλιπεῖν τὸν πατέρα αὐτῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένον γραμματεῖον διαθήκην, οὐδὲ τὰ τοι αῦτα· διαθήκας δὲ μαρτυρεῖν, ἐν αἷς χρημάτων του σούτων κλοπὴ, γυναικὸς διαφθορά, γάμοι δεσποίνης, πράγματα αἰσχύνην καὶ ὕβριν τοσαύτην ἔχοντα, οὐ δεὶς ἤθελε πλὴν οὗτοι, πρόκλησιν κατασκευάσαντες, παρ ̓ ὧν δίκαιον τῆς ὅλης τέχνης καὶ κακουργίας δίκην λαβεῖν.

40

Ἵνα τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, μὴ μόνον ἐξ ὧν 3 αύτῳ Ζ.

* μηδαμῇ Ζ.

οἱ μὲν....οἱ δὲ.] Nicocles and Pasicles...οἱ περὶ Στέφανον.—εἴ ρηκα καὶ πρότερον refers to § 18.

39. ἀφαιρῶν ἑκάτερος.] i. e. both of them declining to depose to the terms entered in the will by Phormio, not by Pasion himself as is alleged.

καταλιπεῖν] sc. δεινὸν ἡγεῖτο μαρτυρεῖν. The previous participial sentence is subordinate only, and does not carry καταλιπεῖν with it. There was no danger in a minor (i. e. Pasicles) deposing, that his father had left him a document entitled "a will.' Κ.

For ἐπιγεγραμμένον διαθήκην cf. Virg. Eel. III. 106 ‘inscripti nomina regum...flores.'

χρημάτων κλοπή.] § 34 ὑφῄρηται and § 81 init.—γυναικὸς διαφθορά § 27 and 3.-On ὕβριν cf.

§ 4, where the γάμος leads to a γραφὴ ὕβρεως being threatened by Apollodorus.

§§ 40-42. In bar of the previous action, Phormio pleaded a discharge deposed to have been granted by me, releasing him from all further claims. This is false, as I shall prove at the proper time; but suppose you assume it to be true, it shews that Stephanus has given false evidence and that the will to which he bears witness is a forgery. For no one would be so foolish as to take the precaution of having witnesses present when he gave a discharge to a lessee with a view to getting rid of any claims against himself on the part of that lessee; and yet allow the lease' itself and the 'will' to remain

ἐγὼ κατηγορῶ καὶ ἐλέγχω δῆλος ὑμῖν γένηται τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτυρηκὼς οὑτοσὶ Στέφανος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ὧν πεποίηκεν ὁ παρασχόμενος αὐτὸν, τὰ πεπραγμένα ἐκείνῳ βούλομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰπεῖν. ὅπερ δ ̓ εἶπον ἀρχόμενος τοῦ λόγου, δείξω κατηγόρους γιγνομένους αὐτοὺς ἑαυ τῶν. τὴν γὰρ δίκην, ἐν ᾗ ταῦτα ἐμαρτυρήθη, παρεγράψατο Φορμίων πρὸς ἐμὲ μὴ εἰσαγώγιμον εἶναι ὡς 1114 41 ἀφέντος ἐμοῦ τῶν ἐγκλημάτων αὐτόν. τοῦτο τοίνυν ἐγὼ μὲν οἶδα ψεῦδος ὂν, καὶ ἐλέγξω δὲ, ὅταν εἰσίω πρὸς τοὺς ταῦτα μεμαρτυρηκότας· τούτῳ δὲ οὐχ οἷόν τε τοῦτ ̓ εἰπεῖν. εἰ τοίνυν ἀληθῆ πιστεύσαιτ ̓ εἶναι τὴν ἄφεσιν, οὕτω καὶ μάλιστ ̓ ἂν οὗτος φανείη ψευδῆ μετ μαρτυρηκώς καὶ κατεσκευασμένης διαθήκης μάρτυς γεγονώς. τίς γὰρ οὕτως ἄφρων ὥστε ἄφεσιν μὲν ἐναντίον μαρτύρων ποιήσασθαι, τοῦ βεβαίαν αὐτῷ τὴν » αὑτῷ Ζ.

sealed to his detriment. The plea is therefore inconsistent with the evidence and the lease is inconsistent with the will; and thus the whole affair is proved to be a fabrication and a fraud.

...

40. παρεγράψατο. ὡς ἀφέντος.] See notes on Or. 36 Αrgument 1. 23 and ib. § 29. The distinction there drawn between ἀφιέναι and ἀπαλλάττειν may be exemplified thus:

ἀφῆκε μὲν Απολλόδωρος ὁ ἀπαλλαγείς, ἀπήλλαξε δὲ Φορμίων ὁ ἀφεθείς.

41. τούτῳ κ.τ.λ.] Stephanus, however, has no right to declare that the evidence to the release is false. [The meaning is, that Stephanus was in league with Phormio, and therefore was not in a position to deny, though he knew it to be untrue, any plea of Phormio's against A.]

τοῦ βεβαίαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν εἶναι.] The plaintiff's ob

ject in having witnesses to his
alleged aperis of Phormio would
be to ensure his own απαλλαγή,
that is, his getting quit of any
counter-claim on the part of
the latter. Οr. 33 § 3, πάντων
ἀπαλλαγῆς καὶ ἀφέσεως γενο-
μένης.

If ἀπαλλαγὴ were synonymous
with ἄφεσις, we should have to
render 'in order to make his dis-
charge of Phormio's dues valid.
'Who would be such a fool,'
he would then ask, 'as to give an
ἄφεσις in presence of witnesses
and so lose all right to further
claims?' But the sense is
rather: Admit it true that the
plaintiff gave a release to Phor-
mio in the presence of witnesses
with a view to his own riddance
of any counter-claim on Phor-
mio's part; no one who had
(as alleged) done this, would
be such a fool as to allow the
compacts and agreements, the

ἀπαλλαγὴν εἶναι, τὰς δὲ συνθήκας καὶ τὰς διαθήκας καὶ τἄλλα, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐποιεῖτο τὴν ἄφεσιν, σεσημασμένα 42 ἐᾶσαι καθ ̓ αὑτοῦ κεῖσθαι; οὐκοῦν ἐναντία μὲν ἡ παραγραφὴ πᾶσι τοῖς μεμαρτυρημένοις, ἐναντία δὲ, ἣν ἀνέγνων ὑμῖν ἄρτι, μίσθωσις, τῇδε τῇ διαθήκῃ οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν πεπραγμένων οὔτ ̓ εὔλογον οὔθ ̓ ἁπλοῦν οὔθ ̓ ὁμολογούμενον αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ φαίνεται. ἐκ δὲ τούτου τοῦ τρόπου πάντα πεπλασμένα καὶ κατεσκευασμένα ἐλέγχεται.

43

Ὡς μὲν τοίνυν ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ τὰ μεμαρτυρημένα, οὔτ ̓ αὐτὸν τοῦτον οὔτ ̓ ἄλλον ὑπὲρ τουτου δεῖξαι δυ νήσεσθαι νομίζω. ἀκούω δ ̓ αὐτὸν τοιοῦτόν τι παρεσκευάσθαι λέγειν, ὡς προκλήσεως ἐστιν ὑπεύθυνος, οὐχὶ μαρτυρίας, καὶ δυοῖν αὐτῷ προσήκει δοῦναι λόγον, οὐ πάντων τῶν γεγραμμένων, εἴτε προὐκαλεῖτό • Z et Dind. cum libris. τοῦ τούτου τρόπου Bekker cum Reiskio. will, &c. (καὶ τἄλλα sc. περὶ τὴν μίσθωσιν) to remain in existence to his own detriment. No! if he had given a receipt, he would have opened and suppressed the documents. But as a fact, he had not touched them, and his refraining from suppressing them is thus inconsistent with the alleged grant of a release to Phormio. ποιήσασθαι ἄφεσιν not 'to get' but to give a release, = ἀφεῖναι, as 'any verb in Greek may be resolved into the cognate substantive with ποιεῖσθαι. Shilleto on Fals, Leg. § 103.

42. ἐναντία μίσθωσις...διαθής κη.] §§ 34-36. For πεπλασ μένα cf. Οr. 36 § 33.—ἐκ τούτου τοῦ τρόπου, “in this manner. Kennedy, doubtless following Bekker's text (ἐκ τοῦ τούτου · τρόπου), translates : ' just what -you might expect from this man's character.'

P, S. D. II,

§§ 43-56. Stephanus will urge, that he is not responsible for a deposition but for a challenge, and for the latter on two points only, (1) the question whether Phormio made this challenge or not, and (2) whether I refused it; and that the terms of the challenge mentioned in the deposition are Phormio's business, not his. If so, the witness ought to have had the words erased when his deposition was drawn up; it is now too late to disclaim them, and he is bound in this trial by the terms of his own plea that he gave true testimony, in testifying to that which is written in the record.'

6

προκλήσεως ὑπεύθυνος] liable to be prosecuted for giving evidence of a pretended challenge that never took place. This is clear from what follows: δεῖ αὐτὸν δοῦναι λόγον εἴτε προὐκαι λεῖτο Φ. ἢ μὴ,

6

με ταῦτα Φορμίων ἢ μὴ, καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐδεχόμην ἐγώ· ταῦτα μὲν γὰρ ἁπλῶς αὐτὸς μεμαρτυρηκέναι φήσει, τὰ δ ̓ ἄλλα ἐκεῖνον προκαλεῖσθαι, εἰ δ ̓ ἐστὶν ἢ μὴ ταῦτα, 44 οὐδὲν προσήκειν αὐτῷν σκοπεῖν. πρὸς δὴ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον καὶ τὴν ἀναίδειαν βέλτιόν ἐστι μικρὰ προειπεῖν ὑμῖν, ἵνα μὴ λάθητε ἐξαπατηθέντες. πρῶτον μὲν, ὅταν 1115 ἐγχειρῇ λέγειν τοῦτο, ὡς ἄρα οὐ πάντων ὑπεύθυνός ἐστιν, ἐνθυμεῖσθε ὅτι διὰ ταῦτα ὁ νόμος μαρτυρεῖν ἐν γραμματείῳ κελεύει, ἵνα μήτ' ἀφελεῖν ἐξῇ μήτε προσθεῖναι τοῖς γεγραμμένοις μηδέν. τότ ̓ οὖν αὐτὸν ἔδει ταῦτ ̓ ἀπαλείφειν κελεύειν, ἃ νῦν οὔ φησι μεμαρτυρη45 κέναι, οὐ νῦν ἐνόντων ἀναισχυντεῖν. ἔπειτα καὶ τόδε σκοπεῖτε, εἰ ἐάσαιτ ̓ ἂν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν ἐμὲ προσγρά ψαι τι λαβόντα τὸ γραμματεῖον. οὐ δήπου. οὔκουν οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἀφαιρεῖν τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐᾶν προσήκει τίς γὰρ ἁλώσεται ἔτι ποτὲ ψευδομαρτυριῶν, εἰ μαρτυρήσει τε ἃ βούλεται καὶ λόγον ὧν βούλεται δώσει ; ἀλλ ̓ οὐχ οὕτω ταῦτα οὔθ ̓ ὁ νόμος διεῖλεν οὔθ ̓ ὑμῖν ἀκούειν προσήκει· ἀλλ ̓ ἐκεῖνο ἁπλοῦν καὶ δίκαιον,

· ἔτι ποτὲ ( legebatur πώποτε") Dindf.

44. μαρτυρεῖν ἐν γραμματείῳ.] 'All testimonial evidence was required to be in writing in order that there might be no mistake about the terms and the witness might leave no subterfuge for himself when convicted of falsehood.' C. R. Kennedy in Diet, Antiq. s. V. Martyria.

ἀπαλείφειν.] Used of any obliteration or erasure whether the document was a tablet of wax, or, as in this case, of some other material, as we. learn from Or. 46 § 11 where the deposition in question is described as λελευκωμένον and not ἐν μάλθῃ γεγραμμένον.

πώποτε Z cum libris.

οὐ νῦν, ἐνόντων, ἀναισχυντεῖν.] 'The terms being in the deposition, he ought not to have the impudence to repudiate them now.'

εἰ ἐάσαιτ ̓ ἂν.] When ei stands for εἴτε οι πότερον, to express an alternative of probabilities, it sometimes takes av, which would, in the ordinary sense of el, be inadmissible.

45. ἁλώσεται... ψευδομαρτυριών.] For the gen. cf. Or. 24 § 102 ἐάν τις αλῷ κλοπῆς καὶ μὴ τιμηθῇ θανάτου..., καὶ ἐάν τις ἀλοὺς τῆς κακώσεως τῶν γονέων.... κἂν ἀστρατείας τις ἔφλῃ. (Küh ner, Gk. Gr. § 419, 2 p. 331).ὧν βούλεται, supply μόνον.